Still Think SC is a good idea [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Kimber

08-28-2011, 07:24 PM

All you SC supporters still think its a good idea since its obvious that Dev time went into SC items instead of fixing itemization?

Dark_fairy

08-28-2011, 07:34 PM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>All you SC supporters still think its a good idea since its obvious that Dev time went into SC items instead of fixing itemization?</blockquote>Diffrent people do SC then items....

Kimber

08-28-2011, 07:37 PM

And diff people work on PvP but the people that work on PvP have not been working on it they have been working on other things. So that argument will not work.

Rumbrave

08-28-2011, 08:26 PM

I like the idea of a squirrel as a glider mount. What I am wondering is, why they haven't made a spider mount? They already have some very cool looking spiders in game . Why not double or triple the size and put a saddle on it?? I would spend money/SC on a leaping spider.

Dreyco

08-28-2011, 08:26 PM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>All you SC supporters still think its a good idea since its obvious that Dev time went into SC items instead of fixing itemization?</blockquote>Right. Being the SC items have these awesome stats that take a lot of time to put together...Oh wait. They are appearance only. No stats.Soooooo.... artists directly impact itemization?Oh wait. Different people work on stats.Grasping at straws aren't we?

Rumbrave

08-28-2011, 08:28 PM

And to answer your question: Yes, I thnk SC is a good idea. Make me a spider mount!!!

Filly67

08-28-2011, 08:51 PM

Liking SC or not does not make this any more of a trolling thread.

The_Cheeseman

08-28-2011, 09:37 PM

Oh good, this thread again, must be Sunday. SC is created by different people using separate resources that are specifically set aside for SC features. If SC did not exist, there is no guarantee that those resources would be spent on EQ2 Live development. This argument is no more valid this time than it was the last twenty times it has been brought-up in the past. Whether you like it or not, SC is a part of the game--it's here to stay--so deal with with it.

Kimber

08-28-2011, 10:16 PM

Hey just asking a question is all and glad to see that people are still nieve enough to believe that the people working on SC items are differant than those working on the rest of the game <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" />But hey I guess its ok for some to ask questions but not others. I just find it funny as all get out that1) Quite a few new items on SC market place that are pretty good also2) Itemization that was hosed before is even worse now because we used a script to do it so we could work on other things at same time ( hmm wonder what that was )I guess the 40+ pages about the last GU and how things are messed up means nothing at all so long as SC items are gtg for some.Oh and you can say I am trolling all you like. Personaly this is a very valid point as I would rather see Dev time go to fixing the game than adding fluff.

JazzMaus

08-28-2011, 10:38 PM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>you can say I am trolling</blockquote>I could, but why bother? You've already said it yourself.

Kimber

08-28-2011, 10:40 PM

<cite>JazzMaus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>you can say I am trolling</blockquote>I could, but why bother? You've already said it yourself.But I like to trollFIXED</blockquote>Read the whole thing

JazzMaus

08-28-2011, 10:43 PM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Read the whole thing</blockquote>I read the entire worthless thread. Reading the entire worthless thread didn't make it any more worth-while.You're trolling, /thread.

LordPazuzu

08-28-2011, 10:50 PM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>All you SC supporters still think its a good idea since its obvious that Dev time went into SC items instead of fixing itemization?</blockquote>And taking folks off of SC items would help itemization? SC items, if they take dev time away anywhere is from the art team, not the mechanics team. I'm sorry, but 3D modelers and animators know what about game mechanics?Apples and oranges.

Dreyco

08-28-2011, 10:58 PM

<cite>Meaghan@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>All you SC supporters still think its a good idea since its obvious that Dev time went into SC items instead of fixing itemization?</blockquote>And taking folks off of SC items would help itemization? SC items, if they take dev time away anywhere is from the art team, not the mechanics team. I'm sorry, but 3D modelers and animators know what about game mechanics?Apples and oranges.</blockquote>Pretty much what I was trying to say, except a lot better. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Gisallo

08-28-2011, 11:15 PM

<cite>Dark_fairy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>All you SC supporters still think its a good idea since its obvious that Dev time went into SC items instead of fixing itemization?</blockquote>Diffrent people do SC then items....</blockquote>Yeah with all the layoffs SOE just did they aren't having different designers bouncing between departments to keep up. You stick with that.

Rijacki

08-28-2011, 11:16 PM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>2) Itemization that was hosed before is even worse now because we used a script to do it so we could work on other things at same time ( hmm wonder what that was )</blockquote><ul><li>Adding in scaling dungeons to some of the DoF content to make them more usable for more levels (including level cap).</li><li>Adding in a dungeon finder. </li><li>Adding in fae flight.</li><li>Adding in usable spire and druid ring for DoV. </li><li>Adding in additional, at current cap, dungeon and raid zones.</li><li>Adding in the support for the expansion features.</li><li>and so on.</li></ul>Your arguement that SC is at the root of all problems is faulty. Your argument that everything is through SC and not part of the 'regular' game is faulty.Your argument that without SC there would be no itemisation issues is extremely faulty. I remember itemisation issues with the launch of DoF and then when the 'corrected' it. I remember itemisation and mechanics issues when PvP was released and PvE features were adjusted to balance PvP. I remember itemisation issues when there was re-tuning around the time KoS was released and a new 'newbie' experience as well as the tradeskill 'revamp' was put in. I remember itemisation issues when KoS was rebalanced. I remember itemisation issues when EoF was launched and then later when it was 'corrected'. I even remember itemisation issues when RoK launched and with its corrections. Yes, I also remember the itemisation issues after then, too, but someone enevitably brings up the arguement 'this would never have happened with Scott here' (and, ya know what, there are itemisation issues in Rift, too, already). But, SC didn't go live until long after RoK, so how could it have affected itemisation then?

Kimber

08-28-2011, 11:18 PM

You know what guys have it your way I guess. If you want to sit there and think that the person that worked on itemization ( the guy that turned the script on ) did nothing but that and had nothing do do with any of the SC items that have come out in the last 2 months or so. Have fun with that, I know what happens in the real world how a business works. If a service you are selling makes allot of money for you then you put more resorces into that.Example SC makes money for SoE rather than hire more people to support said SC they can pull people from other departments to help out and make things for SC esp if someone can write a script to handle itemization.While yes I did start this thread and I still feel that it is a valid point and or question as to if SC is a good thing SoE obviously has to many things going on right now be bothered to do things correctly. I am not going to sit here and argue with ya'll since it is obvious to me that we do not agree on this subject and some if not all the people that have posted a reply are not willing to see anything past thier nose.Oh and btw if I am wrong I will admit that I am wrong about Dev time being put into SC items. However I will not take the word of my fellow forum posters on it since we obviously disagree on this. Edit to addOh I agree there is allot of other stuff out there that got added also. I do however think that if SC was not there or not such a priority that other things would get the proper attention they need to be fixed correctly. No offence people but did we really need anouther mount? or any of the other things that have been added to SC in the last 2 months or could that time have been spent helping out with the GU?Oh and one more thing for the SC being the root of the problem comment. Just answer this question before SC and F2P for that matter was Itemization ever this bland or messed up. I know what my answer is. However i am not saying that SC is the root of the problem I just think it is a part of it. They want SC in game fine have 4 or 5 ( prolly more than that but just using abstract numbers to have numbers ) work on it and only those 4 or 5 let the rest keep doing what they are supposed to do.

Gisallo

08-28-2011, 11:21 PM

<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>Adding in a dungeon finder.</blockquote>One thing a Dungeon Finder will do, WoW knows it Rift just found out. If you are a Tank or a healer = win, dps and support not so much. Just ask Blizzard why they had to add a special prize bag just for those who queue as a tank or a healer. Dps had an issue to start. As people got more and more fail groups the good tanks and healers queued less frequently to the point that WoW instituted little goodie bags for just these roles. it's also SO much fun queueing up and finding that there is only one boss left and then on the first trash pull you find oput why they needed a replacement. Fun times.

Onorem

08-28-2011, 11:26 PM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>You know what guys have it your way I guess. If you want to sit there and think that the person that worked on itemization ( the guy that turned the script on ) did nothing but that and had nothing do do with any of the SC items that have come out in the last 2 months or so. Have fun with that, I know what happens in the real world how a business works. If a service you are selling makes allot of money for you then you put more resorces into that.Example SC makes money for SoE rather than hire more people to support said SC they can pull people from other departments to help out and make things for SC esp if someone can write a script to handle itemization.While yes I did start this thread and I still feel that it is a valid point and or question as to if SC is a good thing SoE obviously has to many things going on right now be bothered to do things correctly. I am not going to sit here and argue with ya'll since it is obvious to me that we do not agree on this subject and some if not all the people that have posted a reply are not willing to see anything past thier nose.Oh and btw if I am wrong I will admit that I am wrong about Dev time being put into SC items. However I will not take the word of my fellow forum posters on it since we obviously disagree on this.</blockquote>I'm more than willing to believe that the person who worked on itemization had nothing to do with SC items.I think the current itemization (was the layman's term for the result of a vacuum). I think SC items have always (been the result of the layman's term for the result of a vacuum). That doesn't mean the same person was responsible for both. (unless you mean SJ...and even then, the orders come from somewhere above him.)

The_Cheeseman

08-28-2011, 11:41 PM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Oh and btw if I am wrong I will admit that I am wrong about Dev time being put into SC items. However I will not take the word of my fellow forum posters on it since we obviously disagree on this.</blockquote>Okay, then how about the numerous times that red names have said flat-out that SC is handled by another team? I suppose you won't take their word for it, either. Is there anybody's word you would take on the topic? I am thinking not. Personally, I don't care if you admit that you are wrong, because whether you admit it or not does not make it any less true. I just think it would be refreshing if SOE could make a mistake and--just once--nobody try to spin it into some conspiracy theory against SC. SOE just botched the re-itemization script, that's it, end of story.I understand that some folks feel like selling fluff items for cash in-game is equivalent to SOE murdering your pets and kidnapping your children, but doesn't the same old tired argument eventually get boring? How do people maintain this level of righteous indignation over so little for so long?

Hamervelder

08-29-2011, 01:01 AM

<cite>Dark_fairy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>All you SC supporters still think its a good idea since its obvious that Dev time went into SC items instead of fixing itemization?</blockquote>Diffrent people do SC then items....</blockquote>They all work for SOE, and SOE only has so much money to pay employees. Ergo, if Sony is paying someone to make fluff items, then that's one person that Sony isn't paying to work on more important features.

DxPreist1

08-29-2011, 01:36 AM

Since it is keeping the game profitable for SOE and ergo, is still up and running.. Yeah, Yeah I do.Since nothing they have released on the marketplace that has impacted any in game activity at all yes, yes I do.Now stop being ignorant, stop the emo NerdRage QQ, /ragequit if you hate it so much, no one will miss you.

Cloudrat

08-29-2011, 01:39 AM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>All you SC supporters still think its a good idea since its obvious that Dev time went into SC items instead of fixing itemization?</blockquote>yeppers I love my squirrel

Elomort

08-29-2011, 02:51 AM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hey just asking a question is all and glad to see that people are still nieve enough to believe that the people working on SC items are differant than those working on the rest of the game...Oh and you can say I am trolling all you like. Personaly this is a very valid point as I would rather see Dev time go to fixing the game than adding fluff.</blockquote>I think that you might be the one who is a little naïve. Artists are not the people who do the itemisation or coding. They draw pictures, create animations and so on.I won't say you are trolling, enough people have said that so i don't need to repeat it, I will though say that what you personally see as a valid point is not shared by most people and most likely the devs.

Rijacki

08-29-2011, 03:14 AM

<cite>Elhonas@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dark_fairy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>All you SC supporters still think its a good idea since its obvious that Dev time went into SC items instead of fixing itemization?</blockquote>Diffrent people do SC then items....</blockquote>They all work for SOE, and SOE only has so much money to pay employees. Ergo, if Sony is paying someone to make fluff items, then that's one person that Sony isn't paying to work on more important features.</blockquote>If SC is making EQ2 profitable, there's more money to pay employees. Ergo, if not for SC, there would be fewer employees working on any features. Subscription rates have not gone up in a very long time but I'm pretty sure operating costs and development costs have. If you think Sony is going to allow any division to run a game (or anything else) as an altruistic, non-profit, or profit-loss endeavor you would have to be rather naive.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 03:15 AM

<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>If SC is making EQ2 profitable, there's more money to pay employees. Ergo, if not for SC, there would be fewer employees working on any features. Subscription rates have not gone up in a very long time but I'm pretty sure operating costs and development costs have. If you think Sony is going to allow any division to run a game (or anything else) as an altruistic, non-profit, or profit-loss endeavor you would have to be rather naive.</blockquote>Considering EQ2 was profitable enough pre SC to PAY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ONGOING SUPPORT OF FREEREALMS I think you're wrong.SC may generate profit, but SOE isn't spending it here.

lollipop

08-29-2011, 03:41 AM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>All you SC supporters still think its a good idea since its obvious that Dev time went into SC items instead of fixing itemization?</blockquote>Yes I do. Thank you.

