| 31 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
6/29/09 11:15:44 AM#2
Sounds like their dev team is really tiny. It's cool to see they've got updates to diplomacy in the works, as well as some other updates, but they look to be stretched really thin. People handling more than one aspect of the game and so on. The more I read about it, the more I'm convinced SOE is intentionally letting VG whither. It's been mentioned here, in the game and in this interview that a lot of people working on and playing the game consider it to be the real EQ2. It's more like EQ than SOE's EQ2. Instead of embracing this sentiment and investing time, resources and money into VG, SOE snaps it up and does nothing with it. SOE needs to pull their heads out of their asses and realize what they've got. Current: None |
|
|
6/29/09 1:44:09 PM#3
Originally posted by Nizur
LMAO i just love how Vanguards lack of success is everyones and everythings fault except the game. |
|
|
6/29/09 1:51:28 PM#4
So even with a good development team and money to back everything up, you don't think VG would be a better game? Current: None |
|
|
6/29/09 2:36:29 PM#5
SOE siphoned off developers from all their games to work on Free Realms .. Even EQ2 lost developers to that project. There used to be a list of the Free Realm developers, but I cant find it anymore. Any profit made on Vanguard probably help finance that development. Now that Free Realms is a giant success, I wish some of the cash would flow back.
|
|
|
6/29/09 3:36:13 PM#6
Originally posted by morpin
Actually Vanguard probably lost SOE a lot of money, not only from SOE having to buy rights from MIcrosoft, to SOE giving Sigil funding to allow an extra few months of development time before launch. While the game did sell 200k retail copies, SOE said recently that they don't make much money from retail box sales. Something along the lines of retail box sales taking 80% of the profit that developers would otherwise make (www.completeheal.com/).
200k copies would be ok if the game maintained that many subscriptions, but we all know the subs nose dived and have been diving since launch. It's very easy to blame SOE for the downfall of games, but it's SOE that *saved* Vanguard. How much profit do you think SOE is even making when VG has 4 servers, 1 of them being a PvP server that has 100 players on during primetime, rest have between 500-800 during primetime? I seriously doubt they even made their money back yet, which is why Vanguard isn't getting the extra resources.
I would think games like EQ1 & EQ2 are their primary source of revenue. Not only from subscriptions, but from RMT's such as station cash and LoN. These resources are being used to keep Vanguard and Planetside alive, as well as fund their future projects like DCUO, The Agency, and TV advertisements for Free Realms.
I just wish people would stop blaming SOE for Vanguard's failure. Blame SOE for SWG NGE, sure. Blame SOE if you are an EQ1 player and tired of them pulling dev resources away, sure. But SOE did nothing but save Vanguard. EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR |
|
|
6/29/09 4:05:08 PM#7
You bring up good points (and with sources, which rocks). I don't doubt SOE saved VG from fading away within a couple months, but they're not doing anything (or hardly anything) with it now. They're letting it whither as I said earlier. They've made the decision to put their money and resources into other projects and not VG. It's obvious. Who initially released VG? Sigil or SOE? I mean, who chose the release date? It seems to me that Sigil was already running out of money, and launched a product that wasn't ready. I don't see how anyone can blame the game itself for its demise since the game is just the product. If a product is half-baked, is it the products fault or the people who launched the product? Current: None |
|
|
6/29/09 4:32:59 PM#8
Originally posted by Mardy
Actually Vanguard probably lost SOE a lot of money, not only from SOE having to buy rights from MIcrosoft, to SOE giving Sigil funding to allow an extra few months of development time before launch. While the game did sell 200k retail copies, SOE said recently that they don't make much money from retail box sales. Something along the lines of retail box sales taking 80% of the profit that developers would otherwise make (www.completeheal.com/).
200k copies would be ok if the game maintained that many subscriptions, but we all know the subs nose dived and have been diving since launch. It's very easy to blame SOE for the downfall of games, but it's SOE that *saved* Vanguard. How much profit do you think SOE is even making when VG has 4 servers, 1 of them being a PvP server that has 100 players on during primetime, rest have between 500-800 during primetime? I seriously doubt they even made their money back yet, which is why Vanguard isn't getting the extra resources.
I would think games like EQ1 & EQ2 are their primary source of revenue. Not only from subscriptions, but from RMT's such as station cash and LoN. These resources are being used to keep Vanguard and Planetside alive, as well as fund their future projects like DCUO, The Agency, and TV advertisements for Free Realms.
I just wish people would stop blaming SOE for Vanguard's failure. Blame SOE for SWG NGE, sure. Blame SOE if you are an EQ1 player and tired of them pulling dev resources away, sure. But SOE did nothing but save Vanguard.
SOE saved VG to stay alive. That is all my friend. They hired no new employees to work on VG. They let em all go or go to other projects. So when people say SOE, SOE buying VG allowed it to stay alive, that's all. They did nothing with game development. And right now the game development is lackluster because of the small team, but that doesn't mean the design decisions were correct. Alot of these design mistakes are caused by inexperienced development. SOE played their cards right. Buy VG, slap it on the Station Pass and advertise to the VG players to buy the station pass. Its not that difficult. |
|
|
6/29/09 4:36:09 PM#9
Originally posted by Nizur
Its the fault of people who wasted time, resources and money during development with relationship drama and drug use. |
|
|
6/29/09 5:23:06 PM#10
My point exactly. It's not the game's fault it lost people. It's the developers for pushing out a product that wasn't ready. Current: None |
|
|
6/29/09 6:11:37 PM#11
Originally posted by Nizur
ok... this is making my head hurt. I dont want to play with you no more! |
|
|
6/29/09 7:06:05 PM#12
It's really simple. Your first comment in the thread:
That reads like it's the game's fault for being buggy, having a bad launch, not being optimized, etc. The game is just the product. It's the people making the product that are to blame for releasing a half-baked game and losing people. If the developers had not squandered money, hadn't gone off who knows where for months on end, and instead had polished up the game, fixed bugs, etc. it would've had a better reception at launch and probably wouldn't be stuck in this death cycle it's in now. It's a catch-22. The game has no resources because it has no audience because the game is unfinished/buggy because it has no resources. Which all started because it was launched prematurely. Current: None |
|
|
6/29/09 7:12:44 PM#13
If this game had more funds funneled into it, I could see it rebounding much stronger than it has so far. They'd get things out in a more timely fashion, and their updates would contain more. Also, not having a box expansion is a mistake, it would be the biggest exposure, and closest "Re-Release" we would ever see. Playing: Star Wars: The Old Republic, occasionally TERA. Waiting For: Guild Wars 2, and Elder Scrolls Online. |
|
|
6/29/09 7:12:51 PM#14
Originally posted by Nizur i honestly think vanguards lack of overall booming success(if booming is the right word to use in the situation) is due to the lack of advertising, along with the fact it seems like it never really got much of SOE's attention, with what vanguard has to offer in its gameplay, huge world. etc. if SOE gave vanguard the attention that it has given EQ2 for example, i think vanguard would really be rocking . course dont get me wrong, im not bashing either of the 2 above mentioned games as im a fan of both. yes. VG too. it has more then its share of issues and bugs/glitches but the game itself was still one i enjoyed. . dont think its really fair to say its the games fault it hasnt done well
Waiting For: FF14,Guild Wars2
|
|
|
6/29/09 8:10:30 PM#15
Originally posted by DeViLmAn0 i honestly think vanguards lack of overall booming success(if booming is the right word to use in the situation) is due to the lack of advertising, along with the fact it seems like it never really got much of SOE's attention, with what vanguard has to offer in its gameplay, huge world. etc. if SOE gave vanguard the attention that it has given EQ2 for example, i think vanguard would really be rocking . course dont get me wrong, im not bashing either of the 2 above mentioned games as im a fan of both. yes. VG too. it has more then its share of issues and bugs/glitches but the game itself was still one i enjoyed. . dont think its really fair to say its the games fault it hasnt done well
From the interview posted by the OP
MMORPGFOCUS.COM TEAM: We recently put up an article about Vanguard talking about how the game is in such a good, polished condition now that it almost deserves a relaunch. Do you think Sony will put some extra resources behind marketing the game again now that it’s really improved?
So I agree with Silius another relaunch wouldnt make any difference. People left because they didnt like the game. either the games design or the games performance. So If the the design and performance are still bad enough to drive people away even from the recent IoD relaunch and media blitz then the game obviously will never been any better or more popular than it is. The current population can not sustain itself and will likely never improve to any significant point. The game will continiue to get more top heavy in regards to population levels until it finally reaches the point that anyone NEW who does decide to try the game will meet with an even more barren experience. (if its not at that point already) The game is withering. It had its chance at a first impression and a second impression at the relaunch. That is all the vast majority of game players will be willing to give it. Silius knows all this. Thats why there are bugs we are told will never be fixed. Thats why there is content that will never be developed.
