Subscription gaming (not what you think...)

[FoolKiller]

I agree with you to some extent, but that is because the game is pre-scripted for you to be the hero. The storyline and linear game play of the vast majority of games suggest that you can be nothing else.

True and in games like The Sims it makes you an everyday person, so I see where you are going with this.

Virtual worlds like this exist right now. They are maybe a step or two behind my thinking, but you can see where they are going, and it not a leap of the imagination to assume that they will get there one day. I'm also puzzled why you think that you would need some sort of matrix-stlye building to house this virtual world. A datacenter would suffice I'd think.

A datacenter would run the interactions, but even in current MMOs the assets that create the world are on your machine. I am not sure consoles can handle scale the size you are wanting without loading times and other issues. But some games have totally surprised me by how seamlessly they pull large world stuff off.

In all honesty, until I see DCU, or whatever MMO hits first, in action I cannot say how well this can work on consoles.

I'm not saying that you can't have NPC characters, just that they should not be the main emphasis of the game. As for everyone being level 1ers, there is nothing wrong with that either. If everyone was level 1 to start with, there would an ineviatable 'arms race' amongst those players that would make the game very intersting indeed. Over time, players would learn the game, and positions would polarise. It would actually be harder for late starters to get a foot hold in the game as they would have so much to catch up on.

With NPCs not having much emphasis where does the arms race go into? I mean, you kill an easy and ineffective troll to get your first sword (if you are one of the very first players, for example) But if NPCs are not a focal point where do you get larger arms?

That said, I could see a weapon design system where players who chose to have a job as a blacksmith or something can actually design their own weapons, within the degree of limitations in the game. You could allow as much free design as possible, but design the system so that more realistic approaches are more effective.

That is why I suggested subscription gaming. Games like COD4, and GT5 are free for anyone to enter, so you get all the riff-raff playing. They think they have the right to act the way they can because they have brought the game. If you have to pay a monthly fee to enter the game, the griefers would soon learn (through rigidly enforced suspensions and bans), that their behavior was unacceptable. They then have the choice to play the game properly, or risk losing the investment they have made in that game.

As someone who never does subscription gaming I had forgotten the paid aspect. So, I retract all my comments about griefers, because you are accurate that a very few would pay a subscription just to create trouble.

I recalled you mentioned that smaller games developers were going bust or being swallowed up by bigger developers. I think that subscription gaming could be a life line for these smaller developers, and could potentially throw them a life line. Instead of chasing the chart success, these smaller developers could create a loyal following of subscription gamers who would be willing to pay for the right product. I really don't think that this avenue has been thoroughly explored by Sony, or games developers in general, but it should be!

The problem here is that the cost of entry is huge. There is a reason why indie game developers are only now getting known via PSN and XBLA, they don't have the money to do anything bigger. They cannot afford to start up the data center to run an MMO. Sure they can start something small, but if they do it right and it is good they will quickly get swamped. Even with the games these guys are putting on PSN only one (Tiki Games - Novastrike) has self published too. Why do they all rely on a professional publishing company? They don't have enough money to even pay the hosting fees for the PSN. They have to be willing to lose a cut of their already small profit just to get it on a virtual shelf.

I am not saying they couldn't do the programming, but I think that they will have trouble affording the hosting and the publishing. MMOs are only done by huge companies because they are expensive. The last independent MUDs or MMOs were text based (running off a PC sitting on a desk somewhere) or the most recent I can think of, Space Merchant, is HTML/text based (a high-end PC sitting ion a desk somewhere.

Speaking of, I think you might like the idea behind Space Merchant. NPCs are only taking the rolls of trading posts and Federation law enforcement. You can choose to attempt to steal or trade. You can pass other ships by without making any fuss or you can blow them up. You can team up with others and form alliances. You can find planets and make it your home base. When your villain skills (can't remember the term the game uses) are high enough you can even raid trading posts. Of course, you have to be careful that you don't draw in Federation Cruisers, which act purely to prevent everyone from becoming pirates. Of course, once you get enough money you can get a ship large enough to go one on one with Federation ships. Oh, and you can be a bounty hunter, taking out other players that have bounties on them, either by the Federation or other players.

It has been a few years since I played so some of this may have changes, and it is just HTML/text based gameplay. But NPCs play a very minimal role in preventing the game from favoring any one type of player.

