Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Xbox 360 Version of Champions Online Being Held Back By MS

Posted by Soulskill on from the ready-set-wait dept.

Tomorrow marks the launch of Cryptic Studios' new superhero MMO, Champions Online. It was developed for the PC and the Xbox 360, but the console version will be much delayed, according to Cryptic CCO Jack Emmert, because Microsoft is holding things up. "Microsoft's a big company, and they have to work out all the various issues related to MMOs. It just takes time for the big beast known as Microsoft to get moving. I really have no explanation other than that, because it's as baffling to developers as it is to everyone else," he said during an interview with VG247. The game itself is apparently finished, but Emmert isn't sure it'll even go live for the 360 by the end of this year. Square Enix developers made similar comments earlier this month regarding Final Fantasy XIV, which will be available first on the PS3 largely because it's taking a long time to work out how the game will interact with Xbox Live.

28 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. More money! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I suspect MS is just looking for a way to get more money for themselves out of it. An MMO is something people will play for quite some time. They cna't let devs give away anything for free or allow people to spend anything less less than a premium price to game on the 360.

  2. When Sony exert less control than you by MosesJones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You must surely recognise that you are on the wrong side of the debate.

    The key question here is how will Microsoft Monetise this new games to make more money for XBox Live via the subscriptions that people take out for these games. They don't yet have the sophistication of Apple's App Store for content, subscriptions and upgrades so the choice is either allow more freedom (the Sony choice) or batten it down until you can develop, and enforce, something that ensures the money passes through your pockets.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:When Sony exert less control than you by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>The key question here is how will Microsoft Monetise this new games to make more money for XBox Live via the subscriptions that people take out for these games.

      Actually, the XBL guys recognize that if people are already paying monthlies to get access to an MMORPG, it's pretty dick to also charge them for gold access. So IIRC, you don't need gold access to play a hypothetical MMORPG on an Xbox. Also, they have special rules that allows MMORPGs to break their normal rules on digital downloads, patches, etc. I watched a talk on it once at some game development conference. You can probably find it online.

      I'm not excusing the fact that the entire notion of Xbox Gold accounts is a travesty - if I own Gears of War, AND I have a gold account, I still can't have my wife sit down and play with me. Or, rather, I can. But I can't also play with my two other friends online at the same time. Unless I want to pop for a Gold account for someone who is a very, very occasional user of the system. I've started collecting those 3-day Gold account cards and just using them, but it's, well, just really annoying.

      I buy any game I can for the PS3 over the Xbox for this reason.

  3. That's good news re: FF 14 by butalearner · · Score: 2

    I'm glad to hear Square Enix decided against screwing over PS3 owners again like they are with Final Fantasy 13 (holding back the PS3 release for a year until the 360 port is completed).

  4. There's more on the table here than money... by popo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I agree with those who believe that MSFT will milk this thing for every penny they can... there's more on the table here. Console MMORPG's are a potentially enormous genre -- both in terms of revenue and in terms of audience.

    For years now, MMO's on consoles have seemed like a oddly absent category. Where are they? Why isn't _____ making _____ for the _____?

    Sure there was Sega's "sort of" MMO, and a few others -- but they were MMO's for the console, not 'true' MMO's.

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Microsoft, in some respects recognizes the huge-ness of what this title represents. Yeah, okay .. bring on the Vista jokes if you must .. MSFT has whiffed on the "huge expectations front" before, but a failure with XBL (as a platform) with C.O. would have repercussions across dozens of forthcoming MMO titles.

    There's more on the table here than just the release date of one title...

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:There's more on the table here than money... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's also Final Fantasy XI (PS2 and Xbox 360) and Everquest: Online Adventures (PS2), both of which are undeniably MMORPGs. Granted, that's not a very long list.

      The main problem has historically been that you really need a hard drive to support an MMORPG. FFXI on the PS2 came with one to install in your PS2--in fact, it was the only way the PS2 HDD was ever released, and FFXI was the only thing on the PS2 that ever required it (and damn near the only thing that even supported it). EQOA tried to just use the memory card, and suffered badly as a result. Classic Xbox was the only console of that generation that had a hard drive as a matter of course, and they didn't seem to be too interested in RPGs. In the current generation, both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 come with hard drives out of the box, and the Wii supports SD cards, but there's still some inertia, which may be starting to be overcome just now.

  5. So many typical /. MSFT haters here... by popo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Am I the only one who thinks the 360 is one of the few things MSFT has got right in the last few years?

    I'm no fan of our evil corporate overlords but hell, I like my 360. Halo rules. Geas of War rules. And XBL is a well done online offering.

    What? It should be free? Sigh....

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:So many typical /. MSFT haters here... by TiberiusMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      Made up statistics for the win! Seriously, three kinds of lies, lies, damn lies and statistics. Yours is one of them. Or do you really think half of the Xbox 360s in the world really don't work?

      Then why is Microsoft still in business? How much money do they have?

      Type "50% xbox 360 fail" into Google. He didn't make anything up, that's not a world wide number, but he didn't make anything up. Oh, and I know about 7 people with a 360, every single one has had his die and one of them lost over 6 of them in the space of a year. And to the anonymous poster above you, the very LEAST they can do with that sort of fail rate is what they have been doing.

    2. Re:So many typical /. MSFT haters here... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, the 360 is a "success", but also has terrible flaws. For one is its 50% failure rate (http://www.joystiq.com/2009/08/17/game-informer-xbox-360-at-54-2-percent-failure-rate/ http://kotaku.com/5339555/report-xbox-360-failure-rate-over-50-percent http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/24/microsoft-responds-to-xbox-360-54-2-percent-failure-rate-report/ ). While XBL is fine for gaming, buying stuff with "Microsoft Points" is odd, unlike Nintendo Points or buying gift cards with Sony, theres no easy way I can find out what everything costs in US dollars. Etc.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:So many typical /. MSFT haters here... by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since my 360 has been fine for over 3 years with nary a problem in sight, I have to wonder that if someone has gone through 6 of them in the space of a year... maybe it's them?! I suppose it's not impossible that your friend has luck that shitty, but I do have to say that the odds seem to be against it. I just find it really hard to believe that 6 different machines died just sitting there. With that in mind, I then I have to wonder how much of that 50% fail rate is due to actual defects (which I'm sure is nowhere near a trivial number) and how many are due to abuse, improper use or positioning, etc. and blamed on "defects". I'm not trying to be some kind of MS apologist or anything, I just find that kind of failure rate due to defects to be a little implausible.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    4. Re:So many typical /. MSFT haters here... by VGPowerlord · · Score: 2, Informative

      As far as I know, items only sell for the following amounts:

      200 points is $2.50 (Indie games have this price)
      400 points is $5
      800 points is $10
      1200 points is $15
      1600 points is $20

      and the amount of points you can buy at a time:
      500 points is $6.25
      1000 points is $12.50
      2000 points is $25
      5000 points is $62.50

      I think that covers all the major amounts.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  6. Champions Online is a great game! by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    First let me start off with its strongest point: Avatar creation. The Avatar creation is very excellent. I've never seen one as good as this one where you can customize your character's looks. Many people spent over a half hour customizing their character in this tool. It is also a treat when you play the game to see new looks.
    There is a high degree of character customization. Out with the Tank/Heal/DPS/Ranged/PETS, in with do it all if you know how. Some people like to pick skills based on their character, but you can pick skill all across the board if you like.

    There is encouragement to do quests by a lot of experience in relation to grinding. You won't see much grinding in this game, but more of mission doing.

    I fought a Super Villian with my friend the other day. He had turrets and minions. So we killed the minions, then turrets, then one of us would block while the other fought the villian. If we took too much damage, we could scoot around the many walls in his chamber and heal. I'm going to upload Youtube videos when I get bored, but I'm not bored. I'm level 30, and haven't died. Level cap is 40.

    My last MMORPG that I really liked was Asheron's Call 1. I felt WOW was sort of a boring grind. Champions Online is a great game if your computer can handle it(need a computer in last 2 years with good video card). Finally: Flight + Ranged = New era of combat tactics. Super speed is really cool too, as if you go fast enough, you can run up 80% grade inclines too. I haven't tested out everything, but I really like this game.

    --
    God spoke to me.
    1. Re:Champions Online is a great game! by Morkano · · Score: 2, Informative

      It sounds like the GP hasn't played it, but I have. The character creation is better, but not by a tonne. Here are the key differences I noticed:
      1) Asymetrical choice for things like gloves, armbands, eyes, etc. You choose things that can be mirrored independantly if you want.
      2) You can save the costume and load it again later. I imagine it's a jpeg with some metadata, I haven't looked, but it's really handy. Similar to Spore
      3) You can only wear capes with tights or skin. No capes and armor or robot arms or anything like that. You can have wings and stuff with whatever though.
      4) Seem to be less choices for cool armor/skin/jackets.
      5) No auras
      6) Still buggy a bit

      So, it's a bit better for the asymetrics and costume saving, but there are a bunch of things that are worse. Like Champions in general, really. I had it pre-ordred, but I don't think I'm going to pick it up. CoH was a lot more fun.

      On one hand, you can try out a new power before you have to lock it in. On the other hand, you can't actually see what powers are avaliable later without having one ready to choose and going to the trainer. When you create a character you have no way of knowing what's in the future.

      The combat system is neat, having attack that gives energy rather having to stand around doing nothing. It's gives you an absurd amount though, you just stop your main for like a second or two and you're back to full. Not even worth worrying about for the most part.

      The UI in Champions is what really did it in. It doesn't have a compas icon on your minimap to point to any missions, much less the current one. Same for team mates. You can't set a mission to be the active one for the group very well. There really doesn't seem to be much point in grouping for the most part anyway, everything is just killing things outside with other people. Too easy to quest-steal. The few indoor missions I ran into were really short, like two rooms.

      I wanted to like it, I even thought about the lifetime subscription (you get a lot of benifits). I figured it was a sure thing as long as they didn't make it worse than the game they made before. They did. The whole time I was playing, I was like.. Why am I playing this when I could play CoH instead?

      --
      Victory or awesome!
    2. Re:Champions Online is a great game! by thesandtiger · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's better and worse.

      Better in that you have more different areas that you can change - face and body are much more customizeable, you can add more colors than COH allows, more material options, can even change finger/hand/feet a lot more. There is also the ability to change the "style" your character walks around with - in CoH, no matter how beastial you make yourself look, you're still mincing around if female, or sort of stomping about if male; in Champions, you can be "heroic" (kind of "Yeah, I'm badass"), average, or crouched around and kind of running on all fours like a beast. Also, the graphics are VASTLY superior to CoH.

      Worse in that you don't have quite as many options with regard to patterns or wardrobe choices as CoH does. But, I imagine that will be getting fixed pronto as they add more and more options.

      Overall, Champions is vastly more customizable, with the only shortfall being something that's obviously temporary, and not always in CoH's favor. For example, Champions gives you a LOT more non-human options, a LOT more options for various wing sets, capes to begin with, etc.

      I've made a character who looks EXACTLY like Marvin the Martian (pipe-stem arms, comically oversized head), another that looks pretty close to Bugs Bunny (Marvin needs a nemesis...), made another that looks like a zergling, and so on. SO much more potential than CoH has.

      The rest of the game is pretty fun, too :)

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    3. Re:Champions Online is a great game! by thesandtiger · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can double click on your quest and it shows you where your quests are by shifting your minimap. You can also hit "m" and it shows a larger map with the areas your quests are in circled in green - an arrow would be nice, but it's absolutely not necessary. I didn't play at all in the beta but got in with the headstart, and I have not had *any* problems figuring out where to go or what to do with quests using the built in features.

      Quest/kill stealing is not a problem... everyone who does a reasonable amount of damage to an opponent will get credit for it. I've never once lost a quest to someone who "kill stole" or whatever.

      You can also see "future powers" I believe by having it show "unavailable" powers in the power list. I am not 100% sure, but I think I remember doing this - it made things a lot easier.

      Honestly, it sounds like your problems with the game stem more from not knowing the UI than the UI itself; there are weak spots, to be sure, but the things you mention are, by and large, not actually insoluble.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  7. How unacceptable of Microsoft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...to actually require the developer to deliver a complete, bug free, enjoyable gaming experience BEFORE they ship it instead of sometime in the indefinite future.

    CO is a very good game, but it's undergoing nearly nightly changes and by the developer's own admission the support for a gamepad controller is only half-baked at the moment.

    So no way in hell is the game complete enough to pass the standards of any console game company, let alone Microsoft which has some of the highest standards around.

    The standard PC philosophy of "just ship it, we'll patch it later" will not fly in the console world, even if the console vendors are open to the kind of ongoing incremental enhancements that MMOGs are known for.

    G.

    1. Re:How unacceptable of Microsoft... by sorak · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...to actually require the developer to deliver a complete, bug free, enjoyable gaming experience BEFORE they ship it instead of sometime in the indefinite future.

      1

      CO is a very good game, but it's undergoing nearly nightly changes and by the developer's own admission the support for a gamepad controller is only half-baked at the moment.

      So no way in hell is the game complete enough to pass the standards of any console game company,

      2

      let alone Microsoft which has some of the highest standards around.

      3

      The standard PC philosophy of "just ship it, we'll patch it later" will not fly in the console world, even if the console vendors are open to the kind of ongoing incremental enhancements that MMOGs are known for.

      G.

      Congratulations, you have just earned 3 irony points. You are 12 away from advancement.

    2. Re:How unacceptable of Microsoft... by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is way more to the story than that. MS seems to be openly hostile to MMO's on their console (probably because the cost conflicts with with own Xbox Live Gold subscription program). Basically, every single MMO since Phantasy Star Universe announced for the 360 has been canceled or put on indefinite hold. Only two MMO's have ever been released for the Xbox, Final Fantasy 11 (an awful PS2 port) and Phantasy Star Universe--both released three years ago. And not a single MMO is currently on schedule for the 360 (by contrast, several are in the pipeline for the PS3).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  8. This is a GOOD THING by MrMista_B · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What would you prefer, that this be rushed through without planning, server load testing, and figuring out exactly how it interacts with existing services?

    Or, when it is released, that is works?

    I prefer the second.

    1. Re:This is a GOOD THING by BikeHelmet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I prefer the second.

      That's a given.

      The issue is, Microsoft is being really slow about it. In a market that fights hard to get games released on time, it's strange that "planning, server load testing, and figuring out exactly how it interacts with existing services" would take so little time to get right on PS3 and PC, but so long on XBox360.

  9. Sony - Exert Online Control? Are You Joking? by MediaStreams · · Score: 4, Informative

    What delusional fantasy world are you living in?

    Sony has an online service that is more like the open PC gaming online model than any other console manufacturer:

    * Free online play for all non-MMORPG titles

    * Dedicated servers

    * Open to mods and other free content from developers

    It's Microsoft with the absurd grip on their online service that is continually causing developers nightmares in dealing with. It took Epic a half a year to rewrite/work around Microsoft's online service's restrictions to get the latest Unreal Tournament out the door after it had no problems whatsoever with PCs and Sony's PS3.

    And these problems Microsoft is causing for Cryptic Studios is just the latest in other MMORPG developers before them.

    1. Re:Sony - Exert Online Control? Are You Joking? by SilentChasm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I do agree that the lack of a dedicated server feature is somewhat annoying, having the game manufacturer responsible for maintaining the online portion of the game I believe is a bad idea.
      It might be the way it's done on PCs where there is no possible central authority, but on consoles there really should be some kind of coordination.
      Take EA as the big example of developer run servers. A lot of their "old" online games no longer work online even on the xbox because they demanded to run their own servers. Other games, such as those on the original xbox not by them, still work.

    2. Re:Sony - Exert Online Control? Are You Joking? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      having the game manufacturer responsible for maintaining the online portion of the game I believe is a bad idea.

      In the MMORPGs, it's not a "bad idea", it's a *requirement*.

  10. The Worst Console In History? 'Got Right'??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only console in history to actually be defecting in design with the RRoD fiasco.

    The only console in history to ship with a storage technology that is smaller than the previous gen. 6.8gigs per 360 DVD compared to 8.5gigs for the PS2 and Xbox last gen.

    The wimpy graphics hardware. Fucking shitty old Unreal Engine games are still considered 'amazing' on the 360.

    Noisy as fuck.

    Giant external power brick.

    Idiotic online fees.

    No dedicated servers for games. Lag, lag, lag for Xbox 360 online games.

    Overpriced WiFi and other peripherals.

    Can't use standard laptop drives, can only use the double the cost Microsoft drives.

  11. MMO? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I still the the acronym "MMO" sucks; shouldn't it be either "MMOG" or "MMORPG"? MMO would just stand for "Massively Multiplayer Online", which is somewhat lacking in the noun department.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  12. Obviously not a coder by HannethCom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I agree DirectX was an amazing accomplishment. I can't think of any other API where you would allocate buffer and you had to constantly check to make sure that the pointer to that buffer hadn't been magically lost. Oh, I loved the sound API from version 5-8, and it was always going to be fixed "In the next version."

    *Start Rant*

    Actually that's not true, the Winsock API used to be so buggy you used to have to do error checking on operations which on any other OS there is no possibility of them failing. (I hear things are better now)

    Also, if DirectX is such an amazing accomplishment, how come they had to make a version specifically for the XBox that is only partially compatible with the PC version? Why are they having to come out with a new version of the API every 6 months to 1 year? DirectX 9, 9a, 9b, 9c, 9d, 9e, 10, 10.1, 11

    Why, if it's so amazing are so many companies switching to OpenAL for their audio?

    Why did so many companies continue to develop for Glide when DirectX worked on all graphics cards?

    The truth is that DirectX started out as a piece of garbage, and is slowly getting better and better. Microsoft was given the chance to work together to come up with a graphics standard that would be flexible and would be properly designed. It was called Fahrenheit. Microsoft was originally going to be a big force behind this, but did not allocate the needed resources, instead ramming DirectX 7 down our throats.

    Microsoft does not want a good API. Look at the number of versions of DirectX there have been. Look at .Net. Microsoft isn't interested in making good APIs, they are interested in making good enough APIs and using their marketing power to ram it down developer's throats. After all, if they came out with a great version of lets say DirectX, what would be the point in developers upgrading their version of Visual Studio?

    I most recently ran into this when looking into the contacts system in Vista. Here it was, this brand new system to centralize all our contact information in Windows. A new API that is only about 1.5 years old. No longer supported. No links to the new API, if there is one. I can't even figure out if Windows Contacts are just in Windows 7 for "backward compatibility", or if its meant to be be used.

    --
    Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
    1. Re:Obviously not a coder by CinnamonFloss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can fault MS for a lot of their work, but you seem to be way off base here. Ive professionally written games (graphics primarily) for the past seven years, and have done it as a hobby for several years before that.

      Now, to be honest, I have not done much winsock coding. All that I know about it is when I tried it for the first time, I had a windows app communicating with our game and sending and receving packets bug free in under a day. I didnt have a single problem or error that wasnt my fault (despite checking for all of the error codes that the winsock API can generate).

      As for why they they made the XBOX version of the API that is only partially compatible with the PC version, well that is an API that is targeted at a specific hardware. DirectX for the PC is targeted at any number of consumer cards. The xbox version is targetted at specific custom hardware that is close to the PC version, but not entirely like it. In addition, since the hardware is known for the xbox, the xbox version of direct x gives you lower level access to the hardware. (See better debugging, faster code, more utility, plus support for hardware functionality that does not exist in the standard PC cards). They release different API versions for the PC for different hardware revisions. The hardware manufacturers asked for this so that they could conform to the standards as for cheaper / released sooner hardware. (Or so they said when they gave presentations at one of the studios that I worked at). So they often come out very quickly as a way for the hardware manufacturers to incrementally support new features between major revisions).

      Im not sure how many companies are switching to OpenAL. All I know is that I have worked on nine released games in my professional career (multiply that by three if you want to include unshipped titles and individual skus of the same game (which I guess is relevant since you want to debate competing APIs here)), and I have never worked on a single title that has shipped using OpenAL. Not to say it's not widely used, but for now Im going to dismiss your anecdotal evidence. In my experience some games use OpenAL, and others do not. I dont see any one system being left in massive numbers for another.

      If you want to bash MS about APIs ten years ago, well there are good reasons that a lot of companies used glide. First of all, it did NOT work on all graphics cards. Most vendor's drivers for their hardware was very buggy at best. Also, one card that it did NOT work on was... The 3dfx line of cards. Which supported... Glide. So if you wanted to write code for what was the best card on the market, you HAD to use 3dfx's proprietary API. (3dfx's decision, NOT microsoft). Why did glide work so well? Well, because it was written for a known piece of hardware only. Much like... DirectX for the xbox. (see above). So if I understand it correctly, you were just bashing microsoft for making a separate api for a custom piece of hardware, and then in your next point you are bashing them for some other company doing exactly the same thing?

      I agree, DirectX started out as a piece of garbage. I also feel that OpenGL evolved into a piece of garbage (granted this was back in the 1.0 days). I much prefer microsoft evolving the API rather than just tacking on tons of extensions (or worse, vendor specific extensions), to try to program for a paradigm that just didnt make sense anymore. (See DirectXs early support of multitexturing versus OpenGL tacking it onto the side of an API that wasnt planned with this feature in mind). I hear OGL has gotten much better in this respect, but in my previous experience I left it precisely because MS came out with different versions of directx as hardware and graphics programming evolved. I still shudder at the memories of trying to get OpenGL working on several cards with it's huge mess of extensions that really didnt belong.

      Im going to stop here, but I just wanted to defend MS (yeah, not popular on this site

  13. Re:Get The Fuck Out Of Gaming You Piece Of Shit by Rycross · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I didn't realize gaming was some sort of exclusive club that you could banish people from. Games are really just toys, including the XBox and, yes, even your super-awesome-godly-PS3. You know who also cries and fights over toys? Children.

    PS: Most PS2 owners have gone through several, and the fact that first-gen PS2s weren't the best in terms of reliability is hardly a tightly-kept secret. I don't see how its shocking to realize that a system with moving parts like a DVD drive will eventually break.