If we don't buy unfinished products, then developers would stop putting them out.
Most developers don't release unfinished products in the conditions that Vanguard is in. They rushed this title most likely because of finacial reasons btw.
Nevertheless its not the buyers responsibility to release to a decent product.
All the histrionics and tub-thumping get a bit tiresome, it's just a game - some games you like some games you don't. All the rants about legal suits to reclaim your $50 just comes across as a bit childish, do I like every movie I go to, do I agree with every artistic, casting or plotting decision that went into that movie, well no I don't but even the ones I really don't like I don't think I can sue Universal or whoever to get the price of my cinema ticket back.
Difference is, they don't stop the movie after the first 15 minutes and tell you to come back in a few months when they're done filming, do they?
Yes but we are not talking about a movie, a car, a can of soda or a loaf of bread. This is an MMORPG in case you were wondering and it is a particular piece of intellectual property unlike any other product on earth. Vanguard was released early. Everyone knows it so get over it.
The game that is there is wholly playable and absolutely deeper than anything else out there. I am glad you love LotRO and are happy with it but for me it is too bubble gum. We can agree to disagree, but you won't see me dissing LotRO in it's forum. Why do you feel the need to? Ask yourself that and think deeply on it.
If you bought this game and then complained that it is unfinished, you are part of the problem because all you show is that MMOs can get away with putting a bad product out there and people will still buy it.
It is rather unfortunate that a CEO of one of the year's most anticipated games takes the stance that most potential customers as well as current customers should be ok if they just upgrade through purchasing new computers. Sad, indeed. I certainly hope someone can show me how his statement was misread by me. It sure appears that he's saying that as soon as technology catches up and we get that technology the problem will "go away"... ???
Curious...
I agree totally with the questioning of this statement.
I would like to point out a simple fact....
If Vanguard was designed for the future and its desired hardware platform is right now more expensive than anticipated at the time of its early launch...then this is an extremely poor misdirection from the real issues at hand and secondly it isnt helping its own cause...
Those real issues are engine unoptimizations, and poor implementation. Fact.
Why....
1 The Application is not natively Multi-Threaded nor does it fully take advantage of Dual Core Architecture...This technology is available now and there are a substantial number of people using it....Vanguard doesnt support it "Yet", you would think a game made for the future would utilize this at a code level by running in multiple threads in hardware, premature release or not. This really does throw statements made by Mr McQuaid further into question...
2 The Application does not support SLI or Crossfire technologies in hardware "yet". However the above points regarding Dual Core platforms also apply here. If the application was truly desinged for the future and that is the core of its current performance problems then why not NOW. Surely with other gameing applications out there already supporting these technologies (Including certain current MMORPG beta's) doesnt this make vanguards arguments on performance needing future more powerful hardware insignificant....it isnt even utilizing at an engine level what is there now....mmmm
3 Vanguard still does not fully support Anti-Aliasing nor certain advanced lighting routines (Environment Drop Shadows) etc. "Anti-Aliasing" has been used on gaming engines for years...so have advanced lighting techniques, surely an application that is built around a future solid engine will support these technologies "now". Otherwise how can it be argued that it needs even more powerful hardware at this point in time when the code it isnt supporting current standard technologies in hardware, Regardless of what the engine is capable of and indeed this does expose many more questions on the state of the engine and its abilities. Vanguard performs poorly currently what will happen when i turn on Anti-Aliasing, it will surely be unplayable, yet is this my fault? Is this a fault of my hardware that supports this technology and many other advanced technology routines in other games in hardware? Shall i buy brand new hardware over the system i purchased a month ago to stand a chance with vanguard?
To use the argument of requireing hardware to be mainstream that currently is regarded as highend and enthusiast hardware is slightly embarrasing for an application such as vanguard when the above points are expose, would you not agree?
Honestly the bottomline here is that the hardware argument / point of view is just simply either mis-direction or a mute point. Vanguard uses an engine that while being stretched in its capabilities is at its core a three year old engine. The engine is missing, optimization badly, its missing any serious pre-live bug checking, it has memory leaks, no amount of future hardware is going to make that go away...and that is the area where MOST of the work needs to be done. Nothing an End user of the application can do. With that in mind Vanguard is only embarrasing itself by claiming that it is so advanced it needs the hardware market to take its course, it doesnt even fully support what is there....
Mr McQuaid, i think its about time the paying subscribers of this game were owed a set of ideas and plans on how Sigil games is going to focus over the next few months on game optimizations and performance?
I agree with you that the game is "special" for lack of better term and I am not here to judge the developers talent because god knows I could never do their job,
I'm am not judging developers on their programing skills. I'm judging those who laid out the design of the game, time restraints, development budget and so forth. I am ridicling their clear lack of forsight. The game is simply to technically massive to have been turned out when it was and the game's conditions show this.
but your argument is different than mine. While we agree the game is "special" you claim that sales won't go up because it doesn't add anything that existing or upcoming games do not offer. I remember wow getting the same talk because it added nothing new at all and BGs were in the book for WoW yet they didn't get thrown into the game until almost a full year later.
Obviously such talk was wrong. The drive to buy world of warcraft is directly related to the enjoyment people get out of it. Blizzard produced a well designed game, has made consistent efforts to address bugs and has constantly added new content.
The condition Vanguard is in is greatly different, so much so I puzzle over your attempt to draw a comparison. Vanguard was rushed and is rife with crippling software bugs. The game lacks content, polish, and the drive for people to purchase it.
If you bought this game and then complained that it is unfinished, you are part of the problem because all you show is that MMOs can get away with putting a bad product out there and people will still buy it.
Of course, but this doesn't change the fact that Sigil couldn't/wouldn't turn out anything better. Their companies' future rests on its sales so yes responsibilities lies with them to generate software that consumers will purchase. As is they've not done this.
Man u guys need to stfu and stop defending vanguard about how we know it was released early blah blah blah. No where on the box it says this game was released way too early and maybe unplayable, hello ? Now I am pissed I wasted $50 for a crapy game I am going to tell everyone's mother and sister not to buy this game this is what Vanguard deserve for taking my $50.
Man u guys need to stfu and stop defending vanguard about how we know it was released early blah blah blah. No where on the box it says this game was released way too early and maybe unplayable, hello ? Now I am pissed I wasted $50 for a crapy game I am going to tell everyone's mother and sister not to buy this game this is what Vanguard deserve for taking my $50.
QFT
Let Brad organize refunds of all the ripped-off purchasers if he really wants to make ammends.
But wait. He is no longer really in charge. SoE is in charge. And we KNOW they dont care.
Well, let's see what was said here (without the fluff) : * "it needed 200k-300k to be successful" and "So far we are in the mid 150s". That would mean by Brad's own measure, V:SoH is NOT successful and is, indeed, a failure. * "we released 2-3 months early and that releasing near BC was a mistake, but there was nothing we could do about it" And so then, who forced this? Could it be SoE? But, they were just supposed to be supplying the Servers and the Billing. Yeah. Right. * "...was being seamless.." The 'seamless' world in V:SoH is probably the biggest Lie in the whole system since it really is a LIE and not a bug/defect issue. This game has 'Chunks'??? In all other games, we call these 'Zones'. Just because V:SoH has renamed them, they are still Zones and the world is NOT seamless. Those who lag and crash when they hit these invisible Server Transfer points can attest to how not-seamless the world is. * "...certainly not a WoW, but not a D&D online either...". Dang right V:SoH is not WoW. But, why chuck a stone at DDO? Kick the dog while it is down? Don't complain when others kick you when you are down. * "...am confident that while it is a successful game now..." Uh, refer to your own criteria for Success that you laid out at the start of your post, Brad. V:SoH is NOT successful, by your own stated standards! Rest of Brad's little missive is meaningless drivel and misdirection.
If Brad want's to make ammends, how about offering a refund to all of us that purchased this game *before* he came out and said it was released too soon and was unfinished. Then, maybe his 'apology' will mean something.
Shoal = Troll .
It means it is not as successful as he had hoped, but successful none the less, it is differently not a failure P.
I can't nderstand why people sit here and defend a company that released a product that was no where NEAR finished.
Here's what I can't understand. We all know, since they have repeatedly admitted it (and said it well before launch) that VG had basically run out of money. The two options at that point were these: (1) launch early and hope for the best, or (2) fold and kill the project.
So here is what I don't get: are all you people who are flaming the hell out of them for launching early, really saying that you would have preferred them to just fold, rather than try to make some sort of a go of it?
What you wanted, was a completely finished game that met all of the unbelievably high expectations you all had for it. Sure, we all wanted that. However, upon finding out that this could not happen, are you really going to sit there and assert that the better of the two options was to launch NOTHING?
At least if they launched unfinished, and made some money, you can hope that the game will eventually live up to some or most of its expectations (admittedly it really doesn't yet). If they folded, there'd be ZERO chance of that. Assuming any of you actually had the high hopes for this game during the dev stages that you all say you had, I'd think you'd prefer the "launch what you can and patch like crazy" model to the "fold and give up" model.
I just don't think you are all really thinking about what you are saying here. You seem to be under the misapprehension that they had the option to just spend more time and money on it and finish it, make it the way you all dreamed it would be. That simply was a non-option, because they ran out of money.
So you're Brad, and you have two choices: Launch now, unfinished, and hope for the best, or fold. Which would YOU pick? I know I would at least try to make a go of it.
It's not like he's covering anything up, either. He's flat out admitted (repeatedly) that he knows it would've been better if they could've worked on it another few months, but they ran out of money. So again I ask you, are all you people flaming the hell out of him REALLY intending to say you think he should've let the company fold instead, and never launched the game? And if so, how would that have been able to meet those super-high expectations you had for the game -- when it wouldn't have even existed after that?
Problem is they will not fold this so long as they can keep a decent player base because there will always be that hope that more people will join in down the road.
Success makes you weak. Projects like Vanguard will make him very strong.
This has to be the most braindead philosophy I have ever heard. Maybe if you're a total failure in everything you do, you can say that to yourself to make you feel like you're somehow better than the 'weak' people who actually accomplish their goals, but it's still a pathetic statement.
I can't nderstand why people sit here and defend a company that released a product that was no where NEAR finished.
Here's what I can't understand. We all know, since they have repeatedly admitted it (and said it well before launch) that VG had basically run out of money. The two options at that point were these: (1) launch early and hope for the best, or (2) fold and kill the project.
So here is what I don't get: are all you people who are flaming the hell out of them for launching early, really saying that you would have preferred them to just fold, rather than try to make some sort of a go of it?
What you wanted, was a completely finished game that met all of the unbelievably high expectations you all had for it. Sure, we all wanted that. However, upon finding out that this could not happen, are you really going to sit there and assert that the better of the two options was to launch NOTHING?
At least if they launched unfinished, and made some money, you can hope that the game will eventually live up to some or most of its expectations (admittedly it really doesn't yet). If they folded, there'd be ZERO chance of that. Assuming any of you actually had the high hopes for this game during the dev stages that you all say you had, I'd think you'd prefer the "launch what you can and patch like crazy" model to the "fold and give up" model.
I just don't think you are all really thinking about what you are saying here. You seem to be under the misapprehension that they had the option to just spend more time and money on it and finish it, make it the way you all dreamed it would be. That simply was a non-option, because they ran out of money.
So you're Brad, and you have two choices: Launch now, unfinished, and hope for the best, or fold. Which would YOU pick? I know I would at least try to make a go of it.
It's not like he's covering anything up, either. He's flat out admitted (repeatedly) that he knows it would've been better if they could've worked on it another few months, but they ran out of money. So again I ask you, are all you people flaming the hell out of him REALLY intending to say you think he should've let the company fold instead, and never launched the game? And if so, how would that have been able to meet those super-high expectations you had for the game -- when it wouldn't have even existed after that?
C
Let's look at it this way:
How about if you had a company, worked on a product for years. You ran out of money and the product was not finished to be sold. Would you be able to sell that product? No. You'd fold, absorb your losses and hope that you had the opportunity next time to plan better and hopefully have a successful product launch. Why should Sigil or any other MMO company be able to release an unfinished product?
I don't like seeing any business fold and I certainly don't want Sigil to fold. But, from a customer/business person standpoint, I hardly see it fair that someone can release a product that was not ready for the consumer, yet make money off of it.
The real question is Why? Why, if they had FIVE YEARS and 30 Million dollars, was the game in such bad shape at launch? Yes, SOE forced them to release early (typical,standard SOE), but they also sent SOE programmers to assist in getting as much done at the end as possible.
Look at the game when it was in beta a month before release and then again the day it was launched. There was plenty of work done in three weeks that they didn't do for five years prior.
_________________________________ JonMichael
Currently: AION, an MMO Beta under NDA Played: WAR, LOTRO, Hellgate: London, CoX, GW, SotNW, DAOC, EQ2, SWG, WoW, AO, Horizons, Second Life, There, TSO Beta'd: There, Second Life, EQ2, DAOC:LotM, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, Gods and Heroes, Hellgate: London, Requiem:Bloodymare, AoC, WAR, DDO, Fallen Earth
Let me first state I am no VG hater. Now, with that being said, all this talk about "players knew the condition of the game when they bought it.", only holds true if the player that bought it frequented forums like Silky Venom and read the comments by Brad prior to release. So those of us that bought it did know. However, what about your average joe/jill gamer that walks into the local game store and see's Vanguard on the shelf and says..."Cool...looks like in interesting game." Buys it, runs home and installs it only to find out this game was put on the shelf as an unfinished, bug riddled product? Was there a sticker on the packaging telling the gamer that this product was being released 3+ months early and that it would still basically be in beta? No there was not.
So you might be able to use that arguement that "we knew" before we bought the game, because not all of "we" did know.
Well, let's see what was said here (without the fluff) : * "it needed 200k-300k to be successful" and "So far we are in the mid 150s". That would mean by Brad's own measure, V:SoH is NOT successful and is, indeed, a failure. * "we released 2-3 months early and that releasing near BC was a mistake, but there was nothing we could do about it" And so then, who forced this? Could it be SoE? But, they were just supposed to be supplying the Servers and the Billing. Yeah. Right. * "...was being seamless.." The 'seamless' world in V:SoH is probably the biggest Lie in the whole system since it really is a LIE and not a bug/defect issue. This game has 'Chunks'??? In all other games, we call these 'Zones'. Just because V:SoH has renamed them, they are still Zones and the world is NOT seamless. Those who lag and crash when they hit these invisible Server Transfer points can attest to how not-seamless the world is. * "...certainly not a WoW, but not a D&D online either...". Dang right V:SoH is not WoW. But, why chuck a stone at DDO? Kick the dog while it is down? Don't complain when others kick you when you are down. * "...am confident that while it is a successful game now..." Uh, refer to your own criteria for Success that you laid out at the start of your post, Brad. V:SoH is NOT successful, by your own stated standards! Rest of Brad's little missive is meaningless drivel and misdirection.
If Brad want's to make ammends, how about offering a refund to all of us that purchased this game *before* he came out and said it was released too soon and was unfinished. Then, maybe his 'apology' will mean something.
Shoal = Troll .
It means it is not as successful as he had hoped, but successful none the less, it is differently not a failure P.
There is this thing on the side of the box called 'required/recomended configs'...most of you people might want to look at them before buying a game.
Yeah...about those. Some of us have systems that more than exceed even the Recommended settings on the box, and there were still performance issues, lag, crap FPS in some areas and even around other players.
I'm lucky in that I played VG on a trial without having to pay for it. If I HAD paid for it, I'd probably be angry about the state the game's in. Instead, I'm just shaking my head in disappointment at so much potential wasted. Five years, millions spent, and this was the end result? It's sad, really. They've got the shell of a great game, but with lousy coding and even lousier execution.
Sigil is becoming the biggest joke in the industry right now with each and ever whining post Brad makes.
Originally posted by Lidane
Originally posted by grinreaper
There is this thing on the side of the box called 'required/recomended configs'...most of you people might want to look at them before buying a game.
Yeah...about those. Some of us have systems that more than exceed even the Recommended settings on the box, and there were still performance issues, lag, crap FPS in some areas and even around other players.
I'm lucky in that I played VG on a trial without having to pay for it. If I HAD paid for it, I'd probably be angry about the state the game's in. Instead, I'm just shaking my head in disappointment at so much potential wasted. Five years, millions spent, and this was the end result? It's sad, really. They've got the shell of a great game, but with lousy coding and even lousier execution.
Agreed.
Stop whining and talking to us and fix the #%*&'n game so that you at least have something of proper quality to offer your customers.
Comments
Most developers don't release unfinished products in the conditions that Vanguard is in. They rushed this title most likely because of finacial reasons btw.
Nevertheless its not the buyers responsibility to release to a decent product.
Difference is, they don't stop the movie after the first 15 minutes and tell you to come back in a few months when they're done filming, do they?
Yes but we are not talking about a movie, a car, a can of soda or a loaf of bread. This is an MMORPG in case you were wondering and it is a particular piece of intellectual property unlike any other product on earth. Vanguard was released early. Everyone knows it so get over it.
The game that is there is wholly playable and absolutely deeper than anything else out there. I am glad you love LotRO and are happy with it but for me it is too bubble gum. We can agree to disagree, but you won't see me dissing LotRO in it's forum. Why do you feel the need to? Ask yourself that and think deeply on it.
I would like to point out a simple fact....
If Vanguard was designed for the future and its desired hardware platform is right now more expensive than anticipated at the time of its early launch...then this is an extremely poor misdirection from the real issues at hand and secondly it isnt helping its own cause...
Those real issues are engine unoptimizations, and poor implementation. Fact.
Why....
1 The Application is not natively Multi-Threaded nor does it fully take advantage of Dual Core Architecture...This technology is available now and there are a substantial number of people using it....Vanguard doesnt support it "Yet", you would think a game made for the future would utilize this at a code level by running in multiple threads in hardware, premature release or not. This really does throw statements made by Mr McQuaid further into question...
2 The Application does not support SLI or Crossfire technologies in hardware "yet". However the above points regarding Dual Core platforms also apply here. If the application was truly desinged for the future and that is the core of its current performance problems then why not NOW. Surely with other gameing applications out there already supporting these technologies (Including certain current MMORPG beta's) doesnt this make vanguards arguments on performance needing future more powerful hardware insignificant....it isnt even utilizing at an engine level what is there now....mmmm
3 Vanguard still does not fully support Anti-Aliasing nor certain advanced lighting routines (Environment Drop Shadows) etc. "Anti-Aliasing" has been used on gaming engines for years...so have advanced lighting techniques, surely an application that is built around a future solid engine will support these technologies "now". Otherwise how can it be argued that it needs even more powerful hardware at this point in time when the code it isnt supporting current standard technologies in hardware, Regardless of what the engine is capable of and indeed this does expose many more questions on the state of the engine and its abilities. Vanguard performs poorly currently what will happen when i turn on Anti-Aliasing, it will surely be unplayable, yet is this my fault? Is this a fault of my hardware that supports this technology and many other advanced technology routines in other games in hardware? Shall i buy brand new hardware over the system i purchased a month ago to stand a chance with vanguard?
To use the argument of requireing hardware to be mainstream that currently is regarded as highend and enthusiast hardware is slightly embarrasing for an application such as vanguard when the above points are expose, would you not agree?
Honestly the bottomline here is that the hardware argument / point of view is just simply either mis-direction or a mute point. Vanguard uses an engine that while being stretched in its capabilities is at its core a three year old engine. The engine is missing, optimization badly, its missing any serious pre-live bug checking, it has memory leaks, no amount of future hardware is going to make that go away...and that is the area where MOST of the work needs to be done. Nothing an End user of the application can do. With that in mind Vanguard is only embarrasing itself by claiming that it is so advanced it needs the hardware market to take its course, it doesnt even fully support what is there....
Mr McQuaid, i think its about time the paying subscribers of this game were owed a set of ideas and plans on how Sigil games is going to focus over the next few months on game optimizations and performance?
Mag
Man u guys need to stfu and stop defending vanguard about how we know it was released early blah blah blah. No where on the box it says this game was released way too early and maybe unplayable, hello ? Now I am pissed I wasted $50 for a crapy game I am going to tell everyone's mother and sister not to buy this game this is what Vanguard deserve for taking my $50.
QFT
Let Brad organize refunds of all the ripped-off purchasers if he really wants to make ammends.
But wait. He is no longer really in charge. SoE is in charge. And we KNOW they dont care.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/121962
TwitchTV Partnered Streamer
MMORPG.com Spotlight Blog Writer
Co-Leader of Inquisition
Youtube Channel
Shoal = Troll
It means it is not as successful as he had hoped, but successful none the less, it is differently not a failure P.
So here is what I don't get: are all you people who are flaming the hell out of them for launching early, really saying that you would have preferred them to just fold, rather than try to make some sort of a go of it?
What you wanted, was a completely finished game that met all of the unbelievably high expectations you all had for it. Sure, we all wanted that. However, upon finding out that this could not happen, are you really going to sit there and assert that the better of the two options was to launch NOTHING?
At least if they launched unfinished, and made some money, you can hope that the game will eventually live up to some or most of its expectations (admittedly it really doesn't yet). If they folded, there'd be ZERO chance of that. Assuming any of you actually had the high hopes for this game during the dev stages that you all say you had, I'd think you'd prefer the "launch what you can and patch like crazy" model to the "fold and give up" model.
I just don't think you are all really thinking about what you are saying here. You seem to be under the misapprehension that they had the option to just spend more time and money on it and finish it, make it the way you all dreamed it would be. That simply was a non-option, because they ran out of money.
So you're Brad, and you have two choices: Launch now, unfinished, and hope for the best, or fold. Which would YOU pick? I know I would at least try to make a go of it.
It's not like he's covering anything up, either. He's flat out admitted (repeatedly) that he knows it would've been better if they could've worked on it another few months, but they ran out of money. So again I ask you, are all you people flaming the hell out of him REALLY intending to say you think he should've let the company fold instead, and never launched the game? And if so, how would that have been able to meet those super-high expectations you had for the game -- when it wouldn't have even existed after that?
C
Should he have not put out the game and let his "company of talented people " fold ?
Yes, i think that would have been best for most involved.Im sure some snake oil company,tabaco company or cult needs a new front person.
He'd do well at all of those.
And of course ,since he said he was sorry, those who choose to can still send him their money via various fund transfer methods.
Its an almost all win situation.
-Brad gets a chance to move into a carreer hes actually good at.
-The MMO industry gets rid of one of its major harm inflicters
-People who cant seem to learn that this guy has NO talent at game design or developing wont have to worry about being fooled by him over a game again
-And those who choose to,can still send him money ,whenever they want without the whole "product quality issue" popping up.
I mean Brad REALLY needs your money.He really does.
And he did say he was sorry.He did.So like, feel free to send him some.really.
So here is what I don't get: are all you people who are flaming the hell out of them for launching early, really saying that you would have preferred them to just fold, rather than try to make some sort of a go of it?
What you wanted, was a completely finished game that met all of the unbelievably high expectations you all had for it. Sure, we all wanted that. However, upon finding out that this could not happen, are you really going to sit there and assert that the better of the two options was to launch NOTHING?
At least if they launched unfinished, and made some money, you can hope that the game will eventually live up to some or most of its expectations (admittedly it really doesn't yet). If they folded, there'd be ZERO chance of that. Assuming any of you actually had the high hopes for this game during the dev stages that you all say you had, I'd think you'd prefer the "launch what you can and patch like crazy" model to the "fold and give up" model.
I just don't think you are all really thinking about what you are saying here. You seem to be under the misapprehension that they had the option to just spend more time and money on it and finish it, make it the way you all dreamed it would be. That simply was a non-option, because they ran out of money.
So you're Brad, and you have two choices: Launch now, unfinished, and hope for the best, or fold. Which would YOU pick? I know I would at least try to make a go of it.
It's not like he's covering anything up, either. He's flat out admitted (repeatedly) that he knows it would've been better if they could've worked on it another few months, but they ran out of money. So again I ask you, are all you people flaming the hell out of him REALLY intending to say you think he should've let the company fold instead, and never launched the game? And if so, how would that have been able to meet those super-high expectations you had for the game -- when it wouldn't have even existed after that?
C
Let's look at it this way:
How about if you had a company, worked on a product for years. You ran out of money and the product was not finished to be sold. Would you be able to sell that product? No. You'd fold, absorb your losses and hope that you had the opportunity next time to plan better and hopefully have a successful product launch. Why should Sigil or any other MMO company be able to release an unfinished product?
I don't like seeing any business fold and I certainly don't want Sigil to fold. But, from a customer/business person standpoint, I hardly see it fair that someone can release a product that was not ready for the consumer, yet make money off of it.
The real question is Why? Why, if they had FIVE YEARS and 30 Million dollars, was the game in such bad shape at launch? Yes, SOE forced them to release early (typical,standard SOE), but they also sent SOE programmers to assist in getting as much done at the end as possible.
Look at the game when it was in beta a month before release and then again the day it was launched. There was plenty of work done in three weeks that they didn't do for five years prior.
_________________________________
JonMichael
Currently: AION, an MMO Beta under NDA
Played: WAR, LOTRO, Hellgate: London, CoX, GW, SotNW, DAOC, EQ2, SWG, WoW, AO, Horizons, Second Life, There, TSO
Beta'd: There, Second Life, EQ2, DAOC:LotM, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, Gods and Heroes, Hellgate: London, Requiem:Bloodymare, AoC, WAR, DDO, Fallen Earth
Always nice to see the VG haters in their native element: a good Brad bashing...I need to archive these posts for a year from now when you are all:
1. singing a totally different tune about VG
2. whineing like 6 yr olds about WARs lack of vision and AOCs crappy release
Let me first state I am no VG hater. Now, with that being said, all this talk about "players knew the condition of the game when they bought it.", only holds true if the player that bought it frequented forums like Silky Venom and read the comments by Brad prior to release. So those of us that bought it did know. However, what about your average joe/jill gamer that walks into the local game store and see's Vanguard on the shelf and says..."Cool...looks like in interesting game." Buys it, runs home and installs it only to find out this game was put on the shelf as an unfinished, bug riddled product? Was there a sticker on the packaging telling the gamer that this product was being released 3+ months early and that it would still basically be in beta? No there was not.
So you might be able to use that arguement that "we knew" before we bought the game, because not all of "we" did know.
There is this thing on the side of the box called 'required/recomended configs'...most of you people might want to look at them before buying a game.
Shoal = Troll
It means it is not as successful as he had hoped, but successful none the less, it is differently not a failure P.
Learn to Read.
Learn to Spell.
Learn to Think.
I like pie !
I'm lucky in that I played VG on a trial without having to pay for it. If I HAD paid for it, I'd probably be angry about the state the game's in. Instead, I'm just shaking my head in disappointment at so much potential wasted. Five years, millions spent, and this was the end result? It's sad, really. They've got the shell of a great game, but with lousy coding and even lousier execution.
I'm lucky in that I played VG on a trial without having to pay for it. If I HAD paid for it, I'd probably be angry about the state the game's in. Instead, I'm just shaking my head in disappointment at so much potential wasted. Five years, millions spent, and this was the end result? It's sad, really. They've got the shell of a great game, but with lousy coding and even lousier execution.
Agreed.
Stop whining and talking to us and fix the #%*&'n game so that you at least have something of proper quality to offer your customers.
We are currently NOT impressed.