Aug 25 2008
Hellgate: London is an official failure. Why?
Flagship Studios is in its final death throes, and the post mortems and blame games are in full force. Recently some major players in the utter failure that is Hellgate: London finally spoke out. Of course, the interviews and statements were full of the usual weak excuses: players were not patient enough with us, evil internet people unfairly slammed the game, we were misunderstood, blah blah blah. The Electronic Arts mouthpiece was specially bad since he completely ignored the main reason the game failed: its completely idiotic subscription model.
First we have the words of EA’s David Demartini:
Why Hellgate: London failed, according to EA’s David DeMartini
Particularly absurd:
We thought it would have been slightly higher quality than it turned out to be, and I think the problem with the game was that by the time it got really good, we were four to six months post-release. That was too late; we’d lost the fanbase.
Sorry, but no. Hellgate: London is still on the shelves. Legions of fans were following it just waiting (and hoping) for you to dump the idiotic subscription model. But you didn’t. So the fans stayed away. And now you are out of business instead. Great plan!
A little more honest, but still filled with a lot of weak excuses, is an interview with Flagship head honco Bill Roper: Bill Roper speaks out at last. At least he is willing to address the core problem, but not until page 6 of an 8 page interview:
GFW: At what point did you guys feel like maybe you shouldn’t have done the hybrid model? Was it before or after you launched Hellgate?
BR: Before we launched.
GFW: So you already knew…
BR: We knew before we launched. There was enough feedback from people where we realized, yeah, we probably made a mistake. But at that point…the train had left the station. We didn’t have enough initial content in there to [switch directions]. We might have been able to back off and go to a free-to-play-only model, but we didn’t have anything in place to roll right into doing an expansion. Everything from the development side to the business side was set to this model that we’d put together. We hoped that it was going to actually work, and we told ourselves that maybe it’ll work better than we think it’s going to work, right? But there was just a lot of confusion.
People were saying there’s going to be the haves and the have-nots. There was a lot of backlash against the model.
This is a crock. They easily could have changed. They could have dumped the subscription model completely, taken their plans and work for the first few “subscription only” updates, and bundled them into the first mini-expansion. Or heck, sales would have been so much higher without the brain dead subscription idea that you probably would have sold well enough to not even need to worry about an expansion in the first year (like Guild Wars).
It irritates me when game developers shovel out BS like this, because all it does is perpetuate the same mistakes and excuses. He also at one point blamed PC gaming in general for 2007 being a “terrible year.” Recent statistics have shown that to be false once online sales (via Steam and other distribution networks) are factored in.
It really is a shame because I love action RPGs. I really dislike the fact that gaming media barely challenges such weak excuses. But I guess that’s why I am finally making an effort to blog and write articles. If you all keep reading, maybe we can make an impact.
A group of friends and myself bought Hellgate London for a gaming weekend. This is the optimal conditions and even though we did have some fun the game failed. It wasn’t the subscription that bugged us… it was the bugs that bugged us.
One more game that was in early beta conditions when released. Crashing game, obvious lacks in the content and failing balance are the sure signs of a game that has been released too early.
I only played within the first month of release, so I have no idea if the game got better as stated in the quote.
You mention it in this article, but could you go into greater depth about the Guild Wars pay-system? I haven’t played it but as I understand it is effectively.
1. Buy it
2. Play it.
3. Want more?
4. Buy more.
5. Play more.
What are your thoughts on systems OTHER THAN the subscription model, which has been torn a couple of new assholes by your blog already. Your thoughts on that are probably worthy of a blog entry all of their own, rather than just a comment response.
TheTio: I fully intend to give my ideas of subscription alternatives at least one HUGE blog post. It is something I am very passionate about and so I want to put aside some time to really delve into it.
.
Guild Wars was pretty simple. No subscription, but they had smallish expansions every 6-12 months and you didn’t have to buy them. You didn’t even need them to be competitive, but they did add nice things.
.
I never played GW beyond the core game, but that was mainly for a variety of interface issues that bugged me too much to fully enjoy it (like not being able to jump). I also prefer my MUD time to be less instanced. But I respect what GW did and think it is an excellent business model.
The subscription model of this game turned me off from ever buying it. I find it amazingly hard to believe they couldn’t have changed gears to fix this game. It sounds to me, based on the article, that it was sheer stubborness that prevented them from changing; and, perhaps, a good dose of inexperience. From the way he talked, it sounded like they really kind of assumed a few too many details would just sort of happen — you know, the same way they always magically did at Blizzard.
My best guess is that this is a classic case of inexperience and bad leadership. Clearly, his heart is in the right place, but that didn’t do his wallet, or anyone elses, any good.
Sentinel
http://www.forgottenlegion.net
I got the same stubborn vibe from reading those two interviews. I’d need to hear some serious explanations before I would believe there was no way for them to drop the subscription idea. The game shipped light on content. They easily could have given away the first few mini-batches of content for free, as an act of good will, and then spent 6 months working on the first paid expansion. That would have worked marvelously and probably would have resulted in a lot of sales. I know for a fact I would have bought 2 copies under that system. I actually had 2 preorders of the game and canceled it a few days before release when I learned the specific details of the subscription model.
I feel sorry for Bill Roper . He was the Man behind Starcraft and Diablo series . I thought for a second that he will really pull it off , but nothing is as you predict , especially in business .
Btw. Would you accept a link exchange ? I added my blog link ti the comment . I will add you’re site ASAP .
It’s hard to believe they released the game knowing full well there would be major problems. It’s hard to feel sorry for Bill Roper here. This guy came from Blizzard where the motto is: “we only release it when it’s ready…” If anyone should have followed that rule it should have been him and his company.
When are publishers ever going to learn this fundamental lesson and stop sabotaging the games they release?
What Blizzard did right was that they decided to publish their own games . In the moment a game company chooses a publicist they are screwed . This always happens when a third party joins the business : deadline contracts . The boys from FS were forced to realease the game , even though they knew it wasn’t done . Same thing with Age of Conan . Publicists are sharks !
I don’t believe much developers, like to put out a game they know are bug heavy, but if you have a deal and the timeline slides, or if you are on your own but the money run out then you can’t have that luxury.
Hey man…
u have been droping on my blog..
i just wanted to exchange blog links.
I am on Raddu’s n Pinoy’s blog circle
n wanted 2 join u as well.
just leave a comment if u r interested.
Thanks.. and keep that good stuff rolling through.
Great blog you got yourself here. I like what you post keep it up.
Thanks and welcome to Bart and K9!
.
I feel a little bad for Roper, but honestly, he was one of the main people behind the subscription abomination so that’s his own fault.
.
It seems like they saw the WoW money train and figured they could get a slice of that. Well, you gotta make an MMO if you want that, not an action RPG.
.
They should have instead remembered how and why Diablo was such a huge success. The game was awesome, and people kept buying it for years. Almost 10 years later people still buy Diablo II and it is still on the shelves in many if not most gaming stores.
Not only is Diablo 2 still sold pretty much everywhere, it’s actually still number 6 on the pc sales charts.
http://kotaku.com/5039175/npds-pc-sales-charts-august-3+9
LOL. That’s hilarious and awesome. Diablo 2 has absolutely insane staying power. It almost makes me want to go ahead and re-install it.
.
By the way, make sure you click on the graphic in this story for the full version. The Flagship people actually created that picture for a Playboy Magazine article about female characters in games.
.
Maybe there were better things they could have spent that development time on. Then again, maybe this picture will be the only lasting legacy from the game, and therefore it is a good thing they did it.
Thanks for the clarification on the source of that initial image, Cambios. I was sitting there thinking “Damn, how much additional subscription content would I be up for to get THAT cutscene?!”
Hellgate also failed in the simple fact that it wasn’t that good. You had a maximum of perhaps six repeating environments over a game spanning dozens of interlinking dungeons. Clearly not enough for a game trying to compete on the MMO stage.
(The interlinking zone idea was a good one but one which was woefuly misconceptualized, especially since hostile mobs automatically respawned once you zoned, I can picture the shudderingly massive ‘train to zone’ wipes a group would suffer as a HL went treasure room hunting.)
It also seemed that the developers were hopelessly incapable of breaking out of the diablo mindset. The whole game felt like a diablo 2 Total Conversion. A very poor thing considering the summoner class had absolutely NO pet control, and was literally forced to chase it’s agressive pet through a level. I deleted my summoner class after the first few levels, dismissing it as unplayable.
I’ll leave my gripes with the Single Player campaign out, as they’ve no doubt already been experienced by anyone who felt they could enjoy decent replay value without subscribing.
Hey Michael, maybe you could clarify a few things for an industry outsider like me…Sos I knows whos to blames.
Who funds the developer?
Does the publisher have any creative input/control?
Does the game get it’s ESRB rating based off of a report from the developer, or does the ESRB visit the studio during development and see the game in it’s entirety? Is censoring common in the industry?
When a game ships broken, and I’m going to send off a strongly worded letter, who should I send it to?
Cause with debacles like AoC and Hellgate being the focus of our talk here, I think it would be great if we came out of all this knowing who to be wary of. It’s like natural selection, but survival of the funnest.
Who funds the developer?
Those that aren’t self funded are funded by the publisher.
.
Does the publisher have any creative input/control?
Sometimes, yes from what I understand. Firmly established developers like Blizzard or Rockstar are able to do whatever they want for the most part. A small studio under Electronic Arts for example though wouldn’t fair as well.
.
Does the game get it’s ESRB rating based off of a report from the developer, or does the ESRB visit the studio during development and see the game in it’s entirety? Is censoring common in the industry?
From what I understand, the ESRB is given video footage of all the questionable content, and they rate the game according to that footage. To the best of my knowledge, they don’t actually play the games.
.
When a game ships broken, and I’m going to send off a strongly worded letter, who should I send it to?
I’d generally send it to both the developer and the publisher. Though the developers are often rushed by the publisher to get a game out before they are ready, the publisher ultimately can’t make the fixes, only the developers can.
.
I’m not in the industry, so the above may not be totally accurate. I do follow the development end of the industry though, so I think my answers are pretty accurate.
Tim: Thanks for your insight from someone who played the game. It sounds like there were deeper problems with the game besides its business model.
.
To answer Witchkiller and build on Outsider’s response:
.
FUNDING: This is a massively complex issue. The possibilities are endless. Some developers secure their own funding, or have funding from previous games. They might still want a publisher, however, because the publisher has retail chain connections, a system for pressing CDs/creating boxes/etc. that is efficient and already in place, a PR and marketing team, etc. There are a lot of things a developer might want from a publisher besides just funding. Business know-how, managment, and all the other “chain of commerce” type things are all areas where a good publisher can help a lot.
.
CREATIVE CONTROL: Unless they are lying, most publishers do not actually want huge amounts of creative control. They are usually not set up for that, and it is not what they do best. If they felt they had good creative game developers, they’d make their own games (and sometimes they do - EA has a lot of in house developers, for example, and so do other publishers).
.
The main areas where publishers affect content are:
.
1) They want something removed to improve the ESRB rating (M ratings are poison to publishers, since that means no Wal-Mart sales), or if they fear protests and boycotts from various groups resulting from a specific bit of content.
.
2) They want a game released by a certain date (especially if it is part of their release plan for a holiday or a fiscal quarter). In this situation they might order certain features cut to help make a release date.
.
Most publishers try hard to avoid #2. They are business people, and they aren’t total idiots. They know a bad game that bombs is worse than a late game. We mostly hear the stories of titanic failures and abuses by publishers, and ignore all the times they saved a developer through their dramatically superior business acumen.
.
ESRB: As Outsider noted, it is the burden of the developer to actively show potentially objectionable content to the ESRB so they can make the rating. This is done mainly through screenshots, videos, etc. I imagine sometimes there might be a directed playthrough but that would be the exception. The ESRB system is very much an honor system.
.
More on Publishers: I think publishers have become the easy scapegoat for a lot of sloppy developers. The developers are the ones who talk to customers more (through their web sites usually), so they have a more direct relationship with their players. It is easy for them to blame the publisher and players are often ready and willing to take the bait.
.
Yes, publishers sometimes rush things out, but a lot of times that is because the developer was slack, late, and already missed 12 deadlines. Yes, sometimes they ask for content to be cut, but that is often necessary for the game to be able to sell on the shelves of certain stores. For this last part, I wish the publishers would figure out a way to make it an optional download for people who don’t want all their games kiddified.
.
The one area where publishers deserve most of the blame is the issue of DRM. It is usually the publisher that insists on some crap like SecuROM or Starforce or some other pointless monstrosity. These DRM “solutions” do nothing to curb piracy and just make the experience of paid users worse than what pirates get. On this issue, publishers deserve every bit of scorn and derision they get.
In my opinion, the three most damning things on which HG:L falls short are:
- Aside from 1st person view, there isn’t a single element of original gameplay or innovation over Diablo 2. At least not in the single player campaign. Well, I already played Diablo 2, and I found it immensely better because it actually had the Blizzard polish.
- Too limited single player game. I stopped playing in the middle of what is probably meant to be act IV of the game (so probably about 2/3rds). There’s what, 5 different map types to be had? Became boring for me.
- Too buggy / too much patching. I bought it in July this year, and patching the single player game was something like an agonizing 200MB+ download. That’s huge considering the release version was reportedly unplayable. For multiplayer there’s apparently more than twice that patching to get. While I am perfectly willing to download patches for half a day for a newly-acquired MMO before playing because it matches my expectations, as illogical as it may sound, I’m not willing to do the same for a normal multiplayer mode.
For me as a customer, a patch over 80MB or so for a game I bought off the shelf to become playable is already unreasonable. Contrary to a MMO which supposedly bundles patches with new and additional content, a normal game with huge patches on initial install tells me that the first customers paid for the right of playing a beta and doing a dev’s Q&A work for them. Not my cup of tea, and that’s exactly what HG:L was to me. 20 hours of experimenting the solo game, and now a frisbee for my daughter.