I think I understand his confusion since that Lonicera account hadn't posted on the Mortal forums in 2.5 months until a day or two ago... so it seemed as though you either retired the account or came back for the free trial, but that's irrelevant:
That may well be,but I don't see why not knowing my identity means he should make assumptions. Going through all the "disc" names on MOFO revealed one post made in June 2010, so not sure who he would be assuming I am.
Originally posted by Slapshot1188
See, as the customer.. it didn't make a difference that "It was the power company's fault". All I cared about what that there was a problem.
That may be true. But would you say the theatre manager was lying or trying to shift the blame away from himself? A better analogy would be your cable company. I know I never get refunded for cable being down.
Originally posted by SHOE788
Hey I feel famous...
In your list of games developed using UE3. Which ones aren't complete failures or dying slow deaths?
DCUO, Global agenda. Also SOE is apparently comfortable enough with the platform after using it on DCUO that they are also using it for The Agency
Originally posted by Betel
APB did not fail because of UE. Don't take it from me, take it from someone from RTW who worked on the game -
That would be a much more credible argument if he didn't say "There are some things I am definitely not going to talk about. For example, I am not going to discuss APB’s design flaws. For one thing, I wasn’t close enough to the decisions made there to understand how we went wrong – and if I’m being honest, I don’t play online games enough to claim any great understanding. Fortunately, there are plenty of good opinion pieces on those elsewhere." He may well be right about the team buiilding and social engineering problems at RTW, but he is essentially saying he doesn't have a lot of understanding of the technical side of things.
Aimbots can be programmed for just about any game in which they would be useful. Not a specific problem of UE and one that can be fixed by competent programmers, though of course it's an endless arms race.
Using the UE3 engine brings its own set of already made hacks. Tweaking a hack that already exists is a lot easier than designing a hack for a novel engine.
Also @ Betel: If you don't know thatAPB's movement and combat problems are not related to UE3 then don't say "every other developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems." Some haven't (DCUO) but it's not as if all the other games have been free of problems that may relate back to use of UE3.
Since when does Occam's razor imply that you sue everyone who fails to live up to your expectations?
"1) ignore-" would mean not posting which would mean my POV doesn't get aired
Originally posted by HerculesSAS
When you link articles related to Unreal Engine 2, your argument starts to lose any strength it may have had. When you talk about MMOs using Unreal Engine, your list only has two games with an Unreal3 engine; one of which is not buggy at ALL (Global Agenda) and one of which that isn't released yet (Tera). The others are on an entirely different engine. Oh, and Huxley wasn't an MMO. And it wasn't that buggy either. It just wasn't much fun.
As for the point about MO not using instances... it does. It has hard server lines that translate into different instances of the game world. Perhaps I'm using the wrong words technically. Most of the others have loading screens as you cross a server line and do not allow you to see across those server lines. MO doesn't. What is the technical way of describing that difference?
APB didn't have movement "issues", the players just didn't like the way things in combat worked, the way driving worked, and overall balance issues. That's what the post is talking about that you linked, and again -- the game actually did work. It just wasn't a hell of a lot of fun. I don't know the specifics but I do know that if you add alot of inertia (ala APB's lousy driving) it makes pathing prediction a whole lot easier
P.s. @ hercules the list was meant to refute the statement that no one else uses UE, not to discuss the success rate of ue games. I know that lots of MMOs fail to reach any level of success regardless of the engine they use
That would be a much more credible argument if he didn't say "There are some things I am definitely not going to talk about. For example, I am not going to discuss APB’s design flaws. For one thing, I wasn’t close enough to the decisions made there to understand how we went wrong – and if I’m being honest, I don’t play online games enough to claim any great understanding. Fortunately, there are plenty of good opinion pieces on those elsewhere." He may well be right about the team buiilding and social engineering problems at RTW, but he is essentially saying he doesn't have a lot of understanding of the technical side of things.
Why don't you be honest and post the next line of the quote, which completely undermines your intended point -
"In any case, I don’t think specific design flaws were the root cause of our problems."
Do you claim to know better than someone who worked on the project?
Using the UE3 engine brings its own set of already made hacks. Tweaking a hack that already exists is a lot easier than designing a hack for a novel engine.
Not really, the principles are very similar. It's why every new game engine is hacked in very short order.
Also @ Betel: If you don't know thatAPB's movement and combat problems are not related to UE3 then don't say "every other developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems." Some haven't (DCUO) but it's not as if all the other games have been free of problems that may relate back to use of UE3.
APB failed because of the unicorns living in their coffee machine. What? You can't prove it was or wasn't that? It must be true!
We have someone who worked for RTW telling us what happened, or we have you attempting to defend SV by saying APB failed due to UE. I think I know who most people are going to listen to. UE had nothing, repeat nothing, to do with the failure of APB - from the horses mouth itself.
Since when does Occam's razor imply that you sue everyone who fails to live up to your expectations?
We are talking about contractual obligations, not expectations. The only possible alternative is that SV were stupid enough to sign a contract that did not include penalty clauses for non-delivery. However since they probably signed a standard agreement I doubt that is the case.
"1) ignore-" would mean not posting which would mean my POV doesn't get aired
You can ignore posts/posters without the need to refrain from posting in a thread. I do it all the time, sure most other people do too. I haven't noticed you being reticent about you posting your point of view, just a seeming desire to moderate what others say. Again, proof can be provided if needed.
Perhaps I'm using the wrong words technically. Most of the others have loading screens as you cross a server line and do not allow you to see across those server lines. MO doesn't. What is the technical way of describing that difference?
Node lag, MO's equivalent of a loading screen.
As a bonus, it removes your mount (incidentally proving the instance basis) and removes from view people nearby. Latter was an old bug, no idea if it's still in, but mounts and pets not negotiating nodes properly is still in.
I don't know the specifics but I do know that if you add alot of inertia (ala APB's lousy driving) it makes pathing prediction a whole lot easier
Didn't you just tell me to not claim things if I don't know them to be true? The irony. You have no idea whether APB's problems, including movement, were ANYTHING to do with UE.
Why don't you be honest and post the next line of the quote, which completely undermines your intended point -
"In any case, I don’t think specific design flaws were the root cause of our problems."
Do you claim to know better than someone who worked on the project?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant He was working in management at RTW. Like the blind men in the parable he understands the part that he touched (management) and admittedly does not understand the parts he had no contact with. If the design and programming had been better it may have overcome the management problems. " While it’s true that without them [the design flaws], APB probably could have sold much better and I wouldn’t be writing this piece, it would be a very lazy attempt to explain our failure."
Also @ Betel: If you don't know thatAPB's movement and combat problems are not related to UE3 then don't say "every other developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems." Some haven't (DCUO) but it's not as if all the other games have been free of problems that may relate back to use of UE3.
APB failed because of the unicorns living in their coffee machine. What? You can't prove it was or wasn't that? It must be true! You made the initial assertion that "every other developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems." I'm merely saying that the APB had some similar problems, which may be related to the way they tried to use UE3. Certainly, some developers haven't had similar problems (DCUO), but the statement that Starvault's problems with UE3 are unique should face the same scrutiny
We are talking about contractual obligations, not expectations. The only possible alternative is that SV were stupid enough to sign a contract that did not include penalty clauses for non-delivery. However since they probably signed a standard agreement I doubt that is the case. Epic would be contractually obligated to provide the product and to provide support. Henrick said they delivered a patch on Monday. What contractual obligation would Epic be violating?
Node lag, MO's equivalent of a loading screen.
As a bonus, it removes your mount (incidentally proving the instance basis) and removes from view people nearby. Latter was an old bug, no idea if it's still in, but mounts and pets not negotiating nodes properly is still in. That doesn't sound at all like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instance_dungeon
I don't know the specifics but I do know that if you add alot of inertia (ala APB's lousy driving) it makes pathing prediction a whole lot easier
Didn't you just tell me to not claim things if I don't know them to be true? The irony. You have no idea whether APB's problems, including movement, were ANYTHING to do with UE. Just suggesting problems that one game had that might relate to UE3 (and indicating my level of certainty). Did you do an extensive review of all other games that used UE3 before you made the assertion with absolute certainty that "every other developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems."?
"1) ignore-" would mean not posting which would mean my POV doesn't get aired
You can ignore posts/posters without the need to refrain from posting in a thread. I do it all the time, sure most other people do too. I haven't noticed you being reticent about you posting your point of view, just a seeming desire to moderate what others say. Again, proof can be provided if needed.
If a post is off-topic, how do I respond with my point of view and ignore the off-topic post at the same time. Is this some kind of koan?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dan
Or perhaps you missed the part in the OP where I noted that this thread was to redirect the discussion of UE3 out of Slapshot's thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant He was working in management at RTW. Like the blind men in the parable he understands the part that he touched (management) and admittedly does not understand the parts he had no contact with. If the design and programming had been better it may have overcome the management problems. " While it’s true that without them [the design flaws], APB probably could have sold much better and I wouldn’t be writing this piece, it would be a very lazy attempt to explain our failure."
The man himself says (and this is someone who worked there remember) -" it would be a very lazy attempt to explain our failure".
Since you continue to presume to know better than someone who worked on the project being discussed (and you continue to adopt a position he explicitly states is incorrect and "lazy") I will just leave it to other readers to determine who is correct on the available evidence. A poster on a messageboard about a different game, or someone intimitely involved in the project - pretty cut and dried I'd say but you are welcome to your opinion.
Also @ Betel: If you don't know thatAPB's movement and combat problems are not related to UE3 then don't say "every other developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems." Some haven't (DCUO) but it's not as if all the other games have been free of problems that may relate back to use of UE3.
If the problem is UE, prove it. Other developers do fine with it (DCUO) and APB's movement problems (as already mentioned by other posters too) were nothing to do with UE. Just keeping saying it does not make it true. We presented evidence saying UE can be made to work fine by competant devs (DCUO for eg), you present ... what? Statements contradicted by insiders and vague statements such as "As to the how APB's movement and combat problems relates to problems using the underlying engine and whether it is analogous to MO's movement and combat problems, I honestly don't know" You admitted you have no evidence for it at all.
You made the initial assertion that "every other developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems." I'm merely saying that the APB had some similar problems, which may be related to the way they tried to use UE3. Certainly, some developers haven't had similar problems (DCUO), but the statement that Starvault's problems with UE3 are unique should face the same scrutiny
APB did not have MO's problems. Repeating it does not make it true. You present no evidence to contradict an RTW employee and admit to having no clue as to whether they have the same problems in the quote above.
Epic would be contractually obligated to provide the product and to provide support. Henrick said they delivered a patch on Monday. What contractual obligation would Epic be violating?
Delivery dates (Epic patch anyone?), downtime caused, financial losses caused by said downtime, resultant bad PR and share price issues would all be actionable. These are basic business contract clauses and none seem to have been activated. If Epic was truly to blame for any of the above, Henrik would have his dads lawyers on them instantly.
Who said it did? Dungeon is irrelavent to the definition of instance.
Just suggesting problems that one game had that might relate to UE3 (and indicating my level of certainty). Did you do an extensive review of all other games that used UE3 before you made the assertion with absolute certainty that "every other developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems."?
So one post from 3 years ago with a broken link is your evidence? About a game from another small company with little MMO experience? Laughable.
Does DCUO have severe memory leaks? Gears of War? Nope, so why does MO? Because DCUO etc have professional programmers operating with proper procedures, not some modders with no experience in MMO development.
You have stated yourself you have no idea if APB's problems were related to UE or MO. An insider at RTW has said catergorically that they are not. Case closed without new evidence I would think.
Just to re-iterate, I am not claiming UE3 is a bad platform. I'm only suggesting that Starvault's issues are not unique.
Prove it, as you haven't so far. You admit yourself you have no idea.
If a post is off-topic, how do I respond with my point of view and ignore the off-topic post at the same time. Is this some kind of koan?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dan
Very easily. Don't reply to off topic posts and put forward your OT views. No one is paying you by the word or anything are they? So just ignore them, report them, whatever. Just don't assume you get to play moderator here.
Or perhaps you missed the part in the OP where I noted that this thread was to redirect the discussion of UE3 out of Slapshot's thread.
This thread exists because I called you on your attempts at moderation. You then deleted your post and made this thread.
Why don't you be honest and post the next line of the quote, which completely undermines your intended point -
"In any case, I don’t think specific design flaws were the root cause of our problems."
Do you claim to know better than someone who worked on the project?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant He was working in management at RTW. Like the blind men in the parable he understands the part that he touched (management) and admittedly does not understand the parts he had no contact with. If the design and programming had been better it may have overcome the management problems. " While it’s true that without them [the design flaws], APB probably could have sold much better and I wouldn’t be writing this piece, it would be a very lazy attempt to explain our failure."
Also @ Betel: If you don't know thatAPB's movement and combat problems are not related to UE3 then don't say "every other developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems." Some haven't (DCUO) but it's not as if all the other games have been free of problems that may relate back to use of UE3.
APB failed because of the unicorns living in their coffee machine. What? You can't prove it was or wasn't that? It must be true! You made the initial assertion that "every other developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems." I'm merely saying that the APB had some similar problems, which may be related to the way they tried to use UE3. Certainly, some developers haven't had similar problems (DCUO), but the statement that Starvault's problems with UE3 are unique should face the same scrutiny
We are talking about contractual obligations, not expectations. The only possible alternative is that SV were stupid enough to sign a contract that did not include penalty clauses for non-delivery. However since they probably signed a standard agreement I doubt that is the case. Epic would be contractually obligated to provide the product and to provide support. Henrick said they delivered a patch on Monday. What contractual obligation would Epic be violating?
Node lag, MO's equivalent of a loading screen.
As a bonus, it removes your mount (incidentally proving the instance basis) and removes from view people nearby. Latter was an old bug, no idea if it's still in, but mounts and pets not negotiating nodes properly is still in. That doesn't sound at all like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instance_dungeon
I don't know the specifics but I do know that if you add alot of inertia (ala APB's lousy driving) it makes pathing prediction a whole lot easier
Didn't you just tell me to not claim things if I don't know them to be true? The irony. You have no idea whether APB's problems, including movement, were ANYTHING to do with UE. Just suggesting problems that one game had that might relate to UE3 (and indicating my level of certainty). Did you do an extensive review of all other games that used UE3 before you made the assertion with absolute certainty that "every other developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems."?
Just to re-iterate, I am not claiming UE3 is a bad platform. I'm only suggesting that Starvault's issues are not unique.
No you're right, Betel doth protest too much.
Actually I predict all the MMORPGs using UE (note that, games like Gears of War don't count, nor a "virtual lobby" pseudo-MMO like Global Agenda - although DCUO does count, of course) will have already had trouble with UE and that this will come out in the future. I predict only a larger staff enabled, say, SoE to cope with the problems.
JUST LOOK AT THE FIASCO OF VANGUARD ffs. Seriously, that game was in a very similar position to MMO, but using the UE at that time (2 with a few bits of 3 hot off the press) just caused lots of problems - problems of stability and bugginess that took ages to sort out.
Granted Vanguard still looks great - i.e. using UE future-proofed the game pretty well. But in terms of getting it to work as an MMORPG, if you follow the whole story, it was a bit of a nightmare.
I'm not defending SV in the sense of saying the sun shines out of their a***s; but I think dogpiling on them and exonerating Epic is unfair, it is somewhat Epic's fault for pushing out a hastily-contrived Heath Robinsonesque contraption masquerading as an MMORPG engine, just to cash in on the fad for MMORPGs.
Did I mention Vanguard? Did I mention I'm bitter about Vanguard? Yeah, well perhaps I'm not the best person to talk about UE-powered MMORPGs about.
'nuff said.
Actually I'll say one more thing. In layman's terms, it's a question of "feel". To my mind, an engine that's been designed from the ground-up for MMOs, like the GW engine, or the Cryptic engine, or the Hero engine (have been in SWTOR beta), has an altogether different kind of responsiveness than a UE or Cryengine2 based MMO. The kind of responsiveness problems APB has are exactly the same kind of respnsiveness problems Vanguard has (and the same responsiveness problem I get from Project Entropia, say). The control of one's avatar never feels quite secure, things "slide about" in a somewhat de-synced manner (even if not overtly, just in terms of a general jittery feel). In contrast, playing GW, or LOTRO, or any Cryptic game, etc., there's a kind of solidity about the feel of the way the game responds. That's my theory, which is mine.
