Returing to old games is never really the same and each return seems to last less an less time.  I guess you can never regain the magic of what was, but the games in question are 7 years old.

If there were more quality mmos on the market this wouldn't be such a problem, but I wish you luck J1O. 

The Secret World looks like it is going to be one of the few games with potential coming out in the near future.  Maybe GW2 also.   I'm really hoping that Studio38 releases their single player game or more info on what they are doing.  They seem to be one of the last few developers who act like gamers interested in making a game and not making some product that will generate revenue and just happens to be a game.

I wish I had some better advice to give, but it seems that most are in the same boat you are. 

@JYCowboy

I didn't mean to give the impression that I think Lucas Arts didn't wish for SWG to close.  IMHO SWG remainiong open was not in the best interest of either company.   The negative press alone outweights any tiny bit of revenue that the game might have been making, even for SOE.   I really do think they mutually wanted the game to close down.

As for Smeds comments, there are a few former soe developers who have stated how easy it was to work with Lucas Arts and how they could get almost anything they wanted approved.  Just look at all the nonsense that has gone into the game in recent years.  Two huge massive core altering changes.  Pink ewok cherubs, vampires, zombies.  etc.   I don't think Lucas Arts was very difficult to work with as Smed says, but they couldn't have been as bad as he suggests seeing that he signed up to make a second game with them in the last couple of years. 

Perhaps he was talking about wizards of the coast (magic the gathering tactics); perhaps he was talking about Tom Clancy (facebook game); perhaps he was talking about their efforst to publish games with other developers like Sigil-Vanguard, Perpetum-GodsAndHeroes, Flying Labs-POTBS.  Maybe he was talking about the king fu hustle game they were working on, the comic book game based on the Indian mythos or any number of the over seas joint ventures they have tried.  Maybe he was even talking about working with his own company and the difficulties they have had with the PS3. 

I know there are a lot of choices in there and that SWG was the biggest explosion of the bunch, but it could be anything... including the one common denominator of the bunch in there, soe.

Having said that I pretty much agree with most of what you say save one last thing.

Despite the common assumption, I was not burned by the NGE as I wasn't playing SWG in 2005.  I wasn't burned by the combat upgrade either.  Again I had already quit SWG long before the details were being given.  I am as much a friend with you as I am anyone else on the forums I discuss games.  Outside of exchanging posts talking about gaming I know nothing about anyone here or elsewhere. 

On top of that, I don't give Lucas Arts a free pass on anything with SWG and I also know of the former SWG devs went to SWTOR, but that isn't an issue for me.  I'm not really interested in playing wow with lightsaber.  No offense meant to those who are looking forward to SWTOR.  I hope you enjoy it. 

If you want to discuss issues cool, love to chat, but please don't force assumptions, groups or labels on me.  Much like you I am just another poster here with their own set of opinions. 

Originally posted by teakbois

You are saying that Vanguard suffered ebcause SoE failed and didnt work hard to improve the game.  But they did work hard to improve the game and did so signficantly.  But people do not play it, despite a lot of people saying at launch 'this game has potential but im not paying for a beta', 'fix the performance', 'wheres the end game content'...well those major complaints were all answered.

 

This is not because of lack of effort from SoE.  This is because they promised not to change the core of the game and have lived up to that promise.  They did what the players wanted.  Perhaps the game just wasnt that good to begin with?  

 

So I dont blame the players for not playing the game as it is, but they did give SoE the impression that they loved the core of Vanguard and that it was worth investing in.  And this turned out to not be the case.

The core of vanguard did have potential, but that can be said about any of the mountain of failed mmos that have been released.  Hell SWG has massive potential even in the current state, but look what is happening to it.

Vanguard has potential.  SOE tried to fix the game and make that potential a reality.  You say players said they wanted to come back when the game was all fixed.  Players didn't come back.... Guess why? 

Same situation for SWG.

Also, this might sound crazy, but it would be interesting to see Brad actually team up with SOE again to work on an mmo.   Brad obviously has vision for gameplay, but he can't really run a business or be left in complete charge of operations.  SOE is in enough trouble that they might be desperate enough to give Brad another chance.  It isn't like they have developed quality leadership from within their ranks or top flight developers are beating down their doors. 

If SOE could pocket their greed for a while that might just work. 

