Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
WAR dev - AoC was nominated at GC and WAR wasn't - "Skunked", so I'll hit on AO and praise DAoC ins
AmazingAvery
Age of Conan AdvocateMember UncommonPosts: 7,188
http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?p=444117#444117
Folks,
Here's a good historical tidbit to keep in mind.
Back in 2001, DAoC was shown at E3 in a even more playable state than WAR is being shown at Leipzig. At the end of the show, most of the awards were won by Anarchy Online and Star Wars: Galaxies, we were pretty much not skunked. Years later, after all three games launched, we were more successful than either of those games based on any criteria I can think of (subscriber base, metacritic, etc..). Judge for yourself the validity/importance of winning awards at Trade Shows. 
We are, of course, proud when we win awards but when we don't, I don't lose any sleep over it. In the end, it is the players who will determine if we made a great game and I am, as always, perfectly content to leave such judgments in the hands of those who matter most, the gamers.
Mark
http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?p=444194#444194
Just realized I had a typo and the edit time has expired so I'll correct it here:
Where I said:
At the end of the show, most of the awards were won by Anarchy Online and Star Wars: Galaxies, we were pretty much not skunked.
It should be:
At the end of the show, most of the awards were won by Anarchy Online and Star Wars: Galaxies, we were pretty much skunked.
In terms of comparisons, well, AO launched with huge technical problems (well-documented on the Web), its NA/European box sales were a fraction of ours (NPD/PC Charts), and our Metacritic for DAoC is still the second highest of all MMORPGS (88%) to date and it is second only to WoW, we almost swept all the end-of-the year MMO awards, and our top monthly subscription rate was a heck of a lot higher (MMORPG charts). That pretty much sums up all the main categories that I can think of. However, I think that the Fucom guys did a nice job of recovering from and making AO a much, much better game that it was but at launch it was not anywhere near as good of a game as DAoC. I don't do this to dump on the Funcom guys at all but, as I've always said, that its not how you look before you launch that counts, it is how you look 30 days after launch that really matters.
Mark
What ever you guys/ girls think, in a thread all about asking AoC was nominated (Subsequently WON) and WAR wasn't, was it really necessary to bring up AO and DAoC?
Also brings to light the fact that even a WAR developer was impressed by the ability of Funcom to turn a not so hot launch around - ALL those years ago...
Sour Grapes?
Unfortunately, equating it to a past success doesn't work - WAR isn't DAoC, and AoC isn't AO. It's easy to placate your critics and fans with comparisons like that, but they're simply not realistic.
Comments
Id say that he is sour eventhough he says he isnt. He lost an award against Funcom AGAIN and now he is mad so he has to say "HAHA our game was more successful!"....... Seems pretty petty to me. For the record DAoC is NOT a better game these days than AO, I dont care what anyone says.
Or it was an honest point. I mean he is referring to statistics, not opinions.
I think the moral of the historical tid bit was more "Awards don't equal success" more than "WAR will beat AoC." haha.
At least he didn't call their reason to push the release date back a "bullshit" reason like the AoC guy did.
---------------------------------------------
I live to fight, and fight to live.
I am far more excited about AoC then WAR, but I still agree with his comparison. These silly pre-release rewards are an indication of very little.
So it sounds like they shouldn't be worth the time to comment on then right? or the opportunity to "have a dig"?
Pre-Release awards are often judged by a panel of Industry Press and Gamer Press, this doesn't escape the fact that there was well over a (combined) hours worth of show media for AoC so far and a few minutes for WAR. Furthermore comparisons of games from years ago, in a different media age have no place in a comment about War not even getting a nomination - regardless of whether you think either AoC or WAR is better.
Sour Grapes
Mythic can throw shots just like Funcom, difference being
Funcom blatantly called Mythic a bunch of liars with no backing and used them as part of their excuse for pushing back release. Mythic tells about the 2 companys MMO history with facts and sources and the truth alone makes Funcom look bad.
I don't think it matters. I hope both games are good. But they are both targetting different audiences. AoC is appealing to the kiddie audience with its emphasis on blood, gore, nudity and the M rating while War is attempting to lure the older more mature audience that played DAOC.
That being said the War dev makes a good point about flash over substance and the importance of polish at release. I played AO and DAOC at release and in beta and I thought both games were fantastic games. Unfortuntaley for AO had it awful technical problems that made the game virtually unplayable for a very long time. But there are important things we can learn from AO's release. Funcom stuck with AO and made it a fantastic game nad Funcom must understand the importance of a stable polished release. AO could have been a huge hit with betterr stability. I would hope that Funcom will make sure this time they wait until they are sure the game is ready before even considering releasing the game.
I think trying to make up facts or rewrite history should be left to forum dwellers like us.. rather than have a developer try to do it. The main reason being it just reflects badly on him, the company he works for and well... Its just not something a company rep should do. The first thing they taught us when I did customer service for UO... Anything you say is seen as a representation of the company.. even if they don't feel that way. Its perception...
Now um..
I think if you consider when AO came out.. and when DAoC came out.. take into consideration the technology and a lot of other factors..
Oh lets put out that AO was running ONE server at release... The GeForce 1.. was fairly new etc.. Ya obviously it had problems.
DAoC had how many servers at release? (was more than 1) and its graphics looked like what compared to AO? I mean I played both games at release...
If you look at DAoC TODAY... compared to AO.. well I'm sorry but Funcom won. What's the high population of daoc today? (they don't hide their logged in numbers). Do you think that its more than AO or SWG?
He claims they beat SWG and AO in every way... At what point was DAoC listed as the number 2 most populated north american MMO? Oh that's right never...
SWG's peak was second only to EQ1.. and after WoW launched yes forget it.
I'm sorry they didn't win then and I'm sorry they didn't win now.. as it obviously meant so much to this guy.
Who cares... if you launch a game and make a profit.. didn't you win?
Anyone remember playing DAoC at launch? I mean when after the 20's or early 30's none of the dungeons were itemized? all that dropped was coin? Oddly enough in AO I still got items..
Altho I must say I had very little difficulty running AO at launch. I know many did... but its not like a "fact" that no one could run it. There was just as much content missing from AO, DAoC and SWG at launch.. hell the only thing SWG didn't have at launch was "space".
DAoC is widely touted (even by me) as a smooth launch.. but SWG was a more complete game at launch.. that just needed polish (the cu and nge weren't that polish).
If you played DAoC at launch.. log in today.. right now.. and see what the game is like now.. and tell me "they won". Its a steaming pile of dog droppings.. that in its own way had an NGE.
In fact out of the 3 .. I personally think AO/Funcom won... and I don't even play AO (haven't for years).
Oh as far as DAoC goes.. you could also talk to people that played Hibernia at launch (I didn't play there but I saw what that realm went through).. and ask them how polished the game was? I'm not sure Midgard was much better off..... well maybe before the left axe nerf (yes I actually played daoc..) I played Albion.. which I guess was Mythics love child.. I played there because.. um well I liked Merlin stories as a kid /shrug.
I mean honestly.. that statement was for us forum trolls to make..
Personally I think the guy should either issue an apology or be fired.. that's not something a company employee should say... err I should say if he worked for me.. he'd be fired..
Just totally unprofessional... and on top of that... his "facts" weren't exactly all that factual.
I'd love to see AO, SWG and DAoC compare subscriber numbers today.. if anything they are close.. DAoC is pretty dead.. and I'd love to see where he can prove that DAoC at its peak .. had more subs than SWG... because I've never even heard DAoC claimed to have ever been high on that list... just the smooth launch... which it did have.
So it sounds like they shouldn't be worth the time to comment on then right? or the opportunity to "have a dig"?
Pre-Release awards are often judged by a panel of Industry Press and Gamer Press, this doesn't escape the fact that there was well over a (combined) hours worth of show media for AoC so far and a few minutes for WAR. Furthermore comparisons of games from years ago, in a different media age have no place in a comment about War not even getting a nomination - regardless of whether you think either AoC or WAR is better.
Sour Grapes
Comparisons of games from years ago has a place when you're making a point. He didn't say "this is why WAR didn't get a nomination" he said "Look at what happened in the past. Don't be discouraged by us not winning."
Highly different than what you're claiming his motives were.
I think it's a good point, and well-made since it wasn't mud-slinging or anything like that. Just looking at the facts in the past to better understand the present.
No sour grapes included.
EDIT: Now Antarious' post. That's some sour grapes. That guy is piiiiissed. haha. I can pretty much guarantee that his facts are straight there Ant. He is the CEO. Not some rep.
That's Mark Jacobs writing that and he doesn't just pull facts out of thin air or make them up. He's pointing to actual facts. 
Sorry you're so upset by that. And the only reason that AO has "any" subs is because it's now free to play.
---------------------------------------------
I live to fight, and fight to live.
There I helped you out a little - Just MY opinion btw. But if you want to throw around target audiences in a thread not even about it thats ok.
So it sounds like they shouldn't be worth the time to comment on then right? or the opportunity to "have a dig"?
Pre-Release awards are often judged by a panel of Industry Press and Gamer Press, this doesn't escape the fact that there was well over a (combined) hours worth of show media for AoC so far and a few minutes for WAR. Furthermore comparisons of games from years ago, in a different media age have no place in a comment about War not even getting a nomination - regardless of whether you think either AoC or WAR is better.
Sour Grapes
Maybe the judges are spot on this time. Maybe not. I simply thought it was valid food for thought to bring up how vastly different things have turned out in the past. Especially with all the hooplah on the various forums about it all. Maybe he's a bit sour. It's hard not to be protective about something you are creating. But I don't think the comments were as devious as you make them out to be.
Do I own stock in these companies... I still play DAoC from time to time.. I play SWG, EQ2 and even Vanguard.
Now I was pointing out false information. Since Mr. Mark isn't lying... could you point me to where there is an official statement that DAoC ever had more subs than SWG? That it was ever even listed in a top 10 most populated MMO list?
Oh you can't but I'm lying or pissed.. it was Mr. Mark that claimed that they had more subs.. not me.
If anything from my post history I'm very anti SOE... and haven't had a lot of anything to say about Funcom or Mythic. EA perhaps..
So again what actual facts?
AO in fact has more paying subs than free subs... so where is your source on their sub numbers?
I mean we're talking facts here...
Right now.. North American logins for DAoC are... 5,429... and 1700+ of that are on the classic cluster.
Do you really want to debate whether say.. SWG since Mr Mark brought it up only has 5400 logged in right now?
So basicly two things..
what am I supposed to be pissed about?
and... what actual facts? If he or you can back up his subscription claim alone.. I'll buy it.. but since you nor he can.. I won't.
Personally was pointing out the fact.. that he is in fact pulling facts out of his arse.. and I'm sorry they didn't win.. but even if they did win its not what would convince me to buy the game.
There I helped you out a little - Just MY opinion btw. But if you want to throw around target audiences in a thread not even about it thats ok.
I know you are the master at spinning to suit your own misguided ends but its generally considered rude to alter someone elses post in a quote. Saying its your opinion does not make it any less so. You want to keep posting broken record defenses based on weak arguments, do it in your own post without taking someone elses.
Just my opinion, btw.
I guess my question is what am I pissed about? Do I work for Funcom, EA, Mythic or SOE?Do I own stock in these companies... I still play DAoC from time to time.. I play SWG, EQ2 and even Vanguard.
Now I was pointing out false information. Since Mr. Mark isn't lying... could you point me to where there is an official statement that DAoC ever had more subs than SWG? That it was ever even listed in a top 10 most populated MMO list?
Oh you can't but I'm lying or pissed.. it was Mr. Mark that claimed that they had more subs.. not me.
If anything from my post history I'm very anti SOE... and haven't had a lot of anything to say about Funcom or Mythic. EA perhaps..
So again what actual facts?
AO in fact has more paying subs than free subs... so where is your source on their sub numbers?
I mean we're talking facts here...
Right now.. North American logins for DAoC are... 5,429... and 1700+ of that are on the classic cluster.
Do you really want to debate whether say.. SWG since Mr Mark brought it up only has 5400 logged in right now?
So basicly two things..
what am I supposed to be pissed about?
and... what actual facts? If he or you can back up his subscription claim alone.. I'll buy it.. but since you nor he can.. I won't.
Personally was pointing out the fact.. that he is in fact pulling facts out of his arse.. and I'm sorry they didn't win.. but even if they did win its not what would convince me to buy the game.
Where are your sources coming from? That's the question. You say how many logins are on for DAoC. But how many are on for AO?
DAoC has more subs than SWG right now.
But I'll do some research for you. This might take a while since I"m doing the legwork for you.
See you soon. And if he's lying and I"m wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit it. 
It was listed as number 5 for most people subscribed in 2002, behind Lineage, EQ, AC and UO. Here's the link. www.video-games-survey.com/online_gamers.htm
You'll have to scroll down a bit. I hope it's not too much work. Now onto the next question. "When did it have more subs than SWG?"
Well other than right now, I'll go find out.
You are right and I'm dead wrong. DAoC has never had more subs than SWG, looking at the mmorpg chart here it would appear that SWG has been above DAoC since it launched. Now this is up through 2006 so I think it's a safe bet. So he should have left SWG out of that comment.
But he was completely right about AO. Which was actually the game in question, and the game that this post is pointing out.
AO peaked at 60,000 subs right after launch and then immediately dropped to 20,000 and is sitting at around 10,000 according to the chart.
By that chart SWG has outdone DAoC in subs by roughly 50,000 for it's entire lifetime. So you are correct about SWG. It's a shame that he was incorrect about that. He should know better.
He was dead on about AO though, and I think that was the point. SWG was thrown in the quote as a sidebar and barely mentioned.
---------------------------------------------
I live to fight, and fight to live.
Dark Age of Camelot : 88
EverQuest : 85
Anarchy Online : 72
StarWars Galaxys : 71
www.metacritic.com/
Yes, it does have the second highest MMORPG rating. search for yourself.
And there's ^ the other claim which is backed up by fact.
So he was completely accurate with his claims about AO and the metacritic ratings.
However he was very wrong about his SWG comment, and that sucks.
So there it all is in proof.
---------------------------------------------
I live to fight, and fight to live.
Instead of taking stab at each others games, we should all learn to respect each other's games. Calling someone elses game "childish" or "crap" or whatever other disparaging remarks you will make is not going to endear your game to them. People know what they like and what they don't like. If you want to pull people over to your game, give them a healthy comparison of a similar game. Damn it, people! We need to stick together, not tear each other apart.
Fanboi infighting aside... I think he was asked how he felt about not winning any awards.... so he answered honestly, and pointed out that awards don't equal market success (AC2 anyone?)
I tend to agree... people who give awards at game conventions tend to be folks who've never played a single MMORPG to end game, much less beat their way through AQ 40 and Naxx. I hold little stock in their awards or even their "reviews"....
In the end, all that matters is who has enough subscribers to keep going forward for many years to come.... we'll find out pretty soon who will make the grade.
But, I'll say congrats to Funcom for winning the award..... still an achievement and they have every right to be proud of it...
(even if it is from an obscure gaming convention on the wrong side of the pond)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Ok a more up-to-date chart of mmorpg sub numbers, and much more easy to use....
mmogdata.com
Go there and go to All Subscribers and you can pick whichever ones you want.
The most up-to-date shows DAoC sitting at 100K subs, and SWG sitting at 50K subs. both dropping from 06 to 07, but apparently this site used the data from mmorpgchart.com and updated it. So who knows how accurate the original data was considering the huge fluctuation form 06 to 07.
So yeah, DAoC has more subs. Big whoop, sha bang.
---------------------------------------------
I live to fight, and fight to live.
ummm...how is AoC appealing to the kiddie audience and WAR, the game that every little fanboy in America plays as they are picking up their Magic cards and asking mommy if they can have money for a Mountain Dew while they sit sniffing the paint from their Warhammer models directed at "older more mature audience?" Also, as much as people want to claim it, there really aren't that many "mature" people playing MMO's. I played DAoC for years (no matter how dry the game was) and people on there were just as immature as they were on WoW (even on the Horde side).Instead of taking stab at each others games, we should all learn to respect each other's games. Calling someone elses game "childish" or "crap" or whatever other disparaging remarks you will make is not going to endear your game to them. People know what they like and what they don't like. If you want to pull people over to your game, give them a healthy comparison of a similar game. Damn it, people! We need to stick together, not tear each other apart.
He semi quoted from our favourite worried War Dev:
http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?p=324382&highlight=funcom#post324382
Folks,
Just so we are very, very clear on the T vs. M stuff.
1) We didn't go with the Teen rating to make as much money as we possibly could. If I had wanted to do that, I would have designed a game with a M rating, gratuitous blood and gore everywhere, chock full of micro-transactions that would have appealed to an older gamer with more money than time. I'd sell lots and lots of "special items" that would be needed to succeed, ratchet up the leveling grind (to encourage more RMTs) and I would have struck a deal with the gold sellers as well. Now, if the IP behind the game was great, boy, would that make lots of money. Now, it would go against what I stand for so ->
2) The reason for going for the Teen rating is two-fold, to reach the widest possible audience and to make a game that a family, bf/gf, etc. could play together. I've always been a real big believer in the social aspects of online gaming and the MMOs take this to a whole new level. The T rating (and we are a pretty soft T) allows families/friends to play together with the worst worry, some of the nonsense that gets spewed out in global chat. The other reason to make a Teen game is that Teen-rated games have fewer regulatory/legal hurdles worldwide than M games. If AoC really does come out as an M game, it will face some interesting problems as I told the Funcom guys last year when we were chatting about stuff.
While some may think that the T game will make more money than the M game, based on what I know about RMTs, I wouldn't count on it. Fortunately, we're making the exact game we wanted with the exact rating we wanted right from the beginning. Normally, this is the point where I say "I'm sorry that WAR will disappoint some fans etc." but in this rare case, I'm not sorry at all. Maybe one day I'll do an M game but not this time.
Mark
........................................
Seems like he likes to band about Real Money Trading with the AoC name too. Before anyone says anything to the contrary its obvious what he is saying and refering to in point 1. That dev tracker is really bring another side out on the war forums. Of course because he is so big headed he thought he would tell the Funcom guys all about making an M rating when he never has.
Lame and Low
@ Ky its not really obscure, 200k people attending. Plus other side of the Pond had the biggest Lan party with 10k people.
Not true. SWG at one time (just post the CU) had over a million subscribers. And today, 6 years later, AO has FAR more people playing it then DAoC. Maybe when they were popular DAoC had more players, but was it the better game? In my opinion, not even CLOSE.
Better PvP perhaps, but AO was never PvP centric.
Anyway, AoC has won 2 awards for 'best online game' from GC now. Thats 'best ONLINE GAME' across all platforms, not just best MMOG. Grats to them!
Fion you're right on the SWG thing, but pleeeease go back to the post I just wrote. AO has around 10K subs right now and DAoC has around 100K.....
You saying "FAR more" here means -90K more.
..... ummmm yeah.
EDIT: Just checked it to be sure. sorry 12K.
---------------------------------------------
I live to fight, and fight to live.
Not true. SWG at one time (just post the CU) had over a million subscribers. And today, 6 years later, AO has FAR more people playing it then DAoC. Maybe when they were popular DAoC had more players, but was it the better game? In my opinion, not even CLOSE.
Better PvP perhaps, but AO was never PvP centric.
Anyway, AoC has won 2 awards for 'best online game' from GC now. Thats 'best ONLINE GAME' across all platforms, not just best MMOG. Grats to them!
If AO has more subs now then wouldn't that be an indication that a PvP centric game hasn't got the legs to last. Kinda what I thought, everyone rushes out to buy it subs are great then everyone leaves because of the repetitive action of RvR. Would of been nice to see Mythic's Cancelled game Imperator (Future Style with RvR) launch and compared with AO, at the time.
Not true. SWG at one time (just post the CU) had over a million subscribers. And today, 6 years later, AO has FAR more people playing it then DAoC. Maybe when they were popular DAoC had more players, but was it the better game? In my opinion, not even CLOSE.
Better PvP perhaps, but AO was never PvP centric.
Anyway, AoC has won 2 awards for 'best online game' from GC now. Thats 'best ONLINE GAME' across all platforms, not just best MMOG. Grats to them!
If AO has more subs now then wouldn't that be an indication that a PvP centric game hasn't got the legs to last. Kinda what I thought, everyone rushes out to buy it subs are great then everyone leaves because of the repetitive action of RvR. Would of been nice to see Mythic's Cancelled game Imperator (Future Style with RvR) launch and compared with AO, at the time.
Wow, you people can't read or something. AO doesn't have more subs now. They have 12K subs.... 12K subs.... one more time..... 12K subs.....
And I would have loved to have seen Imperator (as a little tidbit, it was never canceled just postponed indefinitely, so who knows. haha)
So yeah... DAoC currently has 100K subs, AO has 12K. And AO peaked at 60K....
EDIT: Avery, what the hell are you talking about RMT and AoC. He never even put those in the same context. The AoC comment was about the Mature rating. The RMT comment was about him proving that he didn't make it T because he was trying to make money.
And I'm sure all the "interesting" problems he was referring to were probably legitimate stuff. Kind of like what everyone's been arguing about on forums for the past years.
---------------------------------------------
I live to fight, and fight to live.