Tossing out an insult like "fanbois" in your opening sentence because some folks voiced their opinion (gasp), doesn't present a very flattering image of MMOGchart.com, but that's your choice.
I believe you're correct that those of us currently following Vanguard with interest don't represent the majority of the market. Most of us have been through all the other MMOGs and found them lacking in ways that really aren't being addressed elsewhere. We are encouraged by what we've seen and heard, by Sigil's demonstrable track record, and by the exciting dialog taking place in the early community forming up around the project. But real marketing hasn't really occurred yet, has it. The game's not even in beta and I suspect that Sigil's E3 presence was less a part of a marketing campaign and more of an early opportunity to refresh contacts and secure assurances with a select few that the project is on track, alive and well.
Whether we are "the majority" of the market or not won't be the determining factor in how big an impact Vanguard has on the market. At the end of the day, that's going to come down to some business fundamentals like whether or not the game services a significant market and whether Microsoft is able to effectively promote the game's value proposition. As you say, "the perception of the game by the gaming public". I submit it's too early to tell how that will play out, just as it was too early to tell in 1989 how successful Windows 3.0 would be when it rolled out a year later. I suspect Microsoft will have a thing or two to add to the message.:)
Another perspective on Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
on
The MMOGs of Tomorrow
·
· Score: 1
One can look at initial sales as an indicator of success (and it is one), and one can look at longevity (certainly another). The point is, there are two distinct elements that need to be considered in evaluating the success of an MMOG: acquisition of subscribers and retention of subscribers. Players may be drawn in droves into worlds that are easily conquered, but there's an open question of how long this will sustain them and their recurring revenues.
If you look at the history of what Sigil's principals accomplished with EverQuest, it's pretty clear that what they built endured the test of time and distinguished itself both on an acquisition and retention basis. Some would argue that they did this *despite* a reputation for brutally challenging content, but I'd argue that it was in large part *because* of the challenge presented. EverQuests subs actually peaked during the period generally regarded as the high point of the challenge curve (toughest xp loss, difficult corpse retrievals, hell levels, etc). It wasn't until SOE took the reigns and started the "dumbification" that led to PoP that subs actually started falling. The point is still actively debated everywhere and it's no surprise because there will never be a shortage of people who want easy, but value hard.
This isn't anything new. The world is full of examples that illustrate the basic point that the things most valued are the things hardest to acquire, otherwise everyone would have them and they'd cease to have value.
I watch all of these new MMOGs with a skeptical eye, and this one is no exception. But before all of you write this off as "more of the same", and having only a "niche" market, I'd counsel you to keep an open mind and remember that Sigil's pedigree includes a group that actually accomplished success on both the acquisition and retention fronts in the past, and now they come armed with new technology, a wealth of new experience, and the market resources of Microsoft.
But more to the point, what I'm reading about this game resonates LOUDLY to me of something that's been missing from my experiences with any of the other MMOGs of late, the imbalance of challenge and reward. Like an immutable law of physics, you can't change the formula that puts equal value on either side of the equation. Less challenge = less value. I've tried most all of the other MMOGs and, frankly, I'm tired of getting to the end-game easily; instancing that insulates me from the social experience that brought me to the genre in the first place; teleporting that demolishes any sense of wonderment or world size; handholding that robs me of my freedom and my sense of accomplishment; and the utter lack of skilled play that results when there is no meaningful penalty for death. Grouping with players who realize that they can play as carelessly as they want, knowing full well that no consequences await them, and that they'll still hit the final goal, is a miserable, unsatisfying experience. Give me an epic adventure with the real world tension of knowing that a bad play will cost me something dear, and my victories will mean that much more to me and my peers. Take away my challenge, and you take away the value of the experience.
One can look at initial sales as an indicator of success (and it is one), and one can look at longevity(certainly another). The point is, there are two distinct elements that need to be considered in evaluating the success of an MMOG: acquisition of subscribers and retention of subscribers. Players may be drawn in droves into worlds that are easily conquered, but there's an open question of how long this will sustain them and their recurring revenues.
