Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
XBox (Games) Microsoft Games

Xbox 360 Version of Champions Online Being Held Back By MS 154

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This discussion has been archived.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

Xbox 360 Version of Champions Online Being Held Back By MS

Comments Filter:
  • More money! (Score:2, Interesting)

    I suspect MS is just looking for a way to get more money for themselves out of it. An MMO is something people will play for quite some time. They cna't let devs give away anything for free or allow people to spend anything less less than a premium price to game on the 360.
  • by MosesJones (55544) on Monday August 31, 2009 @05:47PM (#29267653) Homepage

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

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

    • by tgd (2822)

      What does Apple's App Store offer that XBox Live doesn't?

      You can buy games. You can buy add on content. You can buy media. You can even download demos and upgrade them in-game to the full game.

      The only benefit I can see to the App Store is that I can see in dollars what something costs.

    • by MediaStreams (1461187) on Monday August 31, 2009 @07:32PM (#29268499)

      What delusional fantasy world are you living in?

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

      * Free online play for all non-MMORPG titles

      * Dedicated servers

      * Open to mods and other free content from developers

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

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

      • by SilentChasm (998689) on Monday August 31, 2009 @07:57PM (#29268673)
        While I do agree that the lack of a dedicated server feature is somewhat annoying, having the game manufacturer responsible for maintaining the online portion of the game I believe is a bad idea.
        It might be the way it's done on PCs where there is no possible central authority, but on consoles there really should be some kind of coordination.
        Take EA as the big example of developer run servers. A lot of their "old" online games no longer work online even on the xbox because they demanded to run their own servers. Other games, such as those on the original xbox not by them, still work.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ShakaUVM (157947)

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

      Actually, the XBL guys recognize that if people are already paying monthlies to get access to an MMORPG, it's pretty dick to also charge them for gold access. So IIRC, you don't need gold access to play a hypothetical MMORPG on an Xbox. Also, they have special rules that allows MMORPGs to break their normal rules on digital downloads, patches

      • So IIRC, you don't need gold access to play a hypothetical MMORPG on an Xbox

        Not hypothetical. Final Fantasy XI is on the XBox 360, and, no, you don't need Gold access for it. Silver (which is free) will allow you play FFXI. (You still have to pay Square the subscription fee for FFXI itself, though, of course.)

      • by geekoid (135745)

        You know, if developers just told Microsoft that can't have the game, the world would be a better place.
        Yeah,. it might cut some revenue short term, but pretty darn quick MS will change their tune, or the XBox will go away.

  • by butalearner (1235200) on Monday August 31, 2009 @05:53PM (#29267709)
    I'm glad to hear Square Enix decided against screwing over PS3 owners again like they are with Final Fantasy 13 (holding back the PS3 release for a year until the 360 port is completed).
    • by grapeape (137008)

      Umm the gap between the Japanese and the US/Pal versions of FFXIII is only 6 months which is actually the fastest localization of any FF game so far. Maybe you should be thanking MS for speeding things up??

  • Gee, I wonder if Microsoft is working on publishing their own MMO for the XBox.

    Nah, I'm sure I'm just being paranoid.

    • by toleraen (831634) *
      I look forward to Microsoft's return to working with Turbine for the release of Asheron's Call 3!
      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        That's not even funny - Microsoft's "Live Team" stomped so hard on what was initially a decent game (AC2) it's a wonder that Turbine didn't call deliberate foul.

  • ... that pissing off gamers doesn't make more money, it makes less!
  • by popo (107611) on Monday August 31, 2009 @06:22PM (#29267943) Homepage

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

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

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

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

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

    • by Hatta (162192) *

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

      Not being an MMO player, I'm curious, what's the difference? Why doesn't Phantasy Star Online count as a "true" MMO?

      • Despite the name, you didn't actually have to go online to play Phantasy Star Online.

      • Because there was no MM in their ORPG?

        At least that was my understanding of it.

      • by sorak (246725)

        I think it was more like Diablo. You and a friend link up and both go through the game. There was no point at which you were exposed to anyone you didn't already know.

      • by Rycross (836649)

        Its not persistent-world and actually works peer-to-peer when you're actually out questing. You can only party with a certain number of people (four I think?). At least in the Dreamcast/GC versions, your character data was stored locally, which caused rampant cheating.

        When people talk about MMORPGs, they typically mean persistent, shared-world games with simultaneous interaction with a fair number of players (100+), run on a central server.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Chris Mattern (191822)

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

      The main problem has historically been that you really need a hard drive to support an MMORPG. FFXI on the PS2 came with one to install in your PS2--in fact, it was the only way the PS2 HDD was ever released, and FFXI was the only thing on the PS2 that ever required it (and damn near the only thing that even supported it). EQOA tried to just u

  • by popo (107611) on Monday August 31, 2009 @06:27PM (#29267989) Homepage

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

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

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

    • You're not alone. I believe Microsoft has always done a remarkable job in games. DirectX alone has been an amazing accomplishment. And Microsoft's development tools have been very good too.

      • by HannethCom (585323) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @03:04AM (#29271205)
        I agree DirectX was an amazing accomplishment. I can't think of any other API where you would allocate buffer and you had to constantly check to make sure that the pointer to that buffer hadn't been magically lost. Oh, I loved the sound API from version 5-8, and it was always going to be fixed "In the next version."

        *Start Rant*

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

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

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

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

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

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

        I most recently ran into this when looking into the contacts system in Vista. Here it was, this brand new system to centralize all our contact information in Windows. A new API that is only about 1.5 years old. No longer supported. No links to the new API, if there is one. I can't even figure out if Windows Contacts are just in Windows 7 for "backward compatibility", or if its meant to be be used.
        • Actually, I've done quite a bit of programming, including game programming. I'm no DirectX guru, but I've used it effectively, and so have many others. It doesn't suck. But sure, it's not perfect. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "amazing", but then there's not a single piece of software out there that I can't find fault with if I choose to look for it; I just choose not to. And personally, I'll take DirectShow over VFW any day. Why are people using OpenAL instead? For the same reason people choose alternative

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

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

          Now, to be honest, I have not done much winsock coding. All that I know about it is when I tried it for the first time, I had a windows app communicating with our game and sending and receving packets bug free in under a day. I didnt have a single problem or error that wasnt my fault (de
          • by geekoid (135745)

            No, MS APIs are still crap. Yes theya re better, but they are horrible, horrible POS.

            DirectX is NOT good. It's suable. It's primary reason is to help people into new OS's. A simple look at it's history will reveal that.

            "I mean, before it was around there was no other system in placewhere you can chat, create a single buddy list, invite people to a game that they arent current playing, etc FOR EVERY GAME ON THAT PLATFORM? T"

            You mean, beside the PC?

            Anyway, I suggest you work with other API and other Platforms

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          Also, if DirectX is such an amazing accomplishment, how come they had to make a version specifically for the XBox that is only partially compatible with the PC version?

          This is a dumb question. Oh noes, a customized version of an API for a custom use!? It is annoying for developers, granted. But DirectX was never worth using in the first place.

          The truth is that DirectX started out as a piece of garbage, and is slowly getting better and better.

          Yes, there was a time when in order to plot a pixel on a Direct3D screen you had to go to GDI. Clearly things have improved.

          Microsoft does not want a good API.

          Microsoft just wants all your money, for which they need a stranglehold on a given industry. If 3dfx had never invented GLIDE, and had just done MiniGL from the beginning (which would have been kind of like havi

        • by brkello (642429)
          Go to kernel.org and look at how many Linux kernel versions there have been. Do you see how stupid your argument is now?
        • Why are they having to come out with a new version of the API every 6 months to 1 year? DirectX 9, 9a, 9b, 9c, 9d, 9e, 10, 10.1, 11

          To take advantage of the new capabilities of latest video cards...is this something you don't want??

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

          Citation needed.

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

          Because DirectX was a piece of shit at the time. DirectX today is a very different API.

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

          I don't see how this is a big deal. Just create an object that stores the buffer calls the check every time you need access or process the buffer. From then on just use the object in your main program and voila, no more annoying checks. There's a lot of annoying little subtleties like this in OpenGL as well. They can be easily taken care of with correctly engineered code.

    • I agree with you. I think most of what MS makes is pretty ordinary but I really like my 360, MS game studios and XBL.

    • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Monday August 31, 2009 @07:26PM (#29268457)
      Yes, the 360 is a "success", but also has terrible flaws. For one is its 50% failure rate (http://www.joystiq.com/2009/08/17/game-informer-xbox-360-at-54-2-percent-failure-rate/ http://kotaku.com/5339555/report-xbox-360-failure-rate-over-50-percent [kotaku.com] http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/24/microsoft-responds-to-xbox-360-54-2-percent-failure-rate-report/ [engadget.com] ). While XBL is fine for gaming, buying stuff with "Microsoft Points" is odd, unlike Nintendo Points or buying gift cards with Sony, theres no easy way I can find out what everything costs in US dollars. Etc.
      • While XBL is fine for gaming, buying stuff with "Microsoft Points" is odd, unlike Nintendo Points or buying gift cards with Sony, theres no easy way I can find out what everything costs in US dollars. Etc.

        Microsoft points are annoying, but all you have to do is divide the points value by 80 to get the dollars so it's not too difficult

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by VGPowerlord (621254)

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

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

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

          I think that covers all the major amounts.

        • by tlhIngan (30335)

          Microsoft points are annoying, but all you have to do is divide the points value by 80 to get the dollars so it's not too difficult

          US dollars, to be precise. (Alternatively, add 25% to the points value and divide by 100, which is easier to do mentally - thus 800 points, plus 25% = 1000, divide by 100, gives you $10)

          An interesting aspect of the points system is it buries the whole notion of exchange rates. I remember when the Xbox360 was released, you paid $20 Canadian for 1250 points (~$15.63 US in points,

    • by Anonymous Coward

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

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

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

      Noisy as fuck.

      Giant external power brick.

      Idiotic online fees.

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

      Overpriced WiF

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

      Yes.

      I'm no fan of our evil corporate overlords

      Me neither.

      but hell, I like my 360.

      I don't have one.

      Halo rules.

      Iffy.

      Geas of War rules.

      Yes.

      And XBL is a well done online offering.

      Yes.

      What? It should be free?

      Yes.

      Sigh....

      Why can't you accept that it should be free? Everyone but Microsoft can do it for free.

      • by grapeape (137008)

        Ever look at the number of demos on Live compared to PSN? Thats why its not free...Sony charges the developers while MS charges the customer, neither are "free" whats different is who is paying for it. Unfortunately Sony's model more often than not results in the developer not bothering to release a demo at all.

        • Sony charges the developers while MS charges the customer, neither are "free" whats different is who is paying for it.

          Sony charges the developers for bandwidth for the first 60 days if the articles I read last year were correct. After that, no more charges.

          Their logic is, demos are marketing, and that should come from the marketing budget.

          Sonyâ(TM)s change of policy meant that (for example) if a 1GB demo were to be downloaded one million times, it would cost the publisher $160,000. Take into account that even demos cost a fair amount to make in the first place, this will all add up.

          Whoop dee doo. EA spends over 20 million marketing most of their games. Are they really going to flinch at $160k?

          And I thought Microsoft charged for bandwidth on some content, too? Why else is most of the free-on-PC DLC costing money on XBoxLive?

        • Sorry but I rather see the dev get hit with the cost so they think twice about releasing a shit demo and it's only fair that Sony gets to recoup their bandwidth costs. $160,000 is quite minor compared to what MS will milk from its customers. But then again, the Xbox 360 wouldn't be profitable at all if MS offered up comparable pricing as the competition.

          And what about requiring a Gold membership to view Facebook or Twitter on your 360? It's not even their servers and they're charging people to access the
    • by Spit (23158)

      I agree, I've never run Windows on my PC, always have some sort of *nix since before windows 95. But these new games sure are fun, and wine sucks for brand new games. (no offence wine crew)

    • If Stalin made Ferraris and sold them for $100 a piece I still wouldn't buy one.

      You act like people hate Microsoft for the sake of hating them rather than because of the things they've done. Even the 360, the thing you claim they "got right," had a 100% failure rate on the day of release.

      • by Dutch Gun (899105)

        Even the 360, the thing you claim they "got right," had a 100% failure rate on the day of release.

        I must be misunderstanding what you mean by this, because it sounds like you're claiming that every single Xbox 360 sold on launch day died later that same day.

        Also, very clever of you to use Stalin instead of Hitler, thus avoiding a Godwi... Oh snap!

    • by geekoid (135745)

      I love when people who like something tgyhink the only reason people oppose it is becasue it isn't free.

      XBox is a shoddy piece of equiplment by any sane standards. Over 50% fail rate is shoddy.

      Compared to other online system, XBL is crap.

      No, I don't Bash MS just to do it.

  • by CrazyJim1 (809850) * on Monday August 31, 2009 @06:33PM (#29268057) Journal
    First let me start off with its strongest point: Avatar creation. The Avatar creation is very excellent. I've never seen one as good as this one where you can customize your character's looks. Many people spent over a half hour customizing their character in this tool. It is also a treat when you play the game to see new looks.
    There is a high degree of character customization. Out with the Tank/Heal/DPS/Ranged/PETS, in with do it all if you know how. Some people like to pick skills based on their character, but you can pick skill all across the board if you like.

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

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

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

    • How does the avatar creation compare to City of Heroes?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Morkano (786068)

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

        • CoH has had costume save / loading for a while now. Since last December I think.

        • by thesandtiger (819476) on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @12:24AM (#29270405)

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

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

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

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by thesandtiger (819476)

        It's better and worse.

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

    • City of Heroes has been doing all of this for 5 years now, fyi.
    • Now, the real question is... is it just a rehash of City of Heroes?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31, 2009 @06:51PM (#29268199)

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

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

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

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

    G.

    • It seems to be not only ok, but expected that an MMO will ship with MAJOR bugs. We aren't talking a little game play thing here and again or an occasional crash, we are talking sections of the game unfinished, major balance issues, massive server down times, etc. This is the standard it seems.

