Interplay Back?

grizz · Post by **grizz** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:15 pm

Actually there's nothing wrong with the Descent we have.

It's just getting everyone to keep playing instead of talking about all their reasons for not playing that's the problem.............

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:35 pm

Krom wrote:False hope? There was never any hope at all, Interplay is just using Descent and other titles in yet another desperate attempt to grab the interest of investors. I doubt there is any intention to actually develop another Descent at all.

No!…its false hope, if there was “no” hope there wouldn’t be these annual threads.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:24 pm

Spidey wrote:No!…its false hope, if there was “no” hope there wouldn’t be these annual threads.

No you! There never was and never will be any hope, false or otherwise. There are only fools.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:57 pm

TIGERassault wrote:On a related note, I still can't see why the control problem couldn't be easily solved with the Wii. All movement abilities (aside from afterburner) could be attributed to the Wii's motion control. Move the Mote forward to accelerate, backwards to reverse, up/down/left/right to bank, and rotate it to aim. Et voila, easy 3-axis movement without the press of a button.

Here's 2 vids of ppl using the Wiimote to play descent.

the first one uses the LED sensor bar too sometimes (not much) and the latter one doesn't use it at all (only uses accelerators). I think the PIE script still needs some tweaking to get it perfect.

(i had to search youtube for them since the DBB.NET database has been retarded for years now and won't search properly.)

goznik · Post by **goznik** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:27 am

Krom wrote:
Spidey wrote:No!…its false hope, if there was “no” hope there wouldn’t be these annual threads.
No you! There never was and never will be any hope, false or otherwise. There are only fools.

You may call me a fool then.

The Lion · Post by **The Lion** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:22 am

Gekko, please do some research. Your claim about incentive is a myth that has
already been debunked by the GNU manifesto over 20 years ago. Licenses that
prohibit commercial (re)distribution do not qualify as free software or even open
source licenses. Take a look at some commercial GNU/Linux vendors and
ransomware projects such as Blender.

Most people here seem to agree that no professional game studio is likely to
develop another 6DoF game, and 8 years of experience has confirmed this so far.
Hence my previous post; it's up to us to try and prove that 6DoF is still worth
investing in, so we must make a community project out of it, making it easy for
anyone interested to contribute to it. Making it a free software / open source
project is a big step towards doing so. Proper documentation is another. My
previous post covers the leadership and communication requirements.

The Forsaken player I mentioned in my previous post has set up a #6dof channel
on Freenode IRC (irc.freenode.net). Although it's only been there for 2 days and
mostly empty, it could make a good place to get a project going. I've been trying
to get him to sign up on this board. I will also talk to the other ODF people about
this. Let's make something out of it.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:38 pm

DigiJo wrote:money rules the world, and if a professional gamestudio ever decides to make a new descent, it will be made to please the massmarket for maximum profit.

As opposed to a tiny Internet group that thinks it knows everything there is to know about 360º games and probably wouldn't buy it anyway on the grounds that it doesn't fall perfectly in line with their vision? Please.

DigiJo wrote:such an effort wont please a single real descenter

Get over yourself.

Gekko71 wrote:Obviously from a commercial standpoint (IE attracting investment funds) there's no incentive in open source: You can't own the product outright, your can't protect your IP (either the code itself or the storyline and characters), you can't license the IP for profit...

You're presuming that what you develop is worth anything, which is the first mistake. The mistake which brought Valin's "Descent IV" crashing down and which will bring Core Decision / Geocore crashing down, if it hasn't already, is operating on the premise that you're going to make cash. No, you do it for the love of the game and the genre. You don't do it because you think you're going to make millions.

Gekko71 wrote:I want a new, great 6DOF game to play as much as everyone else here - but the answer to me lies in convincing a commercial game developer / financier that there is sufficient demand to warrant building and marketing such a game.

And how do you convince them? I think the developers of Red Orchestra, Counter-Strike, Portal, and Team Fortress have already found the answer. You make the best damn mod you can and you do it for an existing engine headed by a company proven to support such development. I'm speaking, of course, of Source Engine and Valve.

And Interplay? Screw Interplay. They are dead. Anyone can toss together a web page with a fancy nostalgic graphic. I don't see Earthworm Jim coming (a full-on PlayStation Portable remake was recently canceled). I don't see a new MDK coming. And I sure as hell don't see a new Descent coming. That said, if I was Interplay and I hand some cash on hand, I think my first priority would be getting some of those games onto Xbox Live Arcade to get the names back out there and to test the waters. XBLA would be an excellent proving ground to evaluate the feasibility of a future Descent game.

