PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download,Retail | Retail Price:$19.99 | Pay Type:Subscription
Desktop Client | System Req:
Anatomy of a Launch - Part One
New MMORPG.com writer Mathew Reuther pens this look back at the Age of Conan launch from his perspective.
The Backstory
Each new year sees a few high profile MMORPG releases. These game launches are something each early adopter of a new MMO eagerly anticipates yet dreads at the same time. The veterans of the massive online gaming battlefield can tell you some real horror stories. As new games come to market and eager gamers await the opening of the game servers, one of the most oft-repeated tales is that of Anarchy Online's 2001 launch.
The story of this launch is probably one of the most chilling MMO tales floating around the net, as when the game released it was nearly impossible for customers to actually play. The ambition of the game's creators to have one large world where every gamer who wanted to play would be able to interact with every other player was unheard of at the time. Even today only one game (EVE Online) has successfully achieved this goal in a large scale title. This ambition came at a high price as the in-game avatars actually generated so much stress on the game engine that a matter of walking fifty meters in the game world became an arduous journey that could take fifteen minutes or more. Though the game developers (Funcom, a minor development house based in Norway of all places) were quick to begin addressing the issues, the damage done by the initial problems is incalculable. Even post-fix efforts to woo customers back with offers of free playtime were not a resounding success. Though Anarchy Online remains profitable (albeit with an alternate revenue scheme) today, it is likely a shadow of what it could have become had the launch not been an abysmal failure.
The Setup
As a result it is with much trepidation that gamers awaited the release of Funcom's next entry into the MMO market. While gamers may be a lot of things, the vast majority of them are keen students of history . . . at least as it applies to gaming companies. Of course from the get-go Age of Conan was unlikely to face anything remotely close to the problems that Anarchy Online did. The development team had learned from the past and took great care to minimize such risks by maintaining a traditional multi-server model and utilizing instancing technology very heavily within the game world. Unfortunately when you have a track record which includes the mother of all bad launches even the most hardened MMO warriors get wary when contemplating what may happen when your next title is released.
As a method of soft launching the game Funcom decided to roll out with a staggered release. Pre-order customers were to be given access to the game servers three days prior to the official launch. This would give the company time to spot and fix any major server issues before the masses arrived. Originally the Early Access program was scheduled to start on May 17th for North America and Oceania while Europe would begin on May 20th. Shortly before release the date was moved up for Europe, thus both programs were scheduled to begin at the same time. During the week leading up to the planned Early Access start date customers were allowed to register a pre-release key, pay a small amount of money and receive 10 days of play time. This offer was limited and Funcom closed the Early Access program down a few days prior to the 17th.
The Initial Fallout
Though Early Access was always advertised by Funcom as being a limited opportunity the majority of retailers did not adequately advertise this fact. As a result many individuals who had pre-ordered copies of the game were unable to participate in the Early Access program. This was the first truly major blast of negativity to hit Funcom's new flagship product. Prior to this the only really notable criticism had been isolated venting from a small number of Closed Beta testers and general disappointment at the unoptimized client and level restrictions of the Fileplanet Beta. Across forums large and small, including the official boards at ageofconan.com sizable numbers of dissatisfied (pre-order) customers made their displeasure known.
Though there were a few more slots opened up in the Early Access program after the initial closure, those openings vanished very quickly indeed. This left a large number of individuals waiting for the official release, while one of the primary reasons cited by buyers for pre-ordering was access to the servers prior to the official launch date. This created a situation where customers turned against each other due to jealousy and anger over perceived mistreatment at the hands of Funcom. A typical “fanboi vs. naysayer” scenario had broken out amongst people who were all pretty much fanbois. Exactly the kind of negativity companies tried to avoid had spawned due to the massive demand for access to the product. Even before launching Age of Conan, success was already hurting the game.
While it is simple enough for Funcom to claim that they were unable to control the actions of their resellers, that is an excuse made after the fact. This entire scenario could have been minimized by careful attention to detail on Funcom's part. A survey of the details on the largest resellers' websites would have given the company enough information to ask that the conditions of the program be made clearer. It is not unusual for companies to utilize interns to act as watchdogs over programs that do not warrant the attention of a vital member of the company. Such employment of a young student in the Marketing or Communications fields would have been wise. Unfortunately nobody will care that the middle man lied about the Early Access program details. People will only remember than when Funcom closed the doors on the program they were left out in the cold.
Please Release Me . . .
When the 17th finally rolled around the collected gamers held in their community breath. A last-minute patch was applied, pushing the scheduled start time back numerous hours, cutting deep into European prime time hours. As disgruntled gamers began to despair the game opened up (on the 18th for many Europeans) and thousands upon thousands of gamers poured onto the servers. All was forgiven, and virtual heads began to roll.
The euphoria was short-lived for some as random technical issues cropped up to stop people from playing. However for the majority of players the game ran well enough and was relatively stable. The greatest number of problems were actually due to Funcom's failure to assess server needs properly. As a result some people were unable to play on their chosen server . . .
Danger Will Robinson, Danger
Despite the relatively smooth launch there were some immediate issues, particularly with the server loads. Funcom made the decision to release four different server rulesets (PvE, PvP, RP-PvP, and CPvP) during Early Access. The balance between these rulesets was generally more favorable to the pure player versus environment servers. Unfortunately all information available to the public at the time pointed towards the fact that it was indeed player versus player server rulesets which were more in demand. In fact, some player versus player servers were filled to the arbitrary capacity levels imposed by Funcom within 30 minutes of the servers opening. Players from the same guild were at times literally unable to join the same servers and play together due to the popularity of the server type.
The true depth of this problem became apparent on the official release date. When the servers opened up to the general public (anyone who had a retail box) those servers which had previously been very busy were in fact completely full for many hours every day. Though Funcom established a queue system for logins, even that became full on some servers. This meant that people with characters created on the first day of Early Access were unable to log in and play. If you did not have a character on the server and wanted to create one in order to play with the rest of your guild it was absolutely impossible until the load dropped to normal levels. This is due to the lack of support for character creation without login. The system's weakness (in the eyes of the users, at least) is the fact that you cannot even make a character if there is a heavy load on the server. As a result the community itself has experienced a great deal of internal strife. Guilds have fought internally over the server choice, with latecomers complaining of overcrowding and Early Access members complaining about the loss of playtime which would result from changing servers.
Though the company has attempted to add servers in order to alleviate the stress on the most populous servers, the major problem with adding to the pool once the 17th had passed was that entire guilds had already chosen servers based upon the information available prior to the opening of Early Access. Though there are many unaffiliated players a majority of the MMO gaming population follows a kind of twisted avian migratory pattern. Some may send scouts while others may move en masse, but what is for sure is that the flocks like to stick together. Guilds with ten members in the Early Access program suddenly expanded to include twenty, fifty or more members who tried to access overfull servers. Despite adding sufficient servers (quickly) to cover the player load, the cards had already been dealt before Funcom realized that there was a problem. The underlying issue remains a problem: there are in some cases not enough slots on servers which filled up early, while newer servers are a touch under-utilized.
At this time it is clear that without assistance that only Funcom can give, the servers will have difficulty peacefully load-balancing themselves. It has been confirmed that Funcom does have the capability to execute server transfers for those characters wishing to make the move but the company is hesitant to do so until they feel that there is definitive need. With less than two weeks having passed since the official launch Funcom is not prepared to admit to the need for transfers. Admittedly the load issues on the more populous servers have lessened, but it remains impossible to create a character on those servers during prime time. Thus some players who are unable to login outside of those hours are still prevented from joining their guildmates. The speed with which the company balances these overcrowded server populations out will prove critical to the healthy growth and development of those communities.
Uh, Oh: Supply Train Derailed
While shortages and product delays are a fact of life we all deal with on a daily basis (look at gasoline prices . . . in Europe) it is atypical for a pre-order of a standard video game to experience any kind of delay. Unfortunately in the case of Age of Conan this has been the case for many customers. Despite Funcom's assurances that the physical game would be available upon release there have been critical failures in the logistics train for both the standard and Collector's Edition copies of Age of Conan.
Various resellers were either instructed not to ship copies until one day prior to release or did not receive the game boxes until too close to (or after) the release date. Thus many players have been forced to cancel pre-orders (and lose the remaining benefits) and obtain retail copies (which are sold out in some markets) or have had to wait until long after release to begin playing. Though some Age of Conan community members have been quick to point out that blaming Funcom for distribution issues may be a bit harsh in light of the fact that Eidos is the company's distributor, it is worth noting that bad press rarely sticks to the distributor when it can stick to the developer. This is compounded by the fact that the resellers specifically suggested by Funcom are in many cases the ones with the biggest shipping problems. This includes Funcom's own ”official” store which only shipped games on the 26th of May, three days after the official European release.
In addition some Collector's Edition copies of the game have been issued with a defective product key. This issue has prevented a significant number of customers from playing the game until a replacement key is generated. While Funcom does have a special email address set up for the handling of replacement key requests, this process has reportedly not been quick. Some customers have been left with no access to the game for up to three days (and in rare cases even longer) after acquisition of the product.
This is of course the result of poor quality control during the manufacture of the Collector's Edition,but the error message rendered by the input of one of these faulty product keys is not helpful to say the least. A far more efficient method of dealing with faulty keys is for the account management software to refer people who have an invalid key to an email address or online form for further assistance. To date this has not been done. The error message simply indicates that you need to contact customer support, for which no email address or contact form is given. The address which is to be used for replacement keys is not advertised well enough as a result. Unless you have access to the official forums (which in most cases requires a valid key) you would need a friend to tell you how to proceed.
Read Part Two here.
Very nicely written Mr. Reuther.
I look forward to part 2.
Although i like constructive critism, all of part one looks at 'issues' of the launch, and doesnt mention any good points. He thinks they did that bad? Personally, me and the rest of my wow guild got onto a server with 0 problems and have been playing hapily ever since.
Does he think double the amount of servers should of been opened on day 1 ? Hence having low population servers?
Is part 2 the same old bashing? and nothing good on funcoms behalf. In my opinion they have a massive task ahead of them for the first few months at least, and are doing a good job.
I have to head off home from work now or i would post more, but to me it seems to be just a bashing news post.
Again, as the article says, this is his own look at the launch. The point of the article is to look at what went wrong.
I don't usually try a new MMO until a couple months after release. I do a lot of reading and research before investing my time and money into something like that. It's been my experience that upon launch, most MMOs have a lot of issues and bugs that really interrupt smooth gameplay and the immersion factor. For example it's hard to comment about how much you love some of the group PvP when one or more members of your group is disconnected once per 10 minutes. It's hard to discuss the polish and fun of the game before they fix a couple big issues (overcrowding & queue times, DX10, etc).
Once those kind of issues are handled players will start to comment about how awesome the combat system is, or how they like the art or mecahnics of something. You just have to get the big things out of the way and that often takes a little time. I am a huge Robert E Howard fan and would be very excited if Funcom solved the gameplay issues quickly before the player base becomes a little too disgruntled. I think they learned some valueable lessons from the AO launch mess.
Did it go wrong? Many more copies of the game were sold than anticipated and yet most people on most servers had an ok time.
I remember the PotBS servers at launch not long ago, with just a fraction of the player base, and they were really laggy. I experienced very little lag and no queues on my server with AoC.
PS. The instancing technology that so many people complain about in AoC actually saved Funcom lots of hassle with this oversubscribed launch, and it means if numbers die down then the instances will merge rather than servers.
So what he is saying is:
The game was vastly more popular than anyone imagined. Funcom was unprepared for the mass quantity of people who wanted to play the game thus, servers filled up quickly, early access keys ran out quickly, stores sold out and had problems getting enough to fill demand. In other words the game was a huge success. Yea FC way to screw up and make a game that so many people wanted to play that it overwhelmed you. Next time make a crappy game that no one wants to play so you have empty servers.
exactly. aoc is a success whether people like it or not. no game is "polished" at launch. as far as being "finished" at launch, no mmo is EVER finished. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK UPDATES AND EXPANSIONS ARE?!
*Initial sales* were a success. Whether or not the game is a success as a subscription based MMO for the long haul is a whole other question.
I personally walked away from the game even before my "free" 30 days was over for many, many reasons. Lots of other people on multiple MMOs I am playing all tried Conan and left too citing the same issues I had with it. I sure would like my $50 back, but that's the risk you take when you buy any new game.
Misses the real worse issue, whilst essentially they have enough servers it seems like they have no customer services staff what so ever. Well maybe one or two old guys from AO that they quickly got to fill in. Scandalous.
Of course the real promblems are showing now a couple of weeks in.
Love the combat, love the graphics, love the FFA PvP, but Funcom didn't do their homework, so I am now playing Vanguard. I too am looking forwad to Part 2. It better be brutally honest.
Do you have a quote from Funcom stating that they'd merge instances? While it may seem like common sense for Funcom to do that, I've played the game and seen how fast the mobs respawn and the amount of people in one instance and I honestly don't think that could happen without some changes. For one, the respawn timers would have to be increased if more people are added to an instance, because as of right now, they are too slow for the 5-8 people in the area. 5-8 people for Pete's sake in one instance making an area barren of mobs is piss poor design and isn't on par with traditional MMO standards of a massive multiplayer populated world.
I'm right there with you. There are things about AoC that I absolutely love, but there were gamebreaking things that aren't fixed that can and probably will be fixed eventually. Fanboi's need to understand that some of us that are heavily critical of the game actually loved a lot of things about it and want the game to get better, hence why we are criticizing it. What gamer in their right mind wants a game to fail, so they have a smaller pool of games to choose from? No, fanboi's we want AoC to get better and to succeed. The game is beautiful and the combat is fun and action packed. This game does have some serious issues needing addressed. I won't post them here, because they've been posted a hundred times already and Funcom already knows about them. Granted, not everyone has these issues, and I wish I was one of the lucky ones that didn't. But I do, so I will criticize. Sorry, but I had to cancel too.
The guild I am a member of had some issues all getting onto the same server. Those of us with Early Access, were able to create our toons with no problems on the only RP-PVP server we could chose, Cimmeria. By the time launch day rolled around however, it was very frequently full and our non-Early Access members had a hard time creating their toons and joining us. It happened exactly as Mathew described it. So I for one also welcome articles like this.
They should be. No exceptions. Launch is supposed to be "we're out of beta, we've fixed all our bugs and the game works as we intend it to!". In the case of AoC, that's not the situation. It should be polished. It should be ready to play without the insane number of bugs that are still in it (even before end-game, not that that's the point).
That they've released "more polished than other companies have in the past" is entirely besides the point. It's not polished and it should be. Period.
This, at least, I agree with. Updates should always happen, to address issues that will, undoubtedly, crop up and bite you. Expansions are (almost *grin*) always something to look forward to.
However, until players start actively complaining about (and refusing to pay for) the release of beta-quality games, ass-backwards developers (or their tight-fisted distributors) will keep giving us this beta-quality rubbish. The next game to be released could be the WoW-breaking, most awesome, mind-destroyingly beautiful game to ever hit the market, with a crafting system to make even ex-SWG players cry tears of joy.... but if it's a buggy piece of crap, I'm still not going to play it. I don't pay to play beta; I pay to play release-quality games.
Now, don't get me wrong: personally, I love what AoC tries to be.
I want to play it! Really! I would happily give them my money each month for what AoC tries to be.
But.... (and it's a huge but...)
There are just way too many bugs and horridly thought-out mechanics and issues for me to play without grinding my teeth; crafting is waste of time and effort, the resource system is horrendous, itemization is beyond chronic (my necro has had two level 10 greens way past level 40 simply because nothing better has dropped or appeared on the Trader), player cities are horrendously buggy (no npcs meaning buildings are useless, falling through buildings' internals, etc), quests are buggy all over the place (even in some of the first zones you get to after leaving Tortage), you can lock yourself out of - or just utterly bug out - gathering and tradeskills if you have something as simple as a full quest log (known about since early access but nothing done about it)... the last being even worse because there's nothing you can do to drop or reset those tradeskills and GMs actively say "they can't help you because they're only allowed to help fix Destiny Quests". Yes. Really.
The combat system may rock and the lore may be great; the environments may be nothing short of jaw-dropping and awe-inspiring; those don't, however, make the sour taste in my mouth go away, when I run head-first into yet another bugged quest.
When they fix their slew of problems, I'll be one of the first to sign back up, again. I'm fairly sure that my few dozen friends who have also cancelled their accounts (after trying to play through these issues) will do the same.
We just refuse to pay to play a beta... and regardless of what the mindless fanbois attempt to tell you, it most definitely still is in beta and, at this rate, will still be for quite some time.
I wish FunCom the best of luck in their striving to get the game into a release state, though. I don't feel cheated (more than with any other MMO release)... just extremely disappointed.
I console myself with this thought: at least it wasn't another AO release. :P
One of those is enough to last me the rest of my gaming lifetime. Heh.
Maybe you will address the huge stink that was the RP-pve server debacle where they gave the Europeans one, but continuously ignored the Americans desire for one.
Don't fret about having no items drop for you.....most of the stats do nothing anyway :)
A total disgrace of an article !!! MMORPG.COM proves they are taking direct bribes from gaming developers instead of bringing out the TRUE issues of a new releaased MMORPG game.
Anatomy of a launch ? How about talking about the PR job that promised alot of features that then are not in the game ? How about talking about the total preventions of allowing testers to tell gamers about the true state of the game ? How about pointing out that he "succsess" of launch is NOT based on the product - not based on the content and not based on the features. Its based on something totally diffrent. And MMORPG.COM finds that perfectly fine ?
What kinda MMORPG gaming site is this ?
Fool as many to spend their money ? Is that what gaming is about ? Is that good for the MMO gamers? Or is that good for MMORPG.Com vallet ? Not to mention the gaming developers ?
I'd have to disagree with the op, EQ1 was worse than AoC and EVERY expansion for it meant bugs, crashes and nerf batting. Hands down EQ1 is the worst with every launch.
I actually have to agree. The whole article read a lot more like an opinion piece designed to bring down Age of Conan. Every single major MMO has experienced these problems and delays, and I know from experience. I've played almost every major MMO at the launch and they've all had the same problems, delays, and issues. Only the early MMOs were unaffected by the Open Beta access issue because it wasn't used as a commercial ploy to sell the product. By far the best MMO launch I have ever experienced was Lord of the Rings Online because almost none of the problems were present, granted it took Turbine 2 games (and one botch) to get there but they did.
What?
This article (Part 1 of X) outlines some of the problems with the game, more than anything else. I for one am having a pretty good experience with AoC but am frustrated that some of my colleagues are having problems. Will I leave the game if my guild decides to move on due to problems? I will. But in the mean time, I try to enjoy the game for what it is and have faith that Funcom will deliver on its promises.
Should Funcome have been better prepared? Yes.
Should they have a better PR/CS department? Yes.
Are they paying MMORPG.com to write a flashy embellishing article? Are you nuts?
Are they trying to fool people to spend their money? I ask you who is the more foolish; the one who fools or the one who gets fooled? Get informed, get educated and make an informed purchase. Don't blame publicity and hype (called promotion for you non-business types) for making a game attractive. That is the whole point of going in business....to make money.
I personally can't wait for the next part(s) of this article, as I have been in the dark about some of the other issues I don't know about. I haven't looked around for problems that I don't have and count myself lucky. I do hope that people who left do decide to come back when the game actually goes through its polish.
P.S.: I agree with LOTRO being my smoothest launch evar!
I'd wait for Part 2 before going off. I think the reason it has "parts" is because the launch, and the state of the game can easily be divided into two very separate beasts.
I think the state of the game at launch is what has bothered most, and that will naturally be what they talk about last.
Personally I feel like all of the people following the game were lied to. You don't release any software product that isn't completely tested and "feature complete." It's just bad business to do so, no matter what the reason.
If you say something is definitely going to be in the game, then it damn well better be there. If you say "we're planning on it being in at launch" then you have some room to your statement where if it isn't in, it's no big deal.
There are tons of issues with the high level content, and tons of issues with bizarre bugs that shouldn't have made it past the in-house testers. Poor development process IMO.
To Seryth: I agree with your "get informed, get educated" argument, but wouldn't you agree that Funcom tried to prevent that. They didn't live the NDA until release. They didn't unlock the forums to the public until a week in. I mean it seemed like they were really trying to hide some things and prevent the gamers from being educated and informed about their next purchase.
Amen Brother!
Ever since Netscape started it's infinate beta cycle in 1997. Internet based software. Software that REQUIRES internet access to function at all, like a web browser or in this case an MMORPG. Has been developed with (ab)using the general public to act as their unpaid, in many cases your paying them, beta testing department. This trend has now migrated to consoles like the XBOX 360 and PS3 since both come with a hard drive (the ps3 always, xbox you can buy it after the fact) , sony and MS can now update to their hearts content games that shipped too early or in a beta state. It used to be that console games had to be 100% PERFECT, now they can be good enough. This will continue until the paying public stops buying beta quality software and stops being unpaid beta testers, and in some cases unpaid tech support via the forums. Case in point. AOC runs like dirt on my machine. But Vanguard, which uses the unreal engine, but an earlier version, runs wonderfully on balanced, but AOC is unplayable on the same hardware using the lowest settings possible and I tried for hours. Using a trick that a friend found on the forums. I was able to increase the frame rate from about 4 FPS to 8 to 10 FPS. Which makes it just barley playable. And NO I'm not getting a new computer just to play ONE game. Forget it. EQ2 runs beatifully as well on balanced even in a raid, and maxes out the WoW engine, but that is not really hard to do. Every game I have ever tried on my computer works awesomely, except Age of Conan.
The continual beta release cycle will continue, because people will put up with it. It's sad but true. It's only going to get worse, as studios try to save a buck, why pay massive amounts of people to test it when you can unleash it on an unsuspecting public and call it a preview. At least call it what it is, unpaid beta testing.
Here is what I feel Funcom should have done. Ive stated this on Test forums - on the public AOC forums and now here.
First off - DONT fool the players. It can never pay off. Funcom did delepratly hide the state of the game when it launched. That on its own is a disgrace to gaming. It had nothing to do with servers - it had nothing to do with client stability. It had to do with a) the content of the game b) features of the game c) classes of the game. Stabilty of servers and Clients should have been tested months and months before at that stage.
Imagine this... This game was in beta for ... God knows how long. Still there was NO focused testing of Spellweaving before launch. None.. whatsoever. And this leads to spellweaving beeing now disabled for certain classes. Imagine the effect on the overall classbalance ? Key factor of any MMO game was just thrown in at last second. And ofc it wasn't working.
Content - Its lacking to maintain healty and steady lvling curve in the game. Part of the problem lvling is cause there are endless traveling between loading screens - and then running - and then running on slowed down mounts that cost fortune... Just so the Pre-Orders and EA would not go crazy on slow mount that was made for content that WAS NOT ready ... Now... Im still trying to be positive.
Features - I could go on and on about this one. DX10 ... Who cares if this game has a box saying it specially supports DX10? There are many bigger features that again were NOT tested in beta and testers knew were not ready.
So what should Funcom have done ? I tell you what.. THey should have been honest. Yes - thats a big word but it pays of longterm. So what does it mean to be honest in this case?
Here is what it means. When "open beta" started Funcom should have come out and PUBLICLY announche the following.
- The game will now be focused fully on testing the lvling process of the game.
- Certain features of the game will sadly not make the launch. DX 10 - Guild Cities and Siege battles have not fully been tested and will need more time and testing before we can release it.
- Our priority at this stage is to provide balanced content throughout the lvling progress. Thats why we are now focusing specially on spellweaving and will be launching focused testing in closed beta to test out this feature for those classes. Class balance is a key feature in any MMORPG game and we will do our very best to make sure we can provide both fun - and at the same time fair and balanced game throughout the lvling progress.
Now.... What did Funcom actually say at this stage ?....
They came out PUBLICLY and said they were holding DX10, siege battles and spellweaving out for the closed beta testers so testers could look forward to something at release.... How many closed beta testers do you think actually belived that ? NOONE !! And NDA prevented testers to say so. All testers knew at exactly that stage that Funcom was no longer beeing honest about one word they said at that time. They were just selling an unfinshed game - trying to make as much money at launch and then .... well.... and then what ?
Are ppl really surprised that the game is getting backlash now ? Really ?
Or why do you think Funcom has made special rules that players that have BOUGHT their product are not allowed to say on OFFICIAL forums that they have chancelled the subsctibtion ? ..... Seriously .... Is that how to listen to custimors that were fooled into buying something they belived was actually a real end product ?
What about beeing honest ?
MMORPG.COM ... What about beeing honest for the good of the gamers instead of the gaming developers ?
Which part in the word "critic" do you fail to understand? A critic is SUPPOSED to highlight what went wrong. Its like a gourmet critic, or a movie critic, no one wants to read what went as planned, but what went out of what was to be expected. A critic has to highlight critical things, otherwise it would be called advertisement.
It was a good look at all the issues that occurred, with a tiny bit of speculation thrown in. It was neutral enough for me, so I like it and want to hear part 2!
Please, don't take the article as a review of the game. Forums, blogs, and reviews are generally accurate, but probably can't tell you if you will enjoy a game. Especially with AoC, which seems to have a love/hate relationship.
That said, I agree with all the peeps who want to wait a month or two. It's always smart to wait just a little bit for the bugs to be smoothed and the game polished by trial and error.
And lets not forget the game breaking bugs.... 10k latency issue post is now at 1300+ and counting, with no acknowledgement from Funcom, this is the number 1 tech issue. Out of memory error at 1,100 posts and counting. Patching errors, BSOD, CTD, bad FPS on top rigs, list goes on.
I also think the reason why they sold so many copies was they didn't honor their buddy key system, my brother had to buy a retail copy because mine and everyone else's buddy keys are not active yet. So glad my CE came with 5 buddy keys that don't exist.
Also strange how you couldn't look at the AoC forums unless you had an account. Funcom have been really shady in their dealings.
Anyone who has not got the game, do not get it for 3 months minimum. I myself despite liking the game, will not be comming back, I got burned too hard. I will be waiting for Spore to get me to WAR.
AoC = Have people pay to Beta test a game...
Time for SOE to purchase the game.... yes.. I said it! lol
Besides the wise cracks, I bought Vanguard at launch and it was full of bugs and I will never buy a game at launch again. I passed on AoC to see what the feedback was like and I will continue to wait until the major issues are dealt with. I don't want a game full of bugs and issues to spoil something with so much potential as what happened to me with Vanguard. First impressions mean everything in games... at least to me they do. Launch when ready should be the motto.
The instances are automatically spawned based on player population in that area--and they are automatically despawned in the same way..
Very good article. I was really curious about AOC's launch since it is the first major release in awhile.
Hopefully companies learn from this and launches will go smoother in the future.
I strongly support the author and mike470 on this subject. I've gotten mighty tired of gushing lemming news sites that naively proclaim "best launch ever" when it clearly was not. For a LOT of people.
I felt the worst part of Funcom's PR was that they decided to lie to our faces. I, and I expect many others, would have understood if they were just candid and honest about their launch problems. Instead, we got "We couldn't have possibly anticipated this much interest!"
Really. No way you could have seen this? Really? The only significant MMO for months around, you post MOST ANTICIPATED MMO AWARDS on your WEBSITE, beta tests are overwhelmed with people, you obviously PRODUCED that many copies and preorder codes, and you have a DECADE of MMO HISTORY as a REFERENCE, and you say to our faces there's no way you could have imagined the interest?!?!?
This was almost as good as the follow up act, restricting access to the Funcom forums only to the people that were already in the game. So, all those people that were left to twist in the wind with no access now also had no help and no answers. Brilliant.
Well i'll be.......someone with BALLS makes a very detailed and accurate portrayal. well done, and well said.
you nailed everything my bro went through and whats keeping me from getting this "smooth launch" game. 
(for a couple more months yet)
I personaly Have not had any problems with the game and I have been in since 3 days befor the launch, the biggest problem I had was the fact that they were doing maintince during peek hours in the US, they changed this last week, the game has been out for 2 weeks, its ran smooth for me every time I played it, there has been occational instance crashes and dumb things but all buggs that will get worked out sooner then later. The launch was not that rocky at all, dont get me wrong It could have been smoother but, it was what I expected. The, only thing I didnt like about his news report was he added at the end that you can not view the forums unless you have an active account. It was that way for the first week, but they changed it after that, a simple fix on that end.
An excellent article highlighting some aspects of Murphy's Law in action during an mmog launch. Looking forward to part 2.
Its about money. Always has been and always will be. mmorpg.com is a cheerleader site for the mmorpg industry. Company's pay money to advertise here. Moderators mod and direct forum content.
Funcom designed and advertised a product to get you to buy it. Does it really matter how they went about it? They succeded on a massive scale. Hundreds of thousands of individuals purchased the game. Millions of dollars.
Was it a succesfull launch? You bet it is. Funcom used deceptive advertising, misdirection and out right lies to make it happen. And guess what... They got away with it. I really think this will become the new mmorpg launch norm. Gamers = Suckers.
Its all about the money... Suckers
Hmmm... Wonder if im now going to get my third mmorpg trolling warning? I mean award...
Reanim
You poor deprived little man,
You poor deprived little man, Nothing will ever make you happy and thats sad. good luck in life.
Anyone want to actually give a balanced review of the launch?
This one is just shockingly poor.
I was never touched by the issues that such a lot of other players had during the launch of AoC. I was never hit by server queues, wrong serials in the CE or even any crashes. For me the launch went very well.
But I still think that it is important to see the other side of the medal of a game launch. The things that went wrong and that were perhaps not so well planned as they could have been. Mr. Reuther did a good job of covering the things that were less than pleasant for a good number of players, and there is no bashing and no unneeded negativity in this article. It is a reprensentation of the facts that were present at the launch of AoC.
Honestly this is one of the better articles of MMOrpg and I really hope Mr. Reuther will stay here for a while. The article was fact-stating, neutral and to the point, even if some might not like the truth that can be found within this article.
I for myself plan to make AoC my new virtual MMO home for quite some time into the future but that does not mean that I do not acknowlege the flaws in the introduction of this game.
So, I am anxious to read part two of this launch article series. Nice work so far, Mr. Reuther :)
So, by deliberatly scrutinising all the points that in his opinion went 'wrong' and not considering the magnitude of a game launch, you think the article shows a fair view of funcom/age of conan?
Having an article that shows both would of been the way to go.
I started to read his part 2, same old thing so i didnt bother reading it all.
Maybe all games released are scrutinised by mmorpg like this? In that case, Funcom/Age of Conan would be shown as standing tall above the rest.
It's just a really crappy and un-needed way to repay your advertisers.
I walked into my nearest retailer and picked up a copy on the 23rd May, a few hours later i was happily playing age of conan.
So far, in 47 levels i have had 4 issues, raised a ticket for each and all solved.
-----------------------------------
Hows that? True story. For a new mmorpg I cannot grumble, and i bet many hundreds of thousands of people who bought the game have the same review as mine.
