Howdy, Stranger!

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

Top Secret or nothing at all ?

2»

Comments

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 18,657
    edited February 2020


    Someone else who has followed closely enough to understand what is happening.  Very well stated. 

    100% Truth.

    Maybe try Saga of Lucemia?
    You two are not the only ones, their are a few others that really know whats happening, unfortunately the power posters here dominate this site.  

    His long post tells it all about mainstream mmos changed everything and the money is in mainstream....... Pantheon should have gone with simple graphics and low cost.

    I seriously believe they could have achieved a possible gem because their was no reason that first and second generation mmorpgs were no longer wanted, they SIMPLY STOPPED MAKING THEM without the public approval.   

    YES...... Saga of Lucemia !!!!


    It's possible VR is keeping the project "Top Secret" and is almost done, but this fantasy is only grasping at straws...... I think VR is like a bunch of fifty year old teenagers with no direction.  
    Delete I regard you as one of the power posters on this site, you just don't seem to have bothered as much lately? But I have a lull every now and then.

    How much Pantheon has been watered down we will only know at launch but what has happened so far sounds a familiar story. I have always been for the hybrid approach it is just a matter of how hybrid you go. Both Lotro and ESO had elements of old play mixed with new, not enough for you I know but too much for others. It is a tricky balance, my main concern is that during development and after launch the direction is only one way, to be designed like every other cash shop, solo, easy-MMO out there. For it does not matter so much where you pitch your stall at the beginning if you all end up in the same place in a few years time.

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 40,710
    Take a good look at the history of SotA to date.

    Many of these indie MMOs will go down the same road, with incomplete launches of games missing the mark with almost every audience niche.

    But hey, at least SotA did launch in the last decade, some of these others look as if they might carry on development until the next.

    ;)

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

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

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing ESO - Blackwood 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






  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 18,657
    Is it just me or is anyone else fed up of adbots getting the last word?
    MendelAmathe
  • RenfailRenfail Member EpicPosts: 1,626
    TwoTubes said:
    Tanist said:
    I saw this coming years ago, even warned Brad about how as they made the game more visual friendly to the acceptance of mainstream, the same people downing it would all of a sudden show interest (hence this game is now number 1 on a mainstream MMO site). In that, you would end up with demands for more and more mainstream features, designs, etc... until the point where if they catered to it, you would get another mainstream MMO with all the same elements that destroyed previous games. 

    In the beginning, I had hopes for it, while waiting off a while (due to a mistrust with people and companies today), I eventually donated to it, but after some interactions with the community on the site and its leadership, I honestly have come to the conclusion this game will be just another bland attempt at marketing off old concepts that are nothing more than illusions cast over mainstream designs. 

    There is too much money to be made from mainstream and as many previous products have shown, a hyped failed MMO can make big money. I see no difference with Pantheon. I see the developers who seem to misunderstand all the key elements that made EQ what it was, chasing the favor of mainstream development concepts and completely missing the point. 

    I see mistakes in easy travel, soft death penalties, class design/balance catering, raids (mainstream end game pandering going against the initial "journey" design), DPS as a class role (all classes do damage, making damage a "role" will force class balance ideology, PvP (which, most people don't realize WILL have an effect on class balancing as they design their original classes and over time, ie class homogenization, wise up people!), and questing designs being click fests without any real intelligent interaction, discovery, or exploration, soloing (to avoid angering the mainstream players), excessive attention to visuals over game play design (mainstream pandering), the delusion that "community" was the main focus of success in EQ and should be the driving point of this games design, FTP (afraid to stand on the games own merit) as is evident by the constant questions on past concepts that were previously settled and the numerous videos and discussions, it is obvious they are shifting gears (and have been for a while) to attend to mainstream. 

    Then there is the bulk of the subscribed crowd being mostly EQOA (console players), FFXI, WoW players, etc.. who all claim they like original concepts of game difficulty and design, yet continue to advocate for modern convenience of mainstream games (while driving away any of the original adults from EQ who point out the conflicts in such arguments) and the SJW crowd who get offended at every disagreement and run off to the community manager (who doesn't even understand his own forum policies) to have them ban anyone who does not toe the line of the current mainstream dogma or "community" ire. 


    To be honest, I can't blame them (if their goal is purely money) as even a failed hyped gimmick to mainstream will make far more money than a niche game will. A few months of appealing to everyone will pay off for investors and then the skeleton of the game can be used like a parasite on players who cling to it for years more.  

    I am sure the game will be a resounding success (for the first few months or so, maybe more) and it will do quite well, but it won't be because it identifies with the original soul of what made EQ great, nope... it will be because it rode the backs of core EQ fans while it built up momentum to sell to its real audience, mainstream. 

    Fact is, I would have preferred the game be released at its initial released state of graphics (with the stock unity models) and the original proclaimed design goals than the bland product that I see today which is nothing more than a mainstream game hidden behind hopeful marketing. /shrug


    Someone else who has followed closely enough to understand what is happening.  Very well stated. 

    100% Truth.

    Maybe try Saga of Lucemia?
    Thanks for the vote of confidence :) 

    That being said, our entire team is waiting for Pantheon patiently and with anticipation. We see good things being done, even if there has been a design shift since the Kickstarter days and the "original" vision for what Pantheon set out to be. 

    We could even say the same about our game, in the sense that we have had ideas that sounded great at the start shift over time as the realities of programming and timelines have set in, so it's a bit of a moving target in terms of what we *want* to do versus what we can realistically get out in a reasonable amount of time. 

    Thanks again and, like most here, we're hoping for the best from Pantheon. 
    TwoTubes
    Tim "Renfail" Anderson | Wandering Hermits Patreon
  • RenfailRenfail Member EpicPosts: 1,626
    You two are not the only ones, their are a few others that really know whats happening, unfortunately the power posters here dominate this site.  

    His long post tells it all about mainstream mmos changed everything and the money is in mainstream....... Pantheon should have gone with simple graphics and low cost.

    I seriously believe they could have achieved a possible gem because their was no reason that first and second generation mmorpgs were no longer wanted, they SIMPLY STOPPED MAKING THEM without the public approval.   

    YES...... Saga of Lucemia !!!!


    It's possible VR is keeping the project "Top Secret" and is almost done, but this fantasy is only grasping at straws...... I think VR is like a bunch of fifty year old teenagers with no direction.  

    They are making progress. Solid progress. They have a great core. They are building a fun game. All of that is true. We can't wait to play their game. They still have good direction, it's just slow going making an MMORPG with a small team, and folks can't make things go quicker simply by wishing it so. 
    Amathe
    Tim "Renfail" Anderson | Wandering Hermits Patreon
  • RenfailRenfail Member EpicPosts: 1,626
    Scot said:
    Is it just me or is anyone else fed up of adbots getting the last word?
    Just another sign of how far this site has fallen. No staff to even bother with moderating these days. 
    Amathe
    Tim "Renfail" Anderson | Wandering Hermits Patreon
  • centkincentkin Member RarePosts: 1,527
    Thing is this is exactly EXACTLY like Vanguard.  In Vanguard you had a lot of Aradune, but nothing got finished -- I don't know how many more years it would have taken for it to release without the cash crunch at the end, but I do know it was full of promise and alive. 

    Then the suits came it and made it a "game."  What released was but a shadow of what Vanguard was with the soul siphoned out of it.  It was a shadow of what was and a mockery of what might have been.

    Expect the same here.  Aradune likely left the systems in that "almost halfway done" state where you can see what he was going for, but there is actually two-thirds of the actual work to be done to actualize it.  The suits aren't interested and will lop and patch in vanilla stuff at best, and if they release something, it won't be anything like the game that was planned.

    This isn't to say it would be more or less generically popular than the envisioned game, certainly less visionary, but it might be playable compared to what we have now in this time.
    GdemamiPalebane
  • TanistTanist Member UncommonPosts: 272
    centkin said:
    Thing is this is exactly EXACTLY like Vanguard.  In Vanguard you had a lot of Aradune, but nothing got finished -- I don't know how many more years it would have taken for it to release without the cash crunch at the end, but I do know it was full of promise and alive. 

    Then the suits came it and made it a "game."  What released was but a shadow of what Vanguard was with the soul siphoned out of it.  It was a shadow of what was and a mockery of what might have been.

    Expect the same here.  Aradune likely left the systems in that "almost halfway done" state where you can see what he was going for, but there is actually two-thirds of the actual work to be done to actualize it.  The suits aren't interested and will lop and patch in vanilla stuff at best, and if they release something, it won't be anything like the game that was planned.

    This isn't to say it would be more or less generically popular than the envisioned game, certainly less visionary, but it might be playable compared to what we have now in this time.

    From what Brad explained once, Microsoft changed the deal on him, wanted to have complete design control over the game. Brad refused, so they broke the contract with them. A deal was made with Sony to release the game, but Sony wanted the game finished in 6 months. Brad said that with Vanguard, they put off their optimization for the final iterations of development, opting to focus on game mechanics and the like first, that 6 months was not enough time to be able to complete the systems and optimize the game. He said that if they would have had a full year, they would have likely had a much better release as they could have got optimizations through and tied of some of their content for release. 

    As for Pantheon, all I can do is speculate as to why they are taking so long, but I do think they have spent far too much time on graphics and detailed systems. They appear to have put too many features on the table and focused too much on things that I think would have been better as additions later on. They spent far too much time listening to the players during development, as they should have had a very solid and defined plan on their entire development cycle before they even began developing the systems. This way, you don't end up paralyzing your development with endless iterations. Though to be honest, structured development approaches seem to be a thing of the past, which is why I think it takes companies far longer to develop something these days even though they have far more tools and knowledge to pull from.
    PalebaneTwoTubesTimukas
  • PalebanePalebane Member RarePosts: 4,011
    I put my money into stocks and bonds. I’ll play the games that relaunch years later with a F2P model.

    Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.

  • TwoTubesTwoTubes Member UncommonPosts: 328


    [quote] Renfail said: We see good things being done, even if there has been a design shift since the Kickstarter days and the "original" vision for what Pantheon set out to be.[/quote]

    We are on the same page.  I agree with the posts of yours I have seen.  You do seem more optimistic than me even though I agree that we have seen some "good things being done" recently.

    Since we heard that series A funding was complete in early 2017 (which gets them into pre-alpha) there hasn't been any other official funding info other than they need more funding. 

    We are still years out at least.  How long do they have?  Maybe people start to lose interest?  Maybe another game comes out that scoops up a portion of the target audience?  Maybe the funding simply dries up? ...and then they need to produce content/expansions fast enough to keep players around.  There is always an influx of funding at release but after that?  I don't see it lasting. (maybe they get lucky and get picked up by a larger studio with the same vision?  That seems optimistic but at least it is a possibility).

    A new stream came out today.  It was nice to see the new zones but my first reaction was that it was to cluttered.  I will definitely be turning off all the grass and vegetation and shadows etc.... a lot that they have been slowly working on is a waste imho.  A waste of time they can't afford.

    Even then, assuming it makes it to release and they can continue to produce content fast enough to keep people playing, I am still concerned.  Considering the direction things have been going I am doubtful I will end up playing it long term because of the design shift you mentioned.  It definitely isn't the game that was originally advertised.

    I find it unusual that I agree with everything you post renfail but we have such a different perspective in the end.


  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited February 2020
    @Tanist

    (Quote not working!)

    You seem to be suggesting that Sony did a deal to release Vanguard but only gave them 6 months so it never got optimised.

    For info Vanguard was released by Brad's company (Sigil) and not by Sony. And having ran out of money it had many (many) bugs at launch. Despite a fair number of people sticking with it Sigil eventually ran out of money and basically had to pull the plug. 

    At that point Sony (SoE) stepped in and bought the game/rights but not the company. They also hired a small number of the staff. There were tales of interviews on car parks. SoE kept the game running (until it closed of course). With what was essentially a skeleton staff though - so development all but stopped. They did work on the bugs though. Without SoE's intervention it would have been the end so one shouldn't be to harsh on SoE.
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332
    I could dissect a LOT from watching a game stream however watching the 2-3x i tried to watch one i was turned off.

    ONE because it seems people do NOT understand how to show a game to the consumer.They would stand in some dungeon,form their group then kill some stuff.We need to know what is going on,a narrator needs to explain stuff and how it all works as a group.
    Otherwise it just comes off as watching some group kill stuff,we can see that anywhere anytime anyplace,,hmm a song by Nena ..lol.

    It also tells me they simply do NOT understand what makes great grouping game play and game design to be able to tell us anything.I could do one of these videos and explain EXACTLY what is going on and why it is good and meaningful combat.I could start a video and break down my character why the choice of gear how and why i attained it and why that matters etc etc,but always in these videos there is NOTHING,just a scenario of "hey watch us play".

    As to Cohh ,he can claim all he wants,i know how he runs his streams,seen MANY of them.There is a possibility he is not being rewarded in anyway for streaming Pantheon but even it it is true,he does a horrible job of broadcasting the stream,he doesn't tell us anything,just here ....watch me play and he does streaming for a LIVING.
    Mendel

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • TwoTubesTwoTubes Member UncommonPosts: 328
    gervaise1 said:
    @Tanist

    (Quote not working!)

    You seem to be suggesting that Sony did a deal to release Vanguard but only gave them 6 months so it never got optimised.

    For info Vanguard was released by Brad's company (Sigil) and not by Sony. And having ran out of money it had many (many) bugs at launch. Despite a fair number of people sticking with it Sigil eventually ran out of money and basically had to pull the plug. 

    At that point Sony (SoE) stepped in and bought the game/rights but not the company. They also hired a small number of the staff. There were tales of interviews on car parks. SoE kept the game running (until it closed of course). With what was essentially a skeleton staff though - so development all but stopped. They did work on the bugs though. Without SoE's intervention it would have been the end so one shouldn't be to harsh on SoE.
    Just for clarity, I was in early alpha for vanguard.
      By the time late alpha/early beta came around it was common knowledge that it was being taken over by SOE.  There was even additions added in beta that we were told was at the request of Sony.

    There was a group of us alpha testers who didn't play after release because it was clear the direction things had been going.

    To think that SOE didnt have their hand in the pot before vanguard released is just incorrect.
  • TanistTanist Member UncommonPosts: 272
    edited February 2020
    ...
  • TanistTanist Member UncommonPosts: 272


    @gervaise1


    That isn't what happend though. Microsoft did change the deal and then pulled out. While Sigil still released the game under its name, Sony had supplied funding for the end of its development, but since they held the purse strings, they had the say and pushed the game out. Brad has spoke about this in various chats, forums, etc.. over the years (I think he even commented on it here if I remember right). Point is, while there were mistakes made by Brad, Microsoft did force this issue and Sony set the release date. All they could do at that time was try to get it out. After Sony Bought it, they pretty much killed it and development over the years with it was... lacking in support... and the addition of monetization and mainstream features killed it.


    As for SOE, I despise the company and I am at complete odds with Smeds game design philosphy. He empraced completely mainstream design and monetization. He was responsible for the major design direction changes after Verant left which slowly ate away at the heart of Everquest. Also, SOE did some pretty unethical things to its player base over those years, not to mention Smed was solely responsible for tanking SOE with his decisions.



    Timukas
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    TwoTubes said:
    gervaise1 said:
    @Tanist

    (Quote not working!)

    You seem to be suggesting that Sony did a deal to release Vanguard but only gave them 6 months so it never got optimised.

    For info Vanguard was released by Brad's company (Sigil) and not by Sony. And having ran out of money it had many (many) bugs at launch. Despite a fair number of people sticking with it Sigil eventually ran out of money and basically had to pull the plug. 

    At that point Sony (SoE) stepped in and bought the game/rights but not the company. They also hired a small number of the staff. There were tales of interviews on car parks. SoE kept the game running (until it closed of course). With what was essentially a skeleton staff though - so development all but stopped. They did work on the bugs though. Without SoE's intervention it would have been the end so one shouldn't be to harsh on SoE.
    Just for clarity, I was in early alpha for vanguard.
      By the time late alpha/early beta came around it was common knowledge that it was being taken over by SOE.  There was even additions added in beta that we were told was at the request of Sony.

    There was a group of us alpha testers who didn't play after release because it was clear the direction things had been going.

    To think that SOE didnt have their hand in the pot before vanguard released is just incorrect.
    Informative points. What I suspect may have happened was something like:

    Sigil was running out of money - we know its the reason the gave for launching early.

    Crowdfunded developments today approach other sources of funding when things look bleak: CU, SC etc. So - reasonable assumption - Sigil did the same. Based on what you say SoE were approached: give us $X, we finish Vanguard, you publish it,  Sigil and SoE share the profit.

    SoE though said no - which we know. Your info though suggests they said - maybe - something like: we don't like X, Y and Z but maybe if the game had U, V, W. Prompting Sigil to work on U, V, W.  

    We know from how it played out that there was nothing formal. Sigil launched Vanguard independently of Somy. And Vanguard ran for some months before the writing on the wall caught up with them At which point SoE picked up Vanguard in a fire sale.They didn't buy Sigil so didn't take on any debts or liabilities to employees, landlords, suppliers that Sigil might have had.

    Does that constitute SoE having their hand in the pot before release? Not in the normal sense but OK.
  • TanistTanist Member UncommonPosts: 272
    gervaise1 said:
    TwoTubes said:
    gervaise1 said:
    @Tanist

    (Quote not working!)

    You seem to be suggesting that Sony did a deal to release Vanguard but only gave them 6 months so it never got optimised.

    For info Vanguard was released by Brad's company (Sigil) and not by Sony. And having ran out of money it had many (many) bugs at launch. Despite a fair number of people sticking with it Sigil eventually ran out of money and basically had to pull the plug. 

    At that point Sony (SoE) stepped in and bought the game/rights but not the company. They also hired a small number of the staff. There were tales of interviews on car parks. SoE kept the game running (until it closed of course). With what was essentially a skeleton staff though - so development all but stopped. They did work on the bugs though. Without SoE's intervention it would have been the end so one shouldn't be to harsh on SoE.
    Just for clarity, I was in early alpha for vanguard.
      By the time late alpha/early beta came around it was common knowledge that it was being taken over by SOE.  There was even additions added in beta that we were told was at the request of Sony.

    There was a group of us alpha testers who didn't play after release because it was clear the direction things had been going.

    To think that SOE didnt have their hand in the pot before vanguard released is just incorrect.
    Informative points. What I suspect may have happened was something like:

    Sigil was running out of money - we know its the reason the gave for launching early.

    Crowdfunded developments today approach other sources of funding when things look bleak: CU, SC etc. So - reasonable assumption - Sigil did the same. Based on what you say SoE were approached: give us $X, we finish Vanguard, you publish it,  Sigil and SoE share the profit.

    SoE though said no - which we know. Your info though suggests they said - maybe - something like: we don't like X, Y and Z but maybe if the game had U, V, W. Prompting Sigil to work on U, V, W.  

    We know from how it played out that there was nothing formal. Sigil launched Vanguard independently of Somy. And Vanguard ran for some months before the writing on the wall caught up with them At which point SoE picked up Vanguard in a fire sale.They didn't buy Sigil so didn't take on any debts or liabilities to employees, landlords, suppliers that Sigil might have had.

    Does that constitute SoE having their hand in the pot before release? Not in the normal sense but OK.

    Not something like...

    Fact. Microsoft cut off funding over a creative control dispute. That is documented by Brads past comments.

    Fact. Smed and Brad came to a deal for Sony to finish funding for Vanguard. Smed gave Brad 6 months to finish the game so they could release.

    You are making a lot of assumptions in the face of documented facts.


  • Mylan12Mylan12 Member UncommonPosts: 286
    Tanist said:
    gervaise1 said:
    TwoTubes said:
    gervaise1 said:
    @Tanist

    (Quote not working!)

    You seem to be suggesting that Sony did a deal to release Vanguard but only gave them 6 months so it never got optimised.

    For info Vanguard was released by Brad's company (Sigil) and not by Sony. And having ran out of money it had many (many) bugs at launch. Despite a fair number of people sticking with it Sigil eventually ran out of money and basically had to pull the plug. 

    At that point Sony (SoE) stepped in and bought the game/rights but not the company. They also hired a small number of the staff. There were tales of interviews on car parks. SoE kept the game running (until it closed of course). With what was essentially a skeleton staff though - so development all but stopped. They did work on the bugs though. Without SoE's intervention it would have been the end so one shouldn't be to harsh on SoE.
    Just for clarity, I was in early alpha for vanguard.
      By the time late alpha/early beta came around it was common knowledge that it was being taken over by SOE.  There was even additions added in beta that we were told was at the request of Sony.

    There was a group of us alpha testers who didn't play after release because it was clear the direction things had been going.

    To think that SOE didnt have their hand in the pot before vanguard released is just incorrect.
    Informative points. What I suspect may have happened was something like:

    Sigil was running out of money - we know its the reason the gave for launching early.

    Crowdfunded developments today approach other sources of funding when things look bleak: CU, SC etc. So - reasonable assumption - Sigil did the same. Based on what you say SoE were approached: give us $X, we finish Vanguard, you publish it,  Sigil and SoE share the profit.

    SoE though said no - which we know. Your info though suggests they said - maybe - something like: we don't like X, Y and Z but maybe if the game had U, V, W. Prompting Sigil to work on U, V, W.  

    We know from how it played out that there was nothing formal. Sigil launched Vanguard independently of Somy. And Vanguard ran for some months before the writing on the wall caught up with them At which point SoE picked up Vanguard in a fire sale.They didn't buy Sigil so didn't take on any debts or liabilities to employees, landlords, suppliers that Sigil might have had.

    Does that constitute SoE having their hand in the pot before release? Not in the normal sense but OK.

    Not something like...

    Fact. Microsoft cut off funding over a creative control dispute. That is documented by Brads past comments.

    Fact. Smed and Brad came to a deal for Sony to finish funding for Vanguard. Smed gave Brad 6 months to finish the game so they could release.

    You are making a lot of assumptions in the face of documented facts.



    I was in the alpha also and although SOE did not complete its purchase of Sigil until a few months after release. It is my understanding they were providing assistance for the game prior to release and I heard the six month time span also.

    Actually the wiki states that SOE got involved in May 2006.

    [Deleted User]
  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 6,899
    OG_Zorvan said:
    Tanist said:
    gervaise1 said:
    TwoTubes said:
    gervaise1 said:
    @Tanist

    (Quote not working!)

    You seem to be suggesting that Sony did a deal to release Vanguard but only gave them 6 months so it never got optimised.

    For info Vanguard was released by Brad's company (Sigil) and not by Sony. And having ran out of money it had many (many) bugs at launch. Despite a fair number of people sticking with it Sigil eventually ran out of money and basically had to pull the plug. 

    At that point Sony (SoE) stepped in and bought the game/rights but not the company. They also hired a small number of the staff. There were tales of interviews on car parks. SoE kept the game running (until it closed of course). With what was essentially a skeleton staff though - so development all but stopped. They did work on the bugs though. Without SoE's intervention it would have been the end so one shouldn't be to harsh on SoE.
    Just for clarity, I was in early alpha for vanguard.
      By the time late alpha/early beta came around it was common knowledge that it was being taken over by SOE.  There was even additions added in beta that we were told was at the request of Sony.

    There was a group of us alpha testers who didn't play after release because it was clear the direction things had been going.

    To think that SOE didnt have their hand in the pot before vanguard released is just incorrect.
    Informative points. What I suspect may have happened was something like:

    Sigil was running out of money - we know its the reason the gave for launching early.

    Crowdfunded developments today approach other sources of funding when things look bleak: CU, SC etc. So - reasonable assumption - Sigil did the same. Based on what you say SoE were approached: give us $X, we finish Vanguard, you publish it,  Sigil and SoE share the profit.

    SoE though said no - which we know. Your info though suggests they said - maybe - something like: we don't like X, Y and Z but maybe if the game had U, V, W. Prompting Sigil to work on U, V, W.  

    We know from how it played out that there was nothing formal. Sigil launched Vanguard independently of Somy. And Vanguard ran for some months before the writing on the wall caught up with them At which point SoE picked up Vanguard in a fire sale.They didn't buy Sigil so didn't take on any debts or liabilities to employees, landlords, suppliers that Sigil might have had.

    Does that constitute SoE having their hand in the pot before release? Not in the normal sense but OK.

    Not something like...

    Fact. Microsoft cut off funding over a creative control dispute. That is documented by Brads past comments.

    Fact. Smed and Brad came to a deal for Sony to finish funding for Vanguard. Smed gave Brad 6 months to finish the game so they could release.

    You are making a lot of assumptions in the face of documented facts.


    Microsoft dumped Sigil because Brad could never show them anything more than a tech demo at multiple milestones after the millions they had already thrown at him.

    SOE took over publishing for Sigil May of 2006. http://forums.f13.net/index.php?action=printpage;topic=6843.0

    A nice summary https://www.engadget.com/2014/02/01/the-game-archaeologist-the-rise-fall-and-rescue-of-vanguard/

    Oh, and let's remember that a big part of the Sigil/Vanguard fiasco was Brad McQuaid shoving as much money as he could up his nose, being he was a massive coke fiend.
    Funny how history repeats itself. 
    "Brad could never show them anything more than a tech demo" 
    [Deleted User]Kyleran
Sign In or Register to comment.