well, that sucks. It's a pretty bad state for the industry when you can't break even on a game that sells 1.2 mil. Dev costs NEED to go down. It also would have helped if they hadn't sank a lot of money into that MMO.
And now I feel like an asshole.uncanny474 said:Looks like piracy didn't stop people from ignoring your shitty game, did it, 38? Suck on that!
Oh, original article. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115660-Piracy-Not-Consoles-Killed-the-PC-Exclusive
Considering the game is not likely to get any more patches (which I have read that it needs one for balance issues), it is no longer worth $40.Blade_125 said:Look for sales. I bought my copy about a month ago for $40. Also Steam and gamespot had sales at $40 even before that (I got mine for the PS3).Crono1973 said:Well, this will sound mean but we didn't need another damn MMO and maybe this will be a lesson to other start ups trying to enter the market with an MMO. Maybe it will be a lesson to established companies too, most MMO's don't make it and the overhead is high. Hope all the employees find another, more stable company soon.
Also, why is KoA still at $60? This should be seeing a price cut soon and then I will buy it.
You are the only one, doesn't that make you feel stupid?matrix3509 said:In before "They made a game that sucks therefore deserved to be fired" comments start drowning the thread.
I said "In before". Before you start throwing insults around, I suggest you learn how to read.Crono1973 said:You are the only one, doesn't that make you feel stupid?matrix3509 said:In before "They made a game that sucks therefore deserved to be fired" comments start drowning the thread.
Must be my hatred for pointless "in before" posts talking.matrix3509 said:I said "In before". Before you start throwing insults around, I suggest you learn how to read.Crono1973 said:You are the only one, doesn't that make you feel stupid?matrix3509 said:In before "They made a game that sucks therefore deserved to be fired" comments start drowning the thread.
Nope, in Australia you would know it as being made redundant, which carries with it a lot of other entitlments and obligations. Being fired you just get paid your notice and that's it. By firing the staff they have saved a lot of extra money on entitlements that the would have otherwise have owed. So they are getting screwed twice.Caffiene said:Wha...?
Basically "To avoid the possibility of retrenchment, youre all fired."
Maybe this is a local language thing, but around here I wouldnt call that "avoiding" the possibility of retrenchment... more like "ensuring". Does "retrenched" not equal "fired" over there in USAland?
Ah. That makes sense.SeatedSkeleton said:Nope, in Australia you would know it as being made redundant, which carries with it a lot of other entitlments and obligations.
Don't you have to have done something to be fired over here though? I always thought it was illegal to just fire people with no cause, i've had friends that have sued employers and won for that very thing.SeatedSkeleton said:Nope, in Australia you would know it as being made redundant, which carries with it a lot of other entitlments and obligations. Being fired you just get paid your notice and that's it. By firing the staff they have saved a lot of extra money on entitlements that the would have otherwise have owed. So they are getting screwed twice.Caffiene said:Wha...?
Basically "To avoid the possibility of retrenchment, youre all fired."
Maybe this is a local language thing, but around here I wouldnt call that "avoiding" the possibility of retrenchment... more like "ensuring". Does "retrenched" not equal "fired" over there in USAland?
That's how it would work here in Oz anyway. But then again we have a decent living minimum wage among other things so it could be different in the US