Star Wars Galaxies Only to Allow One Character Per Account 361
frotty writes "The developers of Star Wars Galaxies recently announced that the game would only allow a single character per purchased account on any server. This has outraged some, and relieved others." Click on the link to see the reasoning behind this move.
Hmmm... (Score:2, Informative)
Breaking SlashDot News!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Breaking News!:
Tomorrow Morning::
Re:Breaking SlashDot News!!! (Score:2, Funny)
how disapoointing its theres.
Joke! I left my typos in, I mean its not like Taco will notice.
It's one character per server, 10 to an account. (Score:5, Informative)
http://boards.station.sony.com/ubb/starwars/For
After this article, I completely agreed.
Re:It's one character per server, 10 to an account (Score:3, Insightful)
Another concern would be how viable it actually is to play on different servers. With most MMORPGs, your connection to the server plays a large role in how well you'll fight, especially in PvP. For that reason people choose a server that is closest to them physically, so they can enjoy a good connection. You'll probably find one or two SWG servers with a good connection, but on the further servers you'll always be playing second fiddle to the locals.
In the end I agree with the poster who said "You can have my 10 characters on 10 servers, if you give me just 2 characters on a single server". Raph Koster goes on about experimenting (dabbling as he calls it), muling and twinking, and he does not miss the fact that these are in fact very popular playstyles. That leads me to believe that this is primarily a business decision: these playstyles are in fact so popular that people will happily fork over money for an additional account once they are hooked. I'm not sure that Raph is the one that made this decision, it might have been some drongo from Lucasart marketing. But it's a smart move... look at Ultima Online, where one gets to play 5 characters per server on all the servers. Even so, some players have as many as 5 accounts. Personally I think that anyone playing SWG and liking it, will very soon feel the need for an additional account.
Re:It's one character per server, 10 to an account (Score:2)
I don't see that it would be necessarily hard to catch most cheats. Correlating transactions between players, IP addresses, credit cards, addresses and other personal info should enable it quite easily. A player so flagged could be monitored by an admin and kicked when they were caught doing it.
The problem with DAOC. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. People didn't like waiting for ports in EQ. DAOC provided rentable horses.
2. There were problems with low level chars wearing hi level gear. DAOC wouldn't allow the lowbie to wear gear that was outside it's level range. I feel that if a char were personally successful due to real gains then they should be able to purchase the advanced gear - DAOC would not allow this.
3. There was the problem with gear never wearing out in EQ. DAOC solved this problem by having degradable gear. Not a bad idea really.
4. People complained that they were spending too much time getting their body back in EQ. DAOC used the concept of the headstone. Go to the headstone and pray. You get your exp back. No need to worry about lost gear at all - you already got it back. Where is the risk?
DAOC is not a bad game. It merely examined what people didn't like in EQ and tried to address them. In the end, it seemed that they handed them the game on a silver platter. At first you might be pleased! Indeed! But, you soon begin to realize that the game is not as challenging. There is no real risk and without risk there is no danger of failure. With no danger of failure there is no perceived success. Risk of failure is what makes gambling challenging - the potential rewards are great but skill has not alot to do with it though some. Risk of failure is what makes ANYTHING challenging.
Risk vs. Reward is the idea or vision of Verant. I agree with it. You risk much and through good planning and skill - not to mention a bit of luck you get the reward. If it's just handed to you on a silver platter then all you have to do is just sit there and wait for it to fall in your lap. No challenge... no risk... no fun.
Some of the good new ideas have gotten back into EQ but I hope Verant continues to try to maintain balance of play so it stays challenging.
YMMV
Don't know about physical location of servers. That is beyond the scope of the SCS or MCS issue. However, I do maintain that different servers have different economys and userbased societies - it has a direct bearing on which server different folks will want to play.
Re:The problem with DAOC. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Verant has been picking and choosing the features/improvements that DAOC builds, and then they just copy them outright. In the short-term this is a good thing. EQ is a better game because of DAOC. The new EQ user interface is almost a carbon copy of what DAOC did first(fadeable windows being the most important).
The long-term effect of this however isn't good. SOE/Verant continues to stay in the forefront of competition because there's no real IP protection in the games business. I'm usually the first to denounce IP protection, but in this case the debate is especially nasty.
After what verant/SOE has done w/ the new Planes of Power add-on, I'm certain that I don't want SOE monopolizing the MMORG market. Unless games like DAOC can capitilize on thier fresh/good ideas/changes, SOE will continue to stay ahead and draw customers.
Let me say it again, in the last year or so the only good improvements in EQ have come from thier devs observing other games. All of the bad decisions have come from SOE trying to leech more money from the customer.
Re:It's one character per server, 10 to an account (Score:2)
Re:It's one character per server, 10 to an account (Score:2)
That would be wasteful. If they... oh, ints. Sorry. Thought you said ents.
kinda makes sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:kinda makes sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
When companies (and verant is famous for this) claim something needs to be done or can't be done to keep the game realistic, it is nothing mroe than a cop out in its ultimate form. The only one of these kind of games that is even remotely realistic is the Sims, and it's not really an RPG in the classic sense.
There are legitamate reasons for doing this but "realism" isn't one of them.
Well, maybe not realistic (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what it means is "consistent with the rules/laws of the imaginary universe". If things aren't consistent, the game loses its appeal. (I guess)
Re:kinda makes sense... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that's a significant difference. I can accept that a fictional RPG universe has Trandoshan bounty hunters, but that the same universe has Trandoshan bounty hunters lounging around in people's living rooms just holding all their crap is a different issue.
Don't worry, Chris' game company won't do that! (Score:5, Interesting)
Right? I mean, he's not posting stories about outrage in the MMORPG world in order to bolster his own efforts?
I'm not going to link to the site, as they don't need even more free slashdot press, but people should know that Chris started his own "revolutionary" multiplayer game company recently.
They'll have a super duper game out soon.
It will be much better than Star Wars, which is outraging its users, right? I'm glad Chris is still a slashdot editor, so he can bring this to our attention.
Conflict of interest? Don't worry, I'm sure the slashdot community will mod this down sufficiently. (Especially now that I've assumed they will.)
I bet we'll see some great MMORPG polls up soon too...
Storage costs? (Score:5, Insightful)
The mischief factor I can understand, but why not state that first? It seems like they aren't perhaps being as honest and forthright as they could be.
Re:Storage costs? (Score:5, Informative)
but the enormous time and expense required to maintain/backup/restore a large database. Your 25 cents will not go very far.
