Slashdot Mirror


Turbine Cuts Out Publishers With Funding Boost

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to an official press release announcing MMORPG developer Turbine has secured almost $20 million in venture capital funding to help fund Turbine's first self-published PC MMO project, Dungeons & Dragons Online. A GameSpot story quotes a Turbine spokesman as saying the move presents a "total shift in [our] business model. We're taking out the middle man between us and our fans." The Asheron's Call developers are still "partnered with Atari for retail marketing and distribution" on D&D Online, the company it "secured the D&D MMORPG sublicense" from earlier this year, but describes its intent to "[transition] from a developer into service publisher with its newest franchises." Turbine are also still working on The Lord Of The Rings: Middle-Earth Online in partnership with Vivendi.

32 comments

  1. Good but... by MMaestro · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "total shift in [our] business model. We're taking out the middle man between us and our fans."

    Yeah, but that doesn't mean that the game will still suck.

    Turbine is working on a MMO-LOTR game and now a D&D-MMO game at the same time? Isn't that reaching a little too far?

    1. Re:Good but... by L7_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You underestimate the influence of Ken Karl and the rest of the Microsoft employees that were involved in the publishing of Asheron's Call 1 and 2.

      Ken Karl is known for taking the development updates and content additions in the direction that Microsoft wanted to take. If you look at Asheron's Call 2, you will find that alot (IIRC) of the design choices were not done by Turbine, but rather heavily influenced by Microsoft. Also, when Ken was appointed head of AC1 over at MS, things started to take a different turn in regards to game balance mainly in the realm of awards.

      I haven't played either AC in over a year, so things may have changed a bit, but never, ever bash Turbine in regards to thier ability to put out a quality game product. Instead Bash thier publisher (which in all cases so far has been MS).

    2. Re:Good but... by caffeine_mortis · · Score: 1

      You underestimate the influence of Ken Karl...how Darth Vader-like.

  2. The economy is recovering... by Ieshan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, the economy is recovering, so we ought to see a dramatic rise in pre-bust business models appearing.

    Current:
    Publisher says: We'll publish your game and give you money to produce it if you can demonstrate that it will sell. After we sell it, we'll give you your profits.

    Then:
    People say: Here's 20 million dollars! Go waste it on nerf guns and quake-lan parties. Oh, and if you get around to making a game, maybe spend some on that, too?

  3. Cause cutting out quality control is a good thing? by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lets see, financial stability approaches zero. Quality control approaches zero. Customer support approaches zero. What was the last major PC game project to come out without a publisher? Oh yeah. Steam. Roger that.

  4. Good for Turbine by LordZardoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Game developers are typically at the mercy of their publishers when it comes to taking in money. As an example, its not like DICE is seeing the bulk of the profits generated from Battlefield 1942. EA is gettting the bulk of the profits on it.

    If Turbine can put out a decent MMPORG (which is likely), they will be getting all of the profits generated by the subscribers. And once they pay back the venture capitol, they will quite likely still be pulling in money from the MMPORG, and own the rights to the sequel them selves.

    The only downside to this is if they totally screw this up.

    As a game developer myself, I hope this succeeds for them in a big way. Anything that puts the developers in a stronger position at the expense of the publishers is probably a good thing.

    END COMMUNICATION

    1. Re:Good for Turbine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't pay back a VC. A VC invests in you and then owns part of your company and, accordingly, gets their appropriate share of your profits.

    2. Re:Good for Turbine by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      Isn't it the publisher that usually insists on putting in all that ridiculous copy protection as well? I hope all that gets thrown out the window...

    3. Re:Good for Turbine by whorfin · · Score: 2, Informative

      If Turbine can put out a decent MMPORG (which is likely), they will be getting all of the profits generated by the subscribers. And once they pay back the venture capitol, they will quite likely still be pulling in money from the MMPORG, and own the rights to the sequel them selves.

      Actually, you're describing a loan. Venture Capital buys a stake in a private company, and they intend to get their money back by selling that stake later, likely after the company IPOs. Venture Capital firms typically only give money in exchange for some level of control in the company affairs, as well, so if Turbine fails, the head of the company will likely be gone, with the VCs taking control and installing 'their' management.

      So yes, Turbine may own the rights to the sequels (not in this case, though, their products are licenses, the license owners almost certainly retained the rights), but now the VCs own the rights to the company. And just to make you feel worse, VCs make Lawyers look soft and cuddly.

      --
      Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
  5. Ken Karl kapoot? by Lumpish+Scholar · · Score: 1
    You underestimate the influence of Ken Karl and the rest of the Microsoft employees that were involved in the publishing of Asheron's Call 1 and 2.

    Ken Karl is known for taking the development updates and content additions in the direction that Microsoft wanted to take. If you look at Asheron's Call 2, you will find that a lot (IIRC) of the design choices were not done by Turbine, but rather heavily influenced by Microsoft. Also, when Ken was appointed head of AC1 over at MS, things started to take a different turn in regards to game balance mainly in the realm of awards.

    I presume (from context later in the comment) you're unhappy about Ken Karl's contributions; in which case you should be glad to hear "Ken has decided to pursue other opportunities inside Microsoft and will be leaving the Asheron's Call franchise."
    --
    Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
  6. Re:Cause cutting out quality control is a good thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is was not Turbine that was Valve.

  7. Well by gasaraki · · Score: 1

    I certainly hope Turbine does a better job with their Live team this time, after their last game's abysmal failure in that respect. It doesn't take a genius to know that making every mob in the game 5x harder to encourage "grouping" isn't going to please the populace. Oh well, it was a good game while it lasted. The only satisfying thing is knowing that the players were *right*, despite the constant assertions of the Live team that "this is the only thing we can do to make a lasting and worthwhile game". A few months later, 80% of Asheron's Call 2 server were shut down/merged.

    1. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Asheron's Call 2 just had horrid character development.

      You got skills, but they were largely vanilla. You didn't see a spike in power like you did in the first one, ever. In the end your character used like 3 skills of all of them, it was a pain to boost them all, the crafting system lacked so that while you could theoretically make an all crafting character, you couldn't do anyhting with it in the game and the mining concepts were just ridiculous. It also attempted to be like planetside in the kingdon versus kingdom idea, but couldn't even do that right since there were no set homes for the kingdoms and PvP was degenerate. Oh yeah, it felt like donkey kong too. Despite the fact that the races came from all three continents, the three continents represented 3 levels of gameplay so despite the fact that the lugians (one of the races) came from teh last continent you couldn't see your homeland until you were high enough in level.

      It looked good though. Which will bode well since they have yet to take a tolkein-esque look to their world. I'm curious to see what their LotR world and D&D worlds will look like.

    2. Re:Well by will_die · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem was that AC1 was primarily a Turbine designed game. AC2 was a microsoft and committee designed game.
      I am great hopes that they learned thier lesson and D&D online and Middle earth show it. But then this could just be a dream.

  8. fans by Andy+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful
    A GameSpot story quotes a Turbine spokesman as saying the move presents a "total shift in [our] business model. We're taking out the middle man between us and our fans."
    Yikes, that's quite an ego we're dealing with here!

    I think Mr Turbine Spokesman will find that gamers are generally fans of a *game*, not the developer. Sure there are a few exceptions, Id for example, but it's kinda creepy to hear someone at a development company talking about the company itself having "fans". Surely he means customers? But then maybe that would be a bit too respectful.
    1. Re:fans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as a long time player of Asheron's Call 1, I can say I really am a fan of Turbine

      they have a community oriented live development team, in fact, many of the developers came from the AC fanbase

      AC has a thriving 3rd party development community, and while Turbine/MS doesn't officially support 3rd party apps, they're unoffically very supportive, and more developers have originated from that community

    2. Re:fans by Andy+Smith · · Score: 1

      Weeeell... it's still creepy :-)

      Sorry but I hate it when anyone refers to their admirers as "fans".

      You know when you hear a singer/actor saying "I owe it all to my fans"? I pretty much lose all respect for that person as soon as the word comes out of their mouth. I mean, can you imagine ever reaching a point in your life when you could comfortably describe another person as your "fan"? The implication, in current times, is that the person is somehow inferior.

      Saying "I'm a fan of so-and-so" is fine because it's an expression of admiration and respect. But saying, without any embarsassment and maybe even with some pride, "that person is a fan of me", reveals a grossly inflated self-image.

      All of this in my not-so-humble opinion, of course! :-)

    3. Re:fans by Rhys · · Score: 1

      Turbine... and a comment about fans. They've been doing it for quite a while, I groaned at first but it was actually kinda funny. You know, turbine... fans... turbine... yeah.

      --
      Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
    4. Re:fans by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Saying "I'm a fan of so-and-so" is fine because it's an expression of admiration and respect. But saying, without any embarsassment and maybe even with some pride, "that person is a fan of me", reveals a grossly inflated self-image.

      Except, of course, that they're not saying "you over there are a fan of mine", they're saying "I owe it to those people that call themselves my fans".

      Referring to people as customers is sometimes equally (if not more) offensive simply because it shows a very definite profit motive (which people don't like to admit is the real reason for a move like this). Besides, as far as the Middle Earth and D&D games go, they have no customers, only potential customers and many of those are fans of their previous work.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    5. Re:fans by Kirby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this is a difference between MMORPGs and other kinds of games.

      For most games, you buy it, play it, expect a few patches, and that's the extent of your interaction with the developers for most people.

      For MMORPGs, the relationship is vastly different. There's a continuous active dialogue between the developers and the players. Changes are expected - in the Asheron's Call case, in the form of a monthly patch, some of which have a level of content that would be expected of an expansion pack. (And certainly, the collective patches over a six month time do.) Game balance is changed, often dramatically. This feedback cycle is at the core of the current MMORPG culture, and is a striking difference from classic gamer/developer interaction.

      Just about every MMORPG player I've ever talked to has strong opinions about Turbine, Verant, Funcom, whatever developer company they've played the games from. Usually not very positive opinions, too.

      Even gaming companies that I've strongly enjoyed their products (Blizzard, Black Isle, Interplay, what have you) I have a different kind of relationship with. Sure, I'll pay attention to what they release, and probably am more likely to buy. But I don't know the names of the developers at these companies. I haven't read many chats with them. Yes, there are people who do, but they're the exception, the 1% of the player base. In MMORPGs, that number is closer to 40%, and most of the serious players.

      (Okay, I made up those numbers. But I'm pretty confident that it's small number vs. big number.)

      Mind you, I'm not sure at all that the relationship between MMORPG companies and their fans is a healthy one - in fact, I'm pretty sure it isn't - but it exists and is a different animal than we've seen a lot of before.

      --
      -- Kate
  9. 2 Million Shy by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

    Just a quick nit to pick. The price mentioned in the article was $18 million, which isn't really "almost 20".

    --
    Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  10. Re:Cause cutting out quality control is a good thi by Cosmik · · Score: 1

    In terms of MMORPGs? Probably Anarchy Online. Despite the (un)forgettable launch, Funcom has done well publishing Anarchy Online, as well as its adventure hit (consitently rated one of the best adventure games) The Longest Journey.

  11. Re:Cause cutting out quality control is a good thi by Cosmik · · Score: 1

    Actually, I take that back. FFXI, in terms of MMORPGs and games in general, has sold very well for Square-Enix. They developed and published FFXI.

    I'm sure there are other in-house publishers too, that have done fairly well. But Square-Enix takes the cake, and I look forward to Turbine's effort.

  12. Can't wait for D&D Online by stilleon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can't wait for D&D Online. Long overdue. I love playing computer ROGs based on the d20 system (such as Star Wars:KOTOR and Neverwinter Nights). This should be a good one. One question I have that hasn't been answered: what world is it in. I hope it's Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. If its some generic new world they made up I will be dissapointed.

    1. Re:Can't wait for D&D Online by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      FR is a great world for making computer games in (as has been demonstrated repeatedly by various games, including the old SSI gold box games back in the day). I'm not sure how it'll deal with a MMO audience, though, since it tends to rely a lot on single-player/group mechanics and/or deus ex machina.

    2. Re:Can't wait for D&D Online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's a new world, you should really still give it a shot.

      Despite the "failure" that is AC2, Turbine has done a wonderful job of creating it's own worlds twice. They're beautiful, full of semi-original creatures.

  13. forget about the Realms by Master_Control · · Score: 1

    The game will take place in the newly designed world of Ebberon. Very different from any of the other D&D settings, and not my cup of tea. Give it a google.

  14. Venture capital? by DigitalSpyder · · Score: 1

    VERY few companies ever receive funding to the tune of 18 million. I don't know of NONE that sourced if from venture capitalists either (as opposed to the usual developer-publisher relationship). From what I've read, after the whole dot-com crash post 2000, venture capitalists were VERY reluctant to invest in gaming companies.
    This is EXTREMELY good news for developers in and by itself. ESPECIALLY if Turbine can pull it off, as it will hopefully encourage greater spending and investing in game development.

    Given that history however, I guess there are still enough VCs out there who love D&D and more than willing to sink money into it though :)

    The good news here is that Turbine will probably have greater control over the creative aspects of the game (VCs historically do not get as involved as publishers do). I guess the bad news is that Turbine will probably have greater control over the creative aspects of the game....