Marvel and Cryptic: BFF
So it looks like former enemies Marvel and Cryptic Studios have kissed and made up, and Cryptic will now be developing the new Marvel MMO.
As an avid and current City of Heroes player, I naturally have my concerns. I saw what happened when Mythic stopped focusing on Dark Age of Camelot to pursue Romans In Space, and later (after coming to their fucking senses), The MMO That Is Definitely Not A Response To The Success Of World Of Warcraft, and Also Has No Romans In Space. (with Abalieno abdicating, I feel a certain responsibility to bash on Mythic. Sorry.)
So while I do think there's room for more than one superhero MMO, I have to wonder if there's room for more than one superhero game per studio. I'm not sure what kind of unholy bonds were forged between Marvel and Cryptic, nor am I privy to whatever agreement exists between Cryptic and NCSoft. But I do know a ménage à trois when I see one, and while I can't say that I've ever participated in one (because you never know when your mom is going to stumble across your blog), I'm inclined to believe that there are times when one of the participants is left doing more of the giving than the receiving if you know what I mean and I think that you know what I mean.
NCSoft has anticipated, and rejected such a notion:
Cryptic has a team of programmers, artists, designers, and producers dedicated solely to creating and maintaining both products. The studio will continue to update both titles with new content, including a multi-year storyline, a new gameplay system that allows characters to craft Enhancements and Costume pieces, brand new missions, and much, much more.
But let's pull this little spandex thread for a moment. What if Blizzard had licensed the Warhammer license before Mythic got to it? Stranger things have happened. Could the Warhammer and Warcraft licenses really have lived in total hermetically sealed seclusion from each other? Bzzzzt. Rhetorical question. It's not the answer that counts, it's player perception.
It really doesn't matter how well Cryptic handles each license. Players are inevitably going to pit the 2 properties against each other. They will whine when CoH lacks a cool Marvel feature, and vice versa. Every time something cool is released in one of the games, it will be because Cryptic doesn't give a shit about the other game anymore. Rumors will run rampant about how development is stagnating on CoH because Marvel is taking the resources. All the good developers are moving over to work on Marvel now; Issue 10 is being delayed because the Marvel release date is slipping; Cryptic is holding a grudge against Marvel because you can get bat wings in CoH but not Marvel; Your Blaster is the fuck gimped because the guy who balanced Blasters is over working on Marvel; etc. And none of it has to be true, because as we all know, the MMO rumor mill is powered by challenging developers to prove negatives.
Of course you can't really blame Cryptic for taking on the challenge. They're in business to make games, and the Marvel property is a goddamned honey of a property. But Cryptic have set themselves up for some hard times to come.
Cryptic, honey—sweety—you know that wonderfully supportive player base you've loved so much over the years? Yeaaaahhhh…about them. See, they're going away now to…um…pull sleds in Alaska.* But don't worry. We're gonna get you a new player base. And um…well they're not going to be so happy to hear that they're not the center of your universe anymore. In a very literal sense.
* This is an in-joke. When I was a tot, we had a Husky, Osa, who dug a hole under the fence and escaped. I was consoled with a story that Osa had run away to pursue her dreams of being an Alaska sled dog. I still get letters from her from time to time, and she seems to really like what she's doing. It just goes to show that you should follow your dreams.
September 29th, 2006 at 8:00 am
You know a game company would be wise to bring on both Amber and HRose. Not necessarily to let them design anything (the game would never get done), or play community relations (for the love, don’t let them talk to the people), not for art or programming (do either of them even pretend to dabble in either of those?), but it should be a requirement that every last managerial idea be run past them so you can get a real good feel of how how hard the players are going to ram that idea up your asymptote.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:49 am
Oh, come on… my jaw dropped when I heard Marvel had chosen Cryptic to develop their MMO… I can only guess that Marvel had lost their suit BADLY and were forced to allow Cryptic to develop the game. Or something.
Maybe they’ll just release Marvel as an expansion pack. Then, everyone will be happy.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Doesn’t really matter, Microsoft is paying Cryptic to make the marvel game xbox 360 and vista exclusive. I don’t think vista’s adoption rate is going to be quite as fast as MS hopes, considering all it brings to the table is vastly increased hardware requirements, and nothing else.
September 30th, 2006 at 4:42 am
Vista’s adoption rate will skyrocket when they announce that they are stopping support for 2000, 2003 and XP, and strangely at the same time a number of crippling exploits will come out for those systems.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Nobody knows or cares if their OS is “supported”. How often do you call MS support? Is being able to pay MS to tell you over the phone “its not our fault, you must suck” a real important concern for you? Crippling exploits come out for windows of all flavours all the time, and vista will be more of the same, nobody cares.
