Patreus

(1) You use numbers barely having any connection to reality - I was pretty active back then and I know what I saw. You even use Xanadu as an argument - by far the worst server ever (do I even need to explain why?). It may not change your weird perception on the game, but where exactly are "all those extra players" you mention now? In.. oblivion apparently. Your whole idea, that Xanadu helped Wurm is asinine. Xanadu was nothing more than just another mistake, like many others they did before, just to hold the tiny playerbase... Except that you hold your playerbase and even increase it by making the gameplay better, not by opening new useless servers again and again for an eternity - lots of servers for a community that could easily fit in 2 or 3 maximum. (2) I don't have to tell you why I play Wurm but will share a bit of information, since you are so interested. I obviously don't play just for the market. The market was fun, even with lower prices. You get to know new people, make new friends to visit every now and then, for fun or just to re-improve their investment for free (I did that a lot, it's a nice reason to travel). Your idea of the "average player" is what exactly, the one grinding for an eternity without purpose? Or the one paying/grinding for dragon gear just to show off in events full of lag? Or building huge buildings with lots of stories you never visit and they are there just for showing off and lag? Or maybe blacksmithing/farming for ages, then let your products rot because the market is "evil" in your humble opinion? Don't bother to answer - whatever your purpose in the game is, however asinine it might be, I don't really care. And you will do well not to care about my reasons to play as well. (3) You describe Steam as "barely able to be called a DRM", and that's enough to realize I have to deal with yet another "average Steam Joe" who just loves DRM and... to put it politely, doesn't give a dime about "minor concerns" like customer rights and other concerns I won't bother to mention. It is perfectly ok by me if you do so, but defending Steam as the holy graal is... you guessed it, asinine again. I don't need an answer, and I won't reply if I see any.

(1) You are wrong. Pristine and Release were populated until new players started to leave after the first months of "honeymoon", and veterans left because the market was saturated. Population drop has nothing to do with linking to Freedom; it happened before the link. I was already selling my fleet and even my alt there. Why? Because there was nothing else to do. New isolated servers were populated for a while, then two things happened. Many new players left because Wurm is not a game for everyone; it needs patience and time, and many people don't have that. Also, many veterans with alts didn't have a reason to keep playing there, since the market was no more. I even remember numbers: when the isolated servers were introduced, we had a peak of total Wurm population around 2000. It didn't last long; eventually the population dropped, and in the end it was around 1000 people, just like before. The "fresh start" experiment failed to bring any noticeable difference on the playerbase in the long run. There was nothing left but linking Pristine and Release with Freedom, simply because there was no point to keep them isolated. Nowadays, even to 1000 playerbase seems huge, which is sad because Wurm is the best online game I ever played. (2) Thank you for your interest about my fleet, but it's not needed. I know what I have to do to deal with the Steam DRM galore you probably like so much.

How about Steam WITHOUT Steam-only servers then (mind the "only" thing)? Steam is popular and Steam-ONLY servers will desert Freedom even more. Steam guys won't join Freedom servers, because Steam is all what they know (they don't care about the DRM galore Steam is; they even love it). But the opposite will happen: Freedom veterans will have to decide, either start over on Steam or keep playing on deserted servers - which I guess they will eventually close. I wouldn't mind Steam if it was not coming with Steam-only servers. I don't even mind if new servers will be isolated or not (although, like I said before, separated servers won't bring any fresh start). What I do care is the Steam-ONLY thing. There is absolutely no reason for that, but they are determined to do it. What I do care is that silly "fresh start" argument being used to justify Steam-ONLY. It would be more decent to just say "look, the game is dying, we need Steam in an attempt to survive, Steam wants its own servers, we have no choice but go for Steam-only servers". If nothing else, I would appreciate the honesty.

Even if old players won't be able to join Steam servers, they can and WILL make Steam alts. Those alts will progress way faster than newbies due to previous experience; they will take over the market long before newbies would stand any chance. And that's not a hypothetical scenario. The exact same thing happened some years ago when Pristine and Release were separated servers, not connected to the Freedom cluster. I was one of the veterans who dominated the market there using an alt, I know what I am talking about: the same "fresh start" experiment was tried in the past, and guess what, it failed miserably. But it doesn't matter because they don't care about any fresh start; the whole point is to force Steam integration and Steam-only servers are needed for that purpose. I think it is more than obvious the whole "fresh start" thing is just a poor excuse to justify Steam-only servers. Poor excuse because old players know very well a "fresh" start won't work; developers certainly know it won't work. Poor excuse because even if they wanted a "fresh start" they don't need Steam for that, exactly as they didn't need it years ago when they did the same thing. The concept of "steam fresh start" is complete nonsense and broken by design.

