IMHO the risk involved cannot be greater than the development of a brand new MMO, simply reason is because it works already, unlike a lot of games we have seen recently, WAR, Tabula to mention a few. I agree the reputation proceeds it due to its launch. Maybe something radically can be attempted, change the name, change the character models and release it as a brand new game altogether for example lol. But then that introduces risk again. Well i guess it will just go donw as the greatest MMO that never was :-(
You are forgetting one thing. Most people or should i say the majority want something new when they grow tired of the game they are playing now. Most are not interested in going back to 2-5 year old games. I say most and not all since there obviously are people just as myself that still has a taste for nostalgia such as EQ and VG. I also realize I'm part of a minority. Everybody want the latest thing no matter how great or improved some of the older stuff is and it's a shame. Sure investing money in the PR machine will bring about a few subs but i seriously doubt they will see a profit or a return on it.
I have tried every popular MMO out there right now. WoW, Lotro, Aion, War, AoC and i personally feel VG is the best of them all. I wouldn't be subbed to two VG accounts if i didn't. I'm also a realist ..there is little to no precedence of an older game coming back with a larger re-investment. I don't blame SoE for not wanting to risk it.
I don't believe that SOE bought VG, because they feared it would be competitive with EQ2. No one wanted any part of Vanguard when Sigil was trying to sell it, it sucked and it would be a huge risk to do anything with it. SOE saved the game, and people really hate SOE for some things they have done, but really they have never been a terrible company.
They have some of the best CSR's I've ever dealt with, they keep games like MxO and VG alive despite their obvious shortcomings in sales or launch problems. Yeah, they messed up on EQ2 and "ruined" SWG for a lot of people and did the CU and NGE patches in the worst possible way, but despite these faults are they really a BAD company? I don't think so.
I'll agree that SOE keeps Vanguard alive and on basic life support. They deff fixed most all the bugs, and they added the Trial Isle. But more needs to be done, the interface and the world are fine, just need to work on the game play.
I may be wrong, but I really don't think the low population is because it's like 3 years old, and had a bad launch. Many people cycled thru the the Trial Isle and loved it. In fact 10-20 was still active when I tried, showing me that people would even sub for 30 days, only to quit shortly after. This is the last time I'll say it but they need to make 20 and up more solo friendly, because how it stands right now its only for grouping. No other game has 90% of the quest REQUIRES 3 OR MORE PLAYERS stamped on most every quest after 20.
Vanguard is not the only secret little GEM of a game out their. Have you looked at Dark Age Of Camelot, the interface still kind of sucks but the graphics are improved by far and the game it self is good. The only problem is the interface is still not very user friendly as it could be. They are still getting new subs and old players are coming back. The population feels like it's better than EQ2, not sure if it is but it really feels that way.
On the other hand you have EQ1. This one is STILL DEAD even with a new expansion added that has mercenaries for hire to help solo the old game.
To make a long story short SOE really really pisses people off with their improvement systems, I think they suck as a gaming company with their 20 expansions per game to improve basics that should be free fixes. And their improvement methods with expansions still suck anyway !!
they keep games like MxO and VG alive despite their obvious shortcomings in sales or launch problems.
I do get your point, but, erm, I hate to tell you this.... they let MxO die a while back.
It's long gone.
I'm sure it was just a commercial decision, and you can't blame a commercial organisation for making a commercial decision.
I also think you are (unfortunately) right about companies needing to move on to new products to move forward. The customer base is just way too unforgiving about games that don't deliver as promised.
Regardless, I still enjoy playing Vanguard. Did the Bugbear Caves Quest at Three Rivers yesterday (lvl 15-18?) with a pre-organised group of five players, and it was great fun!
they keep games like MxO and VG alive despite their obvious shortcomings in sales or launch problems.
I do get your point, but, erm, I hate to tell you this.... they let MxO die a while back.
It's long gone.
I'm sure it was just a commercial decision, and you can't blame a commercial organisation for making a commercial decision.
I also think you are (unfortunately) right about companies needing to move on to new products to move forward. The customer base is just way too unforgiving about games that don't deliver as promised.
Regardless, I still enjoy playing Vanguard. Did the Bugbear Caves Quest at Three Rivers yesterday (lvl 15-18?) with a pre-organised group of five players, and it was great fun!
Organising group play is the answer.
I'm aware they let MxO die, but they let that game live way longer it would have with any other company. All I'm saying is SOE gets a bad wrap for making some poor decisions, but these same people can't look forward and look at what the company does as good or better than other companies.
Vanguard is a mediocre game at best with no future. Sigils interoffice mismanagement,drama and politics ensured this game would release in horrible condition while $oe ineptness ensures it will never succeed. $oe will not invest money up front to improve and advertise for vg in order to attract new players and vg will not attract new players without improvements and advertisement
A large, non linear,non instanced world is the main selling point but too much of the current gameplay is buried in game mentality from the 1990's. If vg launched in its current state it could have kept enough subs for the game to be better fleshed out and be a real force. Shoulda,woulda,coulda, that didnt happen so here we are.
Current vg is a fun game up to level 50 if you have some friends or guildies to group with, can overlook lots of bugs and broken mechanics, and understand it will suffer the same fate as MxO. Its not a question of if but a question of when.
they keep games like MxO and VG alive despite their obvious shortcomings in sales or launch problems.
I do get your point, but, erm, I hate to tell you this.... they let MxO die a while back.
It's long gone.
I'm sure it was just a commercial decision, and you can't blame a commercial organisation for making a commercial decision.
I also think you are (unfortunately) right about companies needing to move on to new products to move forward. The customer base is just way too unforgiving about games that don't deliver as promised.
Regardless, I still enjoy playing Vanguard. Did the Bugbear Caves Quest at Three Rivers yesterday (lvl 15-18?) with a pre-organised group of five players, and it was great fun!
Organising group play is the answer.
I'm aware they let MxO die, but they let that game live way longer it would have with any other company. All I'm saying is SOE gets a bad wrap for making some poor decisions, but these same people can't look forward and look at what the company does as good or better than other companies.
Soe bought the matrix so they could get the DCU license. Soe wasn't doing MXO any favors, because they thought it was a game with potential. They also gutted that game as soon as they got their hands on it.
Sure soe does some cool things, but it isn't like this is a +/- column on a spread sheet. 5 good deeds doesn't negate the bad deed, especially when soe knows ahead of time that the playerbase will not like it. At the end of the day soe does enough bad things to piss many people off. It is just how they operate thier games.
Comments
You are forgetting one thing. Most people or should i say the majority want something new when they grow tired of the game they are playing now. Most are not interested in going back to 2-5 year old games. I say most and not all since there obviously are people just as myself that still has a taste for nostalgia such as EQ and VG. I also realize I'm part of a minority. Everybody want the latest thing no matter how great or improved some of the older stuff is and it's a shame. Sure investing money in the PR machine will bring about a few subs but i seriously doubt they will see a profit or a return on it.
I have tried every popular MMO out there right now. WoW, Lotro, Aion, War, AoC and i personally feel VG is the best of them all. I wouldn't be subbed to two VG accounts if i didn't. I'm also a realist ..there is little to no precedence of an older game coming back with a larger re-investment. I don't blame SoE for not wanting to risk it.
I don't believe that SOE bought VG, because they feared it would be competitive with EQ2. No one wanted any part of Vanguard when Sigil was trying to sell it, it sucked and it would be a huge risk to do anything with it. SOE saved the game, and people really hate SOE for some things they have done, but really they have never been a terrible company.
They have some of the best CSR's I've ever dealt with, they keep games like MxO and VG alive despite their obvious shortcomings in sales or launch problems. Yeah, they messed up on EQ2 and "ruined" SWG for a lot of people and did the CU and NGE patches in the worst possible way, but despite these faults are they really a BAD company? I don't think so.
I'll agree that SOE keeps Vanguard alive and on basic life support. They deff fixed most all the bugs, and they added the Trial Isle. But more needs to be done, the interface and the world are fine, just need to work on the game play.
I may be wrong, but I really don't think the low population is because it's like 3 years old, and had a bad launch. Many people cycled thru the the Trial Isle and loved it. In fact 10-20 was still active when I tried, showing me that people would even sub for 30 days, only to quit shortly after. This is the last time I'll say it but they need to make 20 and up more solo friendly, because how it stands right now its only for grouping. No other game has 90% of the quest REQUIRES 3 OR MORE PLAYERS stamped on most every quest after 20.
Vanguard is not the only secret little GEM of a game out their. Have you looked at Dark Age Of Camelot, the interface still kind of sucks but the graphics are improved by far and the game it self is good. The only problem is the interface is still not very user friendly as it could be. They are still getting new subs and old players are coming back. The population feels like it's better than EQ2, not sure if it is but it really feels that way.
On the other hand you have EQ1. This one is STILL DEAD even with a new expansion added that has mercenaries for hire to help solo the old game.
To make a long story short SOE really really pisses people off with their improvement systems, I think they suck as a gaming company with their 20 expansions per game to improve basics that should be free fixes. And their improvement methods with expansions still suck anyway !!
I do get your point, but, erm, I hate to tell you this.... they let MxO die a while back.
It's long gone.
I'm sure it was just a commercial decision, and you can't blame a commercial organisation for making a commercial decision.
I also think you are (unfortunately) right about companies needing to move on to new products to move forward. The customer base is just way too unforgiving about games that don't deliver as promised.
Regardless, I still enjoy playing Vanguard. Did the Bugbear Caves Quest at Three Rivers yesterday (lvl 15-18?) with a pre-organised group of five players, and it was great fun!
Organising group play is the answer.
Currently playing: Vanguard: SOH
I do get your point, but, erm, I hate to tell you this.... they let MxO die a while back.
It's long gone.
I'm sure it was just a commercial decision, and you can't blame a commercial organisation for making a commercial decision.
I also think you are (unfortunately) right about companies needing to move on to new products to move forward. The customer base is just way too unforgiving about games that don't deliver as promised.
Regardless, I still enjoy playing Vanguard. Did the Bugbear Caves Quest at Three Rivers yesterday (lvl 15-18?) with a pre-organised group of five players, and it was great fun!
Organising group play is the answer.
I'm aware they let MxO die, but they let that game live way longer it would have with any other company. All I'm saying is SOE gets a bad wrap for making some poor decisions, but these same people can't look forward and look at what the company does as good or better than other companies.
Vanguard is a mediocre game at best with no future. Sigils interoffice mismanagement,drama and politics ensured this game would release in horrible condition while $oe ineptness ensures it will never succeed. $oe will not invest money up front to improve and advertise for vg in order to attract new players and vg will not attract new players without improvements and advertisement
A large, non linear,non instanced world is the main selling point but too much of the current gameplay is buried in game mentality from the 1990's. If vg launched in its current state it could have kept enough subs for the game to be better fleshed out and be a real force. Shoulda,woulda,coulda, that didnt happen so here we are.
Current vg is a fun game up to level 50 if you have some friends or guildies to group with, can overlook lots of bugs and broken mechanics, and understand it will suffer the same fate as MxO. Its not a question of if but a question of when.
I do get your point, but, erm, I hate to tell you this.... they let MxO die a while back.
It's long gone.
I'm sure it was just a commercial decision, and you can't blame a commercial organisation for making a commercial decision.
I also think you are (unfortunately) right about companies needing to move on to new products to move forward. The customer base is just way too unforgiving about games that don't deliver as promised.
Regardless, I still enjoy playing Vanguard. Did the Bugbear Caves Quest at Three Rivers yesterday (lvl 15-18?) with a pre-organised group of five players, and it was great fun!
Organising group play is the answer.
I'm aware they let MxO die, but they let that game live way longer it would have with any other company. All I'm saying is SOE gets a bad wrap for making some poor decisions, but these same people can't look forward and look at what the company does as good or better than other companies.
Soe bought the matrix so they could get the DCU license. Soe wasn't doing MXO any favors, because they thought it was a game with potential. They also gutted that game as soon as they got their hands on it.
Sure soe does some cool things, but it isn't like this is a +/- column on a spread sheet. 5 good deeds doesn't negate the bad deed, especially when soe knows ahead of time that the playerbase will not like it. At the end of the day soe does enough bad things to piss many people off. It is just how they operate thier games.