Lempo

08-29-2011, 04:12 AM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Oh and btw if I am wrong I will admit that I am wrong about Dev time being put into SC items. However I will not take the word of my fellow forum posters on it since we obviously disagree on this.</blockquote>Okay, then how about the numerous times that red names have said flat-out that SC is handled by another team? I suppose you won't take their word for it, either. Is there anybody's word you would take on the topic? I am thinking not. Personally, I don't care if you admit that you are wrong, because whether you admit it or not does not make it any less true. I just think it would be refreshing if SOE could make a mistake and--just once--nobody try to spin it into some conspiracy theory against SC. SOE just botched the re-itemization script, that's it, end of story.I understand that some folks feel like selling fluff items for cash in-game is equivalent to SOE murdering your pets and kidnapping your children, but doesn't the same old tired argument eventually get boring? How do people maintain this level of righteous indignation over so little for so long?</blockquote>Yeah, all that was messed up was the reitemization script. notsureifserious.jpg<ul><li>People locked in GH's and can not login.</li><li>AA Mirrors do not save expertise selections (changing AA's HOW COULD THIS POSSIBLY MAKE IT BY QA)</li><li>Any other side issue related it reitemization, i.e. items no longer convertible to house items.</li></ul>With the release of DOV many ridiculous other things were also broken.This isn't *A* mistake it is a lot of mistakes that have a compounding effect(s). I think it would be refreshing for people not to discount players anger at them rushing out broken content, time and time again and releasing more broekn content each time apparently.

The_Cheeseman

08-29-2011, 04:34 AM

I didn't mean to imply that SOE only made one mistake, I meant that I wish they could make a mistake that nobody blames on SC. I just used the itemization as an example.

Ruut Li

08-29-2011, 06:12 AM

dungeon finder is in?I havent played since the update (why bother), just fixed my aa:s and gear (why did I do that..??)

Elomort

08-29-2011, 06:51 AM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>If SC is making EQ2 profitable, there's more money to pay employees. Ergo, if not for SC, there would be fewer employees working on any features. Subscription rates have not gone up in a very long time but I'm pretty sure operating costs and development costs have. If you think Sony is going to allow any division to run a game (or anything else) as an altruistic, non-profit, or profit-loss endeavor you would have to be rather naive.</blockquote>Considering EQ2 was profitable enough pre SC to PAY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ONGOING SUPPORT OF FREEREALMS I think you're wrong.SC may generate profit, but SOE isn't spending it here.</blockquote>Gaige, for once you and I are in complete agreement, and this point you raise irks the heck out of me .Well said Sir.The money that the franchise generates at this time should - no must - be plowed back into the game.SOE are not doing this and it annoys the crud out of me.

IvyBlackrose

08-29-2011, 07:17 AM

as usual your a fool too, so eqnext should be funded on good looks and charm then eh? all the money soe makes now is used towards eqnext and the next game thats gonna bring them revenue for 6 or 7 years

Ginfress02

08-29-2011, 08:38 AM

<cite>Elomort wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>If SC is making EQ2 profitable, there's more money to pay employees. Ergo, if not for SC, there would be fewer employees working on any features. Subscription rates have not gone up in a very long time but I'm pretty sure operating costs and development costs have. If you think Sony is going to allow any division to run a game (or anything else) as an altruistic, non-profit, or profit-loss endeavor you would have to be rather naive.</blockquote>Considering EQ2 was profitable enough pre SC to PAY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ONGOING SUPPORT OF FREEREALMS I think you're wrong.SC may generate profit, but SOE isn't spending it here.</blockquote>Gaige, for once you and I are in complete agreement, and this point you raise irks the heck out of me .Well said Sir.The money that the franchise generates at this time should - no must - be plowed back into the game.SOE are not doing this and it annoys the crud out of me.</blockquote>That would be very shortsighted. You really think that Blizard puts all of WoW's profit in WoW? You think Turbine puts all the LoTR profit in that game? Of course not. It's also being used for future products from said company.

Eisrael

08-29-2011, 09:51 AM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>If SC is making EQ2 profitable, there's more money to pay employees. Ergo, if not for SC, there would be fewer employees working on any features. Subscription rates have not gone up in a very long time but I'm pretty sure operating costs and development costs have. If you think Sony is going to allow any division to run a game (or anything else) as an altruistic, non-profit, or profit-loss endeavor you would have to be rather naive.</blockquote>Considering EQ2 was profitable enough pre SC to PAY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ONGOING SUPPORT OF FREEREALMS I think you're wrong.SC may generate profit, but SOE isn't spending it here.</blockquote>Yes, Velious was a charity effort. Are you seriously suggesting that this game gets no support? Really?This argument is so very tired. Please, help us all "put this thing to bed." Cite an official source that precisely illustrates where SOE spends its investment dollars. Please.The truth of the matter is you have absolutely no idea, and neither do I.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 10:09 AM

<cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>Cite an official source that precisely illustrates where SOE spends its investment dollars. </blockquote>Cite an official source that says I'm wrong. I have a lot of friends who work for SOE, I go to Fan Faire, people talk. I value their opinion more than I value yours.

Eisrael

08-29-2011, 10:13 AM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>Cite an official source that precisely illustrates where SOE spends its investment dollars. </blockquote>Cite an official source that says I'm wrong. I have a lot of friends who work for SOE, I go to Fan Faire, people talk. I value their opinion more than I value yours.</blockquote>Sure, and they are all going to admit that SOE doesn't invest in this game. Cite something. Please.

agnott

08-29-2011, 10:17 AM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>Oh good, this thread again, must be Sunday. SC is created by different people using separate resources that are specifically set aside for SC features. If SC did not exist, there is no guarantee that those resources would be spent on EQ2 Live development. This argument is no more valid this time than it was the last twenty times it has been brought-up in the past. Whether you like it or not, SC is a part of the game--it's here to stay--so deal with with it.</blockquote>Do you really think that a seperate team for SC is the limit of SC influence.From the head developer to the guy who mops the floor at night. None of them can even choose what to have for lunch without first studying it's impact on the SC market. It is the engine that drives every single decision.Every expansion is built around maxmainzing the market place. The free will to design for the enjoyment of the players is long gone. If you enjoy as it, that's great. But let's not live in denial that the game is EQ2 ...the game is Station Cash.Wake up Neo, The Matrix has you.

Eisrael

08-29-2011, 10:47 AM

<cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>Cite an official source that precisely illustrates where SOE spends its investment dollars. </blockquote>Cite an official source that says I'm wrong.</blockquote></blockquote>Here you go:<a href="http://everquest2.com/gameinfo/overview">http://everquest2.com/gameinfo/overview</a>

Andok

08-29-2011, 11:12 AM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>All you SC supporters still think its a good idea since its obvious that Dev time went into SC items instead of fixing itemization?</blockquote>Yep.

JazzMaus

08-29-2011, 11:41 AM

<cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>Are you seriously suggesting that this game gets no support? Really?</blockquote>Considering the highly questionable (at best) state of GU61 .... yes, I'm leaning towards precisely that suggestion.But not because of SC. I think the premise that SC is solely at fault for this game's demise is wrong. I think this game has slowly sunk because SOE refused from the beginning to advertise it, took the longest time to admit that many of their original design decisions were badly flawed, & then failed to take the proper steps to turn the ship around. In short, I think EQ2's issues are solely a matter of flawed management, & I'm now highly sceptical that they'll ever fix this thing properly.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 12:30 PM

<cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here you go:<a href="http://everquest2.com/gameinfo/overview">http://everquest2.com/gameinfo/overview</a></blockquote>Proves what? Even conservative estimates puts EQ2 grossing $1,240,250 per month. Which is $14,883,000 a year.Add in LoN, SC and EQ2x and its even more. Do you honestly think server costs, labor and electricity cost anywhere even in the same ballpark as $15 million or more a year?No.SOE waited until this game was almost completely unplayable before upgrading hardware. Even then they didn't upgrade all the servers and they still saw fit to repurpose hardware from pre-2000 according to Rothgar.The team is fairly small as MMOs go. I realize that SOE profits are a whole and they distribute them around but if you honestly feel that we are getting our piece of the pie I think you're kidding yourself.We paid for the aborted Agency, we paid to keep Free Realms afloat for a year or more until it was in the black, we're paying for Planetside 2, we're paying for EQ Next, we're paying for the hopeless Vanguard, etc etc etc.For the amount of money that EQ2 generates its in a pretty sad state atm. Lack of manpower is always cited for why things don't get done, for why updates go live broken and hotfixed later. WE'RE WORKING ON THE EXPANSION WE HAVE NO MORE TIME FOR GU61.Well guess what, I remember when this game launched with no LoN, no SC and no EQ2x and it had a live team, a seperate expansion team and 3x the members it has now.The fact of the matter is saying SC generates profits that make EQ2 better is a lie. It generates profits that allows SOE to fund other games. We had to beg for hardware just to be able to play this game.Its so bad that at Fan Faire panels a lot of questions were answered with: "That is certainly something we can look into doing if you're willing to pay SC for it."

deadcrickets2

08-29-2011, 12:31 PM

<cite>Elomort wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>If SC is making EQ2 profitable, there's more money to pay employees. Ergo, if not for SC, there would be fewer employees working on any features. Subscription rates have not gone up in a very long time but I'm pretty sure operating costs and development costs have. If you think Sony is going to allow any division to run a game (or anything else) as an altruistic, non-profit, or profit-loss endeavor you would have to be rather naive.</blockquote>Considering EQ2 was profitable enough pre SC to PAY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ONGOING SUPPORT OF FREEREALMS I think you're wrong.SC may generate profit, but SOE isn't spending it here.</blockquote>Gaige, for once you and I are in complete agreement, and this point you raise irks the heck out of me .Well said Sir.The money that the franchise generates at this time should - no must - be plowed back into the game.SOE are not doing this and it annoys the crud out of me.</blockquote>The money is being spent on this game. Any excess is being used to help fund EQNext. As for Free Realms, after Smedley failed to invest in Jagex he used that investment money plus some venture capital to start Free Realms to compete with them. Free Realms now has roughly 17 million users. If you figure a minimum being spent per month of $5USD (which is a subscription) then that's about $85 million per month it's pulling in. I can assure you it's doing better than that. The cost to maintain Free Realms is a minor bit of that. Guess where the excess from that game is going? EQNext. Guess which payment model EQNext will most likely be?

Gaige

08-29-2011, 12:33 PM

I was told by people I trust that Free Realms was in the red until early this year. It was losing money and the only reason they kept it going was because Smedley refused to can it.It absolutely, 100%, is not generating $85 million a month. Its barely making money, its just now finally able to pay for itself.

GussJr

08-29-2011, 12:34 PM

<cite>Galibier@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dark_fairy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>All you SC supporters still think its a good idea since its obvious that Dev time went into SC items instead of fixing itemization?</blockquote>Diffrent people do SC then items....</blockquote>Yeah with all the layoffs SOE just did they aren't having different designers bouncing between departments to keep up. You stick with that.</blockquote>...you do know that they were advertising on Fbook a few weeks ago that they were looking to hire? (this was just a few months after they fired two or three people from the EQ2 team, supposedly because of budget...)

deadcrickets2

08-29-2011, 12:40 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here you go:<a href="http://everquest2.com/gameinfo/overview">http://everquest2.com/gameinfo/overview</a></blockquote>Proves what? Even conservative estimates puts EQ2 grossing $1,240,250 per month. Which is $14,883,000 a year.Add in LoN, SC and EQ2x and its even more. Do you honestly think server costs, labor and electricity cost anywhere even in the same ballpark as $15 million or more a year?No.SOE waited until this game was almost completely unplayable before upgrading hardware. Even then they didn't upgrade all the servers and they still saw fit to repurpose hardware from pre-2000 according to Rothgar.The team is fairly small as MMOs go. I realize that SOE profits are a whole and they distribute them around but if you honestly feel that we are getting our piece of the pie I think you're kidding yourself.We paid for the aborted Agency, we paid to keep Free Realms afloat for a year or more until it was in the black, we're paying for Planetside 2, we're paying for EQ Next, we're paying for the hopeless Vanguard, etc etc etc.For the amount of money that EQ2 generates its in a pretty sad state atm. Lack of manpower is always cited for why things don't get done, for why updates go live broken and hotfixed later. WE'RE WORKING ON THE EXPANSION WE HAVE NO MORE TIME FOR GU61.Well guess what, I remember when this game launched with no LoN, no SC and no EQ2x and it had a live team, a seperate expansion team and 3x the members it has now.The fact of the matter is saying SC generates profits that make EQ2 better is a lie. It generates profits that allows SOE to fund other games. We had to beg for hardware just to be able to play this game.Its so bad that at Fan Faire panels a lot of questions were answered with: "That is certainly something we can look into doing if you're willing to pay SC for it."</blockquote>Hardware has improved, software has improved, operating costs have gone up. SOE has done what every other company out there has done in this economy; attempted to maximize productivity while minimizing costs.A business is not a charity. It has to make money in order to survive. The new hardware for Live didn't occur until that new cash flow came in from Freeport. Free Realms is what is now paying for EQNext. It's THE cash cow.SC is not the root of the problem here. The problem, as pointed out before, is management. They aren't fixing things in a timely manner. I do agree with you that more money needs to be spent on the game. I do agree more advertising needs to be done in a smart manner. What irks me is how they had a hotfix and chose to sit on it until Tuesday. Leaving paying customers on both ends with a mess. That is bad customer service. That is what causes one to lose customers or keep potential new customers away who see all the threads.I understand they pushed it out due to PAX. What is worth more? A bullet point at PAX or losing revenue due to lost current and future customers? This GU could have spent another two weeks being fixed. They tried a Jimmy Carter in attempting to do way too much in too short a time. Rarely does that ever work well.

deadcrickets2

08-29-2011, 12:43 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote>I was told by people I trust that Free Realms was in the red until early this year. It was losing money and the only reason they kept it going was because Smedley refused to can it.It absolutely, 100%, is not generating $85 million a month. Its barely making money, its just now finally able to pay for itself.</blockquote>I heard from someone whose cousin dates this guy who is the brother of the uncle of a friend of a sister who...

Gaige

08-29-2011, 12:46 PM

<cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hardware has improved, software has improved, operating costs have gone up.Free Realms is what is now paying for EQNext. It's THE cash cow.</blockquote>Hardware only improved because it was at the point where they were going to lose money if they didn't improve it because PLAYERS LITERALLY COULD NOT PLAY THE GAME.What software improvements have been made? How do you know operating costs have gone up? You don't.Get off your Free Realms horse, you're wrong. I have three close friends who worked on the Free Realms team most of last year and I talked to them in-depth at Fan Faire about the state of that game. It wasn't even in the black until early this year, as I stated. It lost money like crazy in the beginning.<div><cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I heard from someone whose cousin dates this guy who is the brother of the uncle of a friend of a sister who...</blockquote>Listen man I've been having people tell me the things I say are rumors and false for years - and then they're proven to be true. I don't care who believes me but your belief that FR is generating $85 million a month crap is completely false. FR has an EXTREMELY hard time converting free players to RMT spenders/subscribers.</div>

deadcrickets2

08-29-2011, 12:49 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hardware has improved, software has improved, operating costs have gone up.Free Realms is what is now paying for EQNext. It's THE cash cow.</blockquote>What software improvements have been made? How do you know operating costs have gone up? You don't.Get off your Free Realms horse, you're wrong. I have three close friends who worked on the Free Realms team most of last year and I talked to them in-depth at Fan Faire about the state of that game. It wasn't even in the black until early this year, as I stated. It lost money like crazy in the beginning.</blockquote>Did you watch Fan Faire at all? They even showed off the new software they were using.Are you aware of the rising costs in the real world? Even electricity has gone up. I wonder what the computers are running on? Hmm... I know! Electricity!Every game loses money at first. There's a little thing called ROI. Most businesses in the real world take two to three years to recover costs. And quoting anonymous sources is not worth my interest. Got citations?

Gaige

08-29-2011, 12:51 PM

<cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>There's a little thing called ROI. Most businesses in the real world take two to three years to recover costs. And quoting anonymous sources is not worth my interest. Got citations?</blockquote>Software that they're using in Planetside 2 and EQ Next? Woo a new engine that I paid for in games I won't even play. Thanks for proving my point.EQ2 took less than a year to pay off its initial investment. Just saying~As for needing citations, I don't care. I have history on my side. You can however spew nonsense and believe what you want - it still doesn't make you right and me wrong. People thought I was wrong about Brenlo too~

deadcrickets2

08-29-2011, 12:53 PM

One of the things well known in the MMO industry is that if a game is released it generally has six months to a year to show that it will make it. A game losing money will close down. SOE at a meeting of various MMO CEOs during an industry event (not a con) last year even talked about that.

Eisrael

08-29-2011, 12:56 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here you go:<a href="http://everquest2.com/gameinfo/overview">http://everquest2.com/gameinfo/overview</a></blockquote>Proves what? </blockquote>It proves that this company is rolling out content. You may not particularly enjoy this content, but it is there, it is being developed, and money is being spent. As well, shareholders are being compensated. SOE is not a charity.As well, you - and I - have no idea how much money it costs to run this company. Your estimates are just that - your estimates. Show me a SOE balance sheet that reflects your numbers and I'll concede. Until then, your math is highly suspect.Clearly, you are very emotional over this entire affair. Perhaps you should go try Warcraft, Rift, or whatever. Perhaps those experiences will allow you to retool your persepctive on this game.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 12:56 PM

<cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>One of the things well known in the MMO industry is that if a game is released it generally has six months to a year to show that it will make it. A game losing money will close down. </blockquote>April 2009. Two years. Even then barely. They should have closed it down, they just did not because of Smedley.Eisrael wrote:<div><blockquote>It proves that this company is rolling out content. </blockquote>So?<div><cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>Clearly, you are very emotional over this entire affair. Perhaps you should go try Warcraft, Rift, or whatever. Perhaps those experiences will allow you to retool your persepctive on this game. </blockquote>Sure, I do have an emotional attachment to a hobby I've spent 20 hours a week on since 2004. However the only reason I remain here is because my friends do. I'm the only one in our guild in TOR beta. Hopefully that changes soon. Worst case scenario is I'm stuck here until November~<div><cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>As well, you - and I - have no idea how much money it costs to run this company.</blockquote>I have a pretty good idea of how much it doesn't cost. I have a lot of friends in this industry, at various companies. I talk to the people who make these games everyday and I have for the past seven years. While I'm not sure how much SOE spent on pencils, electricity and the water bill in August I somehow doubt it was over one million dollars. Especially since the majority of their dev team make terrible, terrible money.</div></div></div>

deadcrickets2

08-29-2011, 12:59 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>There's a little thing called ROI. Most businesses in the real world take two to three years to recover costs. And quoting anonymous sources is not worth my interest. Got citations?</blockquote>Software that they're using in Planetside 2 and EQ Next? Woo a new engine that I paid for in games I won't even play. Thanks for proving my point.EQ2 took less than a year to pay off its initial investment. Just saying~As for needing citations, I don't care. I have history on my side. You can however spew nonsense and believe what you want - it still doesn't make you right and me wrong. People thought I was wrong about Brenlo too~</blockquote>Again I point you to Fan Faire.On the investment what you need to understand is how business economics and ROI work. A game has six months to a year (depending on company) to prove it will be a success. It can lose money at first and then start gaining it. That does not mean that they are in the black as a whole. The only time they would be in the black as a whole is if they paid off the entire investment. By your statement EQ2 should have been closed and EQ1 shouldn't have been funding it.If I start a new venture I expect a ROI. I have an reasonable belief that the ROI will happen in a certain amount of time. Otherwise I fall into the <a href="http://smallbiztrends.com/2008/04/startup-failure-rates.html" target="_blank">Startup Failure Rate</a> category. Heck, most people starting a small business aren't successful until the second or third time around at it.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 01:01 PM

<cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Again I point you to Fan Faire.</blockquote>What about it. I was there. I saw nothing new and amazing in regards to EQ2. More of the same, actually even less than more of the same because the "expansion" this November is just a money grab.<div><cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote> The only time they would be in the black as a whole is if they paid off the entire investment. By your statement EQ2 should have been closed and EQ1 shouldn't have been funding it.</blockquote>EQ2 had paid for its development cost entirely before the end of 2005.</div>

deadcrickets2

08-29-2011, 01:03 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>One of the things well known in the MMO industry is that if a game is released it generally has six months to a year to show that it will make it. A game losing money will close down.</blockquote>April 2009. Two years. Even then barely. They should have closed it down, they just did not because of Smedley.</blockquote>So in other words.. no citation. I'll keep that in mind.

deadcrickets2

08-29-2011, 01:06 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><div><cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote> The only time they would be in the black as a whole is if they paid off the entire investment. By your statement EQ2 should have been closed and EQ1 shouldn't have been funding it.</blockquote>EQ2 had paid for its development cost entirely before the end of 2005.</div></blockquote>I'd like to see a citation for this.The game originally opened with, I believe but could be wrong, 32 servers. It quickly dwindled. The staff quit releasing population and subscription numbers about the same time. By your definition we should have closed EQ2 back then.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 01:06 PM

<cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>So in other words.. no citation. I'll keep that in mind.</blockquote>Like I said, people railroaded me about official citations when the Brenlo stuff happened and who was right then? I'm not worried about what you believe because my track record since I came to this game speaks for itself in regards to the statements I make.<div><cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'd like to see a citation for this.</blockquote>I'd like to see Emma Watson nude. I guess we're both left wishing.</div>

Eisrael

08-29-2011, 01:07 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>One of the things well known in the MMO industry is that if a game is released it generally has six months to a year to show that it will make it. A game losing money will close down. </blockquote>April 2009. Two years. Even then barely. They should have closed it down, they just did not because of Smedley.Eisrael wrote:<div><blockquote>It proves that this company is rolling out content. </blockquote>So?<div><cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>Clearly, you are very emotional over this entire affair. Perhaps you should go try Warcraft, Rift, or whatever. Perhaps those experiences will allow you to retool your persepctive on this game. </blockquote>Sure, I do have an emotional attachment to a hobby I've spent 20 hours a week on since 2004. However the only reason I remain here is because my friends do. I'm the only one in our guild in TOR beta. Hopefully that changes soon. Worst case scenario is I'm stuck here until November~<div><cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>As well, you - and I - have no idea how much money it costs to run this company.</blockquote>I have a pretty good idea of how much it doesn't cost. I have a lot of friends in this industry, at various companies. I talk to the people who make these games everyday and I have for the past seven years. While I'm not sure how much SOE spent on pencils, electricity and the water bill in August I somehow doubt it was over one million dollars. Especially since the majority of their dev team make terrible, terrible money.</div></div></div></blockquote>So? Lol... ok. I was hoping that your would conceded that this game does receive funding. Oh well.Also, when you throw out the material that you are, it is always a good idea to use citations. Claiming "insider friends" just doesn't "cut the mustard." Good luck to you. Perhaps it's best that you are looking for a new gaming outlet. Friends aside, why someone would stick around and be miserable is beyond me.

Onorem

08-29-2011, 01:08 PM

<cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>One of the things well known in the MMO industry is that if a game is released it generally has six months to a year to show that it will make it. A game losing money will close down.</blockquote>April 2009. Two years. Even then barely. They should have closed it down, they just did not because of Smedley.</blockquote>So in other words.. no citation. I'll keep that in mind.</blockquote>His "citation" is just as good as yours. The difference is history has shown him to be right more often than not and you have no history.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 01:09 PM

<cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>Claiming "insider friends" just doesn't "cut the mustard." </blockquote>Okay. Like I said, I don't really care about the opinion of others because I've been proven right so many times over in regards to things like this~<div><cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>Friends aside, why someone would stick around and be miserable is beyond me.</blockquote>Its like anything else. I've played this game since early 2004, I have friends on the dev team, I have lots of friends in the EQ2 community, I enjoy playing with my guild and I'm just used to playing this game. Its part of my daily routine. Its a hard habit to break.</div>

Eisrael

08-29-2011, 01:18 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>Claiming "insider friends" just doesn't "cut the mustard." </blockquote>Okay. Like I said, I don't really care about the opinion of others because I've been proven right so many times over in regards to things like this~<div><cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>Friends aside, why someone would stick around and be miserable is beyond me.</blockquote>Its like anything else. I've played this game since early 2004, I have friends on the dev team, I have lots of friends in the EQ2 community, I enjoy playing with my guild and I'm just used to playing this game. Its part of my daily routine. Its a hard habit to break.</div></blockquote>Fair enough. It just, well... stinks to see dedicated folks such as yourself seriously considering "jumping ship." The game needs peeps like you.Again, Good luck and thanks for the discourse.

deadcrickets2

08-29-2011, 01:24 PM

<cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>One of the things well known in the MMO industry is that if a game is released it generally has six months to a year to show that it will make it. A game losing money will close down.</blockquote>April 2009. Two years. Even then barely. They should have closed it down, they just did not because of Smedley.Eisrael wrote:<div><blockquote>It proves that this company is rolling out content.</blockquote>So?<div><cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>Clearly, you are very emotional over this entire affair. Perhaps you should go try Warcraft, Rift, or whatever. Perhaps those experiences will allow you to retool your persepctive on this game.</blockquote>Sure, I do have an emotional attachment to a hobby I've spent 20 hours a week on since 2004. However the only reason I remain here is because my friends do. I'm the only one in our guild in TOR beta. Hopefully that changes soon. Worst case scenario is I'm stuck here until November~<div><cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>As well, you - and I - have no idea how much money it costs to run this company.</blockquote>I have a pretty good idea of how much it doesn't cost. I have a lot of friends in this industry, at various companies. I talk to the people who make these games everyday and I have for the past seven years. While I'm not sure how much SOE spent on pencils, electricity and the water bill in August I somehow doubt it was over one million dollars. Especially since the majority of their dev team make terrible, terrible money.</div></div></div></blockquote>So? Lol... ok. I was hoping that your would conceded that this game does receive funding. Oh well.Also, when you throw out the material that you are, it is always a good idea to use citations. Claiming "insider friends" just doesn't "cut the mustard."Good luck to you. Perhaps it's best that you are looking for a new gaming outlet. Friends aside, why someone would stick around and be miserable is beyond me.</blockquote>I have to agree here. It's much like working at a job you hate. Quit already. You are only making your own life miserable. Being miserable is terrible for one's health and longetivity.Gaige, I don't necessarily wish you to quit. I do hope you find enjoyment in TOR. I watched the new PvP videos and it'll be interesting for a lot of the PvPers who are left here. I understand your frustration as much as I understand Kimber's frustration and all the other's frustration. None of us really agree on what caused this mess. What matters is that SOE now takes the proper steps to ensure that this doesn't happen again in November.Sadly knowing the company history... I don't know of any LU/GU where they didn't mess it up for several days.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 01:25 PM

This is what I want answered from all the pro-SC so many more profits to fund into EQ2 crowd:Exactly what positive have you noticed evident in EQ2 that you believe is due to SC?I look at the game, and I see it costing more to play, but I don't see anything that shows me that the quality of the game has went up since prior to LoN/SC.Pre and Post SC expansions are about the same, with the upcoming one the smallest one ever launched. Pre and Post GUs are basically the same difference, other than the year of the Brenlo when basically nothing was released.The ONLY thing I can look at is the hardware upgrades, but again I feel that is something SOE was forced to do rather than something we can look at as hey we're being rewarded by the additional revenue SC generates! It was more like - holy crap our game is literally not playable, we either fix this or we won't have a game left to stick SC items into.Do you see more unique appearances via in-game means as was promised? I don't.Do you see more polished content releases? I don't.Do you see content on a more frequent basis? I don't.What exactly can you reference as being a positive in EQ2 in this post heavy RMT world?All I see is SOE being sure every Tuesday includes new RMT items. That's it. Is the team noticeably bigger? No. Are the GUs noticeably better? HAHAHAHAHA no. Are the expansions noticeably better? No. Have sub costs went down? No.Nothing has changed other than this game costing more to play. The only positive thing I have to say about SC is that its giftable which means I can get cool things like the squirrel for plat. Its the saving grace of SJ's heavy-handed double dip RMT mentality. Without gifting this game would be in a seriously horrible state.OMG I KILLED THE GOD OF WAR, LOOK AT THIS AWESOME WHITE CLOAK. No worries, SJ will sell me 8 new cloaks every Tuesday for $7.Its like when Gninja said "Well, we can't postpone GU61 anymore we have to work on the expansion, we know tons of items are broken but that is what hotfixes are for." (paraphrased).When is the last time SC items were delayed? They have so many SC items made you can look them up on ZAM just sitting there waiting to be released.SC items are the main items that get attention. New art? SC first. Cool item? SC first. Items that allow you to bypass the rules of the game? SC.

deadcrickets2

08-29-2011, 01:31 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is what I want answered from all the pro-SC so many more profits to fund into EQ2 crowd:Exactly what positive have you noticed evident in EQ2 that you believe is due to SC?I look at the game, and I see it costing more to play, but I don't see anything that shows me that the quality of the game has went up since prior to LoN/SC.Pre and Post SC expansions are about the same, with the upcoming one the smallest one ever launched. Pre and Post GUs are basically the same difference, other than the year of the Brenlo when basically nothing was released.The ONLY thing I can look at is the hardware upgrades, but again I feel that is something SOE was forced to do rather than something we can look at as hey we're being rewarded by the additional revenue SC generates! It was more like - holy crap our game is literally not playable, we either fix this or we won't have a game left to stick SC items into it.Do you see more unique appearances via in-game means as was promised? I don't.Do you see more polished content releases? I don't.Do you see content on a more frequent basis? I don't.What exactly can you reference as being a positive in EQ2 in this post heavy RMT world?All I see is SOE being sure every Tuesday includes new RMT items. That's it. Is the team noticeably bigger? No. Are the GUs noticeably better? HAHAHAHAHA no. Are the expansions noticeably better? No. Have sub costs went down? No.Nothing has changed other than this game costing more to play. The only positive thing I have to say about SC is that its giftable which means I can get cool things like the squirrel for plat. Its the saving grace of SJ's heavy-handed double dip RMT mentality. Without gifting this game would be in a seriously horrible state.OMG I KILLED THE GOD OF WAR, LOOK AT THIS AWESOME WHITE CLOAK. No worries, SJ will sell me 8 new cloaks every Tuesday for $7.</blockquote>You are aware that SOE has always had problems with their LU/GU right? Every single one of them has caused problems that required hotfixing. From duplication problems to stability issues.They have been literally releasing new appearance items every week. They have been releasing content more often than they did in the past. Best yet, the content is now free. Expansions are now about the mechanics of the game.But again, going back to the early history of the game... there has never been an expansion or LU/GU that didn't cause a lot of downtime due to hotfixes. The main difference with this one is that they tried to rush in the re-itemization at the last minute instead of holding off on it.I find it interesting that you admitted there that SC saved the game.

ffd700

08-29-2011, 01:34 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote>Do you see more unique appearances via in-game means as was promised? I don't.</blockquote>This is what irks me the most about the marketplace.There is seemingly 0 effort put into item apperances unless it is sold for SC or comes in LoN loot packs now.Every piece of looted gear looks exactly the same now, dull, bland, drab.EoF was the last expansion with some of the greatest looking gear attainable in-game.Remeber the Unrest weapons? Cloak of Flames? Class armor all with unique appearances?Why can't we have that level of detail back for items we loot in game?

Gaige

08-29-2011, 01:47 PM

<cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are aware that SOE has always had problems with their LU/GU right? Every single one of them has caused problems that required hotfixing. From duplication problems to stability issues.They have been literally releasing new appearance items every week. They have been releasing content more often than they did in the past. Best yet, the content is now free. Expansions are now about the mechanics of the game.But again, going back to the early history of the game... there has never been an expansion or LU/GU that didn't cause a lot of downtime due to hotfixes. The main difference with this one is that they tried to rush in the re-itemization at the last minute instead of holding off on it.I find it interesting that you admitted there that SC saved the game.</blockquote>I wouldn't say always, but sure. They've had issues. I just assumed with all this amazing SC revenue they'd be able to resolve most of them. I guess not.New appearance items to the SC store, sure. Content more often? No. LUs were monthly and expansions used to be every six months AND they did adventure packs every few months too. Sorry, but that is false. All those T5 18 hour instances? Free update content. Spirits of the Lost? Free update content. Halls of Seeing in KoS? Free update content. Etc etc since launch.I never said SC saved the game, I fully believe even without LoN/SC they would've been forced to upgrade the hardware. They literally waited until they had no choice in the matter.<div><cite>ffd700 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why can't we have that level of detail back for items we loot in game?</blockquote>Best we can hope for is recolored SC items imo~</div>

Vortexelemental

08-29-2011, 02:05 PM

I agree with everything Gaige says.Not that I had pointed out how much SC would do nothing for the game a long time ago.../whistles non-chalantly and walks away<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Gisallo

08-29-2011, 02:06 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are aware that SOE has always had problems with their LU/GU right? Every single one of them has caused problems that required hotfixing. From duplication problems to stability issues.They have been literally releasing new appearance items every week. They have been releasing content more often than they did in the past. Best yet, the content is now free. Expansions are now about the mechanics of the game.But again, going back to the early history of the game... there has never been an expansion or LU/GU that didn't cause a lot of downtime due to hotfixes. The main difference with this one is that they tried to rush in the re-itemization at the last minute instead of holding off on it.I find it interesting that you admitted there that SC saved the game.</blockquote>I wouldn't say always, but sure. They've had issues. I just assumed with all this amazing SC revenue they'd be able to resolve most of them. I guess not.New appearance items to the SC store, sure. Content more often? No. LUs were monthly and expansions used to be every six months AND they did adventure packs every few months too. Sorry, but that is false. All those T5 18 hour instances? Free update content. Spirits of the Lost? Free update content. Halls of Seeing in KoS? Free update content. Etc etc since launch.I never said SC saved the game, I fully believe even without LoN/SC they would've been forced to upgrade the hardware. They literally waited until they had no choice in the matter.</blockquote>SC is probably generating money BUT look at the resources needed. For a cash shop to actual be self supporting you need to be CONSTANTLY designing new items. They also have to be items that are "relevant" from lvl 1 to end game. Really SOE has gotten to a point where they need to crap or get off the pot. Either just say "screw it" it's all f2p or they need to simply stop the addition of stuff to Live. This would actually show what state the game is in and in the long run would be good for the game I think because it would force the players to crap or get off the pot.If they yank SC from Live and all of the sudden players on Live suddenly said "OMG I want that new cloak I saw on extended" and copied over, then obviously SC was a brilliant idea. If though people stay and keep on plugging away with their monthly subs then again your customers have spoken.If on the other hand they go all in on f2p and all but the extended servers become ghost towns then SC was shown to be the mess it is seen as by some. SC exists on Live for 2 reasons. Those who love Norrath so much they will take whatever SOE shoves down their throat and those who like the idea of buying stuff. These companies follow the money if you don't like what a company has been doing for 2 odd years now but still keep giving them money where is their incentive to do anything different?

Andok

08-29-2011, 02:10 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote> Woo a new engine that I paid for in games I won't even play. </blockquote>You didn't pay for anything other than your subscription. I realize that many gamers are like you and insist that game companies spend their revenue in very specific ways, but that doesn't change the fact that you didn't pay for the new engine.I don't really care how SoE spends the money they collect from susbscription fees. They can spend their revenue on other games or blow it all on huge parties for employees, and I could care less as long as I continue to enjoy the game. The game keeps getting better, so they are clearly using subscription revenue to improve the game. /shrug

dawy

08-29-2011, 02:13 PM

<cite>Elomort wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>If SC is making EQ2 profitable, there's more money to pay employees. Ergo, if not for SC, there would be fewer employees working on any features. Subscription rates have not gone up in a very long time but I'm pretty sure operating costs and development costs have. If you think Sony is going to allow any division to run a game (or anything else) as an altruistic, non-profit, or profit-loss endeavor you would have to be rather naive.</blockquote>Considering EQ2 was profitable enough pre SC to PAY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ONGOING SUPPORT OF FREEREALMS I think you're wrong.SC may generate profit, but SOE isn't spending it here.</blockquote>Gaige, for once you and I are in complete agreement, and this point you raise irks the heck out of me .Well said Sir.The money that the franchise generates at this time should - no must - be plowed back into the game.SOE are not doing this and it annoys the crud out of me.</blockquote>Have to agree with both the points being made,its clear that any just isnt going into EQ2 alone,i suspect SC is treated as a seperate entity from ALL of SOE's games so any money from say free realms goes into the general SC pot,same going for EQ2 and all the other games.

SOE-MOD-02

08-29-2011, 02:14 PM

This post has moved: <a href="/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=499962&post_id=5619044" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=49996...post_id=5619044</a> Insults are not permitted.

Vortexelemental

08-29-2011, 02:14 PM

<cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote> Woo a new engine that I paid for in games I won't even play. </blockquote>You didn't pay for anything other than your subscription. I realize that many gamers are like you and insist that game companies spend their revenue in very specific ways, but that doesn't change the fact that you didn't pay for the new engine.I don't really care how SoE spends the money they collect from susbscription fees. They can spend their revenue on other games or blow it all on huge parties for employees, and I could care less as long as I continue to enjoy the game. The game keeps getting better, so they are clearly using subscription revenue to improve the game. /shrug</blockquote>o.O? You think the game is better than it was 2 years ago? The stat changes, itemization, and the AA changes make me cry almost. This game is worse than Rift is. Talk about linear.I guess if you like it this way, but I'm hoping someone decides to make a private server up to EOF or maybe ROK and leaves it there.

Andok

08-29-2011, 02:18 PM

<cite>Vortexelemental@The Bazaar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote> Woo a new engine that I paid for in games I won't even play. </blockquote>You didn't pay for anything other than your subscription. I realize that many gamers are like you and insist that game companies spend their revenue in very specific ways, but that doesn't change the fact that you didn't pay for the new engine.I don't really care how SoE spends the money they collect from susbscription fees. They can spend their revenue on other games or blow it all on huge parties for employees, and I could care less as long as I continue to enjoy the game. The game keeps getting better, so they are clearly using subscription revenue to improve the game. /shrug</blockquote>o.O? You think the game is better than it was 2 years ago? The stat changes, itemization, and the AA changes make me cry almost. This game is worse than Rift is. Talk about linear.I guess if you like it this way, but I'm hoping someone decides to make a private server up to EOF or maybe ROK and leaves it there.</blockquote>There are individual changes that I don't like, but, yes, the game is better now than it was 2 years ago.

Gisallo

08-29-2011, 02:18 PM

<cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote> Woo a new engine that I paid for in games I won't even play. </blockquote>You didn't pay for anything other than your subscription. I realize that many gamers are like you and insist that game companies spend their revenue in very specific ways, but that doesn't change the fact that you didn't pay for the new engine.I don't really care how SoE spends the money they collect from susbscription fees. They can spend their revenue on other games or blow it all on huge parties for employees, and I could care less as long as I continue to enjoy the game. The game keeps getting better, so they are clearly using subscription revenue to improve the game. /shrug</blockquote>You ignore something in the life cycles of games though. yes they are their to make companies money BUT the life cycle has another dynamic. When games start the profit the game makes is also the means to perpetuating that game. They game is the "end" (using the "means to an end" metaphor). Eventually however all games "jump the shark" so to speak. At that point what profit they make is now the means to a different end. First it was Free Realms which was going to, according to Smedly, be the beginning of a sea change in SOE game design. Then it was The Agency, then DCUO. The agency is dead and FR and DCUO aren't exactly these genre changing things now are they? Next It's EQNext. If the player base feels under served, heck even sidelined BUT SOE is still doing everything they can to milk money out of them they certainly have a right to be annoyed. If you think the game is clearly getting better though I do not know what to tell you though. That is probably the disconnect. At best most people say "well SOE has always had as few updates that we just as disastorously bugged as the last 2 years or so." This of course isn't true but it is certainly closer to reality than saying things are getting better.And before you ask, no I am not paying for it anymore. I just still have time left on a year long sub that has been canceled.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 02:20 PM

<cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>You didn't pay for anything other than your subscription.</blockquote>False. I'm not even going to argue it.<div><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>The game keeps getting better, so they are clearly using subscription revenue to improve the game.</blockquote>Specifics, or just playing the devil's advocate like always?</div>

Tygana

08-29-2011, 02:28 PM

<cite>Dark_fairy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>All you SC supporters still think its a good idea since its obvious that Dev time went into SC items instead of fixing itemization?</blockquote>Diffrent people do SC then items....</blockquote>I think smokejumper posted a while ago that there was no separate team doing SC items, at least not any more.

Andok

08-29-2011, 02:57 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>You didn't pay for anything other than your subscription.</blockquote>False. I'm not even going to argue it.</blockquote>This speaks volumes.

d1anaw

08-29-2011, 03:02 PM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>All you SC supporters still think its a good idea since its obvious that Dev time went into SC items instead of fixing itemization?</blockquote>Actually yeah, I'm ok with it. Here's the thing, it's called choice. Obviously something you don't embrace unless it's YOUR choice. If you hate it, don't use it. Problem solved. If you hate the game, don't play it. Another problem solved. There are things called options, because EQ, just like the real world does not revolve around you. I know for some that concept is rather radical, but as you spend more time in the real world, it will become more evident. You don't take choice away from some people because it doesn't suit your little world. It's a pretty simple concept really. As for fixing things, I would imagine, like most corporations, they have different people handling different things. And I seriously doubt the same people who deal with the SC items are the same people who are working with other aspects of the system.

d1anaw

08-29-2011, 03:06 PM

<cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>Claiming "insider friends" just doesn't "cut the mustard." </blockquote>Okay. Like I said, I don't really care about the opinion of others because I've been proven right so many times over in regards to things like this~<div><cite>Eisrael wrote:</cite><blockquote>Friends aside, why someone would stick around and be miserable is beyond me.</blockquote>Its like anything else. I've played this game since early 2004, I have friends on the dev team, I have lots of friends in the EQ2 community, I enjoy playing with my guild and I'm just used to playing this game. Its part of my daily routine. Its a hard habit to break.</div></blockquote>Fair enough. It just, well... stinks to see dedicated folks such as yourself seriously considering "jumping ship." The game needs peeps like you.Again, Good luck and thanks for the discourse.</blockquote>The game really doesn't need people who believe the game revolves around them and the only way to play is their way. The game needs people who actually respect the concept that not everyone plays the same way and are open to accepting that. If people are "miserable" playing any kind of video game or doing any kind of activity, there really is no point in staying. And they should leave. What is the point of sticking around spouting anger other than to try to convince themselves they have power by trying to convince others to follow their mindset?

d1anaw

08-29-2011, 03:10 PM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote> Oh and you can say I am trolling all you like. Personaly this is a very valid point as I would rather see Dev time go to fixing the game than adding fluff.</blockquote>Clearly, the lord has spoken....

Andok

08-29-2011, 03:16 PM

<cite>Galibier@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote> Woo a new engine that I paid for in games I won't even play. </blockquote>You didn't pay for anything other than your subscription. I realize that many gamers are like you and insist that game companies spend their revenue in very specific ways, but that doesn't change the fact that you didn't pay for the new engine.I don't really care how SoE spends the money they collect from susbscription fees. They can spend their revenue on other games or blow it all on huge parties for employees, and I could care less as long as I continue to enjoy the game. The game keeps getting better, so they are clearly using subscription revenue to improve the game. /shrug</blockquote>You ignore something in the life cycles of games though. yes they are their to make companies money BUT the life cycle has another dynamic. When games start the profit the game makes is also the means to perpetuating that game. They game is the "end" (using the "means to an end" metaphor). Eventually however all games "jump the shark" so to speak. At that point what profit they make is now the means to a different end. First it was Free Realms which was going to, according to Smedly, be the beginning of a sea change in SOE game design. Then it was The Agency, then DCUO. The agency is dead and FR and DCUO aren't exactly these genre changing things now are they? Next It's EQNext. If the player base feels under served, heck even sidelined BUT SOE is still doing everything they can to milk money out of them they certainly have a right to be annoyed. If you think the game is clearly getting better though I do not know what to tell you though. That is probably the disconnect. At best most people say "well SOE has always had as few updates that we just as disastorously bugged as the last 2 years or so." This of course isn't true but it is certainly closer to reality than saying things are getting better.And before you ask, no I am not paying for it anymore. I just still have time left on a year long sub that has been canceled. </blockquote>I'm not ignoring it - I'm just viewing it as a end user. It doesn't make any diffenece to me how they spend my $15 subscription fee as long as I get value from the money I spend. On the converse, SoE can spend every dime of revenue from every game on improvements to EQ2, but I'll still quit if I don't like the game. I suppose it's fun for the wanna-be devs on this forum to say that they could do better, but we all know that isn't true.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 03:18 PM

<cite>d1anaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>I seriously doubt the same people who deal with the SC items are the same people who are working with other aspects of the system.</blockquote>You'd be wrong. SJ said so himself, the artists constantly comment about it on these very forums.<div><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote> I suppose it's fun for the wanna-be devs on this forum to say that they could do better, but we all know that isn't true.</blockquote>Why anyone would want to live in San Diego making $10/hr working 60+ hour weeks is beyond me. The only wannabe devs around here are disillusioned with what being a dev really entails.</div>

JazzMaus

08-29-2011, 03:36 PM

<cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I find it interesting that you admitted there that SC saved the game.</blockquote>SC "saved" EQ2, in the sense that it applied a Band-Aid to the wound & has slowed the bleeding to a trickle. I would not go any further in praising SC than that, & I'm pretty sure that's the very farthest extent Gage intended to imply.As for whether or not this game has improved -- as Andok argued -- I strongly dispute that. I've been gone since just before SF was released, I came back 2 weeks ago, & from where I'm sitting this game has badly regressed. The sole reason I haven't cancelled my account is that my BMMOFF hasn't fully decided whether or not to jump ship for SW:TOR. When she makes that move, I'm gone; I used to think EQ2 was an awesome game & worth paying a monthly sub to play, but I no longer think it's worth the monthly sub.I may just return to the Extended server. That way, I can get my EQ2 fix, & not have to worry about paying SOE even one worthless penny. Because, as it stands, GU61 convinces me they're not worth that penny.

DxPreist1

08-29-2011, 03:57 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is what I want answered from all the pro-SC so many more profits to fund into EQ2 crowd: Exactly what positive have you noticed evident in EQ2 that you believe is due to SC? I look at the game, and I see it costing more to play, but I don't see anything that shows me that the quality of the game has went up since prior to LoN/SC.Pre and Post SC expansions are about the same, with the upcoming one the smallest one ever launched. Pre and Post GUs are basically the same difference, other than the year of the Brenlo when basically nothing was released.The ONLY thing I can look at is the hardware upgrades, but again I feel that is something SOE was forced to do rather than something we can look at as hey we're being rewarded by the additional revenue SC generates! It was more like - holy crap our game is literally not playable, we either fix this or we won't have a game left to stick SC items into.Do you see more unique appearances via in-game means as was promised? I don't.Do you see more polished content releases? I don't.Do you see content on a more frequent basis? I don't.What exactly can you reference as being a positive in EQ2 in this post heavy RMT world?All I see is SOE being sure every Tuesday includes new RMT items. That's it. Is the team noticeably bigger? No. Are the GUs noticeably better? HAHAHAHAHA no. Are the expansions noticeably better? No. Have sub costs went down? No.Nothing has changed other than this game costing more to play. The only positive thing I have to say about SC is that its giftable which means I can get cool things like the squirrel for plat. Its the saving grace of SJ's heavy-handed double dip RMT mentality. Without gifting this game would be in a seriously horrible state.OMG I KILLED THE GOD OF WAR, LOOK AT THIS AWESOME WHITE CLOAK. No worries, SJ will sell me 8 new cloaks every Tuesday for $7.Its like when Gninja said "Well, we can't postpone GU61 anymore we have to work on the expansion, we know tons of items are broken but that is what hotfixes are for." (paraphrased).When is the last time SC items were delayed? They have so many SC items made you can look them up on ZAM just sitting there waiting to be released.SC items are the main items that get attention. New art? SC first. Cool item? SC first. Items that allow you to bypass the rules of the game? SC.</blockquote>Greater diversity of appearance, aesthetic difference, more customizable, and interesting than ever before.It costs more than ever before? Really? My Sub cost went DOWN, and I only buy stuff if I feel like it, you dont have to, even outide of marketplace there are far more appearance only items going in than there ever have been, SoL, SC marketplace, DOV questlines, Mob Drops, easy to get low use quest sets (Othmir, Thyrr'Gor, etc).. think hard, How often did you USED to see app only, or even full and complete matching sets??How long did many of us not even have Appearance slots?The Old GU's almost never added new content.... ever, it was always mechanics changes only, they would add a new SIG quest once in a blue moon back in the day, and NEVER new zones, that was expansion only stuff back then.Un-Playable? I sure as heck saw you talking about playing it alot in that time frame, and yes we did get HW upgrades despite still being able to log on and play, the only area where it was getting CLOSE to unbearable was in Great Divide during and near PQ events.More polished Content, not mechanics wise, but do you see more mechanics options on Marketplace? No. However, the last 3 years have been some of the best the Art and Animation departments have released since the game launched, and since they are the ones reponsible for new armor skins, and models, house items, and weapons, mount skinning... which is almost everything sold for SC, I say if they can use the income from it to keep and expand these departments that are doing such fantastic work, then GOOD!Have the sub costs went down?..... NO??? Mine did, what game are you playing?OMG! Not a sellable item that is ready but NOT ON SALE!?!? Really dude? If you knew the amout of companies that CAN sell something right now and Don't... you would probably have a heart attack right now, because it really is most of them. They time things to maximize public interest, profitability, and to reduce the amount sales of said items will eat into potential sales of their own competeing products (or appearance items in this case). Dou you really believe that Intel, AMD, or Nvidia actually release the best chips and sets they can possibly produce as soon as they can? No, no they do not. It is called product release management, every company not run by morons does this. Why? Profit. Guess what they also do.... subsidize other departments and products with profits from other ventures. Will you change that? Nope, sorry, you never will.Bypass the rules of the game? SC only huh? Call of the hero consumeables? In game before marketplace, XP potions, in game before marketplace, and FREE even, no profit to SOE... having skills without the class, In the racial revamp... before marketplace, and permanent even, not consumable or profitable to SOE, Vit refills, FREE, unlimited charges, 0 SOE profit.What have you HAD to pay to unlock? Nothing... closest it comes is the Vamp race, and those playing and enjoying the game already.... got it..... Again need i point out, for free, no profit, nada.ANd if you did not want it, LOOK! no cost at all!But where were all these complaints for LoN loot cards? Almost non-existant. All the same types of stuff you can buy for SC... mounts, House items, illusions, potions, appearance gear, special abilities, etc.... You realize that the Marketplace is no different, you pay more for the item than a booster quite often, but forgo the random chance that before would have faced, and if purchasing would have had to spend alot more to actually get most of the time. In return you simply recieve no other goodies, (i.e. cards for the mini-game). a fairly equitable exchange, I think. But was every one all "BLARGH! LoN is ruining teh gamez!! ZOMG!" ...... Nope. Not once really.Does the game have issues? Yep. Has it always had issues? Yep. Does fixing one issue often open a new issue? Yep. Is the only reason all the issues exist SC? LOL, not even close. How about any given issue, any one issue at all directly caused by SC? Nope, Platfarming, platflation, spam, Game bugs, PL'd toons, etc.... all there LONG before Marketplace.The only problem that opening marketplace caused, was a swarm of irrational, "OMG teh end of teh worlds!" posts on the forums.EDIT: -- TL;DR version - Been here before Marketplace, was in LoN and cricket chirps, thats how businesses roll, deal and stop exagerating and misrepresenting facts.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 04:18 PM

<cite>DxPreist1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Greater diversity of appearance, aesthetic difference, more customizable, and interesting than ever before.How often did you USED to see app only, or even full and complete matching sets??How long did many of us not even have Appearance slots?The Old GU's almost never added new content.... ever, it was always mechanics changes only, they would add a new SIG quest once in a blue moon back in the day, and NEVER new zones, that was expansion only stuff back then.Un-Playable? I sure as heck saw you talking about playing it alot in that time frameMore polished Content, not mechanics wiseHave the sub costs went down?..... NO??? Mine did, what game are you playing?Bypass the rules of the game? SC only huh?</blockquote>Sure, greater diversity of appearance OF SC ITEMS. Items they charge you for are unique, granted. Items in game? Colored reskins of old SC items (at best), reskins of launch art at worst (EXTREMELY EVIDENT IN SF.)Funny that the game didn't have a lot of appearance gear prior to appearance slots? Well no duh, there was no where to put them. Full and complete matching sets have existed in every tier since launch. I still have pictures of my monk in matching level 40 leather gear. Remember all the shiny T5 plate armor suits? Mastercrafted has always been implemented via matching sets.The old GUs certainly did add content, as I stated. The 18 hour T5 instances? Free content via update. Spirits of the Lost raid? Free content via update. Multiple zones in every tier have went live as part of GUs for free. Both heroic and raid. This has always, always, always been the case. People just seem to forget it now.I suffered through 3 second CA lag so bad it made raids unplayable if you call that "playing". We called raids early so often prior to hardware upgrades that we moved our entire guild to AB during free transfers forgoing our guild hall and our guild amneties just to escape the unplayable lag that plagued Unrest.Polished non-mechanics content? That is something to be proud of. Oh wait, no it isn't. You know why? GU61 is why. Content still goes live broken, rushed, unpolished and game breaking despite the profit windfall SC is supposedly ushering back into our game. Can't log into your toons for an entire weekend because GHs are broken? Gear you used to use isn't even useable by your class next time you log in? Have to suffer through multiple unattune/AA respecs because they can't implement the tool correctly? DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT THEY'RE GIVING YOU THE COURTESY OF PAYING THEM $19.50 FOR A FLYING SQUIRREL.If your sub price went down it was due to the restructing of station access because they were charging more than it was worth. Oh wait, nevermind, they just lowered it to the price it used to be when it was first launched. Go figure.Yes, the introduction of flying mounts BYPASSED THE RULES OF THE GAME COMPLETELY. Prior to SOE deciding to rake in money hand over fist they REQUIRED every player who wanted to fly complete a completely arbitrary REAL TIME LOCKED quest to get the privilege. It was so important to them that they suspended me and others 5 days for doing their broken, unpolished and buggy content "faster than intended".Now? Now you can fly on your PL'd alt the second you ding the appropriate level if you give SOE your VISA number. That is called bypassing the rules of the game that they implemented. I'll never forget SJ's snide commentary regarding the lore behind the pegasuses. Its just one of the many things he has said that I bet he wishes he would've thought about 30 seconds more before pressing enter.

JazzMaus

08-29-2011, 04:19 PM

<cite>DxPreist1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Greater diversity of appearance, aesthetic difference, more customizable, and interesting than ever before..</blockquote>All of which could, & should, have been made available through items gained entirely through game play.

DxPreist1

08-29-2011, 04:26 PM

<cite>JazzMaus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>DxPreist1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Greater diversity of appearance, aesthetic difference, more customizable, and interesting than ever before..</blockquote>All of which could, & should, have been made available through items gained entirely through game play.</blockquote>Why, have you seen less in game as of late? Did they not do this with LoN long before marketplace?Don't get me wrong, I want more in game available App stuff also, and they have delivered some for sure. The Overland quests in DOV, gear drops in Tower, etc... But to really think that SC is the only reason you don't see more of them, you would have to be kidding yourself. If they added this much App stuff to game all these forum posts would be about "WHY IS THIS NOT STAT GEAR!, Argh, what a waste!, How about some stuff we can USE!," and on and on.

JazzMaus

08-29-2011, 04:31 PM

<cite>DxPreist1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why, have you seen less in game as of late?</blockquote>Whether I have or not is irrelevant to my point, which is that we do not, did not, & never will "need" Station Cash to provide those things you cited.FWIW, I'm not saying that Station Cash is the sole be-all/end-all reason for anything being "wrong" with EQ2. OTOH, I also do not buy the idea that there's nothing "wrong" with Station Cash, & I firmly believe that EQ2 would have been better off, all along, if no such thing as Station Cash had ever existed.

ffd700

08-29-2011, 04:34 PM

<cite>DxPreist1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>JazzMaus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>DxPreist1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Greater diversity of appearance, aesthetic difference, more customizable, and interesting than ever before..</blockquote>All of which could, & should, have been made available through items gained entirely through game play.</blockquote>Why, have you seen less in game as of late? Did they not do this with LoN long before marketplace?Don't get me wrong, I want more in game available App stuff also, and they have delivered some for sure. The Overland quests in DOV, gear drops in Tower, etc... But to really think that SC is the only reason you don't see more of them, you would have to be kidding yourself. If they added this much App stuff to game all these forum posts would be about "WHY IS THIS NOT STAT GEAR!, Argh, what a waste!, How about some stuff we can USE!," and on and on.</blockquote>Or, they could put the unique appearances on gear with stats? Like they did in every expansion up until they introduced the marketplace.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 04:35 PM

<cite>DxPreist1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why, have you seen less in game as of late?</blockquote>I can play this game: How many DoV mounts have you seen? Of all types? Okay, how many mounts have they put on SC since DoV launched. Exactly. How many unique flying mounts are attainable in game? Oh, what's that you say, the only flying mounts attainable in game are recolored gryphons? Nothing unique like a pegasus or a flying squirrel? Is that so. I see.

Darkeendragon

08-29-2011, 04:53 PM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hey just asking a question is all and glad to see that people are still nieve enough to believe that the people working on SC items are differant than those working on the rest of the game <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" />But hey I guess its ok for some to ask questions but not others. I just find it funny as all get out that1) Quite a few new items on SC market place that are pretty good also2) Itemization that was hosed before is even worse now because we used a script to do it so we could work on other things at same time ( hmm wonder what that was )I guess the 40+ pages about the last GU and how things are messed up means nothing at all so long as SC items are gtg for some.Oh and you can say I am trolling all you like. Personaly this is a very valid point as I would rather see Dev time go to fixing the game than adding fluff.</blockquote>If the reitemization was done by hand (item by item) even with a large team it would take a few years. A script it more effiecent workload wise then go back and fix the small problems, which is what they are doing. SC has nothing to do with the itemization. SC items are appearance based. That means modellers are doing SC items. The main scripting and database are done by programmers. Not the same people.

Andok

08-29-2011, 05:07 PM

<cite>JazzMaus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>I suppose it's fun for the wanna-be devs on this forum to say that they could do better, but we all know that isn't true.</blockquote>SOE's problem is not development, so it's pointless to hack on "wanna-be devs."</blockquote>Ok then - wanna-be managers.Still, I don't care about SoE management as long as they produce a product I like. As far as I know, SoE makes decisions by throwing darts at the decision dart board, but so far those darts have produced a product worth my $15 per month.Almost everyone I have seen here complaining about devs or management is really just complaining that they didn't get their way with some game change.<div><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote>Andok wrote:<div><blockquote> I suppose it's fun for the wanna-be devs on this forum to say that they could do better, but we all know that isn't true.</blockquote>Why anyone would want to live in San Diego making $10/hr working 60+ hour weeks is beyond me. The only wannabe devs around here are disillusioned with what being a dev really entails.</div></blockquote></div>The "why" is easy - San Diego is awesome! The real question, if your wage is accurate, is "how". The cost of living here is crazy.

DxPreist1

08-29-2011, 05:09 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>DxPreist1 wrote:</cite><blockquote></blockquote>Sure, greater diversity of appearance OF SC ITEMS. Items they charge you for are unique, granted. Items in game? Colored reskins of old SC items (at best), reskins of launch art at worst (EXTREMELY EVIDENT IN SF.)Funny that the game didn't have a lot of appearance gear prior to appearance slots? Well no duh, there was no where to put them. Full and complete matching sets have existed in every tier since launch. I still have pictures of my monk in matching level 40 leather gear. Remember all the shiny T5 plate armor suits? Mastercrafted has always been implemented via matching sets.The old GUs certainly did add content, as I stated. The 18 hour T5 instances? Free content via update. Spirits of the Lost raid? Free content via update. Multiple zones in every tier have went live as part of GUs for free. Both heroic and raid. This has always, always, always been the case. People just seem to forget it now.I suffered through 3 second CA lag so bad it made raids unplayable if you call that "playing". We called raids early so often prior to hardware upgrades that we moved our entire guild to AB during free transfers forgoing our guild hall and our guild amneties just to escape the unplayable lag that plagued Unrest.Polished non-mechanics content? That is something to be proud of. Oh wait, no it isn't. You know why? GU61 is why. Content still goes live broken, rushed, unpolished and game breaking despite the profit windfall SC is supposedly ushering back into our game. Can't log into your toons for an entire weekend because GHs are broken? Gear you used to use isn't even useable by your class next time you log in? Have to suffer through multiple unattune/AA respecs because they can't implement the tool correctly? DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT THEY'RE GIVING YOU THE COURTESY OF PAYING THEM $19.50 FOR A FLYING SQUIRREL.If your sub price went down it was due to the restructing of station access because they were charging more than it was worth. Oh wait, nevermind, they just lowered it to the price it used to be when it was first launched. Go figure.Yes, the introduction of flying mounts BYPASSED THE RULES OF THE GAME COMPLETELY. Prior to SOE deciding to rake in money hand over fist they REQUIRED every player who wanted to fly complete a completely arbitrary REAL TIME LOCKED quest to get the privilege. It was so important to them that they suspended me and others 5 days for doing their broken, unpolished and buggy content "faster than intended".Now? Now you can fly on your PL'd alt the second you ding the appropriate level if you give SOE your VISA number. That is called bypassing the rules of the game that they implemented. I'll never forget SJ's snide commentary regarding the lore behind the pegasuses. Its just one of the many things he has said that I bet he wishes he would've thought about 30 seconds more before pressing enter.</blockquote>Yes polished non-mechanic content is a good thing, and no, I make NO excuses for the problems that do happen, I simply recognize that WHERE you are placing the blame is incorrect and unwarented. How does the art department have bearing on the mechanical side though? Are you actually suggesting that they should have pulled the art department in to fix the script for itemization changes? What do you want em to do, add prettier icons to the gear description? Make the gear descriptions more verbose and poetic?Cost.... I am not on a Station account, my sub went down, feel free to look it up. They even sent me email, and I can confirm it on my bank statement as well. EQ2-Only game passes for 3, 6 and 12 months subs were equivalent 13.99/mo, 12.99/mo, and 11.99/mo respectively in 2010 (you can verify on TenTonHammer <a href="http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/89158" target="_blank">here</a> ), and are now the equiv. of 12.99/mo, 11.99/mo, and 9.99/mo (verifiable <a href="http://www.soe.com/gamepass/" target="_blank">here</a> ). Email was sent on Tue, Jun 28, 2011 detailing the change and crediting accounts with extra time who were still in mid-subscription. So yep, price declines there, as for The All-Access thingy, I agree it was funny they raised it 4 times only to drop it, but pricing changes have helped stave off losses in a number of markets in the last few years not just MMO's, lets be realistic after all. The flying mount does not bypass the rules of the game, it bypasses the rules of a quest line, and if the impatient are penalized with nearly 20 bucks, simply for being impatient, then I say lol, good... if they simply LOVED the appearance of the mount and spent it, then for them it is money well spent. I feel ABSOLUTELY no anger over people buying a mount for 20 bucks that I can get for free by doing a very easy quest line, none. They get nothing more from it, and to be honest, I like the leapers more, which I can do In literally less than an hour, and get a free mount anyway. Yay free options for every ability you can get from SC. As for you being suspended, I thought it was funny and tragic, I think it was harsh when they should have simply waged a finger and been like "You Guys!" and fixed it. But even still, so what, your mount was free.As for the content updates, remember the ones they used to make you pay for? Seriously, I'm just glad they moved away from THAT (Splitpaw, Bloodlines) and found another way to subsidize new stuff. A way in which I don't HAVE to spend a dime to get it if I don't want to. And if I do I get something better than simple access to something I should have had access to anyway... I get what I wanted.I don't even get much off of Marketplace, and most of what I did I got with free SC, but it does not bother me at all that people buy fluff stuff. Good for them getting what they want and me a better game (at least artwise) for it. If you want to be angry, I can understand to some extent, but be angry that they almost NEVER alot enough time to do it right, not at marketplace.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 05:26 PM

<cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>The "why" is easy - San Diego is awesome! The real question, if your wage is accurate, is "how". The cost of living here is crazy.</blockquote>Nothing about SoCal is awesome, in fact it gets worse every year. As for "how" - they live together. Sometimes 3 and 4 devs at a time to split rent.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 05:31 PM

<cite>DxPreist1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>How does the art department have bearing on the mechanical side though? What do you want em to do?Cost.... I am not on a Station account, my sub went down, feel free to look it up.The flying mount does not bypass the rules of the game, it bypasses the rules of a quest line, and if the impatient are penalized with nearly 20 bucks, simply for being impatient, then I say lol, good...As for the content updates, remember the ones they used to make you pay for? Seriously, I'm just glad they moved away from THAT.</blockquote>I would prefer they work on content I can access via my subscription fee. Spend all that time on awesome stuff like the squirrel mount and then make it attainable in game. That is why I would want them to do. Instead of having EVERY SINGLE WORTHWHILE APPEARANCE added to SC first.Woo, the discount you receive for subscribing for multiple months at a time went down, not the subscription itself. Who cares, yet another red herring from you.It bypasses the rules of the game because all in-game mounts require you quest to unlock the ability to fly except for SC flying mounts.I loved adventure packs, the Mara adventure packs was about 2 current GUs worth of content for $7. I'd pay that every 3 months if the GUs were as well done as Mara was.

Andok

08-29-2011, 05:48 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>The "why" is easy - San Diego is awesome! The real question, if your wage is accurate, is "how". The cost of living here is crazy.</blockquote>Nothing about SoCal is awesome, in fact it gets worse every year. As for "how" - they live together. Sometimes 3 and 4 devs at a time to split rent.</blockquote>The only things that gets worse here are government related. The city, the people, the weather, the things to do, the weather... awesome.I don't know... $10 sounds like a BS number. I find it very hard to believe that they are paying their game designers, programmers, artists, or whatever $2 more than minimum wage. Maybe your friends are entry level or non-skilled. Still, game designing is a labor of love, so I wouldn't doubt that SoE could attract employees even if they paid below average salaries.Anyway, that's way off topic.Yes, SC is still a good idea.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 05:56 PM

<cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't know... $10 sounds like a BS number. I find it very hard to believe that they are paying their game designers, programmers, artists, or whatever $2 more than minimum wage. Maybe your friends are entry level or non-skilled.</blockquote>Sure, BS, I just randomly make up stuff:Originall posted by Locke, on the "other" forums:I had to wait for a year after submitting my resume after college before a QA spot opened. Two bachelor degrees with programming experience in C, I made $10 an hour (My college buddies working for Nokia, Microsoft, or Lockheed-Martin in Usability engineering or programming were making $60-80k at this point), no benefits, and mandatory 6 month contract with stiff penalties for leaving, and locked me from moving into any other position within SOE or being hired directly by them. Meanwhile, I was still doing volunteer work as a class team lead for Dark Ages of Camelot (Mythic) on their internal message boards (Thanks Sanya/Tweety!)As a tester, I found the most bugs on the game, and made suggestions directly to the development team for EQOA (which the team had great communication with its testers relative to other games). I ended up working on UI shortcuts at the dev studio as overtime pay toward the end. At the end of 6 months, I told the QA manager that this job was BS for my qualifications, so a month later when a position opened, I was made a QA lead, and a full time employee with benefits starting at $15/hour.Finally, I was hired as an associate designer, with no increase in pay (note: this was pre-Gallenite leading). In fact, I made less because as a QA lead/assistant designer, I made overtime pay, but I was salary once hired as a full-time dev. I had various other assignments and tools I've made between the time I finally landed myself as spells/combat mechanics dev a full 2.5 years after I was first hired into QA. The first 4 years were ridiculous amounts of overtime, and a good amount of it self-induced to improve/fix things because I was passionate about doing the right thing overall. I thank Gallenite's ability to prove that quick development cycles = slower increase in subs and my last year was not riddled with OT like the ones previous.Once you're in, you're in. I've turned down mechanics offers from various up-and-coming MMORPGs at the time. I interviewed for the mechanics dev for WoW (the OG left post-launch), but I just wanted to see the offer since I already knew I was applying to graduate school. In the overall scheme of the video game industry, it's still new, and it's tough to get past anyone responsible for hiring that hires among friends first, then within company to land a spot for a design position, regardless of qualifications/degrees outside of the game industry.EDIT: Office savoir-faire (street smarts) go a long way. Fresh out of college, I believed naively that one's skill in a field determines there success. In hindsight, had I been more relaxed, focused on making friends with the right people, I might had advanced faster through less working and with more pay as I saw a few others do around me.

Andok

08-29-2011, 06:09 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe your friends are entry level </blockquote>I had to wait for a year after submitting my resume after college before a QA spot opened. </blockquote>That sounds entry level to me.

Ealthina

08-29-2011, 06:24 PM

<cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe your friends are entry level </blockquote>I had to wait for a year after submitting my resume after college before a QA spot opened. </blockquote>That sounds entry level to me.</blockquote>You are arguing just to argue now. Your points have been systematically broken down for you, yet you still argu. Gaige is 100% totally right.

Gisallo

08-29-2011, 06:25 PM

<cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe your friends are entry level </blockquote>I had to wait for a year after submitting my resume after college before a QA spot opened. </blockquote>That sounds entry level to me.</blockquote>Did you read the entire thing or just stop there because you were afraid that the words of an actual employee would burst your bubble?

Andok

08-29-2011, 06:49 PM

<cite>Galibier@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe your friends are entry level </blockquote>I had to wait for a year after submitting my resume after college before a QA spot opened. </blockquote>That sounds entry level to me.</blockquote>Did you read the entire thing or just stop there because you were afraid that the words of an actual employee would burst your bubble?</blockquote>Yes, I read it. His starting pay as a tester was $10 an hour, and 7 months later he was promoted to lead and got a raise to $15 an hour. What's supposed to burst my bubble? It looks like he just starting working his way into the industry by doing testing. I am sure testers make a lot less than game designers and programmers.

Filly67

08-29-2011, 06:58 PM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hey just asking a question is all and glad to see that people are still nieve enough to believe that the people working on SC items are differant than those working on the rest of the game <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Of course you are entitled to your opinion but you clearly come across as trolling when you start your sentence with a just asking a question remark and then turn snarky.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 07:02 PM

<cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>It looks like he just starting working his way into the industry by doing testing. I am sure testers make a lot less than game designers and programmers. </blockquote>Are you dense? QA is how you get into SOE. The dude had two bachelors and programming experience and he had to go through a temp agency to make it into QA.EVERYONE gets into SOE this way, unless they get hired from the community - but go figure they aren't paying those devs a lot that is why SOE likes hiring unexperienced, unqualified players.

Vortexelemental

08-29-2011, 07:09 PM

<cite>DxPreist1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Cost.... I am not on a Station account, my sub went down, feel free to look it up. They even sent me email, and I can confirm it on my bank statement as well. EQ2-Only game passes for 3, 6 and 12 months subs were equivalent 13.99/mo, 12.99/mo, and 11.99/mo respectively in 2010 (you can verify on TenTonHammer <a href="http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/89158" target="_blank">here</a> ), and are now the equiv. of 12.99/mo, 11.99/mo, and 9.99/mo (verifiable <a href="http://www.soe.com/gamepass/" target="_blank">here</a> ). Email was sent on Tue, Jun 28, 2011 detailing the change and crediting accounts with extra time who were still in mid-subscription. So yep, price declines there, as for The All-Access thingy, I agree it was funny they raised it 4 times only to drop it, but pricing changes have helped stave off losses in a number of markets in the last few years not just MMO's, lets be realistic after all. =</blockquote>This is because of Rift. The only reason. Rift launched with the veteran subscriptions, and has even lowered them more, to that same 9.99, when it was 10.99, before EQ did.

Andok

08-29-2011, 07:22 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>It looks like he just starting working his way into the industry by doing testing. I am sure testers make a lot less than game designers and programmers. </blockquote>Are you dense? QA is how you get into SOE. The dude had two bachelors and programming experience and he had to go through a temp agency to make it into QA.EVERYONE gets into SOE this way, unless they get hired from the community - but go figure they aren't paying those devs a lot that is why SOE likes hiring unexperienced, unqualified players.</blockquote>And yet he took the position. He even suggested his experience was typical of the industry. If they want to raise our subscription fee to pay their employees more, I won't mind. I'm sorry that I don't see this through your everything-SoE-does-is-stupid religion perspective.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 07:30 PM

<cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>And yet he took the position.</blockquote>So? How does that prove my statement wrong. It doesn't. I made a statement, you called it BS, I backed it up with facts and now you're disregarding the statement entirely.You are simply a devil's advocate troll on these forums and you always have been.

Andok

08-29-2011, 07:44 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>And yet he took the position.</blockquote>So? How does that prove my statement wrong. It doesn't. I made a statement, you called it BS, I backed it up with facts and now you're disregarding the statement entirely.</blockquote>I said, "I don't know... $10 sounds like a BS number. I find it very hard to believe that they are paying their game designers, programmers, artists, or whatever $2 more than minimum wage. Maybe your friends are entry level or non-skilled."...and then you posted the experience of an entry-level tester.<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" />

DxPreist1

08-29-2011, 07:45 PM

<cite>Vortexelemental@The Bazaar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>DxPreist1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Cost.... I am not on a Station account, my sub went down, feel free to look it up. They even sent me email, and I can confirm it on my bank statement as well. EQ2-Only game passes for 3, 6 and 12 months subs were equivalent 13.99/mo, 12.99/mo, and 11.99/mo respectively in 2010 (you can verify on TenTonHammer <a href="http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/89158" target="_blank">here</a> ), and are now the equiv. of 12.99/mo, 11.99/mo, and 9.99/mo (verifiable <a href="http://www.soe.com/gamepass/" target="_blank">here</a> ). Email was sent on Tue, Jun 28, 2011 detailing the change and crediting accounts with extra time who were still in mid-subscription. So yep, price declines there, as for The All-Access thingy, I agree it was funny they raised it 4 times only to drop it, but pricing changes have helped stave off losses in a number of markets in the last few years not just MMO's, lets be realistic after all. =</blockquote>This is because of Rift. The only reason. Rift launched with the veteran subscriptions, and has even lowered them more, to that same 9.99, when it was 10.99, before EQ did.</blockquote>And? Is it not in fact lower? The assertion was that it was the same, while it is clearly not. Do you have any proof of it being directly attributeable to Rift, or evidence it is not in any way attributable to SC? No. But it is a fact it is lower.

Rijacki

08-29-2011, 07:48 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>It looks like he just starting working his way into the industry by doing testing. I am sure testers make a lot less than game designers and programmers. </blockquote>Are you dense? QA is how you get into SOE. The dude had two bachelors and programming experience and he had to go through a temp agency to make it into QA.EVERYONE gets into SOE this way, unless they get hired from the community - but go figure they aren't paying those devs a lot that is why SOE likes hiring unexperienced, unqualified players.</blockquote>And, it might be interesting to note that Rift, like many others won't even look at your resume unless you have been designing/developing on a shipped product (preferably more than one).Doing QA testing is ONE way to break into the gaming business and, for many, the most common. Industry wide, ALL computer game development houses pay QA testers absolute peanuts. Minimum wage and unpaid hours in addition to those on the clock + temporary employee benefits (i.e. none) + temporary employee 'contracts' (less than 12 months employed, more than that unemployed to be reemployed later on the same temp basis), etc. I have had several friends working for EA and that was their standard. I also looked into QA testing for Trion and it was also that, too. SOE is NOT anything different in this respect.QA testing IS considered a -very- entry level position with CS being about the same. GMing is just a nudge above that in pay and there are developers and other SOE employees who have come out of those ranks, too. Community reps are probably about the same level of pay as GMs. There have been Community folk who were first GMs or CS or testers. There are developers who were formerly Community folk and even some who were Tester/CS then GM then Community then development. There are FEW in SOE or any other gaming house who were direct hires no matter what college or how many degrees.Starting at $10 does not mean he was being paid $10 as a developer. Heck, even he says he had a pay increase before that but then doesn't say anything about being paid more or less when he moved into development. Read your own quote before you start to use it to make any claims. Locke started as a TESTER at $10. Sure, that's common and that's not an unusual pay amount for the industry.However, it is true that game developers, pretty much industry wide, get paid a lot less than developers for any other software company, but I am 100% positive it's more than $10/hr. And, since I know a few of the devs myself, I'm pretty sure there aren't many of them rooming together unless they're romantically involved. Testers and CS rooming together, yes, but testers aren't developers.

Gaige

08-29-2011, 08:02 PM

<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>Starting at $10 does not mean he was being paid $10 as a developer. Heck, even he says he had a pay increase before that but then doesn't say anything about being paid more or less when he moved into development. Read your own quote before you start to use it to make any claims.</blockquote>You're right, he was paid $15 as a developer. So much better, right? I mean $15 in San Diego lets you live like a... complete pauper.<div><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>And, since I know a few of the devs myself, I'm pretty sure there aren't many of them rooming together unless they're romantically involved. Testers and CS rooming together, yes, but testers aren't developers.</blockquote>They must've just lied to me then.</div>

Vortexelemental

08-29-2011, 08:07 PM

<cite>DxPreist1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vortexelemental@The Bazaar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>DxPreist1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Cost.... I am not on a Station account, my sub went down, feel free to look it up. They even sent me email, and I can confirm it on my bank statement as well. EQ2-Only game passes for 3, 6 and 12 months subs were equivalent 13.99/mo, 12.99/mo, and 11.99/mo respectively in 2010 (you can verify on TenTonHammer <a href="http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/89158" target="_blank">here</a> ), and are now the equiv. of 12.99/mo, 11.99/mo, and 9.99/mo (verifiable <a href="http://www.soe.com/gamepass/" target="_blank">here</a> ). Email was sent on Tue, Jun 28, 2011 detailing the change and crediting accounts with extra time who were still in mid-subscription. So yep, price declines there, as for The All-Access thingy, I agree it was funny they raised it 4 times only to drop it, but pricing changes have helped stave off losses in a number of markets in the last few years not just MMO's, lets be realistic after all. =</blockquote>This is because of Rift. The only reason. Rift launched with the veteran subscriptions, and has even lowered them more, to that same 9.99, when it was 10.99, before EQ did.</blockquote>And? Is it not in fact lower? The assertion was that it was the same, while it is clearly not. Do you have any proof of it being directly attributeable to Rift, or evidence it is not in any way attributable to SC? No. But it is a fact it is lower.</blockquote>What does it matter to me? I don't even play EQ2 anymore. There is no way to directly correlate it without someone from SoE telling us, but experience tells me it wouldn't have dropped in price if they didn't have competition offering competitive pricing.

JazzMaus

08-29-2011, 10:24 PM

<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>And, it might be interesting to note that Rift, like many others won't even look at your resume unless you have been designing/developing on a shipped product (preferably more than one)..</blockquote>Which makes Trion's failure all the more inexplicable.

Rijacki

08-29-2011, 11:15 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>Starting at $10 does not mean he was being paid $10 as a developer. Heck, even he says he had a pay increase before that but then doesn't say anything about being paid more or less when he moved into development. Read your own quote before you start to use it to make any claims.</blockquote>You're right, he was paid $15 as a developer. So much better, right? I mean $15 in San Diego lets you live like a... complete pauper.</blockquote>Read your own quote. he got the raise to $15 for a different job -before- he got the development one. Since he specifically said he didn't get a pay raise when moving from one job to another (not when he moved to developer, before that) but didn't say anything about the move to developer, you can't say with 100% certainty that he didn't get paid more as a developer. Besides, that was in what year? I think I remember him being a developer during DoF and KoS, I forget if he left before or after EoF, though. But that was still umm.. more than 3 years ago and under a completely different producer.Your claims of devs being paid $10/hr -today- is completely and utterly spurious (especially when the quote itself would indicate it was $15 or more likely more). Your claims that Locke's post a few years back (made not long after he quit when he was still angry at SOE for whatever) prove anything today are rather naive.

gourdon

08-29-2011, 11:23 PM

<cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>And yet he took the position.</blockquote>So? How does that prove my statement wrong. It doesn't. I made a statement, you called it BS, I backed it up with facts and now you're disregarding the statement entirely.</blockquote>I said, "I don't know... $10 sounds like a BS number. I find it very hard to believe that they are paying their game designers, programmers, artists, or whatever $2 more than minimum wage. Maybe your friends are entry level or non-skilled."...and then you posted the experience of an entry-level tester.<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Entry level in computer science is about $60-70k a year. To make 60k a year at $10/hr, it takes 2000 hours of regular pay and 2666 hours of (time and a half) overtime. That equates to over 90 hours a week. At $15/hr it takes only 1333 hours of overtime, equating to 66+ hour weeks. Neither of these are commensurate with work conditions elsewhere and I haven't accounted for how ridiculous this pay is for San Diego. However, there is a lot of demand to be a game designer, so people get paid poorly.Having a degree in computer science doesn't lead to an "entry level" job. Being a technician with little education leads to an entry level job. They will be doing stuff far better than the "entry level" guy by week 2 unless it is a very talented technician.

Gaige

08-30-2011, 12:18 AM

<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>Read your own quote. he got the raise to $15 for a different job -before- he got the development one. </blockquote>Come on Rijacki, read my post. He got moved to associate dev without a pay raise, he says it plain as day.As for how long ago that was, who cares. Its still relevant. It isn't as if SOE has started paying their team better. I talk to them at Fan Faire and you do too~

Andok

08-30-2011, 01:57 AM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>Read your own quote. he got the raise to $15 for a different job -before- he got the development one. </blockquote>Come on Rijacki, read my post. He got moved to associate dev without a pay raise, he says it plain as day.</blockquote>Either way, it still proves that your original claim was BS just as I suspected.By the way, it is not uncommon for people to be promoted to a position and not immediatly receive the pay for that position. Sometimes management wants to see how well someone does in a position before they raise that persons salary.<cite>gourdon wrote:</cite><blockquote>Having a degree in computer science doesn't lead to an "entry level" job. Being a technician with little education leads to an entry level job. They will be doing stuff far better than the "entry level" guy by week 2 unless it is a very talented technician.</blockquote>A BS in computer science with no experience certainly *does* land you an entry level job. At least that's the case with everywhere I have ever worked, and I think it's safe to assume that the gaming industry is no different.

Vortexelemental

08-30-2011, 02:16 AM

<cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>Read your own quote. he got the raise to $15 for a different job -before- he got the development one. </blockquote>Come on Rijacki, read my post. He got moved to associate dev without a pay raise, he says it plain as day.</blockquote>Either way, it still proves that your original claim was BS just as I suspected.By the way, it is not uncommon for people to be promoted to a position and not immediatly receive the pay for that position. Sometimes management wants to see how well someone does in a position before they raise that persons salary.</blockquote>I'd trust Gaige over you anyday. As much as we are playing the "He said, she said" game, I knew someone who was fairly in with the devs as well, and to be honest, Gaige has always been spot on.

Gaige

08-30-2011, 02:23 AM

<cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>Either way, it still proves that your original claim was BS just as I suspected.</blockquote>Sure, quotes from a guy who worked at SOE for years is complete BS!

Kimber

08-30-2011, 02:48 AM

Hmm this got way off track.Anyway I sent the following in a PM a few days ago. I said at the top that I would not put it in the thread but I have changed my mind about that. I also got no response to the PM which is why I have changed my mind.SoE said that the PvP dev would only work on PvP items and realated issuesHe has been working on other things Micro transactions will never be a part of EQ2Smed "EQ2 is not a "free to play" game, so microtransactions are unlikely to ever have the "front seat" role that they have in F2P games" - SmokeJumper - This is the basis for my thought process since all of these have come to pass after we were told they would not happen. I know what SoE has said in the past I also know that things change and in all honesty I have no problem with that. But when the game suffers due to people being pulled from what they should be doing to do other things. Its a problem to me and we the player base should speak up. I did a little editing from the original PM that I sent taking a few things out and changing some of the wording so it flows better and removed a more personable comment at the end but the above is basicly what I sent and I hope would explain why I created this thread. I would also like to say that I dont think everyone at SoE is doing a poor job. Some of them are doing great. Many of them prolly have very good intentions. However this last GU just drives home the point ( for me and a few others it would seem ) that the game is not the main focus right now. If it was things would not be in the state they are in right now. Before things start with well this GU was hose and that Exp was hosed up too and they were Pre SC. I understand where you are coming from. However understand where I am coming from. I started playing right around the release of ROK. If stuff other than starter gear between the zones was messed up I did not notice I did not rush to end game and got to 80 on my first toon about a month before TSO came out. When TSO came out the progression moved right along for me. SF with the lv cap was ok a few bugs but not to bad. DoV had me wondering what happend though this last GU even farther from the mark. I hope that at least some of you who disagree with me will at least try to understand where I am coming from. We dont have to agree as I understand what ya'll are saying I really do I just do not agree with it. Anyway w/e I have said what I need to say now and well SC will not drive me from the game ( unless the whole thing goes F2P which I think allot of us would bail at that point ) but it would be nice to see or at least know that the money is going back into the game that we all enjoy and that the time spent on the new items for it that come out every week is not the time of people that should be working on other things. As things stand right now it does not look like either is happening to me.

Andok

08-30-2011, 02:53 AM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote>Either way, it still proves that your original claim was BS just as I suspected.</blockquote>Sure, quotes from a guy who worked at SOE for years is complete BS!</blockquote>Nice dance moves. You proved yourself wrong with his post. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/97ada74b88049a6d50a6ed40898a03d7.gif" border="0" />

gourdon

08-30-2011, 05:35 AM

<cite>Andok wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>gourdon wrote:</cite><blockquote>Having a degree in computer science doesn't lead to an "entry level" job. Being a technician with little education leads to an entry level job. They will be doing stuff far better than the "entry level" guy by week 2 unless it is a very talented technician.</blockquote>A BS in computer science with no experience certainly *does* land you an entry level job. At least that's the case with everywhere I have ever worked, and I think it's safe to assume that the gaming industry is no different.</blockquote>There are companies where a BS in computer science is at the bottom of the heap, but they are few and far between. I guess it is a matter of semantic BS at this point. In any case, what passes as an "entry level" job for a BS in computer science isn't $10-15/hr unless you're over qualified or seriously under paid. Your reaction that $10-15/hr for that level of education might happen in any but the most unusual case is what clued me as to your ignorance of what a fresh out typically gets paid. Comp Sci is in the top ten on most lists of top Bachelor's pay rates along with a bunch of engineering degrees.

Shrivan

08-30-2011, 05:56 AM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><cite>deadcrickets2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'd like to see a citation for this.</blockquote>I'd like to see Emma Watson nude. I guess we're both left wishing.</div></blockquote>I need to quote this, absolutely brilliant!+1 for the Emma Watson request from me <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Memlan

08-30-2011, 07:13 AM

i think SC items is getting to much! it's a questing game not a buying imo. i think it is good that service can be bought such as extra character slot, move server token, race change etc.for all furniture, appearance items, mounts etc i think all or most should be available to be quested or bought for in game plat, gold, silver, copper. SC should just be one quicker way of getting such items if you don't have patience of doing quests or save money. i wish less time whee spend on making SC item and instead where spent on making craftable/questable furniture, mount and appearance items.then make someone build mounts that don't have a fetish for oversized/fangs/rotten/skeletons/drooling etc. common a squirrel whit fangs?

agnott

08-30-2011, 07:59 AM

IF SC is the future, then I want to see EQ3 stand on it's own 2 feet with a game that launches with SC.