Some reports read like troll attempts after getting laid off, but there is some truth behind all those statements, and even I as a customer can experience the issues, especially if I "have" to take part in testing an alpha version of their game. Again, I have no clue where the sixty million dollars have gone. Of course it went into the development of "H1Z1" and "Everquest Next", but where are the results? Why is "Landmark" still on the level they have been a year ago?
Is this a sinking ship where the crew has lost faith or even worse, is sabotaging the ship so they can jump off it sooner?
In any case, there is a lot to be done at SOE and this doesn't exclude a big internal restructuring process that separates the good apples from the bad ones...
Amylion
No offense, but you should never NEVER pay to play another game's beta. Ever again. If you see something promise 'help develope the game' or 'exclusive access before release', stay away. Don't even think about it.
Nearly everything you've pointed out / complained about are part of developing a game. Especially one as ambitious as this one. You don't make an innovative new type of MMO, with feature we don't really have in other MMOs, without experimentation. You don't get a game such as this without huge risks, with out lots of trial & error and constantly tweaking the game mechanics BEFORE you finalize the visuals and responsiveness.
It makes no sense to finalize things like UI, when you don't even have all the game mechanics in place yet. That stuff tends to be finished shortly before launch, once they know for certain exactly how many features are going to be in game, and whether there are any potential conflicts they need to be mindful of. I'm not saying to expect stuff like that to be drastically different, but definitely don't expect it to be polished at this point. That's unrealistic.
I know a lot of games have used alpha / beta testing as a marketting tool to sell there game. And as a result many of us have no clue (or have forgotten) what an actual alpha / beta test is like. This is not one of those games. This game is undergoing actual testing. Wait until launch before playing.
I wouldn't put much stock into comments on Glassdoor, but it should be obvious to the casual observer that SOE isn't doing well. Let's just look at some simple facts:
1) Neither EQ1 nor EQ2 have significant subscriber bases these days.
2) Planetside 2, while successful, never ended up being the huge success I'm sure they were hoping for.
3) EQ:Next's big reveal was in 2013 and we still no next to nothing about this game.
4) Slow development pace for Landmark seems to indicate that EQ:Next is still two or more years away.
Everquest 2: Rocky launch, most people couldn't even play it because of the hardware requirements. A handful of servers ever since. Also, WoW was just the better option at this time.
Matrix Online: Shut down after struggling for years.
Vanguard: Buggy, huge game world for a tiny playerbase. Maybe too oldschool. Just didn't work.
That Kids' Star Wars game no one played: Shut down.
Free Realms: worked for a while from what I've heard. Shut down by now.
DC Universe Online: doing OK
Planetside 2: There's no way you can get shooter players to stay and play for months/years. They're already playing CoD/BF/MoH/whatever
Wizardry Online: Had some fans, but not enough to keep the servers up and running.
H1Z1: Time will tell.
While some games may have "worked" and "payed themselves off", they've been missing a solid cash cow for a decade now. I still like the Everquest games and hope to see EQN being realized.
UO was a "persistent world Diablo". Saying "UO was better than EQ", I'd accept based on taste, but EQ was 150% the technical development hurdle that was UO.
I am pretty sure UO was a persistent world Ultima... But hey what do i know...
UO was a "persistent world Diablo". Saying "UO was better than EQ", I'd accept based on taste, but EQ was 150% the technical development hurdle that was UO.
I am pretty sure UO was a persistent world Ultima... But hey what do i know...
It's not literal. Maybe the figurative intent doesn't cross over to your language. Take diablo, make it a persistent world. That is the graphic, art and play style of UO. It's the same inference as to say "marvel heroes 2015 is a Diablo 2 clone".
edit: additionally I put the phrase in quotation, to infer a figurative or slang. I think you said that to bother me.
further edit: of course, that's not to say marvel heroes 2015 specifically is a diablo 2 clone, because it, too, has persistent world zones. I think I've dug myself a hole. UO is 3d, top-down, arpg style gaming, like Diablo before it, but it has a persistent world and different calibrations for aspect like skills and health and different ui for inventory. Conversely if you took Doom or Duke Nukem and wanted to make a fantasy genre persistent world, you'd get EQ. That is the gameplay stylistic difference. Some prefer one, some prefer the other, but the latter is more technically challenging.
