Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

I'll say it again, Pantheon will be huge

17810121315

Comments

  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 6,528
    Aelious said:

    Back on the topic of the thread I can see why some that are staunch supporters of other, more modern MMOs would not want Pantheon to appeal to the masses or even take a portion of mainstream players. Most modern MMO releases garner a large number to begin with and then shed them once the title is not "new" (usually about a month) and head back to their "home base."


    Pantheon should operate a bit differently there. Focused more on the long term journey and community it could snag the "hoppers" for longer than usual. This may stick in the craw of those that either do not like the type of MMO Pantheon is or do not want it effecting their playerbase. One can hope ;)


    This guy is good.  He is much more grounded in his clams then the OP (me).


    Pantheon will focus on long term players and this is the original base design of an mmo.


    If the game is both fun and made right, people will not jump around from game to game nearly as bad as the crap we were handed lately !



  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,483
    edited January 2017
    Burntvet said:
    Zer0K said:

    /snip
    I am not arguing against the success of Pantheon but merely what the OP is expecting. His expectations are wildly unrealistic and his ideas on how people will react grossly exaggerated. I think Pantheon can and will do well but nothing very grand for sure and I am confident that my predictions are not wrong.
    Vanguard: Saga of Heros was a painful experience for me.  It lost most of its potential player-base between release and when SOE took over.  Many people dropped the game, simply because of all the CTDs they were getting, just couldn't play the game.
    Some things promised to be in at release never made it in til later.

    /snip
    Most of that is what I can not forget about McQuaid's last game.

    He could not even produce Vanguard to completion with $30+ mil and dozens of full time, paid, employees. It was released, months later after SOE bought it, and barely worked for most, did not work at all for some.

    And yet, with Pantheon, some magical masterpiece is supposed to come into being, if you believe people like the OP, with a semi-amateur team and a very small sliver of the money.

    In the MMO business, cash is not king, it is God.

    All the ideas and plans and designs and hopes, dreams and everything else will not amount to jack if there is not the cash to pay for the effort to force it into existence, in anything other than Mortal Online form.

    Have hope about this title if you want, but having reasonable expectations will serve a lot better.





    Dead horse is a dead horse, seriously it gets old really quick any arm chair dev seems to think they know exactly what happened and talk as if they could of done better. 

    Some did have problems with the game and some look beyond the bugs and played the game from start to finish. 

    This thread is nothing to do with what you are talking about so stick to the topic. You can have your opinion but if thats the case move on and wait and see what happens instead of flogging a dead horse. 

    Fact is many didn't think the game would get this far and now it's looking more and more like the game is coming they are not happy or they want the game changed to one of the other dozen of same boring mmo's. 

    So glad it isn't going to be one of those. 

    The Op haven't help anything with a thread like this because it brings the bitter and haters out in droves, this is probably the longest Pantheon thread so far. 

    We don't want Pantheon to be huge, we want it to cater to the niche and let the others who like cash shops and instant rewards stick to the dozen of mmo's out there already. 


    It's not beating a dead horse to state this is an under funded indie title promising to deliver miracles, at least according to some supporters.

    People are right to remain skeptical and have doubts on this game's success. (or any other indie MMORPG)

    Doesn't make them bitter or haters if they choose to maintain a healthy does of scepticism.


    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,483
    Caldicot said:
    YUUUUGE
    We have a local car dealership owner who does his own conmercials and he's always yelling in his deep, gravely bronx accent how his latest sales event is gonna be "YUUUUGE"

    I think of him every time I read this thread title. ;)

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    edited January 2017
    It's funny how fast and often people are to bring up Vanguard, while overlooking the fact that many of the problems that Vanguard suffered from are currently missing from Pantheon. I guess it's easier to just pretend that people don't learn from their mistakes and it's impossible for it to result in a quality game, despite what we've seen with our own eyes during streams.


  • alivenaliven Member UncommonPosts: 346
    Tiamat64 said:


    We don't want Pantheon to be huge,


    I assume "We" in this case does not include the topic creator, right?

    The Op should not of even made a thread proclaiming that Pantheon is going to be huge, it is dumb and brings negative vibes to the game. 

    Ask any backer or follower if they would want this game to be huge or niche most would say niche. 


    Lol, then they are pretty stupid. What fanbase want their game to have small playerbase? Morons. 
  • SavageHorizonSavageHorizon Member RarePosts: 3,432
    Kyleran said:
    Burntvet said:
    Zer0K said:

    /snip
    I am not arguing against the success of Pantheon but merely what the OP is expecting. His expectations are wildly unrealistic and his ideas on how people will react grossly exaggerated. I think Pantheon can and will do well but nothing very grand for sure and I am confident that my predictions are not wrong.
    Vanguard: Saga of Heros was a painful experience for me.  It lost most of its potential player-base between release and when SOE took over.  Many people dropped the game, simply because of all the CTDs they were getting, just couldn't play the game.
    Some things promised to be in at release never made it in til later.

    /snip
    Most of that is what I can not forget about McQuaid's last game.

    He could not even produce Vanguard to completion with $30+ mil and dozens of full time, paid, employees. It was released, months later after SOE bought it, and barely worked for most, did not work at all for some.

    And yet, with Pantheon, some magical masterpiece is supposed to come into being, if you believe people like the OP, with a semi-amateur team and a very small sliver of the money.

    In the MMO business, cash is not king, it is God.

    All the ideas and plans and designs and hopes, dreams and everything else will not amount to jack if there is not the cash to pay for the effort to force it into existence, in anything other than Mortal Online form.

    Have hope about this title if you want, but having reasonable expectations will serve a lot better.





    Dead horse is a dead horse, seriously it gets old really quick any arm chair dev seems to think they know exactly what happened and talk as if they could of done better. 

    Some did have problems with the game and some look beyond the bugs and played the game from start to finish. 

    This thread is nothing to do with what you are talking about so stick to the topic. You can have your opinion but if thats the case move on and wait and see what happens instead of flogging a dead horse. 

    Fact is many didn't think the game would get this far and now it's looking more and more like the game is coming they are not happy or they want the game changed to one of the other dozen of same boring mmo's. 

    So glad it isn't going to be one of those. 

    The Op haven't help anything with a thread like this because it brings the bitter and haters out in droves, this is probably the longest Pantheon thread so far. 

    We don't want Pantheon to be huge, we want it to cater to the niche and let the others who like cash shops and instant rewards stick to the dozen of mmo's out there already. 


    It's not beating a dead horse to state this is an under funded indie title promising to deliver miracles, at least according to some supporters.

    People are right to remain skeptical and have doubts on this game's success. (or any other indie MMORPG)

    Doesn't make them bitter or haters if they choose to maintain a healthy does of scepticism.


    Having a healthy dose of scepticism and beating the same dead horse in every thread is to different things. 




  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,483
    Kyleran said:
    Zer0K said:

    /snip
    I am not arguing against the success of Pantheon but merely what the OP is expecting. His expectations are wildly unrealistic and his ideas on how people will react grossly exaggerated. I think Pantheon can and will do well but nothing very grand for sure and I am confident that my predictions are not wrong.
    Vanguard: Saga of Heros was a painful experience for me.  It lost most of its potential player-base between release and when SOE took over.  Many people dropped the game, simply because of all the CTDs they were getting, just couldn't play the game.
    Some things promised to be in at release never made it in til later.

    /snip
    Most of that is what I can not forget about McQuaid's last game.

    He could not even produce Vanguard to completion with $30+ mil and dozens of full time, paid, employees. It was released, months later after SOE bought it, and barely worked for most, did not work at all for some.

    And yet, with Pantheon, some magical masterpiece is supposed to come into being, if you believe people like the OP, with a semi-amateur team and a very small sliver of the money.

    In the MMO business, cash is not king, it is God.

    All the ideas and plans and designs and hopes, dreams and everything else will not amount to jack if there is not the cash to pay for the effort to force it into existence, in anything other than Mortal Online form.

    Have hope about this title if you want, but having reasonable expectations will serve a lot better.





    Dead horse is a dead horse, seriously it gets old really quick any arm chair dev seems to think they know exactly what happened and talk as if they could of done better. 

    Some did have problems with the game and some look beyond the bugs and played the game from start to finish. 

    This thread is nothing to do with what you are talking about so stick to the topic. You can have your opinion but if thats the case move on and wait and see what happens instead of flogging a dead horse. 

    Fact is many didn't think the game would get this far and now it's looking more and more like the game is coming they are not happy or they want the game changed to one of the other dozen of same boring mmo's. 

    So glad it isn't going to be one of those. 

    The Op haven't help anything with a thread like this because it brings the bitter and haters out in droves, this is probably the longest Pantheon thread so far. 

    We don't want Pantheon to be huge, we want it to cater to the niche and let the others who like cash shops and instant rewards stick to the dozen of mmo's out there already. 


    It's not beating a dead horse to state this is an under funded indie title promising to deliver miracles, at least according to some supporters.

    People are right to remain skeptical and have doubts on this game's success. (or any other indie MMORPG)

    Doesn't make them bitter or haters if they choose to maintain a healthy does of scepticism.


    Having a healthy dose of scepticism and beating the same dead horse in every thread is to different things. 
    If someone starts a new thread discussing why any indie will suceed expect the funding challenge issue to be brought up every time.

    It has wrecked multiple titles over the years as they were rushed out too early, even when teams had large sums to work with.

    Brad lead such a "failed" effort in the past and the blame for financial and technical mismanagement was laid firmly on him.

    Whether proven or not is irrelevant, and you are correct, he has a chance to redeem himself here.

    I gave MJ the benefit of the doubt for his past mis-steps,and funded CU. But he openly admitted to his errors and took full responsibility for WARs failure.  

    Not sure if Brad ever did but clearly he has supporters and Pantheon is rolling on.

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko Member EpicPosts: 6,916
    Dullahan said:
    It's funny how fast and often people are to bring up Vanguard, while overlooking the fact that many of the problems that Vanguard suffered from are currently missing from Pantheon. ...
    Yeah, half the content Vanguard had is also missing from Pantheon ! :lol:
  • XodicXodic Member EpicPosts: 1,151
    edited January 2017
    aliven said:
    Tiamat64 said:


    We don't want Pantheon to be huge,


    I assume "We" in this case does not include the topic creator, right?

    The Op should not of even made a thread proclaiming that Pantheon is going to be huge, it is dumb and brings negative vibes to the game. 

    Ask any backer or follower if they would want this game to be huge or niche most would say niche. 


    Lol, then they are pretty stupid. What fanbase want their game to have small playerbase? Morons. 
    Niche doesn't mean small...
    And yes, I would rather it be focused on a certain type of player rather than trying to shoehorn every possible player into the same game. 
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Xodic said:
    Niche doesn't mean small...
    And yes, I would rather it be focused on a certain type of player rather than trying to shoehorn every possible player into the same game. 
    A "certain" type of player sounds rather showhorned to me. I'd argue it's probably harder to gain a good solid longterm base if you're just attractive to a certain type of player. This is the central issue with many MMOs today, they're hyper-focused on story or achievement based game-play, there's no care given to other aspects of the game. The same issue permeates the indie scene in their PVP focused titles, that just devolve into wolves hunting wolves. Older MMO's weren't so solitary in their focus, there was more often than not, a more diverse playing field. 

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • XodicXodic Member EpicPosts: 1,151
    Distopia said:
    Xodic said:
    Niche doesn't mean small...
    And yes, I would rather it be focused on a certain type of player rather than trying to shoehorn every possible player into the same game. 
    A "certain" type of player sounds rather showhorned to me. I'd argue it's probably harder to gain a good solid longterm base if you're just attractive to a certain type of player. This is the central issue with many MMOs today, they're hyper-focused on story or achievement based game-play, there's no care given to other aspects of the game. The same issue permeates the indie scene in their PVP focused titles, that just devolve into wolves hunting wolves. Older MMO's weren't so solitary in their focus, there was more often than not, a more diverse playing field. 
    So building a game's foundation to have the most impact on a targeted audience is shoehorned? Sounds custom fitted to me. The central issue you're claiming is the complete opposite of reality. The many MMOS you speak of are diluted to the point of an identity crisis. They tried to cater to so many people they never left a meaningful impact, just a bunch of splashing in the shallow ends of dried up potholes. 

    League of Legends is niche. Hell, the entire MOBA genre is niche, because they only focus on one core philosophy and that philosophy isn't "a game that has everything, for everyone" . Instead of everyone walking around wearing elastic waistband stretchy pants, many buy ones that fit.

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    Dullahan said:
    It's funny how fast and often people are to bring up Vanguard, while overlooking the fact that many of the problems that Vanguard suffered from are currently missing from Pantheon. ...
    Yeah, half the content Vanguard had is also missing from Pantheon ! :lol:
    Fair enough, but at least what we see is already very playable. All the content in the world won't make a game fun if it isn't designed well and running smoothly. At least they've demonstrated that much to me, and that's an important distinction.


  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,537
    Xodic said:
    League of Legends is niche. Hell, the entire MOBA genre is niche, because they only focus on one core philosophy and that philosophy isn't "a game that has everything, for everyone" . Instead of everyone walking around wearing elastic waistband stretchy pants, many buy ones that fit.

    Saying League of Legends is niche because it focuses on one core philosophy (competitive arena battles) is like saying Super Mario Bros. is niche because it focuses on one core philosophy (platform gaming).  While technically true, it completely misses the actual context of what most people mean by "niche".  Niche isn't about appealing to a wide spread.  It's about appealing to a small alcove (IE, a 'niche') in the population.  Something is "main stream", regardless of whether or not it focuses on a core, if it's appealing to a large audience.

    In the case of League of Legends and Mario Bro games and Zelda games and Overwatch and whatever else, they appeal to the larger audience by NOT asking them to do things like grind their lives away, spend 3 hours in a dungeon, spend a ton of time finding the right set of other players to be able to do content, or having to do an arduous journey back to their corpse every time they die.  One could say that by adding these various "difficulties" to the game, one is in fact pushing most of the "Mainstream" away to appeal to the smaller subset of people that actually like that sort of thing.  Hence why Pantheon is "niche" and why League of Legends, which tries to remove as many barriers as possible to actually playing its game, is mainstream.
  • VorthanionVorthanion Member RarePosts: 2,711
    baphamet said:

    I was an early patron of the game, but some recent reveals have turned me off.  I had hoped that it would be more like Vanguard than EQ, but that doesn't appear to be happening and I refuse to go back to the days of sitting on my butt to meditate and being forced to always camp thanks to the need to meditate.  I'm not addicted to MMO's to the extent that I will play them despite the downsides and or bugs.  There are aspects of game play that I will not overlook and will happily move on to the next game or stop playing them altogether until something else comes along.

    I no longer care if the game succeeds or fails, I'm already looking at Dark and Light and if it fails to please, then I'm ready for the long wait for something else.

    i asked you once before.....why not play a class that doesn't require medding?

    I would have thought my banner would have answered that.  I am an avid Druid fan in any game that offers it and if not, the closest thing, none of which means playing a melee class.

    image
  • VorthanionVorthanion Member RarePosts: 2,711
    edited January 2017
    Dullahan said:

    I was an early patron of the game, but some recent reveals have turned me off.  I had hoped that it would be more like Vanguard than EQ, but that doesn't appear to be happening and I refuse to go back to the days of sitting on my butt to meditate and being forced to always camp thanks to the need to meditate.  I'm not addicted to MMO's to the extent that I will play them despite the downsides and or bugs.  There are aspects of game play that I will not overlook and will happily move on to the next game or stop playing them altogether until something else comes along.

    I no longer care if the game succeeds or fails, I'm already looking at Dark and Light and if it fails to please, then I'm ready for the long wait for something else.

    Having to stop and rest will not prevent a group from crawling. It will only prevent a group from crawling non-stop. Without rest taking time, resource management, strategy, and the danger of exploration take a huge hit.
    baphamet said:

    i asked you once before.....why not play a class that doesn't require medding?
    Pretty sure every class will have some sort of resource expenditure. Allowing melees to go nonstop while casters had to meditate was the main source of imbalance in EQ, and why raids constantly wanted more monks and rogues rather than wizards.

    If it were up to me, I'd make even auto attack drain energy.


    I don't see how tying resource management to mobility adds tactics or fun to the game.  Managing mana during combat for that one heal that could turn the battle is important, but so is being able to still do something when in situations when the mana is gone.  Being able to meditate on the move doesn't mean you gain mana back any faster, but it does give you more options on how you play the content rather than the old fashioned and frankly boring "camping".  Dungeon crawling was not viable in EQ before the advent of horses for outdoors and the coveted Kodiaks Endless Intellect gained by the Luclin expansion, allowing for some limited but still much less efficient mana recovery while standing rather than sitting.  Granted, once raiders combined all of their mana regen gear along with mana regen buffs, the game played so much better.  For me, that was too little, too late and as a gamer who despises raiding, unachievable and a huge incentive to quit the game despite loving my druid toon.  I much preferred his design direction for Vanguard and really miss the game despite it's many technical flaws.

    Brad seems set on this though, so it's a moot point.  I'm moving on and only upset that I wasted money on it. 

    image
  • salaciouscrumbssalaciouscrumbs Member UncommonPosts: 169
    Everyone's making guesses on the success of this game based on what they know of the game now. Yet the game is not even close to complete. It is not even in Alpha, meaning that there are features and mechanics that have yet to be implemented.

    And how can people say that the game is "classic" when there are new features planned that have never even been seen before? This formula for Pantheon has never been done before. It is not a copy of Everquest. It takes valuable lessons from a swathe of historic games, combining the best of those games while adding new ideas. It will be a unique game.

    Now if the developers fail to make the game they say they are going to make then it might fail. Another possibility is that the concoction VR is brewing turns out to be simply 'not fun', or buggy, or unfinished or all sorts of things. Or it could turn out to be the next big 'thing' like World of Warcraft (which wasn't revolutionary or all that different than Everquest when it first launched).

    So nobody knows what's going to happen. Stating that the game will have 'X limitation' or 'Y potential' is just horseshit at this point.

    Wait until the game is in Beta before even making guesses on subscriber numbers, and even then don't count on your 'guess' being anywhere near accurate.

     




  • Zer0KZer0K Member UncommonPosts: 68
    Dullahan said:
    It's funny how fast and often people are to bring up Vanguard, while overlooking the fact that many of the problems that Vanguard suffered from are currently missing from Pantheon. I guess it's easier to just pretend that people don't learn from their mistakes and it's impossible for it to result in a quality game, despite what we've seen with our own eyes during streams.
    I would wait until we have a beta phase, such that was with Vanguard and then see what happens.  If we enter that phase and there aren't any glaring issues, and there's no urgency to release asap with such issues, then I'd say it's definitely on a better path.  We're not there yet of course.  However part of the reason why that happened was due to the management of the project.

    I completely understand why people who played Vanguard and went through that situation first hand would still have quite a bitter taste in their mouths and be quite skeptical at this time.
  • FeyshteyFeyshtey Member UncommonPosts: 136
    Zer0K said:
    Dullahan said:
    It's funny how fast and often people are to bring up Vanguard, while overlooking the fact that many of the problems that Vanguard suffered from are currently missing from Pantheon. I guess it's easier to just pretend that people don't learn from their mistakes and it's impossible for it to result in a quality game, despite what we've seen with our own eyes during streams.
    I would wait until we have a beta phase, such that was with Vanguard and then see what happens.  If we enter that phase and there aren't any glaring issues, and there's no urgency to release asap with such issues, then I'd say it's definitely on a better path.  We're not there yet of course.  However part of the reason why that happened was due to the management of the project.

    I completely understand why people who played Vanguard and went through that situation first hand would still have quite a bitter taste in their mouths and be quite skeptical at this time.
    Many of the issues that plagued Vanguard, especially during beta and early release, were rooted not in the game design but in the pressure by Microsoft and then Sony to just ship the game. They werent interested in completing things, and more so in seeing the cash starting to flow in. They completely screwed themselves because they allowed beta access to a clunky undercooked product, and then actually launched that crap. 

    I do have to agree that some of the systems that Vanguard had I didnt like at all. But I quit playing not because of those, but much more so because I felt it was unethical, lacked foresight, hinted at a future of gross mismanagement of the publisher to push such a semi-done product. This does not reflect on the dev team. We now know that they devs knew the state and did not want to ship. This reflects on Microsoft and then Sony.  

    -Feyshtey-

  • Scott23Scott23 Member UncommonPosts: 293
    Feyshtey said:
    Zer0K said:
    Dullahan said:
    It's funny how fast and often people are to bring up Vanguard, while overlooking the fact that many of the problems that Vanguard suffered from are currently missing from Pantheon. I guess it's easier to just pretend that people don't learn from their mistakes and it's impossible for it to result in a quality game, despite what we've seen with our own eyes during streams.
    I would wait until we have a beta phase, such that was with Vanguard and then see what happens.  If we enter that phase and there aren't any glaring issues, and there's no urgency to release asap with such issues, then I'd say it's definitely on a better path.  We're not there yet of course.  However part of the reason why that happened was due to the management of the project.

    I completely understand why people who played Vanguard and went through that situation first hand would still have quite a bitter taste in their mouths and be quite skeptical at this time.
    Many of the issues that plagued Vanguard, especially during beta and early release, were rooted not in the game design but in the pressure by Microsoft and then Sony to just ship the game. They werent interested in completing things, and more so in seeing the cash starting to flow in. They completely screwed themselves because they allowed beta access to a clunky undercooked product, and then actually launched that crap. 

    I do have to agree that some of the systems that Vanguard had I didnt like at all. But I quit playing not because of those, but much more so because I felt it was unethical, lacked foresight, hinted at a future of gross mismanagement of the publisher to push such a semi-done product. This does not reflect on the dev team. We now know that they devs knew the state and did not want to ship. This reflects on Microsoft and then Sony.  

    As I recall (and I may be wrong).  They were getting pressure from Microsoft because they were missing deadlines and milestones.  Whether MS was misled or not realistic in the timeline is up for debate.  Once Sony took over I believe that they were surprised at the state of the project and didn't want to fund development for several more years.  There was also some reports of internal breakdowns at the developer level, but we will probably never know the full story.

    Regardless, Vanguard was released in a sorry state and quickly lost many of their initial subs - in my opinion not in response to the game itself, but to how poorly it ran and all of the bugs.  I think underneath all the bugs and such there was a decent game that went into a coma and never recovered.
  • FeyshteyFeyshtey Member UncommonPosts: 136
    Scott23 said:
    Feyshtey said:
    Zer0K said:
    Dullahan said:
    It's funny how fast and often people are to bring up Vanguard, while overlooking the fact that many of the problems that Vanguard suffered from are currently missing from Pantheon. I guess it's easier to just pretend that people don't learn from their mistakes and it's impossible for it to result in a quality game, despite what we've seen with our own eyes during streams.
    I would wait until we have a beta phase, such that was with Vanguard and then see what happens.  If we enter that phase and there aren't any glaring issues, and there's no urgency to release asap with such issues, then I'd say it's definitely on a better path.  We're not there yet of course.  However part of the reason why that happened was due to the management of the project.

    I completely understand why people who played Vanguard and went through that situation first hand would still have quite a bitter taste in their mouths and be quite skeptical at this time.
    Many of the issues that plagued Vanguard, especially during beta and early release, were rooted not in the game design but in the pressure by Microsoft and then Sony to just ship the game. They werent interested in completing things, and more so in seeing the cash starting to flow in. They completely screwed themselves because they allowed beta access to a clunky undercooked product, and then actually launched that crap. 

    I do have to agree that some of the systems that Vanguard had I didnt like at all. But I quit playing not because of those, but much more so because I felt it was unethical, lacked foresight, hinted at a future of gross mismanagement of the publisher to push such a semi-done product. This does not reflect on the dev team. We now know that they devs knew the state and did not want to ship. This reflects on Microsoft and then Sony.  

    As I recall (and I may be wrong).  They were getting pressure from Microsoft because they were missing deadlines and milestones.  Whether MS was misled or not realistic in the timeline is up for debate.  Once Sony took over I believe that they were surprised at the state of the project and didn't want to fund development for several more years.  There was also some reports of internal breakdowns at the developer level, but we will probably never know the full story.

    Regardless, Vanguard was released in a sorry state and quickly lost many of their initial subs - in my opinion not in response to the game itself, but to how poorly it ran and all of the bugs.  I think underneath all the bugs and such there was a decent game that went into a coma and never recovered.
    My point exactly. The reputation of MS, Sony and Sigil were all at stake. The confidence of consumers in not just that project, but any later projects by any involved were at risk by forcing release of a game that wasnt ready for release. Sigil knew this, and Sigil did not want to release until it was ready. MS fled (which I have mixed emotions about) and Sony disregarded those concerns and used their authority as publisher to do it anyway. 

    I have no respect for any publisher willing to push out crap, knowing its crap, with the single goal of getting as much money as possible as quickly as possible before the people realize they are being bilked. 

    -Feyshtey-

  • Zer0KZer0K Member UncommonPosts: 68
    Feyshtey said:
    Scott23 said:
    Feyshtey said:
    Zer0K said:
    Dullahan said:
    It's funny how fast and often people are to bring up Vanguard, while overlooking the fact that many of the problems that Vanguard suffered from are currently missing from Pantheon. I guess it's easier to just pretend that people don't learn from their mistakes and it's impossible for it to result in a quality game, despite what we've seen with our own eyes during streams.
    I would wait until we have a beta phase, such that was with Vanguard and then see what happens.  If we enter that phase and there aren't any glaring issues, and there's no urgency to release asap with such issues, then I'd say it's definitely on a better path.  We're not there yet of course.  However part of the reason why that happened was due to the management of the project.

    I completely understand why people who played Vanguard and went through that situation first hand would still have quite a bitter taste in their mouths and be quite skeptical at this time.
    Many of the issues that plagued Vanguard, especially during beta and early release, were rooted not in the game design but in the pressure by Microsoft and then Sony to just ship the game. They werent interested in completing things, and more so in seeing the cash starting to flow in. They completely screwed themselves because they allowed beta access to a clunky undercooked product, and then actually launched that crap. 

    I do have to agree that some of the systems that Vanguard had I didnt like at all. But I quit playing not because of those, but much more so because I felt it was unethical, lacked foresight, hinted at a future of gross mismanagement of the publisher to push such a semi-done product. This does not reflect on the dev team. We now know that they devs knew the state and did not want to ship. This reflects on Microsoft and then Sony.  

    As I recall (and I may be wrong).  They were getting pressure from Microsoft because they were missing deadlines and milestones.  Whether MS was misled or not realistic in the timeline is up for debate.  Once Sony took over I believe that they were surprised at the state of the project and didn't want to fund development for several more years.  There was also some reports of internal breakdowns at the developer level, but we will probably never know the full story.

    Regardless, Vanguard was released in a sorry state and quickly lost many of their initial subs - in my opinion not in response to the game itself, but to how poorly it ran and all of the bugs.  I think underneath all the bugs and such there was a decent game that went into a coma and never recovered.
    My point exactly. The reputation of MS, Sony and Sigil were all at stake. The confidence of consumers in not just that project, but any later projects by any involved were at risk by forcing release of a game that wasnt ready for release. Sigil knew this, and Sigil did not want to release until it was ready. MS fled (which I have mixed emotions about) and Sony disregarded those concerns and used their authority as publisher to do it anyway. 

    I have no respect for any publisher willing to push out crap, knowing its crap, with the single goal of getting as much money as possible as quickly as possible before the people realize they are being bilked. 
    It kinda seems like you're putting the majority of blame on MS and Sony for the issues Vanguard had.

    For the project to go smoothly and to stay within scope and budget, such things needed to be managed responsibly.  Developers and producers help provide the estimates.  It's very likely there was scope creep and or features that weren't completely clear or accounted for in the estimates, in which MS may not have had all of the correct information about the actual state of the project.  They likely decided to pull because the project was (in their eyes) out of control and likely way over any initial budgets they had planned for.

    Game was likely released early, likely due to them running out of money to pay anyone, and they couldn't get any further funding.  Release was likely to try to get some money coming in to try to keep the boat afloat(sorta speak) and hopefully address the gaps they had at release, that ultimately submerged Vanguard, and SOE wasn't willing to install a pump big enough to remove all the water it took on.

    Plus, the title was very close in competition with EQ2 at the time.
    As well, SMED wanted to fund his rinkydink 'Free Realms' project, which ironically enough, was laid to rest before Vanguard was.  So, SOE really wasn't willing to bring Vanguard to the next level and give it the attention it needed.

    The only favor SOE did to the title was to help keep it afloat.  


  • herculeshercules Member UncommonPosts: 4,920
    So early to tell.i like some features while some  turn me off ie lack of locked encounter.but it's early days some features might get changed
  • BonechipBonechip Member UncommonPosts: 11
    Pantheon will hopefully provide enjoyable game play for its fans, and hopefully there will be enough of them to make the game financially viable.

    But Pantheon is most certainly not going to take over the world, it will be a tiny blip in the gaming landscape at best.
    @SpottyGekko

    I would not necessarily say a "tiny blip". Most of the popular MMO's are aging fast. I suspect there will be a large number of migrants hungry for a real challenge.
    -------------------------------------------
    • MMO Dweller Extraordinaire.
    • Mover of Mountains.
    • Monkey Trainer.
    • Author of SparxxUI for Everquest.
  • NEXTLEVLNEXTLEVL Member UncommonPosts: 5
    We are indeed in a drought when it pertains to this type of MMO, there is literally nothing like it available on the market. Everything that used to adhere to the same tenets has either radically shifted to the softie side or has been shut down. hashtag sadface.

    SAVE US VISIONARY REALMS! We are dying...
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,428
    I think it will do fine. Well enough for Brad and Co to consider it a success. It is a niche game within a niche genre so I would project 150,000 to 225,000 average subs at best. Which is a success according to Brad. They don't need WOW numbers. They are not working with a WOW budget. 

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












Sign In or Register to comment.