How the hell can a game with nearly no development team outside of two guys who work on the game in their lunch hour score a 5/10?!? Seriously, Vanguard's 'On-Going Development' score should barely rate a 2/10 if you were feeling generous.
How the hell can a game with nearly no development team outside of two guys who work on the game in their lunch hour score a 5/10?!? Seriously, Vanguard's 'On-Going Development' score should barely rate a 2/10 if you were feeling generous.
It's a tough one but I can see why.
If you look at what Vanguard was at launch as compred to today you willf find a far more stable, less buggy game.
and given that it does have a small team, they still have managed to add some new content.
So, if one looks at the small team and then looks at what they have manged to accomplish, I would say that they deserve something.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Vanguard is on very unstable ground and could be shut down any moment. Sever mergers and deep reduction in staff were the last two big milestones the game had left before it goes into MXO/Planetside mode where it will go with little to no updates. It is already effectively closed down as far as soe is concerned, but soe has no problem leaving upsupported games online if a small amount of people will pay for it. It is a real bummer too, because vanguard has a good deal of good game elements to have been a really successful mmo.
EQ2 might have quantity of expansions, but the quality and depth of those expansions have been rapidly declining for a good while now. Even the game updates moving to a 3 month cycle that promised bigger more robust updates have been rather lacking. EQ2 is in a similar boat as Vanguard. The game peaked some time ago and EQ2X is just an attempt to learn about the f2p market and maybe extent the games life a little longer. Ironically the efforts needed to convert that game are going to further reduce quality and depth of the expansion/game updates down the pipe which is pretty much what put eq2 in the situation it is currently in.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that VG ranks much higher on my list of favorite MMOs than EQ2 ever will. I absolutlely loved the world of Telon, it really felt alive and immersive as opposed to "new" Norrath which seemed plastic and artificial to me (I hated how most of the surfaces in the game were shiny). I have such fond memories of firing up my customized run-speed song on my bard and exploring the nooks and crannies of Telon.. especially the elven forest areas, such great atmosphere there.
Though no game has recreated the experience of EQ1 for me (honestly, I don't think anything can), VG was probably the closest for me.
Well, it can't be doing that well, with SOE trying every gimmick in the book to grind out a few more $$$. Station cash (after Smed explictly saying it wouldn't get it), this new F2p-esqe scam, the trading card stuff... none of that would have been necessary had the game actually been doing well. And player numbers (especially paying customers) have reportedly continue to fall.
As for saying EQ2 is doing better than VG, means what exactly? SOE hasn't supported that game for years, and it will shortly be down to one server.
In the end, it doesn't matter much. Both games are in the "old pile" as far as SOE is concerned and all of those games will be getting just enough support to not die, and no more. SOE is putting all the effort and money in to the new things they are shoveling out.
And I agree that VG will get canned before EQ2.
I think SoE would try to make as much money as possible regardless of how well their games are doing. Wouldn't you if you were a business?
It's up to the players to decide whether it's good value for money.
EQ2 has done better than VG based on subscription numbers and has had more development and still has more development. If it had the same as VG, there would be no more expacs, no more new content for the cash shop, etc. It's pretty obvious. I'm not necessarily saying it's all good content changes, I'm just saying it's an obviously more dynamic game than VG is right now on the development side of things.
I agree with you that SoE considers VG to be an 'old pile'. I'm not convinced it views EQ2 to be an 'old pile' just yet. It's probably one of their most played games right now. I don't think they can afford to consider it a worthless pile of junk that doesn't need attention.
Agency is up next, but will it be as popular as EQ2 was in its heyday? Remains to be seen...
Edit - Would just like to add that what us players consider to be 'old' might not be what the developers consider to be 'old'. There is a lag between what players see and developers see. SoE doesn't seem to have their thumb on the pulse of the gaming community, but then it seems that anymore less companies do, even the vaunted Blizzard.
I think SoE would try to make as much money as possible regardless of how well their games are doing. Wouldn't you if you were a business?
It's up to the players to decide whether it's good value for money.
Any company could jam their games up with endless amounts of cash grabs in the name of making as much money as possible. Most do not, because there is a balance between what players will accept and doing such things puts those paying customers at risk of becoming non-customers. The old saying of a bird in the hand applies here.
In comparison to the rest of the market no one has been as aggressive and intrusive with their RMT initiatives as soe has and I don't think it is a case of maximinizing profits, but more to do with trying to deal with overall decline.
Soe used to boast that they had over 1 million subscribers between all thier games, but back then they had somewhere around 120 active servers for their games. Today EQ has 16, EQ2 will have maybe 10 legacy servers after the mergers they promised over 6 months ago, SWG should realistically be about 5 and 1 more each for the rest of the station pass games.
Any company could jam their games up with endless amounts of cash grabs in the name of making as much money as possible. Most do not, because there is a balance between what players will accept and doing such things puts those paying customers at risk of becoming non-customers. The old saying of a bird in the hand applies here.
In comparison to the rest of the market no one has been as aggressive and intrusive with their RMT initiatives as soe has and I don't think it is a case of maximinizing profits, but more to do with trying to deal with overall decline.
Soe used to boast that they had over 1 million subscribers between all thier games, but back then they had somewhere around 120 active servers for their games. Today EQ has 16, EQ2 will have maybe 10 legacy servers after the mergers they promised over 6 months ago, SWG should realistically be about 5 and 1 more each for the rest of the station pass games.
I'm not totally disagreeing with you.
I don't think SoE is the worst offender by far. I've tried out quite a few of the other F2A games. SoE is pretty tame on that front, but their prices in the cash shop are steep, especially with no option of getting something like Turbine points for playing the game. As has been pointed out in another thread, SoE has a different goal from Turbine in that Extended is just meant to be an extended trial rather than a different payment option. In that sense, I don't like the SoE model as much as the Turbine model, even though I have a few quibbles with the Turbine model as well.
The danger though is that more companies will follow suit and make their cashgrabs far more intrusive and aggressive. I think there are F2A apologists whose 'valuable' input could end up screwing us players out of good value for money for our entertainment. Yes, these games need to make money but not at the expense of making their games considerably unfun unless one shells out a hefty amount of cash. That's why overall I prefer the subscription model to these hybrid models.
I don't think SoE is the worst offender by far. I've tried out quite a few of the other F2A games. SoE is pretty tame on that front, but their prices in the cash shop are steep, especially with no option of getting something like Turbine points for playing the game. As has been pointed out in another thread, SoE has a different goal from Turbine in that Extended is just meant to be an extended trial rather than a different payment option. In that sense, I don't like the SoE model as much as the Turbine model, even though I have a few quibbles with the Turbine model as well.
The danger though is that more companies will follow suit and make their cashgrabs far more intrusive and aggressive. I think there are F2A apologists whose 'valuable' input could end up screwing us players out of good value for money for our entertainment. Yes, these games need to make money but not at the expense of making their games considerably unfun unless one shells out a hefty amount of cash. That's why overall I prefer the subscription model to these hybrid models.
I'm sorry, I should have been clear that I was talking about the pay to play game market. You are right about there being a whole new level of greed in the free to play market.
EQ2X is just one example of soes ventures into this type of action in their games. I can't think of anyone who has gone as far or as frequent as soe has.
I'm in agreement with you Daffid011. I've dealt with SoE off and on over the years since EQ1.
EQ1 was good value for money, the old price for Station Pass was as well.
The problems started coming in with the bait-and-switch from SWG CU to SWG NGE. That was shear greed coming through and I think SoE got slapped pretty hard by that one. They have learned a little from that action, but not enough it seems.
EQ2X is not wholy horrible for some of the other things SoE has done with its customer base. It depends on whether it messes up the game for those on the Live servers. If it doesn't, it will add some revenue in a more or less legitimate way depending on what SoE does with the Extended payment models (I think they should change their gold membership to reflect the normal Live subscription benefits).
Comments
How the hell can a game with nearly no development team outside of two guys who work on the game in their lunch hour score a 5/10?!? Seriously, Vanguard's 'On-Going Development' score should barely rate a 2/10 if you were feeling generous.
It's a tough one but I can see why.
If you look at what Vanguard was at launch as compred to today you willf find a far more stable, less buggy game.
and given that it does have a small team, they still have managed to add some new content.
So, if one looks at the small team and then looks at what they have manged to accomplish, I would say that they deserve something.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Exactly.
Vanguard is on very unstable ground and could be shut down any moment. Sever mergers and deep reduction in staff were the last two big milestones the game had left before it goes into MXO/Planetside mode where it will go with little to no updates. It is already effectively closed down as far as soe is concerned, but soe has no problem leaving upsupported games online if a small amount of people will pay for it. It is a real bummer too, because vanguard has a good deal of good game elements to have been a really successful mmo.
EQ2 might have quantity of expansions, but the quality and depth of those expansions have been rapidly declining for a good while now. Even the game updates moving to a 3 month cycle that promised bigger more robust updates have been rather lacking. EQ2 is in a similar boat as Vanguard. The game peaked some time ago and EQ2X is just an attempt to learn about the f2p market and maybe extent the games life a little longer. Ironically the efforts needed to convert that game are going to further reduce quality and depth of the expansion/game updates down the pipe which is pretty much what put eq2 in the situation it is currently in.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that VG ranks much higher on my list of favorite MMOs than EQ2 ever will. I absolutlely loved the world of Telon, it really felt alive and immersive as opposed to "new" Norrath which seemed plastic and artificial to me (I hated how most of the surfaces in the game were shiny). I have such fond memories of firing up my customized run-speed song on my bard and exploring the nooks and crannies of Telon.. especially the elven forest areas, such great atmosphere there.
Though no game has recreated the experience of EQ1 for me (honestly, I don't think anything can), VG was probably the closest for me.
I think SoE would try to make as much money as possible regardless of how well their games are doing. Wouldn't you if you were a business?
It's up to the players to decide whether it's good value for money.
EQ2 has done better than VG based on subscription numbers and has had more development and still has more development. If it had the same as VG, there would be no more expacs, no more new content for the cash shop, etc. It's pretty obvious. I'm not necessarily saying it's all good content changes, I'm just saying it's an obviously more dynamic game than VG is right now on the development side of things.
I agree with you that SoE considers VG to be an 'old pile'. I'm not convinced it views EQ2 to be an 'old pile' just yet. It's probably one of their most played games right now. I don't think they can afford to consider it a worthless pile of junk that doesn't need attention.
Agency is up next, but will it be as popular as EQ2 was in its heyday? Remains to be seen...
Edit - Would just like to add that what us players consider to be 'old' might not be what the developers consider to be 'old'. There is a lag between what players see and developers see. SoE doesn't seem to have their thumb on the pulse of the gaming community, but then it seems that anymore less companies do, even the vaunted Blizzard.
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
Any company could jam their games up with endless amounts of cash grabs in the name of making as much money as possible. Most do not, because there is a balance between what players will accept and doing such things puts those paying customers at risk of becoming non-customers. The old saying of a bird in the hand applies here.
In comparison to the rest of the market no one has been as aggressive and intrusive with their RMT initiatives as soe has and I don't think it is a case of maximinizing profits, but more to do with trying to deal with overall decline.
Soe used to boast that they had over 1 million subscribers between all thier games, but back then they had somewhere around 120 active servers for their games. Today EQ has 16, EQ2 will have maybe 10 legacy servers after the mergers they promised over 6 months ago, SWG should realistically be about 5 and 1 more each for the rest of the station pass games.
I'm not totally disagreeing with you.
I don't think SoE is the worst offender by far. I've tried out quite a few of the other F2A games. SoE is pretty tame on that front, but their prices in the cash shop are steep, especially with no option of getting something like Turbine points for playing the game. As has been pointed out in another thread, SoE has a different goal from Turbine in that Extended is just meant to be an extended trial rather than a different payment option. In that sense, I don't like the SoE model as much as the Turbine model, even though I have a few quibbles with the Turbine model as well.
The danger though is that more companies will follow suit and make their cashgrabs far more intrusive and aggressive. I think there are F2A apologists whose 'valuable' input could end up screwing us players out of good value for money for our entertainment. Yes, these games need to make money but not at the expense of making their games considerably unfun unless one shells out a hefty amount of cash. That's why overall I prefer the subscription model to these hybrid models.
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
I'm sorry, I should have been clear that I was talking about the pay to play game market. You are right about there being a whole new level of greed in the free to play market.
EQ2X is just one example of soes ventures into this type of action in their games. I can't think of anyone who has gone as far or as frequent as soe has.
I'm in agreement with you Daffid011. I've dealt with SoE off and on over the years since EQ1.
EQ1 was good value for money, the old price for Station Pass was as well.
The problems started coming in with the bait-and-switch from SWG CU to SWG NGE. That was shear greed coming through and I think SoE got slapped pretty hard by that one. They have learned a little from that action, but not enough it seems.
EQ2X is not wholy horrible for some of the other things SoE has done with its customer base. It depends on whether it messes up the game for those on the Live servers. If it doesn't, it will add some revenue in a more or less legitimate way depending on what SoE does with the Extended payment models (I think they should change their gold membership to reflect the normal Live subscription benefits).
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.