Features you want to see in next iteration of Big Ant Cricket

[kamrul]

agree the license obsession is ridiculous. an overhaul of the modding system to allow more editing would help, but licenses for licenses sake is nonsense.

as for mo-capping, there are very really few distinctive players - like Malinga, or going back Paul Adams for bowlers... batsmen are generally more similar with some players really standing out on a few shots.

So would you really go to the time and expense of mo-capping e.g Malinga, and because ehe's so distinctive restricting this mo-capped action to a single player in the game? what would be the point?

I hope you know what attract the cricket gamers. They have played cricket games without licenses for a long time. So when people learns that a new cricket game is coming, the first question they ask is do that game have original players and faces? When they get the reply in the negative way they turn the game developers down by not buying them.

In 21st century if the sports game developers can't do mo-capping then what to say! There are 5-6 distinct players who get the spot light in cricket world. You should atleast get them. People have bought this game as a token of respect and support so that the developers make much better game the next time. If they don't get to see the x-factors in the next edition then DBC is done for good. There must also be options to choose bowling actions for other players.

Where FIFA is introducing women's football, here we don't even want to take risk by mo-capping players. Cricket games will not get popular in next 20 years if things go like this. May be my grand children will play cricket games which can be compared to fifa 15 someday

 

[Gamer Pradosh]

I told before u have to make an extra oridinary game. Pro Evo is a very good game. I agree. But do you really think DBC 14 was that good?
Don't know about DBC 16. But i really hope it to be the best.

Definitely...Considering its the first off the series from BA, coming up with a completely new approach in cricket in gameplay and controls mechanism even the physics....According to me DBC 16 or whatever the title would be its definitely gonna get better and better....

 

[Chief]

What is this obsession with licences? A license is not going to improve the game and the cost would be far better spent elsewhere. Look at Ashes09, the Australian and England teams were licensed and as a result could not be edited. Complete waste of money.

I agree that a license doesn't improve the game (or at least the gamePLAY), but it does make a massive difference in the perception of the game. These days it's not so much a big plus to have the license, but a huge demerit NOT to have a license/s.

It's the difference in people's minds between "own brand" products and branded ones - In people's minds it's a stamp of quality, an endorsement of the product.

I certainly wouldn't say it's a waste of money: although for some licenses there are upfront costs, it largely depends on the license. Some are totally free as it is a mutually beneficial relationship: the only cost involved is the work it takes to form these relationships and utilise them. And where there is a cost, it is usually a royalty, so they only get money on the back end according to how many copies it sells. Obviously this varies from license to license: some of the money exchanged for the American sports licenses are huge and often large up-front payments, but each deal is different.

I would certainly challenge that the licenses on Ashes 09 were a waste of money: I think we're all agreed that DBC is a superior game so, although there were other factors I think with Marketing and Distribution, there must be some reason for the disparity in numbers sold. I'm pretty convinced that the license was a key factor.



You're also right in saying that sometimes a license can restrict you: if someone is giving you permission to use your IP then it also has to be protected. In the case of cricket, for example, if you license a player then they won't want him to be using a competitors bat in the game: hence an agreement that there will be no editing.

 

[cooks1st100]

@kamrul Do you actually own the game? The game has original players and faces created by the community. If they turn it down, that's their choice, what other cricket game are they going to buy instead?

People have bought this game not as a token of respect, but because they like cricket and it's a computer game simulating cricket.

You keep talking about FIFA ie EA Sports who are massive, with a massive budget. Football is the most popular sport in the world, therefore sales are huge. Cricket does not have the same popularity therefore neither does the market for cricket games.

And DBC does have mo-capped players, just not ones you or I have heard off.

 

[kamrul]

Yes I do, it has it's faults but is certainly better than EA07 (had a license,all the players looked the same apart from hair colour), the last few Codemasters (had licenses,player names had to be edited for all apart from Eng and Aus, could be mastered in a few hours and had no longevity) releases and Cricket Revolution ( just gash!) to name a few that have been released over the years.

A license is not going to improve the game. Nuff said

If you are that happy with dbc 14 then your demand is very less. If you were a girl your husband would be very happy with that (no offense just an example). Okay let's say licenses is not needed. But if u need licenses to mo-capp players than it's needed.

Ross knows it well that more licenses means more sell. Big ant hasn't made games to sell to only PC members. You guys are just giving him condolences that whatever you have made is the best and so on. But their target market is not us only. So I hope ross knows what he needs to do to sell more. You have to invest more in this game if you want to earn more.

 

[Chief]

agree the license obsession is ridiculous. an overhaul of the modding system to allow more editing would help, but licenses for licenses sake is nonsense.

as for mo-capping, there are very really few distinctive players - like Malinga, or going back Paul Adams for bowlers... batsmen are generally more similar with some players really standing out on a few shots.

So would you really go to the time and expense of mo-capping e.g Malinga, and because ehe's so distinctive restricting this mo-capped action to a single player in the game? what would be the point?

In previous games we've motion captured a selection of actions, but then added certain distinctive actions or shots for certain players: Over a period of time you build a library that covers most bases. It certainly wouldn't be high on my list for a first-iteration game though: something that you build on over time.

 

[kamrul]

@kamrul Do you actually own the game? .

lol come for a match bro.

 

[Gamer Pradosh]

I agree that a license doesn't improve the game (or at least the gamePLAY), but it does make a massive difference in the perception of the game. These days it's not so much a big plus to have the license, but a huge demerit NOT to have a license/s.

It's the difference in people's minds between "own brand" products and branded ones - In people's minds it's a stamp of quality, an endorsement of the product.

I certainly wouldn't say it's a waste of money: although for some licenses there are upfront costs, it largely depends on the license. Some are totally free as it is a mutually beneficial relationship: the only cost involved is the work it takes to form these relationships and utilise them. And where there is a cost, it is usually a royalty, so they only get money on the back end according to how many copies it sells. Obviously this varies from license to license: some of the money exchanged for the American sports licenses are huge and often large up-front payments, but each deal is different.

I would certainly challenge that the licenses on Ashes 09 were a waste of money: I think we're all agreed that DBC is a superior game so, although there were other factors I think with Marketing and Distribution, there must be some reason for the disparity in numbers sold. I'm pretty convinced that the license was a key factor.



You're also right in saying that sometimes a license can restrict you: if someone is giving you permission to use your IP then it also has to be protected. In the case of cricket, for example, if you license a player then they won't want him to be using a competitors bat in the game: hence an agreement that there will be no editing.

But wont the cost of the game also increase with licensing applied for the game??

 

[cooks1st100]

@Chief What are the legalities regarding the use of the program I posted for animations? I'm not even sure if it is something that has been released?

 

[cooks1st100]

lol come for a match bro.

I asked as you said the game doesn't have original names or faces. Obviously out of the box it doesn't, but it is a quick to simple process to rectify this.

I have recommended DBC to four mates of mine. Not one of them had asked if it had a licence so I find it a strange argument. The most noticeable thing was that none of them had heard of it despite the game being out for months or even a year in one case. This was due to poor marketing in the UK. A far bigger issue than the lack of a license.

 

[Chief]

@Chief What are the legalities regarding the use of the program I posted for animations? I'm not even sure if it is something that has been released?

It's fascinating and I haven't seen it before.

But basically this is automating key-frame animation. Which is what we've used in the past for those special actions (animators use video reference to laboriously create each animation).

In terms of legalities, I'm not sure... I'm not sure that, in an unlicensed scenario, Malinga could sue you for using "his" action. I don't think he can claim it (as far as I know you cannot trademark a "move" as such), as you could reasonably argue that someone else can use that exact action (IF they can reproduce it of course!)[DOUBLEPOST=1433088625][/DOUBLEPOST]

But wont the cost of the game also increase with licensing applied for the game??

You don't usually look at it as a "cost" but as a return on investment: It's normally a case of saying "OK, so if we get the FIFA license we have to pay them a royalty of X% on every copy of the game we sell... Do we think that the license will sell us enough EXTRA copies in order to justify that?"

 

[grkrama]

the program I posted for animations?

was the program released? all i can find is the research paper. the closest cheap mocap is Ipimocap or something that uses kinext and ps cam for capture. Open NI too

 

[kamrul]

I agree that a license doesn't improve the game (or at least the gamePLAY), but it does make a massive difference in the perception of the game. These days it's not so much a big plus to have the license, but a huge demerit NOT to have a license/s.

It's the difference in people's minds between "own brand" products and branded ones - In people's minds it's a stamp of quality, an endorsement of the product.

That's what i was trying to say. But when Chief said this you guys understood. But you guys were indirectly cursing me for saying those. That's what name value does.

 

[grkrama]

know your place club guy..Chief is an international coach...ofcourse im a ring above you both as a selector [HASHTAG]#namevalues[/HASHTAG][DOUBLEPOST=1433089420][/DOUBLEPOST]

Also license has more value than just player faces, it can open up scenarios like EA or BLC, helps in marketing. its not vital but it certainly boosts certain areas to have one.
But it certainly should not come at the price of gameplay.

 

[Gamer Pradosh]

The approach of unlicensed players and creation of them using CA was appreciated and noted by many websites in their reviews....I feel more licensed stuff more restrictions in creation of new stuffs in the game, they can approach the same CA for Stadium which they are going to and even for different bowling actions for different types of bowlers...This would really make the combinations and possibilities huge....