Funcom Blames MetaCritic For Share Price Drop

[Treblaine]

72% is considered bad.. wow thats a nice solid score. but thats right things these days are either the worst thing to of existed in the history of mankind or perfect and best EVAR!

How would you like it if you were going under surgery and you discovered the surgeon operating on you only got 72% of the answers right on his medical exam? 50% is not an "average" grade in most industries, video game criticism included.

72 may seem like a big number but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is how it scores relative to other games.

But this only tells of its launch condition. Magicka got panned for selling at too high a price for such a short game and was unplayable buggy. Yet after a round of price cuts, extra content and bug fixes it doesn't seem like a below average game...not any more.

 

[Podunk]

I'll definitely pick up Secret World... as soon as it goes Free-2-Play. The WoW model is dead, and only WoW has the clout to get away with it... It's like how Xbox can charge for their Live service when you can get the same damn thing for free on PS3 (and the Wii, though that has its own problems)... Whoever is first gets to set the curve, and everyone else had to explore alternative options if they want to stay relevant.

 

[Filiecs]

I think people are missing the point here. Funcom isn't saying that those reviews didn't have any good advice, they are saying that it's sad that an unreliable rating system like Metacritic can influence stock so drastically in this world.

Also, at the people saying it will go F2P like TOR, look at this. TOR cost over 200 million to develop and requires at least 500k subs to be profitable at all. TSW cost a measly 30 million to make. As such, they developed a better game and only need 75k-100k subs to be profitable.
Funcom also noted that its retention rate is VERY good, especially when compared to TOR or AoC.
The thing is, retention rate is always more important than initial sales in the long run.

I think TSW is a great game, a bit buggy, but it is one of the few games out there that has been truly innovative when you look past the surface.

 

[Saviordd1]

Translation: look where the painting is pointing in the museum, the code is on the clock (or something like that)

That damnable puzzle took me forever to figure out.

It most likely will go free to play, because honestly it doesn't seem all that original. WHOA THERE, now before you start getting together with pitchforks, I mean the mechanics don't. Aside from the skill building allowing you to be whatever you want (see runescape doing this before.) and the obvious setting, it just seems like the hook is the same as every other MMO.. Dunno, guess I'm just expecting new games to be more like GW2 and actually push the bar on what I expect from an MMO instead of just copying WoWs mechanics with varying improves/licks of paint.

I give it a year or two.

Yes because GW2 is totally innovative and not just an update of old MMO features that they're painting off as brand new -.- no hypocrisy here.

OT: I think Funcom's shooting to much into the wind here, its not metacritic's fault, its the fact that their MMO is P2P as well as having microtransactions. You can't have your cake and eat it to Funcom, one or the other.

 

[Saviordd1]

72% is considered bad.. wow thats a nice solid score. but thats right things these days are either the worst thing to of existed in the history of mankind or perfect and best EVAR!

How would you like it if you were going under surgery and you discovered the surgeon operating on you only got 72% of the answers right on his medical exam? 50% is not an "average" grade in most industries, video game criticism included.

72 may seem like a big number but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is how it scores relative to other games.

But this only tells of its launch condition. Magicka got panned for selling at too high a price for such a short game and was unplayable buggy. Yet after a round of price cuts, extra content and bug fixes it doesn't seem like a below average game...not any more.

Except...ITS NOT.

Jesus christ this is why people do this.

A video game isn't a damned surgery, its a VIDEO GAME. Maybe you forgot how the scale was originally set up.
0-25: Unplayable
25-50: Crap
50-65: Playable crap
65-75: Pretty okay (Or a bit to niche appeal for the general public)
75-85: Good
85-95: Great
95-100: Perfect

Most reviewers even ADMIT this is the scale, yet the actual scale is the following.
0-75: Unplayable garbage, do not want.
75-80: Meh
80-85: Okay
85-90: Good
90-100: Great

And the idiotic masses take the second scale as true, because its either GREAT, MEH, or SHIT.
Don't defend that skewed scale, because it was set up to use the full percentages, not the top 40 (Like grades in grade school).

