Why all the nerd rage against Vanguard
- Thread starter Shonuff
- Start date
Only noobs use forks, pros use the spork. All the versatilty of a spoon with the precision of a fork. And you should probably stick to grinding out levels on mashed potatoes if you can"t even keep your broccoli on the plate.
Vanguard fell well below its projected sub numbers. It failed. It now need to recover from that, and THEN hit 500k by the end of the year according to Brad himself to be considered successful. I don"t think the rest is too hard to figure out. 350k subs in 10 months, with serious contenders in its immediate and extended path will compound that struggle EXPONENTIALLY.Schatze said:
But hey, you keep holding on man. If Vanguard does manage to realise those numbers, great. As I said, I wish them luck, they"re going to need it.
Bah, you all suck. I remember when you used to have to eat a whole leg of roast horse with your bare hands. None of these fucking utensils faggoting up the eating experience. And we drank mead, lots of it!
Finally a non drug induced commentary. As a generalization you might be right. A game generating 150-200k could be profitable, DEPENDING upon its cost. But who is putting the spin now? You know darn well he didnt sell this project to MS with those numbers, because otherwise they never would have spent 30-40 million dollars (his numbers from this thread, albeit he was purposefully non-specific). They were absolutely looking for higher numbers, and when WOW hit the market you know darn well MS took notice.Schatze said:
Sorry charley, if the game cost 5 million I"d say it was a whopping success, but not at 30-40 million.
Rayne:
The question based on this is what time frames are we talking about, as the number of subscriptions would be expressed as T(tau) (e.g. a given number of subscriptions active at any one time over a given time period, and not total subscriptions sold or not cherry picking a specific narrow time period to look at said number of subscriptions).
To be successful, brad states 200k-300k. The question then becomes, over what time frame? He does not give one, so assuming a specific time frame is prone to error. Is it by day 0 he expects to have 200-300k subs active? By day 1? week 1? Month 1? Month 3, 4, 6? Or is it by year 1 (e.g. 200-300k to be a "success" by year 1, 500k his "wish" that would mean vanguard was "very successful" by year one. But, although we don"t have any metric to actually look at whether this is a success/failure given the previous explanation
The only specific time period he gives is for 1 year to be 500k. He explicitly states that this is a "wish" that would "make vanguard very successful". But this is not a projection, as the use of "wish" indicates.
But while there is no timeframe given for "success", the implicit statement is that the 200-300k number would have to be reached by U date, be maintained for V days, etc. etc. etc. When is this date? 1 day after he said it? 10? a month? 3? I don"t know. But then, neither do you, and the onus is on you.
Maxxius: sunk costs are defined as costs already spent, to date, on a product. These are fixed, unchangeable. Because this money is almost certain to have been venture capital, e.g. investment in a company for the development of a future product that the investors think may end up turning a profit over a (individually determined time frame).
Sunk costs not only apply to the creation of a given product, but the amount spent creating the capacity to develop said product or future product(s) that will end up yielding the chance for a pay off at some date in the future.
Using the strictest definition of success, would be that a product over it"s life time yields returns greater than those spent in the production and upkeep of all processes related to said subject. Of course, people do not provide VC to make their money back. They expect returns. But over what time frame, and what amount, depends on the individual investor and the type of investment they enter into.
Given the type of product VG is producing, it"s literally impossible and completely disingenuous to make claims at this pointbased on the amount of venture capital inputted.
edit: addressed to one liner faggot above, sorry that I"m arguing with 4 individuals at any given time. I know many individuals on this board are the huked on phonix types who cannot distinguish meaning or target of addresss based on context. It"s sadly unfortunate, I don"t blame you for your difficulties. But if you can"t understand something, perhaps you should refrain from commenting on it sweetcheeks.
What I find funny is the same individuals who can"t determine meaning and target of address based on context, are the same ones who have been slurping off Utnayan for several dozen pages. Then, when I call them on slurping off and lending credence to Utnayan, of giving his anonymous claims credibility, those same individuals then turn around and reply, "you"re as crazy as utnayan!"
For the sake of consistency, doesn"t that mean you should parrot anything I say regardless of how specious it is? Oh wait, sorry, because I do not agree with the agenda of most of the posters in this thread, and because I"m not making specious, uncheckable claims, I"m not fashionable :/ Woe.
Projected sales would be "We expect this number of boxes to be sold, y number of subscriptions by z date."
The question based on this is what time frames are we talking about, as the number of subscriptions would be expressed as T(tau) (e.g. a given number of subscriptions active at any one time over a given time period, and not total subscriptions sold or not cherry picking a specific narrow time period to look at said number of subscriptions).
To be successful, brad states 200k-300k. The question then becomes, over what time frame? He does not give one, so assuming a specific time frame is prone to error. Is it by day 0 he expects to have 200-300k subs active? By day 1? week 1? Month 1? Month 3, 4, 6? Or is it by year 1 (e.g. 200-300k to be a "success" by year 1, 500k his "wish" that would mean vanguard was "very successful" by year one. But, although we don"t have any metric to actually look at whether this is a success/failure given the previous explanation
The only specific time period he gives is for 1 year to be 500k. He explicitly states that this is a "wish" that would "make vanguard very successful". But this is not a projection, as the use of "wish" indicates.
