test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

On the business side of things, maybe Cryptic actually got it right?

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
I'm going to make a bold statement: Cryptic has better business sense than we give them credit for. Yes, even after all the Atari-related boxed sales fiascos, two-year development time, and everything and anything you care to list off. At the end of the day, I'm willing to bet money that Cryptic is still turning a profit - enough to break even and then some. And a profitable business is all you could ever ask for if you work for them.

Hear me out: I just read a very interesting article on MMORPG.net about why Star Wars: The Old Republic has the potential to be a massive failure. And the funny thing is that it's not because SWTOR is going to suck as a game (I think it will be a good game), it's not because SWTOR will fail with the game critics (I believe they will rave over it), it's not because it doesn't have a fan base (it's STAR WARS for crying out loud), but because EA has unrealistic expectations for it: They said they need ONE MILLION subscribers just to keep the damn thing afloat.

Look: World of Warcraft is an anomaly with its 12+ millions subscribers (and counting). Only very few titles in the entire history of MMO gaming has ever broken even 1 million subscribers. As per the article, Lord of the Rings Online came close but didn't quite do it, and like Star Wars they had everything going for them like a pre-installed fanbase. Age of Conan was also set up to break 1 million but they fell flat on their faces.

Simply put, I don't think SWOTR will break 1 million subscribers or, if they do, they won't sustain them because I'm very cynical about MMO gamers in general. No matter what new game I've ever subscribed to, massive amounts of people quit after launch and declare the game sucks because it falls way short of their expectations (Star Trek Online is not a unique case). I believe this might have something to do with MMO gamers generally only willing to subscribe to one or two MMOs at a time due to monthly fees, and so they will only play the MMOs they feel are the "best" or hold some lasting appeal to them - which means that they place unrealistic expectations for each brand new release that comes out because they compare new MMOs to the MMORPGs they are already playing that have already been out for several years and therefore have the advantage of that much more development time behind them.

So getting back to Cryptic, the reason they "got it right" (at least to a degree) is precisely because they put more realistic expectations on their own games. I bet they cranked out Star Trek Online on the cheap with only a two-year development cycle, so they turned a monster profit by initial sales alone. Champions Online probably wasn't as dismal a failure as everyone believes, either, because it was probably partially funded by Marvel and Microsoft for a while before they cut their ties - Cryptic just finished it off, scraped "Marvel Universe Online" off the package and slapped a "Champions Online" sticker over it and then sold it. And even after these two games, they're already talking about comfortably tackling NeverWinter Nights. So, it's precisely because Cryptic is a humble little development outfit cranking out these neat little MMORPGs that capture just enough interest to keep them profitable is probably why they're going to be around for a little while.

Or maybe I'm way off base? This post was generated mainly out of boredom. :D
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Well I came in and read your post ...

    What does that say about my time management skills?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    The big tobacco companies make plenty of profit, but that doesnt mean what their doing is right. Now before you freak out, I'm not seriously comparing Cryptic to a tobacco company, just refuting the OP's argument that profit = right. As far as Cryptic is concerned, I'm sure they are making a profit. Unfortunately, STO is not a quality game at this point. However, it has the potential to be, and I hope that potential is realized in the future.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I agree with you Signal. You should be bored more often...you make better sense <LOL>.

    People have this perception that if a game doesn't kill WoW, or at least get close to the same numbers, then it must be a failure. Long have I pointed out that as long as the game makes a profit, then it is a success.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    OP, I personally agree. This game is written of as a failure by some because it "only" has 100k+ subs, which is funny, since we knew since OB that Cryptic's goal was 100k+ subs, meaning that the met their goal only a couple of months post-launch.

    If TOR does get a million subs, they won't be able to sustain it for the year necessary by their own projections to get their money back. Not with how fickle most MMO players are.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    The big tobacco companies make plenty of profit, but that doesnt mean what their doing is right. Now before you freak out, I'm not seriously comparing Cryptic to a tobacco company, just refuting the OP's argument that profit = right. As far as Cryptic is concerned, I'm sure they are making a profit. Unfortunately, STO is not a quality game at this point. However, it has the potential to be, and I hope that potential is realized in the future.

    I dunno if this is a refutation or a clarification. I don't think the OP is talking about 'right v wrong', but talking about Cryptic's business plan being correct in that it made a profit. He's not discussing morality. Now, if you look at a business model soley from the perspective that right=profit and wrong=losing money and going out of business, then Cryptic did it right. And, so apparently, have the tobacco companies since they're still in business and making obscene profits (unlike the insurance companies which only make 3% profit...).

    Gee. Who would think that a lowly human would have to explain profit to a Ferengi.....<ducking>.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Post removed
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    OP, I personally agree. This game is written of as a failure by some because it "only" has 100k+ subs, which is funny, since we knew since OB that Cryptic's goal was 100k+ subs, meaning that the met their goal only a couple of months post-launch.

    If TOR does get a million subs, they won't be able to sustain it for the year necessary by their own projections to get their money back. Not with how fickle most MMO players are.

    Not me.
    I think its a failure because of the lack of content, buggy mechanics, bad AI, bad level design, recycled engine...man, there are SO many reasons to hate this game....
    There's no need to compare it to anything.
    It sucks all by itself.

    Also setting a 100,000 sub goal was extremely short sighted, for such a massive IP.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Mikotren wrote:
    Not me.
    I think its a failure because of the lack of content, buggy mechanics, bad AI, bad level design, recycled engine...man, there are SO many reasons to hate this game....
    There's no need to compare it to anything.
    It sucks all by itself.

    Also setting a 100,000 sub goal was extremely short sighted, for such a massive IP.

    Just because you find things to hate about a game, doesn't mean it's a failure in the slightest. I hate the Toyota Prius. I can name numerous things to hate about it. Is it a failure? Not at all.

    Also, how was a goal of 100k subs short-sighted, if they made said goal? 100k+ subs garnered for an MMO in development for only two years? That's a pretty lofty goal IMO.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    kamui wrote: »
    I don't think the OP is talking about 'right v wrong', but talking about Cryptic's business plan being correct in that it made a profit. He's not discussing morality.

    Took the words right out of my mouth. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Signal wrote: »
    Champions Online probably wasn't as dismal a failure as everyone believes, either, because it was probably partially funded by Marvel and Microsoft for a while before they cut their ties - Cryptic just finished it off, scraped "Marvel Universe Online" off the package and slapped a "Champions Online" sticker over it and then sold it.

    That's the only part that could be off considering a recent interview by Jackalope where he says they started from sctatch with CO.

    Other than that you're probably right. Atari bought Cryptic because of their ability to crank out MMOs in a short amount of time using a small team. They basically min maxed these games out - minimal investment for maximum revenues or at least faster revenues. The Cryptic Game Engine was key to this.

    The thing that I fear most about STO is that the game's mechanics will never be changed due to engine limitations and/or unwillingness to commit resources for the change. I want things like being able to use our bridges for travel and space combat but the game engine cannot handle it. The engine was designed for one avatar on one map, not a player avatar inside a ship avatar.

    Right now, I see them adding more content but will it always be limited to "Defeat X Patrols" and "Press F to Interact"? Their proprietary engine let them crank out standard MMO stuff quickly and that business model probably worked for them. I just hope they have enough to not only sustain STO but come outside of the box with some innovative game mechanics.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Post removed
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Not me.
    I think its a failure because of the lack of content, buggy mechanics, bad AI, bad level design, recycled engine...man, there are SO many reasons to hate this game....
    There's no need to compare it to anything.
    It sucks all by itself.

    Also setting a 100,000 sub goal was extremely short sighted, for such a massive IP.

    The IP doesn't guarantee anything though.

    I would agree that STO deserved much more than it has received so far, but 100,000 customer's is fair, particularly with how many MMO's there are.

    I remember some numbers being thrown around, and once upon a time around 2004-2005 when CoH was still one of the new kids on the block, they had something like 180,000 subscribers at their peak. This is wildly successful, even for that time - before "that other game". I could be dead wrong, but I'm pretty sure they had a hefty subscriber base.

    Of course, along came Issue's 5 and 6 and Cryptic only ended up nerfing themselves, but I digress...

    Does this game need work? Damn skippy it does, but I feel bad for Bioware. Next to Blizzard they're one of the few game companies I actually hold in high regard. If TOR really needs a million subscriber's to keep it afloat, that game might just decimate them.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Cryptic got it right BUT ...

    SW:TOR ... It is going to fail ... if not it will be completely Darkside because ...

    "Adventure. Heh. Excitement. Heh. A Jedi craves not these things." - Yoda
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I agree, and with multiple posts stating that the development team hasn't shrunk post-launch I believe that STO will turn into the fastest improving game on the market. It has quite a long way to go but so far it's proven that, see release notes

    http://www.startrekonline.com/node/1386

    A lot of people say that this update is full of fluff, but the non fluffy content includes a new STF, two new fleet actions, level bound fleet actions so all the RA5s can do them, klingon star clusters, klingon fleet actions, new pvp map and FvF PvP. There are a few that I'm missing but I played WAR and AoC and they didn't quite do the same post launch.

    I think that it's a perfectly reasonable buissiness model to start out with a rock solid IP like Trek where many people will play no matter what, and then improve on it quickly enough that the subscriber base will grow at a slow and steady rate.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    That's the only part that could be off considering a recent interview by Jackalope where he says they started from sctatch with CO.

    Other than that you're probably right. Atari bought Cryptic because of their ability to crank out MMOs in a short amount of time using a small team. They basically min maxed these games out - minimal investment for maximum revenues or at least faster revenues. The Cryptic Game Engine was key to this.

    The thing that I fear most about STO is that the game's mechanics will never be changed due to engine limitations and/or unwillingness to commit resources for the change. I want things like being able to use our bridges for travel and space combat but the game engine cannot handle it. The engine was designed for one avatar on one map, not a player avatar inside a ship avatar.

    Right now, I see them adding more content but will it always be limited to "Defeat X Patrols" and "Press F to Interact"? Their proprietary engine let them crank out standard MMO stuff quickly and that business model probably worked for them. I just hope they have enough to not only sustain STO but come outside of the box with some innovative game mechanics.

    Their current engine could still very easily make room for diplomacy and advanced ship interiors provided that they don't exist at the same time as the ship. Not only that but a dev commented that if they get their AI pathing to be better they might just be shrinking down the size of the interiors themselves, which would be fantastic.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Mikotren wrote:
    Not me.
    I think its a failure because of the lack of content, buggy mechanics, bad AI, bad level design, recycled engine...man, there are SO many reasons to hate this game....
    There's no need to compare it to anything.
    It sucks all by itself.

    Also setting a 100,000 sub goal was extremely short sighted, for such a massive IP.

    WHY are you still here and posting again?

    Really though? A million MINIMUM subs? Thats unrealistic at best. Then again, it IS EA.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Really though? A million MINIMUM subs? Thats unrealistic at best. Then again, it IS EA.

    A million subs, minimum, over the course of a year. I just don't see it happening.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Their current engine could still very easily make room for diplomacy and advanced ship interiors provided that they don't exist at the same time as the ship. Not only that but a dev commented that if they get their AI pathing to be better they might just be shrinking down the size of the interiors themselves, which would be fantastic.

    That would be cool but their current approach to interiors is that they are only player housing. That's cool for some but I want a functional bridge that I can use in space. We've seen that on our TV screens since the 60's. I hope this will be done one day but I fear their business plan won't allow it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Signal wrote: »
    I'm going to make a bold statement: Cryptic has better business sense than we give them credit for. Yes, even after all the Atari-related boxed sales fiascos, two-year development time, and everything and anything you care to list off. At the end of the day, I'm willing to bet money that Cryptic is still turning a profit - enough to break even and then some. And a profitable business is all you could ever ask for if you work for them.

    Hear me out: I just read a very interesting article on MMORPG.net about why Star Wars: The Old Republic has the potential to be a massive failure. And the funny thing is that it's not because SWTOR is going to suck as a game (I think it will be a good game), it's not because SWTOR will fail with the game critics (I believe they will rave over it), it's not because it doesn't have a fan base (it's STAR WARS for crying out loud), but because EA has unrealistic expectations for it: They said they need ONE MILLION subscribers just to keep the damn thing afloat.

    Look: World of Warcraft is an anomaly with its 12+ millions subscribers (and counting). Only very few titles in the entire history of MMO gaming has ever broken even 1 million subscribers. As per the article, Lord of the Rings Online came close but didn't quite do it, and like Star Wars they had everything going for them like a pre-installed fanbase. Age of Conan was also set up to break 1 million but they fell flat on their faces.

    Simply put, I don't think SWOTR will break 1 million subscribers or, if they do, they won't sustain them because I'm very cynical about MMO gamers in general. No matter what new game I've ever subscribed to, massive amounts of people quit after launch and declare the game sucks because it falls way short of their expectations (Star Trek Online is not a unique case). I believe this might have something to do with MMO gamers generally only willing to subscribe to one or two MMOs at a time due to monthly fees, and so they will only play the MMOs they feel are the "best" or hold some lasting appeal to them - which means that they place unrealistic expectations for each brand new release that comes out because they compare new MMOs to the MMORPGs they are already playing that have already been out for several years and therefore have the advantage of that much more development time behind them.

    So getting back to Cryptic, the reason they "got it right" (at least to a degree) is precisely because they put more realistic expectations on their own games. I bet they cranked out Star Trek Online on the cheap with only a two-year development cycle, so they turned a monster profit by initial sales alone. Champions Online probably wasn't as dismal a failure as everyone believes, either, because it was probably partially funded by Marvel and Microsoft for a while before they cut their ties - Cryptic just finished it off, scraped "Marvel Universe Online" off the package and slapped a "Champions Online" sticker over it and then sold it. And even after these two games, they're already talking about comfortably tackling NeverWinter Nights. So, it's precisely because Cryptic is a humble little development outfit cranking out these neat little MMORPGs that capture just enough interest to keep them profitable is probably why they're going to be around for a little while.

    Or maybe I'm way off base? This post was generated mainly out of boredom. :D

    All the money in the world cannot fix a bad reputation if you continue to put out half TRIBBLE games. Sooner or later their brand will suffer because of the quality...its just a fact.

    GMAN
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    WHY are you still here and posting again?
    .

    Because, like i said, i have a whole wasted CE worth of complaining to do.
    I'm mad at cryptic for TRIBBLE this game up.
    When I'm not mad at em anymore I'll stop posting.

    As one poster mentioned just be glad I'm not a lifer, not sure i could do 250+ dollars worth of complaining.

    Yea...
    I probably could...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    That would be cool but their current approach to interiors is that they are only player housing. That's cool for some but I want a functional bridge that I can use in space. We've seen that on our TV screens since the 60's. I hope this will be done one day but I fear their business plan won't allow it.

    They've already said they plan on working on it, and hinted that we may get something of a start on it in July with the Season 2 content patch.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010

    A lot of people say that this update is full of fluff, but the non fluffy content includes a new STF, two new fleet actions, level bound fleet actions so all the RA5s can do them, klingon star clusters, klingon fleet actions, new pvp map and FvF PvP. There are a few that I'm missing but I played WAR and AoC and they didn't quite do the same post launch.

    You mean a fleet action that was in but were too bugged to work properly so they took it out, and a fleet action that was acquirable before being fully implemented? That's hardly new. It's basically releasing a fixed updated version of features that they removed because they fubared em or almost released em before they were ready.
    Season 1 *is* mostly fluff. Its Season 2 that may bring in new players and bring back players that have or are quitting.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    GbeHlpnU wrote: »
    All the money in the world cannot fix a bad reputation if you continue to put out half TRIBBLE games. Sooner or later their brand will suffer because of the quality...its just a fact.

    GMAN

    I want to agree with you but EA and SOE have reputations that went down the toilet into the sewer long ago. And they're still around.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    They've already said they plan on working on it, and hinted that we may get something of a start on it in July with the Season 2 content patch.

    Said that where? I only recall a dev stating recently that the engine was not designed for it and cannot handle it. There was no commitment to changing this from what I read.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Said that where? I only recall a dev stating recently that the engine was not designed for it and cannot handle it. There was no commitment to changing this from what I read.

    I swear that it was discussed a bit for Season 2.

    On the flip side, I never saw any announcement by any dev stating that the engine couldn't do it, especially since there are already a few ship interiors in the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Just because you find things to hate about a game, doesn't mean it's a failure in the slightest. I hate the Toyota Prius. I can name numerous things to hate about it. Is it a failure? Not at all.

    Also, how was a goal of 100k subs short-sighted, if they made said goal? 100k+ subs garnered for an MMO in development for only two years? That's a pretty lofty goal IMO.

    Well.....it's a failure at braking....<baddabing!>
    Mikotren wrote:
    Not me.
    I think its a failure because of the lack of content, buggy mechanics, bad AI, bad level design, recycled engine...man, there are SO many reasons to hate this game....
    There's no need to compare it to anything.
    It sucks all by itself.

    Also setting a 100,000 sub goal was extremely short sighted, for such a massive IP.

    Sadly, we're not talking about you. We're talking about whether or not STO is a success from a BUSINESS standpoint; ie, did it make a profit? From all accounts it HAS made a profit. Thus, it is a success. That you dislike it is inconsequential.


    As far as TOR goes...I dunno. I don't see how they can get 1mil subs. Heck, space flight won't even be in at the beginning! How do you have a galaxy spannig game involving an invasion from another galactic empire and involving space faring smugglers flitting from planet to planet WITHOUT SPACE?!?

    "Master?"
    "Yes Padawan?"
    "I have a question. How will we bring the fight to the Sith? We don't have ships."
    "Easy Padawan. We wait for them to come to us."
    "But master! How can they come to us if THEY don't have ships either?"
    "<blink><blink> The uh...the way's of the Force are uh...oh hell with it. Go clear those stumps with your mind while I sit on your head and look wise."
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I swear that it was discussed a bit for Season 2.

    On the flip side, I never saw any announcement by any dev stating that the engine couldn't do it, especially since there are already a few ship interiors in the game.

    The problem isn't with the interiors it's with the game engine itself. Both ground and space maps are designed for one avatar. If we are to travel inside our ships they would have to place our player avatar inside our ship avatar and the dev admitted the engine simply can't do this.

    I'm trying to look it up but I don't remember which dev it was. :(
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    The problem isn't with the interiors it's with the game engine itself. Both ground and space maps are designed for one avatar. If we are to travel inside our ships they would have to place our player avatar inside our ship avatar and the dev admitted the engine simply can't do this.

    I'm trying to look it up but I don't remember which dev it was. :(

    We already do that when we visit our bridges. All interiors do is add to the bridge. I find it odd that they "can't" do this, when they already do.

    Although, I do remember something being said about that a ways back.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    We already do that when we visit our bridges. All interiors do is add to the bridge. I find it odd that they "can't" do this, when they already do.

    Although, I do remember something being said about that a ways back.

    Your bridge is only an instanced map, populated with your bridge crew. It's not doing anything.

    As it stands now, the game engine lets you use one avatar per map no matter if you are playing space or ground. If we are to use our ships in space it would have to place our player avatar inside our ship avatar. If you experienced the player in space or ship on ground bugs in closed beta it would be clearer. This would require a large overhaul of the game engine and mechanics if its to be done.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Your bridge is only an instanced map, populated with your bridge crew. It's not doing anything.

    As it stands now, the game engine lets you use one avatar per map no matter if you are playing space or ground. If we are to use our ships in space it would have to place our player avatar inside our ship avatar. If you experienced the player in space or ship on ground bugs in closed beta it would be clearer. This would require a large overhaul of the game engine and mechanics if its to be done.

    And what makes you think that by adding more, they'd be doing anything but making the instance bigger? If you're asking for the ability to fight enemy ships from the bridge, then yeah, that just might cause problems. However, there's no real reason to believe that there's an avatar issue with just having ship interiors.
Sign In or Register to comment.