Conspiracy theorist make me laugh... SoE haters also make me laugh, Since alot of times they are the same thing... Thanks for the laugh atleast! Even tho this thread is pointless
The above is a great example of the mindless sheep we have in todays society.
Above is a great example of the mindless sheep who all blindly hate SOE for being a company.
Above is a great example of the ignorant assumptions people make.
Weren't you part of the crowd that said Microsoft "dumped" Vanguard? So, what's all this ranting about how Microsoft got screwed? I thought it was all Microsoft's decision, and that Vanguard has to go crawling to Sony? Hmm....
I thought that any game that includes raiding is doomed to failure? So, why the concern for any profits to be made? I thought you were saying a few months ago that Vanguard would be lucky to last 6 months. Hmm...
1st: Microsoft try to cut it lost, they bail, which is a good move. They still have a right to try to recoup any cost the game has for them.
2nd: I always said 50k subscribers, which is a failure for a game of that scope IMO. But 50k subscribers, this would be worth sueing to help the first point balance better and recoup more.
With raid-free servers, Vanguard would have triple the size it will gain, if not even more. I still stand by my arguments.
So, if Vanguard has more than 50k subscribers does that mean that your "raid-free" server rant was a bust?
How about if they have 100K?, 250K? Granted you might be right, and they will only have 50k subs or less. But, I'll go on record and bet they'll be a lot closer to 250K subs in 6 months than your prediction of 50K subs. And all WITHOUT "raid-free" servers.
See, even those of us who don't usually raid, or even raid at all in my case. We don't mind sharing a server with those that do raid, heck some of them are even our friends - God forbid! Sure, some of us don't raid or may not even like it - but we're not so stuck up on ourselves that we refuse to share a server with those that do like it.
Given the subscription numbers of those MMO's that have raiding vs. the subscription numbers of MMO's that don't have raiding - I'd say more agree with my point of view than yours.
Conspiracy theorist make me laugh... SoE haters also make me laugh, Since alot of times they are the same thing... Thanks for the laugh atleast! Even tho this thread is pointless
The above is a great example of the mindless sheep we have in todays society.
Above is a great example of the mindless sheep who all blindly hate SOE for being a company.
Above is a great example of the ignorant assumptions people make.
Yes, I agree...what you said was a great example of ignorant assumptions people make, So I am a mindless sheep? lol ... Just because I don't think SoE purposely tries to destroy their own games and stop themselves from making money... I happen to come up with conspiracy theories all the time(But that doesn't make some conspiracy theories any less funny). But usully about things that make since.
Its a shame when a mindless sheep thinks you're a idiot... You may now continue your ignorant assumptions.
~Redslayer-Saga of Ryzom~ Active again! ~Kinch/Lotu-WoW~ Retired True RedSlayer - Eve ~ Current Primary game
So, if Vanguard has more than 50k subscribers does that mean that your "raid-free" server rant was a bust?
How about if they have 100K?, 250K? Granted you might be right, and they will only have 50k subs or less. But, I'll go on record and bet they'll be a lot closer to 250K subs in 6 months than your prediction of 50K subs. And all WITHOUT "raid-free" servers.
See, even those of us who don't usually raid, or even raid at all in my case. We don't mind sharing a server with those that do raid, heck some of them are even our friends - God forbid! Sure, some of us don't raid or may not even like it - but we're not so stuck up on ourselves that we refuse to share a server with those that do like it.
Given the subscription numbers of those MMO's that have raiding vs. the subscription numbers of MMO's that don't have raiding - I'd say more agree with my point of view than yours.
I swear I heard that somewhere before...
Oh yes, it was about UO and open PvP!
The point is not about having or not raiders on the server, it is to be FREE from raiding, completely. If Vanguard design lack too much to give it, then they can make a raid-free server. If they can't design, they can program!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Am I the only one left who believes that in order to see the great gear you should have to invest some time? This whole idea of a raid-free server is ridiculous imho.
Am I the only one left who believes that in order to see the great gear you should have to invest some time? This whole idea of a raid-free server is ridiculous imho.
Time and efforts, sure.
Raiding? No. Raiding is a FOREIGN GAMEPLAYS! It can't have any impact on the grouping gameplay. If peoples play the game for GROUPING, then you can't ask them to raid, play baseball or sell ice creams...you gotta ask them to GROUP!