EQ was the first 3d MMO that was introduced to the west. But to say it was the child that bore the gender I would have to disagree. Nexus and Lineage in the east is what opened it up. Lineage had over 1 million before EQ even launched.
So hate to break people bubbles but EQ did not start the craze other than introducing it to the west. But also a lot of us already were playing games like Nexus and Lineage.
no.
Generally credited as first multiplayer graphical online game
So, from this data, we conclude, "The first mmorpg was Neverwinter Nights" and "The first 3d mmorpg was Meridian 59", east, west, north, south, and any point in between.
Not that it really matters one way of the other, but Meridian 59 was not actually 3d, though they like to propagate this fairytale that it was. It used 2d sprites "from various angles", much like FPS games at the time (doom, duke nukem, etc). EQ was the first full 3d MMO.
Also, for those saying SOE never had a big hit, come on. I played UO and I played EQ. I like both, but UO was inferior on so many levels beyond what it was graphically. It utilized the horrible point skill system that has plagued every game its appeared in, and frankly it lacked meaningful progression in every sphere of gameplay (except maybe crafting). Even the PvP in Everquest was VASTLY superior to that of UO, mainly because of the classes and the existence of a Z-axis and the rest of the incredible (also superior) world created by Verant. Running around ganking in UO on 2 maybe 3 builds that 95% of the playerbase used does not, and NEVER will compare to complexity of real class combat while competing over territory, dungeons and bosses. Without PvP, UO had next to nothing to offer, while EQ was fun without it. The PvE provided the competition and drama necessary to infuse the PvP and create a more intense and spirited PvP MMO than any of those created solely for player vs player combat.
SE is actually "cloning" the voxel hype and the warcraft style pretty hard if you ask me. They are not even good at it as the engine looks horrible.
That is from a couple days ago. Max settings on a dual GTX970 4k gaming rig. It's not optimized either, i get 60+ fps in Metro LL but this game can't keep up 30 fps. I doubt it's fixable to be honest.
Either you're lying, game isn't optimized for your high end rig and settings, or something is seriously wrong with your setup.
My machine is not high end and doesn't look like that. Seen plenty of SS, videos, streams of various settings running just fine.
Landmark is not optimized, when or if it ever will be for a wide range of machines is unknown. I've read/seen old machines running better then new and new running perfectly (self reported of course).
Come release day if Landmark still looks like that and there is no technical explanation, I'd say there is a problem, currently it is luck of the draw.
You might be onto something if you weren't playing an alpha. However, you are playing an alpha, so your complaint comes across as really ridiculous.
I dare you to name just ONE game in recent history that changed dramatically from the Alpha/Beta version that was sold as Early Access/Founders Pack. Just name one where the bugs and graphics have improved SIGNIFICANTLY. Just a single one, come on.
Problem is, a lot of EA haven't released or were never going to be top quality to begin with, EA was mostly indie products and what not.
Landmark and in turn EQN have no direct comparison. No other AAA mmorpg/gaming company has or is doing what they are from what I can see.
Landmark has improved since Day 1, to say otherwise is a flat out false statement. What you define as "significant" is your own deal.
Honestly, Landmark is still in "Alpha" to me and will be for some time. Ask again after release or at least after it is feature complete. They are still adding in major systems, not surprising that bugs and what not are 100% fixed/completed. They just barely started redoing textures.... gotta set realistic expectations.
Edit: lol just realized I responded to two of your posts, guess I don't agree with you
Originally posted by bentrim I wrote this 2 years ago and even more firmly believe it now. SOE is in HUGE trouble, and they used landmark as the money bait, and for the blood , used the promise of EQN. Neither of these games will EVER launch, soe will file and their customers will be left holding the bag. Think I am crazy. Look at the non committal info of especially EQN. They are NO CLOSER now to finishing that game than they were 2.5 years ago. They cant give you any substantial information, because they DONT have any. I am not a doom and gloomer but I can smell bad business dealings 10K miles away. SAVE YOUR MONEY, you are throwing it away if you give it to them.
Two things...
1. Thank the gaming gods both games will be F2P, no risk on our end. Those tricked into buying founders packs were able to get full refunds for a long time, maybe still? So shame on SOE I guess?
2. Can you tell me the winning lottery numbers for this week?
You might be onto something if you weren't playing an alpha. However, you are playing an alpha, so your complaint comes across as really ridiculous.
I dare you to name just ONE game in recent history that changed dramatically from the Alpha/Beta version that was sold as Early Access/Founders Pack. Just name one where the bugs and graphics have improved SIGNIFICANTLY. Just a single one, come on.
I don't play alpha development games, nor does that change the fact it's still in development.
But if I had to take a gander I'd say ALL OF THEM.
Games don't just appear, people develop them, you know?
You might be onto something if you weren't playing an alpha. However, you are playing an alpha, so your complaint comes across as really ridiculous.
I dare you to name just ONE game in recent history that changed dramatically from the Alpha/Beta version that was sold as Early Access/Founders Pack. Just name one where the bugs and graphics have improved SIGNIFICANTLY. Just a single one, come on.
First of all, what's your definition of significantly? You can find alpha images of many games. Destiny, Titanfall, Evolve, etc. and when you compare them to release there is actually a significant difference. Then you've got games like Firefall which actually re-engineered their entire game to be open world to level-based progression. The thing is that the tire-kickers don't generally do any "testing" or even go to the dedicated testing forum to evaluate whether bugs are actually being fixed or not. If you did, you'd actually see that the process is fairly transparent.
Considering the H1Z1 release and the amount of pay2win in it, and lies about it not having it before launch.
One thing is clear. SoE is hurting for cash.
SoE is on it's last legs. I predict shut down in 2015.
/facepalm
People predict the end all the time... and eventually someone will be right, and they will chime on about how they were correct. However, it is simply a statistical issue... if you ALWAYS predict the end, you will eventually be right.
Landmark is a mess right now. EQN has been getting some bad reviews and it's not even out yet. H1Z1 is beind developed parallel alongside both these games, which says a lot. The fact that H1Z1 will probably be released before Landmark is telling. I'm guessing SOE knows that Landmark will fail, so they are putting more resources into H1Z1, which is smart, since it looks to be better than the EQN & Landmark.
Considering the H1Z1 release and the amount of pay2win in it, and lies about it not having it before launch.
One thing is clear. SoE is hurting for cash.
SoE is on it's last legs. I predict shut down in 2015.
Sony would put SOE on the market before they just dumpster a bunch of intellectual property. If they were going to do that this year, you would have heard about the court filing procedure by now, I'd think.
edit: I would buy into it given the opportunity. Not at 20, maybe 15.
Dude. You are describing pretty much every game development company in existence.
Thats the feeling all over. At least SOE are trying to do something differently.
Not like all those cloners out there.
And you're describing pretty much every mmo player.
When devs actually try something different, such as in GW2, ESO, TSW, etc.. gamers react that it's too different from trinity gameplay and too different from tab-target combat, etc..
H1Z1 is already in the process of paying for itself. It uses Forgelight engine, which they already had, it uses a server and billing process which already exists. It's a side project, using tools which SOE already owns. The only expenses are payroll.
Not every consumer uses gaming sites to gauge value, as a matter of fact a very small percentage pay attention to mmorpg.com at all. A larger population pays attention to Steam, but, regardless of how loud or outspoken people are on the forums there, not so many pay attention to that either. There are plenty of consumers "out there" with whom social media and forums have little to no contact.
H1Z1 already has a 1-way ticket to be released on a popular console. That will be icing on the cake.
You doomsayers aren't thinking at all. Past being armchair quarterbacks, way past, you're just saying ignorant things. In this situation, the game could be utter garbage, to wit, a remake of atari's ET, and still make a profit. So, keep talking if you like, but it doesn't amount nearly to the fact SOE is unconcerned with your rhetoric, possibly laughing straight at you, all the way to the bank.
Hard to argue with any of this however soapboxy it may be. SoE's lack of quality development speaks for itself over the past decade. Most of these accusations confirm why.
Dude. You are describing pretty much every game development company in existence.
Thats the feeling all over. At least SOE are trying to do something differently.
Not like all those cloners out there.
When devs actually try something different, such as in GW2, ESO, TSW, etc.. gamers react that it's too different from trinity gameplay and too different from tab-target combat, etc..
That should be a pretty strong hint that trinity gameplay and tab targeting should not be the things changed for the sake of change. Every other aspect around those two needs to be looked at and improved upon, which isn't happening.
Originally posted by observer Landmark is a mess right now. EQN has been getting some bad reviews and it's not even out yet. H1Z1 is beind developed parallel alongside both these games, which says a lot. The fact that H1Z1 will probably be released before Landmark is telling. I'm guessing SOE knows that Landmark will fail, so they are putting more resources into H1Z1, which is smart, since it looks to be better than the EQN & Landmark.
I agree, with every patch in Landmark, more and more people seem to leave it, and it's only closed beta. I've never been in an alpha or beta that was so barren. It's a ghost town already, with a handful of devoted SOE fans left. I uninstalled it last month, and have no plans to go back to try it again, even though I bought a Trailblazer pack for myself, and multiple other Trailblazers for family. I tried to give it a chance. It's a building game, but to build anything nice it will take you too much time to do it with the tools they have at the moment. I don't understand their process.
Like when they gave the ability to rotate a template any way you like, and praised the fact you could do it. If you do rotate anything with arches or anything curvy it distorts and breaks up all over and looks like poo. So why praise the fact it's in game, when it was put in game completely broken, and months down the road still broken. Their solution to not being able to give you the ability to create simple arches/circles/ovals etc, was to use player created templates to give everyone for free. Since they don't know how to create the tools you need to build with basic shapes, that's their solution. It's not friendly to new players that will try to build at the moment. New players have to spend countless hours watching videos to figure out how to create anything decent.
You doomsayers aren't thinking at all. Past being armchair quarterbacks, way past, you're just saying ignorant things. In this situation, the game could be utter garbage, to wit, a remake of atari's ET, and still make a profit. So, keep talking if you like, but it doesn't amount nearly to the fact SOE is unconcerned with your rhetoric, possibly laughing straight at you, all the way to the bank.
Experience says otherwise. Veterans know all the problems of the genre, and if an MMO will succeed or fail. SOE's reputation isn't created by the players. It seems to me you just don't want to hear any discussion about SOE, but that doesn't mean other people can't discuss it. Stop being condescending, because it makes you look like a hypocrite, since most people will consider your words thoughtless, and ignorant rhetoric.
Experience says otherwise. Veterans know all the problems of the genre, and if an MMO will succeed or fail. SOE's reputation isn't created by the players. It seems to me you just don't want to hear any discussion about SOE, but that doesn't mean other people can't discuss it. Stop being condescending, because it makes you look like a hypocrite, since most people will consider your words thoughtless, and ignorant rhetoric.
What happens when "Veterans" don't agree? I've been online gaming for almost 20 years and don't agree with a good majority of folks. For some reason we don't appear to all share the same subjective POV...almost like we enjoy and dislike different things.
When devs actually try something different, such as in GW2, ESO, TSW, etc.. gamers react that it's too different from trinity gameplay and too different from tab-target combat, etc..
