Please let us know when. I wants badly.
My money’s not good enough for you? You don’t serve my kind here?
Is it going to be on Steam?
Way to kill the thread, Bob.
Same price point as the other games?
$40 for you and you alone.
Not as complex as DF, Steven?!?!? Slacker.
Oh I’m buying your copy? :)
He said something somewhere about the pre-order beta being at a reduced price of $19.99.
So maybe the full version will be something like $24.99.
But really, if you can get it for cheaper, play the Beta, and were going to buy it anyway - why would you wait?
Bael
Cool. When I grabbed two demos of other games from the site, I noticed that the price was $19.99 so I wanted to ask.
Yes. Why should, for example, my wife and I, have to buy the game twice just to play on-line?
I think it is great that Steven accepts that people will only want to buy one copy for inter-household use across a LAN or playing solo at the same time. This is FAR better than the “license to one computer” model.
I wish I didn’t agree, because I’m of the opinion it shouldn’t be legal for rights holders to restrict the rights of users more than Steven does. But it is, so like I said, he scores a great many brownie points with me for not trying to be overly user hostile. In fact I’ll probably buy the game because of the LAN friendliness.
While DG’s launch problems aptly demonstrates what can happen when authentication & MP services tie into each other, and pirated copies both happens to outnumber legitimate copies massively and haven’t had the authentication process stripped out, the example isn’t relevant to this discussion.
If memory serves, Brad tried to explain what happened at some length in the DG thread here at Qt3, if you’re curious.
I really don’t see what the big deal is, you can do whatever you want with the game in your own home, which is far more permissive than most games are this point and time.
DG, incidentally, does the same. And as I’ve said a couple of times now, these are the EULA parts I wholeheartedly approve of.
If you want to go online, everyone needs a key, which is pretty much how most games now.
I seem to have given you the wrong impression here. I fully appreciate the necessity of authenticating ownership. It’s not Steven’s fault, I don’t hold it against him in any way, and I am quite certain he likes the necessity far less than I.
What I was complaining about, was limiting the number of possible simultaneous MP games per legitimate copy to 1.
“Most other games work this way” isn’t an argument. Regardless of how accurate the claim is, it doesn’t justify why this should or shouldn’t be so.
I can understand and appreciate Steven’s justification - that he lacks the resources to provide adequate MP services - but I’m sceptical that it actually necessitates the limitation. I’m sceptical because I think it must be possible to differentiate between legitimate and pirated copies, and because I doubt removing the limitation would significantly increase the amount of simultaneous MP games. But I don’t actually know what I’m talking about here, so if someone less ignorant would like to tell me I’m wrong, I’ll cease complaining.
So, buying something once gives you the right to enjoy it whenever you want, and letting others of your household do the same? Buying a theater ticket should ensure your wife could see it whenever she so chooses as well? Buying a meal should give your wife the same amount of food, since you already paid for it?
You pay for ONE license, not for a game, giving YOU, the purchaser, the right to play the game. Why would you assume anything else, other than it would be nice to avoid having to pay again?
Saying that the “other games defense” isnt a defense, really isnt a defense either, you know.
Can you state clearly where or why you have a right to the product that superseeds the rights of the manufacturer(sp?)?
In essence, we are trading services by the use of money. The value of part of your services gives you acces to the playing the game. If someone else (in this case, your wife) wants the same service, she will have to trade part of her own services to do so. At least, that the example that makes the most sense to me.
So what you’re saying is that you think you should be able to buy one copy of the game and then have multiple users playing online games together with no regard to license keys. How do you tell the difference between a bunch of dirty pirates and a large legitimate family?
By limiting it to LAN-only sharing then the worst that could happen is that you have a few roommates sharing a copy. Remove that limitation and you’d be able to pass out copies to every person you know.
I am actually surprised and shocked that Soldak is letting us play LAN games with one copy. That is very generous of them especially considering that its a $20 game. The only other game that I’ve bought that let me do that was Sacred 2 (for $40). I was not able to do that with Diablo, Diablo 2, Titan Quest, Nox, or Borderlands.
Yeah, I’m not sure I understand why it’s wrong to have only one online player per copy. I mean, I can understand if your intent is to make an analogy to, say, a board game, where if I buy the game I can play with a group of friends whenever I want just by bringing it to someone’s house or having them come over. In that sense, you could argue that whether you are using a LAN or the internet you should be able to host a private game and have all your friends play in it. But, if we are going to use analogies to establish what the standard should be, why aren’t we using other internet-using games as the standard?
Not necessarily. You say it’s an on-going exchange of resources. I disagree. I purchase a copy of the software once. Not a license to use it, though I’m sad to say my actual usage rights can, to some extent, be defined by the rights holders.
Now if the resources I’ve negotiated for are insufficient to allow, for example, both my wife and I to play MP simultaneously, then I’m asking the impossible, promise to admit I’m wrong and will shut up about it.
But if the resources I’ve negotiated for are adequate, then what I’m asking is perfectly reasonable, unless it in fact is impossible to differentiate between legitimate owners and pirates. But this latter I very much doubt, since Steven already appears to be doing exactly that.
As an aside, I too am impressed and happy Steven doesn’t impose as many and as crazy limitations on his customers as he can possibly get away with. I can’t think of more than two other examples of such un-rotten behaviour, and all three deserve much praise for living up to what I think ought to be the legal minimum. And no, I don’t think everything should be free for everyone, that Steven or anyone else shouldn’t be allowed to make a living, that piracy is good or should in any way be enabled, or any of the other weird & crazy things you guys seem to be attributing to me. And I’m very sorry if I’ve given any one of you any other impression. It certainly hasn’t been intentional.
Can we take this discussion to one of the 10 billion other DRM threads already out there rather than shitting up the thread for a hard working indie developer?
In effect, Steven IS actually allowing just that. He IS letting one household, be it 2-25 people (or more) use ONE copy to play internally solo or LAN. So, by using that analogy, as long as it’s within the home, they ARE getting the same amount of food, seeing the same movie, all at the same price.
What Steven is NOT allowing is you to buy one copy and then use that one copy for multiple people to access HIS online server resources. You have no right to claim access to HIS resources in excess to the amount of copies you buy. So, I find Disconnected’s argument ridiculous - he is stating that he and his wife (and any other member of his household) should equally be able to use Steven’s online server for the price of one entry fee - how exactly is this fair (especially considering that running such a server is not free and requires and upkeep cost)?
Actually, Steven doesn’t mind if Disconnected and his wife both use the one copy to go online and play - they just can’t do it simultaneously.
It’s crazy that people’s hatred of DRM has gotten to the point that logic no longer applies.
But, I’m done with that, I’ll be giving beta impressions soon enough and leaving all this nonsense to the other DRM threads, as suggested.
Seriously! This should be a discussion about the tactical ramifications of using magical spells near a gas leak, or whether its worth it to break down a door with your weapon since it may attract unwanted attention of nearby monsters. When faced with two enemy factions at war with one another, is it best to assist one side or just wait to see which side wins?
Man, I can’t wait to see these sorts of things in action while playing LAN with my wife during a kick ass opt-in preorder beta.
I hope the beta gets released before this weekend. I have 3 days off and would love to sit around and test stuff out. The OP has me even more excited than I was.
BTW are there any plans for post release stuff? Seems like this kind of game is ripe for expansions, DLC, etc. I know I’d be an easy sell if the game is half as fun as it looks.
We’ll he’s released mod tools for the 2 previous games, so there is a chance the same will happen here.
Btw Steve, since you would let me give you money for Din’s Curse, I ended up buying a copy of Kivi’s Underworld. How do you like them apples?
Preorder is open!
http://www.soldak.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9777&postcount=1
Or a direct link to the preorder page:
http://www.soldak.com/Dins-Curse/Buy.html