View Single Post

Default 

March 17th, 2007, 02:01
You've simplified my point to "can't". I'm saying there is a bigger chance of QA issues with smaller, niche titles and comparing the QA level of this market to consoles is an exercise in futility. Those who demand console level QA had best move on, because they will be continually disappointed.

@ISS, Vanguard is an interesting title to look at. Broadly, it's not as simple as forcing your publisher to do certain things or just look for another publisher - contracts are signed and (usually) they are paying the bills. How are you going to pay all your developers while you look for a new publisher? What if you can't find one?

I don't know if Moriendor is right about SOE's responsibilities with Vanguard because I don't follow it too closely but here's what I think: Microsoft dumped Vanguard because they knew it was a dog. SOE picked them up because they need to boost their portfolio and Microsoft had already done the hard yards but everyone knew Vanguard was a waste of space commercially, so they were never going to spend a lot of money on it. In other words, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Sigil made a "hardcore" MMO with limited appeal, so the investment from publishers needs to be limited. There's no other publisher to take it because they know it's a relative failure and noone else wants it. SOE would be stupid to spend large amounts of money on it.

So, the question is: should Vanguard have died when MS dumped it or is it better to have it, buggy as it is? I don't know, because I don't play it.

I may have Vanguard wrong, because as I said, I don't follow it. But the principle is the same. I know consumers don't care what the reason is and they just want a quality product, but they often don't have a clue and it isn't always so simple. Perhaps it should be, but it isn't.

-= RPGWatch =-
Dhruin is offline

Dhruin

Dhruin's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch
Super Moderator
RPGWatch Team

#100

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 11,968