Secure servers & monthly fees [Archive]

View Full Version : Secure servers & monthly fees

ExNomenDei

01-26-2010, 03:06 PM

I've read medierra talk about secure servers a little bit and I've seen many posts regarding this aspect of gaming. I think it's worth discussing.

Without getting into the details about how server/client communication should work and how to protect servers from stuff like duped items etc, because I let that discussion be reserved for another time, the monetary problems behind a 24/7 server are much more advanced. Blizzard showed, however, that massive amounts of money can be made from a game like WoW, with its massive playerbase. However, Grim Dawn will most likely not ever get a playerbase even near WoW, no matter how much I or the guys at Crate would love it to.

How do we fund a server, then? Perhaps a monthly subscription can be used to actually get the project underway. That could work, it might be hard to do, but if Crate manages to get a good plan underway, there could be a server that keeps things from getting out of hand.

However, I was also thinking, to cut costs, to augment the clients and put them to work: The processors in modern computers often have a massive amount of time even when you play a game like Titan Quest or, presumably, Grim Dawn. Would it be possible to make the clients do most of the work for the server, connecting and keeping up connections with each other, and doing other server-side work with each other? Is such a thing technologically feasible? I think it is, considering what we can do with Torrents and the various distributed computing projects that are running. Real-time might be harder, but if this can be made, and I'm not saying it would be easy, it might solve the monthly/daily cost problem that Crate now has. There would still need to be a central server to make sure that clients are verified and that everything runs smoothly, but maybe this can make the cost of such server lower.

Scryer

01-26-2010, 03:10 PM

I would pay a monthly fee to play a good ARPG.

Jimbot

01-26-2010, 03:16 PM

Monthly fees are a horrible, horrible idea for action roleplaying games. It fragments the community and opens up a whole can of worms. The best (worst) example I can give you is Hellgate: London - a monthly fee for premium content. It's a bit different from servers, but developers will somehow try to justify the monthly fee for those server and start releasing premium content just for those paid subscribers.

Blizzard got things right with the Open/Closed servers. Hacking and cheating is inevitable, but your average person would rather suffer through a hacker than to suffer through a monthly fee for a genre that doesn't warrant one.

However, for the love of all things, the game should have a LAN option.

Scryer

01-26-2010, 03:20 PM

Well, if an ARPG required a monthly fee just to play, I'd pay for it.

Monthly fee's insure a few things -

Constant updates, Constant iterations, and Constant things to do.

Renevent

01-26-2010, 05:25 PM

I personally would pay a monthly fee, but I think something like that could literally kill this game before it even get's out of the gate.

Malpheas

01-26-2010, 05:28 PM

Meh, if it meant a good game, streamlined challenge, consistant updates and such I would pay a nominal monthly fee.

One thing I would want are the options to have a copy of my characters for my own personal gain. No re-uploads, just copies. In case the game servers ever went down.

However, for the love of all things, the game should have a LAN option.

+1

Renevent

01-26-2010, 05:33 PM

I don't disagree with that...but I have seen the goodwill behind a game crumble at just the suggestion of pay-to-play servers. Look at Hellgate: London...

A few months before release the buzz behind the game couldn't have been more positive...the second (literally) monthly fees were announced half the people I was speaking to regarding that game swore it off.

Malpheas

01-26-2010, 05:35 PM

Well for Diablo, I'd expect the game to be free to play online. LOL They already have WoW.

yerkyerk

01-26-2010, 05:50 PM

I wouldn't want to see monthly fees as well - I probably wouldn't pay for it. I lost interest in HG:L not after the announcement of premium bullshit, but after they decided to keep with it despite heavy protests of the community.

However, I think (free) closed servers would encourage more people to buy the game instead of pirate it - and also buy the DLC's for it if there were free closed servers. It'd probably also attract a massive audience.
However, there's probably a huge monetary risk involved, wether it's pay per month or free.
I'd rather see the game completed and succeed without and, than try and possibly fail with closed servers.

Malpheas

01-26-2010, 06:00 PM

See I'd be for it either way, just as long as I could expect timely updates.

I'm kind of indifferent, really.

zidders

01-26-2010, 06:20 PM

I wouldn't want to see a monthly fee for the main reason that I couldn't afford to pay it. Besides that, I've played my share of monthly subscription games (everquest, vanguard:saga, LOTR online) and, while I don't regret it (well, except for vanguard....ugh), It's not something I can do, at least not at the moment.

