🚀 go-pugleaf

On 10 Nov 2005 00:49:25 -0800, "Young Wizdom" <young...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I hope future multiplayer console games will be capable of joining the
>same servers as PC versions. Such as Quake 4 clients on Xbox 360, and
>PC Q4 clients, playing each other on the same servers, and merging the
>communities as well.
>
>Question: Which client/platform would rule?

PC easily due to mouse and keyboard, it is a dumb idea to allow
merging of architectures on the same servers.
-- 
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:9g46n1t6iodm8gk3vb0qjpf9da4msd20pk@4ax.com...

> ...it is a dumb idea to allow
> merging of architectures on the same servers.

It's not a dumb idea, it's just not workable.

If plausible, it would open up the field of available opponents and
team-mates, and settle once and for all the console vs. PC argument (and
probably allow some intra-console ranking as well).

However, the basic differences between the various consoles, and the console
generically vs. the PC, would lead to natural segregation as players band
together in architecture-based groups to even the playing field.

The only practical way would be to have a TFC-type game where the abilities
of the platform are an intrinsic part of the abilities of the player - so
for example a slower machine or connection would have only lumbering, tough
characters* available, whereas a state-of-the-art broadband machine would
only have fragile, agile characters available, such as the sniper.

* It's so long since I played I forgot the player class of the
minigun-toting character.

Afterthought:

I realize that the next generation of console games are more or less a
PCs, just capable of interfacing with a TV  as a monitor. The primary
difference is just the controls. I imagine a bluetooth wireless
keyboard will be an option sooner than later, which will definitely
level the playing field.

That being said, any crossplatform multiplaying will probably be
limited by gamer ability to pay/join the hosted services, such as
Blizzard Battlenet, WOW, and Xbox Live. The hosts would have to be
available to clients who have not bought their platforms. Or prohibit
other services from be accessible on proprietory networks (get out of
the way Microsoft).

Young Wizdom wrote:
> I hope future multiplayer console games will be capable of joining the
> same servers as PC versions. Such as Quake 4 clients on Xbox 360, and
> PC Q4 clients, playing each other on the same servers, and merging the
> communities as well.

not likely.. the whole concept of Live is opposite to PC's open
community philosophy. This is why PC games have been crossplatform with
PS2 but not Xbox. While MS has bend on this rule to alllow outside
networks to interface with theirs if they find it strategic for their
gamers to gain access to said games, for example FFXI's Playonline,
however, I see this being more the exception than the rule. So I would
count on the online situation staying mostly the same as last gen.

> Question: Which client/platform would rule?

if it comes down to choosing between open networks (PC) and closed
networks (Live), personally I would choose open, but there's arguments
for both

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:9g46n1t6iodm8gk3vb0qjpf9da4msd20pk@4ax.com...
> On 10 Nov 2005 00:49:25 -0800, "Young Wizdom" <young...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I hope future multiplayer console games will be capable of joining the
> >same servers as PC versions. Such as Quake 4 clients on Xbox 360, and
> >PC Q4 clients, playing each other on the same servers, and merging the
> >communities as well.
> >
> >Question: Which client/platform would rule?
>
> PC easily due to mouse and keyboard,

no doubt about it!

But they exist for both so that wouldn't be an issue.

In alt.games.video.xbox G Hardy <gareth...@ntlwrold.com> wrote:
> "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
> news:9g46n1t6iodm8gk3vb0qjpf9da4msd20pk@4ax.com...

> > ...it is a dumb idea to allow
> > merging of architectures on the same servers.

> It's not a dumb idea, it's just not workable.

Why?  It's not like the network should care if you're using a PC, a 
console, or even a PDA.  A packet's a packet.  End-user hardware doesn't 
enter into the equation here.

> However, the basic differences between the various consoles, and the console
> generically vs. the PC, would lead to natural segregation as players band
> together in architecture-based groups to even the playing field.

Again, why?  Yes, there would probably be a segregation of the groups, but 
I suspect that it'd be more social than anything else.

There are people who are as skilled with a console controller as those who 
are skilled with a PC style keyboard & mouse.  Furthermore, some consoles 
have allowed you to use a keyboard & mouse with them as well.   I really 
don't think you'll see this segregation because of hardware or 
technological reasons.

young...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Afterthought:
>
> I realize that the next generation of console games are more or less a
> PCs, just capable of interfacing with a TV  as a monitor.

I hope you realize the Atari 2600 was a PC. So was the ColecoVision. So
was the NES. What the fuck do you think runs console systems? An
abacus?

Jonah Falcon

"Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in 
news:113166843...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> I hope you realize the Atari 2600 was a PC. So was the ColecoVision. So
> was the NES. What the fuck do you think runs console systems? An
> abacus?

"PC" is Personal Computer. Before IBM used the term to convince its 
business customers that it invented the idea, it meant any general purpose 
small computer that an individual could afford, such as the Apple II, 
Imsai, and TRS-80.

The 2600 was not a general purpose computer. Nor the NES. PC's were 
extensible with custom hardware and included the ability for end users to 
create their own applications. (I did find a 3rd party hardware kit for 
doing 2600 development, using a special cartridge, but that wouldn't make 
the 2600 by itself a PC.)

The Xbox is not a PC. But you can buy a development Xbox for more bucks 
that could be used as one. Waste of money, I think, considering how much 
cheaper a true GP PC is.

(My first PC was the Amiga 1000, and I've still got my Amiga 2000 in the 
closet. It was a long time before IBM and the big video card companies 
matched its performance. Too bad Commodore's marketing sucked worse than 
IBM's OS/2 marketing department.)

Young Wizdom wrote:

> I hope future multiplayer console games will be capable of joining the
> same servers as PC versions. Such as Quake 4 clients on Xbox 360, and
> PC Q4 clients, playing each other on the same servers, and merging the
> communities as well.
> 
> Question: Which client/platform would rule?
> 
> ---
> My bet (and bias) is the PC clients, especially for FPS...
> But of course strategy and community based (like WOW) would favor
> consoles too.
> Anyways, I am ready for this and think it is way overdue.

FFXI already does this with PS2 $ PC

-- 
I got some big nuts

"Doug Jacobs" <dja...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:11n7iergbjq647c@corp.supernews.com...
> In alt.games.video.xbox G Hardy <gareth...@ntlwrold.com> wrote:
> > "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
> > news:9g46n1t6iodm8gk3vb0qjpf9da4msd20pk@4ax.com...
>
> > > ...it is a dumb idea to allow
> > > merging of architectures on the same servers.
>
> > It's not a dumb idea, it's just not workable.
>
> Why?  It's not like the network should care if you're using a PC, a
> console, or even a PDA.  A packet's a packet.  End-user hardware doesn't
> enter into the equation here.
>
> > However, the basic differences between the various consoles, and the
console
> > generically vs. the PC, would lead to natural segregation as players
band
> > together in architecture-based groups to even the playing field.
>
> Again, why?  Yes, there would probably be a segregation of the groups, but
> I suspect that it'd be more social than anything else.
>
> There are people who are as skilled with a console controller as those who
> are skilled with a PC style keyboard & mouse.  Furthermore, some consoles
> have allowed you to use a keyboard & mouse with them as well.   I really
> don't think you'll see this segregation because of hardware or
> technological reasons.

I know - that's why I said the "basic differences" will cause the problems -
like using a gamepad and a fixed-refresh TV. There's no reason why the
hardware and software combination can't level the playing field, but it's
human nature to blame a headshot (or lack of it) on the other guy's
machine/connection/hacks/whatever. The fact that the other player might
actually be BETTER is rarely considered.

Whether such segregation is necessary is irrelevant - it's what people would
do. The groupings into platform cliques would result unless you had a game
that could incorporate such cliques as part of its gameplay - such as TFC.
But then, you snipped that but from your reply, so you must not have
understood. I apologise.

"G Hardy" <gareth...@ntlwrold.com> wrote in message
news:k0Jdf.643$TL4.398@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Doug Jacobs" <dja...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
> news:11n7iergbjq647c@corp.supernews.com...
> > In alt.games.video.xbox G Hardy <gareth...@ntlwrold.com> wrote:
> > > "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
> > > news:9g46n1t6iodm8gk3vb0qjpf9da4msd20pk@4ax.com...
> >
> > > > ...it is a dumb idea to allow
> > > > merging of architectures on the same servers.
> >
> > > It's not a dumb idea, it's just not workable.
> >
> > Why?  It's not like the network should care if you're using a PC, a
> > console, or even a PDA.  A packet's a packet.  End-user hardware doesn't
> > enter into the equation here.
> >
> > > However, the basic differences between the various consoles, and the
> console
> > > generically vs. the PC, would lead to natural segregation as players
> band
> > > together in architecture-based groups to even the playing field.
> >
> > Again, why?  Yes, there would probably be a segregation of the groups,
but
> > I suspect that it'd be more social than anything else.
> >
> > There are people who are as skilled with a console controller as those
who
> > are skilled with a PC style keyboard & mouse.  Furthermore, some
consoles
> > have allowed you to use a keyboard & mouse with them as well.   I really
> > don't think you'll see this segregation because of hardware or
> > technological reasons.
>
> I know - that's why I said the "basic differences" will cause the
problems -
> like using a gamepad and a fixed-refresh TV. There's no reason why the
> hardware and software combination can't level the playing field, but it's
> human nature to blame a headshot (or lack of it) on the other guy's
> machine/connection/hacks/whatever. The fact that the other player might
> actually be BETTER is rarely considered.
>

Yeah... the old spouting off of 'damn lag', 'lucky shot', 'my FPS took a
dive', 'damn camper' etc etc ;)

-- 
-- 
EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.org.uk

> Whether such segregation is necessary is irrelevant - it's what people
would
> do. The groupings into platform cliques would result unless you had a game
> that could incorporate such cliques as part of its gameplay - such as TFC.
> But then, you snipped that but from your reply, so you must not have
> understood. I apologise.
>
>

EvilBill wrote:

> Yeah... the old spouting off of 'damn lag', 'lucky shot', 'my FPS took a
> dive', 'damn camper' etc etc ;)

"my dog started barking in time with your footsteps and gunshots, so I 
couldn't hear you coming through the speakers.."


-- 
Ben Cottrell AKA Bench

"G Hardy" <gareth...@ntlwrold.com> wrote in message news:KOFcf.7907$fe6.1320@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
> news:9g46n1t6iodm8gk3vb0qjpf9da4msd20pk@4ax.com...
>
>> ...it is a dumb idea to allow
>> merging of architectures on the same servers.
>
> It's not a dumb idea, it's just not workable.
>
> If plausible, it would open up the field of available opponents and
> team-mates, and settle once and for all the console vs. PC argument (and
> probably allow some intra-console ranking as well).
>
> However, the basic differences between the various consoles, and the console
> generically vs. the PC, would lead to natural segregation as players band
> together in architecture-based groups to even the playing field.
>
> The only practical way would be to have a TFC-type game where the abilities
> of the platform are an intrinsic part of the abilities of the player - so
> for example a slower machine or connection would have only lumbering, tough
> characters* available, whereas a state-of-the-art broadband machine would
> only have fragile, agile characters available, such as the sniper.
>
> * It's so long since I played I forgot the player class of the
> minigun-toting character.

Heavy Weapons Dude or something like that.  LOL TFC is an oldy but still a goody in my eyes.

>
> 

and people who use PC's versus people who have keyboard and mouse only and those who have joysticks and other controllers.  The 
arguement goes on and on.  I think they should allow all platforms to play together.  The differences would not be all that much. 
It just depends on what you are used to using.


"G Hardy" <gareth...@ntlwrold.com> wrote in message news:k0Jdf.643$TL4.398@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Doug Jacobs" <dja...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
> news:11n7iergbjq647c@corp.supernews.com...
>> In alt.games.video.xbox G Hardy <gareth...@ntlwrold.com> wrote:
>> > "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
>> > news:9g46n1t6iodm8gk3vb0qjpf9da4msd20pk@4ax.com...
>>
>> > > ...it is a dumb idea to allow
>> > > merging of architectures on the same servers.
>>
>> > It's not a dumb idea, it's just not workable.
>>
>> Why?  It's not like the network should care if you're using a PC, a
>> console, or even a PDA.  A packet's a packet.  End-user hardware doesn't
>> enter into the equation here.
>>
>> > However, the basic differences between the various consoles, and the
> console
>> > generically vs. the PC, would lead to natural segregation as players
> band
>> > together in architecture-based groups to even the playing field.
>>
>> Again, why?  Yes, there would probably be a segregation of the groups, but
>> I suspect that it'd be more social than anything else.
>>
>> There are people who are as skilled with a console controller as those who
>> are skilled with a PC style keyboard & mouse.  Furthermore, some consoles
>> have allowed you to use a keyboard & mouse with them as well.   I really
>> don't think you'll see this segregation because of hardware or
>> technological reasons.
>
> I know - that's why I said the "basic differences" will cause the problems -
> like using a gamepad and a fixed-refresh TV. There's no reason why the
> hardware and software combination can't level the playing field, but it's
> human nature to blame a headshot (or lack of it) on the other guy's
> machine/connection/hacks/whatever. The fact that the other player might
> actually be BETTER is rarely considered.
>
> Whether such segregation is necessary is irrelevant - it's what people would
> do. The groupings into platform cliques would result unless you had a game
> that could incorporate such cliques as part of its gameplay - such as TFC.
> But then, you snipped that but from your reply, so you must not have
> understood. I apologise.
>
>