Single client, multiple server license?

Submitted by richt314 on #1

I have a probably somewhat unique application, but one that I think is becoming more common, and I was wondering if you'd consider a solution.

I have a dedicated game server, which I use to run PC games and stream with Nvidia's Gamestream functionality. I have multiple clients that I use to play the games on, for example two laptops, and two Nvidia Shield TVs.

Gamestream has some built-in functionality for gamepads, but not for other USB devices (specialized controllers) I'd like to use and have passed through to the server.

My problem is that in this scenario, the "client" and "server" model is opposite of VirtualHere. If I wanted to use VirtualHere to pass devices, my laptops and shields are considered "servers", and each need their own $49 license.

In reality, I only need one VirtualHere "server" to be active at a time, but I understand that you don't support floating licenses, and don't want to.

Is there some model that would work where there could be a sort of reverse licensing stream, with a paid client, and multiple free servers?

Submitted by Michael on Sat, 2020/10/24 - 11:56

#2

Hi, i dont really want to do that. The reason is virtualhere is already very cheap and regularly updated compared with any open-source (e.g usbip) or commercial competitor (e.g eltima) I feel that vitualhere is priced about right for the maximum amount of people to purchase. (In fact its is way too cheap, it needs to be much more expensive, but i want as many people to purchase and use it as commercially possible)

So I dont really feel that having to spend $49 is unreasonable to be honest. Sure if you have 5 or 6 servers it might get expensive but basically its still vastly cheaper than any competitor and i dont want to reduce the price further, i cant be bothered "scraping the bottom of the barrel" for sales as they say.

If you could guarantee huge numbers of sales (e.g like valve) then i can make this sort of change (which i have done for valve) but not just for individuals as its not commercially viable.

Submitted by richt314 on Sun, 2020/10/25 - 12:58

#3

I agree that $49 is a good price point. At $49, if I were gaming with one device, it would be a no-brainer, definitely worth buying something commercial and supported rather than messing with USB-IP or something similar.

I understand that you're also quite a bit cheaper than the alternatives out there, it seems most of them are catering toward sharing expensive license dongles or something else that probably makes sense in business settings, not for casual users like me.

However, I won't spend $200 for four VirtualHere licenses four devices going, and I'm not going to buy a license for just one or two of them, for me at least, it's an all-or-nothing sort of thing. $49 is cheap enough for me to pay if I could solve all of my needs, but any more and I will try to make the open-source solutions work instead.

Of course I can't guarantee huge numbers, I'm just a user. But I can tell you that the use case is definitely out there, and I've seem VirtualHere recommended lots of places for people who are using Gamestream and similar solutions to stream their games from another PC. However, I've also seen people who have decided not to purchase, because like me, they have multiple devices that would be considered "servers" for VirtualHere, and they don't want to pay for each individual one. Just a thought, and I think an untapped market - I don't think your competitors offer this either.

Submitted by mtwomey on Wed, 2020/10/28 - 12:09

#4

That's funny to read this - I am doing something very similar, also streaming everything through nvidia. In my case I'm running a device through a RP to hook up to my basement game server. I also use multiple clients. I agree that VH is a great value for a business / corporate setup. In my can I would have dropped the $50 w/o question if it weren't for the limitation / uncertainty on swapping out hardware. This product has been around for quite some time so I'm sure it's price has found equilibrium, although I will say I'm surprised to hear it wouldn't sell a "crap ton" more if there were a non-commercial, less restrictive license option.

Submitted by Michael on Wed, 2020/10/28 - 12:33

#5

Actually the solution to this is for nvidia to license it because they can deal with the licensing issues just like valve and they have a much bigger audience. Maybe i will try to convince them :)

Submitted by richt314 on Wed, 2020/10/28 - 22:58

#7

That would be nice, but I'd be kinda surprised if they went for it, or had a good model for making it happen. I'll explain further:

-The gaming server is a normal PC, with an NVidia card, required for the gamestream process.
-Two of the clients are NVidia Shield devices, maybe NVidia would potentially be interested in a licensing deal for those, but they do already have a solution that passes through a virtual gamepad for use with their gamepads on the Shield, so they might not bite at that.
-Two of my other clients are laptops, running the open-source Moonlight client, which is essentially faking the gamestream client interface, pretending to be a Shield device.
-Other clients could be phones or tablets, also running Moonlight.

Obviously, being free and open-source, Moonlight isn't going to be interested in a licensing deal.

To complicate things further, other streaming solutions exist - Parsec, Steam streaming from computer to computer (which correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe doesn't work with your Steam licensing deal). The people using these solutions typically use VirtualHere as a solution if they're content with one client and one server, but I think the market exists for those who would like to use more.

Submitted by mtwomey on Thu, 2020/10/29 - 03:12

#8

I also use moonlight extensively. Hopefully something regarding licensing will come in the future - but your points on the challenges to getting there make sense. Ufortunately it just doesn’t seem like the licensing is “friendly” to users like us at this point in time (but we might not really be the kind of users that Virtualhere is trying to capture / sell to).

Submitted by Michael on Thu, 2020/10/29 - 08:33

#9

Yes im not sure how to do this. I more a tech guy and a one man shop here so i dont do any marketing or contact any potential customers. I probably should learn to do that. Anyways originally when i wrote virtualhere i wrote it to be standalone and not need the internet so it could be embedded into device firmware. This model has worked well so far. Regarding android server devices, I notice google is changing android payments so that all apps are forced to use their payment system. They do have an online licensing system which i will need to hook into. But the price of virtualhere will likely go up because i think google takes a 30% cut. Anyways thats coming next year so i think that might allow floating licenses at least in android.

Submitted by richt314 on Fri, 2020/10/30 - 00:31

#10

What about this: Licensing could be an option for both the client and the server, but only one of the two is required to be licensed, so essentially you're licensing the connection between the two, and don't need to worry about the complications of floating licenses, internet connectivity, or anything like that.

So then, for all of your existing customers, nothing changes - their server is licensed, and their clients are not. When they make a connection, the server is licensed, so everything is good.

For those who want to go the other way around, like me, I can choose to license a single client device, and have my servers be unlicensed. When they connect, they will see that the VirtualHere client is licensed, so it can operate.

Hopefully this would be relatively straightforward to implement, requiring only local communication, no floating licensing or anything like that - it can still be tied to specific hardware, and is still effectively requiring one license for each application of the software. My purpose for using VirtualHere would require a single license, just like others whose purpose is to share a few devices with many computers would require a single license.

Submitted by mtwomey on Sun, 2020/11/01 - 01:45

#11

My main thing would be a non-commercial license that's not pinned to hardware so that I can play around with all my "stuff" (raspberry PIs, beaglebones, flight-sim cockpit controls, ...etc). I just want the freedom to experiment around with all sorts of setups easily in my hobby time without worrying about relicensing. I understand there's various caveats to this, I'm sure there well understood in the industry as this is a pretty common model. No idea if it's right for Virtualhere though.

Submitted by hefonthefjords on Wed, 2020/11/04 - 23:44

#12

Will existing Android server licenses be transferred over to the Google Play licensing system if the payment system become integrated with Google Play?

Will this allow us to use our license across all of our Android devices instead of being locked to one specific chipset?

Submitted by Michael on Thu, 2020/11/05 - 08:01

#13

Im not sure yet

Submitted by Dayshine on Sat, 2021/03/06 - 05:38

#14

Just a bump to say I was considering purchasing a license for the convenience of making the "client" a service and perhaps support development, but this licensing model makes that a non-starter.

I have a high-spec gaming desktop which I remote to using moonlight (OSS Nvidia gamestream) from my sofa using several thin, disposable clients:
- 2 laptops, and I'm planning on replacing one soon.
- A raspberry pi connected to my TV which is inherently disposable and I might want to swap it with another pi elsewhere in the house.
I use virtualhere to forward my steam controller to my server. To change device I simply swap the USB dongle to another device.

This is literally the opposite of your description in another thread:
> There is no floating license option. Generally if you want to serve USB devices its best to plug them into a permanent server. Then just access those devices from your (temporary) client.

The cost of this license would literally be higher than the value of the laptop I'm typing this message on :)

However, as above, you obviously can't cater to consumers first for what I assume is primarily an enterprise tool. Especially seeing the steam link virtualhere sales will have eaten away at the same audience.

Nevertheless, I would pay £50 for a client only license, and only be slightly bitter about having to buy a new one every time I upgraded my desktop.

Submitted by Michael on Sat, 2021/03/06 - 08:33

#15

Yes thanks for your feedback. I don't have/want the infrastructure to setup a floating license system. I understand for games its a bit expensive if you have multiple servers but i don't really want to target this market myself. I use other companies who have this focus e.g valve or (soon) google android store to handle this stuff for me.

Submitted by marwatk on Thu, 2021/03/18 - 10:21

#16

I solved this problem by getting a dedicated raspberry pi and licensing the server on that. I got with a raspberry pi 3B+ so I'll have dual band wifi to hopefully do a bit of future proofing, but as a proof of concept I tested with a $5 Pi Zero W and it worked just as well (albeit with an external usb hub). I just move the pi from place to place with the peripherals I want to use.

It has the added benefit of allowing me to use it on devices that don't have virtual here available at all (like my Quest 2).