Slashdot Mirror
Tech Giants Targeting Online Gaming Infrastructure
Thanks to CNET News for its story discussing the increasing interest of large tech companies in online gaming middleware, explaining: "Inspired by predictions of brisk growth in the $1 billion online game market, IBM, Sun Microsystems and other companies normally not associated with dragon-slaying adventures have launched projects recently to handle the complex infrastructure needed to run online games." Steve Canepa of IBM is enthusiastic about the opportunities: "The gaming industry is really going through a transition now... we think there's a real opportunity for IBM to play a role in that transition [by backing Butterfly.net, among other things]." However, analyst Billy Pidgeon points out, in riposte: "There's just not a lot of profit to be made... the infrastructure stuff is not really that expensive or difficult a piece of the online game process, so the outsourcing players can't charge a whole lot."
they worked on the PS2. they worked on the PS3 and they are working on the neXtBox. i believe they also worked on the gamecube and the nextcube
Wow- this is similar to the last story about XSN Sports...at least both are on-line.
I would like Xbox Live to switch from the peer-to-peer network, to something with more centralized servers. I believe this would cut down on lag in the games, and allow for more players on a server (of course).
But the important thing for me, is that the story focuses on 'elves and wizards'. I know there are a few games out there that do NOT focus on standard D&D type characters (Star Wars Galaxies for one) but when will we get more HUGE FPS worlds?
Instead of paladins and mages storming a castle, how about the Allies attempting to enter a city that is full of German snipers? This could be Medal of Honor, with nothing but human players. The D-Day invasion played out with teams of 400 people? That would be great.
Of course, as worn-out as the D&D worlds are, World War II is almost as bad. The western genre is starting to get more attention, and I can imagine a game with a map the size of Nebraska. You could have classes like 'gunfighter' 'blacksmith' 'saloon girl' and 'stagecoach driver'.
This kind of game would need some huge back-end power, and enough on the client side to keep track of anyone within a few hundred yards. The infrastructure is getting there though.
I think that peer-to-peer (Xbox Live) may have run its course, and we need to see something really big happen for Xbox 2.
No reason to lie.
I'm a one man game studio, and yet I have managed to create a persistent game-tracker, as well as an online ranking system. So I would agree that this is a silly thing for IBM to do.
A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
I don't know about most people but if I was given the choice of paying an extra dollar a month for absolutely no time EVER and much less lag, or not paying that one dollar and having to deal with downtime and annoying lag... well, I'd have to go with the extra dollar plan. I spend more on candy a month than I do on subscription based games so an extra dollar isn't gonna cause me to starve.
Getting some of these tech giants involved in creating MMPORG middle ware is probably a great thing. The developers should focus on making the game fun. So why spend their time on the 'boring' aspects (customer billing, database system for account management, server maintenence, etc).
If IBM and the rest can provide software and hardware services to do this, it will be a good thing. Does a customer really need to know or give a damn if their Everquest game uses the same server back end as Dark age of Camelot or City of Heros?
END COMMUNICATION