Mythica MMORPG Cancelled By Microsoft

In other words... by lpangelrob2 · 2004-02-12 16:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Translation: All you Mythica developers, we have a few NT bugs to fix... (fp) :-)

Bluster by mphase · 2004-02-12 16:00 · Score: 1, Redundant

Unannounced title my ass. The game probably sucked or they were having developmental or legal problems. I wish big corporations just be tell it straight about these things.

--
vampirical

Re:Bluster by Gyorg_Lavode · 2004-02-12 16:12 · Score: 5, Informative

Microsoft is funding what will be a VERY high profile game. It will most likely announce by the end of the month.
The company is called Sigil Games Online and is made up of the creative minds that designed the original Everquest. Sigil has hired up a lot of the Everquest talent, (which may account for the odd ball expansions that have been released. ie PoP, LoY, GoD, and Luclin). Also, Sigil has only hired experienced people. Expect a good game out of these people. They are MUD players, Pen and Paper Players and people who suffered the problems of the original MMoRPGs. They also have ears directly connected to the online community and they listen to what people like and dislike.

--
I do security
Re:Bluster by Omerna · 2004-02-12 16:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Microsoft was sued by Mythic (makers of Dark Age of Camelot) over the similarities between the names "Mythic" and "Mythica". I guess Microsoft thought they'd lose and decided to scrap the project.

--

No sig for you.
Re:Bluster by cubicledrone · 2004-02-12 16:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Microsoft is funding what will be a VERY high profile game. It will most likely announce by the end of the month.

Ok, ok, ok... they spent about $500 million dollars and it's got like, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Independence Day and X-Men all on the same, like, team and it's an MMORPGEFPSSIMPAR so it's got these really cool controllers on wheels and stuff, and then there's like 50 different screen resolutions and it runs on Macs and stuff too. It's going to be sooooo cool.

--
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Re:Bluster by Ninwa · 2004-02-12 16:27 · Score: 1, Funny

There have to be other reasons. Changing a name of a project isn't a big deal. I mean, look at Firebird..er..fox.
Re:Bluster by The12thRonin · 2004-02-12 16:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

The company is called Sigil Games Online and is made up of the creative minds that designed the original Everquest. Sigil has hired up a lot of the Everquest talent, (which may account for the odd ball expansions that have been released. ie PoP, LoY, GoD, and Luclin). Also, Sigil has only hired experienced people.
You mean the people that brought you Evercamp. Obviously you either didn't play or have forgotten what EQ was like pre-Kunark. Where the world was so mob-underpopulated and item-underpopulated that there were 120+ people in Lower Guk. Class balance was a joke (and still is to this day). Mage pets were broken for two+ years. Necros were more valued for their pets with fine steel daggers to tank than a warrior with full plate and SSoY's. Not to mention the broken quest system that made you camp for rare items for real life days on end.

Brad McQuaid, John Smedley, and most of all Abashi/Absor never listened to the players. They had "The Vision(tm)" and all other views be damned.
Re:Bluster by AdamTheBastard · 2004-02-12 16:56 · Score: 1

I can't find anything official but rumor has it this isn't the only MMORPG they have cancelled recently...

From what I understand they had been pumping money into it for quite a while. Oh well their loss.
Re:Bluster by webtre · 2004-02-12 16:58 · Score: 0

no, this probably has to do with the leaked source code today.

--
litigious bastards
suck it sco!
Re:Bluster by Nematode · 2004-02-12 17:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

They also have ears directly connected to the online community and they listen to what people like and dislike.

So did Shadowbane, and Horizons, and Asheron's Call 2, and Star Wars Galazies, and Neocron, and Anarchy Online, etc. etc.

There are two problems here. What online RPGers -say- they like and what they will play are two different things. Everyone claims to hate camping and level grinding, and yet...you build an online Skinner box and you'll get players camping ph4t l3wtz that they have a 10% chance of getting once a month.
Second, the ideal MMORPG is basically not possible with current technology. Developers aren't able to make a living, breathing world with millions of independent intelligent NPCs, a game world that adapts on the fly to player behavior, deformable terrain, meaningful political systems, and so on. In the real world, the best you can hope for is a sort of virtual Disneyworld, which is able to move thousands of players through scripted encounters and quests. The notion of a gameplay experience truly unique to any particular player is just not going to happen....yet.

Whatever Microsoft and Sigil games may offer, it's not going to change the world.
Re:Bluster by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 19:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

speaking as someone on the inside, the name lawsuit had nothing to do with the cancellation. Microsoft had resolved to change the name and that process was well under way when the axe fell. If Mythica was going to be killed because of the lawsuit, the decision would have been made weeks ago.
Re:Bluster by Umgawa71 · 2004-02-12 20:09 · Score: 1

I actually found this to be pretty funny, given that Mythic has probably spent a fair chunk of change on lawyers, only to have the whole basis of the lawsuit get trashed. I'm really not sure whether to be happy or sad for them. ... Actually, it all just makes me laugh, just like with every other frivolous lawsuit in the gaming-industry.
Re:Bluster by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 23:19 · Score: 0

Microsoft games are always profitable. They keep suing until they make a profit :-)
Re:Bluster by Gyorg_Lavode · 2004-02-12 23:45 · Score: 1

I have been playing since pre kunark (not one of the @ release or beta crowd though some of sigil is) and I help administrate one of the largest everqeust boards so I know the game more intimately than most. The Vision made Everquest into the largest MMoRPG by FAR and has a HUGE player retention. :lease don't complain about lack of content. Thats a function of time not the developers. Class balance in MMoRPGs is near impossible because classes are continuiously changed. Of course things that were broken are more likely fixed. It's been FIVE years for peats sake. I'd hope something happened in that time.
(First, Smedley still runs it I think. Second Abashi was not an original designer and I think still works for Sony.) But there is zero way you can say Everquest is a bad game given it's pawth with relation to other games such as Ultima online or another other MMoRPG.

--
I do security
Re:Bluster by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 23:48 · Score: 0

I bet the lawyers got paid!
Re:Bluster by Gyorg_Lavode · 2004-02-13 00:30 · Score: 1

Sigil might not change the world, but it has a much better chance than any game save Worlds of Warcraft. AC2 suffered from underexposure and no selling point. Shadowbane suffered from a terrible release. Horizons suffered from the same thing, horrible release. SWG is doing reasonably good. It lacks high end content but the focus on social interaction has made it a popular game. AO had a HORRIBLE release. They released worse than a beta product. But all of that has been fixed from what I understand and AO has turned into a different game.
Don't imply that you know what the Sigil game designers are thinking. Players sit and scheme but I've heard a bit of the things that come from them, (I'm not under NDA so I don't know a lot). But they DO consider the ways people want to play and the way players do play. They are very smart and they understand the things you are saying.
Even though I haven't seen the game, those who have, (but are under NDA), are saying it's promising. No-one is going to definitively judge it good or bad until late in beta, but the promise of the team and what I have heard so far is very very high.
Also, MS has no say in development..

--
I do security
Re:Bluster by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 02:02 · Score: 0

WTF are you talking about? Who has Microsoft sued?
Re:Bluster by EulerX07 · 2004-02-13 02:43 · Score: 1

I'm responding to a random thread but most of them bring up some points that Blizzard adressed with their upcoming MMORPG, World of Warcraft. Now mind you, Blizzard's Warcraft series is a good example of their work which involve taking ideas from other companies, making an incredibly good interface and polishing the concept. Then you sell 3-5 million copies of it. (Warcraft 1 was basically Command & Conquer Lite w/ orcs).

In WoW, they're using a variation of the Diablo 2 drop system. Meaning the level of the mob will determine the base item and the magic properties will be semi-random. There will be dungeon instancing, meaning your group will be the only one waiting to see that special mob in the deep part of the dungeon.

As far as class balance goes, Blizzard is coming out with only nine classes, with feats and talents (that's not how they call it, but that's what it is) that can be used by different classes for costumization. Blizzard are pretty good at balancing class, and they were smart enough not to go with 48 classes like Everquest 2.
Re:Bluster by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 03:10 · Score: 0

Everquest isn't the largest MMoRPG. Lineage is much bigger than Everquest will ever be. And what is Everquest's "pawth"?
Re:Bluster by PoPRawkZ · 2004-02-13 03:30 · Score: 1

Damn, those were good times, you've brought back so many fond memories. If only I could go back to the good old days where Fine Steel was uber.

--
peace,
-Grokent
Re:Bluster by The12thRonin · 2004-02-13 04:32 · Score: 1

Yes, I will complain about the lack of content in the pre-Kunark days. Why? Because it shows the flaws that were inherant in the game system. Newbie guards to not need to have better stats than a god. Being able to run through a zone and not see a mob because every spawn point has either a necro, druid, or a party was on it. I remember being able to walk from Upper Guk to the King room in Lower and never see a mob. This was a year and a half into the game. This wasn't three months after release. The only "content" to be found was player-killing GM events. The class armor quests that came out about 4 months before Kunark was too little too late for most people's main characters since they already had better armor drops or planar armor. It was great for twinks, but most people didn't do the quests with the secondary character. It was someone's main character camping greens for the items to turn in. So what if it's been five years? That should be more than enough time to figure out how the game operates in production. There still seems to be a disconnect from people telling SOE that something's broken to SOE reacting. This is true across the board. When I played SWG, there were the same problems. Class balance, while not easy, can be acheived. How? Lay out before hand what class is going to do what. EQ did this very poorly. With 7 melee classes (both pure and hybrid), you should be able to balance out who does what.
Warriors have HP's and taunt like a mother.
Shadowknights are the best warrior type at dealing damage.
Paladins are the defensive tank and nobody will tank undead better
Rogues will do the most melee damage if they are in position (this is the only one they got right)
Monks will do the most melee damage anywhere
Rangers best at range with a bow Now instead of giving magic items that give other class effects or spells, your equipment improves what you're best at. This is where they went wrong. As soon as a SK can do the same as a warrior, you don't need a warrior. As soon as a warrior can do the same as a paladin, you don't need a paladin. When everyone is outdamaging a monk, why do you need the. And so on... Same should be true for casters. Nobody ever at anytime outdamages a wizard and they control access to the planes. Mages are the best at summoning useful things and have the best pets while trading for damage. Necros are the best at controlling undead and slow damage. Enchanters are the best at CC (got that right). The point still remains that they planned poorly, executed poorly, and refuse to listen to the player base about broken things and problems with the Vision.
Re:Bluster by The12thRonin · 2004-02-13 04:35 · Score: 1

D'oh! Forgot the line breaks.
Re:Bluster by adjusting · 2004-02-13 10:29 · Score: 1

Ask Peat.

Interesting by ObviousGuy · 2004-02-12 16:00 · Score: 0, Troll

Microsoft usually just releases software half-done and lets the market kill it. Bob, anyone?

--
I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.

Re:Interesting by dasmegabyte · 2004-02-12 17:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Bob? BOB?!? You bring up a failure from TEN YEARS AGO when they didn't have a desktop monopoly and the only people who had computers were smartass teenagers and stock brokers?

I mean, why not just give them shit for Microsoft Decathalon, or Hyperterminal, or Microsoft Works?

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:Interesting by iocat · 2004-02-12 18:25 · Score: 1

WTF? Decathalon was fun! It was no Zork, but for good times on the Apple ][ (not ][+, not ][e, not //c, just old school, tape drive-having, green-screen Apple ][) it was pretty good.

--
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
Re:Interesting by ozric99 · 2004-02-12 20:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Microsoft usually just releases software half-done and lets the market kill it. Bob, anyone?
Like all the Windows incarnations, Office, Internet Explorer and Xbox you mean? The market sure killed those off...
I hate a lot of their products and business strategies as much as the next geek but if you're going to attack them, at least use some semblence of a plausible argument.

So... by cujo_1111 · 2004-02-12 16:01 · Score: 1, Insightful

...that was the source code that was released. Maybe they are going to rewrite it in XML?

I was really looking forward to this game. It looked like it had some real potential. If I am going to invest in a game where i pay fees to pay, I want it to be a stable company with some future.

--
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.

Re:So... by dextremethorpheus · 2004-02-12 17:47 · Score: 4, Funny

If I am going to invest in a game where i pay fees to pay

i see you do like the microsoft model

M$ Games? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 16:02 · Score: 4, Funny

I always looked at windows as an RPG - well, at least a good fight engine.

Re:M$ Games? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 16:49 · Score: 2, Funny

I always looked at windows as an RPG

Yeah, I allways looked at hardware installation in the early days as a roll of the dice.
Re:M$ Games? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 20:56 · Score: 0

I always looked at windows as an RPG - well, at least a good fight engine.

I always looked at Linux like an RPG as well, kind of like you have to "build" up your character or characters.

HAHA, I made funny!
Re:M$ Games? by PossibleMat · 2004-02-14 02:51 · Score: 1

Not only is it an RPG, but all those security problems made it a massively multiplayer one, too. ;-)

--
Have you Meta Meta Moderated lately?

MS's MMOGs by Silwenae · 2004-02-12 16:02 · Score: 5, Informative

Considering Microsoft's "other MMOG" is a as yet unannounced game from Sigil Games (sigilgames.com) I can't say I'm suprised.

Sigil Games, founded by Brad McQuaid, one of the original creators and producer of Everquest before leaving for Sigil, is working on a 3rd generation MMOG as he calls it.

Say what you will about EQ, but it's still the market leader for MMOGs here in the US. He's hired a ton of talent from the original EQ team to build his game.

Can't say I blame Microsoft at all for betting their chips on Sigil instead of Mythica, considering Turbine already bought Asheron's Call 2 back from Microsoft and running a MMOG isn't cheap, though you can make most of it back over time.

Re:MS's MMOGs by Rallion · 2004-02-12 16:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

EQ may be the leader at the moment, but World of Warcraft beta got almost as many signups as EQ has subscribers...
Re:MS's MMOGs by JelloGnome · 2004-02-12 16:45 · Score: 5, Informative

Right now, Final Fantasy Online has more subscribers than EverQuest (worldwide). I don't know the exact numbers, but EQ is between 400-500k and FFXI is between 500-600k. I think Final Fantasy's astronomical growth rate demonstrates that the current MMORPG market is not saturated. Personally I'm glad Microsoft is giving Brad McQuaid the opportunity to take back the MMORPG title. A good choice, but Richard Garriot would have been better. Richard Garriot created the first version of Ultima Online with $250,000 and a handful of hobbyist text MUD designers. And UO, with graphics relatively unchanged since 1996, is the third most popular MMORPG with around 250k subscribers. Imagine what Garriot could do with some real money! Well for once, I'd like to say best of luck to Microsoft. Mythica was obviously not going anywhere. And Sony needs a nice ass whopping after ruining Planetside and SWG :) McQuaid may just have what it takes to bring the fun back to MMORPGs.
Re:MS's MMOGs by realdpk · 2004-02-12 16:52 · Score: 1

Everquest stopped being fun, though. As soon as every named NPC was camped, and there were lists to fight dragons and gods, the fun was gone (except for the elite few).

I really hope that Brad McQuaid has learned something from that, and applies it to any new games he is involved with.

Then again, maybe that was the goal all along, given how much static content makes up EQ...
Re:MS's MMOGs by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 17:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

Richard Garriot is current working on an MMORPG called Tabula Rosa under the Korean publisher NCSoft. NCSoft also published Lineage, currently the largest MMORPG in the world with around 4 million subscribers. So it seems as if "Lord British" will get a great chance to show what he can do with some real money.
Re:MS's MMOGs by Babbster · 2004-02-12 17:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think Final Fantasy's astronomical growth rate demonstrates that the current MMORPG market is not saturated.
No. It demonstrates that the worldwide MMORPG is not saturated. For English speakers, though, there are plenty of MMORPGs available (I'll leave the question of whether they're good or not to others).
Unfortunately, the MMORPG market seems to be locked into a painful, stagnating track. Specifically, everyone sees the success of Everquest and wants to attract the people who like that game. Thus, every game seems to be emulating EQ with relatively minor tweaks (probably inspired by reading threads written by people who are angry about something in Everquest). The problem with being on this track is that people who didn't enjoy, or got tired of, Everquest see little reason to try the latest, greatest MMORPG given how much they all tend to resemble each other.
Me, I'm just going to bide my time until they get about two years into Star Wars Galaxies. With spaceships and the inevitable balancing/tweaking/content additions, I'm pretty sure I could enjoy it. :)
Re:MS's MMOGs by dasmegabyte · 2004-02-12 18:02 · Score: 1

"Back?"

Listen, I'm no hater...but I beta tested Everquest back in 1997, and I've had more fun in bus stations than I did playing that game.

I enjoyed the challenge at first -- I am a P&P guy at heart and the idea of a massive immersive world really shook my dodecahedral dice. But I'm afraid it rolled a fumble...I couldn't take the waiting for monsters to respawn, or the guys who insisted on talking out of game (or even worse, the guys who tried to talk in game but only know the dialogue from "Lady Hawk").

In short: I'll grant that MMORPGs are an intriguing time waster, but "fun" in the way that birthday parties, amusement parks or Hardcore shows are fun? Not really.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:MS's MMOGs by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 18:50 · Score: 0

Garriot ran out of money and Destination Games FAILED, so they ended up whoring Lineage into US markets for cash. And not very successfully. He hasn't shown any "magic touch" since Origin.
Re:MS's MMOGs by Knetzar · 2004-02-12 19:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

The beta is free. How many of those that signed up will be willing to pay a monthly fee?
Re:MS's MMOGs by Doctor+Cat · 2004-02-12 20:19 · Score: 1

Actually Lineage approached Richard before Destination Games had even existed long enough to really even get started on Tabula Rasa. Both sides thought working together was a good idea, it helps get Tabula Rasa into Asian markets, and helps NCSoft get into the US market and get some really good talent to work with. It didn't have anything to do with Richard running out of money at all. Frankly I think it was a good idea for both parties involved too, I can't fault them for the decision they made. And I'm looking forward to seeing how Richard does with his next game. -- Dr. Cat

--
Furcadia - A free online game with user created content, DragonSpeak scripting, & more.
Re:MS's MMOGs by JaredOfEuropa · 2004-02-12 20:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

No. It demonstrates that the worldwide MMORPG is not saturated. For English speakers, though, there are plenty of MMORPGs available (I'll leave the question of whether they're good or not to others).

Unfortunately, the MMORPG market seems to be locked into a painful, stagnating track. Specifically, everyone sees the success of Everquest and wants to attract the people who like that game. Thus, every game seems to be emulating EQ with relatively minor tweaks
I think the potential MMORPG market is immense. There are plenty of people who would enjoy such a game, if they were introduced to a) computers, b) gaming in general, and c) online gaming. I know a few people who were pushed through that path by their husband or wife, and (to their own surprise) found great enjoyment ini playing MMORPGs.

The Sims Online tried to tap some of this market. Despite its failure, the game managed to draw in something of a new crowd; people who weren't big on RPGs or online gaming.

I see two opportunities for MMORPG companies:
1) Market expansion a la Sims Online: attracting more of the mainstream crowd. That doesn't mean writing a game that everyone likes; it means writing a game that has appeal outside the current MMORPG player base.
2) Separation and rationalisation of the graphics engine, game world functions, support, and billing function. As the player base widens, I think it will be increasingly hard to develop a game that has appeal to everyone. Instead, if you have a generic (but evolving) game world engine, a single billing and support entity, and flexible graphics engines, then you will be able to develop and run multiple MMORPGs at a lower cost. You may be able to profitably run a niche-market game for perhaps 20.000 subscribers, if you have 10 such games. That way, you'll be able to tailor each game to the wants of a small group of players, rather than being forced financially to write a game that tries to be everything to everyone.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:MS's MMOGs by m1kesm1th · 2004-02-12 20:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Its actually called Tabula Rasa, which means clean slate in Latin.
Re:MS's MMOGs by Jarnis · 2004-02-13 00:29 · Score: 1

WoW beta signups are even more remarkable when you consider that they showed the middle finger towards europeans by not allowing them to participate at this point. Yes, they claim euro beta signups come later. Too bad. They already pissed off bunch of fanbois...