Best groupers have to be groupers! What is ridiculous is supporting that a FOREIGN gameplay shaft the main gameplay!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
So, if Vanguard has more than 50k subscribers does that mean that your "raid-free" server rant was a bust?
How about if they have 100K?, 250K? Granted you might be right, and they will only have 50k subs or less. But, I'll go on record and bet they'll be a lot closer to 250K subs in 6 months than your prediction of 50K subs. And all WITHOUT "raid-free" servers.
See, even those of us who don't usually raid, or even raid at all in my case. We don't mind sharing a server with those that do raid, heck some of them are even our friends - God forbid! Sure, some of us don't raid or may not even like it - but we're not so stuck up on ourselves that we refuse to share a server with those that do like it.
Given the subscription numbers of those MMO's that have raiding vs. the subscription numbers of MMO's that don't have raiding - I'd say more agree with my point of view than yours.
I swear I heard that somewhere before...
Oh yes, it was about UO and open PvP!
The point is not about having or not raiders on the server, it is to be FREE from raiding, completely. If Vanguard design lack too much to give it, then they can make a raid-free server. If they can't design, they can program!
Heh, good way to avoid the obvious point that players are obviously choosing games WITH raiding OVER games WITHOUT raiding.
Difference between now and then is that there are MMO's out there that don't have raiding - your favorite game (CoH/CoV) being one of them. So, why is it that players are still overwhelmingly choosing games WITH raiding over games WITHOUT?
Could it be that the vast majority of us gamers don't mind raiding being in a game; even if we choose not to raid?
You can spin it anyway you want to Anofalye, the numbers speak for themselves. It's not the same now as it was when UO was the only game in town.
Microsoft is SOOOO happy to have escaped from this steaming pile of dung. I doubt if they would want to have even the remotest possibility of having it given back to them. Or in any other way being involved with it.
Heh, good way to avoid the obvious point that players are obviously choosing games WITH raiding OVER games WITHOUT raiding.
Difference between now and then is that there are MMO's out there that don't have raiding - your favorite game (CoH/CoV) being one of them. So, why is it that players are still overwhelmingly choosing games WITH raiding over games WITHOUT?
Could it be that the vast majority of us gamers don't mind raiding being in a game; even if we choose not to raid?
You can spin it anyway you want to Anofalye, the numbers speak for themselves. It's not the same now as it was when UO was the only game in town.
Most players pick WoW. Most peoples who pick WoW have no idea that there is raiding in WoW (despite me screeming since 2002, most don't hear me, oh it is a shame; I musn't be the center of the world after all ); you know these WoW fanbois as well as I do. Most of them don't even know how many classes there are in the game; nor how many levels exactly, or if it is possible to reach 1k hps!
The point is that there are nearly no MMO that are raid-free and PvE. So numbers don't say anything. We don't have similar offer, with and without raiding. Give raid-free server in any MMO and then judge. Now comparing WoW with raiding to CoV without raiding, this is comparing potatoes to kiwis especially that CoV enforced PvP; but I prefer kiwis! If a game has raid-free server and raid-enforced servers, then you can judge which servers the players pick.
Most players don't care either way, but there are FAR more peoples who are aggro on raiding then there will be raiders; ever. These players, they have an enormous impact on the community, since peoples who are aggro on raiding-enforcement...they are "PUGers" elite, which is what you want to build a community and make casuals happy...much better than to relly on FoH to make casuals happy! Does the casuals need these PUGers guys? No, but if the endgame is out of reach for them for any reason, they rather be surrounded by friendly "hardcore" players than with elitists raiders that will destroy loot rather than see it goes to a random casual. See, if I see a loot about to rot on the ground (as most PUGers), I will check, zone out, cry for some casuals to come claim it! Raiders-elites, they will make sure to loot it and destroy it! That is a cold and unhappy fact. Does the casuals need the elites raiders? In fact, they are better if these nasty guys don't play the game at all; as you remove 90% of the trains, KS, nasty behaviors and crude comments.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
LOL this conspiracy has been discussed alot, Devs believe it execs deny it.
What I know for certain is that while Vanguard was supposedly in development and microsoft paying the bills, the Sigil staff was helping develope EQ2 behind closed doors. I was in Brad's Sigil guild in EQ2 alpha/beta, and those guys were putting in 12-15 hours a day on the EQ2 development real hard to figure out how they were managing to be developing Vanguard for Microsoft when they were sitting around on EQ2 servers all day.
Anyway not my problem if SOE managed to snake 5 or 6 million from micorsoft more power to them.
Microsoft Agreed to this agreement due to lack of people to work on the Game portions of their company . If you werent aware Micro Soft launched Vista and Office 2007 on the day vanguard was released. The Also launched several new dowloadable Windows features in the past few weeks . This was something that didnt fit in the scope of future sotware titles at the time they agreed to opt out of the contract. I have read several articles that tell exactly what happened this is from one of them
Sigil and SOE are currently working on an arrangement with MGS to get the rights for Vanguard. In an announcement released today, Brad McQuaid, CEO of Sigil Games Online and one of the key people behind the creation of , says, "As the development process is ongoing and constantly shifting, it became clear that MGS and Sigil had varying visions and direction for the title's development. In the best interest of Vanguard, it was decided that we would buy back the publishing rights from Microsoft."
Once all the arrangements are completed, Sigil will be a co-publisher of Vanguard as well as the game's developer. This will most likely give the company more creative freedom. SOE will take care of all the back-end support and will distribute the game, market it, and host it on their servers. Vanguard is scheduled to be released for the PC this winter.
I think one must remember Microsofts experiance with MMOs.
I think they simply came to the conclusion that MMOs werent nearly as profitable as operating systems. I also think that the twin happenings of AC2s melt down and WoWs sky rocket made a couple of things clear to them.
1. Making, Maintaining, and Running an MMO is a business in and of itself, requiring infrastructure, capital and talent.
2. Making a real hit would require double-diget millions invested.
Remember that MS cut Asherons Call loose after a long run, I dont think that game ever produced for MS what they were hoping for. I think there was a time early on where MS fancied a place as a MMO power house and was going to use AC as a proof of concept. WoW showed them that it could be done but the investement was far far more than MS was willing to dedicate.
MS produces very very few games themselves, Blizzard on the other hand has games as thier core business, so WoWs creation made sense to them. MS just wants to acquire things and milk them for a moderate investment.
For Microsofts games are made to sell thier operating system. Just like MS Office or any of the other thousand products with the MS sticker on them. If they can pick up a product "on the cheap" fine, they will do it with the understanding the product offer is what keeps MS Windows dominant. If they find they all the sudden must have a 100 million dollar investment in hardware, software and people....
It simply wont add up for them.
For SOE on the other hand, MMOs ARE their core business, they have the infrastructure, capital, and talent. VG is an easy fit.
In short, the last year made MS reconsider the viability of MMOs in thier whole product line and to re-evaluate just how much would a success MMO actually mean for them and thier core business.
I think one must remember Microsofts experiance with MMOs.
I think they simply came to the conclusion that MMOs werent nearly as profitable as operating systems. I also think that the twin happenings of AC2s melt down and WoWs sky rocket made a couple of things clear to them.
1. Making, Maintaining, and Running an MMO is a business in and of itself, requiring infrastructure, capital and talent.
2. Making a real hit would require double-diget millions invested.
Remember that MS cut Asherons Call loose after a long run, I dont think that game ever produced for MS what they were hoping for. I think there was a time early on where MS fancied a place as a MMO power house and was going to use AC as a proof of concept. WoW showed them that it could be done but the investement was far far more than MS was willing to dedicate.
MS produces very very few games themselves, Blizzard on the other hand has games as thier core business, so WoWs creation made sense to them. MS just wants to acquire things and milk them for a moderate investment.
For Microsofts games are made to sell thier operating system. Just like MS Office or any of the other thousand products with the MS sticker on them. If they can pick up a product "on the cheap" fine, they will do it with the understanding the product offer is what keeps MS Windows dominant. If they find they all the sudden must have a 100 million dollar investment in hardware, software and people....
It simply wont add up for them.
For SOE on the other hand, MMOs ARE their core business, they have the infrastructure, capital, and talent. VG is an easy fit.
In short, the last year made MS reconsider the viability of MMOs in thier whole product line and to re-evaluate just how much would a success MMO actually mean for them and thier core business.
-Gooney
Here's my theory:
In the summer of 2006 MS audits their Sigil/Vanguard investment. They see that VG is a mess. The game is still in very rough form and alot of the gameplay concepts are not only flawed but poorly implemented.
MS convenes on the subject and decides to pull the plug.
Brad calls up his old buddy at SOE and asks for a big favor.
Smed thinks about it and tells Brad OK, but those funky gameplay devices have to go in favor of a more mainstream design. In other words, do what SOE did; when in doubt, copy the competition.
Quest icons begin appearing over the heads of NPCs all over Telon.
Sigil and Microsoft part ways, MS sighs relief and SOE starts working with Sigil to smooth over the gameplay and get VG on store shelves asap. Smed tells Brad to quit posting on MMO message boards.
Well, he can still post but he has to use alternyms.
In the summer of 2006 MS audits their Sigil/Vanguard investment. They see that VG is a mess. The game is still in very rough form and alot of the gameplay concepts are not only flawed but poorly implemented.
MS convenes on the subject and decides to pull the plug.
Brad calls up his old buddy at SOE and asks for a big favor.
Smed thinks about it and tells Brad OK, but those funky gameplay devices have to go in favor of a more mainstream design. In other words, do what SOE did; when in doubt, copy the competition.
Quest icons begin appearing over the heads of NPCs all over Telon.
Sigil and Microsoft part ways, MS sighs relief and SOE starts working with Sigil to smooth over the gameplay and get VG on store shelves asap. Smed tells Brad to quit posting on MMO message boards.
Well, he can still post but he has to use alternyms.
Somehow I doubt that. To accept that you'd have to hop on the conspiracy wagon, while Im sure a certain segment of fans/former fans would love to believe that there was a ton of personal intrigue with this it boils down to one thing with MS. Dollars, plain and simple. MS realised that to be competitive in the MMO market you have to be focused and go "whole hog". This only became apparent to them after a combination of circumstances (although the writting was on the wall for a while).
1. Incredibly crowded market, korea-imports, one-offs, indies, and big brands.
2. Realisation that in order to dominate they would have to build a whole MMO specific department.
3. If they were going to build a whole department they would have to move development "in-house".
4. The realisation that they did not NEED an MMO to sell their flagship product (OS).
As I said, Vanguard wasnt the first MS MMO Collaboration there had been other attempts, AC, AC2, Mythica, and finally Vanguard...that we know about Im sure there were others. All of them were created by other shops, not MS themselves.
I dont think people fully understand the impact that Blizzard has had on the industry, they forced a total re-evaluation of how much investment was required. Heck, even Mythic Entertainment voluntarily became assimilated by EA because of this. SOE exists solely for MMOs, MS wasnt prepared to go that far in light of the poor MMO performance of every title other than WoW.
In the summer of 2006 MS audits their Sigil/Vanguard investment. They see that VG is a mess. The game is still in very rough form and alot of the gameplay concepts are not only flawed but poorly implemented.
MS convenes on the subject and decides to pull the plug.
Brad calls up his old buddy at SOE and asks for a big favor.
Smed thinks about it and tells Brad OK, but those funky gameplay devices have to go in favor of a more mainstream design. In other words, do what SOE did; when in doubt, copy the competition.
Quest icons begin appearing over the heads of NPCs all over Telon.
Sigil and Microsoft part ways, MS sighs relief and SOE starts working with Sigil to smooth over the gameplay and get VG on store shelves asap. Smed tells Brad to quit posting on MMO message boards.
Well, he can still post but he has to use alternyms.
Somehow I doubt that. To accept that you'd have to hop on the conspiracy wagon, while Im sure a certain segment of fans/former fans would love to believe that there was a ton of personal intrigue with this it boils down to one thing with MS. Dollars, plain and simple. MS realised that to be competitive in the MMO market you have to be focused and go "whole hog". This only became apparent to them after a combination of circumstances (although the writting was on the wall for a while).
1. Incredibly crowded market, korea-imports, one-offs, indies, and big brands.
2. Realisation that in order to dominate they would have to build a whole MMO specific department.
3. If they were going to build a whole department they would have to move development "in-house".
4. The realisation that they did not NEED an MMO to sell their flagship product (OS).
As I said, Vanguard wasnt the first MS MMO Collaboration there had been other attempts, AC, AC2, Mythica, and finally Vanguard...that we know about Im sure there were others. All of them were created by other shops, not MS themselves.
I dont think people fully understand the impact that Blizzard has had on the industry, they forced a total re-evaluation of how much investment was required. Heck, even Mythic Entertainment voluntarily became assimilated by EA because of this. SOE exists solely for MMOs, MS wasnt prepared to go that far in light of the poor MMO performance of every title other than WoW.
-Gooney
No. MS looked at what was done of VG and decided that it was too buggy, unfinished and inferior to the competition to be worth sinking any more money into. Kendrick just recently said on the FoH boards that VG would only need 120k subscribers to turn a profit. That's the business model they've had from the get go.
Microsoft apparently did not think it was going to even reach 120k. They went through that with AC2 and they were not going to repeat the same mistake. Without SOE's help Vanguard would most likely have been cancelled entirely.
I expect SOE to completely buy out the rights or quietly assimilate Vanguard within the next 6 months. Graphically the game is complete and now it's just a matter of firing Brad and the incompetent Sigil team and installing some decent gameplay mechanics.
In the summer of 2006 MS audits their Sigil/Vanguard investment. They see that VG is a mess. The game is still in very rough form and alot of the gameplay concepts are not only flawed but poorly implemented.
MS convenes on the subject and decides to pull the plug.
Brad calls up his old buddy at SOE and asks for a big favor.
Smed thinks about it and tells Brad OK, but those funky gameplay devices have to go in favor of a more mainstream design. In other words, do what SOE did; when in doubt, copy the competition.
Quest icons begin appearing over the heads of NPCs all over Telon.
Sigil and Microsoft part ways, MS sighs relief and SOE starts working with Sigil to smooth over the gameplay and get VG on store shelves asap. Smed tells Brad to quit posting on MMO message boards.
Well, he can still post but he has to use alternyms.
Somehow I doubt that. To accept that you'd have to hop on the conspiracy wagon, while Im sure a certain segment of fans/former fans would love to believe that there was a ton of personal intrigue with this it boils down to one thing with MS. Dollars, plain and simple. MS realised that to be competitive in the MMO market you have to be focused and go "whole hog". This only became apparent to them after a combination of circumstances (although the writting was on the wall for a while).
1. Incredibly crowded market, korea-imports, one-offs, indies, and big brands.
2. Realisation that in order to dominate they would have to build a whole MMO specific department.
3. If they were going to build a whole department they would have to move development "in-house".
4. The realisation that they did not NEED an MMO to sell their flagship product (OS).
As I said, Vanguard wasnt the first MS MMO Collaboration there had been other attempts, AC, AC2, Mythica, and finally Vanguard...that we know about Im sure there were others. All of them were created by other shops, not MS themselves.
I dont think people fully understand the impact that Blizzard has had on the industry, they forced a total re-evaluation of how much investment was required. Heck, even Mythic Entertainment voluntarily became assimilated by EA because of this. SOE exists solely for MMOs, MS wasnt prepared to go that far in light of the poor MMO performance of every title other than WoW.
-Gooney
No. MS looked at what was done of VG and decided that it was too buggy, unfinished and inferior to the competition to be worth sinking any more money into. Kendrick just recently said on the FoH boards that VG would only need 120k subscribers to turn a profit. That's the business model they've had from the get go.
Microsoft apparently did not think it was going to even reach 120k. They went through that with AC2 and they were not going to repeat the same mistake. Without SOE's help Vanguard would most likely have been cancelled entirely.
I expect SOE to completely buy out the rights or quietly assimilate Vanguard within the next 6 months. Graphically the game is complete and now it's just a matter of firing Brad and the incompetent Sigil team and installing some decent gameplay mechanics.Finally someone on these forums who doesn't hate SOE, just because they messed up SWG doesn't mean they are the devil incarnate. Look at what they've done with EQ 2 after EoF.
Tried: Vanguard, UO, Rappelz, Archlord, RF Online, SWG, WAR, Ryzom, Anarchy Online, AC, APB, STO, Perfect World, Black Prophecy...
Played: EQ,EQII, Lineage, Lineage 2, GW, EVE Online, AoC, DoAC, iRO, AC2, WoW, SWTOR, Runes of Magic, Allods, Rift.. Currently Playing: Tera
Comments
Above is a great example of the mindless sheep who all blindly hate SOE for being a company.
Above is a great example of the ignorant assumptions people make.---
1st: Microsoft try to cut it lost, they bail, which is a good move. They still have a right to try to recoup any cost the game has for them.
2nd: I always said 50k subscribers, which is a failure for a game of that scope IMO. But 50k subscribers, this would be worth sueing to help the first point balance better and recoup more.
With raid-free servers, Vanguard would have triple the size it will gain, if not even more. I still stand by my arguments.
So, if Vanguard has more than 50k subscribers does that mean that your "raid-free" server rant was a bust?How about if they have 100K?, 250K? Granted you might be right, and they will only have 50k subs or less. But, I'll go on record and bet they'll be a lot closer to 250K subs in 6 months than your prediction of 50K subs. And all WITHOUT "raid-free" servers.
See, even those of us who don't usually raid, or even raid at all in my case. We don't mind sharing a server with those that do raid, heck some of them are even our friends - God forbid! Sure, some of us don't raid or may not even like it - but we're not so stuck up on ourselves that we refuse to share a server with those that do like it.
Given the subscription numbers of those MMO's that have raiding vs. the subscription numbers of MMO's that don't have raiding - I'd say more agree with my point of view than yours.
Above is a great example of the mindless sheep who all blindly hate SOE for being a company.
Above is a great example of the ignorant assumptions people make.Yes, I agree...what you said was a great example of ignorant assumptions people make, So I am a mindless sheep? lol ... Just because I don't think SoE purposely tries to destroy their own games and stop themselves from making money... I happen to come up with conspiracy theories all the time(But that doesn't make some conspiracy theories any less funny). But usully about things that make since.
Its a shame when a mindless sheep thinks you're a idiot... You may now continue your ignorant assumptions.
~Redslayer-Saga of Ryzom~ Active again!
~Kinch/Lotu-WoW~ Retired
True RedSlayer - Eve ~ Current Primary game
I swear I heard that somewhere before...
Oh yes, it was about UO and open PvP!
The point is not about having or not raiders on the server, it is to be FREE from raiding, completely. If Vanguard design lack too much to give it, then they can make a raid-free server. If they can't design, they can program!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Time and efforts, sure.
Raiding? No. Raiding is a FOREIGN GAMEPLAYS! It can't have any impact on the grouping gameplay. If peoples play the game for GROUPING, then you can't ask them to raid, play baseball or sell ice creams...you gotta ask them to GROUP!
Best groupers have to be groupers! What is ridiculous is supporting that a FOREIGN gameplay shaft the main gameplay!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
so is the game pvp and fulll loot?
and is there skill in the game where you can fight some one 19 lvls higher then you and have a chance to win if there not good at fighting?
Whats wrong with raiding ?
Is this game a skilled bace game and you only go up on skill that yoou use?
WWIIOnline The Real War!
I swear I heard that somewhere before...
Oh yes, it was about UO and open PvP!
The point is not about having or not raiders on the server, it is to be FREE from raiding, completely. If Vanguard design lack too much to give it, then they can make a raid-free server. If they can't design, they can program!
Heh, good way to avoid the obvious point that players are obviously choosing games WITH raiding OVER games WITHOUT raiding.Difference between now and then is that there are MMO's out there that don't have raiding - your favorite game (CoH/CoV) being one of them. So, why is it that players are still overwhelmingly choosing games WITH raiding over games WITHOUT?
Could it be that the vast majority of us gamers don't mind raiding being in a game; even if we choose not to raid?
You can spin it anyway you want to Anofalye, the numbers speak for themselves. It's not the same now as it was when UO was the only game in town.
Tin Foil hats dont work.. its all a conspiracy
Most players pick WoW. Most peoples who pick WoW have no idea that there is raiding in WoW (despite me screeming since 2002, most don't hear me, oh it is a shame; I musn't be the center of the world after all
The point is that there are nearly no MMO that are raid-free and PvE. So numbers don't say anything. We don't have similar offer, with and without raiding. Give raid-free server in any MMO and then judge. Now comparing WoW with raiding to CoV without raiding, this is comparing potatoes to kiwis especially that CoV enforced PvP; but I prefer kiwis! If a game has raid-free server and raid-enforced servers, then you can judge which servers the players pick.
Most players don't care either way, but there are FAR more peoples who are aggro on raiding then there will be raiders; ever. These players, they have an enormous impact on the community, since peoples who are aggro on raiding-enforcement...they are "PUGers" elite, which is what you want to build a community and make casuals happy...much better than to relly on FoH to make casuals happy! Does the casuals need these PUGers guys? No, but if the endgame is out of reach for them for any reason, they rather be surrounded by friendly "hardcore" players than with elitists raiders that will destroy loot rather than see it goes to a random casual. See, if I see a loot about to rot on the ground (as most PUGers), I will check, zone out, cry for some casuals to come claim it! Raiders-elites, they will make sure to loot it and destroy it! That is a cold and unhappy fact. Does the casuals need the elites raiders? In fact, they are better if these nasty guys don't play the game at all; as you remove 90% of the trains, KS, nasty behaviors and crude comments.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
LOL this conspiracy has been discussed alot, Devs believe it execs deny it.
What I know for certain is that while Vanguard was supposedly in development and microsoft paying the bills, the Sigil staff was helping develope EQ2 behind closed doors. I was in Brad's Sigil guild in EQ2 alpha/beta, and those guys were putting in 12-15 hours a day on the EQ2 development real hard to figure out how they were managing to be developing Vanguard for Microsoft when they were sitting around on EQ2 servers all day.
Anyway not my problem if SOE managed to snake 5 or 6 million from micorsoft more power to them.
Microsoft Agreed to this agreement due to lack of people to work on the Game portions of their company . If you werent aware Micro Soft launched Vista and Office 2007 on the day vanguard was released. The Also launched several new dowloadable Windows features in the past few weeks . This was something that didnt fit in the scope of future sotware titles at the time they agreed to opt out of the contract. I have read several articles that tell exactly what happened this is from one of them
Sigil and SOE are currently working on an arrangement with MGS to get the rights for Vanguard. In an announcement released today, Brad McQuaid, CEO of Sigil Games Online and one of the key people behind the creation of , says, "As the development process is ongoing and constantly shifting, it became clear that MGS and Sigil had varying visions and direction for the title's development. In the best interest of Vanguard, it was decided that we would buy back the publishing rights from Microsoft."
Once all the arrangements are completed, Sigil will be a co-publisher of Vanguard as well as the game's developer. This will most likely give the company more creative freedom. SOE will take care of all the back-end support and will distribute the game, market it, and host it on their servers. Vanguard is scheduled to be released for the PC this winter.
I think they simply came to the conclusion that MMOs werent nearly as profitable as operating systems. I also think that the twin happenings of AC2s melt down and WoWs sky rocket made a couple of things clear to them.
1. Making, Maintaining, and Running an MMO is a business in and of itself, requiring infrastructure, capital and talent.
2. Making a real hit would require double-diget millions invested.
Remember that MS cut Asherons Call loose after a long run, I dont think that game ever produced for MS what they were hoping for. I think there was a time early on where MS fancied a place as a MMO power house and was going to use AC as a proof of concept. WoW showed them that it could be done but the investement was far far more than MS was willing to dedicate.
MS produces very very few games themselves, Blizzard on the other hand has games as thier core business, so WoWs creation made sense to them. MS just wants to acquire things and milk them for a moderate investment.
For Microsofts games are made to sell thier operating system. Just like MS Office or any of the other thousand products with the MS sticker on them. If they can pick up a product "on the cheap" fine, they will do it with the understanding the product offer is what keeps MS Windows dominant. If they find they all the sudden must have a 100 million dollar investment in hardware, software and people....
It simply wont add up for them.
For SOE on the other hand, MMOs ARE their core business, they have the infrastructure, capital, and talent. VG is an easy fit.
In short, the last year made MS reconsider the viability of MMOs in thier whole product line and to re-evaluate just how much would a success MMO actually mean for them and thier core business.
-Gooney
In the summer of 2006 MS audits their Sigil/Vanguard investment. They see that VG is a mess. The game is still in very rough form and alot of the gameplay concepts are not only flawed but poorly implemented.
MS convenes on the subject and decides to pull the plug.
Brad calls up his old buddy at SOE and asks for a big favor.
Smed thinks about it and tells Brad OK, but those funky gameplay devices have to go in favor of a more mainstream design. In other words, do what SOE did; when in doubt, copy the competition.
Quest icons begin appearing over the heads of NPCs all over Telon.
Sigil and Microsoft part ways, MS sighs relief and SOE starts working with Sigil to smooth over the gameplay and get VG on store shelves asap. Smed tells Brad to quit posting on MMO message boards.
Well, he can still post but he has to use alternyms.
My youtube MMO gaming channel
1. Incredibly crowded market, korea-imports, one-offs, indies, and big brands.
2. Realisation that in order to dominate they would have to build a whole MMO specific department.
3. If they were going to build a whole department they would have to move development "in-house".
4. The realisation that they did not NEED an MMO to sell their flagship product (OS).
As I said, Vanguard wasnt the first MS MMO Collaboration there had been other attempts, AC, AC2, Mythica, and finally Vanguard...that we know about Im sure there were others. All of them were created by other shops, not MS themselves.
I dont think people fully understand the impact that Blizzard has had on the industry, they forced a total re-evaluation of how much investment was required. Heck, even Mythic Entertainment voluntarily became assimilated by EA because of this. SOE exists solely for MMOs, MS wasnt prepared to go that far in light of the poor MMO performance of every title other than WoW.
-Gooney
I went with BURN SOE... etc. Basically because I detest the americanisation of FAVOUR. Spell it right folks. Christ...
Oh yeah, and because SOE are somewhere between the gaming equivalent of the Republican party, and the Devil incarnate...
1. Incredibly crowded market, korea-imports, one-offs, indies, and big brands.
2. Realisation that in order to dominate they would have to build a whole MMO specific department.
3. If they were going to build a whole department they would have to move development "in-house".
4. The realisation that they did not NEED an MMO to sell their flagship product (OS).
As I said, Vanguard wasnt the first MS MMO Collaboration there had been other attempts, AC, AC2, Mythica, and finally Vanguard...that we know about Im sure there were others. All of them were created by other shops, not MS themselves.
I dont think people fully understand the impact that Blizzard has had on the industry, they forced a total re-evaluation of how much investment was required. Heck, even Mythic Entertainment voluntarily became assimilated by EA because of this. SOE exists solely for MMOs, MS wasnt prepared to go that far in light of the poor MMO performance of every title other than WoW.
-Gooney
No. MS looked at what was done of VG and decided that it was too buggy, unfinished and inferior to the competition to be worth sinking any more money into. Kendrick just recently said on the FoH boards that VG would only need 120k subscribers to turn a profit. That's the business model they've had from the get go.
Microsoft apparently did not think it was going to even reach 120k. They went through that with AC2 and they were not going to repeat the same mistake. Without SOE's help Vanguard would most likely have been cancelled entirely.
I expect SOE to completely buy out the rights or quietly assimilate Vanguard within the next 6 months. Graphically the game is complete and now it's just a matter of firing Brad and the incompetent Sigil team and installing some decent gameplay mechanics.
My youtube MMO gaming channel
1. Incredibly crowded market, korea-imports, one-offs, indies, and big brands.
2. Realisation that in order to dominate they would have to build a whole MMO specific department.
3. If they were going to build a whole department they would have to move development "in-house".
4. The realisation that they did not NEED an MMO to sell their flagship product (OS).
As I said, Vanguard wasnt the first MS MMO Collaboration there had been other attempts, AC, AC2, Mythica, and finally Vanguard...that we know about Im sure there were others. All of them were created by other shops, not MS themselves.
I dont think people fully understand the impact that Blizzard has had on the industry, they forced a total re-evaluation of how much investment was required. Heck, even Mythic Entertainment voluntarily became assimilated by EA because of this. SOE exists solely for MMOs, MS wasnt prepared to go that far in light of the poor MMO performance of every title other than WoW.
-Gooney
No. MS looked at what was done of VG and decided that it was too buggy, unfinished and inferior to the competition to be worth sinking any more money into. Kendrick just recently said on the FoH boards that VG would only need 120k subscribers to turn a profit. That's the business model they've had from the get go.
Microsoft apparently did not think it was going to even reach 120k. They went through that with AC2 and they were not going to repeat the same mistake. Without SOE's help Vanguard would most likely have been cancelled entirely.
I expect SOE to completely buy out the rights or quietly assimilate Vanguard within the next 6 months. Graphically the game is complete and now it's just a matter of firing Brad and the incompetent Sigil team and installing some decent gameplay mechanics.Finally someone on these forums who doesn't hate SOE, just because they messed up SWG doesn't mean they are the devil incarnate. Look at what they've done with EQ 2 after EoF.
Tried: Vanguard, UO, Rappelz, Archlord, RF Online, SWG, WAR, Ryzom, Anarchy Online, AC, APB, STO, Perfect World, Black Prophecy...
Played: EQ,EQII, Lineage, Lineage 2, GW, EVE Online, AoC, DoAC, iRO, AC2, WoW, SWTOR, Runes of Magic, Allods, Rift..
Currently Playing: Tera