SOE Takes Over Vanguard: WarCry's Interview

The news hit like a train today. SOE bought Vanguard and Sigil. The move meant that just under half of Sigil Online Games employees are without work, the other half have been offered jobs by SOE. Those that stay will continue development of Vanguard in what is now SOE's Carlsbad office. We spoke to Courtney Simmons, SOE's Director of Corporate Communications and PR, about the deal and found out what happens to Jeff Butler, a new MMO prototype he's working on and where SOE sees Vanguard in their portfolio.

Vanguard: Saga of Heroes is now wholly owned and operated by Sony Online Entertainment. Reports surfaced yesterday that most of Sigil's staff had been let go and today, SOE confirmed that SOE CEO John Smedley had traveled down to Carlsbad to offer over half of the original team jobs at what has become SOE's new Carlsbad office.

"He absolutely is going to continue the Vanguard vision," SOE Director of Corporate Communications and PR Courtney Simmons told WarCry in a telephone interview just after the announcement hit the wires.

This new Carlsbad office is led by Director of Development Dave Gilbertson, formerly a Sigil VP and Producer of Vanguard. Former head Brad McQuaid was retained in an undefined advisory role, while Jeff Butler - the other titan of the Sigil team - is moving to SOE's San Diego office to prototype a potential new MMO project.

Butler will lead a team of five developers on this unidentified MMO prototype. However, Simmons was careful to point out that this project is by no means in full scale production. It is anyone's guess what it is or whether it ever sees the light of day. At best, it is years away from public eyes.

Today's developments mark the second time that SOE has come in when Vanguard: Saga of Heroes was in trouble. On May 5th of last year, SOE picked up the publishing tab after Sigil and former publisher Microsoft split. This relationship ultimately brought the game to market in January. Despite the reviews, SOE claims to be quite happy with the game and their latest investment into it.

"SOE believes in Vanguard," explained Simmons. She told us how it is a beautiful world and its performance to date is better than many give it credit for.

She re-iterated that the game has sold nearly 200,000 units worldwide and without going into specifics, characterized the company as pleased with the conversion rates, which is the percentage of players who continue to subscribe after the initial thirty free days that come with a box purchase.

"People who purchased Vanguard knew what they were purchasing," she told us. There is no doubt that Vanguard is a hardcore game, for hardcore MMO fans and SOE is very much committed to that vision. They have no plans to dumb it down for a mass audience, a luxury they can afford thanks to their diverse Sony Station Pass that allows players access to a library of MMOs for a single fee.

Their press release takes great care to emphasize that SOE has retained the former Sigil office in Carlsbad, but during his interview with GameSpot, CEO John Smedley indicated that they might eventually be fully absorbed into the San Diego office 40 miles down the road. Simmons confirmed that for this time, they've decided to maintain the status quo and underlined simple logistical reasons, such as their lease and a lack of space in San Diego. The decision also provides Vanguard with a measure of stability in a rough period.

"They're going to stay there and do their thing," she stated.

Throughout the interview, Simmons referenced John Smedley, the sometimes controversial CEO of SOE, and his vision for the product. While Gilbertson leads the studio and reports up the food chain through San Diego studio head Nick Beliaeff, it was clear that Smedley will continue to be very involved.

The uncertainty around the future direction and health of Vanguard, for good or ill, is now gone. Its future is assured as part of the SOE library, and as they take control of the product, SOE is publicly committed to the vision that got the game to market.

Permalink

I think SOE is the kiss of death! Dont get me wrong, Vanguard has had the wrong vision from the start IMHO, the market has changed, and people dont want to Raid hardcore for 13 hours a day like they did in EQ. So that cant be blamed on SOE, but they sure wont make the game any better. How many great titles have they ruined? Well, Im sure Vanguard will limp on now, but any chance of serious game improvements I believe is now long gone.

What can SOE possibly do to the game that could hurt it at it's current state?

Well thats true. I mean Brad is to blame for everything that is wrong with the game. Im just saying SOE cant make it any better. Can anyone tell me the name of a good MMO from SOE? If you cant keep people playing Star Wars, you really should just quit and find something else to do.

Well, honestly, there is no raiding in Vanguard right now, and it wasn't designed to be a hardcore, 13-hour-a-day raid fest. Actually, Vanguard was targeted towards people with jobs. The problem was the game was marketed terribly and that whole intent was unknown to most people, so it has this reputation of being a very hardcore game, when it really isn't. Granted, it is much harder than most games though, and its challenge is a bit inflated, because groups are so difficult to find, resulting in a lot of soloing, which can move slower. Server merges would rock...

As is, I don't have anything really against SOE, so I'll remain optimistic and see what they do. Hopefully they live up to what they've been saying, and keep the game going along the same line it has been, and hopefully they actually market the lousy thing. They definitely drove SWG into the ground, which they actually admit to being their mistake, and hopefully that won't be the case here. Only time will tell.

I know that SOE gets a bad wrap, but besides SWG and to some extent PlanetSide what have they messed up?

I think that it's disingenuous to blame Brad for everything. Sure, he's to blame, and I'm not making excuses for him. But is he *solely* to blame, especially if, as rumors would have you believe, he hasn't really been in the office most of the time? What's my point? Unless they get some new management and new direction, how is it going to get better? If the person in charge has been running day to day operations for the past 8 months, what part of the status quo has changed? I really did, and *do* like Vanguard. But I've moved on now to LOTRO. I still have my station account, and will check it out later, as I play many of the games casually, and EQ2 pretty regularly. Time will tell, I suppose. And as far as games that they have messed up, I think it's pretty overstated, and that SOE has been demonized much like microsoft. They do a lot right, and though they have handled things wrong in cases, they tend to take responsibility for it. Though it would be better to handle it right in the first place, the fact that they take that responsibility, and haven't cut and run on quite a few games that most other companies would have given up on (MxO, PlanetSide, SWG) says something IMO.

Tiderius:
I know that SOE gets a bad wrap, but besides SWG and to some extent PlanetSide what have they messed up?

EQ2!

Basically every game they have ever made.

mattlow:

Tiderius:
I know that SOE gets a bad wrap, but besides SWG and to some extent PlanetSide what have they messed up?

EQ2!

Basically every game they have ever made.

Have you actually played EQ2 in the past year and a half? Its very, very good and if you haven't I don't think you have a leg to stand on concerning your opinion.

Also, every game they have ever made? I think EverQuest post-Verant and 989 has some words to share with you.

But hey, lets not let facts get in the way of your opinion.

Well, if we are talking about crappy games, its all a matter of opinion. I can think a game totally sucks, and you think that it rocks. There are no facts to support either side on the opinions of if a game is any good. Other than subscriber numbers. I dont blame them for the games they bought and are crappy, I blame them for the games they made and are crappy, and I have no faith in them taking a crappy game and making it good. I havent tried EQ2 in a long while now, it could be better now, doesnt change that fact that SOE screwed the pooch on it. They have the money to make sure a big title like that isnt crap on release. EverQuest was good for its time, but Sony didnt make that game, Brad with Verant did. Yes SOE published it, and John had alot to do with it, but look at SOE track record! I believe Brad failed with Vanguard because he failed to see how the MMO market, and the MMO player has changed since then. SOE has a bad rap, yes. You usually dont get one of those unless you do somethings really... umm bad.

"SOE is the MMO land of the damned, where mediocre and dishonored games go to languish in eternity"

Making a game that sucks at launch is damaging to the game. Why would people want to go back 3 expansions later if the initial experience was horrible. More so, why would people be willing to sink an additional $50 into a game if the initial experience was horrible. I have played EQ2 in the last year and I did not find it fun. I have heard that in the last 6 months they have made tons of changes to help that, but in reality I am a bit nervous about trying it again. As for SOEs track record:

EQ - Good game for its time
EQ2 - Failure compared to EQ1 for sure, but maybe has turned around
MXO - Need I say more
SWG - They have killed this game over and over and over again. Everytime people get to enjoying it they kill it
Vanguard - LOL
Planetside - I have heard many say this was a failure, but to be honest I never played it.

Even the titles they published for other game companies such as AC and AC2, they screwed up on. They didn't do 1/2 the marketing they should have and sure has heck didn't have much product on store shelves.

My opinion is very much fact oriented.

Delmar Wynn:
Making a game that sucks at launch is damaging to the game. Why would people want to go back 3 expansions later if the initial experience was horrible. More so, why would people be willing to sink an additional $50 into a game if the initial experience was horrible. I have played EQ2 in the last year and I did not find it fun. I have heard that in the last 6 months they have made tons of changes to help that, but in reality I am a bit nervous about trying it again. As for SOEs track record:

EQ - Good game for its time
EQ2 - Failure compared to EQ1 for sure, but maybe has turned around
MXO - Need I say more
SWG - They have killed this game over and over and over again. Everytime people get to enjoying it they kill it
Vanguard - LOL
Planetside - I have heard many say this was a failure, but to be honest I never played it.

Even the titles they published for other game companies such as AC and AC2, they screwed up on. They didn't do 1/2 the marketing they should have and sure has heck didn't have much product on store shelves.

My opinion is very much fact oriented.

Amen! Sing it brother! <waves arms in the air>

Umm, just to add. I did play Planetside. It was good at launch, and had good potential, SOE showed with that game how to screw up something good over time.

Arrakiv:
Well, honestly, there is no raiding in Vanguard right now, and it wasn't designed to be a hardcore, 13-hour-a-day raid fest. Actually, Vanguard was targeted towards people with jobs. The problem was the game was marketed terribly and that whole intent was unknown to most people, so it has this reputation of being a very hardcore game, when it really isn't. Granted, it is much harder than most games though, and its challenge is a bit inflated, because groups are so difficult to find, resulting in a lot of soloing, which can move slower. Server merges would rock...

As is, I don't have anything really against SOE, so I'll remain optimistic and see what they do. Hopefully they live up to what they've been saying, and keep the game going along the same line it has been, and hopefully they actually market the lousy thing. They definitely drove SWG into the ground, which they actually admit to being their mistake, and hopefully that won't be the case here. Only time will tell.

It's not hardcore like EQ raiding hardcore. But it's pretty complicated and you have to put a lot of time into understanding how the character builds work. That makes it more hardcore.

But yeah, SOE does seem to not market their titles well. At least some of them.

There is no doubt that Vanguard is a hardcore game, for hardcore MMO fans and SOE is very much committed to that vision.

Do they realy belive in that?

Delmar Wynn:

Even the titles they published for other game companies such as AC and AC2, they screwed up on. They didn't do 1/2 the marketing they should have and sure has heck didn't have much product on store shelves.

My opinion is very much fact oriented.

A small correction, but Microsoft originally published Asheron's call 2, and it was a failure before SOE got its hands on it.

Also, EQ2 turned a profit, therefore it was successful for Sony.

Vanguard is clearly in better hands from a marketing perspective, since the original management seems to have dropped the ball. There is nowhere to go but up...

Well I guess when you are at the bottom thats true. EQ2 turning a profit does not equal a success. When you release a game that has a name like EQ and you forecast a huge profit, and then the crap you release turns a small profit instead. I would call that a failure.

mattlow:
Well I guess when you are at the bottom thats true. EQ2 turning a profit does not equal a success. When you release a game that has a name like EQ and you forecast a huge profit, and then the crap you release turns a small profit instead. I would call that a failure.

While your opinions, are just that, here are mine. You can't really call a game a failure if it brings in a small profit... It's a profit. Whatever you want to think, is your right, but the reality of the situation is, many of SOE games are a success because they turn profit. These are MMOs we are talking about, these are not single player games. The life span of an MMO is a LONG time (Hell, UO is still going with a strong playerbase). Eventually, the game will get in the green. Just because a game does not boast a player base of a million plus does not mean it is not a success, nor does the fact it comes out with a rough start. Both EverQuest and EverQuest 2 still have players in the 200k range and people are having a blast playing them. In fact, it seems like EQ2 is starting to bring back a lot of players due to the new content they are pushing out, some for free and some through expansions.

Vanguard. Again, just because a game has a rough start, doesn't really matter in terms of long-term success. You never know if SOE will turn it back on its feet and bring the player base to 200k. Granted, Vanguard is probably going to be known for the worst out-of-the-gate MMO, it has huge potential. It just needs real leaders.

Case in point: If a MMO has players playing it, and enjoying it (not to mention, PAYING to play it), it is not a failure.

I hate to jump into what's turning into an SOE flamefest, but here goes ...

So far, I think Ethanael is the only one making sense here. No publisher is going to keep a game going if it's not profitable. That just wouldn't make sense.

As for SWG, well ... I may actually be the most qualified person in here to make ANY comments. After the time I've invested, I should have a pretty good leg to stand on.

Sure, mistakes were made ... they've been acknowledged numerous times from all levels of the organization. There's no need to constantly bring them up. The current team had nothing to do with those dark times and are working to rebuild the player confidence that was lost.

Any time spent on the official forums will show the level of commitment the current team is operating under and raise the question, "Who would beat a dead horse this hard?" The answer's simple - no one. It's not profitable.

SWG is not dead ...not by a long shot. Ailing, perhaps, but not dead. I see new players and returning players all the time, and while some former players felt so betrayed they may never return, I'd have to urge them to think about it. It's improved with every update over the last year.

SWG ranks eighth on Xfire's list of top 10 MMOs (in average hours played per day) just behind Lineage II. Not bad for a "dead" game, or one that's creeping up on its fourth year on the market.

You can call me a homer if you want, or a fanboi, but believe me ... I wouldn't have stuck with it as long as I have if I didn't see something good. With some better marketing, maybe other people would see that as well.

As for Vanguard, well ... I don't really know that much about it, but from what I've read during this most recent newstorm, this game was mismanaged from the start. Perhaps the change in ownership (which, if my reading comprehension is still up to par, is the actual topic at hand) will have a positive effect.

Who didnt see it coming? It happened before with Everquest! *not surprised*

After a lot of the fixes and initial bugginess... I found vanguard very exciting... until the last level when I sat and scratched my head and said what now? Sure there were guild halls to be built and we did that. Then there was the exitement of raid content... My guild who had been gearing up with all the right equipment, only to have it changed just before the raid content came out were all exited until the day of release... and we lagged so bad that we couldn't even keep in the game. One by one , then two by two , and then a mass exodus left our guild, and its alliance guild without numbers. I did come back after briefly to find that nothing had gotten any better and there was still nothing to do bar create a new toon. The game is dead to me. /mourn.