But while there is no timeframe given for "success", the implicit statement is that the 200-300k number would have to be reached by U date, be maintained for V days, etc. etc. etc. When is this date? 1 day after he said it? 10? a month? 3? I don"t know. But then, neither do you, and the onus is on you.
Maxxius: sunk costs are defined as costs already spent, to date, on a product. These are fixed, unchangeable. Because this money is almost certain to have been venture capital, e.g. investment in a company for the development of a future product that the investors think may end up turning a profit over a (individually determined time frame).
Sunk costs not only apply to the creation of a given product, but the amount spent creating the capacity to develop said product or future product(s) that will end up yielding the chance for a pay off at some date in the future.
Using the strictest definition of success, would be that a product over it"s life time yields returns greater than those spent in the production and upkeep of all processes related to said subject. Of course, people do not provide VC to make their money back. They expect returns. But over what time frame, and what amount, depends on the individual investor and the type of investment they enter into.
Given the type of product VG is producing, it"s literally impossible and completely disingenuous to make claims at this pointbased on the amount of venture capital inputted.
edit: addressed to one liner faggot above, sorry that I"m arguing with 4 individuals at any given time. I know many individuals on this board are the huked on phonix types who cannot distinguish meaning or target of addresss based on context. It"s sadly unfortunate, I don"t blame you for your difficulties. But if you can"t understand something, perhaps you should refrain from commenting on it sweetcheeks.
What I find funny is the same individuals who can"t determine meaning and target of address based on context, are the same ones who have been slurping off Utnayan for several dozen pages. Then, when I call them on slurping off and lending credence to Utnayan, of giving his anonymous claims credibility, those same individuals then turn around and reply, "you"re as crazy as utnayan!"
For the sake of consistency, doesn"t that mean you should parrot anything I say regardless of how specious it is? Oh wait, sorry, because I do not agree with the agenda of most of the posters in this thread, and because I"m not making specious, uncheckable claims, I"m not fashionable :/ Woe.
Jesus fucking christ shut the fuck up already Schatze about the fucking sub numbers. Who the fuck cares anymore.
The game sucks. It"s fallen under the projected numbers. Or at best "just good enough". The game isn"t a hit, it isn"t a smashing success. The only people enjoying the game are enjoying it through their EQ-Goggles and a hazy memory of what was.
Just shut the fuck up.
The game sucks. It"s fallen under the projected numbers. Or at best "just good enough". The game isn"t a hit, it isn"t a smashing success. The only people enjoying the game are enjoying it through their EQ-Goggles and a hazy memory of what was.
Just shut the fuck up.
Draegen: People do care, as they were the ones making the argument for failure based on sub claims. Look, you"re doing it in the second damned paragraph of your post!
Moreover, they"re basing their argument on Brad"s claims of success (or, hilariously, Utnayan"s claims meshed with Brad"s claims), failure, profit, loss, and interpolating all sorts of information that is contradictory to said claims (and thus undermining the predicates of their argument). In essence, their argument is:
1.) a = b, c = d
2.) a = c != b, d = b != a, etc.
But I doubt there are enough people who"ve taken philosophy to understand why those arguments are so humorously flawed and self-contradictory. Maybe some of the guys who"ve taken logic as a part of computer science will understand when the structure of the argument is expressed in a mathematical fashion.
Moreover, they"re basing their argument on Brad"s claims of success (or, hilariously, Utnayan"s claims meshed with Brad"s claims), failure, profit, loss, and interpolating all sorts of information that is contradictory to said claims (and thus undermining the predicates of their argument). In essence, their argument is:
1.) a = b, c = d
2.) a = c != b, d = b != a, etc.
But I doubt there are enough people who"ve taken philosophy to understand why those arguments are so humorously flawed and self-contradictory. Maybe some of the guys who"ve taken logic as a part of computer science will understand when the structure of the argument is expressed in a mathematical fashion.
This thread is rapidly becoming "the greatest story ever told"
Brad as Jesus
Utnaya as Judah
The Hiram Key as Pontius Pilot
Tad10 as Job
MS as Rome
And many more in this epic cast
Brad as Jesus
Utnaya as Judah
The Hiram Key as Pontius Pilot
Tad10 as Job
MS as Rome
And many more in this epic cast
If you can"t deduce that it clearly meant 200-300k AT LAUNCH, with 500k at the end of year 1, there really is no hope of you ever understanding. Personally, I think its probably just time for your next treatment.Schatze said:
No, actually, it didn"t, that"s you interpolating a whole bunch of shit into brad"s statements so that you can draw the conclusions you"ve already decided upon ahead of time. You"re basically stating that brad said, "VG was unsuccessful." which would suit your motives fine, but is given the lie by the follow up statements "to be successful VG will have to get 200-300k subscribers. My wish is for 500k by 1 year".
What"s funny is I"m not even arguing vg is successful. Just pointing out the idiocy of the statements made.
Or would you care to point out a flaw in the reasoning, unknown factors, pointing out your assumption of hidden variables, etc. But I don"t expect that to happen.
What"s funny is I"m not even arguing vg is successful. Just pointing out the idiocy of the statements made.
Or would you care to point out a flaw in the reasoning, unknown factors, pointing out your assumption of hidden variables, etc. But I don"t expect that to happen.