For people that are complaining about F2P please stop. If you left becuase you don't want to play they do not want you back because you will still not pay a dime.
The only reason SoE made the game F2P is to cater to the new public or the people that are friends with people that have been advocate for the game or enjoy the game a lot for a long time. This type of system allowed me to try out games I wouldn't have before and allow me to decide if I would want to pay.
I am now lvl 49 and still enjoying the game on a free vanguard account but because of the fact I want to play a SPECIFIC class that is not free I am probably going to reroll and subscribe after I hit cap.
Please answer me this, if item restrictions/class/race restriction were taken off that would the people that have been paying get that the F2P players don't have?
Pretty cash shop coins for exp boost because not like the veterans aren't capped already.
Pretty mounts/apperance item in a game with crappy character graphics?
The amount of people complaining if EQ2 and Vanguard lift all those restrictions the amount of money they will lose from the current subscribers would probably be 1000x more.
Because if all those things were lifted I would personally not pay a dime for any of those misc things that you can buy.
I am all for class / race restrictions in the F2P model. No problem with that.
But! Item restrictions is the worst F2P implementation I have ever seen! It's terrible and an instant turn off for many many new players trying the game.
Nothing! and I mean NOTHING! is more frustrating than enjoying and playing the game, doing quests and get a nice drop or "worse" a nice quest reward.... making you glow of enjoyment and then trying to equip it and being faced with a message saying you CANNOT friggin' equip it!!
It's an instant turn off! I can't emphasize more in how terrible this is!
Gate content! Like Turbine did with DDO and LOTRO! Let people pay for quest packs, dungeon packs, etc.
But never ever block people from equiping items! It's just terrible! As it's the MAIN element in character progression!
That's why EQ2's free 2 play failed misaribly! That's why Vanguards free 2 play will fail miserably too!
It's a real shame that SOE just can't get things right anymore these days! They just keep on screwing up.... over and over again. /shrug
Restricting items that you can loot from drops is pretty lame. It kills all motivation to actually complete anything as you wont be able to use the reward.
I have been playing on and off since closed beta and some bugs have definately been fixed but there are still graphical bugs and hitching issues. You can still fall through the world by crimmeny.
They seem to have removed some solo friendly content to force players into main quest hubs. The TOD area used to be a great solo quest hub for level 10 - 15 but when I went there a few weeks ago there was nothing on offer.
I refused to play the game after I saw their f2p matrix. The restrictions on free accounts is so ridiculous that it makes the game borderline unplayable at higher levels.
Where Sony continues to fail is in its conversion of Subscription to F2P is penalizing past subscribers. Both EQ and Vanguard did this very badly. As a previous subscriber, I return to see how things have changed and find may items locked, bag size warnings and other general restrictions tied to a past character. The F2P in Sony game models really only work for new players or old players willing to start over.
Until they fix that number one issue, converting to F2P will never draw the numbers back to it. Starting a game as F2P or being a new player to a F2P title wether it old or new, the restrictions are not cumbersome as you know them going in. I am enjoying DDO on occasion, despite the restrictions because I never played the game as a subscription as an example.
As far as Vanguard is concerned, I agree with the review with the exception of the Crafting and Diplomacy being a chore. Vanguards system for those things is what originally made many of us want to play the game. And some of the many changes they did to those systems during the first couple of years is what drove many of us away.
The review was spot on IMO. I know that upsets the games advocates, but this is a game that takes a lot of time to learn. There is just so much to do. And the occasional lag is very annoying.
SOE has made f2p options so restrictive as to make the game almost unplayable. I would not even use the term f2p with this game. It is more like a free trial. If you really want to play this game you are going to have to sub.
To read people above saying you can play this game without paying a dime is really amusing, as while it might be possible, the point of a game is to have fun and that would definitely NOT be fun.
All this tells me is that you haven't tried the F2P model.
The F2P options are not particularly restrictive beyond the class choices - and even with those you get a fair breath of playstyles. There's also the option of unlocks for classes
The platinum cap is absurdly large - 2p is a LOT of money in Vanguard for a very long time.
The item restrictions are annoying, particularly if you're a crafter or diplomat - but they're hardly crippling, for any sphere. Adventuring alone you can get by with F2P usable gear quite easily, there are multiple people in my guild doing so. And again, item unlocking options if you really want that item.
Bag space and quest limitation are probably the most annoying factors - one of which is solvable by just getting a large bag, the other of which I agree is restricting.
Stating that the game is almost unplayable is an exaggeration so large that it completely discredits anything you might say, pro or con, about the game, as it shows that you clearly haven't tried the F2P model. It's one of the more permissive F2P models in the MMO market, while still being designed to do what companies exist for - make profit.
