Slashdot Mirror


Sony's MMORPG "Sovereign" Dead

Gudlyf writes "Although the main site for this massive-multiplayer game by Sony (once known as Verant) was updated at some point late last year, it seems that according to CNN Money, it's gone quietly dead after 4.5 years in development (reminds me of why I posted my vote in a previous story on vaporware): "Work on 'Sovereign,' a massively multiplayer real time strategy game, has been terminated after more than four-and-a-half years of development. Ambitious in nature, the game had hoped to replicate a continuous global war that supported up to 500 players. Diplomacy would have played as significant a role as the player's tactical abilities. 'We came to a decision that it was not going to be what we wanted it to be,' said McDaniel. 'It never really had the magic.'""

160 comments

  1. Man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess there's always Duke Nukem Forever to look forward to...

    1. Re:Man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.defendersoffreedom.org/videos/9-11.ram

    2. Re:Man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To look forward forever? ;-)

    3. Re:Man... by pjp6259 · · Score: 1

      That's right there will always be duke nukem forever to look forward to.

      It reminds me of a superman comic I read as a kid. He was going to some intergalactic circus, and they sold this food at the concession stand that had a great aroma, but was only for smelling, and not for eating. That's what Duke Nukem Forever is.

      --
      Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
  2. Massive war? by Malicious · · Score: 5, Funny

    Instead of being cancelled, they should admit that instead, a peaceful, diplomatic resolution was found, and thus, the war doesn't have to happen.

    --
    01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
    1. Re:Massive war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Quite the opposite. The project was upgraded to a more intensive version that can support up to six billion players. Rollout is imminent.

      You won't believe the realism.

    2. Re:Massive war? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Damn oil companies! Who would think that they are going to eat Sony's lunch.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    3. Re:Massive war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      War isn't funny at all.
      I wonder how you can laugh about this when maybe some of you friends, siblings or familly are going to die over a 'preemptive' war in Irak.
      ( Since you make allusion to it. )

      I'd love to see Bush's son get killed on iraki land. I a war his father wanted.
      People who whant war rarely go to war themselves.

      Give Saddam and Bush a good fight to the death, and the winner take it all. I belive that would be fairer.

    4. Re:Massive war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not realistic. It would never sell.

    5. Re:Massive war? by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      > Give Saddam and Bush a good fight to the death,
      > and the winner take it all. I belive that would
      > be fairer.

      Yes, this cloying, childlike, tired joke is so damned original. Gosh, you're clever!

      And if Saddam won? Sorry, but the modern day "useful idiots" would be the first executed under his regime.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
  3. Makes sense by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why should Sony work hard on something original and interesting when they can just keep reselling Evercrack?

    1. Re:Makes sense by MrLint · · Score: 1

      I very much doubt that the investment willbe wasted.. i'll betcah some (much) of it willbe rolled into a PS3/4 game once the technology is baddass enough to make it all work right.

    2. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, you don't need a second dead horse to flog if you've already got a perfectly dead one already. Especially if it makes a shitload of money!

  4. darn by Billly+Gates · · Score: 0
    I bought a new computers just for this game as well as DukeNukem Forever. I am sure it will still be usefull when DukeNuken is released.

    1. Re:darn by silvaran · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am sure it will still be usefull when DukeNuken is released.

      Yeah, as a paperweight.

      Thanks, you really set me up for that one ;).

    2. Re:darn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why buy computers if the apps you spec it for aren't available?

    3. Re:darn by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      In all seriousness, I decided I would wait for Duke Nukem 4ever to come out before buying a new computer.

      My current computer is...wait for it...a PIII 450 with Voodoo 3 3000. It won't even run Trailer Park Tycoon, much less the two latest EQ expansion packs or Starseige Tribes II.

      And the waiting continues...

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
  5. I Miss Red Alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who needs 500 ppl? I want my C&C Red Alert Back! TIBERIUM!!!!

  6. Sound like a lesson in software engineering: by eddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Prototype early. If the fun isn't there in the prototype, you're just playing for "luck" to make it a success.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
    1. Re:Sound like a lesson in software engineering: by startled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      See, that's the thing. I'm sure most people at SOE know this. But the multi-million dollar question is: how the hell does a game that's so far from mainstream get strung along in development for this long?

      I doubt it'll happen, but I really wish Game Dev Mag could get one of their really insightful and honest post-mortems for this project. It'd be an excellent case study of all sorts of things to watch out for.

    2. Re:Sound like a lesson in software engineering: by artemis67 · · Score: 1

      how the hell does a game that's so far from mainstream get strung along in development for this long?

      The question is, Does the Product Manager have the balls to pull the plug on a project whose development costs are already in the seven figure range?

      I suspect the project "died" at least a year or two ago, and nobody really had the cajones to say it.

      As someone who's followed Verant almost from the start, I have to say that I never saw the appeal of Sovereign. It sounded way too ambitious to really pull off and way too complex to hit a mass audience.

      In fact, I've never really understood why they let the Tanarus franchise fall by the wayside. It was the most popular game on the internet when it was in open beta; but by the time the shrinkwrapped version hit retail shelves, a lot of gamers had had their fill and were ready to move on. To this day, they've still got a solid base of Tanarus players (7 years after the open beta was first released!), but they have no interest on following up with these players.

    3. Re:Sound like a lesson in software engineering: by Klox · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is necessarily true. I've played a few FPS "tests" where the only thing you can do is run around an empty level. Sometimes I've even had a gun so I can shoot walls. This isn't fun. It's interesting to see what the engine is like, but it doesn't give a feel for the game at all.

    4. Re:Sound like a lesson in software engineering: by eddy · · Score: 1

      Of course the need for prototyping diminish as you move from "to boldly go.." to "let's crap out another pointless FPS clone".

      It sounds to me that you describe a technical test and not a game-play protoptype, which would have most of the elements of the game, albeit in very nonpolished state, possibly hardcoded/scripted all the way.

      --
      Belief is the currency of delusion.
    5. Re:Sound like a lesson in software engineering: by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      EQ succeeded in spite of that company's many bizarre decisions, not because of them.

      I remember playing the free download "Tanarus", OMFG, what a PoS.

      EQ was about a half an inch from dying on the grapevine thanks to crap like book-in-the-face, and warriors who do less damage than almost any other fighter class.

