rec.autos.simulators

by **David G Fish** » Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:52:07

I't's getting a little tiring hearing complaints (not you specifically
at all Dave H.
:-) ) and myths about why there isn't better multiplay in auto sims.

Apparently there are SOME people who think that the developers CAN'T
code
full field multiplay in an auto sim. They're too dumb. They can't do
it with
their development team, and it NEVER occurs to them to simply offer a
substantial pay raise to someone from another development team that
has
coded great multiplayer for another game (flight sim, fps, Papyrus).
If full
field multiplay is so important to the sales of a sim, a small
investment
like I mention above would yield them huge profits. Right?

The truth is that developers do market research and apparently full
field
multiplay in auto sims is not a high priority at all. The
exception is the Papyrus NASCAR series because a large % of the buyers
of
that game wouldn't bother with it if all they could do was go around
in
circles for hours againt AI that seems to have serious problmes with
every
release. I don't like NASCAR at all, but even I can see how it would
be fun
to race live against a large field of drivers in an otherwise boring
(to me)
auto series. It's critical to their sales. For F1 sims and other
racing
games, racing against the AI or hotlapping is fine for most buyers (I
guess
turning right and using the brake/gas has something to do with it).

Do some of you people really think multiplay code is a huge mystery?
These
developers can give us physics models and stunning graphics engines,
but are
baffeled by multiplay code? You don't think they do market research
and ask
people how important multiplayer is in their purchasing decisions?
They
wouldn't invest a little extra money for big profit?

Ubi Soft is a perfect example. SOME want to deny the role the FIA has
played
in limiting their multplayer option in F1RC. Of course they could give
us a
full field to race against. This "only Papy can do it" ***is a joke.
Look
at this site http://www.racesimcentral.net/***Zone/ 1,100 people at the
time of
this post in multiplayer games that are from Ubi Soft. They put out
the
money for these games to be developed, and decide what goes into them.
They
can and will do excellent multiplayer if they are allowed, or their
market
research tells them it's necessary for sales of a particular type of
game. For F1RC, they WERE NOT
ALLOWED to do this. EA and ISI are likely under the same restrictions.

Enough of the complaining and speculation already. I would LOVE
excellent
full field multiplay in every auto sim I buy, but until restrictions
are
lifted, or there is a true demand for it, it's going to be slower
coming than we'd like. ABILITY has nothing to do with it. If you want
to complain, direct
your energies where they belong.

David G Fisher

by **Mart** » Sat, 26 Jan 2002 00:11:06

What evidence do you have that any game publisher has been denied the
right to include multiplayer under intellectual property licensing? Why
would anyone licensing their intellectual property want to do that?

Marty

> I't's getting a little tiring hearing complaints (not you specifically
> at all Dave H.
> :-) ) and myths about why there isn't better multiplay in auto sims.

> Apparently there are SOME people who think that the developers CAN'T
> code
> full field multiplay in an auto sim. They're too dumb. They can't do
> it with
> their development team, and it NEVER occurs to them to simply offer a
> substantial pay raise to someone from another development team that
> has
> coded great multiplayer for another game (flight sim, fps, Papyrus).
> If full
> field multiplay is so important to the sales of a sim, a small
> investment
> like I mention above would yield them huge profits. Right?

> The truth is that developers do market research and apparently full
> field
> multiplay in auto sims is not a high priority at all. The
> exception is the Papyrus NASCAR series because a large % of the buyers
> of
> that game wouldn't bother with it if all they could do was go around
> in
> circles for hours againt AI that seems to have serious problmes with
> every
> release. I don't like NASCAR at all, but even I can see how it would
> be fun
> to race live against a large field of drivers in an otherwise boring
> (to me)
> auto series. It's critical to their sales. For F1 sims and other
> racing
> games, racing against the AI or hotlapping is fine for most buyers (I
> guess
> turning right and using the brake/gas has something to do with it).

> Do some of you people really think multiplay code is a huge mystery?
> These
> developers can give us physics models and stunning graphics engines,
> but are
> baffeled by multiplay code? You don't think they do market research
> and ask
> people how important multiplayer is in their purchasing decisions?
> They
> wouldn't invest a little extra money for big profit?

> Ubi Soft is a perfect example. SOME want to deny the role the FIA has
> played
> in limiting their multplayer option in F1RC. Of course they could give
> us a
> full field to race against. This "only Papy can do it" ***is a joke.
> Look
> at this site http://www.racesimcentral.net/***Zone/ 1,100 people at the
> time of
> this post in multiplayer games that are from Ubi Soft. They put out
> the
> money for these games to be developed, and decide what goes into them.
> They
> can and will do excellent multiplayer if they are allowed, or their
> market
> research tells them it's necessary for sales of a particular type of
> game. For F1RC, they WERE NOT
> ALLOWED to do this. EA and ISI are likely under the same restrictions.

> Enough of the complaining and speculation already. I would LOVE
> excellent
> full field multiplay in every auto sim I buy, but until restrictions
> are
> lifted, or there is a true demand for it, it's going to be slower
> coming than we'd like. ABILITY has nothing to do with it. If you want
> to complain, direct
> your energies where they belong.

> David G Fisher

by **Ed Solhei** » Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:16:34

To be honest David,
I really dont give a rats ass if it's hard to code, only wanted by a
minority, or denied by some license-owner - I *want* internet compatible
multiplayer racing. Online *** is the future (or should i say present)
and if developers and publishers fail to see that, then it's *their* loss
as I will take my money and go elsewhere. No onlineracing = no sale -
period.

Having been racing online since '96 or so - I've given up on offline racing
years ago..... it's just dont cut it for me anymore... (Rally being the
exception here - since you're basicly on your own... )

It's like when you first started to walk on 2 feet.... all of a sudeen
crawling around on the floor lost it's appeal...

--
ed_

"David G Fisher" :

by **Remco Moe** » Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:14:57

It's obvious that the producer isn't interested in multiplayer,
they're also not interested in a decent setupmanagement
or telemetry. It's not a question of able to, but wanting to.
However, the fact that the mainstream gamer isn't aware of the
possibilties doesn't make the game any better....

The only thing what strikes me is that they (well, actually you)
claim that the FIA doesn't allow it, since the multiplayercode
what IS present in todays modern F1 games stinks...

Remco

by **Thomas M?rlun** » Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:16:26

I don't know about David's sources but I seem to remember something about
FIA not being too keen on the idea of full-field online racing. Anyway, I'll
just throw a log or two on David's bonfire and ask if anyone but Papyrus has
ever made it possible to race a field of say 10+ online (ANY racing series)?
None that I know of, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thomas M?rlund
"The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead
channel"

----- Original Message -----

Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: Auto Sim Internet Multiplay

> What evidence do you have that any game publisher has been denied the
> right to include multiplayer under intellectual property licensing? Why
> would anyone licensing their intellectual property want to do that?

> Marty

by **Ashley McConnel** » Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:18:20

> To be honest David,
> I really dont give a rats ass if it's hard to code, only wanted by a
> minority, or denied by some license-owner - I *want* internet compatible
> multiplayer racing. Online *** is the future (or should i say present)
> and if developers and publishers fail to see that, then it's *their* loss
> as I will take my money and go elsewhere. No onlineracing = no sale -
> period.

> Having been racing online since '96 or so - I've given up on offline racing
> years ago..... it's just dont cut it for me anymore... (Rally being the
> exception here - since you're basicly on your own... )

> It's like when you first started to walk on 2 feet.... all of a sudeen
> crawling around on the floor lost it's appeal...

> --
> ed_

I agree, no matter how hard it may be to code, it is essential these
days. I really like F1 2001, but because of poor multiplayer I just
don't play it at all.

Its priority number 2 in my sim (sorry that doesn't sound convincing :D
- but Physics must be priority one for me). I have (well my friend who
would like to help) begun a little network already (my game is in true
infancy).

Ash

(***...i have entered one of these "debate to death" threads, i must
stop doing this)

http://www.racesimcentral.net/ - the beginnings

by **Scott Moor** » Sat, 26 Jan 2002 05:47:17

With a T1 server, we run 20+ in TPTCC all the time using the NASCAR Heat DTM
mod. Other than that, I don't know of any that support more than 8.

Scott Moore
The Pits Touring Car Championship
http://www.theuspits.com

> I don't know about David's sources but I seem to remember something about
> FIA not being too keen on the idea of full-field online racing. Anyway,
I'll
> just throw a log or two on David's bonfire and ask if anyone but Papyrus
has
> ever made it possible to race a field of say 10+ online (ANY racing
series)?
> None that I know of, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

> Thomas M?rlund
> "The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead
> channel"

> ----- Original Message -----

> Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 4:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Auto Sim Internet Multiplay

> > What evidence do you have that any game publisher has been denied the
> > right to include multiplayer under intellectual property licensing? Why
> > would anyone licensing their intellectual property want to do that?

> > Marty

by **John Pancoas** » Sat, 26 Jan 2002 06:03:22

Agree completely.

-John

by **Blak** » Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:00:49

We run 32 cars all the time and this is on a server with multiple sessions
of N4 going at once..........

> With a T1 server, we run 20+ in TPTCC all the time using the NASCAR Heat
DTM
> mod. Other than that, I don't know of any that support more than 8.

> Scott Moore
> The Pits Touring Car Championship
> http://www.theuspits.com

> > I don't know about David's sources but I seem to remember something
about
> > FIA not being too keen on the idea of full-field online racing. Anyway,
> I'll
> > just throw a log or two on David's bonfire and ask if anyone but Papyrus
> has
> > ever made it possible to race a field of say 10+ online (ANY racing
> series)?
> > None that I know of, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

> > Thomas M?rlund
> > "The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead
> > channel"

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 4:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: Auto Sim Internet Multiplay

> > > What evidence do you have that any game publisher has been denied the
> > > right to include multiplayer under intellectual property licensing?
Why
> > > would anyone licensing their intellectual property want to do that?

> > > Marty

by **Jens H. Kruus** » Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:51:48

Nice post, David.

I'm sorry. I just buy the "sure they can do it" argument. Coding a
lousy/mediocre/good/excellent physics model or ugly/so-so/stunning graphics does
not mean that you (the company) can have the same people do good internet-based
network play. Different skills and talents are required. Just because the tool
is the same (eg. C++) they are different disciplines. I have seen very skilled
programmers ***on the requirements of Internet based computing/data exchange,
where you can't just throw more hardware at the problem.

It's a bit like AI-work. Some people can do it, some simply can't. Sure, you can
learn how to do network stuff and AI, but it is not ***. Graphics are *** -
just see how people go WOW when they see screenies from a new game or mod,
before they have tried it. Programmers love praise - they are vain! (At least I
am). So the new guys go for the praise and not the other, boring stuff.

Having said all that, I will also say, that I have read and heard stuff about
the FIA and their hefty licencing costs.

Cheers,
Jens, network coder. ;-)

by **David G Fishe** » Sat, 26 Jan 2002 11:33:29

I didn't really say that the same people who do the graphics or physics can
do the multiplay. What I did say was that the developer or publisher can
hire people who have already done it sucessfully in other games. Pretty
simple, basic solution to the problem.

David G Fisher

> Nice post, David.

> I'm sorry. I just buy the "sure they can do it" argument. Coding a
> lousy/mediocre/good/excellent physics model or ugly/so-so/stunning
graphics does
> not mean that you (the company) can have the same people do good
internet-based
> network play. Different skills and talents are required. Just because the
tool
> is the same (eg. C++) they are different disciplines. I have seen very
skilled
> programmers ***on the requirements of Internet based computing/data
exchange,
> where you can't just throw more hardware at the problem.

> It's a bit like AI-work. Some people can do it, some simply can't. Sure,
you can
> learn how to do network stuff and AI, but it is not ***. Graphics are
*** -
> just see how people go WOW when they see screenies from a new game or mod,
> before they have tried it. Programmers love praise - they are vain! (At
least I
> am). So the new guys go for the praise and not the other, boring stuff.

> Having said all that, I will also say, that I have read and heard stuff
about
> the FIA and their hefty licencing costs.

> Cheers,
> Jens, network coder. ;-)

> > I't's getting a little tiring hearing complaints (not you specifically
> > at all Dave H.
> > :-) ) and myths about why there isn't better multiplay in auto sims.

> > Apparently there are SOME people who think that the developers CAN'T
> > code
> > full field multiplay in an auto sim. They're too dumb. They can't do
> > it with
> > their development team, and it NEVER occurs to them to simply offer a
> > substantial pay raise to someone from another development team that
> > has
> > coded great multiplayer for another game (flight sim, fps, Papyrus).
> > If full
> > field multiplay is so important to the sales of a sim, a small
> > investment
> > like I mention above would yield them huge profits. Right?

by **Eldre** » Sat, 26 Jan 2002 22:04:45

writes:

I agree with you for the most part. I still occasionally run against the
AI.<g> Those of us on this group are a very small percentage of people who buy
the games. Say total sales for a game are 100K units. The 200 or so of us
'diehard' players isn't even a drop in the bucket. Even if ALL of us refuse to
buy a program because it doesn't have multiplayer, there are still 99,800
people who will..

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.racesimcentral.net/~epickett
GPLRank - under construction...

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Eldre** » Sat, 26 Jan 2002 22:04:45

Plus, Papy had the advantage of seeing the interest in MP *** with their
Hawaii servers. Do the other game manufacturers have such a thing setup as a
testbed?

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.racesimcentral.net/~epickett
GPLRank - under construction...

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.