At Christmas, the company provided a catered meal for the CSRs who had to monitor an in-game event and work through the holiday. I don’t know if our bosses just ordered what they usually did, but the surplus of food made it seem like our department’s slow decline had gone unnoticed. There was enough food for an army, but only a handful of us were left. For weeks afterward, the break room fridge overflowed with unopened trays of leftover corn. It felt like an offering left to appease the layoff god. Maybe this delicious corn would sate his mighty hunger.
#1 by Vetarnias on August 6th, 2009
“Its hard feeling bad for a guy with desilusions.”
Not really, if this is, as I suspect, a modern-day case of Plato’s cave, usually meaning you are not aware of anything beyond your cubicle. You made that Titanic analogy in a previous post, and I can’t avoid remembering those pumping the water in the sixth compartment, where the gash ended, who thought they were succeeding because the water was receding — until it flowed over from the previous compartment.
So Monken’s reality of Warhammer is what he, as a CSR, could see and what he had to deal with; hence, gold farmers and cheaters. The guys who made his job miserable were to be blamed for the failure of the entire game, and it’s certainly better-looking on your resume that you should blame them instead of the suits upstairs. It’s a cockamamie reasoning, yeah, but it’s the only one he could make on which he could pretend to have knowledge — that and blaming WoW. If he had gone on and pinned it on the developers’ decision to not include a human tank class for Order, we would have seen it as the empty theorycraft it would have been.
What particularly annoys me about this article is that it is being sold as an insider’s look — yes, the author was a journalist, and he has writing credentials, but you don’t read this piece because he was a games reviewer; you read this for no other reason than because he was working for EA Mythic when Warhammer went live. If a former White House butler wrote a book called “Twenty Years of Serving Presidents”, and assuming that somehow it didn’t get vetted to death, would you read it to pick up tips on how to polish silverware?
Sure, I’m sick of “belligerent investigative Watergate reporting with a touch of tabloid gossip”, but when you see an article touted as being written by an insider, you expect something in the way of, well, inside information.
Yet here is the breakdown, page by page, of the Escapist article:
Page 1) Author’s background, with so many details that he should have produced an article thrice as long to match it. He mentions in passing that this job would whet his journalistic curiosity; fair enough.
Page 2) How great he feels being a CSR, what an eclectic bunch they are, and the promotional material looks great. WoW, however, shows up at the bottom of the page to sow the seeds of destruction in paradise.
Page 3) The downturn. And at the bottom of the page, we get that anecdote with the catered meals. It’s the best part of the story. Why? Because it’s the only one, outside of the layoffs themselves, which involves the company in anything other than a public (PR, financial statement, etc.) setting. If the CSR’s had ordered pizza and paid for it themselves, it might have given some flavour as to their work environment, but it would have said nothing about working for EA.
But even that moment with the corn is so superficial, so fleeting, that it leaves the weakest of imprints, and all I’m thinking is that I might as well have been reading Douglas Coupland; wasn’t jPod’s company based on EA Vancouver? And didn’t Coupland expose the excesses of the “everybody’s-an-aspie-and-it-feels-great” mentality which Monken unintentionally brings up when he mentions “breaks playing Rock Band in the console-filled breakrooms”, “some Simpsons quote” or “a bizarre internet meme” thrown around among people who “all shared the same interests”? Perhaps Monken enjoyed it, but I felt queasy just reading that, and I can picture myself going mad in such a work environment. I’ve never been a snob, but being immersed in such mind-numbing superficiality might well have tipped me over the line.
Page 4) The Protracted Goodbye.
It’s all about how the author feels, in between segments culled from press announcements. Compare the segment Mr. Jennings quoted with the rest of the article; completely different.
Mind you, I’m not blaming Monken for his lackluster article; I’m blaming Electronic Arts for making him unable to discuss any aspect of working at EA, including “internal conversations”. But he could have tried to weave in certain anecdotes about his workplace that tell you something of the company.
