Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Sony's MMORPG "Sovereign" Dead 160

Posted by timothy from the coins-on-the-eyes dept.
Gudlyf writes "Although the main site for this massive-multiplayer game by Sony (once known as Verant) was updated at some point late last year, it seems that according to CNN Money, it's gone quietly dead after 4.5 years in development (reminds me of why I posted my vote in a previous story on vaporware): "Work on 'Sovereign,' a massively multiplayer real time strategy game, has been terminated after more than four-and-a-half years of development. Ambitious in nature, the game had hoped to replicate a continuous global war that supported up to 500 players. Diplomacy would have played as significant a role as the player's tactical abilities. 'We came to a decision that it was not going to be what we wanted it to be,' said McDaniel. 'It never really had the magic.'""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony's MMORPG "Sovereign" Dead More

Sony's MMORPG "Sovereign" Dead

Comments Filter:

  • Man... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @10:45PM (#5292839)
    I guess there's always Duke Nukem Forever to look forward to...

  • Massive war? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Malicious ( 567158 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @10:46PM (#5292847)
    Instead of being cancelled, they should admit that instead, a peaceful, diplomatic resolution was found, and thus, the war doesn't have to happen.

  • Makes sense (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dr. Spork ( 142693 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @10:46PM (#5292848)
    Why should Sony work hard on something original and interesting when they can just keep reselling Evercrack?
    • I very much doubt that the investment willbe wasted.. i'll betcah some (much) of it willbe rolled into a PS3/4 game once the technology is baddass enough to make it all work right.
    • they are creating Star Wars Galaxies right now instead. which will prolly have around 200k subscribers right off the bat.
  • I bought a new computers just for this game as well as DukeNukem Forever. I am sure it will still be usefull when DukeNuken is released.

  • Sound like a lesson in software engineering: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eddy ( 18759 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @10:48PM (#5292856) Homepage Journal

    Prototype early. If the fun isn't there in the prototype, you're just playing for "luck" to make it a success.

    • See, that's the thing. I'm sure most people at SOE know this. But the multi-million dollar question is: how the hell does a game that's so far from mainstream get strung along in development for this long?

      I doubt it'll happen, but I really wish Game Dev Mag could get one of their really insightful and honest post-mortems for this project. It'd be an excellent case study of all sorts of things to watch out for.
      • how the hell does a game that's so far from mainstream get strung along in development for this long?

        The question is, Does the Product Manager have the balls to pull the plug on a project whose development costs are already in the seven figure range?

        I suspect the project "died" at least a year or two ago, and nobody really had the cajones to say it.

        As someone who's followed Verant almost from the start, I have to say that I never saw the appeal of Sovereign. It sounded way too ambitious to really pull off and way too complex to hit a mass audience.

        In fact, I've never really understood why they let the Tanarus [tanarus.com] franchise fall by the wayside. It was the most popular game on the internet when it was in open beta; but by the time the shrinkwrapped version hit retail shelves, a lot of gamers had had their fill and were ready to move on. To this day, they've still got a solid base of Tanarus players (7 years after the open beta was first released!), but they have no interest on following up with these players.
    • I don't think this is necessarily true. I've played a few FPS "tests" where the only thing you can do is run around an empty level. Sometimes I've even had a gun so I can shoot walls. This isn't fun. It's interesting to see what the engine is like, but it doesn't give a feel for the game at all.

      • Of course the need for prototyping diminish as you move from "to boldly go.." to "let's crap out another pointless FPS clone".

        It sounds to me that you describe a technical test and not a game-play protoptype, which would have most of the elements of the game, albeit in very nonpolished state, possibly hardcoded/scripted all the way.

