Sony Online Entertainment Becomes Daybreak Game Company

Guess you're not familiar with Global Crossing.

Valid points, but when the highest grossing mmo (and even net worth) is near 10 years old and there are multiple major titles releases every year it's hard not to worry. The odds just simply aren't in their favor. I can't say exact numbers because honestly I don't know them, I don't think anyone does. But WoW still runs the market...there have been major "progressive" title releases that weren't just clones of EQ or WoW and few if any are still above water. Even if the entire EQ and EQ2 fan base completely migrated and stayed loyal to EQ Next I don't think they would keep their heads above water. Sony is a major company, albeit with some some major problems lately...if they had any faith they could continue in the green why would they sell? In a perfect world that's how management firms are SUPPOSED to operate...but in the end they are for profit, even if it's short lived. This is the first true sign of the death of EQ the game has seen in its history and it's also the quietest I've ever seen people about it. For all the complaining and the game is dying threads over the years...the first time it's actually at serious risk and accelerating quickly it's oddly quiet.

Who knows , maybe when some of the new top brass are looking over
the developers shoulders they'll get curious and try EQ themselves.
After a few hours they'll be helplessly hooked like the rest of us , so EQ
will live on

#2 benefits consoles, not PC. It's a misconception that somehow if console versions of these games take off, that PC users should rejoice. I've been through it with Battlefield franchise, also seen what SOE tried to do with Planetside 2, and watching it as it's happening with ESO. Console making money only means they'll focus more on the console than they do PC. Slowly you see less and less of PC, more and more of console, whenever there are decisions made for features and design.

If the new investment company wants to push console, that's not a good thing for PC enthusiasts. It never has been in the past with games that get ported from PC to console. And honestly, PC MMO's are what SOE was known for, it's what Everquest has been about. But with this new change, we could very well see a change of direction in how they design EQN & Landmark moving forward.

Good news, if you call it that, is existing EQ1 players probably don't have to worry because EQ1 likely won't get changed much. They won't want to port old games, because they need to market new games when launched on consoles. EQ Next & Landmark will be their target for sure. But bad news is also the money maker will be Landmark & Next, which means less and less will be focused on EQ1 & EQ2. We think things have been bad with resource allocation, it'll only get worse honestly.

I don't disagree with most of what you say... I'd only add that though WoW dominates the MMO market various other MMOs are still in fact going, all of them pretty much gone to F2P and microtransactions. Even moreso there are PC online games that are booming, such as games like League of Legends and the multiple clones that seem to still do well. Why it's not surprising EQ Next's combat demos looked a bit like LoL.

With that said I agree that this is a big deal and might signal the death of EQ more than anything that has yet to come... though I disagree with two aspects:

1) People are not quiet, this whole thread shows how not quiet people are
2) This *feels* more significant as a chance of signaling the death of EQ but stepping back and being objective a quiet death like that of other SOE games like Vanguard, Matrix, etc... probably has always been a bigger risk. The fact that this *might* infuse new efforts and focus into making EQ sustainable actually probably gives it a higher chance of a longer life, even though it might not feel that way.

Though I agree with many aspects of this, an interesting idea to consider is would Vanguard and other SOE MMOs have shut down if they had a console counterpart that was thriving? PC might have been a second class citizen in such a case but it might have kept it going in such a case. I think these are the cases people speak of. If a game makes more money by going to more platforms it keeps the game going longer. If other platforms make more money than PC then of course they will get prime effort but in that scenario such a PC game might have shut down already like other SOE games... Of course if PC is bringing in more revenue than other platforms then it will get more focus.

I really don't see how it's a bad thing when you step back, games get more console focus if they are getting more console money, which as pointed out helps the PC game exist.

For all we know some of that new top brass might have actually played EQ back in the day and be fans. EQ launched about 16 years ago, those that played it throughout the early years have since spread into the world into all sorts of interesting careers and positions. For all we know some of them might be quite excited to *own* the EQ franchise. Heck if I had stopped playing 14-15 years ago even and never came back I'd still have a lot of nostalgia for it.

They won't console port Vanguard though, that's the thing. It's nice to think "what if", but these console ports are just not going to happen to these old games that never had a chance in the first place. They also won't port EQ1. You gotta know the console market and what people buy. A look inside the console genre, you'll quickly echo my sentiment that "console ports are bad for PC".

I expect to see H1Z1, EQ Landmark, EQN, and Planetside 2 ported to multi-platforms. Now that I think of it, another thing people should worry about is timing. These money guys are smart, they know the big payday is when they launch Landmark & EQNext. So would they push for the launch of these games ahead of their schedule? To get that big payday? Or would they fully fund these games' developments and give them proper development time? All interesting questions.

So to be clear I wasn't suggesting they *would* port Vanguard, but using it as an example of a game that was shut down but if it had a strong console mirror it might not have. For example, say EQ Next does well on Xbox but not PC, I'd be glad to see that the Xbox version might keep the PC one going even if some of the design is split focused.

So I've been playing PC and console games for a very long time, I always have many friends and co-workers that play both (I've been in the game dev industry for 10+ years now so most people I work with play some sorts of games). I've usually been one that argues against what most argue, that having a console port is bad for PC. Knowing how things get funded and how cross-platform may bring a game down but also save it I usually fall on the side best summed up as: "sure it can weaken aspects of the PC version, but overall contributes to the game and franchise"

Mainly for the reasons I outlined... if a game is making most of it's money on PC then PC will indeed get the most dev focus. If it's making more money on console then sure PC focus will be lessened, but again that game might not *exist* for long if it were only PC, so even then the console port pays off.

Of course this is especially true for online games that are services rather than one shot game. Though one shot games can prove this principle out with sequals. If a single player game launches on PC and Xbox and does well on Xbox but not PC they might make a console focused sequel that still hits PC while if PC did bad and it was *only* PC, well you might not get a sequel at all.

Ahh I see. I respect your opinion. But having gone through Battlefield getting ported to console, I have to say I'd rather see a good franchise die, than to see it get watered down & console-fied. There's nothing good watching a good, complex, PC game with depth get ported to console. I have not seen a good case of it where a PC game got better after being ported to console. I've seen too many good PC games get butchered after being ported to console.

So that's my opinion, and we'll just agree to disagree on the benefits of console porting

Definitely respect what you say, I've had such a debate with many people and plenty of people come down on your side of the argument, which I can completely understand.

Despite which I will think will happen I do hope that the better scenario plays out in this case

Figured I'd share this since not all articles online include this quote, but so far this is the only quote I've found from someone actually from Columbus Nova. Obviously anything anyone says (SOE, Sony, or Columbus) should be taken with a grain of salt... but I do hope to hear more from Columbus themselves, that might be slightly more reassuring.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/02/columbus-nova-acquires-sony-online-entertainment

I'll also add that Smedley's twitter feed gives a couple tidbits.

To sum up his posted 4 points so far

https://twitter.com/j_smedley

Well, if they do things like they did with EQOA, servers will start to disappear and everyone will be lumped together on one server. If that happens the end is nigh!

Not to derail this thread or create a new one, some small errors in this post. Guides are volunteer players like you mention and we do invest our own free-time to do so. However, we don't assist with "CS" Trouble, we aren't equipped for that. We do provide dynamic roleplay atmosphere while we are online. Also, there are some that devote 15-20 hours of their week to Guiding, but most of us are around the 30mins-an hr a week. We like to play the game too

So will we see more advertizing to get more people back into the game? To me when we started losing servers, this heralded a decline in EQ. The franchise atbthis time was no longer in the forefront.

SOE has been sold to Daybreak Game Company. That is cool. But I do have a few questions now. Now that EQ and the other SOE related games are part of Daybreak will there still be the Anniversary stuff that goes along with the game each year. Will prices change for subscription. Will you have more actual in game help for players IE: GMs that actually log in. What are the changes we are looking to see happen with SOE Games EQ in particular to look forward to?

No, they werent sold to daybreak game company.
Sony sold SOE to Columbus Nova. Then the SOE name had to be changed because it had sony in it. So they changed it to daybreak game company.

No one knows how it will play out as yet.

Of course everything everyone here says (except Roshen) is just guessing and speculation. None of us know the truth, and likely won't know for a very long time.

Now that being said, it's my turn to speculate and make wild guesses.

I am betting that SOE was sold to Columbus Nova because they had to be. Sony probably was going to shut SoE down, and ended up compromising by selling it to Columbus Nova instead. It could have been a lot worse. We could have woke up the other day only to find out that Everquest was shut down.

I'd say for now, be happy that our game still exists, and hope for the best.