Worlds Adrift Closing in July - Devs Cite Lack of Commercial Viability

SBFord

Worlds Adrift Closing in July - Devs Cite Lack of Commercial Viability

Bossa has announced that Worlds Adrift will be closing down in July. While proud of what was achieved, developers cite a lack of commercial viability due to not reaching "the level of popularity it needs to continue". The letter further states that too much development time was spent "making the game work rather than making it the experience we wanted it to be".

Read the full story here

NoxiousBass

Oh man, that's always sad news. Did they ever make at least a free weekend trial? I wasn't keen on forking up the cash just to see if the game was for me.

cheyane

This was the building game with FFA PvP right ?

Raapnaap

Maybe they shouldn't have decided to split up their playerbase by adding PvE servers. It scared off the PvP audience while failing to attain the PvE audience that never existed in the first place.

It was a fun game, lots of rough potential, but management made some pretty weird decisions such as the whole PvE server thing. This was an act of complete self-sabotage.

Lastly, the game never left an alpha/beta state... What were they assuming? That people would just jump in and open their wallets for a shell of a game that was nowhere near finished? Hell, I didn't even know they were looking for "financial success" so early on... Seems a bit unrealistic an expectation?

Anyhow, maybe they can sell off to someone who can actually make a fun game out of it, although I suppose with the whole SpatialOS mess I doubt people want to risk touching it. Shame.

Seelinnikoi

Looks like a No Mans Sky in a very early alpha state. RIP but these devs should have known better...

Sylvinstar

raapnaap said:

Maybe they shouldn't have decided to split up their playerbase by adding PvE servers. It scared off the PvP audience while failing to attain the PvE audience that never existed in the first place.



It was a fun game, lots of rough potential, but management made some pretty weird decisions such as the whole PvE server thing. This was an act of complete self-sabotage.



Lastly, the game never left an alpha/beta state... What were they assuming? That people would just jump in and open their wallets for a shell of a game that was nowhere near finished? Hell, I didn't even know they were looking for "financial success" so early on... Seems a bit unrealistic an expectation?



Anyhow, maybe they can sell off to someone who can actually make a fun game out of it, although I suppose with the whole SpatialOS mess I doubt people want to risk touching it. Shame.

How does making PvE servers kill a game?
Are you saying this because it lowered the potential amount of players on the server?
If it was a good PvP game wouldn't there be enough PvP'rs to support it...or are you saying that the PvP'rs need the 'easy' PvE player kills to make a satisfying experience for the PvPr's?

black9ice

Survival sandbox games keep failing for a couple of reasons. First, No AAA big money studio has dared even to touch the genre yet. Secondly, the market for the player base these games attract is around a couple hundred K players at best (this is a small return on investment for larger studios). Thirdly, the gaming market has swung in the past 15 years from producing slowly mega/major titles, to producing shitty titles in 2-3 years, way faster and cheaper.

Another thing to note, not specifically about this title, but games lately in general. We need simple basic GUI's, we need 1-2 hot bars for abilities, standard type stuff. Hit 'I' for inventory, 'P' for the character sheet etc. There is no need to change or deviate from what a lot of MMO players consider a standard control scheme/GUI. Devs really need to take a step back at 'their' ideas and stop trying to invent the next best 'NEW' thing. We have not even seen a successful game in this genre, may never, mildly, we have Ark, but its run by monkeys.

danwest58

We dont need MORE MMORPGS we need fewer better and more viable MMORPGS.   The MMORPG genre was never designed to have hundreds of titles and games.   There is not enough money there to keep many afloat.  Add to that the nature of MMORPGS, they suck ass in the F2P P2W cash shop BS that occurs today.   Less and less players play these games and spend less money on them.   Why?  Because its like going from Candy crush to another Candy Crush like game to another Candy Crush like game.   If you dont want to play the main game why do you want to play the Candy Crush Clone?   Add to that the MMORPG Genre thrived on the Subscription model for a long time, now with F2P and microtransactions look how players no longer commit to a game.   

MMORPGS take too long to make and having players not make long term commitments to the game is all but pointless.   This is why Games as a service will also soon shrink.   Its good to have 12 to maybe 30 games in MMORPGs and Games as a service.  But not all games should be designed this way.  Hell take a look at the idea being dragon age 4, they want to make that a games as a service with microtransactions and the interest in DA4 dropped like a rock.   Look at MMORPGS when players find out they are F2p yes a rush comes in for a month then quits.   Its not a sustainable model.  

black9ice

danwest58 said:

We dont need MORE MMORPGS we need fewer better and more viable MMORPGS.   The MMORPG genre was never designed to have hundreds of titles and games.   There is not enough money there to keep many afloat.  Add to that the nature of MMORPGS, they suck ass in the F2P P2W cash shop BS that occurs today.   Less and less players play these games and spend less money on them.   Why?  Because its like going from Candy crush to another Candy Crush like game to another Candy Crush like game.   If you dont want to play the main game why do you want to play the Candy Crush Clone?   Add to that the MMORPG Genre thrived on the Subscription model for a long time, now with F2P and microtransactions look how players no longer commit to a game.   

MMORPGS take too long to make and having players not make long term commitments to the game is all but pointless.   This is why Games as a service will also soon shrink.   Its good to have 12 to maybe 30 games in MMORPGs and Games as a service.  But not all games should be designed this way.  Hell take a look at the idea being dragon age 4, they want to make that a games as a service with microtransactions and the interest in DA4 dropped like a rock.   Look at MMORPGS when players find out they are F2p yes a rush comes in for a month then quits.   Its not a sustainable model.  

This is not a MMORPG, it was another survival game like Ark, Conan, 7Days, etc...

danwest58

black9ice said:

danwest58 said:

We dont need MORE MMORPGS we need fewer better and more viable MMORPGS.   The MMORPG genre was never designed to have hundreds of titles and games.   There is not enough money there to keep many afloat.  Add to that the nature of MMORPGS, they suck ass in the F2P P2W cash shop BS that occurs today.   Less and less players play these games and spend less money on them.   Why?  Because its like going from Candy crush to another Candy Crush like game to another Candy Crush like game.   If you dont want to play the main game why do you want to play the Candy Crush Clone?   Add to that the MMORPG Genre thrived on the Subscription model for a long time, now with F2P and microtransactions look how players no longer commit to a game.   

MMORPGS take too long to make and having players not make long term commitments to the game is all but pointless.   This is why Games as a service will also soon shrink.   Its good to have 12 to maybe 30 games in MMORPGs and Games as a service.  But not all games should be designed this way.  Hell take a look at the idea being dragon age 4, they want to make that a games as a service with microtransactions and the interest in DA4 dropped like a rock.   Look at MMORPGS when players find out they are F2p yes a rush comes in for a month then quits.   Its not a sustainable model.  

This is not a MMORPG, it was another survival game like Ark, Conan, 7Days, etc...

Wrong They say they are building an MMO on their website. The problem is we keep using terms like MMO for Games as a Service instead of calling it what it is.

"At Bossa Studios we love taking risks and making stuff that no one dares to do in order to create great original experiences for players. Worlds Adrift was an ambitious undertaking for us: a community crafted MMO built on freedom and player agency with multiplayer physics, set in a huge world. We are proud of what we achieved with the game since development began five years ago out of a humble game jam."

Nilden

So are they going to have a single player mode or let people host servers? Or do I just have a dead game in my library now?

black9ice

danwest58 said:

black9ice said:

danwest58 said:

We dont need MORE MMORPGS we need fewer better and more viable MMORPGS.   The MMORPG genre was never designed to have hundreds of titles and games.   There is not enough money there to keep many afloat.  Add to that the nature of MMORPGS, they suck ass in the F2P P2W cash shop BS that occurs today.   Less and less players play these games and spend less money on them.   Why?  Because its like going from Candy crush to another Candy Crush like game to another Candy Crush like game.   If you dont want to play the main game why do you want to play the Candy Crush Clone?   Add to that the MMORPG Genre thrived on the Subscription model for a long time, now with F2P and microtransactions look how players no longer commit to a game.   

MMORPGS take too long to make and having players not make long term commitments to the game is all but pointless.   This is why Games as a service will also soon shrink.   Its good to have 12 to maybe 30 games in MMORPGs and Games as a service.  But not all games should be designed this way.  Hell take a look at the idea being dragon age 4, they want to make that a games as a service with microtransactions and the interest in DA4 dropped like a rock.   Look at MMORPGS when players find out they are F2p yes a rush comes in for a month then quits.   Its not a sustainable model.  

This is not a MMORPG, it was another survival game like Ark, Conan, 7Days, etc...

Wrong They say they are building an MMO on their website. The problem is we keep using terms like MMO for Games as a Service instead of calling it what it is.

"At Bossa Studios we love taking risks and making stuff that no one dares to do in order to create great original experiences for players. Worlds Adrift was an ambitious undertaking for us: a community crafted MMO built on freedom and player agency with multiplayer physics, set in a huge world. We are proud of what we achieved with the game since development began five years ago out of a humble game jam."

Well 30-40 players, small 3-5K map, was never an MMO in my book on 1 server, do not think it was ever in a lot of players minds that have frequented MMORPG's (EQ1, EQ2, DAOC, WoW, Etc...)  Its marketing departments to blame that try to 'spin' things every way they can to confuse consumers.  Then you have all the supporters that will argue the above either way.  Doesn't matter, an apple is still, just an apple.

Scot

Had some interesting ideas, I liked the look of the exploration, shame it did not even get to early access.

Sovrath

raapnaap said:

Maybe they shouldn't have decided to split up their playerbase by adding PvE servers. It scared off the PvP audience while failing to attain the PvE audience that never existed in the first place.

It was a fun game, lots of rough potential, but management made some pretty weird decisions such as the whole PvE server thing. This was an act of complete self-sabotage.

Lastly, the game never left an alpha/beta state... What were they assuming? That people would just jump in and open their wallets for a shell of a game that was nowhere near finished? Hell, I didn't even know they were looking for "financial success" so early on... Seems a bit unrealistic an expectation?

Anyhow, maybe they can sell off to someone who can actually make a fun game out of it, although I suppose with the whole SpatialOS mess I doubt people want to risk touching it. Shame.

Or maybe they should have had pve servers at the start to attract all those pve players who would have loved the game and who would have been made aware of the game through its initial launch.

Sneaking in a pve server way after the game launched to not much fanfare, with not much advertisement is the issue.

Scot

Sovrath said:

raapnaap said:

Maybe they shouldn't have decided to split up their playerbase by adding PvE servers. It scared off the PvP audience while failing to attain the PvE audience that never existed in the first place.



It was a fun game, lots of rough potential, but management made some pretty weird decisions such as the whole PvE server thing. This was an act of complete self-sabotage.



Lastly, the game never left an alpha/beta state... What were they assuming? That people would just jump in and open their wallets for a shell of a game that was nowhere near finished? Hell, I didn't even know they were looking for "financial success" so early on... Seems a bit unrealistic an expectation?



Anyhow, maybe they can sell off to someone who can actually make a fun game out of it, although I suppose with the whole SpatialOS mess I doubt people want to risk touching it. Shame.

Or maybe they should have had pve servers at the start to attract all those pve players who would have loved the game and who would have been made aware of the game through its initial launch.

Sneaking in a pve server way after the game launched to not much fanfare, with not much advertisement is the issue.

I really don't think PvP/PvE was the issue, they did a server for both and that did not seem to help that much.

Nilden

Scot said:

Sovrath said:

raapnaap said:

Maybe they shouldn't have decided to split up their playerbase by adding PvE servers. It scared off the PvP audience while failing to attain the PvE audience that never existed in the first place.



It was a fun game, lots of rough potential, but management made some pretty weird decisions such as the whole PvE server thing. This was an act of complete self-sabotage.



Lastly, the game never left an alpha/beta state... What were they assuming? That people would just jump in and open their wallets for a shell of a game that was nowhere near finished? Hell, I didn't even know they were looking for "financial success" so early on... Seems a bit unrealistic an expectation?



Anyhow, maybe they can sell off to someone who can actually make a fun game out of it, although I suppose with the whole SpatialOS mess I doubt people want to risk touching it. Shame.

Or maybe they should have had pve servers at the start to attract all those pve players who would have loved the game and who would have been made aware of the game through its initial launch.

Sneaking in a pve server way after the game launched to not much fanfare, with not much advertisement is the issue.

I really don't think PvP/PvE was the issue, they did a server for both and that did not seem to help that much.

Yeah. Spot on. When by their own admission they only had 20% of the game they wanted to make. I think what kind of server it was had very little bearing on people playing it compared to the unfinished state of the game.

anemo

The genre affecting news is interesting
___

On a more genre affecting level it was the most serious demonstration of Improbable's SpatialOS.  At least that gamers got to play, with everything else being years out or tech demos.  And it was a shitshow in the sense that after two years they were still patching out item duplication bugs.  So it's not quite near the MMO in a box it's thought to be.

Also demonstrates you don't get the ability to stay in Early Access for long in a multiplayer game, and keep your community engaged.  Even right now they're getting a few WTFs from old community members saying we were waiting for resets/wipes to stop.

It also did a really really good job at demonstrating that you're able to use community builders the same way MUDs do and add their stuff to the world.  You could tell for each island that there was that extra "handness".   Islands were also on point, on theme,  and balanced. 

Sovrath

Nilden said:

Scot said:

Sovrath said:

raapnaap said:

Maybe they shouldn't have decided to split up their playerbase by adding PvE servers. It scared off the PvP audience while failing to attain the PvE audience that never existed in the first place.



It was a fun game, lots of rough potential, but management made some pretty weird decisions such as the whole PvE server thing. This was an act of complete self-sabotage.



Lastly, the game never left an alpha/beta state... What were they assuming? That people would just jump in and open their wallets for a shell of a game that was nowhere near finished? Hell, I didn't even know they were looking for "financial success" so early on... Seems a bit unrealistic an expectation?



Anyhow, maybe they can sell off to someone who can actually make a fun game out of it, although I suppose with the whole SpatialOS mess I doubt people want to risk touching it. Shame.

Or maybe they should have had pve servers at the start to attract all those pve players who would have loved the game and who would have been made aware of the game through its initial launch.

Sneaking in a pve server way after the game launched to not much fanfare, with not much advertisement is the issue.

I really don't think PvP/PvE was the issue, they did a server for both and that did not seem to help that much.

Yeah. Spot on. When by their own admission they only had 20% of the game they wanted to make. I think what kind of server it was had very little bearing on people playing it compared to the unfinished state of the game.

Well, if that is is the case then OF COURSE the game folded. 20%? really? That's a huge shame.

Viper482

This "Early Access" scam needs to end. I would love to see a study as to how many of these games ever fully release.

WhiteLantern

Another closing of a game I never heard of.

alkarionlog

the game was launched? I think I missed that

Viper482

alkarionlog said:

the game was launched? I think I missed that

Negative....it was still early access on Steam.

Kyleran

Nilden said:

So are they going to have a single player mode or let people host servers? Or do I just have a dead game in my library now?

Go with the latter....but you do have all those "fine" memories of playing the game going forward.

Kyleran

Viper482 said:

This "Early Access" scam needs to end. I would love to see a study as to how many of these games ever fully release.

It's a pretty big list I think, would probably need a qualifier, like after the one year mark as it seems many of these early access titles put this in as estimated time to full launch....

anemo

Kyleran said:

Viper482 said:

This "Early Access" scam needs to end. I would love to see a study as to how many of these games ever fully release.

It's a pretty big list I think, would probably need a qualifier, like after the one year mark as it seems many of these early access titles put this in as estimated time to full launch....

There was a point in this game's cycle where they pulled themselves from Steam and called themselves pre-early-access

MadFrenchie

Game doesn't reach enough popularity to launch...  Prior to ever having a game ready for launch.

Nothing says "we're not budging til you've already committed to paying us" quite like crowdfunding.