The main reason I loved Titan Quest is because it was a one-time purchase, and I could play it all I wanted. I never had to worry wether or not a game I loved would be around if other people stopped paying for it. No offense to CRate, but one of the things that really keeps me from playing many pay to play games is the fact that the gaming market is changing rapidly, and a LOT of companies that make games that look promising end up going under. I don't enjoy sinking my time into a game, having fun with it and growing attatched to it, only to try and log in one day and find out....sorry, it's 'not cutting the mustard' and you no longer get to play it anymore (RIP Dungeon Runners :/).

This game NEEDS LAN support...Diablos making a HUGE mistake getting rid of it. Whatever they're trying to do, prevent piracy, hacking, whatever...it isn't going to deter a determined hacker/hackers/pirate, and all it's going to do is make the player either play single player all the time, or HAVE to connect to blizzards servers in order to play with friends.

Sacred just recently closed their US server, and i'm sure the european one is swift to follow. As if the multiplayer in that game weren't bad enough already, now there's no chance in hell for anyone to game together, unless it's over LAN.

I realize it costs money to host a server....I just wish I had an idea beyond a monthly subscrition model to support it. I assume bnet was able to keep supporting Diablo 1 &2 because it was running on servers that were mainly used for warcraft & WoW.

alexei

03-01-2010, 01:44 PM

I wonder what kind of system this game server is?
http://www.gameservers.com/

An7hraX

03-10-2010, 05:16 PM

I wonder what kind of system this game server is?
http://www.gameservers.com/

Known as dedicated servers, it's not what GD needs. These servers are for games in the style of Open Battle.net, aka players rent them to have a flawless connection for themselves and other players. These dedicated server hosting companies are aimed at small potatoes in terms of customers. They buy hosting from the large suppliers and configure the servers to specific games which then they rent out to people like you and me.

What Crate need to do is get a contract with hosting companies on all continents if they are to copy the d2 closed battle.net formula.

cel

03-10-2010, 06:17 PM

However, I was also thinking, to cut costs, to augment the clients and put them to work: The processors in modern computers often have a massive amount of time even when you play a game like Titan Quest or, presumably, Grim Dawn. Would it be possible to make the clients do most of the work for the server, connecting and keeping up connections with each other, and doing other server-side work with each other? Is such a thing technologically feasible? I think it is, considering what we can do with Torrents and the various distributed computing projects that are running. Real-time might be harder, but if this can be made, and I'm not saying it would be easy, it might solve the monthly/daily cost problem that Crate now has. There would still need to be a central server to make sure that clients are verified and that everything runs smoothly, but maybe this can make the cost of such server lower.

Unfortunately there's no gray area between a secure (ála battle.net) and an open (LAN) "server", either the server does all the work of keeping track of players, their items and doings to prevent cheating, or you allow the clients to do that. There's nothing between the two choices ("verifying" the client means squat unless it is done for every single action taken by the client, which requires even more power from the server than simply providing the calculations by itself in the first place), the moment you step out of the secure server and let the client make any kind of decisions on it's own that affect other clients in some way (without the server being the one making the decision and relaying it to the clients), you've crossed the line between a server where everyone's legit and a server where people are running around with cheats.

So either you have secure servers doing a crapload of work and requiring a huge amount of computers to ensure a lagless experience for the players, or you have a single computer that only keeps track of open games so people can get together in multiplayer alot easier.

Personally I like the idea of having a secure server where you can play with other players knowing that they haven't pirated the game and are not cheating, multiplaying with random people loses it's glamour if there's a chance that they cheat / have cheated characters.

Altough, in the case of a secure server, there should be more storage space than what TQ had, as playing without something like TQVault would've been out of the question because you couldn't even hold the relics you found with that cramped space, let alone the items you found so it would lead to the creation of "mule" characters to store the items, which makes it possible to have as much storage space as you need anyway, but handling them would be extremely annoying (it's possible to have more space, why not let people have more space in the first place? it's not a real restricion, it's just annoying).

jinx

05-07-2010, 11:21 AM

I would love to have secure servers. I would love it so much that I would pay around 5$ per month for it.

Loot games can evolve into a trading and treasure hunting game with a real economy, if cheating isn't possible. Also secure servers create even stronger communities.

VeggieBoy

05-07-2010, 09:09 PM

MadWasp

05-07-2010, 09:24 PM

alexei

05-08-2010, 05:02 AM

I would pay 5-10 bucks for Grim to have a secure server. What about having the option for those who don't want to pay not have secure server access? Offer no other premium services, just a nice secure server. :eek:

Free secure server without premium services? If there gonna be paid secure server, the free server option shouldn't in the 'secure' server, it should just be the normal open server. Otherwise I think it is meaningless.:eek:

jinx

05-08-2010, 05:05 AM

Free secure server without premium services? If there gonna be paid secure server, the free server option shouldn't in the 'secure' server, it should just be the normal open server. Otherwise I think it is meaningless.:eek:

Think you misunderstood the original writer there...

medierra

05-08-2010, 05:28 AM

While a subscription would help to pay for the ongoing costs of running secure servers, the big problem is getting the initial money to set them up. Right now we just don't have anywhere close to that kind of cash. If Grim Dawn is successful enough though, we might be able to set up secure servers in the future. I would definitely love to be able to offer this (and play on them!)

alexei

05-08-2010, 05:28 AM

Think you misunderstood the original writer there...

Not at all I think. I'm just quoting what VeggieBoy said. I've been following this thread since day one.

Secure server is quite hopeless at the moment by the way. They need to come up with a million dollar (more or less) to own it plus maintenance cost.

Getting success with GD first if priority one. Secure server or large world MMO could be realize after that, if GD success is a big one. Could be.

eisprinzessin

05-08-2010, 10:50 AM

If Grim Dawn is successful enough though, we might be able to set up secure servers in the future. I would definitely love to be able to offer this (and play on them!)I assume that we would be required to start with new characters then. I think starting fresh will help building up the community, as everybody will be evenly matched.

Or would you allow to upload possibly hacked profiles to secure servers? There will certainly be some people, who won't want to start all over. Or can their be a hybrid solution? An area with secured profiles and a separate one with uploaded ones?

Mindray

05-08-2010, 12:09 PM

I don't want to pay to play a game that I've already buyed.. I will not pay a monthly fees for what should be standard game feature. In fact I won't play any game with a monthly fee, because I want to be able to log in and play whenever I like without worrying about getting my moneys worth. And a monthly fee support doesnt mean the game will be without cheaters, lags and other problems.

I think the income of people buying game (if successful) is enough to pay the people (like 2-3?) that will setup and maintain secure servers - without the need of any extra fees. Especially if those servers are owned by yourself (meaning no rental fees). Quality matters.

Anyway, this game isnt even finished yet. No one knows how many people will play it and if making secure servers is worth the hassle.

alexei

05-08-2010, 01:26 PM

Nuggs

05-10-2010, 04:24 AM

Secure server is quite hopeless at the moment by the way. They need to come up with a million dollar (more or less) to own it plus maintenance cost.

I seriously don't see it being a million dollars. I think for a start it'd be about 300-400k(At least, with the company I'd go through and that's just two racks filled with nine nodes each rack). Also doesn't include some other fees that would be needed as well. Still, not cheap.

Secure servers wont completely stop cheating though. You'll still have people that find exploits and still have speed hackers and people that love to grief.

alexei

05-10-2010, 07:02 AM

I seriously don't see it being a million dollars. I think for a start it'd be about 300-400k(At least, with the company I'd go through and that's just two racks filled with nine nodes each rack). Still, not cheap.

I don't know about it. I just remember someone said about it close to million. Maybe on email. Btw, the point is it is expensive and cannot be realize at the moment.

[QUOTE=Nuggs;10118
Secure servers wont completely stop cheating though. You'll still have people that find exploits and still have speed hackers and people that love to grief.[/QUOTE]

There nothing to completely stop cheating but I got your point. Security is on-going management and observation. If people want to cheat, they will cheat.

Code187

05-10-2010, 06:44 PM

alexei

05-11-2010, 05:35 AM

I have to say the way NWN 1 neverwinternight did it was cool.

they had a huge toolset where it was easy to make your own world and 2 to 80 players could conect and play.

why not make an ingame internet where you can hoste or join a game the same way. and make an option where it say dedicaded server.

if i had two pc and one could run as a dedicaded server will be fine, just have a password or free to join for all, you as a host set the max players to join.

mine 50/50 fibernet will do fine if i had two pc one for gaming and one for dedicaded.

then evrytime you want to join internet game the game will look for an update and download it auto if need to. how about that ???

just my idea or copy idea :-)

I think dedicated server ideas have come up once or more in this thread or forum and I really like this idea since it is the most suitable right now. Only without security and trading.

Btw, by max player do you mean that in one server/game there would be no restricted player count? Is that mean, if 20 player join that it would be questing with 20 player?

Nuggs

05-11-2010, 09:29 AM

I think dedicated server ideas have come up once or more in this thread or forum and I really like this idea since it is the most suitable right now. Only without security and trading.

Aye, it's something I'd like to see as well. If done properly, it'd allow for secure dedicated servers in the future as well which would be a lot more cost effective. :)

Btw, by max player do you mean that in one server/game there would be no restricted player count? Is that mean, if 20 player join that it would be questing with 20 player?

I know the game was basically a multiplayer game that scaled depending on how many players were in the game while in single player mode I am assuming it skips network calls. It's been forever since I thought about that game. :p

Code187

05-11-2010, 10:02 PM

by max player i mean the one that creat the game set the max who can join.

if you have a good pc and internet, then set it to max *** it is the creator of the game who master that.

like if you have 4 good friens + your self, set the max players to 5 and set a password one only you and your m8's know of, that way you have all the funn you need with out having to meet up and make a lan game.

i guess you know what i mean he he :-)

H4rdrock4H

05-14-2010, 03:45 PM

If there's frequent updates, items, bosses aso... i dont see anything wrong with a little monthly fee... just not another money-machine plix :P

Best regards :D

And btw i wait a little more before i buy the epic version of the game.... this seems to get a very nice game n all... just had enough of waiting for Mythos so my hopes are very low atm with none completed games :P

Kardiophylax

05-14-2010, 10:28 PM

And btw i wait a little more before i buy the epic version of the game.... this seems to get a very nice game n all... just had enough of waiting for Mythos so my hopes are very low atm with none completed games :P

That seems like a fair stand to take. I too was reluctant at first to donate. Not because I didn't believe in the project, but instead because sometimes these types of things are never completed. What swayed me was the dedication of the team, their experience (so they know what to expect and how to weather the storm), and the fact that they already have a complete engine to use that they are familiar with. Hope you stick around. I think you'll end up donating once we see a bit more progress.

ElitesamuraI26

09-07-2010, 08:22 AM

I don't like the idea at all because this is not an mmo.

makigero

09-22-2010, 04:41 AM

Hmm .. In my head for a ARPG have a multiplayer with security, the game should have a dedicated server hired by a company. The problem is that the servers just overloaded because it has to process the entire game. My question is, is there a way to make a partially dedicated server?:confused::rolleyes:

That is, make the dedicated server process a small part of the game, this would complete the game (completing part) of the client. Such that, if the User to try running a cheat the result could: 1. behave completely diferrente the desired (given that the command has components that depend on data from the server), and 2. could be detected by the server as an irregularity.:eek:

Christoan

09-23-2010, 05:28 AM

I thoroughly agree with Jimbot about monthlty fees being horrible. You have no idea how recalcitrant the idea of having to pay for somethin, and then paying again to use it, makes me feel... Which is why I don't play WoW.

MadArkael

10-05-2010, 08:08 AM

Yeah monthly fees suck, But why does that topic have to be combined with secure servers. I don't have a clue what they are wanting/planning to do to fund this thing in its entirety, frankly i'll let them pan that out.

The ONE thing that everyone does need to be vocal about is secure servers. You can argue all you want about, "oh we can be content with friends", and the like. It means squat in the (hopefully) long life and replayability of the game.

You can't always eliminate hacking however, every effort gave to that cause increases the value of the time spent online playing. Trading actually means something. I won't trade with anyone I don't know on titan quest? Even if they are trying to act legit chances are they are not.

If Titan quest would of had secure servers similar to the "social security" system that is b-net. The player base would still be at least 10 times what it is right now. LASTING APPEAL.

Thats my two cents anyway.

Scryer

10-08-2010, 05:47 AM

I would say that secure servers are one of the main reasons Diablo 2 is still being played by several thousand to this day.

So, yeah I think that a secure server for Grim Dawn, or its future successor would work out well.

yerkyerk

10-08-2010, 02:33 PM

Secure servers are a costly and risky investment. Iirc, they tried for TQ, but couldn't get it due to THQ not seeing the value of the risky investment in it. Once again a case of a publisher throwing in its own windows... TQ would've been a much bigger success with secured servers.

Anyway, with a much smaller team with a really tight budget I'm guessing it's pretty much impossible to set up such a thing.

MadArkael

10-11-2010, 04:52 AM

Yes, risky indeed. Sacred 2 has secure servers but shows you exactly what you don't want to see, I think the last time I looked there was 6 people total online.

So look at it differently, instead of using servers that actually run "closed" games, use 1 server to store player data, that requires authentication to retrieve data to use in certain game modes.

Now I know you are thinking well hackers can patch their character on their side so when it gets transferred back it will save hacked. True! and not a very hard thing to accomplish, however you could rig a small program to display little things about save files. Have at least the last save of the day for the last couple days to be able to prove hacking. Have it throw a red flag anytime anything durastic changes in the time between upload and downloads. I don't see that being too complicated, and you would need someone sending the "you're a hacker, your character has been deleted" message.

This seems like a cheaper alternative, and I know it is nowhere near foolproof. I just, more than anything, want to see this done.