#164234 - gauauu - Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:45 am
| tepples wrote: |
There are multiple definitions of "game console".
1. Computer primarily designed to play interchangeable video games.
2. Computer primarily designed to play interchangeable video games, and having enough controls and a large enough monitor for more than one player on one machine.
3. Computer primarily designed to play interchangeable video games, and having a lockout mechanism to block the use of video games made by indie developers.
The market failure of the past couple decades is that nearly all B are also C. |
From all your posts here, and on slashdot (And probably other forums that I don't read), it's pretty clear that you feel strongly about this. So here's your chance to go all out and talk about it without being offtopic: Why is this so important to you? (I'm not asking in an aggressive, antagonistic way -- I don't want to start a war, I'm asking because I want to understand).
And another corollary question: I can understand being disappointed that the current state of video games is this way, but what is your goal by bringing it up so often?
#164238 - tepples - Fri Oct 24, 2008 3:36 am
| gauauu wrote: |
| From all your posts here, and on slashdot (And probably other forums that I don't read), it's pretty clear that you feel strongly about this. So here's your chance to go all out and talk about it without being offtopic: Why is this so important to you? |
Because I am developing a multiplayer video game that would not benefit from a separate view per player (think Bomberman or Smash Bros.), and once it's finished, I want to know how I can distribute it in such a way that it will get played. I can't go the normal console route because I'm not yet in a position where I can afford a lawyer, an accountant, a multi-year lease on office space, and all the other trappings of a business. I can't really go the PC route because conventional wisdom is that a PC's monitor is too small for more than one player. (Or does conventional wisdom not know jack?)
| Quote: |
| I can understand being disappointed that the current state of video games is this way, but what is your goal by bringing it up so often? |
Mostly, to make people aware of the plight of the would-be indie party game developer.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#164239 - sgeos - Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:13 am
| tepples wrote: |
| I can't really go the PC route because conventional wisdom is that a PC's monitor is too small for more than one player. (Or does conventional wisdom not know jack?) |
Head into a place like Best Buy and look at their biggest monitors.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | I can understand being disappointed that the current state of video games is this way, but what is your goal by bringing it up so often? |
Mostly, to make people aware of the plight of the would-be indie party game developer. |
Nothing wrong with trying to do the "right thing".
#164250 - tepples - Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:11 pm
| sgeos wrote: |
| tepples wrote: | | I can't really go the PC route because conventional wisdom is that a PC's monitor is too small for more than one player. (Or does conventional wisdom not know jack?) |
Head into a place like Best Buy and look at their biggest monitors. |
I myself own a 32" monitor made by Vizio. But that won't help me reach the existing installed base of PCs with 17" and 19" monitors if players would have to buy a new monitor or buy a second desktop PC to install next to the TV just to play my game. I guess laptops might work, as those can be moved next to a TV, and many of them even come with a built-in SDTV scan converter. Or I'll have to put more effort into the 2-player cooperative campaign so that people try my game and then figure out how to set up a bigger monitor for 2-on-2 or 4-player deathmatch.
It's a somewhat Joust-inspired side-scroller with reduced-button controls inspired by the single-button movement.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#164260 - gauauu - Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:52 pm
While I understand your fears, I think that the market of people who are likely to discover your game are also willing to try it on a single monitor PC.
When I was in college, Armagetron and Liero were extremely popular, and they were perfect examples of the kind of game you are talking about. And at the time, bigger monitor were even more rare. (I remember having 4 people crowded around a single keyboard on a tiny desk with a 15 inch monitor playing Armagetron) Now, Super Mario War is also popular in the same way.
While it's true that it's unfortunate that there's not as much of a standard of doing what you are talking about, I believe that if you make the game, and it's fun, then people will play it, even on a smaller monitor.
#164268 - keldon - Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:06 am
I believe Tepples' fears are much more likely to be accurate. It's not just the size of the screen because plenty of people play multiplayer games (including 4-player goldeneye) on 14 inch TV screens with a much lower resolution than any SVGA monitor. The difference with doing it on a console and a PC has much to do with how people are used to interracting with a pc.
When I first got introduced to emulation (with the GB, NES and SNES), we were fine sharing one pc keyboard to play a game; but there just aren't many people willing to get used to playing games like that (ever tried sharing a keyboard that operates as two 12-button SNES controllers?). Of course that wouldn't be a worry with switch gaming.
Plus you will find TV's are often positioned for seating many from a comfortable playing distance, whilst PC's are often positioned to seat one.
Hardcore, enthusiastic and experimental gamers are more likely to try and learn your game; but it is written that a man who looks to the clouds and the way of the wind never plants seeds - i.e. just do it and stop looking at obstacles (obviously doing this with some wisdom, it isn't encouraging completely thoughtless action).
#164315 - chishm - Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:09 am
| tepples wrote: |
| I am developing a multiplayer video game that would not benefit from a separate view per player (think Bomberman or Smash Bros.), and once it's finished, I want to know how I can distribute it in such a way that it will get played. I can't go the normal console route because I'm not yet in a position where I can afford a lawyer, an accountant, a multi-year lease on office space, and all the other trappings of a business. I can't really go the PC route because conventional wisdom is that a PC's monitor is too small for more than one player. (Or does conventional wisdom not know jack?) |
You can still play single-view multiplayer games across a network. Each player has a PC, but they all see the same view of the game field. This'll work across the internet too, so there's more chance that people can find other players to play against.
_________________
http://chishm.drunkencoders.com
http://dldi.drunkencoders.com
#164322 - gauauu - Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:33 pm
| chishm wrote: |
| You can still play single-view multiplayer games across a network. Each player has a PC, but they all see the same view of the game field. This'll work across the internet too, so there's more chance that people can find other players to play against. |
But that defeats the goals of:
1. Everyone playing in the same room on the same screen as a social event.
2. Not requiring every player to own the game machine (pc)
#164331 - sgeos - Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:02 pm
| gauauu wrote: |
But that defeats the goals of:
1. Everyone playing in the same room on the same screen as a social event.
2. Not requiring every player to own the game machine (pc) |
To the extent you can manage a networked game with the same view for all players, you would think that local multiplayer would be trivial and come built in.
#164349 - tepples - Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:37 pm
To illustrate gauauu's point #2, here's an estimate of the cost excluding U.S. sales tax for a family with three gamers expecting to have one friend over:
- One slim PC, one 32" HDTV, four gamepads, a USB hub, and one copy of a game: $1150
- One Xbox 360 Elite console, one 32" HDTV, three extra gamepads, and one copy of a game: $1150
- One PLAYSTATION 3 console, one 32" HDTV, three extra gamepads, and one copy of a game: $1200
- Four PCs including keyboards and mice, four 19" monitors, and four copies of a game: $2600
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#164350 - bean_xp - Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:55 pm
I'm not being funny but I've never bought any of the above in order to play a single game, and I doubt that anybody ever would. Shouldn't you be looking to use hardware that people already have or am I missing the point? I'm fairly sure most people (who would be interested in having a 4 player game - without knowing the details of said game) own a desktop or laptop PC of some variety.
Also I don't think anything requires a 32" HDTV, that is a bit excessive and I for one would definately not be willing to buy one for a single game. If smash bros works fine for 4 players in a single viewport on a standard definition 19" TV (and lower) I'm sure you will have no problems fitting your game around that (again without knowing the details of your game).
Since you already stated you don't have the resources to produce a comercial console game, I am assuming you wont have a great budget for the marketing to reach your potential audience. Considering this wouldn't it be better to reach out to as many people as possible - ie. supporting as many platforms as you can, or at least pick one to start with and take it further when you have the time/resources.
#164351 - sgeos - Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:37 pm
| tepples wrote: |
| Four PCs including keyboards and mice, four 19" monitors, and four copies of a game: $2600 |
To the extent everyone is on a different computer, the friend can stay at home and use their own. Admittedly, this makes things different.
For what it is worth, aiming for the lowest possible required system specs is good probably a good idea if you want to appeal to a larger userbase. This way you could do 2P networked play on non-"gaming" machines (ie, mom's box that is set up to do email and the internet). The specs on new low end PCs these days are actually pretty wild.
#164383 - tepples - Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:14 am
| bean_xp wrote: |
| I'm not being funny but I've never bought any of the above in order to play a single game, and I doubt that anybody ever would. Shouldn't you be looking to use hardware that people already have or am I missing the point? |
The point is that people already have a PC, but they often don't have four of them, nor permission to remove the PC from the home to assemble four of them in one place.
| bean_xp wrote: |
| Also I don't think anything requires a 32" HDTV, that is a bit excessive |
True. I was assuming a typical HDTV, not the minimum HDTV.
| bean_xp wrote: |
| If smash bros works fine for 4 players in a single viewport on a standard definition 19" TV (and lower) I'm sure you will have no problems fitting your game around that |
I looked in a local computer store today, and none of the desktop PCs on display had a composite or S-video jack on the back. So people would have to buy some sort of scan converter to convert the VGA or DVI-A output of a PC to something that an SDTV can use, which is why I mentioned an HDTV in the first place.
| sgeos wrote: |
| To the extent everyone is on a different computer, the friend can stay at home and use their own. |
I've considered that, but it wouldn't work too well in my own extended family. In one household, there are more gamers than gaming PCs. Or the kids might be required to stay at a sitter's house while the parents are at work. (You guessed it: I'm the sitter.) Or home might be 669 miles away to a nuclear family who is in town for the extended family's annual reunion. In addition, the Internet adds noticeable latency that isn't seen on a single PC or even on a LAN; ask anyone who has tried playing Brawl online with the sort of "economy tier" Internet connection that Comcast used to criticize in its TV ads but now offers.
| sgeos wrote: |
| For what it is worth, aiming for the lowest possible required system specs is good probably a good idea if you want to appeal to a larger userbase. |
Would the lowest reasonable video specs be comparable to, say, the four-year-old Radeon card in one of my PCs? Or does even a Radeon 9000 cream an Intel GMA from the past couple years?
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#164400 - sgeos - Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:57 pm
| tepples wrote: |
| sgeos wrote: | | To the extent everyone is on a different computer, the friend can stay at home and use their own. |
I've considered that, but it wouldn't work too well in my own extended family. *SNIP details* |
Everyone's situation is different, and it is difficult to accommodate everyone. If you are hosting a get together (be it friends or relatives) and want to do a really good job, you need to spend money. This may come in the form of snacks, movie rentals or USB hubs/controllers.
| tepples wrote: |
| sgeos wrote: | | For what it is worth, aiming for the lowest possible required system specs is good probably a good idea if you want to appeal to a larger userbase. |
Would the lowest reasonable video specs be comparable to, say, the four-year-old Radeon card in one of my PCs? Or does even a Radeon 9000 cream an Intel GMA from the past couple years? |
Either one should do. If you aim for the four year old target, just about anyone who has upgraded in the last three to five years should be able to play your game. (Many people.)
#164422 - zzo38computer - Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:34 pm
| tepples wrote: |
There are multiple definitions of "game console".
1. Computer primarily designed to play interchangeable video games.
2. Computer primarily designed to play interchangeable video games, and having enough controls and a large enough monitor for more than one player on one machine.
3. Computer primarily designed to play interchangeable video games, and having a lockout mechanism to block the use of video games made by indie developers.
The market failure of the past couple decades is that nearly all B are also C. |
For one thing, why do you put 1,2,3 and later say B,C? I assume you mean 2 and 3 instead of B and C.
I will make my own game console system (I think I posted about it before) (I will make a new wiki using software I wrote myself, because the wiki providers I used before are acting stupid), it is 2. but will also display a warning message if it is not digitally signed by my company, but you can still run it anyways (it will ask you to push CANCEL to not run, or ACCEPT to run it anyways), and there will also be a option to suppress the warning message. Also source-codes of everything built-in to the system (including the hardware) will be available and license by GNU GPL v3 or later, so if you don't like it then you can change it (but external software (i.e. games) is not necessarily license by GNU GPL, but some might be). It will have other thing also that I think is problem with other game console system (and with other computers!) but will be fix on mine.
For sure many thing is game written for Windows computer or another computer, you have to have the correct version of operating system it isn't Free Software. Make the operating system Free Software and more secure. You can also use virtual machine such as Java or XY-MINI or NES/Famicom emulator (for the purpose of my game console system, a modified NES/Famicom emulator (meaning homebrew .NES file is converted to a new format by filling in a few unused fields in the header) might be called FamilyVM, avoiding trademarks and other stuff, and allowing use of more buttons on game-controller), etc. Possibly someone will make extension for Mozilla to allow use wii remote on Mozilla web-page like you can on Nintendo Wii, with multi-player games. Or, make the VM run by javascript that is also cross platform with different computer/controller, so it work in many different system.
_________________
Important: Please send messages about FWNITRO to the public forum, not privately to me.
#164471 - tepples - Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:41 pm
| zzo38computer wrote: |
| tepples wrote: | There are multiple definitions of "game console".
1. Computer primarily designed to play interchangeable video games.
2. Computer primarily designed to play interchangeable video games, and having enough controls and a large enough monitor for more than one player on one machine.
3. Computer primarily designed to play interchangeable video games, and having a lockout mechanism to block the use of video games made by indie developers.
The market failure of the past couple decades is that nearly all B are also C. |
For one thing, why do you put 1,2,3 and later say B,C? I assume you mean 2 and 3 instead of B and C. |
The markup from the original post prior to the topic split didn't survive in the quote.
| Quote: |
| I will make my own game console system (I think I posted about it before) (I will make a new wiki using software I wrote myself, because the wiki providers I used before are acting stupid), it is 2. but will also display a warning message if it is not digitally signed by my company, but you can still run it anyways (it will ask you to push CANCEL to not run, or ACCEPT to run it anyways) |
Prompting the user to add a title's cert sounds reasonable. I'd also recommend running each game in something like a FreeBSD jail so that one game can't screw up another game.
But then how do you plan to get your console into the hands of the masses, so that professional developers will find it potentially profitable? We're back to the problem of the first post: there aren't enough deployed units of your console, just like there aren't enough deployed units of slim PC + scan converter or slim PC + monitor bigger than 21".
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#164475 - bean_xp - Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:18 pm
Is there really anything that can be done about that though? I mean it's just the way it is, the console companies arn't going to change it, and there's nothing indie developers can realistically do to change it, that leaves PC manufacturers.
I also don't think that you need a slim PC or a greater than 21" monitor for any PC game suited to multiplayer parties. I have personally played 4 player splitscreen coop on Serious Sam (a first person shooter) comfortably on a 17" monitor - albeit in cramped conditions. But still, you are going to need pretty motivated people to want to play a local 4 player game which means the game needs to be damn good in the first place and worth the effort (of getting everybody in the same place at the same time). If people want to play 4 player local games, then they will find a way! I don't think the developer needs to worry too much about screen sizes or hardware setups - just let people set things up how they want them, besides the problem of TV sizes doesn't dissapear on consoles, you can't gurantee people to have huge and/or HDTVs.
Also zzo38, the thought of a fully open source console is nice, but you go on to mention digital signing, wouldn't this be contradictory? I mean if we had the source code to a console, wouldn't it be easy to fake digital signatures or remove the need for them completely? Perhaps a whitelist approach to allowed software would be better, this way no software could be run without being on the list (commercial software would be added automatically through software updates) and commercial software would require the prompt to be accepted once, adding it to the list. Also it sounds like there would be an issue with piracy equal or greater than that of the PC.
#164508 - zzo38computer - Tue Nov 04, 2008 9:45 pm
| tepples wrote: |
| Prompting the user to add a title's cert sounds reasonable. I'd also recommend running each game in something like a FreeBSD jail so that one game can't screw up another game. |
Something like FreeBSD jail seems good to do so. Thanks for telling me that. But, I am planning to use Linux not FreeBSD. Maybe there is a similar thing that can be made in Linux though. Anyways, I will figure it out.
I mean by the warning message that some titles might be completely unsiged, you can't add it's cert if it is unsigned. Of course the configuration option (set by the user) can suppress the warning screen, but digital signatures are signed with private keys by my company (and possibly other licensors also, in case for example some company wants to make a pornography game, we might assign another company to be the licensor for porngraphy games), and it will check the public key stored in the console, if it it matches then it won't display the warning message.
Of course, in addition to the warning message, there will be trademark rules as well, so that someone who doesn't pay and have their software checked for quality by us and have it digitally signed are not allowed to use our trademarks in certain ways in order to sell the software. This way, people can know whether or not it is certified or not. Some people will want to purchase only certified software while other people won't care.
| Quote: |
| But then how do you plan to get your console into the hands of the masses, so that professional developers will find it potentially profitable? We're back to the problem of the first post: there aren't enough deployed units of your console, just like there aren't enough deployed units of slim PC + scan converter or slim PC + monitor bigger than 21". |
I will figure that out later, probably. Of course I am not the only person in my company, so other people will help also. Post any ideas.
| bean_xp wrote: |
| Also zzo38, the thought of a fully open source console is nice, but you go on to mention digital signing, wouldn't this be contradictory? I mean if we had the source code to a console, wouldn't it be easy to fake digital signatures or remove the need for them completely? |
No, the digital signing is not symmetric, therefore you can't fake the digital signature. Of course, the user of the system (or anyone who clones it, but they can't use our trademarks without our permission) can remove the need for digital signature by modifying the source-code and recompiling (or just change the configuration to suppress the warning message, which is easier), but other people who write third-party software won't be able to do so unless they sell the hardware as well (again, without the trademark).
| Quote: |
| Perhaps a whitelist approach to allowed software would be better, this way no software could be run without being on the list (commercial software would be added automatically through software updates) and commercial software would require the prompt to be accepted once, adding it to the list. |
You say commercial software would be added automatically and commercial software would require the prompt to be accepted once. Probably for the second one you mean unlicensed software would require a prompt, while commercial software wouldn't require a prompt? Anyways, I will use non-symmetric digital signatures which means you don't fake a digital signature (and people that do fake it will be sued for trademark infringement). But, possibly I can have a whitelist also, and when it displays the prompt for unlicensed software it can optionally add it to the whitelist when accepted (possibly depending on configuration setting).
| Quote: |
| Also it sounds like there would be an issue with piracy equal or greater than that of the PC. |
While some people (such as myself) don't care (and won't use copy protection), there are still many ways for doing copy protection. If everyone does it differently instead of everyone the same, then it is harder to crack the copy protection on these systems. And, of course, there can also be hardware copy protection by USB security dongles (I will add a driver for it so that they can be used if anyone wants to use them). And another things that can be done with hardware copy protection, is that if someone uses a copy of the DVD without the dongle (for example to share with your friends/neighbours) then they will get only a demo version without all the functionality, and then they can decide whether or not they like it before purchasing a copy for themself also. And, of course, copyright laws still apply also, even if there isn't any hardware or software in the computer that enforces it.
_________________
Important: Please send messages about FWNITRO to the public forum, not privately to me.