News: Daybreak Games Hit With Layoffs, Matt Higby resigns - Page 5

Calista · 2015-02-23, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Drat, now I might just have to make that list p0intman was on about.

Well hop to it lad!

Mordelicius · 2015-02-25, 06:11 AM

They have to fix Redeployside and restore the old Resource Mechanics (in the interim if they are making a new one).

The Flat Resource system is just destroying the game. How bad is it?

Just put it this way. Take the Flat Resource system and stick it in to World War II. What do you get?

World Peace.

All Japan wanted is to be a legitimate world power. In able to achieve that, they need natural resources. Hence, they've become imperialistic.

With a flat resource system. There would be no reason to invade or expand.

Same with Germany. All of Hitler's megalomaniac dream of expansion, domination and genocide eastward for that 'Living Space' would be for nothing, if they get flat resource in the end.

That's right. Take the most vicious war in the history of humankind and combine it the Planetside 2 resource mechanic. And you get peace

.

So, what is a peace stimulator like a Flat Resource system doing in Planetside 2? Instead, they need to add mechanics that stoke fighting.

Example: Supply Crate Airdrop Reward for Alerts. ( http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=55841 ). Don't lock the continent after an alert and continue the fight with the airdrop minigames.

ringring · 2015-02-25, 07:58 AM

I've just listened to the talk Kid Riot did with Matt Higby yesterday (or early this morning for me).

It was interesting although there were no shocks.

He mentioned the engine still being developed in tandem with the game.

Hinted about the game maybe going live a little early.

Said that FTP had good points but also downsides.

Said that it was much harder to develop content after going live than it was before and he didn't realise this until it after - I believe I recall warning him about that, I think on these very forums, cos that has happened to me in the past.

And related to that there were lots of things where the designs have been spec'd but which have had to wait.

Thinks that PS4 release will be major for the game in terms of revenue which should feed through to game development

And he said he was thinking about his next project for about a year and when SOE became Daybreak that seemed the best time to go although ideally he would have stayed a month or two longer (seeing the ps4 launch was one of the reasons for staying a bit longer).

He also spoke well of the current development team (which I suppose that on the one hand you'd expect that but on the other he didn't have to say it but he did)

Calista · 2015-02-25, 08:29 AM

He also said initially they were considering not to put maxes in the game but he told them oh hell yes they are going to be in as they were in the original and considered them iconic to the franchise.

I found it interesting his take on f2p. Said since the game was free they viewed it OK to release in an unfinished state. If it were p2p they would definitely have to wait until it was more polished.

No doubt the ps4 version will be the game's fork in the road. It will be do or die. If you'll recall Smed said it would make more money than the PC version since they already have purchase information via PSN. Players can just simply click to purchase without any hassle.

Kinda off-topic but I have been reading about an upswell of angst over f2p. Parents are getting tired of seeing these micro-transactions on their CC bill for "free" games. It seems there is growing sentiment of some sort of regulation of the industry in regard to f2p but we will see how that goes in the near future.

Figment · 2015-02-25, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Calista

Kinda off-topic but I have been reading about an upswell of angst over f2p. Parents are getting tired of seeing these micro-transactions on their CC bill for "free" games. It seems there is growing sentiment of some sort of regulation of the industry in regard to f2p but we will see how that goes in the near future.

Why do parents give their kids access to their bank account in the first place?

Would you? No. Why? You know what microtransactions are. These parents that have concerns never played games with those (probably mostly one time purchase games IF ANY AT ALL). I mean, players like us, who have grown up with online gaming, will have a different view from these parents that are indirectly exposed to it.

The answer is not necessarily to change the format through the company, but parents teaching their kids the value of money. And maths (that small purchases add up) and budgeting.

Calista · 2015-02-25, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

The answer is not necessarily to change the format through the company, but parents teaching their kids the value of money. And maths (that small purchases add up) and budgeting.

Well that would be ideal but it doesn't always work that way. I guess I could go on a while about family dynamics in modern culture but I think I will pass.

I read http://www.gamesindustry.biz a good bit to get the viewpoint of game developers on a variety of topics. A lot of the articles are originated from other websites and aggregated there but the thing is only verified members of the game development community can post comments. It's interesting and enlightening to see the viewpoints of those folks. A couple of them expressed a feeling of guilt of mining children for money and realize that f2p is headed for regulation. Exactly how is anybody's guess.

Also Higby mentioned on occasion he had discussions with the business folks where they wanted more focus on revenue generating features because they missed the revenue goal for a previous month. So they couldn't really address some content additions like they wanted to when they had targeted them. That's just sad.

ringring · 2015-02-26, 04:44 AM

re:ftp and kids.

One good thing about subscription is that the adult can take out the sub and play and their children can also play free on a different character when the adult isn't.

That used to happen in my ps1 outfit, I'd often get a message from an outfitmate saying X is his son and can I make sure he behaves himself.

Figment · 2015-02-26, 05:43 AM

Seen the family sub thing too, but that can be done in F2P too.

