🚀 go-pugleaf

Dean Siren wrote:
> 
> Do you think Valve's Steam broadband content distribution, or something similar,
> will work on today's consoles? Valve's Steam rep Gabe Newell said that "...the
> underlying Steam 'service' will just be something that's transparent to you -
> things like updates, new anti-cheating code, news, special offers, buddy lists,
> server lists, etc. These will be added bonuses to you the customer." Meaning
> that Valve's games will spy on their customers to some extent. I'm wondering how
> Steam will work for players under 18 and players without credit cards.
> How do you want to pay for and play your games?
> 
> Read more on,
> 
> http://www.gamespy.com/gdc2002/poweredbysteam/
> http://www.steampowered.com


Interesting article, but I don't believe that consoles ever will take off in 
online gaming, and for several reasons, mostly related to the nature of
consoles.

The ideas presented by STEAM are not new.  Subscription game downloads were
done by SEGA as Sega TV many years ago, and as you can see, the idea didn't
last.  Online console gaming has been tried as well, with the X-Band 
matching service (SNES and Genesis, failed), the Saturn Netlink (failed)
and most recently the Dreamcast with Seganet (pretty much dead).

There are several reasons why there is a natural resistance to online games
involving consoles, imho.  I'll outline a few of them.

Unlike a PC, a videogame console is a "set top box" design, much closer in
the intent of use of say, a VCR or a DVD player (some actually DO that) in
conjunction with other entertainment components than a self-contained PC
typically is.  Consoles therefore lock up common shared household resources
(the TV set, stereo, and all of the attachments) to a much greater degree
than a PC does (in typical use).  This is the resource issue, and until
it's resolved, online console gaming has a tough row to hoe.

Another issue which causes problems is one of spontaneity, as console 
gamers are used to moving from one game to another almost as quickly
as one goes from machine to machine in a video arcade.  Unlike PC online
games, many console games actually have arcade origins, and more than a
few of the big names in the console world began as arcade developers.
So, traditionally, console games are much more along the lines of say,
slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am than PC games.  This is not the way most online
games can be played, as it often takes so long to find an opponent that
for a shorter arcade-style game, it's simply not worthwhile.  This is
the spontaneity issue, and it too will be difficult to resolve for online.

Last, but hardly least of the issues, is the issue of cost.  The single
most OBVIOUS difference between a gaming-class PC rig and a console is
the price tag.  Consoles pretty much max out at $300, and you couldn't
even get a PC worth LAUGHING at for that little money.  Console gamers
often game with an eye towards costs, with very few expensive peripherals
ever becoming very successful and the costs of games constantly causing
much grumbling.  To put it mildly, console gamers are a lot more frugally
minded than what PC gamers are, and the minute anyone mentions a "fee"
for playing a game, the console userbase all but evaporates instantly.
This is the sticker-shock issue, and it will possibly be the most 
difficult of all to resolve, because it requires changing the entire
console gaming attitude.

All imho.

-- 
ense petite placidum sub libertate quietem;
With the sword she seeks calm repose under
liberty: By the sword we seek peace, but
peace only under liberty.
(motto of Massachusetts)

Another obstacle is that online gaming currently requires accessories (modem,
hard drive, microphone or keyboard for communication) and a credit card, both of
which PC gamers are willing to use, but console gamers aren't.

I think online console gaming today is where CD-ROM console gaming was 10 years
ago; everyone is talking about it and it provides many benefits, but the current
consoles aren't made for it and it's too expensive and complicated.  I also feel
that console gamers want to play against others online, and have access to every
title made without leaving their home, but they also want none of the current
hastles.  I believe that online console gaming will take off on the next
generation of consoles, starting in 2005 or 2006.  And, just like in 1995-1996,
somebody (probably Nintendo, again) will ignore online gaming and lose most 3rd
party and consumer support.

You are right that online gaming has too many obstacles to work in this
generation, but I think it will work in the next generation.  I think that most
of the offline gaming's possibilities have been explored, while online gaming is
full of unexplored possibilities.



> Interesting article, but I don't believe that consoles ever will take off in
> online gaming, and for several reasons, mostly related to the nature of
> consoles.
>
> The ideas presented by STEAM are not new.  Subscription game downloads were
> done by SEGA as Sega TV many years ago, and as you can see, the idea didn't
> last.  Online console gaming has been tried as well, with the X-Band
> matching service (SNES and Genesis, failed), the Saturn Netlink (failed)
> and most recently the Dreamcast with Seganet (pretty much dead).
>
> There are several reasons why there is a natural resistance to online games
> involving consoles, imho.  I'll outline a few of them.
>
> Unlike a PC, a videogame console is a "set top box" design, much closer in
> the intent of use of say, a VCR or a DVD player (some actually DO that) in
> conjunction with other entertainment components than a self-contained PC
> typically is.  Consoles therefore lock up common shared household resources
> (the TV set, stereo, and all of the attachments) to a much greater degree
> than a PC does (in typical use).  This is the resource issue, and until
> it's resolved, online console gaming has a tough row to hoe.
>
> Another issue which causes problems is one of spontaneity, as console
> gamers are used to moving from one game to another almost as quickly
> as one goes from machine to machine in a video arcade.  Unlike PC online
> games, many console games actually have arcade origins, and more than a
> few of the big names in the console world began as arcade developers.
> So, traditionally, console games are much more along the lines of say,
> slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am than PC games.  This is not the way most online
> games can be played, as it often takes so long to find an opponent that
> for a shorter arcade-style game, it's simply not worthwhile.  This is
> the spontaneity issue, and it too will be difficult to resolve for online.
>
> Last, but hardly least of the issues, is the issue of cost.  The single
> most OBVIOUS difference between a gaming-class PC rig and a console is
> the price tag.  Consoles pretty much max out at $300, and you couldn't
> even get a PC worth LAUGHING at for that little money.  Console gamers
> often game with an eye towards costs, with very few expensive peripherals
> ever becoming very successful and the costs of games constantly causing
> much grumbling.  To put it mildly, console gamers are a lot more frugally
> minded than what PC gamers are, and the minute anyone mentions a "fee"
> for playing a game, the console userbase all but evaporates instantly.
> This is the sticker-shock issue, and it will possibly be the most
> difficult of all to resolve, because it requires changing the entire
> console gaming attitude.
>
> All imho.

Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3CAF884A...@mindspring.com>...
> The ideas presented by STEAM are not new.  Subscription game downloads were
> done by SEGA as Sega TV many years ago, and as you can see, the idea didn't
> last.  Online console gaming has been tried as well, with the X-Band 
> matching service (SNES and Genesis, failed), the Saturn Netlink (failed)
> and most recently the Dreamcast with Seganet (pretty much dead).

Interesting.  I agree on a few of your points, disagree on others. 
For example, I don't think the whole "spontenaity" argument holds. 
I'm guessing you've played online Dreamcast and there is no big
waiting period with the popular games.  AFO is pretty much click to
connect then play.

I don't really see the whole "tying up the TV" argument, either. 
Anyone that plays videogames ties up the TV whether they are playing
online or not.

I do agree with you about the fee argument to some extent.  NOBODY
likes to pay to play.  That goes for PC's or consoles.  Could you
imagine if someone tried to charge for an online FPS deathmatch on
PC's?  They wouldn't get any players, either.  I'm not sure why but
the only "pay to play" scheme that has had any success has been for
RPG's, both for PC's and consoles.  The only reason PSO has been dying
off has been poor customer service (ie, no resolution for all the
cheating), otherwise it was quite popular.  Anyways, maybe it has
something to do with the amount of time you have to invest in online
RPG's is why people are more willing to pay for them.  FPS's and other
online console gaming is so brief in comparison that I suppose no one
thinks it's worth paying a fee.

Finally, I think it's worth noting that no one big has ever tried
console gaming.  Sega and Catapult were small potatoes.  Sony and
Nintendo have never gotten behind any of it.  As far as they are
concerned (I think), it's not worth getting into because they can't
make any direct profits from it.  Sega always did it as a "draw", an
attempt to get people to buy their console, which is something Sony
and Nintendo obviously don't need as badly as Sega did.

> Unlike a PC, a videogame console is a "set top box" design, much closer in
> the intent of use of say, a VCR or a DVD player (some actually DO that) in
> conjunction with other entertainment components than a self-contained PC
> typically is.  Consoles therefore lock up common shared household resources
> (the TV set, stereo, and all of the attachments) to a much greater degree
> than a PC does (in typical use).  This is the resource issue, and until
> it's resolved, online console gaming has a tough row to hoe.
>
> Another issue which causes problems is one of spontaneity, as console
> gamers are used to moving from one game to another almost as quickly
> as one goes from machine to machine in a video arcade.  Unlike PC online
> games, many console games actually have arcade origins, and more than a
> few of the big names in the console world began as arcade developers.
> So, traditionally, console games are much more along the lines of say,
> slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am than PC games.  This is not the way most online
> games can be played, as it often takes so long to find an opponent that
> for a shorter arcade-style game, it's simply not worthwhile.  This is
> the spontaneity issue, and it too will be difficult to resolve for online.

Broadband, compared to 56k, might solve both of these problems.  Broadband
doesn't tie up the phone line and it can be split between multiple devices in a
home.  And, like phone lines today, home networks could converge on a hidden
server at the front of the house, rather than a PC.



> Last, but hardly least of the issues, is the issue of cost.  The single
> most OBVIOUS difference between a gaming-class PC rig and a console is
> the price tag.  Consoles pretty much max out at $300, and you couldn't
> even get a PC worth LAUGHING at for that little money.  Console gamers
> often game with an eye towards costs, with very few expensive peripherals
> ever becoming very successful and the costs of games constantly causing
> much grumbling.  To put it mildly, console gamers are a lot more frugally
> minded than what PC gamers are, and the minute anyone mentions a "fee"
> for playing a game, the console userbase all but evaporates instantly.
> This is the sticker-shock issue, and it will possibly be the most
> difficult of all to resolve, because it requires changing the entire
> console gaming attitude.

Online gaming could cost the same as offline gaming.  The console would cost
$200 to $300 and the games could cost the same as offline games, $1 to $5 to
play for a little while, and maybe $50 for infinite usage.  Since I rent far
more than I buy, and used to enjoy arcade games, I like the ability to pay a
little bit of money for a little bit of play time.

Bent Leads wrote:
> 
> Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3CAF884A...@mindspring.com>...
> > The ideas presented by STEAM are not new.  Subscription game downloads were
> > done by SEGA as Sega TV many years ago, and as you can see, the idea didn't
> > last.  Online console gaming has been tried as well, with the X-Band
> > matching service (SNES and Genesis, failed), the Saturn Netlink (failed)
> > and most recently the Dreamcast with Seganet (pretty much dead).
> 
> Interesting.  I agree on a few of your points, disagree on others.
> For example, I don't think the whole "spontenaity" argument holds.
> I'm guessing you've played online Dreamcast and there is no big
> waiting period with the popular games.  AFO is pretty much click to
> connect then play.

That works for the popular games, but I've had very little luck finding
opponents on The Next Tetris online.  You can almost hear the chirping
of cyber-crickets in the lobby.

Part of the reason I pointed out the "spontaneity" of console games
is from my experiences online with titles such as NFL2K2, NBA2K2 and
Bomberman Online.  The majority of those games tend to be very short,
almost arcade short.  I've never seen anyone actually set up a full
length hour-long game and play that way (not to say it doesn't happen,
but it's not usual).  The longer a game is, the greater the chance
that an opponent will drop out for one reason or another.  AFO and
several RPG-style games work around this by using a sort of "drop and
insert" format in which anyone can leave or join at any time.

Console games aren't especially well suited to games which allow
that, as FPS's are weak on consoles, RPG's which allow it tend to
be a strength of PC's as well (PSO has been called a Diablo clone
more than a few times) and so consoles aren't offering anything
(yet) which can't be done better on a PC.  Now, if someone could
pull off a fighter (like DOA2's tournaments) online, that would
be something, but the latency will kill it.

> I don't really see the whole "tying up the TV" argument, either.
> Anyone that plays videogames ties up the TV whether they are playing
> online or not.

Right, but they can stop instantly once Grandma wants to watch
"Matlock" or some such thing.  If the kid starts crying about one
more level or another half hour, that'll be the end of the online
gaming in that house.

> I do agree with you about the fee argument to some extent.  NOBODY
> likes to pay to play.  That goes for PC's or consoles.  Could you
> imagine if someone tried to charge for an online FPS deathmatch on
> PC's?  They wouldn't get any players, either.  I'm not sure why but
> the only "pay to play" scheme that has had any success has been for
> RPG's, both for PC's and consoles.

I think it's got a lot to do with the different style of play.
An RPG player is used to the idea that he's going to be spending some
hours on the game in one sitting.  Most other types of games aren't
like that.

> The only reason PSO has been dying
> off has been poor customer service (ie, no resolution for all the
> cheating), otherwise it was quite popular.  Anyways, maybe it has
> something to do with the amount of time you have to invest in online
> RPG's is why people are more willing to pay for them.  FPS's and other
> online console gaming is so brief in comparison that I suppose no one
> thinks it's worth paying a fee.

I think there's another factor which has to do with the maturity
of the audience.  FPS's, regardless of their "Mature" rating, are
typically kiddie fare twitch games.  RPG's tend to be much slower
and more thoughtful in comparison.

> Finally, I think it's worth noting that no one big has ever tried
> console gaming.  Sega and Catapult were small potatoes.  Sony and
> Nintendo have never gotten behind any of it.  As far as they are
> concerned (I think), it's not worth getting into because they can't
> make any direct profits from it.  Sega always did it as a "draw", an
> attempt to get people to buy their console, which is something Sony
> and Nintendo obviously don't need as badly as Sega did.

Well, if the audience isn't willing to pay, the show won't go on.

Sony's supposedly going to try with an add-on modem/broadband adapter
but if it costs much more than $35 or so, I think it's doomed.  It's
the old catch-22.  Nobody will make games for something nobody is
buying, and nobody will buy something nobody is making games for.


-- 
ense petite placidum sub libertate quietem;
With the sword she seeks calm repose under
liberty: By the sword we seek peace, but
peace only under liberty.
(motto of Massachusetts)

Dean Siren wrote:
> 
> Another obstacle is that online gaming currently requires accessories (modem,
> hard drive, microphone or keyboard for communication) and a credit card, both of
> which PC gamers are willing to use, but console gamers aren't.

Except for the hard drive, you've just described the Sega Dreamcast and it's
accessories.  They didn't help it very much. ^_^ 

> I think online console gaming today is where CD-ROM console gaming was 10 years
> ago; everyone is talking about it and it provides many benefits, but the current
> consoles aren't made for it and it's too expensive and complicated.  I also feel
> that console gamers want to play against others online, and have access to every
> title made without leaving their home, but they also want none of the current
> hastles.  I believe that online console gaming will take off on the next
> generation of consoles, starting in 2005 or 2006.  And, just like in 1995-1996,
> somebody (probably Nintendo, again) will ignore online gaming and lose most 3rd
> party and consumer support.

The CD-ROM took off because it offered both publishers and consumers something
they wanted.  Publishers wanted a cheaper media than cartridges, and consumers
wanted bigger games with more features.  It was a win-win situation.

I don't see anything similar with on-line console gaming.

If the game goes totally (or near-totally) server-side, then the publishers
will really LOVE that, as their distribution and publishing costs go WAY
down and there's no chance of getting stuck with tons of unsold copies.
But, the consumer won't be at all happy with that arrangement because he's
used to paying money and getting something in his hands, not stored off on
some server somewhere he can't even see.

If the game stays mostly client-side, then there's really not much of a
difference for publishers to make online game features worth their while,
as their costs are higher but they can't get more money out of the consumer
for it.  The consumers may like it, but the publishers won't net any profit.

Unless there's a way for both sides to benefit substantially, there's going
to be a natural resistance to change by one side or the other.
All imho

<snip>

-- 
ense petite placidum sub libertate quietem;
With the sword she seeks calm repose under
liberty: By the sword we seek peace, but
peace only under liberty.
(motto of Massachusetts)

On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 10:10:02 -0700, Charles Doane
<gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>I think there's another factor which has to do with the maturity
>of the audience.  FPS's, regardless of their "Mature" rating, are
>typically kiddie fare twitch games.

Kiddie fare twitch games? That has got to be the worst understanding
of the genre I've read to date.

__________________________________________________________
Bummer! I call up with some good vibes and some positive 
energies, and I talk to a robot? Forget you, man!
-There's One In Every Port, The Rockford Files, 1974-1980

>>I think there's another factor which has to do with the maturity
>>of the audience.  FPS's, regardless of their "Mature" rating, are
>>typically kiddie fare twitch games.
>
> Kiddie fare twitch games? That has got to be the worst understanding
> of the genre I've read to date.

Which FPSs are made to play slowly and deliberately?

> Except for the hard drive, you've just described the Sega Dreamcast and it's
> accessories.  They didn't help it very much. ^_^

The microphone in AFO was fun.  Although the AFO's gameplay didn't really
require the mic, imagine an online Final Fantasy Tactics with microphone chat
for 8 players (or 16 or 32 or 64, since it would require so little bandwidth)!



> The CD-ROM took off because it offered both publishers and consumers something
> they wanted.  Publishers wanted a cheaper media than cartridges, and consumers
> wanted bigger games with more features.  It was a win-win situation.

Yes, but before CD-ROM had proven itself, people were just as skeptical.  They
thought that CD-ROM drives would be too expensive, that CD games would be too
easy to scratch, and that they'd only be cartrige games with CD music, bad FMV
and horrible load times.  Those were typical flaws of Turboduo, Sega CD and 3DO.
Yet, PlayStation proved all of CD-ROM's potential benefits (and gamers learned
to handle their CD-ROMs carefully).  I think a 2005-2010 generation console will
prove all of online gaming's potential benefits.



> I don't see anything similar with on-line console gaming.
>
> If the game goes totally (or near-totally) server-side, then the publishers
> will really LOVE that, as their distribution and publishing costs go WAY
> down and there's no chance of getting stuck with tons of unsold copies.
> But, the consumer won't be at all happy with that arrangement because he's
> used to paying money and getting something in his hands, not stored off on
> some server somewhere he can't even see.

Consumers are used to paying money for cable TV channels which are even less
tangible (interactive) than online access.  And people certainly like
downloading things, as their usage of Napster proves, though there has not yet
been any comparable legal service.



> If the game stays mostly client-side, then there's really not much of a
> difference for publishers to make online game features worth their while,
> as their costs are higher but they can't get more money out of the consumer
> for it.  The consumers may like it, but the publishers won't net any profit.

I think online games will eventually move 100% server side, because that's the
best chance developers have of updating content, managing expectations and
preventing bugs, cheats and piracy.

In article <ub1k5b7...@corp.supernews.com>, Dean Siren <d...@iu.net> wrote:
>>>I think there's another factor which has to do with the maturity
>>>of the audience.  FPS's, regardless of their "Mature" rating, are
>>>typically kiddie fare twitch games.
>>
>> Kiddie fare twitch games? That has got to be the worst understanding
>> of the genre I've read to date.
>
>Which FPSs are made to play slowly and deliberately?

Well, if you don't mind invoking the ghost of a long-dead console, Aliens 
vs. Predator on the Atari Jaguar is one example of a slow, deliberate 
first person shooter. This is probably a product of it being a one-player 
game, rather than a multiplayer shootout... It's possible to take your 
time and slowly work your way through some levels, which is how they are 
designed to be played. 

If you want to bend the definition slightly, D2 is another example, 
although it's as much 3D point-and-click adventure as it is an FPS. Not 
only are there very few enemies in the hallways, but you must aim by sound 
rather than sight. The FPS portion of D2 requires scads of patience and 
careful observation from a player, virtues which are not ordinarily 
nurtured by the first-person shooter genre. :)

Again, both games are only slow and deliberate because they are not multi- 
player. Try getting four or more guys to be slow and sneaky, especially if 
they're playing in the same room on the same console. 

-KKC, who isn't big into FPS games. There's a metaphor and a crass 
comparison to other activities which require not eating beforehand, but 
I'll just keep that to myself. :)
-- 
"I think Pringle's original intention was to sell tennis balls. | kendrick
 But on the day the balls were supposed to arrive, they got a   | @io.com
 sack of potatoes instead. Pringle's is a real laid back company|
 and they said f--k it, just cut 'em up!" - Mitch Hedberg.      |

>> I don't really see the whole "tying up the TV" argument, either.
>> Anyone that plays videogames ties up the TV whether they are playing
>> online or not.
>
> Right, but they can stop instantly once Grandma wants to watch
> "Matlock" or some such thing.  If the kid starts crying about one
> more level or another half hour, that'll be the end of the online
> gaming in that house.

They've been doing that with offline games for years, but offline gaming lives
on with whiny kids and their whiny grandmas.



>> I do agree with you about the fee argument to some extent.  NOBODY
>> likes to pay to play.

Free is fun, but when people must pay, pay PER play has decades of success
behind it.  That was how arcade games worked, how movie theaters still work, and
essentially how Blockbuster works.  It's also how candy, soda and beer work.
People like to get the latest entertainment for pocket change.



>> That goes for PC's or consoles.  Could you
>> imagine if someone tried to charge for an online FPS deathmatch on
>> PC's?

Not on PCs, but Doom might've become popular as an arcade game.



> Sony's supposedly going to try with an add-on modem/broadband adapter
> but if it costs much more than $35 or so, I think it's doomed.  It's
> the old catch-22.  Nobody will make games for something nobody is
> buying, and nobody will buy something nobody is making games for.

Exactly.  That's why the only hope for online gaming is as the primary feature
of the next generation's consoles.

> Well, if you don't mind invoking the ghost of a long-dead console, Aliens
> vs. Predator on the Atari Jaguar is one example of a slow, deliberate
> first person shooter. This is probably a product of it being a one-player
> game, rather than a multiplayer shootout... It's possible to take your
> time and slowly work your way through some levels, which is how they are
> designed to be played.

Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were also like that.



> Again, both games are only slow and deliberate because they are not multi-
> player. Try getting four or more guys to be slow and sneaky, especially if
> they're playing in the same room on the same console.

Compared to Bangaio, Quake 3 is downright leisurely.  I think there could be a
mustiplayer FPS that's slow and deliberate with hiding in shadows, long shadows
in lights, and one hit kills.

Ryan wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 10:10:02 -0700, Charles Doane
> <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> 
> >I think there's another factor which has to do with the maturity
> >of the audience.  FPS's, regardless of their "Mature" rating, are
> >typically kiddie fare twitch games.
> 
> Kiddie fare twitch games? That has got to be the worst understanding
> of the genre I've read to date.

You think so?  Let's look.

Doom:  You're a Space Marine (oh great, we get to play G.I. Joe!) and
       like all really good soldiers, you get to use a chainsaw on
       MARS.  Now, mind telling me WHAT IN THE HECK is a chainsaw
       doing on MARS?  Are there a lot of FORESTS there?  Is logging
       a BIG thing on Phobos and Deimos?  JEEZE!  A TERMITE would
       starve on Mars, so why the chainsaw?  Juvenile gratuitous
       violence; that's the *only* reason for it.  That sort of plot
       hole annoys mature adults.

Quake: You're a good soldier again, but this time somebody has a
       Slipgate and they're using Mutant Death Squads to infiltrate
       Earth.  Come on, this thing sounds like a 1950's kid's comic
       book premise.  And the KIDDIE weapon of Quake?  The Nailgun,
       which fires "galvanized nine-inchers" as ammo.  Whether it's
       a nod to Trent Reznor (of Nine Inch Nails fame) who did the
       music or not, it's a STUPID JUVENILE WEAPON.  Ever wonder
       why the U.S. Marine Corps ain't arming themselves with ammo
       from ACE HARDWARE?  Because it's DUMB!  Nails aren't even
       remotely good ammunition.  They wouldn't fly straight and
       they'd just ANNOY the enemy when they hit him anyway.
       This plot hole would totally annoy a thinking adult.

DN 3D: Oh, here's a real mature one!  "Damn, I'm GOOD!".  So, Space
       Cowboy Duke Nukem (yup, super mature name there) back from
       beating Dr. Proton (not kidding) finds Los Angeles overrun
       by mutants.  You gotta admit, this ain't exactly Shakespeare
       writing the plotline, right?  Page 17 of the Saturn's Duke 3D
       manual gives up and sums the plot by saying "Ah heck, just blow
       the ?@*# out of anything that breathes."  Yeah, REAL mature.
       So, what's the KIDDIE weapon in this one?   The SHRINKER!  Yup,
       you can shrink the baddies down to size and squish them just
       like bugs!  Hey DUKE, Flash Gordon called and he wants you to
       give him his toys back!  


This is adolescent junk, there's not much that's "Mature" about any
of it, so the only remaining question is whether they're twitch games.
Heck yes.  They're shooters; that's what the "S" in FPS stands for.

-- 
ense petite placidum sub libertate quietem;
With the sword she seeks calm repose under
liberty: By the sword we seek peace, but
peace only under liberty.
(motto of Massachusetts)

On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 19:59:22 -0400, "Dean Siren" <d...@iu.net> wrote:

>Compared to Bangaio, Quake 3 is downright leisurely.  I think there could be a
>mustiplayer FPS that's slow and deliberate with hiding in shadows, long shadows
>in lights, and one hit kills.

Team Fortress Classic aka TF 1.5 - www.teamfortressclassic.com

The Spy class specializes in stealth/death feign/knife stabs. 

Plus there is no shortage of maps designed to have dark shadows/dim
lighting.

__________________________________________________________
Bummer! I call up with some good vibes and some positive 
energies, and I talk to a robot? Forget you, man!
-There's One In Every Port, The Rockford Files, 1974-1980

"Dean Siren" <d...@iu.net> wrote in message
news:ub1k5b7g978oc2@corp.supernews.com...

> > Kiddie fare twitch games? That has got to be the worst understanding
> > of the genre I've read to date.
>
> Which FPSs are made to play slowly and deliberately?

Rogue Spear

On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Dean Siren wrote:

> > Well, if you don't mind invoking the ghost of a long-dead console, Aliens
> > vs. Predator on the Atari Jaguar is one example of a slow, deliberate
> > first person shooter. This is probably a product of it being a one-player
> > game, rather than a multiplayer shootout... It's possible to take your
> > time and slowly work your way through some levels, which is how they are
> > designed to be played.
> 
> Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were also like that.

Not really.  Their are levels which take time and others that require
Rambo styles tatics, even in Goldeneye (say Bunker 1 vs. Cradle).  Even
some of the medium paced levels can be played like you're Rambo instead of
James ond (Silo on Agent, 1:42 seconds, 39 kills).

> > Again, both games are only slow and deliberate because they are not multi-
> > player. Try getting four or more guys to be slow and sneaky, especially if
> > they're playing in the same room on the same console.
> 
> Compared to Bangaio, Quake 3 is downright leisurely.  I think there could be a
> mustiplayer FPS that's slow and deliberate with hiding in shadows, long shadows
> in lights, and one hit kills.

Ghost Recon or Rainbow 6?

"Ryan" <tron...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n2p1buo0ua1hflsrc0cdrk5on51bkp425c@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 19:59:22 -0400, "Dean Siren" <d...@iu.net> wrote:
>
> >Compared to Bangaio, Quake 3 is downright leisurely.  I think there could
be a
> >mustiplayer FPS that's slow and deliberate with hiding in shadows, long
shadows
> >in lights, and one hit kills.
>
> Team Fortress Classic aka TF 1.5 - www.teamfortressclassic.com
>
> The Spy class specializes in stealth/death feign/knife stabs.
>


Unfortunatly, once a spy is known to be on the map, people pump extra
bullets
into corpses. Its fairly easy to catch a spy if you pay attention. People
AFAIK
stick with their specialty weapon and engineers are the only ones they can
imitate without sticking out (Hey! That HWG is toting a shotgun! frag him!)

Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3CB07D6A...@mindspring.com>...
> Bent Leads wrote:
> > Interesting.  I agree on a few of your points, disagree on others.
> > For example, I don't think the whole "spontenaity" argument holds.
> > I'm guessing you've played online Dreamcast and there is no big
> > waiting period with the popular games.  AFO is pretty much click to
> > connect then play.
> 
> That works for the popular games, but I've had very little luck finding
> opponents on The Next Tetris online.  You can almost hear the chirping
> of cyber-crickets in the lobby.
> 

What difference does that have to do with spontaneity?  No, it's more
a matter of user base.  As in, the online DC community is small.  But
it's not necessarily a cause and effect relationship.  Even the
popular games have a relatively small user base.  I think it says a
lot more about the problems that Sega had in promoting the DC than it
does that online console gaming can't be spontaneous.  Everything out
in the general public is promoting that DC was and is DOA (dead on
arrival, not the game).  So it's understandable that there won't be
people rushing to play DC online in droves.

And besides, it's online Tetris.  It's not like that sort of thing is
taking over the online PC gaming world, either.

> Part of the reason I pointed out the "spontaneity" of console games
> is from my experiences online with titles such as NFL2K2, NBA2K2 and
> Bomberman Online.  The majority of those games tend to be very short,
> almost arcade short.  I've never seen anyone actually set up a full
> length hour-long game and play that way (not to say it doesn't happen,
> but it's not usual).  The longer a game is, the greater the chance
> that an opponent will drop out for one reason or another.  AFO and
> several RPG-style games work around this by using a sort of "drop and
> insert" format in which anyone can leave or join at any time.
> 

So you're saying that people will only play online console games if
they can easily drop into a game?  And how is that any different from
the PC market?  As you say, AFO has spontaneity, therefore it is
moderately successful online.  Likewise, the most popular PC games are
the ones that are easy to drop into.

> Console games aren't especially well suited to games which allow
> that, as FPS's are weak on consoles, RPG's which allow it tend to
> be a strength of PC's as well (PSO has been called a Diablo clone
> more than a few times) and so consoles aren't offering anything
> (yet) which can't be done better on a PC.  Now, if someone could
> pull off a fighter (like DOA2's tournaments) online, that would
> be something, but the latency will kill it.

I disagree, in fact console games are more likely to be of the "pick
up and play" variety than most PC games.  And FPS's were weak on
consoles about 3 years ago (ie, before Goldeneye).  Now there are
plenty of respectable FPS's on consoles.
 
> > I don't really see the whole "tying up the TV" argument, either.
> > Anyone that plays videogames ties up the TV whether they are playing
> > online or not.
> 
> Right, but they can stop instantly once Grandma wants to watch
> "Matlock" or some such thing.  If the kid starts crying about one
> more level or another half hour, that'll be the end of the online
> gaming in that house.
> 

How is this any different than it is offline?  Kids playing console
games are not going to easily surrender the TV for Matlock whether
they are online or off.

> Sony's supposedly going to try with an add-on modem/broadband adapter
> but if it costs much more than $35 or so, I think it's doomed.  It's
> the old catch-22.  Nobody will make games for something nobody is
> buying, and nobody will buy something nobody is making games for.

Agreed, I think Sony will have a tough sell for an add-on online
gaming device for PS2.  However, I still think if Sony had included
online capability out of the box for PS2, they would be enjoying some
success right now.  Certainly far more than Sega did with DC.  Again,
I think Sega's online problems with the DC were more from a public
opinion/promotion standpoint than the fact that online console gaming
can't be successful.

"Dean Siren" <d...@iu.net> wrote in message news:<ub1n185...@corp.supernews.com>...
> Free is fun, but when people must pay, pay PER play has decades of success
> behind it.  That was how arcade games worked, how movie theaters still work, and
> essentially how Blockbuster works.  It's also how candy, soda and beer work.
> People like to get the latest entertainment for pocket change.
> 

I'd have to disagree with this one.  Most of the gaming public
(consoles or PC's) seem to prefer a one time fee then free play from
then on as opposed to a continous small fee to play.  One of the main
reasons why arcades were successful in the past was because of the
wide quality gap between them and home consoles.  Now that the gap is
removed, most people prefer paying a one-time fee to play.  For
example, most would rather buy a console and games (pay once) than go
to the arcades (pay for each play).

And it's not just gaming.  Look at Divx movies as opposed to DVD. 
Although the price of a Divx movie was cheaper, the idea that you
would have to pay again for subsequent viewings turned most people
off.
 
> 
> >> That goes for PC's or consoles.  Could you
> >> imagine if someone tried to charge for an online FPS deathmatch on
> >> PC's?
> 
> Not on PCs, but Doom might've become popular as an arcade game.
> 

Right, like I said, nobody wants to pay to play.  The only type of
game that has really crossed that hurdle is something in-depth like an
RPG.  Something that involves a lot of time to play or is ongoing. 
I'm not entirely sure why, but that seems to be the way it is.

As for Doom's popularity as an arcade game, it basically did that.  I
remember at least 2 arcades that ran PC networks that you could pay to
play games like Doom, etc.  I still seem some stores that do it, in
fact (ie, Wizards of the Coast, amongst others).

But at home, online?  I still doubt any FPS could break that boundary
now and successfully charge to play an FPS at home.  Once that initial
(expensive) purchase is made, people expect the online gameplay to be
free.

> Exactly.  That's why the only hope for online gaming is as the primary feature
> of the next generation's consoles.

Agreed.  I still think if Sony had done it instead of Sega, it would
have been a success this time.  I think if Sony had online features
out of the box at launch with games to play, they would have been
successful.

On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 07:32:43 GMT, "Robert Geiger"
<robert...@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Unfortunatly, once a spy is known to be on the map, people pump extra
>bullets
>into corpses. Its fairly easy to catch a spy if you pay attention. People
>AFAIK
>stick with their specialty weapon and engineers are the only ones they can
>imitate without sticking out (Hey! That HWG is toting a shotgun! frag him!)

I've had success imitating Soldier and Demo. It depends on the
map/class situation. Feign silently in dark areas on 2Fort works. It's
surprising how many people run into your teammates entrance and fail
to look to the middle floor wall where it's virtually dark. On the
enemy side death feigns don't work as well, except maybe around
entrance sid corners. If a lot of snipers stick to the bottom and key
in on me, then there isn't much point in tit-for-tat. I'll take the
water tunnel or try to get across and grenade lob myself to the top to
focus on taking out SG's.

__________________________________________________________
Bummer! I call up with some good vibes and some positive 
energies, and I talk to a robot? Forget you, man!
-There's One In Every Port, The Rockford Files, 1974-1980

"Dean Siren" <d...@iu.net> wrote in message news:<ub1k5b7...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >>I think there's another factor which has to do with the maturity
> >>of the audience.  FPS's, regardless of their "Mature" rating, are
> >>typically kiddie fare twitch games.
> >
> > Kiddie fare twitch games? That has got to be the worst understanding
> > of the genre I've read to date.
> 
> Which FPSs are made to play slowly and deliberately?

I think a good example of this would be Unreal.  That game was so
involving.  You couldn't just run and shoot stuff to win, you had to
go through slowly, or else you might get hit by a Brute around the
corner.

But the best example of this is Alien vs. Predator 2 on PC.  You can't
just shoot stuff.  The first mission as an Alien, you have to go
around slowly and hunt a human who is all alone, and face hug him to
implant an embryo inside.  If anyone sees you, it's game over.  The
atmosphere of the game even makes you think, "I need to creep out this
door so I can see any enemies."  The constant feeling of fear slows
the game down, and makes it enjoyable.

> I'd have to disagree with this one.  Most of the gaming public
> (consoles or PC's) seem to prefer a one time fee then free play from
> then on as opposed to a continous small fee to play.  One of the main
> reasons why arcades were successful in the past was because of the
> wide quality gap between them and home consoles.  Now that the gap is
> removed, most people prefer paying a one-time fee to play.  For
> example, most would rather buy a console and games (pay once) than go
> to the arcades (pay for each play).

Blockbuster game rentals emerged just as arcades were declining.

Entertainment is often more fun when you aren't worrying about paying each time.
But there are a lot of games that are only fun a few times.  Some games are
intentionally designed that way, and I think Sony is even pushing its 3rd
parties to do that.  People often buy games, but get bored so fast that they
wish they had only rented.  So they can sell the game used.  How would you
duplicate online the act of selling a used game and the act of renting a game?
How would you satisfy those mindsets?



> And it's not just gaming.  Look at Divx movies as opposed to DVD.
> Although the price of a Divx movie was cheaper, the idea that you
> would have to pay again for subsequent viewings turned most people
> off.

I think Divx was based on DVD, which is primarily offline technology.  I think
for any media to become popular with consumers, it has to be primarily online or
offline.  Think of TV and VCR.  Most people have both and use them for "online"
shows and "offline" rental movies but not for "online-offline" recording shows
to watch them later.



>> Not on PCs, but Doom might've become popular as an arcade game.
>
> Right, like I said, nobody wants to pay to play.  The only type of
> game that has really crossed that hurdle is something in-depth like an
> RPG.  Something that involves a lot of time to play or is ongoing.
> I'm not entirely sure why, but that seems to be the way it is.

Maybe it's like paying for telephone service because you keep getting to meet
and chat with people.



> I remember at least 2 arcades that ran PC networks that you could pay to
> play games like Doom, etc.  I still seem some stores that do it, in
> fact (ie, Wizards of the Coast, amongst others).

Really?  I never saw that.  I've only lived in Florida since 1994, where did you
see it?



> But at home, online?  I still doubt any FPS could break that boundary
> now and successfully charge to play an FPS at home.  Once that initial
> (expensive) purchase is made, people expect the online gameplay to be
> free.

What if there's no initial purchase?  What if Everquest and PSO cost nothing to
start, only for the subscription?



> Agreed.  I still think if Sony had done it instead of Sega, it would
> have been a success this time.  I think if Sony had online features
> out of the box at launch with games to play, they would have been
> successful.

How do you feel they should make the next generation of
hardware/infrastructure/business?

> I think if Sony had online features
> out of the box at launch with games to play, they would have been
> successful.

What if PS2 was online-only?  Ethernet, hard drive and credit card reader (or
whatever card of your choice) built in, but no DVD-ROM drive?

Why not, worked well for DVIX.

"Dean Siren" <d...@iu.net> wrote in message
news:ub44ja4ah35lf9@corp.supernews.com...
> > I think if Sony had online features
> > out of the box at launch with games to play, they would have been
> > successful.
>
> What if PS2 was online-only?  Ethernet, hard drive and credit card reader
(or
> whatever card of your choice) built in, but no DVD-ROM drive?

"Dean Siren" <d...@iu.net> wrote in message
news:ub44ja4ah35lf9@corp.supernews.com...
> > I think if Sony had online features
> > out of the box at launch with games to play, they would have been
> > successful.
>
> What if PS2 was online-only?  Ethernet, hard drive and credit card reader
(or
> whatever card of your choice) built in, but no DVD-ROM drive?

Don't forget that this would cut out the retailers, too.  So who's going to
sell your console for you?  There would be too much risk involved in online
only, I don't think we'll see it any time soon.

"Dean Siren" <d...@iu.net> wrote in message news:<ub1k5b7...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >>I think there's another factor which has to do with the maturity
> >>of the audience.  FPS's, regardless of their "Mature" rating, are
> >>typically kiddie fare twitch games.
> >
> > Kiddie fare twitch games? That has got to be the worst understanding
> > of the genre I've read to date.
> 
> Which FPSs are made to play slowly and deliberately?

Arguably, Space Griffon VF-7.  First-generation PSX corridor maze
shooter title that looks and plays like a 16-bit CD-ROM title, with a
lot of voice acting to match.  I say "deliberate" because icing most
enemies usually involves creeping up on them until they're in view,
then blasting them without retaliation because you're too far away. 
I'm sure there are at least a dozen others.

Terrence Briggs, who's still kind of intrigued by SG VF-7, even if the
exprience is rather crude

Peace to you...

"Dean Siren" <d...@iu.net> wrote in message news:<ub43ek3...@corp.supernews.com>...
> How would you
> duplicate online the act of selling a used game and the act of renting a game?
> How would you satisfy those mindsets?

With a console online?  Not sure, but I doubt that's what's keeping
console gamers from wanting online games.


> I think Divx was based on DVD, which is primarily offline technology.  I think
> for any media to become popular with consumers, it has to be primarily online or
> offline.  Think of TV and VCR.  Most people have both and use them for "online"
> shows and "offline" rental movies but not for "online-offline" recording shows
> to watch them later.

No, it's not the same thing.  Divx was a type of DVD disc/movie that
was encoded to only allow playback a limited number of times.  If you
wanted to watch it more times after that, you had to "dial-up" and pay
a per-viewing access fee.  So a Divx-version of a movie might cost
half that of a DVD but you would need to pay a fee each time for
subsequent viewings.  Winner, DVD, by public support.

As for your whole idea of "online-offline" recording shows to watch
them later, well, I guess I disagree (if I understand what you mean). 
Of course people use VCR's to record stuff to watch later.  It's this
feature of the VCR that has kept it alive in the face of superior
technology (DVD).  I mean, DVD players are dirt cheap now (as low as
$50 new) as are the discs.  But they can't record.  When a cheap DVD
set-top box is available, it will be the beginning of the end for the
VCR.  But that's a whole different topic, I just was using it to make
my point, as in, people do use VCR's for recording stuff to watch
later.


> > I remember at least 2 arcades that ran PC networks that you could pay to
> > play games like Doom, etc.  I still seem some stores that do it, in
> > fact (ie, Wizards of the Coast, amongst others).
> 
> Really?  I never saw that.  I've only lived in Florida since 1994, where did you
> see it?

Well, I can't remember the names of the arcades.  I saw those many
years ago and they have probably long-since shut down, as have all the
arcades that I used to go to.

I did see the PC network set-up at Wizard's of the Coast with the last
few years (I think it was in 2000 or 2001).  I was visiting the
University of Washington in Seattle and WotC has a big store just off
campus.  They had an arcade, a board-game store, and the PC network
setup downstairs.  I've seen similar setups at videogame stores since 
in different cities (usually setup for Counterstrike) but I can't
remember any specific locations, sorry.

I've also heard about virtual reality flight-sim setups.  Basically, a
flight-sim "arcade" if you will.  Probably something like the
Battletech simulators they had in Chicago a few years ago.

> What if there's no initial purchase?  What if Everquest and PSO cost nothing to
> start, only for the subscription?
> 

I don't see why it wouldn't work.  Probably, though, both game
developers thought the financial risk of giving away the software in
hopes of making it up later were too steep.  Or more likely, they
would have gone with that model but didn't have the financial backing
to take the initial losses.  I mean, technically, Sony could give away
PS2's in hopes of making up the losses eventually with game sales but
the initial losses would be so steep that it would probably break
them.  Plus, they might not ever fully recover the losses.

> How do you feel they should make the next generation of
> hardware/infrastructure/business?

Well, if it were up to me, I would go with the "out of the box" model.
 A system that could play games either by dial-up or broadband with no
additional purchase.  And they would need to have at least a
half-dozen popular genres ready for online play at launch.  The real
clincher would be that it has to be from a big company with lots of
promotional/financial backing.

I think that's the whole reason why PC online is now popular while
console online isn't.  I don't really see how it benefits PC
gamemakers from adding online play other than it's a selling feature. 
If two similar PC games were released but only one included online
play, of course the online version would sell better.  Most PC users
are connected so they will take the game with more features.

Meanwhile, on the console side, none of the current players have
online built-in.  Sony, MS, and Nintendo are basically on an even
field when it comes to online games.  Their console gamers are not
connected currently so there is no big draw/selling feature for online
play.  Instead, it mainly means an added expense for setting up the
network with little in return.

As I've said before, Sega tried to use online play as a selling
feature but their execution was poor.  They already had public-image
problems so they were an easy target for ridicule when they launched a
console that was online ready without any online games.  If their
image was clean coming in and they were ready to go online from
launch, I think it would have been a decent selling feature and I
think the current generation of consoles would be competing online. 
But as it stood, many just stayed away and the current console makers,
not fearing Sega's online draw, only saw it as an added expense.

In rec.games.video.sony Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Console games aren't especially well suited to games which allow
> that, as FPS's are weak on consoles, RPG's which allow it tend to
> be a strength of PC's as well (PSO has been called a Diablo clone
> more than a few times) and so consoles aren't offering anything
> (yet) which can't be done better on a PC.  Now, if someone could
> pull off a fighter (like DOA2's tournaments) online, that would
> be something, but the latency will kill it.

This would be a killer app for a console.  Fighters suck on PCs.

>> I don't really see the whole "tying up the TV" argument, either.
>> Anyone that plays videogames ties up the TV whether they are playing
>> online or not.

> Right, but they can stop instantly once Grandma wants to watch
> "Matlock" or some such thing.  If the kid starts crying about one
> more level or another half hour, that'll be the end of the online
> gaming in that house.

I don't see how this is any more or less a problem with other types
of games.  If anything, online RPGs are better at doing a quick save &
quit than non-online RPGs where you have to use savepoints.

Besides, even when not playing an RPG, how many times have you told
someone "Just one more ..." or "Just 5 more minutes ..." ?

> I think it's got a lot to do with the different style of play.
> An RPG player is used to the idea that he's going to be spending some
> hours on the game in one sitting.  Most other types of games aren't
> like that.

I would think the primary audience of an online RPG would be somewhat
familiar with how RPGs in general work - including the need for some
dedicated playtime.  RPGs aren't usually the sort of thing you can
just casually play for an hour here and there.  Ditto for online RPGs -
especially if it takes time to accumulate some equipment for your
session.

>> The only reason PSO has been dying
>> off has been poor customer service (ie, no resolution for all the
>> cheating), otherwise it was quite popular.  Anyways, maybe it has
>> something to do with the amount of time you have to invest in online
>> RPG's is why people are more willing to pay for them.  FPS's and other
>> online console gaming is so brief in comparison that I suppose no one
>> thinks it's worth paying a fee.

> I think there's another factor which has to do with the maturity
> of the audience.  FPS's, regardless of their "Mature" rating, are
> typically kiddie fare twitch games.  RPG's tend to be much slower
> and more thoughtful in comparison.

I dunno, I've met more than my share of assholes while playing
online RPGs.  Ironically, some of the more mature players were kids.

> Sony's supposedly going to try with an add-on modem/broadband adapter
> but if it costs much more than $35 or so, I think it's doomed.  It's
> the old catch-22.  Nobody will make games for something nobody is
> buying, and nobody will buy something nobody is making games for.

There are two ways to get around this:

1: Make a killer app that requires the add-on.  FFXI or EverQuest might
be that killer app.

2: Bundle the add-on into future consoles.  So maybe the PS2's pricecut
doesn't happen.  Instead, the PS2 comes with the ethernet adapter and HD
already installed.  This would be similar to the Dualshock for the PS1.
Once it came out, lots of games were released that used the sticks.  It was
also quickly bundled in with the PS1 instead of the old controller.

Admitantly, only one game - Ape Escape - has *required* a Dualshock 
controller...