Mac GameSpy Follow-up

Programmer Ryan Gordon's IcculusFinger (thanks Frans), the original source for recent stories about GameSpy Mac support (story and story), has more on the problems caused by increased license fees for the Mac edition of GameSpy ("This is literally the only showstopper in ArmyOps 2.2.1 for the Mac. If I had a GameSpy license, I could recompile the game and ship it. As it stands, there isn't a clear or simple solution to this problem in the 2.2.1 timeframe."). The Mac programmer outlines why you can't just "rip GameSpy out," and the problems that would be caused even if you could. After a lengthy discussion of obstacles facing Mac GameSpy support going forward, he also outlines his thoughts on addressing the situation:
The longer term solutions involve an act of subversion. Namely, someone needs to step up: develop and market a product that replaces GameSpy. It's not a secret that GameSpy's SDK doesn't have any real competition at the moment. It's also not a secret that most PC developers would shed no tears for GameSpy if a better alternative came along. I will be daring and say a small, modestly-funded team could pull this off, and if they hit the right PC developers, could gain critical mass with a quickness. The obvious choices for this, if we're being Mac-centric, are either Aspyr or Destineer. I would suggest this might be best done by an independent company that has no sort of Apple affliation as their primary interest... you don't have to like the fact that PC developers have an irrational fear of Mac-oriented companies...and I don't want to have this fight about Linux clients five years from now. Getting a good Triple-A title on the PC to ship with this, Mac port or not, makes this much more intriguing to everyone else, though. After all, there're plenty of reasons to ditch GameSpy on the PC, too; this Mac episode just illustrates it...they could always inflate their prices universally. Smart developers will take notice now when it's still someone else's problem...because tomorrow, it could be their's, too.
View : : :
25.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 9, 2004, 16:40
25.
Re: No subject Dec 9, 2004, 16:40
Dec 9, 2004, 16:40
 
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.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
2.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
3.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
4.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
5.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
6.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
17.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
43.
Dec 11, 2004Dec 11 2004
8.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
24.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
7.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
9.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
10.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
11.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
12.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
14.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
19.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
 25.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
    Re: No subject
28.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
     Re: No subject
29.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
      Re: No subject
30.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
      Re: No subject
32.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
       Re: No subject
33.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
        Re: No subject
34.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
        Re: No subject
35.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
         Re: No subject
36.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
          Re: No subject
37.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
           Re: No subject
39.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
            Re: No subject
38.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
           Re: No subject
27.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
26.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
13.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
16.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
18.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
20.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
21.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
22.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
23.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
31.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
40.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
41.
Dec 9, 2004Dec 9 2004
42.
Dec 10, 2004Dec 10 2004