Subject: [Nel] Something I don't understand about the license agreement.

From: "Jared Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:41:44 -0600

I just want to make sure I understand this right...

I use this source code to build the base of my game...
I do all sorts of work to make my own game built around this core engine...
I then try to get people to play the game...
People get the game (for free, or at least, for the cost of shipping it, but no profit can be made on that...)
I charge for the monthly service to the game, and make boat loads of money...

But then, because of the way this license reads, someone else can request the entire source code to my game, set up their own game that's exactly like mine, and charge people to use it just like I am doing... 

So if all of the above is correct... what is the point of me making my game using NeL in the first place?  When someone can just steal my entire game (not just the NeL source, but all of the "derivitive works" that are packaged with it as a whole), and run the game service themselves... basically, taking me out of the loop entirely.

If I'm completely off here, I appologise.  I'm extremely new to the whole "open source" thing... 

My main concern is that I have a bunch of gameplay concepts that I want to implement... having nothing to do with graphical quality, or any sort of innovative programming... I have plot, and I have what I consider a "bigger and better plan" than anything UO or EQ or AC have ever done... and this license is basically saying that I have to give all of THAT stuff up if I choose to use NeL as my core code?

*scratches head*

---

From: Bryce Harrington <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:12:38 -0800 (PST)

If it is important to you to keep your IP closed, then you should use a
closed library rather than an open one.  There are many other libraries
out there that allow for keeping stuff proprietary, and some of them are
quite good.  Some require fees or other charges in return for use of
their license.

NEL, like other open source things, operates on a share-and-share-alike
principle.  Nevrax is being very generous in providing their code
openly, so you can see it and use it without having to pay any fees.
The one condition that they have asked in return is that you do
likewise.  You have to decide for yourself if their price is acceptable,
and if so, you're bound to abide by it.  If it isn't, then you should
use a different piece of code more to your liking (or write your own).  

NEL keeps their game _content_ (e.g., artwork) proprietary while
releasing their source code; perhaps you could follow that approach as
well.  Or else you could strive to compete with other users of your
modified code on the basis of name recognition, performance,
reliability, and customer service.

(This is community service - I'm not associated with NEL in any way, but
admire that they are actually making their source code Free.)

Bryce

-- 
Bryce Harrington  ~  ACME General Purpose Hacker / Designer / Rocket Scientist
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBL SBIRS/Low NPOESS NGST  HarrGene CivII WorldForge Eidetic Circe STAGE iMSDW
bharrington @ msdw.com     bryce @ neptune.net     bryceharrington @ yahoo.com

---

From: James Hearn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:32:33 -0600

> > My main concern is that I have a bunch of gameplay concepts that I want to implement... having nothing to do with graphical quality, or any sort of innovative programming... I have plot, and I ha…

I've been speaking with Jared, and it seems he is not opposed to open
source. However, he wonders (as do I) where Nel ends and our code
begins. Does any project using nel have to release *all* of its source
code? Or just modifications to Nel itself? Modifications to Nel should
*of course* be open source. It is basically things like game logic that
Jared is concerned about.

--James Hearn

---

From: Leighton Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:35:48 +0800

> quite good.  Some require fees or other charges in return for use of
This is a bit misleading. The game world is also your IP. This bit of IP
would most definitely stay closed, in any commercial concern. And in general
even most free (the beer sense, not the speech) games worlds. Having your
game world ripped off does happen (it happened to DiscWorld mud, not that
it's exactly 'killed' them,  but they did from memory end up making
the sourcecode harder to get hold of). 

> use a different piece of code more to your liking (or write your own).  
In return for giving a good base set of libraries, Nevrax hope to get 
lots of free contributions to their project. This isn't as evil as it sounds
since everyone is still free to work on whatever parts they like, and
hopefully they will remain fairly lenient on what features make it in to the
repository. (Ie, don't just include what _they_ want. I don't imply
they should be lenient on content. Be code nazis, keep ugly code out :P)
Of course, if they behave in a manner you feel is not conducive to
the spirit of open-source development, you're free to split off your own 
version of the tree.

> reliability, and customer service.

This should be stressed a bit more. It's basically impossible for them to
'duplicate' your mud/whatever without the content. Content is not just artwork,
but all the sounds, probably most of the look of the interface, the scripts 
which control the AI behaviour. Basically, if they can take your sourcecode, 
and duplicate your mud, you haven't doine very much :)

What they do get of course, is that little mod you did to the game engine
for pretty-as-hell lens effects. Or your modified particle engine
to accurately model a fireball. Anyone who looks at the current crop of games
will tell you that it's not this sort of thing that makes or breaks a game.

> admire that they are actually making their source code Free.)
Yeah, ditto the not associated with Nevrax thing... 
unless they feel like hiring of course ;)

Leighton...

--

Part-time student. Full-time Programmer. 
Seeking the 36 hour day and the 10 hour working week.
(08) 9272 9058 (Home - like I'm ever there)
0401 335 136 (Mobile - like it's ever on)

---

From: "EagleEye" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:26:46 -0600

Well, as someone else put it in a private chat... I'm wondering "exactly
where does their code stop, and my code begin?"

Do I get to keep the coding behind the interaction rules of my game to
myself?  My skill system, and the way characters develop within the game...
the way my player housing system, and player governments system is
handled... is that mine to keep?  I guess a lot of it depends on how I go
about forming those rules... and that depends on how NeL allows me to build
my world.

I can understand sharing a new add-on, such as the ability to use DirectX 8
with NeL... I can understand adding functionality to the core engine... that
I wouldn't mind giving up to the general masses.  Heck, I don't care if I
give up the artwork!  What's important to me is keeping my gameplay designs
proprietary.  I don't want someone copying my game's LOGIC... because to me,
that's what will make my game innovative, and will be the main reason people
will play it.  If I give that up freely, I might as well go for a different
core package.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryce Harrington" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Nel] Something I don't understand about the license agreement.

> > But then, because of the way this license reads, someone else can
request the entire source code to my game, set up their own game that's
exactly like mine, and charge people to use it just like I am doing...
> >
> > So if all of the above is correct... what is the point of me making my
game using NeL in the first place?  When someone can just steal my entire
game (not just the NeL source, but all of the "derivitive works" that are
packaged with it as a whole), and run the game service themselves...
basically, taking me out of the loop entirely.
> > My main concern is that I have a bunch of gameplay concepts that I want
to implement... having nothing to do with graphical quality, or any sort of
innovative programming... I have plot, and I have what I consider a "bigger
and better plan" than anything UO or EQ or AC have ever done... and this
license is basically saying that I have to give all of THAT stuff up if I
choose to use NeL as my core code?
> _______________________________________________
> Nel mailing list
> [email-masked]
> /mailman/listinfo.cgi/nel
>

---

From: "Sal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:50:42 -0500

> People get the game (for free, or at least, for the cost of shipping it,
but no profit can be made on
> that...)

    The last point isn't necessarily true.  You could likely sell your game
for as much as you want.  As Red Hat sells Linux.  The GPL only insures that
the source code to the binaries in your distribution must be made available.
It doesn't cover the media you make, the documentation you write. People
don't have the right to redistribute your custom media, or your custom game
manuals.  Downloading the binary still won't grant you ability to play the
game... you need the media.  Which is where the advantage is in the GPL game
market in comparison to something like an operating system, such as Linux.

    In short, you can still make money off of a GPL game.  Though I would
rather see companies release all their artwork under an opencontent license,
they don't have to.

> But then, because of the way this license reads, someone else can request
the entire source code to
> my game, set up their own game that's exactly like mine, and charge people
to use it just like I am
> doing...

    If I'm not mistaken, the things that define your game would mostly be
located in serverside databases. Yes any modification to the server _code_
would have to be redistributed, but you could create pretty unique worlds
and plots by simply editing some serverside database.  Which entails
creating maps, placing NPCs, possibly even defining rules such as what
skills players have.

    I'm pretty sure these databases would not be covered by the GPL.  All
that people could 'steal' would be your binaries. And that does not mean
they can carbon-coby your game.  Your rules, mapfiles, plot, etc. could all
be copywritten material.

    And if you were able to modify the Nel code to make a better game...
then someone that uses your code could likely make a better game yet. And
the code that they created, you could use yet again in your own server.
Opensource has many advantages related to software quality. Imagine how many
people would be working to fix bugs and improve the codebase that is
powering your world, in comparison to a proprietary codebase.

