Slashdot Mirror
No Online Co-Op For Halo 3 At Launch
CVG has the disappointing news, originally reported in the pages of EGM, that online co-op play will not be available when Halo 3 launches this September. In the game the second player would play the part of the Arbiter character, but fans will only be able to complete the campaign cooperatively via LAN or split-screen. Bungie stated the possibility still exists online co-op could be patched in at a later date, but significant hurdles stand in the way of the feature: "'We're not dumb,' says Bungie's Frank O'Conner. 'We know that people want it and we're trying to make it happen. I think the biggest problem for us for online co-op is that we have a situation where you can be in a Warthog with five troops, almost a mile away from the other player. That's a significant challenge. And there's lots of design things you could do to prevent that from happening, but they would make it not feel like Halo anymore. If we can make it happen in a way that works well, we will - and if it works badly, we won't.'"
Well better to not have it at all then it be half assed and read the endless whining that will occur on forums as a result.
when are they going to learn?! that is the single most interesting thing about online HALO play, I was super disapointed when Halo2 didnt have it... good grief! who cares if your are a mile away , it works just fine for Counterstrike, or any other FPS...
I enjoyed the Halo SP campaigns because they gave a sense of "one man vs. the universe". Playing it co-op with some whiny kid would not add to my experience.
I'm quite certain that the vast majority of people who purchase this game will play it online against other players in death match or capture the flag games. Although online co-op is a nice feature, it's hardly necessary for the vast majority of the people who purchase it. Hell, this franchise is so about online play that the single player campaign could probably be considered optional.
Now, I love the HALO series as much as the next person. In fact, thats the only game on XBOX I play, as I grew up on FPS' (Quake series, etc.. I don't play sports on a console. If I wanted to play sports, I'd go outside...)
That said, are they purposely stiffling whats really possible here or are there technical limitations that is keeping them from opening up the fredom of play?
I RTFA, however I did not get the sense that the game limitations they spoke of were due to technical issues.
Informative responses requested!
"This just in: Online Co-op play WILL be available on the PC version released in 2 years. The graphics will be the same, but it'll have, uh, a few new maps!"
Exclusively available on WindowsRG
They have been promising this since before 2 came out, just one of the many places where they dropped the ball on 2.
I don't understand why they can't just do they same thing they do in LAN Co-op.. when one player reaches a certain spot it "transports" the other player automatically to that point. That "felt like Halo" enough for 1 and 2...
Sounds more like poor excuses to me. Halo is flirting with solidifying itself as a source of undelivered promises. In-game "vaporware", one might speculate.
That'll be the $30 add-on you buy after the game's been out for a year.
It would seem that I will not be buying Halo 3 on release. Maybe if enough people don't buy it at the beginning, it will spark some interest in Bungie to do it sooner than later. GoW has online co-op and it works really well. Microsoft should get Bungie and Epic to talk and maybe some knowledge will help make this happen sooner.
And I really wanted to play co-op with some kid telling me in his whiney voice how much smaller my anatomy is then his...
Besides, co-op is not as much fun when you can't see your friend falling off the couch laughing after assasinating you in the middle of a firefight =D
-
Stupid friend....
Umm... why is the situation so different in Halo 3 as opposed to how things were in Halo 2? You can play co-op via split-screen in Halo 2, and the exact same issue is still there (players moving far distances away from each other), yet they somehow handled it just fine: when one user is getting way further ahead on the map, the game will just teleport the lagging-behind player forward to the other player. Why wouldn't this be possible when playing over the internet? Why will we be able to play over LAN but not Xbox Live? Especially considering one can just set up Hamachi or similar software to create a simple VPN over the net anyways... This really feels to me like we're not getting the full story here.
really it isn't that big of a deal. I mean, come on, much like the 7th harry potter book being leaked onto the net, I don't think this is going to impact the success of the game very much...would it be nice to have co-op over live? Hell yes, if done right it would be awesome.
would it be a travesty to do it improperly? Yes it would be. I would MUCH rather they spent time on polishing and tweaking the game rather than continually pounding away at a stone with a toothpick.
Living With a Nerd
Since Halo 1 was released on the PC, I've been reading interviews with the Halo dev team guys saying that network Co-Op is going to have to wait a while because their networking code can't handle it. As I recall the explanation was that you get a lot of functionality very easily when you are assured that both players are on the same system.
Each of those articles also had intense speculation that network Co-Op is 'right around the corner'. First for Halo 1, then for Halo 2. I'm probably willing to say that this is the journalist putting words in their mouth, but after 4+ years of hearing the same thing I won't believe it until it ships.
You are awash in a sea of fiercely stated opinions. Obvious exits are: 'File->Quit', 'Reply', and 'Page Down'.
It seems like a disturbing number of new releases have had their online play options severely curtailed or omitted entirely. Witness Tony Hawk (PS3), Metroid Prime 3 (Wii), and now Halo 3 (360) - and I'm sure there are a bunch I'm forgetting. Surely all these companies can't be having trouble putting together workable online play for their latest titles?
First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
I don't understand how online co-op play has significantly different challenges from splitscreen and lan play. I mean in theory can't you have 1 player in a warthog and another player a mile away in both of those modes? If not, then just apply the same restriction that prevents it from happening in those modes to the online co-op.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Seriously, where have the computer nerds gone?
It's stated explicitly that LAN Co-op will be in the game. Given programs such as Warp Pipe for the Gamecube, how hard is it really going to be to simulate a LAN over the internet and enjoy online co-op in all of it's potentially bugged out glory?
I guarantee you someone's going to program and finish such an application, possibly before the game even comes out. It's just a matter of convincing two Xbox 360s that they're on a LAN together, and praying you don't lag like crazy.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
First, let me say that I'm a huge Halo fan; $130 special Legendary Edition Halo 3 pre-order huge. Co-op in Halo 1 & 2 is one of my favorite features, right behind multiplayer versus matches, but I can honestly say that online co-op is not a must-have for me, its just a nice extra.
There are plenty of technical why this could be a problem, the primary reason is one of scale. In online multiplayer, games are limited to 16 players max -- some of the larger Halo battles in campaign mode have included many times that number (think of the flood) -- creating network code that can support that number of entities in a small space in a fast-paced FPS is no easy task. The fact that it *is* supported over LAN is a huge clue that this is the primary difficulty -- obviously the networking system supports it, but the WAN latency is probably probably killing it. When the play becomes lagged its no longer accurate and not worth doing, IMHO.
As alluded to in the article, you can do some design things to avoid those situations, but then you start to damage the things that Make the game what it is in the first place.
This is from a leaked EGM issue written over a month ago. Online co-op has been in and out of Halo 3 for a while, and it just so happens that at the time of the issue (a month ago), it was out. Maybe there's hope.
...The 360's super awesome shared memory feature. Sure, let's pack this baby full of hi-res textures-- hey waitaminit, why don't we have room anymore for these important game mechanics?
Let's face it: Halo 3 HAD to look pretty, no matter what. If it didn't look like pure eye candy, Microsoft would never hear the end of it. Something's gotta give.
I had one requirement for Halo 3 (and XBox360 purchase): I had to be able to play with my buddy, with whom I started the series. He now lives an untenable distance away. So, I don't need the game, nor their console, nor their pay-to-play Live service, I guess.
Are you kidding me? Halo: Combat Evolved for X-Box sold over 5 million copies and it didn't even have online play. Sure, people played it over LAN, but the guy on the street knew it for its sweet co-op.
Halo 2 sold over 6 million copies. When Halo 2 was released, there were less than 2 million subscriptions to X-Box Live... In fact, X-Box Live just reached 6 million subscriptions in March 2007. Obviously more than a few people weren't playing Halo online and I doubt that those who were ignored co-op.
Bungie has been known for doing co-op since Marathon. Co-op is an integral part of the Halo package, and it never would've become Microsoft's "Killer App" without it. Never. Halo is legendary not only for its versus play, but for the fact that it breathed new life into co-op (something that was being put on the back-burner due to developers' boners for online deathmatches). Without co-op. Halo would not be considered a classic game.
So before you lump "most gamers" in with yourself, take a step back and realize how integral co-op has been to Halo's (and the X-Box as a whole's) success.
