[Game] Greedy devs rant

[worluk]

I don't want to run two games of BFME at once. I want to run one game with me as a host and my brother as a client. Matter of fact, if we wanted to play the singleplayer campaigns simultaneously we could do that if we were interested in them.

I have my doubts that was legal according to the license or EULA. The restrictions preventing you from doing that in a LAN environment are merely enforcing legal aspects.

but that still doesn't answer my question!

"I asked why it rains and you always push it back to some physical explanation, that doesnt anwer my question"

have fun feeling bad for yourself cause the mean industry is so stupid/heartless and forces you to buy the stuff they created

 

[Murphy]

have fun feeling bad for yourself cause the mean industry is so stupid/heartless and forces you to buy the stuff they created

Oversimplification is a nice stylistic device but could you lay it off for a post or two?

It's obvious you don't have a satisfactory answer to my question so why do you keep coming back insinuating that I want stuff for free or coming up with ludicrous example of what else I could demand?

I bought the game. The game has multiplayer. I just think it's not a very nice (OR smart move) to put up a restriction (be it technical or legal) that forces me to buy the game twice if I want to play with another person in a Lan.

Your blind acceptance of this is worrying if it is indicative of the state of mind of a sizable group of gamers. Unless of course I'm missing something besides "because they said so" that speaks for this, but so far you weren't able to share any insight in this regard.

 

[worluk]

sorry, you refuse to see or understand the arguments why it is the way. Your monopoly example is not correct as i stated before.

My state of acceptance can hardly be called blind, and it certainly doesnt come from a gamer, since i dont really play games, the last game i bought and played basically is RO. It comes from being a software engineer and well, i would do exactly the same.

You want to play a game that is intended for the concurrent use of one (1) person with more than that. It has been restricted by its programmers.
Complain all you want once you get a game that is intended to play with 2-6 players like monopoly is.
You created your own definition of multiplayer and expect the industry to follow.
You are comparing two entirely different products just cause they are described as game and make a moral argument out of it with no anwer you would accept beside "you are right". I would find that more worrying than "blind acceptance" if I would care enough.

Tbh. your answer to my last post showed quite well that a continued argument will only lead to a discussion I also could have with D4v in an only slightly more entertaining way. I hardly insinuated that you want stuff for free not did i gave any example of what else you could demand, sorry, that was only in your mind

 

[Murphy]

I hardly insinuated that you want stuff for free

How would you understand this:

have fun feeling bad for yourself cause the mean industry is so stupid/heartless and forces you to buy the stuff they created

not did i gave any example of what else you could demand, sorry, that was only in your mind

How would you understand this:

With your arguments you could as well say why would you have to find it acceptable that each of your family has to buy an individual ticket to the movie theatre when you only need to buy the film once to watch it at home...

sorry, you refuse to see or understand the arguments why it is the way.

I did not refuse to see the arguments, I was not able to see the arguments.
There is a technical and a legal restriction in place. You only explained the technical one with the legal one. You never explained what makes the legal one acceptable.

Your monopoly example is not correct as i stated before.

You might have stated that but you didn't explain it.

Question: Why does a dog lick his balls?
Answer: Because he can.
The answer is funny and satisfactory because there is the heavy implication that licking your own balls is great and if he is able to do it there is no reason for him not do it. "Because he can" is not a complete answer to the question, but with its implication which is clear enough it becomes one.

Maybe you see your answer of "because they said so" as equally satisfactory because the real reason is clear to you.
It is not clear to me though.

Imagine treating me like a little girl who knows nothing about getting one's balls licked and explain the dog joke to me. You should see that "because he can" is not a good enough answer for the inquiring girl who wonders about the dog's gross behavior.

Now, back to my question about EA's gross behaviour:
Why should I find it acceptable in BFME but not in Monopoly?

 

[worluk]

Why should I find it acceptable in BFME but not in Monopoly?

With this you made it perfectly clear that this is a discussion about your personal view, nothing's gonna change that. "Finding something acceptable" is not based on much more than your personal feelings. Hardly a topic to discuss when you expect reason and dismiss economic and legal aspects.

You asked the difference between a computer game (software) and a board game (physical existance). Beside several points that are quite vividly discussed atm in politics and media, the most simple concerning the limited use for "multiplayer" (btw. you are using this term for 2 things that differ vastly from each other) one is: intention.
Now your whole topic only aims at you not liking the creator intention. There is not much to discuss. There are reasons for the creators to make it that way, the most simple is: they need to make a living. But well, you made clear you are not interested in economic or legal reasons. All that remains is feelings.

 

[Murphy]

So, if they wrote in the Eula that your organs belong to them you wouldn't complain either because a) you don't have to accept the Eula (even though they already have your money at the time you get to see it!) and b) because of "economical and legal reasons" and the devs need to make a living after all!?
If you would, it means we just draw the line at a different point.

You asked the difference between a computer game (software) and a board game (physical existance).

The state of existence has nothing to do with it at all...

the most simple concerning the limited use for "multiplayer" one is: intention.

...and here you even wrote why yourself.
Intention is the only difference between Monopoly (or UT2004, Age of Empires, Freelancer, StarCraft,... or splitscreen games like Halo, UT3, ... or some handheld games, which are all software like BFME, btw.) requiring one box and BFME requiring two.
We are again back to the starting point. Intention. Or, to keep the dog joke analogy: "Because they can".

You answer the question from the wrong direction.

DEVS ------------------> protection mechanism <---------------- Me
        (don't?) implement                                    (don't?) accept

Your answer always aims at the left side. "You can't use it with two people in a Lan because of the protection". <--- "The protection is there because it enforces something in the license". <--- "The license is there because the devs said so".<--- "They said so because they need to make a living".
Regardless of whether I believe or understand those explanations, they are all aimed at the left side.
In the grand scheme of things and in your perception they might matter. In this thread, they don't.
Not even the humanitarian angle! "They need to make a living". Yeah, so do the designers of Monopoly, UT2004, Age of ... see above.
Besides, having to make a living still doesn't prevent them from writing that on the back of the box of their game unless they couldn't pay for the ink anymore...

The only thing that came remotely close to the right side, which I was asking for was this:

(btw. you are using this term ["multiplayer"] for 2 things that differ vastly from each other)

I hear that a lot lately but you still couldn't tell me how they differ so vastly.

I might come across as a whiney nut because I keep asking the same question, but you still didn't get it, let alone answer it. This has very little do with me being irrational but with us talking about two different things.

 

[worluk]

Dismissing "because they can" as an argument you could also rant about how the pharma industry is cruel and mean by not giving medication freely to those that need it.

I already said that licenses should probably be written or obtainable prior to purchasing. Somehow i doubt you would be denied if you would have asked for it from the distributor.

Board game multiplayer: several people use one unique set to play together
Software multiplayer: several people use copies of one unique set to play together.

As i said before, there we are at the populist discussion about similarity and differences of software and physical products. I fail to see why software should be treated differently and i doubt we wouldnt have this discussion if Parker as I said would have sold "individual monopoly kits" with an amount of money, cards and a pawn in the past (not so different from the approach The Settlers is taking to stay with the board game analogy).

I might come across as a whiney nut because I keep asking the same question, but you still didn't get it, let alone answer it.

You come across that way, because you repeat the same things again and expect a different result instead of responding to points made in prior posts.

if they wrote in the Eula that your organs belong to them

You are probably well aware that that would be considered "against public policy" in about every western cultures jurisdiction, quite different though for charging you for additional licenses if you want to play with other people, doesnt matter if via LAN or Internet, there is no technical difference anyway.

I wonder where you actually see the difference in LAN and "online" play? Physical distance of the co-players?

Edit:

All hail Epic and UT2004 where it checks for your key if you want to go online but you can play on Lan just fine and you don't even need the DVD in the tray

That works quite well for online play too with UT2004 where you could share up to 4 CD keys and still play online.
I wouldnt be surprised if you would find yourself restricted in number of players in LAN the same way.

 

[Murphy]

That works quite well for online play too with UT2004 where you could share up to 4 CD keys and still play online.
I wouldnt be surprised if you would find yourself restricted in number of players in LAN the same way.

I was at six man Lans and even though the others weren't into UT a whole lot we played a couple of games, all with my DVD. We did this with my old regular DVD. When I lost my cd-key I bought the game again, this time the version with the ECE content already on it and it worked with that as well. Whereas I can't go online with two pcs at once or else the second one gets the "your cd-key is already in use" message.
Exactly as it should be, although I wouldn't mind being restricted to 4 players per cd-key in a Lan.

I wonder where you actually see the difference in LAN and "online" play? Physical distance of the co-players?

Exactly. It's called "Local" Area Network for a reason.
Going online, for me at least, means to go out and connect with a world of players.
A Lan means playing local multiplayer, just like split-screen but on two or more locally connected pcs.

 

[The Masta]

I wonder where you actually see the difference in LAN and "online" play? Physical distance of the co-players?

The one where you play offline is a LAN the one where you play online is a VPN.

 

[worluk]

Exactly. It's called "Local" Area Network for a reason.
Going online, for me at least, means to go out and connect with a world of players.
A Lan means playing local multiplayer, just like split-screen but on two or more locally connected pcs.

Sorry, no. The technic is exactly the same, both operate on the same TCP/IP stack. As for distance as a criteria, you gotta be kidding. So if i happen to have a neighbour that lives in the magically drawn radius, we may share one license? And if he has to move his PC to another room for some reason, then we dont?

As for 2 PCs not working online with one key for UT2004, i know 4 people that played with one key at the same time.

The one where you play offline is a LAN the one where you play online is a VPN.

You might want to read up on VPN and the ISO/OSI Model.

 

[Murphy]

The protocol used is not important. It might as well change to something else over time. Hardly any game uses IPX anymore, for instance.

So if i happen to have a neighbour that lives in the magically drawn radius, we may share one license? And if he has to move his PC to another room for some reason, then we dont?

I never said distance was the sole deciding factor. You still need to be in a Lan. If you are, then yes you can "share the license" in so far that you can play together.

What exactly are you talking about here?

 

[Grobut]

Worluk, you obviously don't understand the topic.

Treating MP and LAN differently has been an industry standard atleast since 1995, probably earlier, if i pop in any game i own that has an MP portion, i need my CD-key to play online, but i can play LAN without it, this is how it has allways been done, and thus, as a consumer buying a game with an MP portion, i can only assume the game i'm buying works that way.

In this case, they have broken with the industry standard, but without making us aware of that fact, you don't know they have disabled this functionality untill you have allready bought and opened the box, and by then, you cannot get a refund!

The issue here is that it doesen't say anything about it on the box.


Saying "if you don't like it don't buy the game" is rubbish, we cannot see the EULA untill it's allready too late, untill we have bought and opened the box, and can nolonger return the game or get our money back.

Show me any other industry where such a thing is allowed, where you must agree to a contract or other legally binding duccument, but cannot see said doccument until after purchase, and you have no right to get a refund or decline the agreement and get your retainer back, show me an industry outside of videogames and software where such a thing is even legal..


Consumers have accepted this status quo thus far because there where standards for EULA's and games, the LAN thing beeing one of them, another beeing that once you bought the game you could install it at any time, and thus, we had a good idea what we where getting when buying a game.

But now, the rules are beeing changed on the fly, with new DRM that introduces things like limited activations, needed bloatware apps and accounts, LAN needing an online key and all the other crap they are comming up with thease days, today when i buy a game, i have no bloody clue what im getting myself into, and the only way i can even hope to get informed is by asking other gamers who have allready purchased the product..

That's not ok, and it needs to change, either there needs to be a standard, or they need to write on the box what exactly i'm getting (or rather, not getting) if i purchase the game, so i can vote with my wallet.

 

[Murphy]

Bravo. You once again speak my mind, Grobut.

 

[fiftyone]

+1=me2
I still but rarely play a quick lan with my boys and have been since the middle 90's.
Jeez, even ARMA will let you do it with a little "no key check".

As my mate said "we've sold em the telephone, now we will show em how to use it", money,money, money...

 

[Xendance]

worluk, isn't the difference between WAN and LAN exactly the geographical distance between the peers/servers/whatever?

Quote from wikipedia: "The defining characteristics of LANs, in contrast to wide-area networks (WANs), include their usually higher data-transfer rates, smaller geographic place, and lack of a need for leased telecommunication lines."

I know it's wikipedia, but to me that sounds about right. So, if you need to connect to an external server, isn't that where it stops to be a LAN?

 

[worluk]

you could also argue with network classes, then it would be at least a technical aspect.

Thing is wether it is LAN or not does not make any difference for the game, the technic is the same. Everything beyond, especially those mentioned "standards" are merely a perception.

 

[Makino]

Hamachi and other vpn programs that creates a "lan over greats distances" isn

 

[Murphy]

Thing is wether it is LAN or not does not make any difference for the game, the technic is the same. Everything beyond, especially those mentioned "standards" are merely a perception.

Isn't it interesting that despite Lan and internet play being exactly the same with the only differences only existing in our distorted perceptions, all of the games I mentioned have two different multiplayer options: one for Lan and one for internet play?

What are you trying to say here anyway? Are you trying to web us into semantics about what is a Lan and what is not hoping someone writes something that you can use to construct some way that under certain circumstances the game could be used for Lans that aren't Lans in the strictest sense? That may be so (see hamachi) but that doesn't mean that a Lan (we all know what one is. Let's not play dumb here) can simply require two boxes all of a sudden without a warning on the back of the box.

 

[Fedorov]

also, i think hamachi didn't even exist by then

 

[Yoshiro]

Yoshi's 2 cents.

Back in the day alot of those games that allowed lan play actually required you had game discs in all the computers. This was their protection back then against "foul" use. We all know that method is pretty much useless these days and is infact considered an annoyance by a large group of gamers now (no cd hacks anyone?).

As to Lan play these days, companies know it comes with large risks that I've seen mentioned here. I won't go into detail but even Tripwire knows this.

As far as EULA's go, as far as I understand the laws on this (personal opinion time, consult a lawyer for a better one): As soon as you read the eula, and you disagree with it, you may completely uninstall the software, package everything back up, and contact the publisher for a refund. I've seen this happen to a few games (where people got really upset with some things), as well as Microsoft Windows.