"As for reviewing the game: We will send out review copies soon, but we would like to ask that you hold back on a full review until we have solved these problems."


As a consumer, this news blurb is one of the more offensive things to come down the pipeline in quite some time. I can't help but think that at some point someone is going to, justifiably, file a class-action lawsuit against one of these companies... and win. I certainly don't promote frivilous lawsuits, but this crap is bordering on fraud and deception. What a joke.

It will be interesting to see if anyone sues. It is probably pointless, though, because I'm sure that Funcom's lawyers made sure the shrinkwrap license on the game disclaims Funcom's obligation to provide a functioning product (it always does).

I find such a disclaimer blatantly against public policy, and this really is the time for the FTC to come in and body-slam one of these companies as hard as possible. They continue to sell a product that doesn't work as advertised.

It really is annoying how it's standard operating procedure now to release barely functional beta code if the game in question is an MMOG.

This practice can't be good for the industry, either. How many consumers purchased WWII Online or AO and had a bad experience and now will forswear new MMOGs?

"This practice can't be good for the industry, either. How many consumers purchased WWII Online or AO and had a bad experience and now will forswear new MMOGs?"

I haven't purchased these things, but the word of mouth alone will keep me from doing so. I've had mild curiosity about the form, but why bother? I barely have enough time to play the games I like that work, why would I waste time wading through a known bug-fest?

As I said on another thread, where do these people get the nerve? Imagine an author selling an un-edited manuscript to the public then trickling out the "fixed" pages later. Or a studio selling tickets to a film without a finished score or the final special effects just to see what works. I'm not saying that the publishing world and the movie industry are paragons of integrity, but next to what these jokers are selling they sure look close.

Ugh.

Amanpour

Yeah, this is pretty absurd. Offensive, even, though ultimately fruitless. Our reviewer is using his own copy for the article, and I'm sure the other major pubs won't sit around waiting for Funcom to benevolently provide a copy either.

As to why developers and publishers continue to foist steaming piles of fecal matter on to the public, without once seeming even remotely embarassed, I have some theories. One is that these people have convinced themselves that it's impossible to release a MMOG that works; it's a short leap from "every game is going to have problems" to "these problems we're having are inevitable" to "of course it's not working right yet, no game works out of the box." They don't set out to produce turds, it's just the inevitable by-product of the software development digestive process as currently structured.

Theory two is that somewhere between "gee what a great idea" and "would you like fries with that order?" the developers realize that what they set out to do is, in fact, impossible, at least as initially conceived and usually as peddled to the public. Defensiveness, followed by panic, sets in, and the publisher fuels this with paranoia. No one can admit the project is fucked up, no can dare say it won't work, no one will confess that there are insufficient resources to fix things. So, they do what all God-fearing, patriotic, fluffy kitten loving people do in this situation: they lie.

Whichever theory you want to subscribe to--or hey, make up your own! it's fun!--the reality seems to be that "caveat emptor" is the unofficial motto of the player of online games these days. I really think the only way to even come close to avoiding all of these problems is to release what has been so far the equivalent of a game that's gone gold, but release it for free online (or a nominal fee, maybe, for a CD by mail) and let anyone who wants to beat on it for six months or more. Then, when the game is actually in good shape you can release the final version in a box and charge for it, and start collecting monthly fees soon thereafter.

Yeah, you'd lose six months or more of sales, but it's the only way I can see to do real testing that makes a difference. Nexon's Shattered Galaxy seems to be following this path, as the damn thing has been in beta for like 18 months, but in actuallity the free game you can play now has been 100% done for months, and it's rock solid. Weird, not necessarily fun, but rock solid. Of course, they already have lots of Korean subscribers to many of their other games, which helps.

Frankly, I think this is one area where the major magazines and websites can make an impact. Games like this, that are being sold to the public while the publisher knows that they are not in a finished state, should be absolutely raked over the coals. When the company knowingly tries to pull something over on the public, counting on buyer ignorance, they should be called onto the carpet. I recently reviewed a game that was a re-publication of a 3 year old game (that was in itself a republication of a game that had already been out for a year in Europe.) They didn't even modify the manual ("Warning! DirectX 3 is required!") yet it was marketed as if it were a new game. It was a pleasure to find words to publically lash these guys.

Reviews of Funcom's new game should start by telling readers that Funcom knows the game is still unfinished, yet wants to take your money for it anyway.

I'd agree with Theory Number One, Robert. I'd add that of the development teams so far, though, only Asheron's Call has really seemed to be competent programmers with a working development model. To judge by PR and bugfixing style, the UO, EQ, WWIIO, and AO teams are all fly-by-night hacks. It's not *that* hard to slap a GUI on top of Circle. Geez.

