I agree not all change is bad, but there are positives and negatives to each one.
Removing downtime between fights got players back into the game more quickly, but at the cost of socialization opportunities. (or to hit the head real quick)
Dungeon finders made it easier to complete content, at the cost of running them with people you never interact with and mega and cross server tech means you may never see them again.
Sure soloing is convenient and preferable, I did it all the time back in DAOC in 2003 and still do today in EVE.
But both titles strongly encourage and reward group play and interdependence between players and I spent/spend more than my fair share interacting with players in each than I did in ESO, SWTOR, and TSW.
I also miss the complexities of having different starting stats per race, a plethora of very different classes, gear with real stats, meaning weapons that did more damage to plate than chainmail or even leather, and npcs which were strong against some damage types and weak against others.
So I resist change that streamlines socialization and interaction opportunites (even negative interaction is better than none in my book) or reduces complexity and forcing the player to chose between several paths and learning to live with them.
I agree with some of that, but I'd say that you're largely misplacing the responsibility of having social interaction in the game.
Personally, I never needed pointless and tiresome downtime to interact with people - and I never stopped interacting online. That said, I almost exclusively play with people I know in real life - so in that way communication is natural. But I do, occasionally, use tools like Dungeon Finders - and believe me, I'm not the silent type.
I think you need to accept the fact that a LOT of people simply don't enjoy interacting with strangers online.
Forcing them to interact - or "encouraging" them - won't magically increase the size of the audience willing to interact.
You'd just end up with a much smaller audience, instead.
That's the thing about today's gamers, it seems like most are only playing/socializing with folks they know IRL (I do it as well for the most part).
That's where you'll find most socialization, outside of certain types of guilds.
Back in the day there was a lot more community based interaction.
I don't really think it's the games that caused this change though. I think it's more due to the plugged-in world we're in today, people don't like to directly communicate outside of a small bubble of people they know (even that level of communication is deteriorating) . Real life socialization in general is at an all time low. People grow more introverted by the day it seems. ( i think it's by design but this isn't a political forum to discuss such things)..When people do communicate with strangers, it's mostly for negative reasons..
I don't know - I was always like that.
My interaction with strangers online was always limited, because even if 9 out of 10 interactions are pleasant - that 1 unpleasant interaction ruins everything. I have zero patience with rude or obnoxious people. I confront them immediately and shut them down - but I hate doing it. I hate that I have to do it
I simply don't need much in the way of social interaction - and I never did. As long as I have a few friends and loved ones, I'm good.
DKLond said: Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
We tend to pass verdict on games shortly after their release, and then dismiss them forever after.
It's kind of sad considering that most titles cannot claim to have "peaked" before year five (give or take).
SOE had other more popular titles already in operation; a poor platform for generating new "second look" interest. No marketing, of course. Little interest in success from the corporate side.
I agree the mainstream audience does that, but not the core audience.
Certainly not if we're talking about a design paradigm that's supposedly in such high demand.
We all know the majority of "established" posters on MMORPG cycle between old favorites constantly. That includes all the failed launches with ever dwindling population.
Every single day there's a new thread with an old poster asking what game he should "give another shot".
Essentially, I just don't buy that explanation. It doesn't compute.
Exactly how interested do you expect a player who didn't stumble into Vanguard until well after the launch to be?
"The Internet said this game was fail." Instant verdict delivered, very few players research more deeply than that.
Old school players pining for the 'good ole' mechanics are a constantly-dwindling market segment, just by virtue of mortality (and other reasons, of course). Is that a good model to build for future sales?
SOE took little interest in the title because Vanguard clearly missed the bus.
The SOE players showed weak interest because they already had tastes set by other titles. The verdict of the Internet was already set against it.
I don't think nostalgia is a weak argument; I think denial is strong.
Any player looking for a Vanguard-like experience would, obviously, be extremely interested in Vanguard after the launch.
That's my point.
SOE aren't stupid. If the game was profitable at ALL - it would not shut down.
It's not rocket science.
I don't know what the playerbase was like prior to its shutdown, but you're trivializing the power of word of mouth and first impressions unduly.
Even if I'm looking for a specific experience, if a game fits those general features, but has overly negative reviews, I'm not going to spend time (nor money) seeing if those reviews are wrong/outdated.
That's not uncommon, nor is it unique to video games. An early-game misstep can, indeed, doom a product to failure or irrelevancy, specifically in a heavily populated market.
