I thought you were referring to "activation servers" not "multiplayer servers".
The problem of servers shutting down exists for every multiplayer game ever made, and has absolutely nothing to do with impulse. This is why it did not occur to me that you were referring to the multiplayer servers.
The solution would be to release server hosting software with your game, as well as a server list aggregator with an easy to modify host link. That also is completely unrelated to impulse.
You are misunderstanding... again. Stardock plans to release software for dedicated servers as in not "hosting" the game on their own servers , which will still be an option I think, but they are requiring that ALL saves be on their server. It's just ridiculous. It's a weird attempt to provide ded. servers yet at the same time throw in something that will make it very difficult for the game to outlast the company which, to me, is not a just ignore the pirates kind of stance. It is partially related to Impulse in that it will probably be labeled as an Impulse GOO protected title.
This mix up between Impulse, GOO, and this weird hybrid thing Elemental is going to have combined with claims that Stardock titles don't use DRM, which is not correct because what Stardock actually said and does is not put DRM on the CD but to get updates/patches just to make the game work, yeah requires a form of DRM, makes the whole thing a mess to discuss. Hey, my original copy of Neverwinter Nights did not work out of the box, couldn't run at all and required a massive download to fix. I doubt most people would have let EA claim that patches aren't necessary and therefore access to them is not DRM.
That sounds like the plot from a technological romantic comedy.
delete
That is indeed ridiculous, what makes you think stardock actually "plans" to do that? where have you heard such a claim because this is news to me (and contrary to everything they have done with their games thus far).
https://forums.stardock.com/373887/page/4
32 player multiplayer. This is a big one and will take a lot of work but it we are requiring that the game handle up to 32 players playing together. To make this work, it also means that games need to be automatically saved (to our servers regardless of whether it’s on a custom modded server or ours) so that stopping and starting games later is easy.
Why is that actually nessesary though? I mean can't the host (a player) upload the save file (takes a couple of minuets at worst) and then the server can send it to all the players?
I don't understand, maybe im dumb.
the way you said it I thought you mean they want to hold your single player saves on their server (which is very bad).
What this actually says they will be holding the autmatic saves for multiplayer saves only (who the hell uses mutliplayer saves?).
why this needs to happen I am not sure. the link you posted indicates it has something to do with having 32 player games. Although that is just a ridiculous amount. you don't save games played with strangers, and who the hell is going to have more than a handful of friends who play elemental?
I expect to never be affected by it... that being said, I understand why you would be upset if you do intend to play very long turtling games with 32 friends... or if this means that you can't save lower player amounts games, single player games, or it makes it impossible to play / save manually without access to their servers. However, whether that is how it is implemented would be easy to tell once the game is actually released.
It says up to 32 players, not just 32 players. People who play games like Civilization, Age of Wonders umm Heroes of Might of Magic, none of those multiplayer games typically finish in one sitting. This would affect pretty much anyone who intends to play Elemental multiplayer. There has not yet been a reasonable explaination for it since yes, it seems like a custom server could load and save games too. As for what I implied... i said dedicated server. There not many single player games that utilized dedicated servers ( if any outside of DRM crap)... so it was a given that I was referring to multiplayer.
Phew, glad it's only the multi-player. You had me worried it applied to single player as well. A few years ago it would have been obvious that you meant multiplayer, but with all the ridiculous DRM schemes we're seeing now, it is entirely plausible that a company would force you to use their servers to play a game offline (although the fact that it was stardock made me think it most likely it was a multiplayer only thing, as they're one of the few companies left now I can trust to not put ridiculous DRM onto everything)
Is it possible this only means the "automatic" saves, and maybe a manual save can be done to/from anywhere?
I am not sure. You are looking at the same thing I read, and I did ask for clarification I think because I really thought I misread what he was saying. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy using official servers and the like because it keeps my group and myself from screwing around with routers all the time. But we also play games from companies that no-longer exist and would have taken their servers with them had they forced us to use them and only them in the first place. If stardock forced saved games onto their servers in single-player then they would just be Ubisoft 2.0. Fortunately, they're not doing that at least.
I think you'll find that they won't.
1. They have no legal obligation to do so.
2. They'd need permission from the publishers of the games to unlock them. Not a problem for their own games, but unlikely for any others.
3. If they're going out of business for financial reasons will they be able to pay developers to unlock them? Would they even be allowed to? It may be illegal if they've filed for bankruptcy, paying off creditors would be the priority, see (1) above.
Before I'd trust a company's claim that it will unlock their games, I'd need to see the patches created and placed in escrow - with a copy of the contract that states under what conditions the patches were to be released.
Ideally I'd like to see the titles unlocked anyway after a certain period of time - long enough for it to be a hassle to find a working torrent at least (2 - 5 years maybe?). The convenience (and likely price drops) would probably outweigh the lure of free at that point, and the pirated product would no longer have any extra advantages (no DRM).
You want Arset to prove that a companay who falls under the weight of it's own debt doesn't have the ability to just do what it wants because the creditors all want a piece? The proof is in bankruptcy court and the fact that EA, Ubisoft, Activision and Microsoft all shurt down their servers at will for no other reason than to save money.
