Karys

My thoughts exactly; that one line from Rolf was very damning. I don't believe that it was intended this way, but in effect it is the same as saying, "if you give us your money, you have no right to expect anything in return; your money is already gone." That is not an acceptable business model for any paid service, and likely violates several consumer rights laws in many countries. If it is in fact the business model which CodeClub AB is using, then I hope they are compliant with all local and international laws for online gambling in every market where they do business.

For personal reasons, I haven't bought an EA game in over 11 years, or a Sony/SOE game in about 10, and I don't foresee either of those changing any time soon. I find that there is not much point in making a threat you are not willing to back up.

So, WURM needs a Hogwarts?

I've got to hold onto something - sometimes it's the only sanity I've got.

I can't say for certain as we don't know exactly what is controlled by this server speed, but I would expect there to be some detrimental effects to running the server at an extremely high speed (such as 24x) while actually playing. Without other options, I think I'd prefer to start up the server, and then run it at something like 480x for 3 minutes to recover 24 hours of offline time, then return it to normal speed before starting up the client and connecting.

I found this answer to be rather vague, and frankly I find that worrisome. I get the impression that you haven't really thought through what will be a critical issue for making this a single-player offline experience. I can see a lot of people buying WU for either single-player use, or for use by a small group without the desire to buy, rent, or run a dedicated server. However, if the time mechanics are not in place to support this sort of game play, it will lead to a great deal of frustration and potentially a lot of bad exposure for the game. If you're going to try to rework an MMO into a single-player/private server platform then you really need to address the key differences in how the game will work in the intended environment, instead of just porting over the MMO code and assuming it will all work out.

I would absolutely love to have a copy of the old GV map for WU use. It seems like it would be about the perfect size for a single player or small group (I'm thinking 1-4 players as "small"). That and the nostalgia factor would make this a great addition to WU.

For the purposes of playing a single-player version of WU without a dedicated server running 24/7, rather than fiddling with the speed of temporal advancement each time I started up the server, I would very much like to have the ability to simply tell the server to simply advance "X" hours. Then if the game is off for two days, and if I want a relative advancement of crops, etc., I just move it forward 48 hours and I'm done. This would seem to be much simpler and more accurate than having to increase the speed of time, then wait for it to catch up to where you want it, and then slow it down, hoping that you've done the math right and didn't significantly overshoot the mark while at high speed to where something you were trying to age is now useless.

The FAQ posts have gone up on the Steam forums: Link. I did find one bit from the "FAQs - Basic Information" post a little confusing: (relevant portion underlined) Rolf had previously indicated in this thread that WU would not be released on platforms other than Steam (although he neglected to specify whether that was meant for the initial WU release date or for all future plans at this time). However, the above response seems to indicate that Plug in Digital is already working to get WU onto other distribution platforms. Can we please get some official clarification/confirmation on this? If things are still a work in progress, I understand that details likely can't be given out. I'm not really asking for specifics at this time, just a simple "yes, we are working to get WU onto other platforms," or a "no, we are not expanding WU to other markets, the FAQ was incorrect" would be appreciated. At this time, it feels like we are getting mixed messages, and some un-mixing would be nice.

You really shouldn't go around telling people to "read carefully" when you continue to show a consistent lack of such activity yourself. No, offline mode is not a solution to the problem I posed, which you would know if you actually read and paid attention to what you read instead of being so eager to attack those who don't share your same preferences for conditions of business transactions. I'll try this one more time on the chance that anyone on your side still genuinely doesn't get it and is not just being willfully obtuse. If Steam goes offline permanently, I could play in offline mode as a temporary solution, but it's just that, temporary. At some point, I will have to reinstall or upgrade my OS, my hard drive will crash, or I'll buy a new computer, etc., forcing me to reinstall all my programs and games. Once that happens, even if I've backed up any Steam games, I will no longer be able to play them. If I try to reinstall them, I will have to install Steam (assuming I have a backup of the Steam client as well). Then, in order to again run Steam in offline mode, first I will have to log in to Steam once, which requires me to connect to Steam's activation servers, which is impossible because in this scenario Steam is gone now, so the servers are permanently offline, so I can't authenticate Steam, so I can't put it in offline mode, so I can't play in offline mode, so no, offline mode is not a permanent solution. There is no such problem with a distribution platform running GOG's policies and methods. If GOG goes offline, I can still reinstall the games from the original files with no need to connect to authentication servers. If GOG goes offline, it doesn't take my legitimately bought and paid for games with it. Steam and other similar DRMs do, and to me that amounts to a form of theft, and I won't expose myself to that risk. Again, why are you and others so vitriolic against the very idea that some people may have personal reasons for not wanting to use Steam, and would prefer games such as WU to be offered on platforms that provide a more acceptable business model? How does having different options among game distributors in any way make your life worse off? How are we so much of a threat to you that you feel such a need to manufacture excuses to constantly attack, berate, and deride those with a preference different than your own? What personal insecurities do you address in yourself by making such attacks? I really cannot comprehend the mindset you are coming from.

Your claim: Yes, I read what you posted; did you? In your example, the game was refunded because it didn't work properly. With no other information, I have to assume that the reason Steam extended the return period for this game was due to the functionality problem, and that they would likely not make such an extension "just because you don't like the game." Do you have evidence to the contrary? And I never suggested cheating GOG; I only pointed out that the ease with which they could be cheated justifies the conditions placed on their return policy. Again, if you don't like that policy, then don't buy games from them. I don't like Steam's requirements, so I don't buy from them. We each have our options, so what is the big deal if some of us prefer GOG's way of doing business to Steam's? So far as not bothering to read what someone posted, you still haven't addressed the point in my first paragraph you quoted above: what happens if Steam goes offline permanently? That's really the crux of the issue for me, and you seem to keep ignoring it (and no, "play in offline mode" is not a solution, as it will not last permanently).

Except that's my entire point. If GOG goes away, I still have access to all my games, and can continue to install, uninstall, reinstall, and play them as long as I maintain the installation files and a computer they will run on. If Steam goes away, I lose all my games. I could continue to play them in offline mode, but that will only last as long as that one computer and OS installation lasts. If I ever have to reinstall, poof. With GOG, no such danger. If GOG went out of business tomorrow and all their servers were offline permanently, I would still have access to every game I had ever bought from them. It's like if I were to go and buy a book from the local bookstore (yes, those still exist). If that bookstore went out of business, I could still read my book any time I wanted to, for the rest of my life (as long as I took care of it, didn't lose it, etc.). Had that bookstore been Steam, then once they went out of business, if I ever closed the pages of my book or put it back on the shelf, I wouldn't be able to open it ever again. Why do I keep arguing about it? Why do the Steam proponents keep telling me and others that we should just shut up and be happy with Steam? Should I just be quiet and accept something I don't like, when I've specifically been given an opportunity to voice my opinion in hopes of improvement? Should I remain silent when I see misinformation and falsehoods being spread in an attempt to discredit that opinion? Why indeed! Steam will give you your money back just because you don't like the game if you've only played it for two hours or less, and if it's been less than two weeks since you bought it. You were saying something about reading fine print? With GOG's system, once you've bought the game, if you ask for a refund, they have no way of knowing whether or not you've kept copies of the installation files and are continuing to use and play the game long after they refunded it to you. Considering that, I'm ok with an "only if it doesn't work" refund policy. GOG takes a much bigger risk with refunds than Steam as they can't actually make you "return" anything you've bought, and they are very vulnerable to refund scammers, so under the circumstances I think the limitations are fairly reasonable. If you don't like those terms, then it's up to you whether you want to use the service, but as to the question of whether GOG offers refunds, the answer to that is "yes." Both GOG and Steam place conditions on their refunds, so denigrating one service for their conditions while ignoring the conditions of the other is again intellectually dishonest.

Please cite sources on Steam backups functioning without Steam; I'm not saying that it is incorrect, but the last I had read on the subject, even an installation backup still required the Steam client to re-install and activate the game. If this has changed, I'd be happy to see otherwise. Also, if Steam goes away, how are you supposed to run Steam in offline mode on a completely new computer installation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Steam client have to log in at least once before it will let you run it in either online or offline mode? If you can't log in to the authentication servers, how will you run the client? Yes, GOG.com has included DRM of a sort with some games which have an online component that could not be handled otherwise, and the DRM only exists for the online portion of the game (the offline portion of AoW3 can still be handled completely DRM free). I have no problem with legitimate online portions of a game requiring an online authentication (as opposed to completely offline single player games requiring an online connection for no legitimate reason), otherwise I wouldn't be in WURM. There is a difference based on the requirements of the game itself, and trying to equate the two is disingenuous.

Yes. GOG.com 30 Day Money Back Guarantee That seems to be a bit better than Steam's 14-day, less than 2 hours played policy.

So, we're back to the thread title then?

You clearly are not familiar with how GOG works. I have the option of logging into GOG to access my game library and to download my game installers any time I would like (as long as GOG is in business/online), however it is not required. After the game installer has been downloaded once, no further communication with GOG's servers is required. As I indicated in my previous post, if I save that installer and maintain it, I can always use that file to install the game, regardless of the status of GOG or its servers. If I buy a game from GOG and download the installer, I never have to log into GOG again and I will still have access to my game. Assuming I copy the installer to a separate storage media, I could wipe my hard drive, reinstall my OS, keep the computer as a completely offline box that has no access to the internet, and I could still copy that file over from my storage media and install my game, never needing to log into or communicate with GOG servers at any point during the process. Once I have bought and downloaded a game from GOG, my business with them is done with regards to that transaction; they have my money and I have the game I paid for, no strings attached. I have the option to part ways from GOG and still will not lose access to my games. Can Steam say the same?

A blatantly ridiculous comparison. CDs are not a distribution platform, they are a storage media. Again, aging hardware compatibility issues are another part of the personal responsibility in maintaining your own property. I can run emulators, or even keep old computers running to play my old games if I so choose (I actually have a Windows 95 machine tucked away for a few old favorites that I haven't gotten around to setting up with an emulator yet). Again, that is my choice, my option, and my responsibility, and the maintenance of such options is upon me to handle, and whether or not I lose access to those games is up to me and no one else. As for your question about installing GOG games if GOG goes down, of course you can, that's the whole point! It's a simple process: Buy a game on GOG.com Download game installer from GOG.com Back-up installation files to any storage media of my choice Install game whenever and wherever I choose, with no connection to GOG.com Within minutes of buying a game from GOG.com, it is no longer necessary for me to be able to connect with GOG.com ever, until the end of time (unless I want to buy another game of course), and provided I take responsibility and maintain my backups, I will always have the ability to install my game. Unless something has changed recently (and I'll admit that haven't bothered to keep up lately), those Steam backups are still only good if you have access to the Steam servers; the backups are only to save you needing to re-download massive amounts of data. Installing from the backups will still require installation of the Steam client and connection to Steam servers to activate the game prior to play.

I was not referring to running in offline mode. What happens if the Steam servers go down permanently? Your first statement contradicts your second. If Steam is required to install the game, it is DRM. Also, you are incorrect in your comparison as it is not necessary to install or run any extra software to download and install a game from GOG; games are downloaded directly from the website, and once downloaded are complete stand-alone installation files with no need to connect online for any authentication or verification with any server. Yes, you can use GOG Galaxy, but that is a completely optional tool for downloading and managing games, and is in no way required to install or run any purchased games. I've never made any such claims or complaints, yet still I get the Steam fanboys telling me I'm wrong for disliking Steam. Then there are some Steam defenders (see other quotes above) who either can't understand or are unwilling to admit that Steam is in fact DRM. Thanks for at least being honest about that point; it's more than I can say about others. Steam is DRM. I object to this kind of DRM on principle. Therefore, I won't use Steam. Nothing will change that position. So why do so many Steam supporters feel the need to try to convince me otherwise? Why is it so important to them that I like Steam? Is the opinion of one faceless stranger on the internet such a threat to their self-worth? I can think of no other explanation for the attacks and vitriol (here and in other discussions) over simply having a different opinion and preference of services. I don't like what Steam offers, or rather what it requires in exchange for what it offers, so I don't use it. If you like it, that's up to you; the beauty of a free market system is we can each patronize the businesses which offer what we want.

(Boldface added for emphasis) Again, Steam itself is DRM. Do you have to run Steam to install the game? Do you have to run Steam to play the game? If the answer to either of those is yes, then there are restrictions, and claiming otherwise is false. If I buy and download my games from Steam, and I make backup copies from the installation files and store them away (keeping them in good condition and refreshing media storage as needed), and if some day 20 years from now Steam goes offline, or if I just happen to have a day when my internet is down, can I pull out those files and install my game? If not, then I have lost ownership of something I paid for. And if you think any company isn't going anywhere ever, then you haven't studied history. Valve may last for decades, or something could happen to shut it down next month. You are gambling on it outlasting either your lifetime or your interest in games, and you may win that bet. I simply choose not to take the risk at all, as I've seen too many companies which people said weren't "going anywhere" disappear and be forgotten. There are no guarantees in the business world; doubly so in an industry as fickle as video games. The responsibilities of ownership include the personal responsibility to care for and maintain your own property. I can backup and refresh a hard copy in my possession. As I stated before in this thread, I am ok with that responsibility as I much prefer the fate of my game library being in my own hands instead of subject to the whims of others. Those who enjoy using Steam typically don't want that responsibility and are willing to forfeit their rights of ownership to get the convenience of relying on someone else to maintain their games. That's their decision; I've made mine. Each choice has its pros and cons, and I've opted for the cons I'm willing to accept. On a side note, I really don't understand the constant need for Steam users to try to convince those who don't like Steam that they should like it and use it. It's as if Steam users need their own decisions validated by others to be assured they made the right choice, and anyone who disagrees with them is a threat to that validation. If Steam users were so secure in their chosen service, why can't they just accept that not everyone appreciates the same things in a game provider and let each choose their own?

Steam is DRM. If the steam service goes offline, can you access your games? Can you continue to install and play your games if you cannot run or access the Steam client? If Valve sells out or shuts it's doors, does it take your games with it? I'm sure that some will quickly jump in here to say that "Valve will never close"; well, "never" is a long time, and the video game industry is an ever-changing one; what seems unthinkable now is often commonplace tomorrow. Steam is the most pervasive and controlling type of DRM; the kind that has the potential to lock you out completely. It just offers enough in the way of services that some consider it an acceptable trade-off. Others value their ownership rights more than convenience, and so will continue to avoid Steam and similar DRM.

You cast aspersions about someone's character by insinuating that they are suggesting dishonest behavior, which you clearly admit were made mistakenly, and then you want to talk about "claws"? That makes for a pretty backhanded apology. In most cases, I tend to be pretty civil in these forums, but if you are going to make unfounded accusations like that you had better expect some retaliation.

First, I know this is the internet and all, but it helps to actually read a post before responding. I was specifically asking about whether we could create multiple characters with a single account but still just run one at a time; not run multiple characters simultaneously. There are plenty of games that allow you to make more than one character per account, you just can't log in to more than one at once; but some comments here have indicated that a single account might be limited to a single character at all. That's all I was asking about; I said nothing about running two instances of Steam or any such thing. Again, read before you post. Second, as this is something which only Rolf or someone else on WURM staff would have the knowledge to answer, you'll excuse me if I wait for official word on the matter, as anything else is pure speculation.

I realized later that this question may not have been entirely clear - I was asking in reference to a shared server rather than a single-player game. What I want to know is will we be able to connect multiple clients/accounts to a single server via LAN instead of broadcasting it online. Specifically, if I set up a server on my computer, and connect with my client, and a family member in the same house starts up their copy of the client, will they be able to connect directly to my server over the LAN instead of having to access it through the internet? Or in order to connect to the server, will their client have to look outside the LAN through a server-matching service (such as Steam), only to be re-routed through the internet back to my server? If I were to install copies of the game on a few computers, and wire those computers together in the same room, with no internet connection available on any of the computers, would they be able to all connect to and play on a server hosted on one of the local computers?

Yes, I thought Rolf's response to my question was a bit vague, and frankly it felt like it was something they hadn't even considered. Creating and selling a previously server-based game as a single-player experience without planning for and accomodating how such a change will impact the base game mechanics is not very encouraging for the game's success. These are the sorts of things that need to be worked out before a game goes live, not added in at some future date, as they have the potential to make the game entirely unplayable.