Warhammer Online PC MMO Cancelled 29
An anonymous reader writes "Another MMORPG bites the dust before it's out - the Games Workshop/Climax co-produced Warhammer Online PC MMO has just announced on the official website that the project is canned, apparently following 'a full review of the progress of the game, costs to date and future costs of the project.'" Over at the Warhammer Warcry fansite, there's an official FAQ with plenty of info on the allegedly near-completed ("the release date is currently penciled in for Summer 2004"), Sega-published title, which was shown at E3 this year without any hint of its grisly fate, shared by fellow PC MMO Mythica and by console MMORPG True Fantasy Live Online.
Re:Fist Sport! (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Fist Sport! (Score:1)
- Zhirem
E3 report. (Score:5, Informative)
Market Saturation (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Market Saturation (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Market Saturation (Score:1)
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 Anarc
Re:Market Saturation (Score:3, Interesting)
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 ev
Re:Market Saturation (Score:1)
Here is the link to Sir Bruce's latest chart that I could find: [netcom.com]
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 incredib
trying that link again... (Score:1)
Re:Market Saturation (Score:2)
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 wit
Re:Market Saturation (Score:2)
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 d
Re:Market Saturation (Score:1)
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 Ja
Re:Market Saturation (Score:1)
www.play.net/hj -- I'm just sayin'.
Er, not quite what it seems... (Score:2)
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),
Re:Solutions (Score:1)
I'm a Warhammer fan... (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
The fantasy MMORPG market is poorer for this loss.
Re:I'm a Warhammer fan... (Score:2)
Chickening out of the MMORPG market (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:1)
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!
MMORPG's don't require a monthly fee (Score:1)
It's got potential (Score:2)
I'm wrong of course. Warhammerers have proven that they take an interest in the net. Check this [eyeofterror.com] out.
Though the number of warhammer video games that have made it big, or anywhere for that matter, are slim.
Re:It's got potential (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 repetat
800lb. gorilla (Score:1)