"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.
Of course you have factual proof of the opinion you have or just an SoE hater?
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.
here ya go a interview last November with Jeff Butler
That said, they learned lessons from EverQuest and are building content into Vanguard to make solo play a viable option all the way up to the current level cap of 50. Butler stated the content mix is 20% solo content, 20% raid content, 60% group content with max group size being the familiar six players. Content should accomodate a broad section of play styles, including the 30 minute-session player.
I suppose the 30 minute session means whacking a few foozles solo since it takes at leat 15 to 30 minutes to get a group together in my experiance.
Back to topic I am still of the opinion that the NY Times might be good coverage for a game like AoC, LoTRO, or WoW because the nature of the reader who might very well be a casual player but Vanguard is more for the hardcore players which already have the word on Vanguard.
"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.
Of course you have factual proof of the opinion you have or just an SoE hater?
That would mean 14000 players per server. That subscription number is probably all of SOE's Station Pass games combined.
I think SOE is just OK. Everquest 1 and 2 were both missed opportunities but they seem to have finally figured a few things out. I do think Vanguard was a bad business move and I'm surprised the parent company let them do it. Maybe Smedley saw it as a steal since most of the worldbuilding was already done.
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.
Samuraisword you beat me to this.. lol. I was going to post the same thing. Anarchy is well known for his ever changing dedications to games and they way this guy defends all the games is really crazy for me. I have seen his posts about EQ-2 and Roma Victor (i ahve been lurking for a long long time now) and i agree with you on this one. I think Cymdai nailed this one.
Brad was always howling about the 3rd generation game. He got everyone excited and hardly anyone knew that all we going to get is an updated version of EQ-1. This guy is desperate now. He doesnt even need NYT..all he needed was to shut his big mouth and deliever what he promised. This guys is way too clever and its not funny. The best publicity was the game itself which turned out to be very average in my opinion. The bugs are anyways rampant in game and rest of the damage is being done by the Vanboys who are more dangerous then bugs.
So Brad admits that he was succesful in selling unfinished game to players? good job.
Every business man should learn somethign from Brad.
"Hey where are the tyres of my new Ferrari?"
"Dear sir, we will deliver tyres to you next month, for now enjoy the leathers seats and beautiful interiors"
The game is fully functional and has just about all the features promised. It just needs polish.
A more equivalent analogy would be the Ferrari you've been sold is complete, but in a few months they are going to install a better radio, replace your placeholder seats with fancier models, and add a minor engine upgrade.
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 was trying to figure out the demographic for Vanguard. I think the SOE guys are smart and identified the right demographic. They used the NYT to speak to that demographic. I see retired persons as the Vanguard's primary demographic. Retired persons have much more free time than students or those in the working age range.
Gameplay mechanics like corpse runs, large race segregated world, mandatory group progression, waiting for boats, long travel times, etc are timesinks that do make the game more realistic but very inconvenient to those with much less time on their hands.
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 was trying to figure out the demographic for Vanguard. I think the SOE guys are smart and identified the right demographic. They used the NYT to speak to that demographic. I see retired persons as the Vanguard's primary demographic. Retired persons have much more free time than students or those in the working age range.
Gameplay mechanics like corpse runs, large race segregated world, mandatory group progression, waiting for boats, long travel times, etc are timesinks that do make the game more realistic but very inconvenient to those with much less time on their hands.
Maybe SOE should start advertising the game on Fox News. It does seem like the game is definitely attracting an older crowd. But I don't think it's going to draw in a lot of 55+ non-gamers. Aside from a few spouses who get sucked in by their significant other, these people seem to be mostly made up of old time RP gamers, probably mostly EQ vets. I fit somewhere in the middle so maybe that's why I'm not quite ready to "retire" to another grind-intensive game.
Advertising vanguard in it's current state will only backfire on them. This is very much starting out as a AO, or AC2 Launch.
They need to keep a lower profile, hammer out bug fixes and stability before advertising.
Have you even played the game? Probably not. I've played AO and AC2 and it's no comparison at all.
AO and AC2 both released with no content. AC2 and AO had no advancements over existing MMORPGs. AO had cripppling performance, game breaking bugs, rampant exploiting, and wasn't fully stable until about a year later.
Vanguard in contrast has virtually all the promised features in working order, it's feature rich and packed with content/story/lore, the performance has made dramatic strides in just the past couple weeks and is now very good, there are no game breaking bugs (it's an annoyance factor is all), and exploiting so far has been no more than what is found in the release of any major MMORPG.
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.
Not a very stellar list you present in competition of Vanguard. The main reason Vanguard could not get 500,000 people by years end is because it is buggy in it's first week of release and some end content is not complete. It also needs a hefty machine to run the graphics. OK lets look at what you are presenting for competition?
1. LoTRO- Jeez, you could give Turbine the WOW client and they would screw it up and loose money. Reference D&D online to see what they do with big name licensing. Also see AC2 to see how Turbine does things.
2. Pirates of the Burning Sea- I would like to see this one suceed but I have been seeing this game on this site in pre-production since Mythica and Dragon Empires were MMORPGs. They seem like a small company that can't keep up. One day it will release but it will be small and buggy at first due to money being more of an issue that with SIgil.
3. Spellborn - Don't know much about it and haven't seen much about it on any site but here. Again I think it will be a niche game at best and also it falls in with PotBS as being a small company with alot to prove and little money and time to do it.
4. Warhammer- Mythic has a good track record with DAOC and Warhammer has a big fanbase. This one is going to cause alot of pain to several of these MMORPG populations but it is definitely a 2008 game. It also is going to need Vista, Direct X10, 4 gig and a mack daddy video card to run it at it's best so if Vanguard's requirements bother you, get ready. It won't be like WOW where you can play on your granddaddy's Tandy 2000.
5. Conan- It looks good and has a nice License and even some new bells and whistles (single game to 20 followed by a MMORPG) but these are the guys who did Anarchy Online. One of the worst game releases of all time. They got it fixed eventually but the game never did reach the numbers it could have if it hadn't spent the first six weeks almost unplayable. Conan will also be a Vista baby (see stats above). Being mostly single player it will be more forgiving than the PVP centric Warhammer but I imagine it will also not run on that old Gateway from 1998.
Advertising vanguard in it's current state will only backfire on them. This is very much starting out as a AO, or AC2 Launch.
They need to keep a lower profile, hammer out bug fixes and stability before advertising.
I don't think they will have the luxury of time to hammer out the bugs. As many people have said, the game may have some annoying problems but no show stoppers.
They need to get people playing the game and bringing in money post haste. From most estimates they only have about 50k subs and a lot of those could be from the Station Access so I would think financially the game is in dire need of an influx of cash.
If they had only spent $1 million dollars to make the game there would not be a rush but spending $30 - 50 million on a game with 50k subs is a financial disaster of epic proportions. Regardless of whether you think the game plays well or not, you have to agree that if they do not get subs they are in big trouble.
I think vanguard will craft out a solid base as the definitive PvE fantasy MMORPG for those are tired of warcraft and seeking a more challenging and in depth experience.
This is because I don't expect AoC to have a strong PvE experience, being more like shadowbane as a PvP and guild centric game.
I also expect Warhammer to be similar to DAoC, with it's focus on PvP; But DAoC had fairly lackluster PvE content that served as little more than an extended tutorial until you got to the battlegrounds.
I think vanguard will craft out a solid base as the definitive PvE fantasy MMORPG for those are tired of warcraft and seeking a more challenging and in depth experience.
This is because I don't expect AoC to have a strong PvE experience, being more like shadowbane as a PvP and guild centric game.
I also expect Warhammer to be similar to DAoC, with it's focus on PvP; But DAoC had fairly lackluster PvE content that served as little more than an extended tutorial until you got to the battlegrounds.
I don't think WoW is Vanguard's demographic. Not only do all the people who like Vanguard bash WoW in game and on any forum you visit, WoW is simply a totally different game.
If I were a WoW player and visited a Vanguard Fan Site and the game I really liked was being bashed, why would I think I would want to play it? I would think that Vanguard is made for people who are not like me. As a WoW player I would be turned off by the terms "Gamer's game" or "hardcore". WoW players are in it for the fun only and do not take it too seriously except the Raiders of course. Vanguard may be able to pull in some of the WoW Raiders but again those are a very small population and not enough to finance a 30 million dollar game.
Contrary to popular belief WoW is not just a game for the youngsters. Indeed a lot of youngsters play it but I think you would be surprised to find a lot of old school EQ1 peeps play the game. I played EQ1 for 3 years and the few people I keep up with from those days play WoW. They have kids, mortgages, and Wifes now and do not have the free time they had during our EQ1 days.
Some go "hardcore" on the weekends in instances but for the most part they dabble around at night after their kids go to bed during the week. That can not be done in Vanguard.
The only marketing going on in that article is the New York times marketing itself to advertisers. Let me explain how newspapers work. They write articles to appeal to a wide range of people, in hopes of selling newspapers. VG is hot news with millions of people, and that is why NYT did the article.
Abraxos, awesome post. I don't think any of those games will threaten VG's base. They will threaten WoWs base just like VG is doing so now.
Tnice said, "..estimates say VG have only 50,000 players." Sir, what is your source? Everyone can guess. My personal guess is 200k+.
Tnice also said, "I don't think WoW is Vanguard's demographic." I wish this were true, but it isn't. The truth is, VG was made a bit easier and faster and soloable; and I'm certain it was done so because WoW showed there's a big market for this type of play. That the majority of that market lives in Asia or has to ask their parents for permission to play is obvious.
VG is still has enough of a challenge to retain me as a customer.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I don't think WoW is Vanguard's demographic. Not only do all the people who like Vanguard bash WoW in game and on any forum you visit, WoW is simply a totally different game. If I were a WoW player and visited a Vanguard Fan Site and the game I really liked was being bashed, why would I think I would want to play it? I would think that Vanguard is made for people who are not like me. As a WoW player I would be turned off by the terms "Gamer's game" or "hardcore". WoW players are in it for the fun only and do not take it too seriously except the Raiders of course. Vanguard may be able to pull in some of the WoW Raiders but again those are a very small population and not enough to finance a 30 million dollar game. Contrary to popular belief WoW is not just a game for the youngsters. Indeed a lot of youngsters play it but I think you would be surprised to find a lot of old school EQ1 peeps play the game. I played EQ1 for 3 years and the few people I keep up with from those days play WoW. They have kids, mortgages, and Wifes now and do not have the free time they had during our EQ1 days. Some go "hardcore" on the weekends in instances but for the most part they dabble around at night after their kids go to bed during the week. That can not be done in Vanguard.