|
|
|
6/29/09 8:37:16 PM#16
Sadly I think you're right. I vaguely remember reading about it's first launch, but I was busy playing WoW at the time. When I eventually get bored with WoW a few months later, I went to LotRO. After that I never really paid attention to Vanguard until several weeks ago when I started looking for something to replace LotRO. As much as the game has improved, it's still not polished or developed enough to keep people around. Finicky performance and annoying bugs still pop up. The small community combined with a gigantic world work against the game. After a disastrous first launch and relatively miniscule and failed second launch, it's doomed to the far backburner of the SOE stove. Like I mentioned in my edited post earlier, it's in a death cycle that looks to be unbreakable. Makes one wonder what it could've become if it would've been handled differently and developed competently. I guess we'll never know. Current: None |
|
|
6/30/09 10:17:38 AM#17
Originally posted by Bodeus From the interview posted by the OP
MMORPGFOCUS.COM TEAM: We recently put up an article about Vanguard talking about how the game is in such a good, polished condition now that it almost deserves a relaunch. Do you think Sony will put some extra resources behind marketing the game again now that it’s really improved?
So I agree with Silius another relaunch wouldnt make any difference. People left because they didnt like the game. either the games design or the games performance. So If the the design and performance are still bad enough to drive people away even from the recent IoD relaunch and media blitz then the game obviously will never been any better or more popular than it is. The current population can not sustain itself and will likely never improve to any significant point. The game will continiue to get more top heavy in regards to population levels until it finally reaches the point that anyone NEW who does decide to try the game will meet with an even more barren experience. (if its not at that point already) The game is withering. It had its chance at a first impression and a second impression at the relaunch. That is all the vast majority of game players will be willing to give it. Silius knows all this. Thats why there are bugs we are told will never be fixed. Thats why there is content that will never be developed.
I highlighted the part I especially agree with. I really do think that when all is said and done, that people just didn't like the initial game design. Myself included. I had no intention of ever playing Vanguard short of just trying it out. I don't like forced grouping games and the whole retro gaming experience was intitially a turn off. However, I recently tried it again because I just wanted to see the trial Island. I have to say that it was very polished and really got me to try different classes out. Then taking advantage of the rift and the suggested quest hubs got me started. I recently saw another player decrying these two things but I have to say that because of them the game now how a subscriber for as long as the game runs. The bugs and performance are drastically better. However for players who want the smooth feeling of WoW and LOTRO it just won't do. So the reality is that this game needs to be sold (whether by players or the company) to the correct audience. And that audience falls somewhere in between the old school hardcore audience and players who want something different and don't mind a few annoyances here and there. And that is an issue. The old school hardcore audience really wants old school and hardcore. If this game was running smooth as butter with minimal bugs that would be a tough one as I really don't see them as being a large enough group to keep the game going. And I think by their very nature they are picky and know what they want. That's good to a point but what ends up happening is that any overtures made to lure new players will be met with resistance. As one player mentioned, (paraphrased) it only took no longer than 20 to 40 minutes to travel anywhere you needed to be. This is a hard sell for players who really aren't inclined to take 40 minutes to travel somwhere. Heck. if one only had an hour to play that would be 40 minutes of traveling for a great 20 minutes to enjoy yourself. And woe to anyone who then had to rely on a group. So with added things such as the rift travel and a pointer toward quest hubs, the game does soften a bit to less hardcore players. And that of course can get a bit irritating to those who were at the start or stayed with the game for so long. The thing is, if there aren't enough of them to keep the game afloat the devs have to make changes to lure other players. And this is why I am now able to play. This game will only get more players through a very slow word of mouth to only a small amount of players who have the patience and desire to play a game like this. Hopefully that will be enough.
|
|
|
6/30/09 12:15:29 PM#18
Originally posted by Sovrath
I highlighted the part I especially agree with. I really do think that when all is said and done, that people just didn't like the initial game design. Myself included. I had no intention of ever playing Vanguard short of just trying it out. I don't like forced grouping games and the whole retro gaming experience was intitially a turn off. However, I recently tried it again because I just wanted to see the trial Island. I have to say that it was very polished and really got me to try different classes out. ...[CUT]...This game will only get more players through a very slow word of mouth to only a small amount of players who have the patience and desire to play a game like this. Hopefully that will be enough.
I've cut down the quotes abit. From my view, the trend that I have seen, I would like to add. After IoD, especially somewhere beetween Q1-Q2 this year (2009), the game climbed well on Xfire. And, uhm, for Vanguard to do that... It was at position 160-170 from being 180-200. A former climb similar to that was during the first free month, that was before IoD though. But this climb was better then the christmas figures. Also here on MMORPG the general feel against the game was quite abit more positive than 6-8 months before. At this time I think the game recouped very well. It was gaining momentum. On Halgar the lvl 1-10 population varied beetween 80-100 people, something it had not been at since the release of IoD. I remember the top I've seen was 130 players (I probably should check my post history.). The time beetween IoD and Q1/Q2 the population was 50-70 for lvl 1-10. For servers like Seradon it had most of the time 180+, alot of those times 200+. SOE shoot their foot with the RMT shop. Now I don't think that the RMT changed anything to the game besides stirring up the players. But today. Halgar has beetween 30-60 on lvl10, mostly in the lower regions of that and it have declined alot on Xfire.
So... No I do not agree with what you are saying. The game was received better after IoD. There was alot more players joining then what it is now. And by so there actually was a time not far ago where the design, performance and blah blah did not drive away people. If, only, there have been a way to notice that the RMT did nothing for the game... I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention. |
|
|
6/30/09 1:07:13 PM#19
Originally posted by Orphes
I've cut down the quotes abit. From my view, the trend that I have seen, I would like to add. After IoD, especially somewhere beetween Q1-Q2 this year (2009), the game climbed well on Xfire. And, uhm, for Vanguard to do that... It was at position 160-170 from being 180-200. A former climb similar to that was during the first free month, that was before IoD though. But this climb was better then the christmas figures. Also here on MMORPG the general feel against the game was quite abit more positive than 6-8 months before. At this time I think the game recouped very well. It was gaining momentum. On Halgar the lvl 1-10 population varied beetween 80-100 people, something it had not been at since the release of IoD. I remember the top I've seen was 130 players (I probably should check my post history.). The time beetween IoD and Q1/Q2 the population was 50-70 for lvl 1-10. For servers like Seradon it had most of the time 180+, alot of those times 200+. SOE shoot their foot with the RMT shop. Now I don't think that the RMT changed anything to the game besides stirring up the players. But today. Halgar has beetween 30-60 on lvl10, mostly in the lower regions of that and it have declined alot on Xfire.
So... No I do not agree with what you are saying. The game was received better after IoD. There was alot more players joining then what it is now. And by so there actually was a time not far ago where the design, performance and blah blah did not drive away people. If, only, there have been a way to notice that the RMT did nothing for the game...
You are going to have to point out where you don't agree because I don't exactly see where what you have said and what I have said are at odds. If the game was doing better since IoD? (is that the new player isle?) then great. But that doesn't mean that they would have stayed once they got to the main part of the game. The main part of the game is a lot different, as you know, and not for everyone. As far as my experience on the new island, it was (and to some degree "is") still bustling. People grouping, running around, fighting for mobs, etc. But it is quite different from the main part of the game. I can easily see the game losing people who aren't prepared. I once made a post where I stated that the true Vanguard Audience is comprised of a: soloers who want a more old school style game, b: players who are in a good and active guild (and also want a more old style game) and all have to be a bit a patient or willing to look beyond Vanguard's technical flaws. Players who are not in a guild but expect to have a good part of their play time taken up with pick up groups might be hard to keep. This is not to say they don't exist but I've noticed a bit less of that in Vanguard as I see players who are clearly already grouped and are in the same guild and a lot of solo players. As far as RMT, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the average person doesn't care. I'm sure there are a lot of gamers who come to forums who rage against that sort of thing and I completely understand why. However, the average person/player doesn't really post on forums, sometimes reads them and in many cases from what I've heard don't even know they exist. I'm sure they here that station exchange has been added and either say "hey that's great" or "ok, but I'm not going to take advantage so I don't care". I fall in the latter category as it does nothing for or against my play time. I log in, have fun and log off. I think there are a lot of people who just don't care or don't notice. Yet, I still see posts where people complain about bugs here or some chugging there which shows me that they are truly having issues, are rather unforgiving of what might be considered minor inconveniences or they truly are having technical issues as it seems that some machines just dont' like Vanguard, no matter how powerful they are. |
|
|
6/30/09 1:32:26 PM#20
It find it really conflicting when someone says soe "saved" vanguard.
Sure they rescued it from closing down, but beyond that it feels more like they pulled it from the ash pile to pillage subscribers for EQ2 and the better developers and then kicked it to the curb.
|
|
