Guys, get your hopes up, Nick Burcombe talks about crowdfunding interest for a new WipEout game! [Archive]

AdHoc

10th May 2016, 11:03 AM

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/wipeout-co-creator-nick-burcombe-wants-the-licence-to-make-another-one/0166587

The co-creator of Wipeout Nick Burcombe has said he would make another entry in the sci-fi racing franchise, if Sony would let him.

Wipeout, developed by Psygnosis, was released in 1995 as a launch title for the PlayStation. The most recent game in the series was released in January 2012.

When asked by MCV whether he would be interested in making a spiritual successor, he said he could do it – but he’d want the Wipeout brand.

“If [my latest project] Table Top Racing is successful, I know I can put a team together for it as I get asked every week if we’re making a new Wipeout,” Burcombe said.

“But I’d have to make that PR story work on a Kickstarter level. You’d have to find out if there’s an audience for it first. I’d be looking at a proper undertaking on this and make it so that players can create their own tracks and really reinvent the whole thing.

“If there’s demand there, we’d love to meet it. But as it stands right now, without the Wipeout brand on it – which I doubt Sony is about to relinquish anytime soon – it’s kind of out of the question without Sony’s blessing.”

DISCUSS

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, so, as Nick said, it's highly unlikely Sony would relinquish its WipEout IP or "lease" it to anyone.

But that's not the point here. What needs to be done is to spark people's interest. If VR takes off, you can bet Sony will bring WO back.

I hope Nick acts on it and makes some noise around our beloved franchise. By the way Nick, feel free to pitch in here :)

As for my opinion on the matter, I'll just say this: FINALLY someone who understands that there is no spiritual successor to WO. You need WipEout to make a WipEout game. Anything else is a waste of time and ressources, not because it's bad, but because no one will buy it.

Hybrid Divide

10th May 2016, 11:59 PM

As for my opinion on the matter, I'll just say this: FINALLY someone who understands that there is no spiritual successor to WO. You need WipEout to make a WipEout game. Anything else is a waste of time and ressources, not because it's bad, but because no one will buy it.

Good that Ballistic NG is free, then, huh? And a waste of time? I think not! It's efforts like BNG, SSGX, and FF that could get a new WipEout going in the first place! (Sooner or later, I'll buy you SSGX and BNG devs a beer. That's a promise!)

THAT SAID:
If a Kickstarter comes up for a new WipEout game, I sure as HELL won't miss it like I did for the Formula Fusion Kickstarter campaign! That'd be a day one donation, easy.

The biggest thing we, as fans, would need to do, besides our own donations, would be to make sure the gaming press got word of this, and actually said something about it.

In any case, I'm in! :D

AdHoc

11th May 2016, 02:04 AM

You would have to hope independent games like the ones you cite or even bigger productions like Fast Racing Neo must make a difference. Alas, we just don't know that for sure. And it certainly doesn't do so on the greater picture. They're not a means to an end.

This is why having high-profile people like Nick Burcombe making waves is possibly our best chance at triggering a reaction with those high placed at Sony. Actually, who knows, people working on SSGX or BNG could join Burcombe's party one day and develop the next WipEout with an added fan's perspective.

blackwiggle

11th May 2016, 05:15 AM

I think the biggest problem apart from Sony not looking like making any new wipeout for the foreseeable future, or selling or leasing the IP out for a new game, is unless some new AG racer comes along and blows everybody away with just how amazing it is, all the Wipeout similar games that are coming out now are likely to be a niche product, catering for those that already know about the pleasures of AG racing, and not have anything near the impact like a new Wipeout would have.

You need the big name of Wipeout, and the advertising budget that can be afforded to go with it to really get the genre back in the public's eye and gamer's minds, like it was back from 1995 to 1999 [original WO, 2097 & WO3 ]

I think that was part of the reason WOHD didn't really take off as much as it should, as it was only a download originally, and the disc version didn't come out till around 18 months afterwards, and then only in certain regions, and in a small print run.

Whenever a new Wipeout does appear [I have no doubt that one will eventually] it will need to be for a full console like the PS4, it should be released on multiple platforms to be honest, but I can't see Sony doing that, and it needs to be released on a disc, if only so people see it in the shops [preferably have the game install onto the consoles HD for faster access - HD disc version suffered problems because it had to be read off the disc ]

Hybrid Divide

11th May 2016, 08:35 AM

@blackwiggle

I agree with everything you've said here.

Being a fan here in the 'States, WipEout's marketing always confused me. They never really marketed it here, even in its heyday, the marketing here wasn't anywhere near as strong here. So fewer people heard about it. And fewer copies were sold. So when the next game comes out, they give advertising it even less consideration. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Self-fulfilling prophecy?

I'd really like to see WipEout FuturE (hey, I've gotta call it something) marketed well on a global scale.
-----
A few other thoughts on WipEout FuturE:

I think Sony always saw WipEout as a showcase for its latest technology. But that hasn't always been a good thing.
Sure, we got things like the first DLC for a PSP game in PurE, MP3 music, custom ship skins in PulsE and amazing graphics in HD/Fury.
But it also meant we got things like touchscreen and motion controls in 2048 at the expense of things like Racebox.
WipEout FuturE will need to focus on GOOD TECHNOLOGY (pun intended!), and eschew gimicky things that will only get in the way player enjoyment. (Incidentally, I have yet to win a race using motion controls. Even Moa Therma on Venom!)

Games like Super Mario Maker, Trackmania, and our own BNG are showing the power in community-driven content, and this is something WipEout FuturE needs to embrace. I think Nick Burcombe understands this, and I could happily put faith in his leadership on this project.

And I agree with the argument that WipEout FuturE needs to be multi-platform. An argument could be made that Sony would try to use WipEout to sell consoles and PSVR gear. But, just as online game networks are starting to open up, Sony should realize that by selling WipEout FuturE on more systems, it just opens up more avenues for sales! And given how similar the PS4 and XBONE are architecturally, porting it to other consoles shouldn't be a massive task. Porting it to PC should be pretty straight forward as well. Hell, Sony could use WipEout to tout cross-platform play!

Ok, ok. I'm rambling. I'll leave it at this and let you all chime in about it. :)

Xpand

11th May 2016, 11:20 AM

....is unless some new AG racer comes along and blows everybody away with just how amazing it is, all the Wipeout similar games that are coming out now are likely to be a niche product, catering for those that already know about the pleasures of AG racing, and not have anything near the impact like a new Wipeout would have.

I do agree with this, I think it's always going to be an unbreakable barrier in making AG racers. No matter what you do, your game will always either look/play like Wipeout or F-zero, and there's even a bigger problem, Wipeout and F-zero were inspired by even older AG/flying racing games (powerdrome for example). In terms of design choices you will have to be either amazingly original or do something so crazy outlandish it'll actually work (kinda like what Formula Fusion did at first with their F-1 shaped ships). We're almost always bounded by our muses and the work done before us.

AdHoc

11th May 2016, 01:38 PM

Re: multiplatforming, the problem is that it costs a LOT of money. After having shut down SL and declared the racing genre not as profitable anymore, I don't see it happening.

The new WipEout needs to be a flagship for something. WHD was for HD graphics on PS3, could it be for something else on PS4?

Ahh, it's tough... I'd really love to have Nick's input on this thread.

Zynetic

11th May 2016, 09:57 PM

If for any platform, a new WipEout should be on the PC rather than the PS4.

Consoles are somewhat of a dying trend now, with the majority of gaming shifting towards PC for the more "hardcore" games/genres and mobile for the more "casual" games/genres (for lack of better terms). If they're looking for a financial success, I'd honestly release the game on PC through Steam, which would also help it gain some attention. (i.e. "What's this WipEout game? Looks pretty cool, might try it.")

I haven't even bought an eighth generation console (Wii U, PS4 or Xbox One) because I simply cannot justify the expense anymore when I have a more than capable PC that can play a vast variety of games. While WipEout is most certainly my favourite racing game, I am not buying a PS4 just to play a new entry to the series.

EDIT: Of course, that being said, if a new WipEout entry is to be made, it will most certainly be released on the PS4 or Vita primarily.

blackwiggle

13th May 2016, 01:50 PM

The biggest problem Wipeout has ever had, is that it that was bought by SONY.

You have to ask yourself, when reviewing the history of Wipeout, was it a good or bad thing that Sony called the shots?

There are basically two positions one can take.

If Wipeout was kept a standalone Psygnosis product, would it have been developed as much as it further was without the money Sony injected back then ...you have to remember the original wipeout was a PSone/PC only product.

As is well known Sony used the Wipeout IP as a launch title for any new products that it was flogging, rather than trying to support the AG racing genre , or supporting the AG racing fans.... WO Fusion was the last true console version...this was the beginning of the end to be honest, as Wipeout became a handhold console only product for many years, which left it's previous core household console/ PC fans out in the cold.

Result is/was....Wipeout is now only known by a certain age group, and basically only on a Sony product

To make the most of the WIPEOUT name, it NEEDS it's to either be sold back to it's originator [Nick] or have any new reincarnation by Sony, headed by NICK, and his chosen crew.

This sort of discussion has been going on for years at this forum...... if you have the time, and inclination, and as a forum member, and depending on your searching prowess , you can find the answers to why things happened, when and by who.

If you are a forum member, you have access to the "Community" button at the header page, this will allow you to search out each and every forum member, and all their history of posts [Unless they have been banned - then ask me or a MOD for specifics ]

Look in your old PSone/ PS2/PSP Wipeout game covers for names of those that made the games....you will find a lot of them here, use the community name search to find posts by those people ;)

OBH

14th May 2016, 05:50 PM

Despite its unlikely return there is still a niche in the market as nothing has ever replaced Wipeout (at least on console). Distance on the PC is the one I have most hope for, but its still in early access.

If they wanted to do it enough it could be done.

blackwiggle

15th May 2016, 03:39 AM

I mistakenly said the names of the Psygnosis/ Studio Liverpool Wipeout production crew were on the covers, what I meant was the game booklets.

If you don't have the booklets, you can still view the names in the credit section of each of the games.

terra-wrists

2nd June 2016, 09:02 PM

Hey Blackwiggle, any more updates?

mannjon

12th June 2016, 06:16 AM

Now I must protest that Consoles are a dying breed. Xbox 1? Yes. They were DOA. That's what you get for coming to E3 and boasting a new system then initially planned to tie games to an IP address making trade ins impossible. They obviously changed their stance, but too late. That's what you get Microsoft. You deserve the crappy Xbox 1 sales you got.

Now with the PS4... different story.

There is more life in consoles than ever. If they decided to release a new WO game on the PC, it would fail. Why? WO isn't one of those games that PC people would want. The modern trend for PC gamers (and this isn't everyone) is to mod the $h!+ out of it. Case in point? Look at Overwatch as an example. They (Microsoft and Sony) are considering cross-console play for the game. BUT PC won't be invited. Again... WHY? Because PC players would mod it. Not everyone of course (some of us don't cheat) but PC gamers have a bad rep for modding.

Will Sony ever release a WO game for Xbox? Likely not... BUT.......... imagine the renewal of the genre if a new WO could be crossplay compatible with Vita, PS4 AND Xbox 1. Now will this happen? No. I sincerely doubt it. Not many titles that started as an exclusive make the jump to other systems. But I think it could save the genre, especially on a console release.

If they did have a new WO game that did somehow make it to market, I do believe the better choice would be to keep Microsoft out of the loop and have a PC release. That being said, I don't think there is a strong enough market on the PC to make it a success. Sadly though, we won't see a future release with just a niche market. So it becomes a catch 22.

terra-wrists

12th June 2016, 02:13 PM

I agree Mannjon, wipEout should be PS4 exclusive only. NO Xbone.

Rafeku

12th June 2016, 08:21 PM

This exclusivity bullsh** harms consumers.

The only thing I know is that consoles are pcs, with a "beautiful case" and a OS. The architeture is preety much the same of computers(Correct me if I'm wrong), games now needs to be installed in a hard drive...so what's the point? It's a PC that does less stuff than a normal PC does, except it is less powerful, and just optmized for gaming.

Once again, I'm going to say this: I'm going for the cheapest option avaible for me, and where I live, it turns to PC. I'm probably being hyperbole(and unrealistic), but the next generation of "consoles" will be OS's to be installed in a PC.

Back on topic: If a new WipEout is to be developed(which is higly unlikely) it's going to be Sony exclusive UNFORTUNATELY. Those companies are really greedy when it comes to IPs. I would really want that they developed the game for all platforms, PC included, because, in my point of view, although there are costs to port the game and etc, the range of buyers would be higher, making the game sell better. and throw in that Cross-Play of course.
@mannjon So why the heck Rocket League has cross play with PS4 and PC!? Explain me that. There's no Xbox One involved.

Hybrid Divide

12th June 2016, 09:30 PM

I'd love to see WipEout Future come to PCs, too. Put it on something like Steam, and Sony would be able to target people who don't own PS4s. Thus, making more money.

I mean, a new WipEout title is all *I'D* need to justify buying a new Sony console, I know the masses don't think like that. And considering that it wouldn't be a launch title, it's not like they'd be using it to try to sell systems in the same way that they usually do with WipEout launch titles. However, had they already been working on one, they COULD use it this way for PSVR.

But PS4/Neo/VR or not, I just want a new official WipEout game, really.

Cipher

12th June 2016, 10:14 PM

I agree with Rafeku's statement :p
There's no need for the pc/console master race debate, it's simply a personal preference, nothing more, yeah sure, there's exclusives and what not, but you have those on both sides, PC & Consoles, on the console side, they are mostly a marketing stunt to lure customers to their console, a PC exclusive is usually a developer's decision (flexibility, cost, performance, stubbornness,...), however, these same criteria can also apply to consoles if a dev is platform oriented (although less likely), most exclusives come from developers who have been bought by the console developer (Psygnosis bought by Sony for example, Naughty Dog (The Last Of Us), ...)

I game on both, i like both for my own reasons, both Pcs & consoles have their pros and cons, there's no better one, there's only the best one for you :)

I agree with Rafeku's last paragraph as well that selling on all platforms gives more exposure for the game and the developers, in fact, the PC is probably easier to get exposure on, as it's a bigger audience, whereas console's audience is smaller and scattered over different platforms (not saying that this audience is irrelevant though ;) ), this is why you see a lot of indie developers on PC (and also because it's easier to develop for PC (consoles come with NDAs, pricy dev consoles (except for microsoft), non-standard APIs, approvals, ...), however, once these indies break out on PC, they usually end up on console as well (Enter The Gungeon & Rocket League to name a few), the opposite can also occur, but it is less likely, since if a game is on console but not PC, it's probably an exclusive and will probably remain as such, either because of decisions from up top, or developer platform orientation

In short, developing for all platforms is better, but it comes with price-tags.

As for cross platform between PC & Console, for a long time it was debated that either one had advantages over the other when it came to online competitive play (hacks on pc definitely play a big role there), but this conservative thought seems to have been evolving over recent years, in a good way :) (Maybe partially caused by better anti-cheat algorithms, but probably other stuff as well)

@Manny your definition of modding is flawed, what you're talking about is hacks & cheating, most often mods are made to increase the lifetime of a game, to improve upon certain aspects of a game, to expand the story, to increase the amount of content, ...
Mods are the same as what instagram filters are to photography, nothing bad about them, just a personal choice on whether you like them or not ;)

Hacks and cheats i agree with, are a complete no-no and do indeed appear more on PC, but i think security of game exploits like that will only keep improving as the game industry evolves ;-)

Cipher

Rafeku

12th June 2016, 10:39 PM

terra-wrists

12th June 2016, 11:00 PM

someone should translate this thread to Japanese and hit Sony an email.

blackwiggle

12th June 2016, 11:21 PM

The reason consoles will still sell, even though the difference between a console and a PC has become for all intended purposes, very little, is that with a console, everybody is standardized with the same powered rig, performance is neither better or worse than anybody else's.
You also have to factor in the WAF [Wife acceptance factor ] where a gaming console would be tolerated in the lounge room, but a PC wouldn't..... plus the fact that a console is a set and forget piece of gear, where with a PC that isn't always the case.

I think Sony might be shooting themselves in the foot [yet again] with the release of a PS4.5 that is only slightly more powerful, so it can do VR better than the standard PS4 and play back 4K video.
Firstly, apart for a few early adopters, I can't see VR taking off en mass, well not console versions of VR, it's too expensive to gear up for once you add controllers and camera to the already expensive headset, there are few games for it, and the ones being made in all honesty aren't that engaging , and besides the novelty wears off rather quickly when you find yourself suffer from a aching neck the next day [I've got a Sony VR demonstration in a store below where I work, and a Microsoft mega store directly across the road demonstrating it's VR, so I have been giving both a good work out]
It might take off with PC based gaming rigs, as they are far more powerful, or can at least be upgraded to be up to recommended spec's to run a Oculus Rift.

The main problem though with UHD 4k playback is that the manufacturers are relying on HDMI to carry the signal, the problem is that the vast majority of HDMI cables people own, or are able to purchase don't have the bandwidth to do it, you can either get partial picture with sparkle artifacts, or no picture at all, it takes a specialized HDMI cable that costs more than a PS4 to do the job reliably.
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/uhd-blu-ray-vs-hdmi-let-battle-begin#dgIyxi0RK5CaXcs1.97

It's a return of sorts to the sort of problems HDMI had early on, with connected components not being able to talk to each other.
I shudder to think of the tech questions and complaints at the Playstation forum of new PS4.5's not being able to playback 4K Bluray's properly, it will be like a return to 2007 when people couldn't get their Sony PS3's talking to Panasonic or Samsung TV's.

What's really needed is a change to a cable type that is cheap and will work with 4K [Ethernet CAT5 cable fits the bill] problem is it would need different terminations on all equipment, and I'm guessing Sony would rather sell the 4k TV's and PS4.5's to the unsuspecting public now so they are buying into it, take the flack for it not working as it should due to this issue, and then later down the line say, well it needs a new cable type to do it properly, we will do that with the PS5 and next generation 4k TV's.
It's how they have been doing business over the last decade and a half, I don't expect them to change now.

I'd love to see a new Wipeout in 4k, or/and VR, but since Sony own the IP, and both VR and 4K have issues with their implementation, I'm sort of glad that there isn't one being worked on ATM, as it would I suspect, be a substandard Wipeout due to technical issues.

mannjon

19th June 2016, 11:39 PM

Hello all! I didn't mean to spark a PC Master Race debate. That was not my intent. I in fact, would do way more Steam gaming if I didn't have a crappy laptop.

My point was similar to what Blackwiggle just stated. Consoles standardize things. They are far from a dying breed because while certain games may be optimized for keyboard play (such as RTS games) others are not. While you can always attach a controller to a PC, you can't really attach a keyboard and mouse to a console. The thing about consoles, is that even though the Xbone and PS4 networks are exclusive, they really help to organize online play as well.

I do take some offense to the idea to have the 4.5. I just bought a new system. Why should I pay even more money to get a newer system for only slightly better gameplay and features? The Vita and the PS TV flopped for similar reasons. Consoles are expensive. I bought a next gen as an investment. I'm kind of pissed that the new paradigm seems to mimic the PC problem of having a new rig outdated shortly after release. Take Wii U for example, they have all but abandoned the console. I love my Wii U, am I'm upset that they are essentially phasing it out for new tech. I jumped on the PS3 bandwagon late, but there were still good games being released. I got a PS4 just after the initial release, and now it would seem like the is to already start phasing it out.

What we really need is a Gaming Master Race.

blackwiggle

20th June 2016, 06:09 AM

For the very reason you stated, is why I think having certain Xbone/ PS4/PC games that allowed all to being able to share a online experience via crossplay at the same time is a bad thing, nothing is standardized, so the biggest baddest rig [A PC probably] will 'Likely' win every time, which defeats the whole purpose, and why I think even if a few games would allow this, it would soon die a sad death, that's if it ever eventuated in the first place, which I doubt it will.

You just have to see just how many PS4 games that allow friends to take over playing for you if you are stuck at a certain point?
I can't think of one, can anybody?
It was advertised as a great feature at PS4's launch, and that's using the one system......it makes crossplay across gaming platforms highly unlikely to happen as the game makers would need to support it, and I honestly can't see any reason why they would bother, as they haven't even bothered fully supporting the PS4's online features.

I don't take offense at Sony making another huge blunder, I'm used to it now.
If I were a share holder, well then I would be very worried at the adverse press this whole PS4.5 is going to generate...... I suspect it will end up being as useful as the expansion pack on a Nintendo 64 game....hardly noticeable, as most gaming houses will be building games for the original spec'd console.

Why would they build a game that won't run on the highest selling current Gen console, the current PS4? It would just piss people off...they won't, so it's pointless buying a PS 4.5.

4k gaming.... I can't see it happening any time soon unless the games are relatively small, like Superstardust [which is having a VR release :rolleyes: ] ..it's confusing enough playing in 3D, as in what depth level enemies are at, and somewhat nauseating to play..... 1 or 2, 4K games would fill your 1TB hard drive unless some new data compression method is found, who's going to buy into that?...not me.

They have taken a different approach with the VR version.... you are more like sitting in a gunners seat of the Millennium Falcon with Superstardust VR..... your neck will never be the same with all the twisting about you end up doing.

As for 4k generally....well being a bit of a tech head regarding audio/visual I've looked into it, thought about it, and decided NOW is not the time to buy into it.
The graph below shows screen size V's seating distance on being able to perceive a 4K image over a 1080p one.
10300

The biggest problem with 4K, also with 1080p, is smooth motion across screen.....even the best Sony Motionflow algorithms leave a LOT to be desired picture quality wise against the old CRT TV's , that refreshed the picture top to bottom, rather than LCD/LED/Plasma TV's, Right to Left .
Ghosting and light trails are very obvious on 4K TV's, 3D on 4K TV's is horrible, even at 1080p.....that's why you NEVER see any fast moving action on 4K or VR demoed...it fails miserably

It's a major failing of the technology, and the higher the resolution you make it [4k] and the faster you need it to respond [as in the VR headset screen's, especially when moving your head rapidly] the worse this tech failure appears..... it's all a bit of a blurr.
Which is totally the opposite of what it was supposed to be.

mannjon

25th June 2016, 03:02 AM

All good points Wiggle. I think with the right game and with the right community ( <3 u guys! ) IT could work. But that brings up a new set of problems. For instance, what happens if the right game is produced, the community is in support, and we get another 2048. Don't get me wrong, I loved that game! I keep my Vita around for that and streaming PS4 games to it. But at the same time, it just didn't have the wow factor HD had. A game that truly sought to bridge console gaps would have to not only excel in an online experience, but it would have to be a stellar game too. Also consider the type of fanbase out there:

> I BOUGHT a PS3 JUST for WOHD. That was my reason, and my only reason at the time. I BOUGHT my PS4 however due to FO4. So while it would make a huge impact on console driven sales for PS4, it wouldn't at all for Xbones or even Wii U/NX (most die hard Nintendo fans likely would boycott it because it wasn't a next gen F-Zero, and a lot of Xbone/Microsoft fans wouldn't even know what it was). To its credit, PC owners would probably bite because it could be a steam release, same would go for the people that actually bought a Steam Console, though they probably don't have any money left cuz those are expensive.

> So to attract people to a game like that, it would have to generate appeal to people strongly Nintendorized, or people that have never had the experience. Honestly, I have always thought of WO to be a niche game, and that isn't what developers want to use as a flagship multi-platform release.

> To take it one step further, it would be nice to see it in VR. At the same time, no one is going to spend all that money for a niche game.

Ok, moving forward though, there may be a silver lining. Doom. A little known fact about Microsoft is that Gates tried numerous times to buy id software. Why? Because he realized that the future of PC gaming was going the way that Doom had opened up the market. When id turned him down, he agreed to work with id software to make a port for Windows that didn't require going through a dos command prompt. However it was largely due to the fact that at the time, Doom was OUTSELLING his operating system. Despite decent sales, I doubt Gates would see the same opportunity for a WO release.

Even if you could get the console companies onboard, as blackwiggle has already pointed out, there would have to be some type of standardization. As a PC Gamer myself, I would want to run the game to its max potential, and with a good enough build, I do think that a PC would have a decisive advantage especially with all the nuance differences in the way games connect to various online servers. It could be done, but it would be hard to standardize without massive amounts of resources spent on a 3rd Party server. Think about it, would people want to play an Xbone game online if it came from a Sony server? How would one even (and this is a Cipher question really) go about doing something like that to ensure an equal and balanced online experience?

I'm all for the idea of modernizing online play. I really am. I would like to see PC exclusives (like Starcraft) even make it to a Console despite the difficulty that would come along with an inferior UX on the console due to having to use a PS4 controller (and yes I realize that you can always use a mouse and keyboard, but who would pay additional money to play just one game?) On that note, maybe one solution is to use a server similar to Battlenet (which I hate) for games meant to be played cross-console. It might at least be a start in ensuring the same experience across the board.

[Edit] I just remember that N64 DID have a crappy version of WO. I think at that point Pygnosis owned the rights? I can't remember how that was actually licensed.

JABBERJAW

25th June 2016, 11:11 AM

Wo64 played just like 2097/XL. Not crappy

Regarding keyboards: they easily can give keyboard/mouse support to consoles. They have in the past, and are just too lazy now to add that support. A keyboard/mouse can be used for many games. I hate having to play a FPS with a controller, it's always dumbed down( auto aim, lenient aiming hits) compared to games like quake 3 or unreal tournament.

Vita failed because they limited everything it could do compared to the psp ( 80 + million units sold). No TV support, limiting a memory card to a specific system, both terrible ideas. It was a great system, but because they wanted to stop piracy or game sharing, it resulted in a failed system. Even when they saw this happening ( no sales) they doubled down on these ideas. They released the vita tv, with no support for all the games. Ridiculous.

mannjon

25th June 2016, 10:40 PM

WO64 played using the thumbstick on an N64 controller. Compared to a Dual Shock PS1 at the time, it was no comparison. It also stuttered sometimes and I bet the framerate was off too. At least for me, I felt WO64 was more of a cheap port than a 2097 N64 edition. I still have both old consoles, and I did a comparison. N64's controller is not optimized for WO. PS1's controller felt 2nd nature to me.

To keep things fair, I then played the N64 version, PS1 version AND my old PC copy using a keyboard and mouse setup and emulators. Keeping in mind that not all emulators are built equal, I did what I could to manipulate framerates to be relatively the same. Sure enough, the N64 version stuttered even with an average of around 54 FPS. I don't know if it is much of a comparison, but it does lead me to believe that certain ports would in fact give players advantages based on the console used.

Totally agree with the Vita/TV though. That was a missed opportunity for Sony. I certainly hope they learn from their mistake. I doubt either will get any future updates, and the two systems are all but elite except for Indie games, which I hate.

terra-wrists

27th June 2016, 08:58 PM

Call me old fashioned but wipEout was always a Playstation game and should remain so.

Also, gaming PC's can be quite expensive, when compared to getting a console which is simply, plug n play. I have a very powerful PC but I won't game on it simply because having steam and all the other stuff is just too complicated for someone like me who just wants to power on the system, and scroll to wipEout without any additional fuss.

That's all really... wait, wipEout PS4, come on SONY - this is just like - wtf are you doing? The FUTURE is NOW.

mannjon

30th June 2016, 04:11 PM

My main concern is that if something were ever a true cross port venture that it would be fair and equal to all consoles, PC included.

I can name an example where this is relevant. Let's use Overwatch as an example. I heard a guy talking about this the other day concerning the online play: "I won't ever play it on console because the controller just isn't precise enough."

Now for a FPS, this makes sense. If you had PC players up against consoles, the fluidity of the mouse would be a huge advantage. It doesn't translate over to racing as a genre because I would argue that racing games would in fact be more difficult using a mouse and keyboard. But the point is that there are huge inherent differences in control schemes at the very least.

You can always add a controller to a PC (especially XBone controllers since they are microsoft). You can also add a mouse and keyboard to consoles, but then lag becomes an issue. There isn't a good solution to standardize things. How would you go about ensuring equality?

Hey hey Terra, long time no race! I should probably get on PS3 sometime soon. Unfortunately for us, the next generation of gamers seems to have taken a foothold on future releases. I fear we won't see a WO game that we would recognize. They tried to appeal to new gamers with 2048, and it didn't do so well. Their attempts to modernize it may have been the final nail in the coffin. Another one of my favorites series has gone down the path of no return: Final Fantasy. I grew up on turn based combat, and I now realize that due to young'uns out there that weren't around when that kind of gameplay was popular, are now determining how the market diverges. Case in point, they made FFVX a realtime action RPG despite the dismal failures that FFXIII were to the community. They did add in a "wait" mode feature to appeal to the turn based crowd, but it is far from innovation. I doubt we will ever see another true turn based FF game.

If they did make a PS4 iteration, Sony would probably only approve the design if it had things that would attract new people to the series. Unfortunately the biggest complaint non WO vets had about the game was that it was too hard. Modern gamers don't like hard games. They like easy trophies. You can't have a game that includes both, and the money is in the newer market. It would be hard to have a WO that was both friendly to new players as well as competitive for us veterans. Skill matching might help, but it think it takes away a lot of the challenge. I want to race against the best. It was what gave WO nearly inexhaustible replay value. They'd also likely dumb down controls and have 2 hours of pop up type guided tutorials. I like a game that just tosses you into the action and assumes you are smart enough to figure it out.

blackwiggle

5th July 2016, 01:04 PM

It's quite simple what's needed.
Great tracks, Racebox timing, online record tables, several race speed teams.......that's what got everybody hooked back in 1990's

That's it...instant success .:hyper:hyper .well maybe not, but it's the best bet.

hmetal2001

11th July 2016, 06:54 PM

Unfortunately for us, the next generation of gamers seems to have taken a foothold on future releases. I fear we won't see a WO game that we would recognize. They tried to appeal to new gamers with 2048, and it didn't do so well. Their attempts to modernize it may have been the final nail in the coffin. Another one of my favorites series has gone down the path of no return: Final Fantasy. I grew up on turn based combat, and I now realize that due to young'uns out there that weren't around when that kind of gameplay was popular, are now determining how the market diverges. Case in point, they made FFVX a realtime action RPG despite the dismal failures that FFXIII were to the community. They did add in a "wait" mode feature to appeal to the turn based crowd, but it is far from innovation. I doubt we will ever see another true turn based FF game.

