Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Vanguard: Saga of Heroes: All About F2P

12346»

Comments

  • makiimakii noPosts: 280Member

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

  • BrenelaelBrenelael Warren, MEPosts: 3,996Member

    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

    while(horse==dead)
    {
    beat();
    }

  • teakboisteakbois Parlin, NJPosts: 2,154Member
    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?

     

     

  • TheocritusTheocritus Gary, INPosts: 3,747Member Uncommon

         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.

  • WolfhammerWolfhammer KetteringPosts: 694Member Uncommon

    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 :(

    image

    image

  • RictisRictis UnknownPosts: 1,231Member Uncommon

    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?

  • abottemillerabottemiller Woodland, WAPosts: 43Member

    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.

  • csthaocsthao Saint Paul, MNPosts: 1,111Member
    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.

  • teakboisteakbois Parlin, NJPosts: 2,154Member
    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)

  • teakboisteakbois Parlin, NJPosts: 2,154Member
    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.

  • NenahNenah WaldfeuchtPosts: 19Member

    Brad McQuaid is back btw:

    Clicky!

     

  • aspekxaspekx Brandon, FLPosts: 2,167Member
    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.

    "There are at least two kinds of games.
    One could be called finite, the other infinite.
    A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
    an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
    Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse

  • finnmacool1finnmacool1 Corona, CAPosts: 453Member

    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.

     

  • fallen5fallen5 Penn Valley, CAPosts: 70Member Uncommon

    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.

  • fallen5fallen5 Penn Valley, CAPosts: 70Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MasterChaosX

    Idiot companies like SOE should learn from NCSoft

    They know how to do a F2P model

     

    they should. nc has the best model of all mmo's so far.

  • fallen5fallen5 Penn Valley, CAPosts: 70Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Mannish
    Originally posted by teakbois
    Originally posted by nukems

     you think they would have learned from EQ2 

    They did.

    The model works, regardless of how much posters on MMORPG.com complain about it.

    The game right now, in the US, has 8 medium pop (400+) servers and 2 high pop (I think 1000+)

    To compare, Rift in the US, shortly after its big 1.9 conquest patch, has 5 medium pop servers (also 400+) and 1 high pop server.  This is around 10 pm eastern.  Rift still has more players overall (it has 10 low pop servers and probably a few of those medium servers like Faeblight would be EQ high pop servers), but still the active player bases are comparable.

    In addition, EQ2's community is still solid.  

    The difference between a game like EQ2 and VG vs a game like L2 or Aion, is the game is good enough to warrant a sub.  The f2p model is designed to get people to play the game without worrying about when their trial limits will cut off their gameplay, and eventually many of these people sub.  

     

     

    L2 and Aion are bigger World Wide then Everquest 2 ever was or will ever be. The Free To Play standard has been set by NC Softs and anything less is something I wont even touch. I am just waiting to hear that Blade & Soul and Wild Star will also launch with the Truly Free Model. If Everquest 2 was good enough to warrent a sub then why did even go free to play in the first place? If Vanguard was good enough to have a sub then why has the game been almost dead and  on life support for years? image

     

    again, haha. NC has done the best. and its true that anything less now sucks and isnt worth it.

  • finnmacool1finnmacool1 Corona, CAPosts: 453Member

    Slight easing of the free to login matrix. Plat limit moved to 3p,chat restriction removed,broker retriction removed,mail restriction removed,equipment moved to uncommon for free loginers.

  • japojapo Sedona, AZPosts: 306Member

    Why don't they just try a $5.00 sub fee for everything...unlimited access.

    I would come back and sub for that amount...I'm guessing a lot would.

    Gotta be a better idea than the "F2P" matrix.

  • XexvXexv Milton KeynesPosts: 308Member


    Originally posted by finnmacool1
    Slight easing of the free to login matrix. Plat limit moved to 3p,chat restriction removed,broker retriction removed,mail restriction removed,equipment moved to uncommon for free loginers.

    Link here

  • faxnadufaxnadu HelsinkiPosts: 940Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by chagarin

    and to think i was looking forward to this. Shame.

    same here. its a pass, until they do it right.

  • TheocritusTheocritus Gary, INPosts: 3,747Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by japo

    Why don't they just try a $5.00 sub fee for everything...unlimited access.

    I would come back and sub for that amount...I'm guessing a lot would.

    Gotta be a better idea than the "F2P" matrix.

           Yeah a middle ground would be nice....This "free with severe restrictions or 14.99 a month" is too demanding on the players.......I think you're right though taht maybe more of these games should look at a cheaper price per month instead of sticking to the hard and fast 15 dollars....These companies should have learned by now that there is alot of competition out there and many of us are no longer interested in paying 15 dollars a month.

  • VahraneVahrane Alpharetta, GAPosts: 375Member
    Originally posted by Theocritus
    Originally posted by japo

    Why don't they just try a $5.00 sub fee for everything...unlimited access.

    I would come back and sub for that amount...I'm guessing a lot would.

    Gotta be a better idea than the "F2P" matrix.

           Yeah a middle ground would be nice....This "free with severe restrictions or 14.99 a month" is too demanding on the players.......I think you're right though taht maybe more of these games should look at a cheaper price per month instead of sticking to the hard and fast 15 dollars....These companies should have learned by now that there is alot of competition out there and many of us are no longer interested in paying 15 dollars a month.

            Not sure if you've seen that the "severe restrictions" have mostly all been done away with. You can use equipment up to uncommon gear now as a free player. Many of the other restrictions are being removed or lessened considerably as well. Also, if you purchase the game and make an account before F2P launches you can play whatever race/class combo you want at F2P launch with 12 open character slots for around 5 bucks! 

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vanguard-Saga-Heroes-PC-/320948311556?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item4aba029604#ht_2871wt_967

  • VyethVyeth Fayetteville, NCPosts: 1,459Member

    The object is, to bring in players but not take away from the EQ2 playerbase.. Remember, although they took over this game this is NOT SoE's lovechild like the everquest series is.. If anything this was a rogue attempt at bringing them down a notch due to the WoWification of the everquest franchise through EQ2.

    These restrictions, to me, feel like a way to make it "free" but still hold it below their other offerings so that players will kinda "ease" into EQ2 or pay to play vanguard..

    They are 2 pretty different games that will attract 2 different types of gamers.. But SoE doesn't see it that way..

    image

12346»
Sign In or Register to comment.