Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Role Playing (Games) Businesses Entertainment Games Apple

Sony Slow To Reveal Mac EverQuest Code Freeze? 71

Posted by simoniker from the several-months-later dept.
mpk writes "It seems Sony Online Entertainment has finally officially admitted (albeit only by an mail response to a user query which got posted into a web forum) that the Macintosh EverQuest server is to receive no further bug-fixing or development support, although the game is still available and playable online. The kicker is that this has actually been the case for eight months, following the Mac version's release in June 2003, yet SOE chose not to tell their customers about it. Inside Mac Games also has the story, and I've posted my thoughts as well. There's no mention of this policy on the EQ Mac home page and the game still appears to be being sold in the shops."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Slow To Reveal Mac EverQuest Code Freeze? More

Sony Slow To Reveal Mac EverQuest Code Freeze?

Comments Filter:

  • Cross platform compatibility (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Drakino ( 10965 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:06PM (#9198041) Journal
    This type of thing is not a major issue for companies like Wolfpack and Blizzard, makers of Shadowbane and Worlds of Warcraft. Both chose to go with more open standards, and have cross compatibility with no issues.

    Verant choose 3dfx Glide way back when, and then DirectX. It's not a wonder they coudn't easially make a Mac client that could play in the same worlds as the PC users. I would have bought Mac Everquest in a heartbeat for the EQ LANs my friend throws, but alas, stupidity prevailed and they released a non compatible game.

    The lesson at the end of the day? Open standards makes life easier. Closed standards puts you into a tough position eventually.
    • Isn't it the server that they are talking about? I very much doubt that the server makes use of 3dfx or DirectX.

      Maybe the reason they are not going to maintain has much more to do with the numbers. If there were as many people using the Mac version as the Windows one, I'm sure it would be being maintained.

      I think its pretty safe to say, that if you are serious about playing games, you are better off with a PC than a Mac.
      • I think its pretty safe to say, that if you are serious about playing games, you are better off with a PC than a Mac.

        I think it's pretty safe to say, that if you are serious about playing games, you are better off with a console than a PC or Mac.
        • Well, that is personal prefernece. I'll take a keyboard and mouse over a console controller any day for the types of games I play. Namely, first person shooters. Also, most games look better on the PC.
        • People are always saying this, but where's the evidence? Unless what you want to do is play games in front of your TV, a PC is usually better. There are more games for PC than for any individual console, the PC supports higher resolutions, the PC has better sound in most cases if you spend $100 or so for a sound card that puts out dolby digital, there are more game controllers available for PC (including assorted console controllers with USB adapter widgets)... Need I go on? Perhaps the most compelling argu

          • Re:Cross platform compatibility (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @08:35PM (#9200877) Homepage
            • Your TV is probably much larger than your monitor.
            • Your TV probably has better sound than your PC, especially if you didn't shell out for 5.1 for PC (not to mention that you're ignoring the cost of a decent set of 5.1 speakers, and that if you shell out for 5.1 for your TV or stereo, chances are it'll be way better than your PC system).
            • There are a vast number of games that are not RTSes or god games, and some people do enjoy them and aren't interested in RTSes or god games.
            • First person shooters are acceptable on modern consoles (no, it's not a mouse, but it's good enough considering the rest of the console experience and the fact that everyone else is using a controller too).
            • Your couch is probably more comfortable than your computer chair.
            • Consoles don't need maintenance. Games don't get patched, hardware doesn't conflict, upgrades don't break things. (OK, the online services like Live are starting to break with this convention, but console troubleshooting horror stories are far more rare than PC stories).
            • Consoles don't need to be upgraded. All games ever released for a console will run at at least 30 frames per second virtually all the time, even in heavy action, unless you do something really unusual like melee a dead Elite 20 times and stare at the floor. A console is good for several years of gaming for the cost of a video card. Good luck playing today's games on a 4-year-old PC (let alone a 4-year-old PC that cost $300).
            • Consoles don't need to be upgraded

              Well, if we keep getting crappy ports of console games to PC, then we won't have to worry about upgrading our PCs.
            • Your TV is probably much larger than your monitor.

              My TV is about 13" and my monitor is a 21" flat panel.

              Your TV probably has better sound than your PC

              See above.

              There are a vast number of games that are not RTSes or god games, and some people do enjoy them and aren't interested in RTSes or god games.

              Same thing goes for PCs as well

              First person shooters are acceptable on modern consoles

              Define acceptable. If you mean somewhat funky controls and having the computer auto-aim for you, then sure,
          • But this only matters if RTS, god games, and first person shooters are all you care about.
        • Nope. I like games with a little more depth.
      • Isn't it the server that they are talking about? I very much doubt that the server makes use of 3dfx or DirectX.

        The graphics engine can impact the network code and server more then people think. Things like collision detection are done, and differences between how clients do this could lead to client/server mismatch issues. And while I know EverQuest doesn't use DirectX for network code, many other games do causing porting issues beyond the Direct3D use.

        Minor differences in floating point calculation
    • They use DirectX probably for the same reason many others do. OpenGL sucks to program for. I know, I've done both. Wanna spend some time playing with driver extentions because GL is so outdated or just check some caps in d3d. Once OpenGL 2.0 comes out, things might change, but for now, I'd take DX over anything else.
    • his type of thing is not a major issue for companies like Wolfpack and Blizzard, makers of Shadowbane and Worlds of Warcraft. Both chose to go with more open standards, and have cross compatibility with no issues. Verant choose 3dfx Glide way back when, and then DirectX. It's not a wonder they coudn't easially make a Mac client that could play in the same worlds as the PC users.

      You are mistaken Glide and DirectX are not inherently problems(1). Diablo II supports Glide and yet it has PC and Mac versions
    • EQ LANs my friend throws
      Everquest LANs!?!? Is there such a thing as a everquest server emulator? Or does your friend just share his broadband connection with his friends when they come over?

      • Everquest LANs!?!? Is there such a thing as a everquest server emulator? Or does your friend just share his broadband connection with his friends when they come over?
        He just shares his broadband, and we all play togther in a group going into dungeons and such. It is more of a good personal social experience, since we do cookouts and such. Kinda like an RPG session, but without the GM having to run things.
      • Check out EQEmu, its fairly developed and is fun to insta-kill mobs like Kerafyrm.

  • Verant (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nasarius ( 593729 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:13PM (#9198131)
    I'd think that since TCP and UDP are universal, you wouldn't need a special Mac-only server. Guess they couldn't get the client to be 100% compatible with the old servers and the Windows clients? Huh.
    In any case, Sony/Verant/EQ has a long history of screwing over its paying customers. So no surprises here.

    • Re:Verant (Score:4, Insightful)

      by richcoder ( 539438 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:10PM (#9199539)
      Well they are universal. Besides endian issues the only reason for not making the Mac version compatible with the PC is they likely didn't want to update the Mac client software as often as the windows software. My best guess is they wanted a mac version but with the intention of not keeping it as up-to-date as the pc version all along, thereby cutting the costs for the Mac side of things.

      Bad decision as far as I'm concerned. Having multiple platforms of the same software has always kept my code a bit cleaner and more modular.

  • SOE (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:16PM (#9198177)
    Now I know that some people are going to jump to the conclusion that SOE deliberately forgot to tell anyone for eight months that they had pulled the plug. Presumably, such people will speculate that this was a cynical move to maximise profits and squeeze every last penny out of loyal and hopeful customers.

    Well, the fact is that those people could not be closer to the truth. They are entirely correct.

  • IANAECH (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Mike Hawk ( 687615 )
    I am not an Evercrackhead, so what are these bugs that just must be fixed? They released a game, your purchased it as-is and you continue to choose to pay for access to their servers. Does it crash frequently? Is performance not acceptable as per the posted minimum system requirements? Please be specific.

    All I see here is another non-Windows game selling poorly, further fueling the economic arguement not to publish titles for non-Windows OS'.
    • All I see here is another non-Windows game selling poorly, further fueling the economic arguement not to publish titles for non-Windows OS'

      So they wasted their money porting a game, that only works with a mac ghetto server, and they expected to make money? I guess that's what they deserve for thinking mac users were dolts who would rush to send them money in droves to be a part of such a phenominally woeful online world.

      Damn straight, I didn't buy it. I played EQOA on PS2 for free, but when the beta en

      • Re:IANAECH (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Mike Hawk ( 687615 )
        So you can't actually answer any of my questions other than to go on a tangental rant? Thanks for the info! Next time rather than ask questions I would like answers to, I will just paste a bunch of random characters and see what kind of responses I get.

        You could have at least tried to argue why you expect updates after a product is released as final. Do you have this expectation? If so, why? Do you have the unreasonable expectation that because one game is cross-platform, all should be? If so, why?

        • Re:IANAECH (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          If I can try and second guess whatever he was getting at before he started huffing the paint thinner, it was that Sony implied that the MacOS version was going to see the same long-term support/expansion add-ons that the PC version gets.

          I suspect that players assumed that there would be support or maybe Sony did promise it (what does the outside of the box say?), I suppose looking through old news anouncements might shed some light on the subject not that it really matters. If Game!= profitable then Game=
        • Nobody seems to have mentioned this, but the free gift for renewing your .mac account last year was either a free copy of The Sims or Everquest. The number of people paying for .mac isn't as close to zero as some would like to make out, so I'd guess quite a few copies of EQ were floating around as well.

          Aspyr still provides support on its site for The Sims, and numerous expansion packs are available (all supported as well). I think it would be reasonable to expect the same level of continuing support, howev
        • So you can't actually answer any of my questions other than to go on a tangental rant?

          that tangential rant was directly in answer to your hostile assumption that all future game development for the mac (or any non-windows platform, I guess you mean consoles too) should be canned based on the sucess, or lack thereof, of Sony with EQ Mac. Why not answer the other questions? because they would be better answered by someone who has paid to play and still pays to play than by someone like me who decided there
          • Wow, you just compared PC development to console development. Notice I confined my statements to the Windows OS. If you had to change the subject THAT MUCH just to make your point I don't even know why you bothered to reply in the first place. Of COURSE cross-platform console development is going to end up winning. I'll give you credit, you did use alot of words not to get modded up at all so I give you a C for effort. I also give you credit for attacking my post line-by-line rather than as a whole. Y
      • Not only did they make it only work on a Mac-only server... they also didn't bother to produce a demo version. No way was I about to drop $50 on a game without even being able to see it running first.

    • Re:IANAECH (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:58PM (#9199983)
      There are two main issues with the game (although there are a number of other, minor issues):
      1) Access to much of the higher-level content of the game is broken. The content itself exists (and it's a large portion of the game), but the scripts necessary to play it do not work.
      2) Playing with sound turned on often causes such slowdown of the game as to make it unplayable.

      The first issue is server-side based, and much of the EQMac population is of the belief that the fix is a minor one. The second issue seems to be client-side based.

      The sound issue bothers players to different degrees (some don't care much at all about this, to be fair). The high-level content currently only affects those players who have played long enough to reach it, though everyone is a bit miffed, because the box and the advertising promised that a full version of the game was being sold.

      One of the problems with the situation is that Sony has repeatedly stated that fixes for these issues were underway. Less than a month ago, even, one of the TSRs promised fixes in the next patch. It's now apparent that no patch was being worked on, or even planned.
      • Don't worry, it took them 3.5 years to get sound to work on the PC in a way that encouraged me not to disable it and play mp3's. That they didn't get it right on the Mac should shock no one.

        Not having access to higher level content should piss anyone off and they should quit. From time to time people have left EverQuest en masse, and though it takes a while, they eventually solve the problems.
    • Well, not every game designed is made for the hardcore player of the series/genre. Game developers have to make games for the general average gamer also -- and with new expansions gives users more things to do in EQ... making them run to it from other MMORPGs. But what can you do on another MMORPG that you can't do in EQ? Heh.

  • Open Source MMO (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kalak ( 260968 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:27PM (#9198294) Homepage Journal
    This makes me wonder if there is a Open Source, cross platform MMO, preferably with a decent userbase. I'm sure I've heard of one existing, but when I looked at it, there didn't appear to be enough users to sustain it.

    Heck, EOL titles like this should have the source released, at least for the executables (ala Quake, Quake II...) so that players who are inclined and capable can fix them. It's not like they don't make most of their money off of the subscriptions, and they don't necessarially need to open source that part of the program. They'll still make money off of the addicts.

    For that matter, why not make all MMOs this way? Would there be a cheating issue? I've never coded a decent sized project, much less a game or network code, so I'd have no idea if open source would help or not.

    • Re:Open Source MMO (Score:2, Interesting)

      by sinergy ( 88242 )
      Yeah, open source in an online game? Cheating is a huge problem in games. Open-sourcing a game would cause it to be unplayable.

      • Re:Open Source MMO (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Nasarius ( 593729 )
        Not at all, as long as you follow the simple rule of never trust the client.
        • Not at all, as long as you follow the simple rule of never trust the client.

          The problem then becomes on of bandwidth and server resources. The ultimate "do not trust the client" is then serving up each rendered frame across the network in order to avoid client-side rendering cheats like semi-transparent walls. Practically speaking, a certain amount of trust is required. The trick then becomes how to balance the game so that the advantages of misplaced trust are mitigated.
          • The problem becomes memory and CPU utilization. You can send the client only the information on actors (players, projectiles, items, etc) that they can actually see, but you need more ram and more CPU to carry it off.

            If you wanted to make things more complex and use up more bandwidth you could also send players only the geometry they can see, but the value of such a tactic is low unless all of your terrain is dynamic. As one generally uses canned terrain, it's not much of a tactic. The player could set up

        • as long as you follow the simple rule of never trust the client

          But in an open source project, the whole idea is to trust the client. The whole ideology of an open source project is that everyone contributes (large and little) for the greater good. The problem with this is, as the "project team" grows the chance of assholes and jerks getting in increases. Do you really think Linux will remain virus free if MILLIONS of Windows users suddenly switched to Linux?

          Same thing in an open source MMO game. Do you rea

          • The people running the servers don't have to accept any patches sent to them, you know.

            You might as well claim that the open nature of HTTP means that any kid can write over any web page on the internet. They can't. All they can do is download a page and write their own version and maybe show that to friends. It does not affect people looking at the original page. Same thing here.

            There is no problem with a completely open-source server. I do agree that an open-source client is a problem. I don't see any r
      • I don't think the game would be unplayable as long as there is some sort of moderator mechanism. Maybe not even a single moderator, but a group that has moderator access to the particular game server and can boot users he/she/they deem to be cheating.
      • Netrek [netrek.org] isn't unplayable. The client is open-source, but the servers can be set (and normally are) to only accept connections from "blessed" binary clients. Each official client has an RSA keypair. The server sends a random challenge to the client, the client signs it and sends it back to the server. If the signature verifies, and the public key is on the approved list of keys, the server accepts the connection.

        The weak point is that it's possible to extract the private key out of a blessed client and use it

    • Re:Open Source MMO (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zero_Dogg ( 629500 ) * <{gro.ggodorez} {ta} {resu}> on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:53PM (#9198582) Homepage Journal
      PlaneShift is a pretty nice open source MMORPG, it's still in development and I don't really know about the current userbase though. Check http://www.planeshift.it [planeshift.it]

      Eternal-Lands is also looking good and should be farily playable http://www.eternal-lands.com [eternal-lands.com]
      I don't really know about the current userbase but I'm about to try it again :)

      Also there is Arkanae https://arkanae.dev.java.net/ [java.net]- I don't really know anything about that one though.
      Then you have WorldForge which I really haven't had any luck with, and I don't really think it is in a playable state anyway (http://www.worldforge.org [worldforge.org]).
      In addition to those you have http://www.genecys.org/ [genecys.org] - don't really know much about that one either.
      So theres a few going on :)

  • Now that it's OverQuest (Score:5, Funny)

    by Strange Ranger ( 454494 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:53PM (#9198584)

    for all you Mac players, well it's scary but you'll need this [coppertone.com] now. Best wishes.

  • separate but not equal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tom7 ( 102298 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @04:15PM (#9198898) Homepage Journal
    Why do mac users play on a different server? I don't get it.
    • Why do mac users play on a different server?

      because that's what sony decided would be best for us (and their pocketbook).

      I don't get it.

      yeah most mac users put 2 and 2 together and decided not to, either...

  • Overreaction? I think so (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Quarters ( 18322 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @04:58PM (#9199406)
    How is running the server in it's current state "getting on toward fraudulent"? Sony isn't doing *further* development work on the Mac version of EQ that's a far cry from shutting the game down without telling anyone. That the boxes are still on the shelves is an irrelevant point in this less than relevant story submission. The server is up and running, therefore people can buy and play the game without any problems.

    Did it ever occur to this bleeding-heart Mac user that maybe the fact that the boxes are still available is a *good* thing? Chances are the Mac server was put in code freeze due to lack of users/revenue. If more Mac users buy the box and play the game that decision could easily be reversed.

    Sony made a financially based business decision. That decision didn't affect the current status of the game---the game that people bought. Unless there was something in the EULA that specifically held SOE to telling Mac users about *every* business decision surrounding MacEQ then they were under no obligation to disclose their business direction.

    This is such a non-story it's not funny....

    • quick question: if you knew that an MMORPG had gone into a code freeze, and there would be no more development for it, would you go out and spend $30 on the game, and then pay $10 to play per month? even if they never reversed their decision?

      i wouldn't either. and how exactly is someone that feels burned "bleeding-heart?"

      the bad decision sony made was to have serparate mac servers. here are the reasons:

      money spent hiring a mac server staff

      money spent developing a mac server

      money spent trying to keep

    • Re:Overreaction? I think so (Score:5, Informative)

      by raintype17 ( 781302 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:40PM (#9199862)
      The problem is that there are pre-existing minor bugs that make substantial portions of the game inaccessible.

      In particular, the final everquest expansion that was included in the game ("Planes of Power"), has only 5 of the 14 or so areas usable, although 2 of the 5 are non-fighting "travel" zones, and about 90% of the time working through the expansion is spent in the 9 areas we don't have access to -- so we payed for an expansion that is largely unusable.

      We're not talking "active development" meaning new expansions. We're talking being able to play context that exists (GM's have taken people there, so it does exist, you just cannot zone into it) that was advertised on the package.

      I don't think that's an overreaction to expect to be able to use the entire purchased product.

      In addition, up until the mentioned email was received from the Executive Director of CS, the Service Reps who were responding to questions on Sony's forum were stating that a patch was under development -- which is clearly not the case.

      • The two points you made, "parts of the game are broken" and "reps are saying a patch is forthcoming" are highly relevant and should've been mentioned by the story's author. Those two items greatly change my opinion of what is happening.

  • More on SOE's attitude (Score:5, Interesting)

    by h0tblack ( 575548 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @06:50PM (#9200296)
    CSR's have also been deleting any criticism of the game or questioning of the bugs and surrounding issues from the official forums [sony.com]. People have had their forum access and even their gameplay accounts suspended because of public questioining of SOE's attitude and bringing up the subject of unfixed bugs and lack of support. Then SOE changed the posting guidelines..

    It's a bad enough state of affairs to get a code-freeze like this, but the entire customer support situation has just compounded the problem and annoyed even more paying customers.

    Mac users paid the same cover price and the same subscription as PC users but have never receieved the same level of service. Unfortunately SOE's failure to deal with this properly (I don't think they even contracted any programmers to keep up to date with patches, the original porters certainly were'nt involved) has killed EQ Mac. The failure will no doubt be seen by many within SOE and other companies as an example of the un-viability of the Mac platform (or even non Win32 platforms in general) for gaming and in particular MMO games. Thankfully companies like Blizzard and Wolfpack are proving that this is not the case.

    • It's important to note that Sony is busily killing the PC version of EQ as well - the last expansion sucked goat balls for 'uber' players and casuals alike, and people are leaving in droves.
    • There were supposed to be an additional 25 or so percent of area (wild approximation) that was on the disc and would be opened eventaully. Then, after a few months, they realeased a whole new disc instead. I think thay may have opened those areas by now, I don't know. I quit long ago.

Slashdot Top Deals

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Close