The Short and Morbid Tale of Sigil Games Online

[Soulslinger]

Sigil's Carlsbad office had 108 employees, assuming that includes reception and general office staff. Keeping 50 is not that bad considering the alternative.

[Nebu]

Sigil's Carlsbad office had 108 employees, assuming that includes reception and general office staff. Keeping 50 is not that bad considering the alternative.

It's bad for the 58 that they didn't keep.

[Soulslinger]

Point taken.

The industry is incestuous and I'm sure they will find work elsewhere. For those industry folks fresh out of work, here's a great place to start: http://www.gamedevmap.com

[Morat20]

Oh, trust me, I want to do more than nerf him.

I didn't think he was your type....


(Sorry -- couldn't resist).

[Mechastump]

The Smed statements are vague and seem to dance around whether it was a full company aquisition or just selected assets, though the Gamespot interview clearly suggests it was the former.  Assuming Sigil have not managed to cannily write off the dev costs along the way, SOE has presumably just aquired a hefty chunk of the purported $30M development cost along with the company.  I'd expected them to pick it up cheaply minus the debt and either develop it or blackhole it a la MxO on the Station Pass.  But if the aquisition wasn't that cheap (total speculation), and they're throwing a 50 man live team at it and yaddering about expansions, they clearly think there's a sizeable market for the style of gameplay (which felt a lot like Everquest redux to me) - one that will produce a better return than just parking it MxO style, or gutting gameplay and starting over with an NGE (at the risk of losing the current subscriber base).  Of course if they have managed to pick it up cheaply, it begs the question of just who the hell has taken the hit for the development cost.  There's a $30M elephant wandering about in the room looking lost and i'm curious as to who owns it.

Given they have two major licenses quietly dying in a corner (well, being noisily butchered in the case of SWG), and that one of those was an aquisition in it's own right, I have to wonder just what the hell they see in Vanguard that makes them want to not only pick it up, but actively run with it.  Makes you wonder just how low their break even points are in whatever business model this is.

[SnakeCharmer]

So, let me see if I understand something:

The same people that coded said piece of shit (and were subsequently chastized for here and everywhere else) are getting 'well wishes' and 'feel sorry fors'?  I understand the Bradhate, no question.

Everyone wants to blame management (i.e. Brad), but are giving a free pass to those that did the crap coding.

Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Mike_Lescault]

On a positive note, I'm sure most of those folks will have luck finding a home, given the number of MMOs currently in development.

To me, the downside is that people will cite this situation as proof that there isn't a market for harder core MMOs that aim somewhere north of the lowest common denominator, when I suspect the reasons the game wasn't more successful has less to do with the design philosophy then with other factors.

[d4rkj3di]

So, let me see if I understand something:

The same people that coded said piece of shit (and were subsequently chastized for here and everywhere else) are getting 'well wishes' and 'feel sorry fors'?  I understand the Bradhate, no question.

Everyone wants to blame management (i.e. Brad), but are giving a free pass to those that did the crap coding.

Doesn't make much sense to me.

I'd say that a good number of the "without jobs" folks didn't have much to do with code. These are sound and art people. Stuff that doesn't need to be worked over hard to make the game properly function. In the largest example of irony this week, the ones that still have jobs are the ones that coded said piece of shit.

The really competent ones have been snatched to work on the seekrit squirrel MMO. My 'well wishes' and 'feel sorry fors' are directed to the people that I know for a fact are good at what they do, and out of work. 

[Cheddar]

JS: I don't think there's anything cynical about what we do. We go where the talent is. It's that simple. Many of the people working at Sigil used to work at SOE, and they left to chase the dream of working on a new fantasy MMO of their own creation. We're bringing those people back into the fold and we're excited to do so.

/snicker

[Tcharels]

Ubig got most of the main points across already. Deals vary from project to project, but this is typically how deals are structured, MMO or otherwise:

1. Company A(C:A) (Sigil) approches Company B (C:B) with game proposal (MS)
2. C:B signs title, sets up payment schedule for C:A based on milestone deliverables over the course of the project. Failure on any one of those milestones is grounds for non-payment of milestone or cancellation of the project, depending on circumstances and prior precedent.
3. C:B decides to cancel or otherwise terminate the project. At this point, if the game is never signed, C:A doesn't owe C:B a cent, C:B writes it off as a loss, and everyone moves on to the next big thing. Any future work on the project, or investment though, means C:B has to signoff and get payment of some sort.
4. C:A signs with C:C (Sony) instead, possibly with other outside investments.
5. C:A and C:C ship the project.

Now this is where it gets tricky. If the project never pulls in any profit (i.e. never makes more per month than operational costs), C:B never sees a cent. Otherwise, under most terms, C:B will continue to get a cut of ALL future profits until such a time as C:B's full investment is repaid in full.

This is not necessarily how the agreement was setup, but in all likelihood, it is pretty close. No company will write off a $35 million investment on a project that is going to continue development. They also are unlikely to sell that debt for pennies on the dollar for a short term capital recovery. If no money is ever made, they're not much worse off than before. If money is made, chances are, it will be much more than any short term capital recovery effort would have been.

This is an interesting thread, not just the initial post, but all the follow ups. I was very close to this project, and this is one of the few threads that is pretty rational and dispassionate in it's discourse.

It is very unfortunate that so many people will lose their jobs from this, and that their plan moving forward will, in my opinion, do nothing to help the future of the project. But, no one enters the games industry for it's stability. That would be delusional.

Cheers.

[Fakaro]

stuff

BTW.. I edited this post out of respect for my friend's husband who is trying to find work.

[Engels]

Now we're cookin!

[Venkman]

Exhibit B is Turbine.

Err, actually, AC1 did ok and LoTRO is doing well. And the latter launched playable and good (wasn't there for AC1 launch).

To me, the downside is that people will cite this situation as proof that there isn't a market for harder core MMOs that aim somewhere north of the lowest common denominator, when I suspect the reasons the game wasn't more successful has less to do with the design philosophy then with other factors.

This is different from the NGE "virtual worlds don't sell" though. There was no real market expectation for a generic-IP fantasy-based MMO. The "built by inventor of EQ" started waning when their peak record was almost broken by WoW's first open beta. Getting dumped by Microsoft hurt. Brad constantly justifying the raft of exposed problems felt far too defensive for a product he had faith in. And VG launching in the same six month period as either WoW: BC or LoTRO was going to result in predictably low turnout anyway.

As such, VG really only proves that launching early a game that was entirely too long in development for what it actually turned out to be is A Bad Thing(tm).

[Trippy]

Brad should take Raph's old job at SOE.

Which was actually the position (Chief Creative Officer) Brad vacated when he left to form Sigil.

[sam, an eggplant]

(posted in the active MMOG discussions thread instead)

[Mike_Lescault]

VG really only proves that launching early a game that was entirely too long in development for what it actually turned out to be is A Bad Thing(tm).

All in all, it's really too bad for the folks who were really looking forward to that type of game.

Sort of like having your hometown hero show up to the Olympic Swim finals drunk and wearing water wings. You'd really love to see him win, but in the end you find yourself just hoping no one gets hurt.

[Margalis]

Nobody was looking forward to it. That was part of the problem.

[Litigator]

Wow, I figured they'd have significant cutbacks, but I didn't expect them to line up the remaining battered soldiers on the front lawn and execute them. That sucks, good luck to everyone with talent, the game wasn't *that bad*, may the future treat you better than the past.

I don't know for sure, but what's going on sounds like some clever maneuvering which allows SOE to acquire the game and the people without acquiring the company Sigil itself, which is crucial if Sigil has managed to acquire a substantial amount of debt.  General gist is:

1) Company A acquires all rights and code to Company B's project.
2) Company B lays off almost entire staff due to inability to pay salaries.
3) Company A says "Hey!  What do you know!  Available people with specific knowledge and talent about this codebase we just bought!"  Hires many of them.
4) Company C, who loaned company B a bunch of money, never sees it again.

Again, I don't know if this is what is happening here for sure, but it's a fairly common gambit in the industry, and I would not be surprised if a significant part of the newly unemployed Vanguard team happened to get job offers in the very immediate future.  Brad's a good guy, and I'd be very surprised if he didn't find a way to be sure that most of his team was taken care of when negotiating the deal.

Well, first of all, I expect that the selling and the firing are both being done for the same reason; Sigil is broke.

And, on Sony's part, it's not really maneuvering, so much as common sense.  There is no reason for Sony to have to buy the company to get the asset. They don't want Sigil's management. They don't want Sigil's offices. They don't want Sigil's. They don't want assignment of Sigil's contracts or other agreements. They don't want other IP Sigil may own. All the infrastructure that runs an MMO is already something SOE would have.

Sigil sounds as though it is a thoroughly failed business. Since Vanguard was both very expensive and very unsuccessful, Sigil's liabilities, by this point, must be significantly greater than its assets, because Vanguard isn't worth what the company borrowed to make it. There is no reason that Sony would ever want to buy the company and pay off Sigil's creditors, and if Sony were somehow required to buy the whole floundering company to get Vanguard, than any remaining value that Vanguard has would be totally wasted, assuming Sigil is worth less than Sigil owes. That's not good for Sigil's employees or creditors, because whatever cash Sigil can get for hocking Vanguard will go to paying off its obligations.

And no, of course they don't want Sigil's debt, and they don't want to be responsible for firing the employees or paying them severence. Sony wants a ready-made MMO for a fraction of its development cost and run it on a shoestring for a profit.  And yeah, Sony may be scavenging the corpse of this company, but in the end, they'll help the creditors recoup some of their money, employ some of the employees, and keep the game on for anyone still interested in playing it.

Edit: It looks like Sony is buying the company and I am talking out of my ass.

[Trippy]

Edit: It looks like Sony is buying the company and I am talking out of my ass.

No they aren't. Acquiring "key assets" is not the same as acquiring a company. Lots and lots of sites have their headlines wrong.

[Faust]

To me, the downside is that people will cite this situation as proof that there isn't a market for harder core MMOs that aim somewhere north of the lowest common denominator.

Shadowbane was proof that there isn't a market for PvP.
Oh, and Earth & Beyond was proof that nobody likes space games.
etc.

It's clear!  All things must be World of Warcraft.

 

[Litigator]

Now this is where it gets tricky. If the project never pulls in any profit (i.e. never makes more per month than operational costs), C:B never sees a cent. Otherwise, under most terms, C:B will continue to get a cut of ALL future profits until such a time as C:B's full investment is repaid in full.

This is not necessarily how the agreement was setup, but in all likelihood, it is pretty close. No company will write off a $35 million investment on a project that is going to continue development. They also are unlikely to sell that debt for pennies on the dollar for a short term capital recovery. If no money is ever made, they're not much worse off than before. If money is made, chances are, it will be much more than any short term capital recovery effort would have been.

This is an interesting thread, not just the initial post, but all the follow ups. I was very close to this project, and this is one of the few threads that is pretty rational and dispassionate in it's discourse.

Well, either the B would be part owner of the IP, or it would have a deal with A over the revenue. If B owns a piece of the game, then C would have to buy out both A and B.  If B just has a payment deal with A, then C can probably buy the game without stepping into a deal with B.  Either way, if A shuts down the company, with an MMO that has to be kept online, that's a total loss for B. B would rather recoup some of its investment than none of its investment.  B is not going to be able to force any company C to step into the shoes of Company A by buying it and taking over its obligations.  My guess is that a scenario where A might sell the game would be covered in the original agreement with B, and B would get compensated out of whatever C pays A for the game.

[trias_e]

Nobody was looking forward to it. That was part of the problem.

It did get 200k box sales out of the gate.  So I think it's fair to say that some people were looking forward to it.

And the thing is, word of mouth is a real big deal.  Look at the massive snowball effect in WoW (it's box sales in the first few months are just a small portion of it's overall sales)  Many people wait to hear about the game from friends or forums before purchasing.  So the 200k doesn't even represent the potential playerbase the game could have had.

If the game had been a well-executed polished version of what it was going for, it could have probably been a 400k sub game.

[Litigator]

On a positive note, I'm sure most of those folks will have luck finding a home, given the number of MMOs currently in development.

To me, the downside is that people will cite this situation as proof that there isn't a market for harder core MMOs that aim somewhere north of the lowest common denominator, when I suspect the reasons the game wasn't more successful has less to do with the design philosophy then with other factors.

I don't know how much I like "hardcore." Experience loss when you die and being robbed when you get ganked in PvP aren't really fun gameplay mechanics.  High death penalties discourage exploration, and other risks in games, punish people for taking on challenges rather than questing on "safe," dull, lower level monsters. I really don't see how a grind is made more high-end by implementing the possibility of actually going backwards.

I disagree with the design decisions to roll back a lot of the progress and innovations over the last few years. I think areas designed in tight, purpose-oriented ways is preferable to long travel times over empty terrain. I think instances for scripted PvE events are better than waiting for named mobs to respawn. Frankly, I think all these games benefit by having un-fun elements stripped out of them.  I don't want a game that punishes me for playing it. I know some players dislike WoW's innovations because they have reduced the level of frustration associated with progressing in these games, but I think lowering the frustration factor is not the same as catering to a "lowest common denominator."

[Yegolev]

Too much to bold. So only bolded one thing.

I would have bolded "tentpole".  Good thing I'm not in charge.

Have I congratulated you on that interview in this thread yet?

[Xanthippe]

To me, the downside is that people will cite this situation as proof that there isn't a market for harder core MMOs that aim somewhere north of the lowest common denominator, when I suspect the reasons the game wasn't more successful has less to do with the design philosophy then with other factors.

Why would that be the lesson people come away with rather than the clusterfuck management philosophy?

[Falconeer]

Shadowbane was proof that there isn't a market for PvP.

The opposite. Shadowbane is proof THERE is a market for PvP. At the same time, it is proof that you need money and talent to craft a working client/netcode.

EDIT: Crap! I fell into the Sarchasm. Stupid fast reading while working. Meh me.

[Murgos]

Oh look Falconeer fell into the Sarchasm.

[Sky]

[Margalis]

Shit sandwhiches are proof that nobody likes sandwhiches.

[Furiously]

Someone must like them, why else would people make them?

[Daegarmo]

Ever since the dramatic changes that pushed the raw, untamed PvP out of Ultima Online, many of the very old school PvPers have been looking for a home (To play, not to work) that has the best interest of the PvP community at heart, and more importantly in the original concept documents.  So far only EvE has come close, which is why I am proud to say I spend most of my gaming time there.

I honestly think that the next fantasy game that welcomes this community, with open arms, with at least an honest server ruleset that was planned from the very beginning, will be pleasantly surprised how many paying customers will show up, and stay loyal.

As for the entire Sigil part of this thread . . . no comment.    :-D

[Murgos]

Someone must like them, why else would people make them?

Or, people keep eating them?  Hey look!  We made an analogy to Vanguard, yuck, yuck, yuck.