Vanguard should currently be free, but only because it should still be in beta. It will probably be a decent game when it's done, but I think that is still about 6 months down the road. Those of you who are fine with the fact that you are paying for a game that even it's own developers admit wasn't ready for launch should know that every time a game comes out full of bugs and half finished, it's their fault.
First of all, who is going to pay the bills if this game is free to play. That $60-$100 million spent on developing the game wasn't just given to the Sigil. Who is going to pay for the ongoing bug fixing/server costs/updates if the game is free? To the person who suggested 1/2 price until the game is bug free... ok, then all games should be half price because no game is bug free. WoW had stability problems for their first year after release. No game, ever, is bug free. Just look at EveOnline for proof of that.
If you try to play Vanguard on the same box you play WoW, chances are your performance will suffer (and in most cases alot).
Buy an E6600 with 4+ gigs of ram and twin Nvidia 8800s and you will cruising pretty good in Vanguard. The days of being able to be playing a new MMOG on a $500 Wal-mart system are about over. These game developers are pushing the edge of technology and we should be happy for it and not knocking them when they games won't run lag free on minium spec computers.
Developers really have two choices. Go after the high end gamer market and push technology or develop games on $500 systems like WoW. There is nothing wrong with that. Blizzard was successful and I commend them for it.
You can't run a game with the graphics that Vanguard has on a $500 computer without serious performance issues. People in game complain how they crash every time they go near a city. You ask them their video card and they say 128 meg card or how much ram do you have, and they say 1gig. I'd be having trouble on a machine like that also.
As far as the bugs in the game, not to worry.... every patch they fix a lot of them. Every patch they create new bugs. It's a vicious cycle but at least Sigil acknowledges them and lets us all know what they did or didn't do to a class. They don't "stealth nerf" like Blizzard does.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
As there are a lot of games out there that are more finished, better balanced and have less bugs then Vanguard and are free, I would say yes, Vanguard should be free. I played the game for 3 weeks until frustration with the multitide of bugs and servercrashes made me cancel my account. I would possibly return if it was free. That is assuming they at least fix the major bugs and even then im not sure. In its current state i wouldn't even play it again if they offered me 15 dollars a month to play it.
Ah! someone who advocates people doing work for free!
So, bottom line is this. From *every* rational indicator, V:SoH is a failed MMORPG, even though so many wanted it to succeed.
Nowadays people, and I use that term very loosely, think that any MMO that doesn't have 8 million subs like WoW is a failure. This is just not the case. And to say Vanguard is a failed MMORPG after a month and a half of release is far too short sighted. Give it a year and then let's talk about success or failure.
Sure, I will wait a year to do a final pronouncment (as if anyone would care by then). I simply said by every rational indicator. Now, I fully agree that just because a game does not make 8.5 million subscribers, that it would be a failure. Heck, a game that could make 400k would be a huge success!
But, I hope you would also agree that just because a game is not yet canceled and is makeing a small profit for its hosts, does not make it a Success. As I said before, by any rational measure, V:SoH IS a failure. Not because of the subscriber base (that sort of failure comes later), but by the Quality of the Game, the Content of the Game, the Soul of the Game, and so forth. Those are things that impact the players today, and that really determine the present state of 'Success' or 'Failure'.
Pointless question. As part of the SoE All Access Pass collection of loser games, it will *never* be free to play. It will only get more expensive as they milk the dedicated player base for every last penny they can. Hell, EQ1 is as expensive as V:SoH.
I totally agree that they want to milk every nickel they can from us which is why I am surprised they have not released a hard-copy players guide or atlas (even though it would be outdated the second it was printed).
Teak Silverleaf
18 Cleric
Targonor
That one's easy, I think. Publishing Guides and Atlas's is the pervue of publishing companies, such as Prima. My guess is that they demand to see the real subscription numbers from SoE on V:SoH. And based on those, have decided that there is not enough interest in V:SoH to justify the risk of a publishing run. Which fundamentally means that they do not see 5000+ people buying the Guide. Which, in and of itself, is pretty telling about the future success of V:SoH, and the current subscription base, and the projected subscription base over the next two years.
Compare that with WoW, which has had two editions of the base Strategy Guide, a Hardcover Atlas, a Dungeon Guide, and the Burning Crusade Guide. Same with DAoC, which has had more guides than I can remember. And don't even ask about EQ1 !
So, bottom line is this. From *every* rational indicator, V:SoH is a failed MMORPG, even though so many wanted it to succeed.
Yes yes, we know, "WoW iz teh bezt!".
Actually, that would more properly be " WoW is the best ! " .
That's true...it is the best polished turd in all of gaming
And that would make V:SoH what? The most Unpolished Turd in all of gaming?
Anyway. Last post here. Sorry for the short hijack.
LMAO
FFxi Retired Coh/Cov Retired Guild Wars/Retired WOW/(11-23-04/1-6-07) VSOH/ retired AOC/retired that was fast Waiting 4 DCUO ,and FFXIV
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
This is not a dig on Vanguard, but more of a dig on MMORPG's in genereal. Three basic points.
1) Generally, a MMORPG, upon purchase, gives its buyers a 30 day "free" trial upon purchase.
2) After the 30 day trial is over, the general cost of a MMORPG is $14.99 a month.
3) Generally speaking, most MMORPG's run into a myriad of bugs and problems that render the game "unplayable" as promised on the box - or as promised as advertised. These problems seem to follow every new MMORPG release around for several months.
My solution? Shorten the "free" trial to 7 days. After that, make a "special offer" that the first 6 months of the MMORPG will be only $7.99 a month, and then will increase to the normal $14.99 a month. This will generate MORE revenue for the developers of the games, and allow them the funds to FIX their games. I say this because it will attract more players, increase initial subscribers and give the game a jump start.
Frankly speaking, I don't think Vanguard should go free to play. However, I think more people are quitting the game in higher numbers than new people are coming into it. The game has major problems and needs to be fixed. My fear is that as more and more people leave the game, the funds will not be there for the necessary fixes.
I think you are onto something here Kelsonmac. I'm betting that we will see more and more of this type of variety in the subscription model. Take LoTRo pre-order pricing (or gimmick if you prefer) for example:
$9.99 a month if you pre-order AND you subscribe within 30 days of release AND you never let your subscription lapse. If you let the subscription lapse; then it's the standard $14.99. Their other plan is $199 up front for a lifetime membership. So, I guess depending on your take of the game - those are either good deals or they're ripoffs - but the point is it gives players more choices. Choices are good.
I can see more and more MMO's going that route with deals like that or pricing plans similar to satellite, cable, or broad-band where you get a really good deal on a per-month basis; but the kicker is you have to commit to a multi-year deal. We've all seen the standard 3-month, 6-month, and 1-yr. type price-breaks; but I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more of the 2-yr. or 3-yr. types and even more of these lifetime subscriptions.
Basically anything that puts more money up-front into the hands of the developers is what we'll be seeing more of. The good majority of these MMO's have figured out that if they can just survive that initial 6-months to 1-yr. hump then they are pretty much home-free no matter what their subscription base. At least that's what it seems like to me.
I'm not completely sold on the multi-year or even lifetime subscription models (mainly because I've most likely got a touch of ADD and I have trouble sticking to just one game for long time periods) but; as it gives us gamers more choices I'm happy for it, and hope that the trend continues.
I dislike vanguard and stated that I wouldn't play it if it were free but...
vanguard and the guys at sigil and soe are running a business. A business (in almost all cases (damn you Uwe Boll!!!)) is designed to make money.
They aren't going to give away $40m (or so I have heard bandied about) because they're feeling generous.
If you do not like vanguard, simply do not give them money.
