Author Topic: psp is online now wheres nintendos plan (Read 39327 times)

KDR_11k · « **Reply #75 on:** February 14, 2005, 05:36:22 AM »

Peer-to-peer doesn't mean player hosted games. Peer-to-peer means a system where all computers participating in one system are equal, usually each one does its calculations for itself and only sends stuff like player input to the others. The main issue is that because all systems are equal noone can resolve conflicts (like, say, system A believes player 1 is in one place but B believes he is in another place), leading to desyncs. These days noone uses P2P for gaming because lag and packet-loss, especially over the net, make it too instable. Try playing GTA over LAN (or nullmodem for a better effect) and see someone desync.
The only viable system is a server-client model where the server does all the calculations and the clients get copies of the results. If any doubt about certain data arises, the server is always right. Many games call the server the host but that doesn't change the fact that it's an S-C model. All games use this nowadays because P2P just desn't work for data subject to heavy branching. Many games support instant server changes, which means when the server disconnects the clients imediately determine a new server.
What people here get confused about is the master server. Games with user-provided servers use the dev's master server (or that of other match-making services, like Gamespy) to locate other users unless the only way to play is to enter the other guy's IP address. Live is like that. The other kind is the dev-owned game server, where all users connect as clients to a server operated by the dev and the dev's servers calculate the games. That's what MMOs do and I think closed Battle.net works like that as well. The costs are hugely different, a match-making server has much less load (and therefore cost) than a game server, UT2004 has one server, WoW around 80. I'm not sure but I believe MS's servers take a much heavier load because they handle MANY games and some downloadable content plus all Live accounts. I'm not sure what Sega payed for their network.

PaLaDiN · « **Reply #76 on:** February 14, 2005, 09:41:25 AM »

KDR, that makes sense. I was confusing p2p with the counterstrike model of server and client.

oohhboy · « **Reply #77 on:** February 14, 2005, 07:35:58 PM »

Thanks for the clearification.

Gamefreak · « **Reply #78 on:** February 14, 2005, 08:45:10 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
Great. Then why does Microsoft charge for Xbox Live? Is there some additional cost they're trying to cover or are they just being greedy?

darkheart, I apologize if it seems that way. I'm being relatively tame right now, believe it or not. I just naturally like big confrontations, and arguments are fun.

My argument isn't "since I'm fed up with online gaming everyone should move on with me", I'm not that naive. My argument is "I'm fed up with online gaming and I won't shut up about it."

Blizzard games are not P2P. Blizzard provides tons of their own servers and features a centralized matchmaking service (Xbox Live and Halo 2's online interface is completely based on Warcraft III's online interface). The reason World of Warcraft had some problems is because
1) It sold way more than expected
2) Running a persistant world that has to be constantly updated and synchronized perfectly across everyone's computers is much harder and more demanding than something like Warcraft 3 where there are hundreds of 30 minute matches which are completely unrelated to each other and have only 2 to 8 players per game.

Answering your question, the reason Blizzard doesn't need to charge for Warcraft III is because they don't have as many costs to cover. They just develop the game and provide servers, all of which is covered with the games price of 50 bucks.

MS on the other hand needs to charge for Xbox Live in an attempt to make for their losses in hardware. Of course this could have meant that next generation, where MS is not going to suffer huge losses on hardware, Xbox Live could be made free. Unfortunately, Xbox Live and Halo 2's success has proven that consumers are willing to pay $50 a year (not really that much, just the cost of one game) to play online, and I highly doubt MS will see any reason to stop charging consumers who don't know any better. Unless of course Nintendo or Sony announce their own centralized services free of charge.

Grant10k · « **Reply #79 on:** February 15, 2005, 06:46:20 PM »

I don’t think there is any question that the DS will be online. It is online already. With the Gamecube you had to buy an adaptor to go online, thus any sole online game would cost the game + the adaptor, no dev’s (except one) wanted to have a game with a starting potential user base of 0.

The DS is online right now, even if no games use it at the moment. It has 802.11b (or g?) at this very moment, just waiting for some software to utilize it, it doesn’t care who writes the software. Let’s say that Nintendo for whatever reason has announced no online plans, they went up to the podium and said “we don’t feel like it…” or whatever. There is nothing stopping someone like EA from making a crappy EA game and just using one of their BF 1942 servers. They could just use 10% of a server; if the game is a hit (inexplicably like a lot of EA’s games) they can get a new server later to handle the load. Nintendo likes letting people do there own online thing, or at least that’s what they did with the Gamecube (phantasy star (I think it’s spelled with an ph)) so now it’s like a computer without the ability to mod games, for all intensive purposes, all computers/DS’s are online already, starting user base of [a lot]

On a side note, I write my forum responses in Word for the spellchecker, did you know MS Word spellchecker recognizes and capitalizes Xbox but not Gamecube or Playstation? Damn subliminal advertising. At the time of writing this I’m seeing tons of little red squbbles over half this thing.

