PBW server is back up.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
I would say that 300 - 500 "hardcore" players is not insignificant based on the total announced sales of the product. Again this is all based on conjecture.

I didn't mean to imply it was insignificant. Merely that it doesn't justify the level of direct financial support that some people seem to feel Shrapnel should be providing.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Battle.net is paid for by Blizzard and charges no money to use it... all you have to do is have the game. Battle.net makes them money specifically because a lot of people buy their games to play on Battle.net. PBW can become something similar for SE4/SE5.

Which is a perfect example of the point I am trying to make. Blizzard games are not what one would classify as "niche" games. They have a much larger fan base which can support things like bettle.net through proceeds from retail sales. Shrapnel is a little fish compared to that.

[Fyron]

Yes, and they would use little fish servers as opposed to the massive server farms used for Battle.net.

[AMF]

First off, thanks again for all your great work setting up PBW.

Second, I can't help but think that charging people 1 $1/month for the privilege of using PBW is a good idea. Plus, I often find that people value that which they pay for more than that which is free. Ever worked in an office with an intern who worked for free and a paid employee who did less than the intern but got paid for it?

BTW, do you yet know why the connection is horked? (apologies if this has been asked, I didn't see it below).

Thanks,

Alarik

[ December 03, 2003, 18:59: Message edited by: alarikf ]

[1FSTCAT]

Yeah!

What's your provider got to say, this time around?!

[mottlee]

Originally posted by 1FSTCAT:
Yeah!

What's your provider got to say, this time around?!

Lets ALL go over there and, and, and UNPLUG them!

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by alarikf:
Second, I can't help but think that charging people 1 $1/month for the privilege of using PBW is a good idea. Plus, I often find that people value that which they pay for more than that which is free.

I am sure you are correct. If anyone wishes to give a dollar a month, we will happily accept it. We accept donations by Paypal and by mail.

The problem with pay for play is this. While it is highly likely that a sizeable portion of the regular Users would happily pay, there is a significant portion who won't, or can't. If we don't allow those people to play, then the people who do pay will get let use out of the service because there will not be as many people available to play against.

By working from donations, those that are able and willing to pay can, and they will get the maximum value for the money they give.

At least that's the way we see it.

Geoschmo

[geoschmo]

Ok, time for an update.

I called the ISP yesterday within 30 minutes of it going down. Got the usual answers on the phone. Got a call back a few hours later saying they couldn't find the problem remotly and would be sending a tech out on Friday.

I was not ammused.

I fully expect that the problem will be with the telco and not the ISP, but I have to play that game and cannot call the telco directly. For the purposes of my DSL the telco doesn't work for me, they work for the ISP.

We've been down this road before and the ISP tech coming out Friday means the telco doesn't get involved till middle of next week at best. So I wrote a stern email to the ISP support detailing the disatisfaction I have had over the Last several months with the service. I told them that if their objective was to drive me away as a customer towards their many competitors in teh highspeed market, they were doing an excellent job. (in those words exactly.) I also told them that I would not be happy unless they got a tech out to my home by today. (wrote this yesterday remember)

Well, lo and behold, it worked. The tech just left my house and is heading to the central office as I write this. Assuming she doesn't find a problem there she will get the phone company involved at that point. Not sure how much of a fire I can light under them, but at least we saved 3 days of the process.

Geoschmo

[ December 03, 2003, 20:24: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[1FSTCAT]

Thank, GOD!

Thanks for not letting them drag us all through the coals, Geo. Stay on them! Break out the whips and chains!



--Ed

[ December 03, 2003, 20:27: Message edited by: 1FSTCAT ]

[farstryder]

totally right geo. i wouldn't pay to play if it was required. i'm not against making voluntary donations, mind you, but i don't think it right to follow in the steps of the big game companies. Shrapnel isn't like that, Malfador isn't like that, and PBW isn't like that. It'd be a sad day indeed when if ever we had to pay to play our dear old PBW games.

plus, there's the matter of implementation. how would you smoothly implement such a measure with so many games running at once. i can only imagine how many players would miss turns, drop out of games, and just generally be irked. one can only guess what a nightmare that would be for the admins, having to reset all the turns and such.

Finally, I'd be very very willing to wager that many of the current die-hard PBW players would migrate to other sites, and use them to organise their own PBEM games. I mean, PBEM wasn't that hard to do when the PBW server went down just a little while back.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by farstryder:
I mean, PBEM wasn't that hard to do when the PBW server went down just a little while back.

Obviously you weren't running eight separate games like I was.