Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Industry Thread] Read the OP, or you'll see more red than 38 Studios.

1626365676899

Posts

  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Can I ask what the deadline was for TOR to be measured as a success?

    Star Wars: The Old Republic needs only 500K subscribers - EA

    ..to "be profitable." Which I strongly suspect means simply covering the cost of running the servers, providing customer services, patching, etc. There's still that gigantic $200 million debt to cover. If they really were happy with only 500K subscribers, they wouldn't be switching to emergency plan B.

    cloudeagle on
    Zangief wrote:
    My low point came while I was crushing man's skull like sparrow's egg between my thighs. But then I thought to myself, "who else would crush man's skull like sparrow's egg between his thighs?"
    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P Registered User regular
    And while EA does often show the leadership traits necessary to be King Dumbass of Giant Dumbass Company herd, I genuinely think it's too early to call "doomed" yet with the whole TOR situation. Yeah, they sunk a lot of cash into it, but one year isn't enough time to judge the success or failure of a big-budget MMO.

    Lucas reamed the Star Wars franchise so bad with all of his Episode 1-3 trash, and the mountains of related items that went along with them, that I'd written off the franchise entirely several years ago. Even then, hearing "The Old Republic" and "F2P" has me stroking my non-existent beard in consideration. So if they could get me to consider playing with the F2P model, there's a solid chance that they'll get a lot more people online.

    Whether or not that pays off at all, well, guess we'll know in a couple years.

    ninja-snarl_zps9453c54d.png
  • tyrannustyrannus Registered User regular
    And while EA does often show the leadership traits necessary to be King Dumbass of Giant Dumbass Company herd, I genuinely think it's too early to call "doomed" yet with the whole TOR situation. Yeah, they sunk a lot of cash into it, but one year isn't enough time to judge the success or failure of a big-budget MMO.

    Lucas reamed the Star Wars franchise so bad with all of his Episode 1-3 trash, and the mountains of related items that went along with them, that I'd written off the franchise entirely several years ago. Even then, hearing "The Old Republic" and "F2P" has me stroking my non-existent beard in consideration. So if they could get me to consider playing with the F2P model, there's a solid chance that they'll get a lot more people online.

    Whether or not that pays off at all, well, guess we'll know in a couple years.
    And that's the thing. Now we have to wait two more years to determine whether TOR was a success or not. That is a ridiculously bad investment

  • HenroidHenroid Baba Booey to y'all Tyler, TX (where hope comes to die!)Registered User regular
    tyrannus wrote: »
    And while EA does often show the leadership traits necessary to be King Dumbass of Giant Dumbass Company herd, I genuinely think it's too early to call "doomed" yet with the whole TOR situation. Yeah, they sunk a lot of cash into it, but one year isn't enough time to judge the success or failure of a big-budget MMO.

    Lucas reamed the Star Wars franchise so bad with all of his Episode 1-3 trash, and the mountains of related items that went along with them, that I'd written off the franchise entirely several years ago. Even then, hearing "The Old Republic" and "F2P" has me stroking my non-existent beard in consideration. So if they could get me to consider playing with the F2P model, there's a solid chance that they'll get a lot more people online.

    Whether or not that pays off at all, well, guess we'll know in a couple years.
    And that's the thing. Now we have to wait two more years to determine whether TOR was a success or not. That is a ridiculously bad investment

    Ah HA!
    tyrannus wrote: »
    yeah, when the game isn't successful. like TOR.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit." - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    If EA considered it a success, they would be crowing about it and not saying it wasn't very important.

  • tyrannustyrannus Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    tyrannus wrote: »
    And while EA does often show the leadership traits necessary to be King Dumbass of Giant Dumbass Company herd, I genuinely think it's too early to call "doomed" yet with the whole TOR situation. Yeah, they sunk a lot of cash into it, but one year isn't enough time to judge the success or failure of a big-budget MMO.

    Lucas reamed the Star Wars franchise so bad with all of his Episode 1-3 trash, and the mountains of related items that went along with them, that I'd written off the franchise entirely several years ago. Even then, hearing "The Old Republic" and "F2P" has me stroking my non-existent beard in consideration. So if they could get me to consider playing with the F2P model, there's a solid chance that they'll get a lot more people online.

    Whether or not that pays off at all, well, guess we'll know in a couple years.
    And that's the thing. Now we have to wait two more years to determine whether TOR was a success or not. That is a ridiculously bad investment

    Ah HA!
    tyrannus wrote: »
    yeah, when the game isn't successful. like TOR.

    so, right now all we can say is that it's "essentially a flop". in two years, we get to know for sure

    none of that screams "success" to me

  • HenroidHenroid Baba Booey to y'all Tyler, TX (where hope comes to die!)Registered User regular
    All I'm doing is combating the claims of failure or non-success. MMOs are long-term business plans, not the typical launch game, see huge profit immediately type.

    Henroid on
    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit." - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
  • tyrannustyrannus Registered User regular
    if they had sunk money into making a few typical launch games, I bet their ROI would have been higher and it would have taken less time to determine whether or not said released games were successes.

    so far, the opportunity costs of the massive investment, the layoffs, the poor revenue for the last few quarters, and the drop of subscribers all point to either failure or mediocre

    and that's now what you should be getting when you drop $100 million+

    tyrannus on
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    All I'm doing is combating the claims of failure or non-success. MMOs are long-term business plans, not the typical launch game, see huge profit immediately type.
    yeah but that doesn't make EA look bad now and we can't have that for the Worst Company In The World

    beaversig2.jpg
  • HenroidHenroid Baba Booey to y'all Tyler, TX (where hope comes to die!)Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    All I'm doing is combating the claims of failure or non-success. MMOs are long-term business plans, not the typical launch game, see huge profit immediately type.
    yeah but that doesn't make EA look bad now and we can't have that for the Worst Company In The World

    :P

    Don't get me wrong in all this, EA was stupid to set a high bar for the game. But the reason why I'm not so aggressive on EA over the issue is because of Bioware. Not out of blind fandom (I've only played like, three Bioware games ever), because they had a crazy idea and went for it. How often do you see that happen at all in the modern VG industry? That's why I give kudos and leeway on overnight success nonsense.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit." - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
  • One Thousand DicksOne Thousand Dicks :D! Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    All I'm doing is combating the claims of failure or non-success. MMOs are long-term business plans, not the typical launch game, see huge profit immediately type.

    That's true. As long as the money coming in exceeds what the company would save in shutting it down, TOR might run for a decade and make a decent profit. Like Champions, Dungeons and Dragons, Lord of the Rings and whatever. But it's pretty obvious that's not what EA was shooting for when they sunk $200 million into this thing. They wanted TOR to be the new WoW and pull in fat subscription cash for years to come, and that's not going to happen.

  • HenroidHenroid Baba Booey to y'all Tyler, TX (where hope comes to die!)Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    All I'm doing is combating the claims of failure or non-success. MMOs are long-term business plans, not the typical launch game, see huge profit immediately type.

    That's true. As long as the money coming in exceeds what the company would save in shutting it down, TOR might run for a decade and make a decent profit. Like Champions, Dungeons and Dragons, Lord of the Rings and whatever. But it's pretty obvious that's not what EA was shooting for when they sunk $200 million into this thing. They wanted TOR to be the new WoW and pull in fat subscription cash for years to come, and that's not going to happen.

    Yeah. I wish I had the two articles on hand that ran back to back where Bioware responded, "No, we're not trying to topple WoW, we just want to make a great game," and then the next is EA going, "GONNA BEAT WOW YEP!" I would've paid good money to see the collective jaw dropping at Bioware.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit." - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS
    Ceno wrote: »
    http://us.blizzard.com/securityupdate

    They got everything folks. Emails, security questions/answers (which you can't change btw), even got to mobile and dial-in authenticators.

    Probably time for a lawsuit.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P Registered User regular
    I wouldn't judge MMOs by standard game success traits at all. It takes one helluva tragically poor turnout for an MMO to cave within a year, and I've only seen a couple of decently-budgeted ones do that; otherwise, MMOs have a decent chance of running for a pretty long while and continuing to make money.

    Say TOR has a functional run of only 4 years. Even if it does merely okay for the next 3 years, it should still turn a profit. Yeah, the mustache-twiddling EA corporate types will look at things and go "DOOOOOMED!" because the game wasn't the massive, impossible, WoW-toppling success they thought they could force just by throwing money at a project, but that won't mean the game was actually a failed product.

    The way I see it, this whole first year for TOR had been like the first week of sales for a new regular game. It isn't DOA and it isn't a blockbuster success yet, but it's far too early to judge whether or not the whole thing is really a disaster.

    Ninja Snarl P on
    ninja-snarl_zps9453c54d.png
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    Is it possible that people are just getting tired of the traditional MMO genre? I mean I used to be HUGE into the scene... Almost playing one every month for years since 2003... But last year I just stopped. They all feel identical... And I know people that used to play WoW 80+ hours a week who aren't even interested in the new expansion.

    I hope this bubble bursts and brings about a new type of MMO.

  • BlendtecBlendtec PittsburghRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    All I'm doing is combating the claims of failure or non-success. MMOs are long-term business plans, not the typical launch game, see huge profit immediately type.

    That's true. As long as the money coming in exceeds what the company would save in shutting it down, TOR might run for a decade and make a decent profit. Like Champions, Dungeons and Dragons, Lord of the Rings and whatever. But it's pretty obvious that's not what EA was shooting for when they sunk $200 million into this thing. They wanted TOR to be the new WoW and pull in fat subscription cash for years to come, and that's not going to happen.

    Basically. Most MMOs have a fairly normal or even low start up cost and then recoup that and cover all expenses with their subscriptions. EA thought they could throw money at it and dominate the MMO market. When the game isn't that good of an MMO and is a huge departure from what Bioware fans were used to, you've alienated your whole audience. As someone mentioned before, this is the industry thread. So if someone investing in the industry sees ToR didn't do so hot right off the bat while something like CoD did, where do you think their money is going to go? It's not an issue of Bioware/EA bouncing back, it's an issue of them luring back investors and shareholders after a year full of blunders while their rivals keep on trucking.

    I also go by Twinkie in some games. Add me on Steam!
    steam_sig.png
  • McHogerMcHoger Registered User regular
    I suppose the problem stems from just how long TOR was in the works. Back then WoW was a license to print money and F2P was a joke. How many years did they spend explaining to investors about how all this money they were spending was going to pay off? I don't think it will be the end of Bioware or TOR, but given what we've seen of late, I wouldn't be surprised about a drastic change in management or a shut down of other projects. I'd expect them to lean pretty hard into Mass Effect.

  • Brutal JBrutal J Registered User regular
    The simple question is whether they would have been better off spending that 200 million dollars on KoToR 3 plus 3-5 other projects, or making ToR.

    All signs point to their money would have been better spent elsewhere, and thus, it was a bad investment.

    BlendtectyrannusSmrtnikEcho
  • KryhsKryhs Registered User regular
    urahonky wrote: »
    Is it possible that people are just getting tired of the traditional MMO genre? I mean I used to be HUGE into the scene... Almost playing one every month for years since 2003... But last year I just stopped. They all feel identical... And I know people that used to play WoW 80+ hours a week who aren't even interested in the new expansion.

    I hope this bubble bursts and brings about a new type of MMO.

    Me too, for sure. I hope Blizzard's Titan is super innovative and revolutionary. I'd like to see it not even have the typical tank, healer, dps system.

  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Puts his name on his helicoptor.. ..so everyone knows it's his.Registered User regular
    Sheep wrote: »
    Ceno wrote: »
    http://us.blizzard.com/securityupdate

    They got everything folks. Emails, security questions/answers (which you can't change btw), even got to mobile and dial-in authenticators.

