[gameprogrammer] Re: Austin Game Developers Conference Day 1, Thoughts?

I think my other mail got caught up in the "unvalidated" list (forgot to 
change from addr), so just ignore that one...


>I went last year. Decided not to go this year. The only talk I remember
>out of all of last year is Lord British's talk. The rest was pretty much
>a waste. I agree, the panel format doesn't work.

Probably a good choice.  On the whole, I was disappointed.  My friend went 
last year, and I asked if it was worth going again, and he said yes.  So we 
both went, and ... well-- There is some good stuff to be heard.  But its 
rare.  Too rare to make it worth going more than once, since they also 
REPEATED stuff from last year.

>They had this last year. Nothing in there that is new. You have to treat
>the database like what it is, a large enterprise class database. This is
>surprising to a lot of people.

Well, there is a major difference between large enterprise APP databases 
and GAME databases.  Because of the "really real time" nature of games, you 
can't really wait around for a few seconds for things to go directly to a 
database.  And this is pretty obvious (even before the talk), as is the 
fact that there has to be something going on in the backend to facilitate 
real time data access.  So they have a "game state" proxy server that sits 
between the game servers and the database server, and this will receive 
game state updates, and return game state information and then regularly 
write out "snapshots" of the game world to the database.  And this is good 
because if your game server goes down you still have the state, and 
etc.  But because it was in a panel format, they never really outline a 
framework... you have to piece it together in your head.  And so you're 
kind of left with a vague idea of what they're doing which I think is 
exactly the point.

No one here is going to give away any secrets.

>Hmmm... don't they actually have to *sell* some Xboxes before they take
>over the world? Ok, enough flame bait. How about sharing some of the
>details of what they are doing right versus what Sony is doing wrong?
>
>                         Bob Pendleton

Ok... well, yes that would be fair.  Now, admittedly the MS speaker was 
much better than the Sony one.  And I didn't say Xbox will beat Sony in the 
console market itself, but in the ONLINE segment, I think they have the 
right idea.  I'll try to reconstruct the bullet points here:

XBOX Live
1) Centralized service:  All the game servers go through microsoft, using 
MS's api for every game.
2) Broadband required.  Risky as a large amount of people still have dialup.
3) No EA.  (We're microsoft, we don't need EA)
4) Relatively large amount of online enabled console games out already.
5) We're getting subscribers faster than time warner, hbo... etc.  1 
million in 1.5 years.

Argument:  Because we're a centralized service, people will be more likely 
to pay for us because they get more value out of the larger amount of games 
that can be played on our service.  And because its centralized and uses 
our standard API, it has a consistent look and feel with a online community 
that is interchangeable and that spans multiple games (think of battle.net 
and the way you can message starcraft people from diablo).  And, even 
though broadband is less prevalent, it will allow for a better experience 
for those people who do have it.

SONY
1) We don't like Microsoft.  Neither should you.
2) Hey look, we made Everquest!  The best online game ever!
3) And look we made Everquest on the console!  And because Everquest PC was 
the best online game ever, it will be the best console online game ever.
         - by the way, you can actually buy a new mouse and keyboard and 
use it with our console, but you don't need a hard drives because our 
server technology is so good.
4) AND, we made an add on to Everquest console to make the console copy of 
the best even better!
5) Oh yeah, and we have Final Fantasy XI.  But it requires a hard drive, so 
it'll cost a bit more.
6) We did some market research and most people are not hardcore, some 
people are hard core... and very few (<1%) people are ULTRACORE.

Argument:  We don't like Microsoft.  And since we have the add-on to the 
copy of the best online multiplayer game EVER, we'll beat them, even if 
right now we only have 2 distinct titles and an add-on released.  Since its 
worked so well for us, we're retaining the PC per-game subscription model.


Ok, enough of that.

Quite simply it boils down to number of online games available, and price 
to play those games.  Sony has two titles.  Microsoft has a lot more than 
two ( http://www.xbox.com/en-us/games/live-gameslist.htm  (not all are 
online play, but still, more than two are) ).  And it doesn't look like MS 
is charging as much as I thought they would for it (50$/year.  who knows if 
it will last... but...)  Right now its cheaper to sign up for all of XBOX 
live than it is to play one game on Sony (6$/month vs 10$+)  Now XBOX isn't 
going to get everquest fans (I suspect everquest fans will stick to the pc 
rather than go to playstation), but i think XBOX live will have that kind 
of online "arcade" type feel, which I think is pretty cool actually.  And 
far superior to Sony or Nintendo has at the moment.  And by the time they 
decide to copy, it may be too late.









---------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html

Other related posts: