Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony Online Giving Away Everquest Trilogy Trials

Posted by simoniker on from the get-hooked-now-pay-later dept.

mattwarden writes "With the release of EverQuest 2 slowly approaching, Sony Online has decided to provide a free PC download of EverQuest Trilogy that comes with 30 days of free gameplay. [EverQuest Trilogy is EverQuest Classic, plus two expansion packs, The Ruins of Kunark and The Scars of Velious.] However, you are restricted to one server, which seems to be designated as the freebie server (which somewhat brings up memories of eating at the kids' table). Cautionary note: EverQuest can be highly addictive. Consume in moderate dosages."

8 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Surprised they haven't done this already... by pdbogen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just noticed that, for a one time fee of $10, you can get an account on Second Life. You cannot, however, own land, and you get less income than a monthly payer.

  2. Originality by hoferbr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sony will have to work hard to make Everquest2 successful. I know they're the kings of MMORPG, but I think that Everquest2 lacks something when compared to World of Warcraft or even City of Heroes. Those two games don't rely on graphics; they have original, imaginative design and art. Take a look at these screenshots. I think I have seem those scenes before.

    1. Re:Originality by deanj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      EQ2 isn't even out in beta yet, so I guess I'm wondering how you can compare all those. Are you saying that EQ2 will just be about graphics, and nothing else? Is that how you're drawing the comparisons? One could make a great argument that the Gothic II scene you cited is just a rip-off of EQ1.

      I've played CoH, and it's OK for what it is, but I have to wonder how it'll do in the long term. I did like the "I want to screw around for about 20 minutes" factor that CoH has.

      The real key here is the game play. Nethack and rogue had awful "graphics" (if you can even call what they had "graphics"), but the playability of those was just great.

      Star Wars Galaxies was an original look and feel at least as original as WoW, if you look at it from the "already established genre" stance. Game looked great. The gameplay just bites in that game.

      Bottom line, it can look as pretty as you want, but if the game play isn't there....who cares?

    2. Re:Originality by nacturation · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think that Everquest2 lacks something when compared to World of Warcraft or even City of Heroes. Those two games don't rely on graphics; they have original, imaginative design and art.

      What's your point? WoW and CoH don't rely on graphics, they have original and imaginative graphics! You then compare screenshots showing castle scenes, as if Gothic pioneered the concept of the medieval setting.

      If those games don't rely on graphics, I would expect you to expound on how they have amazing gameplay and storyline, an intuitive interface, or something along those lines.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  3. Failure was assured by metamatic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems as though Sony wanted EverQuest for the Mac to fail. They didn't bother creating a demo version or offering trial accounts, they charged $50 for the software, they restricted users to a special "Mac ghetto", and then after a couple of months they announced they wouldn't be doing any more work to fix bugs or add more content.

    It's hard to see what else they could have done to ensure failure short of putting stickers on the box saying "Don't buy this".

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  4. too greedy by araczynski · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I gave up on MMORPG's after EQ/AC/DAoC, all were fun, but too addictive, and more importantly, constantly forced me to group for advancement. I neither had the time nor desire to group with (predominantly) prepubescent idiots and socially-challenged ego freaks who i would have been forced to group with all the time. Why can't i play online and go solo? All I really wanted was to enjoy the experience of exploration/advancement/story/etc, but NOT be forced to do it with some stupid group after you leave the baby crib zones. Its just lame. not everyone is a sheep that wants to follow others around.

    --
    sigs suck
    1. Re:too greedy by BumbaCLot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Topic does apply to you very well. People who bitch about grouping in MMORPGs should just drop the MMO part. Why bother paying a monthly fee when you don't want other people there? When game companies cater to whiners who want to solo everything, they end up making the game too easy, which allows power-gamers to level up to the top ranks in days and get bored and bitch about lack of content.

  5. A good time for server emulation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I say Mac owners stick it to Sony by making a compatible branch of Everquest Server Emulator or other EQ server emulation software (links?).

    The Ultima Online server emulator community is thriving now that RunUO is around. Huge indie servers like In Por Ylem have a couple thousand users. They had to upgrade to a dual Xeon server and are on a 100mbit connection which is supported by PayPal donations because of the load.

    Of course, for UO the clients are still upgraded which is not the case for EverQuest on Mac, but I'm sure there can be substantial server side improvements using existing content and client quirks.