Atari Cuts Ties To Champions Online Development Studio

[Papadam]

Atari are one of the worst companies in the industry and they completly ruined Cryptic when they bough it.

CO and STO are problaby 2 of the worst big MMOs to release. Their idea was to release MMOs as fast and as cheap as possible and then make them more expensive than all others = Sub + microtransaction. THey knew fanboys wold pay anything for it even if they were shallow, small and half assed.

So this is great news, hopefully this means Cryptic wont ruin Neverwinter.

 

[mogamer]

7.5 Million dollars of lost money.

Dear sweet god...

The things I could do with 7.5 million dollars. How does this money vanish so easily from companies? :/

Very easy for a bad business to lose money. In Craptics case it was spending money on developing and supporting (or in STO's case, finish developing) crappy games that people stopped subscribing to.

 

[Jonci]

I hope this doesn't damage Neverwinter's release.

 

[Aurgelmir]

This is why I won't be buying lifetime subs to any new mmos. Warhammer, CoH, and Fallen Earth seem to be doing well enough. Not sure what's going on with AoC or Aion. DCUO is already doing server merges. Looks like Champions' ship is sinking and it might drag STO with it. All this, yet old mmos like EQ and Runescape are still making enough to keep going and, in the case of EQ, push new expansions. Lineage 1 is shutting down but Lineage 2 is still going. Here's to hoping TOR does well.

I looked at the lifetime membership more as: "Will this game last more than 18 months?" At this point I at least expect to break even.

Free to play is an indicator for me that a team isn't trusting themselves or their idea, or are in dire need of money. There are exceptions to this, but in general in turned out to be fitting.

F2P is actually a very viable economic model- more viable then a sub, really. Whenever an MMO comes out subscription based, I snort and roll my eyes, because there's no way they're getting that phat Blizzard cash like they want.

PS: Guildwars, Guildwars 2.Nuff said.

Thats just the issue with pay to play games these days:
Publishers want WoWs money, but don't want to put down the investment.
Players wants WoWs polished game play and amount of content.
Developers have no clue on how to please either of the other two.

Free to play is probably a very lucrative business model, but it also create a very different game than an pay to play model does. I personally never liked the free to play micro transaction based games, no matter how much money they make

 

[vxicepickxv]

I hope this doesn't damage Neverwinter's release.

That was damaged the moment Cryptic got their hands on it. I would rather see the project get canceled than released, because if it was released, Cryptic would butcher it.

 

[Shjade]

This is why I won't be buying lifetime subs to any new mmos. Warhammer, CoH, and Fallen Earth seem to be doing well enough. Not sure what's going on with AoC or Aion. DCUO is already doing server merges. Looks like Champions' ship is sinking and it might drag STO with it. All this, yet old mmos like EQ and Runescape are still making enough to keep going and, in the case of EQ, push new expansions. Lineage 1 is shutting down but Lineage 2 is still going. Here's to hoping TOR does well.

What, no mention of LotRO and its - seemingly successful, at least from a player perspective - transition from subscription-based with lifetime options to F2P arrangement? ;p

I don't know the business and politics of this situation, but just looking at CO, the game itself on its own merits, I can't say I blame anyone who wants more distance from it.

 

[Ralen-Sharr]

This is why I won't be buying lifetime subs to any new mmos. Warhammer, CoH, and Fallen Earth seem to be doing well enough. Not sure what's going on with AoC or Aion. DCUO is already doing server merges. Looks like Champions' ship is sinking and it might drag STO with it. All this, yet old mmos like EQ and Runescape are still making enough to keep going and, in the case of EQ, push new expansions. Lineage 1 is shutting down but Lineage 2 is still going. Here's to hoping TOR does well.

I looked at the lifetime membership more as: "Will this game last more than 18 months?" At this point I at least expect to break even.

lifetime subcriptions are an indicator for me that a team isn't trusting themselves or their idea, or are in dire need of money. There are exceptions to this, but in general in turned out to be fitting.

This I agree with, that's why I think lifetime subs are for suckers.

If they thought that people would play for a long enough time to justify the lifetime sub, they likely wouldn't offer it.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

Guys, how many of you here actually read the article? Everyone is acting like this is the end of CO and STO but it says quite clearly:

Hoping to reassure an understandably wary playerbase, Atari has pledged to continue support for Cryptic's most recent MMO titles, Champions Online and Star Trek Online, until it has finalized a sale of the developer.

It's true that things could turn out badly if they're sold to the wrong company, but this is far from being the absolute end. It's too early to get worked up.

 

[mythgraven]

Guys, how many of you here actually read the article? Everyone is acting like this is the end of CO and STO but it says quite clearly:

Hoping to reassure an understandably wary playerbase, Atari has pledged to continue support for Cryptic's most recent MMO titles, Champions Online and Star Trek Online, until it has finalized a sale of the developer.

It's true that things could turn out badly if they're sold to the wrong company, but this is far from being the absolute end. It's too early to get worked up.

Without smashing your opinion into the dust, (like the dreams of Cryptic's devs, amirite?) Atari is a buisness, and thus, would not come out and say "Yeah, those games are getting the axe as soon as we feel we can pull that off."

Naturally, the official releases are all worded very carefully so as not to spook the sheep. I mean paying customers. But Id bet my next Lifetime Subscription fee that "unannounced" and "unexpected" will become part of the playerbases vocabulary within short order.

And Im not an STO basher. I went and got me a lifetime sub, because I honestly think STO is workable, and mercifully free of the types of online personas I dislike playing with. But in the end, it is still a shoddy, desperately under-nourished game. My investigations into Cryptics other MMO's yields similar results. /shrug

In the end, Atari is making a buisness move. Although why everything in life must be so politically motivated is beyond me. Instead of massive legal jargon, why not just come out and say "This studio has lost us alot, alot, alot of money... and we are closing it thusly."? Honesty is hard, I suppose, if you want money.

(And after all these centuries, we still havent figured out that you have to be willing to pay money now, to make money later. There is absolutely no reason why STO couldnt have gone to the top of the MMO world, given the -proper- level of support. If programmers were smart, they would refuse to program and support shoddy franchise milkers, and stick to their guns.)


Whiskey Echo!!
Mythgraven

 

[Timbydude]

This doesn't really surprise me. Champions Online was pretty bad when I played it, and Star Trek Online is even worse, from what I hear.

Still, good luck to Cryptic.

 

[RejjeN]

Honestly not surprised, Champions Online has the most abysmal "F2P" mode I've ever played. They restrict you to two characters, you can only chose an archetype and not create your own and on top of that you only have access to like half of them. THEN you can't deviate from your chosen archetype AT ALL making leveling even MORE linear than freaking World of Warcraft! I also believe you're restricted to a single inventory bag (out of like, 4-5). There's probably more (Ah right, you can't chose power colors either. And if you do chose to pay the monthly fee for the full experience any characters you used during that that use anything that is beyond the F2P model will be restricted or require you to "devolve" them...

Jesus christ, it's like they took EVERY F2P restriction ever conceived and stuffed it all into one!

 

[archabaddon]

Hey Earnest, thanks for all but plagiarizing my write up on this very same story yesterday :/

Atari To Divest Cryptic Studios [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.284710-Atari-To-Divest-Cryptic-Studios]

 

[Susan Arendt]

Hey Earnest, thanks for all but plagiarizing my write up on this very same story yesterday :/

Atari To Divest Cryptic Studios [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.284710-Atari-To-Divest-Cryptic-Studios]

I find it confusing that you?re citing ?numerous similarities? between two stories both summarizing the same Gamasutra article. Obviously, two news posts discussing the same story are going to cover similar territory. None of the text composed by Earnest duplicates any of your original content, ergo, there was no plagiarism. Earnest did the exact same thing you did; he saw a story of interest on Gamasutra, and wrote it up for readers of The Escapist, providing commentary and context for the news in question. The only difference is that he is a member of our official news team and you are not.

 

[Earnest Cavalli]

*ahem*

What she said.

 

[Optimystic]

Two summaries of the same story are similar? Bollocks, I say!

On topic: I am truly concerned about Neverwinter now. D&D 4e NEEDS a CRPG adaptation; it was practically designed for it. It's the only way they could possibly lure me away from Pathfinder at this juncture. But Cryptic's impending doom is weighing heavily on my hopes.

 

[sleeky01]

"In line with the previously stated strategy of fewer but more profitable releases and further expansion into casual online and mobile games, the Company has determined that external development creates more flexibility in the changing marketplace," the report explains.

Ok. I know that Atari wants to put as good a spin on this as possible, but really if you're gonna make up shit at least make it sound believable?

 

[archabaddon]

The only difference is that he is a member of our official news team and you are not.

I can see why this would bias one's opinion about whether an article is plagiarized or not, but logically, it bears no weight on a debate of plagiarism. Good, published authors have been just as guilty of plagiarism as someone off the street.

Perhaps plagiarism (which describes the act of stealing someone else's work nearly word-for-word) is a misnomer. In truth, I was hoping at least that "official news team member" would actually have read my write up and at least give me credit in a News Room article. By appearance, it's almost as if the "official news room" contributor read my write-up, re-wrote it in his own words (even duplicating paragraph structure and order of talking points) and posted it without even crediting me.

There again, perhaps it is merely coincidence, and if so, I sincerely apologize.

 

[Susan Arendt]

The only difference is that he is a member of our official news team and you are not.

I can see why this would bias one's opinion about whether an article is plagiarized or not, but logically, it bears no weight on a debate of plagiarism. Good, published authors have been just as guilty of plagiarism as someone off the street.

Perhaps plagiarism (which describes the act of stealing someone else's work nearly word-for-word) is a misnomer. In truth, I was hoping at least that "official news team member" would actually have read my write up and at least give me credit in a News Room article. By appearance, it's almost as if the "official news room" contributor read my write-up, re-wrote it in his own words (even duplicating paragraph structure and order of talking points) and posted it without even crediting me.

There again, perhaps it is merely coincidence, and if so, I sincerely apologize.

Again, two write ups of the same news story are naturally going to cover similar points. Also, it's highly unlikely Earnest even saw your post. Our news team doesn't trawl the forum looking for leads. So, yes, it's simply coincidence that your two posts went up in the proximity and order that they did.

 

[Earnest Cavalli]

The only difference is that he is a member of our official news team and you are not.

I can see why this would bias one's opinion about whether an article is plagiarized or not, but logically, it bears no weight on a debate of plagiarism. Good, published authors have been just as guilty of plagiarism as someone off the street.

Perhaps plagiarism (which describes the act of stealing someone else's work nearly word-for-word) is a misnomer. In truth, I was hoping at least that "official news team member" would actually have read my write up and at least give me credit in a News Room article. By appearance, it's almost as if the "official news room" contributor read my write-up, re-wrote it in his own words (even duplicating paragraph structure and order of talking points) and posted it without even crediting me.

There again, perhaps it is merely coincidence, and if so, I sincerely apologize.

Again, two write ups of the same news story are naturally going to cover similar points. Also, it's highly unlikely Earnest even saw your post. Our news team doesn't trawl the forum looking for leads. So, yes, it's simply coincidence that your two posts went up in the proximity and order that they did.

She makes an excellent point Archie.

So excellent in fact, that I don't really have anything to add.

Nope, I'm not sure why I felt the need to write this post either.