Slashdot Mirror
DOOM 3 will use P2P System?
Ant writes "From Page 6 of FiringSquad's QuakeCon 2002 Postmortem article: John Carmack said something at the end of the Q&A about how the multiplayer will be only four players?
Tim: After 2 hours of talking up at the podium, sometimes you leave a few details out. Doom 3 multiplayer will be fully scalable. It will be a peer to peer system. We haven't started working on it yet. Tell everyone not to panic - it will be fine. John just forgot to mention it'll be scalable past four players. It's hard to give a hard number because we haven't started working on it yet. Right now we're focused on making Doom 3 a kickass, over the top single player game."
P2P architecture has existed way before any P2P file exchange system.
Previous iD's games used a client-server architecture. Now, they changed it to use a Peer to Peer 'protocol' and architecture.
What does it mean? Since it won't use a client-server protocol, you won't be able to join a game that has already started(that was stated at QuakeCon). The game is 'hosted' on each player's computer that exchange data about the current state of the game. There is no central server that handles all the load. Each player communicate in peer to exchange the information, hence the name.
Peer to peer architecture is what is used in most Real-Time Strategy(RTS) games like Starcraft, Warcraft, Command and Conquer, Age of Empire, etc.
So, there's absolutely no relation to P2P file exchange like kazaa and such, just he architecture that has been used extensively before.
Now... the question is: why? Also, won't that allow hackers to create better hacks? Usually, games go from P2P to Client-Server because of security concerns, even if Client-Server is usually 'slower'. They rarely go the other way around. But that's another completely different topic.
Why is there a question mark after the title of this? It's been stated by id, that DOOM 3 will use a peer-to-peer network architecture. There's nothing uncertain about that.
This has been known for around about an entire week now... it's been stated multiple times.
Also, to clarify, when they say "peer-to-peer", they don't mean a network of users like Kazaa or file sharing applications, they mean that it is client-to-client as opposed to client-to-server.
The best way of thinking about DOOM 3's multiplayer is as being the same as the original DOOM's multiplayer. 4 players, and no such thing as a "server".
The only actual uncertainty is the 4 player limit. It was initially mentioned, but now Willits has said that it is scalable beyond that... This is unclear as we don't know if he means that the game can go beyond that, but the network code is ideal for 4 players, or means that the game will have a hard limit of 4 players, but mods and games based on the engine will be able to scale beyond 4 players.
Also, it is known for definate that once a game has started, additional players cannot join. This limitation is due mainly to DOOM 3's physics engine. Basically, there is so much physics data that would need to be synchronised, that if a player had to "catch up" with the physics data, it would probably be a lot of data to send, and since it's constantly changing data, it is likely that as the player recieves the data, it becomes invalid.
It will be interesting to see how other games deal with the problem of physics data. As physics engines in games become increasingly complex, it will become harder for programmers to cope with players joining a game that has already started. Perhaps if all games employed "rounds" (like Counter-Strike), then player's wouldn't have to wait long until the game restarts and they can start playing. This already has to happen when a player joins a Counter-Strike game that's already in play.
Probably hard marketing facts:
At the height of the Quake-online frenzy, Doomworld ran a poll asking how many people played in each mode: single, deathmatch, coop. Turns out solo players outnumbered DMers by 4 to 1, and coop players by 20 to 1. (Sample size was several thousand, so statistically significant.)
DOOM (primarily a solo game) outsold all versions of Quake (primarily a multiplayer game) *combined* by at least 3 to 1. And that's even tho DOOM came out when home computers were still a relative novelty, and priced out of many people's reach. By the time Quake came along, most households already had a computer (and PCs cost a lot less too). So -- Quake didn't sell as well even tho more people had PCs by then. Obviously, something went wrong with the spectrum of Quake's market appeal, and consensus is the lack of really good solo play.
I'd hazard a guess that DOOM3 won't really be playable over the net unless you have broadband. Which would artificially limit its market to the small subset of net users who actually have broadband (the last figure I saw was under 20%). Which would be stupid, from a sales standpoint.
In short, the single player market is a helluva lot larger than the multiplayer market. And idSoftware is really in the game *engine* business, which multiplies that market by a factor of however many companies they license their code to.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
> You're joking, right? Goldeneye 007, Half-Life, Deux Ex, Thief, System Shock, Rainbow 6, Jedi Knight, Medal of Honor: Frontline, No One Lives Forever, MDK, Outlaws, Hitman, Shogo.
;-)
You missed Max Payne
I don't know how'll they'll secure this baby. Maybe they've just given.
RTSs have been using p2p like systems for awhile.
In Total Annihilation each client transmits its own game data to other clients, other clients trusts its correct. That means one client can suddenly pull 100 units out of its ass and the others will be none the wiser. The advantages of this method is less data is transmitted and less system resources are used auditing the other clients.
In Starcraft you can't just pull 100 carriers out of your ass but since everything has to be synced there's more overhead and things like maphack are possible.
Security wise, starcraft has the better model but that would mean, instead of just a central server keeping track of game sync (like it does now), every client has to assume the role of server and do the auditing. In other words, why bother?
Anyone know some other way this could be done?
--
# I have no brain
Someone asks about the multiplayer Doom 3. They haven't worked on it yet. In the middle of a live Q&A session, Tim is assuring everyone the game will be multiplayer. He starts throwing out words even though he doesn't know the exact way it will work, because, hey, they haven't done multiplayer yet.
Wrong.
This was revealed during John Carmack's Q&A session, a man who doesn't usually "throw out words" when he doesn't know "the exact way it will work".
Tim blurts "It will be a peer to peer system." That's the entire discussion of that in the whole article. There is nothing else.
Wrong.
The talk with Tim was after Carmack's speech, and it was a 1-on-1 with a reporter, Tim wasn't talking to a crowd.
By "peer to peer" system he simply meant "yes, you will be able to hook up your computers and play together" and nothing else. Why does this deserve a front page article? It doesn't. It was obviously something he said while in a live situation and he wasn't sure of the details.
Wrong, again.
By "peer to peer" he meant, *gasp*, peer to peer. He is not stupid and realizes what peer to peer means. To answer your question: it deserves a front page article because the new Doom is using a different type of networking code than the Quakes. We're all big fans of the id games and this is "New for nerds, stuff that matters"
The poster of this article looks sillier than the stock market and Alan Greenspan. What's even more disturbing is that Taco fell for it too. Someone needs to send over good strong pot of coffee. It's days like these when the trolls start to make sense.
Cultural reference drivel. Next.
John Susek