Dedicated Client and Browser versions.

[Nashius-Maximus]

How about having a dedicated game client to download and use along side the browser version?

I've been recently playing the rather fine drakensang online that has both browser and dedicated client versions and users can use either one at will. If you have issues with the browser version the client is far more stable and often quicker with caching. It avoids issues with user specific plugins and settings but of course can be more susceptible to hacking and adds another layer of testing to the development.

Should TSO consider this as a more stable and dependable implementation for users with problems?

I for one find the client system preferable as it frees up my browser and avoids slowdown with flash content and the new annoying 'flash sound crackle' problem.

[ambandil]

where is the profit for them to do this? - if there isn't a clear profit to do it, why should they do it - the usual questions about investments really

[Nashius-Maximus]

The profit is in that you have a stable dedicated client that should cure the vast number of bug issues they have to deal with due to the unknowable settings on a clients machine. Customers with issues can be directed to it and might find it preferable to cancelling their account. It certainly helped cure lag and login issues on Drakensang and received a lot of praise when it was released. It doesn't replace the browser version and can still be used and played that way but if you have any issues with login, graphics and some lag issues it can be a good solution.

It has the added benefit of reducing server stain with data held locally rather than constantly being downloaded every time... which is where some hacking issues come in.. no one solution will ever solve every issue but it it's one that worked very well elsewhere and might be worthy of consideration.

[Nogbad]

It also would have certain administrative benefits too, for instance weeding out the farmers.

[Dopey]

I think this might be something to consider in a couple of years. Right now i would rather they focus on actually creating a game to put into a client instead of a boring tedium and repetitive stain injury. I guess mostly what I'm saying is give us PvP first then think about a client.

I like this idea though and i guess it would depend on how easily a client could be created without impacting current feature roll out dates.

[ambandil]

it takes resources to make and test a dedicated client- and probably also involves buying an engine for it- so rest assured it will impact current feature roll out dates

And all benefits listed so far, will have limited or no benefits for BB- where the benefits will be measured in bottom line results and risk management on their software (and as a listed risk- stand alone client with moving data to it opens up hacking risks and do the math- how many people need to buy how many gems to earn back the development time and cost for a stand alone client and only then is it possible to make up the maths)

I can see the benefits for the player base- just not for BB so i don;t expect this to happen anytime soon if ever. There is a good reason they chose browser platform i guess, not some random choice

[Nogbad]

it takes resources to make and test a dedicated client- and probably also involves buying an engine for it- so rest assured it will impact current feature roll out dates

And all benefits listed so far, will have limited or no benefits for BB- where the benefits will be measured in bottom line results and risk management on their software (and as a listed risk- stand alone client with moving data to it opens up hacking risks and do the math- how many people need to buy how many gems to earn back the development time and cost for a stand alone client and only then is it possible to make up the maths)

I can see the benefits for the player base- just not for BB so i don;t expect this to happen anytime soon if ever. There is a good reason they chose browser platform i guess, not some random choice

Unforunately, the choice of Flash pretty much throws those arguments out of the water. It's unstable, easily hackable, slow, and unable to cope with the demands put upon it, besides which, it stresses your own computer beyond reason and causes an unacceptable load on your internet connection. There are better platforms available which could have made the browser route more acceptable.
I played poker online, and the choice between Client and Flash was a no-brainer. Flash lost you money, as your turn was timed out long before you'd even seen your cards, I even played 2 accounts on the same table, and could see from the client version, that my Flash self was holding up the game, yet on the Flash screen, I was still playing in the previous hand! It was useless.
I would even seriously consider it worthwhile to pay a small subscription fee for a client version, if it meant doing away with all these wasted hours.
Flash may seem like a cheap option to the accountants, but it is really a false economy.