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.
Last I knew, I could check my bank balance and see if it was dwindling down to that magic zero. Sigil is supposed to have something like a Treasurer, or Chief Financial Officer, that should be able to do the same thing. Maybe he left the country quickly for some reason, but Brad hasn't indicated that is the case.
Anyway, once the Treasurer sees the company is headed for deep do do he is supposed to do something. Trying to arrange financing for a three to six month period seems to leap into my mind. Of course, smuggling drugs was the first option that came into John DeLorean's mind. Anyway, I digress, there are other options. Running to SOE also comes to mind, but I think we know how that turned out.
So no, launch or fold were not the two only options. Brad should have hired Andy Fastow.....he may not have been able to show up for work on a regular basis, but I'm pretty sure he still gets one phone call a week.
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?
Of course that is what he had to do. Doesn't mean I support the operation of a business or company that has allowed itself to get into such a financial trainwreck. Business darwinism is cruel that way. Only the fit should survive.
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?
I suppose you could qualify "a playable game" as high expectations, but I tend have higher standards than that. Much of the expectations were generated from Sigil itself, and its zealous fan base that has now switched to damage control mode.
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.
My foremost concern is what this sort of business snafu does to the industry generally, and to sandbox game design specifically. The devs from SWG have, seemingly, convinced a large portion of their fellow game designers that a sandbox game is impossible to design. Because they won't admit that the problem lay with them and not the concept of sandbox design. So here we have yet another sandbox game, great potential, but fubared. Just another nail in the coffin for sandbox development. And yet again it seems the fault of the developers and not the concept itself, though I'm willng to bet sandbox becomes even more taboo.
I can already anticipate the counter arguement. You might think that if I want to see sandbox design succeed I should support VG. Not quite. I want to ensure that the blame is laid where it is most accurate, that being poor business decisions. Because if the poor business decisions are not highlighted, sandbox will become the scapegoat (like SWG). My greatest fear is that VG will have in its near future an NGE style revamp in an attempt to recoup their losses. In this case, yes, I would rather have had Brad pull the plug on VG.
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
I just have to clear something up right away.You cannot have a complete seamless world without dumbing down the graphics like console games do.This is by either cutting back draw distance or just lowering the quality of graphics at a certain distance.Either way you slice it,there is only so many objects that can be loaded/viewed without a tremendous bottleneck from your system,and no it's not your video card that is the problem.So you can't complain about your lagging game system and demand a true seamless world,tyhere would be far more lag and incredible sytems to play it.
Personally i dont plan on playing this game any longer as i don't like the complete makeup of the game and the way some things are done.I also think the community is very dead and boring,so add this together and the performance issues were the furthest thing from my mind.Every poll i have seen pretty much puts community at the top of the wish list,and this game's community is low end.This game came and w/o a doubt tried to mimick EQ2,but it failed and is less a game for it.I am very certain nobody really cares about seamless world,since there isn't such a game anywhere on this planet.Graphics/community/battle system/crafting should be the main concerns with several smaller issues to make or break the game over other games.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
My greatest fear is that VG will have in its near future an NGE style revamp in an attempt to recoup their losses. In this case, yes, I would rather have had Brad pull the plug on VG.
That's not an entirely far-fetched scenario. If the newer games that are launching this year (WAR, AoC, Huxley, LOTR, G&H, etc.) start pulling players away from Vanguard, and offer more polished worlds with solid gameplay, then it's possible that SOE could move to buy the game from Sigil, then "upgrade" it with an NGE or CU to attract more casual gamers and to move retail copies of the game.
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.
As an impulse buyer you reap what you sew. There's no reason you or anyone else couldn't have gone online and read to determine for yourself the condition of the game.
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.
As an impulse buyer you reap what you sew. There's no reason you or anyone else couldn't have gone online and read to determine for yourself the condition of the game.
That has to be about the lamest reasoning yet ( the reap what you sew part ) . Let's say mom and dad or grandma and grandpa bought the game for a niece a nephew a grandson . Think that reasoning still holds true ? To further that note there wasn't any reputable reviews on this game until after it came out. So again how was one to know unless they played beta?
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.
As an impulse buyer you reap what you sew. There's no reason you or anyone else couldn't have gone online and read to determine for yourself the condition of the game.
I hope you're kidding with that statement.
Blame the consumer who didn't research the product and not the company who tried to pull a fast one by launching an inferior product that was not ready for sale? NOT.
That's the perfect example of why we have these problems today. Put the blame on anyone (even the consumer!) but not the person who's actually responsible.
_________________________________ 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
As an impulse buyer you reap what you sew. There's no reason you or anyone else couldn't have gone online and read to determine for yourself the condition of the game.
You know Kaiaphas im getting the feeling from your post's and a reply to me earlyer on this topic that you are one of brad's new viral marketers! Well your not doing a very good job shame on you...
Originally posted by Amathe Brad has not gotten the memo that the market has changed since EQ. Everquest started small and grew big (for its day). That's not how it works nowadays in mmos. If you start small you stay small. This pollyannish notion that Vanguard is going to grow, grow, grow is sad, if he actually believes that, or silly, if he thinks any of us are going to believe that.
Not true - look at Eve - started small and growing bigger all the time.
Originally posted by Zarthaine Just a short sided question here that has been on my mind since I started playing and frequenting the support boards. Having sold PC's and supported them for several years I can tell you this, the majority of users buy cutting edge when the next cutting edge is released. Very few customers, gamers included buy upgrades as their released as they tend to be as buggy as say the 8800 Nvidia currently is.Now, with that observation, I have also observed that people with duel core systems, 4 GB of Ram, 8800 SLI Configurations as well as Raptor Drives are reporting "decent" performance under High Performance Mode and sometimes Balanced Mode. With that said, exactly when will systems be able to run the game as Brad intended?
Anyone with that kind of set up that is reporting decent performance on high performance or balanced is just full of it and does not have that system. My system that I was getting 40fps on was only a 2ghz X2, 2gb ram and a 6800GS and I was running on Balanced. Anyone who believes someone saying that a 4gb, High powered proc and dual 8800 system can't run the game is in dire need of some guidance to understand what a computer can and cannot do.
While I normally don't call people liars without proof, this I will call it on. Who ever said that your setup couldn't run decent is a total and complete LIAR.
Five years, 30 million dollars and two months after release there are still MAJOR problems with the game? What does that tell you? Anyone who purchased the game on launch day has literally paid $80 so far to play an unfinished, inferior product that is still in beta testing. So, with 100k of subscribers, Sigil has made 8 MILLION dollars from VG so far!
Do your maths again. Most of the box sales goto the publisher and the retail store. The developer makes about $7 a box sold. So thats about $million. The box included 30 days subscription so only the second month counts. And Vanguard dont get all that - as Sony need to pay for servers and recoup there investment - So thats maybe another $million.
Now with 100 staff Sigil's salary costs must run between half a million to a $million a month. So they aren't rolling in funds.
As an impulse buyer you reap what you sew. There's no reason you or anyone else couldn't have gone online and read to determine for yourself the condition of the game.
i'm sorry, but this is an absolutely lame cop-out. Blaming the consumer? For what? It's not their fault the game runs poorly.
And honestly, this sort of mindset allows game companies to put out inferior, unfinished, or unpolished products, because it passes the responsibility over to the customer instead of the people who made the damned game in the first place. It's like Brad blaming technology for not being cheap enough so that people can get massive updated rigs to run his game instead of looking at the engine itself as the root cause of most of the performance issues that people are having. It's stupid, and a cop-out.
To blame the buyer for buying a shoddy product instead of, you know, blaming the developer who made that product in the first place is the height of idiocy. We should expect more from the companies we're giving money to instead of blaming someone for not spending days or weeks researching a game before seeing it on the shelf. Maybe if that game was in a respectable state by the time it got to the shelf at all, this wouldn't be an issue.
Originally posted by Lidane Originally posted by Kaiaphas
As an impulse buyer you reap what you sew. There's no reason you or anyone else couldn't have gone online and read to determine for yourself the condition of the game.
i'm sorry, but this is an absolutely lame cop-out. Blaming the consumer? For what? It's not their fault the game runs poorly.
And honestly, this sort of mindset allows game companies to put out inferior, unfinished, or unpolished products, because it passes the responsibility over to the customer instead of the people who made the damned game in the first place. It's like Brad blaming technology for not being cheap enough so that people can get massive updated rigs to run his game instead of looking at the engine itself as the root cause of most of the performance issues that people are having. It's stupid, and a cop-out.
To blame the buyer for buying a shoddy product instead of, you know, blaming the developer who made that product in the first place is the height of idiocy. We should expect more from the companies we're giving money to instead of blaming someone for not spending days or weeks researching a game before seeing it on the shelf. Maybe if that game was in a respectable state by the time it got to the shelf at all, this wouldn't be an issue.
I bought EA's Battlefield 2142. I can't play it for more then 45 seconds before I get disconnected. It isn't my system causing this, it is the software. EA has admitted this and has offered to refund my money.
People buying a game that doesn't meet min. system reqs is NOT the companies fault. That is the consumers fault or maybe on their retailer for NOT asking the question, does your computer meet min. requirements?
As an impulse buyer you reap what you sew. There's no reason you or anyone else couldn't have gone online and read to determine for yourself the condition of the game.
i'm sorry, but this is an absolutely lame cop-out. Blaming the consumer? For what? It's not their fault the game runs poorly.
And honestly, this sort of mindset allows game companies to put out inferior, unfinished, or unpolished products, because it passes the responsibility over to the customer instead of the people who made the damned game in the first place. It's like Brad blaming technology for not being cheap enough so that people can get massive updated rigs to run his game instead of looking at the engine itself as the root cause of most of the performance issues that people are having. It's stupid, and a cop-out.
To blame the buyer for buying a shoddy product instead of, you know, blaming the developer who made that product in the first place is the height of idiocy. We should expect more from the companies we're giving money to instead of blaming someone for not spending days or weeks researching a game before seeing it on the shelf. Maybe if that game was in a respectable state by the time it got to the shelf at all, this wouldn't be an issue.
I bought EA's Battlefield 2142. I can't play it for more then 45 seconds before I get disconnected. It isn't my system causing this, it is the software. EA has admitted this and has offered to refund my money.
People buying a game that doesn't meet min. system reqs is NOT the companies fault. That is the consumers fault or maybe on their retailer for NOT asking the question, does your computer meet min. requirements?
Or perhaps it is the developer's fault for not putting realistic minimum and recommended requirements
on the box.
Because of the state of the game and the high rig requirements, an impulse buyer will never become
a sub.
Still if one considers the impulse buyer, you get a box sale ($7 -$10) net for Sigil. If 75 percent of the
monthly subscription fee is profit ($11.25) then it only takes one month for a sub to bring in more
As an impulse buyer you reap what you sew. There's no reason you or anyone else couldn't have gone online and read to determine for yourself the condition of the game.
i'm sorry, but this is an absolutely lame cop-out. Blaming the consumer? For what? It's not their fault the game runs poorly. And honestly, this sort of mindset allows game companies to put out inferior, unfinished, or unpolished products, because it passes the responsibility over to the customer instead of the people who made the damned game in the first place. It's like Brad blaming technology for not being cheap enough so that people can get massive updated rigs to run his game instead of looking at the engine itself as the root cause of most of the performance issues that people are having. It's stupid, and a cop-out. To blame the buyer for buying a shoddy product instead of, you know, blaming the developer who made that product in the first place is the height of idiocy. We should expect more from the companies we're giving money to instead of blaming someone for not spending days or weeks researching a game before seeing it on the shelf. Maybe if that game was in a respectable state by the time it got to the shelf at all, this wouldn't be an issue.
I bought EA's Battlefield 2142. I can't play it for more then 45 seconds before I get disconnected. It isn't my system causing this, it is the software. EA has admitted this and has offered to refund my money. People buying a game that doesn't meet min. system reqs is NOT the companies fault. That is the consumers fault or maybe on their retailer for NOT asking the question, does your computer meet min. requirements?
Or perhaps it is the developer's fault for not putting realistic minimum and recommended requirements on the box.
Because of the state of the game and the high rig requirements, an impulse buyer will never become a sub.
Still if one considers the impulse buyer, you get a box sale ($7 -$10) net for Sigil. If 75 percent of the monthly subscription fee is profit ($11.25) then it only takes one month for a sub to bring in more revenue than a box sale.
My roommate plays VG with a 1.4 sempron, 1gb of ram and a 6800GS AGP card. She gets between 20-25 fps. Very playable. How is what is on the box for req's not good enough since her system is actually a tad below? Or are you running a setup like hers and trying to play on highest graphics?
Originally posted by Kaiaphas As an impulse buyer you reap what you sew. There's no reason you or anyone else couldn't have gone online and read to determine for yourself the condition of the game.
i'm sorry, but this is an absolutely lame cop-out. Blaming the consumer? For what? It's not their fault the game runs poorly.
And honestly, this sort of mindset allows game companies to put out inferior, unfinished, or unpolished products, because it passes the responsibility over to the customer instead of the people who made the damned game in the first place. It's like Brad blaming technology for not being cheap enough so that people can get massive updated rigs to run his game instead of looking at the engine itself as the root cause of most of the performance issues that people are having. It's stupid, and a cop-out.
To blame the buyer for buying a shoddy product instead of, you know, blaming the developer who made that product in the first place is the height of idiocy. We should expect more from the companies we're giving money to instead of blaming someone for not spending days or weeks researching a game before seeing it on the shelf. Maybe if that game was in a respectable state by the time it got to the shelf at all, this wouldn't be an issue.
I bought EA's Battlefield 2142. I can't play it for more then 45 seconds before I get disconnected. It isn't my system causing this, it is the software. EA has admitted this and has offered to refund my money.
People buying a game that doesn't meet min. system reqs is NOT the companies fault. That is the consumers fault or maybe on their retailer for NOT asking the question, does your computer meet min. requirements?
Or perhaps it is the developer's fault for not putting realistic minimum and recommended requirements
on the box.
Because of the state of the game and the high rig requirements, an impulse buyer will never become
a sub.
Still if one considers the impulse buyer, you get a box sale ($7 -$10) net for Sigil. If 75 percent of the
monthly subscription fee is profit ($11.25) then it only takes one month for a sub to bring in more
revenue than a box sale.
My roommate plays VG with a 1.4 sempron, 1gb of ram and a 6800GS AGP card. She gets between 20-25 fps. Very playable. How is what is on the box for req's not good enough since her system is actually a tad below? Or are you running a setup like hers and trying to play on highest graphics?
One can not discount luck. There are people with much higher powered systems that run like molasses
in the dead of winter.
However I seriously doubt Sigil would be willing to put your roommate's system specs as recommended.
20 - 25 fps playable - is it really? And is it acceptable?
I was reading an article in a magazine that said 60fps is required for the human eye not to notice any lag etc. So whilst 20fps may be playable is it acceptable?
So it becomes a personnal opinion as to what is acceptable peformance. You might think 20-25fps is acceptable, I probably wouldnt.
I've heard the human eye cannot tell the difference beyond 30 fps. I think it depends on other factors as well, like animations.
According to the specs, I am willing to guess that the player is running the game at Highest Performance. That level of graphics is horrible, like original EQ horrible. And is it 20-25 fps in wilderness? In the city? And what's the fps in groups? Considering the game is group centric, having your fps drop when teamed with 4-5 others will ruin gameplay.
From my experience, you cannot play VG at decent levels (at least High Performance) without the Recommended specs. Anything less, and you either suffer low fps or horrible graphics.
Here's something that does not get touched on very much. The All Access goes up $5.00 next month to help defray the additional costs of new products. So basically, two months after it's release, All Access players are going to pay even if they don't play it.
Everybody pretty much gets told to buy more hardware and it may run better, so that's our fault, our responsibility.
Everybody gets told that it was released early, if you don't like a buggy problem, it's your fault, you were warned.
Everybody gets told that after $30 million they were broke and had to release, so I guess MS gets blamed for that one.
SoE steps in and backs them, blame SoE for the problems.
All Access Players that still pay EQ-1/EQ-2 get to foot the bill on Vanguard, guess that's their fault for keeping both games.
Brad apologizes and everyone is supposed to sympathize with his situation? Even though clearly were all to blame on this somehow? Seems to me that everyone but Sigil has to make concessions in this apology but Sigil. Pay more even if you don't play, upgrade if you do pay, but remain patient in the mean time, blame SoE and MS while were at it? How about you tell us your so sure that it will be great in 6 months that anyone who sticks it out for 6 months will get 2 months free?
I bought EA's Battlefield 2142. I can't play it for more then 45 seconds before I get disconnected. It isn't my system causing this, it is the software. EA has admitted this and has offered to refund my money.
i wonder... would Sigil ever admit that Vanguard is at fault for systems that actually DO exceed the Minimum or Recommended specs running the game poorly, and offer refunds? Probably not. Score one for EA, then, because at least they didn't cop out and blame you--the customer-- for not having an uber enough rig to run their game. Instead, they admitted there was a software issue and moved to give you your money back. That's how a professional company operates.
People buying a game that doesn't meet min. system reqs is NOT the companies fault. That is the consumers fault or maybe on their retailer for NOT asking the question, does your computer meet min. requirements?
Maybe, instead of blaming the customer, the developer should be more honest and learn to put realistic system requirements on the box in the first place.
The system I used in my trial more than exceeded the Recommended specs, and I still had mediocre frame rates and performance issues with VG. I can only imagine what someone who exceeds the Minimum, but not the Recommended, settings would go through with it, even if they did take the time to read the box, and make sure they met the standards set by the box. The requirements on the VG box are an out and out lie, since a much more powerful system is needed to get anything resembling playable frame rates at any decent graphical quality.
That's not the customer's fault. It's the developer's fault for not being honest on the box about what kind of rig is needed.
Here's something that does not get touched on very much. The All Access goes up $5.00 next month to help defray the additional costs of new products. So basically, two months after it's release, All Access players are going to pay even if they don't play it.
Everybody pretty much gets told to buy more hardware and it may run better, so that's our fault, our responsibility.
Visually the game should not require upgrading , LOTRO has better graphics & dosen't require an upgrade , simple matter is poor coding & I feel they just can't do any better
Everybody gets told that it was released early, if you don't like a buggy problem, it's your fault, you were warned.
Your allways going to get people that are brainwashed into believing anything they say no matter how much evidence is placed infront of them
Everybody gets told that after $30 million they were broke and had to release, so I guess MS gets blamed for that one.
Simple solution would have been to do what LOTRO did & have a big pre-order push , Money from the pre-order could have been used to fixed the game before releasing it " although I don't believe they have the talent to fix it ..
SoE steps in and backs them, blame SoE for the problems.
Easy scapegoat but I do believe SOE is part to blame with pushing for early release
All Access Players that still pay EQ-1/EQ-2 get to foot the bill on Vanguard, guess that's their fault for keeping both games.
This is a major ripoff , Its not like I can be playing EQ1 & have the auction house open on EQ2 on another PC , really your just paying $30.00 to play 1 game ..
Brad apologizes and everyone is supposed to sympathize with his situation? Even though clearly were all to blame on this somehow? Seems to me that everyone but Sigil has to make concessions in this apology but Sigil. Pay more even if you don't play, upgrade if you do pay, but remain patient in the mean time, blame SoE and MS while were at it? How about you tell us your so sure that it will be great in 6 months that anyone who sticks it out for 6 months will get 2 months free?
I believe nothing he said back in EQ days & nothing changed .. 1 eyed single vision , stuck in the past mindset ..
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.
As an impulse buyer you reap what you sew. There's no reason you or anyone else couldn't have gone online and read to determine for yourself the condition of the game.
What kind of lame response is this? Are you for real?
Comments
Last I knew, I could check my bank balance and see if it was dwindling down to that magic zero. Sigil is supposed to have something like a Treasurer, or Chief Financial Officer, that should be able to do the same thing. Maybe he left the country quickly for some reason, but Brad hasn't indicated that is the case.
Anyway, once the Treasurer sees the company is headed for deep do do he is supposed to do something. Trying to arrange financing for a three to six month period seems to leap into my mind. Of course, smuggling drugs was the first option that came into John DeLorean's mind. Anyway, I digress, there are other options. Running to SOE also comes to mind, but I think we know how that turned out.
So no, launch or fold were not the two only options. Brad should have hired Andy Fastow.....he may not have been able to show up for work on a regular basis, but I'm pretty sure he still gets one phone call a week.
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?