There is a huge difference between Stardock and Microsoft, and I am not just talking size. Stardock claims to support consumers to a different level than it's bigger brothers (and on many levels delivers on that claim) and takes a stance against "stupid" DRM. Microsoft was one of the companies that started this activation BS to begin with.
I don't think your tone needs to be so condescending though. He has a point. In order for any of these companies, Valve, Stardock, etc to actually prove to consumer's their word is worth a hill of beans if they are suddenly closing shop is for them to actually close shop and do it, or close shop and not. At that point, it's too late. Money is spent, promises broken. Solution, don't put your paying customers in a position where you closing your doors makes out games unplayable and the pirates... well they get to continue business as usual.
there are two ways for companies to prove it:
1. Actually close shop and do it (extremely rare and unlikely)
2. put DRM free exes in escrow with the requirement of them being released upon shutdown of the company, and give reviews access to said files to prove that they work as claimed.
"they say they will" is not a good enough argument. I guess actually having a chat with the CEO of stardock in the forums does create a rapport of some sort and I am inclined to trust him unlike EA and their ilk, but such trust is subjective and isn't actually "proof" that this will occur.
As for multiplayer saves. I don't think this is a matter of "malice", probably just a practical consideration (development costs, connection speed/issues, etc). But I think it is one that will turn off certain customers and it should be optional (that is, where you can save to their servers OR your own server/computer, your choice). time will tell how it will be in the final product.
Please explain to me how offloading saved games onto custom servers, servers of your paying clients, costs Stardock money? Keep in mind I said paying customers. Cloud saving is only a feature when it is optional, when it is forced, it is DRM.
To clarify before I address any of your other statements. Are you saying YOU'VE purchaed Lord of the Rings Conquest and YOU can still play on third party servers?
Quite simple actually.
Stardock MUST make servers capable of hosting multiplayer save games in order to provide acceptable (to most) gameplay quality with 32 players.
In order to provide the alternative of saving it locally, they must create extra code in the base software for one of the players holding the saves for the others, or syncing from multiple players, or having one of the players run a dedicated custom server for saves. This requires extra programming. (how much exactly I am uncertain).
Programming self storage of multiplayer saves is probably going to be a lot cheaper and easier than programming the server based, but for practical reasons they must offer the server based. So their choice is really between allowing BOTH, or just the server based. This is something that easily looks like malice, but CAN be a matter of practicality and cost.
This isn't to say that this ISN'T some form of sneaky DRM done with no regards to cost, I don't know that for sure, I am just saying that its possible that this is unintentional cost saving.
That is true, the two are completely different cases. closing a DRM server prevents you from playing single player, closing a multiplayer server prevents you from playing multiplayer only (assuming there is no allowance for direct ip connections or private servers).
You talk a lot but you don't really say anything. They HAVE to cloud save because of 32 players. Right, because most of Demigod's players, a multiplayer game, played online... wait, what's that, they didn't. Nope, according to Brad there was a large portion of legal copies that never played online and that didn't have a singleplayer game to speak off. Care to take bets on how many Elemental games will actually have 32 players? Not only that, there are a ton of games that handle dozens of players that do not REQUIRE cloud saving.
Zehdon, it's interesting that you demand proof but use hearsay yourself; not that i was surprised.
Demigod was a completely different type of game, there was nothing to save. One byte for your class, one byte for your level, a few bytes for your assigned skills and item codes.
Elemental is a strategy game which seems to go quite in depth, there will be lots and lots of data to save.
just because others games do it doesn't mean every game can do it.
Anyways, I said it is a possibility that it is not designed as an antipiracy measure, not that it is a certainty. I am sorry it offended it to think that there might just be a chance that it is a legitimate move meant to increase the quality of the game.
I am still on this forum, and I am still interested in Elemental. If Stardock has a legit reason for this move, I've been waiting to hear it. I've yet to hear it and until I do, I still think this is a move away from "ignore the pirates" to hey let's force everyone on our servers with cloud saving so a handful of years later we can say the servers cost too much to maintain and shut them down (Zehdon praises their efforts of course) but still try and claim our games ship DRM free.
Zehdon, I am aware what Valve did. I purchased L4D after L4D2 was released and after having played the demo for 2 long enough realize just how close to 1 it still was. If you have been reading what I said, at no point did i say Stardock was EA or Activation or even Valve, doing what they are doing with their servers makes me like those giants. If that is what you think, then you aren't trying very hard to see my position at all. If you don't give a shit if some company yanks a game's server you haven't purchased, then good for you. I know they can do it, and they will do it and any company that puts them in a position where they are able to screw their customers at leisure gets a black mark from me. I haven't drunk enough Kool-aid to make Stardock immune from that. EA still has BFMII servers up and that's a much older game, but I am not going to give them a pass for it just because I have BFMEII and don't have Conquest because I, like a lot of people, thought Conquest was going to be BFMEIII and heard how crappy it was. That game is just barely a year old, is still be sold as multiplayer game, and in my book EA made a dick move, and I am not going to say otherwise.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
