|
On June 06 2010 04:22 Salty wrote:
It should be really easy to verify the legitimacy of a game copy and then allow offline LAN support for say, 24 hours. There is no reason NOT to allot it with a system like that.
Except wouldn't that just allow crackers to look at the complete netplay code, making the whole thing pointless in the first place? With piracy protection it's all or nothing.
|
On June 06 2010 05:29 Redmark wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2010 04:22 Salty wrote:
It should be really easy to verify the legitimacy of a game copy and then allow offline LAN support for say, 24 hours. There is no reason NOT to allot it with a system like that. Except wouldn't that just allow crackers to look at the complete netplay code, making the whole thing pointless in the first place? With piracy protection it's all or nothing.
i dont see why sc2 would even bother to protect against piracy because they will crack the game eventually regardless.
|
Except by making "piracy protection" you are hurting the customers that bought the game MORE than the ones that didn't. The only way to stop piracy is to make a product that is worth a buy so that those that would buy the game buy it and those that pirate it are ones that would have never bought it regardless.
Almost every attempt at anti-piracy has hurt the buyer more than the pirate. So I highly doubt no lan is a piracy issue, it's more of a control issue or some ignorant "we know what's best" view. Eventually the industry will see that they are just crippling themselves with this nonsense and move on. At least I hope they do.
|
Everyone remember the kitten-trick for future exploitation.
Thanks for the video and update, Husky!
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
This really has nothing to do with piracy, Blizzard is a good steady seller, and having a lan feature can't hurt the sales, leaked Battle.net 2.0 server could, but that's a whole other story (although leaked PVPGN that was used by absolutely everybody didn't stripe them of selling 11m copies of StarCraft, 7m of Diablo II and War III each).
It's all about controlling the scene and gaming experience to the bone, this is what the clause "Blizzard must be notified of every sponsored/commercial tournament" is for, as is their behavior towards KeSPA and Korean scene.
|
|
|
The argument that implementing LAN would lead to piracy is the most ridiculous one that gets touted around like it's gospel. It doesn't matter what Blizzard, or any other company, does, the hackers will crack their product, period. The more draconian their methods, the more hackers view it as a challenge.
They should actually be following their policy of having Bnet 2.0 be so awesome that people won't WANT to play on cracked versions and servers when they come out, which is absolutely not the case right now. If a hacked version comes out with LAN support, chat rooms, unlocked regions, and an ICCUP style ladder, then it's a no brainer. Lots of people will play on it because it's flat out better.
Leaving LAN out does nothing to deter piracy, it simply insures that the cracked/pirated versions will be more widely used.
|
|
|
On June 06 2010 05:29 Redmark wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2010 04:22 Salty wrote:
It should be really easy to verify the legitimacy of a game copy and then allow offline LAN support for say, 24 hours. There is no reason NOT to allot it with a system like that. Except wouldn't that just allow crackers to look at the complete netplay code, making the whole thing pointless in the first place? With piracy protection it's all or nothing.
Nothing is always the better choice. Because All eventually becomes nothing anyway after some amount of time, and it also forces more people to do it faster, so it may even increase piracy.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 06 2010 05:34 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2010 05:29 Redmark wrote:On June 06 2010 04:22 Salty wrote:
It should be really easy to verify the legitimacy of a game copy and then allow offline LAN support for say, 24 hours. There is no reason NOT to allot it with a system like that. Except wouldn't that just allow crackers to look at the complete netplay code, making the whole thing pointless in the first place? With piracy protection it's all or nothing. i dont see why sc2 would even bother to protect against piracy because they will crack the game eventually regardless.
"Eventually" is a bad argument, because such a large percentage of sales are made within a short time of the game's release. Being pirated on day 1, and being pirated at the end of week 3 have dramatically different end results on sales figures.
Take, for example, GTA IV, which sold 8.5 million copies in the first month it was out. 3.6 million of those were sold on the first day of it's release, and 6 million were sold within the first week. I'm pretty sure developers are well aware that piracy prevention doesn't last forever, but if it lasts more than a few weeks, then from their perspective, it has done its job (from that perspective, it also makes sense to add LAN in via patch after the first major wave of sales has died down).
|
On June 06 2010 00:39 Half wrote:
Seriously you really give Husky too much credit and not enough credit to the moderators and -CM's, and more importantly, the player. If they were doing what they were payed to do, they summed up every post that was indicative of an IQ above room temperature (admittedly very few) to whoever they report too, and decided to/were told to just let it simmer for a while before an official response to gain a better player perspective of the issue.
Room temperature in Fahrenheit or Celsius?
|
On June 06 2010 06:26 Disastorm wrote:
Nothing is always the better choice. Because All eventually becomes nothing anyway after some amount of time, and it also forces more people to do it faster, so it may even increase piracy.
If you take out the part about piracy this sounds like a profound philosophical insight.
|
On June 06 2010 06:26 Disastorm wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2010 05:29 Redmark wrote:On June 06 2010 04:22 Salty wrote:
It should be really easy to verify the legitimacy of a game copy and then allow offline LAN support for say, 24 hours. There is no reason NOT to allot it with a system like that. Except wouldn't that just allow crackers to look at the complete netplay code, making the whole thing pointless in the first place? With piracy protection it's all or nothing. Nothing is always the better choice. Because All eventually becomes nothing anyway after some amount of time, and it also forces more people to do it faster, so it may even increase piracy.
Or people will buy the game because they dont want to wait till its cracked. Then once it is, the people who werent gunna pay for it get to play and us who did get lan. This way Blizzard gets paid, with no piracy protection who would buy it?
|
I think LAN play is unlikely to come because that would let for example MBC and OGN and whoever else wanted to run their own local tournament, broadcast, make tons of money from it. Blizzard is heading completely away from that direction.
Unless they did a hybrid with LAN game servers and Blizzard login servers. That's probly the only way I see LAN coming.
|
Congratulations for the kitten !
I'm waiting for the Bnet 2.0 debriefing, and who knows, maybe some upgrades for the current version.
|
I think this is what we will get for bnet after all the feedback they got from community:
1. Chatrooms will make it to bnet
2. No global ranking but instead diamond league and pro league gets one ladder.
3. No cross realm
4. No lan
I wish though there was a global ranking cuz i will never play in diamond league but will be playing in gold-plat and even though i'm not pro I wanna now how I compare to others!
|
At first I was really pleased after reading this, but then I noticed that all it said was that there would be a comprehensive address. Considering all the blue posts on these subjects have been a deconstruction on why what we want won't be in the final game, I re-evaluated my excitement and changed it to cautious optimism. If Blizzard literally only puts out a response, basically saying, 'We know this is what you want, but we know what's best for you,' that would be the last straw; I would boycott the game at that point. It's Blizzard's opportunity to correct and add what we want, so we will see if they do that.
|
On June 07 2010 02:26 Salv wrote:
It's Blizzard's opportunity to correct and add what we want, so we will see if they do that.
They are pretty much aware of this and that's why I'm expecting them to do what has to be done.
|
On June 07 2010 02:43 lolaloc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2010 02:26 Salv wrote:
It's Blizzard's opportunity to correct and add what we want, so we will see if they do that. They are pretty much aware of this and that's why I'm expecting them to do what has to be done.
I think we're all a bit naive to think they'll fix all these major issues 2 months from release. If anything, we can expect a longer response and promises on what can be done down the line, post-release.
I think that is what to expect - words, not actual actions. Its too late for that.
|
On June 07 2010 02:46 Senx wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2010 02:43 lolaloc wrote:On June 07 2010 02:26 Salv wrote:
It's Blizzard's opportunity to correct and add what we want, so we will see if they do that. They are pretty much aware of this and that's why I'm expecting them to do what has to be done. I think we're all a bit naive to think they'll fix all these major issues 2 months from release.
They have a full team dedicated for Battle.net 2.0. I think one month is adequate for them to make a "fix" for at least one issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
