Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games) Role Playing (Games) Entertainment Games

Sony Online Giving Away Everquest Trilogy Trials 56

Posted by simoniker 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Online Giving Away Everquest Trilogy Trials More

Sony Online Giving Away Everquest Trilogy Trials

Comments Filter:
  • I think the title says it all...sometimes it can be really frustrating owning a mac...oh well, maybe it's for the best...

    • Re:Will it run on a mac? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Mac gamers, eh? [ctrlaltdel-online.com] ;-)
    • wasn't the mac version of evercrack totally seperated from the pc version anyways?(crappier as well and dropped out of upgrade/update cycle)
      • Yeah.. burned quite a few people too... They didn't tell anyone they were never going to update it until recently. Not one patch. Considering the PC version has had several hundred patches, that's bad.

      • Failure was assured (Score:5, Interesting)

        by metamatic ( 202216 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @12:38PM (#9644436) Homepage Journal
        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".

        • Re:Failure was assured (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          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" buil
        • I submit putting such a sticker on the game probably would not impact sales.

          For as The Gord [actsofgord.com] has written in The Book of Annoyance, Chapter 18, Verses 4 and 5 [actsofgord.com], no one cares what the sign says.
        • I bet they also charged you a monthly fee and it took months to get to max level. Its awful how they treat Mac users!

          Oh wait, no demo, trial accounts, and a $50 box are exactly how most commercial MMORPGs operate, including Everquest for the PC.

          They did screw mac users over with the special server though, since if you're going to get an older mmorpg, often times it will be because you already know people who are playing. They probably discontinued support because they just didn't have a large enough u

    • A good time for server emulation? (Score:1, Interesting)

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

      The Ultima Online server emulator community is thriving now that RunUO [runuo.com] is around. Huge indie servers like In Por Ylem [ipyshard.com] 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 EverQues
    • Just wait until World of Warcraft comes out. Those guys at Blizzard are really good with the Mac support. I am in the beta and it runs beautifully on my G5. The Windows version has no special benefits, and we play in the same world together.

  • Surprised they haven't done this already... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by b0r0din ( 304712 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @11:03AM (#9643280)
    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.
  • Yeah, the first one's always free, then you're hooked.

  • Hooray for the feeder bar. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Inominate ( 412637 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @11:14AM (#9643418)
    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?

  • Originality (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hoferbr ( 707935 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @11:30AM (#9643609)
    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 [globo.com] at [globo.com] these [globo.com] screenshots [globo.com]. I think I have seem those scenes before [gamespot.com].

    • Re:Originality (Score:5, Interesting)

      by deanj ( 519759 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @12:16PM (#9644178)
      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?

    • Re:Originality (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nacturation ( 646836 )
      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 st

      • Re:Originality (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Snowmit ( 704081 )
        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 ca
      • I was judging Everquest2 based on its look. Shure it isn't out yet, but even if I look at screenshots and videos, it feels like it is the same medieval-fantasy theme rehashed. The Gothic2 pic was just an attempt to prove my point.

        A game doesn't need the latest pixel shader support to look good. The two games mentioned (especially Wow, and not so much COH) rely on good world design. Castles, trees, islands, mountains... they have a distinct feel.

        ...don't rely on graphics, they have original and imaginati
        • A game doesn't need the latest pixel shader support to look good. The two games mentioned (especially Wow, and not so much COH) rely on good world design. Castles, trees, islands, mountains... they have a distinct feel.

          Design is a part of a good game, but I think what really makes a good game is an engaging story and well thought out objectives -- no MMORPG treadmill please!

          I said that they have original, imaginative design and art.

          I was thinking you meant design and artwork as displayed in the graphi
    • for not relying on graphics by having original and imaginative art.

  • Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hookedup ( 630460 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @11:34AM (#9643660)
    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..

    • Re:Nice... (Score:5, Informative)

      by deanj ( 519759 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @12:22PM (#9644242)
      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.

      • Yup, my case is the same. I wasn't buying 4-5 games per year, but 1-2 games per month.

