Everyone, pull out your annoyed hats, but listen
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
-
- Posts: 1823
- Joined: Mon, 10. Apr 06, 20:35
No no no, yeah lets have multi-player X.
I just reserve the right to a Xenon start in a K.
After all multi-player deserves some real villains.
I just reserve the right to a Xenon start in a K.
After all multi-player deserves some real villains.
It was a woman who drove me to drink... you know I never went back and thanked her.
Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal.
Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal.
Actually that would be very easy, when you consider all you need to press to start menu functions is enter, from there you keep pressing a new menu. that requires 2 buttons on a joypad.About X not being on a console system, given the fact on how many keys are used on the keyboard for various functions I would think a console controller would be hard pressed to keep up
New poll concept: Would you donate around 10 bucks to an "Egosoft to consider Multiplayer Development Fund"?
[ external image ]
The end of a trilogy does not mean an end to a series.
| Vanilla with strawberries? [List of Vanilla safe mods.] | Tired of the plots? [Plot Skipper Tool v0.5] |
| X3: R & TC Minimaps |
The end of a trilogy does not mean an end to a series.
| Vanilla with strawberries? [List of Vanilla safe mods.] | Tired of the plots? [Plot Skipper Tool v0.5] |
| X3: R & TC Minimaps |
All Egosoft gives as an excuse is a lack of money. Instead of fixing the problem, all they do is sit and moan about it. If Egosoft really has a money problem, they should do one thing: Fix it.
They wouldn't have as big of a problem if their games were decent quality at release. Reviewers would give the games better scores, therefore getting more people interested in the game, therefore increasing sales. Egosoft's X series have been around for a long time. You'd think they would figure it out by now.
Alternatively, find a publisher that is willing to fund them. Don't try to rough it. Find a publisher that is willing to support your team.
Figure it out, Egosoft. The evidence is right in front of you.
They wouldn't have as big of a problem if their games were decent quality at release. Reviewers would give the games better scores, therefore getting more people interested in the game, therefore increasing sales. Egosoft's X series have been around for a long time. You'd think they would figure it out by now.
Alternatively, find a publisher that is willing to fund them. Don't try to rough it. Find a publisher that is willing to support your team.
Figure it out, Egosoft. The evidence is right in front of you.
How can one player flying one ship defeat a big gang of pirates?
Good flying, or reinforcements. Lots of reinforcements.
Good flying, or reinforcements. Lots of reinforcements.
Look, you guys are misunderstanding as well. First, I read Gazz's thread, he makes a great argument, but most of the forums are Single player or Multiplayer, no exception. Why not have both. I would love to start companies with friends, amass a private military, and take on various people's companies. It could be like microsoft and apple fighting...for real. That would be fun. I just don't see why it has to be one way or the other. The freelancer comparison is that the multiplayer game, is the same as the single player game, but with people to interact with. faster travel is accomplished with cruise engines, something simple like that would eliminate the need for the SETA.
I said I hear no viable argument, when I hear that people will only except one or the other, and not both.
Also, with the 'what if you log off' principal. Dynamic AI, trained and paid enough that they can's simply be swept aside would solve that, especially on LAN. If you have a super ship and super corporation, what fun would the game be anyways with out a living, breathing, thinking set of competitors, like that of the Human variation, and not the predictable AI leading them. Humans would force adaptation, especially on LAN servers. Do research on a Mod for freelancer called 'Crossfire 1.7', it is a simpler variation of X3, you can buy stations, you can buy large battleships and pay AI to guard them while you are offline. There is economy, and in the newest version, 1.8, you will be able to hire ships to trade for you, and you can own a corporation.
I DON'T want the game changed, and I can quote me saying that a couple of times, I want the feature added of multiplayer, making coop and LAN available to those who choose.
The reason I don't make one is that I'm not a programmer. But attempts are made on 'impossible games to have multiplayer', such as Bethesda's Oblivion.
