There is many games out there with bad launches that made it.. One of the worst launches ever was wow, and today i hear quite a few people are playing it. I have no clue why they are but the launch didn't kill the game.
This is true, for some reason people have very conveniently forgotten how buggy and unstable World of Warcraft was at launch...
Remember all those free days extra subscription time due to the vast amounts of server downtime anyone?
I remember WoW having connectivity and server problems, owing to the outrageous number of people trying to play. But I don't remember there being any showstoppers in the game itself. That is to say, the game was solid and fun but the network infrastructure was lacking. It's a problem easier to fix than recoding the game. (It's a problem publishers wish for!) In any case, no game can risk a bad launch anymore. The players aren't as tolerant. No one wants to pay to beta test a game. Well, no one besides the fanbois.
I remember it being very frustrating at the time, but you're right there weren't any real 'showstoppers' as you call them.
It didn't take them that long to solve the problems iirc.
There were no show stopping bugs in WoW at launch. In fact the most annoying bug the "loot bug" was due to server lag issues because everyone and their mother wanted to play the game.
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
i would normaly just ignore these posts but wow.... "sucktacular," that is screaming annoying. If you are not trolling, you are just asking for trolls to come here and preach WoW, Aion, WAR etc. etc. I mean why would you even post a thread like this lol. you do realize you personally have just killed 3 puppies and 2 kittens (with really big sad eyes). It is stuff like this that makes me come to mmorpg.com less frequently.
rabble rabble rabble rabble i say, now i have to go kick back 1/4 handle of jack just to forget about this.
There is many games out there with bad launches that made it.. One of the worst launches ever was wow, and today i hear quite a few people are playing it. I have no clue why they are but the launch didn't kill the game.
This is true, for some reason people have very conveniently forgotten how buggy and unstable World of Warcraft was at launch...
Remember all those free days extra subscription time due to the vast amounts of server downtime anyone?
I remember WoW having connectivity and server problems, owing to the outrageous number of people trying to play. But I don't remember there being any showstoppers in the game itself. That is to say, the game was solid and fun but the network infrastructure was lacking. It's a problem easier to fix than recoding the game. (It's a problem publishers wish for!)
In any case, no game can risk a bad launch anymore. The players aren't as tolerant. No one wants to pay to beta test a game. Well, no one besides the fanbois.
I remember it being very frustrating at the time, but you're right there weren't any real 'showstoppers' as you call them.
It didn't take them that long to solve the problems iirc.
There were no show stopping bugs in WoW at launch. In fact the most annoying bug the "loot bug" was due to server lag issues because everyone and their mother wanted to play the game.
Actually it was a problem with the database coupled with a bad router, the entire game didn't lag as was evident by the chat system working fine when the DB problem hit. This of course allowed everyone to whine and winge and even have a laugh at it but yeah, nobody could have predicted the sheer numbers of people that logged in at release.
WoW did not have a bad launch, it had quite a decent one and the bugs that were there got fixed within two weeks. Blizzard really should have delayed for that two weeks as the DB bug was there in beta but they went ahead and it hasn't hurt them much as it.
When Uo & Ao were released the genre was young and fresh, people were more forgiving because these games were breaking new ground, Ao wasn't really playable for the 1st year. Think about that, Ao, not playable for about a year, WoW playable at release apart from the odd ten minutes here and there to wait for the DB and fully playable after two weeks. Spot the difference?
Today the genre is mature, the lessons should have been learned and the subscribers are no longer willing to forgive. Vanguard was a victim of a couple of things, mainly a lack of money which meant if they didn't release when they did then the game would never have been released. Secondly they had Brad McKnowitall, you know, the guy that slagged off AoC and WAR as not being true MMO's and firmly believing that he alone knew what an MMO should be. I tell you guys, I laughed my freakin' head off when VG took a nose dive.
A bad release for AoC or WAR would be one with major game breaking bugs, lag up the wazoo and about one frame per second ( err! just like VG ) you get the picture, and if this is the kind of launch that either game has then yes, it will bitchslap them into the realm of also-rans. I don't think that WAR will have a bad launch, EA are throwing money at it whenever needed and don't mind the release date being pushed back to make sure they have a quality product. FC on the other hand don't have the same financial resources to fall back on and there is a little worry there. A couple of weeks ago one of the FC devs made a comment that the beta testers were just getting to the point when they could test sieges and this bothered me. Very close to release and a major area of the game was only just starting to be tested? I hope that they have enough money to allow them to delay release if needed but knowing Funcom's past record if the game-breaking bugs are only in the endgame they will release on time and gamble that they can have them fixed before anyone reaches that level and content, which is a dangerous game to play IMO.
While WoW did have some silly bugs and latency issues that would pop up from time to time at launch,it was still a awesome launch. I played WoW Beta for 6 months before release and it still never seemed like a beta game. And no I'm not a WoW groupie...Currently playing EQ2 waiting to see if WH or AOC is any good.
A good launch is probably one of the most defining factors in a games success IMO...normally If I play a game after launch and it's just aweful,full of lag,bugs,unbalanced content,unfinished content. I wont last longer then a week. EQ2 is really the only game had a dreadful launch that I decieded to try again.
I have to disagree with the bad release = death arguement.
Sure it is easy for a game with a poor release to tank but it is rarely the poor release that makes it tank.
EQ2 released poorly and it is doing fine now. The OP said the numbers are bad but the numbers for EQ2 are only bad if you think the numbers need to be like WoW, if you understand that a few hundred thousand players is enough then EQ2 is doing fine.
True Vanguard tanked but it isnt dead yet. And i dont feel that the poor release was really what drove the stake into Vanguard. People can overlook and play through bugs and glitches. Anyone who knows anything about MMOs knows that you will need to do this when pretty much any game launches. What people wont forgive is the fact that they spend thousands of dollars on a new computer and still could not play Vanguard at a decent (or even playable) level. I think if Vanguard would have release bug ridden but playable it would be doing fine right now, unfortunetly it released bug ridden and nearly unplayable.
But it may still make it. There is still a fan base in Vanguard and there are people who enjoy playing it.
Now a game that releases poorly and does nothing about it, that is where the problems are. If AOC releases with bugs but is a playable game then it will do fine, as long as fixing those bugs is a priority for the development team. Would i like a perfect launch, of course, but i also want a pony that craps gold bars and i probably wont get that either.
AoC will be fine as long as the Devs remember that they arent making WoW2 so they dont have to make the game anything like WoW.
And for all you people telling folks to stay away from the game, it really doesnt work so you might as well lay off it. People will try it and decide for themselves. I tell people not to play WoW all the time but for some reason there are still millions of people playing.
ever since Vanguard you people have developed a Phobia. a bad launch meant pretty much nothing a few years ago and now its the biggest issue ever. i suppose that is the trade off for an increase in media coverage.
for me...a bad launch wont affect me in the slightest. i can see its a good game and bugs wont change the underlying gameplay. i dont think we will see another crappy launch like Vanguard for at least a year
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds -Solid non level based game -Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
Originally posted by eric1000 When Uo & Ao were released the genre was young and fresh, people were more forgiving because these games were breaking new ground, Ao wasn't really playable for the 1st year. Think about that, Ao, not playable for about a year, WoW playable at release apart from the odd ten minutes here and there to wait for the DB and fully playable after two weeks. Spot the difference?
more forgiving?
I paid full retail for Anarchy Online and the launch sucked bad
myself and many others dropped AO *cold turkey* weeks after launch
for context, Everquest was already a popular mmo prior to AO
-- people had other choices than suffer broken mmos
First impression is always very important. We only can hope that the devs fix the bugs that the beta testers report and not just ignore. As far as I know things are looking very good, not everything is polished yet, but we'll see...
>> Live for nothing or die for something. Your call. <<
Proud member of the Snowhawk Clan, an Age of Conan guild.
Does everyone here suffer from short term memory loss? It seems this subject is brought up every week. Really. If anyone else worries about an early release for AOC please continue the topic on this thread and lets try not to start a new thread every week on the same damn topic. goodnight.
Does everyone here suffer from short term memory loss? It seems this subject is brought up every week. Really. If anyone else worries about an early release for AOC please continue the topic on this thread and lets try not to start a new thread every week on the same damn topic. goodnight.
Actually, it makes more sense to restart threads every week. Once they get too large everyone stops reading the posts in between and real conversation stops. If it was up to me these threads would have like a 100 post limit and lock.
Determining what makes a "bad" launch is a matter pf opinion in some cases. Yeah, WOW had some problems at launch, but I forgave them because when it was working (esp not during peak hours) it worked so darn well, and was tons of fun. I was willing to give them time, and within 6 months most of the problems were gone.
Contrast that to VG, which ran badly no matter what the day or time it was, and in the end, turned out to be no fun either, which means it failed on a totally different level.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Vanguard had a 'sucktacular' launch, and they have managed to crawl out of the cellar. I honestly don't think that AoC will be anywhere near as bad as VG though. The only possible hiccup is the combat. Will it work? That will determine AoC's success.
Star Wars Galaxies had an absolutely terrible launch and that continued living. People don't even seem to remember how bad it was, much worse than Vanguard's was. But, it was kept alive but the Star Wars name, and the fact that people focus on other bad things wrong with the game aside from the launch.. (NGE)
Does everyone here suffer from short term memory loss? It seems this subject is brought up every week. Really. If anyone else worries about an early release for AOC please continue the topic on this thread and lets try not to start a new thread every week on the same damn topic. goodnight.
Actually, it makes more sense to restart threads every week. Once they get too large everyone stops reading the posts in between and real conversation stops. If it was up to me these threads would have like a 100 post limit and lock.
Determining what makes a "bad" launch is a matter pf opinion in some cases. Yeah, WOW had some problems at launch, but I forgave them because when it was working (esp not during peak hours) it worked so darn well, and was tons of fun. I was willing to give them time, and within 6 months most of the problems were gone.
Contrast that to VG, which ran badly no matter what the day or time it was, and in the end, turned out to be no fun either, which means it failed on a totally different level.
good point bub, alot of people dont remember that wow was kinda shaky at launch, but it was more server side based as the servers were getting slammed. yeah there were bugs but not game breaking bugs like VG. as I played both beta of VG and WOW and they are 2 completely different breeds of dog. fast forward to the same time and WoW blue VG out the water via stability, performance, and overall quality.
I also agree that a "bad" launch is subjective at best and merely opiniontative of that person's expectation and experience. I too wasnt happy with WOW original issues, but the game turned out great in a short time. Even if AOC has a few hiccups, I think it is safe to say that if Funcom is smart they would of learned from their mistakes with AO's launch and did the necessary leg work to make sure AOC ran good, or at least was stable, and performed well despite people slamming the servers intitially, which I'm pretty certain will happen, but I am confident the core game will be a stable release with few bugs here, non game breaking. but then again thats just me im a trusting soul, and I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt if it looks liek their heart is really in the right place.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
Pretty much yeah, during these times... if AoC makes a bad launch the game is dead. So for the sake of the game, lets all hope they comee up with a miracle and release a solid product in May.
___________________ Give me a good skill based sandbox game, and i'll give you a cookie!
Star Wars Galaxies had an absolutely terrible launch and that continued living. People don't even seem to remember how bad it was, much worse than Vanguard's was. But, it was kept alive but the Star Wars name, and the fact that people focus on other bad things wrong with the game aside from the launch.. (NGE)
dude dont even go there. As buggy as SWG was, it was never as bad as VG. sorry im a launch vet i been there since the beginning, and even popped in during NGE from time to time to see the collateral damage and get a taste of it so i could have a realistic insight to it.
So sorry to burst ya bubble, VG is its own breed of dog. cant really compare the wonkyness of SWG during its early days with VG.Although I will admit SWG blows chunks now.
But i believe the overall opinion is we have less tolerance for bad launches, we can actually in some way thank VG for that. as it woke us up to the issue, sort like a virtual smack in the face to wake us up to the reality that we shouldnt have to deal with this BS. that We as consumers have a right to a solid, stable software product. I don't mind bugs here and there, that is always going tohappen, remember the old saying " to err is to be human" but the bugs have to be within respectable limits in which it doesnt effect the persons aibility to play, or break their immersion. SO the devs have common ethical obligation to release a stable product, not like VG did. I believe funcom will bring a great product, if they dont, then they will fall down miserably and be branded failures, and lose credibility of the community, and rightfully so.
We consumers need to play hardball and show the devs we mean business and speak with our wallets.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
I think this game may get some nice reviews from critics maybe. The early game is so linear and story driven it is perfect for a critic since I doubt they often grind and experience end game content for the most part. It's like how they rate most RTS games by their campaign which means nothing to me, it is all about advanced multiplayer and balance.
I am sorry, people who say VG failed because of its terrible launch are misguided. VG is failing because it is a terrible game. It could launch tomorrow, have everything go perfectly, and it would still be wildly unpopular.
WoW had an ok launch, the problem is about 1/4 the servers had queues that were often in the 1.5 hour range. SO the people who complain abou threlaunch of WoW are often the people who were on those servers. I remember I was on 1 of those servers for the 1st 2 days but quickly changed to 1 of the expantion servers they put out. The problem, however, was that the expansion server quickly became 1 of the busiest too. They didnt give us server population numbers back then , they just had a "recommended" list which I followed. It still didnt save me or others on my server from the queues.
I have noticed something in mmorpgs. If a game launches badly, it is doomed. No amount of correction seems able to resurect a game with bad launch reviews. Vanguard for instance. By all accounts the game is VASTLY improved over launch. Eq2 also released badly but is said to have shown dramatic improvement. Yet, both of these titles languish in very modest subscription numbers.
That said.....I really really really hope AoC is polished at release. The community will hopefully be prepared for SOME bugs ...but things that are gamebreaking...even if fixed down the road will kill this game permanently.
Please guys....push it back if it isnt ready. Or better yet, get it ready by the stated time. Godspeed devs...godspeed.
I have to disagree with you on one point. EQ2 has very solid numbers. Rumors in the community say that LOTRO and EQ2 are about tied in second place for subscription numbers at around 400k each. The one thing we got to remember is WoW is the exception rather than the rule. If a game gets 100k, they are doing fine. 50k sustained subscripers and they are breaking even. No game is going to compete with WoW subscription wise. People say there is no way WoW has 10 million subscribers, but their audited financials Vivendi posts proves that WoW is by a cash king that earns 25x more revenue a month than it's closest competitors.
So, bottom line is, even if they end up with 100,000 sustained subscribers, they will still have one of the top 10 MMORPGs of all times. The sad part is, they will have beat TR, HG:L, POTBS, and Fury. And chances are, beat them all combined. MMORPGs don't need millions of subscribers to be considered a success, but IMHO, a failure would be anything with 40,000 subscribers or less.
With more and more games coming out onto the market in all kinds of different flavors every year, it is no surprise it is getting harder and harder for these games to break the 100,000 subscriber mark and maintain it. The companies can only hope.
Now, as far as AoC goes, if they have a bad launch, they will have another AO on their hands and they know it. Remember, they only get ONE chance to make a first impression. If they fumble the ball at the start, they will have a long, hard road ahead of them just like EVE and EQ2. All that remains to be seen is if they have a bad start, will their investors give them the time and money they need to turn in around? We'll see.
I'm hoping the best for them.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
It all depends really, I have no idea how techincally capable is funcom but a poorly made game can have technically great launch. Launch is important however for first impressions but if the product is good it can recover from a poor launch.
That being said I think overhype attached to AoC is going to prove harmful due to overly high expectations tied to this game. This will most likely result in a backlash and overreaction to problems in the game.
Well it pretty much goes without saying that if any MMO has a bad launch it is a failure and wont really ever recover. There are simply too many option out there now. People have a short attention span and low tolerance for anything that doesnt meet their expectations.
Alot of these new games are so overhyped I don't know if they even can measure up to the years of hype they generate. It may be stating the obvious but it's a dead horse that can't be beaten enough. I am sure the devs have seen what massive failures all of the new MMO's have been (Vanguard, Tabula Rasa, Potbs) and they are in no hurry to get lumped in with those disasters. As with anything else though money makes all of the decisions.
The good thing about this game is that it isn't being made by some upstart company thrown together by some douchbag that has no idea how to run a business. Then on the verge of bankrupcy they are forced to either release the game and screw over all their customers or fold up the tent and piss off all the investors. I'll try and be cautiously optomistic about this game since it can't possibly be worse than the games that have been rolled out in the last year.
Star Wars Galaxies had an absolutely terrible launch and that continued living. People don't even seem to remember how bad it was, much worse than Vanguard's was. But, it was kept alive but the Star Wars name, and the fact that people focus on other bad things wrong with the game aside from the launch.. (NGE)
dude dont even go there. As buggy as SWG was, it was never as bad as VG. sorry im a launch vet i been there since the beginning, and even popped in during NGE from time to time to see the collateral damage and get a taste of it so i could have a realistic insight to it.
So sorry to burst ya bubble, VG is its own breed of dog. cant really compare the wonkyness of SWG during its early days with VG.Although I will admit SWG blows chunks now.
You're kidding me, right? SWG was a broken game when it came out. When Vanguard came out, there was a lot of lag issues(client side, not server side) and a lot of bugs. However, people seem to blow it out of proportion. I played VG and SWG at launch. In SWG, there was no way to advance, everything seemed to be broken. In VG, I suffered a few graphical glitches and ran into 4 quest bugs in a month time period. That's it. So don't even try to put VG on its own, it wasn't as bad as anyone makes it out to be.
I have noticed something in mmorpgs. If a game launches badly, it is doomed. No amount of correction seems able to resurect a game with bad launch reviews. Vanguard for instance. By all accounts the game is VASTLY improved over launch. Eq2 also released badly but is said to have shown dramatic improvement. Yet, both of these titles languish in very modest subscription numbers.
That said.....I really really really hope AoC is polished at release. The community will hopefully be prepared for SOME bugs ...but things that are gamebreaking...even if fixed down the road will kill this game permanently.
Please guys....push it back if it isnt ready. Or better yet, get it ready by the stated time. Godspeed devs...godspeed.
I have to disagree with you on one point. EQ2 has very solid numbers. Rumors in the community say that LOTRO and EQ2 are about tied in second place for subscription numbers at around 400k each. The one thing we got to remember is WoW is the exception rather than the rule. If a game gets 100k, they are doing fine. 50k sustained subscripers and they are breaking even. No game is going to compete with WoW subscription wise. People say there is no way WoW has 10 million subscribers, but their audited financials Vivendi posts proves that WoW is by a cash king that earns 25x more revenue a month than it's closest competitors.
So, bottom line is, even if they end up with 100,000 sustained subscribers, they will still have one of the top 10 MMORPGs of all times. The sad part is, they will have beat TR, HG:L, POTBS, and Fury. And chances are, beat them all combined. MMORPGs don't need millions of subscribers to be considered a success, but IMHO, a failure would be anything with 40,000 subscribers or less.
With more and more games coming out onto the market in all kinds of different flavors every year, it is no surprise it is getting harder and harder for these games to break the 100,000 subscriber mark and maintain it. The companies can only hope.
Now, as far as AoC goes, if they have a bad launch, they will have another AO on their hands and they know it. Remember, they only get ONE chance to make a first impression. If they fumble the ball at the start, they will have a long, hard road ahead of them just like EVE and EQ2. All that remains to be seen is if they have a bad start, will their investors give them the time and money they need to turn in around? We'll see.
Comments
WoW had a terrible launch for *network* traffic issues
Blizzard was continually giving free time to make up for it
instead of zoning,
the Lag was causing Boats to "drop"people in middle of Ocean (to die by fatigue)
- this boat issue wasnt fixed until around 6 months after launch
(anyone remember Blizzard *removing* the Wetlands boat until it was fixed?)
Jan 2005 commentary about buggy boats being removed
snippy.ceejbot.com/wiki/show/start/2005/01/22/001
Loot lag where you were stuck in the kneeling position
(this happened to me in WOW beta too - and I beta reported it many times)
this was mainly due to network congestion more than anything else
no one, even Blizzard, was prepared for the volume of players during the 1st launch week
EQ2 fan sites
There were no show stopping bugs in WoW at launch. In fact the most annoying bug the "loot bug" was due to server lag issues because everyone and their mother wanted to play the game.
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
Game(s) I Am Currently Playing:
GW2 (+LoL and BF3)
rabble rabble rabble rabble i say, now i have to go kick back 1/4 handle of jack just to forget about this.
Remember all those free days extra subscription time due to the vast amounts of server downtime anyone?
I remember WoW having connectivity and server problems, owing to the outrageous number of people trying to play. But I don't remember there being any showstoppers in the game itself. That is to say, the game was solid and fun but the network infrastructure was lacking. It's a problem easier to fix than recoding the game. (It's a problem publishers wish for!)
In any case, no game can risk a bad launch anymore. The players aren't as tolerant. No one wants to pay to beta test a game. Well, no one besides the fanbois.
I remember it being very frustrating at the time, but you're right there weren't any real 'showstoppers' as you call them.
It didn't take them that long to solve the problems iirc.
There were no show stopping bugs in WoW at launch. In fact the most annoying bug the "loot bug" was due to server lag issues because everyone and their mother wanted to play the game.
Actually it was a problem with the database coupled with a bad router, the entire game didn't lag as was evident by the chat system working fine when the DB problem hit. This of course allowed everyone to whine and winge and even have a laugh at it but yeah, nobody could have predicted the sheer numbers of people that logged in at release.
WoW did not have a bad launch, it had quite a decent one and the bugs that were there got fixed within two weeks. Blizzard really should have delayed for that two weeks as the DB bug was there in beta but they went ahead and it hasn't hurt them much as it.
When Uo & Ao were released the genre was young and fresh, people were more forgiving because these games were breaking new ground, Ao wasn't really playable for the 1st year. Think about that, Ao, not playable for about a year, WoW playable at release apart from the odd ten minutes here and there to wait for the DB and fully playable after two weeks. Spot the difference?
Today the genre is mature, the lessons should have been learned and the subscribers are no longer willing to forgive. Vanguard was a victim of a couple of things, mainly a lack of money which meant if they didn't release when they did then the game would never have been released. Secondly they had Brad McKnowitall, you know, the guy that slagged off AoC and WAR as not being true MMO's and firmly believing that he alone knew what an MMO should be. I tell you guys, I laughed my freakin' head off when VG took a nose dive.
A bad release for AoC or WAR would be one with major game breaking bugs, lag up the wazoo and about one frame per second ( err! just like VG ) you get the picture, and if this is the kind of launch that either game has then yes, it will bitchslap them into the realm of also-rans. I don't think that WAR will have a bad launch, EA are throwing money at it whenever needed and don't mind the release date being pushed back to make sure they have a quality product. FC on the other hand don't have the same financial resources to fall back on and there is a little worry there. A couple of weeks ago one of the FC devs made a comment that the beta testers were just getting to the point when they could test sieges and this bothered me. Very close to release and a major area of the game was only just starting to be tested? I hope that they have enough money to allow them to delay release if needed but knowing Funcom's past record if the game-breaking bugs are only in the endgame they will release on time and gamble that they can have them fixed before anyone reaches that level and content, which is a dangerous game to play IMO.
While WoW did have some silly bugs and latency issues that would pop up from time to time at launch,it was still a awesome launch. I played WoW Beta for 6 months before release and it still never seemed like a beta game. And no I'm not a WoW groupie...Currently playing EQ2 waiting to see if WH or AOC is any good.
A good launch is probably one of the most defining factors in a games success IMO...normally If I play a game after launch and it's just aweful,full of lag,bugs,unbalanced content,unfinished content. I wont last longer then a week. EQ2 is really the only game had a dreadful launch that I decieded to try again.
I have to disagree with the bad release = death arguement.
Sure it is easy for a game with a poor release to tank but it is rarely the poor release that makes it tank.
EQ2 released poorly and it is doing fine now. The OP said the numbers are bad but the numbers for EQ2 are only bad if you think the numbers need to be like WoW, if you understand that a few hundred thousand players is enough then EQ2 is doing fine.
True Vanguard tanked but it isnt dead yet. And i dont feel that the poor release was really what drove the stake into Vanguard. People can overlook and play through bugs and glitches. Anyone who knows anything about MMOs knows that you will need to do this when pretty much any game launches. What people wont forgive is the fact that they spend thousands of dollars on a new computer and still could not play Vanguard at a decent (or even playable) level. I think if Vanguard would have release bug ridden but playable it would be doing fine right now, unfortunetly it released bug ridden and nearly unplayable.
But it may still make it. There is still a fan base in Vanguard and there are people who enjoy playing it.
Now a game that releases poorly and does nothing about it, that is where the problems are. If AOC releases with bugs but is a playable game then it will do fine, as long as fixing those bugs is a priority for the development team. Would i like a perfect launch, of course, but i also want a pony that craps gold bars and i probably wont get that either.
AoC will be fine as long as the Devs remember that they arent making WoW2 so they dont have to make the game anything like WoW.
And for all you people telling folks to stay away from the game, it really doesnt work so you might as well lay off it. People will try it and decide for themselves. I tell people not to play WoW all the time but for some reason there are still millions of people playing.
Dare I ask what?...
_________________
USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST
ever since Vanguard you people have developed a Phobia. a bad launch meant pretty much nothing a few years ago and now its the biggest issue ever. i suppose that is the trade off for an increase in media coverage.
for me...a bad launch wont affect me in the slightest. i can see its a good game and bugs wont change the underlying gameplay. i dont think we will see another crappy launch like Vanguard for at least a year
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
What? Haha...hahahaha..... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
Riiiigghhtttt....
more forgiving?
I paid full retail for Anarchy Online and the launch sucked bad
myself and many others dropped AO *cold turkey* weeks after launch
for context, Everquest was already a popular mmo prior to AO
-- people had other choices than suffer broken mmos
WOW was not fully playable 2 weeks after launch
if you read the link I posted
it was dated January 22, 2005
snippy.ceejbot.com/wiki/show/start/2005/01/22/001
heres a better link
Blizzard's president on WoW problems
www.fragland.net/news/Blizzards-president-on-WoW-problems/9732/
this is * 2 months * post WOW launch
it probably mattered what server you played on (I was Whisperwind)
but I had many deaths to the buggy Wetlands boat from launch
until they removed the boat, 2 months later
Blizzard didnt add the missing content, BattleGrounds, until 8 months after launch
Despite BG being in the Game manual when WOW shipped
EQ2 fan sites
First impression is always very important. We only can hope that the devs fix the bugs that the beta testers report and not just ignore. As far as I know things are looking very good, not everything is polished yet, but we'll see...
>> Live for nothing or die for something. Your call. <<
Proud member of the Snowhawk Clan, an Age of Conan guild.
Does everyone here suffer from short term memory loss? It seems this subject is brought up every week. Really. If anyone else worries about an early release for AOC please continue the topic on this thread and lets try not to start a new thread every week on the same damn topic. goodnight.
Actually, it makes more sense to restart threads every week. Once they get too large everyone stops reading the posts in between and real conversation stops. If it was up to me these threads would have like a 100 post limit and lock.
Determining what makes a "bad" launch is a matter pf opinion in some cases. Yeah, WOW had some problems at launch, but I forgave them because when it was working (esp not during peak hours) it worked so darn well, and was tons of fun. I was willing to give them time, and within 6 months most of the problems were gone.
Contrast that to VG, which ran badly no matter what the day or time it was, and in the end, turned out to be no fun either, which means it failed on a totally different level.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Vanguard had a 'sucktacular' launch, and they have managed to crawl out of the cellar. I honestly don't think that AoC will be anywhere near as bad as VG though. The only possible hiccup is the combat. Will it work? That will determine AoC's success.
Star Wars Galaxies had an absolutely terrible launch and that continued living. People don't even seem to remember how bad it was, much worse than Vanguard's was. But, it was kept alive but the Star Wars name, and the fact that people focus on other bad things wrong with the game aside from the launch.. (NGE)
Darkfall Travelogues!
Actually, it makes more sense to restart threads every week. Once they get too large everyone stops reading the posts in between and real conversation stops. If it was up to me these threads would have like a 100 post limit and lock.
Determining what makes a "bad" launch is a matter pf opinion in some cases. Yeah, WOW had some problems at launch, but I forgave them because when it was working (esp not during peak hours) it worked so darn well, and was tons of fun. I was willing to give them time, and within 6 months most of the problems were gone.
Contrast that to VG, which ran badly no matter what the day or time it was, and in the end, turned out to be no fun either, which means it failed on a totally different level.
good point bub, alot of people dont remember that wow was kinda shaky at launch, but it was more server side based as the servers were getting slammed. yeah there were bugs but not game breaking bugs like VG. as I played both beta of VG and WOW and they are 2 completely different breeds of dog. fast forward to the same time and WoW blue VG out the water via stability, performance, and overall quality.
I also agree that a "bad" launch is subjective at best and merely opiniontative of that person's expectation and experience. I too wasnt happy with WOW original issues, but the game turned out great in a short time. Even if AOC has a few hiccups, I think it is safe to say that if Funcom is smart they would of learned from their mistakes with AO's launch and did the necessary leg work to make sure AOC ran good, or at least was stable, and performed well despite people slamming the servers intitially, which I'm pretty certain will happen, but I am confident the core game will be a stable release with few bugs here, non game breaking. but then again thats just me im a trusting soul, and I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt if it looks liek their heart is really in the right place.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
Pretty much yeah, during these times... if AoC makes a bad launch the game is dead. So for the sake of the game, lets all hope they comee up with a miracle and release a solid product in May.
___________________
Give me a good skill based sandbox game, and i'll give you a cookie!
dude dont even go there. As buggy as SWG was, it was never as bad as VG. sorry im a launch vet i been there since the beginning, and even popped in during NGE from time to time to see the collateral damage and get a taste of it so i could have a realistic insight to it.
So sorry to burst ya bubble, VG is its own breed of dog. cant really compare the wonkyness of SWG during its early days with VG.Although I will admit SWG blows chunks now.
But i believe the overall opinion is we have less tolerance for bad launches, we can actually in some way thank VG for that. as it woke us up to the issue, sort like a virtual smack in the face to wake us up to the reality that we shouldnt have to deal with this BS. that We as consumers have a right to a solid, stable software product. I don't mind bugs here and there, that is always going tohappen, remember the old saying " to err is to be human" but the bugs have to be within respectable limits in which it doesnt effect the persons aibility to play, or break their immersion. SO the devs have common ethical obligation to release a stable product, not like VG did. I believe funcom will bring a great product, if they dont, then they will fall down miserably and be branded failures, and lose credibility of the community, and rightfully so.
We consumers need to play hardball and show the devs we mean business and speak with our wallets.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
I think this game may get some nice reviews from critics maybe. The early game is so linear and story driven it is perfect for a critic since I doubt they often grind and experience end game content for the most part. It's like how they rate most RTS games by their campaign which means nothing to me, it is all about advanced multiplayer and balance.
I am sorry, people who say VG failed because of its terrible launch are misguided. VG is failing because it is a terrible game. It could launch tomorrow, have everything go perfectly, and it would still be wildly unpopular.
WoW had an ok launch, the problem is about 1/4 the servers had queues that were often in the 1.5 hour range. SO the people who complain abou threlaunch of WoW are often the people who were on those servers. I remember I was on 1 of those servers for the 1st 2 days but quickly changed to 1 of the expantion servers they put out. The problem, however, was that the expansion server quickly became 1 of the busiest too. They didnt give us server population numbers back then , they just had a "recommended" list which I followed. It still didnt save me or others on my server from the queues.
I have to disagree with you on one point. EQ2 has very solid numbers. Rumors in the community say that LOTRO and EQ2 are about tied in second place for subscription numbers at around 400k each. The one thing we got to remember is WoW is the exception rather than the rule. If a game gets 100k, they are doing fine. 50k sustained subscripers and they are breaking even. No game is going to compete with WoW subscription wise. People say there is no way WoW has 10 million subscribers, but their audited financials Vivendi posts proves that WoW is by a cash king that earns 25x more revenue a month than it's closest competitors.
So, bottom line is, even if they end up with 100,000 sustained subscribers, they will still have one of the top 10 MMORPGs of all times. The sad part is, they will have beat TR, HG:L, POTBS, and Fury. And chances are, beat them all combined. MMORPGs don't need millions of subscribers to be considered a success, but IMHO, a failure would be anything with 40,000 subscribers or less.
With more and more games coming out onto the market in all kinds of different flavors every year, it is no surprise it is getting harder and harder for these games to break the 100,000 subscriber mark and maintain it. The companies can only hope.
Now, as far as AoC goes, if they have a bad launch, they will have another AO on their hands and they know it. Remember, they only get ONE chance to make a first impression. If they fumble the ball at the start, they will have a long, hard road ahead of them just like EVE and EQ2. All that remains to be seen is if they have a bad start, will their investors give them the time and money they need to turn in around? We'll see.
I'm hoping the best for them.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
It all depends really, I have no idea how techincally capable is funcom but a poorly made game can have technically great launch. Launch is important however for first impressions but if the product is good it can recover from a poor launch.
That being said I think overhype attached to AoC is going to prove harmful due to overly high expectations tied to this game. This will most likely result in a backlash and overreaction to problems in the game.
We shell see.
Well it pretty much goes without saying that if any MMO has a bad launch it is a failure and wont really ever recover. There are simply too many option out there now. People have a short attention span and low tolerance for anything that doesnt meet their expectations.
Alot of these new games are so overhyped I don't know if they even can measure up to the years of hype they generate. It may be stating the obvious but it's a dead horse that can't be beaten enough. I am sure the devs have seen what massive failures all of the new MMO's have been (Vanguard, Tabula Rasa, Potbs) and they are in no hurry to get lumped in with those disasters. As with anything else though money makes all of the decisions.
The good thing about this game is that it isn't being made by some upstart company thrown together by some douchbag that has no idea how to run a business. Then on the verge of bankrupcy they are forced to either release the game and screw over all their customers or fold up the tent and piss off all the investors. I'll try and be cautiously optomistic about this game since it can't possibly be worse than the games that have been rolled out in the last year.
dude dont even go there. As buggy as SWG was, it was never as bad as VG. sorry im a launch vet i been there since the beginning, and even popped in during NGE from time to time to see the collateral damage and get a taste of it so i could have a realistic insight to it.
So sorry to burst ya bubble, VG is its own breed of dog. cant really compare the wonkyness of SWG during its early days with VG.Although I will admit SWG blows chunks now.
You're kidding me, right? SWG was a broken game when it came out. When Vanguard came out, there was a lot of lag issues(client side, not server side) and a lot of bugs. However, people seem to blow it out of proportion. I played VG and SWG at launch. In SWG, there was no way to advance, everything seemed to be broken. In VG, I suffered a few graphical glitches and ran into 4 quest bugs in a month time period. That's it. So don't even try to put VG on its own, it wasn't as bad as anyone makes it out to be.
Darkfall Travelogues!
I have to disagree with you on one point. EQ2 has very solid numbers. Rumors in the community say that LOTRO and EQ2 are about tied in second place for subscription numbers at around 400k each. The one thing we got to remember is WoW is the exception rather than the rule. If a game gets 100k, they are doing fine. 50k sustained subscripers and they are breaking even. No game is going to compete with WoW subscription wise. People say there is no way WoW has 10 million subscribers, but their audited financials Vivendi posts proves that WoW is by a cash king that earns 25x more revenue a month than it's closest competitors.
So, bottom line is, even if they end up with 100,000 sustained subscribers, they will still have one of the top 10 MMORPGs of all times. The sad part is, they will have beat TR, HG:L, POTBS, and Fury. And chances are, beat them all combined. MMORPGs don't need millions of subscribers to be considered a success, but IMHO, a failure would be anything with 40,000 subscribers or less.
With more and more games coming out onto the market in all kinds of different flavors every year, it is no surprise it is getting harder and harder for these games to break the 100,000 subscriber mark and maintain it. The companies can only hope.
Now, as far as AoC goes, if they have a bad launch, they will have another AO on their hands and they know it. Remember, they only get ONE chance to make a first impression. If they fumble the ball at the start, they will have a long, hard road ahead of them just like EVE and EQ2. All that remains to be seen is if they have a bad start, will their investors give them the time and money they need to turn in around? We'll see.
I'm hoping the best for them.
I could not agree more.Especially with the part in red.