Of course WoW has so nutcase expectations built up by now that either Blizzard guys are Gods and pull it off, or it'll be the most spectacular trainwreck launch of our time. I'm currently betting on the second option, based on their track record with Battle.net problems and rampant cheating issues with Diablo. Not to mention total lack of depth beyond 'find the next uber-rare shiny thingy' on their previous titles. I'd love to be proven wrong tho, but I fear they cater the 'massmarket diablo clickfest dudes' over MMO fanatics, and get burned by tons of bad word-of-mouth due to it. We'll see...
Re:MS's MMOGs by Broodje · 2004-02-13 03:45 · Score: 1

How many of those applying for beta already pay a subscription to a MMO already? I'd bet a lot, and I'd bet they won't be paying for 2 games. This is pure speculation, but I think the beta applicants would switch in a heartbeat if WoW came up with the goods. After all, I play EQ, do you think I'm gonna apply for the next Deer Hunter beta?
Re:MS's MMOGs by UID30 · 2004-02-13 03:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

I was an avid Everquest fan when it was released ... played it for years, grew frustrated with bad interface, bad customer support, bad policy ... and quit. Reactivated later, grew frustrated with bad interface, bad customer support, bad policy, bad design ... and quit. Reactivated later, grew bored with bad content, bad customer support, bad design ... and quit.

From what I remember, McQuaid's "vision" was what stifled EQ development and gameplay for many years.

I've had quite enough of his "vision" to last me a lifetime. Thank you, but no thanks. I was looking forward to Mythica. Too bad.

--
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte
Re:MS's MMOGs by Knetzar · 2004-02-13 04:11 · Score: 1

I personally don't play MMO games. None have been quite as fun as the old text based MUDs I used to play, so chances are the only way I'll end up paying for WoW is if I get into the beta AND it's more fun the Star Wars Galaxies and Everquest.
Re:MS's MMOGs by Broodje · 2004-02-13 04:35 · Score: 1

How do you know SWG _and_ EQ are not fun if you don't play them? I used to play text muds with a passion, and I'll agree, no graphics will ever top the power of my imagination.
Re:MS's MMOGs by bugbread · 2004-02-13 17:33 · Score: 1

Judging from the word on the street, the vast majority.
Re:MS's MMOGs by Knetzar · 2004-02-14 03:20 · Score: 1

I was part of the SWG beta and I did play EQ for a short period a long time ago...I suppose I should have said "I no longer play MMO games"

Chrikey by smaug195 · 2004-02-12 16:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Microsoft is putting out yet another MMORPG in an already way too crowded marketplace? I understand the 13$ a month business model is good, but not spread as thin as it will be with all this competition.

Re:Chrikey by Wolfier · 2004-02-12 16:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

If the MMORPG is mobile-capable, e.g. PocketPC (which I *HIGHLY* suspect) then it is not a crowded marketplace anymore...even at $3 a month it'll remain pretty lucrative.
Re:Chrikey by _ph1ux_ · 2004-02-12 17:29 · Score: 1

exactly. its not the mmorpg market thats saturated - its the reach of the model thats is breaking. there needs to be an extension of the rpg to beyond just high bandwidth wired PCs.

MS Game Development Strategy by windside · 2004-02-12 16:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've never been a fan of MS games, but wouldn't it make more sense for them to focus attention on cross-platform games that they would be able to market both for PCs and for their XBox system? Perhaps the second MMORPG mentioned in the article meets this critereon while the cancelled game doesn't.

--
...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
Churchill

Re:MS Game Development Strategy by TrancePhreak · 2004-02-12 16:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think the XBox Live system allows for PC intereaction. This is due to the high number of PC users that like to cheat in games. Although, a cheat device for the XBox was released to some, and many people stopped playing the games that cheats existed for and went on to other similar games. Take Return To Castle Wolfenstein for instance. It was one of the biggest online games for XBox for a good while, until a bunch of people started cheating. Almost everyone stopped playing that and now plays other games.

--

-]Phreak Out[-
Re:MS Game Development Strategy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 16:38 · Score: 0

boo-hoo hoo hoo, so you're the one who always loses in RTCW

Market? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 16:03 · Score: 0

With the way the market is now, "traditional" MMORPGs need a bootstrap to get anywhere it looks like. Microsoft could just bundle a 1-month-free with Windows and swallow the market. Horray, horray. *waves tiny flag* Bah.

Good thing this isn't the Matrix by BenSpinSpace · 2004-02-12 16:03 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Good thing that video games aren't just more Matrix worlds... or else every cancellation would mean the deaths of thousands of people currently in beta form. And, following then trend of the Matrix movies themselves, any sequels would be spectacularly crappy.

Re:Good thing this isn't the Matrix by agent+dero · 2004-02-12 16:43 · Score: 1

Were you trying to be funny?!

Doesn't the lameness filter catch such horrible attempts at jokes?

;)

--
Error 407 - No creative sig found
Re:Good thing this isn't the Matrix by jason.mitchell · 2004-02-12 16:53 · Score: 1

I laughed.. so it wasn't an attempt, it works. Good job ignore people like him.

Smart move! by vonPoonBurGer · 2004-02-12 16:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

For once I agree with something MS did. There are already too many mediocre MMORPGs floundering around in the marketplace. It's only a matter of time before some of them are forced to close their doors. As I understand it, there are a bunch of them (like Anarchy Online) that are caught between having too few subscribers to make a significant profit, but too many to pull the plug without facing a significant backlash. Aside from pure financial considerations, though, I wonder how much Mythic's lawsuit played into the decision (that's Mythic, developer of Dark Age of Camelot, as opposed to the just-cancelled project Mythica).

Re:Smart move! by Sycraft-fu · 2004-02-12 16:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm sure the lawsuit was a factor too. But, like you said, the market is going to get saturated quick. Not as much room for shitty games in a place where you have to pay per month. That means a game must not only be interesting enough to make a sale, but good enough to keep that intrest over a long period of time. More, people are only going to be willing to plunk down so much. 1-2 games is probably the max for most people.

I'm betting between the lawsuit and the promise of Sigil they figured this wasn't worth it and just stopped.
Re:Smart move! by Fnkmaster · 2004-02-12 17:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

Though you're generally right about the plethora of mediocre MMORPGs out there, I knew some people involved in Mythica, and they are surely not mediocre developers. And from what I've heard from them, the game was shaping up to be anything but a mediocre release, which makes this announcement quite shocking. I understand it from a business perspective, but it seems like this game had a really good shot at serious success. The naming issue was probably easily addressable, and surely is not behind the cancellation.
Re:Smart move! by Saeger · 2004-02-12 17:41 · Score: 1, Interesting

I view the current crop of MMOGs in the same light as the incompatible Instant Messaging systems: I can't wait for them to finally come together and form the all-encompassing Metaverse. Saturate that.

In this way there's less friction between the worlds within worlds, but you still have to fight for mindshare, and for $ for non-user-generated content, in order to get Evercrack-sized crowds addicted to your gated-community within the larger universe.
--

--
Power to the Peaceful
Re:Smart move! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 19:43 · Score: 0

I'd love to see an official D&D metaverse with all the worlds like Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, etc. put together. And since they all follow the same rules(?) you might be able to travel between them say if you got ahold of a Spelljammer ship...
Re:Smart move! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 22:30 · Score: 0

it's funny/interesting because historically MS has never shirked away from throwing something into the field that they'll lose money on.
Re:Smart move! by Jarnis · 2004-02-13 00:24 · Score: 1

Actually, I'd bet that AO has a sustainable userbase.
They just announced second full-fledged expansion on the game. Shadowlands supposedly sold pretty well, and their subscriber numbers are slowly creeping upwards. I don't think they'd keep on investing towards new expansions and continued development of the game if they didn't get profit out of the game. Yes, AO is not a runaway hit, but I'd wager a bet that it's profitable. Now it's questionable will it survive the upcoming onslaugh of New Shiny Thingys (EQ2, World of Warcraft, other upcoming games), but if the new titles launch as horribly as SWG did, they just might...
Yes, it took them three years to fix the game, recover from a total disaster of a launch and add the fun bits, but right now I'd say AO along with DAOC (and the obivious EQ) is one of the best MMOs in the market. Yeah, it's hurt a bit by a *very* steep early learning curve, but once ya get past the first hill, it's quite fun.
Re:Smart move! by jafuser · 2004-02-13 03:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just keep one thing in mind...

Metaverses are not simple.

A metaverse paradigm requires a completely different way of designing the rules and content for the game. The "engine" for a metaverse has to be designed to work completely dynamically -- textures, sounds, shapes, and behaviors have to be loaded from the server whenver they change, *as* they change.

Currently, most all MMORPGs come with one or more CDs to dump pre-generated content onto your drive when you install it. This content is slowly unlocked to you as you progress through the game, and changes rarely, only as a result of patches or minor MOB changes which are sent down dynamically from the server.

In a metaverse, everything is a "mob", as in everything can move or change at any time. This means that the world has to be described in a more general sense than just "this is a vehicle", "this is a creature", "this is a tree". Instead, you have a collection of primitive shapes which behave according to a generalized coded language.

For a fully flexible metaverse, there is no pre-install CD other than for the "thin" client, because all of the content is dynamic. By the time you've pressed a CD, the world has already changed beyond recognition.

At least one early metaverse is already online (Second Life). I spend nearly all of my free time that I'm awake in SL, and I could never go back to the relatively boring and static worlds that exist in all of the other MMOGs.

--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF

Bad Day by panaceaa · 2004-02-12 16:06 · Score: 4, Funny

First Barbie breaks up with Ken and now this! Augh!$@, my fantasy word is crumbling to pieces. :((((

--
my blog

Re:Bad Day by Tran · 2004-02-12 16:16 · Score: 1

funny
Re:Bad Day by cubicledrone · 2004-02-12 16:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Barbie breaks up with Ken

Another fine shining example for a society with a 50% divorce rate.

Should also make a great cultural addition to "The Apprentice" (keep your own job by abandoning your neighbor), "Survivor" (let's all get together and decide who to ostracize) and "American Idol" (let's make sport of human cruelty).