Vista’s adoption rate will be quick for the tards who think eating MS Cock v3.1 makes them a l33t computer nerd, and for everyone else it will be “when I buy a new computer and it will have vista on it regardless”. MS just likes paying companies to lie with and for them, to trick consumers into thinking they need new computers to speed this process up.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:23 am
Joe.
Every large business in existence care if an OS is supported. Stop supporting it and they will change.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:40 pm
You might try working in the IT department of a large business before making such remarks. The only people who know if any of the software or hardware is supported or not is the IT department. And we don’t care about windows being supported, because we know that to MS, “supported” means “not supported at all”. MS support tells you its your fault even when you are reporting bugs in their software (which get fixed 2 years later).
Of course, lots of large businesses are running win2k still, with no plans of upgrading to 2003/XP much less vista. And large businesses are probably not the primary market for super hero games anyways are they?
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Having worked from 20-person companies, all the way up to IBM, Lucent, and as an IT contractor for the Navy, my experience is that most organizations, whether they call MS or not, insist on being on supported platforms. The biggest reason is insurance. Most organizations that value their data have insurance policies to protect against data loss. Those policies do not cover you if you lose data on an unsupported system.
Unsupported also means no more bug fixes, and no more security patches. It’s true that MS do not have the best track record when it comes to fixing security holes (and I say this as a dyed in the wool Unix guy), they’re about the only place you can go to get your Microsoft OS patched.
As a “private citizen,” I’ll upgrade to Vista when XP is no longer supported. I never call MS either, but I’m not about to run an OS that I can’t get security updates for.
By the way, I just saw a Vista demo today at my workplace. The system was a dual proc system, with 2 dual core 3.2 GHz processors, 4GB of main memory, and a SATA hard drive, don’t remember what size. Vista has an applet that “rates” your hardware on a scale of 1-5. This hardware only scored a 3.5. Also, the OS alone took up 1GB of memory, which means you’re going to need at least 2GB just to run your computer. So basically MS have figured out how to make not only themselves richer, but Dell, Intel, and all the other hardware vendors that you’ll be using to buy a new computer from.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Odd, I’ve never seen insurance that cares at all about the OS you are using for your desktops. They tend to care about what your storage is (netapp, EMC, some sketchy linux thing cobbled together by a shady little company, etc), what kind of replication and/or backups you do, how often, where they are stored, etc, etc. We have NT 3.5 machines here still, nevermind win2k. Nobody from the insurance company even asked about operating systems.
Management certainly thinks that we need to be “supported”, since they have no idea what that means. But we just ignore them as usual. Not a single one of our offices, even the anal ones like in Germany, are running anywhere close to 100% supported software.
And of course, people have been proving lately that random people with nothing to do with microsoft are actually better at patching windows than microsoft is. You could easily pay someone to keep security up on unsupported windows versions for less than the price of upgrading windows, nevermind the hardware costs of upgrading.
The memory requirements are why I said vista adoption should be slow, especially with gamers. Why pay $300 for a few more GB of RAM just to be able to have the same performance you already had before?
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:15 pm
Joe, you know your own situation better than I do, so I’m not going to tell you that you’re wrong. And I don’t know what all the particulars are about data insurance, but I do know that insurance companies love to weasel their way out of paying a claim, and will look for any excuse not to do so.
Even unsupported desktops, imho, are a problem because it’s a potential toehold into your infrastructure. All it takes is one knucklehead clicking on something they’re not supposed to. As far as I’m concerned, if it’s on the network and it’s not supported, then it’s a problem waiting to be exploited. It’s certainly not how I’d run my network. (and don’t take my word for it. Every IT security group worth their salt, including the non-profit SANS Institute, recommends against running non-supported anything on your network.)
As far as ignoring management’s dictates that you run supported software, that blows my mind. Assuming that you have the budget to implement their demands (and if you don’t, then you should be telling them), I can’t even begin to understand why you would ignore them. But again, you know your own situation better than I do, so I guess there could be a logical reason. As for me, if management tells me that I need to be running supported operating systems and software, then as far as I’m concerned, that’s what they’re paying me to do and I either need to implement it, or tell them why it’s not possible. Ignoring them just makes it my fault when the shit hits the fan. Because if someone intrudes your network, I can guarantee there’ll be an audit. And if there’s an audit, one of the findings, whether they got through on an unsupported OS or not, will be that you’re running unsupported OS’s. And that’s when upper management starts digging out all those old emails that cover their ass and implicate yours because you ignored them. And then you’ll be clearing out your desk.
Anyway, apologies for hijacking the thread. I’m done now.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:46 am
Hijacked threads are the best kind
I didn’t say management has declared we must run supported software. They just think that kind of thing matters. They have no say in it, the director of IT gets to decide IT matters. Random manager weenies don’t really get any say in anything, they just run around trying to convince upper management that they are important.
