So, I'm de-lurking because all of this 'Cryptic is Greedy' stupidity is driving me up a tree. I know a lot of you guys are kids, but here's how things work in the real world. Or, here's what Jack in particular has been trying to communicate, that he won't spell out in this blunt a fashion:

When an MMO is developed, there's an initial outlay of development cash from the parent company to design the game. I.e. Atari paid for Cryptic to develop Champions Online. After the game is released, the parent company doesn't pay for development any more. After release, the game is supposed to make the parent company money. Specifically, its supposed to generate a profit for the parent company. Its supposed to make them money. First off, it needs to make enough in the initial release to pay off the initial investment (this is where the price of the game and the Lifetime and six-month sub money went). Then it has to generate enough money every month to pay for the servers, the office space, the community reps' salaries and benefits, the GM's salaries and benefits, etc. etc. After paying all of that, it still needs to have a profit left over.

Once we're all done with that, and we come up with our profit number, if there's going to be any further development on the game, it has to be paid for out of that profit, while leaving the game profitable...

What they've been trying to tell you is, Champions Online does not generate enough monthly revenue to cover the cost of content patch development.

So Cryptic has two options. Option 1 is no development until profit margins increase. This is a bad idea, as without content, people get bored and leave a game, which further depletes profits. Options 2 is to develop content to be sold at an additional cost which will defray the development costs of that content, which is what they're doing.

Throwing out a new 37-40 zone and going into debt in the process in hopes that said new zone will lure back enough subscribers for a long enough period of time to pay for itself is not a reasonable expectation. Its a gamble. Not even a good gamble. And if Cryptic lost that gamble, and Champions became unprofitable, Atari would shut it down without a second thought, especially with the cash cow that STO is looking to be.

So welcome to the real world. Cryptic is what they have to do to keep the game alive. You can like it or not, but grow up and realize that this is the way it works.

It's what happens when Atari does not INVEST in it's games and decides to make Cryptic the Wal-Mart of MMO developers.

They're a business trying to get money.

How can you believe every single thing they say with 100% unflappable certainty?

Thank you, guy with uncanny insight into how this whole process apparently works.

You've made it clear, actually.


Clear.

Reading is fundamental. Your statement makes no sense in the real world. Games aren't an investment, they're a product that is sold to turn a profit.

And in the real world Wal-Mart is an incredibly profitable company that dominates several markets through an incredibly innovative delivery and merchandising system....is that what you're comparing to Cryptic?

Indeed.

10indeedsoldchap

[quote=MisterMiracle]What they've been trying to tell you is, Champions Online does not generate enough monthly revenue to cover the cost of content patch development.QUOTE]

I don't know man... I'll need to see some firgures to back up that argument. They could really be Greedy *BLEEP*ers.

Wait, so we can either get on their case for charging for Vibora Bay OR get on their case for botching launch and management of their long-term assets, but not both?

Fair enough.

They have more than two options. Three others that are common enough in the "real world".

Option 3: raise capital to invest in the product until it's a competitive enough offering to stand on its own.

Option 4: underinvest and tap into a declining user base to try and recoup as much of your investment as you can before shutting it down.

Option 5: sell it to someone prepared to invest in it.

Note that your Option 2 might have the same effect as Option 3, only the servers will shut even faster if they continue to alienate their subscriber base.

The modelling isn't particularly difficult. Increase in income from selling expansion less decrease in income from higher rate of cancelled subs + drop off in new subs due to negative perceptions around the game gives you a pretty good gauge of the impact.

If Atari think they can crank out MMOs every six months and expect them all to be instantly profitable they have a very poor read on their market. Ultimately the consumer doesn't give a flying fig about the CFO's business model, they want a product/service that provides equivalent or better value than a competitive product/service offers.

Ultimately the customer determines if your business lives or dies. That's how it works in the real world.

No you don't. Get better at lying.

Source please or you're just being apologetic for the sake of it.

Tell us something we don't know.

Well they're not doing it very well with Viboray Bay's pay-to-access idea.