Auto Downloading Patchs But Having a Choice

Started by
13 comments, last by SimonForsman 12 years, 2 months ago

We can't biggrin.png We have no budget for this smile.png

I know that's the generally accepted answer, and that budget and developer time are both very good reasons for it... but sometimes good ideas can arise out of challenging commonly accepted ideas like "we can't make separate games adjusted for each player". I don't personally have any good solutions for doing so, but can you imagine how successful a game might be if they found a way to do so that was cost effective? I imagine the solution would lie with some combination of a very powerful procedural content generation system, dynamic difficulty adjustment, and a very effective analysis of how the player interacts with the game.

This isn't something I think would necessarily be wise to pursue, but the possibility is certainly an interesting one.

- Jason Astle-Adams

Advertisement
Okay have spent some time thinking about this (no I haven't).

One way in which you might make this idea work would be through the use of achievements and rewards specific to each version. As a loose example from World of Warcraft MMORPG the vanilla (first) version had a questline (the opening of AQ) which was achieved by very few people in game. In turn those who completed the quest chain at that time earned themselves a title and a mount. As this was basically a one time event per server and disappeared under later expansion releases, it became somewhat of an exclusive item ingame. The other aspect of WoW with subsequent expansions was the development of Vanilla guilds i.e. people who did not want to play at the next expansion level as well as developing culture that talked about the good old days in vanilla or Burning Crusade etc.

The ability to do rollbacks could conceivably work in such an example and in part has been effectively shown in part by the refusal of some to upgrade to later expansions. Given that existing resources were used to service both the vanilla community as well subsequent expansions, the idea might actually be less severe to a budget than immediately anticipated in previous posts. The larger issue would be the rollback itself without having to do a full re-install to access earlier versions. Given that we can patch forward though on original content -- It should not be that difficult to implement a rollback patch version. I am of course referring to new product I wouldn't want to untangle some of the spaghetti of existing products. I am skipping over a lot of the grittier technical issues that would make this annoying though.
It's good to give the player the choice to play an earlier version. Your multiplayer (if any) should check version anyway.

Starcraft II simultaneously contains all the previous versions; they are automatically used to play back replay files recorded in that version.

A patch should be a better than the previous one, there should be no reason to not download it. If it introduces a new mechanic (like a new set of units) then add an option to disable it (treat it like a mod).
And if the patch adjusts 100 different build times, resource costs and invisible things behind the scenes which don't have a name but change how the units' pathfinding feels... checkbox for each?
No, that's terrible. If it's technically feasible, just allow older versions to be played. This is likely already necessary if the game has recording like Starcraft does.
Yes, there will be a small portion of the player base that will be unhappy because the patch changed some minor thing that they liked previously better, but they have to deal with it. We can't make separate games adjusted for each player...[/quote]No one's talking about adjusting the game for each player, just letting them play versions which already exist.

[quote name='Acharis' timestamp='1330084353' post='4916168']
We can't biggrin.png We have no budget for this smile.png

I know that's the generally accepted answer, and that budget and developer time are both very good reasons for it... but sometimes good ideas can arise out of challenging commonly accepted ideas like "we can't make separate games adjusted for each player". I don't personally have any good solutions for doing so, but can you imagine how successful a game might be if they found a way to do so that was cost effective? I imagine the solution would lie with some combination of a very powerful procedural content generation system, dynamic difficulty adjustment, and a very effective analysis of how the player interacts with the game.

This isn't something I think would necessarily be wise to pursue, but the possibility is certainly an interesting one.
[/quote]

I think the best way to do this is to make the game easy to mod, (This goes for both singleplayer and multiplayer games), Look at games like quake, starcraft, skyrim, etc, For multiplayer games things become a bit more limited ofcourse(unless you allow proper mods) but a few things can easily be controlled by the server in a multiplayer game, (for an FPS you can let the server change things such as weapon stats, gravity, movement speeds, etc quite easily using for example scripts)

If you provide the tools then the players themselves will take care of the rest.

In the OPs case the easiest way would probably be to separate the engine from the game cleanly, make engine updates mandatory but stick with a fixed interface towards the game and then simply treat the game and mods in exactly the same way, older versions of the game can then be loaded as mods if players prefer a previous versions gameplay. (You could also release the source for the game portion under a restrictive license to allow the community to tweek it as they see fit)
[size="1"]I don't suffer from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it.
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement