Mythic Employees Forced onto Waaaaaaaghbulance

[Venkman]

Chat wasn't working for months either.

[Nebu]

Chat wasn't working for months either.

That's funny.  I played AC2 for months and never even noticed that chat wasn't working.  Go go solo play!

[UnSub]

Isn't this the first subscriber number we've seen? I thought everything before was pre-orders and box sales and first-month-free stuff.

Second as far as I know. The first was the 500k account registrants they announced after the confirmed 1.5mil units shipped to retail. I believe there was a claim of 1.2mil of those being sold through, but I can't find anything official to support it.

WAR tops 800 000 active accounts.

I actually would have expected to see a dip in figures after launch - lots of people buy it, some find they don't like it, things take a while to settle down. But according to the launches of both AoC and WAR, MMOs are going to lose about 60% of their launch numbers by the end of the third month.

Jacobs has previously indicated that 500k players was the break-even point, so 300k isn't enough. It's a sizeable base, but it is maintenance mode for the game. It's purgatory - enough money coming in to keep the servers up, not enough money to really develop it further (plus the massive reputation hit means you aren't going to be getting loans from the publisher to expand).

The design challenge for MMOs that want to make the mainstream now is: have a business plan that works with 50 000 players but have servers that scale to 1 million players. Lum has made the point a few times that trying to build massive projects is killing MMO development, so the focus needs to shift onto smaller projects that can be scaled upwards if demand exists for it.

Someone asked earlier have any successful MMOs launched since WoW. Arguably they have, but they are the MMOs we don't like to talk about: F2P, kid-friendly titles, browser-based, etc.

[Delmania]

Well, I got my wish, and got spin on it, as well as some more unprofessionalism and smoke screening.  Of course people will return to WAR - the announcement of the 2 new classes, Darkness Falls redux, and people's boredom WoTLK and frustration with Blizzard's glacial response on PvP related issues means some people are bound to try it.  But, to claim that a drop is that expected, clearly something is getting lostin translation. At any rate, I'll continue to keep an eye on the game, and if things seem to be improving and MJ keeps his trap shut, I'll resub, although I wish they'd freaking stop abusing YouTube. 

Someone asked earlier have any successful MMOs launched since WoW. Arguably they have, but they are the MMOs we don't like to talk about: F2P, kid-friendly titles, browser-based, etc.

Define success.  Do you mean size of the quality of the game, or the size of the playerbase? 

[Venkman]

Success is profit.

Everything else is expectations. Those are often harder to manage than the budget, because the egos get in the way of reality 

[Malakili]

The design challenge for MMOs that want to make the mainstream now is: have a business plan that works with 50 000 players but have servers that scale to 1 million players. Lum has made the point a few times that trying to build massive projects is killing MMO development, so the focus needs to shift onto smaller projects that can be scaled upwards if demand exists for it.

Someone asked earlier have any successful MMOs launched since WoW. Arguably they have, but they are the MMOs we don't like to talk about: F2P, kid-friendly titles, browser-based, etc.

Well, I think we need some sort of stable definition of success.  How many would we call successes if WoW just didn't exist period?  I think WoW needs to be eliminated from the discussion when talking success of MMOs because its totally off the charts compared to everything else.  I think you've hit it on the head about smaller projects though.  TRYING to compete with WoW is the kiss of death.  The people that don't play WoW don't want to play something like WoW, and the people who play WoW PROBABLY won't leave it for a game thats only slightly different, especially if they have a high level character in WoW already.

Its possible to do ok, and LOTRO has proven it as mentioned earlier in the thread, but that is a rare case that has an extremely high quality IP behind it with a huge built in loyal fanbase that is even larger than the Warhammer fanbase I'd argue.

As long as soemthing is making enough profit to continue running the servers and work on new content, that should count as successful as far as I am concerned.  Maybe it isn't an unmitigated success, but people need to be realistic about what it out there.

[Trippy]

As long as soemthing is making enough profit to continue running the servers and work on new content, that should count as successful as far as I am concerned.  Maybe it isn't an unmitigated success, but people need to be realistic about what it out there.

I would add that the game needs to have recouped its initial investment/production cost as well.

[Venkman]

Err, success is profit.

