The Collapse of 38 Studios

So is the hope here to get enough internet buzz to hopefully sell what they've made so far?

Based on the little they've shown, I wouldn't buy it.

Yeah, an expensive WOW-like MMO in an unfinished state with none of the development team is probably the least appealling thing in the world to publishers right now.

I could see someone being interested in the IP to make a Reckoning 2, but I have a suspicion that Rhode Island politicians, desperate to make money off this thing and clearly being somewhat clueless about games development, will end up demanding too much for it for publishers to bother.

Edwin wrote:

How come no one has asked why he needed 38 studios? Why couldn't he just use one? Seems like a waste of money.

rimshot

The market for those kinds of MMOs is mostly gone by now as well. Reckoning was headed in the right direction. It's a fun action RPG with great combat. The complaints about the content were that there was TOO MUCH of it (wtf?) which also led to some of the content feeling bland, tedious, or rote.

I could see more games like this taking the Diablo III route. Let my friends pop in and out of my Reckoning game so we can putter about the world juggling people between my huge sword and his flurry of arrows. Then release more quests and loot as DLC when we clamor for "end game" content.
If they made a Reckoning II and it was like that I would buy that mess in a heart beat. Too bad they made none of those decisions.

Scratched wrote:

Based on the little they've shown, I wouldn't buy it.

It's not unheard of for companies to buy crap unfinished games and end up selling them. Gearbox bought DNF and it did eventually come to market. EA bought Mythic when that company failed to get WAR to market in time (they got the whole studio with that, though). And, of course, SOE swooped in and grabbed several incomplete/broken games for their glass menagerie of failed MMOs.

I think you could argue that all of those things with the possible exception of DNF were ultimately mistakes, but it's a thing that does happen.

Of course, Copernicus seems to be an unfinished WoW clone in an era where every subscription WoW clone fails to meet expectations, and it seems like it must be a lot harder now to peddle this kind of crap with such a known-to-be-tiny chance of success. I'm sure that if you could get it cheaply enough it would make sense to have a small team from an existing studio finish it, but just how cheap "cheap enough" is would be an interesting question.

Squee9 wrote:

The market for those kinds of MMOs is mostly gone by now as well.

Totally disagree here. What indicators do you have to support that?

gore wrote:

Of course, Copernicus seems to be an unfinished WoW clone in an era where every subscription WoW clone fails to meet expectations, and it seems like it must be a lot harder now to peddle this kind of crap with such a known-to-be-tiny chance of success.

Again if people are looking for some upcoming game to equal or surpass WoWs numbers... it's not going to happen. If by successful you mean make back their money and some sort of profit then there's still games out there that qualify.

ranalin wrote:
gore wrote:

Of course, Copernicus seems to be an unfinished WoW clone in an era where every subscription WoW clone fails to meet expectations, and it seems like it must be a lot harder now to peddle this kind of crap with such a known-to-be-tiny chance of success.

Again if people are looking for some upcoming game to equal or surpass WoWs numbers... it's not going to happen. If by successful you mean make back their money and some sort of profit then there's still games out there that qualify.

Sure, you can find such things if you look hard enough, but there's a huge gulf between where Copernicus is today and where EVE and the other also-ran-but-viable MMOs are. Even that modest degree of success is a lot of work away, and is still a long shot.

The market is filled with the desiccated corpses of countless WoW wannabes, and those odds can't look too so hot for the so not sexy potential reward of "small profit" (especially if you're trying to get there with a game that has already failed to even be built once).

The smart play would probably be to go straight for F2P, but even so you need some kind of hook to get people in, and you need a game that's finished and actually playable - neither of which is something you can say for Copernicus currently.

ranalin wrote:
Squee9 wrote:

The market for those kinds of MMOs is mostly gone by now as well.

Totally disagree here. What indicators do you have to support that?

I wouldn't go so far as to say there's absolutely no market, but I think the boom of players that many count on has passed.

I think MMOs by their very nature is essentially a lock-in, compared to other games they are a very long term proposition, they reward investment of time, money and into social groups, and there's only so many people that you can reasonably ask to move around all the time to the next flavour of the month long term proposition. Even scraping up a tiny percentage of the pool of players available is a big undertaking, as they're already in 'their' game. Growth in the MMO market can't go on perpetually.

ranalin wrote:
Squee9 wrote:

The market for those kinds of MMOs is mostly gone by now as well.

Totally disagree here. What indicators do you have to support that?

If Old Republic can't do it.

Scratched wrote:
ranalin wrote:
Squee9 wrote:

The market for those kinds of MMOs is mostly gone by now as well.

Totally disagree here. What indicators do you have to support that?

I wouldn't go so far as to say there's absolutely no market, but I think the boom of players that many count on has passed.

Clarification: MMOs in general aren't dead, but big budget fantasy subscription based MMOs seem to be. There are a few that are successful today, but if a company is one or two years away from releasing under this model my feeling is that they won't do well.

Elder Scrolls MMO will test this theory.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
ranalin wrote:
Squee9 wrote:

The market for those kinds of MMOs is mostly gone by now as well.

Totally disagree here. What indicators do you have to support that?

If Old Republic can't do it.

this is a false assumption. Having a drop in subs doesnt mean the game isnt successful. they're still around 1mill subs. They already made their money back. From a business standpoint it's a success. Because they're not at WoW numbers people start mumbling fail without thinking about it for a bit.

ranalin wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:
ranalin wrote:
Squee9 wrote:

The market for those kinds of MMOs is mostly gone by now as well.

Totally disagree here. What indicators do you have to support that?

If Old Republic can't do it.

this is a false assumption. Having a drop in subs doesnt mean the game isnt successful. they're still around 1mill subs. They already made their money back. From a business standpoint it's a success. Because they're not at WoW numbers people start mumbling fail without thinking about it for a bit.

Sure, as long as the subs are enough to pay for the development. With $100 Million as the rumoured budget for TOR, I'm doubtful that EA/Bioware will honestly consider it a success.

And the issue is not so much the number, but the precipitous drop in subs. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers now.

*edit*

And while they are very far from being in trouble, I'm sure Actiblizz is watching their WoW numbers with concern.

ranalin wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:
ranalin wrote:
Squee9 wrote:

The market for those kinds of MMOs is mostly gone by now as well.

Totally disagree here. What indicators do you have to support that?

If Old Republic can't do it.

this is a false assumption. Having a drop in subs doesnt mean the game isnt successful. they're still around 1mill subs. They already made their money back. From a business standpoint it's a success. Because they're not at WoW numbers people start mumbling fail without thinking about it for a bit.

Yeah, but isn't that exactly what EA claimed? That the Old Republic failed because it didn't reach WoW numbers upon release? I mean, you're absolutely right-- when you look at it long-term, Old Republic isn't a failure at all, really-- but publishers look at games like that as a bust because they seem to be so focused on the short-term profitability of games lately. If an MMO they pushed doesn't hit Warcraft's numbers in the first week, then the new MMO is a failure and thus pushing a developer trying to step into that light is obviously a bad idea from their business's POV. I think the problem (ie, the apparently slow death of AAA MMORPGs) stems from AAA publishers forcing their "Call of Duty/Halo/Summer Blockbuster Sales" expectations on a market niche that was never designed to buy or sell in that way in the first place. So from my perspective, forcing short term expectations on a developer that's creating a long-term product is what's killing the triple-A MMO market, as forcing those short-term plans forces the devs to skimp and cut corners and simply not create the game they originally intended, which might have actually competed with WoW were it given as much love and attention as WoW was in the first place.

But then, I don't follow the MMO market as closely as others, so my conjecture is probably totally off.

Depending on what systems they had in place, it kinda looks like a sequel to WoW rather than a clone. That is from a purely cosmetic standpoint of course. Like I said, the real determiner will be what Copernicus's gameplay systems were like.

And to add to what WipEout is talking about, I don't understand companies that focus on shilling out sequel after sequel to banner franchises but don't understand the concept of long term support of mmos. Maybe should put it to them in sequelitis terms... Its like they all clamour for steady longterm income but can't handle it if the income isn't constantly spiked.

Every time I hear that there's no place for subscription based MMOs I think of how Final Fantasy XI is now ten years old, still costs the same, and has new content still flowing regularly.

If anything, the lesson of the past 6 years should be that trying to imitate the success of WoW is not a good idea. I'm no designer, but IMO the best thing to do is find out why people quit WoW and develop to those weaknesses.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
ranalin wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:
ranalin wrote:
Squee9 wrote:

The market for those kinds of MMOs is mostly gone by now as well.

