Subscribe: Comments on: The more things change…
http://syncaine.com/2012/03/01/the-more-things-change-3/feed/
Preview: Comments on: The more things change…

Comments on: The more things change…



Bringing back the carebear stare...



Last Build Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 02:01:13 +0000

 



By: SynCaine

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:26:21 +0000

You have to look at each game and determine success/failure. Before LotRO was released, the ads stated “join the millions”. LotRO failed by their own expectations, and is a laughable F2P game now (selling UI features, really?). Mythic fully believed WAR was a WoW-killer, or at least a title in its class. Along with that failure, they also all got the boot and the company exists in name only now. Rift cost 60m to create, so that game sitting at 300k is not in the same ballpark as EVE sitting at 400k, is it? If we find out SW:TOR is also sitting at 400k subs next quarter, that’s not going to be ‘good enough’, is it? The metric is different depending on the size of the original investment, and its expectations. No one expected DF to hit 500k or 1m subs. Most thought it would crash and burn like SB or other indy titles. 3 years later it’s still going, and is set for a major revamp/relaunch/whatever 2.0 ends up being. Or to put it another way, seven years ago, would you have rather invested in WAR, or DF? And today, which investment looks better?



By: Azuriel

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 04:01:32 +0000

Wait WAR2.0 is coming out? Sweet. Yeah, they're calling it Warhammer Online: Wrath of Heroes. Kidding aside, it's amusing how you're using the idea of a Darkfall sequel as some kind of positive. Shouldn't MMOs have expansions instead of reboots? Especially ones as "successful" as Darkfall? But enough deflection: are you going to answer the original question, or not? I'd settle for a "non-WoW themeparks that don’t kill WoW are automatically failures, whereas any sandbox that breaks even is a success."



By: SynCaine

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:24:15 +0000

Wait WAR2.0 is coming out? Sweet. And yea, that article is about as much 'proof' as me telling you WAR failed. Dig up an earning report showing WAR earning more profit than its total dev cost (not going to happen), and we can call it 'widely reported'. That link is a fluff piece hyping the endless trial, and those 'thousands' joining have not paid a cent. Remember the statements made about TR the day before it closed?



By: Azuriel

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 06:15:09 +0000

Because it was widely reported. I put "know" in quotes though, because I understand how often you believe PR tell direct lies to journalists. I expect spin from PR, but not something that could be later verified as patently false. As for the game's future, I imagine WAR's fans have just as much to look forward to as Darkfall's. Which was my point about calling one a success, and the other a failure.



By: SynCaine

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 18:25:38 +0000

Wait, we know WAR was profitable in August 2010 why? And we know they made back all the dev costs how? What I'm 100% sure of is Mythic was gutted by EA thanks to how WAR performed. Also for the few WAR fans left, how is that games future looking (or how have the past 2 years been?)



By: Azuriel

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 01:04:27 +0000

So, again, what kind of curve are you grading on? Is the it the health of a game's community, the health of its studio, or what? We "know" that WAR was profitable as of August 2010, two years after its release. They are merging down to 1 NA server and 1 EU server as of last December. That's not a good sign, obviously, but there really isn't an indication WAR is/was not profitable overall. If they made back all the development costs, would not still not be enough for you? What are your metrics for success here? Or are non-WoW themeparks that don't kill WoW automatically failures, whereas any sandbox that breaks even is a success?



By: SynCaine

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 18:26:45 +0000

Ah tower coverage is a different topic. Those don't stop PvP, they just make it harder (sorta like Concord in EVE). I think AV wants to extend that a bit, but nothing really clear was ever said. They also mentioned redoing the starter towns, so those areas are more 'clear'. Hard to tell what the result of that will be until beta.



By: Coeur-de-fer

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 18:05:20 +0000

Ah, I see. I remember the update (and predictable howls of indignation) from this past fall that mentioned the increased tower coverage in the areas immediately surrounding the lawful NPC cities. A brief tutorial would be a positive addition, as I spent most of my 1-hour "newbie shield" figuring out the UI (the 24 hour shield had gone the way of the dodo by the time I picked the game up).



By: SynCaine

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:15:30 +0000

When you first start a character you will be in a solo starting area for a short time, to learn the basics of the game before going into the 'real world'. I'd expect this to be 30min or so. I do love how people take such info and absolutely run with it though, always funny (not you personally Coeur).



By: Coeur-de-fer

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:07:56 +0000

I think it's supposed to more akin to Eve's empire space (higher security, less lucrative resources, no player sovereignty, etc). Granted, I may have missed the paradigm shift, having not kept up with their DF2 updates for a couple months; given the glacial rate of AV's blog updates - nevermind content patching - it's one of those things one can read up on once or twice a year, and not miss much (if anything).