Forums » General
Is a family discont now avaliable, so that mulitiple people can play together in the same household at a discounted rate. I would love to be able to play with my wife at the same time, but can't aford to pay 20 a month. Im sure there are others that have more family members that would like to play at the same time.
I you can jsut use alts with the same log-in?
No i just tried
this would be nice. just have to find an unexploitable way.
I'm glad that this subject has been brought up again. My daughter, her husband
and their son had been playing since Alpha. It was fun and informative, as they have three computers and a home network. When I visited them we could all play
at once, and were within speaking distance at the same time. Well, to make it brief,
we brought up this subject here on the 'board. At the time, one of the Devs responded, saying that he favored the idea and would look in to it. We know that
the Devs are busier than cats covering s**t, but, uhh, is there any hope for a "Family
Pak" or something like it?
and their son had been playing since Alpha. It was fun and informative, as they have three computers and a home network. When I visited them we could all play
at once, and were within speaking distance at the same time. Well, to make it brief,
we brought up this subject here on the 'board. At the time, one of the Devs responded, saying that he favored the idea and would look in to it. We know that
the Devs are busier than cats covering s**t, but, uhh, is there any hope for a "Family
Pak" or something like it?
I might have a way around this.
Sometimes, I let my 7 year old son (Antoine, known as "Toine Velaio") play and since he doesn't speak/read english, I have to sit next to him to explain what to do. It would be really nice if I could fly next to him and play with him ratter than just tell him what to do. But for this, I would need to do two logins with my account.
What could be done is, in the account info, have an option called "Enable shared account" (disabled by default).
Once enabled, a second (perhaps only a second) login could be done and be active ONLY if the first login is in effect. This way, you couldn't share you account to a remote friend because it would force you to be online for the other machine to be enabled.
To make this work, a number of machine ethernet network numbers (the unique MAC address in every network card) could serve as "machine IDs". For a given account you could register, if Shared Account is enabled, a number (2 max?) of MAC addresses and only these N machines could be used with the shared accounts.
Let's say I have Shared Account enabled and I've entered two MAC addresses:
Machine 1: 01:02:03:04:05:06
Machine 2: 0A:0B:0C:0D:0E:0F
From the same account info setting, Machine 1 is designated as "primary" machine.
This means that Machine 2 can not login if Machine 1 is not connected.
Machine 1 connects, then Machine 2 connects.
If Machine 1 disconnects, the system disconnects Machine 2 as well.
This keeps your "remote friend" wanting to use your account from playing if you are not, thus defeating part of the "pirating" that could be done.
Another fail safe:
Machine 1 connects.
Machine 2 launched Vendetta and tries to connect. Before connecting, Machine 2 checks if Machine 1 (who's MAC address is in the account info page it got from the server) if Machine 1 is on the local subnet. If it is, then it's pretty sure it's in the same location.
Now, this wouldn't keep anyone using office computers from using a large number of machines available on the same subnet. but given only 2 machines could be setup in Shared Accounts, and that Machine 2 requires Machine 1 being logged in, then the restrictions are enough to ensure the server is not abused.
Sometimes, I let my 7 year old son (Antoine, known as "Toine Velaio") play and since he doesn't speak/read english, I have to sit next to him to explain what to do. It would be really nice if I could fly next to him and play with him ratter than just tell him what to do. But for this, I would need to do two logins with my account.
What could be done is, in the account info, have an option called "Enable shared account" (disabled by default).
Once enabled, a second (perhaps only a second) login could be done and be active ONLY if the first login is in effect. This way, you couldn't share you account to a remote friend because it would force you to be online for the other machine to be enabled.
To make this work, a number of machine ethernet network numbers (the unique MAC address in every network card) could serve as "machine IDs". For a given account you could register, if Shared Account is enabled, a number (2 max?) of MAC addresses and only these N machines could be used with the shared accounts.
Let's say I have Shared Account enabled and I've entered two MAC addresses:
Machine 1: 01:02:03:04:05:06
Machine 2: 0A:0B:0C:0D:0E:0F
From the same account info setting, Machine 1 is designated as "primary" machine.
This means that Machine 2 can not login if Machine 1 is not connected.
Machine 1 connects, then Machine 2 connects.
If Machine 1 disconnects, the system disconnects Machine 2 as well.
This keeps your "remote friend" wanting to use your account from playing if you are not, thus defeating part of the "pirating" that could be done.
Another fail safe:
Machine 1 connects.
Machine 2 launched Vendetta and tries to connect. Before connecting, Machine 2 checks if Machine 1 (who's MAC address is in the account info page it got from the server) if Machine 1 is on the local subnet. If it is, then it's pretty sure it's in the same location.
Now, this wouldn't keep anyone using office computers from using a large number of machines available on the same subnet. but given only 2 machines could be setup in Shared Accounts, and that Machine 2 requires Machine 1 being logged in, then the restrictions are enough to ensure the server is not abused.
Ethernet addresses are not visible outside the Ethernet network, although it would be nice if a system similiar to that which you described were implemented.
-:sigma.SB
-:sigma.SB
Yeah, but the client application can send that to the server. The client send the user credentials (account + password) and the MAC address along with it, if Shared Account is turned on.
Server then compares the sent MAC address from thel list it has from the account info.
Server then compares the sent MAC address from thel list it has from the account info.
So.. My computer changes mac every time I re-initialize the drivers.
What are you going to do about such a situation?
( firmware upload. It loses the MAC address in that case and it has to be restored, or it will pick a very silly one thats registered to, I think, a wireless router)
What are you going to do about such a situation?
( firmware upload. It loses the MAC address in that case and it has to be restored, or it will pick a very silly one thats registered to, I think, a wireless router)
mgl_mouser: many (most?) Ethernet cards have tools that allow you to change the MAC address. Also, if the client has to read it and send it, then it's not too difficult to intercept the read and replace it with another MAC.
Another problem with your proposal is that it forces anyone who wants to play to first see if "Machine 1" is available, and if not, then use "Machine 2". This works OK if you're playing with a 7 year old, but if I have to coordinate my schedule with grandpa Ki110rZ it's not going to work.
Why not just require payment for each accout in the "Family Pack" to be paid with the same Credit Card (or other payment method)? It's just as exploitable as any other method we can think up, but it's simple and addresses the problem at the source (solve a financial problem with a financial solution).
Another problem with your proposal is that it forces anyone who wants to play to first see if "Machine 1" is available, and if not, then use "Machine 2". This works OK if you're playing with a 7 year old, but if I have to coordinate my schedule with grandpa Ki110rZ it's not going to work.
Why not just require payment for each accout in the "Family Pack" to be paid with the same Credit Card (or other payment method)? It's just as exploitable as any other method we can think up, but it's simple and addresses the problem at the source (solve a financial problem with a financial solution).
As far as grandpa is concerned, the point is to provide a site license. Not a clan license.
If you cant see the machine next to you or yell out asking your bro upstairs if he's playing, then that's not VO's problem.
We could associate characters to specific machines (bound to the ethernet address).
The ethernet address (oppose IP address) is not something one can change trivially. Besides, making sure you dont allow login of multiple machines with same MAC/ethernet address solves the issue.
AND they have to be on the same subnet (the client can check and report to the server wich machines it sees that are associated with the Shared Account.
This provides enough safeguards, IMHO, for this to be viable. It's even more tamper proof than getting a friend to pay half the monthly fee of VO and do time sharing on the account. I bet this is already going on. Each participant use a different character.
If you cant see the machine next to you or yell out asking your bro upstairs if he's playing, then that's not VO's problem.
We could associate characters to specific machines (bound to the ethernet address).
The ethernet address (oppose IP address) is not something one can change trivially. Besides, making sure you dont allow login of multiple machines with same MAC/ethernet address solves the issue.
