Everquest coming to PS2

[Mongo222]

Found on slashdot this morning.....


Sony will announce on Tuesday the release of a PlayStation 2 version of its popular online PC game "EverQuest," as it tries to build an audience for an upcoming online add-on for the video game console.

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-878576.html

[SyberWired]

Now what am I supposed to use my super-buffed-computer-to-play-Everquest-with-all-models-turned-on for?! Oh well, at least now I can delete Windoze and load Mandrake on the entire box!!! That will at least be an improvement.

[Mongo222]

I don't know if I'd go that far. There are a lot of reasons why the PC is a better machine to run EQ on than a PS2.

1. Keyboard
2. Mouse.
3. PS2 has 8 meg of memory...what are they going to do with the textures?
4. That ethernet adapter best come with a harddrive, otherwise forget patching the client.

[rasthan]

<<PS2 has 8 meg of memory...what are they going to do with the textures?>>

Hehe take a look at the screenshots. Not very impressive at all....

Also from a news article I read, the online version is supposedly "free".

[Mongo222]

I'm missing something here....

Screenshots?
Where?

[high_jeeves]

castersrealm has some screenshots... Also, note that there are fewer races (probably due to graphics constraints), and the zones appear to be completely different... This is a game "based" on everyquest... it isnt the same as the real deal. From the reading, i get the impression that it runs on completely different servers in a completely different world.

--Jeeves

[dolemite01]

One day I asked myself, what really peeves me?

Then I thought, well a price increase on a product I enjoy, but thats ok it's just a small nominal fee.

Then I read about new products that this company is bringing out, that I don't care for.


/petition Can you ensure my extra 2.95 per account will not go towards your new expansion as your last caused massived downtime and multiple problems with my characters, and oh yeah I don't own a PS 2 so can you make sure my extra funding doesn't go towards that project either. Thanks

[high_jeeves]

Ummm... if you think the money you pay towards a game (Any game, not just an online one) doesnt go towards other projects, you need to take a few business classes..

--Jeeves

[dolemite01]

Agreed, however, so does Verant.

If you pay for something that is ever occuring, such as Cable Television, Tivo, Satellite, your own ISP, 99% of those products and services constantly upgrade, improve, or start new projects that improve.

PS2 Doesn't improve my game with Everquest.

Arguably the expansion pack may improve my game, but we could discuss all night, the multiple bugs, broken quests, errors, and constants that are flawed with everquest.

Yes, if you pay for something they do start new projects, but those generally start after they completed what they launched.

If you argue that everquest is ever changing, thats not so much true.

Gnolls always attack qeynos, etc.

Verant changes the game when they feel a mob was taken down too easy, or a quest reward is too great, which is fine in some sense.

But we constantly pay for expansion packs, etc. and the service and product we get in return is not always up to par.

[high_jeeves]

Ummm... just for fun I looked at the last 4 patch messages... roughly 80% (probably more if I really counted) of the changed were aimed at making the game either better, or easier...

Also, I beleive EQ is the #1 video game of all time and the #1 most profitable game of all time, so Verant should be giving business lessons, not taking them...

As for your cable analogy... I tried responding to this 40 minutes ago, but my cable modem went out for the 4th time this month.. so much for improved services for my payment... they actually spend most of their profit (after paying people/rent/expenses) on expanding their network, not adding services to existing companies... companies either grow, or die.. its just the nature of the beast... When you buy an "offline" game, a significant portion of your payment goes towards new/different projects... otherwise nobody would be able to ever make games! This is true with all businesses, otherwise they would never make money!

--Jeeves

[dolemite01]

Also, I beleive EQ is the #1 video game of all time and the #1 most profitable game of all time, so Verant should be giving business lessons, not taking them...

Try the Sims from Maxis with over 3 million copies sold at 49.99

Thats
149970000

Everquest with 400k subcribers at:
29.99 for the game = 11996000
And those for only 2 years at 9.95 = 95520000
Total thats: 107516000


The Sims is still the #1 Selling Video Game

Sorry.

[Cryonic]

You could probably triple the amount pulled in from the game to account for the sales of the expansions (this is a guestimate for total cds sold, both core game and expansions).

$35,988,000

[high_jeeves]

Well, I bought EQ when it came out.. was $49.99...

I've been playing 3 years... $9.95 * 36 months.. I have all three expansions... (I beleive they were $39.99, $29.99, $29.99.. not 100% sure on that)... I have 2 accounts, so multiply all these numbers by 2...

I saw the sims on the shelf the other day at $14.99 (in the discount section).. Quite frankly, your numbers suck..

Just because I dont feel like arguing about this (since it misses the point of my post entirely..) lets say EQ was only the ::gasp:: #5 selling game ever... I would bet its not that low, but lets go worst case... That still makes them one hell of a business, and still means they should be teaching business lessons, not taking them..

--Jeeves

[casey]

Originally posted by Mongo222
I don't know if I'd go that far. There are a lot of reasons why the PC is a better machine to run EQ on than a PS2.

3. PS2 has 8 meg of memory...what are they going to do with the textures?

this is one of the bigger obstacles ps2 devs had to get used to. The "standard" convention, and the one you are supporting here is common when you have a decent amount or video ram, but high latency. This is the situation on pc's and most game consoles. So, you take your highly latent connection and load a crapload of textures into memory once, and then you can use them as you need them.

On the ps2, what you have is a smaller chunk of video ram, but a low latent/high bandwidth link to the memory, so you can afford to keep a constant stream of textures into the memory, from the standpoint of the renderer, it is no different, because in either case all the textures it needs for the current frame, are in texture ram.

The problem is that developers largely prefer the "lazier" approach of load everything once, and just have it ready. Which approach is better? depends on the underlying hardware characteristics. do i think VI's programmers could pull off what was needed to work well with the ps2 hardware? dont really know, and the only reason i'm not sure they cant, is because they are owned by sony, so they have good access to the people who designed the hardware.

[high_jeeves]

Another big problem with the PS2 screenshots, is resolution... they are gonna look like crap on a PC monitor, because the TV resolution is so much lower.. but they will look better on a TV...

Casey, any idea what the transfer rate is off the DVD drive of theirs? I have no idea, but that would be the limiting factor moving textures -> RAM... (The bus is going to be way faster than the DVD -> bus transfer)

--Jeeves