There is 1 plus here.  Pay 15$ a month for the station pass and play every SOE game as gold.  Who else can offer that ?

Originally posted by remyburke

Common gear = bad idea.

So close to being acceptable otherwise. Shame.

Agreed.

It is a big misstake, I was just thinking "time to start playing VG again" when I saw it and decided to do something else instead. 

Originally posted by William12

There is 1 plus here.  Pay 15$ a month for the station pass and play every SOE game as gold.  Who else can offer that ?

If you are interested in 2 of the games it is a good deal but I kinda feel myself done with EQ 1 & 2 after all this time.

Originally posted by Gyrus

 

But SOE didn't really care about that.  IMHO they were more concerned with making the "F2P" model work and more importantly - turn a profit!

Years later - they are still trying to emulate companies like Turbine - but they won't.

Why not?

Because SOE doesn't understand what is important with regard to selling games.

 

It has to be fun.

And if it's an MMO it has to be long term fun.  Fun in a way that makes people want to log in regularly for days / weeks / months on end.  Fun that makes people want to keep returning to the game and think about it perhaps months after they played it last.

Because "F2P" will not save your game.  Not if it's a bad game to begin with and / or not if you make your F2P so limiting that people cannot enjoy it without the constant spectre of having to pay hanging over their head.

People will play F2P games (and even spend money on them!) if they can do so on their own terms without feeling any pressure to do so.

SOE simply doesn't get that.

This is kind of all over the place, but there is certainly some truth in it.

F2p will not save your game, this is true.  Bad games are bad games.  You get an initial spark of interest around L2 or STO, but are these games popular past the initial month or two?  Not really.  Because they are not good games (or they are games with extremely limited appeal.  L2 will never, ever be interesting to someone who hates 'korean grinders.').

But this whole notion that 'SoE doesnt get it' is wrong.  Oh, there are things they 'dont get it' about, but ths isnt one of them.  They arent interested in getting people that occasionally play and drop a few bucks here and there, they ultimately want subscribers.  If the model hasnt been successful for them in EQ2, they would have rolled out something different for EQ and VG.  I played on the EQ server that opened with the f2p launch.  By the time people got to the point where the f2p restrcitions mattered, many of them had subbed already.  In the locked-content f2p model, you reach the point where you are required to spend money fairly quickly.  Of course in the SoE model, the only time you ever reach that point is high end, max level content.

You say they are trying to emulate Turbine.  Its obvious they got the idea from Turbine, because DDO is what sparked the whole trend, and then when Turbine followed with LOTRO, it was the first time a still successful game went f2p.  But at this stage EQ2 has probably surpassed LOTRO in market share, and DCUO's conversion has been a comparable success to DDO.  Maybe its the model, maybe its the games are better, you can theorize all you want, but SoE certainly isnt looking up at Turbine.

The question is, is Vanguard good enough for people to sub.  There is certainly a segment of the population that raves about VG as this great, forgotten MMORPG.  If VG really does have appeal for more than just a small niche, then this model will work.  The gear restriction is a psychological one and not a mechanical one, so the people that are intrigued by the game will play past it until they make their decision to sub or not based on the quality of the game.

I don't get where SoE is going with this one. They're taking a game very few people played or cared about, and trying to make it successful with a f2p model that's so restrictive, you'd need to sub anyway to actually play.

If that sounds bass ackwards, it's because it is. They seem to be pretty intent on killing this game. I feel bad for the people that have loved this game and hoped f2p would bring in the community it needs to thrive. I don't see it happening, now. I'd be feeling pretty crushed.

Originally posted by teakbois

...

But this whole notion that 'SoE doesnt get it' is wrong.  Oh, there are things they 'dont get it' about, but ths isnt one of them.  They arent interested in getting people that occasionally play and drop a few bucks here and there, they ultimately want subscribers.  If the model hasnt been successful for them in EQ2, they would have rolled out something different for EQ and VG.  I played on the EQ server that opened with the f2p launch.  By the time people got to the point where the f2p restrcitions mattered, many of them had subbed already.  In the locked-content f2p model, you reach the point where you are required to spend money fairly quickly.  Of course in the SoE model, the only time you ever reach that point is high end, max level content.

EQ might be attracting some subscribers but it is no-where near a roaring success.  And maybe SOE would prefer subscribers rather than 'zone buyers'.  If anything - that just shows how far behind the times and out of touch they are?

Also, as people have pointed out - simply saying "It's a subscription game therefor it must be $15/month!" is out of touch too.  $15/month is what people expect to pay for a new MMORPG with a ton of content and regular updates - not a dated one.

You say they are trying to emulate Turbine.  Its obvious they got the idea from Turbine, because DDO is what sparked the whole trend,

No.  It was KingsIsle with Wizard 101 - Turbine improved on that model slightly

and then when Turbine followed with LOTRO, it was the first time a still successful game went f2p.  But at this stage EQ2 has probably surpassed LOTRO in market share, and DCUO's conversion has been a comparable success to DDO.  Maybe its the model, maybe its the games are better, you can theorize all you want, but SoE certainly isnt looking up at Turbine.

I think they are.  Well that is to say other companies want to do what Turbine has done and breath new life into old games.  But the difference is that Turbines games (DDO in particular) were unique in that they were ideally suited to this sort of model.  Largely because the whole Pen and Paper DDO franchise was like this too.

The question is, is Vanguard good enough for people to sub.  There is certainly a segment of the population that raves about VG as this great, forgotten MMORPG.  If VG really does have appeal for more than just a small niche, then this model will work.  The gear restriction is a psychological one and not a mechanical one, so the people that are intrigued by the game will play past it until they make their decision to sub or not based on the quality of the game.

That is the question.  Well, part of the question.  The other part of the question is is Vanguard good enough for people to sub at the suggested price?  If the monthly sub was cheaper - would that make a difference?

i would never pay a cent for this trash, even if it was truly f2p. 

SOE has always had the absolutely worst Freemium model in the industry. Glad to see that they are upholding that tradition with Vanguard. Their model is so restricted it's barely playable. This will not bring in the hoards of new players they hope it will no more than it did for EQ or EQ II. They will get some but nothing like what they would have seen with a less restrictive model.

Bren

Originally posted by Gyrus

Originally posted by teakbois

...

But this whole notion that 'SoE doesnt get it' is wrong.  Oh, there are things they 'dont get it' about, but ths isnt one of them.  They arent interested in getting people that occasionally play and drop a few bucks here and there, they ultimately want subscribers.  If the model hasnt been successful for them in EQ2, they would have rolled out something different for EQ and VG.  I played on the EQ server that opened with the f2p launch.  By the time people got to the point where the f2p restrcitions mattered, many of them had subbed already.  In the locked-content f2p model, you reach the point where you are required to spend money fairly quickly.  Of course in the SoE model, the only time you ever reach that point is high end, max level content.

EQ might be attracting some subscribers but it is no-where near a roaring success.  And maybe SOE would prefer subscribers rather than 'zone buyers'.  If anything - that just shows how far behind the times and out of touch they are

No game that has done the p2p > f2p conversion is a roaring success.  LOTRO has less people now than it did before the conversion.  Granted this could have a lot to do with how turbine has handled the game, but LOTRO is not a roaring success by any stretch of the imagination right now.  You really can not make the argument at all that the LOTRO conversion has been more successful than the EQ2 conversion (remember, LOTRO started with a higher sub count than EQ2 when they did their conversions)

Also, as people have pointed out - simply saying "It's a subscription game therefor it must be $15/month!" is out of touch too.  $15/month is what people expect to pay for a new MMORPG with a ton of content and regular updates - not a dated one

Now this is a point competely unrelated to f2p, and its a valid one, and its not just SoE.  SoE is actually better than most companies because it at least has the station pass.  But EQ2 and EQ both support and an expansion a year and quite a lot of content.  Vanguard does not.  The only thing I could really say in favor of the 14.99 model, is SoE lost a ton of money on Vanguard when they were working on it and probaby still havent recouped their investment, but thats sunk cost at this point.  I think if they dropped the sub to 7.99 a month they would get twice as many subscribers and there fore an increase in revenue.

You say they are trying to emulate Turbine.  Its obvious they got the idea from Turbine, because DDO is what sparked the whole trend,

No.  It was KingsIsle with Wizard 101 - Turbine improved on that model slightly

and then when Turbine followed with LOTRO, it was the first time a still successful game went f2p.  But at this stage EQ2 has probably surpassed LOTRO in market share, and DCUO's conversion has been a comparable success to DDO.  Maybe its the model, maybe its the games are better, you can theorize all you want, but SoE certainly isnt looking up at Turbine.

I think they are.  Well that is to say other companies want to do what Turbine has done and breath new life into old games.  But the difference is that Turbines games (DDO in particular) were unique in that they were ideally suited to this sort of model.  Largely because the whole Pen and Paper DDO franchise was like this too.

Yes, the turbine model works well for DDO.  I absolutely hated it for LOTRO.  To me, LOTRO is the absolute definition of nickel and diming, every 2 feet you are reminded of the need to by something. Putting things like fast travel behind a purchase?  Thats just ridiculous.  And you do get to a point, rather quickly, where you must pay to continue doing content.  Technically you can grind low level deeds over and over and again, but thats not fun.  If you want to level past 25 or so and enjoy the game, you have to buy quest packs.  With SoE model you don;t have to do that.  You are free to experience everything from level 1 to max level.

The question is, is Vanguard good enough for people to sub.  There is certainly a segment of the population that raves about VG as this great, forgotten MMORPG.  If VG really does have appeal for more than just a small niche, then this model will work.  The gear restriction is a psychological one and not a mechanical one, so the people that are intrigued by the game will play past it until they make their decision to sub or not based on the quality of the game.

That is the question.  Well, part of the question.  The other part of the question is is Vanguard good enough for people to sub at the suggested price?  If the monthly sub was cheaper - would that make a difference?

As I said earlier, I think you are right with this.  They should see what happens with a price reduction, they dont have much to lose at this point.  I would bet at least half of the people that play VG are station pass members anyway, at most 5k people are paying strictly for Vanguard.  I think you could double that at 10 per month or less.

They plan to support the game (in theory making it worth a full sub), but they planned to support the game the first time too.  ANd the reason they stopped was because no one played, who is to say people are going to play this time?

 

     I havent played VG since released, but gear was crucial......THeres no way players can use common gear and get very far in this game......Sure people can group up, but even then you'll be limited because whoever is tanking will have problems...... This move just seems to be a last second cash grab for a game they probably would have shelved otherwise.

As a subber until earlier this year I really think $OE really dropped the ball on this one.

No.1 Limiting freebie players to "common" gear is insane.  They are not going to fair well against most of the content past level 10 or so.  Are subbies going to want to group with what are essentially gimped players?

No.2 STILL wanting $14.99 a month for a sub?  WFT??????  I mean shit, people seem hard pressed to pay that for a modern AAA eye candy fest.  I cant see many paying that for an old game with dated graphics and a fair few bugs. 

$OE should be asking about $5.99 per month.  At that price I could see a metric fuck ton of people going for gold membership.

I won't be logging back in which is a shame for such a rich, detailed and complex world.

RIP :(

Seeing as I wanted to try this game in like forever I am happy its going f2p. However Sony's f2p from my past experiance sucks more then the 10th level of hell in Dantes Inferno. I am curious when they say we are limited to only wearing common. Can someone please explain to me how limiting that really is? Will we as f2p players be able to get to end game level 55 content with just commons or is this basically a force you to pay type of limitation?

A shame really when I read the original artical I was very sad as Vanguard is fun in so many ways, not all of them intentional.

Originally posted by Wakygreek

Seeing as I wanted to try this game in like forever I am happy its going f2p. However Sony's f2p from my past experiance sucks more then the 10th level of hell in Dantes Inferno. I am curious when they say we are limited to only wearing common. Can someone please explain to me how limiting that really is? Will we as f2p players be able to get to end game level 55 content with just commons or is this basically a force you to pay type of limitation?

Common items gives you the minimal stat increases. You can still get to level 50 with common items but it'll be one hell of a grind at a very slow pace (assuming you're going to play solo) But once you reach the level 51+ areas you'll most likely die in 1 or 2 hits with just common gear.

Originally posted by Wakygreek

Seeing as I wanted to try this game in like forever I am happy its going f2p. However Sony's f2p from my past experiance sucks more then the 10th level of hell in Dantes Inferno. I am curious when they say we are limited to only wearing common. Can someone please explain to me how limiting that really is? Will we as f2p players be able to get to end game level 55 content with just commons or is this basically a force you to pay type of limitation?

Its the equivalent to leveling in WoW wearing only greens.  If its your first time leveling, youll be absolutely fine.  If you have previously leveled you might be frustrated because instead of doing a certain area at level 22 when its same level or a little higher, you have to wait til level 24 to do it.

Above 50 it will be much tougher, but still doable to get to 55.  But if you like the game enough to make it that far youll probably be  willing to commit to a sub anyway (unless you are cheap of course)

Originally posted by csthao

Originally posted by Wakygreek

Seeing as I wanted to try this game in like forever I am happy its going f2p. However Sony's f2p from my past experiance sucks more then the 10th level of hell in Dantes Inferno. I am curious when they say we are limited to only wearing common. Can someone please explain to me how limiting that really is? Will we as f2p players be able to get to end game level 55 content with just commons or is this basically a force you to pay type of limitation?

Common items gives you the minimal stat increases. You can still get to level 50 with common items but it'll be one hell of a grind at a very slow pace (assuming you're going to play solo) But once you reach the level 51+ areas you'll most likely die in 1 or 2 hits with just common gear.

class dependant.  They put some of the best soloers in the free classes, disciples and sorcerors will have no issues whatsoever.  Rogues and Warriors will be groupers for sure.

Brad McQuaid is back btw:

Clicky!

Originally posted by Nenah

Brad McQuaid is back btw:

Clicky!

 

holycrap. well he has begun his payoff of a large karmic debt here. let's hope he pulls it off. frankly, in spite of my reservations, im a bit excited to see what happens.

Still the worse $oe ftp matrix they offer but for fans of Brad McQuaid, there may be hope. He will be joining the team as a dev and that alone may entice former players to give the game another shot in spite of the horrible ftp matrix. Combined with the clarifiation that there will be unlockers for gear as well as a "retooling" of some "common" gear to be usefull and there may be hope yet for this subpar game.

Of course the retooling will waste hundreds of devs hours that would be better spent on bug and performance fixes as well as new content. It would have been much easier to simply designate a higher equipment level than common for the ftpers and not waste scarce resources on nonsense.

I personally dont drink the McQuaid koolaid but i know many do. In my opinion what is more important than his return as a dev is the apparent committment it shows from $oe towards vg. During beta Brad boosted how they had 7 years of content on the drawing board for vg. It would be nice to see this game brought up to at least a minimal premium experience and expansions down the road.

wow, nvm. was gona give this game a go again till i read this. wtf is wrong with SOE. this is not f2p... this is bs.