Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Brad's Latest Post
Teala
Member RarePosts: 7,627
Brad's latest post from Silky Venom
I believe I said it needed 200k-300k to be successful, and that I hoped to see 500k after the game was out 1 year, which would make it very profitable. So far we are in the mid 150s which is less than I would have hoped, but still good and still growing.
I have said we released 2-3 months early and that releasing near BC was a mistake, but there was nothing we could do about it. That doesn't mean we were perfect in our development -- we made mistakes -- I talked about in the NYT about how hard it was to manage and organize a team of 100 people when we were used to to EQ 1 (which had about 25 people). So yes, it was harder to schedule and remain as focused and efficient. We also had the switch from MSFT to SOE which slowed us down and caused us to start beta too early.
We also made the mistake of releasing a little early in terms of tech, e.g. we had hoped that computers would be cheaper that could run Vanguard by the time we launched. Time will fix this, but it is hurting us short term. In 20/20 hindsight we probably should have gone a bit lower tech and made a smaller world. But we really felt strongly from the very beginning that part of immersiveness in next gen MMOG was being seamless where you could travel wherever you wanted to, fly anywhere, be able to load any object in the world anywhere in the world, etc. Again, I think longer term as tech is increasing so rapidly, a lot of these problems will go away and having a seamless world with no instancing, ships and flying mounts, etc. will pay off.
I will apolgize for all of the above and the buck stops here. I won't, however, apologize for the team: they worked their asses off and continue to and truly believe in the game (as do I). That said, while I apologize for the mistakes, some of which we made and some of which were out of our hands, we also got the opportunity to make a very ambitious game, the game of our dreams, and were a start-up company that got a 30M+ budget, which is basically unheard of. So while VG does indeed have some issues, I know a lot of people are having fun with it, and a lot more will have fun with it in the future and call it a home. I am also proud to have been part of such an awesome team and to have been able to launch a second MMOG (not something a lot of people can say they have done). So, again, I do apologize for the shortcomings, but am also proud of the game and its potential, and am confident that while it is a successful game now (certainly not a WoW, but not a D&D online either) it will gain momentum as tech catches up, people tire of BC, etc. And also as we through both expansions and the live team add more really cool features to the game over the next year.
Also things like teleporters, experience rates, better LFG tools, etc. are all being looked at and you will see changes soon. I don't have the details yet, but we are listening and the game will get better and the areas where we messed up (large world, but too hard to find a group, etc.) will be addressed. - Brad McQuaid
Comments
so he is basicaly saying all performance issues are player pc related and that everyone that has issues with performance just needs to buy a new pc.
well well well....
he shocks me giving such bold figures like that. for example amount of subs, amount of money etc and for that he earns my respect. and unlike SOE they are truely trying to make the game better because i think they really believe in it.
in my opinion the only real mistake they made was having EQ2 in the back of their minds whilst making it.
I think what he was saying was they made the graphics too high end, not that we are too poor to buy a decent system. Very candid interview and I have more respect for him now than ever.
Yea that is what I get. He is right to a certain extent. I think video games do drive people to upgrade their systems. The only problem with this is that Vanguard is not a good game therefore even with an upgraded system it would not be fun.
For example, I upgraded my system to play Half-Life2. I have no regrets and the game was certainly worth it. I would really be pissed if I upgraded my system to play Vanguard.
An upgraded system is not going to get rid of the bugs, bad design, 1999 gameplay, etc. You would just be able to see how bad it is on a fast PC.
Stick a fork in it. It is dead.
Peace
I knew it! I knew there had to be some sort of goof ups in terms of management, just because nothing else made sense. With five years and over $30 million to spend, things should have been much farther along than they are, and now we see why.
We also had the switch from MSFT to SOE which slowed us down and caused us to start beta too early.
Wait...what? So does that mean that even after all that time and money for development from Microsoft, the game wasn't even on course for beta by the time SOE got to it?
If that's true, it would explain a lot.
We also made the mistake of releasing a little early in terms of tech, e.g. we had hoped that computers would be cheaper that could run Vanguard by the time we launched. Time will fix this, but it is hurting us short term.
Translation: It's not our fault the game runs poorly. It's your PC.
In 20/20 hindsight we probably should have gone a bit lower tech and made a smaller world.
Which would have been the smart thing to do. Put out an engine that actually works on most current setups, then revamp and update it later, maybe in an expansion pack, or in some other way that people know it's coming and that they need to upgrade to a much higher end machine than they can currently afford.
Well, let's see what was said here (without the fluff) :
* "it needed 200k-300k to be successful" and "So far we are in the mid 150s". That would mean by Brad's own measure, V:SoH is NOT successful and is, indeed, a failure.
* "we released 2-3 months early and that releasing near BC was a mistake, but there was nothing we could do about it" And so then, who forced this? Could it be SoE? But, they were just supposed to be supplying the Servers and the Billing. Yeah. Right.
* "...was being seamless.." The 'seamless' world in V:SoH is probably the biggest Lie in the whole system since it really is a LIE and not a bug/defect issue. This game has 'Chunks'??? In all other games, we call these 'Zones'. Just because V:SoH has renamed them, they are still Zones and the world is NOT seamless. Those who lag and crash when they hit these invisible Server Transfer points can attest to how not-seamless the world is.
* "...certainly not a WoW, but not a D&D online either...". Dang right V:SoH is not WoW. But, why chuck a stone at DDO? Kick the dog while it is down? Don't complain when others kick you when you are down.
* "...am confident that while it is a successful game now..." Uh, refer to your own criteria for Success that you laid out at the start of your post, Brad. V:SoH is NOT successful, by your own stated standards!
Rest of Brad's little missive is meaningless drivel and misdirection.
If Brad want's to make ammends, how about offering a refund to all of us that purchased this game *before* he came out and said it was released too soon and was unfinished. Then, maybe his 'apology' will mean something.
You know who else can say that? David Bowman of Horizons fame.
Also, "Boo hoo hoo! Managing people is HARD!" Another example of Brad's extraordinary lack of Vision.
Nearly every problem Vanguard has, was completely predictable by anyone with the sense to learn from experience (or school).
No, I think they were better off doing it this way in the long run. Decide on the tech you want and go with that. It's hard in the short run, when people don't quite have the hardware yet, but in the long run, you'll have a game that a year or two from now is still state of the art, and now easily playable, rather than one that is already 3-4 years out of date.
C
Actually, I am impressed with Brad's post and feel he has a pretty good handle on what needs to be done. The technical issues are not insurmountable as long as Sigil can deal with them quickly. Perhaps they should have worked on the technical issues, released the game with Thestra only, come back with Qalia and a bit more high end content about 6 months after release (as people hit the level cap), then release Kojan and a bit more high end content 12 months after release. This would have given them time to correct performance, a smaller but growing world, and a hook to keep players interested after the initial level cap. Boats, housing, and flying mounts would have been available through the Thestra characters. At least he seems to have a handle on what should have been, now let's see how they handle what can be. Overall, all is not doom and gloom.
Actually, I am impressed with Brad's post and feel he has a pretty good handle on what needs to be done. The technical issues are not insurmountable as long as Sigil can deal with them quickly. Perhaps they should have worked on the technical issues, released the game with Thestra only, come back with Qalia and a bit more high end content about 6 months after release (as people hit the level cap), then release Kojan and a bit more high end content 12 months after release. This would have given them time to correct performance, a smaller but growing world, and a hook to keep players interested after the initial level cap. Boats, housing, and flying mounts would have been available through the Thestra characters. At least he seems to have a handle on what should have been, now let's see how they handle what can be. Overall, all is not doom and gloom.
What I get from that part is that Sigil is not going to deal with the performance issues. They are going to let technology and people buying faster computers fix it.No, I think they were better off doing it this way in the long run. Decide on the tech you want and go with that. It's hard in the short run, when people don't quite have the hardware yet, but in the long run, you'll have a game that a year or two from now is still state of the art, and now easily playable, rather than one that is already 3-4 years out of date.
C
Yes and no.
Going by Brad's own post here, they started beta too early when they made the jump from Microsoft to Sony, and that jump was less than a year ago. If I'm reading that correctly, and they weren't even ready for beta then, then the tech was clearly too much even for Sigil, so scaling back for now should have been an option.
There's a difference between settling on the tech you want and going with it, and trying to force the issue of massive upgrades on an unsuspecting playerbase at launch. Vanguard did the latter, especially since the specs on the box don't give any real indication of just what is needed to properly run the game.
It's possible to upgrade tech as you go. I think even EQ did that after a while, offering new coats of paint and new graphical power over time. They could have done that here, and VG would have been better off for it.
One of the things that Brad assumes and that I would have to disagree with is the belief that time is on his side. The only thing that time is going to bring is more MMO's being launched. That is not a positive thing for VG. I don't believe the game is dead but with all of the hyped games going to launch this year VG really needs to step up and make a place for itself now.
I also believe that VG has sold around 150k boxes but I would be very curious to see how many of those people they will hold on to for any extended period of time. Time really isnt on your side Brad. Time to fix up your game or end up like DDO, Ryzom, SWG and the rest.
No, I think they were better off doing it this way in the long run. Decide on the tech you want and go with that. It's hard in the short run, when people don't quite have the hardware yet, but in the long run, you'll have a game that a year or two from now is still state of the art, and now easily playable, rather than one that is already 3-4 years out of date.
C
Uh, I hate to dispell this little fantasy, but, what you have in performance is what you have forever. The V:SoH is based on an old Unreal graphics engine. It is never going to get much better as the engine is not DX10 compatible. Heck, it is barely DX9 compatible. The same sort of philosophy was in play when EQ2 was developed and released with graphics that were for 'next-gen' computers. Well, it is 2 1/2 years later and EQ2 still cannot, and never will, run in a playable state with graphics options turned to higher quality levels. I am afraid the same is true of V:SoH. Without a Graphics Engine Upgrade, what you see is all you are ever going to get. Both in terms of quality and performance.
----------
Life sucks, buy a helmet.
QFT
What with WAR, AOC, Gods and Heroes, and about 5 other pretty heavy hitters coming out within the next year V:SOH needs to get itself in shape to try and gain it's core audience in time to not get destroyed when all these other titles drop.
*double posted*
Originally Posted by DJk_zero
"Unless you run at stone-age resolutions, be prepared to buy a new $2500 rig so as to actually have the game look good and still somewhat run like shit" ?
Seriously, Ive stayed out of most of the VG threads as there are more then enough people to point out how utterly wrong your attitude is to the MMOG playerbase and the industry in general, but holy hell do you need to seriously wake up to reality.
As much as I like to see competition in any industry, you and the people like you that share similar gaming mindsets need to be put out of business.
Brad's response was more of his typical bull that people need to upgrade their pc. I really feel sorry for those who still subscribe to the game. Dont confuse Brad's honesty - ie I know this game is badly designed and runs like shit - but please keep giving me money and upgrade your pc! - with the claims that the performance will improve. What they mean is your computer will improve performance when you upgrade it.
The serious deception is the so call minimum specs that were printed on the box at launch. At least when games like WOW print them you can actually play with those specs.
Brad McQuaid:
So, again, I do apologize for the shortcomings, but am also proud of the game and its potential, and am confident that while it is a successful game now (certainly not a WoW, but not a D&D online either) it will gain momentum as tech catches up, people tire of BC, etc.
Not to sound snarky, but:
1) DDO, which is a little over a year old, has settled at around 90,000 subscribers, according to MMORCHART.COM. A failure, to be sure, but only about 60,000 off of what Vanguard, which is 2 months old, currently sports.
2) According to Metacritic, the average score of the professional reviews DDO received was 74 with a high score of 93 and a low score of 42. Vanguard, on the other hand, has an average review score of 68 with a high of 81 and a low of 30.
As for Mr. McQuaid's assumption that people who get tired of Burning Crusade and/ or who upgrade their rigs will automatically choose Vanguard over the 3 or 4 other highly anticipated MMORPGs coming down the pike later in 2007...well...I guess he's one of those glass half-full guys.
I too am dubious with the 150k figure ..
Well, he said his piece, it provided some insight into the games current problems.
What wasn't said is a clear plan to get things straighten out and relaunch this game before the new titles get here.
He's hoping for people to naturally upgrade their computers and come to the game slowly, sort of like they did for Eve or EQ2...
but I don't think that will happen.... I will upgrade my computer later this year..and I'll be playing AOC or WAR online...
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Hahhahahhahahahah. FAR, far too funny.
This guy makes snake oil salesmen and tobacco execs look honest.
He's sooooo sorry. He "REALLY" wants to apologize. LOL.
Whats even funnier than him though, is the people who still buy his lame crap.
And by that, i mean, his "heart felt" sorrow for the state of his product crap, AND the crap product itself.
Yet another lesson for those of you who choose to worship this "wonder" of "game designing"
I can't wait to see how many of you buy his next product.Im betting very few of you learn the lesson this time either.
Like i said,its just too damn funny.