Ladies and Gentlemans.

Lupich · 02-08-2007, 10:05 PM

There seems to be some confusion as to why VanGuard was released at a so called 'buggy' stage.

Let me elaborate.

a) Its a release title, before you judge, wait 1-2 months.

b) SoE demanded a release date, or else funding would be pulled.

There you have it.

Inara · 02-08-2007, 10:06 PM

your a point I agree but could you please link or show where SOE determined the release and not Sigil. Just would like to read that for myself since alot of wild speculations are flying lately

Jacosta · 02-08-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inara

your a point I agree but could you please link or show where SOE determined the release and not Sigil. Just would like to read that for myself since alot of wild speculations are flying lately

Brad said they had run out of money for development.

Inara · 02-08-2007, 10:09 PM

I know he said that but that doesnt answer my question as to where it was said that SOE determined the release date.

Gheer · 02-08-2007, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inara

I know he said that but that doesnt answer my question as to where it was said that SOE determined the release date.

SOE doesn't have the right to announce it. It's not their game. They did however push Sigil. They were the ones funding them after all.

Lupich · 02-08-2007, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gheer

SOE doesn't have the right to announce it. It's not their game. They did however push Sigil. They were the ones funding them after all.

Thats what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear, it just had to be said.

Inara · 02-08-2007, 10:17 PM

Ahh ok thank you for clearing that up. Much appreciated

Denidil Taureran · 02-08-2007, 10:21 PM

don't misrepresent

they ran out of money so they had to release

it's a subtle bit of difference than

soe demanded a release or pulled funding

the order for release came from above Smed's head - it came from Sony corporate who got it from the investors

Sedek · 02-08-2007, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denidil Taureran

don't misrepresent

they ran out of money so they had to release

it's a subtle bit of difference than

soe demanded a release or pulled funding

the order for release came from above Smed's head - it came from Sony corporate who got it from the investors

Yes, really it always comes down to the investors ... who ... in the end ... want to get paid for their investment. (they aren't doing it to make a game, that's for devs)

Denidil Taureran · 02-08-2007, 10:27 PM

yup suits are the bane of all programers.. they think "Release now! fix bugs later!" is a good idea

all the programers are sigil can thank them for 60 hour weeks and sleeping in the office

Sedek · 02-08-2007, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denidil Taureran

yup suits are the bane of all programers.. they think "Release now! fix bugs later!" is a good idea

all the programers are sigil can thank them for 60 hour weeks and sleeping in the office

Hehe ... on the flip side without them most games would never ACTUALLY release at all. (Duke Nukem Forever anyone?)

Piety · 02-09-2007, 12:08 AM

It had to come out sooner or later.
It could have gone the way of Dragon Empires.It had a loyal following, guilds ready and waiting to be made, and many players marking time in other MMO's. Now it only has a group of dissapointed potential players who have moved on with their lies.

Vanguard could have been an endless amount of rumor, speculation and hype and then moved on without ever seeing the light of day. Even if it came out a year from now, it would have had bugs.

You can only prepare so much for live launch. You can invite as many beta testers as you can, and create as much stress as you can, but you won't know how it's really all going to work until you go live. So eventually you have to say, we've done all we can it's time to put it on the table and fix what breaks.

For some reason there is a large group that feel the need to cry wolf and express dismay at Sigils inability to produce a proper game.

I played EQ for a long time, and witnessed EQ2's, SWG's and WoW's launch. None of them were flawless, none of them were without bugs.

Either you accept that you are playing a new game that is still getting a few wrinkles ironed out, or you move on to a more established game.

Blitzburg · 02-09-2007, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piety

For some reason there is a large group that feel the need to cry wolf and express dismay at Sigils inability to produce a proper game.

I played EQ for a long time, and witnessed EQ2's, SWG's and WoW's launch. None of them were flawless, none of them were without bugs.

Either you accept that you are playing a new game that is still getting a few wrinkles ironed out, or you move on to a more established game.

Perhaps it is a matter of degree. All MMORPGs launched with bugs. Some had more bugs than others. Some had worse bugs than others.

I think many of the complaints are a reflection of the amount and severity of the bugs in this launch as compared to others. Moreover, Sigil's intent to create a challenging game coupled with the lack of documentation can make it difficult to determine whether certain frustrating experiences are a result of "bugs" or "features."

I still think its a fun game anyways... but I am not blind to the number and severity of bugs present...

Kiste · 02-09-2007, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lupich

b) SoE demanded a release date, or else funding would be pulled.

There's, of course, another way to look at this. Without SOE providing additional funds, Sigil would have been forced to release many months ago.

Revolver Koala · 02-09-2007, 01:49 AM

When I see people complaining about how terrible Vanguard's launch is, it becomes kind of obvious that they've never played an MMO at launch. Have any of these people ever played Anarchy Online? It was buggier a year after launch than this game was in open beta. And I had to walk a mile in the snow every time I wanted to log in. Uphill, both ways. Dragging a refrigerator.

Inara · 02-09-2007, 01:53 AM

Wasnt AO funcoms first MMO though? And AOs launch was not pleasant in the least.

Revolver Koala · 02-09-2007, 02:05 AM

Yeah, that was kind of my point. AO's launch was about a billion times more terrible than Vanguard's. Maybe my standards are too low because of it; the only other MMOs I've played at or near launch were AO and SWG, and the former was completely broken for something like a year after release and the latter was actually down for pretty much the entire launch day because the database puked or something, so after that VG's launch seems like almost a non-event in terms of disaster.

And even though AO was Funcom's first venture into the MMO genre, they just kept on and on making monumentally stupid decisions, so at some point you kind of have to stop cutting them slack for being noobs. Huh? The equipment you can use is determined by your skill level and it only checks that when you put it on, so people are getting huge buffs from each other and using it to equip stuff far beyond their level? Do we add soft level caps? Require that your skill remain high enough to equip the item? Nah, let's rebalance the entire game around our broken equipment system, so if you don't exploit buffs you are actually legitimately underpowered! Jerks.

Inara · 02-09-2007, 02:12 AM

Ahh thats what I thought. I think some of the hate and this is assumption is that this is not any of these devs first rodeo so to speak. VG is a situation where hype was way more than could be produced even 3 yrs from now. And I think (once again assumption) that some folks hold Brad in such high regard they feel he has done no wrong and project wrongly their hate onto SOE. So you get this nice neither side will budge and be the least bit objective. So although I agree with you on AO being the worst launch in history, I can see it from both sides here also. Being that the devs are supposed to be so uber skilled in making MMOs people are less tolerant of bugs. Thats just my opinion though and dont expect anyone else to share it.

Vestas · 02-09-2007, 02:31 AM

People act like these games are cheap, or the devs have a choice financially. Vanguard was breaching 30 million dollars to make. 30 million.

Do you know what the average monthly burn rate for a 100 person dev team is? Close to 750,000 a month. 1.5 million every two months, nearly 9 million a year. And vanguards team is documented as larger than 100. Not too mention they probably contracted out some work. Then add the cost of building maintenance, bandwidth etc... it gets ugly fast.

A game only acquires so much start up cash and only so much investment capital. When the bank runs dry, the company cannot operate for free.

When Brad switched to Sony, he got a small influx of cash but he didn't give Sony the game (retained creative control). As a result, his amount of funds was limited. Sony of course could buy the game and make it a loss leader, keep throwing money at it, however, Vanguard was never going to be a 6 million subscriber game like WoW, and was already costing close to 3/4 what WoW cost to make.

Think about it. It was release the game, or never release at all.

Also be very concerned if you like the game. If they are out of money, then they are hoping that the box sales and subscriptions will fund future development. If that doesn't happen, the game will just fail. Or they will scale the dev team waay back. A 15-20 person dev team only needs 50,000 subs really to turn a profit. But a 15-20 person dev team can't release new content or do a lot of patching.

Keep that in mind next time you ask yourself "WHy the hell did they release". Because it was that, or not at all. And they love their game and they want to have jobs next month working on it. Simple economics.

Inara · 02-09-2007, 02:41 AM

Trying to word this right and add something to vestas post. So if it comes out wrong this is not a flame or hate but to me logic. Your right about the simple economics of it. The problem with the double edged sword though is this. MMOs are big business now. Games like UO, EQ1, and even WOW to an extent had time to build up player bases and they were the big dogs on the block for quite some time. But now thanks to those 3 games alot of companies are starting to hop on the bandwagon. This is good for us because generally competition creates better product but is also bad because you really only have one shot to make that impression now. People wont be as tolerant of things if they have options. In the next 2 yrs alone there are major titles LOTRO, AoC, WAR, ummm the bioware one, star trek, spellborne. And others I am forgetting I am sure. So where as WoW more or less only had EQ2 which at the time was lacking they had time to iron out things and people put up with it. Same with UO and EQ1. Now you dont have that option to make a first impression twice. So would be in the best interest of everyone who wants this game to live on to push the devs and not coddle them. To be critical yet constructive. And I am being a hypocrit on this one but play more and post less lol and report the bugs as many times as you have too!

PS...if you could please fix backwards walking ratmen I would love you as they are kinda freaking me out