Let me try to illustrate what I mean. Remember that retail place I worked for that I mentioned above? Okay, I’ll tell you this much: We were selling home appliances, and the store where I worked was the Siberia of the chain, as we were specializing in discontinued floor models from other stores, items damaged in shipping, and repaired defective stuff (which the client, needless to say, did not know about). So we were selling unpacked appliances, all exhibited as floor models and sold on a case-by-case basis; and as soon as one sold, it had to be replaced by another item from our extensive backstore. One day, the guy in charge of purchasing for the entire chain showed up (remember, we were in Siberia, so we rarely saw him), and started demanding that all refrigerators on the sales floor be arranged according to height. And when one of them sold, and that the replacement was of a different height, we had to move all the others to make sure the height order was respected. In a good evening, we could sell five or six such refrigerators, and our skeleton staff in the back had to take care of all other departments as well. But what did the purchasing guy know, he never came around, and even the store manager told us to disregard his request the moment he walked out of the door.
This, I like to think, is a revealing anecdote. Monken’s article has nothing of the sort. But then, he’s a freelancer, and they’re Electronic Arts.
#2 by Tremayne on August 6th, 2009
I’m still trying to figure out why gaining RPs felt like a grind in Warhammer and not in DAoC. I mean, capping out your Realm Rank in DAoC would have taken forever, but I don’t recall anyone worrying about it back in the day. In Warhammer, people were definitely out there focussing on ‘levelling up’ their RR. Change in gamer culture, or are the incentives for high RR in Warhammer enough to make that big a difference?
#3 by Alarik on August 6th, 2009
With the endgame being based so heavily around tiers of gear, and each higher tier requiring either PvE farming or progressively higher realm ranks to use the PvP versions, it felt like a much more necessary progression than it did in DAoC.
#4 by Jeff on August 6th, 2009
In all this talk of Warhammer failing I think we miss something. Don’t get me wrong, Warhammer sank in ways that make the Titanic proud, but I don’t think we talk much about Imperator.
People tend to act like Mythic has done all these great things. Sure, they made a lot of small games in the old days. But when you talk about the big ones, they had a modest hit that they proceeded to screw up in DAoC, then they completely whiffed on Imperator, and we all know the story of Failhammer.
It all begs the question: Did they just get lucky with DAoC? Does anyone at Mythic even know how to make an MMO anymore?
#5 by Tremayne on August 6th, 2009
@Jeff
Warhammer isn’t a BAD game, but it failed to be the GREAT game it needed to be given the competition it was facing. The subscription numbers aren’t bad for an MMO, even for a triple-A MMO – they just completely fail to meet the expectations that EA and the gaming public had.
Imperator – knowing what we do now, I think Mythic showed that they were smart by parking that one. It just feels too similar to Tabula Rasa and if Mythic had pressed ahead, they probably would have ridden that one down in flames.
The number of studios that have launched more than one successful triple-A MMO can still be counted on the fingers of one hand. Having even one under your belt is a hell of an achievement and requires a lot more than ‘getting lucky’.
#6 by Cliff on August 6th, 2009
Tremayne hit it on the head. I know it is very popular with the kids these days to spout the word “fail” all over the place, but if we could all just park the empty internet platitudes for a moment and curb the hyperbole, you will find that Warhammer did not “fail.” It just has not lived up to expectations. Those expectations seem to be growing in the telling too. I actually remember Mythic saying they were NOT aiming at outdoing WoW, which is contradictory to several statements above. They certainly did fail to meet certain criteria for a hit MMO as set down by Mark Jacobs (sub numbers and server merges), which is damning enough without resorting to hyperbole. The endgame certainly has its flaws too, but it is there, it is functional, and I find that I am participating in far more of the “end game” than I ever was able to in WoW, which lived up to one of my personal hopes for WAR.
I actually did the opposite of many, and cancelled WoW because I was having more fun in Warhammer. There are others having fun in WAR too. It’s not a failure to make a fun game, although it certainly failed to capture the minds and imagination of everyone who has played it. As Tremayne says, that is not an easy task. Even Blizzard manages to take all manner of criticism and they have an undeniable financial success. They failed to keep me subscribed, but I would by no means call them a failure because I had more fun in another game, nor would I call them a failure because I personally hate their PvP system, and am tired of the daily quests. Many others enjoy those elements, and more power to them!
I swear, this MMO genre has an amazingly negative and vocal user base that just does not seem to be happy with much of anything for very long…
#7 by EpicSquirt on August 7th, 2009
Cliff, Warhammer failed in almost every criteria: financial, design, technical conversion, service. It wasn’t even mentioned on EA’s fiscal year 2009 report.
And no one really cares about WoW. It was never the standard for the many DAoC players who wanted a good successor.
You can moan about the negative and vocal user bases as much as you want, for me it is normal to just have a look at a steaming pile of shit (Warhammer) and to turn away from it as soon as possible.
Warhammer could have 1 subscriber and still be a good game or have 5 millions subscribers and be a bad game, you can check a random MMORPG forum w/o Nazimods and have a look at the Warhammer-section and see how good/bad it is.
#8 by Cliff on August 7th, 2009
Epicsquirt: “Steaming pile of shit.” That would be the hyperbole I was talking about… WAR is quite certainly not a steaming pile of shit, unless your definition of shit is vastly different from mine. I actually play the game, so no, I do not need to check random forums to see this kind of hyperbole to tell me about the game. I play it, and I enjoy it. So do others. I also recognize it had problems, and still has problems, and I have certainly noticed that quite a few people have left the game. I also understand why. I know these things by observing them, not by reading about it on some forum. The only thing forums tell me is that there are many people saying they do not like the game, and they say it in very colourful language. I have seen that in quite a few forums, and if I ever go to one, it is just to filter all that nonsense out and get the actual facts, or details I am searching for.
My point was, I see that sort of commenting about WoW too, which is certainly a success. I also see the word “fail” flung at Wrath. I have played Wrath too, and enjoyed it (although not enough to try and play it at the same time as Warhammer). I see that about pretty much any MMO I read about. That tells me there is a vocal and negative user base for these kinds of games. I’m just trying to suggest that it makes for a more productive discussion if people were able to drop the hyperbole. It’s just not helpful, and it’s not informative. The only thing it does is prove that people can use trendy, inflammatory, or negative words they heard on the internet, and that they can repeat and regurgitate. Children do that when they hear curse words too.
Moaning? That would be another example of hyperbole. I was making an observation. That’s what comments are for. I am not actually expecting anyone to change. Discussion doesn’t work that way these days. Still, it might actually give someone something to think about, which makes it worth commenting on.
#9 by EpicSquirt on August 8th, 2009
Cliff, Fair enough, you have an undisputable right to have your own taste and enjoy a game.
The same goes for companies which want to throw money away, it’s their money. I think people tried to be productive with Mythic since at least 2003, pointing out the issues DAoC had, from what I know Warhammer’s beta testers have complained about most of the critical issues the game had in the beta, the game has been released anyway. I didn’t have a chance to test the game even though I applied for a beta and the European open beta test was a closed one. So effectively I threw money away too, on an unfinished game, which was maybe fun for the first 10-20 levels while still having many techincal issues.
#10 by Billzor on August 8th, 2009
This is bullshit. I come here to read rants and jibes at Darkfall, not interesting, personal perspective stories. Lum, u=fail
#11 by Jeff on August 8th, 2009
I played Warhammer in beta, I played it when it went live.
I realize good/bad is all relative to each person, but speaking as someone who worked for a few years in the gaming press Warhammer was a bad game.
PvE was too bland, and what unique features they did have were beaten to death with overuse. No real dungeons, at least not what I would call a dungeon, for low to mid level players.
PvP was grossly imbalanced class wise. Poorly conceived abilites like AoE knock back spamming added to this. The end game was broken, and for a highly touted “pvp” game the best pvp gear came from pve dungeons.
Poor decisions piled on top of poor decisions with crappy execution of poor decisions piled on top. On top of that even basic features like linking items in chat, among other things, took months to patch in the game.
World of Warcraft taught one lesson. Polish your damn game. There are people out there looking for an alternative, but Warcraft has set certain expectations of minimum features and polish. Fail to learn that and you have Warhammer. A game hyped by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
#12 by Vetarnias on August 9th, 2009
The problem starts when polishing your damn game to meet the Warcraft-set expectations requires a Warcraft budget and, for that, a Warcraft-sized prospective player base — the lowest common denominator. No thanks.
Yeah, by all means polish it, iron out the bugs, get rid of the game crashes (which were my main reason for leaving WAR, by the way) and definitely finish your game by release, but don’t go for those graphical excesses (Conan was a prime example).
#13 by Jeff on August 9th, 2009
I don’t think polishing has anything to do with graphics. WoW itself is more a graphical style than a blow your socks off pretty game. It is more to with things you mention. Iron out your bugs, have the extra but of shine metaphorically speaking on everything you are trying to do in the game.
I think too many developers try to do to much. Keep it small enough that you can polish what you have. If that means 4 classes instead of 8 or 8 instead of 16 then so be it. I don’t think it takes a wow budget to polish a game, an EA budget should have been fine.
I’ll wager you this, Star Wars TOR will be far more polished than it’s fellow EA sibling. A lot of that has to do more with project management as much or more than any wow sized budget.
#14 by Cliff on August 10th, 2009
Feature creep is always a concern, and learning not to try to do too much or risk diluting what you have, is important for many crafts and many industries. Artists, writers, movie makers, and song writers all have that same issue. I think it is particularly apparent in games, however, and even more specifically MMOGs.
I also agree that Warhammer fell into this trap. They tried to rein it in by dropping some classes and the extra cities, which shows that they knew they had stretched themselves too far in the time they had. Time is always the killer, it seems; time, money, and how it is managed.
I would guess that you are correct Jeff, that project management is a key here. Mythic obviously has some pretty talented people working there. The look, sound, and many concepts for Warhammer are pretty darn solid. That is what keeps me playing. However, there is no doubt that the final product was not finished enough for many players, and I certainly don’t blame them for wanting a complete and polished product. That is reasonable, and should be anticipated by any game company that wishes to maintain a large portion of their initial subscribers.
Obviously, for whatever reasons, this is easier said than done, since Mythic is certainly not the only company to have done this, nor are they the worst. It may be that excellent project management is harder to come by than excellent programmers, artists, and developers.
#15 by Jeff on August 10th, 2009
@ Cliff
You’re right, Mythic isn’t alone in releasing unfinished and unpolished games, but they do have a pretty poor track record.
DAoC was a solid hit for its day. But they lost focus and forgot what they were about and tried to become more like EQ in some of their expansions, most notably ToA.
Imperator never saw the light of day. People can say all they want that “it was a good call not to launch it”, but that only glosses over the fact Mythic wasted so much time and money on a failed project that in the end it probably forced their hand when it came to selling themselves to EA.
WAR was a great dissapointment by anyone’s measuring stick.
If you look at their track record it’s not surprising that MJ was fired and that Mythic was placed under Bioware’s watchful eye.
The only shocking thing is that more heads didn’t roll at the top of Mythic.
The really sad part is the story of the CSR guy and his friends. People like them always end up paying for the mistakes long before the bosses that made them do.
#16 by Cliff on August 11th, 2009
I definitely agree that it is a damn shame about people like this CSR guy. Really, there are a whole passel of people who worked hard on projects like this and really wanted their project to succeed. It’s frustrating beyond belief to see all sorts of strong talent collected, but for whatever reason, the project as a whole falters.
I had the honor of working next to some fair talent on a low budget film right after I finished college. The writers, director, and producer were not all that good, but they had managed to pull in some pretty strong technical guys. Their main characters were mostly played by bad actors, but some of the smaller roles were performed by some really talented folks. It was pretty fascinating, and very frustrating to watch this talent get wasted on a bad movie. I suppose that is why I am easier on Mythic than some, because I have worked on one real stinker in my time, and know just what truly bad vision can produce.
#17 by Jeff on August 12th, 2009
I hardly think comparing the outcomes of a low budget indie film to a development that of a team that are supposed to be seasoned pros is valid.
The one is almost by definition supposed to be half assed, the other is supposed to be a polished product.
#18 by Cliff on August 12th, 2009
Jeff, I may not have made myself clear. Low budget, high budget, they have oen thing in common. There were talented indivicuals on both projects and both projects seemingly suffered from mis-management. That was the common factor I was pointing to, as the crew on both projects were seasoned professionals.
Don’t equate low budget film with low quality crew. There were some pretty talented people working on that crew that had been involved in much more expensive high profile projects. The crew were largely hired professionals, with years of experience in the industry. The camera work was solid, the sets were well designed etc. Compared to what a top billed actor gets paid, a seasoned cameraman, art director, grip, etc. are not that expensive. It wasn’t the talent of the technical crew that made that film a stinker.
Low budget does not equal half-assed. It simply means it is low budget, and you won’t have Michael Bay explosions. You can still get a very polished product with the right management of your resources and setting realistic goals for those resources.