StarCraft 2

[yezhanquan]

Well, I'm sure Blizzard will get round to it later. Personally more interested in the gameplay. Besides, I'm not going to drive myself crazy complaining about a game which will come out for Xmas at the earliest.

[Proto]

·@Nosauz: I think we are just not understanding each other. You are talking from a perfectly valid 100% user perspective. I'm trying to sit in the middle ground by acknowledging a system that gives complete free reign to the user has not worked so well in the past, yet that doesn't mean I'll go and accept the extreme side of DRM. I acknowledge that you raise valid points, however I doubt that the cases you have cited will play a large role in the big picture.

[Ithekro]

Or you could, you know, ask Blizzard what they suggest should such problems arise why they would make it so that is is possible for the customer not to be able to play?

Instead of threatening to not buy something I mean.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Proto

·@Nosauz: I think we are just not understanding each other. You are talking from a perfectly valid 100% user perspective. I'm trying to sit in the middle ground by acknowledging a system that gives complete free reign to the user has not worked so well in the past, yet that doesn't mean I'll go and accept the extreme side of DRM. I acknowledge that you raise valid points, however I doubt that the cases you have cited will play a large role in the big picture.

It does work, piracy is just part of the game, there will be people who will have not used your product if they could not pirate, these people should not be considered customers because they had no intent to purchase, but to say that previous ways of protecting ips didn't work, I would suggest you talk to the guys at Stardock, or hell even Valve has done a fantastic job with what was a very poor system for validation.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Or you could, you know, ask Blizzard what they suggest should such problems arise why they would make it so that is is possible for the customer not to be able to play?

Instead of threatening to not buy something I mean.

1) Have you heard the way Pardo has talked? Paraphrased, only the people in the journalism industry think it's an issue. His stance is, we're blizzard so fuck off, which he is telling the large segment of users.

2) How else do I voice my opinion as a consumer? When it suits certain people, they say talk cordially with these people, but then when it fits their logic they say, if you don't like just don't buy it. The point is the only power a consumer has is in the money and time he can invest in a product, I'm just trying to galvanize PC gamers to not accept these stupid policies that only hurt me and you, the honest consumer not the pirates that they so desperately want to thwart.

[Ithekro]

I think you have a either a lost cause, and/or are being to passionate on the issue. Either way, I doubt the numbers of "don't buy it" for your reasoning is going to effect Blizzards pocket books. (No I've not heard Parfo...I don't pay that close attention to this project since it has no release date yet, nor even a pattern for a potental release date).

Civil discorse may work if one can prove it is an issue. Otherwise the consumer and producer will go based on the good of the many (majority) with maybe some things thrown in for the minority. Especially since various companies have been trying to make anti-piracy codes and whatnots into their games for at least 20 years now. Remember those little code wheels and other keys that supposedly required you to look up answers in the rule book or a map that came with the product? If you lost it, you were unable to play. Now, if you can't get a single signal out, you can't play. It seems unnecessary, but then my guess is that Blizzard assumes that everyone that is going to play will be attacted to the internet due to the need to patch the game. This is not an entirely unfair assumption. The question becomes what percentage of users are going to use this produce are totally offline. Of those how many still have internet access on that machine? How many often will those that are Online at "all times" going to have server issues or require other means to play when something goes wrong with the Internet?

And probablt the biggest question. How many will have one machine that is tied to the Internet, but have a LAN setup with a few other computers that are not normally Online?

I seem to recall that it was normal to have one copy of the game running on multiple home machines (one owner) to run LAN games. The users would typically have there own copy of the game registered, but not bring their disk because they could log in on their own account (thus legal users). I don't recall exactly what issues there were with this. I recall owning my own game while my friend had his, but we'd play at his house, without my disks. If this was Starcraft 2, both machines would be online and each would log in, ID varified, then go on to play in a LAN setup.