That should be a pretty strong hint that trinity gameplay and tab targeting should not be the things changed for the sake of change. Every other aspect around those two needs to be looked at and improved upon, which isn't happening.
Nah, there will always be whining whatever you do. Those 3 games have a pretty high score here and while TSW might not be doing as well finacially as hoped ESO and GW2 both have plenty of players even if ESO have some F2P/B2P rumors. The trinity games released the last few years have generally not been doing better.
But you are of course right that you can't slap together a new group mechanics in a few hours, the trinity might be old and watered down by now but it does work. If you want to replace it you need to make mechanics that work well in groups as well.
Your new mechanics need to be at least as fun as trinity and co-operation needs to be very important in pulling things off.
The devs shouldn't just stick with old stuff because it always been done that way, if they do we will just get the same game remade over and over and MMOs need to evolve just like any other genre. But a crappy game will always be a crappy game no matter what system it uses.
As for EQN time will have to decide that for us. Landmark is not EQN after all. But SOE really needs to get this one right, they desperatly needs a hit game now.
Comments
No offense, but you should never NEVER pay to play another game's beta. Ever again. If you see something promise 'help develope the game' or 'exclusive access before release', stay away. Don't even think about it.
Nearly everything you've pointed out / complained about are part of developing a game. Especially one as ambitious as this one. You don't make an innovative new type of MMO, with feature we don't really have in other MMOs, without experimentation. You don't get a game such as this without huge risks, with out lots of trial & error and constantly tweaking the game mechanics BEFORE you finalize the visuals and responsiveness.
It makes no sense to finalize things like UI, when you don't even have all the game mechanics in place yet. That stuff tends to be finished shortly before launch, once they know for certain exactly how many features are going to be in game, and whether there are any potential conflicts they need to be mindful of. I'm not saying to expect stuff like that to be drastically different, but definitely don't expect it to be polished at this point. That's unrealistic.
I know a lot of games have used alpha / beta testing as a marketting tool to sell there game. And as a result many of us have no clue (or have forgotten) what an actual alpha / beta test is like. This is not one of those games. This game is undergoing actual testing. Wait until launch before playing.
I wouldn't put much stock into comments on Glassdoor, but it should be obvious to the casual observer that SOE isn't doing well. Let's just look at some simple facts:
1) Neither EQ1 nor EQ2 have significant subscriber bases these days.
2) Planetside 2, while successful, never ended up being the huge success I'm sure they were hoping for.
3) EQ:Next's big reveal was in 2013 and we still no next to nothing about this game.
4) Slow development pace for Landmark seems to indicate that EQ:Next is still two or more years away.
Everquest 2: Rocky launch, most people couldn't even play it because of the hardware requirements. A handful of servers ever since. Also, WoW was just the better option at this time.
Matrix Online: Shut down after struggling for years.
Vanguard: Buggy, huge game world for a tiny playerbase. Maybe too oldschool. Just didn't work.
That Kids' Star Wars game no one played: Shut down.
Free Realms: worked for a while from what I've heard. Shut down by now.
DC Universe Online: doing OK
Planetside 2: There's no way you can get shooter players to stay and play for months/years. They're already playing CoD/BF/MoH/whatever
Wizardry Online: Had some fans, but not enough to keep the servers up and running.
H1Z1: Time will tell.
While some games may have "worked" and "payed themselves off", they've been missing a solid cash cow for a decade now. I still like the Everquest games and hope to see EQN being realized.
I am pretty sure UO was a persistent world Ultima... But hey what do i know...
This have been a good conversation
It's not literal. Maybe the figurative intent doesn't cross over to your language. Take diablo, make it a persistent world. That is the graphic, art and play style of UO. It's the same inference as to say "marvel heroes 2015 is a Diablo 2 clone".
edit: additionally I put the phrase in quotation, to infer a figurative or slang. I think you said that to bother me.
further edit: of course, that's not to say marvel heroes 2015 specifically is a diablo 2 clone, because it, too, has persistent world zones. I think I've dug myself a hole. UO is 3d, top-down, arpg style gaming, like Diablo before it, but it has a persistent world and different calibrations for aspect like skills and health and different ui for inventory. Conversely if you took Doom or Duke Nukem and wanted to make a fantasy genre persistent world, you'd get EQ. That is the gameplay stylistic difference. Some prefer one, some prefer the other, but the latter is more technically challenging.
Not that it really matters one way of the other, but Meridian 59 was not actually 3d, though they like to propagate this fairytale that it was. It used 2d sprites "from various angles", much like FPS games at the time (doom, duke nukem, etc). EQ was the first full 3d MMO.
Also, for those saying SOE never had a big hit, come on. I played UO and I played EQ. I like both, but UO was inferior on so many levels beyond what it was graphically. It utilized the horrible point skill system that has plagued every game its appeared in, and frankly it lacked meaningful progression in every sphere of gameplay (except maybe crafting). Even the PvP in Everquest was VASTLY superior to that of UO, mainly because of the classes and the existence of a Z-axis and the rest of the incredible (also superior) world created by Verant. Running around ganking in UO on 2 maybe 3 builds that 95% of the playerbase used does not, and NEVER will compare to complexity of real class combat while competing over territory, dungeons and bosses. Without PvP, UO had next to nothing to offer, while EQ was fun without it. The PvE provided the competition and drama necessary to infuse the PvP and create a more intense and spirited PvP MMO than any of those created solely for player vs player combat.
Either you're lying, game isn't optimized for your high end rig and settings, or something is seriously wrong with your setup.
My machine is not high end and doesn't look like that. Seen plenty of SS, videos, streams of various settings running just fine.
Landmark is not optimized, when or if it ever will be for a wide range of machines is unknown. I've read/seen old machines running better then new and new running perfectly (self reported of course).
Come release day if Landmark still looks like that and there is no technical explanation, I'd say there is a problem, currently it is luck of the draw.
Problem is, a lot of EA haven't released or were never going to be top quality to begin with, EA was mostly indie products and what not.
Landmark and in turn EQN have no direct comparison. No other AAA mmorpg/gaming company has or is doing what they are from what I can see.
Landmark has improved since Day 1, to say otherwise is a flat out false statement. What you define as "significant" is your own deal.
Honestly, Landmark is still in "Alpha" to me and will be for some time. Ask again after release or at least after it is feature complete. They are still adding in major systems, not surprising that bugs and what not are 100% fixed/completed. They just barely started redoing textures.... gotta set realistic expectations.
Edit: lol just realized I responded to two of your posts, guess I don't agree with you
Two things...
1. Thank the gaming gods both games will be F2P, no risk on our end. Those tricked into buying founders packs were able to get full refunds for a long time, maybe still? So shame on SOE I guess?
2. Can you tell me the winning lottery numbers for this week?
Wow! You are genious!! You have discovered main problem for loss of 60.000.000$ in 2014! :-)I don't play alpha development games, nor does that change the fact it's still in development.
But if I had to take a gander I'd say ALL OF THEM.
Games don't just appear, people develop them, you know?
First of all, what's your definition of significantly? You can find alpha images of many games. Destiny, Titanfall, Evolve, etc. and when you compare them to release there is actually a significant difference. Then you've got games like Firefall which actually re-engineered their entire game to be open world to level-based progression. The thing is that the tire-kickers don't generally do any "testing" or even go to the dedicated testing forum to evaluate whether bugs are actually being fixed or not. If you did, you'd actually see that the process is fairly transparent.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
People predict the end all the time... and eventually someone will be right, and they will chime on about how they were correct. However, it is simply a statistical issue... if you ALWAYS predict the end, you will eventually be right.
Considering they are offering refunds, guess this will be their last week on the job?
