Lol. I am literally amazed at the lack of balance in this article from an "Editor" of an online game site.
"Age of Conan: What They Did Wrong."? Excuse me? Sorry, but this article does not actually provide anything new or constructive to that subject. All this article does is gloat how a company fooked up. Furthermore, it is written by someone who, by his own admission in the interview with Craig Morrison, has never actually played the game.
"We'd like to note that, since our interview with Craig Morrison was a bit delayed, one new event has arisen in the life (or lack thereof) of Age of Conan. It seems that yet another big name at Funcom has walked out the doors when, a few weeks ago, Funcom's CFO Olav Sandnes resigned in the wake of a $23.3 million dollar loss in Funcom's fourth quarter."
A bit delayed???? Your own site reported the resignation of the CFO approximately 1 month ago.
So I must ask, when exactly did you do the Craig Morrison interview? Surely it wasn't over 1 month ago.
And if so, why are you rolling out old interviews as "news"?
And if that interview IS less than one month old, then what exactly does the news about the resignation of the CFO have to do with the Craig Morrison interview?
The answer is, it has nothing to do with the interview at all. The two incidents are largely unrelated. So why mention them in an opening paragraph on this article?
With regards to the portrayals by Craig Morrison / Erling Elingson regarding AOC's history, anyone with half a brain knows what FC are REALLY saying without actually saying it.....We KNOW they fooked up, THEY know they fooked up. It's been mentioned in interviews already. Besides, anyone with half a brain understands that it's part of their job to put things in a positive light in order to get people to subscribe. After all, it's a business. They want to make money. Business's ***** up for various reasons.
Would it actually make ANY difference if they held a public conference every week to apologise? No.
Would it actually affect the game's popularity? Probably not.
It would only satisfy biased Anti-FC people by giving them something to gloat over.
People will only return to the game if they find it in a satisfactory state. And one thing is for sure, FC are trying to make things better. They may not be getting there lightning fast, but they ARE heading in the right direction.
If people still don't trust them, then so be it. You can't please everyone. However, people have a head on their shoulders and can think for themselves. They're not sheep. If FC manage to turn things around then, by and large, the past will be nothing but a footnote. Just look at WoW for an example. People look back on WoW's launch with "rose tinted glasses". Many forget the constant server crashes. Inability to login after patches. Long login queues etc, etc.
"What players really want from Funcom and Age of Conan's developers is to have them acknowledge that, yes, they screwed up in the beginning, but at the same time, this is what has been done to amend that, and this is what has been done to amend that. "
Who exactly are these players you are referring to? The players who actually subscribe to AOC have actually moved on from constantly demanding apologies for past history. They are mature enough to see that the company is trying to make amends. They are looking to the future of AOC, not its past. Perhaps you're referring to ex-players who hang out on non-FC game specific forums bleating who they were lied to and cheated? Well, if people are not prepared to give a service a second chance, then they automatically sacrifice their right to demand anything from that company, in favour of their right not to have to subscribe.
"The problem with Funcom is that while they are now, finally, doing something good with their product (that is, finishing it), nobody cares because the company is still arguing that they had a solid launch."
It's only those who refuse to give a game a second chance who don't care, and that's fine. It's their right. But should FC (or any other company who provides a service for that matter) have an obligation to really care about that percentage who point blank refuse to try the service again? No. It's a waste of energy and resources. These interviews etc are done in the obvious hope of capturing the interest of those who ARE possibly willing to give the game a second chance. And in many respects, those who are trying it again are surprised by what they find.
And so, coming back to your article, an editor such as yourself has an obligation to report in a fair and balanced manner. Unfortunately this is something that is not being portrayed in this article. It's one thing to be critical of a subject, but another to be constrictive with it. Perhaps rather than inferring the death of AOC, you should try it. Maybe then you will get a more comprehensive appreciation of the product.
Edited, Mar 28th 2009 11:20pm by Tarkammo
Age of Conan: What They Did Wrong.
We take a look at the reason why Age of Conan hasn't been as successful as it was supposed to be. It all boils down to the same major problem, the product wasn't finished.
We'd like to note that, since our interview with Craig Morrison was a bit delayed, one new event has arisen in the life (or lack thereof) of Age of Conan. It seems that yet another big name at Funcom has walked out the doors when, a few weeks ago, Funcom's CFO Olav Sandnes resigned in the wake of a $23.3 million dollar loss in Funcom's fourth quarter. This follows Funcom's co-founder Gaute Godager's exit. It's also poignant to note that Godager, who was the producer and game director of Age of Conan and who had been with Funcom for 16 years, stated that "I have done my very best making this fabulous game [Age of Conan], but I have concluded there are elements which I am dissatisfied with." Obviously that's pretty old news, however, since our most recent interview was with Craig Morrison, who is the new producer and director of Age of Conan.
Moving along here, I'm sure you all remember our interview a few days ago. While it was certainly a very informative interview, I felt that there was some more to be told about Age of Conan. Now, don't get me wrong, I love any MMO company that wants to compete in this saturated market (at least fantasy wise!), but at the same time, fans of Age of Conan have been getting a little bit frustrated with the cheerful disposition of its developers who seem to still believe that they had a "hugely successful launch." While it's obvious that Craig Morrison can't point to the gaping flaws in Funcom's development approach, I did my own snooping to see why, really, the whole world keeps raggin' on Funcom.
To begin, this has been done so many times in the past and, in reality, it will continue to be poked and prodded until Craig Morrison or Erling Ellingson finally cracks and tells us what we want to hear: Age of Conan was not fit for release.
Actually, this is what pretty much every naysayer of Age of Conan has been saying since day one - in fact, I'd venture to say that this is what every fan of Age of Conan has been saying since day one as well. The problem is that the people who should be acknowledging this... aren't. Craig Morrison notes in our interview that "I'm not into 'sugar coating' things, and I don't think anyone here is doing that," but I'm sure any AoC fan will remember 'ol Erling Ellingson, the guy who believes that Funcom was "extremely happy with the launch of Age of Conan . . . it was quite a solid launch, actually." Obviously this is some incredibly awkward timing, given that the Director and Producer of Age of Conan would walk out a month after the interview, citing his displeasure at the path the game had taken. In fact, Ellingson has gone on to say that" we knew that we needed to better the performance of the game . . . that's what happened in the weeks just before launch and it really, really paid off, the game just turned around 100% in terms of performance, in fact, the beta testers said we did a miracle patch just before launch." I'm sure players who tried Age of Conan in its launch days will remember with fondness the time they spent waiting to play the game rather than playing the game itself. I really don't want to know what the game was like prior to launch, if beta testers believed a miracle patch 'turned the game around,' just prior to launch. Perhaps Ellingson should have specified what 'direction' that miracle patch had turned AoC towards. South, probably, but who knows.
What we do know, however, is that AoC was a half-baked game that was delivered because they were terrified of Warhammer Online's release, and World of Warcraft's newest expansion, Wrath of the Lich King. Both were slated to come out in fall / early winter, and if AoC hadn't launched when it did, I can assure you that their impressive 700,000 copies sold would have been many fewer than that. From a marketing perspective alone, one can't really fault this team for taking advantage of the massive summertime lull that took place in Azeroth. Age of Conan was slated to be the 'WoW killer' because it was coming in with incredible timing to sweep bored gamers out of 50% easier Sunwell instances and into the vibrant world of the Hyborian Kingdoms. Age of Conan could have grabbed a big chunk of WoW's player base, but now they're left with fewer than 100,000 subscribers, and less than half the number of servers they started with.
Why?
They didn't give their customers a full product.
On August 25th, Age of Conan had been out for around 3 months. Ellingson notes in this interview that PVP is coming 'any moment now,' and the glaring memory issues are being looked at.
Where's the DX10 that was promised to be in AoC at launch? Where's PVP? Hell, where's anything past level 20? Why is the game eating my computer hardware?
All pertinent questions that hovered above Age of Conan as months went by and, while discussion was had aplenty, significant changes were nowhere to be found. In reality, this is what killed Age of Conan. While developers can whine about how new games instantly get compared to World of Warcraft's 4-year 'sheen,' there remains the other problem of promising your customers an excessive amount of goodies, and then not delivering on them for the next six months.
What players really want from Funcom and Age of Conan's developers is to have them acknowledge that, yes, they screwed up in the beginning, but at the same time, this is what has been done to amend that, and this is what has been done to amend that. Players shouldn't be getting a full product now, 10 months after the official launch of Age of Conan, but it appears as though that's what the case is. The problem with Funcom is that while they are now, finally, doing something good with their product (that is, finishing it), nobody cares because the company is still arguing that they had a solid launch.
And what does this mean?
When a company believes it had a 'solid launch,' it means that they believe they've created a solid foundation from which to develop the rest of their game. The problem is that players did not enjoy where the game was going and now, 10 months later, when they want to find out what's changed from AoC's previous blunders, they're being told that Funcom doesn't believe they blundered, and that they are 'continuing' to listen to the community. Massively's Kyle Horner noted that "[updating the dev blog is] a good start, but a post talking about the mistakes made pre-launch and corrections since then would be a wise choice, we think. It never hurts to cop to your mistakes, and then show how you resolved them."
In fact, this is what I would say all MMO companies should make of Age of Conan's tragic fate. While Funcom can still salvage this wreckage from the flames by really consulting with the community (dear god I hope this works) and working hard to show what they've changed since launch (instead of relying on their sub-100k players to 'spread the word'), other MMO companies should realize that admitting to your mistakes is often the first step towards great development. If you refuse to acknowledge a mistake, then often times you inhibit the proper development of your game. Take heed.
Christopher "Pwyff" Tom
Editor
ZAM.com
Tags: AgeofConan, Editorial
