The number will be tough to call because of station pass.. Really for your bang for your buck cant really beat it.. For 25 a month get EQ, EQ2, SWG, i think The Matrix, and now Vanguard. Not saying these are the greatest games but for the price sure not bad. Will be interesting to see if a true market for this type of game.
Vanguard will peak then fall fast in few months after people start getting into the unfinished content at level 40+ with pretty much no endgame content.. just like eq2 .
ill be checking it out in a year or so when the game is in the bargain bin and maybe has some highend content but for those who are buying it now enjoy your buggy content light game.
Not saying it's for hardcore gamers to have the best systems, I'm just saying it's like car enthusiast, they always mod and upgrade their components because they want their cars to be running the fastest and in tip top shape sorry if I insulted you, just stating what I thought about system requirements.
Nothing wrong with arguing about different opinions : ) (while I think that we often just misunderstood each other). Didn't mean to insult you either though, sorry as well if you got that impression.
High System Requirements? I'm playing beta and I've tested it on a mid-range system (IE, Core 2 E 6600 stock, 2 gb RAM Geforce 7950 GT and it ran smooth at almost high graphics, then I tested it on a high end system (Core 2 Extreme, 4 gb RAM, Geforce 8800GTX SLI) and it ran flawlessly. It is Group focused but it's also soloable, and the only way you can say it's a grind is if you compare it to carebears like WoW. I'm settling for about 150k-250k player base
U calling that a mid-range system? : )
Of course only a tiny fraction of people buy a new computer every few months, and very few people will do that for one new game - even, believe it or not, for one that has diplomacy and corpse runs.
I don't claim to fathom to the asthetic sense of the Vanguard fanatics, but even if we assume that the screenshots really do represent the height of artistic expression, so what? ANYONE can make a pretty picture. And by that I don't mean "any major computer game company," I mean that anyone with a laptop and some development software can make graphics or controllable animations. That means nothing. The only hard part is making software that runs WELL with reasonable system requirements.
The problem in this case is not that 95% of all home computers are defective; it's that Vanguard simply happens to be a very, very inneficiently coded program. This isn't the only 3D computer game ever made; everyone here is perfectly familiar the current state of the art in MMO and CRPG graphics and animation. And Vanguard doesn't even meet them, let alone exceed them. It doesn't push any envelopes, it just runs poorly.
- The community created by the developers will, somewhat, be a turn off to some players. **
- "To much reading" (Heh)
- High system requirements
- High time investment
- Grind is present
- Very hurtful death penalties
- No central community.
**(Constant talk of hardcore, "Old school", "Doesn’t hold your hand" ETC.. while it may be true, allot of community members use this as elitist fodder.)
I think if you check real hard there might be a few treads you haven't posted this in yet lol, poor little jedi
Sigil knows thier numbers better than we do but with 12 servers 3 of which are PvP and were traditonaly way lower in numbers throughout beta I would guess they are not expecting more than 250k Max, considering churn even if they sold that many boxes the number wil level out to less than half that within 3 months.
By the way whoever said LoTRO is charging 200 bucks sight =unseen is a liar. According to the Turbine FAQ you have 30 days after launch to go with the lifetime subscription and they will have a 3 week public open beta before launch to see if you even want to order it.
High System Requirements? I'm playing beta and I've tested it on a mid-range system (IE, Core 2 E 6600 stock, 2 gb RAM Geforce 7950 GT and it ran smooth at almost high graphics, then I tested it on a high end system (Core 2 Extreme, 4 gb RAM, Geforce 8800GTX SLI) and it ran flawlessly. It is Group focused but it's also soloable, and the only way you can say it's a grind is if you compare it to carebears like WoW. I'm settling for about 150k-250k player base
U calling that a mid-range system? : )
it is a mid range system by todays standards, thats about exactly what any gaming magizine will list as mid range
Well I don't have a horse in this race (haven't been following V:SH), but it's just too much flame not to get in on it.
Let me preface myself by setting a few things out:
1. OP was not trolling by asking this question.
2. It's entirely possible to address the issue in an unbiased fashion.
Now I don't have the numbers right here in front of me, but I believe it is accurate to suggest that 250k stable is a very solid status for a game. It's not WOW numbers, and it's not ideal release period numbers, but it's solid. If I were a developer, assuming I hadn't shot myself in the foot with my own budget overruns, I'd be delighted to have a stable 250k.
The WAR Factor
Apparently these guys are gunning for 500k. Optimistic I think, but not out of the question. It could happen; I will say that if it's going to happen though, it needs to happen quick. Judging from current production, company history and reliability, and scheduling, I'd say the only thing that has any hope of competing with Warcraft will be WAR. To that end, if Vanguard is going to compete, they need to hit their mark before WAR goes live--probably before it goes into open beta. WAR's got the franchise (Warhammer predates Warcraft; even if it can't pull the non-MMO strategy people like WOW could, it stands a chance to pull miniature people with the proper marketing), it's got the developers (Mythic. DAOC: Let's face it, single best fantasy PVP in an MMO ever, period), and it's got the budget (EA. Any questions?).
PVP
Someone rather arrogantly suggested that PVP accounts for a vocal minority. That may have been the case pre-WOW--but not anymore. The most important line currently in place is the one separating FPS from MMO, not MMO PVP from MMO PVE. I'm not going to speculate as to who can breach that market successfully (maybe we'll have a better idea after Huxley and the like), but it's worth noting that WOW incorporates PVP into its design, and the fact that they've done well with PVP servers and with PVP even on PVE servers speaks very critically of your proposition. There are other factors in play here, and you can't discount them. For example, EQ2 has a very poorly designed PVP system, despite efforts to put in compromises which are badly needed. I'd venture that even if Vanguard's PVP is a carbon copy of WOW's in its ruleset, there are other problems with it that cause it to be weak. I can't speak to this with any authority since I haven't played, and I'm not going to try.
But you must recognize that WOW's success accounts for a stable, willing PVP market, and that same market is going to cripple any game that can't accomodate it.
Considerations for Subscription growth and shrinkage
I say all that to say that WAR is probably going to be the line of demarcation here. If Vanguard is going to make it, it needs to make it before WAR. That's assuming it can make it at all though. The other concerns, well-stated, are the system requirements, raid emphasis, and beta performance. I'm discounting beta altogether since--well, let's face it, it's beta. If you can't give someone the benefit of the doubt in beta, when can you?
1. System Requirements and time investment
System requirements are going to bite hard. The prime example of this is EQ2. Granted EQ2 had its own other problems at release--not the least of which is the name SOE attached to the box, which Vanguard also has to cope with--but even aside from those, many players who might have been torn between EQ2 and WOW might have been persuaded by the lack of funds to upgrade their computers, despite EQ2's stunning capabilities.
I saw the fun little rig pissing contest here--and that's good and well, but let's face facts here. People just don't have cutting edge machinery. Some do--but some don't, and if you're aiming for a good showing in this age of competition, you've got to spread your net as wide as possible. If I put Vanguard on my new $900-$1500 machine and it jerks, I don't play. That simple. You have to be willing to factor in not just what you want your game to look like at various levels of performance capability, but also where your consumer base's capabilities are. --and we DO have hard numbers on that. Everyone out there isn't a hardcore gamer willing to drop $5k on his computer. Furthermore, those most likely to have the time necessary to play a game which promises a heavy time investment as one of its selling points are those in the worst possible position to be financially stable--teenagers, college students, and other young adults.
Unless your target demographic is retirees, marketing a game which has tough system requirements and a high time investment is just a risky enterprise--not that it can't work, but it's not optimum, and it's going to hurt subscription numbers.
2. Raid content emphasis
This is probably the most volatile consideration. Whenever raids come up, tensions run high, and I have to admit I'm on the anti-raid end of the spectrum. I don't like it--don't enjoy it, think it's a meta-work mechanic, consider it the work of the devil, etc.
Aside from my personal opinion though, from a marketing standpoint, raiding is necessary--or at least large-member content (for example, guild content--I think that's the best characterization). It's similar to PVP in the way it separates people, and one could no more say that raiders are a vocal minority than one could say that of PVPers. The two mindsets grow out of the same stream of activity. Any given player, given enough time to work through other available content, will turn to PVP and/or raiding if either are viable and marginally rewarding. The question then isn't so much about raid itemization or forced-raiding as it is about functional, repeatable content. That is: At what point are the players getting bored?
Vanguard will be hurt by its raiding emphasis if it comes early. If players are guided to raid before they would naturally find it--that is, they would have no choice but to raid to advance even though there is still more time-efficient content remaining--then you'll see attrition in your subscription numbers. Raiding is a tool to be used by developers as a stopgate. You put the raids at the wall in order to maintain subscriptions while you develop new content. To that end WOW has succeeded amicably, even though it smacks of coercion from a player's perspective. If you put it too early or you make it unavoidable, then you're funnelling players into a state where their time is being used inefficiently (one of the purposes of raids) without them feeling as though they have a personal choice in the matter. Having no personal experience with Vanguard I can't speak to this end personally, but if what I'm reading is correct, it could prove to be a problem.
Itemization is also an issue, but let's face it--there's not enough left of that horse to even bother. I think it's somewhat common knowledge that raid and non-raid itemization disparity is a problem across the board, and this post is long enough already without me getting into my spiel on that.
Conclusion
The verdict on Vanguard's success will be out for about a year, I think. Given the competition currently on the market and the competition fast on its way, I would not consider this a good time to release a game, by any means. Unfortunately, I can't see a good time anywhere in the near future either, so caveat emptor. 250k sounds about right, frankly. That's speaking of a stable number--not the release explosion, and not the death throws number. 'the plateau. I have a bad feeling, however, that with Vanguard along with any other game which tends to emphasize its similarities to the "hardcore" mentality on the standards of elitists, the plateau will be short-lived.
At the end of the day, let's keep in mind--people are getting older here, and the first generation of gamers--the ones who had the tolerance for EQdead--are not the prime demographic anymore.
Best of luck to those playing Vanguard though. Seriously (that is, no sarcasm intended), I hope it has everything you're looking for in a game. There are enough games out and on their way now that that should be possible for just about everybody.
High System Requirements? I'm playing beta and I've tested it on a mid-range system (IE, Core 2 E 6600 stock, 2 gb RAM Geforce 7950 GT and it ran smooth at almost high graphics, then I tested it on a high end system (Core 2 Extreme, 4 gb RAM, Geforce 8800GTX SLI) and it ran flawlessly. It is Group focused but it's also soloable, and the only way you can say it's a grind is if you compare it to carebears like WoW. I'm settling for about 150k-250k player base
U calling that a mid-range system? : )
it is a mid range system by todays standards, thats about exactly what any gaming magizine will list as mid range
We are comparing two different things here. Mid range in terms of current available hardware, but definitely not mid range of the PCs of current gamers (http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/112791). And I thought euangelion was refereing to the average gamer PC. This misinterpretation has been cleared already though.
However, it doesn't matter at all if Vanguard is now according to current available hardware rated as med- or high-sys req. game. For the majority of gamers, and this is the factor that counts when it comes to subscriptions (to which I was originally referring to in my very first post of this thread), such a system is without any doubt rated as high. And don't get me wrong now, I'm well aware of the fact that all new upcoming titles have such a high requirement, and I'm far from even considering to insult the gaming industry because of programming more complex engines... (eventhough Unreal 2.5 can't be considered as new gen engine, but that's another story :-) Still love the ingame graphic though).
I doubt it will get more then 100000 subs, but because (to the best of my knowledge) it's included in the station pass, they will be able to claim that they have huge numbers. When in fact they dont.
-------------------- SWG - Killed by $OE WOW - Retired Playing WAR
well since most of these free MMOs usually get that i would say more peeps then that ar gonna get into it. Heck look at Auto Assault and the amount of peeps that game got.
I will play the game and enjoy it regardless of how many millions of people play it with me. Im thinking 8 million or more since we are all just pulling numbers from our bungholes with absolutely no basis whatsoever.
Critical thinking is a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture.
Originally posted by Copeland WAR is all about pvp. Therefore it won't appeal to the majority of gamers.
I am interested in WAR, so is my CoV guild: Care Bears Inc.
Mythic themselves are PvP-centric, but so is Brad. Come on, let's take a look at the specific servers in Vanguard/EQ:
RP: A PvE variation, but it is extreme and doesn't change much at the same time. Gameplays are left untouched.
PvP FFA: A PvP variation. Gameplays change.
PvP-Team: A PvP variation. Gameplays change again.
And for EQ there where a few other variations, all PvP-made...except the classic, which happen LONG after Brad left.
So, you have a crew of players who are PvE players, and you propose mostly PvP variations of the basic games? Sound like something is wrong to me, won't you agree? If 90% of the players are on the PvE servers, shouldn't there be more PvE variations than anything else?
Brad understands that PvE servers where a great ideas, but he, himself, is PvP-driven. He is a nub when it comes down to PvE. (If he is is PvE driven, than he doesn't show it at all, with his specific servers)
Mythic is most certainly a PvP-crew. But, they are not completely dumb. I would invite you to go read Imperator, and you will see that they start to understand a LOT of things. They seems to have regress on WAR, but that is not for me to say, it is way too far in time for anyone to say anything, but...my guess is they want to benefit from that understanding without warning competitors, aka making it a sneak appearance. Just see at how evading they are, it can mean anything...I find it weird to think they would actually have regress, nope, they don't. They play the fool card in order to see their competitors fail while they adapt.
WAR will attracts a LOT of PvE players, from there it is Mythic chance to keep these players or not. I am willing to try PvP, but even Mythic knows better than to change the players, I am a care bear, in every possible way, so it is logical to think they will try to hold and keep such players, as most warhammer fans where either cooperating or playing GBT PvP...thereby real time, they will most certainly make sure PvP isn't always enforced, even if they will make sure it is an option because they personnally love it. GBT PvP is closer to real-time PvE than to real-time PvP on a gameplay level (I don't feel like explaining that however).
EDIT: To the peoples saying that raiding is necessary, stop taking crack please. Raiding needs groupers. Groupers don't need raiding. Raiding-enforcement is a mistake, and it is about to be corrected; should have been corrected by Blizzard, but somehow they indulge in the mistake, which results in aggravating the situation, a competitor will correct this mistake, and claims the benefits.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
I predict..... I will play the game and enjoy it regardless of how many millions of people play it with me. Im thinking 8 million or more since we are all just pulling numbers from our bungholes with absolutely no basis whatsoever.
Not all of us I used the server numbers to base my prediciton on. Also if I felt like being nasty I could point out that during open beta the server numbers dropped 3 high and a medium PvP during prime trime down to a medium a 3 lows by last weekend. Funny part is that during the first part of the open beta servers showed number of people logged in, then they went to the high-medium-low when the numbers dropped and by last weekend they disabled the /who command which would get you accurate numbers. Using that before they disabled it though I was able to figutre high was 3k plus, medium was 2K and low was less than 1000.
Now add players of all servers then multiply the number players on during the prime playing time for that server by ten which is a very generous factor and you have a good ballpark figure of players. simple and common sense.
250K max at launch and after 3 months 100K or so active players, a year from now it might start creeping back up depending on Sigals and SOEs actions in the mean time.
Judging an mmo by its open beta #s is retarded........
The numbers always drop in beta because people log on expecting a finished product and when they encounter technical issues with the game they quit and then go to websites like this one to bash it. Most people will be looking through the pc games at best buy or target and they will pick up VG and say "hey this looks pretty cool lets try it" and voila subscriber. Most regular folk could care less about internet buzz and beta bugs they just want to buy a new game.
Critical thinking is a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture.
The numbers always drop in beta because people log on expecting a finished product and when they encounter technical issues with the game they quit and then go to websites like this one to bash it.
Judging a game by it's closed beta is indeed retarded, however putting a game into open beta is saying "come over here and see our shiny new game" SOE should have had their butts kicked for putting Vanguard out for people to see in the shape they did. That was the epitome of stupid on their part. Open beta has always been try before buy advertisment and even calling it beta is dumb. Anyway too late now, all they can do is wait a month or three and get the game into a more finished product and start with the free trials to try and fill their servers.
Well, I think what the previous poster meant to say is that judging the number of people that are going to play Vanguard by the number that played Open Beta is retarded. I know while I had an open beta key, I only played very little of it, due to beta characters simply being deleted and I didn't want to ruin parts of the games experience.
I think the beginning will be roughest for Vanguard. It scared off some customers, currently the system specs are high, and it still needs development time. With time, the system specs naturally become lower, development will be put in the game, and customers will come back to try the improved game. Others will join by word of mouth.
Really, it'll be how Sigil handles the first few months of Vanguard to see whether it will be successful or not. If you count in WoW's expansion, Vanguard may be able to get a few of the players from that game once they're bored with that expansion. But I think around 200k subscribers probably isn't a bad guess.
it might only need like 35k accounts per server to be comparable to wow on a community level (based on 8million, 180+ servers, and each server being segregated between alliance and horde). We all know WoW isn't pumping the extra money into more content, not that Vanguard will either, but I think it's safe to say if the game has one server and 35k accounts it will be just as good as playing a horde in WoW, well for PvE anyway, for PvP you'd have to go into subs per battlegroup or something.
They don't have 35k accounts per server LOL.
You see 180+ servers. That would be for the 3 million US/Euro subs. We'd need someone from China to tell us how many servers they have for their 5 million chinese gamers. I've always been skeptical of Blizzards claims anyway. 8 million accounts would take 800 server shards at 10,000 accounts per shard which would be really close to the limit. Considering the wait queues they have going i know they don't have the best technology behind their game. I almost guarantee their numbers are inflated by at least 3 or 4 million just for the hype and free advertising.
I know SOE used to like to keep the average population active per shard at around 4000. If it got higher thats when they'd split the server. I'd imagine with the technology today you'd double that.
oh true, I'm glad i'm wrong, I played on Muradin Horde for the longest time and it was about 400 lvl 60's, one decent raid group, one aussie group, the rest were complete idiots. Then I bought a dwarf priest on a high pop and it was night and day difference, groups all the time (and not just cause I was a priest), call to arms had maybe 4-6 groups a night listed on muradin, and feathermoon had like 25, so as long as per server pop is equal to wow that's all that matters, i can figure out boss encounters on my own. Is vanguard splitting the server into 2, meaning alliance and horde? cause I hope they learned from wows mistake on that. I'm glad i was wrong about the wow server pops.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You? if I were to kill a titan tomorrow and no CCP employees showed up to say grats I would petition it. Waiting for: the next MMO that lets me make this macro if hp < 30 then CastSpell("heal") SpellTargetUnit("player") else CastSpell("smite") end
Not all of us I used the server numbers to base my prediciton on. Also if I felt like being nasty I could point out that during open beta the server numbers dropped 3 high and a medium PvP during prime trime down to a medium a 3 lows by last weekend. Funny part is that during the first part of the open beta servers showed number of people logged in, then they went to the high-medium-low when the numbers dropped and by last weekend they disabled the /who command which would get you accurate numbers. Using that before they disabled it though I was able to figutre high was 3k plus, medium was 2K and low was less than 1000. Now add players of all servers then multiply the number players on during the prime playing time for that server by ten which is a very generous factor and you have a good ballpark figure of players. simple and common sense. 250K max at launch and after 3 months 100K or so active players, a year from now it might start creeping back up depending on Sigals and SOEs actions in the mean time.
You missed of few facters in your reasoning. Most people try out open beta to see whether or not they like the game, but they dont usually stay after they decide. Whats the point in leveling a character when you know he will be wiped at anytime and you know you`ll have to do everything over again. anothEr thing vanguard iS still Rated fOurth on the Hype list. Thats pretty good its hard for a game in beta to compete with games that have only marketing and a fans imagination. Any way all indications show for a good start and the game really is just getting better and better literally on a daily bases.
Congradulations sigil . i think vanguard will do just fine.
Not all of us I used the server numbers to base my prediciton on. Also if I felt like being nasty I could point out that during open beta the server numbers dropped 3 high and a medium PvP during prime trime down to a medium a 3 lows by last weekend. Funny part is that during the first part of the open beta servers showed number of people logged in, then they went to the high-medium-low when the numbers dropped and by last weekend they disabled the /who command which would get you accurate numbers. Using that before they disabled it though I was able to figutre high was 3k plus, medium was 2K and low was less than 1000. Now add players of all servers then multiply the number players on during the prime playing time for that server by ten which is a very generous factor and you have a good ballpark figure of players. simple and common sense. 250K max at launch and after 3 months 100K or so active players, a year from now it might start creeping back up depending on Sigals and SOEs actions in the mean time.
You missed of few facters in your reasoning. Most people try out open beta to see whether or not they like the game, but they dont usually stay after they decide. Whats the point in leveling a character when you know he will be wiped at anytime and you know you`ll have to do everything over again. anothEr thing vanguard iS still Rated fOurth on the Hype list. Thats pretty good its hard for a game in beta to compete with games that have only marketing and a fans imagination. Any way all indications show for a good start and the game really is just getting better and better literally on a daily bases.
Congradulations sigil . i think vanguard will do just fine.
I don't follow your logic at all. If people had been having fun they would have played the game when it was free. Out of around 100 gamers that I correspond with on smaller boards about 5% who tried the free beta will be playing here at launch. Count the servers man, this was not a huge launch. This is going to be a nice niche game, and settle in at around 100K- 150 K, nothing wrong with those numbers it is just that this game is not for everyones taste. It will do just fine at those numbers and a smaller community is not a bad thing.
Comments
ill be checking it out in a year or so when the game is in the bargain bin and maybe has some highend content but for those who are buying it now enjoy your buggy content light game.
U calling that a mid-range system? : )
Of course only a tiny fraction of people buy a new computer every few months, and very few people will do that for one new game - even, believe it or not, for one that has diplomacy and corpse runs.
I don't claim to fathom to the asthetic sense of the Vanguard fanatics, but even if we assume that the screenshots really do represent the height of artistic expression, so what? ANYONE can make a pretty picture. And by that I don't mean "any major computer game company," I mean that anyone with a laptop and some development software can make graphics or controllable animations. That means nothing. The only hard part is making software that runs WELL with reasonable system requirements.
The problem in this case is not that 95% of all home computers are defective; it's that Vanguard simply happens to be a very, very inneficiently coded program. This isn't the only 3D computer game ever made; everyone here is perfectly familiar the current state of the art in MMO and CRPG graphics and animation. And Vanguard doesn't even meet them, let alone exceed them. It doesn't push any envelopes, it just runs poorly.
Sigil knows thier numbers better than we do but with 12 servers 3 of which are PvP and were traditonaly way lower in numbers throughout beta I would guess they are not expecting more than 250k Max, considering churn even if they sold that many boxes the number wil level out to less than half that within 3 months.
By the way whoever said LoTRO is charging 200 bucks sight =unseen is a liar. According to the Turbine FAQ you have 30 days after launch to go with the lifetime subscription and they will have a 3 week public open beta before launch to see if you even want to order it.
link to the FAQ
http://lotro.turbine.com/index.php?page_id=103
I miss DAoC
U calling that a mid-range system? : )
it is a mid range system by todays standards, thats about exactly what any gaming magizine will list as mid range
Let me preface myself by setting a few things out:
1. OP was not trolling by asking this question.
2. It's entirely possible to address the issue in an unbiased fashion.
Now I don't have the numbers right here in front of me, but I believe it is accurate to suggest that 250k stable is a very solid status for a game. It's not WOW numbers, and it's not ideal release period numbers, but it's solid. If I were a developer, assuming I hadn't shot myself in the foot with my own budget overruns, I'd be delighted to have a stable 250k.
The WAR Factor
Apparently these guys are gunning for 500k. Optimistic I think, but not out of the question. It could happen; I will say that if it's going to happen though, it needs to happen quick. Judging from current production, company history and reliability, and scheduling, I'd say the only thing that has any hope of competing with Warcraft will be WAR. To that end, if Vanguard is going to compete, they need to hit their mark before WAR goes live--probably before it goes into open beta. WAR's got the franchise (Warhammer predates Warcraft; even if it can't pull the non-MMO strategy people like WOW could, it stands a chance to pull miniature people with the proper marketing), it's got the developers (Mythic. DAOC: Let's face it, single best fantasy PVP in an MMO ever, period), and it's got the budget (EA. Any questions?).
PVP
Someone rather arrogantly suggested that PVP accounts for a vocal minority. That may have been the case pre-WOW--but not anymore. The most important line currently in place is the one separating FPS from MMO, not MMO PVP from MMO PVE. I'm not going to speculate as to who can breach that market successfully (maybe we'll have a better idea after Huxley and the like), but it's worth noting that WOW incorporates PVP into its design, and the fact that they've done well with PVP servers and with PVP even on PVE servers speaks very critically of your proposition. There are other factors in play here, and you can't discount them. For example, EQ2 has a very poorly designed PVP system, despite efforts to put in compromises which are badly needed. I'd venture that even if Vanguard's PVP is a carbon copy of WOW's in its ruleset, there are other problems with it that cause it to be weak. I can't speak to this with any authority since I haven't played, and I'm not going to try.
But you must recognize that WOW's success accounts for a stable, willing PVP market, and that same market is going to cripple any game that can't accomodate it.
Considerations for Subscription growth and shrinkage
I say all that to say that WAR is probably going to be the line of demarcation here. If Vanguard is going to make it, it needs to make it before WAR. That's assuming it can make it at all though. The other concerns, well-stated, are the system requirements, raid emphasis, and beta performance. I'm discounting beta altogether since--well, let's face it, it's beta. If you can't give someone the benefit of the doubt in beta, when can you?
1. System Requirements and time investment
System requirements are going to bite hard. The prime example of this is EQ2. Granted EQ2 had its own other problems at release--not the least of which is the name SOE attached to the box, which Vanguard also has to cope with--but even aside from those, many players who might have been torn between EQ2 and WOW might have been persuaded by the lack of funds to upgrade their computers, despite EQ2's stunning capabilities.
I saw the fun little rig pissing contest here--and that's good and well, but let's face facts here. People just don't have cutting edge machinery. Some do--but some don't, and if you're aiming for a good showing in this age of competition, you've got to spread your net as wide as possible. If I put Vanguard on my new $900-$1500 machine and it jerks, I don't play. That simple. You have to be willing to factor in not just what you want your game to look like at various levels of performance capability, but also where your consumer base's capabilities are. --and we DO have hard numbers on that. Everyone out there isn't a hardcore gamer willing to drop $5k on his computer. Furthermore, those most likely to have the time necessary to play a game which promises a heavy time investment as one of its selling points are those in the worst possible position to be financially stable--teenagers, college students, and other young adults.
Unless your target demographic is retirees, marketing a game which has tough system requirements and a high time investment is just a risky enterprise--not that it can't work, but it's not optimum, and it's going to hurt subscription numbers.
2. Raid content emphasis
This is probably the most volatile consideration. Whenever raids come up, tensions run high, and I have to admit I'm on the anti-raid end of the spectrum. I don't like it--don't enjoy it, think it's a meta-work mechanic, consider it the work of the devil, etc.
Aside from my personal opinion though, from a marketing standpoint, raiding is necessary--or at least large-member content (for example, guild content--I think that's the best characterization). It's similar to PVP in the way it separates people, and one could no more say that raiders are a vocal minority than one could say that of PVPers. The two mindsets grow out of the same stream of activity. Any given player, given enough time to work through other available content, will turn to PVP and/or raiding if either are viable and marginally rewarding. The question then isn't so much about raid itemization or forced-raiding as it is about functional, repeatable content. That is: At what point are the players getting bored?
Vanguard will be hurt by its raiding emphasis if it comes early. If players are guided to raid before they would naturally find it--that is, they would have no choice but to raid to advance even though there is still more time-efficient content remaining--then you'll see attrition in your subscription numbers. Raiding is a tool to be used by developers as a stopgate. You put the raids at the wall in order to maintain subscriptions while you develop new content. To that end WOW has succeeded amicably, even though it smacks of coercion from a player's perspective. If you put it too early or you make it unavoidable, then you're funnelling players into a state where their time is being used inefficiently (one of the purposes of raids) without them feeling as though they have a personal choice in the matter. Having no personal experience with Vanguard I can't speak to this end personally, but if what I'm reading is correct, it could prove to be a problem.
Itemization is also an issue, but let's face it--there's not enough left of that horse to even bother. I think it's somewhat common knowledge that raid and non-raid itemization disparity is a problem across the board, and this post is long enough already without me getting into my spiel on that.
Conclusion
The verdict on Vanguard's success will be out for about a year, I think. Given the competition currently on the market and the competition fast on its way, I would not consider this a good time to release a game, by any means. Unfortunately, I can't see a good time anywhere in the near future either, so caveat emptor. 250k sounds about right, frankly. That's speaking of a stable number--not the release explosion, and not the death throws number. 'the plateau. I have a bad feeling, however, that with Vanguard along with any other game which tends to emphasize its similarities to the "hardcore" mentality on the standards of elitists, the plateau will be short-lived.
At the end of the day, let's keep in mind--people are getting older here, and the first generation of gamers--the ones who had the tolerance for EQdead--are not the prime demographic anymore.
Best of luck to those playing Vanguard though. Seriously (that is, no sarcasm intended), I hope it has everything you're looking for in a game. There are enough games out and on their way now that that should be possible for just about everybody.
Peace and safety.
U calling that a mid-range system? : )
it is a mid range system by todays standards, thats about exactly what any gaming magizine will list as mid range
We are comparing two different things here. Mid range in terms of current available hardware, but definitely not mid range of the PCs of current gamers (http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/112791). And I thought euangelion was refereing to the average gamer PC. This misinterpretation has been cleared already though.
However, it doesn't matter at all if Vanguard is now according to current available hardware rated as med- or high-sys req. game. For the majority of gamers, and this is the factor that counts when it comes to subscriptions (to which I was originally referring to in my very first post of this thread), such a system is without any doubt rated as high. And don't get me wrong now, I'm well aware of the fact that all new upcoming titles have such a high requirement, and I'm far from even considering to insult the gaming industry because of programming more complex engines... (eventhough Unreal 2.5 can't be considered as new gen engine, but that's another story :-) Still love the ingame graphic though).
--------------------
SWG - Killed by $OE
WOW - Retired
Playing WAR
I predict.....
I will play the game and enjoy it regardless of how many millions of people play it with me. Im thinking 8 million or more since we are all just pulling numbers from our bungholes with absolutely no basis whatsoever.
Critical thinking is a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture.
I am interested in WAR, so is my CoV guild: Care Bears Inc.
Mythic themselves are PvP-centric, but so is Brad. Come on, let's take a look at the specific servers in Vanguard/EQ:
RP: A PvE variation, but it is extreme and doesn't change much at the same time. Gameplays are left untouched.
PvP FFA: A PvP variation. Gameplays change.
PvP-Team: A PvP variation. Gameplays change again.
And for EQ there where a few other variations, all PvP-made...except the classic, which happen LONG after Brad left.
So, you have a crew of players who are PvE players, and you propose mostly PvP variations of the basic games? Sound like something is wrong to me, won't you agree? If 90% of the players are on the PvE servers, shouldn't there be more PvE variations than anything else?
Brad understands that PvE servers where a great ideas, but he, himself, is PvP-driven. He is a nub when it comes down to PvE. (If he is is PvE driven, than he doesn't show it at all, with his specific servers)
Mythic is most certainly a PvP-crew. But, they are not completely dumb. I would invite you to go read Imperator, and you will see that they start to understand a LOT of things. They seems to have regress on WAR, but that is not for me to say, it is way too far in time for anyone to say anything, but...my guess is they want to benefit from that understanding without warning competitors, aka making it a sneak appearance. Just see at how evading they are, it can mean anything...I find it weird to think they would actually have regress, nope, they don't. They play the fool card in order to see their competitors fail while they adapt.
WAR will attracts a LOT of PvE players, from there it is Mythic chance to keep these players or not. I am willing to try PvP, but even Mythic knows better than to change the players, I am a care bear, in every possible way, so it is logical to think they will try to hold and keep such players, as most warhammer fans where either cooperating or playing GBT PvP...thereby real time, they will most certainly make sure PvP isn't always enforced, even if they will make sure it is an option because they personnally love it. GBT PvP is closer to real-time PvE than to real-time PvP on a gameplay level (I don't feel like explaining that however).
EDIT: To the peoples saying that raiding is necessary, stop taking crack please. Raiding needs groupers. Groupers don't need raiding. Raiding-enforcement is a mistake, and it is about to be corrected; should have been corrected by Blizzard, but somehow they indulge in the mistake, which results in aggravating the situation, a competitor will correct this mistake, and claims the benefits.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Not all of us I used the server numbers to base my prediciton on. Also if I felt like being nasty I could point out that during open beta the server numbers dropped 3 high and a medium PvP during prime trime down to a medium a 3 lows by last weekend. Funny part is that during the first part of the open beta servers showed number of people logged in, then they went to the high-medium-low when the numbers dropped and by last weekend they disabled the /who command which would get you accurate numbers. Using that before they disabled it though I was able to figutre high was 3k plus, medium was 2K and low was less than 1000.
Now add players of all servers then multiply the number players on during the prime playing time for that server by ten which is a very generous factor and you have a good ballpark figure of players. simple and common sense.
250K max at launch and after 3 months 100K or so active players, a year from now it might start creeping back up depending on Sigals and SOEs actions in the mean time.
I miss DAoC
Judging an mmo by its open beta #s is retarded........
The numbers always drop in beta because people log on expecting a finished product and when they encounter technical issues with the game they quit and then go to websites like this one to bash it. Most people will be looking through the pc games at best buy or target and they will pick up VG and say "hey this looks pretty cool lets try it" and voila subscriber. Most regular folk could care less about internet buzz and beta bugs they just want to buy a new game.
Critical thinking is a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture.
Well actually how will one really know how many subs they have since after all it will be made available via station access ?
I miss DAoC
I think the beginning will be roughest for Vanguard. It scared off some customers, currently the system specs are high, and it still needs development time. With time, the system specs naturally become lower, development will be put in the game, and customers will come back to try the improved game. Others will join by word of mouth.
Really, it'll be how Sigil handles the first few months of Vanguard to see whether it will be successful or not. If you count in WoW's expansion, Vanguard may be able to get a few of the players from that game once they're bored with that expansion. But I think around 200k subscribers probably isn't a bad guess.
They don't have 35k accounts per server LOL.
You see 180+ servers. That would be for the 3 million US/Euro subs. We'd need someone from China to tell us how many servers they have for their 5 million chinese gamers. I've always been skeptical of Blizzards claims anyway. 8 million accounts would take 800 server shards at 10,000 accounts per shard which would be really close to the limit. Considering the wait queues they have going i know they don't have the best technology behind their game. I almost guarantee their numbers are inflated by at least 3 or 4 million just for the hype and free advertising.
I know SOE used to like to keep the average population active per shard at around 4000. If it got higher thats when they'd split the server. I'd imagine with the technology today you'd double that.
oh true, I'm glad i'm wrong, I played on Muradin Horde for the longest time and it was about 400 lvl 60's, one decent raid group, one aussie group, the rest were complete idiots. Then I bought a dwarf priest on a high pop and it was night and day difference, groups all the time (and not just cause I was a priest), call to arms had maybe 4-6 groups a night listed on muradin, and feathermoon had like 25, so as long as per server pop is equal to wow that's all that matters, i can figure out boss encounters on my own. Is vanguard splitting the server into 2, meaning alliance and horde? cause I hope they learned from wows mistake on that. I'm glad i was wrong about the wow server pops.Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
if I were to kill a titan tomorrow and no CCP employees showed up to say grats I would petition it.
Waiting for: the next MMO that lets me make this macro
if hp < 30 then CastSpell("heal") SpellTargetUnit("player") else CastSpell("smite") end
You missed of few facters in your reasoning. Most people try out open beta to see whether or not they like the game, but they dont usually stay after they decide. Whats the point in leveling a character when you know he will be wiped at anytime and you know you`ll have to do everything over again. anothEr thing vanguard iS still Rated fOurth on the Hype list. Thats pretty good its hard for a game in beta to compete with games that have only marketing and a fans imagination. Any way all indications show for a good start and the game really is just getting better and better literally on a daily bases.
Congradulations sigil . i think vanguard will do just fine.
You missed of few facters in your reasoning. Most people try out open beta to see whether or not they like the game, but they dont usually stay after they decide. Whats the point in leveling a character when you know he will be wiped at anytime and you know you`ll have to do everything over again. anothEr thing vanguard iS still Rated fOurth on the Hype list. Thats pretty good its hard for a game in beta to compete with games that have only marketing and a fans imagination. Any way all indications show for a good start and the game really is just getting better and better literally on a daily bases.
Congradulations sigil . i think vanguard will do just fine.
I don't follow your logic at all. If people had been having fun they would have played the game when it was free. Out of around 100 gamers that I correspond with on smaller boards about 5% who tried the free beta will be playing here at launch. Count the servers man, this was not a huge launch. This is going to be a nice niche game, and settle in at around 100K- 150 K, nothing wrong with those numbers it is just that this game is not for everyones taste. It will do just fine at those numbers and a smaller community is not a bad thing.
I miss DAoC