Sony would put SOE on the market before they just dumpster a bunch of intellectual property. If they were going to do that this year, you would have heard about the court filing procedure by now, I'd think.
edit: I would buy into it given the opportunity. Not at 20, maybe 15.
And you're describing pretty much every mmo player.
When devs actually try something different, such as in GW2, ESO, TSW, etc.. gamers react that it's too different from trinity gameplay and too different from tab-target combat, etc..
H1Z1 is already in the process of paying for itself. It uses Forgelight engine, which they already had, it uses a server and billing process which already exists. It's a side project, using tools which SOE already owns. The only expenses are payroll.
Not every consumer uses gaming sites to gauge value, as a matter of fact a very small percentage pay attention to mmorpg.com at all. A larger population pays attention to Steam, but, regardless of how loud or outspoken people are on the forums there, not so many pay attention to that either. There are plenty of consumers "out there" with whom social media and forums have little to no contact.
H1Z1 already has a 1-way ticket to be released on a popular console. That will be icing on the cake.
You doomsayers aren't thinking at all. Past being armchair quarterbacks, way past, you're just saying ignorant things. In this situation, the game could be utter garbage, to wit, a remake of atari's ET, and still make a profit. So, keep talking if you like, but it doesn't amount nearly to the fact SOE is unconcerned with your rhetoric, possibly laughing straight at you, all the way to the bank.
That should be a pretty strong hint that trinity gameplay and tab targeting should not be the things changed for the sake of change. Every other aspect around those two needs to be looked at and improved upon, which isn't happening.
I agree, with every patch in Landmark, more and more people seem to leave it, and it's only closed beta. I've never been in an alpha or beta that was so barren. It's a ghost town already, with a handful of devoted SOE fans left. I uninstalled it last month, and have no plans to go back to try it again, even though I bought a Trailblazer pack for myself, and multiple other Trailblazers for family. I tried to give it a chance. It's a building game, but to build anything nice it will take you too much time to do it with the tools they have at the moment. I don't understand their process.
Like when they gave the ability to rotate a template any way you like, and praised the fact you could do it. If you do rotate anything with arches or anything curvy it distorts and breaks up all over and looks like poo. So why praise the fact it's in game, when it was put in game completely broken, and months down the road still broken. Their solution to not being able to give you the ability to create simple arches/circles/ovals etc, was to use player created templates to give everyone for free. Since they don't know how to create the tools you need to build with basic shapes, that's their solution. It's not friendly to new players that will try to build at the moment. New players have to spend countless hours watching videos to figure out how to create anything decent.
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
Experience says otherwise. Veterans know all the problems of the genre, and if an MMO will succeed or fail. SOE's reputation isn't created by the players. It seems to me you just don't want to hear any discussion about SOE, but that doesn't mean other people can't discuss it. Stop being condescending, because it makes you look like a hypocrite, since most people will consider your words thoughtless, and ignorant rhetoric.
What happens when "Veterans" don't agree? I've been online gaming for almost 20 years and don't agree with a good majority of folks. For some reason we don't appear to all share the same subjective POV...almost like we enjoy and dislike different things.
Nah, there will always be whining whatever you do. Those 3 games have a pretty high score here and while TSW might not be doing as well finacially as hoped ESO and GW2 both have plenty of players even if ESO have some F2P/B2P rumors. The trinity games released the last few years have generally not been doing better.
But you are of course right that you can't slap together a new group mechanics in a few hours, the trinity might be old and watered down by now but it does work. If you want to replace it you need to make mechanics that work well in groups as well.
Your new mechanics need to be at least as fun as trinity and co-operation needs to be very important in pulling things off.
The devs shouldn't just stick with old stuff because it always been done that way, if they do we will just get the same game remade over and over and MMOs need to evolve just like any other genre. But a crappy game will always be a crappy game no matter what system it uses.
As for EQN time will have to decide that for us. Landmark is not EQN after all. But SOE really needs to get this one right, they desperatly needs a hit game now.
/facepalm
Haha, you don't know anything about business, do you....