GameCommanderPro

[Steph]

Hmm? I think I don't really get your point Otlecs! Keyclone authenticates with Keyclone's server at least once on startup. I never had it fail and understand that his server is down less than Blizzards. From what Aarelan said, GCP does phone home, but has fault tolerance built-in, so that you would be able to play even if GCP's authentication server can not be reached. So the amount of servers that need to be up so we can play doesn't go up.

I guess the only other phone home concern is account theft. An executeable that is permitted to phone home would be of course ideal for that, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear that any 'cracked' boxing software version does just that compliments of the helpful cracker. Genuine ftw. As far as trying a software directly from the manufactuer, it is a question of trust towards the manufacturer. Anyone connected to the account theft/gold farming business like a certain cretin who's banned here at DB.com is clearly disqualified in my book.

To me, GCP looks both legit and interesting. As I said above, I'd be happy to try it.

[Aarelan]

GameCommanderPro?
this is obviously an advert, I've never herd of it and I've tried almost everything talked about here ( hardware, most of the freewares, innerspace and keyclone ).

innerspace was very good but I'm stuck with keyclone, it has the features I want at a reasonable price, I-S wanted too much $ in my opinion.

To set the record straight at this point in the thread.

I am part of the GCP team. You can assume therefore that I am biased towards the product I represent.

I would however point out that we have strong ethics. For this reason I have been honest, from my first post, about who I am, and what I represent. I have also answered any questions raised here honestly, and to the best of my ability.

To my knowledge, nothing on this site is a advertisement, in fact all my posts, other than my initial introduction (which I don't think was particularly pushy) are replies.

The reason you haven't heard of GCP is that it's new.

I respect the fact that you have a choice, and all I would ask is that you take a look, and then let us know what you think.

Thanks in advance for taking the time

Phil

p.s. The starter of this thread is not associated with our product, but I've had a few PMs with him since his first post, and he's a nice guy. I'm sorry that mentioning our product has made him a target.

[Otlecs]

I applaud your open-mindedness (made up word?!) on this.

I would certainly be prepared to allow a one-time connection to establish a license, even if that then meant that it was locked into that machine.

But you would need some form of license transfer mechanism as well - either manual or automated.

One of the issues I've seen come up with other products is that if the customer changes what they consider to be a fairly innocuous aspect of their configuration, the sysid (or whatever mechanism is used to identify the machine) gets regenerated and the software just stops working.

I for one would buy the product to give it a good try if I could totally firewall it and have it still work on a single machine.

With the removal of that dependency, I might even be tempted to use more than the maximiser and key broadcasting features to which I have thusfar restricted myself

[JamieW]

One quick note I'd like to add:

Looking at the website, it seems to be pretty game-generic, however with the GCP add-on for WOW, and the examples given for WOW, it lends me to believe that its only really been tested thoroughly for use with WOW.

I multi-box LOTRO, I used to multi-box DAOC... there are smaller communities of multi-boxers for these non-WOW games and more (EQ1, EQ2, etc.). They don't tend to allow the same kind of add-on/mod support that WOW does, so before getting involved in any product, it's nice to know what will be and won't be available features, and whether it even works with the product. A listing on your website, or a 7-day trial would be a very nice thing to have for people to make sure that it works on THEIR hardware configuration with THEIR prefered MMO.

[Aarelan]

I applaud your open-mindedness (made up word?!) on this.

I would certainly be prepared to allow a one-time connection to establish a license, even if that then meant that it was locked into that machine.

But you would need some form of license transfer mechanism as well - either manual or automated.

One of the issues I've seen come up with other products is that if the customer changes what they consider to be a fairly innocuous aspect of their configuration, the sysid (or whatever mechanism is used to identify the machine) gets regenerated and the software just stops working.

I for one would buy the product to give it a good try if I could totally firewall it and have it still work on a single machine.

With the removal of that dependency, I might even be tempted to use more than the maximiser and key broadcasting features to which I have thusfar restricted myself

The fact that our current solution is insensitive to machine configuration changes, and is a user registration rather than a machine registration, was one of the major factors in our decision to go the way we did. We also liked the slick registration process, and that the system would still work if the security server was down.

I think that, even with what we have now, you could firewall the program to satisfy your security requirements. I would suggest this:

The installation requires no connection, and can be fire walled till it squeeks.
The security module and key interceptor module run as two separate processes, and can be identified as such by the fire wall.
The security module is provided by a 3rd party, and does not connect to our site. (I can supply the details if required, so you can check them out)
The key interceptor module (which is the bit that could grab sensitive information) can be blocked. It does attempt to listen on a port, but that's for running linked copies of GCP, and for a single copy, is not required. The security module has no access to the intercepted key data (which, as a matter of interest, is not stored - only the last key is held in memory, so even if something did scan our process memory, it couldn't see a password)

This, should, I think answer your concerns about us stealing your keys. As for your disquiet about being dependent on another service, I'd like it if you'd give it a chance, before deciding it's a bad thing. As I said, I really don't having to use security mechanisms at all, but given the need, I really do think this is the best (or at maybe least bad).

If people do report problems with the security module, we could change it within hours.

Phil

[KTSid]

I'm not for or against the product since I know nothing of it but as a consumer I get tired of any company bashing or even mentioning the next guy in their advertisements. Then turns around and wonders why people didn’t trust him initially. *sigh*

Sorry, I'm slightly confused by what you're asking.

I don't believe I've bashed anyone.

Phil

Umm yea you missed that quote. Those two sentence don't go togather and I was obviously speaking about more than one person in that post. Which either way you missed the point of the post. But no worries....Moving on!

[Aarelan]

One quick note I'd like to add:

Looking at the website, it seems to be pretty game-generic, however with the GCP add-on for WOW, and the examples given for WOW, it lends me to believe that its only really been tested thoroughly for use with WOW.

I multi-box LOTRO, I used to multi-box DAOC... there are smaller communities of multi-boxers for these non-WOW games and more (EQ1, EQ2, etc.). They don't tend to allow the same kind of add-on/mod support that WOW does, so before getting involved in any product, it's nice to know what will be and won't be available features, and whether it even works with the product. A listing on your website, or a 7-day trial would be a very nice thing to have for people to make sure that it works on THEIR hardware configuration with THEIR prefered MMO.

Wow has been the game that we've done most of our testing on. The entire interface to the game is via the game definition file. Clearly the in game displays would not be available, but most of the other functionality would be. We're actually looking for people to work with from other games, as we're all WoW players.

** WARNING - The following is not for the faint hearted **, but geeks may carry on ...
This is not intended to be easily understood, but should illustrate how flexible GCP is.
Please note this lot is a one time game configuration thing. Normal users never need to be involved

For anyone who's interested, this is an excerpt from our game definition file:

; Format of each line is <Prefix>|<Content>|<Suffix>|<Test>|<TESTONLY>
; Prefix - Included before content
; Suffix - Included after content
; Content - Can be O=Options,T=Target,S=Source
; Test - How to decide whether to include this element. Can be EXISTS, LIST, NOTLIST
; LIST tests options to see if there are more than one (separated by comma)
; TESTONLY - if this is included, will test the content, but not add it (include literals conditionaly)

Command=CAST
<<|S|>>;|Exists
Macro /cast |O||NOTLIST|TESTONLY
MultiSpell |O||LIST|TESTONLY
[target=|T|] |Exists
|O|;|


This provides the input definition a command (i.e. what you type). It's a little cryptic but not too bad once you get the hang of it.
The general syntax for a game command is:
[Command] [Options] On [Target] From [Source]

The above says:
If [command] is cast
if source is specified, prefix it with "<<" and postfix it with ">>;" - the semi colon is a line break in the output.
the next line is included only if [options] is not a list (comma separated), and generates the text "Macro /Cast" - test only says test the options, but don't output them
the next line generates a multi option version (e.g. cast x,y,z) would trigger this.
the next line includes the [target] if specified, prefixed by "[target=" and postfixed by "] "
the next line includes the options, suffixed by ";"

So an input of Cast X On Y From Z would generate the code:
<<Z>>
Macro /cast [target=y] X


An excerpt from the output section (what GCP sends to the game):

Command=Macro
InternalText=Hit %InternalKey%
GameText=@macro %Externalkey%,%CommandText%@

When GCP encounters the macro command (as used in the above) it will generate 2 code elements. One will be run locally (within GCP) and the other is the stuff which is sent to the game. InternalKey and ExternalKey are generated by the program, and commandtext is the text generated by the input rule.
Gametext is sent to the game when we upload, and is a command as the GCP addon expects to see it, and instructs it to create a macro and bind a key.
The internaltext is executed within GCP and, in this case, hits a key.

If this makes sense to anyone, and you are interested in helping is move GCP to other games, then let us know.

[Otlecs]

I'm definitely intrigued.

As for your disquiet about being dependent on another service, I'd like it if you'd give it a chance, before deciding it's a bad thing

I've been using KC for years. I must have been one of the earliest customers, in fact. I have... erm... six? licenses, and have never, not once, had a problem connecting to his server.

So I'm not denouncing it as a Bad Thing because I've had any bad experience here.

I'm more concerned about the "what if"s. What if KC just gets bored and turns it off? What if (God forbid) something should happen to him? What if I want to box and the server really does have a technical failure that's not fixed in the time I want to box? I am the personification of "time poor" and not being able to do what I want to do, when I want to do it, would be very frustrating.

I really do want a piece of software that I just buy, install, and it works. And keeps working.

I want to be able to choose to take updates because they address a specific issue I'm having, or because they add a feature I just can't do without. Again, I'll say that I've never been forced to update KC, but the idea of a mandatory upgrade has been mooted just lately.

So, although I am indeed appropriately paranoid about security on my systems, it's really all about making sure that things will always work, come hell or high water.

My accounts are all authenticator protected, so I'm not overly concerned about those details being stolen although obviously I'd be a bit more concerned about other information, not protected by an authenticator type device, being potentially being up for grabs

We also liked the slick registration process, and that the system would still work if the security server was down

I note that you mentioned that it will become "more lenient" once it's been able to connect a number of times, but do you know for how long it will continue to work if it detects an internet connection but is unable to phone home?

Thanks again.

[KTSid]

/sigh

Phil never made any comparisions to any other software. Go look at the website. They don't do side by sides of any software there either. The user can do the comparision themselves.

Every new product will get scrutinized and some folks will jump to conclusions. Keyclone had it rough and IS had it really rough when Lax broke in here. I have used Keyclone and IS for boxing and they both work well. I look forward to testing out the new software on the block.

You need to take a deep breath and then re-read my post. Not that it matters that you missed what I was saying and my point. :whistling:

[Svpernova09]

Welcome to the software section.