Slashdot Mirror


Sony Slow To Reveal Mac EverQuest Code Freeze?

mpk writes "It seems Sony Online Entertainment has finally officially admitted (albeit only by an mail response to a user query which got posted into a web forum) that the Macintosh EverQuest server is to receive no further bug-fixing or development support, although the game is still available and playable online. The kicker is that this has actually been the case for eight months, following the Mac version's release in June 2003, yet SOE chose not to tell their customers about it. Inside Mac Games also has the story, and I've posted my thoughts as well. There's no mention of this policy on the EQ Mac home page and the game still appears to be being sold in the shops."

71 comments

  1. Cross platform compatibility by Drakino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This type of thing is not a major issue for companies like Wolfpack and Blizzard, makers of Shadowbane and Worlds of Warcraft. Both chose to go with more open standards, and have cross compatibility with no issues.

    Verant choose 3dfx Glide way back when, and then DirectX. It's not a wonder they coudn't easially make a Mac client that could play in the same worlds as the PC users. I would have bought Mac Everquest in a heartbeat for the EQ LANs my friend throws, but alas, stupidity prevailed and they released a non compatible game.

    The lesson at the end of the day? Open standards makes life easier. Closed standards puts you into a tough position eventually.

    1. Re:Cross platform compatibility by yotaku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't it the server that they are talking about? I very much doubt that the server makes use of 3dfx or DirectX.

      Maybe the reason they are not going to maintain has much more to do with the numbers. If there were as many people using the Mac version as the Windows one, I'm sure it would be being maintained.

      I think its pretty safe to say, that if you are serious about playing games, you are better off with a PC than a Mac.

    2. Re:Cross platform compatibility by dtfarmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think its pretty safe to say, that if you are serious about playing games, you are better off with a PC than a Mac.

      I think it's pretty safe to say, that if you are serious about playing games, you are better off with a console than a PC or Mac.

    3. Re:Cross platform compatibility by king-manic · · Score: 0, Insightful

      right, next time I hunger for some warcraft wait.. umm counter stike dman no ok how about some command and conquer.. wait.. I know quake.. damn..
      yeah console is great for the games I play...

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    4. Re:Cross platform compatibility by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      that post might have been funny if you couldnt play all 4 of those games on consoles... need some help getting your foot out of your mouth?

    5. Re:Cross platform compatibility by richcoder · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, that is personal prefernece. I'll take a keyboard and mouse over a console controller any day for the types of games I play. Namely, first person shooters. Also, most games look better on the PC.

    6. Re:Cross platform compatibility by chamblah · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      I think it's pretty safe to say, that if you are serious about playing games, you are better off with a console than a PC or Mac.

      A console if you wish to play a sports title or a party social game (ie: mario kart). Or you are entertaining some children and need something simple they can understand (ie: starting up by reseting with a new game disc in)

      But if you wish to play a game that has cutting edge technology (FarCry) & the freedom of customization (Half-Life) then playing on a windows pc is the best place for that.

    7. Re:Cross platform compatibility by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People are always saying this, but where's the evidence? Unless what you want to do is play games in front of your TV, a PC is usually better. There are more games for PC than for any individual console, the PC supports higher resolutions, the PC has better sound in most cases if you spend $100 or so for a sound card that puts out dolby digital, there are more game controllers available for PC (including assorted console controllers with USB adapter widgets)... Need I go on? Perhaps the most compelling argument is that RTS, god games, and first person shooters are all substantially better suited to keyboard (or similar) and mouse[/trackball] than any other input devices, and most systems that have those peripherals didn't (DC)/don't (PS2) support them in the majority of games.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Cross platform compatibility by king-manic · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Warcraft 3 isn't on any console. CS is but without mouse and keyboard it isn't the same. Quake 3 is too, same deal. Command and conquer is multiplayer only for the PC.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    9. Re:Cross platform compatibility by schapman · · Score: 1

      They use DirectX probably for the same reason many others do. OpenGL sucks to program for. I know, I've done both. Wanna spend some time playing with driver extentions because GL is so outdated or just check some caps in d3d. Once OpenGL 2.0 comes out, things might change, but for now, I'd take DX over anything else.

      --
      Wouldnt you like to be a pepper too?
    10. Re:Cross platform compatibility by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      you didnt say warcraft 3. you said warcraft. 3 sucks, 2 was the best. as to mouse and keyboard, work is being done on that by modders, and the xbox controllers being usb really jump starts the task. C&C sucks anyways, but you never specified multiplayer.

