Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games) Role Playing (Games) Entertainment Games

Warhammer Online PC MMO Cancelled 29

Posted by simoniker from the off-with-its-head dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Warhammer Online PC MMO Cancelled More

Warhammer Online PC MMO Cancelled

Comments Filter:

  • E3 report. (Score:5, Informative)

    by will_die ( 586523 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:28AM (#9492484) Homepage
    One of the E3 reports on WO reported that the devs said they had over 1 1/2 years left on development and that thier were a big disagreement on various design point.

  • Market Saturation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Datasage ( 214357 ) <DatasageNO@SPAMtheworldisgrey.com> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:58AM (#9492589) Homepage Journal
    MMO's have a disadvantage, they require a subscribtion. Thus limiting the potential audience of that type of game. MMO's are also the most expensive type of game to develop.

    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)

      by *weasel ( 174362 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @07:32AM (#9493684)
      MMO's have a disadvantage, they require a subscribtion.


      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.

      MMO's are also the most expensive type of game to develop


      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.

      They are all try to grab at the same small audience.


      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.

      There are going to be alot more that will get canceled or not last long after release.


      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.
      • I respectfully disagree about the culling of users from one MMORPG to another. You make the argument in your post that UO did not take from M59. That might be true. But...

        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)

          by *weasel ( 174362 )

          The whole point of this recounting is to say, again IMHO, that in fact, many players only play one of these games at a time.

          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

          • I don't think that the numbers are statistically insignificant. And I do not think that it is the rare exception you consider it to be.

            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
      • > Monthly fees are not a requirement.

        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

        • If you look at Sir Bruce's charts...

          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

          • I too find the accuracy of the chart to be suspect, but it is better data than I can find elsewhere.

            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
      • The cancelling of UO2, Hero's Journey, and MEO

        www.play.net/hj -- I'm just sayin'.
    • I'll admit my biases up front: I own and operate the online game Meridian 59 [meridian59.com] which requires a monthly subscription fee.

      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),

  • I'm a Warhammer fan... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jwdb ( 526327 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @03:34AM (#9492911)
    ... and I couldn't care less! Half the fun in WH is collecting the pieces and making the terrain, and it's a good way to waste some time in RL with friends.
    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
    • I disagree. I love the world of Warhammer (fantasy and 40k) for the rich possibilities for stories within them. I've played various WH tabletop games (Rogue Trader, 40k, Epic, Space Hulk, Tyrannid Attack) but the most fun I've ever had with the WH worlds is with roleplaying, in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and homebrew WH40k RPG settings.

      The fantasy MMORPG market is poorer for this loss.
      • I agree. WHFRP was a lot of fun. They put out some outstanding adventures for it. And somehow, GW managed to make an intrinsically fun game. The career system was fun even though intrinsically limited. It did make for interesting characters. Anyone ever play a ratcatcher in ANY other game ? A college buddy played a wanna-be trollslayer based on two classic comedy bits. First was the name, from Carlin's "Phucke, Phucke of the Mountain !" and then the personality was 100% USDA Grade A Yosemite Sam. "I'm the

  • Chickening out of the MMORPG market (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @05:51AM (#9493283)
    A lot of developers are losing their nerve where the MMORPG market is concerned at the moment. Can't say I blame them.

    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.

    • the MMORPG market is pretty big, compared to... say... the market for FPSes or RTSes

      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!

      • Check out Guild Wars [guildwars.com] for example. I played the alpha release during their E3 for Everyone event. They opened up their alpha version of game to everyone for about a week and it was amazing even at that early build. Their game will require no monthly fees. It's ex blizzard people and they've developed a new network design that will save tons so they will just release an expansion every 6 months or so to help cover the costs of this game. I for one am extremely hyped about this game and anyone who's into
  • Could it work? Most warhammerers arn't very social beings to begin with! Dispite the fact that most warhammerers are loaded, they usually don't do credit cards, preferring to use the chopped up plastic as a customisation on models! :E

    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.

    • 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

  • maybe the developers, liscencers and money people all got into the World of Warcraft beta and discovered that their product sucked in comparison. why else would you drop a three year investment without even trying to see if it would achieve a modicum of success?

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Close