        • I agree with you that "just another FPS" doesn't really need to be prototyped. And I even agree with the original poster that prototyping is a Good Thing. My point was that it isn't always possible to prototype, expecially when everything is new. Just getting a game platform that can manage 500 players isn't trivial. Then add a (presumablly) 3D engine... and a rudimentary world... and some basic controls... you probably need some basic AI... Once you've got enough of a prototype to get a feel for the game, you're quite far into it. And at that point it's not a "prototype", but a "beta". Yes, sometimes you can prototype, but it's not asy easy as "woops, should've prototyped!"
  • no big loss

  • what?? (Score:4, Funny)

    by xao gypsie ( 641755 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @10:50PM (#5292866)
    It never really had the magic

    then it wasnt really an rpg, was it???

    xao

  • "Once known as..." (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheFrood ( 163934 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @10:50PM (#5292867) Homepage Journal
    Although the main site for this massive-multiplayer game by Sony (once known as Verant)

    I'm pretty sure the Sony Corporation was never known as Verant.

    TheFrood

  • Bah! Who need that? (Score:3, Informative)

    by camt ( 162536 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @10:50PM (#5292870) Homepage
    Who needs that when you have Earth 2025 [swirve.com]?!

  • As opposed to "slightly multiplayer" or "moderately multiplayer", I suppose . Sort of like this "multiple unilateral" thing we've been hearing lately.

  • No surprise.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Reedo ( 234996 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @10:51PM (#5292877)
    I remember it being announced and thought they were crazy. It really felt like Brad McQuaid and team just went with the first idea they had after they knew Everquest was a hit. "Hey, let's try a massively multiplayer RTS!"

    My question: Why did it take them 4 years to figure out that it wasn't going to be any good?
  • "It never really had the magic."

    Wait. It couldn't have been that hard to wedge in a spell system complete with reagents, scrolls, and various arcana. There have been other real-time strategy games with magic in them.

  • Saw it at E3 2000 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Washizu ( 220337 ) <bengarvey@[ ]cast.net ['com' in gap]> on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @10:51PM (#5292883) Homepage
    I saw Sovereign at E3 2000 and the graphics looked like ass back then. It scaled up from a single tank to an entire planet, though. The game had some neat features, but it didn't seem to solve any of the obvious problems a MM strategy game would have. In most current persistant world games you don't regress if you haven't been logged on in a while. That doesn't work in a strategy game, so what do you do?

    • That doesn't work in a strategy game, so what do you do?

      That's easy. You suckle on Sony's teat for four and a half years.

    • Re:Saw it at E3 2000 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @11:49PM (#5293105)
      "In most current persistent world games you don't regress if you haven't been logged on in a while."

      This is completely wrong.

      Most MM games are constantly evolving. It you don't play regular you do indeed fall behind. Far behind.

      The expansion packs for EQ add lots of new goodies and strata to the game. In level based games the maker can increase the maximum possible levels attainable, or create new abilities and rewards that can only be gained by actively playing.

      An example; If you had stopped playing DAOC five months after release, logging in today you would find yourself completely outclassed. No "epic" armor, no "Realm Abilities," no "spellcrafted" gear, you would have your original gimp spec that has almost certainly been changed dramatically, etc. A player that hasn't logged in since April or May 2002 is so far behind that any attempt to play as-is would be hopeless.

      It's part of the formula. You either put hundreds of hours in or find something better to do with your time.
      • Um... but what happens in DAOC or EQ if you didn't log in for, say, about a week.
        Nothing really, I'd dare to say.

        What happens in a real-time strategy game?

        Your defenses have been overrun, your resources captured and your production has plummeted.

        > A player that hasn't logged in since April or May 2002 is so far behind that any attempt to play as-is would be hopeless.

        Can't imagine that. So, why should other people then begin to play that game? What would that do to (RL) business? They may lag behind relatively to their friends, but still have an advantage over others.

        Of course, the game evolves to keep the people playing. But in contrast to strategy games, you'll never lose your once attained level.
      • "This is completely wrong."

        I wouldn't say "completely wrong." If log into Everquest one night, you won't find that someone killed you in your sleep the night before.

      • > A player that hasn't logged in since April or May 2002 is so far behind that any attempt to play as-is would be hopeless.

        So what are people who just bought and started playing supposed to do?!?!???

    • "Looked like ass"? (Score:4, Funny)

      by WG55 ( 153191 ) <w.adderholdt@verizon.net> on Thursday February 13, 2003 @06:15AM (#5293520)

      I saw Sovereign at E3 2000 and the graphics looked like ass back then.

      Reading the above, I have no idea whether the graphics looked good or bad. Specifically, who's ass are we using as a reference? Jennifer Lopez's? Strom Thurmond's? I need more information!

      • "Reading the above, I have no idea whether the graphics looked good or bad. Specifically, who's ass are we using as a reference? Jennifer Lopez's? Strom Thurmond's? I need more information!"

        Think Strom 3 years ago. Not that he looks any different at 97 than he does now at 100.

    • From what I remember, the problem of being attacked while not logged on was a basic design choice for them. Either:

      1. You have the ability to specify your units' AI to the point where your base defends itself in your absence
      2. If you don't have an ally logged in when you're not there, you're screwed.

      Even if you can order your AI around, I think that still would not have worked against a human player or two. On the other hand, maybe I'm thinking of another game. 10 six maybe? All these games run together after a while.

      Ravi

      • I don't know the detail's of Sony's planning (although 10^6 was even more focused on offline combat than Sovreign was going to be), but for persistent games in general, there is a 3rd option for preventing offline players from being attacked:

        Force (major) PvP combat to be prescheduled.

        That is, the enemy must announce the time of the attack (to within 30 minutes) from 24 to 96 hours ahead of time. That gives both your and their allies time to gather up for the fight, and helps ensure that the conquering of terrority is based on superior materials and tactical skill, and not luck of being offline at the wrong moment.

        The in-character explanation for this behavior could be that the warriors are bound by a strong sense of honor, or that their bases are protected by magic fields which only can be eroded by a slow-acting magic spell. Something like the Shield Disablers [anarchy-online.com] of AO.

        Of course, there are numerous flaws stopping this approach from being successful on its own- stemming from the fact that not everyone can skip work for an appointment made by a videogame. Partial solutions can be munged up. (For instance, the player can pre-script responses to the specific attack at that time, or delegate control of your forces to a trusted ally who will be online at that time. In a big enough clan, someone will be available 24/7. Or, the challenged player could be allowed to offer a reschedule)

  • 500 players? (Score:5, Funny)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @10:52PM (#5292885) Journal
    Ambitious in nature, the game had hoped to replicate a continuous global war that supported up to 500 players.

    And at Ambitious $400,000 a month subscriber fee, they might make their money back.

  • War is hell (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PizzaFace ( 593587 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @10:53PM (#5292890)
    The more realistic you make a war game, the less fun it is.
    • Yeah. No shit.

      "I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded.I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed.I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war." President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

    • This is true... (Score:4, Funny)

      by artemis67 ( 93453 ) on Thursday February 13, 2003 @08:49AM (#5293861)
      The more realistic you make a war game, the less fun it is.

      The beta testers' number one complaint about Sovereign was the napalm-spraying USB peripheral included in the box.
    • I disagree. Look at Battlefield 1942. The game might not be completely realistic, but it's 100 times more realistic than most FPS's, and 100 times more fun to boot. I prefer games that take skill, where you can't just run around taking enough damage to kill 20 men, rocket jumping, and such. And I'm definately not the only one.

  • Which is largely why your next Sony game. . . (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kfg ( 145172 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @10:54PM (#5292894)
    will still put you back fifty bucks, even though it could turn a profit for less than half that.

    Just as in the book and movie businesses most games are complete busts, after *first* sucking up years of time and millions of dollars in development.

    For the company overall to ever show a profit the ones that *do* hit have to sell for enough to not just make a profit on that one game, but also to cover the losses of all those games they had to develop just to find out *which* one was going to be the winner.

    Want major releases to only cost twenty bucks? It's easy, just find an infallible way to predict before development starts which potential projects will be the best sellers.

    It's an "easy" way for you to become a multi-millionaire in year or two as well.

    Good luck.

    KFG

    • This is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @11:17PM (#5292991) Journal
      Unfortunately, failures are part of the creative process - not everyone or everything can succeed.

      For every Van Gogh there are a million artists (with and without both ears) who are never recognised for their talents. Sometimes it's because they don't have any luck, sometimes it's because they just plain suck.

      Sony realised that Sovereign wasn't going to set the world on fire. Rather than waste more money launching what they considered would be a flop they canned the project. Sure, money has been wasted, but not as much as could have been. More importantly, Sony's games division doesn't have a "it-took-you-five-years-to-develop-that-piece-of-c rap" hanging round its neck for the next five years. Which is more than can be said for some game developers...

      Sony should be applauded for its decision. Sure, we want games but we want good games, not ones that even the developers aren't happy putting on their CV.

      BTW, if you're after cheap games, then there's a simple solution: don't buy them when they're launched, just wait six months or so. All titles, especially on the PC platform, are discounted a few months down the line.

      • No, it's actually a bit more complicated than that (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kfg ( 145172 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @11:31PM (#5293047)
        When Theodore developed Sturgeon's Law it wasn't that 90% of all writers are crap that he had in mind. It was that 90% of *everything written* was crap. What he was driving at was that 90% of everything written by a *great* writer was crap, but one of the main differences between a great writer and a hack was that the great writer didn't *publish* the crap.

        Thoreau's Journal is one of the most interesting works in literary history because it gives us an inside view into some of this. His journals are full of bits of Walden and other works while still under development. Of course, Old H.D. was a great writer, so even his journal was heavily edited and polished before publication.

        This applies to Van Gough as well. We don't see his crap because he himself made sure we didn't.

        There's also a story about a king who commissions a drawing of a rooster and when presented with the final bill balks. . .until the artist shows him the trunk full of hundreds of the previous inferior renditions the great artist disposed of before hitting the masterpiece.

        The king was paying for the *total* labor required, not just the final product.

        So Sony is merely doing what any wise artist, writer or businessman would do. When the first draft goes bad, and then the second and third, on the trash heap it goes.

        Crap is as crap does. Admit it before it drags you down to hack status, and at a loss.

        That's the true application of Sturgeon's Law for those with any real talent to peddle.

        KFG

        • Re:No, it's actually a bit more complicated than t (Score:4, Insightful)

          by zeno_2 ( 518291 ) on Thursday February 13, 2003 @05:40AM (#5293463)
          So Sony is merely doing what any wise artist, writer or businessman would do.

          I think that should be changed to any *rich* artist, writer, etc.. The only reason why this game didn't get released is because Sony is a big company with a lot of money. If this was some smaller game development company, and they spent over 4 years of their time making a game, and scrapped it, they will probably go out of buisness. If it was a smaller company making this game, my guess is that the game would have released and would have probably not done that well. That happens a lot more then a company just giving up after 4+ years..

          It was wise for them to do this though, I believe that the market for games that require a monthly charge (which im guessing this game would have done, i couldn't find anything mentioning that) is a pretty hard one to break into, you are going to need something thats gonna hook a lot of people for many many months to make money on somethin like that. I just hope they do something with all the work they did...

      • No not everything can succeed. But if you are a company like Blizzard. I don't think I can name a game they made that wasn't a hit.
        Warcraft, 1, 2, 3, Starcraft, Diablo I, II. All hits. They've never made a game that wasn't a winner. They were about to make a crappy game once, then they cancelled it. They know what the people want, and they provide.
        • on that crappy game just developing the idea, didn't they?

          Everyone does it. Some just catch it earlier than others.

          What's more, even in their sucessful games they make a lot of wrong moves and throw out a lot of bad ideas and code that we don't, as the public, see them throwing out.

          All that goes into the total overhead of a production. Even a successful game can actually lose money if too many costly mistakes are made in getting there and many revered small houses, with nothing but "success" on their resume, have been suddenly trashed by their corporate masters over the bottom line.

          Of course what most of those corporate masters have yet to grasp is the concept of the "status" product. GM hardly makes a dime on Corvettes, but having Corvettes in the line up sold a lot *Chev*ettes. Nissan did away with the "Z" because they were losing money on it, and have had to bring it back because the whole *company* lost tremendously by its absence.

