Vanguard players calling WoW launch terrible is the most fun and at the same time most stupid thing to hear. Ever.
WoW’s launch was annoying because of its huge success and the fact Blizzard wasn’t prepared for that success. It’s launch problems where basically newbie areas overcrowding certain areas, which resulted into queues and in some cases server crashes (my server was thankfully fine). Aside from these problems WoW was basically finished, stable, polished and complete, at LAUNCH.
Vanguards launch had nothing to do with being prepared for success, considering not one server was full or had queues during its first week. Vanguard was launched with a massive amount of bugs, most which still aren’t fixed, insane instability, constant servercrashes, daily maintenances (smartly planned at European evening prime time), entire zones not being finished, gamebreaking issues like finding crafting being broke, LFG being even worse then WoW (for a game that is supposed to resolve mainly about group play), insane inbalance between classes, mobs being bugged, entire areas constantly crashing, and the list goes on and on.
The big difference between the WoW launch and the Vanguard launch is that WoW was basically allright, but Blizzard didn’t expect the amount of people and that caused some trouble during the first three weeks. The vanguard launch however is about a game that’s not finished, filled with bugs, hardly even of beta quality, and nothing of this has anything to do with success, its all about the core of the game not being ready. Vanguard as a game lacked any sort of polish and stability during its launch and it doesn’t matter if 5 people or 5000 people are logged in because vanguards problem was not amount of people logging in, it was core game that was rotten, and still is for that matter if I hear people still complain about many of the same issues here on this forum.
I believe the upcoming availability of LOTRO open beta this week and the release of AoC and WAR in the fall is only going to accelerate the downward spiral, right now a lot of people are logging in as there is nothing else out there atm that is new. I would be very, very suprised if this game has more than 100,000 subs in 6 months. Oh..I get it now...this is a LOTRO plug. Stay in your forums mate. It's poor taste to put down one game to try and promote another. When making such vast and general statements about a game...I would encourage you to follow up some statements with some solid facts or at least a few examples...if you have any desire to be taken seriously.
Thamoris do you even read posts?
His statement was not about LOTRO, it was about the future games that will accelerate VGs downward spiral. Which is extremely true whether you like it or not.
Don't try and discredit a poster when you don't read his post correctly.
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
Are the server populations still mostly high and medium during prime time? I would guess with the way they implemented housing plots it would be hard for them to start to consolidate servers even if would improve the game experience by making it easier to find a group.
I agree that the game is in big trouble. But I don't think it's because of a lack of a business model, or an attempt to turn a quick buck. It's that their business model was extremely flawed, its assumptions misguided, and its implementation inept. Fortunately now that Sigil has been the guinea pig for that folly, hopefully we won't see any more development teams make these mistakes, or at least not on this order of magnitude.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
In total, with only 150.000 subscribers, Sigil will make 48.400.000 dollar. Assuming Brad didn't lie and they got 30.000.000 dollar for making VG. They have a profit of 18.4 mil. dollar! So, trust me, enough profit here!
depends, if you invested in VG at the start of the project (up to 5 years before the launch) then you are looking at those numbers from a totally different perspective, 10 years is a long time. Just the inflation for 10 years adds up to a considerable number and the profit adds up to just 5% interest on the money invested (for 10 year investment, not counting the effect of inflation etc and most VC probably came at a later point of production).
The problem if the numbers turn out like this is that Sigil will be forced to cut costs at some point and, since VG is Sigil's only source of revenue at the moment, the 100+ employees might be the first target of cost-cutting (which might affect the game's quality in the long run).
There's no real concrete info on VG's numbers so all this is just guessing and gross approximation. Hopefully they will do well enough to not to have to cut costs in a way detrimental to VG's future.
depends, if you invested in VG at the start of the project (up to 5 years before the launch) then you are looking at those numbers from a totally different perspective, 10 years is a long time. Just the inflation for 10 years adds up to a considerable number and the profit adds up to just 5% interest on the money invested (for 10 year investment, not counting the effect of inflation etc and most VC probably came at a later point of production).
The problem if the numbers turn out like this is that Sigil will be forced to cut costs at some point and, since VG is Sigil's only source of revenue at the moment, the 100+ employees might be the first target of cost-cutting (which might affect the game's quality in the long run).
There's no real concrete info on VG's numbers so all this is just guessing and gross approximation. Hopefully they will do well enough to not to have to cut costs in a way detrimental to VG's future.
True, but then again they didnt spend the 30 mil at the start of the project. Personel costs are lower at the beginning, you dont need no gamemasters for example. On the other side, TCO becomes cheaper. Internet connections get cheaper every year and servers can do more for less money. In the end all these factors balance eachother out thats the reason I didn't mention it (makes the math more difficult to follow)
while I agree this isn't exactly breaking news. Let's face it VG had a terrbile launch. MMOs cannot recover from bad launches - they just can't. Sure the game "may" become somewhat decent in a years time but consumers will hardly walk into a game store and ask for a good MMO that's a couple of years old. People want new products and by the time VG has the slightest chance of being decent it will get clobbered by above mentioned titles.
Many games had a worse launch and survived. IE... Anarchy Online. It was in much worse shape than VG at launch, and here six years after, it's still around... has a good player base and is a great game. Don't agree? Well the successes of AO has funded the development of Age of Conan… both as a revenue maker and an example of game making that has secured FunCom funding from new sources. VG isn’t as bad as many here would have you believe. Take graphics for example... VG models have a high polygon count that stress today’s machines, where as LOTR has lower poly models with great textures. LOTR is as good looking as it will ever get... VG on the other hand has much room for improvement because the models are already complex and textures are easier to redo. Hence three years from now LOTR will look old and VG can and probably will look outstanding. Also because it is not based on very narrowly defined lore, VG can go any way the devs want to take it without fear of crossing the line of some franchise. While it was launched unfinished the dev team is working very hard to fix this... An example is game performance which has improved significantly recently. If you haven’t played since launch, you would be surprised.
while I agree this isn't exactly breaking news. Let's face it VG had a terrbile launch. MMOs cannot recover from bad launches - they just can't. Sure the game "may" become somewhat decent in a years time but consumers will hardly walk into a game store and ask for a good MMO that's a couple of years old. People want new products and by the time VG has the slightest chance of being decent it will get clobbered by above mentioned titles.
Many games had a worse launch and survived. IE... Anarchy Online. It was in much worse shape than VG at launch, and here six years after, it's still around... has a good player base and is a great game. Don't agree? Well the successes of AO has funded the development of Age of Conan… both as a revenue maker and an example of game making that has secured FunCom funding from new sources. VG isn’t as bad as many here would have you believe. Take graphics for example... VG models have a high polygon count that stress today’s machines, where as LOTR has lower poly models with great textures. LOTR is as good looking as it will ever get... VG on the other hand has much room for improvement because the models are already complex and textures are easier to redo. Hence three years from now LOTR will look old and VG can and probably will look outstanding. Also because it is not based on very narrowly defined lore, VG can go any way the devs want to take it without fear of crossing the line of some franchise. While it was launched unfinished the dev team is working very hard to fix this... An example is game performance which has improved significantly recently. If you haven’t played since launch, you would be surprised.
Same ol crap that gets posted on every forum.
Provide some facts supporting your outrageous assumptions.
I will highlight in a nice bright colour which statements made me LOL.
.
.
.
There you go.
Want me to address?
- AO in worse shape than VG at launch is very debateable. Saying it is a great game now and it funded AoC's development is a complete assumption. You do relise what a publisher is right?
- LotRO will always have better looking graphics than VG, saying VG's graphics CAN improve and LotRO's graphics CAN'T improve is now on my list of completely idiodic things that have ever came from a vanboi's mouth.
- There is nothing more complex about VG's models than most mmos out today. Do not kid yourself.
- Three years from now VG will be nothing more than a station access game. Assumption? Yes. More likely to happen than your bias opinion? Yes!
Have fun with your broken visioned, viral marketed, waste of space, still in beta game. Just don't post crap like this again.
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
LOL. Sorry, but VERY unlikely that SOE would ever release a massive MMO like Vanguard for free. Especially with Sigil's take on trial accounts and gold farmers having easy access to the game.
Not even with hundreds of in-game adds like Planetside would they make Vanguard free to play.
Vanguard is finished, I'm not familiar with the financials of Sigil, their investors, or the arrangement with SOE, but it is painfully obvious that the game will not be able to make return on the investment sunk into its creation. It might limp along for a few years but the game will never meet its potential or even be a major player in the MMO market. The business world today seems to be plagued by a lack of vision and long-term planning. Decisions are made to return immediate, short term profits and boost shareholder value, with little if any thought to building long term viability or any concern for the effects on the environment, economy, and society at large. I think this same mentality was at work in the early release of Vanguard. A little more money, at least in relation to the amount already spent, and time invested in polishing the product might have resulted in a game that could endure for some time and even recoup most, if not all of the monies invested. So the game was pushed out the door early for financial concerns, and uncontrollable forces were unleashed. The company was overwhelmed with the amount of work still remaining to be done to finish the game and correct deficiencies, but with thousands of players now paying for the game, the focus switched to whatever short term fix was necessary to maintain the subscription base. Sigil has been running scared to maintain the subs since day one and has only exacerbated the situation with patch after patch. Players are angry about poor performance and bugs so Sigil gives them 'double xp' to compensate. Result, players level faster and now are complaining about a lack of content. Sigil gets its personnel focused on the high end game and takes resources away which are needed to fix the basics. Exploits are rampant in the game, some are very old issues that Sigil pays no attention to until they become widely known. Scared of losing players they are unwilling to take action against the exploiters. Even a rollback is not forthcoming, and the only reason can be that the company is terrified of losing more money. In the crafting sphere as well, they have failed to deal with botters due to the fear of losing players, in the end they will lose more honest players than the small amount they would have lost by dealing with cheaters. These exploits, which are fairly widespread due to the game being unfinished and the lack of will on Sigil's part only cause faster leveling, which results in positive feedback to the cycle described above. As people attain higher and higher levels they become bored or require more content. More and more attention is payed to this set, to the detriment of the game as a whole. Add to this the failure, time and time again, to be able to release a solid patch. Each new patch seems to fix a problem while at the same time breaking something that was working or introducing a new bug or issue. I don't know if it is simple incompetence, or a financial issue where they don't have enough on the payroll to properly code and test changes. I believe the upcoming availability of LOTRO open beta this week and the release of AoC and WAR in the fall is only going to accelerate the downward spiral, right now a lot of people are logging in as there is nothing else out there atm that is new. I would be very, very suprised if this game has more than 100,000 subs in 6 months.
Wow thanks really inciteful, I can really feel your hate and gloom and bitterness, I feel sorry for you.
Lol.... never heard such rubbish, these forums amaze me.
/pops back to VG and continues having a great time with 10's thousands of other people.
depends, if you invested in VG at the start of the project (up to 5 years before the launch) then you are looking at those numbers from a totally different perspective, 10 years is a long time. Just the inflation for 10 years adds up to a considerable number and the profit adds up to just 5% interest on the money invested (for 10 year investment, not counting the effect of inflation etc and most VC probably came at a later point of production). The problem if the numbers turn out like this is that Sigil will be forced to cut costs at some point and, since VG is Sigil's only source of revenue at the moment, the 100+ employees might be the first target of cost-cutting (which might affect the game's quality in the long run). There's no real concrete info on VG's numbers so all this is just guessing and gross approximation. Hopefully they will do well enough to not to have to cut costs in a way detrimental to VG's future.
True, but then again they didnt spend the 30 mil at the start of the project. Personel costs are lower at the beginning, you dont need no gamemasters for example. On the other side, TCO becomes cheaper. Internet connections get cheaper every year and servers can do more for less money. In the end all these factors balance eachother out thats the reason I didn't mention it (makes the math more difficult to follow)
To begin, VG has 150K registered users not 150K subscribers. If there were 150K subscribers,
the existing number of servers could not accommodate the players. In a similar vein, the constant
150K subscribers is way over optimistic. Since they never had 150K subscribers, projecting 150K
subscribers for every month for the next 60 months seems a bit ludicrous. Seeing that VG has already
dropped low on the sales charts after two months, it is highly unlikely it will reappear higher on the
charts without a major overhaul. It will be a miracle if 1 million characters get created, much less 1
million boxes being sold.
So no, the game will take a long time if ever before it grosses 35 million dollars.
while I agree this isn't exactly breaking news. Let's face it VG had a terrbile launch. MMOs cannot recover from bad launches - they just can't. Sure the game "may" become somewhat decent in a years time but consumers will hardly walk into a game store and ask for a good MMO that's a couple of years old. People want new products and by the time VG has the slightest chance of being decent it will get clobbered by above mentioned titles.
Many games had a worse launch and survived. IE... Anarchy Online. It was in much worse shape than VG at launch, and here six years after, it's still around... has a good player base and is a great game. Don't agree? Well the successes of AO has funded the development of Age of Conan… both as a revenue maker and an example of game making that has secured FunCom funding from new sources. VG isn’t as bad as many here would have you believe. Take graphics for example... VG models have a high polygon count that stress today’s machines, where as LOTR has lower poly models with great textures. LOTR is as good looking as it will ever get... VG on the other hand has much room for improvement because the models are already complex and textures are easier to redo. Hence three years from now LOTR will look old and VG can and probably will look outstanding. Also because it is not based on very narrowly defined lore, VG can go any way the devs want to take it without fear of crossing the line of some franchise. While it was launched unfinished the dev team is working very hard to fix this... An example is game performance which has improved significantly recently. If you haven’t played since launch, you would be surprised.
Same ol crap that gets posted on every forum.
Provide some facts supporting your outrageous assumptions.
I will highlight in a nice bright colour which statements made me LOL. Practice what you preach, maybe? No, that might ruin that hardcore overzaelous hater image you've worked SO hard to build. Right?
. There you go. Want me to address? - AO in worse shape than VG at launch is very debateable. Saying it is a great game now and it funded AoC's development is a complete assumption. You do relise what a publisher is right? Nothing but an opinion. - LotRO will always have better looking graphics than VG, saying VG's graphics CAN improve and LotRO's graphics CAN'T improve is now on my list of completely idiodic things that have ever came from a vanboi's mouth. Nothing but an opinion on the way graphics look. And wrong, any game can get a graphics update, even if it's just as simple as replacing current textures with higher res ones. - There is nothing more complex about VG's models than most mmos out today. Do not kid yourself. Very wrong. Vanguard does have a many more polygon's on character's than most of this generation's games. There are numbers somewhere, but I'm too lazy, like you, to find them. At least I admitted to it. Though me saying that is just as bad as you spitting that same trash you wrote. - Three years from now VG will be nothing more than a station access game. Assumption? Yes. More likely to happen than your bias opinion? Yes! Every game on the SOE network is a Station Access game. Are you saying that every game currently under SOE's charge is a failure? And your opinion isn't biased, how? Have fun with your broken visioned, viral marketed, waste of space, still in beta game. Just don't post crap like this again. Sorry, I missed the part where you posted the official credentials stating that all of your opinions must be fact and everyone who didn't agree with yours were blasphemy. Gawd forbid someone stands up and gives his opinion of a game he loves on a forum for THAT game.
What was he thinking!? How can ANYONE not agree with your divine rightious un-biased statements? Idiots, all of them!
Okay. We get it. Vanguard is dead. Finito, toast, fried, slaughtered, assassinated, dead.
IT IS UNDERSTOOD.
Will you people please stop posting these threads? Talk about a dead horse.
And before you come back with some crap about how you're 'saving new people from buying this game' just STFU. I don't get antagonistic very often. There are PLENTY of threads like this already. We all get it. You don't have to go make an alt ID just so you can flame the game again and pretend you're someone new.
Thank you. Now back to your regularly scheduled flame war.
--------
"Give a man a fire, and he is warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life."
while I agree this isn't exactly breaking news. Let's face it VG had a terrbile launch. MMOs cannot recover from bad launches - they just can't. Sure the game "may" become somewhat decent in a years time but consumers will hardly walk into a game store and ask for a good MMO that's a couple of years old. People want new products and by the time VG has the slightest chance of being decent it will get clobbered by above mentioned titles.
Many games had a worse launch and survived. IE... Anarchy Online. It was in much worse shape than VG at launch, and here six years after, it's still around... has a good player base and is a great game. Don't agree? Well the successes of AO has funded the development of Age of Conan… both as a revenue maker and an example of game making that has secured FunCom funding from new sources. VG isn’t as bad as many here would have you believe. Take graphics for example... VG models have a high polygon count that stress today’s machines, where as LOTR has lower poly models with great textures. LOTR is as good looking as it will ever get... VG on the other hand has much room for improvement because the models are already complex and textures are easier to redo. Hence three years from now LOTR will look old and VG can and probably will look outstanding. Also because it is not based on very narrowly defined lore, VG can go any way the devs want to take it without fear of crossing the line of some franchise. While it was launched unfinished the dev team is working very hard to fix this... An example is game performance which has improved significantly recently. If you haven’t played since launch, you would be surprised.
Same ol crap that gets posted on every forum.
Provide some facts supporting your outrageous assumptions.
I will highlight in a nice bright colour which statements made me LOL. Practice what you preach, maybe? No, that might ruin that hardcore overzaelous hater image you've worked SO hard to build. Right? Ok then.
. There you go. Want me to address? - AO in worse shape than VG at launch is very debateable. Saying it is a great game now and it funded AoC's development is a complete assumption. You do relise what a publisher is right? Nothing but an opinion. Thank you for stating the obvious. - LotRO will always have better looking graphics than VG, saying VG's graphics CAN improve and LotRO's graphics CAN'T improve is now on my list of completely idiodic things that have ever came from a vanboi's mouth. Nothing but an opinion on the way graphics look. And wrong, any game can get a graphics update, even if it's just as simple as replacing current textures with higher res ones. Wrong? I was the one saying that any game can get a graphical update. The poster I quoted said that LotRO cannot get updated and VG can. Which is untrue. You misread my post. - There is nothing more complex about VG's models than most mmos out today. Do not kid yourself. Very wrong. Vanguard does have a many more polygon's on character's than most of this generation's games. There are numbers somewhere, but I'm too lazy, like you, to find them. At least I admitted to it. Though me saying that is just as bad as you spitting that same trash you wrote. Polygon count = Complexity now? - Three years from now VG will be nothing more than a station access game. Assumption? Yes. More likely to happen than your bias opinion? Yes! Every game on the SOE network is a Station Access game. Are you saying that every game currently under SOE's charge is a failure? And your opinion isn't biased, how? Good on you for taking my comment and placing it out of proportion. I stated VG will be NOTHING MORE than a station access game. Never did I suggest that every game under SOE's charge is a failure. In fact I have NEVER played an SOE game BESIDES VG. Have fun with your broken visioned, viral marketed, waste of space, still in beta game. Just don't post crap like this again. Sorry, I missed the part where you posted the official credentials stating that all of your opinions must be fact and everyone who didn't agree with yours were blasphemy. Gawd forbid someone stands up and gives his opinion of a game he loves on a forum for THAT game.
What was he thinking!? How can ANYONE not agree with your divine rightious un-biased statements? Idiots, all of them No one has to agree with me, I just would like to see some facts when people claim outrageous things like "LotRO cannot be updated graphically but VG can". How about you read my post CLEARLY before commenting. My views are opinions, and sometimes I support them with facts. I never stated my opinions WERE facts. Actually, you proved my point, you jumped the gun even assuming I had a vendetta against SOE. It was entertaining.
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
LOL. Sorry, but VERY unlikely that SOE would ever release a massive MMO like Vanguard for free. Especially with Sigil's take on trial accounts and gold farmers having easy access to the game.
Not even with hundreds of in-game adds like Planetside would they make Vanguard free to play.
Too bad. They might get the player base they are looking for if they go f2p. Of course, then again, like Archlord, they may not.
while I agree this isn't exactly breaking news. Let's face it VG had a terrbile launch. MMOs cannot recover from bad launches - they just can't. Sure the game "may" become somewhat decent in a years time but consumers will hardly walk into a game store and ask for a good MMO that's a couple of years old. People want new products and by the time VG has the slightest chance of being decent it will get clobbered by above mentioned titles.
Same ol crap that gets posted on every forum.
Provide some facts supporting your outrageous assumptions.
I will highlight in a nice bright colour which statements made me LOL. Practice what you preach, maybe? No, that might ruin that hardcore overzaelous hater image you've worked SO hard to build. Right? Ok then.
. There you go. Want me to address? - AO in worse shape than VG at launch is very debateable. Saying it is a great game now and it funded AoC's development is a complete assumption. You do relise what a publisher is right? Nothing but an opinion. Thank you for stating the obvious. - LotRO will always have better looking graphics than VG, saying VG's graphics CAN improve and LotRO's graphics CAN'T improve is now on my list of completely idiodic things that have ever came from a vanboi's mouth. Nothing but an opinion on the way graphics look. And wrong, any game can get a graphics update, even if it's just as simple as replacing current textures with higher res ones. Wrong? I was the one saying that any game can get a graphical update. The poster I quoted said that LotRO cannot get updated and VG can. Which is untrue. You misread my post. - There is nothing more complex about VG's models than most mmos out today. Do not kid yourself. Very wrong. Vanguard does have a many more polygon's on character's than most of this generation's games. There are numbers somewhere, but I'm too lazy, like you, to find them. At least I admitted to it. Though me saying that is just as bad as you spitting that same trash you wrote. Polygon count = Complexity now? - Three years from now VG will be nothing more than a station access game. Assumption? Yes. More likely to happen than your bias opinion? Yes! Every game on the SOE network is a Station Access game. Are you saying that every game currently under SOE's charge is a failure? And your opinion isn't biased, how? Good on you for taking my comment and placing it out of proportion. I stated VG will be NOTHING MORE than a station access game. Never did I suggest that every game under SOE's charge is a failure. In fact I have NEVER played an SOE game BESIDES VG. Have fun with your broken visioned, viral marketed, waste of space, still in beta game. Just don't post crap like this again. Sorry, I missed the part where you posted the official credentials stating that all of your opinions must be fact and everyone who didn't agree with yours were blasphemy. Gawd forbid someone stands up and gives his opinion of a game he loves on a forum for THAT game.
What was he thinking!? How can ANYONE not agree with your divine rightious un-biased statements? Idiots, all of them No one has to agree with me, I just would like to see some facts when people claim outrageous things like "LotRO cannot be updated graphically but VG can". How about you read my post CLEARLY before commenting. My views are opinions, and sometimes I support them with facts. I never stated my opinions WERE facts. Actually, you proved my point, you jumped the gun even assuming I had a vendetta against SOE. It was entertaining.
First: You can't find a publisher if you have no track record. So your attempt to insult me is just silly.
Second: It's much easier to redo textures than it is object models and new animations. If LOTR already has "high rez textures" in place, then where could they go from there? Super duper hi rez? VG models do have a substantially higher poly count... redoing textures over time will be easy.
while I agree this isn't exactly breaking news. Let's face it VG had a terrbile launch. MMOs cannot recover from bad launches - they just can't. Sure the game "may" become somewhat decent in a years time but consumers will hardly walk into a game store and ask for a good MMO that's a couple of years old. People want new products and by the time VG has the slightest chance of being decent it will get clobbered by above mentioned titles.
Many games had a worse launch and survived. IE... Anarchy Online. It was in much worse shape than VG at launch, and here six years after, it's still around... has a good player base and is a great game. Don't agree? Well the successes of AO has funded the development of Age of Conan… both as a revenue maker and an example of game making that has secured FunCom funding from new sources. VG isn’t as bad as many here would have you believe. Take graphics for example... VG models have a high polygon count that stress today’s machines, where as LOTR has lower poly models with great textures. LOTR is as good looking as it will ever get... VG on the other hand has much room for improvement because the models are already complex and textures are easier to redo. Hence three years from now LOTR will look old and VG can and probably will look outstanding. Also because it is not based on very narrowly defined lore, VG can go any way the devs want to take it without fear of crossing the line of some franchise. While it was launched unfinished the dev team is working very hard to fix this... An example is game performance which has improved significantly recently. If you haven’t played since launch, you would be surprised.
Same ol crap that gets posted on every forum.
Provide some facts supporting your outrageous assumptions.
I will highlight in a nice bright colour which statements made me LOL. Practice what you preach, maybe? No, that might ruin that hardcore overzaelous hater image you've worked SO hard to build. Right? Ok then.
. There you go. Want me to address? - AO in worse shape than VG at launch is very debateable. Saying it is a great game now and it funded AoC's development is a complete assumption. You do relise what a publisher is right? Nothing but an opinion. Thank you for stating the obvious. - LotRO will always have better looking graphics than VG, saying VG's graphics CAN improve and LotRO's graphics CAN'T improve is now on my list of completely idiodic things that have ever came from a vanboi's mouth. Nothing but an opinion on the way graphics look. And wrong, any game can get a graphics update, even if it's just as simple as replacing current textures with higher res ones. Wrong? I was the one saying that any game can get a graphical update. The poster I quoted said that LotRO cannot get updated and VG can. Which is untrue. You misread my post. - There is nothing more complex about VG's models than most mmos out today. Do not kid yourself. Very wrong. Vanguard does have a many more polygon's on character's than most of this generation's games. There are numbers somewhere, but I'm too lazy, like you, to find them. At least I admitted to it. Though me saying that is just as bad as you spitting that same trash you wrote. Polygon count = Complexity now? - Three years from now VG will be nothing more than a station access game. Assumption? Yes. More likely to happen than your bias opinion? Yes! Every game on the SOE network is a Station Access game. Are you saying that every game currently under SOE's charge is a failure? And your opinion isn't biased, how? Good on you for taking my comment and placing it out of proportion. I stated VG will be NOTHING MORE than a station access game. Never did I suggest that every game under SOE's charge is a failure. In fact I have NEVER played an SOE game BESIDES VG. Have fun with your broken visioned, viral marketed, waste of space, still in beta game. Just don't post crap like this again. Sorry, I missed the part where you posted the official credentials stating that all of your opinions must be fact and everyone who didn't agree with yours were blasphemy. Gawd forbid someone stands up and gives his opinion of a game he loves on a forum for THAT game.
What was he thinking!? How can ANYONE not agree with your divine rightious un-biased statements? Idiots, all of them No one has to agree with me, I just would like to see some facts when people claim outrageous things like "LotRO cannot be updated graphically but VG can". How about you read my post CLEARLY before commenting. My views are opinions, and sometimes I support them with facts. I never stated my opinions WERE facts. Actually, you proved my point, you jumped the gun even assuming I had a vendetta against SOE. It was entertaining.
Gosh Alryth, why do you keep coming here? You must be like 24h here in the Vanguard forum, by now everybody knows you dont like vanguard as a LOTRO Fanboi shouldnt you be there? I thought you were busy playing LOTRO . (LOTRO blows, happy that I gave my beta key away).
ROFLMAO... THANK GOD MR Business here is showing the LIGHT!!!
As someone who actually IS in business, you simply couldn't be more incorrect about your so-called spiral.
The truth is, the game is not in a good position. It's also true that the game can survive on only 75k subs, and it has much more then that.
The only thing that could bring this game down is the LACK of progress over the next 6 months. If the game is not solid by the next holiday season, it may have problems. So stop the "SKY IS fALLING!!!" BS...
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
"If LOTR already has "high rez textures" in place, then where could they go from there? Super duper hi rez? VG models do have a substantially higher poly count... redoing textures over time will be easy"
If it was so easy, it would have been done in the first place.
Do you design models? Do you know how easy it is to apply textures to an mmo that has been released?
Do you really think VG will have any major texture overhauls before the new mmos come along and stampede all over it? Funny thing is, even if VG had the best graphics in the world.. its gameplay would still have zero innovation. But unfortunately, the game's graphics are completely unoptimised and have caused many peolpe problems affecting gameplay even more.
Someone who actually knows anything about the process of retexturing models and landscapes in mmos please come and give me some facts.
And Your_Boss I come here because I can. In fact I won't be playing LotRO on release. I am waiting for the new mmos which add innovation to not just some but most aspects of the genre. If you don't like my posts don't read them, sheesh I couldn't care less if you think I am a fanboi. I just call em how I see em.
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
Vanguard players calling WoW launch terrible is the most fun and at the same time most stupid thing to hear. Ever. WoW’s launch was annoying because of its huge success and the fact Blizzard wasn’t prepared for that success. It’s launch problems where basically newbie areas overcrowding certain areas, which resulted into queues and in some cases server crashes (my server was thankfully fine). Aside from these problems WoW was basically finished, stable, polished and complete, at LAUNCH. Vanguards launch had nothing to do with being prepared for success, considering not one server was full or had queues during its first week. Vanguard was launched with a massive amount of bugs, most which still aren’t fixed, insane instability, constant servercrashes, daily maintenances (smartly planned at European evening prime time), entire zones not being finished, gamebreaking issues like finding crafting being broke, LFG being even worse then WoW (for a game that is supposed to resolve mainly about group play), insane inbalance between classes, mobs being bugged, entire areas constantly crashing, and the list goes on and on. The big difference between the WoW launch and the Vanguard launch is that WoW was basically allright, but Blizzard didn’t expect the amount of people and that caused some trouble during the first three weeks. The vanguard launch however is about a game that’s not finished, filled with bugs, hardly even of beta quality, and nothing of this has anything to do with success, its all about the core of the game not being ready. Vanguard as a game lacked any sort of polish and stability during its launch and it doesn’t matter if 5 people or 5000 people are logged in because vanguards problem was not amount of people logging in, it was core game that was rotten, and still is for that matter if I hear people still complain about many of the same issues here on this forum.
Sorry not exactly true what you are posting regarding wow:
The truth is, the game is not in a good position. It's also true that the game can survive on only 75k subs, and it has much more then that.
Exactly how can it survive on only 75k subs when even Brad threw around the 200-300k numbers as his barometer of success, with 500k being his ideal after one year of release?
75k is a pittance compared to any of those numbers, and taking into account the expenses that they probably have on a month to month basis, I'm curious how they would magically be able to survive on so few players.
they will cut down on the work force, then ull start to see unfixable bugs cause coders work very diffrently and it tages a while for a new guy to get a clue how the old one did and so on.. the list is long on whats gonna happen, its obvious that VG came we saw and it lost its gonna be the mediocre kid on the block for a few years before we start to see desperate pricecuts and 14day trial offers every week with new news on gamesites "we have improved soooo much since release we have added x and y"
The truth is, the game is not in a good position. It's also true that the game can survive on only 75k subs, and it has much more then that.
Exactly how can it survive on only 75k subs when even Brad threw around the 200-300k numbers as his barometer of success, with 500k being his ideal after one year of release?
75k is a pittance compared to any of those numbers, and taking into account the expenses that they probably have on a month to month basis, I'm curious how they would magically be able to survive on so few players.
That would be true if your numbers would be correct, however 75k subs is wrong....Brad has even stated here on the forums a couple weeks ago other numbers (close to 150k). Please research a little.
Its common knowledge the game cost 35 million to make. Assuming sales of 250,00 units (fairly generous) at $20 profit to the company (again a generous assumption), thats $5 million back. Continuing with our favorable analysis, assume 250,000 active accounts at all times at $15 dollars a month, gross of 3.75 mil a month. Subtract from that the costs associated with game hardware and upkeep and salaries and you might have 2.5 million a month in profit return. So at these numbers you need to maintain population for at least a year to make the money back. I will make another generous assumption and give you credit for average intelligence so I'm sure you can do the math, if not theres a calculator on your start tab. Given that these are VERY generous assumptions, can VG tread water for a year? What I don't know concerning the financials from SOE's standpoint, if it is obvious the initial investment will not be recouped but the game is still generating a profit, albeit a small one, will it remain open for business?
As far as SOE is concerned, it is not simply about gaining that initial investment back and maintaining profitability for the game itself. This is a piece of their pie. And the existence of Vanguard, whether people like it or not, has allowed them to up the price of their Station Access pass at what additional costs to SOE? Yes they have maintenance costs, billing infrastructure (which was already in place essentially) but they get to charge more for that Station Access for people regardless of whether they bought Vanguard or not.
The problem with all the doom-sayers, is that they do not look at the whole picture. Yes, you've been able to make a lot of assumptions on some favorable figures, but you've still ignored looking at from SOE's point of view as a company with XX number of other games on their platform. Yes, Vanguard has it's issues and it's competition coming up will put it and it's team to the test. But in today's market, the game as it currently is (and it's potential) still adds value to SOE's offering, and allows them to charge more per S. Access customer. I'm sure they are on Sigil's arse to get the game improved, but higher monthly sub rates are obviously part of SOE's plans as they take on more MMO's under their offering.
Nicely disguised insult to his intelligence there, it was very creative and unique. I'm sure you will resort to such tactics in response to this as I've simply pointed out things that you didn't think of, but just know that I've never played Vanguard. I've watched the game and discussions on it because it has interested me and I'll be at least giving it a good shot in couple months.
Comments
Vanguard players calling WoW launch terrible is the most fun and at the same time most stupid thing to hear. Ever.
WoW’s launch was annoying because of its huge success and the fact Blizzard wasn’t prepared for that success. It’s launch problems where basically newbie areas overcrowding certain areas, which resulted into queues and in some cases server crashes (my server was thankfully fine). Aside from these problems WoW was basically finished, stable, polished and complete, at LAUNCH.
Vanguards launch had nothing to do with being prepared for success, considering not one server was full or had queues during its first week. Vanguard was launched with a massive amount of bugs, most which still aren’t fixed, insane instability, constant servercrashes, daily maintenances (smartly planned at European evening prime time), entire zones not being finished, gamebreaking issues like finding crafting being broke, LFG being even worse then WoW (for a game that is supposed to resolve mainly about group play), insane inbalance between classes, mobs being bugged, entire areas constantly crashing, and the list goes on and on.
The big difference between the WoW launch and the Vanguard launch is that WoW was basically allright, but Blizzard didn’t expect the amount of people and that caused some trouble during the first three weeks. The vanguard launch however is about a game that’s not finished, filled with bugs, hardly even of beta quality, and nothing of this has anything to do with success, its all about the core of the game not being ready. Vanguard as a game lacked any sort of polish and stability during its launch and it doesn’t matter if 5 people or 5000 people are logged in because vanguards problem was not amount of people logging in, it was core game that was rotten, and still is for that matter if I hear people still complain about many of the same issues here on this forum.
Thamoris do you even read posts?
His statement was not about LOTRO, it was about the future games that will accelerate VGs downward spiral. Which is extremely true whether you like it or not.
Don't try and discredit a poster when you don't read his post correctly.
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs
Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW
Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
Are the server populations still mostly high and medium during prime time? I would guess with the way they implemented housing plots it would be hard for them to start to consolidate servers even if would improve the game experience by making it easier to find a group.
I miss DAoC
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
The problem if the numbers turn out like this is that Sigil will be forced to cut costs at some point and, since VG is Sigil's only source of revenue at the moment, the 100+ employees might be the first target of cost-cutting (which might affect the game's quality in the long run).
There's no real concrete info on VG's numbers so all this is just guessing and gross approximation. Hopefully they will do well enough to not to have to cut costs in a way detrimental to VG's future.
Has this game gone f2p yet, like Archlord?
Many games had a worse launch and survived. IE... Anarchy Online. It was in much worse shape than VG at launch, and here six years after, it's still around... has a good player base and is a great game. Don't agree? Well the successes of AO has funded the development of Age of Conan… both as a revenue maker and an example of game making that has secured FunCom funding from new sources. VG isn’t as bad as many here would have you believe. Take graphics for example... VG models have a high polygon count that stress today’s machines, where as LOTR has lower poly models with great textures. LOTR is as good looking as it will ever get... VG on the other hand has much room for improvement because the models are already complex and textures are easier to redo. Hence three years from now LOTR will look old and VG can and probably will look outstanding. Also because it is not based on very narrowly defined lore, VG can go any way the devs want to take it without fear of crossing the line of some franchise. While it was launched unfinished the dev team is working very hard to fix this... An example is game performance which has improved significantly recently. If you haven’t played since launch, you would be surprised.
Many games had a worse launch and survived. IE... Anarchy Online. It was in much worse shape than VG at launch, and here six years after, it's still around... has a good player base and is a great game. Don't agree? Well the successes of AO has funded the development of Age of Conan… both as a revenue maker and an example of game making that has secured FunCom funding from new sources. VG isn’t as bad as many here would have you believe. Take graphics for example... VG models have a high polygon count that stress today’s machines, where as LOTR has lower poly models with great textures. LOTR is as good looking as it will ever get... VG on the other hand has much room for improvement because the models are already complex and textures are easier to redo. Hence three years from now LOTR will look old and VG can and probably will look outstanding. Also because it is not based on very narrowly defined lore, VG can go any way the devs want to take it without fear of crossing the line of some franchise. While it was launched unfinished the dev team is working very hard to fix this... An example is game performance which has improved significantly recently. If you haven’t played since launch, you would be surprised.
Same ol crap that gets posted on every forum.
Provide some facts supporting your outrageous assumptions.
I will highlight in a nice bright colour which statements made me LOL.
.
.
.
There you go.
Want me to address?
- AO in worse shape than VG at launch is very debateable. Saying it is a great game now and it funded AoC's development is a complete assumption. You do relise what a publisher is right?
- LotRO will always have better looking graphics than VG, saying VG's graphics CAN improve and LotRO's graphics CAN'T improve is now on my list of completely idiodic things that have ever came from a vanboi's mouth.
- There is nothing more complex about VG's models than most mmos out today. Do not kid yourself.
- Three years from now VG will be nothing more than a station access game. Assumption? Yes. More likely to happen than your bias opinion? Yes!
Have fun with your broken visioned, viral marketed, waste of space, still in beta game. Just don't post crap like this again.
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs
Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW
Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
Not even with hundreds of in-game adds like Planetside would they make Vanguard free to play.
Wow thanks really inciteful, I can really feel your hate and gloom and bitterness, I feel sorry for you.
Lol.... never heard such rubbish, these forums amaze me.
/pops back to VG and continues having a great time with 10's thousands of other people.
/wave
To begin, VG has 150K registered users not 150K subscribers. If there were 150K subscribers,
the existing number of servers could not accommodate the players. In a similar vein, the constant
150K subscribers is way over optimistic. Since they never had 150K subscribers, projecting 150K
subscribers for every month for the next 60 months seems a bit ludicrous. Seeing that VG has already
dropped low on the sales charts after two months, it is highly unlikely it will reappear higher on the
charts without a major overhaul. It will be a miracle if 1 million characters get created, much less 1
million boxes being sold.
So no, the game will take a long time if ever before it grosses 35 million dollars.
Many games had a worse launch and survived. IE... Anarchy Online. It was in much worse shape than VG at launch, and here six years after, it's still around... has a good player base and is a great game. Don't agree? Well the successes of AO has funded the development of Age of Conan… both as a revenue maker and an example of game making that has secured FunCom funding from new sources. VG isn’t as bad as many here would have you believe. Take graphics for example... VG models have a high polygon count that stress today’s machines, where as LOTR has lower poly models with great textures. LOTR is as good looking as it will ever get... VG on the other hand has much room for improvement because the models are already complex and textures are easier to redo. Hence three years from now LOTR will look old and VG can and probably will look outstanding. Also because it is not based on very narrowly defined lore, VG can go any way the devs want to take it without fear of crossing the line of some franchise. While it was launched unfinished the dev team is working very hard to fix this... An example is game performance which has improved significantly recently. If you haven’t played since launch, you would be surprised.
Same ol crap that gets posted on every forum.
Provide some facts supporting your outrageous assumptions.
I will highlight in a nice bright colour which statements made me LOL.
Practice what you preach, maybe? No, that might ruin that hardcore overzaelous hater image you've worked SO hard to build. Right?
.
There you go.
Want me to address?
- AO in worse shape than VG at launch is very debateable. Saying it is a great game now and it funded AoC's development is a complete assumption. You do relise what a publisher is right?
Nothing but an opinion.
- LotRO will always have better looking graphics than VG, saying VG's graphics CAN improve and LotRO's graphics CAN'T improve is now on my list of completely idiodic things that have ever came from a vanboi's mouth.
Nothing but an opinion on the way graphics look. And wrong, any game can get a graphics update, even if it's just as simple as replacing current textures with higher res ones.
- There is nothing more complex about VG's models than most mmos out today. Do not kid yourself.
Very wrong. Vanguard does have a many more polygon's on character's than most of this generation's games. There are numbers somewhere, but I'm too lazy, like you, to find them. At least I admitted to it. Though me saying that is just as bad as you spitting that same trash you wrote.
- Three years from now VG will be nothing more than a station access game. Assumption? Yes. More likely to happen than your bias opinion? Yes!
Every game on the SOE network is a Station Access game. Are you saying that every game currently under SOE's charge is a failure? And your opinion isn't biased, how?
Have fun with your broken visioned, viral marketed, waste of space, still in beta game. Just don't post crap like this again.
Sorry, I missed the part where you posted the official credentials stating that all of your opinions must be fact and everyone who didn't agree with yours were blasphemy. Gawd forbid someone stands up and gives his opinion of a game he loves on a forum for THAT game.
What was he thinking!? How can ANYONE not agree with your divine rightious un-biased statements? Idiots, all of them!
IT IS UNDERSTOOD.
Will you people please stop posting these threads? Talk about a dead horse.
And before you come back with some crap about how you're 'saving new people from buying this game' just STFU. I don't get antagonistic very often. There are PLENTY of threads like this already. We all get it. You don't have to go make an alt ID just so you can flame the game again and pretend you're someone new.
Thank you. Now back to your regularly scheduled flame war.
--------
"Give a man a fire, and he is warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life."
Many games had a worse launch and survived. IE... Anarchy Online. It was in much worse shape than VG at launch, and here six years after, it's still around... has a good player base and is a great game. Don't agree? Well the successes of AO has funded the development of Age of Conan… both as a revenue maker and an example of game making that has secured FunCom funding from new sources. VG isn’t as bad as many here would have you believe. Take graphics for example... VG models have a high polygon count that stress today’s machines, where as LOTR has lower poly models with great textures. LOTR is as good looking as it will ever get... VG on the other hand has much room for improvement because the models are already complex and textures are easier to redo. Hence three years from now LOTR will look old and VG can and probably will look outstanding. Also because it is not based on very narrowly defined lore, VG can go any way the devs want to take it without fear of crossing the line of some franchise. While it was launched unfinished the dev team is working very hard to fix this... An example is game performance which has improved significantly recently. If you haven’t played since launch, you would be surprised.
Same ol crap that gets posted on every forum.
Provide some facts supporting your outrageous assumptions.
I will highlight in a nice bright colour which statements made me LOL.
Practice what you preach, maybe? No, that might ruin that hardcore overzaelous hater image you've worked SO hard to build. Right?
Ok then.
.
There you go.
Want me to address?
- AO in worse shape than VG at launch is very debateable. Saying it is a great game now and it funded AoC's development is a complete assumption. You do relise what a publisher is right?
Nothing but an opinion.
Thank you for stating the obvious.
- LotRO will always have better looking graphics than VG, saying VG's graphics CAN improve and LotRO's graphics CAN'T improve is now on my list of completely idiodic things that have ever came from a vanboi's mouth.
Nothing but an opinion on the way graphics look. And wrong, any game can get a graphics update, even if it's just as simple as replacing current textures with higher res ones.
Wrong? I was the one saying that any game can get a graphical update. The poster I quoted said that LotRO cannot get updated and VG can. Which is untrue. You misread my post.
- There is nothing more complex about VG's models than most mmos out today. Do not kid yourself.
Very wrong. Vanguard does have a many more polygon's on character's than most of this generation's games. There are numbers somewhere, but I'm too lazy, like you, to find them. At least I admitted to it. Though me saying that is just as bad as you spitting that same trash you wrote.
Polygon count = Complexity now?
- Three years from now VG will be nothing more than a station access game. Assumption? Yes. More likely to happen than your bias opinion? Yes!
Every game on the SOE network is a Station Access game. Are you saying that every game currently under SOE's charge is a failure? And your opinion isn't biased, how?
Good on you for taking my comment and placing it out of proportion. I stated VG will be NOTHING MORE than a station access game. Never did I suggest that every game under SOE's charge is a failure. In fact I have NEVER played an SOE game BESIDES VG.
Have fun with your broken visioned, viral marketed, waste of space, still in beta game. Just don't post crap like this again.
Sorry, I missed the part where you posted the official credentials stating that all of your opinions must be fact and everyone who didn't agree with yours were blasphemy. Gawd forbid someone stands up and gives his opinion of a game he loves on a forum for THAT game.
What was he thinking!? How can ANYONE not agree with your divine rightious un-biased statements? Idiots, all of them
No one has to agree with me, I just would like to see some facts when people claim outrageous things like "LotRO cannot be updated graphically but VG can".
How about you read my post CLEARLY before commenting. My views are opinions, and sometimes I support them with facts. I never stated my opinions WERE facts.
Actually, you proved my point, you jumped the gun even assuming I had a vendetta against SOE. It was entertaining.
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs
Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW
Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
Not even with hundreds of in-game adds like Planetside would they make Vanguard free to play.
Too bad. They might get the player base they are looking for if they go f2p. Of course, then again, like Archlord, they may not.
Same ol crap that gets posted on every forum.
Provide some facts supporting your outrageous assumptions.
I will highlight in a nice bright colour which statements made me LOL.
Practice what you preach, maybe? No, that might ruin that hardcore overzaelous hater image you've worked SO hard to build. Right?
Ok then.
.
There you go.
Want me to address?
- AO in worse shape than VG at launch is very debateable. Saying it is a great game now and it funded AoC's development is a complete assumption. You do relise what a publisher is right?
Nothing but an opinion.
Thank you for stating the obvious.
- LotRO will always have better looking graphics than VG, saying VG's graphics CAN improve and LotRO's graphics CAN'T improve is now on my list of completely idiodic things that have ever came from a vanboi's mouth.
Nothing but an opinion on the way graphics look. And wrong, any game can get a graphics update, even if it's just as simple as replacing current textures with higher res ones.
Wrong? I was the one saying that any game can get a graphical update. The poster I quoted said that LotRO cannot get updated and VG can. Which is untrue. You misread my post.
- There is nothing more complex about VG's models than most mmos out today. Do not kid yourself.
Very wrong. Vanguard does have a many more polygon's on character's than most of this generation's games. There are numbers somewhere, but I'm too lazy, like you, to find them. At least I admitted to it. Though me saying that is just as bad as you spitting that same trash you wrote.
Polygon count = Complexity now?
- Three years from now VG will be nothing more than a station access game. Assumption? Yes. More likely to happen than your bias opinion? Yes!
Every game on the SOE network is a Station Access game. Are you saying that every game currently under SOE's charge is a failure? And your opinion isn't biased, how?
Good on you for taking my comment and placing it out of proportion. I stated VG will be NOTHING MORE than a station access game. Never did I suggest that every game under SOE's charge is a failure. In fact I have NEVER played an SOE game BESIDES VG.
Have fun with your broken visioned, viral marketed, waste of space, still in beta game. Just don't post crap like this again.
Sorry, I missed the part where you posted the official credentials stating that all of your opinions must be fact and everyone who didn't agree with yours were blasphemy. Gawd forbid someone stands up and gives his opinion of a game he loves on a forum for THAT game.
What was he thinking!? How can ANYONE not agree with your divine rightious un-biased statements? Idiots, all of them
No one has to agree with me, I just would like to see some facts when people claim outrageous things like "LotRO cannot be updated graphically but VG can".
How about you read my post CLEARLY before commenting. My views are opinions, and sometimes I support them with facts. I never stated my opinions WERE facts.
Actually, you proved my point, you jumped the gun even assuming I had a vendetta against SOE. It was entertaining.
First: You can't find a publisher if you have no track record. So your attempt to insult me is just silly.
Second: It's much easier to redo textures than it is object models and new animations. If LOTR already has "high rez textures" in place, then where could they go from there? Super duper hi rez? VG models do have a substantially higher poly count... redoing textures over time will be easy.
Many games had a worse launch and survived. IE... Anarchy Online. It was in much worse shape than VG at launch, and here six years after, it's still around... has a good player base and is a great game. Don't agree? Well the successes of AO has funded the development of Age of Conan… both as a revenue maker and an example of game making that has secured FunCom funding from new sources. VG isn’t as bad as many here would have you believe. Take graphics for example... VG models have a high polygon count that stress today’s machines, where as LOTR has lower poly models with great textures. LOTR is as good looking as it will ever get... VG on the other hand has much room for improvement because the models are already complex and textures are easier to redo. Hence three years from now LOTR will look old and VG can and probably will look outstanding. Also because it is not based on very narrowly defined lore, VG can go any way the devs want to take it without fear of crossing the line of some franchise. While it was launched unfinished the dev team is working very hard to fix this... An example is game performance which has improved significantly recently. If you haven’t played since launch, you would be surprised.
Same ol crap that gets posted on every forum.
Provide some facts supporting your outrageous assumptions.
I will highlight in a nice bright colour which statements made me LOL.
Practice what you preach, maybe? No, that might ruin that hardcore overzaelous hater image you've worked SO hard to build. Right?
Ok then.
.
There you go.
Want me to address?
- AO in worse shape than VG at launch is very debateable. Saying it is a great game now and it funded AoC's development is a complete assumption. You do relise what a publisher is right?
Nothing but an opinion.
Thank you for stating the obvious.
- LotRO will always have better looking graphics than VG, saying VG's graphics CAN improve and LotRO's graphics CAN'T improve is now on my list of completely idiodic things that have ever came from a vanboi's mouth.
Nothing but an opinion on the way graphics look. And wrong, any game can get a graphics update, even if it's just as simple as replacing current textures with higher res ones.
Wrong? I was the one saying that any game can get a graphical update. The poster I quoted said that LotRO cannot get updated and VG can. Which is untrue. You misread my post.
- There is nothing more complex about VG's models than most mmos out today. Do not kid yourself.
Very wrong. Vanguard does have a many more polygon's on character's than most of this generation's games. There are numbers somewhere, but I'm too lazy, like you, to find them. At least I admitted to it. Though me saying that is just as bad as you spitting that same trash you wrote.
Polygon count = Complexity now?
- Three years from now VG will be nothing more than a station access game. Assumption? Yes. More likely to happen than your bias opinion? Yes!
Every game on the SOE network is a Station Access game. Are you saying that every game currently under SOE's charge is a failure? And your opinion isn't biased, how?
Good on you for taking my comment and placing it out of proportion. I stated VG will be NOTHING MORE than a station access game. Never did I suggest that every game under SOE's charge is a failure. In fact I have NEVER played an SOE game BESIDES VG.
Have fun with your broken visioned, viral marketed, waste of space, still in beta game. Just don't post crap like this again.
Sorry, I missed the part where you posted the official credentials stating that all of your opinions must be fact and everyone who didn't agree with yours were blasphemy. Gawd forbid someone stands up and gives his opinion of a game he loves on a forum for THAT game.
What was he thinking!? How can ANYONE not agree with your divine rightious un-biased statements? Idiots, all of them
No one has to agree with me, I just would like to see some facts when people claim outrageous things like "LotRO cannot be updated graphically but VG can".
How about you read my post CLEARLY before commenting. My views are opinions, and sometimes I support them with facts. I never stated my opinions WERE facts.
Actually, you proved my point, you jumped the gun even assuming I had a vendetta against SOE. It was entertaining.
Gosh Alryth, why do you keep coming here? You must be like 24h here in the Vanguard forum, by now everybody knows you dont like vanguard as a LOTRO Fanboi shouldnt you be there? I thought you were busy playing LOTRO . (LOTRO blows, happy that I gave my beta key away).
ROFLMAO... THANK GOD MR Business here is showing the LIGHT!!!
As someone who actually IS in business, you simply couldn't be more incorrect about your so-called spiral.
The truth is, the game is not in a good position. It's also true that the game can survive on only 75k subs, and it has much more then that.
The only thing that could bring this game down is the LACK of progress over the next 6 months. If the game is not solid by the next holiday season, it may have problems. So stop the "SKY IS fALLING!!!" BS...
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
In fact, forget the SWG!!!!
"If LOTR already has "high rez textures" in place, then where could they go from there? Super duper hi rez? VG models do have a substantially higher poly count... redoing textures over time will be easy"
If it was so easy, it would have been done in the first place.
Do you design models? Do you know how easy it is to apply textures to an mmo that has been released?
Do you really think VG will have any major texture overhauls before the new mmos come along and stampede all over it? Funny thing is, even if VG had the best graphics in the world.. its gameplay would still have zero innovation. But unfortunately, the game's graphics are completely unoptimised and have caused many peolpe problems affecting gameplay even more.
Someone who actually knows anything about the process of retexturing models and landscapes in mmos please come and give me some facts.
And Your_Boss I come here because I can. In fact I won't be playing LotRO on release. I am waiting for the new mmos which add innovation to not just some but most aspects of the genre. If you don't like my posts don't read them, sheesh I couldn't care less if you think I am a fanboi. I just call em how I see em.
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs
Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW
Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
Sorry not exactly true what you are posting regarding wow:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6063990.html
75k is a pittance compared to any of those numbers, and taking into account the expenses that they probably have on a month to month basis, I'm curious how they would magically be able to survive on so few players.
75k is a pittance compared to any of those numbers, and taking into account the expenses that they probably have on a month to month basis, I'm curious how they would magically be able to survive on so few players.
That would be true if your numbers would be correct, however 75k subs is wrong....Brad has even stated here on the forums a couple weeks ago other numbers (close to 150k). Please research a little.
As far as SOE is concerned, it is not simply about gaining that initial investment back and maintaining profitability for the game itself. This is a piece of their pie. And the existence of Vanguard, whether people like it or not, has allowed them to up the price of their Station Access pass at what additional costs to SOE? Yes they have maintenance costs, billing infrastructure (which was already in place essentially) but they get to charge more for that Station Access for people regardless of whether they bought Vanguard or not.
The problem with all the doom-sayers, is that they do not look at the whole picture. Yes, you've been able to make a lot of assumptions on some favorable figures, but you've still ignored looking at from SOE's point of view as a company with XX number of other games on their platform. Yes, Vanguard has it's issues and it's competition coming up will put it and it's team to the test. But in today's market, the game as it currently is (and it's potential) still adds value to SOE's offering, and allows them to charge more per S. Access customer. I'm sure they are on Sigil's arse to get the game improved, but higher monthly sub rates are obviously part of SOE's plans as they take on more MMO's under their offering.
Nicely disguised insult to his intelligence there, it was very creative and unique. I'm sure you will resort to such tactics in response to this as I've simply pointed out things that you didn't think of, but just know that I've never played Vanguard. I've watched the game and discussions on it because it has interested me and I'll be at least giving it a good shot in couple months.