Joining Forces for mutual benefit

[gemcneill]

As we all know MW3 and BF3 are coming out on the same day. We also know that gameservers.com received exclusive rights to host Blackops servers last time around. I would like to prevent this but I alone do not have the pull to do this. However if we banded together perhaps we could secure the rights to host MW3. As a large confederation of GSPs that would adhere to specific rules and standards when dealing with games acquired under that banner, we might have the pull necessary to do this. This would also create a standard that potential customers could look for when choosing a GSP. I believe it is worth our time to debate this and try to come to an universal agreement on how this would work. I have my own ideas on what the standards should be but instead of going into specifics I will just outline what I think should be considered.

 

1. Different Tiers. This would allow multiple levels of GSPs that could be apart of this confederation. This way it is easy to get started, but the requirements for higher tiers provide overall better service and have additional benefits (i.e. staggered game server offerings based on level)

 

2. Security. This would be the excepted levels of security required for joining. This would also be tiered that way it is easy for upstarts to get in but more security is required obtain higher standing.

 

3. Footprint. Again this would also be tiered. Their would be requirements for each tier for the number of services you offer and the locations you offer it.

 

4. Service Quality. The requirements for quality service determined by best practices, and hardware. This would include but not be limited to number of support employees, processes for returns/refunds, hardware speeds (drive setup, processor (number of and type), ect)

 

5. Adherence to the standards. This would cover how to deal with those that want to advance in status as well as those that fall in status. Suggestions would be a grading system (min requirement to maintain status or advance), three strike system for major infractions, and contracts that must be signed so legal action can be taken against those that continue to use privileges but do not meet the requirements.

 

These are just some of the ideas as to how this should play out. As for the governing body of this organization? I would say it would fall to those that are apart of the organization at its creation, and will change as some drop out and others rise up from new recruits. Your level should not affect your chance to become apart of the governing org. This will prevent higher level GSPs from controlling the organization. I do not believe there should be any dues or fees with this at first but it might become necessary.

 

Please state your opinions on this but lets not have this turn into a flame war. I know that the long time users here have been on their own for some time, but I believe that this is something necessary for this business to survive.

 

George

[studeggle]

1. Different Tiers. This would allow multiple levels of GSPs that could be apart of this confederation. This way it is easy to get started, but the requirements for higher tiers provide overall better service and have additional benefits (i.e. staggered game server offerings based on level)

 

All business plans are different, the moment a business starts trying to take its directions on operations from an alternate body they are going to have two masters. And no one can serve two masters so the business will likely fail if it doesn't get smart in time and leave the organizations policies out of there operations. The organizations would need to establish standards for acceptance if they wish to be taken seriously, and you either meet them or you don't.

 

2. Security. This would be the excepted levels of security required for joining. This would also be tiered that way it is easy for upstarts to get in but more security is required obtain higher standing.

 

 

Either you are or you are not secured, there is no middle ground. And poor system security is one of the big reasons game writers listed for not wanting to release dedicated server files. So the idea of tiered security immediately starts to push the orginization out of the running.

 

3. Footprint. Again this would also be tiered. Their would be requirements for each tier for the number of services you offer and the locations you offer it.

 

Incorrectly choosing footprint is what has killed many of the GSP of days gone by. If a business wishes to survive they should not allow any alternate organization to dictate their footprint and they should steer clear of any organization wishing to do so.

 

4. Service Quality. The requirements for quality service determined by best practices, and hardware. This would include but not be limited to number of support employees, processes for returns/refunds, hardware speeds (drive setup, processor (number of and type), ect)

 

And how do you purpose to control a multitude of different service formulas. Each company creates their own unique mix of machines resources and support options to cash ratios. A company that bases its prices on strong equipment but limited support would cater well to a knowledgeable individual trying to save cash, while limited resources but tons of support would cater to the newbie looking to be hand held but save money, and of course the heavy on both would have high prices so cater to the financial set customer who simply expects it all. And those three are just the extremes everything in-between exists so it'd be a full time job to say the least to try and monitor and arbitrate. Closest you could expect to come would be a complaint listing and arbitration system like the BBB uses for rating company quality.

 

5. Adherence to the standards. This would cover how to deal with those that want to advance in status as well as those that fall in status. Suggestions would be a grading system (min requirement to maintain status or advance), three strike system for major infractions, and contracts that must be signed so legal action can be taken against those that continue to use privileges but do not meet the requirements.

 

No major problems here, although legal action is far more easily said then done. You'd need a nice coffer established to cover legal fees. Also realize once dissolved most company's would leave the organization no recourse so how do you prevent the suicide company from destroying the organizations reputation with game producers. The excuse of "They were just one company that did (this or that) and they are no longer part of us/no longer exist" is not going to go very far in appeasing the game producers. If you want the organization to be the power of all then it must be responsible for the actions of all. Thereby leaving it very vulnerable.

[SickPuppy]

The only way I see a coop working is in the area of resource sharing. Most of us operate at excess capacity, either excess servers or excess rackspace. Setting up a shared resource program allows us to reduce fixed cost which increases contribution margins. The GSPs that participate in the program simply share their excess resources.

 

Example, I have excess rackspace in Dallas and Atlanta. I need space in Washington so I swap rack space with another GSP in the program. I put a server in his rack and he puts a server in one of my racks. We both benefit by increasing our number of servers online and adding another location without any increase in fixed expenses.

 

For EU GSPs you could do a server swap and save the shipping cost. Example, I need a server in Germany and one of the German GSPs needs a server in Dallas. I give the German GSP access to one of my Dallas servers and he gives me access to one of his Germany servers of equal performance.

 

The closer a company can get to operating at 100% capacity the higher the contribution margin which means higher profits.

[gemcneill]

Sick Puppy- I am not sure this is inline with what I am wanting to do. I see where you are going from a stand point of shared resources and mutual benefit but my purpose is to obtain closed dedicated server licensing. What you are suggesting is not counter-productive to this idea, but it is not helping develop the purpose of the confederation.

 

studeggle- Your business ideas are clear that you do not want any type of organization to control your business other than you. We all serve multiple masters for different reasons. If you have a ventrilo license, you must do what they require of you otherwise you lose it, same for teamspeak or merchant accounts. They do not operate or create rules that are best for you, but for them.

 

As for security, I am pretty sure we would all fall under "not secure" None of us are completely secure. In fact I would say some are more secure than others in different areas across the board. Creating an expectation of what is considered secure is what I am referring to. Requirements would be things like firewalls, antivirus, tcadmin security, OS hardening, ect. How you implement this security would determine your tier (i.e. windows firewall, hardware firewall, specific ips only for admin access to tcadmin). So a person that is using a hardware firewall would have a higher security rating than a person using only a windows firewall would be an example.

 

As for footprint, what you offer and where you offer it is determined by you, not by the organization. However you are rewarded for increasing your foot print. It is still your decision. If you foolishly expand when you should not, that is not the fault of the organization, but the business. As in anything you must way the costs and the rewards. You may want to expand to get a better status under the organization, but you have to be a good business minded person and see if it is possible.

 

Service quality. We all know how a good game server feels and how a bad one feels. We all also know what good customer service is and what is not good customer service. So do our customers. Yes will you have customers that have unrealistic expectations, but they are in the minority. A customer survey can be done server performance, server reliability, and customer support on a 1 to 5 scale. The real issue here is how to prevent gaming the system (i.e. false surveys) This would require a lot of work and vigilance to prevent this.

 

Adherence to the standards- My thinking on this would be a key system. Basically we would have to work with the game providers and ask them to create multiple keys. The idea being that each key would be assigned to each provider that qualifies. This way if a provider no longer meets the standards, the key can be disabled. This is how teamspeak handles their licensing currently. It would have to be black and white on when a key would be disabled. Some infractions would be on a warning system, and give you time to fix the issue, while others, once broken, would result in immediate suspension of the key. The legal wording of the document would be key and probably expensive but worth it once completed.

 

I still think think this is a viable idea and we should try to hash it out. Resource sharing is an idea, but not where I am heading with this. It could definitely be tied into something like this, but first the confederation would have to exist. Sick I would love to discuss this more detail with you but it might be best to do this outside this post and maybe create its own.