      I remember almost not subscribing until I found out how to be a "mouser" as in normal 3d FPS games.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    6. Re:Sound like a lesson in software engineering: by Klox · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that "just another FPS" doesn't really need to be prototyped. And I even agree with the original poster that prototyping is a Good Thing. My point was that it isn't always possible to prototype, expecially when everything is new. Just getting a game platform that can manage 500 players isn't trivial. Then add a (presumablly) 3D engine... and a rudimentary world... and some basic controls... you probably need some basic AI... Once you've got enough of a prototype to get a feel for the game, you're quite far into it. And at that point it's not a "prototype", but a "beta". Yes, sometimes you can prototype, but it's not asy easy as "woops, should've prototyped!"

  7. oh well by marvy666 · · Score: 1

    no big loss

  8. Bush.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... would have liked this game soooo much. He could have practiced his tactical abilities AND work at his diplomacy skills without hurting anybody else.

  9. what?? by xao+gypsie · · Score: 4, Funny

    It never really had the magic

    then it wasnt really an rpg, was it???

    xao

    --


    xao
    http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
    1. Re:what?? by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      that might almost be funny if this topic had anything to do with RPGs

  10. "Once known as..." by TheFrood · · Score: 4, Funny

    Although the main site for this massive-multiplayer game by Sony (once known as Verant)

    I'm pretty sure the Sony Corporation was never known as Verant.

    TheFrood

    --
    If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
    1. Re:"Once known as..." by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      Very popular slashdot journal for adul
    2. Re:"Once known as..." by Metallic+Matty · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the Sony Corporation was never known as Verant.

      This is true. However, Verant was the company which was devolping this and is responsible for games such as EverQuest. I believe Sony Online Entertainment took over the operation at some point however.

    3. Re:"Once known as..." by Andorion · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure both the headline writer and the above poster knew that... the above poster was just pointing out the stupid wording in the headline.

      ~Berj

    4. Re:"Once known as..." by ThaddeusAid · · Score: 1

      Verant was purchased and renamed as Sony Online Entrtainment (SOE)

  11. Bah! Who need that? by camt · · Score: 3, Informative

    Who needs that when you have Earth 2025?!

  12. "Massively multiplayer"? by LiftOp · · Score: 1

    As opposed to "slightly multiplayer" or "moderately multiplayer", I suppose . Sort of like this "multiple unilateral" thing we've been hearing lately.

    1. Re:"Massively multiplayer"? by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      massively multiplayer is a nice way to distinguise between 2-64 player games that have been the norm for years and modern 500+ player games. of course everyone has their own definition of massive, mine is somewhere in the grey area between 64 and 500.

    2. Re:"Massively multiplayer"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... am I massive, when I weigh 64kg?

    3. Re:"Massively multiplayer"? by entrylevel · · Score: 1

      If you are a girl, living in the US, absolutely!

      --
      Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
    4. Re:"Massively multiplayer"? by Noren · · Score: 1
      If you weigh anything at all, then you are massive. (Note that the reverse is not true, you can in principle have mass but no weight.)

      However, you can no more weigh 64kg than you can be 64kg old or 64kg tall; kg is a measure of mass, not of weight.

  13. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He thinks he's playing it right now...

  14. No surprise.. by Reedo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember it being announced and thought they were crazy. It really felt like Brad McQuaid and team just went with the first idea they had after they knew Everquest was a hit. "Hey, let's try a massively multiplayer RTS!"

    My question: Why did it take them 4 years to figure out that it wasn't going to be any good?

    1. Re:No surprise.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sovereign was John Smedley's baby, not Brad McQuaids. That is why it lasted so long, cause John didn't want to give up. That attitude worked for Everquest, after all. Don't get me wrong, John is a wizard at what he does, but he's not always right.

      How do I know? I was actually on the Sovereign development team for a while. I'm not surprised it didn't take off. It had some appeal to strategy players, but not the mass market.

  15. Never had the magic? by YetAnotherName · · Score: 1

    "It never really had the magic."

    Wait. It couldn't have been that hard to wedge in a spell system complete with reagents, scrolls, and various arcana. There have been other real-time strategy games with magic in them.

  16. Saw it at E3 2000 by Washizu · · Score: 4, Informative

    I saw Sovereign at E3 2000 and the graphics looked like ass back then. It scaled up from a single tank to an entire planet, though. The game had some neat features, but it didn't seem to solve any of the obvious problems a MM strategy game would have. In most current persistant world games you don't regress if you haven't been logged on in a while. That doesn't work in a strategy game, so what do you do?

    --
    OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
    1. Re:Saw it at E3 2000 by goatasaur · · Score: 1

      That doesn't work in a strategy game, so what do you do?

      That's easy. You suckle on Sony's teat for four and a half years.

      --
      ~D:
    2. Re:Saw it at E3 2000 by Tailhook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "In most current persistent world games you don't regress if you haven't been logged on in a while."

      This is completely wrong.

      Most MM games are constantly evolving. It you don't play regular you do indeed fall behind. Far behind.

      The expansion packs for EQ add lots of new goodies and strata to the game. In level based games the maker can increase the maximum possible levels attainable, or create new abilities and rewards that can only be gained by actively playing.

      An example; If you had stopped playing DAOC five months after release, logging in today you would find yourself completely outclassed. No "epic" armor, no "Realm Abilities," no "spellcrafted" gear, you would have your original gimp spec that has almost certainly been changed dramatically, etc. A player that hasn't logged in since April or May 2002 is so far behind that any attempt to play as-is would be hopeless.

      It's part of the formula. You either put hundreds of hours in or find something better to do with your time.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re:Saw it at E3 2000 by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      Um... but what happens in DAOC or EQ if you didn't log in for, say, about a week.
      Nothing really, I'd dare to say.

      What happens in a real-time strategy game?

      Your defenses have been overrun, your resources captured and your production has plummeted.

      > A player that hasn't logged in since April or May 2002 is so far behind that any attempt to play as-is would be hopeless.

      Can't imagine that. So, why should other people then begin to play that game? What would that do to (RL) business? They may lag behind relatively to their friends, but still have an advantage over others.

      Of course, the game evolves to keep the people playing. But in contrast to strategy games, you'll never lose your once attained level.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    4. Re:Saw it at E3 2000 by rpillala · · Score: 1

      From what I remember, the problem of being attacked while not logged on was a basic design choice for them. Either:

      1. You have the ability to specify your units' AI to the point where your base defends itself in your absence
      2. If you don't have an ally logged in when you're not there, you're screwed.

      Even if you can order your AI around, I think that still would not have worked against a human player or two. On the other hand, maybe I'm thinking of another game. 10 six maybe? All these games run together after a while.

      Ravi

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    5. Re:Saw it at E3 2000 by Washizu · · Score: 1

      "This is completely wrong."

      I wouldn't say "completely wrong." If log into Everquest one night, you won't find that someone killed you in your sleep the night before.

      --
      OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
    6. Re:Saw it at E3 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The game had some neat features, but it didn't seem to solve any of the obvious problems a MM strategy game would have. In most current persistant world games you don't regress if you haven't been logged on in a while. That doesn't work in a strategy game, so what do you do?

      Apparently the big problem was waiting for all 500 players to take their turn, one at a time.

    7. Re:Saw it at E3 2000 by CKW · · Score: 1

      > A player that hasn't logged in since April or May 2002 is so far behind that any attempt to play as-is would be hopeless.

      So what are people who just bought and started playing supposed to do?!?!???

    8. Re:Saw it at E3 2000 by wolfen · · Score: 1

      An example; If you had stopped playing DAOC five months after release, logging in today you would find yourself completely outclassed. No "epic" armor, no "Realm Abilities," no "spellcrafted" gear, you would have your original gimp spec that has almost certainly been changed dramatically, etc. A player that hasn't logged in since April or May 2002 is so far behind that any attempt to play as-is would be hopeless

      Are you serious? My wife and I didn't play DAOC for several months and we logged back in recently and started up again with no problems. Maybe in EQ if you dont play constantly you get wiped out but in DAOC you can actually step away from the computer occasionally and still be able to enjoy the experience when you come back.

    9. Re:Saw it at E3 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You either put hundreds of hours in or find something better to do with your time.


      Yeah, like, just about anything.
    10. Re:Saw it at E3 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be fine. By the time you play to 50 in DAOC (actually play, not buy a level 50 pl'd by someone else), you know the world pretty well. Might have to farm cash for a while to afford good crafted gear though.

      As for someone who hasn't played in a year ... well things have changed a lot. It's not that hard to catch up though, the level cap in DAOC doesn't change and anything else is just a matter of doing some quests or farming cash for a while, and putting in your time in RVR like everyone else to earn your RA's. No you won't log in and be uber right off the bat, and you won't ever catch up to the top RVR players, but you'll fit right in with most people.

    11. Re:Saw it at E3 2000 by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      > A player that hasn't logged in since April or
      > May 2002 is so far behind that any attempt to
      > play as-is would be hopeless.

      That'd be me.

      Standing there about 10 feet tall, weighing somewhere estimated around 3000 lbs., with the official Hammer of Thor(TM) in my hand, a spikey haired kid thingie about the size of Mini Me, hanging out on a sand playground complete with climbing blocks killed me.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    12. Re:Saw it at E3 2000 by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      I don't know the detail's of Sony's planning (although 10^6 was even more focused on offline combat than Sovreign was going to be), but for persistent games in general, there is a 3rd option for preventing offline players from being attacked:

      Force (major) PvP combat to be prescheduled.

      That is, the enemy must announce the time of the attack (to within 30 minutes) from 24 to 96 hours ahead of time. That gives both your and their allies time to gather up for the fight, and helps ensure that the conquering of terrority is based on superior materials and tactical skill, and not luck of being offline at the wrong moment.

      The in-character explanation for this behavior could be that the warriors are bound by a strong sense of honor, or that their bases are protected by magic fields which only can be eroded by a slow-acting magic spell. Something like the Shield Disablers of AO.

      Of course, there are numerous flaws stopping this approach from being successful on its own- stemming from the fact that not everyone can skip work for an appointment made by a videogame. Partial solutions can be munged up. (For instance, the player can pre-script responses to the specific attack at that time, or delegate control of your forces to a trusted ally who will be online at that time. In a big enough clan, someone will be available 24/7. Or, the challenged player could be allowed to offer a reschedule)

  17. 500 players? by BrookHarty · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ambitious in nature, the game had hoped to replicate a continuous global war that supported up to 500 players.

    And at Ambitious $400,000 a month subscriber fee, they might make their money back.

  18. Re:Bah! Who need that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'm personally partial to Utopia.

  19. War is hell by PizzaFace · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The more realistic you make a war game, the less fun it is.

    1. Re:War is hell by ender81b · · Score: 1

      Yeah. No shit.

      "I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded.I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed.I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war." President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

    2. Re:War is hell by Galvatron · · Score: 1
      Says the man who intentionally let Pearl Harbor get bombed in order to draw America into WWII. I'll say this for FDR: he was a good public speaker.


      Back to the subject at hand: you can't simulate disease or death in a game. Those are two of the primary things that make war bad for the soldiers. So, I think the most realistic war GAME possible would still be fun.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    3. Re:War is hell by blaine · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Look at Battlefield 1942. The game might not be completely realistic, but it's 100 times more realistic than most FPS's, and 100 times more fun to boot. I prefer games that take skill, where you can't just run around taking enough damage to kill 20 men, rocket jumping, and such. And I'm definately not the only one.

      --

      -[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
    4. Re:War is hell by ender81b · · Score: 1

      Blah. People who believe FDR intentionally let pearl harbor be bombed are either a.) wackos or b.) sadly misinformed. I hate countering this line of thought but here we go.

      FDR had no reason to let pearl harbor be bombed. Remember by doing so it would garauntee that large portions of the US fleet would be destroyed, specifically the core of the US pacific fleet the battleship. At that time everybody thought the battleship would be the dominant warship not the aircraft carrier. Nobody thought the aircraft carrier (besides the japanese) would be the dominant fleet ship. For FDR to let pearl harbor be bombed he would be consenting to the destruction of the US fleet and, realistically, the possibility of losing control of the pacific.