On the other side of the argument, I don't think the game is finished. They stated it was rolled out early. That could be seen as an argument to let people play for free for a while.
However, if they are short on cash, then play-for-free isn't an option. (Brad themanthemanthemantheman's office on his bio page doesn't look all that swank, if it was indeed his desk with 3 monitors.)
So, yes, it might be the "right" thing to do for the player base but probably the "wrong" thing for the investors in the company; be they employees or stock holders.
This is not a dig on Vanguard, but more of a dig on MMORPG's in genereal. Three basic points.
1) Generally, a MMORPG, upon purchase, gives its buyers a 30 day "free" trial upon purchase.
2) After the 30 day trial is over, the general cost of a MMORPG is $14.99 a month.
3) Generally speaking, most MMORPG's run into a myriad of bugs and problems that render the game "unplayable" as promised on the box - or as promised as advertised. These problems seem to follow every new MMORPG release around for several months.
My solution? Shorten the "free" trial to 7 days. After that, make a "special offer" that the first 6 months of the MMORPG will be only $7.99 a month, and then will increase to the normal $14.99 a month. This will generate MORE revenue for the developers of the games, and allow them the funds to FIX their games. I say this because it will attract more players, increase initial subscribers and give the game a jump start.
Frankly speaking, I don't think Vanguard should go free to play. However, I think more people are quitting the game in higher numbers than new people are coming into it. The game has major problems and needs to be fixed. My fear is that as more and more people leave the game, the funds will not be there for the necessary fixes.
I think you are onto something here Kelsonmac. I'm betting that we will see more and more of this type of variety in the subscription model. Take LoTRo pre-order pricing (or gimmick if you prefer) for example:
$9.99 a month if you pre-order AND you subscribe within 30 days of release AND you never let your subscription lapse. If you let the subscription lapse; then it's the standard $14.99. Their other plan is $199 up front for a lifetime membership. So, I guess depending on your take of the game - those are either good deals or they're ripoffs - but the point is it gives players more choices. Choices are good.
I think you'd be insane to pay $199 for a lifetime membership given the bad quality of mmorpg launches to date. I won't pay for more than a single month at a time on a new release. There are an increasing number of games that don't last on my PC more than a month. (Vanguard is just the latest.)
I'd like the $9.99 instead of $14.99. That's around a 33% discount meaning I pay for 2 get 1 free. I'd go for that provisional there were no contracts to continue paying. They'd be nuts to do that though.
I can see more and more MMO's going that route with deals like that or pricing plans similar to satellite, cable, or broad-band where you get a really good deal on a per-month basis; but the kicker is you have to commit to a multi-year deal. We've all seen the standard 3-month, 6-month, and 1-yr. type price-breaks; but I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more of the 2-yr. or 3-yr. types and even more of these lifetime subscriptions.
You'd be crazy to commit to a contract on an intangible service with no guarantees. (As are mmorpgs. That's what that "experience can change" thing means.)
Basically anything that puts more money up-front into the hands of the developers is what we'll be seeing more of. The good majority of these MMO's have figured out that if they can just survive that initial 6-months to 1-yr. hump then they are pretty much home-free no matter what their subscription base. At least that's what it seems like to me.
I'd think they'd like to do this, but I think it'd be a fool's game to buy into it. I see posts on occasion (SWG springs to mind) where poor boobs payed a year in advance... my heart goes out to them, but they're screwed. No refunds.
I'm not completely sold on the multi-year or even lifetime subscription models (mainly because I've most likely got a touch of ADD and I have trouble sticking to just one game for long time periods) but; as it gives us gamers more choices I'm happy for it, and hope that the trend continues.
I won't subscribe for more than 30 days. Anything more and they are trying to rip you off.
I dislike vanguard and stated that I wouldn't play it if it were free but...
vanguard and the guys at sigil and soe are running a business. A business (in almost all cases (damn you Uwe Boll!!!)) is designed to make money.
They aren't going to give away $40m (or so I have heard bandied about) because they're feeling generous.
If you do not like vanguard, simply do not give them money.
On the other side of the argument, I don't think the game is finished. They stated it was rolled out early. That could be seen as an argument to let people play for free for a while.
However, if they are short on cash, then play-for-free isn't an option. (Brad themanthemanthemantheman's office on his bio page doesn't look all that swank, if it was indeed his desk with 3 monitors.)
So, yes, it might be the "right" thing to do for the player base but probably the "wrong" thing for the investors in the company; be they employees or stock holders.
Actually, the only thing I can think of that *might* enable any sort of success for V:SoH in the near future IS to have FTP for the next 3 to 6 months. A really good MMORPG will keep folks playing for *years*, so that loss of revenue would not be a killer. And, it would sell more boxes, that is for sure. And get more folks involved.
But, no, it is not going to happen. SoE is in charge now. And they will sacrifice all of the future for a few dollars today. Soon, V:SoH will be standing alongside The Matrix Online, EverQuest, EverQuest 2, Planetside, and all the rest of the SoE All Access games as just another low-end MMORPG that has a sub base large enough to make SoE a small profit, but not be any sort of force in the worlds of MMORPG games.
So, to those V:SoH fans that enjoy the game, more power to ya! But, realize that the game you have now is pretty much all the game you are ever going to have. Because that is the way SoE All Access Pass games work.
....but by the Quality of the Game, the Content of the Game, the Soul of the Game, and so forth.
Vanguard's content and soul are in my opinion huge. They released early, we all know that, so the game isn't 100% done and thus the quality isn't complete.
I play Vanguard and have a blast, and the higher level I get, the more difficult it gets and the more fun I have. It's not made for everyones tastes, but it IS made for mine.
I could never go back to WoW, Guild Wars or play LotRO ever again. They're just too saline for me. I want a game with some grit and some depth. Enter Vanguard.
I dislike vanguard and stated that I wouldn't play it if it were free but...
vanguard and the guys at sigil and soe are running a business. A business (in almost all cases (damn you Uwe Boll!!!)) is designed to make money.
They aren't going to give away $40m (or so I have heard bandied about) because they're feeling generous.
If you do not like vanguard, simply do not give them money.
On the other side of the argument, I don't think the game is finished. They stated it was rolled out early. That could be seen as an argument to let people play for free for a while.
However, if they are short on cash, then play-for-free isn't an option. (Brad themanthemanthemantheman's office on his bio page doesn't look all that swank, if it was indeed his desk with 3 monitors.)
So, yes, it might be the "right" thing to do for the player base but probably the "wrong" thing for the investors in the company; be they employees or stock holders.
Actually, the only thing I can think of that *might* enable any sort of success for V:SoH in the near future IS to have FTP for the next 3 to 6 months. A really good MMORPG will keep folks playing for *years*, so that loss of revenue would not be a killer. And, it would sell more boxes, that is for sure. And get more folks involved.
But, no, it is not going to happen. SoE is in charge now. And they will sacrifice all of the future for a few dollars today. Soon, V:SoH will be standing alongside The Matrix Online, EverQuest, EverQuest 2, Planetside, and all the rest of the SoE All Access games as just another low-end MMORPG that has a sub base large enough to make SoE a small profit, but not be any sort of force in the worlds of MMORPG games.
I think SOE is fairly intelligent where business is concerned. They know developer and artist time-cost rack up VERY quickly. They understand sigil is cash-strapped (apparently). To pour more money into a property that isn't holding water is a bad idea.
Better (for business) to do what they did with MXO and fix the disaster problems and stick it out to pasture. The only thing they really put into it at this point is shared bandwidth-cost with their station pass users. I imagine they make some revenue from it, but not enough for future development.
I think vanguard needs a load of cash to properly capitalize and I do not feel there is sufficient interest in the title to warrant further investment on SOE's part. They probably paid next to nothing for distribution rights unless they received control over the project, which I believe Sigil kept.
