I voted for stocks in SOE. Why? Because they're positioning themselves to gain market share in Asia on other products. Please read the business spiel before posting such a poll, dude. Not every company has to make huge gains to be a profitable buy in the stock market.
They go on about future mmorpgs but no mmorpg released next year will break the 1 million subscriber mark and nothing will ever top WOW until someone releases a mmorpg that has the polish and quality of WOW. Warhammer Online i reckon will be released buggy and be a let down to alot of people and i don't think people wil find the combat as fun as WOW cause it's not as fluid and looks ugly. Vanguard will never ever be popular now because you only get one chance to make a first impression and 95% of people will never give a game a second look, only really the hardcore mmorpg crowd would.
Warhammer Online is still 5-6 months from the launch, so the combat is not perfect yet and it isn't polished yet.
And i don't think they release WAR buggy, they are going to launch it 5 months later then they should. I'm not saying that it will be the best game ever, but you can't say that the combat is not fun enough and ugly.
But i agree on your point about Vanguard. They released it unfinished and then you don't have any change to get it to the top.
I'm just predicting it' wont be successful like everyone thinks it'll be, maybe in sales it'll do ok cause of the hype but i doubt it'll hold many subscribers.... 300k tops.
when are we gonna understan that what wow has achived if we think about active accounts, is just no normal at all.
wow shoud have never rise that high, full stop.
And a game with 300k/500k subscribers, should be regarded as a succes, non as a failure, specially if the game we are talking about, it is not F2P, it is just math, you know
300.000 x 10$(average) =3.000.000$ each month straight into the X company pockets
why is that every topic about other games sucess's or failures the bord gets flooded by WoW fanboys....i dont get it..stay on your own board and play your simple overhyped game....i honestly dont need your opinion....there all the same.
Frankly, I don't really care either way. I like Vanguard. When WoW becomes more nuanced and less gear centric, I'll try it out. Until then, I guess my monthly fee goes to SOE for Vanguard. That's not a diss on WoW players, it's just that I don't like WoW.
The way I read the article the Vanguard Release was a failure... I dont think too many people will argue that. I think the game has vastly improved since then.
"I originally loved it because I loved the warcraft lore. Once it became popular, things starting running down hill,"
Did you stop going to Starbucks as well? No longer shop at the Hot Topic?
Just curious...
Despite the fact I know exactly what you're baiting for, I never went to them in the first place, nor would I. Popular does not mean good, however, the only other option in your limited imagination is that clearly I don't like it because its popular, not due to the other factors such as community quality, product quality, and million other things that can change when something goes from a niche/standard product to a global cashcow. There was a distinct shift in the gameplay and community when WoW became populare, specifically a larger focus on making the gameplay even more basic than it already was, and then a large focus on nothing but raid content. The community went to shit because you went from your average MMO community, to tons of people who have no idea how to behave in an MMO not even counting the multitude of children who think its just a cool place to spam chuck norris jokes.
No, but clearly its because I didn't want to play it because it was "popular". It had nothing to do with the game going from the depth of a kiddy pool to a puddle and having the shout channels routinely contain spam of "PENISPENISPENIS". Yup, clearly its the popularity putting me off such a quality gaming environment.
Popular may not mean good, but it also does not mean bad either. The reason people play MMORPGs is because they enjoy them. Heavy marketing or a good IP might get someone to buy the box, but if they do not enjoy the game, they will quit when their free month is up.
WoWs community is no more immature than any other MMORPG community. Fifteen year olds acting their age is not immature (it is right on target). It is the 25 year olds which act 15 that make a MMORPG immature. Other titles has just as many of these players as WoW does. WoW's community is a little different than a lot of the other MMORPG communities. It seems to have a higher percentage of <20 and >40 than most other games. It is a game built for the casual non-gamer. It is not surprising that it is not very popular with a forum that his a large number of gamers.
WoW's launch wasn't bad at all. There was some bugs, but a lot less than the launch of other games. It was very polished. There was a good bit of lag around peak, but this was due to the popularity of the game, not the programming. I was fortunate enough to be able to play off-peak when it was released, and there was hardly any lag at all.
Now there are many things I do not like about WoW, but that does not mean that it is not a good game. It just means that it is probably not the right game for me. I think it is important to remember that just because we don't enjoy a game doesn't mean others don't or won't.
This forum is a place for us to debate topics related to MMORPGs. If there are things you don't like about WoW, that is great, let's discuss them. However, don't forget to give developers their due when they make a good product (even if it is one that doesn't suit your playstyle). If you don't respect other people's opinion, then they will not respect yours.
"Those who dislike things based only on the fact that they are popular are just as shallow and superficial as those who only like them for the same reason."
"WoWs community is no more immature than any other MMORPG community"
...................your kidding right? ive tryed playing it a few times and know ppl who play, and i can tell you WoW has the absolute worst community. not only do u see constant childish arguments in CAPS in shout but u get called a noob for not having;/doing certain things. ive played a handful of MMOs in my life and this one is absolutly awful comapred to anything else ive played.
Originally posted by ZoOoO when are we gonna understan that what wow has achived if we think about active accounts, is just no normal at all. wow shoud have never rise that high, full stop. And a game with 300k/500k subscribers, should be regarded as a succes, non as a failure, specially if the game we are talking about, it is not F2P, it is just math, you know 300.000 x 10$(average) =3.000.000$ each month straight into the X company pockets 3.000.000 x 12 (months) = 36.000.000$ each year so please......
You might be okay at math, but take a step back from business.
Dont factor in things like overhead, server cluster hosting, hardware costs, office overhead, salary, advertising and initial development cost. You do realize that to make a profit, you have to recoup everything you spent in the 3-4 years it took to develop the game, with zero profit rolling in right?
If a game has 300k to 500k it's probably going to be financially successful, but the level of success will vary. How much was initially spent in development? If it was a 10 million game, it's going to look much better on paper, if it's a 60 million game, then it's going to take a lot longer to reach profitability.
I'll go along with you that 300k to 500k is pretty solid numbers, but depending on what is invested, and the target audience is equally important when determining how successful things really are.
Without getting into the debate, who really cares what a BBC article says about Vanguard? I think it was Tuche who had it right, if you like it play it. It doesnt have to be for everyone, and not everyone has to share your opinion, if you have fun, hell with public perception of the game.
I enjoy checkers and chess. I suppose more people will always play checkers, since it's quick and nearly eveyone can play it. I just don't want to see chess go away because fewer people play it than checkers.
To me, success isn't measured by the number of consumers that enjoy a product. It's measured by the level of enjoyment by each consumer. What I don't get is why a bunch of consumers are debating from a manufacturers perspective. Does the number of sales/subs really determine how much you enjoy a game? Or, do you simply want to be one of the "in-crowd"?
"WoWs community is no more immature than any other MMORPG community" ...................your kidding right? ive tryed playing it a few times and know ppl who play, and i can tell you WoW has the absolute worst community. not only do u see constant childish arguments in CAPS in shout but u get called a noob for not having;/doing certain things. ive played a handful of MMOs in my life and this one is absolutly awful comapred to anything else ive played.
You're going to see more of everything in WoW when it comes to people and their behavior; more people having immature conversations, more people having mature conversations, so on and so forth. That's simply because there's more people playing WoW.
I keep hearin' WoW is for kids, Vanguard is for adults. Well like it or not, there's more 50-year-olds playing WoW than there are playing Vanguard, by far. Just like there's more 12-year-olds playing WoW than there are playing Vanguard. There's more adult-only guilds in WoW than there are in Vanguard, just like there's more guilds belonging strictly to highschool friends.
The extremes go both ways...not just inexplicably in one direction that'd put Vanguard on some kind of special pedestal. Games, no matter the content, attract people of all ages and maturity levels, which aren't the same thing anyway.