Actually I predict all the MMORPGs using UE (note that, games like Gears of War don't count, nor a "virtual lobby" pseudo-MMO like Global Agenda - although DCUO does count, of course) will have already had trouble with UE and that this will come out in the future. I predict only a larger staff enabled, say, SoE to cope with the problems.
JUST LOOK AT THE FIASCO OF VANGUARD ffs. Seriously, that game was in a very similar position to MMO, but using the UE at that time (2 with a few bits of 3 hot off the press) just caused lots of problems - problems of stability and bugginess that took ages to sort out.
Granted Vanguard still looks great - i.e. using UE future-proofed the game pretty well. But in terms of getting it to work as an MMORPG, if you follow the whole story, it was a bit of a nightmare.
I'm not defending SV in the sense of saying the sun shines out of their a***s; but I think dogpiling on them and exonerating Epic is unfair, it is somewhat Epic's fault for pushing out a hastily-contrived Heath Robinsonesque contraption masquerading as an MMORPG engine, just to cash in on the fad for MMORPGs.
Did I mention Vanguard?
'nuff said.
But follow your line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion. You use Vanguard over and over again as proof that Epic Games has a history of providing an engine that is troublesome to develop.
Vanguard was released over 4 years ago. Starvault licensed the Unreal Engine from Epic 6 months AFTER Vanguard was released... Vanguard was one of the largest crash and burns of it's time. Any company looking to license the UE3 engine a mere 6 months later should have done their due dilligence.
Even so... I say again : WHO CARES who's fault it is? The game is in it's current state and it doesn't matter if that's due to Starvault, Epic, or the Boogieman.
As a matter of fact it would be more promising for the game if the issues were 100% Starvault as those would be easier to fix. If the actual basic engine is so messed up that it has been the root cause of all these issues for the last year... well.. then you might as well just stick a fork in 'er cause that is a LOT harder to fix. Just think... the people you are paying money to are telling you that they personally cannot fix the game's problems and have to stand by and wait until Epic Games has spare time (after taking care of their other customers) to fix whatever the current issue of the week is. And this has been happening for months or even YEARS at this point. Does that in any way, shape or form inspire confidence that something is going to get fixed anytime soon? When it's now 9 months after release and the company is hemoraging money at an accellerating rate?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I'm not defending SV in the sense of saying the sun shines out of their a***s; but I think dogpiling on them and exonerating Epic is unfair, it is somewhat Epic's fault for pushing out a hastily-contrived Heath Robinsonesque contraption masquerading as an MMORPG engine, just to cash in on the fad for MMORPGs.
Did I mention Vanguard?
'nuff said.
But follow your line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion. You use Vanguard over and over again as proof that Epic Games has a history of providing an engine that is troublesome to develop.
Vanguard was released over 4 years ago. Starvault licensed the Unreal Engine from Epic 6 months AFTER Vanguard was released... Vanguard was one of the largest crash and burns of it's time. Any company looking to license the UE3 engine a mere 6 months later should have done their due dilligence.
Even so... I say again : WHO CARES who's fault it is? The game is in it's current state and it doesn't matter if that's due to Starvault, Epic, or the Boogieman.
As a matter of fact it would be more promising for the game if the issues were 100% Starvault as those would be easier to fix. If the actual basic engine is so messed up that it has been the root cause of all these issues for the last year... well.. then you might as well just stick a fork in 'er cause that is a LOT harder to fix. Just think... the people you are paying money to are telling you that they personally cannot fix the game's problems and have to stand by and wait until Epic Games has spare time (after taking care of their other customers) to fix whatever the current issue of the week is. And this has been happening for months or even YEARS at this point. Does that in any way, shape or form inspire confidence that something is going to get fixed anytime soon? When it's now 9 months after release and the company is hemoraging money at an accellerating rate?
Yeah true, I guess, SV should have been more wary of UE MMORPG version after what happened to VG.
And it doesn't inspire confidence, no, quite frankly. But given time, it could all eventually be sorted out, the game made stable, content added, etc. Going back to VG (ahem), I think if SoE had given it more than a skeleton crew, they could have cleaned up more and added a lot more stuff.
So the question is, basically, is SV going to survive? Or are the subs just going to dwindle away as people wander off disconsolately?
I mean, to sort it out, I'd guess what SV need now more than anything else is a lot more staff. But they ain't going to get more staff until they get either more subs or a sugar daddy.
The man himself says (and this is someone who worked there remember) -" it would be a very lazy attempt to explain our failure".
Since you continue to presume to know better than someone who worked on the project being discussed (and you continue to adopt a position he explicitly states is incorrect and "lazy") I will just leave it to other readers to determine who is correct on the available evidence. A poster on a messageboard about a different game, or someone intimitely involved in the project - pretty cut and dried I'd say but you are welcome to your opinion.
There is no contradiction between my statements and his weblog posts. It is very possible for a program to be mismanaged AND poorly designed. He does not say that design flaws did not contribute to the failure of APB or that it yould be "incorrect" just that it would be lazy to "[point] the finger at a small number of staff and saying 'it was all your fault', without critically examining the part of the problem where he actually has some insight.
If you read his blogpost carefully. he does say that design flaws did play a crucial role in the failure of APB. "it’s true that without them, APB probably could have sold much better and I wouldn’t be writing this piece, it would be a very lazy attempt to explain our failure. " He further goeson to explain how the mismanagement impaired the ability to identify and fix bugs The really sad part is that, more often than not, we prevented or discouraged such people from helping out by building these bizarre internal divisions between groups. I think this was a misguided attempt to imitate how other big online games run things. For example, I once heard one of our fine QA staff being berated for – wait for it – emailing a summary of forum activity around QA. This guy had gone through every single forum post looking for complaints that might signify bugs, and summarised it in a plan of action for the QA team to investigate further. Commendable stuff indeed, but here he was, being told that ONLY OUR DEDICATED COMMUNITY TEAM were allowed to summarise forum activity for others (usually in the form of a number from 1-100 representing how favourable forum feedback was that week. Never found out how they computed that or what we were supposed to do with it.)
Stern-sounding codes of conduct were emailed around that, whatever their intent, in practice scared many developers away from interacting directly with our users. Not to worry, though, because our Community team was on the case! Except if a forum post was about a bug, because that wasn’t their area … bugs were for Customer Support. Who, naturally, didn’t read the forums … because that was Community’s job!
All of which is rather beside the point. I'm just pointing out that other games that use UE3 have had problems with bugs (some games, not all) and you seem to be making the assumption that none of these bugs relate in any way to the use of UE3. If you simply changed your stance from "Funny how every other developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems." to "Funny how some/many developers using UE doesn't have MO's problems." As it stands, you seem to be claiming the SV's difficult in using UE3 is somehow unique to them.
These do not directly relate to the use of UE3 for an MMO but they do demonstrate that others have previously had problems with Epic and the development of UE3:
"In Epic's countersuit against Silicon Knights, the company lists various UE3-based games, both released and upcoming, that have received critical acclaim from various news outlets. Some of these include 2K's amazing BioShock, Bioware's Mass Effect, Webzen's Huxley, Ubisoft's Rainbow Six Vegas and Midway's Stranglehold."
Stranglehold-- went on to blame Epic for their delayed release
{mod edit} People from my EQ community ended up working on Vanguard and it was an absolute mess from start to finish. Similar to RTW, there are employee blogs out there, and forum posts aplenty. With Brad and his cronies in charge, it had no chance.
@ Osmunda
You are still claiming to know better than someone who worked there. He explicitly states the problems, and I don't see UE in big neon letters up there. If those design decisions that he refers to were simply related to UE, and not just a company run into the ground by a multitude of factors, don't you think he'd say so?
He says it is incorrect (note I did not use quotes, unlike your attempt to portray that I did) that design flaws were the downfall of the company. Since you continue to ignore the evidence and present none of your own I see no point in further arguing over RTW with you, as I do not get paid by the word. You have not proven your case and the evidence is against you. You are simply repeating disproven claims (by someone who worked there) in an attempt to give your opinion more weight.
Present some evidence on UE being the cause of RTW's problems or just leave it. Mind you, you have already said you had "no idea" whether they were so I won't hold my breath.
Repeating for emphasis - you said you had no idea if RTW's problems were caused by UE and I have shown an employee who said they were not. Case closed pending new evidence on RTW.
On to the list of games you provide.
Stranglehold - didn't know Mortal Online was on the PS3? After all, it was the PS3 development tools that Midway referenced not the PC version. You are either being ignorant of the case in question or disengenuous. Can you find an example for the PC tools? It also references a delay, not technical problems. I think it is safe to say SV has technical problems.
Huxley - Yeah, another tiny studio attempting to hop onto the MMO money train. Even worse than SV, for eg their highest concurrant visitors stat is .... 28.
Silicon Knights - Game was given terrible reviews, SK attempted a rewrite and decided that negated it's contract with Epic - then the lawsuits started flying. Though in this case SK decided to start a project using unfinished tools and an incomplete engine. Who the hell thinks that is a good idea? They took a risk to use bleeding edge tech that was not ready for release in order to make a snazzier game. A gamble that didn't pay off.
You may notice a theme here. Tiny MMO companies rarely do well regardless of engine choice, they just don't have the skills or investment. SV fits into this category, along with just about every example you give. Look at DCUO, a game using the engine that works just about flawlessly according to reviews (not played it). That is what a good team can do, a mediocre or untalented team produces mediocre or garbage games - just like any other profession.
In order to stop this now pointless debate (I get the feeling nothing will change your opinion regardless of evidence presented), I will just ask a simple question.
Why does DCUO work and MO does not?
Both use exactly the same PC engine yet one is a buggy, mostly broken game with serious underlying problems (according to Henrik re: movement and combat) and the other is a stable, technically sound and well reviewed game. Why in your list of failed games is it always the tiny developers who fail while big companies appear to have little problems?
If you cannot or will not answer that question I see no point in this discussion.
You may notice a theme here. Tiny MMO companies rarely do well regardless of engine choice, they just don't have the skills or investment. SV fits into this category, along with just about every example you give. Look at DCUO, a game using the engine that works just about flawlessly according to reviews (not played it). That is what a good team can do, a mediocre or untalented team produces mediocre or garbage games - just like any other profession.
Or, alternatively, flip it around, the UE is such a mess that only bigger companies with sufficient resources can make a good fist of it.
Smaller companies get misled by Epic into thinking they're getting a good deal with a great engine that's ostensibly marketed at a level that can help smaller companies get MMOs off the ground; when actually they've been sold a pup.
Which is the truth? It will all come out eventually.
I am gonna go with SV being inept. I will go with track record. Since beta there has not been ONE patch that did not break the game. I just can not believe that is EPIC's fault.
Remember SV's qualification's for starting an MMO.
Henrik= Hey guys we sit here and Mod the UE and play games with each other, why not make an MMO.
Guys= Man I would love to do that, but we need a lot of money.
Henrik= Dude I have a rich dad!!!
Star Vault is born.
Then they run into a player that makes a broken patcher for them and builds thier website, and now is doing all the flash.
Why would big companies with the resources to choose any engine they want or build their own (Sony for eg) use UE if it was so bad and cost them money?
As an example, a company with competant employee's and systems would have no problem with this engine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXHvY-zY9hA whereas you, I and SV would struggle. Would you blame the engine or the users when it fails because the users cannot operate it? Same with all these small MMO startups, they just don't have the required skills to do a hugely technical job.
It comes down to the simple question - why does DCUO work and MO doesn't?
PS edit: to the mod who edited my Brad comment - I won't repeat it but it is in the public domain and kinda relevant plus he has never sued over it. Just letting you know
You may notice a theme here. Tiny MMO companies rarely do well regardless of engine choice, they just don't have the skills or investment. SV fits into this category, along with just about every example you give. Look at DCUO, a game using the engine that works just about flawlessly according to reviews (not played it). That is what a good team can do, a mediocre or untalented team produces mediocre or garbage games - just like any other profession.
Or, alternatively, flip it around, the UE is such a mess that only bigger companies with sufficient resources can make a good fist of it.
Smaller companies get misled by Epic into thinking they're getting a good deal with a great engine that's ostensibly marketed at a level that can help smaller companies get MMOs off the ground; when actually they've been sold a pup.
Which is the truth? It will all come out eventually.
That has got to be the WORST excuse I have ever heard in defense of a game here at MMORPG.com! Really people, can't you do better?
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
He says it is incorrect (note I did not use quotes, unlike your attempt to portray that I did) that design flaws were the downfall of the company. Since you continue to ignore the evidence and present none of your own I see no point in further arguing over RTW with you, as I do not get paid by the word. You have not proven your case and the evidence is against you. You are simply repeating disproven claims (by someone who worked there) in an attempt to give your opinion more weight.
I think i mentioned that mismanagement and design flaws/bugs are not mutually exclusive. I am not saying that he is wrong in any way shape or form. He himself says "it’s true that without them [specific design flaws], APB probably could have sold much better and I wouldn’t be writing this piece".
Perhaps you could point out where he says it would be "incorrect". I did a page search (ctrl-F) of all three blogposts, and it appears he never uses the word. I also used the word "correct" in case he phrased it "not correct", "wouldn't be correct" etc. Even with that, I only found the word used twice in the comments section.---- "It’s good to relook every now and then at what worked and what didn’t in order to course correct before the ultimate end." and "If I recall correctly, when you had a window open and hit Print, you’d be presented a panel allowing you to pick render hosts to use for it, along with the resolution to render at."
Originally posted by Betel
Huxley - Yeah, another tiny studio attempting to hop onto the MMO money train. Even worse than SV, for eg their highest concurrant visitors stat is .... 28.
Perhaps that's because the game has been handed back and forth between developers and you can't find an official forum. I presume you are talking about huxleygame.co.uk since it is one of the things pulled up by a search for "huxley" and "forum" and has a highest concurrent visitor number of 28. That is registered to Michael Rixon who is a UK Individual http://whois.domaintools.com/huxleygame.co.uk , not to Webzen or NHN or any other company connected to the game. Since Webzenand NHN are all both companies, I'm fairly certain Michael Rixon doesn't work for any of them.
Originally posted by Betel
Stranglehold - didn't know Mortal Online was on the PS3? After all, it was the PS3 development tools that Midway referenced not the PC version. You are either being ignorant of the case in question or disengenuous. Can you find an example for the PC tools? It also references a delay, not technical problems. I think it is safe to say SV has technical problems.
I think I mentioned that they were different problems but did show that others had had problems with the development and implementation of UE3. "These do not directly relate to the use of UE3 for an MMO but they do demonstrate that others have previously had problems with Epic and the development of UE3:"
Also, have you considered that perhaps part of SV's problem is delays in some of the components of UE3? For two concrete example, they were waiting on speedtree and flash integration at launch. Henrik Nystrom: " We had a long delay on the network solution that to this very minute is getting it last parts in place. " http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/58672-still-waiting-real-sandbox.html#post1102128
Originally posted by Betel
Silicon Knights - Game was given terrible reviews, SK attempted a rewrite and decided that negated it's contract with Epic - then the lawsuits started flying. Though in this case SK decided to start a project using unfinished tools and an incomplete engine. Who the hell thinks that is a good idea? They took a risk to use bleeding edge tech that was not ready for release in order to make a snazzier game. A gamble that didn't pay off.
Can you name one other game that uses Atlas? Perhaps it is foolish to use "bleeding edge" tech, but someone has to be first and these types of decisions are made well ahead of time based on the estimated development time from the company developing the tools. http://www.epicgameschina.com/tech/tech-atlas_overview.html
Originally posted by Betel
You may notice a theme here. Tiny MMO companies rarely do well regardless of engine choice, they just don't have the skills or investment. SV fits into this category, along with just about every example you give. Look at DCUO, a game using the engine that works just about flawlessly according to reviews (not played it). That is what a good team can do, a mediocre or untalented team produces mediocre or garbage games - just like any other profession.
In order to stop this now pointless debate (I get the feeling nothing will change your opinion regardless of evidence presented), I will just ask a simple question.
Why does DCUO work and MO does not?
Both use exactly the same PC engine yet one is a buggy, mostly broken game with serious underlying problems (according to Henrik re: movement and combat) and the other is a stable, technically sound and well reviewed game. Why in your list of failed games is it always the tiny developers who fail while big companies appear to have little problems?
If you cannot or will not answer that question I see no point in this discussion.
Does this mean you originally intended to say "Funny how every other multinational corporate developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems." instead of "Funny how every other developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems."?
