NS2 in "Best of 2011"
_Thresh_
Join Date: 2008-01-11 Member: 63385Members
Join Date: 2008-01-11 Member: 63385Members
<div class="IPBDescription">maximum pc countdown</div><a href="http://www.maximumpc.com/article/gaming/18_best_pc_games_2011_you_dont_know_about?page=0,2" target="_blank">http://www.maximumpc.com/article/gaming/18..._about?page=0,2</a>
More generally, there's been a big drop-off in forum discussion about NS2, despite it appearing in alot of most anticipated game forum threads lately, and despite the beta trailer views still ticking up incrementally.
The google tracker for natural selection 2 has also flatlined at pre-beta levels. The flat-line is a stark contrast against the interest trackers of other "anticipated games" this year, e.g. portal 2, which are building and bending up with word of mouth.
NS2 interest/view stagnation is obviously a side-effect of the state of the game and drawn out development. In the general forums I recommended a big move -releasing the game code- as a shot in the arm strategy of fortifying community size, following and momentum, on the assumption that these are UW's biggest assets.
I still think this, or -at the least- a flood-gate feature release coupled with a feature complete event, is needed to stem the stagnation in interest, and build some momentum up to a steam release.
Edit: Not sure, $0 strategies need to compensate with risk, open to ideas.
More generally, there's been a big drop-off in forum discussion about NS2, despite it appearing in alot of most anticipated game forum threads lately, and despite the beta trailer views still ticking up incrementally.
The google tracker for natural selection 2 has also flatlined at pre-beta levels. The flat-line is a stark contrast against the interest trackers of other "anticipated games" this year, e.g. portal 2, which are building and bending up with word of mouth.
NS2 interest/view stagnation is obviously a side-effect of the state of the game and drawn out development. In the general forums I recommended a big move -releasing the game code- as a shot in the arm strategy of fortifying community size, following and momentum, on the assumption that these are UW's biggest assets.
I still think this, or -at the least- a flood-gate feature release coupled with a feature complete event, is needed to stem the stagnation in interest, and build some momentum up to a steam release.
Edit: Not sure, $0 strategies need to compensate with risk, open to ideas.
Comments
More generally, there's been a big drop-off in forum discussion about NS2, despite it appearing in alot of most anticipated game forum threads lately, and despite the beta trailer views still ticking up incrementally.
The google tracker for natural selection 2 has also flatlined at pre-beta levels. The flat-line is a stark contrast against the interest trackers of other "anticipated games" this year, e.g. portal 2, which are building and bending up with word of mouth.
NS2 interest/view stagnation is obviously a side-effect of the state of the game and drawn out development. In the general forums I recommended a big move -releasing the game code- as a shot in the arm strategy of fortifying community size, following and momentum, on the assumption that these are UW's biggest assets.
I still think this, or -at the least- a flood-gate feature release coupled with a feature complete event, is needed to stem the stagnation in interest, and build some momentum up to a steam release.
Edit: Not sure, $0 strategies need to compensate with risk, open to ideas.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Highly highly highly disagree with you on releasing code. If the devs were to do that, there would be no point in them licensing their engine so other developers could make games using Spark. We want UWE to succeed as much as possible, not just make something and give it away for free. They deserve all the credit for making an engine from scratch.
Thats the end-game. They are going to make tons of money off Steam.
An end user release of engine code under limited licence, perhaps after the game launch, does not stop UW from making money through licencing; anymore than an artist releasing a song allows others to republish it. The groups that would pay for engine rights still will.
The real value of doing it is cheap simple hype. UW have taken this great open kimono approach, but the release of "game code" but not "engine code" is complicating the message: limiting "ID Software" type comparisons, and the hype an open kimono modern engine could potentially generate.
An end user release of engine code under limited licence, perhaps after the game launch, does not stop UW from making money through licencing; anymore than an artist releasing a song allows others to republish it. The groups that would pay for engine rights still will.
The real value of doing it is cheap simple hype. UW have taken this great open kimono approach, but the release of "game code" but not "engine code" is complicating the message: limiting "ID Software" type comparisons, and the hype an open kimono modern engine could potentially generate.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Giving the game code is already generous enough and allowing modability.
Look at it this way. Epic developed the Unreal 3 engine. Other studios have acquired the right to use their engine by paying Epic. There are so many successful games that use this engine, but wouldn't it totally be unfair if Epic made an engine and they didn't get famous off of it but another studio who got a free copy of their engine did?
The game industry is still booming. It has drastically changed for sure and is still definately growing.
Most triple A titles alone generate bigger sales than a hollywood movie production in a single day/week and those developers re-use engines over and over, etc from other developers or their very own. It would totally be unfair to UWE to work on something (once it's complete) and have a 2nd developer grab their engine for free and become far more successful than UWE.
<a href="http://blog.wolfire.com/" target="_blank">http://blog.wolfire.com/</a>
Lol!
<img src="http://cdn.wolfire.com/blog/a/apple_pirate.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<a href="http://blog.wolfire.com/" target="_blank">http://blog.wolfire.com/</a>
Lol!
<img src="http://cdn.wolfire.com/blog/a/apple_pirate.png" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this, THIS, is why you do NOT release your source code.
/thread.
If the SDK tools are somewhat improved and we get modeling instructions or a good manual on SparkLua, it has all the stuff one would need to make your own game. I mean isn't the game rules and how stuff works (NS2) being made in Lua mostly with Spark backing it all up?
That's called licensing your engine to someone and that costs good money for a good reason =]
You could be right, if we're talking about games that don't deviate a lot from NS2, mods for NS2 for example. Entire commercial games from start to finish on the other hand, I don't think Lua alone will cut it. If only because the current Lua-environment was tailored for NS2 (of course with a grander scheme of modding in mind, but built and tested using NS2 nonetheless). Perhaps they'll license it on the cheap for developers that don't need more than what is currently available in Lua, but a complete engine-license will be in order for proper fresh games.
I would actually think that'd be a great option for them to have: A cheaper 'lua-level' license, and a more expensive full C-level license.
Ideally most things could be achieved at just the lua-level, though.
An 'amateur' mod or total conversion would effectively have the lua-level license for 'free', but of course their product must also be 'free' - and necessarily require a copy of a Spark game (NS2) to run.
Also, Koruyo, thanks, because:
1. I enjoyed that article.
2. It introduced me to Overgrowth, which I hadn't known about before, and (after viewing some videos) I'm now very interested in.
strange, you should already know about them. I'm pretty sure you already have an Overgrowth copy :P