Since a developer has not responded, and only fans have, I really don't get why the multipayer option draws so much hostility. Obviously, I am not the only one who has thought about this. Obviously others want it from coop to MMO, and everything in between. Look at the success of Eve online. How much different is it to X? The stand alone game Infinity won a game of the year award from Mod Database, for promoting the same idea as X3 with multiplayer, while the X games pull 7.3's and 7.1 (as off of metascore's 32 reviews, and only a 6.7 from users from X3:reunion, with X3 Terra Conflict only getting a 7.3 from metascore (the average of trusted game rating sites) and a 7.7 from 45 users.). These scores don't lie. The games are roughly 7.5-8.0. don't believe me, http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/x3reunion
there is the proof.
People like the game, but it's only half of what it could be. With a 9/10, the game would sell, and more people would join. Attached with that would be better games, better graphics, better development, because more money leads to better games, and the Half Life, Halo and command and conquer series will attest to that.
Truthfully, I don't care for you guys. I will never play with you obviously and you nothing but passionate fans afraid the game you love will be changed. I AM NOT ASKING THAT THE GAME BE CHANGED. I'm asking for the addition of a multiplayer option. no change. option. The same X games you love will be there, and the X game that various others who have started topics and hide in the background wishing for multiplayer will get theirs.
Obveously this is not something that I'm alone with. This is also a topic that isn't going away. Developers have to realize this, because I didn't spend 50$ on X3 the Terran conflict, because It didn't have multiplayer, and recieved the same review as X3: reunion. I can't imagine that I am alone, and the full rack of copies at Wallmart, surrounded by empty racks of games sold out says that same idea is mutual among gamers. If X want's to survive, you had better all start buying ten copies each, because they aren't flying off the selfs, and with less money=distributer cut backs and elimination. They are a company, and must STAY competitive to survive.
I said I hear no viable argument, when I hear that people will only except one or the other, and not both.
Also, with the 'what if you log off' principal. Dynamic AI, trained and paid enough that they can's simply be swept aside would solve that, especially on LAN. If you have a super ship and super corporation, what fun would the game be anyways with out a living, breathing, thinking set of competitors, like that of the Human variation, and not the predictable AI leading them. Humans would force adaptation, especially on LAN servers. Do research on a Mod for freelancer called 'Crossfire 1.7', it is a simpler variation of X3, you can buy stations, you can buy large battleships and pay AI to guard them while you are offline. There is economy, and in the newest version, 1.8, you will be able to hire ships to trade for you, and you can own a corporation.
I DON'T want the game changed, and I can quote me saying that a couple of times, I want the feature added of multiplayer, making coop and LAN available to those who choose.
The reason I don't make one is that I'm not a programmer. But attempts are made on 'impossible games to have multiplayer', such as Bethesda's Oblivion.
Since a developer has not responded, and only fans have, I really don't get why the multipayer option draws so much hostility. Obviously, I am not the only one who has thought about this. Obviously others want it from coop to MMO, and everything in between. Look at the success of Eve online. How much different is it to X? The stand alone game Infinity won a game of the year award from Mod Database, for promoting the same idea as X3 with multiplayer, while the X games pull 7.3's and 7.1 (as off of metascore's 32 reviews, and only a 6.7 from users from X3:reunion, with X3 Terra Conflict only getting a 7.3 from metascore (the average of trusted game rating sites) and a 7.7 from 45 users.). These scores don't lie. The games are roughly 7.5-8.0. don't believe me, http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/x3reunion
there is the proof.
People like the game, but it's only half of what it could be. With a 9/10, the game would sell, and more people would join. Attached with that would be better games, better graphics, better development, because more money leads to better games, and the Half Life, Halo and command and conquer series will attest to that.
Truthfully, I don't care for you guys. I will never play with you obviously and you nothing but passionate fans afraid the game you love will be changed. I AM NOT ASKING THAT THE GAME BE CHANGED. I'm asking for the addition of a multiplayer option. no change. option. The same X games you love will be there, and the X game that various others who have started topics and hide in the background wishing for multiplayer will get theirs.
