Originally posted by poopypants

So, Funcom has $35-40 million bucks to put into this game, huh? Well, that may seem like a bunch of money to a person living in a mobile home park in lower Indiana, but in reality $40 mil ain't jack-shit when you're talking about creating a virtual world...especially when that world is being modeled after the real one! The price tag on World of Warcraft, when it launched in 2004, was $85 million...we're now 6 years down the road and EVERYTHING is more expensive and far more complex.

 

$40 million? What's the good news?

I live in a 4 bedroom, 3 bath, gameroom, two story home Just north of Dallas and that sounds like alot of money to me, lol!

But yeah, I get where you're going. Most "big" companies are spending around 70 million or so. That said, spending that amount hasn't helped with the quality of recent releases. Does spending less of an investment give them more time to work on it with a smaller team (i.e., their recent layoffs) because the investors aren't so pushy to see a return as they would be on a larger investment? Who knows.

The only problem is that AOC realy "failed" only in eyes of some spoiled MMO players that played most of the major titles out there and kids. Those "created bad reputation" which probably only exist here on MMORPG.com and is also limited by language/territorial basis.

There's nothing wrong with AOC's player base - it only grew over time, it's just that all the kids quickly left and real players got attracted later because of fun PVP. The only real downside of funcom is that they been slow on improving/fixing things, but it hardly scared too many ppl because for those who kept playing - there was no real alternative and still none, that's why i wait for Secret World hoping for same level of graphics/world design and combat system.

Well the cash from anarchy subs might not be much more than it costs to run that game.  Cash flow from AoC would probably be more, but still not a whole lot.

How could they fund it?

How many million boxes of AoC did they sell when it launched?

Was over a million right?  1million x $50 per box right (rough estimate)

$50 million is a good start, especially since they've been running a profitable game since anarchy.

So at least investors know that this company can move box sales at launch, and keep a profit after.

Most of TSW is probably funded through investors.

People think AoC was such a money losing failure, because they got pissed off over a launch that should have been a free and open beta.

Just dont be d-bags this round and preorder a funcom release and expect a stalwart game off the bat.  Funcom launches/ betas should be reserved for enthusiests who wont throw a tantrum if the game isnt ready for an actual launch.  Just my 2 cents on that however....as a long time anarchy subscriber, and what will probably amount to a long time aoc subscription, ill be avoiding TSW for at least a year, worked out well in AoC's case for me.

Originally posted by ray12k

lol, your a idiot!!!!

I am indiffrent to funcom and AOC. But come one use common sence... If the company makes even a dollar over cost(which means maintance/marketing ect... its a success)

if the server are running and making money its a success.

Funcom is just like every other DEV. out there, most there prducts are crap, when TSW goest open/closed beta im sure it will eather be crap or great.

Selling 1mil copies and then have 9 out of 10 players leave... yes I'm sure Funcom thinks of it as a huge success.

They dont ofc.

In some respects TSW will be cheaper to make than a totally new mmo because they are going to recycling both the AoC engine & dev tools for TSW, in that way AoC could be seen as a prototype.

Funcom have had some terrible launches & it's not unfair to say that the lessons they learned from AO did not make it through to AoC's launch, however as these two games will be running off the same engine & the back-end will be similar then to have TSW launch as badly as AoC would be serious industry suicide to not have learned from AoC.

But I don;t see Funcom having any problems funding TSW they are a viable company turning a reaonable profit, not immune to the economic crises after all they had to make layoffs, but they are moving some of their operations to Canada to take advantage of tax breaks & incentives for game development there, a smart move in the current climate.

I look forward to TSW, it has much promise, the only thing that could compete with it would be an announcement that CCP is launching the WoD mmo soon.

Originally posted by Syno23

It really beats me. I mean if they released Age of Conan in 2008 and put all of their resources in it, why is it that they're still able to fund such a huge project as "The Secret World"? Secret World originally began development before Age of Conan, but still doesn't explain. Age of Conan failed and the subscriber base is used to pay back the investors for investing in Funcom. I'm really not sure why the company is still standing, yet able to fund yet another project such as, "The Secret World." 

And, they think I'll be a success? Doesn't everyone hate Funcom from Age of Conan?

No, not EVERYONE is that silly.

Let me remind "everyone" of a few "small companies" and their huge failures....

New Coke, anyone?

Crystal Pepsi? Pepsi Blue?

