http://g4tv.com/games/pc/40993/champions-online/articles/67726/Interview-With-Jack-Emmert/

G4: Speaking of it being successful, when you’re launching an MMO, like how many subscribers do you need in order to survive or thrive?

JE: Well, I think that number is the number for success is over 100,000 for us. If it’s over 100,000, I’m skipping the light fantastic. The break-even point is somewhere below 100,000. And that’s obviously depending upon – every MMO is different – depending on how much money is spent on it. But, clearly, we mark 100,000 as success.

Whats so wrong about only needing 100k players to make money? You dont need a million subs to be successful, or even a great game.

My favorite game to this day is Asheron's Call, I would hardly say that game had a ton of players. I would consider it successful and a great game.

Sets a new low?

Read the question again please.

What he says, is that CO would survive and make money if they manage to keep a bit below 100k. Anything above breaking point is a success.

I think some are still following that myth that you need millions to succeed. Obviously the more the merrier but mmo games can survive under 250k and have great success. Eve Online is a great example of that.

CoX has rarely dipped under the 125k mark, and CO is supposedly bigger and better in every way.

To say you'd be "skipping the light fantastic" if you got 100k is definitely setting the bar low.

Many MMOs aim higher than they will get, and some aim lower. 100,000 is a reasonable figure, however what I wonder is by what time after release do they expect to reach it? 1 week? or 1 year? 

Originally posted by green13

http://g4tv.com/games/pc/40993/champions-online/articles/67726/Interview-With-Jack-Emmert/

G4: Speaking of it being successful, when you’re launching an MMO, like how many subscribers do you need in order to survive or thrive?

JE: Well, I think that number is the number for success is over 100,000 for us. If it’s over 100,000, I’m skipping the light fantastic. The break-even point is somewhere below 100,000. And that’s obviously depending upon – every MMO is different – depending on how much money is spent on it. But, clearly, we mark 100,000 as success.

It's not setting the bar low, I'ts being realistic. They probably made some calculations, expenses and all that and they know getting to this numbers they will be doing some money. Awesome.

Edit: It's not a matter of how many players you have, is just a matter of money coming in versus money going out. With around 100k they know they will have more money coming in than money going out. Easy to understand.

I suppose they could lie and claim they needed more for it to be a success, but what would be the point?

Originally posted by Axxar

I suppose they could lie and claim they needed more for it to be a success, but what would be the point?

The point would be to avoid the insanely poisonous reputation of being a failure, a game that once again underperformed and is on a direct highway to hell. CO is a game marketed at veteran MMO Gamers. Its complex, it doesnt have a huge ad campaign to draw in outside audiences, its one for us. And frankly, many of these veteran gamers have at least observed the last years of failures, misadventures and disappointments. The second your game gets lumped into that pile which has Age of Conan, WAR, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, Hellgate: London and more names in it, you probably lost a big number of potential people who will never look at your game again.

Sure, that big number is probably not enough to make or break, but its customers, and 10k players are nothing to sneeze at for a niche game.

Also, if you consider the RMT thing, I suppose 100k players means they break even, if these players spend the projected average in the cash shop. That one can go both ways, so I suppose in order to break even just on paid subs, assuming nobody pays extra for items and such, you ll be looking at more around 120k subs. Still a manageable number. The interesting part, though, which isnt mentioned here, comes in repaying those investors, the debts etc. incurred from development. Any surplus money is going into that, rather than bringing in new content.

If the game goes well, and Cryptic doesnt overhire due to a high launch but low retention as AoC and WAR had, they ll probably be able to pay everyones salary and continue working on the game a couple years for a living. A game is a success if it can put food on the table for an entire development team for several years. You dont have to pile up the cash in order for it to be worth it.

Originally posted by green13

CoX has rarely dipped under the 125k mark, and CO is supposedly bigger and better in every way.

To say you'd be "skipping the light fantastic" if you got 100k is definitely setting the bar low.

So if they tripled everyone's salaries and gave them huge bonuses then announced that they would now need 300,000 subscriptions to make a profit the game would look better in your eyes? I bet their publisher and investors would love to hear that.

Being able to make a profit while having less customers is a good thing. They did not say they are only expecting to have 100k subscribers they said they can still make a profit with around 100k.

"skipping the light fantastic" if they get over 100k makes it sound like he's not even sure he'd buy it.

And it looks bad to those of us who know that CoX's subscription numbers have generally hovered around the 125k mark and have even gotten up close to 200k.

To sell off CoX then spend several years in development to create what is essentially a sequel to CoX, and then not do as well... That comparison can't help but be made.

I honestly thought they could do better. Obviously no-one wants to make claims like LOTRO did and then spectacularly underperform, but to publicly say you'd be thrilled with a number this low....

Originally posted by green13

"skipping the light fantastic" if they get over 100k makes it sound like he's not even sure he'd buy it.

And it looks bad to those of us who know that CoX's subscription numbers have generally hovered around the 125k mark and have even gotten up close to 200k.

To sell off CoX then spend several years in development to create what is essentially a sequel to CoX, and then not do as well... That comparison can't help but be made.

I honestly thought they could do better. Obviously no-one wants to make claims like LOTRO did and then spectacularly underperform, but to publicly say you'd be thrilled with a number this low....

Yeah but they're now in direct competition with CoX as well as those who will 'pass' to wait for DCU. I think they just don't want to be disappointed with their game - using your LOTRO example, I bet plenty of people were disappointed (from devs to publishers) at its retail performance and positions were cut as well as (maybe) some of its funding. That's why they gotta be realistic as to not end up in the bad side of publishers; I don't think they'll under-perform, so if they meet their ends, then they didn't fail in the eyes of the publisher, and if they surpass them, then they're fit for more funding and no real losses are sustained. Another example is Warhammer. They promised the Virgin's pearls and then when everything went to hell Mythic got merged with/under Bioware and Mark Jacbos got fired. 

Originally posted by green13

CoX has rarely dipped under the 125k mark, and CO is supposedly bigger and better in every way.

To say you'd be "skipping the light fantastic" if you got 100k is definitely setting the bar low.

Yeah, what I thought, too. I mean, doesn't even the 10 yo UO has 100k still? I heard even EQ1 has still 250k. I am quite surprised by this. Maybe they don't want to put themselves under pressure, but aiming for 100k seems really quite odd, given that there is only Aion coming at the same time (which I still regard a very... pecuilar game), and the fact that most previously launched MMOs were more or less total failures (Aoc, WAR, VG, PotBS, TR asf.), so people should be quite starved for new MMOs. Most people know who play WOW say "yes we have quite enough of WOW, but there is nothing else atm." I really had thought they would aim for more. Hm.

Do you people not understand how many people one-hundred thousand happens to be? He's talking unique paying subscribers.

If he said something like ten thousand I'd raise an eyebrow.

considering they are aiming at the casual friendly x-box control savvy demographic  and they have both subs and mt's.... i think the number of players they want is realistic.

The game should have some real draw for those who are a bit more twitch orientated for their pvp games. As well as some draw for the casual pve crowd.

i dont see the game really having anything for those who like high end raiding, in depth crafting system, or pvp with a significant meaning.

alas i fall into the second catagory of people looking for a game with more of a challenge than WoW. A game that actually challenges me through the entire experiance.   I wish them luck, but I will have to pass.

I think they'll get above 100k subs just because think of it as CoH2.  Same development company made it and just about every CoX player I talk to online (even myself) are moving over when CO releases.

Originally posted by green13

http://g4tv.com/games/pc/40993/champions-online/articles/67726/Interview-With-Jack-Emmert/

G4: Speaking of it being successful, when you’re launching an MMO, like how many subscribers do you need in order to survive or thrive?

JE: Well, I think that number is the number for success is over 100,000 for us. If it’s over 100,000, I’m skipping the light fantastic. The break-even point is somewhere below 100,000. And that’s obviously depending upon – every MMO is different – depending on how much money is spent on it. But, clearly, we mark 100,000 as success.

A company would have to try very hard to not get over 100,000 users in today market.  Even games that are considered terrible are holding onto 100k easily. 

I'm not saying this makes champions a bad game, but that is really setting the bar low. 

Before anyone jumps on my, yes I understand that they can be profitable at 100k users, but that isn't what is being said here with their expectations.   I'm sure it is just PR speak and not wanting to over hype the game which seems to be a problem these days, so kudos for cryptic for keeping things in check (unless they are serious).  I really don't like G4 for asking the question to be honest.  There is no real good answer to it. 

Originally posted by Ravenmane

I think they'll get above 100k subs just because think of it as CoH2.  Same development company made it and just about every CoX player I talk to online (even myself) are moving over when CO releases.

I would have to completely disagree with your conclusions...

CO is not CoH2...

...and just about everyone I talk to online (myself included) are not moving over to CO when it releases.

I think G4 screwed up the question and many people here are misunderstanding it.  The question ultimately asked is, "what does cryptic need to break even" and the response was 100k subscribers.    Using the word "successful" was inappropriate as now a strict business term, "breakeven", has been muddied with a very subjective one.

WoW may have needed 500k subscribers to break even, which it met and then some.  How many did it need to have before it was considered successful?  1 million?  2 million?  It doesn't matter that much because anything over breakeven is icing on the cake....