You are indeed a special case, and I knew that already because (a) you can see things, and (b) you use a sophisticated language. Both are far from what I would expect from the typical "blind applauder"; they are unable to see anything other than what they are told (which they defend fanatically, using very poor language, full of slang and insults). So yes, your profile is not that of typical applauder; if it were, you would never see this because I wouldn't bother. You must admit, that your "obsession" to play the devil's advocate, however sophisticated it might be, it goes too far, and can lead to misunderstandings - to an extent. The unnecessary irony didn't help either. But in the end, I guess there is more to be told than the diplomatic "we agree that we disagree". You can see the danger I am worried about, but you reaction is... peculiar (for lack of better term). Since you mentioned Occam's Razor, I think applying it in this case would mean what I tried to explain in previous posts (and won't repeat here). You probably can see that as well. So yes, there is more to be told than the typical diplomatic way to and a dispute. You say you like Steam, you like "their service" - and that's ok, your comments can still help in these dire times for Wurm, because you can see Steam integration is not without dangers. Unfortunately, that's not the case for many people posting here. Wurm is dying, and I am not happy about that; It is a game I liked right away once I tried it, and played for several years since then. The playerbase was never huge, but today it is really small compared to even what it used to be. There is no doubt action should be taken immediately. In gaming, the usual "action" taken is such cases is "stremlining" or "QoL improvements", essentially meaning "dumb it down, make it stupid, and put it on Steam". Personally, I would be more than happy to see Wurm Online on GoG instead of Steam. But as long all servers remain independent to Steam client, I don't really mind. As long "Quality of Life improvements" doesn't mean dumb it down, I don't mind. But the changes ahead are not very promising; it's easy to take the wrong way, leading to "streamilned Wurm" (which won't be Wurm anymore), tied to Steam's chariot and dragged around. Someone had to say all that. More than one should say all that. I tried to do my part. If there are other people out there thinking the same way (and I know there are), now it is the right time to speak. The last thing Wurm needs right now is "yes-men".

You tried to give answers and you failed to even position all of them properly in my text. Where you actually managed to do that simple thing, the "answers" you gave deserve no further comments. I already spoke about all the "arguments" you tried here, but you are obviously unable to read them, due to a superego which is completely impotent to digest any objection. That being said, and given you are a smart-ass kid with such a big mouth ready to insult others, welcome to my ignore list. Oh, and I wish you luck to the Steam-only servers and the dumbed-down "QoL improvement" you want so desperately. The likes of you will be perfectly ok there.

Oh boy, what a treat to unpack. It's such a delicious treat I won't resist. You used Google to find the definition of the term "conspiracy theory", and you grabbed that definition more or less like a a victorious flag for your cause. And guess what, that term was not even my point. That alone should be enough as an answer for your first paragraph, but I'll make it simpler for you: I just pointed out that Steam demanding Steam-only servers is a VERY possible scenario. Call it "conspiracy theory" or however you wish, but if you think Steam wouldn't want any game's servers accessible by Steam client ONLY, then you are too naive. And good luck trying to deny such a demand from Steam when your game is dying and you need Steam in an effort to survive. But whether that "conspiracy theory" is true or not was not even my point. If you bothered to actually read what I was saying, it should be clear I don't really care if Steam demands Steam-only servers or if it is a developers' decision. What I do care is this: Steam-ONLY servers have no purpose, and it is the last thing they should do if they wanted to save Freedom servers (which, in case you didn't notice, are dying already). Initially, the only answer I got was "the new servers will be Steam-only because we wish to keep them separated" - which is utterly ridiculous. Like I said already, they could have separate servers without Steam (they did it in the past), plus any veteran can join the new servers and the Steam-only crap won't stop them at all. Veterans can and WILL be there day one, taking over the market, milking the new players by selling stuff they made way faster than any newbie can possibly imagine. The net result will be exactly like what happened in Pristine and Release. The same cause leads to the same result. So the first answer I got as an explanation for Steam-ONLY is complete nonsense. You see that but you still defend that nonsense. Later on, and only after I insisted to get an answer that would make any sense, I go this: "non-Steam client would likely require some larger changes to the Freedom cluster". Desperate to find an argument, you grabbed that and accepted it to the letter in order to easily conclude it is a "perfectly sensible reason" for Steam-only servers "from a project management perspective". Yes, I am sure some changes will be needed. But guess what, they did it in the past (a fact you conveniently ignore), and I doubt the existence of Steam client would make it harder now. Even if it would, Steam client with totally independent servers should be their first aim, or else bye-bye Freedom servers. Instead, "Quality of Life" is the new big thing, and the essential part is second. Now, "QoL" is another story, but a short comment on this is necessary: "QoL" is a new trendy term in gaming, essentially meaning dumb-down gameplay so that it will be easily digested by the "average Joe" who uses Steam; let's hope developers don't mean it that way, but the context makes me doubting. But wait, there is more for you (because I don't think I will bother again, so you get it all now). The most absolutely ridiculous part of your post is where you call Steam "certainly influential". That's an euphemism pushed to the extreme. And you use Path of Exile and Planetside 2 as examples of games distributed via Steam "but have compatible standalone clients" (I won't look it up because I wasted quite some time already, so I'll take your word on that). First of all, those are completely different games; Path of Exile is not even an online game (it's single-player with extremely minimal mutliplayer interaction). And you use it as an example to prove what? That its distribution model can be compared with Wurm Online? Seriously? Second, I wonder how populated the independent servers for those two games are; but even if they have survived their independent servers while being on Steam, the fact TWO out of the countless Steam games managed to have such a distribution model doesn't mean it will happen with Wurm as well (especially when, let's face it, Wurm is dying). Furthermore, when I tried Path of Exile it was in late Beta version, it wasn't on Steam, it had a solid playerbase already, and it wasn't a dying game by any means. In other words, any negotiations with Steam would certainly be easier. To summarize, even it those two games managed to have both Steam-only and independent servers, that proves nothing..But you don't care about such details; you conveniently take it as the most possible scenario, because it fits your belief Steam is angelically "influential". The reason I wrote all that and didn't ignore you (as I do with another guy here) is because you can actually SEE the danger (in total contrast with that silly guy - I don't even remember his nickname). You are ready to defend a ridiculous argument saying "new servers are meant to be for new players, so we want them accessible by Steam client ONLY", despite the fact you can see Steam-only won't prevent old players to join. You know separate servers existed in the past without Steam, but you nooo, they will be a huge problem now, so that's a "perfectly sensible reason" for Steam-only. Those were the only answers I got, and you defend them both, despite the fact you can actually see things. We both want Wurm to survive, I guess (and still being Wurm), so the irony you used was unnecessary; but you used it, which is why my answer above is a little bit ironic as well - you get what you give. In any case, I doubt I will bother again, with you or anyone else ready to applaud and defend developers' decisions, blatantly attacking anyone who dares to object. Such blind applauders are one of the main reasons I usually avoid posting in this Forum. I tried to point out some potential dangers in the changes ahead. The reason I posted here is because I am an old player, and I like this game; I don't want to see Freedom servers dying. Steam-ONLY servers lead straight to Freedom's death, so I had to speak. But frankly, I had enough already. Feel free to keep applauding as much as you like; it won't help the game to the slightest, but so be it. As for me, I will return to my silence. I will just wait to see how Steam integration and "Quality of Life" goes, and will act accordingly. I'm really sorry to say that, but I have serious doubts it will will go well. I sincerely hope I'll be wrong.

I wish I could agree, but it's too over-optimistic. Why a "testbed" should be Steam-only? We already had a testing server for that, they could just make testing server more attractive. Where is the need of Steam-only server for that? Furthermore, I doubt any new players starting from Steam will ever try "vanilla" WO, because for most of them Steam is all what they know. The opposite, however, will happen for sure; many will migrate to Steam-only servers to take over the market (because they CAN), or because Freedom is deserted. It's not about "going down the rabbit hole on what-if scenario"; I just refuse to "focus on the positives" while I clearly see a huge negative here. Everybody knows what exactly Steam is, they like it or not: it's the definition of heavy DRM. And such a DRM demanding Steam-only servers is not conspiracy theory; in fact, I would be surprised if I had proof Steam did NOT demand Steam-only servers. It's just too good to be true. "It's a game. Just have fun" - yes, that's exactly I want. But where is the fun when Freedom-servers are going straight to Epic's fate? Yes, Steam will potentially attract more players; I doubt that will make a huge difference in the long run, because Wurm is not a game for everyone (and that's good). Still, it is worth trying. But we already have excessive servers, and I don't see any positive on adding more - even worse when they want new servers accessible by Steam only.

I will keep that one, waiting to see how it will go. I still think though, that you should be 100% ruling out new servers being accessible by the Steam client ONLY. Making it Steam-only won't prevent any veteran to join using a fresh alt, and they will still have a clear huge advantage compared to the new players (the exact same thing happened in the past in Pristine and Release). The only thing Steam-only servers will do is to tie you in the back of the Steam chariot. Steam always tries to make any game they cover being dependent on them (even single, offline games); that's their job, actually. By opting to open Steam-only servers you offer them exactly what they want, which should not be what you want. Yes, sturp-slurp. And you lost any chance to be taken seriously when one of your "arguments" advocating new servers was the "wilderness feel" - when we have seven extremely under-populated servers and the vast majority of the land is wilderness. I responded to all your silly "arguments", and of course you conveniently avoided attempting to give any answer, only kiddish irony. You have nothing to say, but you say it continuously. Oh, and don't bother to answer anymore, I already had enough nonsense from you, and I won't bother reading more.

You are probably one of those people who think Windows 10 is NOT a botnet, and every torrent you download somewhere on the Internet is safe. You have my condolences. May I ask though, how is this connected to the topic? If you have something to say concerning Steam-ONLY servers, say it, and try to have arguments that make sense. Other than that, what I do or not do is my business, you can only guess nonsense about it, plus it has nothing to do with the topic. If you have nothing to say about the game and its Steam integration, you are off-topic and you better remain silent.

You are obviously talented on talking nonsense. If you love Steam, that's perfectly fine by me; if you are a DRM-lover, I couldn't care less. It is your right to do it, and it is my goddamn right to refuse using your beloved Steam in order to play in any public server. As for the "funny" part about Chrome, Google etc, you have absolutely no idea if I use them or not, and I will not clarify that to you either. Oh, and continue applauding every decision taken from the devs blindly; your slurp-slurp really helps the game grow. I'll simplify it for you: You can have Steam and still have new servers, separate or not, accessible both by Steam AND without Steam. You will have the same Steam advertisement, and more player freedom to log in however they please. What part you don't understand? I strongly recommend you try to use your minds; your beers won't be changed in the middle of the night and your pets will still love you.

Let me get is straight: according to that "logic" they want Steam-only new servers because they want them to be "not for the existing players". You admit veterans will go there anyway using Steam but "that's not the devs intention", they want new players only, so "they don't cater it" by making new servers Steam-only. Seriously, does that make sense to you? It's like saying "don't shoot the pianist, we don't cater it" while the veteran gunslinger is ready to shoot and there is no way to stop him by "not catering it". Absolutely nothing stops veterans to go to new separate servers, and Steam-only cannot and will not prevent it. Where is the goddamn need for Steam-only then? The same experiment was done years ago with Pristine and Release both being separate servers, and they were flooded by veterans from day one, quickly taking over the market and everything. New players had absolutely no chance to make the server anything different than the others. Veterans knew how to level up their fresh alt way faster than newbies and had complete control of the market, and all strategic spots. How exactly this is not going to happen if the new servers are Steam only?

This does NOT answer my main question. Actually, i doesn't even make sense. How exactly Steam-only is needed for the separate servers? You already had two separate servers WITHOUT Steam in the past, namely Pristine and Release. Newer players might not be aware of that fact so they might believe your answer, but I am not. I have seen two separate servers years before Steam becomes a "necessity" all of a sudden. There is a reason you insist on Steam-only servers, and you don't want to tell people what that reason is. If you cannot answer a question (for whatever reason) at least do not dodge it with an "answer" that insults old-players' intelligence. Are you aware of the fact Freedom is dying a slow death? How exactly "the current Wurm servers continuing"? You want to introduce new servers while you already have SEVEN servers, all of them extremely under-populated, and then you come here claiming you are still "supporting" the existing servers. I am sorry but I don't believe you. The only "support" for Freedom I see it the same "support" Epic had: You see Freedom is dying and not only you do nothing to prevent it, but you also do whatever you can to accelerate its death process. What you are doing is letting Freedom servers die so that you can get rid of them (and get rid of the cost of running them). Or maybe Steam demands new servers, and of course Steam wants them to be Steam-only servers. Or both. Or for some other reason; I don't really know why you do it, I am only guessing. What I DO know is that you are not telling us the truth. You are probably going to delete this post. Freedom of speech was never respected in this forum, especially when you fool people by claiming Steam is needed for separate servers, while old players know this is NOT true.

And that "something big" that's needed, that "drastic" change you think it will save Wurm is what, exactly? Adding new separate servers? As if they didn't do it before. May I remind you Pristine and Release used to be separate servers and you had to start over from scratch with a new avatar? You think that helped the game growing its playerbase in a way worth mentioning? Not at all; I was there day one, I know what exactly happened: those new separate servers had a peak in the first 2 months and that was all. When the first 2-months subscription was ended, many new players left Wurm (because they got bored, they didn't like the slow pace of the game, or whatnot). The total Wurm population quickly dropped down, more or less to the same level it used to be before introducing new servers. Those new servers ended up being populated mostly by alts created there from veterans, plus some new players who remained. The whole experiment was such a "drastic" change that they had to merge those 2 servers in the Freedom cluster after a few months they introduced them. The party was over, and guess what, NOTHING changed, other that we had two more low-populated servers. Complete nonsense. Not to mention you failed to even bullet it properly. (1) The "wilderness feel" you mention will last 2 weeks maximum. Why? because "new players can be destructive" (your own words). Newbies (and old players starting over) will make a mess in no time, with terraforms and "roads all over". Example: Celebration was mainly a newbie server when they opened it, and a huge area around starting town was a disaster, a huge mess. All that in a matter of few days. Soon, the mess spread out even in my secluded outpost there. But don't worry, today most areas are wilderness, simply because nobody lives there, and even if a deed was there in the past, everything collapsed a long time ago. You don't need a new server if you want to experience the "wilderness feel". On the contrary, a separate new server will cease to be wilderness very quickly, because you will have more people in less space, compared to the many, already empty, Freedom servers. (2) "People like coastal. Good luck on an old server": Nonsense "argument" again; Xanadu itself was yet another server that was not needed (not to mention Xanadu's many problems). Existing servers are full of empty coastal spots, not only in Xanadu but also in all other servers; and it couldn't be otherwise because ALL servers are pathetically low-populated. So who exactly takes over the coastal spots? The tiny playerbase that could fit in one server only? (3) "Clear rock layer": yet another nonsense. Have a tour around Wurm, man. Go to Deliverance and tell me how much of wasteland you will find still standing. I can recall 5 or 6 deeds on west coast, the rest is no man's land, I can easily find a spot and set a mining colony if I wanted to. There are a few old mines, most of them collapsed, and the rest is free for the taking. Pristine is full of thick rock layer you can mine and create your dream underground land. (4) The old-versus-new-players "argument" you tried is just silly. New servers will be full of old players playing a fresh toon; those will have a clear HUGE advantage against newbies. So the exact same issues with perimeters and whatnot will happen. I saw it happening myself on Pristine, back when it was a new separate server. (5) About the "market" argument you mention: Yeah, sure, none of the veterans will play on new servers; not even one of them. It will be a pure newbie community, so newbies will "have a shred of a chance at a market spot before the veterans take over". Seriously man, are you THAT naive? Veterans will be there day one and they will take over market quickly because their new alt will progress 100 times faster due to player's previous experience. That nonsense was already tried out on 2 separate servers in the past. And guess what, veterans playing new toons took over the market in a matter of one month, if not less. I was on Pristine with a new toon; I made ships way faster than newbies eventhough we all started from scratch, because I knew what to do and how to do it. Other veterans took over blacksmithing goods, farming, everything. The market was quickly saturated and the merge of the 2 new servers in the Freedom cluster was inevitable. Long before the merge, veterans already had complete control of the market on separate servers. New players really didn't stand any chance to "create their own market". And you know why? Because the market system needs an overhaul. New separate servers will never change that. (6) The Steam arguments doesn't really deserve any answer. Let me just point out Quality of Life doesn't need any new server; they introduced "QoL" changes in the past; some "purists" didn't like it, and the dust settled in a matter of days. (7) What you call "Wurm classic" is dying already, and new Steam separate servers will be the final nail on its coffin. If you can't see that you are blind. Steam is popular, despite the fact it sucks. Freedom servers will be even more deserted, forcing the remaining oldies to either quit playing, or moving to Steam servers - if they can stand the Steam crap, of course. Furthermore, none of you addressed the fact new servers will be on Steam only. Let's say new separate servers are needed (they aren't, but let's say I agree with you). Even then, why exactly new servers must be on Steam only? New players could just join the new servers via Steam if they want; others could join the new servers without Steam. Simple, and not restricting. Steam itself is a DRM galore, not to mention the bugs. Nevertheless, I have no problem with it, as long I have the freedom not to use it. If you guys like DRM, enjoy Steam as much you like, provided others still have the option to stay away of it. But Steam-only servers, if they succeed, will kill Freedom servers thus killing the freedom to play without Steam. You want new separate servers so desperately? It's a mistake but ok, go ahead and do it. Just NOT Steam-only servers. And don't tell me they need to be Steam servers for some technical reason, because Samool and Rolf already said they MIGHT connect them to the existing Freedom servers in the future, so it is possible to have a new separate cluster not depending on Steam from day one. They just don't want to do it; they want new servers to be Steam-only. I tried to guess why they insist on that in a previous post. I can see why they want Wurm on Steam. Sadly, Wurm is dying, and they hope Steam might save it because it's popular. "More audience, more people joining, more money for the company, Wurm is saved". It's not that simple, though. The best Steam can do is to increase Wurm playerbase for a few months, probably 2 or 4 months maximum. Then playerbase will inevitably drop again, because the "honeymoon" is over. And the question is how much it will drop. What will keep people playing Wurm is the gameplay, not Steam. Wurm is by nature a slow-paced game; I am perfectly fine with slow-paced gameplay, but most people aren't, thus you can never expect a huge playerbase. If I were to guess, I'd say Steam will not have a huge permanent change on Wurm playerbase. It will certainly increase the playerbase, but not too much in the long term. If that's enough to save Wurm, I don't know.

I already pointed out the same thing, earlier in this topic, and I am glad someone else brings it up again. Why they want Steam is obvious. What's NOT so obvious is why they insist on new, separate Steam servers. It's not just yet more new servers, clearly serving no purpose. It's also servers under the heavy DRM-crap called Steam. Some of us not only refuse to start over, we also refuse to play under a DRM. I already know the answer I might get: "you can still play on Freedom if you don't like Steam". My in-advance response to such an answer is: "hypocritical NONSENSE". That's because with separate Steam servers it is inevitable Freedom servers will be even more deserted, and eventually die; even if they keep them alive for a while, they will be almost empty, so pointless. Maybe that's exactly what they want: to get rid of Freedom and its many servers no matter if existing Freedom servers are more than enough to hold the expected new Steam players. Why they might want to get rid of Freedom? probably to reduce the cost of running 7 PvE servers; or maybe they want new separate Steam servers because Steam demands it. Whatever the reason, they want new Steam servers so much, and one thing is sure: there is absolutely no need for new Steam servers. Look at the current server status, assume Steam will make the Wurm player base 20 times higher permanently (unrealistic, but let's pretend it will happen). Guess what, even in that scenario you have the population Wurm had years ago, when it was at its peak, and even then existing Freedom servers were more than enough. So give me a goddamn reason for introducing new servers, under Steam or not. In the unlikely case Steam will bring SOOOOOO many new players that existing 7 servers can't hold them, they could open new servers THEN, not now. But noooooo, they want their new servers NOW, and they want them not connected to Freedom. Do you really see any need for this? In any case, they insist for new Steam servers and whatever I am saying doesn't matter because it will be ignored, or even deleted from this forum (Wurm forum is not exactly famous for freedom of speech). And if I have to play via Steam in the future (which seems inevitable unless they change their mind), I am out. I refuse to play under DRM, and even if I wanted to, I refuse to play via Windows or install useless 32-bit libs on a 64-bit GNU/Linux system, just because Steam is 32-bit only. So far I was able to play on GNU/Linux and without DRM; Samool himself addressed the problems that occasionally occurred in new Wurm versions, and in general Wurm was running flawlessly, with the freedom not to use DRM and not to use Windows. I see a danger this will change in the near future; I really hope I am wrong, but if I am not, bye-bye Wurm.

Not even that. Steam itself is available for Debian-based Linux distributions only, and even that requires 32-bit libraries installed. In an era you can't buy a 32-bit processor if even if you wanted to, Steam is still available for 32-bit ONLY. This means that to use Steam on Linux you have to: (1) Install multilib, a bunch of otherwise completely useless 32-bit libs, repeatedly reported to be problematic and basically an awful mess, (2) Use Ubuntu (actually, Crapbuntu) or Debian, both crappy distros infected by systemd to the bone. You don't like those? you have to do weird tricks to make it work on other distros. All that just to start Steam, not to mention the many problems reported even if you manage to run it. On the other hand, Wurm runs flawlessly on any GNU/Linux distribution I've tried as it is now, without Steam.

I dislike Steam and I never use it. However, I do see why you opted to add a Steam version, and I don't mind it as long I will be still be able to play the game without Steam. However, I must point out here that there is absolutely no reason for adding Steam servers, since there are many Freedom servers already, way more that what was needed even when Wurm population were at its peak. Even if Steam version would quad that peak population of the past, the existing Freedom servers will be more than enough. If you really want to add Steam servers, at least make them connected to Freedom servers right from the beginning. Separate Steam servers will probably be accessible via Steam only (let's not forget we are talking about the worst DRM here; if they publish Wurm, of course they will try to make it playable via Steam only; that's their job). This will impact Freedom servers in a very negative way: most new players will join the game via Steam, because sadly that's what they only know; this means that, if Steam servers are separated, Freedom servers will become the "poor sibling". I am pretty sure many Freedom players will start over on Steam not because they like Steam but because more people will be there, thus deserting Freedom even more than what it is today. On the other hand, connected servers will make the game flourish both for old and new players. What's the necessity of adding new Steam servers, anyway? We already have 7 Freedom servers (8 if you count Jackal), and their population is miserably low. Or you have to add Steam servers because Steam asks you to do so? If that's the case then I can foresee the death of freedom (both the Freedom servers and the freedom to play the game without DRM).

@Samool Indeed, the Mesa drivers lack S3TC extensions by default, due to a patent issue. Installing libtxc_dxtn solved the problem. That package seems to be available in most GNU/Linux distributions repositories. At least in my case (Slackware 14.2 64-bit), installing it was trivial. Wurm 4.0.x now runs well again, with or without GLSL. Thank you for your support, Samool!

@Samool: Ok, now I get some more information you didn't notice before. We are talking about S3TC extensions, which I don't know if my driver supports (I just know it does support texture compression). I have to look it up. However, I want to point out the following. This is an Intel GPU, and Intel officially points you to Mesa drivers. Now, Mesa drivers are provided by the GNU/Linux distribution you use (in my case Slackware). Upgrading Mesa drivers is not an easy task. Intel does not provide an easy-to-use installer, like Nvdia or AMD does; it only provides some tools, and that only for specific distributions which I am not using. In most distributions, the user has to compile new Mesa drivers himself, together with all its dependencies, and that's not something the typical Wurm player would want to do. It is certainly doable (actually compiling Mesa itself is not hard), but it's still risky to alter core components of my distribution, and certainly not a risk most users would want to take just because that MIGHT let them play a game (it's not even sure it will). In other words, if Wurm 4.0 assumes everybody has S3TC extensions, you are basically kicking out anyone using GNU/Linux on a typical laptop, since most of them have an Intel GPU. Nobody wants to install a bleeding-edge, typically unstable, rolling distribution (which usually provides the latest, not well-tested, drivers) just to play a game. Therefore, I think a workaround is necessary, so that one could play at least with GLSL off. If something like that is in the developers' plans, please officially state so, because my premium expires today, and I am not going to re-prem until it's fixed, or until I have access to my desktop computer (which has a Nvdia GPU and *hopefully* Wurm would at least run there). As for being rude, it's not my intention to be rude to developers. I do have issues with customer support, not with developers; I wonder what would happen if I had already paid for one year premium, only to realize that Wurm just decided I can't play anymore. Let me guess, nobody in customer support would care. Luckily, this is not the case for me (as an old player, I learned not to pay for more than the minimum premium time, because I have seen issues like that several times in the past). Yes, I would know about the issue earlier if I used the unstable client. But I don't have the time nor the motivation to be Wurm's beta tester. Unless I am supposed to pay money AND be a beta tester, I want it or not. But anyway, that doesn't have to do with you. I apologize if I sounded rude. I just want to be able to play again. Nothing more, but also nothing less.

@Samool: I'm not sure that's all that has to been said from your part. (1) I am not a new player; I know Wurm is using texture compression for several years now (it was actually blatantly announced as a new great thing years ago). Like I said the exact same system was running Wurm (with or without GLSL) until version 4. In other words, this system was running Wurm with texture compression for years now. (2) Notice the bridge arc in the screenshots above, which is rendered correctly (and, obviously, arc tiles also use compressed textures). If my system is lacking glCompressedTexImage2D extension, how can it render *those* compressed textures, but not the others? (3) I am a developer myself (not in Java, but glCompressedTexImage2D is not a Java thing; it's OpenGL). I used glCompressedTexImage2D() in several C/C++ programs already, and it *does* work with the current drivers. So no, it's not that my drivers lack that texture extension. I used to have similar issues like the ones in screenshots above each time I was upgrading Java. Clearing Java cache was enough to fix the issue. Now it is not. I suspect the problem has nothing to do with my driver's OpenGL implementation, but it's rather a Java thing. Are you sure it's not a bug that needs your attention as developers? Or maybe it needs special care concerning clearing cache? So far I used javaws -Xclearcache or even javaws -uninstall for that, and like I said it was enough. Maybe version 4 needs something else I am not aware of? In any case, I need a more detailed responsible answer than "your driver is lacking texture compression" - which, obviously, isn't correct.

I was waiting till 4.0.8 before posting anything, hoping I could at least play with GLSL disabled. It still doesn't work. This is what I get with GLSL on: Complete mess (houses, trees, grass, crops, etc are pitch black). Surprisingly, the arc of the bridge is properly rendered, but that's it. Console logging follows (truncated, because it's very long). Apparently, it has to do with that "glCompressedTexImage2D failed" warning. I verified installed files, there is nothing wrong with them (and used to work befre version 4). The situation is not any better with GLSL off. Nothing is rendered correctly, textures are white: The console log is similar to the above: Yes, I am running latest Java. Yes, it is 64-bit. Yes, I cleared the Java cache - countless of times, trying to do anything suggested in this thread. I even tried the "low memory" version, even though this computer has 8Gb of RAM - which is not the greatest ever, but is should be more than enough to play games way more resource-heavy than Wurm. It still doesn't work. Note that I was able to play Wurm in the exact same computer without issues before version 4. I had decent (not great) FPS with or without GLSL. Since version 4 was released, it's just not playable. In the meantime, I am still paying for a service not delivered. I'll keep further comments about customer support for myself. The forum has many people ready to bash anyone who simply refuses to pay money just to be a beta tester, and I have better things to do than dealing with such people.

+1, and there is already barley, so the foundations of making beer is in game already.

I just wanted to inform all the fellow silver sellers that a guy called Neal Hicks (or so he says) buys silver via Paypal then tries to cheat. He gets his silver coins, waits for a few days, then asks his money back from Paypal. In my case he failed, because I have a long history of flawless Paypal transactions. Paypal didn't find any evidence his claim was true and closed the case. No funds were recovered from my account, but it was still a not a pleasant experience. I doubt the cheater will try again with the same Paypal account, but, just in case, do NOT sell sliver to anyone with a Paypal account named nealhicks@gmail.com.

Delivered. Thank you Xivs/Nazero for the smooth transaction. [Auction ended (buyout). Please close.]

Delivering in progress. I am not closing thread until it's sold.