Hello,
As you might have heard, Ubisoft(tm) has decided not implement its praised Spy vs Merc (aka SvM aka adversarial) multiplayer mode, that has been in the series since Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, in its upcoming release of Splinter Cell: Conviction.
We'd like to say that you can expect roughly the same kind of gameplay from Project Stealth. There will be tweaks and some small additions. Most of all, we aim to provide some fresh gameplay-mechanics while staying close to the core. Fixes of many annoyances and an upgrade of the visuals to the state-of-the-art UDK engine (Unreal Engine 3.5, where SCPT and SCCT's SvM used 2.x) along with a new animation or two and a bit more balancing are what you can expect.
We are a small team of people and as such we unfortunately do not have the manpower to pump out new animations and maps as fast as Ubisoft theoretically can, but we hope our passion for the perfect Stealth Action Multiplayer game makes up for that.
We are currently aiming to provide a playable game in 2010. It's done when it's done. We will release a public beta for you to play-test when we feel confident enough. We are now focusing on a PC release. Depending on the reactions and the licensing terms of the UDK, we might port it to consoles afterwards, but that's still far, far away.
On behalf of the team I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,
frvge
Producer of Project Stealth
PS: Do not forget to register. We love to hear your feedback. We try to answer questions within 12 hours.
PPS: This thread is not locked, so please leave some comments ;)
Yup, happy Christmas.
Ditto.
merry project guys, happy new stealth!
Hey, a new Ubisoft forum person here. Saw the link and am now looking forward to Project Stealth ;D
Great to have you here.
The more, the merrier.
I never actually joined the Ubisoft forums, but that is where I heard about this game. Just wanted to show some support for PS!
OMG its Fatal1ty Wendell, i have all your creative prioducts man good to see you.
Quote from: nubishdubishbone on December 29, 2009, 05:07:42 AM
OMG its Fatal1ty Wendell, i have all your creative prioducts man good to see you.
Who?
Quote from: nubishdubishbone on December 29, 2009, 05:07:42 AM
OMG its Fatal1ty Wendell, i have all your creative prioducts man good to see you.
Err... well not exactly. Sorry to disappoint.
I'm sure there will be a lot more of us abandoned Splinter Cell SvM fans streaming in here from the Ubisoft forums now that Ubisoft has officially hammered the last nail into Splinter Cell's coffin. I put a link in my signature on the Ubisoft forums, so hopefully people will see it and forget about that failure of a game. I'm an atheist, but I wish I wasn't so that I could hold out hope for there being a special spot in hell reserved for Maxime Beland, being that he murdered the game.
Quote from: White Phoenix on January 07, 2010, 04:44:04 AM
I'm sure there will be a lot more of us abandoned Splinter Cell SvM fans streaming in here from the Ubisoft forums now that Ubisoft has officially hammered the last nail into Splinter Cell's coffin. I put a link in my signature on the Ubisoft forums, so hopefully people will see it and forget about that failure of a game. I'm an atheist, but I wish I wasn't so that I could hold out hope for there being a special spot in hell reserved for Maxime Beland, being that he murdered the game.
Well, it's nice to know these forums are filled with negative people who aren't open to new ideas... it's also keen how quickly you scoff someone elses creative work without having even experienced it. Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Long time SC fan (still), who is avidly waiting for the SC reboot in Conviction, SvM or no. However, I'm really excited about this new project, and will be watching it closely. The world needs some stealthy advesarial action, and it's comforting to know someone is picking up the torch.
Don't try that bullshit. Not here. Leave that to the Ubisoft forums. Ubisoft's dick doesn't extend to these forums, so close your mouth and focus on what these forums are dedicated to. I have pages of negativity about Conviction to discuss, if you want to get into it with me, PM me. Otherwise, shut up.
Quote from: White Phoenix on January 07, 2010, 07:53:29 AM
Don't try that bullshit. Not here. Leave that to the Ubisoft forums. Ubisoft's dick doesn't extend to these forums, so close your mouth and focus on what these forums are dedicated to. I have pages of negativity about Conviction to discuss, if you want to get into it with me, PM me. Otherwise, shut up.
Quote from: White Phoenix on January 07, 2010, 04:44:04 AM
I'm an atheist, but I wish I wasn't so that I could hold out hope for there being a special spot in hell reserved for Maxime Beland, being that he murdered the game.
I think you take video games a little too seriously dude.
Why? Because I'm an atheist telling someone to go to hell? Doesn't sound too serious to me. And it goes beyond video games anyway.
Yeah, after all he wears a green hoodie too, may Satan rain upon him!
Quote from: White Phoenix on January 07, 2010, 09:41:05 AM
Why? Because I'm an atheist telling someone to go to hell? Doesn't sound too serious to me. And it goes beyond video games anyway.
You are kind of wishing a place of eternal torment existed. So you could send a guy there. Because he made a video game you didn't like.
Kinda harsh.
I actually like it: it's original and enough over-the-top to make it a non-serious (for the people who actually believe in hell) punishment.
Quote from: White Phoenix on January 07, 2010, 07:53:29 AM
Ubisoft's dick doesn't extend to these forums, so close your mouth.
LOL great line!
Quote from: White Phoenix on January 07, 2010, 09:41:05 AM
Why? Because I'm an atheist telling someone to go to hell? Doesn't sound too serious to me. And it goes beyond video games anyway.
You can't just up and tell people you're and athiest, and tell people to go to hell. That's like me saying I'm colorblind but I see pretty colors.
Fighting over religious semantics can be done in the OT forum.
Red scope is obviously a troll
Obviously. A hit-and-runner. ;)
"You are kind of wishing a place of eternal torment existed. So you could send a guy there. Because he made a video game you didn't like.
Kinda harsh."
There's a difference between making a game that Person A doesn't like, and ruining a series of games that Person A DID like until a few weeks ago.
Fact of the matter is that every person at Ubisoft responsible for the destruction of Spies vs. Mercenaries is a fucking idiot. I mean....what else is there to say? I...honestly cannot fathom Bungie turning Halo 4 into a stealth game with no slayer or team slayer or whatever those guys play.
How does a man go from creating a stealth game with a wildly popular new multiplayer, convince himself that attached shotguns, sniper rifles, grenades, mines and knives and the ambushes AREN'T action enough. How does he convince himself that players are restricted by stealth, when they no longer have to worry about alarm/mission failures, or even hiding the bodies, in order to get by (Chaos Theory)?
How does he convince himself that people will be any less restricted with an "all action" where you can't do anything BUT kill everyone?
How does he convince himself that, and a repeat, a fucking AWARD WINNING MULTIPLAYER mode that had been in the last 3 titles, wasn't worth the damn effort?!
"Oh wez tryin' be prey-day-tors. Spies'n Merc ain't no prey-day-tors."
That was by far one of the most idiotic, incompetant, and dismissive answers I've ever seen in my LIFE.
And what the hell is up with Spy vs. Spy? From old-gen Double Agent, to Essentials, and here Ubisoft was never able to fully bury that stupid concept. The whole sparkle of Splinter Cell Versus was that the teams WEREN'T the same.
There's...there's a certain...thought process to it, and I know it by name. It's no doubt the same one that ruined the global economy and made our country the laughing stock of the world. That thought process is known as: "fuck it."
(Political spiel after this has been erased after some hindsight).
QuoteFact of the matter is that every person at Ubisoft responsible for the destruction of Spies vs. Mercenaries is a fucking idiot. I mean....what else is there to say? I...honestly cannot fathom Bungie turning Halo 4 into a stealth game with no slayer or team slayer or whatever those guys play.
We're going to play a game.
I'll be Ubisoft, and you'll be the Splinter Cell development studio.
Convince me to spend my money, totalling in the millions, on your multiplayer project that draws 300 people
worldwide at its peak, most of whom are European (on the PC at least...can't speak for x360 playerbase). Then convince me to continue to spend that money hosting servers and providing free patch support.
GO!
(suddenly those people don't seem so stupid, do they?)
Quote from: Savior20061 on January 08, 2010, 05:20:47 AM
There's a difference between making a game that Person A doesn't like, and ruining a series of games that Person A DID like until a few weeks ago.
