[bf1942] hmmm.... [OT]

[David Harrison]

I can't resist a good argument :)

>> That is not true. There are lots of developers who are smart enough
>> to release nix servers (see the top 16 on gamespy from my last
>> post). Yes there are a lot of games that don't but you know what,
>> those are the games that have a few hundred people playing instead
>> of thousands and they are also the ones that fall by the wayside
>> within six months. Many of the games listed on the top 16 right now
>> are literally years old.

The top 16 are a tiny, tiny subset of all the games released (which was 
my point). I totally agree that the reason those games are in the top 16 
is because they have good dedicated server support. The lot of games 
that have a "few hundred" playing are precisely my point - there's not 
even a remotely useful dedicated server on ANY platform for these people 
to play with! If you're like me and don't live in the USA, it means 
you're often screwed and end up playing on some high pinging server in 
the US.

>> Give me one example of a developer who charges for their dedicated
>> server. If you mean that you have to buy the game to get it, so
>> what, you must have the game to test any server your going to run
>> anyway so how is that charging for the server? That argument just
>> don't wash.

We run over 50 titles here. I have 1 game installed - Enemy Territory, 
the only game I play. I test the servers just by starting them and 
making sure they query.

They're not 'charging' for the server per se (though its quite easy to 
argue they are, because you have to buy - and worse, upload - the game 
to run servers for it), but they're sure as heck not faciliatating easy 
server management!

>> It's "too hard"? Give me a freaking break, if it was easy I would do
>> it. I design machines for a living and they are all "hard" but I get
>> paid for solving difficult problems. Using the "it's too hard" logic
>> I would be living under a bridge somewhere. Of course it's hard,
>> that's why they make millions of dollars on a game, because it's
>> hard.

Too hard means "it will cost too much money for the expected return". If 
you know anything about EA, that's how they operate - on the bottom 
line. Why are there few companies that make Linux versions of their 
software? Because the benefits are outweighed, significantly, by the 
costs of doing it.

>> The successful games, the ones that have a shelf life of years
>> instead of months, the ones that put up four digit server numbers on
>> gamespy have nix servers. It's not a question of something *we* have
>> to accept like it or not, it is something they better damn well come
>> to terms with or we will dump support for their game faster than an
>> ugly blind date and move on.

I hope you do it! I'm not in a position to do it, as I don't do this for 
a hobby - I do it for a job. My job is to ensure that we have servers 
running for popular games, and we've had to adapt out procedures and 
infrastructure to suit the fact that most developers don't feel like 
making Linux servers.