seppy - Slashdot User

The Struggle For Private Game Servers 125

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @07:52AM from the let's-make-onyxia-fight-ragnaros dept.

A story at the BBC takes a look at the use of private game servers for games that tend not to allow them. While most gamers are happy to let companies like Blizzard and NCSoft administer the servers that host their MMORPGs, others want different rules, a cheaper way to play, or the technical challenge of setting up their own. A South African player called Hendrick put up his own WoW server because the game "wasn't available in the country at the time." A 21-year-old Swede created a server called Epilogue, which "had strict codes of conduct and rules, as well as a high degree of customized content (such as new currency, methods of earning experience, the ability to construct buildings and hire non-player characters, plus 'permanent' player death) unavailable in the retail version of the game." The game companies make an effort to quash these servers when they can, though it's frequently more trouble that it's worth. An NCSoft representative referenced the "growing menace" of IP theft, and a Blizzard spokesperson said,"We also have a responsibility to our players to ensure the integrity and reliability of their World of Warcraft gaming experience and that responsibility compels us to protect our rights."

EA Flip-Flops On Battlefield: Heroes Pricing, Fans Angry 221

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @07:50AM from the put-your-money-where-your-gun-is dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Ben Kuchera from Ars Technica is reporting that EA/DICE has substantially changed the game model of Battlefield: Heroes, increasing the cost of weapons in Valor Points (the in-game currency that you earn by playing) to levels that even hardcore players cannot afford, and making them available in BattleFunds (the in-game currency that you buy with real money). Other consumables in the game, such as bandages to heal the players, suffered the same fate, turning the game into a subscription or pay-to-play model if players want to remain competitive. This goes against the creators' earlier stated objectives of not providing combat advantage to paying customers. Ben Cousins, from EA/DICE, argued, 'We also frankly wanted to make buying Battlefunds more appealing. We have wages to pay here in the Heroes team and in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy. Battlefield Heroes is a business at the end of the day and for a company like EA who recently laid off 16% of their workforce, we need to keep an eye on the accounts and make sure we are doing our bit for the company.' The official forums discussion thread is full of angry responses from upset users, who feel this change is a betrayal of the original stated objectives of the game."

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 800

by seppy on Sunday October 01, 2006 @01:08PM (#16266741) Attached to: Administration Ignored Bin Laden Intel

To paraphrase clinton, at least they tried and perhaps if the political situation hadn't been fostered to be so partisan by the right wing maybe we would have gotten bin laden -- I think it was called Operation Witch Hunt Clinton. Whereas the current administration did nothing with the information that they were provided with. For all of the Republican belief in free market -- where accountability means delivering results or being shitcanned -- they certainly don't subscribe to holding anyone accountable -- so what do they believe, power for the sake of power? So what to do? Trot out the when all else fails blame Bill game -- a new version of the Blame Game? You're going to have to come up with some clever Blame Bill scenarios to revise the history of this adminstration. At least the Bush administration knew who Bin Laden was -- thanks to Bill Clinton and his bipartisan cabinet -- nothing bipartisan about this administration. Although it didn't matter because they weren't going to do anything with that information or for that matter any information -- except for perhaps a white paper from the American Enterprise Institute telling us that the world would be better off with a War that Haliburton could cater!

Theres my vitriol for the day!
The marketing plan of the liberal media? Certainly not part of the government propaganda machine that Dan Bartlett is peddling today on the Sunday morning political shows that would have us believe that what is up is down and what is down is up.

Could someone have stopped 9/11 from happening, probably not. Should the current administration be held accountable for doing nothing, when they were provided with the opportunities to possibly thwart such an attack and did nothing, yes! The current administration talks about the intelligence failures that led to 9/11, and for once I agree with them. There need to be more intelligent people in charge of the security of this country. The sad thing is that perhaps the data pointing to 9/11 was making its way to where it would have been acted up, but was ignored at the very top. So rather than being a part of the solution they are actually a part of the problem.

Slashdot Top Deals