New Launcher Coming

[Algernon]

For goodness sake. There are people out there (myself included) who are wanting to give some of their money over to play this game yet are unable due to the lack of support for Vista.

As I work for a company that has developed applications in .net from the 1.1 days I can't comprehend why there is a debate regarding this. Unless I'm missing something it should be trivial to port the application to 2.0 or even 3.5 for that matter.

How's about doing this in the next hour or so and giving us a beta that will allow us to login. Once you've done this, allowing everyone who's bought a new computer in the past year or so to try out your game, you could then proceed with option two or three.

Algernon.

[Dhalin]

For goodness sake. There are people out there (myself included) who are wanting to give some of their money over to play this game yet are unable due to the lack of support for Vista.

As I work for a company that has developed applications in .net from the 1.1 days I can't comprehend why there is a debate regarding this. Unless I'm missing something it should be trivial to port the application to 2.0 or even 3.5 for that matter.

How's about doing this in the next hour or so and giving us a beta that will allow us to login. Once you've done this, allowing everyone who's bought a new computer in the past year or so to try out your game, you could then proceed with option two or three.

Algernon.

This is true, why not do both?

Do #1 NOW, and then as soon as possible, do #3 when you can?

Another point I wanted to raise in my first response, but forgot to, while I was typing, is the part about laziness and shortcuts. Now, #1 I could support as a band-aid, temporary solution, but in the end run, let us not take shortcuts just because they are "easier". Is this not how we got into so many binds in the first place, when the previous companies owned Istaria (then, Horizons)? Shortcuts and Band-aids should only be used when it is an emergency or dire necessity for people to be able to play the game, which is why I would support #1 as a "For Now" measure.

But if you do #1 "for now", please please do not abandon the idea of doing #3 in the future. Let's take the time to get things Right, and done Properly, and finally X off some of those things on the "to-do" list. You guys have been doing great in the last few months, finally getting some of these _old_ issues fixed, issues that have been around for the 2+ years I've been with the game. I love this kind of work, please keep it up. The lack of a fully stand-alone executable that does not rely on Micro$uck's software is one of those issues that should be taken care as soon as possible. As others and myself have said before, it adds more security, makes it easier for Linux people, and a myriad of other reasons to go about doing it. The _only_ downside, is it would require more work on the developers' end.

Such work, however, would greatly pay off in the end run. Taking the time to do it, and do it Right the first time will mean less time spent going back and re-doing it later. What happens a few years down the road, if we go with .NET 2.0 or 3.5 *now* and Micro$uck inevitably releases another OS, there will be new computer hardware available that requires that OS, and we will find ourselves with the _same_ situation we have right now, later? And of course, no matter what, Linux people will still have the same difficulties anyways.

After you apply the temporary measure to allow Vista people to play, let's do this, and do it right the first time.

[aine]

Hmmm, I like the idea of using option #1 now, and keeping option #3 on the to-do list for later. (as Algernon and Dhalin suggest).

I currently use the standalone to log into the game, am not a big fan of java and actually avoid IE.

If option #1 would allow vista players (I am not one of them) to use the game sooner plus have the upside of occupying fewer developer hours for implementation, then it seems the most reasonable choice. It isn't like you developers are going to get an extra coffee break out of it, hehe...we know there are plenty of tasks on your to-do list.

[Shur]

For goodness sake. There are people out there (myself included) who are wanting to give some of their money over to play this game yet are unable due to the lack of support for Vista.

As I work for a company that has developed applications in .net from the 1.1 days I can't comprehend why there is a debate regarding this. Unless I'm missing something it should be trivial to port the application to 2.0 or even 3.5 for that matter.

How's about doing this in the next hour or so and giving us a beta that will allow us to login. Once you've done this, allowing everyone who's bought a new computer in the past year or so to try out your game, you could then proceed with option two or three.

Algernon.

except that making the launcher work with vista won't make the client work with vista.

[gopher65]

except that making the launcher work with vista won't make the client work with vista.

The client works perfectly with Vista (err, as "perfectly" as it works with XP, anywho), but the game doesn't aways launch. I suspect (and I'm just guessing here) that Vista changed the way Windows starts up programs, so that is the part they have to change. Maybe they won't even change the part of the launcher that we use to select characters and stuff? That part works just fine in Vista? Maybe they're going to change the Silentpatcher program (that's the part that uses dotnet I think? It starts up after you select your character.)? I dunno. Just musing out loud.

