Warhammer Online PC MMO Cancelled

E3 report. by will_die · 2004-06-21 18:28 · Score: 4, Informative

One of the E3 reports on WO reported that the devs said they had over 1 1/2 years left on development and that thier were a big disagreement on various design point.

Re:E3 report. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-21 18:42 · Score: 0

ARGHH! This might have actually been GOOD!!!

And Ray Bradbury is a jerk who, if you check his books, has ripped off titles himself over the years, so he's a fucking hypocrite. (Off topic I know, but lending any weight to the tossers comments is misguided.)

Market Saturation by Datasage · 2004-06-21 18:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

MMO's have a disadvantage, they require a subscribtion. Thus limiting the potential audience of that type of game. MMO's are also the most expensive type of game to develop.

Where getting to a point, where we have many mmo games about to be released. These types of games need a certain amount of people subscribing to stay profitable. They are all try to grab at the same small audience. There are going to be alot more that will get canceled or not last long after release.

--
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.

Re:Market Saturation by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-21 21:52 · Score: 0

It looks like the only MMORPG innovation around is going to be in the few remaining games on the market. That being Everquest 2 and THe Sims Online 2... *sigh*... Innovation indeed... fucking shit.
Re:Market Saturation by *weasel · 2004-06-22 00:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

MMO's have a disadvantage, they require a subscribtion.

Monthly fees are not a requirement.

Publishers need to add the option of hourly pricing; with daily, weekly and monthly caps. Structure it so the hardcore users fees cap at the going rate (~$15/mo), but make it possible for people to casually play a few hours a week at a buck an hour or so.

Give people the option of 'precharging' a sort of game-/publisher-specific debit card. Deduct costs from that as they play (instead of trying to charge them after the fact). When the debit card runs dry: they can recharge if they like. Have an option for a regular monthly recharge, but don't require it.

MMO's are also the most expensive type of game to develop

Perhaps true in certain instances, but pretty far from necessary. I'm certain that City of Heroes cost NCSoft less money to develop and launch than Valve has spent on Half-life2, for example.

These games can be made with titanic budgets, but by no means must they.

They are all try to grab at the same small audience.

When UO released, it didn't take any significant chunk of customers from M59. EQ didn't take any significant chunk of customers from UO. AC, AO, DAoC, et al -- they didn't steal customers from anyone else.

There is no reason to assume these games are fighting over the same customers. That sort of situation has not been born out by the data. These games attract their own audiences -- mostly made up of people who just weren't happy with any of the other offerings.

While the genre may run into a barrier at some point (particularly if they continue to insist on monthly fees), it isn't there yet.

There are going to be alot more that will get canceled or not last long after release.

Most games never make it. In the persistent world gaming niche, hyping games still well in development is even more egregiously done than anywhere else in gaming. Seeing more and more cancellations is inevitable. The cancelling of UO2, Hero's Journey, and MEO (the first time), was not indicative of any sort of audience cap or uncertainty in the genre. It was just a couple hyped worlds that got canned for various reasons. It was only indicative of game development being a long and difficult process that not many projects survive through.

Look at the games we're talking about here: Warhammer Online, and TFLO -- both projected to be somewhere around 18 months late if financed through completion. Cancelling a project that's a year and a half behind doesn't sound to me like the market dried up. It sounds to me like the momentum fell apart months ago, and they're cutting their losses.

Mythica might well have been on-time, but MS doesn't invest like NCSoft does. It spends big on everything, and it only needed one monolithic persistent world game -- and McQuaid and co draw more press, more fan-base, and more investor confidence.

--
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Re:Market Saturation by Zhirem · 2004-06-22 02:26 · Score: 1

I respectfully disagree about the culling of users from one MMORPG to another. You make the argument in your post that UO did not take from M59. That might be true. But...

It has been my experience that some MMORPG players actively play more than one game. I believe that most however, only devote time to one game at a time. For many it is not the multiple monthly fees that they have going, rather the limited time that they have to devote to more than one character with more than one game.

I played Anarchy Online (AO) at the onset. It was the single largest debacle I had ever seen for a launch at that point. In fact, it was SO bad, that many people demanded refunds and some folks banded together for a class-action suit (though I am not certain what happened to that). I suffered through roughly a year of that game. Funcom offered not only the buggiest game on the market for that niche, but additionally had levels of customer service that set records for how NOT to treat your clients. It was as though they would calculate the most-public-relations-damaging options and green-light them. Truly amazing.

To this day, I will not allow a single copper penny from me to pass to them in any way shape or form. It does not matter how improved AO is today vs. at launch. It does not matter if Funcom releases the next generation, blow-your-mind, absolutely HAVE to play MMORPG. They will NEVER see another dime from me. The WHOLE company for ANY of their products.

The reason I mention AO, is that it offers an example of how NOT to do things. Sometimes I think that cannibalizing users from one game to another takes into account out-of-game or meta-game influences on the audiences. In this instance, DAOC got my money next.

Played DAOC for a while, but did not seem to enthralled by it. Was a good solid game, but just was not holding my attention.

Next was EoB. What a flop! Neat concept for a game, but in the end, about as exciting as watching paint dry. It has been cancelled and with good reason. It sucked and was no fun to play.

I would argue that some EoB players have migrated to EVE. Those that wanted to stay in the space game niche anyway.

But, I went to ShadowBane. Nifty concept, far more PvP oriented, but quite chaotic. In the space of a few months, the server that I played on had a single guild monopolize most of the geography, and bands of lesser guilds could not unseat them. Left that game because of the lack of forethought and planning from their devs. PvP is great, but if you have a guild that attacks a castle of the enemy at 4AM EST on a Tuesday morning, it is unlikely you will be able to summon much help to save it...

So, about this time SWG came out. Launch was initially a train wreck. Ghosts of AO crept in. Things cleared up and got better, but many many problems existed with such a significant MMORPG effort. Content was significantly lacking. Bugs were rife and flourishing. Many features promised for release were not in game. It would be months before the features would be added. The bugs (some dead, some flourishing) are still there. I played the game for nearly a year. It got better, but did not get fun. One day, I realized that 'Hey, this really isn't fun, and in fact, it is a whole lot like work.'

So then, CoH came out. I started to have fun again. Imagine that. Here is a game whose simplicity is as stark a contrast to SWG's complexity as you could get, yet in CoH I have many, many friends and acquaintences that are refugees from SWG and are having a good time and not looking back.

The whole point of this recounting is to say, again IMHO, that in fact, many players only play one of these games at a time. The connection to a character is strong, but not strong enough to prevent a player from trying a new game, especially if it addresses one or more concerns that a player has with their current game (i.e. SWG is not fun, and CoH is).

I believe that not many people play more than one of these games at a tim
Re:Market Saturation by Zonk · 2004-06-22 03:01 · Score: 1

> Monthly fees are not a requirement.

Agreed. The first game that allows a pay-by-the hour plan, or a pre-paid hours card that allows you to roll over your time from month to month is going to be very well recieved.

> I'm certain that City of Heroes cost NCSoft less money to develop and launch than Valve has spent on Half-life2, for example.

Absolutley true. CoH is rumoured to have been a very quick, efficient and cheap development cycle. The reason for this, of course, is because NCSoft hooked up with Cryptic to do it. Cryptic's relative anonymity actually helped it (I think), because they didn't have egos running the development and production side of things. Hook that into the NCSoft Money and Marketing Machine, and voila! Really Really Good Game.

> While the genre may run into a barrier at some point (particularly if they continue to insist on monthly fees), it isn't there yet.

Have to differ with you there. If you look at Sir Bruce's charts, it's fairly obvious where some of those 500,000 FFXI players came from: Straight out of EQ's pockets. I agree that I don't think we have hit a wall, but MMO Gamers are fickle and flighty beasts. They'll jump ship at the first new-and-shiny for greener pastures, unless you have them so engaged and interested they never want to leave. How many EQ players are still at that stage? I love EQ, and I hope it survives to hit it's 10th anniversary, but I think it's going to lose quite a few more players in the coming years.

I would like to add that I think it's simply shameful that Mythica, TFLO, and WHO died the way they did. Developing MMOGs is not rocket science, and their are plenty of people in the industry who have begun to really get the feel for the process. A year and a half behind after two and three years of development is just ridiculous. At the same time, developming a MMOG should take a long time. If MS and Games Workshop wasn't ready for the long haul, they should have looked at the process before they invested a penny.

Personally, I'm just very frustrated by all the talent, hard work, and ingenuity that gets flushed when a MMOG dies before it goes live. All those developers could have been working on something else, something that will see the light of day. Horizons may be heading for the toilet in the next few months, but at least the developers ideas got out into the open.
Re:Market Saturation by *weasel · 2004-06-22 03:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

The whole point of this recounting is to say, again IMHO, that in fact, many players only play one of these games at a time.

I absolutely agree with that statement. Particularly since publishers clinging to the monthly subscription fees means most people simply can't justify the time nor monetary expense of more than one of these games.

However, my point is simply that statistically insignificant numbers of active subscriptions of existing games are cancelled and moved to A New Game. While anecdotal evidence is sure to exist, it is the rare exception, not the rule.

If there really is a total cap on the audience size, and there may well be, it simply hasn't been met.

No game yet has survived or failed based on its (in)ability to take even disgruntled active accounts from other games. They've succeeded or failed based on the merits of their CS, their launch, and a design that finds a new crowd.

There's no reason to think that anything short of a clone of an existing game would need to actually take subscribers to succeed.

--
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Re:Market Saturation by Zhirem · 2004-06-22 03:30 · Score: 1

I don't think that the numbers are statistically insignificant. And I do not think that it is the rare exception you consider it to be.

Here is the link to Sir Bruce's latest chart that I could find:

As you can see, there are some interesting details when one starts to look at the peaks and turning points and the coincidental timing/launch of new games/expansions.

The problem here is that the numbers are guesswork and the level of detail is confounding. The method of comparison is also not incredibly standardized. (i.e. global market vs. North American market, etc.).

What we really need is an in depth analysis on a monthly basis of the subscription levels. Or even better, how popuated various game worlds are by real players. Only the business element cares about subscriptions. (SWG seems to have north of 250k subscriptions. But they have recently gone to a 14-day free trial. Usually a sign of needing an infusion of new revenue in the way of short-term subscriptions...)

Of course we could not rely upon companies giving us real legitimate numbers. I would not believe any statistic provided by Funcom, nor many of the other game companies.

As far as audience cap. I think that that will be a soft number until the basis for analysis is agreed upon. What about console accounts? (FFXI for PS2, etc.). What about the silly subscription levels in South Korea for that one game that boasts the largest audience online for ANY game. Largely because of funky math having to do with multiple accounts based at an internet cafe or something like that... What about the kids growing older and wanting to get into a new game type. Or those in rural areas getting access to broadband connectivity...

There is money to be made, and there are games to be played. Everyone is waiting for the next big thing. I agree that a game cannot have a financial model based upon taking accounts from other games. But I would argue that a significant amount of this type of activity does in fact go on, and absolutely impacts the bottom line of a game.

- Zhirem
Re:Market Saturation by *weasel · 2004-06-22 03:47 · Score: 1

If you look at Sir Bruce's charts...

Here, I beg to differ with you. Sir Bruce's numbers are interesting, but I think your deduction from those numbers is distinct from 'obvious'.

Although I highly doubt the accuracy of Sir Bruce's numbers (through no fault of his own), for arguments sake I will consider his numbers true. Firstly: Correlation does not equal Causation. EQ's subscriptions dropped at most by 40,000. There's no evidence to suggest those 40k went straight from EQ to FFXI. Further, where did FFXI's other 460000 subscriptions come from? It seems this game was going to be a phenomenal success without touch 90% of EQs user base. Even adding up all the other subscription drops for all other games over the same period of time, we come nowhere close to FFXI's increase.

Dropping the numbers and going back to my point: would FFXI have failed if it couldn't have pulled over even part of the EQ crowd? Or is it just a better game (in the opinions of its target audience) that would have been successful even if a divine plague purged the world of EQ players?

Isn't the total number of subscriptions higher today, higher with every major release, than it ever was before? Look at Bruce's numbers. FFXI seems to have created 300k+ persistent world players from thin air. We are nowhere near a possible upper limit on the market.

I would like to add that I think it's simply shameful that Mythica, TFLO, and WHO died the way they did.

When any project is late -- a business decision must be made whether it truly is a project they should continue to support. It is certainly unfortunate that so many talented and creative people pump so much time and energy into something they believe in, only to see it wasted.

However, this is not necessarily a bad mark on anyone involved. This is business, and in business even the best ideas and the noblest of intentions may turn into a money pit. Worse still, it isn't necessarily survivability that matters, it's profitabiliyt. Adding 50% to the dev budget may have well put them in a position where they'd have such a huge debt against their original estimated income, juxtaposed with further risk, the suits feel their money would be better spent elsewhere.

When you're looking at a 36 month project that'll be 18 months overdue... how do you know those 18 months will actually be enough? MS extended the timetable for TFLO several times. If they weren't seeing enough progress to keep them assured that there's an end in sight -- we have to expect them to cut their losses.

--
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Re:Market Saturation by Zhirem · 2004-06-22 03:59 · Score: 1

I too find the accuracy of the chart to be suspect, but it is better data than I can find elsewhere.

As far as the 300k+ persistent world players from thin air for FFXI. Combination of two things: Japanese market and clients on both PC and console.

FFXI was released early in Japan ahead of North America's release I believe. (i could be wrong). But this is where some of the newer player numbers came from. I am not attributing all of them to it, but I am attributing many. The game is a huge success in Japan.

The SE Korean game Phantasy Star Online boasts somthing like 12 million subscribers or somesuch. But their metric for measuring their playerbase is skewed in comparison to the other MMORPG's mentioned in Bruce's chart. I think he has something in his notes about that.

- Zhirem
Re:Market Saturation by slashrogue · 2004-06-22 09:40 · Score: 1

The cancelling of UO2, Hero's Journey, and MEO

www.play.net/hj -- I'm just sayin'.

Solutions by Dizzle · 2004-06-21 19:07 · Score: 0, Offtopic

When are we going to get some sort of distributed network for MMO? It seems logical at some level to have nodes or whatever that spread the load. This also helps data redundancy by not allowing DDOS attacks on servers.

Or maybe I'm just a total maroon and have no clue what I'm talking about.

--
-Dizzle
"I most likely AM so interested in myself."

Re:Solutions by KDR_11k · 2004-06-21 22:00 · Score: 1

Makes cheating too easy.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.

I'm a Warhammer fan... by jwdb · 2004-06-21 20:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

... and I couldn't care less! Half the fun in WH is collecting the pieces and making the terrain, and it's a good way to waste some time in RL with friends.
There is nothing special about the game mechanics of WH. It has a cool story and some interesting units, but I think that the real appeal is that it's something physical instead of digital.

Jw

Re:I'm a Warhammer fan... by jschmidt · 2004-06-22 01:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

I disagree. I love the world of Warhammer (fantasy and 40k) for the rich possibilities for stories within them. I've played various WH tabletop games (Rogue Trader, 40k, Epic, Space Hulk, Tyrannid Attack) but the most fun I've ever had with the WH worlds is with roleplaying, in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and homebrew WH40k RPG settings.

The fantasy MMORPG market is poorer for this loss.
Re:I'm a Warhammer fan... by Maserati · 2004-06-22 16:50 · Score: 1

I agree. WHFRP was a lot of fun. They put out some outstanding adventures for it. And somehow, GW managed to make an intrinsically fun game. The career system was fun even though intrinsically limited. It did make for interesting characters. Anyone ever play a ratcatcher in ANY other game ? A college buddy played a wanna-be trollslayer based on two classic comedy bits. First was the name, from Carlin's "Phucke, Phucke of the Mountain !" and then the personality was 100% USDA Grade A Yosemite Sam. "I'm the rootin'est tootin'est axe-swingingest ork -slayingest dwarf west of the Misty Mountains."

Good times. Sean, Pat - get in touch !

--
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951

Chickening out of the MMORPG market by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-21 22:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

A lot of developers are losing their nerve where the MMORPG market is concerned at the moment. Can't say I blame them.

The potential benefits and risks of developing a MMORPG are higher than for any other type of game. Development costs are huge, a buggy release can ruin your reputation and once you've released, you need to continue paying for further development of the game. The flip side is that if it works, not only do you get decent sales (the MMORPG market is pretty big, compared to... say... the market for FPSes or RTSes), but you get a steady stream of cash from subscriptions, which cover your ongoing costs and provide an extra profit.

However, getting a MMORPG to work is incredibly difficult. Gamers who tend to play more of another genre will generally play quite a large number of games from that genre. Aside from the obsessive hardcore (who are never worth marketing to in non-MMO genres), you can generally rely on gamers in a particular genre to pick up a new title in that genre if it gets good critical and word-of-mouth publicity. This doesn't happen with MMORPGs. Players invest a lot of time and effort into MMORPG characters; starting out afresh every few months in a new game doesn't hold much appeal.

As such, the existing MMORPG market is always going to be extremely hard to prey upon. You'll get a few defections from the older games, as their technological obsolescence becomes even more strikingly obvious, but if you want to be a success, you need to bring a fresh influx of players to the genre. At the moment, this only seems possible through having a drastically different take on the genre (City of Heroes) or, more normally, through having a powerful license. Star Wars Galaxies has done fairly well, due to the Star Wars name, which has drawn in people who wouldn't normally have touched a MMORPG. Final Fantasy XI has done even better, as it managed to marry a very strong license to a game which wasn't horribly bugged and/or content deprived at the time of its US release. If Blizzard play their cards right, World of Warcraft should also be a success on this basis.

However, the result of this is that MMORPG development is currently looking like a really bad prospect for developers who don't have a big license or radical gameplay twist.

Re:Chickening out of the MMORPG market by david_prophet · 2004-06-22 03:09 · Score: 1

the MMORPG market is pretty big, compared to... say... the market for FPSes or RTSes

That is just not true at all. MMORPG games have a loyal following, but I'd still qualify them as a niche market. The most popular PC games on the market right now are the action titles. Things like Unreal Tournament 2004, Thief 3, and the ever-present 'war sims'.

I'm not at all upset to see another MMORPG go down before it sees the light of day. "Pay for play" games should be extinct. Long live free online content!

Re:Fist Sport! by Zhirem · 2004-06-22 01:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

Not certain what you are speaking about here. How can a game that has not been released and still has months of development left have any market share? Doesn't it have to be a product first? Or are you talking about 'buzz rating' or 'mind space'?

And what 'recent article' put EQ's marketshare at 80% of the MMORPG market?! I find that claim dubious.

Am I missing something here, or are you posting from the future?

- Zhirem

It's got potential by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2004-06-22 02:29 · Score: 1

Could it work? Most warhammerers arn't very social beings to begin with! Dispite the fact that most warhammerers are loaded, they usually don't do credit cards, preferring to use the chopped up plastic as a customisation on models! :E

I'm wrong of course. Warhammerers have proven that they take an interest in the net. Check this out.
Though the number of warhammer video games that have made it big, or anywhere for that matter, are slim.

--
May the Maths Be with you!

Re:It's got potential by The12thRonin · 2004-06-22 08:26 · Score: 1

Warhammer players are far from anti-social. You at least have to be at the same table as another player.

GW games as a whole have flopped because with the exception of Final Liberation all of the Warhammer Fantasy and 40k titles have in a word, sucked.

Shadow of the Horned Rat and Dark Omens were both wretched fantasy take offs. You had a cumbersome interface to control the formations and trigger when a unit charged and had no control over the unit after combat was joined.

Chaos Gate was overly repetative with the same missions over and over and over again with just different tiles. You're still fighting the same enemies the same way.

Fire Warrior was all but unplayable. Good art but atrocious gameplay.

Then you have the Eldar vs. Chaos game that was based on Steel Panzers that was so craptacular that it's faded into the haze of history.