You may notice a theme here. Tiny MMO companies rarely do well regardless of engine choice, they just don't have the skills or investment. SV fits into this category, along with just about every example you give. Look at DCUO, a game using the engine that works just about flawlessly according to reviews (not played it). That is what a good team can do, a mediocre or untalented team produces mediocre or garbage games - just like any other profession.
Why in your list of failed games is it always the tiny developers who fail while big companies appear to have little problems?
If you cannot or will not answer that question I see no point in this discussion.
You may notice a theme here. Tiny MMO companies rarely do well regardless of engine choice, they just don't have the skills or investment. SV fits into this category, along with just about every example you give. Look at DCUO, a game using the engine that works just about flawlessly according to reviews (not played it). That is what a good team can do, a mediocre or untalented team produces mediocre or garbage games - just like any other profession.
Or, alternatively, flip it around, the UE is such a mess that only bigger companies with sufficient resources can make a good fist of it.
Smaller companies get misled by Epic into thinking they're getting a good deal with a great engine that's ostensibly marketed at a level that can help smaller companies get MMOs off the ground; when actually they've been sold a pup.
Which is the truth? It will all come out eventually.
That has got to be the WORST excuse I have ever heard in defense of a game here at MMORPG.com! Really people, can't you do better?
Eh? I'm not defending MO, I'm attacking Epic.
Look, as far as SV goes, there's a certain level of polish you can't expect, or will take a bit longer, with independent developers. You go into a deal like MO expecting problems, you don't go into it expecting even a semi-polished experience. But you do expect the game to be at least playable. This basic point is where MO has fallen down, on this trial period.
The fact that SV have cocked up is granted; also SV's ultimate assumed responsibility is granted. But the question remains, is the messy state of MO (and the state of Vanguard, and the state of the other games mentioned) also partly the fault of Epic?
I think yes, the examples given are evidence. Precisely, if it is the case that smaller developers have had trouble with UE, then the obvious thought is, well UE (MMORPG version) must be such a mess that it actually takes a lot of resources to fix, more than most small developers have.
Isn't it just a typical corporate narrative: company starts off with aspirations to make a superb FPS game engine and sell it, because FPS-es are incredibly popular. FPS goes down in popularity, MMORPGs rise in fashion, company adapts its engine to MMORPGs; but (not through any fault or maliciousness, just the way things are) the engine happens to need a lot of work to make it viable for MMORPGs, but the company only fixes it up enough so that it only kinda sorta more or less works, if you don't push it too hard. This is fine for larger teams of developers who have the extra manpower and financial headroom to fix it up (Sony); but it's disastrous for smaller (or less organised - VG) teams who have to spend extra time fixing stuff up, time that they should have had free to make the gameplay better and flesh out the world.
Is this not plausible, does this not sound like exactly what's happened?
Whether it is, I'm not certain, but that's how my mind is summing it up atm.
You may notice a theme here. Tiny MMO companies rarely do well regardless of engine choice, they just don't have the skills or investment. SV fits into this category, along with just about every example you give. Look at DCUO, a game using the engine that works just about flawlessly according to reviews (not played it). That is what a good team can do, a mediocre or untalented team produces mediocre or garbage games - just like any other profession.
Or, alternatively, flip it around, the UE is such a mess that only bigger companies with sufficient resources can make a good fist of it.
Smaller companies get misled by Epic into thinking they're getting a good deal with a great engine that's ostensibly marketed at a level that can help smaller companies get MMOs off the ground; when actually they've been sold a pup.
Which is the truth? It will all come out eventually.
That has got to be the WORST excuse I have ever heard in defense of a game here at MMORPG.com! Really people, can't you do better?
Eh? I'm not defending MO, I'm attacking Epic.
Look, as far as SV goes, there's a certain level of polish you can't expect, or will take a bit longer, with independent developers. You go into a deal like MO expecting problems, you don't go into it expecting even a semi-polished experience. But you do expect the game to be at least playable. This basic point is where MO has fallen down, on this trial period.
The fact that SV have cocked up is granted; also SV's ultimate assumed responsibility is granted. But the question remains, is the messy state of MO (and the state of Vanguard, and the state of the other games mentioned) also partly the fault of Epic?
I think yes, the examples given are evidence. Precisely, if it is the case that smaller developers have had trouble with UE, then the obvious thought is, well UE (MMORPG version) must be such a mess that it actually takes a lot of resources to fix, more than most small developers have.
Isn't it just a typical corporate narrative: company starts off with aspirations to make a superb FPS game engine and sell it, because FPS-es are incredibly popular. FPS goes down in popularity, MMORPGs rise in fashion, company adapts its engine to MMORPGs; but (not through any fault or maliciousness, just the way things are) the engine happens to need a lot of work to make it viable for MMORPGs, but the company only fixes it up enough so that it only kinda sorta more or less works, if you don't push it too hard. This is fine for larger teams of developers who have the extra manpower and financial headroom to fix it up (Sony); but it's disastrous for smaller (or less organised - VG) teams who have to spend extra time fixing stuff up, time that they should have had free to make the gameplay better and flesh out the world.
Is this not plausible, does this not sound like exactly what's happened?
Whether it is, I'm not certain, but that's how my mind is summing it up atm.
Theres no proof that EPIC wasn't fulfilling their responsibility beyond what Henrik has said.
In particular it's hard to argue that Digital Extremes has a lack of experience programming for the Unreal Engine.
Already commented on your list. The problems are split into two camps - PS3 games delayed by the implementation of upgrades, and companies who lacked the skill to produce a game of any kind. The big companies on your list all fall into camp A, problems with the PS3 engine upgrade. A specific one off event it seems, can you find examples with a proficent company from the PC engine for eg? That kind of problem happens when you use the latest and shiniest tools on a non native platform.
As the Epic VP said -
"The bottom line is that making great games is hard work, ... There is no magic cure-all that completely hides the complexity of making world-class high-performance games on complex computing systems..."
"Our engine is not a launch-title technology. If you want to make launch titles you take your previous-gen engine and upgrade. If you want to make stunning true next-gen games like Gears of War and Unreal Tournament 3 (which people who license our engine generally often aspire to) you have to accept that it takes time to learn the intricacies of the systems."
Sony have competant programmers who took that time, SV has some modders and map makers who thought they could make an MMO.
In your list of games developed using UE3. Which ones aren't complete failures or dying slow deaths?
To think that the engine is completely independent of that is being ignorant.
Also consider the fact that most of those games are heavily instanced. Showing that, indeed, the unreal engine is atypical for MMOs.
The engine usually costs more than other licenses,but devs want it because they want to speed up production.Then you have marketing,Epic probably promises a fast developeed game with ease and if the dev doesn't do their homework are all over that and license it.Plus Epic has a neat little package that limits costs based on game turnaround,less customers means less cost for the license,i guess i should have just said "royalties".
The engine is not lacking at all,Epic games is right on top of the highest tech and licenses other developers tools/software into their engines.It does use higher resolution textures than many other engines ,especially older ones,but that doesn't mean the dev has to use the full ability of the engine.
Another point to consider is MOST developers also make their own toolsets for the engines,so the engine is never really limited at all.The Unreal engines do work in a slight bit different way than most engines,but really shouldn't take much to get used to a subtraction method as compared to an addition method.
One thing i wil ladmit from my use of the engines,is that they are not friendly to errors,you mess up there is probably going to be a huge problem somewhere in that map,however that is not the engines fault,devs need to do their work diligently and check it.
The mere FACT that ALL of the developers today are looking for SPEED of production,does not bode well for expecting QUALITY,they are more worried about hoqw soon they can make money.Look no further than SWTOR a HUGE EPIC type game and it will be put into production/sales after about 3 years of actual developement,that is shotty work imo.
Sooooo.....If we can't see quality production work from other devs,how can we expect it from small budget restrained devs?I would think or HOPE MOST of the MO players "knew" full well what they were getting into before they signed on,if not ,shame on you.This is that exact same "finger pointing",if the players did the homework,they would have known this small dev would struggle and they would have to be VERY patient.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If your contention is that a larger, better funded,more experienced development team can get better results, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. OTOH, Realtime Worlds was also larger, better funded and more experienced and we see where that got them.
Originally posted by Betel
Already commented on your list. The problems are split into two camps - PS3 games delayed by the implementation of upgrades, and companies who lacked the skill to produce a game of any kind. The big companies on your list all fall into camp A, problems with the PS3 engine upgrade. A specific one off event it seems,
Delayed implementation of the PS3 port --- Delayed integration of speedtree, flash, and seamless world streaming
They seem to be similar problems
Originally posted by Betel , can you find examples with a proficent company from the PC engine for eg? That kind of problem happens when you use the latest and shiniest tools on a non native platform.
That's hard to do when you insist that any problems APB had don't relate to the engine.
Unreal Tournament 3 debuted on windows November 2007, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament_3 and Atlas was released March 2009 http://epicgameschina.com/ and UE4 has been in development since 2003 so I wouldn't say MO is using the latest shiniest tools. Since I'm sure they do most of the programming on PCs (not X-box or Playstation) I'm not sure what you mean by non-native platform.
Originally posted by Betel
As the Epic VP said -
"The bottom line is that making great games is hard work, ... There is no magic cure-all that completely hides the complexity of making world-class high-performance games on complex computing systems..."
"Our engine is not a launch-title technology. If you want to make launch titles you take your previous-gen engine and upgrade. If you want to make stunning true next-gen games like Gears of War and Unreal Tournament 3 (which people who license our engine generally often aspire to) you have to accept that it takes time to learn the intricacies of the systems."
This is what they said when they are facing a lawsuit. I'm sure their marketing says otherwise and that they are not pushing people to use UE2.
If your contention is that a larger, better funded,more experienced development team can get better results, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you.
You are. You are saying that it is the fault of Epic and UE not SV.
Why does DCUO work and MO doesn't? From your previous posts it should be a simple question to answer. Why don't you try?
OTOH, Realtime Worlds was also larger, better funded and more experienced and we see where that got them.
Had nothing to do with UE, which was your original contention.
Delayed implementation of the PS3 port --- Delayed integration of speedtree, flash, and seamless world streaming
They seem to be similar problems
Epic did not delay integration of Speedtree, it's been in UE for a while. First integrated in 2005 in fact and the latest UDK in 2009. SV just couldn't get it to work, then when they finally did it looked terrible and broke their server again. That was nothing to do with Speedtree or it's integration by Epic, once again it's just SV's inability to code. Plenty of other companies got it to work just fine, Gear of War for eg. Why does Gears of War work and MO does not?
You are just once again repeating yourself and trying to shift any blame from SV to Epic. See the question above.
That's hard to do when you insist that any problems APB had don't relate to the engine.
I am not insisting that, someone who worked there is. Are you still claiming to know better than an employee and eye-witness?
Unreal Tournament 3 debuted on windows November 2007, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament_3 and Atlas was released March 2009 http://epicgameschina.com/ and UE4 has been in development since 2003 so I wouldn't say MO is using the latest shiniest tools. Since I'm sure they do most of the programming on PCs (not X-box or Playstation) I'm not sure what you mean by non-native platform.
They are using the latest version, otherwise your entire argument falls apart. The latest iterations were delayed in the PS3 case, so if you used a previous engine and tools the point does not even arise.
Also, please do not attempt to deliberatly change the meaning of my words. It is dishonest and probably get you a warning if you keep doing it. I did not say that MO was using the PS3 platform, and indeed my point was that they were not. I pointed out that every big company you listed ONLY had a problem with the delayed PS3 tools on the latest version. That means those problems have nothing to do with SV's problems and are not technical issues with the engine itself on either PS3 or PC.
Be honest in your posts or there is no point and you lose all credibility.
This is what they said when they are facing a lawsuit. I'm sure their marketing says otherwise and that they are not pushing people to use UE2.
Yeah, it's why I bought this scanning electron microscope. I saw an advert for one and it said I needed it, but now I bought it and don't know how to use it
Get a grip. Are you seriously trying to suggest that Epic marketing is now to blame for SV's inability to code? Hahaha.
TLDR : Why does DCUO (and let's chuck Gears of War in there too for giggles) work and MO does not?
Comments
That may well be,but I don't see why not knowing my identity means he should make assumptions. Going through all the "disc" names on MOFO revealed one post made in June 2010, so not sure who he would be assuming I am.
That may be true. But would you say the theatre manager was lying or trying to shift the blame away from himself? A better analogy would be your cable company. I know I never get refunded for cable being down.
DCUO, Global agenda. Also SOE is apparently comfortable enough with the platform after using it on DCUO that they are also using it for The Agency
That would be a much more credible argument if he didn't say "There are some things I am definitely not going to talk about. For example, I am not going to discuss APB’s design flaws. For one thing, I wasn’t close enough to the decisions made there to understand how we went wrong – and if I’m being honest, I don’t play online games enough to claim any great understanding. Fortunately, there are plenty of good opinion pieces on those elsewhere." He may well be right about the team buiilding and social engineering problems at RTW, but he is essentially saying he doesn't have a lot of understanding of the technical side of things.
Aimbots can be programmed for just about any game in which they would be useful. Not a specific problem of UE and one that can be fixed by competent programmers, though of course it's an endless arms race.
Using the UE3 engine brings its own set of already made hacks. Tweaking a hack that already exists is a lot easier than designing a hack for a novel engine.
Also @ Betel: If you don't know that APB's movement and combat problems are not related to UE3 then don't say "every other developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems." Some haven't (DCUO) but it's not as if all the other games have been free of problems that may relate back to use of UE3.
Since when does Occam's razor imply that you sue everyone who fails to live up to your expectations?
"1) ignore-" would mean not posting which would mean my POV doesn't get aired
P.s. @ hercules the list was meant to refute the statement that no one else uses UE, not to discuss the success rate of ue games. I know that lots of MMOs fail to reach any level of success regardless of the engine they use
Just to re-iterate, I am not claiming UE3 is a bad platform. I'm only suggesting that Starvault's issues are not unique.
If a post is off-topic, how do I respond with my point of view and ignore the off-topic post at the same time. Is this some kind of koan? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dan
Or perhaps you missed the part in the OP where I noted that this thread was to redirect the discussion of UE3 out of Slapshot's thread.
No you're right, Betel doth protest too much.
Actually I predict all the MMORPGs using UE (note that, games like Gears of War don't count, nor a "virtual lobby" pseudo-MMO like Global Agenda - although DCUO does count, of course) will have already had trouble with UE and that this will come out in the future. I predict only a larger staff enabled, say, SoE to cope with the problems.
JUST LOOK AT THE FIASCO OF VANGUARD ffs. Seriously, that game was in a very similar position to MMO, but using the UE at that time (2 with a few bits of 3 hot off the press) just caused lots of problems - problems of stability and bugginess that took ages to sort out.
Granted Vanguard still looks great - i.e. using UE future-proofed the game pretty well. But in terms of getting it to work as an MMORPG, if you follow the whole story, it was a bit of a nightmare.
I'm not defending SV in the sense of saying the sun shines out of their a***s; but I think dogpiling on them and exonerating Epic is unfair, it is somewhat Epic's fault for pushing out a hastily-contrived Heath Robinsonesque contraption masquerading as an MMORPG engine, just to cash in on the fad for MMORPGs.
Did I mention Vanguard? Did I mention I'm bitter about Vanguard? Yeah, well perhaps I'm not the best person to talk about UE-powered MMORPGs about.
'nuff said.
Actually I'll say one more thing. In layman's terms, it's a question of "feel". To my mind, an engine that's been designed from the ground-up for MMOs, like the GW engine, or the Cryptic engine, or the Hero engine (have been in SWTOR beta), has an altogether different kind of responsiveness than a UE or Cryengine2 based MMO. The kind of responsiveness problems APB has are exactly the same kind of respnsiveness problems Vanguard has (and the same responsiveness problem I get from Project Entropia, say). The control of one's avatar never feels quite secure, things "slide about" in a somewhat de-synced manner (even if not overtly, just in terms of a general jittery feel). In contrast, playing GW, or LOTRO, or any Cryptic game, etc., there's a kind of solidity about the feel of the way the game responds. That's my theory, which is mine.
But follow your line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion. You use Vanguard over and over again as proof that Epic Games has a history of providing an engine that is troublesome to develop.
Vanguard was released over 4 years ago. Starvault licensed the Unreal Engine from Epic 6 months AFTER Vanguard was released... Vanguard was one of the largest crash and burns of it's time. Any company looking to license the UE3 engine a mere 6 months later should have done their due dilligence.
Even so... I say again : WHO CARES who's fault it is? The game is in it's current state and it doesn't matter if that's due to Starvault, Epic, or the Boogieman.
As a matter of fact it would be more promising for the game if the issues were 100% Starvault as those would be easier to fix. If the actual basic engine is so messed up that it has been the root cause of all these issues for the last year... well.. then you might as well just stick a fork in 'er cause that is a LOT harder to fix. Just think... the people you are paying money to are telling you that they personally cannot fix the game's problems and have to stand by and wait until Epic Games has spare time (after taking care of their other customers) to fix whatever the current issue of the week is. And this has been happening for months or even YEARS at this point. Does that in any way, shape or form inspire confidence that something is going to get fixed anytime soon? When it's now 9 months after release and the company is hemoraging money at an accellerating rate?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Yeah true, I guess, SV should have been more wary of UE MMORPG version after what happened to VG.
And it doesn't inspire confidence, no, quite frankly. But given time, it could all eventually be sorted out, the game made stable, content added, etc. Going back to VG (ahem), I think if SoE had given it more than a skeleton crew, they could have cleaned up more and added a lot more stuff.
So the question is, basically, is SV going to survive? Or are the subs just going to dwindle away as people wander off disconsolately?
I mean, to sort it out, I'd guess what SV need now more than anything else is a lot more staff. But they ain't going to get more staff until they get either more subs or a sugar daddy.
There is no contradiction between my statements and his weblog posts. It is very possible for a program to be mismanaged AND poorly designed. He does not say that design flaws did not contribute to the failure of APB or that it yould be "incorrect" just that it would be lazy to "[point] the finger at a small number of staff and saying 'it was all your fault', without critically examining the part of the problem where he actually has some insight.
If you read his blogpost carefully. he does say that design flaws did play a crucial role in the failure of APB. "it’s true that without them, APB probably could have sold much better and I wouldn’t be writing this piece, it would be a very lazy attempt to explain our failure. " He further goeson to explain how the mismanagement impaired the ability to identify and fix bugs The really sad part is that, more often than not, we prevented or discouraged such people from helping out by building these bizarre internal divisions between groups. I think this was a misguided attempt to imitate how other big online games run things. For example, I once heard one of our fine QA staff being berated for – wait for it – emailing a summary of forum activity around QA. This guy had gone through every single forum post looking for complaints that might signify bugs, and summarised it in a plan of action for the QA team to investigate further. Commendable stuff indeed, but here he was, being told that ONLY OUR DEDICATED COMMUNITY TEAM were allowed to summarise forum activity for others (usually in the form of a number from 1-100 representing how favourable forum feedback was that week. Never found out how they computed that or what we were supposed to do with it.)
Stern-sounding codes of conduct were emailed around that, whatever their intent, in practice scared many developers away from interacting directly with our users. Not to worry, though, because our Community team was on the case! Except if a forum post was about a bug, because that wasn’t their area … bugs were for Customer Support. Who, naturally, didn’t read the forums … because that was Community’s job!
All of which is rather beside the point. I'm just pointing out that other games that use UE3 have had problems with bugs (some games, not all) and you seem to be making the assumption that none of these bugs relate in any way to the use of UE3. If you simply changed your stance from "Funny how every other developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems." to "Funny how some/many developers using UE doesn't have MO's problems." As it stands, you seem to be claiming the SV's difficult in using UE3 is somehow unique to them.
These do not directly relate to the use of UE3 for an MMO but they do demonstrate that others have previously had problems with Epic and the development of UE3:
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=14759
http://www.qj.net/qjnet/xbox-360/more-engine-problems-mistwalker-studios-talks-unreal-engine-3-woes.html
http://www.gamesradar.com/ps3/stranglehold/news/unreal-engine-3-delaying-games/a-2007082016332832027/g-20060301165611510047
http://n4g.com/news/54199/koei-questions-ue3-engine-epic-responds
http://www.videogamer.com/ps3/stranglehold/news/midway_cites_problems_with_ue3_for_ps3_game_delays.html
Of course here is the ironic part :
"In Epic's countersuit against Silicon Knights, the company lists various UE3-based games, both released and upcoming, that have received critical acclaim from various news outlets. Some of these include 2K's amazing BioShock, Bioware's Mass Effect, Webzen's Huxley, Ubisoft's Rainbow Six Vegas and Midway's Stranglehold."
Stranglehold-- went on to blame Epic for their delayed release
Huxley-- still in development hell 3 years later
{mod edit} People from my EQ community ended up working on Vanguard and it was an absolute mess from start to finish. Similar to RTW, there are employee blogs out there, and forum posts aplenty. With Brad and his cronies in charge, it had no chance.
@ Osmunda
You are still claiming to know better than someone who worked there. He explicitly states the problems, and I don't see UE in big neon letters up there. If those design decisions that he refers to were simply related to UE, and not just a company run into the ground by a multitude of factors, don't you think he'd say so?
He says it is incorrect (note I did not use quotes, unlike your attempt to portray that I did) that design flaws were the downfall of the company. Since you continue to ignore the evidence and present none of your own I see no point in further arguing over RTW with you, as I do not get paid by the word. You have not proven your case and the evidence is against you. You are simply repeating disproven claims (by someone who worked there) in an attempt to give your opinion more weight.
Present some evidence on UE being the cause of RTW's problems or just leave it. Mind you, you have already said you had "no idea" whether they were so I won't hold my breath.
Repeating for emphasis - you said you had no idea if RTW's problems were caused by UE and I have shown an employee who said they were not. Case closed pending new evidence on RTW.
On to the list of games you provide.
Stranglehold - didn't know Mortal Online was on the PS3? After all, it was the PS3 development tools that Midway referenced not the PC version. You are either being ignorant of the case in question or disengenuous. Can you find an example for the PC tools? It also references a delay, not technical problems. I think it is safe to say SV has technical problems.
Huxley - Yeah, another tiny studio attempting to hop onto the MMO money train. Even worse than SV, for eg their highest concurrant visitors stat is .... 28.
Silicon Knights - Game was given terrible reviews, SK attempted a rewrite and decided that negated it's contract with Epic - then the lawsuits started flying. Though in this case SK decided to start a project using unfinished tools and an incomplete engine. Who the hell thinks that is a good idea? They took a risk to use bleeding edge tech that was not ready for release in order to make a snazzier game. A gamble that didn't pay off.
You may notice a theme here. Tiny MMO companies rarely do well regardless of engine choice, they just don't have the skills or investment. SV fits into this category, along with just about every example you give. Look at DCUO, a game using the engine that works just about flawlessly according to reviews (not played it). That is what a good team can do, a mediocre or untalented team produces mediocre or garbage games - just like any other profession.
In order to stop this now pointless debate (I get the feeling nothing will change your opinion regardless of evidence presented), I will just ask a simple question.
Why does DCUO work and MO does not?
Both use exactly the same PC engine yet one is a buggy, mostly broken game with serious underlying problems (according to Henrik re: movement and combat) and the other is a stable, technically sound and well reviewed game. Why in your list of failed games is it always the tiny developers who fail while big companies appear to have little problems?
If you cannot or will not answer that question I see no point in this discussion.
Or, alternatively, flip it around, the UE is such a mess that only bigger companies with sufficient resources can make a good fist of it.
Smaller companies get misled by Epic into thinking they're getting a good deal with a great engine that's ostensibly marketed at a level that can help smaller companies get MMOs off the ground; when actually they've been sold a pup.
Which is the truth? It will all come out eventually.
I am gonna go with SV being inept. I will go with track record. Since beta there has not been ONE patch that did not break the game. I just can not believe that is EPIC's fault.
Remember SV's qualification's for starting an MMO.
Henrik= Hey guys we sit here and Mod the UE and play games with each other, why not make an MMO.
Guys= Man I would love to do that, but we need a lot of money.
Henrik= Dude I have a rich dad!!!
Star Vault is born.
Then they run into a player that makes a broken patcher for them and builds thier website, and now is doing all the flash.
Why would big companies with the resources to choose any engine they want or build their own (Sony for eg) use UE if it was so bad and cost them money?
As an example, a company with competant employee's and systems would have no problem with this engine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXHvY-zY9hA whereas you, I and SV would struggle. Would you blame the engine or the users when it fails because the users cannot operate it? Same with all these small MMO startups, they just don't have the required skills to do a hugely technical job.
It comes down to the simple question - why does DCUO work and MO doesn't?
PS edit: to the mod who edited my Brad comment - I won't repeat it but it is in the public domain and kinda relevant plus he has never sued over it. Just letting you know
That has got to be the WORST excuse I have ever heard in defense of a game here at MMORPG.com! Really people, can't you do better?
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
I think i mentioned that mismanagement and design flaws/bugs are not mutually exclusive. I am not saying that he is wrong in any way shape or form. He himself says "it’s true that without them [specific design flaws], APB probably could have sold much better and I wouldn’t be writing this piece".
Perhaps you could point out where he says it would be "incorrect". I did a page search (ctrl-F) of all three blogposts, and it appears he never uses the word. I also used the word "correct" in case he phrased it "not correct", "wouldn't be correct" etc. Even with that, I only found the word used twice in the comments section.---- "It’s good to relook every now and then at what worked and what didn’t in order to course correct before the ultimate end." and "If I recall correctly, when you had a window open and hit Print, you’d be presented a panel allowing you to pick render hosts to use for it, along with the resolution to render at."
Perhaps that's because the game has been handed back and forth between developers and you can't find an official forum. I presume you are talking about huxleygame.co.uk since it is one of the things pulled up by a search for "huxley" and "forum" and has a highest concurrent visitor number of 28. That is registered to Michael Rixon who is a UK Individual http://whois.domaintools.com/huxleygame.co.uk , not to Webzen or NHN or any other company connected to the game. Since Webzenand NHN are all both companies, I'm fairly certain Michael Rixon doesn't work for any of them.
I think I mentioned that they were different problems but did show that others had had problems with the development and implementation of UE3. "These do not directly relate to the use of UE3 for an MMO but they do demonstrate that others have previously had problems with Epic and the development of UE3:"
Also, have you considered that perhaps part of SV's problem is delays in some of the components of UE3? For two concrete example, they were waiting on speedtree and flash integration at launch. Henrik Nystrom: " We had a long delay on the network solution that to this very minute is getting it last parts in place. " http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/58672-still-waiting-real-sandbox.html#post1102128
Can you name one other game that uses Atlas? Perhaps it is foolish to use "bleeding edge" tech, but someone has to be first and these types of decisions are made well ahead of time based on the estimated development time from the company developing the tools. http://www.epicgameschina.com/tech/tech-atlas_overview.html
Does this mean you originally intended to say "Funny how every other multinational corporate developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems." instead of "Funny how every other developer using UE doesn't have MO's problems."?
Just reviewed the list of involved developers:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koei
, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Extremes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Knights,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistwalker,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway_Games and realized that "tiny" is not a very good description for at least a couple of them.
In particular it's hard to argue that Digital Extremes has a lack of experience programming for the Unreal Engine.
Eh? I'm not defending MO, I'm attacking Epic.
Look, as far as SV goes, there's a certain level of polish you can't expect, or will take a bit longer, with independent developers. You go into a deal like MO expecting problems, you don't go into it expecting even a semi-polished experience. But you do expect the game to be at least playable. This basic point is where MO has fallen down, on this trial period.
The fact that SV have cocked up is granted; also SV's ultimate assumed responsibility is granted. But the question remains, is the messy state of MO (and the state of Vanguard, and the state of the other games mentioned) also partly the fault of Epic?
I think yes, the examples given are evidence. Precisely, if it is the case that smaller developers have had trouble with UE, then the obvious thought is, well UE (MMORPG version) must be such a mess that it actually takes a lot of resources to fix, more than most small developers have.
Isn't it just a typical corporate narrative: company starts off with aspirations to make a superb FPS game engine and sell it, because FPS-es are incredibly popular. FPS goes down in popularity, MMORPGs rise in fashion, company adapts its engine to MMORPGs; but (not through any fault or maliciousness, just the way things are) the engine happens to need a lot of work to make it viable for MMORPGs, but the company only fixes it up enough so that it only kinda sorta more or less works, if you don't push it too hard. This is fine for larger teams of developers who have the extra manpower and financial headroom to fix it up (Sony); but it's disastrous for smaller (or less organised - VG) teams who have to spend extra time fixing stuff up, time that they should have had free to make the gameplay better and flesh out the world.
Is this not plausible, does this not sound like exactly what's happened?
Whether it is, I'm not certain, but that's how my mind is summing it up atm.
Theres no proof that EPIC wasn't fulfilling their responsibility beyond what Henrik has said.
And based on Henrik's track record...
Why does DCUO work and MO doesn't?
Already commented on your list. The problems are split into two camps - PS3 games delayed by the implementation of upgrades, and companies who lacked the skill to produce a game of any kind. The big companies on your list all fall into camp A, problems with the PS3 engine upgrade. A specific one off event it seems, can you find examples with a proficent company from the PC engine for eg? That kind of problem happens when you use the latest and shiniest tools on a non native platform.
As the Epic VP said -
"The bottom line is that making great games is hard work, ... There is no magic cure-all that completely hides the complexity of making world-class high-performance games on complex computing systems..."
"Our engine is not a launch-title technology. If you want to make launch titles you take your previous-gen engine and upgrade. If you want to make stunning true next-gen games like Gears of War and Unreal Tournament 3 (which people who license our engine generally often aspire to) you have to accept that it takes time to learn the intricacies of the systems."
Sony have competant programmers who took that time, SV has some modders and map makers who thought they could make an MMO.
The engine usually costs more than other licenses,but devs want it because they want to speed up production.Then you have marketing,Epic probably promises a fast developeed game with ease and if the dev doesn't do their homework are all over that and license it.Plus Epic has a neat little package that limits costs based on game turnaround,less customers means less cost for the license,i guess i should have just said "royalties".
The engine is not lacking at all,Epic games is right on top of the highest tech and licenses other developers tools/software into their engines.It does use higher resolution textures than many other engines ,especially older ones,but that doesn't mean the dev has to use the full ability of the engine.
Another point to consider is MOST developers also make their own toolsets for the engines,so the engine is never really limited at all.The Unreal engines do work in a slight bit different way than most engines,but really shouldn't take much to get used to a subtraction method as compared to an addition method.
One thing i wil ladmit from my use of the engines,is that they are not friendly to errors,you mess up there is probably going to be a huge problem somewhere in that map,however that is not the engines fault,devs need to do their work diligently and check it.
The mere FACT that ALL of the developers today are looking for SPEED of production,does not bode well for expecting QUALITY,they are more worried about hoqw soon they can make money.Look no further than SWTOR a HUGE EPIC type game and it will be put into production/sales after about 3 years of actual developement,that is shotty work imo.
Sooooo.....If we can't see quality production work from other devs,how can we expect it from small budget restrained devs?I would think or HOPE MOST of the MO players "knew" full well what they were getting into before they signed on,if not ,shame on you.This is that exact same "finger pointing",if the players did the homework,they would have known this small dev would struggle and they would have to be VERY patient.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If your contention is that a larger, better funded,more experienced development team can get better results, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. OTOH, Realtime Worlds was also larger, better funded and more experienced and we see where that got them.
Delayed implementation of the PS3 port --- Delayed integration of speedtree, flash, and seamless world streaming
They seem to be similar problems
That's hard to do when you insist that any problems APB had don't relate to the engine.
Unreal Tournament 3 debuted on windows November 2007, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament_3 and Atlas was released March 2009 http://epicgameschina.com/ and UE4 has been in development since 2003 so I wouldn't say MO is using the latest shiniest tools. Since I'm sure they do most of the programming on PCs (not X-box or Playstation) I'm not sure what you mean by non-native platform.
This is what they said when they are facing a lawsuit. I'm sure their marketing says otherwise and that they are not pushing people to use UE2.
TLDR : Why does DCUO (and let's chuck Gears of War in there too for giggles) work and MO does not?
Still awaiting an answer.
Because they have " a larger, better funded, more experienced development team".
You responded to the sentence that used that phrase so I'm not sure why you say " too long, did't read"
P.S. Did you find the word "incorrect" in that blog post? Or find some way in which mismanagement and bad design are cotradictory?
P.P.S. I guess you've got me on speedtree, how about flash intefration and seamless world streaming?