Sorry but comparing the Vista release to the XP one is wrong. We are many years down the line, are you trying to say they have learned nothing in all that time?
They have no excuses for the pile of crap they released as a finished product when they had the vastly superior resources, experience and staff to do a better job, its that simple.
They had a choice to finish the product to a decent standard and resolve the WIDELY KNOWN issues before releasing but they chose otherwise, and now they are paying the price of that arrogance. They did not release a product suitable or ready to fulfill its purpose, that was a mistake.
I understand how you might have seen my post as PRO-Microsoft, which it isn't by the way. I also see how you could have misconstrued it the way you did. I also agree with you that Vista is broken. None of those will I argue with you about.
However, I don't think it is "wrong" to compare the two OS's for a basic simple reason, one I think which you will agree with. The main concept I guess that was in mind after re-reading my post is that no matter how good or bad a job Microsoft does on releasing a new OS (once again I agree it was a shotty release) there will always be issues that need to be worked out. I know not at the high level that we see, but there will always be some level of issues. A lot of the issues I personally experienced in Vista were issues that popped up due to 3rd party software not being compatible as it was written pre-Vista, also drivers as I stated in my post. As Vista was nearer to the market release and shortly there after a lot of my driver and application issues were fixed. It sounds like your issues were much worse than mine.
So I think it is completely relative to your attitude on Vista. Obviously you have had a bad experience and I think you are more frustrated with Microsoft than with me. So I won't take it personally that you kinda blasted back but I know that was just the honest truth coming out on how you feel about Vista. At least that's how I'm going to take it.
I wish you had a better experience. I think the bottom line is MS is too greedy and they would rather rush the OS out there to make the money quicker up front then actually give 3rd party developers as well as themselves time to work the "kinks" out. But no matter what you will always have post release issues, no matter what you say it's inevitable. Capable of being improved? Most definitely. But that is what I meant by comparing the two OS's so in that context I had a perfectly valid comparison. I think in the end though we both ultimately agree with each other. Take care man.
You know I recall now that when XP first came out, I hated it. It didn't like my peripherals, it didn't like my old programs, and since I'd first tried a beta of it I'd seen plenty of crashes too. It wasn't until some time had passed and people kept telling me to upgrade that I finally did.
Marvel Universe Online is officially dead... which means CoX reigns supreme for another X number of years as far as super-hero MMORPGs. And it's all NCSoft's. I wish I could say that I am surprised, but I'm not, at all... not even a little bit. I sincerely wonder what Cryptic will do now?
They will try and sell the game to another publisher under another title.
Only if Microsoft don't want it, (after already paying for a significant part of it) that's because it isn't any good.
Hey Baff, you got proof? got a statement saying that's the exact reason?
Let's take a look at some of the other MMO's that got dropped by their publisher. Lets choose ones that went on to be published anyway so we actually can see how good they turned out to be.
The only two I can think of are Matrix Online and Vanguard Online.
I haven't played Vanguard. But it too was dropped by Microsoft. Is it any good?
I have played Matrix. It was dire. Ubisoft were right to drop it. Sega were right to drop it too (lol).
I can't think of a single game off the top of my head that was dropped by a publisher mid development and turned out to be good.
The development process works along a series of keystage deadlines. At each keystage, the publisher looks at the work the developer has made to date, and if it meets their standards, agree's to fund the next keystage.
If it doesn't meet the standard, funding is not continued.
Funding was not continued,
People don't drop products they believe will make them money. They don't drop products they have spent money on without having reason to believe they won't make them any money. (Or even break even). Do you really need a written statement? Is this something that you need to have explicitly explained to you by the head of each company each time it occours?
Anyway, here's your statement.
"I'll confirm. Marvel and we have agreed to end development on the MMO. It was an amicable decision," Shane Kim told MTV Multiplayer.
"When we first entered into the development and agreement of the development of Marvel Universe Online, we thought we would create another subscription-based MMO. And if you really look at the data there's basically one [game] that's successful and everything else wouldn't meet our level or definition of commercial success.
