PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (1) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Dealing With Sanity
September 12th 2000, 21:39 CEST by andy

Sanity, the top-down action game from Monolith due for release later this month, will have closed-format server queries.



Query information returned by Sanity servers will be encrypted and may only be accessed by the GameSpy and WON.net browsers, as well as the game's internal browser. Other third-party server browsers such as PingTool and aGSM will only be able to support Sanity if their developers hack the game's executable to obtain the encryption keys, which is prohibited by publisher Fox Interactive's license agreement.

Funny, isn't it? Services like GameSpy and WON.net only exist because of games with open-format server queries, and now they're trying to kill off the competition by introducing encrypted formats. And the guys making other browsers can't just hack the encryption keys, because unlike with warez and cracking groups, the Fox lawyers would have a clear target.

C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Dealing With Sanity

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by ""
2000-09-12 21:42:33
<i>Thinking...</i>
#2 by "EvilAsh"
2000-09-12 21:46:04
EvilAsh@eviladam.com
Hmm is this really a big deal? I mean for years
LEc fans were disappointed they could only play
LEc games on the Zone.. you know those
Exclusive deals companies like to make.

Is this really a big deal or is it really suprising at all? I mean don't they want the game to get a communtiy going on one system.
Sort of makes sense to me.


Diablo2 has proven to me that a closed system in many ways is superior. Look at the horrible hacking that has killed open-gaming for Diablo2.

this actually makes sense to me.




Oh Yeah.. First Ever Post.. That was on Topic.

:P
#3 by "Karl Palutke"
2000-09-12 21:51:11
palutkek@asme.org
Is this a 'shrink-wrap' license agreement?  Those aren't enforceable yet, are they?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#4 by "Ryan Sutton-Gee"
2000-09-12 22:15:03
RgeeNOSPAM@uclink4.berkeley.NOSPAM.edu
<b>#3</b> "Karl Palutke" wrote...
<QUOTE>Is this a 'shrink-wrap' license agreement? Those aren't enforceable yet, are they?</QUOTE>

Hmm... maybe not... but the DMCA sure comes to mind...<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#5 by "CheesyPoof"
2000-09-12 22:18:52
cheesyp00f@ignmail.com
Hhmmm.  Can't they just do a clean room hacking of the key like every thing else that was done in silion valley.  Ok, these are just hackers that won't have people to reverse engineer and publish a spec with another team using said spec to create the product and lawyers making sure that nothing is dirtied up.  So, then have someone in another country do it and post the keys somewhere and every one can copy them (till the patch).

CP
#6 by "Vengeance"
2000-09-12 22:19:09
rhiggi@home.com
<b>#2</b> "EvilAsh" <I>Mr. French Tickler</I> wrote ...
<QUOTE>Hmm is this really a big deal? I mean for years
</QUOTE>

Not if you have no intention of buying Sanity like myself...

V  <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#7 by "Max"
2000-09-12 22:23:18
max@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
I'll just be voting with my pocketbook. :)

Seriously - can't say I'm surprised.  Making enough money is never enough.  GSI will increase both revenue and market share through exclusive deals like this.  Presumably Monolith gets some flat fee for the license, though from their side I don't see this as much of an advantage unless the fee is fairly high - that group of people who religiously use other browsers will simply not play Sanity.  Fortunately for 'Lith, that's not a very large group.

-p<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#8 by "Andy"
2000-09-12 22:25:58
andy@planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
<b>#6</b>, Vengeance:
<QUOTE><quote>
Hmm is this really a big deal? I mean for years
</quote>
Not if you have no intention of buying Sanity like myself...
</QUOTE>
But take it to the logical conclusion and maybe it <b>is</b> a big deal for you.

What if a year from now, <i>every</i> game that comes out only supports XYZ browser? And what if you don't like XYZ browser? Or it's commercial and you can't afford it? Or it won't run on your system? Etc, etc...
#9 by "Foogla"
2000-09-12 22:28:43
Foogla@somethingawful.com
re: #2

As far as I know Diablo 2 queries LAN Servers not at all (not sure about b.net), but I'll let Piramida talk about that, he knows everything about that (infact I think he is responsible for the topic).
#10 by "Apache"
2000-09-12 22:30:47
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
f00k! I wanted a topic about Big Tex's Atomic Pocket Rocket... ;)

(ie - Monolith's Mecha Games)
#11 by "Foogla"
2000-09-12 22:34:37
Foogla@somethingawful.com
re: #8

You mean no in-game browser? Or do you mean an in-game browser supplied by a third party (XYZ) that wont allow other browsers? Why would that be different from a situation where the developer would use his own browser without allowing <i>any</i> third party browsers?
#12 by "Vengeance"
2000-09-12 22:52:53
rhiggi@home.com
<b>#8</b> "Andy" <I>Mr. French Tickler</I> wrote ...
<QUOTE><B><A href="spy-internal:Load/154#6">#6</A></B>, Vengeance:

<quote>
<quote>
Hmm is this really a big deal? I mean for years
</quote>
Not if you have no intention of buying Sanity like myself...
</quote>
But take it to the logical conclusion and maybe it <B>is</B> a big deal for you.

What if a year from now, <I>every</I> game that comes out only supports XYZ browser? And what if you don't like XYZ browser? Or it's commercial and you can't afford it? Or it won't run on your system? Etc, etc...

</QUOTE>

I know Andy, I was just being a smart ass ;)
I dont like DII browser its a PITA and Battle Net, dont even get me started....

What if they decided to use MPlayer?  Thats enough of a reason to not buy a game right there.  MPlayer sucks.  GSI is just locking in the market now that their spreading their Dev kit around.  Thier one of the big boys now like MPlayer is/was.

I won't buy a game that does that because it means they can support it worth shit and I don't have a choice in the matter.  If I can't get to it using at least two seperate halfway decent products (not including in game browser) I'm not interested.  So what I'm saying is that I won't purchase those products.  Finding decent servers is absoulety a big part of MP gaming experience.  If I don't think I will be able to find many servers or will have problems with the brower, then I'll spend my money on a different game.

V  <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#13 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-09-12 23:05:09
piramida@agsm.net http://www.agsm.net
Post <b>#9</b> by Foogla:
<QUOTE><i>
re: <A href="spy-internal:Load/154#2">#2</A>

As far as I know Diablo 2 queries LAN Servers not at all</i></QUOTE>

Yes, but that's just one game which wants to force customers to play on closed BNet. Having encrypted queries is a very different thing, and easily leading to GameSpy's monopoly. Yes, it is a pity that no 3rd party game server browser would be supporting Sanity. I am not sure how the rest of community is looking at it ("fuck Sanity" is not exactly an answer, what if Q3A/UT would have that?), but it is definitely not a good thing for mod authors.

Yeah, we could hack it even if it is encrypted (I doubt it would be something special), but that moves all 3rd party game browsers into warez scene. Leaving GameSpy and 20$ extra to properly play the multiplayer game.

Sometimes I think to myself "who cares?" - but really, some people do care, from what I noticed. But first, the game better be good multiplayer-wise, or really, who would care? At least Serious Sam guys are not infested with that, yet...

Okey, I did not mean to be a whining bitch, but it really is sad.

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#14 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-09-12 23:08:30
piramida@agsm.net http://www.agsm.net
Post <b>#13</b> by PiRaMidA:
<QUOTE><i>
but it is definitely not a good thing for mod authors.
</i></QUOTE>

Damn it, my mind was thinking about mods for some unknown reason... Of course I meant game server browsers authors. Who spent quite a lot of time on tool they found usefull for other people and can't update it to support latest games.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#15 by "Seven Tacos"
2000-09-12 23:11:33
kurto@asgaard.usu.edu
Main Story:
<quote>...as well as the game's internal browser.</quote>

The fact is that if there is a software mechanism on the local client side of things that will allow servers to be displayed, then it can be reverse engineered without excessive difficulty. Of course the level of difficulty is relative. But the fact remains that anytime you try and lock up a data stream that goes to a software/hardware combination that you don't have complete and total physical control of you are vulnerable to a talented individual analyzing your stream and being able to create interoperable software.
#16 by ""
2000-09-12 23:14:40
couldn‘t the encryption have something to do with cheat protection?
#17 by "MoodyAllen"
2000-09-12 23:20:53
It's fairly... retarded to create an agreement like this, especially if your game is in a niche market already.  Stuck with only one browser for a game with a limited audience (yes, Sanity is not for everyone) almost guarantees bad press and an audience that's further restricted.

I doubt the bigger-name games will do this, but if they do, then I'll speak to them with my dollars.  Games (multiplayer for the most part) that limit my server browsing options will NOT see my money, especially if they're limited to Candy-Powered Rhesus Monkey Gamespy.

The same thing happened when I attempted to play the Codename: Eagle demo.  You can only play the demo with Gamespy... so what happens?  After installing a program I uninstalled for a reason JUST to play this game, I decided it wasn't worth the hassle and completely forgot about the game.  Uninstalled them both and apologized to my hard drive.

Sanity I already forgot about because it's forgettable.  Games I actually like that force Gamespy upon me will get a bigger rise out of me (not to mention several letters to their staff).
#18 by "PainKilleR-[CE]"
2000-09-12 23:25:31
painkiller@planetfortress.com http://www.planetfortress.com/tftech/
So we have GameSpy, Won.net, and the internal browser. Hmm I sure hope that internal browser is good... (then again, I use GameSpy quite frequently, I'd just rather not use it any more than I have to due to issues I have with the current version deciding to mess with my cfg files in HL).

-PainKilleR-[CE]
#19 by "Mark Asher"
2000-09-12 23:27:40
marka@cdmnet.com
<QUOTE> Diablo2 has proven to me that a closed system in many ways is superior. Look at the horrible hacking that has killed open-gaming for Diablo2. </QUOTE>

So is Sanity a true client-server game, or does it just use the network servers as a matching service for peer-to-peer games, like Diablo 1 did?

My point is that if it's just a matching service and all the info is still stored locally, games can still be hacked.

I'd also think that any encryption in use for Sanity has more to do with the talent cards that you purchase than anything else. They probably want to verify that all the talent cards a player has are legit and not the result of some kind of piracy.
#20 by "PainKilleR-[CE]"
2000-09-12 23:31:09
painkiller@planetfortress.com http://www.planetfortress.com/tftech/
<b>#19</b> "Mark Asher" wrote...
<QUOTE>So is Sanity a true client-server game, or does it just use the network servers as a matching service for peer-to-peer games, like Diablo 1 did?
</QUOTE>

it's client-server if I remember correctly (based on the interview with Jason Hall linked in another thread).

<b>#19</b> "Mark Asher" wrote...
<QUOTE>I'd also think that any encryption in use for Sanity has more to do with the talent cards that you purchase than anything else. They probably want to verify that all the talent cards a player has are legit and not the result of some kind of piracy. </QUOTE>

I think this encryption is just for polling the servers, so it wouldn't even be part of the game itself. As far as the talent packs go, Jason has also mentioned a few times that they'll probably all be available for download eventually; so though it may make sense to check for their legitimacy initially, it becomes pretty pointless down the road.

-PainKilleR-[CE]
#21 by "flamethrower"
2000-09-12 23:47:49
flamethrower@barrysworld.com http://flamethrower.evilavatar.com
And to think, so many PlanetCrap readers were so willing to give Jason Hall and Monolith a second, no third, no, make that a fourth-or-more chance. I get told off for being rude and calling him and his half-baked company very rude words. Oh yes.

So I, Flamethrower, hereby forgive all ye sinners. Repent, one and all, for I am the light, the truth and the heat. Where I blast the napalm of wrath so shall the unforgiven be blackened and the unforgivable be cleansed.



Or to put it another way, <b>told you so</b>. Can't trust Monolith, shouldn't trust Monolith, for they are cuuunnttts.



<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#22 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-09-12 23:56:34
sbauman@cdmag.com http://www.cdmag.com
If it has an in-game browser, it's not actually FORCING anyone to use ANY browser, right?

Of course Sanity didn't have to work with WON.net or GameSpy either, right? Perhaps those two companies share some revenue with gamemakers and the others do not, hence their desire to go exclusively with someone willing to share the wealth, sort of a Napster thing (ie had Napster charged for their service and offered the RIAA a cut of the revenue, there may be no court cases).

Besides, what percentage of players even use external browsers? I've never even considered using GameSpy; I exclusively use in-game browsers. But maybe I'm in the minority.
#23 by "PainKilleR-[CE]"
2000-09-13 00:01:27
painkiller@planetfortress.com http://www.planetfortress.com/tftech/
<b>#22</b> "Steve Bauman" wrote...
<QUOTE>Besides, what percentage of players even use external browsers? I've never even considered using GameSpy; I exclusively use in-game browsers. But maybe I'm in the minority. </QUOTE>

heh, game browsers like GameSpy were kindof nice to have back in the days before games started using in-game browsers (ie remember when GameSpy was called QSpy?). To date, though, the only in-game browser I've used extensively has been UT's, and that's mainly because it takes so long from the time I start the program to the time I'm in a game that an external browser is pretty much useless. I still use GameSpy for TFC, Q3, Q2, etc. (don't like HL and Q3's browsers, Q2 doesnt have one)

-PainKilleR-[CE]
#24 by "BloodKnight"
2000-09-13 00:06:25
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
The point to this is?

Next Andy will be making posts about games only having a server browser ingame and doesn't work anywhere else

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#25 by "None-1a"
2000-09-13 00:11:42
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a/
<b>#24</b> "BloodKnight" wrote...
<QUOTE>The point to this is? </QUOTE>

That steps have been taken to prevent the use of any server browser other then ingame, Won.net, or Gamespy.

This is an area where the only good solution is an open standered that other browsers can also access (unlike the current BS needing the browsers themselves to handle th integration).

--
None-1a.

O forget it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#26 by "bagofmice"
2000-09-13 00:14:10
rcastle@microsoft.com
OY.. what a non issue...

<quote>Or it's commercial and you can't afford it?</quote>

Look if you have money to waste on a GAME on your 2000 dollar COMPUTER, you have money to blow on gamespy. Secondly, You are not being forced to use an external server browser... and games were never open standards anyways.

It is the software companies RIGHT to distribute whatever packages they feel like, their RIGHT to charge what they want for them, and their RIGHT to encrypt their server data for use by their preferred partners.

<i> Liberty, Try it out one day </i>
#27 by "BloodKnight"
2000-09-13 00:16:09
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
<b>None-1a</b> (#25):
<QUOTE>That steps have been taken to prevent the use of any server browser other then
ingame, Won.net, or Gamespy. </QUOTE>

Whoopie, Won is pretty good for anti-piracy crap.  And gamespy seems to be the only reasonable browser.  PingTool blows, buggy and 50 years to load up kingpin servers (and we all know that ain't big)

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#28 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-09-13 00:17:14
piramida@agsm.net http://www.agsm.net
Post <b>#25</b> by None-1a:
<QUOTE><i>
This is an area where the only good solution is an open standered that other browsers can also access (unlike the current BS needing the browsers themselves to handle th integration).
</i></QUOTE>

DirectPlay comes to mind ;) Actually, yeah, a standard like this would be awesome, too bad no one would develop one, and no one would obey it if someone develops one (hell, I wish all games would just copy Quake's way of handling server querying, since it's the easiest one to support, but guess what - almost no one, except Quake clones, does that, everyone has to invent something "better"...)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#29 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-09-13 00:19:02
piramida@agsm.net http://www.agsm.net
Post <b>#27</b> by BloodKnight:
<QUOTE><i>
And gamespy seems to be the only reasonable browser.
</i></QUOTE>

Hehe. Whoop. Whatever.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#30 by "12xu"
2000-09-13 00:19:02
mswitzer@insync.net http://http;//www.hichouston.org
<b>#26</b> "bagofmice" wrote...
<QUOTE>OY.. what a non issue...


<quote>Or it's commercial and you can't afford it?</quote>

Look if you have money to waste on a GAME on your 2000 dollar COMPUTER, you have money to blow on gamespy. Secondly, You are not being forced to use an external server browser... and games were never open standards anyways.

It is the software companies RIGHT to distribute whatever packages they feel like, their RIGHT to charge what they want for them, and their RIGHT to encrypt their server data for use by their preferred partners.

<I>Liberty, Try it out one day </I>
</QUOTE>


and as consumers it is our right to voice our opinions...discuss whether companies we are conisdering spending our money with are doing what is in our opinion the right thing...Our dialog is not encroaching on anyone's freedom...your trying to shut it down is...

12xu
out<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#31 by "BloodKnight"
2000-09-13 00:26:02
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
<b>PiRaMidA</b> (#29):
<QUOTE>Hehe. Whoop. Whatever.</QUOTE>

Alright name another one that is faster then GS, cleaner interface, and doesn't crash often?

I remember a browser that was REALLY fast..but it crashed every 5 minutes :(

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#32 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-09-13 00:29:41
piramida@agsm.net http://www.agsm.net
Post <b>#31</b> by BloodKnight:
<QUOTE><i>
I remember a browser that was REALLY fast..but it crashed every 5 minutes :(
</i></QUOTE>

Well, I would but it would be p1mpage, so I won't. But, some WWW links in CrapSpy lead to interesting places, if you run win98 :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#33 by "Ian"
2000-09-13 01:22:10
<b>#26</b> "bagofmice" wrote...
<QUOTE>
It is the software companies RIGHT to distribute whatever packages they feel like, their RIGHT to charge what they want for them, and their RIGHT to encrypt their server data for use by their preferred partners.
</QUOTE>

Sometimes its not about who's right, but about who's left. I love non-sequitars, don't you?
  

 <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#34 by "crt"
2000-09-13 01:44:18
wrightd@gamespy.com http://www.gamespy.com
GameSpy's "deal" with developers is quite simple. We give them technology (like code for in-game server browsers) in exchange for the ability to support their game in GameSpy. We don't ask for an exclusive on titles and we let the developer choose to support any additional server browser or gaming service they want (which is why Monolith is apparently also support Won.net).

That policy is quite different from other "gaming services" that actually pay developers to lock other services and server browsers out of the games. GameSpy has been locked out of games on more than one occasion due to these deals, and we think that type of exclusivity hurts both the developer and the players.

Now, there may be some confusion because GameSpy secures our master server so that it can only be used by GameSpy and GameSpy licensees. Our master server backend is a major investment in machines and bandwidth, and it was built to enhance the browsing experience for GameSpy users. While I'm sure other gaming services would love to use our servers and bandwidth instead of their own, that's not really fair to us or our users who share that bandwidth. So, we secure our servers, just as Kali, MPlayer, Won, the Zone, Battle.net, and just about any other service you can name does.
#35 by "Whisp"
2000-09-13 01:47:37
whisp_@hotmail.com
Well, we've heard from the evil empire (no not THAT evil empire, the other one), let's see how long it will take for 'Lith to respond.

-Whisp
#36 by "dolomite"
2000-09-13 02:05:58
dolomite@planetquake.com http://www.teamevolve.com/
<b>andy</b> (#Main Post):
<QUOTE>
Funny, isn't it? Services like GameSpy and WON.net only exist because of games with open-format server queries, and now they're trying to kill off the competition by introducing encrypted formats.
</QUOTE>

My take is simple.

You get what you give.

If Lith wants to have only 2 types of server browsers, I'm okay with that.  <b>Why?</b>

Because.  When some brainy coder comes up with a better server browser, they may not support Sanity.  They will support <b>other</b> games.

<b>Sanity just cut themselves off from a pile of users who may prefer the other browser!</b>

It's that simple.  You get what you give.

/d<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#37 by "Vengeance"
2000-09-13 02:07:43
rhiggi@home.com
<b>#26</b> "bagofmice" <I>Mr. French Tickler</I> wrote ...
<QUOTE>
It is the software companies RIGHT to distribute whatever packages they feel like, their RIGHT to charge what they want for them, and their RIGHT to encrypt their server data for use by their preferred partners.

<I>Liberty, Try it out one day </I></QUOTE>

And its our right not to buy something we dont like.


V  <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#38 by "Jason Hall"
2000-09-13 02:09:04
Hall@Lith.com http://www.lith.com
Respond to what?

Gamespy and Won were the only groups that contacted us during development to make sure that they got supported.

So we supported them. No money changed hands.

What's the problem?

Jace
#39 by "Speed"
2000-09-13 02:17:01
speed@pandora.be http://fragland.net
Jason : I guess Andy is making the point that other browsers like Pingtool now have no possibility of being supported, which is not the case if Sanity wouldn't use encryption for the queries

Speed
Fragland.net
#40 by "Vengeance"
2000-09-13 02:18:42
rhiggi@home.com
<b>#38</b> "Jason Hall" <I>Mr. French Tickler</I> wrote ...
<QUOTE>
So we supported them. No money changed hands.

What's the problem?

Jace </QUOTE>

Who cares about money, what about the babies!  <b>Murderrreeerrrr</b>!

;-)


V  <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#41 by "Diseased"
2000-09-13 02:20:41
diseasedanimal@yahoo.com
Straight from the man:

<QUOTE>Respond to what?

Gamespy and Won were the only groups that contacted us during development to make sure that they got supported.

So we supported them. No money changed hands.

What's the problem?

Jace
</QUOTE>

So flamey, I guess this just proves your point that Monolith is a bunch of slimy, untrustworthy cunts.  Way to jump to conclusions.  So what next, you and Evil Avatar are the way and the light?  

And Andy, couldn't you have at least contacted Jason since you guys are pals and asked him why only two browsers were supported before posting this?
#42 by "superion"
2000-09-13 02:23:10
RA3 has the best in game browser, and suprise! it's by gamespy. It's so good, that I have the RA3 shortcut it made right next to gamespy.

I totally forgo gamespy for the built in one. If Gooseman redid Valves horrible, horrible in game browser, I'd maybe use it too.
#43 by "Ian"
2000-09-13 02:23:28
Um... am I the only one that thinks that its strange that the most popular game launcher thingy (Gamespy) had to contact you to get the password? Who were you going to give the password to before Won.net and GSIs  asked you? Were you just going to block out multiplayer until someone haXored it?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#44 by "dolomite"
2000-09-13 02:28:04
dolomite@planetquake.com http://www.teamevolve.com/
<b>Diseased</b> (#41):
<QUOTE>
So flamey, I guess this just proves your point that Monolith is a bunch of slimy, untrustworthy cunts. Way to jump to conclusions. So what next, you and Evil Avatar are the way and the light?
</QUOTE>

<b>Woah there poncho!</b>

Let's get a grip before ya gripe!

How exactly does <i>anything</i> Jace said reflect negatively against Monolith?  He just explained their position, that's all.

Tell me you aren't a dev guy from some <b>OTHER</b> company, cuz that would be low.

/d<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#45 by "Andy"
2000-09-13 02:28:51
andy@planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
<b>#38</b>, Jason Hall:

As I mentioned in my e-mail, the problem that some people will see (and I'm one of those people on this occasion) is the encryption.

Fine, co-operate with GameSpy and WON.net and give them your support. Help them to have support for Sanity up and running before the game ships. Pimp them on your web site, in the game and on the box.

But <i>encrypt</i> the data? That's what I don't get, and I'm guessing that's what will have a few other people scratching their heads in disbelief too.

I guess the simplest way to explain it is this:

Helping GameSpy/WON.net would be "pro" those browsers. That would be a positive thing.

But what Monolith has done on this occasion is, in a way, "anti" other browsers.
#46 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-09-13 02:28:59
piramida@agsm.net http://www.agsm.net
Post <b>#41</b> by Diseased:
<QUOTE><i>
So flamey, I guess this just proves your point that Monolith is a bunch of slimy, untrustworthy cunts. Way to jump to conclusions. So what next, you and Evil Avatar are the way and the light?

And Andy, couldn't you have at least contacted Jason since you guys are pals and asked him why only two browsers were supported before posting this?
</i></QUOTE>

Doh, he said "only groups that contacted us during development". Others contacted them later, I don't know when they stopped development and it has gone gold. So does this work on a "first in - the only one out" basis? That's where the problem is. Yes, there were groups which contacted them *after* Gamespy deal. Yes, their requests for information were declined.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#47 by "dolomite"
2000-09-13 02:29:08
dolomite@planetquake.com http://www.teamevolve.com/
<b>superion</b> (#42):
<QUOTE>RA3 has the best in game browser, and suprise! it's by gamespy.
</QUOTE>

I would have to agree with you.  The RA3 browser <b>ROXXORX!!!</b>

/d<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#48 by "Dethstryk"
2000-09-13 02:35:28
dethstryk@damagegaming.com http://www.damagegaming.com/
<b>superion wrote in post #42:</b>
<quote>If Gooseman redid Valves horrible, horrible in game browser, I'd maybe use it too. </quote>
Just because Gooseman is behind Counter-strike doesn't mean he could make the in-game browser that much better. He made a game, not an interface.


--
Dethstryk
Damage Gaming
#49 by "bagofmice"
2000-09-13 02:37:03
rcastle@microsoft.com
<quote>Our dialog is not encroaching on anyone's freedom...your trying to shut it down is...
</quote>

Uhm.. At what point did I try to shut it down? I merely interjected my own opinion, that interjecting morality into the encryption of a server software protocol is an absurd venture.

I am all for free speech, and resent the idea that disagreeing with you somehow results in an attempt by me to deny you your first amendment rights. Perhaps you should take some time from throwing accusations and actually bother to read what you quote.
#50 by "Diseased"
2000-09-13 02:41:22
diseasedanimal@yahoo.com
#44, Dolomite:  I was being sarcastic.  

All:  I don't think giving some preference to a couple browsers is a bad thing.  However I don't really see the point in the encryption, especially if no money changed hands.  They must have their reasons for it.  In any case, it doesn't in any way show Monolith out to be a bunch of untrustworthy cunts.  They're making a concerted effort to release bug-free games having learned from their mistakes but still for reasons unknown to me, certain people make it their mission to consistently give them shit.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Dealing With Sanity

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (1) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]