Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Vanguard: Saga of Heroes should be without monthly fee.
robby5403
Member Posts: 368
I say Vanguard: Saga of Heroes should be without monthly fee. In that way a lot more people will buy the game and play it. Like Guild Wars.
Comments
Let me correct this poll for you my friend........
I say Vanguard: Saga of Heroes should be without monthly fee because I really like it, but my mom says I can't use her credit card - I can't play!! If should be free like Guild Wars.
........I play games with fees myself but this doesn't worth paying. The game is still unfinished and had one of the worsest MMo scores of the last years........
I don't understand how one can go on about how a game isn't any good while suggesting ways to get more people to buy the game. Why buy it if it isn't any good?
That aside, I think that Vanguard is one of the best mmorpgs out there, and I think that there are a lot of people playing it who would agree that it is more than worth the money.
The biggest problem facing Vanguard was its poor launch. I don't play it right now, because I'm broke, but I wouldn't want it to be free so I could play either. They need to advertise aggressively, and find a way to market a relaunch that makes the game feel new.
I'm just waiting for a F2P overhyped sandbox WoW clone with full PVP, epic raid bosses, instanced group content, and Crysis-quality graphics to come out. That, or something fun.
Myself ive been playing it sence day 1 and i still havent seen or done every thing in the game , hardly what i would call unfinished lol
Personally i would pay sony twice what there asking before all pay to play any other mmo out there.
then sony would probably spend less money in its development. but how can you compare guildwars to vanguard. guild wars is more like aoc with all the instances and embodied avantars.
Lol the only money put into VG by SoE is FROM the SUBS, take the subs away and the devs get moved away from the game and it dies.
-------------------------------------
-=:Sometimes "The Majority" Only Means All The Fools Are On The Same Side.:=-
Vanguard really should be free-to-play, but only if the revenue earned was microtransactions based instead of ad-based.
Vanguard I think would be perfect for something like purchaseable codes that open up content in-game; like new Diplomacy cards, new tools for and ways to clear complications in Crafting, housing items, and even Adventuring items would fly.
Since Vanguard's primarily a PvE game with the small exception of it's alternative ruleset, what does it matter if there's a real money market fo less than best items and skills?
Particular style of free-to-play aside, at the moment Vanguard's stuck in a catch-22 of needing more subscribers to afford more developers and content, and needing more developers and content to attract more subscribers.
Vanguard is stuck in its state, the subscribers of the market have already decided to pass it up. It's two years old now; even MMOs that've been on their 2nd and 3rd expansion and have put out much larger free content updates than Vanguard begin to peak in what their subscriber count will ever be.
So going free-to-play wouldn't be a terrible idea if the revenue potential was really there. I imagine it would be lookin' at past examples. Didn't Archlord release to the same five-digit subscriber acclaim, but went free-to-play and ended up wih 500k some players in a relatively short amount of time?
Hopefully it's something they'll consider. I imagine it's their next plan after Isle of Dawn since there'll be nothing else for 'em to attempt. That and SOE's already cited wanting to bring it's subscription revenue earned from all it's games down to a single-digit percentile, so I doubt they'd be adverse to it.
I really much wan tto see where they said they wanted to bring down their subscription based revenue down to (whatever procentialy) by plainly lowering the subscriptions procentile.
I would want to remember it was to be done by expanding on the other model.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
Sepher, do you actually play Vanguard?
The model you suggest would alienate a lot of the real players. Purchasable abilities?! Purchasable items with real cash!!? This is not what Vanguard is about. This model has also never been very successful outside of Asia.
Most western players are turned off by the idea that one guy can play the game better because he makes more money in the real world. The beauty of the online world is that everyone starts equal and then their skill and the work they put into the game eventually will set them apart from everyone else.
Small purchasable content updates might be a smart model though. Mini dungeon expansions that cost a few dollars here and there to be able to enter and play the content. Id pay for that no questions asked.
: )
I really much wan tto see where they said they wanted to bring down their subscription based revenue down to (whatever procentialy) by plainly lowering the subscriptions procentile.
I would want to remember it was to be done by expanding on the other model.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11sony.html?_r=4&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
It depends on how you want to think about it. The drop of subscription revenue to 50% after 2 years time is just about already here. It doesn't look like anything is in place currently to facilitate that, but Free Realms and The Agency are coming out soon enough.
So if you believe Free Realms and The Agency will be 4-9 times as revenue-generating than an untouched Station Access alone; that's one way of thinking about it. But I really doubt Station Access, or at the very least lower-population games like Vanguard will go without retrofitting to accomodate the rapid change in business model SOE's seeking.
After all, Vanguard was built to be supported by hundreds of thousands of subscribers, so its personal business has already failed. Evident by that, and through the fact its without common MMO pleasantries such as expansions and frequent "content" updates, that're actually more content than corrections of past mistakes, performance gains and fixes.
So if Vanguard's business model has already failed, I don't see why not. We'll see though.
In the west, subscription-based MMOs are considered to be "hardcore", or at least whatever you want to call not-casual.
It works when it works, marginally in the case of most MMOs, exceptionally so in the case of WoW. When it doesn't work however and the "hardcore", or not-casual players ignore the MMO in question, why not attempt to grab the casual audience?
For sure it'd alienate Vanguard's current players, but MMOs are a business, if SOE can have 10 times as many players through changing things up, then that's reason enough to alienate current players if that's the sacrifice.
Free games are very popular in the west; from the kinda-free ones like Guild Wars to others like RuneScape. There's just a separation in players who play both pay-to-play and free-to-play games, its usually one or the other of the people I know personally, including myself who sticks to pay-to-play.
I really much wan tto see where they said they wanted to bring down their subscription based revenue down to (whatever procentialy) by plainly lowering the subscriptions procentile.
I would want to remember it was to be done by expanding on the other model.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11sony.html?_r=4&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
It depends on how you want to think about it. The drop of subscription revenue to 50% after 2 years time is just about already here. It doesn't look like anything is in place currently to facilitate that, but Free Realms and The Agency are coming out soon enough.
So if you believe Free Realms and The Agency will be 4-9 times as revenue-generating than an untouched Station Access alone; that's one way of thinking about it. But I really doubt Station Access, or at the very least lower-population games like Vanguard will go without retrofitting to accomodate the rapid change in business model SOE's seeking.
(What I mean is to make an example. To clearify it it even more, just in case.
My wife and I shear/earns the income by 40%-60%. If we would plan to make it equal. We don't do it by lowering, intentionally, the income that the one that earns 60%, we do it by make the one with 40% make more money.)
There is other games that are up for release aswell. About Free Realms it is supposed to have a subscriber part to it, SOE refered to it as membership. Don't know what's really the difference.
After all, Vanguard was built to be supported by hundreds of thousands of subscribers, so its personal business has already failed. Evident by that, and through the fact its without common MMO pleasantries such as expansions and frequent "content" updates, that're actually more content than corrections of past mistakes, performance gains and fixes.
So if Vanguard's business model has already failed, I don't see why not. We'll see though.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
Yeah I know what you meant, but take the cited 150 million in revenue made the year that article was published and assume it was all from Station Access and individual game subscriptoins. If the same amount was made in as little as 3 years from now and considered only 10% of revenue earned, well that'd mean Free Realms and The Agency would collectively be billion dollar businesses rivalling WoW in revenue.
This foregoes DC Universe and whatever else that's in store, that may or may not be free-to-play; but whether they become free-to-play or not, going with your logic that free-to-play revenue can increase without subscription revenue dropping..the percentage math works out ridiculously.
So to me it sounds more reasonable that SOE believes subscription-revenue will drastically drop, and that can only come from Station Access and its individual MMOs changing in business model.
Anyway, my only point is that SOE experiments with real money trade presently, has its entire future planned around the same thing, and have said things like the aforementioned which hint at either intentionally devaluing of retrofitting their MMOs of the past.
Still though, this thread is just hypothetical. I just don't think it'd be a bad idea if Vanguard became free-to-play and adopted real money trade of some kind some day; if even a couple of years from now.
A big fat NO from my part.
F2P games, even with cash shops, usually have very bad communities (atleast in my experiance) and the community in Vanguard is great. Lets keep it that way.
Yeah I know what you meant, but take the cited 150 million in revenue made the year that article was published and assume it was all from Station Access and individual game subscriptoins. If the same amount was made in as little as 3 years from now and considered only 10% of revenue earned, well that'd mean Free Realms and The Agency would collectively be billion dollar businesses rivalling WoW in revenue.
This foregoes DC Universe and whatever else that's in store, that may or may not be free-to-play; but whether they become free-to-play or not, going with your logic that free-to-play revenue can increase without subscription revenue dropping..the percentage math works out ridiculously.
So to me it sounds more reasonable that SOE believes subscription-revenue will drastically drop, and that can only come from Station Access and its individual MMOs changing in business model.
Anyway, my only point is that SOE experiments with real money trade presently, has its entire future planned around the same thing, and have said things like the aforementioned which hint at either intentionally devaluing of retrofitting their MMOs of the past.
Still though, this thread is just hypothetical. I just don't think it'd be a bad idea if Vanguard became free-to-play and adopted real money trade of some kind some day; if even a couple of years from now.
Yeah.
But let's not forget that SOE is not only about MMORPGs.
http://www.station.sony.com/
Taking a quick look at that one could almost today get the impression that MMORPGs is the smallest part of SOE games.
And one also have to remember that SOE also was (recently?) moved from the movie department to the game department of SONY.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
No vanguard should be without working servers. That way this game can go to the way side and SoE can focus on a new fantasy MMO called Everquest 3.
Yeah I know what you meant, but take the cited 150 million in revenue made the year that article was published and assume it was all from Station Access and individual game subscriptoins. If the same amount was made in as little as 3 years from now and considered only 10% of revenue earned, well that'd mean Free Realms and The Agency would collectively be billion dollar businesses rivalling WoW in revenue.
This foregoes DC Universe and whatever else that's in store, that may or may not be free-to-play; but whether they become free-to-play or not, going with your logic that free-to-play revenue can increase without subscription revenue dropping..the percentage math works out ridiculously.
So to me it sounds more reasonable that SOE believes subscription-revenue will drastically drop, and that can only come from Station Access and its individual MMOs changing in business model.
Anyway, my only point is that SOE experiments with real money trade presently, has its entire future planned around the same thing, and have said things like the aforementioned which hint at either intentionally devaluing of retrofitting their MMOs of the past.
Still though, this thread is just hypothetical. I just don't think it'd be a bad idea if Vanguard became free-to-play and adopted real money trade of some kind some day; if even a couple of years from now.
Yeah.
But let's not forget that SOE is not only about MMORPGs.
http://www.station.sony.com/
Taking a quick look at that one could almost today get the impression that MMORPGs is the smallest part of SOE games.
And one also have to remember that SOE also was (recently?) moved from the movie department to the game department of SONY.
“Right now our revenue is almost all subscriptions,” John Smedley, the unit’s president, said in an interview. “In two years, we would like to see no more than 50 percent of our revenue coming from subscriptions, and five years from now we think less than 10 percent of our revenue will come from subscription sources.”
Doesn't get much clearer than that. Nothing about free Wheel of Fortune and etc. indicates they've reaped as much revenue as MMOs; I doubt SOE could drop both Everquests and bank everything on Jeopardy. Untold Legends, the PS3 launch title also released before those statements, and that's just about the only thing in-line with their new direction, since Free Realms and The Agency are supposed to come to the PS3 as well.
And yes, SOE does now belong to the Sony games division, but its still SOE; the move has no bearing whatsoever on the projected math and the kind of transformation needed to take place.
Yeah.
But let's not forget that SOE is not only about MMORPGs.
http://www.station.sony.com/
Taking a quick look at that one could almost today get the impression that MMORPGs is the smallest part of SOE games.
And one also have to remember that SOE also was (recently?) moved from the movie department to the game department of SONY.
“Right now our revenue is almost all subscriptions,” John Smedley, the unit’s president, said in an interview. “In two years, we would like to see no more than 50 percent of our revenue coming from subscriptions, and five years from now we think less than 10 percent of our revenue will come from subscription sources.”
(Note that he actually said "Right now" that is a pretty improtant keyword.)
Doesn't get much clearer than that. Nothing about free Wheel of Fortune and etc. indicates they've reaped as much revenue as MMOs; I doubt SOE could drop both Everquests and bank everything on Jeopardy. Untold Legends, the PS3 launch title also released before those statements, and that's just about the only thing in-line with their new direction, since Free Realms and The Agency are supposed to come to the PS3 as well.
They had Wheel of fortune and the other games aswell, at that point that he said "Right now".
What I am saying is that he never in the interview mentions that their income will be from MMOS. And I do count Free World and The Agency to MMOs. What one thinks of SOE when it comes to games succes the game Everquest come to maind, naturally. But still those game is not the only thing that SOE does. In these last year I think that we have seen 2-3 card based games released, most recently for SWG.
And yes, SOE does now belong to the Sony games division, but its still SOE; the move has no bearing whatsoever on the projected math and the kind of transformation needed to take place.
No and yes. He never said what they will do exactly how they will make their shares of revenue. Apart from the logical in moving a game developer into a game division there can also mean other things in the end. Still (with what I just deleted in the above quotes in mind, expanding on a market by expansion and not by implosion) what will this move means in terms of online gaming for the PS3 and SOE.
Sorry for the funny words used.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
Like I said, it's up to what you want believe.
If you want to believe an SWG card game and other small asides can amount to a billion dollars a year in revenue, then alrighty. This going with your idea that the 100+ million subscription revenue needn't shrink in order to fulfill that 10% margin they're supposed to make up in a few years.
Also, there's no cloud of mystery over what SOE has planned when it comes to new games. You have DC Universe, Free Realms, The Agency; the latter two are confirmed free to play.
Really, none of this even matters. What's important is SOE has expressed desire to move away from subscription based revenue. Whether they're capable of somehow making billions of dollars a year to make that cited 10% margin make sense to you, or they change Station Access games to make that 10% margin make sense to me; fact of the matter is subscription-based business models are something SOE is interested in eliminating.
That isn't to say anything will happen to Vanguard, I'm just saying the climate is good for that kind of change to happen for Vanguard. It meets all the criteria: a failed subscription-based business model, and a developer that has no qualms against real-money-trade business models. No road blocks.
Like I said, it's up to what you want believe.
Ofcourse it is, thats why we are here. Neither one of us knows what is right. Just speculations from both of us.
If you want to believe an SWG card game and other small asides can amount to a billion dollars a year in revenue, then alrighty.
Q: What is an example?
Q: And what was that example used as an example for?
I never said that SWG cardgame and other small asides can amount to a billion dollars a year revenue.
This going with your idea that the 100+ million subscription revenue needn't shrink in order to fulfill that 10% margin they're supposed to make up in a few years.
My Idea is that I doubt that they are planning to stay at what it was 150 billion yearly.
Also, there's no cloud of mystery over what SOE has planned when it comes to new games. You have DC Universe, Free Realms, The Agency; the latter two are confirmed free to play.
Yes. But I don't know and you don't know what Smedley did not mention in that interview. So again, here, they did move the company I doubt that came as a surprise for Smedley. What will it mean with SOE and online games with PS3 in the future. It could be as simple as they move games to SOE it could be other things.
Really, none of this even matters. What's important is SOE has expressed desire to move away from subscription based revenue. Whether they're capable of somehow making billions of dollars a year to make that cited 10% margin make sense to you, or they change Station Access games to make that 10% margin make sense to me; fact of the matter is subscription-based business models are something SOE is interested in eliminating.
Or, they see the end of the tunnel when it comes to subscription based games. It could mean that the market will stagnate and fall for subscription games and they are expecting less subscription based customers. But the difference here with what I say and what you say is (at least my impression) that you say that SOE will remove their sub revenue intentially and I don't think so.
That isn't to say anything will happen to Vanguard, I'm just saying the climate is good for that kind of change to happen for Vanguard. It meets all the criteria: a failed subscription-based business model, and a developer that has no qualms against real-money-trade business models. No road blocks.
I think as someone already mention that it will alianate alot of those people that play VG. And thus making the RMT market/revenue in the end abysmally small even if it would attract new/other customers.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
F2P games are usually anything but free in the end, and I like my costs upfront. Making the game like Guild Wars doesn't really make much sense either as guild wars has to come out with expansions every six months to warrant it existence. Those type games just don't have the depth that Vanguard has either. Vanguard needs a better media blitz maybe along with the next expansion, is sad Vanguard had to release early.
I agree with this. Games are free to play because they have to be, not because they want to be. What company wouldn't want steady set revenue every month? Guild Wars is an exception because you are paying x amount of months up front.
Vanguard blew it's first impression because it had no other choice. Sony has picked up the ball by working on performance issues/bugs and, yes, free additional content. Will their work be in vain? I hope not. Vanguard earned a very bad reputation but it's a good game and IMO the truest RPG game in current times.
Just not worth my time anymore.
No vanguard should be without working servers. That way this game can go to the way side and SoE can focus on a new fantasy MMO called Everquest 3.
That would be a stupid thing for them to do.
No vanguard should be without working servers. That way this game can go to the way side and SoE can focus on a new fantasy MMO called Everquest 3.
That would be a stupid thing for them to do.
Goldknyght your opinion of Vanguard is irrelevant
The game rocks and is seeing a resurgence
No they shouldn't drop the monthly fee ...thats not the way SOE runs its business.The money is used for redevelopment and keeps the community I think one of the best ones in the general MMO forums
"after the time of dice came the day of mice "