KickStarter Pantheon - (Brad "EQ" McQuaid's new MMO)

[LizardWizard]

Gotta hand it to Brad then I guess. This went from a failed kickstarter to probably being released before Camelot Unchained (Marc Jacobs doing his best Brian Fargo impression).

 

[Trans-Financial-Man]

I liked EQ when I was young but I always thought it paled in comparison to the more sandbox style games like SWG. That's where I thought MMOs should be going. "EQ but better" just doesn't cut my mustard anymore. This game looks pretty dull by my reckoning. But I'm sure the neckbeards who can't escape from EQ1 will be delighted. Just like the millions and milllions of Vanguard subscribers.

 

[anvi]

The first half of that post has a fair point until the unnecessary and unjustified negativity. EQ is a lot more 'sandbox' than almost every other MMO, and also very unique and special in a lot of ways, and they are things that no other games do. The way combat works especially with game mechanics that the devs didn't even imagine themselves ('emergent gameplay'), itemisation, how you progress without quests, how there is no instancing, how difficult it was to make progress and how you could lose everything, etc.. all these things added up to something that makes the game very different to play than other games.

WoW changed all that and made a Happy Meal childproof version of MMOs that is all about fast progression and instant gratification. You can't lose in WoW, which is the opposite to EQ. It isn't about neckbeards, it is about enjoying a challenging game with a lot of depth, and then finding all the future games that went a different direction to be so boring in comparison. Some things you just can't go backwards from. The main one that sticks in my mind is how crowd control works. In EQ it took skill and focus from everyone in the group, and doing it badly meant everyone died. Doing it well meant everyone won, and the difference in skill between a spazzy player and a good one was pretty huge. Compare that to all the later MMOs where someone just presses 1 button and the enemy turns into a sheep, job done. It is just so childlike. If that is neckbeardy then sign me up for a beard. But I'd rather that than play all these Nintendo-ified kiddie games.

Vanguard never had millions of subscribers by the way, it failed almost the day it launched. Part of the reason for that was because of the sandbox style of the design. It had 3 different ways of playing it, like EQ but to a more extreme point so that people could play it as a crafter 100% of the time. They could login and get levels by chopping down trees, skinning animals, etc.. and using the resources with one of the most complex crafting systems ever made to make bags and gear for other people. Then there was a Diplomacy thing which let people travel the world and get levels by just talking to NPCs and playing a diplomacy card game with them. And lastly there was "Adventuring" which was questing and killing stuff like every MMO ever. This game tried to do all 3 and yet a broad good job of all of them, and it ended up being one of the reasons why it failed so badly. They got screwed by their investor and bad management meant they had no recourse. So the game got rushed out far earlier than it should have been and all the development had been spread through many different ways of playing. In the end everything suffered.

You can't expect a company that isn't hugely rich to re-invent the whole MMO genre. This company certainly can't, but they are going to be unique by going back to that long lost philosophy. A lot of people have been wanting an "EQ but better" since about 2002, and it never happened. EQ2 was far from it and other games are not like it at all. I agree that finally getting it 17 years later is hard to get excited about. But I don't think it is too little too late because the old EQ experience is still fun for a lot of people today. Only it is tempered by the fact that it is 20 years old now, we have all played it to death a million times, and it also only exists in an emulator that is very limited in scope. Getting a modern version of that with a future will be a big deal for a lot of people. If you ever want another SWG, you should hope that this succeeds.

 

[Kem0sabe]

No one wants to pay subscriptions anymore, it's a dying business model.

 

[thesheeep]

No one wants to pay subscriptions anymore, it's a dying business model.

At the very least, it should then have an extensive free mode like WoW. Otherwise, nobody is going to even give it a try.

 

[anvi]

No one wants to pay subscriptions anymore, it's a dying business model.

Not true. It was always unpopular with kids who had no way of paying it, but this game isn't for kids. And even kids manage to pay for WoW in the tens of millions.

 

[anvi]

No one wants to pay subscriptions anymore, it's a dying business model.

At the very least, it should then have an extensive free mode like WoW. Otherwise, nobody is going to even give it a try.

It does have that.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Not true. It was always unpopular with kids who had no way of paying it, but this game isn't for kids. And even kids manage to pay for WoW in the tens of millions.

WOW isn't a justification for anything on the mmo market, it's an anomaly as the graveyard of dead and dying mmos prove. If their business plan is based on "ppl pay for wow so they will surely pay for our awesome game", then they are dead 9n arrival.

 

[anvi]

They aren't going for the mainstream audience though. This isn't ESO or GW2 or whatever. This is a game for niche audience, a lot of them are over 30. Paying a subscription is not a problem for them, nor should it be for anyone. You know you can cancel it any time you want right? There will be a lot that is free to play so people can work out if they want to pay or not.

There is a big advantage to a subscription model that I can't really be bothered to explain now. There is a video on youtube explaining why they are going with subs.

 

[Kem0sabe]

They aren't going for the mainstream audience though. This isn't ESO or GW2 or whatever. This is a game for niche audience, a lot of them are over 30. Paying a subscription is not a problem for them, nor should it be for anyone. You know you can cancel it any time you want right? There will be a lot that is free to play so people can work out if they want to pay or not.

There is a big advantage to a subscription model that I can't really be bothered to explain now. There is a video on youtube explaining why they are going with subs.

I'm over 30 and I won't pay a sub for any mmo if it revolves around payed expansions.

I'm already paying for Netflix, hbo, Spotify, internet, TV, phone and a mortgage. Hsving disposable cash doesn't mean people are going to throw it away on something of dubious value.

Elder scrolls had a huge fan base and couldn't cut it as a sub mmo, neither could star wars, or Warhammer, secret world, dark age of Camelot, anarchy online, vanguard, everquest 1&2, etc.

If you look at the market, the games that continue to have success are fremium games, fully features without subs and with payed content updates.

I'm yet to see a sub mmo with free big content updates that justify the 150 euros yearly cost, maybe final fantasy XIV, but even then their expansions are expensive.

 

[anvi]

A lot of people say the same thing but just as many don't care about the cost because it gets talked about a lot. When compared to what people spend on meals out and going to the movies or whatever, a game sub is a tiny fraction of the price. $15 barely gets a single trip to the movies which lasts 2 hours, but the same thing on an MMO lets you play as many hours as you want, every night, for a month. For most people it is a not even a concern. It might not be worth it if you only play a couple of times a month but in that case it wouldn't be worth playing a game like this anyway because you usually have to keep up with the curve of other players.

Most of those games you mention started with a subscription and then go free to play afterwards, no reason this game can't do the same. It also doesn't mean they failed when that happens, most of them made enormous profit. EverQuest lasted 13 years with a subscription, and that was starting in the 90s when people were scared of the internet.

Also again there is a big advantage to a subscription rather than paying for virtual stuff. I think this is the only reason they went for it - it means a lot to their audience. The thing with EQ was that everything everyone had in the game, was something they worked to get in the game and had a story behind it. If you see someone with a swanky looking helm, it is something they went on an adventure to get, same goes for bags, mounts, everything. It means that nobody paid to win, and nobody even paid to look cool. You look cool or you look homeless based on what you did in the game. As soon as you can buy things from an in game shop with real money, that whole thing goes away. This game is made largely for people who saw the first way and hate seeing the second way. Especially for people who bang on about "sandbox vs theme park" gaming. Again in EQ, everyone started out naked with a rusty sword, so everything you got felt like an achievement and it felt good getting checked out by other people. It used to give a message when someone inspected your gear. In modern MMOs everyone just looks like a superhero from day one. The whole thing is so childish and it turns off a lot of people, and this is the first time that audience has had a game made for them.

Personally I don't care that much about it either way. I just don't want mass produced expansions. That is one of the reasons I quit EQ, but they only started doing that after this guy left the company. I think based on that and what he said about Vanguard means it will be at least fair in terms of bang for buck.

 

[RatTower]

Another stream:



I wonder how it is going financially.
They've been showing these caves for a while now. It makes sense since it's an easy way to present game mechanics, but they still have to cover quite a few regions on that world map:

There were some nice screenshots throughout various newsletters though:

They're not lacking character models, that's for sure.

 

[anvi]

It looks amazing. Slow progress though.

 

[anvi]

I say slow progress... the progress is great in a lot of ways, but it sounds like there isn't a whole lot of content yet. A few dungeons and whatnot, made to perfection though. But maybe now they are getting more advanced with everything, they will be able to produce those quickly.

The graphics have really improved recently, character models are amazing now, scenery getting better all the time too. One pic looks like Oblivion, but a lot of pics starting to look like the greatest RPG ever. Also I saw some of the videos about combat and it is great how good the classes sound in this game. I just hope it plays in a fun and challenging way. It sounds like quite a unique gaming experience. It is like "MMO Teams". You can probably solo some crap, but all the good stuff is in tough dungeons that needs a full group of 6, and there are keys to be found first and complex combat. If they tune it in a difficult way this game will be the greatest. If they tune it easy and sedate like Vanguard, I think it will be very niche like an MMO for old people.

 

[Gerrard]

Second to last screenshot literally looks like Oblivion minus bloom.

 

[Norfleet]

A lot of people say the same thing but just as many don't care about the cost because it gets talked about a lot. When compared to what people spend on meals out and going to the movies or whatever, a game sub is a tiny fraction of the price. $15 barely gets a single trip to the movies which lasts 2 hours, but the same thing on an MMO lets you play as many hours as you want, every night, for a month. For most people it is a not even a concern. It might not be worth it if you only play a couple of times a month but in that case it wouldn't be worth playing a game like this anyway because you usually have to keep up with the curve of other players.

The kicker is that once you start paying for something like that, it becomes obligatory to USE THE ENTIRE THING. When you buy a month of Internet, you have to use the ENTIRE MONTH OF INTERNET, no breaks, otherwise you are wasting your money. Not to mention that you're paying for something merely to lose at it, which is worse than pay-to-win. At least in a pay-to-win game, LOSING IS FREE.

 

[Ranselknulf]

I don't mind subscription based games, but a game shouldn't be subscription based and have microtransactions. I don't consider expansions microtransactions. Although I don't really like mini-content releases or DLC etc.

Are they putting microtransactions/DLC into this?

 

[anvi]

Don't think so. It has a generous free to play until a certain level and then a subscription lets you play everything. There will be free updates and expansions you gotta pay for. I don't mind the expansions if they are big and worth it. I don't like what EQ did after this guy left the company, they were pumping out an expansion a year and sometimes even sooner, and it was always just more of the same mass produced crap.

 

[anvi]

A lot of people say the same thing but just as many don't care about the cost because it gets talked about a lot. When compared to what people spend on meals out and going to the movies or whatever, a game sub is a tiny fraction of the price. $15 barely gets a single trip to the movies which lasts 2 hours, but the same thing on an MMO lets you play as many hours as you want, every night, for a month. For most people it is a not even a concern. It might not be worth it if you only play a couple of times a month but in that case it wouldn't be worth playing a game like this anyway because you usually have to keep up with the curve of other players.

The kicker is that once you start paying for something like that, it becomes obligatory to USE THE ENTIRE THING. When you buy a month of Internet, you have to use the ENTIRE MONTH OF INTERNET, no breaks, otherwise you are wasting your money. Not to mention that you're paying for something merely to lose at it, which is worse than pay-to-win. At least in a pay-to-win game, LOSING IS FREE.

No way man. $15 to me is nothing. If I play a few hours a week that's fine. But with me these games are so big and fun that I pay for a sub and then I play it most days. And if I stop playing, I stop the sub. It is simple. Done it with 100 other games before and it is easy.

Also you can easy win at these games. It just takes time and determination. I got to max level in EQ about 30 times on different servers and different classes. I did the same in Vanguard. Pantheon will be the same, you win by playing. They are easy to play, it just takes more to get to "top end". Pay to win is pointless, the game is the journey and overcoming the struggles along the way. If you pay to skip that then you paid to skip the game you already paid for. That is retarded. May as well just not buy it in the first place and play something else.

 

[Norfleet]

Pay to win is pointless, the game is the journey and overcoming the struggles along the way. If you pay to skip that then you paid to skip the game you already paid for. That is retarded. May as well just not buy it in the first place and play something else.

Not to mention it COSTS MONEY. But at least there's a logic to paying to win. Paying to lose is just asinine!

 

[anvi]

But you aren't paying to lose in this game. You are paying to play it and you will win if you play it enough.

 

[Norfleet]

But you aren't paying to lose in this game. You are paying to play it and you will win if you play it enough.

These two statements cannot be reconciled: At the moment you start the game, you're not winning., while you're still paying for it. Therefore, you're paying to lose. Paying to win at least makes SOME kind of logical sense: You pay money, to get an actual change in status. It's not what I care for, but I can see the logic. Paying so that you can change your status yourself is simply inane: You're paying to lose, when you could just be losing for free by not playing, and if you want to win, you have to actually WORK. This is like going to work, only instead of getting paid, you pay THEM to work. Why would I want to do THAT?

 

[thesheeep]

You're paying to lose, when you could just be losing for free by not playing, and if you want to win, you have to actually WORK. This is like going to work, only instead of getting paid, you pay THEM to work. Why would I want to do THAT?

You are that guy who does not understand the concept of playing a game for fun, right?

 

[anvi]

But you aren't paying to lose in this game. You are paying to play it and you will win if you play it enough.

These two statements cannot be reconciled: At the moment you start the game, you're not winning., while you're still paying for it. Therefore, you're paying to lose. Paying to win at least makes SOME kind of logical sense: You pay money, to get an actual change in status. It's not what I care for, but I can see the logic. Paying so that you can change your status yourself is simply inane: You're paying to lose, when you could just be losing for free by not playing, and if you want to win, you have to actually WORK. This is like going to work, only instead of getting paid, you pay THEM to work. Why would I want to do THAT?

Your posts are so weird and retarded. How are you losing when you play an MMO? You are winning as soon as you do anything. And you pay to play every game ever unless it is some free to play shit.

 

[Norfleet]

If you're not on top, you're losing. Like in Eve, if you're not ruling the galaxy, you're gutter trash. If you're paying for that, without being on top? You're paying to lose.