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."

Comments

Cross platform compatibility

[Drakino]

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.

Re:Cross platform compatibility

[yotaku]

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.

Re:Cross platform compatibility

[dtfarmer]

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.

Re:Cross platform compatibility

[king-manic]

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...

Re:Cross platform compatibility

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Cross platform compatibility

[Have Blue]

• 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).

SOE

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

IANAECH

[Mike Hawk]

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'.

Re:IANAECH

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Open Source MMO

[nacturation]

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.

Overreaction? I think so

[Quarters]

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....

Re:Overreaction? I think so

[y0bhgu0d]

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.

Re:Overreaction? I think so

[Quarters]

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.

Re:Verant

[richcoder]

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.