However I can't say if it would work if only one was attached directly to the Internet and the others were not (is that possible?) It would seem that one could not just go out and hook up a pair of laptops in a wireless dead zone with no cable connection and play Starcraft 2 with just a LAN. Though I assume you could play solo campaign and I guess against bots on custom maps alone and without an internet signal. unless I missed something, which is highly possible. The assumption is that they won't try to varify that you are playing alone on a legal or illegal version of the game, but will if you want to play with someone else, to be sure that you both bought it rather than one of you having bought it and making a copy for the other person (though I do wonder since you should be able to load it on multiple machines that you own.....but that sort of logic was lost a decade ago).

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

And probablt the biggest question. How many will have one machine that is tied to the Internet, but have a LAN setup with a few other computers that are not normally Online?

At my previous school, we'd use to throw up a WLAN to play our games. The schools network was horrible, so playing games there was next to impossible. Still, connecting to this WLAN allowed us to play our games in relatively good quality. Problem is, we weren't connected to the internet. If we'd have had Starcraft II, we wouldn't have been able to play it.

Of course, on the flipside of the argument, out of the fifteen-or-so people playing, only four, maybe five, had legitimate copies of the games we played. The rest was just on the laptops via the 'pass-the-CD-and-USB' game.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I think you have a either a lost cause, and/or are being to passionate on the issue. Either way, I doubt the numbers of "don't buy it" for your reasoning is going to effect Blizzards pocket books. (No I've not heard Parfo...I don't pay that close attention to this project since it has no release date yet, nor even a pattern for a potental release date).

Civil discorse may work if one can prove it is an issue. Otherwise the consumer and producer will go based on the good of the many (majority) with maybe some things thrown in for the minority. Especially since various companies have been trying to make anti-piracy codes and whatnots into their games for at least 20 years now. Remember those little code wheels and other keys that supposedly required you to look up answers in the rule book or a map that came with the product? If you lost it, you were unable to play. Now, if you can't get a single signal out, you can't play. It seems unnecessary, but then my guess is that Blizzard assumes that everyone that is going to play will be attacted to the internet due to the need to patch the game. This is not an entirely unfair assumption. The question becomes what percentage of users are going to use this produce are totally offline. Of those how many still have internet access on that machine? How many often will those that are Online at "all times" going to have server issues or require other means to play when something goes wrong with the Internet?

And probablt the biggest question. How many will have one machine that is tied to the Internet, but have a LAN setup with a few other computers that are not normally Online?

I seem to recall that it was normal to have one copy of the game running on multiple home machines (one owner) to run LAN games. The users would typically have there own copy of the game registered, but not bring their disk because they could log in on their own account (thus legal users). I don't recall exactly what issues there were with this. I recall owning my own game while my friend had his, but we'd play at his house, without my disks. If this was Starcraft 2, both machines would be online and each would log in, ID varified, then go on to play in a LAN setup.

However I can't say if it would work if only one was attached directly to the Internet and the others were not (is that possible?) It would seem that one could not just go out and hook up a pair of laptops in a wireless dead zone with no cable connection and play Starcraft 2 with just a LAN. Though I assume you could play solo campaign and I guess against bots on custom maps alone and without an internet signal. unless I missed something, which is highly possible. The assumption is that they won't try to varify that you are playing alone on a legal or illegal version of the game, but will if you want to play with someone else, to be sure that you both bought it rather than one of you having bought it and making a copy for the other person (though I do wonder since you should be able to load it on multiple machines that you own.....but that sort of logic was lost a decade ago).

Look this isn't so social discourse all I'm saying is as a consumer who has supported them with my gaming dollars I will choose not to support them in the future, because lan is quite an important function to PCs, and a need for internet connection is stupid. PERIOD I will tell if I do buy the game and I can't play it the way i want to due to server issues when if they had allowed lan play I could you bet your ass I will be irrtated. Again honestly the consumer advocates should be fighting this, all I see is that blizzard is getting ready to charge for Bnet, making a crucial use piece for its no WoW games so that they continue to print money like they still do off the subscriptions from WoW.

