Larian Studios Forums Dragon Commander Dragon Commander - General Multiplayer....how?

Raze, The post on this forums is still titled with the partial lie of "GOG, Steam, Vault etc... No differences"!. Even though the content has been edited to show the significant and major difference of broken, essentially incomplete multiplayer across a fractured community.

The more you try and defend this deceptive slimeball tactic the worse you make yourself and Larian look.

You want to make things right, Larian needs to turn their butts around and make good on this, and quickly.

FWIW, telling your customers you misinterpreted our intentional unclear and deceitful postings about no difference is not how to go about making things right.

Being disrespectful and throwing accusations in a childish fashion doesn't help you make a strong case either.

The idea that Larian mishandled multi player across versions is one I can agree with. Lacing such an accusation with insults and childish ranting will detract from the value of your own message.

The solution would be, either provide the means to meet other people online through for example a GLOBAL CHAT SYSTEM, so they could actually find enemy players to fight against.

Because that definitely does not take a lot of resources to create, and I'm pretty sure Steamworks is not needed for a chat server.


Or just give out Steam keys to every GOG purchasers.

"But when the original 'no differences' post was made (which was a response to questions of version compatibility, not the actual implementation) details of the DRM free multiplayer had not been finalized."
On 2013-07-02, 5 weeks before release, you still had not settled for using steamworks master browser? Which clearly means that at that point, you won't do double the work for the drm free browsing. Sorry, but I don't believe that.
"That's why Larian said pretty early on that online multiplayer would use Steamworks."
That does not necessarily mean it's using steam for the master browser in the drm free version.
You know where such an information would have been (and still would be) nice? On the ACTUAL PRODUCT SITE, like https://www.larianvault.com/product.php?item=40 (and on gog, but there gog itself already corrected it, no thanks to you) , and not lyrically worded like you said, but like this:
- All online capabilities of this game can only be used in the steam version. DRM Free version only allows direct connect via IP.

EinTroll: Well, the only accusation I can read in this thread is from some mod who tells us things that are received by me like "It's your fault, you didn't read right". And that's the way to treat a customer for one single purchase. Because the next one will be missing.

This can be solution for some people, but the majority of GOG customers chose gog platfom because it's not that Steam, which can be clasified as a DRM as itself, so that wouldn't solve the actual problem - lack of usable multiplayer for non-steam players.

Instead of understanding and providing a solution, the customers meet disrespectful developers' behaviour, which is trying to put the fault on the customers/victims of their marketing lies.

Raze is not a developer. Developers have a forum ID written in red (admins), QA uses green. Raze is pretty much the moderator.

Except, of course, that Steamworks can only be used with the Steam version. As was stated in the original post (and as should be known to anyone familiar with either Steam or GOG). The post was about compatibility, ie if DRM free and Steam versions would be able to play together, not how. It has been updated to describe multiplayer in more detail.



I have brought up facts and used logic. I conceded that the original 'no differences' post was not clear, and that when more details about multiplayer were available Larian didn't update this information everywhere they could have (though it was easy enough to find if anyone was following the game, searched or asked somewhere). I have never blamed anyone for misinterpreting unclear statements.

How has your behaviour made you look?




The reason that is so hard to believe is because it is not what I wrote. Did you even read what you quoted?
Since the online multiplayer lobby was mentioned publicly (during the D:OS kickstarter, etc) it was always Steamworks. Earlier in development I'm sure Larian looked at the cost and development time required for other options, but when announced it was stated that it was Steamworks, and there would be an unspecified non-Steamworks option (as well as LAN). Later it was specified that DRM free versions would use a direct connection for online multiplayer.

When the 'no differences' post was made, what I wrote was that the multiplayer for the DRM free version was not finalized, not that none of the multiplayer was started on yet. Steamworks / LAN / direct connection were all in place.



