The 8 Player Console Limit and the DLC Mystery: Let's try to figure this one out

[-RAISTLIN-]

Originally Posted by dean2k

to maintain that tactical gameplay.

im pretty sure CM have said it was done because of limitations with servers, for this game.

as i keep saying, the only reason the numbers are different between PC and consoles is because of a tech issue (whatever it might be). there's no conspiracy, CM aren't being meanies, and CM aren't business or software idiots.

[media73]

Originally Posted by -RAISTLIN-

you have no idea what you're talking about and no idea about the various technical constraints for DR for console (or PC for that matter). your conspiracy theory that CM are holding back on MP numbers to sell it later through DLC makes absolutely no sense at all and shows a sincere lack of business nous.

if CM thought that 8v8 was doable right now on consoles you'd be getting it. end of story. any other conclusion requires you to have personal knowledge of the tech behind the game and how it relates to the servers provided by MS and sony. you have neither.

just because some coder is making a sh1tty free MMO shooter gives them no basis to judge another game they've never worked on.

you console people are clueless.

The extra game mode on Bad company was going to be Paid DLC until the forums erupted with anger... we then got it for free. CM are a business, they are in it to make money, not games, not things for you and me, money, wake up. Anyway, ANYway games companies can make an extra buck they will do.

How many games have we seen get their reviews released just on or after the release date? and how many of those were poorly executed and buggy?

The embargo on MP info is very worrying, there are either very clever, or running scared. Going gold is what a week/2 max away to meet the deadline. They either delay or put out a half featured multiplayer experience. You don't need to of been in the industry long to know that an mp info drought like this means.... trouble at CM.

[FATT47]

Originally Posted by -RAISTLIN-

you have no idea what you're talking about and no idea about the various technical constraints for DR for console (or PC for that matter). your conspiracy theory that CM are holding back on MP numbers to sell it later through DLC makes absolutely no sense at all and shows a sincere lack of business nous.

if CM thought that 8v8 was doable right now on consoles you'd be getting it. end of story. any other conclusion requires you to have personal knowledge of the tech behind the game and how it relates to the servers provided by MS and sony. you have neither.

just because some coder is making a sh1tty free MMO shooter gives them no basis to judge another game they've never worked on.

you console people are clueless.

Look RAISTLIN, evidently you deem yourself the expert when I only replied with my opinions and concerns, if you don't like that then I could care less.
You IMO know no more then others here (me included) who are expressing themselves with opinions but if you do know all of the answers factually then please provide the truth rather then making flaming statements.

I don't have any knowledge of the facts regarding this issue and to this point neither CM or anyone else has stepped up to give any facts as to why the forcing of AI is happening.
Your attack on me and console users in general calling us clueless is tasteless, classless and IMO a personal attack which if the Admin here were fair minded they'd address it.

Please feel free to avoid any of my input from now on.

[Ensign Expendable]

Originally Posted by dean2k

LOL .... "Extra Highly Unlikely"

I really think everyone is over analyzing. Maybe I'm naive, but I want to believe CM that they limited it to 4_vs_4 (w/ bots) to maintain that tactical gameplay.

Relax kids ... it's just a game. Have fun with it. I know I will.

I think you have it right good sir. The reason it's 4vs4 on consoles is because this way each human player can do his own thing and play in a cohesive AI squad. Where as 16vs16 human players would become just another cluster f**k, due to the fact that's how most fps' are designed to be played on the consoles and that's the average mindset. I know this because I am an average console gamer.

[Milkman128]

I submit this is the most likely cause for console limitations.

• Consoles simply do not have enough available processing power/memory to support more then 8 players.


This is what most people naturally assume must be the answer.
Anybody with game development knowledge or experience will be able to tell you with confidence that consoles have more than enough local resources to support many more than eight characters onscreen at once. In fact, representing an online player onscreen most likely requires less resources than running a computer controlled character with an Artificial Intelligence. In other words, it should be easier for your console to compute online players than to compute AI bots – yet in Dragon Rising for consoles, there are many more AI Bots in a multiplayer match than actual players!
Let's also keep in mind, that if the maximum number of online players Dragon Rising could represent was 8, and that AI controlled characters consume more resources than online player representations, that would make the maximum number of AI controlled units during the single-player campaign less than 8; which is clearly not the case, according to gameplay videos.

