How should Turbine evolve?

[Arthur_Parker]

Dunno if this has been posted before, I found it interesting to see Turbine seeking advice on if it should provide hosting for competitors.

From here

Turbine Entertainment Software

After Kennedy's speech, Jeff Anderson, CEO of Turbine Entertainment Software Corp. gave a presentation about Turbine, which is based in Westwood, Mass. The company, which was founded in 1994, has about 120 employees. Anderson described the company as profitable and said Highland Capital and Polaris are venture capital investors in Turbine. The company makes what are known as massively multi-player online role-playing games (MMORPGs).

Turbine's aim? To become the premiere provider of online subscription entertainment, Anderson said. Turbine's products, he explained, involve "virtual worlds" where players become part of the virtual community. The online games industry is very fast growing, he said. "The fan bases of these games are very loyal," Anderson said. Anderson said his company, whose products retail for about $40 for a starter kit, plus $12.95 per month for a subscription thereafter, sees only about 20% of its subscriber base churning out on an annual basis. The company, whose first games were "Asheron's Call," "Asheron's Call: Dark Majesty" and "Asheron's Call 2: Fallen Kings," has reached an agreement with Vivendi Universal Games to create a multi-player video game based on Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings." Turbine also is partnering with Atari to produce a "Dungeon & Dragons Online" game.

How should Turbine evolve? One thing the company wants to do is get closer to its customers, Anderson said. One question he raised for consideration is whether the company should perhaps develop a way to provide hosting for competitors in the future, capturing dollars by servicing and running their products for them.

Here's some of the feedback the expert panelists gave to the Turbine presentation.

Mike Goodman, Yankee Group
Goodman, who is a senior analyst with Yankee Group and is responsible for covering broadband entertainment, noted that the MMP (massively multi-player) games segment has had dramatic growth in the last couple of years, with about 2.4 million people playing MMP games, up from 400,000 or 500,000 people four years ago. Goodman estimated that the MMP segment of online gaming represents probably about a $330 million market this year. However, he observed that the typical MMP player is a fairly unusual individual, in that the average MMPer plays 20 hours a week. Given that, "how are you going to grow this market?" Goodman asked, particularly since more companies are entering the market. He raised the question of whether MMP can expand into more mainstream markets, to people who don't have 20 hours a week to play.

Goodman noted that the Lord of the Rings and Dungeons & Dragons both have a tremendous following in the marketplace. However, he noted that all of Turbine's games are swords and sorcery games, and he said there are opportunities in other genres, such as sci-fi. The company, he said, has to look at how many titles it can create in the same genre before it starts cannibalizing itself.

David Solomont, CommonAngels
Should Turbine expand further into hosting and service capabilities? The answer is a "resounding yes," said Solomont, who is managing director of CommonAngels. One thing to be wary of, however, as the company makes that transition, Solomont suggested: Which of your partners become competitors, and which competitors become partners? Solomont said he thought Turbine potentially has two different businesses: the developer business and the service and infrastructure business.


Andrew Graff, Allen & Gerritsen
"These guys have an unbelievable reputation" in the market, observed Graff, who is president and COO of Allen & Gerritsen. However, he noted, that, when his firm studied the audience for Turbine's products, it found that MMP players describe themselves as ruthless and overly critical. As a result, Turbine may want to think long and hard about service as the company begins to expand. The audience, he said, is loyal up to the point where the developers make a mistake, he said.

Jim Kennedy, THQ
"It's a great business, Jeff," Kennedy observed. But, he added, he's a little suspect of the projected growth rates, noting that MMP games are "very time-consuming." As a result, he suggested developing games that are quite different from the ones the company already has - on the theory that people will probably only buy one MMP game. He also stressed that the company should focus everything on what the customer will experience. It's hard to make really good, compelling product, he said, and it's also hard to do the service part. Ultimately, he said, the company may have to choose to do one or the other.

Not sure if Andrew Graff was aware how funny his "These guys have an unbelievable reputation" and "The audience, he said, is loyal up to the point where the developers make a mistake" comments were.  Maybe he's a bitter ex AC2 player too.  

Jeff Anderson's 20% annual churn comment is bullshit too, unless an awful lot of AC2 players continue to pay their subscription but don't play.

[SirBruce]

What makes you think 20% churn is bullshit?  Sorry, I don't see how that relates to subscribers who don't log in.

I'm more intrigued by the notion that they have 120 employees.  If you figure a reasonable $150K cost per employee, that means they have to have something like 116,000 subscribers to be profitable.  At $100K per employee (low, but possible if you have a lot of low-paid customer support), that's 77,000 subscribers.

Right now I've got AC at 80,000 and AC2 at 25,000, so I'm in the right ballpark.

Bruce

[Soukyan]

I do believe that Turbine should scrap D&D Online and distance themselves from Atari in any way possible.

[Arthur_Parker]

What makes you think 20% churn is bullshit?  Sorry, I don't see how that relates to subscribers who don't log in.

20% seems real low to me going on my experience purely on server population numbers from release to release + 6 months, then considering they merged half the servers and the population graph on ac2hq finally disappeared after they had readjusted it's scale downward 3 times or so.  For example server Coldeve for quite a while had active connections of less than 8 players down from a few hundred at release.  

I mentioned people who don't cancel but don't play as they would still be active subscriptions.

[HaemishM]

I can believe 20% churn. After all, if you only have 100 players, I can see losing 5 more, as the rest are too addicted to quit.

Turbine probably WOULD be well-served to try the hosting market, provided they can undercut other alternatives out there. I'm still trying to figure out how they wrangled the MEO and D&D licenses with the games they've already put out. The statements about cannibalizing their business by making MORE fantasy genre clones is a valid one. I think what the analysts have missed about the potential growth in development of MMOG's is just how crowded the market is, especially for fantasy-based games. They have also missed the fact that a good license does not make for "print your own money" success, a la SWG.

[Mi_Tes]

I think what the analysts have missed about the potential growth in development of MMOG's is just how crowded the market is, especially for fantasy-based games.

The market may be clogged with the same old EQ/fantasy clone, but I think there is tons more room for COH style games (even fantasy ones).  Where you log in with a powerful character from the beginning (not bunny bashing), have fun immediately, great individual character creation, and it doesn't require staying logged in for hours.  Provide instancing, solo play, great training area, and interesting lore.  Still disapointed as I thought Mythica fit into this description.  CoH is a game for the person who has a job, family, and a life.  You can pick it up and in less than 5 minutes have fun, log out when needed, and still feel powerful.  I think that moving this type of game into a fantasy, sci fi, or other nitch besides super heroes (see Auto Assault) will score big.

[SirBruce]

What makes you think 20% churn is bullshit?  Sorry, I don't see how that relates to subscribers who don't log in.

20% seems real low to me going on my experience purely on server population numbers from release to release + 6 months, then considering they merged half the servers and the population graph on ac2hq finally disappeared after they had readjusted it's scale downward 3 times or so.  For example server Coldeve for quite a while had active connections of less than 8 players down from a few hundred at release.  

I mentioned people who don't cancel but don't play as they would still be active subscriptions.

Again, I don't see your point.  Even if they only had 100 subscribers, how does 20% churn make that less or more likely?

Bruce

[SirBruce]

I'm still trying to figure out how they wrangled the MEO and D&D licenses with the games they've already put out.

I'm guessing three reasons:

1. They have the money.  They've got tens of millions in investment capital they can spend on new MMOG projects.  This puts them above smaller MMOG developers.

2. They have experience making MMOGs.  This puts them ahead of other development studios and publishers who may have the money, but haven't made a MMOG before, so their track record is questionable.

3. The other big competitors that are left after 1. and 2. -- EA, SOE, and NCSoft -- probably didn't pursue the licenses.  After all, they have their own properties to spend money on.  A potnetial MEO, for example, hurts SOE's investment in EverQuest if it is a good game, so it's not really in SOE's best interest to see a strong MEO title.

Bruce

[Big Gulp]

A potnetial MEO, for example, hurts SOE's investment in EverQuest if it is a good game, so it's not really in SOE's best interest to see a strong MEO title.

Bruce

Yeah, but a D&D and MEO title both largely cut into each other's demographics, and they're putting out both titles.  And I'm sorry, but I don't even count AC1 as a really competent MMO execution.  It definitely isn't on par with UO or EQ.  Let's not even talk about AC2, that was a step backward completely.

So basically they've got two licenses that are going to war with each other for subscribers and (I know there's a small core of AC1 fans that will disagree) a not so stellar track record from their previous games.

Sorry, they're fucked.

[Arthur_Parker]

Again, I don't see your point.  Even if they only had 100 subscribers, how does 20% churn make that less or more likely?

Bruce

Unless I'm somehow missing the whole point of "churn", based on my personal observations, I don't believe that AC2 lost only 20% of their playerbase from release to release + 1 year, even accounting for new players coming in.

[SirBruce]

Again, I don't see your point.  Even if they only had 100 subscribers, how does 20% churn make that less or more likely?

Bruce

Unless I'm somehow missing the whole point of "churn", based on my personal observations, I don't believe that AC2 lost only 20% of their playerbase from release to release + 1 year, even accounting for new players coming in.

But AC2 came out in Nov 02.  So it's already well past that its initial launch and growth and had 20% churn over the last, say, 12 months...

Bruce

[SirBruce]

A potnetial MEO, for example, hurts SOE's investment in EverQuest if it is a good game, so it's not really in SOE's best interest to see a strong MEO title.

Bruce

Yeah, but a D&D and MEO title both largely cut into each other's demographics, and they're putting out both titles.

They do partially, and certainly cut into AC1 as well.  But it also gets you two bites at the apple, and if you have two different design approachs, you can see which works better and maybe even target different demographics.

And I'm sorry, but I don't even count AC1 as a really competent MMO execution.  It definitely isn't on par with UO or EQ.  Let's not even talk about AC2, that was a step backward completely.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.  From a financial point of view, AC1 has been successful.  No, it's no hit like EQ or UO or DAoC, but it's not in the same bin as Horizons and ShadowBane, either.  Furthermore, the fact that it's NOT an EQ or UO means there's a large market of consumers that Turbine has NOT gotten yet, so they are willing to cannibalize AC1 in order to achieve a greater base.

So basically they've got two licenses that are going to war with each other for subscribers and (I know there's a small core of AC1 fans that will disagree) a not so stellar track record from their previous games.

Sorry, they're fucked.

But you've failed to put forward an alternative development team that the license-holders should have given the licenses to.  Your question was how Turbine got picked, not why Turbine agreed to make them.

As to why Turbine would agree to make both instead of just one, well, I agree it's a risky proposition.  If you assume worst-case 100% overlap between potential customers, then you're basically spending twice as much money for the same revenues.  On the other hand, you do get, as I said, to explore two different designs, so it decreases the risk of a flop, and one game can make up the slack in popularity of the other.  Finally, you're also locking up the franchise from someone ELSE coming along and creating a big success with it.

Bruce

[stray]

I don't see what's so bad about Turbine. AC1 isn't bad (as far as MMO's go). Maybe not UO or EQ, but Turbine's a hell of a lot more competent than most who've entered the MMO market. I think if there's anything that's given them a bad reputation, it was probably due to Microsoft.

As for AC2, sure, it's shit. But there's also plenty of good things to salvage from it. Think of it as a pay-to-play beta for whatever Turbine releases next. The game engine is probably so finely tuned by now that they can concentrate on nothing but content for D&DO. MEO may be a different story, but the only thing Atari is doing with D&DO is marketing/packaging. Everything from design, servers, to support is being handled by Turbine, so I hope they succeed.

My only wish is that they cut MEO, not worry about expanding into other markets for now, and just concentrate on making one game. Just make a fucking good game (because no one else isn't). That's how they should evolve.

[Arthur_Parker]

But AC2 came out in Nov 02.  So it's already well past that its initial launch and growth and had 20% churn over the last, say, 12 months...

Bruce

Bruce the report was quoted from Janurary, 14 months after release.  But anyway that's exactly my point, why give a figure for an annual "churn" when it is clearly not based on an annual basis?  Today, they might be able to say AC2 has 20% fewer subscribers than 12 months ago but that totally ignores the previous year.  As such it's a meaningless statistic unless you want to compare it to other really really unsuccessful games and even then only after 8 months of release.

If it's an average since release of AC2 they didn't say that and don't mention the dismal first 6 months which must have brought the average down considerably.  As it's referring to the company as a whole is it an average of AC1 + AC2 since both games release?  It's a totally bullshit comment unless AC1 has been equalled hammered in terms of subscribers in the last year, which considering they just opened a new server, I somehow doubt.

Edit to add, Bruce, your own chart gives subscription numbers for AC2 at around 25,000 from a high of 50,000.  Even saying 0 new people bought the game after the high of 50,000 would that not put the loss at greater than 20% per 12 months, any 12 months?  If people did buy the game after the 50,000 high, as I'm sure a lot did due to the few trials and the fact eb games is giving a $30 rebate on a $29.99 game, would this not place the figure a lot higher than 20%?

[SirBruce]

1. It could be a churn on an annual basis, but just the last 12 months, meaning a lot of people could have quit during the first 2 months.

2. It could be annualized churn based off monthly or quarterly data; i.e. the current rate of churn being measured as a metric going forward, not as a historical product review.

3. It probably includes AC1 *and* AC2.  Just for the sake of argument, if AC1 + AC2 = 100K subscribers, and that number has remained flat for 12 months, then a 20% churn rate means that they are losing 25,000 existing subscribers during that time period but also gaining 25,000 new subscribers.

I'll agree that the number could be misleading depending on what time period he's talking about, but I have no reason to think that it's a made-up bogus number.

Bruce

[Hanzii]

I'm more intrigued by the notion that they have 120 employees.  If you figure a reasonable $150K cost per employee, that means they have to have something like 116,000 subscribers to be profitable.  At $100K per employee (low, but possible if you have a lot of low-paid customer support), that's 77,000 subscribers.

Funcom has about that many employees as well - 80-90 alone in Norway.

[Arthur_Parker]

I'll agree that the number could be misleading depending on what time period he's talking about, but I have no reason to think that it's a made-up bogus number.
Bruce

I don't think it's a made up number either, after all it would be pure folly to seek advice from experts and invent the figures their opinion will be based on.

The event was held on december 10, 2003 and AC2 was released on November 22, 2002.  

Note, there's an interesting statement on the first link.

A recent study cited massively online games accounted for $494 million in 2002, and that figure is expected to grow to $2.7 billion by 2006.

So that's 1 year and 18 days, for the annual churn statement to be correct I imagine it would have to exclude those who bought AC2 but never paid after their free month was up and include AC1 figures to bring the percentage up.  As such I think a shit-ton of people cancelled AC2 in their first month, having more sense than me and that the 20% figure is useless for any long range planning by any other company as it has been massaged using figures from a more successful game, based on a longer period of time (with 1 expansion too).

I don't see any reason to base the 20% comment off a shorter period of time (especially considering how close to the AC2 year milestone it was made).  If it was and they use that as a forecast for the future, that would be useful for understanding income generated by AC + AC2 but the introduction statement specifically mentions D&D and MEO so ignoring the figures from the release period of your latest game wouldn't make much sense to me.

[Venkman]

D&D and MEO title both largely cut into each other's demographics, and they're putting out both titles.

That's the rub. Modern fantasy MMORPGs derive from D&D, which itself formalized-in-great-detail rules abstracted by Tolkien. MEO should have been the first MMORPG. While MEO enjoys some equity from the movies, what Turbine is allowed to do as a game is predicated on what sort of agreement they signed. Did they get the license to make the game from New Line or the Tolkien Estate? If the former, it is not going to be the books, which is going to piss off probably just enough people to ensure mediocrity. Being just based on the movies is fine for a one-off solo game. Not including the incredible depth and detail of the worlds as defined by Tolkien is going to reduce MEO to just another fantasy-themed MMORPG with the first critiques being about time investment, power curves and the death penalty.

D&D is even worse off. It's already a game mechanic. What are they going to do that NWN hasn't already done? How are they going to beat DikuMUD at it's own popularization? Are they going to wimp out and theme it D&D while ignoring the ruleset (as the canned Warhammer would have done)?

3. The other big competitors that are left after 1. and 2. -- EA, SOE, and NCSoft -- probably didn't pursue the licenses

I agree. EA has pretty much pulled out of MMOGs, SOE already has a strong brand and following, and NC Soft is on the rise with their own non-licensed stuff. That leaves, who, Ubi? I don't see them bothering with MMOGs seriously. Blizzard's got their own gig. Everyone else is running or developing their own un-branded/licensed game.

Licensing isn't the shoe-in it once was. As is being discussed elsewhere, very few licenses make for a good MMORPG because the rules of play and the rules of development are so fluid. I've worked with many different licensors. On one-off solo or relatively-simple games, they can be a breeze. For super complex games that want to capture the attention of players for months and years at a time, it's really a crap shoot. The big companies can afford the investment and the inevitable game changes to appease a licensor. The smaller ones really cannot.

[Arthur_Parker]

While MEO enjoys some equity from the movies, what Turbine is allowed to do as a game is predicated on what sort of agreement they signed. Did they get the license to make the game from New Line or the Tolkien Estate? If the former, it is not going to be the books, which is going to piss off probably just enough people to ensure mediocrity. Being just based on the movies is fine for a one-off solo game. Not including the incredible depth and detail of the worlds as defined by Tolkien is going to reduce MEO to just another fantasy-themed MMORPG with the first critiques being about time investment, power curves and the death penalty.

Stolen from MEO forums where this is asked quite a lot, just read this yesterday as I'm taking an interest in MEO as they have now decided to include some form of pvp.

J.R.R. Tolkien sold the rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings to MGM/United Artists in 1968 or so, to pay off a tax debt. For 10,000 pounds. MGM sold most of the rights to Saul Zaentz in the late 70s, who set up Tolkien Enterprises to handle the license. Christopher Tolkien retains the rights to The Silmarillion and assorted other works, and doesn't license them to anyone.

New Line Cinema licensed the LotR material from Tolkien Enterprises to make the films (who is apparently allowed to sublicense all of the film materials to others for all sorts of after-market stuff -- including video games from EA). Vivendi Universal Games has an independent licensing agreement with Tolkien Enterprises for the materials in Hobbit and LotR, and cannot use anything from the films.

So it's good it's the books, they can I guess use stuff from the appendices (sp?) of RTK but bad as no Silmarillion artifacts or stuff.

[SirBruce]

I'm more intrigued by the notion that they have 120 employees.  If you figure a reasonable $150K cost per employee, that means they have to have something like 116,000 subscribers to be profitable.  At $100K per employee (low, but possible if you have a lot of low-paid customer support), that's 77,000 subscribers.

Funcom has about that many employees as well - 80-90 alone in Norway.

Yes, but they've never made a statement (to my knowledge) that they are profitable.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

So that's 1 year and 18 days, for the annual churn statement to be correct I imagine it would have to exclude those who bought AC2 but never paid after their free month was up and include AC1 figures to bring the percentage up.  As such I think a shit-ton of people cancelled AC2 in their first month, having more sense than me and that the 20% figure is useless for any long range planning by any other company as it has been massaged using figures from a more successful game, based on a longer period of time (with 1 expansion too).

Ummm.. no, you are confused.  "Massaging" the numbers (I deny that is what he did) using the method as proposed is EXACTLY what you want for longe range planning... churn rates expected for the game for the long term, not a figure that might be skewed low because of a game that was less than successful at launch.

And you STILL don't know that this is, indeed, the time period he is using to base that figure.  You continue to bring up a fixed time period after AC2's release when this may have nothing to do with how he calculated the annual rate.

I don't see any reason to base the 20% comment off a shorter period of time (especially considering how close to the AC2 year milestone it was made).  If it was and they use that as a forecast for the future, that would be useful for understanding income generated by AC + AC2 but the introduction statement specifically mentions D&D and MEO so ignoring the figures from the release period of your latest game wouldn't make much sense to me.

It should make sense because companies want to get an idea of churn over years 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.  Not some short-term effect from initial release.  They use conversion rate to measure that.  And AC + AC2 are far more valid in projecting a new project than AC2 alone.

Bruce

[Venkman]

So it's good it's the books, they can I guess use stuff from the appendices (sp?) of RTK but bad as no Silmarillion artifacts or stuff.

That's interesting. So Turbine is free to use the concepts from the books but can't use the likenesses from the movies.

On the one hand, if they market it to existing MMORPG players, they don't need to worry much if the Aragorn and Gandalf look like Viggo Mortensen and Ian McKellen.

On the other hand though, they have yet another opportunity to bring in more first-time players to the genre through the wildly-successful movies, and they'll come looking for that sort of thing.

I wonder how it'll play out. Personally, I feel Turbine being required to recreate imagery from the books gives the game a better chance. While the former may have made a more successful game at retail, the costs associated with using that sort of licensed content would mostly come out of money that could have been used to make a better game. And the restrictions would have made it even worse.

Not that I think Turbine is an awesome developer or anything. I simply don't have anything more than AC1 and AC2 to go by. They're 1-1 in my book, so can go just about anywhere from there.

[Arthur_Parker]

Ummm.. no, you are confused. "Massaging" the numbers (I deny that is what he did) using the method as proposed is EXACTLY what you want for longe range planning... churn rates expected for the game for the long term, not a figure that might be skewed low because of a game that was less than successful at launch.

And you STILL don't know that this is, indeed, the time period he is using to base that figure.  You continue to bring up a fixed time period after AC2's release when this may have nothing to do with how he calculated the annual rate.

Bruce I'll agree I would be tempted not to use the subscriber figures of the first year of AC2's release for any reason except as justification for investing in property rather than on-line entertainment.

However, you are not going to convince me that taking a small period of a few months, combined with an older game using a different game engine is going to give more accurate forecasts for D&D and MEO than a single years subscription numbers for an already released game with the same engine.  Long term view or not, the reputation of a game is made at release, D&D and MEO will use the same engine as AC2.

I still think the 20% comment is bullshit and you only reenforced that view.  Instead of massaging figures to prove MEO and D&D will become profitable in the long term I'd be tempted to make sure they were actually enjoyable, content filled games.

[El Gallo]

The market may be clogged with the same old EQ/fantasy clone, but I think there is tons more room for COH style games (even fantasy ones).  Where you log in with a powerful character from the beginning (not bunny bashing), have fun immediately, great individual character creation, and it doesn't require staying logged in for hours.

It remains to be seen how this kind of game will do over the long haul, and the long haul is where the real money is made.  I would stick to the tried and true addictive gameplay if it was my cash at stake.  Casual gamers are not going to pay a monthly fee for a video game in large numbers for many years.

[AOFanboi]

Yes, but they've never made a statement (to my knowledge) that they are profitable.

Nor can I, but since they're a privately held company (AFAIK) they don't have to make a public statement about it. You can pay to access their latest statements here if you like. :)

Then again, AO isn't their only product: They still produce single-player games, though less than before; currently they are developing Dreamfall (sequel to The Longest Journey), as presented at E3. And TLJ was a nice earner for them if I am not too mistaken.

Turbine, being more specialized in the MMOG genre, seems to have less options available.

[HaemishM]

I would think you could infer by the fact that Funcom has not only remained in business, but Anarchy Online has not failed but has spawned two expansion packs with a third on the way, as well as hints that there are 2 other projects in the works... well, you could probably infer that Funcom IS profitable.

But that's just me.

[Stormwaltz]

Just some NDA-avoiding thoughts on the subject...

Churn was always very low in AC1. I recall hearing in 2001 or so that it had 90% retention, a figure which stunned me. There are still a number of beta testers who play regularly (Fist de Yuma, Maggie the Jackcat, Fafhrd, etc.).

Turbine has shipped one modestly successful MMG to a niche crowd (I define anything below 100K subs as "niche"). They then shipped a second MMG that's pretty much on par with Horizons and Earth & Beyond.

I don't wish my friends ill, but I have to wonder why people are giving Turbine these millions of dollars and massive licenses. IMO, the company has not proved itself. They've done reasonably well, but stumbled big time on AC2. AC is not Lineage or EverQuest. It's also not SWG, DAoC, or UO. Heck, at this point, it's not even CoH. Viewed objectively, Turbine is a second-tier MMG development house. If I were the guy with the money and the licenses, I think I'd approach Mythic first.

I don't care to speculate on how well MEO or DDO will do. I do think that from a business standpoint, the results of the first one to hit market will determine the fate of the company. If Turbine releases a licensed game of that magnitude and only achieves AC2 (or even AC1) sales, investors will stay away in droves.

Another consideration. Turbine will have four fantasy MMGs on the market. Four MMGs in the same genre. That strikes me as a bad call. At least SOE's EQ, SWG, and Planetside are all in different genres. Further, as someone at Turbine once put it, "D&D is all the fun parts of Tolkein." There's going to be a big audience overlap there. Given the recent escalation in subscription fees, I think people will choose one or the other depending on their personal tastes.

So. There are my worries. I have friends at Turbine, and I don't want to see them fail. I don't want to be negative, but I think they're putting a brave face on a precarious business position. The next one has to be good.

[Big Gulp]

also not SWG, DAoC, or UO. Heck, at this point, it's not even CoH.

What's with the dig on CoH?  They launched feature-complete, fun, rock steady, and in an entirely different genre.  In fact, they even helped further break the superhero curse.  Damn, man, at this point they're the only developer I trust to do things correctly.

[Stormwaltz]

What's with the dig on CoH?

That's not a dig on CoH. It's recognition that in two months, they've attracted more subscribers than AC1 ever had in four years.

[Big Gulp]

That's not a dig on CoH. It's recognition that in two months, they've attracted more subscribers than AC1 ever had in four years.

Okay, gotcha.  I misunderstood.

On a side note, I really need to watch my disturbing slide into fanboidom.  CoH is not my girlfriend, and I don't need to take a broken beer bottle to anyone who besmirches her honor.  Damn, I feel like a jackass.

[Venkman]

Hehe Big Gulp :)

On Turbine, I partially agree with SirBruce in that they may have been one of the few houses to bother pursuing both D&D and MEO. Additionally though, when they penned the deals, AC2 wasn't out yet. It was enjoying all sorts of positive press though (iirc) and damn if it didn't look pretty as hell. They probably got the deal (in addition to wads of cash) simply because they pointed to the provable AC2 engine and said "see how pretty we can make your world? Oh, don't worry about the game, we're bored with it anyway and would rather work on your stuff."

(as an aside, I actually feel that may have been what happened to AC2. They got MEO and D&D and just stopped caring about 'just an unlicensed sequel').

[SirBruce]

I would think you could infer by the fact that Funcom has not only remained in business, but Anarchy Online has not failed but has spawned two expansion packs with a third on the way, as well as hints that there are 2 other projects in the works... well, you could probably infer that Funcom IS profitable.

But that's just me.

Yeah, it's just you.  Because they also got a lot of investment capital to help fund their product when things were not going well, so they could still be burning through that.  We just don't know, absent a statement that they are profitable.

Bruce

[HaemishM]

That's not a dig on CoH. It's recognition that in two months, they've attracted more subscribers than AC1 ever had in four years.

Okay, gotcha.  I misunderstood.

On a side note, I really need to watch my disturbing slide into fanboidom.  CoH is not my girlfriend, and I don't need to take a broken beer bottle to anyone who besmirches her honor.  Damn, I feel like a jackass.

I know the feeling. ;)

I'm sure Mythic might have been on the consideration list for MEO or D&D Online, and were too goddamn smart to burden themselves with expensive licenses that have little chance of success, IMO. I'd wager that if Imperator launches as stably as DAoC did, it has a BETTER chance of long-term success than either of those licenses simply because it's different than what's on the market.

Unless the gameplay sucks, and then nothing can save it.