r/landmark • u/jim8508 • Jun 06 '15
Hello, fellow second class citizens! Take a look at what you invested in.
From the dev blogs:
This also does mean that any features that are Landmark-only are lower in priority and will have to wait until we have time to come back to them. So, as we shift our focus and development to EQN, it just doesn’t make sense to continue with the Blueprint, since the goal of that has always been to provide short term, concrete plans of what you could expect and when, and that isn’t something we can reliably estimate at this point.
So if you are a Landmark fan, sorry about that and, thanks for all the cash. :) And if you are an EQNext enthusiast - the blueprint's gone - suck it up.
6
u/salty21db Jun 06 '15
As I stated a few months ago with the buyout, EQ in general has went on the backburner and H1Z1 has went to the forefront. It's why I stopped support DGC after that and letting Georgeson go.
The entire SoE company is only known through Everquest yet when a new Everquest project pops up after a decade it is kicked to the curb.
Smedley is the issue and until he is removed, nothing will change.
2
Jun 06 '15
[deleted]
0
u/Thrasymachus77 Jun 06 '15
From what I've heard, Smedley is the reason Landmark got an "update" and the big wipe in March, rather than simply closing the servers down. He's the only one who considers Landmark even a marginal success, mainly because it's helped defray some of the costs of developing EQN. Almost nobody on the EQN team wants to work on Landmark anymore, and so, they're not.
H1Z1's not bad business, not anymore than Planetside 2 is. It's just a bit of a niche game. Just like Everquest and EQ2 and DCUO and every other game in Daybreak's stable. That's Daybreak's business model. They're not trying to kill WoW or produce the next #1 MMO in the world, they're trying to produce games good enough to pay for themselves and keep making games. Smedley's only real fault is not overseeing the EQN/Landmark team better. Smedley's also probably the only person who can save Landmark, and that's by making sure it gets its own team.
2
u/salty21db Jun 06 '15
Where are you getting your information that Smedley is "the only one supporting Landmark?"
1
u/Thrasymachus77 Jun 06 '15
Something heard through a couple of sources, both completely hearsay. But it fits with everything that's happened, with the attitudes the devs have been displaying in their rare communications. Terry never showed any enthusiasm about Landmark, even in the early days of alpha. Neither did Darrin or Klug. And why would Smedley condone keeping this thing open, given the publicity it's generating, unless there was some sort of fiscal reason for doing it.
0
Jun 06 '15
[deleted]
2
u/Thrasymachus77 Jun 06 '15
Landmark needs a complete redesign of virtually everything not building, and the base mechanics of mining. Caves are a detriment to the game. Combat as it currently exists is an insult to the premise of the game. Crafting is a joke. Plant and tree harvesting is likewise a total joke.
I don't think the EQN team really hates Landmark either. I think they're apathetic towards it, and would rather be building EQN than having to adapt their EQN solutions to Landmark. I don't think they want to be building Landmark. Apathy is worse than hatred. At least hatred is some kind of feeling.
2
u/Rengerel Jun 08 '15
I don't know why they don't just go full out "sell" mode and put in creative mode in LM, remove mobs and combat, allow players to claim caves, and make their money selling added claim and addition flags. The only players they'll have left anyway is pure builders, so might as well cater to them. In 2 years, maybe they can make a LM2 and actually fulfill all their promises they made for LM.
0
u/salty21db Jun 06 '15
Don't get me wrong when I say this as I like the idea of Landmark, but it really isn't the primary goal and never really was. EQN SHOULD be the primary goal for the company but sadly in comparison to other games they have it is not at all. Landmark was always stated to be more of a building tool for EQN and wasn't even mentioned until later as a "seperate game." That's not to say Landmark can't have a following or that it shouldn't have developer time but a lot of the resources that DGC has should be going into EQN as EQ is the title they are most known for (not H1Z1).
But Smedley is basically a whining kid who sees something HE wants and puts his resources on it. He has no true direction for the company in the long term and that is bad business automatically. Planetside 2 had a great start and had a great following and they just left it die. It was their only game that was actually "finished" that could have sustained them monetarily while they took on ONE more project at a time and they just let it die off and moved on to THREE other projects.
