I just can't start caring about what SoE does to games i have stopped playing years ago. These games are on their way out. Not in the sense that they will shut down but they had their glory day. Today they only have a small fraction of subscription numbers they had at their peaks. As such they are no longer cash cows. SoE needs a bigger income from these games obviously.
When SoE releases their next "hit" and they put RMT in from day 1 then i will be there with you... rallying about the Satan that is SoE. Until then i don't give a flying fuck
Why does the size of the game or the length it has run matter?
Customers are still paying money. They are people just like those who would be playing the next big game that comes out. I fail to see the difference.
It is fine if you don't care, but just because a game is past its prime doesn't mean it should be treated as some testing ground or the players still supporting the company are less worthy of respect.
It matters because the game no longer creates an income worth having it running. They have cut the cost of running it to the point where it's barely hanging on. What's saving it is station pass and upcoming RMT. If SoE decided to kill of Vanguard for good tomorrow and close down servers it wouldn't make a dent in their income. It's no longer a cash cow. So if they decide to put in RMT to generate some revenue to keep the turd running you should be thankful instead of an ingrate. They are showing you respect by fixing an extremely buggy game and keep it running for you to play on. IF RMT helps with that then more power to them.
As i said before if they introduce RMT into a newly launched game then i can see the reason to complain. Not for a has-been.
We have so many armchair economists on this board it's not even funny. They are saying shit like "Lets relaunch the game" "SoE should put more millions into the game and do some more advertising to save it" like that's financially feasable or even smart. But i guess us gamers know best eh?
If thats the case I wish SOE would take Vanguard around the back and shoot it instead of crippling it with RMT.
It amazes me people are still willing to play these games, if people hate them so much why do they keep playing? SOE won't stop being greedy so I don't understand why people are gonna let SOE take there money. A lot of the people complaining on there forums are probably gonna use the RMT anyway.
So much ignorant drivel in this thread as usually happens when people start posting about rmt. It hurts this and that, half the customer base will flee, massive inflation will insue killing the game, blah blah blah blah blah. RMT trades in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. There are lots of people who use it and support it. Any game that you think is "pure" is not. RMT (and lots of it) occurs in every single mmo. You think you're some kind of massive majority, and that devs don't "listen to their customers". Get over yourselves. The "customers" support RMT, and the numbers prove this. That's the bottom line fact of the matter. The sooner other companies follow SOE's lead with exchange servers, and the sooner you anti-rmt people accept this fact, the better.
Obviously, I'm a strong supporter of RMT and particularly the SOE "Exchange" system. That being said, as much as I despise the people who make such pathetic arguments against RMT, I lament the loss of the "pure" (lol?) servers. As much as I want you all to eat crow, I at heart believe in options for mmo gaming. There should be "pure" servers for those who prefer to play on them. Profit from RMT can even go to pay for them IMO. So I do see SOE as making a mistake in forcing everyone to play in a RMT environment.
Always meet the middle ground and make everyone happy. It is the first rule in successful negotiation. Make "pure" servers for those who want them and RMT servers for people like me. It's a win win win scenario. All the players win, and the developer wins by skimming a profit off of item sales. SOE as usual put itself in a bad situation by choosing a win win lose scenario, by running out the "pure" players. Big mistake IMO and a potential blow to the people who support RMT.
So much ignorant drivel in this thread as usually happens when people start posting about rmt. It hurts this and that, half the customer base will flee, massive inflation will insue killing the game, blah blah blah blah blah. RMT trades in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. There are lots of people who use it and support it. Any game that you think is "pure" is not. RMT (and lots of it) occurs in every single mmo. That's the bottom line fact of the matter. The sooner other companies follow SOE's lead with exchange servers, and the sooner you anti-rmt people accept this fact, the better.
Obviously, I'm a strong supporter of RMT and particularly the SOE "Exchange" system. That being said, as much as I despise the people who make such pathetic arguments against RMT, I lament the loss of the "pure" (lol?) servers. As much as I want you all to eat crow, I at heart believe in options for mmo gaming. There should be "pure" servers for those who prefer to play on them. Profit from RMT can even go to pay for them IMO. So I do see SOE as making a mistake in forcing everyone to play in a RMT environment.
Always meet the middle ground and make everyone happy. It is the first rule in successful negotiation. Make "pure" servers for those who want them and RMT servers for people like me. It's a win win win scenario. All the players win, and the developer wins by skimming a profit off of item sales. SOE as usual put itself in a bad situation by choosing a win win lose scenario, by running out the "pure" players. Big mistake IMO and a potential blow to the people who support RMT.
Gamers often forget they created the RMT business to begin with. It started with the infamous chinese gold farmers who tapped into an incredible money source. That source were gamers willing to part rl money for ingame items and gold. If you people haven't shown them the way then RMT wouldn't be so popular as it is now. If your retarded friends weren't the ones buying gold to afford that epic mount. By creating a multi million dollar business for these gold farmers you have effectivly shown these game companies the way.
Gamers ALSO often forget that without buyers there would be no RMT. As long as there are junkies with more money than sense there will be a drug dealer.
If you are going to hate somebody then hate the people you know bought gold in the past or present from these illegal sites. They created the business in the first place.
So much ignorant drivel in this thread as usually happens when people start posting about rmt. It hurts this and that, half the customer base will flee, massive inflation will insue killing the game, blah blah blah blah blah. RMT trades in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. There are lots of people who use it and support it. Any game that you think is "pure" is not. RMT (and lots of it) occurs in every single mmo. That's the bottom line fact of the matter. The sooner other companies follow SOE's lead with exchange servers, and the sooner you anti-rmt people accept this fact, the better.
Obviously, I'm a strong supporter of RMT and particularly the SOE "Exchange" system. That being said, as much as I despise the people who make such pathetic arguments against RMT, I lament the loss of the "pure" (lol?) servers. As much as I want you all to eat crow, I at heart believe in options for mmo gaming. There should be "pure" servers for those who prefer to play on them. Profit from RMT can even go to pay for them IMO. So I do see SOE as making a mistake in forcing everyone to play in a RMT environment.
Always meet the middle ground and make everyone happy. It is the first rule in successful negotiation. Make "pure" servers for those who want them and RMT servers for people like me. It's a win win win scenario. All the players win, and the developer wins by skimming a profit off of item sales. SOE as usual put itself in a bad situation by choosing a win win lose scenario, by running out the "pure" players. Big mistake IMO and a potential blow to the people who support RMT.
SOE may have come to the conclusion that they ran out most of the "pure" players long ago with their bad releases, failure to correct bugs, and history of unwanted changes and revamps. It wouldn't surprise me if the only way they can stay cash positive at this point it to try to suck as much cash out of their remaining customers as possible.
What's more fun for gamers, doing an enjoyable quest for a nice piece of loot, or paying for it at the online store? Worse yet, for one SOE title, you go to the online store an purchase packs of virtual cards hoping to get the loot item you want, and usually you do not. How much entertainment value is there in that? The only one who benefits from this kind of model in my view is some greedy fat-cat MMO executive. The gamer certainly doesn't.
Lots of games have RMT, true; and some of this I actually enjoy. Treating yourself to an optional costume set in City of Heroes, for example, was fun, although tbh, it still probably would have provided more entertainment value if the costume was attached to playable content. All RMT models are not the same. The optional costume set seems to be at one end of the spectrum while paying real cash for only the chance of a performance enhancing loot item seems to be at the other.
Also, there's this whole business of the MMO company "selling" you an RMT item, and then claiming that they still own it. Yup, that's right, many of them do this. That means after you buy it, they can change it, delete it or devalue it any time they see fit. In my experience, purchasing an item generally leads to a transfer of ownership, but not with online RMT in MMOs.
Legislators in North America and Europe are taking a long hard look at this right now. People are spending hundreds of dollars hoping to get virtual items that they do not own in some cases. At other times, they buy the items without some kind of random outcome, but still can't claim ownership. This is a case of technology taking a step ahead of the laws that generally regulate fair commerce. The legislation is catching up, and when it does I think a lot of MMO companies are going to be caught with their pants around their ankles.
Maybe then game companies will remember that MMOs are an entertainment service, not some opportunity for them to try to trick and manipulate people out of their cash.
So much ignorant drivel in this thread as usually happens when people start posting about rmt. It hurts this and that, half the customer base will flee, massive inflation will insue killing the game, blah blah blah blah blah. RMT trades in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. There are lots of people who use it and support it. Any game that you think is "pure" is not. RMT (and lots of it) occurs in every single mmo. That's the bottom line fact of the matter. The sooner other companies follow SOE's lead with exchange servers, and the sooner you anti-rmt people accept this fact, the better.
Obviously, I'm a strong supporter of RMT and particularly the SOE "Exchange" system. That being said, as much as I despise the people who make such pathetic arguments against RMT, I lament the loss of the "pure" (lol?) servers. As much as I want you all to eat crow, I at heart believe in options for mmo gaming. There should be "pure" servers for those who prefer to play on them. Profit from RMT can even go to pay for them IMO. So I do see SOE as making a mistake in forcing everyone to play in a RMT environment.
Always meet the middle ground and make everyone happy. It is the first rule in successful negotiation. Make "pure" servers for those who want them and RMT servers for people like me. It's a win win win scenario. All the players win, and the developer wins by skimming a profit off of item sales. SOE as usual put itself in a bad situation by choosing a win win lose scenario, by running out the "pure" players. Big mistake IMO and a potential blow to the people who support RMT.
SOE may have come to the conclusion that they ran out most of the "pure" players long ago with their bad releases, failure to correct bugs, and history of unwanted changes and revamps. It wouldn't surprise me if the only way they can stay cash positive at this point it to try to suck as much cash out of their remaining customers as possible.
What's more fun for gamers, doing an enjoyable quest for a nice piece of loot, or paying for it at the online store? Worse yet, for one SOE title, you go to the online store an purchase packs of virtual cards hoping to get the loot item you want, and usually you do not. How much entertainment value is there in that? The only one who benefits from this kind of model in my view is some greedy fat-cat MMO executive. The gamer certainly doesn't.
Lots of games have RMT, true; and some of this I actually enjoy. Treating yourself to an optional costume set in City of Heroes, for example, was fun, although tbh, it still probably would have provided more entertainment value if the costume was attached to playable content. All RMT models are not the same. The optional costume set seems to be at one end of the spectrum while paying real cash for only the chance of a performance enhancing loot item seems to be at the other.
Also, there's this whole business of the MMO company "selling" you an RMT item, and then claiming that they still own it. Yup, that's right, many of them do this. That means after you buy it, they can change it, delete it or devalue it any time they see fit. In my experience, purchasing an item generally leads to a transfer of ownership, but not with online RMT in MMOs.
Legislators in North America and Europe are taking a long hard look at this right now. People are spending hundreds of dollars hoping to get virtual items that they do not own in some cases. At other times, they buy the items without some kind of random outcome, but still can't claim ownership. This is a case of technology taking a step ahead of the laws that generally regulate fair commerce. The legislation is catching up, and when it does I think a lot of MMO companies are going to be caught with their pants around their ankles.
Maybe then game companies will remember that MMOs are an entertainment service, not some opportunity for them to try to trick and manipulate people out of their cash.
You make some good points
No MMORPG game you buy in the store today is yours and neither is your account. Sure you may own the box, the manual and the CD's but that's about it. It is and will always be the game companys intellectual property they can take away from you at their convenience. They can ban you making the game completely inoperable. It doesn't matter if it was because of stupid behavior or other. It isn't so much the items as it is the whole game. When you buy a single player game you know the game is a yours and can't be taken away from you. Not so with MMORPGS. You own nothing.
You pay the same amount of money as you would a single player game. You on top of that pay a monthly fee. Just to play to their tune and their rules. Rules such as conduct. I agree that some of this stuff is needed in order to keep the masses happy but it resembles a scam in a lot of ways. What other product do you pay full price for THEN rent it but never become yours.
I just can't start caring about what SoE does to games i have stopped playing years ago. These games are on their way out. Not in the sense that they will shut down but they had their glory day. Today they only have a small fraction of subscription numbers they had at their peaks. As such they are no longer cash cows. SoE needs a bigger income from these games obviously.
When SoE releases their next "hit" and they put RMT in from day 1 then i will be there with you... rallying about the Satan that is SoE. Until then i don't give a flying fuck
Why does the size of the game or the length it has run matter?
Customers are still paying money. They are people just like those who would be playing the next big game that comes out. I fail to see the difference.
It is fine if you don't care, but just because a game is past its prime doesn't mean it should be treated as some testing ground or the players still supporting the company are less worthy of respect.
It matters because the game no longer creates an income worth having it running. They have cut the cost of running it to the point where it's barely hanging on. What's saving it is station pass and upcoming RMT. If SoE decided to kill of Vanguard for good tomorrow and close down servers it wouldn't make a dent in their income. It's no longer a cash cow. So if they decide to put in RMT to generate some revenue to keep the turd running you should be thankful instead of an ingrate. They are showing you respect by fixing an extremely buggy game and keep it running for you to play on. IF RMT helps with that then more power to them.
As i said before if they introduce RMT into a newly launched game then i can see the reason to complain. Not for a has-been.
We have so many armchair economists on this board it's not even funny. They are saying shit like "Lets relaunch the game" "SoE should put more millions into the game and do some more advertising to save it" like that's financially feasable or even smart. But i guess us gamers know best eh?
You say Vanguard was a cash cow and you want to belittle other people as armchair economists? Seriously a cash cow.. vanguard?!?!?! For one I am not thankful that a company endorses RMT just so they can make a few bucks. Nor am I thinkful in the way soe does business like this. They are not some sort of heroes riding in to do favors for their players and just about everything they do speaks the oposite of that.
If they release RMT into a new game then at least everyone knows what they are getting into before buying it. Once the game is launched then things like this have no place, especially from a company that used to harp about how much RMT hurt their game worlds... that is until they saw how much cash they could make from it.
As for everything you said about me, you could not be further from the truth, but that is what you get when you assume things.
I don't think soe did anyone a favor releasing vanguard in the first place. I think Vg going live the way it did and the way soe runs it just sets another example for developers to shy away from games with more "sandbox" like featuers. It is my opinion that soe funded the game just enough to keep other developers from possibly picking it up, because a healthy VG release would have devestated EQ/EQ2. A failed VG works best for soes interests.
So much ignorant drivel in this thread as usually happens when people start posting about rmt. It hurts this and that, half the customer base will flee, massive inflation will insue killing the game, blah blah blah blah blah. RMT trades in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. There are lots of people who use it and support it. Any game that you think is "pure" is not. RMT (and lots of it) occurs in every single mmo. That's the bottom line fact of the matter. The sooner other companies follow SOE's lead with exchange servers, and the sooner you anti-rmt people accept this fact, the better.
Obviously, I'm a strong supporter of RMT and particularly the SOE "Exchange" system. That being said, as much as I despise the people who make such pathetic arguments against RMT, I lament the loss of the "pure" (lol?) servers. As much as I want you all to eat crow, I at heart believe in options for mmo gaming. There should be "pure" servers for those who prefer to play on them. Profit from RMT can even go to pay for them IMO. So I do see SOE as making a mistake in forcing everyone to play in a RMT environment.
Always meet the middle ground and make everyone happy. It is the first rule in successful negotiation. Make "pure" servers for those who want them and RMT servers for people like me. It's a win win win scenario. All the players win, and the developer wins by skimming a profit off of item sales. SOE as usual put itself in a bad situation by choosing a win win lose scenario, by running out the "pure" players. Big mistake IMO and a potential blow to the people who support RMT.
SOE may have come to the conclusion that they ran out most of the "pure" players long ago with their bad releases, failure to correct bugs, and history of unwanted changes and revamps. It wouldn't surprise me if the only way they can stay cash positive at this point it to try to suck as much cash out of their remaining customers as possible.
What's more fun for gamers, doing an enjoyable quest for a nice piece of loot, or paying for it at the online store? Worse yet, for one SOE title, you go to the online store an purchase packs of virtual cards hoping to get the loot item you want, and usually you do not. How much entertainment value is there in that? The only one who benefits from this kind of model in my view is some greedy fat-cat MMO executive. The gamer certainly doesn't.
Lots of games have RMT, true; and some of this I actually enjoy. Treating yourself to an optional costume set in City of Heroes, for example, was fun, although tbh, it still probably would have provided more entertainment value if the costume was attached to playable content. All RMT models are not the same. The optional costume set seems to be at one end of the spectrum while paying real cash for only the chance of a performance enhancing loot item seems to be at the other.
Also, there's this whole business of the MMO company "selling" you an RMT item, and then claiming that they still own it. Yup, that's right, many of them do this. That means after you buy it, they can change it, delete it or devalue it any time they see fit. In my experience, purchasing an item generally leads to a transfer of ownership, but not with online RMT in MMOs.
Legislators in North America and Europe are taking a long hard look at this right now. People are spending hundreds of dollars hoping to get virtual items that they do not own in some cases. At other times, they buy the items without some kind of random outcome, but still can't claim ownership. This is a case of technology taking a step ahead of the laws that generally regulate fair commerce. The legislation is catching up, and when it does I think a lot of MMO companies are going to be caught with their pants around their ankles.
Maybe then game companies will remember that MMOs are an entertainment service, not some opportunity for them to try to trick and manipulate people out of their cash.
You make some good points
No MMORPG game you buy in the store today is yours and neither is your account. Sure you may own the box, the manual and the CD's but that's about it. It is and will always be the game companys intellectual property they can take away from you at their convenience. They can ban you making the game completely inoperable. It doesn't matter if it was because of stupid behavior or other. It isn't so much the items as it is the whole game. When you buy a single player game you know the game is a yours and can't be taken away from you. Not so with MMORPGS. You own nothing.
You pay the same amount of money as you would a single player game. You on top of that pay a monthly fee. Just to play to their tune and their rules. Rules such as conduct. I agree that some of this stuff is needed in order to keep the masses happy but it resembles a scam in a lot of ways. What other product do you pay full price for THEN rent it but never become yours.
Yes, I see things similarly. I can accept that with subscriptions you are renting the use of the server. The language in RMT is different though. They claim to "sell" "items" to you from their online "shop" or "store." This language suggests a purchase, and that usually means a transfer of ownership.
If they want to be more straightforward, they should say you are renting the use of these items, in addition to renting the use of the server in order to play the game. However, that raises questions like, "how long are you renting the item for?' and, "will it retain its value and function for that length of time?" If, like other rental services, MMOs can get their act together, I think RMT can be a win/win model. As it stands now, however, the service provider gets all the money and retains all the rights to what is virtually "purchased" or rented. The purchaser or renter is treated, unlike any other industry I'm familiar with, as having no rights whatsoever. Even in renting the use of the server, people should know what they are renting (features and functions), and for how long they can expect to enjoy these things.
At the moment, service providers can promise certain fixes, and then change their minds after the fact. They can implement something that doesn't work, and promise to fix it, but never follow through. All the while, people are paying for an advertised service that does not materialize, and service providers are bringing in money via little more than hype and broken promises.
It's this gross imbalance in the server/user contract that has attracted so much legislative attention lately I think. I expect things to change. The blank cheque that seems to allow all of this is the MMO EULA, which I'm told is currently under review by the FTC, as are virtual property laws--or, more accurately, the lack thereof.
Having said all of that, some MMO companies (Blizz/CCP to name just a couple) seem to remember that if you give people a good product, the product you advertised, and provide good entertainment value, you are likely to get (and retain) more customers and generate more revenue. Other companies, like SOE in my view, seem to have lost sight of this. Their RMT cash gimmicks come across to me more as acts of desperation to try to generate profits despite low populations and a bad reputation. I don't think successful companies need to try these controversial models. I also think these models are likely to backfire in the long-run, once people catch on to what's happening; especially if they find games that work better, are more fun, and treat them with more respect. I expect revenue spikes associated with these gimmicks to be enticing for certain service providers, but short-lived.
I just can't start caring about what SoE does to games i have stopped playing years ago. These games are on their way out. Not in the sense that they will shut down but they had their glory day. Today they only have a small fraction of subscription numbers they had at their peaks. As such they are no longer cash cows. SoE needs a bigger income from these games obviously.
When SoE releases their next "hit" and they put RMT in from day 1 then i will be there with you... rallying about the Satan that is SoE. Until then i don't give a flying fuck
Why does the size of the game or the length it has run matter?
Customers are still paying money. They are people just like those who would be playing the next big game that comes out. I fail to see the difference.
It is fine if you don't care, but just because a game is past its prime doesn't mean it should be treated as some testing ground or the players still supporting the company are less worthy of respect.
It matters because the game no longer creates an income worth having it running. They have cut the cost of running it to the point where it's barely hanging on. What's saving it is station pass and upcoming RMT. If SoE decided to kill of Vanguard for good tomorrow and close down servers it wouldn't make a dent in their income. It's no longer a cash cow. So if they decide to put in RMT to generate some revenue to keep the turd running you should be thankful instead of an ingrate. They are showing you respect by fixing an extremely buggy game and keep it running for you to play on. IF RMT helps with that then more power to them.
As i said before if they introduce RMT into a newly launched game then i can see the reason to complain. Not for a has-been.
We have so many armchair economists on this board it's not even funny. They are saying shit like "Lets relaunch the game" "SoE should put more millions into the game and do some more advertising to save it" like that's financially feasable or even smart. But i guess us gamers know best eh?
You say Vanguard was a cash cow and you want to belittle other people as armchair economists? Seriously a cash cow.. vanguard?!?!?! For one I am not thankful that a company endorses RMT just so they can make a few bucks. Nor am I thinkful in the way soe does business like this. They are not some sort of heroes riding in to do favors for their players and just about everything they do speaks the oposite of that.
If they release RMT into a new game then at least everyone knows what they are getting into before buying it. Once the game is launched then things like this have no place, especially from a company that used to harp about how much RMT hurt their game worlds... that is until they saw how much cash they could make from it.
As for everything you said about me, you could not be further from the truth, but that is what you get when you assume things.
I don't think soe did anyone a favor releasing vanguard in the first place. I think Vg going live the way it did and the way soe runs it just sets another example for developers to shy away from games with more "sandbox" like featuers. It is my opinion that soe funded the game just enough to keep other developers from possibly picking it up, because a healthy VG release would have devestated EQ/EQ2. A failed VG works best for soes interests.
SoE did not release Vanguard. They were not part of the process at all. It was Sigil games. If you are going to post something get your facts straight. SoE bought the game when it became clear it was either time to close shop and declare bankrupcy or sell it to SoE to keep the game running. Yes SoE did save the game for you so you can play it.
I just can't start caring about what SoE does to games i have stopped playing years ago. These games are on their way out. Not in the sense that they will shut down but they had their glory day. Today they only have a small fraction of subscription numbers they had at their peaks. As such they are no longer cash cows. SoE needs a bigger income from these games obviously.
When SoE releases their next "hit" and they put RMT in from day 1 then i will be there with you... rallying about the Satan that is SoE. Until then i don't give a flying fuck
Why does the size of the game or the length it has run matter?
Customers are still paying money. They are people just like those who would be playing the next big game that comes out. I fail to see the difference.
It is fine if you don't care, but just because a game is past its prime doesn't mean it should be treated as some testing ground or the players still supporting the company are less worthy of respect.
It matters because the game no longer creates an income worth having it running. They have cut the cost of running it to the point where it's barely hanging on. What's saving it is station pass and upcoming RMT. If SoE decided to kill of Vanguard for good tomorrow and close down servers it wouldn't make a dent in their income. It's no longer a cash cow. So if they decide to put in RMT to generate some revenue to keep the turd running you should be thankful instead of an ingrate. They are showing you respect by fixing an extremely buggy game and keep it running for you to play on. IF RMT helps with that then more power to them.
As i said before if they introduce RMT into a newly launched game then i can see the reason to complain. Not for a has-been.
We have so many armchair economists on this board it's not even funny. They are saying shit like "Lets relaunch the game" "SoE should put more millions into the game and do some more advertising to save it" like that's financially feasable or even smart. But i guess us gamers know best eh?
You say Vanguard was a cash cow and you want to belittle other people as armchair economists? Seriously a cash cow.. vanguard?!?!?! For one I am not thankful that a company endorses RMT just so they can make a few bucks. Nor am I thinkful in the way soe does business like this. They are not some sort of heroes riding in to do favors for their players and just about everything they do speaks the oposite of that.
If they release RMT into a new game then at least everyone knows what they are getting into before buying it. Once the game is launched then things like this have no place, especially from a company that used to harp about how much RMT hurt their game worlds... that is until they saw how much cash they could make from it.
As for everything you said about me, you could not be further from the truth, but that is what you get when you assume things.
I don't think soe did anyone a favor releasing vanguard in the first place. I think Vg going live the way it did and the way soe runs it just sets another example for developers to shy away from games with more "sandbox" like featuers. It is my opinion that soe funded the game just enough to keep other developers from possibly picking it up, because a healthy VG release would have devestated EQ/EQ2. A failed VG works best for soes interests.
SoE did not release Vanguard. They were not part of the process at all. It was Sigil games. If you are going to post something get your facts straight. SoE bought the game when it became clear it was either time to close shop and declare bankrupcy or sell it to SoE to keep the game running. Yes SoE did save the game for you so you can play it.
Maybe you should get your facts straight before recommending others do the same: "Vanguard: Saga of Heroes is a high fantasy-themed massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) created by Sigil Games Online, and now developed and run by Sony Online Entertainment. Originally, the game was co-published by Sony Online Entertainment (SOE), and the company producing it, Sigil Games Online." That's from the Vanguard wikipedia entry btw. Most of us that followed the development and release are well aware of the facts. We watched the bug-ridden game get released when it wasn't ready, watched Sigil buckle under the failure, and watched SOE absorb the game. SOE was certainly a part of the failed release, and does not present itself as the game's messiah (at least with any accuracy) in my view. If you think they had nothing to do with the failure, why don't you research who set the release deadline despite the game's state of unreadiness. This deadline also happened to coincide with the WoW Burning Crusade release--another significant obstacle to success, according to Brad M. In fact, if you want to read all the facts (at least from Brad McQuaid's point of view), you can read them here:
SOE's involvement in the development and release process is all clearly articulated. It's clear that Sigil did not set the timelines, that Sigil felt the game needed an additional 3 months for polish, that they did not get it, and that the game bombed out of the gate.
Wow Arc you are at it again with the SOE hate spin...
Everyone that was around knows the story...so why you gonna up and lie trying to place it squarely on SOE?
VG started in bed with M$. After a few yrs M$ wanted out of the deal(some say cause VG was just wasting money/not making a game/whatever reason).
For whatever reason you choose to believe, Brad had to scramble to find last minute backing, and he ended up with SOE.
SOE backed it for a bit longer as agreed on....it launched and failed. SOE ended up owning it.
To try spinning it to make SOE the fault for VG is comical. Brad and M$ were at the helm plotting the way....SOE came in at the end. Why dont you take your hating arse back to the vet forums where it belongs? It is one thing to point out the bad someone does.
It is something else to constantly add imaginary hurt in besides the fact. Something which is your MO. I know it is appreciated with the rest of the crew that whines for the PRECioUs with ya. "Boo Hoo my puddy hurts 3 years later" so to speak.
But this is the general forums...that "making facts up as you go" chit is for the birds. Or perhaps you would know it better as "this chit is for nancies"...since that 3+ years of whining have you tagged as such.
Now could you kindly STFU if you dont care to deal in facts? Thanks.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
wish I could say I'm shocked, but I'm not. It is just a matter of time before this is the standard for SOE, IMO. I've been expecting so see them convert the remaining EQ2 servers for some time now.
If SoE can manage to make it work, it will be the standard for most MMO's within the next 5 years.
That is not an endorsement, just a prediction. There are already other major players moving traditionally subscription-fee based games in this direction. NC Soft for one.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
If you defend RMT, you defend cheaters. If you use RMT, you are cheater.
Real life money transactions are great in social virtual worlds like Second Life. In game worlds supporting RMT is going to destroy game. Why would you use 8 hours to raid to get that better looking armour - if you just can throw 5 bucks to shop and get that armour? Not me at least - I would instantly buy that armour from shop, instead of grouping 8 hours with bunch of morons. Then I could use that 8 hours with online friends talking about latest sport news, economical situation and killing noobs in newbiew area.
... anyway who cares about what SOE is doing? They have just have crappy games that some idiots are still playing.
"I know I said this was my last post, but you my friend are a idiotic moron." -Shadow4482
SoE might still pave the way for this sort of behaviour to become more acceptable with game companies. Right now, I think it's only SoE and SL (if you want to consider SL an MMO) that have RMT. SoE is also the only companies that has RMT + cash shop in a P2P. To me that's a real problem, bordering on somewhat unethical in a game that I already shell out money to pay the sub for.
I don't think for a second that VG was a cash cow for SoE. They're putting in this RMT is probably not going to earn them a lot of revenue. It might piss some of the players who are left, and will in fact have a negative impact on the game. I don't think adding the RMT element will bring in more players to the game. No one is going to say, 'ooo they've put RMT in VG, I want to go play that now and try it out'.
Back in EvE. Started with BatMUD. Main MMOs have been EvE and DAoC.
I just can't start caring about what SoE does to games i have stopped playing years ago. These games are on their way out. Not in the sense that they will shut down but they had their glory day. Today they only have a small fraction of subscription numbers they had at their peaks. As such they are no longer cash cows. SoE needs a bigger income from these games obviously.
When SoE releases their next "hit" and they put RMT in from day 1 then i will be there with you... rallying about the Satan that is SoE. Until then i don't give a flying fuck
Why does the size of the game or the length it has run matter?
Customers are still paying money. They are people just like those who would be playing the next big game that comes out. I fail to see the difference.
It is fine if you don't care, but just because a game is past its prime doesn't mean it should be treated as some testing ground or the players still supporting the company are less worthy of respect.
It matters because the game no longer creates an income worth having it running. They have cut the cost of running it to the point where it's barely hanging on. What's saving it is station pass and upcoming RMT. If SoE decided to kill of Vanguard for good tomorrow and close down servers it wouldn't make a dent in their income. It's no longer a cash cow. So if they decide to put in RMT to generate some revenue to keep the turd running you should be thankful instead of an ingrate. They are showing you respect by fixing an extremely buggy game and keep it running for you to play on. IF RMT helps with that then more power to them.
As i said before if they introduce RMT into a newly launched game then i can see the reason to complain. Not for a has-been.
We have so many armchair economists on this board it's not even funny. They are saying shit like "Lets relaunch the game" "SoE should put more millions into the game and do some more advertising to save it" like that's financially feasable or even smart. But i guess us gamers know best eh?
You say Vanguard was a cash cow and you want to belittle other people as armchair economists? Seriously a cash cow.. vanguard?!?!?! For one I am not thankful that a company endorses RMT just so they can make a few bucks. Nor am I thinkful in the way soe does business like this. They are not some sort of heroes riding in to do favors for their players and just about everything they do speaks the oposite of that.
If they release RMT into a new game then at least everyone knows what they are getting into before buying it. Once the game is launched then things like this have no place, especially from a company that used to harp about how much RMT hurt their game worlds... that is until they saw how much cash they could make from it.
As for everything you said about me, you could not be further from the truth, but that is what you get when you assume things.
I don't think soe did anyone a favor releasing vanguard in the first place. I think Vg going live the way it did and the way soe runs it just sets another example for developers to shy away from games with more "sandbox" like featuers. It is my opinion that soe funded the game just enough to keep other developers from possibly picking it up, because a healthy VG release would have devestated EQ/EQ2. A failed VG works best for soes interests.
SoE did not release Vanguard. They were not part of the process at all. It was Sigil games. If you are going to post something get your facts straight. SoE bought the game when it became clear it was either time to close shop and declare bankrupcy or sell it to SoE to keep the game running. Yes SoE did save the game for you so you can play it.
Maybe you should get your facts straight before recommending others do the same: "Vanguard: Saga of Heroes is a high fantasy-themed massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) created by Sigil Games Online, and now developed and run by Sony Online Entertainment. Originally, the game was co-published by Sony Online Entertainment (SOE), and the company producing it, Sigil Games Online." That's from the Vanguard wikipedia entry btw. Most of us that followed the development and release are well aware of the facts. We watched the bug-ridden game get released when it wasn't ready, watched Sigil buckle under the failure, and watched SOE absorb the game. SOE was certainly a part of the failed release, and does not present itself as the game's messiah (at least with any accuracy) in my view. If you think they had nothing to do with the failure, why don't you research who set the release deadline despite the game's state of unreadiness. This deadline also happened to coincide with the WoW Burning Crusade release--another significant obstacle to success, according to Brad M. In fact, if you want to read all the facts (at least from Brad McQuaid's point of view), you can read them here:
SOE's involvement in the development and release process is all clearly articulated. It's clear that Sigil did not set the timelines, that Sigil felt the game needed an additional 3 months for polish, that they did not get it, and that the game bombed out of the gate.
I edited out most of the crap I wrote this pretty much is all that's needed. If you really followed VG's development then you would know this... you would also know they were dumped by Microsoft and why (they didn't just re-aquire the rights). You would also know Sigil had full control over VG until after launch and that SOE had actually given them resources to help with the product... btw I was in beta when this was still a Microsoft product so I guess I would say I followed it fairly well.
When you are going to quote wiki... scrolll .... waaaay down to "development" history don't just quote the first paragraph...
"Sigil's original Vanguard team was composed of many EverQuest developers, including designer Brad McQuaid. Development began in early 2002 and a publishing deal with Microsoft was announced in April 2002. The game's title was announced on March 16, 2004, exactly five years after EverQuest was released. Sigil displayed the game's first screenshots in April 2004 and announced that Vanguard would use Unreal Engine 2.0 in May 2004.
In May 2006 Sigil reacquired the marketing rights to Vanguard from Microsoft and announced that Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) would become the co-publishers of Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. Sigil maintained full control of development, funding, intellectual property rights, and in-game customer service (GM and Guide programs). Although SOE was responsible chiefly for marketing, publication, distribution, subscription services and maintenance of game servers, some of SOE's game designers and artists did participate directly in Vanguard's development[12].
Beta Testing for the game began in-house in August 2005 and continued until January 23, 2007. Preorders were opened on January 26, and the game officially launched worldwide on January 30 to lukewarm reviews and widespread criticism.
On May 15, 2007, four months after the game's release, Sony Online Entertainment announced they had acquired all assets of Sigil and retained much of the Vanguard development team to work for Sony and to continue developing Vanguard."
Nice post Antarious, too bad you are flat out wrong and ArcAngel is right. I actually worked for Sigil for a bit and SOE was up to it's ears in the development and had a big say in the release date. SOE even had staff at Sigil's worksite. Sigil was out of money and SOE was not going to front them any money so they both decided just to release the game. They thought there would be a lot less problems than there were with the release. Unfotunately, alot of the stuff shoved into the final release never got a thorough look at by the QA staff.
Canceled my sub / Time to come back to serious products sold by serious companies. Time to play Lotro again. You won't see me again in a SOE game for sure.
Thanks to BMQ and Sigil for this game. Unfortunately this great game has been sold by Sigil...
Nice post Antarious, too bad you are flat out wrong and ArcAngel is right. I actually worked for Sigil for a bit and SOE was up to it's ears in the development and had a big say in the release date. SOE even had staff at Sigil's worksite. Sigil was out of money and SOE was not going to front them any money so they both decided just to release the game. They thought there would be a lot less problems than there were with the release. Unfotunately, alot of the stuff shoved into the final release never got a thorough look at by the QA staff.
I seriously doubt you worked for Sigil.
Antarious is absolutely right...Microsoft was to be the publisher of Vanguard from its inception. They backed it for years.
As I indicated in my other post, M$ pulled the plug and Brad went running to SOE.
I dont know the exact details, but basically SOE helped Brad get the game away from M$, and gave him a bit more money to help clean it up for release. There is a bunch of this seedy story over on the FoH guild brds if you wanna research it.
You guys talk like Vanguard was managed correctly during its time with M$. It wasnt, which is exactly the reason M$ backed out and sent Brad running to SOE.
You wanna blame someone for VG....start with Brad himself. Then get M$ for not keeping a better eye on Brad over the years. SOE takes very little of the blame on this one. But as always, the haters try to pin this game along with MxO on SOE, and it just isnt the truth.
But why let truth break up a little hate convention eh?
*SIDE NOTE* I wish MMORPG.com was run a little more like FoH boards in that folks dont get away with multiple accounts, and anyone running BS gets the perma-ban....never to be heard from again. Would solve a bunch of the lunacy around here.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Looks like SOE are not happy introducing the cash shop in EQ 2. Now Vanguard is getting hit by the RMT stick, but instead of the cash shop it going full RMT i.e. EQ 2 exchange servers across all of it's servers.
Canceled my sub / Time to come back to serious products sold by serious companies. Time to play Lotro again. You won't see me again in a SOE game for sure. Thanks to BMQ and Sigil for this game. Unfortunately this great game has been sold by Sigil... http://www.fohguild.org/forums/mmorpg-general-discussion/27757-nino-one-upsides-vg-66.html#post699867 ***************************************************************** "Yes SoE did save the game for you so you can play it." Yeah, they are the Heroes of Dawn (lol)
Ive also /ragequit..
was thinking about LOTRO what server you on?
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Samuel Adams
Looks like SOE are not happy introducing the cash shop in EQ 2. Now Vanguard is getting hit by the RMT stick, but instead of the cash shop it going full RMT i.e. EQ 2 exchange servers across all of it's servers.
What was the excuse for all the previous years where sony had never once posted a loss? NGE, Station exchange, virtual trading card lottery, adventure packs, premium subcription, extra character slots, etc.
Just because there is a new excuse this years, doesn't change how this company operates. Same company, same actions, same methods of operation. Nothing has changed just because the economy is hurting and makes for a handy excuse.
Originally posted by Moaky07 As I indicated in my other post, M$ pulled the plug and Brad went running to SOE. I dont know the exact details, but basically SOE helped Brad get the game away from M$, and gave him a bit more money to help clean it up for release. There is a bunch of this seedy story over on the FoH guild brds if you wanna research it. You guys talk like Vanguard was managed correctly during its time with M$. It wasnt, which is exactly the reason M$ backed out and sent Brad running to SOE. You wanna blame someone for VG....start with Brad himself. Then get M$ for not keeping a better eye on Brad over the years. SOE takes very little of the blame on this one. But as always, the haters try to pin this game along with MxO on SOE, and it just isnt the truth. But why let truth break up a little hate convention eh?
No one is trying to say that brad didn't screw up vanguard. In fact it is obvious it wasn't getting finished while at microsoft and microsoft was just going to flat out cancel the project.
You want to say soe had no control or involvement? They had absolute power if they wanted it, because they held the purse strings. Without soe vanguard would have died a just death that it had earned. However soe gave sigil a little more money.
Now consider the following before answering: soe had 100% of the bargaining power in this relationship, because sigil was out of money and dead in the water without it. There was nothing sigil held in the partnership they could hold bargain with, because if soe cut funding that was it, game over. Soe has 100% of the final decision of how much the game got developed. Soe could have made any demands they wanted and there was almost nothing sigil could do about it.
Now it is obvious that sigil failed with microsoft backing them, how on earth could soe repeat that same exact mistake? How could soe give funds to a company that already failed and not have enough oversight to make sure the same exact situation happened.
Now you have to ask yourself what happened behind the scenes:
Was soe so stupid with their money that they thought brad (who has already failed when given to much freedom) would somehow change on his own without oversight and soe involvement. Was this really the best effort the soe could muster with their investment?
Or
Did soe somehow come out ahead with a failed release of an mmo that was squarly aimed at taking players away from their 2 flagship products.
Personally I think smed let brad fail so he could buy the game and developers for cheap, but it failed a little more than they had planned.
Looks like SOE are not happy introducing the cash shop in EQ 2. Now Vanguard is getting hit by the RMT stick, but instead of the cash shop it going full RMT i.e. EQ 2 exchange servers across all of it's servers.
What was the excuse for all the previous years where sony had never once posted a loss? NGE, Station exchange, virtual trading card lottery, adventure packs, premium subcription, extra character slots, etc.
Just because there is a new excuse this years, doesn't change how this company operates. Same company, same actions, same methods of operation. Nothing has changed just because the economy is hurting and makes for a handy excuse.
What ever Daff, you come after anything I say no matter what. Go ahead make your points about the evil greedy SOE. Not like we have not heard it before. At least this time you did not put me down like you usually do. You must be tired. You can respond to me all you like I am simply done with you. This is the last response to you that I will make. One last piece of advice these are just games we are talking about here. If you hate SOE so much you might just stop responding to any threads about SOE and move on.
You see some of us actually play SOE games and want to see them continue. Some of us are actually satisfied customers but you have pointed out time and again how deluded we are. I know you will have a smart little response about how I make no sense or contradict myself. Go for I do not care anymore. Why don't you post at the I hate SOE thread that is where you belong.
PS- as far as this gem you posted "Personally I think smed let brad fail so he could buy the game and developers for cheap, but it failed a little more than they had planned." wow you are also a conspiracy therorist now to. Total rubbish.
Comments
Why does the size of the game or the length it has run matter?
Customers are still paying money. They are people just like those who would be playing the next big game that comes out. I fail to see the difference.
It is fine if you don't care, but just because a game is past its prime doesn't mean it should be treated as some testing ground or the players still supporting the company are less worthy of respect.
It matters because the game no longer creates an income worth having it running. They have cut the cost of running it to the point where it's barely hanging on. What's saving it is station pass and upcoming RMT. If SoE decided to kill of Vanguard for good tomorrow and close down servers it wouldn't make a dent in their income. It's no longer a cash cow. So if they decide to put in RMT to generate some revenue to keep the turd running you should be thankful instead of an ingrate. They are showing you respect by fixing an extremely buggy game and keep it running for you to play on. IF RMT helps with that then more power to them.
As i said before if they introduce RMT into a newly launched game then i can see the reason to complain. Not for a has-been.
We have so many armchair economists on this board it's not even funny. They are saying shit like "Lets relaunch the game" "SoE should put more millions into the game and do some more advertising to save it" like that's financially feasable or even smart. But i guess us gamers know best eh?
If thats the case I wish SOE would take Vanguard around the back and shoot it instead of crippling it with RMT.
It amazes me people are still willing to play these games, if people hate them so much why do they keep playing? SOE won't stop being greedy so I don't understand why people are gonna let SOE take there money. A lot of the people complaining on there forums are probably gonna use the RMT anyway.
So much ignorant drivel in this thread as usually happens when people start posting about rmt. It hurts this and that, half the customer base will flee, massive inflation will insue killing the game, blah blah blah blah blah. RMT trades in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. There are lots of people who use it and support it. Any game that you think is "pure" is not. RMT (and lots of it) occurs in every single mmo. You think you're some kind of massive majority, and that devs don't "listen to their customers". Get over yourselves. The "customers" support RMT, and the numbers prove this. That's the bottom line fact of the matter. The sooner other companies follow SOE's lead with exchange servers, and the sooner you anti-rmt people accept this fact, the better.
Obviously, I'm a strong supporter of RMT and particularly the SOE "Exchange" system. That being said, as much as I despise the people who make such pathetic arguments against RMT, I lament the loss of the "pure" (lol?) servers. As much as I want you all to eat crow, I at heart believe in options for mmo gaming. There should be "pure" servers for those who prefer to play on them. Profit from RMT can even go to pay for them IMO. So I do see SOE as making a mistake in forcing everyone to play in a RMT environment.
Always meet the middle ground and make everyone happy. It is the first rule in successful negotiation. Make "pure" servers for those who want them and RMT servers for people like me. It's a win win win scenario. All the players win, and the developer wins by skimming a profit off of item sales. SOE as usual put itself in a bad situation by choosing a win win lose scenario, by running out the "pure" players. Big mistake IMO and a potential blow to the people who support RMT.
Gamers often forget they created the RMT business to begin with. It started with the infamous chinese gold farmers who tapped into an incredible money source. That source were gamers willing to part rl money for ingame items and gold. If you people haven't shown them the way then RMT wouldn't be so popular as it is now. If your retarded friends weren't the ones buying gold to afford that epic mount. By creating a multi million dollar business for these gold farmers you have effectivly shown these game companies the way.
Gamers ALSO often forget that without buyers there would be no RMT. As long as there are junkies with more money than sense there will be a drug dealer.
If you are going to hate somebody then hate the people you know bought gold in the past or present from these illegal sites. They created the business in the first place.
SOE may have come to the conclusion that they ran out most of the "pure" players long ago with their bad releases, failure to correct bugs, and history of unwanted changes and revamps. It wouldn't surprise me if the only way they can stay cash positive at this point it to try to suck as much cash out of their remaining customers as possible.
What's more fun for gamers, doing an enjoyable quest for a nice piece of loot, or paying for it at the online store? Worse yet, for one SOE title, you go to the online store an purchase packs of virtual cards hoping to get the loot item you want, and usually you do not. How much entertainment value is there in that? The only one who benefits from this kind of model in my view is some greedy fat-cat MMO executive. The gamer certainly doesn't.
Lots of games have RMT, true; and some of this I actually enjoy. Treating yourself to an optional costume set in City of Heroes, for example, was fun, although tbh, it still probably would have provided more entertainment value if the costume was attached to playable content. All RMT models are not the same. The optional costume set seems to be at one end of the spectrum while paying real cash for only the chance of a performance enhancing loot item seems to be at the other.
Also, there's this whole business of the MMO company "selling" you an RMT item, and then claiming that they still own it. Yup, that's right, many of them do this. That means after you buy it, they can change it, delete it or devalue it any time they see fit. In my experience, purchasing an item generally leads to a transfer of ownership, but not with online RMT in MMOs.
Legislators in North America and Europe are taking a long hard look at this right now. People are spending hundreds of dollars hoping to get virtual items that they do not own in some cases. At other times, they buy the items without some kind of random outcome, but still can't claim ownership. This is a case of technology taking a step ahead of the laws that generally regulate fair commerce. The legislation is catching up, and when it does I think a lot of MMO companies are going to be caught with their pants around their ankles.
Maybe then game companies will remember that MMOs are an entertainment service, not some opportunity for them to try to trick and manipulate people out of their cash.
SOE may have come to the conclusion that they ran out most of the "pure" players long ago with their bad releases, failure to correct bugs, and history of unwanted changes and revamps. It wouldn't surprise me if the only way they can stay cash positive at this point it to try to suck as much cash out of their remaining customers as possible.
What's more fun for gamers, doing an enjoyable quest for a nice piece of loot, or paying for it at the online store? Worse yet, for one SOE title, you go to the online store an purchase packs of virtual cards hoping to get the loot item you want, and usually you do not. How much entertainment value is there in that? The only one who benefits from this kind of model in my view is some greedy fat-cat MMO executive. The gamer certainly doesn't.
Lots of games have RMT, true; and some of this I actually enjoy. Treating yourself to an optional costume set in City of Heroes, for example, was fun, although tbh, it still probably would have provided more entertainment value if the costume was attached to playable content. All RMT models are not the same. The optional costume set seems to be at one end of the spectrum while paying real cash for only the chance of a performance enhancing loot item seems to be at the other.
Also, there's this whole business of the MMO company "selling" you an RMT item, and then claiming that they still own it. Yup, that's right, many of them do this. That means after you buy it, they can change it, delete it or devalue it any time they see fit. In my experience, purchasing an item generally leads to a transfer of ownership, but not with online RMT in MMOs.
Legislators in North America and Europe are taking a long hard look at this right now. People are spending hundreds of dollars hoping to get virtual items that they do not own in some cases. At other times, they buy the items without some kind of random outcome, but still can't claim ownership. This is a case of technology taking a step ahead of the laws that generally regulate fair commerce. The legislation is catching up, and when it does I think a lot of MMO companies are going to be caught with their pants around their ankles.
Maybe then game companies will remember that MMOs are an entertainment service, not some opportunity for them to try to trick and manipulate people out of their cash.
You make some good points
No MMORPG game you buy in the store today is yours and neither is your account. Sure you may own the box, the manual and the CD's but that's about it. It is and will always be the game companys intellectual property they can take away from you at their convenience. They can ban you making the game completely inoperable. It doesn't matter if it was because of stupid behavior or other. It isn't so much the items as it is the whole game. When you buy a single player game you know the game is a yours and can't be taken away from you. Not so with MMORPGS. You own nothing.
You pay the same amount of money as you would a single player game. You on top of that pay a monthly fee. Just to play to their tune and their rules. Rules such as conduct. I agree that some of this stuff is needed in order to keep the masses happy but it resembles a scam in a lot of ways. What other product do you pay full price for THEN rent it but never become yours.
Why does the size of the game or the length it has run matter?
Customers are still paying money. They are people just like those who would be playing the next big game that comes out. I fail to see the difference.
It is fine if you don't care, but just because a game is past its prime doesn't mean it should be treated as some testing ground or the players still supporting the company are less worthy of respect.
It matters because the game no longer creates an income worth having it running. They have cut the cost of running it to the point where it's barely hanging on. What's saving it is station pass and upcoming RMT. If SoE decided to kill of Vanguard for good tomorrow and close down servers it wouldn't make a dent in their income. It's no longer a cash cow. So if they decide to put in RMT to generate some revenue to keep the turd running you should be thankful instead of an ingrate. They are showing you respect by fixing an extremely buggy game and keep it running for you to play on. IF RMT helps with that then more power to them.
As i said before if they introduce RMT into a newly launched game then i can see the reason to complain. Not for a has-been.
We have so many armchair economists on this board it's not even funny. They are saying shit like "Lets relaunch the game" "SoE should put more millions into the game and do some more advertising to save it" like that's financially feasable or even smart. But i guess us gamers know best eh?
You say Vanguard was a cash cow and you want to belittle other people as armchair economists? Seriously a cash cow.. vanguard?!?!?! For one I am not thankful that a company endorses RMT just so they can make a few bucks. Nor am I thinkful in the way soe does business like this. They are not some sort of heroes riding in to do favors for their players and just about everything they do speaks the oposite of that.
If they release RMT into a new game then at least everyone knows what they are getting into before buying it. Once the game is launched then things like this have no place, especially from a company that used to harp about how much RMT hurt their game worlds... that is until they saw how much cash they could make from it.
As for everything you said about me, you could not be further from the truth, but that is what you get when you assume things.
I don't think soe did anyone a favor releasing vanguard in the first place. I think Vg going live the way it did and the way soe runs it just sets another example for developers to shy away from games with more "sandbox" like featuers. It is my opinion that soe funded the game just enough to keep other developers from possibly picking it up, because a healthy VG release would have devestated EQ/EQ2. A failed VG works best for soes interests.
SOE may have come to the conclusion that they ran out most of the "pure" players long ago with their bad releases, failure to correct bugs, and history of unwanted changes and revamps. It wouldn't surprise me if the only way they can stay cash positive at this point it to try to suck as much cash out of their remaining customers as possible.
What's more fun for gamers, doing an enjoyable quest for a nice piece of loot, or paying for it at the online store? Worse yet, for one SOE title, you go to the online store an purchase packs of virtual cards hoping to get the loot item you want, and usually you do not. How much entertainment value is there in that? The only one who benefits from this kind of model in my view is some greedy fat-cat MMO executive. The gamer certainly doesn't.
Lots of games have RMT, true; and some of this I actually enjoy. Treating yourself to an optional costume set in City of Heroes, for example, was fun, although tbh, it still probably would have provided more entertainment value if the costume was attached to playable content. All RMT models are not the same. The optional costume set seems to be at one end of the spectrum while paying real cash for only the chance of a performance enhancing loot item seems to be at the other.
Also, there's this whole business of the MMO company "selling" you an RMT item, and then claiming that they still own it. Yup, that's right, many of them do this. That means after you buy it, they can change it, delete it or devalue it any time they see fit. In my experience, purchasing an item generally leads to a transfer of ownership, but not with online RMT in MMOs.
Legislators in North America and Europe are taking a long hard look at this right now. People are spending hundreds of dollars hoping to get virtual items that they do not own in some cases. At other times, they buy the items without some kind of random outcome, but still can't claim ownership. This is a case of technology taking a step ahead of the laws that generally regulate fair commerce. The legislation is catching up, and when it does I think a lot of MMO companies are going to be caught with their pants around their ankles.
Maybe then game companies will remember that MMOs are an entertainment service, not some opportunity for them to try to trick and manipulate people out of their cash.
You make some good points
No MMORPG game you buy in the store today is yours and neither is your account. Sure you may own the box, the manual and the CD's but that's about it. It is and will always be the game companys intellectual property they can take away from you at their convenience. They can ban you making the game completely inoperable. It doesn't matter if it was because of stupid behavior or other. It isn't so much the items as it is the whole game. When you buy a single player game you know the game is a yours and can't be taken away from you. Not so with MMORPGS. You own nothing.
You pay the same amount of money as you would a single player game. You on top of that pay a monthly fee. Just to play to their tune and their rules. Rules such as conduct. I agree that some of this stuff is needed in order to keep the masses happy but it resembles a scam in a lot of ways. What other product do you pay full price for THEN rent it but never become yours.
Yes, I see things similarly. I can accept that with subscriptions you are renting the use of the server. The language in RMT is different though. They claim to "sell" "items" to you from their online "shop" or "store." This language suggests a purchase, and that usually means a transfer of ownership.
If they want to be more straightforward, they should say you are renting the use of these items, in addition to renting the use of the server in order to play the game. However, that raises questions like, "how long are you renting the item for?' and, "will it retain its value and function for that length of time?" If, like other rental services, MMOs can get their act together, I think RMT can be a win/win model. As it stands now, however, the service provider gets all the money and retains all the rights to what is virtually "purchased" or rented. The purchaser or renter is treated, unlike any other industry I'm familiar with, as having no rights whatsoever. Even in renting the use of the server, people should know what they are renting (features and functions), and for how long they can expect to enjoy these things.
At the moment, service providers can promise certain fixes, and then change their minds after the fact. They can implement something that doesn't work, and promise to fix it, but never follow through. All the while, people are paying for an advertised service that does not materialize, and service providers are bringing in money via little more than hype and broken promises.
It's this gross imbalance in the server/user contract that has attracted so much legislative attention lately I think. I expect things to change. The blank cheque that seems to allow all of this is the MMO EULA, which I'm told is currently under review by the FTC, as are virtual property laws--or, more accurately, the lack thereof.
Having said all of that, some MMO companies (Blizz/CCP to name just a couple) seem to remember that if you give people a good product, the product you advertised, and provide good entertainment value, you are likely to get (and retain) more customers and generate more revenue. Other companies, like SOE in my view, seem to have lost sight of this. Their RMT cash gimmicks come across to me more as acts of desperation to try to generate profits despite low populations and a bad reputation. I don't think successful companies need to try these controversial models. I also think these models are likely to backfire in the long-run, once people catch on to what's happening; especially if they find games that work better, are more fun, and treat them with more respect. I expect revenue spikes associated with these gimmicks to be enticing for certain service providers, but short-lived.
Why does the size of the game or the length it has run matter?
Customers are still paying money. They are people just like those who would be playing the next big game that comes out. I fail to see the difference.
It is fine if you don't care, but just because a game is past its prime doesn't mean it should be treated as some testing ground or the players still supporting the company are less worthy of respect.
It matters because the game no longer creates an income worth having it running. They have cut the cost of running it to the point where it's barely hanging on. What's saving it is station pass and upcoming RMT. If SoE decided to kill of Vanguard for good tomorrow and close down servers it wouldn't make a dent in their income. It's no longer a cash cow. So if they decide to put in RMT to generate some revenue to keep the turd running you should be thankful instead of an ingrate. They are showing you respect by fixing an extremely buggy game and keep it running for you to play on. IF RMT helps with that then more power to them.
As i said before if they introduce RMT into a newly launched game then i can see the reason to complain. Not for a has-been.
We have so many armchair economists on this board it's not even funny. They are saying shit like "Lets relaunch the game" "SoE should put more millions into the game and do some more advertising to save it" like that's financially feasable or even smart. But i guess us gamers know best eh?
You say Vanguard was a cash cow and you want to belittle other people as armchair economists? Seriously a cash cow.. vanguard?!?!?! For one I am not thankful that a company endorses RMT just so they can make a few bucks. Nor am I thinkful in the way soe does business like this. They are not some sort of heroes riding in to do favors for their players and just about everything they do speaks the oposite of that.
If they release RMT into a new game then at least everyone knows what they are getting into before buying it. Once the game is launched then things like this have no place, especially from a company that used to harp about how much RMT hurt their game worlds... that is until they saw how much cash they could make from it.
As for everything you said about me, you could not be further from the truth, but that is what you get when you assume things.
I don't think soe did anyone a favor releasing vanguard in the first place. I think Vg going live the way it did and the way soe runs it just sets another example for developers to shy away from games with more "sandbox" like featuers. It is my opinion that soe funded the game just enough to keep other developers from possibly picking it up, because a healthy VG release would have devestated EQ/EQ2. A failed VG works best for soes interests.
SoE did not release Vanguard. They were not part of the process at all. It was Sigil games. If you are going to post something get your facts straight. SoE bought the game when it became clear it was either time to close shop and declare bankrupcy or sell it to SoE to keep the game running. Yes SoE did save the game for you so you can play it.
Why does the size of the game or the length it has run matter?
Customers are still paying money. They are people just like those who would be playing the next big game that comes out. I fail to see the difference.
It is fine if you don't care, but just because a game is past its prime doesn't mean it should be treated as some testing ground or the players still supporting the company are less worthy of respect.
It matters because the game no longer creates an income worth having it running. They have cut the cost of running it to the point where it's barely hanging on. What's saving it is station pass and upcoming RMT. If SoE decided to kill of Vanguard for good tomorrow and close down servers it wouldn't make a dent in their income. It's no longer a cash cow. So if they decide to put in RMT to generate some revenue to keep the turd running you should be thankful instead of an ingrate. They are showing you respect by fixing an extremely buggy game and keep it running for you to play on. IF RMT helps with that then more power to them.
As i said before if they introduce RMT into a newly launched game then i can see the reason to complain. Not for a has-been.
We have so many armchair economists on this board it's not even funny. They are saying shit like "Lets relaunch the game" "SoE should put more millions into the game and do some more advertising to save it" like that's financially feasable or even smart. But i guess us gamers know best eh?
You say Vanguard was a cash cow and you want to belittle other people as armchair economists? Seriously a cash cow.. vanguard?!?!?! For one I am not thankful that a company endorses RMT just so they can make a few bucks. Nor am I thinkful in the way soe does business like this. They are not some sort of heroes riding in to do favors for their players and just about everything they do speaks the oposite of that.
If they release RMT into a new game then at least everyone knows what they are getting into before buying it. Once the game is launched then things like this have no place, especially from a company that used to harp about how much RMT hurt their game worlds... that is until they saw how much cash they could make from it.
As for everything you said about me, you could not be further from the truth, but that is what you get when you assume things.
I don't think soe did anyone a favor releasing vanguard in the first place. I think Vg going live the way it did and the way soe runs it just sets another example for developers to shy away from games with more "sandbox" like featuers. It is my opinion that soe funded the game just enough to keep other developers from possibly picking it up, because a healthy VG release would have devestated EQ/EQ2. A failed VG works best for soes interests.
SoE did not release Vanguard. They were not part of the process at all. It was Sigil games. If you are going to post something get your facts straight. SoE bought the game when it became clear it was either time to close shop and declare bankrupcy or sell it to SoE to keep the game running. Yes SoE did save the game for you so you can play it.
Maybe you should get your facts straight before recommending others do the same: "Vanguard: Saga of Heroes is a high fantasy-themed massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) created by Sigil Games Online, and now developed and run by Sony Online Entertainment. Originally, the game was co-published by Sony Online Entertainment (SOE), and the company producing it, Sigil Games Online." That's from the Vanguard wikipedia entry btw. Most of us that followed the development and release are well aware of the facts. We watched the bug-ridden game get released when it wasn't ready, watched Sigil buckle under the failure, and watched SOE absorb the game. SOE was certainly a part of the failed release, and does not present itself as the game's messiah (at least with any accuracy) in my view. If you think they had nothing to do with the failure, why don't you research who set the release deadline despite the game's state of unreadiness. This deadline also happened to coincide with the WoW Burning Crusade release--another significant obstacle to success, according to Brad M. In fact, if you want to read all the facts (at least from Brad McQuaid's point of view), you can read them here:
http://www.fohguild.org/forums/mmorpg-general-discussion/27757-nino-one-upsides-vg-66.html#post699867
SOE's involvement in the development and release process is all clearly articulated. It's clear that Sigil did not set the timelines, that Sigil felt the game needed an additional 3 months for polish, that they did not get it, and that the game bombed out of the gate.
Wow Arc you are at it again with the SOE hate spin...
Everyone that was around knows the story...so why you gonna up and lie trying to place it squarely on SOE?
VG started in bed with M$. After a few yrs M$ wanted out of the deal(some say cause VG was just wasting money/not making a game/whatever reason).
For whatever reason you choose to believe, Brad had to scramble to find last minute backing, and he ended up with SOE.
SOE backed it for a bit longer as agreed on....it launched and failed. SOE ended up owning it.
To try spinning it to make SOE the fault for VG is comical. Brad and M$ were at the helm plotting the way....SOE came in at the end. Why dont you take your hating arse back to the vet forums where it belongs? It is one thing to point out the bad someone does.
It is something else to constantly add imaginary hurt in besides the fact. Something which is your MO. I know it is appreciated with the rest of the crew that whines for the PRECioUs with ya. "Boo Hoo my puddy hurts 3 years later" so to speak.
But this is the general forums...that "making facts up as you go" chit is for the birds. Or perhaps you would know it better as "this chit is for nancies"...since that 3+ years of whining have you tagged as such.
Now could you kindly STFU if you dont care to deal in facts? Thanks.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
If SoE can manage to make it work, it will be the standard for most MMO's within the next 5 years.
That is not an endorsement, just a prediction. There are already other major players moving traditionally subscription-fee based games in this direction. NC Soft for one.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
If you defend RMT, you defend cheaters. If you use RMT, you are cheater.
Real life money transactions are great in social virtual worlds like Second Life. In game worlds supporting RMT is going to destroy game. Why would you use 8 hours to raid to get that better looking armour - if you just can throw 5 bucks to shop and get that armour? Not me at least - I would instantly buy that armour from shop, instead of grouping 8 hours with bunch of morons. Then I could use that 8 hours with online friends talking about latest sport news, economical situation and killing noobs in newbiew area.
... anyway who cares about what SOE is doing? They have just have crappy games that some idiots are still playing.
"I know I said this was my last post, but you my friend are a idiotic moron." -Shadow4482
SoE might still pave the way for this sort of behaviour to become more acceptable with game companies. Right now, I think it's only SoE and SL (if you want to consider SL an MMO) that have RMT. SoE is also the only companies that has RMT + cash shop in a P2P. To me that's a real problem, bordering on somewhat unethical in a game that I already shell out money to pay the sub for.
I don't think for a second that VG was a cash cow for SoE. They're putting in this RMT is probably not going to earn them a lot of revenue. It might piss some of the players who are left, and will in fact have a negative impact on the game. I don't think adding the RMT element will bring in more players to the game. No one is going to say, 'ooo they've put RMT in VG, I want to go play that now and try it out'.
Back in EvE. Started with BatMUD. Main MMOs have been EvE and DAoC.
Why does the size of the game or the length it has run matter?
Customers are still paying money. They are people just like those who would be playing the next big game that comes out. I fail to see the difference.
It is fine if you don't care, but just because a game is past its prime doesn't mean it should be treated as some testing ground or the players still supporting the company are less worthy of respect.
It matters because the game no longer creates an income worth having it running. They have cut the cost of running it to the point where it's barely hanging on. What's saving it is station pass and upcoming RMT. If SoE decided to kill of Vanguard for good tomorrow and close down servers it wouldn't make a dent in their income. It's no longer a cash cow. So if they decide to put in RMT to generate some revenue to keep the turd running you should be thankful instead of an ingrate. They are showing you respect by fixing an extremely buggy game and keep it running for you to play on. IF RMT helps with that then more power to them.
As i said before if they introduce RMT into a newly launched game then i can see the reason to complain. Not for a has-been.
We have so many armchair economists on this board it's not even funny. They are saying shit like "Lets relaunch the game" "SoE should put more millions into the game and do some more advertising to save it" like that's financially feasable or even smart. But i guess us gamers know best eh?
You say Vanguard was a cash cow and you want to belittle other people as armchair economists? Seriously a cash cow.. vanguard?!?!?! For one I am not thankful that a company endorses RMT just so they can make a few bucks. Nor am I thinkful in the way soe does business like this. They are not some sort of heroes riding in to do favors for their players and just about everything they do speaks the oposite of that.
If they release RMT into a new game then at least everyone knows what they are getting into before buying it. Once the game is launched then things like this have no place, especially from a company that used to harp about how much RMT hurt their game worlds... that is until they saw how much cash they could make from it.
As for everything you said about me, you could not be further from the truth, but that is what you get when you assume things.
I don't think soe did anyone a favor releasing vanguard in the first place. I think Vg going live the way it did and the way soe runs it just sets another example for developers to shy away from games with more "sandbox" like featuers. It is my opinion that soe funded the game just enough to keep other developers from possibly picking it up, because a healthy VG release would have devestated EQ/EQ2. A failed VG works best for soes interests.
SoE did not release Vanguard. They were not part of the process at all. It was Sigil games. If you are going to post something get your facts straight. SoE bought the game when it became clear it was either time to close shop and declare bankrupcy or sell it to SoE to keep the game running. Yes SoE did save the game for you so you can play it.
Maybe you should get your facts straight before recommending others do the same: "Vanguard: Saga of Heroes is a high fantasy-themed massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) created by Sigil Games Online, and now developed and run by Sony Online Entertainment. Originally, the game was co-published by Sony Online Entertainment (SOE), and the company producing it, Sigil Games Online." That's from the Vanguard wikipedia entry btw. Most of us that followed the development and release are well aware of the facts. We watched the bug-ridden game get released when it wasn't ready, watched Sigil buckle under the failure, and watched SOE absorb the game. SOE was certainly a part of the failed release, and does not present itself as the game's messiah (at least with any accuracy) in my view. If you think they had nothing to do with the failure, why don't you research who set the release deadline despite the game's state of unreadiness. This deadline also happened to coincide with the WoW Burning Crusade release--another significant obstacle to success, according to Brad M. In fact, if you want to read all the facts (at least from Brad McQuaid's point of view), you can read them here:
http://www.fohguild.org/forums/mmorpg-general-discussion/27757-nino-one-upsides-vg-66.html#post699867
SOE's involvement in the development and release process is all clearly articulated. It's clear that Sigil did not set the timelines, that Sigil felt the game needed an additional 3 months for polish, that they did not get it, and that the game bombed out of the gate.
I edited out most of the crap I wrote this pretty much is all that's needed. If you really followed VG's development then you would know this... you would also know they were dumped by Microsoft and why (they didn't just re-aquire the rights). You would also know Sigil had full control over VG until after launch and that SOE had actually given them resources to help with the product... btw I was in beta when this was still a Microsoft product so I guess I would say I followed it fairly well.
When you are going to quote wiki... scrolll .... waaaay down to "development" history don't just quote the first paragraph...
"Sigil's original Vanguard team was composed of many EverQuest developers, including designer Brad McQuaid. Development began in early 2002 and a publishing deal with Microsoft was announced in April 2002. The game's title was announced on March 16, 2004, exactly five years after EverQuest was released. Sigil displayed the game's first screenshots in April 2004 and announced that Vanguard would use Unreal Engine 2.0 in May 2004.
In May 2006 Sigil reacquired the marketing rights to Vanguard from Microsoft and announced that Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) would become the co-publishers of Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. Sigil maintained full control of development, funding, intellectual property rights, and in-game customer service (GM and Guide programs). Although SOE was responsible chiefly for marketing, publication, distribution, subscription services and maintenance of game servers, some of SOE's game designers and artists did participate directly in Vanguard's development[12].
Beta Testing for the game began in-house in August 2005 and continued until January 23, 2007. Preorders were opened on January 26, and the game officially launched worldwide on January 30 to lukewarm reviews and widespread criticism.
On May 15, 2007, four months after the game's release, Sony Online Entertainment announced they had acquired all assets of Sigil and retained much of the Vanguard development team to work for Sony and to continue developing Vanguard."
So the paying customers gaming experience is degraded....and they are given nothing in return.Ummm :-(
Nice post Antarious, too bad you are flat out wrong and ArcAngel is right. I actually worked for Sigil for a bit and SOE was up to it's ears in the development and had a big say in the release date. SOE even had staff at Sigil's worksite. Sigil was out of money and SOE was not going to front them any money so they both decided just to release the game. They thought there would be a lot less problems than there were with the release. Unfotunately, alot of the stuff shoved into the final release never got a thorough look at by the QA staff.
Canceled my sub / Time to come back to serious products sold by serious companies. Time to play Lotro again. You won't see me again in a SOE game for sure.
Thanks to BMQ and Sigil for this game. Unfortunately this great game has been sold by Sigil...
http://www.fohguild.org/forums/mmorpg-general-discussion/27757-nino-one-upsides-vg-66.html#post699867
*****************************************************************
"Yes SoE did save the game for you so you can play it."
Yeah, they are the Heroes of Dawn (lol)
I seriously doubt you worked for Sigil.
Antarious is absolutely right...Microsoft was to be the publisher of Vanguard from its inception. They backed it for years.
As I indicated in my other post, M$ pulled the plug and Brad went running to SOE.
I dont know the exact details, but basically SOE helped Brad get the game away from M$, and gave him a bit more money to help clean it up for release. There is a bunch of this seedy story over on the FoH guild brds if you wanna research it.
You guys talk like Vanguard was managed correctly during its time with M$. It wasnt, which is exactly the reason M$ backed out and sent Brad running to SOE.
You wanna blame someone for VG....start with Brad himself. Then get M$ for not keeping a better eye on Brad over the years. SOE takes very little of the blame on this one. But as always, the haters try to pin this game along with MxO on SOE, and it just isnt the truth.
But why let truth break up a little hate convention eh?
*SIDE NOTE* I wish MMORPG.com was run a little more like FoH boards in that folks dont get away with multiple accounts, and anyone running BS gets the perma-ban....never to be heard from again. Would solve a bunch of the lunacy around here.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
They are really a greedy people. I hate greedy people.
Greed? Sony lost over 3 billion dollars last year.
www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/technology/23sony.html
VULNERANT OMNES ULTIMA NECAT :That's VG 's story
No more soe games for me. not a Ct not a cent.
Now comes the last vanboys (fun or pathetic ? your choice)
Ive also /ragequit..
was thinking about LOTRO what server you on?
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
They are really a greedy people. I hate greedy people.
Greed? Sony lost over 3 billion dollars last year.
www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/technology/23sony.html
What was the excuse for all the previous years where sony had never once posted a loss? NGE, Station exchange, virtual trading card lottery, adventure packs, premium subcription, extra character slots, etc.
Just because there is a new excuse this years, doesn't change how this company operates. Same company, same actions, same methods of operation. Nothing has changed just because the economy is hurting and makes for a handy excuse.
No one is trying to say that brad didn't screw up vanguard. In fact it is obvious it wasn't getting finished while at microsoft and microsoft was just going to flat out cancel the project.
You want to say soe had no control or involvement? They had absolute power if they wanted it, because they held the purse strings. Without soe vanguard would have died a just death that it had earned. However soe gave sigil a little more money.
Now consider the following before answering: soe had 100% of the bargaining power in this relationship, because sigil was out of money and dead in the water without it. There was nothing sigil held in the partnership they could hold bargain with, because if soe cut funding that was it, game over. Soe has 100% of the final decision of how much the game got developed. Soe could have made any demands they wanted and there was almost nothing sigil could do about it.
Now it is obvious that sigil failed with microsoft backing them, how on earth could soe repeat that same exact mistake? How could soe give funds to a company that already failed and not have enough oversight to make sure the same exact situation happened.
Now you have to ask yourself what happened behind the scenes:
Was soe so stupid with their money that they thought brad (who has already failed when given to much freedom) would somehow change on his own without oversight and soe involvement. Was this really the best effort the soe could muster with their investment?
Or
Did soe somehow come out ahead with a failed release of an mmo that was squarly aimed at taking players away from their 2 flagship products.
Personally I think smed let brad fail so he could buy the game and developers for cheap, but it failed a little more than they had planned.
They are really a greedy people. I hate greedy people.
Greed? Sony lost over 3 billion dollars last year.
www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/technology/23sony.html
What was the excuse for all the previous years where sony had never once posted a loss? NGE, Station exchange, virtual trading card lottery, adventure packs, premium subcription, extra character slots, etc.
Just because there is a new excuse this years, doesn't change how this company operates. Same company, same actions, same methods of operation. Nothing has changed just because the economy is hurting and makes for a handy excuse.
What ever Daff, you come after anything I say no matter what. Go ahead make your points about the evil greedy SOE. Not like we have not heard it before. At least this time you did not put me down like you usually do. You must be tired. You can respond to me all you like I am simply done with you. This is the last response to you that I will make. One last piece of advice these are just games we are talking about here. If you hate SOE so much you might just stop responding to any threads about SOE and move on.
You see some of us actually play SOE games and want to see them continue. Some of us are actually satisfied customers but you have pointed out time and again how deluded we are. I know you will have a smart little response about how I make no sense or contradict myself. Go for I do not care anymore. Why don't you post at the I hate SOE thread that is where you belong.
PS- as far as this gem you posted "Personally I think smed let brad fail so he could buy the game and developers for cheap, but it failed a little more than they had planned." wow you are also a conspiracy therorist now to. Total rubbish.