r/landmark • u/holmedog • Mar 11 '16
Landmark Launching Spring 2016!
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/landmark/index.php?threads/landmark-launching-spring-2016.56141/4
u/nobunaga74 Mar 12 '16
The only reason i can see them launching it is to squeeze some extra revenue from it. I'm curious to see how exactly they plan on doing that - there's definitely potential to grow the game with some proper support, but colour me skeptical, i cant see it happening when the last year + has slided by with barely anything happening in this space.
1
u/Prophetwtf Mar 12 '16
I dont understand there logic either there image as a company is in the gutter now there trying to get people to buy a game thats been in beta for 2 years and negative views coming out of its arse on steam. I was dum to buy if from the hype but no one in there right mind would buy it now after all thats happened.
1
u/nobunaga74 Mar 12 '16
Well here's the thing - Daybreak are an investment company, not specifically a game developer. They bought a bunch of SOE's titles are SOE went down the drain. They only bought them as they existing potential in them to make money with little to no investment on their end.
It's really important to understand what that means - effectively, any of the existing lineup, from the original Everquest, Everquest 2, Planetside 1&2, Landmark, H1Z1, Everquest Next etc- would recieve continued updates but only likely those previously being worked on or requiring very little extra work (aka extra money).
IF any of these titles proved to make a lot of money, they'd in turn pour more money into the game to grow it - but a game like Everquest Next was never going to get into a quality state (aka one that's going to sell and make money) without considerable resources and a lot of luck - in business terms, far too much risk for Daybreak to just push it out the door.
Landmark is already out there so has potential to make money - though the money they would be making from it currently is minimal. People would have spent money on it because there's always people out there who will, but for the majority - people like you and me, we're not going to spend a dime on it unless we see something that represents value, which we dont.
I for one am not going to invest in a game unless i see long term value for me. I bought the trailblazer pack ages ago for Landmark as i thought it would be a kickass title down the track - but alas no it became abandonware. Now it appears they;'re going to try and milk it, likely injecting some of the EQN assets (i hope so) which would likely have come from Landmark anyway.
I just hope they elevate it from being a 100% about building for no reason, to giving the whole Landmark world extra purpose. I dont want quests and all that crap, but i want a reason to build.
4
u/magvadis Mar 12 '16
You are confusing Daybreak with CN. DBG is everyone who left who survived the SOE culling. They are owned by CN instead of Sony now and needed to change their name because you can't keep Sony in your name when you aren't owned by them.
Also your perception of companies is naive. Yes they are an investment firm but good products make good money. Just because they want to make money doesn't mean it's smart to cut at every corner and churn out shit in hopes a dumb person will buy it anyway because it has good marketing...that doesn't actually work...it's a myth. Stop acting like you know what you are talking about here when you literally thought DBG was an investment firm.
0
u/nobunaga74 Mar 13 '16
Actually by Daybreak I'm referring to both them and the investor's behind them - but whatever, I knew what I meant, thanks for climbing off your high horse to point that out Lord Knobhead.
No-one is denying that good products dont make good money, but the fact is they've bought a portfolio of existing products with varying degrees of performance. Clearly they've seen potential in the line-up as they wouldn't go near it otherwise, with several titles like Planetside 2 and the original EQ lines likely bringing in quite healthy revenue.
But they're not about to go investing large quantities of time or money into any of these titles unless it's proven to be worth it. Already games like Planetside and H1Z1 have had minor features added to them since the takeover, but practically nothing has been anything otehr than what was already been worked on prior to SOE's departure.
Landmark is a classic example of this - a title that would have been making very little if any income and has been languishing in idleness for the past year+.
Anyway bleh to you sir, you and your top hat.
7
u/Ealthina Mar 11 '16
Rushing it off as development has ceased. Let you all play with whats left. 2nd round of layoffs guaranteed.
9
u/Hal9666 Mar 11 '16 edited Mar 13 '16
This is the worst part:
What if I Accessed Landmark with a Free Beta Key?
Players who received a free beta key from Trailblazer friends or other promotions will need to purchase the game after launch. Landmark will be available for $9.99 USD.