Also, the access times would increase with more data to churn through, causing complaints about lag. These raise their CS costs and also cause bad word of mouth on the boards.
And, from my reading of the entire article (not just the bullet points), muling is a major reason for the change to SCS. Even more so than the storage costs.
They are trying to attract mainstream folks who have never tried evercrack and want something more than Sims Online. This means not catering to the muling that the average person would find unfair.
I bet this policy will change.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people, myself included, like to try out different aspects of a game, online or not.
I
Imagine if you could on choose to drive 1 car in grand theft auto? or only play 1 sim. those games would have lasted maybe 5 minutes.
I was on the border as to weather I would play this, and unless the policy changes, it is a definate no.
I probably would have stop playing as soon as I heard:
"Willing to trade 5 Yodas heads for 1 Darth Vader light sabor"
Re:I bet this policy will change.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I bet this policy will change.. (Score:2)
Re:I bet this policy will change.. (Score:2, Informative)
With a single character, you can learn the bottom half of the tree of EVERY SINGLE profession, with the given 200 points. That means with just one test character, you have a good understanding of the mechanics of all the professions.
With a single character, you can completely master three professions, and do the bottom half of a fourth.
I think most people who are knee-jerk angry don't realize how drastically different this game is gonna be from the traditional "pick your race, pick your stats, pick your profession, hope you didn't screw it up!" MMORPG character creation system we have today. If anything, it'll be more like Asheron's Call 2, which encourages players to dabble in a little bit of everything (but for all that, doesn't have enough variety).
Re:I bet this policy will change.. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's seen as an obvious money grap decision to appease the masses of casual players. AC2 still has 3 base professions, with 6 specializations. It STILL gives you the option to play more then one character per server.
DAOC came out and decided to restrict your play to only 4 characters per regular server (the hardcore PvP and test servers were allowed more), they have since changed this rule since the competition offers more.
If this game honestly wants the staying power, and appease the masses who actually play, not just the Star Wars fanbois, they'll allow more then the SCS.
"New Concept" indead. Star Wars: Galaxies, Episode 4, A New Hype.
Re:I bet this policy will change.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you can try any branch you want, try and character type you want, you just have to try them on differant servers.
Re:I bet this policy will change.. (Score:2)
Re:I bet this policy will change.. (Score:5, Informative)
Of course you can get by this by simply purchasing an additional copy of the game and paying the monthly fees for two accounts.
Re:I bet this policy will change.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I bet this policy will change.. (Score:2)
Re:I bet this policy will change.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it would be more along the lines of "Imagine if you could only choose to play as one person in Grand Theft Auto!"
Picture this: Imagine if you had to go through life as only one person! You couldn't have your mule lives just sitting around holding shit for you! I cant imagine a life without my twenty mules!
Re:I bet this policy will change.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, most people like to pick a character and play it for what it is. The more powerful it grows, the more they will want to stick with it. Players who are discouraged by this rule have likely been spoiled by the benefits of twinking. It seems that this idea will make for a richer gaming experience where people take the world more seriously. Your choosing not to play based on Sony not allowing lots of character switching is probably the exact result they were aiming for.
Typical franchise fare: Crap (Score:2)
2) Make a cheap as in shoddy game around it
3) Short term profit
4) Repeat
"Hey, I don't feel like playing my Fighter today... I feel like using my Thief instead... can you guys all ditch your characters and go to this server?"
Yeah, right...
Why does everyone always talk about this "Mule" crap when this subject is brought up? I've been into RPGs off and on since '81, and I can't remember a long running campaign EVER where I just used a single character. Why? I would periodically feel like PLAYING a different ROLE. That is, after all, the entire purpose of a ROLE PLAYING game....
Not that I care... there's hasn't been a quality product from the Star Wars franchise since ROTJ came out, and you'd be a fool to expect it to change now...
MMORPG != RPG (in most cases) (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes...but did your other roles exist solely to support your primary role. For example, did you create a Cleric/Healer character in order to have someone whose sole reason for existence was to act as paramedic to your Warrior (and I'm not talking about the initial investment in time -- obviously, you had to spend some time getting the Healer's level up to a respectable point so he could meet all of your Warrior's needs -- not only routine healings but resurrections and such, as needed)?
The issue becomes particularly cloudy if your Cleric/Healer does not actually adventure with you and instead waits for you to visit him whenever you need something....or when you want to store some gold....or for any other reason that places the Cleric/Healer in a pure support/increased carrying capacity role.
Your Cleric/Healer has now destabilized the local economy. If you can get free healing from your Cleric/Healer, why would you ever go to any of the other Healers in town? (And even if you move money from one character to the other in order to simulate "paying" for the healing service, you haven't really paid for anything -- you've moved money from one storage location to another; both of which you own).
As a Gamemaster, I have always allowed my Player's to create and play multiple characters but I have never allowed them to create/play them simultaneously and I have never allowed one Player's character to support another of that same Player's characters. My reasons? Economics -- it is a lot easier to motivate players to take on adventures when they are strapped for cash. If Joe never had to seek assistance outside his own pack of PCs, he'd become fabulously wealthy and overly powerful -- not on the basis of his excellent skills but on the basis of exploiting a loop-hole in the game mechanics.
One positive in most face-to-face RPGs, at least, is that your character typically does not improve in skills when you are not actively playing them (I am aware that some RPG Systems support "off-time" skill advancement but have never seen it widely used after playing RPGs for over 20 years). Now consider MMORPGs where you do not even have to be present for your character to be gaining/improving skills. Now not only have you destabilized the local economy but you have also turned that "extra character" into a factory. Now...maybe "Sword Factory" is an interesting role to you...
With mules existing to solely support primary characters, why would anyone bother playing a character with a support role? Why would I bother to play a weaponsmith or other artisan when I know other players can create their own, tell them to study/learn their craft, leave them and come back to an accomplished character who can now provide a service to them for, essentially, free.
Most MMORPGs I have seen (and most MMORPG players I have talked to) are more about accumulation of wealth and power than they are about ROLE-playing. SWG, it seems, is actually attempting to provide a ROLE-playing experience -- you don't have to be a combatant to make a difference. Choosing to be a merchant, opening a shop and supplying other adventurers can be a fun role (I'm thinking about the barkeep or equipment supplier who can function as the local rumor mill here...) as long as "mule" characters are eliminated...if a Player has no reason to visit your store because he's got a pack of mules meeting his every need then there is no reason for you to create that merchant character.
Just my opinion...
codemonkey
Re:Typical franchise fare: Crap (Score:5, Insightful)
People talk about mules because in many games these alternate characters, whose sole purpose is for a specialized method of getting around imposed gameplay rules, run rampant. The use of mules deteriorates the economy, the community and the role-play aspect of the game. This is due to anonymity, less player investment in the mule character, benefits from specialization that a "real" character can't hope to compete with and more.
Role-Play? While I understand where you're coming from, the sad truth is that in MMORPGs the majority of the player base does not role-play. Multiply the number of players that don't role-play by how many alternate and mule characters you have and the true role-players are swamped by a population that just doesn't give a frell about anyone else.
If anything, the lack of insta-anonymity, muling and increased character investment should only help to increase the level of role-play.
I hope. Not that I'm going to play it, simply because I don't really want to play a mega-blockbuster movie franchise game. Although the single-character-per-server idea tempts me to.
Re:I bet this policy will change.. (Score:2)
I'm playing nethack at the moment, so I have little sympathy for people complaining about not being able to have multiple characters. I am just happy keeping one guy alive.
Re:I bet this policy will change.. (Score:2)
A friend of a friend who still plays EQ got her "main" character to level 60 recently. Except that as soon as she did, it reset to level 50.
Not suprisingly, they are less than pleased that they have had to wait over a month on Customer Service to resolve the issue. Upon asking for billing credit, since she can't play that character, she was told "well you have other characters on that account, so you can still play!"
With one character per account, they won't be able to use that excuse. I have absolutely no faith in their Customer Service's ability to bridge the gap, haveing experienced it first hand myself.
BR Nope. not going to touch that stink-bomb, even if I win a freebie account. No company hates the people who play its games the way Verant/SoE does.
Re:I bet this policy will change.. (Score:2)
They are obviously making this game for people who want to spend time playing the game instead of those people who want to spend time being indecisive and regretting past decisions.
If you want to have X characters, and have them all progress slowly, then you can do so on the ten different servers. If you honestly, after choosing 10 of the available paths, find that you find all the players you've created to be fun/entertaining/useful equally, and couldn't imagine getting rid of one to try another path, then I'd say you are having a very good time. If you want to try a different path, then one or more of them aren't making you happy enough, and you should destroy one or more to make room to try new "styles" of playing
Games like this, I suppose, are a good outlet for those who can't be decisive about simple decisions like what cereal they should eat for breakfast.
If you can't make a choice, and stick with it with no regrets knowing very well that you may lose all the effort you put into it, then no wonder you are trying to escape to a fantasy world. You'll never accomplish anything here, so you might as well try to accomplish something useless in a fake environment.
Don't assume that another character class or playing style is going to be more fun or better than what you are playing now. This goes back to regrets and indecisiveness. The world doesn't need another sheep.
-Adam
Sucks to be ewe.
Those bastards.... (Score:3, Funny)
That's a tiny server (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That's a tiny server (Score:2)
Larry Wall should be proud.
Re:That's a tiny server (Score:3, Funny)
This onerous policy will prevent me from staging a fight between my characters of LukeSk~1 and DarthV~1. DAMMIT!
I have a similar problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, I know this is just a game, but the point is that we want it to be fairly realistic. We don't want to have anyone who is someone else in disguise. And besides, the other point is that this hardly matters. It is just a game. It has rules. Play by the rules or if you don't like them, find a different game.
The one missing point (Score:5, Interesting)
"I want to try something new without having to leave my friends."
Later on in the thread someone posted a statistic from a poll on the site, stating that nearly 50% of people were going to choose their server based on their friends. This is how most people tend to play these games, with friends. So now if you want to try a wookie instead of a human, gotta give the big adios to your buddies.
There are some situations where a limitation on characters per server is a good thing. Dark Age of Camelot, for example, limits your choice of the three realms to play in to one realm per server for most servers. They do this to discourage 'spy' characters. But within that choice of a single realm you can make 8 characters. Feel free to try out that new spec, or different class, and still be able to have fun with your friends.
I had no real opinion on this game before. But I'm the type that likes to try my "alt of the week". If I can't try it out with my friends, no way I'm getting the game. Pretty effective way to discourage community if you ask me.
Re:The one missing point (Score:2, Insightful)
-W
Re:The one missing point (Score:2, Informative)
Even still the developers made clear you'd be albe to relinquish skills and go back down the tree (your only set characteristic is your race). I think the ability to have characters on different servers + the ability to alter skill paths is an acceptable compromise.
The other factor is that mules and multiple characters destroy economies. Sure, you might use the account just to try out your alt, but someone else might be creating a whole guild of craftsmen to annihilate the competition
You can still try out that character with your friends
Re:The one missing point (Score:2, Insightful)
You can still try out that character with your friends ... just convince them all to create characters on another server. Its not really *that* much of an inconvience is it?
Actually, it is. This example comes from deeper in the thread..
You have a group of friends. People are going to level at different rates. It's entirely possible that you level pretty fast, yet have a friend who doesn't. So you start an alt that you play with him or her. That way no one really misses out. The specific example used was a guy who created an alt on AC to play when his less-dedicated friend did. Both of them had other friends playing on the same server, so rolling new characters on another server wasn't the best idea.
Another, somewhat more practical reason would be that I don't want to have to hop over 10 different servers checking to see who is online from my group of friends. So to get started, I'm going to have to first find my friends, or hope that the character I feel like playing is on the same server as someone else who does, then go through the usual mmorpg tasks of setting up a group, a place to hunt, etc. So yeah, that's pretty inconvenient for me.
Re:The one missing point (Score:2)
I agree, and this points out the major reason why I won't play anything Verant/SoE is involved in. They not only don't listen to their players, they actively disdain them.
The very concept that a company would be so arrogant as to effectively say "I know this is what you want, but you shouldnt. Here's the VISION" is laughable.
Now that there is competition in the market (DAoC being an excellent example, and the one I play) the EQ team has pretty much removed most of the anti-player aspects of Brad McQuaids "Vision", unfortunately, they've kept the piss-poor customer service, so even though I know they'll wind up doing multi player servers within about 4 months of the release, I aint touching this one.
Re:The one missing point (Score:2)
I've found that we tend to get tired of our characters around the same time. It's easy to start over with a new one on a new server.
It's a Video Game People! (Score:5, Insightful)
And...
IT'S A GAME! If this were something really important then by all means make a fuss, but not for an online RPG!
Re:It's a Video Game People! (Score:4, Funny)
crypted character downloads (Score:2, Interesting)
There are two main ways a user can cheat in a system like this:
1. He can download, modify, and upload his character file to get extra items or status, and
2. He can download his character, do something risky but with a large possible reward online, and re-upload his character file if he isn't successful and ends up losing something.
Both of those problems could be solved by associating a unique ID and last-downloaded date with every character in a user's account. Character files containing the above data would be made available for download, and only the unique ID and date would remain on the server taking up very little space after download. Since the data would be encrypted using a fast, proven symmetric cypher and the server would be the only entity in posession of the key, the user would be unable to determine the internal format of the character file or modify data to gain in-game status.
Don't confuse this with DRM -- this is actually capable of working. Digital Restriction Mechanisms will always fail because in order for them to make content available to the user, the user's computer must be in possession of enough information at one time or another to obtain a decrypted copy of the "protected" content. This is not a requirement for the character-saving system, as the user never needs to have access to the character data stored in the file. Every character file could contain a copy of the goatse pic and no one would ever know.
This system prevents users from uploading stored characters to erase mistakes by including a last downloaded date and a unique ID in the character file. If the last downloaded date in the character file is older than the last downloaded date stored on the server for that character's unique ID, or if a user tries to upload an earlier copy of their active character, the server would reject the upload.
Of course, that's only a technical solution to the problem. It doesn't stop the rich from buying more than one account and getting around every single restriction imposed by single player accounts, but I have a feeling that the service providers kinda like it that way. Maybe EQ or Blizzard (Diablo II) will implement something like this and save themselves some storage space?
Re:crypted character downloads (Score:3, Insightful)
This is completely retarded. This person has never played any sort of MMORPG. You NEVER, and I mean NEVER trust the client software to do any sort of calculation that would allow for cheating, including sending it the only copy of character data. No matter how it was encrypted, it would be cracked in all of about 2 hours after release.
I can't believe this got modded up.
Really? (Score:2)
How?
Maybe you should get a job with the NSA.... I'm sure they'd be interested.. especially if you can crack AES. Or maybe they'd just kill you.
Why This Crypto Works (Unlike Everquest Crypto) (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty trivial, and there goes the DB problems (in exchange for a bandwidth hit).
The job of the game is to be addictive and fun for as long as possible. Supporting group play, both in-house and across geographic boundries, is empirically one of the more important techniques for "keeping people hooked". If deciding to try an all-new character forces me to lose my original investment, I'm not likely to switch. But since my original interest was driven by boredom, I'm also not likely to continue paying $10 a month now that the entertainment value has ceased.
On a similar note, nobody ever paid $10 a month because they really felt good about supporting that EULA.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Re:crypted character downloads (Score:2)
Well, provided eminently means with an extra, oh, say 50 dev days? Plus 25 test days for alpha, add in another 25 dev days for beta support and bugfix.
And then add... um... say 1 extra CS person per 10000 players to handle queries (and that's conservative). (== $5 per player per year)
You're increasing dev costs by around $150k and increasing ongoing CS and support costs by I guess $50k per year per 1000 players.
Oh, and bandwidth. The players are big, remember? Add bandwidth costs of $10k per 1000 players for u/l and d/l.
Oh and you'd also be reducing their revenue, since if they allow this to happen they'd be throwing away a fair amount of dupe-account revenue.
The real bullshit here is that it is storage costs that are the problem at all. They claim that going over the 'threshold' costs an extra 10x for DB costs. But do they then know the exact amount of storage they'll require? That would imply they know exactly how many people will be playing! Damnit, I'm going to go and buy 3 extra char accounts now, and bankrupt them.
Cutting out three fourths of the market (Score:5, Insightful)
There are any number of legitimate reasons why MMORPG players who prefer the three types other than "Achievemer" would run multiple characters. "Explorers" would want to try many different classes or races. "Socializers" would want a different character to suit different moods or hang out with different crowds. "Imposers" (player-killer types) would need plenty of backups....
Furthermore, Holocron's post made no mention of whether any reasonable pricing scheme other than forcing users to start entire new accounts (doubtless containing much redundant information) was even considered.
The statement that multiple accounts are used primarily for muling belies an overly constrained mindset about how and why people play MMORPGs. I can only conclude that cutting out three fourths of SW:G's potential market with this draconian pricing move will only have a negative impact on profits.
Re:Cutting out three fourths of the market (Score:2)
why not distributed storage? (Score:2, Informative)
A big reason given for this policy is the storage fees. It's expensive for them to store everyone's character server-side.
Frankly I'm surprised no MMORPG's have attempted client-side storage yet. The security problems are relatively trivial. MAC (keyed hash) the data before it leaves the server and verify it when it comes back. The client transmits the MACed data when he starts a session, the server modifies it locally during play, and the client gets back the updated and reMACed data when he logs off. If the client tries to modify his char data, the server detects the change and refuses to load the char. If the client gets disconnected before receiving their updated char file, then have the server store it so the data isn't lost.
With an onboard secure coprocessor card, the MACs can be computed and verified quickly and cheaply with little risk of key compromise. The player will have to wait a little longer to load up the game, but if the alternative is one char per acount I'd certainly do it.
This should significantly reduce the storage costs, but with a corresponding (but probably not equal) rise in bandwidth costs. It all hinges on the cost per byte of bandwidth versus storage. If there's ever a point when bandwidth is cheaper, this model should be viable.
Re:why not distributed storage? (Score:2)
Second, to add to the resolution, it's not just storage space with the database model, it is also licensing fees (a much larger portion of the actual TCO).
Re:why not distributed storage? (Score:3, Insightful)
What if your hard drive crashes? Or you have to reinstall Windows and it formats your drive? (I know, don't be silly, Windows is perfect!)
It will never work. The first time any of those things happen to make someone lose their character, they will quit the game. Of course, they will first cost you at least as much money as they've paid you in support calls trying to get their character back. Why, you'd have to keep server side backups of every character to make sure they always existed somewhere. But that's crazy talk!
No. (Score:2)
In fact, this kind of thing could be a potential boon to the company because they could sell a secondary service where they store a "deleted" character for you for some nominal fee ($2/mo?) in addition to your game fee. They could use a lot cheaper storage, too; they would be storing and backing-up a flat file instead of a live database. On top of that, don't allow the characters to be deleted and restored more than once per week.
When you get tech support calls about lost characters, you just say, "Sorry, we told you to be careful but it's your responsibility. Goodbye." Your argument about protecting people from their own klutziness comes from the same kind of thinking that advocates that the government should protect people from their own stupidity. It is the root of censorship, anti-drug laws, soddomy laws, and generally anything else that the government does to trample individual freedoms in the name of protecting people from themselves.
