The lack of support was due to lack of players, not the other way around. SoE tried fixing the game up while it was low pop. They werent speedy about it, but consider the vast majority of the difference between game at release and the game today occured in a 15 month span or so. They werent glacial either. But what was the population after those 15 months? Well under 30k. Significantly less than what SWG had when it closed down. There was no reason to expect any kind of return on investment. So they just left the game on life support to try to recoup part of the money they dumped into it.
I am just hoping that they allow old player's access to all of their old characters like they do in Everquest 1 and not restrict you to only a couple of your old characters like they do in EQ2. Still chaps my hide that they did it differently in those two games. Other than that I am looking forward to it going F2P. I can't stand the solo-centric way of most new games so I have been going back and playing some old school stuff. Actually me and my family and friends I normally play with have been going old school.
If the F2P model for VG is anything like DCUO, EQ1 and EQ2 (500SC when you subscribe to each) then I'll probably subscribe to All Access, and hopefully get my $20 completely converted into 2000SC by being subscribed to all 4. If it works out and I like VG than I'll continue to subscribe. If it works out and I don't like VG than I tested the theory about getting all of my subscription money converted into SC, and will wait to see what EQNext is like as to whether I subscribe to All Access for it. And, if it doesn't work out then I can finally write off SOE and move onto TSW.
This is the news I had been waiting for. I hope with the F2P model the game will get the love it deserves. It would be fantastic to see the game populated again.
I'm really looking forward to the inevitable population increase that the freemium conversion will bring, but I'm very concerned with how limiting the options will be- of all the companies' payment models for games that have gone from subscription only to "F2P" I've found Sony's to be the worst.
100x this. SOE has the absolute worst f2p transitioned model I have encountered. They nickle and dime you for every little thing in the game, and don't even try to hide it.
Originally posted by Destructhor Just resubbed and tried to play again this weekend. Unfortunately I cannot comment on the state of the game other than no matter what I tried I could not get it to launch in windows 7 64 bit. The SOE load box would popup and do its thing then bam nothing...
TLDR: Vanguard requires a more "complete" system to run smoothly than most modern games. While most games will typically run great if you have nice GPU or CPU, depending on which it stresses, Vanguard requires all components of a system to be equal in speed/performance otherwise the entire game is prone to choke.
For anyone who might have issues running VSoH even when you can run other more modern games just fine I suggest you check out this article.
"Lastly, there's the very real issue of Vanguard's system specs, even for the core and hard core gamer in North America and Europe. For a variety of reasons and mistakes on our part that I won't get into right now, Vanguard was released with system spec requirements that were too high for January 2007. Continued optimization will help to a degree, but the game's big hope here is simply Moore's Law and that by the second half of 2007, and certainly by the end of the year, the system spec issue will have been greatly diminished. The big problem that remains is that you still pretty much need a new system as opposed to, say, simply a new graphics card. But eventually, gamers do replace their systems. Given what Vista (especially the Ultimate edition) takes to really run, combined with other games that come out by the end of the year that really push technology, many people will be compelled to buy new systems. Unlike EQ, which was one of the first hardware only games, Vanguard needs not only a fast graphics card, but also a system with pci-express, fast memory, a fast FSB, etc. With EQ, you just needed to buy a Voodoo 1 or Voodoo 2 - the rest of your system is fine. With Vanguard, however, just plugging the fastest AGP card into your 2-3 year old system doesn't cut it. In fact, Vanguard runs pretty well on a 2 GB system with a decent pci-express video card and fast memory in a 2.6 GHz Pentium; conversely, run the game on an older AGP system, the fastest AGP card you can buy, and a 3.2 GHz CPU and you'll have framerate issues. The game is simply not CPU bound, nor just graphics card bound, but rather mostly bound by the data that it needs to constantly move from the CPU to main memory to the graphics card, and then all the way back again. It's all about the various bus speeds and caches - moving data around efficiently is arguably more important than processing that data on the CPU or GPU. The only fix here, again, is time. Vista (especially the Ultimate edition, which is what's being pushed to gamers) wants fast components. Direct X 10 hardware and software will help a lot, especially when there is a DX10 version of Vanguard. A native 64bit client of Vanguard will eventually help a lot too. Bottom line: by the end of 2007, a lot more people should have upgraded, especially if Microsoft succeeds with Vista and native DX 10 games. And if they really push Gaming for Windows like they did, say, the Xbox 360, the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008 should be a very different landscape for PC games in general and Vanguard specifically. Was the Vanguard tech ahead of its time? Yes, and there has been a price to pay for that short term (although many people are able to play with older machines - why? Different configurations, different settings, different thresholds for lower framerates, etc.). But MMOGs ideally never end and if you've architected your engine to both push the limits of existing and near future technology as well as easily employ future technologies, then you have a game that doesn't look dated one, two, even three plus years down the road. And that's what we did with Vanguard - so we feel some pain now, but if we can keep the momentum going, this decision pays off in the long run (big time)."
All they need to do is spend more than $250 on the character models in the game & I'd be playing it. I seriously couldn't get passed how BAD and piss poor the models look in Vanguard.
I love sandbox & open world games more than most people, and I'm also an advocate of gameplay over graphics. However, there IS something to be said about your game looking so horrid that it completely detracts from the gameplay.
I feel as if my C-Grade classmates in college made those models for their final project in Maya-3D class when i was in college. Honestly, it's as if they didn't even care . My only turn-off for Vanguard since it launched.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity: Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
All they need to do is spend more than $250 on the character models in the game & I'd be playing it. I seriously couldn't get passed how BAD and piss poor the models look in Vanguard.
I love sandbox & open world games more than most people, and I'm also an advocate of gameplay over graphics. However, there IS something to be said about your game looking so horrid that it completely detracts from the gameplay.
I feel as if my C-Grade classmates in college made those models for their final project in Maya-3D class when i was in college. Honestly, it's as if they didn't even care . My only turn-off for Vanguard since it launched.
This has been my problem everytime I tried to give it a shot. It is a fun game and certainly a better predecessor for EQ than EQ2 (IMHO) however I really wish it had (hope that it will) received the alternate character models akin to the aforementioned.
Some may consider this a petty reason to not play an arguably worthwhile MMORPG but I for one need to enjoy looking at my avatar to want to continue to log back in day in and day out.
Right now this game only runs one server. I wonder if that one is going to be enough to handle how many will come in with the ftp or if a new server will be released. I really don't prefer to play non PvP mmo's but it being free and all I might jump back in for a little bit.
Just to question the philosophy. Army of Socrates.
I liked Vanguard when I played it. It was a nice throwback game to the early days I miss and it included a few modern features as well. My problem with the game was that it had too many bugs and had a low population.
Even though Vanguard is going F2P, I probably still won't play it. With TSW and GW2 coming out, it's too little too late for SOE. Then again, TSW and GW2 could suck, so who knows.
I love a lot of the features that Vanguard has, but there aren't just too many negatives to keep me playing:
Atrocious character models and animations
Clunky UI
The most atrociously bad name plates (the names that float over enemies and character in the world) I've possibly ever seen in an MMORPG.
Stiff combat and movement.
Far more bugs than a title this old has any right to have.
Sure the crafting and diplomacy are amazing, the world design and scale are fantastic, and there are plenty of positives, but for my personal gameplay style they just don't make up for the above.
Originally posted by Destructhor Just resubbed and tried to play again this weekend. Unfortunately I cannot comment on the state of the game other than no matter what I tried I could not get it to launch in windows 7 64 bit. The SOE load box would popup and do its thing then bam nothing...
Really I have a windows 7 64 system also and the game runs great for me...you might check their forums and see what else might be causing the issue?
Right now this game only runs one server. I wonder if that one is going to be enough to handle how many will come in with the ftp or if a new server will be released. I really don't prefer to play non PvP mmo's but it being free and all I might jump back in for a little bit.
Actually thats not quite true as I believe they have 2 one EU and one NA ...unless something has changed in the last few weeks?
Comments
The lack of support was due to lack of players, not the other way around. SoE tried fixing the game up while it was low pop. They werent speedy about it, but consider the vast majority of the difference between game at release and the game today occured in a 15 month span or so. They werent glacial either. But what was the population after those 15 months? Well under 30k. Significantly less than what SWG had when it closed down. There was no reason to expect any kind of return on investment. So they just left the game on life support to try to recoup part of the money they dumped into it.
I am just hoping that they allow old player's access to all of their old characters like they do in Everquest 1 and not restrict you to only a couple of your old characters like they do in EQ2. Still chaps my hide that they did it differently in those two games. Other than that I am looking forward to it going F2P. I can't stand the solo-centric way of most new games so I have been going back and playing some old school stuff. Actually me and my family and friends I normally play with have been going old school.
If the F2P model for VG is anything like DCUO, EQ1 and EQ2 (500SC when you subscribe to each) then I'll probably subscribe to All Access, and hopefully get my $20 completely converted into 2000SC by being subscribed to all 4. If it works out and I like VG than I'll continue to subscribe. If it works out and I don't like VG than I tested the theory about getting all of my subscription money converted into SC, and will wait to see what EQNext is like as to whether I subscribe to All Access for it. And, if it doesn't work out then I can finally write off SOE and move onto TSW.
I loved to chop down trees and seeing them actually fall down to the ground.
This is the news I had been waiting for. I hope with the F2P model the game will get the love it deserves. It would be fantastic to see the game populated again.
Vanguard featured one of the best Bard classes ever.
Yay!. I loved this game back in the day.
The quests are rich and varied, the areas HUGE, you can make your own house or boat.
Great game, just the population was lacking..that should change with FTP.
Well done sir.
100x this. SOE has the absolute worst f2p transitioned model I have encountered. They nickle and dime you for every little thing in the game, and don't even try to hide it.
I run the same OS and can run Vanguard just fine.
TLDR: Vanguard requires a more "complete" system to run smoothly than most modern games. While most games will typically run great if you have nice GPU or CPU, depending on which it stresses, Vanguard requires all components of a system to be equal in speed/performance otherwise the entire game is prone to choke.
For anyone who might have issues running VSoH even when you can run other more modern games just fine I suggest you check out this article.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070523135216/http://forums.station.sony.com/vg/posts/list.m?topic_id=8569
Here is the most important part:
"Lastly, there's the very real issue of Vanguard's system specs, even for the core and hard core gamer in North America and Europe. For a variety of reasons and mistakes on our part that I won't get into right now, Vanguard was released with system spec requirements that were too high for January 2007. Continued optimization will help to a degree, but the game's big hope here is simply Moore's Law and that by the second half of 2007, and certainly by the end of the year, the system spec issue will have been greatly diminished. The big problem that remains is that you still pretty much need a new system as opposed to, say, simply a new graphics card. But eventually, gamers do replace their systems. Given what Vista (especially the Ultimate edition) takes to really run, combined with other games that come out by the end of the year that really push technology, many people will be compelled to buy new systems. Unlike EQ, which was one of the first hardware only games, Vanguard needs not only a fast graphics card, but also a system with pci-express, fast memory, a fast FSB, etc. With EQ, you just needed to buy a Voodoo 1 or Voodoo 2 - the rest of your system is fine. With Vanguard, however, just plugging the fastest AGP card into your 2-3 year old system doesn't cut it. In fact, Vanguard runs pretty well on a 2 GB system with a decent pci-express video card and fast memory in a 2.6 GHz Pentium; conversely, run the game on an older AGP system, the fastest AGP card you can buy, and a 3.2 GHz CPU and you'll have framerate issues. The game is simply not CPU bound, nor just graphics card bound, but rather mostly bound by the data that it needs to constantly move from the CPU to main memory to the graphics card, and then all the way back again. It's all about the various bus speeds and caches - moving data around efficiently is arguably more important than processing that data on the CPU or GPU. The only fix here, again, is time. Vista (especially the Ultimate edition, which is what's being pushed to gamers) wants fast components. Direct X 10 hardware and software will help a lot, especially when there is a DX10 version of Vanguard. A native 64bit client of Vanguard will eventually help a lot too. Bottom line: by the end of 2007, a lot more people should have upgraded, especially if Microsoft succeeds with Vista and native DX 10 games. And if they really push Gaming for Windows like they did, say, the Xbox 360, the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008 should be a very different landscape for PC games in general and Vanguard specifically. Was the Vanguard tech ahead of its time? Yes, and there has been a price to pay for that short term (although many people are able to play with older machines - why? Different configurations, different settings, different thresholds for lower framerates, etc.). But MMOGs ideally never end and if you've architected your engine to both push the limits of existing and near future technology as well as easily employ future technologies, then you have a game that doesn't look dated one, two, even three plus years down the road. And that's what we did with Vanguard - so we feel some pain now, but if we can keep the momentum going, this decision pays off in the long run (big time)."
All they need to do is spend more than $250 on the character models in the game & I'd be playing it. I seriously couldn't get passed how BAD and piss poor the models look in Vanguard.
I love sandbox & open world games more than most people, and I'm also an advocate of gameplay over graphics. However, there IS something to be said about your game looking so horrid that it completely detracts from the gameplay.
I feel as if my C-Grade classmates in college made those models for their final project in Maya-3D class when i was in college. Honestly, it's as if they didn't even care
. My only turn-off for Vanguard since it launched.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
Always wanted to like it, maybe f2p will get enough players around to like it
This has been my problem everytime I tried to give it a shot. It is a fun game and certainly a better predecessor for EQ than EQ2 (IMHO) however I really wish it had (hope that it will) received the alternate character models akin to the aforementioned.
Some may consider this a petty reason to not play an arguably worthwhile MMORPG but I for one need to enjoy looking at my avatar to want to continue to log back in day in and day out.
I really liked this game too bad there was no players on EU server to play with.
Right now this game only runs one server. I wonder if that one is going to be enough to handle how many will come in with the ftp or if a new server will be released. I really don't prefer to play non PvP mmo's but it being free and all I might jump back in for a little bit.
Just to question the philosophy. Army of Socrates.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I was just thinking about Vanguard F2P the other day! Good news, I will definitely hop back in once it is a free title.
I liked Vanguard when I played it. It was a nice throwback game to the early days I miss and it included a few modern features as well. My problem with the game was that it had too many bugs and had a low population.
Even though Vanguard is going F2P, I probably still won't play it. With TSW and GW2 coming out, it's too little too late for SOE. Then again, TSW and GW2 could suck, so who knows.
lol this post just sent the guy to the gates of oblivion and back
I love a lot of the features that Vanguard has, but there aren't just too many negatives to keep me playing:
What VG needs is not to be owned by SOE.
if they sold it to developers who could invest the love and attention it needs it could be a re-launch and be a pretty great sandbox game.
F2P is where all the old broken toys go to retire. they're never the same once they go to the broken bin are they?
The only way I would come back to vg is if they released an expansion.
Really I have a windows 7 64 system also and the game runs great for me...you might check their forums and see what else might be causing the issue?
Actually thats not quite true as I believe they have 2 one EU and one NA ...unless something has changed in the last few weeks?