Everquest 2: The Humbling of Hardware

[Zyphria]

It seems yet another twist in the epic struggle of MMORPG's, and it is quite simply this: Through a contact, I've been aware that Everquest 2 is not 'friendly' to computers that are older than say six months. I guess to the vast majority of critics and realists this comes as no surprise...but I think it will for the tens of thousands who are pre-ordering based on the current requirements (733mhz, DX8 card, 512MB of memory), this may not be so welcome.

Dropping the details down doesn't quite work when it seriously hinders gameplay (ie monsters appearing right in front of you....running into a tree while going long distance and getting stuck and turned around, etc).

Optimizations aside in the next few months, I can state right here and now that certain individuals will pick up Everquest 2, play it, and then lease (or buy) a brand new Dell, or Alienware or whatnot to play it. Everyone else (who doesn't want to add another $30-$50 a month to their credit card bill) can just go play World of Warcraft, or continue to play the original Everquest. If that isn't SoE's stance...then I'm not sure why they are gambling like they are.

So why would anyone shell out even more money on this game? Because it is simply gorgeous. SoE is betting, and betting heavily, that they can create a superior level of immersion by releasing a game that is heads and shoulders above the competition. Lets just remember that AC2 tried this...but failed in the follow-through (ie making it fun for more than a very short duration).

Is this a good thing(tm)? For those of us on a limited budget, supporting a family, hoping to two (three, four, whatever) box...I'd say no. Could we be looking at the beginning of 'Exclusive' MMORPG's for the wealthy? Are we seeing the MMOG developers maturing (ie creating products for specific markets).

I almost have to wonder if Dell won't start selling computers labeled "Optimized for Everquest II!". It seems SoE is hoping to attract a greater playerbase in the long run, rather than right in the beginning, such that the graphics will still be considered great a year, or even two years from release.

[Ritkhan]

such is the evolution of computer gaming. You expect PC games to look like Kings Quest 1 forever? PC gaming at the top of the scale is not cheap. No one pretends that it is. People that cant afford it or dont want to bother tend to buy consoles which are a much cheaper solution. Or just keep playing older games. How long do you expect your PC to last? Some games, like Doom 3 or EQ2 will be “upgrade games”. Some games like WOW may not be, but that’s just the way it is. Upgrading is part of owning a PC and playing PC games. I dont really see how your complaint has any validity.

5 years from now people will be complaining how games like EQ3 cater only to rich people that can afford PC upgrades and how it should be more like EQ2 which can run on the shittiest system of that time. Progress waits for no man.

[Armadon]

You needed a top of the line rig when EQ1 came out so I really see no point to this. I also know it runs fine on a 2 year old computer. You don't get all the nifty looking things but it still looks good and mobs just dont "pop up" on you.

[Soriak]

Originally posted by Zyphria
Dropping the details down doesn't quite work when it seriously hinders gameplay (ie monsters appearing right in front of you....running into a tree while going long distance and getting stuck and turned around, etc).

That doesn't make sense at all. How does not having shadows turned on 'seriously hinder gameplay'?
Mobs appearing right in front of you is internet latency and doesn't have anything to do with your system specs.

Running into a tree while going long distance? Just because you lower your settings doesn't mean trees magically (dis-)appear.

EQ II uses the same server/client update model as EQ 1 - ie if you lag others will see you moving even if you stopped. It's not like other games where you warp back. And again, this doesn't have anything to do with your system specs.

From what I've seen at the last FanFaire, the game still looks exceptional with all settings on minimum, and that's exactly how you can run it with the minimum requirements. I didn't see any of those problems you described back then, I doubt they completly changed the way their settings work.

Short of the graphic card you don't need any cutting-edge hardware, unless you consider a 2ghz (1ghz min requirement) processor 'high-end', and 1gb ram (512min) is pretty much standard for other new games too.

[Jait]

Just another disguised "I hate EQ" thread....

No proof. "A friend of a friend" bullshit.


I mean come'on most of us hate SOE, were not hard to bait. Try a bit harder.

[CeNo65]

I almost have to wonder if Dell won't start selling computers labeled "Optimized for Everquest II!". It seems SoE is hoping to attract a greater playerbase in the long run, rather than right in the beginning, such that the graphics will still be considered great a year, or even two years from release.

i think they just did, http://www.trustedreviews.com/articl...ad=3&page=1390

[Shinrai]

Another one of the things we'll find out when beta starts. But not really interesting enough for a rumor post.

[Deathwing]

If my PC can handle Doom 3 and Far Cry pretty well, it better fucking handle EQ2. I would be pissed, but for some reason not surprised. I don't understand why they don't outsource for the engine? Or maybe get the Far Cry engine and just modify it. It did outdoor scenes very well. And for those thinking Far Cry was released too late, I remind you of a little game called Half-Life....

BTW, my specs:

Abit NF7 v2
Athlon Mobile 2400+ OCed to 3200+
1 GB DDR3200 RAM
MSI 5900XT
Hitachi Deskstar 100 ATA, 7200RPM(if that really counts...)

That's more than a year old, easily, but I would say from the posts I've read around here, it's about average. EQ2 better fucking run on that, I am not shelling out ~$500 for a new video card, CPU and Mobo(and maybe more RAM) just to play a game from a company I won't trust ATM.

Didn't the machines at E3 have to pretty damned pimped out to run the demo? And during the dragon part it still stuttered hardcore?

[Ravensign]

You act like the concept of a game pushing hardware has never happened before.

Where have you been the last 25 years of PC evolution?

[Sampo]

a 2500$ computer should be expected to run eq2 correctly.

[Sampo]

a 1200$ computer would run it just fine. an 1800 would do quite well, 2500 is nearing exceptional

[larseny316]

I think what he meant by mobs appearing in front of you is because of a clip plane like option. Which sometimes does happen in games where people have to pull that clip plane right back to the tip of their nose.

Does it suck that games are requiring more and more hardware? Well thats the nature of the business. I bought my computer 2 years ago, its a 1000 dollar system (then, now its about the price of a large pizza), and it managed to run Doom3 at medium settings. I'm pretty happy with the use I got out of it. It was nice to see software companies manage to make such huge increases in graphics that allowed for the average computer like mine to still run at what I consider a great graphical quality.

What does piss me off though, is when I see hardware moving forward at such a pace, that software companies then see it as an excuse to release sloppy inefficient code.

[Ukerric]

Regardless of the exact levels of hardware needed, it's a heavy gamble SOE is taking there.

They're gambling the fact that people will not be able to play it right away against a possible attraction of new players (due to big beautiful graphics - because we know all that graphics are what attracts, while gameplay is what keeps you) at a later date. It doesn't work for MMO veterans: anybody who's a veteran of the genre knows that, regardless of the graphics, the game one year after launch has stratified and holds little or no things that are new, interesting, and unspoiled (heck, most of the time, there's nothing unspoiled the week before release even).

Quite frankly, I have no interest in getting into a game a year after its released. Yet, it appears that it is the gamble that SOE is making: they want to open their market slowly.

Thing is, the strategy is self-defeating at the start. Who's their initial market? The real hard-core players. Nobody but the most hardcore will make the jump and buy a new game rig at $1500+ just to play a new game. So EQ2 will be initially flooded with a majority of hardcore gamers. Care to guess at which rate the content of the game will be consumed then? What are they going to do three months after launch, when, instead of a stable population all nicely clumped in their 20-30s, they're going to find out that most of their players are in their upper 40s, or already maxed? How are they going to handle the demand of the high-end crowd that will make a large amount of their (relatively modest - due to hardware requirements) subscriber base?

That is the problem of EQ2. The gameplay is supposed to appeal more to the medium-low crowd, yet the game itself is aimed at the hardcore player only. Quite risky, indeed.


(in my own case, my computer has been barely adequate for EQ1 since they went DX9, and my own budget will allow me only a "median" upgrade this fall - one that would be quite low end for EQ2. And given how well I can play EQ1 sometimes, I have zero confidence about being able to play EQ2 reasonably well. Another argument for beta: unless I can see by myself I'll be able to play, I won't invest in a game that will be completely unplayable on my config. And if they don't want to let me check? Well, it's not like they're the only game in town these days)

[Angrier]

Originally posted by Sampo
a 1200$ computer would run it just fine. an 1800 would do quite well, 2500 is nearing exceptional

What kind of a computer would you build with 2500? That's not including the monitor...

[Tuco]

My p3 1ghz had better run EQ2!