Publishers should not release serverside executables for multiplayer games - discuss

pwd

If compiled code is accessible, it can be cracked eventually. All that can be done is to increase the effort required to do so.

Unfortunately, a lot of crackers seem to think that cracking a game proves they must be more intelligent than the developers who made it. This idea makes them willing to put a great deal of effort into breaking copy protection.

So the solution seems to be to make compiled code inaccessible, where possible. Run code on a server, and it can be inaccessible. Have enough of the code running on the serverside that cracking the client is pointless, and so long as nobody gets at the server code, the game can't be cracked.

Games like TF2 and World of Warcraft use client-server architecture for multiplayer games. Valve allow you to set up your own servers. Blizzard maintain their servers, and do not release the serverside exes - they charge you for using their servers in fact.

There are cracked servers for both these games: It's not surprising that at some point someone got their hands on serverside code for WOW, given how big it is, and how long it has been around. However I would imagine that pirate servers run older versions of the game. However, other mmorpg publishers appear to have managed to avoid their servers being cracked at all, such as Darkfall Online.


So it seems logical that publishers should stop making serverside compiled code available to users, in order to prevent their games being cracked.

There are some obvious counter arguments to this idea: The publisher takes on extra expense and responsibility by maintaining the servers to play the game on. The consumer loses the option of running a local server, playing over a LAN etc.

However, when people widely accept the situation of paying monthly fees to play on single servers for MMORPGs, it seems reasonable that they would accept this situation.

[As a side-note, I own legal copies of all the games I've referred to here. I've been looking up about cracked games only out of interest in software protection.]

dreamers75

isnt that my idea from the DRM thread :eek:


Copyright thread theft


It would work they only need to stop the warez problem for the week leading up to the release date and a few days after. Sadly tho this isnt great for the non internet connected players.

pwd

Just saw your post on that thread. What I'm suggesting here is different though. You suggest only allowing a part of the game to be downloaded upon release. What I'm suggesting is running as much of the code as practical on the server, and never downloading it to the client at all.

This isn't an original idea, incidentally. I've been reading about protecting software from reverse engineering and cracking, and the consensus is that this is the only way you can. All I'm doing is suggesting that publishers apply this principle to multiplayer games in general.

SeantheMan

No server side code = end of mods and any for of customization

pwd

SeantheMan wrote: »

No server side code = end of mods and any for of customization

Good point, but it wouldn't need to be the end of any form of customisation. They could provide a level editor, for example, without giving access to the serverside code.

SeantheMan

pwd wrote: »

Good point, but it wouldn't need to be the end of any form of customisation. They could provide a level editor, for example, without giving access to the serverside code.

But customisation doesn't just relate to editing levels.

People need to create configs and scripts.
E.g. for competitions, no games run on standard format...COD4 has PAM4/PROMOD etc

Cuddlesworth

It only works if you are hosting the servers thereby limiting access and charging a sub. And as it stands the only genre that it works in is MMORPG's.

The only viable solution to online piracy seems to be cheap prices on downloads as the cost of each sale is in the cents category and offering better service and value then the pirates.

Why pirate a game when it only costs a fiver?

TheDoc

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Why pirate a game when it only costs a fiver?

Cause I can get it for free?

And well theres still the risk I'm going to waste a fiver on what seem to be an absolute horrendous amount of poor console ports and shabby games.

Bought star wars force unleashed there from steam on the sale, and I'm ****ing sick I didn't download it.

I played the game through on the xbox, but never got the optional missions packs and said **** it.

Thoroughly disappointed, terrible console port and a waste of 15 euro.

Stings like this just drive me away from buying pc games legit....

I'm happy enough just paying wow subcriptions and the odd game that looks tempting giving it a download

PogMoThoin

One game I did buy last year was Shattered Horizons, it wasn't that great a game, but was priced right, at ~€15, I got it for ~€12 in a pre-order offer and I get the pre-testing of the new free beta missions and addons as they come up. Its not available as a pirate copy, there's no scene group release for it, they've not bothered to crack it. I see 9 of my steam friends on here did the same, thereby proving that if You price a game properly people will buy it and not pirate it.

ShiverinEskimo

TheDoc wrote: »

Cause I can get it for free?

And well theres still the risk I'm going to waste a fiver on what seem to be an absolute horrendous amount of poor console ports and shabby games.

This is where reading a few reviews will give you the heads up. Reviewers will always mention the success/failure of any port and the associated advancements/glitches associated with it.

Pirating a game to make sure it's good is like saying to a restaurant 'i'd like a free steak first, then I'll order a steak if it's good, promise'.

pwd

SeantheMan wrote: »

But customisation doesn't just relate to editing levels.

Oh I know - that's why I put 'any' in italics.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

It only works if you are hosting the servers thereby limiting access and charging a sub. And as it stands the only genre that it works in is MMORPG's.

The only viable solution to online piracy seems to be cheap prices on downloads as the cost of each sale is in the cents category and offering better service and value then the pirates.

Why pirate a game when it only costs a fiver?

Overall, the userbase already pays for the existing servers, by hosting them. They've not too expensive to run. A 16-slot server costs 15-30 usd per month, when hired from a third party.

id are using this approach already in fact (hosting their own servers), with quakelive, which is entirely free:

http://www.quakelive.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11016

I think in the worst case scenario, a small amount of advertising should cover the hosting costs.

SeantheMan

TheDoc wrote: »

Cause I can get it for free?

And well theres still the risk I'm going to waste a fiver on what seem to be an absolute horrendous amount of poor console ports and shabby games.

A 5er ? How much of a stinge are you ...people put work, effort and time into making these games. I can understand not paying 50-60, but a 5er ?

Get a job, get off your high horse thinking its your god given right to be able to download every game.

I happily paid 50 quid last week for Splinter Cell, as I know how much work they put into it, and to support the developers to keep on making such quality games.

pwd

I think that piracy is more damaging to the computer game industry than it is to films, music etc. People will still go to the cinema, or to a concert, and they can't pirate an equivalent experience. The only equivalent thing for computer games is the arcade, and that is specific to partcular genres of games and demographics of players.
Also, generally pirated versions of films and music aren't of as high quality as purchased versions. Again, games don't have this benefit.

Burgo

pwd wrote: »

Also, generally pirated versions of films and music aren't of as high quality as purchased versions.

not true.

pwd

It is true.
They usually have a lower bitrate than dvds, bluray, or cds. There are exceptions, but lower bitrate/lower filesizes are far more common than uncompressed copies.
Also when burned onto dvds or cds, burnt copies are far more delicate than pressed copies, which are what the ones bought in shops are. Furthermore blank cds and dvds usually don't have the capacity to fit the content from a purchased disc, so the content is compressed to fit, which sacrifices quality.

PogMoThoin

pwd wrote: »

It is true.
They usually have a lower bitrate than dvds, bluray, or cds. There are exceptions, but lower bitrate/lower filesizes are far more common than uncompressed copies.
Also when burned onto dvds or cds, burnt copies are far more delicate than pressed copies, which are what the ones bought in shops are. Furthermore blank cds and dvds usually don't have the capacity to fit the content from a purchased disc, so the content is compressed to fit, which sacrifices quality.

Maybe for dvdrips compressed to Xvid, but 720p and 1080p HD content are just as good as whats on the disk quality wise.
Disks, pfft, what are they, I've not even got a burner anymore

pwd

Yes but most pirate copies aren't hd. Hence me saying that *generally* they are not as high quality as a purchased copy.

PogMoThoin

pwd wrote: »

Yes but most pirate copies aren't hd. Hence me saying that *generally* they are not as high quality as a purchased copy.

Show me one thats not available as a pirate in hd?
Maybe You don't know where to look, but they're all available, everything thats been released in the last few years is available in hd. Hd rips appear soon after the bluray has been released

Anyway, we've dragged this thread completely off topic