Independent Online Gaming Network for XB/PS2/GC/PC? (1 Viewer)

[Brae]

Ok, I was talking to a coworker last night as he got an XB for Xmas. I rarely play console games, but PC games are another matter. Still, the only games I am even willing to consider are network games, and I played (an was a beta tester) CS for +2.5 years before retiring it.
Well, our discussion lat night turned to the aspects of M$ XBlive, which is mirrored with Sony's PS2. Then I got an idea that the non-M$/Sony game manufacturers should unit with a VC (venture capitalist) to create games that can be played online on an independent gaming network that allows people with any relatively new platform (GC/PC/PS2/XB) to play with, or against, one another.
Yes, I am sure there is financial benefits being taunted by Sony and M$ toward game-makers for exclusive rights and all, but wouldn't it be better to sell online-specific games to all platforms?
Just a thought.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

First of all, it's impossible to play games online with the X-Box without using the XBL service. You can use XBConnect, which makes the game think you're playing on a LAN when you're really playing online, but that removes all of the added benefits of online-gaming, like updates, downloadable content, live voice-chat, etc.

Second, the PS2 doesn't require a fee to play games online. You just need to buy the adapter for $40. Some games might have their own fee attached, but only Final Fantasy XI and EverQuest Online Adventures are games that have additional fees (neither of which is out yet in America).

Third, Sony/MS/Nintendo won't give dev kits and the rights to publish games on their platforms if the developers are going to use another online service that takes potential money away from Sony/MS/Nintendo.

And fourth, aside from Phantasy Star Online, not many online-only games have sold well or even been made. X-Box Live requires a BB connection, which not many people have, and making a game that requires an add-on to play at all for any console isn't a good idea unless you plan on packing the add-on with the game (like the Memory Expansion with some N64 games or the GunCon with Time Crisis).

 

[Brae]

Morgan:
First, unless you are about to tell us you are on the XBL development team, let's keep the absolutes out of this discussion. I'm not 'all knowing' and I'm also willing to lay odds you are not either. I would rather have pure speculation than someone try to forward they know beyond a shadow of a doubt without the ability to provide substantial proof to back up their claims. Are you on the XB or XBL development team, or working for one of the game manufacturers producing games for XBL?
Secondly,

Second, the PS2 doesn't require a fee to play games online.

What does this have to do with the idea I proposed? I could care less about Sony's gaming network, the XBL, etc. I am forwarding the idea of an independent gaming network where games by developers would make them multiplatform for this independent network and not the console manufacturer's network.
Your 3rd point is well taken, but this does not mean the XB SDK isn't already available for game development in-general. Just because Sony and M$ may not offer assistance on developing games on an independent network does not mean they cannot be developed. The core SDKs for developing games already afford the TCP/IP communication layers (3, 4).
Finally, your 4th is less well-taken, but clearly recognize. Just because the idea is to produce a game with an online-component included does not mean the same development for single-player cannot be done. There are already game developers making games for all platforms. This alone reveals the necessary SDKs are available. Those developers with the SDK modules for external communications also adhere to the TCP/IP method of WAN communications.
Just as M$ thought no one could hack the XB someone already produced a Linux for it. I have no doubt that the Open Source movement and the will of game developers could develop gaming products for multiplatforms on a 3rd party (independent) gaming network.
Facts are easy:
There are game developers that already make games for more than one platform. This means those developers have the necessary SDKs for each platform, and are not being totally restricted from producing works for competing platforms.
Those companies making games with online-play features also have the SDKs for interacting with the console operating system and communicating with the standard TCP/IP communication layers.
Game development featuring an inclusion of online-play using standard TCP/IP communication components could be developed with a set of minimum cross-platform in-game features to level the playing field between platforms.
Until someone can produce indisputable evidence to the contrary (such as someone from the XB SKD and or XBL SDK development team, or conversely at Sony, Nintendo, etc.), I would find it silly to accept an absolute such as the one you forwarded.
I think we can agree, Morgan, that we disagree. I would also like to add this was not necessarily a thread to debate XB vs. PS2 vs. GC, vs. PC, more to find 'interest' in such a development activity.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I would also like to add this was not necessarily a thread to debate XB vs. PS2 vs. GC, vs. PC, more to find 'interest' in such a development activity

I understand that 100%. I was comparing how the different online setups for each console are because they affect how the games are made.

 

[Dave F]

Why is it M$ and not $ony?

-Dave

 

[Brae]

Ok Morgan, I can see you are a true advocate of Sony. But ...

By making the games the same on all platforms, it reduces the reasons to buy one console over another

I do not see where this initiative would deminish one's buying decision for one platform over another. It only makes it 'more' available to playing games online with outher people and does not restrict them to one gaming network and one suitcase of games.
Gaming developers are also at liberty to make multiple versions of the same game, or make the one game capable of being played on an independent network or a propreitary network, like XBL. If you ask me, this opens up the freedom for a consumer a lot more than buying into a locked system. And it can be the game developers, like Sega, that can collective get together to produce the free network (actually, this is nothing more than server farms transporting TCP/IP data over the Internet) with revenues based on the games themselves.
Pleae keep in mind that the idea of most online multiplayer games is a system based on player position in a virtual environment. The position, movement, and voice commuications are the only real environmental data needing transmission to/from a console and a server farm, which is dramatically different from games like MMONG (i.g. EverQuest). This is one of the reasons why CS was so easily ported to Linux, which is another funny point.
Sont themselves is/has released a kit for turning the PS2 into a Linux-based computer. Keeping the note mentioned previously, this means the PS2 and XB are both capable of running a version of Linux. The only thing needed there was to recompile for the PS2 CPU, certain driver modules created for the I/O devices, etc. Linux is [almost] everywhere.

 

[Brae]

Dave, I didn't think of that one! For now on, I will be using $ony! Thanks, man!

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Keeping the note mentioned previously, this means the PS2 and XB are both capable of running a version of Linux. The only thing needed there was to recompile for the PS2 CPU, certain driver modules created for the I/O devices, etc. Linux is [almost] everywhere

So you're suggesting that people spend a crapload of money on a PS2 and a Linux kit or on an X-Box and then hack it just so they can play games that could play on their PC if it had Linux on it? You've just turned the PS2/XB into a Linux emulator, which destroys the point of buying it as a game console to begin with. You might as well buy a PC.

 

[Jay Mitchosky]

Why is it M$ and not $ony?

I'm glad someone brought this up.

 

[Romier S]

Dave, I didn't think of that one! For now on, I will be using $ony! Thanks, man!

Heres an even more novel idea. How about just spelling them correctly! (gasp) Say it with me now: Microsoft (MS)- Sony. The dollar sign is the most overused symbol on the internet I swear.

 

[Dean DeMass]

The dollar sign is the most overused symbol on the internet I swear.

I knew if I didn't say this, you would, Romier.
-Dean-

 

[Romier S]

 

[BrianB]

I find it amusing that someone complains about Morgan being biased towards Sony whilst using the cliched M$ everywhere...

I think you severely underestimate the desire of Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo to control the flow of software on their machine & the desire by the major publishers to control who/where network games are played.

Read the forum here at HTF - you'll see one of the major appeals of XBoxLive & console online gaming is that it's exactly what you're arguing against, Brae: the closed nature of it.

There are game developers that already make games for more than one platform. This means those developers have the necessary SDKs for each platform, and are not being totally restricted from producing works for competing platforms.

Each individual title has to be reviewed & approved by the console manufacturer. Just because a developer has the SDK does not mean they automatically have the right to release a game for that particular platform. As it stands, Microsoft & Sony both barter with publishers for exclusive content on ports onto their individual platform. It is in Microsoft's interest to NOT allow cross platform network connectivity - if you can go online with a PS2 game & play against an XBox owner, Microsoft get zero revenue from that PS2 title.

THere's nothing really stopping publishers from implementing their own network setup - Activision/Neversoft did it with the Tony Hawk games on the PS2, Sega have their own setup for PSO etc - but I can't see companies moving to the distributed free server setup ala PC FPS games... And to be honest, I can't see consumers being too interested in it either.

 

[Brae]

BrianB, when Morgan made his comments the impression I got was that of a $ony advocate. I didn't say I thought my impression was 100% accurate--afterall, I'm human and capable of making mistakes. Also, I openly and honestly admitted to not thinking about using $ for the S in Sony, and upon its suggestion thought it was great.
I do think I should make something quite clear at this point. I have no loyalty to any of the gaming consoles. I do prefer to play games on a PC. I do NOT own a gaming console, but I do not have a local friend that does NOT have one.
I did not estimate the desires of Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, or Intel in their desires for/against an independent network. My proposal was simple. If, for example, Microsoft (Romier/Dean ), did not wish Halo ported to an independent network then sobeit, but that does not mean a game developer like Sega cannot develop a game that could be played on a SegaNetwork if they chose, and in doing offered to any platform willing to use it.

