The Demise of Age of Conan
by Britton LaRoche · 11/22/2008 (8:16 am) · 12 comments
I played AOC for awhile and I saw potential. So why is it failing? What is its down fall? In my opinion its lack of content past level 50, and a bit of a rush job for release. The sad thing is that the game industry is run by accountants in the large companies.
These guys have no clue as to what makes a good game. They don't even play games. The guys I met with at the 2004 GDC from Konami, Microsoft and a few other big companies didn't even know what a first person shooter was. They were not even familiar with the basic game genres. I asked questions about their gaming experience to help tailor my pitch. When I realized they never played games, I asked what their role was in the organization, and what their back ground was. They were responsible for new game titles and new ventures and they had a back ground in finance and accounting.
Well, that is when I knew the traditional game industry was dead. Record profits from a few good titles brought the numbers guys in. Bland numbers wont sell games. Eventually the game industry will keep these guys where they belong... in the accounting closet.
In the mean time lest see what this philosophy of rushing things has done to a game like AOC. I stopped playing when my character Hadrian the Barbarian got to about level 54 a month or so after the game launched. There were no good quests. The only real quests I could do were solo repeatable quests in the noble district. That got old fast. I could not team, and I could not really do any decent pvp at 54. I was stuck ganking lowbies for fun in the khopsef province.
I signed back up to see what the consequences would be, for ganking a lowbie after they added a new pvp consequences patch as part of a pvp enhancemnt. I did a player search to see where everyone was. There were a total of 40 people playing on the bane server, very few my level or higher. The bane server was a ghost town. I created a new character on the set server which had a decent population. Few other servers had any activity.
I logged back in today and stared the death of conan straight in the eye. Picture attached below. AOC is dead.
The last thing you want to do when losing record numbers of subscribers is force everyone to upgrade their video drivers. What a bone headed move. Whats next? How about laying off some employees while your stock plummets? That is another sign the accounting guys are running the company. Rushing a title before its ready, pushing the latest tech out before its ready and cutting your creative staff are signs the guys calling the shots have no idea what they are doing.
No one ever shrank into greatness. The first to go are always the QA and customer service. The reason? When you know you are dead, you couldn't care less about quality or customer service... you just gotta milk the few customers you have left while you can.
5 Years of Funcom Stock Quotes
Funcom layoffs are coming
Mark my words AOC is toast.
Sadly the game could have been a contender. It had all the right elements and its own cool genre.
Previous posts:
Combat in the Age of Conan
Exploring the Age of Conan
How do I know the accounting guys killed AOC you ask? Well its all in the stock graph. And in the knowledge I gleaned from Jason Bell in the 2003 Austin Gamers conference. Jason Bell is not a numbers guy, he was the VP of creative development at Atari. Now he is the VP of creative development at Turbine. The guy has a background in Art and has a better understanding of the numbers than the number guys. Q&A With Jason Bell
Back in the day (while still at atari) Jason worked with the Matrix game, another rush release driven by the accountants. They sold 4 million units, but Atari stock took the same Funcom dive after release because they predicted 7 million units in sales. The game was okay but lacked creativity, due to its shortened development cycle.
Funcom is in the toilet for the exact same reason. Lets look at the stock price nose dive after the release of AOC. Past 6 months of Funcom Failure
Get it from the horses mouth....
"Now that there's no rush to meet the deadlines, Funcom is taking things slower and making sure that each new feature is complete and polished."
AOC Developers speak on the removal of deadlines
These guys have no clue as to what makes a good game. They don't even play games. The guys I met with at the 2004 GDC from Konami, Microsoft and a few other big companies didn't even know what a first person shooter was. They were not even familiar with the basic game genres. I asked questions about their gaming experience to help tailor my pitch. When I realized they never played games, I asked what their role was in the organization, and what their back ground was. They were responsible for new game titles and new ventures and they had a back ground in finance and accounting.
Well, that is when I knew the traditional game industry was dead. Record profits from a few good titles brought the numbers guys in. Bland numbers wont sell games. Eventually the game industry will keep these guys where they belong... in the accounting closet.
In the mean time lest see what this philosophy of rushing things has done to a game like AOC. I stopped playing when my character Hadrian the Barbarian got to about level 54 a month or so after the game launched. There were no good quests. The only real quests I could do were solo repeatable quests in the noble district. That got old fast. I could not team, and I could not really do any decent pvp at 54. I was stuck ganking lowbies for fun in the khopsef province.
