Why all the nerd rage against Vanguard?

[Throag]

I agree about the fact that there is indeed some middle ground. But the single player vs MMO argument is IMO irrelevant and has already been beaten to death. In a single player game programmers have ways to predict mostly anything that is going to hit the screen whereas in MMOs they cannot, I'm oversimplifying but this is the core of the problem, you cannot optimize MMOs the way you do single players games. That said I don't excuse Vanguard since I believe myself that the game should run a bit better given the level of detail (I'm holding back on buying it until I get a better computer).
I also have a friend who worked on the Unreal Engine 2 and he told me that the engine was as unoptimized as it can get. He worked on the PSP version of Splinter Cell and multiplied the performances by roughly ten. I guess that's what you get for using a cross platform engine. (It was on PSP, not PC and I don't have first hand experience so don't quote me on this )

[gersrfc]

Id like to give VG a shot if anyone could PM me a buddy Key thank you.

[Maxxius]

So in the end Utnayan was right. The game by admission wasn't ready for release, it was released mainly so the subscribers could pay for the development. Although I can understand the agony of meeting weekly payroll, had SOE supported you for 2 more months, I honestly believe an April release date would have generated twice as many box sales since people wouldn't have been sidetracked with TBC. Recovering from a slow launch date, tho doable, will be extremely hard now. No wonder SONY keeps losing money.

[woqqqa]

Originally Posted by Maxxius

So in the end Utnayan was right. The game by admission wasn't ready for release, it was released mainly so the subscribers could pay for the development. Although I can understand the agony of meeting weekly payroll, had SOE supported you for 2 more months, I honestly believe an April release date would have generated twice as many box sales since people wouldn't have been sidetracked with TBC. Recovering from a slow launch date, tho doable, will be extremely hard now. No wonder SONY keeps losing money.

Yeah, pretty much. Still, I think that the engine they're using (trying to future-proof the game) is actually a bigger problem, because of the barriers to entry it provides. Someone asks a friend about Vanguard, hears "well they've cleaned up the bugs and it's fun to play, but you'll have to buy a new PC to play it", and you've got yet another lost customer. There's no need to go with a WoW-style engine that works on every PC out there, but going with a high-end engine that has optimization problems as well is just shooting yourself in the foot.

[Dashal]

Originally Posted by Maxxius

So in the end Utnayan was right. The game by admission wasn't ready for release, it was released mainly so the subscribers could pay for the development.

Again though, while I'm sure nobody likes that fact, it's like predicting the sun rise. No MMO I've ever played was "complete", and some less so than others. Probably the most complete by far was WoW, and they had a much larger budget, lower tech, less game world and features and even still had some end game stuff missing.

[Mkopec1]

Originally Posted by Dashal

Again though, while I'm sure nobody likes that fact, it's like predicting the sun rise. No MMO I've ever played was "complete", and some less so than others. Probably the most complete by far was WoW, and they had a much larger budget, lower tech, less game world and features and even still had some end game stuff missing.

I can predict the next 2 or 3 launching incomplete in some way.

This is not rocket science. And stop making this UT fag some kind of hero martyr.

[woqqqa]

Originally Posted by Mkopec1

I can predict the next 2 or 3 launching incomplete in some way.

This is not rocket science. And stop making this UT fag some kind of hero martyr.

He's nothing of the sort, he was a foul-mouthed rude bastard who despite those qualities, had a great insight into the state of this game, the devs' approach to things like features (core and "fluff"), and it's potential market. Go look up his posts, he wasn't just generalizing, he actually predicted a lot of the game's current problems...related to the graphics engine, world design, Sigil/SOE and customer relations, etc.

[Druixx]

Originally Posted by Twobit Whore

It's going to be the wave of the future. In 10 years I bet most MMO's are console only, or have minimal PC support.. opposite of what we have now. Being able to design for one platform, knowing your limits and eliminating 95% of the technical support issues is a huge boon to developers.

I agree with you that consoles would be an ideal platform for MMO's. Especially allowing for a keyboard and mouse, in addition to the normal console controller. The developers win because they can take the nightmare of multiple platform support out of the equation and optimize it for one set of hardware. The customers win because they get a bug-free game (at least as far as hardware bugs) with more time put in to testing the game play as opposed to hardware.

However, the problem with this theory that MMO's will all move to consoles is the limited lifespan of the consoles. Typically, we see consoles being released every 3-5 years. The development cycle for MMO's is nearly that long. Which would mean the window of opportunity to get started developing a new game for a particular console is limited to only a few months to a year after that console is released. Otherwise, by the time you can release your game, there is a new, better, latest-and-greatest console out that makes your game obsolete.

My theory is that this is why Starcraft Ghost was cancelled because the development took too long and by the time they were projected to release after all the hurdles, there were going to be new consoles out.

[Twobit Whore]

Consoles are backwards compatible. They are still making PS2 games even though the PS3 is out, etc.

A backwards compatible console with an updated version of the game with shinier graphics available to the new console, but the original version working for the older console would work pretty well. If the main difference is only in graphics, then they should be compatible. Just like someone using Luclin models and someone using original models in EQ.

It's no different now, really. Someone can play VG on a 9800pro, AMD 2500 with 1GB of ram, but they coexist in the same gamespace as someone on a 8800GTX, core2 duo with 4 GB of ram.

[Lyenae]

Originally Posted by Druixx

Typically, we see consoles being released every 3-5 years. The development cycle for MMO's is nearly that long. Which would mean the window of opportunity to get started developing a new game for a particular console is limited to only a few months to a year after that console is released.

No, before a console is publicly released developers get access to 'developer kits.' This usually starts about 1-2 years before release. As release gets closer, they get their kits upgraded to better resemble the final release version of the console.

An MMO developed on a console would have to start before console release, and then it could be released ~3 years into a console's life... which is often prime time. Hell some of the best PS2 games came out 5 years after original release (and now 6 years with God of War 2)

Though, I highly doubt being on a console would change much. I've heard just about every excuse for why MMO's are buggy and/or run like shit and I honestly don't buy any of them. I'm fairly certain that the first few MMO's would run like shit on a console and the programmers/design teams would never have the responsibility to say 'we fucked up,' or 'we mismanaged', or 'we didn't have a budget for Q&A.' You'd see fingers pointed at console limitations and/or shitty dev kits before you'd get the real reason.

[Throag]

Originally Posted by Twobit Whore

Consoles are backwards compatible. They are still making PS2 games even though the PS3 is out, etc.

This is not necessarily true. Consoles are backward compatible only because constructors chose so. Sony is already removing hardware backward compatibility on PS3 leaving us with only software emulation. That means that if you want your PS2 MMO to be playable on the PS3 they have to redo most of the engine since the hardware aren't the same (and not just update it as you seem to be suggesting). You cannot rely on software emulation because it's too shitty performance-wise.
Here goes your multi-generations console MMO lifespan. I don't think they could afford to remake the same game each generation and on top of that rely on the fact that console constructors "might" chose to make their next console backward compatible.

[Twobit Whore]

Engines get redone anyway. EQ has redone their engine several times. Vanguard is already planning to go form Unreal 2 to Unreal 3 in an expansion. I don't think it's a stretch by any means to think a dev studio could update and/or overhaul an engine every 3-5 years. And with consoles having harddrives with plenty of storage space, broadband connectivity, etc. Patching is not an issue.

[Druixx]

Originally Posted by Lyenae

No, before a console is publicly released developers get access to 'developer kits.' This usually starts about 1-2 years before release. As release gets closer, they get their kits upgraded to better resemble the final release version of the console.

An MMO developed on a console would have to start before console release, and then it could be released ~3 years into a console's life... which is often prime time. Hell some of the best PS2 games came out 5 years after original release (and now 6 years with God of War 2)

Though, I highly doubt being on a console would change much. I've heard just about every excuse for why MMO's are buggy and/or run like shit and I honestly don't buy any of them. I'm fairly certain that the first few MMO's would run like shit on a console and the programmers/design teams would never have the responsibility to say 'we fucked up,' or 'we mismanaged', or 'we didn't have a budget for Q&A.' You'd see fingers pointed at console limitations and/or shitty dev kits before you'd get the real reason.

I didn't know that. That's cool then.

Another possible complication I just thought of would be the developers would be betting the ranch on one console or else do tons more coding to get the game ready for multiple consoles somehow.

If they put all their eggs in one basket on one console, they risk failure of the game if the console has low sales numbers. Granted, game fans will buy the console just to play the game, but you would lose any casual gamers that pick up the game because it looks cool and they own that particular console. That might hurt sales quite a bit.

If they spend the extra dev time on releasing for multiple consoles, that would open up a mess where you have to get the game world to react to all players the same, regardless of console platform. I am not a programmer, so I don't know the logistics of this, but one console may run slightly faster than another or have some other minor difference that could cause server-side issues. I'm just thinking aloud here; dunno if any of this is really valid. Of course, they could have separate game realms for the different consoles, I guess.

[Twobit Whore]

I'm pretty sure they would have to be console exclusive. It's not really new territory here though, EQOA and FF have shown that MMO's can and do work. FF is a great example of cross-platform compatibility as well.

I think the reason they would be exclusive is more due to the online service, since most of the billing/transaction etc. would have to be done via XBOX Live or the Sony equivalent. But even that could be circumvented, if the resources were there.

[Erronius]

Originally Posted by Aradune Mithara

We had to agree to a launch date, or there would be no money to continue. This was unfortunate, but we will and are recovering.

Originally Posted by Aradune Mithara

So I'm not upset in anyway with SOE or Microsoft -- again, what they did give us in terms of funding and support is unprecedented. The vast majority of developers would kill for such a budget as we received. It's just a financial reality that is hurting us short term a bit, but something I know we can and are recovering from. Also, launching around the same time as Burning Crusade wasn't optimal either, but again, nothing we can't recover from.

I'm assuming that SOE refused to finance a few extra months to finish? (many have been making this assumption for quite some time now) If that is the case, than my impression of SOE incompetence is going to have to be altered. If VG needed another YEAR, I could see "OK guys, you won't get another year, no way, we can't budget that". But if the game was released 'only' a couple of months before it was ready, what was SOE saving? IMHO trading the cost of an additional 2 months of development time could very well be far LESS than the cost that releasing early, and next to TBC, was.

And if that is the case, if SOE was blind to what we were predicting months ago, then I'm not sure I would be as calm about it as you. Myself, I'd be incredibly upset with SOE. If your in for a penny, your in for a pound. Having SOE give you the budget they did, you say it was/is sizable, is all well and good, but I guess I cannot grapple with them not wanting to spring for an extra month or two when it looked like it was needed.

It's kinda like going out and buying a 100k car, and then skimping on everything else because you're a cheap bastard.

Salesman: "Ok, would you like power windows?"
SOE: "No, no power windows."
Salesman: "What about power locks? It is a really handy feature."
SOE: "No, we don't need power locks"
Salesman: "Ok....fine....but SURELY you would want air conditioning, correct?"
SOE: Hey, pal, we don't want to spend extra, we aren't made out of money!"
Salesman: "You aren't? You're buying a car for 100k!!"

If what you've said is true, and I am thinking straight on this (I haven't had my coffee yet this morning), I imagine I'd be carrying around a great deal of angst towards SOE. Especially since you are the target for a great deal of bullshit and poo-flinging. Maybe some deserved, maybe not, but I have the feeling that SOE hung you out to dry after stringing you all along, in a sense. Maybe you are a better man than I, or you aren't about to tell anyone publicly how you feel abut SOE assuming there is some angst there. That, or you are a naive eternal optimist /shrug (of course thats somewhat ironic to say on this board, where there are few optimists).

Originally Posted by Aradune Mithara

A little frustrating short term, but the game is out, it continues to sell well, churn is very low, and the word continues to spread that the game is fun.

I don't know about the 'word spreading', really I don't. True, trying to tell that to these forums is like telling Americans in the '60's that the Russians weren't going to invade us due to some evil intent. Regardless, I'm not hearing or seeing any word of mouth, good press or anything that would make me think "Oh, wow, VG really HAS turned the corner!". Now understand I'm not saying that it has or hasn't, only that I've seen or heard nada (I'm not counting forums, mostly talking RL).

And while on that topic, let me say the only thing I have heard is "I'm going to drop my station pass and VG possibly in a month or two". I'd really like to hear your take on the AAP rate hike and how you feel about its 'potential' affect on VG. Seriously. Maybe you can't/won't say, but I'd like to hear what your thoughts are on it.