That's some pretty big advertising muscle. I'm not sure why he'd use the New York times over someone like PC Gamer though.
How many people, honestly, buy a newspaper to read about a video game?
Just my 2 cents. If I want to read about games, I'd use the internet or a gaming magazine.
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Ok, if you possess no ability whatsoever to read between the lines, that's your agenda, not mine.
However, using phrases like "a gamer's game" is marketing.
Your bias towards Vanguard being the best MMORPG out there blinds you to the obvious.
This is the new york times honey, not the weekly world news.
I don't see your point.
Are we trying to say that people would take the Weekly World News more seriously as a medium for advertisement?
As other users said, the NYT is a big fish; get your name in there, and you've pretty much got some instant publicity that's worth a damn.
My hilarious point was, this is a reputable newspaper doing a very timely article about a high profile, high budget games release in their arts and leisure section. It is not an advertisement no matter how much publicity it garners for the subject of the article. He didn't use the new york times, they used him.
That's some pretty big advertising muscle. I'm not sure why he'd use the New York times over someone like PC Gamer though.
How many people, honestly, buy a newspaper to read about a video game?
Just my 2 cents. If I want to read about games, I'd use the internet or a gaming magazine.
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Ok, if you possess no ability whatsoever to read between the lines, that's your agenda, not mine.
However, using phrases like "a gamer's game" is marketing.
Your bias towards Vanguard being the best MMORPG out there blinds you to the obvious.I think that Brad probably granted the interview and/or the article write-up to appeal to the older/mature gamer. At the top of the article it did say that the article would appear in the Art/Leisure area of the NYT..
There's already been a lot of advertising for Vanguard in the typical genre related areas: gaming magazines, internet sites, blogs, software stores, etc. I think it's these more main-stream media outlets that allow a game to garner a newer demographic that might not necessarily visit the more traditional gaming advertising media outlets.
So, if Brad is really serious about wanting to reach out to more than just a niche market; it should be no surprise to see articles or even advertising about Vanguard in such non-typical gaming venues as the New York Times.
Well, that's my 2 cents on it anyway.
That's a distinct possibility.
I'd imagine anyone who was following Vanguard has already made up their mind by this point, done their research, etc etc.
On the other hand, there could be some non-serious gamers out there, likely older folks, looking for something to bide their time. Maybe McQuaid is shooting for this demographic; one that's often ignored by games in today's market.
I do know quite a few retired people who play MMORPGs, and considering the time sinks that Vanguard employs they would be about the only mature gamers who have the time to be able to invest in this game. On another forum I was reading a thread about Vanguard and one of the posters was lamenting the fact that now that he has a wife and while Vanguard appealed to his old EQ1 days with kids and a wife now he just coiuld not play a game where only 20% of the content was geared toward solo play ( Brads words not mine) and significant time sinks such as corpse runs were involved.
As far as the advertising concept, I agree it hit a lot of people but was it the right target market. Just my opinion here but the people who read the NY Times might be more inclined to play a more casual oriented game such as WoW, or EQII, rather than Vanguard. That's just my opinion there and while it might help sales some, wil Vanguard be able to retain the casual gamers who decide to try it based on the article. Like others I think those who like Vanguard and will stick wiith it have already made up their minds and have purchased it. Now all it can do is try and retain those who have purchased it, and hope that in a few months some of the open beta players who put off buying it at release will return for another try when they polish it more and start a free trial.
That's some pretty big advertising muscle. I'm not sure why he'd use the New York times over someone like PC Gamer though.
How many people, honestly, buy a newspaper to read about a video game?
Just my 2 cents. If I want to read about games, I'd use the internet or a gaming magazine.
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Ok, if you possess no ability whatsoever to read between the lines, that's your agenda, not mine.
However, using phrases like "a gamer's game" is marketing.
Your bias towards Vanguard being the best MMORPG out there blinds you to the obvious.I think that Brad probably granted the interview and/or the article write-up to appeal to the older/mature gamer. At the top of the article it did say that the article would appear in the Art/Leisure area of the NYT..
There's already been a lot of advertising for Vanguard in the typical genre related areas: gaming magazines, internet sites, blogs, software stores, etc. I think it's these more main-stream media outlets that allow a game to garner a newer demographic that might not necessarily visit the more traditional gaming advertising media outlets.
So, if Brad is really serious about wanting to reach out to more than just a niche market; it should be no surprise to see articles or even advertising about Vanguard in such non-typical gaming venues as the New York Times.
Well, that's my 2 cents on it anyway.
That's a distinct possibility.
I'd imagine anyone who was following Vanguard has already made up their mind by this point, done their research, etc etc.
On the other hand, there could be some non-serious gamers out there, likely older folks, looking for something to bide their time. Maybe McQuaid is shooting for this demographic; one that's often ignored by games in today's market.
I do know quite a few retired people who play MMORPGs, and considering the time sinks that Vanguard employs they would be about the only mature gamers who have the time to be able to invest in this game. On another forum I was reading a thread about Vanguard and one of the posters was lamenting the fact that now that he has a wife and while Vanguard appealed to his old EQ1 days with kids and a wife now he just coiuld not play a game where only 20% of the content was geared toward solo play ( Brads words not mine) and significant time sinks such as corpse runs were involved.
As far as the advertising concept, I agree it hit a lot of people but was it the right target market. Just my opinion here but the people who read the NY Times might be more inclined to play a more casual oriented game such as WoW, or EQII, rather than Vanguard. That's just my opinion there and while it might help sales some, wil Vanguard be able to retain the casual gamers who decide to try it based on the article. Like others I think those who like Vanguard and will stick wiith it have already made up their minds and have purchased it. Now all it can do is try and retain those who have purchased it, and hope that in a few months some of the open beta players who put off buying it at release will return for another try when they polish it more and start a free trial.
Please provide a link that shows Brad stating that only 20% of the game is geared toward casual play.
The game isn't geared toward casual gamers nor is it geared toward hardcore gamers. It's target is core games, with things for hardcore and causuals alike to do. You can find this info on the Vanguard FAQ.
Edit: Just wanted to add that any company that would refuse to participate in an article that the NYT was doing on them, granted the article was in good light and not bad, that company would have to be doing something criminal.
An advertisement would imply that some form of payment was secured by the group doing the add, and something tells me that the NYT didn't take money to do that article; therefore it's not an advertisement.
That article seems a bit more marketing than interviewing. It does give some nice details & good insight about the progression of Vanguard. In the end though Vanguard was being coddled by this interviewer. Sigil & SOE have managed to place a few very pretentious remarks about Vanguard though when comparing it to others: "Vanguard is a gamers' game" & similar. That's right Sigil/SOE, try to demean any that might question. If Mr. Aradune Mithara would have mentioned before Vanguard's launch that it was indeed not quite ready ... then integrity wouldn't have gotten smudged. However in Vanguard's lineage we customers/players will have to live & learn to see if Sigil & SOE even attempt to complete & restore Vanguard's promising visage.
I still am irritated that the CEs don't allow the choice of (1) of the (3) ingame cards. Nice how again Sigil & SOE hadn't detailed that before release. & Sigil had begun being so open to their forum community. I wanted to *try to play two accounts (1) being the Crafter card & the other being the Diplomacy card. That total random is just not welcoming. Probably a SOE footprint left onto the game which should be changed to benefit the customer/player by inputting a code to allow the choice. Hence why I'll probably return my (2) unopened Vanguard CEs soon. I still might buy (1) regular Vanguard eventually. I want to learn if my computer will play it at an acceptable rate though, & I wouldn't mind missing the glitch surge of the current time. Still waiting for that strategy guide too, which I figure was a good indicator how rushed Vanguard had got.
To those current Telon residents, good luck in your journey & I wish you well. Hopefully I'll cross your path at a later date. Probably as a Vulmane, Raki, or a Kura. To Sigil/SOE, if your going to by chance change your collective minds about the (3) ingame cards for the Vanguard CEs ... please do so before the end of next week so I wont return them & down the pixel road I'll play Vanguard. That Station Total Access pass seems so tempting & is a good value. Only if I wouldn't have to do all that level grinding again in EQ, & able to see all the zones' sights. Heck for that Station Total Access pass there could be: EQ, EQ2, SWG, & Vanguard(A.K.A. EQ3). If not then I'll try WoW soon & keep dabbling in Guild Wars. No one should dismiss Vanguard (EQ3) just yet. Give it a little birth burping time, apparently it needs it.
That's some pretty big advertising muscle. I'm not sure why he'd use the New York times over someone like PC Gamer though.
How many people, honestly, buy a newspaper to read about a video game?
Just my 2 cents. If I want to read about games, I'd use the internet or a gaming magazine.
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Ok, if you possess no ability whatsoever to read between the lines, that's your agenda, not mine.
However, using phrases like "a gamer's game" is marketing.
Your bias towards Vanguard being the best MMORPG out there blinds you to the obvious.I think that Brad probably granted the interview and/or the article write-up to appeal to the older/mature gamer. At the top of the article it did say that the article would appear in the Art/Leisure area of the NYT..
There's already been a lot of advertising for Vanguard in the typical genre related areas: gaming magazines, internet sites, blogs, software stores, etc. I think it's these more main-stream media outlets that allow a game to garner a newer demographic that might not necessarily visit the more traditional gaming advertising media outlets.
So, if Brad is really serious about wanting to reach out to more than just a niche market; it should be no surprise to see articles or even advertising about Vanguard in such non-typical gaming venues as the New York Times.
Well, that's my 2 cents on it anyway.
That's a distinct possibility.
I'd imagine anyone who was following Vanguard has already made up their mind by this point, done their research, etc etc.
On the other hand, there could be some non-serious gamers out there, likely older folks, looking for something to bide their time. Maybe McQuaid is shooting for this demographic; one that's often ignored by games in today's market.
I do know quite a few retired people who play MMORPGs, and considering the time sinks that Vanguard employs they would be about the only mature gamers who have the time to be able to invest in this game. On another forum I was reading a thread about Vanguard and one of the posters was lamenting the fact that now that he has a wife and while Vanguard appealed to his old EQ1 days with kids and a wife now he just coiuld not play a game where only 20% of the content was geared toward solo play ( Brads words not mine) and significant time sinks such as corpse runs were involved.
As far as the advertising concept, I agree it hit a lot of people but was it the right target market. Just my opinion here but the people who read the NY Times might be more inclined to play a more casual oriented game such as WoW, or EQII, rather than Vanguard. That's just my opinion there and while it might help sales some, wil Vanguard be able to retain the casual gamers who decide to try it based on the article. Like others I think those who like Vanguard and will stick wiith it have already made up their minds and have purchased it. Now all it can do is try and retain those who have purchased it, and hope that in a few months some of the open beta players who put off buying it at release will return for another try when they polish it more and start a free trial.
Please provide a link that shows Brad stating that only 20% of the game is geared toward casual play.
The game isn't geared toward casual gamers nor is it geared toward hardcore gamers. It's target is core games, with things for hardcore and causuals alike to do. You can find this info on the Vanguard FAQ.
Edit: Just wanted to add that any company that would refuse to participate in an article that the NYT was doing on them, granted the article was in good light and not bad, that company would have to be doing something criminal.
An advertisement would imply that some form of payment was secured by the group doing the add, and something tells me that the NYT didn't take money to do that article; therefore it's not an advertisement.
When the year began Vanguard’s game play was centered on gaining experience by killing monsters. The success of World of Warcraft’s quest-directed game play has likely affected the design for Vanguard and could possibly affect every new MMORPG for 2007. In 2006 Vanguard changed its philosophy to quest-directed game play. Quests will lead players around the world of Telon and comprise a substantial portion of the player’s experience.
This has caused quite a bit of controversy. While quest-directed game play may be the wave of the future many players do not like being led by quests. Quests make it harder for groups to stay together as people are constantly leaving once they finish their quest. In Vanguard, players will have options--they can either quest from level 1-50, or level grind by killing monsters without questing. There will be many dungeons to crawl and places for players to grind or camp if they wish. Brad McQuaid, CEO of Sigil Games, has said it is Sigil’s intention that pure grinding will be a slower way to level than questing. Sigil here is trying to walk a delicate balance and appeal to both types of players, questers and those who dislike questing.
Even with quest-directed game play Vanguard is still designed to be a group oriented game. Early in 2006 we learned about the 20-60-20 philosophy. Sigil’s concept for all levels of gameplay, including, the endgame, is content distribution that is roughly 20% for raiding, 60% for single groups and 20% for solo and casual (2-3 players) play. Sigil has said that players will be able to solo from level 1-50 but that the rate of progress will be slower than when grouped.
That's some pretty big advertising muscle. I'm not sure why he'd use the New York times over someone like PC Gamer though.
How many people, honestly, buy a newspaper to read about a video game?
Just my 2 cents. If I want to read about games, I'd use the internet or a gaming magazine.
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Seriously though, are you delusional now? If you cant see it being a form of advertisment, you may need to read it again.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
That's some pretty big advertising muscle. I'm not sure why he'd use the New York times over someone like PC Gamer though.
How many people, honestly, buy a newspaper to read about a video game?
Just my 2 cents. If I want to read about games, I'd use the internet or a gaming magazine.
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Ok, if you possess no ability whatsoever to read between the lines, that's your agenda, not mine.
However, using phrases like "a gamer's game" is marketing.
Your bias towards Vanguard being the best MMORPG out there blinds you to the obvious.
This is the new york times honey, not the weekly world news.
I don't see your point.
Are we trying to say that people would take the Weekly World News more seriously as a medium for advertisement?
As other users said, the NYT is a big fish; get your name in there, and you've pretty much got some instant publicity that's worth a damn.
My hilarious point was, this is a reputable newspaper doing a very timely article about a high profile, high budget games release in their arts and leisure section. It is not an advertisement no matter how much publicity it garners for the subject of the article. He didn't use the new york times, they used him.
{ Mod Edit }
I can absolutely, 100% percent assure you that the New York Times wasn't the one knocking on Brad's door begging for the interview though. Since I do work for the media, I can assure you, we get approached by people ALL THE TIME who would like to have a story written about them. If Brad wanted to be written about, he'd pretty much just have to ask, and wa-lah, free face time.
If Brad went up and said "Hi, I'm Brad McQuaid, tbe brainchild behind the first successful MMORPG of all time, and I have a new product, a new vision, and it's going to shake the foundations of the MMORPG industry. Would you like to hear my story?" there's not a whole lot of folks who would say "No". Catch my drift?
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
Originally posted by Axeion ...Some people will make their 16 posts a day mostly pro Vanguard...
But, you will also have to admit that there is also another group of people who visit these forums to make their "16 posts a day" mostly ANTI-Vanguard.
Considering that this is a Forum dedicated to Vanguard; which is worse?
Where exactly would you have the "Vanbois" post their messages here at MMORPG.com? The WoW forum? The EVE forum? No, the "Vanbois" are in the right forum.
Granted sometimes their message is a bit over the top, but you can't say that at least some of it is unprovoked. And, I ask again. Where exactly should these supporters of Vanguard be posting here at MMORPG.com if they can't post in the Vanguard forum?
Opinion/rumor/lies reported as fact is worse in these boards to answer your question.Your own Fanguard is puting missinformation on not only these boards./shrug look around diffrent boards past week their not posts but advertisments.Care to check out other boards before you make that claim that the vanbois are in the right forum?
Some are posting in reply to the miss information,mistaken or opinion based as fact.Then again their are people who do like to twink little red tomoto noses as bugs bunny would say.On the fan sites players are far more balanced than Fanguard here.
Sorry opinion/rumor presented as fact is far worse for Vanguard or any game.Out right lies well after the spin dies down,they kill faith for those paying to play hopeing it will get better.The more this goes on the less people who are waiting for the um construction dust to settle will play.
I'm not making claims or defenses about other boards or forums. I'm talking about MMORPG.com's Vanguard forum, period. If I want to discuss other forums, I'll do it on the forum for that site. This is about this forum, right here, on MMORPG.com.
So if, and I know that's a big IF; if you were of the ilk that liked to talk big and in your face about your favorite MMO, where would be the appropriate place to do that kind of posting here on MMORPG.com? Wouldn't it be in the forum dedicated to that game? It's a simple question.
He says he’s going after “players who are looking for something deeper, more like a home.” He adds, “I don’t expect to get six or seven million players, but if we have 500,000 by the end of the year and keep growing after that, I’ll be happy.”
/end quote
I really don't forsee much happiness in his future, maybe he should change that 5 to a 1. Too many other games coming out this year for VG to grow much, if any. Best thing SOE could do is have a ten day free trial before LoTRO has their public beta. Because then you have LoTRO, Chronicles of the Spellborn, Pirates of the Burning Sea, Ages Of Conan, and Warhammer all in a row and I cannot think of a single gamer I know who is not interested in at least one of those.
from the article /quote He says he’s going after “players who are looking for something deeper, more like a home.” He adds, “I don’t expect to get six or seven million players, but if we have 500,000 by the end of the year and keep growing after that, I’ll be happy.” /end quote I really don't forsee much happiness in his future, maybe he should change that 5 to a 1. Too many other games coming out this year for VG to grow much, if any. Best thing SOE could do is have a ten day free trial before LoTRO has their public beta. Because then you have LoTRO, Chronicles of the Spellborn, Pirates of the Burning Sea, Ages Of Conan, and Warhammer all in a row and I cannot think of a single gamer I know who is not interested in at least one of those.
These are my predictions for the games you listed. Heh, what good are opinions unless we all have one?
WarHammer: won't be out this year for sure. It may not even make it for 2008.
AoC was already pushed back once. They may make it for the Christmas season, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it go to first quarter 2008.
LotRo: This one will make it out before the Christmas season.
Spellborn: It'll be pushed back, how long? May make it before the end of the year, but I'm betting it'll be a lot closer to Q1 2008.
PotBS: This one I think will make it out this year as well. Will it be before Christmas? I think it will slide into the holiday sales as well.
So, finally tally for this year: I say 2 (LotRo & PotBS), I think 2 will slip into Q1 2008 (AoC & Spellborn), and 1 might (big MIGHT) make it by Q4 2008 (WAR). Well, those are my predictions. Guess time will tell. I hope they all do well.
You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever pertinent to advertising and marketing.
But I'm not gonna get into an argument with a Van, there's no direction it can go but down. If you can't see the obvious PR overtones associated with the article, then you're in complete denial.
I can absolutely, 100% percent assure you that the New York Times wasn't the one knocking on Brad's door begging for the interview though. Since I do work for the media, I can assure you, we get approached by people ALL THE TIME who would like to have a story written about them. If Brad wanted to be written about, he'd pretty much just have to ask, and wa-lah, free face time.
If Brad went up and said "Hi, I'm Brad McQuaid, tbe brainchild behind the first successful MMORPG of all time, and I have a new product, a new vision, and it's going to shake the foundations of the MMORPG industry. Would you like to hear my story?" there's not a whole lot of folks who would say "No". Catch my drift?
For a writer, you really speak in far too many absolutes. I clearly have no knowledge whatsoever pertinent to advertising and marketing? Hmm, ok. New coke was a mistake. There, see how easy it is to prove someone wrong who is speaking this way? Obviously having an article about your game in the New York Times is GREAT PR, if you think I don't know that then you are just clueless. The point was you treated it like it was an advertisement, which IT IS NOT. It's an article and interview.
Show me proof that Brad McQuaid approached the New York Times begging for an interview. As a writer you are entitled to your opinion, but you are just a pure Vanguard troll now. First you just HAD to publish your personal negative preview because the one the other writer submitted was just too positive, and you show your face in almost every thread and keep spreading your negative rhetoric without citing any specific examples because you feel like you have been on your crusade so long you just don't have to have proof anymore.
Be honest with us, what exactly is it that is pushing you to keep coming back to bash everything related to Vanguard? I'm asking seriously. Do you play one of the other games that is out and you feel like Vanguard might steal some of its thunder? I'm sure you aren't deluded enough to know that that sort of thing is very common.
I will be honest with you now. The reason I return here is because message boards are inherently negative. Always have been and seems only to be getting worse as the years go by. If you have been on this earth llong enough you will have noticed it is very easy to hate, and much more difficult to love. I have been playing Vanguard for 4 months now and enjoy every part of it, except of course any bugs and forgetting where I got some quest and searching for the npc for 20 minutes. I come here so that there is at least one positive voice that isn't over exaggerating a games faults. I love video games and to me they are all good because they are such a wonderful diversion from the creeps who can inhabit the real world.
I find it sad when people have to return day in and day out focusing on the negative and saying things that are just outright false. I imagine the cities in which they live just being worse off because of their presence and I hope that they will find something to love enough to change them into more positive people. I have found that something and he is Jesus Christ and he has changed my life in ways I can't even begin to express.
Vanguard, in it's entirety as it stands right now, is an epic undertaking and an amazing game. I haven't liked a game this much since EQ/UO, which I never thought would happen. It just saddens me that people as seemingly intelligent as you could return to bash a game with such high aspirations just because of its slight lack of polish. I wish you well and I mostly hope you find a game you like as much as I like Vanguard.
Originally posted by anarchyart I will be honest with you now.
Sorry um could you explain to me what you was being before you were being honest?
Dragonace .Simple you refuse to look at other mmorpg forms on this very site that Vanbois have started threads to advertise for what ever reson they may have.Opinion as fact,rumors an lies do not help any game grow.Vanbois are not just posting here about their game.
So basicaly you saying being "in your face" about your favorite game gives one the right to lie,mislead,attack,an troll?Its a simple question...
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." Robert E. Howard, The Tower of the Elephant (1933)
That's some pretty big advertising muscle. I'm not sure why he'd use the New York times over someone like PC Gamer though.
How many people, honestly, buy a newspaper to read about a video game?
Just my 2 cents. If I want to read about games, I'd use the internet or a gaming magazine.
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Ok, if you possess no ability whatsoever to read between the lines, that's your agenda, not mine.
However, using phrases like "a gamer's game" is marketing.
Your bias towards Vanguard being the best MMORPG out there blinds you to the obvious.
Pwned
Originally posted by anarchyart
"Vanguard, in it's entirety as it stands right now, is an epic undertaking and an amazing game. I haven't liked a game this much since EQ/UO, which I never thought would happen. It just saddens me that people as seemingly intelligent as you could return to bash a game with such high aspirations just because of its slight lack of polish. I wish you well and I mostly hope you find a game you like as much as I like Vanguard."
Anarchyart is the fair weather fanboi. He was radically blind when playing EQ2, then Roma Victor in beta, a game he now won't speak of and admit is a joke, and currently Vanguard. In a couple months it will be a new flavor.
If Brad's attempt with the New York Times piece was to capture a wider audience, shouldn't he start by making a game that appeals to a wider audience? The raid centric anti-soloing concept is a niche market.
from the article /quote He says he’s going after “players who are looking for something deeper, more like a home.” He adds, “I don’t expect to get six or seven million players, but if we have 500,000 by the end of the year and keep growing after that, I’ll be happy.” /end quote I really don't forsee much happiness in his future, maybe he should change that 5 to a 1. Too many other games coming out this year for VG to grow much, if any. Best thing SOE could do is have a ten day free trial before LoTRO has their public beta. Because then you have LoTRO, Chronicles of the Spellborn, Pirates of the Burning Sea, Ages Of Conan, and Warhammer all in a row and I cannot think of a single gamer I know who is not interested in at least one of those.
You forgot about Gods and Heros lol.. I so wanna play that one
Sorry um could you explain to me what you was being before you were being honest?
Dragonace .Simple you refuse to look at other mmorpg forms on this very site that Vanbois have started threads to advertise for what ever reson they may have.Opinion as fact,rumors an lies do not help any game grow.Vanbois are not just posting here about their game.
So basicaly you saying being "in your face" about your favorite game gives one the right to lie,mislead,attack,an troll?Its a simple question...
If they, or anyone else, is doing it on the appropriate forum AND they are not breaking any forum rules, then yes. They have just as much right to be here as any of us.
I'm not defending anyone posting on other forums here or elsewhere. I'm saying that your stance that "Vanbois" shouldn't be posting PRO-Vanguard threads and posts in a VANGUARD forum is elitism at it's finest.
That's some pretty big advertising muscle. I'm not sure why he'd use the New York times over someone like PC Gamer though.
How many people, honestly, buy a newspaper to read about a video game?
Just my 2 cents. If I want to read about games, I'd use the internet or a gaming magazine.
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Ok, if you possess no ability whatsoever to read between the lines, that's your agenda, not mine.
However, using phrases like "a gamer's game" is marketing.
Your bias towards Vanguard being the best MMORPG out there blinds you to the obvious.I think that Brad probably granted the interview and/or the article write-up to appeal to the older/mature gamer. At the top of the article it did say that the article would appear in the Art/Leisure area of the NYT..
There's already been a lot of advertising for Vanguard in the typical genre related areas: gaming magazines, internet sites, blogs, software stores, etc. I think it's these more main-stream media outlets that allow a game to garner a newer demographic that might not necessarily visit the more traditional gaming advertising media outlets.
So, if Brad is really serious about wanting to reach out to more than just a niche market; it should be no surprise to see articles or even advertising about Vanguard in such non-typical gaming venues as the New York Times.
Well, that's my 2 cents on it anyway.
That's a distinct possibility.
I'd imagine anyone who was following Vanguard has already made up their mind by this point, done their research, etc etc.
On the other hand, there could be some non-serious gamers out there, likely older folks, looking for something to bide their time. Maybe McQuaid is shooting for this demographic; one that's often ignored by games in today's market.
I do know quite a few retired people who play MMORPGs, and considering the time sinks that Vanguard employs they would be about the only mature gamers who have the time to be able to invest in this game. On another forum I was reading a thread about Vanguard and one of the posters was lamenting the fact that now that he has a wife and while Vanguard appealed to his old EQ1 days with kids and a wife now he just coiuld not play a game where only 20% of the content was geared toward solo play ( Brads words not mine) and significant time sinks such as corpse runs were involved.
As far as the advertising concept, I agree it hit a lot of people but was it the right target market. Just my opinion here but the people who read the NY Times might be more inclined to play a more casual oriented game such as WoW, or EQII, rather than Vanguard. That's just my opinion there and while it might help sales some, wil Vanguard be able to retain the casual gamers who decide to try it based on the article. Like others I think those who like Vanguard and will stick wiith it have already made up their minds and have purchased it. Now all it can do is try and retain those who have purchased it, and hope that in a few months some of the open beta players who put off buying it at release will return for another try when they polish it more and start a free trial.
Please provide a link that shows Brad stating that only 20% of the game is geared toward casual play.
The game isn't geared toward casual gamers nor is it geared toward hardcore gamers. It's target is core games, with things for hardcore and causuals alike to do. You can find this info on the Vanguard FAQ.
Edit: Just wanted to add that any company that would refuse to participate in an article that the NYT was doing on them, granted the article was in good light and not bad, that company would have to be doing something criminal.
An advertisement would imply that some form of payment was secured by the group doing the add, and something tells me that the NYT didn't take money to do that article; therefore it's not an advertisement.
When the year began Vanguard’s game play was centered on gaining experience by killing monsters. The success of World of Warcraft’s quest-directed game play has likely affected the design for Vanguard and could possibly affect every new MMORPG for 2007. In 2006 Vanguard changed its philosophy to quest-directed game play. Quests will lead players around the world of Telon and comprise a substantial portion of the player’s experience.
This has caused quite a bit of controversy. While quest-directed game play may be the wave of the future many players do not like being led by quests. Quests make it harder for groups to stay together as people are constantly leaving once they finish their quest. In Vanguard, players will have options--they can either quest from level 1-50, or level grind by killing monsters without questing. There will be many dungeons to crawl and places for players to grind or camp if they wish. Brad McQuaid, CEO of Sigil Games, has said it is Sigil’s intention that pure grinding will be a slower way to level than questing. Sigil here is trying to walk a delicate balance and appeal to both types of players, questers and those who dislike questing.
Even with quest-directed game play Vanguard is still designed to be a group oriented game. Early in 2006 we learned about the 20-60-20 philosophy. Sigil’s concept for all levels of gameplay, including, the endgame, is content distribution that is roughly 20% for raiding, 60% for single groups and 20% for solo and casual (2-3 players) play. Sigil has said that players will be able to solo from level 1-50 but that the rate of progress will be slower than when grouped.
If I haven't said it before you have a tendency to mislead. The 60% for single groups is the "core" part. If you can't get in a group and play as a casual gamer your pretty damn anti-social, escpecially since a single group is only like 6 people; by no means hardcore. 80% of the content is realistically available to casual players under that formula.
Shoulda linked this from the start, it doesn't make your original post so glooming.
That's some pretty big advertising muscle. I'm not sure why he'd use the New York times over someone like PC Gamer though.
How many people, honestly, buy a newspaper to read about a video game?
Just my 2 cents. If I want to read about games, I'd use the internet or a gaming magazine.
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Ok, if you possess no ability whatsoever to read between the lines, that's your agenda, not mine.
However, using phrases like "a gamer's game" is marketing.
Your bias towards Vanguard being the best MMORPG out there blinds you to the obvious.
Pwned
Originally posted by anarchyart
"Vanguard, in it's entirety as it stands right now, is an epic undertaking and an amazing game. I haven't liked a game this much since EQ/UO, which I never thought would happen. It just saddens me that people as seemingly intelligent as you could return to bash a game with such high aspirations just because of its slight lack of polish. I wish you well and I mostly hope you find a game you like as much as I like Vanguard."
Anarchyart is the fair weather fanboi. He was radically blind when playing EQ2, then Roma Victor in beta, a game he now won't speak of and admit is a joke, and currently Vanguard. In a couple months it will be a new flavor.
If Brad's attempt with the New York Times piece was to capture a wider audience, shouldn't he start by making a game that appeals to a wider audience? The raid centric anti-soloing concept is a niche market.
Raid centric anti-soloing? You could benefit from link Jackdog provided.
from the article /quote He says he’s going after “players who are looking for something deeper, more like a home.” He adds, “I don’t expect to get six or seven million players, but if we have 500,000 by the end of the year and keep growing after that, I’ll be happy.” /end quote I really don't forsee much happiness in his future, maybe he should change that 5 to a 1. Too many other games coming out this year for VG to grow much, if any. Best thing SOE could do is have a ten day free trial before LoTRO has their public beta. Because then you have LoTRO, Chronicles of the Spellborn, Pirates of the Burning Sea, Ages Of Conan, and Warhammer all in a row and I cannot think of a single gamer I know who is not interested in at least one of those.
Yeah, umm, just because they are MMO's doesn't mean they are geared toward the same audience. LoTRO is going to appeal to an audience like VG does, and doesn't really mean they will be competitors. I mean, LoTRO is like a single player game you will experience with a bunch of other people and some mini games thrown in for fun. It's like trying to compare VG to chronicles of spellborn.
Why do you seem to think that LoTRO is going to be the bane of VG when it's released? Do you think the guys at DDO were like, "oh F no, Sigil is releasing VG now, the hell will we do, it's seemless." You act as if there is no room for diversity in the MMO market. If that was the case SOE and NCsoft would only produce a single MMO otherwise they would compete with themself with every game they put out.
By your reasoning True crimes should have never been put out beause lets face it GTA was a hit. Didn't keep that company from making enough money to produce a sequel.
Dude, take a look at the list of games to your left. how many you see? Look at all the games in developement.
Stop being such a frigin doomsayer. It's ok, no one hates you because you think LoTRO is the next best ting to buttless chaps.
Originally posted by anarchyart I will be honest with you now.
Sorry um could you explain to me what you was being before you were being honest? Dragonace .Simple you refuse to look at other mmorpg forms on this very site that Vanbois have started threads to advertise for what ever reson they may have.Opinion as fact,rumors an lies do not help any game grow.Vanbois are not just posting here about their game. So basicaly you saying being "in your face" about your favorite game gives one the right to lie,mislead,attack,an troll?Its a simple question...
If they, or anyone else, is doing it on the appropriate forum AND they are not breaking any forum rules, then yes. They have just as much right to be here as any of us.
I'm not defending anyone posting on other forums here or elsewhere. I'm saying that your stance that "Vanbois" shouldn't be posting PRO-Vanguard threads and posts in a VANGUARD forum is elitism at it's finest.
PRO Vanguard does not mean one has to report again an again misinformation on things like the sigil/soe deal. PRO Vanguard does not mean one has to make claims about the microsoft deal that brad has even debunked. PRO Vanguard does not mean one has to lie about everquest development history or everquest 2 history does it? PRO Vanguard does not mean one has to lie about ones game to gather suport does it?
Many times on this board you say that Vanbois ( FANBOYS ) are posting where they should in this forum.Im just pointing out to you their not just posting here an their not posting the truth in some cases.
Fanboys kill games .Just like the old song says "blind love is not gona save you",spreding opinion as fact,rumor,an lieing about a game will not help those who atm are playing an hopeing the game will get better.They are killing off your future dev money to fix your game.
Enjoy your game an post why ya like it is cool.Posting good an bad hell even better.Posting lies to sway people not cool.That sounds eletism to you?
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." Robert E. Howard, The Tower of the Elephant (1933)
Pwned Originally posted by anarchyart "Vanguard, in it's entirety as it stands right now, is an epic undertaking and an amazing game. I haven't liked a game this much since EQ/UO, which I never thought would happen. It just saddens me that people as seemingly intelligent as you could return to bash a game with such high aspirations just because of its slight lack of polish. I wish you well and I mostly hope you find a game you like as much as I like Vanguard." Anarchyart is the fair weather fanboi. He was radically blind when playing EQ2, then Roma Victor in beta, a game he now won't speak of and admit is a joke, and currently Vanguard. In a couple months it will be a new flavor. If Brad's attempt with the New York Times piece was to capture a wider audience, shouldn't he start by making a game that appeals to a wider audience? The raid centric anti-soloing concept is a niche market.
Not sure who you are, but you need to get a life and not forum stalk people you don't know. Also, Brad McQuaid already made the game he wanted. If you don't like it, good luck with that getting a life thing.
"What they came up with, in 2004, was World of Warcraft, today’s online megastar with more than eight million subscribers around the world. Not only is its audience far bigger than EverQuest’s (which is now around 350,000), but its welcoming design has attracted a far broader and more loyal fan base, at least for now."
LOL Everquest does not have 350k subscribers anymore. I know it's just a videogame and it's not exactly world politics but at least keep the reporting factual.
Comments
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Ok, if you possess no ability whatsoever to read between the lines, that's your agenda, not mine.
However, using phrases like "a gamer's game" is marketing.
Your bias towards Vanguard being the best MMORPG out there blinds you to the obvious.
This is the new york times honey, not the weekly world news.
I don't see your point.
Are we trying to say that people would take the Weekly World News more seriously as a medium for advertisement?
As other users said, the NYT is a big fish; get your name in there, and you've pretty much got some instant publicity that's worth a damn.
My hilarious point was, this is a reputable newspaper doing a very timely article about a high profile, high budget games release in their arts and leisure section. It is not an advertisement no matter how much publicity it garners for the subject of the article. He didn't use the new york times, they used him.
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Ok, if you possess no ability whatsoever to read between the lines, that's your agenda, not mine.
However, using phrases like "a gamer's game" is marketing.
Your bias towards Vanguard being the best MMORPG out there blinds you to the obvious.I think that Brad probably granted the interview and/or the article write-up to appeal to the older/mature gamer. At the top of the article it did say that the article would appear in the Art/Leisure area of the NYT..
There's already been a lot of advertising for Vanguard in the typical genre related areas: gaming magazines, internet sites, blogs, software stores, etc. I think it's these more main-stream media outlets that allow a game to garner a newer demographic that might not necessarily visit the more traditional gaming advertising media outlets.
So, if Brad is really serious about wanting to reach out to more than just a niche market; it should be no surprise to see articles or even advertising about Vanguard in such non-typical gaming venues as the New York Times.
Well, that's my 2 cents on it anyway.
That's a distinct possibility.
I'd imagine anyone who was following Vanguard has already made up their mind by this point, done their research, etc etc.
On the other hand, there could be some non-serious gamers out there, likely older folks, looking for something to bide their time. Maybe McQuaid is shooting for this demographic; one that's often ignored by games in today's market.
I do know quite a few retired people who play MMORPGs, and considering the time sinks that Vanguard employs they would be about the only mature gamers who have the time to be able to invest in this game. On another forum I was reading a thread about Vanguard and one of the posters was lamenting the fact that now that he has a wife and while Vanguard appealed to his old EQ1 days with kids and a wife now he just coiuld not play a game where only 20% of the content was geared toward solo play ( Brads words not mine) and significant time sinks such as corpse runs were involved.
As far as the advertising concept, I agree it hit a lot of people but was it the right target market. Just my opinion here but the people who read the NY Times might be more inclined to play a more casual oriented game such as WoW, or EQII, rather than Vanguard. That's just my opinion there and while it might help sales some, wil Vanguard be able to retain the casual gamers who decide to try it based on the article. Like others I think those who like Vanguard and will stick wiith it have already made up their minds and have purchased it. Now all it can do is try and retain those who have purchased it, and hope that in a few months some of the open beta players who put off buying it at release will return for another try when they polish it more and start a free trial.
I miss DAoC
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Ok, if you possess no ability whatsoever to read between the lines, that's your agenda, not mine.
However, using phrases like "a gamer's game" is marketing.
Your bias towards Vanguard being the best MMORPG out there blinds you to the obvious.I think that Brad probably granted the interview and/or the article write-up to appeal to the older/mature gamer. At the top of the article it did say that the article would appear in the Art/Leisure area of the NYT..
There's already been a lot of advertising for Vanguard in the typical genre related areas: gaming magazines, internet sites, blogs, software stores, etc. I think it's these more main-stream media outlets that allow a game to garner a newer demographic that might not necessarily visit the more traditional gaming advertising media outlets.
So, if Brad is really serious about wanting to reach out to more than just a niche market; it should be no surprise to see articles or even advertising about Vanguard in such non-typical gaming venues as the New York Times.
Well, that's my 2 cents on it anyway.
That's a distinct possibility.
I'd imagine anyone who was following Vanguard has already made up their mind by this point, done their research, etc etc.
On the other hand, there could be some non-serious gamers out there, likely older folks, looking for something to bide their time. Maybe McQuaid is shooting for this demographic; one that's often ignored by games in today's market.
I do know quite a few retired people who play MMORPGs, and considering the time sinks that Vanguard employs they would be about the only mature gamers who have the time to be able to invest in this game. On another forum I was reading a thread about Vanguard and one of the posters was lamenting the fact that now that he has a wife and while Vanguard appealed to his old EQ1 days with kids and a wife now he just coiuld not play a game where only 20% of the content was geared toward solo play ( Brads words not mine) and significant time sinks such as corpse runs were involved.
As far as the advertising concept, I agree it hit a lot of people but was it the right target market. Just my opinion here but the people who read the NY Times might be more inclined to play a more casual oriented game such as WoW, or EQII, rather than Vanguard. That's just my opinion there and while it might help sales some, wil Vanguard be able to retain the casual gamers who decide to try it based on the article. Like others I think those who like Vanguard and will stick wiith it have already made up their minds and have purchased it. Now all it can do is try and retain those who have purchased it, and hope that in a few months some of the open beta players who put off buying it at release will return for another try when they polish it more and start a free trial.
Please provide a link that shows Brad stating that only 20% of the game is geared toward casual play.
The game isn't geared toward casual gamers nor is it geared toward hardcore gamers. It's target is core games, with things for hardcore and causuals alike to do. You can find this info on the Vanguard FAQ.
Edit: Just wanted to add that any company that would refuse to participate in an article that the NYT was doing on them, granted the article was in good light and not bad, that company would have to be doing something criminal.
An advertisement would imply that some form of payment was secured by the group doing the add, and something tells me that the NYT didn't take money to do that article; therefore it's not an advertisement.
That article seems a bit more marketing than interviewing. It does give some nice details & good insight about the progression of Vanguard. In the end though Vanguard was being coddled by this interviewer. Sigil & SOE have managed to place a few very pretentious remarks about Vanguard though when comparing it to others: "Vanguard is a gamers' game" & similar. That's right Sigil/SOE, try to demean any that might question. If Mr. Aradune Mithara would have mentioned before Vanguard's launch that it was indeed not quite ready ... then integrity wouldn't have gotten smudged. However in Vanguard's lineage we customers/players will have to live & learn to see if Sigil & SOE even attempt to complete & restore Vanguard's promising visage.
I still am irritated that the CEs don't allow the choice of (1) of the (3) ingame cards. Nice how again Sigil & SOE hadn't detailed that before release. & Sigil had begun being so open to their forum community. I wanted to *try to play two accounts (1) being the Crafter card & the other being the Diplomacy card. That total random is just not welcoming. Probably a SOE footprint left onto the game which should be changed to benefit the customer/player by inputting a code to allow the choice. Hence why I'll probably return my (2) unopened Vanguard CEs soon. I still might buy (1) regular Vanguard eventually. I want to learn if my computer will play it at an acceptable rate though, & I wouldn't mind missing the glitch surge of the current time. Still waiting for that strategy guide too, which I figure was a good indicator how rushed Vanguard had got.
To those current Telon residents, good luck in your journey & I wish you well. Hopefully I'll cross your path at a later date. Probably as a Vulmane, Raki, or a Kura. To Sigil/SOE, if your going to by chance change your collective minds about the (3) ingame cards for the Vanguard CEs ... please do so before the end of next week so I wont return them & down the pixel road I'll play Vanguard. That Station Total Access pass seems so tempting & is a good value. Only if I wouldn't have to do all that level grinding again in EQ, & able to see all the zones' sights. Heck for that Station Total Access pass there could be: EQ, EQ2, SWG, & Vanguard(A.K.A. EQ3). If not then I'll try WoW soon & keep dabbling in Guild Wars. No one should dismiss Vanguard (EQ3) just yet. Give it a little birth burping time, apparently it needs it.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha
Sorry, I just can not see this game having 500,000 subscribers by years end.
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Ok, if you possess no ability whatsoever to read between the lines, that's your agenda, not mine.
However, using phrases like "a gamer's game" is marketing.
Your bias towards Vanguard being the best MMORPG out there blinds you to the obvious.I think that Brad probably granted the interview and/or the article write-up to appeal to the older/mature gamer. At the top of the article it did say that the article would appear in the Art/Leisure area of the NYT..
There's already been a lot of advertising for Vanguard in the typical genre related areas: gaming magazines, internet sites, blogs, software stores, etc. I think it's these more main-stream media outlets that allow a game to garner a newer demographic that might not necessarily visit the more traditional gaming advertising media outlets.
So, if Brad is really serious about wanting to reach out to more than just a niche market; it should be no surprise to see articles or even advertising about Vanguard in such non-typical gaming venues as the New York Times.
Well, that's my 2 cents on it anyway.
That's a distinct possibility.
I'd imagine anyone who was following Vanguard has already made up their mind by this point, done their research, etc etc.
On the other hand, there could be some non-serious gamers out there, likely older folks, looking for something to bide their time. Maybe McQuaid is shooting for this demographic; one that's often ignored by games in today's market.
I do know quite a few retired people who play MMORPGs, and considering the time sinks that Vanguard employs they would be about the only mature gamers who have the time to be able to invest in this game. On another forum I was reading a thread about Vanguard and one of the posters was lamenting the fact that now that he has a wife and while Vanguard appealed to his old EQ1 days with kids and a wife now he just coiuld not play a game where only 20% of the content was geared toward solo play ( Brads words not mine) and significant time sinks such as corpse runs were involved.
As far as the advertising concept, I agree it hit a lot of people but was it the right target market. Just my opinion here but the people who read the NY Times might be more inclined to play a more casual oriented game such as WoW, or EQII, rather than Vanguard. That's just my opinion there and while it might help sales some, wil Vanguard be able to retain the casual gamers who decide to try it based on the article. Like others I think those who like Vanguard and will stick wiith it have already made up their minds and have purchased it. Now all it can do is try and retain those who have purchased it, and hope that in a few months some of the open beta players who put off buying it at release will return for another try when they polish it more and start a free trial.
Please provide a link that shows Brad stating that only 20% of the game is geared toward casual play.
The game isn't geared toward casual gamers nor is it geared toward hardcore gamers. It's target is core games, with things for hardcore and causuals alike to do. You can find this info on the Vanguard FAQ.
Edit: Just wanted to add that any company that would refuse to participate in an article that the NYT was doing on them, granted the article was in good light and not bad, that company would have to be doing something criminal.
An advertisement would imply that some form of payment was secured by the group doing the add, and something tells me that the NYT didn't take money to do that article; therefore it's not an advertisement.
Here ya go !
http://vanguard.tentonhammer.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=463
Game play
When the year began Vanguard’s game play was centered on gaining experience by killing monsters. The success of World of Warcraft’s quest-directed game play has likely affected the design for Vanguard and could possibly affect every new MMORPG for 2007. In 2006 Vanguard changed its philosophy to quest-directed game play. Quests will lead players around the world of Telon and comprise a substantial portion of the player’s experience.
This has caused quite a bit of controversy. While quest-directed game play may be the wave of the future many players do not like being led by quests. Quests make it harder for groups to stay together as people are constantly leaving once they finish their quest. In Vanguard, players will have options--they can either quest from level 1-50, or level grind by killing monsters without questing. There will be many dungeons to crawl and places for players to grind or camp if they wish. Brad McQuaid, CEO of Sigil Games, has said it is Sigil’s intention that pure grinding will be a slower way to level than questing. Sigil here is trying to walk a delicate balance and appeal to both types of players, questers and those who dislike questing.
Even with quest-directed game play Vanguard is still designed to be a group oriented game. Early in 2006 we learned about the 20-60-20 philosophy. Sigil’s concept for all levels of gameplay, including, the endgame, is content distribution that is roughly 20% for raiding, 60% for single groups and 20% for solo and casual (2-3 players) play. Sigil has said that players will be able to solo from level 1-50 but that the rate of progress will be slower than when grouped.
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Seriously though, are you delusional now? If you cant see it being a form of advertisment, you may need to read it again.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Ok, if you possess no ability whatsoever to read between the lines, that's your agenda, not mine.
However, using phrases like "a gamer's game" is marketing.
Your bias towards Vanguard being the best MMORPG out there blinds you to the obvious.
This is the new york times honey, not the weekly world news.
I don't see your point.
Are we trying to say that people would take the Weekly World News more seriously as a medium for advertisement?
As other users said, the NYT is a big fish; get your name in there, and you've pretty much got some instant publicity that's worth a damn.
My hilarious point was, this is a reputable newspaper doing a very timely article about a high profile, high budget games release in their arts and leisure section. It is not an advertisement no matter how much publicity it garners for the subject of the article. He didn't use the new york times, they used him.
{ Mod Edit }
I can absolutely, 100% percent assure you that the New York Times wasn't the one knocking on Brad's door begging for the interview though. Since I do work for the media, I can assure you, we get approached by people ALL THE TIME who would like to have a story written about them. If Brad wanted to be written about, he'd pretty much just have to ask, and wa-lah, free face time.
If Brad went up and said "Hi, I'm Brad McQuaid, tbe brainchild behind the first successful MMORPG of all time, and I have a new product, a new vision, and it's going to shake the foundations of the MMORPG industry. Would you like to hear my story?" there's not a whole lot of folks who would say "No". Catch my drift?
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
Considering that this is a Forum dedicated to Vanguard; which is worse?
Where exactly would you have the "Vanbois" post their messages here at MMORPG.com? The WoW forum? The EVE forum? No, the "Vanbois" are in the right forum.
Granted sometimes their message is a bit over the top, but you can't say that at least some of it is unprovoked. And, I ask again. Where exactly should these supporters of Vanguard be posting here at MMORPG.com if they can't post in the Vanguard forum?
Opinion/rumor/lies reported as fact is worse in these boards to answer your question.Your own Fanguard is puting missinformation on not only these boards./shrug look around diffrent boards past week their not posts but advertisments.Care to check out other boards before you make that claim that the vanbois are in the right forum?
Some are posting in reply to the miss information,mistaken or opinion based as fact.Then again their are people who do like to twink little red tomoto noses as bugs bunny would say.On the fan sites players are far more balanced than Fanguard here.
Sorry opinion/rumor presented as fact is far worse for Vanguard or any game.Out right lies well after the spin dies down,they kill faith for those paying to play hopeing it will get better.The more this goes on the less people who are waiting for the um construction dust to settle will play.
I'm not making claims or defenses about other boards or forums. I'm talking about MMORPG.com's Vanguard forum, period. If I want to discuss other forums, I'll do it on the forum for that site. This is about this forum, right here, on MMORPG.com.So if, and I know that's a big IF; if you were of the ilk that liked to talk big and in your face about your favorite MMO, where would be the appropriate place to do that kind of posting here on MMORPG.com? Wouldn't it be in the forum dedicated to that game? It's a simple question.
from the article
/quote
He says he’s going after “players who are looking for something deeper, more like a home.” He adds, “I don’t expect to get six or seven million players, but if we have 500,000 by the end of the year and keep growing after that, I’ll be happy.”
/end quote
I really don't forsee much happiness in his future, maybe he should change that 5 to a 1. Too many other games coming out this year for VG to grow much, if any. Best thing SOE could do is have a ten day free trial before LoTRO has their public beta. Because then you have LoTRO, Chronicles of the Spellborn, Pirates of the Burning Sea, Ages Of Conan, and Warhammer all in a row and I cannot think of a single gamer I know who is not interested in at least one of those.
I miss DAoC
WarHammer: won't be out this year for sure. It may not even make it for 2008.
AoC was already pushed back once. They may make it for the Christmas season, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it go to first quarter 2008.
LotRo: This one will make it out before the Christmas season.
Spellborn: It'll be pushed back, how long? May make it before the end of the year, but I'm betting it'll be a lot closer to Q1 2008.
PotBS: This one I think will make it out this year as well. Will it be before Christmas? I think it will slide into the holiday sales as well.
So, finally tally for this year: I say 2 (LotRo & PotBS), I think 2 will slip into Q1 2008 (AoC & Spellborn), and 1 might (big MIGHT) make it by Q4 2008 (WAR). Well, those are my predictions. Guess time will tell. I hope they all do well.
For a writer, you really speak in far too many absolutes. I clearly have no knowledge whatsoever pertinent to advertising and marketing? Hmm, ok. New coke was a mistake. There, see how easy it is to prove someone wrong who is speaking this way? Obviously having an article about your game in the New York Times is GREAT PR, if you think I don't know that then you are just clueless. The point was you treated it like it was an advertisement, which IT IS NOT. It's an article and interview.
Show me proof that Brad McQuaid approached the New York Times begging for an interview. As a writer you are entitled to your opinion, but you are just a pure Vanguard troll now. First you just HAD to publish your personal negative preview because the one the other writer submitted was just too positive, and you show your face in almost every thread and keep spreading your negative rhetoric without citing any specific examples because you feel like you have been on your crusade so long you just don't have to have proof anymore.
Be honest with us, what exactly is it that is pushing you to keep coming back to bash everything related to Vanguard? I'm asking seriously. Do you play one of the other games that is out and you feel like Vanguard might steal some of its thunder? I'm sure you aren't deluded enough to know that that sort of thing is very common.
I will be honest with you now. The reason I return here is because message boards are inherently negative. Always have been and seems only to be getting worse as the years go by. If you have been on this earth llong enough you will have noticed it is very easy to hate, and much more difficult to love. I have been playing Vanguard for 4 months now and enjoy every part of it, except of course any bugs and forgetting where I got some quest and searching for the npc for 20 minutes. I come here so that there is at least one positive voice that isn't over exaggerating a games faults. I love video games and to me they are all good because they are such a wonderful diversion from the creeps who can inhabit the real world.
I find it sad when people have to return day in and day out focusing on the negative and saying things that are just outright false. I imagine the cities in which they live just being worse off because of their presence and I hope that they will find something to love enough to change them into more positive people. I have found that something and he is Jesus Christ and he has changed my life in ways I can't even begin to express.
Vanguard, in it's entirety as it stands right now, is an epic undertaking and an amazing game. I haven't liked a game this much since EQ/UO, which I never thought would happen. It just saddens me that people as seemingly intelligent as you could return to bash a game with such high aspirations just because of its slight lack of polish. I wish you well and I mostly hope you find a game you like as much as I like Vanguard.
Sorry um could you explain to me what you was being before you were being honest?
Dragonace .Simple you refuse to look at other mmorpg forms on this very site that Vanbois have started threads to advertise for what ever reson they may have.Opinion as fact,rumors an lies do not help any game grow.Vanbois are not just posting here about their game.
So basicaly you saying being "in your face" about your favorite game gives one the right to lie,mislead,attack,an troll?Its a simple question...
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." Robert E. Howard, The Tower of the Elephant (1933)
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Ok, if you possess no ability whatsoever to read between the lines, that's your agenda, not mine.
However, using phrases like "a gamer's game" is marketing.
Your bias towards Vanguard being the best MMORPG out there blinds you to the obvious.
Pwned
Originally posted by anarchyart
"Vanguard, in it's entirety as it stands right now, is an epic undertaking and an amazing game. I haven't liked a game this much since EQ/UO, which I never thought would happen. It just saddens me that people as seemingly intelligent as you could return to bash a game with such high aspirations just because of its slight lack of polish. I wish you well and I mostly hope you find a game you like as much as I like Vanguard."
Anarchyart is the fair weather fanboi. He was radically blind when playing EQ2, then Roma Victor in beta, a game he now won't speak of and admit is a joke, and currently Vanguard. In a couple months it will be a new flavor.
If Brad's attempt with the New York Times piece was to capture a wider audience, shouldn't he start by making a game that appeals to a wider audience? The raid centric anti-soloing concept is a niche market.
Sorry um could you explain to me what you was being before you were being honest?
Dragonace .Simple you refuse to look at other mmorpg forms on this very site that Vanbois have started threads to advertise for what ever reson they may have.Opinion as fact,rumors an lies do not help any game grow.Vanbois are not just posting here about their game.
So basicaly you saying being "in your face" about your favorite game gives one the right to lie,mislead,attack,an troll?Its a simple question...
If they, or anyone else, is doing it on the appropriate forum AND they are not breaking any forum rules, then yes. They have just as much right to be here as any of us.I'm not defending anyone posting on other forums here or elsewhere. I'm saying that your stance that "Vanbois" shouldn't be posting PRO-Vanguard threads and posts in a VANGUARD forum is elitism at it's finest.
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Ok, if you possess no ability whatsoever to read between the lines, that's your agenda, not mine.
However, using phrases like "a gamer's game" is marketing.
Your bias towards Vanguard being the best MMORPG out there blinds you to the obvious.I think that Brad probably granted the interview and/or the article write-up to appeal to the older/mature gamer. At the top of the article it did say that the article would appear in the Art/Leisure area of the NYT..
There's already been a lot of advertising for Vanguard in the typical genre related areas: gaming magazines, internet sites, blogs, software stores, etc. I think it's these more main-stream media outlets that allow a game to garner a newer demographic that might not necessarily visit the more traditional gaming advertising media outlets.
So, if Brad is really serious about wanting to reach out to more than just a niche market; it should be no surprise to see articles or even advertising about Vanguard in such non-typical gaming venues as the New York Times.
Well, that's my 2 cents on it anyway.
That's a distinct possibility.
I'd imagine anyone who was following Vanguard has already made up their mind by this point, done their research, etc etc.
On the other hand, there could be some non-serious gamers out there, likely older folks, looking for something to bide their time. Maybe McQuaid is shooting for this demographic; one that's often ignored by games in today's market.
I do know quite a few retired people who play MMORPGs, and considering the time sinks that Vanguard employs they would be about the only mature gamers who have the time to be able to invest in this game. On another forum I was reading a thread about Vanguard and one of the posters was lamenting the fact that now that he has a wife and while Vanguard appealed to his old EQ1 days with kids and a wife now he just coiuld not play a game where only 20% of the content was geared toward solo play ( Brads words not mine) and significant time sinks such as corpse runs were involved.
As far as the advertising concept, I agree it hit a lot of people but was it the right target market. Just my opinion here but the people who read the NY Times might be more inclined to play a more casual oriented game such as WoW, or EQII, rather than Vanguard. That's just my opinion there and while it might help sales some, wil Vanguard be able to retain the casual gamers who decide to try it based on the article. Like others I think those who like Vanguard and will stick wiith it have already made up their minds and have purchased it. Now all it can do is try and retain those who have purchased it, and hope that in a few months some of the open beta players who put off buying it at release will return for another try when they polish it more and start a free trial.
Please provide a link that shows Brad stating that only 20% of the game is geared toward casual play.
The game isn't geared toward casual gamers nor is it geared toward hardcore gamers. It's target is core games, with things for hardcore and causuals alike to do. You can find this info on the Vanguard FAQ.
Edit: Just wanted to add that any company that would refuse to participate in an article that the NYT was doing on them, granted the article was in good light and not bad, that company would have to be doing something criminal.
An advertisement would imply that some form of payment was secured by the group doing the add, and something tells me that the NYT didn't take money to do that article; therefore it's not an advertisement.
Here ya go !
http://vanguard.tentonhammer.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=463
Game play
When the year began Vanguard’s game play was centered on gaining experience by killing monsters. The success of World of Warcraft’s quest-directed game play has likely affected the design for Vanguard and could possibly affect every new MMORPG for 2007. In 2006 Vanguard changed its philosophy to quest-directed game play. Quests will lead players around the world of Telon and comprise a substantial portion of the player’s experience.
This has caused quite a bit of controversy. While quest-directed game play may be the wave of the future many players do not like being led by quests. Quests make it harder for groups to stay together as people are constantly leaving once they finish their quest. In Vanguard, players will have options--they can either quest from level 1-50, or level grind by killing monsters without questing. There will be many dungeons to crawl and places for players to grind or camp if they wish. Brad McQuaid, CEO of Sigil Games, has said it is Sigil’s intention that pure grinding will be a slower way to level than questing. Sigil here is trying to walk a delicate balance and appeal to both types of players, questers and those who dislike questing.
Even with quest-directed game play Vanguard is still designed to be a group oriented game. Early in 2006 we learned about the 20-60-20 philosophy. Sigil’s concept for all levels of gameplay, including, the endgame, is content distribution that is roughly 20% for raiding, 60% for single groups and 20% for solo and casual (2-3 players) play. Sigil has said that players will be able to solo from level 1-50 but that the rate of progress will be slower than when grouped.
If I haven't said it before you have a tendency to mislead. The 60% for single groups is the "core" part. If you can't get in a group and play as a casual gamer your pretty damn anti-social, escpecially since a single group is only like 6 people; by no means hardcore. 80% of the content is realistically available to casual players under that formula.
Shoulda linked this from the start, it doesn't make your original post so glooming.
Your bias against Vanguard is now bordering on the clueless. It's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!!!!!
Great article, thanks for posting it. I love the honesty with which Brad admits the game is unfinished. It will only get better and it's already my favorite so far.
Ok, if you possess no ability whatsoever to read between the lines, that's your agenda, not mine.
However, using phrases like "a gamer's game" is marketing.
Your bias towards Vanguard being the best MMORPG out there blinds you to the obvious.
Pwned
Originally posted by anarchyart
"Vanguard, in it's entirety as it stands right now, is an epic undertaking and an amazing game. I haven't liked a game this much since EQ/UO, which I never thought would happen. It just saddens me that people as seemingly intelligent as you could return to bash a game with such high aspirations just because of its slight lack of polish. I wish you well and I mostly hope you find a game you like as much as I like Vanguard."
Anarchyart is the fair weather fanboi. He was radically blind when playing EQ2, then Roma Victor in beta, a game he now won't speak of and admit is a joke, and currently Vanguard. In a couple months it will be a new flavor.
If Brad's attempt with the New York Times piece was to capture a wider audience, shouldn't he start by making a game that appeals to a wider audience? The raid centric anti-soloing concept is a niche market.
Raid centric anti-soloing? You could benefit from link Jackdog provided.
Yeah, umm, just because they are MMO's doesn't mean they are geared toward the same audience. LoTRO is going to appeal to an audience like VG does, and doesn't really mean they will be competitors. I mean, LoTRO is like a single player game you will experience with a bunch of other people and some mini games thrown in for fun. It's like trying to compare VG to chronicles of spellborn.
Why do you seem to think that LoTRO is going to be the bane of VG when it's released? Do you think the guys at DDO were like, "oh F no, Sigil is releasing VG now, the hell will we do, it's seemless." You act as if there is no room for diversity in the MMO market. If that was the case SOE and NCsoft would only produce a single MMO otherwise they would compete with themself with every game they put out.
By your reasoning True crimes should have never been put out beause lets face it GTA was a hit. Didn't keep that company from making enough money to produce a sequel.
Dude, take a look at the list of games to your left. how many you see? Look at all the games in developement.
Stop being such a frigin doomsayer. It's ok, no one hates you because you think LoTRO is the next best ting to buttless chaps.
PRO Vanguard does not mean one has to report again an again misinformation on things like the sigil/soe deal.
PRO Vanguard does not mean one has to make claims about the microsoft deal that brad has even debunked.
PRO Vanguard does not mean one has to lie about everquest development history or everquest 2 history does it?
PRO Vanguard does not mean one has to lie about ones game to gather suport does it?
Many times on this board you say that Vanbois ( FANBOYS ) are posting where they should in this forum.Im just pointing out to you their not just posting here an their not posting the truth in some cases.
Fanboys kill games .Just like the old song says "blind love is not gona save you",spreding opinion as fact,rumor,an lieing about a game will not help those who atm are playing an hopeing the game will get better.They are killing off your future dev money to fix your game.
Enjoy your game an post why ya like it is cool.Posting good an bad hell even better.Posting lies to sway people not cool.That sounds eletism to you?
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." Robert E. Howard, The Tower of the Elephant (1933)
Not sure who you are, but you need to get a life and not forum stalk people you don't know. Also, Brad McQuaid already made the game he wanted. If you don't like it, good luck with that getting a life thing.
LOL Everquest does not have 350k subscribers anymore. I know it's just a videogame and it's not exactly world politics but at least keep the reporting factual.
My youtube MMO gaming channel