Rant: LAN Multiplayer
polycounter lvl 18
Just going off on another rant:
Why is it that software makers not only require a CD per user but increasinly add protection against copies in LAN games (no same CDKey, for example)? Isn't that damn counterproductive? I mean, what better advertising is there for a game than playing it with people you know? I mean, what's more likely:
Five people meet for a LAN party. One of them has this new game he'd absolutely love to play with his friends but none of them have it.
1. They all run out and buy a retail copy before knowing what the game is like just to play it with their friends.
2. They crack the first guy's version to play a LAN game.
During the late nineties, many games allowed you to play them over network with one copy. Starcraft had its spawn installation, Total Annihilation needed one CD for 3 players, Cyberstorm came with two original CDs to allow for network gaming, etc. On a LAN you could play with your friends without buying the game but if you liked it and wanted to have it yourself you had to buy it. Isn't that perfect advertising? A game you get to know under the best possible circumstances (playing with friends)?
The one game multiple players idea isn't dead as Nintendo demonstrates with the GBA and DS. Even Sony liked it hough few PSP games actually do it.
I don't get the point of blocking copies on a LAN. Online, yes, makes sense but a LAN? Especially when you could make the game in a way that it's only playable on the LAN? Does some suit really believe people are going to buy a game only because someone else wants to play it on a LAN? Do they think it makes the game easier to pirate or something? If you could transplant code from one binary or execution path to another you could also rip out the anti-copy system without any clues. Takes maybe five minutes longer to crack. Are five minutes really worth losing all that free advertising?
Why is it that software makers not only require a CD per user but increasinly add protection against copies in LAN games (no same CDKey, for example)? Isn't that damn counterproductive? I mean, what better advertising is there for a game than playing it with people you know? I mean, what's more likely:
Five people meet for a LAN party. One of them has this new game he'd absolutely love to play with his friends but none of them have it.
1. They all run out and buy a retail copy before knowing what the game is like just to play it with their friends.
2. They crack the first guy's version to play a LAN game.
During the late nineties, many games allowed you to play them over network with one copy. Starcraft had its spawn installation, Total Annihilation needed one CD for 3 players, Cyberstorm came with two original CDs to allow for network gaming, etc. On a LAN you could play with your friends without buying the game but if you liked it and wanted to have it yourself you had to buy it. Isn't that perfect advertising? A game you get to know under the best possible circumstances (playing with friends)?
The one game multiple players idea isn't dead as Nintendo demonstrates with the GBA and DS. Even Sony liked it hough few PSP games actually do it.
I don't get the point of blocking copies on a LAN. Online, yes, makes sense but a LAN? Especially when you could make the game in a way that it's only playable on the LAN? Does some suit really believe people are going to buy a game only because someone else wants to play it on a LAN? Do they think it makes the game easier to pirate or something? If you could transplant code from one binary or execution path to another you could also rip out the anti-copy system without any clues. Takes maybe five minutes longer to crack. Are five minutes really worth losing all that free advertising?
Replies
we have 4 computers linked up across our house which means the average friday night is goes to pub,have a good few pints,go back to mine and play some hardcore 4 way LAN into the early hours.
Unfortunatily this is becoming more rare...not only becuase its becoming harder to keep all the computers upto Spec for Next Gen gaming (this year dad and me are upgrading 3 of our 4 specifically so we can play next gen stuff on them) but its harder to even find games taht work over 4 way or even 3 or 2 way.
My biggest gripe is Battlefeild 2....WHy oh WHY oh WHY!! is there no desent bot support for LAN multiplayer gaming,The absoulute hours of fun we had on Battlefeild 1942,sometimes even playing till the sunrise the follow ing morning.
But with battlefeild 2,it taken a modder/hacker whatever in the community to do it,by messing with the single player code and though its by no means perfect(or stable) its something but why they didn't spend another month or 2 implimenting good bot support is beyond me..my only conclusion is that they are a bunch of money grabbing bastards who will release an add-on pack with improved bots and bot support which will no doubt force idiots like myself to go out and spend more of my hard earned cash....
So normally we all end up playing the UT series...or more resently Old school Age of Empires...with AoE3 coming out things are looking up.
Just reassure me though I WILL be able to play this great game over LAN?...please.....anyone?
while we are here anyone recommend any other desent LAN games?
John
Arena Wars! Just checked, when run without the CD it becomes the demo version but will allow you to join any LAN game, even those using full-version stuff.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know, that's a good idea. Developers should do that more. If you don't have the CD, only the LAN connection options appear.
As for games, I would suggest trying the Tribes series at your next LAN. Tribes 1 didn't have any protection and Tribes 2 patched it out. Both games are free to download from fileplanet (tribes2 may require finding another source). Both games were released for free to hype up Tribes: Vengeance (which requires CD). Tribes 2 requires a key to play online, but not for LAN. If you are interested in it, search for Tribes2_gsi.
trackmania sunrise is really fun too...you'll just need to launch the game with the cd on each comp, then you'll be able to play on lan, the cd won't be needed anymore. without cd you just can't play online, which is the main interest of the game (never managed to play online on original tracks, only found awesome user made tracks - did a few ones myself ^^)
The people who still regulary play over LAN are a tiny minority, its not financially viable to take them into consideration while makeing games.
[/ QUOTE ]
Toomas, given the types of games in question, I think thats premature conclusion (besides, you got any numbers to back you up?). You do realize how the LAn community has grown/organized. Including now having console sections (where this same question/rant would still apply).
What might be better to say is PC games have shrunk in general.
[ QUOTE ]
The people who still regulary play over LAN are a tiny minority, its not financially viable to take them into consideration while makeing games.
[/ QUOTE ]
Toomas, given the types of games in question, I think thats premature conclusion (besides, you got any numbers to back you up?). You do realize how the LAn community has grown/organized. Including now having console sections (where this same question/rant would still apply).
What might be better to say is PC games have shrunk in general.
[/ QUOTE ]
LAN was viable option because interent did cost a lot and was really laggy, now you get 2megs connection for like $30 per month and if you play on a server in close proximity you get 50ms ping. LAN parties have no advantage over internet play, if i want to go party i go and get drunk and cant play anymore, if i want to play i just do it over the net.
LAN parties often have the advantage of a non-cheating environment, as anyone can look over anyone's shoulder, plus it's a fun social environment in general. Gaming alone on the internet doesn't give you the same feeling, because you're like "omg im on server lol time to shoot idiots"
the loudest voices criticising the gaming industry hate publishers because they see them as not valuing the importance of making a good game, but rather making a profitable game.
their involvement in the game production is believed to styme the creative process on many fronts, employeeing a manditory directive down the golden brick road. they set restrictions with the priority of fiscal success of the game. studios are fueled by creatives who hold the weight of the project with their spine while dancing for funding.
the developers need money to survive the industry producers have created, and i think that's why companies make choices like these; for the developers: the greed to continue making the best games and the publishers: to ensure a return on their risky investments.