Zantor · Post by **Zantor** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:12 pm

My thought is that we should push Interplay to opensource Descent 3. If they cannot do it, then we must get a hold of each programming developer and whoever else's consent would be required, and get the source code. With this, we can move forward and do our own stuff just like the Freespace community has with the Freespace 2 Source Code Project. Getting the game's source code would allow for more development and improvement and bug fixing, and we can use that as a base to create a new OpenDescent.

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:10 pm

Wouldn't be as spectacular since FS2 has more support, but it would allow the potential to fix some things that are currently broken. IMHO, though, it's easier to push the franchise with mods for new games than with updates to old ones.

Kyouryuu - well said - but I do wonder whether the Source engine is the right horse to back these days? It isn't ancient by any means, but it is still a few years old. Are Valve still maintaining it, or do they have another one cooking or something...?

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:43 pm

Valve updates the engine as it updates Half-Life 2. The last improvement came with the Orange Box, which added cinematic physics, a rewritten lighting and shadowing engine, and illumination in Hammer Editor.

Gekko71 · Post by **Gekko71** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:17 am

The Lion wrote:Gekko, please do some research. Your claim about incentive is a myth that has
already been debunked by the GNU manifesto over 20 years ago. Licenses that
prohibit commercial (re)distribution do not qualify as free software or even open
source licenses. Take a look at some commercial GNU/Linux vendors and
ransomware projects such as Blender.

Most people here seem to agree that no professional game studio is likely to
develop another 6DoF game, and 8 years of experience has confirmed this so far...

Thank you for the GNU / SPP links Lion - I wasn't aware of these examples, so your point about my argument being peppered with myths is quite valid - consider me schooled

RE: my comments about licenses, I should clarify myself. I was referring to IP merchandising / brand extension licenses, not software licensing. Entertainment-related business models (games, movies, books etc) can be heavily dependent upon character IP licensing as a revenue stream - without it many such enterprises are not viable commercially. (I work in marcom / licensing / brand-development related industries, not IT. I keep on forgetting to mention that in my posts

)

In terms of character licensing, not having complete control over the IP (IE: 100% authorship) is a major stumbling block to establishing a licensing agreement - you can't grant an IP license without clear ownership. This is not impossible to do in an open-development environment... but it would be problematic. Hence my assertion that open-source development is not nearly as attractive as private development (...again, I'm speaking only within an entertainment-industry / character-licensing specific context here).

And in regard to no professional studio developing another 6dof game ...see my comments below for further clarification.

Kyouryuu wrote:No, you do it for the love of the game and the genre. You don't do it because you think you're going to make millions.

Love of the game is vital - no argument there; it's vital to love the game you're making if it is to engage people and make playing it an enjoyable experience. But I disagree about not doing it in order to make millions. The commercial viability of the game is equally important, otherwise the game developer in question isn't going to be around for long, no matter how good their product is. If they can't be at least reasonably sure that the game will be both enjoyable and profitable, they won't make it. Assuming of course that you're talking about a new 6DOF shooter as a commercial product - which is what I was referring to. If modding is your thing, then you are absolutely right - you do it cause you love it, not for the money, and the wowsers can all get stuffed.

Kyouryuu wrote:And how do you convince them? I think the developers of Red Orchestra, Counter-Strike, Portal, and Team Fortress have already found the answer. You make the best damn mod you can and you do it for an existing engine headed by a company proven to support such development. I'm speaking, of course, of Source Engine and Valve.

How you convince them (...since you asked

) is you built a business case. You deliver to senior management a solid feasibility study that clearly demonstrates an untapped demand for 6dof games already exists. Or you deliver them enough evidence of a future shift in gamer demographics / psychographics that makes building such a game feasible. Or you prove to them that there are untapped forigen markets that would embrace such a game, etc. Give them enough proof that the profit vs risk ratio in making another Descent is attractive enough, and they will build it.

And as for Source, I'm not a programmer anymore and haven't been since Turbo Pascal was still in commercial use

If you say that Source is up to the job and Valve would be interested in distributing it via Steam, then I'll happily take your word for it.

(This MAY be a better way to go as it could help negate the need for additional revenue streams such as character licensing to make it feasible)

Look - IMO, Lion's suggestion has plenty of merit - but I'm not convinced that it has feasible commercial spinoffs for the business-model reasons I've already stated. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, or isn't worth doing. Whatever way you choose, if we all get a good 6dof shooter at the end, then it was a worthwile exercise. And should I be proven wrong on the business model front, then I frankly wouldn't mind that much.

(sorry 'bout the mammoth post. I needed to clarify my earlier comments.)

[]V[]essenjah · Post by **[]V[]essenjah** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:40 am

Most probable solution would be the UT2004 or UT3 engine. Lots of tutorials and tons of REALLY nice, professional software for free usage with their engine. Plus it will support the level capacity and size we need and gives us lots of room to do a lot of things with a mod. I've had a mod sitting on the back burner for it for the past six years but no one will program for it. We NEED a programmer to create even a small mod like the one I have in mind. Will we get one? Probably not and I don't have time to learn Unreal script right now.

Narfig_Agar · Post by **Narfig_Agar** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:40 pm

I just want to point out that a commercial 6DOF game for the Source engine has been in development for about 2 years now. No idea if it will ever appear or what it's status is.

http://www.deep6game.com/

The fact it's been this long without a word doesn't bode well for the project. Perhaps it didn't pass the intensive Valve \"fun\" testing.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:25 am

[]V[]essenjah wrote:Most probable solution would be the UT2004 or UT3 engine. Lots of tutorials and tons of REALLY nice, professional software for free usage with their engine.

I really wouldn't bother with Epic.

Even as far as Valve goes, look, creating a great mod is no guarantee that Valve will pick you up. But Steam makes it easy to distribute mods and Valve has certainly demonstrated in the past that it is willing to at least highlight up and coming mod projects. They are very supportive of their modding community whereas Epic has done a lot to squander their "corporate goodwill" in this last Unreal cycle.

But anyhow, I approach mod development as a strictly amateur endeavor. If you get lucky and make money, that's fantastic. But I find that the people who go in with dollar signs in their eyes rarely succeed because their heart is in the wrong place.

[]V[]essenjah · Post by **[]V[]essenjah** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:29 am

Actually... what I would like to see with the UT3 engine is the ability to bring this across multiple platforms. UT3 is on PS3, PC, and soon will be released on the 360, which has a controller that would work great for D3 gameplay.

Not to mention, shear level and world size and the correct physics to give you a start.

I'm not really a fan of Valve. It's games or it's modding tools. Nothing personal, I just don't care for them. The worlds I've seen in any Valve game I've played, seem relatively small. Not really suitable for flying around inside a ship IMO. But that is me.

I really am not sure how Epic has squandered it. I have to be fair here. I haven't investigated this a lot. Supposedly UT3 is supposed to allow a wider scale for mod designers to work in and allow them to go cross-platform. However, I haven't really seen a build something unreal contest or a real list of tools or a very supportive modding community. I don't even have any information on if the actor X plugin will allow you to port custom animations and rigging data for your models into UT3.

On the other hand, Valve has Softimage.

The thing is, we need something that will open this genre up to a whole new group of gamers on a whole new level. We need to keep it as simple as possible and we need to allow focus to be on gameplay and balance for multi. This is why Halo 3 and COD4 are such a huge success right now. They are balanced and the multiplayer has a really good replay value.

Another focus, should be on trying to create streaming voice communications between players on their own team. This is why I love live. It is an experience, not just a game. It is also more like a social gathering than something nerdy and reclusive. Playing on live is more like getting together with a group of friends and having them come over to sit on the couch to play a video game. However, you can be in homes doing this.

D3 could beat the crap out of any game out there if it just had a face lift and features like a better ranking system and streaming audio between players.

[]V[]essenjah · Post by **[]V[]essenjah** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:31 am

By the way...

For giggles:

Figured I'd post it again since everyone is feeling so nostalgic and no one noticed my post in the Development forum. I'm bringing this into D3 right now. My Pyro-GL is already in-game. This and the Magnum are next.

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:06 am

D3 needs more than a facelift to work... at about the time it came out, a lot of the people I talked to dropped it fairly quickly because it just wasn't fun to play. It needs a re-evaluation of what makes a game good. 6DOF/360 alone doesn't do it.

[]V[]essenjah · Post by **[]V[]essenjah** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:59 am

Right. Actually with D3U, I have been planning to change all the weapons and ships up a bit. Using the same weapons but changing them in ways that they will be a lot more fun to use.

The real problem though with something like this, is that there are limits and coding flaws. For instance: Skippy Phoenix and the smart missile vanishing after player death. I certainly hold no argument there.

Still, I love to play D3 to this day. That doesn't make it such a bad game.

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:32 pm

Sirius wrote:D3 needs more than a facelift to work... at about the time it came out, a lot of the people I talked to dropped it fairly quickly because it just wasn't fun to play. It needs a re-evaluation of what makes a game good. 6DOF/360 alone doesn't do it.

Word.

To me, D1/D2 was much more fun and better in many ways.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:40 pm

[]V[]essenjah wrote:I don't even have any information on if the actor X plugin will allow you to port custom animations and rigging data for your models into UT3

YES IT DOES! I have said this for millions of years! It does it does it does!

It works exactly the same as it did in UT2004! See, teh floaty flaggy? It is using teh dynamic cloth! DO YOU SEE?!?!!

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:49 pm

oh of course it does. You can do all kinds of stuff with the UT3 engine. ..it's just getting help with that.

If you have good searching skillz, then no problem.

goznik · Post by **goznik** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:36 am

how about PhyreEngine?
It sounds very nice.

Mr. Perfect · Post by **Mr. Perfect** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:00 pm

DarkHorse wrote:
Aus-RED-5 wrote:provided it can find the financing.
which it can't.

Probably why they sold the Fallout license two Bethesda for $1.1mil and royalties. Must be how they're funding their webpage again.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:07 pm

[]V[]essenjah wrote:Actually... what I would like to see with the UT3 engine is the ability to bring this across multiple platforms. UT3 is on PS3, PC, and soon will be released on the 360..

There is a VERY good chance this isn't going to happen.

[]V[]essenjah · Post by **[]V[]essenjah** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:49 am

How is that? From what I've read about it, that was one of their primary goals they were going to fulfill with the game. On some of the YouTube convention videos, they had some interviews with game designers and they were claiming that it was going to be cross platform, as would it's mods.

Unless you know something that I don't? I keep hearing about how they screwed us over but I'm not sure what you all mean? As I can see... the tools are all still there?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:08 pm

There has been a recent rift between MS and Epic. I don't remember the details but I'll try to dig it up and post it.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:43 pm

[]V[]essenjah wrote:How is that? From what I've read about it, that was one of their primary goals they were going to fulfill with the game.

First rule of dealing with any Epic tech - don't believe what they tell you. It's all lies, I tell you. LIES!

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:57 pm

The rift is that Microsoft doesn't wanna open up their console. That is it, period. The mods work on PS3 (although I heard you can't do a few things, but that patches would be on the way to fix that), but the Xbox 360 mod support, let alone the 360 version, may not be there.

Duper is right. I heard Epic may have mods checked by Microsoft, so you can download them through XBox live. But that is of course if they can get an Xbox 360 version.

JMEaT · Post by **JMEaT** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:31 pm

Even if Interplay did return, would any of the original programmers? Or would Interplay hire new peeps and the \"new Descent\" game wouldn't have the same feel to it. I'd love to have a \"classic\" feel if there ever was another D sequel.

Not holding my breath on this one.

Lehm · Post by **Lehm** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:11 pm

JMEaT wrote:Even if Interplay did return, would any of the original programmers? Or would Interplay hire new peeps and the "new Descent" game wouldn't have the same feel to it. I'd love to have a "classic" feel if there ever was another D sequel.

Not holding my breath on this one.

I don't know about specific people, but the two companies that developed Descent are both now owned by THQ and I doubt they'd be involved. Now weather Interplay would go after some of the individual people, who can say.

Burlyman · Post by **Burlyman** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:59 am

Well, I'd like to see a Descent sequel, but not if it has the same problems as the other three. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to play my new favorite game... It's called Action Shooter: The Sequel. >_<

P.S.: Hi, Mr. Perfect ^_~

SirWinner · Post by **SirWinner** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:31 pm

I'd be surprised if they do actually come back to life.

They couldn't market very well it seems.

Quality Software with poor marketing = poor sales. (Interplay)

Poor Software with quality marketing = Microsoft!

LOL! er DOH!

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:01 pm

Like I said, I think they ought to port Descent and other key parts of their library to Xbox Live, PSN, or Steam. It couldn't possibly cost that much to do.

Burlyman · Post by **Burlyman** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:51 am

Steam. I would hate to use a gamepad to play Descent. x_x

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:04 pm

Actually, Halo was indeed a great example of software that sold like hotcakes because it was extremely aggressively marketed for a fairly average FPS.

Interplay Back?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

how about PhyreEngine?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: