FFXIV is an excellent answer. Elder Scrolls Online is another. Age of Conan survived a terrible launch though I don't know that it ever really prospered.
That said I agree that the launch is critical and it darn well needs to be good. You need to have the content for at least months of leveling and exploration. It needs to be relatively stable and free of major bugs. The game mechanics need to be finished and attractive to players. The initial zones need to be finished and to draw players into the world. The look of the world needs to be good - not necessarily bleeding edge graphics but not ...oh to pick a date at random ...1999 graphics. As is so often said - you only get one chance to make a good first impression.
But it need not be complete to the so-called endgame. If three continents are planned you can start with two if the third is intended for high level or races that are intended for much later. If level-cap raids are planned they need not exist yet or for many months. Vanguard didn't have a terrible launch because of the missing landmass. It had a terrible launch because what was rolled out was not viewed as good enough. Because it was viewed as an alpha or maybe beta release not a fully playable game even within the initial territories.
The assertion that games can't recover from bad launches is a myth. I participated in the launch of Anarchy Online. Servers were so unstable during the first week that we couldn't go more than 5 minutes without a crash or a freeze, and even once those were addressed, the bugs continued for months after that. It ultimately drove me away from the game after just a couple of months. But the game went on to be successful for years and years after that. Plenty of other examples have been noted.
What does it take to recover from a bad launch? Three things: First, a development team that's committed to fixing whatever's wrong. Second, a publisher (or studio) that's willing to devote the financial resources needed to address problems. Third, a marketing campaign to try to bring players back as things improve.
Some companies have the will to do that, some don't. If Vanguard had been able to wait longer before it launched, and had been more stable and more complete, we would probably all be playing it today. As it was, many of us still played it for years and years hoping that Sony would do something with the potential it had. As players, most of us are pretty good at seeing the potential of the MMOs we play, although there will always be some who bounce off the games because they're just not invested in them, or some issue they run into triggers them, or whatever.
All that said - obviously having a good launch is a much better way to go for everyone involved.
For Pantheon, what I hope to see is the three continents mostly complete, with a big world and plenty of zones to go explore with our groups. Raid content can come later, if necessary, although I feel like some mid-level and high-level raids should be in the game at launch if only to help the dev team learn how their players will handle things, so that they can design even better raids in the future. I'm ok with Bard and Necromancer being added after launch, although I'd love to see them at launch if it was possible. Likewise, I'm ok if some zones are added in after launch as long as it's relatively quickly, and we're not waiting a year for the Tower of the Reckless Magician to open (as an example).
The key for me though is that what's there at launch needs to feel big enough and complete enough to keep my interest. If the world feels too small, I may not make it long enough for more to be added. So with that in mind, if VR needs another 6 months or so of pure content development once we get into beta in order to provide that... then that's what they should do. I'd rather wait and get the whole game, than spoil myself on a partial experience.
Rhelic said:Hello all. I am just curious what the community as a whole thinks about a game realease ahead of schedule vs 100% ( or so) ready for launch. Personally i think as long as the game is playable and classes at least somewhat balance and enough content to get me to max level (with raids) i can wait for updates and perfections. I know this came at a disadvantage for Vanguard but this is an entirely different situation, as it stands(as the supporter backed out). my question is, what is the acceptable tolerance for "fans/players" to allow to be able to launch a game, and be willing to stick with it. granted i have no idea how far they are or how much needs to be fixed. this is just my personal feelings on what you as a community think is acceptable.
PS I understand this (in my knowledge) is the first game i have been involved in that has had this much exposure during development and as such im chomping at the bit to play, so take this please as a general question and not an argument. i am honestly just trying to get a feel for the community.
Bless Online took my money and ran
FALLOUT 76
early release and still broken nuff said.
NO Thanks.