I'm sure not intentionally, but people are getting the wrong impression about an important part of the interview so I am posting to clarify the topic/issue that needs it:

--------

I'd like to address something I've seen come up several times on different boards re: the interview: The original MS team DID require milestones and a schedule. By NO means did we ask for or expect free reigns. In fact, we met every milestone and even exceeded the expectations and requirements for many of them.

I am all for schedules. I am all for planning. I am al for Milestones.

It was the degree and detail level and how detailed they needed to be going way out into the future that changed and the assertion that MMOGs should be handled the same way as a single player game in terms of development and an apparent desire to not want to work collaberatively but rather dictate development (which was not part of the original spirit of the agreement, where we were hired on because of our experience) that became a problem. We tried very hard to work with the new team but their approach to game development simply wasn't compatible with Sigil's, did not adhere to how we had worked with them previously for several years, and IMHO not compatible with how one (or at least Sigil) in our experience working on a LOT of MMOGs, some failures, one a huge success, some cancelled, etc.

We were all for organization, scheduling, milestones, accountability, etc. Up until the change I described we exceled in this process and were praised for our performance and progress. When all of this changed, we tried to make things worked (as did the other side), but it simiply turned out that the two teams were not compatible. Again, I have nothing against MSFT or those people, etc. They meant well and I'm sure were doing their best given how they were told to deal with an external developer. Changes like this happen fairly often I would think. Incompatibilities and disagreements on development (in this case MMOG development) happen.

Thus it was time to move on. I will also say that working with SOE later on worked out fairly well (not perfect, but perfection happens rarely). My point is that we worked very well with the first group at MSFT and then we worked very well with SOE after we broke things off.

That's it. Again, while I am disappointed, I understand how things happen and that they are not all that uncommon. A developer and a publisher must mesh and be able to work together as a solid team towards one solid goal (making a great game). When that does not occur, or something changes such that it is no longer occuring, something needs to change.

Microsoft agreed with this and allowed us to switch to SOE in a very amicable way. There are no hard feelings. All the MSFT people are in the Vanguard credits in fact. If anything my respect level for MSFT management for letting go of Vanguard to increase to the chance that it would become a great game increased greatly. They are truly a class act. They put Vanguard above politics and team issues and different development philosophies and did what was best for the game. That is huge and I'm not sure if very many other publishers would have done the same. So I remain eternally grateful for them allowing us to make the switch to SOE and getting the deal done so quickly so as to allow us to take advantage of E3 and to interupt the development process of the game as minimally as possible.

I wish this part of the picture had been included in the interview and hope you all spread it around as it's an important piece that was missed.

thanks,

Weiterlesen...