Well, seeing that Vanguard is only 4 months on the market, I think it is a little pre-mature to say whether Brad's game was a success or not. EQ did not have a stronger launch then Vanguard and did not reach over 90k in its first 4 months live (don't quote me on that, but I believe I saw a post saying it was after a year that they reached 150k). EQ was buggy and had performance issues and end game content issues.....sound familiar? This may just be Brad's historic pattern. And in the same way you may want to leave the door open on Vanguard for a year or two before you decide his game was a failure. EQ wasn't an unbridled success for a couple of years. If you predict the future people, you should at least admit that you are guessing.
My prediction is that if Vanguard isn't turned around, he will have lots of problems, if it is turned around, he may become marketable again. He certainly will have problems getting money for his own company, but just because it is a challenge doesn't mean he can't pull it off. Babe Ruth showed up late for practice, drank, partied, got out of shape, embarassed his team and fans with some of his antics; he still got to play ball. If Vanguard ends up making money, don't assume capitalism will turn from him because of their moral issues with him as a person. Heck, capitalists in America invested in Hitler's Germany. And as I said earlier, I'm only guessing.
God lets hope not. Maybe as office manager? You know the guy that orders the paper clips and toilet tissue. You can be sure it would be hardcore toilet tissue ...that stuff that they had 20 years ago thats like sandpaper.
There's one thing McQuaid is good at, Ideas. Thats about it though, and in itself thats nothing spectacular. You have to say the idea's and principles behind the games he's had a hand in are good, the problem is the execution and design of them are crap. Ive got loads of awesome idea's for games, I can even identify the pro's and con's possible flaws and workarounds for them and all other manner of associated things, but I could never build my ideas, its possible a team of designers may be able to but who knows.
His "vision" was awesome on paper, people were sold a pretty outstanding game before they had even seen it, and the hype was good. If what had been promised had been delivered in a optimised playable form, and a launch about as bug free as WoW and enough polish it would have probably been everything they wanted it to be and more. The problem was the vision he sold and the one delivered were two very different things.
Brad McQuaid could have retired after EverQuest. He chose to create Vanguard, like almost any designer would have done in his position, out of love for the creation of worlds.
I was floored by Vanguard in Beta 2, unhappy with the direction it began to take in Beta 3, and my opinion degraded continuously after that and I am no longer involved with it; yet I am not the headhunting type of picket-line gamer who loves the drama of calling out the developers as evil liars, frauds, and incompetents.
Microsoft (probably unintentionally) screwed them over towards the end of Beta 2, then Microsoft's technology was swapped for SOE's, the beta testers spent much more time flaming each other without conclusion than providing direct feedback, a few key members of Sigil (who I met personally but won't name) were unsettling, Tom King couldn't relocate when the pace picked up, Keith Parkinson died, Bill Fisher competed with Brad McQuaid over design philosophies (having a notably different outlook on things) in a way that I can't imagine was ultimately helpful, and McQuaid ultimately fell apart towards the latter days when he saw what was coming, which obviously incited bitterness towards him and further hurt morale.
Which of these was the worst event or circumstance is anyone's own opinion, but I think we can all agree that it all contributed significantly to the insufficient turnout of players, the acquisition, and the stinging necrosis.
Vanguard was absolutely flipping amazing to me in its early beta days and nights. It destabilised and drastically changed direction later, but I will always remember how it was before that, and regret that McQuaid and Sigil had to lose that quality later in development. I hope that a company reforms with at least McQuaid and Masten both onboard. I empathised with no two more.
Favorites: EQ, EVE | Playing: None. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CU, Pantheon
Would anyone ever loan him the kind of money needed to produce a quality MMO after Vanguard's failure? Would any reputable game developer even want Brad's name associated with their product because of the stigma?
Id hand him a broom and let him work in one if i ran it rofl.... But only as close as the parking lot..
Would anyone ever loan him the kind of money needed to produce a quality MMO after Vanguard's failure? Would any reputable game developer even want Brad's name associated with their product because of the stigma?
Under the right circumstances? Absolutely.
Businness investors won't react with the rabid and near hysterical emotionalism we are seeing on the various gaming forums. They don't care about "stigma".
They'll look at the opportunities involved and decide each case seperately.
I think the fact that he waisted 30 million bucks and blamed it on everything else but him will go above and beyond some "rabid and near hsyterical emotionalisms we are seeing on the various gaming forums"
If I was a business person and looking for a team or someone I can invest my money in it is true I would probably not log onto the forums. Just the fact that He squandered SO MUCH money and had to sell the game to even break even (we dont even know that....he may have lost a lot of money in the end run..we will nevr know) and fired well over 90% of his company four months after the release of his company's first project is more than enough to skip him and look elswhere to place my money in.
Trust me....someone comes to you asking for millions, you'll do a little research on that person asking for the money. They wont go far before finding out about his (McQuaid) lack of success.
Not a troll comment. Just factual commonsense.
I mean..lemme ask you this. If you had a few million dollars and someone comes to you and ask if they can invest one million of it into their game would you blindly give it to him or would you research his successes? EQ yes. Successful. That was 10 years ago. Vanguard? Horrible. This year. Now, compound that million by 30 times.
You don't have to answer that question here. It's merely rhetorical. Just something for you to think about.
Yup.. he's got "Pissed away 30 million" written on his business cards now.
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
Originally posted by Zorgo Well, seeing that Vanguard is only 4 months on the market, I think it is a little pre-mature to say whether Brad's game was a success or not. EQ did not have a stronger launch then Vanguard and did not reach over 90k in its first 4 months live (don't quote me on that, but I believe I saw a post saying it was after a year that they reached 150k). EQ was buggy and had performance issues and end game content issues.....sound familiar?
Except you need to compare apples with apples - EQ 10 years ago getting 90K in 4 months was a raging success for a game that cost say $5 million.
Today to get 90k subs for a game that cost $30 million to make is a flop - especially when the market of MMORPG gamers is like 20 times bigger than it was 10 years ago.
Or you could compare to other big budget games that release this year - LOTRO sold what 650,000 boxes. LOTRO is still in the top ten selling PC games after a month. Vanguard was from memory barely in the top 20 after a month.
Still if they can keep 100,000 active subscribers the game probably wont be shut down - no other mmorpg that hit 100,000 subscribers has cancelled.
I guess it depends on what you call a success. But having to let half you staff go means it wasnt a financial success. And I dont think Brad would say it was the success that he wanted.
hell no - I saw him bagging groceries at a local Try 'n save yesterday
Are you sure it was him?
He came over to my friend's house the other day to fix his computer crashing. Brad works for Geek Squad now.
Maybe he has 2 jobs.
You guys really think he got out nothing out of that deal? I would guess between EQ and Sigil's sale, Brad never has to work again in his life.
This is the truest comment on this thread (well, this and the reasonable comments indicating that if he came up with a good enough idea again he'd likely find investors)
There is a definite irony in the fact that most of the people here joking about him bagging groceries or working for Geek Squad are almost certainly far more likely to be either working in jobs like that (or worse) right now, or are students with an, at best, VERY uncertain future given the simple realities of life. Brad, on the other hand, is a millionaire. Ive interacted with him on one of the Porsche forums and on the NSX forum. So I guess Brad gets the last laugh. For people whose lives are so imbalanced that they can feel such schadenfreude for a total stranger because they dont like the game he made, that fact has GOT to hurt a bit. Maybe thats where the bitterness on threads like this originates?
What I find even more amazing is that John Smedley still has a job after how his leadership not only failed to keep SOE at the top of the industry, but at this point they aren't even a legit contender. ALL their games combined fall well short of 1/10th WoW's subs...
What I find even more amazing is that John Smedley still has a job after how his leadership not only failed to keep SOE at the top of the industry, but at this point they aren't even a legit contender. ALL their games combined fall well short of 1/10th WoW's subs...
I'm sorry but this point doesn't hold water for me. Every game falls horribly short in subscriptions when compared against the beast that is "World of Warcraft". What about all of the movies that don't get the world gross that "Titanic" got? Are they unsuccessful because they didn't gross 1.8 billion or whatever it is that Titanic got? No, you've got movies like Lord of the Rings or Pirates of the Caribbean. Which might not get those kind of numbers but are still successful by most everyone's standards. I think if you can get and keep 100,000 subscribers... than you've done a decent job. I think SOE has won and lost if that's how we view success. I certainly don't think Everquest or Everquest 2 can be deemed a failure. What World of Warcraft has done is phenomenal. But what SOE has done with Everquest 2 especially... shouldn't be seen as futile.
