Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

We're offering banner ads on our site from just $5!

1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


Multiplayer games and home networks!


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
30 replies to this topic

#1 NeoReality   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 07 June 2000 - 10:30 PM

This post has come to mind due to another thread about useing unlicenced Compilers. Now I have my own little network at home. Only two machines but it is great for multiplayer games (MPG). Which has caused an area of greavence for me. I buy a MPG the licence for it only allows me to install and run on one machine. If I wish to play against my partner or a friend at MY home I need to buy another copy of the game or pirate it. I think this is wrong. Some games (mech warrior 2) have a client program that can be distributed freely and requires the original to run the server. But most games (like my beloved Need for Speed series) need two copies of the game! Does any one think that games with Multiplayer option should consider the growing number of people with home networks? Am I morally just in copying a game I already own to get the full potential from it? What else do you need; besides a miricle. Money. Lots of Money. or I''ll never do a sequel!

Sponsor:

#2 NeoReality   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 08 June 2000 - 12:36 AM

dead end thread,
20th post those!


What else do you need; besides a miricle.
Money. Lots of Money. or I''ll never do a sequel!

#3 Kylotan   Moderators   -  Reputation: 3338

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 09 June 2000 - 12:48 AM

When you buy a game, you are buying a license for one person to play it. Network or not, the idea is that if you want 2 or more people to benefit, 2 or more people must pay.

I like the model that certain games have where they allow a certain number of players per CD. eg. max 3 players from 1 CD, 6 players if you have 2 CDs, etc. It''s ''kinder'' than the 1 CD per player idea, but still requires you to give them more money if you''re getting a -lot- of benefit.

#4 Indeterminatus   Members   -  Reputation: 127

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 11 June 2000 - 07:50 AM

Yes, the solution with limited players per CD is great. I am quite annoyed, too, because I have local network at home, and whenever I want to play "1602 A.D." (with my sister) I have to get another CD from a friend. I think it''s morally ok if you pirate a game in such a case, because you paid for it (ok, you paid only for ONE license...but I think that''s ok too).
I have pretty much multiplayer games, but I didn''t bought them twice, because that would have cost a huge amount of money!
(And why shouldn''t I pirate it...it''s just for Multiplayer sessions! I paid for the "Singleplayer" game!)
Well, that''s what I think about it...

Yours,

Indeterminatus

#5 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 11 June 2000 - 08:09 AM

I belive you should have the right. Buying two copies of each games to play in "home" network, really sound stupid to me... As long it is only to play with a member of your famaly it should be legal (you paid for the game)

Delisk

Ps-I know there is somes "fake CD" programs on the net, it could help you if you don''t have a burner!

#6 Delisk   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 11 June 2000 - 08:11 AM

Sorry for the Anonymous post....i forgot to put my User name and my password!!!

Delisk

#7 Kylotan   Moderators   -  Reputation: 3338

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 12 June 2000 - 11:27 PM

I don''t see why being in the same family means you shouldn''t have to pay for the software! If 2 people want to play, why shouldn''t they pay twice? If 2 people want to go to watch a movie, or ride on a rollercoaster, or anything like that, they pay twice. Why do computer gamers think it should be different? I think allowing multiple players per CD is a nice choice, but I don''t think the other companies are -wrong- for requiring multiple purchases.

#8 NeoReality   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 13 June 2000 - 12:03 AM

Okay you say when you go on a rollacoster ride you need to buy two tickets, fine that analogy works fine. How about buying a video? And yes, I know the licensing agreement is different, but you would get pretty irate if you had to buy a dozen copies of the Matrix when you invite all your mates round! Nor do you buy two copies of Street Fighter to fight each other! People like playing against each other

With games like Need for Speed and MechWarrior the network play in 10% to 20% of the game, since in single player you have missions, plot lines and a whole host of stuff that isn''t in or needed to make one on one play fun. Now the boundry on that statement is fading. FPS like quake 3 and Unreal tournament are more based round network play, and Star Lancer the team play send you through the same missions simultainiously which is major fun!

But to pay twice the price to get that last 20% out the game is criminal. With more people owning more than the one home PC, I think game designers should start thinking about putting client disks with games that have a multiplayer option.

Last comment.
To play NFS (and most other games) multiplayer you need to have a copy of the game. The hacked copy can not be patched or fixed and both machines need to have same version or it will not work. So you have a buggy version of the game on two machine even if you have brought the game! You end up with the feeling it is not worth buying the game if you have to play the hacked version. I''m not saying I want to pirate games or that pirating is a good thing, I''d much rather have an original and have access to patches and updates, I''m saying by not having client disks many people I know are drawn to warez to play the games they have brought to their full potential and feel cheated since they are now playing a second rate hacked beta copy!


What else do you need; besides a miricle.
Money. Lots of Money. or I''ll never do a sequel!

#9 Mr Cup   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 June 2000 - 03:19 AM

Basicly if they want you to do it. They will let you do it. If you cant play networked off one CD. Thats the designers choice. You may choose not to buy the game if you dont like it but it''s still illegal to burn your self another.

As Mr Cup always says,
''I pretend to work. They pretend to pay me.''


#10 Kylotan   Moderators   -  Reputation: 3338

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 June 2000 - 04:52 AM

quote:
Original post by NeoReality

Okay you say when you go on a rollacoster ride you need to buy two tickets, fine that analogy works fine. How about buying a video? And yes, I know the licensing agreement is different, but you would get pretty irate if you had to buy a dozen copies of the Matrix when you invite all your mates round!


Video is a second generation market. It is there to mop up additional revenues after the primary revenue, which is showing it on the big screen. It also comes out quite some time after the ''real'' version. It would be better to compare videos to re-released software: which you still have to buy multiples of, but costs a whole lot less. If you want to wait for the cheaper version, feel free, but if you want it now, pay up.

quote:

FPS like quake 3 and Unreal tournament are more based round network play, and Star Lancer the team play send you through the same missions simultainiously which is major fun!


I think the emphasis is on playing via internet access, which is far more prevalent than the home network.

quote:

But to pay twice the price to get that last 20% out the game is criminal.


This is purely a matter of perspective.

Is the person who pay full price and only plays single player getting 80% of its full worth?

Or are those who play over the internet just getting a bonus 25% on top of the single player game?

#11 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 15 June 2000 - 05:08 AM

You could just not have morals about the subject like me and some of my friends up at college....here is what we did and do
Age of Empires 2......great great great multi-player game......
hmmmmm....only 2 guys had a copy of it in our suite (5 rooms x 2 people per room = 10 people)....8 of us had it installed on our computers and just got a crack for it off the net where there is no cd in the drive required to play......
then we could play 4 vs 4 AOE2 all the time


#12 Jrz   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 June 2000 - 05:22 AM

Well I think it should be like this:
say your game is $30, and based on network play. It uses a WON-like autentication (half-life)

There are 2 versions to buy:
1) 1 license game for $30
2) 2 license game for $40 or $45

When 2 friends want to play this against eachother and over the internet, they will buy number 2, saves them money.
Right now, if someone buys it, he usually wait and to see if he really wants to pay the buck for that.

so basically, both players and developers benefit from this.
Ok, your second game sells for less, but it takes less to produce (no extra box, only a jewel case or well, that''s up to the publisher actually). But more important, it''s better to have sold 2 items for less, than one and being unsure about the second one.

Yes, there will be somekind of market at schools, but hey, if kids can get a game legally for less, they are more willing to pay for it

just my 2 bucks for all publishers out there




#13 Julio   Members   -  Reputation: 116

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 June 2000 - 05:25 AM

I don''t consider it pirating unless you turn around and sell a copy of the game.

JoeMont001@aol.com

#14 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 15 June 2000 - 06:43 AM

first of all it is pirating even if you don''t sell it. Giving a copy to a friend for him to use at his house is very bad, he never needs to buy one then.

On the other hand if you have a home network things are different. Most companies realize that letting multiple people play on one network helps drive sales. Thus many companies such as blizzard have set it up so that eight people can play per cd, but the fake copies can only join games created by the real copy. In fact you can even play on battle.net with a spawned copy. This of course makes more people buy the game. Of course not all companies have the time to build that in, or maybe they aren''t smart enough to realize the benefits. So you have three choices: don''t buy the game, buy it and make a copy for your lan, buy two copies. Not buying the game just hurts you and the company, I think they would prefer the middle choice over that. Sure they don''t get to sell two copies but they probably wouldn''t have anyway. I mean if a game doesn''t let me play on multiple computers I probably won''t buy it at all. For the most part lan play is just a minor part compared to internet play anyway, they should view spawning as free advertising.

#15 Facehat   Members   -  Reputation: 696

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 June 2000 - 07:37 AM

Going to play devils advocate a bit here .

quote:

Video is a second generation market. It is there to mop up additional revenues after the primary revenue, which is showing it on the big screen. It also comes out quite some time after the ''real'' version. It would be better to compare videos to re-released software: which you still have to buy multiples of, but costs a whole lot less. If you want to wait for the cheaper version, feel free, but if you want it now, pay up.



