This year and early year VG have to contest with Aoc and War, follow by WoW x-pac ( 1 x-pac per year) and soon i think by blizz's new mmo ( http://pc.ign.com/articles/784/784124p1.html ) ................ its very very hard.....
There IS a chance for VG. That is to make a game with the freedom of early pre-NGE SWG and the story-richeness of LOTRO. Then they would have a place which their competitors can not fill. (Its guesswork on AoC and WAR, but I am quite sure they wont fill that space.) The question is, do they realize that is their only escape?
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Originally posted by Omega3 WHy is everyone bashing SoE regarding the vanguard issue?
Sigil designed Vanguard, not SoE. Sigil is responsible for the game's failure, not SoE. People are not quitting because SoE is taking over, people are quitting since the game was in beta, simply because it sucks, and that's Sigil's own doing. Give SoE a break. Beside failing EQ2 launch and SWG NGE 2 years ago, it's not like they have been making crap games for the past 1( years...
If I can correct you on this, SOE bought Vanguard from Sigil due to Sigil financial issues. SOE pushed for the premature release of Vanguard not Sigil. Planetside (great game, but due to poor management from SOE the game is all screwed up. Poor maintenance, poor updates, raising the monthly subcription after doing an update.. pathetic, etc) SWG (Do I need to say anything about this game?) EQ 2 (Good game, unfortunately the greed of SOE shined on this game 3 expansions and 3 adventure packs, all at cost nothing for free or discounted for player loyalty) Vanguard (Good game, unfortunately released 3 months before it should) Matrix Online (LOL this is joke or a game) Seems to me that there is more than 1 or 2 games in question
No you are wrong. 1.) Sigil took about 5 years and 30 million dollars to develop this title. 2.) Sigil was orginally signed up with Microsoft. 3.) Microsoft dumped Sigil because they were not meeting their benchmarks and the game was clearly behind in development. 4.) Sigil went shopping for a new publisher after being dumped by Microsoft. They found one called SOE and signed a contract with SOE. 5.) The contracted deal allowed SOE the right to manage the servers and advertise the game in exchange for giving Sigil continued development dollars in order to get the game out the door. 6.) Sigil are currently the owners of Vangaurd. 7.) Sigil still have development control over Vangaurd hence the post of Brad suggesting the eventual selling out of their development control of VG to SOE. Brad and the gang have yet again run out of steam, money and ability and now they can't fix their broken game. Out of all the publishers Sigil could of gone with they decided to go with SOE because Brad knew that if things went wrong he could sell out to SOE like he did with EQ1. Please get your facts straight before posting on the internet again.
You should also get your facts straight. You are being too generous and giving SOE a complete pass. It is a fact that SOE developers worked on Vanguard prior to it being released. Therefore they knew what kind of condition the game was in, and that is was not ready to be launched, yet they marketed it as being complete and released it as ready. Launching an incomplete and buggy product is a recipe for failure, and either SOE is completely clueless or they acted fraudulently with Sigil.
They worked on VG at the request of Sigil who still owns the game.
Again get your facts straight. SOE does not own the game and does not have any finical responsibility for the game.
Sigil was the one who decided to launch the game because even after SOE's cash injection they still did not have the funds to finish their project. In the real adult world you have to own up to the contracts you sign and meet your end of a contract ( which includes deadlines ! ) or else face consequences.
Sigil made a deal with SOE when they picked SOE as a publisher. Sigil new they had to get the game ready for launch by a certain time period which was part of the contract with SOE. SOE gave them money and lent them developers upon Sigil's request. SOE was very generous by lending out developers to help out Sigil when Brad requested their help because they did not have to do this at all.
SOE is not a money tree and they are not responsible for Brad's total mismanagement of Vangaurd. Sigil failed after receiving more funding just as they failed with Microsoft. SOE was under no obligation contractually to help out Sigil in any sort of way in regards to development as it was not part of their deal.
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
Well, while for the fans of mcquaid and company (I am most assuredly not one of them) I hope sony is able to make vanguard the game it could have been, and should have been. Doubt it will happen, but like myself and many others predicted Sigil will most likely become a part of SOE. Whether that is good or bad for Vanguard, its hard to say however, it would be hard for SOE to do any worse than McQuaid and company have.
Also for those who throw AoC and War out there those are 2 different types of games than is VG, granted you can tell which I am looking forward to. but both are pvp central games with pve thrown in. Where as VG is strictly pve with pvp simply a pointless option as of right now.
True, but if you look at Brad's post, his biggest hope is that people will get bored with WoW and jump ship to Vanguard by the end of the year. That would presumably include PvP players.
It's more likely that a PvP-centric player in WoW would be more attracted to games like WAR and AoC, just because those games are made with their play styles in mind. Why they would look at VG is a mystery to me, and will be a mystery to Brad in a few months when there isn't a sudden influx to VG.
Now that I sit and think more on this prolly the best thing to do would be to simply shut down, offer refunds, sell to SOE and then open back up with a fresh launch when its ready, Otherwise you are going to most likely alienate your loyal customers causing more bad press while also making it look like another SWG fiasco. I guess they are damned if the do or dont in this situation.
Pretty much. The only other alternative is to openly and deliberately charge people $15 a month to keep beta testing a game that even the lead developer now admits was at least a year from being ready when it launched. That's not really going to be attracting anyone save for the mindless VG fanboy, since most players would presumably rather pay for a quality game than one that is still blatantly a beta-level one.
At this point, they're better off either shutting down the servers while they work on the game, or not charging people while they fix it. Anything else looks really bad, and wouldn't exactly motivate people to jump over to VG.
I know this is mean spirited of me but; remember when it was first announced that SOE would publish the game and a lot of people were upset about it. And remember all the people (including Brad) who reasured the upset fans that SOE's involvement would never be very deep. ....yeah, no real point to make here. Just reminiscing.
Brad should have remembered, when you pay Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.
Personally, I think SOE was brilliant with Vanguard.
1. If it was successful the make money off a potential competitor.
2. If it fails, the get to buy Vanguard cheap so they can strip it bare and kill it whenever they want, make Brad look foolish and pretty much make it so Brad not going off to start working on EQ3.
3. Hell, even if it's a niche game, SOE gets money and can tease Brad about low subscriber numbers.
This year and early year VG have to contest with Aoc and War, follow by WoW x-pac ( 1 x-pac per year) and soon i think by blizz's new mmo ( http://pc.ign.com/articles/784/784124p1.html ) ................ its very very hard.....
There IS a chance for VG. That is to make a game with the freedom of early pre-NGE SWG and the story-richeness of LOTRO. Then they would have a place which their competitors can not fill. (Its guesswork on AoC and WAR, but I am quite sure they wont fill that space.) The question is, do they realize that is their only escape?
hmm well I don't see SOE doing this for SWG so I highly doubt they'll do it for VG. Not flaming just saying
I hope that the game Does do EXACTLY what brad hopes that it will over the next year.
I am one of those gamers that he's talking about that will get a new system this year, that will run DX10 games.
The little bit I played in the beta seemed fun, it was my system's limitations that kept me from getting it.... that and I plan not to be burned by SOE again.
but I'm not dumb enough to think that a company throwing as much cash at an industry, with as much tallent as it has behind it's doors, will miss on every single product that they put out.
Vanguard has allot of potential, it always has had. it's having a slow start, and I'm glad to see that there ARE plans to try to get it to where it should be, instead of where it is now, instead of just abandoning it all together.
It's funny becuase I fit his 'projections' almost perfectly... Older (busier now) X-Hard Core MMORPG player, who got sick of the 'Raid Game' at the end of WoW BC, so is trying out LOTRO for a bit, but looks forward to getting into Vanguard once I start hearing the 'All Clear' from players that I trust.
Anyway, I thought I'd just toss my 2 bits up here... those people that Brad is hoping are in the world, Really ARE in the world... I'm one of them.
I hope that the game Does do EXACTLY what brad hopes that it will over the next year.
I am one of those gamers that he's talking about that will get a new system this year, that will run DX10 games.
The little bit I played in the beta seemed fun, it was my system's limitations that kept me from getting it.... that and I plan not to be burned by SOE again.
but I'm not dumb enough to think that a company throwing as much cash at an industry, with as much tallent as it has behind it's doors, will miss on every single product that they put out.
Vanguard has allot of potential, it always has had. it's having a slow start, and I'm glad to see that there ARE plans to try to get it to where it should be, instead of where it is now, instead of just abandoning it all together.
It's funny becuase I fit his 'projections' almost perfectly... Older (busier now) X-Hard Core MMORPG player, who got sick of the 'Raid Game' at the end of WoW BC, so is trying out LOTRO for a bit, but looks forward to getting into Vanguard once I start hearing the 'All Clear' from players that I trust.
Anyway, I thought I'd just toss my 2 bits up here... those people that Brad is hoping are in the world, Really ARE in the world... I'm one of them.
Go get em tiger. I'm rootin for ya. :- P
zWolf -out.
So you are now casual player? or solo or still hardcore? Can dis game really like Brad say cater to all type? And i dont understand what core means. What kind of play style is the core players? I think Brag and Co. shld stick to their vision and not trying to please all types for no game can do that. And this is 1 of their biggest problem...
I hope that the game Does do EXACTLY what brad hopes that it will over the next year.
I am one of those gamers that he's talking about that will get a new system this year, that will run DX10 games.
The little bit I played in the beta seemed fun, it was my system's limitations that kept me from getting it.... that and I plan not to be burned by SOE again.
but I'm not dumb enough to think that a company throwing as much cash at an industry, with as much tallent as it has behind it's doors, will miss on every single product that they put out.
Vanguard has allot of potential, it always has had. it's having a slow start, and I'm glad to see that there ARE plans to try to get it to where it should be, instead of where it is now, instead of just abandoning it all together.
It's funny becuase I fit his 'projections' almost perfectly... Older (busier now) X-Hard Core MMORPG player, who got sick of the 'Raid Game' at the end of WoW BC, so is trying out LOTRO for a bit, but looks forward to getting into Vanguard once I start hearing the 'All Clear' from players that I trust.
Anyway, I thought I'd just toss my 2 bits up here... those people that Brad is hoping are in the world, Really ARE in the world... I'm one of them.
Go get em tiger. I'm rootin for ya. :- P
zWolf -out.
So you are now casual player? or solo or still hardcore? Can dis game really like Brad say cater to all type? And i dont understand what core means. What kind of play style is the core players? I think Brag and Co. shld stick to their vision and not trying to please all types for no game can do that. And this is 1 of their biggest problem... No, Vanguard can't fit all types of MMO gamers.
Fundamentally, it's a huge step backwards for "casual" gamers with the absence of instancing, quick-paths to advanced content and ease of creating new characters on a whim to play with existing characters of one's friends.
For "hardcore" raiding players, again, a step backwards in that the lack of instancing will leave Vanguard forever unable to compare to World of Warcraft for guilds that like to raid. It's back to 1st-generation never knowing when a mob is up or down, and therefore being unable to schedule guild events around it. A guild calendar looks much better with guaranteed content on it, rather than "We might do this...if it's up." and many disappointed nights.
As for the "core" gamer...that was just a mythical audience Sigil wanted badly to believe existed. No one can generalize the market, especially not in just three archetypes. If one had to make a guess, it's best just to assume the vast majority is casual and content should be designed thusly.
Sigil was just too brazen...they essentially thought they could reverse the casualness of the market by easing everyone back into the sadomasochistic relationship between developers and players. The only reason that worked in the past was because of limited options and limited amount of MMOs on the horizon being poised by unproven companies, not because players actually liked it or knew they could like a more casual model more. I honestly believe Brad was teetering on the edge of his seat leading up to launch at the prospect of being able to punish players with harsh death penalties, cycles of nerfs and buffs, stints of waiting on patches and etc. all over again.
Anyway, in short, they failed the "casual" gamers by simply believing offering solo-"friendly" content was enough, even though the typical casual gamer probably cares more about not having to dig into their .ini file more than a host of two-dot overland insects. I have friends who couldn't even take Florendyl seriously as an RP server due to the inability to "sit". Casual gamers care about more than just solo-friendly content, there's more to the definition of casual. Usually little things hook casual gamers, and Vanguard is without a lot of "little" things, everything presented is plain and overarching like Diplomacy.
They failed the raiders by ignoring what was great about instancing, particularly scripted events tailor fit to different raid sizes that can wantonly involve the environment. Not even a minor encounter like Onyxia could break out in a Vanguard dungeon without consideration to uninvolved others who could be destroyed by lava bursting out the ground (not that Vanguard's "third-generation" engine could handle it.)
In general, Sigil just wanted to do first-generation all over again for nostalgia's sake; ironically nostalgia is what they warned their most zealot of fans against. Sigil didn't really do anything functional towards creating a third-generation game by improving upon anything second-generation. Why? Because Sigil believes first-generation was better in the first place, so if they reverted, they cure all of the "problems" of second generation games that were actually improvements over the first.
Vanguard is fundamentally flawed...it's crafted with no one in mind who really exists, not even the people who play it not minding that there are faster, smoother, more widely received "fun" choices out there. Vanguard is pretty much thriving off whatever made pet rocks a fad; if enough people know about it, some people are bound to buy it for whatever reason. Despite that, there exists no specific reason or "hook" in Vanguard for any of those three major audiences Sigil attempts to describe, because there exists other games that do it better for those crowds.
To all those who said SOE is just a publisher for this game, I told you so. To all those who said SOE exerts no influence over the game, I told you so. To all those who said Brad would never sell to SOE, I told you so. To all those who bought Brad's lies and bs over how the partnership with SOE gave Sigil more control, I told you so. To all those who said the game was growing, rather than going down the tubes, I told you so. Omg I could go on and on. What a rough day for fanbois. I picture them with a paper sack over their heads.
Ditto bro, I said the same and the morons didn't listen.
You should also get your facts straight. You are being too generous and giving SOE a complete pass.
It is a fact that SOE developers worked on Vanguard prior to it being released. Therefore they knew what kind of condition the game was in, and that is was not ready to be launched, yet they marketed it as being complete and released it as ready.
Launching an incomplete and buggy product is a recipe for failure, and either SOE is completely clueless or they acted fraudulently with Sigil.
They worked on VG at the request of Sigil who still owns the game.
Again get your facts straight. SOE does not own the game and does not have any finical responsibility for the game.
Sigil was the one who decided to launch the game because even after SOE's cash injection they still did not have the funds to finish their project. In the real adult world you have to own up to the contracts you sign and meet your end of a contract ( which includes deadlines ! ) or else face consequences.
Sigil made a deal with SOE when they picked SOE as a publisher. Sigil new they had to get the game ready for launch by a certain time period which was part of the contract with SOE. SOE gave them money and lent them developers upon Sigil's request. SOE was very generous by lending out developers to help out Sigil when Brad requested their help because they did not have to do this at all.
SOE is not a money tree and they are not responsible for Brad's total mismanagement of Vangaurd. Sigil failed after receiving more funding just as they failed with Microsoft. SOE was under no obligation contractually to help out Sigil in any sort of way in regards to development as it was not part of their deal.
You completely ignored my point. No surprise.
SOE was responsible for publishing and marketing. They knew the condition of the game because some of their staff had worked on it, which you don't deny. They were either dishonest when they marketed the game, or their staff is clueless, having worked on it and therefore knowing it's condition, still presented it as ready and complete to the public. SOE's hands are just as dirty as Sigil's.
WHy is everyone bashing SoE regarding the vanguard issue? Sigil designed Vanguard, not SoE. Sigil is responsible for the game's failure, not SoE. People are not quitting because SoE is taking over, people are quitting since the game was in beta, simply because it sucks, and that's Sigil's own doing. Give SoE a break. Beside failing EQ2 launch and SWG NGE 2 years ago, it's not like they have been making crap games for the past 1( years...
If I can correct you on this, SOE bought Vanguard from Sigil due to Sigil financial issues. SOE pushed for the premature release of Vanguard not Sigil.
Planetside (great game, but due to poor management from SOE the game is all screwed up. Poor maintenance, poor updates, raising the monthly subcription after doing an update.. pathetic, etc)
SWG (Do I need to say anything about this game?)
EQ 2 (Good game, unfortunately the greed of SOE shined on this game 3 expansions and 3 adventure packs, all at cost nothing for free or discounted for player loyalty)
Vanguard (Good game, unfortunately released 3 months before it should)
Matrix Online (LOL this is joke or a game)
Seems to me that there is more than 1 or 2 games in question
No you are wrong.
1.) Sigil took about 5 years and 30 million dollars to develop this title.
2.) Sigil was orginally signed up with Microsoft.
3.) Microsoft dumped Sigil because they were not meeting their benchmarks and the game was clearly behind in development.
4.) Sigil went shopping for a new publisher after being dumped by Microsoft. They found one called SOE and signed a contract with SOE.
5.) The contracted deal allowed SOE the right to manage the servers and advertise the game in exchange for giving Sigil continued development dollars in order to get the game out the door.
6.) Sigil are currently the owners of Vangaurd.
7.) Sigil still have development control over Vangaurd hence the post of Brad suggesting the eventual selling out of their development control of VG to SOE.
Brad and the gang have yet again run out of steam, money and ability and now they can't fix their broken game. Out of all the publishers Sigil could of gone with they decided to go with SOE because Brad knew that if things went wrong he could sell out to SOE like he did with EQ1.
Please get your facts straight before posting on the internet again.
hey smedly i didnt know you posted on mmorpg.com , dude stop defending soe unless you work for them..they dont listen to their customers and they take you for every penny they can.................vanguard failed because soe took over from microsoft in the middle of developement and probably changed alot about the game...i mean its even got the soe memory leaks that we have all come to know...soe is in control of this game dont be foolish by fooling yourself , brad is full of lies and i hope he doesnt get to make another mmo again....he is holding back the genre.
An insider told me that he was present at a meeting with Brad, Smedley and president Mobutou. During the meeting Mobutou walked out stating that "Though I agree with SOE's financial plan their reputation would only lower my standings with the international community!". Later on in the Lobby Mobutou was heard saying "I think Vanguard would be an excellent investment for my country, however I feel that with the XP weekends it just isn't hardcore enough for me. And his vision speech was so funny it had me in stitches, he should give up his day job!"