      This wouldn't be a big deal if it was just bad ones. I mean there are bad single player games. There have been releases that were completely broken, like you couldn't even play to completion, on release and even after

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sorak (246725)

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

      1

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

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

      2

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

      3

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

      G.

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by elrous0 (869638) *
      There is way more to the story than that. MS seems to be openly hostile to MMO's on their console (probably because the cost conflicts with with own Xbox Live Gold subscription program). Basically, every single MMO since Phantasy Star Universe announced for the 360 has been canceled or put on indefinite hold. Only two MMO's have ever been released for the Xbox, Final Fantasy 11 (an awful PS2 port) and Phantasy Star Universe--both released three years ago. And not a single MMO is currently on schedule for th
  • by MrMista_B (891430) on Monday August 31, 2009 @07:25PM (#29268453)

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

    Or, when it is released, that is works?

    I prefer the second.

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

      I'm afraid that's wasted sentiment on this board. The same people that are quick to bash MS for rushing the hardware and experiencing massive failure rates are the same trolls claiming MS is just holding this up until they can milk it for every last penny. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

      • by MrMista_B (891430)

        Yeah, weird isn't it?

        How the hell is spendingi money on compatibility and testing, and /not selling it/ during that process, 'milking it for every last penny'?

        Bizzare groupthink going on in here sometimes.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BikeHelmet (1437881)

      I prefer the second.

      That's a given.

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

      • The jig isn't done, until Champions Online won't run?

      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by MrMista_B (891430)

        Well, the easy answer is that Sony doesn't care very much about the online experience on the PS3, whereas the 360, with Xbox Live, is very much built around that. Quality isn't fast, or cheap.

        If Microsoft wanted to milk this, they'd release it now, in a buggy, laggy, not Xbox Live integrated state.

        However, in this case, they're spending time, money, and fans goodwill, to take the time to make sure the game, on release, is good and working.

        Why is that a bad thing?

        • Why is that a bad thing?

          It's not - but you're basing it on the assumption that you're getting a better experience, which sometimes isn't true.

          I recall reading some articles way back comparing the online experience between PS3 and XBox360, in games like Cod4.

          Although the reviews favoured XBoxLive, they did mention the PS3 servers had far less latency, and the big positive for XBoxLive was basically the universal friends list.

          I don't know about you, but I'd skip the friends list if it gives me less latency. Most MMOs have that stuff

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

      Or, when it is released, that is works?

      Both!

    • by elrous0 (869638) *
      That's the same thing I heard people saying back when Age of Conan got "delayed" for the 360. And I would be willing to bet serious money that the Champions Online "delay" on the 360 will turn into "canceled" just as surely as Conan did. It's one thing to delay a title to make sure the publisher gets it right, it's quite another to actively kill every MMO in development for your console. MS, for whatever reason, simply does not like the idea of MMO's on their console. Every one of them since 2006 has been k
    • by geekoid (135745)

      Good point, but why are the developers confused about the delay? IF that was the case the developers would be involved in tuning it for MS.

  • sometime in the distant future?

  • MMO? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Locke2005 (849178) on Monday August 31, 2009 @08:01PM (#29268715)
    I still the the acronym "MMO" sucks; shouldn't it be either "MMOG" or "MMORPG"? MMO would just stand for "Massively Multiplayer Online", which is somewhat lacking in the noun department.
    • What sounds better?

      Em Em Oh

      Muh Mog

    • [quote] I still the the acronym "MMO" sucks; shouldn't it be either "MMOG" or "MMORPG"? MMO would just stand for "Massively Multiplayer Online", which is somewhat lacking in the noun department. [/quote] Maybe player is the noun?
      • by Jesus_666 (702802)
        If "Multiplayer" is the noun the "Massively" is syntactically wrong. If "player" is the noun "Multi" needs to be an adjective, which it isn't. Either way "Massively Multiplayer Online" remains nonsensical.
    • by geekoid (135745)

      It's stupid for a more importantr reaon.
      It's and online game.
      So yeah, it's multiplayer.

      how about "Online Game" The rest doesn't matter anymore.
      Also, if you ahve a MMORPG, does that also mean you need to say MMOFPS?

      Now to be confused with my MHBG. (Multiplayer Home Board Game)

  • So...wait...Multiple Sclerosis is keeping CO from coming out for the XBox?
  • See, first you have to buy the game, then you have to pay monthly fees to play.

    Now Microsoft is dipping their greedy fucking hands into the money pot and they want to be able to charge and make money by forcing gamers on the 360 to use the Live service, forcing gamers to pay even more.

    Pure and simple someone needs to wipe out the XBOX Live servers and the entire service, and force M$ into playing nice with everyone else. Wii and PS3 allow free online gameplay, which is why I own them and not any M$ console.

"Anyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin." -- John Von Neumann

Working...