Here's the site: http://www.smrealms.de/login.php After rereading their description it sounds just like what you want:

Space Merchant Realms is a game of skill, strategy, and roleplaying. Top rank isn't always determined by your skills at trading or fighting, but also by your ability to command, negotiate, and cooperate with your fellow alliancemates and other players. Those that can successfully do this can consider themselves some of the best players Space Merchant Realms has to offer.

I put my money where my mouth is and purchased Endwars the other day, and spent the best part of 6 hours playing it. The voice command system is very impressive, more so than it would initially appear to be just on the face of it. You literally CAN control the game with voice commands alone, and (once I get to grips with the phrases), I can see the benifits of that system.

I'm kicking myself now, that I had not brought Endwars sooner, because it has a number of features that I have mentioned in this thread so far. The first being persistence. Online is unlike any other RTS I have played. It has an ongoing and persistent battle that is played in turns (when I logged on, it was on turn 33).

I may have to bump it up on my rental list.

There is another facet to the innovation point I have mentioned. Have you noticed that most games nowadays have a number after them? Resident Evil 5? Street Fighter IV? GT5? COD5:WaW? Wipeout HD? Isn't that a sign that there is a severe lack of innovation within the games industry?

I just did a quick check, and I only regularly buy new (I pick them up later in other game genres) sequels to racing games. But I think that is because racing games aren't going to get more innovative in the main gameplay. What they do around it is where the changes happen and only better technology makes those things possible (like physics).

Lets take the last game I mentioned - Wipeout HD. That game is in its 8th iteration. Yes 8th! First there was Wipeout, then Wipeout 2097, then Wipeout 3, then Wipeout 3 Special Edition, onto the PS2, and we had Wipeout Fusion, then on the PSP we had Wipeout Pulse, and Wipeout Pure, and finally on the PS3 we have Wipeout HD.

And isn't WipEout HD just an HD version of the maps from the PSP games?

Looking back at the franchise, there have been many games, but very little innovation throughout the whole series. Graphically the games have always been up there on the system they were designed for, gameplay-wise, the game has stagnated.

I will have to say that I disagree. Something has changed, but I do not know what it is. It was slight enough to not be obvious, but I never liked the Wipeout series until WipEout HD.I cannot tell you what the difference is, but I went back to the PSP versions and still didn't like them. And I think that is the key to racing games, small details that don't get a bullet point on the box make a difference. Similarly I haven't liked the Burnout series until Paradise.

The innovation that I would like to see is the branching out into new genres, creating new ideas nad concepts over and above what we currently have.

The problem with that is that the consumers keep buying what we have. Sequels wouldn't be made unless they sold.

 

[magburner]

"Judging by the comments posted above, I'm glad I never brought [sic] this game now!"- Magburner.

I don't know how you can make such comment when you don't even own the game. Just because a few people on this forum may have recently had a unpleasant experience in KZ2 MP game, doesn't mean that the game is "being dragged through the gutter" for the rest of us. KZ2 is barely a month out and obviously going through a few problems that I'm sure other MP games have gone through and the guys a GG are quick at soving problem and patching the game. Still, like any MP games out there, after a few months, the less dedicated would have moved on to terrorize other new games.

The main problem with the game is that Sony could not allow KZ2 to fail, so they pandered to a section of the FPS community and gave them what they wanted, and in doing so, damned the rest of us who wanted something different.

I've played the demo, and I was not entirely convinced by the game. There were parts of the game I liked, but the demo for me, was a little disappointing, and the clumsy controls frustrating.

I was in the mind to buy it though, but not because I had any kind of epiphany, but because (in the first week), I was slowly being won over by everyone talking about it being a tactical game, and not the usual runner and gunner.

A week after that though and GG infamously changed the way the game played, so drastically, that to some who had played it in beta and the first week, it was unrecognisable as the game they enjoyed.

If a developer is going to make monkeys out of its customers like that, then I have no option but to make monkeys out of the developers, by not buying the game - simple really!

Besides, outside this forum, I have yet to find anyone who rates the game highly enough for me to warrant taking the risk.

 

[Moglet]

• Flower
• Echochrome
• LittleBigPlanet
• Valkyria Chronicles
• Folklore
• Eye of Judgment
• Afrika
• The Trials of Topoq
• Operation Creature Feature
• PixelJunk Eden
• LocoRoco Cocoreccho!
• Elefunk
• Everyday Shooter
• Flow
• The Last Guy
• PAIN

That's pretty much what I thought when I read the original post! The PS3 certainly isn't lacking in originality!

