"As for McQuaid himself? He's a capable game designer. Some people may not agree with his design ideas, but that's a given, regardless of who's designing the game. His weakness is that he's a piss poor manager, and that he's very passionate about his games, so he has a bad tendency to be too talkative, and friendly with the players during the dev process. If he just designed the game, and left the managing of the game to more able people, and kept his yap shut on the forums, we'd be seeing a fairly different reaction to the game, I think."
Perfectly said. This is indeed Brad's failing. He is far more suited to be strictly a lead developer with a side of community manager (h loves getting in the trenches and posting). He is simply far too personal and hand-on to manage more than that.
Brad has always been an ideas man, not someone who comes across as an actual leader. Had he left such jobs to people suited for the task and just focused on his strength, the game would probably have turned out better.
I have never in my life seen anyone use that many words to say absolutely nothing of substance. Appreciate the effort, Brad, but it seems to me you're saying that you managed, in trying to reach all those customer groups, to satisfy none of them. And honestly, I think it's too late to start trying now. You only get one chance in this business.
LOL who are you? the chief of the industry? No you dont only get one chance in this business. What a load of crap.
Brad is doing well.. he has a brain to be where he is.. he made EQ1 possible.. and now he has made VG a joy for me and people like me who enjoy these types of MMOs..
jeez. LOL... as if you know how the business is run.
How do you know I'm not?
And please..if you get more than one chance, name me anything that has crashed and burned this hard and turned into a bona fide success. You can't. Your best chance to make a splash is the first 30 days- If you don't, the vast majority of the people who turn away will not come back to you. Some will..but I bet 90% of the paying folks you lose at the start are gone for good. You get one chance to impress most people, and Brad's little toy hasn't done that for almost everyone I met in game. Out of the 20 people I had on my friend's list, 4 of them have been logged in in the last 2 weeks. I bet that's a little over the average, but I'm willing to bet that 50% did not subscribe after the free month.
If you flop right off the bat- and compared to expectations, there's no way you can say this game didn't- you aren't going to be able to come out with "Hey guys come back it's all better now!" three months later and become a huge success. The only time anything even close has happened was with Anarchy Online, and it has never been anything but a niche game. You have one chance to impress everyone. If you don't, it's over. Hello 20-30K subs.
You mean like Eve Online which started with about only 20k and now has over 100? Or did you mean EQ which got mediocre reviews, started at only 100k and ended with over 400? Ever successful MMO I know took years to reach its subscription peak.
I wonder how 100k to start has now become a "flop." It's a perfectly respectable begining actually.
I don't think it had a prefectly respectable beginning. Vanguard costed alot to make and had alot of hype. It had a built in fan base of ex and current EQ players. There is no reason it shouldn't of had 300k or more subscribers within a month of release. It stumbled out of the starting gate badly and getting new subscribers will be harder than getting the initial 100k or so who had a favorable bais towards the game.
EQ and EVE were both released at the right time to start slowly and build up. EQ was the first real 3D mmorpg. And Eve really has no competion as far space based mmorpgs go.
Fantasy MMORPGS are getting saturated and a new game has to stand out to be a success. I do think a well done space MMORGP that is PvE focused will do great. I'm sure demand is there and not being fulfilled.
I'm not saying Vanguard cannot get to a 1/2 million or more subscribers but that the poor launch will make it alot harder.
I don't think it had a prefectly respectable beginning. Vanguard costed alot to make and had alot of hype. It had a built in fan base of ex and current EQ players. There is no reason it shouldn't of had 300k or more subscribers within a month of release. It stumbled out of the starting gate badly and getting new subscribers will be harder than getting the initial 100k or so who had a favorable bais towards the game. EQ and EVE were both released at the right time to start slowly and build up. EQ was the first real 3D mmorpg. And Eve really has no competion as far space based mmorpgs go. Fantasy MMORPGS are getting saturated and a new game has to stand out to be a success. I do think a well done space MMORGP that is PvE focused will do great. I'm sure demand is there and not being fulfilled. I'm not saying Vanguard cannot get to a 1/2 million or more subscribers but that the poor launch will make it alot harder.
I think you're being really optimistic. Vanguard currently has about, at the tops, 65K active players. I'm willing to bet this last update will drive off another 15-20K. Now they're talking about adding teleporting and other "easy mode" items- they'll lose another 10-15 K of the faithful right there. The horrible reviews and terrible word-of mouth "viral anti marketing" will limit new buyers- they might recover 5-10K in new sales out of morbid curiosity.
I paid for 2 months, I'll dink around in there until that's over, but I just can't ever see such a bland and passionless game ever keeping any base of subscribers. The adventuring is slow, dull, and very poorly done, crafting is just painful, and after the initial 'new' of diplomacy wears off, you see just how unbelievably stupid that little card game is. I can't think, honestly, of one single reason to recommend Vanguard over an established game. As bad as I hate EQ2, I'd recommend it ahead of Vanguard. Vanguard even sucks for roleplaying- none of the classes are interesting, none of the races have anything compelling to offer....and while there is a lot of lore, it's generic and not at all interesting.
It'll end up like Horizons. 10-15K rabid people believing it's going to take off and be a hit any day now.
I feel like i have to say this and i know i'm not the smartest person here but i think that they should stop trying to make games like eq and crap because in general remakes blow and people need to stop comparing games to other games what ever happen to original ideas? everyone nowadays seems to throw shit in fro mdifferent games to make a game MAKE SOMETHING NEW!!!! i feel like maybe a new company should come out with just gamers like us who seems to know what they want and what other people want
I don't think it had a prefectly respectable beginning. Vanguard costed alot to make and had alot of hype. It had a built in fan base of ex and current EQ players. There is no reason it shouldn't of had 300k or more subscribers within a month of release. It stumbled out of the starting gate badly and getting new subscribers will be harder than getting the initial 100k or so who had a favorable bais towards the game. EQ and EVE were both released at the right time to start slowly and build up. EQ was the first real 3D mmorpg. And Eve really has no competion as far space based mmorpgs go. Fantasy MMORPGS are getting saturated and a new game has to stand out to be a success. I do think a well done space MMORGP that is PvE focused will do great. I'm sure demand is there and not being fulfilled. I'm not saying Vanguard cannot get to a 1/2 million or more subscribers but that the poor launch will make it alot harder.
I think you're being really optimistic. Vanguard currently has about, at the tops, 65K active players. I'm willing to bet this last update will drive off another 15-20K. Now they're talking about adding teleporting and other "easy mode" items- they'll lose another 10-15 K of the faithful right there. The horrible reviews and terrible word-of mouth "viral anti marketing" will limit new buyers- they might recover 5-10K in new sales out of morbid curiosity.
I paid for 2 months, I'll dink around in there until that's over, but I just can't ever see such a bland and passionless game ever keeping any base of subscribers. The adventuring is slow, dull, and very poorly done, crafting is just painful, and after the initial 'new' of diplomacy wears off, you see just how unbelievably stupid that little card game is. I can't think, honestly, of one single reason to recommend Vanguard over an established game. As bad as I hate EQ2, I'd recommend it ahead of Vanguard. Vanguard even sucks for roleplaying- none of the classes are interesting, none of the races have anything compelling to offer....and while there is a lot of lore, it's generic and not at all interesting.
It'll end up like Horizons. 10-15K rabid people believing it's going to take off and be a hit any day now.
don't try and estimate how many people play the game. You have no idea how many people are playing, and have no way of figuring out how many without an official statement from Sigil or SoE. It takes very little backbone to make up numbers that work best in the view you wish to convince others off.
You find the world bland and passionless? Way to go guy, I found SWG to be rather bland and passionless as well; didn't mean it was to the people playing it. I also found Eve to be dull and tedious; I'm still not an omnipotent god, with the ability to make all living beings bend to my will and feel as I do.