[Oakleif]

I don't know how the three choices compares to my wishlist, but I'd prefer a stand-alone launcher (no opening IE) that is easily compiled into windows 2000/xp, windows vista, linux, and macintosh. I know the client and possibly other portions of the game would need to be able to be compiled in these formats as well, but lets think ahead and go with whatever option is most open to being able to help expand our player base later on.

[Zexoin]

The client works perfectly with Vista (err, as "perfectly" as it works with XP, anywho), but the game doesn't aways launch.

Well, I lost half of my FPS when my laptop got downgraded from XP to Vista, and I can't launch it consistently... I wouldn't say it works perfectly >.>

[gopher65]

I don't know how the three choices compares to my wishlist, but I'd prefer a stand-alone launcher (no opening IE) that is easily compiled into windows 2000/xp, windows vista, linux, and macintosh. I know the client and possibly other portions of the game would need to be able to be compiled in these formats as well, but lets think ahead and go with whatever option is most open to being able to help expand our player base later on.

I don't think they're talking about the old IE patcher. If I understand what they're asking correctly, they want to know how we want the *back end* of the current stand alone patcher/launcher implemented. Right now it uses dotnet 1.1. Since they are going to have to make a new launcher anyway (for Vista), they are asking us which we prefer:

1) a new dotnet 3.0 launcher (identical to the current standalone launcher, except updated, so this is fairly easy)
2) A new Java based launcher (Java works moderately well on every major OS, but really well on none of them, so it has ups and downs)
3) A new patcher/launcher that they code from scratch, not using the copy/pasted leftover scraps of code from Microsoft (dotnet) or Sun Microsystems (Java) like they would in the other two options. <--- This one is lots of work. It'll be really buggy at first, and it'll take longer for one person to do.

They weren't completely clear, but that's what I took this is what they mean. I don't think it has anything to do with browsers and account management and whatnot. They're "just" making a new silentpatcher program for us.

[Vlisson]

im no pro too and agree to awdz ^^

give us a launcher that works :-)

[Charys Stormchild]

Would like to vote..but not even sure I understand the difference between all the choices

I'm not a techie at all, as long as something works with Windows 2000 that's fine with me. Won't be able to afford to change anything on my comp within the foreseeable future so that's my only concern.

[Steelclaw]

Tough call... I don't care for either of those 3 options.

There is some merit in keeping the patcher separate from the main client -- specifically, it doesn't add complexity to the client, which already has issues with resource management. Integrating a patcher adds an additional factor to be concerned about when trying to track down bugs. Ideally, it would be nice if the client can patch and launch itself, but, I don't think it's in a state to be adding extra features like that... not yet at least.

So.. no to option 3: integrated patcher.

That leaves Java and .NET. Both require the user to install a separate runtime environment. This is not done by default with Windows, however, I think it's safe to say that most people have both installed. The problem I see here, though, is that VI will have to support people who either don't have the necessary runtime environment installed, have a broken installation, a non-standard one, or have no clue what .NET or Java are. This won't make the "launcher works for most people but when it doesn't, is a pain to troubleshoot" problem go away, it will just move the problem elsewhere -- to extra dependencies that VI will (still) have to deal with. Users aren't sysadmins. Don't expect them to be one.

So.. no to option 1 and 2.

Buh. Where's option D: Standalone, non-integrated launcher (and patcher) written in C++?

It's not as bad as it sounds -- it *should not* (that better be a design requirement!) require the user to install anything. That removes the whole "Do you have version x.y.z.o.m.g of Java installed?" problem.

Furthermore, that approach doesn't require touching the client source at all. It can still be invoked the way it is now. Most importantly, however, the patching routines, if designed with the following goal in mind, can be integrated with the client when the client becomes stable enough. That means that when the time comes to make an integrated patcher, the core of the patcher will have been tested and be known to work, versus starting out from scratch.

[Vaz]

Buh. Where's option D: Standalone, non-integrated launcher (and patcher) written in C++?

It's not as bad as it sounds -- it *should not* (that better be a design requirement!) require the user to install anything. That removes the whole "Do you have version x.y.z.o.m.g of Java installed?" problem.

Furthermore, that approach doesn't require touching the client source at all. It can still be invoked the way it is now.

I assumed this is what option #3 means.

[Steelclaw]

Heheh. Ya know, I'm not sure. The first time I read it, I thought it meant integrated with the client. I just read it again, and it sounds like it's not.

Clarification requested on aisle 18513!

[Landowyn]

I can't even upgrade to .NET 3.0 on my XP box, so I'd vote no on that one for sure. I like the idea of fewer dependencies, but ...

I'd rather see some real work done on core game elements like auction houses, a mail system, silos and houses that sometimes open and sometimes don't and don't work with the ease of vaults, and a revamp on the multiclassing options, etc. etc.

OK, then, option 3 and get on with the rest.

[gopher65]

I can't even upgrade to .NET 3.0 on my XP box, so I'd vote no on that one for sure.

? I'm pretty sure I have 1.1, 2.0, and 3.0 on my XP machine. You should be able to have them all installed at once. They don't conflict with each other.

[Vahrokh]

Well, I lost half of my FPS when my laptop got downgraded from XP to Vista, and I can't launch it consistently... I wouldn't say it works perfectly >.>

Laptops tend to be very OS bound (in fact you usually get a DvD / CD with a "dedicated" version of the OS with the drivers etc.).

Changing that OS is often pretty harsh, expecially when the OS is a generation above and requires much more memory and disk access performance.


In my case I have a regular PC with dual boot and running the game in Vista or XP is identical, with some less crashes and a bit better FPS in Vista.

[BlueFire]

Me too I would go for option 1 "for now" and option 3 "as soon as option 1 works, major bugs are solved and devs have a vague idea of what the launcher should look like and how it will be coded"

I totally agree with Steelclaw. Not everyone is an administrator. First time I played, I found it strange I had to go though a website to log in, but it didn't bother me that much. Then I discovered the "you are not admin" thing. Thanks goodness I looked in Istaria's folders and saw the stand-alone launcher because I do not play games in admin, it's more "dangerous" (experience).

I'm also not in for option 2 as, like someone said on the precedent page, java has major slowdowns on old computers and even if my laptop is a little bit more than 1 year old, I consider it as a "old computer". Java too.

I don't have Vista but the day I'll have it, I want to be able to play Istaria without problems. (Heard, devs? You got a few years before I get mad )

I want to know... why games that companies payed chinese (or japanese/indian etc) companies to code them have absolutely no bugs or errors and stand-alone launchers (from the games I've played) and Istaria, which is coded from scratch like the chinese/japenese etc do, has so much?

[Vahrokh]

I want to know... why games that companies payed chinese (or japanese/indian etc) companies to code them have absolutely no bugs or errors and stand-alone launchers (from the games I've played) and Istaria, which is coded from scratch like the chinese/japenese etc do, has so much?

There are many reasons for the "quality" issues in Istaria and would take weeks to explain.

Basically it was the rampant "years 2000", where the common belief was that whatever tossed "in the internet" would bring massive money and success.

The president of the first AE was the common "visionary but without a clue on how to put in practice your vision", with no clue on industrial planning, development and so on. They kept the game "vaporware" for years till they got menaced (by the investors) to have the plug pulled off. They scrambled making "something visible" that would make the investors (clueless themselves) happy and that was the first Horizons: a "demo" of a 3D engine, done in haste by programmers with great talent (who can forget Smeglor?) but forced to skip documentation, skip "use cases", skip "regression testing" and so on. The result? 35,000 boxes sold at launch day (not bad, since we talk of before the World Of Warcraft era, when you are a no one without 500k boxes sold the first day), dropped to 10,000 by end of the year, then down to 5,000 the year after.

The client, the though "knot" of the whole game, requires a complete refactor from scratch, but it'd imply million USDs+ cost no one has now. Until then, we have to deal with "beta" client that suddenly crashes in random places (i.e teleporting) and has to be rolled back, because no one has an idea in what ocean deep part of long forgotten code, a bug could arise (or stayed latent till today, like i.e. dangling pointers) and break the functionality.

The launcher is a good start, the work left to do is still immense, if Virtrium were not dedicated beyond "human" logic they'd dropped the ball like the others already.


Always remember: Horizons / Istaria is the game that it's impossible to have been created, impossible to exist, impossible to be playable, impossible to survive.

Yet it's still here, in the face of years, in the face of the billion dollars games, beyond any human and technical explaination. And I am happy for that

[BlueFire]

Yet it's still here, in the face of years, in the face of the billion dollars games, beyond any human and technical explaination. And I am happy for that

I don't know how they survived but I'm happy they did too

[Adwene]

Vah, an interesting (to me at least) article/web site, talks about 1000 true fans.

This was linked in another game I follow but no longer play ATITD (A Tale in the Desert).

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archiv..._true_fans.php

It might be part of why Istaria has managed to continue to exist, and hopefully with the extra time and attention the developers give us, Istaria's fans, it will grow.