          For that matter GE has been looking for a way to do away with their lightbulb business for decades, and haven't been able to figure out how to do it. To the public the entire GE "nation" loses value ( even though profitablity would go *up*) if it doesn't make lightbulbs. I mean, that's what GE *is*, right?

          Stop making lightbulbs, stop selling as many financial services too. That's just the way it is.

          As it is, Looking Glass is simply gone. Jesus I wish the games companies would buy a clue.

          KFG
      • A manic depressive who only ever sold one painting in his lifetime and suicided by shooting himself in the stomach and taking nearly a week to die an agonising death!

        I wouldn't call that lucky.

        Want cheap games? Buy the expensive ones instead of warezing them. ;)
    • ummm, dont you think that if someone found, "an infallible way to predict before development starts which potential projects will be the best sellers" they would want to charge MORE?
      Companies like MORE money, you know.
    • Huh? What are you suggesting here? You're seriously saying that Sony should pass along the cost of it's own incompetence to the end consumers through higher prices on future games? This sounds like the same argument the RIAA uses to shaft artists and consumers. "If we can't make up the loss from the nine artists out of ten we lose money on, we have no reason to fund diverisity, therefore we get to keep all of your money." Well, dipshits, find better artists.

      It's easy, just find an infallible way to predict before development starts which potential projects will be the best sellers

      As a corporation, you need to find people who understand both the target market and the untapped possibilities within that market. (Sometimes called a "taste fairy," more often a producer.) A long time ago, record companies paid people to do this. They seem to have mostly stopped paying them sometime in the late eighties. Now all we get is Britney Spears and Eminem. Fucking great. Is that what you want to happen in the games industry?

      • He's not saying that Sony should pass along the cost, he's observing that they will. That's the nature of business.

        The parallel with Hollywood is that, ever since Star Wars, the studios have gambled more money on blockbusters, expecting fewer successes with bigger returns on the winners; this is different from the practice before, where lower-budget films were expected to recoup more of their investment.
  • I have to pimp EVE [eve-online.com] from ccpgames [ccpgames.com]. (Just because it is made by some aquintances of mine).
    It is almost out, and people have been beta-testing it for some time now. Think of it as Elite on anabolic steroids. Read the FAQ [eve-online.com] and look at the screenshots [eve-online.com]. It is promising.
  • May have been an interesting game.. I played Shattered Galaxy [shatteredgalaxy.com] in Beta, which sounds kinda similar and it was quite addictive.
  • I don't suppose this project could be picked up by anyone else willing to finish/release it?

    That is to assume a) anyone would even be interested in it and b) Sony will be letting it go for someone else to develop.

    Anyways, I'd like to see it get finished; even if its not a superb game, the concept is cool, i'd give it a go.
    • More likely someone will pick up the concept, add/remove things where appropriate, and design/code it for today's technology. It's reasonable to program for 256kb+ downstream now, which means that the networking code could probably be redone. DirectX has gone up five or six versions, so the video needs to be redone. WinXP is a standard gaming platform now, which opens a lot more options for the programmers who don't want to sign off on a dated interface.

      I have little doubt that other people are working on a game design like this, but using the existing program design/code would probably be less efficient in terms of results than rethinking the project to use today's technology.

  • 4.5 years dev means.. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Whitecloud ( 649593 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @11:00PM (#5292924) Homepage

    Sorry but thats just to long. 4.5 years ago (1998 July)the tools to develop (geforce?) and the platforms available (win98 etc)limit the possibilites available to the dev team. We see this currently with games like Duke Nukem, (..waiting...) and Doom3 where the stated goal for system compatibility is GF3 and higher.

    I am sure some elements of the game are able to be reused, however all the coding and optimization would have to be redone to suit current systems, meaning more time spent waiting. "the magic wasnt really there" is a shocker statement though...was the concept good or not? If it wasnt scratch the game. 4.5 years sheesh, the intial code is obselete before the 4th years even begun!

    • They just might have some killer story that would make a multimillions dollar release. And with awesome content, they might just hold off on release for a couple years till they have a engine worth to release to the public.

      I saw the video of the game, the content looked good, the play looked worthwhile. But who knows, the programmers could be working on other projects till they see an engine worthy of Duke Nukem.

      It worked for George Lucas.

    • 5 years to develop a massively multiplayer title isn't that far off. You are not only developing a AAA title game (3 years), but are also building a thin-client app and a server farm to support it. Your applications must be optimized for speed, graphics, low-bandwidth, and impregnability. Since you are developing an ap that the average user will spend 6 hours per day over the course of four months on, you need to develop major in-game tools to create a content load that makes Master of Orion 3 look like Advance Wars. If I'm not mistaken, the world in Asheron's Call 2 is about the size of Texas. Can you imagine filling Texas with intruiging content?

      And after 5 years the code is not obsolete. Code is just that: code. A lot of that 5 years went to optimizing the code for a server farm and a computer speed that didn't exist before. If they started their server farm 5 years ago on BSD, their code is binary compatible. If they started 5 years ago on NT, their code is binary compatible. Solaris? Linux? Still going strong. In fact the only major changes they would have to make over that time would be to take advantage of multithreading, and a few other speed-up tricks that modern hardware pulls. But since that is backend, they could always compensate for that by buying more servers. On the backend what they optimize for is bandwidth costs, and if they were designing for 56k modems, they should be OK. As for the clients, It's never hard to take advantage of larger texture buffers.

      5 years was the development cycle for Asheron's Call 2, Star Wars Galaxies, and Everquest 2. It takes a very, very long time to make a networked world large enough to entertain thousands of people for thousands of hours. This isn't unreasonable.

      -Chris

  • Makes me all nostagic... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @11:02PM (#5292933)
    Ah, to be funded for over 4 years to work on a project that would never see the light of day. Endless hours checking /. while getting paid. Good times..good times.

  • All about characters (Score:3, Interesting)

    by borkus ( 179118 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @11:03PM (#5292938) Homepage
    Part of the attachment of any RPG/MUD/MMORPG is playing a charater. You have a persona and that persona has a story. As long as different things happen to that persona, you keep going back. The story keeps changing and the character develops and changes with the story. Moreover, most online RPG's tend to be more open ended than ones you play alone.

    The bigger factor online is the interaction with other characters, whether that's actually playing together or just chatting. RPG's lend themselves to this interaction more than first person real time strategry and slightly more than first person shooters (though I admit that games like CounterStrike and Battlefiled 1942 have more of a social factor since you play on a team).

    It sounds like Sovreign had neither of these things going for it.

  • What happened? (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @11:07PM (#5292952) Homepage Journal

    4 years of looking at pretty concept art and whiteboards then last week someone asked "Let's give this to the programmers.. we did hire programmers in '98, didn't we?"

  • Viva Planetside! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by viper432 ( 589797 )
    Though not a RTS, Planetside offers commanders the same type of control over their troops.

    Planetside.info [planetside.info]

    • PR-guy admits it's fucked. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by eddy ( 18759 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @11:36PM (#5293059) Homepage Journal

      You've _GOT_ to be kidding me. This is what the article says:

      Meanwhile, "PlanetSide" is nearing completion, with a public beta test scheduled for the end of this month.

      So far, so good... now here's the kicker:

      The game, which has seen "drastic design changes in the last four months" according to McDaniel

      So basically Scott McDaniel, which is the vice president of marketing and public relations for Sony Online Entertainment, is saying that instead of the QA-only sessions meant to go at the end of a project, they've just implemented DRASTIC DESIGN CHANGES and they're going to release it soon?!

      Hello, anyone home? The PR-guy is basically confessing that this is going to be a fucked bugfest which was largely developed with no clear design in mind.

      Sound great. Gotta admire the honesty though. Haha.