I think all of the teams but AC have been undercapitalized from the start, too, to judge by their wierd resistance to throw hardware around and unbelievably early release dates. Hey, smart guys, if you're getting $10 from 50,000 people you can afford to buy new servers.

"When it works, it's fun" is what I always hear about these games now when they're released. For some reason, fans are very forgiving of these games initially.

Contrast this with the way they feel about the games that are already out there and work, but don't work like they want it to. "Goddamn Verant knows that the paladin should be stronger than the ranger but they won't do anything about it! They suck!!!!!"

And that's just a mild dose of the kind of comments you can read.

Basically, these companies now look to the players to fund development by selling unfinished games. Like Bob mentioned, there seem to be several prevailing sentiments behind this. None of them are consumer-friendly, though.

Id's Graeme Devine is posting advice for Funcom in his plan file:

http://www.bluesnews.com/plans/279/

I thought it was classic that the Funcom bozos deleted his posts in their forums. If they were smart they would use his knowledge to their advantage.

"How many consumers purchased WWII Online or AO and had a bad experience and now will forswear new MMOGs?"

I hope that happens. The more people speak with their wallets the less likely these games will be dumped in the state they are in. Hell the preview code for AO was more stable than this. And the idea that Funcom doesn't want us to review the product that consumers are buying...if I were a regular consumer and not a freelance hack I would swear off MMOgs in a heartbeat.

What are the odds that this mysterious second game that id is working on is a massively multiplayer online game of some sort? Carmack has always wanted to do it, the engine technology would likely support it and id would be the perfect company to show everyone how to do it right.

I'll go on the record...I think the mystery game to be announced at QuakeCon is some sort of MMOG. I'll bet it's first person and not a shooter. It's probably two years away too.

--Dave

I think I'd better keep my mouth shut and not say anything, will be better for me in the long run :)

I would say it's a little silly to talk about how easy or hard it is to develop these games or add things to these titles, decisions which at times go way behind simply just coding it in. Decisions you think make common sense go straight out of the window in a development environment.

However, all that aside, I think Funcom's suggestion about reviews goes way beyond anything acceptable. They must have a lower opinion of the gaming media than most of its readers.

--- Alan

I don't think Funcom was trying to be underhanded, really. I think they just feel a bit desperate and are hoping to buy some time. It would have been better if they had said something like, "We're improving the game every day. We hope reviewers who played the initial released version give the game a second try in a week or two."

In defense of the MMOG developers, these games really are works in progress. It's just that the initial release should be a more complete, stable gaming experience then we've seen so far.

UO was a poor release. EQ was much better after some backbone problems got straightened out (which may not really have been Verant's fault). AC was a pretty good release, quite playable, etc. WWII Online and AO have been big steps back, unfortunately.

I guess the lesson is if you're going to make one of these, you'd better have your financing lined up and give yourself a good 3-4 years to develop it. Otherwise you won't finish it or will be forced to release a shoddy game.

I'd say, from my picket-fence sitting experiences so far, that Mark's lesson is pretty much on the mark. Though I would say it'd probably be one or the other, and sometimes both (time and money, that is).

--- Alan

That plea not to review the game should be quoted in the opening paragraph of every review that's published. In a perfect world, it would be.

As a gamer, I don't like paying for betas--especially when you try to hide the fact that it is, indeed, a beta.

On the plus side, lemme quote Asher above (as much as it pains me to do so ;) and state, for the record, that when it works, it's the most fun MMOG I've played in a while. Maybe ever. And in this particular gamer's case, the pain of actually getting it to work is outweighed by the pleasure of playing it when it does.

But if I were to review it using the legendary 5-star scale? 1 star. 2, max. Because, y'see, it only works half the time, and it's still got some major, major issues.

I hope Funcom slaps an NDA on Devine and buys him a plane ticket and accommodations in Oslo for a couple of weeks. Because at this rate, if they don't start the "free month" clock until the game's working (like they indicated on their announcement page), the game will pay for itself, I'm sure. $40 is only 3 months @ 12.95, after all, and at this rate...

"On the plus side, lemme quote Asher above (as much as it pains me to do so ;) and state, for the record, that when it works, it's the most fun MMOG I've played in a while. Maybe ever."

It may be painful to quote me, but it's good for you. :)

I thought you posted earlier that you were going to wait a month before jumping into AO? Where's your willpower, man! :)

I was going to wait until it settled down, and it settled down faster than I thought it would. Besides, I'm playing (technically) for free, so that's a bonus.

Of course, that settling down changed a bit after I bought it--but isn't that the way these things tend to go?

I don't know about game companies, but I know other companies are forever lining up financing and resources for multi-year development projects, then getting cold feet and either pulling out or cutting corners on important resources that adversely affect the finished (sic) product. I wonder how many of these companies thought they had all their ducks in a row, only to then have their plans get stretched, or their resources reallocated.