I don't normally play on what I do elsewhere, but I find it pretty relevant this time around.
In these circles, I'm just a regular poster, but WAR hits home for me in particular. I'm the Assistant Site Manager for Warhammer Alliance [http://www.warhammeralliance.com], one of the major fansites for Warhammer Online, and felt that while I can't really comment on what's inside the company, as I am not employed or ever was employed for Mythic, I can comment on how the game has progressed.
WAR's main issues at this time really stem from a lot of factors. One would be a release which I personally suspect was artificially induced to try to get ahead of Wrath of the Lich King, which turned out to be a mistake. Another was the whole overpromise and underdeliver syndrome that happened as a result of setting expectations at a level that exuded confidence but which may not have been appropriate of a game of this scale. You can't compete with WoW unless you are willing to be like McDonald's, compromising your core design elements to gain more subscribers and presenting things in an easy-to-digest method. Most MMOs these days, including WAR, want to target an audience with the things that make their game great and unique - worthy, but not enough to take down the juggernaut of MMOs.
Realistically, the game has improved quite a bit from the time that perhaps most of the commenters so far, and even the writer, have stopped being subbed/associated with it. Crash to desktops are reduced, the UI is greatly improved, and most of RvR works fairly well. The most recent patch brought with it an addressing of AoE and CC that was definitely needed. The team soldiers on and is confident, despite the layoffs referred to in the article and the loss of longtime GM/VP Mark Jacobs. The real issue is that there are core problems that still need fixing - things that affect mostly endgame, city siege, combat balance, and RvR elements. These are all responsible for retaining subscriptions, WAR's biggest problem. There are recent interviews out there that reflect the developers' feelings about their game, and the acknowledgment of these real issues that have, on some level, cost people their jobs. So the next few months, with Aion and Champions on the horizon, will test WAR's ability to stay afloat. Time will tell whether it works out one way or the other. The Catch-22 is that people want these problems fixed RIGHT NOW, but fixing them takes testing, which takes time. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
WAR is a good game - despite rocky roads ahead, and from what I know, I think it is in no real danger of going away just yet. People declaring terminal death for an MMO need to see that an underperforming MMO is not necessarily a dead MMO - Hellgate London and Tabula Rasa are the only two recent entries to actually "fail", and many MMOs out there continue to operate despite most people writing them off, meaning on some level, they are providing some level of profit to a company. That isn't blind fanboyism, that's fact.
WAR's development time and how it's changing fits most MMOs out there - including WoW's. The issue is that the standard and bar has been raised, and subscribers are less tolerant of understanding that an MMO is dynamic and it is changing, and that to fix things is a marathon, not a sprint. These are not excuses for the way WAR has performed from a subscription standpoint, but they do explain in part why things worked out the way they have. I too feel sorry for the OP's loss of a job, and what he went through, and hope that the tale hits home for development teams when creating expectations and priorities for their games.
For our part, we are going to continue to level the praise and the criticism, and ultimately the dialog, necessary to make WAR better. Our forums contain plenty of people that have unsubbed, but are still keeping an eye on WAR. I encourage everyone here to do the same.