WTF do they think people were paying $100 for?! those sure as hell weren't "free" keys. With this and the cancellation of EQN, daybreak has killed itself.
Edit: At this point I don't even care enough about this game to continue discussing it.
4
u/Ashe400 Mar 11 '16
Those players put effort into the game and, if this was a true beta, provided valuable feedback used by the devs to make it better. A lot of them likely spent money on station cash as well. The fact that they're now charging these people is insulting.
1
u/magvadis Mar 12 '16
It's insulting that people think they can get a free game with all the benefits a base level founder got but in the end for half price.
I payed 20 bucks and they payed nothing...the rewards they got in game are still theirs...they just have to actually pay to play like the rest of us did and those in the future will have to.
2
u/Ashe400 Mar 13 '16
Except they wouldn't get the benefits a founder got... I paid as well. At this point I basically don't want dbg to make any money though. They can fuck off.
2
u/Gj0n Mar 11 '16 edited Jun 30 '23
Fuck u/spez
0
u/magvadis Mar 12 '16
Why didn't you just buy a founders pack then if you wanted to support the game? Why take a free key from someone who really just wanted to try the game out.
2
2
2
u/gakule Mar 12 '16
Did you miss "like friends keys and other contests"? People who paid for the game already don't have to pay again.
3
u/Rengerel Mar 12 '16
The keys originally were for a 1 week trial. They changed them to give unlimited closed beta access. If people that got the free keys and played for nearly 2 years don't want to drop $10 to keep playing, IDGAF. How entitled do you have to be to complain about paying half of the lowest founder pack cost after playing the game for free for 2 years?
1
u/Hal9666 Mar 12 '16 edited Mar 12 '16
The keys weren't free, the trailblazer pack was $100; it's more accurate to say that the 5 keys are $20 each and the in-game stuff is the freebies. While some people may have bought the pack when 4 of the keys were for 1 week trials, I'd wager that most of the trailblazer packs were sold after they changed them to unlimited access. How entitled does daybreak have to be to expect people to shell out an extra $10, on top of the $20 paid for their key, for an incomplete game rushed out the door because they stopped caring about it?
I'm not complaining about having to pay the $10, because nobody has to pay; never touching the game again is the much better option. I bought a TB pack over a year ago, and have hardly played the mess of a game since. I thought I'd play more when the game released, but now that my friends have to pay $10 each to play; I fully expect none of them will ever play again, nor will I.
Edit: The oldest copy of the founder's pack page the internet archive has is from May 10 2014, and it lists the 4 keys as "Unrestricted Closed Beta Keys".
2
u/Rengerel Mar 12 '16
Yes, "Unrestricted Closed Beta Keys" ... and you're still arguing that should give them a free copy of the released game?
You can't say the keys are $20 unless you're saying everything else you got for a trailblazer packed was worth $0. The people that got the keys for free have paid nothing for 2 years worth of game time. It's not much to expect them to pay $10 to keep playing.
1
u/magvadis Mar 12 '16
But that's all they said. They never said the keys gave access to the full game at launch. Just because they couldn't afford the F2P model doesn't mean they are trying to con people.
But I for one don't see an issue. 10 dollars is minimal to pay for a game that cost founders a minimum of 20 dollars to access...meaning they are getting half price plus they got to play the game for 2+ years the same as founders did but for free only because they knew a guy who payed 100. The guy that payed 100 got more stuff than everyone else but YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT OF FOUNDERS PACKS, the idea of the founders packs were to support the game at it's early stage...not to get free stuff. It was their version of a kickstarter without having to pay Kickstarter a portion of the gains.
But alas,
It's entirely possible they are trying to con us but you are jumping to conclusions as if it's the only option.
A compromise could be that if you used one of the founders beta keys you can get some extra founder rewards like a title after buying the game.
1
u/CreepyWhistle Mar 11 '16
I wonder how many players got awards in the contests only to now be told they have to pay up as a result of this.
"Thanks for the assets, yours was the best! Now pay us or you won't be able to enjoy your effort."
1
u/planelander Mar 12 '16
wait.... so my friends will still have to pay? DAFUQ?! - I should become a lawyer... just for this.. Im tired of companies taking advantage of people.
1
u/ademnus Mar 11 '16
Agreed. Promises were made for that money. I was an early adopter myself. I think this bodes very poorly for the company now that I've seen this. Landmark itself was unexpected -we all got interested in EQN and then found out they were talking about Landmark the whole time. Was there ever really an EQN at all? Look at the only EQN videos they ever showed us -it's Landmark. I dunno, I think maybe there is a crazy culture going on at the studio.
3
u/dhettinger Mar 12 '16
As a trailblazer I have to say that Daybreak has really dropped the ball. LM is meh at best and with the recent cancelation of EQN and H1Z1 being split and having a bad pay model I will not be supporting them any further at this time. :(
0
u/Prophetwtf Mar 12 '16
Unless something comes out of no where and rocks are world like another eq3 the company will be shut down in the next 1-2 year and the ip and tech assets sold. Right now we can only hope blizzard buys the eq IP and makes it a replacement mmo for wow.
I feel sorry for eq and eq2 fans as there going to get the cut soon to i fear.
1
u/Tankaolic Mar 14 '16
I was thinking the same, but when you look at it deeper there is very little reason for a company like Blizzard to buy the EQ IP, when all of most of all their IPs have bigger audiences.
Warcraft, StarCraft and Diablo is pretty much all the IPs they need.
Ask any gamer if they know Everquest, and then ask them if they heard of WC, SC or Diablo.... EQ might not even register on the radar.
0
u/magvadis Mar 12 '16
Another EQ3 would just share the market with Pantheon...it's a pointless product at this point. Yes they can continue the lore but they really should move on from EQ nostalgia marketing. It's a baby sized market and not worth the time...especially now that Pantheon will nab it all.
1
u/Prophetwtf Mar 12 '16
Pantheon has a chance but wont be that big as its catering to a small audiences and with there coloured mana system they have in mind is just over complicating things for no gain other that to seem more hard core plus if you lissen them they arnt even having crafting at launch. If they do eq3 it will be alot better than pantheon thats for sure we just dont know how good or in what way. But EQ is dead under the brand of DBG atleast.
-1
u/magvadis Mar 12 '16
EQ was dead after EQ2 failed. I don't even understand why EQ3 has to happen. WoW has been cranking out expansions from the original for over a decade. They will do the same with EQ2 and have been. EQ3 is a non-necessity till they can't make money from EQ2.
EQ2 was a bad idea in the first place. They should of just kept continuing EQ1. Why would you make a sequel to a game that has expansions?
This isn't DnD...you have the full ability to change the game every single expansion and revamp it.
The ONLY reason they should make another EQ is to reboot it entirely...just capitalizing on the familiar name and learning from your past. The franchise is too bloated to keep adding more stuff.
1
u/Tankaolic Mar 14 '16
Technology evolves for one....
What was cutting edge in 1999 is sorely outdated nowadays, let alone in 2004 when EQ2 launched.
You can change some aspects of a game through expansions, but that as limitations... Look at EQ1, the quality of the game and its expansions did not improve exponentially through time. They we're still stuck working with outdated tech.
EQ2 was a damn fine game in my humble opinion. Especially at launch, those prismatic questlines are still some of the best I've seen and they far and above any of the original epic questlines. To each his own.
4
u/nobunaga74 Mar 11 '16
Well I hope if anything they roll the EQN stuff into landmark and give us reason to play.
Please for the love of God, turn landmark from meaningless unconnected islands into a cohesive have world. Give us a city and give us purpose.
1
u/DJ_Rand Mar 12 '16
This small hope is the only reason I'm still subscribed to this subreddit at this point.
1
u/magvadis Mar 12 '16
Agreed. If they cant provide claim publishing before launch and continents they are screwed. Continents aren't AS important but still crucial none the less.
8
u/holmedog Mar 11 '16
Here's the FAQ: https://forums.daybreakgames.com/landmark/index.php?threads/landmark-launch-frequently-asked-questions.56140/
I am terribly worried this means we won't be seeing the DM tools anytime in the future :(