I don't give a shit if they download their engine from the Matrix. Their job is to give us as much cool content as they can per unit dev time, not to sperg about doing something the hard way. You can bore a tunnel with a spoon, and it's really hard, but that doesn't make you a better person for doing it, it makes you a goddamn retard. CCP has the same problem. Given the choice between 72000 hours on Evegategate and a man-week on integrating VBulletin, they always choose to do it the hard way for no good reason. Don't defend not-invented-here :psyccp: stupidity.Despite being directly mentioned, the topic at hand wasn't the forum mess. It was the Captain's Quarters test on Duality. It's clear that everything in it was built pretty much from scratch by CCP.
I spent a good bit of time kicking the CQ around over the weekend, and there's some very good news here: CQ doesn't appear to break anything that we've become used to. The 30 second and 60 second timers that I mentioned in my blog entry last week are intact. Despite being "non-optimized" code, the balcony environment seems to load slightly faster than the current hangar environment. And your menu is right there where you expect it to be. You can look at your toon while you select the Fittings, Items, or Ships buttons, or the Station Information window for your agents, do what you have to do, and get un-docked again in a twinkling.
So a definite tip of the hat to CCP there. Rage avoided. ;-)
The rest, though? I'm going to have to agree with Herschel. There's nothing revolutionary or ground-breaking here. Certainly, there is not enough to justify the effort, time, and money that's been put into it. CCP is indeed digging a tunnel with spoons, and it shows. There were so many bugs in the display and function, that I simply couldn't list them all. Even more than that, the functionality is... clunky. And I don't think it's because of non-optimized code. I think the final version is also going to feel clunky, too. The CQ comes off as a fourth-year CompSci student's attempt to recreate the Unreal engine. It works. It would even get a good grade on the final. But it would leave a true pro tsk'ing at the student's many mistakes and foibles.
And it would leave the other CompSci students grinning and wondering why the nerdy kid spent 650 hours on his project to get an "A" when they spent 120 hours on theirs to get the same "A".
Herschel brings up the expression: not-invented-here. NIH, it's called, or Not Invented Here Disease. Those afflicted with this disease will go to the ends of the earth to reinvent the wheel when it's completely unnecessary. They can't stand to have other people's work in their masterpiece. CCP has NIH disease in a big, big way. The forums show this off, of course, and now CQ, but so does the massive amount of work they're doing right now to implement security around the API. There are licensable products that would let CCP skip all this work, but Heaven forfend they actually use them.
And given how CCP's reinvention of the wheel tends to be second-string work, this leaves me with real fears about their new version of user authentication using those hardware security tokens they distributed at Fanfest. Are they reinventing the wheel there, too?
It truly makes me wonder how much further along Incarna would be if CCP had just licensed the Unreal engine and started building Incarna off that three years ago. Had CCP stuck to writing code for their game instead of writing code for the underlying engine of the game, would we be walking in stations already?
I'll probably have more to say about this broader topic in a week or so, because it's important, but I want to collect my thoughts a little.