I signed back up to see what the consequences would be, for ganking a lowbie after they added a new pvp consequences patch as part of a pvp enhancemnt. I did a player search to see where everyone was. There were a total of 40 people playing on the bane server, very few my level or higher. The bane server was a ghost town. I created a new character on the set server which had a decent population. Few other servers had any activity.
I logged back in today and stared the death of conan straight in the eye. Picture attached below. AOC is dead.
The last thing you want to do when losing record numbers of subscribers is force everyone to upgrade their video drivers. What a bone headed move. Whats next? How about laying off some employees while your stock plummets? That is another sign the accounting guys are running the company. Rushing a title before its ready, pushing the latest tech out before its ready and cutting your creative staff are signs the guys calling the shots have no idea what they are doing.
No one ever shrank into greatness. The first to go are always the QA and customer service. The reason? When you know you are dead, you couldn't care less about quality or customer service... you just gotta milk the few customers you have left while you can.
5 Years of Funcom Stock Quotes
Funcom layoffs are coming
Mark my words AOC is toast.
Sadly the game could have been a contender. It had all the right elements and its own cool genre.
Previous posts:
Combat in the Age of Conan
Exploring the Age of Conan
How do I know the accounting guys killed AOC you ask? Well its all in the stock graph. And in the knowledge I gleaned from Jason Bell in the 2003 Austin Gamers conference. Jason Bell is not a numbers guy, he was the VP of creative development at Atari. Now he is the VP of creative development at Turbine. The guy has a background in Art and has a better understanding of the numbers than the number guys. Q&A With Jason Bell
Back in the day (while still at atari) Jason worked with the Matrix game, another rush release driven by the accountants. They sold 4 million units, but Atari stock took the same Funcom dive after release because they predicted 7 million units in sales. The game was okay but lacked creativity, due to its shortened development cycle.
Funcom is in the toilet for the exact same reason. Lets look at the stock price nose dive after the release of AOC. Past 6 months of Funcom Failure
Get it from the horses mouth....
"Now that there's no rush to meet the deadlines, Funcom is taking things slower and making sure that each new feature is complete and polished."
AOC Developers speak on the removal of deadlines
#2
I'm not buying into that. Accountants or not.
11/22/2008 (9:31 am)
AoC wasn't much new to me, when I tried it. It reminded me of something of a cross between Anarchy Online (which I loved) and WoW. But apart from the direction combat stuff they put it, it was just the same old MMO again with new graphics.I'm not buying into that. Accountants or not.
#3
I bought AoC and WAR and canceled them both in the first month... not even playing for the full "trial" that you pay $60 for at launch. I'm done... until a MMO has been alive for at last 2 years or the review are so good and user feedback so sensational that I cannot resist.
Yes, I feel burned. Other games that I have spent $60 on, can at the very least collect dust until the day I decide to install them again and play for a few minutes. Not so, with the MMO.
11/22/2008 (10:14 am)
@Jaimi: Heretic! Blasphemer! It is always the suits fault! I bought AoC and WAR and canceled them both in the first month... not even playing for the full "trial" that you pay $60 for at launch. I'm done... until a MMO has been alive for at last 2 years or the review are so good and user feedback so sensational that I cannot resist.
Yes, I feel burned. Other games that I have spent $60 on, can at the very least collect dust until the day I decide to install them again and play for a few minutes. Not so, with the MMO.
#4
Same with AOC... The twist? Now that its dead, they gave the developers the time they need (right before they fire the whole lot of them) No rush job by the accountants? Dont take my word for it get it straight from the horses mouth...
AOC Developers speak on the removal of deadlines
"Now that there's no rush to meet the deadlines, Funcom is taking things slower and making sure that each new feature is complete and polished."
"Funcom announced some suprising news today. Apparently, Gaute Godager has resigned from his position as the Game Director for Age of Conan and quit the company he participated in founding and had been working in for the past 16 years. I guess we won't hear his cool Norwegian accent in Funcom videos anymore. With Gaute leaving, there's also very little left of the 'original' FC team."
