AGDC 07: Mark Jacobs Interview Part 2 (UO/DAoC)

In the second half of our conversation with Mark Jacobs - former CEO of Mythic Entertainment and now General Manager of EA Mythic - we talked about the health and future of Ultima Online, Dark Age of Camelot and the company's integration into Electronic Arts.

For the first half of the article, which focuses on Warhammer Online, check out this link.

Despite the downturn, the game still makes a tidy profit for EA Mythic and is in no immediate danger of disappearing. Mythic has a history of maintaining games for years and years, long after they pass their prime. A good example of this is their pre-DAoC games that they maintained long beyond the point that most remembered they existed. The advantage of a mature MMO is that ultimately, it can be maintained - if not expanded - with a very small workforce. So long as DAoC remains profitable, it will march on.

That said, Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning is on the way and given that they themselves are developing a game that is in many ways a spiritual successor to Camelot, Jacobs fully expects a large hit to the Dark Age of Camelot numbers. He does not, however, believe that it will completely wipe the game out.

Click below for part two.

Read Full Article

Dana, you need to stop calling these interviews. An interview is where two people speak. This is you listening to people talk and jotting down a couple of random factoids. Add on the fact that you're editorializing throughout... it isn't an interview. You may have done an interview, but you certainly didn't 'document' the interview here (or anywhere else I suspect.)

I'd call these 'interviews' a MASSIVE disappointment.

prognosticator:
Dana, you need to stop calling these interviews. An interview is where two people speak. This is you listening to people talk and jotting down a couple of random factoids. Add on the fact that you're editorializing throughout... it isn't an interview. You may have done an interview, but you certainly didn't 'document' the interview here (or anywhere else I suspect.)

I'd call these 'interviews' a MASSIVE disappointment.

If you have any specific examples of what about this article is bothering you, I'd like to hear the feedback so I can take it into account in future articles.

First, check your work:
"They are then stewards of Ultima Online"
"All of this can be simply explained a commitment to quality and it extends to their publisher, who regularly encourages completeness and polish."

Second, I thought I made this clear last time: Where are Mark's actual words? This is your extrapolation, not his direct wording: Example: "Jacobs cited examples like Knights of the Old Republic and World of Warcraft as titles that were clearly built to be classics. He does not want to see Warhammer on shelves until it falls into that class." If you're going to call these pieces (and I'm referring to all of the material you brought back from AGC) interviews, it should be written up as such, a Q & A if you will. Show us, don't tell us. We want to hear it from the horse's mouth. The entire two part article has two quotes and one of them is not what I'd call a quotable passage - "No, but I never am."

Third: Breaking this short puff piece into two separate entries is somewhat transparent. (more pageviews please - thanks)

Lastly, you took the time to travel to Austin and set up a slew of meetings, but after all that effort, it genuinely feels like you got lazy when it came to performing and writing up the interviews. Take a recorder (if you didn't) and use the recording to go back later and pull specific content and exchanges. The current write ups from AGC feel like scribbled notes, not in depth interviews.

All the best.

Thank for the typo catches, that is my mistake.

For the interview, honestly, I think you've read a few too many Q&As. The article format interview is not exactly a new concept, but admittedly, rarely used in gaming. In this particular case, there may not have been as many direct quotes as I would have liked, but 99% of that article relates what he said.

I broke it into two parts not for page views (that could have been accomplished by breaking it into two pages), but because I wrote part one quickly from the show floor and had to run to another meeting. No grand conspiracy.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the way I do the articles, it's a shame you don't enjoy them. I will not be doing the straight transcription of Q&As as it creates epic articles people need to wade through to find the real content. At 45 minutes to an hour, each of these interviews would run 8000, 9000 words, which is absurd. Rarely too do the interviews follow a logical thread the way an article does.

Anyway - as I said - I appreciate your feedback. It's a shame you're not enjoying the coverage, but fundamentally we disagree on how these types of articles should be handled, so I suppose there is not much that can be done.

Take care,

Dana

weirdest comment thread ever.

Noted and thanks for the response.

I guess it is fair to say that I pine for more detail and personality in these recaps.

I do agree that it doesn't have to be a word for word, but somewhere in between might be nice.

prognosticator:
Noted and thanks for the response.

I guess it is fair to say that I pine for more detail and personality in these recaps.

I do agree that it doesn't have to be a word for word, but somewhere in between might be nice.

I admit fully, I didn't get as many quotes off Mark as I could have. He talks fast :) I think the Brett Close article today is closer to what I typically aim for.

I appreciate you taking the time to contribute and help improve the site, even if we don't always agree.