<div id="post_message_558847"> Quote:
Originally Posted by Etadanik
I don't see why people can be so confident about Vanguard's subs. I personally hope that Vanguard succeeds, but there's every indication that it'll flop:

1) Sigil is a new company, which means it's got no reputation. While Brad has some reputation as the head EQ designer, SoE has wrecked the EQ name enough with EQ 2 that it'd likely not matter.

2) Vanguard has no franchise backing. While franchise backing is not necessarily as important as company identification (ie Bioware makes a D&D game => GOLD; Turbine makes a D&D game => TURD), it still helps.

3) Beta impressions are tepid, at best, so word-of-mouth isn't that great.

4) The "shinies" - ie graphics, videos, etc. aren't that impressive.

5) There are no "amazing" new features that has the gaming world on edge. Spore will succeed - want to know why? Because Will Wright has been beating to the whole procedural content idea for so long now that everyone in the gaming industry with a clue is in awe of his game. Where's the equivalent of this in Vanguard?

Sorry guys, but this is not me being a Vanguard basher, because I have no vendettas against Sigil or Brad - in fact, I want them to succeed so that there can be a counterweight to WoW. This is being realistic.


1. We already have well over 100,000 people registered on our boards.

2. We are starting a massive PR/Marketing campaign to reach out to those who don't already know about the game and/or don't know our pedigree.

3. You don't need a strong IP to get great sales, you need a great game. A strong IP can help with sales, and can definitely help you get funding for a game because many funding sources and publishers get excited about IP (some regardless of whether the IP makes sense for an MMOG or not).

4. I think we've had great press, a great showing at E3, and that the hype is growing. I know the various big sites that keep track of most anticipated MMOGs virtually all place Vanguard near or at the top.

5. There were a couple of negative beta 2 NDA violations, but most enjoyed the game and/or waited for it to improve. In beta 3, it has indeed improved and we have many, many more people involved in it and I don't see the negative NDA violations now...

6. I think a lot of people are very blown away by the graphics. Not everyone. Some people don't like the more realistic approach and prefer WoW's more stylized and low tech approach. And some simply don't like our art direction. But the vast majority of feedback we get is extremely positive.

7. There are some revolutionary features in the game like the seamless world, draw distance, player owned and controllable ships, flying mounts where you can go anywhere, diplomacy, and much more. They might not be interesting to you, but the freedom and variety of features that Vanguard offers vs. its competition is almost no-contest -- if you want a more detailed, challenging, long term home and are looking for a new game next year, Vanguard is really the only choice.

8. If you take the people on our message boards, the 2 million or so people who have tried EQ in the last 7 years, many of whom know about our pedigree, the fact that when we left EQ was at it's zenith (450,000+ subscribers) and you easily have several hundred thousand people right there. Then if you even get 5-10% of WoW players who are likely looking for a new game and a new experience and more depth, etc., and add them to the previous number, and we're talking 400-500k conservatively. That, and what other game like Vanguard is going to be out next year other than WoW? It's pretty much WoW or Vanguard, and that means, again, even conservatively, 400-500k.

Weiterlesen...