Creators of Crackdown, run by the creator of Grand Theft Auto and Lemmings, have called in the administrators after lacklustre APB sales: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-11003456
Last edited:
Errmm, that description is a little off. Rockstar made Lemmings and GTA. David Jones may have been a developer at Rockstar, but that doesn't mean when he leaves and creates Realtime Worlds that they can then say they made those games.
Realtime Worlds has only made Crackdown and APB.
What exactly does "enter administration" mean? Crackdown was a sleeper hit and it didn't hurt it included a Halo 3 beta invite.
personal/company reference error, have clarified.
Expect to see more of these stories. While 2 of the 3 most popular NA MMOs are or are going free based, all people can think of is WoW $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and stuff like this will be the continued result. They may think it's not hard to get enough of those monthly subscribers their way, but with the growing amount of nickel and diming you get for everyday cost, people are going to start cutting things, and most MMOs will be at the top of the list.
It's a protective measure to avoid sudden bankruptcy. Administrators take over the business and keep running it in the short term while they find the best way to get money back to creditors - sometimes that best way is to allow the company to keep putting out products etc. while cutting costs sharply, then they will look to sell the business on when it's in a better situation financially.What exactly does "enter administration" mean?
Maybe, but I find it quite hard to believe a company of Realtime Worlds' quality and experience would make that kind of mistake. I think it's more likely they were a victim of economic conditions here in the UK - the video game model of having to pay hundreds of people for five years or so before getting a return is not one that defends well against a situation where borrowing costs go up sharply while expected returns might go down. Creditors want their money back quickly in such situations as well, so where in the past they might have been willing to sit it out I expect as soon as it was clear the product wasn't up to scratch they wanted these measures entered sooner rather than later.The thing is companies see the "zomg money printing machine" that WoW is and assume all MMOs will be the same. That is simply not the case. WoW is popular for a reason and it isn't because its the cheapest, most dumbed down, cutest, only MMO out. Blizzard has done a hell of a lot of things right and is reaping the benefits. Other companies should take a real hint, not a false "MMOs make money!!!1!" one.
i bought the hype and actually preordered APB to take part in the preview event... and luckily steam let's you cancel preorders with pretty much zero fuss.
it's really fun at first until you realize after your first 3 hours of playing... it's just that over and over and over again. there was really no reason for the whole MMO tag other than the fact that it was a somewhat persistant world.
this week due to the mafia 2 demo i've been playing through the original... and i get WAY more of a cops vs. robbers feel in that single player game than i ever did in APB tbh.
Did you play APB? I am glad I got into the "demo" or whatever because it was terrible. There is a reason companies want to make MMOs and it is because WoW is a huge success. They don't take into account all the gameplay and story Blizzard put behind WoW.It's a protective measure to avoid sudden bankruptcy. Administrators take over the business and keep running it in the short term while they find the best way to get money back to creditors - sometimes that best way is to allow the company to keep putting out products etc. while cutting costs sharply, then they will look to sell the business on when it's in a better situation financially.
Maybe, but I find it quite hard to believe a company of Realtime Worlds' quality and experience would make that kind of mistake. I think it's more likely they were a victim of economic conditions here in the UK - the video game model of having to pay hundreds of people for five years or so before getting a return is not one that defends well against a situation where borrowing costs go up sharply while expected returns might go down. Creditors want their money back quickly in such situations as well, so where in the past they might have been willing to sit it out I expect as soon as it was clear the product wasn't up to scratch they wanted these measures entered sooner rather than later.