I think you underestimate the character of a person who screws up (looses their character) and knows it's his own fault. He's not going to give up playing a game he likes just because he made a dumb mistake.
UNIX is better (Score:4, Funny)
Would it be too far fetched... (Score:4, Insightful)
If some value could be had from something like that, how long would it take for some enterprising game companies to captalize on it?
Some angry words passed between you and some other person in the game, echoing forever onwards throughout your life? Picture your resume sitting before the hiring officer of some company in the future:
"Hey Bill, pull the personality profile, and credit reports for this stack of applicants."
"Sweet jesus, this guy sure is a live one!"
*sound of balled paper hitting bottom of wastebasket*
And there's a whole lot of stuff that seems perfectly normal when in context but could be quite useful in the hands of someone who wants to destroy you.
Make some nasty comment about some future politician? Big Mistake, because guess who he plays golf with on Sundays? that guy, what's his name, Poindexter's succesor. ANd you better believe they're gonna find plenty of stuff on you to shut your ass up real quick-like.
In a way, tribes who think you've stolen their souls whe their pictures are taken, have grasped a small part of something. If someone has sufficient information about you, they do have your soul. Everything would be predictable to them. Even if you had a chnace to confront them, they would know ahead of time how to counter the arguments, because they've reviewed arguments you've had in the past. If you tried to take them to court...out comes the shitstorm of information. all that stuff you said all those years back. Have tremendous power over you through this knowledge alone, not mentioning all the possibilities for blackmail.
Ahhh contraire! You have nothing to hide, do you?
Sure. If that lets you rest easier at night, you keep on believing that. Otherwise, you might want to ponder the sorts of things about your life that will be bought and sold like a credit report.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. You don't need to be a criminal to be concerned about this. Any information about you, is power that can be used against you. If people are execerting effort to gather information about you, chances are goodwill towards you isn't a major factor in their efforts.
Ok, now I'm sounding paranoid. But think about it. I'm not saying to go hide in hole and treat life as if it were some precious secret, I'm just pointing out that it may not be wise
In this way, the only true speech is anonymous speech.
Re:Would it be too far fetched... (Score:2)
If some value could be had from something like that, how long would it take for some enterprising game companies to captalize on it?
Yes, and this is quite frankly what is most dissapointing about this decision. It means that games like SWG will always be just games. I don't know how many of you are aware of this, but there are thousands of people who support themselves finacially by playing Everquest. They put a great deal of time/effort into accumulating valuables in order to sell them for real cash to real buyers. There are also service players who sell accounts, or offer to PL your character for a fee.
Regardless of your stand on the morality of these kinds of people, one has to admire the fact that a thriving middle class structure has actually managed to develop within an completely artificial world. This is the kind of stuff that Neil Stephenson wrote about. It was something that SOE didn't plan for, and it's something they have been trying to stop ever since.
SOE has been telling the gaming community at large that they will not tolerate sharing thier profit space with anyone. Regardless of whether or not it improves play, or expands thier subscriber base. SOE is god, players are the sheep, and they intend to keep it that way. Instead of allowing an ecosystem to develop where players can actually become professionals within the game, SOE is ensuring that its games will always be played by weekenders and late nighters...or kids during thier summer-time break. I think it's a big mistake.
A very important niche of the gaming community is being marginalized. I'm disappointed at Sony's lack of effort in trying to expand on what is one of the more interesting "side effects" of EQ. Instead they are greedily covering thier territory, and disempowering thier user base to such extent as to ensure that what happened in EQ won't be possible in SWG or EQ2.
Hmm... (Score:2)
I suppose the point is, the marketplace will decide. I have decided. I won't spend my money on their product.
N.
2 Characters??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Griefing, well I'm not quite sure of all the forms of griefing, but I sure it can be summerized at "pissing people off". SCS will not stop this, I will(well not myself, I don't harress others, I respect others and the feelings) just go to another server and piss people of there to get my griefing "fix".
Allowing 2 characters per server would allow for much griefing. If a character is reported, then the GM/Dev/Guide should track done the users account, and warn every character on that account about the griefing, then if it happens again with any other new or exsisting character on that account, ban them...seems simple to me..
If you are worried about spying and whatnot, then just have MCS-Single-Faction-Servers...All toons have to be Rebel, or Imp, or neutral. You cannot have combinations.
I believe SCS was just a simple way of getting this game out earlier because they are running out of time to impliment any of these logical systems.
Re:2 Characters??? (Score:2)
Sounds likely to me.
I don't buy it (Score:2)
Say a player takes 1 megabyte of space. How many pennies does a meg cost these days? Plus backup, plus electricity, blah blah blah. Say 50 cents per player? And you're paying $10 to join? That hs to cover advertising, development, etc.. so ten bucks helps to cover all that. Perhaps having secondary players at 50 cents a shot wouldn't be a bad idea since the only added cost then is storage space.
Re:I don't buy it (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for a storage technology company. These are real details that do cost cash. BTW this is the short list of expenses.
Re:I don't buy it (Score:2)
Having said that, the admin, redundancy, backup etc are real issues. Most people seem to be missing the fact that if the servers/player data are mirrored, they're taking up that space many times over, in multiple hard drives and multiple tapes/backup systems, etc.
Tim
Re:I don't buy it (Score:2)
I don't think it's that cut & dried. Sooner or later they will exceed a threshold and it will make them money. What the need to do is figure out how much an extra player costs just in hardware, backup, etc... (MUST be less than $10) and only charge people that much.
Re:I don't buy it (Score:2)
LOL! That's really Funny! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:LOL! That's really Funny! (Score:2, Informative)
Mysql or postgress haven't got the balls to handle the kinds of data sets and transaction times this kind of application requires. You need Big Iron, and Big Commercial Databases
So because you shell out big bucks you get big performance? Please, that is like saying becuase you spent $40 for a pen that you will write better. Sometimes can be very little correlation between the money you spend and any improvements you get.
Deleted characters? (Score:2, Interesting)
Can you delete the one character to play a new one on that server?
Maybe an option for these outraged people is to explore their first character as much as possible, then delete it, and explore new avenues.(sp?)
Or I guess selling your game along with the high level character and buying a new game and starting over is always an option to...
Total Cost of Ownership (Score:5, Interesting)
Hardware
- Storage
- CPUs
- NIC cards
- Cables
- Electricity ($$$)
Licensing (Commercial)
- OS
- Database
- Admin seats
- User seats
- Storage Admin Software
- Admin seats
Administration
- Salary
- QA at 60k/yr
- Admin at 75k/yr
- Manager at 80k/yr
These are all very ball-park, but you can see that there is a lot more than $1/GB involved here.
