What should happen to the servers?

[bigfoot]

Given that the main thread about this has gone a bit off topic I thought it might be useful to have this one as a point of reference. I'm not saying that it will have any influence on our decision, we have X thousand subscribers and only a percentage of that are regular forum posters in here along with various forum posters who aren't subscribers but like a good whinge at anything we do, but it might be worth running this to see what support the various options have.

To explain them further:

Option 1 - Remain as they are.
This would mean we stick with having "public" servers only behind the Subscription login and continue to work on ways to improve how these are populated.

Option 2 - Move them all public facing again (this would result in a drastic reduction of server numbers).
This would mean a return to how things used to be, sort of. Since the servers have gone Subscriber Only we have cut down on the number of servers we run, some cases this was due to the fact there were just too many servers running on boxes when they were public, in others it is because they have had no usage at all so we have allocated the hardware elsewhere. There wouldn't be the diversity that there was before either. For Subscribers we would still have the ability to do community evenings on Subs Only servers.

Option 3 - Have them public until a certain time of the evening then move them Subs only.
It is not even clear if this is possible at the moment, however if it was the time would probably be early evening around 7pm or so.

Option 4 - Close them all down and just increase the number of bookables, allowing public bookables at the same time (no password).
This would probably only appeal to those of you with clans or with a close knit bunch of friends, but "on demand" servers have been tried elsewhere and in some cases have proven popular, Subscribers would be the only people capable of starting a server of course.

If you are a non-subscriber you can feel free to vote too, although ideally only if a change in the current situation would lead to you subscribe. Voting is anonymous and feel free to add comments here aswell.

 

[Will]

Nice idea at the end there. I just got back online, so I just tried to save that thread.

Edit : I guess my timing sucked, eh?

 

[Greef]

It's nice to be heard!

The servers certainly need to be opened up, as they are they serve no purpose.

 

[Sir Frizz]

People don't generally pay if they can get things free. A generalisation yes, but it's still true.

A lovely paradox is here, Game want the green, and the few people that do pay find that there isn't actually anyone on the server at similar times. It's Game's problem really, making promises that simply aren't lived up to (probably why this poll was started as i'd say Game are stuck for ideas). At the end of the day, has this online venture really lived up to expectations monetarily? Has it made such a drastic improvement over the way things used to be, that the small number of people who do sub are simply going to get 'done over'. Actually i'm reminded of an analogy between scam e-mails that tempt you to buy things which don't exist and good ole' BW.



Idea based on 3: Maybe you could have servers set so that non-subscibers are kicked after a certain period of time unless they do subscribe, so that way they are "encouraged" to do so. (Actually, reading that back, it sounds a bit pap :/)

When i get my bank shite sorted out though, i'll think about becoming a sub if option 3 is, as it stands - implemented. It sounds the most appealing to me.

 

[ECA]

1. Impossible to do and keep game.net alive, the launch was badly handled imho but i'm sure you dont want a post event analysis.

2. Moving them all public would be pointless, it defies the point of subscribing and just plain sucks all the servers would become full again and the point of us paying would be?

3. Best idea of those presented.

4. No - you wouldnt foster a regular community.

 

[Greef]

Originally posted by bigfoot
Option 1 - Remain as they are.

Option 2 - Move them all public facing again (this would result in a drastic reduction of server numbers).

Option 3 - Have them public until a certain time of the evening .

Option 4 - Close them all down and just increase the number of bookables, allowing public bookables at the same time (no password).

Option 1: Servers remain as they are - empty -

Option 2: Open them up, ppl start playing on them, bw starts happening again!

Option 3: Not sure how this would work - maybe

Option 4: Don't think this would really work out? There seem to be lots of -empty- bookables already? I just started a bookable server, but couldn't see how to start it without a password? If your interested it's quake 3 - 3wave cctf!

Thats my pennysworth

 

[Debaser]

Originally posted by ECA


2. Moving them all public would be pointless, it defies the point of subscribing and just plain sucks all the servers would become full again and the point of us paying would be?

Since there're plenty of free public servers out there at the moment, there's no point at all to subscribing to any service such as Game.net if all you want is a quick fragging session . . . but that isn't all Game.net has to offer. Maybe Game should offer for free what people can get anywhere and charge for the services which are not.

 

[Testin da Cable]

I have to vote for option 3.

we were talking about a different approch in the 'would you renew' thread. that still strikes me as the best option, regardless of the difficulties involved. good luck anyway.

 

[CAC]

i voted option 2
imo it would be better to have fewer servers that are actually in use almost all of the time (of course i would imagine that GAME would use the public servers to then advertise the other benifits available with subscriptions via the console )

then your subs would be for the use of other features i.e bookable servers,email,web hosting and fast ftp

however i think some monitoring of the bookables might prove helpfull so the "more popular" games get more bookable servers to play with and the "less popular" have fewer



the issue i have with option 3 is that if you close the servers to the public your left with empty servers again and if you do it 7pm then all the game.net servers will be empty during gaming "prime time"

 

[throdgrain]

I voted for #3, but for a period of time I would even accept option 2.

 

[lynchet]

I have no idea if its possible but the best suggestion I think I saw was that they are basically public but with subscriber priority -- perhaps a no. of spots for subs or non subs being booted in favour of subs if full.

 

[Clowneh!]

good thread, thanks bigfoot

does number 2 mean that there will be less servers, all public, but subs get priority? a bit how soulseek works if u subscribe to that?

i like the way that works, ill vote if i get an answer

 

[MYstIC G]

Option 5
None of the above

You guys are missing a key option imho, which is a shame.

 

[Summo]

Which is...?

 

[Gumbo]

I voted 3, but you'd have to make the cut off a bit later to have a real impact on the sort of Gamers who would be willing to pay at all, say 8.30? Then those same servers would be ready for the existing community type games that tend to run from about that time or 9pm.

The best option would definatly be the, 'I'm sorry, a subscriber wishes to join now, you will be kicked in 10 seconds. To subscribe for as little as 12 pounds visit www.game.net' option. If there was any way in the world that this could happen, it seems vaguely possible from the brains trust we have in here, though maybe not with the message on all games. So I also vote for giving TdC and Will fat consultancy fees.

Also make the servers totally free for a month or so and do a little *spits*UK2 type spamming to advertise the system. Most gamers are completely unaware of the existance of this service having not seen the servers in ASE or Gamespy for a year or so.

Thanks for the poll too Bif. and please delete any posts in this particular thread that are even a little off topic so that we can have one thread for sensible discussion.

 

[MYstIC G]

Sorry Summo, but every time I've give my input before now, it just gets glossed over. So nadgers to just giving the answer away. However it's a more balanced suggestion than all this "reactionary" flip everything drastically in one direction.

 

[Summo]

If there was ever a perfect thread to say it in, Meg then surely this is it.

Teach us! Teach us!

 

[Clowneh!]

yeh perfect thread! this is ur time to speak son, use the time wisely

 

[MYstIC G]

Well I'm not going to explain it, sorry if this makes me a c*** in the opinion of you guys, but I have reasons. Suffice to say that Option 3 is the most realistic solution, but it won't work. I'll leave it at that.

 

[S-Gray]

Im not sure...

As they say, Option 1 would mean that the servers do remain empty.

Option 2 does sound like a bad idea, firstly because Subs may not be able to get on, Subs would be paying for nothing, but most importantly, cheaters may come on our Servers and start pissing up games.

Option 3 atm sounds like the best idea, but im sure you could do better which is why i aint voting just yet.

Im not realy considering Option4..

 

[(Shovel)]

Of the options here, I really think Option 3 offers the best hope of increasing subs - which I believe is the aim. It is simple to implement too - which is obviously favourable (even as a short term solution).

I have to be honest though, I still favour the slightly more advanced ideas we come up with in the "will you renew" thread - I don't think you can afford to change the set up in a compromised way, I don't think that option three would do enough, but it would be an improvement.

I emailed CJ Ravey a reasonable report of the previous thread, picking out the positive suggestions and trying to make it readable. If any of the contributors (or anyone else for that matter) would like a copy - or if you'd like me a start a new thread with a copy of it (I wont by myself, cause the place is inundated with them right now, just say the word and I will though) - then please send me a PM or an email to the address below. It's quite long, but hopefully it's salvaged the hard thought we put in the other day

 

[Summo]

Post it in this thread, Shov-elle.

 

[Gumbo]

Especially as the email i sent to obtain a copy was bounced back undeliverable.

 

[kameleon]

to me too

 

[bigfoot]

The option about hacking game code to allow subs to join only part of the places available on the server just isn't doable outside of perhaps one game, so that isn't a realistic option.

The option about having limited time of 30 minutes is also unlikely to be possible to introduce which is why I didn't include it above.

 

[(Shovel)]

OK then

Right, this is the body from the run down. First of all: I apologise if I missed anything, I don't promise to be perfect here. Second of all, I didn't hand out individual credits to everyone like I intended to, apologies for that as well. There was also a really good post by Mystic G that I missed, but which I'll quote on the end for completeness. And, naturally, it does have some unavoidable human bias to it, but I've tried not to be negative about anything, you'll know what I mean. Hopefully openning it all up to discussion again will help to get everything explored properly again.

It was suggested that GAME would benefit from people being able to properly "try before you buy". Which translates to two things: GAME customers, buying a game, need to be able to sample the service without subscribing or activating inclusive subs. Hundreds of existing gamers can't get onto the servers as they don't appear in ASE or Gamespy.

This led to two implementable suggestions:

• For GAME customers, a "Barry Bar Lite" software, given away with all multiplayer games in Game stores.
• For existing gamers on Gamespy/ All Seeing Eye, a server side proxy/router would control their connection to the servers

OK, each one in turn:

Barry Bar Lite
The idea with both of these ideas is that non subscribing players are able to have either: A time limited session on the servers, or they are able to play until a subscriber comes on, at which point they are removed and told that a subscriber wants to play and are told where to go to subscribe.

Barry Bar light mainly offers a means of time limiting, while providing a simple interface for new gamers. A gamer logs in, plays and then gets thrown off after a time period and gets told where to go to get the full experience. The software could be modified painlessly from the full Barry Bar, a few restricting features and so forth allowing them to "have a demo" really.

Server Side Proxy/Router/Thing
I'm not the best person to give the run over of this, cause I don't have a fantastic knowledge of working network kit, however, the concept is what matters.

Basically, between the servers and the clients, you have a proxy which manages connections. If the user is logged in to Barry Bar (as a subscriber) then they go into one group and get unlimited play. If they do not originate from Barry Bar (e.g. they come from "Barry Bar Lite" or from Gamespy) then they go in another group. When a server is full, the proxy knows if any of the users are not subscribers and the proxy can kick them off. This is not dependent on the game - to the game it can be as if the connection dropped. Therefore the system would work right now, and with every future game that you have introduced to GAME.net.

Such a proxy would also allow you tweak these ideas: you could allow only a limited number on non subscribers at all times - 4/12 for example. Because it is independed of the games themselves, you can do what ever you like since you are purely into standard networking.
------------------------------------------
There was some debate about "when" such openings should be allowed. If it was 24/7 then the subscription incentive is reduced, so the general consensus was that a few hours in the early evening would be best. Possibly during the day too - since that is going to be a quiet time when most people wont be around to use the servers and it would attract some attention.

There are a small handful of (frankly, minor) sticking points. The above proxy config works because we bypass the games themselves. However, this has the knock on effect that people will be removed from the game "as if their connection failed". This isn't ideal really - but it was agreed amongst those contributing that this was really minor and getting the message across could be implemented using MOTD scripts. Barry Bar Lite would be able to give sensible responses, and Gamespy/ASE users simply need to see the MOTD to see when/why they will get kicked.
I suggested that maybe there is a reusable way that messages can be passed into games - externally executing console commands really - Kannonfodda commented that this *should* be possible, though we didn't get into "how" for that.

As we discussed further it also became clear that both solutions would need to be implemented - a proxy and a BBLite - because they attract a totally different user base. BB for GAME customers who wont know about Gamespy and who will likely prefer something simpler to operate, and the proxy to account for existing GS/ASE users who will have no incentive to download BBLite.


There were some other ideas that came up, which didn't get detailed as much (and weren't as popular). I'll list them for completeness.

• The idea of one public server for each game - this strikes me as a dead easy and effective idea for the short term.
• The idea of running servers where a proxy adds 50 to a non subscribers ping. This was pretty much rejected on the grounds that we want to encourage people to subscribe to great servers and "saying" that their ping will be 50 lower wouldn't be enough!
• Xtro suggested inviting 3 or 4 helpful forum regs to Game HQ for face to face discussion about such ideas - essentially wanting to boost the community involvement.

Mystic G
As for the servers, we had this problem with GamesDomain..... /me awaits being lynched..... the bottom line I always came to personally was that the push for getting games started (i.e. filling a server) _has_ to come from within, i.e. from the GAME.net boys. At the moment I don't really think there is anyone there that can/does do that, but there could be *cough* hint hint *cough*

Anyway, back to my point of view on the universe. Remember some core lessons about people & apply them:
a) they are lazy
b) they are willful
c) they hate spending money on anything

and you get what we've heard:
a) I don't want to subscribe
b) I don't want to play that game
c) I don't want to wait in a server in case nobody turns up

The _only_ solution is to take away the set of excuses. So with starting games you have to stop people being lazy & willful, i.e. they need motivation (or what I guess you'd call "a good reason") to want to play, thats whats missing

PS - all these ideas are mine, all mine & hence belong to me, me me, as only I can give my own point of view on the universe.

Tune in next time for "Why jolt sucks - the facts behind the truth"

OH, and sorry for the email address not working. I've corrected that now in case anyone still wants an email copy

 

[MYstIC G]

/me prints out shovels post

Reading large quantities of text on forums gives me a headache after a while, good post though dudeh.

 

[yankeedoodle]

Originally posted by Sir Frizz
People don't generally pay if they can get things free. A generalisation yes, but it's still true.

A lovely paradox is here, Game want the green, and the few people that do pay find that there isn't actually anyone on the server at similar times. It's Game's problem really, making promises that simply aren't lived up to (probably why this poll was started as i'd say Game are stuck for ideas). At the end of the day, has this online venture really lived up to expectations monetarily? Has it made such a drastic improvement over the way things used to be, that the small number of people who do sub are simply going to get 'done over'. Actually i'm reminded of an analogy between scam e-mails that tempt you to buy things which don't exist and good ole' BW.

I dont think that GAME made promises that they couldnt keep, i just think that they did not anticipate the lack of demand. Its not as if £25 a year or £10 for 3 months isnt extortionate, rather that why should ppl get a subscription if they have to scream at BT for 6 months to get broadband in your area, as playing with dial up against ppl with broadband can be a frustrating experience. Couple that with the fact that GAME launched the service instore with a whimper, and its no wonder people arent going for it. They are even giving free 3 month subs away with Vietcong, Toca Race driver and one other game ( i cant remember) so you cant say that GAME havent totally tried to redress the balance and populate the servers.

Im trying my best to get it going, but when your sold out of the 3 month subs and you dont get any more for god knows what reasons, it doesnt help.

the truth is that the free model wont last forever. Servers cost money to run, and i think the free ones will wilt and die sooner or later. Sega had to charge £6 a month to play Phantasy Star Online , on GC and Xbox, because, eventually absorbing server staffs wages is not viable.

However, as far as my vote is concerened, I would go for number 3 as being most reasonable.

 

[(Shovel)]

A question for the Game interns.

Regarding "solutions" to the server & more subs issues, do Game.net have any resource based limitations? Not an easy one to answer with this being public and all that, but it's obviously helpful for those of us contributing to know if - for instance - the budget cannot be alocated for running a heavily loaded proxy (like the above).

I don't see how the potential solution can't justify expense, I'd just like to know where things stand so that those of us who want to brainstorm know where the walls are

 

[yankeedoodle]

Re: A question for the Game interns.

Originally posted by (Shovel)
Regarding "solutions" to the server & more subs issues, do Game.net have any resource based limitations? Not an easy one to answer with this being public and all that, but it's obviously helpful for those of us contributing to know if - for instance - the budget cannot be alocated for running a heavily loaded proxy (like the above).

I don't see how the potential solution can't justify expense, I'd just like to know where things stand so that those of us who want to brainstorm know where the walls are

in answer to that, at a guess yes the constictions are all about money. Which is puzzling cos just having read GAMEs annual report they are making more money every year, and turnover is up, so i cant figure out why they dont wanna splash the cash.

but then again, if game dont wanna fit their staff washrooms with proper soap and towel dispensers you gotta figure that somwhere the purse strings are very tight.....