"And then you have to look [and say]: Can we change the business model for that? Is that really viable given how far we are in development? And so forth. Does Marvel want to do that? There's a whole bunch of factors," he added.
@ Anofayle, it's not just Microsoft who needs to see a massive return on their investment. Microsoft is just like any other company. The money it invests is not it's own. It has to pay back it's creditors. It needs to see a return on that money that will satisfy both them and make it a profit.
In the case of computer games, it is a similar enviroment to the movie business. Not every game you make is going to make a profit. In fact not very many of them. So you must look for each individual game to make a massive return on it's investment so that it covers the cost of all your titles that fail. It's a spread bet. I'm betting on 10 game developments, not just one. All I need is one big hit and I make a profit. But I need it to be a big hit or overall I make a loss.
I cannot afford to invest in just one title as the chances of getting a big hit are just too small. So each title I invest in must be able to show a return of over ten times my initial investment to be profitable (a figure pulled out of my arse, but you get the idea).
Remember that even if Cryptic gets it's own investment for this individual project, that the creditors involved, just as Microsoft, will also be involved in many other risky investments to hedge their bets too. So any other publisher, even a self publisher, has to be able to offer his investors the same deal.
Clearly Microsoft feels that Cryptic can't offer them this. If Microsoft thinks this, then no one smart is going to believe any different.
That leaves any further investor with a bigger risk, which means they will be needing an even greater return on their money than anything Microsoft was looking for. Which means Cryptic now has to convince them that their game is going to be even more profitable than ever it could be with both Marvel and Microsoft behind them.
Which isn't going to happen.
Essentially they have fallen short at too early a keystage.
Had, like the Matrix or the Vanguard people, they almost completed the game before failing a keystage, they could have sold their product off cheap at a price that better refelcted it's expected market value. They could have written off the production costs to date as a loss and sold it at a reduced market value that would be cost effective from that point on. The inital publisher would make the loss, but the replacement publisher would pick up a game at an investment price that he was able to return a profit from. (As SOE has done with Matrix and Vanguard).
As you can see by Cryptic's new website, the game is not anywhere near developed. It's pretty much concept art only.
The part about wanting to make a subscription based MMO and there only being ONE that is successful is a comment about WoW.
MS didn't feel that MUO would be able to compete with WoW. Microsoft's greed and unrealistic ambitions has nothing to do with Cryptic or thier ability to make a good game. CoX is a success today, with sub rates comparable to Eve, and Cryptic was able to carve out a market for itself in a genre that isn't that popular and with a game that released with no PvP.
MS didn't even drop Cryptic, they dropped Marvel. Champions online is set to release on the 360 still, wich for all intent and purpose would have been MUO. Cryptic owns the rights to the Champion IP, and will be selling it back to Hero at a later date. Cryptic isn't quite the little independant development team they started as. They're a succesful game dev. with an MMO already under thier belt. There are even rumors of Cryptic purchasing the Star Trek IP to continue production on STO.
I'm not even sure how you can compare MXO and VG to Champions online or Cryptics ability to produce a quality game.
A publisher is only important when you don't have to the resources to run the servers, distribute the game, or even provide out of game support. Typically the role of a publisher is not to provide developmental resources to the studio producing the game, unless they have invested in it; at wich point they would have a deal like Cryptic struck with NCsoft that gave NCsoft part ownership of the game itself.
Now, were talking Marvel and MS here, and an engine that Cryptic owns. Cryptic wasn't put in the same spot as Sigil was when MS split with them, Cryptic didn't have to buy anything from MS or Marvel. Everthing being used was already thiers and it doesn't sound as if Cryptic is strugling for money.
The short and sweat is. MS didn't drop Cryptic, Cryptic wasn't developing a game for MS they were developing a game for Marvel. MS dropped Marvel based on thier idea of what a successful game is, this doesn't say that Cryptic wasn't able to meet deadlines or produce a good game, only that MS didn't think that a Marvel game was going to meet thier idea of a worthwhile investment; so they stop giving Marvel money.
