Originally posted by Garvon3

Originally posted by Skuz

Smedley has tweeted that there will be news of a Free to Play system in this game, now obviously the work it entails to convert to a free to play title can be very extensive & the wide-open nature of Vanguard will mean it will take much more work than say a more segmented or instanced game such as DDO was.

The developers moving back to the title, from wherever, could be a temporary thing, to prep the game for F2P & to do the groundwork for future development should the move to F2P prove a success, whereupon further investment in development would become finacially rewarding for SoE & they'd swing it into gear.

With EverQuest now moving to F2P in March I can see Vanguard following suit behind it, I wouldn't expect further details to emerge until EverQuest's F2P transition has been completed though.

So long as they never add instancing to the game it might work. The problem with FTP is that it works by breaking the community up, which is the opposite of what an MMO is supposed to do.

I don't understand?  What part of F2P breaks up the community?

Originally posted by uohaloran

Originally posted by Garvon3

Originally posted by Skuz

Smedley has tweeted that there will be news of a Free to Play system in this game, now obviously the work it entails to convert to a free to play title can be very extensive & the wide-open nature of Vanguard will mean it will take much more work than say a more segmented or instanced game such as DDO was.

The developers moving back to the title, from wherever, could be a temporary thing, to prep the game for F2P & to do the groundwork for future development should the move to F2P prove a success, whereupon further investment in development would become finacially rewarding for SoE & they'd swing it into gear.

With EverQuest now moving to F2P in March I can see Vanguard following suit behind it, I wouldn't expect further details to emerge until EverQuest's F2P transition has been completed though.

So long as they never add instancing to the game it might work. The problem with FTP is that it works by breaking the community up, which is the opposite of what an MMO is supposed to do.

I don't understand?  What part of F2P breaks up the community?

I think his concern is about selling off quest areas or creating quest packs where, if a player doesn't have that quest area they can't do it.

My thought is that if Vangaurd were to become f2p it would be more about selling cosmetic items, pets, special emotes or mounts, etc.

Pretty sure this is a way to get bug fixes and maybe a content update before pushing it to F2P which would be a great thing for the game.

There is a new raid zone on the test server, so they have added new content.

And they did plenty of stuff that is in the psirit of vanguard, like fleshing out diplomacy and adding galleons.

Extra love for a push to f2p makes sense, but they wouldnt just pull the people when the switch happens, they need new content to keep people interested.

I dont buy the 'smoke and mrrors show so people dont jump ship' theory, because vanguard doesnt have many potential jumpers, certainly not enough to make any impact on the bottom line.

Originally posted by Sovrath

I think his concern is about selling off quest areas or creating quest packs where, if a player doesn't have that quest area they can't do it.

My thought is that if Vangaurd were to become f2p it would be more about selling cosmetic items, pets, special emotes or mounts, etc.

 

SoE's f2p model doesnt restrict content, outside of the latest expansion pack, which of course VG doesnt have.  They restrict gear so that players an only wear group level drops or crafted (gear that only raiders would ever truly need).  Which also wouldnt work in VG, because you could just use crafted gear.

Outside of race and class restrictions, Im not sure what SoE could really do wth a f2p model that would actually bring in revenue.

I have played Vanguard on free trials a couple of times and it has actually evolved into quite a good game. I wouldn't blame SOE for making something of it as a F2P and it would be a shame to see it shelved like SWG.

Some improvements to the graphics wouldn't go amiss though. I was mostly disappointed with the character models but that's just my personal opinion.

Will it stay as P2P or go freemium or f2p - does not matter for me.

Really I love game's concept and I was even subbed to Vanguard as first game after one of my longer mmo breaks ,but I just don't personally feel like coming back.

"Too litttle ,too late" <-- this comes to my mind sadly :(

Just waiting for GW2 and ArcheAge now.

Originally posted by teakbois

Originally posted by Sovrath

I think his concern is about selling off quest areas or creating quest packs where, if a player doesn't have that quest area they can't do it.

My thought is that if Vangaurd were to become f2p it would be more about selling cosmetic items, pets, special emotes or mounts, etc.

 

SoE's f2p model doesnt restrict content, outside of the latest expansion pack, which of course VG doesnt have.  They restrict gear so that players an only wear group level drops or crafted (gear that only raiders would ever truly need).  Which also wouldnt work in VG, because you could just use crafted gear.

 

Outside of race and class restrictions, Im not sure what SoE could really do wth a f2p model that would actually bring in revenue.

This.   However, if they did go ftp with Vanguard, I would certainly go back.  I played it last year for two or three months and was pleasently surprised.  

Another testament to the power of a bad launch.

The only reason vanguard exists is because of sony so people really need to stop with the hate

microsoft were the original investors and sony saved the game from being cancelled.

What could they put into the store?

