This post has come to mind due to another thread about useing unlicenced Compilers. Now I have my own little network at home. Only two machines but it is great for multiplayer games (MPG). Which has caused an area of greavence for me. I buy a MPG the licence for it only allows me to install and run on one machine. If I wish to play against my partner or a friend at MY home I need to buy another copy of the game or pirate it. I think this is wrong. Some games (mech warrior 2) have a client program that can be distributed freely and requires the original to run the server. But most games (like my beloved Need for Speed series) need two copies of the game! Does any one think that games with Multiplayer option should consider the growing number of people with home networks? Am I morally just in copying a game I already own to get the full potential from it? What else do you need; besides a miricle. Money. Lots of Money. or I''ll never do a sequel!

dead end thread,
20th post those!


What else do you need; besides a miricle.
Money. Lots of Money. or I''ll never do a sequel!

Yes, the solution with limited players per CD is great. I am quite annoyed, too, because I have local network at home, and whenever I want to play "1602 A.D." (with my sister) I have to get another CD from a friend. I think it''s morally ok if you pirate a game in such a case, because you paid for it (ok, you paid only for ONE license...but I think that''s ok too).
I have pretty much multiplayer games, but I didn''t bought them twice, because that would have cost a huge amount of money!
(And why shouldn''t I pirate it...it''s just for Multiplayer sessions! I paid for the "Singleplayer" game!)
Well, that''s what I think about it...

Yours,

Indeterminatus

Okay you say when you go on a rollacoster ride you need to buy two tickets, fine that analogy works fine. How about buying a video? And yes, I know the licensing agreement is different, but you would get pretty irate if you had to buy a dozen copies of the Matrix when you invite all your mates round! Nor do you buy two copies of Street Fighter to fight each other! People like playing against each other

With games like Need for Speed and MechWarrior the network play in 10% to 20% of the game, since in single player you have missions, plot lines and a whole host of stuff that isn''t in or needed to make one on one play fun. Now the boundry on that statement is fading. FPS like quake 3 and Unreal tournament are more based round network play, and Star Lancer the team play send you through the same missions simultainiously which is major fun!

But to pay twice the price to get that last 20% out the game is criminal. With more people owning more than the one home PC, I think game designers should start thinking about putting client disks with games that have a multiplayer option.

Last comment.
To play NFS (and most other games) multiplayer you need to have a copy of the game. The hacked copy can not be patched or fixed and both machines need to have same version or it will not work. So you have a buggy version of the game on two machine even if you have brought the game! You end up with the feeling it is not worth buying the game if you have to play the hacked version. I''m not saying I want to pirate games or that pirating is a good thing, I''d much rather have an original and have access to patches and updates, I''m saying by not having client disks many people I know are drawn to warez to play the games they have brought to their full potential and feel cheated since they are now playing a second rate hacked beta copy!


What else do you need; besides a miricle.
Money. Lots of Money. or I''ll never do a sequel!

Basicly if they want you to do it. They will let you do it. If you cant play networked off one CD. Thats the designers choice. You may choose not to buy the game if you dont like it but it''s still illegal to burn your self another.

As Mr Cup always says,
''I pretend to work. They pretend to pay me.''