Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Where all Planets, have... ummm... sides....
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
2012-06-08, 05:02 PM | [Ignore Me] #1 | ||
Corporal
|
I was thinking about the fewer vehicles and fewer continents, and having recently entered game development myself, it hit me: it's because the game is free to play.
Even aside from PS1's subscription, the game itself cost $50. What this meant was that the development cost of all those features at launch got immediately recouped with the initial purchase. Then there was the guaranteed revenue of subscriptions. If PS2 tried to have ten continents and all those vehicles, the initial cost would be too risky for a game that generates zero revenue from the outset. Also, because of the F2P model, the devs MUST provide lots of customization options, which takes dev time that could have been spent on those continents and vehicles we want so much. So it's also a shifting of dev resources. Finally, they need more space to grow than PS1, content-wise. PS1 could sprinkle in new features just enough to keep people subbed, but PS2 will need to keep a steady stream of new stuff for people to buy. By starting with a small set of features, that gives the devs room to learn from the players: what are people buying, what classes/vehicle/continents do they play with the most? Then they can use that data to determine how to add new features. Bottom line: PS2 may seem simple right now, but if the model works, it's possible the game will become much more complex than PS1, given some time. |
||
|
2012-06-08, 05:05 PM | [Ignore Me] #2 | ||
Master Sergeant
|
It has fewer conts. because launching with ten would be absurd. And every time they add a new one they can do a whole ad campaign to get more people in or get people who get bored to come back.
It has fewer vehicles because some were just begging to be combined. |
||
|
2012-06-08, 05:05 PM | [Ignore Me] #4 | ||
Major
|
Makes Perfect sense.
Seems like they want to do money fast too since Planetside is suppose to launch this year. Also one of the ways League of Legends makes money is by selling new champs.....So New weapons/Vehicles are going to be a good way to make money. Last edited by Dreamcast; 2012-06-08 at 05:07 PM. |
||
|
2012-06-08, 05:11 PM | [Ignore Me] #6 | ||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
Simplification is good. That makes it easier to learn the more complicated parts, like capture mechanics, territory control, and resources.
And some stuff really needed simplifying. PS1 had a steep learning curve and that impacted new player retention in a bad way. |
||
|
2012-06-08, 05:10 PM | [Ignore Me] #8 | ||
Brigadier General
|
I'd also mention that it's a sequel, not a remake.
Some of these changes are straight up simplification. Good or bad, some things are being made more simple. However I believe that other things aren't being made more simple, just different. We can't yet see the complexity because we haven't gotten our hands on the game yet. The only legitimate comparison we have to a game of this style is the first Planetside, so obviously any changes are going to be a big unknown for us. I would urge people to temper their fears and doubts with the understanding that with so many changes, we don't really know how good or bad some things will work. Thins aren't being changed in a vacuum. It's not like this is the first Planetside + regenerating shields on everyone. It's a whole new game, like a new ecosystem, where all of the different elements work together in a new way. The developers have had more hands on time to make sure this stuff works together. At the same time, they have stated that they are waiting for data to roll in from beta to perfect the balance and add/remove some features. I would suggest that players maintain the same outlook as the devs. Wait for data from the beta before freaking out. At the same time, don't stop discussing and debating and speculating and throwing ideas out there. Some things we may not know, but other things may be more certainly or likely or obviously broken. Also, some things may not be broken, but we as fans just prefer it a certain way, and we need to let the developers know through our frequent discussions that it's important to us. They will probably be able to oblige is in a lot of areas, even if it's only a compromise. |
||
|
2012-06-08, 05:32 PM | [Ignore Me] #10 | |||
It's not just free to play. The level of detail an AAA title needs in order to be competitive is VASTLY higher than it once was, such that even with spiffy modern tools (z-brush springs to mind) it still takes more time to generate the content. Nor features, weapons, caves, BFRs. For good or ill, Less Stuff. |
||||
|
2012-06-08, 05:48 PM | [Ignore Me] #11 | ||
Captain
|
Don't forget everything is much more detailed. So it takes much more work to make something than 9 years ago. Just look at a continent in PS2 that we have now, and a continent in PS1 that we had 9 years back.
|
||
|
2012-06-08, 05:51 PM | [Ignore Me] #12 | ||
Corporal
|
Yes, I remember, but the number on launch was bigger than what we have now:
PS2 Liberator MBTs Heavy Air Cav Sunderer Galaxy Lightning Quad PS1 Reaver Mosquito MBTs Sundy Gal Buggies Deliverers Lightning Quads ANT AMS Did I miss something? I know that part of the reduced number is reducing redundancy, but clearly another element is less dev time modeling and designing separate assets. |
||
|
2012-06-08, 06:22 PM | [Ignore Me] #13 | |||
Sergeant
|
PS1 Reaver Mosquito PS2 main air, versions which can be effectively new vehicles, standard anti air, loadout front gun, anti ground rockets. Now each of these combinations is a new type of air cav compared to ps1. nose: anti air, anti ground, anti infantry, 3 pods: anti air, anti ground, anti infantry, 3 Additions confirmed: ejection seat one, ejection seat two, chaff/flares, regen kit, 4. this leaves 3*3*4 different combinations with no repeats. So effectively ps2 has 28 different air cav alone, while ps1 had two. Main argument against this: ps1 had different stats. This is invalidated by the theory that get enough certs and you can unlock stats modifiers, this is confirmed on the lightning, and most likely true for air cav as well. wasp = slightly faster mosquito with better turns, AA nose cannon, AA missiles less armor. take main air, AA nose, AA pods, add bail, stat spec, +speed/-armor mod. I believe we have a wasp. Theoretically, there are infinitely more vehicles in ps2 then ps1, they all just have almost the exact same texture. |
|||
|
2012-06-08, 07:01 PM | [Ignore Me] #14 | |||
Corporal
|
This is man-hours I'm talking about. Developing a Scythe and the PS2 Reaver is different from the PS1 Mosquito and the PS1 reaver. They are different classes of aircraft. It takes fewer man-hours to create a single customizable vehicle than to create two separate vehicles. It takes more time to create two classes of vehicle rather than one class that has slightly different characteristics. Sure, from an art standpoint the three PS2 aircraft models took more work than the two models from PS1, but from a design and balance standpoint, that's totally different. Regardless, talking aircraft is just cherry-picking. Consider that PS2 doesn't have vehicle enter/exit animations, and the devs said it would take 6 months to do those. That's considering animations on far fewer models of vehicles than PS1 had. I'm trying to look at the overall picture of dev time and cost. Clearly they had to cut corners for the F2P model, but I'm saying that's not necessarily a bad thing. |
|||
|
2012-06-08, 05:52 PM | [Ignore Me] #15 | ||
Captain
|
Almost every system in Planetside is deeper and more complex than the original.
"Simplified" and "dumbed down" are catch phrases/buzz words for people that want to seem like they have a valuable opinion. |
||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|