If you look at the history of what Sigil's principals accomplished with EverQuest, it's pretty clear that what they built endured the test of time and distinguished itself both on an acquisition and retention basis. Some would argue that they did this *despite* a reputation for brutally challenging content, but I'd argue that it was in large part *because* of the challenge presented. EverQuests subs actually peaked during the period generally regarded as the high point of the challenge curve (toughest xp loss, difficult corpse retrievals, hell levels, etc). It wasn't until SOE took the reigns and started the "dumbification" that led to PoP that subs actually started falling. The point is still actively debated everywhere and it's no surprise because there will never be a shortage of people who want easy, but value hard.
This isn't anything new. The world is full of examples that illustrate the basic point that the things most valued are the things hardest to acquire, otherwise everyone would have them and they'd cease to have value.
I watch all of these new MMOGs with a skeptical eye, and this one is no exception. But before all of you write this off as "more of the same", and having only a "niche" market, I'd counsel you to keep an open mind and remember that Sigil's pedigree includes a group that actually accomplished success on both the acquisition and retention fronts in the past, and now they come armed with new technology, a wealth of new experience, and the market resources of Microsoft.
But more to the point, what I'm reading about this game resonates LOUDLY to me of something that's been missing from my experiences with any of the other MMOGs of late, the imbalance of challenge and value. I've tried all the others and, frankly, I'm tired of getting to the end-game easily, instancing that insulates me from the social experience that brought me to the genre in the first place, teleporting that demolishes any sense of wonderment or world size, and the utter lack of skilled play that results when there is no meaningful penalty for death. Grouping with players who realize that they can play as carelessly as they want, knowing full well that no consequences await them, and that they'll still hit the final goal, is a miserable, unsatisfying experience. Give me an epic adventure with the real world tension of knowing that a bad play will cost me something dear, and my victories will mean that much more to me and my peers. Take away my challenge, and you take away the value of the experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Tossing out an insult like "fanbois" in your opening sentence because some folks voiced their opinion (gasp), doesn't present a very flattering image of MMOGchart.com, but that's your choice.
:)
I believe you're correct that those of us currently following Vanguard with interest don't represent the majority of the market. Most of us have been through all the other MMOGs and found them lacking in ways that really aren't being addressed elsewhere. We are encouraged by what we've seen and heard, by Sigil's demonstrable track record, and by the exciting dialog taking place in the early community forming up around the project. But real marketing hasn't really occurred yet, has it. The game's not even in beta and I suspect that Sigil's E3 presence was less a part of a marketing campaign and more of an early opportunity to refresh contacts and secure assurances with a select few that the project is on track, alive and well.
Whether we are "the majority" of the market or not won't be the determining factor in how big an impact Vanguard has on the market. At the end of the day, that's going to come down to some business fundamentals like whether or not the game services a significant market and whether Microsoft is able to effectively promote the game's value proposition. As you say, "the perception of the game by the gaming public". I submit it's too early to tell how that will play out, just as it was too early to tell in 1989 how successful Windows 3.0 would be when it rolled out a year later. I suspect Microsoft will have a thing or two to add to the message.
One can look at initial sales as an indicator of success (and it is one), and one can look at longevity (certainly another). The point is, there are two distinct elements that need to be considered in evaluating the success of an MMOG: acquisition of subscribers and retention of subscribers. Players may be drawn in droves into worlds that are easily conquered, but there's an open question of how long this will sustain them and their recurring revenues.
If you look at the history of what Sigil's principals accomplished with EverQuest, it's pretty clear that what they built endured the test of time and distinguished itself both on an acquisition and retention basis. Some would argue that they did this *despite* a reputation for brutally challenging content, but I'd argue that it was in large part *because* of the challenge presented. EverQuests subs actually peaked during the period generally regarded as the high point of the challenge curve (toughest xp loss, difficult corpse retrievals, hell levels, etc). It wasn't until SOE took the reigns and started the "dumbification" that led to PoP that subs actually started falling. The point is still actively debated everywhere and it's no surprise because there will never be a shortage of people who want easy, but value hard.
This isn't anything new. The world is full of examples that illustrate the basic point that the things most valued are the things hardest to acquire, otherwise everyone would have them and they'd cease to have value.
I watch all of these new MMOGs with a skeptical eye, and this one is no exception. But before all of you write this off as "more of the same", and having only a "niche" market, I'd counsel you to keep an open mind and remember that Sigil's pedigree includes a group that actually accomplished success on both the acquisition and retention fronts in the past, and now they come armed with new technology, a wealth of new experience, and the market resources of Microsoft.
But more to the point, what I'm reading about this game resonates LOUDLY to me of something that's been missing from my experiences with any of the other MMOGs of late, the imbalance of challenge and reward. Like an immutable law of physics, you can't change the formula that puts equal value on either side of the equation. Less challenge = less value. I've tried most all of the other MMOGs and, frankly, I'm tired of getting to the end-game easily; instancing that insulates me from the social experience that brought me to the genre in the first place; teleporting that demolishes any sense of wonderment or world size; handholding that robs me of my freedom and my sense of accomplishment; and the utter lack of skilled play that results when there is no meaningful penalty for death. Grouping with players who realize that they can play as carelessly as they want, knowing full well that no consequences await them, and that they'll still hit the final goal, is a miserable, unsatisfying experience. Give me an epic adventure with the real world tension of knowing that a bad play will cost me something dear, and my victories will mean that much more to me and my peers. Take away my challenge, and you take away the value of the experience.
Keep an eye on this game. You might be surprised.
One can look at initial sales as an indicator of success (and it is one), and one can look at longevity(certainly another). The point is, there are two distinct elements that need to be considered in evaluating the success of an MMOG: acquisition of subscribers and retention of subscribers. Players may be drawn in droves into worlds that are easily conquered, but there's an open question of how long this will sustain them and their recurring revenues.
If you look at the history of what Sigil's principals accomplished with EverQuest, it's pretty clear that what they built endured the test of time and distinguished itself both on an acquisition and retention basis. Some would argue that they did this *despite* a reputation for brutally challenging content, but I'd argue that it was in large part *because* of the challenge presented. EverQuests subs actually peaked during the period generally regarded as the high point of the challenge curve (toughest xp loss, difficult corpse retrievals, hell levels, etc). It wasn't until SOE took the reigns and started the "dumbification" that led to PoP that subs actually started falling. The point is still actively debated everywhere and it's no surprise because there will never be a shortage of people who want easy, but value hard.
This isn't anything new. The world is full of examples that illustrate the basic point that the things most valued are the things hardest to acquire, otherwise everyone would have them and they'd cease to have value.
I watch all of these new MMOGs with a skeptical eye, and this one is no exception. But before all of you write this off as "more of the same", and having only a "niche" market, I'd counsel you to keep an open mind and remember that Sigil's pedigree includes a group that actually accomplished success on both the acquisition and retention fronts in the past, and now they come armed with new technology, a wealth of new experience, and the market resources of Microsoft.
But more to the point, what I'm reading about this game resonates LOUDLY to me of something that's been missing from my experiences with any of the other MMOGs of late, the imbalance of challenge and value. I've tried all the others and, frankly, I'm tired of getting to the end-game easily, instancing that insulates me from the social experience that brought me to the genre in the first place, teleporting that demolishes any sense of wonderment or world size, and the utter lack of skilled play that results when there is no meaningful penalty for death. Grouping with players who realize that they can play as carelessly as they want, knowing full well that no consequences await them, and that they'll still hit the final goal, is a miserable, unsatisfying experience. Give me an epic adventure with the real world tension of knowing that a bad play will cost me something dear, and my victories will mean that much more to me and my peers. Take away my challenge, and you take away the value of the experience.
Keep an eye on this game. You might be surprised.