Not Enough Online Console Games?

And how do you have a fighting game online? by Radix37 · 2003-09-04 07:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Fighting games require fast reflexes to win against good players. If you'd have lag more than 25-50 milliseconds the game would not play right at all. That means the game would be limited to LAN play pretty much.

Racing games could probably deal with more lag, but after 150 ms probably not since when you get cars close together you need the fast reflexes again.

Strangely, chessmaster may just be the best console game you can have online for now :-\ Oh and rpgs and mmorpgs too.

--
Speed Demos Archive - Lots of speed runs!

Re:And how do you have a fighting game online? by wynterwynd · 2003-09-04 07:37 · Score: 4, Informative

Friends of mine who have Capcom vs SNK 2 EO have complained of some lag problems at times, but from what they say it's not as bad as you would think. There's a relatively small amount of information being passed by a 2D fighting game so unless you hit a hard lag spike or just have a really bad connection to your opponent, the game plays smoothly.

--
"Not all who wander are lost" -- JRR Tolkien
Re:And how do you have a fighting game online? by cyranose · 2003-09-04 07:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

I realize it may be heretical to say this, but lag isn't the heart of the problem IMO -- it's a convenient whipping boy, but for most games, lag can generally be overcome with predictability of motion, rollback, and good spatial reasoning to keep the circuits optimized.

The thing with twitch games is that there's almost no predictability for when a player will trigger a move, but there's full predictability of motion once the moves are triggered. A well-designed animation system should be able to take advantage of that to make up for late triggers. For example, a non-networked game may be designed to know the outcome of any given pair of player moves as soon as the button is pressed. Design it instead to resolve the move-pair based on late input and you're halfway there. The main artifact of latency, then, is that moves may seem to start late (as late as the late-ncy), but their ends and their results are still synchronized and well-behaved.

Just some thoughts.
Re:And how do you have a fighting game online? by Babbster · 2003-09-04 08:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

If high pings (greater than 50 ms) are so crippling, then how does anyone playing a first-person shooter ever hit anyone else since they're often require reflexes just as twitchy as a fighting game? You are aware, aren't you, that a millisecond is one-thousandth of a second? That means that in order for lag to really be noticeable, the ping has to [at LEAST] go pretty darn high (probably quite a bit higher than 200 ms).
I think you're overestimating gamer reflexes just a bit. If you're reacting to things displayed on screen in less than 50 ms then you're probably a computer yourself. Don't forget, too, that with broadband connections pings of less than 100 ms between two computers are not at all uncommon. Not to mention the fact that in a fighting game, the two consoles are ONLY communicating with each other - unlike an FPS where a lot more connections may have to be maintained.
In short, I'm afraid you're just plain mistaken. Smart programming and broadband internet connections can easily make online fighting games not only playable but fun.
Re:And how do you have a fighting game online? by JavaLord · 2003-09-04 08:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Fighting games require fast reflexes to win against good players. If you'd have lag more than 25-50 milliseconds the game would not play right at all. That means the game would be limited to LAN play pretty much.

Having played just about every fighting game online that has been available, I can tell you that the lag isn't always an issue. I played MK2 and SF2 on XBand for the SNES (which was a 28.8 modem IIRC) and the lag wasn't too bad. Capcom vs SNK2 on Xbox does feel like it has lag problems at times (I've played over 1000 games on there), which is a joke because there is a free add on for MAME called kaillera which I was playing on a few years ago and handled lag better than the X-Box.

The point is, it can be done and there is a market just WAITING for it to be done right. Capcom vs SNK2 EO was a below average game by capcom standards and included a new cheezy fighting system which turned off long time players (EO). Still I went out and bought an X-box just for the chance to play a capcom game online against a bigger audence than kaillera had. I'm sure plenty of other people are just waiting too.
Re:And how do you have a fighting game online? by edwdig · 2003-09-04 08:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can tell you right now from my game programming experience that 100ms is a very significant amount of time.

About 6 years ago or so I was writing a Pacman game that was based off a timer going off 10 times per second. I checked the keyboard status every time the timer went off. I found out that that approach would miss about 50% of all keystrokes. I had to modify the code to track keypresses via interrupts, and keep track of keys that were pressed and released between frames.

FPS's can get away with it because the exact time you're holding the button down usually doesn't make a difference. Prediction errors can be hidden very easily. Something like Smash Bros. or F-Zero would be a very different story.
Re:And how do you have a fighting game online? by Sulihin · 2003-09-04 09:52 · Score: 1

There's a huge difference between reaction time and the interval you poll for input. Since the player can submit the input at any time, if you're only polling at set intervals you'll of course miss inputs. This says nothing about the effect of lag on reaction time.
Re:And how do you have a fighting game online? by *BBC*PipTigger · 2003-09-04 10:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm no expert... hope to become one someday... but I've worked on a console fighting game (Celebrity Deathmatch which should be available in two weeks... it's always two weeks away ;P ) && I am a fighting-game afficionado.
I disagree with you. Animation systems are not the heart of the problem when developing online twitch games. It may seem like a good answer to cut animation duration in the name of synchronization but this is infuriating to experience. You grow accustomed to precisely how long it takes to perform animations, jumps, movements... && disturbing these to compensate for lag would only appease button-mashers who don't even notice 56k lag anyway.
I would say the heart of the problem goes up the design chain of responsibility. Online play must be designed in! This may seem obvious but think of how many games are in development right now && are going to have online play bolted on midway (or 11th hour) into development. Designers, producers, publishers, && the platform company (Sony,Nin,MS) must agree on this issue early while the game design is being formulated. Sony came back to Celebrity Deathmatch as we were supposed to be entering beta saying they wouldn't approve it unless we incorporated online multiplayer. I understand why they wanted that && would try to require it (hell, I would have loved good online options too)... but adding something fundamental to the core of a game engine which is over 2 years into development as it readies for release is evil && cruel. So the heart of the problem is the decision makers who are not forthcoming about including online play (or any other fundamental feature) into the early design phases of development.
The next problem is most definitely lag! Lag is not a whipping boy or scapegoat for no reason. Competitive (primarily head-to-head) games have been enjoyed in arcades && living rooms for over a decade with sub-frame (less than 1/60th-of-a-second) latency. Predictability works in FPS && RTS because there can be momentum, trajectory, fudge-factor in the game model... but games which depend on exacting execution where animation activation begins the same frame of the input cannot be easily messed with. The game would feel squishy to discerning players if single-player animations shrank or stretched for lag compensation. This would give hiccups in latency the power to permit crazy bogus things to happen.
Is there hope? Yes. Uncongested internet routes can support sub-frame latency. As latency (ping times are what matter... how long it takes any data to get to the server && back... as opposed to throughput which is how much data can be sent continuously) improves through adoption of better connections, equipment, protocols, etc., sub-frame latency will become reliably available at least between a time zone or two (although the requirements to cross oceans approaches light speed which may never be feasible).
Lag is a real problem which can be solved over time (at least within your own country). I can't imagine future games needing to be more accurate time-wise than a frame to be fun but it is possible. Nearly every modern fighting game has JustFrames (JF) which require frame precision on input. Soul Calibur II, Guilty Gear XX, Virtua Fighter 4 Evolution, Tekken 4, etc. all do. With practice, people can press the right buttons on exact 60ths. These abilities can be integral to fighting strategy so fudging animations would disturb this performance precision && would be unacceptable at high levels of serious play (ie. competitions). Online gaming likely has a bright future but I find the social atmosphere && camaraderie of an arcade or even competitive living room more fun. In my opinion, either hanging out && playing casually
Re:And how do you have a fighting game online? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-04 11:39 · Score: 0

Never played a Capcom fighter at Turbo 2 or faster, eh? Or maybe even heard of something called a "lag spike?"