Originally posted by mlambert890 Ive interacted with him on one of the Porsche forums and on the NSX forum. So I guess Brad gets the last laugh. For people whose lives are so imbalanced that they can feel such schadenfreude for a total stranger because they dont like the game he made, that fact has GOT to hurt a bit. Maybe thats where the bitterness on threads like this originates?
Maybe we just feel sorry for the employees who got screwed by the vision - working 100 hour weeks for 6 months to end up fired in the car-park.
Or maybe we just dont like being lied to - about the MS/Sony deal.
Or maybe we dont like paying for a game that isnt fit to be released.
However from Brad's posts I dont think he is laughing about the whole thing - I think he cares a lot.
There is a definite irony in the fact that most of the people here joking about him bagging groceries or working for Geek Squad are almost certainly far more likely to be either working in jobs like that (or worse) right now, or are students with an, at best, VERY uncertain future given the simple realities of life. Brad, on the other hand, is a millionaire. Ive interacted with him on one of the Porsche forums and on the NSX forum. So I guess Brad gets the last laugh. For people whose lives are so imbalanced that they can feel such schadenfreude for a total stranger because they dont like the game he made, that fact has GOT to hurt a bit. Maybe thats where the bitterness on threads like this originates?
Successful people admire successful people un-successful people resent them. BTW I retired almost 10 years ago mainly because I was one of the best in my chosen profession. No one could flip those burgers like me.
Bragging on forums how you have spunked $30 million up the wall (I am sure whilst lining his own pockets). Or conning 100,000 people by charging them to play something that should not have left beta, does not in my mind make you succesful. Neither does driving a porche (/spit) or having a million bucks in the bank round my way its drug dealers and pimps that drive porches . The jolly green ranger is right up there with those kinda guys I grant you.
Well, seeing that Vanguard is only 4 months on the market, I think it is a little pre-mature to say whether Brad's game was a success or not. EQ did not have a stronger launch then Vanguard and did not reach over 90k in its first 4 months live (don't quote me on that, but I believe I saw a post saying it was after a year that they reached 150k). EQ was buggy and had performance issues and end game content issues.....sound familiar? This may just be Brad's historic pattern. And in the same way you may want to leave the door open on Vanguard for a year or two before you decide his game was a failure. EQ wasn't an unbridled success for a couple of years. If you predict the future people, you should at least admit that you are guessing. My prediction is that if Vanguard isn't turned around, he will have lots of problems, if it is turned around, he may become marketable again. He certainly will have problems getting money for his own company, but just because it is a challenge doesn't mean he can't pull it off. Babe Ruth showed up late for practice, drank, partied, got out of shape, embarassed his team and fans with some of his antics; he still got to play ball. If Vanguard ends up making money, don't assume capitalism will turn from him because of their moral issues with him as a person. Heck, capitalists in America invested in Hitler's Germany. And as I said earlier, I'm only guessing.
Yes, but all that EverQuest really had to compete with were Ultima Online wich were completely in 2D compared to EverQuest's fresh looking 3D graphics (for it's day and age).
The competition is much tougher these days and such a lauch as EverQuest had won't cut it these days (if it's true that it only had 90k subscriptions in the beginning).
Would anyone ever loan him the kind of money needed to produce a quality MMO after Vanguard's failure? Not in a million years. He is the prime example of someone who should not be running a business and a 30 million dollar MMO without any business degree and/or executive management experience whatsoever. His days of running a company is over. Would any reputable game developer even want Brad's name associated with their product because of the stigma? He's definately hirable. Whilst he sucks at creating a MMO and Lying he is still a creative designer. His calling is a follower versus a leader. Sadly, if he cannot handle this, he should find some alternative course of work.
due to him not being at the office 98% of the time since VG was launched and him selling the company to SOE the most he will ever have is what he has now as a Consultant. I beleive he shot himself in the foot in the MMO industry and all will aviod him. But he will have his millions to live off of and if he invests more wisely then he did running VG he will have a comfortable live.
A MMO is like life. It is something to cherish and enjoy upon in it journey. So why race to the end of it. In life at the end you die.
Well, seeing that Vanguard is only 4 months on the market, I think it is a little pre-mature to say whether Brad's game was a success or not. EQ did not have a stronger launch then Vanguard and did not reach over 90k in its first 4 months live (don't quote me on that, but I believe I saw a post saying it was after a year that they reached 150k). EQ was buggy and had performance issues and end game content issues.....sound familiar? This may just be Brad's historic pattern. And in the same way you may want to leave the door open on Vanguard for a year or two before you decide his game was a failure. EQ wasn't an unbridled success for a couple of years. If you predict the future people, you should at least admit that you are guessing. My prediction is that if Vanguard isn't turned around, he will have lots of problems, if it is turned around, he may become marketable again. He certainly will have problems getting money for his own company, but just because it is a challenge doesn't mean he can't pull it off. Babe Ruth showed up late for practice, drank, partied, got out of shape, embarassed his team and fans with some of his antics; he still got to play ball. If Vanguard ends up making money, don't assume capitalism will turn from him because of their moral issues with him as a person. Heck, capitalists in America invested in Hitler's Germany. And as I said earlier, I'm only guessing.
Totally disagree. It is well past time since Brad had to sell the game and financially it is sinking quicker than Asheron's Call 2, Shadowbane and Dark and Light put together. It is also the second most expensive MMORPG ever made which makes this even bigger. Think Waterworld or Pearl Harbor and you get the idea.
EQI to Vanguard is like comparing Gone with The Wind money to Spiderman 3 money. They made EQ1 for 7-8 million I believe, and in general it was in a league unto itself. People will overlook alot of things to be the first and we overlooked alot to be in Norrath. I imagine that first car didn't drive very well or that first airplane. In Vanguard's case, it released a 1999 level product in 2007. Brad thought everyone would "feel the magic" again no matter how cruddy the gameplay was.
I've driven that first car now and I want more. That first car didn't even have doors but it was fun and new. Now, Blizzard made a Porsche and that old Model T doesn't sound that great anymore. No one told Brad someone made a Porsche MMORPG apparently.
For the record, Babe Ruth produced homeruns and money and Brad did not. Brad could be sniffing coke and hiring Paris Hilton to give him back massages right now if VG was successful and no one would care. If Vanguard becomes succesful by some miracle it won't be Brad's baby anymore. It will be a "SOE pulled Brad's vision out of the fire and saved a dieing game". That doesn't look good on a resume.
Yes, but all that EverQuest really had to compete with were Ultima Online wich were completely in 2D compared to EverQuest's fresh looking 3D graphics (for it's day and age). The competition is much tougher these days and such a lauch as EverQuest had won't cut it these days (if it's true that it only had 90k subscriptions in the beginning).
So much misinfirmotion pulled out as fact...
At some point in time, EQ reached 90k subs on the road from 0K to 550k.. it's logical. But EQ never "stagnated" at 90K for months/years, it slowly rose up until the release of WoW from 0 to 550 faster and faster as years went by.
My addiction History: >> EQ1 2000-2004 - Shaman/Bard/Wizard/Monk - nolife raid-whore >> WoW 2004-2009 + Cataclysm for 2 months - hardcore casual >> Current status : done with MMO, too old for that crap.
I remember reading something written by Brad McQuaid that mentioned EverQuest and 455k subscriptions but that were likely a couple of years or so from it's launch.
And remember it almost had zero competition, the only explanation for it's slow initial growth is that it were too buggy and that the servers were too unstable. *shrugs*
Lets not forget EQI striped a lot of what was joyful in things like UO (and of course MUDs). It really was 'dumbed down' replacing complexity with graphics (which I have to admit seduced me) and to be honest it had a decent 'feel'. Mc Grind (aka the Jolly green Ranger) also introduced a lot of absolute cack mechanic in a cynical move to keep subscribers. (Camping, grinding, completely screwed up faction etc.) Personally ithink he set the industry back 5 years.
I would hire him in a second... ask him what we should do and do the complete opposite.
Same job I'd hire Smed for.
Do you own an online company? or is this just metaphorically speaking?
Wow.. you learned what a metaphor is? Summer school rocks!
Are you going to answer my question?
I didn't think I needed to. Is english your second language or are you missing a sense of humor?
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
There is a definite irony in the fact that most of the people here joking about him bagging groceries or working for Geek Squad are almost certainly far more likely to be either working in jobs like that (or worse) right now, or are students with an, at best, VERY uncertain future given the simple realities of life. Brad, on the other hand, is a millionaire. Ive interacted with him on one of the Porsche forums and on the NSX forum. So I guess Brad gets the last laugh. For people whose lives are so imbalanced that they can feel such schadenfreude for a total stranger because they dont like the game he made, that fact has GOT to hurt a bit. Maybe thats where the bitterness on threads like this originates?
Successful people admire successful people un-successful people resent them. BTW I retired almost 10 years ago mainly because I was one of the best in my chosen profession. No one could flip those burgers like me.
Bragging on forums how you have spunked $30 million up the wall (I am sure whilst lining his own pockets). Or conning 100,000 people by charging them to play something that should not have left beta, does not in my mind make you succesful. Neither does driving a porche (/spit) or having a million bucks in the bank round my way its drug dealers and pimps that drive porches . The jolly green ranger is right up there with those kinda guys I grant you.
Would anyone ever loan him the kind of money needed to produce a quality MMO after Vanguard's failure? Would any reputable game developer even want Brad's name associated with their product because of the stigma?
Under the right circumstances? Absolutely.
Businness investors won't react with the rabid and near hysterical emotionalism we are seeing on the various gaming forums. They don't care about "stigma".
They'll look at the opportunities involved and decide each case seperately.
I think the fact that he waisted 30 million bucks and blamed it on everything else but him will go above and beyond some "rabid and near hsyterical emotionalisms we are seeing on the various gaming forums"
If I was a business person and looking for a team or someone I can invest my money in it is true I would probably not log onto the forums. Just the fact that He squandered SO MUCH money and had to sell the game to even break even (we dont even know that....he may have lost a lot of money in the end run..we will nevr know) and fired well over 90% of his company four months after the release of his company's first project is more than enough to skip him and look elswhere to place my money in.
Trust me....someone comes to you asking for millions, you'll do a little research on that person asking for the money. They wont go far before finding out about his (McQuaid) lack of success.
Not a troll comment. Just factual commonsense.
I mean..lemme ask you this. If you had a few million dollars and someone comes to you and ask if they can invest one million of it into their game would you blindly give it to him or would you research his successes? EQ yes. Successful. That was 10 years ago. Vanguard? Horrible. This year. Now, compound that million by 30 times.
You don't have to answer that question here. It's merely rhetorical. Just something for you to think about.
I did make a point of stating "under the right circumstances".
As an investor, I'd want to safeguard, as much as possible, my investment. I'd research the background and evaluate the risk. Then, if I decided to invest, I try and find a way to write into the agreements methods to monitor the ongoing results. If I weren't satisfied with the agreements, I'd walk away.
It seems like many people have decided that he failed, and should never get an opportunity to walk in public again without people throwing rotten tomatoes at him. I'm saying that investors would look at the risk vs reward in potential endeavors and make decisions on that basis, not just because his business failed. Businesses fail every day, and more than a few people fail at a business and go on to form a successful new one.
You do realize that Donald Trump has declared bankruptcy twice? So did P.T. Barnum, Henry Heinz, Henry Ford, Walt Disney, Charles Goodyear, and Milton Hershey. Recognize any of those names? They all 'failed' before making it big.
Investors often don't judge opportunites by past history, but let potential dollars make their decisions for them.
- How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
- I don't know, but some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they?
Good question the answer to the two questions would be no and no. But it is very viable that he will be involved with future MMORPGs' thats if he has any ability to learn from experience !!!!
________________________________________________________ Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
Comments
Well, seeing that Vanguard is only 4 months on the market, I think it is a little pre-mature to say whether Brad's game was a success or not. EQ did not have a stronger launch then Vanguard and did not reach over 90k in its first 4 months live (don't quote me on that, but I believe I saw a post saying it was after a year that they reached 150k). EQ was buggy and had performance issues and end game content issues.....sound familiar? This may just be Brad's historic pattern. And in the same way you may want to leave the door open on Vanguard for a year or two before you decide his game was a failure. EQ wasn't an unbridled success for a couple of years. If you predict the future people, you should at least admit that you are guessing.
My prediction is that if Vanguard isn't turned around, he will have lots of problems, if it is turned around, he may become marketable again. He certainly will have problems getting money for his own company, but just because it is a challenge doesn't mean he can't pull it off. Babe Ruth showed up late for practice, drank, partied, got out of shape, embarassed his team and fans with some of his antics; he still got to play ball. If Vanguard ends up making money, don't assume capitalism will turn from him because of their moral issues with him as a person. Heck, capitalists in America invested in Hitler's Germany. And as I said earlier, I'm only guessing.
Are you sure it was him?
He came over to my friend's house the other day to fix his computer crashing. Brad works for Geek Squad now.
Maybe he has 2 jobs.
You guys really think he got out nothing out of that deal? I would guess between EQ and Sigil's sale, Brad never has to work again in his life.
His "vision" was awesome on paper, people were sold a pretty outstanding game before they had even seen it, and the hype was good. If what had been promised had been delivered in a optimised playable form, and a launch about as bug free as WoW and enough polish it would have probably been everything they wanted it to be and more. The problem was the vision he sold and the one delivered were two very different things.
Are you sure it was him?
He came over to my friend's house the other day to fix his computer crashing. Brad works for Geek Squad now.
Maybe he has 2 jobs.
You guys really think he got out nothing out of that deal? I would guess between EQ and Sigil's sale, Brad never has to work again in his life.
He didn't get anything out of EQ, he never owned it or Varant/ SoE. He just worked for them.
Wish Darkfall would release.
Brad McQuaid could have retired after EverQuest. He chose to create Vanguard, like almost any designer would have done in his position, out of love for the creation of worlds.
I was floored by Vanguard in Beta 2, unhappy with the direction it began to take in Beta 3, and my opinion degraded continuously after that and I am no longer involved with it; yet I am not the headhunting type of picket-line gamer who loves the drama of calling out the developers as evil liars, frauds, and incompetents.
Microsoft (probably unintentionally) screwed them over towards the end of Beta 2, then Microsoft's technology was swapped for SOE's, the beta testers spent much more time flaming each other without conclusion than providing direct feedback, a few key members of Sigil (who I met personally but won't name) were unsettling, Tom King couldn't relocate when the pace picked up, Keith Parkinson died, Bill Fisher competed with Brad McQuaid over design philosophies (having a notably different outlook on things) in a way that I can't imagine was ultimately helpful, and McQuaid ultimately fell apart towards the latter days when he saw what was coming, which obviously incited bitterness towards him and further hurt morale.
Which of these was the worst event or circumstance is anyone's own opinion, but I think we can all agree that it all contributed significantly to the insufficient turnout of players, the acquisition, and the stinging necrosis.
Vanguard was absolutely flipping amazing to me in its early beta days and nights. It destabilised and drastically changed direction later, but I will always remember how it was before that, and regret that McQuaid and Sigil had to lose that quality later in development. I hope that a company reforms with at least McQuaid and Masten both onboard. I empathised with no two more.
Under the right circumstances? Absolutely.
Businness investors won't react with the rabid and near hysterical emotionalism we are seeing on the various gaming forums. They don't care about "stigma".
They'll look at the opportunities involved and decide each case seperately.
I think the fact that he waisted 30 million bucks and blamed it on everything else but him will go above and beyond some "rabid and near hsyterical emotionalisms we are seeing on the various gaming forums"
If I was a business person and looking for a team or someone I can invest my money in it is true I would probably not log onto the forums. Just the fact that He squandered SO MUCH money and had to sell the game to even break even (we dont even know that....he may have lost a lot of money in the end run..we will nevr know) and fired well over 90% of his company four months after the release of his company's first project is more than enough to skip him and look elswhere to place my money in.
Trust me....someone comes to you asking for millions, you'll do a little research on that person asking for the money. They wont go far before finding out about his (McQuaid) lack of success.
Not a troll comment. Just factual commonsense.
I mean..lemme ask you this. If you had a few million dollars and someone comes to you and ask if they can invest one million of it into their game would you blindly give it to him or would you research his successes? EQ yes. Successful. That was 10 years ago. Vanguard? Horrible. This year. Now, compound that million by 30 times.
You don't have to answer that question here. It's merely rhetorical. Just something for you to think about.
Yup.. he's got "Pissed away 30 million" written on his business cards now.
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
Except you need to compare apples with apples - EQ 10 years ago getting 90K in 4 months was a raging success for a game that cost say $5 million.
Today to get 90k subs for a game that cost $30 million to make is a flop - especially when the market of MMORPG gamers is like 20 times bigger than it was 10 years ago.
Or you could compare to other big budget games that release this year
- LOTRO sold what 650,000 boxes. LOTRO is still in the top ten selling PC games after a month. Vanguard was from memory barely in the top 20 after a month.
Still if they can keep 100,000 active subscribers the game probably wont be shut down - no other mmorpg that hit 100,000 subscribers has cancelled.
I guess it depends on what you call a success. But having to let half you staff go means it wasnt a financial success. And I dont think Brad would say it was the success that he wanted.
Are you sure it was him?
He came over to my friend's house the other day to fix his computer crashing. Brad works for Geek Squad now.
Maybe he has 2 jobs.
You guys really think he got out nothing out of that deal? I would guess between EQ and Sigil's sale, Brad never has to work again in his life.
This is the truest comment on this thread (well, this and the reasonable comments indicating that if he came up with a good enough idea again he'd likely find investors)
There is a definite irony in the fact that most of the people here joking about him bagging groceries or working for Geek Squad are almost certainly far more likely to be either working in jobs like that (or worse) right now, or are students with an, at best, VERY uncertain future given the simple realities of life. Brad, on the other hand, is a millionaire. Ive interacted with him on one of the Porsche forums and on the NSX forum. So I guess Brad gets the last laugh. For people whose lives are so imbalanced that they can feel such schadenfreude for a total stranger because they dont like the game he made, that fact has GOT to hurt a bit. Maybe thats where the bitterness on threads like this originates?
What I find even more amazing is that John Smedley still has a job after how his leadership not only failed to keep SOE at the top of the industry, but at this point they aren't even a legit contender. ALL their games combined fall well short of 1/10th WoW's subs...
Wow.. you learned what a metaphor is? Summer school rocks!
Are you going to answer my question?
Maybe we just feel sorry for the employees who got screwed by the vision - working 100 hour weeks for 6 months to end up fired in the car-park.
Or maybe we just dont like being lied to - about the MS/Sony deal.
Or maybe we dont like paying for a game that isnt fit to be released.
However from Brad's posts I dont think he is laughing about the whole thing - I think he cares a lot.
Successful people admire successful people un-successful people resent them. BTW I retired almost 10 years ago mainly because I was one of the best in my chosen profession. No one could flip those burgers like me.
Bragging on forums how you have spunked $30 million up the wall (I am sure whilst lining his own pockets). Or conning 100,000 people by charging them to play something that should not have left beta, does not in my mind make you succesful. Neither does driving a porche (/spit) or having a million bucks in the bank round my way its drug dealers and pimps that drive porches
. The jolly green ranger is right up there with those kinda guys I grant you.
Yes, but all that EverQuest really had to compete with were Ultima Online wich were completely in 2D compared to EverQuest's fresh looking 3D graphics (for it's day and age).
The competition is much tougher these days and such a lauch as EverQuest had won't cut it these days (if it's true that it only had 90k subscriptions in the beginning).
A MMO is like life. It is something to cherish and enjoy upon in it journey. So why race to the end of it. In life at the end you die.
Totally disagree. It is well past time since Brad had to sell the game and financially it is sinking quicker than Asheron's Call 2, Shadowbane and Dark and Light put together. It is also the second most expensive MMORPG ever made which makes this even bigger. Think Waterworld or Pearl Harbor and you get the idea.
EQI to Vanguard is like comparing Gone with The Wind money to Spiderman 3 money. They made EQ1 for 7-8 million I believe, and in general it was in a league unto itself. People will overlook alot of things to be the first and we overlooked alot to be in Norrath. I imagine that first car didn't drive very well or that first airplane. In Vanguard's case, it released a 1999 level product in 2007. Brad thought everyone would "feel the magic" again no matter how cruddy the gameplay was.
I've driven that first car now and I want more. That first car didn't even have doors but it was fun and new. Now, Blizzard made a Porsche and that old Model T doesn't sound that great anymore. No one told Brad someone made a Porsche MMORPG apparently.
For the record, Babe Ruth produced homeruns and money and Brad did not. Brad could be sniffing coke and hiring Paris Hilton to give him back massages right now if VG was successful and no one would care. If Vanguard becomes succesful by some miracle it won't be Brad's baby anymore. It will be a "SOE pulled Brad's vision out of the fire and saved a dieing game". That doesn't look good on a resume.
At some point in time, EQ reached 90k subs on the road from 0K to 550k.. it's logical. But EQ never "stagnated" at 90K for months/years, it slowly rose up until the release of WoW from 0 to 550 faster and faster as years went by.
My addiction History:
>> EQ1 2000-2004 - Shaman/Bard/Wizard/Monk - nolife raid-whore
>> WoW 2004-2009 + Cataclysm for 2 months - hardcore casual
>> Current status : done with MMO, too old for that crap.
I remember reading something written by Brad McQuaid that mentioned EverQuest and 455k subscriptions but that were likely a couple of years or so from it's launch.
And remember it almost had zero competition, the only explanation for it's slow initial growth is that it were too buggy and that the servers were too unstable. *shrugs*
Wow.. you learned what a metaphor is? Summer school rocks!
Are you going to answer my question?
I didn't think I needed to. Is english your second language or are you missing a sense of humor?
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
Successful people admire successful people un-successful people resent them. BTW I retired almost 10 years ago mainly because I was one of the best in my chosen profession. No one could flip those burgers like me.
Bragging on forums how you have spunked $30 million up the wall (I am sure whilst lining his own pockets). Or conning 100,000 people by charging them to play something that should not have left beta, does not in my mind make you succesful. Neither does driving a porche (/spit) or having a million bucks in the bank round my way its drug dealers and pimps that drive porches
. The jolly green ranger is right up there with those kinda guys I grant you.
Truer words were never spoken.
Under the right circumstances? Absolutely.
Businness investors won't react with the rabid and near hysterical emotionalism we are seeing on the various gaming forums. They don't care about "stigma".
They'll look at the opportunities involved and decide each case seperately.
I think the fact that he waisted 30 million bucks and blamed it on everything else but him will go above and beyond some "rabid and near hsyterical emotionalisms we are seeing on the various gaming forums"
If I was a business person and looking for a team or someone I can invest my money in it is true I would probably not log onto the forums. Just the fact that He squandered SO MUCH money and had to sell the game to even break even (we dont even know that....he may have lost a lot of money in the end run..we will nevr know) and fired well over 90% of his company four months after the release of his company's first project is more than enough to skip him and look elswhere to place my money in.
Trust me....someone comes to you asking for millions, you'll do a little research on that person asking for the money. They wont go far before finding out about his (McQuaid) lack of success.
Not a troll comment. Just factual commonsense.
I mean..lemme ask you this. If you had a few million dollars and someone comes to you and ask if they can invest one million of it into their game would you blindly give it to him or would you research his successes? EQ yes. Successful. That was 10 years ago. Vanguard? Horrible. This year. Now, compound that million by 30 times.
You don't have to answer that question here. It's merely rhetorical. Just something for you to think about.
I did make a point of stating "under the right circumstances".
As an investor, I'd want to safeguard, as much as possible, my investment. I'd research the background and evaluate the risk. Then, if I decided to invest, I try and find a way to write into the agreements methods to monitor the ongoing results. If I weren't satisfied with the agreements, I'd walk away.
It seems like many people have decided that he failed, and should never get an opportunity to walk in public again without people throwing rotten tomatoes at him. I'm saying that investors would look at the risk vs reward in potential endeavors and make decisions on that basis, not just because his business failed. Businesses fail every day, and more than a few people fail at a business and go on to form a successful new one.
You do realize that Donald Trump has declared bankruptcy twice? So did P.T. Barnum, Henry Heinz, Henry Ford, Walt Disney, Charles Goodyear, and Milton Hershey. Recognize any of those names? They all 'failed' before making it big.
Investors often don't judge opportunites by past history, but let potential dollars make their decisions for them.
- How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
- I don't know, but some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they?
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel