I am unsure were this 500k sub prophecy comes from, and whis number is so important, it would obviously be nice for SOE if it reached that but I am sure they realise the reality of this, and so should you Healz.
Not if they poored another 30 million into it, not if they took the greatest game developrs from ALL companies and made a crack super team to work on it will vanguard ever reach 500k.
Thats just not how reality works.
The name is tarnished and every potential customer knows its history by now, as they are at least still aiming a bit for the "core" crowd the demographics they are after are people who often at least reads one review before they get into a game.
Not saying that the game as it stands could not reach 500k, at least for a while but you would need to relaunch it under a different name and make an incredibly aggresive market campaign.
Still would not change the fact that as it is now most of those would be gone fairly soon.
No game with the title vanguard will ever do well, much like any company named Enron would probably have a hard time selling products.
50 million subcribers is just as likely as 500k.
"Aim for the stars and if you get halfway you have still done good", does not apply to ventures like these.
"Aim for the stars and if you get halfway you will die alone in space" is much more apt.
Again, regardless of how good this game gets, it will never reach 500k subs, just learn to live with that, and if you brush up on market and economic studies you migth even realise it for yourself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOE is in an unenviable position. If it does too much, it risks creating SWG issues. If it does too little, it risk the perception that it is not fully committed to the game. Therefore, I think SOE should focus on three areas for now:
(1) Improve Performance
(2) Fix Bugs
(3) Add Content (esp. end-game)
I agree, but feel that more is needed. A coherent design basis is needed that targets a market segment or segments and then that decision needs to be consistently followed. Core, hardcore, casual, something for all or one playstyle only?
Many left complaining that the "game was not fun". Are fundamental changes needed or can fun be added with minor changes? Similarly, many complained about Diplomacy and Crafting. Again, major or minor changes, or none at all? Some major gameplay changes have been made, such as teleporting. Are more needed? Class balancing has not settled down yet, and a major review is needed, plus whatever changes are indicated.
Capable program management will be put in place, and SOE's success with EQII is apparently the model here. And I agree that that is the fundamental good news.
SOE has acquired SIGIL (Vanguard: Saga of Heroes) and the implications for this are far-reaching. SNE is a vast corporation with vast assets in terms capital, human skills, experience, technology. If Vanguard needed more resources to improve and enhance the game, Sony Corp. has them.
Opportunity for Everyone
However, I am going to keep that bottle of champagne on ice (for now). I am not going to celebrate (just yet). SOE's acquisition of Vanguard is a great opportunity for SOE, Vanguard, and the players of Vanguard.
Opportunity for SOE
It is a great opportunity for SOE because the company can repair its image and prove to the gaming world that it does not wreak games it acquires. It has a chance to show that it is capable of acquiring games to improve and enhance them. If SOE wreaks Vanguard as many believe it did with SWG, EQ 1, or Matrix Online, this will be a very costly mistake. SOE would be very wise to take advantage of this opportunity and fully support Vanguard.
Opportunity for Vanguard
Vanguard can be a viable competitor in market. In fact, as one who has played these games for years, I think it is not possible but probable that Vanguard can achieve over 500k subscribers if SOE fully supports the game.
Opportunity for Vanguard Community
Most importantly, at least from my perspective, SOE can use its resources to complete the game. It can improve performance, continue to fix bugs, and add content. All of these are desired by the Vanguard community.
It is a genuine possibility that all parties will benefit. However, it is just that - a possibility.
What Should SOE do Now?
SOE is in an unenviable position. If it does too much, it risks creating SWG issues. If it does too little, it risk the perception that it is not fully committed to the game. Therefore, I think SOE should focus on three areas for now:
(1) Improve Performance
(2) Fix Bugs
(3) Add Content (esp. end-game)
You seem to forget that SOE is the reason why Vanguard was pushed out the door. They refused to spend any more money on it thus forceing Sigil to release a total failure.
Now you want to think they are the saving grace for buying VSOH? Vanguard will never be saved. As they say in the MMO world, "You only Launch once!".
VSOH will never get 500k subs. Just not going to happen. The game brings nothing new and is owned by SOE who has taken other MMOs that had much more potential and ruined them. Sorry.
SoE has not proven itself to be a great MMO developer. Yes EQ is now a classic, but thats the only great hit they have had since Smedly has assumed CEO position. The two games they have released since its founding title have been rush released, content lacking and buggy. With one title later on progressing to borderline under 300k (?) and the other title becoming a complete train wreck. Whats more the two titles they went on to possess, Planetside and Matrix Online are merely being milked for cash and little to no development is being put into them.