I think you missed the point he was trying to make: that it''s absurd to have to pay for multiple copies of the same product.

quote:

I don''t see why being in the same family means you shouldn''t have to pay for the software! If 2 people want to play, why shouldn''t they pay twice?



Because they''re probably only playing part of the game (the multiplayer aspect). If they were also going to play the single player as well, than perhaps they should buy another license.

--TheGoop

#16 Glandalf   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 16 June 2000 - 06:02 AM

For the home network, I don''t think you should have to buy a new game. In my eyes it seem like an unreasonable thing to ask a player, who has already shelled out 40 bucks for a game, gets home and can''t play against a friend to bo pay another 40 bucks for the game again. I like the way Freespace 2 handles its multi player in this area, It will allow you to install and the game from the cd''s and start the game without the cd''s in the drive. But when you logon to the server, you have to play against someone with a cd in their drive. This way if you wanted to play against a friend, you would just have to make sure they were logged on.

Glandalf

#17 joeG   Members   -  Reputation: 172

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 16 June 2000 - 06:46 AM

Well this seems a good a place as I''ll get.

Hey everyone! Are network gaming cafe shops common in other parts of the world? You know, the kind of place where you can go and hang out with your friends and play networked games locally on a LAN or via the Internet with a T1? It sounds like a real cool idea at first glance, but I haven''t heard any more details than that one of these so-called gaming cafe shops is coming to my town (even right across the street from my campus!). So do you think these shops would pay for 20 boxes of one game or do they get special licenses for the purpose? I''ve always thought it would be neat to do something like that in my area, but I guess someone beat me to the punch.

joeG

#18 Buster   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 16 June 2000 - 06:53 AM

I believe that if I buy a copy of say, Diablo II, then I am more than justified in playing with my roommate on our LAN. If they make a 1-player-1CD rule, we''ll burn a copy.

Now of course, maybe Diablo II is a bad example. We are all definately buying a copy of that one!

Bottom line is this: the license agreement printed on these games are BS. It''s a cohesion contract in which I have no power to modify any aspect of it. These agreements, which are dictated by one party with absolute power over the other are barely legal and never stand up in court when challenged.

When I open a game, I cross out the lines I don''t agree with and write new ones, like:

"I have the right to play this game on any computers in my private household."

If the software maker disagrees with this change, they are free to contact me, but for some reason they never do.

#19 TMOLI 42   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 16 June 2000 - 10:08 AM

I like Jrz''s idea. But what about instead they could send you a multiplayer only version of the game? That would solve a lot of problems. I think that would work.

- TMOLI 42

"Go crazy? Don't mind if I do!" -Homer Simpson

#20 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 16 June 2000 - 04:30 PM

JoeG: those gaming places have different popularity depending on where you live. I don''t think they would be that successful in America since we don''t pay by the minute for local calls, thus making it easy for everyone to have a good internet connection. For FPSs and other ping sensitive games yeah an internet place would be cool, though more and more are getting cable or dsl, so I think it would weaken and die in a few years, you wouldn''t be able to charge that much.

Europe I hear they have some, never been there but I bet most big cities have at least one, Canada too. Korea on the other hand is filled with the places. Starcraft''s popularity is astounding there. It is a social thing there where normal people go and place for hours and hours, some people even go on dates to these places. They charge about a dollar an hour and you just play whatever you want. They are usually open 24 hours. The country has 17000 of them at last count, each with dozens of computers. Estimated revenue for 1999: 3.5 billion dollars, in a country of only 40 million, just from these places. Several top Starcraft players have actually lived in Korea for months at a time, living on tournament winnings and endorsements. I could go on and on, quite simply an amazing phenomenon. Some guy actually died because instead of sleeping he would go and play some game every night after work and play till he had to go back. After a few months his heart just failed and he collapsed.

I haven''t heard whether they get a discount or not, but I''ve heard that like 40% of the copies are pirated.

I don''t know if it would work where you live, maybe if you tie it in with other things. Perhaps have a back room for quite internet use (like reading email) and you could give the average person lessons in how to use the internet. You might sell software, people could then take home the stuff they play during the day and they get to try it out first thus driving impulse buys. Hmm you could rent out the place to groups like maybe magic tournaments. I think a D&D neverwinter nights lan thing would be extremely popular.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS