The State of Play

[lecter]

I am not really a big forums person, I tend to spend far too much time on irc. I missed the chance of posting on the p2p (nasty) thread, I hope this doesnt degenerate into the same slanging match.

P2P was inevitable, running an isp on virtually 0 revenue just isnt sustainable.

Costs
Each gameserver costs ~5k, proper corporate servers that have high availability etc cost lots of money. All you overclock scan/ocuk monkies, those machines dont cut it in a server farm.
Then there is internet transit ie your traffic costs barrysworld money. However data has done great work getting everyone signed up with peering agreements so they get dont get charged for traffic between their peered partners. That is why the ftp was rate capped and the ftp for peered isp's was capped much higher.
Staff wages, technically competent people cost money, pure and simple.

Effect of P2P
Without random ppl just joining the servers, the conscious objectors or whoever not paying and being a part of the bw community. The immediate need for server hardware will be negated. Less random foreigners like irritating german cs kiddies, will make the public servers a lot more friendly and pleasant place to be.
The 'downside' of this is the smaller games will die out at bw, like qw, q2 etc all games that are part of barrysworlds heritage. For some time qw (my game of choice) and its community has been focussed elsewhere.

The main reason for this post is below, it is something that noone has mentioned yet (afaik)

The real 'scum' of the internet gaming industry
are
THE GAME'S PUBLISHERS
Yes its true, they are the people that make money and vast quantities of it. Most publishers hate multiplayer games because they have such longevity, look at qw, 5 years later ppl still love it. They want games to have a shelf life of less than a month.
I am personally of the view that games publishers are the ppl that should pay for organisations like barrysworld, after all games like q3 cannot be run without servers and activision/id are relying on services like bw for their game to be effective. Of course this would never happen, unless every single games isp went bust and these ppl had no choice. Had p2p not been enforced it could have happened, perhaps should have happened. Dont talk to me about jolt or a n other games isp, Jolt is losing money left right and centre, is up for sale and only being run as a going concern (allegedly).

 

[Summo]

Isn't it the case that seeing as each game is shipped with a single end-user license, that BarrysWorld should in fact be paying the publishers to be allowed to host their games?

I think it is. Particularly if the said GSP is charging people to play someone else's game. I reckon it's only a matter of time before a publisher says, "Hang on. These GSPs are making money out of our game. We'll have slice of that, thank you very much." In fact, as more GSPs turn to P2P then this idea will become more and more attractive to the publisher.

I disagree with your view that publishers hate multiplayer games. We're seeing more and more MMORPGs coming out as well as a healthy number of standard single/multiplayer games released. Publishers want longevity because it means word of mouth will keep people buying their game well into the future. It also means they have a ready-made market who will buy their sequel and/or add-on packs.

 

[lecter]

Summo: Oh its been tried, they got a polite *F*U*C*K*O*F*F*, its at a fundamental chicken and egg situation, it has been for sometime and will continue to be.

 

[Summo]

Well then the publishers aren't going to do a U-turn and start donating money to GSPs then, are they?

If I was a publisher's money man I'd seriously start looking at calling-in the dues owed by GSPs for that end-user agreement. But then, I guess everyone realises that they need each other so best perhaps to keep the status quo.

 

[Wilier]

Ive not really said a great deal about the P2P sevice, but Im quite looking forward to the fact that, like Lecter says, there will be fewer cheats/hackers/lamers call them what you will, on the servers.

No-one, I would have thought, is likley to pay their money and then risk the chance of being banned. Obviously the down side is that there will be less people on the servers.

TBH, for casual gamers like myself, who only play maybe once or twice a week, it could be classed as being a bit extravagent to pay the £24 (or £12) when you could just point your browser at BY, UK2, Jolt etc. But at just 6p a day, who can grumble?

 

[lecter]

I do believe that was the point I was making hence the need for p2p.

I am personally of the view that games publishers are the ppl that should pay for organisations like barrysworld, after all games like q3 cannot be run without servers and activision/id are relying on services like bw for their game to be effective. Of course this would never happen, unless every single games isp went bust and these ppl had no choice. Had p2p not been enforced it could have happened, perhaps should have happened.

 

[old.Jas]

Originally posted by lecter
I am personally of the view that games publishers are the ppl that should pay for organisations like barrysworld, after all games like q3 cannot be run without servers and activision/id are relying on services like bw for their game to be effective.

I don't think so - they would just start thier own GISP, like MMORPGs.

I would imagine that it would be quite easy to build up a community/subscriber base with the release of a game(s).

Just look at Xbox Live and the Sony PS offering.

 

[lecter]

I don't think so - they would just start thier own GISP, like MMORPGs.

Nope they would subcontract out.
BlueYonder won the fight for the Sony PS2 online contract in the uk.

 

[MYstIC G]

Originally posted by Summo
Isn't it the case that seeing as each game is shipped with a single end-user license, that BarrysWorld should in fact be paying the publishers to be allowed to host their games?

I think it is. Particularly if the said GSP is charging people to play someone else's game. I reckon it's only a matter of time before a publisher says, "Hang on. These GSPs are making money out of our game. We'll have slice of that, thank you very much." In fact, as more GSPs turn to P2P then this idea will become more and more attractive to the publisher.

I disagree with your view that publishers hate multiplayer games. We're seeing more and more MMORPGs coming out as well as a healthy number of standard single/multiplayer games released. Publishers want longevity because it means word of mouth will keep people buying their game well into the future. It also means they have a ready-made market who will buy their sequel and/or add-on packs.

Technically I think you'll find that you pay BarrysWorld to be allowed to passthrough their firewall.....

gg, wp, sush!

 

[xane]

Re: Re: The State of Play

Originally posted by old.Jas
I don't think so - they would just start thier own GISP, like MMORPGs.

Effectively thats what Blizzard did with battle.net.

 

[Daffeh]

but Blizzard are the developers, not the publishers

the publishers VU are now basically bankrupt



i partially agree about publishers, but not for your reasons.
many publishers rush out releases for deadlines or xmas, yet people bitch at the developers for making a bugged/crap/etc. game, when its not really their fault. and make most money out of the game then anyone else.

but on the otherhand, without publishers we would only get a fraction of the games released we currently do. they pay the developers, and allow them to survive whilst making the game. how many professional developers would there be if they had to fund all the development, then subsequent manufacture, advertising, and release

 

[Sawtooth]

Originally posted by Wilier
Ive not really said a great deal about the P2P sevice, but Im quite looking forward to the fact that, like Lecter says, there will be fewer cheats/hackers/lamers call them what you will, on the servers.

No-one, I would have thought, is likley to pay their money and then risk the chance of being banned. Obviously the down side is that there will be less people on the servers.

I think £12 will not put the cheaters off. They obviously get away with it now and unless detection improves dramatically (Punkbuster?) then they'll pay and play too.

 

[Skyler]

Sawtooth if your reffering to CS, there arent many cheats left on BWCS servers anymore.

Only the hardcore cheaters would ever pay, the ones who hide it so well they will never have it proven against them, the ones who dont always use wallhacks/aimbots, but use other more subtle cheats to gain huge advantages.... Some of these more subdued cheats are not frowned upon so much by everyone, imo they should be...

I doubt people like myg0t would pay to get banned on BW, because no longer can they use keygens to generate a new cdkey to get back on because they will ultimately be banned via address/cc number/whatever....

But as I said, myg0t are the least of anyones problems, the people that cheat obviously are not really even an issue in the big cheat problem



As for p2p in general I am still very worried of the divide it will create in the community, I'm allready feeling it as 90% of the people I know that play CS wouldnt ever pay for what BW offer, despite my best efforts at trying to convince them otherwise.