How is smart predicition going to help in a game where moving the controller to the "back" position blocks incoming attacks? You'd find the computer either auto-blocking, or you'd have weird (to fighting game afficionados) periods where the the computer "waits" to see if you actually did block. Not to mention the fact that fighters require timed controller/key sequences to trigger specific actions....

Face it, 2D fighters are arcade-style games, where FPS games are not. Certain arcade-style games, fighters expecially, require INSTANTANEOUS response. That's why top-braket CVS2 players don't use XBL matches for anything other than distraction - it's far too inadequate for real training. And in that regard, the Dreamcast, Gamecube, PS2, and Xbox versions are pretty much on even footing, as long as you have a good joystick.
Re:And how do you have a fighting game online? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-04 11:48 · Score: 0

For fighting games, that solves the major problem of special move inputs not being recognized as such, but it results in moves not being completed at predictable intervals. In the fighter genre, predictability of move completion is a NECESSITY in order to perform proper combos, and if online matches (XBL, in the case of the Xbox version of CVS2EO) were to have a different timing to them than regular matches do, you may as well be playing a different game.
Re:And how do you have a fighting game online? by cyranose · 2003-09-04 11:49 · Score: 1

I wouldn't wait on the internet to reconfigure itself to solve latency. Yes, there are proxy solutions, even at the ISP level that address latency, but as you correctly say: it's a design issue and many games just tack MP on at the end.

The biggest problem with the animation-time-sync approach is when the other player gets the jump on you halfway into a quick motion before you can react. From your point of view, your animation would play normally. So it's an issue, but not the one you're apparently concerned about.

What's the length of the animation compared to the latency? Eating even five whole frames of a two-second animation isn't going to make a game suck. Time synchronization is always critical.

So yes, many of the solutions lie at a higher level of design. But that's like saying the government budget problems are due to us spending more than we take in. It's harder to be specific, other than to just wish latency (or waste) away.

When it comes down to it, there's going to be latency until FTL communication is invented. So we'd better learn to deal with it.
Re:And how do you have a fighting game online? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-04 13:19 · Score: 0

Too true. People can train themselves to adjust to a certain degree of lag. Around 600ms *in quakeworld* was my max that I could handle before my performance started to degrade greatly. That's basically a little more than half a second.

"Net" quake was a tad difficult since one would "ice skate" around the level and also shots would be delayed. However in quakeworld it was a little more feasable because of player movement prediction, although there was none when you fired your gun. Sooooo you always had to lead your targets.

If you have a pretty good consistent latency to the server, a HPB fighting a LPB of equal skill can result in furious battles. When the two are out in the open and/or know the others whereabouts it isn't as much as twitch reflex ability as it is prediciting the opponents movement and leading your shots.

However the twitch reflex comes into action when neither knows where each other are. So when an HPB and LPB meet at a blind corner, the LPB will most likly blow the hell out of the HPB. In real life both players may react and fire at the same time, but the LPB's info will reach the host first.
Re:And how do you have a fighting game online? by mowph · 2003-09-04 14:35 · Score: 1

Radix37 said:
Fighting games require fast reflexes to win against good players. If you'd have lag more than 25-50 milliseconds the game would not play right at all. That means the game would be limited to LAN play pretty much.

Do this:
1. Find a stopwatch with top-mounted buttons that resemble a controller.
2. Press the start/stop button twice as fast as you can. Most game players' very fastest mechanical ability is 4/100 (40ms) with a mean of about 7/100. (I conducted an experiment for the science fair on this topic when I was in grade 4.)
3. Try to convince me that your "gamer reflexes" allow you to see your opponent's move and react (including seeing, processing, and moving your fingers to another button) FASTER than you can repeatedly mash a button.
4. Try to make that into a meaningful argument about how lag of 25-50ms cripples a reflex-based game.

The latest PS2 online game...? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-04 07:20 · Score: 0

...would actually be Madden 2004. Which is a tad more fun than Chessmaster.

Re:The latest PS2 online game...? by pudge · 2003-09-04 08:42 · Score: 1

And NHL 2004 is coming out with online play in 17 days, 19 hours!
Re:The latest PS2 online game...? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-04 19:04 · Score: 0

A large amount of EA's latest games are coming out with PS2 Online support. EA didn't like how Microsoft wanted to control everything about Xbox live so they are not going to support it.

NHL2004 also has Voice over IP support for broadband users.

Yeah.. by ziggles · 2003-09-04 07:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

I was hoping more online games had come out. Not because I want to play more online games. I just want this "ONLINE IS THE FUTURE OF GAMING!!!" thing to die.. which it will once the console gamers realize online gaming really isn't all that exciting.

Fun, important part of gaming? Yes. The future of gaming? No.

Re:Yeah.. by Cap-America · 2003-09-04 07:36 · Score: 2, Funny

The people saying "ONLINE IS THE FUTURE OF GAMING!!!" are like the people in the 80's saying "VIDEO IS THE FUTURE OF THE PHONE!!!"
It maybe some day, we just not ready as of now.

--
-------- -Cap
~Bommers, Why did it have to be Bommers!?!
Re:Yeah.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-04 11:05 · Score: 0

Speaking of all the whippersnappers who see online features as the be-all/end-all of gaming, I think it's notable that even though the Xbox has been trying so hard to ride on the coattails of online gaming with XBL, it hasn't put Microsoft into as many homes as they thought it would, and XBL subs have already pretty much topped off.

I think MS's assumption was that console gamers were the exact same as PC gamers, whose platform of choice is pretty much tied to the internet these days. At least that much is ridiculous, considering how relatively few people have pervasive broadband throughout their homes (or even running straight into their computers).

PC gaming culture evolved around online competition because the PC is itself more or less a solo gaming node, not a communal node like a console is, with its portability (think GameCube, Dreamcast, and PSOne here), multiple standardized controllers, and ability to be hooked up easily to huge screens in the living room. The online lifestyle evolved around the PC, and it was obvious that PC games would evolve with it. The living room is a different matter altogether, and I don't think the current or the next generation is where Microsoft will be able to conquer the living room. They'd have to win the TV and PVR manufacturers over for that, and right now, nobody but Thompson is biting (VPORT???).
Re:Yeah.. by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-09-04 12:28 · Score: 1

Speaking of all the whippersnappers who see online features as the be-all/end-all of gaming, I think it's notable that even though the Xbox has been trying so hard to ride on the coattails of online gaming with XBL, it hasn't put Microsoft into as many homes as they thought it would, and XBL subs have already pretty much topped off.

This is because XBL titles aren't any more impressive (in terms of number of must have titles) than PS2 Online titles. Top that off with a subscription cost, and you'll have some people like myself that won't buy into the online side of things until they have a number of titles (where number of titles is more than 1 or 2) to play online that will justify the subscription price.

They're going to start bundling a game with the initial Live subscription (and charging the extra $20 you would pay for that game as a budget title), but that's still only 1 title for anyone that has no online games. I may have a game or maybe even a couple of games that have downloadable content (or will have downloadable content in the future), but I don't have any that are playable online, and I don't see any that are screaming 'buy me now'. In fact, reading through this thread confirmed my doubts about one title that I was going to buy only because it had an online component: Capcom vs SNK 2 EO. My doubts were simply that lag and fighting games sounds like an evil combination, and I already know my connection's laggy, I've got TFC to confirm that.

I think, more than anything, they need to get developers on board and have games designed for consoles online from the start. Not to mention that you should be able to play with 1-4 players at your console against multiple players on the internet (and I think there are some games out there already that do this, but it's definitely not something that's been done much on PCs). We've seen a mess of LANed teams in team-based online PC FPS games over the years for good reason: a team that has a number of players in the same room (if not all of the players) or near enough to shout at each other without voice comm software has an advantage, even if it is slight. Voice comms over IP, after all, have lag too.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]

This isn't the Generation for Online Games by Cap-America · 2003-09-04 07:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

Truthfully I could care less about Online games on a console. And I feel Nintendo is taking the right stand with Online games with this gen of Consoles.

Only 9% of Internet traffic is due to Online gaming, that includes Console and Computers and out of that 9% only 8% is Console games the other 92% is Computer.
So You only have a really small group of people who want online games that make allot of noise about it.
MS Loses 100s of Millions of dollars on Xbox Line each quarter. Online gaming makes 0 money back. And out of all the Xbox owners out there only 10% actually have Xbox Live. Kind of sad when you think about it, especially when this is suppose to be your selling feature.

Online games just isn't a money makeing factor in this generation, maybe next gen when more users have Cable or better.

oh and just another tidbit to toss in less the 24% of people online actually have cable or better. So 76% has AOL, Earthlink, NetZero, MSN or any other 56K phone-line provider.

--

-------- -Cap
~Bommers, Why did it have to be Bommers!?!

Re:This isn't the Generation for Online Games by dj_paulgibbs · 2003-09-04 07:49 · Score: 1

Xbox Live's going to have a peak of short-term subscribers when Halo 2 comes out though.
Re:This isn't the Generation for Online Games by feyhunde · 2003-09-04 08:04 · Score: 1

Phantasy Star Online seems to have done alright on three different consoles, lasting longer than any other Dreamcast title. But the issue is to make it run correctly takes bandwith. That is why South Korea is so wired, they want their games to not lag, whether it be War Porch or Ragnarock. When the developers work with the next generation of consoles and design PS3 and Hypercube and Y Box games based on broadband and the tech of the machine, then we will have games that will be great and be online. PSO, I love it dearly, could be so much better.

--
I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
Re:This isn't the Generation for Online Games by Cap-America · 2003-09-04 08:05 · Score: 1

Why Play strait Halo 2 on Xbox Live when you can be playing Halo w/ mods and custom levels on your PC with no Xbox Live fee?
But you are right you'll probly get users who will take advantage of the 2 months free just to play Halo 2 and then drop it once they start charging you.
the problem with Online gaming is people want in but they don't want to pay for it.

--
-------- -Cap
~Bommers, Why did it have to be Bommers!?!
Re:This isn't the Generation for Online Games by edwdig · 2003-09-04 08:08 · Score: 1

Phantasy Star Online is great. All 3 versions of it have the same remote exploit in it.

All GameCube disc images and homebrew development are thanks to Phantasy Star Online.
Re:This isn't the Generation for Online Games by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-04 08:10 · Score: 0

"Alright" isn't a word. You wanted "all right".
Re:This isn't the Generation for Online Games by Babbster · 2003-09-04 08:27 · Score: 3, Informative

1. Where do you get your data that Microsoft is losing "100s of Millions of dollars" on Xbox "Line" (I assume you meant "Live") every quarter? That has the smell of hyperbole.
2. Online gaming makes "0 back" for Sierra/Valve/Id (before Steam, anyway) too. Should they have dropped online support?
3. You ARE aware that Sony has online console gaming, too, right (and are, in fact, stepping up their online plans)? Or is this just another opportunity to bash Microsoft and the Xbox for being stupid?
As for your overall point, that "This isn't the Generation for Online Games," I would only say this: I play online console games and I enjoy them quite a bit. Many others do, too. I say if Microsoft and Sony are going to provide the option, why not take advantage of it? I couldn't really care less what kind of profit is in online play for the console manufacturers and software developers. If it's that horrible for them, they won't provide the capability. While they do provide it, however, I'll just keep on using it.
Re:This isn't the Generation for Online Games by the+Man+in+Black · 2003-09-04 10:47 · Score: 1

Also,

At least 56% of Slashdotters pull arbitrary statistics out of their asses in order to make a point.

Only 30% of Slashdotters are emotionally involved enough in the argument to actually check someone else's figures.

15% of the time I realize that you were right halfway through my argument, and I feel stupid.

100% of the time I admit it when I'm being a stupid monkey.

85% of Slashdotters will at some point or another read Slashdot while not wearing pants.

--
El riesgo vive siempre!
Re:This isn't the Generation for Online Games by Cap-America · 2003-09-04 11:05 · Score: 1

my statistics came from: eWeek InfoWorld Just a Internet Minute Newsletter GameInformer Yahoo and Nintendo Maybe you should go check out the stats first before assuming someone is pulling the info out of their ass. It makes no scenes to make up info if someone can prove you wrong and make you look like a dumb ass. If my info was incorrect I have the sources I can blame for being mislead. The reason I didn't attack PS2 or GameCube is because I don't come across much info using them as examples its always Microsoft and the Xbox. I have nothing agents Microsoft or their console, they are just the ones who are always in the spotlight when it comes to online console gaming. and sorry for any spelling errors, I'm not the greatest speller and some times I retype stuff after running it threw spellcheck and forget to recheck.

--
-------- -Cap
~Bommers, Why did it have to be Bommers!?!
Re:This isn't the Generation for Online Games by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-04 11:15 · Score: 0

Intriguing. Can you please point out more references to this?

