Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/...-age-of-conan/

http://forums.ageofconan.com/showthread.php?t=163531

Mythic VP and lead “Warhammer Online” designer Mark Jacobs told me some of the things needed to make a successful MMO. But he also said if you’re looking to make an online game nowadays, the odds are against you.

“If you look at the numbers, MMOs have the highest failure rates of any entertainment product,” Jacobs said. Going all the way back 11 years to the release of “Ultima Online,” the first MMO to reach 100,000 subscribers, he said that there have only a been handful of successful MMOs compared to the number of them being developed.

I mentioned how the measure of success nowadays might be if your game still exists in a year. “It does seem that way,” he said, “and it is just tremendously sad when you look at the amount of money and effort that goes into MMOs.”

In our recent conversation about the state of online games, we also touched on why last year’s “Hellgate: London” went under, and what the troubled “Age of Conan” can do to prevent the same fate.

First, we discussed “Hellgate: London,” the online action-RPG was made by Jacobs’ long-time friend Bill Roper. Though Roper had experience as VP of Blizzard North working on the “Diablo” series, his company Flagship Studios recently closed its doors following the release of “Hellgate,” its first title, last October. So what went wrong?

“I know for a fact that sometimes just having talent is not enough,” Jacobs said after a long sigh. “You need leadership and you need patience. And what’s most important — something that so many developers forget — is you also need to deflate the ego a little bit. You really have to remember that as good as you were then — ‘Diablo’ was a great game — you’re not always going to be right… I think for ‘Hellgate,’ that was part of the problem.”

He also said that no matter how great you think your game is, developers must listen to the community. “It doesn’t mean you have to follow what they say, but you always have to listen,” he said. “The test of greatness is to know how to look at it and either incorporate it or learn from it. We might listen to the wrong advice, but we always listen. That’s how I think all developers have to be because nobody is that smart and nobody is right all the time.”

On the topic of the listening to the community, I wondered what Jacobs thought about Funcom’s May-released MMO “Age of Conan” and the trouble the company has had in terms of delivering promises to its fanbase. Blizzard president Mike Morhaime recently said that 40 percent of “WoW” players who left for “Conan” have since returned.

“If I was a ‘WoW’ subscriber, and I played another game hoping it would be great and it wasn’t, of course I would come back,” he said. “I’m not saying ‘Conan’ sucks but obviously the people who left it thought it sucked, otherwise they wouldn’t have left it. And the same thing may happen to us… ‘Conan’ had great sales initially, but then [Funcom] failed to follow up with continued great sales. If you’re not selling boxes anymore, if players aren’t talking about how good your game is, then obviously people are not happy with it.”

With Jacobs having played the game and having read fan postings on both the “Warhammer” and “Age of Conan” forums, he thought that Funcom should have delayed the game. "I think that the greatest mistake that they made was not listening and not learning from what had gone before,” Jacobs said, referring to the launch issues of Funcom’s “Anarchy Online” in 2001. “When they looked at ['Age of Conan'] when they were ready to launch, I can’t imagine how they didn’t see the issues that other people saw. According to their annual reports, they had plenty of money. They should’ve looked at it and said, ‘We need to delay this game.’ There are probably reasons I’m not aware of… but I think that’s their biggest sin.”

Jacobs said not all was lost for “Conan,” but with “Warhammer” and another “WoW” expansion on the way, they’ve now lost their head start. “If they’re willing to spend the time and the money to fix the things that — according to the players — are broken, and put in the things that players say they didn’t put in, they can turn it around,” he said. “But now they’re going to have to leapfrog over us and then leapfrog over Blizzard in order to bring back a ton of players — that’s going to be tough. They won’t be what they could’ve been.

Though “Age of Conan” is competition, Jacobs told me he actually wanted the game to do well. “At some level I wanted ‘Conan’ to succeed because for the last few years people have been saying it’s all Blizzard and nobody else can do it,” he said. “‘Only Blizzard can get those kind of numbers,’ and so far they’ve been right. But now it’s our turn.”

He added, “If we don’t succeed with EA behind us, the ‘Warhammer’ IP behind us, with one of the most experienced teams in the industry, that’s not going to be good for the industry. We need to show the world that it’s not just Blizzard who can make a great game, and that the audience is absolutely willing to try new things and to play a game other than ‘WoW.’”

 

If that wasn't the truth.....

 

Great way of seeing it. He doesnt make you believe in anything, that is great. He just told the truth. Also just shows why AoC flopped. No communication, no one listening to the player base.

Originally posted by Hydrakana

Most pc gamers don't want games to be like console games because they are too short, simple and lacking depth.  I remember the days when 40 hour length games were considered average...now they are considered long.

I can sort of see what you are saying, there is something missing in most mmo's, but I would say its an addictive quality, not gloss.  Blizzard seems to be one of the only game developers that know what that something is, every game they make is like crack.  Every genre they try, they end up dominating it.

 

AoC definately doesn't have it and I'll tell you why.  Funcom listened to the wrong people, the ones who were tired of doing the same old thing.  People cried about being heal bots in raids - Funcom removed that role.  People cried about having to farm/grind for better gear - Funcom removed the importance of gear.  People cried about traditional mmo combat systems - Funcom tried to do away with that but covering up timers with direction combo's....I could go on for ages, but basicly, what Funcom did was remove what makes an mmo adictive.  Sure their goal was good, but they feel short and came off worse for it.

 

The Conan IP has many limitations, something we see in regards to how armor looks etc.  When you chose to make a game based on an old establish IP which has no flexability, you will run into many problems trying to make the game fun and addictive.  They really should have made up their own IP, conan style but with the freedom to make it how they wanted to.

Well said, I completely agree. The same could be said for any game carrying a major I.P.

I also agree with your assesment on why AOC came out how it did. However, I slightly disagree with your opinion of the end result. I'd consider AOC more a glorified multiplayer game, rather than a true MMORPG (much like GW). To me that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a different approach.

it's funny, but I think the more humble you are, the better your game will be.  I'm still really impressed by a lot of the Blizzard devs because whenever you ask them about something they are planning in the future, they always include where they learned from their failure in the past.

Jacobs does the same thing..  you can sense that he wants to make a great game, but knows it is the PLAYERS who will end up deciding what a great game really is.

The guys from Funcom are just so arrogant that you really can't picture them ever listening to player feedback.   I still can't believe ANYONE would use the fine dining/mcdonalds comment when comparing AOC to WOW.  I think it was this arrogance that made them push out a game that was terrible because it would be too hard for them to admit it wasn't good.

Well - Mark pretty much says it all

AOC wasn't ready and like he pointed out, Funcom should have known that.  And they SURE did get that msg from the beta testers.

Just this fact that Mark makes this comment guaranties me that WAR can never launch in worse state than AOC did.  Well... TBH I doubt not many games ever will.

But the key part of all this is that the Funcom devs are simply not good enough, they simply dont have the technical ability or knowlege to make, maintain and support a good MMO game. 

But the ability is one thing.  The will to created good quality MMO game is another.  NO developer that wanted to create good MMO would EVER have launched AOC in the state it was in May.

Now - 4 months after release the game is still not in acceptable state for release.  Main reason for that is cause FUncom had to COMPROMISE on many of the game mecanics - simply becuse they launched the game with untested and in many case just unrealistic ideas of how the basic ruleset should work.  And after game goes life you simply can not change it around.

Originally posted by RoseWater

My god, look at how rude that mod Charon replying on AoC's forms is.  I though they got rid of the rude mods after i left AoC, but i was wrong Oo

The truth hurts and hes not just in pain but probably ready for an ambulance.

The most critical alinea in his comments is the fact that indeed Funcom's first Anual Reports showed that they still had plenty of money to delay the game to make it right.

It just shows what a bunch of arrogant hippies make the company Funcom.

When you take a look at what they did with Tortage, then we can all agree on they did a terrific good job on that. It was just plain awesome and mindblowing!

And that is also one of the flaws that marked their downfall with this game.

Because the moment you leave Tortage the awesomeness and mindblowing feeling is litterly murdered on the spot!

The difference in gameplay, content and featurama is just so huge, that struck most players with insta dissapointment when they left the Island Tortage.

Personally I think they should have made Tortage a lot more in line with the rest of the content and spread the awesomeness and mindblowing stuff over the whole 80 levels.

Instead of constant cutscene content from level1 to level20 in the Nighttime series, they should have ditched the Nighttime series and spread it out to like like every 5 levels from level1 to level80 in specific class storyline quests. With all the fluff and voice acting stuff.

It would have cost them just as much money and just as much time. But the effect would have been a whole lot better on the longterm and more important, people would have kept that awesomeness and mindblowing feeling all the way up to level80!

It's way easier to fill in small gaps of content here and there in the broad levelrange, then having to add it from level21 all the way up to level80!

They seem to have spend so much money and time on Tortage alone, that they completely forgot about making the Core RPG elements in the game itself work! Like stats, attributes, skills and various skills from the feats.

Next to that, it is ofcourse their constant lying, mischieving marketing and sertain scam scandals that made matters really worse.

If Funcom really wants to make the game come around, then the only way to do that, is get rid of all the ego and arrogancy and become more open to their community! Their paying customers! That would be a starter.

Cheers

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

He added, “If we don’t succeed with EA behind us, the ‘Warhammer’ IP behind us, with one of the most experienced teams in the industry, that’s not going to be good for the industry. We need to show the world that it’s not just Blizzard who can make a great game, and that the audience is absolutely willing to try new things and to play a game other than ‘WoW.’” 

