LAN Games in DoW2?

[Penitent]

In Company of Heroes you can't play LAN games with only one copy of the game,because you are required to login to play. This precludes me and my brother playing CoH together in LAN matches as we own only one copy of the game. This is a departure from practically every other RTS game in existence to my knowledge.

I can play with people from all over the world (if we ignore the laggy gameplay that would cause for a moment) but not with my brother sitting in the room next to me? I'm not made of money and I don't think I should have to pay the full retail price again simply to enable LAN multiplayer options (and in fact I'd refuse to on principle even if I had the cash to spare).

It's like trying to make it so that only the family member who bought a DVD movie can watch that movie and nobody else is allowed to.

I assume Relic did this to thwart software piracy but I don't see why paying customers should be punished too. So I hope Dawn of War 2 allows offline LAN games. I don't mind logging in to play as long as LAN games are more suitably accomodated.

That's my position anyway. What does the RN community think of the CoH system for LAN games?

[Sgt So and So]

Totally agree here. CoH was originally able to play with one copy over LAN, but when OF came out, they introduced this awful system.

I agree that offline LAN play should be encouraged for DoW2. Heck, with Co-op campaigns, it's going to be a requirement.

[aerziel]

I seriously doubt this will happen unless relic found a way to prevent LAN games being exploited.

[Penitent]

Could you explain how LAN games can be exploited?

[cannonfodder]

Seeing how rampant idiotic copy protection schemes are lately, I see no chance of playing LAN with DoW2.

Heck, with Bioshock you couldn't play the game from a different windows account than the one it was installed to.

[Akranadas]

Make sure everyone who wants to play LAN buys the game (so that Relic can continue to make awesome games + DoW2 expansion) then your problem is solved.

[Penitent]

What? "a company has done something you don't like but just ignore it because you like their product" is not a healthy attitude for a consumer to take in my view.

[aerziel]

Sorry I didn't make myself clear on exploit I mean exploited in using pirated copies to work online via example Hamachi.

[Penitent]

If copy protection has shown us anything it's that treating consumers like criminals turns them into criminals, aerziel. Companies shouldn't punish the paying customer.

As I said I don't particularly mind logging in to the play the game as it seesm like a good way of combating piracy and only takes a few seconds. I draw the line at not being able to play LAN games though.

[cannonfodder]

Yeah, because people buy a copy of the same game for every family member. (I'm sure most don't.)

[aerziel]

but still unless there is a solution that can be found in LAN Hamachi games relic will not make any of there future game LAN capable.

[Penitent]

Sorry, but how do you know that? Also I'd rather discuss your opinions than simply listen to you second-guess what Relic will do.

[cannonfodder]

I know this forum doesn't like game-to-game comparisons, but I'd take it for almost granted that SC2 will allow playing over LAN (so far every single Blizz title 'cept WoW did). If DoW2 keeps this stance - while I know I don't speak for the entire market - it'll be a definiate disadvantage.

So I hope relic starts thinking up something smart. ;)

[aerziel]

I'm sorry for making myself sound that I know what relics plans are. However the reality is and I am not sure if relic found a way to fix it. Is that unless Hamachi or any other program of the same capability won't be able to use on a pirated copy then I guess LAN will be enabled. However, since thats not the case yet I guess it wont happen yet.

[Ap0k]

I'm not made of money and I don't think I should have to pay the full retail price again simply to enable LAN multiplayer options (and in fact I'd refuse to on principle even if I had the cash to spare).
Out of curiosity, why is it so objectionable that if two people want to play the game, they will require two copies of said game. I mean, the guy across the world had to buy his copy to play with you, so I fail to see how (or why) distance factors into the equation. Just because something has been an abnormal industry standard for a long time doesn't necessarily mean it makes any sense. If you go to see a movie with your friend, or go to a restaurant, you both have to pay, and you're standing right beside eachother after all.

[Penitent]

OK, I can appreciate there being technical hurdles in that sense but this goes back to what I said about not punishing the paying customer. I don't think LAN games should be hampered like this purely for the sake of preventing piracy (and they often find a way regardless).


Out of curiosity, why is it so objectionable that if two people want to play the game, they will require two copies of said game. I mean, the guy across the world had to buy his copy to play with you, so I fail to see how (or why) distance factors into the equation. Just because something has been an abnormal industry standard for a long time doesn't necessarily mean it makes any sense. If you go to see a movie with your friend, or go to a restaurant, you both have to pay, and you're standing right beside eachother after all.
Well you don't really get your money's worth. Since you can play CoH on any computer simply by logging in with your online account it means that the only thing you really get by paying full retail price for the game twice is LAN multiplayer. Is it worth it? Not to me.

And the fact that it's been the standard in the industry for so long does count for something. If there are two companies who provided some sort of bonus with their service, then one day one of those companies stopped providing that bonus, then they would probably have a right to do that. But the consumer also has a right to be pissed off about it.

[Ifitmovesnukeit]

Depends on the analogy you're using, I suppose- no-one would expect to have to buy two copies of a newspaper just because a friend wants to read a little bit of it over your shoulder.

[Ap0k]

That's a fair analogy as well, and there's little difference between yours and mine except that they sit on opposite sides of the fence. I'm not going to try and make some silly argument about how mine is right, or yours is wrong, because they're both valid ways to compare the situation.

On the 'punishing paying customers' front, I'm not following you penitent. You've bought your game. You're getting to play it online, getting the campaign mode, and are basically getting what you paid for. Assuming Relic run with a system similar to CoH, and there isn't any mention on the box that you can play with your friends using the same copy, it's not like they're lying to you about the capabilities of the game. 'You pay $XX.XX, you get a campaign, a multiplayer mode, and whatever other odds and ends that might come in the box (manual/army painter/whatever)'. At this point, the only paying customer out of you and your brother is you, and you are not being punished. If your brother wants to play the game, nothing is stopping him going to a shop and becoming a paying customer himself, at which point he is no longer being punished, since he is getting what he wants for his $XX.XX.

At the risk of being presumptuous, Lan games probably aren't inhibited because of piracy, but because it's just stupid from a marketing point of view to allow two people to use one copy of a game to play with. While newspapers cost mere pocket change, and sell millions every day, which not only makes it impossible to control who is reading it and when, but also reduces the impact on sales from people sharing, the games industry doesn't have that luxury. You're paying for a game an an ability to use it on a service (reliconline, gamespy, whatever), so it stands to reason that if someone else wants to use that game and service, they also would need to pay for it.

[Penitent]

Something else you might not have considered is that multiple people can sue the same computer. Only one person can use a cinema ticket, but several people can use the same copy of a game on a computer and play online with it (at separate times). This is different than my situation but worth considering.

I think it is punishing customers because: If it wasn't for Relic implementing Login to Play to stop pirates, then I'd probably be able to play LAN games with my bro. In fact you originally could when COH first came out apparently. This effectively means I am disadvantaged because of somebody elses illegal activity. IE punishing the paying customer.

I think your nitpicking by saying companies never mentioned LAN play with one copy, I've already said I accept that they have a right to do this.

And why is it stupid? Like I said I'm not made of money and games can be expensive. CoH and OF cost me £30 for instance. I don't think it's fair that I should have to pay £60 (what's that, 120 US$ overall?) to play CoH with my brother. I think it's arrogant that they would expect me to pay that much when I have so much other stuff to buy too.

And LAN play is only ever going to account for a few hours of gameplay at most really between me and my bro, the overwhelming majority of my time spent playing that game will be spent in single player or online multiplayer so it just isn't worth it.

[cannonfodder]

What if they don't want to use the service? A lot of people would never meet gamespy nor reliconline if they were not FORCED to. I mean, if you plan on only playing skirmish, singleplayer and LAN and you don't intend on patching your game, you would never ever meet with any service they offer online. And these aren't really wild assumptions. Yes, people pay for the service if the game is designed in a fashion you can't avoid it - but that's just what it is, bad design, paying for a service one effectively will never ever use.

As for wheter the industry can survive such a risk: that industry as such has been fine with allowing LAN parties for a decade now. Heck, there have been games that went as far as officially allowing you to play LAN parties by letting you install copies that only work in LAN multiplayer. So it's definiately not a luxury the games industry can not afford, or else it would not be alive and kicking by now...

[Ap0k]

You don't have to pay for your brothers copy. If he can't afford it (and you don't want to pay for it), then he doesn't get to play. Seems fairly straightforward to me. He's being treated exactly the same as anyone else who hasn't bought the game. I think it's arrogant that you assume one person should cover the costs for all the multiple copies (which makes no sense. Why would I buy a copy for my friend? He has his own money).

Login to play isn't exactly a major inconvenience, and if you don't want to login, you can insert the disk and avoid the whole process (unless you want to play online - in which case you would have had to log in to play anyway).

And yes, originally CoH didn't require a disk, and multiple people could install and play off the one copy. I'm sure that did encourage rampant piracy, which was one of the reasons that the copy protection was added. Relic got completely and utterly screwed on sales for CoH. The best RTS in recent history and it sold bugger all because people are pirating and using their friends copies. Continuing with that 'marketing scheme' is a pretty good way to sink a fantastic franchise, if not a company.

I'm really not sure why it's so objectionable that if multiple people want to play the game, multiple people must own their own copies of the game. You aren't getting punished because you're getting exactly what you paid for. You didn't pay for the ability to play games with your brother who won't/can't buy his own copy.

I mean, sure, it would be nice if I could buy one copy and let all my friends use it (apart from the fact I'd feel like a cheap bastard for not supporting an awesome game), but from a business point of view, that's a completely batshit insane policy to be running when you're primary goal is to, y'know, make money.

The game was obviously good enough to warrant your $30 the first time around, so it's reasonable to assume that if your brother thinks it's good enough, he'll pay his $30 for it. If he doesn't think it's good enough, and doesn't want to pay the $30 for it, then I honestly see no reason why he should be able to get the majority of functionality from a product, for free, that most other people had to pay money for.

[Rook]

it’s been a very long time since most games allow you to play LAN with just one copy anyway, it’s been my experience that you need two cdkeys to play because games won't play with the same ones trying to connect with each other.
i was also under the impression its THQ who handle copyright issues and piracy protection.

[Penitent]

You don't have to pay for your brothers copy. If he can't afford it (and you don't want to pay for it), then he doesn't get to play.

But he can play. He can play the single player campaign, the skirmish and online multiplayer just by using my computer. By paying for the game again all we really get is LAN multiplayer.

In fact anybody who has access to my computer can play this game. Once you consider that, it's not really a big deal to let my brother play the game on the computer in the next bedroom with me, surely?

To follow on from Ifitmovesnukeit's example, you could argue the media gets "screwed" because not every member of a household buys multiple copies of the same newspaper every day. Imagine the revenue they've lost out on over the years because people shared newspapers with their families! Perhaps they should implement a system where once the person who bought the newspaper has read it then it dissolves or something.


Login to play isn't exactly a major inconvenience
I've said as much and it's not what I have a problem with in itself.

And personally I wouldn't lend my friends a copy of the game because I like to have control over my account (because it's tied to the CD key) so no game company has ever lost out on revenue over that from me at least.

[Ifitmovesnukeit]

@Ap0k: That's not the first time I've seen someone say that CoH sold more poorly than expected, is there anywhere I can read a bit more about that?

I'm always hesitant however to blame stuff like that on piracy all the time, especially since it was yet another WW2 game in a bloated market, even if it was the most revolutionary title of the type in a good while. Did DC do worse than expected as well? That didn't have any copy protection either.

I suppose the best way to make everyone happy is if Relic allows the installation of "spawn" copies that have no singleplayer and which can only connect via lan to a game hosted by a full copy. I personally think buying another copy of the game is a bit much if all you want to do is allow for a day or so of LAN play with a friend.

[cannonfodder]

Dark Zephyr, even Starcraft or Warcraft3 worked in LAN, even if you had the same CD keys.

Ap0k, multiple people can already play the game if htey want to. I can install the game multiple times even on different computers, and people will be able to play it completely fine - it's just a matter of passing the DVD to the person who just started it (while this may seem to make it uncomfortable, it's perfectly painless when it's a matter of reaching over to my brother's PC). So why would we pay twice? We only miss LAN, bitch about it and play another game that allows it, as simple as that. It only makes the user grumble.

[Rook]

Starcraft and Warcraft 3 are now older games, Homeworld 2 won't let you play with the same key and that’s over 4 years old now and if you look at anything by EA it’s been a very long (if ever) they let you played with the same key. I’m not saying it’s fair on those of us who don’t pirate games but you can’t use the argument that most games let you use one copy of a game for lan as precedent for DoW2.

I’m all in favour of the spawn idea, its a good system and a good compromise

[Ap0k]

I'm going out soon, so I'll make this brief. I've pretty much said as much as I can on the matter, and there's little point repeating myself.

To quickly address a few specific points:
Penitent - That's sort of my point. Everyone else pays full price for their copies so that they can have full functionality. Your brother pays nothing and gets what? Roughly 70% functionality? If he get's LAN ablity, he gets to play the whole game for nothing, basically, since the only thing he can't do at that point is play online with you at the same time. So the rest of the world pays for their games, but the few who are lucky enough to live with someone who has a copy get a free ride. That's something of a slight towards the actual paying customers, don't you think?

I'm going to ignore the newspaper comment because the obvious counter argument involves mentioning how successful good restaurants and films are, what with the whole 'everyone pays for their own shit' ideal towards their business. I've already conceded that both are valid analogies from both sides of the fence.

IIMNI - Here's (http://relicnews.com/archives/2007/09/relicnews-opposing-fronts-launch-interview/) the relicnews article from the OF release interview. There's a link inside it that directs you to the full interview, but it's mostly general OF/CoH stuff. The direct link above takes you straight to the info. I don't think there are any hard and fast figures on the sales (though I'm sure you could find comparitive sales numbers between CoH and OF online somewhere. I just don't have the time to look for them).

Cannonfodder - Remind me again how old starcraft and WC3 are?

[Penitent]

That's something of a slight towards the actual paying customers, don't you think?

Well, no. If somebody lives alone, buys a movie and watches it by themsevles, should they then feel slighted because somebody else bought a movie and watched it with their family?

The family is probably splitting the cost in some way or another so individually they'll be getting it cheaper, is this unfair on people living by themselves?

[Rook]

I don't think use such analogies and examples is going to work very well when using them from different industries, otherwise you could start say things like

“If I drive and then crash my friend’s/Brothers car I should be insured with it, after all he paid for his insurance I’m only using it a fraction of the time he is and I get to ride as a passenger all the time.”

It doesn’t apply at all to this situation and the only link between renting a movie and buying game is they are both for providing entertainment.

[Penitent]

It's relevant because people living in the same household often share things. But Ap0k is making the case that people should feel "slighted" because two brothers share the same computer games when they live a room apart. This is ridiculous IMO.

[Croaxleigh]

Additionally, if you buy a DVD and watch it with your family then you'll be watching it on 1 TV, using 1 DVD player. You're free to do this by yourself, with a date, with your grandparents, or however you choose. You won't be able to take that 1 DVD and watch it in 2 places at once, though, because you only bought the one.

If you buy a computer game and install it on your computer, you're free to play it, let your brother play it, or let your best friend Skippy from down the lane come over and use your computer to play it. You're not free, however, to install it on multiple computers so that you can play multiple copies at once in LAN... then you and your brother will both be playing copies of the game yet you will have only purchased one copy. You've already said that you think efforts should be taken to prevent piracy, but how is wanting to use a single game disc to install multiple copies of a game on different computers so that they can be played at the same time not falling into the same boat as other forms of piracy? If you need multiple copies of a game to play multiplayer online, why shouldn't you need multiple copies to play multiplayer over LAN? Either way it's a multiplayer game, the only difference is how it's connected.

[Ifitmovesnukeit]

Apok: Thanks for that, I remember now why I wasn't too impressed by blaming piracy for it- they say that "piracy hurt the sales of CoH especially in regions that shipped CoH after the main release of the game"- surely the solution should be to release worldwide, not to try and go back to inane copy-protection systems (I can't actually play CoH any more at the moment because the game insists on patching before it lets me log in and won't do so unless I have around twenty billion gigabytes of space free on this cramped hard disk).

Believe me, I hate pirates (thieves) with a fiery passion, but I find myself really agreeing with Stardock in that recent interview with them- why let pirates dictate how the game is rather than your paying customers?

[Rook]

It's relevant because people living in the same household often share things. But Ap0k is making the case that people should feel "slighted" because two brothers share the same computer games when they live a room apart. This is ridiculous IMO.

I don't think it’s that relevant because its just the way the pc world works at the moment, I’ve share a room with my brother most of my life and still do when I’m not at uni and if you looked at our collection of games there are multiple copies of a good few games here so we could play LAN and more recently so we can play when I’m at uni.

I certainly don’t come from a wealthy family otherwise I’d have my own room. To be honest I agree with Ap0k to the extent that I understand why people would get annoyed if some people got lan for free with just one copy if I didn’t play lan at all. At the end of the day I only pay for my copy and my brother pays for his out of our own money.

[Penitent]

You're not free, however, to install it on multiple computers so that you can play multiple copies at once in LAN...

Actually I am free to do that with every RTS game I own (many) except Company of Heroes. Are you saying I should have bought all of them twice because I've had a few LAN games on most of them with my brother? Our bill for games would double for the sake of LAN multiplayer.

Something you might want to consider is that we buy different games with our money too. My and my brother don't give less money to the games industy as a whole because we share games, the amount of money we spend is the same we just buy more games with it instead of buying every game twice. If we bought every game twice we would still be spending the same amount of money on the games industry as a whole.

Are you really going to argue that it's ok to share newspapers, movies etc but if I buy a game I shouldn't let my brother install it on his computer and play it when he lives in the room next to me? And furthermore equate that to piracy?

Because if that's piracy then I'm a pirate and fuck the games industry.

[Croaxleigh]

Well, when you buy a newspaper, or a movie, or whatever, you don't make copies of it for someone else to watch it, or read it. When you install a game on 2 computers, then you're making 2 separate copies of the same game. Comparing the use of a newspaper, book, DVD, or French horn by another person to the use of a game by another person is drastically different because you're making a copy of the game.

[Noble]

Every game has a different EULA and every publisher is going to have their own rules for what is and isn't considered acceptable use of their product. Some companies, like Stardock, actually encourage you to install their games (Sins of a Solar Empire) on multiple PC's for LAN play. Other companies discourage this, or take measures to stop it.

Personally, I like the way that Stardock did things. They implemented close to no DRM in SoaSE and they were rewarded greatly for it. However, the EULA is just something you're going to have to accept when purchasing and playing PC games. Sure it would be great to be able to install multiple iterations of the same game on a LAN, but if Relic or THQ says "no, that isn't an option", tough cookies. That's just the way it is.

It's great for the community to voice it's opinion. It's great that you guys are vocal in saying "we would like X and Y and Z in DoW2". What isn't great, is coming off like you've got some kind of right to install multiple copies from one CD. You don't, and unjustified moral indignation is unattractive. All you can do is voice your opinion in a clear manner (which you've done, admirably) and wait to see if Relic heeds your advice. If they don't, then you'll simply have to decide whether or not you think it's worth it to buy their game under the conditions they have set. Complaining about it doesn't do anyone any good.

That is what Apok was getting at. Both sides of this argument are valid. They both make perfect sense. All we can do is wait, see, and then vote with our dollar.

[Penitent]

Well, when you buy a newspaper, or a movie, or whatever, you don't make copies of it for someone else to watch it, or read it.
But so what? Explain why this is important. I already understand the technicalities of this issue thankyou, but they are academic unless enforced. The police are never going to kick down the front door and bust our asses for using the game on two computers because it's trivial and who honestly cares? Has anybody ever been arrested for this? I'm assuming not.

On the other hand if they do then congratulations. You've criminalized a paying customer and therefore saved the games industry from destruction. :rolleyes:

Noble all I'm saying is that treating customers like criminals is stupid. And I found it "unnattractive" to basically be called a pirate over this.

[Noble]

I agree that it's stupid. I agree with you almost entirely. The question you have to ask yourself is, "is this enough to prevent me from buying the game"? If it isn't, then buy the game, obey the rules, and be on your merry way. If it is, then exercise your right as a consumer and don't buy the game. The clearest message you can send to a company comes from the money in your pocket.

[Penitent]

Oh I agree. On the other hand it would be a shame if I didn't buy what could be a great game over something like this, and if I didn't then I'd like Relic to know why. Anyway, I hope they make the right choice.

[Hirmetrium]

Perhaps Relic can look into other means of allowing gamers to play LAN with one copy? say ALA Starcraft "spawning"?

Ok thats a stupid idea. But OF's validation system makes LAN play impossible, and people like to use hamachi because its convient, avoids the noobs, lag and other problems.

What is Relic's full stance on Hamachi? it isn't a match making service, which is prohibited by the EULA, but is still an service...

Still, I'd like to see a return of direct IP over the internet as well - if gamespy was ever down, this was a great compromise and didn't involve any third party bullshit. Me and my friends loved this feature and to see COH hadn't included it was a big smack in the face...

Theres a lot of conflicting issues and at the end of the day we have no say and its up to Relic. The current piracy filled arena that PC games are in is pretty nasty. I don't like COH's system but I put up with it because I support Relic and the video game market.

Of course its never given me any problems, and the day it does will be the day I complain and demand it be removed/fixed/whatever... which is the case with some people.

[Zaljin]

Copy protection makes games run slower, I absolutely loved Company of Heroes, I let my friend borrow, he liked and then he bought it. I hate CoH OF, I think its a great game but I hate their copy right protection, it ruins the experience. I would take the game back if I could.

The way I see it, the people who are going to steal games are going to no matter what protection you give. Its like the music industry, people pirate music, but they buy the cds too if they like what they hear.

[Noble]

I would like to remind everyone of our warez policy (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=5710#3). Please err on the side of caution.

[TimW]

I'm not sure why Relic would want to stop people playing LAN games on the same copy. You'd think that people who play the game at a friends over LAN would be kind of likely to go and buy their own copy so they can play campaign/skirmish/online multiplayer on their own.

And if Relic actually thinks that people are going to buy more than one copy for everyone in the household who wants to play, they're delusional.

[Kapp'n]

This doesnt really affect me. I play lan games quite often, but only when my friends bring their laptops around mine (and obviously they have their own copy of the game). I can see why relic did this with CoH and I would expect to see the same thing happen in DoW2.