Yeah, not making a sequel he likes, that's totally ruining the series. He can't play the old games he liked anymore, because this new one is just
so terrible that it reaches back through time and just
ruins the old ones.
Person A needs to stop being such a fanboy, srsly. Even if this new game sucks, boo hoo. Games which suck get made all the time. What's the difference here? This one has a similar name to another game which didn't suck? That's enough, is it? How about you focus on the actual game instead of the completely superficial shit?
(Also, I absolutely
love how you implied that someone who ruins a game series deserves to go to hell. Making a bad game? That's okay. Making a bad game when there are prequels which are good? DAMNATION!)
Also also uh Spekkio games are art remember. You should be able to, like, get government funding for this or something. For
art.
I'm glad Ubisoft finally realized that they're no match for us :P
Red_Scope_Security can speak his mind if he wants to. However, please make a thread about SCC in the OT forum. We don't want games of customer-betraying, non-bug-fixing, non-communicating companies in this Public PS discussion, do we?
Quote from: Spekkio on January 08, 2010, 05:51:17 AM
QuoteFact of the matter is that every person at Ubisoft responsible for the destruction of Spies vs. Mercenaries is a fucking idiot. I mean....what else is there to say? I...honestly cannot fathom Bungie turning Halo 4 into a stealth game with no slayer or team slayer or whatever those guys play.
We're going to play a game.
I'll be Ubisoft, and you'll be the Splinter Cell development studio.
Convince me to spend my money, totalling in the millions, on your multiplayer project that draws 300 people worldwide at its peak, most of whom are European (on the PC at least...can't speak for x360 playerbase). Then convince me to continue to spend that money hosting servers and providing free patch support.
GO!
(suddenly those people don't seem so stupid, do they?)
If we're talking about the amount of people drawn to the multiplayer component, than yeah, they still kinda are. CT was still at the top ten Xbox Live games by the time DA was released for the 360. I don't even think the xbox 1 version (the one with SvS) managed to scratch that list.
Not a single 360 Tom Clancy game has managed to stay on the top ten list for more than 3 months. Chaos Theory is still on that top ten list.
Who cares if it's in the top 10 for the original Xbox? The player base for that system is pretty meager, and the list of competition is extremely shitty.
Being in the top 10 when the games below you get less than 300 players is nothing to brag about.
Of course it is Spekkio, because you could be as bad as them but your not. That leaves me plenty to brag about.
Right, but it's still not popular in absolute terms, which is my point.
If you have a game that sells in the millions (the most data I can find is 2.5 million as of April, 2005), and your online data says that 500ish people are playing it at any given time at its peak popularity, then it's quite clear that the multiplayer isn't the major selling point for that game. In the scheme of total sales, 500 is a drop in the bucket...0.2%, to be exact. So assuming that everyone who plays multiplayer will not purchase the game if the mode is absent (which is a generous assumption), I will have lost a whopping 0.2% of total sales covering $25,000 USD.
That's not even enough money to pay one person for 6 months to make the game.
But hey, since you play multiplayer, it must be the most important thing in the world.
You're not doing a good job of convincing me to put my money into you.
Quote from: Spekkio on January 20, 2010, 05:37:41 PM
Right, but it's still not popular in absolute terms, which is my point.
If you have a game that sells in the millions (the most data I can find is 2.5 million as of April, 2005), and your online data says that 500ish people are playing it at any given time at its peak popularity, then it's quite clear that the multiplayer isn't the major selling point for that game. In the scheme of total sales, 500 is a drop in the bucket...0.2%, to be exact.
You're not doing a good job of convincing me to put my money into you.
I tend to disagree, because for a community of 2 vs 2, you can only fit so many , but 600 people for ie. .. that would be alot of games, of course not to someone who plays counterstrike or halo, would be like WOW thats really small :/... and not see why , just simply the fact that they are so used to playing
with 1000s of people or 24 man server , when SC has never been like that, plus on top of that ,chaotic to manage 24 people on a map for a team of spies.
Quote from: Spekkio on January 20, 2010, 03:45:56 AM
Who cares if it's in the top 10 for the original Xbox? The player base for that system is pretty meager, and the list of competition is extremely shitty.
Being in the top 10 when the games below you get less than 300 players is nothing to brag about.
Did you completely forget about time between the release of Chaos Theory and the release of the 360? That's 7 months of people playing online, and this is still before Xbox 1 "died" in terms of online activity.
So yes, it's still alot to brag about, especially when you compare it to the recent Tom Clancy branded crap that gets most of its online activity from achievement whores.
Quote from: Spekkio on January 20, 2010, 05:37:41 PM
Right, but it's still not popular in absolute terms, which is my point.
If you have a game that sells in the millions (the most data I can find is 2.5 million as of April, 2005), and your online data says that 500ish people are playing it at any given time at its peak popularity, then it's quite clear that the multiplayer isn't the major selling point for that game. In the scheme of total sales, 500 is a drop in the bucket...0.2%, to be exact. So assuming that everyone who plays multiplayer will not purchase the game if the mode is absent (which is a generous assumption), I will have lost a whopping 0.2% of total sales covering $25,000 USD.
That's not even enough money to pay one person for 6 months to make the game.
But hey, since you play multiplayer, it must be the most important thing in the world.
You're not doing a good job of convincing me to put my money into you.
I don't want you putting anything into me.
But as for your statement: 500 players at the peak? Does that mean that none of the other millions of players EVER tried playing Versus mode? Of course not, they probably just came and went. We need to find a way to get them hooked and stay hooked.
Quote from: Savior20061 on January 20, 2010, 10:20:53 PM
But as for your statement: 500 players at the peak? Does that mean that none of the other millions of players EVER tried playing Versus mode? Of course not, they probably just came and went. We need to find a way to get them hooked and stay hooked.
If I wanted to get people hooked, I probably wouldn't be trying to refine a game that millions of people played once and then never looked at again. I'd be making a new game in the hope that people actually liked this one, because the old one evidently sucked.
I mean seriously talk about a lost cause.
QuoteBut as for your statement: 500 players at the peak? Does that mean that none of the other millions of players EVER tried playing Versus mode? Of course not, they probably just came and went. We need to find a way to get them hooked and stay hooked.
Nope. What it means is that 99.8% of people are buying the game for the single player and won't miss multiplayer if I decide not to spend my money on making it and providing free patch support.
Point I'm making is that from Ubi's perspective, it would be a poor business decision to continue making SvM.
Quote from: ambiguous rocketIf I wanted to get people hooked, I probably wouldn't be trying to refine a game that millions of people played once and then never looked at again. I'd be making a new game in the hope that people actually liked this one, because the old one evidently sucked.
Exactly. And I'd probably charge a monthly fee for server/patch support ala WoW, too.
QuoteDid you completely forget about time between the release of Chaos Theory and the release of the 360? That's 7 months of people playing online, and this is still before Xbox 1 "died" in terms of online activity.
Again, read above. Companies measure success in terms of absolute sales and player activity, not relative sales and player activity. It's all about dollars in vs. dollars out.
You can come in the top 10 of the special olympics, but at the end of the day you're still handicapped.
Quote from: Spekkio on January 20, 2010, 05:37:41 PM
Right, but it's still not popular in absolute terms, which is my point.
If you have a game that sells in the millions (the most data I can find is 2.5 million as of April, 2005), and your online data says that 500ish people are playing it at any given time at its peak popularity, then it's quite clear that the multiplayer isn't the major selling point for that game....
Not to beat a dead horse since everyone seemed to stop on this topic, but where exactly did you get that Online Peak data.
I understand the unit's sold, but you gave no source to the other bit.
If you're not just throwing a number out there from when the game was actually played, then yes, your argument is valid.
If you ARE just throwing a number out there, or are comparing present day peaks (which from my experience doesn't reach that high anyway from just a PC standpoint) then everything you said after that holds no weight among the rest of what everyone said.
Chaos Theory still holds a spot on the Top 10 spot on Xbox Live as of December of 2009. Does it say much about the game because there is so little people? Yes and No. No, because there is indeed a small player base as of now. Yes, because Double Agent isn't on any Top 10 list of activity.
Held among the Xbox 1's highest played titles, that actually still means something as of today. It shows that Multiplayer is a selling point to those that play it. A player base that is a for sure sell if you were to implement that mode into a new one (A new mode consisting of the old standard, Double Agent proved that they can screw it up).
Now they would have to spend considerably more time to make SvM compared to their SvS that they have now, but that's only because SvS in Conviction is just taking Co-op and turning friendly fire on/Slapping a score to your name when you kill your teammate. Covering up said Multiplayer substitute by saying SvM "Didn't fit Convictions Play-Style". Which is also not valid because of the fact that while Spy does take it's image from Single Player Mechanics; Merc's never did. Which didn't stop them from putting it in 3 of the games beforehand.
Whether they did it because they are just being Lazy, actually trying to get this game out because they want to see if the series is still alive before taking another chance (Again, chance being SvM, since Double Agent tanked it in a sense), or because they're actually convinced that SvM isn't popular is impossible to tell.
In the end it doesn't matter, but time will tell to see if we get a Official SvM mode back again. If not, who cares. Project Stealth already has more community awareness then Ubisoft, so it's going to be a fun, if not funner experience anyway.
Quote from: Cronky on January 27, 2010, 06:29:20 PM
Quote from: Spekkio on January 20, 2010, 05:37:41 PM
Right, but it's still not popular in absolute terms, which is my point.
If you have a game that sells in the millions (the most data I can find is 2.5 million as of April, 2005), and your online data says that 500ish people are playing it at any given time at its peak popularity, then it's quite clear that the multiplayer isn't the major selling point for that game....
Not to beat a dead horse since everyone seemed to stop on this topic, but where exactly did you get that Online Peak data.
I understand the unit's sold, but you gave no source to the other bit.
If you're not just throwing a number out there from when the game was actually played, then yes, your argument is valid.
If you ARE just throwing a number out there, or are comparing present day peaks (which from my experience doesn't reach that high anyway from just a PC standpoint) then everything you said after that holds no weight among the rest of what everyone said.
Chaos Theory still holds a spot on the Top 10 spot on Xbox Live as of December of 2009. Does it say much about the game because there is so little people? Yes and No. No, because there is indeed a small player base as of now. Yes, because Double Agent isn't on any Top 10 list of activity.
Held among the Xbox 1's highest played titles, that actually still means something as of today. It shows that Multiplayer is a selling point to those that play it. A player base that is a for sure sell if you were to implement that mode into a new one (A new mode consisting of the old standard, Double Agent proved that they can screw it up).
Now they would have to spend considerably more time to make SvM compared to their SvS that they have now, but that's only because SvS in Conviction is just taking Co-op and turning friendly fire on/Slapping a score to your name when you kill your teammate. Covering up said Multiplayer substitute by saying SvM "Didn't fit Convictions Play-Style". Which is also not valid because of the fact that while Spy does take it's image from Single Player Mechanics; Merc's never did. Which didn't stop them from putting it in 3 of the games beforehand.
Whether they did it because they are just being Lazy, actually trying to get this game out because they want to see if the series is still alive before taking another chance (Again, chance being SvM, since Double Agent tanked it in a sense), or because they're actually convinced that SvM isn't popular is impossible to tell.
In the end it doesn't matter, but time will tell to see if we get a Official SvM mode back again. If not, who cares. Project Stealth already has more community awareness then Ubisoft, so it's going to be a fun, if not funner experience anyway.
well put solid thumbs up ;D - (Y) (yes i used an msn emote , i know i suck :P )
QuoteIf you're not just throwing a number out there from when the game was actually played, then yes, your argument is valid.
I played CT more often than I'd like to admit from the day it was released until 3 years later. I never once saw more than 300ish players online at once, and that number was usually hit during European peak hours. American prime time (6-10pm) usually had about 150ish and quickly dwindled down to about 80ish after 6 months (European peak times went to 180ish) where it stayed for about a year or so until it took a nose dive into can't get a good game unless it's setup on xfire territory.
I got 500 as an added estimate from the popularity of the Xbox compared to PC. Honestly, when compared to 2.5 million sales in the first quarter of release, and presumably quite a bit more past that, it really doesn't matter if you even double or triple that number. It is still orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of people who purchased the game.
QuoteHeld among the Xbox 1's highest played titles, that actually still means something as of today. It shows that Multiplayer is a selling point to those that play it. A player base that is a for sure sell if you were to implement that mode into a new one (A new mode consisting of the old standard, Double Agent proved that they can screw it up).
If I were making a sequel for profit, I wouldn't bank its success on the "sure sells" of a few hundred people. I'd scrap that aspect and try to enhance but keep the parts that got 2.5 million people to buy it in the first 3 months of release.
Honestly, that list is relatively meaningless. Very few people play the original Xbox today. I wouldn't be surprised if that list wasn't even updated.
Why don't you go logon to your Xbox and tell us how many people are searching for a game at various times? I bet it's less than 150 at any given time, and this is supposed to be one of the "top 10 most popular games!!1one"
All valid points. I'll give you that.
While all also being true, I wonder what the number of Unique Users were for CT's Multiplayer. Since 500 at a given time is a good number if the amount of people switching in and out was constant.
I say that because that is how the Ranking of Xbox originals games is tracked. Which still says very little but also can accumulate a more specific number of Multiplayer players.
(It has come to my brainular area that the ranking may not be of active users right now, but of Unique Users since it was released.)
Since saying 500 is such a low number is nice if it was the same 500 every time.
CT being at 8th place could mean anything from 1000 Unique Users to 100,000+. Which makes CT Versus look much better than what you are making it seem. (Even though 100,000 also isn't a lot compared to 2.5 mill sold, there is no way to actually tell what the ranking for Xbox alone means for accurate numbers. Could be much more. Could be much less.)
While also on the subject of Multiplayer. I would have to wonder what the peak of Co-op online was. If versus wasn't all too popular and it held the same basic premise for at least one side of Versus. Then what are the chances that Co-op was any different? (Did the Last Gen version of Double Agent really sell that much better than current gen? Cause they are replicating that versions structure rather than current gen.) Or is Ubisoft going with a plan much like our discussion about Uncharted 2 in that other thread and just taking the safe road? Single Player, Co-op, and a simplistic Multiplayer...
Coop in CT was buggy as hell. I doubt many people were able to start a successful game.
Starting coop games wasn't hard. Finishing them, yes, but not starting.
Yea, on the PC side coop was very busy for like...a week. Then everyone figured out that the mode simply just didn't work, and for those who got it to work it ran at like 10 FPS.
QuoteCT being at 8th place could mean anything from 1000 Unique Users to 100,000+. Which makes CT Versus look much better than what you are making it seem. (Even though 100,000 also isn't a lot compared to 2.5 mill sold, there is no way to actually tell what the ranking for Xbox alone means for accurate numbers. Could be much more. Could be much less.)
You're not going to get 500 unique users at various different times of the day. For starters, the peak time means just that -- the amount of users online at other times are not as high. For Xbox Live, which didn't have European support during CT's hayday IIRC, it would be a generous estimate if you doubled or tripled the amount online for amount of unique users that are actively playing the game. But even then, "unique users" is a tough thing because data is often taken by how many different screen names played the game, so people with multiple accounts in a household with 1 copy of the game count as "unique users."
But like you said, ultimately the meaning is vague. Hence my original position: it's meaningless that the game is in the top 10 most popular Xbox games. I'm sure Ubisoft has done plenty of datamining on the subject, crunched the numbers, and came to the conclusion that the development costs were not worth it. It's as simple as that.
I REFUSE TO ACCEPT YOUR LOGIC!!!
...Though I've ran out of ideas to back myself up with...
*Cough*
I mean I'd rather not elongate this back and forth we are doing lest we repeat ourselves over again and again!!!
:)
I'll just leave this at a Tie.
I'll drink to that!
I'll drink to almost anything.
Male genitals?
im 12 and what is this
you'll find them dangling between your legs...goodluck
I couldn't find anything hanging between mine. All I could fine was this big gaping hole. Does this mean I'm a congressman now?
I'd watch out. Members of congress are endangered species at the moment. Either dying of facing das boot in november.
Doesn't matter to me none. >:(