30m from who? Microsoft? In return for what? Dumbing down their game to the extent that it is enjoyable for attention deficit console gamers? We'll see soon enough I guess...
Where does this come from?
MS contracted with Sigil to make a AAA title and as Brad kept going back for more time and more money, Microsoft started looking closer and closer at what they were/weren't doing, eventually pulling the plug because it wasn't getting done. At the time, VG was about 60% finished when it hooked up with SOE and started looking for additional financing. When that final round of financing ran out, they opted to release.
MS had nothing to do with VG and dumbing it down -- they saw their investment wasn't going to pan out and cut it loose rather than throw more money away.
People are commenting as if the 30M is for AOC alone. Um, FC is a good sized company with many properties, and offices in Europe, the US and China. They also have the MMO Hidden World in development which may turn out to be the next breakout MMO. Leave it to MMORPG.com readers to be narrow of mind and vision, and to figure out ways to bring the name McQuade into any thread.
Although I would prefer a delay to a bad release, I do think it will hurt funcom. Right now one of the major advantages that AoC has over WAR is that it drops first. I know I know, everyone says that the two games cater to different audiences. But, there are a lot of gamers such as myself who plan to try both. If AoC is as good as they say it will be, then many of those who planned on trying both will eventually come back to AoC. They will have more developed avatars because they had more time with AoC. Lets face it. Unless your living in your mom's basement, pasty white from not seeing the sun, and pissing in gaterade bottles because you can't leave your comp, you won't have time to develop characters on both games to their full potential simultaneously. People are going to have to pick. But, as many have mentioned earlier, a delayed launch is light years better than a flawed one.
It will be interesting to see what happens at the very least. Not that it wil happen but imagine the entire NA and European WoW subscriber base left and split down the middle between WAR and AoC. 1.6 million each isn't a bad split of the pie -- both would be winners.
Originally posted by therain93 At the time, VG was about 60% finished when it hooked up with SOE and started looking for additional financing.
The only place I can assume you are pulling the 60% out of was the interview f13 did with the disgruntled former employee since it's one of the few places it was bandied about. I think you are misunderstanding it.
The exact answer was: "Well... if you call what we shipped 100%, I'd put the game at around 65%."
So still needing another 2-6 months to complete (depending on who you believe) the game was well short of 60% done.
Not that we are here to talk about Vanguard anyhow.
I'm also curious to figure out how much marketing Funcom is going to be doing, I'm just used to the model where the distributor (Eidos) would be doing the majority of the marketing. Either or, it IS good news.
At the time, VG was about 60% finished when it hooked up with SOE and started looking for additional financing. [/b][/quote] The only place I can assume you are pulling the 60% out of was the interview f13 did with the disgruntled former employee since it's one of the few places it was bandied about. I think you are misunderstanding it. The exact answer was:
"Well... if you call what we shipped 100%, I'd put the game at around 65%." So still needing another 2-6 months to complete (depending on who you believe) the game was well short of 60% done. Not that we are here to talk about Vanguard anyhow. I'm also curious to figure out how much marketing Funcom is going to be doing, I'm just used to the model where the distributor (Eidos) would be doing the majority of the marketing. Either or, it IS good news.
Actually, there was that interview as well as with another former employee...Brad. www.f13.net/ In that article, he didn't challenge the number. I don't want to linger on this topic either but blatant misinformation has to be addressed.
Actually, there was that interview as well as with another former employee...Brad. www.f13.net/ In that article, he didn't challenge the number. I don't want to linger on this topic either but blatant misinformation has to be addressed.
Blatent misinformation?
You are quoting Brad McQuaid as the source of solid information huh?
Sorry, had to clean up from about blowing coffee out of my nose from seeing something that funny.
Any way you cut it, I'm not sure I buy any of the "numbers" that are posted there, and you would do far better than suggest that one is more reliable, truthful, or accurate than the other.
Actually, there was that interview as well as with another former employee...Brad. www.f13.net/ In that article, he didn't challenge the number. I don't want to linger on this topic either but blatant misinformation has to be addressed.
Blatent misinformation?
You are quoting Brad McQuaid as the source of solid information huh?
Sorry, had to clean up from about blowing coffee out of my nose from seeing something that funny.
Any way you cut it, I'm not sure I buy any of the "numbers" that are posted there, and you would do far better than suggest that one is more reliable, truthful, or accurate than the other.
And so we linger a bit longer -- my original response was directed towards a poster blaming MS for money spent poorly dumbing down VG which wasn't true. Also, even if it is Brad, it's a citable first person source. Now, this is the AoC forum so let's drop the cutesy VG commentary as it has no more relevance.
30m from who? Microsoft? In return for what? Dumbing down their game to the extent that it is enjoyable for attention deficit console gamers? We'll see soon enough I guess...
I am so glad that brain dead gamers like yourself destroyed Vanguard. Maybe now we'll see some reason applied to games like Age of Conan and it will be successful instead of a complete failure of epic proportions.
Sorry, but the days of you "core gamers" deciding and proselytizing are done. And it's too bad Microsoft was smart enough to jump ship on Vanguard when they saw how screwed up it was. Had they stuck around and had the legal right to fire half of the Vanguard staff (starting with the top) it might have been a viable game.
30m from who? Microsoft? In return for what? Dumbing down their game to the extent that it is enjoyable for attention deficit console gamers? We'll see soon enough I guess...
Where does this come from?
MS contracted with Sigil to make a AAA title and as Brad kept going back for more time and more money, Microsoft started looking closer and closer at what they were/weren't doing, eventually pulling the plug because it wasn't getting done. At the time, VG was about 60% finished when it hooked up with SOE and started looking for additional financing. When that final round of financing ran out, they opted to release.
MS had nothing to do with VG and dumbing it down -- they saw their investment wasn't going to pan out and cut it loose rather than throw more money away.
This thread is about Age of Conan... Not Vanguard...
Originally posted by therain93 Originally posted by Baikal Actually, there was that interview as well as with another former employee...Brad. www.f13.net/ In that article, he didn't challenge the number. I don't want to linger on this topic either but blatant misinformation has to be addressed.
Blatent misinformation? You are quoting Brad McQuaid as the source of solid information huh? Sorry, had to clean up from about blowing coffee out of my nose from seeing something that funny. Any way you cut it, I'm not sure I buy any of the "numbers" that are posted there, and you would do far better than suggest that one is more reliable, truthful, or accurate than the other. And so we linger a bit longer -- my original response was directed towards a poster blaming MS for money spent poorly dumbing down VG which wasn't true. Also, even if it is Brad, it's a citable first person source. Now, this is the AoC forum so let's drop the cutesy VG commentary as it has no more relevance.
That works, just dont try to suggest that something is X% done, when there is no credible source for it. It just makes you look extremely foolish. (moreso when the source of you are suggesting is none other than the man who 90% of the MMO-genre feels has no credibility, or a complete disconnect from reality)
And yes, dropping it is the way to go, continuing to suggest what you are suggesting is accurate and your sourcing is far to ridiculous to continue!
Actually, there was that interview as well as with another former employee...Brad. www.f13.net/ In that article, he didn't challenge the number. I don't want to linger on this topic either but blatant misinformation has to be addressed.
Blatent misinformation?
You are quoting Brad McQuaid as the source of solid information huh?
Sorry, had to clean up from about blowing coffee out of my nose from seeing something that funny.
Any way you cut it, I'm not sure I buy any of the "numbers" that are posted there, and you would do far better than suggest that one is more reliable, truthful, or accurate than the other.
And so we linger a bit longer -- my original response was directed towards a poster blaming MS for money spent poorly dumbing down VG which wasn't true. Also, even if it is Brad, it's a citable first person source. Now, this is the AoC forum so let's drop the cutesy VG commentary as it has no more relevance.
Slightly off topic here... and I apologize for furthering the lingering but, I kinda agree that we shouldn't really be taking Brad's word as the gospel. He has been less than forthcoming in the past. I also firmly believe that most of what was said, or "leaked" in the days leading up to and shortly following the SOE buyout can be attributed to little more than SOE spin. All of the sudden everything was Sigil's fault, and SOE had no part in the fiasco other than to be the generous benefactor that enabled development to continue, and eventually saved the game from simply being shut down. No mention of SOE forcing the premature launch and then capitalizing on it by buying the game they helped cause to fail. I'm sure there is a bit of truth in everything they had to say, but I think it was a lot more PR spin than anything else.
Originally posted by StevonOriginally posted by godpuppet
30m from who? Microsoft? In return for what? Dumbing down their game to the extent that it is enjoyable for attention deficit console gamers? We'll see soon enough I guess...
I am so glad that brain dead gamers like yourself destroyed Vanguard. Maybe now we'll see some reason applied to games like Age of Conan and it will be successful instead of a complete failure of epic proportions.
Sorry, but the days of you "core gamers" deciding and proselytizing are done. And it's too bad Microsoft was smart enough to jump ship on Vanguard when they saw how screwed up it was. Had they stuck around and had the legal right to fire half of the Vanguard staff (starting with the top) it might have been a viable game.
Even though this thread has nothing to do with Vanguard, Vanboi's still decide to take it upon themselves to boycott it and use it to regain ground from their hurt e-peens. Sorry to be the one to rain on your parade. But this is an Age of Conan thread. Go away!
Originally posted by Salvatoris Originally posted by therain93 Originally posted by Baikal Actually, there was that interview as well as with another former employee...Brad. www.f13.net/ In that article, he didn't challenge the number. I don't want to linger on this topic either but blatant misinformation has to be addressed.
Blatent misinformation? You are quoting Brad McQuaid as the source of solid information huh? Sorry, had to clean up from about blowing coffee out of my nose from seeing something that funny. Any way you cut it, I'm not sure I buy any of the "numbers" that are posted there, and you would do far better than suggest that one is more reliable, truthful, or accurate than the other. And so we linger a bit longer -- my original response was directed towards a poster blaming MS for money spent poorly dumbing down VG which wasn't true. Also, even if it is Brad, it's a citable first person source. Now, this is the AoC forum so let's drop the cutesy VG commentary as it has no more relevance.
Slightly off topic here... and I apologize for furthering the lingering but, I kinda agree that we shouldn't really be taking Brad's word as the gospel. He has been less than forthcoming in the past. I also firmly believe that most of what was said, or "leaked" in the days leading up to and shortly following the SOE buyout can be attributed to little more than SOE spin. All of the sudden everything was Sigil's fault, and SOE had no part in the fiasco other than to be the generous benefactor that enabled development to continue, and eventually saved the game from simply being shut down. No mention of SOE forcing the premature launch and then capitalizing on it by buying the game they helped cause to fail. I'm sure there is a bit of truth in everything they had to say, but I think it was a lot more PR spin than anything else.
Hehe, no comment.
It's probably best we leave all reference to Vanguard and McQuaid off the AoC forums here. There are not too many subjects, it seems, that seem to divide the MMO community into seperate camps, more than those two. It also seems that any mention of either of them turns on a switch in people that automatically forces them to act unreasonably, speak unreasonably, and generate statistics on the spot. It's not a great trait. As we've just seen demonstrated.
Fortunately, this is Age of Conan, not the afformentioned game.
Trying to swing this back on topic.
1) I wonder how much of the financing was based on this game being on track to release in October? Funcom would have to pitch the game as on track, and 30 million is a lot to raise, with AoC a large part of that equation, and that they take a significant amount of time in the release talking about October. Can we really expect there to be a delay now?
2) How much of the marketing is Funcom doing, and how much is Eidos doing? What can we expect to see directly from Funcom?
3) The phrase "near term acquisitions". That could mean an awful lot of things, I wonder what they have in mind.
As much as I hate microsoft,they have a very good track record with games in the past.Close combat 3 unopened can fetch $150 easy.But anyways Funcom is required to disclose any revenue or finanacing source.Nowhere on their report shows a microsoft kickback.Microsoft is already in enough issues as it is,without directly paying off third party developers.
As far as funcom being a big company thier total net worth was 60 MUSD.Now subtract 30 MUSD in debt. I wouldn't consider funcom a big company.
As far as I know its the publishers job(they gey a big cut) to market and distribute a title.
Comments
Where does this come from?
MS contracted with Sigil to make a AAA title and as Brad kept going back for more time and more money, Microsoft started looking closer and closer at what they were/weren't doing, eventually pulling the plug because it wasn't getting done. At the time, VG was about 60% finished when it hooked up with SOE and started looking for additional financing. When that final round of financing ran out, they opted to release.
MS had nothing to do with VG and dumbing it down -- they saw their investment wasn't going to pan out and cut it loose rather than throw more money away.
Funcom is also developing another mmo afaik (secret world?) so a good deal of that money could be going towards that project
People are commenting as if the 30M is for AOC alone. Um, FC is a good sized company with many properties, and offices in Europe, the US and China. They also have the MMO Hidden World in development which may turn out to be the next breakout MMO. Leave it to MMORPG.com readers to be narrow of mind and vision, and to figure out ways to bring the name McQuade into any thread.
It will be interesting to see what happens at the very least. Not that it wil happen but imagine the entire NA and European WoW subscriber base left and split down the middle between WAR and AoC. 1.6 million each isn't a bad split of the pie -- both would be winners.
The only place I can assume you are pulling the 60% out of was the interview f13 did with the disgruntled former employee since it's one of the few places it was bandied about. I think you are misunderstanding it.
The exact answer was:
"Well... if you call what we shipped 100%, I'd put the game at around 65%."
So still needing another 2-6 months to complete (depending on who you believe) the game was well short of 60% done.
Not that we are here to talk about Vanguard anyhow.
I'm also curious to figure out how much marketing Funcom is going to be doing, I'm just used to the model where the distributor (Eidos) would be doing the majority of the marketing. Either or, it IS good news.
Actually, there was that interview as well as with another former employee...Brad. www.f13.net/ In that article, he didn't challenge the number. I don't want to linger on this topic either but blatant misinformation has to be addressed.
Blatent misinformation?
You are quoting Brad McQuaid as the source of solid information huh?
Sorry, had to clean up from about blowing coffee out of my nose from seeing something that funny.
Any way you cut it, I'm not sure I buy any of the "numbers" that are posted there, and you would do far better than suggest that one is more reliable, truthful, or accurate than the other.
Blatent misinformation?
You are quoting Brad McQuaid as the source of solid information huh?
Sorry, had to clean up from about blowing coffee out of my nose from seeing something that funny.
Any way you cut it, I'm not sure I buy any of the "numbers" that are posted there, and you would do far better than suggest that one is more reliable, truthful, or accurate than the other.
And so we linger a bit longer -- my original response was directed towards a poster blaming MS for money spent poorly dumbing down VG which wasn't true. Also, even if it is Brad, it's a citable first person source. Now, this is the AoC forum so let's drop the cutesy VG commentary as it has no more relevance.
I am so glad that brain dead gamers like yourself destroyed Vanguard. Maybe now we'll see some reason applied to games like Age of Conan and it will be successful instead of a complete failure of epic proportions.
Sorry, but the days of you "core gamers" deciding and proselytizing are done. And it's too bad Microsoft was smart enough to jump ship on Vanguard when they saw how screwed up it was. Had they stuck around and had the legal right to fire half of the Vanguard staff (starting with the top) it might have been a viable game.
Where does this come from?
MS contracted with Sigil to make a AAA title and as Brad kept going back for more time and more money, Microsoft started looking closer and closer at what they were/weren't doing, eventually pulling the plug because it wasn't getting done. At the time, VG was about 60% finished when it hooked up with SOE and started looking for additional financing. When that final round of financing ran out, they opted to release.
MS had nothing to do with VG and dumbing it down -- they saw their investment wasn't going to pan out and cut it loose rather than throw more money away.
This thread is about Age of Conan... Not Vanguard...
---
Blatent misinformation?
You are quoting Brad McQuaid as the source of solid information huh?
Sorry, had to clean up from about blowing coffee out of my nose from seeing something that funny.
Any way you cut it, I'm not sure I buy any of the "numbers" that are posted there, and you would do far better than suggest that one is more reliable, truthful, or accurate than the other.
And so we linger a bit longer -- my original response was directed towards a poster blaming MS for money spent poorly dumbing down VG which wasn't true. Also, even if it is Brad, it's a citable first person source. Now, this is the AoC forum so let's drop the cutesy VG commentary as it has no more relevance.
That works, just dont try to suggest that something is X% done, when there is no credible source for it. It just makes you look extremely foolish. (moreso when the source of you are suggesting is none other than the man who 90% of the MMO-genre feels has no credibility, or a complete disconnect from reality)
And yes, dropping it is the way to go, continuing to suggest what you are suggesting is accurate and your sourcing is far to ridiculous to continue!
Blatent misinformation?
You are quoting Brad McQuaid as the source of solid information huh?
Sorry, had to clean up from about blowing coffee out of my nose from seeing something that funny.
Any way you cut it, I'm not sure I buy any of the "numbers" that are posted there, and you would do far better than suggest that one is more reliable, truthful, or accurate than the other.
And so we linger a bit longer -- my original response was directed towards a poster blaming MS for money spent poorly dumbing down VG which wasn't true. Also, even if it is Brad, it's a citable first person source. Now, this is the AoC forum so let's drop the cutesy VG commentary as it has no more relevance.
Slightly off topic here... and I apologize for furthering the lingering
but, I kinda agree that we shouldn't really be taking Brad's word as the gospel. He has been less than forthcoming in the past. I also firmly believe that most of what was said, or "leaked" in the days leading up to and shortly following the SOE buyout can be attributed to little more than SOE spin. All of the sudden everything was Sigil's fault, and SOE had no part in the fiasco other than to be the generous benefactor that enabled development to continue, and eventually saved the game from simply being shut down. No mention of SOE forcing the premature launch and then capitalizing on it by buying the game they helped cause to fail. I'm sure there is a bit of truth in everything they had to say, but I think it was a lot more PR spin than anything else.
-----Zero Punctuation Eve Online Review-----
I am so glad that brain dead gamers like yourself destroyed Vanguard. Maybe now we'll see some reason applied to games like Age of Conan and it will be successful instead of a complete failure of epic proportions.
Sorry, but the days of you "core gamers" deciding and proselytizing are done. And it's too bad Microsoft was smart enough to jump ship on Vanguard when they saw how screwed up it was. Had they stuck around and had the legal right to fire half of the Vanguard staff (starting with the top) it might have been a viable game.
Even though this thread has nothing to do with Vanguard, Vanboi's still decide to take it upon themselves to boycott it and use it to regain ground from their hurt e-peens. Sorry to be the one to rain on your parade. But this is an Age of Conan thread. Go away!
---
Blatent misinformation?
You are quoting Brad McQuaid as the source of solid information huh?
Sorry, had to clean up from about blowing coffee out of my nose from seeing something that funny.
Any way you cut it, I'm not sure I buy any of the "numbers" that are posted there, and you would do far better than suggest that one is more reliable, truthful, or accurate than the other.
And so we linger a bit longer -- my original response was directed towards a poster blaming MS for money spent poorly dumbing down VG which wasn't true. Also, even if it is Brad, it's a citable first person source. Now, this is the AoC forum so let's drop the cutesy VG commentary as it has no more relevance.
Slightly off topic here... and I apologize for furthering the lingering
Hehe, no comment.
It's probably best we leave all reference to Vanguard and McQuaid off the AoC forums here. There are not too many subjects, it seems, that seem to divide the MMO community into seperate camps, more than those two. It also seems that any mention of either of them turns on a switch in people that automatically forces them to act unreasonably, speak unreasonably, and generate statistics on the spot. It's not a great trait. As we've just seen demonstrated.
Fortunately, this is Age of Conan, not the afformentioned game.
Trying to swing this back on topic.
1) I wonder how much of the financing was based on this game being on track to release in October? Funcom would have to pitch the game as on track, and 30 million is a lot to raise, with AoC a large part of that equation, and that they take a significant amount of time in the release talking about October. Can we really expect there to be a delay now?
2) How much of the marketing is Funcom doing, and how much is Eidos doing? What can we expect to see directly from Funcom?
3) The phrase "near term acquisitions". That could mean an awful lot of things, I wonder what they have in mind.
ive played all of Funcom games and i like em all. Well i think 30Mill will just improve it
and i still hope for 30 oct release
Always do the right thing
As much as I hate microsoft,they have a very good track record with games in the past.Close combat 3 unopened can fetch $150 easy.But anyways Funcom is required to disclose any revenue or finanacing source.Nowhere on their report shows a microsoft kickback.Microsoft is already in enough issues as it is,without directly paying off third party developers.
As far as funcom being a big company thier total net worth was 60 MUSD.Now subtract 30 MUSD in debt. I wouldn't consider funcom a big company.
As far as I know its the publishers job(they gey a big cut) to market and distribute a title.