WoW is not popular for quality, there are 4 reasons behind wow sucess. 1 huge marketing 2 simple 3 run in everyone pc 4 cartoon appeals to comon people, not only fantasy fans About the future of Vanguard, well, only time will tell...and "hardcore" people and people that wants a deeper pve experience at least have an option now...
1) huge marketing? when WoW was being created I don't remember it having any advertising anywhere. I heard about it through friends that played warcraft and diablo, same way most people heard about it. MMOs didnt get alot of attention back then. Vanguard had 1000x more marketing and look what happened to it.
2) yeah, it is simple
3) it runs on everyones pc NOW, not 3 years ago (or whenever it came out)
4) cartoons appeal to common people? most gamers I know hate cartoony graphics. and most non-gamers I know hate cartoons.
I dont think you actually thought about your list. Try again.
------------------------------ "Everything is awesome. Fundamentally."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7156078.stm "..Another sign of the growing maturity of online gaming was the notable failure of titles such as Vanguard. Although released in February it was error prone and has taken months to become reliable enough. " Are the days of releasing MMOs to be beta-tested by paying customers over?
The article answers your question in the very next sentence:
"It's clear that it's no longer acceptable to release buggy games, and players aren't prepared to pay a monthly fee to test an unfinished product," he said.
They're specifically referring to Vanguard's release in the article, but let's face it-- if you look at things objectively, Vanguard can easily be seen as a failed game. The botched, buggy release right in the aftermath of the Burning Crusade, the mass exodus of players within the first couple of months, the server merges, Sigil's implosion, downsizing the Vanguard team twice in a few months, etc....none of those things lead to confidence in a game from an outside perspective. They lead to concern, and to the conclusion that Vanguard is a failed game.
Has the game improved and changed since its release? I'd imagine so, since even the BBC article says it's now running better. But it's not hard to see why someone who is on the outside looking in might look at Vanguard and write it off completely.
WAR already has 500k people playing beta, and several hundred thousand more drooling to get in...
If thats any indication, I dont think that it will be a failure, and it has a very good chance to topple Wow in North America, and maybe eventually worldwide...
NO. It has had 500,000 APPLY for the beta. Whooptie doo. I have printed this post and will mount it for the sheer comedy it will bring me in the coming year. Topple WOW - that is classic.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7156078.stm "..Another sign of the growing maturity of online gaming was the notable failure of titles such as Vanguard. Although released in February it was error prone and has taken months to become reliable enough. " Are the days of releasing MMOs to be beta-tested by paying customers over?
The article answers your question in the very next sentence:
"It's clear that it's no longer acceptable to release buggy games, and players aren't prepared to pay a monthly fee to test an unfinished product," he said.
They're specifically referring to Vanguard's release in the article, but let's face it-- if you look at things objectively, Vanguard can easily be seen as a failed game. The botched, buggy release right in the aftermath of the Burning Crusade, the mass exodus of players within the first couple of months, the server merges, Sigil's implosion, downsizing the Vanguard team twice in a few months, etc....none of those things lead to confidence in a game from an outside perspective. They lead to concern, and to the conclusion that Vanguard is a failed game.
Has the game improved and changed since its release? I'd imagine so, since even the BBC article says it's now running better. But it's not hard to see why someone who is on the outside looking in might look at Vanguard and write it off completely.
"WoWs community is no more immature than any other MMORPG community" ...................your kidding right? ive tryed playing it a few times and know ppl who play, and i can tell you WoW has the absolute worst community. not only do u see constant childish arguments in CAPS in shout but u get called a noob for not having;/doing certain things. ive played a handful of MMOs in my life and this one is absolutly awful comapred to anything else ive played.
You're going to see more of everything in WoW when it comes to people and their behavior; more people having immature conversations, more people having mature conversations, so on and so forth. That's simply because there's more people playing WoW.
I keep hearin' WoW is for kids, Vanguard is for adults. Well like it or not, there's more 50-year-olds playing WoW than there are playing Vanguard, by far. Just like there's more 12-year-olds playing WoW than there are playing Vanguard. There's more adult-only guilds in WoW than there are in Vanguard, just like there's more guilds belonging strictly to highschool friends.
The extremes go both ways...not just inexplicably in one direction that'd put Vanguard on some kind of special pedestal. Games, no matter the content, attract people of all ages and maturity levels, which aren't the same thing anyway.
WoW has what 8 million subs? so of course in every age category it has more people playing than any other MMO, the perception of WoW as a kiddy game comes from %s
My guess is that a far greater % of WoWs subs comes from kids when compared to Vanguard
"WoWs community is no more immature than any other MMORPG community" ...................your kidding right? ive tryed playing it a few times and know ppl who play, and i can tell you WoW has the absolute worst community. not only do u see constant childish arguments in CAPS in shout but u get called a noob for not having;/doing certain things. ive played a handful of MMOs in my life and this one is absolutly awful comapred to anything else ive played.
You're going to see more of everything in WoW when it comes to people and their behavior; more people having immature conversations, more people having mature conversations, so on and so forth. That's simply because there's more people playing WoW.
I keep hearin' WoW is for kids, Vanguard is for adults. Well like it or not, there's more 50-year-olds playing WoW than there are playing Vanguard, by far. Just like there's more 12-year-olds playing WoW than there are playing Vanguard. There's more adult-only guilds in WoW than there are in Vanguard, just like there's more guilds belonging strictly to highschool friends.
The extremes go both ways...not just inexplicably in one direction that'd put Vanguard on some kind of special pedestal. Games, no matter the content, attract people of all ages and maturity levels, which aren't the same thing anyway.
WoW has what 8 million subs? so of course in every age category it has more people playing than any other MMO, the perception of WoW as a kiddy game comes from %s
My guess is that a far greater % of WoWs subs comes from kids when compared to Vanguard
That's because Vanguard is largely played by a very specific group of older players-- EQ1 veterans who latched on to the game due to Brad McQuaid's involvement and their desire for a game that exactly reflected the early days of EverQuest, and which would bring back the "good old days" of pre-Luclin, pre-PoP gameplay. It has very little to do with age or maturity as much as it does nostalgia, IMO.
WoW has mass appeal. And it also happens to be a fun game that is not only easy to pick up and play, but which offers enough variety to keep people interested. There's a reason that millions of people are paying and playing, and it's not just because of the lower system requirements. It's a well made, fun game that people enjoy.
To answer the poll question at the beginning. I wouldn't pay for Blizzard stock. They are owned by another company (Vinvendi, now called Activision Blizzard?) so all those 9 million x $15 subs aren't going into blizzards pockets. If they were independent, they would be wealthy beyond belief and probably have better customer service i personally don't play WoW because of a customer service "incident" i had with them. but that is for another thread. hehe
Also, in Vanguard's defense. Brad McQuaid or someone high up in Sigil posted on their main website right before the game launched that they were out of money and had to release the game unfinished. They were very honest. So if you chose to buy the game after that, don't complain. I've been playing vanguard for free during the holiday period and its come a long way since launch. I'm actually enjoying it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7156078.stm "..Another sign of the growing maturity of online gaming was the notable failure of titles such as Vanguard. Although released in February it was error prone and has taken months to become reliable enough. " Are the days of releasing MMOs to be beta-tested by paying customers over?
The article answers your question in the very next sentence:
"It's clear that it's no longer acceptable to release buggy games, and players aren't prepared to pay a monthly fee to test an unfinished product," he said.
They're specifically referring to Vanguard's release in the article, but let's face it-- if you look at things objectively, Vanguard can easily be seen as a failed game. The botched, buggy release right in the aftermath of the Burning Crusade, the mass exodus of players within the first couple of months, the server merges, Sigil's implosion, downsizing the Vanguard team twice in a few months, etc....none of those things lead to confidence in a game from an outside perspective. They lead to concern, and to the conclusion that Vanguard is a failed game.
Has the game improved and changed since its release? I'd imagine so, since even the BBC article says it's now running better. But it's not hard to see why someone who is on the outside looking in might look at Vanguard and write it off completely.
Of course VG is a failure, it released unfinished and was very hyped up resulting in decent box sales but low retention rate. It is a very very good game now, to me it is clearly the best MMO on the market, but it is still a commercial failure.
and it is still a beta game too, of which nobody wants to pay to test the bloody thing. only the die hard fanboi's of the game do that, or people who are desperate enough for something to do.
This months comeback and look aint done much for me anyways, so far ive been in a total of 2hrs. Hate the empty gameworld, i know you need to group up to do the better missions, you know, the ones that have something worth going for and not the crappy missions that dont drop nothing worth spending time trying to get.
Then of course you still have the lagg too, i'm the only 1 there and i still have lagg, i have a high spec PC and a 10mb ISP connection and though it seems less than it used to be, i am simply putting that down to nobody else being around, if there was, then it would still be just as laggy as it was at release.
Will i come back, answer simply is no. The game had its chance back at release (all be it was a screwed up release) but a release none the less, they knew the state the game was in and still went for release hoping us paying customers wouldnt care. They were wrong, i left after 2 mths myself, was more than enough time for them to do something but they didnt. Almost a year on and it is in my opinion, just not good enough still and my advice to anyone as i have frankly been saying is to leave this and wait for one of the new ones that is comming in 2008.
Comments
i dont care who say its a failure or not, i am having lots of fun !
I voted for stocks in SOE. Why? Because they're positioning themselves to gain market share in Asia on other products. Please read the business spiel before posting such a poll, dude.
Not every company has to make huge gains to be a profitable buy in the stock market.
-- Brede
And i don't think they release WAR buggy, they are going to launch it 5 months later then they should. I'm not saying that it will be the best game ever, but you can't say that the combat is not fun enough and ugly.
But i agree on your point about Vanguard. They released it unfinished and then you don't have any change to get it to the top.
when are we gonna understan that what wow has achived if we think about active accounts, is just no normal at all.I'm just predicting it' wont be successful like everyone thinks it'll be, maybe in sales it'll do ok cause of the hype but i doubt it'll hold many subscribers.... 300k tops.
wow shoud have never rise that high, full stop.
And a game with 300k/500k subscribers, should be regarded as a succes, non as a failure, specially if the game we are talking about, it is not F2P, it is just math, you know
300.000 x 10$(average) =3.000.000$ each month straight into the X company pockets
3.000.000 x 12 (months) = 36.000.000$ each year
so please......
That is the bottom line. Although VG is not my cup of tea I have respect for that opinion. Well said.
why is that every topic about other games sucess's or failures the bord gets flooded by WoW fanboys....i dont get it..stay on your own board and play your simple overhyped game....i honestly dont need your opinion....there all the same.
Frankly, I don't really care either way. I like Vanguard. When WoW becomes more nuanced and less gear centric, I'll try it out. Until then, I guess my monthly fee goes to SOE for Vanguard. That's not a diss on WoW players, it's just that I don't like WoW.
The way I read the article the Vanguard Release was a failure... I dont think too many people will argue that. I think the game has vastly improved since then.
Despite the fact I know exactly what you're baiting for, I never went to them in the first place, nor would I. Popular does not mean good, however, the only other option in your limited imagination is that clearly I don't like it because its popular, not due to the other factors such as community quality, product quality, and million other things that can change when something goes from a niche/standard product to a global cashcow. There was a distinct shift in the gameplay and community when WoW became populare, specifically a larger focus on making the gameplay even more basic than it already was, and then a large focus on nothing but raid content. The community went to shit because you went from your average MMO community, to tons of people who have no idea how to behave in an MMO not even counting the multitude of children who think its just a cool place to spam chuck norris jokes.No, but clearly its because I didn't want to play it because it was "popular". It had nothing to do with the game going from the depth of a kiddy pool to a puddle and having the shout channels routinely contain spam of "PENISPENISPENIS". Yup, clearly its the popularity putting me off such a quality gaming environment.
Popular may not mean good, but it also does not mean bad either. The reason people play MMORPGs is because they enjoy them. Heavy marketing or a good IP might get someone to buy the box, but if they do not enjoy the game, they will quit when their free month is up.
WoWs community is no more immature than any other MMORPG community. Fifteen year olds acting their age is not immature (it is right on target). It is the 25 year olds which act 15 that make a MMORPG immature. Other titles has just as many of these players as WoW does. WoW's community is a little different than a lot of the other MMORPG communities. It seems to have a higher percentage of <20 and >40 than most other games. It is a game built for the casual non-gamer. It is not surprising that it is not very popular with a forum that his a large number of gamers.
WoW's launch wasn't bad at all. There was some bugs, but a lot less than the launch of other games. It was very polished. There was a good bit of lag around peak, but this was due to the popularity of the game, not the programming. I was fortunate enough to be able to play off-peak when it was released, and there was hardly any lag at all.
Now there are many things I do not like about WoW, but that does not mean that it is not a good game. It just means that it is probably not the right game for me. I think it is important to remember that just because we don't enjoy a game doesn't mean others don't or won't.
This forum is a place for us to debate topics related to MMORPGs. If there are things you don't like about WoW, that is great, let's discuss them. However, don't forget to give developers their due when they make a good product (even if it is one that doesn't suit your playstyle). If you don't respect other people's opinion, then they will not respect yours.
"Those who dislike things based only on the fact that they are popular are just as shallow and superficial as those who only like them for the same reason."
"WoWs community is no more immature than any other MMORPG community"
...................your kidding right? ive tryed playing it a few times and know ppl who play, and i can tell you WoW has the absolute worst community. not only do u see constant childish arguments in CAPS in shout but u get called a noob for not having;/doing certain things. ive played a handful of MMOs in my life and this one is absolutly awful comapred to anything else ive played.
You might be okay at math, but take a step back from business.
Dont factor in things like overhead, server cluster hosting, hardware costs, office overhead, salary, advertising and initial development cost. You do realize that to make a profit, you have to recoup everything you spent in the 3-4 years it took to develop the game, with zero profit rolling in right?
If a game has 300k to 500k it's probably going to be financially successful, but the level of success will vary. How much was initially spent in development? If it was a 10 million game, it's going to look much better on paper, if it's a 60 million game, then it's going to take a lot longer to reach profitability.
I'll go along with you that 300k to 500k is pretty solid numbers, but depending on what is invested, and the target audience is equally important when determining how successful things really are.
Without getting into the debate, who really cares what a BBC article says about Vanguard? I think it was Tuche who had it right, if you like it play it. It doesnt have to be for everyone, and not everyone has to share your opinion, if you have fun, hell with public perception of the game.
I enjoy checkers and chess. I suppose more people will always play checkers, since it's quick and nearly eveyone can play it. I just don't want to see chess go away because fewer people play it than checkers.
To me, success isn't measured by the number of consumers that enjoy a product. It's measured by the level of enjoyment by each consumer. What I don't get is why a bunch of consumers are debating from a manufacturers perspective. Does the number of sales/subs really determine how much you enjoy a game? Or, do you simply want to be one of the "in-crowd"?
WoW is a commercial success but so is fast food.
I neither eat fast food nor play WoW.
-----
WoW and fast food = commercial successes.
I neither play WoW nor eat fast food.
I keep hearin' WoW is for kids, Vanguard is for adults. Well like it or not, there's more 50-year-olds playing WoW than there are playing Vanguard, by far. Just like there's more 12-year-olds playing WoW than there are playing Vanguard. There's more adult-only guilds in WoW than there are in Vanguard, just like there's more guilds belonging strictly to highschool friends.
The extremes go both ways...not just inexplicably in one direction that'd put Vanguard on some kind of special pedestal. Games, no matter the content, attract people of all ages and maturity levels, which aren't the same thing anyway.
2) yeah, it is simple
3) it runs on everyones pc NOW, not 3 years ago (or whenever it came out)
4) cartoons appeal to common people? most gamers I know hate cartoony graphics. and most non-gamers I know hate cartoons.
I dont think you actually thought about your list. Try again.
------------------------------
"Everything is awesome. Fundamentally."
WoW's PC friendliness was true at release as it is now.
The key for developers is to make a visually stunning game with low PC requirements.
Vanguard is very impressive visually but requires a monster PC to run.
-----
WoW and fast food = commercial successes.
I neither play WoW nor eat fast food.
The article answers your question in the very next sentence:
"It's clear that it's no longer acceptable to release buggy games, and players aren't prepared to pay a monthly fee to test an unfinished product," he said.
They're specifically referring to Vanguard's release in the article, but let's face it-- if you look at things objectively, Vanguard can easily be seen as a failed game. The botched, buggy release right in the aftermath of the Burning Crusade, the mass exodus of players within the first couple of months, the server merges, Sigil's implosion, downsizing the Vanguard team twice in a few months, etc....none of those things lead to confidence in a game from an outside perspective. They lead to concern, and to the conclusion that Vanguard is a failed game.
Has the game improved and changed since its release? I'd imagine so, since even the BBC article says it's now running better. But it's not hard to see why someone who is on the outside looking in might look at Vanguard and write it off completely.
These forums don't lack the comedy.
The article answers your question in the very next sentence:
"It's clear that it's no longer acceptable to release buggy games, and players aren't prepared to pay a monthly fee to test an unfinished product," he said.
They're specifically referring to Vanguard's release in the article, but let's face it-- if you look at things objectively, Vanguard can easily be seen as a failed game. The botched, buggy release right in the aftermath of the Burning Crusade, the mass exodus of players within the first couple of months, the server merges, Sigil's implosion, downsizing the Vanguard team twice in a few months, etc....none of those things lead to confidence in a game from an outside perspective. They lead to concern, and to the conclusion that Vanguard is a failed game.
Has the game improved and changed since its release? I'd imagine so, since even the BBC article says it's now running better. But it's not hard to see why someone who is on the outside looking in might look at Vanguard and write it off completely.
Pretty much, Gamasutra recently wrote Vanguard off as a failure as well: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16758Not to parade on a living corpse, but from such a top-down look at the industry as a whole; that's the only way to sum up Vanguard really.
I keep hearin' WoW is for kids, Vanguard is for adults. Well like it or not, there's more 50-year-olds playing WoW than there are playing Vanguard, by far. Just like there's more 12-year-olds playing WoW than there are playing Vanguard. There's more adult-only guilds in WoW than there are in Vanguard, just like there's more guilds belonging strictly to highschool friends.
The extremes go both ways...not just inexplicably in one direction that'd put Vanguard on some kind of special pedestal. Games, no matter the content, attract people of all ages and maturity levels, which aren't the same thing anyway.
WoW has what 8 million subs? so of course in every age category it has more people playing than any other MMO, the perception of WoW as a kiddy game comes from %s
My guess is that a far greater % of WoWs subs comes from kids when compared to Vanguard
Raid Officer
Blades of Wrath
Vanguard
You're going to see more of everything in WoW when it comes to people and their behavior; more people having immature conversations, more people having mature conversations, so on and so forth. That's simply because there's more people playing WoW.I keep hearin' WoW is for kids, Vanguard is for adults. Well like it or not, there's more 50-year-olds playing WoW than there are playing Vanguard, by far. Just like there's more 12-year-olds playing WoW than there are playing Vanguard. There's more adult-only guilds in WoW than there are in Vanguard, just like there's more guilds belonging strictly to highschool friends.
The extremes go both ways...not just inexplicably in one direction that'd put Vanguard on some kind of special pedestal. Games, no matter the content, attract people of all ages and maturity levels, which aren't the same thing anyway.
WoW has what 8 million subs? so of course in every age category it has more people playing than any other MMO, the perception of WoW as a kiddy game comes from %s
My guess is that a far greater % of WoWs subs comes from kids when compared to Vanguard
That's because Vanguard is largely played by a very specific group of older players-- EQ1 veterans who latched on to the game due to Brad McQuaid's involvement and their desire for a game that exactly reflected the early days of EverQuest, and which would bring back the "good old days" of pre-Luclin, pre-PoP gameplay. It has very little to do with age or maturity as much as it does nostalgia, IMO.
WoW has mass appeal. And it also happens to be a fun game that is not only easy to pick up and play, but which offers enough variety to keep people interested. There's a reason that millions of people are paying and playing, and it's not just because of the lower system requirements. It's a well made, fun game that people enjoy.
To answer the poll question at the beginning. I wouldn't pay for Blizzard stock. They are owned by another company (Vinvendi, now called Activision Blizzard?) so all those 9 million x $15 subs aren't going into blizzards pockets. If they were independent, they would be wealthy beyond belief and probably have better customer service
i personally don't play WoW because of a customer service "incident" i had with them. but that is for another thread. hehe
Also, in Vanguard's defense. Brad McQuaid or someone high up in Sigil posted on their main website right before the game launched that they were out of money and had to release the game unfinished. They were very honest. So if you chose to buy the game after that, don't complain. I've been playing vanguard for free during the holiday period and its come a long way since launch. I'm actually enjoying it.
The article answers your question in the very next sentence:
"It's clear that it's no longer acceptable to release buggy games, and players aren't prepared to pay a monthly fee to test an unfinished product," he said.
They're specifically referring to Vanguard's release in the article, but let's face it-- if you look at things objectively, Vanguard can easily be seen as a failed game. The botched, buggy release right in the aftermath of the Burning Crusade, the mass exodus of players within the first couple of months, the server merges, Sigil's implosion, downsizing the Vanguard team twice in a few months, etc....none of those things lead to confidence in a game from an outside perspective. They lead to concern, and to the conclusion that Vanguard is a failed game.
Has the game improved and changed since its release? I'd imagine so, since even the BBC article says it's now running better. But it's not hard to see why someone who is on the outside looking in might look at Vanguard and write it off completely.
Of course VG is a failure, it released unfinished and was very hyped up resulting in decent box sales but low retention rate. It is a very very good game now, to me it is clearly the best MMO on the market, but it is still a commercial failure.
and it is still a beta game too, of which nobody wants to pay to test the bloody thing. only the die hard fanboi's of the game do that, or people who are desperate enough for something to do.
This months comeback and look aint done much for me anyways, so far ive been in a total of 2hrs. Hate the empty gameworld, i know you need to group up to do the better missions, you know, the ones that have something worth going for and not the crappy missions that dont drop nothing worth spending time trying to get.
Then of course you still have the lagg too, i'm the only 1 there and i still have lagg, i have a high spec PC and a 10mb ISP connection and though it seems less than it used to be, i am simply putting that down to nobody else being around, if there was, then it would still be just as laggy as it was at release.
Will i come back, answer simply is no. The game had its chance back at release (all be it was a screwed up release) but a release none the less, they knew the state the game was in and still went for release hoping us paying customers wouldnt care. They were wrong, i left after 2 mths myself, was more than enough time for them to do something but they didnt. Almost a year on and it is in my opinion, just not good enough still and my advice to anyone as i have frankly been saying is to leave this and wait for one of the new ones that is comming in 2008.
Straight sex is success as well.