What a joyful day indeed.

--
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Re:Bad Day by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 16:41 · Score: 0

>the duo "will remain friends."

> the separation may be partially due to Ken's reluctance to getting married.

>So where does that leave Ken? Said Arons: "He will head for other waves."

I knew Ken was gay.
Re:Bad Day by Mr.+Piddle · 2004-02-12 17:34 · Score: 2, Funny

Another fine shining example for a society with a 50% divorce rate.

We should require parents who get divorced to eat their children.

--
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
Re:Bad Day by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 19:04 · Score: 1, Informative

They where not married, they where just dating.
Re:Bad Day by Xpilot · 2004-02-12 19:19 · Score: 3, Funny

They where not married, they where just dating.

Ah, thanks for clearing the confusion surrounding the marital status of Barbie and Ken for us geeks. I can understand why you're posting anonymously.

--
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Re:Bad Day by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 00:46 · Score: 0

We don't have a 50% divorce rate unless you have a math problem. The people who claim a 50% "divorce rate" are simply taking:

# of people getting divorced this year / # of people getting married this year

Voila, a 50% divorce rate. Someone should beat them.
Re:Bad Day by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 06:31 · Score: 0

common law marriage, man.
Re:Bad Day by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 08:15 · Score: 0

Good. Maybe people are finally learning how retarded and man-made marriage is.

I hope the new generations realize how pointless it is as well.

Humans weren't mean to be with one person all their life. It's religion that's pounded that into your head.. it's nothing more than a piece of paper saying you're bound to your spouse, nothing more.

The only other difference is when you decide to not be together anymore. Divorce costs $$, breaking up with your girlfriend does not. It happens. People get sick of each other and want new things. Nothing wrong with that.

I feel sorry for married people.. the brainwashed fools.

Title for the other MMORPG ? by Yoda2 · 2004-02-12 16:07 · Score: 4, Funny

Inspired by real life events...Raiders of the Lost Code.

Re:Title for the other MMORPG ? by Xpilot · 2004-02-12 19:17 · Score: 1

Inspired by real life events...Raiders of the Lost Code.

And like in that movie, our hero yells "don't look at it...don't look at it"... and the bad guys who do look at it have their faces melt off.

--
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds

Note.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 16:14 · Score: 0

Also note that this was the game that Mythic Entertainment. The makers of Dark Age of Camelot were suing for the similarity of it's name.

Source Code Leaks by GLowder · 2004-02-12 16:14 · Score: 4, Funny

MS makes a brilliant move to preemptively kill projects, in an effort to stem any further source code leaks.

"No source code here to leak, project's axed, move on."

--
I used to have a good sig...

GBA = The new home for turn-based strategy games? by MMaestro · 2004-02-12 16:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Having less MMORPGs on the market would mean the consumer base would be focused in fewer games. Theoritically this means companies would be more inclined to make less buggy software and improve the game overall.

In a perfect world that is. While this is true in the long run, you won't see these results any time soon.

M$ chickened out by superpulpsicle · 2004-02-12 16:15 · Score: 0, Redundant

With the new Final Fantasy online released and Evercrack continuing forever, it's no surprise they stepped out.

Of course if Bill Gates was the final boss that 100 players can team up and attack, this game will be a sure hit even with ascii graphics.

Re:Hmmmmmmmmmm by rasafras · 2004-02-12 16:21 · Score: 5, Informative

I'm really glad to see you're not a bandwagon Microsoft smasher... [/sarcasm]

FYI, Microsoft just released the source code to Allegiance, a multiplayer game that was years ahead of its time but died due to lack of publicity and players.
As for this project, since it isn't finished I don't quite see the point in releasing the source. It wouldn't be quite so useful, and modding a MMORPG is not on the top of my list.

--
webpage

Wow this news is really surprising. by LinuxBSDNotSCO · 2004-02-12 16:21 · Score: 1

A few hours after the source code leaks their big programming prodject is put on hault? Try this theory on for size, mabey the programers are working on the longhorn sourse code seeing as that by trend microsoft is to edit code, not rewrite it. Now they have to write code. Anyways I personally expect alot of things they were working on to come down over the next few weeks.

--
Get paid to read spam

Re:Wow this news is really surprising. by Osty · 2004-02-12 17:10 · Score: 4, Informative

A few hours after the source code leaks their big programming prodject is put on hault? Try this theory on for size, mabey the programers are working on the longhorn sourse code seeing as that by trend microsoft is to edit code, not rewrite it. Now they have to write code. Anyways I personally expect alot of things they were working on to come down over the next few weeks.

"Their big programming project"? Game developers working on Longhorn? Not likely. Microsoft has a bunch of big programming projects going on all the time, and there's little sharing between them. People working on Visual Studio are not going to be pulled off to work on SQL Server, and game developers are not going to be put on Longhorn (unless the developers in question are looking to change jobs within the company and go through the proper interview loops in the new groups and get accepted, of course).

Assuming the Mythica developers were internal to Microsoft and not part of an external company that Microsoft publishes for (Bizarre Creations, Gas Powered Games, etc), the team may be parceled up across different games in the MGS division, or they might be developing a different game. They're certainly not working on Longhorn.

Finally, cancelling projects in any company, not just Microsoft, doesn't happen overnight. Whether or not the NT source was leaked likely had no bearing on this decision at all, as it was surely made weeks ago.

You foil hat might be just a bit too tight, I think.
Re:Wow this news is really surprising. by eyeye · 2004-02-12 22:49 · Score: 1

You have the worst spelling I have seen recently.
It does however match your braind dead post.

--
Bush and Blair ate my sig!

I just hope by Ninwa · 2004-02-12 16:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

I hope this trend does not continue, although I'm sure they have their reasons for this. I play Asheron's Call which is produced by Microsoft, developed by Turbine and I'd hate to see it go down the toilet too. To be honest I think Microsoft should stop trying to spread its roots of evil and focus its development on their operating systems. I'm sure we can all agree on that.

Re:I just hope by Enteebee · 2004-02-12 17:19 · Score: 3, Informative

Turbine purchased AC back from MS. With rights to Middle-Earth and D+D Online, Turbine pretty much has a lock on MGORPG. (Massively Geek Online Role-Playing Games)

With those two titles and WoW on the horizon, MS is probably correct in assuming that Mythica would be largely ignored.

http://ac.turbinegames.com/index.php?page_id=136

As well... by pixelgeek · 2004-02-12 16:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

This avoids any possibility of continued legal action by the makers of "Dark Age of Camelot".

Not sure what the status of that suit was but with no game MS doesn't have to worry about taking a lawyer from their crack team of legal-ninjas scouring the globe for teenage website operators to sue.

The plot of the unannounced MMORPG: by tkokesh · 2004-02-12 16:22 · Score: 3, Funny

A group of warri^H^H^H^H^Hprogrammers fights against droves of bugs and orc^H^H^Hsalesdrones as they quest towards the evil land of Mordo^H^H^H^H^HLonghorn!

To be released in 2004^H5^H6^H7...

--

A pride of lions.
A gaggle of geese.
A murder of crows.
A vista of bugs.

Re:The plot of the unannounced MMORPG: by JelloGnome · 2004-02-12 16:50 · Score: 1

Jabobober says, "It's clobbering time, a_kobold_03!"

to make room for its other game by djupedal · 2004-02-12 16:24 · Score: 1

Most likely because the root cellar is already stuffed to the drip rails with spot-lighted mule deer and snare-trapped rooster pheasant...

You think the streets of Seattle are tough, try going out in the woods.

Release the Code! by ryanw · 2004-02-12 16:28 · Score: 4, Funny

Please sir, could I have some more?

Re:Release the Code! by will_die · 2004-02-12 20:02 · Score: 2, Funny

Not really sure you would want the code.
When AC2 was released it had two major code problems, chat and authentication. Both of theses section were written by microsoft and given to Turbine, the developers of the rest of AC2. It was said that the code came from an in house MMORPG that was in development, the name Mythica was not yet out.
Later it was found that the problem with chat was that it was using .NET and that the under lying services could not handle the large amounts of information being passed around, so they stopped or crashed.
Re:Release the Code! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 22:14 · Score: 0

horizons uses .net for authentication, stats, etc...
it bombed on release just like expected.

A Sad Day by PakProtector · 2004-02-12 16:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

Let me start this off by saying I'm not a big fan of Microsoft in General.

But that game was amazing. I got to play it ( An Alpha or Pre-Beta ) at GenCon, and it was really fun. I can't remember alot of details, so mod me as you will, but from what I remember gameplay was very intuitive for an RPG, let alone a MMORPG, and battles were face-paced and quick, and very heartpounding.

This is coming from a 3 year EverQuest addict. I'm sorry to see this game going.

--

Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"

Re:A Sad Day by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 00:16 · Score: 1, Funny

Well.. any pace will be heartpounding for an EverQuest addict.
Re:A Sad Day by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 06:04 · Score: 0

Going up a flight of stairs is heart-pounding for an Everquest addict.
Re:A Sad Day by shoma-san · 2004-02-13 10:07 · Score: 1

Lies!!! Last time I checked, there was nothing but the world...

The 'as yet unannounced title" by OECD · 2004-02-12 16:29 · Score: 4, Funny

The new game is tenatively titled "Vaporquest."

--
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.

Re:The 'as yet unannounced title" by calebtucker · 2004-02-13 04:02 · Score: 1

Very unlikely the unannounced title will disappear.

They're talking about Sigil's game. The original creator of EverQuest and a bunch of people that worked on EQ created a company to create a MMORPG due probably around 2006.

--
My sig can beat up your sig.

I told you! by OpenSourcerer · 2004-02-12 16:33 · Score: 1, Funny

'Microsoft cancelled Mythica to make room for its other game.'

See I told you it is bloatware

--

Desi Noise, Live!

Wouldn't this be because... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 16:36 · Score: 0

...of the lawsuit from the developer Mythic? IIRC, Mythic was attempting to stop MS from using their name with an "a" attached to it.

Kinda like Lindows...

Instead of MMORPG mythology... by Maljin+Jolt · 2004-02-12 16:38 · Score: 2, Funny

They really should do MMDOWXP, massive multiprogrammers debugging of Windows XP, yeah. Otherwise Windows become a mythology itself in few years.

--
There you are, staring at me again.

Re:Instead of MMORPG mythology... by phazei · 2004-02-12 17:26 · Score: 1

The MMDOWXP is in the works, they just released the code for a MMDOW2K test run.

MS-MMORG: The Borg by Gothmolly · 2004-02-12 16:42 · Score: 2, Funny

To MS, _life_ is a MMORPG, one in which you WILL be assimilated.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.

So OpenSource it already! by LuxFX · 2004-02-12 16:42 · Score: 0, Redundant

Dear Microsoft,

I mean, hey, if you're not interested in it.... I'm sure the community wouldn't mind taking over.

--
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'

Everquest sucked by Adolph_Hitler · 2004-02-12 16:45 · Score: 1

Everquest sound on graphics not gameplay. Asheronscall had better gameplay. Hell even ultima online had better.

--
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.

Translation: by bersl2 · 2004-02-12 16:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

[So very sory for being in a vehement anti-MS mood, but step aside: I have some bitching to do.]

Microsoft has bought another MMORPG. Buy, buy, buy: that is all they are capable of.

Mod me down if you want, but what have they to do with the project except for the money they put in and the recognition (oh, and money) they'll get out? In my mind, it's Sigil Games Online's MMORPG, funded by Microsoft, who is using capital obtained by being a monopoly.

OK, I'm done. I'll go back to my corner of Slashdot now.

Re:Translation: by Bakaneko · 2004-02-12 17:02 · Score: 1

Maybe so, but I do think the games division is generally smart in getting talented studios (FASA Interactive, Bungie, Ensemble, Rare, Access and now Sigil) to put out games rather than try to grow them directly out of their corporate culture. These are all groups of really smart, really talented people, and I'm just glad they get a chance to do what they do.
Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 17:18 · Score: 0

In contrast to all those big title games out there funded by non-monopolistic OSS funding...
Re:Translation: by dasmegabyte · 2004-02-12 17:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

God, I wish there was a -1, Retarded.

Listen. Good software takes three things: time, talent and money. Microsoft has the money, the developers have the time and the talent. Sorry the developers took the money and didn't just build an RPG on their own time for the sheer love of it, but babies like to eat and landlords like to crack the skulls of deadbeats. I think the developers at Sigil aren't hurting because their money came from the "evil giant" who brought such horrors into the world as a workable ubiquitous operating system, a fast-enough web browser and a homogenous, interconnected office suite.

What do they, Microsoft, have to do with the project? Well, they selected the team, they put up the money. They've done the production work even if they haven't directed the fool thing. It is Microsoft who said, "There shall be an MMORPG" instead of "There shall be Yet Another Inferior Space Simulator from Chris Roberts."

Microsoft wanted to make a game, and wisely chose not to micromanage the project because their strong suit is not game making, it's writing the world's number one operating system (and office suite (and browser (and a shitty web server))). They do the same for the Macintosh version of MS Word -- loan the core code to a non-MS team, who make a good program rather than a shitty one that looks like Microsoft did it.

How does paying programmers to produce a game make them an evil company? And what are they supposed to do with their "monopoly capital," sit on it until it turns into a golden fucking egg?

I'm not going to play this game. But not because it's from Microsoft. I'm not going to play it because I want to raise a puppy and some kids and finish restoring my 1973 Super Beetle, three things you can't do when you're playing an MMORPG.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:Translation: by Basehart · 2004-02-12 18:30 · Score: 1

"I want to raise a puppy and some kids and finish restoring my 1973 Super Beetle"

I hope that's not in order of priority!
Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 19:10 · Score: 0

(and office suite (and browser (and a shitty web server))).

I like your parenthesizing skillz :-)
Re:Translation: by Sumocide · 2004-02-12 21:55 · Score: 1

Microsoft has bought another MMORPG. Buy, buy, buy: that is all they are capable of.

Actually they also can sell. And they did sell Asheron's Call 2 back to Turbine Development not too long ago. Wasn't successful enough for MS' tastes.
Re:Translation: by Gyorg_Lavode · 2004-02-13 00:35 · Score: 1

Typical MMoRPGs have a 3-5 year development cycle and a multi million dollar budget. They are much longer and costly than any normal game. That money doesn't grow on trees.

--
I do security
Re:Translation: by Sique · 2004-02-13 01:34 · Score: 1

Like the genre of Multi Player Online Games? As far as I know the first successful games in the genre with the possible exception of Habitat (and descendants) were all open source.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:Translation: by nytmare · 2004-02-13 09:34 · Score: 1

what are they supposed to do with their "monopoly capital," sit on it until it turns into a golden fucking egg? How about they pour it back into where they got it from -- by fixing the numerous bugs and design flaws in their monopoly software.

Lineage2 is world leader. by Adolph_Hitler · 2004-02-12 16:49 · Score: 1

The US is a small market. Worldwide Lineage2 is kicking Everquests ass.

--
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.

Re:Lineage2 is world leader. by JelloGnome · 2004-02-12 17:00 · Score: 2, Informative

From what I understand, Lineage 2 doesn't have a real subscription user base. Since it's based in South Korea, where internet cafes are more popular, not everyone who is playing the game is paying a monthly fee to do so; rather, the internet cafe gets Lineage licenses and anyone can make an account, counting as individual subscribers. I *think* this is how it works, but again, don't quote me on it :)
Re:Lineage2 is world leader. by Adolph_Hitler · 2004-02-12 17:56 · Score: 1

The cafes do charge money, they arent free.

--
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
Re:Lineage2 is world leader. by bugbread · 2004-02-13 17:40 · Score: 1

Hmm...Now I'm a bit curious. True, it's played at internet cafes, and what you say is probably true. On the other hand, people can play at home as well (check out the pictures on the internet of the rooms of Lineage addicts who never clean their rooms), so they must have another pricing policy to allow that...Dunno how it works. Anyone have any info?

Wonder What MS First Item to Change Will Be. by Slavinski · 2004-02-12 16:52 · Score: 2, Informative

SigilGames.Com is hosted on a Linux server.
I suppose they will want to change that.

This is becoming too common :( by agwis · 2004-02-12 17:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

Cyan and UBI just cancelled URU live as well. They gave excuses that not enough people signed up for the game to make it viable so they pulled the plug and promised a bunch of expansion packs instead...which sucks IMHO.

It seems like there just aren't enough gamers interested in paying a monthly subscription to make it profitable for game makers. That, and the fact that a lot of willing customers are still stuck with dial up internet access and can't enjoy these games anyways. Maybe when everyone can get easy, inexpensive access to broadband these games will garner more interest. In the meantime, I'll just keep hosting my lan parties.

-Pat

Re:This is becoming too common :( by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 17:59 · Score: 1, Informative

There were some other problems with URU Live.
Some were game engine related (too much network traffic to the clients, server overload, etc.), and others were deployment issues (Ubi didn't seem to allocate enough server/bandwidth to it). Both of these are fixable (people at Cyan who actually wrote it have said that they have fixes done for a lot of the problems), but Ubi has chosen not to implement them. A big reason that they had problems getting people to sign up is that half the time you couldn't log in to the server.
That said, it was a beautiful game enviroment (when you could get in and play).
Re:This is becoming too common :( by INT+21h · 2004-02-12 21:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

The real sad thing about URU being killed off was that it offered a different style of gameplay: dice-less, rule-less rpg instead of yet another rehash of Dungeons & Dragons. No leveling, no so and so many points for killing this or that monster, no PKing, cooperation instead of competition. This might not attract the 14-year old brigands of other MMORPGs, but it was attracting a lot of people that only play cooperative, non-violent games. Instead of leeching off of the customer-base of already existing games it might have picked up hordes of people (grandmothers, for instance. Hi Granny!) that had never even touched an online game before or maybe not even touched that many offline games before. That is a very impressively large potential customerbase... But it is over, and it is pointless to discuss could-have-beens :(
Re:This is becoming too common :( by Jarnis · 2004-02-13 00:38 · Score: 1

Okay, that game was dead as a doorknob.

If you have a dev team who *does not have direct, immediate control over what is pushed to the servers/client updates*, and instead you have publisher deciding/lagging with 'implementations' of fixes, you are DEAD IN THE WATER. DOA. RIP.

While URU Live prolly had no such issues due to mechanics, think what would happen when the latest L33t Xpl0it is found? Live game CSRs find out. They report to their masters (publisher side). Someone finally decides to call in the devs. Devs have no direct contact to the game servers/CSRs and spend extra time figuring out what is going on. Fix is done. Publisher has to 'approve' and 'QA' it. End result is that whole gameworld/economy could be torn to shreds by the time the fix is published on the server.

Old crappy publisher-developer relationship does not work with MMOs. Either you have devs with direct hands-on access to the live game, making sure it works, or you have a disaster. Yes, you should still have inhouse QA/testing procedures and some formal policies on how to push stuff to live game, but if there is no way to put in critical bug fixes without outside interference, the game is toast. No players will idle and watch while some no-clue publisher tries to figure out this stuff. People have cancelled outta subscription games in *hours* over major bugs/foulups/balancing mistakes, and even if the devs go into panic mode and fix the obivious crap within a day or two, the end result is still lost subscribers. You CANNOT possibly have a situation where 'fix is ready, but publisher is not yet ready to implement it on the servers'. Players will take off faster than you can say 'oops we fucked up'.
Re:This is becoming too common :( by Patrik+Nordebo · 2004-02-13 01:23 · Score: 1

"there just aren't enough gamers"? EverQuest has over 400k active accounts, Final Fantasy XI over 500k, Ultima Online and Dark Age of Camelot over 200k each (numbers may not be quite current). Those are just some of the biggest ones. There are clearly lots and lots and lots of people willing to pay for playing MMORPGs.
Re:This is becoming too common :( by jafuser · 2004-02-13 04:11 · Score: 1

It seems like there just aren't enough gamers interested in paying a monthly subscription to make it profitable for game makers.

I think MMO games would get a lot more subscribers if they could find a model where they bring people in for a flat one-time fee, and then give the player more when they're already comfortable with the game and are ready and willing to upgrade to a monthly fee. This will inject a consant flow of new players into the game, who subsequently get hooked and upgrade.

I think the biggest reason why people don't like recurring monthly subscriptions is they know that if they decide they're not interested, that they will have to go through the hassle to cancel their monthly subscription. Some companies make this troublesome on purpose to discourage cancellations, and many people realize this so they feel even less inclined to subscribe.

Second Life's population has exploded since they began offering the "basic" one-time subscription accounts. The basic accounts do not really differ significantly from the "premium" monthly accounts, so it provides people with basically an unlimited trial for a one-time cost.

I think if more MMO games did this, they would "hook" a lot more subscribers, who would then spread praise for the game by word-of-mouth. The only difficulty is finding the right set of capabilities to encourage people to upgrade to a monthly subscription.

For SL, the capability you get with a monthly payment is the right to own land. Land is not necessary to create, but it is necessary for your creations to persist in the world completely under your control. This works out well, because new users don't need land. But as time goes on, there is more and more incentive to own land so that the creations they make will have a home in the world even while they are offline.

It's concepts like this that game companies need to find if they want to break though the hesitation that many people have with monthly subscription fees. They need a way to let people enjoy their worlds for a flat rate, and then offer them more when they're ready for it.

--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Re:This is becoming too common :( by startled · 2004-02-13 05:49 · Score: 1

"It seems like there just aren't enough gamers interested in paying a monthly subscription to make it profitable for game makers."

Evidence seems to point to entirely the opposite conclusion. There's a massive glut of extremely similar games, and most of them are still succeeding to some degree (EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SWG...). The fact that they don't even have to branch out to be successful makes MM games look like safer ripoffs that RTS used to be.

Take into consideration that this is a new genre, and with new genres people fuck up a lot at first, and they're doing pretty well. There are giant piles of money to be made once people figure out how to make these games well (and, well, they're already making giant piles of money now).

URU simply demonstrates that (pick one):
a) URU Live was marketed so poorly that many people didn't even know it was part of the game
b) URU Live didn't add enough to the regular game to bother paying for
c) The people who buy URU aren't interested in online play
d) all of the above

Official Announcement by servognome · 2004-02-12 17:01 · Score: 5, Funny

SEATTLE - Microsoft said late Thursday that it would immediately halt development of "Mythica", an online roleplaying game that was scheduled for release in the second half of 2004. A Microsoft Studios spokesman stated, "After reviewing similar titles in the massively multiplayer Online gaming genre, we determined that our game was too stable. It is a disappointment given the talent, experience, and track record we have here at Microsoft at creating buggy software. Unfortunately, the competitive market did not allow us time to include enough crashes or exploits in our game to make it competitive for a launch this year."

--
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73

Truth is nice for once. by shoolz · 2004-02-12 17:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wouldn't it be nice if all other game companies were as forthcoming with game dev info (hello 3DRealms)? As much as I dislike MS, It's nice to see a company just come out and say it. "This game is toast, just letting you know"

On a roll... by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · 2004-02-12 17:09 · Score: 1

So... ah... if you're not going to be using the Mythica source anymore, do you mind if we have it?

--
One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.

I think I speak for everyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 17:11 · Score: 0

.. when I ask, What the hell are you talking about?

Tie to Mythic's DAOC ? by Thinkit4 · 2004-02-12 17:15 · Score: 0, Redundant

They were in a dispute with Mythic's DAoC over the company name presumably, as well as similarity of theme.

--
-I am an elective eunuch.

Mythic? by phazei · 2004-02-12 17:24 · Score: 1, Redundant

Wasn't there a game named Mythic that had the nordic gods? And didn't they take MS to court over trademark or something to that effect. I seem to actually remember a story on /. relating to that precisely. Well, if they lost is there any smooth way to change the title of their upcoming game and admit defeat? Of course not, so they'll just say they've been working on some other MMORPG and change the name that way.

Re:Mythic? by phazei · 2004-02-12 17:30 · Score: 0, Redundant

I found the old /. article about that: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/22/ 2041254&mode=thread&tid=127&tid=186&tid=206&tid=20 9
Re:Mythic? by bobdole369 · 2004-02-12 19:54 · Score: 1

Aye! Except the games not called Mythic. It's called Dark Age of Camelot. The COMPANY that released the game is named Mythic. Currently going thru some issues as Mythic swings the nerfbat unfortunately.

--
Lousy facepalm.

Screenshots by shird · 2004-02-12 17:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Some early screenshots of the game that will no longer be. Looks pretty good, nothing fancy, but of course there is much more to a game than just the visuals.

--
I.O.U One Sig.

When you wake up... by Thinkit4 · 2004-02-12 18:45 · Score: 0, Flamebait

do you look in the mirror and say "I am not a loser" repeatedly?

--
-I am an elective eunuch.

Re:When you wake up... by shoma-san · 2004-02-13 09:53 · Score: 1

I doubt he does but you probably do...

New game titled announced by cyrax777 · 2004-02-12 19:13 · Score: 0, Redundant

Windows :( find the bugs edition. Loaded with hours of bluescreening bug hunting fun.

Re:New game titled announced by TrancePhreak · 2004-02-12 20:48 · Score: 2, Funny

The sequel, Linux Command Console, where you pile through random character combinations to figure out how to get it to work was also announced today.

--

-]Phreak Out[-

guild wars? by MrBallistic · 2004-02-12 19:19 · Score: 0

to be honest, though, i'm more surprised that we've got people still working on games like this. i mean, you get 1000 people on the same server, and all you can do is make a chat engine and make people kill bugs for 5 hours until they level up? what a waste of time.

that said, has anyone here noticed guild wars yet? now /that's/ going to be a good online fantasy game. 1/2 counter strike and 1/2 diablo == fun!

Hopes for Shadowrun by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 19:19 · Score: 0

I wonder what the "as-yet-unannounced title" is. MS owns the rights to Shadowrun for video games. . .
(***Please let it be Shadowrun, Please let it be ShadowRun***)

Re:Hopes for Shadowrun by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 19:58 · Score: 0

Does any one else find that ironic? A game set in Seattle with a major role based on hacking and fighting against "evil" corporations? It *would* be cool, though.

Micro$oft buys World of Warcraft by DigiShaman · 2004-02-12 19:54 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Obviously they didn't. But if Halo is any indication as to how MS markets games, then I don't see why Microsoft wouldn't buy out Blizzard either.

I can see the horror now. Microsoft gains the rights to Warcraft. They then scrap plans for the PC and Mac version of World of Warcraft. Now, they can port it over as an X-Box exclusive to boost its sales.

Don't think it can't happen. Well life has tought me a few lessons. Such as, money talks in the right amount.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

lisp programmer by AHumbleOpinion · 2004-02-12 20:08 · Score: 1

I like your parenthesizing skillz :-)

Must be a lisp programmer

Sadly not by denks · 2004-02-12 20:37 · Score: 0

From the Mythica site

As a result of this effort, job eliminations within Microsoft Game Studios will take place, and up to 40 employees may be impacted

There will be no patch writing for those poor souls

--

I am Monkey, the Great Sage, equal of heaven!

Re:Sadly not by mikerich · 2004-02-13 02:50 · Score: 1

Who writes these press announcements?
'job eliminations', 'may be impacted'... these are people we're talking about - people who've worked hard and poured their talent into something - now they're being 'impacted'.
Disgraceful, they could at least publicise redundancies in a sensitive manner. Have we really sunk so low?
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Sadly not by Winkhorst · 2004-02-13 03:11 · Score: 1

Don't you just hate being impacted? I was impacted for a year once and I tell you it really sucked. Thankfully, I was eventually de-impacted with another company. These guys also have frequent impacts, but at least they try to trans-impact those impacted to another department where they are at least temporarily de-impacted.

Has it never occurred to these morons that the purpose of language is to communicate, not to sound important?

--
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
Re:Sadly not by aardvarkjoe · 2004-02-13 03:49 · Score: 1

Don't you just hate being impacted? I was impacted for a year once and I tell you it really sucked.

I know a good oral surgeon who could help you out.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:Sadly not by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 03:50 · Score: 0

JESUS! Go move to Cuba, comrad.
Re:Sadly not by ripsnorta · 2004-02-13 07:57 · Score: 1

I usually find that Metamucil helps with this.

--
Hollywood: The place good stories go to die.
Re:Sadly not by bigman2003 · 2004-02-19 04:10 · Score: 1

Oral surgeon?

I think he needs a proctologist.

--
No reason to lie.

Par to the course by Phekko · 2004-02-12 21:25 · Score: 1

in the MMORPG genre that seems to be the thing to do. EverCrack had a patch day every week. Plus unannounced critical patches. To tell you the truth they were good for my social life back then, because I'd actually get off the net and do something. But trust me, MMORPGs are not even close to complete when they are released. And yes, I feel this fits right in with Microsoft's business model. Oh, except that in EQ they sometimes did admit they have a problem and at least pretended to try to fix the problem.

--

Sigs for Nerds. Sigs that Matter.

I For One.. by taernim · 2004-02-12 21:36 · Score: 2, Funny

.. can't wait for the new MS game!

Duke Nukem Forever Online... man. This is gonna be great. Anyone know when it'll be out? ;-)

--
"PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"

Oh no by CGP314 · 2004-02-12 22:50 · Score: 1

As long as Blizzard doesn't kill World of WarCraft, I don't care. : )

-Colin

It is a trait of these developers... by Shivetya · 2004-02-12 23:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

All of them, from Brad McQuaid, Raph Koster, to Lord British, they all have egos the size of planets. Reading their posts to various forums and industry sites it is evident that they cannot learn. Well I will be nice, I have seen much from Brad recently, but Raph proves time and time again his disconnect.

Hell even Jessica Mulligan, who wrote Biting the Hand - a sometimes hard look at the gaming industry, turned into what she/he claimed was the problem. After taking the helm of AC2 and now AC1 she seemed to operate in a manner completely opposite of what she was preaching beforehand. Granted turing around the Turbine ship wasn't going to be easy but its moving.

The problem comes down to the fact they hit on success and suddenly feel as if they are the only ones with opinions that matter. Which probably explains why most are fearful of doing another game or if they do it it never lives up to expectation.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.

Re:It is a trait of these developers... by Ruprecht+the+Monkeyb · 2004-02-13 01:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem isn't the developers, the problem is the customers. You have two choices. You try to make a game you think would be fun and entertaining to play, and hope that lots of other people will too, or you can listen to all the crybabies screaming about nerfs and see-saw the game back and forth on a weekly basis.

Half the people that make MMORPGs such a pain are the ones who play 3 accounts 20 hours a day, exploit every bug, min-max every character, and then bitch like crazy when developers close loopholes and try to maintain some sense of fair play. The other half are the so-called 'casual gamers' that think they should be able to play 2 hours a week and enjoy the same level of success as the power-gamers. You can't satisfy these two extremes. Any systems the developers put in place to make it friendly to the casual gamers will be exploited to death and back by the power gamers. And if they put in insanely hard content for the power-gamers, the casual crowd won't play it, and won't buy the expansions for it.

I've picked up almost every MMORPG since UO on the day they came out, and played them for weeks or months until I got bored or my friends quit, and the situation has been the same on every one. Best piece of advice I can give anyone thinking of playing one of these games is to stay the hell away from the discussion boards. Play the game if you find it fun, quit if you don't. But don't listen (and don't contribute) to all the bitching and moaning from people who seem the think the developers should cater the game to them.
Re:It is a trait of these developers... by WuphonsReach · 2004-02-13 02:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

or you can listen to all the crybabies screaming about nerfs and see-saw the game back and forth on a weekly basis.

Which is what SOE has been doing with EQ for the past 2 years. End-result is that cry-babies just cry harder when they don't get their way, and the griefers run rampant because everything is open to re-negotiation. (It's now a lot like dealing with a bunch of spoiled 5-year olds who are accustomed to always getting their way.)

The other problem that the SOE developers have is when they do implement a fix for a balance issue, they attempt to solve the entire problem at once. Which means that they usually go too far in the other direction and either have to dial it back over the next 3 patches or else it's such a drastic change that it affects a multitude of other classes. A dev team with a bit of common sense would realize that maybe changes should be gradual. So if class A is over-powered, instead of radically nerfing the class in a single-change, it should be planned out to take up to 6 months to implement everything. Do one change, see how it affects balance, tweak it a bit, then implement the 2nd change.

Of course, that requires someone with a "Vision" to act as a gatekeeper and a moderator. Both to keep the players from demanding changes that would damage the game, and to keep developers from changing things just because they can be changed.

Casual gamers who only play a few hours per week want a stable game where their hard work into a class isn't suddenly made away with when their class gets re-balanced. People love to complain about their class strengths/weakenesses, but if they *really* didn't want to deal with those plus/minuses, they'd have re-rolled another class. Changing the game to satisfy a whiner just means that everyone else will start whining.

And if they put in insanely hard content for the power-gamers, the casual crowd won't play it, and won't buy the expansions for it.

Here's where the bean counters get involved. A player-oriented decision would be to make a high-level expansion, realize that you will only sell it to half the playerbase, and make it a no-holds-barred high-level expansion. Instead, they try to add low-level features to market to the LCD so that the majority of the playerbase will buy it. So design time gets taken away from satisfying the high-end players (the original goal), and you end up with a lackluster expansion. Or else they make changes seemingly willy-nilly that end up causing huge balance issues that take months to work out.

--
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?

Microsoft's most profitable game by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 23:21 · Score: 2, Funny

is called "Monopoly" :-)

Good News by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 23:39 · Score: 0

Maybe a few more people have been spared the pathetic misery of being addicted to a fucking game. I have already lost one of my best friends to EQ, no joke. He had the wife to the point of divorcing him and he stopped with the game for a while and came back to real life. Once the domestic issues were resolved in his mind, he dove right back into it and now his friends are other EQ players, the rest of us do not hear from him at all. These games suck.

mobile-capable? wtf? by NSash · 2004-02-12 23:54 · Score: 3, Informative

If the MMORPG is mobile-capable, e.g. PocketPC (which I *HIGHLY* suspect) then it is not a crowded marketplace anymore...even at $3 a month it'll remain pretty lucrative.

Unless their new MMORPG is a MUD (which I *HIGHLY* suspect is not the case), I doubt you'll be able to play it on any PocketPC. You can't even run the most recent version of EverQuest on a 500mhz Pentium II with 512 megs of ram, and PocketPCs aren't even close to being able to support that much RAM. (Don't believe me? See for yourself.)

Re:mobile-capable? wtf? by Wolfier · 2004-02-13 03:00 · Score: 1

1. When it comes out the mobile devices will be vastly more powerful than what is available today.
2. There are different levels of sophistications a game can take. It is not an all-or-nothing matter like MUD vs the-latest-version-of-EverQuest.
Re:mobile-capable? wtf? by bugbread · 2004-02-13 17:42 · Score: 1

I think the original poster made a typo. I suspect he meant to say if a MMORPG is PocketPC playable, the market will expand greatly. I suspect (hope) he wasn't referring to Microsoft's new MMORPG.

I, for one, by ubrgeek · 2004-02-13 00:16 · Score: 0, Redundant

was ready to welcome our Nordic overlords ...

--
Bark less. Wag more.

so sad... by ThePretender · 2004-02-13 00:27 · Score: 1

so sad for the team of patch developers that were earmarked for this project. In other news, patching Windows will now take place "up to five months after bug is found". :-)

Windows code leaked on web (ot) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 01:48 · Score: 0

Top secret Microsoft code leaked
Software giant Microsoft was today facing new embarrassment after it emerged that a portion of confidential source code for its Windows operating system had been posted on the internet.
The leak of the closely-guarded code to the Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0 operating systems, used in hundreds of millions of homes and businesses around the world, could leave users vulnerable to attacks from hackers.

Even if hackers choose not to use the code to cause chaos with private computers, its leaking could offer rivals a competitive edge against Microsoft, which has always maintained strict security over the coding at the heart of its product.

Source code is the intellectual property and lifeblood of any software company, because it is the basic language used to create software programs. The security level surrounding it is similar to that for the formula used in Coca-Cola's soft drinks.

Microsoft has only shared its source code with close partners and carefully-chosen organisations, and threatened legal action in the event that any of is leaked.

The leak is the latest worry to hit the company, which earlier this week admitted that there were serious security flaws in its latest edition of Windows, XP, which is popular with home users who are often unaware of security issues.

Microsoft released a "patch", or software upgrade, on its website, and urged all users to download it and secure their machines against hackers.

Last week, the company's servers came under attack from an email worm, MyDoom, which spread around the world and infected millions of computers running Windows operating systems.

In a statement posted on its website, Microsoft said: "It's illegal for third parties to post Microsoft source code, and we take such activity very seriously. We are currently investigating these postings, and are working with the appropriate law enforcement authorities.

"At this point, it does not appear that this is the result of any breach of Microsoft's corporate network or internal security. At this time, there is no known impact on customers. We will continue to monitor the situation."

Analysts said that such a leak had been likely to happen at some point. "I don't understand why it hasn't happened sooner, because there are so many organisations out there that have access to the source code," Marc Maiffret, of Californian firm eEye Digital Security, told the Associated Press.

Security experts today warned that it was hard to assess what damage the leak could cause, because so few details were available. Technology analyst Rob Enderle told AP: "It seems unlikely that this is going to create a material, significant security problem. It's more embarrassing than anything else, because it makes it look like Microsoft can't control its code."

~phy
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer

Re:Hmmmmmmmmmm by gad_zuki! · 2004-02-13 02:01 · Score: 2, Funny

>FYI, Microsoft just released the source code to Allegiance

Hell, they just released the source code to NT and Windows2k! Man, give them some credit!

Just A Thought by slim_jimmy · 2004-02-13 02:09 · Score: 1, Interesting

Maybe they saw that 400k people signed up for the World of Warcraft beta and realized that there was no point competing with the best! (I know that half of them were Korean but Blizzard games still rule) Probably everyone posting on this forum has wasted countless hours on titles such as Starcraft and Diablo 2...

the difference by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 02:15 · Score: 0

Bungie was an independent developer whose games never really sold that well. Getting bought got them out of that rut. Blizzard, on the other hand, is one of the most profitable PC developers ever and is owned by Vivendi. They didn't sell off their gaming divisions back when everyone thought they might, so I doubt Bliz would be available now.

EverCrap by Gr8Apes · 2004-02-13 02:50 · Score: 1

I played this for a while... BORING. Seriously, the game all about wasting your RT while waiting for stuff to populate. There was no true "quest" (false advertising, anyone?) as all quests were about sit here, kill kill kill, finally collect piece, go there (usually a 20+ min trip) kill kill kill kill, finally see a piece pop and have someone come in and steal the kill, bitch moan and complain, kill kill kill.... kill kill kill yeah - finally got piece #2 of 4 after 6 days....

You get the picture. Very little real gameplay, and I love those folks who say the class balance is a joke. It is, but not for the reasons they think. (rather than post an extremely long explanation, I'd rather let this assertion stand, with the single exception of stating that a high level wizard should be able to flat out kill just about any single opponent immediately, and have a chance to with the rest. Of course, getting away might be a problem when you can do no more magic....;)

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.

Competition ?!! by Znort · 2004-02-13 02:51 · Score: 0, Flamebait

My favorite quote :
"Rather than support the development and eventual maintenance of two MMORPGs in an already crowded and highly competitive market"

Successfully entering a competitive software market ... That is unknow territory to Microsoft !!!

Mythica by Gr8Apes · 2004-02-13 02:52 · Score: 1

like most myths, turns out to be mythical.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.

Counting Magic Beans by virg_mattes · 2004-02-13 03:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

> Here's where the bean counters get involved. A player-oriented decision would be to make a high-level expansion, realize that you will only sell it to half the playerbase, and make it a no-holds-barred high-level expansion. Instead, they try to add low-level features to market to the LCD so that the majority of the playerbase will buy it.

The problem is that, in the market that these games live in, the bean counters must be involved. SOE cannot afford to issue a major expansion that only caters to (and will only be purchased by) a fraction of their player base. While this makes it rather difficult to issue a proper expansion, it's economically required by the business model. Saying they should just pick a segment and cater to that segment would be suicidal.

That said, they have tried to release expansions targetted to certain segments, with stuff put in for the rest. Planes of Power was virtually all for high end characters, with one VERY important and game-changing low-end addition (the Plane of Knowledge, which virtually eliminated the market for porters and made spell acquisition much simpler). I take that as an example of a well done expansion, that targetted one group but didn't leave everyone else out in the cold, and people who were not of a sufficient level to enter the experience areas still went out and bought it for access to the PoK. Then came the Legacy of Ykesha, which was also meant to be a high end expansion with some low end content and benefits. I take this as an example of a badly done expansion, because the "try to please" reach was much broader in LoY than it was in PoP. Since the high end content wasn't high enough to draw people out of the Planes of Power zones, the low end zones were still too high for the weekend gamers, and extra bank space wasn't sufficient to drive people to buy it if they didn't also want the zone content, not many felt the need to buy it.

So, in short, I don't think that trying to please a broad segment of the gamer base is a bad idea, and in fact it's necessary to the survival of the game. When it's done well, it really works, and I disagree that it can only be done well by focusing on small portions of the player base.

Virg

Re:Bad Day ... The Obvious Move for Barbie by telstar · 2004-02-13 03:09 · Score: 2, Funny

If I were Barbie, I would've dumped Ken's ass a long time ago too! Jeez, this many years ... he gives her the Barbie Ferrari, the Barbie Mansion, the Barbie Ranch ... but no Barbie Engagement Ring. Meanwhile Ken's out with his buddies, out on the scene being a major player ... doing things WITH and TO interns ... plotting his candidacy for President ... and states around the nation are legalizing same-sex marriage. It's EASY to see why Barbie would give him the boot. Think of it ... Skipper lives so close ... Ken's never home .... How did Ken not see this coming?

Everquest by Gyorg_Lavode · 2004-02-13 03:29 · Score: 1

On the subject of Everquest.

As demonstrated here, people complain about every aspect of everquest. They complain that it doesn't listen to the players. They complain it listens too much to the players. They complain it ballences too much. They complain it ballences too little. They complain it caters to the casual gamer too much. They complain it caters to the end-game player too much.

Obviously Everquest is not unsuccessful, so the well-roundedness of the complains demonstrates that everquest really is doing a good job. People complain about the part that isn't good for them, but there are no over-all complaints about it.

Everquest has high end and low end content. They have trade skills. They have quests. They have plot. They have content. They have classes that are all played. Everquest is really only lacking in non-combat advancement when compared to current games. It has instanced dungeons. It is receiving it's 3rd engine revision but will likely still be playable on close to the original hardware, (dx9 compatible ie don't need dx9 features, just drivers that support dx9. a TNT2 and win98 is enough). Hell, everquest has a casino.

People will complain about everquest until the end of time, but with 400,000+ users and times of 100,000+ on at the same time, it is most certainly not the collection of mistakes everyone makes it out to be. And most of the fundamentals of everquest and it's framework were set by the people who are now working for Sigil.

--
I do security

Re:Everquest by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 03:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

Correction, it *had* a casino.

Was shut down because the sheer amounts of people were crashing Shadowhaven. That and you could use batwings rather than the tokens.
Re:Everquest by Gyorg_Lavode · 2004-02-13 03:35 · Score: 1

They put it back in last patch with GoD.

--
I do security

FFXI! WoW! CoH! by Asmandeus · 2004-02-13 04:22 · Score: 1

Between Final Fantasy XI, Worlds of Warcraft, and City of Heroes ... I think a lot of people could care less about what MS is releasing (or shutting down for that matter). I don't think what MS is doing could be considered wrong, but I do believe this is going to hurt them later in the market. Who says that their next project won't be scrapped so quickly as well? MMORPG players will get really ticked if they keep having games released with no future support ... playing a MMORPG is a huge investment in time for some.

- A s M -

Re:FFXI! WoW! CoH! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 04:58 · Score: 0

I think a lot of people could care less about what MS is releasing

I think a lot of people couldn't care less.
Re:FFXI! WoW! CoH! by Asmandeus · 2004-02-13 06:23 · Score: 1

Bleh... must ... learn to use preview button!

- A s M -

xbox? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 04:50 · Score: 0

They (Mythica) probably laughed at M$ when asked if Mythica could be reworked for the XBox first.

So M$ went for a developer that would right MMORPGs for the Xbox.

then again maybe not, i just want to rumor monger :)

On The Other Hand... by EXTomar · 2004-02-13 05:01 · Score: 1

Any buisness guru will tell you "where there is a market you have a shot at making money!" If they see that 400k people signed up for World of Warcraft then someone who is savy is going to think "ah ha! this is a market!"

Just because some of the competition is stiff doesn't mean its not marketable. After all, why should Blizzard bother making World of Warcraft if hundreads of thousands are playing EQ?

Could it be? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 05:26 · Score: 0

They do have the Shadowrun license now... could this be what's coming?

If it is, I hope MMOG gameplay doesn't suck the life from a cool franchise.

Games that dont suck! by Vanguard(DC) · 2004-02-13 06:42 · Score: 1

Ok, it's amazing, but I think most you are utterly clueless about the best mmorpg's in devlopment...

Beyond Worlds of Warcraft (which is going to be a carebear festival! blah!), the really great new titles scheduled for release in 2004/05 are:

1. Lineage 2 : www.lineage2.com
2. Darkfall : www.darkfallonline.com
3. Dark and Light : www.darkandlight.com

you folks are limiting your expectations and vision to that which is thrown at you by the established game companies and gaming magazines... get a clue please, and check out the REALLY great mmo's coming out. Dont be scared just because they are pvp-based...lol!

--
"I think, therefore I get paid."

World of Legend 2 by meehawl · 2004-02-13 09:18 · Score: 1

1. Lineage 2 : www.lineage2.com
2. Darkfall : www.darkfallonline.com
3. Dark and Light : www.darkandlight.com

You forgot World of Legend 2.

--

Da Blog

Probably going to be a shadowrun game by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 13:50 · Score: 0

They own the license (fasa) and the url for www.shadowrun.com goes right to the MS/FASA gaming site.

Good by silentrob · 2004-02-13 16:58 · Score: 1

I'm not trying to troll, but the only other Microsoft MMORPG that I've tried was Asheron's Call 2, which sucked ass. I've heard that AC2 has gotten better now that development has been handed back to Turbine. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the more Microsoft pulls out of the already saturated MMORPG genre, the better. They've got better things to do.

You're a fool by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-14 15:07 · Score: 0

I was a dedicated EQ player from day one. My online nick was Mills Lifestream, and I was one of the more involved players on The Rathe server.

Anyways, to your entire "EQ was crap until Kunark" statement, I say that EQ was a great game that was released prematurely that needed a lot more done on it before it was 'polished'. In fact, I tried to speak loudly about what needed to be done back when the game was extremely unfinished.

<a href="http://everquest.allakhazam.com/editorial/09 0899_Mills_Lifestream.htm">Editorial</a>

It was obvious that the high level game really hadn't been thought about heavily, that trade skills weren't polished, and that the game in-general, while a great game, lacked many connecting pieces to turn it into a wonderful game.

Later on, the Plane of Fear was released, and dragons were 'twinked' because people who weren't even level 20 yet seemed to love to ramble on about how dragons should never, ever, EVER die. High level players began maxing themselves out, and people started dropping due to having nothing left to do in the game. Many people held out for Kunark to drive away all these problems and save the day, but the reverse happened. Kunark drove all these problems home even further. Traveling time took forever, most of Kunark wasn't nearly as balanced level-wise as the first 3 continents, and Kunark just didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the world. Of course, neither did Velious, or the Moon...heck, every expansion seemed to ruin the entire concept of a united world that felt whole and real.

Many things were done wrong in EQ, but the solutions that Verant took to 'fix' the problems just kept making the game worst. They used addiction to its worst, and instead of improving the actual game, they began almost blackmailing players within the game they had created. The new zones of almost every expansion seemed to invalidate the zones of earlier works of EQ. New levels were added, new skills that took an eternity to go through were added.

It became a Monte Cooke game. Luxorious items were traded everywhere. Players competed with each other in DBZish level power struggles with the developers.

"Ah ha, but now I have maxed out, and I shall destroy all you throw in my way!"

"You just THINK you've maxed out! I've tripled the max level limit, added infinite skills, and insta-spawned super-powerful villians that make all your pumpin up meaningless! PS - Your items are now crap. See you in 6 months."

EQ needed to remain a game. So people plowed through the game early on...big deal. That happens with every game. Get over it. Don't freak out and start ruining what were mostly solid game mechanics. At what point is it the quality of the game that matters, and not the retension of players? Furthermore, if you keep up quality, even with all the complaints from high level players, players will continue to play the game because its a fun experience for people to go through.

Hopefully this next game will be truly ready for the public upon release. Every aspect of the game already thought out, and every bug and detail already worked out.

Too many MMOs by Plumpkin · 2004-02-15 07:59 · Score: 1

I'm a long time MMO player, and I remember when they used to be fun for the sheer novelty. These days it seems like every software company is putting out one or two MMOs, trying to get thier own monthly cash cow. I suppose this could do something about the overpopulation on the servers of long running MMOs like EverQuest, but i assume it will only attract more players of low intellegence to the genre. "Hey, got any good gear a mage can use?" "Think you could power level me to 30 real quick?" "Can you spare a few platinum for this sword i NEED?"

Uuuhhh. by readpunk · 2004-02-16 11:08 · Score: 1

You don't think a newer high-end PDA couldn't play an ultima online style game? In a year we'll be talking mid-range PDA and in two we'll be talking any new to market PDA.

Mobile MMORPG's are more then possible. The problem is the cost of completely wireless internet and the speed it offers.

--

./revolution

Slashdot Mirror

Mythica MMORPG Cancelled By Microsoft

223 comments