Trending Games | World of Warcraft | Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn | EverQuest | Guild Wars 2

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,905,854 Users Online:0
Games:757  Posts:6,296,804
Spellborn International
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Cancelled  (est.rel 04/23/09)  | Pub:Frogster Interactive / Mindscape / Acclaim
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

3 Pages 1 2 3 » Search
55 posts found
  swampthing11

Novice Member

Joined: 6/06/08
Posts: 64

 
OP  8/08/10 6:22:15 PM#1

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/56439/The-Chronicles-of-Spellborn-Shutting-Down

 

 

Game over

  User Deleted
8/08/10 6:25:47 PM#2

sad to see an mmorpg go down.

  Robokapp

Hard Core Member

Joined: 11/15/09
Posts: 4778

The only luck I had today was to have you as my opponent.

8/08/10 6:30:54 PM#3

the death of a F2P is interesting news...I wonder how the rest will respond. (looking at Allods).

  Dubhlaith

Novice Member

Joined: 1/04/09
Posts: 1018

Confident, cocky, lazy, dead.
-Dread

8/09/10 3:43:16 AM#4


Originally posted by Reiy
Another POS off the market, only 9000 more to go  ;)

This was a really good game. More than that though, is that they really tried to do something different with the game, and give players a new experience. It was admirable, what they did, and they did it out of love, and it showed in the world. It was pretty complicated, and they did not give players a really good introduction to the world, which was a problem.

However, the real problem was Acclaim. It was poorly marketed and poorly supported, and it was not given a proper chance before they started to make it free to play, and once you take a pay to play game and make it free to play, most gamers just look at is as a joke. The exception to this is DDO, which seems to be doing quite well with the model.

But if you think this is a POS, you must not have played it, or you do not understand what that means. You may not have enjoyed it, as it was difficult and complicated, but it was as well made as most other games on the market today.

"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true — you know it, and they know it." —Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007

WTF? No subscription fee?

  deadanddivin

Novice Member

Joined: 2/08/09
Posts: 14

8/09/10 5:16:47 AM#5

i totally agree.

i played this game when it was p2p and really enjoyed myself.

the combat system was new and awesome.

the only thing that got me to leave was the lack of pve content,

but then again it was still in beta.

the game had alot of potential.

  vectrexevo

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/27/10
Posts: 139

8/09/10 5:37:02 AM#6

I don't post much...  but hands down..  this game had a ton of potential.  The combat system was unique ..  to bad they don't implement this type of combat in newer mmo's..   like the above post's said, it lacked content and direction.. to bad!   On a side note...  MMO's now a days remind me of the atari days when everyone was trying to get a piece of the pie and started to make cra*p games...  remember ET...    Sorry, totally off topic...

  just2duh

Novice Member

Joined: 3/05/09
Posts: 1292

8/09/10 5:48:31 AM#7

 That link doesn't really tell much at all..

 As far as I knew Acclaim was just keeping it running until someone else took it over, as part of an agreement of some sorts, and once this ghost company took it over the acclaim server was always planned to be shutdown.

 So to me if what that little "article" is trying to say is that the acclaim server is closing, then that could mean it's rebirth might be coming soon.

  Papadam

Novice Member

Joined: 12/09/07
Posts: 2127

8/09/10 5:54:47 AM#8
Originally posted by Robokapp

the death of a F2P is interesting news...I wonder how the rest will respond. (looking at Allods).

Well I doubt anyone is going to react to this since Spellborn have been dead almost since release just kept in limbo by Acclaim. They amde no money from it and there was no support or updates they just kept the servers open

Sad to see this one go, I really hope they would re-release this as a F2P MMO, since it was a fun and unique game.

If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd

  User Deleted
8/09/10 6:01:26 AM#9

No surprise here

  User Deleted
8/09/10 6:16:52 AM#10

Did not enjoy the game one bit, but still sad to see a MMO die.

On a happier note cant wait for the GUComic(Bug Zapper)

  kaltoum

Novice Member

Joined: 8/08/10
Posts: 319

8/09/10 6:20:11 AM#11

People keep saying it had potential and that it was good and different. However, good games do not die but bad ones do. If it was really that different more players would be playing it. It was same with tabula rasa, similar comments about how much potential it had. And yet the population kept dwindling every month. Bad games shut down why? because  bad games don't make profit for the company. Potential alone isn't enough to bring profit.

90% of haters are begging for love. 10% just want a little attention -- Paulo Coelho

  Dubhlaith

Novice Member

Joined: 1/04/09
Posts: 1018

Confident, cocky, lazy, dead.
-Dread

8/09/10 9:30:29 AM#12


Originally posted by kaltoum
People keep saying it had potential and that it was good and different. However, good games do not die but bad ones do. If it was really that different more players would be playing it. It was same with tabula rasa, similar comments about how much potential it had. And yet the population kept dwindling every month. Bad games shut down why? because  bad games don't make profit for the company. Potential alone isn't enough to bring profit.

Actually, they died for very similar reasones.

1: The combat system was new and very different from what MMO players were expecting. This alone through a great many people off of the game from the start, and they did not enjoy it.

2: They were not given the proper marketing by their publisher, and so the niche people that may have enjoyed it were much less likely to hear about the game.

3: When the game did not have a spectacular launch, little to no effort was put into making the changes that would entice players to try the game. Spellborn did a bit better with this, but ultimately Acclaim ruined any chances they had.


Important note:

It is a common fallacy that good games/books/films succeed and bad ones fail. Popular ones succeed and unpopular ones fail. Things do not usually become popular by being good. They sometimes stay popular by being good, but not always. Thing become popular by becoming known, and they become known through advert and other methods of marketing/dissemination of the information. Remember, if people do not know about a thing, they cannot like it.

Here are to good examples of why this logic is a fallacy, from history where we can have a long perspective: Edgar Allan Poe, and Van Gogh. Both are widely regarded, today, as one of the very best in their fields of all time. However, they both died before people found out about or began to like their work. So, their work was amazing, but it was not successful for many, many years. Their work failed because it was unpopular at the time, not because it was bad. I feel like I can safely assert that their work was very good.

So, from this we can assume that good does not always equal successful.


I hope this information has been enlightening for you. It is important to me that people begin to understand this about games, as most people already understand it for other works of art. Simply saying "it failed because it is bad" ignores the real problem, and does not help people figure out what really went wrong. And developers and publishers need to understand what went wrong so they can try to prevent it in the future. Even if you did not like the game, there are others who did, and it is sad to see them lose a game they care about. I myself enjoyed this game for several months before I quit. The reason we have many different games is that one person will not like what another likes. That alone does not make them bad games; it simply makes them different tastes.

"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true — you know it, and they know it." —Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007

WTF? No subscription fee?

  Czelsior

Novice Member

Joined: 8/15/09
Posts: 41

8/09/10 1:05:59 PM#13

R.I.P Spellborn

It was the best MMORPG ever..

-The Chronicles of Spellborn-
Czelsior - Wrathguard LvL 50 -Dorzhan
Kaiyn - Trickster LvL 50 - Deiquonril

TCoS Gameplay videos

http://www.youtube.com/user/czelsior

  Eladi

Advanced Member

Joined: 11/23/06
Posts: 1071

8/09/10 1:11:00 PM#14

sad to hear, it was a good game , it realy was, but unfortunate the developer had the wrong publisher from the start.

little to no marketing made sure that it stayed a low population game and were there is low population new people wont stay.

MMO's are desight around the ( massive) if it lacks that ..well nothing you can do

  Nizur

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 5/15/09
Posts: 1428

8/09/10 1:16:27 PM#15

It was a fun game, but lacked something I could never put my finger on. I tried it for a few weeks, but couldn't stick with it. Part of it was because I think I only ever saw two other people playing the game.

Current: None
Played: WoW, CoX, SWG, LotRO, EVE, AoC, VG, CO, Ryzom, DF, WAR
Tried: Lineage2, Dofus, EQ2, CoS, FE, UO, Wurm, Wakfu
Future: The Repopulation, ArcheAge, Black Desert, EQN

  Nephaerius

Novice Member

Joined: 9/18/09
Posts: 1480

8/09/10 1:26:58 PM#16

It sucks that TCoS is shutting down.  Is it just shutting down through Playdom or through Acclaim as well?  There is no news concerning a shutdown on the Acclaim site.  In addition, TCoS 2.0 has been up and running in Japan since January or earlier and they are still working on a global release.

Twitter: @Nephaerius
Steam: Neph
Xbox 360 GT: Nephaerius

  SnarlingWolf

Novice Member

Joined: 6/23/09
Posts: 2728

8/09/10 1:31:39 PM#17
Originally posted by Dubhlaith

 


Originally posted by kaltoum
People keep saying it had potential and that it was good and different. However, good games do not die but bad ones do. If it was really that different more players would be playing it. It was same with tabula rasa, similar comments about how much potential it had. And yet the population kept dwindling every month. Bad games shut down why? because  bad games don't make profit for the company. Potential alone isn't enough to bring profit.


 

Actually, they died for very similar reasones.

1: The combat system was new and very different from what MMO players were expecting. This alone through a great many people off of the game from the start, and they did not enjoy it.

2: They were not given the proper marketing by their publisher, and so the niche people that may have enjoyed it were much less likely to hear about the game.

3: When the game did not have a spectacular launch, little to no effort was put into making the changes that would entice players to try the game. Spellborn did a bit better with this, but ultimately Acclaim ruined any chances they had.

 

 

 


Important note:

It is a common fallacy that good games/books/films succeed and bad ones fail. Popular ones succeed and unpopular ones fail. Things do not usually become popular by being good. They sometimes stay popular by being good, but not always. Thing become popular by becoming known, and they become known through advert and other methods of marketing/dissemination of the information. Remember, if people do not know about a thing, they cannot like it.

Here are to good examples of why this logic is a fallacy, from history where we can have a long perspective: Edgar Allan Poe, and Van Gogh. Both are widely regarded, today, as one of the very best in their fields of all time. However, they both died before people found out about or began to like their work. So, their work was amazing, but it was not successful for many, many years. Their work failed because it was unpopular at the time, not because it was bad. I feel like I can safely assert that their work was very good.

So, from this we can assume that good does not always equal successful.

 

 

 


I hope this information has been enlightening for you. It is important to me that people begin to understand this about games, as most people already understand it for other works of art. Simply saying "it failed because it is bad" ignores the real problem, and does not help people figure out what really went wrong. And developers and publishers need to understand what went wrong so they can try to prevent it in the future. Even if you did not like the game, there are others who did, and it is sad to see them lose a game they care about. I myself enjoyed this game for several months before I quit. The reason we have many different games is that one person will not like what another likes. That alone does not make them bad games; it simply makes them different tastes.

 I highly disagree with the italicized part of your post. Elitest and snobish people want to believe that differet/artsy/under-appreciated things are good. In fact they automatically think they are better when no one else accepts them. It is an invalid way of looking at things.

 

I feel that a lot of shows/movies/games that did not do well were great. But I have a different taste then the majority. Just because my taste is different doesn't mean the things I like are better and the majority can't realize it, all it means is that for my taste it is better.

 

Good is also a very subjective term in these cases, I see two different ways of something being referred to as good. First is that it does well. This is a very straight-forward way of evaluating a product and it is one that doesn't leave much room for argument. If it does well then it is good, if it doesn't then it is bad.