OMG, quick, inform the press some dude on the internents doesn't like a game. Get over yourself man.
Guess what? I hate romance novels, and I have absolutely no idea how many people are reading them.
You two with the adversion to advertising, trying to be all intelleducated and stuff.
Here's a new word for you. State of the game address. Lots of games have these; there so that the player base can get an idea of the direction the game is headed, and to inform people not playing that may be interested in what the company is doing. If all it took to advertise something was some banners, print and video adss and maybe a radio spot or two, then damn, I should get a degree in marketing. Sounds like easy stuff to me.
I don't think it had a prefectly respectable beginning. Vanguard costed alot to make and had alot of hype. It had a built in fan base of ex and current EQ players. There is no reason it shouldn't of had 300k or more subscribers within a month of release. It stumbled out of the starting gate badly and getting new subscribers will be harder than getting the initial 100k or so who had a favorable bais towards the game. EQ and EVE were both released at the right time to start slowly and build up. EQ was the first real 3D mmorpg. And Eve really has no competion as far space based mmorpgs go. Fantasy MMORPGS are getting saturated and a new game has to stand out to be a success. I do think a well done space MMORGP that is PvE focused will do great. I'm sure demand is there and not being fulfilled. I'm not saying Vanguard cannot get to a 1/2 million or more subscribers but that the poor launch will make it alot harder.
I think you're being really optimistic. Vanguard currently has about, at the tops, 65K active players. I'm willing to bet this last update will drive off another 15-20K. Now they're talking about adding teleporting and other "easy mode" items- they'll lose another 10-15 K of the faithful right there. The horrible reviews and terrible word-of mouth "viral anti marketing" will limit new buyers- they might recover 5-10K in new sales out of morbid curiosity.
I paid for 2 months, I'll dink around in there until that's over, but I just can't ever see such a bland and passionless game ever keeping any base of subscribers. The adventuring is slow, dull, and very poorly done, crafting is just painful, and after the initial 'new' of diplomacy wears off, you see just how unbelievably stupid that little card game is. I can't think, honestly, of one single reason to recommend Vanguard over an established game. As bad as I hate EQ2, I'd recommend it ahead of Vanguard. Vanguard even sucks for roleplaying- none of the classes are interesting, none of the races have anything compelling to offer....and while there is a lot of lore, it's generic and not at all interesting.
It'll end up like Horizons. 10-15K rabid people believing it's going to take off and be a hit any day now.
don't try and estimate how many people play the game. You have no idea how many people are playing, and have no way of figuring out how many without an official statement from Sigil or SoE. It takes very little backbone to make up numbers that work best in the view you wish to convince others off.
You find the world bland and passionless? Way to go guy, I found SWG to be rather bland and passionless as well; didn't mean it was to the people playing it. I also found Eve to be dull and tedious; I'm still not an omnipotent god, with the ability to make all living beings bend to my will and feel as I do.
OMG, quick, inform the press some dude on the internents doesn't like a game. Get over yourself man.
Guess what? I hate romance novels, and I have absolutely no idea how many people are reading them.
You two with the adversion to advertising, trying to be all intelleducated and stuff.
Here's a new word for you. State of the game address. Lots of games have these; there so that the player base can get an idea of the direction the game is headed, and to inform people not playing that may be interested in what the company is doing. If all it took to advertise something was some banners, print and video adss and maybe a radio spot or two, then damn, I should get a degree in marketing. Sounds like easy stuff to me.
The numbers are from the semi-official fan site, Silky Venom. Not from me.
And you are the perfect example of why Vanguard is the failure it is. The arrogant, immature, self-inflated Sigil fan.
Go play your broken, bugfilled, grindfest of a game. Stop being so sensitive to every remark that makes you, y'know, look like the tiny minority- which is what people who like Vanguard are. Those 'bland' games (neither of which I play) each have more fans than your game of choice does. Deal with it.
20% solo content sounds about right. Unfortunately there is not enough content in the game that 20% of the total is enough to support a solo player.
Performance issues: the game simply does not scale properly. Low visual, high performance settings should work well with current midrange hardware. That it does not is NOT the customers' fault.
Fast travel. The idea of having very widely dispersed starting areas was not a good one. The idea of deliberately ensuring that existing groups, such as guilds that migrated as a group into the game, would have difficulty gathering, both initially and for later grouping was not a good idea. Having low levels trying to assemble, but running into faction death didn't help. With such a large area, fixed teleports will be many indeed if they are to be really useful. Menus, sub-menus, sub-sub menus? Maybe just go to nearest to group members?
Drab. Well that about covers that.
This is just me: too damn dark, too long. Older eyes, torches lousy, excellent CRT with deep blacks, gamma adjusted properly; Night slider would have been nice. Nice people on the forums suggested that this was not the game for me.
Fun. The sum greater than the parts. Feature lists don't add up to the total game experience. It was noteworthy to me that Brad talked about features, but not about that which the players are looking for: fun.
The Vision. I've been watching the game a long time (2 years? More?) and I had the distinct feeling that back then it was talked up as hardcore. That changed some time ago (a year perhaps?) but I believe that's where the impression came from.
Fail? Probably not. Too much money would be lost. I expect some sort of rescue operation to be mounted to save the game, but I would not expect Brad to be part of that effort.
I don't think it had a prefectly respectable beginning. Vanguard costed alot to make and had alot of hype. It had a built in fan base of ex and current EQ players. There is no reason it shouldn't of had 300k or more subscribers within a month of release. It stumbled out of the starting gate badly and getting new subscribers will be harder than getting the initial 100k or so who had a favorable bais towards the game. EQ and EVE were both released at the right time to start slowly and build up. EQ was the first real 3D mmorpg. And Eve really has no competion as far space based mmorpgs go. Fantasy MMORPGS are getting saturated and a new game has to stand out to be a success. I do think a well done space MMORGP that is PvE focused will do great. I'm sure demand is there and not being fulfilled. I'm not saying Vanguard cannot get to a 1/2 million or more subscribers but that the poor launch will make it alot harder.
I think you're being really optimistic. Vanguard currently has about, at the tops, 65K active players. I'm willing to bet this last update will drive off another 15-20K. Now they're talking about adding teleporting and other "easy mode" items- they'll lose another 10-15 K of the faithful right there. The horrible reviews and terrible word-of mouth "viral anti marketing" will limit new buyers- they might recover 5-10K in new sales out of morbid curiosity.
I paid for 2 months, I'll dink around in there until that's over, but I just can't ever see such a bland and passionless game ever keeping any base of subscribers. The adventuring is slow, dull, and very poorly done, crafting is just painful, and after the initial 'new' of diplomacy wears off, you see just how unbelievably stupid that little card game is. I can't think, honestly, of one single reason to recommend Vanguard over an established game. As bad as I hate EQ2, I'd recommend it ahead of Vanguard. Vanguard even sucks for roleplaying- none of the classes are interesting, none of the races have anything compelling to offer....and while there is a lot of lore, it's generic and not at all interesting.
It'll end up like Horizons. 10-15K rabid people believing it's going to take off and be a hit any day now.
don't try and estimate how many people play the game. You have no idea how many people are playing, and have no way of figuring out how many without an official statement from Sigil or SoE. It takes very little backbone to make up numbers that work best in the view you wish to convince others off.
You find the world bland and passionless? Way to go guy, I found SWG to be rather bland and passionless as well; didn't mean it was to the people playing it. I also found Eve to be dull and tedious; I'm still not an omnipotent god, with the ability to make all living beings bend to my will and feel as I do.
OMG, quick, inform the press some dude on the internents doesn't like a game. Get over yourself man.
Guess what? I hate romance novels, and I have absolutely no idea how many people are reading them.
You two with the adversion to advertising, trying to be all intelleducated and stuff.
Here's a new word for you. State of the game address. Lots of games have these; there so that the player base can get an idea of the direction the game is headed, and to inform people not playing that may be interested in what the company is doing. If all it took to advertise something was some banners, print and video adss and maybe a radio spot or two, then damn, I should get a degree in marketing. Sounds like easy stuff to me.
The numbers are from the semi-official fan site, Silky Venom. Not from me.
And you are the perfect example of why Vanguard is the failure it is. The arrogant, immature, self-inflated Sigil fan.
Go play your broken, bugfilled, grindfest of a game. Stop being so sensitive to every remark that makes you, y'know, look like the tiny minority- which is what people who like Vanguard are. Those 'bland' games (neither of which I play) each have more fans than your game of choice does. Deal with it.
Hello, why are you so hostile? No game is perfect neither is Vanguard. Vanguard has been patched quite well, havent had any bugs since the last update. Maybe you should try this game and re-evaluate?
I don't think it had a prefectly respectable beginning. Vanguard costed alot to make and had alot of hype. It had a built in fan base of ex and current EQ players. There is no reason it shouldn't of had 300k or more subscribers within a month of release. It stumbled out of the starting gate badly and getting new subscribers will be harder than getting the initial 100k or so who had a favorable bais towards the game. EQ and EVE were both released at the right time to start slowly and build up. EQ was the first real 3D mmorpg. And Eve really has no competion as far space based mmorpgs go. Fantasy MMORPGS are getting saturated and a new game has to stand out to be a success. I do think a well done space MMORGP that is PvE focused will do great. I'm sure demand is there and not being fulfilled. I'm not saying Vanguard cannot get to a 1/2 million or more subscribers but that the poor launch will make it alot harder.
I think you're being really optimistic. Vanguard currently has about, at the tops, 65K active players. I'm willing to bet this last update will drive off another 15-20K. Now they're talking about adding teleporting and other "easy mode" items- they'll lose another 10-15 K of the faithful right there. The horrible reviews and terrible word-of mouth "viral anti marketing" will limit new buyers- they might recover 5-10K in new sales out of morbid curiosity.
I paid for 2 months, I'll dink around in there until that's over, but I just can't ever see such a bland and passionless game ever keeping any base of subscribers. The adventuring is slow, dull, and very poorly done, crafting is just painful, and after the initial 'new' of diplomacy wears off, you see just how unbelievably stupid that little card game is. I can't think, honestly, of one single reason to recommend Vanguard over an established game. As bad as I hate EQ2, I'd recommend it ahead of Vanguard. Vanguard even sucks for roleplaying- none of the classes are interesting, none of the races have anything compelling to offer....and while there is a lot of lore, it's generic and not at all interesting.
It'll end up like Horizons. 10-15K rabid people believing it's going to take off and be a hit any day now.
don't try and estimate how many people play the game. You have no idea how many people are playing, and have no way of figuring out how many without an official statement from Sigil or SoE. It takes very little backbone to make up numbers that work best in the view you wish to convince others off.
You find the world bland and passionless? Way to go guy, I found SWG to be rather bland and passionless as well; didn't mean it was to the people playing it. I also found Eve to be dull and tedious; I'm still not an omnipotent god, with the ability to make all living beings bend to my will and feel as I do.
OMG, quick, inform the press some dude on the internents doesn't like a game. Get over yourself man.
Guess what? I hate romance novels, and I have absolutely no idea how many people are reading them.
You two with the adversion to advertising, trying to be all intelleducated and stuff.
Here's a new word for you. State of the game address. Lots of games have these; there so that the player base can get an idea of the direction the game is headed, and to inform people not playing that may be interested in what the company is doing. If all it took to advertise something was some banners, print and video adss and maybe a radio spot or two, then damn, I should get a degree in marketing. Sounds like easy stuff to me.
The numbers are from the semi-official fan site, Silky Venom. Not from me.
And you are the perfect example of why Vanguard is the failure it is. The arrogant, immature, self-inflated Sigil fan.
Go play your broken, bugfilled, grindfest of a game. Stop being so sensitive to every remark that makes you, y'know, look like the tiny minority- which is what people who like Vanguard are. Those 'bland' games (neither of which I play) each have more fans than your game of choice does. Deal with it.
Taking every chance you can get to demonstrate you aptitude for lieing?
Sticks and stones an all that kid, I'm sure you hear it every day on the playground.
Please- where's the lie? Go look at Silky Venom- they did a count, and came up with the number I gave. And I still don't understand why you're so defensive, but I guess all Vanguard fans are. Take a look at the 'official' forum and you see plenty of it. Everyone is so touchy. I guess it's like talking to fans who's team just lost the World Series- the truth hurts, and causes an instinctive defensive reaction.
As far as go play it..just logged out about 2-3 hours ago, and yes, it's still a bland, uninspired experience that offers nothing that other games don't do better. Nothing has improved at all that I can see. You still die to unseen mobs when you cross a chunk line, you still get stuck immobile in the middle of open fields, mobs and NPCs are still walking backwards all over, and most of all- it's still no fun, and no challenge. It just takes forever to do anything- there's no more complexity than any other game. The first 10 level are fun with a new class, then it just turns to garbage.
To each their own- but don't try to make it out like Vanguard is popular. It isn't. Well over half the people who tried it rejected it (not scientific, just going by people I know/my guild/forums everywhere). So Fariic, go vent your fanboi angst on someone else. If you like it, fine, just have the guts to admit you're a very vocal, very small minority.
As many have said, without fun, a game is nothing.
I don't care if the game features player-built houses, the best economy ever, the most in-depth crafting system ever made, the biggest largest, prettiest, most fantastical graphics ever incorporated into a game. Your game can feature any and everything that has ever existed, but if it's not any fun, who cares, honestly?
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
[quote] But again, getting that message out to those who didn't frequent our official boards before release has been a challenge.
[/quote]
I plan on trying out Vanguard in 6 months or so, but it seems that he acknowledges the perception of Vanguard needs a lot of help to change and get more people to try it.
feel free to spin his comments towards love/hate for the game as you see fit. I personally hope it will turn out ok in the end, if perhaps too little, too late.
vanguard has official forums?
since when?
yes, that is ALL i got out of that post. the rest was a lot of "blah blah blah, give us money, blah blah blah, we're not smedley's little girls blah blah blah".
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
That's exactly what you say when it becomes clear your game isn't going to be successfull as you thought it would be. I don't think it's casual gamer friendly at all everything is designed so it takes you hours of mind numbing grinding and pointless repetative quests to advance. Casual gaming is log on for a few hours and then log off and in that space you achieve something worth while. In vanguard that doesn't happen, i got bored after what must be 3 weeks of playing and due to work I can only log on may be 2/3 hours every other night. I just seemed to be stuck in the same boring grind every day not going any where hence this one does bite the dust for me and it's on to the next game until i find something worth while.
(refering to BmQ's note) That also reminded me of Tony's Blairs bullshite when he first got elected spouting spin about "New Labour" and we all know how that turned out..
Water cooled Intel Corei7 920 D0 Stepping OC'd 4.3GHz - 6GB Corsair Dominator GT RAM 2000Mhz - ASUS RAGE II EXTREME X58 Mobo - 2x HD 5870 in Crossfire X, OC'd 0.9Ghz core 1.3Ghz RAM - Dell 2407WFP Flat Panel LCD 24" 1920x1200
Brad must have a different definition of casual then everyone else on the planet. I tried Vanguard and although I agree that it is not as bad as some say it is once you get it running, but I see nothing casual about this game by an sane definition.
Perhaps I do. I see people soloing or in small groups all of the time. I just hit level 10 with my warrior and solo'd 95% of the time.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
The most common form of Viral Marketing is having people pose as message board posters and say positive things about games.
Basically, they pretend to be regular gamers that like their game, and they try to put a positive spin on everything about a game.
It's shaky ground. When a community finds out it usually turns for the worst, so good viral marketing consists of being a convincing person that blends in with the rest of the public.
Another example of viral marketing is Halo's ilovebees website.
The one thing that really needs to stop for Vanguard to do well is the Vanbois need to stop attacking and comparing it to WoW, and really emphasize the good unique points of the game. Attacking WoW or other MMO's and saying "Vanguard is better" doesn't give anyone any substance or actual material to judge the game off of.
Honesty works for me too. The more people say, "Vanguard has never crashed on me and runs perfectly smooth" the less I want to play because I know it's a lie, and that I would have to eventually meet and deal with these people in Telon somewhere.
Thank you for the definition, I really was unfamiliar with it. I went to Webster's Dictionary and looked up "viral" to see if there was another usage I was unfamiliar with, there wasn't. Apparently Webster's is not up on all the new marketing terminology.
What I meant by viral marketing is where someone buys the game and enjoys it and then convinces others who perhaps were not going to buy the game or were skeptical to buy the game. They can do this verbally, or though posts. In other words, when *players* tell others they like the game and this results in more people buying the game -- this is what I mean by viral marketing.
I do this often with movies. Sometimes I will see a trailer on TV and go see the movie just based on the trailer (300 comes to mind -- I haven't seen it yet but the trailer looks bad-ass). But more often I'll see the trailer or perhaps not see the trailer (I have a DVR and usually fast forward through commercials and miss trailers and the like). And based on the trailer or because I simply didn't hear about the movie, I don't go see it. But then if a friend who has similar tastes to me tells me he saw it and enjoyed it, then I will often go see it. If multiple people I trust tell me the movie rocks, then I most definitely go see it.
This is viral marketing for movies and it works the same way with computer games, etc.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
brad isn't spinning anything into his favor, it's you guys that are spinning his words into your favor, all i ever heard during beta was the fact that vg was going to be catered to all players casual/core/and hardcore, now i'm more in the casual category and solo most of the time and i don't have any issues soloing when i do take a break from crafting/diplo to adventure(and i'm a paladin). it's been known a long time now that the content in vanguard was going to be 20% solo, 60% group, and 20% raid. now right now it may not add up to that but as he said in his post this is one of those things they need to tweak. I found nothing in this post that contradicted anything he stated in the past. What some of you may consider a contradiction is more than likely a misconception on your part. Again just like most of the posts so far in this thread you guys spin everything to fit your view whether it has any factual base or not.
Thanks I know I'm wordy and verbose when I post, but it's encouraging that you and others *did* understand what I was trying to say and do view what I am saying as consistent with what I've posted in the past, before release, etc.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
jeez... where to begin... The fact that he is posting and to such an extent shows the desperation... no matter how many times he says 'sales are great' it is always followed by a a big fat but... 'we could have done better'... etc. Free month quitters must have been enormous... You can read a lot into what he leaves out of his novella post... the people who played it - tried to like it - and ended up being dissapointed in almost every way... never mind the bugs. I don't blame him for leaving it out - I would have too. I like the fact that he says WOW is a great game - he is right. I tried to like his game but, for me, it is just to drab, bug filled and mediocre. I have nothing aginast those who love Van - whatever butters your muffin - plenty to go around. I hope it survives and improves and lasts a long time. I don't imagine I would ever try it again but who knows.
With all due respect, I don't think being honest and open and talking about issues that need to be addressed is a sign of desperation. Sales are indeed going well. Could they even be better? Absolutely, and that is one of the reasons I and others are out here posting and also making sure our messaging is effective.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
I really enjoyed how much different he comes across now than he did during the development phase, particularly the first three years. There used to be very little talk about making the game more accessible, but now he realizes it is a necessity in today's climate.
Yup. This reminds me so much of the DDO launch without any soloable content that it is uncanny. I watched DDO very carefully through the development phase (big-time old school D&D fan here). I was interested (until I found out it was going twitch-based, which I learned not from them, but from a friend who was in alpha). In any case, at one point on their forums it became known that the game would not have much (if any) soloable content because "D&D is played with game groups."
We tried to warn them. We told them that even those of us (including me) who prefer to group rather than solo, sometimes just feel like soloing a bit (for whatever reason -- you could name them). But they were adamant. They did not want to listen, and of course the fanbois said, "Go back to WOW if you want to solo" (or "play a single player game"). That's all well and good but then they launched and bombed, and the reality of the market hit them. You basically HAVE to have a soloable set of content now, or you lose massive numbers of potential players. And within weeks of launch they were announcing new "level 1-3 content that is soloable". Like Brad, once the reality of the market set in, they had to change their tune.
He's not fooling anyone though. I barely paid attention to all his Vanguard hype but even I know full well that he was touting the hardcore nature of it and the fact that you could not breeze through it like (according to him and other hardcores) you can through WOW. Now all of a sudden, he finds out that the casual market dwarfs the hardcore market by about 100 to 1 (if not more) and he was losing 99% of his potential market share by being a hard-a$$. Funny, isn't it, how money talks.
C
It's mind-boggling the number of peopel who think that Brad has changed his tune. I followed VG's development since 2003 and it's remained pretty consistent. It was ALWAYS a game that wanted to strike a balance between the old and the new. Always. There was NEVER any indication excpet in some very limited and specific ways in which it was compared to EQ. It was always a matter of borrowing certain aspects from a variety of MMOs. It's just that whenever it was compared with EQ in any way, the hardcore freaks ran with that and tuned everything else out. So when Jeff Butler said they understood over two years ago that people don't have the time to commit to a game as was required in EQ and this this limitation would be reflected in VG, apparently no one heard it! Or they heard it and pretended they didn't.
Thank you. I feel very strongly about being honest and consistent. Yet there are posts saying that the game isn't what it was advertised to be, or that what I am posting now is totally different to how I portrayed the game during beta or even before beta.
The vision has remained largely the game. That said, it is flexible and updatable and the gamespace has changed. I think we launched a game that is 80%+ what we'd hoped to launch. We did change some things along the way -- it was a long 5 years We revamped Diplomacy based on beta feedback, we changed Crafting quite a bit, we put more casual content in the game than we had originally planned. And not all of the features we'd hoped would be in were in at launch, mostly because we had to launch a little early. But we will get there -- the team is working just as hard as it was prior to release. We are fixing bugs, optimizing, tweaking things, and then at the same time adding new content, features, etc. The emphasis right now is on the former, but that will slowly change as some of the more annoying issues or bugs are fixed. We'll slowly but surely put more resources towards putting those features in as well as new features we have planned for a long time to implement after launch (for example, evolving housing into player cities and putting in an RTS element, mounted and ship combat, etc.).
If someone does have a statement or post by me that they think is no longer valid or that I've more recently posted something that contradicts it, please post it and let me check it out. Thanks.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thepatriot Brad must have a different definition of casual then everyone else on the planet. I tried Vanguard and although I agree that it is not as bad as some say it is once you get it running, but I see nothing casual about this game by an sane definition.
Perhaps I do. I see people soloing or in small groups all of the time. I just hit level 10 with my warrior and solo'd 95% of the time.
I've gotten my blood mage (great class btw) to lvl 17 all solo but really starting to run out of options to do stuff now all MMO's need a certain ammount of solo content and for me and the wife (who has the game bought but wont play it till theres a bit more duo content in).
I'm not a massive group player much prefer doing my own thing or play a game with my wife she's bored to tears with WOW and is looking for a new challenge and as i say she see's VG as her next MMO but at the moment its just too hardcore for her.
Where will it ever end? WOW has 7 million subs. Seven million!!! I have tried that game three times got a 60 Druid . I had a blast in EQ1 taking my Druid to 62 and then EQ2 came out. Took my Necro to 70 and thought it was the best game I had ever played. Mind you I soloed all these toons in all those games. I like to solo. Do things the way i want to not how 5 others want to do it. Sure i dont get the awesome stuff but still i have fun or try to. So far in Vanguard i hit lvl 20 today on my Pally, all solo except for a Lizard cave in Kojan that some guys needed a tank for. Sure I level slow but thats the way I like to play. Even with the bugs i have encountered I have still had fun so far. I like to explore and have seen some awesome sights. I am impressed that Brad has posted here. This is his baby and everyone wants to think that theirs is the best. Problems in the game, sure there are, but every game I play has bugs. People make em and people arent perfect neither are any of the games out there. I cant understand why some people hate the fact that some like the game. Some people are never satisfied with anything, they will find a way to bash no matter what. Some of you who have stated that the fanbois are the ones doing all the yelling should go back and read some of your posts again and really read them this time. Looks like its pretty even to me. Maybe and this is just a thought that some of you who will never get to design a game are deep down jealous that someone can do something that you cant so you are gonna try to bring him down. Well its America and seeing what the democrats are trying to do to our Commander in Chief I guess you got some good role models. Another good thing about Vanguard it made me build a new computer. Cant believe what the new video cards can do, and kudos to Intel for finally doing something right. Core 2 duos rock. Guess Im done , falling asleep. Hehe.
Does anyone else find it curious that Brad is posting on the FOH 'Guild' web site? Considering that there are actual “Vanguard Guard Fan Sites” that he could have just as easily posted in. I’m not going to split hairs over where he wants to post, its just more of the ‘side glances and head shaking’, I have about the whole Vanguard experience.
I followed the game since near conception (Buy out - Verant /SOE). Along the way I kept a cautious optimism as I saw what Brad was able to pull off with Everquest. Sigil has had ‘every’ MMO since EQ to measure itself with and yet with all this information the game simply did not live up to the expectation(s), not only of my personal beliefs, but the conceptualization that Brad himself projected. While playing the beta I was completely uninspired, the game lacked substance, meaning and purpose. My character was simply ‘existing’ in a world and not really part of it.
Essentially I’m left with the impression that Brad attempted to please a set of demographics than a true fan base. With this announcement (post in the FOH Forums) it only serves to confirm any and all suspicions, Brad made a game that wasn’t genuine to the nature of what he is capable of or set out to create.
The Old Timers Guild Laid back, not so serious, no drama. All about the fun!
www.oldtimersguild.com An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it. - Jef Mallett
The most common form of Viral Marketing is having people pose as message board posters and say positive things about games.
Basically, they pretend to be regular gamers that like their game, and they try to put a positive spin on everything about a game.
It's shaky ground. When a community finds out it usually turns for the worst, so good viral marketing consists of being a convincing person that blends in with the rest of the public.
Another example of viral marketing is Halo's ilovebees website.
The one thing that really needs to stop for Vanguard to do well is the Vanbois need to stop attacking and comparing it to WoW, and really emphasize the good unique points of the game. Attacking WoW or other MMO's and saying "Vanguard is better" doesn't give anyone any substance or actual material to judge the game off of.
Honesty works for me too. The more people say, "Vanguard has never crashed on me and runs perfectly smooth" the less I want to play because I know it's a lie, and that I would have to eventually meet and deal with these people in Telon somewhere.
Thank you for the definition, I really was unfamiliar with it. I went to Webster's Dictionary and looked up "viral" to see if there was another usage I was unfamiliar with, there wasn't. Apparently Webster's is not up on all the new marketing terminology.
What I meant by viral marketing is where someone buys the game and enjoys it and then convinces others who perhaps were not going to buy the game or were skeptical to buy the game. They can do this verbally, or though posts. In other words, when *players* tell others they like the game and this results in more people buying the game -- this is what I mean by viral marketing.
I do this often with movies. Sometimes I will see a trailer on TV and go see the movie just based on the trailer (300 comes to mind -- I haven't seen it yet but the trailer looks bad-ass). But more often I'll see the trailer or perhaps not see the trailer (I have a DVR and usually fast forward through commercials and miss trailers and the like). And based on the trailer or because I simply didn't hear about the movie, I don't go see it. But then if a friend who has similar tastes to me tells me he saw it and enjoyed it, then I will often go see it. If multiple people I trust tell me the movie rocks, then I most definitely go see it.
This is viral marketing for movies and it works the same way with computer games, etc.
What you call viral marketing is the same as word of mouth. Right now word of mouth is keeping a lot of people away. For many people Vanguard was an impulse buy. Nowhere on the box does it give details of your financial situation or give details on the actual state of the game. So they open it up find out about the problems and they get pissed. Trying to get help makes them even more pissed because they're usually called a liar, an idiot or they end up hearing the vanboi warcry of "Go back to WoW". It 's totally uncalled for.
If I had to buy Vanguard using your viral marketing concept I'd probably pass on it because you just can't get a clear picture of what it's like given the reviews by the diehard fanatics and their utter denial of the game having problems. Part of that problem could be solved with an official Vanguard website and forum. As it is now the affiliate sites are just a place where these diehards congregate to flame and insult anybody with problems or criticism. The tech support forums are just as bad. These diehards are doing you more harm than good. I think you should have a centralized location where people can get information and communicate with you and the other devs. A player council that could bring ideas and problems to the dev's attention might not be a bad idea either.
Right now I really don't envy you. It's seems that you're going from website to website in spin mode doing damage control mainly due to a botched patch. If that's not the case then I apologize but it sure does seem that way. I know you want to see your product succeed and so do I. I also know that most everything a company does is motivated in one way or another by money. This is a game for us. It's a business and livelihood for you. I don't dislike Vanguard. Actually I think it has great potential. The problem is that we don't pay for potential and right now with performance problems and all the bugs that are in the game the last thing people want to hear about is potential. It's nice to think of the future but if you don't take care of the present there isn't going to be a future. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to add new content when the content you have isn't working correctly. Like I said, I like Vanguard but I'm reaching my frustration threshhold with this game. If things don't turn around pretty quick, I'm going to shelve this game and probably never come back to it. There's just too many other games out there. The clock is ticking.
Comments
Perfectly said. This is indeed Brad's failing. He is far more suited to be strictly a lead developer with a side of community manager (h loves getting in the trenches and posting). He is simply far too personal and hand-on to manage more than that.
Brad has always been an ideas man, not someone who comes across as an actual leader. Had he left such jobs to people suited for the task and just focused on his strength, the game would probably have turned out better.
LOL who are you? the chief of the industry? No you dont only get one chance in this business. What a load of crap.
Brad is doing well.. he has a brain to be where he is.. he made EQ1 possible.. and now he has made VG a joy for me and people like me who enjoy these types of MMOs..
jeez. LOL... as if you know how the business is run.
How do you know I'm not?And please..if you get more than one chance, name me anything that has crashed and burned this hard and turned into a bona fide success. You can't. Your best chance to make a splash is the first 30 days- If you don't, the vast majority of the people who turn away will not come back to you. Some will..but I bet 90% of the paying folks you lose at the start are gone for good. You get one chance to impress most people, and Brad's little toy hasn't done that for almost everyone I met in game. Out of the 20 people I had on my friend's list, 4 of them have been logged in in the last 2 weeks. I bet that's a little over the average, but I'm willing to bet that 50% did not subscribe after the free month.
If you flop right off the bat- and compared to expectations, there's no way you can say this game didn't- you aren't going to be able to come out with "Hey guys come back it's all better now!" three months later and become a huge success. The only time anything even close has happened was with Anarchy Online, and it has never been anything but a niche game. You have one chance to impress everyone. If you don't, it's over. Hello 20-30K subs.
You mean like Eve Online which started with about only 20k and now has over 100? Or did you mean EQ which got mediocre reviews, started at only 100k and ended with over 400? Ever successful MMO I know took years to reach its subscription peak.
I wonder how 100k to start has now become a "flop." It's a perfectly respectable begining actually.
I don't think it had a prefectly respectable beginning. Vanguard costed alot to make and had alot of hype. It had a built in fan base of ex and current EQ players. There is no reason it shouldn't of had 300k or more subscribers within a month of release. It stumbled out of the starting gate badly and getting new subscribers will be harder than getting the initial 100k or so who had a favorable bais towards the game.
EQ and EVE were both released at the right time to start slowly and build up. EQ was the first real 3D mmorpg. And Eve really has no competion as far space based mmorpgs go.
Fantasy MMORPGS are getting saturated and a new game has to stand out to be a success. I do think a well done space MMORGP that is PvE focused will do great. I'm sure demand is there and not being fulfilled.
I'm not saying Vanguard cannot get to a 1/2 million or more subscribers but that the poor launch will make it alot harder.
I paid for 2 months, I'll dink around in there until that's over, but I just can't ever see such a bland and passionless game ever keeping any base of subscribers. The adventuring is slow, dull, and very poorly done, crafting is just painful, and after the initial 'new' of diplomacy wears off, you see just how unbelievably stupid that little card game is. I can't think, honestly, of one single reason to recommend Vanguard over an established game. As bad as I hate EQ2, I'd recommend it ahead of Vanguard. Vanguard even sucks for roleplaying- none of the classes are interesting, none of the races have anything compelling to offer....and while there is a lot of lore, it's generic and not at all interesting.
It'll end up like Horizons. 10-15K rabid people believing it's going to take off and be a hit any day now.
Bite me, Turbine.
I paid for 2 months, I'll dink around in there until that's over, but I just can't ever see such a bland and passionless game ever keeping any base of subscribers. The adventuring is slow, dull, and very poorly done, crafting is just painful, and after the initial 'new' of diplomacy wears off, you see just how unbelievably stupid that little card game is. I can't think, honestly, of one single reason to recommend Vanguard over an established game. As bad as I hate EQ2, I'd recommend it ahead of Vanguard. Vanguard even sucks for roleplaying- none of the classes are interesting, none of the races have anything compelling to offer....and while there is a lot of lore, it's generic and not at all interesting.
It'll end up like Horizons. 10-15K rabid people believing it's going to take off and be a hit any day now.
don't try and estimate how many people play the game. You have no idea how many people are playing, and have no way of figuring out how many without an official statement from Sigil or SoE. It takes very little backbone to make up numbers that work best in the view you wish to convince others off.
You find the world bland and passionless? Way to go guy, I found SWG to be rather bland and passionless as well; didn't mean it was to the people playing it. I also found Eve to be dull and tedious; I'm still not an omnipotent god, with the ability to make all living beings bend to my will and feel as I do.
OMG, quick, inform the press some dude on the internents doesn't like a game. Get over yourself man.
Guess what? I hate romance novels, and I have absolutely no idea how many people are reading them.
You two with the adversion to advertising, trying to be all intelleducated and stuff.
Here's a new word for you. State of the game address. Lots of games have these; there so that the player base can get an idea of the direction the game is headed, and to inform people not playing that may be interested in what the company is doing. If all it took to advertise something was some banners, print and video adss and maybe a radio spot or two, then damn, I should get a degree in marketing. Sounds like easy stuff to me.
I paid for 2 months, I'll dink around in there until that's over, but I just can't ever see such a bland and passionless game ever keeping any base of subscribers. The adventuring is slow, dull, and very poorly done, crafting is just painful, and after the initial 'new' of diplomacy wears off, you see just how unbelievably stupid that little card game is. I can't think, honestly, of one single reason to recommend Vanguard over an established game. As bad as I hate EQ2, I'd recommend it ahead of Vanguard. Vanguard even sucks for roleplaying- none of the classes are interesting, none of the races have anything compelling to offer....and while there is a lot of lore, it's generic and not at all interesting.
It'll end up like Horizons. 10-15K rabid people believing it's going to take off and be a hit any day now.
don't try and estimate how many people play the game. You have no idea how many people are playing, and have no way of figuring out how many without an official statement from Sigil or SoE. It takes very little backbone to make up numbers that work best in the view you wish to convince others off.
You find the world bland and passionless? Way to go guy, I found SWG to be rather bland and passionless as well; didn't mean it was to the people playing it. I also found Eve to be dull and tedious; I'm still not an omnipotent god, with the ability to make all living beings bend to my will and feel as I do.
OMG, quick, inform the press some dude on the internents doesn't like a game. Get over yourself man.
Guess what? I hate romance novels, and I have absolutely no idea how many people are reading them.
You two with the adversion to advertising, trying to be all intelleducated and stuff.
The numbers are from the semi-official fan site, Silky Venom. Not from me.Here's a new word for you. State of the game address. Lots of games have these; there so that the player base can get an idea of the direction the game is headed, and to inform people not playing that may be interested in what the company is doing. If all it took to advertise something was some banners, print and video adss and maybe a radio spot or two, then damn, I should get a degree in marketing. Sounds like easy stuff to me.
And you are the perfect example of why Vanguard is the failure it is. The arrogant, immature, self-inflated Sigil fan.
Go play your broken, bugfilled, grindfest of a game. Stop being so sensitive to every remark that makes you, y'know, look like the tiny minority- which is what people who like Vanguard are. Those 'bland' games (neither of which I play) each have more fans than your game of choice does. Deal with it.
Bite me, Turbine.
Some stray thoughts from one recently departed.
20% solo content sounds about right. Unfortunately there is not enough content in the game that 20% of the total is enough to support a solo player.
Performance issues: the game simply does not scale properly. Low visual, high performance settings should work well with current midrange hardware. That it does not is NOT the customers' fault.
Fast travel. The idea of having very widely dispersed starting areas was not a good one. The idea of deliberately ensuring that existing groups, such as guilds that migrated as a group into the game, would have difficulty gathering, both initially and for later grouping was not a good idea. Having low levels trying to assemble, but running into faction death didn't help. With such a large area, fixed teleports will be many indeed if they are to be really useful. Menus, sub-menus, sub-sub menus? Maybe just go to nearest to group members?
Drab. Well that about covers that.
This is just me: too damn dark, too long. Older eyes, torches lousy, excellent CRT with deep blacks, gamma adjusted properly; Night slider would have been nice. Nice people on the forums suggested that this was not the game for me.
Fun. The sum greater than the parts. Feature lists don't add up to the total game experience. It was noteworthy to me that Brad talked about features, but not about that which the players are looking for: fun.
The Vision. I've been watching the game a long time (2 years? More?) and I had the distinct feeling that back then it was talked up as hardcore. That changed some time ago (a year perhaps?) but I believe that's where the impression came from.
Fail? Probably not. Too much money would be lost. I expect some sort of rescue operation to be mounted to save the game, but I would not expect Brad to be part of that effort.
I paid for 2 months, I'll dink around in there until that's over, but I just can't ever see such a bland and passionless game ever keeping any base of subscribers. The adventuring is slow, dull, and very poorly done, crafting is just painful, and after the initial 'new' of diplomacy wears off, you see just how unbelievably stupid that little card game is. I can't think, honestly, of one single reason to recommend Vanguard over an established game. As bad as I hate EQ2, I'd recommend it ahead of Vanguard. Vanguard even sucks for roleplaying- none of the classes are interesting, none of the races have anything compelling to offer....and while there is a lot of lore, it's generic and not at all interesting.
It'll end up like Horizons. 10-15K rabid people believing it's going to take off and be a hit any day now.
don't try and estimate how many people play the game. You have no idea how many people are playing, and have no way of figuring out how many without an official statement from Sigil or SoE. It takes very little backbone to make up numbers that work best in the view you wish to convince others off.
You find the world bland and passionless? Way to go guy, I found SWG to be rather bland and passionless as well; didn't mean it was to the people playing it. I also found Eve to be dull and tedious; I'm still not an omnipotent god, with the ability to make all living beings bend to my will and feel as I do.
OMG, quick, inform the press some dude on the internents doesn't like a game. Get over yourself man.
Guess what? I hate romance novels, and I have absolutely no idea how many people are reading them.
You two with the adversion to advertising, trying to be all intelleducated and stuff.
The numbers are from the semi-official fan site, Silky Venom. Not from me.Here's a new word for you. State of the game address. Lots of games have these; there so that the player base can get an idea of the direction the game is headed, and to inform people not playing that may be interested in what the company is doing. If all it took to advertise something was some banners, print and video adss and maybe a radio spot or two, then damn, I should get a degree in marketing. Sounds like easy stuff to me.
And you are the perfect example of why Vanguard is the failure it is. The arrogant, immature, self-inflated Sigil fan.
Go play your broken, bugfilled, grindfest of a game. Stop being so sensitive to every remark that makes you, y'know, look like the tiny minority- which is what people who like Vanguard are. Those 'bland' games (neither of which I play) each have more fans than your game of choice does. Deal with it.
Hello, why are you so hostile? No game is perfect neither is Vanguard. Vanguard has been patched quite well, havent had any bugs since the last update. Maybe you should try this game and re-evaluate?
I paid for 2 months, I'll dink around in there until that's over, but I just can't ever see such a bland and passionless game ever keeping any base of subscribers. The adventuring is slow, dull, and very poorly done, crafting is just painful, and after the initial 'new' of diplomacy wears off, you see just how unbelievably stupid that little card game is. I can't think, honestly, of one single reason to recommend Vanguard over an established game. As bad as I hate EQ2, I'd recommend it ahead of Vanguard. Vanguard even sucks for roleplaying- none of the classes are interesting, none of the races have anything compelling to offer....and while there is a lot of lore, it's generic and not at all interesting.
It'll end up like Horizons. 10-15K rabid people believing it's going to take off and be a hit any day now.
don't try and estimate how many people play the game. You have no idea how many people are playing, and have no way of figuring out how many without an official statement from Sigil or SoE. It takes very little backbone to make up numbers that work best in the view you wish to convince others off.
You find the world bland and passionless? Way to go guy, I found SWG to be rather bland and passionless as well; didn't mean it was to the people playing it. I also found Eve to be dull and tedious; I'm still not an omnipotent god, with the ability to make all living beings bend to my will and feel as I do.
OMG, quick, inform the press some dude on the internents doesn't like a game. Get over yourself man.
Guess what? I hate romance novels, and I have absolutely no idea how many people are reading them.
You two with the adversion to advertising, trying to be all intelleducated and stuff.
The numbers are from the semi-official fan site, Silky Venom. Not from me.Here's a new word for you. State of the game address. Lots of games have these; there so that the player base can get an idea of the direction the game is headed, and to inform people not playing that may be interested in what the company is doing. If all it took to advertise something was some banners, print and video adss and maybe a radio spot or two, then damn, I should get a degree in marketing. Sounds like easy stuff to me.
And you are the perfect example of why Vanguard is the failure it is. The arrogant, immature, self-inflated Sigil fan.
Go play your broken, bugfilled, grindfest of a game. Stop being so sensitive to every remark that makes you, y'know, look like the tiny minority- which is what people who like Vanguard are. Those 'bland' games (neither of which I play) each have more fans than your game of choice does. Deal with it.
Taking every chance you can get to demonstrate you aptitude for lieing?
Sticks and stones an all that kid, I'm sure you hear it every day on the playground.
As far as go play it..just logged out about 2-3 hours ago, and yes, it's still a bland, uninspired experience that offers nothing that other games don't do better. Nothing has improved at all that I can see. You still die to unseen mobs when you cross a chunk line, you still get stuck immobile in the middle of open fields, mobs and NPCs are still walking backwards all over, and most of all- it's still no fun, and no challenge. It just takes forever to do anything- there's no more complexity than any other game. The first 10 level are fun with a new class, then it just turns to garbage.
To each their own- but don't try to make it out like Vanguard is popular. It isn't. Well over half the people who tried it rejected it (not scientific, just going by people I know/my guild/forums everywhere). So Fariic, go vent your fanboi angst on someone else. If you like it, fine, just have the guts to admit you're a very vocal, very small minority.
Bite me, Turbine.
I don't care if the game features player-built houses, the best economy ever, the most in-depth crafting system ever made, the biggest largest, prettiest, most fantastical graphics ever incorporated into a game. Your game can feature any and everything that has ever existed, but if it's not any fun, who cares, honestly?
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
vanguard has official forums?
since when?
yes, that is ALL i got out of that post. the rest was a lot of "blah blah blah, give us money, blah blah blah, we're not smedley's little girls blah blah blah".
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
(refering to BmQ's note) That also reminded me of Tony's Blairs bullshite when he first got elected spouting spin about "New Labour" and we all know how that turned out..
Water cooled Intel Corei7 920 D0 Stepping OC'd 4.3GHz - 6GB Corsair Dominator GT RAM 2000Mhz - ASUS RAGE II EXTREME X58 Mobo - 2x HD 5870 in Crossfire X, OC'd 0.9Ghz core 1.3Ghz RAM - Dell 2407WFP Flat Panel LCD 24" 1920x1200
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the definition, I really was unfamiliar with it. I went to Webster's Dictionary and looked up "viral" to see if there was another usage I was unfamiliar with, there wasn't. Apparently Webster's is not up on all the new marketing terminology.
What I meant by viral marketing is where someone buys the game and enjoys it and then convinces others who perhaps were not going to buy the game or were skeptical to buy the game. They can do this verbally, or though posts. In other words, when *players* tell others they like the game and this results in more people buying the game -- this is what I mean by viral marketing.
I do this often with movies. Sometimes I will see a trailer on TV and go see the movie just based on the trailer (300 comes to mind -- I haven't seen it yet but the trailer looks bad-ass). But more often I'll see the trailer or perhaps not see the trailer (I have a DVR and usually fast forward through commercials and miss trailers and the like). And based on the trailer or because I simply didn't hear about the movie, I don't go see it. But then if a friend who has similar tastes to me tells me he saw it and enjoyed it, then I will often go see it. If multiple people I trust tell me the movie rocks, then I most definitely go see it.
This is viral marketing for movies and it works the same way with computer games, etc.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks
I know I'm wordy and verbose when I post, but it's encouraging that you and others *did* understand what I was trying to say and do view what I am saying as consistent with what I've posted in the past, before release, etc.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Is it viral marketing when paid employees make those positive comments?
It sures seem unethical from where I sit, given Sony's past history.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
We tried to warn them. We told them that even those of us (including me) who prefer to group rather than solo, sometimes just feel like soloing a bit (for whatever reason -- you could name them). But they were adamant. They did not want to listen, and of course the fanbois said, "Go back to WOW if you want to solo" (or "play a single player game"). That's all well and good but then they launched and bombed, and the reality of the market hit them. You basically HAVE to have a soloable set of content now, or you lose massive numbers of potential players. And within weeks of launch they were announcing new "level 1-3 content that is soloable". Like Brad, once the reality of the market set in, they had to change their tune.
He's not fooling anyone though. I barely paid attention to all his Vanguard hype but even I know full well that he was touting the hardcore nature of it and the fact that you could not breeze through it like (according to him and other hardcores) you can through WOW. Now all of a sudden, he finds out that the casual market dwarfs the hardcore market by about 100 to 1 (if not more) and he was losing 99% of his potential market share by being a hard-a$$. Funny, isn't it, how money talks.
C
It's mind-boggling the number of peopel who think that Brad has changed his tune. I followed VG's development since 2003 and it's remained pretty consistent. It was ALWAYS a game that wanted to strike a balance between the old and the new. Always. There was NEVER any indication excpet in some very limited and specific ways in which it was compared to EQ. It was always a matter of borrowing certain aspects from a variety of MMOs. It's just that whenever it was compared with EQ in any way, the hardcore freaks ran with that and tuned everything else out. So when Jeff Butler said they understood over two years ago that people don't have the time to commit to a game as was required in EQ and this this limitation would be reflected in VG, apparently no one heard it! Or they heard it and pretended they didn't.
Thank you. I feel very strongly about being honest and consistent. Yet there are posts saying that the game isn't what it was advertised to be, or that what I am posting now is totally different to how I portrayed the game during beta or even before beta.
The vision has remained largely the game. That said, it is flexible and updatable and the gamespace has changed. I think we launched a game that is 80%+ what we'd hoped to launch. We did change some things along the way -- it was a long 5 years
We revamped Diplomacy based on beta feedback, we changed Crafting quite a bit, we put more casual content in the game than we had originally planned. And not all of the features we'd hoped would be in were in at launch, mostly because we had to launch a little early. But we will get there -- the team is working just as hard as it was prior to release. We are fixing bugs, optimizing, tweaking things, and then at the same time adding new content, features, etc. The emphasis right now is on the former, but that will slowly change as some of the more annoying issues or bugs are fixed. We'll slowly but surely put more resources towards putting those features in as well as new features we have planned for a long time to implement after launch (for example, evolving housing into player cities and putting in an RTS element, mounted and ship combat, etc.).
If someone does have a statement or post by me that they think is no longer valid or that I've more recently posted something that contradicts it, please post it and let me check it out. Thanks.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seem to recall Smedley banging on about WOW before the CU in SWG....
But the game needs more solo stuff thats for sure.
I've gotten my blood mage (great class btw) to lvl 17 all solo but really starting to run out of options to do stuff now all MMO's need a certain ammount of solo content and for me and the wife (who has the game bought but wont play it till theres a bit more duo content in).
I'm not a massive group player much prefer doing my own thing or play a game with my wife she's bored to tears with WOW and is looking for a new challenge and as i say she see's VG as her next MMO but at the moment its just too hardcore for her.
Where will it ever end? WOW has 7 million subs. Seven million!!! I have tried that game three times got a 60 Druid . I had a blast in EQ1 taking my Druid to 62 and then EQ2 came out. Took my Necro to 70 and thought it was the best game I had ever played. Mind you I soloed all these toons in all those games. I like to solo. Do things the way i want to not how 5 others want to do it. Sure i dont get the awesome stuff but still i have fun or try to. So far in Vanguard i hit lvl 20 today on my Pally, all solo except for a Lizard cave in Kojan that some guys needed a tank for. Sure I level slow but thats the way I like to play. Even with the bugs i have encountered I have still had fun so far. I like to explore and have seen some awesome sights. I am impressed that Brad has posted here. This is his baby and everyone wants to think that theirs is the best. Problems in the game, sure there are, but every game I play has bugs. People make em and people arent perfect neither are any of the games out there. I cant understand why some people hate the fact that some like the game. Some people are never satisfied with anything, they will find a way to bash no matter what. Some of you who have stated that the fanbois are the ones doing all the yelling should go back and read some of your posts again and really read them this time. Looks like its pretty even to me. Maybe and this is just a thought that some of you who will never get to design a game are deep down jealous that someone can do something that you cant so you are gonna try to bring him down. Well its America and seeing what the democrats are trying to do to our Commander in Chief I guess you got some good role models. Another good thing about Vanguard it made me build a new computer. Cant believe what the new video cards can do, and kudos to Intel for finally doing something right. Core 2 duos rock. Guess Im done , falling asleep. Hehe.
I followed the game since near conception (Buy out - Verant /SOE). Along the way I kept a cautious optimism as I saw what Brad was able to pull off with Everquest. Sigil has had ‘every’ MMO since EQ to measure itself with and yet with all this information the game simply did not live up to the expectation(s), not only of my personal beliefs, but the conceptualization that Brad himself projected. While playing the beta I was completely uninspired, the game lacked substance, meaning and purpose. My character was simply ‘existing’ in a world and not really part of it.
Essentially I’m left with the impression that Brad attempted to please a set of demographics than a true fan base. With this announcement (post in the FOH Forums) it only serves to confirm any and all suspicions, Brad made a game that wasn’t genuine to the nature of what he is capable of or set out to create.
The Old Timers Guild
Laid back, not so serious, no drama.
All about the fun!
www.oldtimersguild.com
An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it. - Jef Mallett
My youtube MMO gaming channel
Thank you for the definition, I really was unfamiliar with it. I went to Webster's Dictionary and looked up "viral" to see if there was another usage I was unfamiliar with, there wasn't. Apparently Webster's is not up on all the new marketing terminology.
What I meant by viral marketing is where someone buys the game and enjoys it and then convinces others who perhaps were not going to buy the game or were skeptical to buy the game. They can do this verbally, or though posts. In other words, when *players* tell others they like the game and this results in more people buying the game -- this is what I mean by viral marketing.
I do this often with movies. Sometimes I will see a trailer on TV and go see the movie just based on the trailer (300 comes to mind -- I haven't seen it yet but the trailer looks bad-ass). But more often I'll see the trailer or perhaps not see the trailer (I have a DVR and usually fast forward through commercials and miss trailers and the like). And based on the trailer or because I simply didn't hear about the movie, I don't go see it. But then if a friend who has similar tastes to me tells me he saw it and enjoyed it, then I will often go see it. If multiple people I trust tell me the movie rocks, then I most definitely go see it.
This is viral marketing for movies and it works the same way with computer games, etc.
What you call viral marketing is the same as word of mouth. Right now word of mouth is keeping a lot of people away. For many people Vanguard was an impulse buy. Nowhere on the box does it give details of your financial situation or give details on the actual state of the game. So they open it up find out about the problems and they get pissed. Trying to get help makes them even more pissed because they're usually called a liar, an idiot or they end up hearing the vanboi warcry of "Go back to WoW". It 's totally uncalled for.
If I had to buy Vanguard using your viral marketing concept I'd probably pass on it because you just can't get a clear picture of what it's like given the reviews by the diehard fanatics and their utter denial of the game having problems. Part of that problem could be solved with an official Vanguard website and forum. As it is now the affiliate sites are just a place where these diehards congregate to flame and insult anybody with problems or criticism. The tech support forums are just as bad. These diehards are doing you more harm than good. I think you should have a centralized location where people can get information and communicate with you and the other devs. A player council that could bring ideas and problems to the dev's attention might not be a bad idea either.
Right now I really don't envy you. It's seems that you're going from website to website in spin mode doing damage control mainly due to a botched patch. If that's not the case then I apologize but it sure does seem that way. I know you want to see your product succeed and so do I. I also know that most everything a company does is motivated in one way or another by money. This is a game for us. It's a business and livelihood for you. I don't dislike Vanguard. Actually I think it has great potential. The problem is that we don't pay for potential and right now with performance problems and all the bugs that are in the game the last thing people want to hear about is potential. It's nice to think of the future but if you don't take care of the present there isn't going to be a future. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to add new content when the content you have isn't working correctly. Like I said, I like Vanguard but I'm reaching my frustration threshhold with this game. If things don't turn around pretty quick, I'm going to shelve this game and probably never come back to it. There's just too many other games out there. The clock is ticking.