|
On June 30 2009 12:39 Yenzilla wrote:
Again and again, I read "ITS STUPID BECAUSE IT WON'T STOP ALL PIRATES", but really, that's equivalent to saying anti-virus programs aren't worth using because they won't stop/detect viruses with 100% effectiveness. As awesome as polarizing to extreme outcomes is (NO ANTI-PIRACY MEASURES WILL KILL YOU GAME A LA DEMIGOD), its hardly realistic.
Strawman. I wasn't saying it shouldn't be implemented because it doesn't stop all piracy, I said there are much better ways to try and stop piracy. One such example is like games where they don't allow you to burn copies that easily. If you can't even get your hands on a copy of the game, how will you be able to abuse the LAN?
Taking away LAN is hardly effective.
While, yes, a ton of people will pirate the game regardless, there's still a large number who either don't know how to use private servers, or do not enjoy them. Those are the sales that are at stake, not Mr. I'll-pirate-everything-anyways. And, like it or not, the exclusion of LAN is likely one of the easier to implement and least intrusive anti-piracy measures available.
Okay, then make B.net great, like they promise. If they don't know how to use private servers and don't enjoy them, while B.net is much better and more friendly, AND it's hard to obtain an illegal copy, don't you think that's much better to fight against piracy? They can get those sales with the features they already have, and having more features only helps their case. After all, HOW does not having LAN fight against piracy BETTER than making a code that needs to be cracked before they can say, transfer the data onto computers or burning the CD? Furthermore, HOW does taking away LAN reduce piracy in any significant way?
On June 30 2009 12:54 Yenzilla wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2009 12:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:
It will in no way convince piraters to buy the game because they were never interested in buying it in the first place. That's part of the polarization problem again. Not everyone who pirate games fall under that umbrella. I know a number of people who pirate games out of convenience, and entirely willing to dish out money for games that are more of a hassle to get working (multiplayer games, generally). I'll cite Demigods again, you really think the proportion of legitimate users would've been as low if it wasn't just laughably easy to get?
SO DON'T MAKE IT LAUGHABLY EASY TO OBTAIN AN ILLEGAL COPY! LAN=/=illegal copy of the game. People using LAN=/=pirates. If people want convenience, and the new B.Net is more convenient, then they would go to B.Net! LAN wouldn't be more convenient for piracy, because they still have to OBTAIN a copy first, and if it is harder to make said copies, then it is harder to obtain. Having the LAN or not doesn't change that.
Hell, even in SC1's case, my group of friends used to play (close to 8 of us) with not a single real copy between us (at least, not until I buckled and bought it a while later) because spawns just made it easier to have one CD and throw it around.
And how is that the LAN feature fault and not the Spawn fault?
|
Great now I have to buy two copies.
|
Pretty much sums up everything I really care to discuss about it. I really dont see the benefit.
|
MrHoon
10183 Posts
Although I agree no lan fucking sucks and blizzard's decision to anti-piracy is a rather dumbfuck solution...
Some of you guys are taking this shit too far in the wrong direction. "LOL IM NOT GUNA BAI SC2" please shut the fuck up. My ass you guys aren't going to buy it hell I bet you guys are going to ask your moms to drive you in front of target during the midnight opening.
If lan isn't really coming back, I really do hope blizzard has a solution for this shit.
|
On June 30 2009 13:29 MrHoon wrote:
Although I agree no lan fucking sucks and blizzard's decision to anti-piracy is a rather dumbfuck solution...
Some of you guys are taking this shit too far in the wrong direction. "LOL IM NOT GUNA BAI SC2" please shut the fuck up. My ass you guys aren't going to buy it hell I bet you guys are going to ask your moms to drive you in front of target during the midnight opening.
If lan isn't really coming back, I really do hope blizzard has a solution for this shit.
I completely agree. It is VERY stupid to not include LAN but at the same time I'm going to be there for the midnight release no matter what I have going on that day.
Like today for example, I've been playing on LAN with my friend for about the last 6 hours, its really a shame that we might lose that in a lot of situations (dorms with weird firewalls, hanging out at parents with no internet, lan parties with glitchy internet, big events with tournaments, etc etc).
I dont think the benefit outweighs the negative aspects.
|
Maybe it's not for anti-piracy purposes but rather because multiplayer sc2 depends on something that only bnet 2.0 can provide.
(its prolly for anti piracy tho)
|
On June 30 2009 13:12 ghrur wrote:
Strawman. I wasn't saying it shouldn't be implemented because it doesn't stop all piracy, I said there are much better ways to try and stop piracy. One such example is like games where they don't allow you to burn copies that easily. If you can't even get your hands on a copy of the game, how will you be able to abuse the LAN?
Taking away LAN is hardly effective.
But it is the argument a lot of people are putting out. Namely, the one that suggests that they're not gaining any sales because pirates are an unstoppable force. Even if you don't gain all the sales lost from pirates (obviously not the case), developers stand to lose far more from the less hardcore ones.
On June 30 2009 13:12 ghrur wrote:
Okay, then make B.net great, like they promise. If they don't know how to use private servers and don't enjoy them, while B.net is much better and more friendly, AND it's hard to obtain an illegal copy, don't you think that's much better to fight against piracy? They can get those sales with the features they already have, and having more features only helps their case. After all, HOW does not having LAN fight against piracy BETTER than making a code that needs to be cracked before they can say, transfer the data onto computers or burning the CD? Furthermore, HOW does taking away LAN reduce piracy in any significant way?
Making Battle.net great would be ideal, and I'm almost certain Blizzard is gunning for that. It would be nice to give them to opportunity to show people how great (or terrible) it'll turn out.
On June 30 2009 13:12 ghrur wrote:
SO DON'T MAKE IT LAUGHABLY EASY TO OBTAIN AN ILLEGAL COPY! LAN=/=illegal copy of the game. People using LAN=/=pirates. If people want convenience, and the new B.Net is more convenient, then they would go to B.Net! LAN wouldn't be more convenient for piracy, because they still have to OBTAIN a copy first, and if it is harder to make said copies, then it is harder to obtain. Having the LAN or not doesn't change that.
...
And how is that the LAN feature fault and not the Spawn fault?
Except, as has been mentioned many times already in this thread, that would IMPOSSIBLE. With the internet and the, getting a copy of the game on your hard drive is and will be, unless something dramatic happens, laughably easy. While pirating, getting the game (torrents, or whatever) is likely the smallest step (despite being the longest one).
And, as hamachi would suggest, LANs are usually the easier method to get multiplayer working when pirating. Hell, the only reason mass pirating with spawns worked in the original is because the game didn't check for CD-keys (which could've been easily bypassed, had it existed, given the standard) while playing on LAN. Because everything is done locally, its easier to bypass any sort of protection systems in place.
|
I dislike too strict anti piracy measures, but I'm not in agreement with a lot of what you said.
On June 30 2009 13:12 ghrur wrote:
Strawman. I wasn't saying it shouldn't be implemented because it doesn't stop all piracy, I said there are much better ways to try and stop piracy. One such example is like games where they don't allow you to burn copies that easily. If you can't even get your hands on a copy of the game, how will you be able to abuse the LAN?
Taking away LAN is hardly effective.
This is like the opposite of reality. No game is impossible to copy. Controlling multiplayer has been the only effective anti piracy measure. It will always be possible to copy a disk. If all multiplayer runs through a central server (for initial connections at least) it won't always be possible for pirates to have multiplayer.
I hate lack of LAN for many previously mentioned reasons, but it is probably the best anti piracy measure they could take. What I'm not sure about is if it's really a good idea to focus so much on defeating piracy if it will have such detrimental effects on the legit community.
They've found the best way to fight piracy, but is it a good idea?
|
On June 29 2009 18:55 SearingShadow wrote:LAN shops don't have an internet connection?
oo burn
|
On June 30 2009 13:51 Yenzilla wrote:
Except, as has been mentioned many times already in this thread, that would IMPOSSIBLE. With the internet and the, getting a copy of the game on your hard drive is and will be, unless something dramatic happens, laughably easy. While pirating, getting the game (torrents, or whatever) is likely the smallest step (despite being the longest one).
I'm not arguing if it will be possible or not, or how easy it is or how hard it is.
I'm saying it will be better for piracy than stopping LANS without the same amount of cons.
And, as hamachi would suggest, LANs are usually the easier method to get multiplayer working when pirating. Hell, the only reason mass pirating with spawns worked in the original is because the game didn't check for CD-keys (which could've been easily bypassed, had it existed, given the standard) while playing on LAN. Because everything is done locally, its easier to bypass any sort of protection systems in place.
And you're saying people won't bypass the protection systems in place anyway?
LANs might be easier to get multiplayer pirating to work, but not so if most people can't get a copy of the game unless they buy it. Also, servers like hamachi wouldn't be needed as much because, guess what, B.Net will be more convenient. These 2 things together make it so the point is moot for stopping the "casual pirates."
|
How will I play local multiplayer with 1 copy?
|
On June 30 2009 14:07 ghrur wrote:
I'm not arguing if it will be possible or not, or how easy it is or how hard it is.
I'm saying it will be better for piracy than stopping LANS without the same amount of cons.
And you're saying people won't bypass the protection systems in place anyway?
LANs might be easier to get multiplayer pirating to work, but not so if most people can't get a copy of the game unless they buy it. Also, servers like hamachi wouldn't be needed as much because, guess what, B.Net will be more convenient. These 2 things together make it so the point is moot for stopping the "casual pirates."
So your point is that making it hard, or nigh-impossible to get a copy through pirating is ideal? Yes, it would be ideal. But, as nice as it would be, its not something that would be at all reasonable, or possible to implement. The reality is, getting a copy of the game is easy and will always be easy as long as the internet exists as it does now. You can't plan for ideals, you have to work with realities.
And, given the realities, taking away small things that make pirating more convenient, is fairly practical.
|
On June 30 2009 14:07 ghrur wrote:
I'm not arguing if it will be possible or not, or how easy it is or how hard it is.
I'm saying it will be better for piracy than stopping LANS without the same amount of cons.
If Blizzard really wants to maximize sales, I propose that rather than focusing on the game-side design of things, they simply convert every person in the world into someone who will mindlessly buy the game. That would stop piracy completely.
|
On June 30 2009 14:01 MamiyaOtaru wrote:
I dislike too strict anti piracy measures, but I'm not in agreement with a lot of what you said.
This is like the opposite of reality. No game is impossible to copy.
I never said it was.
Controlling multiplayer has been the only effective anti piracy measure.
I'd actually argue that there has been no "effective" anti-piracy measures since piracy is still at large. I'd also say that anti-piracy is mostly about converting the "casual pirates" into people who buy the game, and "casual pirates" would usually aim for the option with more convenience. In this case, having more options, having pirated material harder to make/find/locate, and having better services would definitely make buying the game much more appealing than pirating it. This would deter "casual pirates" much more than taking away an option to me. =/
It will always be possible to copy a disk.
Never said it wasn't.
If all multiplayer runs through a central server (for initial connections at least) it won't always be possible for pirates to have multiplayer.
I disagree because hackers will be hackers. There will still be key generators. There will still be pirates. Always. So, it again comes down to converting "casual pirates" into part of the audience and customers.
I hate lack of LAN for many previously mentioned reasons, but it is probably the best anti piracy measure they could take.
I disagree for reasons stated above.
What I'm not sure about is if it's really a good idea to focus so much on defeating piracy if it will have such detrimental effects on the legit community.
They've found the best way to fight piracy, but is it a good idea?
It isn't necessarily the best way to fight piracy to me, and the detrimental effects are definitely quite large to Starcraft fans.
So your point is that making it hard, or nigh-impossible to get a copy through pirating is ideal? Yes, it would be ideal. But, as nice as it would be, its not something that would be at all reasonable, or possible to implement. The reality is, getting a copy of the game is easy and will always be easy as long as the internet exists as it does now. You can't plan for ideals, you have to work with realities.
And, given the realities, taking away small things that make pirating more convenient, is fairly practical.
It's not unreasonable at all... it's called encrypting. o_o
It makes pirating that much harder to be effective. Given the realities, taking away LAN might cause much more... displeasure for lack of better word, than the anti-piracy it will provide.
|
On June 30 2009 14:19 ghrur wrote:
I'd actually argue that there has been no "effective" anti-piracy measures since piracy is still at large. I'd also say that anti-piracy is mostly about converting the "casual pirates" into people who buy the game, and "casual pirates" would usually aim for the option with more convenience. In this case, having more options, having pirated material harder to make/find/locate, and having better services would definitely make buying the game much more appealing than pirating it. This would deter "casual pirates" much more than taking away an option to me. =/
This leads back to my point against polarizing outcomes. That pirates will still exist doesn't mean the measure isn't effective, just as how not a single anti-virus program has a 100% effectiveness (in finding viruses and false positives) doesn't mean they're not worthwhile.
To aim to destroy piracy altogether is not an issue for a single game to tackle, but limiting the potential damage it may do to its sales is. Controlling the game through mandatory internet connections is fairly effective, even if it doesn't constitute a perfectly effective measure.
For example, I will boldly claim that the proportion of the legitimate user base and pirates in major multiplayer-only games (MMOs) is much more in the developer's favour than any other.
|
Yenzilla, I came to the same conclusion as you did about the 100% effectiveness, which is why I wrote that casual pirates part in. That's how you limit the potential damage it does to sales. Controlling the game through mandatory internet connection might decrease sales too, due to, oh, half the world not having internet connection?
|
On June 30 2009 13:23 HuskyTheHusky wrote:Pretty much sums up everything I really care to discuss about it. I really dont see the benefit. One good point you mention that I didn't think of before:
"At e-sport events, it's just one more thing to go wrong. We all seen matches have 20 or so minutes delay only because someone's mouse isn't working. Now everyone also must have an internet connection?"
Comparing it that way makes it even more scary. One thing I said before is that simply comparing it to CS and steam you can see what problems it might cause. There are many cases of offline e-sport tournaments that either had a big delay or had to be completely canceled simply because there was some problem connecting to the Steam server.
|
On June 30 2009 14:25 ghrur wrote:
Yenzilla, I came to the same conclusion as you did about the 100% effectiveness, which is why I wrote that casual pirates part in. That's how you limit the potential damage it does to sales. Controlling the game through mandatory internet connection might decrease sales too, due to, oh, half the world not having internet connection?
As unfair as it may be, Starcraft 2 isn't being geared towards 'half the world'.
Also: Encryption wouldn't work unless you want legitimate owners unable to play the games themselves. After all, you would need a key to de-encrypt the data, if that were available (as it would have to be) someone would make it available online.
|
On June 30 2009 13:17 DamageControL wrote:
Great now I have to buy two copies.
I hope to god your trolling
|
On June 29 2009 21:26 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2009 21:06 HuskyTheHusky wrote:
One thing no one is talking about is huge events with 500-5000 people (I dont know if there is larger ones). They SERIOUSLY expect events like that to have internet for every member there and expect them to have it for tournaments?
Am I misunderstanding something here? How are you supposed to have huge tournaments at events like this?
Anyone? Pretty sure that Pro leagues and events will have their own special servers. Kinda how WoW events and leagues works today. You can draw a conclusion from that, that if you want to run an event or a PRO league in SC 2 you will have to be sanctioned by Blizzard ala GomTV. Kespa won't be happy. 
I'm pretty sure WoW events connect through Blizzard's tournament realm. They don't have LAn latency IIRC>
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
