50,000 to 60,000 Beta Release In Mid April On File Planet

[Nail]

Splash Damage has nothing to do with marketing or production, that’s id and Activision

IT’S NOT A DEMO

it’s a test for servers, not players, now that we know there are ranked servers they’ll need to heavy test those mechanisms

[Strogg]

[quote=signofzeta]basically if you paid a year pass at an amusement park, just so you can get on your favorite ride, but that ride is inaccessable (you are too tall? you are too short? you aren’t old enough? Young enough? Ride is broken down? etc). There are still other attractions out there. It isn’t the end of the world if you pay for fileplanet.

The annual pass lets you get into the park, not get on that ride.

Subscription to fileplanet lets you download their stuff faster, not let you play quake wars earlier. I just so happens that quake wars public beta will be one of their downloads.

I see, so FilePlanet is really more like an online Disneyland. :lol:

That has very little to do with them getting over 50,000 Beta keys to distribute. Did they pay for all those keys? Are we not allowed to know about the transaction? A lot of people are wondering, why doesn’t my new Quake Wars fan site get 1,000’s of keys to hand out so I can get people to come to my site instead?

Splash Damage is well known for helping out the “gaming community” not just the businesses that leech money from us.[/quote]

SKaREO Said: why doesn’t my new Quake Wars fan site get 1,000’s of keys to hand out so I can get people to come to my site instead?

Good Point!!

[Nail]

he isn’t hosting the files, the server load just for downloads will be staggering. We have a monster unlimited bandwidth ftp server, I don’t think it would handle even a small percentage of the load, we’re talking about banks of servers guys, not your old P3 in the corner

[SKaREO]

he isn’t hosting the files, the server load just for downloads will be staggering. We have a monster unlimited bandwidth ftp server, I don’t think it would handle even a small percentage of the load, we’re talking about banks of servers guys, not your old P3 in the corner

Put the servers up against a file sharing community using a torrent. Share the torrent link with all affiliated sites so they too can “host” the demo files. This is how other developers such as Turbine (and their new Lord of the Rings Online beta) are doing it. They use two options, one is to download straight from their file server, the other is to download it from a torrent.

Don’t exclude the little guys though, because we are the ones playing this game and helping to shape its future. I doubt Gamespy and FilePlanet are looking out for the welfare of our community. Something tells me they are just in it for the money.

[Nail]

P2P sharing is NOT efficient, banks of dedicated servers are

just wait for the demo, it’ll be better than the beta test

and, btw, our site didn’t get beta keys, and we’ve been around for 4 years with over 400,000 members

[B0rsuk]

P2P sharing is NOT efficient, banks of dedicated servers are

Care to elaborate ?

[SCDS_reyalP]

P2P sharing is NOT efficient, banks of dedicated servers are

No efficient isn’t the same as not effective. Things like bittorrent are an extremely effective way of distributing large files quickly to a lot of people. Most publishers reluctance to use this seems to be based on it’s association with illegal activity and lack of user friendlyness, rather than any compelling technical objections.

[M8DNanite]

TrackMania games has built in P2P system to share custom vehicles, tracks etc.
http://www.trackmania.com/

[Nail]

[quote=Nail]P2P sharing is NOT efficient, banks of dedicated servers are

Care to elaborate ?[/quote]

server banks can be controlled for content and logged for data analysis

id Software has torrents though

http://zerowing.idsoftware.com:6969/

[zeh]

P2P sharing is NOT efficient, banks of dedicated servers are

It depends on what you call “efficient”. For distribution to plenty of users globally distributed with as few bandwidth used from the server as possible, P2P is the most efficient way. For the biggest throughput to nearby clients with bandwidth to spare, banks of dedicated servers is the most efficient way.

In the end, your mileage may vary depending on your location, your bandwidth, and the kind of stuff you need to download, and from. So I guess that people will always have some kind of strong opinion on which solution is the best for them - as you do - and accept it as the one and only solution.

But, for me, it’s P2P all the way - not only it’s faster, but it’s also the safest way. The reason for this is the fact that I live far away from the usual location of official servers, and because having a P2P system means I can use bandwidth from closer peers - people from my own country/continent who are also downloading the same file. I can fire my download and forget about it, differently from, say, an HTTP download, which might be interrupted anytime with no resume available, drop in speed immensely for no reason, be slow due to server overload, etc. Since most “official” downloads hardly allow people to use download accelerators, torrent is the best way to work around the fact that the server is too far away to keep a stable download going.

Given this, I thank id Software for their zerowing tracker.

[Nail]

ok, correct me if I’m wrong,
banks of dedicated servers can handle huge initial loads and deliver to large numbers of requests immediately, and allow the marketing people access to the traffic data (remember SD isn’t putting this beta out)
torrents take some time for the network to ramp up as more and more hosts appear and require for some people additional computer knowledge

[figvam]

he isn’t hosting the files, the server load just for downloads will be staggering. We have a monster unlimited bandwidth ftp server, I don’t think it would handle even a small percentage of the load, we’re talking about banks of servers guys, not your old P3 in the corner

Actually a single commodity server will easily saturate 100Mbit bandwidth line, provided the hosted content fits fully in its RAM. And probably even 1Gbit, if the network drivers are good enough.

[SKaREO]

So, I was going to download the free multiplayer game: F.E.A.R. Combat, and I had a bad experience that I thought was relevent to this discussion.

Okay check this out. You type in “FEAR Combat” into Google and you get Fileplanet, Fileshack, and Gamer’s Hell as the top 3 sites to get the file. So, naturally as we are discussing Fileplanet here, I click the Fileplanet link. I’m brought to a site with way too much eye candy and crap I don’t want to see. I’m looking for this game and I’m getting advertising instead. I immediately close my browser window, a bit irked but that is certainly not going to stop me from going to Gamer’s Hell.

At Gamer’s Hell they don’t excessively advertise to you. Its a simple design, a bit cluttered, but that because its such a huge web site. I don’t have to “sign-up” and give away my e-mail address just to download the file either. I can click a link, wait 10 seconds, and I have the file downloading at 1MB/s.

The point is … Fileplanet sucks.

[Nail]

I just went here:
http://www.joinfear.com/main

[SKaREO]

I just went here:
http://www.joinfear.com/main

Nice site, I don’t accept cookies so I got a 404 at first. I was talking about Fileplanet though. :roll:

[picard17]

Why not use a site like GamersHell http://www.gamershell.com for the beta files, they host more game files (demos, betas, full games, patches) than you can wave a stick at + have the bandwith + multiple country outlets + there are no fees and you dont even have to register to download. Plz dont let gamespy and IGN get there gruby mitts on this as it will suffer as did the battlefield series that did the same thing.

[Infiltrator]

Yea gamershell is nice. And for those sites that do require an email and you don’t want to get affiliated with them, I wholeheartedly suggest mailinator.com .

[SCi-Fi]

I played fearcombat and its not good!!!

I played 2142 with the lads friday night and i fell asleep as i was
that bored… I didnt like it from the day it came out but nothing else
was out, Cod 4 looks wicked!! Ive read its gonna be released for the pc
aswell, it looks kewl…

[fart666]

I played fearcombat and its not good!!!

I played 2142 with the lads friday night and i fell asleep as i was
that bored… I didnt like it from the day it came out but nothing else
was out, Cod 4 looks wicked!! Ive read its gonna be released for the pc
aswell, it looks kewl…

yeah and you can shoot talibans right in the head as a ji joe…cool…so i bet it gets teen rated…long live america…ehm the freedom…hust…hust…!

source: http://warp2search.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=31820

[madness]

They switched from WW2 cliché to “US vs Terrorists” cliché