Why do you fanbois still believe that people left due to technical difficulties? Is it that hard to believe that people just don't like the game? Every MMO has had technical difficulties at one point or another, including AO, EQ, EQ II and WoW and yet they ended up with plenty of players, so what exactly is your excuse for Vanguard?
I think a lot of it was the fact that Brad McQuaid admitted to it shipping before it was "finished" to his liking, but he was pretty much forced to ship it because the funding was running out. So combine an unfinished product with the creators admittal to it being unfinished makes for a bad start. Then also combine that with SOE buying out Sigil and eliminating some of the original Sigil people, so now fixes were taking too long to happen. Therefore this game shipped with, what I would say, was way more technical issues than other mmo's during their launch. So yes people did leave because of technical issues. I'm one of them and I'm also re-subscribed to the game because it is fixed in comparison to it's launch.
Sure, some people may have left because they just didn't like the game, but I think the majority left due to the technical issues. Some of us wanted a more up-to-date EQ ( I did anyways), and this was that game but was near broken at launch....now I have my EQ replacement the way it was meant to be.
But that is exactly what I'm arguing. Techinical issues in a game's past have not stopped people from coming back to them if the game was good, it has been proven over and over again with the games I listed. So, what exactly is the excuse for Vanguard? They've fixed many of the technical issues and Vanguard doesn't suffer from any worse negative exposure than Anarchy Online suffered and yet it's not recovering. The only remaining explanation would be the game does not appeal to the majority of players and likely never will. I think "Old School" is dead and will likely never make a comeback.
OK, I understand what your saying. You want to know why it's not this big hit of a game like WoW if it's a great game and is now fixed. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that there is not quite enough money coming in to a big advertising campaign to draw people in. It's kinda a catch 22. They need more subscribers to get the money they need for advertising to get more players subscribed LOL.
Why do you fanbois still believe that people left due to technical difficulties? Is it that hard to believe that people just don't like the game? Every MMO has had technical difficulties at one point or another, including AO, EQ, EQ II and WoW and yet they ended up with plenty of players, so what exactly is your excuse for Vanguard?
ummm?? That was the point being made. Performance and bugs aren't an issue any more. So if someone tries it and doesn't like it, that's fine. At least they got to make that judgment on the actual game.
What makes you think that tons of people haven't come back and tried it and left again. According to the developers, the trial isle has been a huge success in that it has drawn back many players, obviously most aren't staying, heh.
Where are you getting the information from that says people aren't staying?
Oh, I don't know, maybe it's due to the constant moaning of VG players about the empty servers?
Hey I can honestly say I wish there was more players on the servers, but you know what? They are slowly climbing in population with this free trial isle thing bringing them in. Admittedly it's real slow, but it's working. So where's your proof that populations are declining and not just a case of a long-time low population that is just now beginning to grow? Actually do you play this game right now? If not please do not continue to comment on the populations unless you have witnessed them losing players.
Almost everyday that I play I see someone in regional chat say they just subscribed and they are having a blast so I'm still wondering where you get the declining population stuff from?
Why do you fanbois still believe that people left due to technical difficulties? Is it that hard to believe that people just don't like the game? Every MMO has had technical difficulties at one point or another, including AO, EQ, EQ II and WoW and yet they ended up with plenty of players, so what exactly is your excuse for Vanguard?
I think a lot of it was the fact that Brad McQuaid admitted to it shipping before it was "finished" to his liking, but he was pretty much forced to ship it because the funding was running out. So combine an unfinished product with the creators admittal to it being unfinished makes for a bad start. Then also combine that with SOE buying out Sigil and eliminating some of the original Sigil people, so now fixes were taking too long to happen. Therefore this game shipped with, what I would say, was way more technical issues than other mmo's during their launch. So yes people did leave because of technical issues. I'm one of them and I'm also re-subscribed to the game because it is fixed in comparison to it's launch.
Sure, some people may have left because they just didn't like the game, but I think the majority left due to the technical issues. Some of us wanted a more up-to-date EQ ( I did anyways), and this was that game but was near broken at launch....now I have my EQ replacement the way it was meant to be.
But that is exactly what I'm arguing. Techinical issues in a game's past have not stopped people from coming back to them if the game was good, it has been proven over and over again with the games I listed. So, what exactly is the excuse for Vanguard? They've fixed many of the technical issues and Vanguard doesn't suffer from any worse negative exposure than Anarchy Online suffered and yet it's not recovering. The only remaining explanation would be the game does not appeal to the majority of players and likely never will. I think "Old School" is dead and will likely never make a comeback.
OK, I understand what your saying. You want to know why it's not this big hit of a game like WoW if it's a great game and is now fixed. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that there is not quite enough money coming in to a big advertising campaign to draw people in. It's kinda a catch 22. They need more subscribers to get the money they need for advertising to get more players subscribed LOL.
Once again, other than WoW, those other games that had terrible launches never had any kind of major marketing schemes other than free trials to draw people back, yet they came back anyway. They didn't spend money on advertising other than word of mouth. So, once again, what is Vanguard's excuse. You have the exact same scenario that Anarchy Online had and they recovered much sooner than this after their terrible launch. EQ recovered even more quickly, granted the launch wasn't as bad. The point being that your paid advertising excuse is faulty at best becasue we know games recover without it.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Why do you fanbois still believe that people left due to technical difficulties? Is it that hard to believe that people just don't like the game? Every MMO has had technical difficulties at one point or another, including AO, EQ, EQ II and WoW and yet they ended up with plenty of players, so what exactly is your excuse for Vanguard?
I think a lot of it was the fact that Brad McQuaid admitted to it shipping before it was "finished" to his liking, but he was pretty much forced to ship it because the funding was running out. So combine an unfinished product with the creators admittal to it being unfinished makes for a bad start. Then also combine that with SOE buying out Sigil and eliminating some of the original Sigil people, so now fixes were taking too long to happen. Therefore this game shipped with, what I would say, was way more technical issues than other mmo's during their launch. So yes people did leave because of technical issues. I'm one of them and I'm also re-subscribed to the game because it is fixed in comparison to it's launch.
Sure, some people may have left because they just didn't like the game, but I think the majority left due to the technical issues. Some of us wanted a more up-to-date EQ ( I did anyways), and this was that game but was near broken at launch....now I have my EQ replacement the way it was meant to be.
But that is exactly what I'm arguing. Techinical issues in a game's past have not stopped people from coming back to them if the game was good, it has been proven over and over again with the games I listed. So, what exactly is the excuse for Vanguard? They've fixed many of the technical issues and Vanguard doesn't suffer from any worse negative exposure than Anarchy Online suffered and yet it's not recovering. The only remaining explanation would be the game does not appeal to the majority of players and likely never will. I think "Old School" is dead and will likely never make a comeback.
OK, I understand what your saying. You want to know why it's not this big hit of a game like WoW if it's a great game and is now fixed. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that there is not quite enough money coming in to a big advertising campaign to draw people in. It's kinda a catch 22. They need more subscribers to get the money they need for advertising to get more players subscribed LOL.
Once again, other than WoW, those other games that had terrible launches never had any kind of major marketing schemes other than free trials to draw people back, yet they came back anyway. They didn't spend money on advertising other than word of mouth. So, once again, what is Vanguard's excuse. You have the exact same scenario that Anarchy Online had and they recovered much sooner than this after their terrible launch. EQ recovered even more quickly, granted the launch wasn't as bad. The point being that your paid advertising excuse is faulty at best becasue we know games recover without it.
And yet once again....the population IS growing. It is just recently starting to happen. As far as why it's taken so long...who cares?? What does it matter? Long as the game comes back at some point and becomes a good game that it should have been. What does it matter how long it's taking compared to the comeback of other near failure games?? So it appears that you just want to point out some negative aspect of the game and keep beating that same dead dog. Did the game anger you somehow in your past experience with it? Be happy for any game that is turning things around man!
The population is growing. But the overall subscriber base is relatively small. But then again, there are only 3 PvE servers... so per server, the populations are healthy.
Comments
I think a lot of it was the fact that Brad McQuaid admitted to it shipping before it was "finished" to his liking, but he was pretty much forced to ship it because the funding was running out. So combine an unfinished product with the creators admittal to it being unfinished makes for a bad start. Then also combine that with SOE buying out Sigil and eliminating some of the original Sigil people, so now fixes were taking too long to happen. Therefore this game shipped with, what I would say, was way more technical issues than other mmo's during their launch. So yes people did leave because of technical issues. I'm one of them and I'm also re-subscribed to the game because it is fixed in comparison to it's launch.
Sure, some people may have left because they just didn't like the game, but I think the majority left due to the technical issues. Some of us wanted a more up-to-date EQ ( I did anyways), and this was that game but was near broken at launch....now I have my EQ replacement the way it was meant to be.
But that is exactly what I'm arguing. Techinical issues in a game's past have not stopped people from coming back to them if the game was good, it has been proven over and over again with the games I listed. So, what exactly is the excuse for Vanguard? They've fixed many of the technical issues and Vanguard doesn't suffer from any worse negative exposure than Anarchy Online suffered and yet it's not recovering. The only remaining explanation would be the game does not appeal to the majority of players and likely never will. I think "Old School" is dead and will likely never make a comeback.
OK, I understand what your saying. You want to know why it's not this big hit of a game like WoW if it's a great game and is now fixed. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that there is not quite enough money coming in to a big advertising campaign to draw people in. It's kinda a catch 22. They need more subscribers to get the money they need for advertising to get more players subscribed LOL.
ummm?? That was the point being made. Performance and bugs aren't an issue any more. So if someone tries it and doesn't like it, that's fine. At least they got to make that judgment on the actual game.
What makes you think that tons of people haven't come back and tried it and left again. According to the developers, the trial isle has been a huge success in that it has drawn back many players, obviously most aren't staying, heh.
Where are you getting the information from that says people aren't staying?
Oh, I don't know, maybe it's due to the constant moaning of VG players about the empty servers?
Hey I can honestly say I wish there was more players on the servers, but you know what? They are slowly climbing in population with this free trial isle thing bringing them in. Admittedly it's real slow, but it's working. So where's your proof that populations are declining and not just a case of a long-time low population that is just now beginning to grow? Actually do you play this game right now? If not please do not continue to comment on the populations unless you have witnessed them losing players.
Almost everyday that I play I see someone in regional chat say they just subscribed and they are having a blast so I'm still wondering where you get the declining population stuff from?
I think a lot of it was the fact that Brad McQuaid admitted to it shipping before it was "finished" to his liking, but he was pretty much forced to ship it because the funding was running out. So combine an unfinished product with the creators admittal to it being unfinished makes for a bad start. Then also combine that with SOE buying out Sigil and eliminating some of the original Sigil people, so now fixes were taking too long to happen. Therefore this game shipped with, what I would say, was way more technical issues than other mmo's during their launch. So yes people did leave because of technical issues. I'm one of them and I'm also re-subscribed to the game because it is fixed in comparison to it's launch.
Sure, some people may have left because they just didn't like the game, but I think the majority left due to the technical issues. Some of us wanted a more up-to-date EQ ( I did anyways), and this was that game but was near broken at launch....now I have my EQ replacement the way it was meant to be.
But that is exactly what I'm arguing. Techinical issues in a game's past have not stopped people from coming back to them if the game was good, it has been proven over and over again with the games I listed. So, what exactly is the excuse for Vanguard? They've fixed many of the technical issues and Vanguard doesn't suffer from any worse negative exposure than Anarchy Online suffered and yet it's not recovering. The only remaining explanation would be the game does not appeal to the majority of players and likely never will. I think "Old School" is dead and will likely never make a comeback.
OK, I understand what your saying. You want to know why it's not this big hit of a game like WoW if it's a great game and is now fixed. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that there is not quite enough money coming in to a big advertising campaign to draw people in. It's kinda a catch 22. They need more subscribers to get the money they need for advertising to get more players subscribed LOL.
Once again, other than WoW, those other games that had terrible launches never had any kind of major marketing schemes other than free trials to draw people back, yet they came back anyway. They didn't spend money on advertising other than word of mouth. So, once again, what is Vanguard's excuse. You have the exact same scenario that Anarchy Online had and they recovered much sooner than this after their terrible launch. EQ recovered even more quickly, granted the launch wasn't as bad. The point being that your paid advertising excuse is faulty at best becasue we know games recover without it.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
I think a lot of it was the fact that Brad McQuaid admitted to it shipping before it was "finished" to his liking, but he was pretty much forced to ship it because the funding was running out. So combine an unfinished product with the creators admittal to it being unfinished makes for a bad start. Then also combine that with SOE buying out Sigil and eliminating some of the original Sigil people, so now fixes were taking too long to happen. Therefore this game shipped with, what I would say, was way more technical issues than other mmo's during their launch. So yes people did leave because of technical issues. I'm one of them and I'm also re-subscribed to the game because it is fixed in comparison to it's launch.
Sure, some people may have left because they just didn't like the game, but I think the majority left due to the technical issues. Some of us wanted a more up-to-date EQ ( I did anyways), and this was that game but was near broken at launch....now I have my EQ replacement the way it was meant to be.
But that is exactly what I'm arguing. Techinical issues in a game's past have not stopped people from coming back to them if the game was good, it has been proven over and over again with the games I listed. So, what exactly is the excuse for Vanguard? They've fixed many of the technical issues and Vanguard doesn't suffer from any worse negative exposure than Anarchy Online suffered and yet it's not recovering. The only remaining explanation would be the game does not appeal to the majority of players and likely never will. I think "Old School" is dead and will likely never make a comeback.
OK, I understand what your saying. You want to know why it's not this big hit of a game like WoW if it's a great game and is now fixed. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that there is not quite enough money coming in to a big advertising campaign to draw people in. It's kinda a catch 22. They need more subscribers to get the money they need for advertising to get more players subscribed LOL.
Once again, other than WoW, those other games that had terrible launches never had any kind of major marketing schemes other than free trials to draw people back, yet they came back anyway. They didn't spend money on advertising other than word of mouth. So, once again, what is Vanguard's excuse. You have the exact same scenario that Anarchy Online had and they recovered much sooner than this after their terrible launch. EQ recovered even more quickly, granted the launch wasn't as bad. The point being that your paid advertising excuse is faulty at best becasue we know games recover without it.
And yet once again....the population IS growing. It is just recently starting to happen. As far as why it's taken so long...who cares?? What does it matter? Long as the game comes back at some point and becomes a good game that it should have been. What does it matter how long it's taking compared to the comeback of other near failure games?? So it appears that you just want to point out some negative aspect of the game and keep beating that same dead dog. Did the game anger you somehow in your past experience with it? Be happy for any game that is turning things around man!
The population is growing. But the overall subscriber base is relatively small. But then again, there are only 3 PvE servers... so per server, the populations are healthy.