For a MMO'er who's first MMO was EQ, I have fond memorys for the game. However, my loyalty to SoE gradually decreased as it began to dawn on me their idea of making money is to mash all patch content into expansions and charge people $30 for them. It wasnt until CCP release EVE that I acknowledged how little effort SoE put into their expansions and how much money they make from them. We pay in the region of $10 a month, whats this for? Bug fixes, Customer Services and NEW CONTENT, however I see very little of the latter in SoE's games. Will they do this to Vanguard? Most probably.
When I look at SoE's intervention I feel anxiety, I take caution over the fact they have in the past ruined games. But what gives me the most cause for thought, is how little regard and respect they have given their customers.
Is this acquisition a good thing? We dont know, but to view this positively would be to throw all caution to the wind.
I think SOE will help the game more than they will hurt it.
However, the people who think SOE is going to allocate multiple teams of devs to dramatically fix this game are a bit off in my opinion. I'd guess between 15-25 devs, tops, and with a very limited budget.
From a business perspective, if 100+ and $30,000,000.00 couldn't make it work, then how much more money, time, and effort should really be thrown at it?
Expect improvement, just don't expect 500,000 players anytime soon, if ever.
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
SOE is in an unenviable position. If it does too much, it risks creating SWG issues. If it does too little, it risk the perception that it is not fully committed to the game. Therefore, I think SOE should focus on three areas for now:
(1) Improve Performance
(2) Fix Bugs
(3) Add Content (esp. end-game)
Good post Healz4u but I take issue with 2 items.
There is no way VG will ever have 500k Subs. That ship has sailed (pun intended).
You say SOE should add end game content but according this post on Silky Venom there are only 8896 characters serverwide who are level 40-50. Why should SOE spend much time on those users? At $15/month they bring in about $133k/month. That is hardly enough to justify catering development resources to those people. Yes, they need to add end game content but I would not say that is top 3 in VG's massive number of issues.
My guess is that the performance problem is here to stay. I am sure that it was Sigil's top priority and they could not solve it so I am not sure if can be solved. I would think they will limit End Game content to no more than 6 people and go with the WoW TBC model for some epic type events. I can not imagine 24 people on the same screen in VG at the same time ever.
Originally posted by Bravnik You seem to forget that SOE is the reason why Vanguard was pushed out the door. They refused to spend any more money on it thus forceing Sigil to release a total failure.
And what you seem to forget is that the game had already been in development for 4+ years and with over $30 million invested in it by Microsoft.
The only reason SOE entered the picture at all was because Brad McQuaid was up against the wall and couldn't get any more money from anywhere to develop the game. It was either go back to SOE and see what he could get from them, or cancel the game outright and have it become vaporware.
With all that time and money already invested by Microsoft, SOE was understandably cautious. Why invest millions of dollars and lots of extra time into something they didn't even own? That makes no sense. Better to send folks to help clean things up a bit, then let the game stand or fall on its own. If it fails, then they're able to come in, take it over, and then try to find the diamond that's in the rough.
Now you want to think they are the saving grace for buying VSOH? Vanguard will never be saved. As they say in the MMO world, "You only Launch once!".
In a lot of ways, yes. SOE is the savior of this game, because they've gotten rid of the chaotic, poorly managed office environment that was Sigil, and they can infuse some much needed discipline and order to the game's development.
It's true that you can only launch once, but Vanguard now has the ability to recover from the gaggle of idiocy that was the Sigil management team, and it could eventually turn around to become a much more polished title. Let's face it-- things can't get any worse. They can only get better for the game.
VSOH will never get 500k subs. Just not going to happen. The game brings nothing new and is owned by SOE who has taken other MMOs that had much more potential and ruined them. Sorry.
The game was mortally wounded long before SOE came into the picture. Any wasted potential falls at the feet of Brad McQuaid and the rest of the management team at Sigil. They're the ones who screwed it up, not SOE. For once, Smed is the good guy in all of this, trying to salvage a game that, under its old leadership, didn't have a chance.
But you're right-- it will never see 500k subs. It could, however, eventually recover enough to get EQ2 style numbers, which would still be respectable.
Vanguard was promoted, at least up until right before launch when the marketing theme changed, as a more "hardcore" game. Post SOE purchase, John Smedley has given at least two interviews now (both linked already on these forums) where he has said SOE will keep the game "hardcore" and not make it "carebear." That is probably why SOE picked it up, because it adds to what they have available, as EQ can't last forever and has very few new subscribers, and EQII is a game for a wider audience.
SOE wants to attract more people but they don't want to scare away the players they have. So they will proceed very, very cautiously and not make any radical alterations to gameplay in the beginning.
I think SOE will not make this game into a fun for casuals and hardcore alike type game. I think they are going to spend some money fixing what is broken, improving stability/performance, and adding raid type encounters. They will keep it a harder core game and judge what the market for that is over a period of time.
If after doing that the game gets to at least 250k subscribers (not sales, active subscribers), they will keep it that way and add more content and expansions now and then, mostly with an eye to the harder core target audience.
If that doesn't work (i.e., subscriptions are still meager), they will probably add stuff to give it a wider appeal.
If that doesn't work, they will Planetside it; that is, keep it running but make adding to it a low priority.
I think SOE (despite being the devil's spawn) will make Vanguard a better game. But considering the state it is in, that's not saying much. When all the dust settles, I think the game is going to see some improvements but not a lot of SOE money will be invested in it until they see if it is an EQII they can fix or a Matrix Online that is beyond repair.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I am unsure were this 500k sub prophecy comes from, and whis number is so important,
The 500K 'prophecy' came from the games LEAD DEVELOPER Brad M. Given his long-winded, meandering rants it's easy to miss anything he concrete he might have to say be he clearly stated that he expected Vanguard to reach 500k by the end of this year. It's entirely possible he made this statement knowing that Sigil was going to fire all of it's employees before summer.
The 500k number will haunt Vanguard until the end of it's days because its developer spews out hype like a drainage ditch in flood season. The only question is how much is delusional hype and how much is based on intentional deception.
Originally posted by pablo0713
Under any other circumstance, I would be very happy about SOE buying Vanguard and fixing it up. But, I just cannot bring myself, in good conscious, to support this game anymore. Life is too short and there are too many MMOs out there that are made by less troublesome developers who deserve my support.
I was and still am really upset at the lies by Brad. I'm so upset, I've been banned from Silky Venom because of my expressed anger. I could not believe he knew the ship was sinking for months and months but continued to lie to the fans of this game. After all the interviews I've read, especially the ones by Brad, I cannot bring myself to support the mess created by this guy. Even if SOE makes this game better, Brad still gets paid as a consultant. If gamers continue to support Vanguard, all this does is send a message to the industry that says: "You can mess up a game and the lives of people who made the game and still make off like a bandit."
This is exactly what is happening with people who continue to support this game. By your continued support, you condone the behavior of out-of-control ego-maniac developers. By your continued support, you condone the process of releasing incomplete MMOs. You condone mismanagement and all the drama that went on at Sigil. Is it worth it? Just to be entertained? Sad, really, especially in the grand scheme of things and the simple fact that Vanguard really isn't that unique of a game.
/applaud. Very, very well said.
The only vote we gamers have is the one with our pocketbooks. There are many MMORPGs out there with more being released. The genre is blossoming. We can afford to chose our games based on the company that produces it. If we profundly disagree with a way a company is behaving, we can make ourselves known and don't have to worry that there isn't anything better out there to replace our choice. Because now there is.
No MMO has ever been able to make a full recovery after suffering a bad launch.
That is a proven statistical fact.
However, to overcome the stigma of a bad launch, some innovative marketing must be done.
For example, put Vanguard into a pseudo Test state with either the subscription fee reduced or free for that time being (maybe even prevent new comers from coming in). If this testing stage causes problems to certain player accounts (for example, accidental deletion of equipment), then those accounts receive some sort of compensation.
Once the environment is judged to be stable and at an agreeable exciting point; re-release the title as say, Vanguard v2.0 or of a completely different title. This part will require some good marketing blitz. This will require some additional investment from SOE.
Hopefully then the stigma of the bad launch will be done away with and the numbers can grow.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Man I missed this guy. Like watching Fox News for the "real story".
Please continue.
Shayde - SWG (dead) Proud member of the Cabal.
It sounds great, so great in fact, I pitty those who canceled - Some deluded SWG fanboi who pities me. I don't like it when you say things. - A Vanguard fan who does too. 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
True but EVE didn't have so much a launch as slight push that no-one noticed. I'm sure if CCP had their CEO screaming at the top of his lungs about it being 3rd gen and the hottest thing since naked female mud wrestling it woudln't be anywhere near the 170k subs it has today.
When I started EVE it had 50k subs with 6k max on the server at peak times, most had never heard of the trainwreck so when it was turned around and got publicity it had no baggage. Vanguard however has more baggage than the Royal family taking a vacation to the Bahamas, no matter how well it recovers it'll always have that baggage. Two years after release I'd say "Hey have you tried EVE Online?", the reply being "What's that a new game?". In a couple of years if I said "hey have you tried Vanguard: Saga of Hereos?", the reply would probably be "You mean that game Brad Mcquaid made, and it crashed and burned at launch?".
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
Man I missed this guy. Like watching Fox News for the "real story".
Please continue.
Did you mean me?
Originally posted by Stikato
Eve-Online
Welp Eve-Online is one of those gray areas, as mentioned by Agricola with a "push." Eve-Online didn't have hype or very good pre-launch marketing, which in hind-sight may have been a blissing. Initial user base was low and went on a slow climb until about 50,000 at which it stabilized. When the first expansion (I believe the first) was provided, the numbers began to increase. The way Eve-Online was handled can be considered as a Slow Roll Out or Soft Launch, which in that term, Eve-Online performed fair. In terms of user disappointment and poor user performance at launch, Eve-Online did not have a good launch; but I do not think "bad" is the right term. The turn-over rate (churn rate) was not greater than the number of users joining.
Vanguard supposely has sold over 200,000 copies; but reportedly with a user base of 90,000-100,000. That is more than a 50% turn-over rate.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
SOE has acquired SIGIL (Vanguard: Saga of Heroes) and the implications for this are far-reaching. SNE is a vast corporation with vast assets in terms capital, human skills, experience, technology. If Vanguard needed more resources to improve and enhance the game, Sony Corp. has them.
Opportunity for Everyone
However, I am going to keep that bottle of champagne on ice (for now). I am not going to celebrate (just yet). SOE's acquisition of Vanguard is a great opportunity for SOE, Vanguard, and the players of Vanguard.
Opportunity for SOE
It is a great opportunity for SOE because the company can repair its image and prove to the gaming world that it does not wreak games it acquires. It has a chance to show that it is capable of acquiring games to improve and enhance them. If SOE wreaks Vanguard as many believe it did with SWG, EQ 1, or Matrix Online, this will be a very costly mistake. SOE would be very wise to take advantage of this opportunity and fully support Vanguard.
Opportunity for Vanguard
Vanguard can be a viable competitor in market. In fact, as one who has played these games for years, I think it is not possible but probable that Vanguard can achieve over 500k subscribers if SOE fully supports the game.
Opportunity for Vanguard Community
Most importantly, at least from my perspective, SOE can use its resources to complete the game. It can improve performance, continue to fix bugs, and add content. All of these are desired by the Vanguard community.
It is a genuine possibility that all parties will benefit. However, it is just that - a possibility.
What Should SOE do Now?
SOE is in an unenviable position. If it does too much, it risks creating SWG issues. If it does too little, it risk the perception that it is not fully committed to the game. Therefore, I think SOE should focus on three areas for now:
The only ones that will reach 500k subs is either age of conan or warhammer online. Your still living in your dreamworld buddy.
Interestingly, I have decided not to wait for Warhammer any longer. I will most-likely try the game, primarily because I am very intrigued by the zone-wide or server-wide Quest cooperative system.
I think you make an excellent point on Warhammer and AoC being fierce competitors.
Warhammer and Age of Conan will be competitors, but they are different games insofar that they have a PvP focus. Vanguard does not. Vanguard is primarily a PvE game. I think there is a considerable market for people that want a more authentic PvE game in a world as vast and interesting as Vanguard's. The amount of content that Vanguard currently has and could add is far-reaching. If the game continues to improve and content continues to be added, I am confident Vanguard will be a viable competitor.
We shall see, though.
AoC does not have a PvP focus, it has 1 area for guild PvP all the rest is PvE. There are 80 PvE levels and only 20 PvP levels so it has a kick ass area for PvP with siege warfare ect but it is primarily a PvE game.
As Nakuma pointed out, we should wait for the game to come out before praising how good it is... Reminds me of the the guys who were saying how great Vanguard was going to be and we know how that turned out.... Some how I don't see AoC living up to all the hype people are trying to generate about it...
No MMO has ever been able to make a full recovery after suffering a bad launch.
That is a proven statistical fact.
Eve Online
There are bad launches and then there are BAD launches.
I was not there when EVE Online was released - can any of the EVE vets say if the client stable and moderately bug-free? Or was it a mess of problems with a large number of people complaining about running it while a tiny percentage of players accusing those people of being liars because it ran fine for them?
It sounds to me like EVE's launch was not bad, it was just poorly advertised. A well-made game sells itself and interested players will eventually find it. Just like a bad game will be abandoned.
Originally posted by Shayde
Man I missed this guy. Like watching Fox News for the "real story".
When you can prove that more than 10,000 people are playing across all the servers combined then you are welcome to make boisterous assumptions about VG future.
Actually, he is free to make boisterous assumptions whenever he wants. In fact, his "assumptions" will always hold more water than yours, considering you don't even play the game, or have any idea of it's current state. Nice try though. So having 3 chars to 50, 31 and 18 doesn't *qualify* me ? And you are correct sir - his assumptions are just that - water, nothing concrete. roflmao...... stop it...your killing me
This is Sony Online Entertainment... SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT (aka Satan on Earth, aka Levelz4losers, aka MC iscrewurfavouritegame).... Just wanted to remind you guys...
No MMO has ever been able to make a full recovery after suffering a bad launch.
That is a proven statistical fact.
However, to overcome the stigma of a bad launch, some innovative marketing must be done.
For example, put Vanguard into a pseudo Test state with either the subscription fee reduced or free for that time being (maybe even prevent new comers from coming in). If this testing stage causes problems to certain player accounts (for example, accidental deletion of equipment), then those accounts receive some sort of compensation.
Once the environment is judged to be stable and at an agreeable exciting point; re-release the title as say, Vanguard v2.0 or of a completely different title. This part will require some good marketing blitz. This will require some additional investment from SOE.
Hopefully then the stigma of the bad launch will be done away with and the numbers can grow.
No MMO has ever been able to make a full recovery after suffering a bad launch.
That is a proven statistical fact.
Eve Online
There are bad launches and then there are BAD launches.
I was not there when EVE Online was released - can any of the EVE vets say if the client stable and moderately bug-free? Or was it a mess of problems with a large number of people complaining about running it while a tiny percentage of players accusing those people of being liars because it ran fine for them?
It sounds to me like EVE's launch was not bad, it was just poorly advertised. A well-made game sells itself and interested players will eventually find it. Just like a bad game will be abandoned.
Originally posted by Shayde
Man I missed this guy. Like watching Fox News for the "real story".
Please continue.
*Snork*!
EVE at release was pretty terrible, hardly anyone on, random systems would go out, NO tutorial, awful control system, navigation was a pain in the ass, pretty much no market or items at all. The only thing to do was kill NPCs and Mine. Should I really continue?
This is Sony Online Entertainment... SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT (aka Satan on Earth, aka Levelz4losers, aka MC iscrewurfavouritegame).... Just wanted to remind you guys...
S O E = evil. Period.
I like SOE...some of their games have given my many hours of fun, and introduced me to a couple of my closest friends I have now.
This is Sony Online Entertainment... SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT (aka Satan on Earth, aka Levelz4losers, aka MC iscrewurfavouritegame).... Just wanted to remind you guys...
S O E = evil. Period.
I think people need to get over this SOE is evil thing, it's about time people get over NGE, it was ONE GAME. EQ already had it's plan to go the way it did, and EQ2 was improved far beyond what it once was thanks to SOE. I have no doubt that SOE will keep VG as a core game. (otherwise it would compete with EQ2)
I like Vanguard alot. It just needs quite a few bug fixes. I like the death system. I like the open world, I like that you can't just teleport places all the time. I enjoy the quest system emmensly. It isn't a terrible foundation, it just needs a few repairs.
Comments
I am unsure were this 500k sub prophecy comes from, and whis number is so important, it would obviously be nice for SOE if it reached that but I am sure they realise the reality of this, and so should you Healz.
Not if they poored another 30 million into it, not if they took the greatest game developrs from ALL companies and made a crack super team to work on it will vanguard ever reach 500k.
Thats just not how reality works.
The name is tarnished and every potential customer knows its history by now, as they are at least still aiming a bit for the "core" crowd the demographics they are after are people who often at least reads one review before they get into a game.
Not saying that the game as it stands could not reach 500k, at least for a while but you would need to relaunch it under a different name and make an incredibly aggresive market campaign.
Still would not change the fact that as it is now most of those would be gone fairly soon.
No game with the title vanguard will ever do well, much like any company named Enron would probably have a hard time selling products.
50 million subcribers is just as likely as 500k.
"Aim for the stars and if you get halfway you have still done good", does not apply to ventures like these.
"Aim for the stars and if you get halfway you will die alone in space" is much more apt.
Again, regardless of how good this game gets, it will never reach 500k subs, just learn to live with that, and if you brush up on market and economic studies you migth even realise it for yourself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Celebrate an under-performing game?
Or celebrate the fact that the game is still financially in the red?
Maybe celebrate the low subscribtion numbers?
Your view is a lot different than most people, and especially those that write reviews.- this game isn't anywhere near out of the weeds yet.
I agree, but feel that more is needed. A coherent design basis is needed that targets a market segment or segments and then that decision needs to be consistently followed. Core, hardcore, casual, something for all or one playstyle only?
Many left complaining that the "game was not fun". Are fundamental changes needed or can fun be added with minor changes? Similarly, many complained about Diplomacy and Crafting. Again, major or minor changes, or none at all? Some major gameplay changes have been made, such as teleporting. Are more needed? Class balancing has not settled down yet, and a major review is needed, plus whatever changes are indicated.
Capable program management will be put in place, and SOE's success with EQII is apparently the model here. And I agree that that is the fundamental good news.
You seem to forget that SOE is the reason why Vanguard was pushed out the door. They refused to spend any more money on it thus forceing Sigil to release a total failure.
Now you want to think they are the saving grace for buying VSOH? Vanguard will never be saved. As they say in the MMO world, "You only Launch once!".
VSOH will never get 500k subs. Just not going to happen. The game brings nothing new and is owned by SOE who has taken other MMOs that had much more potential and ruined them. Sorry.
SoE has not proven itself to be a great MMO developer. Yes EQ is now a classic, but thats the only great hit they have had since Smedly has assumed CEO position. The two games they have released since its founding title have been rush released, content lacking and buggy. With one title later on progressing to borderline under 300k (?) and the other title becoming a complete train wreck. Whats more the two titles they went on to possess, Planetside and Matrix Online are merely being milked for cash and little to no development is being put into them.
For a MMO'er who's first MMO was EQ, I have fond memorys for the game. However, my loyalty to SoE gradually decreased as it began to dawn on me their idea of making money is to mash all patch content into expansions and charge people $30 for them. It wasnt until CCP release EVE that I acknowledged how little effort SoE put into their expansions and how much money they make from them. We pay in the region of $10 a month, whats this for? Bug fixes, Customer Services and NEW CONTENT, however I see very little of the latter in SoE's games. Will they do this to Vanguard? Most probably.
When I look at SoE's intervention I feel anxiety, I take caution over the fact they have in the past ruined games. But what gives me the most cause for thought, is how little regard and respect they have given their customers.
Is this acquisition a good thing? We dont know, but to view this positively would be to throw all caution to the wind.
---
However, the people who think SOE is going to allocate multiple teams of devs to dramatically fix this game are a bit off in my opinion. I'd guess between 15-25 devs, tops, and with a very limited budget.
From a business perspective, if 100+ and $30,000,000.00 couldn't make it work, then how much more money, time, and effort should really be thrown at it?
Expect improvement, just don't expect 500,000 players anytime soon, if ever.
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
Good post Healz4u but I take issue with 2 items.
My guess is that the performance problem is here to stay. I am sure that it was Sigil's top priority and they could not solve it so I am not sure if can be solved. I would think they will limit End Game content to no more than 6 people and go with the WoW TBC model for some epic type events. I can not imagine 24 people on the same screen in VG at the same time ever.
And what you seem to forget is that the game had already been in development for 4+ years and with over $30 million invested in it by Microsoft.
The only reason SOE entered the picture at all was because Brad McQuaid was up against the wall and couldn't get any more money from anywhere to develop the game. It was either go back to SOE and see what he could get from them, or cancel the game outright and have it become vaporware.
With all that time and money already invested by Microsoft, SOE was understandably cautious. Why invest millions of dollars and lots of extra time into something they didn't even own? That makes no sense. Better to send folks to help clean things up a bit, then let the game stand or fall on its own. If it fails, then they're able to come in, take it over, and then try to find the diamond that's in the rough.
In a lot of ways, yes. SOE is the savior of this game, because they've gotten rid of the chaotic, poorly managed office environment that was Sigil, and they can infuse some much needed discipline and order to the game's development.
It's true that you can only launch once, but Vanguard now has the ability to recover from the gaggle of idiocy that was the Sigil management team, and it could eventually turn around to become a much more polished title. Let's face it-- things can't get any worse. They can only get better for the game.
The game was mortally wounded long before SOE came into the picture. Any wasted potential falls at the feet of Brad McQuaid and the rest of the management team at Sigil. They're the ones who screwed it up, not SOE. For once, Smed is the good guy in all of this, trying to salvage a game that, under its old leadership, didn't have a chance.
But you're right-- it will never see 500k subs. It could, however, eventually recover enough to get EQ2 style numbers, which would still be respectable.
Here is my prediction what will happen.
Vanguard was promoted, at least up until right before launch when the marketing theme changed, as a more "hardcore" game. Post SOE purchase, John Smedley has given at least two interviews now (both linked already on these forums) where he has said SOE will keep the game "hardcore" and not make it "carebear." That is probably why SOE picked it up, because it adds to what they have available, as EQ can't last forever and has very few new subscribers, and EQII is a game for a wider audience.
SOE wants to attract more people but they don't want to scare away the players they have. So they will proceed very, very cautiously and not make any radical alterations to gameplay in the beginning.
I think SOE will not make this game into a fun for casuals and hardcore alike type game. I think they are going to spend some money fixing what is broken, improving stability/performance, and adding raid type encounters. They will keep it a harder core game and judge what the market for that is over a period of time.
If after doing that the game gets to at least 250k subscribers (not sales, active subscribers), they will keep it that way and add more content and expansions now and then, mostly with an eye to the harder core target audience.
If that doesn't work (i.e., subscriptions are still meager), they will probably add stuff to give it a wider appeal.
If that doesn't work, they will Planetside it; that is, keep it running but make adding to it a low priority.
I think SOE (despite being the devil's spawn) will make Vanguard a better game. But considering the state it is in, that's not saying much. When all the dust settles, I think the game is going to see some improvements but not a lot of SOE money will be invested in it until they see if it is an EQII they can fix or a Matrix Online that is beyond repair.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
The 500K 'prophecy' came from the games LEAD DEVELOPER Brad M. Given his long-winded, meandering rants it's easy to miss anything he concrete he might have to say be he clearly stated that he expected Vanguard to reach 500k by the end of this year. It's entirely possible he made this statement knowing that Sigil was going to fire all of it's employees before summer.
The 500k number will haunt Vanguard until the end of it's days because its developer spews out hype like a drainage ditch in flood season. The only question is how much is delusional hype and how much is based on intentional deception.
/applaud. Very, very well said.
The only vote we gamers have is the one with our pocketbooks. There are many MMORPGs out there with more being released. The genre is blossoming. We can afford to chose our games based on the company that produces it. If we profundly disagree with a way a company is behaving, we can make ourselves known and don't have to worry that there isn't anything better out there to replace our choice. Because now there is.
That is a proven statistical fact.
However, to overcome the stigma of a bad launch, some innovative marketing must be done.
For example, put Vanguard into a pseudo Test state with either the subscription fee reduced or free for that time being (maybe even prevent new comers from coming in). If this testing stage causes problems to certain player accounts (for example, accidental deletion of equipment), then those accounts receive some sort of compensation.
Once the environment is judged to be stable and at an agreeable exciting point; re-release the title as say, Vanguard v2.0 or of a completely different title. This part will require some good marketing blitz. This will require some additional investment from SOE.
Hopefully then the stigma of the bad launch will be done away with and the numbers can grow.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Please continue.
Shayde - SWG (dead)
Proud member of the Cabal.
It sounds great, so great in fact, I pitty those who canceled
I don't like it when you say things. - A Vanguard fan who does too.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
I like pie.
True but EVE didn't have so much a launch as slight push that no-one noticed. I'm sure if CCP had their CEO screaming at the top of his lungs about it being 3rd gen and the hottest thing since naked female mud wrestling it woudln't be anywhere near the 170k subs it has today.
When I started EVE it had 50k subs with 6k max on the server at peak times, most had never heard of the trainwreck so when it was turned around and got publicity it had no baggage. Vanguard however has more baggage than the Royal family taking a vacation to the Bahamas, no matter how well it recovers it'll always have that baggage. Two years after release I'd say "Hey have you tried EVE Online?", the reply being "What's that a new game?". In a couple of years if I said "hey have you tried Vanguard: Saga of Hereos?", the reply would probably be "You mean that game Brad Mcquaid made, and it crashed and burned at launch?".
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
Welp Eve-Online is one of those gray areas, as mentioned by Agricola with a "push." Eve-Online didn't have hype or very good pre-launch marketing, which in hind-sight may have been a blissing. Initial user base was low and went on a slow climb until about 50,000 at which it stabilized. When the first expansion (I believe the first) was provided, the numbers began to increase. The way Eve-Online was handled can be considered as a Slow Roll Out or Soft Launch, which in that term, Eve-Online performed fair. In terms of user disappointment and poor user performance at launch, Eve-Online did not have a good launch; but I do not think "bad" is the right term. The turn-over rate (churn rate) was not greater than the number of users joining.
Vanguard supposely has sold over 200,000 copies; but reportedly with a user base of 90,000-100,000. That is more than a 50% turn-over rate.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
.............................,-~*`¯lllllll`*~,....................................................
.......................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,.......................................
..................,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,................................
...............,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll..............................
.............;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll............................
..............lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/.........;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,...........................
...............lllllllllllllllllllll,-*...........`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,...........................
................llllllllllll,-~*.....................)_-..*`*;..)...............................
.................,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................/..................................
..................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;................/...................................
................./.../.../.../..,-,..*~,.`*~*................*...................................
................|.../.../.../.*`..............................)....)¯`~,..........................
................|./.../..../.......)......,.)`*~-,............/....|..)...`~-,.....................
..............././.../...,*`-,.....`-,...*`....,---........../...../..|.........¯```*~-,,,,
...............(..........)`*~-,....`*`.,-~*.,-*......|.../..../.../...........................
................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*..........|.,*...,*...|...........................
...................*,.........`-,...)-,..............,-*`...,-*....(`-,..........................
......................f`-,.........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*....,-*......|...`-,....................
I think you make an excellent point on Warhammer and AoC being fierce competitors.
Warhammer and Age of Conan will be competitors, but they are different games insofar that they have a PvP focus. Vanguard does not. Vanguard is primarily a PvE game. I think there is a considerable market for people that want a more authentic PvE game in a world as vast and interesting as Vanguard's. The amount of content that Vanguard currently has and could add is far-reaching. If the game continues to improve and content continues to be added, I am confident Vanguard will be a viable competitor.
We shall see, though.
AoC does not have a PvP focus, it has 1 area for guild PvP all the rest is PvE. There are 80 PvE levels and only 20 PvP levels so it has a kick ass area for PvP with siege warfare ect but it is primarily a PvE game.
As Nakuma pointed out, we should wait for the game to come out before praising how good it is... Reminds me of the the guys who were saying how great Vanguard was going to be and we know how that turned out.... Some how I don't see AoC living up to all the hype people are trying to generate about it...
There are bad launches and then there are BAD launches.
I was not there when EVE Online was released - can any of the EVE vets say if the client stable and moderately bug-free? Or was it a mess of problems with a large number of people complaining about running it while a tiny percentage of players accusing those people of being liars because it ran fine for them?
It sounds to me like EVE's launch was not bad, it was just poorly advertised. A well-made game sells itself and interested players will eventually find it. Just like a bad game will be abandoned.
*Snork*!
S O E = evil. Period.
Wish Darkfall would release.
There are bad launches and then there are BAD launches.
I was not there when EVE Online was released - can any of the EVE vets say if the client stable and moderately bug-free? Or was it a mess of problems with a large number of people complaining about running it while a tiny percentage of players accusing those people of being liars because it ran fine for them?
It sounds to me like EVE's launch was not bad, it was just poorly advertised. A well-made game sells itself and interested players will eventually find it. Just like a bad game will be abandoned.
*Snork*!
EVE at release was pretty terrible, hardly anyone on, random systems would go out, NO tutorial, awful control system, navigation was a pain in the ass, pretty much no market or items at all. The only thing to do was kill NPCs and Mine. Should I really continue?
I like SOE...some of their games have given my many hours of fun, and introduced me to a couple of my closest friends I have now.
I think people need to get over this SOE is evil thing, it's about time people get over NGE, it was ONE GAME. EQ already had it's plan to go the way it did, and EQ2 was improved far beyond what it once was thanks to SOE. I have no doubt that SOE will keep VG as a core game. (otherwise it would compete with EQ2)
I like Vanguard alot. It just needs quite a few bug fixes. I like the death system. I like the open world, I like that you can't just teleport places all the time. I enjoy the quest system emmensly. It isn't a terrible foundation, it just needs a few repairs.