It is currently Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:43 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: I Feel Sorry For Cyan
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:47 am
Posts: 295
I honestly do. I mean I know what it is like to work untold long hours only to get peanuts at the end and wonder was it all worth it and this what I feel is happening to them.

From reading a lot of the spec on this board plus doing a bit of research into GT and how it is perceived, "in the market" I'd say that Cyan with GT has been a mild blessing and a major albatross. Sure GT brought back Uru which was great, I mean I was happy and shocked when it came back and couldn't wait to signup.

The downside is that GT is generally not that well received from a lot of the reviews I have read. People site the very obvious problem of download times, sometimes glitchy software and of course the lack of any "real" games that people want to play, namely leaving out the huge market on the early Nintendo and PS games which literally defined early gaming. This mean that there is almost literally little or no draw for people to signup, or to reach a wider market. They have limited, and lets face it craptastic games, with only a few notable exceptions. How are they or can they target the prime gaming community and age with is nice "disposable" income when they don't offer anything they would want to play? No offense to anyone but most the people I run into on this site and on GT are people who, for the most part, actually remember playing Pac Man as a kid. Is that enough to sustain the site/company and help it grow? I am not sure.

So I wonder if all the worry about S2 and Cyan, and it sever lack of funding, has to more with GT and it someone dubious business model and lack of playing power in the gaming arena? Does it even look like GT will make it through, be a long haul player using it current tack? I am somewhat on the fence about that. I think that GT does not have the revenue to fully fund a game like URU they way it needs to be funded, either that or they don't care to, which would be incredibly stupid on their part. They need help, they need advertising but more importantly they need games and the gamers to go along with it. Give them good games to play and they will come! (and so will the player audience and money which is much needed for games like URU)

I believe that Cyan and the URU dream is stuck between a rock and a hard place and as I said I feel bad for them both creatively and financially.


(Also one last random thought. Did anyone think about the fact that Cyan and Uru might be competing, for the all mighty dollar, against GT's new project , American McGee's Grimm? )


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 3:54 am
Posts: 1816
Location: Right behind you.
I don't feel sorry for them. They are a business. Businesses take risk. 1 in 3 businesses don't last more than a year.

The partnership with GT was a last chance effort. MO:UL got another chance. The issue here isn't that the partnership is bad, or that GT is bad from a business sense. The problem here is that Uru's fundamental problems are simply not going to be addressed. It has, generally speaking, the same issues it had in 2003. Slow content, lag, slow story. The problem here is the product.

_________________
I miss my old signature.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:47 am
Posts: 295
Calam wrote:
I don't feel sorry for them. They are a business. Businesses take risk. 1 in 3 businesses don't last more than a year.

The partnership with GT was a last chance effort. MO:UL got another chance. The issue here isn't that the partnership is bad, or that GT is bad from a business sense. The problem here is that Uru's fundamental problems are simply not going to be addressed. It has, generally speaking, the same issues it had in 2003. Slow content, lag, slow story. The problem here is the product.



Yes, that is a valid point but how do you propose that these problems be fixed when there is no money to fix them? If GT will not give them the money to do it is it not a "bad" situation all around? So how can it be the product if there is no money to improve or create more? I am not sure how these "issues" can be magically fixed or how the product is bad? I mean if they had and really good budget do you think these problems would still be there?


And I feel sorry for them from a personal creative aspect not a business one. I know what its like to pour a lot of time into a creative effort and have it not yield to yours or anyone else's expectations.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:20 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:22 pm
Posts: 243
Calam wrote:
I don't feel sorry for them. They are a business. Businesses take risk. 1 in 3 businesses don't last more than a year.

The partnership with GT was a last chance effort. MO:UL got another chance. The issue here isn't that the partnership is bad, or that GT is bad from a business sense. The problem here is that Uru's fundamental problems are simply not going to be addressed. It has, generally speaking, the same issues it had in 2003. Slow content, lag, slow story. The problem here is the product.


Not really to argue here but back in 2003, slow content? It never got out of beta... how could it get any content out? Lag? I don't have lag except when 100+ people are around and thats my own computers fault. Story, well thats objective so I can't say anything to that.

2003 - No content
2007 - Some content(objective if its a lot or little)
2003 - SEVER lag, almost unplayable
2007 - Personaly I have no lag on a normal basis

Basically I'm saying your comparisons are unfair and false.

To the buiness thing. While GT may not be overwhelmingly popular, it is for the most part a successful buiness. At least from what we can see on our side of the fence. But thats just it, we are on this side and not the otherside, so we really have no clue how big GT is, nor how much money they make, nor how much they are funding Cyan, nor anything else for that matter, so how can anyone judge?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 3:54 am
Posts: 1816
Location: Right behind you.
Quote:
I mean if they had and really good budget do you think these problems would still be there?


"Really good budget" is way too vague. Sure, in this situation, if Cyan had a "really good budget" of, say, 1 billion dollars, Uru would be spectacular, of course. But when a product isn't working out, it's not realistic to blame money. Because then the solution is always to spend more. This is just as much of an issue of managing the content releases and story as it is having content to begin with.

Quote:
Not really to argue here


Look, I realize you're trying to be nice, but if you're going to argue, don't try to veil it by saying "not to argue, but..."

As for labeling 2003 as having no content, then what exactly where people playing in Uru during beta?

_________________
I miss my old signature.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 1:04 am
Posts: 4134
Cyan, as a business, is small. Therefore there is no slow content or slow story, just content and story to match the size of the company. A larger company will have larger production. Personally I think the "product" is working fine. I don't like all parts of it, but in general I think it's great.

_________________
-Whilyam
Cavern Link:My IC Blog


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:47 am
Posts: 295
Whilyam wrote:
Cyan, as a business, is small. Therefore there is no slow content or slow story, just content and story to match the size of the company. A larger company will have larger production. Personally I think the "product" is working fine. I don't like all parts of it, but in general I think it's great.


Thanks, Whilyam you actually put into words better what I meant. They are small and as such it is slower, if they could expand stuff would come faster and grander. I completely agree the product is fine, the budget is not.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:47 am
Posts: 295
Calam wrote:
"Really good budget" is way too vague. Sure, in this situation, if Cyan had a "really good budget" of, say, 1 billion dollars, Uru would be spectacular, of course. But when a product isn't working out, it's not realistic to blame money. Because then the solution is always to spend more. This is just as much of an issue of managing the content releases and story as it is having content to begin with.


Ok, maybe I am missing your point as to what you define as "product" you keep bringing that up and saying it is bad. Can you explain that a bit more to me?

And I am not suggesting the old adage to "throw money at a problem" if that is what you mean.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:11 pm
Posts: 158
Location: Somerville, NJ
I doubt they are canceling it. They moved data centers and recently spent at least a little time working on the download performance problem and net6 errors a 'small' portion of the community was having. If it was likely that there wouldn't be a season two then I wouldn't have expected them to burn any resources making changes or fixing things.

It seems more likely they are planning out season 2 or doing design work for it. Maybe they haven't decided when or how they are going to start releasing content again. It seemed to have been a bit of a struggle in season 1 to get things built, well tested, and released- perhaps this time they want to give themselves a head-start.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:00 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:28 am
Posts: 39
Jupiter made a really good point that everyone seems to have looked past. Maybe the real issue here is that Game Tap's future is in question, more so than Uru's. There really isn't that much compelling content available on GT. I can't imagine they are doing that well finacially. My impression is that Game Tap is more of an experiment on the part of Time Warner to see how they can sell online content. Maybe they've come to the conclusion that this model doesn't work so well or that it doesn't really fit with the Time Warner busines core.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:03 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:57 pm
Posts: 178
Location: Here.
Calam wrote:
"Really good budget" is way too vague. Sure, in this situation, if Cyan had a "really good budget" of, say, 1 billion dollars, Uru would be spectacular, of course.


Yes, but money is not always easily accessible. You have to convince those with power of purse that they are making an investment that is worth their while.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:28 pm
Posts: 556
Location: USA
Interesting in calling Game Tap something that isn't doing well or making a lot of money......

Considering all the comercial spots they have on channels like SciFi and Spike TV. That isn't cheap.....

Personally, yah, not all the games are great.....and yes, I'm one that can say that he played PacMan as a kid, or a teen rather. I can still remember a time before video games even existed.

However......I have Game Tap, yes so I could sign up for MOUL. Then I discovered Sam & Max was on there, and have had a ball with it. I'm not the only one. 2 of my sons have also signed up for GT just so they could play Sam & Max, and also one who plays MOUL.
But the thing is, my 5 year old. He can't get enough of all the educational games that have there for him.

10 bucks a month, and I can access them all (hundreds of them) at any time.

Now..........define "great games" please. What would you consider those to be?

The Call of Duty series? Medal of Honor series? Doom? Diablo I and II? Sacred? Sacred Underworld?

How many of those companies are willing to sign those rights over to Game Tap?
Believe it or not, there are still people out there paying for the original Call of Duty game.....

Personally I tend not to listen to critics.......mainly because they are simply trying to sell me their own ideas and personal opinions. I'll form my own, thank you very much.

_________________
Image

My Tutorials


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:09 pm
Posts: 272
Location: Chicago, IL
Throwing money at it won't help. That's the catch, it looks like a solution that CAN be solved at least in part by cash but its not. The game is Aging! That's all there is to it, As it ages (no pun intended) the technology and the graphics/gameplay gets passed up and left in the dust. Remember when PC games were at the cutting edge of graphics/sound and gameplay. Well this generation of consoles is making its mark, to see really great immersive environments one only has to look at Unchared or mass effect. Cyan does'nt have the money for production or implementation, let alone a MAJOR facelift to the game. It's sad because as we all wait for the game to really take hold, time keeps ticking, and not just ticking for the wait for new content, but the age of the product.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:27 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:53 am
Posts: 859
I will say that I think it interesting the number of Uru players who continue to say that Cyan "needs more time" to iron out issues.

To put things in perspective, Uru's development began in, what? 1999? Its original release was in 2003. That means we are talking about a product that has been worked on and tinkered with for closing in on a decade now when you consider the original Ubisoft development time, Prologue beta, GameTap re-development time, and the year that it has been available on GameTap.

Uru has had far more development time than many, many, many games out there. It has had plenty of time in its online format both under Prologue and under GameTap to iron out issues. The game engine is also aging. Heck, the Plasma engine was already considered pretty dated when Myst V was released in 2005.

Uru has had time, and throwing more money at it isn't necessarily going to correct the issues still present in it.

Regardless of its future plans, Uru is certainly old enough to sink or swim on its own merits. Even if for whatever reason GameTap doesn't decide to fund a season 2, I certainly believe that they've given the game the chance that Ubisoft never did.

_________________
KI#76914
Moderator for the Official Gametap Forums
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:47 am
Posts: 295
macnbc wrote:
I will say that I think it interesting the number of Uru players who continue to say that Cyan "needs more time" to iron out issues.

To put things in perspective, Uru's development began in, what? 1999? Its original release was in 2003. That means we are talking about a product that has been worked on and tinkered with for closing in on a decade now when you consider the original Ubisoft development time, Prologue beta, GameTap re-development time, and the year that it has been available on GameTap.

Uru has had far more development time than many, many, many games out there. It has had plenty of time in its online format both under Prologue and under GameTap to iron out issues. The game engine is also aging. Heck, the Plasma engine was already considered pretty dated when Myst V was released in 2005.

Uru has had time, and throwing more money at it isn't necessarily going to correct the issues still present in it.
Regardless of its future plans, Uru is certainly old enough to sink or swim on its own merits. Even if for whatever reason GameTap doesn't decide to fund a season 2, I certainly believe that they've given the game the chance that Ubisoft never did.



Yes, but even with that how much of that time was actually dedicated to producing "new" content? Did they even have time to do so? Not really. Cause the rug was pulled before they barely got through beta. So I don't imagine in the intervening years, before GT picked it back up, that they were actively producing new constant for a game that by all rights and some hopes was dead, so how does that fit? When did they really have the time?

Or are you talking more in "getting things right" in the bug aspect of things?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Crawler] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: