Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DOOM 3 will use P2P System?

CmdrTaco posted more than 11 years ago | from the i'll-believe-it-when-I'm-fragged-on-it dept.

Games 223

Ant writes "From Page 6 of FiringSquad's QuakeCon 2002 Postmortem article: John Carmack said something at the end of the Q&A about how the multiplayer will be only four players? Tim: After 2 hours of talking up at the podium, sometimes you leave a few details out. Doom 3 multiplayer will be fully scalable. It will be a peer to peer system. We haven't started working on it yet. Tell everyone not to panic - it will be fine. John just forgot to mention it'll be scalable past four players. It's hard to give a hard number because we haven't started working on it yet. Right now we're focused on making Doom 3 a kickass, over the top single player game."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (3, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136273)

This proves my suspicions that "gamers" are pirates and perverts. trolling is so much easier than being clever.

Re:DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (1)

krabbe (239203) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136330)

This article is a misconception altogether. Virtually all multiplayer games (including ego-shooters) are peer-to-peer systems, meaning that the players connect to each other. There is no server that does all the maths, basically every system is a client.

This is true for all networked games (Doom,Quake,Starcraft,Diablo except MMORPGs like Everquest). There's nothing new about it either. Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with file sharing, warez and mp3s.
~ we hope the you choke

Re:DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (1)

TheDick (453572) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136361)

Shenanigans!!

Counter-Strike anyone?

Re:DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (1)

KeyserDK (301544) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136364)

No it's not true for all networked games.

The network part of the quake series is most certainly server/client.

Ie the game client doesnt talk to the other clients but only talks to _one_ server, which indeed can be a player (listen server) but more often the usual setup (dedicated server).

Re:DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (1)

kryonD (163018) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136372)

That's odd...I distinctly remember always being the SERVER for Q2 and Q3 at school since I had the highest end machine. Everyone else connected to my game via the seach if they were on my segment, or via an IP I provided if they weren't.

As long as there are configurable parameters in the game, I don't think they will ever seperate from a server based concept. One machine has got to be the athority on which map is being used and how much health the players have, etc... Now, perhaps all machines will advertize the games they are connected to so there doesn't have to be a need for GameSpy. It will be interresting to see how they implement this.

Re:DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (3)

elfkicker (162256) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136692)

Every client has the ability to be a server, but most games are definately implemented as vanilla client/server. And for games which use a universal ladder/auth (ie Westwood games) the do communicate through a central server to maintain state, prevent cheats, keep ranks, etc.

The crossover to real P2P is when all connected clients are also acting as servers to eachother concurrently. Of course the problem with that it introduces massive opportunities for cheats and DoS exploits. It's also hard to maintain a reasonable amount of latency.

IMHO, games are best done through a state maintaining central server(s).

Re:DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136339)

Hmm... I have just stumbled on the "slashdot" web log. I find both it, and your comment to be refreshingly homoerotic.

Re:DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136347)

Troubled poster bsDaemon is full of shit, and is dumber than a bag of rocks. Fact: BSD is dying, and has no future at all.

Re:DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136564)

And you've certainly proven that you're not clever.

Doom Monsters (1)

Daxbert (214813) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136274)

Hey, as long as they keep the brown furry guys, I'll be happy.

fisting post (-1, Offtopic)

SarkySod (232043) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136275)

my life is now complete

Eye candy! (3, Interesting)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136276)

Not to bash eye candy, but doesn't anyone have a better idea for gaming than FP shooters?

What could Wil Wright or Al Lowe or Sid Meier do with a badass graphics engine behind them?

We already know what Carmack can do.

Re:Eye candy! (2)

EvilAlien (133134) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136486)

Sid Meier did yet another Civilization game, didn't he? With pretty graphics? I think its time he explored some more new ideas. An old idea with a new engine is a pretty weak excuse for charging anothing $50 for a "new" game.

Bioware has Neverwinter Nights [bioware.com] , it as pretty graphics and revolutionary features and blah blah blah. Morrowind. Driving games... etc. The fact is, however, that the FPS develops tend to lead the industry in the development of new technology in terms of graphics engines and network code. Other than them, its the massively-multiplayer crowd.

Re:Eye candy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136494)

I wish I could say I was impressed. The last really interesting and taxed its developers' ingenuity was the Monkey Island series (though it too got played out towards the end).

Re:Eye candy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136521)

I agree. Although EvilAlien has a point about some of those author's games being a rehash, I am also not very impressed by the current crop of games.

Shoot em ups, multiuser wankfests, driving games (original idea??), all are tired genres.

The Sims was a cool new approach to gaming. Monkey Island and other LucasArts games used to set the standard for cool games.

Maybe it's because I'm not a game designer, but I just can't think of what could be a cool new game...

w4r3z d00ds said... (2, Funny)

News for nerds (448130) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136279)

"So we can distribute DOOM III ISO image in DOOM III P2P network!!!"

Re:w4r3z d00ds said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136297)

heh

Re:w4r3z d00ds said... (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136331)

Funny. Did you think of that yourself?

Re:w4r3z d00ds said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136549)

If I met you in real life I probably wouldn't like you much.

Re:w4r3z d00ds said... (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136578)

I'd probably agree with you.

New hidden rooms... (0)

SarkySod (232043) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136286)

Imagine fragging, collecting weapons and mp3's throughout the game!

Re:New hidden rooms... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136489)

...now imagine a beowulf cluster of that!

P2P multiplayer (3, Funny)

cdf12345 (412812) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136296)

"Taking a cue from the RIAA, the gaming industry will attempt to place fake opponents onto the networks. These oppenents (bots) will appear normal, but will repeat themselfs after about 30 seconds."

p2p gaming.....wow.

The RIAA/MPAA Isn't Going to Like This!! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136303)


After all, are not all peer-to-peer networks for the explicit purpose of infringing upon the rights of the owners?

I expect an all-out war against this blatant attempt to further the cause of the criminal "filesharers", and I would expect nothing less than Congress to demand its ceasation.

Re:The RIAA/MPAA Isn't Going to Like This!! (1)

xingix (601512) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136353)

After all, are not all peer-to-peer networks for the explicit purpose of infringing upon the rights of the owners?

That has got to be the most ridiculous statement I've had the pleasure of reading today. Have you ever connected two computers together using a cross-over cable or a hub? That's called a peer-to-peer network--- like 90% of all home networks in existence.

Re:The RIAA/MPAA Isn't Going to Like This!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136432)

It's called humor...

Re:The RIAA/MPAA Isn't Going to Like This!! (1)

Golias (176380) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136433)

Is this a new method of trolling? You pretend not to get an obvious joke, write a pedantic and angry response, and hope to get people to post replies explaining the joke that you "missed" to you?

Or are you actually that irony deficient?

(Oooo... check me out, I coined a new pun: irony deficient. I think I'll keep using that one.)

I'll feed the troll, just this once: The parent post was obviously joking.

Re:The RIAA/MPAA Isn't Going to Like This!! (1)

xingix (601512) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136558)

So that's what trolling is ;-) I'm new to this, but I reread that parent statement and it doesn't seem sarcastic at all. It was even written by an anonymous coward. Oh well, my bad!

Re:The RIAA/MPAA Isn't Going to Like This!! (1)

Gooba42 (603597) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136657)

Shhhh...we don't want the *AAs to know there are other networks aside from the internet.

Re:The RIAA/MPAA Isn't Going to Like This!! (1)

damiam (409504) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136381)

The majority of existing games are already mostly p2p. You usually have to connect to a server to find other players, but then the game itself is handled between the clients.

what? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136308)

sphincter says what?

Re:what? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136355)

what?

Slap-in-the-face to ATI and Matrox (5, Interesting)

ptbrown (79745) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136311)

P2P is a fad and I predict that sometime after the beta they'll have things set up in a more traditional client/server fashion... though they likely won't call it that.

But what I found much more interesting was this quote:

"Absolutely, but Linux version basically means an NVIDIA version - that's the only safe bet for working video under Linux in Doom 3."

Gah!!! I hope ATI and Matrox see that and consider it a challenge. It's really discouraging that the only quasi-respected video drivers for Linux are proprietary.

Re:Slap-in-the-face to ATI and Matrox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136321)

If Matrox and ATI supported as much functionality as NVidia, they wouldn't have any problem.

Of course, it's difficult to tell some company to play catch up when they don't realize they are behind.

Re:Slap-in-the-face to ATI and Matrox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136466)

I'll point out that it was Carmack who originally stuck the client-server model, along with TCP/IP support, in games, with Quake.

If he's switching back to P2P, I'm sure there's a good reason.

He's been talking about it for years; about the compromises he had to make to use the client-server system, and how P2P had more potential. I forget the details, though.

Re:Slap-in-the-face to ATI and Matrox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136524)

Get real, ATI and Matrox suck shit. I'll use a working card, thanks.

Re:Slap-in-the-face to ATI and Matrox (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136573)

Well ati has got only itself to blaim, and matrox has let a few balls drop with its new card since it cannot keep up with the ati and nvidia (although its linux support is great!). So if you want a powerfull GPU on linux, nvidia is the only choice for the gamer market.

As to the two others considering it a challenge, well for desktop matrox is the king and ati probably got other things to worry about then a fraction of a niche market.

Re:Slap-in-the-face to ATI and Matrox (1)

mrpuffypants (444598) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136596)

at quakecon this year the guy from ATI was asked about linux compatibility for the 9700, and his response was that they are "in the works"

so you might see it running on a radeon too :)

Re:Slap-in-the-face to ATI and Matrox (1)

Winnipenguin (603571) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136650)

Linux driver here:

http://mirror.ati.com/support/products/pc /radeon8500/linux/radeon8500linuxdrivers.html?cboO S=LinuxXFree86&cboProducts=RADEON+8500&cmdNext=GO% 21

And ATI and Massive render The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring in real time in Linux
http://www.ati.com/companyinfo/press/2002/4 520.html

files (1)

wretchedmage (522359) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136314)

so he's saying now that people can give each other files in a 3D world!? COOL!

Re:files (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136377)

no hes not. dick. read what he said again

you fucking DICK!!!!

why? (1, Troll)

asv108 (141455) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136318)

Two questions:

Why P2P for multiplay?

Why Focus on single player?

I can see using p2p for making servers scaleable across a network, but i hope they are abandoning client/server.

Who gives a shit about single player? Really, they had it right with quake 3, nobody plays single player anymore, at least not repeatedly.

Re:why? (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136341)

Why P2P for multiplay?

Ditribute the load. Of course with each level of the P2P system [e.g. say its a N-way tree] you add delay so obviously you want a short tree.

Consider a system with say four servers that host say 20 people each. As long as the ping between the four is low enough you can now host 80 people and distribute the load/cost over four different servers.

Why Focus on single player?

Because 9 out of 10 times I [personally] go on a DM net game the ping is ridiculously high with some people [stupid dialup shitheads] hitting over 900ms ping.

I'd rather blast some inteligent bots than play online.

Also games like RtCW and Elite are done with the Q3A engine and are decent single play games.

Tom

Re:why? (3, Insightful)

sane? (179855) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136357)

Why focus on single player?

Because you can't really do a good storyline if all people are doing is shooting their mates.

Because only a subset of the gamer community is interested in multiplayer. Many more don't want to have to go online to play.

Because, in the end, multiplayer limits what you can do, even in a FPS.

Re:why? (5, Informative)

Reziac (43301) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136491)

Probably hard marketing facts:

At the height of the Quake-online frenzy, Doomworld ran a poll asking how many people played in each mode: single, deathmatch, coop. Turns out solo players outnumbered DMers by 4 to 1, and coop players by 20 to 1. (Sample size was several thousand, so statistically significant.)

DOOM (primarily a solo game) outsold all versions of Quake (primarily a multiplayer game) *combined* by at least 3 to 1. And that's even tho DOOM came out when home computers were still a relative novelty, and priced out of many people's reach. By the time Quake came along, most households already had a computer (and PCs cost a lot less too). So -- Quake didn't sell as well even tho more people had PCs by then. Obviously, something went wrong with the spectrum of Quake's market appeal, and consensus is the lack of really good solo play.

I'd hazard a guess that DOOM3 won't really be playable over the net unless you have broadband. Which would artificially limit its market to the small subset of net users who actually have broadband (the last figure I saw was under 20%). Which would be stupid, from a sales standpoint.

In short, the single player market is a helluva lot larger than the multiplayer market. And idSoftware is really in the game *engine* business, which multiplies that market by a factor of however many companies they license their code to.

Re:why? (1)

Tom Dunne (320684) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136581)

If it bothers you that much, skip Doom III and hold out for Quake4.

Who plays multiplayer? (1)

Viewsonic (584922) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136673)

Quake sales have been slumped simply because the single player was so suck. Multiplayer was great, but since Half-Life/CounterStrike and Unreal Tournament, multiplayer id games are just plain bleagh. They're going back to their roots with Doom and focusing on what sold, good solid and freaky FPS.

In other news... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136320)

The new key for EFNet's #bsdcode is 'i8thebabyjesus'. Join and troll & crapflood! Say 'fuck you' to billf too!

P2P? (2, Interesting)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136323)

So what does P2P mean in this situation....Can we keep running in one direction, passing through an endless series of different servers handling their own collection of rooms?

"If this looks like Cairo, my lag must be awful."

Server monitor: a map showing the people running around in your server.

Or does P2P mean that everyone sends their status to all 30,000 other people in the game?

Re:P2P? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136328)

Probably the latter, but if they've got any clue, they will set up a token ring network to minimize the bandwidth consumption.

Well, and you will probably have local networks with your friends, not some huge Gnutella monstrosity.

ahem (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136324)

So this means the RIAA can hack into Doom servers when players exchange maps? I hope they enjoy Martian moons...

P2P in gaming. (3, Informative)

Karhgath (312043) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136337)

P2P architecture has existed way before any P2P file exchange system.

Previous iD's games used a client-server architecture. Now, they changed it to use a Peer to Peer 'protocol' and architecture.

What does it mean? Since it won't use a client-server protocol, you won't be able to join a game that has already started(that was stated at QuakeCon). The game is 'hosted' on each player's computer that exchange data about the current state of the game. There is no central server that handles all the load. Each player communicate in peer to exchange the information, hence the name.

Peer to peer architecture is what is used in most Real-Time Strategy(RTS) games like Starcraft, Warcraft, Command and Conquer, Age of Empire, etc.

So, there's absolutely no relation to P2P file exchange like kazaa and such, just he architecture that has been used extensively before.

Now... the question is: why? Also, won't that allow hackers to create better hacks? Usually, games go from P2P to Client-Server because of security concerns, even if Client-Server is usually 'slower'. They rarely go the other way around. But that's another completely different topic.

Scalable ? (1)

Krapangor (533950) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136340)

John just forgot to mention it'll be scalable past four players

Why should this be better than servers ?
P2P will least introduce a scale of lag, and it will probably even cause bandwidth issues (remember that the peers might be connected with lines It seems that they are in fact fucking up a good game just to be on the P2P bandwagon.
I'm rather surprised that Carmack didn't notice that a system like Quake is not an easily distributable computing problem.
Some people say that with money and fame the brain melts.

Re:Scalable ? (2)

James Foster (226728) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136393)

By peer-to-peer they meant clients only. No servers. It's not the same breed of peer-to-peer as you see in file sharing applications.

Think of a "peer" as a "client". Client-to-client. It just means that there are no dedicated servers, one player connects to another player when they want to play a game. Just like in Quake 3 when you are not all joining a dedicated server.

Re:Scalable ? (1)

KeyserDK (301544) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136406)

It's still client-server in quake3... both with listen & dedicated modes.

The listen "server" just runs a renderer/client on top of the "dedicated".

Every client still talks to the same server - the listen guy just talks to himself(the server) and get ping 0.

Really? What about security? (3, Interesting)

Maggot75 (163103) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136342)

I'm very interested to see how they will tackle the security part. In general, you cannot trust the client. Ever. Introducing a P2P network will enable one hacked client to wreak havoc on other clients. Some redundancy might be introduced to prevent cheating, but that would increase bandwidth, neh?
Are FPS's perhaps already trusting the client anyway? Is a cheat-proof multiplayer FPS a myth?

Re:Really? What about security? (1)

damiam (409504) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136384)

Starcraft uses p2p, and it's almost completely unhacked after four years (yeah, I know about maphack, but that's not much compared to the hacking in a lot of other games).

Not article material (5, Interesting)

cybermace5 (446439) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136348)

OK.

Someone asks about the multiplayer Doom 3. They haven't worked on it yet. In the middle of a live Q&A session, Tim is assuring everyone the game will be multiplayer. He starts throwing out words even though he doesn't know the exact way it will work, because, hey, they haven't done multiplayer yet.

Tim blurts "It will be a peer to peer system." That's the entire discussion of that in the whole article. There is nothing else.

By "peer to peer" system he simply meant "yes, you will be able to hook up your computers and play together" and nothing else. Why does this deserve a front page article? It doesn't. It was obviously something he said while in a live situation and he wasn't sure of the details.

The poster of this article looks sillier than the stock market and Alan Greenspan. What's even more disturbing is that Taco fell for it too. Someone needs to send over good strong pot of coffee.

It's days like these when the trolls start to make sense.

DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (5, Informative)

James Foster (226728) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136351)

Why is there a question mark after the title of this? It's been stated by id, that DOOM 3 will use a peer-to-peer network architecture. There's nothing uncertain about that.
This has been known for around about an entire week now... it's been stated multiple times.

Also, to clarify, when they say "peer-to-peer", they don't mean a network of users like Kazaa or file sharing applications, they mean that it is client-to-client as opposed to client-to-server.
The best way of thinking about DOOM 3's multiplayer is as being the same as the original DOOM's multiplayer. 4 players, and no such thing as a "server".
The only actual uncertainty is the 4 player limit. It was initially mentioned, but now Willits has said that it is scalable beyond that... This is unclear as we don't know if he means that the game can go beyond that, but the network code is ideal for 4 players, or means that the game will have a hard limit of 4 players, but mods and games based on the engine will be able to scale beyond 4 players.

Also, it is known for definate that once a game has started, additional players cannot join. This limitation is due mainly to DOOM 3's physics engine. Basically, there is so much physics data that would need to be synchronised, that if a player had to "catch up" with the physics data, it would probably be a lot of data to send, and since it's constantly changing data, it is likely that as the player recieves the data, it becomes invalid.

It will be interesting to see how other games deal with the problem of physics data. As physics engines in games become increasingly complex, it will become harder for programmers to cope with players joining a game that has already started. Perhaps if all games employed "rounds" (like Counter-Strike), then player's wouldn't have to wait long until the game restarts and they can start playing. This already has to happen when a player joins a Counter-Strike game that's already in play.

Re:DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136370)

Arena style is significantly more fun than DM anyway, so long as they can keep reset times down.

There's nothing I hate worse than non-team non-goal based missions, and you don't improve your skills nearly as fast if the only cost of death is clicking your left mouse button.

Re:DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (2)

James Foster (226728) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136379)

Agreed that vanilla DM is pretty tedious, and arena style adds much more flavour. Conversely, though, have you played the Battlefield 1942 demo? It has what can be described as very long rounds... and I think it's really damn fun multiplayer.
It's also a pretty original style of gameplay -- fighting to gain territory. I think UT came with a similar game type... but Battlefield 1942 seems to be the best implementation of it so far.

Re:DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (1)

Manes (17325) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136653)

>> It's also a pretty original style of gameplay -- >>fighting to gain territory

It's called domination, and it's been in quite a few games already :)

Re:DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (1)

kjr_rocks (601966) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136419)

hey! carmack just may be the first person to think of a use for quantum cryptography: encrypted doom3 pr0n sharing!

god bless you Mr. Carmack!

Re:DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (1)

jhol (301546) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136428)

Also, it is known for definate that once a game has started, additional players cannot join. This limitation is due mainly to DOOM 3's physics engine. Basically, there is so much physics data that would need to be synchronised, that if a player had to "catch up" with the physics data, it would probably be a lot of data to send, and since it's constantly changing data, it is likely that as the player recieves the data, it becomes invalid.
Oh come on, all the client needs to know is where the items are. What in the world would the DOOM3 engine have that the Q3A engine didnt have which allowed the client/server based games. All FPS related games today do client/server.

It is more likely that they do this because they want to get the game out as soon as possible; id software makes the real money on licensing their engine. Thus they don't have to spend precious time on creating a good multiplayer aspect, but can instead release an addon later (and maybe sell it for some extra $$$).

Going from client/server to Peer To Peer in online gaming is a serious setback, it's like going back to the old Doom days again. Not only is there the cheat aspect when everything is client based, but a player can't join a game that has already been started.

Re:DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (1)

kormoc (122955) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136531)

I think they are doing this to help the single player. What if there is ONLY coop? Then cheating is not a big issue, as your not going up vs other people. I could understand a p2p game with coop, but not with a dm or ctf or tdm.

Re:DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (1)

Manes (17325) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136644)

They have stated that there will be NO coop!

This p2p thing just doesn't make any sense to me, especially since it will be cheaters haven.

Descent anyone? (oh my did that show me the ugly sides of p2p fps games)

Re:DOOM 3 will use P2P System? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136662)

send encrypted proprietary checksum, change encryption everytime you update client.

Should eliminate casual cheating.

Wha? (2)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136356)

"Right now we're focused on making Doom 3 a kickass, over the top single player game."

What was the last FPS that made it's claim to fame in single player mode only? Probably the original Doom. I don't know about you lot, but I like playing FPS because they let me pit my wits against other people.

Re:Wha? (1)

OblvnDrgn (167720) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136400)

What was the last FPS that made it's claim to fame in single player mode only?

Max Payne. It was a decent sized hit.

Half-life was before that. That's bigger.

I suppose it wasn't ONLY single player, but neither is this. However if a single player FPS is good enough to get everyone interested in the genre to have a play-through, and then those clever mod-makers realize how many people are playing Doom 3 and begin work on the next counterstrike, well, it's a path to success.

I'll agree, multi-player is the key to longevity, but there's nothing wrong with a good ol' solo romp through Hell before you get around to Deathmatch.

single player claim to fame. (5, Insightful)

kaisyain (15013) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136418)

What was the last FPS that made it's claim to fame in single player mode only? Probably the original Doom.

You're joking, right? Goldeneye 007, Half-Life, Deux Ex, Thief, System Shock, Rainbow 6, Jedi Knight, Medal of Honor: Frontline, No One Lives Forever, MDK, Outlaws, Hitman, Shogo.

I like playing FPS because they let me pit my wits against other people.

You can play most games online, from Backgammon to Chess to every RTS made nowadays.

Ever heard of Half-Life? (3, Insightful)

solios (53048) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136424)

HL was the last game I remember being an FPS with a decent storyline. Sure, nobody really went into great detail about the plot when they were discussing it on the smoke deck- they always talked about the weapons, character interaction, facial movements, enemy and ally AI... Halflife had a LOT of really nifty things that kicked ass for single player- things that just didn't apply to the multiplayer aspect.

I fiddled with UT and Q3 when they came available, but HalfLife spanked the pants off of them both- if anything of that caliber single-player ever comes around, I'll probably check it out. Until then, I'm sticking with RPGs. I like FPS, but I fucking HATE multiplayer.... it's great to see iD focusing on the one thing that makes a game great- the single-player experience.

Re:Ever heard of Half-Life? (1)

Manes (17325) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136659)

> HL was the last game I remember being an FPS with > a decent storyline

I also enjoyed the story in MOH:AA and Jedi Knight 2, great games that can be recommended :)

Re:Wha? (1)

martyn s (444964) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136431)

Ever hear of Half Life? Deus Ex? No One Lives Forever? Medal Of Honor? Dude, get with it. It's so obvious that most people on slashdot, despite being geeks, aren't really gamers. You don't know anything about games.

QUAKE? (4, Interesting)

veddermatic (143964) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136460)

Last time I checked, that was a singleplayer game that they threw a few LAN maps into at the last minute.... the rest is history.

Re:Wha? (1)

Spokehedz (599285) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136487)

Umm... Hello? How about Unreal, Quake, Quake2, Half-Life, No One Lives Forever, Soldier of Fortune 1&2, Aliens Vs Predator 1&2, Aliens vs. Predator 2: Primal Hunt?

I know I've seen on this thread the hatred for modem users and their effect on the multiplayer games... they make them so PAINFULLY slow, that its unbearable to even try and play. I've got DSL, and unless I'm the server, I HATE playing online because of the LAG.

And to everyone who says "Well, its not _that_ bad." is just fooling themselves.

I never bought Quake3. why? because I hate lan games. and besides ID never wanted that one to fly that well anyway--they were making that game purely for the licensing of the engine. Which is making lots of cash I hear...

The rule of the world is that for every one person who likes something, there is another person who dislikes it with just as much. I personally don't give a hoot about online play. I've got a super-fast computer, that can do billions of operations a second. I want my games to look, feel, react, move, and think as realistically as absolutely possible.

I wanted to know exactly how far could we get with realism, and I came upon some algorithm that can accurately simulate the flow of water, mud, syrup, etc. etc...

the game I want is the game that is simply so real, and so detailed, that it would be up to the MOD community to make games for it.

Can you imagine a engine that was just SO good, that anything was possible? How about realistic flight, that uses the density of air and the physics of it over the wings to truly give a unique and different feel to each plane in the game? Same thing goes for cars, bikes, carts, 4-wheelers, ect. ect. If you coded in the BASIC rules of our world, then the game world would simply fall into place.

But, I'm just a lowly coder who knows noting more than a few shell scripts and a teensy amount of C. so I don't get to voice my opinion... oh wait. ^_-

Re:Wha? (1)

KeyserDK (301544) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136555)

Lagging players doesnt affect you in any way - other than the guy may be warping around if it's bad, ofcourse there are more issues with listen servers servers.

It's not fun to play on listen servers - but there are thousands of servers at ISP's and the like which are dedicated. Find the servers with either Gamespy [gamespy3d.com] or the more powerfull All Seeing Eye [udpsoft.com]

Unless you're a part of a gaming community/clan on irc these tools are must have.

On a sidenote i get ping 20-40 on the servers i play on - with dsl. Not that different from LAN really.

Re:Wha? (1)

DjMd (541962) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136512)

What was the last FPS that made it's claim to fame in single player mode only? Probably the original Doom

Ah I believe that would be Quake, NIN did the soundtrack? Its engine and its progeny power almost every FPS. Perhapse you have heard of it? I believe the focus of that game was making a "kickass, over the top single player game"...

He didn't say exclusively single player, just a single player game first... after that...

You are getting the wrong idea here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136367)

This means that multiplayer is crippled because the focus of the game is singleplayer, so they are throwing in basic peer to peer multiplayer system, similar to what was found in the original Doom games, and which is still in use today by MANY MANY GAMES, you all play warcraft don't you? yes that's what they are talking about. It also means you can't just join a game in mid play, you all need to join at the same time, this will be a requirment of the netcode. If firingsquad had any clue they would also have realised that 5 minutes later in the speech Carmack mentioned that proper multiplayer (eg. client server) would probably be added with an add-on which would ship after the game is released.

arg! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136371)

But I DONT WANT a 'kickass single player blah blah' experience! I feel ID are making a BIG mistake on skimping out on multiplayer. I mean, he even said himself that most people will complete it in a weekend. What?! One weekend that'll cost about 40 quid. What a waste of time and money. Guess I'll just have to wait for Quake 4.

Small Black Dog

Re:arg! (1)

RabidOverYou (596396) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136442)

"most likely someone could buy it, take it home, obsessively play it for a weekend and beat it"

If an Obsessive beats it in a weekend, then it'll take a normal human - going to work, reading the newspaper, eating food not straight out of the box - two months. I'm okay with that.

YHBT HAND (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136375)

FASD

Goat sex, no really!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136376)

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_545271.html?m enu=news.latestheadlines

A man has been jailed for six months after a trainload of commuters saw him having sex with a goat.

Stephen Hall, 23, of Kensington Road, Hull, pleaded guilty to one charge of buggery with an animal after the assault on the female goat in August last year.

Sentencing HIV-positive Hall, Judge Michael Mettyear, at Hull Crown Court, described the incident as "bizarre and disgusting". Hall had a previous conviction for indecent assault against a six-year-old girl.

The judge expressed frustration at being unable to order that Hall be banned from working with children in the future, adding: "You have pleaded guilty to buggery with an animal, a goat. It was committed in open air with people about, with people who could see.

"You were acting in an indecent manner, indeed, there was an seven-year-old boy in a position to see, although he was protected by his grandfather."

The court was earlier told how Hall had been returning from his sister's home on August 14 when the assault took place at the Argyle Street allotments.

A seven-year-old boy out walking with his grandfather had witnessed the attack together with a train-load of commuters on board a Hull to Bridlington service that had stopped at nearby signals.

Hall was seen holding on to a belt that had been put around the nanny goat's neck with one hand, while masturbating with the other. He was then seen with his trousers around his ankles having "penetrative sexual intercourse" with the animal.

Forensic tests matched semen taken from Hall's clothing to that found at the scene and samples of the goat's hairs were also found in his underwear.

Reading from the pre-sentence report, Mr Mettyear said Hall had shown evidence of being "preoccupied with sex", having "emotional instability" and problems maintaining relationships. It added that he targets "vulnerable" victims - "a child in the first instance and now an animal".

DOOM III (1)

thefogger (455551) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136389)

I remember the other DOOM games - I think they didn't use a real client/server setup either. If memory doesn't fail me here, you just said "4 player multiplayer game" to the setup program, and the different machines found themselves through broadcasting. The protocol was also just pure broadcasting of packets that brought many a network to its knees :-)


Also, wouldn't true p2p be a cheaters heaven? I mean there are a lot of cheaters now in current games that have a "central authority" kind of server. What would happen if every client is itself responsible for calculating the player's actions? I imagine it would be trivial for cheaters to crack such a system.

This is great! (3, Interesting)

JediTrainer (314273) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136412)

This is what I've always loved about Descent! For those of you who're not familiar with it, Descent was P2P, not requiring any one machine to be a server. Somehow the load was shared amongst all the clients. It was never a problem if one machine in particular crashed or disconnected - the game continued between the rest.

Granted, I think it was made to work on a LAN only, but if ID could pull this sort of feat off with Doom 3, I'd be all for it!

I'm guessing that this would eliminate the need for one person to have tons of bandwidth and a good machine dedicated to be a server. This should allow virtually *anybody* to start a game (even those on dialup, maybe?)

As someone who's cable is limited to 128k up, I'm very excited about this development!

Re:This is great! (2, Insightful)

Manes (17325) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136676)

> This is what I've always loved about Descent!

You know what i really hated about Descent?

That due to the system you praise above, anyone with a trainer could give themself unlimited health and weapons and whatnot, and since there was no authorative server, they could get away with it!

Cheats totally ruined Descent 1 and 2, anyone could just be an asshole and cheat if he felt like it.

Client/Server is the only way to go to have decent cheat-protection!

Read this, and wonder why this story got posted (2)

veddermatic (143964) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136414)

An article all about this [gamespy.com] that makes one wonder why this story was posted at all.

They are making it like Warcraft / most RTS games where you all "gather" in a waiting room, then start the server. Big deal....

DOOM3 is a SINGLE PLAYER game... anything they say about MP is probably invalid as it's leaving thier mouths... id knows damn well that there will be MP gaming in DOOM 3, but they aren't thinking about it now.

Besides, if you want multiplayer gaming with the DOOM 3 engine, one could always play Quake 4, which is in the works as well.

Cool! (4, Funny)

trauma (62841) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136427)

A game that can warez itself!

(Yes, I know what peer networking really means in the context of the article, but it wasn't funny that way.)

Re:Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136510)

Wasn't funny this way either.

P2P rules but... (0, Redundant)

Assimil8or (587491) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136429)

..I can already see the next generation of multiplayer-cheating...

Doom 3 on XBox Only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4136479)

I have heard rumors from both friends that work for the Evil Empire, and from the XBox marketdriods that work downstairs in my building, that Doom 3 will initially be launched ONLY on the XBox, and will come to the PC/Mac platform approximately 6 months later.

Carmacks vision of Massively Multiplayer (1)

aragod (149532) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136480)

A few years ago, prior to Quake 3 I recall Carmack speaking around this issue. The buzzword at the time was "portal" technology but the concept was the same. Distribute the clockcycles and network load around.

My memory (link tba) recalls that the context was along the lines of contesting the MMORPG's vision of enormous proprietary systems with something a bit more... flexible.

Aragorn!

p2p network? For gaming?? (1)

DrkShadow (72055) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136488)

Either this seems like a really bad idea or I'm guessing the details wrong... Say you connect to someone who's connected to 3 others. Your ping to the 3 others is then compounded with the guy in between you. If you have 2 people in between, that's your ping plus the ping of both of them.

As one could imagine, this wouldn't work too far out. There'd have to mostly be a central hub for it all.

Also, lack of server = greater ability to cheat. If each client is responsible for its own .. life or death, just modify the exe to not die. Say you get shot, and it's up to the user's client to recognize that. It could just ignore it. Or, if other clients are responsible for it, they could lie and kill someone across the map.

Now, say multiple clients must be in on it.. bad spot there too. Multiple cheaters being one. Another.. the ping issue. Where someone is on one client's screen could be slightly different than on another client's, due to that whole compounded ping thing I mentioned above. So, one client would say "Yeah, he got me," another could say "nah, he missed that guy by a few feet," another could say either way. Far too much chance in such a thing, imo.

I think I had one other thought, but I can't remember it, so 'th th th that's all for now, folks!"

-DrkShadow

Sorry, but you can't use P2P (1)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136496)

The slashdot crowd has already come out in support of cable-broadband companies banning P2P on their networks because the only use of P2P is for piracy. Sorry that you didn't think of possible future uses when you had the chance.

Thanks for pointing this out. (1)

Sunnan (466558) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136530)

Sure, slashdot is a heterogenous collection of people with different views, and that's good.

However:

When I started reading slashdot a couple of years ago, there were always many post promoting free software or open source and justifying copyright infringement. And this was good. I agree with those views.

These days when I read the highest moderated posts they're often promoting propretary software, they're speaking out against "piracy", they're almost MPAA-loving microsoftians.

Has the slashdot readership changed that much? Hmm, maybe time to do a statistical study...

nice... (1)

wzoo1 (567827) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136501)

nice :) this is just excellent for p2p technologies... So gaming would go faster and everything...

Fucking bad Idea (1)

frost22 (115958) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136574)

Gosh! Peer to peer. Truly distributed. No central server. Bingo ! Bingo ! Bingo !

Aside from that fact that I just won Bulshit Bingo, this means cheating hell.

Hello, Mr Carmack, been busy coding for the last few years, have you ? never noticed those problems game communities have with people hacking their software to gain unfair advantages ? never heard of the likes of punkbuster and co ? never wondered why Blizzard went away from a real P2P-Game system in Diablo 1 to a strict client-server system in Diablo 2, to even have a chance to control cheating ?

Bah!

Re:Fucking bad Idea (1)

dollargonzo (519030) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136636)

diablo2 was also the most patched game in history, so i wouldn't exactly hail blizzard

Re:Fucking bad Idea (2)

frost22 (115958) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136693)


diablo2 was also the most patched game in history, so i wouldn't exactly hail blizzard
Huh ? Diablo2 is now at 1.09. That means 9 patches alltogether, some of which never reached the public (like 1.07). All this includes the expansion, which added a substantial number of features.

In all there were 5 or 6 patches to Diablo2.

Doom had _way_ more patches. Don't know about quake.

And, patches or not, Blizzard's client-server architecture is the right way to go.

It's all about the 3D Engine (3, Insightful)

Matthew E. Kieren (603810) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136592)

What is so incredibly amazing about DOOM 3 is the 3D engine , not so much the game itself. Even if the gameplay sucks, it doesn't matter. It's all about the 3D engine that John Carmack is creating. It's like no other before it. Not only does it raise the bar for other game engine developers, it will also be licensed out just as the Quake engine has been. John knows what he's doing -- if he thinks P2P is best for DOOM 3, then he's obviously the most qualified person to make that decision right now. I think they decided to make a single player game for a number of reasons; the original DOOM was single player oriented, and they've also been focusing on multiplayer for so many years that it must be refreshing to take a break and work on a single player game for a change.

Personally I can't wait to play it because I'm also a Resident Evil fan. I remember playing the very first publicly released version of DOOM when it came out.. I had nightmares from playing it so much. :) This "scary" type of gameplay isn't for everyone, but a lot of people do enjoy it and I'm one of them. Oh, you want something else? A multiplayer game? A roleplaying game? A strategy game? Wait for other game developers to catch up or license the DOOM 3 engine. It's just a matter of time. The important thing is that there is now a new level for the other guys to catch up to, and that fact alone will benefit everyone. I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of the same old recycled 3D engines, it's great to see something new! :)

I think they are limiting it to 4 players because the game is so resource intensive. Anything above 4 players would be a strain on the system. This is also probably one of the reasons they don't have a lot of monsters on the screen at the same time. In my opinion for this particular type of gameplay, dozens of "A.I. dumb" monsters on the screen isn't very exciting. I personally prefer sacrificing quantity over quality. But what is so incredible about DOOM 3 is the wonderful 3D engine John has created! Shadows and lighting are the most important things to me in a game, and from what I've seen of the screenshots and videos, DOOM 3 does it beautifully. :)

Sounds familiar (1, Troll)

Mulletproof (513805) | more than 11 years ago | (#4136666)

"Right now we're focused on making Doom 3 a kickass, over the top single player game."

I think that's what they said about Quake 3 until UT mangled, stomped and otherwise owned it's ass. And I do have issues with any p2p model despite being told not to worry. Because p2p sucks. We use it for music because it's the only thing that the RIAA can't really kill outright, not because it's good. It's slow, it's spotty. It's also a bandwidth hog. You're never guaranteed in getting consistent results. I don't like p2p. maybe since it's only used for finding games it'll be different, but I'm looking at the current p2p models and they are all substandard for what they do.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?