I completely agree with Tnice here.
I can't help but giggle endlessly in game when I see people constently bashing WoW in /shout or /region.
I mean, I've played EQ2 and seen the WoW Bashing there, I've played DDO and seen more of it but in Vanguard, it's absolutely rampant. It's in the forums over at tenton and Silkyvenom, it's the IRC chats and it's in the game. I'm amazed any of them have time to play Vanguard at all considering the time they spend bitching about WoW everywhere.
It's not just the player base either, anyone ever notice how Brad and Co. can't help but mention Warcraft in almost every interview they do? They're obssessed.
It's no wonder theres so many similarities between the two games, it's all they could think about for the love of god!
Seriously though, for Vanguard and it's community to move forward, their just going to have to let it go. Let the game speak for itself, let the children debate over which is better and which has this and which has that.
Adult gamers will delight in the knowledge that as gamers we have these two good games are our disposal, we'll sit and enjoy them and their futures to the best of our abilitys. My only fear is that crowd over in Vanguard is so envious, they just can't think that way any more.
The only marketing going on in that article is the New York times marketing itself to advertisers. Let me explain how newspapers work. They write articles to appeal to a wide range of people, in hopes of selling newspapers. VG is hot news with millions of people, and that is why NYT did the article. Abraxos, awesome post. I don't think any of those games will threaten VG's base. They will threaten WoWs base just like VG is doing so now. Tnice said, "..estimates say VG have only 50,000 players." Sir, what is your source? Everyone can guess. My personal guess is 200k+. Tnice also said, "I don't think WoW is Vanguard's demographic." I wish this were true, but it isn't. The truth is, VG was made a bit easier and faster and soloable; and I'm certain it was done so because WoW showed there's a big market for this type of play. That the majority of that market lives in Asia or has to ask their parents for permission to play is obvious. VG is still has enough of a challenge to retain me as a customer.
The 50k estimate is indeed a guess. However, it is an educated guess based on the total number of characters across all the Vanguard servers.
Currently there are roughly 250k characters across all servers for levels 1-50 using the http://vgplayers.station.sony.com/characterSearch.vm search tool. If your estimate of 200k is correct that would mean that almost everyone is only creating 1 character with the majority of those characters being level 1.
I agree that your guess of 200k is just as valid as my guess of 50k. However it is just that; a guess. Until they release the numbers we really don't know. Do you really have a gut feeling that 200k people are sub'ed to Vanguard?
The only marketing going on in that article is the New York times marketing itself to advertisers. Let me explain how newspapers work. They write articles to appeal to a wide range of people, in hopes of selling newspapers. VG is hot news with millions of people, and that is why NYT did the article. Abraxos, awesome post. I don't think any of those games will threaten VG's base. They will threaten WoWs base just like VG is doing so now. Tnice said, "..estimates say VG have only 50,000 players." Sir, what is your source? Everyone can guess. My personal guess is 200k+. Tnice also said, "I don't think WoW is Vanguard's demographic." I wish this were true, but it isn't. The truth is, VG was made a bit easier and faster and soloable; and I'm certain it was done so because WoW showed there's a big market for this type of play. That the majority of that market lives in Asia or has to ask their parents for permission to play is obvious. VG is still has enough of a challenge to retain me as a customer.
The 50k estimate is indeed a guess. However, it is an educated guess based on the total number of characters across all the Vanguard servers.
Currently there are roughly 250k characters across all servers for levels 1-50 using the http://vgplayers.station.sony.com/characterSearch.vm search tool. If your estimate of 200k is correct that would mean that almost everyone is only creating 1 character with the majority of those characters being level 1.
I agree that your guess of 200k is just as valid as my guess of 50k. However it is just that; a guess. Until they release the numbers we really don't know. Do you really have a gut feeling that 200k people are sub'ed to Vanguard?
200k? 50k? can i ask who cares? People are playing the game and most of those people are enjoying the game can't we just let it end there? We will all find out the truth eventually. Life is far to short to waist time arguing about guesses on sub numbers. Enjoy whatever game you play. Cause eventually you'll be dead and none of this is going to matter anyway.
The only marketing going on in that article is the New York times marketing itself to advertisers. Let me explain how newspapers work. They write articles to appeal to a wide range of people, in hopes of selling newspapers. VG is hot news with millions of people, and that is why NYT did the article. Abraxos, awesome post. I don't think any of those games will threaten VG's base. They will threaten WoWs base just like VG is doing so now. Tnice said, "..estimates say VG have only 50,000 players." Sir, what is your source? Everyone can guess. My personal guess is 200k+. Tnice also said, "I don't think WoW is Vanguard's demographic." I wish this were true, but it isn't. The truth is, VG was made a bit easier and faster and soloable; and I'm certain it was done so because WoW showed there's a big market for this type of play. That the majority of that market lives in Asia or has to ask their parents for permission to play is obvious. VG is still has enough of a challenge to retain me as a customer.
The 50k estimate is indeed a guess. However, it is an educated guess based on the total number of characters across all the Vanguard servers.
Currently there are roughly 250k characters across all servers for levels 1-50 using the http://vgplayers.station.sony.com/characterSearch.vm search tool. If your estimate of 200k is correct that would mean that almost everyone is only creating 1 character with the majority of those characters being level 1.
I agree that your guess of 200k is just as valid as my guess of 50k. However it is just that; a guess. Until they release the numbers we really don't know. Do you really have a gut feeling that 200k people are sub'ed to Vanguard?
200k? 50k? can i ask who cares? People are playing the game and most of those people are enjoying the game can't we just let it end there? We will all find out the truth eventually. Life is far to short to waist time arguing about guesses on sub numbers. Enjoy whatever game you play. Cause eventually you'll be dead and none of this is going to matter anyway.
If you like the game you should care because it will determine your grouping options and funds available for bug fixes and new expansions.
I like discussing it because I love everything about MMOs. Instead of golf I like MMOs. I plan to play Vanguard as well as any other MMO I can get my hands on. I was in beta and not too impressed but the Vanboi's have convinced me to give it a shot.
Unfortunately, this does seem to be slipping into an EQ3 type of realm. I posted earlier too about page 4 upon this. As stated earlier, Vanguard probably will become at least functional eventually for machines that aren't top tier. For Sigil & SOE to expect we players/customers to purchase the game based on their promise that it will get better in a timely manner when obviously it was rushed to launch without much regard for the consumers' regards is shady. I was willing to hold onto my (2) Vanguard CEs I bought & wait awhile till Vanguard found itself more stable before beginning the Telon journey. With that (3) card Monte bait-&-switch tactic, which screams SOE, of the Adventuring, Crafting, & Diplomacy cards not being player chosen I felt tricked. Again, good luck to those playing & enjoying Vanguard, may Telon treat you well. Those of you feeling disappointed that play then you have a decision to make. Myself, I'll be returning my (2) unopened Vanguard CEs this weekend. maybe down the road I'll buy a regular Vanguard & try, but as mentioned earlier, there are a lot of other MMOs releasing this year. They don't have the history of burning there customers as much maybe either like SOE & now Sigil. I'm confident that Vanguard, I mean EQ3, will survive & hopefuly thrive as well!
The only marketing going on in that article is the New York times marketing itself to advertisers. Let me explain how newspapers work. They write articles to appeal to a wide range of people, in hopes of selling newspapers. VG is hot news with millions of people, and that is why NYT did the article. Abraxos, awesome post. I don't think any of those games will threaten VG's base. They will threaten WoWs base just like VG is doing so now. Tnice said, "..estimates say VG have only 50,000 players." Sir, what is your source? Everyone can guess. My personal guess is 200k+. Tnice also said, "I don't think WoW is Vanguard's demographic." I wish this were true, but it isn't. The truth is, VG was made a bit easier and faster and soloable; and I'm certain it was done so because WoW showed there's a big market for this type of play. That the majority of that market lives in Asia or has to ask their parents for permission to play is obvious. VG is still has enough of a challenge to retain me as a customer.
The 50k estimate is indeed a guess. However, it is an educated guess based on the total number of characters across all the Vanguard servers.
Currently there are roughly 250k characters across all servers for levels 1-50 using the http://vgplayers.station.sony.com/characterSearch.vm search tool. If your estimate of 200k is correct that would mean that almost everyone is only creating 1 character with the majority of those characters being level 1.
I agree that your guess of 200k is just as valid as my guess of 50k. However it is just that; a guess. Until they release the numbers we really don't know. Do you really have a gut feeling that 200k people are sub'ed to Vanguard?
200k? 50k? can i ask who cares? People are playing the game and most of those people are enjoying the game can't we just let it end there? We will all find out the truth eventually. Life is far to short to waist time arguing about guesses on sub numbers. Enjoy whatever game you play. Cause eventually you'll be dead and none of this is going to matter anyway.
If you like the game you should care because it will determine your grouping options and funds available for bug fixes and new expansions.
I like discussing it because I love everything about MMOs. Instead of golf I like MMOs. I plan to play Vanguard as well as any other MMO I can get my hands on. I was in beta and not too impressed but the Vanboi's have convinced me to give it a shot.
I like the game but I really don't care about the numbers. I group with all my friends, very seldom will I do a PUG. As for Bugs I've seen very few, nothing that I can't deal with and as far as new expansions I am not worried if vanguard never puts out an expansion thats fine as well cause like I said I am enjoying it and that is all I care about. if it dies in a year so be it at least I enjoyed it and had fun while it was here. If it lasts 7 years than great as long as I am having fun I'll keep playing as soon as I stop having fun I'll stop playing it. This is my philosophy on games and life for the most part. I play golf. I'm not very good but, once or twice a week I'll play 18 holes with my wife (who also plays games with me, currently Vanguard) and we have a blast. Anyway, the point is I don't care, I'll enjoy it while its here for as long as it's fun to me.
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.
I write because people will listen.
Someone's got to counter the blind fanboi-ism and rampant hatred running about here. I do so objectively.
I'm sorry that you're just so jaded by the game, I really am. However, my preview was objective, it subtracted the ''hope'' element for the ''reality'' element. I do NOT rate a game on what it can become, I rate it on what it currently is. Right now, this game is a sub-par MMO that's getting WAY too much praise on what it can become in a few weeks/months/years.
I write about this because I don't want potential customers to be misled by posters into thinking this is a great game right now. It isn't, period.
As for swede2, you're just clueless man. I've never seen such rampant paranoia on a forum. CLEARLY I'm a different user because I have similar perspectives with someone. Oh well, I guess all the people saying Vanguard is a great game are the same person too. Hell, there's only 4 users on this forum, we're all just using alts. We've got a Vanboi, a hater, a curious potential customer, and the guy who sits on the fence; we're each just using 100 alts.
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
I think when Brad says he would like 500k people playing this game at the end of the year, is kind of unrealistic. Vanguard, while it is an ok game, just is not any new to the genre. Plus, alot of people these days (his main player base) do not have the time in the day for Vanguard, including me. We have all grown up and we need more casual games to hold us over. Then you have the younger generation, where they are automatically hooked on WoW, they know casual and do not really dig Vanguard type games. I mean, vanguard is going to be a niche game for sure, but I highly doubt it will hit 500k people by the end of this year.
/played-mmorpgs
Total time played:9125 Days, 21 Hours, 29 Minutes, 27 Seconds Time played this level: 39 Days, 1 Hour, 24 Minutes, 5 Seconds
Being that Gaming is becoming one of the New era Coorperation, A lot of Newspapers do reviews on Video Games now, hell i have even seen my local news paper have articles on Madden and NFL 2k(before the nfl gave exclusive liecense to EA sports).
So it's no surprise that large Newspaper Companys have gaming articles now, There is even a continuing coverage by NYT, about SWG and SOE's treatment during the game.
Fafce it. There is an estimated 25 millions ppl playing online games, either be online poker to regular net games to pay to play games such as Vanguard. Thus this makes gaming new worhty as a large population is involved in gaming.
Given the consoles, pc gaming and internet gaming, Gaming in the overall american population is very large, so for NYT to cover a game. is not at all surprising.
Being that Gaming is becoming one of the New era Coorperation, A lot of Newspapers do reviews on Video Games now, hell i have even seen my local news paper have articles on Madden and NFL 2k(before the nfl gave exclusive liecense to EA sports). So it's no surprise that large Newspaper Companys have gaming articles now, There is even a continuing coverage by NYT, about SWG and SOE's treatment during the game. Fafce it. There is an estimated 25 millions ppl playing online games, either be online poker to regular net games to pay to play games such as Vanguard. Thus this makes gaming new worhty as a large population is involved in gaming. Given the consoles, pc gaming and internet gaming, Gaming in the overall american population is very large, so for NYT to cover a game. is not at all surprising.
Right.
Wasn't the video game industry the fasting growing market, or at least in the top 5, last year¿
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
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.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.
here ya go a interview last November with Jeff Butler
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/744/744058p1.html
That said, they learned lessons from EverQuest and are building content into Vanguard to make solo play a viable option all the way up to the current level cap of 50. Butler stated the content mix is 20% solo content, 20% raid content, 60% group content with max group size being the familiar six players. Content should accomodate a broad section of play styles, including the 30 minute-session player.
I suppose the 30 minute session means whacking a few foozles solo since it takes at leat 15 to 30 minutes to get a group together in my experiance.
Back to topic I am still of the opinion that the NY Times might be good coverage for a game like AoC, LoTRO, or WoW because the nature of the reader who might very well be a casual player but Vanguard is more for the hardcore players which already have the word on Vanguard.
I miss DAoC
That would mean 14000 players per server. That subscription number is probably all of SOE's Station Pass games combined.
I think SOE is just OK. Everquest 1 and 2 were both missed opportunities but they seem to have finally figured a few things out. I do think Vanguard was a bad business move and I'm surprised the parent company let them do it. Maybe Smedley saw it as a steal since most of the worldbuilding was already done.
My youtube MMO gaming channel
Every business man should learn somethign from Brad.
"Hey where are the tyres of my new Ferrari?"
"Dear sir, we will deliver tyres to you next month, for now enjoy the leathers seats and beautiful interiors"
Look at it this way...you have a Ferrarri!
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.
Samuraisword you beat me to this.. lol. I was going to post the same thing. Anarchy is well known for his ever changing dedications to games and they way this guy defends all the games is really crazy for me. I have seen his posts about EQ-2 and Roma Victor (i ahve been lurking for a long long time now) and i agree with you on this one. I think Cymdai nailed this one.
Brad was always howling about the 3rd generation game. He got everyone excited and hardly anyone knew that all we going to get is an updated version of EQ-1. This guy is desperate now. He doesnt even need NYT..all he needed was to shut his big mouth and deliever what he promised. This guys is way too clever and its not funny. The best publicity was the game itself which turned out to be very average in my opinion. The bugs are anyways rampant in game and rest of the damage is being done by the Vanboys who are more dangerous then bugs.
Every business man should learn somethign from Brad.
"Hey where are the tyres of my new Ferrari?"
"Dear sir, we will deliver tyres to you next month, for now enjoy the leathers seats and beautiful interiors"
The game is fully functional and has just about all the features promised. It just needs polish.
A more equivalent analogy would be the Ferrari you've been sold is complete, but in a few months they are going to install a better radio, replace your placeholder seats with fancier models, and add a minor engine upgrade.
I was trying to figure out the demographic for Vanguard. I think the SOE guys are smart and identified the right demographic. They used the NYT to speak to that demographic. I see retired persons as the Vanguard's primary demographic. Retired persons have much more free time than students or those in the working age range.
Gameplay mechanics like corpse runs, large race segregated world, mandatory group progression, waiting for boats, long travel times, etc are timesinks that do make the game more realistic but very inconvenient to those with much less time on their hands.
I was trying to figure out the demographic for Vanguard. I think the SOE guys are smart and identified the right demographic. They used the NYT to speak to that demographic. I see retired persons as the Vanguard's primary demographic. Retired persons have much more free time than students or those in the working age range.
Gameplay mechanics like corpse runs, large race segregated world, mandatory group progression, waiting for boats, long travel times, etc are timesinks that do make the game more realistic but very inconvenient to those with much less time on their hands.
Maybe SOE should start advertising the game on Fox News. It does seem like the game is definitely attracting an older crowd. But I don't think it's going to draw in a lot of 55+ non-gamers. Aside from a few spouses who get sucked in by their significant other, these people seem to be mostly made up of old time RP gamers, probably mostly EQ vets. I fit somewhere in the middle so maybe that's why I'm not quite ready to "retire" to another grind-intensive game.
AO and AC2 both released with no content. AC2 and AO had no advancements over existing MMORPGs. AO had cripppling performance, game breaking bugs, rampant exploiting, and wasn't fully stable until about a year later.
Vanguard in contrast has virtually all the promised features in working order, it's feature rich and packed with content/story/lore, the performance has made dramatic strides in just the past couple weeks and is now very good, there are no game breaking bugs (it's an annoyance factor is all), and exploiting so far has been no more than what is found in the release of any major MMORPG.
Not a very stellar list you present in competition of Vanguard. The main reason Vanguard could not get 500,000 people by years end is because it is buggy in it's first week of release and some end content is not complete. It also needs a hefty machine to run the graphics. OK lets look at what you are presenting for competition?
1. LoTRO- Jeez, you could give Turbine the WOW client and they would screw it up and loose money. Reference D&D online to see what they do with big name licensing. Also see AC2 to see how Turbine does things.
2. Pirates of the Burning Sea- I would like to see this one suceed but I have been seeing this game on this site in pre-production since Mythica and Dragon Empires were MMORPGs. They seem like a small company that can't keep up. One day it will release but it will be small and buggy at first due to money being more of an issue that with SIgil.
3. Spellborn - Don't know much about it and haven't seen much about it on any site but here. Again I think it will be a niche game at best and also it falls in with PotBS as being a small company with alot to prove and little money and time to do it.
4. Warhammer- Mythic has a good track record with DAOC and Warhammer has a big fanbase. This one is going to cause alot of pain to several of these MMORPG populations but it is definitely a 2008 game. It also is going to need Vista, Direct X10, 4 gig and a mack daddy video card to run it at it's best so if Vanguard's requirements bother you, get ready. It won't be like WOW where you can play on your granddaddy's Tandy 2000.
5. Conan- It looks good and has a nice License and even some new bells and whistles (single game to 20 followed by a MMORPG) but these are the guys who did Anarchy Online. One of the worst game releases of all time. They got it fixed eventually but the game never did reach the numbers it could have if it hadn't spent the first six weeks almost unplayable. Conan will also be a Vista baby (see stats above). Being mostly single player it will be more forgiving than the PVP centric Warhammer but I imagine it will also not run on that old Gateway from 1998.
I don't think they will have the luxury of time to hammer out the bugs. As many people have said, the game may have some annoying problems but no show stoppers.
They need to get people playing the game and bringing in money post haste. From most estimates they only have about 50k subs and a lot of those could be from the Station Access so I would think financially the game is in dire need of an influx of cash.
If they had only spent $1 million dollars to make the game there would not be a rush but spending $30 - 50 million on a game with 50k subs is a financial disaster of epic proportions. Regardless of whether you think the game plays well or not, you have to agree that if they do not get subs they are in big trouble.
This is because I don't expect AoC to have a strong PvE experience, being more like shadowbane as a PvP and guild centric game.
I also expect Warhammer to be similar to DAoC, with it's focus on PvP; But DAoC had fairly lackluster PvE content that served as little more than an extended tutorial until you got to the battlegrounds.
I don't think WoW is Vanguard's demographic. Not only do all the people who like Vanguard bash WoW in game and on any forum you visit, WoW is simply a totally different game.
If I were a WoW player and visited a Vanguard Fan Site and the game I really liked was being bashed, why would I think I would want to play it? I would think that Vanguard is made for people who are not like me. As a WoW player I would be turned off by the terms "Gamer's game" or "hardcore". WoW players are in it for the fun only and do not take it too seriously except the Raiders of course. Vanguard may be able to pull in some of the WoW Raiders but again those are a very small population and not enough to finance a 30 million dollar game.
Contrary to popular belief WoW is not just a game for the youngsters. Indeed a lot of youngsters play it but I think you would be surprised to find a lot of old school EQ1 peeps play the game. I played EQ1 for 3 years and the few people I keep up with from those days play WoW. They have kids, mortgages, and Wifes now and do not have the free time they had during our EQ1 days.
Some go "hardcore" on the weekends in instances but for the most part they dabble around at night after their kids go to bed during the week. That can not be done in Vanguard.
The only marketing going on in that article is the New York times marketing itself to advertisers. Let me explain how newspapers work. They write articles to appeal to a wide range of people, in hopes of selling newspapers. VG is hot news with millions of people, and that is why NYT did the article.
Abraxos, awesome post. I don't think any of those games will threaten VG's base. They will threaten WoWs base just like VG is doing so now.
Tnice said, "..estimates say VG have only 50,000 players." Sir, what is your source? Everyone can guess. My personal guess is 200k+.
Tnice also said, "I don't think WoW is Vanguard's demographic." I wish this were true, but it isn't. The truth is, VG was made a bit easier and faster and soloable; and I'm certain it was done so because WoW showed there's a big market for this type of play. That the majority of that market lives in Asia or has to ask their parents for permission to play is obvious.
VG is still has enough of a challenge to retain me as a customer.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I completely agree with Tnice here.
I can't help but giggle endlessly in game when I see people constently bashing WoW in /shout or /region.
I mean, I've played EQ2 and seen the WoW Bashing there, I've played DDO and seen more of it but in Vanguard, it's absolutely rampant. It's in the forums over at tenton and Silkyvenom, it's the IRC chats and it's in the game. I'm amazed any of them have time to play Vanguard at all considering the time they spend bitching about WoW everywhere.
It's not just the player base either, anyone ever notice how Brad and Co. can't help but mention Warcraft in almost every interview they do? They're obssessed.
It's no wonder theres so many similarities between the two games, it's all they could think about for the love of god!
Seriously though, for Vanguard and it's community to move forward, their just going to have to let it go. Let the game speak for itself, let the children debate over which is better and which has this and which has that.
Adult gamers will delight in the knowledge that as gamers we have these two good games are our disposal, we'll sit and enjoy them and their futures to the best of our abilitys. My only fear is that crowd over in Vanguard is so envious, they just can't think that way any more.
Important Information regarding Posting and You
The 50k estimate is indeed a guess. However, it is an educated guess based on the total number of characters across all the Vanguard servers.
Currently there are roughly 250k characters across all servers for levels 1-50 using the http://vgplayers.station.sony.com/characterSearch.vm search tool. If your estimate of 200k is correct that would mean that almost everyone is only creating 1 character with the majority of those characters being level 1.
I agree that your guess of 200k is just as valid as my guess of 50k. However it is just that; a guess. Until they release the numbers we really don't know. Do you really have a gut feeling that 200k people are sub'ed to Vanguard?
8 million people play WoW...that leaves about 6 billion people that don't play WoW.
The 50k estimate is indeed a guess. However, it is an educated guess based on the total number of characters across all the Vanguard servers.
Currently there are roughly 250k characters across all servers for levels 1-50 using the http://vgplayers.station.sony.com/characterSearch.vm search tool. If your estimate of 200k is correct that would mean that almost everyone is only creating 1 character with the majority of those characters being level 1.
I agree that your guess of 200k is just as valid as my guess of 50k. However it is just that; a guess. Until they release the numbers we really don't know. Do you really have a gut feeling that 200k people are sub'ed to Vanguard?
200k? 50k? can i ask who cares? People are playing the game and most of those people are enjoying the game can't we just let it end there? We will all find out the truth eventually. Life is far to short to waist time arguing about guesses on sub numbers. Enjoy whatever game you play. Cause eventually you'll be dead and none of this is going to matter anyway.The 50k estimate is indeed a guess. However, it is an educated guess based on the total number of characters across all the Vanguard servers.
Currently there are roughly 250k characters across all servers for levels 1-50 using the http://vgplayers.station.sony.com/characterSearch.vm search tool. If your estimate of 200k is correct that would mean that almost everyone is only creating 1 character with the majority of those characters being level 1.
I agree that your guess of 200k is just as valid as my guess of 50k. However it is just that; a guess. Until they release the numbers we really don't know. Do you really have a gut feeling that 200k people are sub'ed to Vanguard?
200k? 50k? can i ask who cares? People are playing the game and most of those people are enjoying the game can't we just let it end there? We will all find out the truth eventually. Life is far to short to waist time arguing about guesses on sub numbers. Enjoy whatever game you play. Cause eventually you'll be dead and none of this is going to matter anyway.If you like the game you should care because it will determine your grouping options and funds available for bug fixes and new expansions.
I like discussing it because I love everything about MMOs. Instead of golf I like MMOs. I plan to play Vanguard as well as any other MMO I can get my hands on. I was in beta and not too impressed but the Vanboi's have convinced me to give it a shot.
Unfortunately, this does seem to be slipping into an EQ3 type of realm. I posted earlier too about page 4 upon this. As stated earlier, Vanguard probably will become at least functional eventually for machines that aren't top tier. For Sigil & SOE to expect we players/customers to purchase the game based on their promise that it will get better in a timely manner when obviously it was rushed to launch without much regard for the consumers' regards is shady. I was willing to hold onto my (2) Vanguard CEs I bought & wait awhile till Vanguard found itself more stable before beginning the Telon journey. With that (3) card Monte bait-&-switch tactic, which screams SOE, of the Adventuring, Crafting, & Diplomacy cards not being player chosen I felt tricked. Again, good luck to those playing & enjoying Vanguard, may Telon treat you well. Those of you feeling disappointed that play then you have a decision to make. Myself, I'll be returning my (2) unopened Vanguard CEs this weekend. maybe down the road I'll buy a regular Vanguard & try, but as mentioned earlier, there are a lot of other MMOs releasing this year. They don't have the history of burning there customers as much maybe either like SOE & now Sigil. I'm confident that Vanguard, I mean EQ3, will survive & hopefuly thrive as well!
The 50k estimate is indeed a guess. However, it is an educated guess based on the total number of characters across all the Vanguard servers.
Currently there are roughly 250k characters across all servers for levels 1-50 using the http://vgplayers.station.sony.com/characterSearch.vm search tool. If your estimate of 200k is correct that would mean that almost everyone is only creating 1 character with the majority of those characters being level 1.
I agree that your guess of 200k is just as valid as my guess of 50k. However it is just that; a guess. Until they release the numbers we really don't know. Do you really have a gut feeling that 200k people are sub'ed to Vanguard?
200k? 50k? can i ask who cares? People are playing the game and most of those people are enjoying the game can't we just let it end there? We will all find out the truth eventually. Life is far to short to waist time arguing about guesses on sub numbers. Enjoy whatever game you play. Cause eventually you'll be dead and none of this is going to matter anyway.If you like the game you should care because it will determine your grouping options and funds available for bug fixes and new expansions.
I like discussing it because I love everything about MMOs. Instead of golf I like MMOs. I plan to play Vanguard as well as any other MMO I can get my hands on. I was in beta and not too impressed but the Vanboi's have convinced me to give it a shot.
I like the game but I really don't care about the numbers. I group with all my friends, very seldom will I do a PUG. As for Bugs I've seen very few, nothing that I can't deal with and as far as new expansions I am not worried if vanguard never puts out an expansion thats fine as well cause like I said I am enjoying it and that is all I care about. if it dies in a year so be it at least I enjoyed it and had fun while it was here. If it lasts 7 years than great as long as I am having fun I'll keep playing as soon as I stop having fun I'll stop playing it. This is my philosophy on games and life for the most part. I play golf. I'm not very good but, once or twice a week I'll play 18 holes with my wife (who also plays games with me, currently Vanguard) and we have a blast. Anyway, the point is I don't care, I'll enjoy it while its here for as long as it's fun to me.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.
I write because people will listen.
Someone's got to counter the blind fanboi-ism and rampant hatred running about here. I do so objectively.
I'm sorry that you're just so jaded by the game, I really am. However, my preview was objective, it subtracted the ''hope'' element for the ''reality'' element. I do NOT rate a game on what it can become, I rate it on what it currently is. Right now, this game is a sub-par MMO that's getting WAY too much praise on what it can become in a few weeks/months/years.
I write about this because I don't want potential customers to be misled by posters into thinking this is a great game right now. It isn't, period.
As for swede2, you're just clueless man. I've never seen such rampant paranoia on a forum. CLEARLY I'm a different user because I have similar perspectives with someone. Oh well, I guess all the people saying Vanguard is a great game are the same person too. Hell, there's only 4 users on this forum, we're all just using alts. We've got a Vanboi, a hater, a curious potential customer, and the guy who sits on the fence; we're each just using 100 alts.
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
Total time played: 9125 Days, 21 Hours, 29 Minutes, 27 Seconds
Time played this level: 39 Days, 1 Hour, 24 Minutes, 5 Seconds
Being that Gaming is becoming one of the New era Coorperation, A lot of Newspapers do reviews on Video Games now, hell i have even seen my local news paper have articles on Madden and NFL 2k(before the nfl gave exclusive liecense to EA sports).
So it's no surprise that large Newspaper Companys have gaming articles now, There is even a continuing coverage by NYT, about SWG and SOE's treatment during the game.
Fafce it. There is an estimated 25 millions ppl playing online games, either be online poker to regular net games to pay to play games such as Vanguard. Thus this makes gaming new worhty as a large population is involved in gaming.
Given the consoles, pc gaming and internet gaming, Gaming in the overall american population is very large, so for NYT to cover a game. is not at all surprising.
Wasn't the video game industry the fasting growing market, or at least in the top 5, last year¿
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...