We can all spend paragraphs talking about it, but it's actually pretty simple:

• Did you design a game an audience wants? Calculates the type of talents and tools you need.
• Did you accurately predict how many would buy it? Calculates the up front investment including time, tools, and content.
• Did your audience know the game is coming? Launched? Calculates how much money you spend on marketing, RMO, etc.
• Did you work out a good flexible deal for hosting and maintenance? Calculates a good chunk of your monthly.
• Did you work out your strategic plan over a multiyear arc? Calculates your ongoing staff and sourcing needs.

Of course, it's easy to list. It's much harder to do. Most times, one of these questions is not asked, or someone lists them and says "you can have four of the five, choose which one to drop".

If you DO do all that though and are making a profit, you're successful.

Everything else is just scale. Eve is probably profitable. ATiTD3 is probably profitable. WoW certainly is. I'd imagine LoTRO, EQ2, DAoC, UO, all the old or old style games are at this point. TR was not. AoC probably isn't. WAR probably isn't. The reasons are obvious and plentiful.

What keeps leading to these failures isn't always the lack of profit. It's the missed expectations, the people overselling the potential success to unlock funds never recouped.

So no, games-not-WoW are not failures compared to WoW. If they're failures, it's because of things they themselves screwed up, and would have screwed up anyway, WoW or not.

[Numtini]

AC2 was simply a terrible game. It just wasn't any fun to play. It was broken. It was sterile. It was cheap.

LOTRO is imho not a B rated WoW, more like a D, E or perhaps Z rated WoW. I know I'm in the minority but while pretty, sluggish client response, zero ability to customize the UI, no endgame, barely useable AH, and taking a year to put in the 40-50 level skills for all classes does not equal win to me. Forced grouping, no LFG system, and progressive TOA style quests? I just don't get why people praise the game.

It is beautiful. And it hits the middle earth buttons really well. It does housing well. They have the feeling of place. But as a game? It's 2002 technology with a pretty new shell and just not all that.

[ghost]

AC2 was simply a terrible game. It just wasn't any fun to play. It was broken. It was sterile. It was cheap.

LOTRO is imho not a B rated WoW, more like a D, E or perhaps Z rated WoW. I know I'm in the minority but while pretty, sluggish client response, zero ability to customize the UI, no endgame, barely useable AH, and taking a year to put in the 40-50 level skills for all classes does not equal win to me. Forced grouping, no LFG system, and progressive TOA style quests? I just don't get why people praise the game.

It is beautiful. And it hits the middle earth buttons really well. It does housing well. They have the feeling of place. But as a game? It's 2002 technology with a pretty new shell and just not all that.

I'm pretty sure LOTRO has most of the stuff you are talking about there, including customizable UI, endgame comparable to other PVE games, etc. 

[tmp]

LOTRO is imho not a B rated WoW, more like a D, E or perhaps Z rated WoW.

This would imply existence of B, D, E etc rated WoW-clones out there just to be put in-between these two. I really can't think of serious candidates for these spots. The gap between the 'real WoW' and LotRO may be huge in your eyes, but i'd say at the moment LotRO *is* second fiddle to WoW rather than 10th or whatever.

(and in some areas it's actually ahead of WoW. But i guess we can ignore these for convenience of the argument)

[Ratman_tf]

Success=profit is too simplistic. A game can turn a tidy profit and then get managed right into the ground. Or a game could turn out a loss and then get turned around. (Which would make it an investment.  ) Which means I agree with what you posted, except for the first sentence.

I say success=a game meeting or exceeding the expectations of it's developers. (Which would make WAR a failure  )

[UnSub]

Success=profit is too simplistic.

But it's a good starting point. Growth is also another consideration (since profitable but stagnant is a dangerous place to be). Profitable enough to continue development is also good.

[squirrel]

Mythic has consistently made bad decisions over the course of WAR's development. I predict <200k subs at the end of FY09 Q1. It's a shame, no doubt, but who here is still subbed? Nobody really. The game is flawed and not getting better because, as some wag said, Mythic is following a compass that points to magnetic wrong.

Make no bones about it - 300 - 500k is not the success either Mythic or EA was hoping for, but it would be sustainable.

<200k will be difficult and that's where I think they are, possibly worse. The 3 month/6 month subs from launch are going to run out soon and I'd be very surprised if they are getting new blood at the rate needed to backfill.

Anyway, to add something to the discussion. Success != profit. Success is one of two things: It's either revenue greater than the cost of capital or it's a return with a positive Net Present Value over the term of the project.

In other words if EA/Mythic could have done something else with the money invested in WAR and gotten a higher rate of return in whatever time window they use as a measure then WAR is not a success, even if it's profitable. Now, given EA's income statement recently I think anything profitable is good, but overall success can't be measures by "did it cost less than it makes?" It has to be "did it earn more than the alternatives?" We don't know. But it's a tough question at this point.

Lastly, the layoffs were badly handled, badly communicated and badly managed from a PR perspective. Paul is a fucking douche who should never have been allowed near a computer during this process. This will bite them in the ass.

[Arthur_Parker]

AC2 was simply a terrible game. It just wasn't any fun to play. It was broken. It was sterile. It was cheap.

AC2 just didn't have any content, static mobs, group mobs a few set piece one trip dungeons, no npc's, no buildings with doors.  The engine itself was great, graphics top rate, it even handled a couple of hundred players fighting in one area very well (first few weeks darktide).  Chat worked pretty well using the Turbine basic chat system, the chat problems came in when they moved to the Microsoft chat system.  The few quests in the game were very exploitable, allowed you to level while grouped but not with the group, level 3 to level 35 via one quest while you went afk. Hit max level nothing to do, hence all the class balancing because of group mobs and tacking on of a 150 level hero grind.

[squirrel]

AC2 was simply a terrible game. It just wasn't any fun to play. It was broken. It was sterile. It was cheap.

AC2 just didn't have any content, static mobs, group mobs a few set piece one trip dungeons, no npc's, no buildings with doors.  The engine itself was great, graphics top rate, it even handled a couple of hundred players fighting in one area very well (first few weeks darktide).  Chat worked pretty well using the Turbine basic chat system, the chat problems came in when they moved to the Microsoft chat system.  The few quests in the game were very exploitable, allowed you to level while grouped but not with the group, level 3 to level 35 via one quest while you went afk.

This is a description of a terrible game based on an OK engine. I like AC (played a Life/Archer for years) but yeah, AC2 was broken. Mostly for the reasons you state.

[Arthur_Parker]

Yeah, I think WAR has the wrong engine for what it's trying to do, can't cope with lots of players, AC2 had the right engine but no content.

Edit War was pretty good in T2 with lots of players for me, T4 seems to have too much going on.

[Tarami]

This would imply existence of B, D, E etc rated WoW-clones out there just to be put in-between these two. I really can't think of serious candidates for these spots. The gap between the 'real WoW' and LotRO may be huge in your eyes, but i'd say at the moment LotRO *is* second fiddle to WoW rather than 10th or whatever.

(and in some areas it's actually ahead of WoW. But i guess we can ignore these for convenience of the argument)

There's also a huge gap between the real WoW and the mythical WoW that's used in most arguments.

[Jherad]

LOTRO is imho not a B rated WoW, more like a D, E or perhaps Z rated WoW. I know I'm in the minority but while pretty, sluggish client response, zero ability to customize the UI, no endgame, barely useable AH, and taking a year to put in the 40-50 level skills for all classes does not equal win to me. Forced grouping, no LFG system, and progressive TOA style quests? I just don't get why people praise the game.

After finally cancelling my War account, I decided to to give LOTRO another go.

It has substantially changed from when I last played (and abandoned) it back in beta. Most of those issues you listed no longer exist. Caters better to the solo crowd, much improved client response, developing endgame, easily usable AH, LFG system etc. My one real gripe at the moment is the lack of addon support.

Completely different game now, for me at least. I'm hooked - and I'd previously written it off as a somewhat boring diku with a cheap gimmick (PvMP). I hadn't realised how much I'd been missing a MMO with 'depth'. Both AoC and War felt kinda superficial. Light.

It still might not be for you, but is worth hooking up a free trial.

[Modern Angel]

LotRO's great because it proves you can be a success while focusing more on atmosphere than anything else. It's not a world in the UO/EVE sense but it feels more like a world than most of the stuff out there due to the IP and attention to detail. Does it have the tight scripting and nifty doodads of WoW? No but then it's not trying to.

Which of course ties into the whole WAR thing because it reveals a difference in approach which is important. LOTRO never wanted to get WoW's numbers. They knew they couldn't and they acted accordingly. They probably would've liked to be a little closer to a million, sure, but there was never any dick waving on their part. They're chugging along in a respectable position with room to grow. MMO companies need to act a whole lot more like LOTRO era Turbine and a whole lot less like Mythic or Funcom.

[Trippy]

No there was plenty of dick-waving by Turbine:

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=10782.0

but they kept it to their PR people.

[Delmania]

No there was plenty of dick-waving by Turbine:

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=10782.0

but they kept it to their PR people.

Meh, some dick waving and numbers spinning is to be expected from marketing, that's what they do. I never really paid attention to LoTRO, but I don't recall much of the hype that came along with WAR's release, like Paul's YouTube video, or MJ "we're not competing with WoW but we really are" comments during interviews.  And if the stuff I am reading is true, Turbine does respond to player feedback, and does it well.  Overall, Turbine just seems to have far better PR than Mythic does, and they've built a quality product to boot. 

[Arthur_Parker]

I like Turbine but there was a bit of optimistic marketing going on before release.

The target is WoW, says general manager of publisher's online gaming division.

Vice president and general manager of Codemasters Online Gaming (COG), David Solari, has revealed a target of over a million players for the division's upcoming Lord of the Ring Online (LOTRO) title and admitted intentions to compete directly with Blizzard's genre-leading World of Warcraft.

"I think the goal [for LOTRO] would be over a million subscribers in the west," said Solari, speaking at the COG LiVE event in Warwick, UK, yesterday. "World of Warcraft is such a benchmark now, but if something's going to do it it's going to be a Lord of the Rings brand that lets people play in that environment and experience that content. It's got to have probably the best chance of competing with it."

[Delmania]

All right, anyone got a Cliff's Note version of how Turbine handled itself before and after the launch of LoTRO?  Maybe it's because I didn't play much attention to it, but it seems like the company handled itself much better than Mythic did with WAR.  I think the basis of it is that LoTRO is jusy a better quality product than WAR is, but I am curious if Turbine pulled the type of hype building Mythic did.

[Arthur_Parker]

My opinion, short version.  They got punched in the gut with lower subs than expected.  They therefore decided to concentrate on improving their game instead of prancing around displaying an oversized ego on message boards or making wacky youtube videos.  Crazy plan, but seems to be working not too bad so far.

[ghost]

I like Turbine but there was a bit of optimistic marketing going on before release.

The target is WoW, says general manager of publisher's online gaming division.

Vice president and general manager of Codemasters Online Gaming (COG), David Solari, has revealed a target of over a million players for the division's upcoming Lord of the Ring Online (LOTRO) title and admitted intentions to compete directly with Blizzard's genre-leading World of Warcraft.

"I think the goal [for LOTRO] would be over a million subscribers in the west," said Solari, speaking at the COG LiVE event in Warwick, UK, yesterday. "World of Warcraft is such a benchmark now, but if something's going to do it it's going to be a Lord of the Rings brand that lets people play in that environment and experience that content. It's got to have probably the best chance of competing with it."

There is absolutely nothing wrong with setting your goal high, as long as you have an appropriate plan if things don't work out the way you thought.  It seems Turbine has done well with their contingencies. 

[Delmania]

My opinion, short version.  They got punched in the gut with lower subs than expected.  They therefore decided to concentrate on improving their game instead of prancing around displaying an oversized ego on message boards or making wacky youtube videos.  Crazy plan, but seems to be working not too bad so far.

It's almost like you're speaking a foreign language to me...

[Modern Angel]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with setting your goal high, as long as you have an appropriate plan if things don't work out the way you thought.  It seems Turbine has done well with their contingencies. 

This, though I stand corrected on the no dick waving thing. Less dick waving. Appropriate dick waving. It's not Barnett and it's not Gaute's steak vs hamburger comment.

But let's be real here: one million subs isn't competing with WoW. Shooting for a million is a fine goal and all but all the bleating in the world about competing with Blizzard with that goal doesn't make it true.

I think there's a lot of truth to Turbine's nimbleness post release being the difference. They seem to have adjusted quite well and, maybe more importantly, managed expectations. They were very up front about what sort of game they intended LOTRO to be and took over the bedtime story niche very well.

[Mrbloodworth]

AC2 was simply a terrible game. It just wasn't any fun to play. It was broken. It was sterile. It was cheap.

LOTRO is imho not a B rated WoW, more like a D, E or perhaps Z rated WoW. I know I'm in the minority but while pretty, sluggish client response, zero ability to customize the UI, no endgame, barely useable AH, and taking a year to put in the 40-50 level skills for all classes does not equal win to me. Forced grouping, no LFG system, and progressive TOA style quests? I just don't get why people praise the game.

It is beautiful. And it hits the middle earth buttons really well. It does housing well. They have the feeling of place. But as a game? It's 2002 technology with a pretty new shell and just not all that.

Are you sure you were playing LOTRO? Also, check the LOTRO forums here, i think you had posted that you couldn't move something, and posted an image of someone doing just what you wanted.

Also, the AH is one of the best i have ever used, i can just drag an item in the bar, and hit search... and posting is easy, if you keep adding the same item in the slot, it fills in the asking price you entered last time for that item. Not sure what the issue is.

What forced grouping?   The LFG system is good (the /lff chat is usually all that's required), the Quest Tracker system is superior to any other i have seen... Shit, i know what part of a chain you are one, and who/what/where/when/why...Sharing a quest also shares the first part of a chain if you don't have it....Its just brilliant.

Endgame? Endgame is a failure in the body of a MMO.

What i think you may really be complaining about, its its different then Wow. Expectations, and conditioning and all that.

[Mrbloodworth]

I like Turbine but there was a bit of optimistic marketing going on before release.

The target is WoW, says general manager of publisher's online gaming division.

Vice president and general manager of Codemasters Online Gaming (COG), David Solari, has revealed a target of over a million players for the division's upcoming Lord of the Ring Online (LOTRO) title and admitted intentions to compete directly with Blizzard's genre-leading World of Warcraft.

"I think the goal [for LOTRO] would be over a million subscribers in the west," said Solari, speaking at the COG LiVE event in Warwick, UK, yesterday. "World of Warcraft is such a benchmark now, but if something's going to do it it's going to be a Lord of the Rings brand that lets people play in that environment and experience that content. It's got to have probably the best chance of competing with it."

Codemasters != Turbine.

[Arthur_Parker]

Codemasters != Turbine.

Is that why there are a different number of letters and they appear to be in a different order?

[Mrbloodworth]

Codemasters != Turbine.

Is that why there are a different number of letters and they appear to be in a different order?

I think so!

[Arthur_Parker]

Turbine has some responsibility for what Codemasters says and does, the same way Mythic have some responsibility for GOA inventing the first bind on pickup game, by renewing the WAR subscription for everyone in Europe without their permission.

[UnsGub]

Lum has made the point a few times that trying to build massive projects is killing MMO development, so the focus needs to shift onto smaller projects that can be scaled upwards if demand exists for it.

This is a great summary for all software development and why the process and tools are more important then what is built.  A great idea really cannot survive bad implementation today like it could ten or twenty years ago.  Bad idea will always be a bad idea.

[chargerrich]

It is so painfully obvious how bad a state WAR is in that how can it really be surprising to anyone not wearing WAR polarized glasses?

I bought into the hype and the concept is STILL awesome. But on nearly every level WAR failed when compared against "that other game". Mythic knew going into it that they could not match Blizzard feature by feature, they never had the resources, but they compounded this disadvantage by adding a mind numbing grind to the equation.

To be honest, I had to go back to WOW to see how much better it was, I would have probably stayed had Tiers 3 and 4 been more like Tier 1. While no part of the game matched WOW in terms of polish, at least Tier 1 was fun and different. But then they decided in all their wisdom to really make people work just to get to where the START of the game was supposed to be....RR 40-80.

Ranks 1-40 should have been a breeze. Then let people work for those renown ranks. But Mark treated his game like it was a PVE paradise. News Flash, your PVE sucks... Your game was supposed to be about PVP. Clueless!

I would not have cared if it took 5 years to get to RR 80 if 1-40 was easy...easy so we could have tested alts and experimented. But who in their right mind would actually level to 40 then DO IT OVER again and again?

Ranks 1-40 PVE centric...should be FAST

Renown Ranks 41-80 PVP centric...can be arduous.

Whats not clear about that? Why would Mythic make a game that is CLEARLY not the rich PVE experience of WOW (but could have challenged in terms of PVP mechanics) and yet make the grind 5x harder?

The logic fails.

Yes I am bitter, I really wanted to like WAR but its dreck and I do not see it improving as long as MJ has his fingerprints on the game.