Sure you can buy a hard drive for about $1/GB for personal use but you don't count all the man hours involved in maintenance or you don't have enugh activity to need maintenance or any of the other tasks involved with serious database activity.
I hope this starts you thinking about all the effort that goes into keeping a very active DB going.
There's more, much more to say about this but I'm done for now.
Re:Total Cost of Ownership (Score:2)
So don't tell me that you need more license seats because you have more storage available. I call bullshit.
An alternative? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm curious if this idea is feasible for them, because it would make more people happy I bet... Or maybe set an inactivity limit for additional characters to 30 days, and let the person keep their selected primary character indefinitely. Then if they go away for a bit, they don't lose everything.
But the fact that he's complaining about how much data each customized face takes up makes it sound like they didn't plan this thing out very well. They could have sacrificed a bit of customizability in exchange for smaller data sets.
Anyway, enough ranting... That's just my opinion.
No it can't work. (Score:2)
personally whatever the decision ground8economical, buisness, Customer support, $$$) I don't care. i think it is a good idea because so much things screwing the conomics of the game which put me off in other RPG are simply higher level char having a quasi monopoly on goods and all stuff on alts.
Now if *everybody* is limited to 1 char... Then one can hope to balance economy a bit better. I wasn't interrested in SWG. Now I am !
Why is everyone hung up on the storage issue (Score:4, Informative)
This is not about SCS Vs MCS (Score:5, Informative)
Please read the post by Holocron on the reasons behind SCS when you can.
SCS is critical to many aspects that are only unique to SWG and not other MMOs. This is not a SCS Vs MCS issue. But more of which will be best for SWG.
I am sure alot of old school MMO gamers will be put off by it but here's my take anyway
First of all, the customizability of SWG needs SCS. It's not only when you create your character but also after throught your SWG gamelife! The Image Designer Profession can alter your look, hairstyle, tatoos, cloths etc. There will be 3 layers of clothings. Your house and many other things can be customized and personalized. Your pets can also grow! Not just in its stats and skills but its size! There are many more other features of the game that can be customized. This customizability aspect of SWG is unseen in any other games. And it needs SCS to maintain a feasible server/CS cost.
SCS ensures a player-driven economy will not get destroyed by excessive muling and self-sufficient players. And it secures the roles of the crafter professions in the economy. Trading at this scale will also foster a tighter community.
SCS also means no more two-face cowards that play their main hero then logon their griefer char once in the while to just piss people off. With only one character per server, and such heavy emphasis on interdependency, every single actions you do in game counts. Griefer can still buy separate accounts, but he would have to pay to do that and that atleast covers the additional CS he caused.
There are many more reasons and benefits SCS will bring to SWG. The only benefit MCS I can see so far is satisfying the old MMO gamers "habit". I canforesee SWG's SCS concept will only be the first in the 3rd generation MMOs. As MMO becomes bigger, more detail and more complex, they will need SCS.
It all boils down to one question, do you want to play UO/AC/EQ-in-space, or do you want to play SWG? Those who gets put off by SCS and refuse to play SWG, I am sure a good portion of them will try out SWG when the others rave about it when its launched. Ya, I have that much faith in it. ;)
I will stop here before I carelessly break my NDA :p
P.S. In a nutshell SWG's SCS means, for each account you own, you can have 10 character but only 1 on each server.
SCS - Single Character Servers
MCS - Multiple Character Servers
CS - Customer Support
-Tang
WAIT A SECOND! (Score:5, Funny)
...but seriously though, I very much hope that SCS will increase player-accountability. Heck, I very much hope that SCS will increase actual RP. With only one character to work with, perhaps people would be more willing to really *play* their characters and flesh out the Star Wars universe.
After all, what would ruin the experience of living on Tattoine more than being constantly subjected to conversations like this:
A) Psst! Hey, Bob, it's me. Al.
B) Bob? Dude, you're a CHICK!
A) Yeah, I know. I just finished watching "Bring it on" so I wanted to be a hot acrobat for a day.
B) Dude! You're hot! Let's go back to my hut.
A) Uh... I think I'll go make a Wookie instead. C Ya.
(some time later)
B) Dude, you are one HOT Wookie! Let's go back to my hut.
Now this is amusing. (Score:2)
So why would you want more than 1 characters on a single server?
-Friends: People make alt characters and still want to be with their friends.
-Crafting: No one class can do all the crafts, and there are people who take pride that have a high skill crafter for most/all the craft trades. High level crafters are an asset to the entire realm.
-Roleplayiing: Yes, there are people who actually roleplay. And some roleplay more than 1 character.
Unless SOE changes their policy, I won't be picking up SW:G myself.
this is probably going to get modded down but... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure they're willing... (Score:2)
Seriously... all those replies from what appear to be either adolescents or illiterates stating categorically how bad an idea this is and how they'll lose money! Yeah, I'm sure there's heaps of business experience and acumen behind each "sence" and "their" [they're] and "are" [our]. One poster even mis-spelled his own god#&^%$ name for fsck's sake!
I'll play. And I'll play safe in the knowledge that the worst of the whiners will be off on their pouting protest of what's probably the most anticipated (and probably, eventually, most profitable) MMORPG ever and not getting in way of my enjoyment.
Well... things have gotten out of hand. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Mules. Many characters are created just to hold lots of items or carry them places the main character cannot go. Sum up the capabilities of the main and all the mules and you have a super-character at the expense of the game company and the other players game enjoyment.
2. Low level char is acting an ass so people around him get mad at him and wont group with him. He goes and gets his high level character and spawn camps preventing others from enjoying game. Harassment is a very real thing. Now you got an alt war on your hands and it's a support nightmare due to the fact that it's hard to identify alts.
3. Hi level players decide to start alts. They twink (give hi level stuff to their own low level characters) and now the new main chars of new players are at a disadvantage. Nothing like being passed over for a group because your Bronze armor didn't stack up to the Cobalt armor of your level 10 warrior competitor.
4. The one-stop-shop. You got yer Shamans making potions, your enchanters making jewelry and fetching components for the shaman. You got yer gnome tinkering. Why would you need to do business with anyone else?
People will always find a loophole in the rules. The SCS (single character per server) idea will address some of the inequities currently brought about by the abuses of MCS (multichar per server). I'm sure that the more financially endowed players will purchase multiple accounts (like they are doing even now with MCS) so that they may continue to abuse the game - with SCS they will be forced to pay for abuses AND they will be more accountable for same.
Some ideas:
To address some of the problems with SCS such as wanting to dabble with a new char class. They could have a short lived tryout character at the end of which time the user could decide whether they wanted the original char or the new char. Only one would live. HOWEVER, this would also allow the transfer of goods from one to the other i.e. the new char benefitting from the old char's accumulated wealth and items - an abuse.
They could allow users to purchase more slots per server. Would still allow abuse of trade as purchasing additional separate accounts BUT would keep users from transferring directly from one char to another - they'd need a cooperative mule.
To sum up:
The SCS idea is the best one they've come up with yet to address inequities.
For a few dollars more (Score:2, Insightful)
When you do it for free, you can tell people this is how it is, like it or lump it.
When you do it for a living you have to kiss ass and attempt to convince people that your (bosses) decision is the right one for them (the people indirectly paying your wages and keeping you in a job).
So be careful what you wish for and remember that sometimes hobbies are enjoyable mainly because they are hobbies...
Note: In either case you still have to listen to them bitch and moan.
Family concerns (Score:2)
I'm actually impressed with (1) their insistence on a good business model, and (2) their serious cluefulness and proactivity about online gaming in general and MMORPGs in particular.
And I'm very nervous about what a time sink (read: addiction) Galaxies could be, at least for me. For that reason, I probably just plain won't buy it.
Oh Good (Score:2)
Personally I enjoy have an alt around. Over time even casual players will reach a certain maxim. When that happens for myself, I don't want to switch servers just to try out another character.
He spoke of building strong communities and in my opinion nothing will fragment this worse then players being forced to other servers to try another character.
We know the real reason, casually dressed behind user concerns, they want to keep the total cost per player down.
Not that I have played the game yet, but the quoted storage space was quite high with regards to what I have been accustomed too. If it is such a big deal, have the total storage space as a shared resource between all characters for a given account. (ie, shared vault but individual storage on characters). In the end, all the characters are married to each other via the account ID so this can't be terribly difficult to implement.
My other guess is the worry regarding twinking characters, but no matter what you do this is going to happen. You can limit this to an extent but it would create inflexibilities trying to completely remove it.
Again, no matter what problem they say this character limitation fixes it is going to happen. The only difference now happens to be SWG picks up a few extra bucks along the way.
What is really sad is they KNOW they can get away with it. Damn you Star Wars fans... just try to be picky for five minutes.
This won't solve anything, IMO (Score:2)
Twinking
I don't see this changing; in a lot of MMRPGs, while alts may be big twinkers, this pales by comparison with guildmates/friends. A friend finds a second +4 Sword of the Frenzied Wampus - he'll give it to you. One character per server may actually make this worse, since there is a greater chance of picking up items that you don't want for any of your characters.
In other words, twinking will still happen - but will be even more focussed on large guilds than it is now.
Muling
Muling will still happen, but to a lesser degree. I foresee a world in which people who buy second accounts create mules on some worlds - and share the use of the mule with a friend. This already happens in some multi-character games (quite common in Asheron's Call 1 which lacks banking).
The Spying Issue
Spying could be a problem, since factional/PvP is being played up so much. However, DAOC solved this very simply - allow multiple characters per server, but they all have to be in the same faction.
The player economy
If SWG's tradeskill system is as complete as Verant say it will be, then crafting has the potential to play a big role in the game; this is a good thing in that interdependant players tends to create a good atmosphere. It is also a bad thing in that new players are dependent upon the existing economy - and if they don't find people to help them, they will have a really unhappy time; this happens already in Asheron's Call 2 which has a player economy. Only having a single character on a given server would make me less likely to craft; I don't want to craft all the time (I play to escape reality, not simulate work!), so I like the opportunity to craft for a bit and then go and save the galaxy - without having to worry about coordinating cross-server guild relationships with friends/guildmates.
Overall, I think SWG is shooting itself in the foot with this. I personally wasn't going to play anyway - Star Wars isn't my thing, and I'd hate to see a 13 year old screaming 'D3WD, US3 F33R M! L33+ J3D! SK1llZ' - but I know a few people who are considering it. Not one of them is happy about this move.
I'm Also A Beta Tester (Score:2)
What folks need to realize here
People, especially
[anyone remember when Taco announced the subscriber member plan HERE? - rest my case.]
There are only a few folks on the beta forums who have (from a year or two ago) been saying they want mcs only. Almost everyone else is just picking a bandwagon. (I myself am neutral
What a LOT of folks seem to forget
I used to work for games workshop - you know
They make some 300 million Pounds Stirling selling toy soldiers (about 1/2 a billion US depending on exchange).
Every 3-5 years they changes the rules in their games. Fix bugs, make them easier to play etc.
EVERY TIME they do this
As a general rule, the folks who complained the loudest were the 30 year old geeks who had been playing their product for YEARS.
after all
Games-Workshop rightfully totally IGNORE all these complaints. After all
They make desicisions based on what is good for their sales, what is good for their games, and what will make them less confusing and more fun for the boys that just turned 13 this year, and have never seen it before. You see
If you were an investor, would you give capital to a company like this ?
Exec : "And each year we review our product to see if it falls into the expectitaions of our existing customer base, and if it doesnt, we take all their suggestions - and rewrite it at our expense. Just to make everyone happy."
Investor : "Oh
Exec : "well, no
Investor : "Oh, Well it sounds like these customers are very important to you
Exec : "Well, past the first six months, not that much really, since they have bought almost everything they need already. Actually most are complaining because they don't want to spend more money."
Investor : "So what your really saying, is that your letting your customer base affect your vision of your company. Hmm
Exec : 'Ummm
Investor : "oh
I mean
DiaKatana Anyone ?
Thank God. (Score:3, Interesting)
I know there's a lot of hard-core MMORPG players here that won't be playing SWG because of this MCS vs. SCS thing (Acronym overload!). I, for one, will be playing because of Sony's decision.
One reason I've stayed away from MMORPGs in the past is because of all the chatter about "muling", "twinking", and fscked economies. I want to play an online RPG that feels like an RPG, not some twisted inventory management competition. I mean, can you imagine trying to sell multiple characters to a D&D group?
I think Sony is trying to create a MMORPG for the common man, or at least the common gamer. Flame all you want, but I think it's grand.
Re:I can see how some would like it. (Score:5, Interesting)
I understand the issues they're trying to counter. I understand the REAL issue which is the fact LucasArts knows they can milk the Star Wars franchise/MMORPG combination for quite a lot of Money with a capital M.