    Probably time for a lawsuit.
    They probably jumped onto the "no class action lawsuit" bandwagon ages ago, so have fun in arbitration!

    thanossig_zps4bf2ceeb.jpg
  • RakaiRakai Registered User regular
    Blizzard and innovative are like oil and water at this point. Their last original idea was over 15(?) years ago. Anyways, MMOs are extremely difficult to judge financially from the outside. FFXI sold like shit compared to all other games in the series but was by far the most profitable. The thing with Swtor is that making money isn't the issue when dealing with big publishers. It's if you believe you can make more money than you're currently making, you change things. EA also seems to be always desperate to be the "biggest". They drop a billion buying up social/"casual" game studios so they can say they're the biggest in that area. Doing "okay" in the MMO department isn't going to give them anything to brag about and they constantly are looking for things that let them boast.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Despite The Internet's butthurt, both DA2 and ME3 sold extremely well and Bioware is not going anywhere.

    I'm iffy on DA2. It sold well upon release, but I think I remember it quickly dropping so the overall numbers might have been lower than what was expected after trying to broaden the appeal. EA never really said much so it is hard to tell. They did cancel the expansion pack in order to move to the "next phase," but that is likely to just be due to the game pretty much being dead by that point so they might as well move on to DA3.

    It is also important to remember that Bioware is divided up into a bunch of studios that can be pared down without hurting the profitable Bioware studios. I forget which studios produced what outside of Austin producing TOR and Edmonton producing their more popular shit.

    As of May last year, it sold over 2 million. At the same point, DA1 hadn't sold 4 million, so overall it probably sold less than DA1, but not much.
    Except the vast majority of the sales are within the first month or so. Especially when it doesn't have things like DLC and expansions to boost the long tail. And didn't that same report note how it had less of a tail too?

    camo_sig2.png
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Puts his name on his helicoptor.. ..so everyone knows it's his.Registered User regular
    Define "original idea"

    thanossig_zps4bf2ceeb.jpg
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Say TOR has a functional run of only 4 years. Even if it does merely okay for the next 3 years, it should still turn a profit.

    Not to keep harping on this, but will "merely okay" cover $200 million, plus day to day expenses?

    It's not the fact that it's Bioware, or EA, or anti-MMO sentiment. It's the fact that it's quite possibly the most expensive video game ever made, and hinged on a risky revenue model to boot.

    Zangief wrote:
    My low point came while I was crushing man's skull like sparrow's egg between my thighs. But then I thought to myself, "who else would crush man's skull like sparrow's egg between his thighs?"
    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • RakaiRakai Registered User regular
    Define "original idea"

    Diablo 1.
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Say TOR has a functional run of only 4 years. Even if it does merely okay for the next 3 years, it should still turn a profit.

    Not to keep harping on this, but will "merely okay" cover $200 million, plus day to day expenses?

    It's not the fact that it's Bioware, or EA, or anti-MMO sentiment. It's the fact that it's quite possibly the most expensive video game ever made, and hinged on a risky revenue model to boot.

    Given the number of retail/digital copies they sold at $60+, that $200 million is largely covered. It's keeping up with day to day expenses going forward. I really doubt they're going to spend $40+ million a year on developers even if it was hugely successful which means at some point either people need to be switched to a new project or let go.

    Rakai on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
  • ZephiranZephiran Registered User regular
    See, it goes like this.

    Any publisher that likes to think they're "Big Shit" automatically aspire to be "The Biggest". If they try hard enough, sometimes one of them becomes, or like to call themselves anyway, "The Biggest".

    Then a few years later, new challenges arise and the stuff that got them to "The Biggest" is on the decline. They need New Shit to re-establish their "Bigness". No matter in which fashion their Old Shit declines, all that matters is that their New Shit is Hot Shit and Better Than Your Shit.

    Now, if the New Shit only starts to look like "Okay I Guess Shit", then it's gonna look like they once were "The Biggest", and now they're "Only Doing Okay". People start asking when the inevitable "Barely Doing Okay" is gonna happen, and when would be a good time to get off what is, by all indications, a sinking ship.

    expendable
  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    From where are you guys getting the $200 million figure for making SWTOR?

    steam_sig.png
  • skeldareskeldare Maaaaariooooooooo? Gresham, ORRegistered User regular
    From where are you guys getting the $200 million figure for making SWTOR?

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/01/star-wars-old-republic-cost.html

    Twitter Facebook
    Wii U and 3DS Codes
    idcard.php?type=3&style=1&name=skeldare&name2=1848-1663-9345
  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    urahonky wrote: »
    Is it possible that people are just getting tired of the traditional MMO genre? I mean I used to be HUGE into the scene... Almost playing one every month for years since 2003... But last year I just stopped. They all feel identical... And I know people that used to play WoW 80+ hours a week who aren't even interested in the new expansion.

    I hope this bubble bursts and brings about a new type of MMO.

    That's basically where games like Minecraft and DayZ come in (yeah I know, technically not MMO's etc. etc., but they have enough players where it counts). They're very different experiences from the traditional MMO. On the surface they're both also completely different, but one thing I'd argue that they have in common is this: They're not dependant on game "rules" making the gameplay, they're far more dependant on players and inter-player interactions, who make their own rules and gameplay in the context of the framework that those games provide. They're effectively sandbox settings where the players make their own fun. There's no such thing as "raiding" or similar in any formal sense, unless you want it and organise it yourself. No formalised "factions" who go to formalised "war" with each other for formalised level / loot gains and little else.

    Most other MMO's just concentrate on grinding levels and gear.

    It's alsop why something like EVE Online continues being succesful, even where tonnes of other MMO's fail. It's a smaller following, but it's certainly hardcore and dedicated.

    Put it another way: Settings like EVE, DayZ and even Minecraft make for the most interesting stories, and they're collaborative ones. What's the most interesting stuff you hear from a WoW raid?

    subedii on
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Rakai wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Say TOR has a functional run of only 4 years. Even if it does merely okay for the next 3 years, it should still turn a profit.

    Not to keep harping on this, but will "merely okay" cover $200 million, plus day to day expenses?

    It's not the fact that it's Bioware, or EA, or anti-MMO sentiment. It's the fact that it's quite possibly the most expensive video game ever made, and hinged on a risky revenue model to boot.

    Given the number of retail/digital copies they sold at $60+, that $200 million is largely covered. It's keeping up with day to day expenses going forward. I really doubt they're going to spend $40+ million a year on developers even if it was hugely successful which means at some point either people need to be switched to a new project or let go.

    Well, assuming 2 million copies sold (which may be being generous), that's $120 million. Of course the real take is probably lower than that, what with manufacturing, shipping, and the ginormous advertising campaign. And, of course, the Star Wars license, which isn't cheap.

    Of course, another rule of thumb is the stupid "have to sell 2 million to be profitable" model, which is generally applied to games with budgets of, say, $50 million and up. So, according to my crappy napkin map, there could still be a $150 million gap to be covered.

    Though you bring up an interesting point... if it's not bringing in a ton of money, EA likely won't spend a huge amount keeping up. And EA/Bioware kind of painted themselves into a corner by voice acting the shit out of everything (which, according to the article, is a major part of the cost), meaning content expansions will have to be expensive by definition to make in order to fit in.

    cloudeagle on
    Zangief wrote:
    My low point came while I was crushing man's skull like sparrow's egg between my thighs. But then I thought to myself, "who else would crush man's skull like sparrow's egg between his thighs?"
    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    skeldare wrote: »
    From where are you guys getting the $200 million figure for making SWTOR?

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/01/star-wars-old-republic-cost.html

    Thanks. I remember earlier material saying it was going to be a super-cheap MMO that only cost $1 or $2 mil, not a hundred times that.

    steam_sig.png
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Speaking of MMO doom:
    Funcom has posted an investor update on The Secret World to its official website. The company says its data is "based on current sales, press and gamer feedback, and early indicators of subscription levels following the free 30 days."

    The news isn't particularly good, as Funcom's share price has lost half its value in recent days. The company points to TSW's aggregate review scores as the culprit, which include the metascore at MetaCritic (72 out of 100) together with "other public sources" for tracking performance.

    Funcom's update states that it does not expect to meet either of its financial scenarios for the first 12 months following The Secret World's launch. Scenario one included 490,000 "average subs" while scenario two included 1,050,000 client sales and 280,000 subscriptions.
    In order to increase sales, Funcom is bringing TSW to Steam and "focusing on key areas for improvement of the game and ongoing activities on content updates, sales initiatives and communication."

    Funcom also notes that it has "significantly lower operational cost for TSW than was the case for Age of Conan," and that overall customer satisfaction is high. "A possible scenario going forward is that the game will sell less [...] but with high customer satisfaction, it will generate a more stable subscriber base than Age of Conan. Over time, this will enable Funcom to retain more customers and generate higher revenue," the report says.

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/08/10/funcom-the-secret-world-metascores-to-blame-for-share-price-dro/

    That's a shame; the game looks really interesting.

    Zangief wrote:
    My low point came while I was crushing man's skull like sparrow's egg between my thighs. But then I thought to myself, "who else would crush man's skull like sparrow's egg between his thighs?"
    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    It's not the total best case scenario, but retaining a loyal if not massive fanbase for long periods of time on an MMO with low operational costs isn't exactly a losing business strategy either.

    camo_sig2.png
    icon-18x18_zps3f731cae.png Basilius | Monster Hunter Tri: Red - TBUGW8 | TF2 Backpack | Hero Academy - Laitarne
  • DonnictonDonnicton Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Speaking of MMO doom:
    Funcom has posted an investor update on The Secret World to its official website. The company says its data is "based on current sales, press and gamer feedback, and early indicators of subscription levels following the free 30 days."

    The news isn't particularly good, as Funcom's share price has lost half its value in recent days. The company points to TSW's aggregate review scores as the culprit, which include the metascore at MetaCritic (72 out of 100) together with "other public sources" for tracking performance.

    Funcom's update states that it does not expect to meet either of its financial scenarios for the first 12 months following The Secret World's launch. Scenario one included 490,000 "average subs" while scenario two included 1,050,000 client sales and 280,000 subscriptions.
    In order to increase sales, Funcom is bringing TSW to Steam and "focusing on key areas for improvement of the game and ongoing activities on content updates, sales initiatives and communication."

    Funcom also notes that it has "significantly lower operational cost for TSW than was the case for Age of Conan," and that overall customer satisfaction is high. "A possible scenario going forward is that the game will sell less [...] but with high customer satisfaction, it will generate a more stable subscriber base than Age of Conan. Over time, this will enable Funcom to retain more customers and generate higher revenue," the report says.

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/08/10/funcom-the-secret-world-metascores-to-blame-for-share-price-dro/

    That's a shame; the game looks really interesting.

    I've seen some gameplay, unless they improved it a lot, that game had the stiffest combat animations I've seen since the late nineties.

  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    To defend The Secret World, which I'm playing and really like, it sounds like, from other comments around this board, the "professional" reviewers, from whom metacritic gathers its scores, went into it thinking it's going to be just like WoW, like most other MMOs strive to be, played for a few minutes, then got bored because they didn't get it, and called it a "meh" game. The game is a bit obtuse and hard to get, but they've added things to try to ease that. However, the player reviews are a lot higher, which is inline with the news release (http://www.funcom.com/investors/the_secret_world_update), (http://www.newsweb.no/newsweb/search.do?messageId=310092).
    It's a great game, it just takes a bit to get used to.
    I'm thinking it will be like EVE, where there will be a somewhat small population that always plays it. It isn't as hard or esoteric as EVE to get into, though.

    L Ron Howard on
    steam_sig.png
  • RakaiRakai Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Rakai wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Say TOR has a functional run of only 4 years. Even if it does merely okay for the next 3 years, it should still turn a profit.

    Not to keep harping on this, but will "merely okay" cover $200 million, plus day to day expenses?

    It's not the fact that it's Bioware, or EA, or anti-MMO sentiment. It's the fact that it's quite possibly the most expensive video game ever made, and hinged on a risky revenue model to boot.

    Given the number of retail/digital copies they sold at $60+, that $200 million is largely covered. It's keeping up with day to day expenses going forward. I really doubt they're going to spend $40+ million a year on developers even if it was hugely successful which means at some point either people need to be switched to a new project or let go.

    Well, assuming 2 million copies sold (which may be being generous), that's $120 million. Of course the real take is probably lower than that, what with manufacturing, shipping, and the ginormous advertising campaign. And, of course, the Star Wars license, which isn't cheap.

    Of course, another rule of thumb is the stupid "have to sell 2 million to be profitable" model, which is generally applied to games with budgets of, say, $50 million and up. So, according to my crappy napkin map, there could still be a $150 million gap to be covered.

    Though you bring up an interesting point... if it's not bringing in a ton of money, EA likely won't spend a huge amount keeping up. And EA/Bioware kind of painted themselves into a corner by voice acting the shit out of everything (which, according to the article, is a major part of the cost), meaning content expansions will have to be expensive by definition to make in order to fit in.

    The $200 million quote comes from "analysts" so marketing and everything could be included. It could be less it could be more. We don't know. Odds are it's wildly inaccurate if it's anything like the rest of stuff that comes out of analysts regarding the industry. The only thing we know is that EA believes they can make more money changing things, so they're changing.

    Also, this entire discussion is based off of something that is factually and totally incorrect. The guy hasn't left Bioware.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Rakai wrote: »
    Also, this entire discussion is based off of something that is factually and totally incorrect. The guy hasn't left Bioware.

    Not that I don't believe you, but what's the source on that?

    Zangief wrote:
    My low point came while I was crushing man's skull like sparrow's egg between my thighs. But then I thought to myself, "who else would crush man's skull like sparrow's egg between his thighs?"
    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • korodullinkorodullin What. Registered User regular
    The $200 million quote comes from analysts, but from what I've seen on industry insider blogs (people in the MMO industry talk to each other all the time, especially in Austin), the cost was probably a bit higher.

    And as for TSW, the most damning thing isn't the lackluster-by-Funcom's-investors'-standards subscription numbers, but that people are going to be losing jobs over Metacritic scores. I'm not some torch-bearer for TSW or anything (I have no intention of ever playing it), but many of the TSW reviews were done in beta and not release, where Funcom managed to get out what was the closest to the mythical "miracle patch" that we'll probably ever see, improving the game on pretty much every level.

  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    Yeah, I don't think we've ever gotten a concrete number.

    Just market analysts predicting it cost in the range of $150-200 million. That isn't to say it was super duper expensive or anything, but it's probably not worth taking as gospel either.

    camo_sig2.png
    icon-18x18_zps3f731cae.png Basilius | Monster Hunter Tri: Red - TBUGW8 | TF2 Backpack | Hero Academy - Laitarne
  • RakaiRakai Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Rakai wrote: »
    Also, this entire discussion is based off of something that is factually and totally incorrect. The guy hasn't left Bioware.

    Not that I don't believe you, but what's the source on that?

    gamasutra.com/view/news/175775/
    Recently, Gamasutra caught wind of a notable change at BioWare -- that Greg Zeschuk, co-founder of the prominent Electronic Arts subsidiary, had stepped down from his role as general manager of Star Wars: The Old Republic studio BioWare Austin.

    A quick LinkedIn check showed that he left that position in May this year. And EA made no secret of the change when, in press releases, it referred to Matthew Bromberg as the current general manager at BioWare Austin.

    Now internet rumors are swirling, speculating that Zeschuk has left BioWare completely. That's not the case. Zeschuk confirmed in an email to Gamasutra earlier this month:

    "With regard to BioWare Austin, I handed off the leadership of the studio to Matthew Bromberg quite some time ago (back in May). Ray [Muzyka, BioWare co-founder] and I picked Matthew to take over and he's been doing a great job with the studio.

    "My time in Austin was always planned to have a finite endpoint (my family was still living in Edmonton throughout my time in Austin) and now that I've handed the baton to Matt, I will be able to spend more time on a wider range of BioWare games rather than focusing on just one as I did with SWTOR."

    Basically he never even bothered to move his family since it was always planned as a temp job. Now he's back with Bioware Edmonton as planned.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
This discussion has been closed.