I thought you were referring to "activation servers" not "multiplayer servers".

The problem of servers shutting down exists for every multiplayer game ever made, and has absolutely nothing to do with impulse. This is why it did not occur to me that you were referring to the multiplayer servers.

The solution would be to release server hosting software with your game, as well as a server list aggregator with an easy to modify host link. That also is completely unrelated to impulse.

You are misunderstanding... again. Stardock plans to release software for dedicated servers as in not "hosting" the game on their own servers , which will still be an option I think, but they are requiring that ALL saves be on their server. It's just ridiculous. It's a weird attempt to provide ded. servers yet at the same time throw in something that will make it very difficult for the game to outlast the company which, to me, is not a just ignore the pirates kind of stance. It is partially related to Impulse in that it will probably be labeled as an Impulse GOO protected title.

This mix up between Impulse, GOO, and this weird hybrid thing Elemental is going to have combined with claims that Stardock titles don't use DRM, which is not correct because what Stardock actually said and does is not put DRM on the CD but to get updates/patches just to make the game work, yeah requires a form of DRM, makes the whole thing a mess to discuss. Hey, my original copy of Neverwinter Nights did not work out of the box, couldn't run at all and required a massive download to fix. I doubt most people would have let EA claim that patches aren't necessary and therefore access to them is not DRM.

That sounds like the plot from a technological romantic comedy.

delete

https://forums.stardock.com/373887/page/4

32 player multiplayer. This is a big one and will take a lot of work but it we are requiring that the game handle up to 32 players playing together. To make this work, it also means that games need to be automatically saved (to our servers regardless of whether it’s on a custom modded server or ours) so that stopping and starting games later is easy.

Why is that actually nessesary though? I mean can't the host (a player) upload the save file (takes a couple of minuets at worst) and then the server can send it to all the players?

I don't understand, maybe im dumb.

the way you said it I thought you mean they want to hold your single player saves on their server (which is very bad).

What this actually says they will be holding the autmatic saves for multiplayer saves only (who the hell uses mutliplayer saves?).

why this needs to happen I am not sure. the link you posted indicates it has something to do with having 32 player games. Although that is just a ridiculous amount. you don't save games played with strangers, and who the hell is going to have more than a handful of friends who play elemental?

I expect to never be affected by it... that being said, I understand why you would be upset if you do intend to play very long turtling games with 32 friends... or if this means that you can't save lower player amounts games, single player games, or it makes it impossible to play / save manually without access to their servers. However, whether that is how it is implemented would be easy to tell once the game is actually released.

It says up to 32 players, not just 32 players. People who play games like Civilization, Age of Wonders umm Heroes of Might of Magic, none of those multiplayer games typically finish in one sitting. This would affect pretty much anyone who intends to play Elemental multiplayer. There has not yet been a reasonable explaination for it since yes, it seems like a custom server could load and save games too.  As for what I implied... i said dedicated server. There not many single player games that utilized dedicated servers ( if any outside of DRM crap)... so it was a given that I was referring to multiplayer.

Phew, glad it's only the multi-player. You had me worried it applied to single player as well. A few years ago it would have been obvious that you meant multiplayer, but with all the ridiculous DRM schemes we're seeing now, it is entirely plausible that a company would force you to use their servers to play a game offline (although the fact that it was stardock made me think it most likely it was a multiplayer only thing, as they're one of the few companies left now I can trust to not put ridiculous DRM onto everything)

Is it possible this only means the "automatic" saves, and maybe a manual save can be done to/from anywhere?

I am not sure. You are looking at the same thing I read, and I did ask for clarification I think because I really thought I misread what he was saying. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy using official servers and the like because it keeps my group and myself from screwing around with routers all the time. But we also play games from companies that no-longer exist and would have taken their servers with them had they forced us to use them and only them in the first place. If stardock forced saved games onto their servers in single-player then they would just be Ubisoft 2.0. Fortunately, they're not doing that at least.

I think you'll find that they won't.

1. They have no legal obligation to do so.

2. They'd need permission from the publishers of the games to unlock them. Not a problem for their own games, but unlikely for any others.

3. If they're going out of business for financial reasons will they be able to pay developers to unlock them? Would they even be allowed to? It may be illegal if they've filed for bankruptcy, paying off creditors would be the priority, see (1) above.

Before I'd trust a company's claim that it will unlock their games, I'd need to see the patches created and placed in escrow - with a copy of the contract that states under what conditions the patches were to be released.

Ideally I'd like to see the titles unlocked anyway after a certain period of time - long enough for it to be a hassle to find a working torrent at least (2 - 5 years maybe?). The convenience (and likely price drops) would probably outweigh the lure of free at that point, and the pirated product would no longer have any extra advantages (no DRM).

You want Arset to prove that a companay who falls under the weight of it's own debt doesn't have the ability to just do what it wants because the creditors all want a piece? The proof is in bankruptcy court and the fact that EA, Ubisoft, Activision and Microsoft all shurt down their servers at will for no other reason than to save money.

There is a huge difference between Stardock and Microsoft, and I am not just talking size. Stardock claims to support consumers to a different level than it's bigger brothers (and on many levels delivers on that claim) and takes a stance against "stupid" DRM. Microsoft was one of the companies that started this activation BS to begin with.

I don't think your tone needs to be so condescending though. He has a point. In order for any of these companies, Valve, Stardock, etc to actually prove to consumer's their word is worth a hill of beans if they are suddenly closing shop is for them to actually close shop and do it, or close shop and not. At that point, it's too late. Money is spent, promises broken. Solution, don't put your paying customers in a position where you closing your doors makes out games unplayable and the pirates... well they get to continue business as usual.