Cheyenne Mountain Death Watch

[Matt]

They were in the SW because that's where their investors (Utah in particular I believe) are all from.  No I'm not making that up.

I don't think that's true, but I'm not positive. I've heard that they have dozens of angel investors scattered all over the place. Some sports stars, Donald Sutherland (not the actor...the founder of Cold Stone Creamery), some others. I can't really substantiate that beyond Donald Sutherland (who I'm positive about) though.

[schild]

They were in the SW because that's where their investors (Utah in particular I believe) are all from.  No I'm not making that up.

I don't think that's true, but I'm not positive. I've heard that they have dozens of angel investors scattered all over the place. Some sports stars, Donald Sutherland (not the actor...the founder of Cold Stone Creamery), some others. I can't really substantiate that beyond Donald Sutherland (who I'm positive about) though.

They had a shitload of backers, yes.

Edit: Must've had an INCREDIBLE sales-pitch. Though I suppose that's easy when you're dealing with people who just know that games make money sometimes and have no fucking clue why, or how. Probably even easier when Stargate has a little bit of notoriety among hypernerds.

[FatuousTwat]

Holy shit, I thought you were talking about NORAD.

[Soln]

They were in the SW because that's where their investors (Utah in particular I believe) are all from.  No I'm not making that up.

I don't think that's true, but I'm not positive. I've heard that they have dozens of angel investors scattered all over the place. Some sports stars, Donald Sutherland (not the actor...the founder of Cold Stone Creamery), some others. I can't really substantiate that beyond Donald Sutherland (who I'm positive about) though.

their BoD Chair and several of the Execs went to BYU. I remember reading it years ago, but whatever.  See link.  /shrug
http://www.cheyenneme.com/company/board/

[sidereal]

Yoru is awesome for bringing stats.

But there's a huge structural difference between subscriber MMOs and the generic universe of games that The Escapist examined.  In a typical game with a single upfront purchase, early hype and launch sales make up a significant chunk of revenue, so anything hype-inducing (including getting good IP) is a win.  MMOs depend on repeat customers, and very, very few subscribers are going to continue paying for a shitty or even average game just because they like the IP.  They will move on to a game that all of their friends say is awesome, whether they've heard of the IP or not.  The early hype strategy DOES NOT WORK with MMOs.  You will sell a shitload of boxes and then all of your players will cancel and go play WoW.

I'd love to see the same analysis done just on subscriber MMOs, but I'm lazy.  As a back of the napkin analysis of the biggest revenue games in each generation, and whether they used external IP:

1st gen successes: Everquest (no), UO (yes, barely), Asheron's Call (no), Lineage (yes, barely)
1st gen marginal: Anarchy Online (no)
2nd gen successes: DAoC (no), RuneScape (no), Final Fantasy XI (no), EVE Online (no), SWG (yes), Lineage II (no), CoH (no)
2nd gen marginal: ww2 online (no), Shadowbane (no), Planetside (no), Puzzle Pirates (no)
3rd gen successes: EQ2 (no), WoW (no), LoTRO (yes), Conan (yes), WAR (yes)
3rd gen marginal: PotBS (no)

And here's some epic failures: TSO (yes), AC2 (sequel), DDO (yes), Vanguard (no), Tabula Rasa (no), The Matrix Online (yes), Stargate (yes)

Do you see a pattern there?  The only thing I see is that in the latest generation nearly every game has external IP. . both the successes and the failures.  IP doesn't mean squat.  Games with compelling gameplay keep their subscribers, and games without it don't.  D&D is a premium IP for gamers.  The game sucked and it's dead.  

Matt, I said it doesn't have an effect on subscriber numbers, not all games.  Certainly IP has a huge impact on console games.  I'm not talking about free to play, browser-based chat games.  Maybe in that universe IP matters more, because there's more competition. I don't know and it's not relevant to the question of Stargate.  But to answer one of your specific questions, PotC without the license would like like PotBS which launched better than PotC.  God knows what they're doing now.  Also, it's free.

Edit: changed from 'established' to 'external' IP for clarity, meaning whether they had to pay for it and were constrained by it

[UnSub]

You seriously think City of Heroes would have any different subscriber numbers today if it was City of Marvel? 

Yes. They'd be higher.

[UnSub]

On CME:

I don't care about the Stargate: Worlds MMO, firstly because I don't care about Stargate and secondly because we really don't need SGW to confuse with SWG.

However, I DO care about another game under Firesky (the publisher CME set up) with is being developed by Superstition Studios: Deadlands. It hasn't been officially confirmed, but Shane Hensley (creator of Deadlands, ex-CoH/V) is the head dev of Superstition and has always insinuated that this is what they are working on. I think a Weird West MMO would be a great addition, especially under the creator of the IP.

If CME go bust, it is because they spread too far too soon. They went from SGW development to SGW development + their own publishing arm + two other studios + god knows whatever else.

Schild: I'm assuming that is 21 days since they should have been paid?

[schild]

Schild: I'm assuming that is 21 days since they should have been paid?

I would assume so.

[Nija]

IPs just force you into doing stupid shit.

Let me revise this.

If you use an IP that wasn't originally a video game as a basis for a MMO game, you will be forced into doing stupid shit.

[Venkman]

You seriously think City of Heroes would have any different subscriber numbers today if it was City of Marvel? 

Yes. They'd be higher.

They would have started higher. Everything else being equal though they'd be where they are today. Which means a more precipitous falloff from start.

We've talked before about the IP thing. The best IP for MMOs is an IP that resonates with MMO gamers coming from a company respected for doing good games. Blizzard/WoW wins here. Turbine/LoTRO was considered to be, but did not because the abject faith placed in Turbine was premature. Someone mentioned FF to which I'd say TSO. Sure there's enough money to throw at the right game. Doesn't mean it's going to get spent the right way.

Short form: the right IP needs the right game from the right talent and skill to see it through.

[UnSub]

You seriously think City of Heroes would have any different subscriber numbers today if it was City of Marvel? 

Yes. They'd be higher.

They would have started higher. Everything else being equal though they'd be where they are today. Which means a more precipitous falloff from start.

I think you underestimate the nerdgasms some players get from teaming up with Spider-Man.

CoH/V had one of the highest player retention rates (according to them) in MMOs - up in the 90% range. Higher subs + high player retention = better position to be in. And they we can assume that CoV (or Marvel U: The Dark Side) didn't flop and that the dev staff weren't cut and everything worked out better.

Also, in this version of reality I'm sleeping with both Megan Fox and Megan Gale and have discovered simple cold fusion which has solved the world's power problems in one fell swoop.

[Iniquity]

Do you think that Pirates of the Caribbean Online would have ANY players if it weren't for the PotC license?

I actually met one of the artists on PoTC at a party recently in LA.  Charming (half true) compliments about how she'd managed to do some really evocative renders within Disney's low-poly constraints did not get me laid, alas.  But I think I actually liked the game better than she did; I remember it having passably interesting ship combat when I tried it in beta, but she felt the game itself was a pile of dog crap.

Would LotR have nearly as many players if it was not using the Tolkien license?

Best example thus far.

I'd love to see the same analysis done just on subscriber MMOs, but I'm lazy.  As a back of the napkin analysis of the biggest revenue games in each generation, and whether they used external IP:

1st gen successes: Everquest (no), UO (yes, barely), Asheron's Call (no), Lineage (yes, barely)
1st gen marginal: Anarchy Online (no)
2nd gen successes: DAoC (no), RuneScape (no), Final Fantasy XI (no), EVE Online (no), SWG (yes), Lineage II (no), CoH (no)
2nd gen marginal: ww2 online (no), Shadowbane (no), Planetside (no), Puzzle Pirates (no)
3rd gen successes: EQ2 (no), WoW (no), LoTRO (yes), Conan (yes), WAR (yes)
3rd gen marginal: PotBS (no)

And here's some epic failures: TSO (yes), AC2 (sequel), DDO (yes), Vanguard (no), Tabula Rasa (no), The Matrix Online (yes), Stargate (yes)

How does DDO fit into the 'epic failure' category at all?  It's still chugging along fine, with paying subscribers and regular content updates that have been pretty well received (newest one just released), the chart people peg it at somewhere around 50k subs last I checked.  The other games you named in that category all either shut down, never released, or are on extremely dim life support (The Matrix Online).  How on earth does DDO qualify as an epic failure when you list WW2 Online and Shadowbane as 'marginal'?

[Iniquity]

((Accidentally posted double.  Is there no delete button?))

[Xerapis]

The delete button is labeled "D E N"

[TheCastle]

I know for a fact that if FFXI was not based on the final fantasy franchise I would not have even played it.

Here is the thing.
Saying that IPs dont matter at all is wrong. Saying that IPs are absolutely important for success is also wrong. That is why this argument could go on for so long. Both sides are half right.

[sidereal]

How does DDO fit into the 'epic failure' category at all?  It's still chugging along fine, with paying subscribers and regular content updates that have been pretty well received (newest one just released), the chart people peg it at somewhere around 50k subs last I checked.  The other games you named in that category all either shut down, never released, or are on extremely dim life support (The Matrix Online).  How on earth does DDO qualify as an epic failure when you list WW2 Online and Shadowbane as 'marginal'?

Development cost and the evolving standards of player base size.  My charts say 20k subscribers, which is as many as Shadowbane had in December of '04, less than double MXO, and IIRC around where Vanguard was when the wheels came completely off.

[WindupAtheist]

There are over ten thousand people who find it worthwhile to subscribe to MXO?

I mean I know it's nothing by MMO standards, but doesn't it seem weird?

Like imagine them all in one place. Just an arena full of thousands and thousands of people who all think MXO is great and pay on a monthly basis to play it.

Fucking freakish.

[Rendakor]

They're probably all on SOE's Station Access. I'd be really surprised if there was even a single person who paid $15/month JUST to play MXO.

[Rasix]

Do you think that Pirates of the Caribbean Online would have ANY players if it weren't for the PotC license?

Fix your quote, I didn't say that. 

[Jerrith]

Obviously, I cannot comment about the URL at the top of this thread.

And among IPs for MMOs, Stargate's a pretty good fit (hi instances).  If IP mattered.  Which it doesn't.

The Stargate is really a perfect way to handle transitions between instanced and non-instanced spaces.  It's one of the things that attracted me to Stargate Worlds, I can't think of a better IP that handles instancing (Star Trek, with the holodeck might be close, but I still prefer Stargate).  As for it mattering...

I seriously think that some IPs can help and some can hinder, in addition - some are worth the money whereas most aren't.

Exactly.  It's also worth considering what that licensing can get you.  For instance, Stargate Worlds has had some TV commercials (during Stargate Atlantis) already.  That's something that isn't likely to occur on a project without an IP behind it.

The moment the new shiny wears off, which it does even for genre newbs, the game has got to stand up for itself. IP is not going to carry bad ideas nor bad execution.

This is the key.  If the game isn't good, sure you may be slightly better off, due to the IP bringing in some users who simply must play a game that takes place in that IP, but you're never going to reach the levels of success that investors and developers dream of. 

[Iniquity]

Development cost and the evolving standards of player base size.  My charts say 20k subscribers, which is as many as Shadowbane had in December of '04, less than double MXO, and IIRC around where Vanguard was when the wheels came completely off.

Well, yes and no.  What charts are your charts (are you going by a specific one, or is this your own special knowledge?), and since it peaked significantly higher than that (and I recall seeing it at 50k now, not 20k?), aren't dev costs recouped (Was there some obscene budget for DDO I wasn't aware of?  Didn't they already have the engine mostly developed from AC2?), and it's simply running at a profit at this point?  Turbine's shown a willingness to shut games down when they're not making money (AC2).

A game that's stable, making money, and generally well liked by the people who play it -- that fits into the 'epic fail' category, and Anarchy Online, a game that was hemorrhaging players so badly it had to go free, is a 'marginal success'?

"evolving standards of playerbase size" only really matters if you're a studio deciding what to greenlight.  The game got made, it's running, and it's profitable.  There's no logic for applying an 'evolving standard' here.

[Matt]

Edit: Must've had an INCREDIBLE sales-pitch. Though I suppose that's easy when you're dealing with people who just know that games make money sometimes and have no fucking clue why, or how. Probably even easier when Stargate has a little bit of notoriety among hypernerds.

Raising a lot of money is never easy unless you're doing it from one or two sources who trust you immensely and have a couple of magnitudes more money than you need. So, if you're Will Wright (even with the disappointment of Spore), investors will throw money at you. If you're most people, it's an incredible amount of work to raise money at all in my experience (as I fall into the "most people" category), and only a very small % of people who attempt it succeed.

As you say, their sales pitch must have been awesome, because raising money from a few dozen investors in an early stage company sounds like a headache of epic proportions to me. Also sounds like the kind of arrangement that creates extra costs because of the number of parties to deal with.

[DraconianOne]

My 2p worth:

While on contract away from home last year, I spent a lot of time in a sleazy hotel room with nothing but some stained magazines a PS2 and a TV to watch.  Apart from playing a lot of GTA: SA, Lego Star Wars and catching up on some 24, I ended up watching a fair bit of Scrubs and Stargate. I'm not a Stargate fan and I still wouldn't go out of my way to watch it even after 2 months of doing nothing but.

But the one thing that struck me about the show is that it could be the perfect setting for an MMO.  The whole show is geared around travelling to different places from a central hub and doing quests.  There's exploration and combat and a couple of different factions, artifacts to collect - all sorts.  I think it would have/could still work.

As for IP mattering - I think it's a definite influencer, whether or not it's an internal or an external. I avoided WoW for quite a while because it was Warcraft and I hated the first game. I went to SWG because it was SW (in name, at any rate).  I avoided MXO and FFwhatever because of the IPs. I probably wouldn't play a Star Trek game because it's Star Trek.  Having said that - if it was good and people said it was fun then yes, I'd give it a go. Despite not being a fan of Stargate, I'd probably have still given/still will give it a go.

On a side note: sucks for the employees and I hope this all comes out in the wash.

[Matt]

A game that's stable, making money, and generally well liked by the people who play it -- that fits into the 'epic fail' category, and Anarchy Online, a game that was hemorrhaging players so badly it had to go free, is a 'marginal success'?

"evolving standards of playerbase size" only really matters if you're a studio deciding what to greenlight.  The game got made, it's running, and it's profitable.  There's no logic for applying an 'evolving standard' here.

Could be that the publishers are just rationally risk-averse and don't view a fairly insignificant profit as being worth the risk of engendering a lawsuit over <whatever>. I have no idea. Iron Realms runs games that are much smaller than anything EA has, and they run profitably even today, when the text MUD market is not exactly what one might term sexy.

--matt

[Yoru]

But there's a huge structural difference between subscriber MMOs and the generic universe of games that The Escapist examined.  In a typical game with a single upfront purchase, early hype and launch sales make up a significant chunk of revenue, so anything hype-inducing (including getting good IP) is a win.  MMOs depend on repeat customers, and very, very few subscribers are going to continue paying for a shitty or even average game just because they like the IP.  They will move on to a game that all of their friends say is awesome, whether they've heard of the IP or not.  The early hype strategy DOES NOT WORK with MMOs.  You will sell a shitload of boxes and then all of your players will cancel and go play WoW.

I'd love to see the same analysis done just on subscriber MMOs, but I'm lazy.  As a back of the napkin analysis of the biggest revenue games in each generation, and whether they used external IP:

1st gen successes: Everquest (no), UO (yes, barely), Asheron's Call (no), Lineage (yes, barely)
1st gen marginal: Anarchy Online (no)
2nd gen successes: DAoC (no), RuneScape (no), Final Fantasy XI (no), EVE Online (no), SWG (yes), Lineage II (no), CoH (no)
2nd gen marginal: ww2 online (no), Shadowbane (no), Planetside (no), Puzzle Pirates (no)
3rd gen successes: EQ2 (no), WoW (no), LoTRO (yes), Conan (yes), WAR (yes)
3rd gen marginal: PotBS (no)

And here's some epic failures: TSO (yes), AC2 (sequel), DDO (yes), Vanguard (no), Tabula Rasa (no), The Matrix Online (yes), Stargate (yes)

Do you see a pattern there?  The only thing I see is that in the latest generation nearly every game has external IP. . both the successes and the failures.  IP doesn't mean squat.  Games with compelling gameplay keep their subscribers, and games without it don't.  D&D is a premium IP for gamers.  The game sucked and it's dead.  

I'm not sure how you're calling TSO an "external" IP since it was an EA studio that developed TSO without considering WoW external - it was a singleplayer/multiplayer property that was yanked across genre lines, much like TSO. The only major difference is about 11 million subscribers and a raft of moneyhats.

Either way, if you look at the success category, about half of what succeeded was based on external IP, and two of the six were based on existing game franchises (EQ2, WOW). Like I concluded earlier, you do see a bit of a tamping effect on the success of the licensed titles, but also less spread between them - LOTRO, Conan and WAR all had fairly similar subscriber peaks and both Conan and WAR seem to be following similar subscriber curves. That this is all lies at the feet of their IP is, of course, ludicrous. The conclusion that IP helps boost/tamp your initial subscriber spurt seems more rational.

MMOs behave like computer networks in terms of Metcalfe's Law; the value of your game is proportional to the square of the playerbase, as your larger playerbases will provide more word-of-mouth evangelists that help your game grow and dominate the market. Without converting a large number of your initial spurt into evangelists, you're fucked, and no amount of marketing or IP can change that.

To put it another way, which I'm certain has been said many times over around here: it's all about retention.

[Falconeer]

World of star trek....
World of Sponge Bob Square pants....
World of Barbie....
World of Warhammer...
World of Beer...
World of aliens vs predator....
World of Generic military dudes....

I want World of Song of Ice and Fire. Of course they'd ruin it, but wouldn't it be the best RvR ever conceivable? Of course they'd have to implement diplomacy and treachery, also called social PvP. Moneyhatz!

[jason]

You seriously think City of Heroes would have any different subscriber numbers today if it was City of Marvel? 

Yes. They'd be higher.

They would have started higher. Everything else being equal though they'd be where they are today. Which means a more precipitous falloff from start.

I think you underestimate the nerdgasms some players get from teaming up with Spider-Man.

I think you underestimate the backlash of the nerds when they discovered their only interaction with Spider-Man would be to go see him for training when they level or maybe run his errands, fighting thugs for him while stories of him saving the planet circulate.  The first problem with using a the Marvel IP is that people want to BE Spider-Man, not be some random unknown hero who Spider-Man occasionally talks to.  This is illustrated by the number of people who tried to recreate Marvel heroes in City of Heroes leading to the law suit against Cryptic for allowing infringement on copyright.

I think Darinaq is right... it would have started higher (which, yes, would mean more box sales and more cash for early expansion development), but would have eventually settled to about the levels CoH/CoV has today, which is superhero/comic fans content to create their own heroes.  Its the same issue that LotR has... you aren't the guys ferrying the One Ring across the world to Mordor.  To enjoy it, at some level, you have to be content that you are just a random guy whose importance in the greater story is small at best.

[IainC]

Back on the original topic:

"At Cheyenne Mountain Entertainment, we have always been upfront with the media and our fans that we are a start up. Like many start ups, we face the same cash-flow issues that all pre-revenue companies face. We have maintained a core of dedicated investors, but the new economic realities are forcing us to seek out additional sources of funding and that's what we're doing.

"We continue to move forward on the Stargate Worlds project. We recently completed a successful phase of closed beta testing and we will start a second phase early in 2009. We invite all of your readers to come to our site, check out our fantastic community and sign up for our beta."

Source.

It seems that CME are having liquidity problems but still consider themselves a going concern. Some people have been let go recently and it's possible that some of those may have ... less than fond sentiments towards the place. I think that announcing the death of the studio off is a little premature.

[schild]

I think that announcing the death of the studio off is a little premature.

1. I didn't announce the death of the studio. I put it on death watch.
2. If I had a dollar for every time someone said a guesstimate or statement of mine was premature and it turned out not to be, I'd be rich. I'm not geldon. Sorry.
3. SGW will probably be pushed out the door and fizzle - though it's probably a waste of money to do so and their investors would be (and some probably are) wise to pull out when they could. But all those other projects they started up? Comeon now. They didn't have funding for all that shit, once again, they spread themselves too thin. The latter being a pretty common error in the gaming industry, one which folks still haven't learned - for whatever reason.

[IainC]

I'm not disagreeing with anything you say Schild. I don't have a lot of background other than a handful of press releases and some stuff gleaned by the usual industry osmosis. If you say they've been pissing money away, then I'll take you at your word, I don't know. The statement made to TTH is pretty much the only thing that CME can say in the circumstances (other than 'crap, you got us, we're closing down next month') and I don't expect them to put on any other public face.

As I understand it, the game (which may be awesome or not, it doesn't matter) is in a decent state of completeness and that should help to overcome any temporary solvency issues if the final payday is close enough. I'm hearing that it's not as black as people are painting it - but to be fair I heard the same thing before Flagship went down too.

[TheCastle]

I think that announcing the death of the studio off is a little premature.

1. I didn't announce the death of the studio. I put it on death watch.
2. If I had a dollar for every time someone said a guesstimate or statement of mine was premature and it turned out not to be, I'd be rich. I'm not geldon. Sorry.
3. SGW will probably be pushed out the door and fizzle - though it's probably a waste of money to do so and their investors would be (and some probably are) wise to pull out when they could. But all those other projects they started up? Comeon now. They didn't have funding for all that shit, once again, they spread themselves too thin. The latter being a pretty common error in the gaming industry, one which folks still haven't learned - for whatever reason.

How is being 22 days late on paying its employees not the death of the company?
I would have been out of there the second I was given a talk about not being paid.. I cannot imagine how long a company can go while retaining its best people when something like this happens. The head hunter emails must be at maximum capacity..

[schild]

The head hunter emails must be at maximum capacity..

That's something about the industry I hate. Sure, most of the time games live and die on their producers, project management, and leads, but at the same time, morale trickles down. I would not want recently scorned employees working at my company. But that's just me, maybe the industry is a fan of taking in the misguided and angry.

[Mrbloodworth]

I think that announcing the death of the studio off is a little premature.

1. I didn't announce the death of the studio. I put it on death watch.
2. If I had a dollar for every time someone said a guesstimate or statement of mine was premature and it turned out not to be, I'd be rich. I'm not geldon. Sorry.
3. SGW will probably be pushed out the door and fizzle - though it's probably a waste of money to do so and their investors would be (and some probably are) wise to pull out when they could. But all those other projects they started up? Comeon now. They didn't have funding for all that shit, once again, they spread themselves too thin. The latter being a pretty common error in the gaming industry, one which folks still haven't learned - for whatever reason.

How is being 22 days late on paying its employees not the death of the company?
I would have been out of there the second I was given a talk about not being paid.. I cannot imagine how long a company can go while retaining its best people when something like this happens. The head hunter emails must be at maximum capacity..

I suppose it matters how much pride you take in your work.

[Nebu]

I suppose it matters how much pride you take in your work.

This is America we're talking about.

[TheCastle]

The head hunter emails must be at maximum capacity..

That's something about the industry I hate. Sure, most of the time games live and die on their producers, project management, and leads, but at the same time, morale trickles down. I would not want recently scorned employees working at my company. But that's just me, maybe the industry is a fan of taking in the misguided and angry.

Ah its not always like that.
I like to crunch sometimes it can be fun. I think most people understand the nature of the business and see through all of the bullshit. Shit like this happens and it just part of the job. You go to a new place with new people under new management its like going out with a new girl. Its refreshing, you might miss your old relationship but in general you are more glad you have a place to work than anything. Anger was the last thing on my mind when I knew I was free. Its more like an earth quake or something or a natural disaster. Its just something you have to deal with.

I suppose it matters how much pride you take in your work.

This can happen with new people sometimes.
Honestly 9 times out of 10 when you work on something it gets beat into your head that it does not belong to you anyway. Especially with really long projects that go for years and years. Its just tiresome and seeing it end often is more of a relief tbh... Anger is one of the things most devs check for when leaving a company though hehe... But that's about it.