Splitsville for Microsoft and Sigil after "varying visions"

by Vladimir Cole { May 6th 2006 at 12:50AM }

Sigil Games Online, developers of upcoming MMORPG Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, announced today that they'd be co-publishing the game with Sony Online Entertainment after "it became clear that [Microsoft Games Studios] and Sigil had varying visions and direction for the title's development," according to Brad McQuaid, CEO of Sigil Games Online, as quoted in a company press release on the break-up.

It's rare that a game in beta switches publishers. We have no inside information, but a little digging makes it clear that something's not quite right fresh in Denmark. At least one high-profile game designer recently quit, and Sigil's CEO has been defending the game from legions of ~~WoW Fanboys~~ doubters that have been questioning whether it'll ever be commercially viable.

The surest sign that the game may be in choppy waters is the fact that McQuaid's now doing business with SOE after his high-profile departure from the same company in the fall of 2001. According to MMOG-community gossip circulating at the time, this departure was also the result of diverging creative visions between McQuaid and Sony on the evolution of Everquest, the successful MMORPG that McQuaid co-founded and designed.

Smart observers suggest that the culprit behind all of the churn und drama is the tremendous success of World of Warcraft. To wit: how will Vanguard fare against WoW and the other bajillion MMOGs slated for release? For reaction to this announcement from MMORPG insiders, check the FoH forums, where the unruly mob is being characteristically brutal. Even the President of Sony Online Entertainment is trolled into doing some damage control.

Tags: hardcore, mmo, mmog, mmorpg, soe, sony online entertainment, vanguard, world of warcraft, wow

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Brained @ May 6th 2006 1:26AM

I'm willing to bet Sigil refused to dumb it down for 360 compatability a la Halo.

Lonin @ May 6th 2006 2:30AM

The official Vanguard forums have pretty much erupted because of this announcement. There's already over 700 posts in the main thread in just a few hours.

The general consensus seems to be of shock and dismay as most people are jaded concerning SOE. However, through numerous posts by Brad himself and some posts by the more level-headed forum members, a lot of the concerns are being answered.

Sigil now has more control over Vanguard than ever before as they are now co-publishers and developers. The buyout of the IP (Intellectual Property) and funding for the game is now coming from an undisclosed source, not SOE. SOE's only role in this new deal appears to be advertising, servers, and technical support. According to Brad SOE will have no influence on the game whatsoever.

As an avid Vanguard follower for the past 3 years, and a previous player of several SOE titles, I feel this is for the best for everyone. Sigil has now shown that they really meant it when they said they wouldn't allow publishers to effect gameplay or release date.

Some people's pure vitriolic hate for SOE is blowing this out of proportion. What is really a good thing for everyone is being made out to be the death of a game that has yet to live.

The Affable American @ May 6th 2006 4:19AM

Will someone kindly tell Brained that this was a PC game, not for the 360? Never mind, I will.

had2comment @ May 6th 2006 5:54AM

(VC, that pic is just too funny. Very nice.)

One of two scenarios was the genesis for this move.

One, Microsoft saw Vanguard was going to flop and wanted to cut their losses. SOE picked up the bits.

Two, Microsoft wanted Sigil to release Vanguard earlier than Sigil felt comfortable with, unless Vanguard was to be released a-la Anarchy Online. (Frankly, I don't know if even an extra year would be enough time to get Vanguard ready for prime-time from its current beta status, but that's a different story.) In comes SOE, saying Sigil can take their sweet time if they jump ship. The price was right for everyone involved, and then the move happened despite Vanguard being in closed beta.

Personally, I think it was a mixture of the two.

Regardless of which version you choose to believe, I like the spin Sigil is using to justify the move: "[SOE knows] operations and distribution. They will make sure our beta runs the way it needs to, that our game is widely marketed, and that our game is available all over, in all channels." Microsoft is just as capable of doing the same. The comment about running the beta is interesting, though.

However this move reflects on Vanguard's development, Brad and Smed being back in bed together basically means the world is coming to an end. In fact, I think I just saw a pig with wings fly by my window.

timmy @ May 6th 2006 8:43AM

I think it is a GAME.

Feather @ May 6th 2006 8:56AM

Is it the only reason?

Jettoki @ May 6th 2006 9:27AM

There's a lot of speculation surrounding this move, but the reality is that Sigil saw a chance to grab the IP rights for Vanguard and did so. They entered into a co-production deal with SOE, but they maintain all rights to the property, and SOE will have no hand in development. SOE will be marketing the game and providing server support; that's pretty much it. Sigil now has MORE freedom in terms of plotting the overall course of develop.

In short, this is a very, very Good Thing.

hjungle @ May 6th 2006 9:32AM

Vanguard could never compete with WoW. They may both be MMORPGs but they are two different beasts entirely; Vanguard being the slower-paced, more in-depth, and, forgive me, "hardcore" game. It would have a much better chance competing with Everquest 2 which now would be kind of awkward, I guess.

As for the Xbox comments...there were rumors flying around about a 360 port. I would have to agree with post #1 that it would have been very, very rough to trim Vanguard down to a general consumer-friendly level for the 360. Interesting rumor, though.

