Topic: Next-generation online play

[rodtod]

So far, all three competitors are doing their own thing regarding online games. Sony has set up a secure and reliable network. Microsoft has produced a working and reasonable payment plan. Nintendo has begun to bring familiar genres online.

But what all three lack at the moment, to make a really successful online network, is the right technology. Mainly, bandwidth.

So what kind of technology will make bandwidth issues a thing of the past? Well, unless the world governments are willing to spend billions in rewiring their nations with lightning-fast fiber optic cables, gamers are either stuck with a regular dial-up modem, or have the benefit of broadband. But even broadband, cable and dsl, isn't enough for online videogames. Any online videogame relies on constant communication between the host servers and the gaming systems. And for an online game to have decent graphics and gameplay, a lot of bandwidth is required. Anyhow, what do you think can be done to eliminate lag and allow for really breathtaking online games?

We can't use satellites. Weather and solar phenomena can really mess with these things. Anyhow, while searching the web I found an interesting article from a couple years ago. Your thoughts.

[)Dark-LInk(]

i think that al the companies(OF COURSE NINTENDO) should BUY or built a GIANT server(BROADBAND only for sure) for THEIR console online play(if u can do such a thing,lol) and host it with a large team of employes that will make sure the games go fair and make the servers and games stay hackfree(any cheats or what ever) and BAN any cheater or hack user. and most possibly reduce the lag.
and this wil be expensive so they should chage 10$ each month for the use of the server.(this wil be 10 MILLION  bucks a month if only 1 mill peeps subscribe which is more then enough)  

[rodtod]

I was thinking no monthly fees would be a better idea. To maintain the network, just get a bunch of sponsorships, and use the profits from game sales. The only fees would be one-time, and those would be for getting any online-gaming accessories. You know, keyboard, microphone, modem, and enough cabling to get the system hooked up to your internet connection.

Asides from online RPG's, most online games are hosted by a third party, and do not make gamers pay monthly fees. Why not go with that model?

As for one giant server to manage all online games of a company, Dark-LInk, it would have to be on the performance level of supercomputers.

[BlkPaladin]

Unfotunate for the plan of making the games support the server cost to work the games would have to retail in the $100.00. Sponsorships do work, Battle.net is very viable but you get the problems of bugs etc. (I think Nintendo is looking into the sponsorship route.)

The thing is you can not build one server to handle everything. It has to be a bank of servers, because there are physical limits to the amount of bandwidth you can pipe into one server.

[manunited4eva22]

Battle.net may have the largest problem with hacks I have ever seen. I vote go with the pay plan...

[rodtod]

lots of things could be done to cover the costs of online networks for games:

first of all, they need to make the videogame consoles play a bigger role in the whole online setup. instead of putting so much stress on the servers, make the home consoles do a bit more of the work. perhaps have the consoles compress their data packets before sending 'em to a server? that would require some beefy processors though. this wouldn't provide any additional funds, but it would reduce the amount of workload on the servers, reducing the number of servers needed, and therefore reducing maintenance and hardware costs.

secondly, get investors on board. I mean, to run a successful, practical worldwide gaming network, you'd need to have funds up the wazoo.

third, don't have a corporation own, supervise, or otherwise manage the network. have it be run by gamers and tech-savvy kind of people. no board of directors. no risk of "being let go" in case the amount of profits isn't appealing. because right now, the Internet is not a highly-profitable venture. so the network needs to be run by people with a passion for games, instead of money, money, money.

also, go with risky ideas that have actually worked out, instead of taking the quick and easy way. in other words, treat the online network as hardware units, and let the profits come from the software, instead of charging gamers for the software, and then charging them again to be able to even play the software online.

[BlkPaladin]

Just because Nintendo may go with a sponsorship plan doesn't mean it will be ripe with cheeting. One thing that makes Battle net that ripe is it for the computer, Nintendo's would be for its console only and there are ways to stop Game Shark type devices.

[manunited4eva22]

My point was that it raises the bar for who wants to cheat on it. If Microsoft had gone witha  free server for xbox live, I'm sure you would see a lot more college students in the act with hacking. 50 dollars is a low ba, but still it does drain out a lot of bottom feeders.

[yrrab436]

There's also the issue of ISP support.  Granted, most normal ISPs work fine.  Some weird ISPs, like AOL, aren't compatible with Internet standards though.

Just so people know:
AOL is absolutely stupid with gaming "support."  As far as I know, the company only supports the PS2.  Get this: you have to pay an additional $5 per month just to use AOL for the PS2, a stupid robbery of customers.  Oh yeah, AOL Broadband isn't compatible with gaming consoles at all.  In short: AOL stinks.

*is using AOL Broadband*

Bleh. I'm not the one paying the bill.

Hopefully ISPs will be more universal the next time around.  It's just lame for certain ISPs to only support certain systems.  It's also very important that dial-up be supported.  I look down on Microsoft's policy, and praise Sony's dual modem.

I don't see where all the bandwidth is going.  I only played online once actually, and it was several years ago with the Descent III demo... via dial-up.  The lag wasn't that bad.  If that game can run just fine via dial-up, it seems ludicrous (from my uninformed standpoint) that broadband isn't considered fast enough by some.  You don't need lots of superfluous stuff going on to have a quality game.  If older games are just fine via dial-up, why aren't newer games?  I suppose that's from a PC standpoint though.  Is it the difference between a peer-to-peer enviornment and a server enviornment or something?  I suppose the whole server thing would be needed to protect against cheaters and to provide stability.  Bleh, I have know idea what I'm talking about.

[PIAC]

yehehehhee im not a total ace when it comes to this, but i know a few odds and ends, lag basically reolves around how many pieces of net code are being sent two and from the user to the server, a game like counter strike has like 4 i think, player position, gun used, enemy position enemy guns? perhaps more im not sure, but the more net code being sent the higher the ping/lag, a game like PSO ran great on sega's 33.6 dial up modem, i played it a fair bit on my mates dreamcast, it ran smooooothly..

hrmm.... ive somewhat lost my point =\ curse you mario and termin8anikin talking to my while i was posting...

[Termin8Anakin]

Ha.
The joys of ICQ.

[manunited4eva22]

Lets just put it this way, I have run games over gigabit ethernet in a LAN and still wished it could be faster. I have a very intense ability to detect any lag at all, and it can be irritating. A lot of people don't have as keen as eye as me, but lag is very detectable to the trained eye.

[rodtod]

Lag comes from poor coding of the game's engine (a.k.a. "bottleneck"), low-bandwidth connection, and weak processing power.

Unless you're playing on a console, lag is for the most part the gamer's fault. If a gamer wants to play online often, then they should really consider going broadband.

A big problem with consoles is that you can't upgrade them- at least not as much as with a PC or Mac. For consoles, you have to buy a compatible modem adapter, and if the developer doesn't release a broadband option, then you're stuck with 56k. Also, the hardware, being limited in upgradability, prevents you from further tackling lag.

But with both consoles and PC's, it is up to the game developer to make the game online-ready. And that means fluid coding and support for a variety of ISPs.

So manunited, even if you have a super-fast LAN connection, lag is still a possibility.

Say, how much of an impact would researching and implementing "lag-proof" coding have on development time?

[Grey Ninja]

Do any of you play America's Army?  I play it all the time, and I never lag.  When I do, it's because of one of 2 things.

1)  My computer had a hiccup, which caused a few frame drops
2)  I stupidly forgot to close Kazaa

The (good) servers are run by HomeLAN.  I normally get a ping of about 100 - 150, and no warping at all.  When another player lags, it doesn't affect me in the slightest.  It just makes them a good target.  (Unless of course they are lagging SO bad they are warping all over the place)

[rodtod]

lol, that's happened when I play Jedi Outcast online. some modem users just keep popping up all over the map. Makes it very difficult to hit them (curse those 56kers)

[manunited4eva22]

I play AA and get pings usually in the 30's. There is lag there, you can find it in breathing cycles if you look hard enough. Not that it is still a fun game, but I still can detect the lag.

[JonTD]

Quote
Originally posted by: rodtod
And for an online game to have decent graphics and gameplay, a lot of bandwidth is required. Anyhow, what do you think can be done to eliminate lag and allow for really breathtaking online games?

I think people really don't understand what is involved with online play. There's no real reason that an online game can't be done well. What would be sent back and forth would be numbers with clipping algorithms used on both ends to make sure useless information is not sent. A lot of the same techniques are used to draw things on SCREEN more efficiently already.

User: "Server, this is me. This is where I am and this is my field of vision. What's around me?"
Server: "You, this is what's around you, and this is what you see."

That's not really a lot of data, even went being sent back and forth very quickly. The graphics would all be done on the user's end, as would sound. There are a billion causes of server lag out there, so it's not really fair to simply blame the game.

Quote
Originally posted by: )Dark-LInk(
i think that al the companies(OF COURSE NINTENDO) should BUY or built a GIANT server(BROADBAND only for sure) for THEIR console online play(if u can do such a thing,lol) and host it with a large team of employes

That's a horrible idea. For one thing, what if the server is in Oklahoma and I live in Tokyo? Or vice versa? One server in one location would never work.

Quote
Originally posted by: manunited4eva22
Lets just put it this way, I have run games over gigabit ethernet in a LAN and still wished it could be faster. I have a very intense ability to detect any lag at all, and it can be irritating. A lot of people don't have as keen as eye as me, but lag is very detectable to the trained eye.

On Gigabit ethernet? That's 128 MB/s! If you're having problems playing a LAN game, you need to be looking at the way the game transmits data or your server traffic or your specific system. There's no reason any game should lag on a realiable Gigabit ethernet network.

Or the lag could be placebo.

[manunited4eva22]

The serve was 4 P4 2.53Ghz PC1066 RAM (16 players were playing MOH:AA)

it was probablly the fault of the servers, but it was on 1000baseT.