It is going to be free, if you go out and pay for it, well, too bad for you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
EDIT: Note, VALVe says they haven't decided if it will be free download, or part of a collectors edition of HL2, or what. But it won't be a seperate commercial product.
<!--QuoteBegin-Travis Dane+May 22 2004, 02:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Travis Dane @ May 22 2004, 02:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Guspaz+May 22 2004, 06:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Guspaz @ May 22 2004, 06:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second, the minimum requirements for even a 12 player NS game (let alone a 32 player game) would be so high that nobody could play it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Care to share your secret e-mail from John Carmack containing Doom3's system requirements? As there is no other way you could have possibly come to this statement. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There's no way I could have come to that statement? I guess you didn't think very hard. It's called deductive reasoning. Your constant posts telling people off for posting information YOU don't have is annoying.
If 4 players pushes the limit of modern technology (according to Id), then by extension 12 players would be BEYOND the limits of modern technology.
And to completely contradict you, Carmack has spoken about minimum requirements for DooM 3. You should really read his .plan more often, and follow his statements that he's made over the years. The first such statement that I can pull off the top of my head is him saying a GeForce 1 would be the minimum requirement for DooM 3.
<!--QuoteBegin-bade+May 22 2004, 08:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bade @ May 22 2004, 08:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> dude, guys, just go looking for half life source screenshots THEY ARE MUCH NICEr <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And what screenshots would these be? VALVe has NEVER ONCE publicly demonstrated HL1 on Source. Perhaps you're referring to screenshots people have taken from the leaked alpha. Those would reinforce my point; they have the OLD textures, and the OLD models.
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+May 22 2004, 08:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ May 22 2004, 08:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> HL:S will look exactly like HL2, I don't know why people can't understand that <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because VALVe has publicly stated otherwise:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually we haven’t taken Half-Life as far as Counter-Strike. We’ve only converted the basic stuff and the majority of material from Half-Life 2 ending up in Half-Life will mostly be invisible. But from then on it’s actually up to players themselves if they want to alter the content of the game once it’s running on the new engine. If anybody feels like ‘upgrading’ Half-Life with Half-Life 2 content it’s cool with us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me sum that up: Yes, Half-Life 1 is on Source, but it uses all the old media. It does NOT look like Half-Life 2.
You can find the full interview here: <a href='http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=5189' target='_blank'>http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=5189</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Guspaz+May 22 2004, 01:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Guspaz @ May 22 2004, 01:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There's no way I could have come to that statement? I guess you didn't think very hard. It's called deductive reasoning. Your constant posts telling people off for posting information YOU don't have is annoying.
If 4 players pushes the limit of modern technology (according to Id), then by extension 12 players would be BEYOND the limits of modern technology.
And to completely contradict you, Carmack has spoken about minimum requirements for DooM 3. You should really read his .plan more often, and follow his statements that he's made over the years. The first such statement that I can pull off the top of my head is him saying a GeForce 1 would be the minimum requirement for DooM 3.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hence my request for John's e-mail.
You are talking in vague terms, 4 players pushing the limit of modern technology? When was that said, where (URL) and what technology would that be? GF1\2\3\4\5\6?
Also, you're sticking pretty much to Doom3's classic multiplayer setup, there's no reason not to believe a modification could modify the game in it's favor (making higher player support feasable, with a balance of different graphics features).
John has indeed talked about general estimates on Doom 3's system requirements, however it were old statements (unless you'd like to point me to more recent ones), and probably dont have any grounds on hardware existing at the moment.
I don't believe you can turn off per-pixel lighting, but perhaps running the game on a DirectX 7 codepath would give speed at the expense of quality.
Nevertheless, if you're cranking down the quality so low to support more players, you should be using an engine that lets you use up to 32 players while letting people play on anything from DX6 to DX9 hardware, scaling quality as it goes, letting them all play together. That engine would be Source.
DooM, not being scalable, doesn't fit the bill very well. If you cut down on quality to fit more players on older machines, then newer machines suffer. If you don't cut down quality, then nobody but those with extremely powerfull computers can play. The engine isn't designed for scalability.
Guspaz stop thinking of the past and start thinking to the future...
Any serious gamer upgrades his computer every 2 years its a pretty well known fact.
Your talking about comprimising the experince to cater for the lowest common PC user which NS isn't targeted to anyway.
To get NS working well in source taking advantage of all the new features is going to be a lot of work don't think otherwise.
Getting NS to work in Doom3 is also going to be a lot of work but mind you it won't be from scratch either you should be able to re-use alot of base geometery and raw textures.
AND STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ON PERFORMANCE no one is in a postion to till they play the game.
Really? Then why does NS have a mapping limit of 4MB of textures? A lot of people have cards with more videomemory than 8MB. Mine has 128MB. And yet NS's mapping guidelines are limited to 4MB.
It's a safe assumption to make, when Id said that modern PCs couldn't handle more than 4, and we're asking for 12-16 at least.
Anybody in game development knows that you DO cater to the lowest common denominator, if you want your game to suceed. Even DooM 3 will run on DX7 cards. Half-Life 2 runs on DX6 hardware. NS would be a very cool game on DooM 3... but it'd have an extremely small playerbase, if it didn't die off entirely.
NS on DooM 3 wouldn't be possible right away. Maybe a few years down the road. But guess what? NS on Source could be playable in a matter of weeks, if VALVe isn't exagerating.
Its got a 4mb limit because the engine its built upon is 5 years old.
You based your entire argument on the fact the doom3 engine is not backwards scable has to much hardware requirement then you come out and say "Even DooM 3 will run on DX7 cards." So if thats the case all thoes performance issues you stated as being a problem are null.
Doom3 is the engine for NS where its fesable/worth the effort to use it instead of HL2 is another matter.
Comments
EDIT: Note, VALVe says they haven't decided if it will be free download, or part of a collectors edition of HL2, or what. But it won't be a seperate commercial product.
Care to share your secret e-mail from John Carmack containing Doom3's system requirements? As there is no other way you could have possibly come to this statement. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's no way I could have come to that statement? I guess you didn't think very hard. It's called deductive reasoning. Your constant posts telling people off for posting information YOU don't have is annoying.
If 4 players pushes the limit of modern technology (according to Id), then by extension 12 players would be BEYOND the limits of modern technology.
And to completely contradict you, Carmack has spoken about minimum requirements for DooM 3. You should really read his .plan more often, and follow his statements that he's made over the years. The first such statement that I can pull off the top of my head is him saying a GeForce 1 would be the minimum requirement for DooM 3.
And what screenshots would these be? VALVe has NEVER ONCE publicly demonstrated HL1 on Source. Perhaps you're referring to screenshots people have taken from the leaked alpha. Those would reinforce my point; they have the OLD textures, and the OLD models.
Because VALVe has publicly stated otherwise:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually we haven’t taken Half-Life as far as Counter-Strike. We’ve only converted the basic stuff and the majority of material from Half-Life 2 ending up in Half-Life will mostly be invisible. But from then on it’s actually up to players themselves if they want to alter the content of the game once it’s running on the new engine. If anybody feels like ‘upgrading’ Half-Life with Half-Life 2 content it’s cool with us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me sum that up: Yes, Half-Life 1 is on Source, but it uses all the old media. It does NOT look like Half-Life 2.
You can find the full interview here: <a href='http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=5189' target='_blank'>http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=5189</a>
If 4 players pushes the limit of modern technology (according to Id), then by extension 12 players would be BEYOND the limits of modern technology.
And to completely contradict you, Carmack has spoken about minimum requirements for DooM 3. You should really read his .plan more often, and follow his statements that he's made over the years. The first such statement that I can pull off the top of my head is him saying a GeForce 1 would be the minimum requirement for DooM 3.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hence my request for John's e-mail.
You are talking in vague terms, 4 players pushing the limit of modern technology? When was that said, where (URL) and what technology would that be? GF1\2\3\4\5\6?
Also, you're sticking pretty much to Doom3's classic multiplayer setup, there's no reason not to believe a modification could modify the game in it's favor (making higher player support feasable, with a balance of different graphics features).
John has indeed talked about general estimates on Doom 3's system requirements, however it were old statements (unless you'd like to point me to more recent ones), and probably dont have any grounds on hardware existing at the moment.
Nevertheless, if you're cranking down the quality so low to support more players, you should be using an engine that lets you use up to 32 players while letting people play on anything from DX6 to DX9 hardware, scaling quality as it goes, letting them all play together. That engine would be Source.
DooM, not being scalable, doesn't fit the bill very well. If you cut down on quality to fit more players on older machines, then newer machines suffer. If you don't cut down quality, then nobody but those with extremely powerfull computers can play. The engine isn't designed for scalability.
Any serious gamer upgrades his computer every 2 years its a pretty well known fact.
Your talking about comprimising the experince to cater for the lowest common PC user which NS isn't targeted to anyway.
To get NS working well in source taking advantage of all the new features is going to be a lot of work don't think otherwise.
Getting NS to work in Doom3 is also going to be a lot of work but mind you it won't be from scratch either you should be able to re-use alot of base geometery and raw textures.
AND STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ON PERFORMANCE no one is in a postion to till they play the game.
It's a safe assumption to make, when Id said that modern PCs couldn't handle more than 4, and we're asking for 12-16 at least.
Anybody in game development knows that you DO cater to the lowest common denominator, if you want your game to suceed. Even DooM 3 will run on DX7 cards. Half-Life 2 runs on DX6 hardware. NS would be a very cool game on DooM 3... but it'd have an extremely small playerbase, if it didn't die off entirely.
NS on DooM 3 wouldn't be possible right away. Maybe a few years down the road. But guess what? NS on Source could be playable in a matter of weeks, if VALVe isn't exagerating.
You based your entire argument on the fact the doom3 engine is not backwards scable has to much hardware requirement then you come out and say "Even DooM 3 will run on DX7 cards." So if thats the case all thoes performance issues you stated as being a problem are null.
Doom3 is the engine for NS where its fesable/worth the effort to use it instead of HL2 is another matter.
Doom3 will not a have a small playerbase.