Gamefreak · « **Reply #80 on:** February 15, 2005, 07:48:09 PM »

Actually, IGNDS's Craig Harris says that from what he hears from developers, that's exactly what happened. Nintendo just sat there and thought third parties would make online games on their own, but they didn't want to without Nintendo even acknowledging or supporting online play (like GCN), so apparently Nintendo is currently in the process of making some sort of standardized interface (or maybe just add online software to DS dev kits) to help out developers. Also there is talk that Nintendo and Square (it's unclear if they are doing this together or seperately) are both setting up servers dedicated to online DS play.

And of course Word recognizes Xbox... By the way, you can add words to Word's dictionary. Just type in a word, and if it's underlined in red by World, right click the world and click "add to dictionary"

Grant10k · « **Reply #81 on:** February 15, 2005, 10:00:17 PM »

Quote
Actually, IGNDS's Craig Harris says that from what he hears from developers, that's exactly what happened. Nintendo just sat there and thought third parties would make online games on their own, but they didn't want to without Nintendo even acknowledging or supporting online play (like GCN), so apparently Nintendo is currently in the process of making some sort of standardized interface (or maybe just add online software to DS dev kits) to help out developers. Also there is talk that Nintendo and Square (it's unclear if they are doing this together or [separately]) are both setting up servers dedicated to online DS play.

I'm glad they are actually doing something this time, I like the idea of adding online software to the dev kits, so they won't spend too many extra resources trying to get online to work (or letting games ship with buggy online capabilites)

I know how to add to the dictionary, it's just its a little like word recognizing George Washington but not Abe Lincoln; it doesn’t hinder anything it’s just something I noticed.

vudu · « **Reply #82 on:** February 16, 2005, 08:21:17 AM »

Quote
On a side note, I write my forum responses in Word for the spellchecker, did you know MS Word spellchecker recognizes and capitalizes Xbox but not Gamecube or Playstation?

Actually, Word Recognizes Playstion, but you have to spell it correctly--it's PlayStation. However, it doesn't recognize GameCube.

NWR_Lindy · « **Reply #83 on:** February 16, 2005, 07:13:07 PM »

1) The number for XBox live was 2 Billion over 5 years. So it's not like Microsoft flushed that money down the toilet all at once - they're making money while they're spending it. Also, the 2 Billion was earmarked for "promoting the XBox and XBox Live around the world", meaning that it's not all being spent on servers.

2) You can't tell me that a server farm for XBox Live would cost billions anyways, maybe several million but not billion.

3) I highly doubt that Halo 2's online development affected the single-player game. The Halo 2 project directors would have simply hired more people to work on either part before the project started...it's not like they'd have a team of 60 developers that absolutely could not change in size. I'm sure Bungie hired a ton of people for the Halo 2 online work, because the people that made Halo 1 probably weren't experts at online implementation.

4) XBox Live is ideal for older gamers that have friends with children, who can't hang out at other people's houses after work. That's why the XBox has really been embraced by thirtysomething gamers - you don't have to have everybody together in one room to have a multiplayer game. People aren't in college forever.

silks

Gamefreak · « **Reply #84 on:** February 16, 2005, 10:03:06 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: kingvudu
Quote
On a side note, I write my forum responses in Word for the spellchecker, did you know MS Word spellchecker recognizes and capitalizes Xbox but not Gamecube or Playstation?
Actually, Word Recognizes Playstion, but you have to spell it correctly--it's PlayStation. However, it doesn't recognize GameCube.

Actually I just opened up Word.
It recognized Xbox, PlayStation (but not Playstation), and Gamecube.
So I guess you're actually all wrong

Or need updated Word versions...

vudu · « **Reply #85 on:** February 17, 2005, 08:14:29 AM »

Mine doesn't recognize Gamecube. Are you sure you didn't add it to you dictionary? Because it's not in there by default.

Stimutacs Addict · « **Reply #86 on:** February 17, 2005, 02:24:27 PM »

according to my local gaming genie (aka the retard at EB Games):

- 5 Sony titles are going to be fully capable w. online play on the launch day
- Nintendo has cancelled plans to take the DS online
- Nintendo has cancelled PDA software for the DS
- The next Nintendo console will fail because it is launching after the Xbox 2
- in 5 years, Nintendo will be in the same position as Sega

i told the moron that Nintendo isn't announcing any more plans until E3 (like every other company), but you know how those EB employees are: idiots. it's dumbasses like this guy that screwed the GameCube and every Nintendo system from here on out. he didnt bother mentioning the 4 hour battery life for his wonderful PSP.

SuperMario35 · « **Reply #87 on:** February 21, 2005, 05:25:26 AM »

Yea I was wondering if Nintendo was working with SquareEnix to bring some titles online I even heard that Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles was going to make the jump online.

darknight06 · « **Reply #88 on:** February 21, 2005, 06:13:03 AM »

"i told the moron that Nintendo isn't announcing any more plans until E3 (like every other company), but you know how those EB employees are: idiots. it's dumbasses like this guy that screwed the GameCube and every Nintendo system from here on out. he didnt bother mentioning the 4 hour battery life for his wonderful PSP."

