Multiplayer with PC and console users

[Alshain]

I just mean playing with others who aren't in sync with you just leads to frustration. I tried dmp a few times. But say I head out to Jool and everyone is busy doing other stuff, then I fly something back. Now I'm years ahead of everyone else and they might not sync up with me for a long time, unless they just want to.

Why would you play multiplayer if you were going to go off and do your own thing? If you want to go to Jool, get everyone to go with you.

[technicalfool]

You're flat out wrong. Unreal Tournament 3 on PS3 had mods, and Fallout 4 on XBox One will.

I wouldn't be surprised if any mods that do exist on a console are pre-vetted, code signed, from approved people only and produced under NDA with heavy penalties for breaking it.

Letting any old Joe run any old code in a C# assembly is openly saying "here's the keys".

[dsonbill]

You're flat out wrong. Unreal Tournament 3 on PS3 had mods

It does seem to allow for some very simple mods, ones which don't even touch the calipur of KSP mods. Totally different league here, and I wouldn't be surprised if you had to write the UT3 mods in some watered-down version of Lua or something, if the mods even have *that* much flexibility, which from the list of mod types I could find for UT3, doesn't seem to be the case.

and Fallout 4 on XBox One will.

I highly, highly doubt this. People said the same thing about Skyrim, mind you - and look at what ended up being the reality?

It's possible, of course, but almost completely unlikely that you'll get actual modding capabilities. Maybe skins and texture packs, etc, but almost certainly nothing more.

[AfailingHORSE]

I'm saying nope to mod support. Mod support will never, ever, ever happen on a console game.

So I guess you didn't here that the console versions of Fallout 4 will support mods, granted that they would probably need to be approved by Bethesda, but still there will be mods. I'm not saying your work, I'm just saying that it isn't a technical blocker nor is Sony or Microsoft blocking mods. Squad or Flying Tiger will not have the time to implement it and I doubt moders could careless about making sure it works for console.

I think KSP is one of those games without any major barriers to cross-platform multiplayer.

Except for, you know, Sony and Microsoft.

Microsoft and Sony have been softening their stance on non-fps cross platform multiplayer. ex: Street Fighter V is going to be cross platform for PS4 and PC, also Fable Legends cross platform for Xbone and PC.

I highly, highly doubt this. People said the same thing about Skyrim, mind you - and look at what ended up being the reality?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5esyZPt5Jo (its towards the end iirc, I cant check at work)

Edited August 26, 2015 by AfailingHORSE

[cantab]

It does seem to allow for some very simple mods, ones which don't even touch the calipur of KSP mods. Totally different league here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I highly, highly doubt this.

You're welcome to doubt it, but I'll consider Bethesda's official announcement more reliable than your speculation.

[xtoro]

Why would you play multiplayer if you were going to go off and do your own thing? If you want to go to Jool, get everyone to go with you.

Yeah but then everyone has to agree on what they want to do, furthering frustrations

[keeper]

If KSP makes multiplayer I probably wont bother with it. I dont see the point, less i can hire some monkeys to do all my take offs, maneuvers, and landings lol

cant be bothered training monkeys.

I just hope the console development doesn't hamper the PC version at all.

What other games let console and PC versions play multiplayer together?

Battlefield 4?

Couple lil crappy indy games found on old xbox marketplace? No idea about ps3&4

Not fully aware of any myself.

[dsonbill]

So I guess you didn't here that the console versions of Fallout 4 will support mods, granted that they would probably need to be approved by Bethesda, but still there will be mods.

I looked up more on it, and it appears they don't *want* to have to approve them, but no official word on it yet. I'd say they get away with it right up until someone releases a talk on "1001 ways to use Fallout 4 to get into the return address".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

That's not a No True Scotsman fallacy - software has real life, actual limitations. That's how it works, sorry. You can't get around that simple fact - some things are bound to have more flexibility than others. The UT3 mods appear to be nothing more than map/weapon/texture packs, which are not even close to the flexibility of being able to actually code.

To make it a bit more clear:

With actual code, you could turn any game into a game of pacman. You can make guns that make people float, doors that lead to the door behind you, portals, rockets, game-breaking explosions, turn the sky into hell, create awful hit detection, create new systems, new ai, new game modes, airplanes/jets, a floating monkey that shoots fire from it's eyes, and pretty much anything else you can think of.

With map/weapon/texture packs, you can change the look of things, and add new weapons that have the same effect as every other weapon, and you can add new maps. That's it.

[cantab]

That's not a No True Scotsman fallacy - software has real life, actual limitations. That's how it works, sorry. You can't get around that simple fact - some things are bound to have more flexibility than others. The UT3 mods appear to be nothing more than map/weapon/texture packs, which are not even close to the flexibility of being able to actually code.

Yet they are still mods. Having made your confident pronouncement that "mod support will never, ever, ever happen on a console game", and been proven wrong, you felt the need to redefine what you consider "mods" to be. If that's not the No True Scotsman argument then go ahead and claim what you consider is, thereby No True Scotsmanning the No True Scotsman itself.

In any case you are presenting a false dilemma, implying that the only options are no code at all or unrestricted do-anything code. There are plenty of ways for a game developer to allow mod code to run in a controlled fashion, able to do certain things but not having an unrestricted ability to change the game. For just one example, the game could provide a modding API and automated code review could block any mods that manipulate the game outside of that API.

[dsonbill]

In any case you are presenting a false dilemma, implying that the only options are no code at all or unrestricted do-anything code.

No, I'm not. I'm telling you the difference in power between having something as simple as a map pack and having the power to add your own code. This is a very simple concept to understand for most people.

Yet they are still mods. Having made your confident pronouncement that "mod support will never, ever, ever happen on a console game", and been proven wrong, you felt the need to redefine what you consider "mods" to be. If that's not the No True Scotsman argument then go ahead and claim what you consider is, thereby No True Scotsmanning the No True Scotsman itself.

Again, I'm telling you the difference between a little map pack and adding your own code. If you can't accept that there are huge differences between the two, I have no idea where your head is at.

Go ahead and call them mods - it doesn't change the fact at all that you can't do nearly the same thing with packs filled with textures that you can do with actual coding.

Btw, in case you hadn't noticed, this is what's referred to as an informal argument. Because of this, I'm going to go ahead and say that your use of No True Scottsman falls under the fallacy-fallacy.

Edited August 28, 2015 by dsonbill

[TMS]

Btw, in case you hadn't noticed, this is what's referred to as an informal argument. Because of this, I'm going to go ahead and say that your use of No True Scottsman falls under the fallacy-fallacy.

But that's not a real fallacy.

[dsonbill]

But that's not a real fallacy.

Lolwhut?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Excerpt

It has the general argument form:

If P, then Q.

P is a fallacious argument.

Therefore, Q is false.[6]

Thus, it is a special case of denying the antecedent where the antecedent, rather than being a proposition that is false, is an entire argument that is fallacious. A fallacious argument, just as with a false antecedent, can still have a consequent that happens to be true. The fallacy is in concluding the consequent of a fallacious argument has to be false.

Edited August 28, 2015 by dsonbill

[NFUN]

Lolwhut?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Excerpt

He was No True Scotsmanning the Fallacy Fallacy. And the Fallacy Fallacy doesn't apply if the user has evidence and argument besides pointing out the fallacy. If he argues against the point even though it is fallacious, he is fine.

[dsonbill]

He was No True Scotsmanning the Fallacy Fallacy.

Ah lol, that makes sense.

And the Fallacy Fallacy doesn't apply if the user has evidence and argument besides pointing out the fallacy. If he argues against the point even though it is fallacious, he is fine.

But the quote in question is:

It does seem to allow for some very simple mods, ones which don't even touch the calipur of KSP mods. Totally different league here

This is a fact. You can't do what coding does with a texture; the distinction is absolutely necessary. He could have argued about Fallout 4 and it's absolutely monumental act of allowing flexible, coded/scripted mods on consoles, but instead he's insisting that the kinds of things UT3 did should be considered as such, which is just plain misleading.

One can call those things a mod if they wish, but the simple fact is the kinds of mods that KSP has are almost entirely not to deal with things that already exist in the game, and require a lot more flexibility than adding textures and models.

[Rath]

I think multiplayer ksp is a bad idea period. If the game lages for too big of a craft by itself then it would halt completely in mp. #nomultiplayerksp

. Multi-vessel multi threading is coming to KSP 1.1 so this is invalid if it's done in a similar way

- - - Updated - - -

I think multiplayer ksp is a bad idea period. If the game lages for too big of a craft by itself then it would halt completely in mp. #nomultiplayerksp

. Multi-vessel multi threading is coming to KSP 1.1 so this is invalid if it's done in a similar way

[eirexe]

I think crossplatform play with KSP shouldn't happen for many reasons, mainly because people will want to play with mods in multiplayer and then squad might limit modding.

And of course, server-side processing power, being able to render big shps on consoles, becuase let's face it, no matter how well done multithreading is, big ships will give performance issues.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

People not realizing that cross-platform multiplayer is *really* hard - Check

Do you think there is no reason any other games don't support cross-platform-multiplayer?

[NFUN]

People not realizing that cross-platform multiplayer is *really* hard - Check

Do you think there is no reason any other games don't support cross-platform-multiplayer?

Most games with multiplayer are either only on one system (most racing games) or are FPSs or have FPS elements, which don't work cross platform because PC players always end up dominating whenever it is tested.

[waterlubber]

Most games with multiplayer are either only on one system (most racing games) or are FPSs or have FPS elements, which don't work cross platform because PC players always end up dominating whenever it is tested.

Given how terrible the control scheme will be unless Flying Tiger comes up with some amazing system, (or there is keyboard/mouse support) this will probably be the case.

[Superfluous J]

KSP has not come out on consoles, and does not have multiplayer. Until these things happen, I do not have enough information to say if it's possible, feasible, or likely.

Also I don't care, so I was able to answer the poll

[cantab]

One can call those things a mod if they wish, but the simple fact is the kinds of mods that KSP has are almost entirely not to deal with things that already exist in the game, and require a lot more flexibility than adding textures and models.

This is something I'm not so sure of. I'll give a non-exhaustive set of categories I feel KSP mods can be divided into:

Pure model and texture mods. Parts packs basically. These clearly don't require any code.

"Assisted" model and texture mods. By this I mean mods where the main focus is models and textures but some plugins are required. Firespitter is an obvious example, the Kopernicus planet packs would fall here too, and I suppose everything using Module Manager. These currently require code, but if the stock game was extended to implement the plugins the mod code would no longer be required. Mods such as Deadly Re-Entry and Karbonite have undergone that kind of transition.

Plugins adding features that ought to be stock. Kerbal Engineer is the classic example, maybe Alarm Clock, Precise Node, Trajectories, and so on. For the most part these are mods that give information or improve usability. I'll admit what "ought to be stock" is subjective, but nonetheless in the event consoles don't allow plugin mods I expect these features to have a good chance of being made stock. Again, we've seen that with ISRU, with NEAR-esque aerodynamics, and we're set for something like Antenna Range.

Plugins that don't have a hope of being stock. These are where the problem for consoles lies, but ultimately I don't think many mods fall into this category. FAR I suppose since Squad are set on a less good aerodynamic model, Mechjeb probably. There'll be others.

Ultimately I feel that last category will be relatively small. In a good case scenario, maybe the console version of KSP will only support no-plugin mods, but the core game will have advanced enough that that no longer matters so much.

[dsonbill]

This is something I'm not so sure of. I'll give a non-exhaustive set of categories I feel KSP mods can be divided into:

Pure model and texture mods. Parts packs basically. These clearly don't require any code.

While I agree that these at their core don't, I think most texture mods with KSP require the texture replacer plugin. This is a feature that should probably be stock anyway, but whatever, Squad.

"Assisted" model and texture mods. By this I mean mods where the main focus is models and textures but some plugins are required. Firespitter is an obvious example, the Kopernicus planet packs would fall here too, and I suppose everything using Module Manager. These currently require code, but if the stock game was extended to implement the plugins the mod code would no longer be required. Mods such as Deadly Re-Entry and Karbonite have undergone that kind of transition.

Same as above, we're in total agreement here. Since I've owned KSP, I've always wondered why ModuleManager functionality never made it into stock. Indeed, even with that little bit, a lot is possible - and if they could work out the deals with Microsoft (probably easier) and Sony (I still have my doubts about them allowing mods, but it's a stark possibility with someone like Bethesda pushing them) than just models, textures, and confignode stuffs would be quite cool, and would go somewhat far in what you could do with them.

Plugins adding features that ought to be stock. Kerbal Engineer is the classic example, maybe Alarm Clock, Precise Node, Trajectories, and so on. For the most part these are mods that give information or improve usability. I'll admit what "ought to be stock" is subjective, but nonetheless in the event consoles don't allow plugin mods I expect these features to have a good chance of being made stock. Again, we've seen that with ISRU, with NEAR-esque aerodynamics, and we're set for something like Antenna Range.

This category covers the above two as well, but we can't exactly count on Squad doing very much more - they're already working on multiplayer, and that's quite a tall order - but again, it's a possibility.

Plugins that don't have a hope of being stock. These are where the problem for consoles lies, but ultimately I don't think many mods fall into this category. FAR I suppose since Squad are set on a less good aerodynamic model, Mechjeb probably. There'll be others.

I use a lot in this category (I guess - what people consider needs to be stock is probably pretty radical), but I'm a dedicated PC user now. I still think people would love things like MechJeb's autodock feature (only way to get a near-perfect relative rotation afaik), Infernal Robotics, and TweakScale to name a few important ones to me, but at this point we can't expect everything fancy to be available to console/stock users, I suppose. TweakScale also kind of seems like it'd be something that's stock.

Ultimately I feel that last category will be relatively small. In a good case scenario, maybe the console version of KSP will only support no-plugin mods, but the core game will have advanced enough that that no longer matters so much.

If they can pull that off, then there is probably no need for mods of this nature on console, though they will still probably miss out on a lot of crazy stuff in the future. As it stands, these "should be stock" mods are solutions provided by the community, despite a lot of them probably being deemed as necessary by the average player - Squad needs to take a close look at the various tool-type mods that are out there, and see if they can add it/something similar to stock. Otherwise, they fall into the "not-simple" mod category, and become unattainable to console players.

That last bit I bolded is important, Squad. If you don't get to allow fully-featured mods (which I'm still pretty sure you won't, since Fallout 4 probably uses the same two scripting languages that Skyrim did, which I think is one of the major contributing factors to them getting accepted by Microsoft), then you really need to add all the stuff that people use consistently. There are many tools created by the community that enhance the playability of KSP a great deal, and if those community solutions aren't available to console users, then they'll be losing a great deal of precision, flexibility, and scheduling at the least, which is something most of us take for granted. Add Kerbal Alarm Clock, add the precise node mod, and any other tools people use - they're actually more important than more gameplay features at this point, which is something I never thought I'd say about KSP.