AC2 was a fun game out of the box.  Almost immediately, Turbies started waving the dreaded "tweaking" bat and nerfed their player base into non-existance.  From this exerpt of Q&A, I can easily tell that they STILL don't get it!

People want to ENJOY games - they play them to have FUN - not to WORK.  People want their characyers to evolve at a noticable rate.  People don't want to go slow - they like to move fast.  It was fun in beta, and it was fun until 8 or 9 months after release.  Then it became the same ol' same ol' "lets nerf everybody till they are the same.... God forbid a Defender sholud be able to **gasp** solo!"

If Turbine doesn't start putting the "fun factor" back in (and I give them kudos for doing so in AC 2 beta) and leaving it in, (like maybe let your build team have some input on the maintenance team),then both LoTR online and D&D are as doomed as this once great game was.

We can only hope that Turbine has learned from AC2, and doesn't repeat some of the same errors in their upcoming games. Unfortunately for AC2, it was caught in the middle of a power struggle between Turbine and Microsoft, and simply never recovered.

AC2 didn't really break any new ground for MMORPGs. Sure, the graphics were awesome, but everything new about AC2 (compared to AC1) was not really new. Yes, beta and the first few months were fun, but once the server consolidation took place, the handwriting was on the wall. It tried too hard to rest on the AC name, but really didn't live up to anyone's expectations of a sequel to Asheron's Call: In the final analysis, it stole place names, race names, and a tiny bit of the lore from its parent--but didn't live up to the promise.

RIP, AC2.

I'm a 5-year subscriber to AC1. I did the AC2 beta and subscribed for a couple months at release, then again a year or so later. While the game had some great tech going for it, it was still really broken for a long, long time.

First thing that comes to mind was the rampant "perching" of tyrants, huge creatures with tons of XP. Players could get them stuck on the landscape and rack up big. Turbine allowed this to go on for much too long, just like they allowed XP "chains" to go on in AC1 for years. The XP chains were just the player's response to a core feature of the game, which allowed players to swear allegiance to other players of equal or higher level and "pass up" a percentage of their earned XP. Trouble was, the XP snowballed "up the chain" so that entire hierarchies of players amassed huge pools of experience for almost nothing.

Granted, this is old news and Turbine eventually fixed the problems, but not until both issues changed their respective games so much that content had to be tailored for these hyper-advanced player populations.

I only hope Turbine has learned some lessons for their upcoming D&D Online and LOTR Online.

---

So they are counterproductive, unlike sequels in other game genres where they can be really successful.

---

This one causes a palm plant. No, I wouldn't call sequels counter productive. What I would call counter productive is making a sequel that's so different from the first as to be something completely different, not to mention down right cheesy.

AC1 was a fun game back when I played it. There's a lot of good things about it. It wasn't some hokey game with characters running around beating drums as an attack.

I mean no disrespect to anyone who actually enjoyed AC2, but from my point of view the game was cheesy and boring. It deviated so far from what I saw as the AC1 spirit and fun that I had no desire to continue playing it.

Sequels counter productive... heh, what was counter productive about AC2 is that it was lame.

~Me

I played from jan '04 till last weekend, will cancel my account this week.

This was and still is the best game for me, a skillsystem that really is fun, you can play solo as well as in groups, you don't have to hunt mobs to advance, there are enough quests to do, it all was good, except: Marketing.

It's funny to read that Q&A, I'm not surprised at all, that ac1 is still going on, and ac2 is not, Turbine never meant too. The answer were they told us, that they advertised on websites and magazines, it's simply not true. I read a lot of magazines, most of them lately to check if anything is written about ac2, and it wasn't. And I only found 1 ad at an website, and that was an ac2 fansite, how should that attract the attention of retired or new players?

And one question was really good, you feel really tricked, if you buy a new addon for the game just to hear a little later, the game is going down. I think providing ther servercode, to make a playerrun server is the least they can do, and if the game is really unrescuable, than what do they fear for?

Good luck for those who will play LotR or DDo, I won't be tricked a second time by Turbine, there are other games out there, and even if they will never be what AC2 was, they aren't at least Turbine games.

Marketing didn't kill AC2...

AC2 just wasn't a good game, nor did it appeal to a large population.

Good games market themselves, unfortunately bad ones do as well.

---

Originally posted by Paldarion
(snip)
People don't want to go slow - they like to move fast.
(snip)

---

I would like to humbly disagree with this statement. I don't enjoy a game in which everything is handed to me on a silver platter. Yes, it is great to actually see the experience moving up at each kill, and yes, it is nice to have a warrior running around after a week able to heal themselves and casting spells thanks to items... but this is immediate satisfaction, and it lasts for only so long.

The games that I still play, or remember with fondness, are the ones that are/were *reasonably* difficult, to provide me with a sense of achievement. I have never, and will never play WoW for the same exact reason you mentioned : people wanted it fast (and easy). All that people get in heading that way are pizza delivery buttons in the end.

A game should bring variety, it should bring challenges at every level, it should favour human interaction but allow many different playing styles (grouping, soloing, raiding style guild, family style guild, etc.)

Once for all, please stop generalizing about what people want to find in a game, or transposing what *you* want, it is becoming a bad habit on these boards.

Obviously, AC2 didn't provide enough of that, eh Nissa?

I loved the way Hannah danced around the last question, which was the best of all of the questions. (Other than how many were subscribing when they pulled the plug?)

"There are many factors that contributed to AC2’s ultimate fate, and it’s really hard to single one factor out above the others. There are a lot of things that Turbine has learned from AC2, and we’re constantly applying those lessons to Dungeons & Dragons Online and Lord of the Rings Online."

*translation* AC2 sucked big-time and not enough people were playing it. Lesson learned? Make sure DDO and LOTR Online don't suck.