Originally posted by teakbois

Originally posted by Daffid011

I don't think those games are doing the huge business you think they are.  Huge successes are usually not followed by consecutive massive layoffs.

 

 

You are right about this.  Problem is that SoE spread itself to thin.  It should stick to EQ franchise and Planetside.  Dont worry about acquiring other projects, just stick to what you do well.

 

If they do make an additional project then go for the one thing that can make your company stand out again:  a sandbox.  Dont expect millions, but if it made a solid sandbox based off the SWG class structure (not the setting) the company could once more be amongst the leaders.

 

I would also say to avoid working with 3rd party licenses as those have not worked out very well for SOE. 

While I think a sandbox game would make many people happy, the truth is that they are difficult to make and take a special kind of developer (the person not a company) to create.  Raph Koster has that kind of background and vision, but I really doubt SOE has anyone like that.  That isn't a criticism, because I don't think there are many who can do a proper sandbox game.

Stick to EQ, Planetside and other creations from their own in house development.  The Agency was probably the right way to go.  A spy themed mmo sounded like it could be really fun. 

Originally posted by P2PGamer

Look, I'm a die-hard SOE hater because of the whole CU/NGE thing from years ago.  Saying that, even I have to admit that SWG of today is much better today than the 34 professions from pre-NGE.   Balancing that many classes all with a variety of different builds was a disaster that not even team triple the size of the SWG staff could have handled.  SOE is offereing NINE games for $19.95 a monthor any of their games for $15 a month or you can play a varient of their games in their stand alone F2P model.   SW Clones and Freerealms are doing HUGE business for SOE.  Sure, they could improve more but they have come a long ways.  You have to be honest here because like it or not, SOE is leading the way in options for it's customers and how they choose to pay for their games. 

This isn't about what version of SWG was better and I completely agree that the original version of the game was a train wreck.  I think the overall product would be much better if the last 7 years spent on NGE and the combat upgrade were instead focused on fixing the original game.  Even if that meant cutting down the professions or whatever. 

SOE might be leading the way with payment options, but notice no one seems to be following? All the meddling around with revenue streams hasn't really produced things that most companies are following.  Most of it has come off as more negative nickle and diming of their customers and driving them away than is has done to help advance the genre.  Honestly SOE is still struggling with the F2P concept.   Free Realms switched to a subscription only model and EQ2X isn't exactly a booming success with its 1 server. 

I don't think those games are doing the huge business you think they are.  Huge successes are usually not followed by consecutive massive layoffs.

Originally posted by teakbois

They made the promises because they trusted that people would come back.  And yes, they did clean it up at a reaosnable pace.  Maybe you dont know this, but Vanguard was a complete disaster.  

All told it was about 1.5 years from when they acquired it to where it is today, but it was spread over that time.   Yes, that is a pretty brisk pace considering what they had to work with.

1.5 years is a reasonable time frame for a failed game to turn around and expect players to pay during that time? 

How did SOE "trust" players to come back when they are not promising to come back at all?  People were leaving very bitter and being very vocal about their distrust of SOE... many even before SOE bought the game. 

SOE was never promised that players would return, ever.  Just like the NGE, it was 100% their responsibility to deliver something that would be good enough for players to want to return to.  The burden was on SOE to earn back the trust and patronage of the people who felt cheated and sold a broken game. 

1.5 years later and those former players were already in another mmo and most likely also enjoying the first expansion pack for that game as well.   Meanwhile 2 year old Vanguard can finally say it has a raid and stability, but has no chance of ever seeing an expansion and people are supposed to flock back?.  I'm still not sure why players are being held accountable for not returning to such a problem filled game.  Be it Vanguard or SWG/NGE.

Originally posted by teakbois

or 

4. close the game because sub fees dont cover the server cost plus customer service fees.

 

SoE is a company that has shown that they DO support their games.  When Planetside had subs they got content.  When SWG ahd subs they got content.  When EQOA had subs they got content.  

 

Its not that EQ and EQ2 get all the updats because they are the flagship. its because they are the games people play

So at what point is it ok for a company to stop supporting their mmo, but continue to charge the same rates?  Also how long is it acceptable for that to continue? 

Does 5,000 people quitting somehow change the amount of money you pay for the game?  Does it change the amount of support you will get from another companies game for the same amount of money?  When an mmo stops becoming a work in progress, what is really left to justify the premium fees?

I do understand companies have bottom lines, but that doesn't mean it is an acceptable practice or something players are at fault for not supporting, let alone getting down on their knees and thanking the companies for doing such good work.

Originally posted by P2PGamer

Originally posted by Daffid011

If a company wants to charge the highest rates in their respective industry then they better be ready to compete for it.  MMOs are not entitled to $15 a month. 

What does any of that have to do with SOE shutting down Galaxies?  They didn't feel it was worth their time or money to negotiate a new license with Lucas Arts.  Plain and Simple.

How does this not apply to SWG? 

SWG not being worthwhile to renew the contract is the result of what is being discussed, not the cause.

Originally posted by teakbois

You *really* want to say SoE didnt put effort in to fix vanguard?  You realize the horrendous shape that the game was in at the time?  Atrocious stability, bugged to hell, and no endgame content.  Those were the three major flaws.  SoE did infact address all 3.

 

But their investment provided no signs AT ALL that people would come back.  because they didnt, even when what they asked for was done.

 

Yes, the players failed Vanguard.  If Vanguard had shown positive growth theres a strong chance SoE would have continued the devleopment they planned.  But it didnt.  People just talk on sites like this about how great a game it is now blah blah blah, but no one plays it.  Or you could just say maybe Vanguard wasnt very good to begin with, but then that isnt SoEs fault either.  A polished turd is still a turd.  

 

Now people seem to think SoE should do charity work for those 10,000 (if that, most likely quite a bit lower) that still play it.

Vanguard had roughly 40k subs when SOE bought it.  That isn't enough subscribers to even make the promises that SOE did in the first place.  It was completely misleading and people called them out on it.

When exactly do you think that SOE "addressed" all those problems?  The way you speak it seems like you think that it occured at some brisk reasonable pace and players were leaving despite so much positive great work being done on the game.  Four years later and maybe the sum of Vanguards changes has resulted in a game that is stable and complete enough to release, but it most certainly isn't something that players are at fault for not hanging around paying $15 a month to get to. 

Same thing happened to SWG and the very reason this thread exists.

Originally posted by Aluvius

Yes.  You are expecting SWG/Vanguard/Planetside/Matrix to get the same amount of publisher support/investment as SWG/EQ2 because they have the same monthly sub fee.  That is unreasonable because it leaves out the other half of the money equation, number of subscribers.  As someone else pointed out, SOE did invest in these games and it didn't attract any more subscribers.  So they'd be crazy to double down.

That's just the way the mmo world works.  MMO's have one chance at release to retain subscribers, it doesn't matter what a company does to fix things 3-6 months later.  I happen to think that is unfair as I think you do but it doesn't change the facts. 

Vanguard and The Matrix were indeed lucky to have SOE acquire them and keep them alive as long as they did (are still with Vanguard).

You have this completely twisted around.  If a company wants to charge the highest rates in their respective industry then they better be ready to compete for it.  MMOs are not entitled to $15 a month. 

If SOE wants $15 a month for Vanguard, SWG or other mmos they should be able to offer competitive quality and support for the product.  Otherwise people will take their money and spend it on something else, which they have.

Having to few customers isn't a plausible excuse to offer less and demand as much as the next company.    This is basic business. 

If their product is inferior and they are losing customers I wonder what the reasonable solution to that problem is? 

1. Improve the quality of the product
2. Lower the price
3. Explain that they don't have enough customers to offer $15 worth of support that their competition does

The mentality you are pushing is exactly the reason why developers think they can rush out garbage and feel entitled to charging the same subscription fee that the best games in the market charge.  That we should just somehow be happy that failed games are kept alive, left unsupported and charging the highest rates in the industry. 

Again, I just do not see anything worthy of praise or a message that I think developers should be given. 

Originally posted by Aluvius

Actually how things work seems to come as a surprise to you.  Name a single mmo developer/publisher that doesn't fall under the entirely subjective criteria of "players paying for a game that doesn't work properly"  Yet so many of the professional complainers on these and other mmo forums single SOE out while ignoring the mmo charity they've given to many crappy games. 

You are complaining that SOE ran their business like a business.  Gosh they didn't throw another trancher of funding into the failed dev team they just bought out of bankruptcy.  What maroons!1  You better believe those "talented" Vanguard developers were happy to be getting a paycheck from SOE after blowing through Sigil's cash reserves to produce what was basically an advanced alpha at release.

All of the games you listed that SOE supposedly ruined were commercial failures with subscriber bases below 100k, most of them closer to 50k.  How many games have other publishers simply closed down at that point?  SOE has kept most of them running and maintained staffs providing at least bug and update fixes.  Several of them received expansions including SWG and Planetside.  In fact Planetside is getting a kickass looking sequel .. a sequel for a game with what, 120k subs at peak?  Yes SOE really is the devil.  /eyeroll

You are being unreasonable.

I'm not complaining that SOE ran their business like a business or other companies charging for subjective incomplete games.  You have me all wrong.  I never expected SOE to actually invest in reviving Vanguard, so that assumption is incorrect. 

I'm pointing out that picking up a failed project and making no changes will simply result in continued failure.  That is just common sense. 

Also, that buying a bankrupt game that has already lost most of its players and in danger of losing the rest without increased investment would only continue the decline.  Seems pretty simple enough would you agree?  I'm just pointing out what happened. 

As for your comments about complete being a subjective term, true enough.  MMOs are always a work in progress and some things will be broken and incomplete in every game.  However to try to downplay one game by generalizing it with the entire genre isn't being genuine to the issue at hand.  Sure Vanguard, SWG, Wow and every mmo all have issues, but would it be fair to say that the issues in SWG or Vanguard are on the same level as issues in eq2 or wow?  Are they so similar in nature that any mention of lack of quality can be dismissed by simply saying something to the effect of "all games have problems".  

So planetside is getting a sequel, great!  I always thought it was a cool concept, even though it didn't hold my interest for to long.  

Now how many years... years... has it been since planetside has had regular support and updates?  Even minor support and updates. 

Same question for EQ-Mac, EQOA, Matrix (prior to closing), Vanguard.   

Is it being unreasonable to expect similar levels of support that other similarly priced games receive?  Is it being unresonable to expect any support in some cases? 

Is any of that really something we should look at a developer for doing and tell them what a good job they are doing and thanks for the hard work?  Is that really the message we want to send?

Originally posted by JYCowboy

 I want to point something out.  Yes, SWG had lost many many players but it had a core dedicated player base.  Starsider was very active prior to the closing annoucement.  No it wasn't Pre-NGE levels but it was a steady income to LA & SOE with the minimal support the game got.  It didn't generate positive press for the brand but had reached a point that didn't create negative press for the few that discovered it.  In other words, it made enough to keep the servers running.  I believe Lucas Arts intended to keep SWG running while TOR launched as they know there would be folks that wouldn't go for the new play style.

IMHO, I think EA approached LA and said kill SWG.  We what its core players.  EA is known for its hate of direct compition.  Based on the LA/SOE contract, all LA had to do was go up on the Licenes a few thousand each. making SWG then cost prohibitive.  The reasoning for both companies: "Look, TOR is coming out very soon and will drop SWG sub below operation cost. Lets just end it."  This allowed Smedley to state it was a "mutal" decision.

SOE dosen't close game as long as one person still logs in.  They tend to playcate to there core dedicated players and think they are fine.  In truth, today, they are not doing well.  With DCUO's failure, so went the Agancy.  They realized a niche market like that just wasn't going to do well on multi platform.  Since DCUO is more stable (in subs) on the PS3, they will probably shift furture invesments that way. ...just my opionion.

First,  Smedley has already stated that SOE didn't even try to negotiate an extension for the swg license.  If they didn't even try to extend the game, then I don't see why LA would need to try to force the game closed.  SOE seemed pretty set on letting the game come to an end.  I don't really think Lucas Arts was ever worried about SWG being some competition to SWTOR (especially since they would be making 2 sub fees from some people). 

Closing SWG makes sense in a lot of ways.  For one it finally puts an end to the drama that swg has become.  As long as swg was running it would be something that people could actively point to. 

On top of that SOE is in the middle of a serious money problem and cutting huge chunks of staff for the last 3 years.  Return on investment for 1 swg employee is going to be much less than someone working on EQ.  Perhaps a bit overly simplified, but there is truth there and SOE is more than likely heading towards more layoffs as their overall situation doesn't seem to be improving. 

SOE recently sold off one of their facebook games, closed another facebook game, cancelled the agency as well as closing SWG/Matrix.  SOE is no longer a company that doesn't close games. 

Honestly, what does SOE gain from keeping SWG running?  

Originally posted by teakbois
 

Sure, the first paragraph promises expansions.  SoE made the huge mistake here of trusting their customers who seemed to say 'if Vanguard was fixed up it would be a hit.  Well guess what?  SoE held true to everything on the list initially.  But the playerbase kept shrinking and shrinking despite the game being playable.  They did add content.  The game went from an unstable, bug ridden mess to something much smoother.  They did not make any major changes to the gameplay.

 

But the game didnt deliver revenue.  Players left SoE no choice but to shrink the staff.  SoE put the time and money in, running at a loss initially, because the players said 'fix it and wwell come back'.  But they fixed it and the players didnt come back.  This was 100% a case of not SoE letting the players down, but the players letting SoE down.

You dismiss that first paragraph like it isn't meaningful and the SOE somehow did live up to their other promises.  Then you turn around and find some way to blame the players.  Really you are kidding about that right?   Can you point out where players promised SOE they would continue to pay money for a game that doesn't work properly?  For a game that is one of the biggest flops in mmo history?  That is really where you want to point blame?

You know what the very first action SOE took when they purchased Vanguard?  They moved the most talented developers OFF the team and put them on other SOE projects.  Sorry, but SOE didn't put in the effort to fix this game and players were under no obligation to financially support Vanguard until SOE got around to fixing the basic problems... years later.

The game didn't deliver revenue, because the game didn't deliver quality.  That might come as a surprise to you, but that is pretty much how it works. 

Originally posted by Aluvius

 If its not "worthy of congratulations" then why is it worthy of scorn?  TMO was a disaster, there's no way it stayed operating unless SOE bought it no matter their reasons.  No other publisher was willing to even touch it.  And if the end result would have been the same for Vanguard no matter what then again why hate SOE?   Sony wasn't responsible for either crappy game and kept them operating well past the point when many other mmo's had folded. 

Its illogical ... then again its the mmorpg.com forums, so rage on I guess.

It isn't worthy of congratulations, because SOE did a horrible job with both games.  It is worthy of "scorn" as you put it, because SOE didn't live up to their promises.  Just because SOE was able to continue the failure of both games doesn't mean people should applaud them, unless someones standards are so low that paying industry premium subscription fees for a game that has zero developers and updates for periods of time that can be measured in years can be viewed as good. 

Buying a failed game with no intention of at least trying to make a recovery effort isn't praise worthy.  One of the first things SOE did to the Matrix was cease the storytelling/live event features that was a corner stone of the game.  Their first action actually made the game worse.

As for Vanguard, do you think SOE lived up to their promises to players?  link   SOE had two chances to turn vanguard around.  Once when they were funding the game as the publisher and the second when they purchased the game and promised the same level of support that their other games receive all the way up to expansion packs.  I guess what SOE meant was the same level of support games like EQMax, EQOA, Planetside, Matrix get and not the level of support of EQ/EQ2.

So no I don't think people need to stop complaining and settle to be happy with sustained failure.  Praise is earned from doing something, not sitting back and letting the status quo continue.

That goes for the subject of the thread also.  That is excatly why SWG is in the situation it is currently in.  There just are not enough people left willing to pay premium industry rates, receive so little in return and feel happy about it. 

Originally posted by Aluvius

If it weren't for SOE the Matrix would have shut down long before it did and Vanguard wouldn't have made it out of development.  Both of the original developer/operators of those games had run out of operating funds.  I understand why people have a beef with them over SWG, but blaming SOE for the fate of The Matrix or Vanguard is insane.   You should be thanking them that those games operated as long as they did (still operating in Vanguard's case).

SOE only got involved with The Matrix Online so they could get the DC license.  Beyond that they let the Matrix rot on life support.  Can't really say they are doing a bang up job with the DC license either.

Vanguard would have seen release, but the end result would have been the same.  Terrible release, Sigil files for bankruptcy, someone scoops up the game for loose change.   SOE didn't "save" Vanguard from anything.

I really don't see any of that as being worthy of thanks or congratulations. 

Originally posted by Ardwulf

 
I was more talking about non-subscribing EQ2X players, which represents a revenue stream outside traditional subscriptions.  EQ2 overall might therefore be more profitable than strictly looking at the subscriptions might otherwise suggest.  EQ2 servers can accomodate a lot of people due to sharding high-pop zones, so just having one server (on which the players base probably plays more casually anyway) might not neccessarily say very much about the total number of active players.
 
 

When I said subscribers I was including people who are paying a la carte as well.  EQ2X is still just one server and that one server can only hold so many people and a portion of those players on EQ2X are not paying anything at all.  In all actuallity EQ2 servers are notorious for bogging down under normal mmo server loads. 

Hopefully Vanguard can live as long as either EQ and see some real development in the future.  Seeing any work being done on the game is a nice step.  A very small step that is little more than a teaser, but better than being ignored completely.

---

Originally posted by Vorthanion

 I haven't heard any rumors that VG would go free to play or even freemium.  So, I'm not sure why you would even make that comparison.

---

That ship has most likely sailed though.

---

Originally posted by Ardwulf
I have often heard this said, and I'm unconvinced by the statement that EQ1 has more subs than EQ2 (more than Vanguard, sure.) Now that EQ2 has a f2p option available, that becomes very difficult to quantify that without access to the real numbers that only SOE has access to.

---

EQ2X has 1 total servers, so it isn't like there are tons of paying subscribers being added. Both games are winding down though, but I as you suggest I would not be surprised if EQ sees a 20th anniversary and will outlive EQ2 and several other popular games out right now.

Those are all great points Grumpy.  Wish those things didn't exist in the game. 

Edit:  I don't think the advantages are as big as having an extra pawn or player in a football game.  Still think they are very minor and I've never noticed it, but still good points.

This is what happens when gameplay becomes stagnant and doesn't evolve.  Players are getting bored with more of the same and either leaving or trying to find another game to play until the next wave of wow killers is released.  Maybe one of those games will finally deliver something new and fun.  Maybe this will wake blizzard up to add more spice to the wow and give players more to do than more of the same. 

Don't think this is an exclusive problem for WoW though.  Most of the game that are hitting the market as more of the same style games are going to suffer this type of loss at a much higher rate.

Originally posted by MrDosu

Dont get me wrong. The game was at a HORRIBLE state just 1month ago. You had to reset your PS3 5-10 times a raid and hacks and glitches ran rampant for weeks. I honestly dont know why i stuck around during that time it was not playable. The thing i dont get though is the lack of content. Its an action game and has a ton of levels. I am what you would call fully geared and its not really needed to grind out the raids any more, but the action combat is just fun to play for me. You cannot grind your perfect gear setup during a period of daily raiding for months here, you will get it much sooner. And i never said dont like anyones opinion but look at the replies you get here for an experience report. Its all talk about SOE and not the game itself. The community is friendly and mature so i am a bit protective about that :D.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings, as stated im just expressing opinion and everyone can have theirs. Most comments here dont seem to be based around much more then SOE hate though (which I have plenty of btw since they fuxed my swg jedi).

My feelings are not hurt, but thanks for your concern.

That being said you seem to be doing that thing again.  You read all the complaints in this thread about specific aspects of DCU and you have generalized it as somehow being SOE hate and nothing more.  As if all the specific issues pointed out are just imagined and there are no problems worth complaining about. 

You enjoy the game which is fine.  You don't see a lack of content, because you enjoy the combat, which is fine.  This game has lost probably 95% of its population, so I think overwhelming majority of players see it differently than you do, which is also fine. 

The "tons" of levels you talk about last only a few weeks at a very casual pace.  The game world quickly becomes irrelevant and even SOE has acknowledged this.  After hitting level 30 the game rapidly devolves into running a few daily instantced quests and raids that are mostly just reskinned areas that were done during levels 1-29.  There is a reason most people left the game within their initial free month subscription. 

I think the community you see as friendly and mature has more or less become "defensive" as you put it.  Reading the official forums and almost any criticism of the game is met by the hivemind with mocking pictures and comments of "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" with posters like Longhorn Tex cheerleading the mob.  It doesn't matter how valid or well stated those criticisms might be, the response is always the same.

The crazy part is posters like Longhorn really have convinced themselves that what they are doing is somehow helping the game by rabidly attacking valid criticisms or opinions that don't praise the game.  They really do not see how the harm they are doing or the ugly picture of the community they are displaying.