Slashdot Mirror
Star Wars Galaxies Only to Allow One Character Per Account
frotty writes "The developers of Star Wars Galaxies recently announced that the game would only allow a single character per purchased account on any server. This has outraged some, and relieved others." Click on the link to see the reasoning behind this move.
It's per PURCHASED account of course. Im sure they would be more than willing to let you buy several accounts to have more than one player.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
I have experienced what it is like to get gangbanged by 1 guy with 10 different accounts when he decides to wail on my one account for some reason in a different online game.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Breaking News!:
Tomorrow Morning::
Sex - Find It
When I first started MUDding, having multiple characters was considered in the same league as multiplaying (having more than one character online at the same time, for personal gain usually), and I was happy with it.
When people started to have multiple characters and such became the norm, people begain [ab]using the traditional power balance problems which plague multiplayer games, using their alternate characters to exact revenge, and other things which generally detracted from the gameplay.
Down with multiplaying!
No, Beowulf clusters can't imagine in Soviet Russia.
Holocron very, very elegantly explained just why they're doing this. Read and find out.
u m3 /HTML/088000.html
http://boards.station.sony.com/ubb/starwars/For
After this article, I completely agreed.
in other MMORPG's people have dummy "mule" characters that only exist to hold items and whatnot, while there's nothing wrong with that, it makes things a little less realistic. with only one character, you can focus on actually developing that character, and playing the game, not inventory management. (and other things.... IANAMMORPGP)
Don't worry, Chris' game company won't do that!
Right? I mean, he's not posting stories about outrage in the MMORPG world in order to bolster his own efforts?
I'm not going to link to the site, as they don't need even more free slashdot press, but people should know that Chris started his own "revolutionary" multiplayer game company recently.
They'll have a super duper game out soon.
It will be much better than Star Wars, which is outraging its users, right? I'm glad Chris is still a slashdot editor, so he can bring this to our attention.
Conflict of interest? Don't worry, I'm sure the slashdot community will mod this down sufficiently. (Especially now that I've assumed they will.)
I bet we'll see some great MMORPG polls up soon too...
The basically have storage costs and controlling of mischievous behavior as the two primary reasons for a single character system, with storage costs mentioned first and at length. Give me a break. Here's a quarter, buy another 10MB of disk space (their fees are a lot higher than that ...). Even with replication I don't buy that storage costs can be that much, unless some engineer really screwed up how to store a character efficiently.
The mischief factor I can understand, but why not state that first? It seems like they aren't perhaps being as honest and forthright as they could be.
.. ,know I would want to see what would happen if I choose a different branch in the game.
Many people, myself included, like to try out different aspects of a game, online or not.
I
Imagine if you could on choose to drive 1 car in grand theft auto? or only play 1 sim. those games would have lasted maybe 5 minutes.
I was on the border as to weather I would play this, and unless the policy changes, it is a definate no.
I probably would have stop playing as soon as I heard:
"Willing to trade 5 Yodas heads for 1 Darth Vader light sabor"
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
....I believe they are limiting the characters in an evil plot design to get some of these people laid!
What makes a man want to be a mouse? (Python's Flying Circus)
It can only store a single ASCII character per purchased account?
Yes, but only on a first-come-first-served basis.
Hopefully by version 1.0, the first post robot should be stable.
I want to kill myself IRL, be reincarnated as someone else entirely, and then be able to ressurect myself.
Yes, I know this is just a game, but the point is that we want it to be fairly realistic. We don't want to have anyone who is someone else in disguise. And besides, the other point is that this hardly matters. It is just a game. It has rules. Play by the rules or if you don't like them, find a different game.
In trying to present reasons why the popular desires for multiple characters per server aren't warrented, the one that is probably most popular was completely glossed over.
"I want to try something new without having to leave my friends."
Later on in the thread someone posted a statistic from a poll on the site, stating that nearly 50% of people were going to choose their server based on their friends. This is how most people tend to play these games, with friends. So now if you want to try a wookie instead of a human, gotta give the big adios to your buddies.
There are some situations where a limitation on characters per server is a good thing. Dark Age of Camelot, for example, limits your choice of the three realms to play in to one realm per server for most servers. They do this to discourage 'spy' characters. But within that choice of a single realm you can make 8 characters. Feel free to try out that new spec, or different class, and still be able to have fun with your friends.
I had no real opinion on this game before. But I'm the type that likes to try my "alt of the week". If I can't try it out with my friends, no way I'm getting the game. Pretty effective way to discourage community if you ask me.
Okay, so let me get this straight: They aren't going to allow multiple characters because of "storage constraints?" According to PriceWatch, the cost per gigabyte is rapidly approaching $1/GB. You can't expect me to believe that even storing the massive amounts of data for "customized faces" can't be more than a few hundred KB. So at most, an entire account might run up a few MB. Just in the initial purchase price alone, they could reserve a whole GB for you to use and still come out profiting.
Why, thank you for that. It's so convenient of you to save me the effort of clicking on tht darn link.
This is on a Sony site for chrissake! It more than enough bandwidth to deal with a slashdotting. What is the point in reposting the whole thing here?
i'm already wary of verant's business ideas
maybe i'm spoiled from playing Asheron's Call
were we get free content every month
and the developers still look at their product as a game, and not just a big dollar sign
verant makes you pay for every drop of new content you get,
and now they're going to make you every character you want to play?
no thanks
i'll stick with the turbine devs
who put customer satisfaction above the customers credit card
And as a clickable link....
Erm, twit, that's the article linked-to in the bloody post. Pay attention.
Maybe they're not using cheap IDE drives, but expensive SCSI RAID arrays?
From the text:
'I'll say it flatly--a character record in SWG is FAR larger than you think. There's a business reality to see here. We share fancy databases over multiple servers. Said fancy databases cost $X up to a certain size. Then they cost ten times that if you go over that limit by one byte because you have to buy the "next size up." As it already stands, our programmers are nervous that we're storing too much data per character. Heck, we got asked, "You can live with 20 items in inventory max, right? 150 items total per character across the entire game?" Do the math on the items stored with a character above, and start getting scared.'
--Jon
Did I read the linked article? Of course not. I've been following this issue very carefully and don't *need* to read the article. It's last week's news. I simply pointed out that this is a very well-thought out decision, and provided a link that gives the most detailed analysis I've seen on the decision. The majority of the people who are going to just read the headline and go crazy here have a better chance to see my post and follow the link than to click the one in the article. P.S. thanks to the other guy who linked my URL. I appreciate it--I am new here, posting/account-wise, and wanted to hurry and get the info out before it got buried.
There is no rule out there that states "Thou shalt allow all users to have multiple characters on one account". If the fact that some one can only have one character bugs you that much don't pay $x per month to play. Simple. Or, start writing your own games and get your own servers.
And...
IT'S A GAME! If this were something really important then by all means make a fuss, but not for an online RPG!
Have we hosed Sony now? Shameless karma whoring at its best, except why go off and post AC?
And if all you needed was a completely flat file, you might be right.
Unfortunately, you need a database that can handle that level of storage and that many records, yet still has reasonable times for searches and updates with various data integrity checks etc. That's where the real cost comes in.
And for those kind of databases, storing a terabyte worth of records can cost half as much again as storing a terabyte minus one.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
One of the reasons they cite for limiting accounts to one player each is server storage space. Here's an idea: if a player wants to, allow him to download his character and store it on his own computer -- then he can create a new character and play it until he decides he wants his old one back or discovers that his MMORPG addiction is destroying his social life ( ;) ). If he chooses to go back to his original character, let him upload it and play from where he left off.
There are two main ways a user can cheat in a system like this:
1. He can download, modify, and upload his character file to get extra items or status, and
2. He can download his character, do something risky but with a large possible reward online, and re-upload his character file if he isn't successful and ends up losing something.
Both of those problems could be solved by associating a unique ID and last-downloaded date with every character in a user's account. Character files containing the above data would be made available for download, and only the unique ID and date would remain on the server taking up very little space after download. Since the data would be encrypted using a fast, proven symmetric cypher and the server would be the only entity in posession of the key, the user would be unable to determine the internal format of the character file or modify data to gain in-game status.
Don't confuse this with DRM -- this is actually capable of working. Digital Restriction Mechanisms will always fail because in order for them to make content available to the user, the user's computer must be in possession of enough information at one time or another to obtain a decrypted copy of the "protected" content. This is not a requirement for the character-saving system, as the user never needs to have access to the character data stored in the file. Every character file could contain a copy of the goatse pic and no one would ever know.
This system prevents users from uploading stored characters to erase mistakes by including a last downloaded date and a unique ID in the character file. If the last downloaded date in the character file is older than the last downloaded date stored on the server for that character's unique ID, or if a user tries to upload an earlier copy of their active character, the server would reject the upload.
Of course, that's only a technical solution to the problem. It doesn't stop the rich from buying more than one account and getting around every single restriction imposed by single player accounts, but I have a feeling that the service providers kinda like it that way. Maybe EQ or Blizzard (Diablo II) will implement something like this and save themselves some storage space?
Alright, so they are using SCSI. We're still talking peanuts though! Even at $5/GB for SCSI drives, the price of data is still nothing to sweat about.
There are any number of legitimate reasons why MMORPG players who prefer the three types other than "Achievemer" would run multiple characters. "Explorers" would want to try many different classes or races. "Socializers" would want a different character to suit different moods or hang out with different crowds. "Imposers" (player-killer types) would need plenty of backups....
Furthermore, Holocron's post made no mention of whether any reasonable pricing scheme other than forcing users to start entire new accounts (doubtless containing much redundant information) was even considered.
The statement that multiple accounts are used primarily for muling belies an overly constrained mindset about how and why people play MMORPGs. I can only conclude that cutting out three fourths of SW:G's potential market with this draconian pricing move will only have a negative impact on profits.
A big reason given for this policy is the storage fees. It's expensive for them to store everyone's character server-side.
Frankly I'm surprised no MMORPG's have attempted client-side storage yet. The security problems are relatively trivial. MAC (keyed hash) the data before it leaves the server and verify it when it comes back. The client transmits the MACed data when he starts a session, the server modifies it locally during play, and the client gets back the updated and reMACed data when he logs off. If the client tries to modify his char data, the server detects the change and refuses to load the char. If the client gets disconnected before receiving their updated char file, then have the server store it so the data isn't lost.
With an onboard secure coprocessor card, the MACs can be computed and verified quickly and cheaply with little risk of key compromise. The player will have to wait a little longer to load up the game, but if the alternative is one char per acount I'd certainly do it.
This should significantly reduce the storage costs, but with a corresponding (but probably not equal) rise in bandwidth costs. It all hinges on the cost per byte of bandwidth versus storage. If there's ever a point when bandwidth is cheaper, this model should be viable.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
How do u know the true INTENtion of good & bad? :(]
We are programmed to think good= @Everything_good
They might be programmed= @something_else[my google didnt figure it out
Good might be bad in alien language and inverse for extra-terrestrials!
It might be excellent for their logic --->"single-characters per account"[$ per a/c]
Informative[-5]--This is just a plain old text
quote:port 17 udp
Yes. They can buy another account and mule away. And in turn their extra fee can help pay for the extra database server they're obliging us to buy. Is this a crass businessy thing to say? Maybe. But I'm being honest and realistic here.
Sure... in the end, we are all just trying to make a buck!
I personally would have liked atleast 2 characters per galaxy. I was absolutely shocked by the news of SCS, I was almost 100% sure that this game would have MCS.
I believe that SCS is just a smiple/cheap way of dealing with griefing/muling, when other actions could have been taken.
I don't understand why Muling is a factor, "I have a house, I can store as much as I want in it". SCS does not control muling. With houses there is no need for mules.
Independance? Allowing 2 characters per galaxies wouldn't allow you to live on your own without any interaction with others. Now I agree that 4 or more characters per galaxy could become a problem, but allowing 2, I see no problem with that. And 2 characters is a million times better that SCS.
Griefing, well I'm not quite sure of all the forms of griefing, but I sure it can be summerized at "pissing people off". SCS will not stop this, I will(well not myself, I don't harress others, I respect others and the feelings) just go to another server and piss people of there to get my griefing "fix".
Allowing 2 characters per server would allow for much griefing. If a character is reported, then the GM/Dev/Guide should track done the users account, and warn every character on that account about the griefing, then if it happens again with any other new or exsisting character on that account, ban them...seems simple to me..
If you are worried about spying and whatnot, then just have MCS-Single-Faction-Servers...All toons have to be Rebel, or Imp, or neutral. You cannot have combinations.
I believe SCS was just a simple way of getting this game out earlier because they are running out of time to impliment any of these logical systems.
The fact is, if I want cable TV in another room, I have to pay for an additional cable outlet.
Uh, what planet is this on? Here in the US, cable companies are prohibited from charging on a per outlet basis. If I want cable TV in another room, all I have to do is buy a splitter at Radio Shack. Now, if I split it too many times I'll get a poor signal, but then all I have to do is buy a signal amplifier. Bad analogy.
If I want a phone for my daughter or heck, for myself in my office, I have to pay.
For a phone? No, you don't. Again, you just split the line and add an extension. Now, if I want to add a separate line, okay, but that's not the same thing, that's consuming additional resources (an extra number)
If I want a second cell phone on my family plan, I have to pay.
Only because the cell phone providers are in collusion to prevent people from getting the services that are possible. There is no technical reason why I can't clone a handset and have more than one cell phone...other than of course only one can ring. In fact, if you know the right codes to enter you can do this.
I have multiple computers on my home network, and I pay for the extra IP addresses.
Or you just setup a router/NAT/whatever and share the existing IP address.
It allows up to 8 (!) characters per account. And with some extensions, you can have even more!!!
Ciao
----
FB
to wonder if game companies have considered keeping profiles on players based on everything done and said in the game?
/to go to the other extreme/ and blast a shitstorm of personal information about yourself every day on the internet. And it is easy to do, an example being these games.
If some value could be had from something like that, how long would it take for some enterprising game companies to captalize on it?
Some angry words passed between you and some other person in the game, echoing forever onwards throughout your life? Picture your resume sitting before the hiring officer of some company in the future:
"Hey Bill, pull the personality profile, and credit reports for this stack of applicants."
"Sweet jesus, this guy sure is a live one!"
*sound of balled paper hitting bottom of wastebasket*
And there's a whole lot of stuff that seems perfectly normal when in context but could be quite useful in the hands of someone who wants to destroy you.
Make some nasty comment about some future politician? Big Mistake, because guess who he plays golf with on Sundays? that guy, what's his name, Poindexter's succesor. ANd you better believe they're gonna find plenty of stuff on you to shut your ass up real quick-like.
In a way, tribes who think you've stolen their souls whe their pictures are taken, have grasped a small part of something. If someone has sufficient information about you, they do have your soul. Everything would be predictable to them. Even if you had a chnace to confront them, they would know ahead of time how to counter the arguments, because they've reviewed arguments you've had in the past. If you tried to take them to court...out comes the shitstorm of information. all that stuff you said all those years back. Have tremendous power over you through this knowledge alone, not mentioning all the possibilities for blackmail.
Ahhh contraire! You have nothing to hide, do you?
Sure. If that lets you rest easier at night, you keep on believing that. Otherwise, you might want to ponder the sorts of things about your life that will be bought and sold like a credit report.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. You don't need to be a criminal to be concerned about this. Any information about you, is power that can be used against you. If people are execerting effort to gather information about you, chances are goodwill towards you isn't a major factor in their efforts.
Ok, now I'm sounding paranoid. But think about it. I'm not saying to go hide in hole and treat life as if it were some precious secret, I'm just pointing out that it may not be wise
In this way, the only true speech is anonymous speech.
You remind me of the Windows developers I had to support a few years ago when I ran a helpdesk. Sure, storage is cheap...if you don't need to worry about IT support, redundancy, reliability, backups, or high-volume network access. If you do need any of those things (and I imagine that the Galaxies servers will need all of them), then the price goes way up.
I don't like the attitude there. Too much talk about EULAs really annoys me.
I suppose the point is, the marketplace will decide. I have decided. I won't spend my money on their product.
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Do the math do you want to pay the $10 to $15 that they plan to charge or do you want to pay $100 to $150 that they would have to charge to make the game break even, if they allowed you to have 10 characters that you might realisticly only use 2 of?
Independance? Allowing 2 characters per galaxies wouldn't allow you to live on your own without any interaction with others. Now I agree that 4 or more characters per galaxy could become a problem, but allowing 2, I see no problem with that. And 2 characters is a million times better that SCS.
Griefing, well I'm not quite sure of all the forms of griefing, but I sure it can be summerized at "pissing people off". SCS will not stop this, I will(well not myself, I don't harress others, I respect others and the feelings) just go to another server and piss people of there to get my griefing "fix".
Allowing 2 characters per server would allow for much griefing. If a character is reported, then the GM/Dev/Guide should track done the users account, and warn every character on that account about the griefing, then if it happens again with any other new or exsisting character on that account, ban them...seems simple to me..
If you are worried about spying and whatnot, then just have MCS-Single-Faction-Servers...All toons have to be Rebel, or Imp, or neutral. You cannot have combinations.
I believe SCS was just a simple way of getting this game out earlier because they are running out of time to impliment any of these logical systems.
Well, I guess the First Step is admitting you have a problem.... Which Step is it where you open a bar where people can get as drunk as they want but have to stick with the same drink all night every night? Is that Step Pi, or Step Square Root of Two, or what?
I'll say it flatly--a character record in SWG is FAR larger than you think. There's a business reality to see here. We share fancy databases over multiple servers. Said fancy databases cost $X up to a certain size. Then they cost ten times that if you go over that limit by one byte because you have to buy the "next size up." As it already stands, our programmers are nervous that we're storing too much data per character. Heck, we got asked, "You can live with 20 items in inventory max, right? 150 items total per character across the entire game?" Do the math on the items stored with a character above, and start getting scared.
Say a player takes 1 megabyte of space. How many pennies does a meg cost these days? Plus backup, plus electricity, blah blah blah. Say 50 cents per player? And you're paying $10 to join? That hs to cover advertising, development, etc.. so ten bucks helps to cover all that. Perhaps having secondary players at 50 cents a shot wouldn't be a bad idea since the only added cost then is storage space.
Maybe I should have RTFA a bit closer, but I couldnt tell...
Can you delete the one character to play a new one on that server?
Maybe an option for these outraged people is to explore their first character as much as possible, then delete it, and explore new avenues.(sp?)
Or I guess selling your game along with the high level character and buying a new game and starting over is always an option to...
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
All story links point to the google cache. See Merkac Dot for the full slashdot summary
Star Wars Galaxies Only to Allow One Character Per Account Games [G] | Posted by chrisd on Saturday December 14, @04:08AM
from the one-one-r2d2-per-customer dept.
frotty writes "The developers of Star Wars Galaxies recently announced [G] that the game would only allow a single character per purchased account on any server. This has outraged some, and relieved others." Click on the link to see the reasoning behind this move.
Cool, but useless.
They're obviously not using a setup like this:
I bet they're doing obscenely wasteful things like using ints to track individual character features that have under 256 alternatives each.
There are 101 moustaches to choose from! Quick, store that vital info in a 4-byte variable! Better store the name of that whisker style as a unicode string, too!
typedef struct _moustache {
3ds_model style_mesh;
texbuf moustache_texture;
unsigned long color_red;
unsigned long color_green;
unsigned long color_blue;
unsigned long color_alpha;
double face_position_pitch;
double face_position_tilt;
double face_position_height;
double face_position_rotation;
uchar* style_name;
uchar* color_name;
long double phase_shift;
long double isodimensional_tachyon_rift;
} moustache;
It's the only explanation.
Anyone interested in knowing how much it takes to maintain Terabytes of database storage:
Hardware
- Storage
- CPUs
- NIC cards
- Cables
- Electricity ($$$)
Licensing (Commercial)
- OS
- Database
- Admin seats
- User seats
- Storage Admin Software
- Admin seats
Administration
- Salary
- QA at 60k/yr
- Admin at 75k/yr
- Manager at 80k/yr
These are all very ball-park, but you can see that there is a lot more than $1/GB involved here.
Sure you can buy a hard drive for about $1/GB for personal use but you don't count all the man hours involved in maintenance or you don't have enugh activity to need maintenance or any of the other tasks involved with serious database activity.
I hope this starts you thinking about all the effort that goes into keeping a very active DB going.
There's more, much more to say about this but I'm done for now.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
I know that in Warcraft III, Blizzard has a ton of data to store when it comes to team games. What they did was set a 30-day inactivity limit, at which point the record for that team is erased. To me, this seems a bit more fair than "you can only have one team" (character in this case).
I'm curious if this idea is feasible for them, because it would make more people happy I bet... Or maybe set an inactivity limit for additional characters to 30 days, and let the person keep their selected primary character indefinitely. Then if they go away for a bit, they don't lose everything.
But the fact that he's complaining about how much data each customized face takes up makes it sound like they didn't plan this thing out very well. They could have sacrificed a bit of customizability in exchange for smaller data sets.
Anyway, enough ranting... That's just my opinion.
...oOOo..'(_)'..oOOo...
The article was actually about a beautifully-done drop-stitch doiley depicting some really long post in the SWG forums. It even shows you how to stitch your own from any page of written text and images.
Not sure what prompted your rant about some game accounts.
...that 90% of the complainers are mules of a few regularly used accounts. ;)
I bet they're doing obscenely wasteful things like using ints to track individual character features that have under 256 alternatives each.
That would be wasteful. If they... oh, ints. Sorry. Thought you said ents.
Then cluster 'em and pay $Y * 2 for double capacity instead of $Y * 10 for one more byte.
Reading the responses of most people I don't understand why most people are hung up on the storage issue. Maybe it will cost them lots of money, maybe it won't, at the same time we're ignoring the gameplay issues that I think are core to SOE's decision. The people who are screaming the loudest about this are the Everquest and other MMPORPG power players. They want SWG to be Everquest in the Star Wars universe. They want muling so they can store huge amount of accumulated loot. They want to be able to twink new characters with the latest and greatest stuff. In order to build a complex or powerful item in SWG requires multiple skills that a single person can't have. This makes sense. Most of us can't build a car from scratch, much less a VCR or telephone. I'm not talking about assembling them from pre-made parts, I'm talking about building every individual component themselves. By requiring users to depend on each other to get the things they want requires interaction between the players and discourages being an a-hole to everyone you meet. If you can have 10 characters per server than you won't need anybody you can build it all yourself, no interdependency, no socialization. I honestly believe that the reason that SOE is using one character per server is to improve gameplay and interaction. Having played several other MMPORPGs this is something that desperately needs improvement. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't, but I believe it's worth a try. For those who want to twink, mule and grief, keep your EQ accounts.
STOP ROCK VIDEO
This is, of course, an inherent contradiction. If it's modded up, then people care, but the message says that people don't care. If it's modded down, then people don't care, but they may not get to see your message either.
If you're the sort of gamer that seeks to optimize everything, then you'll probably be frustrated that you made a Bothan, and he's never going to be as good at hand to hand combat as a Wookiee, true. But you CAN make that Bothan into anything that Wookiee is.
Ugh, that's enough to put me off right now. Y'all can have fun roll playing wookiees and ewoks. I'll stick to other online RPGs thankyou...
When I first read the title, I wondered if their quota system were a bit harsh to their users. When I went to school way back, we had room for more than one character on our unix accounts.
Not that elegant.... He lists the pros and cons, mostly just glosses over the reasons people want more than one character, and misses an obvious (and tried-and-true) solution to the problem of having characters in multiple factions: allow multiple characters on a server, but in one faction only. Dark Age of Camelot does this.
Another concern would be how viable it actually is to play on different servers. With most MMORPGs, your connection to the server plays a large role in how well you'll fight, especially in PvP. For that reason people choose a server that is closest to them physically, so they can enjoy a good connection. You'll probably find one or two SWG servers with a good connection, but on the further servers you'll always be playing second fiddle to the locals.
In the end I agree with the poster who said "You can have my 10 characters on 10 servers, if you give me just 2 characters on a single server". Raph Koster goes on about experimenting (dabbling as he calls it), muling and twinking, and he does not miss the fact that these are in fact very popular playstyles. That leads me to believe that this is primarily a business decision: these playstyles are in fact so popular that people will happily fork over money for an additional account once they are hooked. I'm not sure that Raph is the one that made this decision, it might have been some drongo from Lucasart marketing. But it's a smart move... look at Ultima Online, where one gets to play 5 characters per server on all the servers. Even so, some players have as many as 5 accounts. Personally I think that anyone playing SWG and liking it, will very soon feel the need for an additional account.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I am, after all, from the old school of Bastard Implementors from Hell. A pity this will do very little to stop problems.
;)
The most dedicated people who cause problems through muling, twinking, powerlevelling, etc. are the ones who already have multiple accounts on these games. This move will only help them get ahead, while leaving more 'regular' players with the short end of the stick.
If they went farther - one account only, that'd be fine. However, while that was possible in the days of text-based MUDs, back when e-mail addresses weren't so easy to come by, it's impossible now. E-mail addresses can be gotten by the millions and anyone over the age of 16 can get a near-limitless supply of credit cards. Anything else to prevent multiple accounts would take too much power and be too complex - besides, why would they want to? These new graphical MUDs are corporate run, and thus, dependant on revenue streams.
This will backfire on them. People who play these games make friends. People who make friends are loathe to leave them. I've seen disgruntled players who wouldn't leave a MUD, despite the fact that they hated playing. Why? Their friends were all there. I've seen it on games such as EverQuest and Dark Age of Camelot as well.
If that was the only part of the issue, SW:G would be fine. However, players of these games also like to try new things - different classes, different races. They will dislike the idea of having to leave their friends to do it on another server.
With the number of graphical MUDs that are coming out these days, SW:G is shooting itself in the foot with this. Regular players will go elsewhere, so will powerplayers. The only ones that'll be left are the hardest of the hardcore Star Wars fans, and there's not enough of those to generate the income of another EverQuest or DAoC.
Please read the post by Holocron on the reasons behind SCS when you can.
SCS is critical to many aspects that are only unique to SWG and not other MMOs. This is not a SCS Vs MCS issue. But more of which will be best for SWG.
I am sure alot of old school MMO gamers will be put off by it but here's my take anyway
First of all, the customizability of SWG needs SCS. It's not only when you create your character but also after throught your SWG gamelife! The Image Designer Profession can alter your look, hairstyle, tatoos, cloths etc. There will be 3 layers of clothings. Your house and many other things can be customized and personalized. Your pets can also grow! Not just in its stats and skills but its size! There are many more other features of the game that can be customized. This customizability aspect of SWG is unseen in any other games. And it needs SCS to maintain a feasible server/CS cost.
SCS ensures a player-driven economy will not get destroyed by excessive muling and self-sufficient players. And it secures the roles of the crafter professions in the economy. Trading at this scale will also foster a tighter community.
SCS also means no more two-face cowards that play their main hero then logon their griefer char once in the while to just piss people off. With only one character per server, and such heavy emphasis on interdependency, every single actions you do in game counts. Griefer can still buy separate accounts, but he would have to pay to do that and that atleast covers the additional CS he caused.
There are many more reasons and benefits SCS will bring to SWG. The only benefit MCS I can see so far is satisfying the old MMO gamers "habit". I canforesee SWG's SCS concept will only be the first in the 3rd generation MMOs. As MMO becomes bigger, more detail and more complex, they will need SCS.
It all boils down to one question, do you want to play UO/AC/EQ-in-space, or do you want to play SWG? Those who gets put off by SCS and refuse to play SWG, I am sure a good portion of them will try out SWG when the others rave about it when its launched. Ya, I have that much faith in it. ;)
I will stop here before I carelessly break my NDA :p
P.S. In a nutshell SWG's SCS means, for each account you own, you can have 10 character but only 1 on each server.
SCS - Single Character Servers
MCS - Multiple Character Servers
CS - Customer Support
-Tang
SOE sure has its head in the sand here. Mythic just raised the number in Dark Age of Camelot to 8/server(24 on Gareheris, pendragon, Mordread, and Andred, actually).
So why would you want more than 1 characters on a single server?
-Friends: People make alt characters and still want to be with their friends.
-Crafting: No one class can do all the crafts, and there are people who take pride that have a high skill crafter for most/all the craft trades. High level crafters are an asset to the entire realm.
-Roleplayiing: Yes, there are people who actually roleplay. And some roleplay more than 1 character.
Unless SOE changes their policy, I won't be picking up SW:G myself.
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
The reasons for the limit sound fair and hey if you don't like it, hey, you don't have to play.
We're going to have to get used to this. For massively multiplayer games to flourish, they have to move beyond the hard-core gaming market into mass market. You can see similar choices being made on The Sims Online (the emphasis on relationships over items acquired) which are geared towards bringing the audience of casual games into the loop. The average housewife is not going to play when some thirteen year old can harass her without consequence. The upside is that a rising tide lifts all boats - a larger gaming audience allows for more games, higher budgets, and more variety. This will be a little painful in the short term, but long term it is far better for the market overall.
This is NOT some Starwars Fan Weblog we're talking about here. This is the Big Time. This is where the the Grownups play. Mysql or postgress haven't got the balls to handle the kinds of data sets and transaction times this kind of application requires. You need Big Iron, and Big Commercial Databases.
Actually, I don't think this will be a major issue. After 1.5 year of playing Everquest in California (close to servers) and 1.5 year in Europe (far from servers) I never noticed any significant difference.
1) Pick a popular franchise
2) Make a cheap as in shoddy game around it
3) Short term profit
4) Repeat
"Hey, I don't feel like playing my Fighter today... I feel like using my Thief instead... can you guys all ditch your characters and go to this server?"
Yeah, right...
Why does everyone always talk about this "Mule" crap when this subject is brought up? I've been into RPGs off and on since '81, and I can't remember a long running campaign EVER where I just used a single character. Why? I would periodically feel like PLAYING a different ROLE. That is, after all, the entire purpose of a ROLE PLAYING game....
Not that I care... there's hasn't been a quality product from the Star Wars franchise since ROTJ came out, and you'd be a fool to expect it to change now...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Everquest has so or so standard servers on each of which you can have 8 characters per account. However there is one server, launched a little over a year ago with a special ruleset. Firiona Vie is the roleplaying prefered server, and part of the ruleset is a one character limit.
Firiona Vie was my server since I started eq in January. I've just recently quit and canceled my FIVE accounts. Having been a hardcore player I wasn't satisfied by one character, and playing on any other server just wasn't an option to me since all my friends and efforts were local to Firiona Vie.
There is a huge potential for the same behavior by hardcore players of the new game. Believe me the game creators know this and I'm sure it's a factor in their decision.
Like Tang, I'm also a Betatester for SWG. And he's right, its not an SCS/MCS issue -- its more the fault of SWG managment making some bad decisions which has led to them painting themselves into a corner. SOE/Lucasarts have put their foot down and they need the game out ASAP, and the easiest way to do that is via SCS.
I'm not going to apologize for Holocron in the least. SCS/MCS has caused on big firestorm (at least among those a bit obsessed with this game). A good percentage of betatesters are equally pissed off and are just riding out beta with not much of an intention of buying the game simply on this one issue (however they are honoring their commitment to bug squashing). Yeah its Star Wars, yeah the graphics are pretty, but to pay in the order of $15/month for one character? No thanks.
Of course if SOE wants to maximise its profits there is a slim chance that several months from now we'll see MCS servers. But I'm not holding my breath.
I don't see that it would be necessarily hard to catch most cheats. Correlating transactions between players, IP addresses, credit cards, addresses and other personal info should enable it quite easily. A player so flagged could be monitored by an admin and kicked when they were caught doing it.
You're absolutely correct. Using client storage capacity to store encrypted alts is a particularly elegant solution. The reason why it works -- unlike the stream obfuscation of Everquest et al -- is because the client never receives the symmetric key for the encrypted data. It's remote storage; the carrier for a megabyte blob of something or other. There's no "partial disclosure"; AES or 3DES will deploy just fine, and no kiddie's getting around it. Throw a timestamp and an HMAC into the file pre-crypto, just to prevent various forms of corruption attacks.
Pretty trivial, and there goes the DB problems (in exchange for a bandwidth hit).
The job of the game is to be addictive and fun for as long as possible. Supporting group play, both in-house and across geographic boundries, is empirically one of the more important techniques for "keeping people hooked". If deciding to try an all-new character forces me to lose my original investment, I'm not likely to switch. But since my original interest was driven by boredom, I'm also not likely to continue paying $10 a month now that the entertainment value has ceased.
On a similar note, nobody ever paid $10 a month because they really felt good about supporting that EULA.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
This is a crap answer. Most likely the real reason is they can't figure out how to let people have more than one character per account or they can't change things to allow it because their code is crap.
... to take business advice from a bunch of goobs who can't spell or cobble together a proper sentence.
Seriously... all those replies from what appear to be either adolescents or illiterates stating categorically how bad an idea this is and how they'll lose money! Yeah, I'm sure there's heaps of business experience and acumen behind each "sence" and "their" [they're] and "are" [our]. One poster even mis-spelled his own god#&^%$ name for fsck's sake!
I'll play. And I'll play safe in the knowledge that the worst of the whiners will be off on their pouting protest of what's probably the most anticipated (and probably, eventually, most profitable) MMORPG ever and not getting in way of my enjoyment.
- I am made of meat.
Nuff said!
- I am made of meat.
MCS or Multiple Characters per Server is a very abused thing.
1. Mules. Many characters are created just to hold lots of items or carry them places the main character cannot go. Sum up the capabilities of the main and all the mules and you have a super-character at the expense of the game company and the other players game enjoyment.
2. Low level char is acting an ass so people around him get mad at him and wont group with him. He goes and gets his high level character and spawn camps preventing others from enjoying game. Harassment is a very real thing. Now you got an alt war on your hands and it's a support nightmare due to the fact that it's hard to identify alts.
3. Hi level players decide to start alts. They twink (give hi level stuff to their own low level characters) and now the new main chars of new players are at a disadvantage. Nothing like being passed over for a group because your Bronze armor didn't stack up to the Cobalt armor of your level 10 warrior competitor.
4. The one-stop-shop. You got yer Shamans making potions, your enchanters making jewelry and fetching components for the shaman. You got yer gnome tinkering. Why would you need to do business with anyone else?
People will always find a loophole in the rules. The SCS (single character per server) idea will address some of the inequities currently brought about by the abuses of MCS (multichar per server). I'm sure that the more financially endowed players will purchase multiple accounts (like they are doing even now with MCS) so that they may continue to abuse the game - with SCS they will be forced to pay for abuses AND they will be more accountable for same.
Some ideas:
To address some of the problems with SCS such as wanting to dabble with a new char class. They could have a short lived tryout character at the end of which time the user could decide whether they wanted the original char or the new char. Only one would live. HOWEVER, this would also allow the transfer of goods from one to the other i.e. the new char benefitting from the old char's accumulated wealth and items - an abuse.
They could allow users to purchase more slots per server. Would still allow abuse of trade as purchasing additional separate accounts BUT would keep users from transferring directly from one char to another - they'd need a cooperative mule.
To sum up:
The SCS idea is the best one they've come up with yet to address inequities.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
All those MUD, MUSH, MOO, whatever admins who dream of doing it commercially should take special note here.
When you do it for free, you can tell people this is how it is, like it or lump it.
When you do it for a living you have to kiss ass and attempt to convince people that your (bosses) decision is the right one for them (the people indirectly paying your wages and keeping you in a job).
So be careful what you wish for and remember that sometimes hobbies are enjoyable mainly because they are hobbies...
Note: In either case you still have to listen to them bitch and moan.
The problem with DAOC is that it is nothing more than an analysis of EQ and trying to address the little nitpicking issues people had with it.
1. People didn't like waiting for ports in EQ. DAOC provided rentable horses.
2. There were problems with low level chars wearing hi level gear. DAOC wouldn't allow the lowbie to wear gear that was outside it's level range. I feel that if a char were personally successful due to real gains then they should be able to purchase the advanced gear - DAOC would not allow this.
3. There was the problem with gear never wearing out in EQ. DAOC solved this problem by having degradable gear. Not a bad idea really.
4. People complained that they were spending too much time getting their body back in EQ. DAOC used the concept of the headstone. Go to the headstone and pray. You get your exp back. No need to worry about lost gear at all - you already got it back. Where is the risk?
DAOC is not a bad game. It merely examined what people didn't like in EQ and tried to address them. In the end, it seemed that they handed them the game on a silver platter. At first you might be pleased! Indeed! But, you soon begin to realize that the game is not as challenging. There is no real risk and without risk there is no danger of failure. With no danger of failure there is no perceived success. Risk of failure is what makes gambling challenging - the potential rewards are great but skill has not alot to do with it though some. Risk of failure is what makes ANYTHING challenging.
Risk vs. Reward is the idea or vision of Verant. I agree with it. You risk much and through good planning and skill - not to mention a bit of luck you get the reward. If it's just handed to you on a silver platter then all you have to do is just sit there and wait for it to fall in your lap. No challenge... no risk... no fun.
Some of the good new ideas have gotten back into EQ but I hope Verant continues to try to maintain balance of play so it stays challenging.
YMMV
Don't know about physical location of servers. That is beyond the scope of the SCS or MCS issue. However, I do maintain that different servers have different economys and userbased societies - it has a direct bearing on which server different folks will want to play.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
I'm actually impressed with (1) their insistence on a good business model, and (2) their serious cluefulness and proactivity about online gaming in general and MMORPGs in particular.
And I'm very nervous about what a time sink (read: addiction) Galaxies could be, at least for me. For that reason, I probably just plain won't buy it.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
While this particular choice might not agree with many, the fact that they are willing to sacrifice many potential customers for the better enjoyment of the customers they will have (not to mention increasing retention) is a WELCOME CHANGE. Perhaps this could be the start of a trend where developers actually produce games that will involve and entertain, not just fill a gap. Right now many will admit that they play various games "because of nothing better out yet." That is a sad state of the industry.
I'm sure that announcement relieved some of the stress from the other games out there. The industry standard is more then one account and no matter what the reasons people expect it.
Personally I enjoy have an alt around. Over time even casual players will reach a certain maxim. When that happens for myself, I don't want to switch servers just to try out another character.
He spoke of building strong communities and in my opinion nothing will fragment this worse then players being forced to other servers to try another character.
We know the real reason, casually dressed behind user concerns, they want to keep the total cost per player down.
Not that I have played the game yet, but the quoted storage space was quite high with regards to what I have been accustomed too. If it is such a big deal, have the total storage space as a shared resource between all characters for a given account. (ie, shared vault but individual storage on characters). In the end, all the characters are married to each other via the account ID so this can't be terribly difficult to implement.
My other guess is the worry regarding twinking characters, but no matter what you do this is going to happen. You can limit this to an extent but it would create inflexibilities trying to completely remove it.
Again, no matter what problem they say this character limitation fixes it is going to happen. The only difference now happens to be SWG picks up a few extra bucks along the way.
What is really sad is they KNOW they can get away with it. Damn you Star Wars fans... just try to be picky for five minutes.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
"I have multiple computers on my home network, and I pay for the extra IP addresses." No, you need to get a decent switch. Also, a punch-down block would solve your multiple phone issues..but most people would't think of this...
At least the war on the environment is going well
I am reminded of the TV show, The Flintstones, when Fred has gotten a part in a movie playing the creature from the tar pits, and they're supposed to have safety equipment so he isn't hurt. The director has a scene where the hero uses a club on the creature, and wants a padded club for the scene. The property manager whines, "Are you kidding? Do you know how much padded clubs cost?" So they'll use a real one. You can guess the result: Fred is knocked cold on the first swing to the head. It's cheaper to injure extras than protect them.
If it's that expensive they perhaps should run their own server, either renting it or collocate a box of their own and put in enough disk space. If a T1 for network traffic costs about $500 a month, disk space is peanuts in comparison.
Last time I checked, a 120 GB - that's 120,000 megabytes - IDE disk sells for about $300. Buy an inexpensive used computer, say a 200 MHZ pentium for about $50 with a $75 Gigabit network card connected to the server via a $20 crossover cable with the same $75 gigabit network card so you can access disk space fast. So if you have a box with 4 of the 120 GB space, you can run 480 GB of space for all the characters - that's 480,000 megabytes - for $1500. Or you can mirror it and have 280GB of space completely mirrored. Or spend perhaps another $500, and put two drives each in separate machines with a gigabit switch between them. Or maybe the drives aren't that fast and you can get by with $15.00 100 megabit networking cards and a $20 hub. (You put the traffic going to and from the external disk drives on a separate network card so the data traffic doesn't interfere with the network traffic which is playing the game.)
If it takes as much as 10 megabytes per user (and that's a hell of a lot of space to store character data, and probably isn't anywhere near that much), you can host 48,000 customers with mirrored disk drives for a one-time cost of about $2K. And I believe all the software to handle this including raid striping or mirroring is built in to Linux which means it's free. If your provider is charging too much for disk space, colocate and reduce your cost. Or charge what it costs to operate the game.
This is just another way that companies that operate on-line games get greedy because they don't want the customers figuring ways to make money off the game (by selling characters they've built up) or want to impose draconian conditions (like no fan sites or no creating mods to their game) because they think the customer and any money he spends related to this product (and any attention he devotes to it) is all theirs and nobody else should be able to make any money at all related to it unless they get it or a huge percentage, or any non-company attention unless they control how that attention is given.
Anyone notice how when movies are released to theatres, the studio gets 90% of the ticket price? (The only thing keeping movie theatres alive is the popcorn stand.) Also notice how many studios, when they release films or tv shows where a star in it took a smaller salary in exchange for profit participation, discovers after millions of dollars in sales, that the show or movie has always lost money and thus allegedly never had any profit to pay out? I think it's no coincidence that some of these on-line games are run by divisions of studios and they are operating them the same way as the studios are run. They think everything related to their properties should be all theirs and resent anyone getting anything out of it unless they get a piece of the action. No, make that, they get as much as possible of the action, and resent sharing anything they might have to allow.
Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
...but seriously though, I very much hope that SCS will increase player-accountability. Heck, I very much hope that SCS will increase actual RP. With only one character to work with, perhaps people would be more willing to really *play* their characters and flesh out the Star Wars universe.
After all, what would ruin the experience of living on Tattoine more than being constantly subjected to conversations like this:
A) Psst! Hey, Bob, it's me. Al.
B) Bob? Dude, you're a CHICK!
A) Yeah, I know. I just finished watching "Bring it on" so I wanted to be a hot acrobat for a day.
B) Dude! You're hot! Let's go back to my hut.
A) Uh... I think I'll go make a Wookie instead. C Ya.
(some time later)
B) Dude, you are one HOT Wookie! Let's go back to my hut.
Seems like a novel idea, charge somebody 10$ a month for letting you play on their servers. It's been around for a while right? Buliten Boards used to charge subscriptions. I guess it's a good way for them to get back some of the millions they lose after development is finished and the game hits the shelves of the local Walmart and Electronics Boutique.
Well that would be what you would expect some Shitmonkey to bellow out. But sorry friends, I think the cracker that thought up this scheme is a rascal. Have you tried the current online games that are using this crap? I've been testing out Dark ages of Camelot and it highly smells of lazy programmers. There's no collision detection between monsters and the player nor the players themselves. Lot's of bugs. I can only guess Everquest is the same way considering the claims DAOC was based sorta on it.
I can only hope Lucasarts has made every attempt to put out a flawless perfect title. Doubtful, considering we can only expect Mr Lucas' films to be Maticulously created.
Well I think on topic this time around but maybe the rest of you are pissed off about these Online subscription based ploys to vamp your cash.
--
Stuffing feathers up your ass does not make you a chicken.. Tyler Durden
Yes...but did your other roles exist solely to support your primary role. For example, did you create a Cleric/Healer character in order to have someone whose sole reason for existence was to act as paramedic to your Warrior (and I'm not talking about the initial investment in time -- obviously, you had to spend some time getting the Healer's level up to a respectable point so he could meet all of your Warrior's needs -- not only routine healings but resurrections and such, as needed)?
The issue becomes particularly cloudy if your Cleric/Healer does not actually adventure with you and instead waits for you to visit him whenever you need something....or when you want to store some gold....or for any other reason that places the Cleric/Healer in a pure support/increased carrying capacity role.
Your Cleric/Healer has now destabilized the local economy. If you can get free healing from your Cleric/Healer, why would you ever go to any of the other Healers in town? (And even if you move money from one character to the other in order to simulate "paying" for the healing service, you haven't really paid for anything -- you've moved money from one storage location to another; both of which you own).
As a Gamemaster, I have always allowed my Player's to create and play multiple characters but I have never allowed them to create/play them simultaneously and I have never allowed one Player's character to support another of that same Player's characters. My reasons? Economics -- it is a lot easier to motivate players to take on adventures when they are strapped for cash. If Joe never had to seek assistance outside his own pack of PCs, he'd become fabulously wealthy and overly powerful -- not on the basis of his excellent skills but on the basis of exploiting a loop-hole in the game mechanics.
One positive in most face-to-face RPGs, at least, is that your character typically does not improve in skills when you are not actively playing them (I am aware that some RPG Systems support "off-time" skill advancement but have never seen it widely used after playing RPGs for over 20 years). Now consider MMORPGs where you do not even have to be present for your character to be gaining/improving skills. Now not only have you destabilized the local economy but you have also turned that "extra character" into a factory. Now...maybe "Sword Factory" is an interesting role to you...
With mules existing to solely support primary characters, why would anyone bother playing a character with a support role? Why would I bother to play a weaponsmith or other artisan when I know other players can create their own, tell them to study/learn their craft, leave them and come back to an accomplished character who can now provide a service to them for, essentially, free.
Most MMORPGs I have seen (and most MMORPG players I have talked to) are more about accumulation of wealth and power than they are about ROLE-playing. SWG, it seems, is actually attempting to provide a ROLE-playing experience -- you don't have to be a combatant to make a difference. Choosing to be a merchant, opening a shop and supplying other adventurers can be a fun role (I'm thinking about the barkeep or equipment supplier who can function as the local rumor mill here...) as long as "mule" characters are eliminated...if a Player has no reason to visit your store because he's got a pack of mules meeting his every need then there is no reason for you to create that merchant character.
Just my opinion...
codemonkey
In fact, this kind of thing could be a potential boon to the company because they could sell a secondary service where they store a "deleted" character for you for some nominal fee ($2/mo?) in addition to your game fee. They could use a lot cheaper storage, too; they would be storing and backing-up a flat file instead of a live database. On top of that, don't allow the characters to be deleted and restored more than once per week.
When you get tech support calls about lost characters, you just say, "Sorry, we told you to be careful but it's your responsibility. Goodbye." Your argument about protecting people from their own klutziness comes from the same kind of thinking that advocates that the government should protect people from their own stupidity. It is the root of censorship, anti-drug laws, soddomy laws, and generally anything else that the government does to trample individual freedoms in the name of protecting people from themselves.
I think you underestimate the character of a person who screws up (looses their character) and knows it's his own fault. He's not going to give up playing a game he likes just because he made a dumb mistake.
Then I choose "Beowulf Cluster" -- it must be an unwritten option, right?
Er, they likely won't just be using straight up SCSI. Let's look at the TCO. I will say that I don't really "buy" the database argument, because my understanding is that the big guys tended to price by horsepower, not size, but I could be wrong.
Lets assume the following, using what I think are probably conservative numbers --
1. 2 million total accounts, one character each
2. 10 server active 'sites'
3. Each character uses approximately 5MB of space
4. 60% change in data set between backups.
5. Each 'galaxy' has overhead of some unknown amount, which I will not take into account in this TCO equation.
Let's consider the storage costs:
1. Each site will need approximately 1TB of data for characters; probably 2TB to be able to do flashcopy for backup purposes; assume 500GB for overhead. Note that they won't be able to use just a standard SCSI RAID, they'll need a real workhorse of a machine. Depending on how cheapie they're willing to go, they might get a mid-range FC Array like the IBM FASTtT700 or a real storage server like the ESS. Cost will run between $210k and $2 million. Per site. However, with the high load, they'll probably need something with oodles of cache, so I'd lean towards the ESS and call it $2 million per site.
2. Disaster recovery. They'll probably use something like the 3590E or H for tape; they'll probably want to store 2 weeks of data with probably 60% change per day -- that works out to about 52.5TB of data. That'll need about 3 3494 frames at ~$100000 ea. That's $300k per site. Then drives -- each drive costs about $40k, and if each drive does about 75GB/hr average and you need to back up in 8 hrs, you need at least 3 drives, plus another 4 or so for tape maintenance -- $280k per site. Tape will cost about $10k extra, per site.
3. Online backups -- this will essentially require you to duplicate the storage equipment once per site, so we end up doubling our hardware costs.
Per site, we're looking at:
$2 million for DASD
$600 thousand for tape
----
$2.6 million in storage alone.
To do the online backups, which I find probable, double that number ($5.2 million); multiply by ten sites, and you get $52 million investment cost. Divide that by 2 million characters, and your approximate cost per character is $26 in storage, per character.
Note that this doesn't even begin to take into account the recurring fees -- vendor support, which you can expect to be at least $10k per month per site, in-house technical support, which you can expect to run probably $20k per month per site, nor does it take into account ANY management software, any bandwidth to transfer to the online backup site, etc,.
More than you thought, huh? Probably by a factor of thousands.
Please write the following on a blackboard 100 times:
ENTERPRISE HARDWARE IS SIGNIFIGANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE COMMODITY INTEL COMPATIBLE HARDWARE I AM USED TO. IT IS ALSO EXPONENTIALLY MORE EXPENSIVE AS YOU SCALE.
Twinking
I don't see this changing; in a lot of MMRPGs, while alts may be big twinkers, this pales by comparison with guildmates/friends. A friend finds a second +4 Sword of the Frenzied Wampus - he'll give it to you. One character per server may actually make this worse, since there is a greater chance of picking up items that you don't want for any of your characters.
In other words, twinking will still happen - but will be even more focussed on large guilds than it is now.
Muling
Muling will still happen, but to a lesser degree. I foresee a world in which people who buy second accounts create mules on some worlds - and share the use of the mule with a friend. This already happens in some multi-character games (quite common in Asheron's Call 1 which lacks banking).
The Spying Issue
Spying could be a problem, since factional/PvP is being played up so much. However, DAOC solved this very simply - allow multiple characters per server, but they all have to be in the same faction.
The player economy
If SWG's tradeskill system is as complete as Verant say it will be, then crafting has the potential to play a big role in the game; this is a good thing in that interdependant players tends to create a good atmosphere. It is also a bad thing in that new players are dependent upon the existing economy - and if they don't find people to help them, they will have a really unhappy time; this happens already in Asheron's Call 2 which has a player economy. Only having a single character on a given server would make me less likely to craft; I don't want to craft all the time (I play to escape reality, not simulate work!), so I like the opportunity to craft for a bit and then go and save the galaxy - without having to worry about coordinating cross-server guild relationships with friends/guildmates.
Overall, I think SWG is shooting itself in the foot with this. I personally wasn't going to play anyway - Star Wars isn't my thing, and I'd hate to see a 13 year old screaming 'D3WD, US3 F33R M! L33+ J3D! SK1llZ' - but I know a few people who are considering it. Not one of them is happy about this move.
Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
Hard to identify alts? For players, maybe, but for the people who come in to settle disputes between people acting like 2 year olds, its only as difficult as the developers make it. Anyone who has given any thought to mmorpg's realizes the need to make available a list of characters associated with an address, credit card, and account.
Thats not to say that all support staff should see the address or credit card number, of course, but they should see the account name. So when Joe Blow complains that Jimmy has been harassing them, the support staff can note this of Jimmy, and attach this in such a way that its visible in a query of characters by address/credit card/account.
Now, for twinking I think you're burying your head in the sand. A LOT of the people that are into twinking can still do so by purchasing a second account. Multiple accounts is a COMMON thing in mmorpgs. Probably 1/3 of the people I play EQ with have 2 or more accounts. And limiting to one character per account per server does jack shit to stop twinking for this crowd.
"[thunk] Message for you sir............."
Score: 4??? FOUR?!?! This poster is obviously a complete moron. They don't even store the characters on the client's computer computer, they store them on their own servers. His whole post is totally irrelevant and useless.
(and have to tread softly around my NDA) .. is that this is a dead horse.
.. err .. not highly social people, are quite often afraid of change.
.. maybe leaning towards SCS after reading some of the arguments NOT posted in that article.)
.. is that this is SOE's game ! Here is an example that WONT break my NDA :P :
.. warhamemr .. warhammer 40k etc.
.. they get tonnes of greif from their existing customers. Of course, this isn't suprising as their products are targeted at *13 YEAR OLD BOYS*.
.. 13 year old boys are pretty easy to win over - and 1/2 of them don't know the rules anyways :P [Anyone who has ever worked a Games-Day in the US or the UK know this :P]
.. they make like 1/2 a BILLION bucks a year .. they probally know more of what makes their product sell than a 13 year old kid does.
.. every year there are more and more 13 year old boys. THAT is who they target. Its called business growth people.
:
.. so they buy your product again to get the new rules ? That sounds like you can resell it countless times then :) *greed*"
.. they already own the rules, we just make sure that they are happy."
.. what do your current customers contribute to your bottom line annually ?"
.. Still .. your a very specilized company, I can see how you might turn the educated outlook of your customers to your advantage. What was the average age of your customers again ?"
.. 13"
... *NEXT!!!*"
.. imagine a company betting their entire company future on the very malliable influence of 13 year olds. That would be like letting gamers design your online game for you ... oh .. wait.
What folks need to realize here
People, especially
[anyone remember when Taco announced the subscriber member plan HERE? - rest my case.]
There are only a few folks on the beta forums who have (from a year or two ago) been saying they want mcs only. Almost everyone else is just picking a bandwagon. (I myself am neutral
What a LOT of folks seem to forget
I used to work for games workshop - you know
They make some 300 million Pounds Stirling selling toy soldiers (about 1/2 a billion US depending on exchange).
Every 3-5 years they changes the rules in their games. Fix bugs, make them easier to play etc.
EVERY TIME they do this
As a general rule, the folks who complained the loudest were the 30 year old geeks who had been playing their product for YEARS.
after all
Games-Workshop rightfully totally IGNORE all these complaints. After all
They make desicisions based on what is good for their sales, what is good for their games, and what will make them less confusing and more fun for the boys that just turned 13 this year, and have never seen it before. You see
If you were an investor, would you give capital to a company like this ?
Exec : "And each year we review our product to see if it falls into the expectitaions of our existing customer base, and if it doesnt, we take all their suggestions - and rewrite it at our expense. Just to make everyone happy."
Investor : "Oh
Exec : "well, no
Investor : "Oh, Well it sounds like these customers are very important to you
Exec : "Well, past the first six months, not that much really, since they have bought almost everything they need already. Actually most are complaining because they don't want to spend more money."
Investor : "So what your really saying, is that your letting your customer base affect your vision of your company. Hmm
Exec : 'Ummm
Investor : "oh
I mean
DiaKatana Anyone ?
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
I know there's a lot of hard-core MMORPG players here that won't be playing SWG because of this MCS vs. SCS thing (Acronym overload!). I, for one, will be playing because of Sony's decision.
One reason I've stayed away from MMORPGs in the past is because of all the chatter about "muling", "twinking", and fscked economies. I want to play an online RPG that feels like an RPG, not some twisted inventory management competition. I mean, can you imagine trying to sell multiple characters to a D&D group?
I think Sony is trying to create a MMORPG for the common man, or at least the common gamer. Flame all you want, but I think it's grand.
This
Why does everyone always talk about this "Mule" crap when this subject is brought up?
Damn now I miss M*U*L*E.
</offtopic>Still haven't found a MMORPG that I really like. sigh.
... is what is is called.
you don't understand encryption.
If you think "no matter how it would be encrypted, it would be cracked 2 hours after release" then explain why it took years to crack rc5-64.
This isn't about client software doing ANY calculation; it's about the client software storing a block of encrypted data. It doesn't know how to DO anything with it other than send it back to the server. It has no keys.
If the client somehow could manipulate it, yes, you would be correct.. but as long as we are dealing with nothing but pure data storage, this is a great idea.
First of all, let me say that I don't play any of these games (I prefer to waste my time reading slashdot and the like *ahem*), but that said....
I think what it means is "consistent with the rules/laws of the imaginary universe". If things aren't consistent, the game loses its appeal. (I guess)
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
So you can, like, crack AES & 3DES in a couple days?
How?
Maybe you should get a job with the NSA.... I'm sure they'd be interested.. especially if you can crack AES. Or maybe they'd just kill you.
Because people would simply switch to the other char and play it a minimum time and then leave it in the dark for 25 days. Et Voila !
personally whatever the decision ground8economical, buisness, Customer support, $$$) I don't care. i think it is a good idea because so much things screwing the conomics of the game which put me off in other RPG are simply higher level char having a quasi monopoly on goods and all stuff on alts.
Now if *everybody* is limited to 1 char... Then one can hope to balance economy a bit better. I wasn't interrested in SWG. Now I am !
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Yes, you may be here to relax, but no, it isn't just a game. It is a new medium of entertainment with its own rules.
I'm sorry, but this IS JUST a game. I think it
is cute when developers believe that what they
are doing is culturally important.
hEpen
You've got that completely wrong, twit.
Did anyone else read this as Tell Me Again Why You Can't Have Multiple Orgasms?
Raph Koster works for them. This is the same guy who worked on Ultima Online, which sported such design triumphs as a non-database character data storage system with a backup cycle so slow it had to run continuously because it could not complete within the 4-hour interval between scheduled backups. Transactions, Raph. Transaction commits to database, good!
Real easy to criticize the guy who did it first, I guess. As usual, all the best coaches are in the stands...
"Agh! More forced grouping!"
I'd prefer to think of it as a chance to get to know your neighbors. The fact is that something like 90-95% of you are unable to tell me the names and occupations of the people who live in the eight homes that lie adjacent to you: three across the street, three behind you, and the two on each side. In fact, a very large number of you have social circles that are built around your school or your job. Not only is this unnatural for humans, but it means that the groups you form are extremely homogeneous.
As any biologist can tell you, homogenous populations go extinct very readily. As any teacher can tell you, exposure to different modes of thought makes for better citizens and better thinkers.
I can't decide if I think he's incredibly pretentious or incredibly insightful for the comparisons he's making to evolutionary biological systems... in either case, it's a good sell for the game.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
... AC2 absolutely sucks =(
LOL :( :( :( :(
It sure would be nice to play this on opening day.
(Everquest for mac is almost done.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
Apparently you didn't read the entirety of Bartle's article, or are forgetting parts of it.
To wit:
Killers and Explorers make up a minority amongst MUD populations, with the Explorer type being very rare.
Also, considering the adaptability of these two types, I doubt such a change is going to make a big dent in either population. Explorers explore more than the player types available to them, and Killers just need a way to cause trouble.
The majority consists of Achievers and Socialisers. Achievers make up the core of the game, which SWG is trying to appeal to. Socialisers kind of leech off of Achievers, but I doubt they need something as minor as extra characters just to chat and socialise.
Me, I think the only real impact this decision will be on the hardcore Achievers, which are costly to MMORPGs in the long run. Guys that spend most of their time on the servers can't be good for profitability reasons, but you can't stop them. Come on, the real profits are made from cashing in the players that come, play casually, then leave.
In either case, you're blowing this decision way out of proportion. I doubt their profit line will go anywhere but upwards.
I must say that I applaud your ability to post a link to the story posted & receive a moderated score in excess of 5.
BRAVO!
Let's hear it for the moderators!
For his next trick, a Beowulf cluster of "In soviet Russia....."
So how will this compare to SWG where you can no longer Mule and get away with general stupid stuff? And which game will have the higher GDP? Only time will tell!!
1. Mules. Many characters are created just to hold lots of items
Ok, I've never played EQ or most of the others, but I can tell you that in Diablo2 the storage space was PATHETIC! It was also extremely unrealistic. It's perfectly reasonable to have strict limits on what a caracter can actively carry on his person, but if you have any sort of "storage locker" it should be a HELL of a lot bigger than your backpack! One of the reasons I got tired of the game was the hassle of moving stuff to another character.
And if you've got a house your storage space should be practically unlimited...
That box in the corner? Oh that has 300 magic rings in it. How do you like the front wall with with my collection of 40 swords hung up? Pretty, huh? I've got 30 pairs of boots under the bed and few dozen wands hanging next to the window. Just don't try to open the closet - it's stuffed with all sorts of armor.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
To ban cheaters more easily is the only reason why I would accept that model. I play online quite regularily and am always pissed by that folks who just found some new cheater kit and now try it out with an alt character. Which might be banned by the company running the show, but the actual account wil almost never be terminated. The reasoning is always "Who knows, it might be a whole family playing here...". But one of this rotten family has just ruined the game for a lot of others, for christ's sake!
So, if in SWG they would charge us an entry fee, than the just banned cheater had to open a new account and pay once again. At least a certain punishment...
Excellence: Moderate (mostly affected by comments on your karma)
Sony did lots of things to encourage everyone to have multiple accounts in Everquest (later on, but not in the beginning). This is yet another way to make the game miserable for those with only one account. Sony even tried the Legends server idea to squeeze more money out of people (it was an expensive server with some rather trivial perks).
Get 3 accounts and make Sony happy. Personally I will chose not to play the game. I'll wait for the next game that's actually designed for the players and not just for the Sony coffers.
I'd prefer to think of it as a chance to get to know your neighbors.
More often than not, my neighbours are two nine year-olds who haven't read the manual, some gibbering idiot whose only binds are PATY PLZ!!! and YOU TRADING OF ITME ME!!!, and a half-dozen others who kill characters 1/3 their level for no apparent reason.
Thanks but I'd rather play alone. Find a way to weed out the complete fucknuts on a server (or at least uniquely identify them!) and we'll talk.
Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?
So, "twinking" and "muling" should be recognized playstyles, eh? How about if they also offered, (for a few extra bucks a month, of course) to activate cheat codes for you too? The demographic you're talking about is "llama". Stick to one-player games if that's what you want.
There's many who have cited the idea that they get bored with their character, and want to go try something new, so they make an alt. But when they get bored with their alt, they want to return to the main character.
Basically, this says "I'd like to play the game starting over, but I want you to keep around all the past data that a character makes up." Well, that's storage space that someone else doesn't get to use, for one thing. It sits, inactive and unused, until you want to come back to it. Yes, other games have offered this. But it isn't as expensive for them as it is for us.
Yeah...if they only had a few customers. Look, this thing is expected to be bigger than existing MMORPGs. EQ has about 500k subscribers. DAoC and UO have about 250k. Let's say they get a million.
Storing a big record for a customer is easy. Storing a million big records for your million customers is not easy. They need a database that can have a lot of big records, and handle 100k or more essentially concurrent updates to those records, in real time. This isn't a job for MySQL.
> The SCS idea is the best one they've come up with yet to address inequities.
It doesn't address the inequities at all. Rather, those with more money to spend on the game will be able to engage in all those problematic behaviors by buying multiple accounts. This means that having more real-life money buys privilege even in an online game.
They should just say it's a business decision. In the article, they list numerous reasons why people want to play multiple characters. Then there's a bunch of gobbledygook, amounting to "no". Then they say you have to pay for each character. It's not hard to connect the dots.
I also don't buy the "lots of storage" angle. As long as the characters are stored with expandable metadata, rather than a fixed list with blanks for EVERY option (re: linked list vs. array), they will only take up as much space as they are actually using. You don't need 8 blank house records for every character! When a character gets a house, append it to his file.
It is very unlikely that one person would have enough time to get and maintain ALL that stuff for more than one character at a time. It would happen in very few cases, so storage requirements would hardly increase.
It sounds like they're using a huge database with columns for every conceivable attribute. This wastes space. Why use 150 columns for inventory items instead of an "inventory" db with one row per item, or better yet, one BLOB for the whole inventory, in binary, with a bigger blob when there's more items?
It seems to me that the "RIGHT" way to handle records for an MMORPG is to do a memory dump straight to disk. Very fast. Then in the background, another program (on another computer, if need be) can parse it out and save it as text, XML, to an SQL DB, etc.
This way, saving and retrieving a character is just a straight binary file read or write, or a read into memory from a binary image stored in a DB.
If you want all the statistics (X of this item, Y characters wear hats, etc.), that can be compiled at leisure offline.
Most of the time, the game needs to know info only about who is currently playing. That's just reading the character struct in memory. If it needs any other data, ANY kind of over-the-network DB access or disk access is too slow with thousands of characters online at once.
(E.g. imagine your hard drive has a 1 ms seek time, and you want to quickly check 3,000 files. Right, can't do it in realtime, the game would grind to a halt.)
Even if it's all stored in RAM, there's a practical limit based on memory bandwidth. Say each character record is 5 MB, with 3000 characters on a server logged in at once. How fast can you page through 15000 MB?
There's tons of cool things we'd like to do, but which aren't feasible at this point. The programmers are either going to have a slow, expensive-to-run game, or will have to make better decisions than maxing out their Oracle license budget.
So, keep in mind that this is NOT the final decision.
Here's a quote from Holo: "Now, you may agree or disagree with each of these, but I thought I would explain each one from the devs' perspective so that we can have a more constructive discussion... Let me tell you, as a player I'd like multiple characters per server too... Definitely keep debating and discussing. I just want everyone to have all the facts."
Go here for teh [sic] funny.
I had enough of that in EQ. I recall when my Ranger spent an hour traveling from GFay to Freeport...and then two hours trying to find someone to bind him in Freeport.
I recall guild events cancelled because we didn't have enough people of certain classes. I recall guild events saved when some people would switch from a class we had enough of to their alts of a class we needed more of.
But, what is up with their lame excuses? One excuse is
WTF? THey don't want to spend money for a bigger hard drive? Maybe they should STREAMLINE the databases some. Instead of having my weapon be stored in their database as:
$Weapon="Ordinary_Blasater_With_No_Speial_Abili
Use:
$Weapon="Pistol2"
Let my freaking client know that pistol2 = Ordinary_Blasater_With_No_Speial_Abilities_Unless
Grr... I'm going back to reading the rest of the article
[/rant]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
Jar Jar Binks made this statement to the press "Meesa nosaa liken dis, knowsaaaa, aaaaah [inaudible], oopsi."
The spokesman for Darth Vader had this to say, "We are unable to comment on this decision at this time. You don't have a problem with that, RIGHT?"
According to a press release, Luke Skywalker had this to say: "No! No! It's not true. That's IMPOSSIBLE!"
Han Solo and Princess Leah were occupied and unable to comment.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
From the "reasons" for this:
I'll say it flatly--a character record in SWG is FAR larger than you think. There's a business reality to see here. We share fancy databases over multiple servers. Said fancy databases cost $X up to a certain size. Then they cost ten times that if you go over that limit by one byte because you have to buy the "next size up."
What database system charges on a per size basis? The only thing I can think of is them talking about disk space, which should not be the killer they seem to make it out to be.
If each character record took 100k worth of storage, you could put 800k characters on about 80 gigs of storage.
And really, if you're even using 100k per character record you've got some really ineffecient data use going on.
It's not like binary data should be stored with each character. A character record should just be a reference of IDs pointing to a master database.
You are talking about a totally different type of game in reference to GTA. There's no persistant online world, there's no storage server being paid for by the developer, etc etc. And in Sims Online, you are INDEED limited to Three total charecters, only allowed to have one Sim per town. If you've already created a Sim in one town, you cannot create another in that same town.
Reason: Prevent Abuse (prevent people from getting a roomie and lot size bonus illegitimately)
Promote diversity - get people playing on and working in different game worlds and people
Prevent one server from getting "too popular" and becoming overloaded while another server sits with empty capacity.
So go ahead, try different aspects of the game. When you get bored of the charecter, give your belongings to a trusted freind to hold, delete your charecter and make a new one. Or just make another charecter on a different server.
Yeah, the parent poster was making what is known as a "joke."
How can a fellow tell the difference between a bad joke and a serious but misinformed comment with 99% reliability?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Wrong. If it's modded up or down then people care at least enough to read the comments and moderate them. Neither action could reasonably be taken as implying that people don't care.
NT
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Checked with whom? You called and asked? "Hello? ....cable company? this is c2k again...will you gettpist if I use a splitter?"
Talking out of your ass only draws attention to your bad breath.
This is some funny stuff
[snip]
You see, our characters are much more expensive to store than those of other games because we have a much higher degree of customizability. There's a ton of data just in storing your customized face. On top of that, there's more equipment slots that hold items. There's a datapad which holds data objects, which is a whole second inventory other games do not have. There's the inventory itself, which is larger than that of most games. There's the fact that we allow placing of structures on the map--and a single player can currently have around a dozen of them. And each of those can be furnished--which is more items. And what's more, they might have a vendor in them, which calls for a character with customization data and inventory and shop stock and price data and whatnot stored too. Oh, and you can run multiples of those. And let's not forget that each item is customizable as well--unique stats, custom colors, custom names. Plus you can have a pet that grows over time and that we need to store data on to. Plus a commodities market that is an in-game auction system, with all associated data.
[/snip]
This should not be an issue, they should have planned for large databases (lots of people, lots of data, LARGE database.)
[snip]
I'll say it flatly--a character record in SWG is FAR larger than you think. There's a business reality to see here. We share fancy databases over multiple servers. Said fancy databases cost $X up to a certain size. Then they cost ten times that if you go over that limit by one byte because you have to buy the "next size up." As it already stands, our programmers are nervous that we're storing too much data per character. Heck, we got asked, "You can live with 20 items in inventory max, right? 150 items total per character across the entire game?" Do the math on the items stored with a character above, and start getting scared.
[/snip]
More preplanning that should have gone into the mix.
[snip]
I have to pay. I have multiple computers on my home network, and I pay for the extra IP addresses. These things do incur extra costs for the service providers.
[/snip]
Nat solves that problem pretty well, and if the guy making this "awesome" game didn't know that, think about his level of knowledge in network programming. Backtrack again, and wonder if he doesn't know that much about networks, does he really understand the restrictions of databases?
I can't continue it makes my head spin.
Had to take Verant and Sony to totally screw up the potential BEST online RPG EVER! Jeez...
So let's suppose you start to play the new Star Wars Galaxies game with your friends. You have limited knowledge of how the game mechanics work at this point. So you make yourself a wookie and spend hundreds of hours trying things out.
Now let's suppose you get tired of your character at some point. There could be many reasons why you would do so. Perhaps you've achieved everything you deem worthwhile in that particular class direction. Perhaps they decide wookie sharpshooters are too powerful and you're nerfed. Perhaps your character just isn't that well suited for the end game. Maybe it's just time for some variety.
So now a this point you have to decide what to do, as you are now done with that character. Do you start up a new one and try it out? What keeps you from wiping the game off of your harddrive and installing a new one?
Twinking and alts go a long way towards making the game replayable. They leverage your previous experience with the game into how well you can play it again. Without this buyin you'll just be inclined to move on to the next thing when you've used up all the fun.
Michael
Besides, the way the Lucas family of companies works, if there's enough demand, they'll sell a 10-pack of characters for a higher monthly fee, and throw in some overstocked Jar-Jar merchandise.
Moderators can be so pathetic sometimes. Laugh a little.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Wow!
Moderation Totals for the parent post:
That's a record for me!
Let's see if it can be moderated any higher/lower! Come on moderators! I'd prefer it to be moderated higher so that more people will see it so they can in turn moderate it lower... but do whatever you see fit.
Sex - Find It
fancy databases cost $X up to a certain size. Then they cost ten times that if you go over that limit by one byte because you have to buy the "next size up."
Well my contribution to keeping down the size of their database will be not subscribing...
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Exactly how is having a mule "cheating"? I don't think you know what that word means.
"Dark Age of Camelot", DAOC, is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game -- similar to "EverQuest" or "Star Wars Galaxies".
DAOC came out October 2001, and captured many unhappy players from previous games due to its refined gameplay and interesting warfare system.
http://www.darkageofcamelot.com/
You have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
GW makes about 100,000,000 pounds/year in revenue and less than 10,000,00 pounds/year in profit.
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/1675.html
According to the new Games Workshop annual report, covering the fiscal year ending June 2, 2002, the company continues to struggle with its independent retailer business in the Americas, saying of its business in that channel, "...[I]t has been hard work maintaining momentum during the year." This is the continuation of a trend that that was first noted by GW in its mid-year report six months ago, and is a reflection of dissatisfaction with the company felt by many independent retailers (see "Retailers Send Joint Statement to Games Workshop").
In response to this problem, Games Workshop appears to be stressing the opening of new stores (it opened six new stores in the Americas in its past fiscal year, bringing the total to 43) to a greater degree, "...to attract new gamers into the Hobby, and to establish a more appropriate balance between our own stores and independent retailer customer base." A second strategy is continued development of sales teams that work with independent retailers. In the UK, where its own stores account for 69% of sales, GW does "...not expect to grow significantly the number of stores...in the future," which may indicate the target mix of sales through company stores and independent retailers. But worldwide GW sales were up the same rate through independent retailers as through its own stores, indicating that with a growing pie there's enough business for both channels to grow significantly.
One channel that did not grow as quickly was the mail order/Internet sales channel, which grew at a slower 8%. The reason will come as good news to brick and mortar retailers. "The increase in direct sales was slower due in part to a deliberate reassertion of our no-discounting policy to counter some discount creep that had occurred in some territories."
Games Workshop had a great year over-all, with sales up 17% to over 100 million pounds, and after tax net profits up 49% to 8.6 million pounds.
First they came for the code exploiters.
But I never exploited that eq duping bug, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the area re-pop campers.
But I never liked those guys anyway, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the player killers.
I really hated those guys, they summoned me to the draco-lich just before leveling, AND with me wearing all my leveling EQ, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the EQ hoarders.
My 37 sweet storage chars brimming with every piece of EQ in the game, purged from the p-file to make room for 800 average user chars... And by that time, there was nobody left to speak for me.
Mod me down and I shall become more trollish than you can possibly imagine!
OR Just don't allow trading between characters.!!
there, solved all your issues, and I can still have diffrerent characters to play with different friends.
You remember friends?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Valid points, however if they start alienating players BEFORE the game is out, they won't get those 30 year olds that have been playing most there lives.
Also, if yo7u are starting a business, and you present it to the community you will be targeting, wouldn't you listen to them? A) they might have valid points B) you don't have an existing client base yet c)if you piss them off, you won't last.
Now, if they where already making 1/2 billion dollars a year, and had a history, then they could get a way with it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
>And limiting to one character per account per
>server does jack shit to stop twinking for this
>crowd.
It makes em pay extra.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
...most those nine year olds are 30.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yeah, you're right. People with the spare cash will still find a way to exploit MMORPGs. However, now they will have to pay extra for the privelege.
Verant has issues with abusing storage priveleges so they have found a counter to it. They must expect a counter to the counter.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
I agree with you on static vs dynamic storage. It's academic.
Verant is merely saying that you can't expect them to foot the bill for other's abuses. i.e. maxing out their storage requirements by having every character slot full with the biggest backpacks in the storage slots.
I imagine that this measure is temporary as it will be countered. I fully expect them to allow you to have multiple characters per account but pay extra for each additional character in future.
Things appear to be shaping up quite like an arms race between the abusers and the proprietors.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Lets ee:
2 million suscribes, each paying about 50 bucks to buy the game.
Ok, that takes care of almost ALL the intial investment.
then they char 10 buck a monther, so that 20 million a month (gross, obviously).
Now, if a character is taking up anywhere near 5 megs, I would be very suprised. If it is taking 5 megs and is well designed, I'll drop a brick.
I meann, you going to have several tables of stuff, and weach customer table will hve pointer to the master tqable for stuff. Hair clothing combosa, while great, are finate, so youy can define each possibility with a number. Yes you would have to actually hire someone who can do that sort of thing. If you need someone, email me.
Now, the Graphic data should be stored on the client, based on a number in the customer table(which will would have a list of each customer, with a link to a Character table that house the stats.
My point is some data for multiple characters will be redundant, and you don't need to back-up the redundant data.
OR
you could use High grade encryption(real encryption) and store the data locally. which would be secure, because you wouldn't store in key information on the client, Right?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Storing a million big records for your million customers is not easy."
actually it is, if you can design worth a damn. If you can't thaere are books that can tell you exactly how to. I have worked with databases, running 5 9, with many MILLIONS of customers.
But its not Cheap
However, if it isn't designed properly, then suddenly its a nightmare.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I, for one, think this idea of one character per server is really the only way to go. All this talk about muling/twinking is, no matter how you slice it, exploiting the system. There will be other exploits, of course...but at least this one won't be there.
The only thing mentioned that I could actually see as a legitimate issue is the complaint about not being able to hang with your friends if you want to play another character. There's one thing, though, that people haven't taken into consideration: With this rule, your friends will most likely be playing on other servers too! Just share your alternate characters with all your friends along with the server names and you'll be set!
Oy.
Verant ain't stupid. They've been making MMORPGs for a long time.
They *KNOW* players want to mule, they *KNOW* players want to have multiple characters on same server. Especially tradeskill junkies, who want to have their private factory who can put out any item in the game.
I play DAOC and see this every day - heck, most crafters I know have multiple crafter alts who can then do every damn single thing possible. This is remarkable considering how many hundreds of hours and how much ingame money it takes to 'skill up' a crafter.
Verant is just setting themselves up for a system where average MMORPG junkie forks up for 2-4 accounts, and powergamers pay for even more.
Just guess how 'huge' and 'big' game this will be when every damn nolife EQ junkie who *already* has multiple accounts even without this restriction jump on board. They can claim stuff like 1 million players, when in reality its something like 300K, with lots of people with 2-5 accounts.
It just remains to be seen how bad the backlash is. Currently the general consensus seems to be that most MMORPG junkies probably still will test it (it's Star Wars!), but most are expecting a total disaster of a game.
In any case, Verant/Lucas will make shitload of money. They might not make it long term, depending on how crappy the game turns out to be, but short term this decision is going to get them lot more revenue than the usual '4-8 chars/server/account'.
still find a way to exploit MMORPGs. However, now they will have to pay extra for the privelege.
I'm not sure weather or not you caught my intent on two points...
In my oppinion "muling" items is not (or shouldn't be) an "exploit". It is stuff you got legitimately. If you have a place to store stuff I don't see why it would be so small. A "storage locker" should be a couple of times larger than what you can carry in you backpack. Heck, your character should be able to rent extra space (and should be able to do it with his fictional money).
The other thing, the "worker drone" exploit I described - you don't have to pay for an extra account to do it. Each account can have one character on each server for free. You use the extra free characters to make stuff you can't use for your main character to trade for stuff you can use on your main character.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
An "average" death in DAoC is a bigger setback than an "average" death in EQ, especially at higher levels
Except in EQ you can't just say "aw fuck it, I'm releasing" and pop back to spawn with all your gear.
DAOC gives you the freedom to explore without too much penalty except for xp & cash. [I've not played DAOC since before the underworld - I was lvl 36 when I got bored]
I enjoyed DAOC but the lack of depth was it's downfall. Degrading gear made it worthless and the stuff you needed for this level dropped frequently enough that people would generally just give it to someone of the same class walking by.
The RvR stuff was interesting but the being repeatedly creamed by level 50s was annyoing.
I'm looking forward to SWG and EQ2. I think I will buy and subscribe to them both. [I'll be on the EQ2 long-time subscriber beta too according to their blurb]
I've recently gone back to EQ and boy, is it dead!
Getting a [good] group is like finding 100pp!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
My definition is simple - rolling one or more chars for fetching junk, trade skills, running into agro cities to buy stuff, sitting
It is cheating because it offers an unfair advantage. I don't care how rich someone might be to afford two accounts, two computers and two copies of EQ+expansion packs, that should not entitle them to an advantage over other players.
[NT]
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
I agree with you that this is a very real problem and is probably the only worthwhile argument against single-character servers (SCS). I believe the benefits of SCS outweigh this disadvantage. If you are as casual a player as you say you are, you probably will not use all 10 of the characters you are allotted (1 per server) and can satisfy this need by creating lower-level characters on other servers.
BTW, I [sic] clever GM could find away aroung those problems.
What are you saying? That I'm not a "clever GM"? :)
Perhaps the merchent guild shows up a demands a cut?
Yes, that is a possibility. But it is a possibility that assumes the healer is the primary character and not just a support character (which in this scenario he is) and it is a possibility over which a Player might have a legitimate reason to cry foul. The way it could come across to the player is: you stole my gold/whatever just because you didn't like how I solved the problem you gave me -- it seems retributive. The simpler solution is just to never allow the situation to occur.
Or the local healer leaves town, thus putting the burden of being the town healer onto the character.
Not sure I see how this is a solution to preventing a Player from using one of his characters to benefit another. Just because the Player's character is now in a more prestigious role or a role with more responsibility does not prevent the Player from abusing the character. Remember, the Healer is in a support role in this scenario. Care to explain your point on this one?
Well, here is what I normally do:
Typically, I'm the GM. I like to world-build and enjoy GM'ing much more than I ever enjoy actually playing (I guess it is the Catbert part of me coming out :) ). I always start off a new campaign with a list of written ground rules that state how I expect the game to go -- some of these rules are written in stone, some are not. The purpose of the ground rules is to give the Players an idea of where I see the campaign going: whether it is likely to be dark or light, humorous or serious, serial or episodic, etc. I also try to indicate the main thrust of the campaign: heavy role-playing, questing, monster-bashing, war campaigns, etc. and provide suggestions on the types of characters that I think would be successful in the campaign. It is then up to the Players what they want to do -- key point: they've been warned.
Having been warned ahead of time about my expectations and where I see the game going they are free to play or not to play and to leave at any time they cease to have fun playing. RPG game players come in a variety of shapes and sizes -- there are so many different play styles out there that if a player is not comfortable with my style they are free to find another game elsewhere. No hard feelings, I understand -- been doing this for a long time.
I have found that warning players ahead of time about what my style of play is and laying out my expectations for the campaign have prevented many problems. Bringing new players into an existing campaign is just as easy; they get the "Ground Rules" handout and are normally encouraged to come to watch for a session or two -- gives all the current players a chance to get to know them and gives them a chance to see how we play and interact. If they want to join, "Welcome aboard!" if not then no hard feelings.
I'm almost 31 years old, a Senior Software Developer at my company, have a beautiful wife and a great almost-2-year-old i.e. Given the demands on my time, I game for pure enjoyment, and the chance to write and think creatively. If I'm a Player in a game (rare) and I'm not having fun, I politely drop out of the game (did that recently in a Champions game). If I'm the GM in a game and I'm not having fun, I recess the game for a while (if I'm the GM and I'm not having fun, odds are no one else is either and its time to take a break). Which leads me to:
I have never had this situation occur but I would never force a player to play according to my style. They are always free to seek out another GM that is more compatible with their desires; I won't change my style to fit theirs -- the GM:Player ratio is probably 1:6 or so. I can always find other players if I really want. Again, it is just a game -- there are no hard feelings associated with players moving on. If the entire troupe moved on, I'd probably do some soul-searching to see if I did something to offend them but I would not compromise any principle or rule I felt strongly about. Personally, I feel that Players should find GMs they are comfortable with but the last thing you want is to force the hand of a GM -- if he is not having fun, you probably will not either. GM'ing can take up a lot of time and effort; he is less likely to invest the time and effort if he is not having fun.
The question is, Is having a game that ONLY allowed roleplayers giong to survive at 10 bucks a month? I hope so, but I doubt it.
To be honest, I doubt it will either...but that is more a testimony to what the medium lacks than a reflection on the quality of the game. MMORPGs are not RPGs. I think SWG is heading in the right direction but I think there are too many computer gamers who think hack-slash-kill-steal-wash-repeat is the only way to have a good time. Having loved face-to-face RPGs for the majority of my life, I have never been enamored of computer games of any sort. SWG's stance is intriguing, though.
codemonkey
You idiot moderator
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
" For that reason people choose a server that is closest to them physically, so they can enjoy a good connection"
;)
I'm "close" to my local university, but the university is about 26 hops away. That's because we're on two separate networks, and it has to go all the way out to a NOC somewhere that has inter-network traffic passed through.
Perhaps you mean logically closest
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Yoda would speak like this!
Quit Slashdot Today!
thats the cleverest ISR variation ever! IN SOVIET RUSSIA postmodern goes joke
Quit Slashdot Today!
moderator waits to be karma-punished by jumbie
Quit Slashdot Today!
Mac Airways:
The cashiers, flight attendants and pilots all look the same, feel the same
and act the same. When asked questions about the flight, they reply that you
don't want to know, don't need to know and would you please return to your
seat and watch the movie.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...