 

Second is how it appeals to a certain audience, it's enjoyment/depth/artistic elements etc. This is a purely opinionated level of good and different tastes will pick different things to be good. The problem is this is what you were referring to, and it is never a fact. But the elitest groups tend to think that their views (which are never in the majority, and one of the reasons they like their views so much - because they're different) are the correct ones. Therefore anything they find to be good is good and everything else i bad. No other factors play into it. Problem is that is opinion and not ever fact.

 

I just get tired of people not seperating facts from opinions when making statements like that. The strange part is you acknowledge that in your final paragraph, which directly contradicts the italicized portion.

 

Whenever a game decides to be VERY different from the competition it will generally not do well. People do not adapt well to sudden changes so they can't stick with it. Change needs to be gradual, which is why all the successful games change 1 or 2 pieces but keep the rest of the game the same as what people are used to. Fortunatly the bright side is companies tend to look at those failed games and then take the best pieces to add to future games, so the changes (assuming it is thought they can be successful) will still show up again.

  saraphimknig

Novice Member

Joined: 4/16/07
Posts: 17

8/09/10 2:09:06 PM#18

Actually, SnarlingWolf, he has a point. What he mentions is something we actually take very seriously in the game industry. His point about popularity and the like tends to be correct, as even horrible transmedia and game adaptations of movies and the like make a profit (G.I Joe game, many of the Nicktoons games, etc). From a game standpoint, many of these are horrible. But all you need is someone to buy it based of popularity, and it will fly a lot better.

Now, taking that for what it's worth, I agree with you. Spellborn failed because of many reasons. The gameplay was unfamiliar, but calling it bad is subjective, just as saying a game is bad. However, we can typically look at games and define whether certain gameplay elements are well done or not, which helps to create that definition. Those things aside, Spellborn's failure is really up to being 1. different, 2. lacking money / direction, 3. poor publicity. Poor publicity doesn't mean no publicity, but means that it didn't get a lot said about it.

Once again, not disagreeing with you. But if you do not think we in the industry do not look at what the previoius commentor said, much less what you said, then you are mistaken. From a business end, we look at it all. Making something new and different (from controls to gameplay, etc) is a calculated risk, which without taking into account the other factors, can become a massive failure. Unfortunately for Spellborn, their risk did not provide poor gameplay completely, but combined with the other factors, made for a project that could not recover from failure.

  disownation

Novice Member

Joined: 5/13/08
Posts: 245

8/09/10 2:23:33 PM#19
Originally posted by SnarlingWolf
Originally posted by Dubhlaith

 


Originally posted by kaltoum
People keep saying it had potential and that it was good and different. However, good games do not die but bad ones do. If it was really that different more players would be playing it. It was same with tabula rasa, similar comments about how much potential it had. And yet the population kept dwindling every month. Bad games shut down why? because  bad games don't make profit for the company. Potential alone isn't enough to bring profit.


 

Actually, they died for very similar reasones.

1: The combat system was new and very different from what MMO players were expecting. This alone through a great many people off of the game from the start, and they did not enjoy it.

2: They were not given the proper marketing by their publisher, and so the niche people that may have enjoyed it were much less likely to hear about the game.

3: When the game did not have a spectacular launch, little to no effort was put into making the changes that would entice players to try the game. Spellborn did a bit better with this, but ultimately Acclaim ruined any chances they had.

 

 

 


Important note:

It is a common fallacy that good games/books/films succeed and bad ones fail. Popular ones succeed and unpopular ones fail. Things do not usually become popular by being good. They sometimes stay popular by being good, but not always. Thing become popular by becoming known, and they become known through advert and other methods of marketing/dissemination of the information. Remember, if people do not know about a thing, they cannot like it.

Here are to good examples of why this logic is a fallacy, from history where we can have a long perspective: Edgar Allan Poe, and Van Gogh. Both are widely regarded, today, as one of the very best in their fields of all time. However, they both died before people found out about or began to like their work. So, their work was amazing, but it was not successful for many, many years. Their work failed because it was unpopular at the time, not because it was bad. I feel like I can safely assert that their work was very good.

So, from this we can assume that good does not always equal successful.

 

 

 


I hope this information has been enlightening for you. It is important to me that people begin to understand this about games, as most people already understand it for other works of art. Simply saying "it failed because it is bad" ignores the real problem, and does not help people figure out what really went wrong. And developers and publishers need to understand what went wrong so they can try to prevent it in the future. Even if you did not like the game, there are others who did, and it is sad to see them lose a game they care about. I myself enjoyed this game for several months before I quit. The reason we have many different games is that one person will not like what another likes. That alone does not make them bad games; it simply makes them different tastes.

 I highly disagree with the italicized part of your post. Elitest and snobish people want to believe that differet/artsy/under-appreciated things are good. In fact they automatically think they are better when no one else accepts them. It is an invalid way of looking at things.

 

I feel that a lot of shows/movies/games that did not do well were great. But I have a different taste then the majority. Just because my taste is different doesn't mean the things I like are better and the majority can't realize it, all it means is that for my taste it is better.

 

Good is also a very subjective term in these cases, I see two different ways of something being referred to as good. First is that it does well. This is a very straight-forward way of evaluating a product and it is one that doesn't leave much room for argument. If it does well then it is good, if it doesn't then it is bad.

 

Second is how it appeals to a certain audience, it's enjoyment/depth/artistic elements etc. This is a purely opinionated level of good and different tastes will pick different things to be good. The problem is this is what you were referring to, and it is never a fact. But the elitest groups tend to think that their views (which are never in the majority, and one of the reasons they like their views so much - because they're different) are the correct ones. Therefore anything they find to be good is good and everything else i bad. No other factors play into it. Problem is that is opinion and not ever fact.

 

I just get tired of people not seperating facts from opinions when making statements like that. The strange part is you acknowledge that in your final paragraph, which directly contradicts the italicized portion.

 

Whenever a game decides to be VERY different from the competition it will generally not do well. People do not adapt well to sudden changes so they can't stick with it. Change needs to be gradual, which is why all the successful games change 1 or 2 pieces but keep the rest of the game the same as what people are used to. Fortunatly the bright side is companies tend to look at those failed games and then take the best pieces to add to future games, so the changes (assuming it is thought they can be successful) will still show up again.

 

 

And yet. people scream for something new and different, innovating. Yet when something comes along, they cry that its "not the same" as other MMOs. What? People can't have their cake and eat it too. You cannot have different but the same. And even when you do have an MMO that deviates just a little from the norm - gives a little bit of difference -  people still state that its not "innovative".

 

I am so confused by some. I'm most certain developers are as well. Developers can't offer people what they want when the people don't even know what they want to begin with. Boggles the mind.

 

That said, this was a great and unique MMO. I am sad to see it go. Sometimes, even the good games lose. Like someone said prior. Good and bad does not determine success. Popularity does.

  saraphimknig

Novice Member

Joined: 4/16/07
Posts: 17

8/09/10 2:47:03 PM#20
Originally posted by disownation

And yet. people scream for something new and different, innovating. Yet when something comes along, they cry that its "not the same" as other MMOs. What? People can't have their cake and eat it too. You cannot have different but the same. And even when you do have an MMO that deviates just a little from the norm - gives a little bit of difference -  people still state that its not "innovative".

 

I am so confused by some. I'm most certain developers are as well. Developers can't offer people what they want when the people don't even know what they want to begin with. Boggles the mind.

 

That said, this was a great and unique MMO. I am sad to see it go. Sometimes, even the good games lose. Like someone said prior. Good and bad does not determine success. Popularity does.

This, is what we're taught in all those years of software engineering and business requirements elicitation. People rarely know what they want, especially about a product in which they are not directly involved. It's hard enough having a client tell you what they think they want, but now try making a game for people you don't directly talk to, much less reach a broad enough group of people. In the end, as game developers, we take conventions, new ideas, and some of the stuff we'd like to see, and try to make a game out of it.

3 Pages 1 2 3 » Search