  • Diplomacy? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Best_Username_Ever ( 582302 )
    This game sounds too much like the classic board game "Diplomacy". I am not surprised that they couldn't capture the magic of Diplomacy in a MMORPG. The whole point of the game Diplomacy is to be a complete bastard to your friends, and win through underhanded tactics, deceipt, treachery and eavesdropping. It's not the sort of game that I would care to play with a bunch of strangers, I don't really see the point in it.
    • Diplomacy is now being played via email by thousands of people all over the world. It's a great way to play the game, especially if you don't have six other friends who have six+ hours to spend playing a board game. For more info, check out The Diplomatic Pouch [diplom.org]

  • AutoDuel (Score:3, Interesting)

    by On Lawn ( 1073 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @11:23PM (#5293010) Journal
    AutoDuel (car wars), now there's a game for a MMORPG. Arena fights at scheduled times, a real economy, cross country errands, and friends. Perhaps there is something out there like it?

    There isn't a month that goes by that I don't wish I was playing it.

    ----------------
    OnRoad [onlawn.net]: What racing games do to you. My favorite kind of GPL.

    • Re:AutoDuel (Score:4, Funny)

      by ShooterNeo ( 555040 ) on Thursday February 13, 2003 @11:18AM (#5294784)
      That actually sounds interesting. So its an MMORPG set in the real world, where you roadtrip around the country and duel other players? Course, while you're at it would be even more fun to add some GTA3 style elements...the ability to go on a cross country crime spree could be interesting, if well simulated. The only problem is part of the fun of GTA3 is being a thug to anyone without consequences. If EVERYONE in the game (who's a human player) is a thug, it might not be very fun...noone to beat up.

      • Re:AutoDuel (Score:2, Interesting)

        by On Lawn ( 1073 )

        In autoduel, you could sign up to deliver cargo's or steal cargo from other cars and sell it on the black market. That, I think, makes a good balance in economy that would make it profitable for a certain number of people to be thugs, and a certain number of people to be good guys.

        But since black market prices aren't near what you can get on delivery, the economy restricts the number of thugs.

        Think of it, for really important loads you can get your friends to drive with you in a mad-max style caravan and fight off raiders. Or you can run up the ranks in arena matches, or just log on to watch the arena matches.

        Man I wish I had an autoduel mmorpg.

        -----------
        OnRoad [onlawn.net]: What racing games do to you. My favorite kind of GPL.
  • Last year in Japan there was a very popular anime series called .hack//sign about goings on in an Everquest style game called The World. A series of three playstation games directly related to the series came out also and as far as I know these games are SINGLE PLAYER !

    Anybody know what the story is with MMORPGs in Japan or if I'm wrong about the single player nature of these games ?

    The anime series was very good by the way and if you haven't seen it already I'd recommend you check it out.
  • This is actually quite a shock to me. Dropping a game after this long is a stupid business move, but I salute their dignity by not just releasing it anyway.
  • Asheron's Call 2 [warcry.com] faces more and more pressure to perform. Many players still call it playta becuase of some nagging broken features.

    However I do find the frog people thing kinda missplaced in the game. It may not turn out too well with established players with something so un LOTR like in the game since EQ is a Middle Earth type based game. I'll play AC2 and wait for Middle Earth Online which Turbinegames is going to make eventually.

  • Bush administration takes over development (Score:5, Funny)

    by anti-drew ( 72068 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @11:29PM (#5293034) Homepage
    Happily, the US government has indicated their interest in continuing the development of a continuous global war. Sources have even leaked a demo!

    Flash demo of GULF WAR 2 [idleworm.com]

    Ok, it's obvious but I had to post it.

  • MMORPG != MMORTS (Score:5, Informative)

    by LazJen ( 14834 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @11:39PM (#5293072) Homepage
    MMORPG is for roleplaying games.

    This was for a real time strategy game. MMORPG is incorrect. Not all massively multiplayer games are roleplaying games.

  • why not..... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by neilsly ( 106751 ) <neil@hp1g . c om> on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @11:49PM (#5293107) Homepage Journal
    open source it?

    (this isn't flamebait)

    -neil

    • Re:why not..... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There's no way they'll do that. The risk that it could be turned in to a fun, free MMORPG and take revenue away from Evercrack is too great. Besides, they may find a buyer for the technology that they can foist non-compete contracts on.

      Eventually an open source MMORPG will happen. I have a scalable tileable 3D object server with dynamic bandwidth throttling and an on-demand object-seeking client running that I hope to hook up with some OpenGL gurus someday, and I know I'm not the only one tinkering with that kind of thing.

    • Re:why not..... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ramzak2k ( 596734 )
      the reason they wouldnt do this is simple. Although the project was a big failure there may be segments of work that could be transferred into other games - 4 years of research work obviously must have taught them something.

  • Sounds like Eschaton (Score:4, Informative)

    by srichman ( 231122 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @11:50PM (#5293108)
    Global warfare with diplomacy sounds a bit like Eschaton [eschaton-online.com]. (Fingers crossed that that game doesn't meet a similar fate...)
  • Heck, we all know why Sony killed the development: It is all too obvious that diplomacy doesn't play a key role in real life, so why bother :-)

  • Followed it from the Start (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eidolon909 ( 589869 ) on Thursday February 13, 2003 @04:10AM (#5293266)

    I followed Sovereign from when it was first annouced then lost interest as the years kept ticking by.

    It started off as an incredibly cool concept, a modern day world with modern units. You inhabited a single planet, scalable to support to 500 "countries".. so each world would be server. Then had some awesome looking models functioning in the alpha.. aircraft carriers, fighters, nuclear subs. Battle tanks etc. It look like things were progressing smoothly, they had a nice look UI finished, you could zoom into a single infantry man all the way out to the whole planet.. this was supposed to be scaled to what your Satelite technology was. Resource system was in.. you had a character.. which effected how you ruled your empire/citizens.. such as Diplomat, Theocrat, Warmonger etc...

    THEN... they completely ditched the concept and basically started from scratch. So it was 4.5 years for the name "Sovereign" but them dumped the first game after about 2 years and started all over again. The new concept was retarded and thats when I stopped following it. They moved it from modern times to into the future.. where you controlled an entire planet with space ships and other junk. All the cool modern-era tech was replaced with goofy space-shit and all the gorgeous models were replaced with cartoony crap.

    The original concept was ambitious and amazing, too bad they didn't have the balls to make it work. Instead they opted for Trade Wars 2002 MMORPG and it tanked. Glad it happened too.
  • "want to play a game?" "global nuclear warfare" *misses the good ol days*
  • "Diplomacy would have played as significant a role as the player's tactical abilities"

    So it's a fantasy game, right?
  • ... the slating that Simcity 4 has received. Good on them for having the courage to admit that it wasn't going to work.
  • Now they'll release all their models and textures to the public domain, right?

  • My favorite... (Score:5, Funny)

    by John_Sauter ( 595980 ) <John_Sauter@systemeyescomputerstore.com> on Thursday February 13, 2003 @09:05AM (#5293934) Homepage
    My favorite Massive Multiplayer Role-Playing Game is Slashdot. You get competition, very intelligent opponents, cute graphics, and a persistent score. You can play with a modest PC behind a dial-up line, and you don't need good fine motor skills. Best of all, you can play without paying a monthly fee. How can EverQuest compete with that?
    John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)

  • The number of MMORPG's (Score:2, Insightful)

    by aliens ( 90441 )
    I have a feeling that there's only a certain population out there willing to play MMORPG's. The more that come out, the more you'll find with hardly enough players to support an interesting world. No point in playing a MMORPG when it's just you and a wombat ::)
  • All they could get the game to do was keep spitting out. "They only way to win is to not play the game"
  • Sounds like "release the Hounds!"

    Why not give this sunk cost in source code to the free community, let them hack away and salvage what could undoubtedly be an amazing game to play? Better yet - as source, it can touch a much larger market than before, making the community larger.

    Then Sony can at least see some revenue, either by hosting servers on their network, or sell support products and add-on packs.
  • So I guess midgard is not alone in dead-games country

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close