One Hobby Dev + EQ + Unreal Engine 5.2 =

There's always hope.

This looks amazing! I was wondering if you know how much this cost and how many hours it took to achieve this?

Better graphics may not necessarily make a game better, but they certainly help in the suspension of disbelief that is critical in immersing the the player in the game world.

Another thing to consider is that dated, sub-par graphics is a big turn off to younger generation of gamers. Many younger gamers who see EverQuest graphics are repelled by their primitive quality and as a result will simply refuse to play. While EQ graphics are nostalgic and quaint to us old timers, they don't have the same appeal to newer players.

I commend the person that created this Unreal version of EverQuest. This just goes to show you that passionate people can achieve quite a lot without thousands of dollars of resources. Where there is a will, there is a way.

This video certainly proves that a handful of volunteers could easily revamp the geography of Norrath and make EverQuest future proof and help to ensure it profitability.

As everything is negotiable, they just have to make a better deal or forget about that engine. For current EverQuest, 5% and more is not worth it for a yearly license fee. It still could be interesting for an off-spin project like "EverQuest Revamped", to test the user ressonance.

Why not provide what you have seen to show how it would help, it is easy to say that the 5% license costs wouldn't be an issue but it seems hard to show it.

How much leverage do you expect Daybreak to have in negotiations? It isn't like converting a 25+ year old game (or any of the Daybreak games) is going to mean much to the Unreal devs.

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney mentioned it in a recent interview.

Tim Sweeney on UE5 benefits.

Sure, the CEO of the company that develops the Unreal engine is going to say whatever they can to convince people to use their product. Just because a CEO says that it can increase EBITDA by 15% doesn't mean that every company will actually see an increase in revenue from it. And will a 25+ year old game really gain from the unreal engine or will it just look better and make less money for the company?

Original EQ and the oldest expansions would benefit at most from a graphical revamp, but only for a new project like "EverQuest Revamped" or EQ3. It might be also something for new expansions but not if the price is 5% of the total revenue, and not yet. 5% of expansion sales revenue might work but I think that a graphical revamp alone won't be enough as there is much more outdated stuff that would need to get revamped. The current NPC models would just look crappy with Unreal 5.2. Then there are the ongoing problems with the new UI engine, the new UI windows, DX11, etc.

It would be much work to convert all the zones, so it would had to be done step by step. Original EQ would had to be splitted into 6-8 expansions, and a whole bunch of new devs would be required. Because of the expansion sizes, a 2-yearly release cycle might be needed to ensure the best quality. It would also give the players more time to explore everything. A new, tiered player character and zone/NPC level range, would also be needed.


A possible order:

1. Faydwer (12 zones) - PC level limit: 15
Ak'Anon, Steamfont Mountains, Lesser Faydark, Castle Mistmoore, Greater Faydark, Felwithe, Crushbone, Butcherblock Mountains, Kaladim, Dagnor's Cauldron, Estate of Unrest, Kedge Keep

2. Antonica NE (12 zones) - PC level limit: 20
Freeport, Freeport Sewers, Ocean of Tears, Commonlands, Befallen, Nektulos Forest, Neriak, Lavastorm, Nagafen's Lair, Solusek's Eye, Najena, Temple of Ro

3. Central Antonica (9 zones) - PC level limit: 25
Misty Thicket, Runnyeye, Rivervale, Kithicor Forest, Highpass Hold, High Keep, Gorge of King Xorbb, East Karana, North Karana

4. Antonica NW (9 zones) - PC level limit:30
Qeynos, Qeynos Sewers, Qeynos Hills, Surefall Glade, West Karana, Blackburrow, Everfrost Peaks, Halas, Permafrost Keep

5. Antonica West + Odus (12 zones) - PC level limit: 35
The Rathe Mountains, Lake Rathetear, The Arena, South Karana, Infected Paw, Erud's Crossing, Erudin & Palace, Toxxulia Forest, Kerra Isle, Paineel, Ruins of Old Paineel, Plane of Sky

6. Antonica South (12 zones) - PC level limit: 40
North Ro, South Ro, Oasis of Marr, Innothule Swamp, Upper Guk, Lower Guk, Grobb, The Feerrott, Cazic Thule, Oggok, Plane of Hate, Plane of Fear

Just look at the attempts to modernize the graphics for a few zones and how well they were received. While some actually look better (example: Misty Thicket) and others are extremely controversial (examples: Commonlands and Freeport), there are those who prefer the original blocky low pixel visuals. The game company pivoted to having 'new expansions' in the same zones have new visuals (example: Blackburrow, Kunark, Velious, Luclin, etc.) but that, too is met with mixed opinions. Using -any- engine to change the original zones would likely be met with the same 'controversy' and same cries of "I'm quitting because the game isn't set in amber".

EQ does have its own engine for graphics and several other aspects and features. That's what they've been working on modernizing to DX11 while attempting to keep the same look and feel as the current game to not be as disrupting to the community of players as the previous visual upgrades to a subset of zones out of deference to the community of players who likes the visuals of the game as they are.

Just as there are those who prefer the original blocky low-pixel character models, those who prefer the "new" models (can something from 2001 still be considered "new"?), those who think the WoW cartoons are the best looking MMOG models, and others who like the "realistic" models in the Asian games, there are those who think the 1999 zone graphics are the best and others who prefer the more smooth 'realistic' look.

I cannot speak to any possible financial gain or loss. But EQ sure could look nicer.

Well new freeport I will say does look overall better than the original version, however the issue with the new vs the old is functionality.

The new version is alot harder to run through and you get stuck on objects alot of times so the new version is worst from a playing standpoint. It looks better but functions worst. This is one of those things that will never go away and anytime a zone changes there will always be people who may like the old version because they have memorized every little movement to get from place to place and when they redo it almost always will people hate the new version but once they learn it then it may not be as bad. I have gotten used to the new freeport but it is still somewhat harder than the old version to run around in.

If I am going for speed and functionality I would take the original version. This is something I think they always need to try to keep an eye on if they revamp a zone. Changing the layout completely or adding cosmetic items that cause you to get stuck when you point in a direction with auto run is a bad thing. They need to make sure revamp doesn't have those rocks sticking up that block casting or you get stuck auto running on. Done properly new graphics that you just run over grass etc is much better than trees and rocks that you used to just run around and now you get stuck on them.

And I don't think anyone is in disagreement on that point, but just because it makes the game look better doesn't mean it makes financial sense to do it.

Shh Financial sense isn't most important. Spend first.

Your comment proves my point entirely. There will be some who think it "looks better", others will complain about the way the poop pile was recreated, others will complain that the path through the city is "wrong" (with several variations on why), etc. This also has to be factored into changing zone graphics as part of the 'cost'. (Personally, after using it more on Oakwynd, I got used to the paths in the new Freeport and find it no more and no less easy to navigate than Qeynos, Felwithe, Neriak, or any other in-game city. However, I find the 'look' of the new Freeport really ugly. While the original was 3 zones and had its own maze, it wasn't nearly as.. umm.. grungy and ugly.)

However, as noted by Waring, the financial cost of moving to an "off the shelf" engine would be absolutely massive. Would you want to have absolutely no other development in EQ for a significant amount of time, year or more, just to make that shift? Would EQ survive not having any new content for that long? Would a 25 year old game really have a chance of attracting enough NEW players or returning players who don't have a Lifetime subscription to not only offset those costs but generate a significant amount of profit to appease the shareholders' minimum dividends not only after completion but during the development time? Daybreak is not a non-profit company. The shareholders need to be paid what they require. If Daybreak were to use a 3rd party graphics engine, they would be required to pay the fees assessed by that other company. They couldn't just use it like a hobby developer can. They would also be at the mercy of the other company if fees were raised or additional clauses were added to the terms of use.

I provided a factual interview from Tim Sweeney and you disregard it, but use anecdotes as facts for your other posts. I’m disappointed in your hypocrisy.

interview.

Tim Sweeney on UE5 benefits.

An interview from the CEO of the company that makes and licenses the Unreal graphics engine so of course they are going to give what are likely best case numbers on what it can do for your game. If you really think that a marketing speech is going to give honest numbers you are just silly.

It's because the developers did a remake instead of a remaster of a city like Freeport that is very nostalgic to many players.

If they had simply updated the city with new textures and better lighting (i.e., a remaster), everyone would have been happy. Instead, they changed the whole dang city until it was unrecognizable.

An example of how it should be done, is the Tomb Raider remaster. The developers updated the graphics, without touching the design, layout or base geometry. They updated the textures, strategically updated polygon detail where needed, and improved the lighting without messing up the color temperature and mood.

Hope costs nothing. But doing nothing may cost everything.

Hope is the most costly thing that exist. When there is hope people tend to ignore logic and spend more money than they should in hopes that something will work but it has less than a 1% chance to work. So hope is the most dangerous thing you can go off of.

I business that is smart will fire any employee that makes a decision off of hope and no real research and facts.

To be blunt here hope is people at the top who want their workers to hope something will work and keep trying to do good even though they know the business is failing. Hope is only for the lower class people and is a lie feed to them and the upper class people never go off of it because they know it is a lie when compared to real research facts.