I hope they will manage it well and focus more on MMOs.
I also hope they will redo Anarchy Online (their best MMO in my opinion), with less instances and more of an open world, with characters I can enjoy which doesn't look so ugly as they did in AO. The game felt really fresh until you discovered that you felt all the time alone because of all instances.
TSW was their worst MMO. It felt like a nishe game. To dark for my taste.
Yes, it's worth the purchase. The subscription gives me monthly bonus items, game-store cash to buy the expansions and a discount on any purchases, and an XP booster item.
That was sarcasm. It's not. If you like the game that much, you would go lifetime, which gives you pretty much the same for a lot less money. Funcom is aware the game isn't good enough to up that price for lifetime either, please don't picture an image where Funcom is doing great and everyone is subbing. They just aren't and turnover is terribad (see link in first post).
Originally posted by Elmberry
I hope they will manage it well and focus more on MMOs.
Sorry, they had THREE chances, AO, AoC and TSW. While AO was a mild success, the latter 2 failed. Funcom should stay away from the MMO market because they dont have what it takes to make a succesful fun game. They can't afford it anyway.
New scifi MMOs will have to compete against the topdogs which have a production value Funcom could only dream to reach (Star Citizen is a good example). They should focus on smaller games, cheaper, yet possible to yield a higher margin.
Originally posted by Elmberry
TSW was their worst MMO. It felt like a nishe game. To dark for my taste.
I'd like to disagree. To some degree the horror aspect in a daily setting was a good idea with some fresh idea on quests. However, gameplay and the dialog scripting on the storytelling was horrendous, even though lore was good.
What if instead of AoC and TSW they had put their resources into a new Anarchy Online?
I think AoC and TSW were the last games Funcom will produce. They had some great ideas and they did try to innovate in many ways. For that alone, I want to see them succeed. I've had my issues with them, but not with to the extent that I would want to see them fail.
I would love a remake of AO but I doubt that it will happen. Do you know that FC still charge a sub for the original AO and that it's more expensive than just about any other MMO out there, 17 Euros a month. The newbie zone still has players running around in it and monthly patches still happen. The game is looked after better better than some new titles.
I think that FC at the moment are a prime target for a full takeover so maybe any new management will be as nostalgic for the old girl as we are
Well i think AOC was an initial surprise,i cannot believe they figured it would do that well.So on a whole,i never really considered Funcom a big player,until that game.As to numbers,they are always skewed by new game releases,they ALWAYS go up during new releases then drop of bit by bit.
Lego,this sort of reminds me of EA/Bioware rehashing the Star Wars universe IP,sounds like easy money without having to put much effort into your game.
problem is that Funcom is not a giant in marketing and notoriety like Blizzard or EA,so they would have to make an amazing game and put out steady marketing to strike it rich.
I am not sure of Funcom's future,but just think,how did they manage before AOC?So i am sure they might have to re-size and downgrade to a noob developer again,but i think they might rebound.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The report you linked says that their current MMOs had higher than expected revenue and that all 3 games will continue to be supported while they are making money. So in the short term I doubt we have too much to worry about for TSW.
I think that FC at the moment are a prime target for a full takeover so maybe any new management will be as nostalgic for the old girl as we are
I agree with you Funcom is ripe for a full takeover. Nostalgic management should be fired on the spot. Update, innovate, adapt or die. It's clear to see what they tried to do with games like AoC and TSW, but while the ideas were solid, the way it was worked out was not. Their games breathe atmosphere, but AoC and TSW didnt grow on both gameplay and dialog scriptwriting.
Originally posted by Wizardry
problem is that Funcom is not a giant in marketing and notoriety like Blizzard or EA,so they would have to make an amazing game and put out steady marketing to strike it rich.
I am not sure of Funcom's future,but just think,how did they manage before AOC?So i am sure they might have to re-size and downgrade to a noob developer again,but i think they might rebound.
Marketing is often used in defense, but gamers can decide perfectly well if a game is good or not. And when it's not out, reputation matters. Telltale Games and Cloud Imperium come to mind. TG has dialog that matters and isn't a hollow platform to carry lore. CI makes games that work in pre-alpha on a level Funcom could only dream of. Marketing did not save Destiny. It's a bad game and players know it. It's kindof similar with Funcom. You can only fail so much.
After 2008 it just went downhill for Funcom, the release of AoC and TSW didn't change that. They kept cutting where we now are in a situation where Funcom is making less profit every year and now operating costs exceed revenues for 2014. I don't understand why so many focus on image building. Imho that is not the issue here.
Originally posted by DanitaKusor
The report you linked says that their current MMOs had higher than expected revenue and that all 3 games will continue to be supported while they are making money. So in the short term I doubt we have too much to worry about for TSW.
If you just compare Q4 of 2014 with Q3 of 2014 you see an increase in revenue. However, stating they expected less revenue due to ageing of the live Games, does not make the financial report 2014 give off any positive vibes.
Compared to 2013 Funcom made 50% less in 2014, making the operating costs exceed the revenues, which means bottomline, its negative. I am not sure how to explain to you that is not a good thing.
Funcom will keep restructurising, which will positively influence Q2 2015, but you can't keep cutting forever. It's said in the report that they have the capacity to fund its operation for 12 months.
Apparently they have some loans they can use in 2016, but seriously, why are you trying to turn this into a positive? Maybe you should buy some stocks in Funcom, it dropped 50% in a year.
Comments
I hope they will manage it well and focus more on MMOs.
I also hope they will redo Anarchy Online (their best MMO in my opinion), with less instances and more of an open world, with characters I can enjoy which doesn't look so ugly as they did in AO. The game felt really fresh until you discovered that you felt all the time alone because of all instances.
TSW was their worst MMO. It felt like a nishe game. To dark for my taste.
That was sarcasm. It's not. If you like the game that much, you would go lifetime, which gives you pretty much the same for a lot less money. Funcom is aware the game isn't good enough to up that price for lifetime either, please don't picture an image where Funcom is doing great and everyone is subbing. They just aren't and turnover is terribad (see link in first post).
Sorry, they had THREE chances, AO, AoC and TSW. While AO was a mild success, the latter 2 failed. Funcom should stay away from the MMO market because they dont have what it takes to make a succesful fun game. They can't afford it anyway.
New scifi MMOs will have to compete against the topdogs which have a production value Funcom could only dream to reach (Star Citizen is a good example). They should focus on smaller games, cheaper, yet possible to yield a higher margin.
I'd like to disagree. To some degree the horror aspect in a daily setting was a good idea with some fresh idea on quests. However, gameplay and the dialog scripting on the storytelling was horrendous, even though lore was good.
I would love a remake of AO but I doubt that it will happen. Do you know that FC still charge a sub for the original AO and that it's more expensive than just about any other MMO out there, 17 Euros a month. The newbie zone still has players running around in it and monthly patches still happen. The game is looked after better better than some new titles.
I think that FC at the moment are a prime target for a full takeover so maybe any new management will be as nostalgic for the old girl as we are
Well i think AOC was an initial surprise,i cannot believe they figured it would do that well.So on a whole,i never really considered Funcom a big player,until that game.As to numbers,they are always skewed by new game releases,they ALWAYS go up during new releases then drop of bit by bit.
Lego,this sort of reminds me of EA/Bioware rehashing the Star Wars universe IP,sounds like easy money without having to put much effort into your game.
problem is that Funcom is not a giant in marketing and notoriety like Blizzard or EA,so they would have to make an amazing game and put out steady marketing to strike it rich.
I am not sure of Funcom's future,but just think,how did they manage before AOC?So i am sure they might have to re-size and downgrade to a noob developer again,but i think they might rebound.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The report you linked says that their current MMOs had higher than expected revenue and that all 3 games will continue to be supported while they are making money. So in the short term I doubt we have too much to worry about for TSW.
The Enlightened take things Lightly
I agree with you Funcom is ripe for a full takeover. Nostalgic management should be fired on the spot. Update, innovate, adapt or die. It's clear to see what they tried to do with games like AoC and TSW, but while the ideas were solid, the way it was worked out was not. Their games breathe atmosphere, but AoC and TSW didnt grow on both gameplay and dialog scriptwriting.
Marketing is often used in defense, but gamers can decide perfectly well if a game is good or not. And when it's not out, reputation matters. Telltale Games and Cloud Imperium come to mind. TG has dialog that matters and isn't a hollow platform to carry lore. CI makes games that work in pre-alpha on a level Funcom could only dream of. Marketing did not save Destiny. It's a bad game and players know it. It's kindof similar with Funcom. You can only fail so much.
After 2008 it just went downhill for Funcom, the release of AoC and TSW didn't change that. They kept cutting where we now are in a situation where Funcom is making less profit every year and now operating costs exceed revenues for 2014. I don't understand why so many focus on image building. Imho that is not the issue here.
http://www.funcom.com/investors/funcoms_fourth_quarter_financial_report_for_2014
If you just compare Q4 of 2014 with Q3 of 2014 you see an increase in revenue. However, stating they expected less revenue due to ageing of the live Games, does not make the financial report 2014 give off any positive vibes.
Compared to 2013 Funcom made 50% less in 2014, making the operating costs exceed the revenues, which means bottomline, its negative. I am not sure how to explain to you that is not a good thing.
Funcom will keep restructurising, which will positively influence Q2 2015, but you can't keep cutting forever. It's said in the report that they have the capacity to fund its operation for 12 months.
Apparently they have some loans they can use in 2016, but seriously, why are you trying to turn this into a positive? Maybe you should buy some stocks in Funcom, it dropped 50% in a year.
They are already getting what they deserve. That's how the market works. Or is that too crude?