Insurance pays out for data loss, which doesn’t care about anything besides backup related stuff. Or there’s insurance for loss of revenue because you got hax0rzed or whatever and your business stopped working. Even they don’t care about supported this or that, they just care that you are running a firewall, that you use an IDS (even if its ignored), that you do regular penetration testing against your network, and that you have a disaster recovery plan. I actually just had to do this nonsense a couple weeks ago as a matter of fact.
The only supported software we have is win2k and office 2k. Everything else is unsupported. We don’t pay money for shitty linux distros like RHEL, we use debian, freebsd and openbsd, none of which are “supported”. That’s almost half the network right there. The NT 3.5 and ancient netware machines are because we have some horrible legacy apps that require them. Its not worth paying someone to rewrite the apps when they work just fine on their ancient unsupported OSs. They are actually less of a security risk than a supported windows OS, since most blackhats are looking for holes in software that is more commonly used, like win2k/2k3/xp.
Security quacks say stupid stuff all the time. Many would have us replace our far more secure openbsd machines with windows because its “supported”. Just because someone says it, doesn’t mean its a good idea. I realize some places (government especially) have IT run by tards, but some places actually hire IT pros to run IT. Maybe I am biased though, since I actively seek out such places for employment.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:01 am
Despite all the corporate security mojo you are speaking, you have completely ignored the fact that the world is full of “stupid” people who listen to CNN as their main source of Tech news. Vista will spread like a virus among the common users just like XP did as A) companies like Dell and Gateway begin shipping it standard, 2) Best Buy offers its super special Upgrade Edition of Vista for just $89!!! and D) the first extremely overly reported incident of XP being vulnerable to some attack while Vista was immune to the latest ILoveU worm (despite it being vulnerable to hundreds of other things).
Once Vista releases, it’ll probably take about 2 to 3 years but it will be the dominant home OS (and by extention, gaming OS on PCs) because most people will replace their computer in that time. Home users upgrade when they want to… businesses upgrade when they have to.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:11 am
I have never felt a need to comment on this blog til now. And I know this is totally OT but I just can’t believe what I am reading. I’m with moxcamel on this one. Joe your position on this is totally anathema to standard IT practices, and reflects an “old school” approach to IT. And not old school in the cool meaning, but old school in the “I am completely inflexible in my thinking and stuck in a bygone era” way. Old school is good for some things, but not for security. There are a lot of “security quacks” out there but SANS is not one of them. Or how about CERT?
BTW NOBODY is saying to replace your xBSD or Linux boxes. “Supported” does not mean you have to pay for support. Unless you are running an ancient and unpatched Linux or xBSD then you are fine as long as you are keeping up with security patches and best practices. Community supported is still supported. Hell I would rather run any Linux or xBSD over a fully supported Windows distro any day. Also I would never tell you that you should upgrade to the latest and greatest thing just because MS or whoever is pushing it. Thats just as bad.
I work for a /HUGE/ company and we run about 99% supported operating systems of which about 2/3 are a mix of Linux (non-RHEL) and xBSD. Like you we have a few apps that can’t be replaced and so remain unsupported, but there are plans in place to mitigate and eventually replace these apps and we keep those unsupported systems firewalled/quarantined to the extent possible.
Now its my turn to have my mind blown. I have seen this argument before but never from a systems person and always from management. It holds as much water as “security through obscurity.”
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:45 am
Jason: That’s what I said, home users will upgrade to vista when they buy their new dell to replace their current dell. They never actually upgrade their OS at all, just their computer.
Casey: How is doing what makes sense instead of blindly following nonsense rules either “inflexible” or “old school”? Yes, many security tards define supported as “by a commercial organization”. They really do try to convince you to “upgrade” from fedora to RHEL because its “supported” and thus “good”. And many do in fact suggest replacing BSDs with windows. We were just approached by an Israeli company to replace our “unsupported, hacker written BSD” firewalls with windows + checkpoint. This is common stuff, it happens all the time. Management does not consider a mailing list staffed purely by volunteers to be “supported”. You must be paying someone to be supported. And again, NT 3.5 can be “supported” so long as you choose to pay someone to support it. The whole idea is about blame, management likes “support” because it is paying someone else to take the blame if something goes wrong.
And finally, the security through obscurity argument does hold water. Windows has holes. Huge gaping holes waiting to be exploited. Running a “supported” windows will not change this. You can either run the gaping security hole that everyone else runs, and is thus a bigger target, or you can run a less common gaping security hole and be less of a target. OSX really demonstrates the security through obscurity principle well, its much less attacked, even though its chock full of obscene security holes. Why do you think running a newer version of windows is going to do anything to protect you against unreleased exploits (which are becoming much more wide spread now that people are selling them for big bucks)? Have fun hax0rzing my netware 3 and nt 3.5 machines, I am definately scared of losing my job now that a few random people have told me they believe in magical security fairies that bless “supported” software and protect it from harm. That’s far more important than reality.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Oh yeah, and what does it say about this marvel online monstrosity that we’re all more interested in arguing about stupid IT policy crap than anything to do with the game? Think they will pull a OSI and can it after its almost done because they finally decided competing with themselves is retarded?
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Why do you assume they are nonsense? The IT community as a whole has embraced what both moxcamel and I have talked about. Non-profit organizations such as SANS and CERT embrace these things. How can you say they are “nonsense rules.” If the entire industry is telling you to run supported systems, and you call it nonsense, then that’s inflexible.
Why are you talking past me? I just said that using a good community supported Linux or xBSD distro is fine. I just said that you don’t have to buy support to be supported, and I also just said that I don’t advocate Windows. You and I are in complete agreement on the *nix versus Windoze issue.
You just said earlier that “I didn’t say management has declared we must run supported software. They just think that kind of thing matters. They have no say in it, the director of IT gets to decide IT matters.” So how does the Director of IT feel about the operating systems you’re running that are supported by mailing lists? If he/she thinks it’s okay, then why even bring it up?
lol so you are paying somebody to support an unsupported operating system. In other words, you are receiving some kind of support.
Your fallacy is that you think that running a lesser known security hole makes you less susceptable. You are deluding yourself.
That’s not security through obscurity, that’s just small market share. And actually you just made my point for me. Macs are not inherently more secure, they just have a smaller footprint. Your obsolete apps aren’t more secure, they just have a smaller footprint. That’s not a security policy, that’s wishful thinking.
This question just re-enforces the idea that you really don’t have a good grasp of computer security. The answer is readily available but you don’t seem to want to hear it.
LMAO. So SANS, CERT, SAGE, and every other IT organization out there are magical fairies? The entire IT industry as a whole believes in magical faeries, and you are the only voice of sanity. Okeydokey.
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Because they are arbitrary and inflexible rules that do not consider reality. Do any of my unsupported netware and nt machines pose a security risk on their own private network that can only be accessed through an ipsec tunnel to an openbsd firewall, and even then only on 1 port? No, they don’t. Upgrading them to a “supported” OS would be a massive waste of time and money, just to satisfy an arbitrary rule made up by people who’s job is making GENERALIZATIONS, and calling them rules.
Well hooray for you. What you consider good enough doesn’t really have anything to do with it though does it. “IT best practices” does *not* think that a community supported OS is ok, they demand that you pay for commercial support.
I am quite happy with them, as I said. Because I don’t give a rat’s ass about support, as we’ve already established pretty clearly. I choose the best tool for the job, not the one that makes the most ignorant middle managers feel warm and fuzzy.
No, I am not. I simply pointed out that it is an option for people who are stuck with old systems, and that doing so still does not satisfy the stupid best practices nazis.
No, its not a fallacy at all. I didn’t say rely on obscurity, I said obscurity can be another additional layer. Or do you publish all your passwords? Keeping them secret is just obscurity after all, eventually they could guess them. Encryption must be right out for you too huh?
Exactly my point, macs are not more secure, they are arguably less secure than an xpsp2 machine. But they suffer with far less attacks because fewer people care to try.
No, it reinforces the idea that you believe in magical security fairies. Either explain how running a “supported” windows protects you against the exploits for unpatched holes MS doesn’t even know about yet, or stfu. Making silly remarks like “the answer is readily available” is meaningless.
No, SANS, CERT, SAGE, are not magical fairies. Believing that running a “supported” OS is somehow going to protect you from exploits the vendor doesn’t even know about would require magical fairies. SANS is not going to protect you from unreleased exploits, I can’t even imagine how such a bizzare idea would come to you. And actually, there are plenty of IT people who aren’t blind morons who follow arbitrary rules for no reason. But the people who make an industry out of creating “industry best practices” obviously like to keep the impression that if you don’t follow their rules, the world as we know it will come to a horrible end. It hasn’t, and its not going to. Just try to think for yourself instead of blindly following rules for the sake of following rules.
And Amber, feel free to tell us to stfu any time. I’m not sure just how wildly off topic you care to let us go.
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:30 pm
But that’s not what I said… Don’t agree with me when you don’t agree with me. People will, in fact, upgrade their OS. I’ve known tons, metric tons, of people who bought WinXP upgrade versions (or, for some God forsaken reason, WinME upgrades) when they didn’t need to, because, as I said, a store had a sale on it and/or they saw some news story/article that told them they needed it to be safe. Did they need it? Nope. Did they buy it? Yep. Best Buy doesn’t keep stuff in stock that doesn’t sell, and they still keep WinXP upgrade versions on the shelf because people keep buying them. And when Vista comes out, they’ll sell that too because people will buy it.