This is a sad and unbalance review which MMORPG.com should be ashame of
WOW the world leading MMO had a horrible game launch with them also adding servers and huge patches
the only point I get from this reviewer is he hates FUNCOM
I got the game a few days after launch...zero wait..zero lag..zero problems
one of the best playing MMORPG after only a few days after launch
this game also by far has the best starting mission set and story line, how can you be a grown person and know nothing about the world you live in.
there are of couse things about the game I do not like...group bars are to small and lack needed info....finding group members on map...group members sent to different instances at zoning to name just a few....
can only hope someone writes a review about the game instead of their hate for the company Funcom next time
The one thing that bothers me most here is the fact that most the criticism is coming from a bunch of WoW Fanboi's. Lets look back on the history of releases of successful MMO's shall we? I think i'll start with WoW one of my favorites. WoW had the most DISAPPOINTING RELEASE PREPARATION of any MMO out other then Anarchy online. Lets see as the game was released didnt they take the servers down for an entire WEEK because they miscalculated the popularity of there product? Didn't WoW get released and was still not even stable there were class balance issues, various instance issues, there were just to many bugs to fix and look at it now. The most successful MMO in history and it had a worse start then AoC. AoC actually has managed there game ALOT better then blizzard did in the beginning. Funcom knows what there doing and knows how to handle issues. Unlike blizzard who avoids the issues and would rather throw around random patches to cause more bugs. Anyone who played release knows what im talking about with WoW. Aside from that I think that AoC has the potential to put up a fight against other MMO's like WoW, Eve, Everquest, LOTR, COH and many others I believe that give it 2-3 months and it will be one of the most stable games out there. Funcom is know for making games stable look at anarchy online one of the best games ive ever played. One of the most buggy at release but after a couple months became one of the most successful games in history. I rest my case and my argument.
Thank you,
Reverb out!
Well,
All I have to say is AoC was the best launch I have been in!
So sure there where problems but for 95% of the people did not have problems.
I find myself coming less and less to this site due to all the negative comments and flat out lies I have read on this site in the fourms.
My advice is buy the game your going to have a lot of fun!
LOL !!!! Thats a good one. Did you start just yesterday?
There is nothing smooth about this game. Crafting is a total cluster****.
At level 50 I have 4 quests in my book.... My higher level guildies are screaming for something to do other than grind.
The game was launched about 1 yr prematurely.
Well you must be challenged because I hit 50 yesterday and have at least 11 quests not completed for my lvl. More false information.
The reviewer hit the nail on the head. Funcom customer support has always been abysmal and I have extreme doubts they will ever get it right.
The game has such lack of content, especially past 50, that they will have cancelations before the 30 days is up. Since you can get to 50 in two weeks easily, there will be a lot of players finding this out.
Funcom did as expected, foisted a half finished game on the gaming world. Anyone commending it is really wearing blinders.
The Lotr release makes Funcome look like a bunch of rookies, Lotr had 10 times the content at release than AoC.
This is one of those games that will be much better in a year, of course Funcom has to wake up and fix their customer service blunders.
No dude, no.....a PoM is challenged in this game LOL another good one. Ok you have 7 quests more..... heh, all that means is i finished mine before you. Funcom has even stated (I cant quote from where) they are aiming to add content for 50+ this summer....Hence 2 patches a week for bugs and adding content.
Couldnt agree more, anyone saying different needs to go look at WAR online. That game looks far more ready for release from what i have seen. And it should be for the amount of time in development.
The thing is the the early game is pretty polished. You tend to over look or forgive issues you notice. The real problems appear a bit further in. Really there is an awful lot missing stuff or stuff justjust slung in for the later game. Actually there is not much later game and that is more of a concern than a few bugs and slightly bumpy launch. There is nothing to do mid to end game (certainly after about 3 or 4 days played time) and it seems as if FC are not particularly what this game is going to be about.
In a nutshell worth playing but its an experience the early content and then move on deal for me.
I wanted to thank everyone who took the time to share their comments on this article. I'll address each comment thread separately in order to try and keep a bit of continuity flowing within the threads. I will do my best to be orderly as I do so. Please forgive me if I introduce any confusing elements, as that is not my intent. If you want clarification on anything, simply ask. You took th time to write, so you deserve my time in return. (People with multiple posts are actually replied to in separate sections under their names.)
Without further ado, my responses to your comments:
@Artermis - As the article is roughly chronologically based and was boken into two parts, the initial article contained what could be considered nothing but negativity. In part two and in the Q&A I have a few more positive things to say. That said, I don't believe that it is my task to artificially inject sunshine into a piece. I wrote what I did because it was appropriate given my experiences, and the experiences of others around me.
It seems rather pointless to state that you didn't bother to read something and then render commentary . . . but since you bothered to type something, you get something back. The first "m" in MMORPG stands fo MASSIVE. Any company releasing a game in the market needs to accept the fact that it is possible for massive to mean "really really really huge" and to prepare accordingly. The fact that Funcom in act failed to be adequately prepared is te entire point of the piece. It is a post-mortem of a game launch, and is (probably) very close to what the company has admitted to internally. If Mythic had released WAR and Funcom had delayed AoC you might very well be reading a similar article about what Mythic did during the launch of that title. It has nothing at all to do with a specific company, and I would welcome the opportunity to cover every single launch from here on out with a similar article here on MMORPG.com if Stradden wants me to. I believe the developers are tough enough to handle the criticism. After all, they managed to stick out the five year journey to get to the release, and that's taken some serious fortitude.
The fact hat you personally have had a pleasant experience is great. I'm happy for you. I too have had numerous issues solved in game, but I don't find the amount of time it has taken support to do so at all satisfactory for a game in any stage. Gamebreakers that hold you up over 24 hours due to insufficient support personnel are unacceptable to most gamers. If any of the same had happened to you or to your friends I suspect you would not be so quick to condemn me as biased. It is inaccurate to suggest that Funcom support is excellent and the game does not have issues. Funcom support is overwhelmed (and hiring if anyone needs a job) and the game as numerous issues which affect a given percentage of players. I could have said the same thing about the majority of MMORPG launches and been correct.
@mike470 - I do recognize the challenge of having success hit you in the face and then have difficulty dealing with it. I certainly do wish to impart empathy, while maintaining my point: things could have been handled better. I hope that in the future we can be candid about the things that go wrong because I believe that it is the best way to improve the industry as a whole. Accountability starts with accepting your role in what has functioned poorly. That goes for the MMORPG development companies, the investors, the distributors, the resellers, the players, and the press.
@Ben1778 - I certainly hope that lessons have been learned, and not just by Funcom. To be honest the other MMORPG development companies should be paying attention to these events. As should distributors and resellers. Things went wrong in many different parts of he chain. I'm with you in hoping that things improve from here.
@boinged - Things went wrong without any shadow of a doubt. The launch was not perfect. The reasons things went wrong are very important, but in the end it is the result which matters. The end result was a game launch which left a large number of players dissatisfied. While there may have been little Funcom could have done during the launch phase to remedy some isues, as I pointed out, there are others they simply failed to competently handle.
@galad2003 - While amusing, you are of course aware that your summary of my writing is wholly inaccurate. No points awarded. The interesting thing about an MMO launch is that you can actually "brace for impact" by spending more money (on a short term basis) to ensure that should you run into an aberration in your launch numbers, you are able to absorb the issues quickly and with little noticable impact. The downside of this is that it requires a larger outlay of money the more protection you decide to build in. It is evident that the built in protection was insufficient in this case.
@silverreign - The amount of polish present in a game is irrelevant to the ability of the developers to keep the servers open for paying customers. The amount of content present in a game means nothing if customers are unable to register an account key. I am not writing based upon the presence of DX10 or the inclusion of Battlekeeps. I am simply detailing facts as they relate to the opening of the game, and the ability of the customers to play it. Polish and content will come in time, and are immaterial to the subject matter of this article.
@MindTrigger - It remains to be see what the impact of this launch will have on the number of people willing to continue paying for the product. With the lack of major releases in recent history (Tabula Rasa being the last fairly major title to hit shelves late in 2007) and the fact that no major titles will arrive on scene until late 2008, we may be seeing more a hope or desire for something new and worthy than an actual belief that AoC is that worthy title. Time, as they say, will tell. Hopefully the game will be improved to address the issues many trialists (those not renewing after 30 days) have faced.
@Gorilla - I'd assume that you've seen by now that part 2 addresses the lack of Customer Support staff in and out of game.
I can agree that the firs part of the game is very much worth playing. In fact a good strategy for those who find themselves enjoying the game might be to restart a new alt every time one of their characters reaches a point at which it becomes less fun to advance. Giving Funcom some time to add in content at certain levels may be a good idea and help people enjoy AoC more.
@JK-Kanosi - There are some serious issues with mob respawn rates in some select areas, for sure. Not unusual in a new (or even old) MMO of course. Due to the dependence upon specific spawns and drops for the completion of content (quests) it does seem at times as if the content was designed from the perspective of adventuring in an area with just one person or one group. On the FFA servers this leads to some rather serious fighting over spawns. That could be considered "added content" but for many people is simply frustrating. I am sorry to hear that your ssues have prevented you from enjoying the game enough. I hope Funcom can resolve some of them quickly so you can rejoin the game soon.
@AikenDrum - Hopefully in the meantime your guildmates have all been able to join you. It took a good deal of time but my guild is now able to adventure together and while we do face queue times some evenings it has smoothed out a bit in the interim.
@Myrathi - I can aree that games should be polished further than they are at his time. We've been in a cycle for a long time with computer gaming where too many bugs are allowed through because "we can patch the game later" . . . something which does players no good. In fact a lot of games have released and never patched the issues present. MMOs generally clean up their mess fairly quickly in the grand scheme of things, but the number of open issues found in a standard MMO release happen to be far too high in my opinion as well. The issues you point out with itemization are indeed glaring. The gear question is compounded by he fact that statistics do not function, or item characteristics are too nebulous to be understood. I suspect a number of fixes will hit the game in the not-too-distant future and some of them should hopefully bring the game up to a more enjoyable level for you. Keep checking back in any case!
@kitsunegirl - I think that a US RP-PvE server should have been created with the caveat that it would be merged with a standard PvE server (or two) if the population were ever to be too low. This is in spite of the fact that I too believe Conan wants RPers to crush their enemies.
@AOCtester - Had my article been titled "The Norwegiant Snowjob: How Funcom Fooled Gamers Everywhere" you might have a leg to stand on calling it tripe if it did not blow the lid off the conspiracy you percieve to exist. However my piece is about the launch itself and the issues experienced by myself and others. The fact that AoC does not have many planned features is of course a disappointment to many, myself included. But any serious MMO gamer knows that unless you see a feature in a released game, it simply doesn't exist. The industry is filled with games that promised functionality upon release or before the first expansion only to never incorporate the features in any way. Your anger at Funcom is better directed at them.
I was honest about the launch issues. If you wanted me to comment on Spellweaving being a bit off for certain classes or DX10 being withheld until later this year I am sorry. I was having a hard time reading your mind. Can you take off the tinfoil hat please? :D
@lupisenparis - I played EQI upon release and can remember being given free game time due to the massive server issues which plagued it. The difference between EQI and AO (which I assume you meant because I never said AoC was even close to the worst launch in MMO history), was that it was possible to actually play EQI, while AO was literally impossible. As for the quality of EQI expansion launches I can only assume you did not agree with the direction the developers took the game. I agree with that assessment personally, and as a result I only sporadically played after the second expansion.
@BlueCadwal - I presented a factual account of the launch. If you believe it was designed to take down AoC I am sorry, but I can't change what actually happened. Nor have I even once suggested that AoC was alone in having launch issues. Do I lose credibility because I did not cover the Lord of the Rings launch with a similar article? Should I have made sure to include my analysis of Vanguard? Of course not. This addresses one series of events and does not make any comparisons except to Funcom's own prior launch of AO. I think it is pretty clear AoC's launch is the superior of those two events.
@seryth - I think it is pretty evident that I am not being paid by anyone to produce a PR-spin on AoC. If that were the case it would have been a better idea to fictionalize or go for more emphasis on feel than fact and actual experience. Sadly though nobody has thousands of € to throw at me to write glowing things about their product. ;)
@checkthis500 - I do agree that despite claiming to be very open that Funcom failed to be in this case. I am not willing to assign that to a nefarious wish to hoodwink gamers, but I will say that it was not at all the way in which I would have handled the situation. Being transparent is a very dangerous thing, which is why MMO companies aren't as transparent as we'd like. The dangers involved make investors wet their beds, so I think we're going to have to deal with a lack of openness for now and always. What I do believe needs to begin to happen is that MMO companies need to be held accountable for being honest about the state of the product, and the features they are launching with.
@Erolis - I think that the motives of companies are in many cases a lot purer than you attribute to them. In point of fact the AoC performance issues have in a great many cases been resolved. That said, we have ourselves to thank for accepting substandard products. The problem is we're so hungry for new adventures that we are often willing to accept the problems just for that little rush of adrenaline as we defeat the next villain or rescue the fair maiden.
@Elikal - And without criticism there is no impetus to improve. Which is the very reason all MMO companies should read articles like this, as well as many of the good solid critical posts in blogs and on forums which highlight issues with all different MMOs. That is how the industry will continue to evolve and improve.
