Does ASE have an SDK that Dev's can use to integrate server browsing into the game?

Yes. http://www.udpsoft.com/eye2/developers.html

Yes, back in the day I was a beta tester for Quakespy / Quakeworld and it was great stuff. The alternative was to go to a web page with a list of server IP addresses, write some of them down, then try connecting from the Quake console. Seeing Quakespy gradually get transformed into what it is today was very sad indeed.

There once was a time when Gamespy was something that very few people used, and the few games that allowed you to play online all had their own browser and their own master server.

There was a time before that when *everybody* used gamespy/quakespy. In game server browsers were rare and those that existed tended to suck. Gamespy was a powerful lightweight tool to find a lot of great servers for a lot of great games. Now the original product has been screwed over with crap like advertisemed and pretty much abandoned.

There once was a time when Gamespy was something that very few people used, and the few games that allowed you to play online all had their own browser and their own master server.

While I can understand that it is not cheap to have to host a server (plus bandwith) for yourself, if Gamespy decides to be a bunch of fucking dicks (as all monopolies seem to do), why don't developers simply return to hosting their own servers?

Fuck, buy a domain site with unlimited bandwith somewhere, and run it off that. No need to have a server. How much bandwith does a server browser list need anyways? To send a user some ping data and some server name data? You can't tell me that that takes more than a modest T1? (and probably less than that?)

I realise that simply incorporating Gamespy support is easier, and you never have to worry about keeping your server up indefinitely, but I fail to see why the entire game world would be on the verge of collapse is we decide that Gamespy is not such a good idea anymore.

Creston, having never used Gamespy.

Honestly, we should just make some kind of open-source program

There are plenty of open-source and third-party server browser applications and code. Code is not the problem, at least not the problem with providing a game server list. The real problem is the providing a reliable end-to-end solution for game authentication services, i.e. CD key system. That is what is lacking competition in the game development industry.

This comment was edited on Dec 9, 21:15.

GameSpy isn't in the business of giving things away for free

As I repeated said, Gamespy appears to do it for some games so long as the SDK is not used. Used only in the specific terms I described below, a license isn't necessary for ports of an already supported game.

That also brings up a related point which shows how unreasonable and hollow the complaints of the Macintosh game publishers are. For Macintosh developers and publishers to be crying about the license fees relative to low sales volume is specious when you look at the list of games which Gamespy supports ( http://www.gamespyarcade.com/games/ ) Surely, the Macintosh versions of games like Medal of Valor sell more copies than PC games like "Bumper Wars!" or "Takeout Weight Curling". Since the developers and publishers of those and other small, obscure PC games can afford to license Gamespy for their games then so can Macintosh developers and publishers like Aspyr and MacPlay. It's time for those cheap Macintosh publishers to have to pay like everyone else.

This comment was edited on Dec 9, 21:25.

I think the big problem with competing with GameSpy, is that pretty much, it already has a solid foothold in the front-end market (either that or you're competing with ASE, Kali, HLSW, etc).

Sure, someone may try to come up with an ingenious backend solution but how are they going to get the right experience GameSpy has if it doesn't get contracts right away?

Honestly, we should just make some kind of open-source program. That would be the best.. and then maybe GameSpy would turn off those stupid ads that come up every 5 seconds.

As I stated in my reply to your first post in this thread, that appears to only be true if the game is not already supported by Gamespy.

And like I said, that's why GameSpy charges for a license. They charge the dev to support a new game or additional clients from a port. GameSpy's charges would be based on what kind of load the game's players may put on their network. GameSpy isn't in the business of giving things away for free.

what keeps a game dev from using GameSpy for their game, but instead packaging someone else's server browser?

Nothing, and that is exactly what Epic and several other developers I know who provide their own master list and authentication servers have done. They use Gamespy simply as a backup for the master server list, but do not use the Gamespy SDK in their software so users cannot retrieve a list of servers from Gamespy's master servers using the game itself. Users must use Gamespy Arcade or Gamespy3D to get the Gamespy list if they want it. There is nothing in the documentation or license of these games to indicate that any Gamespy technology or services are being licensed.

Of course that scenario only works if Gamespy already supports the game on its own. In the case of these Macintosh ports of PC games, Gamespy already supports the listing of these games' servers through license with the PC versions' publishers. The Macintosh servers would just submit their data like the PC versions do, and Macintosh clients would have to get their list of these servers from another source. So long as the Macintosh developers write their own functionally equivalent code and don't use the code from the Gamespy SDK and don't try to retrieve a server list from Gamespy in their games, there does not appear to be a license requirement.

The real reason why game companies use Gamespy is for its CD key authentication services. Building that in-house is not an easy task. That is why Microsoft went with Gamespy for the PC version of Halo rather than do what it did with the Mechwarrior series of games and host the master list servers itself.

By charging them for the right to have their game keep its server lists on GameSpy's Master; devs pay to have the right to let their games submit to that server.

As I stated in my reply to your first post in this thread, that appears to only be true if the game is not already supported by Gamespy.

This comment was edited on Dec 9, 20:05.

Riley, let me put this another way. If GS didn't charge for a license to submit to its servers, what keeps a game dev from using GameSpy for their game, but instead packaging someone else's server browser? If they did that, then who would GameSpy get their funding from to pay for the Master system, the 12 year old that wrote the browser and has no assets? No, they're going to want to get payment from the people who have money, and that's the game's developers. And how do you do that? By charging them for the right to have their game keep its server lists on GameSpy's Master; devs pay to have the right to let their games submit to that server.

Had a thought to update my prior post:

Anyway, this seems to be a good oppertunity right now.[...] Possibly a company (or network of companies) who already has most of the infrastructure could do it - a collection of GSP's perhaps, or some webserver firm looking to diversify.

Perhaps a company like Massive?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/07/massive_game_advertising/
Presumably a game-ad provider would need to be doing a fair bit of what a master server would be doing anyway, combining the two would surely be a lot cheaper than doing both individually.

For the developer that would mean converting a significant cost into an income stream.

Riley Pizt, do you really think GameSpy doesn't charge to use its backend?

No, and that is not what I wrote either. I wrote that for games which Gamespy already supports (as the PC games in question), submitting game servers to the Gamespy master servers requires nothing proprietary from Gamespy and judging by the actions of Epic and some other developers and publishers, no license from Gamespy either.

This comment was edited on Dec 9, 17:24.

Kali is now run by Jay Cotton

Kali.net could be used as an alternative network for the game server lists as it has its own master list servers, but like ASE, it is not currently large enough to support a large volume of traffic.

Riley Pizt, do you really think GameSpy doesn't charge to use its backend? A master server backend costs money, and more clients means more servers and more bandwidth is needed, which is more money. It's through licenses that GameSpy supports this system, and if someone is trying to use it without paying for the right, even if they can pull it off on a technical level, will be breaking whatever EULA GameSpy has, and will be on the receiving end of a suit. Once GameSpy has your(the developer's) money, they don't care what happens, but like any corporation, they won't want people mucking around the Master for a game that isn't licensed.

"Consider it fortunate that GameSpy hasn't tried to lock out other browsers like AOL/MSN/etc do with IM clients."

They have and they do. Why do you think games usually require a patch shortly after release to enable ASE support? BF1942 and Americas Army both use the Gamespy SDK and needed patches so people could use outside server browsers that arent made by gamespy.

I would dearly love to see gamespy get some competition, as their current RTS backend offerings are utter shite. Loads of nat/router issues, lobby spam and unreliable servers are not really fun. Their fps server browsers in games are also rubbish.

ps, its usually the publishers who decide to use gamespy, not the devs. "What, you can save us $30 annually? Why of course our developers would love to suck your cock"

only licensed games using the GameSpy SDK may submit changes to the backend

Actually that is incorrect. Any game server software may submit data to the Gamespy master server network without the Gamespy SDK or a license. Just send the data using the standard Quake/Unreal/Gamespy server protocol to master.gamespy.com. If the game is already supported by Gamespy (as these PC games already are), the game server will be listed for that game with the rest of the servers. Epic does this in its Unreal engine games to provide a secondary/back master list server. And, there is nothing in the EULA or other documentation of Epic's games which indicates that it is paying Gamespy a license for this. Where the Gamspy SDK and license is necessary is in retrieving and decoding a list of game servers from the Gamespy master and in providing CD key authentication services if the game uses such authentication.

What this means is that the Macintosh developer cited in this article is really being a "Chicken Little" here. Even without a license, these Macintosh ports could still have their servers listed in the Gamespy server list along with their PC counterparts. Only the Macintosh game client couldn't obtain a list of game servers from Gamespy without a license. So, the list of servers for Macintosh players would just have to come from another source. Macintosh publishers themselves could retrieve and host such a list for the Macintosh game client. PC and Macintosh players would still be able to play together.

A solution would still be necessary for providing CD key authentication services, but I don't think users would mind if that part of the equation were left out.

This comment was edited on Dec 9, 17:30.

Battlefield 1942 and Vietnam have their own serverlists

LOL! Gamespy provides the server list and authentication servers for BF1942 and BFV. Have you never noticed the "powered by Gamespy" graphics in those games or on the packaging?

I think just about everything that runs on a Quake3 engine uses the idmaster

Actually, no. Each Quake engine licensee must obtain its own master and authentication services. For example, EA uses Gamespy for the Medal of Honor games. Activision hosts the master and authentication servers for Raven's games.

This comment was edited on Dec 9, 17:01.

At some point, maybe people reading this will understand that this article has nothing to do with the stand alone GameSpy executable. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

I know the feeling. Just to set this straight once and for all(so that we end this confusion), there are two parts to "GameSpy", the frontend, and the backend.

Frontend: Here is where programs like The All-Seeing Eye*, GameSpy3D, Game Ranger, and similar server browsing programs sit. They talk to the backend to get a list of servers, and then do the necessary pinging and information requests.

The SDK also sits here, though in a different way. The SDK allows game developers to build a server browser straight in to their game, and gives them the access they need(in terms of both literal code, and licensing rights with the GameSpy Corporation) to tell the backend about new servers, do CD-key checks, etc.

Backend: This is where the GameSpy Master Server Network sits. This portion, run by the GameSpy Corporation, is a cluster of servers that keep track of games so that server browsers in the frontend can find out what's going on. This cluster not only keeps a list of servers and responds to queries, but automatically yanks down expired servers, keeps servers sorted by gametype and other meta-information(as necessary and requested by a game's developer), and does CD-key checks if a game developer decides to use that feature.

---

The confusion here is that everyone keeps talking about switching out portions of the frontend, as if using a different server browser will change things. As the GameSpy system is a private system, only licensed games using the GameSpy SDK may submit changes to the backend, and since there is(and always will be) only 1 licensed GameSpy SDK, there does not exist a work-around that allows someone to submit modifications without paying their license to the GameSpy Corporation.

Now, it is true that using 3rd party frontend tools, you can still query the backend to find out about games, but the GameSpy Corporation only allows this because the developer of the game you want to play has paid their license to the GameSpy Corporation, so there is no difference if a gamer uses the in-game browser or a 3rd party browser. If a Mac game developer did not pay for their license however(restricting them from having an in-game browser or submitting changes to the backend), the GameSpy Corporation would sue the developer, as the players of this game would be putting an additional load on the backend, without GameSpy being compensated for it. Hence the only way a Mac gamer can legally play with a PC gamer out of the box is if a developer pays for a GameSpy license.

And since the GameSpy Corporation now wants what amounts to too much money for a Mac license, Mac developers can no longer use the same backend the PC version of the game uses, which leads us to the problem at hand. Unless the GameSpy Corporation brings its fees back down, Macs and PCs will effectively be unable to play together.

* The All Seeing Eye technically has their own backend system, but we do not consider it, as it is not used to a similar degree the GameSpy system is
This comment was edited on Dec 9, 16:43.

You need to have the backend server farm for the master servers too (which ASE doesn't)

Actually ASE does run its own master servers, but ASE also pulls server lists from other companies' master list servers as well.

Consider it fortunate that GameSpy hasn't tried to lock out other browsers like AOL/MSN/etc do with IM clients.

You simply have no knowledge of how Gamespy actually operates. Gamespy locked out all outside clients years ago by encrypting its traffic. Any software which can obtain and read a Gamespy server list is either using the Gamespy license SDK or is a reverse engineered illegal hack.

This comment was edited on Dec 9, 16:40.