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

>There was waaaay too much stuff to learn
> just before you could draw a triangle.

sounds to me alot like directx :P

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kevin Fields" <drunkendruid@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <gameprogrammer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 1:10 PM
Subject: [gameprogrammer] Re: Austin Game Developers Conference Day 1,
Thoughts?


> I'm inclined to agree on the online debate that XBox has the upper hand.
> Almost every game I have for the XBox has online capability to either play
> head-to-head or download new content.
>
> I haven't much about the online capabilities of the Gamecube, so I can't
> comment on that.
> I know how hard it is to program ANYTHING for the PS2, so it's not all
that
> surprising that there aren't many online games for that console. The PS2
is
> such a hard system to code for... I spent 2-3 months working on the dev
kit
> that Sony released to the public... There was waaaay too much stuff to
learn
> just before you could draw a triangle. I have so much respect for the
> developers that work with that platform.
>
> Kevin
>
> From: brianevans <brianevans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: gameprogrammer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: gameprogrammer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gameprogrammer] Re: Austin Game Developers Conference Day  1,
> Thoughts?
> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 12:31:24 -0500
>
> 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet
has
> to offer.
>
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
>   Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the
> first two months FREE*.
>
>
>
> ---------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html
>
>
>



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

Other related posts: