Unreal creator Tim Sweeney: "PCs are good for anything, just not games”

[Neb]

You lost right away with what you said there. RAM is probably the single most important component to a smooth running and impressive looking, as well as decent scale, MMO. And comparing an MMO to the multiplayer of Halo or Resistance is like comparing a Tomato to an Onion.

Unless some find billboards and 2D backdrops facinating instead of more detailed aproaches...

 

[Mobius1aic]

No MHZ rating and a GF3 recommended for a game looking noticably better on the PC than PS2 at much higher resolution, yes? I even recall it being a quite bad port!

And really weak looking compared to other MMO's for PC.

Now what completly flaws your argument is that this game (FFXI) was made for the PS2 with its limitations in mind, then ported to PC. On the reverse porting a PC MMO to console can prove difficult just becouse of what has been said in here.

Going to console from a PC would be difficult but on argument for the PS2 version of FFXI it did have the PS2's 40 GB HDD for data caching, which is very important for dealing with the 32 MB RAM limit on the PS2. Now as for the other versions of the game (PC, Xbox 360), the PC version doesn't look half bad for when it came out (2004), it's at least in HD and can run higher settings that help set it apart a little bit like more lighting, better texture filtering, and I think better textures too. The 360 version looks just like the PC version basically maxed-out (if you could use the word in this case hahah). And what basis do I have to go on this? Couple of my good friends had the PS2 version (they may still have it), they definitely the PC version, and the 360 version to boot. They mainly play PC, but they do not play it often anymore except on certain occasion.

 

[archangelmorph]

WoW is hardly a good example which is why i didnt mention it but EQ2 instead. The Console crowd is far more critical of graphics than PC gamers so of course they would need something that looks 'omg amazing!'. Another example, Eve Online, 1GB min recommended system ram.

I think even The Agency, Huxley & APB prove that 'omg amazing' visuals can & will be done in an MMO on current gen consoles.. I'm really not sure where you get such confidence in your pessimism..

You lost right away with what you said there. RAM is probably the single most important component to a smooth running and impressive looking, as well as decent scale, MMO. And comparing an MMO to the multiplayer of Halo or Resistance is like comparing a Tomato to an Onion.

Lost? I wasn't aware that I'd been playing a game/competing? Or is that a childish attempt at conjecture..?
Also why is comparing an MMO different to comparing a large scale multiplayer map of a much faster paced FPS game (resistance 2) with far far higher poly counts & environment detail per object/actor than any PC MMO on the market not valid.. If you understood what was going on under the hood you'd understand that excessive amounts of RAM are by far not an absolute requirement to making an MMO run well & the fact that most (or all depending on your subjectivity) PC MMOs look like ass compared to some of the console offerings coming down the pipe only reinforce the 'lack' of 'impressive looking' world instances with hundreds of characters resident simultaneously being symptomatic of a large amount of RAM.. Also I would imagine any intelligently built MMO wouldn't expect the client to do much (if at all) processing/updating on those hundreds of actors (for security reasons..) & would only have to render them..

This is true if developers try to alienate the classic interpretation of an MMO. The Agency will be the best example to date that i know of.

Last time I checked 'MMO' stood for Massively Multiplayer Online & without the 'RPG' suffix to further qualify it, didn't relegate the genre to games with level grinding, elves & magic..

If you personally *need* your thousand-man-raids fix then that's your own preferences & you're entitled to it but don't try to assume everyone elses requirements for MMO gaming are the same as yours.. I for one find the concepts presented in these upcoming console MMOs a refreshing change & one that might finally get me interested in MMO gaming beyond the few months of runscape I did back in uni..

 

[SugarCoat]

I think even The Agency, Huxley & APB prove that 'omg amazing' visuals can & will be done in an MMO on current gen consoles.. I'm really not sure where you get such confidence in your pessimism..

I wasnt aware that those titles were already released. How do they really stack up then?

Lost? I wasn't aware that I'd been playing a game/competing? Or is that a childish attempt at conjecture..?

None of the above, im sorry i offended you.

Also why is comparing an MMO different to comparing a large scale multiplayer map of a much faster paced FPS game (resistance 2) with far far higher poly counts & environment detail per object/actor than any PC MMO on the market not valid.. If you understood what was going on under the hood you'd understand that excessive amounts of RAM are by far not an absolute requirement to making an MMO run well & the fact that most (or all depending on your subjectivity) PC MMOs look like ass compared to some of the console offerings coming down the pipe only reinforce the 'lack' of 'impressive looking' world instances with hundreds of characters resident simultaneously being symptomatic of a large amount of RAM.. Also I would imagine any intelligently built MMO wouldn't expect the client to do much (if at all) processing/updating on those hundreds of actors (for security reasons..) & would only have to render them..

The pace has nothing to do with it, its the utter lack of content, AI (more important in an RPG), and the generally restrictive size of the levels. I might offend you again so apologies in advance, but its an utterly stupid comparison on your part. You're making it out as if you can directly compare the requirements and functionality of counter-strike to everquest.

Last time I checked 'MMO' stood for Massively Multiplayer Online & without the 'RPG' suffix to further qualify it, didn't relegate the genre to games with level grinding, elves & magic..

Granted but last time i checked games classified as MMOs dont help your silly comparison either.

If you personally *need* your thousand-man-raids fix then that's your own preferences & you're entitled to it but don't try to assume everyone elses requirements for MMO gaming are the same as yours.. I for one find the concepts presented in these upcoming console MMOs a refreshing change & one that might finally get me interested in MMO gaming beyond the few months of runscape I did back in uni..

And wish you luck in your new games but that still doesnt change the fact that your thinking is flawed, a consoles capability to run Halo 3 MP is not any indication of its ability to run an MMO like those the PC can.

 

[Panajev2001a]

No MHZ rating and a GF3 recommended for a game looking noticably better on the PC than PS2 at much higher resolution, yes? I even recall it being a quite bad port!

And really weak looking compared to other MMO's for PC.

Now what completly flaws your argument is that this game (FFXI) was made for the PS2 with its limitations in mind, then ported to PC. On the reverse porting a PC MMO to console can prove difficult just becouse of what has been said in here.

We'll see .

 

[Entropy]

We'll see .

Sage advice.
While I don't think MMOs will ever be terribly popular on consoles, (the planning, scheduling of events, doling out of tasks, yada, yada seems at odds with the pick-up-and-go appeal of consoles), I would assume that there is room for maybe one such game on each major console.
Or not.
The user bases are smaller, the ethos is different, and - the PC already has a death grip on those who would rather live online.

But I think it's a safe assumption that someone will try the waters. The promise of that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow has to be irresistable.

 

[archangelmorph]

I wasnt aware that those titles were already released. How do they really stack up then?

None of the above, im sorry i offended you.

The pace has nothing to do with it, its the utter lack of content, AI (more important in an RPG), and the generally restrictive size of the levels. I might offend you again so apologies in advance, but its an utterly stupid comparison on your part. You're making it out as if you can directly compare the requirements and functionality of counter-strike to everquest.

Granted but last time i checked games classified as MMOs dont help your silly comparison either.

And wish you luck in your new games but that still doesnt change the fact that your thinking is flawed, a consoles capability to run Halo 3 MP is not any indication of its ability to run an MMO like those the PC can.

Strawman arguements don't help justify your point in any greater degree either..

Last time I checked neither Halo 3 nor counterstrike have been mentioned in any of my previous comments so why bring them into the equation..

& frankly you still haven't brought up a single technical point which proves that RAM is a factor at all in relation to the software architecture of even a conventional MMO..

So rather than tackle the meat of my arguement directly:

Aside from the fact that any data you send across the network per player has to be extremely lightweight anyway (all your heavy data; e.g. textures is managed locally..) you could still scale back the number of 'visible' character's in view whilst still updating their logic in the background (a la dynasty warriors).. Granted its looked a bit pants in the past depending on the game & the viewable actor capp but to be honest anymore than 30-40 actors in view will occlude almost everything else so that you wouldn't really notice too much..

and..

I would imagine any intelligently built MMO wouldn't expect the client to do much (if at all) processing/updating on those hundreds of actors (for security reasons..) & would only have to render them..

You instead chose to focus on other side comments, draw them out of context & use it as some point of contention in order to try & refute the fundamental point; "MMORPGs can in fact be done on consoles & RAM is hardly a relative factor anywhere as much as it is in doing an open world GTA style game on the platform"..
Not necessarily the most productive means of discussion & in the end only help derail the entire thread off into oblivion.. I could argue the case in terms of how twitch based multiplayer game network architecture IS in fact relevant but i'm not going to purely on the basis that it still doesn't tackle the core issue of whether or not traditional MMORPGs are feasible on a console platform so it's probably best left out of the discussion..

Also I don't appreciate your tone either sugarcoat since making statements like "Your arguement is silly" or " its an utterly stupid comparison on your part" are both immature, unnecessary, rude & add no substance towards the discussion.. Not to mention the fact that like I said, I can go into great detail regarding how these arguements are relevant & it's only your own perspective (limited or not) which makes it hard for you to agree.. Just because you don't see how something makes sense doesn't mean it doesn't nor does it mean the person proposing such a concept is 'stupid'..

You'd do well to remember that in the future lest you continue to come off as baselessly rude & arrogant..

 

[archangelmorph]

Sage advice.
While I don't think MMOs will ever be terribly popular on consoles, (the planning, scheduling of events, doling out of tasks, yada, yada seems at odds with the pick-up-and-go appeal of consoles), I would assume that there is room for maybe one such game on each major console.
Or not.
The user bases are smaller, the ethos is different, and - the PC already has a death grip on those who would rather live online.

But I think it's a safe assumption that someone will try the waters. The promise of that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow has to be irresistable.

Unless one can think outside the box & subject the concept of a console MMO to a 'design-for-the-audience' rationale over a 'design-by-convention' alternative, no MMO will probably succeed in this space..

Fortunately there are enough companies doing exactly this with console MMOs in the works that it won't be long before someone comes along & pulls a WOW but against the richly lucrative console space..

 

[pjbliverpool]

Unless one can think outside the box & subject the concept of a console MMO to a 'design-for-the-audience' rationale over a 'design-by-convention' alternative, no MMO will probably succeed in this space..

Fortunately there are enough companies doing exactly this with console MMOs in the works that it won't be long before someone comes along & pulls a WOW but against the richly lucrative console space..

I think both WoW and the Sims prove that the PC is just as lucrative as the consoles, if not more so, as long as you target the game correctly.

High profile AAA blockbusters may not sell that well on PC's anymore but overall, the market is still much bigger than consoles (single or combined). As long as your game targets general PC users and not just hardcore PC gamers, the PC market is likely to be more lucrative.

 

[archangelmorph]

I think both WoW and the Sims prove that the PC is just as lucrative as the consoles, if not more so, as long as you target the game correctly.

High profile AAA blockbusters may not sell that well on PC's anymore but overall, the market is still much bigger than consoles (single or combined). As long as your game targets general PC users and not just hardcore PC gamers, the PC market is likely to be more lucrative.

Agreed..

However i'd like to add depth & quality to the list of "success criteria" games like WoW & the Sims have established..

 

[one]

If you read what Sweeny said, MMO is categorized in the low-end sector...

Even if those games were lower-end ones, there will always be a market for casual games and online games like World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has DirectX 7-class graphics and can run on any computer.

Competing with WoW in the saturated PC market may not be a lucrative enough option in the future, or even today.

 

[Mobius1aic]

Agreed..

However i'd like to add depth & quality to the list of "success criteria" games like WoW & the Sims have established..

Well it's not just because they are entertaining to the people that play them, but they are games that can cater to a large audience: casuals and hardcore players and the game is workable across the whole spectrum of computers as well, if I remember correctly, WoW can work with dial-up. The older Sims support Intel GMA845 (Intel Extreme Graphics 2), and that's pretty low. I keep saying that the case it seems to generate millions of dollars in revenue with PC games is to broaden the audience and appeal, as well as the workable systems.