AND they have to be on the same subnet (the client can check and report to the server wich machines it sees that are associated with the Shared Account.
This provides enough safeguards, IMHO, for this to be viable. It's even more tamper proof than getting a friend to pay half the monthly fee of VO and do time sharing on the account. I bet this is already going on. Each participant use a different character.
I'm not so thrilled about sending userID/password/MAC address information in an unprotected packet. That's a bit TOO much info going out, in my opinion. Also, I play on a laptop. When at home, I tend to connect wirelessly. When at a friends house, I usually have to plug in. I'm not sure, but I think my wireless card reports a different MAC address than my NIC. (not at home atm, might check later)
My gut feeling is that this approach is overly complicated. And it only partially solves the problem. Suppose I wanted to enable my wife to play the game. Currently, we have to share the laptop, so we would take turns playing. If I wanted to play against her, I would have to run over to the office to use my computer there. But even that wouldn't work with your proposal.
Perhaps a family license costing $15/month that gives 3 logins would make sense. Additional logins costing $5/month extra, meaning that for 5 logins on one account, the cost would be $25/month. So what if a few guys could get together and save a few bucks? At least then they are still shooting some cash over to the devs, as opposed to recycling trial accounts.
My gut feeling is that this approach is overly complicated. And it only partially solves the problem. Suppose I wanted to enable my wife to play the game. Currently, we have to share the laptop, so we would take turns playing. If I wanted to play against her, I would have to run over to the office to use my computer there. But even that wouldn't work with your proposal.
Perhaps a family license costing $15/month that gives 3 logins would make sense. Additional logins costing $5/month extra, meaning that for 5 logins on one account, the cost would be $25/month. So what if a few guys could get together and save a few bucks? At least then they are still shooting some cash over to the devs, as opposed to recycling trial accounts.
"recycling trial accounts" Ugh... I'd hate going through levels 1-4 for every license over and and over again...
/me wishes for Utopia, where no one would exploit a Family/Group discount, only those entitled to it would apply, and we wouldn't need any of these nasty security measures.
/me wishes for Utopia, where no one would exploit a Family/Group discount, only those entitled to it would apply, and we wouldn't need any of these nasty security measures.
Yes there is hope for a family-pricing solution. Yes.. must.. prioritize.. stuff..
Also, the authentication information sent from VO is not unprotected. We encrypt all of that.
I agree with the "simple billing solution" variant. It's exploitable, but we'll require a single card and just give price breaks for account batches. I'm just not sure how much of a price break.
Also, the authentication information sent from VO is not unprotected. We encrypt all of that.
I agree with the "simple billing solution" variant. It's exploitable, but we'll require a single card and just give price breaks for account batches. I'm just not sure how much of a price break.
iTripped,
a simple urine sample would ensure that you're really familly.
*ducks*
a simple urine sample would ensure that you're really familly.
*ducks*
How about being able to buy additional logins for an account. For example I have two kids that want to play. If I could subscribe one account and purchase two additional concurrent logins at a discount, the programers could check that they are all coming from the same IP (I'm on a dsl connection behind a broadband router) or class C network. We would then use different characters saved in the same account. Justr a suggestion. Thanks for your time.
lol mouser. no need to duck - my bladder is empty.
I would have to agree with that one from csgno1. I have 7 computers here @ my location, 4 desktops and 2 laptops. But we all (4 of us) used to play on EnB all the time and was AWESOME! We want to be able to do the same on here, but don't want to pay $40/mo...can we do something please!!
My kids complain that I play VO too often so that they are excluded. Is there any foothold for offering a family plan or something?
discounted rates to indivituals using the same LAN would work for some things... not for others though (my bro lives in MN, I in FL, and I just bought him the retail, but we can't afford to maintain two paid accounts at full price)
...I just hope there's a workaround in the future
...I just hope there's a workaround in the future