EA Mythic: $1 Billion Not Needed to Compete with WoW

[Azazel]

Warhammer Online is in no way played like Warhammer, Warhammer Online simply takes the IP from Warhammer and tries to make it into a "you play the hero" game, which is the antithesis of Warhammer.

The RvR will be exactly like Warhammer.  Basically a RTS, but without central command and communication, the same as Planetside.  Many players relate to one of the many figures on the board as they play the game.   Warhammer has many heroes built into their story.  They many not be well rounded or complete but they are a hero (special unit) to the side they fight on.  MMOs are getting away from "you play the hero" as it is difficult to do and just default to humanities haves and have not's.

If, by "exactly like Warhammer" you mean nothing at all like Warhammer Fantasy Battle and maybe possibly something more like 3rd-person Mordheim, you might be slightly on the right track. Kinda.

[IainC]

Warhammer Online is in no way played like Warhammer, Warhammer Online simply takes the IP from Warhammer and tries to make it into a "you play the hero" game, which is the antithesis of Warhammer.

The RvR will be exactly like Warhammer.  Basically a RTS, but without central command and communication, the same as Planetside.  Many players relate to one of the many figures on the board as they play the game.   Warhammer has many heroes built into their story.  They many not be well rounded or complete but they are a hero (special unit) to the side they fight on.  MMOs are getting away from "you play the hero" as it is difficult to do and just default to humanities haves and have not's.

If, by "exactly like Warhammer" you mean nothing at all like Warhammer Fantasy Battle and maybe possibly something more like 3rd-person Mordheim, you might be slightly on the right track. Kinda.

WAR is the Warhammer world realised for an MMO, just as Warhammer Fantasy Battle is the Warhammer world realised for a miniatures wargame or WFRP is the Warhammer world realised for a pen and paper game. All of these different things 'are Warhammer' along with the artwork, the novels, the other video games, the background books etc., the tabletop game is not the IP.

[cevik]

WAR is the Warhammer world realised for an MMO, just as Warhammer Fantasy Battle is the Warhammer world realised for a miniatures wargame or WFRP is the Warhammer world realised for a pen and paper game. All of these different things 'are Warhammer' along with the artwork, the novels, the other video games, the background books etc., the tabletop game is not the IP.

I highlighted the part where you guys made the huge glaring error that is going to kill your game.

Normally I'd charge a consulting fee, but today it's on the house.

[UnSub]

WAR is the Warhammer world realised for an MMO, just as Warhammer Fantasy Battle is the Warhammer world realised for a miniatures wargame or WFRP is the Warhammer world realised for a pen and paper game. All of these different things 'are Warhammer' along with the artwork, the novels, the other video games, the background books etc., the tabletop game is not the IP.

I highlighted the part where you guys made the huge glaring error that is going to kill your game.

Normally I'd charge a consulting fee, but today it's on the house.

This IP (same for ChampO) isn't meant to attract hordes of fans. It's to give the developers an existing framework - characters, setting, world, theme - to develop within. There are more people who care about 'PvP done right' or 'a new MMO world to explore' than 'blood for the blood god' that are coming to WAR.

Very few people care about lore deeply enough to worry if it is being correctly implemented. Game mechanics, on the other hand, are what keeps players.

[cevik]

This IP (same for ChampO) isn't meant to attract hordes of fans. It's to give the developers an existing framework - characters, setting, world, theme - to develop within. There are more people who care about 'PvP done right' or 'a new MMO world to explore' than 'blood for the blood god' that are coming to WAR.

Very few people care about lore deeply enough to worry if it is being correctly implemented. Game mechanics, on the other hand, are what keeps players.

And we come around full circle.  The discussion of the IP was started above because I keep hearing "and Warhammer is HUGE in europe!"  So the argument seems to be this weird circular "it doesn't matter if the game sucks, the IP will pull people in" followed by "it doesn't matter that they didn't really utilize the IP in any way that will be meaningful for a fan, if the game rocks it will pull people in."

[Abelian75]

Uh, yeah, I doubt that is a huge glaring error that will kill their game.

[cevik]

Uh, yeah, I doubt that is a huge glaring error that will kill their game.

You are right, when it fails to even remotely meet expectations, it will be blamed on PvP.

[Azazel]

If, by "exactly like Warhammer" you mean nothing at all like Warhammer Fantasy Battle and maybe possibly something more like 3rd-person Mordheim, you might be slightly on the right track. Kinda.

WAR is the Warhammer world realised for an MMO, just as Warhammer Fantasy Battle is the Warhammer world realised for a miniatures wargame or WFRP is the Warhammer world realised for a pen and paper game. All of these different things 'are Warhammer' along with the artwork, the novels, the other video games, the background books etc., the tabletop game is not the IP.

Iain. I realise you worked for GW for a time. I also realise what the MMO is. I may even have more "Warhammer" experience than yourself.  I'm very familiar with pretty much all aspects of the IP.

However, feel free to re-read what the guy I was quoting was talking about. Context is everything. Here, I'll even quote it for you.

The RvR will be exactly like Warhammer.  Basically a RTS, but without central command and communication, the same as Planetside.  Many players relate to one of the many figures on the board as they play the game.   Warhammer has many heroes built into their story.  They many not be well rounded or complete but they are a hero (special unit) to the side they fight on.  MMOs are getting away from "you play the hero" as it is difficult to do and just default to humanities haves and have not's.

He's clearly talking about WFB. RTS? Special Unit? (named or unnamed hero models).
You know as well as I do that the game is nothing like WFB, and plays nothing like WFB. WAR would be closer to a party-game version of Mordheim (which as you also know, is a part of the WH IP, but is far from WFB).

And we come around full circle.  The discussion of the IP was started above because I keep hearing "and Warhammer is HUGE in europe!"  So the argument seems to be this weird circular "it doesn't matter if the game sucks, the IP will pull people in" followed by "it doesn't matter that they didn't really utilize the IP in any way that will be meaningful for a fan, if the game rocks it will pull people in."

There's basically two discussions. One about the existing MMO-Players. And also one about existing Warhammer players who may or may not be MMO players or live in Europe.

My discussion in this thread has been about the latter, and a belief that a lot of them will try it out. This says nothing about retention. It'll have to be a good, finished game to do that. Based on my exposure in Beta, I won't bother playing it for several months. (I'm only picking up my CE because of the art book and miniature, since I'm a fan of GW's art.) I also think WotLK will eat WAR's lunch.

[Draegan]

Warhammer Online is in no way played like Warhammer, Warhammer Online simply takes the IP from Warhammer and tries to make it into a "you play the hero" game, which is the antithesis of Warhammer.

The RvR will be exactly like Warhammer.  Basically a RTS, but without central command and communication, the same as Planetside.  Many players relate to one of the many figures on the board as they play the game.   Warhammer has many heroes built into their story.  They many not be well rounded or complete but they are a hero (special unit) to the side they fight on.  MMOs are getting away from "you play the hero" as it is difficult to do and just default to humanities haves and have not's.

If, by "exactly like Warhammer" you mean nothing at all like Warhammer Fantasy Battle and maybe possibly something more like 3rd-person Mordheim, you might be slightly on the right track. Kinda.

WAR is the Warhammer world realised for an MMO, just as Warhammer Fantasy Battle is the Warhammer world realised for a miniatures wargame or WFRP is the Warhammer world realised for a pen and paper game. All of these different things 'are Warhammer' along with the artwork, the novels, the other video games, the background books etc., the tabletop game is not the IP.

Warhammer is like Batman. 

[UnsGub]

He's clearly talking about WFB. RTS? Special Unit? (named or unnamed hero models).

Played Epic 1st and 2nd edition rules for years.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_(game)

However, where Warhammer 40,000 involves small battles between forces of a few squads of troops and two or three vehicles, Epic features battles between armies consisting of dozens of tanks and hundreds of soldiers.

4-6 players sometimes on two side, 3 sides, or free for alls.

[Phunked]

Man you people make me so 

Seriously. We aren't selling games to 12 year olds who need to borrow mommy's credit card to pay for it. I don't think EA/Mythic/MJ are thinking "gee son, if I can only tap the market of people who are used to spending money for miniature tabletop dudez then we can show up them Blizzard bitches". It's 2008. A fuckton of people will buy this game because it isn't WoW but looks and plays not much different than WoW. These don't have to be people who are "used" to spending cash on games, largely because by now everyone is okay with dumping $50 on some shitty software every so often. If it sucks they won't resub. Which is where the real money is.

WAR will be successful if and only if, the actual gameplay is better than WoW. Otherwise, NO ONE WILL PLAY IT. Why? Because they can play WoW with their friends. Now see Aoc was NOT wow. It tried to be different, what with a new combat system and a large lack of polish. It bombed because endgame sucked, retention was terrible (you can only jack off to titties like 5x before you go back to real porn), etc.

See WAR is actually exactly like WoW, except for it provides RvR using slightly more interesting classes and with a different approach to items/gear/PvE than WoW does.

WAR will be a commercial and industry success if it's PvP is better than WoWs. WoW PvP currently sucks (I loves me some duels in a box for 2 hours each) so this should be hard to fuck up. But then again, no one has done it yet. In essence, they need to provide a better PvP MMORPG than WoW and make it substantially better so that mouthbreathing fucktards like myself, who hump druids around poles to 2400 can pay them $15 a month to hump runepriests around a keep to RR80 or whatever.

If they get that, they'll get a nice chunk of "omg pwn't harcore pvpers". If not, we'll suck it up and go buy WotLK, where we can roll a deathknight to hump druids around a box that now has spikes on it.

[Ratman_tf]

This thread lacks WAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

[Hawkbit]

This thread lacks WAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

You're doing it wrong.

[WindupAtheist]

Hey kids, are you playing that War-Rammer game again?  Ha ha, I know all about you kids and your Star Marines and Borks!  WAAARGH!  Glad we could relate!

[Falwell]

I think it's about time for an awesome meter WUA if you would be so kind.

[Azazel]

Yeah. I know Epic. I knew it when it was called Adeptus Titanicus.  House-ruling multiple players per side isn't exactly a new concept in miniatures gaming, either.

I'm still not seeing it "exactly like Warhammer".  

Unless, you know, WoW is also Exactly Like Warhammer. And DAoC. And AoConan. Not to mention, oh, every team-based first person shooter as well.  

Played Epic 1st and 2nd edition rules for years.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_(game)
However, where Warhammer 40,000 involves small battles between forces of a few squads of troops and two or three vehicles, Epic features battles between armies consisting of dozens of tanks and hundreds of soldiers.
4-6 players sometimes on two side, 3 sides, or free for alls.

I don't think EA/Mythic/MJ are thinking "gee son, if I can only tap the market of people who are used to spending money for miniature tabletop dudez then we can show up them Blizzard bitches".

It's 2008. A fuckton of people will buy this game because it isn't WoW but looks and plays not much different than WoW. These don't have to be people who are "used" to spending cash on games, largely because by now everyone is okay with dumping $50 on some shitty software every so often. If it sucks they won't resub. Which is where the real money is.

I disagree with your first assertation, and agree with your second one.

We'll see what happens in a couple of weeks, though.

...
Let's play that Star Wars prepainted miniatures game. WUA, you can be Annie and Jar Jar.

[apocrypha]

Seriously. We aren't selling games to 12 year olds who need to borrow mommy's credit card to pay for it.

WoW has 12 (?) million subscribers because it's accessible to *everyone*. I dual-box pve wow and level chars to 70 in a week, my brother plays wow arenas constantly and my girlfriend got her first ever level 60 last month after 3 years of playing and has like 30 non-combat pets and 4 pink-haired gnomes. 3 completely different playstyles and personalities all totally supported by wow.

WAR will completely fail to compete with it on any meaningful level if it aims at any kind of niche, whether it's hardcore pvp'ers or tabletop nerds or whatever.

I think the grain of truth in Kotick's $1billion quote is that one of the reasons Blizzard is so good at supporting such a huge range of playstyles is the vast amount of resources they can dedicate to it. Their support, for instance, plays a huge part in keeping the most casual of casuals (a la my gf) happy. My experience of support by both EA and Mythic in the past has been abysmal, particularly GOA's terrible customer support with DaoC in Europe. If this hasn't vastly improved for WAR then it will do them massive harm in the non-nerdy market IMO.

[Phunked]

Yes but these people can all pay for it themselves (making a reasonable inference here).

The average 12 year old isn't going to have the attention span to stick around long enough anyways. Nor would they be able to make the massive time and social commitments required for almost any gameplay aspect at end game (except super casual, but few kiddies want that, since epx=epeen).

I would postulate that MMOs are for people who want a [fun] second job, not for people who don't have a first one.

[Slyfeind]

I think the grain of truth in Kotick's $1billion quote is that one of the reasons Blizzard is so good at supporting such a huge range of playstyles is the vast amount of resources they can dedicate to it. Their support, for instance, plays a huge part in keeping the most casual of casuals (a la my gf) happy. My experience of support by both EA and Mythic in the past has been abysmal, particularly GOA's terrible customer support with DaoC in Europe. If this hasn't vastly improved for WAR then it will do them massive harm in the non-nerdy market IMO.

I've never heard of WoW supporting many different playstyles. It's fun at multiple levels levels of time committment, sure, but there's only two games seriously supported there; PvE and PvP. It's not like you can start a band or level up your social circles or become governor of Ironforge and tax the leatherworker's union.

[Phunked]

I think the supposed argument is that WoW has a lot of different things you can do in it, collect mounts, grind rep, pvp, pve etc. But really, this whole "something for everyone" thing is, as slyfiend said garbage.

The fact is, the WoW gameplay is very rigid. Its a diku MMO. You have a lot of different GOALS, sure (mounts, crafting, etc) but they all required the use of the RPG gameplay model, either in PvE combat or in PvP combat. The difference is that they give you a lot of different stuff to grind in order to get vanity junk, but you're still grinding in much the same fashion. They don't let you switch to FPS or RPG mode. Nor do they allow an exorbitant amount of character customization.

The game is not robot jesus. It isn't the ultimate entertainment experience because it can cater to every possible playstyle. It's successful because its A. polished B. immense and C. social. Last part is key.

Is facebook actually useful or a meaningful way of communicating? No. Was/are there better ways of getting the same thing done? Yeah (it's called RL). Why is it so successful then? Because everyone else uses it, and that means so can you without being called a moron, loser or geek.

Same with WoW. It isn't so much that other MMOs aren't better (they aren't but not overwhelmingly so), it's just that everyone already knows of/plays/tolerates WoW playing, so you won't be singled out for being a no life EQstyle poopsocker, because the person you want to/are having sex with has a decent chance of playing or having played it as well.

Non-nerd appeal is exceptionally effective.

[apocrypha]

Good points, I suppose I'm just still impressed that I know so many totally different kinds of people who play it. It's the only MMO I've ever played that's brought non-gamers into it, that's actually *targetted* non-gamers with any success.

It isn't so much that other MMOs aren't better (they aren't but not overwhelmingly so), it's just that everyone already knows of/plays/tolerates WoW playing, so you won't be singled out for being a no life EQstyle poopsocker, because the person you want to/are having sex with has a decent chance of playing or having played it as well.

This is very, very true, but neither WoW nor Facebook started like that - they've both achieved that level of market penetration and diverse appeal by being deliberately accessible and I still don't see any other MMO launching with that attitude.

AoC made zero concessions to non-gamers or new gamers. I don't know enough about WAR to categorically say they're doing the same but the only thing I've heard anyone say about it that makes it sound more accessible from that point of view is that it has sensible system requirements.

I also think that the Penny Arcade argument is valid. There's more to competing with WoW than just game design:

The World of Warcraft people are playing now isn't the one they launched, the one that was so unstable we had to withdraw our earlier praise. It isn't any of the innumerable alterations they've made to classes, or raids, or any of the savvy swipes they've made from user modifications. The game is a completely living document. How do you design against it?  And even if you wanted to play something else, who would you play it with? Everyone you know is raiding tonight.

[Ingmar]

Is facebook actually useful or a meaningful way of communicating? No.

You are way down some weird rabbit hole with this one. Social networking is not successful despite uselessness; it is successful because it is useful. It is the next evolution of what we're doing here on this message board. The only reason I don't use it is because I'm an old man and set in my ways.

[Teleku]

Is facebook actually useful or a meaningful way of communicating? No.

You are way down some weird rabbit hole with this one. Social networking is not successful despite uselessness; it is successful because it is useful. It is the next evolution of what we're doing here on this message board. The only reason I don't use it is because I'm an old man and set in my ways.

Yeah, I never got into Facebook or any of that at first, because I thought it was a useless fad.  Then I started using it at urging from friends and found out that 1.) It's an amazing way to stay in contact (or get in contact) with the fuck ton of people I have met from around the world. 2.) Extremely useful for organizing events (it was the main tool used by all of us exchange students and even some school faculty for organzing, well, anything (trips, parties, drinking nights, etc.)

Much to my suprise, it is actually incredibly useful (and not god awfully obnoxious like MySpace (though I really wish they had kept registration limited to college students/alumni)

[Venkman]

Good points, I suppose I'm just still impressed that I know so many totally different kinds of people who play it.

WoW is impressive because it draws so many different types of people to the same game. The converse has never been nearly as successful. No game designed to give something for everyone has ever done anything but find new and interesting ways to alienate everyone, usually through either lowest-common-denominator user experiences or because resources couldn't be aligned to polish any single part of the world.

WoW brought a level of polish to the core critical functions (UI, pacing, abilities spread, general functionality) that nobody else has. But that's another reason its an anomaly. They capped the side of the genre that makes this one type of game such that other companies were (again) forced down the path of messy innovation and unpredictable outcome.

And ironically, as Blizzard apparently eyes Starcraft MMO, they have no choice but to innovate as well. If it's WoW in space they won't grab nearly as many players as they got in WoW because people are already starting to be so very done with the formula. And they themselves have already grabbed such a huge chunk of players that it's hard to imagine yet another 11mil people just waiting for that one perfect sci-fi based MMO to come along so they can pay a fee for it. That would imply the IP is more important than the gameplay.

Having said that, I would be interested in hearing how many millions have quit over the years. Like, if nobody ever cancelled their WoW account, how many accounts would they have?