Idea for Multiplayer/co-op

[unzubaru]

Hi there guys!

 

 

So, I confess I am new to the whole cRPG scene and having only played the BG series I am certainly a newb. Let's hope retards don't now use that against me.

So I have only played it with a friend and to be honest that's the only way I feel comfortable playing it. This is because I just feel like a lonely sod especially in the vastness of the Sword Coast universe!! 

To me it feels like Baldurs Gate is BETTER with coop, I know a lot of your don't share this view. However I believe it can't hurt to add it at some point.

 

And with a budget of 4 million dollars, I don't really think it's too hard to push for. Especially since we're looking at a 3 mill budget for the Baldurs series anyway! And that was THEN, the technologies needed to test the Infinity Engine have been greatly overpowered in this day and age.


Anyway, on to my main point. I totally agree with you. If it's going to take away from the SP experience don't ****ing make it. HOWEVER! What if you say, dedicated a month to creating a stable backbone netcode, then released the source code to the community and setup a competition for say 1,000 dollars on who could complete it?

Thoughts?

[JFSOCC]

If it can be modded in you won't hear me complain, but I don't think a money incentive is necessary.

[unzubaru]

What if as a $10,000 incentive, this allows Obsidian to create a REALLLYY buggy backbone, that serves as basic functionality and must then be taken forward by the community?

I really think this will add revenue to the game. I really, really LOVE the idea of this game. But if there's no coop, how can I create memories to talk about? 

[IndiraLightfoot]

unzubaru: Make a Let's Play PE on Youtube!

 

Just kidding. Welcome to the forums, and I wouldn't mind seeing that kind of coop, but at best, we'll have to wait for an expansion for that, a bit like Storm of Zehir in the case of NWN2.

[BillyCorgan]

I don't want that Obsy waste his time and money to make a coop or multi that not even 2% of the players expect and will play.

Why not, later with a patch or add-on but there ... I prefer they finalize at his best the solo game !

My opinion.

[anameforobsidian]

That is a terrible idea.  Here's why:  they're trying to make a mini-Baldur's Gate with the budget of Costume Quest.  A budget of $4 million is not a lot.  Neverwinter Nights, which wasn't even a good game, but was feature complete with multiplayer and had minimal bugs, took 160 person years of work.  The average game dev salary is $84,337.  That's $13.5m now.  

 

Furthermore, multiplayer is far from trivial to implement.  You don't put #include<the.internet> at the start of the code and be done with it.  You have to buy servers then build frontends for it, or integrate pre-built mulitplayer framework most of which doubles as DRM which would be against the campaign promises, or build a custom p2p connection framework.  Testing is a fresh hell of problems.  And this is technology which Obsidian, wonderful though they are, have very little experience with.  Let's not forget that their website (which is far easier to make and maintain than a game) crumpled under an entirely predictable load.

 

So, you have a simple request for them to make a wildly expensive unbudgeted feature with a fair degree of technical difficulty that is not high on the list of wanted features they already don't have the money for.

 

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131327/postmortem_biowares_neverwinter_.php?page=4

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/189893/Industry_in_flux_What_we_learned_from_Game_Developers_2012_Salary_Survey.php

Edited January 13, 2014 by anameforobsidian

[ilcontegis]

That is a terrible idea.  Here's why:  they're trying to make a mini-Baldur's Gate with the budget of Costume Quest.  A budget of $4 million is not a lot.  Neverwinter Nights, which wasn't even a good game, but was feature complete with multiplayer and had minimal bugs, took 160 person years of work.  The average game dev salary is $84,337.  That's $13.5m now.  

 

Furthermore, multiplayer is far from trivial to implement.  You don't put #include<the.internet> at the start of the code and be done with it.  You have to buy servers then build frontends for it, or integrate pre-built mulitplayer framework most of which doubles as DRM which would be against the campaign promises, or build a custom p2p connection framework.  Testing is a fresh hell of problems.  And this is technology which Obsidian, wonderful though they are, have very little experience with.  Let's not forget that their website (which is far easier to make and maintain than a game) crumpled under an entirely predictable load.

 

So, you have a simple request for them to make a wildly expensive unbudgeted feature with a fair degree of technical difficulty that is not high on the list of wanted features they already don't have the money for.

 

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131327/postmortem_biowares_neverwinter_.php?page=4

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/189893/Industry_in_flux_What_we_learned_from_Game_Developers_2012_Salary_Survey.php

IMHO you are missing a big big point.

Multiplayer and co-op are 2 completely different things, while I agree with you concerning the multiplayer, the co-op limited to 2 max 4 players could be an option. Co-op does not require any external server or anything special to work. For example in BG it is possible to do co-op it is far from being stable or bugless still people can enjoy play BG with friends. 

So for me +1 for co-op!

[Kukident]

IMHO you are missing a big big point.

Multiplayer and co-op are 2 completely different things, while I agree with you concerning the multiplayer, the co-op limited to 2 max 4 players could be an option. Co-op does not require any external server or anything special to work. For example in BG it is possible to do co-op it is far from being stable or bugless still people can enjoy play BG with friends. 

So how do you think the data transferred from one player to the other? leprechaun tunnels? evil wizardry? co-op IS multiplayer and therefore exposed to the same problems (a lot)

[Gelantious]

TCP/IP p2p coop would be nice with 2-4 people.

 

But it'd be some work still, would have to take into account how loot and such works. And more importantly how quests/progression works.

Only save the progression for the host? Or for joiners as well? What if a decision is made by the host that joiners didn't want? Killed of a character they wanted to live?

Would that transfer to their save too and so on.

 

Anyhoo, would still love the option of coop

[Lephys]

IMHO you are missing a big big point.

Multiplayer and co-op are 2 completely different things, while I agree with you concerning the multiplayer, the co-op limited to 2 max 4 players could be an option. Co-op does not require any external server or anything special to work. For example in BG it is possible to do co-op it is far from being stable or bugless still people can enjoy play BG with friends. 

So for me +1 for co-op!

I hate to tell you, but "multiplayer" and "co-op" are not "two completely different things." That being said, what people are meaning by using these terms seems to be the problem here. I agree with your meaning, and I even agree with co-op play being the ideal setup, but co-op play is multiplayer play. Multiplayer literally means "multiple players." It doesn't mean "Not co-op." Which is the same point, really.

 

But, again, I get your point that co-op is completely different from what a lot of people who keep referring to "multiplayer" are talking about, specifically.

[anameforobsidian]

 

That is a terrible idea.  Here's why:  they're trying to make a mini-Baldur's Gate with the budget of Costume Quest.  A budget of $4 million is not a lot.  Neverwinter Nights, which wasn't even a good game, but was feature complete with multiplayer and had minimal bugs, took 160 person years of work.  The average game dev salary is $84,337.  That's $13.5m now.  

 

Furthermore, multiplayer is far from trivial to implement.  You don't put #include<the.internet> at the start of the code and be done with it.  You have to buy servers then build frontends for it, or integrate pre-built mulitplayer framework most of which doubles as DRM which would be against the campaign promises, or build a custom p2p connection framework.  Testing is a fresh hell of problems.  And this is technology which Obsidian, wonderful though they are, have very little experience with.  Let's not forget that their website (which is far easier to make and maintain than a game) crumpled under an entirely predictable load.

 

So, you have a simple request for them to make a wildly expensive unbudgeted feature with a fair degree of technical difficulty that is not high on the list of wanted features they already don't have the money for.

 

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131327/postmortem_biowares_neverwinter_.php?page=4

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/189893/Industry_in_flux_What_we_learned_from_Game_Developers_2012_Salary_Survey.php

IMHO you are missing a big big point.

Multiplayer and co-op are 2 completely different things, while I agree with you concerning the multiplayer, the co-op limited to 2 max 4 players could be an option. Co-op does not require any external server or anything special to work. For example in BG it is possible to do co-op it is far from being stable or bugless still people can enjoy play BG with friends. 

So for me +1 for co-op!

 

Local coop would be hellish for game designed to use a wide range of the mouse and keyboard and play by email isn't possible for a RT game, so there's effectively no difference.  If you're talking about LAN play, you absolutely do need special code for that, but not servers.

Edited January 15, 2014 by anameforobsidian

[DrNoesis]

Tbh, whilst I'd love to see a co-op mode, I'd rather the dev time was spent on building a truely outstanding single player experience.

I don't mean to sound antisocial, but there have been a lot of games released over the years with an almost mandatory co-op/multi mode bolted on where it doesn't really add much, is rarely used, and often detracts from the single player experience because once you start incorporating multiplay into the experience, everything needs tweaking, not just monsters and equipment, but also even the layout of maps to prevent abuse, and normally this process only servers to water down and diminish the overal experience.

 

[rjshae]

I'd much rather see concepts like a console version and co-op/multi-player be explored well after the game is released; assuming it is even possible with this code base. That way it doesn't interfere with the PC version. For example, Red Dead Redemption may finally be getting a PC port through an external contract, some four years after it came out on console. Hurray!

[Jatopian]

As someone playing Baldur's Gate for the very first time just this month, and doing so with a friend in multiplayer, I will say that it's fun and I would like to see it, though not at any significant expense to single player mode. It never occurred to me that a game like Baldur's Gate could even have multiplayer, much less how enjoyable it could be, until I actually did it. I haven't really kept up with the game (this is my first forum post!) but it looks like multiplayer would fit right in in much the same way it did in Baldur's Gate - there's even already support for custom adventurers. I think some people here may be underrating the idea just because they've never tried it.

[Livy]

I would love to play Pillars of Eternity with my

boyfriend, so I'm hoping for 1-4 player co-op LAN play at least.

 

There are many couples like us that doesn't want to

play MMO's so co-op LAN play would be amazing for this game as

we both enjoyed Icewind Dale and Icewind Dale 2

togheter. I would really appreciate if you could make LAN happen

so we and other people can build nice memories togheter in

Pillars of Eternity.

[PrimeJunta]

Folks, this is not going to happen. The devs have made it clear, and the game is deep in production which means something this fundamental simply can't be shoehorned in at this point without setting back development months. The next opportunity to agitate for it is if and when they announce a sequel.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

No romances or multiplayer in PoE..........

 

Multiplayer romances for PoE2!

[ADorothy]

BG2 was the largest selling RPG game in about forever, game of the year, etc etc.  It had Coop play.  If they really want to say they're making a spiritual successor to the BG series, then they need to add Coop play.  

 

D&D and all types of PnP games owe their existence to social gatherings of friends trying to kill goblins and dragons and solve puzzles together.  If you people want to play by yourselves, that's fine.  But don't act like Coop is some new-fangled, non old-school thing.  And like 2% of people want it.

 

A HUGE portion of players want it.  I am one of them.  I will not buy or back this game unless that is added, and in that case, all of my friends will buy it as well.

 

I am not against single player games.  But don't act like this is the next BG or IWD game if it doesn't have Coop.  And they shouldn't be plastering this BS all over their home page:

 

"Miss classic cRPGs like Baldur's Gate,Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment? So do we!"

 

Well, clearly they do not.  Because they are leaving out a fundamental part of those games

[Ieo]

Nope. Those weren't fundamental parts of those games. See sig for interviews and quotes. Josh Sawyer himself said that it turned out very few players ever used that function, AND it adds a ton of technical problems. Selfish short-sighted hyperbole won't win you any points. Since you're not part of this project in any form anyway, you don't belong here. Shoo, little troll. :D

[Sir Chaox]

I'm not one to claim I know what the hell people want, but I believe a strong single player experience is the focus of all of those games with multiplayer being an extra option for those who'd like to experience the campaign together.

 

Co-op would be cool, but it is far from the necessity ADorothy is claiming it is.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Sir Chaox

[Lephys]

BG2 was the largest selling RPG game in about forever, game of the year, etc etc.  It had Coop play.  If they really want to say they're making a spiritual successor to the BG series, then they need to add Coop play.

Meh... BG2 also had the D&D ruleset. Does that mean this game must have the D&D ruleset?

 

You're right about one thing: co-op isn't some new-fangled thing, or something completely ridiculous to implement into a game such as this. However, it's a bit extreme, honestly, to pretend that this game's entire credibility as a "spiritual successor" to the IE games hinges solely upon whether or not it has co-op play.

 

Those games were not built upon the foundation of co-op play. It was just something that works just fine if you include it, and can be enjoyed by many.

 

This isn't really a question of whether or not it NEEDS co-op play. It objectively does not. The game functions just fine without it. It would be nice, but it's hardly the end of the world if it doesn't have it.

[Quadrone]

BG2 was the largest selling RPG game in about forever, game of the year, etc etc.  It had Coop play.  If they really want to say they're making a spiritual successor to the BG series, then they need to add Coop play.  

 

...

 

 But don't act like this is the next BG or IWD game if it doesn't have Coop.  And they shouldn't be plastering this BS all over their home page:

 

"Miss classic cRPGs like Baldur's Gate,Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment? So do we!"

 

Well, clearly they do not.  Because they are leaving out a fundamental part of those games

 

Yes, "spiritual successor" = "perfect copy", even the words are pretty much the same.

Really between Torment: ToN and this I've now heard several dozens of reasons why each game can't call itself a spiritual successor, all of which mostly boil down to "*thing* I liked in previous game is not the same in this game therefor I am now outraged".

 

Anyway, since the chances for any kind of Multiplayer for the initial release are slim to none I guess you and your friends will be saving some money, 'gratz.

[Fatback]

 

 

BG2 was the largest selling RPG game in about forever, game of the year, etc etc. It had Coop play. If they really want to say they're making a spiritual successor to the BG series, then they need to add Coop play.

 

...

But don't act like this is the next BG or IWD game if it doesn't have Coop. And they shouldn't be plastering this BS all over their home page:

 

 

"Miss classic cRPGs like Baldur's Gate,Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment? So do we!"

 

Well, clearly they do not. Because they are leaving out a fundamental part of those games

Yes, "spiritual successor" = "perfect copy", even the words are pretty much the same.

Really between Torment: ToN and this I've now heard several dozens of reasons why each game can't call itself a spiritual successor, all of which mostly boil down to "*thing* I liked in previous game is not the same in this game therefor I am now outraged".

 

Anyway, since the chances for any kind of Multiplayer for the initial release are slim to none I guess you and your friends will be saving some money, 'gratz.

And the things that they are crying about were some of the worste parts of the game

[Ulquiorra]

there always be some part of co-op .. wizadz are ameing dames .. tankers are tanking etc ...

 

But if you think about co-op from multi perspectiv im 100% agninst it ... sory we ave already a hudge dungeon ... no rome for romances or co ops

[ADorothy]

Well, let's look at the sales numbers:

 

" As of 2006, total sales for all releases in the [baldur's Gate] series was almost five million copies"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur's_Gate

 

"Planescape: Torment received widespread critical acclaim upon its release,^[50] but only made a small profit."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planescape:_Torment

 

Icewind Dale 1 and 2 also both sold very well and spent a lot of time a the top of PC game sales.  Planescape?  Didn't sell.  Even Fallout, one of the greatest games in PC history, was a niche game that didn't sell anything like the Infinity engine games.  Fallout 2 sold an awful 200,000 copies.  

 

Bottom line, BG almost single-handedly saved the PC gaming industry.  And it was on the backs of D&D fans, many of them playing multiplayer on their LAN's or via direct IP connect.  The devs had no way of gauging how popular this was.  They downplay it because they don't want to code it.  

 

So what's being made here is another Planescape, at very best, and no successor to the BG series.  It may be a good game.  But very few people will ever play it.  You'd be lucky to get to the 200k units threshold.