> So if all of the above is correct... what is the point of me making my
game using
> NeL in the first place?  When someone can just steal my entire game (not
just
> the NeL source, but all of the "derivitive works" that are packaged with
it as a
> whole), and run the game service themselves... basically, taking me out of
the loop
> entirely.

    I think 'derivitive works' pertains to modifications of the Nel codebase
(not artwork, media. documentation, rules, etc.).  And I think its fair that
you would be required to release your source changes, since its the hard
work of others that makes your game possible, and they just want to make
sure that your code improvements to their product will be made available.

    Again, your game could have plenty of copywritten material that would
not be easily 'stolen', and in fact, would be the equivalent of stealing the
ruleset and media from an proprietary game, such as Asheron's Call or
Everquest.  Which is prosecutable.

    Say I downloaded the binaries for Everquest's client and server (imagine
they were GPLed). I still could not create an 'Everquest' game and put them
out of business, I would need to create an exact copy of all their media, I
would also have to mimic their ruleset, copy their maps, etc. And doing all
that would be illegal, since its all copywritten material.

    I also could not sell CD's of Everquest, because in order for their
client to be useful it needs all the copywritten material that comes on the
Everquest CD.

> If I'm completely off here, I appologise.  I'm extremely new to the whole
"open source"
> thing...

> My main concern is that I have a bunch of gameplay concepts that I want to
implement...
> having nothing to do with graphical quality, or any sort of innovative
programming...
> I have plot, and I have what I consider a "bigger and better plan" than
anything UO or
> EQ or AC have ever done... and this license is basically saying that I
have to give all of
> THAT stuff up if I choose to use NeL as my core code?

    Where you're mistaken is that the GPL doesnt force you to distribute
_everything_  for free.  Just the material that is covered under the GPL,
which would be, the source code to the binaries... and the source to any
libraries used in conjunction with them.

    I'm not a lawyer, by any means. But I have some experience in developing
opensource gaming software. I think a lot of people share the same
misconceptions, which is why I felt compelled to reply.  I'm of the opinion
that opensource and games are a perfect match.  Its really a no-lose
situation, if you're thinking of developing your own game.

- Sal

---

From: Bryce Harrington <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:45:30 -0800 (PST)

> the sourcecode harder to get hold of). 

That's true; I meant only the IP additions to the NEL sourcecode, which
appeared to be what the original poster was interested in.  As Sal said,
the game content would be handled differently.

I'm less sure of the rules regarding dynamic linking and scripting.  I
think "linking is linking", so the former would fall under GPL rules,
whereas the latter I would hazard to guess falls more into the "content"
category and thus can be arbitrarily licensed.  But this seems like a
very grey area, and seeking out ways to get around the author's intents
and use their work on terms of dubious legality doesn't seem like a
kosher thing to do.  

In any case, you can always try negotiating with Nevrax for special
licensing terms; I'm sure they're open to making more money.  ;-)
 
Bryce

---

From: Vincent Archer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:36:33 +0100

Wow, lots of questions.

Ok, I'll try to summarise the replies to your points, without too much
dilution. Bear with me, this is quite long, but I'll try to be as
unambiguous as possible.

Jared Mark said:
> People get the game (for free, or at least, for the cost of shipping it, =
> but no profit can be made on that...)

Point one: As explained somewhere else, the GPL make software "free" as
in "freedom", not "free" as in "free of charge". You can pretty well make
as much money as you want from your own game. The only thing is, if
someone who got the program requests it, you have to give them access to
the source for no more than reproduction costs on a "standard support"
(i.e. giving only printouts of the code doesn't count) and shipping charges.

Usually, people preventively put it on a download site somewhere, so
they don't have to handle code requests on an individual basis. But
that's not mandated.

There are also other strings attached, namely, if you use that source
you got to build a program which you distribute, you also have to provide
the modified *OR* original (if unmodified) source under the same license
terms.

> where does their code stop, and my code begin?"

But what is code exactly? Code is the little thingy that makes a lens
flare when looking toward the sun. Code is the special multipurpose
network protocol that communicate reliably across the Internet (ahem).
Code is the state automaton engine that handles your mobs.

Code is not the 1000-line table of all items and their stats. Code is not
the list of states and transitions a mob (btw, if anyone wonders about that
term, it's an old MUD term for 'mobile object', i.e. all autonomous entities
in the game that have a behaviour, as opposed as just having properties).
Code is not the glossy metal and rivets texture on your door. Code is not
the wondrous mocaped triple head kick to smash a skull. Code is not the
cuckoo sound you hear while walking thru a forest in game.

The GPL doesn't cover these parts at all.

Bryce Harrington said:
> releasing their source code

Minor nitpick: It's Nevrax, not NeL. NeL is the library, not the
company :)

But that's the gist of it. We do offer the code under a GPL license,
but we retain the traditional copyright on our intellectual property.

So, we don't want your game design. We can't get your game design.
It's all yours. But if you add code to run a game using sensor gloves as
the user interface and 3D glasses, then we have a right to request the
code for that. We can then reuse the "HOW" you use them to play, but not
the "WHY" you use them. How is code. Why is your game design.

> about forming those rules... and that depends on how NeL allows me to build

Hmm, we have a little legal problem there. It's basically straight copyright
law.

Basically, you cannot copyright an idea. It's got nothing to do with whether
NeL is GPL or a $1,000,000 licensed game engine, so don't let NeL's license
stop you.

You cannot copyright an idea. To take an example, let's say you're using
a system of skill trees that are enabled by pre-required skills, level
and required characteristics combinations, so that the "Accurate Eye Shot"
skill requires Marksmanship, a level of 17, and a minimum dexterity of 38.

You cannot prevent anyone from using a system of skill trees that require...
(you get the gist). However, you can forbid anyone from using a set of
skills that basically is a copy of yours. They have to make their own set
of skills, and make them different "enough". That's where it gets tricky.
The "enough" part is usually settled by court when there's a dispute.
Merely renaming "Accurate Eye Shot" by "Advanced Bowmanship" doesn't
count (usually), but the frontier between "my skill trees" and "your
skill trees" isn't a straight and obvious line.

To take a known analogy, copyright law doesn't prevent you from doing a
novel set in the south during the civil war, with romance, and all that.
However, copyright law will prevent you from calling your main character
"Scarlett O'Hara".

> and duplicate your mud, you haven't doine very much :)

"You have entered Ankh Morpok north". :)

(sorry for the obscure MUD reference. I do hope people will recognise it)

To get back to the initial post
> My main concern is that I have a bunch of gameplay concepts that I
> want to implement... having nothing to do with graphical quality, or
> any sort of innovative programming... I have plot, and I have what I
> consider a "bigger and better plan" than anything UO or EQ or AC have
> ever done... and this license is basically saying that I have to give
> all of THAT stuff up if I choose to use NeL as my core code?

Nope. But be aware that the basic principles of your game design are
automatically open, regardless of whether you use NeL or develop your
own from scratch. What is proprietary to you is the 1000-rows database
that describes your items, the recipes your artisans use to make items,
the names and settings of the world, the artwork used to decorate the
flag flying at the top of the keep.

But not the "there are three realms that are mortal ennemies of each
other" part. That, anyone can copy. Even if you were developping a
game for a big company under death-before-you-speak agreements.

> *scratches head* 

/em massages Jared's shoulders.

-- 
Vincent Archer                                         Email: [email-masked]

Nevrax France.                              Off on the yellow brick road we go!

---

From: Vincent Archer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:55:20 +0100

Well, you summarised my summaries...

> located in serverside databases. Yes any modification to the server _code_

There are probably a few minor code modifications, required to support
very specific rules (if you want to run elections, the code for booths
and all that is probably hard code). But, if we've done our design right,
most of a MMORPG design should be a matter of fiddling data.

> they can carbon-coby your game.  Your rules, mapfiles, plot, etc. could all

Not "could". Is. It's automatic and non-debatable. When you write it,
it is automatically covered by copyright, and you have to explicitely
put it in the public domain (which is not *that* easy). With the
provision about plot; as I explained before, a plot cannot be
copyrighted, while specifics are. You can't copyright "evil arch-villain
wants to overthrow king", you can only copyright "Mezzo Kharkan wants
to overthrow king Ariflax".

(hmmm, if I have infringed some copyright here, it's purely unintentional,
 and was only for purpose of citation. Honest)

>     I think 'derivitive works' pertains to modifications of the Nel codebase

In the GPL text, yes. Derivative works refer to code. GPL says exactly
nothing about data, so it's not covered by the license.

> that would be illegal, since its all copywritten material.

That's a good example. However (assuming Everquest code was GPL), once
you'd produced a set of player and NPC models, and made a few zone files
under a 3D modeller, and created your own items, you'd be able
to launch Realquest.

And try to put them out of business :)

> libraries used in conjunction with them.

By FSF's own admission, the source of any library "not commonly available
with the system". Otherwise, we'd have to provide the Nvidia OpenGL driver
sources if we wanted to run our game on a Nvidia-equipped PC :)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:38:51 +0100

Jared Mark escribió:

> I just want to make sure I understand this right... I use this source
> code to build the base of my game...I do all sorts of work to make my
> own game built around this core engine...I then try to get people to
> play the game...
>
> #Sound easy, it is hard.
>  People get the game (for free, or at least, for the cost of shipping
> it, but no profit can be made on that...)
>
> #Fucking HTML messages!!!
> #Ok, with GPL you can sell it and make money but you CAN'T forbid the
> buyer to sell, copy, or hire it.
> #And why people would pay for your service!?
> #It isn't a easy thing But then, because of the way this license
> reads, someone else can request the entire source code to my game, set
> up their own game that's exactly like mine, and charge people to use
> it just like I am doing... So if all of the above is correct... what
> is the point of me making my game using NeL in the first place?  When
> someone can just steal my entire game (not just the NeL source, but
> all of the "derivitive works" that are packaged with it as a whole),
> and run the game service themselves... basically, taking me out of the
> loop entirely.
>
> #Well, the code is GPL, but the GFX, SFX, History, and so aren't GPL
> so you can't copy them. ( isn't this true? )
> #Someone don't steal but derive the work, if this happens you have two
> options:
> #a) Forgive your project and join then
> #b) Use their modifications ( that are GPL ) to make yours better. If
> I'm completely off here, I appologise.  I'm extremely new to the whole
> "open source" thing...
>
> # Well, Open Source is like Fire for the Primitive mens. Someone scary
> and others just get hot near it.

---

From: "EagleEye" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:23:37 -0600

> game for a big company under death-before-you-speak agreements.

This basically answers my question.  You see, I realize that people can copy
my ideas, but I'll be damned if they're gonna copy the work that I put into
it to accomplish what I (will have) accomplished.  If they want to copy my
idea, they'll have to implement it themselves, not grab all of my WORK
(because it's open source) and just "compile and run" my entire world.  I
don't care about the technology stuff, like those special gloves, or 3D
goggle implementation... I just want it so that if someone wants to copy
that skill tree of mine, they have to copy it from the ground up.  Not just
grab my source and say "Okay, it's mine now."  I'm not talking about
copyrights...

Look at it this way... I am copying some of the concepts from any number of
other MUDs, MMOLRPGs, and such... the concept of player housing is in Ultima
Online... I'm copying that, and making it better... What I'm not doing is
taking their source code for how they implemented it, and using it for my
own game... that stuff I have to do myself.  I don't care if people copy my
ideas, but I want to release them first, and I want them to have to put in
some of their own effort to make their "copy of my ideas" a reality.

> /em massages Jared's shoulders.

Hehe, thanks. :)

---

From: Dave Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:23:47 -0500

> > /em massages Jared's shoulders.

If someone is going to implement the same ideas, why should they waste
their time implementing them from scratch if your code is already
there?  Remember that any improvements they make will go back to you
(excluding the ASP loophole, but we're ignoring that).  Also, they will
have to give you credit (you have the copyright on your parts).  So, why
make them repeat the work?  Isn't that just a waste of their time? 
Also, if they have to redo it, they won't have to release their stuff,
so you won't get the benefit of their code.  Also, they could well end
up being less inventive, because they have to spend time just catching
up, rather than really innovating.  

I understand that you want your world to be unique - one way you can do
this is by having a less free license on media.  This is what Nevrax is
doing.  Another way is to not release your plots - after all, plot is
what makes a game (or ought to).  Remember, nobody will play a game that
is just like yours, but without your creativity.  

You can make money on free software, even sticking with the GPL.  RMS
did it for years, RedHat does it, Cygnus did it (now, RH owns them).  I
suggest that you seriously consider the benefits of free software from a
totally open mind - trying to think of it from a different point of view
- not "How can I lock world up?", but "How can I make my players
happier?"

I think you'll find that even among proprietary games, the most open
games had the best results - look at how customizable the Quake series
is.

Just my 2 cents.

--
-Dave Turner                                 Stalk me:  (215)-545-2859  
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is said that it is the curse of the neophobe to always see the 
symptoms as the disease, and to always make half measures" - Pug

---

From: Vincent Archer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:26:14 +0100

> (because it's open source) and just "compile and run" my entire world.  I
...
> some of their own effort to make their "copy of my ideas" a reality.

One important thing to know is, until you have released something, you are
under no obligation to put any source available. The GPL doesn't prevent
you from doing anything privately. It just says, "once other people run it,
you have to share the source". So do not worry about not being the first.

There's also a fact that, even if you release your server code, without
the data it holds, it's worthless. You speak of plot, of situations,
of recipes for game dynamics. All this (reread my message) isn't code.
It's data. You might have a few specific bits here and there of code,
but it's chiefly scripts that say how mobs react, items, events and code
tables, and all that.

To take another analogy: You are now mandated to release your network
MP3 player source. You are not mandated to release any of the MP3 you
composed.

That ties into another typical false belief about modern game design.
Code isn't what makes your game. Data is. A typical game development
team often features twice, or three times as many artists, level
designers, and game designers as pure coders. All that data production
isn't in the GPL. Apart from the level proper (i.e. art), none of it
never ever needs to appear on any site. And that's what makes the game.

> their time implementing them from scratch if your code is already

Hmm, that's not reassuring the guy who's just said he did NOT want
somebody doing that :)

> up, rather than really innovating.  

That's the real clincher, of course. If all they are doing is taking
your game, and running it under their name, then:

1) They're going to be second on the market
2) They're going to be late in coming, because they WILL have to spend a
   lot of time redoing your internal game data

If this is a commercial endeavour, the only way they can expect to
attract customers is if they do it a lot cheaper than you do.

That's where the real fun begins. People have to realise the difference
in paradigm between making, say, a Starcraft, and making a Shadowbane.
Running an on-line game isn't a software industry, it's a SERVICE
industry. The main costs isn't creating the game, it's dwarfed by
the cost of running it. A classic game costs $40 to buy. An on-line
game typically costs $150 if you play it for a year. Do you think
this means you've made $100 profits on the game? No. What this means
is that you've invested $100 in the game, the distributor got paid $20,
and got $30 profit, instead of investing $10, giving $20 in distribution
cost and getting $10 profit.

Those $100 invested are about $25 in game dev (heavier than classic games)
and $75 in infrastructure (server, bandwidth, customer service).

(that's simplistic, but it's relatively representative of what's behind
 an online game)

Your competitor will reduce its investment, but the infrastructure costs
remain not only identical, but the MAIN factor in costs. Forcing your
competitor to maintain its price close to yours.

In other words, stealing your game to run a competiting business isn't
a major problem. And if it becomes one, you have legal recourse against
them. After all, they copied your copyrighted works (the game data).
Why go to the investment of making a massive world, if you open yourself
to lawsuit.

And anyway, if you want to make an immense effort designing everything
by yourself, your counterfactor will still gain a lot of time, because
*he* will use NeL to catch up on code quickly :)

---

From: Charles Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:39:39 -0500

How much

---

From: Charles Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:45:07 -0500

> How much
Sorry hit the send button acidentaly.  On to the question.

How much band width do you think you will need for your server cluster 
when your service is up and running?

---

From: Vincent Archer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:56:34 +0100

> when your service is up and running?

About an OC12 (655Mbits) per user.

Ooops, sorry, was thinking about the pan-sensorial version with direct
neural feed for complete immersion :)

By design, we want to restrict the bandwidth to at most what a user with
a 57.6K modem can 'swallow' realistically, which means a bandwidth
of compressed data that tops at around 4Kbytes/s (or 32Kbits/s).

Multiply by the number of simultaneous people a cluster has to serve,
which we aim at around 3000-3500 players, and you get a little under
an OC4 per cluster (about 110Mbits) for theoretical peak usage.