    11. Re:Cross platform compatibility by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      his type of thing is not a major issue for companies like Wolfpack and Blizzard, makers of Shadowbane and Worlds of Warcraft. Both chose to go with more open standards, and have cross compatibility with no issues. Verant choose 3dfx Glide way back when, and then DirectX. It's not a wonder they coudn't easially make a Mac client that could play in the same worlds as the PC users.

      You are mistaken Glide and DirectX are not inherently problems(1). Diablo II supports Glide and yet it has PC and Mac versions that play on the same servers, Diablo II also supports DirectX and OpenGL (Mac only?). Wacraft III supports DirectX and OpenGL and yet it has PC and Mac versions that play on the same servers.

      (1) DirectX is only a problem if you use DirectPlay. DirectDraw, DirectSound, and Direct3D are easily "emulated" on the Mac. I think one Mac porting team got a DirectPlay game working but it was a major PITA.

      The lesson at the end of the day? Open standards makes life easier. Closed standards puts you into a tough position eventually.

      Not really. What makes life easier in the long run is to use the native and more mature API on each platform. If that means supporting Direct3D and OpenGL so be it. OpenGL can be tricky on the PC, for example in the recent past parts of OpenGL not used by Quake received little attention with respect to optimization. The situation has improved a little but OpenGL remains of secondary important to PC hardware vendors. OpenAL, while I applaud the effort and agree with the sentiment it is not quite ready. Cross platform APIs and libraries sometimes give you the least common denominator when dealing with video and audio.

      Cross platform networking APIs are a success story, but there is inherent need to interoperate. Gaming is at the opposite end of the spectrum. A user only cares about the video and audio in the machine in front him and wants maximum performance and features.

    12. Re:Cross platform compatibility by Senjutsu · · Score: 2, Funny

      But if you wish to play a game that has cutting edge technology (FarCry) & the freedom of customization (Half-Life) then playing on a windows pc is the best place for that.

      Huh, now I know where to look if I want to play cutting edge technology, or freedom of customiztion. Usually, though, I just want to play fun games, so I'll stick with a console, thanks.

    13. Re:Cross platform compatibility by king-manic · · Score: 0, Troll

      Even so. all the games I specified suck ona console. Whats CS without mouse and keyboard, or Quake without multi-player or C&c with a controller. Warcraft, any sucks with a console controller.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    14. Re:Cross platform compatibility by king-manic · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      BTW, it's flattering to know my post annoyed you enough for you to flag me as a foe.

      You may never read this.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    15. Re:Cross platform compatibility by Have+Blue · · Score: 3, Insightful
      • Your TV is probably much larger than your monitor.
      • Your TV probably has better sound than your PC, especially if you didn't shell out for 5.1 for PC (not to mention that you're ignoring the cost of a decent set of 5.1 speakers, and that if you shell out for 5.1 for your TV or stereo, chances are it'll be way better than your PC system).
      • There are a vast number of games that are not RTSes or god games, and some people do enjoy them and aren't interested in RTSes or god games.
      • First person shooters are acceptable on modern consoles (no, it's not a mouse, but it's good enough considering the rest of the console experience and the fact that everyone else is using a controller too).
      • Your couch is probably more comfortable than your computer chair.
      • Consoles don't need maintenance. Games don't get patched, hardware doesn't conflict, upgrades don't break things. (OK, the online services like Live are starting to break with this convention, but console troubleshooting horror stories are far more rare than PC stories).
      • Consoles don't need to be upgraded. All games ever released for a console will run at at least 30 frames per second virtually all the time, even in heavy action, unless you do something really unusual like melee a dead Elite 20 times and stare at the floor. A console is good for several years of gaming for the cost of a video card. Good luck playing today's games on a 4-year-old PC (let alone a 4-year-old PC that cost $300).
    16. Re:Cross platform compatibility by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      But this only matters if RTS, god games, and first person shooters are all you care about.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    17. Re:Cross platform compatibility by eggsome · · Score: 1

      EQ LANs my friend throws
      Everquest LANs!?!? Is there such a thing as a everquest server emulator? Or does your friend just share his broadband connection with his friends when they come over?

      --
      If they made a movie of your life, would anybody buy a ticket?
    18. Re:Cross platform compatibility by calebtucker · · Score: 1

      Consoles don't need to be upgraded

      Well, if we keep getting crappy ports of console games to PC, then we won't have to worry about upgrading our PCs.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    19. Re:Cross platform compatibility by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Nope. I like games with a little more depth.

    20. Re:Cross platform compatibility by Drakino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Isn't it the server that they are talking about? I very much doubt that the server makes use of 3dfx or DirectX.

      The graphics engine can impact the network code and server more then people think. Things like collision detection are done, and differences between how clients do this could lead to client/server mismatch issues. And while I know EverQuest doesn't use DirectX for network code, many other games do causing porting issues beyond the Direct3D use.

      Minor differences in floating point calculations between x86 and PPC caused C&C Generals to be incompatible network wise between the Mac and PC version, and aparently some minor issues even exist PC to PC between some processors. I'd be really curious to see why these issues exist. I'm sure using a more standard method would have helped.

    21. Re:Cross platform compatibility by Drakino · · Score: 1

      Everquest LANs!?!? Is there such a thing as a everquest server emulator? Or does your friend just share his broadband connection with his friends when they come over?
      He just shares his broadband, and we all play togther in a group going into dungeons and such. It is more of a good personal social experience, since we do cookouts and such. Kinda like an RPG session, but without the GM having to run things.

    22. Re:Cross platform compatibility by Geccoman · · Score: 1

      Check out EQEmu, its fairly developed and is fun to insta-kill mobs like Kerafyrm.

      --
      I'm on a chair.
    23. Re:Cross platform compatibility by macrom · · Score: 1
      Your TV is probably much larger than your monitor.

      My TV is about 13" and my monitor is a 21" flat panel.

      Your TV probably has better sound than your PC

      See above.

      There are a vast number of games that are not RTSes or god games, and some people do enjoy them and aren't interested in RTSes or god games.

      Same thing goes for PCs as well

      First person shooters are acceptable on modern consoles

      Define acceptable. If you mean somewhat funky controls and having the computer auto-aim for you, then sure, I guess that's acceptable. Note : my experience with console FPSes is very minimal.

      Your couch is probably more comfortable than your computer chair.

      I have a piece-o-crap reclining chair in my living room that smells like a nursing home. But my office has an Aeron chair.

      Consoles don't need maintenance. Games don't get patched, hardware doesn't conflict, upgrades don't break things.

      This will certainly change as consoles move to be more like mini PCs. And consoles may not need maintenance, but they do break and need to be replaced. Stories of multiple PS2s and Xboxes have floated around this site alone.

      Consoles don't need to be upgraded.

      Can't really argue with this one, and console games do tend to improve graphically as developers learn to milk a system for all it's worth.

      For me, here's the clincher :
      • I can do my banking on the PC
      • I can make my living on the PC writing code.
      • I can entertain my sig-o's kids on the PC.
      • I can browse the web and chat with my friends.
      • There is a multitude of other software out there to play with, like audio editing, music playback, video playback, etc.
      • I'm not stuck with commercial games. I can play Flash-/Java-based games. I can download shareware and demos of most every game published.
      • Lots of children's and non-gaming entertainment software is available.
      Consoles are great, but you can keep a fairly modern PC going for a few hundred bucks a year. I built an Athlon XP 2000-based system 2 years ago and I just upgrade small pieces as time and money allow. Sure, I'll eventually have to start over with a 64-bit something, but I'll have gotten good mileage out of this box. As time goes on more modern games will start to tax my system, but I don't always have to have THE ABSOLUTE latest and greatest, just enough to keep my gaming enjoyable.
    24. Re:Cross platform compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to add:

      The quality of other gamers you play with online on a PC is for the most part MUCH BETTER than who you meet on X-Box live. And I'm not just talking game skills here.

      This is probably due to a number of factors. You need to put a lot more into gaming on a PC, not only the money, but the driver updates, the technical knowledge, etc. So other players tend to be a bit older, or at least more mature, and a bit more serious. Casual gamer meathead frat grunts and Tantrum throwing, potty mouth spamming 11 year old brats do not usually have 2000 dollar PC's, precision mouses, properly configured firewalls, etc.

  2. Verant by Nasarius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd think that since TCP and UDP are universal, you wouldn't need a special Mac-only server. Guess they couldn't get the client to be 100% compatible with the old servers and the Windows clients? Huh.
    In any case, Sony/Verant/EQ has a long history of screwing over its paying customers. So no surprises here.

    --
    LOAD "SIG",8,1
    1. Re:Verant by richcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well they are universal. Besides endian issues the only reason for not making the Mac version compatible with the PC is they likely didn't want to update the Mac client software as often as the windows software. My best guess is they wanted a mac version but with the intention of not keeping it as up-to-date as the pc version all along, thereby cutting the costs for the Mac side of things.

      Bad decision as far as I'm concerned. Having multiple platforms of the same software has always kept my code a bit cleaner and more modular.

  3. SOE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now I know that some people are going to jump to the conclusion that SOE deliberately forgot to tell anyone for eight months that they had pulled the plug. Presumably, such people will speculate that this was a cynical move to maximise profits and squeeze every last penny out of loyal and hopeful customers.

    Well, the fact is that those people could not be closer to the truth. They are entirely correct.

  4. IANAECH by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am not an Evercrackhead, so what are these bugs that just must be fixed? They released a game, your purchased it as-is and you continue to choose to pay for access to their servers. Does it crash frequently? Is performance not acceptable as per the posted minimum system requirements? Please be specific.

    All I see here is another non-Windows game selling poorly, further fueling the economic arguement not to publish titles for non-Windows OS'.

    1. Re:IANAECH by dtfarmer · · Score: 1

      All I see here is another non-Windows game selling poorly, further fueling the economic arguement not to publish titles for non-Windows OS'

      So they wasted their money porting a game, that only works with a mac ghetto server, and they expected to make money? I guess that's what they deserve for thinking mac users were dolts who would rush to send them money in droves to be a part of such a phenominally woeful online world.

      Damn straight, I didn't buy it. I played EQOA on PS2 for free, but when the beta ended, why the hell would I pay to play there, either - same shit, different hardware. Why should I patronize SOE with their pc-only, mac-only, and console-only segregationist servers, when there are much better choices like Shadowbane, Lineage I (mac-pc), and FFX (ps2-pc), where the clients for mulitple platforms are built to work with the same servers - making it one big happy online world.

      Anyway, in this case it's a not an issue of windows game vs non-windows game. It's a matter of segregationist MMORPG vs multi-platform MMORPG. Of course this is all just my opinion, and I can't speak for other mac (or ps2) users, but had EQ Mac been compatible with pc-servers, I would have at least given it a chance...

    2. Re:IANAECH by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So you can't actually answer any of my questions other than to go on a tangental rant? Thanks for the info! Next time rather than ask questions I would like answers to, I will just paste a bunch of random characters and see what kind of responses I get.

      You could have at least tried to argue why you expect updates after a product is released as final. Do you have this expectation? If so, why? Do you have the unreasonable expectation that because one game is cross-platform, all should be? If so, why?

      Like you said, its just all your opinion. The facts point to a game that didn't sell, and the players claim that it is due, in part, to the random expectation of continued development of a released game. But hey, thanks for the opinion!

    3. Re:IANAECH by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Not only did they make it only work on a Mac-only server... they also didn't bother to produce a demo version. No way was I about to drop $50 on a game without even being able to see it running first.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    4. Re:IANAECH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If I can try and second guess whatever he was getting at before he started huffing the paint thinner, it was that Sony implied that the MacOS version was going to see the same long-term support/expansion add-ons that the PC version gets.

      I suspect that players assumed that there would be support or maybe Sony did promise it (what does the outside of the box say?), I suppose looking through old news anouncements might shed some light on the subject not that it really matters. If Game!= profitable then Game= canned. Not very nice perhaps but that is the way things are. People get their panties all in a bunch over MMORPGs. I suspect that if they had announced they would be giving the game away with 2 UPCs from frosted flakes the EQ community would be up in arms about it.

    5. Re:IANAECH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are two main issues with the game (although there are a number of other, minor issues):
      1) Access to much of the higher-level content of the game is broken. The content itself exists (and it's a large portion of the game), but the scripts necessary to play it do not work.
      2) Playing with sound turned on often causes such slowdown of the game as to make it unplayable.

      The first issue is server-side based, and much of the EQMac population is of the belief that the fix is a minor one. The second issue seems to be client-side based.

      The sound issue bothers players to different degrees (some don't care much at all about this, to be fair). The high-level content currently only affects those players who have played long enough to reach it, though everyone is a bit miffed, because the box and the advertising promised that a full version of the game was being sold.

      One of the problems with the situation is that Sony has repeatedly stated that fixes for these issues were underway. Less than a month ago, even, one of the TSRs promised fixes in the next patch. It's now apparent that no patch was being worked on, or even planned.

    6. Re:IANAECH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it does crash frequently. And on machines that far exceed the recommended hardware. Furthermore, there are significant performance hits anytime you are in a zone with more than about 10 people, unless you look straight down. There are memory leaks in the sound code which force players to play with the sound off if they wish to avoid crashing randomly as a result of a spell being cast nearby. The play environment has bugs, such as the inability to access more than a dozen zones which contain the only places high end spells drop. Access to these zones is advertised on the packaging and on SOE's website.

      Bottom line is that most of the problems with this game are not a result of poor sales, rather, the poor sales are the result of a company releasing a beta quality product as a production release, and then actively stonewalling and lying (yes lying) to customers.

    7. Re:IANAECH by Tsuzuki · · Score: 1

      Nobody seems to have mentioned this, but the free gift for renewing your .mac account last year was either a free copy of The Sims or Everquest. The number of people paying for .mac isn't as close to zero as some would like to make out, so I'd guess quite a few copies of EQ were floating around as well.

      Aspyr still provides support on its site for The Sims, and numerous expansion packs are available (all supported as well). I think it would be reasonable to expect the same level of continuing support, however minimal, for Everquest.

    8. Re:IANAECH by dtfarmer · · Score: 1

      So you can't actually answer any of my questions other than to go on a tangental rant?

      that tangential rant was directly in answer to your hostile assumption that all future game development for the mac (or any non-windows platform, I guess you mean consoles too) should be canned based on the sucess, or lack thereof, of Sony with EQ Mac. Why not answer the other questions? because they would be better answered by someone who has paid to play and still pays to play than by someone like me who decided there wasn't even enough there to begin with to get me to part with my money. And all of the people who, like me, stayed away, are part of the reason Sony ceased development, which is what puts those who are paying in the position to answer your other questions.

      Or to put it more simply: I try to only speak of what I know personally

      Thanks for the info!

      you're welcome.

      Next time rather than ask questions I would like answers to, I will just paste a bunch of random characters and see what kind of responses I get.

      you'll let us know how that works out for you? we'll all be waiting with baited breath...

      You could have at least tried to argue why you expect updates after a product is released as final. Do you have this expectation? If so, why?

      well, since last time you got so offended by me not answering every quesiton you had, I guess I better keep going, eh? For typical software, you purchase a version, and if you want the latest update, you pay the upgrade price. For MMORPG's, new content is one of the reasons to keeping paying that monthly fee, because if there is no new content any game will grow tiring, otherwise we'd all still be playing galaga and ms. pac-man regularly - there would be no need for new development or new content right? Now I'm aware that in EQ world, they try to make you think that your monthly fee is just for bandwidth, so they can get you to pay for new content as an upgrade fee as well, but I don't play that game, I pay for upgrades or I pay monthly fees, but not both - so I prefer a MMORPG like Lineage where the game is free to download, and your monthly fee gets you any and all updates, and yes, when Lineage stops producing new content, I will have the same problem with it that people are complaining about with EQ, but I know my answer won't be to complain to NCSoft, it will be simply to cancel my account, if it's even still active at the time.

      Do you have the unreasonable expectation that because one game is cross-platform, all should be? If so, why?

      Absolutely not, I just pointed that out as one reason for EQ Mac failing, right up there with segregating the mac server, and being 3 years late to the party, to boot. Of course, it doesn't hurt to be cross-platform, and it usually helps, as I said I might have given it a chance if I thought there would be a healthy community.

      Like you said, its just all your opinion. The facts point to a game that didn't sell, and the players claim that it is due, in part, to the random expectation of continued development of a released game.

      maybe I'm just slow, but I think that's backwards, the game not selling is what caused sony to halt future updates (which one could reasonably expect by simple observation of sony's behavior on other platforms, as well as the behavior of many other online games) and I think the game didn't sell for the reasons I've already stated (which were oh, so tangential to the discussion, by the way). So I think you characterizing the expectation as *random* is really, well, random.

      But hey, thanks for the opinion

      really, no thanks needed, but again you're welcome.

      but wait, there's more: as per your request... (don't blame me you wanted my answers)

      I am not an Evercrackhead, so what are these bugs that just must be fixed?

      I am not an Evercrackhead, so I don't know what these bugs are. (wow, aren't you glad I finally answered t

    9. Re:IANAECH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer to this question (why do players expect updates) is so simple that your failure to work it out for yourself doesn't really do much to justify your self-righteous indignation.

      Everquest is a MMORPG. It has a monthly fee. This monthly fee brings a number of expectations. First of all, you expect decent quality service; fast, stable servers and so on. You also expect continuing fixes to and expansion of the game. If there's a bug, you expect to see it fixed. If the content's getting stale, you need to see new content (and unless it's a particularly big batch of new content, you expect it as a downloadable update rather than a separately-purchased expansion). I'm an FFXI player and so far Square have excelled at providing bug fixes and vast amounts of new content. I hear Galaxies has also been good at this, despite a terrible initial launch.

      This expectation isn't even confined to the big MMORPGs; I know people who play Eve Online and a whole number of smaller MMORPGs; these are also supported and expanded on a regular basis. In the case of Everquest, I really can see why the Mac users are furious; their monthly fees are being used to fund updates and support for PC users, which they themselves aren't benefitting from.

      Ultimately, I think that people expecting to see widespread support for Mac (and Linux) gaming are barking up the wrong tree; the market just isn't there to make it worthwhile in most cases. However, if these games do get made, and sold, then I think it's only reasonable to expect to see the same return on your monthly fees as other users.

    10. Re:IANAECH by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, it took them 3.5 years to get sound to work on the PC in a way that encouraged me not to disable it and play mp3's. That they didn't get it right on the Mac should shock no one.

      Not having access to higher level content should piss anyone off and they should quit. From time to time people have left EverQuest en masse, and though it takes a while, they eventually solve the problems.

    11. Re:IANAECH by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 1

      Wow, you just compared PC development to console development. Notice I confined my statements to the Windows OS. If you had to change the subject THAT MUCH just to make your point I don't even know why you bothered to reply in the first place. Of COURSE cross-platform console development is going to end up winning. I'll give you credit, you did use alot of words not to get modded up at all so I give you a C for effort. I also give you credit for attacking my post line-by-line rather than as a whole. You might as well have compared me to "a car" or "the Nazis" with all the insight you have lent to this discussion.

      But hey, thanks once again for failing to actually provide answers to the questions. Maybe next time if you are unqualified to converse on a subject you will just read the articles and posts from those who are.

      Lets recap:
      Me: Hey can anyone answer these questions?
      You: I'm self-important! Listen to me rant!
      Me: Check, thanks bub
      You: Pay attention to me, I want to be heard! I hate you for making fun of my ignorance!

      Notice how I was not the only one to make fun of your little rant. You really should take a lesson here, go back to the drawing board, and think about what you know versus what you Know. I'm sure you will have to reply now to save face. Go ahead, I'll let you get the last word. I didn't intend to make you cry.

    12. Re:IANAECH by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

      Well, not every game designed is made for the hardcore player of the series/genre. Game developers have to make games for the general average gamer also -- and with new expansions gives users more things to do in EQ... making them run to it from other MMORPGs. But what can you do on another MMORPG that you can't do in EQ? Heh.

      --
      "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
  5. Open Source MMO by Kalak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This makes me wonder if there is a Open Source, cross platform MMO, preferably with a decent userbase. I'm sure I've heard of one existing, but when I looked at it, there didn't appear to be enough users to sustain it.

    Heck, EOL titles like this should have the source released, at least for the executables (ala Quake, Quake II...) so that players who are inclined and capable can fix them. It's not like they don't make most of their money off of the subscriptions, and they don't necessarially need to open source that part of the program. They'll still make money off of the addicts.

    For that matter, why not make all MMOs this way? Would there be a cheating issue? I've never coded a decent sized project, much less a game or network code, so I'd have no idea if open source would help or not.

    --
    I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
    1. Re:Open Source MMO by sinergy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, open source in an online game? Cheating is a huge problem in games. Open-sourcing a game would cause it to be unplayable.

      --
      ...
    2. Re:Open Source MMO by Nasarius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not at all, as long as you follow the simple rule of never trust the client.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    3. Re:Open Source MMO by nacturation · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not at all, as long as you follow the simple rule of never trust the client.

      The problem then becomes on of bandwidth and server resources. The ultimate "do not trust the client" is then serving up each rendered frame across the network in order to avoid client-side rendering cheats like semi-transparent walls. Practically speaking, a certain amount of trust is required. The trick then becomes how to balance the game so that the advantages of misplaced trust are mitigated.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    4. Re:Open Source MMO by Zero_Dogg · · Score: 5, Informative

      PlaneShift is a pretty nice open source MMORPG, it's still in development and I don't really know about the current userbase though. Check http://www.planeshift.it

      Eternal-Lands is also looking good and should be farily playable http://www.eternal-lands.com
      I don't really know about the current userbase but I'm about to try it again :)

      Also there is Arkanae https://arkanae.dev.java.net/- I don't really know anything about that one though.
      Then you have WorldForge which I really haven't had any luck with, and I don't really think it is in a playable state anyway (http://www.worldforge.org).
      In addition to those you have http://www.genecys.org/ - don't really know much about that one either.
      So theres a few going on :)

    5. Re:Open Source MMO by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      I don't think the game would be unplayable as long as there is some sort of moderator mechanism. Maybe not even a single moderator, but a group that has moderator access to the particular game server and can boot users he/she/they deem to be cheating.

    6. Re:Open Source MMO by Dahan · · Score: 1
      Netrek isn't unplayable. The client is open-source, but the servers can be set (and normally are) to only accept connections from "blessed" binary clients. Each official client has an RSA keypair. The server sends a random challenge to the client, the client signs it and sends it back to the server. If the signature verifies, and the public key is on the approved list of keys, the server accepts the connection.

      The weak point is that it's possible to extract the private key out of a blessed client and use it to sign challenges in a hacked client, but the impact is mitigated since it's very easy to remove the compromised key from the list of approved keys.

      Anyways, certainly not 100% protection, but it stops casual cheating, while still being open source.

    7. Re:Open Source MMO by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      as long as you follow the simple rule of never trust the client

      But in an open source project, the whole idea is to trust the client. The whole ideology of an open source project is that everyone contributes (large and little) for the greater good. The problem with this is, as the "project team" grows the chance of assholes and jerks getting in increases. Do you really think Linux will remain virus free if MILLIONS of Windows users suddenly switched to Linux?

      Same thing in an open source MMO game. Do you really think there isn't some spoiled little 13 year old kid out there who'd submit a cheat program in hope of it getting implemented so he can cheat and ruin the game for everyone else? Ultima Online suffered from the gold duplication trick a while back, even though the game is a relic by computing standards. And Ultima Online is a closed source project.

    8. Re:Open Source MMO by spitzak · · Score: 1

      The people running the servers don't have to accept any patches sent to them, you know.

      You might as well claim that the open nature of HTTP means that any kid can write over any web page on the internet. They can't. All they can do is download a page and write their own version and maybe show that to friends. It does not affect people looking at the original page. Same thing here.

      There is no problem with a completely open-source server. I do agree that an open-source client is a problem. I don't see any real solution other than to have closed source clients with an encryption key inside them. The client source could still be entirely open and compilable with a -DKEY=xyzzy switch, so there would be no secrets, but could not be used to produce a client that would talk to a specific host.

    9. Re:Open Source MMO by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      The problem becomes memory and CPU utilization. You can send the client only the information on actors (players, projectiles, items, etc) that they can actually see, but you need more ram and more CPU to carry it off.

      If you wanted to make things more complex and use up more bandwidth you could also send players only the geometry they can see, but the value of such a tactic is low unless all of your terrain is dynamic. As one generally uses canned terrain, it's not much of a tactic. The player could set up a system which cached terrain, after all. I can think of some tricks to make that less useful though, involving portals. Sending realtime geometry would be expensive in terms of bandwidth and CPU as well.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Open Source MMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The people running the servers don't have to accept any patches sent to them, you know.

      So instead of having the dev team program patches for the game they built and designed themselves, you have the dev team go over thousands of submittions most of which will be repeats, some of which are BS, and some of which they won't even understand how the patch works because they didn't make it. And then theres testing, see if its a virus, make sure it fits, etc.

      Its not solving the problem, its just subsituting one problem with another.

    11. Re:Open Source MMO by spitzak · · Score: 1

      I don't understand what you are saying. What I meant was that the dev team can completely ignore submitted patches. This takes zero work.

      The original poster seemed to be under some impression that an open-source game server somehow compelled the people running the server to put any patch submitted to them into it and thus it was easy to compromise. This is absolutely bogus.

    12. Re:Open Source MMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What I meant was that the dev team can completely ignore submitted patches.

      Then whats the point of making it open source if no one can contribute to it? Thats like releasing architecture designs and saying 'see we made improvements in safely design at X, Y, and Z areas... but you can't copy it and if you submit a better idea we're just gonna ignore you.'

  6. Now that it's OverQuest by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 4, Funny


    for all you Mac players, well it's scary but you'll need this now. Best wishes.

    --

    Operator, give me the number for 911!
    1. Re:Now that it's OverQuest by shadowcabbit · · Score: 1

      You've been waiting to use that joke since the first EQ was released, haven't you?

      --
      "Why Subscribe?" Good question...
    2. Re:Now that it's OverQuest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You've been waiting

      Heck no. Sort of an obvious joke.

  7. separate but not equal by Tom7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why do mac users play on a different server? I don't get it.

    1. Re:separate but not equal by dtfarmer · · Score: 1

      Why do mac users play on a different server?

      because that's what sony decided would be best for us (and their pocketbook).

      I don't get it.

      yeah most mac users put 2 and 2 together and decided not to, either...

  8. Overreaction? I think so by Quarters · · Score: 3, Insightful
    How is running the server in it's current state "getting on toward fraudulent"? Sony isn't doing *further* development work on the Mac version of EQ that's a far cry from shutting the game down without telling anyone. That the boxes are still on the shelves is an irrelevant point in this less than relevant story submission. The server is up and running, therefore people can buy and play the game without any problems.

    Did it ever occur to this bleeding-heart Mac user that maybe the fact that the boxes are still available is a *good* thing? Chances are the Mac server was put in code freeze due to lack of users/revenue. If more Mac users buy the box and play the game that decision could easily be reversed.

    Sony made a financially based business decision. That decision didn't affect the current status of the game---the game that people bought. Unless there was something in the EULA that specifically held SOE to telling Mac users about *every* business decision surrounding MacEQ then they were under no obligation to disclose their business direction.

    This is such a non-story it's not funny....

    1. Re:Overreaction? I think so by y0bhgu0d · · Score: 3, Insightful
      quick question: if you knew that an MMORPG had gone into a code freeze, and there would be no more development for it, would you go out and spend $30 on the game, and then pay $10 to play per month? even if they never reversed their decision?

      i wouldn't either. and how exactly is someone that feels burned "bleeding-heart?"

      the bad decision sony made was to have serparate mac servers. here are the reasons:

      money spent hiring a mac server staff

      money spent developing a mac server

      money spent trying to keep those servers in sync with the pc servers

      if they had just coded a client that would work with the existing servers, far more people would have signed up (i would have at some point... i had a PC account. why not play it on my iBook in bed? oh... different servers??), and it would have cost them less.

      the customers in this case are suffering because of sony's bad decisions.

    2. Re:Overreaction? I think so by raintype17 · · Score: 5, Informative
      The problem is that there are pre-existing minor bugs that make substantial portions of the game inaccessible.

      In particular, the final everquest expansion that was included in the game ("Planes of Power"), has only 5 of the 14 or so areas usable, although 2 of the 5 are non-fighting "travel" zones, and about 90% of the time working through the expansion is spent in the 9 areas we don't have access to -- so we payed for an expansion that is largely unusable.

      We're not talking "active development" meaning new expansions. We're talking being able to play context that exists (GM's have taken people there, so it does exist, you just cannot zone into it) that was advertised on the package.

      I don't think that's an overreaction to expect to be able to use the entire purchased product.

      In addition, up until the mentioned email was received from the Executive Director of CS, the Service Reps who were responding to questions on Sony's forum were stating that a patch was under development -- which is clearly not the case.

    3. Re:Overreaction? I think so by Quarters · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The two points you made, "parts of the game are broken" and "reps are saying a patch is forthcoming" are highly relevant and should've been mentioned by the story's author. Those two items greatly change my opinion of what is happening.

  9. More on SOE's attitude by h0tblack · · Score: 5, Interesting
    CSR's have also been deleting any criticism of the game or questioning of the bugs and surrounding issues from the official forums. People have had their forum access and even their gameplay accounts suspended because of public questioining of SOE's attitude and bringing up the subject of unfixed bugs and lack of support. Then SOE changed the posting guidelines..

    It's a bad enough state of affairs to get a code-freeze like this, but the entire customer support situation has just compounded the problem and annoyed even more paying customers.

    Mac users paid the same cover price and the same subscription as PC users but have never receieved the same level of service. Unfortunately SOE's failure to deal with this properly (I don't think they even contracted any programmers to keep up to date with patches, the original porters certainly were'nt involved) has killed EQ Mac. The failure will no doubt be seen by many within SOE and other companies as an example of the un-viability of the Mac platform (or even non Win32 platforms in general) for gaming and in particular MMO games. Thankfully companies like Blizzard and Wolfpack are proving that this is not the case.

    1. Re:More on SOE's attitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though, to be fair, those aren't CSR's, are they? They're tech service reps, and it's a tech board. Further, they're very clear about what they will and won't allow on those boards, and oftentimes those who have been suspended were abusive and insulting in their posts.

      Now if you want to complain that Sony didn't provide any other official forum for MacEQ players to voice their concerns and complaints, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly.

    2. Re:More on SOE's attitude by Squozen · · Score: 1

      It's important to note that Sony is busily killing the PC version of EQ as well - the last expansion sucked goat balls for 'uber' players and casuals alike, and people are leaving in droves.

  10. no speakada engrish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Genius from the person who posted this on his EQ reply. His command of the language begs me to ask -
    what the hell does "it's getting on for fraudulent" mean?

    Getting it on fraudulently? Getting an orgasmic erection in front of fraudulent behavior? Being Dick Cheney? WHAT?

    Good skool syst3m - nice widdle skool system. Can I pet the bunnies now George? Let me see that eye chart again. F - U - C - can't make out that last letter...

  11. Hmm sounds similar to the PS2 version... by CarrionBird · · Score: 1

    There were supposed to be an additional 25 or so percent of area (wild approximation) that was on the disc and would be opened eventaully. Then, after a few months, they realeased a whole new disc instead. I think thay may have opened those areas by now, I don't know. I quit long ago.

    --
    Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's