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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
I wouldn't say we're set on long mems during combat -- in fact we're looking at the issue right now and deciding how mana management during combat could be done better.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
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.
I wouldn't say we're set on long mems during combat -- in fact we're looking at the issue right now and deciding how mana management during combat could be done better.
I am looking forward to mana / stamina management being an important feature (hopefully) for us players to learn how to balance depending on the classes in the group your in and the mobs you face at any given time. Dictating the pace of the game ourselves by how far we can push the boundaries of our own groups efficiency in hopefully difficult situations / encounters. Needing to truly know your classes and others strengths and weaknesses and thinking on the fly, not just continuously mashing the same rotations no matter who or what is in your group with no real concern for resource management.
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.
I wouldn't say we're set on long mems during combat -- in fact we're looking at the issue right now and deciding how mana management during combat could be done better.
I am looking forward to mana / stamina management being an important feature (hopefully) for us players to learn how to balance depending on the classes in the group your in and the mobs you face at any given time. Dictating the pace of the game ourselves by how far we can push the boundaries of our own groups efficiency in hopefully difficult situations / encounters. Needing to truly know your classes and others strengths and weaknesses and thinking on the fly, not just continuously mashing the same rotations no matter who or what is in your group with no real concern for resource management.
I don't mind having a refill time.
Don't forget, in all modern mmos its crazy how many trash mobs you have to kill from point A to point B. Their designed like hack and slash games.....And for me hack and slash in am mmo sucks.
Lets have mobs spread out and have every battle epic !!
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.
I wouldn't say we're set on long mems during combat -- in fact we're looking at the issue right now and deciding how mana management during combat could be done better.
I like some downtime for social reasons. I just don't think mana dependent classes should be the only ones with things to do. After a battle, gear needs to be repaired, arrows fletched, prayers of thanks, poisons applied, scout ahead... every class should have things that need to be done to prepare for the next epic encounter. Just not sure why it is always mana.
Worse thing is having everyone ready to go waiting on the casters.
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.
Even for AAA mainstream titles subscription model is unsustainable. 150k subs for Pantheon is awfully delusional.
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 !
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.
If Pantheon releases with as much content as Vanguard, then the game is several years out. I would rather see them release a polished experience that only has a level cap of 45, and then add content (& increase the cap) as the game matures.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
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.
Even for AAA mainstream titles subscription model is unsustainable. 150k subs for Pantheon is awfully delusional.
Yet CCP/EVE manages to do so, weird isn't it?
FFXIV, SWTOR, L1, heck maybe even AA or BDO likely have that many subs or patrons.
Give players a game with features they really want for which there few options and people will pay for it.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
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
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.
Even for AAA mainstream titles subscription model is unsustainable. 150k subs for Pantheon is awfully delusional.
Yet CCP/EVE manages to do so, weird isn't it?
FFXIV, SWTOR, L1, heck maybe even AA or BDO likely have that many subs or patrons.
Give players a game with features they really want for which there few options and people will pay for it.
$15 a month just isn't that much money.
To be fair, though, you're quoting AAA titles and EVE, who was once the second most subbed game is now seeing subscriptions fall off to 2012 levels. I agree with both @Gdemami and @blueturtle13 though. I agree that 150k subs is delusional, but I agree with BlueTurtle that 150k is probably the absolute, best-case scenario cap for a niche market. So it really comes down to this, "Will Pantheon be the greatest game of all time?" That's how Pantheon gets to 150k subs. The problem is the North American market. Nobody wants to pay for shit! Has there even been an MMO that's lasted 1 year on the subscription-only model in the last 5 years? Shit, SWTOR didn't even make it a year, did it?
This game won't fly in the massive Asia-Pacific market, because it's being designed specifically for the North American market, so it should be interesting to see if America will step up and make MMOs great again in 2017!
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.
Even for AAA mainstream titles subscription model is unsustainable. 150k subs for Pantheon is awfully delusional.
Yet CCP/EVE manages to do so, weird isn't it?
FFXIV, SWTOR, L1, heck maybe even AA or BDO likely have that many subs or patrons.
Give players a game with features they really want for which there few options and people will pay for it.
$15 a month just isn't that much money.
To be fair, though, you're quoting AAA titles and EVE, who was once the second most subbed game is now seeing subscriptions fall off to 2012 levels. I agree with both @Gdemami and @blueturtle13 though. I agree that 150k subs is delusional, but I agree with BlueTurtle that 150k is probably the absolute, best-case scenario cap for a niche market. So it really comes down to this, "Will Pantheon be the greatest game of all time?" That's how Pantheon gets to 150k subs. The problem is the North American market. Nobody wants to pay for shit! Has there even been an MMO that's lasted 1 year on the subscription-only model in the last 5 years? Shit, SWTOR didn't even make it a year, did it?
This game won't fly in the massive Asia-Pacific market, because it's being designed specifically for the North American market, so it should be interesting to see if America will step up and make MMOs great again in 2017!
Rift spent bit over 2 years before the f2p transition. They had something like 150-200k subscribers 6-12 months after launch.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
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.
Even for AAA mainstream titles subscription model is unsustainable. 150k subs for Pantheon is awfully delusional.
Yet CCP/EVE manages to do so, weird isn't it?
FFXIV, SWTOR, L1, heck maybe even AA or BDO likely have that many subs or patrons.
Give players a game with features they really want for which there few options and people will pay for it.
$15 a month just isn't that much money.
It's really hard to tell at this point, the one thing Pantheon has going for it is that it's the only PVE focused title currently being hyped. The rest are mostly PVP titles. That alone doesn't really mean too much though, as it's really only focusing on a subset of the PVE audience (those who want a harsh experience). Which historically is typically an extreme niche. If games like Darksouls are any indication, the premise sells, but only a marginal amount finish the game. Which is fine for a single player title, not so much for an MMORPG. The peak isn't what's important, be it 150k or 1 mil. It's the amount of subs that stick with it long term that is important.
MMORPGs are a niche again more or less, hard titles are an even narrower niche, indie titles are a niche, a hard indie MMORPG is an extreme niche. We'll see...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I think i have seen people role play better in threads than in the actual role playing games.They are living in a Fantasy world believing what they want to believe. Somebody comes out with an idea,OH YEAH i got to back that,that's cool,i remember that.Oh yeah i loved those books,a game based on those would be great,here's my money.People seem to let their brain go into lala land for a few minutes.
For the record,there is no limit to what a developer could achieve if they have enough money and manpower.Setting low standards will automatically mean a low standard game. The problem is the feedback developers get is all bullshit. When a game is coming out,they need to market it,so they go to websites like this one and it all begins.IGN wants some advertising money so they give the game great props and tell the CEO how much they love the idea of the game. Then sometimes it gets soooo bad,a developer becomes delusional into thinking there is a massive support to get the game out fast/unfinished.Every single one of these early access games are there because they don't have the money,they don't have a finished game,so you are gazing at and supporting nothing more than a used car salesmen broken promises.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
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.
Even for AAA mainstream titles subscription model is unsustainable. 150k subs for Pantheon is awfully delusional.
Yet CCP/EVE manages to do so, weird isn't it?
FFXIV, SWTOR, L1, heck maybe even AA or BDO likely have that many subs or patrons.
Give players a game with features they really want for which there few options and people will pay for it.
$15 a month just isn't that much money.
To be fair, though, you're quoting AAA titles and EVE, who was once the second most subbed game is now seeing subscriptions fall off to 2012 levels. I agree with both @Gdemami and @blueturtle13 though. I agree that 150k subs is delusional, but I agree with BlueTurtle that 150k is probably the absolute, best-case scenario cap for a niche market. So it really comes down to this, "Will Pantheon be the greatest game of all time?" That's how Pantheon gets to 150k subs. The problem is the North American market. Nobody wants to pay for shit! Has there even been an MMO that's lasted 1 year on the subscription-only model in the last 5 years? Shit, SWTOR didn't even make it a year, did it?
This game won't fly in the massive Asia-Pacific market, because it's being designed specifically for the North American market, so it should be interesting to see if America will step up and make MMOs great again in 2017!
Rift spent bit over 2 years before the f2p transition. They had something like 150-200k subscribers 6-12 months after launch.
That! I did not know! Lol. In all fairness, it was the WoW killer, so I would have expected that
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.
Even for AAA mainstream titles subscription model is unsustainable. 150k subs for Pantheon is awfully delusional.
Yet CCP/EVE manages to do so, weird isn't it?
FFXIV, SWTOR, L1, heck maybe even AA or BDO likely have that many subs or patrons.
Give players a game with features they really want for which there few options and people will pay for it.
$15 a month just isn't that much money.
To be fair, though, you're quoting AAA titles and EVE, who was once the second most subbed game is now seeing subscriptions fall off to 2012 levels. I agree with both @Gdemami and @blueturtle13 though. I agree that 150k subs is delusional, but I agree with BlueTurtle that 150k is probably the absolute, best-case scenario cap for a niche market. So it really comes down to this, "Will Pantheon be the greatest game of all time?" That's how Pantheon gets to 150k subs. The problem is the North American market. Nobody wants to pay for shit! Has there even been an MMO that's lasted 1 year on the subscription-only model in the last 5 years? Shit, SWTOR didn't even make it a year, did it?
This game won't fly in the massive Asia-Pacific market, because it's being designed specifically for the North American market, so it should be interesting to see if America will step up and make MMOs great again in 2017!
Well yeah, I'm not sure they'll be able to provide an acceptable level of quality or game play to gain enough traction to get 150K people paying a sub.
So he was right, probably delusional at this point.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
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
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.
Even for AAA mainstream titles subscription model is unsustainable. 150k subs for Pantheon is awfully delusional.
Yet CCP/EVE manages to do so, weird isn't it?
FFXIV, SWTOR, L1, heck maybe even AA or BDO likely have that many subs or patrons.
Give players a game with features they really want for which there few options and people will pay for it.
$15 a month just isn't that much money.
To be fair, though, you're quoting AAA titles and EVE, who was once the second most subbed game is now seeing subscriptions fall off to 2012 levels. I agree with both @Gdemami and @blueturtle13 though. I agree that 150k subs is delusional, but I agree with BlueTurtle that 150k is probably the absolute, best-case scenario cap for a niche market. So it really comes down to this, "Will Pantheon be the greatest game of all time?" That's how Pantheon gets to 150k subs. The problem is the North American market. Nobody wants to pay for shit! Has there even been an MMO that's lasted 1 year on the subscription-only model in the last 5 years? Shit, SWTOR didn't even make it a year, did it?
This game won't fly in the massive Asia-Pacific market, because it's being designed specifically for the North American market, so it should be interesting to see if America will step up and make MMOs great again in 2017!
Well yeah, I'm not sure they'll be able to provide an acceptable level of quality or game play to gain enough traction to get 150K people paying a sub.
So he was right, probably delusional at this point.
Well SotA is another prime example of this. Is SotA THAT bad? Or is it that people were sooooooo hyped about it that they ended up setting unrealistic expectations for the game? I fear that Pantheon could end up suffering the same fate if we continue to on the hype train. Let's make games great again in 2017 and board the realism train
Kyleran said: Yet CCP/EVE manages to do so, weird isn't it?
EVE released in 2003. EVE needed years to get that number. EVE was top notch graphics, highly polished game when it launched.
EVE had/has no competition. EVE, just like WOW, is an outlier case(yeah, I know you have issues with those and deduction in general) that managed to get steady sub growth over the years.
Pantheon is no way near position EVE got when it launched.
iirc, VR are aiming for 30-50k subs, which is somewhat realistic but imo still grossly optimistic.
Kyleran said: Give players a game with features they really want for which there few options and people will pay for it.
That is the thing, Pantheon seems to be collecting all the things players do not want and left behind...
Comments
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.
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-
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.
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-
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.
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.
SAVE US VISIONARY REALMS! We are dying...
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
I don't mind having a refill time.
Don't forget, in all modern mmos its crazy how many trash mobs you have to kill from point A to point B. Their designed like hack and slash games.....And for me hack and slash in am mmo sucks.
Lets have mobs spread out and have every battle epic !!
Worse thing is having everyone ready to go waiting on the casters.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
FFXIV, SWTOR, L1, heck maybe even AA or BDO likely have that many subs or patrons.
Give players a game with features they really want for which there few options and people will pay for it.
$15 a month just isn't that much money.
"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 New Worlds atm
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
To be fair, though, you're quoting AAA titles and EVE, who was once the second most subbed game is now seeing subscriptions fall off to 2012 levels. I agree with both @Gdemami and @blueturtle13 though. I agree that 150k subs is delusional, but I agree with BlueTurtle that 150k is probably the absolute, best-case scenario cap for a niche market. So it really comes down to this, "Will Pantheon be the greatest game of all time?" That's how Pantheon gets to 150k subs. The problem is the North American market. Nobody wants to pay for shit! Has there even been an MMO that's lasted 1 year on the subscription-only model in the last 5 years? Shit, SWTOR didn't even make it a year, did it?
This game won't fly in the massive Asia-Pacific market, because it's being designed specifically for the North American market, so it should be interesting to see if America will step up and make MMOs great again in 2017!
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
MMORPGs are a niche again more or less, hard titles are an even narrower niche, indie titles are a niche, a hard indie MMORPG is an extreme niche. We'll see...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Somebody comes out with an idea,OH YEAH i got to back that,that's cool,i remember that.Oh yeah i loved those books,a game based on those would be great,here's my money.People seem to let their brain go into lala land for a few minutes.
For the record,there is no limit to what a developer could achieve if they have enough money and manpower.Setting low standards will automatically mean a low standard game.
The problem is the feedback developers get is all bullshit.
When a game is coming out,they need to market it,so they go to websites like this one and it all begins.IGN wants some advertising money so they give the game great props and tell the CEO how much they love the idea of the game.
Then sometimes it gets soooo bad,a developer becomes delusional into thinking there is a massive support to get the game out fast/unfinished.Every single one of these early access games are there because they don't have the money,they don't have a finished game,so you are gazing at and supporting nothing more than a used car salesmen broken promises.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
That! I did not know! Lol. In all fairness, it was the WoW killer, so I would have expected that
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
So he was right, probably delusional at this point.
"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 New Worlds atm
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
Well SotA is another prime example of this. Is SotA THAT bad? Or is it that people were sooooooo hyped about it that they ended up setting unrealistic expectations for the game? I fear that Pantheon could end up suffering the same fate if we continue to on the hype train. Let's make games great again in 2017 and board the realism train
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
EVE needed years to get that number.
EVE was top notch graphics, highly polished game when it launched.
EVE had/has no competition.
EVE, just like WOW, is an outlier case(yeah, I know you have issues with those and deduction in general) that managed to get steady sub growth over the years.
Pantheon is no way near position EVE got when it launched.
iirc, VR are aiming for 30-50k subs, which is somewhat realistic but imo still grossly optimistic.
That is the thing, Pantheon seems to be collecting all the things players do not want and left behind...