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."

21 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. Surprised they haven't done this already... by b0r0din · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lots of MMORPGs are trying to save their subscription base and get an influx of new people, DAoC did this same thing but I don't think it worked all that well. I really think this should be the release model in general, anyway, ie. make the game free and then charge the monthly cost OR - and this is my personal favorite - make the game cost more and charge no monthly fee.

    Still, not going to get me to play Everquest. I'm waiting for WoW, and if it doesn't rock my world, I'm giving up on MMORPGs for a while.

    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. Like crack by TheGatekeeper · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, the first one's always free, then you're hooked.

    --
    'The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than a prop for age,' -Hamá, the doorward
  3. Hooray for the feeder bar. by Inominate · · Score: 4, Funny

    Press a button, get a food pellet.
    Now do it several thousand times for another food pellet.

    yay. Fun.

    How about online games which offer actual fun, and don't operate on principles similar to a gambling addiction?

  4. Re:Will it run on a mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mac gamers, eh? ;-)

  5. 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. Re:Originality by Snowmit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that what the grandparent poster is trying to say is that WoW and CoH don't have stupendously powerful graphics engines, unlike EQ2, but it looks like they're going to make up for it by giving us worlds that are genuinely interesting and stylish. We're talking technical prowess vs. artistic prowess.

      The EQ2 screenshots that have been released so far look nice I guess but they're really, really generic looking. Compared to the kind of bland looking underdressed chicks in front of realistic looking castles and stuff of EQ2, the Word of Warcraft screen shots look really interesting and different. City of Heroes, on the other hand, gets a free "looks original" pass because it's not set in a fantasy world.

      --
      I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects
  6. Nice... by hookedup · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been really addicted to City Of Heroes, and trying to convice other friends to get it is tough. "So... I have to shell out 50 bucks for the game, then pay a monthly fee?"

    Now.. if there were a single player aspect, and it was still possible to enjoy the game once you had enough of online play.. then maybe..

    1. Re:Nice... by deanj · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, if it's anything like EQ1 was for me, that monthly fee will SAVE you money in the long term, if that's the only game you end up playing.

      Before EQ1, I'd buy five or six games a year. That's between $40 and $50 a pop per game. And most of those were really crappy games. A $40 game is about a three (almost four) month EQ subscription.

      When I started EQ1, I stopped buying those other games, because I was too interested in EQ1. Over the long term, I bought all the expansions, but I know for a fact that I ended up saving money, even with the subscription fees.

      That probably won't convince them either, but it might. I tried CoH for a while, but stopped playing because it just didn't hold my interest. Canned it before the subscription fee kicked in.

  7. A critique of WoW and EQ2 by Gigahertz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While watching the WoW gameplay videos, I cannot help but consider the game to be "EQ1 Done Right." The graphics aren't any better than EQ1s last 3 expansions, and the encounters are strikingly similar to EQ1 raids. It may just be the game for EQ1 addicts who don't care about the poor graphics.

    EQ2 however is an alltogether different animal. The graphics are truly next generation, and the engine will scale down for people with shitty hardware. They are the ones who created the original crack addiction, which I played for the first 4 years before burning out....

    WoW cannot keep my interest with its blocky graphics, it just looks cartoonish and I would get bored with it all too quickly.

    Waiting for EQ2, and buying an ATI X800 XT to support the bitch too.

    1. Re:A critique of WoW and EQ2 by KeeperS · · Score: 3, Insightful
      WoW cannot keep my interest with its blocky graphics, it just looks cartoonish and I would get bored with it all too quickly.

      Maybe it's just me, but my first concern when I'm playing a game isn't whether or not the graphics are amazing. If you're only playing for eye candy, I have a feeling that you'll get bored with just about any game rather quickly. Yes, good graphics help make a good game better, but as long as the gameplay is there, the rest is icing on the cake.

      That said, from what I've seen of WoW, it doesn't sport huge numbers of polygons. What it does have is its own grapical style that fits the Warcraft universe quite well. I have no idea how good the gameplay is, and I'm not that keen on MMORPGs in general, but I really dig the style of WoW. The graphics, though slightly dated, still seem to add to the experience.

  8. 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
    1. Re:Failure was assured by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Very few MMORPGs (if any) offer demo versions or trial accounts per se. Some will let you download the full client and give you a trial period , but this whole demo client thing is new as far as I can tell.

      But just to shut you up, all of the most successful MMORPGs did not have a trial version. Ultima Online, Everquest (until now), Dark Age of Camelot, Asheron's Call, Star Wars Galaxies, City of Heroes, Lineage II (download is free but $50 to get account key online). They all include one month "free" built in to the cost of the boxed game but not really a trial per se. Even Anarchy Online which offers a free download and a measly 7 day trial will charge you an extra $20 on top of subscription fees during the first month. Coincidentally that's about the cost of a boxed Anarchy Online if any stores would stock it anymore. The only one I can think of that's a completely free client with free trial (15 days) is Ragnarok Online, but you're paying a full $15 per month for 16-bit SNES graphics (woo- you can rotate).

      So there. The only thing Sony did to "sabotage" the Mac version of Everquest was discontinue support. And they probably did that after they figured out there was ZERO user interest in a Mac version of Everquest when World of Warcraft was just around the corner (just at the corner really since they are probably strapped for Mac beta testers). They didn't need stickers on the box to tell them not to buy it, they already saw the smoke and laser light show with white African tigers at the World of Warcraft announcement two years ago telling them what they should really buy.

  9. The kids table by servognome · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)
    Imagine if you are a total newbie and log into a non-noob server and see a warrior in shiney armor. You might ask "Where did you get that great stuff," the reply "Grind it out for 1000 more hours and then you'll be able to camp this stuff." You also have issues with low and mid-level zones empty(since alot of people powerlevel past them). This creates a barrier to newbie advancement since there is nobody to group with and EQ is all about group play.

    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  10. 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.

  11. Cartoony = "kiddie" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Long live Socialist Realism! All other art styles must be repressed!

  12. Re:too greedy by linzeal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem is not having to group sometimes, the problem is having to group all the time. You should be able to advance from newb-god without ever touching a group, albeit at a reduced pace; but it should not be impossible.

    --
    An Education is the Font of All Liberty
  13. Re:too greedy by Teppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not play a single player game? I'm not being flip here - single player RPGs are a much better experience than MMOs-played-solo: the stories are more coherent, they tend to be better tuned so that you encounter monsters at a pleasingly challenging difficulty level, and they contain puzzles that open new areas to explore.

    All of these things are hard for a designer to include in an MMO. When you play one solo you're accepting all the design difficulties that go with MMOs, but eschewing the one thing that they excel at!

  14. Re:too greedy by Tarison · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a person that used spend a fair bit of time on EQ a few years ago, I can identify with this. Toward the end, I headed toward the 'RP' servers, and tended to go 'adventuring' more often than heading into combat, often going into zones that I really had no business touching, esp. at a single-figure levels. It has its faults, but I recommend Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, esp. if you like to explore. The Game of the Year edition for either PC or XBOX isn't too expensive, and there's a wealth of community-created mods for the PC version. No idea how well it goes (if it does) under Linux/Mac/etc. It's hard to recreate that feeling of dread you first have in an MMORPG when you first die to a lowly rat, or when you run for your life from what looks like some terrible beast, hoping the local guards will save you in time. Very open-ended, (though at times, too much so), and you don't have to pay anything if you decide to fish it out again in the future.