If I were SOE execs, I'd be hoping themanthemantheman would fall on his arrogant face and pick the property up for next to nothing, tear the code apart, and begin building a better game. They'd also get to put something else into their station pass stable.
My feeling is vanguard is headed the way of SWG, AO, and MXO, but it really is too early to tell.
So, to those V:SoH fans that enjoy the game, more power to ya! But, realize that the game you have now is pretty much all the game you are ever going to have. Because that is the way SoE All Access Pass games work.
This is not a dig on Vanguard, but more of a dig on MMORPG's in genereal. Three basic points.
1) Generally, a MMORPG, upon purchase, gives its buyers a 30 day "free" trial upon purchase.
2) After the 30 day trial is over, the general cost of a MMORPG is $14.99 a month.
3) Generally speaking, most MMORPG's run into a myriad of bugs and problems that render the game "unplayable" as promised on the box - or as promised as advertised. These problems seem to follow every new MMORPG release around for several months.
My solution? Shorten the "free" trial to 7 days. After that, make a "special offer" that the first 6 months of the MMORPG will be only $7.99 a month, and then will increase to the normal $14.99 a month. This will generate MORE revenue for the developers of the games, and allow them the funds to FIX their games. I say this because it will attract more players, increase initial subscribers and give the game a jump start.
Frankly speaking, I don't think Vanguard should go free to play. However, I think more people are quitting the game in higher numbers than new people are coming into it. The game has major problems and needs to be fixed. My fear is that as more and more people leave the game, the funds will not be there for the necessary fixes.
I think you are onto something here Kelsonmac. I'm betting that we will see more and more of this type of variety in the subscription model. Take LoTRo pre-order pricing (or gimmick if you prefer) for example:
$9.99 a month if you pre-order AND you subscribe within 30 days of release AND you never let your subscription lapse. If you let the subscription lapse; then it's the standard $14.99. Their other plan is $199 up front for a lifetime membership. So, I guess depending on your take of the game - those are either good deals or they're ripoffs - but the point is it gives players more choices. Choices are good.
I think you'd be insane to pay $199 for a lifetime membership given the bad quality of mmorpg launches to date. I won't pay for more than a single month at a time on a new release. There are an increasing number of games that don't last on my PC more than a month. (Vanguard is just the latest.)
I agree. However, for a player that has played the closed Beta and is bound and determined to play the game for years. Well, then for them it might be a very attractive option. Remember, it's just one more option for those that want to choose it.
I'd like the $9.99 instead of $14.99. That's around a 33% discount meaning I pay for 2 get 1 free. I'd go for that provisional there were no contracts to continue paying. They'd be nuts to do that though.
The catch is that if you let the subscription lapse for even a month - then you can't get the $9.99 deal again. That's why I think this plan may catch on with more and more MMO's. Even if players stop playing they will hesitate to cancel because then they know they won't be able to get the $9.99 deal again if they ever decide to come back. See, very clever of those MMO's.
I can see more and more MMO's going that route with deals like that or pricing plans similar to satellite, cable, or broad-band where you get a really good deal on a per-month basis; but the kicker is you have to commit to a multi-year deal. We've all seen the standard 3-month, 6-month, and 1-yr. type price-breaks; but I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more of the 2-yr. or 3-yr. types and even more of these lifetime subscriptions.
You'd be crazy to commit to a contract on an intangible service with no guarantees. (As are mmorpgs. That's what that "experience can change" thing means.)
I agree that they aren't my cup of tea either, but it seems like more and more services are going to longer and longer commitment terms for the people that want them.
Basically anything that puts more money up-front into the hands of the developers is what we'll be seeing more of. The good majority of these MMO's have figured out that if they can just survive that initial 6-months to 1-yr. hump then they are pretty much home-free no matter what their subscription base. At least that's what it seems like to me.
I'd think they'd like to do this, but I think it'd be a fool's game to buy into it. I see posts on occasion (SWG springs to mind) where poor boobs payed a year in advance... my heart goes out to them, but they're screwed. No refunds.
I'm not completely sold on the multi-year or even lifetime subscription models (mainly because I've most likely got a touch of ADD and I have trouble sticking to just one game for long time periods) but; as it gives us gamers more choices I'm happy for it, and hope that the trend continues.
I won't subscribe for more than 30 days. Anything more and they are trying to rip you off.
Heh, that's why they have to entice you with the lure of lower monthly payments. Let's pretend you play a game for a couple months and you really like it and plan on playing it for the foreseeable future. So, are you going to continue to pay the $14.99 per month, or would you consider the $9.99 per month with the caveat you have to commit to 1-yr. or longer?
First of all, who is going to pay the bills if this game is free to play. That $60-$100 million spent on developing the game wasn't just given to the Sigil. Who is going to pay for the ongoing bug fixing/server costs/updates if the game is free? To the person who suggested 1/2 price until the game is bug free... ok, then all games should be half price because no game is bug free. WoW had stability problems for their first year after release. No game, ever, is bug free. Just look at EveOnline for proof of that. Firstly, World of Warcraft had stability issues in its initial period of 2 to three months due too unprecidented demand in subscriptions and popularity causing the infrastructure they had initially put in place too buckle under the load of players connections. As far as Code base and polish is concerned it set and raised the bar in the industry for what a majority of paying subscription game players "Core/Casual" players deem as acceptable, and that is a well publicized fact. It subscription numbers alone prove that. Blizzard moved Data Centres after three months in LIVE operations to more effectively balance load caused by sheer demand. You are indeed correct when in saying NO game released is without its share of bugs and / or glitches, a very pertinent comment. However Vanguard: SOH judging by reviews ALL over the internet, my own play experience and indeed its OWN official technical support forums goes beyond having just teething bugs and glitches. It has a wealth of "Crash to Desktop" issues, "Memory leaks" in the client code, Unfinished Content advertised ready upon release, Unoptimization of Operating System resource handling...the list goes on and this is all documented in many forums over the internet and on the official technical support forums. These are the issue's many whom have been disappointed and had alot of heartache with vanguard in its release month and left since choosing not too renew subscriptions have sited as reasons. This of course is all Symptomatic of an application being released in a non-desired state by the developer, this too is well documented. So therefore if you DO choose to subscribe at this current time the fact is you are bankrolling an unfinished / "non production ready" application. Not comparable to an MMORPG that saw unprecedented demand in its opening months that WAS infact in a "Production Ready" state. If you try to play Vanguard on the same box you play WoW, chances are your performance will suffer (and in most cases alot). Buy an E6600 with 4+ gigs of ram and twin Nvidia 8800s and you will cruising pretty good in Vanguard. The days of being able to be playing a new MMOG on a $500 Wal-mart system are about over. These game developers are pushing the edge of technology and we should be happy for it and not knocking them when they games won't run lag free on minium spec computers. Brad McQuiad recently made several large posts in these forums and on others explaining that a focus for sigil was to indeed dispel the myth that vanguard did not welcome "Core/Casual" players. The above system specifications quoted by yourself are not the system specifications used or available to a majority of the games playing public at this time, it is that simple. If a game releases with these demands in terms of hardware for a smooth playing experience then it will immediatly alienate itself to exist as a niche game, nothing more. However with Vanguard this simply is not the case. The specifications on retail package even state as much. Whilst Vanguard does make more demands of todays hardware the unoptimization of its engine and client code do not help performance on a multitude of differing system specifications. You also make the assumption that Vanguard only has sub-optimum performance on low end hardware specifications. However this just simply is not the case, the technical support forums and threads of information across the internet also exist from some players / ex players with some substantial hardware having detrimental performance also. This random nature in performance across multiple hardware platforms does strongly suggest the code has NOT seen production level optimizations to its engine yet. Again a symptom of an application in a state of premature release. Developers really have two choices. Go after the high end gamer market and push technology or develop games on $500 systems like WoW. There is nothing wrong with that. Blizzard was successful and I commend them for it. See my above point about Brad Mcquiads recent posts here and elsewhere and his and sigils intentions and desire to also appeal to the wider gaming market. A multitude of playing styles which incorporates a very broad range of hardware used for that particular players hobbies and games. You can't run a game with the graphics that Vanguard has on a $500 computer without serious performance issues. People in game complain how they crash every time they go near a city. You ask them their video card and they say 128 meg card or how much ram do you have, and they say 1gig. I'd be having trouble on a machine like that also. This just simply is not the case. The official technical support forum threads alone dispel this point. Also see my above points. As far as the bugs in the game, not to worry.... every patch they fix a lot of them. Every patch they create new bugs. It's a vicious cycle but at least Sigil acknowledges them and lets us all know what they did or didn't do to a class. They don't "stealth nerf" like Blizzard does. Agreed. The work that Sigil are putting in is impressive, whilst some question the area of focus for their efforts not being aimed or managed in the right direction, I.E placing the games performance and stability first and formost, is commendable they are working hard. But the relevence of their current work in comparison to the Applications largest current known issues amongst the player base is what IS at question. My own thoughts are that we are now in an age in the industry where games players are perhaps more inclined and tempted by a product that while not offering a wealth of content and / or deep mechanics from the get go do offer a solid game playing experience from a performance and stability standpoint, possibly referred to loosely as "polish". The deeper mechanics, class performance, vast new content packages, expansions to the product, code / engine updates for increased functionality / effects, can come after an application has established itself securely within the industry and has stability and security in its own future on the market, because it is that initial first install experience, that initial performance in the players hardware environment and the applications ability to deliver a trade of visuals against performance with a game session bringing minimal compatibility problems / game breaking issues, that clinches the deal, that makes that crucial first impression, and that is where vanguard needs to be but sadly just isnt yet and has limited time against growing choices and competition to reach that point, especially this year. Of course that is just my opinion however and i thankyou for listening.
First of all, who is going to pay the bills if this game is free to play. That $60-$100 million spent on developing the game wasn't just given to the Sigil. Who is going to pay for the ongoing bug fixing/server costs/updates if the game is free? To the person who suggested 1/2 price until the game is bug free... ok, then all games should be half price because no game is bug free. WoW had stability problems for their first year after release. No game, ever, is bug free. Just look at EveOnline for proof of that. If you try to play Vanguard on the same box you play WoW, chances are your performance will suffer (and in most cases alot). Buy an E6600 with 4+ gigs of ram and twin Nvidia 8800s and you will cruising pretty good in Vanguard. The days of being able to be playing a new MMOG on a $500 Wal-mart system are about over. These game developers are pushing the edge of technology and we should be happy for it and not knocking them when they games won't run lag free on minium spec computers. Developers really have two choices. Go after the high end gamer market and push technology or develop games on $500 systems like WoW. There is nothing wrong with that. Blizzard was successful and I commend them for it. You can't run a game with the graphics that Vanguard has on a $500 computer without serious performance issues. People in game complain how they crash every time they go near a city. You ask them their video card and they say 128 meg card or how much ram do you have, and they say 1gig. I'd be having trouble on a machine like that also. As far as the bugs in the game, not to worry.... every patch they fix a lot of them. Every patch they create new bugs. It's a vicious cycle but at least Sigil acknowledges them and lets us all know what they did or didn't do to a class. They don't "stealth nerf" like Blizzard does.
Haha, you are really a joke. Vanguard edge of technology, thats like saying Volkswagen Beetles are the fastest cars. I bet you either work at sony or still believe in santa clause. I got a AMD X2 4800 with 2 gigs of ram and dual 7900GTX SLI, Xfi soundblaster. I'm not talking about lag or personal PC problems. I'm talking about server crashes where the entire server is down and no one plays. I'm talking about bugs like group bugging, guild chat bugs, NPC's that don't work, countless of quests that are broken, areas not finished, being stuck and dying as a result, and failing to get your corpse because its stuck, animations not working, "areas" being offline (and if you try to reach them your character gets stuck until the area is fixed), server down times at the possible most inconvenient times for europeans and all that kind of shit that has nothing to do with the power of my computer.
Then there is also the fact that the emotes are lame, there is nothing implemented for the roleplayer, no drunk effects, no sitting, no cozy inns, no interesting towns, the world basically being a complete empty boring box, designed with horrible texturers and bland.
I can set the graphics on ultra high (though ran on high mostly) and basically it still looks like crap (except for some area's like Cael Bra'ial) and trust me, its not my computer, its really the game.
To compare wow's first year with what i experienced with Vanguard is really a joke. Yes WoW had some bugs. Some servers had crashes and downtimes during the first few weeks (though not in european launch), but at least wow only had maintenance once a week instead of EVERY FREAKING DAY and during EUROPEAN PRIME HOURS. WoW was smooth, the quests worked, the NPC's worked, PVP was not perfectly balanced but at least not as insanely inbalanced as Vanguard, all areas where basically finished. During WoW's first week i would get suprised if i saw a bug really, they where there but they weren't like a common occurance. During my weeks in Vanguard i'd frankly BE SUPRISED IF I DIDN'T SEE BUGS.
My computer is ready for that so called edge of technology. It runs every freaking game from LOTR:Online to Guild Wars and Oblivion without even slightly breaking into a sweat. But Vanguard isn't edge of technology, it doesn't show anything that hasn't been done better before, rather it's edge of insanity and frankly a load of crap. Your basically still paying to test a below average buggy as hell beta client, and thats fine, but dont go insult gaming in general by calling Vanguard edge of technology, because your insulting a lot of game developers out there that do develop games (relativly) bug free and truly BEAUTIFUL to behold at all times.
lord fraid u are possibly the biggest idiot to hit mmorpg.com - i mean jesus christ man!
vanguard is pushing the limits FFS. using the best technology currently avaible for graphics in an MMO environment where you can see for 4-8km at a time. get fuked. thats skill. and if any1 else had done it they'd recieve the same gz.
vanguard is buggy for 2 reasons,
1) its new
2) SOE forced it to launch 11 months early, which is a bloody long time
now its for these reasons im not subscribed atm, but i watch the vgplayers.com news updates daily and im more then pleased with the work they are doing on it.
about the main topic no this shouldnt be free....why? well because its just too big. With the massive server costs etc etc it would mean like ZERO work could get done due to financial constraint. and when every1 hits 50 they'll be begging for more content and most will be more then happy to pay what it takes to get it.
Sigil have used an A list movie budget for this game and as such their hard work deserves to see such profit margins. does this mean we should all play it? NO, this means the other companies are gonna have to keep on their toe's and push the boundries of MMO's further and further until they reach the standard of other genre's.
First of all, who is going to pay the bills if this game is free to play. That $60-$100 million spent on developing the game wasn't just given to the Sigil. Who is going to pay for the ongoing bug fixing/server costs/updates if the game is free? To the person who suggested 1/2 price until the game is bug free... ok, then all games should be half price because no game is bug free. WoW had stability problems for their first year after release. No game, ever, is bug free. Just look at EveOnline for proof of that. If you try to play Vanguard on the same box you play WoW, chances are your performance will suffer (and in most cases alot). Buy an E6600 with 4+ gigs of ram and twin Nvidia 8800s and you will cruising pretty good in Vanguard. The days of being able to be playing a new MMOG on a $500 Wal-mart system are about over. These game developers are pushing the edge of technology and we should be happy for it and not knocking them when they games won't run lag free on minium spec computers. Developers really have two choices. Go after the high end gamer market and push technology or develop games on $500 systems like WoW. There is nothing wrong with that. Blizzard was successful and I commend them for it. You can't run a game with the graphics that Vanguard has on a $500 computer without serious performance issues. People in game complain how they crash every time they go near a city. You ask them their video card and they say 128 meg card or how much ram do you have, and they say 1gig. I'd be having trouble on a machine like that also. As far as the bugs in the game, not to worry.... every patch they fix a lot of them. Every patch they create new bugs. It's a vicious cycle but at least Sigil acknowledges them and lets us all know what they did or didn't do to a class. They don't "stealth nerf" like Blizzard does.
Haha, you are really a joke. Vanguard edge of technology, thats like saying Volkswagen Beetles are the fastest cars. I bet you either work at sony or still believe in santa clause. I got a AMD X2 4800 with 2 gigs of ram and dual 7900GTX SLI, Xfi soundblaster. I'm not talking about lag or personal PC problems. I'm talking about server crashes where the entire server is down and no one plays. I'm talking about bugs like group bugging, guild chat bugs, NPC's that don't work, countless of quests that are broken, areas not finished, being stuck and dying as a result, and failing to get your corpse because its stuck, animations not working, "areas" being offline (and if you try to reach them your character gets stuck until the area is fixed), server down times at the possible most inconvenient times for europeans and all that kind of shit that has nothing to do with the power of my computer.
Then there is also the fact that the emotes are lame, there is nothing implemented for the roleplayer, no drunk effects, no sitting, no cozy inns, no interesting towns, the world basically being a complete empty boring box, designed with horrible texturers and bland.
I can set the graphics on ultra high (though ran on high mostly) and basically it still looks like crap (except for some area's like Cael Bra'ial) and trust me, its not my computer, its really the game.
To compare wow's first year with what i experienced with Vanguard is really a joke. Yes WoW had some bugs. Some servers had crashes and downtimes during the first few weeks (though not in european launch), but at least wow only had maintenance once a week instead of EVERY FREAKING DAY and during EUROPEAN PRIME HOURS. WoW was smooth, the quests worked, the NPC's worked, PVP was not perfectly balanced but at least not as insanely inbalanced as Vanguard, all areas where basically finished. During WoW's first week i would get suprised if i saw a bug really, they where there but they weren't like a common occurance. During my weeks in Vanguard i'd frankly BE SUPRISED IF I DIDN'T SEE BUGS.
My computer is ready for that so called edge of technology. It runs every freaking game from LOTR:Online to Guild Wars and Oblivion without even slightly breaking into a sweat. But Vanguard isn't edge of technology, it doesn't show anything that hasn't been done better before, rather it's edge of insanity and frankly a load of crap. Your basically still paying to test a below average buggy as hell beta client, and thats fine, but dont go insult gaming in general by calling Vanguard edge of technology, because your insulting a lot of game developers out there that do develop games (relativly) bug free and truly BEAUTIFUL to behold at all times.
So dramatic.
The engine is doing things that engines in other MMO's aren't able to do. Because you don't see it doesn't mean that thier isn't tech there that is bleeding edge. Although I wouldn't call it bleeding edge, it is doing some advanced stuff that is a strain on current systems. It's more like advanced tech then bleeding edge.
Something tells me that VG is going to benefit from cell processor technology. PS3 isn't doing so well, but thank you Sony for the RnD. Do some reading on the new Nvidia cards and the way the GPU's will work in the future, and then consider who SoE works very closely with. Hint, it's Nvidia. ATI is in trouble, wonder if they will hold on or go the way of Voodoo3d.
And no your PC isn't. SLI on those two cards isn't that impressive. Sorry, when you can bost your running 2 gfx cards with GPU's that are handling some of the processes that the CPU would normally be doing, and doing it with processors utilizing cell processing, then I'll be impressed and say your ready for bleeding edge tech.
The engine is built for the FUTURE; this would imply it will utilize FUTURE technology. Future being not today.
You may not like the look of the game and find the graphics to be substandard to your tastes, and that cool man. I don't like WoW's graphics; who gives a monkeys butt.
lord fraid u are possibly the biggest idiot to hit mmorpg.com - i mean jesus christ man! Although Lord is strongly opinionated i agree, that doesnt mean he is not entitled to his opinion the same as you are. But that doesnt make his arguments nor points stupid. Just his. vanguard is pushing the limits FFS. using the best technology currently avaible for graphics in an MMO environment where you can see for 4-8km at a time. get fuked. thats skill. and if any1 else had done it they'd recieve the same gz. Vanguard actually uses a heavily modified version of the Unreal 2 Code base originally released by EPIC games almost four years ago. Four years is a long time in todays technology market and im afraid draw distance alone does not qauntify the sheer ability of an engine. The unreal 2.5 engine is essentially a first person shooter engine, modified by Sigil to work within the MMORPG Environment. They also use other technologies readily available to games today such as Speedtree etc. vanguard is buggy for 2 reasons, 1) its new Mmmm Yes. Agreed. So was World of Warcraft new at one time, so is Lord of the rings online (Still in closed Beta) im afraid to say netither on release or pre-release respectively exhibit the same level of problems in the client code as vanguard currently does in its premature release state. This simply doesnt excuse the matter for those whom have purchased vanguard in good faith, and since decided to move on. Read my above posts where i have also attempted to validate my opinion.
2) SOE forced it to launch 11 months early, which is a bloody long time Nobody knows this for sure. The statement by Brad Mcquiad simply stated that Sigil needed to release commercially when they did fully in the knowledge that the client code they were branding as "Retail" and "Production ready" wasnt to the desired level thereof as far as the developer (Sigil) was concerned. This is a well known fact in the online community. To blame SOE whom simply agreed too Publish, Market and Host this game after Sigil decided to "Buy" the publishing rights from Microsoft and needed another big name to fulfil the role vacated by microsoft is somewhat unfair due to you lack of evidence to back up your point. now its for these reasons im not subscribed atm, but i watch the vgplayers.com news updates daily and im more then pleased with the work they are doing on it. about the main topic no this shouldnt be free....why? well because its just too big. With the massive server costs etc etc it would mean like ZERO work could get done due to financial constraint. and when every1 hits 50 they'll be begging for more content and most will be more then happy to pay what it takes to get it. Sigil have used an A list movie budget for this game and as such their hard work deserves to see such profit margins. does this mean we should all play it? NO, this means the other companies are gonna have to keep on their toe's and push the boundries of MMO's further and further until they reach the standard of other genre's.
Dude you say the engine is build for the future, but everything about it looks from the past. Dude you believe in stuff that simply won't happen.
And dont say its because i like toony graphics, i don't like toony graphics, if theres one thing i hate about WoW its the toony graphics and i was looking forward to play in a more realistic world, but not if that world is a bland, badly textured, unfinished buggy empty box .
Pointless question. As part of the SoE All Access Pass collection of loser games, it will *never* be free to play. It will only get more expensive as they milk the dedicated player base for every last penny they can. Hell, EQ1 is as expensive as V:SoH.
I totally agree that they want to milk every nickel they can from us which is why I am surprised they have not released a hard-copy players guide or atlas (even though it would be outdated the second it was printed).
Teak Silverleaf
18 Cleric
Targonor
That one's easy, I think. Publishing Guides and Atlas's is the pervue of publishing companies, such as Prima. My guess is that they demand to see the real subscription numbers from SoE on V:SoH. And based on those, have decided that there is not enough interest in V:SoH to justify the risk of a publishing run. Which fundamentally means that they do not see 5000+ people buying the Guide. Which, in and of itself, is pretty telling about the future success of V:SoH, and the current subscription base, and the projected subscription base over the next two years.
Compare that with WoW, which has had two editions of the base Strategy Guide, a Hardcover Atlas, a Dungeon Guide, and the Burning Crusade Guide. Same with DAoC, which has had more guides than I can remember. And don't even ask about EQ1 !
So, bottom line is this. From *every* rational indicator, V:SoH is a failed MMORPG, even though so many wanted it to succeed.
Not only that, but what's the point anymore when you can get all the information you want for free at allakhazam.com?
Comments
hahahahhaaha
You're pretty funny. No really, I mean it.
Mirrim
Chanter, Spatalos Server
-----Zero Punctuation Eve Online Review-----
First of all, who is going to pay the bills if this game is free to play. That $60-$100 million spent on developing the game wasn't just given to the Sigil. Who is going to pay for the ongoing bug fixing/server costs/updates if the game is free? To the person who suggested 1/2 price until the game is bug free... ok, then all games should be half price because no game is bug free. WoW had stability problems for their first year after release. No game, ever, is bug free. Just look at EveOnline for proof of that.
If you try to play Vanguard on the same box you play WoW, chances are your performance will suffer (and in most cases alot).
Buy an E6600 with 4+ gigs of ram and twin Nvidia 8800s and you will cruising pretty good in Vanguard. The days of being able to be playing a new MMOG on a $500 Wal-mart system are about over. These game developers are pushing the edge of technology and we should be happy for it and not knocking them when they games won't run lag free on minium spec computers.
Developers really have two choices. Go after the high end gamer market and push technology or develop games on $500 systems like WoW. There is nothing wrong with that. Blizzard was successful and I commend them for it.
You can't run a game with the graphics that Vanguard has on a $500 computer without serious performance issues. People in game complain how they crash every time they go near a city. You ask them their video card and they say 128 meg card or how much ram do you have, and they say 1gig. I'd be having trouble on a machine like that also.
As far as the bugs in the game, not to worry.... every patch they fix a lot of them. Every patch they create new bugs. It's a vicious cycle but at least Sigil acknowledges them and lets us all know what they did or didn't do to a class. They don't "stealth nerf" like Blizzard does.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
When can I sign you up for lawn duty?
hehe....
Nowadays people, and I use that term very loosely, think that any MMO that doesn't have 8 million subs like WoW is a failure. This is just not the case. And to say Vanguard is a failed MMORPG after a month and a half of release is far too short sighted. Give it a year and then let's talk about success or failure.
Sure, I will wait a year to do a final pronouncment (as if anyone would care by then). I simply said by every rational indicator. Now, I fully agree that just because a game does not make 8.5 million subscribers, that it would be a failure. Heck, a game that could make 400k would be a huge success!
But, I hope you would also agree that just because a game is not yet canceled and is makeing a small profit for its hosts, does not make it a Success. As I said before, by any rational measure, V:SoH IS a failure. Not because of the subscriber base (that sort of failure comes later), but by the Quality of the Game, the Content of the Game, the Soul of the Game, and so forth. Those are things that impact the players today, and that really determine the present state of 'Success' or 'Failure'.
I totally agree that they want to milk every nickel they can from us which is why I am surprised they have not released a hard-copy players guide or atlas (even though it would be outdated the second it was printed).
Teak Silverleaf
18 Cleric
Targonor
That one's easy, I think. Publishing Guides and Atlas's is the pervue of publishing companies, such as Prima. My guess is that they demand to see the real subscription numbers from SoE on V:SoH. And based on those, have decided that there is not enough interest in V:SoH to justify the risk of a publishing run. Which fundamentally means that they do not see 5000+ people buying the Guide. Which, in and of itself, is pretty telling about the future success of V:SoH, and the current subscription base, and the projected subscription base over the next two years.
Compare that with WoW, which has had two editions of the base Strategy Guide, a Hardcover Atlas, a Dungeon Guide, and the Burning Crusade Guide. Same with DAoC, which has had more guides than I can remember. And don't even ask about EQ1 !
So, bottom line is this. From *every* rational indicator, V:SoH is a failed MMORPG, even though so many wanted it to succeed.
Yes yes, we know, "WoW iz teh bezt!".
Actually, that would more properly be " WoW is the best ! " .
That's true...it is the best polished turd in all of gamingAnd that would make V:SoH what? The most Unpolished Turd in all of gaming?
Anyway. Last post here. Sorry for the short hijack.
LMAOFFxi Retired
Coh/Cov Retired
Guild Wars/Retired
WOW/(11-23-04/1-6-07)
VSOH/ retired
AOC/retired that was fast
Waiting 4 DCUO ,and FFXIV
There is no such thing as a "free" game....
To keep them economically viable (i.e. so that everyone can drive a Porsche) developers must either:
1) Charge a monthly fee in addition to the box price
2) Charge people for in game items/content on an as-used basis
3) Put advertising in the game and charge companies for the space...
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
$9.99 a month if you pre-order AND you subscribe within 30 days of release AND you never let your subscription lapse. If you let the subscription lapse; then it's the standard $14.99. Their other plan is $199 up front for a lifetime membership. So, I guess depending on your take of the game - those are either good deals or they're ripoffs - but the point is it gives players more choices. Choices are good.
I can see more and more MMO's going that route with deals like that or pricing plans similar to satellite, cable, or broad-band where you get a really good deal on a per-month basis; but the kicker is you have to commit to a multi-year deal. We've all seen the standard 3-month, 6-month, and 1-yr. type price-breaks; but I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more of the 2-yr. or 3-yr. types and even more of these lifetime subscriptions.
Basically anything that puts more money up-front into the hands of the developers is what we'll be seeing more of. The good majority of these MMO's have figured out that if they can just survive that initial 6-months to 1-yr. hump then they are pretty much home-free no matter what their subscription base. At least that's what it seems like to me.
I'm not completely sold on the multi-year or even lifetime subscription models (mainly because I've most likely got a touch of ADD and I have trouble sticking to just one game for long time periods) but; as it gives us gamers more choices I'm happy for it, and hope that the trend continues.
I dislike vanguard and stated that I wouldn't play it if it were free but...
vanguard and the guys at sigil and soe are running a business. A business (in almost all cases (damn you Uwe Boll!!!)) is designed to make money.
They aren't going to give away $40m (or so I have heard bandied about) because they're feeling generous.
If you do not like vanguard, simply do not give them money.
On the other side of the argument, I don't think the game is finished. They stated it was rolled out early. That could be seen as an argument to let people play for free for a while.
However, if they are short on cash, then play-for-free isn't an option. (Brad themanthemanthemantheman's office on his bio page doesn't look all that swank, if it was indeed his desk with 3 monitors.)
So, yes, it might be the "right" thing to do for the player base but probably the "wrong" thing for the investors in the company; be they employees or stock holders.
$9.99 a month if you pre-order AND you subscribe within 30 days of release AND you never let your subscription lapse. If you let the subscription lapse; then it's the standard $14.99. Their other plan is $199 up front for a lifetime membership. So, I guess depending on your take of the game - those are either good deals or they're ripoffs - but the point is it gives players more choices. Choices are good.
I think you'd be insane to pay $199 for a lifetime membership given the bad quality of mmorpg launches to date. I won't pay for more than a single month at a time on a new release. There are an increasing number of games that don't last on my PC more than a month. (Vanguard is just the latest.)
I'd like the $9.99 instead of $14.99. That's around a 33% discount meaning I pay for 2 get 1 free. I'd go for that provisional there were no contracts to continue paying. They'd be nuts to do that though.
I can see more and more MMO's going that route with deals like that or pricing plans similar to satellite, cable, or broad-band where you get a really good deal on a per-month basis; but the kicker is you have to commit to a multi-year deal. We've all seen the standard 3-month, 6-month, and 1-yr. type price-breaks; but I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more of the 2-yr. or 3-yr. types and even more of these lifetime subscriptions.
You'd be crazy to commit to a contract on an intangible service with no guarantees. (As are mmorpgs. That's what that "experience can change" thing means.)
Basically anything that puts more money up-front into the hands of the developers is what we'll be seeing more of. The good majority of these MMO's have figured out that if they can just survive that initial 6-months to 1-yr. hump then they are pretty much home-free no matter what their subscription base. At least that's what it seems like to me.
I'd think they'd like to do this, but I think it'd be a fool's game to buy into it. I see posts on occasion (SWG springs to mind) where poor boobs payed a year in advance... my heart goes out to them, but they're screwed. No refunds.
I'm not completely sold on the multi-year or even lifetime subscription models (mainly because I've most likely got a touch of ADD and I have trouble sticking to just one game for long time periods) but; as it gives us gamers more choices I'm happy for it, and hope that the trend continues.
I won't subscribe for more than 30 days. Anything more and they are trying to rip you off.
Actually, the only thing I can think of that *might* enable any sort of success for V:SoH in the near future IS to have FTP for the next 3 to 6 months. A really good MMORPG will keep folks playing for *years*, so that loss of revenue would not be a killer. And, it would sell more boxes, that is for sure. And get more folks involved.
But, no, it is not going to happen. SoE is in charge now. And they will sacrifice all of the future for a few dollars today. Soon, V:SoH will be standing alongside The Matrix Online, EverQuest, EverQuest 2, Planetside, and all the rest of the SoE All Access games as just another low-end MMORPG that has a sub base large enough to make SoE a small profit, but not be any sort of force in the worlds of MMORPG games.
So, to those V:SoH fans that enjoy the game, more power to ya! But, realize that the game you have now is pretty much all the game you are ever going to have. Because that is the way SoE All Access Pass games work.
Vanguard's content and soul are in my opinion huge. They released early, we all know that, so the game isn't 100% done and thus the quality isn't complete.
I play Vanguard and have a blast, and the higher level I get, the more difficult it gets and the more fun I have. It's not made for everyones tastes, but it IS made for mine.
I could never go back to WoW, Guild Wars or play LotRO ever again. They're just too saline for me. I want a game with some grit and some depth. Enter Vanguard.
Actually, the only thing I can think of that *might* enable any sort of success for V:SoH in the near future IS to have FTP for the next 3 to 6 months. A really good MMORPG will keep folks playing for *years*, so that loss of revenue would not be a killer. And, it would sell more boxes, that is for sure. And get more folks involved.
But, no, it is not going to happen. SoE is in charge now. And they will sacrifice all of the future for a few dollars today. Soon, V:SoH will be standing alongside The Matrix Online, EverQuest, EverQuest 2, Planetside, and all the rest of the SoE All Access games as just another low-end MMORPG that has a sub base large enough to make SoE a small profit, but not be any sort of force in the worlds of MMORPG games.
I think SOE is fairly intelligent where business is concerned. They know developer and artist time-cost rack up VERY quickly. They understand sigil is cash-strapped (apparently). To pour more money into a property that isn't holding water is a bad idea.
Better (for business) to do what they did with MXO and fix the disaster problems and stick it out to pasture. The only thing they really put into it at this point is shared bandwidth-cost with their station pass users. I imagine they make some revenue from it, but not enough for future development.
I think vanguard needs a load of cash to properly capitalize and I do not feel there is sufficient interest in the title to warrant further investment on SOE's part. They probably paid next to nothing for distribution rights unless they received control over the project, which I believe Sigil kept.
If I were SOE execs, I'd be hoping themanthemantheman would fall on his arrogant face and pick the property up for next to nothing, tear the code apart, and begin building a better game. They'd also get to put something else into their station pass stable.
My feeling is vanguard is headed the way of SWG, AO, and MXO, but it really is too early to tell.
So, to those V:SoH fans that enjoy the game, more power to ya! But, realize that the game you have now is pretty much all the game you are ever going to have. Because that is the way SoE All Access Pass games work.
IMO, any game that uses level based skills should be free to play HAH.
$9.99 a month if you pre-order AND you subscribe within 30 days of release AND you never let your subscription lapse. If you let the subscription lapse; then it's the standard $14.99. Their other plan is $199 up front for a lifetime membership. So, I guess depending on your take of the game - those are either good deals or they're ripoffs - but the point is it gives players more choices. Choices are good.
I think you'd be insane to pay $199 for a lifetime membership given the bad quality of mmorpg launches to date. I won't pay for more than a single month at a time on a new release. There are an increasing number of games that don't last on my PC more than a month. (Vanguard is just the latest.)
I agree. However, for a player that has played the closed Beta and is bound and determined to play the game for years. Well, then for them it might be a very attractive option. Remember, it's just one more option for those that want to choose it.
I'd like the $9.99 instead of $14.99. That's around a 33% discount meaning I pay for 2 get 1 free. I'd go for that provisional there were no contracts to continue paying. They'd be nuts to do that though.
The catch is that if you let the subscription lapse for even a month - then you can't get the $9.99 deal again. That's why I think this plan may catch on with more and more MMO's. Even if players stop playing they will hesitate to cancel because then they know they won't be able to get the $9.99 deal again if they ever decide to come back. See, very clever of those MMO's.
I can see more and more MMO's going that route with deals like that or pricing plans similar to satellite, cable, or broad-band where you get a really good deal on a per-month basis; but the kicker is you have to commit to a multi-year deal. We've all seen the standard 3-month, 6-month, and 1-yr. type price-breaks; but I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more of the 2-yr. or 3-yr. types and even more of these lifetime subscriptions.
You'd be crazy to commit to a contract on an intangible service with no guarantees. (As are mmorpgs. That's what that "experience can change" thing means.)
I agree that they aren't my cup of tea either, but it seems like more and more services are going to longer and longer commitment terms for the people that want them.
Basically anything that puts more money up-front into the hands of the developers is what we'll be seeing more of. The good majority of these MMO's have figured out that if they can just survive that initial 6-months to 1-yr. hump then they are pretty much home-free no matter what their subscription base. At least that's what it seems like to me.
I'd think they'd like to do this, but I think it'd be a fool's game to buy into it. I see posts on occasion (SWG springs to mind) where poor boobs payed a year in advance... my heart goes out to them, but they're screwed. No refunds.
I'm not completely sold on the multi-year or even lifetime subscription models (mainly because I've most likely got a touch of ADD and I have trouble sticking to just one game for long time periods) but; as it gives us gamers more choices I'm happy for it, and hope that the trend continues.
I won't subscribe for more than 30 days. Anything more and they are trying to rip you off.
Heh, that's why they have to entice you with the lure of lower monthly payments. Let's pretend you play a game for a couple months and you really like it and plan on playing it for the foreseeable future. So, are you going to continue to pay the $14.99 per month, or would you consider the $9.99 per month with the caveat you have to commit to 1-yr. or longer?
Haha, you are really a joke. Vanguard edge of technology, thats like saying Volkswagen Beetles are the fastest cars. I bet you either work at sony or still believe in santa clause. I got a AMD X2 4800 with 2 gigs of ram and dual 7900GTX SLI, Xfi soundblaster. I'm not talking about lag or personal PC problems. I'm talking about server crashes where the entire server is down and no one plays. I'm talking about bugs like group bugging, guild chat bugs, NPC's that don't work, countless of quests that are broken, areas not finished, being stuck and dying as a result, and failing to get your corpse because its stuck, animations not working, "areas" being offline (and if you try to reach them your character gets stuck until the area is fixed), server down times at the possible most inconvenient times for europeans and all that kind of shit that has nothing to do with the power of my computer.
Then there is also the fact that the emotes are lame, there is nothing implemented for the roleplayer, no drunk effects, no sitting, no cozy inns, no interesting towns, the world basically being a complete empty boring box, designed with horrible texturers and bland.
I can set the graphics on ultra high (though ran on high mostly) and basically it still looks like crap (except for some area's like Cael Bra'ial) and trust me, its not my computer, its really the game.
To compare wow's first year with what i experienced with Vanguard is really a joke. Yes WoW had some bugs. Some servers had crashes and downtimes during the first few weeks (though not in european launch), but at least wow only had maintenance once a week instead of EVERY FREAKING DAY and during EUROPEAN PRIME HOURS. WoW was smooth, the quests worked, the NPC's worked, PVP was not perfectly balanced but at least not as insanely inbalanced as Vanguard, all areas where basically finished. During WoW's first week i would get suprised if i saw a bug really, they where there but they weren't like a common occurance. During my weeks in Vanguard i'd frankly BE SUPRISED IF I DIDN'T SEE BUGS.
My computer is ready for that so called edge of technology. It runs every freaking game from LOTR:Online to Guild Wars and Oblivion without even slightly breaking into a sweat. But Vanguard isn't edge of technology, it doesn't show anything that hasn't been done better before, rather it's edge of insanity and frankly a load of crap. Your basically still paying to test a below average buggy as hell beta client, and thats fine, but dont go insult gaming in general by calling Vanguard edge of technology, because your insulting a lot of game developers out there that do develop games (relativly) bug free and truly BEAUTIFUL to behold at all times.
lord fraid u are possibly the biggest idiot to hit mmorpg.com - i mean jesus christ man!
vanguard is pushing the limits FFS. using the best technology currently avaible for graphics in an MMO environment where you can see for 4-8km at a time. get fuked. thats skill. and if any1 else had done it they'd recieve the same gz.
vanguard is buggy for 2 reasons,
1) its new
2) SOE forced it to launch 11 months early, which is a bloody long time
now its for these reasons im not subscribed atm, but i watch the vgplayers.com news updates daily and im more then pleased with the work they are doing on it.
about the main topic no this shouldnt be free....why? well because its just too big. With the massive server costs etc etc it would mean like ZERO work could get done due to financial constraint. and when every1 hits 50 they'll be begging for more content and most will be more then happy to pay what it takes to get it.
Sigil have used an A list movie budget for this game and as such their hard work deserves to see such profit margins. does this mean we should all play it? NO, this means the other companies are gonna have to keep on their toe's and push the boundries of MMO's further and further until they reach the standard of other genre's.
Haha, you are really a joke. Vanguard edge of technology, thats like saying Volkswagen Beetles are the fastest cars. I bet you either work at sony or still believe in santa clause. I got a AMD X2 4800 with 2 gigs of ram and dual 7900GTX SLI, Xfi soundblaster. I'm not talking about lag or personal PC problems. I'm talking about server crashes where the entire server is down and no one plays. I'm talking about bugs like group bugging, guild chat bugs, NPC's that don't work, countless of quests that are broken, areas not finished, being stuck and dying as a result, and failing to get your corpse because its stuck, animations not working, "areas" being offline (and if you try to reach them your character gets stuck until the area is fixed), server down times at the possible most inconvenient times for europeans and all that kind of shit that has nothing to do with the power of my computer.
Then there is also the fact that the emotes are lame, there is nothing implemented for the roleplayer, no drunk effects, no sitting, no cozy inns, no interesting towns, the world basically being a complete empty boring box, designed with horrible texturers and bland.
I can set the graphics on ultra high (though ran on high mostly) and basically it still looks like crap (except for some area's like Cael Bra'ial) and trust me, its not my computer, its really the game.
To compare wow's first year with what i experienced with Vanguard is really a joke. Yes WoW had some bugs. Some servers had crashes and downtimes during the first few weeks (though not in european launch), but at least wow only had maintenance once a week instead of EVERY FREAKING DAY and during EUROPEAN PRIME HOURS. WoW was smooth, the quests worked, the NPC's worked, PVP was not perfectly balanced but at least not as insanely inbalanced as Vanguard, all areas where basically finished. During WoW's first week i would get suprised if i saw a bug really, they where there but they weren't like a common occurance. During my weeks in Vanguard i'd frankly BE SUPRISED IF I DIDN'T SEE BUGS.
My computer is ready for that so called edge of technology. It runs every freaking game from LOTR:Online to Guild Wars and Oblivion without even slightly breaking into a sweat. But Vanguard isn't edge of technology, it doesn't show anything that hasn't been done better before, rather it's edge of insanity and frankly a load of crap. Your basically still paying to test a below average buggy as hell beta client, and thats fine, but dont go insult gaming in general by calling Vanguard edge of technology, because your insulting a lot of game developers out there that do develop games (relativly) bug free and truly BEAUTIFUL to behold at all times.
So dramatic.
The engine is doing things that engines in other MMO's aren't able to do. Because you don't see it doesn't mean that thier isn't tech there that is bleeding edge. Although I wouldn't call it bleeding edge, it is doing some advanced stuff that is a strain on current systems. It's more like advanced tech then bleeding edge.
Something tells me that VG is going to benefit from cell processor technology. PS3 isn't doing so well, but thank you Sony for the RnD. Do some reading on the new Nvidia cards and the way the GPU's will work in the future, and then consider who SoE works very closely with. Hint, it's Nvidia. ATI is in trouble, wonder if they will hold on or go the way of Voodoo3d.
And no your PC isn't. SLI on those two cards isn't that impressive. Sorry, when you can bost your running 2 gfx cards with GPU's that are handling some of the processes that the CPU would normally be doing, and doing it with processors utilizing cell processing, then I'll be impressed and say your ready for bleeding edge tech.
The engine is built for the FUTURE; this would imply it will utilize FUTURE technology. Future being not today.
You may not like the look of the game and find the graphics to be substandard to your tastes, and that cool man. I don't like WoW's graphics; who gives a monkeys butt.
Dude you say the engine is build for the future, but everything about it looks from the past. Dude you believe in stuff that simply won't happen.
And dont say its because i like toony graphics, i don't like toony graphics, if theres one thing i hate about WoW its the toony graphics and i was looking forward to play in a more realistic world, but not if that world is a bland, badly textured, unfinished buggy empty box .
Unless they fix it and make it worthwhile, yes
I totally agree that they want to milk every nickel they can from us which is why I am surprised they have not released a hard-copy players guide or atlas (even though it would be outdated the second it was printed).
Teak Silverleaf
18 Cleric
Targonor
That one's easy, I think. Publishing Guides and Atlas's is the pervue of publishing companies, such as Prima. My guess is that they demand to see the real subscription numbers from SoE on V:SoH. And based on those, have decided that there is not enough interest in V:SoH to justify the risk of a publishing run. Which fundamentally means that they do not see 5000+ people buying the Guide. Which, in and of itself, is pretty telling about the future success of V:SoH, and the current subscription base, and the projected subscription base over the next two years.
Compare that with WoW, which has had two editions of the base Strategy Guide, a Hardcover Atlas, a Dungeon Guide, and the Burning Crusade Guide. Same with DAoC, which has had more guides than I can remember. And don't even ask about EQ1 !
So, bottom line is this. From *every* rational indicator, V:SoH is a failed MMORPG, even though so many wanted it to succeed.
Not only that, but what's the point anymore when you can get all the information you want for free at allakhazam.com?