Hello Accountants! Welcome to the development slaughter house... They pushed the deadlines with their bloated fat waste of time in getting the financing deals finished. Then through beastly incompetence and disdain for art and creativity they push and sacrifice.. cut corners on development and shove it out before its time (all based on budget they set) ... they also set the expectation for ROI too high... they caused the stock price to tumble... then they turn and cut budget. The cut the very life force that creates the products. Because they control the money... they are at the top.
I know these guys I know how they think and I know they are the problem at Funcom.
11/22/2008 (10:59 am)
@Jaimi, Ah yes, when inide games fail its due to overestimation of skill and underestimation of the task. This is not true for the big players. They know exactly how long it takes and they have all the resources necessary to meet or beat the deadline. Jason Bell clearly stated the problem with the Matrix game. By the time the contracts were signed and the haggling was over they had 6 months to deliver the whole thing to meet the deadline of the matrix movie's release. Its the suits the whole way dragging behind then pushing it through at the last minute.Same with AOC... The twist? Now that its dead, they gave the developers the time they need (right before they fire the whole lot of them) No rush job by the accountants? Dont take my word for it get it straight from the horses mouth...
AOC Developers speak on the removal of deadlines
"Now that there's no rush to meet the deadlines, Funcom is taking things slower and making sure that each new feature is complete and polished."
"Funcom announced some suprising news today. Apparently, Gaute Godager has resigned from his position as the Game Director for Age of Conan and quit the company he participated in founding and had been working in for the past 16 years. I guess we won't hear his cool Norwegian accent in Funcom videos anymore. With Gaute leaving, there's also very little left of the 'original' FC team."
Hello Accountants! Welcome to the development slaughter house... They pushed the deadlines with their bloated fat waste of time in getting the financing deals finished. Then through beastly incompetence and disdain for art and creativity they push and sacrifice.. cut corners on development and shove it out before its time (all based on budget they set) ... they also set the expectation for ROI too high... they caused the stock price to tumble... then they turn and cut budget. The cut the very life force that creates the products. Because they control the money... they are at the top.
I know these guys I know how they think and I know they are the problem at Funcom.
#5
Regarding industry execs, I can't agree more there either. I recently met an exec from Ubisoft in the UK, he told me directly that he had no idea about games and that he would have preferred to work in the music industry but there was no money there anymore so that's how he ended up at Ubisoft.
11/22/2008 (11:37 am)
I have to agree with you. I played the game until level 61 if my memory serves me correctly. My wife still plays, she is level 80 but has seen the populations dwindling. Funny enough, I saw that exact screen last week because I had to help my wife update her drivers, she had no idea how to do so. Its pretty sad, the first 40 levels were the best PvE I've ever played in an MMO. The Conan license was really awesome and let to some of the best role-playing I've seen... I play on RP servers and my guild was pretty good at it.Regarding industry execs, I can't agree more there either. I recently met an exec from Ubisoft in the UK, he told me directly that he had no idea about games and that he would have preferred to work in the music industry but there was no money there anymore so that's how he ended up at Ubisoft.
#6
11/22/2008 (3:12 pm)
I was impressed with the early parts of the game. Unfortunately they spent so much time getting Tortage polished that the rest of the areas suffered for it. I loved that almost everyone you encountered in the early areas were voiced, regardless of how minor they were. Then you leave Tortage and the first person I talk to has no voice work, talk to a few more and still no voice work. The monotony of the quests started getting dull and then I gave up. They really would have been better off to spread that polish around a little more evenly. 
#7
1) Computer specs were off the charts. This was a HUGE issue for them. Basically, the specs they printed on the boxes were high already. And worse, the specs they printed on the boxes were wrong. A player with a machine that matched the min specs on the box would find a barely playable experience, even at the lowest settings. At the lowest settings, AOC looks graphically less appealing than DAOC, EQ, or other much older games.
There is no excuse for this. DAOC runs well and looks good on a 32mb video card. Arguably, DAOC looks and runs better on a 32mb video card with 256mb of RAM than AOC does on an older 256mb card with a GB of RAM. The actual min specs should probably have been a 512mb card with 2GB+ of RAM - which creates a fairly playable (if plain) game at low-medium settings.
Tens of thousands of players bought the game and were either unable to play at all, or unable to play at settings that made the game look like something worth playing. Tens of thousands of other potential players did NOT buy the game who might have, because even the listed specs were too high. Mass market means you Do Not Use state of the art game specs. Not if you want the casual crowd.
2) Missing content on a grand scale. This should be a fundamental rule for upcoming games: a leveling grind is no longer sufficient content for a game launch. You MUST have more things to do than simply adding a boring grind to max level. In AOC's case, they in theory had city building, keep sieges, and tons of high end pvp to keep people busy. And so, the main audience who came there were pvpers, who rapidly advanced to high levels, found the pvp content was either broken or not implemented yet at all, and left. And brought their guilds with them.
You simply have to launch with enough content to keep people busy AND entertained for the long run. People have gotten very good at grinding. ;) And the grind will always take less time than devs think it will.
3) Multiple Personality Disorder. Funcom wasn't sure what sort of game they wanted to make; that was clearly evident. They copied the WOW gameplay lock, stock, and barrel, but then added nudity and extra violence - things not especially attractive to the WOW casual core market. They heavily advertised their strong pvp, sieges, massive battles, etc. And then they refused to add the death penalties and meaningful (persistent-state impacting) pvp that is essential to attract THAT crowd - and even neglected to have those elements up and running at launch. The net result was a game that didn't really know what it was supposed to be, and marketing which targeted groups of players who were not really going to like the game. Focus on your market. Hit that market better than your competition. Don't worry about trying to get everyone.
4) Make it WORK, don't just make it! It is not enough to just release a game and fix it later. Developers need to burn that into their brains. When a game releases, it is competing against every other product out there for sales. Every player who plays your MMO is doing so because they like your game - have more fun in your game! - than they think they would have in WOW, in WAR, in Eve, in EQ2, in LOTRO, and in all the other games they have to choose from. A new release doesn't need to be better across the board to compete. But it needs to release clean, mostly bug free, and ready for action. AOC wasn't even close. If the devs are still fixing crash bugs and other gamebreakers in the last couple of weeks before launch, the game is doomed before it ever hits the shelves. Those last few months should be about adding new content and tweaking the content that exists, never about fixing gamebreakers.
11/23/2008 (9:18 am)
AOC had a number of critical issues which have led to its failure. Most of them are things that we would think of as fairly simple, basic elements of design that should never have happened to a company with as much experience as Funcom has.1) Computer specs were off the charts. This was a HUGE issue for them. Basically, the specs they printed on the boxes were high already. And worse, the specs they printed on the boxes were wrong. A player with a machine that matched the min specs on the box would find a barely playable experience, even at the lowest settings. At the lowest settings, AOC looks graphically less appealing than DAOC, EQ, or other much older games.
There is no excuse for this. DAOC runs well and looks good on a 32mb video card. Arguably, DAOC looks and runs better on a 32mb video card with 256mb of RAM than AOC does on an older 256mb card with a GB of RAM. The actual min specs should probably have been a 512mb card with 2GB+ of RAM - which creates a fairly playable (if plain) game at low-medium settings.
Tens of thousands of players bought the game and were either unable to play at all, or unable to play at settings that made the game look like something worth playing. Tens of thousands of other potential players did NOT buy the game who might have, because even the listed specs were too high. Mass market means you Do Not Use state of the art game specs. Not if you want the casual crowd.
2) Missing content on a grand scale. This should be a fundamental rule for upcoming games: a leveling grind is no longer sufficient content for a game launch. You MUST have more things to do than simply adding a boring grind to max level. In AOC's case, they in theory had city building, keep sieges, and tons of high end pvp to keep people busy. And so, the main audience who came there were pvpers, who rapidly advanced to high levels, found the pvp content was either broken or not implemented yet at all, and left. And brought their guilds with them.
You simply have to launch with enough content to keep people busy AND entertained for the long run. People have gotten very good at grinding. ;) And the grind will always take less time than devs think it will.
3) Multiple Personality Disorder. Funcom wasn't sure what sort of game they wanted to make; that was clearly evident. They copied the WOW gameplay lock, stock, and barrel, but then added nudity and extra violence - things not especially attractive to the WOW casual core market. They heavily advertised their strong pvp, sieges, massive battles, etc. And then they refused to add the death penalties and meaningful (persistent-state impacting) pvp that is essential to attract THAT crowd - and even neglected to have those elements up and running at launch. The net result was a game that didn't really know what it was supposed to be, and marketing which targeted groups of players who were not really going to like the game. Focus on your market. Hit that market better than your competition. Don't worry about trying to get everyone.
4) Make it WORK, don't just make it! It is not enough to just release a game and fix it later. Developers need to burn that into their brains. When a game releases, it is competing against every other product out there for sales. Every player who plays your MMO is doing so because they like your game - have more fun in your game! - than they think they would have in WOW, in WAR, in Eve, in EQ2, in LOTRO, and in all the other games they have to choose from. A new release doesn't need to be better across the board to compete. But it needs to release clean, mostly bug free, and ready for action. AOC wasn't even close. If the devs are still fixing crash bugs and other gamebreakers in the last couple of weeks before launch, the game is doomed before it ever hits the shelves. Those last few months should be about adding new content and tweaking the content that exists, never about fixing gamebreakers.
#8
11/23/2008 (10:41 am)
Good observation Britton, can't really argue with you on it. Quote:These guys have no clue as to what makes a good game. They don't even play games. The guys I met with at the 2004 GDC from Konami, Microsoft and a few other big companies didn't even know what a first person shooter was. They were not even familiar with the basic game genres.If that's 2004, I don't know if I'm ready to hear what there like now :S
#9
If all you do is count beans, its difficult to understand how it can take 5 years to develop a game. I doubt the two worlds will ever meet.
What you need is a developer turned manager, or the developer to become the financier of a game. Hense the birth of Garage Games and other indies like them. Since the strict business guys have no interest in playing or developing games, it is necessary for the game developers to become business savvy.
When this happens the developers will manage the company, they will call the shots and employ accountants to do nothing more than accounting. The developers will set the schedules and make the budget. In my opinion this is the future of gaming. This type of company will come out with a vastly superior and creative product.
...
11/23/2008 (11:27 pm)
@Leroy,If all you do is count beans, its difficult to understand how it can take 5 years to develop a game. I doubt the two worlds will ever meet.
What you need is a developer turned manager, or the developer to become the financier of a game. Hense the birth of Garage Games and other indies like them. Since the strict business guys have no interest in playing or developing games, it is necessary for the game developers to become business savvy.
When this happens the developers will manage the company, they will call the shots and employ accountants to do nothing more than accounting. The developers will set the schedules and make the budget. In my opinion this is the future of gaming. This type of company will come out with a vastly superior and creative product.
...
#10
Another problem is the treatment of developers (visionary/lead etc) by publishers as a commodity/cog wheel rather than a key talent.
(I think) If and when those 2 things change, AAA games should (in theory) be better in future and developers themselves a little richer for it too! :)
11/24/2008 (2:43 am)
Problem is from what I see (from all the buyout/shutdown of studio's articles) developers are still very business shy for the best part. They'd be happy to get paid a wage and make the games (they think) they dreamed of making. Hopefully, developers at some point will stop selling their studio, game(s) and souls to publishers just to get funding to finish the game in question.Another problem is the treatment of developers (visionary/lead etc) by publishers as a commodity/cog wheel rather than a key talent.
(I think) If and when those 2 things change, AAA games should (in theory) be better in future and developers themselves a little richer for it too! :)
#11
(Cost of developing game + Publisher advertising blitz) > (Potential return of sales) = Bad Business
In the old days you could still make money even if it wasn't the biggest hit of the year.
All these publishers and developers need to go back to the old school methods, and act like a smaller indie shop. Stop hiring giant staffs and paying them for years, and then complain it costs too much.
Take the development estimate and multiple it by 4, then that's your budget.
11/24/2008 (7:23 pm)
The issue really is both the creative and the business sides. Seriously, if you spend the money these companies do to develop a game, and the hiring of very large numbers of staff it is too hard to profit from it. The cost goes up till there isn't anyway for the game to make any money unless it is a blockbuster.(Cost of developing game + Publisher advertising blitz) > (Potential return of sales) = Bad Business
In the old days you could still make money even if it wasn't the biggest hit of the year.
All these publishers and developers need to go back to the old school methods, and act like a smaller indie shop. Stop hiring giant staffs and paying them for years, and then complain it costs too much.
Take the development estimate and multiple it by 4, then that's your budget.
#12
I agree with your technical analysis of the problems with AoC. And fundamentally you hit the nail on the head, AoC was not ready. It attracted a huge crowd who found that the pvp content they came for was not there.
@John, yeah it costs a bundle to come close to what Funcom and Blizzard have produced. I think you need the staff to create that much art, design levels maps you name it. It takes years, and there is no way around it if you want something on that scale.
There are only two options. 1. Reduce the scale and scope of the project. or 2. Budget for the whole (guessing 6 to 7 years) time it takes to do that from scratch. If you go in the middle, stick with it until its 80% there and push it out the door... well read Kevin's post... you lose your customer base.
The whole subscription based model is on retaining customers. The AoC "fad" stage has been blown. Its no longer the latest cool thing. It will be very difficult to lure these players back.
Side note, I see two options going forward:
Option 1 (Bad Idea)
------------------------------
If I were in management at Funcom, and I was not game savvy.... Just looking at the numbers, I'd sell the whole franchise for 1 to 2 times revenue, take my losses and move on. I'd also cut the staff to the bone, and milk it for all it was worth, until I found a buyer. (That's standard operating procedure for any business in the red)
Option 2 (Better Idea)
------------------------------
The right thing to do? It goes back to Jaimie's post
I's stick with it, even if it meant the end of Funcom. There is a fantastic upside to this whole thing. Its sad to come 80% of the way and then just give up. Its something I can not personally do. I'd stick it out, but I'd focus on what makes AoC different. I'd go with the development teams ideas... stick with PVP. Winner takes all in this strategy. I'd take everything I had and put it back in the game. As they say in roulette .... "let it ride."
What will Funcom do? If I'm right and the Accountants are running things... look for option 1 to take place very quickly.
....
11/24/2008 (7:50 pm)
@Kevin,I agree with your technical analysis of the problems with AoC. And fundamentally you hit the nail on the head, AoC was not ready. It attracted a huge crowd who found that the pvp content they came for was not there.
@John, yeah it costs a bundle to come close to what Funcom and Blizzard have produced. I think you need the staff to create that much art, design levels maps you name it. It takes years, and there is no way around it if you want something on that scale.
There are only two options. 1. Reduce the scale and scope of the project. or 2. Budget for the whole (guessing 6 to 7 years) time it takes to do that from scratch. If you go in the middle, stick with it until its 80% there and push it out the door... well read Kevin's post... you lose your customer base.
The whole subscription based model is on retaining customers. The AoC "fad" stage has been blown. Its no longer the latest cool thing. It will be very difficult to lure these players back.
Side note, I see two options going forward:
Option 1 (Bad Idea)
------------------------------
If I were in management at Funcom, and I was not game savvy.... Just looking at the numbers, I'd sell the whole franchise for 1 to 2 times revenue, take my losses and move on. I'd also cut the staff to the bone, and milk it for all it was worth, until I found a buyer. (That's standard operating procedure for any business in the red)
Option 2 (Better Idea)
------------------------------
The right thing to do? It goes back to Jaimie's post
Quote:In the immortal words of Miracle Max, I think it's just Mostly Dead (" Mostly dead is slightly alive")
I's stick with it, even if it meant the end of Funcom. There is a fantastic upside to this whole thing. Its sad to come 80% of the way and then just give up. Its something I can not personally do. I'd stick it out, but I'd focus on what makes AoC different. I'd go with the development teams ideas... stick with PVP. Winner takes all in this strategy. I'd take everything I had and put it back in the game. As they say in roulette .... "let it ride."
What will Funcom do? If I'm right and the Accountants are running things... look for option 1 to take place very quickly.
....
Associate Jaimi McEntire
King of Flapjacks
The developers, designers, writers, and the rest of the folk on the creative teams killed it. Accountants just do accounting - they say things like "We really are running out of money. You said this would take 12 months, and we're at month 24. We will soon have no money left to pay anybody".
It's the creative staff - the guys like you and me - who cause this problem. It's overestimation of skill (and underestimation of time), hubris. It's estimates from the dev team for 6 month projects that end up being 12 month projects. It's artists sitting around tweaking a model over and over, getting it to 100%, when in reality, 95% was more than good enough and takes half the time. The list goes on. It's a bunch of people with the attitude that "the suits" are the cause of the trouble, and if they could just sit around and develop what they want forever, then they would produce the perfect game. But you can't do that, because they also want to be paid. Ask those guys if they will work for free - the answer will be a resounding no. The money has to come from somewhere to pay them.