Vanguard came highly recommended for its deep crafting and open world. But as the article mentions, the limitations for a F2P player are huge. I haven't played enough to decide if I want to subscribe in order to access the crafting.
Loved this game in its time but a 7 year old game in this current market with its pay model is not gona cut it for me. The F2P content is way to restrictive for me to be tempted to play again. GW2 B2P model IMO is the way to go. This 15 bucks a month to get all content is sad and outdated. Will I consider playing Vanguard again? Sure, if they make a fair for this market payment model. Heck I would resub for 5 bucks a month.
Vanguard came highly recommended for its deep crafting and open world. But as the article mentions, the limitations for a F2P player are huge. I haven't played enough to decide if I want to subscribe in order to access the crafting.
You dont need to subscribe in order to access crafting, actually I think you would save considerable money by not subscribing if crafting is what you want to do. You would occassionally need to unlock a few pieces of gear. At 50 Station Cash each piece of gear, it would take quite a few pieces of gear to equal what a subscription costs.
The review was spot on IMO. I know that upsets the games advocates, but this is a game that takes a lot of time to learn. There is just so much to do. And the occasional lag is very annoying.
SOE has made f2p options so restrictive as to make the game almost unplayable. I would not even use the term f2p with this game. It is more like a free trial. If you really want to play this game you are going to have to sub.
To read people above saying you can play this game without paying a dime is really amusing, as while it might be possible, the point of a game is to have fun and that would definitely NOT be fun.
All this tells me is that you haven't tried the F2P model.
The F2P options are not particularly restrictive beyond the class choices - and even with those you get a fair breath of playstyles. There's also the option of unlocks for classes
The platinum cap is absurdly large - 2p is a LOT of money in Vanguard for a very long time.
The item restrictions are annoying, particularly if you're a crafter or diplomat - but they're hardly crippling, for any sphere. Adventuring alone you can get by with F2P usable gear quite easily, there are multiple people in my guild doing so. And again, item unlocking options if you really want that item.
Bag space and quest limitation are probably the most annoying factors - one of which is solvable by just getting a large bag, the other of which I agree is restricting.
Stating that the game is almost unplayable is an exaggeration so large that it completely discredits anything you might say, pro or con, about the game, as it shows that you clearly haven't tried the F2P model. It's one of the more permissive F2P models in the MMO market, while still being designed to do what companies exist for - make profit.
All your comment tells me that you really have not tried playing much under the f2p restrictions. If you can have fun with all those restrictions, have at it, but for most of us, you really can't enjoy the game with so many limitations. This is exactly why EQ2 is not doing that well either.
I am not against putting money into a game if I like it, but this game almost requires a sub or it will steadily deplete your wallet.
All your comment tells me that you really have not tried playing much under the f2p restrictions. If you can have fun with all those restrictions, have at it, but for most of us, you really can't enjoy the game with so many limitations. This is exactly why EQ2 is not doing that well either.
i tried EQ2 using ftp restrictions -- the silver level (which all exsubs are prior to Dec 2011)
i had no issues leveling w the ftp restrictions as an inquisitor from levels 1 through 85
for levels 86+, you will want to sub to EQ2 because the DOV content is more challenging
The review was spot on IMO. I know that upsets the games advocates, but this is a game that takes a lot of time to learn. There is just so much to do. And the occasional lag is very annoying.
SOE has made f2p options so restrictive as to make the game almost unplayable. I would not even use the term f2p with this game. It is more like a free trial. If you really want to play this game you are going to have to sub.
To read people above saying you can play this game without paying a dime is really amusing, as while it might be possible, the point of a game is to have fun and that would definitely NOT be fun.
All this tells me is that you haven't tried the F2P model.
The F2P options are not particularly restrictive beyond the class choices - and even with those you get a fair breath of playstyles. There's also the option of unlocks for classes
The platinum cap is absurdly large - 2p is a LOT of money in Vanguard for a very long time.
The item restrictions are annoying, particularly if you're a crafter or diplomat - but they're hardly crippling, for any sphere. Adventuring alone you can get by with F2P usable gear quite easily, there are multiple people in my guild doing so. And again, item unlocking options if you really want that item.
Bag space and quest limitation are probably the most annoying factors - one of which is solvable by just getting a large bag, the other of which I agree is restricting.
Stating that the game is almost unplayable is an exaggeration so large that it completely discredits anything you might say, pro or con, about the game, as it shows that you clearly haven't tried the F2P model. It's one of the more permissive F2P models in the MMO market, while still being designed to do what companies exist for - make profit.
Complete and total nonsense. All $oe ftp matrix are terrible but vanguard is by far the worse.
Three spheres with tons of quests and quest limit is 15 vs 40 for eq2 and 15 for eq1(quests were never a means to level,limit has zero impact).
Far less bank and bag space in vg for returning as well as brand new players in vanguard than either eq1 or eq2.
Items are far,far,far,far more restricted in vanguard than either eq1 or eq2. There are fewer quests with restricted gear as rewards in eq2 and mastercrafted in eq2 is better than blue crafted in vanguard. Eq1 you can use the best gear (defiant) all the way to 75ish before you ever have to even consider other choices. Not only is gear far more restriced but with three spheres usingf gear it also has a much greater impact.
Money restrictions are similar for all three. The fact the 2p limit has no impact up until the 50's does not negate its crippling effect . It is absurdly small for those 51+.
Between the quest limits,item restrictions,and space limits the game is in fact nearly unplayable at lower levels and certainly at higher levels. The restrictions certainly remove any enjoyment and sense of purpose to playing.
Until there are options to buying more bank space,inventory space,quest slots,coin limit,etc the game isnt free to play your way. Its sub or be gimped and nickel and dimed.
The review was spot on IMO. I know that upsets the games advocates, but this is a game that takes a lot of time to learn. There is just so much to do. And the occasional lag is very annoying.
SOE has made f2p options so restrictive as to make the game almost unplayable. I would not even use the term f2p with this game. It is more like a free trial. If you really want to play this game you are going to have to sub.
To read people above saying you can play this game without paying a dime is really amusing, as while it might be possible, the point of a game is to have fun and that would definitely NOT be fun.
All this tells me is that you haven't tried the F2P model.
The F2P options are not particularly restrictive beyond the class choices - and even with those you get a fair breath of playstyles. There's also the option of unlocks for classes
The platinum cap is absurdly large - 2p is a LOT of money in Vanguard for a very long time.
The item restrictions are annoying, particularly if you're a crafter or diplomat - but they're hardly crippling, for any sphere. Adventuring alone you can get by with F2P usable gear quite easily, there are multiple people in my guild doing so. And again, item unlocking options if you really want that item.
Bag space and quest limitation are probably the most annoying factors - one of which is solvable by just getting a large bag, the other of which I agree is restricting.
Stating that the game is almost unplayable is an exaggeration so large that it completely discredits anything you might say, pro or con, about the game, as it shows that you clearly haven't tried the F2P model. It's one of the more permissive F2P models in the MMO market, while still being designed to do what companies exist for - make profit.
Complete and total nonsense. All $oe ftp matrix are terrible but vanguard is by far the worse.
Three spheres with tons of quests and quest limit is 15 vs 40 for eq2 and 15 for eq1(quests were never a means to level,limit has zero impact).
Far less bank and bag space in vg for returning as well as brand new players in vanguard than either eq1 or eq2.
Items are far,far,far,far more restricted in vanguard than either eq1 or eq2. There are fewer quests with restricted gear as rewards in eq2 and mastercrafted in eq2 is better than blue crafted in vanguard. Eq1 you can use the best gear (defiant) all the way to 75ish before you ever have to even consider other choices. Not only is gear far more restriced but with three spheres usingf gear it also has a much greater impact.
Money restrictions are similar for all three. The fact the 2p limit has no impact up until the 50's does not negate its crippling effect . It is absurdly small for those 51+.
Between the quest limits,item restrictions,and space limits the game is in fact nearly unplayable at lower levels and certainly at higher levels. The restrictions certainly remove any enjoyment and sense of purpose to playing.
Until there are options to buying more bank space,inventory space,quest slots,coin limit,etc the game isnt free to play your way. Its sub or be gimped and nickel and dimed.
Vanguard is by far the worst? Are you kidding me? It's significantly more permissive than both the EQ1 and EQ2 F2P matrices - it's no more restrictive than the LOTRO matrix, the shift is simply on itemization instead of blocking off content.
Stating that items are more restricted than in EQ1 and EQ2 is horribly misleading. Yes, on a sheer number of restricted items basis, you're correct. However, in both games the gear is only less restricted up to a certain point in the expansion progression, at which point your options are to sink a lot of money into unlockers or subscribe - the same as in Vanguard. Zero effective difference.
The one area I will agree it's effectively more restricted is crafting and diplo - not that it limits your ability to progress in either sphere by being more restricted.
As far as all the rest: god forbid a company design a game's F2P system to actually, you know, make money. We all know that MMOs cost nothing to maintain and develop, after all. And it's not like literally every truly F2P, unrestricted MMO has either failed or is currently stumbling its way towards failure due to a lack of funding or anything.
I really don't get this moaning nowdays. First you say it's great game, then you say F2P is faulty and yet you refuse to pay any money, seriously?!? If it really is that great game people should be subbing it instantly after trying F2P, but they aren't. I find Vanguard, yet again, over hyped and not that good game. It was and is a betamax in DVD world.
Haha WOW. This website has lost ALL credibility. They give SWOTR and AoC 9s but they give VANGUARD a 6.5??
The crafting and diplomacy a "chore"? You mean, two of the biggest features of the game, with more depth and reward than almost any other crafting system?
And not a word about how unique the classes are?
And a limiting FTP system? The only FTP system that's more open ended than Vanguard is Aion, and thats because they're funded by Asian subs. I can play 6 classes to level 55 for free, and I can play ANY class to level 20. Beyond that, there's absolutely NOTHING that would interrupt gameplay. Every zone dungeon and quest, free.
Christ, gave "innovation" a score of 6 because "when delving further into the game features, such as the Diplomacy and the Crafting system, it becomes very complicated, and highly time consuming." My freaking god.
And for longevity you say "oh well the game has a TON of content but that doesn't count, I just didn't think it was cool so...6!"
The sad thing is that this game really needs a good review on sites like this at this time. This review seems based on a small part of the gameplay and dont give the game the justice I think it deserves and needs.
I really hope someone else from mmorpg.com sits down with Vanguard to do a re-re-review as I believe it deserves more than the 6.5 it got.
The sad thing is that this game really needs a good review on sites like this at this time. This review seems based on a small part of the gameplay and dont give the game the justice I think it deserves and needs.
What it sounds like is that it was reviewed by some shmo who barely plays MMORPGs, or is used to such shallow MMOs that they don't know what to do when confronted with depth or complexity. Aka, WoW clones must be their only experience.
I would say that the biggest issue right now is not the "free to try" model, but the state of the game itself.
From reading the posts on the officiel forums it sounds like the big groups have stopped raiding all together since it is impossible cause of the lag and crashes and glitches.
And it sounds like the dev's (of which there are about 8), don't even know about half the bugs.
I really got excited after trying the game untill seeing just how buggy and laggy it all is, it feels like a really solid game if it would just work.
SOE's investment into this game is far too little to save this wreck... sadly.
I really hate the "you can level to xx with no problem" argument. It's not about the "can you". It's about is it "fun and compelling" to do this.
i found EQ2 leveling fun and compelling --- why else would i keep playing for 85 levels ?
what makes DOV different is all quest gear is legendary at 86+, and it kills the fun unless you are a subscriber
Which is done intentionally because SoE have a terrible F2P model and want a cash grab. Sorry but the SoE F2P models are the absolute worst, and do not inspire anyone to give them any money, which is why their servers are so dead.
I would say that the biggest issue right now is not the "free to try" model, but the state of the game itself.
From reading the posts on the officiel forums it sounds like the big groups have stopped raiding all together since it is impossible cause of the lag and crashes and glitches.
And it sounds like the dev's (of which there are about 8), don't even know about half the bugs.
I really got excited after trying the game untill seeing just how buggy and laggy it all is, it feels like a really solid game if it would just work.
SOE's investment into this game is far too little to save this wreck... sadly.
To be fair, the devs are mostly new, and the ones that arent were brought back after more than a year break from working on the game. So they arent really expected to know all the bugs. Vanguard has been working with a skeleton staff since the Isle of Dawn failed to bring any new players in.
I don't think SoE ever planned to turn this into the next big thing, they are just opening the doors up a bit more and keeping the lights on to milk a bit more money from it.
I really hate the "you can level to xx with no problem" argument. It's not about the "can you". It's about is it "fun and compelling" to do this.
i found EQ2 leveling fun and compelling --- why else would i keep playing for 85 levels ?
what makes DOV different is all quest gear is legendary at 86+, and it kills the fun unless you are a subscriber
Well Nadia good for you, sure you can level to 85 without spending a dime, but really, you are missing a lot of the game doing so. What is the point of that? Again I am not against spending money on a game I enjoy and I did spend money on EQ2, but I got tired of having to constantly spend money on the game. You might just as well sub. All of SOE's f2p games are exactly like that. I just felt that time has passed EQ2 by, it just was not worth the sub any more.
That is exactly why, when I saw all the restrictions on Vanguard, I just gave it a pass. SOE just does not get how to appeal to the f2p audience. I do have an existing Vanguard account too, played for the first 6 months of the game.
I really hate the "you can level to xx with no problem" argument. It's not about the "can you". It's about is it "fun and compelling" to do this.
i found EQ2 leveling fun and compelling --- why else would i keep playing for 85 levels ?
what makes DOV different is all quest gear is legendary at 86+, and it kills the fun unless you are a subscriber
Well Nadia good for you, sure you can level to 85 without spending a dime, but really, you are missing a lot of the game doing so. What is the point of that? Again I am not against spending money on a game I enjoy and I did spend money on EQ2, but I got tired of having to constantly spend money on the game. You might just as well sub. All of SOE's f2p games are exactly like that. I just felt that time has passed EQ2 by, it just was not worth the sub any more.
That is exactly why, when I saw all the restrictions on Vanguard, I just gave it a pass. SOE just does not get how to appeal to the f2p audience. I do have an existing Vanguard account too, played for the first 6 months of the game.
You start off by saying that you're not against spending money on games you enjoy, but you're tired of having to constantly spend money on the games.
That mindset is not compatible with MMO development and support.
Without continuing income, they cannot provide continuing development, and eventually they run out of money. It's a very simple concept, and it's been played out time and time again across the games development world as a whole. Either they make the game, release it, and that's it except for bug fixes, or they continue to try to develop new content and fail financially due to lack of a revenue stream.
No company in their right mind should "appeal to the f2p audience" as you're representing that audience. There is zero reason to want to attract a crowd of players who will bring you inadequate revenue - you can't even point to word of mouth increasing the game's popularity, because more players won't significantly increase the revenue stream.
Even if they'd limited the cash shop to strictly vanity and appearance items, there's a limited return on that - many F2P players don't buy that crap at all, and the ones that do typically don't buy it on a constant, ongoing basis.
That's precisely why SOE uses hybrid F2P models. A true F2P system doesn't provide enough predictable revenue to run your company.
I genuinely fail to understand this mindset. An MMO subscription is almost literally the cheapest form of on-demand entertainment possible.
You make a lot of assumptions in your reasoning, but the highlighted piece stands out the most. Where do you come up with that? The F2P market is more profitible than the P2P market by a long shot. There is a huge reason to attract a large volume of players to a massively multiplayer online game. Accepting potentially smaller revenue per account is acceptable because math says so when your base is magnified factors larger than subscription games.
Restructering how SoE approaches the payment model doesn't mean they have to remain unprofitible and assuming that is the only option here is what has led us down this path of ridiculous pricing models. Then you go on to say something really silly about the predictibility of the F2P business model when it has been wildly successful.
Don't stop there because you top yourself with a subscription being the cheapest form of on demand entertainment. If you include all game genres and payment models, and no other forms of entertainment, the subscription model is guaranteed not be the cheapest form. A F2P game can always be cheaper. A B2P game will be cheaper after a short period of time which is likely to be one month.
Your entire argument falls flat right there.
I have never seen any evidence that the F2P market is more profitable than the P2P market for MMORPGs on anything but a short term basis. If you have it, I'd love to see it. People love to spout the phrase I highlighted in your post, but no one ever seems to be able to back it up. Logically it doesn't even make sense - the only way in which a F2P MMORPG could remain more profitable than a P2P MMORPG is if the "F2P" system is designed to require financial investment to continue playing. On a short term basis a F2P MMORPG will be more profitable, absolutely. People are very likely to sink a decent chunk of money into a game when a cash shop is first introduced. To keep that up, you have to either constantly bring in new players who will make that initial investment into the cash shop, which typically does not happen.
The second place your argument trips and falls on its face is the "wildly successful" part. Exactly where in the MMO marketplace has it been wildly successful? It's done well in a few games - it's failed miserably in a lot more. I don't know of anywhere that I'd characterize it the way you are.
And no, sorry, but it IS the cheapest form of on demand entertainment. Yes, you can make the argument that B2P games are cheaper after a short period - and when you show me a B2P game that continually evolves, and releases substantial amounts of new content on a regular basis, with each release being either a substantial portion, or exceeding in some cases, the content of the ogirinal game, I'll agree with you. Oh, and provides the same length and depth of content. I mean Modern Warfare 3 *totally* has 200+ hours of different stuff to do, right? I mean you can point to Guild Wars 2, sure, which people are already getting bored with in droves, and hasn't released a single plan to provide new content as of yet. Or to any number of true F2P MMOs that people play briefly before discovering that they're absurdly shallow and poorly designed.
Sorry, but this is one thing you'll never, ever convince me on, or a lot of other people. I don't disagree that a true F2P model can make players happy. But on a long term basis it's miserable for the game's health.
Wow... this review was all over the place. It felt like someone had a deadline to make, played the game for a few days (or less), decided they didn't like what they saw, and wrote a (amazingly) short story about why. All attempts at explaining why systems seemed lackluster were either on the bye, or non-existent. Even the pro's felt like they were summed up without very much explanation as to why. And that's just my hash at how the review was written, and has nothing to do with my utter disagreement with the review's outlook at Vanguard in general. My review of this review is 3/10. If you're going to call out a games system (i.e: Diplo/Crafting a "chrore")... explain yourself. If you're going to say they're great.. explain yourself. And do so in an organized manner. I also agree with previous posts in regard to how the system was tallied in regard to the summary given for that category.. Anyway you look at it, though, this whole review reeks of an amateur stab at reviewing a complex system.
Comments
I am all for class / race restrictions in the F2P model. No problem with that.
But! Item restrictions is the worst F2P implementation I have ever seen! It's terrible and an instant turn off for many many new players trying the game.
Nothing! and I mean NOTHING! is more frustrating than enjoying and playing the game, doing quests and get a nice drop or "worse" a nice quest reward.... making you glow of enjoyment and then trying to equip it and being faced with a message saying you CANNOT friggin' equip it!!
It's an instant turn off! I can't emphasize more in how terrible this is!
Gate content! Like Turbine did with DDO and LOTRO! Let people pay for quest packs, dungeon packs, etc.
But never ever block people from equiping items! It's just terrible! As it's the MAIN element in character progression!
That's why EQ2's free 2 play failed misaribly! That's why Vanguards free 2 play will fail miserably too!
It's a real shame that SOE just can't get things right anymore these days! They just keep on screwing up.... over and over again. /shrug
Restricting items that you can loot from drops is pretty lame. It kills all motivation to actually complete anything as you wont be able to use the reward.
I have been playing on and off since closed beta and some bugs have definately been fixed but there are still graphical bugs and hitching issues. You can still fall through the world by crimmeny.
They seem to have removed some solo friendly content to force players into main quest hubs. The TOD area used to be a great solo quest hub for level 10 - 15 but when I went there a few weeks ago there was nothing on offer.
"Diplomacy & crafting are a chore"
That's so incredibly stupid i don't even know how to begin to comment it...
Diplomacy and crafting are two "pros" of this game, FFS.
For once, crafting is not automatic, thank god !!!
Where Sony continues to fail is in its conversion of Subscription to F2P is penalizing past subscribers. Both EQ and Vanguard did this very badly. As a previous subscriber, I return to see how things have changed and find may items locked, bag size warnings and other general restrictions tied to a past character. The F2P in Sony game models really only work for new players or old players willing to start over.
Until they fix that number one issue, converting to F2P will never draw the numbers back to it. Starting a game as F2P or being a new player to a F2P title wether it old or new, the restrictions are not cumbersome as you know them going in. I am enjoying DDO on occasion, despite the restrictions because I never played the game as a subscription as an example.
As far as Vanguard is concerned, I agree with the review with the exception of the Crafting and Diplomacy being a chore. Vanguards system for those things is what originally made many of us want to play the game. And some of the many changes they did to those systems during the first couple of years is what drove many of us away.
Subscribe
www.twitch.tv/chief_sarcan
twitter.com/Chief_Sarcan
www.youtube.com/user/ChiefSarcan
Visit http://yokaiblog.wikidot.com for TSW Guides
All this tells me is that you haven't tried the F2P model.
The F2P options are not particularly restrictive beyond the class choices - and even with those you get a fair breath of playstyles. There's also the option of unlocks for classes
The platinum cap is absurdly large - 2p is a LOT of money in Vanguard for a very long time.
The item restrictions are annoying, particularly if you're a crafter or diplomat - but they're hardly crippling, for any sphere. Adventuring alone you can get by with F2P usable gear quite easily, there are multiple people in my guild doing so. And again, item unlocking options if you really want that item.
Bag space and quest limitation are probably the most annoying factors - one of which is solvable by just getting a large bag, the other of which I agree is restricting.
Stating that the game is almost unplayable is an exaggeration so large that it completely discredits anything you might say, pro or con, about the game, as it shows that you clearly haven't tried the F2P model. It's one of the more permissive F2P models in the MMO market, while still being designed to do what companies exist for - make profit.
You dont need to subscribe in order to access crafting, actually I think you would save considerable money by not subscribing if crafting is what you want to do. You would occassionally need to unlock a few pieces of gear. At 50 Station Cash each piece of gear, it would take quite a few pieces of gear to equal what a subscription costs.
All your comment tells me that you really have not tried playing much under the f2p restrictions. If you can have fun with all those restrictions, have at it, but for most of us, you really can't enjoy the game with so many limitations. This is exactly why EQ2 is not doing that well either.
I am not against putting money into a game if I like it, but this game almost requires a sub or it will steadily deplete your wallet.
i tried EQ2 using ftp restrictions -- the silver level (which all exsubs are prior to Dec 2011)
i had no issues leveling w the ftp restrictions as an inquisitor from levels 1 through 85
for levels 86+, you will want to sub to EQ2 because the DOV content is more challenging
EQ2 fan sites
Complete and total nonsense. All $oe ftp matrix are terrible but vanguard is by far the worse.
Three spheres with tons of quests and quest limit is 15 vs 40 for eq2 and 15 for eq1(quests were never a means to level,limit has zero impact).
Far less bank and bag space in vg for returning as well as brand new players in vanguard than either eq1 or eq2.
Items are far,far,far,far more restricted in vanguard than either eq1 or eq2. There are fewer quests with restricted gear as rewards in eq2 and mastercrafted in eq2 is better than blue crafted in vanguard. Eq1 you can use the best gear (defiant) all the way to 75ish before you ever have to even consider other choices. Not only is gear far more restriced but with three spheres usingf gear it also has a much greater impact.
Money restrictions are similar for all three. The fact the 2p limit has no impact up until the 50's does not negate its crippling effect . It is absurdly small for those 51+.
Between the quest limits,item restrictions,and space limits the game is in fact nearly unplayable at lower levels and certainly at higher levels. The restrictions certainly remove any enjoyment and sense of purpose to playing.
Until there are options to buying more bank space,inventory space,quest slots,coin limit,etc the game isnt free to play your way. Its sub or be gimped and nickel and dimed.
Vanguard is by far the worst? Are you kidding me? It's significantly more permissive than both the EQ1 and EQ2 F2P matrices - it's no more restrictive than the LOTRO matrix, the shift is simply on itemization instead of blocking off content.
Stating that items are more restricted than in EQ1 and EQ2 is horribly misleading. Yes, on a sheer number of restricted items basis, you're correct. However, in both games the gear is only less restricted up to a certain point in the expansion progression, at which point your options are to sink a lot of money into unlockers or subscribe - the same as in Vanguard. Zero effective difference.
The one area I will agree it's effectively more restricted is crafting and diplo - not that it limits your ability to progress in either sphere by being more restricted.
As far as all the rest: god forbid a company design a game's F2P system to actually, you know, make money. We all know that MMOs cost nothing to maintain and develop, after all. And it's not like literally every truly F2P, unrestricted MMO has either failed or is currently stumbling its way towards failure due to a lack of funding or anything.
I really don't get this moaning nowdays. First you say it's great game, then you say F2P is faulty and yet you refuse to pay any money, seriously?!? If it really is that great game people should be subbing it instantly after trying F2P, but they aren't. I find Vanguard, yet again, over hyped and not that good game. It was and is a betamax in DVD world.
There is no free meals, get over it.
Haha WOW. This website has lost ALL credibility. They give SWOTR and AoC 9s but they give VANGUARD a 6.5??
The crafting and diplomacy a "chore"? You mean, two of the biggest features of the game, with more depth and reward than almost any other crafting system?
And not a word about how unique the classes are?
And a limiting FTP system? The only FTP system that's more open ended than Vanguard is Aion, and thats because they're funded by Asian subs. I can play 6 classes to level 55 for free, and I can play ANY class to level 20. Beyond that, there's absolutely NOTHING that would interrupt gameplay. Every zone dungeon and quest, free.
Christ, gave "innovation" a score of 6 because "when delving further into the game features, such as the Diplomacy and the Crafting system, it becomes very complicated, and highly time consuming." My freaking god.
And for longevity you say "oh well the game has a TON of content but that doesn't count, I just didn't think it was cool so...6!"
The sad thing is that this game really needs a good review on sites like this at this time. This review seems based on a small part of the gameplay and dont give the game the justice I think it deserves and needs.
I really hope someone else from mmorpg.com sits down with Vanguard to do a re-re-review as I believe it deserves more than the 6.5 it got.
What it sounds like is that it was reviewed by some shmo who barely plays MMORPGs, or is used to such shallow MMOs that they don't know what to do when confronted with depth or complexity. Aka, WoW clones must be their only experience.
i found EQ2 leveling fun and compelling --- why else would i keep playing for 85 levels ?
what makes DOV different is all quest gear is legendary at 86+, and it kills the fun unless you are a subscriber
EQ2 fan sites
I would say that the biggest issue right now is not the "free to try" model, but the state of the game itself.
From reading the posts on the officiel forums it sounds like the big groups have stopped raiding all together since it is impossible cause of the lag and crashes and glitches.
And it sounds like the dev's (of which there are about 8), don't even know about half the bugs.
I really got excited after trying the game untill seeing just how buggy and laggy it all is, it feels like a really solid game if it would just work.
SOE's investment into this game is far too little to save this wreck... sadly.
Which is done intentionally because SoE have a terrible F2P model and want a cash grab. Sorry but the SoE F2P models are the absolute worst, and do not inspire anyone to give them any money, which is why their servers are so dead.
To be fair, the devs are mostly new, and the ones that arent were brought back after more than a year break from working on the game. So they arent really expected to know all the bugs. Vanguard has been working with a skeleton staff since the Isle of Dawn failed to bring any new players in.
I don't think SoE ever planned to turn this into the next big thing, they are just opening the doors up a bit more and keeping the lights on to milk a bit more money from it.
Well Nadia good for you, sure you can level to 85 without spending a dime, but really, you are missing a lot of the game doing so. What is the point of that? Again I am not against spending money on a game I enjoy and I did spend money on EQ2, but I got tired of having to constantly spend money on the game. You might just as well sub. All of SOE's f2p games are exactly like that. I just felt that time has passed EQ2 by, it just was not worth the sub any more.
That is exactly why, when I saw all the restrictions on Vanguard, I just gave it a pass. SOE just does not get how to appeal to the f2p audience. I do have an existing Vanguard account too, played for the first 6 months of the game.
You start off by saying that you're not against spending money on games you enjoy, but you're tired of having to constantly spend money on the games.
That mindset is not compatible with MMO development and support.
Without continuing income, they cannot provide continuing development, and eventually they run out of money. It's a very simple concept, and it's been played out time and time again across the games development world as a whole. Either they make the game, release it, and that's it except for bug fixes, or they continue to try to develop new content and fail financially due to lack of a revenue stream.
No company in their right mind should "appeal to the f2p audience" as you're representing that audience. There is zero reason to want to attract a crowd of players who will bring you inadequate revenue - you can't even point to word of mouth increasing the game's popularity, because more players won't significantly increase the revenue stream.
Even if they'd limited the cash shop to strictly vanity and appearance items, there's a limited return on that - many F2P players don't buy that crap at all, and the ones that do typically don't buy it on a constant, ongoing basis.
That's precisely why SOE uses hybrid F2P models. A true F2P system doesn't provide enough predictable revenue to run your company.
I genuinely fail to understand this mindset. An MMO subscription is almost literally the cheapest form of on-demand entertainment possible.
Your entire argument falls flat right there.
I have never seen any evidence that the F2P market is more profitable than the P2P market for MMORPGs on anything but a short term basis. If you have it, I'd love to see it. People love to spout the phrase I highlighted in your post, but no one ever seems to be able to back it up. Logically it doesn't even make sense - the only way in which a F2P MMORPG could remain more profitable than a P2P MMORPG is if the "F2P" system is designed to require financial investment to continue playing. On a short term basis a F2P MMORPG will be more profitable, absolutely. People are very likely to sink a decent chunk of money into a game when a cash shop is first introduced. To keep that up, you have to either constantly bring in new players who will make that initial investment into the cash shop, which typically does not happen.
The second place your argument trips and falls on its face is the "wildly successful" part. Exactly where in the MMO marketplace has it been wildly successful? It's done well in a few games - it's failed miserably in a lot more. I don't know of anywhere that I'd characterize it the way you are.
And no, sorry, but it IS the cheapest form of on demand entertainment. Yes, you can make the argument that B2P games are cheaper after a short period - and when you show me a B2P game that continually evolves, and releases substantial amounts of new content on a regular basis, with each release being either a substantial portion, or exceeding in some cases, the content of the ogirinal game, I'll agree with you. Oh, and provides the same length and depth of content. I mean Modern Warfare 3 *totally* has 200+ hours of different stuff to do, right? I mean you can point to Guild Wars 2, sure, which people are already getting bored with in droves, and hasn't released a single plan to provide new content as of yet. Or to any number of true F2P MMOs that people play briefly before discovering that they're absurdly shallow and poorly designed.
Sorry, but this is one thing you'll never, ever convince me on, or a lot of other people. I don't disagree that a true F2P model can make players happy. But on a long term basis it's miserable for the game's health.
Wow... this review was all over the place. It felt like someone had a deadline to make, played the game for a few days (or less), decided they didn't like what they saw, and wrote a (amazingly) short story about why. All attempts at explaining why systems seemed lackluster were either on the bye, or non-existent. Even the pro's felt like they were summed up without very much explanation as to why. And that's just my hash at how the review was written, and has nothing to do with my utter disagreement with the review's outlook at Vanguard in general. My review of this review is 3/10. If you're going to call out a games system (i.e: Diplo/Crafting a "chrore")... explain yourself. If you're going to say they're great.. explain yourself. And do so in an organized manner. I also agree with previous posts in regard to how the system was tallied in regard to the summary given for that category.. Anyway you look at it, though, this whole review reeks of an amateur stab at reviewing a complex system.