And to be honest, I can't see consumers being too interested in it either.

I would think this condition, which we both share, is one in which we are seeking the eternal enlightenment. I do find it suprising, though, that from the feedback this thread got was that there is no way any of you would consider a game for your console with online-gaming features designed for play on a free gaming network. Especially one in which you could also play non-console players, too. I guess PC gamers truly have an advantage here.

 

[BrianB]

I do find it suprising, though, that from the feedback this thread got was that there is no way any of you would consider a game for your console with online-gaming features designed for play on a free gaming network.

I don't think people are dismissing the idea, they're dismissing it as practical. I think people LIKE the organised nature of the current setups vs the "freeform" PC online world.

 

[Brae]

could[/I]]Quote:

And I recognize the appeal of being able to have choices in which server I get onto, and having friends also join those specific servers. Out of the thousands of servers I've had available to me, I found myself sticking with only a handful because of the learn behavior patterns of fellow players. That game had the feature where my server had six (or there abouts) servers listed so there was never a problem of getting lost, or having to dig through server lists. Also, it has a feature to where I can add a server or manually specify servers based on criteria (game mod, IP, map, etc.).
Hey now, those consoles are not without computing in their genes.

 

[BrianB]

Many products are developed without ever coming out, and I am willing to believe that some games found exclusively on some platforms could easily be ported to another platform.

:-/ Well, I can't argue with that. Of course some games on exclusivity contracts could be easily ported. I don't think anyone's said otherwise? If you're going to use that as a way to argue around the problem that it's in Microsoft's interest to keep XBoxLive closed to cross platform gaming, this discussion's pointless.

 

[JayV]

An interesting thought exercise, Brae, but I'm with Morgan, Brian, Dave and Romier on this. To wit (sorry, I just like to use "to wit" periodically):

1. As Morgan pointed out, the manufacturers would prevent a developer from pursuing this. The licensing agreements will prohibit anyone from publishing a game with Sony, Xbox, Nintendo indicia without approval.

It is also likely that the dev kits were delivered with this restriction.

2. I suspect that, as you pointed out, someone could find a way to develop a game and publish it for a console with no assistance or approval from the manufacturer.

What this means, however, is that a publisher would have to be willing to suck up entirely new R&D costs as well as have all of their games be banned from the console. Further, they would also risk a foreseeable legal entanglement with the console manufacturer. This could cause enough delays to destroy a potential market (Bleemcast!).

And why would a VC firm risk their money on new infrastructure if MS, for example, already provides one? If XBL fails, a publisher might lose a market, but they won't be sitting on infrastructure for a failed online venture.

To some degree, this already happened to Sega -- and I suspect it's experience serves a lesson to other companies and potential VC types.

3. Why is it M$ and not $ony?

4. Whichever is more acceptable, either is way too overused. Based on Elder Romier's instruction, I pledge to make an effort not to use either.

-j

 

[BrianB]

JayV, legally, anyone can publish games for the PS2, XBox or GameCube. They just have to come up with the R&D to work around the copy protection etc & find a way to physically manufacture their disks in such a way they'll boot on plain vanilla (ie unmodifed) consoles.

This right was upheld in court back in the 80s when Codemasters won a large legal case against Nintendo over the GameGenie.

The problem is that noone's got a way around those issues yet for the current generation of machines. It needs to be reversed engineered in a completely 'clean room' style environment. Any existing licenced developer can't do this - they have too much inside info. Even the mighty Datel have yet to publish their unlicenced Freeloader disk for the GC. So far, noone's been dumb enough to get caught putting in booting backdoors as Sega did with MIL-CDs on the Dreamcast (which is how Bleemcast worked I believe).

 

[Romier S]

The key word here is 'could'. They could develop a game that could be played on their own network. That says nothing about whether or not Microsoft or Sony will allow them to release the game for their platform. Its a statement of the 'possabilities' of the game developer. Many products are developed without ever coming out, and I am willing to believe that some games found exclusively on some platforms could easily be ported to another platform. This says nothing of the console manufacturering allowing it to happen, just stating that the programming possabilities exist.

http://wbby.home.mindspring.com/obvious.jpe
PS. Dont take any offense to the above Brae, I'm only joking around with you my man and I meant no offense. I'm just in a particularly jovial and idiotic joking mood today for some oddball reason.