They know that's the case, we know that's the case. There are no secrets here. So why the hell are they still lying to us? If they were outwardly honest and said "We're choosing to do this because it will allow us to charge for each individual who uses the service." I honestly don't think that their audience is going to be less receptive to it. Everyone will consider it and decide whether it's worth it to them or not. But there ISN'T AN ALTERNATIVE if you want a Star Wars-themed MMORPG. Period. The mass market that is interested in a STAR WARS game is a captive audience...they'll jump through the hoops to have the service no matter what. The people looking for a good online RPG will either sign on immediately or they'll sit back and see if it's all its cracked up to be. If it IS as good as they make it out to be, than the skeptics (like me) will join because it will provide something they can't get elsewhere and we'll put up with the limitations. I honestly don't see why they have to feed us a line of crap about how this is all to prevent multiplaying and then insult our intelligence with that sarcastic "Ah, Virginia, I wish it wasn't so" comment. We're not stupid...we understand trade-offs. But we also understand that they have more to gain here than we do.
Re:I can see how some would like it. (Score:5, Funny)
If LucasArts can achieve that with just an "M", surely one character ought to be enough for anybody?
Re:I can see how some would like it. (Score:2, Informative)
1- Since this character obviously does not meet your style of play, delete it. Since you are ready to try something new you obviously have not become attached to it, and 2 days played time is not much to give us.
2- use the sell back option for the skill, wow a game that you can change your mind and sell skills back so that you can try something new like you mentioned.
3- Create your character on another server. This goes along with number 1, 2 days is not alot of time to put into a character, and you will not have made any lasting friendships by that time, lasting friendship takes more then 2 days to build up.
Re:I can see how some would like it. (Score:2)
Re:I can see how some would like it. (Score:2)
Well I'm going for the safe bet by playing as C3PO. That guy kicks ass (well he would if his legs moved more than 3 inches at a time)...
Re:Moronic analogy alert (Score:2)
Last time I checked, if my local cable co hears about that they cancel the account. They ban the usage of splitters. Not like the cable guy gives a damn (or won't help you install them for that matter. . .
Re:Moronic analogy alert (Score:2, Informative)
Now, each splitter drops the signal level, and the cable co is under no obligation to up your signal to accomodate your mess of splitters. Additionally, there's nothing that prohibits a cable company from charging for an extra outlet, and many do that. Some will only charge an installation fee one time, while others will charge a monthly extra outlet fee, which is basically breaking up your extra outlet installation fee into an infinite number of equal monthly installments. Hey, if they installed that outlet for you, they can charge you whatever they like, however they like. But, if you hooked up that outlet yourself, on wires that legally belong to you, they can't charge you any additional money for that.
Of course, the cable company could make sure that they're sending a 0db signal, and charge you to up it if you're splitting it. And, don't forget one of the real reasons why the cable companies love digital cable so much. Since you need a box, it's back to the per television fee. Even if you could buy your own digital cable box, they can still charge an access fee to authorize it on a monthly basis.
Just because I'm too lazy to look up the reference doesn't mean that this is not 100% true. I'm a renowned authority on the subject. If you don't believe me and want to prove me wrong, find a reference and post it here (this is just my way of baiting someone into doing the fact checking for me).
Re:Moronic analogy alert (Score:2)
You can buy splitters for your cable and split your phone line to add another extension... But guess what. Doing it is against your contract with the phone/cable company. Doing so can incure fines and have your service cut off for breach of contract. Just because they are available at Radio Shack does not mean you can do it without the chance of repurcussion. And in fact, there are 'legal' uses of splitters and signal boosters that don't include setting up a pirated outlet.
Doing so is theft of service, plain and simple.
Re:Tell Me Again Why You Can't Have Multiple Accou (Score:4, Informative)
Lets assume the following, using what I think are probably conservative numbers --
1. 2 million total accounts, one character each
2. 10 server active 'sites'
3. Each character uses approximately 5MB of space
4. 60% change in data set between backups.
5. Each 'galaxy' has overhead of some unknown amount, which I will not take into account in this TCO equation.
Let's consider the storage costs:
1. Each site will need approximately 1TB of data for characters; probably 2TB to be able to do flashcopy for backup purposes; assume 500GB for overhead. Note that they won't be able to use just a standard SCSI RAID, they'll need a real workhorse of a machine. Depending on how cheapie they're willing to go, they might get a mid-range FC Array like the IBM FASTtT700 or a real storage server like the ESS. Cost will run between $210k and $2 million. Per site. However, with the high load, they'll probably need something with oodles of cache, so I'd lean towards the ESS and call it $2 million per site.
2. Disaster recovery. They'll probably use something like the 3590E or H for tape; they'll probably want to store 2 weeks of data with probably 60% change per day -- that works out to about 52.5TB of data. That'll need about 3 3494 frames at ~$100000 ea. That's $300k per site. Then drives -- each drive costs about $40k, and if each drive does about 75GB/hr average and you need to back up in 8 hrs, you need at least 3 drives, plus another 4 or so for tape maintenance -- $280k per site. Tape will cost about $10k extra, per site.
3. Online backups -- this will essentially require you to duplicate the storage equipment once per site, so we end up doubling our hardware costs.
Per site, we're looking at:
$2 million for DASD
$600 thousand for tape
----
$2.6 million in storage alone.
To do the online backups, which I find probable, double that number ($5.2 million); multiply by ten sites, and you get $52 million investment cost. Divide that by 2 million characters, and your approximate cost per character is $26 in storage, per character.
Note that this doesn't even begin to take into account the recurring fees -- vendor support, which you can expect to be at least $10k per month per site, in-house technical support, which you can expect to run probably $20k per month per site, nor does it take into account ANY management software, any bandwidth to transfer to the online backup site, etc,.
More than you thought, huh? Probably by a factor of thousands.
Please write the following on a blackboard 100 times:
ENTERPRISE HARDWARE IS SIGNIFIGANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE COMMODITY INTEL COMPATIBLE HARDWARE I AM USED TO. IT IS ALSO EXPONENTIALLY MORE EXPENSIVE AS YOU SCALE.
Re:Quit Whining (Score:2)
You don't run a business that is BASED off a database on retail quality IDE drives you buy at bestbuy.
Were talking high speed SCSI drives
On a professional development platform (the kind you have to pay for
You don't run a game that is expected to get over a million subscribers in the first 3 months, on your brothers old 486 tripped out to run linux with a spare parts from your friends.
Not when every single MINUTE of downtime costs you money (just in Customer Service costs alone
48,000 customers won't even cover the number of copies shipping to california i bet
Of course
If you have ever worked in a professional big business position