OMAC @ May 6th 2006 10:37AM

Would someone tell The Affable American that Halo was originally developed for the PC not the XBox? Nevermind I will :)

Affable you are probably to young or new to the gaming scene, but Halo was originally developed for the PC. Then Microsoft bought Bungee studios and retooled it for the XBox. Braineds comments are probably dead on right.

As far as SOEs involvement, it really is good for everyone involved if people can get past their hatred of Sony. If SOE includes Vanguard in the All Access pass then this will be a hit, assuming the game lives up to the hype. This will give current AA Subscribers even more incentive to play Vanguard with no additional monthly fees (except the $2.00 SOE just tacked on to the AA Pass).

For $24.99/month you get Planetside, SWG, EQ1, EQ2, Matrix Online. If you haven't played Planetside, it really is worth a shot. If you think BF2 is cool with 64 players (32/32), wait until you try Planetside with hundreds of players.

shiftymennonite @ May 6th 2006 11:44AM

Someone tell OMAC that Halo was originally developed for the Mac, not for the PC? Never mind, I just did.

OMAC @ May 6th 2006 12:29PM

I can give credit where credit is due, but my point still stands - that the finished product can be something much different than what was originally envisioned. In this particular case, it's a good bet MS was considering a port of Vanguard to the 360, which would have dumbed the game down.

As far as Halo and Mac goes, it probably would have been a better game on the Mac or PC if the XBox and MS never entered the picture. I followed the early rumors of Halo before MS acquired Bungee because Halo sounded like it was going to be a lot like Tribes in its gameplay. Not once do I recall anyone ever associating Halo with Macintosh. Since I was a PC user I would have immediatly lost interest in it, just like I did when the XBox announcment was made.

MosquitoControl @ May 6th 2006 4:37PM

Microsoft would not dump a game this far into development if they thought they could recoup the investment.

Here's a quote from John Smedley, apparently the President of SOE:

"I would only point out that Microsoft is about to get locked into a severely protracted battle with my compadres that make the PlayStation 3... and even though they are Microsoft, they have budgets. If the right deal comes along and they can get a return on a smart investment... well everything has a price..
Which is BS. For one, Sony has a much more limited budget. For another, if Microsoft is about to be "locked p in a very protracted battle" they're want to have sources of income coming in during that battle. Rather than have $1,000 now they'd prefer $100 a month for the next 3 years (very fudged numbers, obviously.) "

If they thought there'd be any form of profit from this they'd hold onto it.

James @ May 6th 2006 5:03PM

Where can we find that unedited picture Vlad?

Jason @ May 6th 2006 5:26PM

This is a good move by Microsoft. I've seen Vanguard three times so far, a full guided tour each time, and it's the most needlessly complex piece of way-too-hardcore rubbish ever to grace the MMO scene.

We're talking "sixteen steps that require user interaction to produce an IRON INGOT in crafting" kind of retarded. It's as if everything about the game is striving to have more rules, more steps, more interface, more classes and races and lands and...

I still haven't seen a single thing in Vanguard, not one, where I said "well that looks FUN." It looks like the opposite of fun. I realize there's a market for the hardcore complex, everything requires lots of pieces and parts, no fast-travel MMO. But it's small. WAY small.

And it doesn't help that, for all the technology they can tell you about, the game looks about two or three years old already. It's just not nearly as attractive as other top-tier MMOs coming out around the same time.

It has nothing to do with Sigil dumbing the game down for the 360. They need to "dumb down" the game for the PC! And that's saying something.

Shagi @ May 6th 2006 5:55PM

Everytime something about an MMORPG comes up people come out in droves to talk about whats wrong with the game. I haven't played any Vanguard yet but im optomistic about it, beacuse I don't like any of the current MMORPGs...Everquest I is still the best. I really dont think modern MMORPGS have gotten any better in any way. Its just the opposite more and more crap keeps comming out and the essense of what makes a good MMORPG is lost.

Im optomistic about a game that is deemed "too complex" maybe I'll play it for longer than 3 weeks before getting bored.

Anyways I like to repost this great article everytime the subject of MMORPG design comes up. Check it out:

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20041103/bartle_pfv.htm

had2comment @ May 6th 2006 8:58PM

Here you go James:

http://www.marshu.com/images-website/funny/computer-switch-board-man-one-switch-woman-many-switches.jpg

If you meant unedited as in even removing the Man and Woman text, I don't know where that one is. Another take on the image linked above is:

http://blog.teledyn.com/mt/archives/men-women.jpg

Merus @ May 7th 2006 1:09AM

I really dont think modern MMORPGS have gotten any better in any way.

I'd agree with that, but for different reasons - the base design of MMOGs isn't very good, and no-one's sat down and come up with a better one that actually fulfills the aims it sets out to achieve - lots of people all playing together. (Well, okay, some indies have pulled it off, but apparantly they don't count.)

You know you've failed when you have to get rid of the massively-multiplayer in order to make the game work (instances).