Obveously this is not something that I'm alone with. This is also a topic that isn't going away. Developers have to realize this, because I didn't spend 50$ on X3 the Terran conflict, because It didn't have multiplayer, and recieved the same review as X3: reunion. I can't imagine that I am alone, and the full rack of copies at Wallmart, surrounded by empty racks of games sold out says that same idea is mutual among gamers. If X want's to survive, you had better all start buying ten copies each, because they aren't flying off the selfs, and with less money=distributer cut backs and elimination. They are a company, and must STAY competitive to survive.
- Deadbeat_Spinn
- Posts: 6483
- Joined: Wed, 19. Nov 08, 20:47
First, I (and probably a lot of others) think that you're the one misunderstanding. Making a multiplayer game costs a fair deal of money and Egosoft being a small company doesn't have the capital for that sort of venture. But seeing as how that you have never played any of the games in the X series your argument is based on assumptions rather than facts.Mikro39 wrote:Look, you guys are misunderstanding as well. First, I read Gazz's thread, he makes a great argument, but most of the forums are Single player or Multiplayer, no exception. Why not have both. I would love to start companies with friends, amass a private military, and take on various people's companies. It could be like microsoft and apple fighting...for real. That would be fun. I just don't see why it has to be one way or the other. The freelancer comparison is that the multiplayer game, is the same as the single player game, but with people to interact with. faster travel is accomplished with cruise engines, something simple like that would eliminate the need for the SETA.
I said I hear no viable argument, when I hear that people will only except one or the other, and not both.
Also, with the 'what if you log off' principal. Dynamic AI, trained and paid enough that they can's simply be swept aside would solve that, especially on LAN. If you have a super ship and super corporation, what fun would the game be anyways with out a living, breathing, thinking set of competitors, like that of the Human variation, and not the predictable AI leading them. Humans would force adaptation, especially on LAN servers. Do research on a Mod for freelancer called 'Crossfire 1.7', it is a simpler variation of X3, you can buy stations, you can buy large battleships and pay AI to guard them while you are offline. There is economy, and in the newest version, 1.8, you will be able to hire ships to trade for you, and you can own a corporation.
I DON'T want the game changed, and I can quote me saying that a couple of times, I want the feature added of multiplayer, making coop and LAN available to those who choose.
The reason I don't make one is that I'm not a programmer. But attempts are made on 'impossible games to have multiplayer', such as Bethesda's Oblivion.
Since a developer has not responded, and only fans have, I really don't get why the multipayer option draws so much hostility. Obviously, I am not the only one who has thought about this. Obviously others want it from coop to MMO, and everything in between. Look at the success of Eve online. How much different is it to X? The stand alone game Infinity won a game of the year award from Mod Database, for promoting the same idea as X3 with multiplayer, while the X games pull 7.3's and 7.1 (as off of metascore's 32 reviews, and only a 6.7 from users from X3:reunion, with X3 Terra Conflict only getting a 7.3 from metascore (the average of trusted game rating sites) and a 7.7 from 45 users.). These scores don't lie. The games are roughly 7.5-8.0. don't believe me, http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/x3reunion
there is the proof.
People like the game, but it's only half of what it could be. With a 9/10, the game would sell, and more people would join. Attached with that would be better games, better graphics, better development, because more money leads to better games, and the Half Life, Halo and command and conquer series will attest to that.
Truthfully, I don't care for you guys. I will never play with you obviously and you nothing but passionate fans afraid the game you love will be changed. I AM NOT ASKING THAT THE GAME BE CHANGED. I'm asking for the addition of a multiplayer option. no change. option. The same X games you love will be there, and the X game that various others who have started topics and hide in the background wishing for multiplayer will get theirs.
Obveously this is not something that I'm alone with. This is also a topic that isn't going away. Developers have to realize this, because I didn't spend 50$ on X3 the Terran conflict, because It didn't have multiplayer, and recieved the same review as X3: reunion. I can't imagine that I am alone, and the full rack of copies at Wallmart, surrounded by empty racks of games sold out says that same idea is mutual among gamers. If X want's to survive, you had better all start buying ten copies each, because they aren't flying off the selfs, and with less money=distributer cut backs and elimination. They are a company, and must STAY competitive to survive.
Second, for any type of online play the game would have to be changed. The main being SETA and the second, say you have 4 people playing, all being in different sectors and one starts a fight. What that one player is doing has to be sent to the others and if all four are doing something similiar the FPS is going to drop to the floor thus making the game unplayable.
Third, just because a game gets a 7 or less doesn't mean that game is crap. Sure it has shortcomings but no game is perfect and I've played games that have a 5 and were lots of fun despite any issues. Now if a game gets like a 1, then I'm rather certain the game fails in practically everything.
Fourth, saying you don't care for us, true X fans, well majority probably wouldn't play with someone with that sort of outlook and the ones who did would take their fleets and pound you into the ground (I would).
Lastly, why does every game made today need to have MP included, when did this become a rule? Here's the thing about MP and I will use a game as an example. The MP for Crysis (I could also use Diablo II), while seeming great on paper, had major issues.
1. Everything was client side rather than server side.
2. Result of #1, there was an outrageous amount of people using hacks (and this was after Beta testing and little was changed upon release). Hell some of the creators of a given hack were selling them online (not naming any names).
As a result within a month of the games release most people quit playing MP and dozens upon dozens of servers shut down until things were fixed (many patches later and not fully). I was among those who stopped because of people ruining honest players fun because in a given game a third or more of people in the game were using a least one hack if not several.
If I wish to play a game that MP I will, if I want to play a single player game I will. Some games work having MP (for me Crysis....sadly, Test Drive, Mechwarrior, GRID) and other work better as single like (X series, X-Wing/Tie Fighter, Black, Silent Hill). Hell I remember the days of when you were lucky if you got a game that had LAN included.
The X games, including TC, are long term activities for pretty much everyone who plays them. Which means to do what you want, you'd have to have an extremely dedicated group of players that would all want to play at the same time over long periods of time. That's the only way you could keep the flavor of the X games. You couldn't have players come and go as they please, because while they were gone, someone else could simply come along and wipe out all their assets as they sat helpless in the game. And you couldn't simply turn those player's assets off, as that would have negative impacts on the economy of the game. I really doubt there's that many gamers that prefer multiplayer games that would be willing to make that time commitment to a single game. Certainly not enough to make it worth Egosoft's time and money.Mikro39 wrote:Look, you guys are misunderstanding as well. First, I read Gazz's thread, he makes a great argument, but most of the forums are Single player or Multiplayer, no exception. Why not have both. I would love to start companies with friends, amass a private military, and take on various people's companies. ....
So what are you left with? Either a Freelancer-like simplistic shooter where no player owns stations and they only own a ship, or an EVE-clone where the player really can't own much except a few ships and it takes a huge number of player-drones to build up some monolithic corporation. There's no point in Egosoft making either of these, since they already exist in the form of Freelancer and EVE-Online.
Bottom line, the X games are successful simply because they're a huge single player sandbox, allowing the players to let their imaginations run free. Read Nuklear-Slug's two excellent tales and you'll see what I mean.
Have a great idea for the current or a future game? You can post it in the [L3+] Ideas forum.
X4 is a journey, not a destination. Have fun on your travels.
X4 is a journey, not a destination. Have fun on your travels.
- Deadbeat_Spinn
- Posts: 6483
- Joined: Wed, 19. Nov 08, 20:47
Links to Nuklear-Slug's wonderful and tragic stories -Nanook wrote: Read Nuklear-Slug's two excellent tales and you'll see what I mean.
The First Story, RIP Squiddy
The Second Story, still in progress
Edit: Just remembered I had this, Shadowgaz's competition vid which is one hell of a show (a higher quality can be located). Even if just two people were playing, the FPS in some of these fire fights would probably cause the server/host to crash (even in an unmodded game).
and why is Egosoft still a small operation, low budget, 'poor' if you will? Why has every other low budget game that has taken off taken off? A prime example is the company that made Halo, that was low budget enough they were a release game on the xbox. They attribute their success to multiplayer and xbox live, even though they have great stories.