- access to TP's, free players couldn't use them without a ticket, and those cost

- access to mounts, free players can never get a mount or run the mount quests, without a ticket that costs

- Xp pots, crafting pots, etc, I'd rather see more players, even if it is a little unbalanced

- Randolph

Getting a healthy population is goal #1, so anything they can do, balanced or not, is good. After they get it healthy, my guess is they want to sell it.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by uohaloran

Originally posted by Garvon3

Originally posted by Skuz

Smedley has tweeted that there will be news of a Free to Play system in this game, now obviously the work it entails to convert to a free to play title can be very extensive & the wide-open nature of Vanguard will mean it will take much more work than say a more segmented or instanced game such as DDO was.

The developers moving back to the title, from wherever, could be a temporary thing, to prep the game for F2P & to do the groundwork for future development should the move to F2P prove a success, whereupon further investment in development would become finacially rewarding for SoE & they'd swing it into gear.

With EverQuest now moving to F2P in March I can see Vanguard following suit behind it, I wouldn't expect further details to emerge until EverQuest's F2P transition has been completed though.

So long as they never add instancing to the game it might work. The problem with FTP is that it works by breaking the community up, which is the opposite of what an MMO is supposed to do.

I don't understand?  What part of F2P breaks up the community?

I think his concern is about selling off quest areas or creating quest packs where, if a player doesn't have that quest area they can't do it.

My thought is that if Vangaurd were to become f2p it would be more about selling cosmetic items, pets, special emotes or mounts, etc.

 

I play DDO and this behavior exists. That said, in DDO doesn't matter and its not a problem at all... you just need people and a decent LFG tool ( like DDOs ). In fact I think that vanguard's LFG tool ( while not as good a UI as DDO ) encompases the functionality needed.

I am playing VG right now ( subbed ) but would love to see f2p. Be nice to get a ton of new players in !

Originally posted by olepi

What could they put into the store?

- access to TP's, free players couldn't use them without a ticket, and those cost

- access to mounts, free players can never get a mount or run the mount quests, without a ticket that costs

- Xp pots, crafting pots, etc, I'd rather see more players, even if it is a little unbalanced

- Randolph

Getting a healthy population is goal #1, so anything they can do, balanced or not, is good. After they get it healthy, my guess is they want to sell it.

Cool ideas. Also some classes would be available free/not. They could even limit access to dungeons "invisible barrier unless flagged".

Cosmetic gear, more hairstyles, and if they added them, Mercs.

Even as the game stands now it is better than many of the new MMO's that have come out in the past 5 years.  But I think VG is a game for the "older" crowd, this is not a game for the SWTOR or WoW fan club.  I play it on and off and have a lot of fun with it.

The great thing about this game is it has been left alone and not completely dumbed down like many other games, even EQ1 and 2 have been slowly WoW'd over but not VG.  I hope if this is true they are not coming into make it more like WOW...... 

As to the store question they could put just about anything they currently offer in the EQ1 or EQ2 store.

VG would be a great game, if there was any sort of character development.  Every person in every class is exactly the same

Gear is the only progression, no talents, no AA's no post cap things to do.  Once you max out diplo and crafting you are pretty much bored

Originally posted by teakbois

Originally posted by InFlamestwo

I wont support them any further until they give us what the players want.

 

I played it for 1 year 4 years ago.

Isnt increasing the development team what the players want?  Bringing back people that worked on the game prior?  

it doesnt matter that the development team increases unless they actually do productive work. At this time (and state of the game) i wouldnt join unless its going F2P

Originally posted by Mari2k

To to the homepage of vanguard and look at updates, last was at 

- December 9, 2009

 

This game is dead...

The website is dead. Its not the last update, last update I know of was about 3 weeks ago (and introduced the very infamous crash bug where you would crash at every levelup).

If it becomes free to play and there will be a significant population boost. I'd take about 2000 - 3000 people online during prime times at a bare minimum then yes. I would definitely return.

Even without ftp, if it started to get real development again, I would consider going back.  I just think it is too hard to kickstart the game, after all the down time.  Vanguard is in my top 5 mmos, but when they didn't do the relaunch, I think it may be too late.

Originally posted by Myrdynn

VG would be a great game, if there was any sort of character development.  Every person in every class is exactly the same

Gear is the only progression, no talents, no AA's no post cap things to do.  Once you max out diplo and crafting you are pretty much bored

 

You do realize that many classes have specialization routes (for instance clerics have peace, war, purity and a few others) shaman have 3 animal aspects, in many cases these routes require different gear so its not that easy to just swap between them (although you can usually do a quest to do so)

They were working on AA's. IMHO talents are a waste. Rift proved that although customization is nice it makes balancing a nightmare.. IMHO id rather have an AA system than a talent system. that way when you get someone in a group you don't have to worry too much about their spec and can concentrate more on fun than on critiquing a build..