Mainly, is it still safe to assume that the HK silver pirates are still stumped when it comes to what to do with the images?
Re:This isn't the Generation for Online Games by DaveCBio · 2003-09-04 11:28 · Score: 1

The stats you are throwing around are meaningless. Show me some solid data for the numbers you are presenting.
Re:This isn't the Generation for Online Games by Doctor_Jest · 2003-09-04 11:53 · Score: 1

...Spoken like a true XBox Live! user. :)

--
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Re:This isn't the Generation for Online Games by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-09-04 12:35 · Score: 1

Stats don't always mean what people think they mean, though.

9% of internet traffic is due to online gaming:
ok, is this because the average game uses 5-10kb/sec UDP data without a constant stream? Windows Update runs at 500KB/sec on a good day on my computer, and can keep a pretty constant stream for 20 minutes or so if I just reinstalled the OS. If I watch the latest video trailer I'm going to get a stream at (hopefully) a pretty high data rate, too. If I'm downloading a patch for my online game I'm going to get a stream there, too, and it should be at least 15KB/sec, or I'm going to try to find another source. Not to mention the constantly increasing size of the average web page, and the constant traffic crippling clueless people's computers everywhere known as spyware. Oh, and whatever today's big port-scanning virus happens to be. Ask a few self-hosting people how many incoming hits they get on a few that are even a year old.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Re:This isn't the Generation for Online Games by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-05 09:43 · Score: 0

One thing that people may overlook, and which I think is critical to your argument, is that 82% of all statistics are made up.

fps&rts by Dreadlord · 2003-09-04 07:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

checking gamespy stats shows that the most popular online games are FPS and RTS games, and both genres can't be played very well with consoles, due to the nature of console gamers and the console controls.
I guess these are some reasons why online console gaming isn't that popular.
just my $0.02

--
The IT section color scheme sucks.

Re:fps&rts by edwdig · 2003-09-04 08:25 · Score: 1

checking gamespy stats shows that the most popular online games are FPS and RTS games, and both genres can't be played very well with consoles, due to the nature of console gamers and the console controls.
I guess these are some reasons why online console gaming isn't that popular.

Those games are the most popular online games because they are the type of games that play well on PC's. Fighting and sports games don't control well with keyboard and mouse, so you won't find many of them on PC (yes, some exist, but they're no where near as popular as console versions).

Console gaming isn't popular because it's new. I'm sure there are a lot more people playing Xbox Live now than there were people playing multiplayer Doom when it first came out. Also, console gaming usually costs money (at least Xbox Live and PSO do, probably more as well). I'm sure you'd see a huge drop in the number of people on battle.net if Blizzard decided to charge money for it.
Re:fps&rts by Nonki · 2003-09-04 08:52 · Score: 1

both genres can't be played very well with consoles, due to the nature of console gamers and the console controls.

Have you ever heard of a little game called Halo? One of the best FPS ever and on a console. Plus, Halo online rocks even though it was never meant to be played online and has no hit prediction or anything.
Re:fps&rts by Jeffool · 2003-09-04 09:50 · Score: 1

Where would FPS games be on consoles if not for Goldeneye on the N64? Show a little love now.

And Chessmaster? What about Navy Seals: SOCOM, or Tony Hawk? That's not even talking about sports games. It's either Madden or EA's NCAA game that my little brother plays nonstop.
Not that it would ever stop ME from whoopin' his ass.

And I may be alone here, but I really don't think that controls are much of a problem for most games. Maybe if you're talking that Tom Clancy games where you need two keyboards and a Mad Catz steering wheel/pedal combo to map all your keys... But tell me you can't do Warcraft on a controller. Psht.

And like someone else said on here. What about older games? Do they require less memory to be thrown across connections? Because I'm on cable and I can ZSNES the hell out of some MK/Street Fighter. Remember the Mortal Kombat Gold/Trilogy game? Where they had all the characters in the final 2d version of the game? Toss that out as a value buy at $15, give it online play. (Even if MK2 was best of the series, and still far below SSF2T.)

Jeffool.

No joke. by scootr1 · 2003-09-04 07:36 · Score: 1

Don't forget NCAA 2004, too.

Maybe this guy wrote the article months ago ;)

Chessmaster? by paulychamp · 2003-09-04 07:36 · Score: 2, Informative

I hardly believe Chessmaster was the last online game to come out. In fact, yesterday, I picked up ESPN Football and it is chock full of online features (downloadable rosters, online leagues, etc). I'd say every major (EA, Sega, Microsoft) sports game that comes out for 2004 will have online features.

Re:Chessmaster? by Niobium-41 · 2003-09-04 08:09 · Score: 1

Actually EA decided not to include Online features on Xbox titles.. So at least one section of EA's sports games won't be online. Which IMO is a very bad move on EA's part.. I for one will be picking up NFL Fever 2004 or ESPN Football (sega's latest) instead of Madden, simply because of Online play.
Re:Chessmaster? by Scyber · 2003-09-04 08:56 · Score: 1

I think this is because of MS' policy that all online games have to go through XBox Live. EA probably wants to eventually establish its own pay-for-play online system (currently Madden is free). If they go through MS, then they can't do this.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if eventually EA wants to allow play between different consoles (GC and PS2) online.
Re:Chessmaster? by Hassman · 2003-09-04 09:38 · Score: 1

They do. They have even said so, though I'm not sure where I read it now...

Personally, I think it will be a failed venture. One thing I've seen on the internet (actually in life) is why pay, when you can get it for free? So, unless it blows the shit outta the other titles, I don't see it being used much except for the die hard fans, and I still wonder...

Plus if the gamespy tunnel thing can be made for halo, how hard would it be to do that for a sports game? Oh boy, more lawsuits!!

--
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
Re:Chessmaster? by unclethursday · 2003-09-04 21:10 · Score: 1

Actually EA decided not to include Online features on Xbox titles.. So at least one section of EA's sports games won't be online. Which IMO is a very bad move on EA's part.. I for one will be picking up NFL Fever 2004 or ESPN Football (sega's latest) instead of Madden, simply because of Online play.
I'd say good on the Sega Sports ESPN....but FEVER? Please don't tell me you also picked up Microsoft's shitty first party baseball game just because it had online play as well (and it's the only feature in the game worth mentioning, to boot).
If you want online sports titles on your Xbox, stick with the Sega Sprots ones. The Microsoft first party sprots titles are about on par with sony's 989 Sports titles, which means they're shit.
Thursdae
Re:Chessmaster? by Niobium-41 · 2003-09-05 02:24 · Score: 1

Okay.. now I didn't say that I would buy Fever.. I was just saying that I'd be more likely to buy Fever than Madden.. :)

did buy and love by qed123 · 2003-09-04 07:49 · Score: 1

I played sf2 turbo/surbo turbo whatever i didn pay they can't cutr me out cause i didn't pay i did pay snf i vsn dyill hold my own o [sof ;i piad i padi i paid the day they cam oute :) long time ago

Re:did buy and love by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-04 09:01 · Score: 0

forgot to take your pills this morn, eh? -p3
Re:did buy and love by still_sick · 2003-09-04 10:34 · Score: 1

[... ]didn pay they can't cutr me out cause i didn't pay i did pay snf i vsn dyill hold my own o [sof ;i piad i padi i paid the day they cam oute[...]

... Well said.

--
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.

Maybe not everyone *wants* online games? by shish · 2003-09-04 07:53 · Score: 2, Funny

From Mr Biffo's column in edge ( http://www.edge-online.com/ )

Ahh... online gaming, how I've tried to love ye. Really tried. But you're just not doing it for me. It's not like I don't want to, I mean, those bigger boys said you would, you know, show me a good time. The sorry fact is, on the occasions when I have taken the plunge, and invited you to woo me, I've come away disappointed and flacid. No matter how hard I pump my enthusiasm gland, the most I can muster is a tiny dribble of interest from my curiosity duct. Meanwhile, my apathy anus is working overtime, pumping out a stream of rancid fumes, accompanied by an undulating, organic hiss.

Amen.

--
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment

I love online games by WildBeast · 2003-09-04 07:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

I play MechAssault, RTCW, Midnight Club 2, Midtown Madness and soon I'll be playing ESPN's NHL online. I have yet to buy the PS2 online adapter though because I'm still waiting for them to come out with a good online game and the fact that the PS2 online games don't have voice chat is disappointing.

Apparently Mario Kart will be online enabled and if it gets good reviews then maybe I'll buy a GC just for it. Playing Mario Kart online will be great.

Re:I love online games by Niobium-41 · 2003-09-04 08:11 · Score: 1

I didn't think that Mario Kart for the GC was going to be online.. Only LAN play. But, I guess that opens the possibility of people writing packet wrappers like the one's that came out for the xbox so people could play Halo online.
Re:I love online games by Crash+Culligan · 2003-09-04 08:32 · Score: 1

I can only think of one PS2 game that was both online-capable and had some voice chat capabilities. That was SOCOM: U.S. Navy Seals. The big boxed set actually comes with a Logitech USB headset, rebranded for the SOCOM package.
(Incidentally, the headset as it comes out of the box will plug and play nicely with your computer too, as I found out one night by experimenting.)
One big problem with VOIP console games is that they absolutely require broadband to play. It says so on the box, too. A player's voice-stream takes up quite a bit of bandwidth, so a mere dial-up account won't cut it.
The other problem with VOIP console games is that they need a microphone. SOCOM got around that particular problem by bundling a microphone in with the game, but that's the only game I've seen do that yet.

--
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
Re:I love online games by paulychamp · 2003-09-04 11:12 · Score: 1

NCAA 2004 (and I imagine Madden 2004) and ESPN Football all have in-game voice chat for the PS2.

X-Band: Where'd You Go? by robbway · 2003-09-04 08:16 · Score: 1

The old X-Band modem gaming system (XBand Review) used to let you make any two- or multi-player game into an internet game by synching and accepting player input thru its modem port. That means that communications-wise, it's actually something the hardware manufacturers could have done out of the gate instead of making every single game program it's own multi-player handling. Therefore, where are all the games? is even more of a question than most players realize.

Unfortunately, X-Band didn't get enough customers to continue on, so it is a question of how many people really want to pay for multiplayer online. Perhaps this is an indication of how multiplayer games are not "fun" for the average player? Pure speculation.

I'm still waiting for upgraded tech... by Not_Wiggins · 2003-09-04 08:19 · Score: 2, Funny

What good's a fighting game across a network if you can't actually kill the person you're playing? ;)

Now *that* would be some real "Running Man"-level entertainment! ;)

--
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.

Do we *need* online games? by EvilOpie · 2003-09-04 08:20 · Score: 4, Informative

Now honestly, I do like online games for the fact that there is almost always someone willing to play you at any hour of the day, and they don't have to be in your living room to do it. But I swear that some games just weren't meant to be played online. After all, get some friends together and play console games. They're a lot of fun when you can yell at the person who's in the same room as you. :-)

And there are other reasons too that consoles are better without being online. Granted this comic talks about arcade games, but the concept is the same with console games too. If your opponent is being an ass, you can always hit them since they're most likely right next to you. A lot of the k1dd13z online are just a pain to deal with, and they do nothing but ruin the fun.

--
-Through the server, over the router, off the firewall... Nothing but 'Net!

Re:Do we *need* online games? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-04 10:39 · Score: 0

I'm gonna second this. It takes time and trust for me to want to play with and against other people on the net. In DAoC, which I'm a fan of, and other online RPGs you invest the time to get to know people and work up that trust and such. In most of these other pickup games....it's just not there. I'd rather go to a lan party scheduled in the D/FW area where I meet people from the metroplex. At least I establish a stronger rapport with them before and during a match then I could playing online. This makes playing the game and winning much more fun. It also seems to provide more information when I lose too...as I can study more of my opponent and understand why I might have lost a game.

How to make fighting games work online. by JavaLord · 2003-09-04 08:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Being a huge fan of fighting games, and having played in (and won) quite a few tournaments I am always trying out new fighting games when they come online. I've played everything from X-Band Mortal Kombat to net fighter(ugg) to Capcom vs SNK EO. Each game, or system had it's own unique problems that kept it from really catching on. Still, there is a huge market of people who would play fighting games online if they worked and were promoted correctly.

Take an old game like Mortal Kombat 2,add a few characters to it, some new moves and fatalities and re-release it as an online game. Since it's older it should have less data you have to push over the network in order to play, plus people know how to play already and will want to play again for the new features and to play other people.

On top of that, announce an online tournament with $10,000 in prizes to be held 1 year after the release of the game. You will probably hook everyone who played the game before plus some new players.

This would work even better for capcom. I would bet if capcom re-released their old games in online form they would get more sales than they did from capcom vs SNK EO. For capcom, they could release a collection of fighting games on one disk. "Capcom Olympics" or something like that. Put Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo (for the really old school players), Street Fighter Alpha (the most popular tournament SF game), Marvel Super Heros (The most well balanced capcom fighting game), X-Men vs Streetfighter (for the scrubs) on there. Hell, even throw in puzzle fighter (for the chicks). Hold a tournament for each game, and keep track of the overall score of the players.

tried and true gameplay + online features = money

Re:How to make fighting games work online. by EllF · 2003-09-04 09:21 · Score: 1

Hell, even throw in puzzle fighter (for the chicks).
Or, don't condescend them, and watch as they kick your ass.

