Multiplayer and New Rebuilt Engine. (Question to Dev's)

[GebürtigerTerraner]

Also to those that dont want mp because they are afraid it will pull away from singleplayer shouldn't worry because everyone feels the same and we all want Singleplayer, exactly the way it is but, multiplayer.

You cant break it if you dont change it.

I don't think you know how this works(me neither,but a few basics are there)
The Problem most people have with multiplayer is that every day put into it is a day that was not put in the singleplayer.And to implement multiplayer you don't just flip a switch and boom,it is long and hard work.

[Lunif]

There is always at least two or three of them on the front page

That is because it is quite a popular idea with everyone who hears about the X games but hasn't stuck around on the forums for years.

and the fact of the matter is, there are plenty of multiplayer games out there, while there are players who really do prefer singleplayer-only games.

And the other fact of the matter is that none of them play in any way like X. People want X gameplay in a multiplayer environment. No, it won't work in an MMO environment. Yes it would work in a small server environment. This demand can not be served by playing other games, because they do not provide the same gameplay.

X is a unique game. There is nothing like it out there in any genre, SP or MP.

while there are players who really do prefer singleplayer-only games.

And they could keep on enjoying it. Why does adding multiplayer support equal changing the fundamental nature of the game? Ambivalence to the idea I can understand, but these forums are unreasonably hostile to it, as if the taint of MP would pervert their precious.

There are, again, plenty of games out there giving multiplayer space games, and just look at Star Citizen if you want basically what you are talking about having in a multiplayer space game.

Will SC provide Xs unique gameplay? No. So why even mention it? Just because it occupies roughly the same setting?


Egosoft! Listen up! If you make an expansion to XR that is exactly the same in every single respect to XR, but has multiplayer support, I will buy it! I'll probably buy 4 copies.

Perhaps do a kickstarter so people like me can put their money where their mouth is. You can gauge demand, and if there is enough, get funded. Win win.

There have been countless polls around this subject and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has the same result... the overwhelmingly majority of people here do NOT want a MMO.

Of course nobody wants an MMO. An MMO would fundamentally alter the nature of the game out of absolute necessity. You couldn't have economic empires full of NPC workers in an MMO.

Nobody, however, ever asks for an MMO. They want a small persistent server like Minecraft.

I agree with most of this except I personally would add that the only reason I am even considering buying Star Citizen is because I can not do a two player X game. But anyway, there is an issue here. It is not just the money either. It is the time and human resources as well. Egosoft is a small company and they do not have the ability to make this a reality without taking away from the single player aspect due to the lack of these resources. This is where the idea of people so apposed to it comes in. People are not so much apposed to the idea of the game allowing another person to join in without changing the single player as they are apposed to huge resources being wasted on something that they (the majority of X players) are not interested in.

I personally would love to be able to do a two player co-op, but I am definitely not willing to get that at the risk of beautiful game content. Especially when this series contains most of the few games out there that I truly love that are not from the 90s.

[Wraith_Magus]

There is always at least two or three of them on the front page

That is because it is quite a popular idea with everyone who hears about the X games but hasn't stuck around on the forums for years.

Once again, "vocal minority" DOES NOT EQUAL "popular idea".

and the fact of the matter is, there are plenty of multiplayer games out there, while there are players who really do prefer singleplayer-only games.

And the other fact of the matter is that none of them play in any way like X. People want X gameplay in a multiplayer environment. No, it won't work in an MMO environment. Yes it would work in a small server environment. This demand can not be served by playing other games, because they do not provide the same gameplay.

X is a unique game. There is nothing like it out there in any genre, SP or MP.

Yes, yes it is.

That's why people don't want to change it all to make it multiplayer.

while there are players who really do prefer singleplayer-only games.

And they could keep on enjoying it. Why does adding multiplayer support equal changing the fundamental nature of the game? Ambivalence to the idea I can understand, but these forums are unreasonably hostile to it, as if the taint of MP would pervert their precious.

Because making a game multiplayer DOES force a tremendous number of changes to a game.

Games don't run on pixie dust and magic, they have to have hardware to support what they do. The game is limited by its hardware, and there are tons of ingenious tricks the game uses to cut down on what is actually run. Everything that happens OOS runs at only 1 frame every 30 seconds, or 5 seconds if you're looking, while massively streamlining everything that happens. The more people IS you have, the more complex everything gets.

That's not even going into the fact that, as long as players are going to be fighting with each other (and the overwhelming majority of people who want to play multiplayer with strangers do so because they want to be a-holes to strangers) need to have competitive balance, need to have stations that can't be so easily destroyed, especially when players are out sleeping, need tons of things that would DRASTICALLY change the nature of the game.

If you seriously can't think of reasons why this game isn't like Minecraft, where the entire world just flat out isn't loaded unless a player isn't there, you're not thinking about it at all.

There are, again, plenty of games out there giving multiplayer space games, and just look at Star Citizen if you want basically what you are talking about having in a multiplayer space game.

Will SC provide Xs unique gameplay? No. So why even mention it? Just because it occupies roughly the same setting?

Because it's a game that WAS designed for multiplayer from the start. Because games that ARE designed for multiplayer from the start have to have changes made to it.

Those changes make sure that the game that comes out is, as you, yourself are saying, things that make that game NOT AN X-SERIES GAME.

There have been countless polls around this subject and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has the same result... the overwhelmingly majority of people here do NOT want a MMO.

Of course nobody wants an MMO. An MMO would fundamentally alter the nature of the game out of absolute necessity. You couldn't have economic empires full of NPC workers in an MMO.

Nobody, however, ever asks for an MMO. They want a small persistent server like Minecraft.

Those polls, actually, ask for ANY sort of multiplayer.

Even the ones that say, "Let's have some sort of online exchange," still wind up with overwhelming opposition.

And if you're trying to say, "Oh, the people who don't like X-series would like X-series if it were some totally different game," that is, again, the problem with your argument: You're trying to say this game should be made completely different for a completely different audience than the audience this game has.

Why, exactly, should EgoSoft risk the farm (which is what such an undertaking would entail) to try to court fans who will probably never like the series without making changes that would drive the existing playerbase away? The reason you have a series is because it lets you keep and build upon the fanbase you already have. There's no point in calling it an X-game anymore if you're targeting those friends who would never touch the X-games with a "100 foot pole" in the first place, and not the people who actually are loyal to the series.

And as I previously said in this very thread, it was Bernd himself that said that the only way EgoSoft could actually fund a multiplayer game was if it was made into an MMO. Hence, the only option for multiplayer is an MMO, so there's no point arguing some variant shade that's different.

Thank you for not reading a single word of my post and then making assumptions.

Really like it when people do that.

[jkflipflop98]

It's pretty dumb not to add multiplayer.

"There's always threads asking for multiplayer! I hate you noobs!"

"No one wants it!"

Well, which is it? Obviously people DO want multiplayer if there's so much talk about it.

This game series SCREAMS to have a shared universe MP setup like Minecraft. You host your own server on your own connection (or pay for one like counter-strike). You decide who gets the password. You decide what mods are running on the server. DO NOT WANT an MMO. This would not only get a ton more players, but it would help retain them as well. Nothing helps you over a learning curve faster than your buddy that knows what he's doing helping you learn the ropes.

Sigh... There we go again...

Look - this subject keeps coming back, because the same people start this nonsense over and over again. They simply do not want to hear and/or accept a "no" as answer, and just keep trying endlessly. Do not confuse the repentantly asking from a small minority with "everyone asking".

There have been countless polls around this subject and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has the same result... the overwhelmingly majority of people here do NOT want a MMO. Maybe they want some add on for a local game with a few people, but only, and only, as a add-on - and only if it's done without noticeable effect on the single player game..

I also certainly do not want a MMO. This would ruin the game, because the X series is about a single player that has to find his way in a complicated universe, and want to use the environment and resources as he/she/it seems fit. Involving others in your private universe will ruin this, because other people simply have different wishes. I simply want to do my thing, without asking permissions from other players, been depended on other players, or be hindered or attacked by other players.

I have owned may games that at the end been ruined by going multi player. Examples? Take Quake. This game I really liked at the first two incarnations. It had a (kind of) story and a purpose for your actions. Then came Quake3. Oh man - what a huge disappointment that game was for me. No story (how small that would be) whatsoever, just mindless blasting in huge arena's - and was it. The same happened with Unreal. Yes - i know these games where a success, but for me they where completely ruined. Fortunately Quake 4 was back to the roots and again enjoyable.

So - while it might be possible to have some local multi-player (as long as it don't take resources away from single player development, and has no impact on the game engine), there is no way a MMO will be supported by the majority of people here - and I am happy with that.

Sigh. . . read the post before shooting off at the mouth next time.

I clearly state I don't want to see an MMO. Then you go on and on about how I'm wrong because MMOs are bad. This exemplifies the brilliance of the camp that prefers a more disconnected and solitary experience it seems.

[JClosed]

It's pretty dumb not to add multiplayer.

"There's always threads asking for multiplayer! I hate you noobs!"

"No one wants it!"

Well, which is it? Obviously people DO want multiplayer if there's so much talk about it.

This game series SCREAMS to have a shared universe MP setup like Minecraft. You host your own server on your own connection (or pay for one like counter-strike). You decide who gets the password. You decide what mods are running on the server. DO NOT WANT an MMO. This would not only get a ton more players, but it would help retain them as well. Nothing helps you over a learning curve faster than your buddy that knows what he's doing helping you learn the ropes.

Sigh... There we go again...

Look - this subject keeps coming back, because the same people start this nonsense over and over again. They simply do not want to hear and/or accept a "no" as answer, and just keep trying endlessly. Do not confuse the repentantly asking from a small minority with "everyone asking".

There have been countless polls around this subject and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has the same result... the overwhelmingly majority of people here do NOT want a MMO. Maybe they want some add on for a local game with a few people, but only, and only, as a add-on - and only if it's done without noticeable effect on the single player game..

I also certainly do not want a MMO. This would ruin the game, because the X series is about a single player that has to find his way in a complicated universe, and want to use the environment and resources as he/she/it seems fit. Involving others in your private universe will ruin this, because other people simply have different wishes. I simply want to do my thing, without asking permissions from other players, been depended on other players, or be hindered or attacked by other players.

I have owned may games that at the end been ruined by going multi player. Examples? Take Quake. This game I really liked at the first two incarnations. It had a (kind of) story and a purpose for your actions. Then came Quake3. Oh man - what a huge disappointment that game was for me. No story (how small that would be) whatsoever, just mindless blasting in huge arena's - and was it. The same happened with Unreal. Yes - i know these games where a success, but for me they where completely ruined. Fortunately Quake 4 was back to the roots and again enjoyable.

So - while it might be possible to have some local multi-player (as long as it don't take resources away from single player development, and has no impact on the game engine), there is no way a MMO will be supported by the majority of people here - and I am happy with that.

Sigh. . . read the post before shooting off at the mouth next time.

I clearly state I don't want to see an MMO. Then you go on and on about how I'm wrong because MMOs are bad. This exemplifies the brilliance of the camp that prefers a more disconnected and solitary experience it seems.

Ehh... Bernd said very clearly that the only way to get multiplayer development financed, is to develop an crowd funded MMO. I hope you already read the comments he made about it.

So - I hope you do realize that asking even for an local multiplayer it means the game engine has to be re-developed, single player development has to be halved or even halted, and some crowd funding project has to be started.

Thus - even developing a local multiplayer environment will result in the development in an MMO (there is no way around it), and the suffering of the single player development trajectory...

No - the "MMO is wrong camp" as you call it, is not stupid. They see clearly the implications from the comments Bernd made, that other people seem to miss..

[Sandalpocalypse]

Why, exactly, should EgoSoft risk the farm (which is what such an undertaking would entail) to try to court fans who will probably never like the series without making changes that would drive the existing playerbase away? The reason you have a series is because it lets you keep and build upon the fanbase you already have. There's no point in calling it an X-game anymore if you're targeting those friends who would never touch the X-games with a "100 foot pole" in the first place, and not the people who actually are loyal to the series.

There's clearly people who would buy the X-games if they had multiplayer, but arn't as interested in singleplayer. We don't have to rely on theoreticals here, there's lots of people who just don't like singleplayer games. That has nothing to do with changing the gameplay or even impacting the singleplayer experience in any way.

[Leng_20]

I so wish there was an auto-lock option on this forum everytime someone make a thread about the same thing that already got answered countless time already...

http://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php? ... 21#2885821
http://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=243321

SC as your so precious MP, if you cant wait 2 years then you re gonna have to play something else, simple.

[CBJ]

That has nothing to do with changing the gameplay or even impacting the singleplayer experience in any way.

Except that it does. Please, do me a favour and read the FAQ I wrote explaining why this is the case. It would save a lot of repetition, and might perhaps give you some insight into the exasperation on the part of those who have read it.

[Rabiator der II.]

That has nothing to do with changing the gameplay or even impacting the singleplayer experience in any way.

Except that it does. Please, do me a favour and read the FAQ I wrote explaining why this is the case. It would save a lot of repetition, and might perhaps give you some insight into the exasperation on the part of those who have read it.

Obviously, multiplayer would draw away development resources from other things. You do have to implement some things for multiplayer that would otherwise be unnecessary.

Otherwise, it depends on the type of multiplayer.

Small co-op game among friends where the players agree on common play times and the server gets started when everyone is ready?
I could see that working in a game universe that is almost the same as in single player. The quest system might need a bit of modifying so everyone can do quests that are essential for progressing in the game, otherwise I see no need for changes.

Big MMO where large numbers of complete strangers meet, at unsynchronized times and not always friendly to each other?
Now you have to limit station building to prevent a total urban sprawl, add protected zones for the newbies to prevent excessive ganking, add a mechanism to delay the destruction of stations (else you get ninja 2am station kills) and so on...
Overall, you might end up re-implementing lots of EvE online, and the gameplay would change drastically.

[CBJ]

As my FAQ clearly explains, time and resources are the issue, not gameplay behaviour.

[Rabiator der II.]

Maybe I'm a little blind today, but I have not found the FAQ looking at the stickies here and in "X-Universe". If it was in a non-sticky thread, it might have been pushed from the front side by now

[CBJ]

It was linked in the post immediately preceding my first one.

[Alci]

There's clearly people who would buy the X-games if they had multiplayer, but arn't as interested in singleplayer. We don't have to rely on theoreticals here, there's lots of people who just don't like singleplayer games. That has nothing to do with changing the gameplay or even impacting the singleplayer experience in any way.

People who won't buy (any) game because it is not MP probably never played X game before (if they did they either like it or not and THAT would drive their decision. You don't buy MP game you don't like. And you buy SP only game if you liked previous SP ones).

If the MP part is the only thing they care they probably buy game they don't know anything else about except it has MP. That most likely leads to stop playing game after a while anyway.

On the other side:

MP ruins principles of games that are not built for MP. It ends up deserted and resources are wasted. And I name Tomb Raider as pretty good example of wasted resources on MP part which is not anything close to TR. But "we don't buy until it's MP" crowd have spoken.

Or you can change fundamentals of game so it has meaningful MP but that changes fundamentals of SP too. Again, for who? For people who use "MP" as the critical criteria for a game that never had such thing. They could simply choose from any other game they don't know but has MP. Why to change a game that can be different because of SP only to be same as so many others?

[CBJ]

No, Alci, it's not about the gameplay. See above, please.

Also, I just realised that I didn't answer the OP's question yet.

• Yes, we did consider multi-player when we started designing the game engine.
• Yes, we did experiment with it to a limited degree early on.
• No, there is no hidden multi-player engine that modders could expose and make use of.
• No, we did not end up developing the whole game to be easily converted to a multi-player model.
• No, that does not completely eliminate the possibility in the future, but nor does it make it significantly more likely.

Also, just for reference the client-server model is only one implementation, and it has limitations as well as advantages. It wouldn't necessarily be the one we would go for if we did implement any form of multi-player.

[vukica]

Also, just for reference the client-server model is only one implementation, and it has limitations as well as advantages. It wouldn't necessarily be the one we would go for if we did implement any form of multi-player.

distributed P2P architecture could be possible, with very low bandwidth requirement (i did a paper on this, well... a thesis actually).
not even a persistent connection to peers would be needed.
however, with P2P there are always security issues and content managment.

there are some hybrid architectures that *might* work (e.g. supernode structure like Skype)

but i don't know of many MMO games that have implemented this properly.

[Slyvers]

Thanks for that insight CBJ!

[Night Nord]

P2P is too much unreliable, especially with computing-heavy stuff such as X-universe. One guy with slow PC or bad bandwidth will slow down everyone.

Actually, client-server architecture will be perfect for X game, because server won't need rendering and other such stuff freeing resources for additional calculations.

[Sandalpocalypse]

Except that it does. Please, do me a favour and read the FAQ I wrote explaining why this is the case. It would save a lot of repetition, and might perhaps give you some insight into the exasperation on the part of those who have read it. Wink

I (have previously) read your FAQ, I apologize if it seems otherwise. I wasn't speaking as to the opportunity cost of doing multiplayer, but rather to the kind of game that people who are asking for multiplayer want, as seems to be being asked for in the quoted post. Judgements on what people want are different than budgets and opportunity costs xD

I think there is a lot of crossover between people who like X-games and who want multiplayer, thats why this thread gets made so often. I have a friend who likes EVE, loved Freelancer, tried to like Black Prophecy... he was interested in Rebirth when I described it, but dismissed it for lack of MP. The market is real, even if the money isn't there

[pirke123]

Think about the time it takes to complete a game of X... how many HOURS of gameplay would you and your friends need to be available together? This is not a quick match of some shooter, this is about building an empire. You can't do that in a quick match. And we don't want "yet another MMO".

And for quick dogfighting: go to the "yet another MMO"s out there.

[vukica]

P2P is too much unreliable, especially with computing-heavy stuff such as X-universe. One guy with slow PC or bad bandwidth will slow down everyone.

Actually, client-server architecture will be perfect for X game, because server won't need rendering and other such stuff freeing resources for additional calculations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

P2P doesn't mean everyone get's to share the same load.
graphics is done localy, all you need to send to "peers" are changes. as far as i can remember minimum bandwidth for a very very very high density environment was about 100kbps. that's peak, not average.
and if someone has a poor connection, only he/she suffers from it.

client-server is no good since host(server) would have to take to much of a load. now, someone could say that eve online does it in a persistent universe. well... not realy, since it's not real time. there are all sorts of gameplay tricks that mask the lag. kind of like windows animations in windows vista/7/8. not much but 200ms is enough to kill the mood in a FPS.

besides, i did say hybrid was better. that's mostly p2p, with node hierarchy and probably central auth & content servers. a super-node is a node that has more processing power and can coordinate ordinary nodes. super-node would also be responsible for a bigger share of the environment.

it's al doable and tested, but there are still no developers brave enough to try it.

we are of course talking about MMO concept...

ordinary multiplay is obvious, but would still probably require some load sharing between adjecent nodes.