With two premier 'A' quality MMORPGs coming out in 2006, why throw any more cash at a sinking ship like AC2? Put those assets (and talent) into titles that will matter. Both of those titles already have legions (hundreds of thousands) of fans ready to give them a shot. Just like WoW. Something AC2 never had going for it.

Not trying to defend AC2, I've never played it.

I was just interested in reading the interview, and more specificially about the reasons provided to explain the failure of the game. If I could concur with many posters in this thread bringing up objective and valid points, the one I quoted was not.

---

Originally posted by Paldarion
AC2 was a fun game out of the box. Almost immediately, Turbies started waving the dreaded "tweaking" bat and nerfed their player base into non-existance. From this exerpt of Q&A, I can easily tell that they STILL don't get it!

---

The problem is, they had feedback after feedback from players. People started dropping like flies, yet they still didn't listen. Truly it boggles the mind as to why they kept up the same actions that were so obviously destroying the game and alienating most of their player base.

Obviously there were a few loyal fans that stuck around. Just not enough to support the game.

Turbine really makes a bad impression as a company.
A) They shut down the game right after the expansion.
B) They dodged most of the pertinent questions in the interview here. This leads me to believe that they have learned nothing from the mistakes they made with AC2. Good luck on DDO and LOTR guys... An upstanding company would admit their mistakes.
C) They won't release the server for other people to host their own games. Why NOT? They have proven again that they could care less about their fans. Who is it going to hurt? It's not going to compete with legitimate servers, because they are turning those off. They just figure since they couldn't do it, they don't want anyone else to either.

It makes me wonder. What happens if you invest a ton of time in DDO, and they decide to shut it down, or LOTR? I'd like to think that they'd be good enough to at least give out a working copy of the server. But nope, not Turbine.

Sorry guys, you have made a HUGE mistake. Even shutting down the servers you could have maintained some raport with your fans by providing them with a way to keep playing. I'll be surprised if ANY of the upcoming Turbine games are considered a retail success.

All I can say is Rest In Peace AC2. I've played AC2 beta and about 6-8 months after it went Live. It was fun until the nerf bat came swinging. Unlike AC1, AC2 didn't have too much content and lore going for it so I guess even the most ardent of fans simply gave up. Yeah I remember back then people were soloing Tyrants easily (end game dragons that is meant to be defeated by many players). Oh well, I hope Turbine puts in their best talent and resources for DDO and LOTR and make it one hell of a great game that is at par or even surpases AC1.

[quote=Administrator]I can confirm that Turbine ran a large ad campaign for "Legions" here at MMORPG.com in May 2005 and also ran a contest at the same time giving away free swag and games. I also know for a fact that this same campaign ran on the Warcry network and GameSpot.com (saw ads on both sites while ours were running).[/quote]

Sry forgot to mention, I'm from Europe, I talked about our magazins, but I only can say what I heard of the US players, and they didn't see much ad.

Well..from my point of view AC2 was a fun game and actually reminds me alot of a game that has huge success right now..

It had it's own cartonish style and was based on action and fast paced combat, leveling wasn't slow and graphichs was totally on par with just about anything today part from EQ2, hell the graphics in AC2 was much better than WoW in my opinion atleast.

also had a great crefting system on par with all the others out there.

What it sadly didn't have for some odd reason was players, but when i told my friends about AC2 and they tried it, they all stayed in the game..and they really enjoyed it. So my conclusion is this, when it all went bad in the start they simply scared the players to much for most of them to ever return, and the rumours also went rampage how bad AC2 really was etc, and this they newer recovered from..

Why not go for a "free" subscription plan like Anarchy online with advertising, and those that wish to contribute with their monthly fee doesn't get the adds..Well, just an idea..!!

I had a god time in AC2 and will always remeber it..RIP

"No. We have no plans to open source the server code."

As sorry as I am for them...that would be the GREATEST move ever done by a mmo company. If your game is dead etc etc etc...

And you release the source...my god.

I wish you would of had a follow up question as to why...seriously.

But oh well, good interview.

Hmm I played this game in the trial, excellent game but it lacked in some vital areas which stopped me from playing. Its a shame to see this game go though I do think that all possibilities have not been explored.
For example, considering the number of servers devoted to AC, can not 1 be devoted to AC2?
And just to fill in the gap for subscribers, AC2 have 10k subscribers according to mmog.com, and peaked at 60k when it first came out. (Which when it was most problematic and got most of its bad press.)

Also a quick comment about the expansion, I was thinking of joining again then, I looked at the expansion details and it was all pretty much based at the already subscribers. I personally think that if you wanted the expansion to appeal new players you don't make most of a new expansion content for the older players.
Instead, they should do what SoE do release something enticing in the expansion for new players. For example a new race, a new class, a new starting area, ac2 was rubbish in its replayability.

I played AC1 for over 4 years and loved it.  I got into the AC2 beta about a month before release.  The first week of AC2 was fun, but by the end of the second week I'd lost interest in it and was very disappointed.  AC2 was all window dressing and very little substance. 

They'd made some great improvements to the UI, but they'd oversimplified the game play so that there was no depth and people could max out their char. in less than a month.  There were also major flaws in the PvP design.  They got lots of feedback in beta about what needed to be changed, but they were too head-strong to listen.

I checked back about a year later to see if it had been fixed, but while they'd improved crafting, the game still had the same flaws.  It was no suprise when the game started imploding (reducing servers) and the final shutdown was just a question how how much red ink it would take before they admitted failure.

I played AC2 for over a year throught the server consolidation and then left as my favorite classes got nerfed and nerfed and nerfed again. The community was the thing that made me stay that long. Turbine seemed to miss the point that the customers satisfaction is the key to success. All their "balancing and upgrading" did was aggrivate people.

But still I had a fond enough memory of my time in Dereth that when Legions came out I decided to give it another try. Shame on me for giving Turbine another chance. After plunking my hard earned dollars on their expansion they announce the shut down. They really should refund everyone who purchased Legions. It was a total snow job.

I will be suprised if Turbine actually manages to survive the next round of developer shakeout as they seem to have no idea how to treat their customers.

Wow,

This news is not going to look to good to anyone in the MMorpg community. I was really looking forward to both of their new projects, but the fact that they can't make a sequel to a popular game and carry it further than the older version does not speak well of Turbine at all. I think from reading posts and doing a bit of research that this company is not at all interested in what their community wants and really pays attention to profit margins.

Consider me out of D&D and LOTR. Two games that I was really looking forward to.

This doesnt surprise me. What does is how long the game stayed online.

I beta tested AC2, and while the graphic engine was a very good one, the game system was ouddated like hell.

Companies need to remmeber that, more important than eye candy, the game system has to be good and hook the player. Several pshycologist goals need to be achieved for a player to fell statisfaction playing the game and be addicted to hit. The Hunter, The Collector, The Explorer, The Random Reinforce, The Social.. theese the basic things a good game needs to provide to a player to make him/her feel a sense of accomplishment that will bring him/her back and back to the game.

AC2 lacked a lot of theese, at the beta and after its launch, and thus the game was crippled right from start. Plus put that together with a money exploit company like Turbine with a bad customer service and you get a good recipe.

-------------

MMORPG.com: What was the logic of releasing a new expansion pack, then promptly ending the game? Are you worried about a backlash from those who spent money on an upgrade that will soon be of no value?
Jonathan Hanna: The expansion pack was meant as an attempt to bring more people in the game by getting AC2 back on store shelves. We advertised the game on the web and in magazines too. Unfortunately the expansion pack didn’t really grow the game. 

--------------

This is as lamme as a company can go. They sold the expansion already knowing they would be closing the game soon.. just to get some last few coins before closing it. Thats Turbines style...

--------------

MMORPG.com: How many active subscribers did the game carry at the time of the announcement?
Jonathan Hanna: I can’t give out exact subscriber numbers.

--------------

This is hilarious. Typical Turbine style again..

The problem is that this BS will go on and on on upcoming market games like Dungeons and Dragons Online. they gonna ruin it.. they already doing it and the game hasnt been launched yet.

Why didnt Wizards of the Coast picked another company to take license of DDO...

---

Originally posted by Paldarion

AC2 was a fun game out of the box.  Almost immediately, Turbies started waving the dreaded "tweaking" bat and nerfed their player base into non-existance.  From this exerpt of Q&A, I can easily tell that they STILL don't get it!

---

I agree this interveiw shows no responsibilty for the lack of success of A2. It leaves me very little in the way of a positive expectation for D&D or middle earth.

These game companies just don't get it. They don't understand the potential of the mmog industry or how to reach that potential. They still work on the model that people WILL play their game not realising that there is to much compitetion and available information for them to practice unprofessionalbusiness ethics/relations. These companies are creating reputations and for most of them those reputations aren't good.

As a long time fan and player of AC1 i found that AC2 lacked a tremendous amount of things that made AC1 so fun and interesting.  It used some of the AC1 lore and some creature names and designs but overall it just didn't feel like AC at all.  It tried to ride the wave of pvp centric games and didn't make a very good hybrid imo.

All the AC1 players got a beta invite and most tried it out and what seemed at the time and still now that most of them didn't like it at all.  If they wanted to make a PvP game then they should have thought up a new design completely and did it right. But they should just leave AC as what made it so great in the first place, a very unique adventure rpg.

I don't know if there is ever going to be an AC3 in the works considering their new games.  I'm sure DDO will have tons of resources  to be used for it and its development.  But if they do decide to work on AC3, then they should keep in mind what makes AC1 so great and keep to that as well as consider what makes those Gen 1 games so great.  Then just simply update and make the code more efficient with built in code to help resist against macros and cheat programs.  But the main thing they should concentrate on is the game's content and gameplay instead of features. 

Think of past major franchise games and why they are so popular, i.e. Civilization, Total War, Unreal Tournament, D&D, NWN, Elder Scrolls Series... Once you find that right setup of features to make the game addicting don't change that formulae just update content and overall gameplay and you will stay golden for a long while :)

---

Originally posted by Ashenkhar

C) They won't release the server for other people to host their own games. Why NOT? They have proven again that they could care less about their fans. Who is it going to hurt? It's not going to compete with legitimate servers, because they are turning those off. They just figure since they couldn't do it, they don't want anyone else to either.

---

It could hurt Turbine as a company if they were to release the server code. There's going to be a lot of proprietary information about building an MMO that's going to be contained in that source. Future competitors would be able to skip part of the learning curve when they attempt to build their own game. Turbine likely spent millions of dollars learning to solve certain problems. Why give someone the solution for free?

Not saying that it's a good thing (or even true in all cases), but it's the mindset that most companies have about their products.

---

Originally posted by EduardoASG

MMORPG.com: What was the logic of releasing a new expansion pack, then promptly ending the game? Are you worried about a backlash from those who spent money on an upgrade that will soon be of no value? Jonathan Hanna: The expansion pack was meant as an attempt to bring more people in the game by getting AC2 back on store shelves. We advertised the game on the web and in magazines too. Unfortunately the expansion pack didn’t really grow the game.
--------------
This is as lamme as a company can go. They sold the expansion already knowing they would be closing the game soon.. just to get some last few coins before closing it. Thats Turbines style...

---

The game has to have been bleeding money for a while now, they really had to look at closing it.

Not giving something back to the people who bought an expansion for a doomed game is a mistake, though.

The following is my personal opinion only.

One of the key lessons that we learned is the customer perception of sequels in the MMO space. They end up splitting your community more so than growing it. So they are counterproductive, unlike sequels in other game genres where they can be really successful.

That AC2 was a sequel had little - if anything - to do with its inability to attract players. There are a host of reasons it did not succeed, many of which have be touched on in this thread

The game was kicked out the door too soon, it was being continually rebalanced underneath the players, the combat design was uninspired, it was too easy to reach the "end" of the game, the critical early period of community development was destroyed by the inability to get the chat servers working, the console game style segregation of high level and low level players to specific continents further sabotaged community building, it took too long to get fresh content into the game, and the world felt "soulless."

I don't deny the AC1 players who expected "AC1+" negatively affected perception. It should have been possible to move beyond that and gain a fresh audience. AC1 was a hardcore Explorer game. AC2 was a lightweight Achiever game. The initial attempts to sell AC2 to the AC1 playerbase were doomed to fail.

Nevertheless, all of these design and operations issues I listed above would all remain true even if AC2 had been a fresh IP. No; AC2 failed not because AC1 fans rejected it, but because it couldn't create AC2 fans.

If this "sequels are counterproductive" is truly the best lesson Turbine has extracted from AC2, then it saddens me to say AC2 was ultimately an entirely fruitless endeavor. Not only did few enjoy the game, Turbine learned nothing from its failure.

---

Originally posted by stormwaltz
The following is my personal opinion only.

One of the key lessons that we learned is the customer perception of sequels in the MMO space. They end up splitting your community more so than growing it. So they are counterproductive, unlike sequels in other game genres where they can be really successful.
That AC2 was a sequel had little - if anything - to do with its inability to attract players. There are a host of reasons it did not succeed, many of which have be touched on in this thread
The game was kicked out the door too soon, it was being continually rebalanced underneath the players, the combat design was uninspired, it was too easy to reach the "end" of the game, the critical early period of community development was destroyed by the inability to get the chat servers working, the console game style segregation of high level and low level players to specific continents further sabotaged community building, it took too long to get fresh content into the game, and the world felt "soulless."
I don't deny the AC1 players who expected "AC1+" negatively affected perception. It should have been possible to move beyond that and gain a fresh audience. AC1 was a hardcore Explorer game. AC2 was a lightweight Achiever game. The initial attempts to sell AC2 to the AC1 playerbase were doomed to fail.
Nevertheless, all of these design and operations issues I listed above would all remain true even if AC2 had been a fresh IP. No; AC2 failed not because AC1 fans rejected it, but because it couldn't create AC2 fans.
If this "sequels are counterproductive" is truly the best lesson Turbine has extracted from AC2, then it saddens me to say AC2 was ultimately an entirely fruitless endeavor. Not only did few enjoy the game, Turbine learned nothing from its failure.

---

A agree. If that was really their "take home lesson" from it all, I don't have very high hopes for the products Turbine is currently developing. Time will tell.

Yup as usual the Devs will never admit they are the problem..

Its like "hey dont blame us, we just created, managed and ran the game, what the hell makes you think its our fault"

One of these days someone is going to listen to players and give us the game we want, rather than assuming they know whats best for us and then arguing they failed for "many reasons"

AC2 was "ok" thats all just "ok" and in a highly competetive environment "ok" isnt going to cut it anymore....

Next!......

I have played AC2 from European Beta to September (August?) 2004. It was a heck of afun game, although it was my first MMORPG. I now know that AC1 has better lore and all that, but still, the Dereth of AC2 had a certain something *snaps his fingers* that I find lacking in other games. It has nothing to do with game mechanics, hero levels, skill systems. It's a feeling, the atmosphere.

I miss that in WoW, I miss that in EQ2, I miss that in Horizons, I miss that in every other MMORPG I've tried the past few years. Perhaps it's because AC2 was my first MMORPG, but still. Oh, and an other thing I really miss is playing my sage and hivekeeper. Those two characters (along with the healer) made it possible for me to enjoy the game for so many months.

Funny thing is I downloaded the trial version a few days before the announcement of the shutdown was made. Was ready to give it another go.

Ah well, AC2, I'll miss you.

I would have been suprised if Blizzard put AC2 in the public domain.  First of all, it would be giving up a great deal of their intelectual property.  It would be beneficial to thier compeditors and to them little good.  Next, the game is too big to run on some player's PC, so it would take at least a small company to operate and maintain it.  Finally, if Blizzard was loosing money maintaining it, who could afford to run it?  Even with just one low population world, it would take over a thousand a month to operate and that's without anyone to provide player support.  My guess is that it would take an investment of over $100K just to get a minimal world up and running.

Some players don't realize that these big MMOs are not like the old MUDs that you could just stick on a spare system in the back room.  They take a lot of expensive equipment to run and technical people to keep them running.

" the combat design was uninspired,"

Not meant as a flame but thats the worst argument you could come up with. Uninspired!, AC2 is quoted as having the best combat system in all games, it was the rest of the game that let it down.

Hmm sadly despite the Turbine grudgery around I am going to try dungeons and dragons. I mean there were elements that were good and original in ac2, and this I look forward to seeing in dungeons and dragons.
Lotr has apparently taken more of the ac2 developers but it doesn't look so good.

---

Originally posted by nomadian

Not meant as a flame but thats the worst argument you could come up with. Uninspired!, AC2 is quoted as having the best combat system in all games, it was the rest of the game that let it down.

---

I agree that the combat system was the most solid part of AC2. The concept was good. The execution was very meh. Consensus seems to be that in practice it didn't succeed in engaging the player's interest, requiring actual feedback, or providing enough differentiation between play style. I've seen many comments to the effect that mage, archer, and melee felt largely the same to play. I did like those Lugian engineers, though.

It was definitely on the right track. I believe CoH came closer to the sort of fast-paced reactive group combat they were shooting for. I'd argue that removing the "almost real physics" of AC1 projectiles was definitely a step back, though. In AC1, you could dodge arrows and projectile spells. PVP tended to FPS style circle-strafing and ducking behind cover.

Sad news with this but not surprising.

I was a Cher Chaste, Monarch of OoO (Oracles of Order), from the first week of AC2 & played for around 3 years. I loved the game, I loved my minions.

The game had lots to offer & I wish they were incorporated into more games. Being an emote queen, I TRULY enjoyed the different dance style, sounds of character laughter & the music we could play as a band with our looted instruments! All this along with the background sounds & the awesome graphics was a big part of the game that so many of us enjoyed as passive play.

I really lost interest when they continued to nerf our characters. Then when they changed the crafting aspect of the game, I gave up & didn't continue subscribing to the game. I believe at one time I was #3 crafter on our server of Frostfell (Formerly Solclaim then was consolidated).

At this time, I still hold my account on AC1 on Solclaim. I love my mage there & enjoy playing her occasionally. My grown children play the game also. I am losing interest in this game tho because the graphics have become so crude, compared to other MMORPG.

Just a word about XP chains & Macro Bots; XP chains are bad enough for any game, macro bots are poison. If people are not stopped & their account(s) permanently banned, any game will suffer for those of us who choose to obey the rules.

I'm truly sad to see AC2 has failed. Along with many, we felt it was doomed from the beginning from too much lag & nerf-happy programmers. I'm now hesitant to buy anything made by Turbine.

Farewell to a good game. Thank you for all the wonderful memories.

Live well with yourself, walk well with your friends, hunt well against your enemies! ~*~ Cher Chaste ~*~

First off, i have played damn near every mmo out there that has gotten big big reviews, or tons of hype form everyone.... and all i can say is there is nothing out there that is even close to AC2, i have played since release of that game. Nothing has come close to it in graphics, or "fun factor" i mean that game was just ahead of its time, taht and all the nerfs, but who freaking cares about nerfs, jesus just play the damn game and learn to get better you damn babies, anyway i was just wondering what mags they guy was talking about that he "advertized" in, cause i know before AC2 came out there was about half a page of reviews in gamepro magazine, and that is all i ever saw of AC2 ever advertized.... if he would be so kind as to send me links to all the places he advertized i would love to see..... cause i know i havent seen anything on any gaming site ever....that was the only down fall to AC2, i dont think the creators really liked the game from the start and just meh screw it, lets see how long it can last ....prolly all for a bet, i really hate turbine for this, they did nothing to help, ya there was an expantion, and it rocked .....but still, when i was trying to get my copy, i called many of the big game dealers, bestbuy, gamestop, any place that would have computer games, and there was only one store that had even been told about it, and it was EB games.....so it just shows ya they didnt do a damn thing to get word out about this game..... not really sure if tha tmakes since or not, just to mad to really care but anyway i am very honored to have played the best mmo out there, there will never be another game like AC2, i am very sad that not many ppl got to enjoy what so few did, but anyway im out to go find somthing to play, and drink away the memories of AC2 closing, see yall later

-Neo-Damerus

I really worry about the precdent being established here.

A few months ago a challenged title from an unknown european publisher closed down right after release effectively stealing funds from thier subscribers.

Now a well established publisher effectively mimics this practice.

I find this disturbing and question the moral and legal standpoint of it.

To release a new title or expansion and then turn around and close down the servers raises some questions of ethics in the industry.

It goes to table to ask did Turbine know they were closing the game down before they released the expansion and pushed it thru with the intent to defraud thier subscribers out of more money?

From the spokespersons comments in this interview it seems they did indeed entertain the idea before the expansion release. They seem to be saying the expansion was released in an effort to curb this demise but that it failed.

It seems to me that turbine has an obligation to thier subscribers especially the ones who had paid out for this now defunct expansion. At the very least they could offer these people some form of recompense.

Beta accounts for the upcoming Turbine titles or possible ever a free copy of the new games when they release. 

The saddest part is that it would seem as though this person doesn't realize that Sequels in games are just like movies... some bad, some good.  the ones that end up being bad are the ones where they don't stay with the concepts of the original that made it so popular in the first place.  When you go out and recreate something like they did with AC2.  You are bound to alienate your already fanbase and possible not gain much considering the options in AC2.  You only have 3 races and you are very limited in skills to learn compared to it's predecessor and the whole game was/or still is really anal retentive about grouping unlike AC1 where both are equally enjoyable.  It didn't have the highly evolving quests that people were used to in AC1.  Not one lever or any puzzles to figure out.  then the most boring part is the step by step quest log.  I know it seems to become a new norm of the latest games but i don't like that aspect at all with any of the new games.  Give us simple hints but don't tell us every step of the way what all we need to do exactly. 

But i guess folks just need their hands held while they do games these days... /shrug

But this goes to show like my original point, once you find that niche and you have a good set of features then stick with them, maybe fine tune some but keep them for the most part.  Then just work on content and gameplay.  Sequels don't have to bomb... If you are a good game developer period you would understand that.  When making a game online or even offline... The devs have to keep in mind what makes people want to play games over and over.  Stuff that is addicting... i.e. in AC1, one of my favorite aspects about that game was the random loot generator, you would end up with some of the most unique items in the game.  Some pretty nice and some pretty goofy.  But nevertheless, it's that easter egg syndrome. 

Tinkering in AC1, that didn't make it to AC2... people who play AC1 love this aspect, why shouldn't they?  you can tinker your gear to YOUR liking.  Endless possibilities... We don't have to spend boring hours crafting junk just to craft more junk.  Funny how this is an aspect that is similar to even that of Diablo 2 that so many liked... you can augment your items with gems.  It's another form of tinkering, and people love that aspect.   Why it didn't make it to AC2 off the start boggles the mind.

there is hardly anything feature wise that resembles AC1...

