According to a report at Develop-Online, The Secret World Lead Designer Martin Bruusgaard has been put on "forced leave" in addition to most of his fellow employees in the Oslo, Norway office of Funcom.

This news comes on the heels of earlier 'redundancies' throughout Funcom as a result of TSW's less-than-expected sales.

He suggested that the studio’s Norway headquarters had been hit much harder than other offices as it was expensive to run, and suggested that it was “cheaper to hire someone abroad”.

“Unfortunately, I'm not with Funcom anymore,” said Bruusgaard.

“Got put on forced leave along with most of our Oslo Office, a week ago.”

In before doomsayers and usual pointless mess of people speculating about things they have no idea about.

Anyway, as long as Ragnar remains, there won't be any no big problems with game's direction and game won't be affected that much. 

Originally posted by Johnie-Marz
I am enjoying TSW and love the setting and quests; but let's face it, when a game fails to meet finanical expections, someone is getting fired. (and it will probably be someone high up)

Though it is usually not the person actually responsible for the problem.  Business dynamics 101....

Originally posted by Arglebargle

Originally posted by Johnie-Marz
I am enjoying TSW and love the setting and quests; but let's face it, when a game fails to meet finanical expections, someone is getting fired. (and it will probably be someone high up)

Though it is usually not the person actually responsible for the problem.  Business dynamics 101....

So true. I am enjoying the game. I don't believe it was a design problem.

Lead designer is a weird position to 'lay off'.

I hope it recovers though and putting it on Steam helped.

I would have purchased this day one if it was Buy to play.

The games not worth a subscription. 

Honestly I don't think any game on the market is worth a subscription...

Originally posted by Z3R01

I would have purchased this day one if it was Buy to play.

The games not worth a subscription. 

Honestly I don't think any game on the market is worth a subscription...

Do games offer as much if not more than they did back in 1997?  Keeping in mind that while it may be a case of not necessarily liking what they offer...do they offer as much if not more?  Did you not pay subs back in 1997?  If the answer to both of those is yes, how could you say that no game on the market is worth a sub?

Originally posted by MeGaTronPower
TSW is a nice game ive watched it on stream live, however as a future game designer, i feel story driven mmorpg with vo is not the future of mmorpg market. Its too expensive and costly and does not retain players in the long term. story driven with vo is a mistake. Once the great story missions are over then what? does the end game content is still worth $15 a month to players? its a design flaw, i dont blame funcom for not seeing it. TSW is an average game at best as metacritic have said. As others have posted here in the early post. BOX PRICE+SUB+ cash shop simply does not work in this current market of mmorpgs.

 

I kinda agree with you on the VO thing.   Too expensive, and very difficult to make fast changes in your game when the voicing is so cut and dried.   Going with a few lines of dialogue to set the voice in your memory, and then continuing with text would be much simpler, and probably do almost as good a job.   But people did love to complain about it.   You can find countless accounts and rants about how Age of Conan's intro was great, and then after that the world was silent.   Oopsie.

Referencing metacritic is kinda useless and flawed too though.  Too many vague impressions and forum PVP issues with its reviews and scores.

Don't know what TSW will do, as they seem to be predicated on continually added content.  If they fire everyone, it could be pretty slow going for the extra bits they were working up.

Originally posted by Yuui

In before doomsayers and usual pointless mess of people speculating about things they have no idea about.

Anyway, as long as Ragnar remains, there won't be any no big problems with game's direction and game won't be affected that much. 

This!  I live in Norway and salaries are really high here due to expensive living.

Add to the fact that norwegian government has their heads stuck in the sand and only care about the oil, R&D companies (which game studios are part off) don't get any benefits in Norway and thus no incentive to stay here.

A lot of R&D companies are pulling out of Norway due to this, as other countries like Canada (where Funcom moved most of it's development too) is luring R&D companies to it's country with all kinds of tax benefits and cheap employment!

Ragnar is "the" brains behind TSW. It is his baby. So as long as he is around, this game will be around.

When Ragnar gets kicked out.... then you got reason to worry and start dooming and glooming.

Originally posted by Z3R01

I would have purchased this day one if it was Buy to play.

The games not worth a subscription. 

Honestly I don't think any game on the market is worth a subscription...

Quite a few used to be, and even then that number is dwindling even further. EQ used to be but then they made it into that horribly crappy Freemium model, and every server except the "Time Locked Progression" lost quite the appeal for current paying subscribers.

However, games like Age of Conan, FF14 (first time around), Vanguard, SWTOR, RIFT, Aion, and TERA just aren't worth subs. They're low quality products :(. Then again I also don't believe WoW is even worth $5/month ever since its launch.

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by Z3R01

I would have purchased this day one if it was Buy to play.

The games not worth a subscription. 

Honestly I don't think any game on the market is worth a subscription...

Do games offer as much if not more than they did back in 1997?  Keeping in mind that while it may be a case of not necessarily liking what they offer...do they offer as much if not more?  Did you not pay subs back in 1997?  If the answer to both of those is yes, how could you say that no game on the market is worth a sub?

Doesn't really matter if they offer the same or more than they did in 97, mainly because there was so little competition, and if you wanted to play an mmo, you had to pay.  Today there is much more competition and some of it doesn't require a subscription fee.  Thus, in 97 if you wanted to play you paid, today you actually have options if you want to play but don't want a monthly fee.

Originally posted by niceguy3978

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by Z3R01

I would have purchased this day one if it was Buy to play.

The games not worth a subscription. 

Honestly I don't think any game on the market is worth a subscription...

Do games offer as much if not more than they did back in 1997?  Keeping in mind that while it may be a case of not necessarily liking what they offer...do they offer as much if not more?  Did you not pay subs back in 1997?  If the answer to both of those is yes, how could you say that no game on the market is worth a sub?

Doesn't really matter if they offer the same or more than they did in 97, mainly because there was so little competition, and if you wanted to play an mmo, you had to pay.  Today there is much more competition and some of it doesn't require a subscription fee.  Thus, in 97 if you wanted to play you paid, today you actually have options if you want to play but don't want a monthly fee.

That avoids the question.

I think it is good for game ,VA & cut scenes are waste of time & resources for an mmorpg,now is time to add more social content in game

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by niceguy3978

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by Z3R01

I would have purchased this day one if it was Buy to play.

The games not worth a subscription. 

Honestly I don't think any game on the market is worth a subscription...

Do games offer as much if not more than they did back in 1997?  Keeping in mind that while it may be a case of not necessarily liking what they offer...do they offer as much if not more?  Did you not pay subs back in 1997?  If the answer to both of those is yes, how could you say that no game on the market is worth a sub?

Doesn't really matter if they offer the same or more than they did in 97, mainly because there was so little competition, and if you wanted to play an mmo, you had to pay.  Today there is much more competition and some of it doesn't require a subscription fee.  Thus, in 97 if you wanted to play you paid, today you actually have options if you want to play but don't want a monthly fee.

That avoids the question.

newer games certainly don't appear to be worth the subs these days, while older games that have perhaps stood the test of time.. and perhaps player patience, clearly do.. not so sure how thats going to go with WoW after MoP... as i have a few misgivings about it personally.. but i know for one thing that Eve is definitely more than worth its sub.  Cant think of any others offhand at the moment that i'd consider even playing long term let alone paying for the dubious priviledge of. Sign of the times perhaps. though its probably just me getting older