Totally disagree here. What indicators do you have to support that?

If Old Republic can't do it.

this is a false assumption. Having a drop in subs doesnt mean the game isnt successful. they're still around 1mill subs. They already made their money back. From a business standpoint it's a success. Because they're not at WoW numbers people start mumbling fail without thinking about it for a bit.

Sure, as long as the subs are enough to pay for the development. With $100 Million as the rumoured budget for TOR, I'm doubtful that EA/Bioware will honestly consider it a success.

And the issue is not so much the number, but the precipitous drop in subs. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers now.

*edit*

And while they are very far from being in trouble, I'm sure Actiblizz is watching their WoW numbers with concern.

they made $250-$300 million just at launch. They made their money back and then some.

The drop in subs is due to a very lean end game and where the statements of 'wow clone' can be made and act as warnings to other companies.

If the claims that Schilling made that this game has something truly different from other mmos especially with their end game then the game will be a special treat. That's something that we'll have to wait and see if this tease has any substance to it.

ranalin wrote:

they made $250-$300 million just at launch. They made their money back and then some.

Keeping an MMO up and running isn't cheap and I'm sure they spent a ridiculous amount on advertising, but you're right, they've likely covered those costs already.

WipEout wrote:
ranalin wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:
ranalin wrote:
Squee9 wrote:

The market for those kinds of MMOs is mostly gone by now as well.

Totally disagree here. What indicators do you have to support that?

If Old Republic can't do it.

this is a false assumption. Having a drop in subs doesnt mean the game isnt successful. they're still around 1mill subs. They already made their money back. From a business standpoint it's a success. Because they're not at WoW numbers people start mumbling fail without thinking about it for a bit.

Yeah, but isn't that exactly what EA claimed? That the Old Republic failed because it didn't reach WoW numbers upon release? I mean, you're absolutely right-- when you look at it long-term, Old Republic isn't a failure at all, really-- but publishers look at games like that as a bust because they seem to be so focused on the short-term profitability of games lately. If an MMO they pushed doesn't hit Warcraft's numbers in the first week, then the new MMO is a failure and thus pushing a developer trying to step into that light is obviously a bad idea from their business's POV. I think the problem (ie, the apparently slow death of AAA MMORPGs) stems from AAA publishers forcing their "Call of Duty/Halo/Summer Blockbuster Sales" expectations on a market niche that was never designed to buy or sell in that way in the first place. So from my perspective, forcing short term expectations on a developer that's creating a long-term product is what's killing the triple-A MMO market, as forcing those short-term plans forces the devs to skimp and cut corners and simply not create the game they originally intended, which might have actually competed with WoW were it given as much love and attention as WoW was in the first place.

But then, I don't follow the MMO market as closely as others, so my conjecture is probably totally off.

No they actually stated that they had to reach x to make a profit and like i just posted they not only made X but passed that amount. They would have like to have grown to WoW numbers but they cant do it by imitating WoW's end game.

SixteenBlue wrote:
ranalin wrote:

they made $250-$300 million just at launch. They made their money back and then some.

Keeping an MMO up and running isn't cheap and I'm sure they spent a ridiculous amount on advertising, but you're right, they've likely covered those costs already.

Just going by the last time i saw their financials. They exceeded expectations with the games launch and i think the last i saw was they needed to keep 500k subs to keep the lights on and they've got that for now. As with anything it's a matter of hwo they manage it if they keep sticking around.

Blind_Evil wrote:

Every time I hear that there's no place for subscription based MMOs I think of how Final Fantasy XI is now ten years old, still costs the same, and has new content still flowing regularly.

If anything, the lesson of the past 6 years should be that trying to imitate the success of WoW is not a good idea. I'm no designer, but IMO the best thing to do is find out why people quit WoW and develop to those weaknesses.

People generally mean new subscription MMOs, so being 10 years old kind of exempts it.

ranalin wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:
ranalin wrote:
Squee9 wrote:

The market for those kinds of MMOs is mostly gone by now as well.

Totally disagree here. What indicators do you have to support that?

If Old Republic can't do it.

this is a false assumption. Having a drop in subs doesnt mean the game isnt successful. they're still around 1mill subs. They already made their money back. From a business standpoint it's a success. Because they're not at WoW numbers people start mumbling fail without thinking about it for a bit.

Regardless of whether SWTOR is "successful" (which I think depends greatly on your definition - it's obvious that it failed to meet expectations, even if it's profitable (which itself is a big assumption)), it would be insane to think that a completed Copernicus could emulate that success.

I mean really, SWTOR had it all: one of the best loved studios in video games, countless millions in EA backing, and the biggest IP in the world (I mean, they're both kind of bad-IP creating villains to me, but George Lucas is kind of in a different class than RA Salvatore in terms of mass market appeal).

What Bioware's WoW clone did is pretty much the best case scenario for what any WoW clone can aspire to in this market, and it seems hard to imagine investors would be lining up to pick over 38Studios' IP for a chance to swing for... a single.

gore wrote:

I mean really, SWTOR had it all: one of the best loved studios in video games, countless millions in EA backing, and the biggest IP in the world (I mean, they're both kind of bad-IP creating villains to me, but George Lucas is kind of in a different class than RA Salvatore in terms of mass market appeal).

What Bioware's WoW clone did is pretty much the best case scenario for what any WoW clone can aspire to in this market, and it seems hard to imagine investors would be lining up to pick over 38Studios' IP for a chance to swing for... a single.

Yeah, and that's kind of the point I was trying to make. And it supports Squee's initial point. The big tentpole, subscription MMO goldrush is over. I'm sure they won't disappear, and most will probably launch and eventually go FTP a la LOTRO. But ain't nothin' going to catch WoW, not even Titan.

Blind_Evil wrote:

Every time I hear that there's no place for subscription based MMOs I think of how Final Fantasy XI is now ten years old, still costs the same, and has new content still flowing regularly.

If anything, the lesson of the past 6 years should be that trying to imitate the success of WoW is not a good idea. I'm no designer, but IMO the best thing to do is find out why people quit WoW and develop to those weaknesses.

Or perhaps they would realize that the market is saturated (even down to the inexplicable niche of "old, bad games" which is filled with the likes of EQ1, UO, FFXI, AO, and DAoC) and do something wholly different.

Keeping the lights "on" and continuing to invest $X millions a year not only to run but continue to invest for quality expansions is a HUGE and WIDE difference in the "Success" of an MMORPG.

TheGameguru wrote:

Keeping the lights "on" and continuing to invest $X millions a year not only to run but continue to invest for quality expansions is a HUGE and WIDE difference in the "Success" of an MMORPG.

Yeah, 500k subscribers to keep the lights on means 1 million is a scary number for them.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
gore wrote:

I mean really, SWTOR had it all: one of the best loved studios in video games, countless millions in EA backing, and the biggest IP in the world (I mean, they're both kind of bad-IP creating villains to me, but George Lucas is kind of in a different class than RA Salvatore in terms of mass market appeal).

What Bioware's WoW clone did is pretty much the best case scenario for what any WoW clone can aspire to in this market, and it seems hard to imagine investors would be lining up to pick over 38Studios' IP for a chance to swing for... a single.

Yeah, and that's kind of the point I was trying to make. And it supports Squee's initial point. The big tentpole, subscription MMO goldrush is over. I'm sure they won't disappear, and most will probably launch and eventually go FTP a la LOTRO. But ain't nothin' going to catch WoW, not even Titan.

Well living up to expectations and being succesful are 2 different indicators in my opinion.

kuddles wrote:

I could see someone being interested in the IP to make a Reckoning 2, but I have a suspicion that Rhode Island politicians, desperate to make money off this thing and clearly being somewhat clueless about games development, will end up demanding too much for it for publishers to bother.

I think they would start out that way, but at some point it's possible (not necessarily likely) that they would flip their perspective and decide that it's better to get something for the IP than nothing. Whether any publishers will still be interested at that hypothetical point in time is another matter.

I am surprised that someone like Nexon, Aeria or Perfect World wouldn't pick it up, convert it to f2p and finish it.

If they don't, I'd wager that is either a good indicator of how far along the development was or how much RI is asking for it or both. I am leaning towards the former as I bet these companies could negotiate the price down to a reasonable amount. It doesn't seem to me that RI is holding all the cards, if any...