 

[Mad Matt]

I liked the controls of KZ2 on the demo and am more than a little peeved to find they've been changed after launch.

I didn't get a chance to play the pre-change version on-line as Play didn't manage to deliver the game for ten days or so.

It seems to me that it was never going to be that tactical a game, it's more biased towards action. I suppose it depends where you start from!

To me KZ2 is a good FPS game. It doesn't introduce anything really new, but it does everything very well. The graphics are great and used well to provide a real sense of the disorientation of battle, along with good sound effects. It does demonstrate the power of the PS3, in that a lot of things are going on at the same time. The voice acting is perhaps the weakest point and the story is two dimensional.

However, I enjoyed it and am now on the last scene.

When I played the demo I felt that the controls were good enough that I didn't yearn for a mouse and keyboard. After the update, well..........

The on-line side sounds like it was much better before the "upgrade" although perhaps some of the things people complain about might have happened anyway as the number of people playing dramatically increased over the first couple of weeks. Personally I've only played on-line twice and didn't enjoy either time. I need to try a bit more and different types of game before I can make a useful comment here.

What the game does illustrate is the effect a bunch of oiks can have on an on-line game. I suppose it's the same in GT5P. A load of people pushing and shoving and the game's ruined.

Could developers solve these problems? Well, they could certainly help things but I think you'll always be at the mercy of others with anything on-line.

If you allow the "private room" concept you'll put off newcomers who can't find a game to join. If it's open to everyone it gets ruined by oiks. OK, I exaggerate, but there is a bit of a point here.

One thing I liked about Unreal was how much you could modify it. Feel the game is being spoiled by campers, write a mod to make them explode if they don't move every few minutes. Or, if you only want snipers use a mod which prevents you firing too quickly.

It's this modding part that I think KZ2 and console games seem to lack when compared to their PC counterparts.

Perhaps if KZ2 introduces some modding options they could introduce some truly new ideas to the genre. I don't know, something like being able to disrupt your enemies communication in certain locales for a short period, leaving 'disinformation' for your enemies, allowing you to set explosives so you demolish buildings on your enemies, use of the exo-suit on-line. Ok, OK perhaps their not such original ideas but I'm sure there's something new that could be added to take advantage of what stands on the edge of being a really outstanding game.

 

[magburner]

A datacenter would run the interactions, but even in current MMOs the assets that create the world are on your machine. I am not sure consoles can handle scale the size you are wanting without loading times and other issues. But some games have totally surprised me by how seamlessly they pull large world stuff off.

I agree, and maybe that was the first boo-boo that Sony dropped - only fitting 512mb of ram! Even when the PS3 was first concieved, the minimum ammount of ram for high end gaming was around the 2gb mark.

How did Sony think that they could manage to keep up with the pace with only 512mb? I know there was an issue with cost, but Sony, could of quite easilly included some sort of 'ram port' where uses could slap in another couple of sticks (offical of course). I think that the ram issue in particular could hold back console gaming more than anything else.

With NPCs not having much emphasis where does the arms race go into? I mean, you kill an easy and ineffective troll to get your first sword (if you are one of the very first players, for example) But if NPCs are not a focal point where do you get larger arms?

That said, I could see a weapon design system where players who chose to have a job as a blacksmith or something can actually design their own weapons, within the degree of limitations in the game. You could allow as much free design as possible, but design the system so that more realistic approaches are more effective.

Take a leaf out of Sony's book, and go cash! You buy them of course! Don't get me wrong, NPCs have their uses, but they shouldn't be the sole reason that someone progresses.

I've been thinking about this a little bit more, and I think that it would be great if games were skill based rather than the way things are now. IN FPSs for example, your choice of gun is decided solely by your rank, and your rank is decided soley by an arbitary score you must achive.

Why can I not aim for a higher weapon earlier on in the game through the use of skills? As much as I love COD4, the way I have to wait for each weapon I like as I go through each prestige level is annoying. On a simple level it creates difficulty, on another it forces you to be proficient with more guns, but when you just want the gun you want, thenit can be frustrating!

The skills could be chalanged based, so for instance, you have to have consistent accuracy before you can use a sniper rifle. Or you have to an electronics skill before you can interface with UAVs and the like. Improving each skill will improve your proficiency with that weapon or interface, and open up more posibilities on the skill tree you were learning.

As someone who never does subscription gaming I had forgotten the paid aspect. So, I retract all my comments about griefers, because you are accurate that a very few would pay a subscription just to create trouble.

There are still griefers in subscription games, they have eveloved - they are scammers!

The problem here is that the cost of entry is huge. There is a reason why indie game developers are only now getting known via PSN and XBLA, they don't have the money to do anything bigger. They cannot afford to start up the data center to run an MMO. Sure they can start something small, but if they do it right and it is good they will quickly get swamped. Even with the games these guys are putting on PSN only one (Tiki Games - Novastrike) has self published too. Why do they all rely on a professional publishing company? They don't have enough money to even pay the hosting fees for the PSN. They have to be willing to lose a cut of their already small profit just to get it on a virtual shelf.

I am not saying they couldn't do the programming, but I think that they will have trouble affording the hosting and the publishing. MMOs are only done by huge companies because they are expensive. The last independent MUDs or MMOs were text based (running off a PC sitting on a desk somewhere) or the most recent I can think of, Space Merchant, is HTML/text based (a high-end PC sitting ion a desk somewhere.

Sony could take the lead on this one, and give aspiring indie developers the chance at creating innovative MMOs. How? Simple, Sony has a dedicated datacenter, with space for rent. Starting with a low entry fee for rental, there could be some sort of tiered system (for cost), that is linked to the number of active players. As the numbers increase, so does the cost, until there is a balance between what Sony wants, and what the developer needs to progress their ideas, and make a small profit.

Speaking of, I think you might like the idea behind Space Merchant. NPCs are only taking the rolls of trading posts and Federation law enforcement. You can choose to attempt to steal or trade. You can pass other ships by without making any fuss or you can blow them up. You can team up with others and form alliances. You can find planets and make it your home base. When your villain skills (can't remember the term the game uses) are high enough you can even raid trading posts. Of course, you have to be careful that you don't draw in Federation Cruisers, which act purely to prevent everyone from becoming pirates. Of course, once you get enough money you can get a ship large enough to go one on one with Federation ships. Oh, and you can be a bounty hunter, taking out other players that have bounties on them, either by the Federation or other players.

Its already been done - EVE Online!

And isn't WipEout HD just an HD version of the maps from the PSP games?

I couldn't say, I've not played Wipeout on the PSP.

I will have to say that I disagree. Something has changed, but I do not know what it is. It was slight enough to not be obvious, but I never liked the Wipeout series until WipEout HD.I cannot tell you what the difference is, but I went back to the PSP versions and still didn't like them. And I think that is the key to racing games, small details that don't get a bullet point on the box make a difference. Similarly I haven't liked the Burnout series until Paradise.

I know what your saying about WipeoutHD, I too have noticed something different about it. Maybe its because the game is running at a higher FPS, thus giving you more freedom and control, I dunno. But still, is there that much difference between WipeoutHD and Wipeout 2097? I don't think there is, but that is testiment to how great 2097 was! 👍

The problem with that is that the consumers keep buying what we have. Sequels wouldn't be made unless they sold.

you know, I had a similar conversation with an attendant in Asda the other day, regarding the appropriateness of the clothing they sell for young girls. I personally think that some of the clothes on sale for young girls are totally inapproiate, and when I put that point across to the attendant, guess what she said? 'Its what everyone was buying!' I did not retort, but in the back of my mind I thought 'Well, if you were not selling it, they wouldn't buy it!'

That's pretty much what I thought when I read the original post! The PS3 certainly isn't lacking in originality!

And, as I stated earlier, I didn't spend £425 on a cutting edge console to play £5 indie games!

What the game does illustrate is the effect a bunch of oiks can have on an on-line game. I suppose it's the same in GT5P. A load of people pushing and shoving and the game's ruined.

This is my point. I had a nagging doubt in my mind about Sony (I have done since I first got the PS3), and KZ2 confirmed my suspicions - they are all about the money, just like M$, but far more cynical about it. Why spend so much time and effort on something, only to change because of a vocal minority/majority?

All I ask for is what has been promised. If the goods don't live upto expectations, then I have the right to voice my complaints. Judging by the mob rule that seems to have gripped the PS3 lately, my opinions are at the thin end of the wedge.

Could developers solve these problems? Well, they could certainly help things but I think you'll always be at the mercy of others with anything on-line.

I have never understood why developers are given so much grace with the quality of their games. Its unheard of in ANY other form of consumer consumption. Would you buy a car with a flat tire, leaking sump and no brakes? Of course you wouldn't!

It seems that every game released nowadays, is just like that car with the leaking sump. Heavens forbid, if you even have the temerity to say even the slightest critiscism, your faced with a phalanx of fanboys who seem to think that 'this way' of doing things is how it should be. Well, it isn't!

It's this modding part that I think KZ2 and console games seem to lack when compared to their PC counterparts.

Its not only modding, but the concept of what is possible online. Modding a game wouldn't be so hard to impliment, I don't think. LBP allows users to submit levels for others to play, why can't FPSs allow users to create their own levels for others to play too? Obviously there are a few more steps inthe process, but the concept of users creating content for others has already been proven (with LBP), the developers just need to improve the concept.

As for online, I sometimes get a sense of deja vu. A lot of what we are seeing on the PS3 has been done years ago on the PC. Take for instance the example of modding you mentioned. Now look at LBP. The game is basically built around some simple modding tools. Most PCs games give you the option of creating these kinds of things, and ususally with far greater finesse. I guess ignorance is bliss eh?

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Now look at LBP. The game is basically built around some simple modding tools. Most PCs games give you the option of creating these kinds of things, and ususally with far greater finesse. I guess ignorance is bliss eh?

Oh... the irony of it all.

 

[magburner]

Oh... the irony of it all.

Are you talking about me or Sony? Because I think you might be right on both counts!

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't have much time so I will just address a couple of things.

Its already been done - EVE Online!

Space Merchant is free and it only requires a computer powerful enough to load a Web site.

This is my point. I had a nagging doubt in my mind about Sony (I have done since I first got the PS3), and KZ2 confirmed my suspicions - they are all about the money, just like M$, but far more cynical about it. Why spend so much time and effort on something, only to change because of a vocal minority/majority?

Sony = business. Businesses = make money first.

Honestly, what did you expect?

 

[magburner]

Space Merchant is free and it only requires a computer powerful enough to load a Web site.

Hmmm... I had a look, and its a bit Anne Twacky! I think I'll stick with EVE, its in a different league to that game! I don't mind paying, because I will always pay for quality games. 👍

Sony = business. Businesses = make money first.

Honestly, what did you expect?

I know that. I've always held Sony in high regard because historically, they have fulfilled my desires. This generation though, they haven't. Maybe I was expecting games like I get on my PC for the PS3. Thats obviously not the case, so I guess I'll play the PS3 for mindless fun, and stick to the PC for the real cerebral gaming (yunno, the stuff that makes you think).

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

(yunno, the stuff that makes you think).

Besides being a walking & talking contradiction, you are either still being ironic, or once again choosing to ignore facts.

Oh well... glad you at least can find some enjoyment from EVE Online... even though you apparently don't like MMORPG games.

 

[FoolKiller]

Hmmm... I had a look, and its a bit Anne Twacky! I think I'll stick with EVE, its in a different league to that game! I don't mind paying, because I will always pay for quality games. 👍

It's based on the old BBS text-based game Trade Wars, just that now it maps the galaxy for you so that you don't need a notebook full of hand-drawn maps in order to track your progress and find the best trading routes. It gets us old-school gamers in with its nostalgia.

 

[magburner]

Here is something! It is kind of related to subscription gaming, but (and this is the important part), it could mean the end of console and PC gaming as we know it!

A company has devised a way to stream high-end gaming to consumers, without latency, and without the need for them to have the hardware to run it in their house!

Read on:

A gaming world without consoles (BBC News)

To date nine publishers have signed up including familiar names like Ubisoft, Electronic Arts, THQ and Atari Interactive.

It is interesting to note that Electronic Arts are in on this. Previously they have stated that they wished that there was 'one platform' for them to develop for, instead of the many like there is now.

Here is a link to the article:

EA's One Platform Vision (Edge Magazine)

Florin thinks that the one-platform model would involve server-based software that’s streamed to PCs or set-top boxes.

This is the website (which seems to be going live in an hour or two):

Online

This is the kind of innovation I am talking about that will bring forward new ideas and concepts!

 

[FoolKiller]

OnLive has a lot to address before they get me on board. No new hardware is bull as if they never upgrade then people will get tired of it or a competitor will move in.

They also need to address pricing and DRM issues.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

RE: OnLive, I started a thread for it:

• OnLive: on-demand video game distribution system announced at GDC 09