It's hard to trivialise something I haven't even touched upon.
I've conceded, plainly, that the game failed at launch. There's no doubt there.
But my point is that it DID get to a "profitable" stage after it became functional and stable - and I know because I used to read the Vanguard forums - where developers were getting excited about it, and they started to add significant content like that one popular raid.
My question is that if the game DID turn profitable - and "word of mouth" changed, which it did - because I tried it several times BECAUSE word of mouth had changed - why did population dwindle into nothing?
Because it was "WoWified"? That's bullshit. Sure, they made a few changes that made it slightly more convenient - but those changes were blown way, way out of proportion. It was still a very challenging group-centric game - full of distinct classes and all those other wonderful old-school things.
So, again, WHY did it not grow? Why did it not only stagnate? Why did it dwindle so much?
Purely anecdotal, but my reasons are simply: it was a buggy mess when it was released, it was slowly fixed on a piecemeal basis, but never received any love or injection of cash from the publisher. If a publisher can't be bothered with a game, then I'm not going to waste my time watching it die.
Its really that simple. I've heard the statistics. Players leaving before level 2 and not returning says something. Bad launches have always spelled death for mmos. It takes a massive overhaul (ffxiv style) to come back from a bad launch, and aside from that 1 exception, its never happened.
Despite all that, EQ2, Eve and AO are still being played.
I must be one of the only people who can remember Eve at launch. Talk about atrocious.
EQ2 was almost entirely ruined because of its proximity to the launch of WoW. It was also a complete turd in terms of performance and bugs. It's still a turd in terms of performance, actually.
Funny thing, though. You know what turned it around? Making it "modern".
Dullahan said:
Bad launches have always spelled death for mmos.
Just curious how far your fallacy will go, can you list some of those bad launches spelling death to MMOs?
I dunno, because I can contradict it right off the bat with the biggest name out there: WoW. I know a lot of these kiddies were still in Pampers back in ol' aught-four, but at the time, WoW - despite being lauded from all corners - was widely regarded as having the worst launch of any game to-date. In fact, I can distinctly recall raiding Blackwing Lair in 2005 and Vael (which we had basically on farm) being unkillable because the lag issues were so persistent.
Dullahan said:
Bad launches have always spelled death for mmos.
Just curious how far your fallacy will go, can you list some of those bad launches spelling death to MMOs?
I dunno, because I can contradict it right off the bat with the biggest name out there: WoW. I know a lot of these kiddies were still in Pampers back in ol' aught-four, but at the time, WoW - despite being lauded from all corners - was widely regarded as having the worst launch of any game to-date. In fact, I can distinctly recall raiding Blackwing Lair in 2005 and Vael (which we had basically on farm) being unkillable because the lag issues were so persistent.
Not quite true, and having lived past the launch of AO - WoW wasn't even close.
But, it was a... problematic launch in the US.
Blackwing Lair was WAY past launch - and it was a separate issue.
I used to play an MMO called Myth of Soma religiously. I loved it. I loved the people. I loved the morality system. I loved the PvP, TYT war, the spell upgrade system etc.
But I was 16, I had not much else to do and sitting and hitting Scorpions in the desert for hours to get 0.1% XP wasn't a deal breaker. But now that's totally different, I wouldn't enjoy it in today's MMO world. Very few people would. But sometimes I think "leveling is so easy in MMOs these days" but remember the alternative.
Back then I forgot about people with lives outside of an MMO
It's hard to trivialise something I haven't even touched upon.
I've conceded, plainly, that the game failed at launch. There's no doubt there.
But my point is that it DID get to a "profitable" stage after it became functional and stable - and I know because I used to read the Vanguard forums - where developers were getting excited about it, and they started to add significant content like that one popular raid.
My question is that if the game DID turn profitable - and "word of mouth" changed, which it did - because I tried it several times BECAUSE word of mouth had changed - why did population dwindle into nothing?
Because it was "WoWified"? That's bullshit. Sure, they made a few changes that made it slightly more convenient - but those changes were blown way, way out of proportion. It was still a very challenging group-centric game - full of distinct classes and all those other wonderful old-school things.
So, again, WHY did it not grow? Why did it not only stagnate? Why did it dwindle so much?
Word of mouth did not, at large, change about Vanguard. At least, I never heard any word of mouth that it had. So does my anecdotal evidence cancel yours out? Because you seem to be very convinced that public word of mouth changed simply because your friends (or some folks on a specific website) told you the game had made strides.
In the end, your evidence for claiming its awful release had nothing to do with preventing its recovery is lacking. It's purely anecdotal, just as mine is above. And that anecdotal evidence is far from qualifying your resulting conclusion- specifically since that conclusion is founded on the assumption that public opinion, as a whole, did something specific when you claim it did that something. It will take much more than anecdotal evidence to prove that.
DKLond said: Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
We tend to pass verdict on games shortly after their release, and then dismiss them forever after.
It's kind of sad considering that most titles cannot claim to have "peaked" before year five (give or take).
SOE had other more popular titles already in operation; a poor platform for generating new "second look" interest. No marketing, of course. Little interest in success from the corporate side.
I agree the mainstream audience does that, but not the core audience.
Certainly not if we're talking about a design paradigm that's supposedly in such high demand.
We all know the majority of "established" posters on MMORPG cycle between old favorites constantly. That includes all the failed launches with ever dwindling population.
Every single day there's a new thread with an old poster asking what game he should "give another shot".
Essentially, I just don't buy that explanation. It doesn't compute.
Exactly how interested do you expect a player who didn't stumble into Vanguard until well after the launch to be?
"The Internet said this game was fail." Instant verdict delivered, very few players research more deeply than that.
Old school players pining for the 'good ole' mechanics are a constantly-dwindling market segment, just by virtue of mortality (and other reasons, of course). Is that a good model to build for future sales?
SOE took little interest in the title because Vanguard clearly missed the bus.
The SOE players showed weak interest because they already had tastes set by other titles. The verdict of the Internet was already set against it.
I don't think nostalgia is a weak argument; I think denial is strong.
Any player looking for a Vanguard-like experience would, obviously, be extremely interested in Vanguard after the launch.
That's my point.
SOE aren't stupid. If the game was profitable at ALL - it would not shut down.
It's not rocket science.
I don't know what the playerbase was like prior to its shutdown, but you're trivializing the power of word of mouth and first impressions unduly.
Even if I'm looking for a specific experience, if a game fits those general features, but has overly negative reviews, I'm not going to spend time (nor money) seeing if those reviews are wrong/outdated.
That's not uncommon, nor is it unique to video games. An early-game misstep can, indeed, doom a product to failure or irrelevancy, specifically in a heavily populated market.
It's hard to trivialise something I haven't even touched upon.
I've conceded, plainly, that the game failed at launch. There's no doubt there.
But my point is that it DID get to a "profitable" stage after it became functional and stable - and I know because I used to read the Vanguard forums - where developers were getting excited about it, and they started to add significant content like that one popular raid.
My question is that if the game DID turn profitable - and "word of mouth" changed, which it did - because I tried it several times BECAUSE word of mouth had changed - why did population dwindle into nothing?
Because it was "WoWified"? That's bullshit. Sure, they made a few changes that made it slightly more convenient - but those changes were blown way, way out of proportion. It was still a very challenging group-centric game - full of distinct classes and all those other wonderful old-school things.
So, again, WHY did it not grow? Why did it not only stagnate? Why did it dwindle so much?
Purely anecdotal, but my reasons are simply: it was a buggy mess when it was released, it was slowly fixed on a piecemeal basis, but never received any love or injection of cash from the publisher. If a publisher can't be bothered with a game, then I'm not going to waste my time watching it die.
Its really that simple. I've heard the statistics. Players leaving before level 2 and not returning says something. Bad launches have always spelled death for mmos. It takes a massive overhaul (ffxiv style) to come back from a bad launch, and aside from that 1 exception, its never happened.
Despite all that, EQ2, Eve and AO are still being played.
I must be one of the only people who can remember Eve at launch. Talk about atrocious.
EQ2 was almost entirely ruined because of its proximity to the launch of WoW. It was also a complete turd in terms of performance and bugs. It's still a turd in terms of performance, actually.
Funny thing, though. You know what turned it around? Making it "modern".
One could argue having a dozen expansions (eq2) vs no expansions in 7 years (vg) could also make a difference...
DKLond said: Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
We tend to pass verdict on games shortly after their release, and then dismiss them forever after.
It's kind of sad considering that most titles cannot claim to have "peaked" before year five (give or take).
SOE had other more popular titles already in operation; a poor platform for generating new "second look" interest. No marketing, of course. Little interest in success from the corporate side.
I agree the mainstream audience does that, but not the core audience.
Certainly not if we're talking about a design paradigm that's supposedly in such high demand.
We all know the majority of "established" posters on MMORPG cycle between old favorites constantly. That includes all the failed launches with ever dwindling population.
Every single day there's a new thread with an old poster asking what game he should "give another shot".
Essentially, I just don't buy that explanation. It doesn't compute.
Exactly how interested do you expect a player who didn't stumble into Vanguard until well after the launch to be?
"The Internet said this game was fail." Instant verdict delivered, very few players research more deeply than that.
Old school players pining for the 'good ole' mechanics are a constantly-dwindling market segment, just by virtue of mortality (and other reasons, of course). Is that a good model to build for future sales?
SOE took little interest in the title because Vanguard clearly missed the bus.
The SOE players showed weak interest because they already had tastes set by other titles. The verdict of the Internet was already set against it.
I don't think nostalgia is a weak argument; I think denial is strong.
Any player looking for a Vanguard-like experience would, obviously, be extremely interested in Vanguard after the launch.
That's my point.
SOE aren't stupid. If the game was profitable at ALL - it would not shut down.
It's not rocket science.
I don't know what the playerbase was like prior to its shutdown, but you're trivializing the power of word of mouth and first impressions unduly.
Even if I'm looking for a specific experience, if a game fits those general features, but has overly negative reviews, I'm not going to spend time (nor money) seeing if those reviews are wrong/outdated.
That's not uncommon, nor is it unique to video games. An early-game misstep can, indeed, doom a product to failure or irrelevancy, specifically in a heavily populated market.
It's hard to trivialise something I haven't even touched upon.
I've conceded, plainly, that the game failed at launch. There's no doubt there.
But my point is that it DID get to a "profitable" stage after it became functional and stable - and I know because I used to read the Vanguard forums - where developers were getting excited about it, and they started to add significant content like that one popular raid.
My question is that if the game DID turn profitable - and "word of mouth" changed, which it did - because I tried it several times BECAUSE word of mouth had changed - why did population dwindle into nothing?
Because it was "WoWified"? That's bullshit. Sure, they made a few changes that made it slightly more convenient - but those changes were blown way, way out of proportion. It was still a very challenging group-centric game - full of distinct classes and all those other wonderful old-school things.
So, again, WHY did it not grow? Why did it not only stagnate? Why did it dwindle so much?
Purely anecdotal, but my reasons are simply: it was a buggy mess when it was released, it was slowly fixed on a piecemeal basis, but never received any love or injection of cash from the publisher. If a publisher can't be bothered with a game, then I'm not going to waste my time watching it die.
Its really that simple. I've heard the statistics. Players leaving before level 2 and not returning says something. Bad launches have always spelled death for mmos. It takes a massive overhaul (ffxiv style) to come back from a bad launch, and aside from that 1 exception, its never happened.
Despite all that, EQ2, Eve and AO are still being played.
I must be one of the only people who can remember Eve at launch. Talk about atrocious.
EQ2 was almost entirely ruined because of its proximity to the launch of WoW. It was also a complete turd in terms of performance and bugs. It's still a turd in terms of performance, actually.
Funny thing, though. You know what turned it around? Making it "modern".
One could argue having a dozen expansions (eq2) vs no expansions in 7 years (vg) could also make a difference...
So, now you're saying it's the lack of content - and not the launch?
Because if the launch "ruins" everything- why did EQ2, AO and EvE receive so much new content?
I'm having a really hard time following your argument, I must say.
It's hard to trivialise something I haven't even touched upon.
I've conceded, plainly, that the game failed at launch. There's no doubt there.
But my point is that it DID get to a "profitable" stage after it became functional and stable - and I know because I used to read the Vanguard forums - where developers were getting excited about it, and they started to add significant content like that one popular raid.
My question is that if the game DID turn profitable - and "word of mouth" changed, which it did - because I tried it several times BECAUSE word of mouth had changed - why did population dwindle into nothing?
Because it was "WoWified"? That's bullshit. Sure, they made a few changes that made it slightly more convenient - but those changes were blown way, way out of proportion. It was still a very challenging group-centric game - full of distinct classes and all those other wonderful old-school things.
So, again, WHY did it not grow? Why did it not only stagnate? Why did it dwindle so much?
Word of mouth did not, at large, change about Vanguard. At least, I never heard any word of mouth that it had. So does my anecdotal evidence cancel yours out? Because you seem to be very convinced that public word of mouth changed simply because your friends (or some folks on a specific website) told you the game had made strides.
In the end, your evidence for claiming its awful release had nothing to do with preventing its recovery is lacking. It's purely anecdotal, just as mine is above. And that anecdotal evidence is far from qualifying your resulting conclusion- specifically since that conclusion is founded on the assumption that public opinion, as a whole, did something specific when you claim it did that something. It will take much more than anecdotal evidence to prove that.
I'm not trying to prove anything. I hope that's not required around here - as debates wouldn't be possible.
If you didn't notice how Vanguard slowly turned around and became functional and fully playable - then I don't know what to say.
They tried relaunching it after a certain point - calling it "new experience" or whatever it was. I no longer remember. Quite a few people tried it as the servers were full of life for a little while - but I guess most left again.
But if we can't agree unless I "prove" that people starting being more positive about it - then I guess that's that.
So, now you're saying it's the lack of content - and not the launch?
Because if the launch "ruins" everything- why did EQ2, AO and EvE receive so much new content?
I'm having a really hard time following your argument, I must say.
I feel like you lack the personal experience with either of the games being discussed. You are simply trolling and each remark is more intellectually dishonest than the last.
Of course the launch was the problem. 90% of the people playing left the game and didn't return. None of the other games poor launches were comparable to Vanguard's.
However, if we're now talking about how one game improved long term because it modernized, surely you know that SOE mirrored all the convenience from EQ2 in Vanguard EXCEPT instancing.
Nope, you didn't know. You are just here to argue.
It's hard to trivialise something I haven't even touched upon.
I've conceded, plainly, that the game failed at launch. There's no doubt there.
But my point is that it DID get to a "profitable" stage after it became functional and stable - and I know because I used to read the Vanguard forums - where developers were getting excited about it, and they started to add significant content like that one popular raid.
My question is that if the game DID turn profitable - and "word of mouth" changed, which it did - because I tried it several times BECAUSE word of mouth had changed - why did population dwindle into nothing?
Because it was "WoWified"? That's bullshit. Sure, they made a few changes that made it slightly more convenient - but those changes were blown way, way out of proportion. It was still a very challenging group-centric game - full of distinct classes and all those other wonderful old-school things.
So, again, WHY did it not grow? Why did it not only stagnate? Why did it dwindle so much?
Word of mouth did not, at large, change about Vanguard. At least, I never heard any word of mouth that it had. So does my anecdotal evidence cancel yours out? Because you seem to be very convinced that public word of mouth changed simply because your friends (or some folks on a specific website) told you the game had made strides.
In the end, your evidence for claiming its awful release had nothing to do with preventing its recovery is lacking. It's purely anecdotal, just as mine is above. And that anecdotal evidence is far from qualifying your resulting conclusion- specifically since that conclusion is founded on the assumption that public opinion, as a whole, did something specific when you claim it did that something. It will take much more than anecdotal evidence to prove that.
I'm not trying to prove anything. I hope that's not required around here - as debates wouldn't be possible.
If you didn't notice how Vanguard slowly turned around and became functional and fully playable - then I don't know what to say.
They tried relaunching it after a certain point - calling it "new experience" or whatever it was. I no longer remember. Quite a few people tried it as the servers were full of life for a little while - but I guess most left again.
But if we can't agree unless I "prove" that people starting being more positive about it - then I guess that's that.
Thanks for the exchange.
I would surmise that lots of people didn't notice.
Proof would be showing the major gaming journalist sites publishing articles (i.e. "second look" reviews, editorials about how much improved the game is, etc.). That evidence would certainly provide more concrete support for your argument than "I don't know what to say." If you are interested in finding those sorts of articles and features, I can certainly concede my anecdotal evidence is fairly inaccurate compared to yours and then I can see merit in the argument you're making.
And the crux of the argument here isn't whether some people became more positive about Vanguard- we would need some kind of evidence that leads us to believe most people became more positive about Vanguard (including those who had not tried the game at release due to the reviews and bad reputation) and, yet, still chose not to join the game. This evidence becomes confounded when you consider Vanguard released in the wake of WoW's most popular years. So one might make the argument that, even had Vanguard made strides in turning around the totality of its reputation, it was fighting for subscriptions against social proof (the idea that consumers are influenced to buy products simply because a significant portion of other consumers bought said products, or the perception of such a situation exists).
We can debate it without your providing such evidence, but (and I don't mean this in an arrogant way, just trying to state plainly) I'm going to have a hard time putting stock into the whole "they turned it around, people just didn't like the core game features" argument unless I can truly believe in the "they turned it around" premise to start with.
Comments
My interaction with strangers online was always limited, because even if 9 out of 10 interactions are pleasant - that 1 unpleasant interaction ruins everything. I have zero patience with rude or obnoxious people. I confront them immediately and shut them down - but I hate doing it. I hate that I have to do it
I simply don't need much in the way of social interaction - and I never did. As long as I have a few friends and loved ones, I'm good.
I must be one of the only people who can remember Eve at launch. Talk about atrocious.
EQ2 was almost entirely ruined because of its proximity to the launch of WoW. It was also a complete turd in terms of performance and bugs. It's still a turd in terms of performance, actually.
Funny thing, though. You know what turned it around? Making it "modern".
But, it was a... problematic launch in the US.
Blackwing Lair was WAY past launch - and it was a separate issue.
Yep, was bad. Worst? Mmm no.
But other producers would cut their throats to have too-many-accounts problems of that magnitude.
I used to play an MMO called Myth of Soma religiously. I loved it. I loved the people. I loved the morality system. I loved the PvP, TYT war, the spell upgrade system etc.
But I was 16, I had not much else to do and sitting and hitting Scorpions in the desert for hours to get 0.1% XP wasn't a deal breaker. But now that's totally different, I wouldn't enjoy it in today's MMO world. Very few people would. But sometimes I think "leveling is so easy in MMOs these days" but remember the alternative.
Back then I forgot about people with lives outside of an MMO
In the end, your evidence for claiming its awful release had nothing to do with preventing its recovery is lacking. It's purely anecdotal, just as mine is above. And that anecdotal evidence is far from qualifying your resulting conclusion- specifically since that conclusion is founded on the assumption that public opinion, as a whole, did something specific when you claim it did that something. It will take much more than anecdotal evidence to prove that.
Because if the launch "ruins" everything- why did EQ2, AO and EvE receive so much new content?
I'm having a really hard time following your argument, I must say.
If you didn't notice how Vanguard slowly turned around and became functional and fully playable - then I don't know what to say.
They tried relaunching it after a certain point - calling it "new experience" or whatever it was. I no longer remember. Quite a few people tried it as the servers were full of life for a little while - but I guess most left again.
But if we can't agree unless I "prove" that people starting being more positive about it - then I guess that's that.
Thanks for the exchange.
Of course the launch was the problem. 90% of the people playing left the game and didn't return. None of the other games poor launches were comparable to Vanguard's.
However, if we're now talking about how one game improved long term because it modernized, surely you know that SOE mirrored all the convenience from EQ2 in Vanguard EXCEPT instancing.
Nope, you didn't know. You are just here to argue.
Proof would be showing the major gaming journalist sites publishing articles (i.e. "second look" reviews, editorials about how much improved the game is, etc.). That evidence would certainly provide more concrete support for your argument than "I don't know what to say." If you are interested in finding those sorts of articles and features, I can certainly concede my anecdotal evidence is fairly inaccurate compared to yours and then I can see merit in the argument you're making.
And the crux of the argument here isn't whether some people became more positive about Vanguard- we would need some kind of evidence that leads us to believe most people became more positive about Vanguard (including those who had not tried the game at release due to the reviews and bad reputation) and, yet, still chose not to join the game. This evidence becomes confounded when you consider Vanguard released in the wake of WoW's most popular years. So one might make the argument that, even had Vanguard made strides in turning around the totality of its reputation, it was fighting for subscriptions against social proof (the idea that consumers are influenced to buy products simply because a significant portion of other consumers bought said products, or the perception of such a situation exists).
We can debate it without your providing such evidence, but (and I don't mean this in an arrogant way, just trying to state plainly) I'm going to have a hard time putting stock into the whole "they turned it around, people just didn't like the core game features" argument unless I can truly believe in the "they turned it around" premise to start with.
In fact, a game that is NOT fully playable should not even be released. That is the lowest bar of software production.