6 ms·

Clever concept. I wonder if they'll publish any more information on how their service works. Things like what this 'route shader' is that people can read witho

Clever concept. I wonder if they'll publish any more information on how their service works. Things like what this 'route shader' is that people can read without having to go through Email-Our-Sales-Team shit.

politician 8y ago
It's a custom bidding script that tells their real-time auction platform how much you want to pay for route improvements for a particular user session. Typically, shaders are used to move vertices in 3d meshes or color pixels in the GPU. Network Next is just using the term in a creative way to help connect to their audience, but it's nothing different than a bidding model.
- gafferongames 8y ago
  Route shaders select the best route out of multiple ones available. Right now they could be used to for example, specify basic things like: acceptable latency (eg. I don’t want to pay to optimize a player’s session from 20ms down to 19ms, 20 is good enough), minimum improvement vs. public internet before a session takes network next (eg. 5ms improvement or greater), and of course maximum price for the bid. If we don’t find a suitable route at the price specified, the session takes the public internet and is free. Right now it’s fixed function like OpenGL 1.0 (eg. Parameters), but long term, it could even be LUA bytecode. Hence, route shader is not just a marketing term, it’s a real thing :)
  - kbenson 8y ago
    The really interesting thing I see for this is a possible other route for game revenue in the future. Instead of paying up front (traditional) pricing or advertising, or cosmetic (or not so cosmetic) in game purchases, you could have two tiers, free and optimized latency for a cost. Or some combination. Cosmetic in-game purchases aren't necessarily bad, but the amount my son has spent and tries to continue to spend (I strictly limit what of his money he can waste on it now) on fortnite stuff is ridiculous and concerning. A sane middle ground would be helpful.
    - gafferongames 8y ago
      Our customer is the game developer not the player. They are free to pass the cost on to the player if they wish, but I think it’s much more enlightened to simply sponsor your player’s connection and help them have as much fun as possible. When players are having fun, they like your game more, stick around, tell their friends, and spend more in your store.
      - kbenson 8y ago
        > Our customer is the game developer not the player. They are free to pass the cost on to the player if they wish That's exactly what I was referring to. In this situation, you would be sort of like a transaction processor. > I think it’s much more enlightened to simply sponsor your player’s connection and help them have as much fun as possible. I'm not sure I would use "enlightened" to describe anything to do with the majority of games that use microtransactions, at least when it's a constant barrage of "special deals that last for a limited time and you'll only ever be able to get this digital item right now and if you miss out it will never be back." When aimed at a very young audience, this is anything but enlightened. I don't mind my kids paying for the content they use. I do mind them investing in digital content locked to a single platform that they both don't own, and which becomes useless when they stop playing. At least if they collected cards for a collectible card game in real life, they could look at a collection, pass it on, or sell it. Basically, I'm advocating for revenue streams that don't require hiring specialists in promoting addictive behavior linked to spending for games where a large part of the audience includes adolescents.
        gafferongames 8y ago
        Speaking as the CEO, I would think twice about working with any customer who intends to pass the cost on to the player.
        kbenson 8y ago
        Why? If it's up front, and it allows two classes of players and clearly defines them (and allows people to sort by them for games), what'st the problems that would make you think twice? I can see some problems with the model, where it might not allow for a more evenly distributed set of revenue from players and certain players would get the benefit without the cost by having a very good and well connected and routed ISP that happens to line up with most servers, but what's the problem? If the accounts were designated "competitive" tier, that seems to clearly signal what the user gets. Additionally, at least it's then more information the service can expose about a player advantage, rather than the user paying for it outside the service and having a similar advantage but without the same signalling. If it's about pay to win, I understand the sentiment, but I think there's a clear difference between pay nothing (or a token amount) and pay something for a "regular" account without a bunch of microtransactions and extra tiers, and what we see with games where you literally can buy your character into an elite level of capability that changes the game at a fundamental level (either from hard to easier or from nearly impossible to possible). I think making it so your players can easily separate based on these levels is good as well (which is another point towards very few differentiating levels). As long as the price is low enough that anyone could easily afford it for a while, it's not a real problem. Close to unbounded capability to pay for advantage is though.

politician 8y ago

It's a custom bidding script that tells their real-time auction platform how much you want to pay for route improvements for a particular user session. Typically, shaders are used to move vertices in 3d meshes or color pixels in the GPU. Network Next is just using the term in a creative way to help connect to their audience, but it's nothing different than a bidding model.

gafferongames 8y ago
Route shaders select the best route out of multiple ones available. Right now they could be used to for example, specify basic things like: acceptable latency (eg. I don’t want to pay to optimize a player’s session from 20ms down to 19ms, 20 is good enough), minimum improvement vs. public internet before a session takes network next (eg. 5ms improvement or greater), and of course maximum price for the bid. If we don’t find a suitable route at the price specified, the session takes the public internet and is free. Right now it’s fixed function like OpenGL 1.0 (eg. Parameters), but long term, it could even be LUA bytecode. Hence, route shader is not just a marketing term, it’s a real thing :)
- kbenson 8y ago
  The really interesting thing I see for this is a possible other route for game revenue in the future. Instead of paying up front (traditional) pricing or advertising, or cosmetic (or not so cosmetic) in game purchases, you could have two tiers, free and optimized latency for a cost. Or some combination. Cosmetic in-game purchases aren't necessarily bad, but the amount my son has spent and tries to continue to spend (I strictly limit what of his money he can waste on it now) on fortnite stuff is ridiculous and concerning. A sane middle ground would be helpful.
  - gafferongames 8y ago
    Our customer is the game developer not the player. They are free to pass the cost on to the player if they wish, but I think it’s much more enlightened to simply sponsor your player’s connection and help them have as much fun as possible. When players are having fun, they like your game more, stick around, tell their friends, and spend more in your store.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      > Our customer is the game developer not the player. They are free to pass the cost on to the player if they wish That's exactly what I was referring to. In this situation, you would be sort of like a transaction processor. > I think it’s much more enlightened to simply sponsor your player’s connection and help them have as much fun as possible. I'm not sure I would use "enlightened" to describe anything to do with the majority of games that use microtransactions, at least when it's a constant barrage of "special deals that last for a limited time and you'll only ever be able to get this digital item right now and if you miss out it will never be back." When aimed at a very young audience, this is anything but enlightened. I don't mind my kids paying for the content they use. I do mind them investing in digital content locked to a single platform that they both don't own, and which becomes useless when they stop playing. At least if they collected cards for a collectible card game in real life, they could look at a collection, pass it on, or sell it. Basically, I'm advocating for revenue streams that don't require hiring specialists in promoting addictive behavior linked to spending for games where a large part of the audience includes adolescents.
      - gafferongames 8y ago
        Speaking as the CEO, I would think twice about working with any customer who intends to pass the cost on to the player.
        kbenson 8y ago
        Why? If it's up front, and it allows two classes of players and clearly defines them (and allows people to sort by them for games), what'st the problems that would make you think twice? I can see some problems with the model, where it might not allow for a more evenly distributed set of revenue from players and certain players would get the benefit without the cost by having a very good and well connected and routed ISP that happens to line up with most servers, but what's the problem? If the accounts were designated "competitive" tier, that seems to clearly signal what the user gets. Additionally, at least it's then more information the service can expose about a player advantage, rather than the user paying for it outside the service and having a similar advantage but without the same signalling. If it's about pay to win, I understand the sentiment, but I think there's a clear difference between pay nothing (or a token amount) and pay something for a "regular" account without a bunch of microtransactions and extra tiers, and what we see with games where you literally can buy your character into an elite level of capability that changes the game at a fundamental level (either from hard to easier or from nearly impossible to possible). I think making it so your players can easily separate based on these levels is good as well (which is another point towards very few differentiating levels). As long as the price is low enough that anyone could easily afford it for a while, it's not a real problem. Close to unbounded capability to pay for advantage is though.