Subscription......

[Embattle]

Originally posted by stu


And here's me thinking you're just being an argumentative cunt for the sake of it

Too true.

Bodhi you really don't have a point of any relevance apart from being an argumentative little tyke.

 

[bodhi]

Originally posted by Embattle


Too true.

Bodhi you really don't have a point of any relevance apart from being an argumentative little tyke.

You dont really seem to have an existence of any relevance apart from to keep us furnished with shit BBC new stories and , hence you are hardly in a position to comment.

Now Hush.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by bodhi
You know for someone with such a high IQ, you can be a right fucking retard sometimes.

Allah be praised ! Stu _is_ a fecking genius !!!

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by bodhi


You dont really seem to have an existence of any relevance apart from to keep us furnished with shit BBC new stories and , hence you are hardly in a position to comment.

Now Hush.

Well that’s an original comeback tyke, why don't you try a little harder next time or at least convince someone that your existence is worth the air you breathe.

 

[*Exor*]

 

[Sir Frizz]

God, the insult's on these forums get better and better each and every day.

:/

 

[Furr]

The insults scare me these days , im afraid if they were all turned on one person , they may leave and never come back

please dont do it to me

 

[legendario]

Originally posted by *Exor*

lol exor...

 

[Sar]

Originally posted by bodhi
Nice post Sar. Shame you missed my point completely.

Well that's the thing, don't think I did. Nailed it on the head tbh.

Your point was that because GSPs have been free for a long time, and because the other notable GSPs are currently still free that you shouldn't have to pay to play on any particular GSPs servers. Also because you've already paid for your net access and your connection you're resistant to the idea of paying to play on servers.

All of which I covered thoroughly and saliently.

Unless you want to try and divert your argument?

You're using a flawed point of view on which to base your argument, as your analogy doesn't follow logically. I corrected it and refuted it.

Unless you had another point which you've yet to divulge to us?

P2P isn't "wrong". Explain to me how a business charging for its services is "wrong"? Should they be a charity, rely on further hope of a handout from some mysterious wealthy benefactor until the day comes when there's no more money left?

Hate to tell you, but that day already got here 18 months ago. Remember? If Game/EB hadn't stepped in at that time and put into motion plans for the continued survival of this GSP then we wouldn't be able to sit here and have this conversation right now. The UK wouldn't have any decent gaming leagues to the quality that they currently enjoy. And the variety of public servers, for whatever game you enjoy online, would be far less.

Explain to me (and the rest of us) how every other GSP will avoid that self-same fate without either the continuing support of said altruistic rich backer (which will not happen, that's plain common sense - the entire mentality of funding online ventures changed at the turn of the century with the dot.bomb crash) or by charging for the services that they offer?

Which would be a more sensible solution to you:

Charge the people utilising the service for its use?

or

Stick your head in the sand and hope the bailiffs just forget about coming round and collecting all the equipment that makes the service possible?

 

[Mellow-]

Being a little on the drunk side, i'd just like to say ...

(a) Arguing about whether you're going to pay the subscription and whether you do or not is pointless, it's a choice everyone will make. The end.

(b) bodhi said I understood him, which is probably the first thing in my life that surprised me.

(c) Bleh, the subscriptions are now live, any arguing whether the charges are justified or not is pointless and uncalled for. Decisions have been made, if the general public choose not to pay, BarrysWorld will not survive, if the public on a whole decide it is a good idea, then BW will make a profit.

From an entirely public perspective, I have to say, that arguing individual opinions on a corporate decision is a waste of time. Results from this decision will be found from the amount of revenues' collected from the subscribers.

erm, i'm drunk now ... bye

 

[legendario]

anyone fancy a game of counter-strike as all the servers are empty :/

 

[prime1]

Servers are a bit quiet atm, however i played a game on wednesday night on a BW public server that was full. It will take time for the numbers to fill out. The thing that will kick it off again though will be the clans. The reason the server i played on had anyone at all, was cause a clan went in there with 5/6 people, i joined a bit later and about 25 mins later it was full.

If you in a clan remember this .. if you join it, they will come.

Bodhi your argument is plain crap.

The TV is your computer.

A video/dvd player is your cd-rom etc.

The aerial is your modem.

The license fee is your standard ISP package (for connection to the service, maintanance of the service and use of its service). For this package you get access to certain "free" services, IE ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 etc. Because these channels dont get the subs from license fees, they require advertising in order to survive, TV advertising, unlike internet advertising, is lucratve and profitable, so for them it works. Just see how long ITV etc last with the equivalent kind of revenues that a GSP gets from advertising. These "free" services are arguably worse than the additonal satelite (etc) services - Sky for example, can afford to get the best sporting events - because it has more money. Because it can get these events, it gets more subscribers etc etc

Your cable/satelite/digital subscription for additonal services and programming is paid for on an ongoing basis, hence they are the the p2p service - if you dont want to use thier additional services, dont.

Videos and dvds are your software.

You do not buy a computer assuming that you will get all your software for free (unless all you buy it for are the MS packages that come preinstalled), neither do you buy a television, assuming that you will get satelite(etc) programs for free either.

Tvs and computers are not the best anaolgy to use, as the 2 provide very different services, so thats the best i can put it.

You seem to suggest that as games companies provide the option to play a game multiplayer, that it is therefore given that someone MUST setup these servers online. If noone did this for free, you would feel "conned" somehow.

Some games companies do provide a multiplayer online service for thier games (blizard. westwood etc). They do this because they know it will improve sales of the game, and that the increased sales will poor revenue directly in to thier pockets, that will outweigh the cost of maintaining the servers.

BW is not in a position to do that, as they do not make the game, they have no revenue stream from you purchasing the game, so please explain why you feel BW are obliged to offer thier services for free. I simply do not understand why you feel the BW, who have no relationship with the games company's should foot the bill, to allow odius little runts like you play on thier servers.

Jolt is supported (or was setup) by Nildram, I believe and as long as Nildram beleive that online gaming will drive sales of their products (the same way that Game feel BW drive sales of computer games) they will continue to subsidise the service. The subs taken by BW, do seem to be targeted quite low, I suspect the inital subs are to be used to help cover advertising costs within GAME stores, computer magazines etc. In order to bring more people on board, and to help tap in to that expected increase in market size over the next few years.

 

[Zarjazz]

Nicely argued prime1, now someone go buy that guy a beer!

 

[KyleMac]

All of you that say game servers can get money from places other than us just because they can, I really don't know what you're on about.

Wireplay was created in 1996 by BT and I'm not too sure about this but sold to Gameplay in 1998/1999. Why would BT sell something that was making them money? Then Wireplay goes down completely in 2001 under Gameplay because it ran out of money. Must be very profitable indeed. Wireplay is currently rebuilding but a quick visit to their site reveals this statement, "The Wireplay Service is currently FREE". "Currently" would suggest that they're already considering P2P.

Blueyonder servers are of course run and owned by Telewest. Now there's not many BY servers so the costs are probably nothing like BW and Telewest are pulling in money from their other services. But Telewest are however in debt and restructuring plus a merger with ntl has been forecast by both companies. Part of both companies' restructuring almost certainly at some point includes getting rid of any unnecessary expenditures. BY's game servers are most likely that unless they can start pulling in cash.

Where are NGUK? (Seriously, are they still around?)

Is UK2 really playable?

Not to forget BW who were bailed out by EB/GAME last year.

Some of you might say that the US still has thousands of free servers, but the US servers are different. The UK servers are nearly all run by companies like BW, the US servers are run by people on lines that are too fast in their bedrooms.

 

[dysfunction]

Very impressive argument there Prime1!! Fantastic!!

Are you a lawyer by any chance??

 

[prime1]

heh thnx

No im not a lawyer, but i should be, then i could make a decent wage :/

 

[bodhi]

Originally posted by Sar


Well that's the thing, don't think I did. Nailed it on the head tbh.

Your point was that because GSPs have been free for a long time, and because the other notable GSPs are currently still free that you shouldn't have to pay to play on any particular GSPs servers. Also because you've already paid for your net access and your connection you're resistant to the idea of paying to play on servers.

Another nice post. You've still missed the point at best, and at worst, are putting words into my mouth. I frankly couldn't give a shit about the runnings of a GSP, as I dont run or use one. And I never ever said that they should be free becuase they always have been. So well done. You've spent a sizeble amount of your time arguing down points I never made. GG. Which also applies to you prime1. Next time try reading, understanding, then trying to retort.

I shall restate my original point. Paying to play a game you have already paid for is wrong. If you cannot see that, you are either have your head too far up BW's arse, or ar far too eager to spend money.

 

[Pippa666]

I have sat and read all of the posts in this thread, some of it quite amusing as well as some very good valid points from both sides of the argument, however bottom line is, if you want to play on BW servers from now on you will have to pay the subs, if not you need to go elsewhere. Simple.

btw I paid mine, a full 24 squid of it. Things are very slow at the moment but Im sure they will pick up in time. I'd rather pay to go on a server than go on a free server full of 'dicks' and hopefully this new system will put a lot of the 'dicks' off.

 

[Moving Target]

Originally posted by Pippa666
I have sat and read all of the posts in this thread, some of it quite amusing as well as some very good valid points from both sides of the argument, however bottom line is, if you want to play on BW servers from now on you will have to pay the subs, if not you need to go elsewhere. Simple.

And you also seem to repeat them.

 

[retardo]

Well *someone* has to pay...

Would you prefer it like this?:

Game publishers provide all the servers you will ever need for your gaming indefinately. They contract their game serving needs out to GSPs, rather than do it themselves.
The game servers remain free for everyone to use.

Theres one catch: The original game costs you £200, whether you go online or not.

Now wouldnt THAT piss you off?

R.

 

[Moving Target]

No, because I'd just warez it if it cost that much.

 

[retardo]

Everyone would.
Game publishers then wouldnt provide servers.
Nobody would then write multiplayer games.

The money *has* to come from somewhere.

R.

 

[Moving Target]

Originally posted by retardo
Everyone would.
Game publishers then wouldnt provide servers.
Nobody would then write multiplayer games.

The money *has* to come from somewhere.

R.

Lots of people could warez games nowadays, but they don't. I would bet there would be a few idiots that would pay that much.

 

[Will]

Bodhi, if you can't sum up your point, don't put other people down for failing to understand you. I'm assuming you mean that when you buy the game, the multiplayer aspect should be free, included in the original cost of the game. It's about the only guess I have left at what you mean.

Of course, we have all had fantastic experiences with Blizzard.net, Delta Force online, and all the other company run services, where you can't swear, most servers are based in the US, and you have to rely on in-game browsers. So I'm sold on that one, sure I am.

 

[prime1]

Originally posted by bodhi


Another nice post. You've still missed the point at best, and at worst, are putting words into my mouth. I frankly couldn't give a shit about the runnings of a GSP, as I dont run or use one. And I never ever said that they should be free becuase they always have been. So well done. You've spent a sizeble amount of your time arguing down points I never made. GG. Which also applies to you prime1. Next time try reading, understanding, then trying to retort.

I shall restate my original point. Paying to play a game you have already paid for is wrong. If you cannot see that, you are either have your head too far up BW's arse, or ar far too eager to spend money.

Bodhi, most games are single player games with a multiplayer attachment. You buy the game as is, if you feel it is wrong to have to pay to then use an option on the games (altho q3 was designed mainly as an mp game, it had sp functionality, and the games company can always argue that the ability to play on ahome LAN is there, they have no obligation to provide online servers - they merely include the functionality for someone else to do it), that is your oppinion.

In fact you dont even own the software you "buy", you have bought a license to use that particular piece of software according to the terms they dictate, you do not own it - they have just been convenient and included a copy with the license.

However your gripe should be with the games company as it is surely (according to your argument) thier responsibility to provide the servers for this option ( i dont think it is). BW, Jolt etc step in at this point and take that responsiblity, partly because the people running those servers WANT TO, but partly because the people who put up the money for them want something back. Taking your warped and poorly argued point to the BW forum, under a thread about p2p is not the right place.

 

[bodhi]

Originally posted by Itcheh
Bodhi, if you can't sum up your point, don't put other people down for failing to understand you. I'm assuming you mean that when you buy the game, the multiplayer aspect should be free, included in the original cost of the game. It's about the only guess I have left at what you mean.

Of course, we have all had fantastic experiences with Blizzard.net, Delta Force online, and all the other company run services, where you can't swear, most servers are based in the US, and you have to rely on in-game browsers. So I'm sold on that one, sure I am.

I've summed up my point three times now, so we'll have less of the patronising tone.

 

[bodhi]

Originally posted by prime1



Bodhi, most games are single player games with a multiplayer attachment. You buy the game as is, if you feel it is wrong to have to pay to then use an option on the games (altho q3 was designed mainly as an mp game, it had sp functionality, and the games company can always argue that the ability to play on ahome LAN is there, they have no obligation to provide online servers - they merely include the functionality for someone else to do it), that is your oppinion.

However your gripe should be with the games company as it is surely (according to your argument) thier responsibility to provide the servers for this option ( i dont think it is). BW, Jolt etc step in at this point and take that responsiblity, partly because the people running those servers WANT TO, but partly because the people who put up the money for them want something back. Taking your warped and poorly argued point to the BW forum, under a thread about p2p is not the right place.

It's a thread about P2P. And I expressed my opinions about P2P. So what's your point?

 

[Will]

If you had summed it up correctly, explaining what you mean, would we still be talking about it now?

 

[Sar]

Originally posted by bodhi
I shall restate my original point. Paying to play a game you have already paid for is wrong.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere solid

No, you don't have to pay to play the game you've already paid for. You can play the game by yourself with no further cost to you.

If however an option in that game means you could use a 3rd party's servers and bandwidth upon which to play it then you should reasonably be expected to pay for said usage.

They're a business providing you with a service upon which you can utilise further features in whatever game you've bought. That service is expensive to run, both in hardware/software and staffing terms.

Buying the software does not guarantee that you'll be able to utilise every single feature without further cost - it merely guarantees you the option of possibly using those extra features.

There are four pre-requisites to you playing a game online:

1) A PC (or a console)
2) A game
3) A net connection
4) Somewhere to play


So instead of picking part of this post and making a(nother) glib remark which avoids questions, answer these:

A) Why is it ok to pay for parts 1-3 and not part 4? What makes it any different (as its costs are not covered in any way shape or form by the first three)?

B) In a capitalisitic society, how is a business charging for the services it provides wrong?

C) Purchase of a modem doesn't entitle you to free internet access. How is this situation any different?

D) If you don't use a GSP then where do you play games?

E) If you don't use a GSP then how are you posting on this forum (because this is part of the BW GSP service)?

 

[bodhi]

Originally posted by Itcheh
If you had summed it up correctly, explaining what you mean, would we still be talking about it now?

Which part of "imo P2P is wrong" didn't you understand.

And Sar, you are still drivelling on about stuff I have stated that I dont care about. I wasn't on about the business model, the logistics, the cost of the servers or any of that stuff. I was on about the principle of P2P itself.