Are you kidding me? Halo: Combat Evolved for X-Box sold over 5 million copies and it didn't even have online play. Sure, people played it over LAN, but the guy on the street knew it for its sweet co-op.
Halo 2 sold over 6 million copies. When Halo 2 was released, there were less than 2 million subscriptions to X-Box Live... In fact, X-Box Live just reached 6 million subscriptions in March 2007. Obviously more than a few people weren't playing Halo online and I doubt that those who were ignored co-op.
Bungie has been known for doing co-op since Marathon. Co-op is an integral part of the Halo package, and it never would've become Microsoft's "Killer App" without it. Never. Halo is legendary not only for its versus play, but for the fact that it breathed new life into co-op (something that was being put on the back-burner due to developers' boners for online deathmatches). Without co-op, Halo would not be considered a classic game.
So before you lump "vast majority" in with yourself, take a step back and realize how integral co-op has been to Halo's (and the X-Box as a whole's) success.
I can't say it's the case for Tony Hawks or Metroid as I don't know enough about them, but the problems with it in Halo 3 and various other games that have had to take chunks out their multiplayer plans is to do with the massive maps you get in multiplayer games nowadays.
Many people in response to this story are asking why you can't just teleport the player like in the local coop modes, well, that's actually the problem not the solution. A system can only hold a limited amount of a games assets (terrain, textures, player models and so forth) ready in memory at any one time, on a local coop match the system has the assetts for both players locations in memory and that's just fine for teleporting, because when player B teleports to player A, player B's section of the screen can just use the same assets in memory as player A's, across a relatively slow network like the internet however this option to share memory isn't feasible.
It's not an impossible problem to solve by any means, if player A is telling player B where they are and/or vice versa then player B's system can keep track better, but this takes a lot longer to implement and test, hence why Bungie probably can't get it ready for launch. There are other solutions of course, you could say have a setup where player B is shown a teleportation animation whilst the system loads the required data, but that tends to be tacky and ruins the gameplay a fair bit.
Some might ask why it works okay in other games, well, even in games like Gears you're not allowed to stray far from your team mate at all, so it's the case there that both players are forced to progress at such a similar speed through the game, that should player A need to load new world data, player B will need to also, so by simply keeping the players close you're basically forcing each system to have the same data in memory, so that when the players do need to warp together, player B doesn't have to fetch hardly any, if any data at all that it didn't already have loaded. Of course, this option is available to Bungie too, but is it really worth completely changing their storyline, likely for the worse just to do this right now when they could keep a much better storyline and just do coop another way later?
It seems to be a combination of the storyline requiring the players to be well apart and the massive size of maps in games nowadays compared to the relatively small amount of memory available to consoles. Memory is less important for consoles of course, because they're much more streamlined for transferring game-like data between subsystems than PCs which have to be rather more generic but it's still a bottleneck at the end of the day, one which would cause a noticeable pause to the player if suddenly they had to dump the current few hundred megabytes of assets and load some more instead, as opposed to streaming it as in say games like Saints Row. You might ask why Crackdown doesn't have this problem, it's basically again a game design issue, there's no situation where player B would ever be warped to player A other than say, when you die and so forth and have to move to a spawn point, but it's okay for the pause in the game to load new assets in this situation because the player is busy respawning! Outside that, players just run to each other so the game only needs to stream data slowly, which is like say, loading a few hundred mb of assets over the period of maybe 5minutes that it takes to reach each other vs. trying to load a few hundred mb instantly when a player teleports half way round the world.
Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the video games version of a filler filled album. Whereby an established artist gives us an average/sub-par release due to complacency, degree of difficulty, cocaine addiction, whatever...
Ok guys, you're "not stupid", you know people want the feature, yet, you decide not to give it to us anyway. WTF are you guys, our first girlfriends?? The "if it's too difficult, we won't do it" response REEKS of complacency.
It would not be out of the realm of possibilty to say that the success of a subpar Halo 2 (i.e. no matter what we put out there, those f-ing meatheads will buy it) would fuel a supbar Halo 3. Hope you enjoyed your stay, Bungie
What's the problem.....
Something doesn't gell here. Create a VPN between you and your buddy via the internet...
How would the 360 know it's not a LAN???
Anyone??
I do it all the time with "Lan" based PC games.....
They should have the online Co-op mode borrow the technique that MMORPGs use and have a server keep track of the players and send the appropriate info to each of them as they progress. Since cost could be an issue, perhaps they could offer that feature to Gold members only (another can of worms I suppose). Or they could have one player's machine act as the server/host but that could cause quite a performance hit.
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
Disclaimer: IANAGamesProgrammer but i do know a thing or two about randomness in games (see: doom demo format, every "random" event is based on the actions of the player). MY first play-throughs of the first two halos were coop, as were doom2, duke3d, quake1, quake2. (imagine my horror when half life DIDNT have a coop mode!).
Halo is a player-driven game, non-scripted events react to the player. If they lob a grenade at a bunch of enemies they may return fire or scatter. These reactions are probably decided upon by a random number generator somewhere. So. on both systems the initial setup of the game is the same. the monster positions and default movements around the map are the same. so why transmit the details of all that across the network? so long as the player's timestamps are synced the game will be in sync.
firstly, non critical actions dont need to be synced. if player A fires a shotgun at a wall the exact down-to-the-last-pellet blast pattern does not need to be replicated on player B's machine. sure the DAMAGE done by the shotgun blast needs to be synced but dont waste bandwidth making it LOOK identical as the only downside would be the odd occasion where player A says "ooh it made a smiley face" and player B says "you're either blind or full of shit". This also can apply to physical objects, if you blow up a bookshelf and paper goes flying does every single fluttering sheet need to follow the exact same path on each client? i expect not, so long as they're non-blocking and essentially just a visual effect. Half life did this to a certain extent with functions like "create a bunch of splintering wood chunks here" rather than creating and syncing every shard.
so, back to the grenade scenario, instead of sending the grenade and all the resulting movements why not tag a timestamp and random seed to the grenade "throw" event. the player on system 1 throws the grenade, the player on system 2 recieves the events and because their maps are (up until that moment) "naturally" in sync, so long as the responses of the monsters, ai and physics to the grenade event fire according to it's random seed the outcome will be the same.
Now obviously if there's latency and both players lob grenades at the same time at the same enemy hoarde there will be conflict issues. So you need some kind of range based system which knows if the players actions and effects are overlapping to a degree where a subset of local entities NEED to be kept in sync. This might be as simple as checking JUST the xyz origin coords of all the effected entities and any discrepancy results in a forced sync (like how in some networked racing games someone's car will magically jump a few feet over).
just my 2 cents, and probably a little naive when it comes down to keeping things in sync when there's a zillion flood coming at you and fourteen plasma grenades go off at once.
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
I hate all that whining about all that whining in forums. Whining is what forums are for, so stop whining!
I actually *am* a game programmer (and have done some network game coding), and relying on a random seed simply won't work, not even for simple games. It can be made to work for awhile, but once there is any single, small diversion it just snow-balls until the game states are entirely different. Some problems can even be entirely beyond your control -- On the PC a poorly written graphics driver might change the precision flags on the FPU and not set them back, but a different driver on a different machine might behave itself. This can lead to discrepancies in the position of an entity and affect how the AI responds, desynchronizing the game... Don't take that example to be something that a networked game must unavoidably do (because the process I describe is naive at best) but merely as an example of the crazy things that *can* happen that are utterly beyond your control.
You really *need* to have an authoritative server scheme, any time more than one machine is allowed to determine the game-state for itself unchecked, you're inviting the inevitability of desynchronizing the game (and cheating in competitive play).
In the late 90s, Valve pulled it off for a limited number of players on a small map. Half-Life 1 and its mods had low enough lag for fast action and at least halfway decent physics.
Since that time, computers have grown a lot more powerful. I think it is time for some company to pull off an action MMORPG on the same level of speed and realism. Auto Assault had it to some extent, at least the driving had a passable degree of simulation in it (it could have been better, but that seemed to be sloppy modelling rather than network limitations).
Maybe someone can comment on Planetside? I have not tried it yet, but it is supposed to be a MMORPG-FPS. I wonder how well these guys have handled the task of creating a fast-paced game for lots of players.
C - the footgun of programming languages