Shadowbane Lives On

eToyChest is reporting that many of the developers are Wolfpack Studios, closed since May 15th, have banded together to keep Shadowbane running for the players. Now known as 'Stray Bullet Studios', they'll be running the game for Ubisoft while they work on a new MMO for the 'next generation'. Via his Zen of Design blog, it appears Damion Schubert will not be among the Shadowbane handlers.

Comments

Is it still free?

[XxtraLarGe]

Since it's now under new management, is it going to remain free? I looked at the Shadowbane web site, and it says there's a free trial, but nothing about a completely free game.

Re:Is it still free?

[zanglang]

It's probably going to be free for a good amount of time methinks. The problem with it is that, the game is just too outdated and old (in MMO years) to generate any good revenue. Compare to WoW, COH or another random name in the industry and you'll notice a huge difference in quality and design that it's almost painful.

What is the situation?

[Taulin]

I don't understand. Were they not shut down by their producer by not producing any cash flow from that item? Perhaps there were other reason, I am curious about them. Now Ubisoft is giving them money to continue not making money. I guess Ubisoft is betting on their next project. As an investor, if a company came to me asking for money for a project, and they said their last project put another investor in the hole, namely me, I would be weary. Again, there must be more to this story.

Re:What is the situation?

[AuMatar]

Yeah, it definitely seems odd

1)Game is written by independent studio Wolfpack
2)Ubi agrees to publish (2nd publisher)
3)Game doesn't do as well as hoped, due to really fucking buggy code (the game should have been delayed another 6 months)
4)Ubi buys out Wolfpack
5)Time passes
6)Ubi dumps the monthly fee making it a free game
7)Ubi fires all of Wolfpack
8)Wolfpack reforms as a 3rd party and now runs SB for Ubi, but still free.

I can only see 2 things going on here.

1)A tax ploy of some kind, that requires a 3rd party
2)They have a lot of faith in WP's new MMO. FOr this to be true, it has to be pretty much beta quality and near release. Otherwise, with WP's track record, this makes no sense.

Re:What is the situation?

[Jerim]

I can see Ubisoft investing in the company, betting on their next project.

But if the next project is yet another, standard hack'n slash treadmill game, Ubisoft is better off making more of those resource strategy games, such as Settlers.

The next-gen of MMORPG needs to be something "more." Think Ultima Online in 3D. Not just another generic fantasy RPG.

Re:What is the situation?

[cubicledrone]

As an investor, if a company came to me asking for money for a project, and they said their last project put another investor in the hole, namely me, I would be weary.

Yes of course. Because as we all know, the only indicator of future success is a long unbroken string of flawless, perfect success.

Re:What is the situation?

[cubicledrone]

1)Game is written by independent studio Wolfpack
2)Ubi agrees to publish (2nd publisher)


2.1) Publisher obligates developer to unrealistic schedule.
2.2) Developer complains it will affect quality
2.3) Developer complaint goes to voice mail during prolonged phone call about golf

3)Game doesn't do as well as hoped
4)Ubi buys out Wolfpack
5)Time passes

5.1) Some new management hire exclaims "we still own this??"
5.2) Nobody answers since entire management team is at golf tournament

6)Ubi dumps the monthly fee making it a free game
7)Ubi fires all of Wolfpack

7.1) Management celebrates with weekend golf trip.
7.2) Developers complain to voice mail

8)Wolfpack reforms as a 3rd party and now runs SB for Ubi, but still free.

8.1) Management got what they wanted out of their original "investment": total control, total ownership and perpetual free labor

Cue Slashdot apologists for the "capitalist" status quo.

Re:What is the situation?

[pete6677]

Please suggest a better system than capitalism. Specifics, please. Also, any company where the management does nothing but play golf goes under FAST.

Re:What is the situation?

[david.given]

Please suggest a better system than capitalism. Specifics, please.

Certainly; but before I can design your product, you're going to have to tell me your project requirements.

Re:What is the situation?

[AuMatar]

Define better.

Capitalism strengths-
*decentralized decision making and allocation of resources
*possible for someone to do quite well for themselves

Capitalism weaknesses-
*short term planning only (profit driven nature makes short term profits far more important than long term goals- name 1 company with a 10 year plan)
*ease of falling from free market in oligopy or monopoly (in which case much of the efficiency strengths are lost)
*no garunteed minimum level of success (in other words, while it is possible to live like a king in capitalism, its also possible to starve to death. Unless you have a non-pure capitalism and implement welfare systems)
*extremely bad at taking non-financial aspects into account (environment, polution, human life, none of them are factored in to key decisions unless an outside force makes them. The only way to do that is by putting a dollar tag on each, which is a difficult and subjective thing)

Other systems manage to mitigate or completely remove weaknesses, at the cost of losing some strengths. Probably the best way is somewhere in between. You need the decentralized resource allocation, but it requires outside forces to fix some of the weaknesses in capitalism (these, by the way, are called externalities and should be briefly gone over in any freshman level econ course).

Re:What is the situation?

[mrjimorg]

You forgot a few minor things: strengths: Freedom... enough said? Capitalism is freedom to do what you want, how you want and suffer or enjoy the consequences thereof. Anything short of this requires force and/or violence and ultimately leads to corruption of those who's responsibility it is to use that force. Resource Allocation- Those who make wise decisions with their resources will make a profit and continue to purchase more resources. Those who make stupid decisions loose their money and cannot continue to waste resources. Successful Track Record - Capitalism in practice has lend to nations having greater longetivity, better quality healthcare, lower instances of starvation, much better human rights, and a much better overall standard of living As for the weaknesses that you listed, "no guarentee of minimum level of success" - yup. If you sit on your butt and demand to be taken care of as though your some queen, you deserve to starve until you get up off your butt and work! As for people who are unable to take care of themselves, charities do a wonderful job of taking care of these people. And who gives the most money to these people? People in captitalist nations do overwhelmingly.

Re:What is the situation?

[XxtraLarGe]

Capitalism weaknesses-
*short term planning only (profit driven nature makes short term profits far more important than long term goals- name 1 company with a 10 year plan)
*ease of falling from free market in oligopy or monopoly (in which case much of the efficiency strengths are lost)
*no garunteed minimum level of success (in other words, while it is possible to live like a king in capitalism, its also possible to starve to death. Unless you have a non-pure capitalism and implement welfare systems)
*extremely bad at taking non-financial aspects into account (environment, polution, human life, none of them are factored in to key decisions unless an outside force makes them. The only way to do that is by putting a dollar tag on each, which is a difficult and subjective thing)

I don't know if you're correct on most of these accounts.

• Short term planning -- Probably necessary because nobody knows the direction the market will be moving in. Besides, this doesn't seem to have affected most businesses that have been around for decades (Coke, IBM, Microsoft, etc.)
• ease of falling from free market in oligopy or monopoly -- Oligopoly/monopoly in most cases isn't possible when there are many actors in the market. Even in cases of collusion, there is incentive to cheat which ends up breaking collusion. In some instances, a natural monopoly will arise, which means that is what the market is able to support.
• no garunteed (sic) minimum level of success -- Sure there's a minimum level of success: 0. Failure is the market's way of telling you to move on and do something else.
• extremely bad at taking non-financial aspects into account -- This isn't a problem with capitalism, it's a problem with human nature. You know where the worst pollution in the world is? It's in Eastern Europe where all of those "Caring" communist countries used to be.
  • So I really don't buy the fact that capitalism is the culprit here.

Re:What is the situation?

[SydShamino]

>>> name 1 company with a 10 year plan

National Instruments has a 100-year plan. But there is a breakdown at the 10-year level, too, if that makes you happier.

Perhaps this is one reason for the company's perpetual 40-ish+ PE ratio; people buy the stock for the long term.

Re:What is the situation?

[AuMatar]

Very interesting, I'm going to have to check it out. While I've heard of their products before (and even used a demo of labview), I didn't know this. I may buy some stock.

But still, this is a very, very rare exception.

Re:What is the situation?

[cubicledrone]

Please suggest a better system than capitalism.

Did I say there was anything wrong with capitalism?

Capitalism is not "fuck over everyone and everything in order to cash in," despite the Slashdot anti-everyone-else philosophy.

Also, any company where the management does nothing but play golf goes under FAST.

No they don't. They do just fine. Tall dollars can make up for incompetence that would make most people drop to one knee and weep. As long as they have total control, total ownership and free perpetual slave labor, any business can acquire as much financing as their incompetence demands. Shit, filing bankruptcy is practically a loan guarantee!

Re:What is the situation?

[cubicledrone]

Short term planning -- Probably necessary because nobody knows the direction the market will be moving in.

Self-perpetuating cycle. Short term planning causes the market to be unstable. One generation ago, everyone knew the direction the market was moving in. It wasn't a problem. Rat fuck lying cheat middle managers MAKE it a problem so they can steal other people's paychecks then blame "market direction."

Besides, this doesn't seem to have affected most businesses that have been around for decades (Coke, IBM, Microsoft, etc.)

Nothing affects giant piles of cash.

In some instances, a natural monopoly will arise, which means that is what the market is able to support.

Monopolies repel capital. They are anti-capitalism.

This isn't a problem with capitalism, it's a problem with human nature.

This explains why most middle managers can't handle capitalism. They can't bargain. They won't accept a market price. When forced to participate in the market they whine. In other words, they are motherfucking liars and cheats.

The technical term is "insufficient huevos."

WoW

[Rorian]

Given the immense competition that WoW poses on all MMOGs at the moment, maybe Ubisoft has just decided that, while they didn't turn a profit, they did have a fundamentally good game and with a nicer market their next product could actually do well?

Otherwise Ubisoft is just crazy

Re:WoW

[L7_]

There will always be a niche market for well formulated PvP games. In fact, look at Guild Wars. While not neccesarily a MMOG; it can be said that a minority of players will line up to kill each other in a static world if given a fair ruleset that allows for some semblance of "skill". Even so, it is not a Free For All (FFA) PvP game like Shadowbane was, and since I have not played since the free period last year I cannot say how GW has panned out. I will tell you that skill based FFA PvP games will garner a lot of attention, as long as thier ruleset is consistent, fair and well forumlated.

Asheron's Call Darktide/Beta World Black was FFA PvP and players loved it. I should say players who were mages, melee characters hated it as there was a "lack of itemization" to use a WoW euphamism. They tried to balance the skills and did a somewhat fine job, but the macroing and duping drove away a lot of the 'honest' players. It was a combination of code and publisher policy issue that drove away the players.

Shadowbane also had a FFA PvP environment, and players loved the game; hated the login bugs, sb.exe errors, rampant duping, and tedium neccesary to recover from a ZERG destroyed city. Lots of people played the game on release, lots of people left the game in 6 months because of the flawed code and building ruleset. Code and ruleset drove the players away.

I hate to bring it up, as it is still looking 'far away', but Darkfall Online is the only real FFA PvP+ game that looks to be coming out. The original developers were supposedly Darktide players, played Shadowbane and other popular MMOG's, and thier rulebase (when I was following it 2 YEARS AGO) looked well thought out and fair a PvP environment. However, it has been in development for a long time. And people aren't really sure if and when it will ever *really* come out. Which is sad.

Ahh well, my point stands that games can be successful, filling the niche market of the PvP crowd. They won't neccesarily be 6 million+ subscribers successful, but they will make thier money.

Re:WoW

[vertinox]

Personally, I'd like to see Ultima Online circa year 1998 again.

Without the bugs, cheats, and duping of course. For some reason, even with its dated engine, Ultima Online was fun because of its unlimited freedom it gave the players. Of course, players kind of used this to go on mass murdering sprees of godly proportions and many people didn't like that and complained and we ended up with the UO that we have today which kind of blows.

Re:WoW

[Stradenko]

UO PvP lives on in the form of player-run shards. (I last played on ikrontik, and while not perfect, or as traditional as some shards, it was definately fun for for PvP.)

Re:WoW

[skreeech]

yeah i'm waiting for the right pvp niche game while I play asheron's call. Playing on the white server I started on with a friend still because to move to darktide it would take weeks of macroing just to get to a high enough level to have a chance against 90% of players.

Guildwars I have done a tiny bit of pvp but only at the lowest skill levels(random pvp arena as opposed to clan teams with larger numbers) the game is too teamwork based for me. Without studying the game rules(skill usuage) and working with the same people/setups all the time you can't be really good at GW.

Re:WoW

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that sucked so much about SB wasn't necessarily the buggy code - it was inherent design flaws.

1) to build a city, you had to farm monsters. endlessly
2) to rebuild a city, you had to farm monsters. Endlessly. without a base of operations.
3) because of this, guilds who were a part of a losing faction would quit that faction and join the winning faction, so they could play relatively safely
4) Because of this constant quit the loser, join the winner mentality, the world would end up with one superguild, and a few tiny guilds that would regularly get wiped out
5) This was boring

Next-gen already exists..

[Xaositecte]

You're talking about Eve Online there, just in space, not fantasy-oriented.

What is the situation? 10-4

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes of course. Because as we all know, the only indicator of future success is a long unbroken string of flawless, perfect success."

Just look at the US government as an example.

blah

[zeeroj]

Yawn, call me when they start paying players to waste their time. Shadowbane may have the single worst interface and control scheme of any MMO I've ever played, and I've played most of them.