[Proto]

Because companies making money is so evil, right?

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Proto

Because companies making money is so evil, right?

Because consumers losing money is so evil, right?

c wat i did thar?

Really though on a more serious note, it your prerogative to spend your money the way you want, I just feel like its a waste for me to spend on husk of game later to then be nickeled and dimed to death.

Just look at Blizzard's stance on the pay for maps. Why would Blizzard ever get a cut of people making maps for their game? I mean it just seems that they saw how big Dota was and are trying to capitalise and make money off the work of others. If the cut is anything over 90-10 map creator then blizzard than paying for "premium" maps really is just another way to print money at the cost of community and gamers.

PS. being a fanboy really isn't becoming, just admit that its a bitch move by blizzard, it may not be a big deal to you, but I think it really is more of way they are trying to control game because it's played so readily in internet cafes in asia, which would then require every person to not only pay for the game to play at a netcafe but also pay for time which in reality i find pretty ok, but still as a legitimate user its a concern that blizzard will start to monetize pc gaming like they've done with consoles and much like how the original games for windows live system was.

[Tokkan]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

The selling point of SC2 seems to be the storyline. I really don't see how to enhance multi-player by introducing new units, where the stories are supposed to be happening concurrently.

They're not happening concurrently, Blizzard has said they're happening in chronological order but act as seperate storylines so there are no cliffhangers.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Proto

I don't think you got it right when they mentioned pseudo LAN support. With that, the only thing that battle.net is used for is as some sort of authentication system. After that, all communication between the peers is handled as in any local LAN. You could use a 56K for 8 players and it wouldn't take 10 seconds. if this qualifies as DRM (which, by the most strict definition it is not, but for the sake of the argument let's say it is), I'd say it's about most benign control system i've ever encountered, given that it's barely a step up from a CD-KEY check.

Then why not leave it as a CD-key check? It's a benign control system, but I have to agree with Nosauz - this is taking away a feature, and one that made the original StarCraft a lot of fun.

Back when I was in high school, my friends and I would take over one friend's house. We'd set up in the dining room, the basement - wherever there was space (we all had desktop computers). I'd bring a network hub, and we'd all link up that way. There was no internet connection.

That was before wireless became popular. With wireless things might be a bit easier, but trying to figure out how to run an internet line to the hub/router seems a little stupid. Even with wireless I'm not sure that we'd have had an easy time with things (not to mention that, as far as I know, wireless is not standard on desktop computers). We're there to play games with each other, not figure out how to redo the ethernet cabling or router setup of someone's home so that we can authenticate our games.

It doesn't matter to me - my gaming days are largely over, and I won't be doing any more LAN parties in my lifetime, most likely. But this really is a snub at consumers. I don't really know what's worse, draconian DRM measures or removing a feature in order to grant more control to the company. I understand that they want to control piracy and I completely respect that, but Blizzard isn't exactly a small company, nor is StarCraft a small unknown game. Did having a real LAN mode hamper StarCraft's success at all? If it did, I certainly was fooled.

It just leaves a bad taste in your mouth when companies start doing things like this. Locking customers in or out to protect the company instead of focusing more on letting the consumers do more with the product... that leads to bad trends.

[Xacual]

I don't consider it a snub out at all. Also it might just be me, but I don't understand the real appeal of lan parties anymore, especially not for computer games. Are you really going to have multiple people bring over their computers and set them up just to play on a lan set up?I mean everyone could just hop on the internet and home or something and play like that if its just pcs. With ventrilo and other online chat services, you might miss out on yay party atmosphere but thats about it. If not and instead they are bringing their laptops and something, then they should have internet recievers for them anyway. I don't know it honestly seems like a pretty fair trade off to me for trying to stop some amount of the piracy that is likely to happen regardless.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Xacual