--
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience
Re:How to make fighting games work online. by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-09-04 09:55 · Score: 1

Why do you think an older game like MK2 would have less data to send than a newer fighter? Character position, action - oversimplified but that's about it. The graphics of the game don't have to be send over the pipe, as I think you're alluding to. Just because MK2 has less graphical data, does not mean it would send less data to an online competitor. Think about it.

--
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Re:How to make fighting games work online. by Babbster · 2003-09-04 12:27 · Score: 1

Take an old game like Mortal Kombat 2,add a few characters to it, some new moves and fatalities and re-release it as an online game. Since it's older it should have less data you have to push over the network in order to play...
Unfortunately, this isn't really true. The fact is that, if placed online, Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance (new) and Mortal Kombat 2 (old) could be tuned to send almost exactly the same data over an internet connection. Even the addition of 3D to the former doesn't change the bandwidth requirements since you're still sending eight-way stick/pad inputs over the connection - the difference is simply what those inputs mean. The additional buttons aren't a big concern either since even combo presses would be interpreted as a single button input, albeit with a different machine code result.
This is precisely why the quality of online console gaming (just like PC online gaming, if truth be told) is dependent on a) the stability of the connection, b) the programming of the network code and (of course) c) the quality (skill AND attitude) of who you're playing with. Good gameplay goes without saying since if the game isn't good it probably won't be purchased in the first place.
Hopefully, once every developer has designed at least one online-capable game, we'll start seeing more and more games in the pipeline with online capability built-in. The first obstacle (one that both Microsoft and Sony are trying to help with by providing technical aid) is starting the ball rolling within each company. I truly believe that starting with the next generation, online console capability (for appropriate genres) will be as common - and indeed expected - as it is in PC games.
Re:How to make fighting games work online. by h0mer · 2003-09-04 13:56 · Score: 1

Marvel Super Heros (The most well balanced capcom fighting game)

Don't you think War Machine is a little bit broken...?

--

I'm on top of my game like I'm standin' on Xbox.
Re:How to make fighting games work online. by JavaLord · 2003-09-05 01:50 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, this isn't really true. The fact is that, if placed online, Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance (new) and Mortal Kombat 2 (old) could be tuned to send almost exactly the same data over an internet connection. Even the addition of 3D to the former doesn't change the bandwidth requirements since you're still sending eight-way stick/pad inputs over the connection - the difference is simply what those inputs mean. The additional buttons aren't a big concern either since even combo presses would be interpreted as a single button input, albeit with a different machine code result.

Don't they have to keep track of other variables/objects and communicate them to each other to make sure they aren't out of sync? Such as player health, status of certain objects etc. I would think they are pushing more than the status of the control pads back and forth. At some point one of the sides has to check if everything is still the same as the other side. If not you could go out of sync and end up with a situation where both sides report a win back to the main server. (using x-box live as an example). The cheating implications if you are only passing the controls back and forth and trusting the data to the clients are pretty bad too.

I'm pretty sure x-box live works by connecting the players directly together with one person as the client and one as the server(rather than playing the game on a microsoft server). Can anyone verify this?
Re:How to make fighting games work online. by JavaLord · 2003-09-05 02:04 · Score: 1

Don't you think War Machine is a little bit broken...?

War Machine wasn't in Marvel Super Heros. You are thinking of one of the later VS. games. The closest thing to war machine is Iron Man. Iron Man's projectile trap is tough but it's beatable. His Super moves and move of his specials have long recovery times. I wouldn't say he is the best character in the game, or head and shoulders above everyone else.
Re:How to make fighting games work online. by JavaLord · 2003-09-05 02:42 · Score: 1

The graphics of the game don't have to be send over the pipe, as I think you're alluding to. Just because MK2 has less graphical data, does not mean it would send less data to an online competitor.

Not the graphical data, but you still have to keep track of certain things to make sure the clients are in sync and not cheating.
Re:How to make fighting games work online. by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-09-05 02:49 · Score: 1

Yes but your statement was that MK2 would require less data to be sent than a newer fighter. In any fighting game you're still going to have to send the same "certain things" to make sure the clients are in sync.
Let's just say we want to compare Soul Caliber II to MK2. The same type of data must be sent - character position, client actions and received - damage. If I move Johnny Cage forward 2 units and I move Link forward 2 units, the data sent is going to be the same. (Vastly oversimplifying things here but you get my point, right?)

--
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Re:How to make fighting games work online. by Babbster · 2003-09-05 10:30 · Score: 1

Yes, they have to communicate more than control pad inputs but my point stands. Both games would have to keep track of health. Objects extraneous to the fighters would indeed take up a bit more bandwidth as well. The fundamental point, however, is that, done properly, the bandwidth requirements of a fighting game should remain stable through generations, just as any other game genre. Look at massively multiplayer RPGs for another example. Everquest has to communicate a great deal more information between the server and the client than a fighting game ever would, and EQ is quite playable on a POTS modem.
On Xbox Live, you're correct that Microsoft (so far) doesn't maintain dedicated game servers and instead merely makes a match between people who then play peer-to-peer or server/client depending on how the game's netcode functions (usually the latter, especially with 3+ player games).
Re:How to make fighting games work online. by JavaLord · 2003-09-09 04:20 · Score: 1

Let's just say we want to compare Soul Caliber II to MK2. The same type of data must be sent - character position, client actions and received - damage. If I move Johnny Cage forward 2 units and I move Link forward 2 units, the data sent is going to be the same. (Vastly oversimplifying things here but you get my point, right?)

I see your point. I can't use Soul Caliber II as an example because I haven't played it much (I don't like the SC games). Take MK5 and MK2. You have to send send a lot more than just character position, client actions and received damage. In MK5 you would have to send, heath, combo meter, positions of any of the weapons (if not you could easly write a cheat to have them flying around), etc. I would think every little bit helps (or hurts) in an online game.
Re:How to make fighting games work online. by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-09-09 04:32 · Score: 1

Do you realize how much bandwidth those transmissions would take?
Health: A percentage. 0-100 can be stored in 7 bits.
Combo Meter: A number less than 100, 7 bits.
Positions of Weapons: X,Y,Z coordinates assuming a 1000 x 1000 x 1000 plane, 30 bits. So we've got a very low number of bits. Basically the reason for lag in an online fighting game isn't the amount of data being sent but the overall speed of the pipe.

--
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Re:How to make fighting games work online. by JavaLord · 2003-09-09 04:41 · Score: 1

bandwidth requirements of a fighting game should remain stable through generations, just as any other game genre. Look at massively multiplayer RPGs for another example. Everquest has to communicate a great deal more information between the server and the client than a fighting game ever would, and EQ is quite playable on a POTS modem.

Yes but lag isn't as noticable in EQ as it is in a fighting game. If you lag for a split second in EQ you might not notice, while every second in a fast twitch fighting game matters. Even more than it does in a FPS. Also, EQ doesn't have to pass that much information. I'm sure it isn't passing much more than the players input, because none of the variables are trusted on the client.

Say you are fighting a bat in everquest. The server knows how much health you have, knows how much heath the bat has. You hit attack on your client, which is passed to the server. The server on it's side "rolls the dice",checks your weapon or does whatever it does to determain how much you hit for. It subtracts health from the bat, and from you. It pushes the two health values back to you. I'm probably missing something. But a RPG doesn't have to track everything constantly, if something goes wrong it can just trust the central server/database right?

A fighting game on every move has to check player heath, time, positions, input, combo meters, etc. If you don't check each one and validate, writing a cheat would be trivial since there is no central server to trust.

Or maybe I'm missing something big here :)

Halo2 by jamie1911 · 2003-09-04 09:09 · Score: 1

Just wait untill halo 2 comes out then you will see the big jump to xbox live. I play halo now as it is with gamespy but just think how much better it would be if you could just join in and out of halo2 like the quake line of games.

Re:Halo2 by Hassman · 2003-09-04 09:34 · Score: 1

I'm honestly surprised that Bungie/Microsoft didn't write an on-line 'upgrade' for Halo. I mean, it shouldn't be that hard to add a few features, update the menu and basically integrate what GameSpy offers (except make it a shit-ton better).

X-Box live would constantly be out of stock, and it probably woulda helped sell most X-Boxes. I know a few people who are waiting for Halo2 to get a Box, just so they can play the online part.

Ahh well.

--
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
Re:Halo2 by MMaestro · 2003-09-04 12:23 · Score: 1

Thats because the netcode for Halo 1 on the XBox is designed solely for network play on a LAN. Try playing Halo on a 3rd party net system like Gamespy arcade and the slowdown will make you feel like you're on a 36.6k modem. In you read dev diaries about Halo PC, they talk about having to rewrite the net code since it was designed for LANs originally.
Re:Halo2 by Hassman · 2003-09-10 07:20 · Score: 1

Ohh... see, I didn't know that.

Understandable then. Oh well, here to waiting.

--
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.

Nintendo has it right by BigDork1001 · 2003-09-04 09:50 · Score: 1

Back in this story Nintendo is saying they aren't focusing on online support for the GC2. People aren't using it an da lot of games aren't being made for it. Online gaming is still in its infancy and has a long way to go before it is mainstream.

--
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero

Bah, who needs online gaming? by Man+In+Black · 2003-09-04 10:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Back in my days, we'd get our friends to simply come over to our house if we wanted to play a game with more than one player. We were content with only a quarter of the screen for Mario Kart 64, and dammit, we liked it that way!

I've never really been very impressed with online gaming. Unless you can actually interact with the person you're playing against, they might as well just be a computer controller opponent. And stupid add-ons like the Dreamcast microphone for Alien Front Online doesn't cut it (trust me, I have it, and it was never any good). I'm certainly not going to pay $10 a month to play against against some nerd who plays the game 25 hours a day.

The only way any console is going to succeed with online support is if the system comes with the hardware you need. PC's generally come with what they need (or you got it anyways because you wanted the internet), and online gaming seems pretty successful for computer. The Dreamcast came with a modem, and there were quite a few games that supported it (although some of the support was a little odd, like downloading ghost cars in racing games, or downloading "fighting data" in Street Fighter Alpha 3). If Sony and Microsoft want their new hardware to have big online followings, they have to include this stuff with the system, because 80% of the owners are casual and probably won't bother to buy any goofy accessories.

--
-"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." -EH

Re:Bah, who needs online gaming? by JFMulder · 2003-09-04 10:50 · Score: 1

You think you're so hot, eh? But think about us, the losers with no friends and no girlfriends, who is going to play with us? I'm tired to play with myself!!! (errrr....)

Is this guy kidding? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-04 10:20 · Score: 0

On what planet does this guy live on that the last online game for the PS2 that was released was Chessmaster?

Oh, how about a little game called - "wait for it" - MADDEN 2004. Console wise, it's online play is EXCLUSIVE to the PS2 and it's easily one of the biggest releases on any console all year.

The guy quotes the last game he played online to be Midtown Madness 3, a title almost universally seen as being a total piece of crap.

I can't believe this guy gets paid to write about video games.

Re:Is this guy kidding? by UltimaL337Star · 2003-09-04 11:32 · Score: 1

If it was so big then why was it necessary for you to inform us about this popular game?

What are you talking about? by AzraelKans · 2003-09-04 10:29 · Score: 1

The numbers you are mentioning mean nothing, there are about 50 pc online games for each console online game. Xbox live is 1 year old. PCs online gaming is at least 10 years old. Not everybody has a broadband connection, how could anyone in their right mind, expect for the numbers to be even similar? console gaming IS growing, people subscribing to live is increasing , SOCOM for ps2 is a top selling game, expect the numbers for FF XI to go through the roof in a year or maybe even less (specially considering is PC compatible) (everwho?) the xbox line up is saturated with games online so expect the numbers to increase a lot more through "live" amateur console users are getting to know online gaming and their community is growing
Fighting games are not meant to be played online, but DOA might just pull that trick too!

IMO Nintendo is NOT making a wise decission by keeping their games offline. (they already lost Final fantasy XI due to this) As a matter of fact that might be what they need to get back in their feet! (and the saddest thing is : they already have a broadband adapter)
just some of the N games that will sold great (even better) if they were online.
Mario Kart, Pokemon Stadium, Yugi-oh, FZero, starfox, etc.
None of those games will be online.
Anyway we will see next year which console survives the final part of the war.

--
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here

Re:What are you talking about? by mowph · 2003-09-04 15:36 · Score: 1

AzraelKans wrote:
Not everybody has a broadband connection, how could anyone in their right mind, expect for the numbers to be even similar?

That's a good point. Another point along those lines -- most of us who game with PCs can rationalize that we want broadband so we can have always-on e-mail, reliable file transfers, and speedy access to Windows security updates.
I think it would be pretty hard for most casual gamers to rationalize paying for broadband JUST for online console gaming at this point. I would suspect that a good chunk of broadband console gamers are also online PC gamers.
IMO Nintendo is NOT making a wise decission by keeping their games offline. (they already lost Final fantasy XI due to this)

As for Nintendo, they have a proud history of losing Final Fantasy games for failing to adapt the standard hardware of their competitors. In Nintendo's motherland, the GBA (ie. portable gaming) is their major counter to lack of online gaming, we'll have to see how they do in the long run. It makes sense for Japan, because people tend to spend a bit less time at home anyway, and non-broadband access costs per minute.
Re:What are you talking about? by unclethursday · 2003-09-04 21:19 · Score: 1

people subscribing to live is increasing
Really? Microsoft's been proudly proclaiming ~500k subscribers since, hrm, March or so. It's September, and the number hasn't substantially grown since they first announced ~500k subscribers worldwide.
So, where is this growth you speak of? The facts don't seem to show it.
Thursdae
Re:What are you talking about? by zerocp · 2003-09-05 02:58 · Score: 1

What you think about nintendo not participating online gaming is irrelevant, what matters is that they're doing that for a reason. They're innovators. Putting the games mentioned online will not be doing anything new. They're waiting until the costs can be lowered, and the execution of the online games is doing something innovative. They're not bandwagonists, and they're going to wait until it can be done correctly, and cheaply.

--
Standards... then technology...

Midway by butane_bob2003 · 2003-09-04 10:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

We were working on online gaming at Midway before my team was laid off. After killing off Wavenet (networked arcade games, I came on just as it died), the business heads put us to work on MTN (Midway Tournament Network). After they killed that too, we started working on XBOX and PS2 network stuff, but by then most of us had been laid off. Midway had decided that networking would not be a big thing in the game market for another 5-7 years. (this was in 2001) Maybe they were right? Lag is my biggest problem when playing online. Playing head to head twitch games is not so much fun when your commands preceed your character's actions by a noticeable interval. There is only so much you can do in software to make up for lag conditions, any game that has a critical timing element will suffer at some point. Some games are just not very networkable.

--

TallGreen CMS hosting

er...Guys by AzraelKans · 2003-09-04 10:55 · Score: 1

I hate to say it, but online is in fact the future of gaming, take a look at south korea gaming habits those numbers are not made up.
The thing is internet connections to this very day (to use a non technical term) "suck" but expect this situation to change dramatically in the near future

Gaming alone is not as fun as playing with someone else, no matter what the genere is, social interaction in a game (for good or bad) adds an element that AI simply just cant.
with new technology (for PC and consoles) now we're even able to talk instead of type to the people we are playing with. Can you imagine what would be capable of if we had 10 times the connection speed we have today?

Sure this brings new problems (cheaters, pkillers, downtimes, lag) but then what new technology doesnt come with their share?

I mean just 5 years ago, a page like this one, would have been impossible or real difficult to create and use. Times change, times change.

--
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here

Re:er...Guys by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-04 12:21 · Score: 0

All I know is it's not in my future. The online games the Koreans play (from what I've seen) look awfully boring, not something I'd want to play.. online or otherwise. If that's the future of gaming.. I guess I should stock up on board games.
Re:er...Guys by Cap-America · 2003-09-04 12:36 · Score: 1

I'm not saying its never going to happen and that its not the future I'm saying that their jumping the gun and saying the future is now when Online console gaming isn't really going to start being big until at least the next console or as soon as faster internet connections are more common. I'm actually a big PC online gamer, but as it is I've only played 2 games online with my console.

--
-------- -Cap
~Bommers, Why did it have to be Bommers!?!

Xbox is the current best choice by DaveCBio · 2003-09-04 11:25 · Score: 1

For online console gaming there isn't much of a debate as to who has the better system.

Re:Xbox is the current best choice by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-04 13:20 · Score: 0

Sure there is.

You can look for yourself, but people are constantly bitching about security and cost issues when it comes to XBOX Live, compared to the way PS2 online support is set up.

Many, for example, have found that they are able to play online games far more inexpensively on their PS2s compared to on XBOX Live.

P.S. It's not generally intelligent to deny the possibility of debate, regardless of topic.
Re:Xbox is the current best choice by mowph · 2003-09-04 15:24 · Score: 1

How about for online watered-down-PC-with-a-console-controller gaming? I've heard that the X-Box is dominating that market, too, oddly enough.

It's faster than the PC games were... by NaugaHunter · 2003-09-04 15:10 · Score: 1

The first internet game I played was at CMU in '89: Nettrek. Oh, the homework I didn't do shooting down those Berkley Federation scum...

But I digress. Because the internet is already hear for consoles to use they will get more online quicker, but a developer has to choose between peer-to-peer games and a central server. Nowadays, it's almost mandatory to have a central stats/meeting place server, which requires a whole design of it's own. This involves development, deployment, and maintenance. As more players are shown to be buying games for online features, more games will have them as makes sense.

This editorial seems to completely miss the extra development work necessary. And having a "disdain for all things professional sports" pretty much disqualifies you from having anything close to an impartial, insightful editorial. Anything looks barren if you ignore 90% of it.

{ I realize that Microsoft has some kind of central servers system in place but games still need to have special code to use them, and extra testing. From a development point of view the problems change, but the overall time line and cost don't. }

--
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.

I just can't believe... by mowph · 2003-09-04 15:19 · Score: 1

... that nobody has brought up the topic of Sega pulling the network plug on the DreamCast.

IIRC, they had quite a few fighting games, and due to poor availability of the Broadband Adapter, most people were on 56k, at least for a while. I never really had the chance to play them, but how did they do?

There was also a little game called "Phantasy Star Online" (which I also can't believe hasn't been mentioned yet.) In Japan, it was the top online game in 2001, even compared to PC games such as Diablo 2 and the like. This shows us that platform games can have a good chunk of the online market, at least in platform-crazy countries like Japan. I think this may have more to do with the poor market penetration / insanely high prices of PC games in Japan than anything else, though.

Unfortunately, I stopped reading Japanese gaming magazines about two years back, so I'm not too sure how the next generation of PSO-wannabes (True Fantasy Online, FFXI) are doing.

I can share the following humourus anecdote, though: I recently bought a generic Japanese USB keyboard for my computer. On the box, right along with "Windows 2000 / ME / XP Compatible" was "Final Fantasy XI Compatible". Not "PS2 Compatible", "FFXI Compatible." So at least the marketing departments of cheap electronics companies are hedging their bets...

Re:I just can't believe... by Stormwatch · 2003-09-04 16:37 · Score: 1

According to [ http://www.onlineconsoles.com/ ], there are still 13 Dreamcast games online. Sadly, it seems PSO's last US server is going down next month... so, enjoy it while you can!

--
Circumcision is child abuse.

FPS on Xbox Live by a_peckover · 2003-09-04 19:04 · Score: 1

Actually, the most popular Xbox Live game is Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Unreal Championship and Ghost Recon are also popular.

They did. by Inoshiro · 2003-09-04 19:22 · Score: 1

Why do you think the Xbox is the first system ever with viable system link?

Because Microsoft includes everything you need -- out of the box -- to get online and do cool things. The only part they leave off is the actual service you pay for called Xbox Live!

Your post is about as well informed as this entire story (where the originator apparently has never heard of the DOA Online that's coming out).

--
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.

I obtained let's say, and loved... by jonathan_the_ninja · 2003-09-05 02:54 · Score: 1

I really love SF2 Turbo. It is the best fighting game ever. But Nethack's good too...

--
I love NetHack.

No way to win by jonathan_the_ninja · 2003-09-05 02:58 · Score: 1

Is there even a way to beat an online game? No! I thought people played games so they could beat them! Except for Mario Brothers 1 for NES, you know, they say that game's an infinite loop...

--
I love NetHack.

Slashdot Mirror

Not Enough Online Console Games?

97 comments