        I have been subscribed to an online game for a while, and with exception of FarCry thats all I have spent my money on.

        I figure that I have saved many hundreds of dollars.

  • 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,
    • Actually "the ones who created the original crack addiction" are now all working on Vanguard: Saga of Heroes over at Sigil Games [sigilgames.com]

    • Re:A critique of WoW and EQ2 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by KeeperS ( 728100 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @02:31PM (#9645950)
      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.

    • Cartoony = "kiddie" (Score:2, Insightful)

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

    • I have tried many games vastly higher in graphic quality than DAoC and keep going back because DAoC is more fun to me.

      Despite all the issues with lack of balance and uggly nerfs, I have found the game entertaining despite the lower quality of graphics compared to games such as SWG, COH, AC2, L2 or even Horizons (bleh).

      I have tried all of them, but to me DAoC is just more fun.

      I know there are a LOT people still playing AC1 and UO and LOVING it, and look how shitty those graphics are.

      To me graphics is lik
    • How is EQ2 a different animal, besides its high system requirements?

      And I'd save that whole 'the engine will scale down for people with shitty hardware' marketing line. SOE claimed the same thing with SW:G, and with a min res of 1024x768, you can turn all the options down and still get a terrible experience trying to run with its minimum system requirements.
  • Blizzard has decided to reset the Diablo 2 ladder. Guess what I'll be playing for the next week?

  • too greedy (Score:1, Interesting)

    by araczynski ( 265221 )
    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 th

    • Re:too greedy (Score:2, Interesting)

      by BumbaCLot ( 472046 )
      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.

      • Re:too greedy (Score:2, Insightful)

        by linzeal ( 197905 )
        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.
        • In EQ you don't "need" to group to advance. It will take you far far longer with most classes, but even a Warrior can solo an exp giving mob.

    • Re:too greedy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Teppy ( 105859 ) * on Thursday July 08, 2004 @03:29PM (#9646641) Homepage
      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!

    • Re:too greedy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tarison ( 600538 )
      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-cr
    • if you haven't already. It's more or less a single player MMORPG. For $30 bucks with 2 hugh expansions, it's probably the best bang for the buck I've ever seen. Plus, the design will let you do more or less what you want without having artificial gameplay elements thrown in to keep you from finishing the game too soon and canceling your subscription. Just make sure you patch it (install Tribunal or download the fix).
  • It looks like ... [machall.com] Don't want to give away the punchline.

    There are reasons why Ultima Online isn't the #1 MMORPG. Those reasons are starting to apply to the current champ.

    In other words, don't waste your time on EQ 1. Hop into some current open beta instead.
  • This seems like a really good deal, and definitely seems like the free-razor model all MMO's should use, just like they did back in the text-based MMO game days. (Anyone remember Terris on AOL? That game was awesome until they started charging like $7 on top of AOL charges for it) Either way, this could prevent me from getting FFXI instead of everquest, so kudos to sony for being so bold, although they may be the only company with a war chest big enough to run a promotion like this.
  • Cautionary note: EverQuest can be highly addictive. Consume in moderate dosages.

    Is EverQuest in general addictive or is this freebie in particular has some 'feature' to pump up my beginners' luck so I win all the matches during the 1 month trial period?

    • Almost anyone who has played Everquest has found that it interferes with brain wave activity, thus inhibiting higher thinking functions. If Everquest 2 is half as good as the first one. I would be using words much larger than 4 letters for 6 to 7 months.

  • The kids table (Score:5, Insightful)

    by servognome ( 738846 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @01:46PM (#9645308)
    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.
  • SW:G Trial didn't ask for one, but does this MMORPG the same (no CC # required)?
  • Everquest is worth downloading if only to experience one of the classic MMORPGs. UO and others came first but Everquest is the most influence for later MMORPGs that came over it. Most of the new MMORPGs are influenced mainly by Everquest either in reaction against it or trying to copy it.

    The reason EQ is so influential is that it is a very good game with very bad parts in it. Either games tried to copy the good parts or tried to remove the bad parts. The good parts were things like the huge world and the

Slashdot Top Deals

The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam

Close