Report – Funcom CEO Trond Arne Aas resigns

Tuesday, 3rd July 2012 01:41 GMT By Brenna Hillier

On the eve of The Secret World’s release, Funcom CEO Trond Arne Aas has reportedly left the building.

According to Norwegian site E24, Aas will transition into a strategy advisor role, and will be replaced by current COO Ole Schreiner.

Aas told the site he’s not keen on the responsibility of the chief executive role, and is looking forward to a bit more freedom.

He also said that his role change isn’t “dramatic”, and noted that preparations are complete for tomorrow’s launch of MMO The Secret World.

Aas steered Funcom for nine years.

Thanks, StrategyInformer.



  1. TheWulf

    The Secret World was a noble experiment… but I wouldn’t want to stay around to watch it flop, either. The thing of it is is that whilst it is an interesting experiment to try to create a massively multiplayer point & click adventure game, you can’t.

    The whole idea is that it’s a very personal experience, you don’t want other people solving or ruining your puzzles for you. This is why the most popular parts of Uru: Ages Beyond Myst were the instanced parts. People would only go into an age in large numbers to socialise and take pictures. They wouldn’t play in one.

    So the evidence of why it wouldn’t work was out there. I’m surprised that someone wanted to try again, to be honest.

    So when you take away the rather ruined point & click element, what do you have left? A skill system that really isn’t all that interesting, and combat that is pretty much the same as every MMORPG prior to it has been, with wimpy weapons and face-rolling combat.

    The fact of the matter is is that the ‘deck’ system it’s using was already done (and better) by the original Guild Wars. Guild Wars 1 wins because it doesn’t charge a subscription. I mean, if you play TSW and you want a game that does the combat and deck-building better, and without a subscription, you just play the original Guild Wars.

    But ArenaNet realised that with the exact system they used in GW1 (a system that TSW uses, albeit less interestingly), they have balance issues that can’t be fixed. This is why they switched it up to have it being more ‘set groups of skills that work well together’ (weapon skills) mostly, rather than having a full 10-skill deck.

    The problem with Guild Wars 1 was that a person could end up with a completely broken character, even with build advice. This is the same issue that can occur in TSW. And if that’s all you want from it, you can play GW1 and not have the subscription.

    So ultimately, TSW is a massive failure on all fronts, everything about it has either been done better before, or there’s been evidence as to why certain parts of it just won’t/can’t work.

    It’s going to be a huge flop. It might have a tiny following, but ultimately?

    What I see here is someone getting out when the getting is good.

    #1 3 years ago
  2. GwynbleiddiuM

    TBH I always thought TSW will be like Guild Wars, buy to play not a subscription based game. They shouldn’t have done it especially since games like SWTOR already failed big time with a sub-base model, I really couldn’t see TSW do any better than SWTOR. And GW2 will be out in 2 months and from the looks of things it is very very impressive, unlike TSW that I didn’t read or watch any convincing hands-on pieces that encourages me to get it. I was really excited about TSW until a few months ago but now I just can’t see that works for me anymore.

    #2 3 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.