Of course that is what he had to do. Doesn't mean I support the operation of a business or company that has allowed itself to get into such a financial trainwreck. Business darwinism is cruel that way. Only the fit should survive.
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?
I suppose you could qualify "a playable game" as high expectations, but I tend have higher standards than that. Much of the expectations were generated from Sigil itself, and its zealous fan base that has now switched to damage control mode.
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.
My foremost concern is what this sort of business snafu does to the industry generally, and to sandbox game design specifically. The devs from SWG have, seemingly, convinced a large portion of their fellow game designers that a sandbox game is impossible to design. Because they won't admit that the problem lay with them and not the concept of sandbox design. So here we have yet another sandbox game, great potential, but fubared. Just another nail in the coffin for sandbox development. And yet again it seems the fault of the developers and not the concept itself, though I'm willng to bet sandbox becomes even more taboo.
I can already anticipate the counter arguement. You might think that if I want to see sandbox design succeed I should support VG. Not quite. I want to ensure that the blame is laid where it is most accurate, that being poor business decisions. Because if the poor business decisions are not highlighted, sandbox will become the scapegoat (like SWG). My greatest fear is that VG will have in its near future an NGE style revamp in an attempt to recoup their losses. In this case, yes, I would rather have had Brad pull the plug on VG.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
This is what Brad is really saying:
"For the love of God stop cancelling your subscriptions"
I just have to clear something up right away.You cannot have a complete seamless world without dumbing down the graphics like console games do.This is by either cutting back draw distance or just lowering the quality of graphics at a certain distance.Either way you slice it,there is only so many objects that can be loaded/viewed without a tremendous bottleneck from your system,and no it's not your video card that is the problem.So you can't complain about your lagging game system and demand a true seamless world,tyhere would be far more lag and incredible sytems to play it.
Personally i dont plan on playing this game any longer as i don't like the complete makeup of the game and the way some things are done.I also think the community is very dead and boring,so add this together and the performance issues were the furthest thing from my mind.Every poll i have seen pretty much puts community at the top of the wish list,and this game's community is low end.This game came and w/o a doubt tried to mimick EQ2,but it failed and is less a game for it.I am very certain nobody really cares about seamless world,since there isn't such a game anywhere on this planet.Graphics/community/battle system/crafting should be the main concerns with several smaller issues to make or break the game over other games.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
As an impulse buyer you reap what you sew. There's no reason you or anyone else couldn't have gone online and read to determine for yourself the condition of the game.
As an impulse buyer you reap what you sew. There's no reason you or anyone else couldn't have gone online and read to determine for yourself the condition of the game.
That has to be about the lamest reasoning yet ( the reap what you sew part ) . Let's say mom and dad or grandma and grandpa bought the game for a niece a nephew a grandson . Think that reasoning still holds true ? To further that note there wasn't any reputable reviews on this game until after it came out. So again how was one to know unless they played beta?
As an impulse buyer you reap what you sew. There's no reason you or anyone else couldn't have gone online and read to determine for yourself the condition of the game.
I hope you're kidding with that statement.
Blame the consumer who didn't research the product and not the company who tried to pull a fast one by launching an inferior product that was not ready for sale? NOT.
That's the perfect example of why we have these problems today. Put the blame on anyone (even the consumer!) but not the person who's actually responsible.
_________________________________
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
You know Kaiaphas im getting the feeling from your post's and a reply to me earlyer on this topic that you are one of brad's new viral marketers! Well your not doing a very good job shame on you...
Not true - look at Eve - started small and growing bigger all the time.
Anyone with that kind of set up that is reporting decent performance on high performance or balanced is just full of it and does not have that system. My system that I was getting 40fps on was only a 2ghz X2, 2gb ram and a 6800GS and I was running on Balanced. Anyone who believes someone saying that a 4gb, High powered proc and dual 8800 system can't run the game is in dire need of some guidance to understand what a computer can and cannot do.
While I normally don't call people liars without proof, this I will call it on. Who ever said that your setup couldn't run decent is a total and complete LIAR.
Do your maths again. Most of the box sales goto the publisher and the retail store. The developer makes about $7 a box sold. So thats about $million. The box included 30 days subscription so only the second month counts. And Vanguard dont get all that - as Sony need to pay for servers and recoup there investment - So thats maybe another $million.
Now with 100 staff Sigil's salary costs must run between half a million to a $million a month. So they aren't rolling in funds.
And honestly, this sort of mindset allows game companies to put out inferior, unfinished, or unpolished products, because it passes the responsibility over to the customer instead of the people who made the damned game in the first place. It's like Brad blaming technology for not being cheap enough so that people can get massive updated rigs to run his game instead of looking at the engine itself as the root cause of most of the performance issues that people are having. It's stupid, and a cop-out.
To blame the buyer for buying a shoddy product instead of, you know, blaming the developer who made that product in the first place is the height of idiocy. We should expect more from the companies we're giving money to instead of blaming someone for not spending days or weeks researching a game before seeing it on the shelf. Maybe if that game was in a respectable state by the time it got to the shelf at all, this wouldn't be an issue.
And honestly, this sort of mindset allows game companies to put out inferior, unfinished, or unpolished products, because it passes the responsibility over to the customer instead of the people who made the damned game in the first place. It's like Brad blaming technology for not being cheap enough so that people can get massive updated rigs to run his game instead of looking at the engine itself as the root cause of most of the performance issues that people are having. It's stupid, and a cop-out.
To blame the buyer for buying a shoddy product instead of, you know, blaming the developer who made that product in the first place is the height of idiocy. We should expect more from the companies we're giving money to instead of blaming someone for not spending days or weeks researching a game before seeing it on the shelf. Maybe if that game was in a respectable state by the time it got to the shelf at all, this wouldn't be an issue.
I bought EA's Battlefield 2142. I can't play it for more then 45 seconds before I get disconnected. It isn't my system causing this, it is the software. EA has admitted this and has offered to refund my money.
People buying a game that doesn't meet min. system reqs is NOT the companies fault. That is the consumers fault or maybe on their retailer for NOT asking the question, does your computer meet min. requirements?
i'm sorry, but this is an absolutely lame cop-out. Blaming the consumer? For what? It's not their fault the game runs poorly.
And honestly, this sort of mindset allows game companies to put out inferior, unfinished, or unpolished products, because it passes the responsibility over to the customer instead of the people who made the damned game in the first place. It's like Brad blaming technology for not being cheap enough so that people can get massive updated rigs to run his game instead of looking at the engine itself as the root cause of most of the performance issues that people are having. It's stupid, and a cop-out.
To blame the buyer for buying a shoddy product instead of, you know, blaming the developer who made that product in the first place is the height of idiocy. We should expect more from the companies we're giving money to instead of blaming someone for not spending days or weeks researching a game before seeing it on the shelf. Maybe if that game was in a respectable state by the time it got to the shelf at all, this wouldn't be an issue.
I bought EA's Battlefield 2142. I can't play it for more then 45 seconds before I get disconnected. It isn't my system causing this, it is the software. EA has admitted this and has offered to refund my money.
People buying a game that doesn't meet min. system reqs is NOT the companies fault. That is the consumers fault or maybe on their retailer for NOT asking the question, does your computer meet min. requirements?
Or perhaps it is the developer's fault for not putting realistic minimum and recommended requirementson the box.
Because of the state of the game and the high rig requirements, an impulse buyer will never become
a sub.
Still if one considers the impulse buyer, you get a box sale ($7 -$10) net for Sigil. If 75 percent of the
monthly subscription fee is profit ($11.25) then it only takes one month for a sub to bring in more
revenue than a box sale.
My roommate plays VG with a 1.4 sempron, 1gb of ram and a 6800GS AGP card. She gets between 20-25 fps. Very playable. How is what is on the box for req's not good enough since her system is actually a tad below? Or are you running a setup like hers and trying to play on highest graphics?
And honestly, this sort of mindset allows game companies to put out inferior, unfinished, or unpolished products, because it passes the responsibility over to the customer instead of the people who made the damned game in the first place. It's like Brad blaming technology for not being cheap enough so that people can get massive updated rigs to run his game instead of looking at the engine itself as the root cause of most of the performance issues that people are having. It's stupid, and a cop-out.
To blame the buyer for buying a shoddy product instead of, you know, blaming the developer who made that product in the first place is the height of idiocy. We should expect more from the companies we're giving money to instead of blaming someone for not spending days or weeks researching a game before seeing it on the shelf. Maybe if that game was in a respectable state by the time it got to the shelf at all, this wouldn't be an issue.
I bought EA's Battlefield 2142. I can't play it for more then 45 seconds before I get disconnected. It isn't my system causing this, it is the software. EA has admitted this and has offered to refund my money.
People buying a game that doesn't meet min. system reqs is NOT the companies fault. That is the consumers fault or maybe on their retailer for NOT asking the question, does your computer meet min. requirements?
Or perhaps it is the developer's fault for not putting realistic minimum and recommended requirements
on the box.
Because of the state of the game and the high rig requirements, an impulse buyer will never become
a sub.
Still if one considers the impulse buyer, you get a box sale ($7 -$10) net for Sigil. If 75 percent of the
monthly subscription fee is profit ($11.25) then it only takes one month for a sub to bring in more
revenue than a box sale.
My roommate plays VG with a 1.4 sempron, 1gb of ram and a 6800GS AGP card. She gets between 20-25 fps. Very playable. How is what is on the box for req's not good enough since her system is actually a tad below? Or are you running a setup like hers and trying to play on highest graphics?
One can not discount luck. There are people with much higher powered systems that run like molassesin the dead of winter.
However I seriously doubt Sigil would be willing to put your roommate's system specs as recommended.
20 - 25 fps playable - is it really? And is it acceptable?
I was reading an article in a magazine that said 60fps is required for the human eye not to notice any lag etc. So whilst 20fps may be playable is it acceptable?
So it becomes a personnal opinion as to what is acceptable peformance. You might think 20-25fps is acceptable, I probably wouldnt.
According to the specs, I am willing to guess that the player is running the game at Highest Performance. That level of graphics is horrible, like original EQ horrible. And is it 20-25 fps in wilderness? In the city? And what's the fps in groups? Considering the game is group centric, having your fps drop when teamed with 4-5 others will ruin gameplay.
From my experience, you cannot play VG at decent levels (at least High Performance) without the Recommended specs. Anything less, and you either suffer low fps or horrible graphics.
Everybody pretty much gets told to buy more hardware and it may run better, so that's our fault, our responsibility.
Everybody gets told that it was released early, if you don't like a buggy problem, it's your fault, you were warned.
Everybody gets told that after $30 million they were broke and had to release, so I guess MS gets blamed for that one.
SoE steps in and backs them, blame SoE for the problems.
All Access Players that still pay EQ-1/EQ-2 get to foot the bill on Vanguard, guess that's their fault for keeping both games.
Brad apologizes and everyone is supposed to sympathize with his situation? Even though clearly were all to blame on this somehow? Seems to me that everyone but Sigil has to make concessions in this apology but Sigil. Pay more even if you don't play, upgrade if you do pay, but remain patient in the mean time, blame SoE and MS while were at it? How about you tell us your so sure that it will be great in 6 months that anyone who sticks it out for 6 months will get 2 months free?
People buying a game that doesn't meet min. system reqs is NOT the companies fault. That is the consumers fault or maybe on their retailer for NOT asking the question, does your computer meet min. requirements?
Maybe, instead of blaming the customer, the developer should be more honest and learn to put realistic system requirements on the box in the first place.
The system I used in my trial more than exceeded the Recommended specs, and I still had mediocre frame rates and performance issues with VG. I can only imagine what someone who exceeds the Minimum, but not the Recommended, settings would go through with it, even if they did take the time to read the box, and make sure they met the standards set by the box. The requirements on the VG box are an out and out lie, since a much more powerful system is needed to get anything resembling playable frame rates at any decent graphical quality.
That's not the customer's fault. It's the developer's fault for not being honest on the box about what kind of rig is needed.
Could someone point me to the section of the minimum, or even the required specs where it promises a specific framerate?
As an impulse buyer you reap what you sew. There's no reason you or anyone else couldn't have gone online and read to determine for yourself the condition of the game.
What kind of lame response is this? Are you for real?
Do you really, even in your wildest hardcore fanboi dreams, believe this is a valid argument?
You have stepped far beyond the realm of mere quibbling and into the world of blindest unreasoning insanity.