See, I don't really like what he's implying with this statement.  It seems to me that he is trying to subtly shift the blame for failed mmorpgs to the players. 

Let me paraphrase the part that gets to me:

"show the world that the audience is willing to try new things and to play a game other than "Wow'".

I think it goes without saying that the audience, mmoprg gamers, are willing to try new things.  In fact, I'd say that quite a lot of us are verging on desperation for something new.

How many people tried AoC?  Close to a million?  People were certainly willing to give it a chance.  If the game didn't hold them, and it appears that it did not hold a very large percent of them, who's fault is it?  They gave it a chance so is it the fault of the players that the game didn't live up to it's promise or is it the fault of the devs?

The same thing happened with Vanguard.  A lot of people gave it a try.  What more can be expected of gamers?  Developers can't expect people to continue paying for an unfinished or simply un-fun game.

Warhammer will have the same chance.  A huge number of people will jump in to give it a try.  But at that point the game will sink or swim on it's own merits.

He also said, "If we don’t succeed with EA behind us, the ‘Warhammer’ IP behind us, with one of the most experienced teams in the industry, that’s not going to be good for the industry."

Uh..no.  Like I said, a game has to sink or swim on it's own merits.  I haven't tested or tried Warhammer and I know very little about it.  But if Warhammer fails it will be because it's either unfinished or just a crappy game in general.  That doesn't hurt the industry one bit.  It only hurts Warhammer and the people financially invested in it.

The thing that would hurt the industry even more than failed games is if unfinished and/or crappy games started becoming successfull.  Then nobody would even try to make quality games because they wouldn't need to to be successfull.

Sink or swim on your own merits.  But if your game is full of holes you can't expect thousands or millions of players to hold their breath and let you stand on their shoulders so you can keep your head above water.

Originally posted by Neanderthal

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

He added, “If we don’t succeed with EA behind us, the ‘Warhammer’ IP behind us, with one of the most experienced teams in the industry, that’s not going to be good for the industry. We need to show the world that it’s not just Blizzard who can make a great game, and that the audience is absolutely willing to try new things and to play a game other than ‘WoW.’” 

 

See, I don't really like what he's implying with this statement.  It seems to me that he is trying to subtly shift the blame for failed mmorpgs to the players. 

Let me paraphrase the part that gets to me:

"show the world that the audience is willing to try new things and to play a game other than "Wow'".

I think it goes without saying that the audience, mmoprg gamers, are willing to try new things.  In fact, I'd say that quite a lot of us are verging on desperation for something new.

How many people tried AoC?  Close to a million?  People were certainly willing to give it a chance.  If the game didn't hold them, and it appears that it did not hold a very large percent of them, who's fault is it?  They gave it a chance so is it the fault of the players that the game didn't live up to it's promise or is it the fault of the devs?

The same thing happened with Vanguard.  A lot of people gave it a try.  What more can be expected of gamers?  Developers can't expect people to continue paying for an unfinished or simply un-fun game.

Warhammer will have the same chance.  A huge number of people will jump in to give it a try.  But at that point the game will sink or swim on it's own merits.

He also said, "If we don’t succeed with EA behind us, the ‘Warhammer’ IP behind us, with one of the most experienced teams in the industry, that’s not going to be good for the industry."

Uh..no.  Like I said, a game has to sink or swim on it's own merits.  I haven't tested or tried Warhammer and I know very little about it.  But if Warhammer fails it will be because it's either unfinished or just a crappy game in general.  That doesn't hurt the industry one bit.  It only hurts Warhammer and the people financially invested in it.

The thing that would hurt the industry even more than failed games is if unfinished and/or crappy games started becoming successfull.  Then nobody would even try to make quality games because they wouldn't need to to be successfull.

Sink or swim on your own merits.  But if your game is full of holes you can't expect thousands or millions of players to hold their breath and let you stand on their shoulders so you can keep your head above water.

The way I interpret it was basically, people have their heads so far up blizzard's ass, that everything is held in comparison to wow, and how wow already has everything perfect. Just because peoeple did things different than wow, it was automatically bad.

Originally posted by kaishi00

 

The way I interpret it was basically, people have their heads so far up blizzard's ass, that everything is held in comparison to wow, and how wow already has everything perfect. Just because peoeple did things different than wow, it was automatically bad.

Indeed. Jakobs is right.

How many times have we seen (ex)-WoW players spamming forums with topics compairing <insert name new MMO here> with WoW and how WoW is so uber and so better !

How many times have we seen (ex)-WoW players spamming forums whining about wanting to see <insert name new MMO here> basically being changed into WoW 2.0 !

Because the whole irony and sadness in all this, is that a lot of players are indeed fed up and bored with WoW, but then when they jump into a new MMO they start whining for changes to turn it into another WoW !

So as long as these (ex)-WoW players are not willing to accept a different kind of game, the new MMO's that try something different will all end up in failure.

Cheers

Originally posted by Neanderthal

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

He added, “If we don’t succeed with EA behind us, the ‘Warhammer’ IP behind us, with one of the most experienced teams in the industry, that’s not going to be good for the industry. We need to show the world that it’s not just Blizzard who can make a great game, and that the audience is absolutely willing to try new things and to play a game other than ‘WoW.’” 

 

See, I don't really like what he's implying with this statement.  It seems to me that he is trying to subtly shift the blame for failed mmorpgs to the players. 

Let me paraphrase the part that gets to me:

"show the world that the audience is willing to try new things and to play a game other than "Wow'".

I think it goes without saying that the audience, mmoprg gamers, are willing to try new things.  In fact, I'd say that quite a lot of us are verging on desperation for something new.

I think you misread what he is saying. 

If WAR succeeds and steals a whole bunch of subscribers..  it will prove to everyone that the MMORPG gaming community is willing to try something different.

Mark thinks as you and I do and believes that many people are after something fresh.

If WAR fails to garner much interest..  then it is due to one of 2 causes:

a) Players are not willing to try new games

b) The game is terrible.

You, me and Mark know that a) is simply not true..  but not everyone is aware of that fact.

Originally posted by kaishi00  

The way I interpret it was basically, people have their heads so far up blizzard's ass, that everything is held in comparison to wow, and how wow already has everything perfect. Just because peoeple did things different than wow, it was automatically bad.

If that's what he meant then it's almost scary that a developer of a major title believes this.  And no wonder we see so many copy cat games.  Sure Wow has it's insane fanboys but the vast majority of the gaming public are not blindly loyal to any game. 

When you wipe away all the bullshit and deep philosophizing and rhetoric we're really just people looking for entertainment.  But because we pay for that entertainment we're going to hold the makers of it to certain standards of quality.

Honestly though, I truly believe that any high profile game that has decent graphics, fun gameplay, a setting that isn't too weird and off putting, and above all has stability and isn't too riddled with bugs would do pretty well.  It might not be as a big as WoW but games don't have to be.

The reason why Blizzard gets to keep laughing at the rest of the industry is because, well, look at the high profile games that have been released since WoW.  

Vanguard...

AoC...

And that's pretty much it.  

Originally posted by Guillermo197

So as long as these (ex)-WoW players are not willing to accept a different kind of game, the new MMO's that try something different will all end up in failure.

Sorry but that is just nonsense.

You give the (ex)-WoW players far to much credit. You certainly overestimate the power they have. Of course they do as you say, but the impact their actions have on a new MMO are not that big.

AoC for example, did not fail because of this. It failed because it's just a boring game. The things they do differently from WoW are actually the only things that are apreciated.

Originally posted by kaishi00

Originally posted by Neanderthal

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

He added, “If we don’t succeed with EA behind us, the ‘Warhammer’ IP behind us, with one of the most experienced teams in the industry, that’s not going to be good for the industry. We need to show the world that it’s not just Blizzard who can make a great game, and that the audience is absolutely willing to try new things and to play a game other than ‘WoW.’” 

 

See, I don't really like what he's implying with this statement.  It seems to me that he is trying to subtly shift the blame for failed mmorpgs to the players. 

Let me paraphrase the part that gets to me:

"show the world that the audience is willing to try new things and to play a game other than "Wow'".

I think it goes without saying that the audience, mmoprg gamers, are willing to try new things.  In fact, I'd say that quite a lot of us are verging on desperation for something new.

How many people tried AoC?  Close to a million?  People were certainly willing to give it a chance.  If the game didn't hold them, and it appears that it did not hold a very large percent of them, who's fault is it?  They gave it a chance so is it the fault of the players that the game didn't live up to it's promise or is it the fault of the devs?

The same thing happened with Vanguard.  A lot of people gave it a try.  What more can be expected of gamers?  Developers can't expect people to continue paying for an unfinished or simply un-fun game.

Warhammer will have the same chance.  A huge number of people will jump in to give it a try.  But at that point the game will sink or swim on it's own merits.

He also said, "If we don’t succeed with EA behind us, the ‘Warhammer’ IP behind us, with one of the most experienced teams in the industry, that’s not going to be good for the industry."

Uh..no.  Like I said, a game has to sink or swim on it's own merits.  I haven't tested or tried Warhammer and I know very little about it.  But if Warhammer fails it will be because it's either unfinished or just a crappy game in general.  That doesn't hurt the industry one bit.  It only hurts Warhammer and the people financially invested in it.

