Vulture Skull, don't get me wrong, I am in agreement with you concerning the value of the money and what the consumers deserve. I wasn't being clear on this and that's my fault, but I don't think $50 is nothing - however, nor do I think it is a reason for those who feel cheated to constantly go on tirades and resort to name-calling, destructive speculation and whatnot. The only reason I pointed out that the product is a luxury is to remind people that on a relative scale, the harm is not so bad. At least, not bad enough to continue having bad feelings over.
Ok, i miss understood you, sry, and i see your point, infact i dont even think it is the money that get people so het up, but more the dissappiontment after great expectations.
Lotta money talk being thrown around here, so let me offer my my experiences. I was not happy with the state the game was in at release, but I at least knew what state it was in. I definately got my $50 worth out of the game, even though it was buggy as hell and crashed A LOT!
The thing that pissed me off to the point of cancelling was more than 6 months of subscription fees that I paid while they made no significant improvements to the game. Oh sure, they promised stability upgrades and bug fixes (in fact I distinctly remember reading twice that the 'jumping while swimming' bug was fixed), but they simply never showed up. There are still bugs in the game that were reported in beta. There are broken quests in the game that were working at launch, but were broken in later patches. There are still hitching and latency issues.
What was done in this pivotal period of time is remove the EE system, add rentable flying mounts, add riftways, add rest XP (and many bonus XP periods).
I had constantly watched people who liked the vision of the game leave one by one because the stability and performance was never addressed. The population continued to dwindle as players reached level cap and there was no hint as to when more content would be added. What's worse, it took them nearly 7 months to merge servers. If you think the servers are devoid of players now, you should have logged in sometime in July.
To sum up, the $50 purchase was OK for me (only because I knew what to expect). But to think people will pay subscription fees for more than 6 months while waiting for stability and performance patches is absurd. If you disagree with this philosophy, think for a moment about how much work you've gotten done in the last 6 months. Is performance and stability too much to ask for in maybe 8 weeks?
To all who doubt the validity of this you are all wrong to assume it’s fabricated because none of it is. I’ willing to bet Smed has been trying to figure out a response to this posting, and I expect it to appear within the next few days. I would check his Blog on Monday. There are some things the average gamer wasn’t supposed to know; now you do.
To all who doubt the validity of this you are all wrong to assume it’s fabricated because none of it is. I’ willing to bet Smed has been trying to figure out a response to this posting, and I expect it to appear within the next few days. I would check his Blog on Monday. There are some things the average gamer wasn’t supposed to know; now you do.
I really don't think Smed cares about Vanguard enough to post on it. VG is clearly the black sheep of the SOE family and that is a family of a bunch of Losers. I bet Smed just wants to forget about it. It is curious that he can keep his job after making such a bad decision to buy VG.
To SOE i doubt buying VG was a bad decision, I dont really know how much they paid for it, but if they make 3 Million a month on subs then it is all good for them.
Piety they don't poulgh some of that money back into the game. One month subs can pay for a team of 20 devs for a long long time, instead they have laid most of the DEVs off.
To SOE i doubt buying VG was a bad decision, I dont really know how much they paid for it, but if they make 3 Million a month on subs then it is all good for them. Piety they don't poulgh some of that money back into the game. One month subs can pay for a team of 20 devs for a long long time, instead they have laid most of the DEVs off.
Now what gives you the idea that they're making anything CLOSE to three million dollars a month with Vanguard?
Assuming 20,000 still actively subscribe to the game for $15 a month, that works out to $300,000.
The reality is though, a lot of people that play Vanguard are apart of Station Access. Who knows exactly how many, but even that paltry sum above is a huge exaggeration of exactly how much money Vanguard makes.
General revenue aside, stuff like bandwidth and server costs along with payroll factor into whatever profit margin the game can post. That of course has to dent whatever multi-million dollar sum SOE bought the game for.
I doubt Vanguard was worth it. There's some indications that they believe it was a bad idea, mainly the shrinking act of the development team.
This article would land someone's ass in jail if it wasn't completely fabricated as a joke. Even as a joke, the opiate accusation itself would be grounds for defamation because some people might actually believe it.
which makes me suspect it could be true... who would make an accusation like that in a public place if it were not? (not that I actually have a clue as to whether it is or not)
Comments
Ok, but first you have to change your screen name to Smedley.
Lotta money talk being thrown around here, so let me offer my my experiences. I was not happy with the state the game was in at release, but I at least knew what state it was in. I definately got my $50 worth out of the game, even though it was buggy as hell and crashed A LOT!
The thing that pissed me off to the point of cancelling was more than 6 months of subscription fees that I paid while they made no significant improvements to the game. Oh sure, they promised stability upgrades and bug fixes (in fact I distinctly remember reading twice that the 'jumping while swimming' bug was fixed), but they simply never showed up. There are still bugs in the game that were reported in beta. There are broken quests in the game that were working at launch, but were broken in later patches. There are still hitching and latency issues.
What was done in this pivotal period of time is remove the EE system, add rentable flying mounts, add riftways, add rest XP (and many bonus XP periods).
I had constantly watched people who liked the vision of the game leave one by one because the stability and performance was never addressed. The population continued to dwindle as players reached level cap and there was no hint as to when more content would be added. What's worse, it took them nearly 7 months to merge servers. If you think the servers are devoid of players now, you should have logged in sometime in July.
To sum up, the $50 purchase was OK for me (only because I knew what to expect). But to think people will pay subscription fees for more than 6 months while waiting for stability and performance patches is absurd. If you disagree with this philosophy, think for a moment about how much work you've gotten done in the last 6 months. Is performance and stability too much to ask for in maybe 8 weeks?
To all who doubt the validity of this you are all wrong to assume it’s fabricated because none of it is. I’ willing to bet Smed has been trying to figure out a response to this posting, and I expect it to appear within the next few days. I would check his Blog on Monday. There are some things the average gamer wasn’t supposed to know; now you do.
I really don't think Smed cares about Vanguard enough to post on it. VG is clearly the black sheep of the SOE family and that is a family of a bunch of Losers. I bet Smed just wants to forget about it. It is curious that he can keep his job after making such a bad decision to buy VG.
To SOE i doubt buying VG was a bad decision, I dont really know how much they paid for it, but if they make 3 Million a month on subs then it is all good for them.
Piety they don't poulgh some of that money back into the game. One month subs can pay for a team of 20 devs for a long long time, instead they have laid most of the DEVs off.
Assuming 20,000 still actively subscribe to the game for $15 a month, that works out to $300,000.
The reality is though, a lot of people that play Vanguard are apart of Station Access. Who knows exactly how many, but even that paltry sum above is a huge exaggeration of exactly how much money Vanguard makes.
General revenue aside, stuff like bandwidth and server costs along with payroll factor into whatever profit margin the game can post. That of course has to dent whatever multi-million dollar sum SOE bought the game for.
I doubt Vanguard was worth it. There's some indications that they believe it was a bad idea, mainly the shrinking act of the development team.
which makes me suspect it could be true... who would make an accusation like that in a public place if it were not? (not that I actually have a clue as to whether it is or not)