No Wii?

[PiRat Collective]

I see Civilization Revolution is coming out for the PS3, 360, and DS, but why not the Wii? I mean if you didn't include the DS I would understand (I wouldn't be happy but I'd understand). It would be obvious you didn't want to or were unable to put it out for an underpowered system (like the DS and the Wii). But as you are putting it out for the DS, that's obviously not the case. I would think the pointer system of the Wii would make designing the front end easier (hell if you connect a keyboard to the Wii it could be just like playing on a computer :D ). So? Any chance of a Wii version?

Also another quick question...Would it be possible to port saves from one system to another? And will people playing the 360 version be able to play against people playing the PS3 version or DS version (or perhaps a wii version sometime :D ?) ?

[hero33]

Unlike many other Wii versions of games, the plan for CivRev Wii was to do it in-house at Firaxis, just like the DS, 360 and PS3 versions of the game. Unfortunately we came to the conclusion that Firaxis didn't have the manpower to do four versions of the game simultaneously and we didn't want the quality loss that comes from licensing out a port, so it was put on hold.

That doesn't mean we won't revisit it in the future, just that right now, CivRev for Wii is on indefinite hiatus.

I know you were looking forward to the Wii version, and I'm sorry, but we'd rather not do it than do it and have it not stand up to the other versions of the game (or worse, have all four versions be lower quality because of it).

that's a quote from Jason2k in the other crycry thread about wii's indefinite pushback.

and no, there's not a chance in hell it will be cross-platform in the way you describe. the ONLY cross platform (in that way) game i know of is shadowrun for 360 and vista.

[PiRat Collective]

Non cross platform multiplayer is going to suck, I mean a person isn't going to want to get a version for each of the systems, and he/she probably only has one or two next gen consoles (for me it's Wii and DS). Which means the multiplayer community will be cut in three (four if a wii version comes out) I think PS3 players will have a wide enough of a base, but xbox 360, DS(and possibly Wii players) might find it hard to find someone to play with. With the PC, (Almost) everyone has a PC and all PCs can play one another. But I don't have a PS3 or a 360 which means my experience with multiplayer would suck. :mad: When reviews get posted saying that no one playing a particular version can find anyone to play with online because everyone bought a different version...Well there goes a third of the sales.

[hero33]

Non cross platform multiplayer is going to suck, I mean a person isn't going to want to get a version for each of the systems, and he/she probably only has one or two next gen consoles (for me it's Wii and DS). Which means the multiplayer community will be cut in three (four if a wii version comes out) I think PS3 players will have a wide enough of a base, but xbox 360, DS(and possibly Wii players) might find it hard to find someone to play with. With the PC, (Almost) everyone has a PC and all PCs can play one another. But I don't have a PS3 or a 360 which means my experience with multiplayer would suck. :mad: When reviews get posted saying that no one playing a particular version can find anyone to play with online because everyone bought a different version...Well there goes a third of the sales.

im sorry, but do you even know what you're talking about? let me reiterate: NO GAME FUNCTIONS THE WAY YOU DESCRIBE.

it's because of CLOSED systems. instead of qqing about it, go buy a 360 core.. they are dirt cheap.


oh and yes, your DS multiplayer experience will suck.

[Thrallia]

Non cross platform multiplayer is going to suck, I mean a person isn't going to want to get a version for each of the systems, and he/she probably only has one or two next gen consoles (for me it's Wii and DS). Which means the multiplayer community will be cut in three (four if a wii version comes out) I think PS3 players will have a wide enough of a base, but xbox 360, DS(and possibly Wii players) might find it hard to find someone to play with. With the PC, (Almost) everyone has a PC and all PCs can play one another. But I don't have a PS3 or a 360 which means my experience with multiplayer would suck. :mad: When reviews get posted saying that no one playing a particular version can find anyone to play with online because everyone bought a different version...Well there goes a third of the sales.

I find it more likely that PS3 owners will have a harder time finding enough people online to play with. The installed base for the 360 and the DS are much larger than that of the PS3.

But as hero33 said, there's not a single game that works the way you want them to. The PC is an open platform, the rest are not...that means they are entirely proprietary and have entirely different online functions and architecture...even if it was allowed to create a cross-platform game between the PS3, 360, and DS(and its not), I have a hard time believing it to be possible, much less cost-effective.

[pmw1718]

There are some 360 games that crossplatform with the pc. You have to have vista and a XBOX live account. Shadowrun, Halo 2 and Uno

[PiRat Collective]

I get that no game functions the way I describe. I just don't get why not, it's just data, data can be shifted, modified, recoded. If the core of the game is mostly the same, and the game is broken into three parts (if you went to their site you would have heard that those three parts, the core, the front end, and the network) that means the only thing different is the way the information gets sent, the information that is sent must be the same to be fed to similar cores. Why not work with Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to figure out how to make the games compatible. Or becacause they all connect to the same internet why not come up with their own protocol, it must be possible. Maybe a cross platform server(pay for?)? Or a protcol converter box? I can't believe it's not possible (although I can see how it could have prohibitive cost). I'm just saying without it, I might not buy it, despite the new features. I'm willing to bet there are a lot of other people who wouldn't buy it either, I think they may be overestimating the marketablity of their product.

[Jason2K]

I get that no game functions the way I describe. I just don't get why not, it's just data, data can be shifted, modified, recoded. If the core of the game is mostly the same, and the game is broken into three parts (if you went to their site you would have heard that those three parts, the core, the front end, and the network) that means the only thing different is the way the information gets sent, the information that is sent must be the same to be fed to similar cores. Why not work with Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to figure out how to make the games compatible. Or becacause they all connect to the same internet why not come up with their own protocol, it must be possible. Maybe a cross platform server(pay for?)? Or a protcol converter box? I can't believe it's not possible (although I can see how it could have prohibitive cost). I'm just saying without it, I might not buy it, despite the new features. I'm willing to bet there are a lot of other people who wouldn't buy it either, I think they may be overestimating the marketablity of their product.

It doesn't work that way because it's not in the platform holders' best interest to work that way.

Why would Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft want to encourage people to play games on platforms other than the ones they own?

If you own a Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony version of a game and want to play it multiplayer with someone, they want your friend to have to buy it on the same platform.

[pmw1718]

Its Capitalism baby. yeah! Oh behave!

[PiRat Collective]

Tcp IP is the common internet language, it's used by every computer and anything else that wants to work over the internet. If Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have found a way to make it such that no software on their system can use tcp ip any other way than they define it, then that's call anti-trust, and is generally considered illegal. It's one thing if their programs use a special encryption\encoding that prevents it from connecting to any other system, but to prevent the software makers from using a standard TCP/IP over the internet is ludicrous.

[Thrallia]

um...that's one of the craziest things i"ve ever heard.

So, TCP/IP is a standardized set of protocols...and you think that that means it is illegal not to use it?

You don't have to use TCP/IP to connect to the internet, and if you did, THAT would be 'illegal' to use your words, as it'd be a monopoly on getting on the internet.

Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have different architecture underlying their computers and their servers, so they use protocols they desire, and they are encrypted to disallow communication with any type of system they do not want to allow interconnectivity for.

The PC is not owned by anyone, or it would likely be the same way. As it is, there are games you can play cross-platform between PC and 360(Halo 2 and Shadowrun), and PC and PS3(Unreal Tournament 3), but there will never be cross-platform gaming between consoles of different companies.

And no, that won't impact sales of CivRev, because it is an expected thing and not likely to measurably impact whether or not you can find someone to play against online with it.

[PiRat Collective]

I doesn't matter what protocol it is, it has to be a standard protocol in order to be routed by the routers that make up the internet. Yes, I made a mistake by saying TCP\IP specifically, but it doesn't matter, it still has to be a standard. Whatever the standard is. Thus it can be duplicated, converted, etc. It is made this way by the government, the same way the government used to regulate how addresses on envelopes are formatted (now that the USPS is a private entity it's regulated by them). So that everything works together, and data gets to where it's going. What's actually in a packet of information is up to the programmers. That Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft would predetermine, in their creation of the OS for their systems, what can be put in a packet in order to make the information unreadable to other systems is absolutely wrong (I admit illegal may have been too strong of a word). What is actually in the packets should be up to the software creators. And servers? Who said anything about servers? Civ IV didn't require a server, did it? Why should CivRev be required to connect to a server?
Macs can play with PCs. Why can't Nintendos play with XBoxes?

[Joneleth]

Why would Microsoft let competitor's consoles on their Xbox Live! network? And on the flip side, why would Sony do the same? Sony wants to sell consoles. So does Microsoft. Their online offerings are differentials in a competitive market.

PCs are computers, regardless of the operating system.

[Thrallia]

Perhaps what you aren't realizing is that in order for the consoles to be playable online, they must connect to servers which host the games.

Microsoft hosts servers for everything on Xbox Live, and the individual developers host the servers for everything on the PS3. I'm not sure which way it is for the Wii. I highly doubt the government regulates the encryption used for sending information from client to server(I also doubt the government regulates the encryption used for sending information over the internet, but won't debate it with you).

And as has already been said, PCs and Macs are open systems, they are not owned or patented by anyone, thus anyone can make them connect to whoever they want.

Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony have patented their systems, and their patents won't run out until after the lifetime of the consoles is over. Thus, even if there were a way to override the encryptions that disallow cross-platform gaming, it'd be illegal to do so.

[PiRat Collective]

I have already addressed the point of servers, my answer was a question: why? Why is it that all of these consoles must use servers? PC's don't.

I never said the government regulates encryption, I said they regulate protocols (two different things). Encryption is done by the software, (and yes it can be proprietary) either the Operating system or the game. I cede the point that it is quite possible for the CivRev team not to be able to (without incurring the wrath of the makers) get around the encryption, especially if it's being done by the OS. However, that doesn't make it right to force it upon them and personally I wouldn't want to work under such restrictions.

I also think you're underestimating the importance of having a wide audience and the interaction of all of them together.

I think this argument should be declared a draw, you're obviously too stuck on 'what is' to see 'what should be' and I've got my head in the clouds, stuck on a problem that will never get solved.

[Bulldog_PS3]

The PC is not owned by anyone, or it would likely be the same way. As it is, there are games you can play cross-platform between PC and 360(Halo 2 and Shadowrun), and PC and PS3(Unreal Tournament 3), but there will never be cross-platform gaming between consoles of different companies.

Actually, unfortunately there is no cross platform play, between PS3 and PC on UT3. I know there was talk of it, but it never materialized.


And as has already been said, PCs and Macs are open systems, they are not owned or patented by anyone, thus anyone can make them connect to whoever they want.

Yes, Macintosh is an open platform, but it is patented and owned by Apple.



Actually I prefer the way things are now, it keeps the competition between the consoles going. If we did go x-platform on everything, that's one step closer to just having one big generic platform, and that's not what I want. If that were to happen, and there was no competition to be the best, we as gamers would suffer. They would just put out any old set top box and be like there you go, that's it. The way things are now, both companies have to push technology, and bring innovation to the table, cause just any old set top box isn't good enough.

Also, Wii is not a "current gen" or as some still refer to it as "next gen". Even the people at Nintendo will tell you they are not trying to compete with 360 or PS3. I have some friends who have bought Wiis and really once the novelty of the controllers wears off and you get through playing the 3 good games for the system, it's nothing more than gamecube 1.5 . Sorry that last part was just my opinion, and also the opinion of my friends who own the console.

[Phalanx]

Just one point to add. Hasn't anyone here ever played Final Fantasy 11? It is cross platform between the PC / XBOX / PS2 / PS3. All can play each other happily.

[Jason2K]

Just one point to add. Hasn't anyone here ever played Final Fantasy 11? It is cross platform between the PC / XBOX / PS2 / PS3. All can play each other happily.

That was a one-time exemption on Microsoft's behalf and will not be repeated.

If you've ever played FF11 on 360, you can understand why. The game feels like a PS2 title. There's no Xbox Live support whatsoever.

[Phalanx]

Yes, I remember the complaints from Xbox users.

Too bad Microsoft locks up their system so much. It would really be nice if we could all play together regardless of console. Maybe someday...