Support NeoGAF

[mclem]

Here's an idea: Why not just make DriveClub PS+ Edition an offline-only game?

You know...just remove most or all of the online functionality, so that there's no danger of mucking up the network servers for people who are playing the full version?

I have to say, it's a brilliant idea! I'm so proud that I thought of it! I cannot believe that no one else in this thread ever proposed this idea up until now! No, really, I cannot believe it!

Well, that's the thing. That's the obvious choice, and yet, they haven't done it. And the thing is, while that's not a quick fix - on paper, it's simple, in reality, it's the sort of thing you have to be very careful about implementing correctly - it's not actually something that should take five months, so at this stage it's unlikely to be a goal they're working towards.

I suspect that's not actually on the table there as an option. Why, I can only guess; perhaps they feel that taking out the online elements takes away a big part of the franchise's distinctiveness? Either way, I do have to conclude that they'd have done it by now if they were going to do it. Better to give no game than release a game without the uniqueness?

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

Here's an idea: Why not just make DriveClub PS+ Edition an offline-only game?

That's what I've said they should do, many times. They could even have it so it uploads laptimes, club points etc. after races so you could still take part in leaderboards.

People want to know what they cars feels like, whether the tracks are too their taste, and that can all be done in single player.

Well, that's the thing. That's the obvious choice, and yet, they haven't done it. And the thing is, while that's not a quick fix - on paper, it's simple, in reality, it's the sort of thing you have to be very careful about implementing correctly - it's not actually something that should take five months, so at this stage it's unlikely to be a goal they're working towards.

I played the main game offline for weeks after launch (lol) and I still loved it, there's already course objectives from Evo to get you started. The online stuff is great, but it's not needed to get a feel for the driving, and that's all the demo needs to be.

 

[Agent X]

Well, that's the thing. That's the obvious choice, and yet, they haven't done it. And the thing is, while that's not a quick fix - on paper, it's simple, in reality, it's the sort of thing you have to be very careful about implementing correctly - it's not actually something that should take five months, so at this stage it's unlikely to be a goal they're working towards.

I suspect that's not actually on the table there as an option. Why, I can only guess; perhaps they feel that taking out the online elements takes away a big part of the franchise's distinctiveness? Either way, I do have to conclude that they'd have done it by now if they were going to do it. Better to give no game than release a game without the uniqueness?

Sure, taking away the online elements would be limiting some part of the game's appeal. But this happens with a lot of "demo" or "limited" versions of games anyway. In a demo for an online first-person shooter, you can't join a clan and then fight alongside your clanmates in every gameplay mode on every available map.

If the designers feel that they absolutely must showcase some of the online score/stat tracking in the PS+ Edition, then they don't have to cut out all of the online functionality--just most of it. Cthulhu_Steev had a good response above. Most people want to try the PS+ Edition for two specific reasons:

1. They want to get a feel for the driving model.
2. They want to gawk at the graphics.

R_thanatos pointed out earlier that the full game tracks over 1.3 million statistics in realtime. I can assure you that 1.299 million of those stats would be completely irrelevant to anyone playing the PS+ Edition.

If I'm playing the PS+ Edition and driving a Mini Cooper on the India track, then I simply don't give a darn about the awesome lap time that some stranger called MaStErAuToDuDe69 from South Africa just achieved in a Lamborghini Gallardo on the Norway track. It's not as though I'd have access to either the Lambo or the Norway track.

The PS+ Edition doesn't need to track each and every little online statistic. That's what the full game is for. So why waste that bandwidth? Cut out the fat, and limit the network data to only stats that are relevant to the available cars and tracks.

 

[mclem]

I broadly agree with both of you here - I think that's the logical solution. My point was more that it's such an obvious solution that they must have considered it and dismissed it. Which might be dangerously fallacious, I guess.

 

[PodcastFips]

The problem with this thread is, the game being discussed in here doesn't even exist (anymore)... we'll see the full game for PS+ in early or mid 2016 though.

 

[LAM09]

I guess Sony have just written this off.

 

[Camp Freddie]

They can't do an offline only psplus version.

Psplus is a premium online service. It will be a real WTF moment for their PR to explain why they've ripped multiplayer out of the game.

Also, it would be #Drive-without-a-club.

 

[mzupeman]

I guess Sony have just written this off.

According to them, they haven't. Very recently, there was a 'no comment' type situation, but then Sony clarified they're still committed to having a PS+ version.

As I've said much earlier, I think it's likely we'll just see the actual game as a PS+ freebie one month... maybe at the end of the year, as a way to tell consumers, "Buy a PS4 this holiday with PS+! Driveclub will be free!" That's one way to make up for the lack of first party titles in the largest shopping season of the year.

 

[Loofy]

I wonder if theres a possibility that EA and ubisoft asked sony not to release the ps+ version.

 

[Norwegian_Imposter]

I wonder if theres a possibility that EA and ubisoft asked sony not to release the ps+ version.

why?

 

[mclem]

The problem with this thread is, the game being discussed in here doesn't even exist (anymore)... we'll see the full game for PS+ in early or mid 2016 though.

Well, my train of thought is that I suspect that they can't. The same circumstances that mean they can't release the cut-down edition would also suggest that they can't release the full game, and I have a strong suspicion that those circumstances aren't going to be directly fixable, as I mentioned upthread.

 

[Loofy]

why?

I dunno giving away free copies of NFS/The crew competitors might seem unfair to them.

 

[le-seb]

I dunno giving away free copies of NFS/The crew competitors might seem unfair to them.

lol

Why wouldn't Sony spend their money as they please, to begin with?
Also, the PS+ edition only includes 20% of the game's initial content.
Glorified demo is what it's often been called on these forums.

 

[Loofy]

lol

Why wouldn't Sony spend their money as they please, to begin with?

Sony can do as they please. EA/Ubi can give exclusive DLC away as they please...

Anyways just speculating.

 

[LAM09]

According to them, they haven't. Very recently, there was a 'no comment' type situation, but then Sony clarified they're still committed to having a PS+ version.

As I've said much earlier, I think it's likely we'll just see the actual game as a PS+ freebie one month... maybe at the end of the year, as a way to tell consumers, "Buy a PS4 this holiday with PS+! Driveclub will be free!" That's one way to make up for the lack of first party titles in the largest shopping season of the year.

That will probably be the case, but the whole situation has been a shambles.

 

[R_thanatos]

Most people want to try the PS+ Edition for two specific reasons:

1. They want to get a feel for the driving model.
2. They want to gawk at the graphics.

R_thanatos pointed out earlier that the full game tracks over 1.3 million statistics in realtime. I can assure you that 1.299 million of those stats would be completely irrelevant to anyone playing the PS+ Edition.

If I'm playing the PS+ Edition and driving a Mini Cooper on the India track, then I simply don't give a darn about the awesome lap time that some stranger called MaStErAuToDuDe69 from South Africa just achieved in a Lamborghini Gallardo on the Norway track. It's not as though I'd have access to either the Lambo or the Norway track.

The PS+ Edition doesn't need to track each and every little online statistic. That's what the full game is for. So why waste that bandwidth? Cut out the fat, and limit the network data to only stats that are relevant to the available cars and tracks.

Again , you don't seem to really understand how this works , because what you're suggesting is already what is happenning.
If you play on an india track , you're playing and getting stats from people that have played on the india track . All your info will be compared against people playing on that track , on that car category , on those weather conditions.
Thing is , everyone is playing different conditions and putting more data on every condition the game offers. Even if PS+ users only play on india tracks , it would just mean more data to share with others , even if it's on ONE location . It's obvious that a players only need one set of data when they play ( the one regarding the location they are playing on ).

And Even then you don't give a damn about other lap times on the location you're playing on, the game is built around the face-off feature, so there is no point on removing it.
The game is built around clubs , so there is no point of removing it.
You already have a limited chunk of the game and you want LESS FEATURES ??
WHAT IS THE POINT ?

 

[madp0k]

I think they should release the PS+ version as it was 1st touted (1 location, 11 cars) with one exception, off line only. This way the servers only get stressed by paying customers (paying for DC not +) and if people like the game from the ps+ demo they can then upgrade to the full version.

Surely a fair compromise, Im sure everyone waiting on the ps+ version wouldn't want the servers to get so stressed that it ruins the experience for all those that have supported the game over the last 5 or 6 months.

 

[blacklotus]

I think they should release the PS+ version as it was 1st touted (1 location, 11 cars) with one exception, off line only. This way the servers only get stressed by paying customers (paying for DC not +) and if people like the game from the ps+ demo they can then upgrade to the full version.

Surely a fair compromise, Im sure everyone waiting on the ps+ version wouldn't want the servers to get so stressed that it ruins the experience for all those that have supported the game over the last 5 or 6 months.

I understand what you mean, but having an offline version of a game called DriveClub, makes no sense at all. Imho.

 

[Agent X]

Again , you don't seem to really understand how this works , because what you're suggesting is already what is happenning.
If you play on an india track , you're playing and getting stats from people that have played on the india track . All your info will be compared against people playing on that track , on that car category , on those weather conditions.
Thing is , everyone is playing different conditions and putting more data on every condition the game offers. Even if PS+ users only play on india tracks , it would just mean more data to share with others , even if it's on ONE location . It's obvious that a players only need one set of data when they play ( the one regarding the location they are playing on ).

Yes, the PS+ users would be sharing their data with the data pool for the full version users. So what? Are a few thousand additional lap times on the India track going to bust the servers for everyone? If so, then that reinforces what I've said earlier--that this is a very poorly designed game.

There are countless other online games (racing, first-person shooters, role-playing games, whatever) that have boatloads of data communicated constantly, and still manage to remain playable. No one has to make any lame excuses for those games.

And Even then you don't give a damn about other lap times on the location you're playing on, the game is built around the face-off feature, so there is no point on removing it.
The game is built around clubs , so there is no point of removing it.
You already have a limited chunk of the game and you want LESS FEATURES ??
WHAT IS THE POINT ?

Go back and reread the example I gave in post # 3465 earlier. If I'm racing on a particular track (India) with a particular car (Mini Cooper), then it's totally irrelevant what some stranger (meaning someone who's not on my friends list) is doing on a completely different track (Norway) with a completely different car (Lamborghini Gallardo). It has no bearing on my gameplay! Therefore, the game does not need to download that sort of data, since I have no way of responding to that challenge anyway.

Now, if MaStErAuToDuDe69 decides he wants to put up a screamin' lap time on India with his Mini Cooper, then yeah, go ahead and communicate that data to me. Then I can respond to the challenge and put up my time, too. And if that teensy-weensy, teeny-tiny bit of data gets back to the server and ends up busting then whole damn game for MaStErAuToDuDe69 and R_thanatos and the entire human race, then guess what that means, folks? It's a very poorly designed game!

 

[Son Of D]

I dunno giving away free copies of NFS/The crew competitors might seem unfair to them.

So is Sony not allowed to give away Killzone for free because of Call of Duty and Battlefield?

 

[ocean]

They can't do an offline only psplus version.

Psplus is a premium online service. It will be a real WTF moment for their PR to explain why they've ripped multiplayer out of the game.

Also, it would be #Drive-without-a-club.

What? There's tons of single player only titles on the PS+ Instant Game Collection.

This game has the worst network infrastructure ever designed for a major retail release. I don't think that's up for debate. 5 months later they still can't give it to the public. Games like Battlefield and Destiny (numerous others as well) hold large, open public betas so they can test their servers under stress.

These amateurs actually launched the game before realizing their backend was inadequate. I have no hope in a team that incompetent ever getting their network platform in shape for a wide PS+ release, and I'd hate for paying customers' experience to be tarnished.

Best thing Sony can do here is bite the bullet. They misplaced trust in a studio by promising a game the developers weren't able to deliver on time and later at all (as per promised audience scope). Give us another free game and put an end to this embarassing chapter.

 

[R_thanatos]

Yes, the PS+ users would be sharing their data with the data pool for the full version users. So what? Are a few thousand additional lap times on the India track going to bust the servers for everyone? If so, then that reinforces what I've said earlier--that this is a very poorly designed game.

There are countless other online games (racing, first-person shooters, role-playing games, whatever) that have boatloads of data communicated constantly, and still manage to remain playable. No one has to make any lame excuses for those games.



Go back and reread the example I gave in post # 3465 earlier. If I'm racing on a particular track (India) with a particular car (Mini Cooper), then it's totally irrelevant what some stranger (meaning someone who's not on my friends list) is doing on a completely different track (Norway) with a completely different car (Lamborghini Gallardo). It has no bearing on my gameplay! Therefore, the game does not need to download that sort of data, since I have no way of responding to that challenge anyway.

Now, if MaStErAuToDuDe69 decides he wants to put up a screamin' lap time on India with his Mini Cooper, then yeah, go ahead and communicate that data to me. Then I can respond to the challenge and put up my time, too. And if that teensy-weensy, teeny-tiny bit of data gets back to the server and ends up busting then whole damn game for MaStErAuToDuDe69 and R_thanatos and the entire human race, then guess what that means, folks? It's a very poorly designed game!

This is ridiculous , you don't even make the effort to understand what is written and despite not owing the game you believe that you understand it.

LOL
Worse you're calling a poor design and telling them to do , what they are already doing .

Clap Clap...

i'm throughly impressed by how you magically missed the point , that take skill.

I understand why you believe that this was the same thing as burnout online part or Autolog , you just don't get it.

Ps: the game does not download data that has no relevance on your race, remove that stupid idea from your head.

 

[giant_frying_pan]

The problem with this thread is, the game being discussed in here doesn't even exist (anymore)... we'll see the full game for PS+ in early or mid 2016 though.

Why does the March 2015 patch notes say this then?

Continual server upgrades: to keep improving online stability and performance for all current players and to enable the release of the [b]PS+ [u]Edition[/u][/b] and DRIVECLUB companion app.

 

[Percy]

What? There's tons of single player only titles on the PS+ Instant Game Collection.

This game has the worst network infrastructure ever designed for a major retail release. I don't think that's up for debate. 5 months later they still can't give it to the public. Games like Battlefield and Destiny (numerous others as well) hold large, open public betas so they can test their servers under stress.

These amateurs actually launched the game before realizing their backend was inadequate. I have no hope in a team that incompetent ever getting their network platform in shape for a wide PS+ release, and I'd hate for paying customers' experience to be tarnished.

Best thing Sony can do here is bite the bullet. They misplaced trust in a studio by promising a game the developers weren't able to deliver on time and later at all (as per promised audience scope). Give us another free game and put an end to this embarassing chapter.

One free game isn't enough. We should get one free game for every month Driveclub Plus has failed to materialise imo.

 

[Agent X]

This is ridiculous , you don't even make the effort to understand what is written and despite not owing the game you believe that you understand it.

LOL
Worse you're calling a poor design and telling them to do , what they are already doing .

Clap Clap...

i'm throughly impressed by how you magically missed the point , that take skill.

I understand why you believe that this was the same thing as burnout online part or Autolog , you just don't get it.

Oh, I "get it", alright. I "get" that more than five months later, the Evolution programmers are still no closer to a solution than they were back on October 7.

Could you elaborate on what DriveClub is doing that's radically different from the Burnout and Need for Speed games? Why haven't those games ever suffered from such crippling network problems?

Ps: the game does not download data that has no relevance on your race, remove that stupid idea from your head.

Well, then, if the game already utilizes a design that recognizes data that's irrelevant to a player's game session and refrains from downloading that data, then it's doing what so many other online-enabled video games are already doing anyway. In that case, what's the danger of opening the game up to the PS+ subscriber base at this point? I never heard such excuses when other online-enabled video games were given out through the PS+ Instant Game Collection.

I fail to see what has justified such a prolonged amount of time to fix the network problems. No other major video game (from any genre, racing or otherwise) has had such a long-lasting network problem like this. There's simply no reason why this should have gone on for so long, and no reason why anyone here should have to defend such poor performance.

 

[R_thanatos]

Oh, I "get it", alright. I "get" that more than five months later, the Evolution programmers are still no closer to a solution than they were back on October 7.

Could you elaborate on what DriveClub is doing that's radically different from the Burnout and Need for Speed games? Why haven't those games ever suffered from such crippling network problems?

No you don't. Again that's not true.
The change they made across the months are visible even to the players in the front-end.but you wouldn't know that .
Wait you could. because they did communicate about it recently !
I've already told you. You just don't understand.

Well, then, if the game already utilizes a design that recognizes data that's irrelevant to a player's game session and refrains from downloading that data, then it's doing what so many other online-enabled video games are already doing anyway. In that case, what's the danger of opening the game up to the PS+ subscriber base at this point? I never heard such excuses when other online-enabled video games were given out through the PS+ Instant Game Collection.

I fail to see what has justified such a prolonged amount of time to fix the network problems. No other major video game (from any genre, racing or otherwise) has had such a long-lasting network problem like this. There's simply no reason why this should have gone on for so long, and no reason why anyone here should have to defend such poor performance.

ok let me try again.( Last time )
See the fact that times are added to leaderboards when you complete a race and basic ranking on races ( Like autolog ? ) Driveclub does that.
Then you see time and lap time comparaison across your friends ? Driveclub does that too.
But driveclub does even more than that. When you're racing you have face-offs.
Your game communicates contantly with the driveclub servers and update each section of a track based on several parameters ( Race, type of race, section of the race, car category used, weather or not ) For every track in the game in 3 main statistics ( average speed , drifiting hability , accuracy )
This is one of the core of the competition driveclub offers ( the other being challenges ).
What does this mean: It means that 2 players, being in single player, playing the same track under the same conditions ( like one in the campaign ) can see the changes of the other from one lap to the other seamlessly...and they don't need to be in a online session for that to happen. I repeat unlike many other games, they are not sharing that information directly ( Hence single player ).
It works in time attack too ( and it's even more obvious) as the game loads time attack ghost Each lap.
So what does this mean , that means that the volume of data driveclub exchange is higher than other games..because the core of the game design of the game is about that.
Don't get me wrong , driveclub doesn't give you data on a track you're not playing on, no.
The problem why they are taking time before releasing the PS+ version is that the sheer number of people that might play when the PS+ version is released is huge.
If there was just a leaderboard that get updated once at the end of a race , it wouldn't mean shit , because you can mirror this stuff and the volume of data is small but the thing with driveclub is that it communicate much more data and more frequently.

This isn't just like an online session in NFS, because the data in a NFS online event is limited to sharing between those in the session and only the status of each player is updated once when an event ends. The way the data communicates is way different.

Now , Your argument is "it's poor design"
My answer is " it's not poor design".
Let me tell you why:
1 - it works flawlessly for the players of the game.

That's it. It work for those who have bought the damn game. You cannot accuse a game of poor design if those who are playing it don't have issues.

Your second argument is : " why isn't the PS+ edition there if it works"
My answer is : Because the the amount of data driveclub communicate is the same regardless of what version of the game you have, that mean that given the <PS+> usebase , the amount to manage is a lot much . Considering that they were taken back by the paid customers once, can you blame them if they wait untill they are sure they can handle 10x more costumers ?. I mean they are telling you in their last patch notes that they are getting ready for this stuff. And us paying customers still don't have the DRIVECLUB app

Your third argument is : " But i don't care about online stuff i just want to drive"
And my answer is : " It doesn't work that way"
Why ? Because Driveclub without the competition is another game entirely. Because releasing a game without the online connectivity doesn't make sense since the goal is to be in a club , unlock stuff together ( each point while you're in a club is shared and used to unlock stuff ) What you're asking is a different game entirely.

I hope this was clear. I hope you understand my point. I certainly hope you understand how data communicate over the internet before you tell me that driveclub does the same thing as other games.

 

[nib95]

No you don't. Again that's not true.
The change they made across the months are visible even to the players in the front-end.but you wouldn't know that .
Wait you could. because they did communicate about it recently !
I've already told you. You just don't understand.



ok let me try again.( Last time )
See the fact that times are added to leaderboards when you complete a race and basic ranking on races ( Like autolog ? ) Driveclub does that.
Then you see time and lap time comparaison across your friends ? Driveclub does that too.
But driveclub does even more than that. When you're racing you have face-offs.
Your game communicates contantly with the driveclub servers and update each section of a track based on several parameters ( Race, type of race, section of the race, car category used, weather or not ) For every track in the game in 3 main statistics ( average speed , drifiting hability , accuracy )
This is one of the core of the competition driveclub offers ( the other being challenges ).
What does this mean: It means that 2 players, being in single player, playing the same track under the same conditions ( like one in the campaign ) can see the changes of the other from one lap to the other seamlessly...and they don't need to be in a online session for that to happen. I repeat unlike many other games, they are not sharing that information directly ( Hence single player ).
It works in time attack too ( and it's even more obvious) as the game loads time attack ghost Each lap.
So what does this mean , that means that the volume of data driveclub exchange is higher than other games..because the core of the game design of the game is about that.
Don't get me wrong , driveclub doesn't give you data on a track you're not playing on, no.
The problem why they are taking time before releasing the PS+ version is that the sheer number of people that might play when the PS+ version is released is huge.
If there was just a leaderboard that get updated once at the end of a race , it wouldn't mean shit , because you can mirror this stuff and the volume of data is small but the thing with driveclub is that it communicate much more data and more frequently.

This isn't just like an online session in NFS, because the data in a NFS online event is limited to sharing between those in the session and only the status of each player is updated once when an event ends. The way the data communicates is way different.

Now , Your argument is "it's poor design"
My answer is " it's not poor design".
Let me tell you why:
1 - it works flawlessly for the players of the game.

That's it. It work for those who have bought the damn game. You cannot accuse a game of poor design if those who are playing it don't have issues.

Your second argument is : " why isn't the PS+ edition there if it works"
My answer is : Because the the amount of data driveclub communicate is the same regardless of what version of the game you have, that mean that given the <PS+> usebase , the amount to manage is a lot much . Considering that they were taken back by the paid customers once, can you blame them if they wait untill they are sure they can handle 10x more costumers ?. I mean they are telling you in their last patch notes that they are getting ready for this stuff. And us paying customers still don't have the DRIVECLUB app

Your third argument is : " But i don't care about online stuff i just want to drive"
And my answer is : " It doesn't work that way"
Why ? Because Driveclub without the competition is another game entirely. Because releasing a game without the online connectivity doesn't make sense since the goal is to be in a club , unlock stuff together ( each point while you're in a club is shared and used to unlock stuff ) What you're asking is a different game entirely.

I hope this was clear. I hope you understand my point. I certainly hope you understand how data communicate over the internet before you tell me that driveclub does the same thing as other games.

Great post. I do think the sheer degree of data DriveClub constantly shares and updates, dynamically no less, is incredibly impressive and rather underrated. I was having a go at a challenge the other day whilst in party chat with several others who were attempting it. Sectors, Ghosts, face offs etc would update in real time moment to moment as we were all racing simultaneously, despite not being in the same race together.

I do think it's increasingly likely they'll just release the whole game on PS+ at a later date, minus the season pass, but who knows. To avoid further disappointment and anger if they really are unsure of a reliable PS+ launch, they could always just cancel the release and substitute it for another game. We're getting like 3 titles a month now, so it's not like value proposition wise, PS+ is lacking.

 

[Agent X]

Thank you for explaining, I understand your point a little better now. I was already aware of most of these factors, though. I just want to address a few specific points:

What does this mean: It means that 2 players, being in single player, playing the same track under the same conditions ( like one in the campaign ) can see the changes of the other from one lap to the other seamlessly...and they don't need to be in a online session for that to happen. I repeat unlike many other games, they are not sharing that information directly ( Hence single player ).

This is actually quite a bit like Autolog. I've played games of Burnout Paradise a few years ago where this would happen. If a buddy was online at the same time, and if he beat a Road Rule time or Showtime score, it would inform me seemingly in realtime (or pretty darn close to it, as far as I could tell), even if he and I were not in the same game session together and I was doing something completely different from what he was doing.

The question is, how frequently does the game update those stats? It doesn't need to communicate all of those stats with the server 60 times per second. They could dial it back to once per second. If that's still too frequent (and would cause a DDoS), then do it once every ten or fifteen seconds--about as much time as it would take for a user to exit out of his current session and jump into the menu to respond to the challenge.

It works in time attack too ( and it's even more obvious) as the game loads time attack ghost Each lap.

Does it need to reload time attack ghosts each and every lap? That's an unnecessary waste of bandwidth. The game should do it once at the start of a session, and then again only under these circumstances:

1. The player beats the ghost, so that the game could load a different ghost for him to beat.
2. The player manually refreshes the request for a ghost. In this case, the game should also impose a limit these types of manual requests (such as no more than once per minute).

The problem why they are taking time before releasing the PS+ version is that the sheer number of people that might play when the PS+ version is released is huge.

This hasn't stopped anyone from releasing other online-enabled games on the PS+ Instant Game Collection. It seems to be only an excuse to stall the release of this particular game.

If there was just a leaderboard that get updated once at the end of a race , it wouldn't mean shit , because you can mirror this stuff and the volume of data is small but the thing with driveclub is that it communicate much more data and more frequently.

As I said, then they need to evaluate just how much data is being communicated, and how frequently. The PS+ Edition has a limited number of cars and tracks, so that should cut down significantly on the amount of data.

Let me tell you why:
1 - it works flawlessly for the players of the game.

That's it. It work for those who have bought the damn game. You cannot accuse a game of poor design if those who are playing it don't have issues.

Your second argument is : " why isn't the PS+ edition there if it works"
My answer is : Because the the amount of data driveclub communicate is the same regardless of what version of the game you have, that mean that given the <PS+> usebase , the amount to manage is a lot much . Considering that they were taken back by the paid customers once, can you blame them if they wait untill they are sure they can handle 10x more costumers ?. I mean they are telling you in their last patch notes that they are getting ready for this stuff. And us paying customers still don't have the DRIVECLUB app

First of all, they won't truly know for certain if it can handle the added load unless they actually release it.

Second, how do we know it's "ten times" the customers? If they have a million people playing the game now, do you realistically expect they will have ten million more downloading the game the very day they release it on Plus? I doubt it. Many PS+ owners don't download each and every "free" game on the day that it comes out.

Third, why don't we hear these excuses for other games? There are lots of other online-enabled games released each month. There are lots of other "free" games released on the PS+ Instant Game Collection each month. Sometimes, we get a game that's both an online-enabled game and on the PS+ IGC. That hasn't stopped any of those games before.

Again, this just seems like a lame excuse for them to keep stalling the release in an attempt to squeeze out a few more paid sales. Ironically, by chalking up the "official" reason to "network instability", it has the opposite effect on some people here who have lost confidence in the developers' ability to produce a online-enabled racing game. If the developers themselves lack confidence in their own ability to maintain the game, then why should someone want to buy the game?

 

[R_thanatos]

Thank you for explaining, I understand your point a little better now. I was already aware of most of these factors, though. I just want to address a few specific points:



This is actually quite a bit like Autolog. I've played games of Burnout Paradise a few years ago where this would happen. If a buddy was online at the same time, and if he beat a Road Rule time or Showtime score, it would inform me seemingly in realtime (or pretty darn close to it, as far as I could tell), even if he and I were not in the same game session together and I was doing something completely different from what he was doing.

The question is, how frequently does the game update those stats? It doesn't need to communicate all of those stats with the server 60 times per second. They could dial it back to once per second. If that's still too frequent (and would cause a DDoS), then do it once every ten or fifteen seconds--about as much time as it would take for a user to exit out of his current session and jump into the menu to respond to the challenge.

Having played burnout paradise online i'll tell you that it doesn't work the same way. I've already told you this.

Does it need to reload time attack ghosts each and every lap? That's an unnecessary waste of bandwidth. The game should do it once at the start of a session, and then again only under these circumstances:

1. The player beats the ghost, so that the game could load a different ghost for him to beat.
2. The player manually refreshes the request for a ghost. In this case, the game should also impose a limit these types of manual requests (such as no more than once per minute).

It's not unnecessary. Again you think that Evolution studios are morons when they alreay thought about this point and it's already implented.
1 ) the player beat the ghost already happens.
2) Refresh ( when you restart an event by quitting and starting it again )

All of this already happens.

This hasn't stopped anyone from releasing other online-enabled games on the PS+ Instant Game Collection. It seems to be only an excuse to stall the release of this particular game.

What does the PS+ instant collection has to do with it ?
The core or the problem is elsewhere.
We're telling you that they said that they are polishing their online capacities and their setups so they could manage all that afflux of data . The flux of data is huge enough that regular players brought down the service at launch. This has already happenned. You cannot argue that more players won't cause trouble as it is.

As I said, then they need to evaluate just how much data is being communicated, and how frequently. The PS+ Edition has a limited number of cars and tracks, so that should cut down significantly on the amount of data.

The number of cars has no value on the problem. If you have a car and race on a track you communicate like any other player .. there is no data to be cut down, just the frequency of data communicated rise by the number of players alone.

First of all, they won't truly know for certain if it can handle the added load unless they actually release it.

And that's why they are trying to make sure that it won't at least impact the paying customers first.
As i said before , already they thought that they could handle that load ( of players ). Now history has proven that they need caution. Simple as that.

Second, how do we know it's "ten times" the customers? If they have a million people playing the game now, do you realistically expect they will have ten million more downloading the game the very day they release it on Plus? I doubt it. Many PS+ owners don't download each and every "free" game on the day that it comes out.

Because you have to think about the potential. If you give a freebies, odd are that people are going to try it , and that mean increased network activity. It's simple math.
Even if half of the people on PS+ who don't have driveclub yet play , that's still a shitload of people to manage.It's a matter or predictability

Third, why don't we hear these excuses for other games? There are lots of other online-enabled games released each month. There are lots of other "free" games released on the PS+ Instant Game Collection each month. Sometimes, we get a game that's both an online-enabled game and on the PS+ IGC. That hasn't stopped any of those games before.

You keep bringing that argument , and i tell you that different games have different network needs. driveclub by design demand more.Even big Mmo with more users don't have that problem because they can decrease that load by separating each player in servers and even the stat tracking is not updated untill you log-off.( Once or twice at best ) . The design of driveclub can't allow this.

Again, this just seems like a lame excuse for them to keep stalling the release in an attempt to squeeze out a few more paid sales. Ironically, by chalking up the "official" reason to "network instability", it has the opposite effect on some people here who have lost confidence in the developers' ability to produce a online-enabled racing game. If the developers themselves lack confidence in their own ability to maintain the game, then why should someone want to buy the game?

You are moving the goal post here. I'm not here to tell you to buy the game or not. I don't care. I'm only explaining , from my point of view why your assumptions about the game are false.

 

[Agent X]

Having played burnout paradise online i'll tell you that it doesn't work the same way. I've already told you this.

Then you need to explain it better. I've already given a example of how it works in Burnout Paradise, but allow me to go into more detail:

Suppose you are on my friends list, and you and I happen to be playing the game at the same time. You and I are not playing online together. I am in a single-player session, and you are in a completely separate single-player session.

I posted up a great time on Webster Ave. You make an effort to beat that time, and you succeed.

Within mere moments, a message similar to the following will appear on my screen:

"R_THANATOS JUST BEAT YOUR TIME ON WEBSTER AVE."

Now, I don't necessarily have to be on Webster Ave. for the message to appear. Chances are likely that I'm not on Webster Ave., or even near Webster Ave. I could be all the way on the other side of the city, doing some activity that's completely unrelated to whatever you're doing in your own game. I could even be cruising around the city doing nothing in particular. Yet, I will still see that message on my screen.

This was all done on a game that came out over seven years ago, on a last-generation system.

Now, if you could give me a specific example of what DriveClub is doing radically different from that, then perhaps we could have a real dialogue here. All you keep doing is saying "DriveClub doesn't work the same way," but all of the vague examples you've given indicate that it does work the same way. I want to know what it's doing differently, so that we (meaning, you, I, and anyone else reading this) could discuss what they could be doing better to improve it.

It's not unnecessary. Again you think that Evolution studios are morons when they alreay thought about this point and it's already implented.
1 ) the player beat the ghost already happens.
2) Refresh ( when you restart an event by quitting and starting it again )

All of this already happens.

So you now say this is how the game already handles it? Let me jog your memory: Post # 3488:

It works in time attack too ( and it's even more obvious) as the game loads time attack ghost Each lap.

That's what you said. I then refuted that with a much better suggestion for managing the network data traffic (only load whenever an update is necessary, rather than "each lap"), and then you claim that they're doing exactly that already. And you're accusing me of moving the goal posts?

What does the PS+ instant collection has to do with it ?

It has to do with the fact that numerous other games (including online-enabled games) have been released in the PS+ IGC over the last few years. None of these other games were withheld for fear of overloading the servers for "paying" users. DriveClub is the only game for which that excuse was given.

The core or the problem is elsewhere.
We're telling you that they said that they are polishing their online capacities and their setups so they could manage all that afflux of data . The flux of data is huge enough that regular players brought down the service at launch. This has already happenned. You cannot argue that more players won't cause trouble as it is.

That's true. But that's true of every other game as well. Like I said, numerous other online-enabled games have been given out on PSN for free (whether they're PS+ IGC, or free-to-play, or some other promotion) and this hasn't affected their playability on such a large scale like this. Why is DriveClub seemingly the only game that has this problem, where the developers are afraid to grow the user base for their game?

Let me put it this way: If they sell another 1,000,000 copies of the game, then is the added traffic from 1,000,000 new users going to knock down the servers like a fragile house of cards? Would 100,000 new users knock down the servers? 10,000 new users?

Because you have to think about the potential. If you give a freebies, odd are that people are going to try it , and that mean increased network activity. It's simple math.
Even if half of the people on PS+ who don't have driveclub yet play , that's still a shitload of people to manage.It's a matter or predictability

Yet, this is never a concern for any other free game that's been given out in the history of PSN. DriveClub is the only game for which people keep bringing up these excuses.

You keep bringing that argument , and i tell you that different games have different network needs. driveclub by design demand more.Even big Mmo with more users don't have that problem because they can decrease that load by separating each player in servers and even the stat tracking is not updated untill you log-off.( Once or twice at best ) . The design of driveclub can't allow this.

If they don't have any way of managing network traffic by either redistributing the data load, or dynamically scaling the frequency of data polling based on the number of concurrent online users, then guess what that means, folks? It's a very poorly designed game!

 

[R_thanatos]

You know what ? given that you don't even attempt to understand , i'll just say "congratulations".

There is no point to discuss when you don't want to discuss , you're set on an idea , and no matter what i say or do , you won't change your mind.

Trully no point to talk to a wall.

I won't explain a third ( fourth ? ) time when you don't want to understand.
You have "suggestions" as if everyone is stupid and only you know how to send and receive data..

So congratulations i guess , clearly Evo should have hired you to design their game network code !

I'll just get back with the rest of the people playing the game since it's so poorly designed.Trully something that poor that work flawlessly for all their users now is just ..poor i guess ?
LOL

 

[Slashlen]

So congratulations i guess , clearly Evo should have hired you to design their game network code !

Well, they needed to hire someone better, obviously. The fact that it's still not there after all this time just shows how lazy Evolution is.

 

[mclem]

Now , Your argument is "it's poor design"
My answer is " it's not poor design".
Let me tell you why:
1 - it works flawlessly for the players of the game.

That's it. It work for those who have bought the damn game. You cannot accuse a game of poor design if those who are playing it don't have issues.

Oooh, gosh, no. If a game's infrastructure cannot scale up to the expected audience size, that's practically the definition of a flawed design.

If, on the other hand, the 'expected audience size' as far as Evolution were concerned was only for purchasers and not PS+ users, Sony really shouldn't have made the promises they did.

Either Sony promised more than Evo were planning to support - in which case the design was fine but the scope changed in a way Evo shouldn't be held responsible for - or Evo misjudged the amount of users they could support (to a significant degree), which is absolutely a failure of design.

I'll just get back with the rest of the people playing the game since it's so poorly designed.Trully something that poor that work flawlessly for all their users now is just ..poor i guess ?

Y'see, that's my point. It works adequately for all the users that have been given access to it. But that's because a cap on numbers of users has been added which wasn't in the original scope that was proposed.

 

[R_thanatos]

Well, they needed to hire someone better, obviously. The fact that it's still not there after all this time just shows how lazy Evolution is.

It's not lazyness , it's caution.
The launch was bad enough that nobody can't argue that caution and sufficent ( more of it ) testing is needed in order to provide the desired experience.
Calling them lazy after the bunch of updates and community tweaks based on the feedback of the players is nothing but ignorance.

Oooh, gosh, no. If a game's infrastructure cannot scale up to the expected audience size, that's practically the definition of a flawed design.

If, on the other hand, the 'expected audience size' as far as Evolution were concerned was only for purchasers and not PS+ users, Sony really shouldn't have made the promises they did.

Either Sony promised more than Evo were planning to support - in which case the design was fine but the scope changed in a way Evo shouldn't be held responsible for - or Evo misjudged the amount of users they could support (to a significant degree), which is absolutely a failure of design.

I believe the game infrastructure can scale up to the required size for PS+ users . Everything indicate that they are doing the necessary stuff for it.

Y'see, that's my point. It works adequately for all the users that have been given access to it. But that's because a cap on numbers of users has been added which wasn't in the original scope that was proposed.

It's not a cap in numbers, the numbers are not fixed or set in stone, it's to prevent a sudden increase of workload ... as of now , nobody can be sure that such sudden increase in activity won't penalize those who have payed for the game.
That's all there is to it.

Now i'll conceede that "Yes", indeed the scope of the game is less than it was with (the game + the ps+ edition). There is no doubt about that. But as of now , with all the information available , this is nothing but a delay . an unfortunate but necessary delay , since , as everybody agrees , they messed up at the start.

^^^If even that is not acceptable to you, i'm not going to debate on the deeper meaning of the word "poor"

 

[0.1.1.2.3.5.8.13.21.34.55]

5 month on I would have assumed people would have either caved and purchased the game OR threw in the towel and given up...

Impressive grudge some are holding onto.

 

[mclem]

I believe the game infrastructure can scale up to the required size for PS+ users . Everything indicate that they are doing the necessary stuff for it.

Well, yes. Through redesign.

Now i'll conceede that "Yes", indeed the scope of the game is less than it was with (the game + the ps+ edition). There is no doubt about that. But as of now , with all the information available , this is nothing but a delay . an unfortunate but necessary delay , since , as everybody agrees , they messed up at the start.

Well, yes. And they messed up at the start because the design was inadequate for the demand.

Assuming the information we're getting about the nature of the issues is accurate, this is a textbook example of a flawed design for network communication.

 

[Mogwai]

5 month on I would have assumed people would have either caved and purchased the game OR threw in the towel and given up...

Impressive grudge some are holding onto.

This is the internet. It's what people do.

 

[hesido]

5 month on I would have assumed people would have either caved and purchased the game OR threw in the towel and given up...

Impressive grudge some are holding onto.

Impressive grudge? It's just that Sony is really accustomed to develop hype and positive image using titles that are never going to come out (The Last Guardian for the PS3, Eight Days, Getaway, Driveclub). Driveclub at least had a firm(er) release date for the PS Plus Version, of all those others in the list.

Just because time has passed and that the game is now cheaper or whatever doesn't make Sony any less guilty of their actions.

 

[MMaRsu]

Impressive grudge? It's just that Sony is really accustomed to develop hype and positive image using titles that are never going to come out (The Last Guardian for the PS3, Eight Days, Getaway, Driveclub). Driveclub at least had a firm(er) release date for the PS Plus Version, of all those others in the list.

Just because time has passed and that the game is now cheaper or whatever doesn't make Sony any less guilty of their actions.

So Sony is guilty of what exactly??

Withholding the ls+ edition so the servers dont overload with millions of free users?

 

[mclem]

5 month on I would have assumed people would have either caved and purchased the game OR threw in the towel and given up...

Impressive grudge some are holding onto.

As someone with interest and experience in actually having worked on networked games, I'm rooting for a brilliantly in-depth postmortem at the end of this. The situation fascinates me.

So Sony is guilty of what exactly??

Withholding the ls+ edition so the servers dont overload with millions of free users?

Guilty's something of an overstatement, but I'm not comfortable with the tendency throughout the industry to promote products in a form that they do not actually meet down the line. Still, everyone's guilty of that to a greater or lesser extent.

 

[valkyre]

I have said it before I will say it again. Given the whole delay of the thing, EVO should step up and offer double what they promised on the plus edition of the game. i.e. 2 countries, double the amount of cars from each category etc etc.

I think this is the way to go.

 

[Acorn]

I have said it before I will say it again. Given the whole delay of the thing, EVO should step up and offer double what they promised on the plus edition of the game. i.e. 2 countries, double the amount of cars from each category etc etc.

I think this is the way to go.

At this point probably better to just wait out a while and make it a bonus plus full game at e3 or something.

 

[Mabufu]

I have said it before I will say it again. Given the whole delay of the thing, EVO should step up and offer double what they promised on the plus edition of the game. i.e. 2 countries, double the amount of cars from each category etc etc.

I think this is the way to go.

Evo is already offering the best season pass/post launch support ever.

The way to go is that if you want the game, then buy it.

 

[Mogwai]

I have said it before I will say it again. Given the whole delay of the thing, EVO should step up and offer double what they promised on the plus edition of the game. i.e. 2 countries, double the amount of cars from each category etc etc.

I think this is the way to go.

The more they decide to give away, the more they shit on the people that actually paid for the game and its DLC.

 

[PirateKing]

I have said it before I will say it again. Given the whole delay of the thing, EVO should step up and offer double what they promised on the plus edition of the game. i.e. 2 countries, double the amount of cars from each category etc etc.

I think this is the way to go.

At point people should just grab it since it's pretty cheap now, I bought mine and I like the game enough. It's just too late for PS+ edition.

 

[valkyre]

Evo is already offering the best season pass/post launch support ever.

The way to go is that if you want the game, then buy it.

You are talking to a guy who has 585/585 stars....

And the season pass is something that is a different discussion than PS Plus version of the game.

 

[Basileus777]

Evo is already offering the best season pass/post launch support ever.

The way to go is that if you want the game, then buy it.

Ever? Really now?

 

[Mabufu]

You are talking to a guy who has 585/585 stars....

And the season pass is something that is a different discussion than PS Plus version of the game.

Then why de desire to make Evo offer half the game for free? That can be bad for them.
It's still business. They cant just make a compensation that can make them lose sales.
And more when they dont deserve it. They made a mistake but they are doing a lot of great things too with the support they are offering.

 

[mclem]

It's still business. They cant just make a compensation that can make them lose sales.

Well, if it generates interest in the season pass, there's a business case there.

(Not that I think the full game should be on PS+ yet - even aside from network issues - at least let it have been out a year!)

 

[valkyre]

Then why de desire to make Evo offer half the game for free? That can be bad for them.
It's still business. They cant just make a compensation that can make them lose sales.
And more when they dont deserve it. They made a mistake but they are doing a lot of great things too with the support they are offering.

Business has a thing called ethics. It is still business when you compensate someone for your lack of keeping your promises. Remember, it is not a week they have delayed PS plus version, its not a month, its like, what now, 5-6 months? Pretty substantial if you ask me. You have to make up for it somehow. It will make potential customers who are already disappointed with the PS plus version, gain interest and end up buying the entire game and its (amazing) season pass.

Business is not just looking the short term but especially the long term relationship with your customers/potential customers. Ethics play a big role in maintaining a good business.

Also, offering twice what they promised for PS plus version is not even REMOTELY close to the "half game" you are mentioning.