Funcom CFO resigns in wake of $23.3M loss
by James Egan 
Feb 23rd 2009 at 11:00AM
Filed under: Fantasy, Age of Conan, Business models, Economy, MMO industry, News items
These are bad times all around in the massively multiplayer online game industry in terms of the economy. The troubles of some companies are still coming to light, as is the case with Funcom. James Lee from GamesIndustry.biz writes that Funcom has reported its Q4 2008 financial results with "an operating loss of USD 23.3 million, caused by a depreciation of USD 22.8 million due to the lagging performance of Age of Conan."
In addition, Funcom CFO Olav Sandes has given notice of his resignation. Sandes is not the first high level employee to quit in recent months, but all is not doom and gloom. Funcom's Q4 2008 subscription revenues from Age of Conan have shot up to USD 8.7 million, up from USD 1.2 million year-on-year, Lee reports. Funcom expects a Q1 2009 revenue of between USD 6 million and 8 million, largely comprised of subscription fees for Age of Conan. James Lee's GamesIndustry.biz article has further details on Funcom's financial situation.
 |
Having fun in Conan's homeland? Make sure to check out all of our previous Age of Conan coverage, and stick with Massively for more news from the Hyborian Age! |
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
JP said on 11:21AM 2-23-2009
That's a shame.
I really think we're going to see quite the turn around for AoC this year.
Personally, I wouldn't have touched it at release, but now that I'm playing, w/ the merged servers and vastly improved stability, it's quickly becoming my "main" sub.
I've brought 3 people along with me. In their first 2 weeks, they've done nothing but gushed over how fun and clean the game is.
I've said this before, but anyway...
Getting players of this genre to give a game a second chance is hard enough. The fact that FC made promices (on the box) that weren't implmented until much later (and some still arent) will make this one of the steepest up-hill climbs ever.
I don't see them in the same boat as, say, Tabula Rasa though. There is still a vastly larger and more dedicated playerbase then TR ever had. Plus, recently, there has been a large number of players returning to a surprisingly more fluid feeling game.
Reply
MeowCat said on 11:41AM 2-23-2009
This is the price a company pays for not having a game ready at launch. I agree that it is a shame. However, clear precedent shows that in the MMO world a premature release can be deadly.
One reason it is hard to get the MMO player to give a game a 2nd chance is because MMOs, I would dare to say, require some level of commitment from the player. If the developer won’t demonstrate the commitment to release a polished game why should we spend the time, money and frustration waiting for them to get their act together? There are good options out there so people move on.
I hope they do fix/finish the game. If you enjoy it, that’s wonderful. I would never purchase AoC based on the early problems and the subsequent turmoil.
Reply
James Taylor said on 4:08PM 2-23-2009
It's a shame.
I wouldn't blame this so much on "it wasn't ready for release" because, honestly, what MMOs are?
Having recently played the game, I can say that it's hella-improved and is worth the money. The only thing STILL bringing it down, and partially to blame for it's failings, is the horrible community that game has.
Reply
Brendan Drain said on 7:41AM 2-24-2009
Most MMOs ship when parts are unfinished with the idea that they'll patch the little things later. AOC shipped with core mechanics unfinished and they thought they'd get away with patching those in later.
Item stats didn't work, some abilities didn't do anything and lots of others were horribly broken and untested. Skills had neglibible effects, if any, and a lot of the talents didn't do anything or didn't work as described. Most of the content after tortage was unfinished - there were very few quests in places and of those that did exist almost none had vocal dialogue.
As MeowCat said above, this is the price an MMO pays for launching before it's even close to being finished. You can launch a game late and it'll be fine (e.g. Team Fortress 2, which was at one point considered vaporware) but if you launch a game that's crap, it's going to fail.
CindyL said on 4:27PM 2-23-2009
I don't know why this person should take the flack for coders who can't make a patch without breaking stuff...
Which was and is a major cause of concern with players, though not the only one by far.
And yes the game has improved a lot over all and has a nice new direction, I'm taken aback with the forced PvP on PvE servers right now though if you own a battle keep. O.o But other then that it's a beautiful game with much potential.
Reply
Nmaster said on 11:33PM 2-23-2009
I can't understand why they don't just do a free month for old subscribers alongside one of their big content updates, I think they could bring people back in droves that way...
Reply
Merkur said on 1:09AM 2-24-2009
DIE! Funcom! DIE!
Reply
Amana said on 1:46AM 2-24-2009
You mean: 'DIE! Ellingsen! DIE'
He should form an Asshat Club with Bill Roper.
Still, as many have already mentioned, the game is most certainly not as crap as your memory would like to think it is.
The character models, animations, combat system, UI and world are all A++ imho (and this is coming from an *extremely* anti-AoC player from last year).
Yes, there are still some class balancing issues, plus the recent patch brought with it a couple of hiccups alongside a huge amount of player-requested features, however there's content and action from the get-go that doesn't let up now (unlike at launch where you left Tortage and felt like you stepped through a portal into a development server) and it's likely best described as 'fun', actually.
Who'd have thunk it.
But wht the CFO and not Ellingsen!? gah
Iokthemonkey said on 4:48AM 2-24-2009
What amazes me is how people seem to think the game was "a bit unfinished" or "needed some polish."
The game was shipped in a state that wouldn't even pass a Beta, let alone be acceptable as a commercial release by anybody with any pride or sense of responsibility toward their audience.
The state the game is in now is still not even CLOSE to what it should have been at launch and we're now - what - 9 months after the event?
More power to anybody enjoying it, but I won't be losing any sleep should Funcom announce they're winding up operations.
Reply
-Drexel- said on 8:08AM 2-24-2009
CindyL, he's taking the flak because he's in command. When a company fails it's the leadership that gets the blame and rightfully so. It comes with the territory of being a "big shot". When you succeed you are on top of the world, making money hand over fist, when you fail you resign/get fired by the board. If those coders weren't/aren't getting the job done it was on him to make them better or hire people who can do the job correctly.
I wish Conan was doing better but they just forced a release to get in ahead of WAR and WotLK. A pretty aggressive business move that blew their own market share. Think about it, 750k players we're ready to dive into this game they first month it came out. That's 750k mouths telling their friends and family all about it if they had an awesome experience...they didn't and AoC "failed" (the poster doesn't consider 300k subs a failure but I'm just echoing the popular sentiment).
Reply
CindyL said on 6:23PM 2-24-2009
I wasn't aware financial officers have anything to do with hiring or overseeing coders?
Iokthemonkey said on 9:07AM 2-24-2009
According to Funcom's press releases, they actually sold 1.2 million copies, not 750,00, which - if true - makes this all the more shocking, especially if the 100,000 player figure is correct.
I'm no maths major, but that's, what, over 90% of those who bought it 9 months ago are no longer playing it?
Reply
Jack said on 12:47PM 2-24-2009
Thats right 90% of people lay down on the table the 70 bucks of the box price and later got really mad and pissed on Funcom and stop playing the damn game.
I wonder how much of this people will have stayed if funcom told them it only was 5 bucks a month to go on player untill the game is the way it had to be!
But Funcom did stick with the 15 bucks a month and now look at there loses!
Reply
Iokthemonkey said on 12:54PM 2-24-2009
To be honest, the subscription didn't bother me: the reason I stopped playing is that the game simply wasn't fun and I felt the game punished me for playing.
But yeah, if those figures are correct, that's baaaad.
Reply
Tom-AZ said on 1:21AM 2-26-2009
the only way Funcom will ever win the faith of the fans, and I am a paying , playing sub, is to fire Erling Erlingson.
Until he is gone, I will never trust that company.
Erling was the chief liar and karma dictates he loses his job for his lies.
Reply