According to two friends of mine who used to work for EB, its not so much that they're idiots (some are now, don't get me wrong) as much as it is that usually their jobs are on the line almost ALL THE TIME and if they don't get a certain no. of preorders, or a certain amount of hardware sales, they could very well lose their job. This is why hardly any REAL gamers work at places like that, EB wants people that will sell whatever they want them to, even if it had the production values of something out of a trash can. (Van Helsing) Then theres the whole incentive factor in this where companies pay them to advertise something for a specific amount of time. Add that to the fact that company representatives are always coming by to make sure their products get pimped accordingly.

Now I'm not 100% sure if Gamestop does this too, but I'm led to believe they have a similar policy. However as of late I seem to run into less morons at Gamestop so who knows.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #89 on:** February 21, 2005, 06:31:21 AM »

But why would they bash something then?

UniversalJuan · « **Reply #90 on:** February 21, 2005, 06:38:14 AM »

I can assure you darknight that at least the GameStop I work at? Such a policy is non-existant.

davidlow122 · « **Reply #91 on:** February 27, 2005, 06:15:13 PM »

To those guys arguing about microsoft numbers, Microsoft has made a net loss on xbox of at least 3.2 billion dollars (as of December 2004). At least 3 billion is confirmed from quarterly reports, and the rest is a conservative estimate until the next report. It's possibly actually up to 3.5 billion.

I should stress this is NET loss. They are not 'making heaps on games and halo 2' on top of this. This already includes all inflows of cash. I believe their income has been about 3 billion for the console, but they have spent 6.2 billion to get back their 3 billion.

What's most interesting of all is the understanding in economic circles that Halo 2 actually lost money. Despite selling 6 million copies, they actually spent more then it made on development and advertising.

Xbox is a mammoth failure. For a comparison, it has already lost over 10x the ammount of money for the parent company then the Saturn did for Sega. So nobody should copy anything they do if they want to remain in viable buisness.

PaLaDiN · « **Reply #92 on:** February 27, 2005, 06:24:25 PM »

Don't be ridiculous, Microsoft has the ridiculously successful Xbox and Xbox Live, there's no way they'd lose money. I think I'll put my stock with the economics experts on this board.

davidlow122 · « **Reply #93 on:** February 27, 2005, 06:37:31 PM »

Some links for you:

From Microsofts's own page, scroll down to see that in 3rd quarter 2004, the xbox division "Home and Entertainment" still lost 142 million for the quarter:

http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY05/earn_rel_q1_05.mspx
(elsewhere it was claimed that it was even more then this)

and their 2nd quarter 2004 xbox loss of 339 million

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+earnings+paint+mixed+picture/2100-7343_3-5280372.html

Here's a link about their first quarter 2004 loss of 204 million:

http://news.gamewinners.com/index.php/news/261/

Experts predict a slightly lower loss (on last year) of about $150 million for the fourth quarter.

Add this to the confirmed $2.5 billion loss to the end of 2003, and you get.......guess what.......at least a 3.4 billion dollar loss!!!!!

davidlow122 · « **Reply #94 on:** February 27, 2005, 06:53:51 PM »

Here's another one, proving a $1.4 billion loss for fiscal year '04 (july 03 to june 04)

http://www.smartmoney.com/barrons/index.cfm?story=20040726

So don't give me the 'they're making bags of cash' story, it's a massive financial failure!!!!!

PaLaDiN · « **Reply #95 on:** February 27, 2005, 07:01:15 PM »

Holy crap, I hope you weren't talking to me, I was being silly.

Wow, though. I had no idea they were bleeding THAT much money. I mean damn, they sound like they're hemorrhaging money over there.

davidlow122 · « **Reply #96 on:** February 27, 2005, 07:04:43 PM »

Actually I was talking to you, but I didn't realise you were joking, sorry! I should have paid attention to who said that.

Still, everyone should see these figures.

heinous_anus · « **Reply #97 on:** February 28, 2005, 07:29:53 PM »

Why so many posts about this? Who cares if the Xbox is losing MS money? Unlike Microsoft, Nintendo's sole financial source is entertainment. MS can afford to throw billions into the gutter in this generation in order to establish a presence, which they most certainly have, at least here in the US. From what I remember prior to the Xbox launch, MS wasn't expecting to come out way ahead with the Xbox, or make a profit...on the console or on Xbox Live.

PaLaDiN · « **Reply #98 on:** February 28, 2005, 07:54:55 PM »

"Who cares if the Xbox is losing MS money?"

The people who want Nintendo to do the same thing as Microsoft.

davidlow122 · « **Reply #99 on:** March 01, 2005, 01:22:24 AM »

Actually Microsoft originally hoped to break even this generation, and only changed to the 'getting a foot in the door' line after it was clear the billions were not coming back.

And sure, they've made themselves a prescence, but by losing more money then Sony and Nintendo combined make in the hardware/licencing buisness. Yeah, great for the industry to make hardwar a loss making industry as a whole.

Foe this reason among others, xbox is the worst thing to ever happen to videogames. hopefully xbox 2 will fail just as badly and my post is a train wreck will have to drop out (the shareholders won't put up with another money pit).

News:

Author Topic: psp is online now wheres nintendos plan (Read 39327 times)