If they did make a PS4 iteration, Sony would probably only approve the design if it had things that would attract new people to the series. Unfortunately the biggest complaint non WO vets had about the game was that it was too hard. Modern gamers don't like hard games. They like easy trophies. You can't have a game that includes both, and the money is in the newer market. It would be hard to have a WO that was both friendly to new players as well as competitive for us veterans.

I'd like to know how 2048 was trying to appeal to modern gamers.

On the other hand, the way WipEout FuturE could appeal to both veterans AND new players is through track difficulty. For example, in 2097, or XL if you played the NTSC version, you had the very easy Talon's Reach (if you could fly/pilot/drive the Qirex), but the difficulty suddenly ramps up in Gare D'Europa. Even better, there could be a Classic League, with tracks from the first 3 games, which would be arranged in ascending difficulty, as well. And no, not in the absolutely disgraceful way that Pure did, by simplifying graphics and shortening the tracks (like how the drop in Pure's Altima VII was just a downward-sloping section and not a vertical drop, like in the original circuit and W3SE's rendition). I mean that what the devs/Mr Burcombe could do is to basically give the chosen tracks an HD remaster. However, not with slight modifications. For example, HD's Chenghou Project's outwards banked corner sends your ship into the air. I mean faithful reconstructions, with the details spot-on, or as close as possible.

I know it seems forceful, but what can I do? I'm just a fan.

whispers Also, photo mode would be nice. I honestly have 709 screenshots from 2048. And that's without counting my HD/Fure DLC screenshots. That'll bump the count to 918 photos. Somebody help me.

Hybrid Divide

11th July 2016, 09:01 PM

WipEout 2048 tried to appeal to modern gamers by showcasing all the "wizz-bang" features of the Vita.

Motion controls, touchscreen controls, etc.

That's my take, anyway.

mannjon

12th July 2016, 06:25 AM

^ This. I don't know anyone that has the same feelings about 2048 that they did compared to WOHD/Fury. Elimination mode was dumbed down to the point where whoever got the most quakes often won. WOHD had tremendous depth in Elimination mode, and I'm not even a huge fan yet found Elimination mode more engaging. They also had a lot more city type tracks. Though a nice change, it almost felt like they were trying to attract fans of other racing titles to a fault. I get that it served as a precursor canon wise and those tracks would have been more realistic for the AG racing's initial feel.

I think had SL had more time to go back and fix things it would have been a much better title. To be honest, for me personally it almost felt like a Beta. The multiplayer was one prime example of trying to innovate that failed miserably. But alas, we I apologize for steering off topic.

I'm just worried that if there was a next gen true WO game, they wouldn't keep true to fans like they should. The perfect storm is brewing for a release, and the fact that Sony hasn't surrendered the rights might be an indication they are planning to develop something as a VR early launch title. Just think about it a minute... PS4 will be able to offer VR without having to upgrade your current system. All you need is the VR headset, and the camera. It would be a great opportunity for Sony to include a new wipeout offering to help sell VR units.

TheXTR09

15th July 2016, 05:23 PM

I absolutely love 2048's overall style and design, but the gameplay was horrid. Only Speed class ships were necessary to finish the game if you're used to WOHD, AI and physics were worse than before, and the like the posts above me, Elimination was like a slot machine. I almost going to ask my parents to buy me a VITA solely for 2048, but boy I'm glad and dissapointed that I didn't.

My favorite in style will always be 2048, it fuses old present-day buildings and tech alongside futuristic ones, it felt ridiculously realistic. It tried its best to give a good nod to the original '95 WO and it's good enough, an also, city tracks! I absolutely love the atmosphere it gives out, just a pity it doesn't play well. 😿

@manjon
I don't really like the idea of a VR Wipeout. Can you play WOHD in cockpit view well?
Sony kept on pushing high-tech fancy gimmicks that don't help making a game more fun, this is part of the reason SL might've made 2048 a limp cookie because they spent time developing weird wacky controls on the VITA that no one would ever use.

It's more important for a game to be fun than innovative. Just look at DOOM '16.

blackwiggle

16th July 2016, 12:17 AM

I don't know just how relevant VR would be for a racing game to be honest, as the vast majority of the time you would be wanting to be looking straight ahead, especially at the speed Wipeout craft get to.
Playing HD in 3D is fun, but you take a serious performance hit doing so, to such an extent it would be highly unlikely that you would ever win a online race if playing in 3D, I don't think I ever have managed it.

VR seems to me best suited to RPG / Action games, but in saying that, it would depend on how it is implemented.
If say Uncharted 4 had a VR version, I imagine you would tire of it pretty quickly what with all the climbing in that game.

Gamers are pretty much coach potatoes, physical exertion over a long period is not something that will go down well with them, and having tried briefly the Sony VR when it had a short demo here, and plenty of hours trying the Steam VR which is on permanent demonstration at the Microsoft store across the road from my work place, I can see the novelty of VR soon wearing off.

Imagine if you lost the remote to your TV and had to get up and walk over to the TV to change the channel or adjust volume each time, pretty annoying don't you think, well VR can easily slip into a very similar sort of thing, where you think, stuff it, I'd rather just play the game in 2D with a controller.

eLhabib

17th July 2016, 11:41 AM

I don't know just how relevant VR would be for a racing game to be honest, as the vast majority of the time you would be wanting to be looking straight ahead, especially at the speed Wipeout craft get to.

Have you ever played a racing game in VR? I think you wouldn't be saying that if you had. I recently played several racing games with oculus rift, including Assetto Corsa (a realistic race simulator), and I can tell you, VR absolutely changes the way a racing game feels, and also the way you play it. Being in VR gives you a feel for the scale of everything, the distances to corners, the width of the track - it all just feels natural and makes you a far more precise pilot. Also, if you watch people playing racing games in VR, you will notice that they hardly ever look straight ahead. Most of the time you look diagonally into corners to judge the apex and your speed (like you subconciously do in real life, btw). So yes, I absolutely think wipEout in VR would be freaking amazing and elevate the sense of high speed and floaty AG craft to a whole new level. I would love to play wo3 in VR cockpit mode as a high res emulation on 120Hz!

Xpand

17th July 2016, 02:57 PM

That's racing games with a cockpit view. VR is meaningless in external views, except for a slight advantage in judging distances, but the vehicle itself already provides a scale in normal gameplay. Wipeout with VR would be cool, but it's not the omg-must-have-feature that happens with racing simulators.

blackwiggle

17th July 2016, 03:39 PM

No I haven't played a racing game on VR as yet, closest thing to that was a Sony demo when I was in a car and other cars were coming from behind, then in front with somebody shooting at me, and me having to shoot back, it almost felt like a VR version of Time Crisis on wheels, but you needed to look behind you both to your right & left.

One of the Steam VR demos available here ATM is a space shooter, sort of like flying a X-Wing fighter and shooting at Imperial craft, a lot of turning around 360 degrees, and looking up & down to survive.

As I said, I suppose it all depends on how the VR is implemented for any particular game, and type of game, and also the controller type that will work with them.

I'll have to try and get a play of Assetto Corsa VR when somebody I know gets a rift, but for the price they are asking for it in Aus [approx Aus $1200 ] they are going to be few and far between, the HTC Vive is even more, and works out about Aus$1400, and both of those prices are without any controllers.

The Sony VR works out about Aus $600, but I have my doubts about how well it will work out if the field, rather than in controlled Demos, especially now Sony are bringing out a up rated spec'd PS4, and if that console is what is really going to be needed to get the VR working well, rather than passable.

Every time Sony brings out something new it tends to not work as well as the hype, or has some 'feature' that is never implemented by the game makers, like the PS4's Share Play.

See what happens, nothing is hitting the market here officially till Oct.

mannjon

18th July 2016, 05:51 AM

Cockpit view and VR are to be taken in different lights, but I see your point. Most racing games do have very clunky cockpit views. The precision involved would have to be near perfect. No one has said anything about input lag on VR because we haven't really seen VR yet.

Still, it could be done. For a VR Wipeout, you would need to have wider tracks for starters. It would need to be a new experience, which I think the series could use to appeal to new would be racers. Most launch titles aren't really full games as they are tech demos that show what VR can do, and a VR racing experience could be an easy yet early adaptation. I think a VR racing game would need to have the option to use a standard controller or the dual motion sensor controls. One thing that would help to offset the difficulty of cockpit view would be to have your peripherals in wider view. The problem I have with cockpit view is that the peripheral side views don't really help much. In a car, you can look outside either side. I think with a fully 3D VR experience, if you look to the side, your view should change. That might help with some of the cockpit view problems. But the first thing to do is widen the tracks.

blackwiggle

19th July 2016, 04:59 AM

I can only go by playing WOHD in 3D online, and as I mentioned above, you take a serious performance hit when doing so.
The lag just playing solo offline is pretty severe, but it is very immersive if playing in cockpit view like I always have, I do it occasionally just for a laugh, but doing the same online, well you don't stand a chance of winning a race unless playing a in a room of complete noobs.

Mind you, the 3D became a update on HD, so it was a early attempt, on a previous generation console.
Looking at the PC spec's needed for a rift to work, it will be interesting to see just what a upgrade the newer spec'd PS4 ends up being, I saw a video interview with one of the heads of Sony saying that they intend to change to the roll out model of it's consoles, with gradual updates on the same platform over years, rather than bringing out a PS5.
Unless they make the PS4, or some future variant of it modular, that can have parts easily upgraded, like a PC, I think it will cause too many incompatibility problems along the way, which is why people have chosen consoles over PC gaming in the first place, as until now, everybody has been on the same page,gaming machine power wise.

Amaroq Dricaldari

5th December 2016, 01:51 AM

What I think needs to be done is a WipEout that's continually updated with new content (optional download). It would be like Pure, but better managed. And if you enter an online game or receive a challenge that uses content you haven't downloaded yet, then it will automatically do a temporary download and ask if you wish to install it permanently.

Combine that with PWYW marketing, optional ad revenue (users may opt out), an in-game diagnostic/feedback system, a system for user-content generation and/or partially open-source code (though you wouldn't be able to use online features or extra content without an official build)... It would take a lot of stress off the developers, both in terms of time pressure for new content and bug fixes, and budget for the same stuff. Oh, and a replay/theater mode.

- - - - -

Unrelated: an open-world Anti-Gravity racing game would also be good... Because exploration and whatnot. Like those old racing games for MS-DOS. And then there is the idea of side games, like a story-driven spin-off in the WipEout universe.