Wazzup with the DEDCON TEST SERVERS?

[- Tobias -]

Has anyone else noticed that the old favorites of DEDCON TEST MOR's DEFAULT and DEDCON TEST TOTALLY RANDOM are not showing up as frequently as game options anymore?

While I welcome the proliferation of new games (e.g. 2v2v2, 3v3, 4v2, 5v1, etc) the frequency of the offerings of these two CLASSIC 6-player games should be maintained.

(There really should be a 2v2v2 offering.)

[bert_the_turtle]

You may have noticed that the number of game actually played on these servers has gone down a bit over the past months, and that IV released a new game with a growing demand for bandwidth. So I'm starting the two six player games once every two hours each now. Where "now" is for the past six weeks or so.

[trickser]

I dont want to argue, but i dont like it.

[- Tobias -]

IV released a new game with a growing demand for bandwidth.

I am far from a computer expert, but it seems to me that you're talking Windows (inefficient, "new game") and DOS (relatively efficient, Defcon) here. Not quite a fair trade-off.

But, from a commercial standpoint, if IV needs to justify maintaining bandwidth to support the two best Defcon game offerings there are, I suggest they re-promote the availability of the Free Demo via guerilla marketing (low-cost) techniques such as news releases to gamer mags, blogs, etc. The demo is full featured and I would think there is a good demo to purchase conversion rate. Just need to pump the demo.

Also, I hope IV remembers getting the royalties from the usage of Defcon screen shots as background images in all of the television shows in the United States that I have seen use it. Doubtful the "new game" will generate such revenue. Lastly, they might wish to insist on a credit line in such licensing deals that provides a clear link to the demo.

[Feud]

IV released a new game with a growing demand for bandwidth.

I am far from a computer expert, but it seems to me that you're talking Windows (inefficient, "new game") and DOS (relatively efficient, Defcon) here. Not quite a fair trade-off.

But, from a commercial standpoint, if IV needs to justify maintaining bandwidth to support the two best Defcon game offerings there are

IV has nothing to do with it, the servers you are talking about are owned and operated privately by players who are kind enough and have the resources to do so. They are the ones who must pay for the bandwidth.

[Why?]

I'd like to thank Bert for all the time and money he's put into the servers, websites and Dedcon. I've spent a lot of time on your servers and watching recordings. I think it's safe to say that the Defcon user-base would've disappeared by now, if it wasn't for your efforts! I hope IV appreciates it as much as we all do!

[- Tobias -]

I'd like to thank Bert for all the time and money he's put into the servers, websites and Dedcon.

I have no idea about who owns what or who provides what service, etc. If anyone is providing these services gratis, then they obviously get my full appreciation. If, however, Introversion wants to be a real company, they should be paying for the multi-player networking. If not, farm the games out to battle.net.

[Feud]

If, however, Introversion wants to be a real company, they should be paying for the multi-player networking. If not, farm the games out to battle.net.

IV pays to run the Metaserver, which provides all of the match making for their games. They do not, however, provide dedicated servers partly since the dedicated server program is a third party application created by bert (with some code assistance from IV if I understand the history correctly).

Why should they pay to have dedicated servers? They are a small company with a limited budgets, I would much rather have the money go into either the next game or providing the employees with a more comfortable standard of living, than on bandwidth and computers for a bunch of servers which may or may not get used in the first place.

Also, don't pull that whole "if they want to be a real company" crap. It's a valid point when they do something boneheaded but when you're patronizing them on proper design over their most successful game to date in their six year, multiple award winning history you lose a lot of legitimacy. Maybe I'm just being cranky and you caught me on a bad night, in which case sorry, but your point and more especially your reasoning is just down right silly.

[- Tobias -]

Hey Feud, thanks for giving me some history/info on this. I admit, I know nothing.

Defcon is good game. Bert is hero/genius/star/nice-guy, etc. Fuzzy IV-Defcon Server relationship not so good. You may be cranky, and I am probably an idiot, but if you take a game into the market you gotta have the attitude that bandwidth is free (while at the same time paying for it) if you want it to be truly succcessful. IMO, of course.

Hey, I'm just looking for fresh meat. The more the merrier.

[Why?]

I can't think of any online multiplayer games that run anything other than a metaserver, over 2 years after the initial release. Especially from such a small developer. You've gotta understand that they're focusing their resources on the new titles.