I hold out hope that Dawn of War will be halfway decent however.

trying that link again... by Zhirem · 2004-06-22 03:32 · Score: 1

MMOG Analysis

800lb. gorilla by liminality · 2004-06-22 04:48 · Score: 1

maybe the developers, liscencers and money people all got into the World of Warcraft beta and discovered that their product sucked in comparison. why else would you drop a three year investment without even trying to see if it would achieve a modicum of success?

Re:Fist Sport! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-22 05:07 · Score: 0

You must be new here. Well, new enough to not get the reference to the old "BSD is dying!" trolls. Occasionally someone thinks it will be funny to take a copy of one of those old troll posts and reword it to refer to the current topic, but it doesn't often work. The key to recognizing this sort of joke (or the actual troll) is the phrase "Netcraft confirms." If you see that, you pretty much don't have to read the rest of the text at all. In fact, most attempts at this joke don't bother to include anything past the first line for that reason.

For future reference, there's an article on Wikipedia that explains this and other common slashdot trolls so that you can more easily recognize this sort of thing in the future. If you're going to read at 0, you need to know this stuff. ;)

MMORPG's don't require a monthly fee by kc78 · 2004-06-22 05:30 · Score: 1

Check out Guild Wars for example. I played the alpha release during their E3 for Everyone event. They opened up their alpha version of game to everyone for about a week and it was amazing even at that early build. Their game will require no monthly fees. It's ex blizzard people and they've developed a new network design that will save tons so they will just release an expansion every 6 months or so to help cover the costs of this game. I for one am extremely hyped about this game and anyone who's into the MMORPG market should check it out. It's quite revolutionary in a few ways and if previous games by these designers are any clue, it will be amazing. Arena.net is proving to be just as good as they were when they were with Blizzard.

Re:Fist Sport! by Zhirem · 2004-06-22 09:11 · Score: 1

Thanks for the tip. Do not follow the BSD or even OS stuff that much, so was completely in the dark.

- Zhirem

Er, not quite what it seems... by Psychochild · 2004-06-22 12:27 · Score: 1

I'll admit my biases up front: I own and operate the online game Meridian 59 which requires a monthly subscription fee.

If you really think about it, the subscription for an online game really isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Of course, there's the usual comparison between movies and online RPGs (2-3 hours of entertainment vs. 1 month of entertainment), but even if you compare it to standalone games it's a good bargain. Even if you only buy one new release game every 4 months (3 times per year), you'll still spend more per month than a typical online RPG ($50/4 = $12.50 per month compared to $10.95/month for a game like Meridian 59). Even compared to ISP charges we're talking about chump change here; I have paid much more $10-15/month for internet connectivity for many years now.

And, what do you get for that fee? You get a game with a developer that has a vested interest in fixing problems ASAP. You have stable servers with as much uptime as humanly possible on a connection that most home users can't afford. You have in-game assistance for your problems.

In addition, the online games market is growing, not becoming saturated. It might be easy to forget that the U.S. isn't the only market for these games. The biggest game, Mu Online, claimed to have 5 million people playing their game during peak times at E3. You probably haven't heard about the game much unless you're in Asia or attend E3. Anecdotally, most developers don't see a change in subscriptions when other games launch; online populations might dip, but the number of subscriptions generally remains constant. Some games even see a growth in overall subscription figures as new players are introduced to online games.

But, to bring this post back on-topic: making and operating an online RPG is a huge task. They are generally expensive and difficult to make, and just when you think the work is done (shipping the game, but traditional game development standards), you find out that the real work is only beginning. Most game companies now realize that online games are a service, not just a product, but this has taken a long time for many companies to understand. You have to continue to support the game after launch, and a bad decision can leave a large legacy of problems.

As for Warhammer Online, this official post shows that they learned a lot about the online game space and essentially didn't like the risks. I disagree with their assessment as an indie online RPG developer, but it's a reasonable reaction.

Have fun,

--
Brian "Psychochild" Green
MMO developer's blog

Slashdot Mirror

Warhammer Online PC MMO Cancelled

29 comments