I don't consider it a snub out at all. Also it might just be me, but I don't understand the real appeal of lan parties anymore, especially not for computer games. Are you really going to have multiple people bring over their computers and set them up just to play on a lan set up?I mean everyone could just hop on the internet and home or something and play like that if its just pcs. With ventrilo and other online chat services, you might miss out on yay party atmosphere but thats about it. If not and instead they are bringing their laptops and something, then they should have internet recievers for them anyway. I don't know it honestly seems like a pretty fair trade off to me for trying to stop some amount of the piracy that is likely to happen regardless.

you've never been to a good lan party. Some of the best fun I've had playing halo was gettin together with 20 or so friends 4 xboxes 4 way system link. Again if you read the World of Goo dev blog, they say that the anti piracy methods really don't net you any more sales, and their goal was to make the best game and not use any type of anti piracy measures.

[bhl88]

I think this should be an additional unit instead of an April Fools Joke.

[Ithekro]

It would be more interesting if it actually had caused damage to anything around it. The Tauren Marines seemed more effective, though slightly less cool in a '80s style.

[blitz1/2]

Originally Posted by bhl88

I think this should be an additional unit instead of an April Fools Joke.

u never know, they may add it in the expansion pack.

[Proto]

@Nosauz: If you are referring to this article then we also have to get stricter with the definition of DRM and acknowledge that Blizzard approach is NOT DRM by the strictest definition of the term, and hence half of the points the article raises do not really apply since they are not really paying a 3rd party for any extra technology, and they are not losing money that way. It certainly introduces an extra hassle to the user, as we have agreed before, but well. the people are the world of goo are paying for their lenient approach in a different way It might be more convincing if you quoted an economics analyst instead of a developer, because frankly, we are not well known for being objective on how technology impacts society.

Then why not leave it as a CD-key check?

I suppose it's because of the possibility of people using cracked related CD keys, which frankly is a common issue in LAN parties. If you connect to battle.net the system can compare against a database of invalid keys.

PS. being a fanboy really isn't becoming, just admit that its a bitch move by blizzard, it may not be a big deal to you, but I think it really is more of way they are trying to control game because it's played so readily in internet cafes in asia, which would then require every person to not only pay for the game to play at a netcafe but also pay for time which in reality i find pretty ok, but still as a legitimate user its a concern that blizzard will start to monetize pc gaming like they've done with consoles and much like how the original games for windows live system was.

The ad hominem was uncalled for. I'm particularly replying to this thread because I'm kind of fed up that at every forum and gaming blog everyone seems to think companies are out to get their money in the most savage and evilest possible way without stoping to think how the market works.

[Nosauz]

Yea, you know what spore had an insanely high piracy rate, does it mean that one way is better than another? From a consumer standpoint the spectrum that spore encompasses is the most intruisive and the one that blizzard has setup is pretty close because it is a third party service outside the game that verifies your game so in that sense it is DRM. Third party is referring to non game resources. Even with the 90% world of goo piracy, they sold more copies, but then again indie game dev versus big budget games like sc2 are quite different so then again their just numbers. But I will say that spore a full retail game saw numbers quoted by a economic mag http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/12/spo...0912spore.html

Also my problem is more that developers think that the internet will be readily available to all their consumers when in fact the cable companies with their duopolies and oligopolies are trying to switch to pay per how much you use bandwidth and ridiculous rates in an attempt to maintain their super high profits from overloading nodes and not upgrading infrastructure. It's like collusion to raise the prices of everything.

[Proto]

Just for the record, and before we start discussing anything again, what is your definition of intrusive, and why do you think a b.net approach is intrusive, or it is close to that of spore? Because while I 100% agree with you on what relates to agressive DRM, so far I don't really see how Blizzard approach is similar to that.

[Nosauz]

because it requires you to be online, and basically acts like the spore authentication server, true it doesn't install something on your computer, but not allowing you to use certain features if you have no internet is ridiculous. If the internet was guaranteed to be 100% online and as long as I pay for service I'll have it, but unfortunately that will always be a pipe dream because shit happens, which makes "locking" features behind internet verification is pretty intrusive, especially if I purchased said item?