Thing is, milking people is a choice of the people being milked. I've spend over E.500,- on PS1 subscriptions (in fact it ran a while while I wasn't aware I was paying as I wasn't playing... ¬__¬').

I don't come close to that on PS2, War Thunder and World of Tanks, combined.

If you as a developer feel guilt for taking too much from a single player, you could go as far to start sending warnings to accounts. Show a total sum of money spend on the game so far, put up maximum expenditures per month or year or in the most radical situation, you could put a maximum expenditure in at which point (specific) new content becomes standard. Say purchase $80 in cosmetics, all new cosmetics are free of charge for you. Same for subscriptions.

The thing is, only single purchase can stop you from milking someone by their choice. And tbh, I really would prefer single purchases.

Look at Adobe though. If you want to see milking done excessive. Look at Adobe CS.S.

luckyaltone · 2015-03-04, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Muldoon

To make something like this possible for player studio would be a huge undertaking, and likely won't happen for this reason.

Agree, even if it could be done within the existing structure i suspect the market for it would be quite small and limited to the hardcore few who want to manage offline matches.

Perhaps a design competition for future map/base changes..?

**Muldoon** · 2015-03-04, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by luckyaltone

Agree, even if it could be done within the existing structure i suspect the market for it would be quite small and limited to the hardcore few who want to manage offline matches.

Perhaps a design competition for future map/base changes..?

The undertaking would be to make our tools usable outside the company, or to make it not be so data dependent. So unless the competition is getting hired to come work for us and make a bunch of bases, I don't see this happening.

Calista · 2015-03-04, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Muldoon

The undertaking would be to make our tools usable outside the company, or to make it not be so data dependent. So unless the competition is getting hired to come work for us and make a bunch of bases, I don't see this happening.

Kinda like when players want to host their own private PS2 servers

ringring · 2015-03-05, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by Calista

Kinda like when players want to host their own private PS2 servers

I can understand that tbh, Daybreak own the IP and they have to look after it. I wish they'd make PS1 open source but I'd guess that would be very unlikely.

Calista · 2015-03-05, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by ringring

I can understand that tbh, Daybreak own the IP and they have to look after it. I wish they'd make PS1 open source but I'd guess that would be very unlikely.

Oh no, I agree hence the rolling of the eyes. I just can't believe people think they have anything at home that would be even close to running an MMO with advanced tech like PS2.

Babyfark McGeez · 2015-03-05, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Calista

Oh no, I agree hence the rolling of the eyes. I just can't believe people think they have anything at home that would be even close to running an MMO with advanced tech like PS2.

Certainly not PS2, but PS1 is another matter.

RELEASE DA CODE SOE/DAYSOMETHING! Or heck, sell it to us for a few bucks, it's not like you'll ever make more than that from it. :J

Stardouser · 2015-03-05, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Calista

Oh no, I agree hence the rolling of the eyes. I just can't believe people think they have anything at home that would be even close to running an MMO with advanced tech like PS2.

Most likely you are referring to people talking as if they could host a 2000 player server at home. Obviously that is not going to happen. But don't people who have their own Battlefield servers actually rent space from some third party provider anyway?

Now, a 2000 player server would cost huge money, but it wouldn't be so ridiculous to have 64-128 player servers. This game has long been polluted by deathmatch focus gameplay even as it tries to claim a territorial focus in name. Why not embrace that, take it to the next level, and break up the game into servers like that (READ the last paragraph before you panic)? They could, for example, carve out mini-maps for 64-128, such as Crossroads/Crown/TI Alloys (and maybe one or two of the other close bases). They could make pure deathmatch modes, conquest-ish modes, and so on.

But why, you ask? Well if people are going to just play it as a deathmatch, why not accommodate them with the smaller round-based server structure, and charge rental fees for it? Just like in BF your rank and unlocks follow you to any server, so could the same thing happen for PS2 in this system.

What are some reasons that individual players would choose to do their deathmatching on a 64-128 server?
1. Ability to find closer servers for ping purposes

2. Server owner/renter can provide a more immediate cheat response (though on the flip side, just like BF has, you'd have some power trip owners who kick/ban for the most trivial or even unfair things)

3. Such servers would be round-based instead of persistent - many players want this (I don't, but 95% of the fights I see are played like a deathmatch anyway despite how the game is designed, so I'm practically getting it anyway except there aren't formal rounds built into the game).

4. Easier to play with the same small group of players

Obviously there would be drawbacks to work out but basically, this game has long been a deathmatch in all but name. Why not take advantage of it, especially if server rental fees are going to pay for it? Might even attract new players.

And more importantly...the main servers would still exist, but with people able to more formally go to 64-128 player servers for their deathmatching, hopefully those who do go on the main servers will be playing to win. Right now, except in highly organized outfit scenarios, most people play to cert farm. That kind of play does not take advantage of a big territorial control map.

So on weeknights, a player might log in, play 3-4 20 minute rounds on a good ping server, but on weekends logs into the main servers to participate in organized ops.