      Furthermore, assuming FDR had preknowledge of the Japanese attack would it not be A.) Entirely more likely and B.) The Smarter thing to do to suprise attack the japanese fleet? Remember with 9 battleships and 3-4 carriers or so a suprise US attack could deciminate the japanese fleet(s) since they where not mutually supportive and where under strict radio silence so an attack on one would not necassarily mean the others would be informed and even if they where informed where too far apart from each other to realistically offer any support. So if he *did* have forknowledge of the attack a preemptive strike against the japanese fleet would have been the far better thing to do as it would have, possibly, destroyed a large portion of the fleet and given America an early strategic leg up in the war in the pacific instead of the insane idea proposed by you that he would let the american fleet be deciminated @ pearl harbor.

      At any rate, read your history and stop being clueless and misinformed. FDR had no knowledge of the pearl harbor attack.

  20. Which is largely why your next Sony game. . . by kfg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    will still put you back fifty bucks, even though it could turn a profit for less than half that.

    Just as in the book and movie businesses most games are complete busts, after *first* sucking up years of time and millions of dollars in development.

    For the company overall to ever show a profit the ones that *do* hit have to sell for enough to not just make a profit on that one game, but also to cover the losses of all those games they had to develop just to find out *which* one was going to be the winner.

    Want major releases to only cost twenty bucks? It's easy, just find an infallible way to predict before development starts which potential projects will be the best sellers.

    It's an "easy" way for you to become a multi-millionaire in year or two as well.

    Good luck.

    KFG

    1. Re:Which is largely why your next Sony game. . . by SurgeonGeneral · · Score: 1

      ummm, dont you think that if someone found, "an infallible way to predict before development starts which potential projects will be the best sellers" they would want to charge MORE?
      Companies like MORE money, you know.

      --
      -- "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Jean Jacques Rousseau
    2. Re:Which is largely why your next Sony game. . . by SewersOfRivendell · · Score: 1
      Huh? What are you suggesting here? You're seriously saying that Sony should pass along the cost of it's own incompetence to the end consumers through higher prices on future games? This sounds like the same argument the RIAA uses to shaft artists and consumers. "If we can't make up the loss from the nine artists out of ten we lose money on, we have no reason to fund diverisity, therefore we get to keep all of your money." Well, dipshits, find better artists.

      It's easy, just find an infallible way to predict before development starts which potential projects will be the best sellers

      As a corporation, you need to find people who understand both the target market and the untapped possibilities within that market. (Sometimes called a "taste fairy," more often a producer.) A long time ago, record companies paid people to do this. They seem to have mostly stopped paying them sometime in the late eighties. Now all we get is Britney Spears and Eminem. Fucking great. Is that what you want to happen in the games industry?

    3. Re:Which is largely why your next Sony game. . . by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      He's not saying that Sony should pass along the cost, he's observing that they will. That's the nature of business.

      The parallel with Hollywood is that, ever since Star Wars, the studios have gambled more money on blockbusters, expecting fewer successes with bigger returns on the winners; this is different from the practice before, where lower-budget films were expected to recoup more of their investment.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    4. Re:Which is largely why your next Sony game. . . by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      Off topic, but to be realistic.

      Any game in the $30 - $50 range is normal.

      Any game in the $20 - $30 range is discount/Walmart (think "Deer Hunter 3")

      Any game in the less than $20 range is remainders bin.

      Even if Sony (or any other company) could make a profit at $25 for a new game, they would still charge > $30 otherwise the market would assume that this is a Walmart-targeted game...

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
  21. Coming soon... by jonr · · Score: 1

    I have to pimp EVE from ccpgames. (Just because it is made by some aquintances of mine).
    It is almost out, and people have been beta-testing it for some time now. Think of it as Elite on anabolic steroids. Read the FAQ and look at the screenshots. It is promising.

    1. Re:Coming soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of it as lag on steroids, you mean.

  22. Too bad... by dubstar · · Score: 1

    May have been an interesting game.. I played Shattered Galaxy in Beta, which sounds kinda similar and it was quite addictive.

  23. Picked up? by Metallic+Matty · · Score: 1

    I don't suppose this project could be picked up by anyone else willing to finish/release it?

    That is to assume a) anyone would even be interested in it and b) Sony will be letting it go for someone else to develop.

    Anyways, I'd like to see it get finished; even if its not a superb game, the concept is cool, i'd give it a go.

    1. Re:Picked up? by Sheetrock · · Score: 1
      More likely someone will pick up the concept, add/remove things where appropriate, and design/code it for today's technology. It's reasonable to program for 256kb+ downstream now, which means that the networking code could probably be redone. DirectX has gone up five or six versions, so the video needs to be redone. WinXP is a standard gaming platform now, which opens a lot more options for the programmers who don't want to sign off on a dated interface.

      I have little doubt that other people are working on a game design like this, but using the existing program design/code would probably be less efficient in terms of results than rethinking the project to use today's technology.

      --

      Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
      -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




  24. 4.5 years dev means.. by Whitecloud · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry but thats just to long. 4.5 years ago (1998 July)the tools to develop (geforce?) and the platforms available (win98 etc)limit the possibilites available to the dev team. We see this currently with games like Duke Nukem, (..waiting...) and Doom3 where the stated goal for system compatibility is GF3 and higher.

    I am sure some elements of the game are able to be reused, however all the coding and optimization would have to be redone to suit current systems, meaning more time spent waiting. "the magic wasnt really there" is a shocker statement though...was the concept good or not? If it wasnt scratch the game. 4.5 years sheesh, the intial code is obselete before the 4th years even begun!

    --

    Do you need a website upgrade?

    1. Re:4.5 years dev means.. by BrookHarty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They just might have some killer story that would make a multimillions dollar release. And with awesome content, they might just hold off on release for a couple years till they have a engine worth to release to the public.

      I saw the video of the game, the content looked good, the play looked worthwhile. But who knows, the programmers could be working on other projects till they see an engine worthy of Duke Nukem.

      It worked for George Lucas.

  25. Read books about war - don't make a game of it! by Obvious+troll · · Score: 0

    Seriously, I have nothing against violent games. But why not focus on better stuff? Not saying we should turn this into a "Nerf world" or anything, but there's so much more to appreciate in life than yet ANOTHER kill-fest.

  26. Makes me all nostagic... by mikeophile · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ah, to be funded for over 4 years to work on a project that would never see the light of day. Endless hours checking /. while getting paid. Good times..good times.

    1. Re:Makes me all nostagic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds a bit like my thesis work. Nowadays I actually have to put out for my salary. Damn shame.

    2. Re:Makes me all nostagic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      put out?! .......damn, I know there's a good hooker joke in there somewhere.

  27. All about characters by borkus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Part of the attachment of any RPG/MUD/MMORPG is playing a charater. You have a persona and that persona has a story. As long as different things happen to that persona, you keep going back. The story keeps changing and the character develops and changes with the story. Moreover, most online RPG's tend to be more open ended than ones you play alone.

    The bigger factor online is the interaction with other characters, whether that's actually playing together or just chatting. RPG's lend themselves to this interaction more than first person real time strategry and slightly more than first person shooters (though I admit that games like CounterStrike and Battlefiled 1942 have more of a social factor since you play on a team).

    It sounds like Sovreign had neither of these things going for it.

  28. What happened? by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    4 years of looking at pretty concept art and whiteboards then last week someone asked "Let's give this to the programmers.. we did hire programmers in '98, didn't we?"

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  29. Viva Planetside! by viper432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Though not a RTS, Planetside offers commanders the same type of control over their troops.

    Planetside.info

  30. Diplomacy? by Best_Username_Ever · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This game sounds too much like the classic board game "Diplomacy". I am not surprised that they couldn't capture the magic of Diplomacy in a MMORPG. The whole point of the game Diplomacy is to be a complete bastard to your friends, and win through underhanded tactics, deceipt, treachery and eavesdropping. It's not the sort of game that I would care to play with a bunch of strangers, I don't really see the point in it.

    1. Re:Diplomacy? by floppy+ears · · Score: 1

      Diplomacy is now being played via email by thousands of people all over the world. It's a great way to play the game, especially if you don't have six other friends who have six+ hours to spend playing a board game. For more info, check out The Diplomatic Pouch

      --

      "If I could live to be several hundred
      I could take a walk and really wander, really wonder."
    2. Re:Diplomacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, Diplomacy is still a hugely popular game. I have to admit, I don't like this p&p role playing stuff, but Diplomacy is kinda fun.

  31. This is a good thing by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately, failures are part of the creative process - not everyone or everything can succeed.

    For every Van Gogh there are a million artists (with and without both ears) who are never recognised for their talents. Sometimes it's because they don't have any luck, sometimes it's because they just plain suck.

    Sony realised that Sovereign wasn't going to set the world on fire. Rather than waste more money launching what they considered would be a flop they canned the project. Sure, money has been wasted, but not as much as could have been. More importantly, Sony's games division doesn't have a "it-took-you-five-years-to-develop-that-piece-of-c rap" hanging round its neck for the next five years. Which is more than can be said for some game developers...

    Sony should be applauded for its decision. Sure, we want games but we want good games, not ones that even the developers aren't happy putting on their CV.

    BTW, if you're after cheap games, then there's a simple solution: don't buy them when they're launched, just wait six months or so. All titles, especially on the PC platform, are discounted a few months down the line.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:This is a good thing by Apreche · · Score: 1

      No not everything can succeed. But if you are a company like Blizzard. I don't think I can name a game they made that wasn't a hit.
      Warcraft, 1, 2, 3, Starcraft, Diablo I, II. All hits. They've never made a game that wasn't a winner. They were about to make a crappy game once, then they cancelled it. They know what the people want, and they provide.

      --
      The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
  32. Re:I have a reason it is being held back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Ah, you're so witty. I enjoy how you can interject your knowledge of politics into discussions of failed computer games. That's very exciting for me. I mean, your insight into the psyche of George Bush has made me rethink my entire political stance!

    Fuck you you fucking idiot.

  33. What we want is: by flowerp · · Score: 0

    Open fucking source it!
    .
    .
    .
    Profit!

    --
    --- Eat my sig.
  34. AutoDuel by On+Lawn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    AutoDuel (car wars), now there's a game for a MMORPG. Arena fights at scheduled times, a real economy, cross country errands, and friends. Perhaps there is something out there like it?

    There isn't a month that goes by that I don't wish I was playing it.

    ----------------
    OnRoad: What racing games do to you. My favorite kind of GPL.

    1. Re:AutoDuel by ShooterNeo · · Score: 3, Funny

      That actually sounds interesting. So its an MMORPG set in the real world, where you roadtrip around the country and duel other players? Course, while you're at it would be even more fun to add some GTA3 style elements...the ability to go on a cross country crime spree could be interesting, if well simulated. The only problem is part of the fun of GTA3 is being a thug to anyone without consequences. If EVERYONE in the game (who's a human player) is a thug, it might not be very fun...noone to beat up.

    2. Re:AutoDuel by On+Lawn · · Score: 2, Interesting


      In autoduel, you could sign up to deliver cargo's or steal cargo from other cars and sell it on the black market. That, I think, makes a good balance in economy that would make it profitable for a certain number of people to be thugs, and a certain number of people to be good guys.

      But since black market prices aren't near what you can get on delivery, the economy restricts the number of thugs.

      Think of it, for really important loads you can get your friends to drive with you in a mad-max style caravan and fight off raiders. Or you can run up the ranks in arena matches, or just log on to watch the arena matches.

      Man I wish I had an autoduel mmorpg.

      -----------
      OnRoad: What racing games do to you. My favorite kind of GPL.

    3. Re:AutoDuel by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Hey, if you're taking requests, add my name to the list. Now that is a MMORPG I would pay money to play.

      Still have the old boxed set rules somewhere at my parents' house...

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    4. Re:AutoDuel by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

      Yeah I still remember the sweet spot in the Arena, where you could sneak up on a bad guy and kill them before the computer woke them up to fight. And all the places in the fencing where you could slip through and go cross country.

  35. Does Sony market a MMORPG in Japan ? by OneInEveryCrowd · · Score: 2

    Last year in Japan there was a very popular anime series called .hack//sign about goings on in an Everquest style game called The World. A series of three playstation games directly related to the series came out also and as far as I know these games are SINGLE PLAYER !

    Anybody know what the story is with MMORPGs in Japan or if I'm wrong about the single player nature of these games ?