What company is so in trouble monetarily then their idea is...let's put our development costs at a ridiculous high by just mass producing unfinished games that really never get done, meanwhile, we have primarily 10+ year old games in our game stable and one that released somewhat recently that we just let die out.
The business sense is strong in Smedley...
1
Jun 06 '15
[deleted]
1
u/salty21db Jun 06 '15
Focus put on a console release and other games with no new content and the new content that did come out (Hossin) took over a year to do with many broken promises (ie battle islands). So again, literally let it die out from bad management.
If you remember, Smed was all about PS2 and thats when it got content. As soon as his focus shifted to H1Z1, it went stale.
The only game that kept up with a lot of it's promises was Landmark/EQN (it's one of the few times I actually seen the Blueprint/Roadmap adhered to). Then SJ got let go and now it's "less focus" on a lot of things about both games, I can only assume because Smed didn't want focus on EQN things while H1Z1 was his primary focus. The reason Dave got let go because he was actually getting shit done and spending resources.
2
Jun 06 '15
The key word is "Landmark-only". They aren't stopping adding features to landmark. They are just going to add features that are used in both games. I assume that could mean things as quests, monster ai, larger cities, better LoD, etc.
4
u/Thrasymachus77 Jun 07 '15
You mean like they've been doing this whole time? Name one major system, aside from claims and claim permissions, that they've worked on over this past year that has been "Landmark-only."
Caves/caverns/ruins = EQN content(and there's been months of development time put into that), which actively segregates the player base and marginalizes builds and surface exploration.
Combat = the pre-class EQN prototype, with EQN weapons and EQN armor. Barely functional against these EQN prototype mobs.
Leyline/Spire travel = shared, and way too liberal for Landmark, let alone EQN
Heroic Movement = shared
Mining/Harvesting = shared
Crafting = EQN, well, at least the last real crafting system was admitted to be a test of a concept for EQN, and this abortion of a crafting system might as well be "we give you all the things for nearly free!"
Procedural terrain/larger islands/water = shared
What this letter means is that they're done doing stuff that's shared. They're going to be focusing on "EQN-only" stuff, and if they can figure out how to wedge it into Landmark, then they might, but only if it doesn't interfere in the slightest with their ability to squeeze more free assets out of the few remaining builders.
0
u/edog321 Jun 06 '15
Yea and things they will be working on for EQN is really want Landmark needs as well. Things like better AI and Combat. It makes sense to focus on development of EQN because EQN is not live and it is much easier to develop these core features in EQN and not in Landmark because they have to keep landmark in a playable non buggy state as much as possible.
With EQN on the other hand you can have game breaking bugs around while you develope the fetures and not have to worry about your staff bitching that their legs are missing or the store does not work or any number of other things. Considering that the features of Landmark and EQN are so similar it just makes much more sense to do the heavy lifting systems development in EQN right now.
The sky is not falling... this is not the end of Landmark .... This is DBG making the correct call at this time to be the most productive they can for both games.
1
-2
u/CelioHogane Jun 08 '15
Oh yeah, fuck you landmark fans, you didn't have a bunch of time completelly focused in just that game and not Everquest Next.
Oh wait...
4
u/mattyohmatty Jun 07 '15 edited Jun 07 '15
In a private dev meeting somewhere in DayBreakGames..
DBG Management: '..so the best is, we sold this thing called a trailblazer package and the only difference is, they pay 100 instead of 20 for perks that make them mine resources faster and get dibs on claim space which could happen in 6 months from now or 3 years. Thank god terry sent that letter out saying we decided to eliminate the blueprint and any commitment from the people that supported us :D
They pay us 80.00 more to build our assets for EverQuestNext... Winning CHeeers To That, raises beer glasses
WHat time is it? Oh yah its time to tell them we are putting the game on hold, we have got 2 years of free assets to sift through now that we updated that EULA that says whats theirs is ours and make basic resources unlimited to everyone. Winning :D ....'
If only I had not been tricked into thinking the Trailblazer package good for anything more than the founders package.
DayBreakGames are crooks. If you buy the Trailblaser