I know this has been stated before. But I really felt the need to post this again. And just maybe if Sony hears enough people asking for it, they would do something about it.

If this game went free to play, with a vanity item shop, etc..., and some development support. I bet tons of people would jump in. And that would solve the major problem with this game.. no one wants to play, because there is no devs on it anymore.

I just downloaded it again to give it another try. The game runs really smooth, and feels great. Sure it's not perfect, and the character models are terrible. But the world feels great, and the classes are very interesting.

Oh, what potential this game has. Only if it were free 2 play.

R.

I agree that Vanguard is a great game. But I'm not crazy about FTP.........I like running dungeons, they have the best dungeons of any game  ( however D&D Online has good ones too ).

The problem with me is I don't solo almost at all. FTP you have to be solo minded because you dont know who has what packages, and who is paying for what, this drasticly limets who you can play with.

I can't play D&D Online anymore because of it ( who has what ), If I were to go back I would have to find a guild thats only monthly sub players........YOU CAN'T RUN DUNGEONS WITH OTHERS THAT ARE GIMPED !

Originally posted by page

I agree that Vanguard is a great game. But I'm not crazy about FTP.........I like running dungeons, they have the best dungeons of any game  ( however D&D Online has good ones too ).

The problem with me is I don't solo almost at all. FTP you have to be solo minded because you dont know who has what packages, and who is paying for what, this drasticly limets who you can play with.

I can't play D&D Online anymore because of it ( who has what ), If I were to go back I would have to find a guild thats only monthly sub players........YOU CAN'T RUN DUNGEONS WITH OTHERS THAT ARE GIMPED !

I played quite a lot of DDO when it went free to play, and for about 6 months afterward.  Obviously, it's an overwhelmingly group-oriented game, more so than Vanguard.  In Vanguard you can certainly solo as much as you like.  Sure, you won't be seeing all the game has to offer, but you're not crippled by it either except maybe at the very top end (50+.)  In DDO this is not the case; your progression will be severely hobbled after about level 3 if you don't do group stuff, even though there is some solo content after that point.

In that maybe 6 months I grouped constantly with sub and non-sub players, and simply did not have the problem you describe through about level 12.  In this time I did buy some content, but not everything I had access to, level-wise - I may have spent like $25 total, and it's harder to earn points through play than it is in LotRO unless you go out of your way to game the system.  DDO players know how the game's dynamic works; they understand that while you may not want to sub, it's definitely desirable to buy content packs for stuff you want to play.  You only ask for groups doing content you have access to, and turn down requests for content you don't.  Nobody's "gimped" that happens not to be a subscriber, and beyond the first couple of levels (say past level 4 or 5) people playing DDO tend to be fairly serious about it, subbed or not,  becuase with the game's level cap at 20, getting to level 5 requires a relatvely substantial amount of work.  So the quality of players you see is quite a bit higher than in some other games.

This is just with PUGs, mind you.  If you have a guild it'll be easier to get regular groups, but I had consistenly good fortune just using the social tool.  Some guild are made up of all free players, plan a progression through the content and arrange for groups to buy content together so they can maintain group cohesion as they level.

Yes this is the Vanguard board. But using D&D Online is a good example of a F2P.

D&D Online is considered one of the only successful F2P MMO's made, most would agree to that. What people don't realize about D&D Online is that the game was a hidden great game after the first year of patching. Like many mmo's at launch had it's problems, but later got fixed. People never really gave it a second chance after it was fixed UNTIL it was fixed and wnet F2P.

Players are mistaking a great hidden game, with a successful F2P game. I hope you could understand what I'm trying to say here. I'll try to explain:

YES it took FTP to make people try D&D Online. BUT and I stress but Turbine did not really give people as much as they think they got for free. ALL THE PAY CONTENT IS SO MUCH BETTER than what you get for free. However the free stuff was good too. But not near as good. You would have to be a monthly subscriber to realize what you are missing.

In order to enjoy a FTP in most any MMO you would have to enjoy solo play.  Nothing wrong with that if that's your style. Since D&D Online in almost made completely for grouping it had a natural way of bringing people together. I 100% believe no other mmo on the list of hundreds would be able to do this, making them all solo grinds. And with a solo grind most will leave after the novelty is gone. It's only my opinion but no one sticks with FTP long, it's just a fast money fix ( a last short stand for an un successful mmo, short lived ).

Vanguard will not survive very long as FTP as it's built standard. People will get pisses and fast like EQ2's F2P and other mmo's that followed. In fact Vanguard will be worst, because it's solo content is hard, you need a frined. And you know that friend you made ?.....Well he will not have the same pay packages as you unless you are a well oiled duo.

Unless they put a tag above every players head of who has what package. You don't know who has what !

VG won't go F2P because then it'll be losing money. Majority of the current community has huge issues with it and only really want it so it will "presumably" bring in more development. However, I highly doubt anyone from the current community will pay more "as how most F2P games make more of their money" unless development is guaranteed. So its a give-take scenario. All in all, it goes F2P, someone from the current game who has been starved will have to start paying more to warrant more development. Not so much a win win.

This kinda post comes out off and on again about this game. Trust me if this game was good enough to play people would play it. But it's not, never was and never will be. 

Originally posted by Xeonsoldier

VG won't go F2P because then it'll be losing money. Majority of the current community has huge issues with it and only really want it so it will "presumably" bring in more development. However, I highly doubt anyone from the current community will pay more "as how most F2P games make more of their money" unless development is guaranteed. So its a give-take scenario. All in all, it goes F2P, someone from the current game who has been starved will have to start paying more to warrant more development. Not so much a win win.

I think that's the trouble. Go F2P and you risk losing most of what remains of the player base with no certainty that F2P will bring in enough people to counter that. I think if Sony announced some level of bare-bones developement that would go along way to reassuring people that the game isn't going to just pack up tomorrow and give the feeling of a game with some life to it. But I think their perspective on it is that the game adds to the value of Station passes and doesn't require any real effort. Why mess with that?

Personally I'd love to see something done to bring more people to the game, but it has to be done in a way that doesn't piss off the people who have been supporting the game all this time.

Not going to happen.

What few regulars are left would bail in protest and the f2pers that jump in would play for a month then quit because the game has ZERO support.

I still say reduce the sub fee to around $9, maybe add a small cosmetic cash shop with costumes and housing items, and put someone to work on this full time to fix the bugs and add some new content and you might be able to re-release it successfully.... but we all know Sony won't do that so there you go.

they should use the Istaria F2P model, allow 2-3 races, and like 4 classes f2p, then allow people to use item shop to buy additional races and classes.  I think VG is a perfect avenue to try a different style of f2p that we havent really seen (some ddo) with all the race/class combos this could bring some money and definately bring a lot of players to VG, maybe enough to get a dev working on it.

My problem with VG isnt the population personally, its the lack of char customization, no talent trees, skill ups, mastery books, etc to make my ranger different from your ranger

i think LOTR's free/mium model coupled with a decent bit of dev support would do for VG exactly what it did for LOTR and DDO.

( namely, add tens of thousands to the roster and pick the game off the floor and make it healthy)

but that means it's a good idea, and good idea faerie does not tend to visit SOE HQ

FTP has given sony the most populated eq2 server.  The is a steady stream of both paying and non paying players.  I have spent more than my fair share on character slot expansions, mounts, race unlocks, in addition to being a paying gold subscriber.  The FTP brings in tons of lower level players that would not be there otherwise..

Regardless of how much I have enjoyed FTP on EQ2 Extended..I would drop it in a heartbeat for a FTP Vanguard.  I loved VG, but few gave it a chance past its failed launch.  FTP would be its best chance for bringing back a population base. 

The finished game is great, (ok, so they finished it two years after launch... but its finished now!)  It would be a waste to let the game just vanish, without a  FTP infusion of life.

  I would definately go back and give it a shot again if they did go to an EQ2/Lotro style of Freemium.  Sadly, the game will never go that route.  SOE won't invest the developer time to do it, and they don't want it competing against their other 'fremium' game.  From the looks of it, they're perfectly happy letting the thousand or so subs subsidize their other games :(

F2P not only saved DDO from death's door but its now updated more than any other MMO out there.

Why would Vanguard players bail due to f2p? Are you saying Vanguard players are dumb? Are you saying Vanguard players don't want this game to prosper? F2P would be the best thing to ever happen to EQ2, EQ and Vanguard.

To the gentleman who said he played DDO for 6 months, and couldn't solo past level 3. I wouldn't admit that. That is incredibly untrue. Maybe if your build was total trash. If one does research there are plenty of builds capable of soloin to level 20. Even my warrior was able to solo to 20 easily. I just didn't pick up trash feats.

Anyways, I'm all for games that are on the brink going f2p. It did wonders for DDO.

Originally posted by Golelorn

To the gentleman who said he played DDO for 6 months, and couldn't solo past level 3. I wouldn't admit that. That is incredibly untrue. Maybe if your build was total trash. If one does research there are plenty of builds capable of soloin to level 20. Even my warrior was able to solo to 20 easily. I just didn't pick up trash feats.

It's possible to solo in DDO past the early levels, but it a) is not fun, b)  results in builds that are gimped in the group content that's DDO's central focus, and c) results in running a lot of stuff either at casual difficulty or well under level, meaning that you have to repeat content a lot more.  If you soloed all the way to 20, morer power to you, but that's not something I'd enjoy doing.

Originally posted by rumpleman

I know this has been stated before. But I really felt the need to post this again. And just maybe if Sony hears enough people asking for it, they would do something about it.

If this game went free to play, with a vanity item shop, etc..., and some development support. I bet tons of people would jump in. And that would solve the major problem with this game.. no one wants to play, because there is no devs on it anymore.

I just downloaded it again to give it another try. The game runs really smooth, and feels great. Sure it's not perfect, and the character models are terrible. But the world feels great, and the classes are very interesting.

Oh, what potential this game has. Only if it were free 2 play.

R.

 Does SOE own Vanguard outright or is it licensed from someone?

Originally posted by Logos1326

Not going to happen.

What few regulars are left would bail in protest and the f2pers that jump in would play for a month then quit because the game has ZERO support.

I still say reduce the sub fee to around $9, maybe add a small cosmetic cash shop with costumes and housing items, and put someone to work on this full time to fix the bugs and add some new content and you might be able to re-release it successfully.... but we all know Sony won't do that so there you go.

I agree with this sentiment.

First of all, it takes money/developers to transform a P2P into a F2P.  SOE has never shown the will to support this game with either.

That leads into the second point.  In order for VG to survive as a F2P, SOE would again have to support the game with fixes and regularly produced new content, which is something they have failed to do since launch.  Why would they suddently start injecting cash into a 4 and a half year old game with a relatively tiny playerbase, especially when they are currently working on another EQ?

I believe they are banking on EQ Next, and probably quietly wish that VG had been shut down before now.  Such a waste.

Originally posted by Rohn

I agree with this sentiment.

First of all, it takes money/developers to transform a P2P into a F2P.  SOE has never shown the will to support this game with either.

That leads into the second point.  In order for VG to survive as a F2P, SOE would again have to support the game with fixes and regularly produced new content, which is something they have failed to do since launch.  Why would they suddently start injecting cash into a 4 and a half year old game with a relatively tiny playerbase, especially when they are currently working on another EQ?

I believe they are banking on EQ Next, and probably quietly wish that VG had been shut down before now.  Such a waste.

This kind of thing just makes me shake my head.

SOE has not "failed to support Vanguard since launch'.  At launch, support was Sigil's responsibility, and after the takeover SOE kept on the bulk of the leftover Sigil development staff, who left gradually.  If I recall correctly, none of the big waves of layoffs at SOE hit Vanguard any harder than any of their other games.  Developers were pulled off litte by little, until about a year or two ago when we stopped seeing any sign of developer activity.  Until then - for a full two years after they took it over - SOE was actively developing Vanguard.  The team may have gotten small, but they produced some very significant content expansions and did a lot of fixing on broken stuff.  To say that SOE did nothing for Vanguard would be a mischaracterization bordering on laughability.  You want to quibble with what they did, that's fair, but to say they did nothing is utter nonsense indicative of either deceit or complete ignorance.

Second, Vanguard represents an investment, to the tune of some tens of millions of dollars.  That most of this money wasn't spent by SOE is irrelevant, as is the fact that of Vanguard's ~$40 million budget a lot was wasted by Sigil.  Today SOE is sitting on the value that Vanguard represents, and regardless of its current earning power that value is real.  IF SOE decides not to throw good money after bad, that's a fair business decision, but it's also far from inconceivable that they might decide to try to get some more value out of it, which they won't do if the property just lies fallow.

I'm not saying that SOE will make an effort to revitalize Vanguard - it would be absurd to express such optimism at this point with the facts we have.  I'm saying that there are a number of reasonable scenarios that could happen, rather than the clear-cut inevitable abandonment that some like to imply. Ongoing development on a shoestirng with a small team is something that SOE is actually pretty good at.

All that said, I do agree that the big hope at SOE has to be EQNext.  Even a revitalized Vanguard would still be a pretty marginal moneymaker, but a year or two of development by half a dozen people could boost it considerably and extend its profitable lifetime for three times that.

*sigh

  Item shops ruin games.  Few people will argue that fact.

Originally posted by jjjk29

*sigh

  Item shops ruin games.  Few people will argue that fact.

Really? Few do? Lord of the Rings Online and Dungeons and Dragons have thrived after changing from P2P to F2P. While LoTRO was a big game to begin with, DDO was dying and now it's going well. It just depends on who's running the balance between item shop and the game itself. 

Personally, I think item shops take away from the immersion of the game and I think Vanguard has great immersion and that would ruin it. However, that doesn't mean F2P would be bad for Vanguard, it could be great. I just wouldn't walk around saying "few people will argue" when there's successful F2P games out there and an entire category of games to back it up.

It's dead Jim.

VG had potential at one time, that time has long passed.