TCP/IP options

[BubbleMatrix82]

Description of the Feature:

• Online features and TCP/IP LAN/WAN play

Code for Implementation:
I have nothing to contribute except "check github?"

Mockups:
This would have to be a whole new menu with dns or IP option for server and maybe even when the game is generated have the necessary server file built with it for local hosting and/or offer it to run in the cloud some how.

Why is this feature good?
This feature is great because of the following:

• Can make a true Pokémon or MegaMan Battle Network clone with trading and battles
• Can make RPG MAKER MV more valid as a game creation tool in an ever connected world
• Will make mobile and steam games more interesting to design and break norms.
• Could result in a subscription service for games that both developers and game makers could share revenue streams.
• Could introduce a direct patching system to bypass Steam or mobile phone verifications for updates.

Possible issues with this feature?
Issues that might arise from this feature:

• Malicious use like all TCP/IP products run the risk of
• Cost to develop and implement
• Confusing for networking newbies so would need a simple set up option
• DLC could get out of hand, despite making everyone money.

 

[BubbleMatrix82]

I can't imagine this being that hard to implement since many open source options already exist.

 

[Andar]

@BubbleMatrix82 actually it is extremely hard to implement, because the RM engine never was intended for multiplayer.
Limited network functions like a highscore or something like that is easy - but as soon as you go away from single player functionality you'll have to rewrite most parts of the engine.
And because you need to have a server-based structure you basically can say goodbye to 99% of all plugins (you'll have to rewrite them server-based as well), and it is much more difficult to write a server-based plugin than the current plugin types.

 

[LTN Games]

I agree with Andar, you might as well find a new engine or wait until a future Maker(which may never happen). High scores would be simple enough but anything else is too much work for the devs and I believe that work is better used on improvements of RMMVs core engine.

Plugins can handle network stuff and if you decide to do online/server based game then you would want full control over that anyway, and not be restricted to a default implementation.

 

[Sarlecc]

Since this is something I have been working on for around a year I will drop my two cents in. Yes it is extremely hard to implement. Its like trying to build a Pyramid from the top to bottom instead of building it from the bottom to top.

In short any multiplayer coming to RPG maker will have to be community made vs coming default with the maker.

 

[BubbleMatrix82]

What about a direct patching implementation or DLC and IAP? Some people want to use this as a 2nd income so why not update it to be more supportive of that?

 

[RetroBoy]

I am seeing a lot of control about what we're allowed to want and its discouraging. "X is too hard" and "Y won't work" I feel like those are things that should be answered directly by the company if these ideas are able to rise to the highest vote.

Honestly, when I saw "internet access" pitched with MV I assumed it would have multiplayer functionality (and I am sure I am not alone). So even though I am sure this will go nowhere I am going to vote YES because I think Multiplayer functionality is an extremely important option given the modern gaming climate.

Most "Gamers" play with friends, so chat boxes and multiplayer options are a must (especially for younger players) or else they will quickly become bored and migrate to games that do accommodate that.

 

[LTN Games]

I feel like people are suggesting, not to improve what the engine currently is but what they want to be able to create with it. RPG Maker's intent for the last decade has been to make things easy to create a JRPG. A JRPG Is not an MMORPG, in my opinion, this feature is not something that should be on high priority, or even thought about until the improvements for a JRPG are complete.
So, it's not that it's hard to do it's that it takes away from the original intent as well as the time from devs.
Not only that, but if you want an online/multiplayer experience it's better the developer has full control over the back end. Having it developed and packaged for you will severely limit any online capabilities. Even JavaScript game libraries don't go near the multiplayer stuff because the developer needs to control so many variables, client side and server side that it's better to write your own stuff than to tap into a limited API. I feel like asking for networking/server stuff is like asking to make MV 3-D

 

[RetroBoy]

Can you show me a JRPG that has been released on the 3DS in the last decade that DOESNT have online functionality?

Even the re-release of Chronotrigger had an online mini-game where you raised and battled monsters. So, the question becomes... who are you marketing to?

People who want to make 1980s FF3 clones or people who want to make modern RPG games.

"So, it's not that it's hard to do it's that it takes away from the original intent as well as the time from devs."

For the last 10 or so years I have watched RPG Maker evolve with the times. If they were only ever intending you make a certain kind of RPG from a certain point in time, why release new versions with more features and functions at all?

Also, who cares about the Dev's time. If they're selling more copies of the game they're going to be happy. Its not like they're still developing the engine. Its finished as is and its been out for some years. Its not like they're in the middle of building things and we're wasting their time by having them consider other options.

If they didn't want to know what we wanted, why would they ask us?

Also, as I understand it the new RPG MAKER for DS that was just announced has online functionality, including the ability to upload games and hosting, etc. So, why must we hold back to the PC version of MV?

"Not only that, but if you want an online/multiplayer experience it's better the developer has full control over the back end. Having it developed and packaged for you will severely limit any online capabilities. Even JavaScript game libraries don't go near the multiplayer stuff because the developer needs to control so many variables, client side and server side that it's better to write your own stuff than to tap into a limited API. I feel like asking for networking/server stuff is like asking to make MV 3-D"

This is fair but I would argue that "making it 3D" and making network compatibility SHOULD be options because Game Maker Studio and a few others can already do that. We have the ability to tick a box right now and go between front battle and side view, imagine how rad it would be to be able to check a box and have the option of isometric or 3D too.

Even if they cannot be implemented right now (something the Japanese Development Team will have a much better grasp on) if we make it clear that these are things we want then when the next PC version comes out after MV (and it will) we have a much greater chance of seeing them.

 

[bgillisp]

My $0.02? I think this would be a handy feature...BUT it would need a new version of RPGMaker to implement. So it cannot happen with MV more than likely due to the fact they'd have to totally rewrite the code, which would probably break every plug-in currently made. Maybe for MV+? Or whatever the next version of RPGMaker is?

As for the comments about games with online functionality and 3DS games that have been released recently. Maybe I'm in a minority here, but I have yet to see a 3DS game with an online functionality that actually ADDED anything positive to the game. In fact, in most 3DS games, I either ignore it or turn it off completely. So we could argue that it didn't add anything to the game, and the game would have been better off without it as well.

 

[RetroBoy]

As for the comments about games with online functionality and 3DS games that have been released recently. Maybe I'm in a minority here, but I have yet to see a 3DS game with an online functionality that actually ADDED anything positive to the game. In fact, in most 3DS games, I either ignore it or turn it off completely. So we could argue that it didn't add anything to the game, and the game would have been better off without it as well.

Pokemon.

 

[bgillisp]

And I don't play Pokémon myself. The ones I was thinking of were Bravely Default (the stupid social connection for rebuilding the town, or buying those other whatever that mode was I forgot about it as I hated it so much), and final Fantasy 3 (make 7 friends to unlock a class not in the original game, but the class is only good if you grind to level 91 or higher).

 

[RetroBoy]

A lot of the modern RPGs on 3DS especially have almost Facebook game style elements where you can compete or visit your opponent's game. Monster Hunter, Yokai Watch, um... that one where they look like super cartoony drawings, I could probably name more if I went to google but its late and I am sleepy.

I think if you look around you will find its very common and much expected today. The face of gaming has changed in many ways (not necessarily for the better IMO) but if RPG MAKER can't keep up its going to be left behind. I'd rather that not happen.

For the last five or so years multiplayer has been a pretty pervasive thing with all of the most popular games (Terraria, Minecraft, etc.) utilizing it. Most games will have multiplayer or chat functionality. Gaming used to be something you did alone in your room to keep yourself busy and stave off the hairy palmed demon but now its an accepted and communal experience more often than its not.

It was so bad that there are a bunch of games on my Wii U (Yes, I own a Wii U -- no regrets) that only have online functionality and do not even have couch Co-Op.

Speaking of JRPGs if you haven't played Xenoblade Chronicles X then you should get on that. Its the new FF7 of the genre. Absolutely fantastic. It revitalized my interest in the genre. Strong characters. Strong plot. Good mechanics.

Its impossible to compete with something like that on MV but I just thought I'd mention it in case you never got a chance to play it. I really think the only reason it wasn't heralded as the greatest game of the year was because it was on Wii U.

 

[BubbleMatrix82]

JRPG shouldn't be an island with very rigid edges of how far you can go with the genre. If a player found a witty or intuitive way to implement online connectivity then why oust it as a useless feature?

As mentioned, TCP/IP could create the foundation for a proper MegaMan Battle Network clone or a Pokémon clone or a proper arena/colosseum for PvP or traders hub where players can deposit items into a NPC store that can sell items across a network and have that money go back to you when they buy the item. Anything to add VALUE to the game.

Here's why RPG Maker games can't sell for $15.99 like Final Fantasy games - it's not because of the lack of name branding, it's because the lack of functionality. Your game is only as good as the engine it is built on. Take Too Human for an example, crap game but could it have been better on Unreal engine? Absolutely. If the engine wants to compete with the top shelf engines, it needs top tier features.

And let's not forget that social features, even in a crap game like Candy Crush, creates effortless competition so you can compete with your friends without needing to go blog about it. Once you tie into a person's inner circle of friends, you have added value and a chance at creating a product/brand that goes viral.

From a business standpoint, NOT having online connectivity is not good evolution of this product. Yes, adaptation to larger install base is crucial (totally support Linux and Apple native installs) but from a game creation stand point, TCP/IP bridges our player base together so the product can feel like a platform and not an island.

As an engine, even unused features offered is better than having no features offered and decreasing its value (which in turn drives down the price - I would never pay full price for MV without online or social features).

Your thoughts?

 

[RetroBoy]

I couldn't agree more dude, well-said.

 

[bgillisp]

Actually, RPGMaker games sell all the time for $19.99 or more. Look at this one: http://www.aldorlea.org/asguaard.php

#4 top seller last Fall, and constantly in the top 5 of all their games.

And, if we want to look at Steam, visual novels sell for $29.99 or more regularly. No online features in those. So, no, it is not required to be able to sell your game for higher. What is required is a good game, online or not.

(That being said, I still wouldn't mind seeing it, as I do agree it could help. But again, probably next version of RPGMaker?)

 

[BubbleMatrix82]

It's all about value. I would value MV more with it as an option and my players would value my game more with something gimmicky to interact with. Not all games have to be mainstream game clones with stereotypes and tropes, it's time to shift the market with innovation.

 

[Andar]

Perhaps people will understand if I go a bit more into details.

Client-limited TCP/IP is not a problem - that is already possible in MV because you have javascript to call on data from the internet. But client-side TCP/IP is limited to things like highscores and similiar.

But MMO or paid content or anything like that will require server-side control and server-side data security, and that is absolutely incompatible with "custom-anything" plugins.

So the real questions is:
Are you willing to scrap the entire plugin structure in order to get your online functions?

Server-sided data security requires a much more complex handling than done by any plugin currently written, and it is much more complex to program. So besides the problem of programming a default server, that server needs to be specially programmed for any custom plugin you're using - that is one of the reasons why all existing multiplayer games have only a limited number of options for changing data in the game, because anything that might be changed by the user has had to be prepared by the server-sided engine.

And I think that of all the existing plugin writers for MV (and there are quite a lot) there are probably no more than three or four that might be able to program server-sided plugin code to be integrated into such an MMO, and even then it would require them to spend two or three times as much work to get them through.

So what do you want?
An online function in a limited predefined structure that can only be changed in a very limited way, or a local engine that can be used for custom-anything changes? Because even big companies have failed to combine both (and that goes double if you want to keep a reasonable price structure)

 

[BubbleMatrix82]

Fire Emblem Heroes isn't a true MMO but it gives the illusion of a social component. I'm not familiar with JavaScript yet, but if it can make calls and writes to an online stored DB then just provide a GUI for that.

 

[RetroBoy]

I "want" online functionality and scripts that cater to it. I fully understand what youre saying, in short: You can have multiplayer or the current script library.

Well, I'd choose multiplayer honestly. You can always hire someone to rewrite and/or modify the existing codes.

Lets say I am the scum of the earth and I want to make a gambling game with mircro transactions using MV, the systems are easy enough to build, but I cant charge micro-transactions to my players... why would I build games on MV if I can't get micro-transactions? That would screw up the whole model.

I understand the difficulty, it is my sincere hope that the next version fixes this from the beginning. If it doesn't MV will be cursed to become nothing but a way of making cheap Hentai Games because we're already seeing a bunch of (in many ways superior) competitors come out of the wood work.

If Unity can do everything MV does plus give me online functionality, why'd I as a Dev choose MV -- what is in it for me -- especially given its current reputation?

Here is an honest question:
If it possible to direct-link the Steam Chat into the engine so that you have a chat window linked to your steam always going so that you do not have to stop playing to talk and respond to people or is even that beyond MV without re-coding everything?