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.
what brad said and what the thruth is , is 2 very diffrent things.. need we go through all statements on what vanguard is and was going to be ?
remember the stickied thread "truth about vanguard" where he basicly lied about everything possible ? just an example, this isnt the only board hes been to, should check fires of heaven
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.
150k registered users. NOT active subscriptions. Maybe you should research?
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
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.
I'm well aware what Brad has said. However, it was MX13 who said that this game can survive on 75k, and I'm looking for clarification on just how that would be possible, when even Brad thinks the current numbers are too low for his liking, and when Brad has thrown around much higher numbers as a barometer of success.
Look at all the signs. You know it to be true... Everything that has come to pass with Vanguard since before launch is almost identical to Horizons.
...except the drama of firing the original designer... but even that was minor...
Look at the Fanboi's and Trolls... they're all singing the exact same posts and tunes that they sang 3.5 short years ago when Horizons was landing onto the market. Not just 1 side, both sides.
Look at the Devs, they're saying all the same things the Devs from Horizons said.
Look at the state of the game! It's exactly the same amount of unfinished as Horizons was at release with promise of fixes and adding the playable content later.
Dev time and overdrawn bank accounts... all the same as Horizons...
Want to see the future for Vanguard? Read the history of what happened with Horizons. Vanguard's only saving grace will be if Sony takes over the reigns and pulls it together over the course of the next year or 2... of which I believe they will. Just like EQ2, they'll make VG work.
Do a little research on Horizons... or if you were there you know what I'm talking about.
- CaesarsGhost
Lead Gameplay and Gameworld Designer for a yet unnamed MMO Title. "When people tell me designing a game is easy, I try to get them to design a board game. Most people don't last 5 minutes, the rest rarely last more then a day. The final few realize it's neither fun nor easy."
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:
You need some reading comprehension because what i said was that WoW's problems where mainly with overpopulation and the fact they got more customers then they expected and that is exactly what your link CONFIRMS.
Vanguard's problem don't have to do anything with overpopulation, they are far more serious, they are problems of the core game engine not being close to ready for release and it doesn't matter if 5 or 5000 people are playing on the server as these problems are problems with the core of the game (such as broken quests, empty zones, a plethoria of gamebreaking bugs, balancing issues, etc, etc, etc).
For what its worth in my first 3 weeks of WoW play i was enjoying myself immensely and i hardly had much problem with serverlag or other issues, vanguard however basically chased away my entire guild, including myself, with its way more serious and integral issues.
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.
150k registered users. NOT active subscriptions. Maybe you should research?
Sure no problem at all, he ment subs you troll, unlike you I can back it up:
while I agree this isn't exactly breaking news. Vanguard is a dead game. Anybody who thinks it will survive LotR, WAR and AoC is out of their mind. VG wasn't released to compete with what's coming. They simply are trying to recover as much money as possible before they eventually have to pull the plug. 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.
One name, world of warcraft.
Terrible launch, terrible game, ummm..... 8 millions playing 6 of them are kids (worst community EVER), omw to vanguard. EQ folks another one otw... WoW only had a bad launch becuase the servers where overloaded, in the first month blizzard had to support over 500,000 players on 7 servers in the EU, this was fixed in 6 weeks when blizzard launched 19 new servers. Yes it was 2 years ago and probably forget some of the bugs, 2 major bugs I remember are falling through the world twice and disconnected often when going through an instance portal (this was linked to overload servers).
VG had a bad launched because of bugs, poor performance even in top spec PC's and poor reviews. Bugs can be fixed, sigil have more or less said they will w8 for hardware to catch-up rather than improve performance and they cannot fix the reviews. Also no offical forums are hurting the game.
Let me strongly disagree, wow came with a lot of bugs at beginning the overpopulated fact should not be used as excuses. Heck even the burning crusade is hell bugged , I still have like 20 quests to do that were bugged at begining (day one of expansion) and that still are bugged today. Some of those are in terokkar forest, blade's edge, netherstorm and 2 or 3 in shadowmoon valley., Heck there are even some raid encounters bugged in gruul's lair.
Vanguard and World of warcraft are like the same, two games in constant development and it took me awhile to realize that.
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:
You need some reading comprehension because what i said was that WoW's problems where mainly with overpopulation and the fact they got more customers then they expected and that is exactly what your link CONFIRMS.
Vanguard's problem don't have to do anything with overpopulation, they are far more serious, they are problems of the core game engine not being close to ready for release and it doesn't matter if 5 or 5000 people are playing on the server as these problems are problems with the core of the game (such as broken quests, empty zones, a plethoria of gamebreaking bugs, balancing issues, etc, etc, etc).
For what its worth in my first 3 weeks of WoW play i was enjoying myself immensely and i hardly had much problem with serverlag or other issues, vanguard however basically chased away my entire guild, including myself, with its way more serious and integral issues.
No you need some comprehension... Here from the link I just posted...:
According to players, the problems have been especially acute since Blizzard implemented its last major patch to WoW, in late March. At that time, the company acknowledged it had some temporary server problems but said they'd resolve themselves within hours. But some players say that ever since then, they're routinely encountered "urgent maintenance" that can result in being booted from the game at any time. "
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.
Success & Survival are two different things.
Success: Brad buys a Bently.
Survival: Brad buys a Scion.
Let's say over the next year they sell 500k units, with average profit of $15 per unit (actually, that's a LOW estimate). That's $7.5 Million from boxes.
Now, add to that 75k Subs average over the year, at a clean $10 per Sub, per Month. Add to that $7.5 Mil another $9 Mil, for a total of $16.5 Mil.
Now, considering you can easily run a full 100 man team for $3.5 Mil with all Benefits & expenses, you can see how they can survive.
MMO's are EXTREAMLY profitable, that's why you see every Developer and teir Brother jumping into the MMO arena.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
while I agree this isn't exactly breaking news. Vanguard is a dead game. Anybody who thinks it will survive LotR, WAR and AoC is out of their mind. VG wasn't released to compete with what's coming. They simply are trying to recover as much money as possible before they eventually have to pull the plug. 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.
One name, world of warcraft.
Terrible launch, terrible game, ummm..... 8 millions playing 6 of them are kids (worst community EVER), omw to vanguard. EQ folks another one otw...WoW only had a bad launch becuase the servers where overloaded, in the first month blizzard had to support over 500,000 players on 7 servers in the EU, this was fixed in 6 weeks when blizzard launched 19 new servers. Yes it was 2 years ago and probably forget some of the bugs, 2 major bugs I remember are falling through the world twice and disconnected often when going through an instance portal (this was linked to overload servers).
VG had a bad launched because of bugs, poor performance even in top spec PC's and poor reviews. Bugs can be fixed, sigil have more or less said they will w8 for hardware to catch-up rather than improve performance and they cannot fix the reviews. Also no offical forums are hurting the game.
Let me strongly disagree, wow came with a lot of bugs at beginning the overpopulated fact should not be used as excuses. Heck even the burning crusade is hell bugged , I still have like 20 quests to do that were bugged at begining (day one of expansion) and that still are bugged today. Some of those are in terokkar forest, blade's edge, netherstorm and 2 or 3 in shadowmoon valley., Heck there are even some raid encounters bugged in gruul's lair.
Vanguard and World of warcraft are like the same, two games in constant development and it took me awhile to realize that.
Gruul's lair has a well known bug. But i dont believe you have 20 bugged quests, thats just bullshit. How i know? because i basically did every quest in outland and i haven't found a single bugged one. I would advise you to look good in your quest log, you probably have missed something or have to invest more time finding the exact location.
Not to mention SoE has enough going on to absorb profit loss on this game until its picks up .. its not a bad game has bugs alot of them .. lol i don't play it anymore ... but iwill probably pick it up again later
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:
You need some reading comprehension because what i said was that WoW's problems where mainly with overpopulation and the fact they got more customers then they expected and that is exactly what your link CONFIRMS.
Vanguard's problem don't have to do anything with overpopulation, they are far more serious, they are problems of the core game engine not being close to ready for release and it doesn't matter if 5 or 5000 people are playing on the server as these problems are problems with the core of the game (such as broken quests, empty zones, a plethoria of gamebreaking bugs, balancing issues, etc, etc, etc).
For what its worth in my first 3 weeks of WoW play i was enjoying myself immensely and i hardly had much problem with serverlag or other issues, vanguard however basically chased away my entire guild, including myself, with its way more serious and integral issues.
No you need some comprehension... Here from the link I just posted...:
According to players, the problems have been especially acute since Blizzard implemented its last major patch to WoW, in late March. At that time, the company acknowledged it had some temporary server problems but said they'd resolve themselves within hours. But some players say that ever since then, they're routinely encountered "urgent maintenance" that can result in being booted from the game at any time. "
Ok so they went down a few hours in march (didnt even notice this at the time). That still doesn't change the fact that wow's launch was still smooth while Vanguard has been a disaster from the start.
Thank you Nostradamus. I was wondering...do you forsee me getting that Red Rider BB gun i wanted for Christmas?
Dude, people said the same thing about WoW when it first came out. It was buggy as hell. <yawn> Nothing new with these posts.
LMAO. Not quite, fanboi. WoW sold over 1 million copies its first month. Get a clue. Vanguard is a scam. Umm, I feel wow more like a scam and most of the people that i met in 3 servers so far, are below 15 years old, is hard to find people playing late night unless they be in pst.
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:
You need some reading comprehension because what i said was that WoW's problems where mainly with overpopulation and the fact they got more customers then they expected and that is exactly what your link CONFIRMS.
Vanguard's problem don't have to do anything with overpopulation, they are far more serious, they are problems of the core game engine not being close to ready for release and it doesn't matter if 5 or 5000 people are playing on the server as these problems are problems with the core of the game (such as broken quests, empty zones, a plethoria of gamebreaking bugs, balancing issues, etc, etc, etc).
For what its worth in my first 3 weeks of WoW play i was enjoying myself immensely and i hardly had much problem with serverlag or other issues, vanguard however basically chased away my entire guild, including myself, with its way more serious and integral issues.
No you need some comprehension... Here from the link I just posted...:
According to players, the problems have been especially acute since Blizzard implemented its last major patch to WoW, in late March. At that time, the company acknowledged it had some temporary server problems but said they'd resolve themselves within hours. But some players say that ever since then, they're routinely encountered "urgent maintenance" that can result in being booted from the game at any time. "
Ok so they went down a few hours in march (didnt even notice this at the time). That still doesn't change the fact that wow's launch was still smooth while Vanguard has been a disaster from the start.
Please, prove that vanguard has been a disaster. Just a hint for a structured approach: before you go on trying to prove it please define "disaster"
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.
150k registered users. NOT active subscriptions. Maybe you should research?
Sure no problem at all, he ment subs you troll, unlike you I can back it up:
The over 100k number I posted is registered users. We have now gone through billing cycles for the people who bought the game right away and very few people have cancelled. We are now nearing 150k registered users. I think these are pretty good numbers. I think they would be higher if we had had a little more time and not launched so near the WoW expansion, but we will recover from this short term situation. Overall we are very pleased.
The game is doing close in terms of growth to what EQ 1 did. EQ 2 did sell more the first month and mainly before WoW came out because it was an established franchise (e.g. a sequel).
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.
150k registered users. NOT active subscriptions. Maybe you should research?
Sure no problem at all, he ment subs you troll, unlike you I can back it up:
The over 100k number I posted is registered users. We have now gone through billing cycles for the people who bought the game right away and very few people have cancelled. We are now nearing 150k registered users. I think these are pretty good numbers. I think they would be higher if we had had a little more time and not launched so near the WoW expansion, but we will recover from this short term situation. Overall we are very pleased.
The game is doing close in terms of growth to what EQ 1 did. EQ 2 did sell more the first month and mainly before WoW came out because it was an established franchise (e.g. a sequel).
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.
Success & Survival are two different things.
Let's say over the next year they sell 500k units, with average profit of $15 per unit (actually, that's a LOW estimate). That's $7.5 Million from boxes.
Now, add to that 75k Subs average over the year, at a clean $10 per Sub, per Month. Add to that $7.5 Mil another $9 Mil, for a total of $16.5 Mil.
Now, considering you can easily run a full 100 man team for $3.5 Mil with all Benefits & expenses, you can see how they can survive.
MMO's are EXTREAMLY profitable, that's why you see every Developer and teir Brother jumping into the MMO arena.
A 100 man team of programmers, artists and coders for an MMO on $3.5 million total? LOL! You're not serious, are you? That would give each employee an average salary of $35,000 a year. In California, which is expensive as hell to live in. I've got friends there who spend that much on housing payments every year because real estate prices are insane.
And if you think that would take into account employee benefits, like health insurance, 401(k) and other IRA plans, etc., you're fooling yourself. That's not possible. Not for that little amount of money, and certainly not in California.
Considering that Sillicon Valley is right there, and that there are jobs for skilled professionals available there, and at much higher salaries than that, I *highly* doubt Sigil is only spending $35k a year total on each employee in order to keep them around.
And you're making the same mistake that other guy who was throwing numbers around made-- you're looking at those figures as pure profit, when there are things like office space, overhead, salaries, benefits, bandwith and server costs, taxes, etc. that also have to be considered. It's not nearly as simple as all that.
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:
You need some reading comprehension because what i said was that WoW's problems where mainly with overpopulation and the fact they got more customers then they expected and that is exactly what your link CONFIRMS.
Vanguard's problem don't have to do anything with overpopulation, they are far more serious, they are problems of the core game engine not being close to ready for release and it doesn't matter if 5 or 5000 people are playing on the server as these problems are problems with the core of the game (such as broken quests, empty zones, a plethoria of gamebreaking bugs, balancing issues, etc, etc, etc).
For what its worth in my first 3 weeks of WoW play i was enjoying myself immensely and i hardly had much problem with serverlag or other issues, vanguard however basically chased away my entire guild, including myself, with its way more serious and integral issues.
No you need some comprehension... Here from the link I just posted...:
According to players, the problems have been especially acute since Blizzard implemented its last major patch to WoW, in late March. At that time, the company acknowledged it had some temporary server problems but said they'd resolve themselves within hours. But some players say that ever since then, they're routinely encountered "urgent maintenance" that can result in being booted from the game at any time. "
Ok so they went down a few hours in march (didnt even notice this at the time). That still doesn't change the fact that wow's launch was still smooth while Vanguard has been a disaster from the start.
Please, prove that vanguard has been a disaster. Just a hint for a structured approach: before you go on trying to prove it please define "disaster"
Buy the game and find out yourself. Or just look at the general complaints, reactions on this forum, silky venom, VGbards or any vanguard related sites. I know complaints are usual on forums and the same is true for WoW, but not on the scale that vanguard has.
Furthermore every single review makes notice of the horrible launch, and as the final piece of evidence, Brad has himself admitted many times the launch was way to early and the game was not ready for release. But to really experience the disaster you'd have to actually buy the game and play it, which is what i did. Unfortunatly.
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:
You need some reading comprehension because what i said was that WoW's problems where mainly with overpopulation and the fact they got more customers then they expected and that is exactly what your link CONFIRMS.
Vanguard's problem don't have to do anything with overpopulation, they are far more serious, they are problems of the core game engine not being close to ready for release and it doesn't matter if 5 or 5000 people are playing on the server as these problems are problems with the core of the game (such as broken quests, empty zones, a plethoria of gamebreaking bugs, balancing issues, etc, etc, etc).
For what its worth in my first 3 weeks of WoW play i was enjoying myself immensely and i hardly had much problem with serverlag or other issues, vanguard however basically chased away my entire guild, including myself, with its way more serious and integral issues.
No you need some comprehension... Here from the link I just posted...:
According to players, the problems have been especially acute since Blizzard implemented its last major patch to WoW, in late March. At that time, the company acknowledged it had some temporary server problems but said they'd resolve themselves within hours. But some players say that ever since then, they're routinely encountered "urgent maintenance" that can result in being booted from the game at any time. "
Ok so they went down a few hours in march (didnt even notice this at the time). That still doesn't change the fact that wow's launch was still smooth while Vanguard has been a disaster from the start.
Please, prove that vanguard has been a disaster. Just a hint for a structured approach: before you go on trying to prove it please define "disaster"
Buy the game and find out yourself. Or just look at the general complaints, reactions on this forum, silky venom, VGbards or any vanguard related sites. I know complaints are usual on forums and the same is true for WoW, but not on the scale that vanguard has.
Furthermore every single review makes notice of the horrible launch, and as the final piece of evidence, Brad has himself admitted many times the launch was way to early and the game was not ready for release. But to really experience the disaster you'd have to actually buy the game and play it, which is what i did. Unfortunatly.
Unlike many flamers here who have only played it until launch, and have still their outdated opinions on the game, Im here since beta and am also playing other games. Vanguard is very enjoyable, but so are other games
Also, some body posted a topic here a couple of days ago and showed that the haters here are mostly always the same few, which maybe gives the impression that a vast majority is flaming.
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.
150k registered users. NOT active subscriptions. Maybe you should research?
Sure no problem at all, he ment subs you troll, unlike you I can back it up:
The over 100k number I posted is registered users. We have now gone through billing cycles for the people who bought the game right away and very few people have cancelled. We are now nearing 150k registered users. I think these are pretty good numbers. I think they would be higher if we had had a little more time and not launched so near the WoW expansion, but we will recover from this short term situation. Overall we are very pleased.
The game is doing close in terms of growth to what EQ 1 did. EQ 2 did sell more the first month and mainly before WoW came out because it was an established franchise (e.g. a sequel).
Well, although I'm not in the industry myself, I have 2 friends with 2 seperate companies in it. 35k is average. Interns, a large % of most teams make JACK, and due to saturation in the industry wages are lower then most expect. Also, not all employees are coders, there are acocuntants, etc.
It all depends on where you're located, your rep and the market. But let's say they are all paid like Kings and are paid $70k a year, at $7 Mil in total expenses, they're still turning a base profit, even while paying down D&A.
As far as game career guides, I'd rather hear from some in the industry...
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
Comments
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.
what brad said and what the thruth is , is 2 very diffrent things.. need we go through all statements on what vanguard is and was going to be ?
remember the stickied thread "truth about vanguard" where he basicly lied about everything possible ? just an example, this isnt the only board hes been to, should check fires of heaven
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.
150k registered users. NOT active subscriptions. Maybe you should research?
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs
Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW
Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
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.
I'm well aware what Brad has said. However, it was MX13 who said that this game can survive on 75k, and I'm looking for clarification on just how that would be possible, when even Brad thinks the current numbers are too low for his liking, and when Brad has thrown around much higher numbers as a barometer of success.
Look at all the signs. You know it to be true... Everything that has come to pass with Vanguard since before launch is almost identical to Horizons.
...except the drama of firing the original designer... but even that was minor...
Look at the Fanboi's and Trolls... they're all singing the exact same posts and tunes that they sang 3.5 short years ago when Horizons was landing onto the market. Not just 1 side, both sides.
Look at the Devs, they're saying all the same things the Devs from Horizons said.
Look at the state of the game! It's exactly the same amount of unfinished as Horizons was at release with promise of fixes and adding the playable content later.
Dev time and overdrawn bank accounts... all the same as Horizons...
Want to see the future for Vanguard? Read the history of what happened with Horizons. Vanguard's only saving grace will be if Sony takes over the reigns and pulls it together over the course of the next year or 2... of which I believe they will. Just like EQ2, they'll make VG work.
Do a little research on Horizons... or if you were there you know what I'm talking about.
- CaesarsGhost
Lead Gameplay and Gameworld Designer for a yet unnamed MMO Title.
"When people tell me designing a game is easy, I try to get them to design a board game. Most people don't last 5 minutes, the rest rarely last more then a day. The final few realize it's neither fun nor easy."
Sorry not exactly true what you are posting regarding wow:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6063990.html
You need some reading comprehension because what i said was that WoW's problems where mainly with overpopulation and the fact they got more customers then they expected and that is exactly what your link CONFIRMS.
Vanguard's problem don't have to do anything with overpopulation, they are far more serious, they are problems of the core game engine not being close to ready for release and it doesn't matter if 5 or 5000 people are playing on the server as these problems are problems with the core of the game (such as broken quests, empty zones, a plethoria of gamebreaking bugs, balancing issues, etc, etc, etc).
For what its worth in my first 3 weeks of WoW play i was enjoying myself immensely and i hardly had much problem with serverlag or other issues, vanguard however basically chased away my entire guild, including myself, with its way more serious and integral issues.
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.
150k registered users. NOT active subscriptions. Maybe you should research?
Sure no problem at all, he ment subs you troll, unlike you I can back it up:
http://www.fohguild.org/forums/retard-rickshaw-hall-shame/27044-why-all-nerd-rage-against-vanguard-94.html
Terrible launch, terrible game, ummm..... 8 millions playing 6 of them are kids (worst community EVER), omw to vanguard. EQ folks another one otw... WoW only had a bad launch becuase the servers where overloaded, in the first month blizzard had to support over 500,000 players on 7 servers in the EU, this was fixed in 6 weeks when blizzard launched 19 new servers. Yes it was 2 years ago and probably forget some of the bugs, 2 major bugs I remember are falling through the world twice and disconnected often when going through an instance portal (this was linked to overload servers).
VG had a bad launched because of bugs, poor performance even in top spec PC's and poor reviews. Bugs can be fixed, sigil have more or less said they will w8 for hardware to catch-up rather than improve performance and they cannot fix the reviews. Also no offical forums are hurting the game.
Let me strongly disagree, wow came with a lot of bugs at beginning the overpopulated fact should not be used as excuses. Heck even the burning crusade is hell bugged
Vanguard and World of warcraft are like the same, two games in constant development and it took me awhile to realize that.
Dimitrio Darkblade
Founder Leader of Vitae Essentia
http://www.veguild.org
Sorry not exactly true what you are posting regarding wow:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6063990.html
You need some reading comprehension because what i said was that WoW's problems where mainly with overpopulation and the fact they got more customers then they expected and that is exactly what your link CONFIRMS.
Vanguard's problem don't have to do anything with overpopulation, they are far more serious, they are problems of the core game engine not being close to ready for release and it doesn't matter if 5 or 5000 people are playing on the server as these problems are problems with the core of the game (such as broken quests, empty zones, a plethoria of gamebreaking bugs, balancing issues, etc, etc, etc).
For what its worth in my first 3 weeks of WoW play i was enjoying myself immensely and i hardly had much problem with serverlag or other issues, vanguard however basically chased away my entire guild, including myself, with its way more serious and integral issues.
No you need some comprehension... Here from the link I just posted...:
"Blizzard blames some of the problems--such as the disconnection, for several hours on Friday, of players linked to several servers--on AT&T, its network provider."
According to players, the problems have been especially acute since Blizzard implemented its last major patch to WoW, in late March. At that time, the company acknowledged it had some temporary server problems but said they'd resolve themselves within hours. But some players say that ever since then, they're routinely encountered "urgent maintenance" that can result in being booted from the game at any time. "
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.
Success & Survival are two different things.
Let's say over the next year they sell 500k units, with average profit of $15 per unit (actually, that's a LOW estimate). That's $7.5 Million from boxes.
Now, add to that 75k Subs average over the year, at a clean $10 per Sub, per Month. Add to that $7.5 Mil another $9 Mil, for a total of $16.5 Mil.
Now, considering you can easily run a full 100 man team for $3.5 Mil with all Benefits & expenses, you can see how they can survive.
MMO's are EXTREAMLY profitable, that's why you see every Developer and teir Brother jumping into the MMO arena.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
In fact, forget the SWG!!!!
Terrible launch, terrible game, ummm..... 8 millions playing 6 of them are kids (worst community EVER), omw to vanguard. EQ folks another one otw...WoW only had a bad launch becuase the servers where overloaded, in the first month blizzard had to support over 500,000 players on 7 servers in the EU, this was fixed in 6 weeks when blizzard launched 19 new servers. Yes it was 2 years ago and probably forget some of the bugs, 2 major bugs I remember are falling through the world twice and disconnected often when going through an instance portal (this was linked to overload servers).
VG had a bad launched because of bugs, poor performance even in top spec PC's and poor reviews. Bugs can be fixed, sigil have more or less said they will w8 for hardware to catch-up rather than improve performance and they cannot fix the reviews. Also no offical forums are hurting the game.
Let me strongly disagree, wow came with a lot of bugs at beginning the overpopulated fact should not be used as excuses. Heck even the burning crusade is hell bugged
Vanguard and World of warcraft are like the same, two games in constant development and it took me awhile to realize that.
Gruul's lair has a well known bug. But i dont believe you have 20 bugged quests, thats just bullshit. How i know? because i basically did every quest in outland and i haven't found a single bugged one. I would advise you to look good in your quest log, you probably have missed something or have to invest more time finding the exact location.
Not to mention SoE has enough going on to absorb profit loss on this game until its picks up .. its not a bad game has bugs alot of them .. lol i don't play it anymore ... but iwill probably pick it up again later
Sorry not exactly true what you are posting regarding wow:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6063990.html
You need some reading comprehension because what i said was that WoW's problems where mainly with overpopulation and the fact they got more customers then they expected and that is exactly what your link CONFIRMS.
Vanguard's problem don't have to do anything with overpopulation, they are far more serious, they are problems of the core game engine not being close to ready for release and it doesn't matter if 5 or 5000 people are playing on the server as these problems are problems with the core of the game (such as broken quests, empty zones, a plethoria of gamebreaking bugs, balancing issues, etc, etc, etc).
For what its worth in my first 3 weeks of WoW play i was enjoying myself immensely and i hardly had much problem with serverlag or other issues, vanguard however basically chased away my entire guild, including myself, with its way more serious and integral issues.
No you need some comprehension... Here from the link I just posted...:
"Blizzard blames some of the problems--such as the disconnection, for several hours on Friday, of players linked to several servers--on AT&T, its network provider."
According to players, the problems have been especially acute since Blizzard implemented its last major patch to WoW, in late March. At that time, the company acknowledged it had some temporary server problems but said they'd resolve themselves within hours. But some players say that ever since then, they're routinely encountered "urgent maintenance" that can result in being booted from the game at any time. "
Ok so they went down a few hours in march (didnt even notice this at the time). That still doesn't change the fact that wow's launch was still smooth while Vanguard has been a disaster from the start.
Dimitrio Darkblade
Founder Leader of Vitae Essentia
http://www.veguild.org
Sorry not exactly true what you are posting regarding wow:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6063990.html
You need some reading comprehension because what i said was that WoW's problems where mainly with overpopulation and the fact they got more customers then they expected and that is exactly what your link CONFIRMS.
Vanguard's problem don't have to do anything with overpopulation, they are far more serious, they are problems of the core game engine not being close to ready for release and it doesn't matter if 5 or 5000 people are playing on the server as these problems are problems with the core of the game (such as broken quests, empty zones, a plethoria of gamebreaking bugs, balancing issues, etc, etc, etc).
For what its worth in my first 3 weeks of WoW play i was enjoying myself immensely and i hardly had much problem with serverlag or other issues, vanguard however basically chased away my entire guild, including myself, with its way more serious and integral issues.
No you need some comprehension... Here from the link I just posted...:
"Blizzard blames some of the problems--such as the disconnection, for several hours on Friday, of players linked to several servers--on AT&T, its network provider."
According to players, the problems have been especially acute since Blizzard implemented its last major patch to WoW, in late March. At that time, the company acknowledged it had some temporary server problems but said they'd resolve themselves within hours. But some players say that ever since then, they're routinely encountered "urgent maintenance" that can result in being booted from the game at any time. "
Ok so they went down a few hours in march (didnt even notice this at the time). That still doesn't change the fact that wow's launch was still smooth while Vanguard has been a disaster from the start.
Please, prove that vanguard has been a disaster. Just a hint for a structured approach: before you go on trying to prove it please define "disaster"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.
150k registered users. NOT active subscriptions. Maybe you should research?