Comments
Sorry but comparing the Vista release to the XP one is wrong. We are many years down the line, are you trying to say they have learned nothing in all that time?
They have no excuses for the pile of crap they released as a finished product when they had the vastly superior resources, experience and staff to do a better job, its that simple.
They had a choice to finish the product to a decent standard and resolve the WIDELY KNOWN issues before releasing but they chose otherwise, and now they are paying the price of that arrogance. They did not release a product suitable or ready to fulfill its purpose, that was a mistake.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
I understand how you might have seen my post as PRO-Microsoft, which it isn't by the way. I also see how you could have misconstrued it the way you did. I also agree with you that Vista is broken. None of those will I argue with you about.
However, I don't think it is "wrong" to compare the two OS's for a basic simple reason, one I think which you will agree with. The main concept I guess that was in mind after re-reading my post is that no matter how good or bad a job Microsoft does on releasing a new OS (once again I agree it was a shotty release) there will always be issues that need to be worked out. I know not at the high level that we see, but there will always be some level of issues. A lot of the issues I personally experienced in Vista were issues that popped up due to 3rd party software not being compatible as it was written pre-Vista, also drivers as I stated in my post. As Vista was nearer to the market release and shortly there after a lot of my driver and application issues were fixed. It sounds like your issues were much worse than mine.
So I think it is completely relative to your attitude on Vista. Obviously you have had a bad experience and I think you are more frustrated with Microsoft than with me. So I won't take it personally that you kinda blasted back but I know that was just the honest truth coming out on how you feel about Vista. At least that's how I'm going to take it.
I wish you had a better experience. I think the bottom line is MS is too greedy and they would rather rush the OS out there to make the money quicker up front then actually give 3rd party developers as well as themselves time to work the "kinks" out. But no matter what you will always have post release issues, no matter what you say it's inevitable. Capable of being improved? Most definitely. But that is what I meant by comparing the two OS's so in that context I had a perfectly valid comparison. I think in the end though we both ultimately agree with each other. Take care man.
Good posts Duvious.
You know I recall now that when XP first came out, I hated it. It didn't like my peripherals, it didn't like my old programs, and since I'd first tried a beta of it I'd seen plenty of crashes too. It wasn't until some time had passed and people kept telling me to upgrade that I finally did.
Currently playing:
DC Universe
Planetside 2
Magic Online
Simunomics, the Massive Multiplayer Economic Simulation Game. Play for free.
They will try and sell the game to another publisher under another title.Only if Microsoft don't want it, (after already paying for a significant part of it) that's because it isn't any good.
Hey Baff, you got proof? got a statement saying that's the exact reason?
Let's take a look at some of the other MMO's that got dropped by their publisher. Lets choose ones that went on to be published anyway so we actually can see how good they turned out to be.
The only two I can think of are Matrix Online and Vanguard Online.
I haven't played Vanguard. But it too was dropped by Microsoft. Is it any good?
I have played Matrix. It was dire. Ubisoft were right to drop it. Sega were right to drop it too (lol).
I can't think of a single game off the top of my head that was dropped by a publisher mid development and turned out to be good.
The development process works along a series of keystage deadlines. At each keystage, the publisher looks at the work the developer has made to date, and if it meets their standards, agree's to fund the next keystage.
If it doesn't meet the standard, funding is not continued.
Funding was not continued,
People don't drop products they believe will make them money. They don't drop products they have spent money on without having reason to believe they won't make them any money. (Or even break even). Do you really need a written statement? Is this something that you need to have explicitly explained to you by the head of each company each time it occours?
Anyway, here's your statement.
"I'll confirm. Marvel and we have agreed to end development on the MMO. It was an amicable decision," Shane Kim told MTV Multiplayer.
"When we first entered into the development and agreement of the development of Marvel Universe Online, we thought we would create another subscription-based MMO. And if you really look at the data there's basically one [game] that's successful and everything else wouldn't meet our level or definition of commercial success.
"And then you have to look [and say]: Can we change the business model for that? Is that really viable given how far we are in development? And so forth. Does Marvel want to do that? There's a whole bunch of factors," he added.
@ Anofayle, it's not just Microsoft who needs to see a massive return on their investment. Microsoft is just like any other company. The money it invests is not it's own. It has to pay back it's creditors. It needs to see a return on that money that will satisfy both them and make it a profit.
In the case of computer games, it is a similar enviroment to the movie business. Not every game you make is going to make a profit. In fact not very many of them. So you must look for each individual game to make a massive return on it's investment so that it covers the cost of all your titles that fail. It's a spread bet. I'm betting on 10 game developments, not just one. All I need is one big hit and I make a profit. But I need it to be a big hit or overall I make a loss.
I cannot afford to invest in just one title as the chances of getting a big hit are just too small. So each title I invest in must be able to show a return of over ten times my initial investment to be profitable (a figure pulled out of my arse, but you get the idea).
Remember that even if Cryptic gets it's own investment for this individual project, that the creditors involved, just as Microsoft, will also be involved in many other risky investments to hedge their bets too. So any other publisher, even a self publisher, has to be able to offer his investors the same deal.
Clearly Microsoft feels that Cryptic can't offer them this. If Microsoft thinks this, then no one smart is going to believe any different.
That leaves any further investor with a bigger risk, which means they will be needing an even greater return on their money than anything Microsoft was looking for. Which means Cryptic now has to convince them that their game is going to be even more profitable than ever it could be with both Marvel and Microsoft behind them.
Which isn't going to happen.
Essentially they have fallen short at too early a keystage.
Had, like the Matrix or the Vanguard people, they almost completed the game before failing a keystage, they could have sold their product off cheap at a price that better refelcted it's expected market value. They could have written off the production costs to date as a loss and sold it at a reduced market value that would be cost effective from that point on. The inital publisher would make the loss, but the replacement publisher would pick up a game at an investment price that he was able to return a profit from. (As SOE has done with Matrix and Vanguard).
As you can see by Cryptic's new website, the game is not anywhere near developed. It's pretty much concept art only.
Vapourware.
@Baff
The part about wanting to make a subscription based MMO and there only being ONE that is successful is a comment about WoW.
MS didn't feel that MUO would be able to compete with WoW. Microsoft's greed and unrealistic ambitions has nothing to do with Cryptic or thier ability to make a good game. CoX is a success today, with sub rates comparable to Eve, and Cryptic was able to carve out a market for itself in a genre that isn't that popular and with a game that released with no PvP.
MS didn't even drop Cryptic, they dropped Marvel. Champions online is set to release on the 360 still, wich for all intent and purpose would have been MUO. Cryptic owns the rights to the Champion IP, and will be selling it back to Hero at a later date. Cryptic isn't quite the little independant development team they started as. They're a succesful game dev. with an MMO already under thier belt. There are even rumors of Cryptic purchasing the Star Trek IP to continue production on STO.
I'm not even sure how you can compare MXO and VG to Champions online or Cryptics ability to produce a quality game.
A publisher is only important when you don't have to the resources to run the servers, distribute the game, or even provide out of game support. Typically the role of a publisher is not to provide developmental resources to the studio producing the game, unless they have invested in it; at wich point they would have a deal like Cryptic struck with NCsoft that gave NCsoft part ownership of the game itself.
Now, were talking Marvel and MS here, and an engine that Cryptic owns. Cryptic wasn't put in the same spot as Sigil was when MS split with them, Cryptic didn't have to buy anything from MS or Marvel. Everthing being used was already thiers and it doesn't sound as if Cryptic is strugling for money.
The short and sweat is. MS didn't drop Cryptic, Cryptic wasn't developing a game for MS they were developing a game for Marvel. MS dropped Marvel based on thier idea of what a successful game is, this doesn't say that Cryptic wasn't able to meet deadlines or produce a good game, only that MS didn't think that a Marvel game was going to meet thier idea of a worthwhile investment; so they stop giving Marvel money.
Wish Darkfall would release.