    The anime series was very good by the way and if you haven't seen it already I'd recommend you check it out.

    1. Re:Does Sony market a MMORPG in Japan ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I've read, Japan doesn't have a good market when it comes to PCs. The reason being is that Japanese households/apartments don't have a large amount of space for a table, chair, monitor, mouse, keyboard, and PC. Consoles unarguably takes up less space and can be used simply be hooking it up to a TV.

      With that said, if you lived in an apartment the size of a cubicle; would you rather get a console or a PC? .hack//sign is a good anime, but its a lil too serious for my tastes. Gimme Slayers anyday.

    2. Re:Does Sony market a MMORPG in Japan ? by News+for+nerds · · Score: 1

      It's very old view of PC in Japan as I know...
      Most of those slick PC, including those laptops
      and VAIO are all from Japan... For network,
      ADSL or optical-fiber is standard connection.

    3. Re:Does Sony market a MMORPG in Japan ? by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      The first game of the series, Infection has just been released in the US, The second has been out for a while in Japan. A pretty good review of the game is avaliable here

      The game uses MMORPG combat mechanics while it has a classic Japanese RPG plot. Japanese artists that use characters with virtual lives are nothing new. Just take a look at Lain

  36. This is, on another level, good news! by tuba_dude · · Score: 1

    This is actually quite a shock to me. Dropping a game after this long is a stupid business move, but I salute their dignity by not just releasing it anyway.

    --
    "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
    1. Re:This is, on another level, good news! by j7953 · · Score: 1
      Dropping a game after this long is a stupid business move, [...]

      No, it's not. If they expect that they won't be able to operate the game at a profit, then already having spent lots of money is no reason to lose even more.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
  37. And all the while by Bruha · · Score: 1

    Asheron's Call 2 faces more and more pressure to perform. Many players still call it playta becuase of some nagging broken features.

    However I do find the frog people thing kinda missplaced in the game. It may not turn out too well with established players with something so un LOTR like in the game since EQ is a Middle Earth type based game. I'll play AC2 and wait for Middle Earth Online which Turbinegames is going to make eventually.

    1. Re:And all the while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asheron's Call is such a great game, AC 2 is shit.

  38. Bush administration takes over development by anti-drew · · Score: 5, Funny

    Happily, the US government has indicated their interest in continuing the development of a continuous global war. Sources have even leaked a demo!

    Flash demo of GULF WAR 2

    Ok, it's obvious but I had to post it.

  39. No, it's actually a bit more complicated than that by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When Theodore developed Sturgeon's Law it wasn't that 90% of all writers are crap that he had in mind. It was that 90% of *everything written* was crap. What he was driving at was that 90% of everything written by a *great* writer was crap, but one of the main differences between a great writer and a hack was that the great writer didn't *publish* the crap.

    Thoreau's Journal is one of the most interesting works in literary history because it gives us an inside view into some of this. His journals are full of bits of Walden and other works while still under development. Of course, Old H.D. was a great writer, so even his journal was heavily edited and polished before publication.

    This applies to Van Gough as well. We don't see his crap because he himself made sure we didn't.

    There's also a story about a king who commissions a drawing of a rooster and when presented with the final bill balks. . .until the artist shows him the trunk full of hundreds of the previous inferior renditions the great artist disposed of before hitting the masterpiece.

    The king was paying for the *total* labor required, not just the final product.

    So Sony is merely doing what any wise artist, writer or businessman would do. When the first draft goes bad, and then the second and third, on the trash heap it goes.

    Crap is as crap does. Admit it before it drags you down to hack status, and at a loss.

    That's the true application of Sturgeon's Law for those with any real talent to peddle.

    KFG

  40. PR-guy admits it's fucked. by eddy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You've _GOT_ to be kidding me. This is what the article says:

    Meanwhile, "PlanetSide" is nearing completion, with a public beta test scheduled for the end of this month.

    So far, so good... now here's the kicker:

    The game, which has seen "drastic design changes in the last four months" according to McDaniel

    So basically Scott McDaniel, which is the vice president of marketing and public relations for Sony Online Entertainment, is saying that instead of the QA-only sessions meant to go at the end of a project, they've just implemented DRASTIC DESIGN CHANGES and they're going to release it soon?!

    Hello, anyone home? The PR-guy is basically confessing that this is going to be a fucked bugfest which was largely developed with no clear design in mind.

    Sound great. Gotta admire the honesty though. Haha.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
  41. Re:I have a reason it is being held back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see why this game was held back. If the average gamer is anything like this AC troll above me, then diplomacy skills should not be a factor in a game.

  42. more about .HACK by mattwolfewvu · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://ps2.ign.com/objects/017/017477.html

    http://dvd.ign.com/articles/385/385585p1.html

    --
    "I think that when you become a Republican, you don't get to score any more." -- Butt-head
    1. Re:more about .HACK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First link just gave me a Daredevil ad?

      Second one worked.

  43. MMORPG != MMORTS by LazJen · · Score: 5, Informative

    MMORPG is for roleplaying games.

    This was for a real time strategy game. MMORPG is incorrect. Not all massively multiplayer games are roleplaying games.

    1. Re:MMORPG != MMORTS by 00klaDM0k · · Score: 1

      Yeah, imagine how disappointed the EQ bunch would be if they had bought Sovereign and realized that they couldn't be a gay elven archer.

  44. why not..... by neilsly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    open source it?

    (this isn't flamebait)

    -neil

    1. Re:why not..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There's no way they'll do that. The risk that it could be turned in to a fun, free MMORPG and take revenue away from Evercrack is too great. Besides, they may find a buyer for the technology that they can foist non-compete contracts on.

      Eventually an open source MMORPG will happen. I have a scalable tileable 3D object server with dynamic bandwidth throttling and an on-demand object-seeking client running that I hope to hook up with some OpenGL gurus someday, and I know I'm not the only one tinkering with that kind of thing.

    2. Re:why not..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The existing code and technology can still be useful. They didn't spend 4.5 years making pixels look pretty.

    3. Re:why not..... by roofingfelt · · Score: 1

      because it's shit

    4. Re:why not..... by ramzak2k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the reason they wouldnt do this is simple. Although the project was a big failure there may be segments of work that could be transferred into other games - 4 years of research work obviously must have taught them something.

      --

      Siggy Say, Siggy Do
  45. Sounds like Eschaton by srichman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Global warfare with diplomacy sounds a bit like Eschaton. (Fingers crossed that that game doesn't meet a similar fate...)

  46. Ah, but they spent time and money. . . by kfg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    on that crappy game just developing the idea, didn't they?

    Everyone does it. Some just catch it earlier than others.

    What's more, even in their sucessful games they make a lot of wrong moves and throw out a lot of bad ideas and code that we don't, as the public, see them throwing out.

    All that goes into the total overhead of a production. Even a successful game can actually lose money if too many costly mistakes are made in getting there and many revered small houses, with nothing but "success" on their resume, have been suddenly trashed by their corporate masters over the bottom line.

    Of course what most of those corporate masters have yet to grasp is the concept of the "status" product. GM hardly makes a dime on Corvettes, but having Corvettes in the line up sold a lot *Chev*ettes. Nissan did away with the "Z" because they were losing money on it, and have had to bring it back because the whole *company* lost tremendously by its absence.

    For that matter GE has been looking for a way to do away with their lightbulb business for decades, and haven't been able to figure out how to do it. To the public the entire GE "nation" loses value ( even though profitablity would go *up*) if it doesn't make lightbulbs. I mean, that's what GE *is*, right?

    Stop making lightbulbs, stop selling as many financial services too. That's just the way it is.

    As it is, Looking Glass is simply gone. Jesus I wish the games companies would buy a clue.

    KFG

  47. Diplomacy a key role by Hafer · · Score: 1

    Heck, we all know why Sony killed the development: It is all too obvious that diplomacy doesn't play a key role in real life, so why bother :-)

  48. Followed it from the Start by Eidolon909 · · Score: 5, Interesting


    I followed Sovereign from when it was first annouced then lost interest as the years kept ticking by.

    It started off as an incredibly cool concept, a modern day world with modern units. You inhabited a single planet, scalable to support to 500 "countries".. so each world would be server. Then had some awesome looking models functioning in the alpha.. aircraft carriers, fighters, nuclear subs. Battle tanks etc. It look like things were progressing smoothly, they had a nice look UI finished, you could zoom into a single infantry man all the way out to the whole planet.. this was supposed to be scaled to what your Satelite technology was. Resource system was in.. you had a character.. which effected how you ruled your empire/citizens.. such as Diplomat, Theocrat, Warmonger etc...

    THEN... they completely ditched the concept and basically started from scratch. So it was 4.5 years for the name "Sovereign" but them dumped the first game after about 2 years and started all over again. The new concept was retarded and thats when I stopped following it. They moved it from modern times to into the future.. where you controlled an entire planet with space ships and other junk. All the cool modern-era tech was replaced with goofy space-shit and all the gorgeous models were replaced with cartoony crap.

    The original concept was ambitious and amazing, too bad they didn't have the balls to make it work. Instead they opted for Trade Wars 2002 MMORPG and it tanked. Glad it happened too.

  49. this immediately made me think of... by gladbach · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "want to play a game?" "global nuclear warfare" *misses the good ol days*

    --
    "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
  50. Van Gough wasn't exactly a success by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    A manic depressive who only ever sold one painting in his lifetime and suicided by shooting himself in the stomach and taking nearly a week to die an agonising death!

    I wouldn't call that lucky.

    Want cheap games? Buy the expensive ones instead of warezing them. ;)

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  51. Diplomacy by MrFredBloggs · · Score: 1

    "Diplomacy would have played as significant a role as the player's tactical abilities"

    So it's a fantasy game, right?

  52. So close to Sony by News+for+nerds · · Score: 1

    FF11!

  53. Re:Dick Van Dyke Is My Cousin by zeno_2 · · Score: 1
    Honestly, I don't understand what statement you're trying to make with your post.

    I think it was a joke =)

  54. Re:No, it's actually a bit more complicated than t by zeno_2 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    So Sony is merely doing what any wise artist, writer or businessman would do.

    I think that should be changed to any *rich* artist, writer, etc.. The only reason why this game didn't get released is because Sony is a big company with a lot of money. If this was some smaller game development company, and they spent over 4 years of their time making a game, and scrapped it, they will probably go out of buisness. If it was a smaller company making this game, my guess is that the game would have released and would have probably not done that well. That happens a lot more then a company just giving up after 4+ years..

    It was wise for them to do this though, I believe that the market for games that require a monthly charge (which im guessing this game would have done, i couldn't find anything mentioning that) is a pretty hard one to break into, you are going to need something thats gonna hook a lot of people for many many months to make money on somethin like that. I just hope they do something with all the work they did...

  55. "Looked like ass"? by WG55 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I saw Sovereign at E3 2000 and the graphics looked like ass back then.

    Reading the above, I have no idea whether the graphics looked good or bad. Specifically, who's ass are we using as a reference? Jennifer Lopez's? Strom Thurmond's? I need more information!

    1. Re:"Looked like ass"? by Washizu · · Score: 1

      "Reading the above, I have no idea whether the graphics looked good or bad. Specifically, who's ass are we using as a reference? Jennifer Lopez's? Strom Thurmond's? I need more information!"

      Think Strom 3 years ago. Not that he looks any different at 97 than he does now at 100.

      --
      OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
    2. Re:"Looked like ass"? by tomgarcher · · Score: 1

      Found these screenshots if you are interested. I'd rank them somewhere between Ms Lopez's butt and Senator Thurmond's scraggy old ass. http://www.gamexperts.com/index.php?screenshot_id= 5081

  56. I think this was prompted by... by jlanng · · Score: 1

    ... the slating that Simcity 4 has received. Good on them for having the courage to admit that it wasn't going to work.

  57. Great... by TerryAtWork · · Score: 1

    Now they'll release all their models and textures to the public domain, right?

    --
    It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
  58. because... by lordsid · · Score: 1

    they are creating Star Wars Galaxies right now instead. which will prolly have around 200k subscribers right off the bat.

    --
    IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
    1. Re:because... by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      ** You have entered Tatoine_Desert_West

      /attack a_wamp_rat00

      ** Your multiphase transquantum fusion blaster hits a wamp rat for 3 points of damage!

      ** A wamp rat bites you for 6 points of damage!!

      ** You miss a wamp rat!

      ** A wamp rat bites you for 6 points of damage!!

      ******* Loading, please wait ..... *******

      ** You have entered Ewok_Village_Smeandor_Inner


      /shout God damn it! I have half an hour to get halfway across the galaxy to get my body back.


      Ummm...I can't wait.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
  59. This is true... by artemis67 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The more realistic you make a war game, the less fun it is.

    The beta testers' number one complaint about Sovereign was the napalm-spraying USB peripheral included in the box.

    1. Re:This is true... by unicron · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you get REAL good REAL fast with that add-on.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
  60. A MMPRPG in 4.5 Years? not bad, actually. by Chris+Canfield · · Score: 2, Interesting

    5 years to develop a massively multiplayer title isn't that far off. You are not only developing a AAA title game (3 years), but are also building a thin-client app and a server farm to support it. Your applications must be optimized for speed, graphics, low-bandwidth, and impregnability. Since you are developing an ap that the average user will spend 6 hours per day over the course of four months on, you need to develop major in-game tools to create a content load that makes Master of Orion 3 look like Advance Wars. If I'm not mistaken, the world in Asheron's Call 2 is about the size of Texas. Can you imagine filling Texas with intruiging content?

    And after 5 years the code is not obsolete. Code is just that: code. A lot of that 5 years went to optimizing the code for a server farm and a computer speed that didn't exist before. If they started their server farm 5 years ago on BSD, their code is binary compatible. If they started 5 years ago on NT, their code is binary compatible. Solaris? Linux? Still going strong. In fact the only major changes they would have to make over that time would be to take advantage of multithreading, and a few other speed-up tricks that modern hardware pulls. But since that is backend, they could always compensate for that by buying more servers. On the backend what they optimize for is bandwidth costs, and if they were designing for 56k modems, they should be OK. As for the clients, It's never hard to take advantage of larger texture buffers.

    5 years was the development cycle for Asheron's Call 2, Star Wars Galaxies, and Everquest 2. It takes a very, very long time to make a networked world large enough to entertain thousands of people for thousands of hours. This isn't unreasonable.

    -Chris

    --
    This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
  61. My favorite... by John_Sauter · · Score: 5, Funny

    My favorite Massive Multiplayer Role-Playing Game is Slashdot. You get competition, very intelligent opponents, cute graphics, and a persistent score. You can play with a modest PC behind a dial-up line, and you don't need good fine motor skills. Best of all, you can play without paying a monthly fee. How can EverQuest compete with that?
    John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)

    1. Re:My favorite... by SlightlyMadman · · Score: 3, Funny

      My favorite Massive Multiplayer Role-Playing Game is Slashdot. You get competition, very intelligent opponents ... How can EverQuest compete with that?

      Very intelligent opponents? Where? Oh, well, I suppose, compared to EverQuest ...

      --

      Money I owe, money-iy-ay
    2. Re:My favorite... by revery · · Score: 1

      very intelligent opponents...

      If you say so, but then what would I know? I'm just a chat bot...

      --

      Humans are weird...

  62. dont bother checking it out by ChuckMaster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    #1 off topic #2 Conspiracy crap #3 Very bad video editing #4 So if these illuminati-new-world-order-saucer-people are so powerful, how come they havn't taken out your sorry ass yet? Remember, nothing ever happened to america that wasn't the governments grand master plan. Everybody in the world loves us and couldn't possible hurt us without the government's support.

  63. Thank God it's dead... by CokoBWare · · Score: 1

    All the world needs is another MMORPG to subdue our culture and take away our valuable time where we could instead be spending with each other. Play a MMORPG for what gain? To play endlessly and spend horrendous amounts of money playing a game that will never amount to very much other than a depleted credit card. There is NO gain in it. In fact, there are articles on /. that talk about how people who play MMORPGs are unhappy with them. I think it's because they are ultimately unfulfilling. Playing MMORPGs... to what end?

  64. In other news... by wicked_little_critta · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...the Bush administration has announced that in "weeks, not months" it will release Gulf War II, which will provide continuous global war that will support several million 'players' at once. "We expect it to be available for the forseeable future" says Defense Secretary 'Master of the Universe' Rumsfeld. Vice President Cheney says "it's like 'America's Army Operations', but much, MUCH bigger ..... yes, reaaallly big ...."

    What if we tried something that might actually work?

  65. The number of MMORPG's by aliens · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have a feeling that there's only a certain population out there willing to play MMORPG's. The more that come out, the more you'll find with hardly enough players to support an interesting world. No point in playing a MMORPG when it's just you and a wombat ::)

    --
    -- taking over the world, we are.
  66. After 4.5 years of development by mcmoyer · · Score: 2, Funny

    All they could get the game to do was keep spitting out. "They only way to win is to not play the game"

  67. another link by OneInEveryCrowd · · Score: 1

    www.dothack.com, this one explains how the ova series, the games, and the tv show relate. It's in english and no mention is made of the sequel series .hack//legend of the twilight bracelet, which is playing in Japan right now and being actively fansubbed.

    Thanks for the above links, they answered my questions about the game. I still don't know why Bandai would do a sigle player game about a MMORPG world, maybe they were afraid they'd get in the same mess as the Sony game in the topic.

  68. You've always got other thugs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Criminals prey on their own as well as the innocents...

  69. Release the source! by Angelwrath · · Score: 1

    Sounds like "release the Hounds!"

    Why not give this sunk cost in source code to the free community, let them hack away and salvage what could undoubtedly be an amazing game to play? Better yet - as source, it can touch a much larger market than before, making the community larger.

    Then Sony can at least see some revenue, either by hosting servers on their network, or sell support products and add-on packs.

    1. Re:Release the source! by Delwin · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt this will happen. Odds are that the technology invented for use in Soverign will be reused in EQ2, Planetside, EverQuest, SWG, and EQOA. After all, where do you think EverQuest's new UI came from?

  70. As opposed to massless multiplayer games by Noren · · Score: 1

    It's to distinguish them from the many photon-based multiplayer games.

  71. Midgard by minkwe · · Score: 1

    So I guess midgard is not alone in dead-games country

    --
    "Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
  72. Re:Bah! Who need that? by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

    Actually, I'll take Cleopatra 2525 any day over that.

    --
    "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart