Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Funcom has hired a merger firm to price Funcom.

2

Comments

  • KuppaKuppa Boulder, COPosts: 3,292Member Uncommon
    Interesting, I wonder if they will change their business model before or after.

    image


    image

  • GR3NDELGR3NDEL Tulsa, OKPosts: 108Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ortwig

    Agreed.  As a side note on the speculation, the OP seems to have made it his life's mission to spell doom for the company, evidently due to struggles with AoC by the looks of his post history.  Nice job posting two identical threads on the day of a major update to TSW, btw.

    And while I can sympathize with being disappointed in a game company...give it a rest, man -- it's not worth it.

    Quite right... by now though, I don't even need to look at a posting history to tell who's in the 'I hate Funcom!' camp.  Kinda sad, but...

    image

  • fallenlordsfallenlords NottinghamPosts: 680Member

    Of course it could be just asset stripping, buy the company at an all time low.  Liquidate straight away and sell off the assets for a profit.   With a poor economic climate and the overall bad management at Funcom I would of thought this must be highly appealing.  After all 'Funcom' the brand has next to no value at this point in time.

  • ElsaboltsElsabolts Greencastle, INPosts: 2,594Member Uncommon

    Sigh, I get into more trouble and time outs with posting my opion on Funcom that im real careful about posting anymore. Any company who buys them will be on my short list of folks who i may not buy games from. No. 1 reason would be selling Life-time subs and now talking about going F2p with TSW. Thats besides other things in there games that i do not care for.

    image

  • JeroKaneJeroKane OsloPosts: 5,353Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by FrodoFragins
    I can't imagine anyone buying them.  The only marketable property they have is AoC and Conan isn't mainstream enough for a company to need to buy before the game shuts down or the license expires.

    The dreamworld engine would be one good reason.

    When it comes to MMO's it has grown and evolved to be a hell of a powerfull, MMO dedicated, engine and toolset!

    The company buying Funcom, automatically also gets the rights to Longest Journey and Dreamfall series. Two PC games that were highly succesful and screaming for more to come. Which is actually already happening, as Ragner has started on working on it.

  • fallenlordsfallenlords NottinghamPosts: 680Member
    Originally posted by JeroKane

    The dreamworld engine would be one good reason.

    When it comes to MMO's it has grown and evolved to be a hell of a powerfull, MMO dedicated, engine and toolset!

     

    I don't see this at all.  The only games running the engine are of Funcom in origin.  It has already been mentioned that couldn't get it to work for the current consoles.  So this to my mind only has value to Funcom. It would be different if it was being utilised by multiple companies to produce games, but it isn't.   Most game companies either utilise an off the shelf engine or develop their own because they have specific requirements. The Dreamworld engine could actually be a liability to the plans for a buyout.  After all you are reliant on in-house technical knowledge to move the company forward. 

     

    The company buying Funcom, automatically also gets the rights to Longest Journey and Dreamfall series. Two PC games that were highly succesful and screaming for more to come. Which is actually already happening, as Ragner has started on working on it.

     

    Ragnar has already licensed this from Funcom I understood. Hence Dreamfall Chapters and the new company he has setup.   So the rights have already been sold/signed away. You would need to see the contract/full details to see exactly what Ragnar/Funcom have agreed.  But I imagine Funcom as a company would only be looking at some sort of license fee or percentage until the term of the agreement with Ragnar ends.

     

  • scotty899scotty899 townsvillePosts: 166Member
    Originally posted by FromHell
    Originally posted by muffins89
    im curious as to why you think EA or Activision would be interested

    Because Funcom are the best and most innovative game developers on the planet, also they have the best MMO engine ever developed.

    AoC is great, TSW is even better, Anarchy Online was the best SciFi MMO ever and gets a graphic update soon.

    I´d buy them if I were Activision.

    Or even better DISNEY should buy them, and give them a liscense to make a Star Wars MMO

    hahahahahahah what?      you are either trolling or forgot to put IMO/share opinion after each statement lol

  • Po_ggPo_gg Twigwarren, WestfarthingPosts: 2,714Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by scotty899
    Originally posted by FromHell
    Originally posted by muffins89
    im curious as to why you think EA or Activision would be interested

    Because Funcom are the best and most innovative game developers on the planet, also they have the best MMO engine ever developed.

    AoC is great, TSW is even better, Anarchy Online was the best SciFi MMO ever and gets a graphic update soon.

    I´d buy them if I were Activision.

    Or even better DISNEY should buy them, and give them a liscense to make a Star Wars MMO

    hahahahahahah what?      you are either trolling or forgot to put IMO/share opinion after each statement lol

    Not necessarily trolling, I too agree with the AoC is great, TSW is even better part. IMO :)

  • SiugSiug TallinnPosts: 1,236Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Po_gg
    Originally posted by scotty899
    Originally posted by FromHell
    Originally posted by muffins89
    im curious as to why you think EA or Activision would be interested

    Because Funcom are the best and most innovative game developers on the planet, also they have the best MMO engine ever developed.

    AoC is great, TSW is even better, Anarchy Online was the best SciFi MMO ever and gets a graphic update soon.

    I´d buy them if I were Activision.

    Or even better DISNEY should buy them, and give them a liscense to make a Star Wars MMO

    hahahahahahah what?      you are either trolling or forgot to put IMO/share opinion after each statement lol

    Not necessarily trolling, I too agree with the AoC is great, TSW is even better part. IMO :)

    Did not like Aoc much but playing TSW since headstart and still like the game a lot. I too think that FC is a good company, making good and innovative games. FC just lack resources. 

  • TheSedatedTheSedated WormsPosts: 82Member
    Originally posted by Elsabolts

    Sigh, I get into more trouble and time outs with posting my opion on Funcom that im real careful about posting anymore. Any company who buys them will be on my short list of folks who i may not buy games from. No. 1 reason would be selling Life-time subs and now talking about going F2p with TSW. Thats besides other things in there games that i do not care for.

    image

    Erm... who's talking about going F2P with TSW? The only people who talk about that are people on forums. The last statement from a Funcom-employee I heard was "We've got the tools set for converting it into a freemium model" as an answer to a question about the possibility that it goes F2P. Hence, this answer doesn't say "Oh, we're planning to go F2P in XX months.", it says "Wether we go F2P with TSW or not, we have the tools ready to make the conversion.". Kinda like "Is it possible that you'll write a letter soon?" - "I don't know, but if I'm going to write a letter, I've got a pen and some sheets of paper right here, so I'm prepared to do so if I want to."

     

    Oh, and btw... the life-time sub people won't have anything to fear in a freemium model like in AO and AoC. They'll be handled like they were subscribers in the freemium model, with free item shop points (like the subscribers already get), all of the content available, etc. pp.

  • Po_ggPo_gg Twigwarren, WestfarthingPosts: 2,714Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by TheSedated

    Erm... who's talking about going F2P with TSW? The only people who talk about that are people on forums.

    +1. As I interpret that interview (and my english is not flawless, so I could be wrong) they said it's doing quite well, not that much as expected, but they're good with it, and don't plan any changes.

    Which is the right decision I guess, TSW isn't aiming the average ex-wow players :) Funcom would gain nothing from going freemium, at most a lot of "what's the code at the chuch" spam, and whining about the combat animation and the pvp faction balance :)

  • RandaynRandayn Sellersville, PAPosts: 883Member Uncommon
    I really dont see TSW going FTP anytime soon....still a large pop and the cabal Ive been in forever is still extremely active...Id be really surprised.  

    image
  • KuppaKuppa Boulder, COPosts: 3,292Member Uncommon
    I know many around here think the game won't go f2p, they use the same logic they use to say other games are failing "I still see tons of people in game!". But regardless of personal anecdotes, numbers don't lie and TSW has a very small player base an FC's stock is pretty much tanked. They are bound to either change the business model to get some cash or sell.

    image


    image

  • Po_ggPo_gg Twigwarren, WestfarthingPosts: 2,714Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kuppa
    I know many around here think the game won't go f2p, they use the same logic they use to say other games are failing "I still see tons of people in game!". But regardless of personal anecdotes, numbers don't lie and TSW has a very small player base an FC's stock is pretty much tanked. They are bound to either change the business model to get some cash or sell.

    Not a very small playerbase, just not the number they expected. But that playerbase is very solid ("Funcom is pleased to see that gamer satisfaction is high, with user score of 8.4 out of 10 and higher on www.metacritic.com and other sites like mmorpg.com"), so there's no urging need to change anything in the game.

    TSW is not the game which will have millions of players, ever. Its design aiming only a narrow audience (fans of Ragnar, fans of adventure games, of well-designed story and world, or just want something new and seeking that in an mmo). Those people already playing, or at least tried it with the trial, a freemium change wouldn't bring in much more players. On the other hand it would generate some bad press (lol, look it's already f2p, what a fail -kinda bad press :) )

    The other boost of switching to freemium would be the cash shop. TSW already has a cash shop...

    So I'm with Randayn, it has a very slight chance that TSW will be f2p in the near future.

  • AwDiddumsAwDiddums Great YarmouthPosts: 400Member Uncommon

    Sounds to me the OP is trying to talk up the share price of Funcom, I hope for their sake they aren't employed by Funcom, now that would be stupid and ofc highly illegal.

     

     

  • KuppaKuppa Boulder, COPosts: 3,292Member Uncommon
    @pogg
    It doesn't matter how big the player base is if it didn't meet expectations and to no surprise since their numbers are very small for a new AAA MMO. F2p is viewed as taboo by some but good by others. It doesn't necesarily need to be f2p it could be b2p. The idea I'd to bring in more players.

    image


    image

  • Po_ggPo_gg Twigwarren, WestfarthingPosts: 2,714Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kuppa
    @pogg
    It doesn't matter how big the player base is if it didn't meet expectations and to no surprise since their numbers are very small for a new AAA MMO. F2p is viewed as taboo by some but good by others. It doesn't necesarily need to be f2p it could be b2p. The idea I'd to bring in more players.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not against f2p... But with AoC Funcom made one of the worst f2p models in the market, and likely they'll implement something similar in TSW if they choose to switch it. I'm just saying, such a model won't bring in new players, just like it didn't brought in AoC, and probably Funcom see it the same way, based on that interview.

    A b2p model (since the cash shop is already in place) would be great. But b2p is so far from Funcom (and EA too), that I think it has even less chance than the f2p switch.

  • KuppaKuppa Boulder, COPosts: 3,292Member Uncommon
    The game won't be able to grow, it may even be more grim than that, if they can't figure out how to get more players.

    image


    image

  • JeroKaneJeroKane OsloPosts: 5,353Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by fallenlords
    Originally posted by JeroKane

    The dreamworld engine would be one good reason.

    When it comes to MMO's it has grown and evolved to be a hell of a powerfull, MMO dedicated, engine and toolset!

     

    I don't see this at all.  The only games running the engine are of Funcom in origin.  It has already been mentioned that couldn't get it to work for the current consoles.  So this to my mind only has value to Funcom. It would be different if it was being utilised by multiple companies to produce games, but it isn't.   Most game companies either utilise an off the shelf engine or develop their own because they have specific requirements. The Dreamworld engine could actually be a liability to the plans for a buyout.  After all you are reliant on in-house technical knowledge to move the company forward. 

     

    The company buying Funcom, automatically also gets the rights to Longest Journey and Dreamfall series. Two PC games that were highly succesful and screaming for more to come. Which is actually already happening, as Ragner has started on working on it.

     

    Ragnar has already licensed this from Funcom I understood. Hence Dreamfall Chapters and the new company he has setup.   So the rights have already been sold/signed away. You would need to see the contract/full details to see exactly what Ragnar/Funcom have agreed.  But I imagine Funcom as a company would only be looking at some sort of license fee or percentage until the term of the agreement with Ragnar ends.

     

    Time and again it has been proven that MMO's don't work on Consoles. Nor are they that popular either. /sigh

    But they actually have been trying to port Age of Conan (And thus the dreamworld engine) to XBOX360, but stopped waisting their time with it, because of the DVD capacity and performace limitations. They had to make too many sacrifices to make it work.

    There is nothing wrong for a dedicated MMO engine to be PC only. Simply because 99,9% of released and most succesful MMO's to date are still PC only!  So go figure.

     

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid hell, NJPosts: 6,754Member Uncommon

    Perfect World Entertainment should buy them

    .

    image
  • fallenlordsfallenlords NottinghamPosts: 680Member
    Originally posted by JeroKan

     

    Time and again it has been proven that MMO's don't work on Consoles. Nor are they that popular either. /sigh

    But they actually have been trying to port Age of Conan (And thus the dreamworld engine) to XBOX360, but stopped waisting their time with it, because of the DVD capacity and performace limitations. They had to make too many sacrifices to make it work.

    There is nothing wrong for a dedicated MMO engine to be PC only. Simply because 99,9% of released and most succesful MMO's to date are still PC only!  So go figure.

     

    My point is the sale of the game engine is limited.  If the engine was versatile enough to crank out games on other platforms and do it well, then it has some scope.   But other than that you are hamstringed, you can't buy the engine without the people associated to it.  Funcom may state it has taken millions of dollars to develop but a proprietary technology is next to useless to anybody else but Funcom.   You couldn't transplant that engine with any ease to another company without a massive investment in time.

     

    As for console MMO's I think you are wrong.  Some of the best selling console games have roots based in MMO gaming.    DC Universe could of worked better if it hadn't been limited to PC/PS3.    From what I have seen of MMO's there is very little reason they could not transfer to console.   The reason it doesn't happen has little to do with console limitations and more to do with the whole process of releasing something to console.   There are tighter restrictions, the versatility for the developer isn't there.
  • jayfeeler69jayfeeler69 sacramento, CAPosts: 94Member
    I believe I called this one as well
  • Ambros123Ambros123 Neverneverland, TNPosts: 877Member
    Originally posted by FromHell
    Originally posted by muffins89
    im curious as to why you think EA or Activision would be interested

    Because Funcom are the best and most innovative game developers on the planet, also they have the best MMO engine ever developed.

    AoC is great, TSW is even better, Anarchy Online was the best SciFi MMO ever and gets a graphic update soon.

    I´d buy them if I were Activision.

    Or even better DISNEY should buy them, and give them a liscense to make a Star Wars MMO

    Ohh give me a friggin break.  If Funcom was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO great then why are they in the shitstorm they are in now?  If a game is really great with great developers then the game would be a good success.  The fact is the game is meh or mediocore or just bland with not so great devs or subpar devs.  Funcom is a sinking ship and I pity TSW with what's to come for the game.

    And actually EVE Online is the best SciFi MMO ever and the market is very small of the genre.... isn't it just EVE and Anarchy Online?

  • BoldynBoldyn PartillePosts: 265Member

    *Giggles*

     

    Inside information that it's Activision OR EA and " Sundal Collier is probably the financing catalyst"

     

    Well sounds bulletproof to me right there.

  • GishgeronGishgeron Princeton, KYPosts: 1,287Member

     

      Normally, I wouldn't post in a speculation thread.  But I do feel that some folks here have serious misconceptions about how business works.  Just because something is profitable does not mean you can keep it above water forever.  There are a very large number of things a company has to consider.  For one, all of your employees will be costing more money each year.  You pay more for insurance, they get raises, 401K costs...ect.  So a thing that creates profit one year might not the next if there are not very sound financial goals and plans set for it.  In an MMO this is very hard because they experience player loss each quarter they are not pushing forward VERY strongly.  WoW handles this brilliantly with expansions every couple years backed by constant changes and additions inbetween.  Things like class and skill changes regularly help keep players interested, if perhaps a little mad.  Change, I think, is the key there.

      A company does not live off just profits.  They have to have a consistently increasing profit margin to offset increasing costs.  Its easy to see.  An MMO company really needs this because the only way to stave off player drop off is to keep a very strong foot forward in pushing content.  So you always need more money to pay for that.  Just making a little money isn't good enough for a business that has stockholders.  They have to justify each end of their company with sound financial gains that grow with them.  A plateu is a bad thing.  If all they can do is create small financial gains with a quick plateu then they actually stand to lose money.  In fact, they WILL lose money.  A buyout at this point would probably barely buy them out of whatever debt they picked up getting investors to fund whatever projects they are on while also paying off and clearing any 401K or other benefit programs they had for their people.

    image

2
Sign In or Register to comment.