 

[googlebot]

So first Metacritic score is required to apply jobs and now it influences share prices? This will not end well. Too much power in something so biased.

I played beta and will buy it after upgrading my PC. It fealt nice and worth at least the box price. I hear mostly good things from friends that play it now.

 

[Noxogz]

Funcom also noted that its retention rate is VERY good, especially when compared to TOR or AoC.
The thing is, retention rate is always more important than initial sales in the long run.

While I agree with some of your points, I think it's WAY too soon to talk about retention rate when the game has been out for a month or so.

Neither SWTOR nor AoC lost most of their subs after the first month, that didn't stop them from going F2P.

My point is, wait for TSW to be out longer before you brag about it's retention rate.

 

[Treblaine]

72% is considered bad.. wow thats a nice solid score. but thats right things these days are either the worst thing to of existed in the history of mankind or perfect and best EVAR!

How would you like it if you were going under surgery and you discovered the surgeon operating on you only got 72% of the answers right on his medical exam? 50% is not an "average" grade in most industries, video game criticism included.

72 may seem like a big number but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is how it scores relative to other games.

But this only tells of its launch condition. Magicka got panned for selling at too high a price for such a short game and was unplayable buggy. Yet after a round of price cuts, extra content and bug fixes it doesn't seem like a below average game...not any more.

Except...ITS NOT.

Jesus christ this is why people do this.

A video game isn't a damned surgery, its a VIDEO GAME. Maybe you forgot how the scale was originally set up.
0-25: Unplayable
25-50: Crap
50-65: Playable crap
65-75: Pretty okay (Or a bit to niche appeal for the general public)
75-85: Good
85-95: Great
95-100: Perfect

Most reviewers even ADMIT this is the scale, yet the actual scale is the following.
0-75: Unplayable garbage, do not want.
75-80: Meh
80-85: Okay
85-90: Good
90-100: Great

And the idiotic masses take the second scale as true, because its either GREAT, MEH, or SHIT.
Don't defend that skewed scale, because it was set up to use the full percentages, not the top 40 (Like grades in grade school).

"Maybe you forgot how the scale was originally set up."

BY WHOM!?!?! Where did you pull that from? Where did all the game critics everywhere even from competing publications all agree that is what the scale means? It's completely arbitrary and disconnected from actual aggregate opinion.

There is no confusion, the masses are not being idiotic on this point. BOTH the critics and the masses understand that 7/10 is a bad score, a below average score.

There is NOTHING wrong with a skewed scale, the medical school test is just the most OBVIOUS example of a skewed scale where a score of 50% is atrocious and 70% is still unacceptable. Tell me, WHY should 50% be adequate?

You say it should be like grades in school, yet grades in school focus totally on the last 40 percent: A grade= 100-93% B grade= 92-85% C grade= 84-76% D grade= 75-68% F grade= 67% and below

According to school grading to percent that so many Americans are so familiar with, The Secret World got given a D grade by the critics. That does NOT mean the game IS a "D Grade Game" but it does MOST DEFINITELY mean that in aggregate the critics didn't like it much and EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THIS.

It is completely arbitrary to say the scale was set up to use the whole scale, no, it was set up for a common point of comparison to summarise the critic's confidence in a given title.

 

[Gennadios]

I'd buy the game but I'm not seeing the Steam sale. Regardless, I liked the game more than TOR when I played beta, but still not enough to be willing to pony up the sub fee.

 

[Matthew Lynch]

I would have brought The Secret World off Steam but Funcom have region locked it so the UK CAN'T BUY IT!!! *and I confirmed this when I saw half a dozen similar complaints only from UK steam users*

Thats right, people. A MMO that relies on the numbers of people playing to maximize its profits is cutting off 3 million+ potential subscribers.

 

[Saviordd1]

-holy wall of text batman-

That doesn't make it innovative.

It makes it Japanese a game that's just updated things a bit.

-snip-

By EVERYONE
Here, just to make a point. Gamespot and IGN are two of the biggest game reviewers around no?
Here's there review policies
http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html
http://games.ign.com/ratings.html

And if you go to any other website the formula is pretty much the same.
They MEANT for the FULL SCALE to be used, 0-10 evenly. Not 7-10, if they wanted that, why would they not just use a ONE TO THREE SCALE. (Though some do this with stars)

Your point is absolutely pants on head retarded, your comparing two grading systems that are NOT comparable.

YES the masses are being idiotic, and NO the critics DON'T understand that 7 of 10 is a below average score, if they're any good they use their full scale and when they mean a 7 they mean a good but flawed in areas game.

And just to finish this off, no, I never said that games SHOULD be compared to the American grading system, I said they SHOULDN'T.

Exact Quote from that sentence "not the top 40 (Like grades in grade school)."

Spoiler: Unrelated but this is basically how my rage felt and was put on the page

 

[Jandau]

At the end of the day, the real victim is the setting of Secret World, wasted on a mediocre MMO that will be lucky if it lasts a few years. Such potential wasted on an fairly generic (in terms of gameplay) MMO instead of an actual game that people might want to buy...

 

[Treblaine]

-snip-

By EVERYONE
Here, just to make a point. Gamespot and IGN are two of the biggest game reviewers around no?
Here's there review policies
http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html
http://games.ign.com/ratings.html

And if you go to any other website the formula is pretty much the same.
They MEANT for the FULL SCALE to be used, 0-10 evenly. Not 7-10, if they wanted that, why would they not just use a ONE TO THREE SCALE. (Though some do this with stars)

Your point is absolutely pants on head retarded, your comparing two grading systems that are NOT comparable.

YES the masses are being idiotic, and NO the critics DON'T understand that 7 of 10 is a below average score, if they're any good they use their full scale and when they mean a 7 they mean a good but flawed in areas game.

And just to finish this off, no, I never said that games SHOULD be compared to the American grading system, I said they SHOULDN'T.

Exact Quote from that sentence "not the top 40 (Like grades in grade school)."

Spoiler: Unrelated but this is basically how my rage felt and was put on the page

IGN and Gamespot obviously don't speak for all critics, which is what I asked.

Here is what you don't understand about the mathematics: the scores speak for themselves. If the average aggregate score is 77% then 72% aggregate is below average. Simple. Undeniable.

You shouldn't get so hopping mad that well thought out mathematics expose gamespot/ign cannot speak for all critics. What are you so angry about using the "whole scale"? Just deal with it that it doesn't fit on an arbitrary 50% being average, it does not matter at all if 77% is the average score.

"NO the critics DON'T understand that 7 of 10 is a below average score"

Baseless supposition. Why would you possibly assert that games critics who are industry expert wouldn't be aware of something as fundamental as that? I'm sure one or two out of hundreds don't get it, but equally there will be a small percent who will think it is above average, hence how we have the averages we have to balance out.

I mean it's not a "one to three scale" as if there are only 3 points of precision, no critics give scores like 7.5 or 8.2 or 9.5. I think you are getting too mad to think straight, even if they only used integers 7-10 that is 4-points of data, not 3, and i have seen 6/10 and 5/10 plenty often and occasionally a 4/10. And you may not understand the maths, but every point of entry may be imprecise but with enough data entry points you get a more representative result. Like how asking 5 people for an approve/disapprove opinion isn't very representative as a survey unless you ask hundreds of people.

 

[malestrithe]

I really want to have sympathy for this, but there is always something more than just a "bad" metacritic score.

 

[praetor_alpha]

Can't Funcom go back to producing sequels to the Longest Journey?

 

[Meight08]

Can't Funcom go back to producing sequels to the Longest Journey?

If this game succeeds they get the money to do so.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

how is 7/10 low? #gamerlogic

Don't you know? These days, anything less than 9.6/10 means you might as well have packed the game box with gorilla feces.