Technically, stating that online multiplayer is Steamworks doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of another lobby system being used for the DRM free versions, but if Larian was going to create their own lobby system, there would be no need to use the Steamworks one.
Larian did repeatedly say the online lobby was Steamworks, though, not that you could use Steamworks or a different lobby.
That should have been explicitly stated in the 'no differences' topic when it was said that the DRM free versions could (obviously) not use Steamworks.



Just because you agree with an accusation, doesn't mean it is not an accusation.
I brought up facts to refute accusations that Larian tried to deliberately deceive people. I never blamed anyone for misinterpreting statements that I concede were unclear. You making that accusation repeatedly does not make it correct.




What exactly leads you to believe that I [as EinTroll noted, a forum moderator, not developer] or Larian do not understand your position? I have never been disrespectful, and have never blamed people for misinterpreting statements that I concede were unclear.

It is entirely possible to disagree with someone without being disrespectful. It is entirely possible to bring up facts to refute a specific statement, while understanding or even agreeing with the bulk of what somebody has said.

So, you are denying that you wrote
"But when the original 'no differences' post was made (which was a response to questions of version compatibility, not the actual implementation) details of the DRM free multiplayer had not been finalized."
now?
Everybody can look at the date of your mentioned post and it's 5 weeks before release. That's a timespan in which you just don't don't know how the multiplayer is set up (especially if it's steamworks). I figure the application for steamworks alone take a week. That means you well made up your mind if you want to do a masterbrowser for all or just the steamworks folks WELL BEFORE THAT TIME, because if you use the second, it's not feasable to implement a second one just for the drm free version. Yeah, I know economics too, the world revolves around it.

I kinda chuckle about how you wanna "discuss away" with "facts" that customers felt deceived. Yeah, in this post I do the same, but it's just to defend against the new stuff you bring up, instead of settling the original problem. Which would mean Larian growing some balls and apologizing about the unclear description and fixing that here and now (product description on vault) and promise to do better in the future. It's NOT OK to have to read on some other source (you keep bringing up "larian said...") what features the game has, because you obviously nowadays can't trust the description beneath the damn [BUY] button. A problem which not only your company has, mind you. Gotta search high and low on the internet nowadays if a game requires steam. I wonder why? Can it be that that's a NEGATIVE bulletin point on the product description

I wrote it, I meant it, and it is correct.

Read what I actually wrote. Not being finalized DOES NOT mean not being started. The DRM free multiplayer not being finalized DOES NOT mean the Steamworks multiplayer was not in place. It was in place, and posted about publicly for some time.

Not being finalized can, in fact, mean that something is virtually complete, but there is some little detail to work out, or everything is done but there is some possibility of something else happening.



I brought up 'facts' to refute accusations that Larian deliberately lied. I never once said that feeling deceived was not justified, and multiple times conceded that the original post was unclear.



Then lacking an explicit, prominently placed statement here at the time about online multiplayer for the DRM free version, why didn't you ask, if it was so important to the game functionality?
You shouldn't have to do additional research, and I am not trying to excuse the original 'no differences' post for being unclear, but if a particular feature is critical in a game for me (like the camera system or save system), I tend to do a little research before pre-ordering.

The original multiplayer statement on GOG claimed it was only compatible with the version sold on GOG. Though technically wrong, how it was phrased would tend to imply the DRM free version did not have a lobby system compatible with the Steam version of the game.

For Me, I consider the matter settled. Settled not by Larian but instead by GOG. GOG has a great team and great people over there. GOG will of course get more of my business. Larian can expect nothing but the glowing praises their actions have burned as images into my mind for them.

The sad thing here is that it's really a missing phrase that's causing so much frustration.

Had I realized that I would've been interpreted so wrongly, I wouldn't have written that post because it would've been easy to foresee the kind of backlash we're seeing on this issue now and I would never knowingly put Larian in that position. Ask yourself what on earth we could hope to win from it ?

The purpose of my statement was to highlight that Dragon Commander is DRM free, that it offers you the ability to play with friends without having to log in to a central server even if your friends are on Steam and you on GOG.

But ok, it was a badly written and so to rectify the confusion we proposed GOG to give Steam keys to their customers so that they could log in on Steamworks too. GOG instead preferred to offer refunds to those that asked, which seemed a sensible solution too and that was that.

As suggested here, we are currently implementing a global chat channel which will allow players to find each other more easily, and I hope that we'll have that live soon enough.

Again, I'm sorry for the frustration that this may have caused, but it was not out of bad intentions.

this right here.

while all that talk about how customers should have interpreted Larians advertising is great in the viewpoint of modern marketing the actual fooled customers see it different.

we read up on it. we got promised what we wanted. we expected what was promised and nothing more. because of that we gave you our money at that point and not someone else. that is a simple fact in everything a sane mind buys.

we didnt get it and instead of trying to make a quick official workaround (forum,irc,...) you are showing us the verbal finger since release.

while it makes perfect sense from a typical modern industry standpoint of shorttimed profit maximizing it will come back to haunt you. depending on how big your firm is. EA comes to mind. at some point the sea of customers is fully aware of your doings.

Farewell Larian hello countless other firms.


edit:

more sales.

i can clearly see that there is a lot of work and someones own soul involved when playing the game. it is simply fantastic and has had unbelievable high potential. and this makes me so sad because i think the marketing section/higher ups didnt share the workers passion but only saw the chance to make more money. expressed by some things that hint towards that intent. beta only available on steam, ...

in any case i thank you for this statement and partial clarification. it feels like the first time someone really notices what is happening.

i just have to see it (chat or what might follow) first to believe there was a turnaround. so now we play the waiting game. if in the end it turns out ok at least my opinion will of course change.

:3

Now you're just being obnoxious.

You think anyone trying to give a fair defense for Larian is an apologist and your self-righteousness is supreme.

Those of us that have followed Larian for a longer while have seen how they usually work and they make mistakes every so often, but never have we seen any kind of consistently malevolent intent. There would be plenty of random people that could attest to that.

But this won't even pierce your eyes. I, for one, give up trying to reason with a brick wall; Ignorance is all that's left to use.

and you should rightfully so. maybe i wouldnt take others seriously and mark them as self righteous if i wasnt the one that payed for something i didnt get.

and again, this is not just about me or my opinion. but seeing customer reviews by the dozens with people that feel ripped off you want to warn the rest.

btw Larian wouldnt be the first firm to turn bad. NCSoft comes to mind. People including me defended them till they poked even us in the back.

still im waiting around and hope that it turns out to be a mistake after all. if the chat system gets implemented in a good way it could still repair a little damage and of course tilt my opinion of that time. its definitely a step in the right direction. also is the above official post, which is pretty much the first one that really says whats going on.
i just hope its not too little too late and it actually gets done right from here on. i just want to see it to believe it, after what was going on so far.
after all im just sad about the great chance that was missed by so close and am/was still hoping for help,correction. otherwhise i wouldnt still be here.

Lar_q: Thanks for listening to our concerns. I'm hoping next time you will do DRM free right (without different desynch increasing versions on gog/vault/steam, with description about port forwarding 23232 in the manual, and without crippling the multiplayer experience to not even include a master browser list) or not at all.

well. its been ~2 weeks since


and there was no mention of a chat feature in the changelogs for the latest patch and the upcoming one.
is there by chance the possibility of getting an update on the chat system?

also it should again be noted here for the sake of the chat features reason that steam versions are currently NOT compatible with gog.

There will be one, I think they're writing it, testing it and integrating it into the game and stuff.

The incompatibility is a bug.


I'm patient.

Chat is being worked on

Could you explain the incompatibility between steam and gog?

As long as both are the same version (which they should be now), they should be able to connect via IP. Gog.com versions simply can't connect to the steam "online" lobbies. But if a Steam user creates LAN lobby, GOG users can use connect to IP and the other way around?

Direct IP Connect GOG<->Steam (1.0.33)