f13.net

From Warcry:

Turbine has undergone a corporate shake-up, according to sources within the company and some quiet edits to their own website. The official company page now lists Jim Crowley as President and CEO, removing all mention of Jeff Anderson.

The move comes suddenly, as WarCry interviewed Anderson only last week at DigitalLife and saw no indications. There is no word on how or why he left at this time.

WarCry was not able to get official comment on the move from Turbine as the changes were discovered outside of business hours. We will continue to follow this story as it develops.

Hmm...

Maybe they got tired of making bad games.

Turbine is a funny company. I mean they have the MMO experience under the belt and I've always felt that the games they've released during later years have always hold a high technical standard when compared to most of the field. However, someone responsible for game design at that company doesn't know what the hell he's doing. I guess AC2 could get some points for originality when compared to other dikus, but there was still so much wrong.

'Bout time.

fify ;)

AC2 was too much like other dikus.

AC1 was my first MMO, so I was hoping for AC2 to be AC1 with the bugs and horrible imbalancing removed. Instead, they gave us races and classes. And weird, slip-n-slide character animation. And towns devoid of NPCs. And a (comparatively) tiny world to explore. And monsters roaming the landscape that could only be tackled in groups. Et cetera.

never played AC but my free trial of DnD Online was so turn based it should have been called DnD Offline.

   Does this mean they will start making mmos that don't put me to sleep when I try to play them?

I'd have to guess that the LOTRO 800k second largest western MMO stories weren't accurate. That or someone had insanely inflated ideas of success.

IIRC, LOTRO boasted 800K characters, not subs.

How many characters could you have on one realm/server?

No, they claimed 4 million characters.

Looking forward to seeing what this means.

Or, maybe not, since the new president may very well decide to shitcan AC1. :(

That'd be incredibly dumb, since all their costs are paid for and it's just a revenue stream at this point.  Consolodate servers, maybe, shut down? Pft.   Same reason you see UO running 10 years later.

How big was LOTR's beta?  I imagine most of those beta folks who bought jumped at the chance for a lifetime sub for less than 1 year's sub to the game.  It's almost stupid not to have done so.  Of course an offer like that can fuck the company offering it if all they get for subs is 60% lifetimers and 40% recurring subs.  Perhaps that's what happened here.

Jim Crowley was the producer on AC1.

Remember. We are talking about Turbine here.

Scenario wrote this on the LotRO forums: "You are confusing Jim Crowley with Dave "Crowley" Javier (AC1's Producer, and not Jim Crowley). They are two different people."

Obviously none of us knows the details of the LotR license agreement, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility that the cuurent subscriber levels do not generate sufficient revenue to support the royalty. I doubt the license fee was just a one-time payment.

I have to think that Lifetime subs are a good idea.  It means it's free to check up on an MMO,  and maybe get back into it.  If you get back into it,  you tend to drag a couple friends with you.  Kind of guarantees you'll never hit a position like DAoC where you have people quiting from burnout,  then other people quiting because the place is depopulated.

I know with Magic Online,  since you can screw around in casual for free,  I'll go a couple months without logging in.  That get sucked back in because I go check the casual/new cards and find something I like to do. 

I'm inclined to agree, but AC1's numbers appear to be significantly lower than UO's - and AC1 does a new update every month.  Staff costs alone have got to be over $100k a year for the game (they have at least 4 people on the live team), the rough equivalent of 10,000 subs.  Server costs can't be too huge, but still.

You're cracked, offering lifetime subscriptions for $200 when the game costs $15/month is simply bad business.

Lifetime subs are good business, for the company, and the few people with the mental facility to a) stay with a brand-new unproven game for 18 months at least; and, b) to survive the sort of sweeping changes an MMO can go through. But for the rest of humanity, it's just odd.

They recently announced the reactivation of that lifetime program, for people who started the game after launch and fall into the above category.

As for Jeff, I hope it was amicable and mutual.

Implementing the lifetime subscription option is a good idea. MMO players are always looking for the next big thing, hopping from one game to the next. Just wait and see what happens when Conan and Warhammer are released. Even WoW was created with a subscription life expectancy of six months at launch. At $15/mo and the game purchase, that's still less than $200. For a non-WoW MMO, lifetime subs can guarantee a company 6+ months worth of reveue in one payment and retain veteran players. An MMO with a strong in-game community/veteran base will always foster new players, thus keeping the ship afloat with new subs. It's kind of like MMO Reaganomics lol.

The lifetime fee offer for Founders has been reactivated. A Founder is someone who preordered the game *and* activated their account at retail launch (chose the $9.95 monthly fee instead of the lifetime). That fee is still $199. No credit for previous monthly payments made. Founders that referred a friend are also eligible for this program.

They also have offered a lifetime fee for non-Founders (like you describe above - people that started playing later and are paying $14.95 per month) and that amount is $299. Just to make it clear.

Edit: Added monthly fee for non-founders for additional clarity.

20 months to break even?  Wow... just wow.

$299 is a more reasonable price, but offering lifetime subscriptions is still crazy. Turbine must be in a liquidity crunch.

I can actually imagine it not being that crazy if the numbers work out right.  A company named Student Advantage reamed me and many of my friends at college by selling a four year "Super student discount" to us when we came in as freshmen.  10% off here, 15% off there.  Lasts 4 years, for the grand ol' price of $50.  I don't know a single person who's even come close to breaking *even* on using the discount, much less coming out ahead.  If enough people who buy the Lifetime Subscription wouldn't have blown $200 (or now $300) on the subscription otherwise, however many they *do* sell, they're coming out ahead.  And even if they come out behind on a few, those people have zero barrier to entry if they quit and want to come back later on, which might help them weather some of the inevitable population decline a Diku MMO experiences a few years out.

And since it's not a physical commodity they're selling -- it didn't cost them any money to produce the lifetime subs -- they don't lose a thing if it turns out not many people take advantage of the offer.

I know a lot of gamers.  I know a lot of people who've gotten into WoW.  I know far fewer who've spent $200+ on WoW, and maybe one who's spent $300+.  And even if one guy would have spent $250 otherwise, that's only a marginal loss of $50.  I'd wager (AKA I'm talking out of my ass here, but whatever it seems reasonable) that for every one guy like that, there are three or four who buy the lifetime on impulse and burn out after a month or three.  The margins are on Turbine's side.

The only scenario I could see this really becoming a problem is if they end up six years from now with really low sub numbers and an abnormally large chunk of those are lifetimers.  But in a situation like that, if what shiznitz guesses is true and the licensing fee to Tolkien's people isn't just a one-time payment, they're probably in trouble either way whether they've got too many lifetime subscribers or not.

Yes, I know, making judgments about corporate strategy on internet message boards = fail.  But I can at least imagine some very possible scenarios where Turbine's lifetime subscription offer makes good sense.

Then you must not have played it at all, seriously, there is nothing turn based in DDO.  Unless you consider every other MMO out there turn based as well.

I've been playing DDO since launch, and it's the only Turbine game I've played.  I really don't have many complaints other then they need to get content out as fast as possible.  I'm still enjoying the game and it manages to be fun and keep my attention.  Which WoW couldn't do. 

I'm actually kind of spoiled by DDO's combat system.  I can't stand other MMO's because of that.  AoC looked like they were on the right track, but they failed as far as i've seen.

Although I'm hoping that the shake-up will step up the games content progression.

From a finance angle:

When you're evaluating a stream of payments versus a payment up front, the discount rate you use is king. 

If a significant amount of the cost of producing LOTR was debt, rather than equity,  the discount rate would be something like: inflation + interest rate of financing + <value you attach to better liquidity and current ratio>

A large amount of payments on the front end can mean you can payoff or refinance your debt, reducing your long term interest payments.  It also means that you make your balance sheet look better (current ratio, working capital ratio, debt-to-equity ratios, etc.),  meaning it's easier to secure financing for your next project.  Rather then having to delay new projects while you payoff old debt,  or are forced to secure new debt or equity investments at disadvantageous terms.

AC2 was in fact pretty original. They had some original classes, the sentry dude comes to mind. The whole "no NPCs deal". The crafting system which iirc was pretty deep compared to what was around at the time. The whole take on a story in a MMO also comes to mind.

AC2 had everything going for it except one thing, it wasn't any fun to play.

 :yahoo:

Spill it! You can't leave us hanging like that.

Oh on the lifetime thing, is $250 or 200 a good deal for the company? Well, I have never spent that much on a single game except for, you guessed it, UO. It's a good deal.

I agree that it was original. And I"m going to stop there, before this spirals into yet another treatise on the pros and cons of AC2. We've all been there, no need to go again :)

I second the motion.

So would (or did) you, and the rest of you folks saying it's a good deal, dump $200 into LOTR?   I'm betting most of the folks who did weren't in fact the casual user, but the hardcore MMO fans who DO play a single game for a year or more.   That's why I think it wasn't a good idea, but then only Turbine knows for certain what that demographic looks like.  We'd need someone in Turbine to come forward and say "well fuck, that wasn't a good idea," but that isn't likely to happen.

I am a casual user (I play about two weeks every two or three months before I lose interest in MMOs and waste my time otherwise) and I'm sure I am a good deal for Turbine, because up to now I just bought another MMO for a free month and never looked back at it and now I just relog into Lotro, because it is paid for anyway. And it is a good deal for me because I don't pay 15 to 20 Euros for two weeks (like I did with EQ and EQ2 and WoW regularly) or 60 to 80 Euros for a new game box every time the MMO fever gets me again.

Ya know, I question that use of "casual" and "hardcore" in the context of MMOs. Who's more likely to jump games, follow new ones, hope to get into betas to chase new experiences? And of course I mean the "casual MMO player", not the actual "casual" (snack) gamer out there.

I'd actually say a lifetime fee is more appealing to a casual gamer because they a) have just enough experience with these games to think it's a good deal; and, b) are not the type to game jump anyway.

I don't think many of us fall into that category. But think of the people we play with, the ones who only left EQ1 for WoW and those who'll only leave WoW for WoW2 or whatever. Unless SOE and Blizzard had some insane ability to attract, most people who played EQ1 in the heydey weren't constantly needing to be replaced. WoW's sustainability also arguably shows they're keeping more than they need to attrack.

So who's staying? It can't all be a bunch of Raiders. We know how niche that activity can be. So is it a bunch of people who are perfectly happy gaining one or two levels a week in their 5 hours of gameplay a week within a very polished world against which everything else either pales or isn't even worth checking out?

I had a blast playing that game. But as is always the stated case, I am the only one here who did. ;) Anomalous am I.

I remember driving for an hour to pick up my copy of the Turbine 2 Engine Demo Asheron's Call 2. It had an awful 1-0 combat system and some monsters, but that was about all it had. People were having more fun petitioning each other for bad language.

 I still haven't gotten a refund.

I've stated a number fo times in the past that I enjoyed AC2 early on as well.  You're not alone.  You should be ... but you're not.

I bet both of you enjoy hobbies like dust collecting.

Most fun part of AC2:  The music system.  I was only in the beta but finding instruments and playing with other players was more fun than any other part of the game.

Not seen it mentioned.

Walt Yarbrough has left EA Mythic to join Turbine working on something new. 

Also Jason Booth (http://jbooth.blogspot.com/) left Harmonix in August and has joined a new startup company called Conduit Labs (http://www.conduitlabs.com/) with two other ex AC1 devs...

Saw this mentioned elsewhere:

The guy named as new Pres of Turbine, Jim Crowley (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/3/72a/640), has notable experience with one thing.  Prepping companies to be sold.  All his other work was in the telecomm industry.   Let the wild speculation begin!  (As that's all it really is.)

No it isn't. 20 months is a long time in gaming. Most MMOG enthusiasts will leave a game for a few months now and then. However, with the $199 deal out there I would expect very few to pay $299. You just feel like you are getting screwed at $299 with $199 available to others.

Really? Don't most people play for a year or two straight, burn out, quit for at least a year, then return at a more casual level off and on? That seemed to be the way EQ worked. If a player gets through the first month and pays for the second, he's hooked for at least a year.

I used to think the same thing.

Then I played EQ2, WoW, VG... list goes on.

Then I realized back then there wasn't much to play.

Most of the people we play with, probably. Not most of the people playing. But I am just guessing. For example, I have been an almost 4 year subscriber to EQ2 but PS and CoH were always short stints.

Most of the folks I play with play for a long, long ass time.  Not just the raiders, but the casual folks who are just now getting their first level 70 character.  Those casuals that quit don't go back to a game, they're done.

The Hardcore (timewise, as in "they're always fucking on!)/ raiders I've played with will quit for a few months/ take some time off then come back to the game, unless they found something else to nab them in the downtime.  Typically they come back, however.

Right now, I've only met 5 people who've left WoW for good.*  As mentioned, they're all LOTR freaks, so they'll be there until that game closes down. 

* I don't count those here among those numbers.  You're all too jaded and desire too much from what most see as a hobby/ way to waste time.  Most of the folks I'm speaking of would call themselves "gamers" at about #8 on a list of top-10 activities. :-D

I played in the LOTR beta, and toyed with the idea of buying the lifetime sub, but realized that to pay for me, I'd have to play it beyond the 3 or 4 months I figured I would initially play it, and the month after a year that I'd check back in to play it.  In fact, I could check back in for a month quite a few times before paying for the lifetime sub.

I did check out, but haven't checked back in, and don't really anticipate doing so.

Official Press Release (http://www.turbine.com/index.php?page_id=20&pagebuilder%5Bmodule%5D=sitearticle&pagebuilder%5Bdisplay_item%5D=53)

Mostly just telling us what we already know.

I just read this at Next Generation (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7413&Itemid=2):

So now we know Jeff owns enough to stock to stay on the board even though the other shareholders (the VC guys) don't want him running the firm.

Executives are never fired in "real" business.  Our last CEO is now a "consultant", for example.  I am pretty sure he does exactly nothing, since we never hear about him, but he remains on the payroll for appearances.

If it is Robert Dunder, make sure he gets a safe ride home.

I was thinking of Doug Ivester, but it's not like he would actually drive into the office.  The Company installs corporate-grade lines into their homes, I hear a T1 but it's been a while.  The execs don't mingle with the normals for the most part, although I used to see Neville Isdell in the cafeteria a lot shortly after he took the job.

The master doesn't talk, he acts. When his work is done, The people say, " Amazing we did it, all by ourselves!" (Lao Tzu)

And he gets the paycheck. Excessive executive compensation is even worse when you realize that out in the business world, half your board sits on at least two other boards, and draws ridiculous salaries from each.

Of course, I once saw a guy get 40 million for driving down stock prices to half the value when he arrived, presiding over massively falling sales, a number of scandals, and in generally screwing up in every possible way. Then I saw him get hired by someone else for another multi-million dollar deal.

Totally the wrong connotation for that Taoist quote, which doesn't talk about corporate bigwigs getting paid for doing nothing, and is more saying that a true leader works the fields himself and then the people amaze at how much easier it was because the master was there toiling along with them.

Coca-Cola execs sit back and rake money, and if Yeg didn't see him then he surely wasn't there working.

I bought the 200 dollar lifetime, and feel like it was worthwhile but I don't tend to game jump much. UO to DAoC to EQII all of which I played for a minimum of 2 or more years before moving on. I have not logged in to LoTRO in a about a month now, I needed a break since I was a early beta tester and after a year of 20 + hours per week in the game I was starting to suffer burn out. I Will probably start back this weekend but I doubt I will be doing the 20-30 hours a week I was playing because I have rediscovered reading and cooking for fun and those will hog some of the time I was devoting to gaming.

Back to the original topic, I love the game but I think Turbine was expecting more in terms of subscribers. Still as long as the game keeps running for a couple of more years at least I will have gotten my moneys worth.

I thought he was one of the founding members of the company. If that's the case, then perhaps he just wanted a turn "in the trenches", and now it's someone else's turn.

No. He was appointed by the board in 2001.

What are you doing in here? Aren't you supposed to be working on the Ray-gun version of Wow?

Honestly I think this is the reason WoW managed to maintain high numbers.  Right now the industry is simply abysmal for the consumer.  All there is, is a lot of clones of each other. 

Ill play it. Sounds like fun.

Off Topic: The only thing stopping me from playing WoW is the graphics. Im a whore for graphics. Give me Pew Pew and Massively playable polish, I'm in, regardless of the IP.

Oddly, sacking him led me to reup LOTRO for a romp. (My job is raiding EQ2, but I have to have some kind of leisure activity.)

On the sack, I guesstimated based on the 20% rule and the social pael back in May that LOTRO had 150-175k subs. I just did the same survey on Landroval and it's down from 1618 to 1071--this is the exact same social panel calculation that I did back in May a few weeks after release--friday night absolute high point prime time. So, LOTRO has lost roughly 1/3 of its players since then. If you extrapolate using the 20% rule from this number its about 101k subs. (That's combined 19 servers Euro and US).

In any case, there are about a thousand people on Landroval, down over a third since launch. My old guild, which once had to limit alts and kick inactives to keep within the guild limit, has 11 people online.

Yeah, I can see why he got canned. And I didn't think the launch numbers were very hot to start.

The idea of LOTRO plugging along at or below the same level as geezers like DAOC, UO, and EQ1 greatly amuses me.