Here's some other low budget games made big by multiplayer.
Counterstike.
Left For Dead
Day of Defeat
Team Fortress
Runeskape
Farcry
Here's some other low budget games made big by multiplayer.
Counterstike.
Left For Dead
Day of Defeat
Team Fortress
Runeskape
Farcry
- Deadbeat_Spinn
- Posts: 6483
- Joined: Wed, 19. Nov 08, 20:47
Yes, and the top four are part of Valve which also runs Steam, don't know about Runeskape, and Farcry is part of Crytek/EA. Valve & EA are big companies with huge budgets. Halo...part of Microsoft. You need to find better examples or people are gonna rip you.Mikro39 wrote:and why is Egosoft still a small operation, low budget, 'poor' if you will? Why has every other low budget game that has taken off taken off? A prime example is the company that made Halo, that was low budget enough they were a release game on the xbox. They attribute their success to multiplayer and xbox live, even though they have great stories.
Here's some other low budget games made big by multiplayer.
Counterstike.
Left For Dead
Day of Defeat
Team Fortress
Runeskape
Farcry
BTW Counterstrike (I first played at beta 2) and Team Fortress (played both TFC & TF 2) were built as an MP only game.
Last edited by Deadbeat_Spinn on Sat, 2. May 09, 02:34, edited 1 time in total.
Mikro - while I agree with you that an X-series game with multiplayer option would be great, it doesn't look like you're bothering to read everyone's posts thoroughly - a lot of the people who are seriously responding to your arguments do want a multiplayer mode, but have been over this discussion before, and the way this discussion is being held is not productive.
I think we all understand by now that your particular suggestion is that the multiplayer be optional and not encroach upon the single-player game's production values or gameplay in a detrimental fashion. And of course, if one doesn't take into account the development issues involved, no-one could logically dispute that this is a great idea. Why have X3 when you could have X3 AND X3MP? The reasons have already been listed, and as Gazz's huge thread of previous multiplayer-threads has proved, it's pointless arguing this, so how about we do something productive?
I move that we come up with a full list of features from X3:TC that would not work or break game balance in multiplayer. Any concern, issue, hurdle or likewise should be posted, and then a solution suggested.
I'll start with the most obvious sync-breaker - SETA.
Issue: SETA is a function that allows a player to compress time in order to avoid waiting for hours to fly across the large areas in X
Suggestion: The primary uses of SETA are to speed up travel, and also to cheese the game by letting automated trading inflate your bank account. The former can be solved by a new ship upgrade for X3MP - The Turbodrive (cheesy name optional). Whenever players hit the Turbodrive button, the ship's weapons are disabled until a few seconds after the Turbodrive ends, and the ship accelerates to ten times its normal speed. Being attacked or approached by hostile ships would end the Turbodrive's use, and if there is an imminent collision with another ship, the Turbodrive uses its Turbobrakes to prevent the collision (to stop kamikaze griefers).
Bonus: If the Turbodrive can be used by NPCs and AI, then trade and NPC travel will be much faster, allowing for a sped-up trade economy.
I think we all understand by now that your particular suggestion is that the multiplayer be optional and not encroach upon the single-player game's production values or gameplay in a detrimental fashion. And of course, if one doesn't take into account the development issues involved, no-one could logically dispute that this is a great idea. Why have X3 when you could have X3 AND X3MP? The reasons have already been listed, and as Gazz's huge thread of previous multiplayer-threads has proved, it's pointless arguing this, so how about we do something productive?
I move that we come up with a full list of features from X3:TC that would not work or break game balance in multiplayer. Any concern, issue, hurdle or likewise should be posted, and then a solution suggested.
I'll start with the most obvious sync-breaker - SETA.
Issue: SETA is a function that allows a player to compress time in order to avoid waiting for hours to fly across the large areas in X
Suggestion: The primary uses of SETA are to speed up travel, and also to cheese the game by letting automated trading inflate your bank account. The former can be solved by a new ship upgrade for X3MP - The Turbodrive (cheesy name optional). Whenever players hit the Turbodrive button, the ship's weapons are disabled until a few seconds after the Turbodrive ends, and the ship accelerates to ten times its normal speed. Being attacked or approached by hostile ships would end the Turbodrive's use, and if there is an imminent collision with another ship, the Turbodrive uses its Turbobrakes to prevent the collision (to stop kamikaze griefers).
Bonus: If the Turbodrive can be used by NPCs and AI, then trade and NPC travel will be much faster, allowing for a sped-up trade economy.
not every game thats released suddently gets alot of money.
there are lots of small developers that dont make huges amounts of money, they sometimes make enough to get by and continue making games however.
did you relise that litterly only a small percentage of games made actually make a profit.
also you have completly missed the point, all those games you mentioned were designed, first and foremost, as multiplayer games.
the X-Series is not
also, all those games are lot simpler than the X-Series, theres really nothing to them, they also use existing engines from big companies, which cuts down the development costs considerable.
also, they are also mass market games, the X-Series is not, its in a niche market, adding multiplayer will not move it from the niche market, so the potential profit to be made is already limited.
finally, i really dont see how u can possibly come up with Halo as a low budget game. They are owned by microsoft, and they put alot of money into it to make it a release game for the xbox.
there are lots of small developers that dont make huges amounts of money, they sometimes make enough to get by and continue making games however.
did you relise that litterly only a small percentage of games made actually make a profit.
also you have completly missed the point, all those games you mentioned were designed, first and foremost, as multiplayer games.
the X-Series is not
also, all those games are lot simpler than the X-Series, theres really nothing to them, they also use existing engines from big companies, which cuts down the development costs considerable.
also, they are also mass market games, the X-Series is not, its in a niche market, adding multiplayer will not move it from the niche market, so the potential profit to be made is already limited.
finally, i really dont see how u can possibly come up with Halo as a low budget game. They are owned by microsoft, and they put alot of money into it to make it a release game for the xbox.
The X games are space combat trading sims. I don't see any of that genre in your list. All you show are FPS's and RPG's. Space trader games are a niche market, and no amount of multiplayer will change that. So your examples are irrelevant. Sorry.Mikro39 wrote:and why is Egosoft still a small operation, low budget, 'poor' if you will? Why has every other low budget game that has taken off taken off? A prime example is the company that made Halo, that was low budget enough they were a release game on the xbox. They attribute their success to multiplayer and xbox live, even though they have great stories.
Here's some other low budget games made big by multiplayer.
Counterstike.
Left For Dead
Day of Defeat
Team Fortress
Runeskape
Farcry
Have a great idea for the current or a future game? You can post it in the [L3+] Ideas forum.
X4 is a journey, not a destination. Have fun on your travels.
X4 is a journey, not a destination. Have fun on your travels.
If there was a multiplayer X I would log in just to destroy people's PHQs and expensive complexes with a solo M3.
[X3] Guide to training CAG and CLS1&2 pilots
[X3T] Guide to training CAG and CLS1&2 pilots in Terran Conflict
The mercenary code
There is no right or wrong.
There is no good or evil.
There is only the will of the client, and how much they're paying.
[X3T] Guide to training CAG and CLS1&2 pilots in Terran Conflict
The mercenary code
There is no right or wrong.
There is no good or evil.
There is only the will of the client, and how much they're paying.
I think the point that a lot of people are making, that the OP seems to be missing, is that in order to facilitate the changes that would be necessary in multiplayer (e.g. the SETA scripting, IS/OOS combat, AI, system requirements) you wouldn't be able to package the multiplayer and the single player together because of the fundamental differences to the game code.
For this reason, even if Egosoft was able to find the funds for a multiplayer element to X, it would have to stand as a game on its own.
Personally, I'd prefer for Egosoft to focus on continuing to improve and refine the great single player experience they've already made.
@Chealec: I also have a Bravia and I had no idea I could do that with it
For this reason, even if Egosoft was able to find the funds for a multiplayer element to X, it would have to stand as a game on its own.
Personally, I'd prefer for Egosoft to focus on continuing to improve and refine the great single player experience they've already made.
@Chealec: I also have a Bravia and I had no idea I could do that with it
~ Experienced X3 veteran. Dangerously incompetent X4 novice. ~
A multiplayer X game will in time become EVE Online, together with its host of problems, social and technical.
Part of the appeal with X is that not only is it a great modding sandbox, I think the fact is most of us can get to enjoy a good pseudo-online sandbox without having to deal with anonymous people online, and we secretly love that.
Part of the appeal with X is that not only is it a great modding sandbox, I think the fact is most of us can get to enjoy a good pseudo-online sandbox without having to deal with anonymous people online, and we secretly love that.
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Fri, 3. Apr 09, 08:05
X3:TC In Second Life - Just a matter of interest
Second Life is a script driven MMO Virtual Grid available without charge that will support the recreation of X3 objects (ships, stations, factories).
While there are some limitations (256M x256M and something called "prims") creative folk have achieved remarkable accomplishments of scale.
and it's the only place I know you can start with nothing, and actually pull real life dollars OUT!
The GRID (basic design and engine of Second Life) is open source - so there could be a separate virtual world using it just for X3.
I should probably think out a separate thread.
While there are some limitations (256M x256M and something called "prims") creative folk have achieved remarkable accomplishments of scale.
and it's the only place I know you can start with nothing, and actually pull real life dollars OUT!
The GRID (basic design and engine of Second Life) is open source - so there could be a separate virtual world using it just for X3.
I should probably think out a separate thread.
I see two choices, and that's assuming Egosoft has the resources.
A) The game would be very different. Not necessarily a bad thing, mind, but in anything resembling its current state, multiplayer wouldn't be viable. It would need to be fairly persistent for people to want to invest all that time, and due to this it would have to be slower and the universe bigger, closer to what EVE is, though still smaller in scale. Instead of a monthly fee, you'd have players hosting the games on persistent servers. Egosoft could chuck in a few if they can afford it. It'd effectively be what multiplayer RPGs are to MMORPGs.
B) It'd be small scale, to be played with a friend or three. Considerably less changes would have to be done. SETA, obviously, would have to be replaced, but things like destroying the other player's stations or blocking jumpgates shouldn't be major issues.
As for why the games aren't as popular as those Mikro listed, the thing they have in common is that they all belong to popular genres. X doesn't. Still, I have to agree part of it is due to Egosoft games' condition at release. It's never good for sales if your customers have to wait for weeks or months to be able to play the game properly, and it will show on reviews.
There's also a general lack of polish. Us fans can let it slide since we like the game so much, but I can totally see why someone wouldn't want to play TC due to its larger-than-usual share of flaws.
A) The game would be very different. Not necessarily a bad thing, mind, but in anything resembling its current state, multiplayer wouldn't be viable. It would need to be fairly persistent for people to want to invest all that time, and due to this it would have to be slower and the universe bigger, closer to what EVE is, though still smaller in scale. Instead of a monthly fee, you'd have players hosting the games on persistent servers. Egosoft could chuck in a few if they can afford it. It'd effectively be what multiplayer RPGs are to MMORPGs.
B) It'd be small scale, to be played with a friend or three. Considerably less changes would have to be done. SETA, obviously, would have to be replaced, but things like destroying the other player's stations or blocking jumpgates shouldn't be major issues.
As for why the games aren't as popular as those Mikro listed, the thing they have in common is that they all belong to popular genres. X doesn't. Still, I have to agree part of it is due to Egosoft games' condition at release. It's never good for sales if your customers have to wait for weeks or months to be able to play the game properly, and it will show on reviews.
There's also a general lack of polish. Us fans can let it slide since we like the game so much, but I can totally see why someone wouldn't want to play TC due to its larger-than-usual share of flaws.