Sure no problem at all, he ment subs you troll, unlike you I can back it up:
http://www.fohguild.org/forums/retard-rickshaw-hall-shame/27044-why-all-nerd-rage-against-vanguard-94.html
The over 100k number I posted is registered users. We have now gone through billing cycles for the people who bought the game right away and very few people have cancelled. We are now nearing 150k registered users. I think these are pretty good numbers. I think they would be higher if we had had a little more time and not launched so near the WoW expansion, but we will recover from this short term situation. Overall we are very pleased.
The game is doing close in terms of growth to what EQ 1 did. EQ 2 did sell more the first month and mainly before WoW came out because it was an established franchise (e.g. a sequel).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
www.vanguardsoh.com / www.sigil.com / www.bradmcquaid.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
??
I got that from an IGN forum a friend linked me to, I have no idea whether it's true or not.
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs
Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW
Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
Hmm maybe I should go start bashing threads in the Horizons or SWG forum? Yay what fun! Pathetic.
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.
150k registered users. NOT active subscriptions. Maybe you should research?
Sure no problem at all, he ment subs you troll, unlike you I can back it up:
http://www.fohguild.org/forums/retard-rickshaw-hall-shame/27044-why-all-nerd-rage-against-vanguard-94.html
The over 100k number I posted is registered users. We have now gone through billing cycles for the people who bought the game right away and very few people have cancelled. We are now nearing 150k registered users. I think these are pretty good numbers. I think they would be higher if we had had a little more time and not launched so near the WoW expansion, but we will recover from this short term situation. Overall we are very pleased.
The game is doing close in terms of growth to what EQ 1 did. EQ 2 did sell more the first month and mainly before WoW came out because it was an established franchise (e.g. a sequel).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
www.vanguardsoh.com / www.sigil.com / www.bradmcquaid.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
??
Ok, if your posting is correct then McQuaid is mixing subs and registered users up himself. He should clarify what he ment.
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.
Success & Survival are two different things.
Let's say over the next year they sell 500k units, with average profit of $15 per unit (actually, that's a LOW estimate). That's $7.5 Million from boxes.
Now, add to that 75k Subs average over the year, at a clean $10 per Sub, per Month. Add to that $7.5 Mil another $9 Mil, for a total of $16.5 Mil.
Now, considering you can easily run a full 100 man team for $3.5 Mil with all Benefits & expenses, you can see how they can survive.
MMO's are EXTREAMLY profitable, that's why you see every Developer and teir Brother jumping into the MMO arena.
A 100 man team of programmers, artists and coders for an MMO on $3.5 million total? LOL! You're not serious, are you? That would give each employee an average salary of $35,000 a year. In California, which is expensive as hell to live in. I've got friends there who spend that much on housing payments every year because real estate prices are insane.
And if you think that would take into account employee benefits, like health insurance, 401(k) and other IRA plans, etc., you're fooling yourself. That's not possible. Not for that little amount of money, and certainly not in California.
Considering that Sillicon Valley is right there, and that there are jobs for skilled professionals available there, and at much higher salaries than that, I *highly* doubt Sigil is only spending $35k a year total on each employee in order to keep them around.
And you're making the same mistake that other guy who was throwing numbers around made-- you're looking at those figures as pure profit, when there are things like office space, overhead, salaries, benefits, bandwith and server costs, taxes, etc. that also have to be considered. It's not nearly as simple as all that.
Sorry not exactly true what you are posting regarding wow:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6063990.html
You need some reading comprehension because what i said was that WoW's problems where mainly with overpopulation and the fact they got more customers then they expected and that is exactly what your link CONFIRMS.
Vanguard's problem don't have to do anything with overpopulation, they are far more serious, they are problems of the core game engine not being close to ready for release and it doesn't matter if 5 or 5000 people are playing on the server as these problems are problems with the core of the game (such as broken quests, empty zones, a plethoria of gamebreaking bugs, balancing issues, etc, etc, etc).
For what its worth in my first 3 weeks of WoW play i was enjoying myself immensely and i hardly had much problem with serverlag or other issues, vanguard however basically chased away my entire guild, including myself, with its way more serious and integral issues.
No you need some comprehension... Here from the link I just posted...:
"Blizzard blames some of the problems--such as the disconnection, for several hours on Friday, of players linked to several servers--on AT&T, its network provider."
According to players, the problems have been especially acute since Blizzard implemented its last major patch to WoW, in late March. At that time, the company acknowledged it had some temporary server problems but said they'd resolve themselves within hours. But some players say that ever since then, they're routinely encountered "urgent maintenance" that can result in being booted from the game at any time. "
Ok so they went down a few hours in march (didnt even notice this at the time). That still doesn't change the fact that wow's launch was still smooth while Vanguard has been a disaster from the start.
Please, prove that vanguard has been a disaster. Just a hint for a structured approach: before you go on trying to prove it please define "disaster"Buy the game and find out yourself. Or just look at the general complaints, reactions on this forum, silky venom, VGbards or any vanguard related sites. I know complaints are usual on forums and the same is true for WoW, but not on the scale that vanguard has.
Furthermore every single review makes notice of the horrible launch, and as the final piece of evidence, Brad has himself admitted many times the launch was way to early and the game was not ready for release. But to really experience the disaster you'd have to actually buy the game and play it, which is what i did. Unfortunatly.
Sorry not exactly true what you are posting regarding wow:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6063990.html
You need some reading comprehension because what i said was that WoW's problems where mainly with overpopulation and the fact they got more customers then they expected and that is exactly what your link CONFIRMS.
Vanguard's problem don't have to do anything with overpopulation, they are far more serious, they are problems of the core game engine not being close to ready for release and it doesn't matter if 5 or 5000 people are playing on the server as these problems are problems with the core of the game (such as broken quests, empty zones, a plethoria of gamebreaking bugs, balancing issues, etc, etc, etc).
For what its worth in my first 3 weeks of WoW play i was enjoying myself immensely and i hardly had much problem with serverlag or other issues, vanguard however basically chased away my entire guild, including myself, with its way more serious and integral issues.
No you need some comprehension... Here from the link I just posted...:
"Blizzard blames some of the problems--such as the disconnection, for several hours on Friday, of players linked to several servers--on AT&T, its network provider."
According to players, the problems have been especially acute since Blizzard implemented its last major patch to WoW, in late March. At that time, the company acknowledged it had some temporary server problems but said they'd resolve themselves within hours. But some players say that ever since then, they're routinely encountered "urgent maintenance" that can result in being booted from the game at any time. "
Ok so they went down a few hours in march (didnt even notice this at the time). That still doesn't change the fact that wow's launch was still smooth while Vanguard has been a disaster from the start.
Please, prove that vanguard has been a disaster. Just a hint for a structured approach: before you go on trying to prove it please define "disaster"Buy the game and find out yourself. Or just look at the general complaints, reactions on this forum, silky venom, VGbards or any vanguard related sites. I know complaints are usual on forums and the same is true for WoW, but not on the scale that vanguard has.
Furthermore every single review makes notice of the horrible launch, and as the final piece of evidence, Brad has himself admitted many times the launch was way to early and the game was not ready for release. But to really experience the disaster you'd have to actually buy the game and play it, which is what i did. Unfortunatly.
Unlike many flamers here who have only played it until launch, and have still their outdated opinions on the game, Im here since beta and am also playing other games. Vanguard is very enjoyable, but so are other games
Also, some body posted a topic here a couple of days ago and showed that the haters here are mostly always the same few, which maybe gives the impression that a vast majority is flaming.
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.
150k registered users. NOT active subscriptions. Maybe you should research?
Sure no problem at all, he ment subs you troll, unlike you I can back it up:
http://www.fohguild.org/forums/retard-rickshaw-hall-shame/27044-why-all-nerd-rage-against-vanguard-94.html
The over 100k number I posted is registered users. We have now gone through billing cycles for the people who bought the game right away and very few people have cancelled. We are now nearing 150k registered users. I think these are pretty good numbers. I think they would be higher if we had had a little more time and not launched so near the WoW expansion, but we will recover from this short term situation. Overall we are very pleased.
The game is doing close in terms of growth to what EQ 1 did. EQ 2 did sell more the first month and mainly before WoW came out because it was an established franchise (e.g. a sequel).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
www.vanguardsoh.com / www.sigil.com / www.bradmcquaid.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
??
Ok, if your posting is correct then McQuaid is mixing subs and registered users up himself. He should clarify what he ment.
Actually I think I am completely wrong, I am not sure whether my sources are even near legitimate. IGN link. http://vnboards.ign.com/forums/b1/101881873
That post claims it got it's information from here. Which it did. Which seems very fake. I apologise for my own confusion.
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs
Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW
Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
(www.gamecareerguide.com/features/266/are_you_in_demand_2006_game_.php to give you an idea of average wages in gaming industry, nevermind other expenses and benefits you have in addition to the basic wages)
I see this game only getting better with time, and i hope that time permits it too last for it to get better.
playing eq2 and two worlds
(www.gamecareerguide.com/features/266/are_you_in_demand_2006_game_.php to give you an idea of average wages in gaming industry, nevermind other expenses and benefits you have in addition to the basic wages)
Well, although I'm not in the industry myself, I have 2 friends with 2 seperate companies in it. 35k is average. Interns, a large % of most teams make JACK, and due to saturation in the industry wages are lower then most expect. Also, not all employees are coders, there are acocuntants, etc.
It all depends on where you're located, your rep and the market. But let's say they are all paid like Kings and are paid $70k a year, at $7 Mil in total expenses, they're still turning a base profit, even while paying down D&A.
As far as game career guides, I'd rather hear from some in the industry...
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
In fact, forget the SWG!!!!