You have 32 player including AI, last I checked and since you hypothesize (I agree) that AI is tougher to run then it could be argued they are pushing the limits further than previous games. The piddly console CPU's have to process each bullet each collision and keep 24 AI units under control not to mention everything else. Its easy to see how you could be held back here.

http://forum.teamxbox.com/archive/in.../t-358030.html

I would bet it is the processor that is holding you back on the console.

2nd I think 360 owners should be elated that they some how fit Skira Island on your disc. It has been a problem for other games such as GTA4, Red faction, and Rage to name a few



http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169963

http://gaygamer.net/2007/05/gta_iv_3...to_show_t.html

http://gamer.blorge.com/2009/01/03/r...-to-its-limit/

They might of had to limit OFP DR just for the 360 who knows how many vehicles/weapons we could of had?

end point be thankful you're getting a quasi mil/sim on the consoles that lets you experience a new way to play an FPS.

[brig gen]

Okay, for starters, -RAISTLIN-, shut up. "you console people are clueless" is a blatantly ignorant statement about console players that lacks an ounce of truthfulness. I honestly trust the opinions of the maker of this thread far more than I do you. At least he has some qualification. What qualifies you to not only judge console players, but deny that CM isn't holding back better multiplayer for DLC?

I honestly wouldn't blame them if they did. It's not a sinister plot, it's simply a marketing plan. One that seems like it will work.

[NielsNeo]

Originally Posted by Milkman128

I submit this is the most likely cause for console limitations.

You have 32 player including AI, last I checked and since you hypothesize (I agree) that AI is tougher to run then it could be argued they are pushing the limits further than previous games. The piddly console CPU's have to process each bullet each collision and keep 24 AI units under control not to mention everything else. Its easy to see how you could be held back here.
I would bet it is the processor that is holding you back on the console.

2nd I think 360 owners should be elated that they some how fit Skira Island on your disc. It has been a problem for other games such as GTA4, Red faction, and Rage to name a few

They might of had to limit OFP DR just for the 360 who knows how many vehicles/weapons we could of had?

end point be thankful you're getting a quasi mil/sim on the consoles that lets you experience a new way to play an FPS.

Good post Milkman.

I too believe that there will not be a miracle dlc that cranks up the numbers.
So more multiplayer modes: Really, how many colourfull variations of Deathmatch and Team Deathmatch can you create?
The only plausible dlc is missions. Multiplayer, single player and co-op missions.
This might also be the reason that there is no editor for the consoles but that's an completely different conspiracy theory.


....or is it?

[Chaser3275]

Hi everybody.
Thank you all for the responses, including the ones that disagree with my hypothesis.

So far the theory explains the 8 player console limit and the possible downloadable content, so if we can work in the lacking mission editor and the co-op tether, then we'll have a working theory of everything

Well, I've got a lot of responses to respond to, so let's get started!
*cracks knuckles*

Originally Posted by ASSASSYN 36o

I still believe the editor omission on console was done so with the intent to release DLC instead. Which all console gamers 360/ps3 know is a profitable endeavor for game developers. What good would DLC be if we could make the very missions in editor.

So far, I currently believe the most likely reason for the lack of mission editor on console is simply the pain of porting it from PC to console, combined with the awkwardness of using it on a console. Can you imagine scripting in events with your controller? I think the only reason they mentioned the possibility that the mission editor may come in future DLC was probably just to keep us from continually whining about it.

Originally Posted by bent.toe

Good post, but does it change the fact that we only get 8 players in mp? Nope...
And i belive 4vs4 will be awesome since i like smaller tactical groups instead of 12 teammates going all spastic and running off to spray 'n' pray.

Oh, I totally have no problem with the 4v4 gameplay; I think it will be very interesting, fun, and unique. The problem I personally have (and share with a large number of gamers) is how the exclusion of game-types with more human players disallows me to play with my friends, or even just enjoy some good player vs player action.

Originally Posted by |TG-6th|GhostDog

DLC could easily be a map in a different setting (desert, tropical, ...), fighting a different opfor (Taliban, ...). I find it more likely that it will be a mixture of all the stuff you mentioned (a few new weapons, vehicles, gametypes).

Absolutely. I think a downloadable content pack including a new style of environment would sell very well – depending on when the content is released. I think that the multiplayer game-types would probably be in higher demand at any time after release, and I imagine that Codemasters would need to release a multiplayer pack shortly after game release to avoid loss in game sales.

I could see a pack including weapons/vehicles/new environments coming out some time after a multiplayer pack. However I wouldn't be surprised if they put the two packs together, and released it at a midpoint between ideal multiplayer pack release, and ideal content-pack release – if that made as much sense to you as it did in my head.

Originally Posted by el CHINOCUDEIRO

I think it´s simple:
CM knows they can´t compete against CODMw2 multiplayer and they have focused their efforts in something different,or new, like The coop mode and the AI squads. It´s only a matter of marketing

Originally Posted by dean2k

I really think everyone is over analyzing. Maybe I'm naive, but I want to believe CM that they limited it to 4_vs_4 (w/ bots) to maintain that tactical gameplay.

Originally Posted by Ensign Expendable

The reason it's 4vs4 on consoles is because this way each human player can do his own thing and play in a cohesive AI squad. Where as 16vs16 human players would become just another cluster f**k, due to the fact that's how most fps' are designed to be played on the consoles and that's the average mindset. I know this because I am an average console gamer.

I agree entirely with you guys; I think Codemasters decided to focus on releasing the game-types that distinguishes Dragon Rising as a unique shooter. However, when those game-types alienate such a large number of your target audience, there must have been another motive. Which is why I think it's part of a DLC marketing strategy.

Originally Posted by alphatango1

The limit has been placed due to the technical limitations of the consoles. There is no DLC conspiracy. To process 'real' players takes more resources than processing AI ones. This is because indigenoius actions are calculated 'in-house' and are not subject to network considerations.

I understand you're logic, however it depends which machine's processing power you are talking about; the client, or the server. In all cases I have assumed that Codemasters has decided not to have any dedicated gameplay servers, and that all gameplay servers are non-dedicated and player-hosted. If the situation was otherwise (such as the inclusion of official dedicated servers), then there would be absolutely no excuse for an eight player limit.

So back to your point, yes, a real player does perhaps consume more resources than an AI character, however you are referring to an individual player themselves, not their online representation; only one real player has to be simulated per client in any scenario (except when you're not playing). The act of representing other online players and other online AI's is nearly the same. It should require more processing power for the gameplay server to support an AI character than a human player representation. Make sense? I could have gone into further detail in the original post, but it's already way to long in the first place, and the post did hit the 10 000 character limit.

Originally Posted by -RAISTLIN-

you have no idea what you're talking about and no idea about the various technical constraints for DR for console (or PC for that matter). your conspiracy theory that CM are holding back on MP numbers to sell it later through DLC makes absolutely no sense at all and shows a sincere lack of business nous.

if CM thought that 8v8 was doable right now on consoles you'd be getting it. end of story. any other conclusion requires you to have personal knowledge of the tech behind the game and how it relates to the servers provided by MS and sony. you have neither.

just because some coder is making a sh1tty free MMO shooter gives them no basis to judge another game they've never worked on.

you console people are clueless.

No, I am not familiar with Dragon Rising's code, however that isn't going to stop me from using common sense, facts, and evidence to try to figure something out.
Another thing I would like to point out, is that if you read my thread, you will find that not only did I take into account general basic game development knowledge, but I also used direct evidence from Dragon Rising to logically back up my points.

Originally Posted by -RAISTLIN-

im pretty sure CM have said it was done because of limitations with servers, for this game.

Like I said above in this post, I've assumed that Codemasters was unable to acquire high-quality official dedicated gameplay servers, and has had to rely entirely on non-dedicated player-hosted gameplay servers. So even in that case, the logic behind my hypothesis makes sense.

Originally Posted by media73

The embargo on MP info is very worrying, there are either very clever, or running scared. Going gold is what a week/2 max away to meet the deadline. They either delay or put out a half featured multiplayer experience. You don't need to of been in the industry long to know that an mp info drought like this means.... trouble at CM.

Very true. Sad and worrying, but it's a very realistic way of looking at this situation.

Originally Posted by Milkman128

You have 32 player including AI, last I checked and since you hypothesize (I agree) that AI is tougher to run then it could be argued they are pushing the limits further than previous games. The piddly console CPU's have to process each bullet each collision and keep 24 AI units under control not to mention everything else. Its easy to see how you could be held back here.

I would bet it is the processor that is holding you back on the console.

2nd I think 360 owners should be elated that they some how fit Skira Island on your disc. It has been a problem for other games such as GTA4, Red faction, and Rage to name a few

They might of had to limit OFP DR just for the 360 who knows how many vehicles/weapons we could of had?

Ah, I like you and the way you bring references that back you up.
I don't disagree with you: With 8 human players and 24 AI's I could see that getting close to reaching a processing/memory related limit, and probably getting even closer to reaching a bandwidth related limit.
However, what we are hoping, is for Codemasters to make an alternate game-type where they remove all of the 24 AI players, and throw in an extra 12 or so players. The game should, in rough estimation, be able to support around 20 human players and consume the same bandwidth as the 8 humans + 24 AI's.
I originally had a paragraph outlining the above there, but my post was too long to post, so I had to remove it. Sorry for any confusion.



Whew.
I'd like to give a special thanks to FATT47 and Chavtheworld for being cool.
If you have any more questions/comments, or want to challenge my logic, post it up!

-Chaser

[brig gen]

You know, the more and more I think about it, the more and more I realize 4v4 may be for the best. (at least for matchmaking) The fact of the matter is that most players on console don't communicate, and just want to play as lone wolves. Quite A few people I meet, (and absolutely loath) lack the brainpower to understand the word "team" In fact, one of three active operations our clan has going is "operation kill every wannabe gangster poser in every game known to man" Its quite possible that CM limited MP numbers to keep things controlled. I would like far more players and the option to turn off AI in private matches though.

[Baff]

Originally Posted by Chaser3275

Let's start with Technical Limitations:

Consoles simply do not have enough available processing power/memory to support more then 8 players.

This is what most people naturally assume must be the answer.
Anybody with game development knowledge or experience will be able to tell you with confidence that consoles have more than enough local resources to support many more than eight characters onscreen at once. In fact, representing an online player onscreen most likely requires less resources than running a computer controlled character with an Artificial Intelligence. In other words, it should be easier for your console to compute online players than to compute AI bots – yet in Dragon Rising for consoles, there are many more AI Bots in a multiplayer match than actual players!
Let's also keep in mind, that if the maximum number of online players Dragon Rising could represent was 8, and that AI controlled characters consume more resources than online player representations, that would make the maximum number of AI controlled units during the single-player campaign less than 8; which is clearly not the case, according to gameplay videos.

For the reasons stated above, I rate this possibility "Super-Highly Unlikely".





Okay, so it's "Super/Very-Highly Unlikely" to be a technical reason (that I can think of).

Incorrect


It's super unlikely to be anything else.
This isn't a standard FPS with loading screens and tiny maps.

It's a giant map using streaming technology that is by it's very nature always using 100% of available RAM at all times, in single player.

If we suggest that a typical Unreal game server uses 32 MB per player on PC, we can see that for an 8 player game we are using, 8x32 MB then the host is using half of all available RAM on a console just to host the game.
He still needs all the other half to play it himself.
His performance which was using all 512 in single player must needs be far lower than it was before he was hosting. (Halved in fact, so his gameplay experience is **** and everyone else is killing him all the time).
And if he went up to 16 players, his machine would need to be entirely dedicated to serving and his personal game would involve just sitting there picking his nose looking at a blank screen.

The PS3 however only has a total of 256 system RAM available, the other 256 is dedictated GFX RAM, so we can't even assign each multiplayer 32 megs of system RAM and still have any AI or ballistics let alone 16 players at 32 meg each.



So most likely we will already be using a vastly simplified mulitplayer system than we are typically used to on a PC or Unreal based games. With less data being transfered, less complicated mechanics. Fewer hitboxes, fewer item choices on display, less complex AOI calculations, less ballistics calculations, lower numbers of AI, lower tickrates, less encryption, shorter view distances etc..... and most obviously of all a much reduced player count.

It's not that a console can't make a game that hosts more players, it's that a console can't host a game with more players and still compute the rest of this highly complex game.
It's a big system hungry resource we are discussing here not a Counterstrike Map but an area about 3,000 times the size.
Open world games on less than 512 RAM? With modern GFX standards? You will notice that Oblivion Elder Scrolls/Fallout 3, which uses the same system of streaming RAM, has no multiplayer option at all on console.

They will be having a hard enough time to fit something halfway respectable on single player. Add the gameserver on the same machine and you are asking pretty much the impossible out of what is very very limited hardware. They are doing well to offer 4x4, even better if that 4x4 includes any AI.


That's the RAM, we can expect the same sort of issues from the CPU also. A CPU of the same capacity as a console, is rated to host around 8 players on a Unreal based Ravenshield server.

It takes a lot of CPU to host a multiplayer game.
Consoles don't have much in the way of it.
Just some el cheapo nonsense with no cache RAM and miserable floating point calculation. Put in too many AI's or players and it will lag.