The thing that would hurt the industry even more than failed games is if unfinished and/or crappy games started becoming successfull.  Then nobody would even try to make quality games because they wouldn't need to to be successfull.

Sink or swim on your own merits.  But if your game is full of holes you can't expect thousands or millions of players to hold their breath and let you stand on their shoulders so you can keep your head above water.

 

The way I interpret it was basically, people have their heads so far up blizzard's ass, that everything is held in comparison to wow, and how wow already has everything perfect. Just because peoeple did things different than wow, it was automatically bad.

People still don't get it.  The key is that Blizzard doesn't outright LIE to it's community.  It doesn't print a set of features on a box that 1/2 are missing from the game and another 1/4 of the features are broken.  Sure games are going to have bugs, but Blizzard doesn't ship completely broken games.  Hopefully Mythic ships a great game.  People will accept bugs and balance issues that are constantly being fixed.  However, there best not be feature sets printed on the box that fail to make it into the game or are so badly broken that it is nearly unplayable.  If that happens, then WAR will suffer the same fate as AoC.  Don't tell us something is in-game all the way up to launch day and then say, "OH, by the way, PvP is broken so a lot of PVP elements won't be in WAR at launch.  We are mainly shipping just the PVE game with PVP to come much later."  Once you do that, you lose all credibility and a huge part of the fanbase especially when your selling point was PvP.

It isn't Blizzard's fault that Vanguard:SOH, POTBS, and AoC all got shipped and went live in the condition that they did.

Originally posted by kaishi00

Originally posted by Neanderthal

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

He added, “If we don’t succeed with EA behind us, the ‘Warhammer’ IP behind us, with one of the most experienced teams in the industry, that’s not going to be good for the industry. We need to show the world that it’s not just Blizzard who can make a great game, and that the audience is absolutely willing to try new things and to play a game other than ‘WoW.’” 

 

See, I don't really like what he's implying with this statement.  It seems to me that he is trying to subtly shift the blame for failed mmorpgs to the players. 

Let me paraphrase the part that gets to me:

"show the world that the audience is willing to try new things and to play a game other than "Wow'".

I think it goes without saying that the audience, mmoprg gamers, are willing to try new things.  In fact, I'd say that quite a lot of us are verging on desperation for something new.

How many people tried AoC?  Close to a million?  People were certainly willing to give it a chance.  If the game didn't hold them, and it appears that it did not hold a very large percent of them, who's fault is it?  They gave it a chance so is it the fault of the players that the game didn't live up to it's promise or is it the fault of the devs?

The same thing happened with Vanguard.  A lot of people gave it a try.  What more can be expected of gamers?  Developers can't expect people to continue paying for an unfinished or simply un-fun game.

Warhammer will have the same chance.  A huge number of people will jump in to give it a try.  But at that point the game will sink or swim on it's own merits.

He also said, "If we don’t succeed with EA behind us, the ‘Warhammer’ IP behind us, with one of the most experienced teams in the industry, that’s not going to be good for the industry."

Uh..no.  Like I said, a game has to sink or swim on it's own merits.  I haven't tested or tried Warhammer and I know very little about it.  But if Warhammer fails it will be because it's either unfinished or just a crappy game in general.  That doesn't hurt the industry one bit.  It only hurts Warhammer and the people financially invested in it.

The thing that would hurt the industry even more than failed games is if unfinished and/or crappy games started becoming successfull.  Then nobody would even try to make quality games because they wouldn't need to to be successfull.

Sink or swim on your own merits.  But if your game is full of holes you can't expect thousands or millions of players to hold their breath and let you stand on their shoulders so you can keep your head above water.

 

The way I interpret it was basically, people have their heads so far up blizzard's ass, that everything is held in comparison to wow, and how wow already has everything perfect. Just because peoeple did things different than wow, it was automatically bad.

Well, the reality is that WoW is the gold standard, for good reason.  Whether you like the actual content of the game or not, WoW is far and away the most polished, accessible, and user-friendly MMO available (LOTRO is a very close second).  The UI is incredibly intuitive and easy to use, providing all the info new players need while being extensible enough for the most poopsocking-est theorycrafter.

The game is incredibly user-friendly from a usage standpoint.  Forget the content, art direction, graphics quality, etc.  And right now, LOTRO is the only MMO out that comes even close to WoW's user-friendliness.  A clunky UI is an immediate turn-off to someone coming from WoW.  AoC is a perfect example...the UI is beyond horrendous, and that sort of thing is inexcusable in 2008.  It was the first thing I noticed on launch day, and I spent the next two weeks until I got fed up with the game as a whole desperately trying to find ways to make the UI more usable.

The comment about Mythic not succeeding bringing bad omens for the industry as a whole...

That's pretty much true I believe. There's little else in queue for MMOs except companies like NCSoft and SOE throwing their hats into the console ring, alongside PC gaming, in order to try and find frontiers WoW hasn't yet conquered.

I don't think it'd mean the end of the industry beyond niche titles for every company besides Blizzard though; I believe it'd simply mean all of these companies who made their names off first- and second-gen MMOs (Mythic, Funcom, SOE...etc.), pretty much are incapable of competing against developers who'd long since made their bones in other genres.

It's clear Blizzard brought the expectations of a non-MMO's polish and quality to the genre, and for the flock of companies we had prior to WoW's arrival, who got away with inaccessible system specs, wanton bugs and tedious gameplay mechanics; it may be impossible for 'em to adapt in an industry Blizzard matured all at once, with no growing pains on its part.

It just may take companies like Bioware coming into the MMO market; rather than yet another half a decade of failed attempts on companies that're already in the market, who may've made good competition against each other but are amateurish in comparison to Blizzard.

I hope though that a forefather to the industry like Mythic is capable of pulling it off. There's really nothing to it beyond creating a game that's fun, controls like WoW, has more good differences than WoW than it does bad differences.

MJ knows the score.  He was hoping AoC would pull away and be a decent success for the reasons he gave.  Mostly to reset the tone of the chattering class.

I think he was hopeful at first but then he saw what happened after Tortage and knew that AoC would not do that and it had nothing to do with WoW or the audience or pre-conceptions and had everything to do with Funcom's bad management.  In some ways puzzlingly bad considering the money thing he mentioned.

So now Mythic has to blaze that trail and Funcom won't be doing the initial dirty work like he hoped.  He is not discouraged or throwing stone per se.  Because in the end he knows its on Funcom's shoulders.  He just wished they were more competent so that they could have lessened the "But WoW did it this way, you should do it this way!  This is just a WoW clone it has a 50% similarity and is therefore a clone, just like EQ1 is a WoW clone."  paradox.

This interview gave me and a few of my close friends the reassurance we needed to go all in on WAR. Even if the game turns out to be mediocre Mythic deserves their 10% of the box sales we give to them just because of their honesty.

Originally posted by kaishi00

Originally posted by Neanderthal

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

He added, “If we don’t succeed with EA behind us, the ‘Warhammer’ IP behind us, with one of the most experienced teams in the industry, that’s not going to be good for the industry. We need to show the world that it’s not just Blizzard who can make a great game, and that the audience is absolutely willing to try new things and to play a game other than ‘WoW.’” 

 

See, I don't really like what he's implying with this statement.  It seems to me that he is trying to subtly shift the blame for failed mmorpgs to the players. 

Let me paraphrase the part that gets to me:

"show the world that the audience is willing to try new things and to play a game other than "Wow'".

I think it goes without saying that the audience, mmoprg gamers, are willing to try new things.  In fact, I'd say that quite a lot of us are verging on desperation for something new.

How many people tried AoC?  Close to a million?  People were certainly willing to give it a chance.  If the game didn't hold them, and it appears that it did not hold a very large percent of them, who's fault is it?  They gave it a chance so is it the fault of the players that the game didn't live up to it's promise or is it the fault of the devs?

The same thing happened with Vanguard.  A lot of people gave it a try.  What more can be expected of gamers?  Developers can't expect people to continue paying for an unfinished or simply un-fun game.

Warhammer will have the same chance.  A huge number of people will jump in to give it a try.  But at that point the game will sink or swim on it's own merits.

He also said, "If we don’t succeed with EA behind us, the ‘Warhammer’ IP behind us, with one of the most experienced teams in the industry, that’s not going to be good for the industry."

Uh..no.  Like I said, a game has to sink or swim on it's own merits.  I haven't tested or tried Warhammer and I know very little about it.  But if Warhammer fails it will be because it's either unfinished or just a crappy game in general.  That doesn't hurt the industry one bit.  It only hurts Warhammer and the people financially invested in it.

The thing that would hurt the industry even more than failed games is if unfinished and/or crappy games started becoming successfull.  Then nobody would even try to make quality games because they wouldn't need to to be successfull.

Sink or swim on your own merits.  But if your game is full of holes you can't expect thousands or millions of players to hold their breath and let you stand on their shoulders so you can keep your head above water.

 

The way I interpret it was basically, people have their heads so far up blizzard's ass, that everything is held in comparison to wow, and how wow already has everything perfect. Just because peoeple did things different than wow, it was automatically bad.

The way I interpret it is people are sick of paying for fail-games, unfinished games, games missing promised content. In this retrospect, when a new game like Warhammer comes up, people will naturaly assume it is just another fail-game. This is why he notes the "trying a new thing" and why "Warhammer failure will "not going to be good for the industry" - if Warhammer fails, it will just add to the general disappointment of the playerbase. MMORPG market is not doing that great already (due to so many failures and disapoointments), any additional failure will only make people more cautious (they wont try anything new, they will just stick to the good-old-warcraft) or even push them away from MMO genre completely.

If WAR fails with an experienced crew like Mythic, and EA backing, then I suspect future companies might think twice, before they try to make a mmorpg. Or maybe they will just reconsider it entirely, as it could seem as too big a risk. Which I think would hurt the genre as a whole.

I really hope a game like Earthrise or whatever Bioware is cooking up, will succeed.

Wait ...

Protus-WAR?

nevermind, I see where Protus-AOC jumps into the thread. For a moment, I thought he may have jumped ship.

Thanks to Mr Obvious to tell us what everyone already knows. ;)

But seriously, I am glad someone does not chime into the usual PC trash of saying always nice things about the competitors. He says the truth, but as I said, we all knew it. Ok those die-hard tin-heads of fanbois EVERY game has dont know, but they will never know. Even if a game closes down, its always someone else's fault.

It will be the same with the more than mediocre SW The force unleashed, mark my words, but thats another topic.

Originally posted by Neanderthal

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

He added, “If we don’t succeed with EA behind us, the ‘Warhammer’ IP behind us, with one of the most experienced teams in the industry, that’s not going to be good for the industry. We need to show the world that it’s not just Blizzard who can make a great game, and that the audience is absolutely willing to try new things and to play a game other than ‘WoW.’” 

 

See, I don't really like what he's implying with this statement.  It seems to me that he is trying to subtly shift the blame for failed mmorpgs to the players. 

Only in the sense that if players don't play a game it fails.  So, ultimately it's always up to us players whether or not a game is a success.  We could just keep lowering our standards until a game like AoC qualifies as a great game (sarcasm).  You know it's possible since even in its current damaged state AoC does have a small fanbase (sadly, not sarcasm).

Originally posted by Malickie

Originally posted by Hydrakana

Most pc gamers don't want games to be like console games because they are too short, simple and lacking depth.  I remember the days when 40 hour length games were considered average...now they are considered long.

I can sort of see what you are saying, there is something missing in most mmo's, but I would say its an addictive quality, not gloss.  Blizzard seems to be one of the only game developers that know what that something is, every game they make is like crack.  Every genre they try, they end up dominating it.

 

AoC definately doesn't have it and I'll tell you why.  Funcom listened to the wrong people, the ones who were tired of doing the same old thing.  People cried about being heal bots in raids - Funcom removed that role.  People cried about having to farm/grind for better gear - Funcom removed the importance of gear.  People cried about traditional mmo combat systems - Funcom tried to do away with that but covering up timers with direction combo's....I could go on for ages, but basicly, what Funcom did was remove what makes an mmo adictive.  Sure their goal was good, but they feel short and came off worse for it.

 

The Conan IP has many limitations, something we see in regards to how armor looks etc.  When you chose to make a game based on an old establish IP which has no flexability, you will run into many problems trying to make the game fun and addictive.  They really should have made up their own IP, conan style but with the freedom to make it how they wanted to.

 

Well said, I completely agree. The same could be said for any game carrying a major I.P.

I also agree with your assesment on why AOC came out how it did. However, I slightly disagree with your opinion of the end result. I'd consider AOC more a glorified multiplayer game, rather than a true MMORPG (much like GW). To me that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a different approach.

 

I'd have to agree to an extent.  It is just a multiplayer game rather than an mmo...more like a free roaming FPS type of game.

I think if you like that sort of thing, the game is fine and dandy.  Personally, my tastes have grown over the years and this type of game does not cut it anymore.

Originally posted by Mark Jacobs

 

http://onlinegamesareanichemarket.wordpress.com/

What does WAR’s success or failure mean for the MMORPG market?
Posted on September 3, 2008 by Mark Jacobs
So, in an interview with MTV, I said that it was important for the MMORPG market for WAR to succeed. Of course, this point has been taken a bit out of context by a few people (no shock there) who seem to think I’m a bit full of myself or a way too proud of WAR. Actually, neither is true. My point regarding WAR’s importance to the MMORPG market is based on a number of things:
1) Since WoW’s launch, no new Western, subscription-based MMORPG has sustained a population of 500K subscribers. While their exact numbers aren’t known, both LoTRO and AoC have failed to hit that mark. And as anyone who knows anything about MMORPGs could tell you, the one thing you don’t keep secret if you are doing well is your monthly subscription numbers.
2) Since WoW’s initial launch the market has seen a number of high priced properties crater spectacularly as well a number of MMORPG studios shut their doors. While back in the day, 100K monthly subs would have been seen as quite a success, if you are spending 50M or more on a game all in, 100K doesn’t quite cut it. Even 250K subs (30M gross + box sales for let’s say 10M in profit pre-tax), doesn’t look great to investors when you are spending 50M or more on a game and have continued high expenditures for updates, xpacks, etc. and lots of new competitors coming online.
3) With the increased competition of free-to-do-almost-nothing-fun games and other models, there’s a lot of chatter in the investment community about whether high-end, subscription-based MMORPGs are a good investment. As I said during a panel at GDC, there was a lot of very dumb money in this space (Hey, let’s give 25M to guys who know nothing about MMORPGs and sometimes nothing about online games other than they played them. What could possibly go wrong with that?) and that I thought the money would start to leave this space once some of the games I expected to tank did just that. The money guys run very, very hot and cold and right now, they are getting on their winter coats.
4) AoC’s apparent rapid loss of subscribers is encouraging talk that today’s players won’t stick with new MMORPGs very long any more. Now, I think this is total b.s. as I think today’s players will happily stick with great games (WoW) but won’t stick with mediocre or poor games. Thanks to WoW though, the bar has been raised so that games that might have been considered good/great 5 years ago are not considered that way by the players any more. This is no different than in Hollywood when a breakthrough movie raises the bar for the competition (think about the race for the best special effects in Sci-fi films).
5) Mythic is being backed on WAR by EA’s money and distribution system on one hand and by a fantastic license on the other hand. This leads to increased expectations and demands from the players.
6) This is the 3rd MMORPG that Mythic has worked on. While we have lost some experienced people from our DAoC days, we are still one of, if not the, most experienced MMORPG teams, especially in dog years.
7) Since 1997, you can count on two hands the number of MMORPGs that have held on to more than 200K monthly paying subs for any substantial period of time. OTOH, you would need all the fingers and toes of a baseball team to keep track of the MMORPGS that have failed to maintain that number and/or even launch. C’mon kids, you can try this experiment at home, no plastic bag required! Count all the MMORPGS since 1997 that have had great numbers and then think of all the abysmal failures. Not only have we had lots of failures to launch, we’ve had failures that set a new bar for failures.
So, knowing all this, why do I think that WAR is so important to the MMORPG market? Well :
1) If WAR fails, we won’t have the excuse (as some devs have had) of not having the money or the license.
2) If WAR fails, investors will rapidly look to other business models for MMORPGs especially ones that require less of an investment and development cycle to bring to market. We may be coming very close to the tipping point where investors have seen far too many games fail on release and even more of them fail to even launch for them to be comfortable investing large sums in this market. They will prefer to invest in safer things, like large-scale, cold fusion reactors.
3) If WAR fails, players will see yet again another MMORPG fail to live up to its promise. Given the high expectations and tremendous pre-sales we are getting, the fall will be that much harder to take. One of the problems of having high expectations for a game is that if you fail, the fall will be much longer and will hurt that much more when you hit pavement.
4) If WAR fails, publishers will be even less inclined to take on Blizzard whether it’s WoW or their next MMO. This will drive more developers out of the market and fewer AAA, subscription-base MMORPGs will start. Just look at how few MMORPGs are in development at studios (as opposed to getting outside financing) today. Does anyone really think that if WAR is a failure that this will increase the number of MMORPGs in development? If you think so and you happen to have a few spare million, I’d love to sell you some oceanfront property I own in Idaho.
OTOH, if WAR succeeds:
1) Investors will flock back into the market. Investors don’t mind taking chances if there is a decent chance of success and if WAR can break the 1M barrier in terms of monthly subs, investors will get excited about making lots money in this space.
2) The whole “Only Blizzard can do it” mentality will go away. The deeply ironic thing about this is that after DAoC was a success publishers/investors said over and over again, “If Mythic can do it, anybody can!” Nothing but love right back at ya baby!
3) The subscription model will be validated (again) to be alive and well in North America and Europe. This model has been pronounced dead more times than Kenny has been killed in South Park (well, maybe not but I love to get a South Park reference in there, I loved that show).
4) Publishers will be willing to take more chances in this space again.
Now, the same would have held true for AoC or any other MMORPG that has come out in the last 3 years. Unfortunately, only LoTRO can be considered any sort of success and even then it didn’t come close to WoW’s numbers (despite a license which in the past has been referred to as a license to print money). I’ve been making online games forever and I want this space to be hugely successful and continue to expand. However, if we developers can’t create games that people not only want to play at launch but play and pay for at least six months, then we are failing at our jobs and we deserve whatever happens to us as do our games.
Ego talking? Nope, just cold hard facts.
Mark

 

Well sayd Mark I`m srry for Funcom but then again it`s theres fault that they hawe lied community as for Blizz I think that they didnt offer anything new in xpansion "more pve orientated"=more grind like they dont got that allready .