While i'm at it to further the point... Look at EQ2, sure it made some pretty big changes, but the core game is still there just in a different format.  It still uses the same stat design with a more user-friendly interface and such.  But that is just fine tuning...  Many of the same classes are there, but they have a new way of going about doing it.  It's an adventure rpg in EQ1 and yet it stays that way, even more anally so in EQ2.  AC1 is an adventure rpg, but yet again they 180'd out on this aspect also.

If for one second those devs at AC2 would take off their bottleneck glasses and try and open their mind to what works and what doesn't.. then they would do 100% better.  Sure throw in some new aspects, but take some advice from people who have made successful sequels.  Don't change every single aspect of your original on your first sequel.  1/3 old, 1/3 updated/fine tuned, 1/3 new... rules to live by when doing a sequel.

As a beta tester that was never able to log in once due to bugs and a player at release who made his best to get the devs to understand how badly they were alienating players, all I can say is good riddance, this game deserved nothing less than to fail.

You had assembled one of the worst development team around on what should have been a game very close to Everquest in terms of suscribers, but yet, after constantly ignoring player comments, ideas and suggestion while instead concentrating on jerking us around, you got what was coming to you.

A big thumbs up to all players that quit the game over the years, we all had a small part in taking them down!

I agree with some of the posts. The Developers are the reason for the game's fall. Honestly, Jefferey needs to fire thier asses for screwing the game. If the developers from AC2 are allowed to be on the dev teams for DnD online, or LotR online, those games will bomb. I enjoyed the concept of the game, but not the end result. And Turbine's idea of not giving out the server info for AC2 is another failing. This means those players would have two choices, AC1, or going to a different company. And you don't get those customers back normally. In my opinion, this might be the start of the fall of Turbine as a company. There last few games havn't been as good, and now instead of fixing the problems with the game and listening to thier customers on why they disliked the game, they scrapped a game that they could of used to learn from thier mistakes. With these compounding mistakes, I've suggested selling turbine stock to all my friends that have it. This company is going the way of the dodo if they don't shape up.

-- Kaelas Askavi

-- Kaelas@direcway.com

-- Beta tester, MMORPG player

P.S. And as for not releasing the server code. This is the worst part of the plan. If they release the server code, then AC2 players continue to play, further develop the game. And you as the company watch, see what's getting the players in content wise. Then you do one thing, Make AC3 with a new engine, and the content people want. Like one server, geography modification ability, etcetera. Now instead, they loose the ability to get thier name out further, and end up loosing customers in the long run.

Ac 2 was a joke. It was nothing like the OG Asherons call. If you are going to make a sequel their has to be something in common. The craft only part sucked. The slow running sucked. The game was not fun.

Reason ac1 is still around is because its fun to play. You can log in DT and kill or be killed. Or log on the carebear servers and emote to your hearts delight and do pklight.

Seems most these mmorpg's suck now anyways. Make big promises and always fall short having you think why I am paying for this shit.

I once drooled over AC 2. Then I played it. It was "ok" but then I had a run in with Microsoft Customer Support. I lost my credit card. The game billing failed, because I had to cancel my card. I decided I didn't want to renew right away so I waited a few months before signing back up. When I tried to do that I was extremely rudely informed that about fifty dollars had been sent to collections. I was told that my CD Key had been banned and I would have to purchase the game new again in order to play.

Hmm... Other MMO's I was subscribed to at the time gladly took me back...

They wonder why their customer base shriveled. Sure it may have not been the only reason but having subscription policies which seemingly could have only come from the third reich did NOT help them at all.

Did you know if you were unable to pay they would keep billing you and rack up debt?

Did you know if you didnt play for a little while your CD Key was erased/banned?

Every other MMO keeps characters as long as they can. They bill you at the BEGINNING of your month. That way if there are billing issues your account simply becomes inactive.

This game deserved to fail if for no other reason than their abhorrent customer service and typical Microsoft greed. Turbine will do much better now that their two new games will have NOTHING to do with Microsoft.

Guess what I did? I got a FREE copy of the game. I played for my FREE month as much as I possibly could. Then canceled my account before I was billed. NOW I AM DANCING ON THIS PIECE OF SHIT'S GRAVE!!!

I like Turbine and look forward to their future projects but... Good riddance!

Does no one else care that they dodged the question concerning the number of players at the time of shut-down?

I am curious as to how many( or how little) players it takes to close down an MMO. That way I can keep my eyes open.

Well first I will start with the good before the bad.

The Good:

To start off I would like to say that I was a devoted fan to AC1 for almost 4 years and some of my best video game memories are of AC1 with my friends on pvp darktide server.  Ac1 was such a great game with depth, lore, exploration, items, and character creation.  When you built your char you planned it from the get go and when you where done you where proud of your accomplishments unlike many of the games out there to day.  Also AC1 was the best MMORPG PVP engine to date in my own opinion and nothing has even come close to there pvp engine where you can actually dodge spells and arrows :O really some developers need to crack open a dictionary and look up the word Dodge and figure out what it means again.  Anyhow I had nothing but high praises for AC1 before it started getting stupid with bad patch after bad patch.  This is where I think they went wrong with ac2.  In AC 1 they almost never nurfed anything.  They just kept on putting higher and higher content in.  Stronger and stronger content until it was unbalanced as hell.  Then instead of nurfing they just put STRONGER stuff in to balance it until it spiraled into the LVL 150+ range to compete or do anything, utterly destroying the game in my opinion.  I think they went the reverse route with ac2 from what I hear with the nurf bat, but I never played it overly long to find out because it was horrible, which takes me to the bad.

The Bad:

Well the shutting down of AC2 only proves that there is a god.  This game was such an incredible let down to me and all my friends from AC1, it was truly sad.  The only good part of ac2 was the graphics, the rest of it could be flushed down the toilet.  I really don't know what the developers where thinking but right from beta it seemed doomed to fail.  They didn't stick to ANY of there AC1 roots other then some lore and some monsters.  They changed the entire combat engine to some piece of crap engine.  They changed the character building system to a cheap rip off Diablo 2's skill system.  The game felt like Diablo 2 and EQ meshed together instead of AC2.  Why would you create an entirely different game when you have something good as a predecessor, and then expect your fan basis to stay ? This just baffles me to this day.  If they would of just taken the general game mechanics from ac1 down to the world / character template / depth and just put a new graphics engine with some new tweaks, ideas, stories, quests, races, ect, It would still be going today. 
After buying AC2 3 months later I discontinued my subscription and used the cd as a coster as it was the only thing I could think of that was worth the money I spent on the game.  All though it does make a good coaster as I still use it to this day.  The sad part is I took a few more cracks at AC1 and have NEVER EVER looked back at ac2.

Truly sad it is.

But I hope that Turbine has learned a lot from there mistakes and will use it to better there future up coming games.  With that all said I can only feel for the devs as well as it would be hard to shut down such a project, and with the shutdown of AC2 I only hope that one day they will make AC3 and truly get it right.

Lessons learned

-          With a good product a person may tell 1 other person about maybe 2 if your lucky.  With A bad product the person will tell everyone he knows how much it sucks.

-          Sequels only split your subscription / population basis when you create an entirely different game.   I’ve taken the liberty of posting a link where the definition of sequel can be found - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sequel

-          Listen to you community and try your best to stay on the fence as much as possible when it comes to the decision making time.

-          Don’t release an expansion then shutdown the game.  This just angers the locals :P

---

Originally posted by hyperionjr

Does no one else care that they dodged the question concerning the number of players at the time of shut-down?

I am curious as to how many( or how little) players it takes to close down an MMO. That way I can keep my eyes open.

---

http://www.mmogchart.com/ is a useful reference for that info.

current market leaders: http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
others including AC and AC2: http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart3.html

Similar story here. played AC for 2 years and loved it. Played AC2 for 6 months and finally quit when they nerfed the skill tree of my main class (defender) after lots of other annoying nerfing on each update before that. As i said in the exit survey, its the difference between viable toons grouping to complete a task, and unviable toons being forced to group to do anything.

For those of you who want a quick summary: WoW 2million, AC 37.5k, AC2 15k (at Jan 05)

Also of interest is the Lineage / Lineage 2 population flip. As L2 was massively increasing, its probably significantly because Lineage players were moving over to it. Maybe too early to tell but it does suggest that a sequel doesnt alienate your hardcore gamers by definition. Not having played either though, I couldnt make a call on how similar they are.

they should never have called it AC2, the number of people coming in appalled that it was nothing like AC1 shows people had an expectation for it to be exactly like AC1 and not being open to new ideas.

I am as open to new ideas as the next guy but when you change the entire game and the only things that stayed where some monsters name and a tiny portion or lore its not a "Squeal" its a new game.  So agian I point to the squeal definition.

Lets look at some other games that are successfull that have Squeals

Might and Magic - Changed game features, added new idea's, but kept what original concept in tact.

EQ - Changed game features, added new idea's, but kept what original concept in tact.

Now lets look at AC2

AC 2 - Kept a small portion of lore and a small portion of the creature data base.  Rest of game changed to be a poorly made mesh of D2 and EQ 2

I played the game from Beta and got nerfed out of playing like so many others.
It seems the biggest lesson they still have not learn't is to listen to the people that are paying your wages!!!
I just cancelled my DDO preorder as I really have no faith in Turbines ability to manage a Mmorg.

---

One of the key lessons that we learned is the customer perception of sequels in the MMO space. They end up splitting your community more so than growing it. So they are counterproductive, unlike sequels in other game genres where they can be really successful.

---

L O L. They needed to actually release a game to learn THAT? ... *shakes head in disbelief*

Yeah I wasn't criticizing. EQ2 is nothing like eq as well so it was also dismissed by a lot of players. Vanguard is in fact being seen as the true EQ2.

AC2 Hype way back when it first started to come out told me to forget it. Not sure what it was but something there didn't bite me. I predicted back then this would die a slow death and for a change .....  I was right.

I feel bad for the few people who bought the update only top have them cancel right after. This smells to me and it would seem a fair thing to do to refund all those that bought into it. I have been sitting patiently waiting for D&D but now with it being Turbine my feelings are skeptical of a company that deals thier people this way.  I wonder did they add sand to the Vasaline before saying bend over sucka ?

If you bought the expansion you should all get your money back ...  They just sold you a PIG in a Poke -- the oldest trick in the books .... 

Sorry, but, NERF NERF NERF and you will eventually NERF your player base enough, that you have nobody left who gives a crap what you do to the characters....

You want to pick up on some Customers ??  world of warcraft is starting to swing the NERF bat also ... and, they are taking some Mighty Big swings at the characters PEOPLE LOVE .... Droves are leaving, and not looking back ...  In my small world I have seen 8 people drop accounts in wow just this week...  Nerf the Hunters .. nerf the rogues .. Nerf the warlocks ... Nerf the mage -- Nerf the Paladin ... horray smart WOW -- keep up the Nerfing you flaggin Nerfs ...

Are You Ready to pick up on the flow ?? HAVE you Listened to ANYTHING YOUR players have told you ?? 

SWG - - -  NERF ,NERF, NERF,  --- players flood away from the game, they knew and loved ---

STOP NERFING THE CHARACTERS ! !   GIVE better stats to the Weaker Characters to compensate for THE  percieved weakness .... 

THERE I SAID IT ! ! ! !   

DID YOU READ IT ??? 

Did IT SINK IN ??? 

STOP NERF -- ADD to the WEAKNESS - DO NOT TAKE AWAY,  but,    ADD ! ! ! !  

IT is such a simple concept for sucess, that I should charge you a few million dollars for that advice ---- and it would have been cheap at that ....

4 million monthly subscriptions and box sales -- you do the math --

BUT .... THEY Have started to NERF -- and when they do it more and more as they WILL ... Good BYE WOW millions of subscriptions  --- HELLO new game waiting in the wings ...

Will it be DDO ?? MEO ?  IT could be .... BUT YOU BETTER have your characters where you want them at release  or start tweeking to the positive end if need be ....

I'm not sure if Turbine has said anything but I see no reason why they won't be transfering all AC2 players to AC1 for free. It will only add more players to AC1. So, the players aren't completely out of luck.

I really thought they would keep AC2 going, even on 1 server. Turbine can't afford to keep AC2 going on one server with no more updates? That's hard to believe. Sure the game would slowly die anyway but there wouldn't be half as much criticism. If they kept AC2 around, they could have offered it as part of an all access subscription plan like Sony's Station Pass. AC1, AC2, DDO, and LotRO for $21.95. Keeping AC2 would have made it a little more enticing and kept some of Turbine's credit up.

In Turbine's defense somewhat, I don't think closing AC2 is going to have a huge effect on the future players of DDO and LotRO. They are mostly a completely different group. Sure, there are a few people now who might say forget it, but the money they are saving by not keeping AC2 going in the long run I'm sure will be a lot more profitable. Especially if DDO and LotRO turn out good, watch how quickly AC2 is forgotten.

Probably beating a dead horse but I have had not forum with which to voice my opinion.

I was playing AC2 when they dropped the axe and I read the interview Mmorpg.com had with that Hanna guy.

Give me a break, he side stepped the one question they posed to him that was burning in my mind.

Why release the expansion and then kill the game shortly after?

I bought 2 copies of the Expansion, one for me and one for my wife. There was not an indication that the game was going down. We got robbed by Turbine, no other word for it. They knew that game was going south and they wanted to sting us one more time. So they released that xpack, alot of people bought it, and now they are running away with the money, and we have CDs with a worthless set of files on it that, at best can be used to make mobiles out of at my son's elementary school.

I seriously hope D&D Online flops, along with everything Turbine touches. What you have done is wrong, just wrong .....and you know it, Hanna.

If you had any kind of conscience , you would refund everyone's money who bought that Xpack, yea, we got to play it for a while, but you got the subscription payment for that.

Give us back our money

You tried to boost the subscriber base with the Xpack and it didn't work. What did you have to lose? Nothing. What did you have to gain?  The monthly subscriber charge X every player that was playing at the time. And you were collecting that all the way up to the last month it was running.

Hahahaha,

Perhaps they did advertise in magazines and websites. But they were websites for MMORPGs. Anyone at those sites are players of them already. Retired players probably don't surf those sites anymore, potential new players don't know about those sites.

In my book, Turbine has a black eye for what they pulled on AC2, no question.

---

Originally posted by hyperionjr
Does no one else care that they dodged the question concerning the number of players at the time of shut-down?
I am curious as to how many( or how little) players it takes to close down an MMO. That way I can keep my eyes open.

---

Well my little brother played earlier this summer, and think there was around 50 players online at a time normally on the kvk server.

Then think they merged with frostfell or something and there were 250 total online at peak time.

so those are soe pretty sad numbers.

you can find more people on a couple of random FPS servers for any game.

Wow. I love QAs where the creators never actually /answer/ the questions. They just give huge broad, and vague answers which really just skip around the topic. Essentially, this is what I got from all of that.

"Yeah, so we're shutting down the game right after releasing an expansion pack. We're not going to tell you the reasons /why/. And when asked if it bothers customers that we shut down, we'll use the excuse that it was because it was to boost sales. (Which it was, but it didn't show a concern for the gamer). What? Private servers? Just because /we/ can throw it away, doesn't mean /you/ can have it!"

I hate to see this with games. I bought Asheron's Call 2, and it seemed like a good idea at the time. I never played it. The game wouldn't run for me, for some reason. But this reminds me of the tragic ends of most games. You buy a game, you sink your time, and money into it and you retain no right to that game other than the fact you get to own a private copy of a game that you need /their/ server for to play. I understand there's a maintenence fee for these servers. I also understand you don't want to give out your subscriber base to the game you're going to shut down because some competitor might be like, "This is our chance to... Well, they're already shutting down the game. So what?" However, it seems to me that the spokesmen did not show any sort of gratitude or compassion for the most important factor; the players itself. When Earth And Beyond shut down it transfered everyone to EVE Online. MMOs offer very little security for their games. I agree that it's a bad idea to release a sequal for an MMO. I'm noticing the same problem wiht EQ and EQ2's member-bases. And I compliment games like Dark Age of Camelot, Ultima Online, the ones that just keep going. I believe some sort of compensation should be given to AC2 subscribers.

But, then again, who listens to us?

We're just the customers.

Proudly,

Ryan Tullis.

I was one of the first few people to have a level 50 character.  And I was probably the first to have two level 50 characters. Tactician and archer. Sold em on ebay for $1000 because I knew the game was headed for disaster even before I played retail I knew it wouldn't last.

""""You want the real reason AC2 tanked: Their Combat system did not work.""""

Armor didn't work in the game.  If you tried to fight a monster that was 5 levels lower than you with melee, it could destroy you.  But if you used a tactician with walls for armor, you could kill several monsters at once that were 25+ levels higher than you. 

I warned them in beta that their game would fail, and they had to change combat.  If armor mattered, and tactican walls weren't so powerful, the game could have done well.

You can't have a successful RPG if your combat system is broken.  Combat is the one part of the RPG that computers can do well.

---

Originally posted by CrazyJim

...

You can't have a successful RPG if your combat system is broken.  Combat is the one part of the RPG that computers can do well.

---

I agree.  I was hugely disappointed in beta and after a week of play I completely lost interest in it.

The whole game was overly simplified.  I like ranged attacks, but they were all basically the same.  My archer shooting flaming arrows was nearly identical to my mage throwing fireballs.