So Brad will be doing his bailout act this summer and handing Vanturd: Saga of Half truths over to the darklord Smed. Then you'll get the VCU (like a VCR only more outdated) probably included in the first expansion pack "The Big Cashin", sounds like a good name for it? The real question is, how long can the remaining playerbase remain in denial? As it seems Brad is in the proccess of preparing his golden parachute for the bailout, denial is no longer a problem for him!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
So here's the first topic, starting with the current official statement from SOE: "SOE is in discussions with Sigil regarding the future of Vanguard and Sigil Games in Carlsbad. Talks are going well and first and foremost, our primary concern right now is what's best for Vanguard and its community. We want to ensure that this game and its community have a healthy future. The specifics that we work out over the coming days will all be with that single goal in mind." What does that mean? It means that right now Vanguard is doing decently but not as well as we hoped. If you haven't read my last long post that outlined some of the things that went wrong during development, etc., please do. So the bottom line is that SOE is going to be getting more involved with Sigil and Vanguard - our relationship is going to become even tighter - much tighter. At this point I can't say much more than that. Does this mean an acquisition? I can't say at this point. Does this mean more or less people at Sigil? I can't say at this point. Does this mean management changes at Sigil? I can't say at this point. What it does mean at this point is that both companies agree that we need more of SOE's involvement if Vanguard is going to continue to get the support it needs to both continue to be worked on and improved and debugged and optimized. When people start getting burned out of the Warcraft expansion (pardon the pun), we need to make sure that the game is more polished and will play on lower end machines. As people continue to level up, it means that we need additional higher level content, including raid content. If we are going to change our marketing message effectively to target those who played a lot of EverQuest but who have ‘grown up' such that they have jobs, families, etc. that they cannot and will not play another EverQuest even though they enjoyed they game years ago. We've done studies and it's not atypical of an old EQ player, when they hear about Vanguard, to assume that because many of the people involved in Vanguard's development worked on EQ as well, that Vanguard must simply be an EQ 3. From that point they don't even give Vanguard another look. They don't do any more research on the game. They don't go to the official sites. They don't go to the affiliate sites. Instead they think to themselves, "ah well, were I younger and had my life not changed, I'd give it a shot, but I just don't have the time for another EQ with better graphics right now." And that's it - they don't give Vanguard another thought EQ peaked in late 2001 at almost 500k subscribers. In its lifetime it's sold over 2 million units. Putting EQ in a vacuum and that's a lot of people who played and who aren't playing anymore. And the total number of subscribers didn't start going down until sometime 2002. I'm also pretty sure up until its peak that the average lifespan of a player was nearing 9-12 months. And as I mentioned in my last lengthy post, this group of people who played but don't anymore could arguably be put into two sub-groups - those who look back fondly at those months and even years and those who don't. I have read posts and received emails from people who claim to have played to max level and then quit very angry - the "I just played your game for 2 years and now I hate you" emails. But realistically how big is that group? Even if it was half (boggle) the other group is still pretty big. So ignoring all of the people who have quit or who are growing bored of their current MMOG (WoW, FFXI, DAoC, etc) that need to be reached (and in a very different way, especially the WoW player), both a word of mouth and a formal marketing campaign targeting these people clearly needs to launched. These people need to know that Vanguard does have the ‘EQ feel' in many ways but that it is much more soloable than EQ was, especially the early EQ days. They need to know that you can play for short periods of time and advance. They need to know that the ‘end game' is not all about raiding into the wee hours of the night. Some subset of these people will still feel burnt out of MMOGs period, but I think there's a lot of people who haven't been reached and our and others research supports that. False assumptions are being made by a lot of people. The reality is that Vanguard *is* the game most of these people are looking for - it has the good they remember, but has eliminated a lot of the tedium and necessary long hours that don't fit into their lifestyle anymore. Then there are the people who are growing weary of their current MMOG. Given how much larger the MMOG gamespace has grown since EQ's zenith in 2001 (arguably 7 times as large worldwide, and at least 2-3 time as large in North America alone), we have to take advantage of this. At some point these people are going to want to start a new MMOG (especially after the WoW expansion newness has worn out, which for most of the non-hard-core would be when you really have to start raiding in the expansion). LoTR Online is an x-factor - reviews from beta testers seem to indicate that the game is more casual like WoW, a small game, and that it looks really good but can run on a lower end system much better than Vanguard (just as WoW can). So at least for a time the more casual bored WoW player may migrate to LoTR Online. How sticky (e.g. how long that game will hold onto players) is unknown, but I think it's safe to say that a significant percentage of the more casual bored WoW player will head to LoTR - at least first, given the franchise around it. Conservatively this leaves the more hard core WoW player (which in Vanguard or EQ terms would be considered either a hard core or, more likely, a core gamer). That number, even just taking the North American and European gamer is still potentially a large one and needs to be targeted (given Vanguard's high system specs, the time it will take to localize, and Blizzard's name recognition and pre-existing proven marketing ability in Asia, I wouldn't count that group, although a very significant one, until 2008 or so. Targeting that group is for a future discussion). Lastly, there's the very real issue of Vanguard's system specs, even for the core and hard core gamer in North America and Europe. For a variety of reasons and mistakes on our part that I won't get into right now, Vanguard was released with system spec requirements that were too high for January 2007. Continued optimization will help to a degree, but the game's big hope here is simply Moore's Law and that by the second half of 2007, and certainly by the end of the year, the system spec issue will have been greatly diminished. The big problem that remains is that you still pretty much need a new system as opposed to, say, simply a new graphics card. But eventually, gamers do replace their systems. Given what Vista (especially the Ultimate edition) takes to really run, combined with other games that come out by the end of the year that really push technology, many people will be compelled to buy new systems. Unlike EQ, which was one of the first hardware only games, Vanguard needs not only a fast graphics card, but also a system with pci-express, fast memory, a fast FSB, etc. With EQ, you just needed to buy a Voodoo 1 or Voodoo 2 - the rest of your system is fine. With Vanguard, however, just plugging the fastest AGP card into your 2-3 year old system doesn't cut it. In fact, Vanguard runs pretty well on a 2 GB system with a decent pci-express video card and fast memory in a 2.6 GHz Pentium; conversely, run the game on an older AGP system, the fastest AGP card you can buy, and a 3.2 GHz CPU and you'll have framerate issues. The game is simply not CPU bound, nor just graphics card bound, but rather mostly bound by the data that it needs to constantly move from the CPU to main memory to the graphics card, and then all the way back again. It's all about the various bus speeds and caches - moving data around efficiently is arguably more important than processing that data on the CPU or GPU. The only fix here, again, is time. Vista (especially the Ultimate edition, which is what's being pushed to gamers) wants fast components. Direct X 10 hardware and software will help a lot, especially when there is a DX10 version of Vanguard. A native 64bit client of Vanguard will eventually help a lot too. Bottom line: by the end of 2007, a lot more people should have upgraded, especially if Microsoft succeeds with Vista and native DX 10 games. And if they really push Gaming for Windows like they did, say, the Xbox 360, the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008 should be a very different landscape for PC games in general and Vanguard specifically. Was the Vanguard tech ahead of its time? Yes, and there has been a price to pay for that short term (although many people are able to play with older machines - why? Different configurations, different settings, different thresholds for lower framerates, etc.). But MMOGs ideally never end and if you've architected your engine to both push the limits of existing and near future technology as well as easily employ future technologies, then you have a game that doesn't look dated one, two, even three plus years down the road. And that's what we did with Vanguard - so we feel some pain now, but if we can keep the momentum going, this decision pays off in the long run (big time). In summary, there are arguably a lot of people who by mid to end of this year in the MMOG gamespace for whom Vanguard could potentially be very attractive. What the game needs is a re-launch of sorts, including targeted marketing campaigns, an all-around successful move by gamers to the next generation of hardware, continued good word of mouth ‘viral' marketing by those who are already playing, enjoying, and re-subscribing. And all of this could and should ramp up by the end of the year, all the while the Vanguard team is putting in more content, the live team filling out high level content as well as adding to areas of the game's vast seamless world which are a bit empty. Then a re-launch towards the end of the year plus the first expansion (which is looking like first quarter 200, one that would add RTS style city building, ship to ship combat, jousting, and a second ‘half' of the Kojanese Archipelago that makes ship travel meaningful - and by meaningful I mean not tedious, rewarding exploration, with lots of new areas (both in the existing world and in the extension of the archipelago). And I'm talking about some re-use of existing art, combined with new art that fits into the existing continents, and then finally some all out new stuff - different styles of terrain (islands) and ocean to look at while making your journey to found a new player city while constantly being attacked by exotic sea creatures, leviathans, and other traditional members of fantasy and crypto-zoology. Not to mention pirates with canons, or other players and their ships on the PvP servers. And who knows, could be first expansion or second, but eventually you need to pull from Mesoamerican mythology, encounter empires based on Greco-roman architecture... it goes on and on, it's all planned out, and Vanguard can do all of it given sufficient time. The tools have matured, both in terms of art and design, and the art process orders of magnitude more efficient because of years of Maya scripting, an in-house terrain generator that creates what you want as opposed to spitting out algorithmically generated hills and valleys, and an art team that has this process down pat - for example, they were able to re-create Tursh and Leth Nurae in a fraction of time it took them to create the original, smaller, and much less interesting ‘versions'. "SOE is in discussions with Sigil regarding the future of Vanguard and Sigil Games in Carlsbad. Talks are going well and first and foremost, our primary concern right now is what's best for Vanguard and its community. We want to ensure that this game and its community have a healthy future. The specifics that we work out over the coming days will all be with that single goal in mind." So what does that mean again? Again, I apologize for not being able to go into details and it's the details that need to be worked out. But I think it's safe to say that both Sigil and SOE see the potential of a mind blowing game by the end of the year. What's needed, bottom line, is some time, and how to get that time is what's being worked out. And so I still see a 500k+ game, I was just off by a year for a variety of reasons, some under my control, many not. And I think SOE sees this as well. To pull it off however, requires a funded and supported Sigil and a well marketed Vanguard with these different target audiences identified and solid plan on how to reach them all, and then a solid execution of said plan, hitting them hard, pushing these ‘WoW everywhere' point of purchase materials from the front to the very back.. In the meantime, the Vanguard that was launched in early 2007 continues to move forward, with much of what I've talked about patched in over time, and the rest in the first expansion (or re-launch, or whatever we all agree upon in terms of product and service placement). Bottom line, Vanguard continues to march forward, a solid and fun game today, and an even better one tomorrow. More ‘state of the game' posts by me, a regularly updated ‘In the Works' http://vgplayers.station.sony.com/inTheWorks.vm. And whatever kind of increased partnership between Sigil and SOE is necessary to make this vision a reality. And again, as for what that means exactly, more on that later TM.
Huh...this one seemed kind of short. He must be slipping.
Brad's response is just like his games. Long, drawn out, boring and in the end, of no value whatsoever. I staunchly supported Vanguard for a long time but this is freaking pathetic. I spend the time to read thru his whole long novel only to realize that he said nothing except "Boohoo my game sucks but it's not my fault and one day it will be greatif someone else revamps it completely". Jeez!!! Didn't we hear this on Day One of release when he gave his "three months to make the game playable" speech? Now his tune has changed to "We need SOE to bail our ass out and maybe in a year we will be good". How delusional can he possibly be?
Brad has now jumped ship twice. At least the EQI ship wasn't sinking when he jumped it. His long "War and Peace" novels of PR spin have in my opinion done as much to ruin his game as the bugs and lack of content. I hear him say one thing and I tend to believe another. Way to go Brad if your trying to single handely destroy your own game.
So here's the first topic, starting with the current official statement from SOE: "SOE is in discussions with Sigil regarding the future of Vanguard and Sigil Games in Carlsbad. Talks are going well and first and foremost, our primary concern right now is what's best for Vanguard and its community. We want to ensure that this game and its community have a healthy future. The specifics that we work out over the coming days will all be with that single goal in mind." What does that mean? It means that right now Vanguard is doing decently but not as well as we hoped. If you haven't read my last long post that outlined some of the things that went wrong during development, etc., please do. So the bottom line is that SOE is going to be getting more involved with Sigil and Vanguard - our relationship is going to become even tighter - much tighter. At this point I can't say much more than that. Does this mean an acquisition? I can't say at this point. Does this mean more or less people at Sigil? I can't say at this point. Does this mean management changes at Sigil? I can't say at this point. What it does mean at this point is that both companies agree that we need more of SOE's involvement if Vanguard is going to continue to get the support it needs to both continue to be worked on and improved and debugged and optimized. When people start getting burned out of the Warcraft expansion (pardon the pun), we need to make sure that the game is more polished and will play on lower end machines. As people continue to level up, it means that we need additional higher level content, including raid content. If we are going to change our marketing message effectively to target those who played a lot of EverQuest but who have ‘grown up' such that they have jobs, families, etc. that they cannot and will not play another EverQuest even though they enjoyed they game years ago. We've done studies and it's not atypical of an old EQ player, when they hear about Vanguard, to assume that because many of the people involved in Vanguard's development worked on EQ as well, that Vanguard must simply be an EQ 3. From that point they don't even give Vanguard another look. They don't do any more research on the game. They don't go to the official sites. They don't go to the affiliate sites. Instead they think to themselves, "ah well, were I younger and had my life not changed, I'd give it a shot, but I just don't have the time for another EQ with better graphics right now." And that's it - they don't give Vanguard another thought EQ peaked in late 2001 at almost 500k subscribers. In its lifetime it's sold over 2 million units. Putting EQ in a vacuum and that's a lot of people who played and who aren't playing anymore. And the total number of subscribers didn't start going down until sometime 2002. I'm also pretty sure up until its peak that the average lifespan of a player was nearing 9-12 months. And as I mentioned in my last lengthy post, this group of people who played but don't anymore could arguably be put into two sub-groups - those who look back fondly at those months and even years and those who don't. I have read posts and received emails from people who claim to have played to max level and then quit very angry - the "I just played your game for 2 years and now I hate you" emails. But realistically how big is that group? Even if it was half (boggle) the other group is still pretty big. So ignoring all of the people who have quit or who are growing bored of their current MMOG (WoW, FFXI, DAoC, etc) that need to be reached (and in a very different way, especially the WoW player), both a word of mouth and a formal marketing campaign targeting these people clearly needs to launched. These people need to know that Vanguard does have the ‘EQ feel' in many ways but that it is much more soloable than EQ was, especially the early EQ days. They need to know that you can play for short periods of time and advance. They need to know that the ‘end game' is not all about raiding into the wee hours of the night. Some subset of these people will still feel burnt out of MMOGs period, but I think there's a lot of people who haven't been reached and our and others research supports that. False assumptions are being made by a lot of people. The reality is that Vanguard *is* the game most of these people are looking for - it has the good they remember, but has eliminated a lot of the tedium and necessary long hours that don't fit into their lifestyle anymore. Then there are the people who are growing weary of their current MMOG. Given how much larger the MMOG gamespace has grown since EQ's zenith in 2001 (arguably 7 times as large worldwide, and at least 2-3 time as large in North America alone), we have to take advantage of this. At some point these people are going to want to start a new MMOG (especially after the WoW expansion newness has worn out, which for most of the non-hard-core would be when you really have to start raiding in the expansion). LoTR Online is an x-factor - reviews from beta testers seem to indicate that the game is more casual like WoW, a small game, and that it looks really good but can run on a lower end system much better than Vanguard (just as WoW can). So at least for a time the more casual bored WoW player may migrate to LoTR Online. How sticky (e.g. how long that game will hold onto players) is unknown, but I think it's safe to say that a significant percentage of the more casual bored WoW player will head to LoTR - at least first, given the franchise around it. Conservatively this leaves the more hard core WoW player (which in Vanguard or EQ terms would be considered either a hard core or, more likely, a core gamer). That number, even just taking the North American and European gamer is still potentially a large one and needs to be targeted (given Vanguard's high system specs, the time it will take to localize, and Blizzard's name recognition and pre-existing proven marketing ability in Asia, I wouldn't count that group, although a very significant one, until 2008 or so. Targeting that group is for a future discussion). Lastly, there's the very real issue of Vanguard's system specs, even for the core and hard core gamer in North America and Europe. For a variety of reasons and mistakes on our part that I won't get into right now, Vanguard was released with system spec requirements that were too high for January 2007. Continued optimization will help to a degree, but the game's big hope here is simply Moore's Law and that by the second half of 2007, and certainly by the end of the year, the system spec issue will have been greatly diminished. The big problem that remains is that you still pretty much need a new system as opposed to, say, simply a new graphics card. But eventually, gamers do replace their systems. Given what Vista (especially the Ultimate edition) takes to really run, combined with other games that come out by the end of the year that really push technology, many people will be compelled to buy new systems. Unlike EQ, which was one of the first hardware only games, Vanguard needs not only a fast graphics card, but also a system with pci-express, fast memory, a fast FSB, etc. With EQ, you just needed to buy a Voodoo 1 or Voodoo 2 - the rest of your system is fine. With Vanguard, however, just plugging the fastest AGP card into your 2-3 year old system doesn't cut it. In fact, Vanguard runs pretty well on a 2 GB system with a decent pci-express video card and fast memory in a 2.6 GHz Pentium; conversely, run the game on an older AGP system, the fastest AGP card you can buy, and a 3.2 GHz CPU and you'll have framerate issues. The game is simply not CPU bound, nor just graphics card bound, but rather mostly bound by the data that it needs to constantly move from the CPU to main memory to the graphics card, and then all the way back again. It's all about the various bus speeds and caches - moving data around efficiently is arguably more important than processing that data on the CPU or GPU. The only fix here, again, is time. Vista (especially the Ultimate edition, which is what's being pushed to gamers) wants fast components. Direct X 10 hardware and software will help a lot, especially when there is a DX10 version of Vanguard. A native 64bit client of Vanguard will eventually help a lot too. Bottom line: by the end of 2007, a lot more people should have upgraded, especially if Microsoft succeeds with Vista and native DX 10 games. And if they really push Gaming for Windows like they did, say, the Xbox 360, the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008 should be a very different landscape for PC games in general and Vanguard specifically. Was the Vanguard tech ahead of its time? Yes, and there has been a price to pay for that short term (although many people are able to play with older machines - why? Different configurations, different settings, different thresholds for lower framerates, etc.). But MMOGs ideally never end and if you've architected your engine to both push the limits of existing and near future technology as well as easily employ future technologies, then you have a game that doesn't look dated one, two, even three plus years down the road. And that's what we did with Vanguard - so we feel some pain now, but if we can keep the momentum going, this decision pays off in the long run (big time). In summary, there are arguably a lot of people who by mid to end of this year in the MMOG gamespace for whom Vanguard could potentially be very attractive. What the game needs is a re-launch of sorts, including targeted marketing campaigns, an all-around successful move by gamers to the next generation of hardware, continued good word of mouth ‘viral' marketing by those who are already playing, enjoying, and re-subscribing. And all of this could and should ramp up by the end of the year, all the while the Vanguard team is putting in more content, the live team filling out high level content as well as adding to areas of the game's vast seamless world which are a bit empty. Then a re-launch towards the end of the year plus the first expansion (which is looking like first quarter 200, one that would add RTS style city building, ship to ship combat, jousting, and a second ‘half' of the Kojanese Archipelago that makes ship travel meaningful - and by meaningful I mean not tedious, rewarding exploration, with lots of new areas (both in the existing world and in the extension of the archipelago). And I'm talking about some re-use of existing art, combined with new art that fits into the existing continents, and then finally some all out new stuff - different styles of terrain (islands) and ocean to look at while making your journey to found a new player city while constantly being attacked by exotic sea creatures, leviathans, and other traditional members of fantasy and crypto-zoology. Not to mention pirates with canons, or other players and their ships on the PvP servers. And who knows, could be first expansion or second, but eventually you need to pull from Mesoamerican mythology, encounter empires based on Greco-roman architecture... it goes on and on, it's all planned out, and Vanguard can do all of it given sufficient time. The tools have matured, both in terms of art and design, and the art process orders of magnitude more efficient because of years of Maya scripting, an in-house terrain generator that creates what you want as opposed to spitting out algorithmically generated hills and valleys, and an art team that has this process down pat - for example, they were able to re-create Tursh and Leth Nurae in a fraction of time it took them to create the original, smaller, and much less interesting ‘versions'. "SOE is in discussions with Sigil regarding the future of Vanguard and Sigil Games in Carlsbad. Talks are going well and first and foremost, our primary concern right now is what's best for Vanguard and its community. We want to ensure that this game and its community have a healthy future. The specifics that we work out over the coming days will all be with that single goal in mind." So what does that mean again? Again, I apologize for not being able to go into details and it's the details that need to be worked out. But I think it's safe to say that both Sigil and SOE see the potential of a mind blowing game by the end of the year. What's needed, bottom line, is some time, and how to get that time is what's being worked out. And so I still see a 500k+ game, I was just off by a year for a variety of reasons, some under my control, many not. And I think SOE sees this as well. To pull it off however, requires a funded and supported Sigil and a well marketed Vanguard with these different target audiences identified and solid plan on how to reach them all, and then a solid execution of said plan, hitting them hard, pushing these ‘WoW everywhere' point of purchase materials from the front to the very back.. In the meantime, the Vanguard that was launched in early 2007 continues to move forward, with much of what I've talked about patched in over time, and the rest in the first expansion (or re-launch, or whatever we all agree upon in terms of product and service placement). Bottom line, Vanguard continues to march forward, a solid and fun game today, and an even better one tomorrow. More ‘state of the game' posts by me, a regularly updated ‘In the Works' http://vgplayers.station.sony.com/inTheWorks.vm. And whatever kind of increased partnership between Sigil and SOE is necessary to make this vision a reality. And again, as for what that means exactly, more on that later TM.
Huh...this one seemed kind of short. He must be slipping.
So here's the first topic, starting with the current official statement from SOE: "SOE is in discussions with Sigil regarding the future of Vanguard and Sigil Games in Carlsbad. Talks are going well and first and foremost, our primary concern right now is what's best for Vanguard and its community. We want to ensure that this game and its community have a healthy future. The specifics that we work out over the coming days will all be with that single goal in mind." What does that mean? It means that right now Vanguard is doing decently but not as well as we hoped. If you haven't read my last long post that outlined some of the things that went wrong during development, etc., please do. So the bottom line is that SOE is going to be getting more involved with Sigil and Vanguard - our relationship is going to become even tighter - much tighter. At this point I can't say much more than that. Does this mean an acquisition? I can't say at this point. Does this mean more or less people at Sigil? I can't say at this point. Does this mean management changes at Sigil? I can't say at this point. What it does mean at this point is that both companies agree that we need more of SOE's involvement if Vanguard is going to continue to get the support it needs to both continue to be worked on and improved and debugged and optimized. When people start getting burned out of the Warcraft expansion (pardon the pun), we need to make sure that the game is more polished and will play on lower end machines. As people continue to level up, it means that we need additional higher level content, including raid content. If we are going to change our marketing message effectively to target those who played a lot of EverQuest but who have ‘grown up' such that they have jobs, families, etc. that they cannot and will not play another EverQuest even though they enjoyed they game years ago. We've done studies and it's not atypical of an old EQ player, when they hear about Vanguard, to assume that because many of the people involved in Vanguard's development worked on EQ as well, that Vanguard must simply be an EQ 3. From that point they don't even give Vanguard another look. They don't do any more research on the game. They don't go to the official sites. They don't go to the affiliate sites. Instead they think to themselves, "ah well, were I younger and had my life not changed, I'd give it a shot, but I just don't have the time for another EQ with better graphics right now." And that's it - they don't give Vanguard another thought EQ peaked in late 2001 at almost 500k subscribers. In its lifetime it's sold over 2 million units. Putting EQ in a vacuum and that's a lot of people who played and who aren't playing anymore. And the total number of subscribers didn't start going down until sometime 2002. I'm also pretty sure up until its peak that the average lifespan of a player was nearing 9-12 months. And as I mentioned in my last lengthy post, this group of people who played but don't anymore could arguably be put into two sub-groups - those who look back fondly at those months and even years and those who don't. I have read posts and received emails from people who claim to have played to max level and then quit very angry - the "I just played your game for 2 years and now I hate you" emails. But realistically how big is that group? Even if it was half (boggle) the other group is still pretty big. So ignoring all of the people who have quit or who are growing bored of their current MMOG (WoW, FFXI, DAoC, etc) that need to be reached (and in a very different way, especially the WoW player), both a word of mouth and a formal marketing campaign targeting these people clearly needs to launched. These people need to know that Vanguard does have the ‘EQ feel' in many ways but that it is much more soloable than EQ was, especially the early EQ days. They need to know that you can play for short periods of time and advance. They need to know that the ‘end game' is not all about raiding into the wee hours of the night. Some subset of these people will still feel burnt out of MMOGs period, but I think there's a lot of people who haven't been reached and our and others research supports that. False assumptions are being made by a lot of people. The reality is that Vanguard *is* the game most of these people are looking for - it has the good they remember, but has eliminated a lot of the tedium and necessary long hours that don't fit into their lifestyle anymore. Then there are the people who are growing weary of their current MMOG. Given how much larger the MMOG gamespace has grown since EQ's zenith in 2001 (arguably 7 times as large worldwide, and at least 2-3 time as large in North America alone), we have to take advantage of this. At some point these people are going to want to start a new MMOG (especially after the WoW expansion newness has worn out, which for most of the non-hard-core would be when you really have to start raiding in the expansion). LoTR Online is an x-factor - reviews from beta testers seem to indicate that the game is more casual like WoW, a small game, and that it looks really good but can run on a lower end system much better than Vanguard (just as WoW can). So at least for a time the more casual bored WoW player may migrate to LoTR Online. How sticky (e.g. how long that game will hold onto players) is unknown, but I think it's safe to say that a significant percentage of the more casual bored WoW player will head to LoTR - at least first, given the franchise around it. Conservatively this leaves the more hard core WoW player (which in Vanguard or EQ terms would be considered either a hard core or, more likely, a core gamer). That number, even just taking the North American and European gamer is still potentially a large one and needs to be targeted (given Vanguard's high system specs, the time it will take to localize, and Blizzard's name recognition and pre-existing proven marketing ability in Asia, I wouldn't count that group, although a very significant one, until 2008 or so. Targeting that group is for a future discussion). Lastly, there's the very real issue of Vanguard's system specs, even for the core and hard core gamer in North America and Europe. For a variety of reasons and mistakes on our part that I won't get into right now, Vanguard was released with system spec requirements that were too high for January 2007. Continued optimization will help to a degree, but the game's big hope here is simply Moore's Law and that by the second half of 2007, and certainly by the end of the year, the system spec issue will have been greatly diminished. The big problem that remains is that you still pretty much need a new system as opposed to, say, simply a new graphics card. But eventually, gamers do replace their systems. Given what Vista (especially the Ultimate edition) takes to really run, combined with other games that come out by the end of the year that really push technology, many people will be compelled to buy new systems. Unlike EQ, which was one of the first hardware only games, Vanguard needs not only a fast graphics card, but also a system with pci-express, fast memory, a fast FSB, etc. With EQ, you just needed to buy a Voodoo 1 or Voodoo 2 - the rest of your system is fine. With Vanguard, however, just plugging the fastest AGP card into your 2-3 year old system doesn't cut it. In fact, Vanguard runs pretty well on a 2 GB system with a decent pci-express video card and fast memory in a 2.6 GHz Pentium; conversely, run the game on an older AGP system, the fastest AGP card you can buy, and a 3.2 GHz CPU and you'll have framerate issues. The game is simply not CPU bound, nor just graphics card bound, but rather mostly bound by the data that it needs to constantly move from the CPU to main memory to the graphics card, and then all the way back again. It's all about the various bus speeds and caches - moving data around efficiently is arguably more important than processing that data on the CPU or GPU. The only fix here, again, is time. Vista (especially the Ultimate edition, which is what's being pushed to gamers) wants fast components. Direct X 10 hardware and software will help a lot, especially when there is a DX10 version of Vanguard. A native 64bit client of Vanguard will eventually help a lot too. Bottom line: by the end of 2007, a lot more people should have upgraded, especially if Microsoft succeeds with Vista and native DX 10 games. And if they really push Gaming for Windows like they did, say, the Xbox 360, the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008 should be a very different landscape for PC games in general and Vanguard specifically. Was the Vanguard tech ahead of its time? Yes, and there has been a price to pay for that short term (although many people are able to play with older machines - why? Different configurations, different settings, different thresholds for lower framerates, etc.). But MMOGs ideally never end and if you've architected your engine to both push the limits of existing and near future technology as well as easily employ future technologies, then you have a game that doesn't look dated one, two, even three plus years down the road. And that's what we did with Vanguard - so we feel some pain now, but if we can keep the momentum going, this decision pays off in the long run (big time). In summary, there are arguably a lot of people who by mid to end of this year in the MMOG gamespace for whom Vanguard could potentially be very attractive. What the game needs is a re-launch of sorts, including targeted marketing campaigns, an all-around successful move by gamers to the next generation of hardware, continued good word of mouth ‘viral' marketing by those who are already playing, enjoying, and re-subscribing. And all of this could and should ramp up by the end of the year, all the while the Vanguard team is putting in more content, the live team filling out high level content as well as adding to areas of the game's vast seamless world which are a bit empty. Then a re-launch towards the end of the year plus the first expansion (which is looking like first quarter 200, one that would add RTS style city building, ship to ship combat, jousting, and a second ‘half' of the Kojanese Archipelago that makes ship travel meaningful - and by meaningful I mean not tedious, rewarding exploration, with lots of new areas (both in the existing world and in the extension of the archipelago). And I'm talking about some re-use of existing art, combined with new art that fits into the existing continents, and then finally some all out new stuff - different styles of terrain (islands) and ocean to look at while making your journey to found a new player city while constantly being attacked by exotic sea creatures, leviathans, and other traditional members of fantasy and crypto-zoology. Not to mention pirates with canons, or other players and their ships on the PvP servers. And who knows, could be first expansion or second, but eventually you need to pull from Mesoamerican mythology, encounter empires based on Greco-roman architecture... it goes on and on, it's all planned out, and Vanguard can do all of it given sufficient time. The tools have matured, both in terms of art and design, and the art process orders of magnitude more efficient because of years of Maya scripting, an in-house terrain generator that creates what you want as opposed to spitting out algorithmically generated hills and valleys, and an art team that has this process down pat - for example, they were able to re-create Tursh and Leth Nurae in a fraction of time it took them to create the original, smaller, and much less interesting ‘versions'. "SOE is in discussions with Sigil regarding the future of Vanguard and Sigil Games in Carlsbad. Talks are going well and first and foremost, our primary concern right now is what's best for Vanguard and its community. We want to ensure that this game and its community have a healthy future. The specifics that we work out over the coming days will all be with that single goal in mind." So what does that mean again? Again, I apologize for not being able to go into details and it's the details that need to be worked out. But I think it's safe to say that both Sigil and SOE see the potential of a mind blowing game by the end of the year. What's needed, bottom line, is some time, and how to get that time is what's being worked out. And so I still see a 500k+ game, I was just off by a year for a variety of reasons, some under my control, many not. And I think SOE sees this as well. To pull it off however, requires a funded and supported Sigil and a well marketed Vanguard with these different target audiences identified and solid plan on how to reach them all, and then a solid execution of said plan, hitting them hard, pushing these ‘WoW everywhere' point of purchase materials from the front to the very back.. In the meantime, the Vanguard that was launched in early 2007 continues to move forward, with much of what I've talked about patched in over time, and the rest in the first expansion (or re-launch, or whatever we all agree upon in terms of product and service placement). Bottom line, Vanguard continues to march forward, a solid and fun game today, and an even better one tomorrow. More ‘state of the game' posts by me, a regularly updated ‘In the Works' http://vgplayers.station.sony.com/inTheWorks.vm. And whatever kind of increased partnership between Sigil and SOE is necessary to make this vision a reality. And again, as for what that means exactly, more on that later TM.
Huh...this one seemed kind of short. He must be slipping.
Brad's response is just like his games. Long, drawn out, boring and in the end, of no value whatsoever. I staunchly supported Vanguard for a long time but this is freaking pathetic. I spend the time to read thru his whole long novel only to realize that he said nothing except "Boohoo my game sucks but it's not my fault and one day it will be greatif someone else revamps it completely". Jeez!!! Didn't we hear this on Day One of release when he gave his "three months to make the game playable" speech? Now his tune has changed to "We need SOE to bail our ass out and maybe in a year we will be good". How delusional can he possibly be?
Brad has now jumped ship twice. At least the EQI ship wasn't sinking when he jumped it. His long "War and Peace" novels of PR spin have in my opinion done as much to ruin his game as the bugs and lack of content. I hear him say one thing and I tend to believe another. Way to go Brad if your trying to single handely destroy your own game.
You know, that's just mean. I think he's a good man and he can still make a good game out of what he has. There is no reason for such disrespect. If you can make a better game, go ahead and do it.
So here's the first topic, starting with the current official statement from SOE: "SOE is in discussions with Sigil regarding the future of Vanguard and Sigil Games in Carlsbad. Talks are going well and first and foremost, our primary concern right now is what's best for Vanguard and its community. We want to ensure that this game and its community have a healthy future. The specifics that we work out over the coming days will all be with that single goal in mind." What does that mean? It means that right now Vanguard is doing decently but not as well as we hoped. If you haven't read my last long post that outlined some of the things that went wrong during development, etc., please do. So the bottom line is that SOE is going to be getting more involved with Sigil and Vanguard - our relationship is going to become even tighter - much tighter. At this point I can't say much more than that. Does this mean an acquisition? I can't say at this point. Does this mean more or less people at Sigil? I can't say at this point. Does this mean management changes at Sigil? I can't say at this point. What it does mean at this point is that both companies agree that we need more of SOE's involvement if Vanguard is going to continue to get the support it needs to both continue to be worked on and improved and debugged and optimized. When people start getting burned out of the Warcraft expansion (pardon the pun), we need to make sure that the game is more polished and will play on lower end machines. As people continue to level up, it means that we need additional higher level content, including raid content. If we are going to change our marketing message effectively to target those who played a lot of EverQuest but who have ‘grown up' such that they have jobs, families, etc. that they cannot and will not play another EverQuest even though they enjoyed they game years ago. We've done studies and it's not atypical of an old EQ player, when they hear about Vanguard, to assume that because many of the people involved in Vanguard's development worked on EQ as well, that Vanguard must simply be an EQ 3. From that point they don't even give Vanguard another look. They don't do any more research on the game. They don't go to the official sites. They don't go to the affiliate sites. Instead they think to themselves, "ah well, were I younger and had my life not changed, I'd give it a shot, but I just don't have the time for another EQ with better graphics right now." And that's it - they don't give Vanguard another thought EQ peaked in late 2001 at almost 500k subscribers. In its lifetime it's sold over 2 million units. Putting EQ in a vacuum and that's a lot of people who played and who aren't playing anymore. And the total number of subscribers didn't start going down until sometime 2002. I'm also pretty sure up until its peak that the average lifespan of a player was nearing 9-12 months. And as I mentioned in my last lengthy post, this group of people who played but don't anymore could arguably be put into two sub-groups - those who look back fondly at those months and even years and those who don't. I have read posts and received emails from people who claim to have played to max level and then quit very angry - the "I just played your game for 2 years and now I hate you" emails. But realistically how big is that group? Even if it was half (boggle) the other group is still pretty big. So ignoring all of the people who have quit or who are growing bored of their current MMOG (WoW, FFXI, DAoC, etc) that need to be reached (and in a very different way, especially the WoW player), both a word of mouth and a formal marketing campaign targeting these people clearly needs to launched. These people need to know that Vanguard does have the ‘EQ feel' in many ways but that it is much more soloable than EQ was, especially the early EQ days. They need to know that you can play for short periods of time and advance. They need to know that the ‘end game' is not all about raiding into the wee hours of the night. Some subset of these people will still feel burnt out of MMOGs period, but I think there's a lot of people who haven't been reached and our and others research supports that. False assumptions are being made by a lot of people. The reality is that Vanguard *is* the game most of these people are looking for - it has the good they remember, but has eliminated a lot of the tedium and necessary long hours that don't fit into their lifestyle anymore. Then there are the people who are growing weary of their current MMOG. Given how much larger the MMOG gamespace has grown since EQ's zenith in 2001 (arguably 7 times as large worldwide, and at least 2-3 time as large in North America alone), we have to take advantage of this. At some point these people are going to want to start a new MMOG (especially after the WoW expansion newness has worn out, which for most of the non-hard-core would be when you really have to start raiding in the expansion). LoTR Online is an x-factor - reviews from beta testers seem to indicate that the game is more casual like WoW, a small game, and that it looks really good but can run on a lower end system much better than Vanguard (just as WoW can). So at least for a time the more casual bored WoW player may migrate to LoTR Online. How sticky (e.g. how long that game will hold onto players) is unknown, but I think it's safe to say that a significant percentage of the more casual bored WoW player will head to LoTR - at least first, given the franchise around it. Conservatively this leaves the more hard core WoW player (which in Vanguard or EQ terms would be considered either a hard core or, more likely, a core gamer). That number, even just taking the North American and European gamer is still potentially a large one and needs to be targeted (given Vanguard's high system specs, the time it will take to localize, and Blizzard's name recognition and pre-existing proven marketing ability in Asia, I wouldn't count that group, although a very significant one, until 2008 or so. Targeting that group is for a future discussion). Lastly, there's the very real issue of Vanguard's system specs, even for the core and hard core gamer in North America and Europe. For a variety of reasons and mistakes on our part that I won't get into right now, Vanguard was released with system spec requirements that were too high for January 2007. Continued optimization will help to a degree, but the game's big hope here is simply Moore's Law and that by the second half of 2007, and certainly by the end of the year, the system spec issue will have been greatly diminished. The big problem that remains is that you still pretty much need a new system as opposed to, say, simply a new graphics card. But eventually, gamers do replace their systems. Given what Vista (especially the Ultimate edition) takes to really run, combined with other games that come out by the end of the year that really push technology, many people will be compelled to buy new systems. Unlike EQ, which was one of the first hardware only games, Vanguard needs not only a fast graphics card, but also a system with pci-express, fast memory, a fast FSB, etc. With EQ, you just needed to buy a Voodoo 1 or Voodoo 2 - the rest of your system is fine. With Vanguard, however, just plugging the fastest AGP card into your 2-3 year old system doesn't cut it. In fact, Vanguard runs pretty well on a 2 GB system with a decent pci-express video card and fast memory in a 2.6 GHz Pentium; conversely, run the game on an older AGP system, the fastest AGP card you can buy, and a 3.2 GHz CPU and you'll have framerate issues. The game is simply not CPU bound, nor just graphics card bound, but rather mostly bound by the data that it needs to constantly move from the CPU to main memory to the graphics card, and then all the way back again. It's all about the various bus speeds and caches - moving data around efficiently is arguably more important than processing that data on the CPU or GPU. The only fix here, again, is time. Vista (especially the Ultimate edition, which is what's being pushed to gamers) wants fast components. Direct X 10 hardware and software will help a lot, especially when there is a DX10 version of Vanguard. A native 64bit client of Vanguard will eventually help a lot too. Bottom line: by the end of 2007, a lot more people should have upgraded, especially if Microsoft succeeds with Vista and native DX 10 games. And if they really push Gaming for Windows like they did, say, the Xbox 360, the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008 should be a very different landscape for PC games in general and Vanguard specifically. Was the Vanguard tech ahead of its time? Yes, and there has been a price to pay for that short term (although many people are able to play with older machines - why? Different configurations, different settings, different thresholds for lower framerates, etc.). But MMOGs ideally never end and if you've architected your engine to both push the limits of existing and near future technology as well as easily employ future technologies, then you have a game that doesn't look dated one, two, even three plus years down the road. And that's what we did with Vanguard - so we feel some pain now, but if we can keep the momentum going, this decision pays off in the long run (big time). In summary, there are arguably a lot of people who by mid to end of this year in the MMOG gamespace for whom Vanguard could potentially be very attractive. What the game needs is a re-launch of sorts, including targeted marketing campaigns, an all-around successful move by gamers to the next generation of hardware, continued good word of mouth ‘viral' marketing by those who are already playing, enjoying, and re-subscribing. And all of this could and should ramp up by the end of the year, all the while the Vanguard team is putting in more content, the live team filling out high level content as well as adding to areas of the game's vast seamless world which are a bit empty. Then a re-launch towards the end of the year plus the first expansion (which is looking like first quarter 200, one that would add RTS style city building, ship to ship combat, jousting, and a second ‘half' of the Kojanese Archipelago that makes ship travel meaningful - and by meaningful I mean not tedious, rewarding exploration, with lots of new areas (both in the existing world and in the extension of the archipelago). And I'm talking about some re-use of existing art, combined with new art that fits into the existing continents, and then finally some all out new stuff - different styles of terrain (islands) and ocean to look at while making your journey to found a new player city while constantly being attacked by exotic sea creatures, leviathans, and other traditional members of fantasy and crypto-zoology. Not to mention pirates with canons, or other players and their ships on the PvP servers. And who knows, could be first expansion or second, but eventually you need to pull from Mesoamerican mythology, encounter empires based on Greco-roman architecture... it goes on and on, it's all planned out, and Vanguard can do all of it given sufficient time. The tools have matured, both in terms of art and design, and the art process orders of magnitude more efficient because of years of Maya scripting, an in-house terrain generator that creates what you want as opposed to spitting out algorithmically generated hills and valleys, and an art team that has this process down pat - for example, they were able to re-create Tursh and Leth Nurae in a fraction of time it took them to create the original, smaller, and much less interesting ‘versions'. "SOE is in discussions with Sigil regarding the future of Vanguard and Sigil Games in Carlsbad. Talks are going well and first and foremost, our primary concern right now is what's best for Vanguard and its community. We want to ensure that this game and its community have a healthy future. The specifics that we work out over the coming days will all be with that single goal in mind." So what does that mean again? Again, I apologize for not being able to go into details and it's the details that need to be worked out. But I think it's safe to say that both Sigil and SOE see the potential of a mind blowing game by the end of the year. What's needed, bottom line, is some time, and how to get that time is what's being worked out. And so I still see a 500k+ game, I was just off by a year for a variety of reasons, some under my control, many not. And I think SOE sees this as well. To pull it off however, requires a funded and supported Sigil and a well marketed Vanguard with these different target audiences identified and solid plan on how to reach them all, and then a solid execution of said plan, hitting them hard, pushing these ‘WoW everywhere' point of purchase materials from the front to the very back.. In the meantime, the Vanguard that was launched in early 2007 continues to move forward, with much of what I've talked about patched in over time, and the rest in the first expansion (or re-launch, or whatever we all agree upon in terms of product and service placement). Bottom line, Vanguard continues to march forward, a solid and fun game today, and an even better one tomorrow. More ‘state of the game' posts by me, a regularly updated ‘In the Works' http://vgplayers.station.sony.com/inTheWorks.vm. And whatever kind of increased partnership between Sigil and SOE is necessary to make this vision a reality. And again, as for what that means exactly, more on that later TM.
Huh...this one seemed kind of short. He must be slipping.
Brad's response is just like his games. Long, drawn out, boring and in the end, of no value whatsoever. I staunchly supported Vanguard for a long time but this is freaking pathetic. I spend the time to read thru his whole long novel only to realize that he said nothing except "Boohoo my game sucks but it's not my fault and one day it will be greatif someone else revamps it completely". Jeez!!! Didn't we hear this on Day One of release when he gave his "three months to make the game playable" speech? Now his tune has changed to "We need SOE to bail our ass out and maybe in a year we will be good". How delusional can he possibly be?
Brad has now jumped ship twice. At least the EQI ship wasn't sinking when he jumped it. His long "War and Peace" novels of PR spin have in my opinion done as much to ruin his game as the bugs and lack of content. I hear him say one thing and I tend to believe another. Way to go Brad if your trying to single handely destroy your own game.
You know, that's just mean. I think he's a good man and he can still make a good game out of what he has. There is no reason for such disrespect. If you can make a better game, go ahead and do it.
I'm not arguing that he ISN'T a good guy. He might even be fun to hang out with for a D&D game or a beer but he IS NOT a CEO. Realistically I believe that I could write some better lore than Vanguard had in game but I also am realistic enough to know that I COULDN'T oversee 100 staff members to visually translate my vison into a workable game. The difference is I would've never promised 1000s of fans that I could do this and it would be bigger and better than anything before it. After hearing Kendrick's post with the rundown of everything that was supposed to be in game and they kept cutting and kept editing, I think I would have toned my big 3rd generation triple A title PR down a little but he didn't.
Basically even admitted the following: 1. The game isn't doing well in suscriber base. 2. The game doesn't play well on machines that aren't top end. 3. It doesn't have major bugs worked out yet. 4. It doesn't have high- end content 5. The PR isn't getting to the people they want it to. 6. They don't even have a plan yet to fix things. Just a plan for coming UP with a plan.
So..... why give them another chance? I mean this is the state that they admit to even.
Why give them another chance? Because the game does have the potential to be fun..and if someone actually fixes it up and offers me a free trial to come back and give it another go, why not? (unless I'm too busy playing WAR)
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
Comments
There IS a chance for VG. That is to make a game with the freedom of early pre-NGE SWG and the story-richeness of LOTRO. Then they would have a place which their competitors can not fill. (Its guesswork on AoC and WAR, but I am quite sure they wont fill that space.) The question is, do they realize that is their only escape?
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
They worked on VG at the request of Sigil who still owns the game.
Again get your facts straight. SOE does not own the game and does not have any finical responsibility for the game.
Sigil was the one who decided to launch the game because even after SOE's cash injection they still did not have the funds to finish their project. In the real adult world you have to own up to the contracts you sign and meet your end of a contract ( which includes deadlines ! ) or else face consequences.
Sigil made a deal with SOE when they picked SOE as a publisher. Sigil new they had to get the game ready for launch by a certain time period which was part of the contract with SOE. SOE gave them money and lent them developers upon Sigil's request. SOE was very generous by lending out developers to help out Sigil when Brad requested their help because they did not have to do this at all.
SOE is not a money tree and they are not responsible for Brad's total mismanagement of Vangaurd. Sigil failed after receiving more funding just as they failed with Microsoft. SOE was under no obligation contractually to help out Sigil in any sort of way in regards to development as it was not part of their deal.
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
Game(s) I Am Currently Playing:
GW2 (+LoL and BF3)
Not only is SOE responsible for Vanguards financial mismanagement they also cause global warming, the whole in the ozone layer and the war in Iraq!
Perhaps my deception with Farlan and DnL taught me something about games..
Goodluck with everyone still playing it.. you'll need it
http://www.speedtest.net/result/7300033012
True, but if you look at Brad's post, his biggest hope is that people will get bored with WoW and jump ship to Vanguard by the end of the year. That would presumably include PvP players.
It's more likely that a PvP-centric player in WoW would be more attracted to games like WAR and AoC, just because those games are made with their play styles in mind. Why they would look at VG is a mystery to me, and will be a mystery to Brad in a few months when there isn't a sudden influx to VG.
Pretty much. The only other alternative is to openly and deliberately charge people $15 a month to keep beta testing a game that even the lead developer now admits was at least a year from being ready when it launched. That's not really going to be attracting anyone save for the mindless VG fanboy, since most players would presumably rather pay for a quality game than one that is still blatantly a beta-level one.
At this point, they're better off either shutting down the servers while they work on the game, or not charging people while they fix it. Anything else looks really bad, and wouldn't exactly motivate people to jump over to VG.
Personally, I think SOE was brilliant with Vanguard.
1. If it was successful the make money off a potential competitor.
2. If it fails, the get to buy Vanguard cheap so they can strip it bare and kill it whenever they want, make Brad look foolish and pretty much make it so Brad not going off to start working on EQ3.
3. Hell, even if it's a niche game, SOE gets money and can tease Brad about low subscriber numbers.
SOE just can't lose.
There IS a chance for VG. That is to make a game with the freedom of early pre-NGE SWG and the story-richeness of LOTRO. Then they would have a place which their competitors can not fill. (Its guesswork on AoC and WAR, but I am quite sure they wont fill that space.) The question is, do they realize that is their only escape?
hmm well I don't see SOE doing this for SWG so I highly doubt they'll do it for VG. Not flaming just sayingI am one of those gamers that he's talking about that will get a new system this year, that will run DX10 games.
The little bit I played in the beta seemed fun, it was my system's limitations that kept me from getting it.... that and I plan not to be burned by SOE again.
but I'm not dumb enough to think that a company throwing as much cash at an industry, with as much tallent as it has behind it's doors, will miss on every single product that they put out.
Vanguard has allot of potential, it always has had. it's having a slow start, and I'm glad to see that there ARE plans to try to get it to where it should be, instead of where it is now, instead of just abandoning it all together.
It's funny becuase I fit his 'projections' almost perfectly... Older (busier now) X-Hard Core MMORPG player, who got sick of the 'Raid Game' at the end of WoW BC, so is trying out LOTRO for a bit, but looks forward to getting into Vanguard once I start hearing the 'All Clear' from players that I trust.
Anyway, I thought I'd just toss my 2 bits up here... those people that Brad is hoping are in the world, Really ARE in the world... I'm one of them.
Go get em tiger. I'm rootin for ya. :- P
zWolf -out.
Thank you,
zWolf -out.
RIP Orc Choppa
Fundamentally, it's a huge step backwards for "casual" gamers with the absence of instancing, quick-paths to advanced content and ease of creating new characters on a whim to play with existing characters of one's friends.
For "hardcore" raiding players, again, a step backwards in that the lack of instancing will leave Vanguard forever unable to compare to World of Warcraft for guilds that like to raid. It's back to 1st-generation never knowing when a mob is up or down, and therefore being unable to schedule guild events around it. A guild calendar looks much better with guaranteed content on it, rather than "We might do this...if it's up." and many disappointed nights.
As for the "core" gamer...that was just a mythical audience Sigil wanted badly to believe existed. No one can generalize the market, especially not in just three archetypes. If one had to make a guess, it's best just to assume the vast majority is casual and content should be designed thusly.
Sigil was just too brazen...they essentially thought they could reverse the casualness of the market by easing everyone back into the sadomasochistic relationship between developers and players. The only reason that worked in the past was because of limited options and limited amount of MMOs on the horizon being poised by unproven companies, not because players actually liked it or knew they could like a more casual model more. I honestly believe Brad was teetering on the edge of his seat leading up to launch at the prospect of being able to punish players with harsh death penalties, cycles of nerfs and buffs, stints of waiting on patches and etc. all over again.
Anyway, in short, they failed the "casual" gamers by simply believing offering solo-"friendly" content was enough, even though the typical casual gamer probably cares more about not having to dig into their .ini file more than a host of two-dot overland insects. I have friends who couldn't even take Florendyl seriously as an RP server due to the inability to "sit". Casual gamers care about more than just solo-friendly content, there's more to the definition of casual. Usually little things hook casual gamers, and Vanguard is without a lot of "little" things, everything presented is plain and overarching like Diplomacy.
They failed the raiders by ignoring what was great about instancing, particularly scripted events tailor fit to different raid sizes that can wantonly involve the environment. Not even a minor encounter like Onyxia could break out in a Vanguard dungeon without consideration to uninvolved others who could be destroyed by lava bursting out the ground (not that Vanguard's "third-generation" engine could handle it.)
In general, Sigil just wanted to do first-generation all over again for nostalgia's sake; ironically nostalgia is what they warned their most zealot of fans against. Sigil didn't really do anything functional towards creating a third-generation game by improving upon anything second-generation. Why? Because Sigil believes first-generation was better in the first place, so if they reverted, they cure all of the "problems" of second generation games that were actually improvements over the first.
Vanguard is fundamentally flawed...it's crafted with no one in mind who really exists, not even the people who play it not minding that there are faster, smoother, more widely received "fun" choices out there. Vanguard is pretty much thriving off whatever made pet rocks a fad; if enough people know about it, some people are bound to buy it for whatever reason. Despite that, there exists no specific reason or "hook" in Vanguard for any of those three major audiences Sigil attempts to describe, because there exists other games that do it better for those crowds.
They worked on VG at the request of Sigil who still owns the game.
Again get your facts straight. SOE does not own the game and does not have any finical responsibility for the game.
Sigil was the one who decided to launch the game because even after SOE's cash injection they still did not have the funds to finish their project. In the real adult world you have to own up to the contracts you sign and meet your end of a contract ( which includes deadlines ! ) or else face consequences.
Sigil made a deal with SOE when they picked SOE as a publisher. Sigil new they had to get the game ready for launch by a certain time period which was part of the contract with SOE. SOE gave them money and lent them developers upon Sigil's request. SOE was very generous by lending out developers to help out Sigil when Brad requested their help because they did not have to do this at all.
SOE is not a money tree and they are not responsible for Brad's total mismanagement of Vangaurd. Sigil failed after receiving more funding just as they failed with Microsoft. SOE was under no obligation contractually to help out Sigil in any sort of way in regards to development as it was not part of their deal.
You completely ignored my point. No surprise.
SOE was responsible for publishing and marketing. They knew the condition of the game because some of their staff had worked on it, which you don't deny. They were either dishonest when they marketed the game, or their staff is clueless, having worked on it and therefore knowing it's condition, still presented it as ready and complete to the public. SOE's hands are just as dirty as Sigil's.
If I can correct you on this, SOE bought Vanguard from Sigil due to Sigil financial issues. SOE pushed for the premature release of Vanguard not Sigil.
Planetside (great game, but due to poor management from SOE the game is all screwed up. Poor maintenance, poor updates, raising the monthly subcription after doing an update.. pathetic, etc)
SWG (Do I need to say anything about this game?)
EQ 2 (Good game, unfortunately the greed of SOE shined on this game 3 expansions and 3 adventure packs, all at cost nothing for free or discounted for player loyalty)
Vanguard (Good game, unfortunately released 3 months before it should)
Matrix Online (LOL this is joke or a game)
Seems to me that there is more than 1 or 2 games in question
No you are wrong.
1.) Sigil took about 5 years and 30 million dollars to develop this title.
2.) Sigil was orginally signed up with Microsoft.
3.) Microsoft dumped Sigil because they were not meeting their benchmarks and the game was clearly behind in development.
4.) Sigil went shopping for a new publisher after being dumped by Microsoft. They found one called SOE and signed a contract with SOE.
5.) The contracted deal allowed SOE the right to manage the servers and advertise the game in exchange for giving Sigil continued development dollars in order to get the game out the door.
6.) Sigil are currently the owners of Vangaurd.
7.) Sigil still have development control over Vangaurd hence the post of Brad suggesting the eventual selling out of their development control of VG to SOE.
Brad and the gang have yet again run out of steam, money and ability and now they can't fix their broken game. Out of all the publishers Sigil could of gone with they decided to go with SOE because Brad knew that if things went wrong he could sell out to SOE like he did with EQ1.
Please get your facts straight before posting on the internet again.
hey smedly i didnt know you posted on mmorpg.com , dude stop defending soe unless you work for them..they dont listen to their customers and they take you for every penny they can.................vanguard failed because soe took over from microsoft in the middle of developement and probably changed alot about the game...i mean its even got the soe memory leaks that we have all come to know...soe is in control of this game dont be foolish by fooling yourself , brad is full of lies and i hope he doesnt get to make another mmo again....he is holding back the genre.So SOE is responsible for the games mechanics before they came on board?
C'mon grow up and more to the point grow out of these childish SOE rants its getting far too old now.
Never be afraid of choices. More choices are always good things.
An insider told me that he was present at a meeting with Brad, Smedley and president Mobutou. During the meeting Mobutou walked out stating that "Though I agree with SOE's financial plan their reputation would only lower my standings with the international community!". Later on in the Lobby Mobutou was heard saying "I think Vanguard would be an excellent investment for my country, however I feel that with the XP weekends it just isn't hardcore enough for me. And his vision speech was so funny it had me in stitches, he should give up his day job!"
So Brad will be doing his bailout act this summer and handing Vanturd: Saga of Half truths over to the darklord Smed. Then you'll get the VCU (like a VCR only more outdated) probably included in the first expansion pack "The Big Cashin", sounds like a good name for it? The real question is, how long can the remaining playerbase remain in denial? As it seems Brad is in the proccess of preparing his golden parachute for the bailout, denial is no longer a problem for him!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
Huh...this one seemed kind of short. He must be slipping.
Brad's response is just like his games. Long, drawn out, boring and in the end, of no value whatsoever. I staunchly supported Vanguard for a long time but this is freaking pathetic. I spend the time to read thru his whole long novel only to realize that he said nothing except "Boohoo my game sucks but it's not my fault and one day it will be greatif someone else revamps it completely". Jeez!!! Didn't we hear this on Day One of release when he gave his "three months to make the game playable" speech? Now his tune has changed to "We need SOE to bail our ass out and maybe in a year we will be good". How delusional can he possibly be?
Brad has now jumped ship twice. At least the EQI ship wasn't sinking when he jumped it. His long "War and Peace" novels of PR spin have in my opinion done as much to ruin his game as the bugs and lack of content. I hear him say one thing and I tend to believe another. Way to go Brad if your trying to single handely destroy your own game.
Huh...this one seemed kind of short. He must be slipping.
Sigil is a loser!
Huh...this one seemed kind of short. He must be slipping.
Brad's response is just like his games. Long, drawn out, boring and in the end, of no value whatsoever. I staunchly supported Vanguard for a long time but this is freaking pathetic. I spend the time to read thru his whole long novel only to realize that he said nothing except "Boohoo my game sucks but it's not my fault and one day it will be greatif someone else revamps it completely". Jeez!!! Didn't we hear this on Day One of release when he gave his "three months to make the game playable" speech? Now his tune has changed to "We need SOE to bail our ass out and maybe in a year we will be good". How delusional can he possibly be?
Brad has now jumped ship twice. At least the EQI ship wasn't sinking when he jumped it. His long "War and Peace" novels of PR spin have in my opinion done as much to ruin his game as the bugs and lack of content. I hear him say one thing and I tend to believe another. Way to go Brad if your trying to single handely destroy your own game.
You know, that's just mean. I think he's a good man and he can still make a good game out of what he has. There is no reason for such disrespect. If you can make a better game, go ahead and do it.
Basically even admitted the following:
1. The game isn't doing well in suscriber base.
2. The game doesn't play well on machines that aren't top end.
3. It doesn't have major bugs worked out yet.
4. It doesn't have high- end content
5. The PR isn't getting to the people they want it to.
6. They don't even have a plan yet to fix things. Just a plan for coming UP with a plan.
So..... why give them another chance? I mean this is the state that they admit to even.
Huh...this one seemed kind of short. He must be slipping.
Brad's response is just like his games. Long, drawn out, boring and in the end, of no value whatsoever. I staunchly supported Vanguard for a long time but this is freaking pathetic. I spend the time to read thru his whole long novel only to realize that he said nothing except "Boohoo my game sucks but it's not my fault and one day it will be greatif someone else revamps it completely". Jeez!!! Didn't we hear this on Day One of release when he gave his "three months to make the game playable" speech? Now his tune has changed to "We need SOE to bail our ass out and maybe in a year we will be good". How delusional can he possibly be?
Brad has now jumped ship twice. At least the EQI ship wasn't sinking when he jumped it. His long "War and Peace" novels of PR spin have in my opinion done as much to ruin his game as the bugs and lack of content. I hear him say one thing and I tend to believe another. Way to go Brad if your trying to single handely destroy your own game.
You know, that's just mean. I think he's a good man and he can still make a good game out of what he has. There is no reason for such disrespect. If you can make a better game, go ahead and do it.
I'm not arguing that he ISN'T a good guy. He might even be fun to hang out with for a D&D game or a beer but he IS NOT a CEO. Realistically I believe that I could write some better lore than Vanguard had in game but I also am realistic enough to know that I COULDN'T oversee 100 staff members to visually translate my vison into a workable game. The difference is I would've never promised 1000s of fans that I could do this and it would be bigger and better than anything before it. After hearing Kendrick's post with the rundown of everything that was supposed to be in game and they kept cutting and kept editing, I think I would have toned my big 3rd generation triple A title PR down a little but he didn't.
"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
*waves*
Is it time to start using the new signature? *snickers*