No? Think a few people still drink Coke and Pepsi?  I think they just might.....

Okay how about, remember Microsoft's WEB TV?  O.o  You have to remember....people BOUGHT this. I wonder if because of buying that they now refuse to use anything made by Microsoft?

Remember Sony's Beta Max?  A LOT of people spent good money on these systems. I wonder if they have any Sony technology in their homes today?  Heh....I bet they DO.

Fact of the matter is....even HUGE successful corporations SCREW UP sometimes. Hopefully, and usually, they learn from their losses.  Nothing really teaches human beings (including the ones that run corporations) better than a big gouge out of their pocket books.

And the companies listed above all have some great products.  Did we all quit buying Coke because of New Coke? No. When Sony came out with the new VHS systems....remember that?  Did we all go buy VHS?  What about DVDs....we managed to make that adjustment too.  Did everyone stop using Microsoft products after WebTV fell on it's head?

The whole premise of completely writing a company off as "unable to do anything good" because of one, or even a few, errors in judgment, imo....is just stupidity.  You have to judge EACH INDIVIDUAL PRODUCT by it's OWN MERITS.  That's pretty much common sense, if you ask me.

Gamers are sure moody little bitches. I cannot believe how we can just go on and on and on being "offended" and butt hurt by a freaking game "crisis."  Sometimes we hold those grudges for decades!  It's just ridiculous.

The Secret World has many people working on it that had nothing to do with past FunCom failures. But, by all means, let's just AUTOMATICALLY throw out the baby with the bath water, why don't we?    Pfffffft.

And as far as funding goes.....

We really have no idea, in truth, do we?  Ragnar Tournquist HIMSELF is not an impoverished clod, mind you.  He's a well known and established name in the industry.  I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have terrible difficulty finding investors just on his own name.  Since we don't know how much money is going into the project or where it's coming from.....seems debating about it is rather ludicrous and definitely premature, if nothing else.

I do not TRUST Funcom to release a good game (i only subbed AoC a year after release, it was OK but i didn't last). No.. Funcom gets 0 trust from me despite me having played AO and AoC for a while.
 

HOWEVER

AO is still a top-notch example of an MMO despite being dated. - simply best MMO i have played.
AoC is still one of the more impressive fantasy MMOs and in 2 years time will probably be very playable as it's graphics will not date fast.

This is because Funcom has the right IDEAS, even if they fail to deliver.
 
So no.. i will not be pre-ordering TSW. I am sure i will sub it after a few months after release though.

SF

Originally posted by sacredfool

I do not TRUST Funcom to release a good game (i only subbed AoC a year after release, it was OK but i didn't last). No.. Funcom gets 0 trust from me despite me having played AO and AoC for a while.
 

HOWEVER

AO is still a top-notch example of an MMO despite being dated. - simply best MMO i have played.
AoC is still one of the more impressive fantasy MMOs and in 2 years time will probably be very playable as it's graphics will not date fast.

This is because Funcom has the right IDEAS, even if they fail to deliver.
 
So no.. i will not be pre-ordering TSW. I am sure i will sub it after a few months after release though.

SF

Neither will I.  However, unlike many, I won't just automatically write off the possibility of a game being good JUST because FunCom's name is on it.

I won't pre-order ANY game any more, REGARDLESS of what company's name is stamped on it.

Originally posted by girlgeek

Neither will I.  However, unlike many, I won't just automatically write off the possibility of a game being good JUST because FunCom's name is on it.

I won't pre-order ANY game any more, REGARDLESS of what company's name is stamped on it.

I agree that every product needs to be judged on its own merit but a company's history should be something to consider as well.

(Plus every now and then a company ticks one off so badly that they need a personal boycott  :) In my case it was Activision, not Funcom.   Fortunately, there are enough gaming choices out there where one can do that sort of thing)

Since Funcom underwent some major changes, such as Gaute Godager leaving, I think that the company's past is less of an issue.   They seem to be sincerely trying to improve AoC and that also speaks well for them now.  

I've been more impressed with the interviews I seen of the developers of TSW than I ever was during the development of AoC. 

Originally posted by Frobner

The job of the real gamers now is to remind everyone what Funcom is all about.  In terms of both AO and AOC they released totally unfinished products.  As long as everyone knows this and realise how much of PR is going on (the truth doesn't matter for Funcom - as long as it sells them one extra copy in preorder).  

Everyone should know by now that you do NOT buy a Funcom product based on anything that the company is saying.  And since NDA is not lifted on their products - you do NOT buy or preoder their games before they go on free trial.  Its this simple.  

Just remember it and stay as far away as possible until you have solid facts.  That should be out about 6 months after the game releases. 

*Sigh* Frobner, I dont think I know a bigger FC troll than you... do you look out for EVERY oppurtunity to bash this company?? cant you move on ?

I have never played a Funcom game before, but The Secret World is one of the few mmos that I am looking forward to right now. The world just has such a good concept behind it, and I just think it has great potential. Their past games don't really mean anything to me as AOC just wasn't the type of world that interested me, and AO was too old by the time I got into mmos to really desire to give it a try. So if they do a decent job on TSW I might be able to give them a shot, and see what they are capable of doing.

Originally posted by Xasapis

From various threads on the same matter on this site, it was stated that Funcom still has plenty of money to throw towards the development of this MMO. Funcom is a publicly traded company, so its finances results are visible.

I played AoC for a month or two during launch. I didn't like it and moved on to other games. Hating the gaming company for a product I didn't like is absurd. Should I have hated NCsoft because I didn't like CoH?

They made next to no money with Anarchy Online and they haven't recooped their development cost on Age of Conan so my only conclusion is that the norwegian government gives them tax money to continue to exist and make online games.

I just hope that this game is without game breaking bugs and that the servers doesn't crash every ten minutes.

Keep in mind TSW started development long before Age of Conan. Just because Age of Conan has struggled doesn't make FunCom an unreliable company or business partner as long as you get your investment returns.

Funcom has done nothing compared to SOE with Star Wars Galaxies, really I am not sure any game company will ever come close to even touching SOE on that one.  Treat their customer base like they are morons while suffering from a horrible case of "grass is greener" syndrome.

Still much as I hate to admit it I liked EQ2 fine and I love Free Realms.  I am watching with some interest how The Secret World will go.  I might be rare but Funcom is actually one of my favorite MMO companies.  They tend to have fast and good customer service and I think they do really try hard.  Could also partly be AO is my first love of MMOs, hehe.

I couldn't tell you how they're doing it, but I am looking forward to it, as this might be similar to Hellgate's horror/magic/sci fi blend of genres.  I like that it has that HP Lovecraft feel to it.

Wow do people bash Funcom. I play AoC and enjoy it, even if I am casual. It's a pretty game, good music, good atmosphere. While I was once a hardcore MMO'er, I've taken the backseat after becoming older. Yeah, the game had issues upon launch but they've improved it.

As to funding TSW? I'm one of those 150k people that still pay a monthly fee AoC. They still have the rest of the world out there to play AoC, not just the US. I'm really looking forward to TSW and hope it delivers! 

I read that theres lots of same in the engines of AoC and TSW. So this might be a marketing strategy of new kind. They are making lots of games with different concepts using same techniques. So therefore they are not landing much subscribers per game but lots per engine.

I hated funcom after playing anarchy online. I tested the AoC and I was positively supriced about the graphics, but class unbalances where still there. So I think that Funcom can make nice game when it leaves out the classes and class balances.

Originally posted by Syno23

O

Actually, 1 million subscribers is a success. Anything lower is simply the game is doing great, it is making profit, it is holding its own, and a failure is under 150k subs which Age of Conan currently has.

Actually no, 150,000-200,000 is a success anything more is a great success, over one million is an absurd success.

!50,000 x 14.99 a month, you do the math.

Originally posted by Syno23

It really beats me. I mean if they released Age of Conan in 2008 and put all of their resources in it, why is it that they're still able to fund such a huge project as "The Secret World"? Secret World originally began development before Age of Conan, but still doesn't explain. Age of Conan failed and the subscriber base is used to pay back the investors for investing in Funcom. I'm really not sure why the company is still standing, yet able to fund yet another project such as, "The Secret World." 

And, they think I'll be a success? Doesn't everyone hate Funcom from Age of Conan?

AOC did not fail long enough to eat up their resources.Fncom had something going for them that MOST do not,they made their games with their own profits,they did not need to borrow any money.AOC had a ton of sales early on and Funcom made the mistake of adding a ton of employees,however,like i said they did not carry those employees for long,they released tons of employees to make sure they did not eat up their resources.I would not worry about Funcom just yet,they are probably still not borrowing money and if they are it is far less than other developers.