News: Daybreak Games Hit With Layoffs, Matt Higby resigns - Page 6

Calista · 2015-03-05, 09:26 AM

Here is a basic diagram of an MMO.

http://mirrors.fom.nexeontech.com/v5.jpg

Battlefield is not an MMO, it is an instanced MOG and as such it is not required to maintain a high degree of persistence. Anyway, about the only way PS2 could do it is provision out game servers and host them in proximity to rest of the servers in the farm and perhaps charge players money to use them. I imagine that would be an expensive endeavor.

Stardouser · 2015-03-05, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Calista

Here is a basic diagram of an MMO.

http://mirrors.fom.nexeontech.com/v5.jpg

Battlefield is not an MMO, it is an instanced MOG and as such it is not required to maintain a high degree of persistence. Anyway, about the only way PS2 could do it is provision out game servers and host them in proximity to rest of the servers in the farm and perhaps charge players money to use them. I imagine that would be an expensive endeavor.

PS2 may have persistence but it is being played like a deathmatch. What does persistence profit us when it isn't being used?

Also, why can't these cut-down servers be done same as Battlefield and located offsite/around the world where players are? Do Battlefield server owners not actually pay enough to make that system work?

Calista · 2015-03-05, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

PS2 may have persistence but it is being played like a deathmatch. What does persistence profit us when it isn't being used?

Can't disagree with you there but the fact is all their code is written to tightly integrate into a specific environment. I think it would be interesting to see if they could or would create a game server and make each hex region an independent instance. Kinda like BF but with broader implications on continent and world consequences. I think it would be interesting to see the public's reception of such an environment.

They don't have very many players in the PS4 version and already players are complaining about frame rates when in large battles. From what I have been reading these "large" battles aren't close to what the PC sees so I don't know how this is going to turn out. Maybe this hex instancing model would work better for consoles but it would redefine the gameplay substantially.

Figment · 2015-03-05, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

PS2 may have persistence but it is being played like a deathmatch. What does persistence profit us when it isn't being used?

Sigh.

Stardouser · 2015-03-05, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Sigh.

I can only assume you disagree; surely you don't think persistence fulfills its purpose simply by existing? It needs to exist as an underlying mechanic to make other mechanics work well. Just because a fight can stop dead cold and territory will sit as it was until others come back doesn't mean much. It is regularly undermined by alerts when the winner is granted huge areas they didn't hold and didn't have to fight for. It is regularly cheapened by base design, where the winner between large forces is the one that doesn't have to log for bed.

No, persistence is an underlying thing that makes what lies above it better. But what lies above it in this game remains undone. No attrition mechanics, poor layout, so on.

ringring · 2015-03-05, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I can only assume you disagree; surely you don't think persistence fulfills its purpose simply by existing? It needs to exist as an underlying mechanic to make other mechanics work well. Just because a fight can stop dead cold and territory will sit as it was until others come back doesn't mean much. It is regularly undermined by alerts when the winner is granted huge areas they didn't hold and didn't have to fight for. It is regularly cheapened by base design, where the winner between large forces is the one that doesn't have to log for bed.

No, persistence is an underlying thing that makes what lies above it better. But what lies above it in this game remains undone. No attrition mechanics, poor layout, so on.

I think he probably agrees and hence the unhappiness.

Stardouser · 2015-03-05, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by ringring

I think he probably agrees and hence the unhappiness.

Ooops....sorry. I just remembered some folks way back in pre-release thought that if we could just get to where the game is persistent, it would be enough and everything would work itself out.

**Muldoon** · 2015-03-06, 12:58 PM

It's unlikely either of Planetsides will be open sourced for two reasons. 1) It's a security vulnerability since it would show how our authentication and login servers work. With PS2, it would also show people stuff they could exploit in the engine. 2) There's a lot of third party software that was licenced. We wouldn't have the rights to open source that stuff.

Calista · 2015-03-06, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Muldoon

It's unlikely either of Planetsides will be open sourced for two reasons. 1) It's a security vulnerability since it would show how our authentication and login servers work. With PS2, it would also show people stuff they could exploit in the engine. 2) There's a lot of third party software that was licenced. We wouldn't have the rights to open source that stuff.

Makes sense to me. It baffles me why anyone would think a company would benefit from considering doing such a thing.

Ghost Runner · 2015-03-06, 08:56 PM

I really just want more maps at this point, 6 new ones would be a good number.

Figment · 2015-03-07, 04:19 AM

Originally Posted by Muldoon

It's unlikely either of Planetsides will be open sourced for two reasons. 1) It's a security vulnerability since it would show how our authentication and login servers work. With PS2, it would also show people stuff they could exploit in the engine. 2) There's a lot of third party software that was licenced. We wouldn't have the rights to open source that stuff.

Makes sense, though that is full open source.

But what if you have written contracts and background checks on volunteer developers? Limiting who has access to it to say three - four people?

I have signed NDA's before.

It would also be possible to only disclose only partial code: what is needed for unit placement, coding and movement? Similar, world objects, if you provide parameters, code structure and a delivery format, new bases wouldn't have to be a huge issue.

Besides... several people already dug into the code and made modded items in it... Look up "Planetside terms of service violations" on YouTube. And secant was informing SOE over how hackers abused security breaches in the code. Even delivered ready made solutions to block cheaters.

**Muldoon** · 2015-03-08, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Makes sense, though that is full open source.

But what if you have written contracts and background checks on volunteer developers? Limiting who has access to it to say three - four people?

I have signed NDA's before.

It would also be possible to only disclose only partial code: what is needed for unit placement, coding and movement? Similar, world objects, if you provide parameters, code structure and a delivery format, new bases wouldn't have to be a huge issue.

Point blank: how do we make money from this? Cause this would be a lot of work on our end for... what exactly? Check Vons Ad and Jewel-Osco Ad.

Figment · 2015-03-09, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by Muldoon

Point blank: how do we make money from this? Cause this would be a lot of work on our end for... what exactly?

That kinda depends. Personally I thought it a bad idea to make PS1 free to play. It just invited braindead hackers back in without any cost or risk to themselves. :/ Lowering the subcost would have been an option. Before PS1 was made F2P, I personally prefered the idea of over-time loyal subscriber rewarding, which has been implemented on PS2 I think. Or including it as a bonus to people who pay premium for PS2 (two games for the price of one). The ideal one would be a choice between one time purchase or purchase over time until the one-time-purchase cost (and a bit of interest) would be reached. People who have invested in a game play it differently than free account players.

Thing is, PS1 wasn't made to be F2P and is too vulnerable to third party cheating software, there should be at least account related costs to put up a threshold, even if it's no guarantee.

I think there's two scheme's I would consider at this point: a one time purchase for an account key would be the best scheme, since it would deter cheats the most (they'd risk more with a ban, so if they'd cheat they'd do it subtly, rather than gamebreaking: most blatant hackers used free accounts). The other the aforementioned PS2 premium inclusion. You won't see protests against this, since nobody really wants to play total F2P PS1 due to lack of (GM)-support from SOE anyway. SOE hasn't even bothered to ensure all content worked (Core Combat and Aftershock broke after the server transfer to the west coast) and when it turned out to be broken to at least make sure all empires have the same amount of locked caves.

Server running costs wouldn't be earth shattering (iirc PS1 could run on a Pentium II as server hardware) and you've got a Community Council thing running, so NDA contracts already exist and people drafting and determining contracts are already hired, contracts would just have to be expanded a bit. So administration is covered as well.

When you run the game mostly with volunteer enthusiasts, your development costs are non-existent.

Regarding the transfer and investment, theoretically it is possible to ask former PS1-devs if they would be interested in helping to run it as a hobby project for a few hours a week or month, with a share of any profits made. Whether they'd be interested, I don't know. IIRC a number of PS1-devs left SOE somewhat disheartened, but they might just love the game enough to be interested if they got carte blanche to do with it as they'd see fit.

If you could get those folks interested, the investment would be a lot lower. And of course, GMs could have a similar structure.

Currently though, PS1 makes no money at all. So all you stand in losing is a one time investment. :/ Me, I'd make some calls to devs. Hell, if you could just get me the contact details of former devs and a detailed "this is as far as you'd be allowed to go", I'd contact them for you.

Babyfark McGeez · 2015-03-09, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Muldoon

Point blank: how do we make money from this? Cause this would be a lot of work on our end for... what exactly?

I think concerning PS1 the only reason for most of us asking about the source code is that we'd like to be able to deal with the hacking. You know, stuff that's usually been done by the people running the thing.

And maybe we could also fix the broken stuff while we're at it...

Besides that i cannot possibly see any way you guys can still make money from PS1 aside from selling the whole thing to some enthusiastic freaks, though you probably referred to PS2 with your comment(?).

However you could gain some invaluable stuff with a move like handing over responsibility of an old game to its dedicated fanbase, stuff that's highly sought after in this industry these days: Consumer trust and positive PR.
You guys want that. I know it.

**Muldoon** · 2015-03-09, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Babyfark McGeez

However you could gain some invaluable stuff with a move like handing over responsibility of an old game to its dedicated fanbase, stuff that's highly sought after in this industry these days: Consumer trust and positive PR.
You guys want that. I know it.

A lot of people ask us to do stuff for free, or at a loss, for stuff like that. If we were all rich and making money hand over fist, it would be much easier to get us to do stuff like that.