@HumbleHobo - My attitude towards MMOs may be a bit cavalier, which is why I see no reason not to grab AoC immediately and see how it strikes you. For some people it'll be love, some hate, and others will simply have some reservations. Waiting has virtues of course, but I've never been a very patient guy. ;)
@MightyJudge - It is not unusual for buddy keys to be turned of for a brief period after game launch. Granted, not every MMO has that policy, but not all of them even give you a buddy key! If the keys are still not active soon I do believe there is a serious issue, but I think a month of leeway is pretty reasonable. Of course I too know all about the major issues affecting people playing (or trying to play) the game. It is far outside the scope of this article to touch on all of them, but it is worth remembering: AoC is still very young, and you may have serious issues. If history holds true many of these issues will be resolved in the near future. Here's to keeping those fingers crossed!
@junglebeast - It's not an AoC issue as much as it is an MMO issue. In general most games release too early. As a result the first players often feel as if they are in a Beta test.
@Durthu - The game is not going to be sold. To be fair AoC is vastly superior to Vanguard at launch. I really do mean vastly. That said, it is wise to adopt an attitude of wait-and-see if you feel that in the past yo have been too badly burned. If a pattern emerges that shows MMO developers that it is wise to hold off those last critical months because your retention and first impression scores will be that much higher we may start to see better products.
@Rhianne - I'm not even going to begin to pretend to be able to judge the best MMO launch ever. There have been so many done in so many different ways that I believe it is impossible to judge. My point is not even simply to "nail" Funcom for making mistakes with the AoC launch. It is to highlight the problems and examine them, and that is something which can help all future game launches.
@graill - My gender does give e the advantage in tat department. ;) I am glad you saw this as an attempt to "tell it like it is" because that is exactly what it was intended to be. Hope you have a great game to come play after you've sat out a couple of months.
@scottec1425 - The article was written while the forums were locked down. You have to realize that time to press is an issue on a site like MMORPG.com (otherwise you might have 6 articles one day and none for two after that) and as a result what you read may not always be true anymore. It was very much accurate when I typed the words originally, as well as after my last rewrite of the piece. I am very happy for you that you were one of the people who was able to get in and enjoy the game without any hitches. There were plenty of folks who had nothing but good experiences. Unfortunately a lot of folks had some pretty abysmal ones as well. In being objective about the launch I of course have to point out the things that went wrong.
@Reanim - Game developers pay MMORPG.com to host advertising, much like your local newspaper carries ads for grocery stores, lawyers, and car lots. That does not mean that MMORPG.com is inherently corrupt. If that were true my article would have never been posted on this site, because I wrote it before consulting anyone on the site, and only rewrote parts of it that I personally believed needed more work. My initial content and message remain intact. I still have my journalistic integrity.
@tormunda - I'd be happy to engage in a dscussion should you reply with more than a one-line post which doesn't tell anyone why the article is so poor. (After all, maybe you were upset that the section formatting was off . . .) Discourse is healthy and enhances the intellect.
@Jupp - I appreciate the compliments and am glad you enjoyed reading the article. I'm working on something quite a bit different for my next piece. Not sure when it comes out, but I hope you'll give it a read when it does.
@Wellkie - I never once mentioned another MMO. This is not about comparing apples to oranges or WoW to AoC. This is about outlining issues that AoC has had during the launch phase, and at no time have I condemned the job that Funcom has done, nor stated that "suchandusch" game was far superior. I am sorry you are operating under this misconception. I am glad you've been having fun in AoC So have I.
@Reverb22 - Hope to see your predicitions about the future of AoC come true. Sure would be nice if it could be a success for Funcom.
@ajax7 - I think you might be slightly off with your assertion that 95% of the people have no problems. Just judging from my guild roster it's a bit closer to being the exact opposite. While the majority of us have had problems which were resolved relatively quickly, there have ben a few (more than 5%) with lasting issues that remain unresolved. I'm happy you've enjoyed the launch of the game and I hope you continue to do so. I also suspect people who buy the game will as a general rule have a good time, which would be why I suggest doing so in part 2.
@Smilex0311 - Crafting does have some major issues including crash bugs and incomplete components. The other major issue is of course the number of journal spaces the resource and crafting quests take up. At level 50 I had more than 4 quests in my book, however the fact is that the higher up you get the more grinding is required. Since I'm an old MMO gamer it isn't too much of an issue for me, but I do hope they continue to follow up on the announced plans to flesh out high level content.
@Ozmodan - While AoC has some issues at this time I don't think it is appropriate to say the situation is hopeless. The launch was tough in some respects and a resounding success in others. WHat remains to be seen is where the game goes from here. I have no comment on LotR as it is outside the scope of this article. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
***
A long read, for sure, but hopefully I've managed to address your comments adequately. I'll move on to the comments in Part 2 tomorrow. I'm a bit wiped out from a mini-break in Dublin this week so I'm of to bed. Thanks once again for your comments!
Nice to see you took time to talk to everyone, whether they agreed with you or not. Funcom could take a leaf out of your book. Thanks
Impressive to see you reply to everyone ....you must be after a staff job :)
As a hardcore 24/7/365 mmog'er since Meridian59, my rule was always:
Don't start playing until 2 weeks after launch.
By that time login queues, patching, credit card autho problems, BSODs, and other fatal bugs were resolved or diminished to the point where you could (*gasp!*) actually LogIn And Play.
Now with the latest crop of games I'm considering extending my 2 week rule to 1 month. Yes LotRO went smooth enough but i wonder how well WAR will really go.
Even though Mythic / Dark Age of Camelot was a nearly glass-smooth flawless launch, WAR is So much more complex, so HUGELY popular, and with the stink of EA Corporate attached to it, I fully expect a clusterhump at launch.
I didn't play DAoC at launch, but I started playing the following summer after the launch. So I cannot comment on how their launch was. However, I heard that the key features that was the selling point of the game were in there at launch. Since Mythic is creating WAR and is funded by EA, I feel that WAR will be released with all the features they are claiming to have. As far as the stability of the game at launch and bugs, I feel it will have the same problems maybe WoW had at launch. WAR is hugely popular right now, and I bet WAR will get over a million people during launch time trying to play. I don't think WAR will prepare for that many people, so they might have stability problems because of it. I do think Mythic will properly test WAR before releasing it, but that doesn't mean there won't be bugs.
What I am saying is that WAR will be a typical quality release I would think. Quality by MMORPG standards of course. I think AoC was below quality, because they didn't include all the key features that were hyped during their time in development. Problems with hardware on a graphic intensive game, C2D, and memory leaks are things I consider average for a release. So I don't fault AoC for that. It is the combined weight of the problems AoC has that makes me believe AoC had a poor launch.
A good article and one that will be worth looking back on as other MMOs launch.