|
On June 23 2011 11:14 lorkac wrote:
If the only thing that's wrong with battlenet is lag--then that's the internet connection's fault, not the Blizzard.
If LAN does nothing more than allow you to have what Battlenet Provides, why have LAN?
Which means the only people who would complain about no LAN are the people who are trying to not buy SC2.
The question should not be "Why is there no LAN?"
The question should be "Being that BattleNet provides us what we need, why do we need LAN?"
??? ever heard about servers? Seriously people.
|
On June 23 2011 07:23 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:22 Numy wrote:On June 23 2011 07:18 AndAgain wrote:
He just said what any intelligent person already understands. Obviously companies have good reasons for not putting LAN. Yea it's a pity. The problem is most of the prevention for piracy hurts the guys that buy the games too. ALL forms of DRM and "prevention" (such as excluding LAN) hurt the paying customers more than pirates, this is not even a debate.
Actually it is, because you've provided zero proof.
|
On June 23 2011 11:14 lorkac wrote:
Which means the only people who would complain about no LAN are the people who are trying to not buy SC2.
And the only reason you don't want a CCTV camera in your living room is because you want to commit crimes. What other reason can there be? The camera doesn't stop you doing anything you were normally going to do so you shouldn't have a problem with it.
|
On June 23 2011 11:17 Criptos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:23 Fruscainte wrote:On June 23 2011 07:22 Numy wrote:On June 23 2011 07:18 AndAgain wrote:
He just said what any intelligent person already understands. Obviously companies have good reasons for not putting LAN. Yea it's a pity. The problem is most of the prevention for piracy hurts the guys that buy the games too. ALL forms of DRM and "prevention" (such as excluding LAN) hurt the paying customers more than pirates, this is not even a debate. Actually it is, because you've provided zero proof.
What he said is only logical. That's the proof.
|
On June 23 2011 11:17 Criptos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:23 Fruscainte wrote:On June 23 2011 07:22 Numy wrote:On June 23 2011 07:18 AndAgain wrote:
He just said what any intelligent person already understands. Obviously companies have good reasons for not putting LAN. Yea it's a pity. The problem is most of the prevention for piracy hurts the guys that buy the games too. ALL forms of DRM and "prevention" (such as excluding LAN) hurt the paying customers more than pirates, this is not even a debate. Actually it is, because you've provided zero proof.
You don't need to give "proof" for a logical progression of thought.
|
I completely understand the reasoning. I have no way of knowing how much money piracy has cost game developers, and the game developers should get the money - they made the game.
On the other hand, would piracy be less rampant if games were more reasonably priced? I'm enough of a fan that I got the special edition of SC2 for the full $100, but in the abstract, for a game I'm not sure is going to be awesome, I wouldn't want to pay more than $30-$40. Maybe I'm out of touch with the market, but to me it seems like video games are kind of over-priced on the whole. Obviously not extremely overpriced as sales are huge, but selling for more than they're "worth".
I wouldn't care that much about LAN if playing over the internet, everything going to the servers, was more reliable. But right now it doesn't, and while that's not exactly Blizzard's "fault" - they have nothing to do with the infrastructure - it's still frustrating (and happens everywhere).
|
On June 23 2011 11:17 Criptos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:23 Fruscainte wrote:On June 23 2011 07:22 Numy wrote:On June 23 2011 07:18 AndAgain wrote:
He just said what any intelligent person already understands. Obviously companies have good reasons for not putting LAN. Yea it's a pity. The problem is most of the prevention for piracy hurts the guys that buy the games too. ALL forms of DRM and "prevention" (such as excluding LAN) hurt the paying customers more than pirates, this is not even a debate. Actually it is, because you've provided zero proof. Are you kidding me? DRM by definition makes it harder for paying customers to use the product than if there were none. The history of all the different securoms and whatnot where some dvd players were incorrectly flagged as virtual drives and stuff resulting in problems for paying customers as a direct result of DRM. Downloaded songs(legally) not working in all types of mp3 players, etc.
On the other hand, once a game is pirated, pirates often have a superior product in that you don't need a CD in the drive, you don't need to run prohibitive clients(say what you want about steam, but it has its problems). They just download, install, and enjoy. No need to be connected to the internet continously while playing, etc. etc.
Why he would have to actually provide proof of something that is so simple to understand, I have no idea.
|
Funny how you guys keep going on when I've already showed you the perfect unexploitable solution for this whole lag problem. Blizzard needs to implement Dual Screen Play. Every modern machine has 2 video outs and enough USB slots to hook up all the required equipment. All we lack is a software patch by blizzard.
|
On June 23 2011 11:17 Divinek wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 10:54 Ocedic wrote:On June 23 2011 10:21 Alsn wrote:
Too all you people attacking pirates. Argue with this:
I am deeply disappointed in Blizzard for not having LAN, a lot of enjoyment that I personally could have had has been lost due to the feature missing. I will not buy further products from Blizzard after I stop playing SC2(which, admittedly, will probably be for quite a while still). As a paying customer I am appalled that they would value short term gain(which they have no proof that no-LAN has actually increased anyway) over long term goodwill(me and others being happy customers).
No matter where you stand on the piracy versus no-piracy issue, the fact remains that their product is worse than it would have been with LAN support, thus directly punishing their actual paying customers.
Not to mention the fact that there's no proof whatsoever that adding LAN would actually lower total sales, which is the only thing that counts in the end. Who cares if 5 million instead of 3 million pirate the game if you still have the same amount of sales but higher goodwill for the future of your company?
To sum up, I, as a paying customer, has gotten a product that is worse than it would have been with LAN. I could care fuck all about people pirating the game since I, a paying customer along with all other paying customers, is the one who is ultimately responsible for Blizzard employees being paid, and I am a little less happy than I could have been. Stop being melodramatic. For you and 99% of all other players, LAN has no effect. LAN would be optimal for tournaments, but Battle.net gets the job done. All of you people complaining about being a 'paying customer' and suffering because of pirates are rightfully mad, but at the wrong people. You should be mad at pirates for causing this. Or do you go to the airport and bitch and moan about going through airport security because you aren't a terrorist? have you never played a game on LAN settings compared to online? The difference is ridiculous, besides it also makes it possible to just...you know play with internet required!
LAN separates the boys from men.
|
On June 23 2011 11:24 PepperoniPiZZa wrote:
Funny how you guys keep going on when I've already showed you the perfect unexploitable solution for this whole lag problem. Blizzard needs to implement Dual Screen Play. Every modern machine has 2 video outs and enough USB slots to hook up all the required equipment. All we lack is a software patch by blizzard.
Because your solution only addresses 2 player matches.
|
On June 23 2011 11:24 PepperoniPiZZa wrote:
Funny how you guys keep going on when I've already showed you the perfect unexploitable solution for this whole lag problem. Blizzard needs to implement Dual Screen Play. Every modern machine has 2 video outs and enough USB slots to hook up all the required equipment. All we lack is a software patch by blizzard.
Sounds exploitable to me.
|
On June 23 2011 11:18 branflakes14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 11:14 lorkac wrote:
Which means the only people who would complain about no LAN are the people who are trying to not buy SC2. And the only reason you don't want a CCTV camera in your living room is because you want to commit crimes. What other reason can there be? The camera doesn't stop you doing anything you were normally going to do so you shouldn't have a problem with it.
I actually would not have a problem with a CCTV camera in my room, personally. And yes, it is because I don't plan on doing anything illegal. And it also is because I don't feel shy about myself and I don't feel as if my life is this big secret I need to protect from the eyes of the world. I'm not some fundamentalist nut job in the midwestern united states.
That's me personally.
The question is, how bad is the crime in the place you're living in that CCTV cameras need to be bought? Do you really want to live in a neighborhood that is so bad that they need CCTV cameras?
|
On June 23 2011 11:23 VGhost wrote:I wouldn't care that much about LAN if playing over the internet, everything going to the servers, was more reliable. But right now it doesn't, and while that's not exactly Blizzard's "fault" - they have nothing to do with the infrastructure - it's still frustrating (and happens everywhere). This is exactly my point. If playing on the internet actually meant you got a perfect experience where you would never ever want to play on LAN instead, that would of course be fine.
But the reality is quite simply not so. LAN is superior in many ways to Bnet 2.0. Sure, I'm the first to defend their matchmaking system, it's quite awesome. Their ladder system too, very good. Map pool? Could be better, but it's only on the ladder so I don't really mind. But not having the option of LAN is quite simply negative, there's no upside for the customer here. Sure, maybe Blizzard has done some amazing research and realised that this game will sell better due to no LAN but that does not mean that they can take away my right to be pissed about it.
|
On June 23 2011 11:28 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 11:18 branflakes14 wrote:On June 23 2011 11:14 lorkac wrote:
Which means the only people who would complain about no LAN are the people who are trying to not buy SC2. And the only reason you don't want a CCTV camera in your living room is because you want to commit crimes. What other reason can there be? The camera doesn't stop you doing anything you were normally going to do so you shouldn't have a problem with it. I actually would not have a problem with a CCTV camera in my room, personally. And yes, it is because I don't plan on doing anything illegal. And it also is because I don't feel shy about myself and I don't feel as if my life is this big secret I need to protect from the eyes of the world. I'm not some fundamentalist nut job in the midwestern united states. That's me personally. The question is, how bad is the crime in the place you're living in that CCTV cameras need to be bought? Do you really want to live in a neighborhood that is so bad that they need CCTV cameras?
...You can't be serious.
|
On June 23 2011 11:28 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 11:18 branflakes14 wrote:On June 23 2011 11:14 lorkac wrote:
Which means the only people who would complain about no LAN are the people who are trying to not buy SC2. And the only reason you don't want a CCTV camera in your living room is because you want to commit crimes. What other reason can there be? The camera doesn't stop you doing anything you were normally going to do so you shouldn't have a problem with it. I actually would not have a problem with a CCTV camera in my room, personally. And yes, it is because I don't plan on doing anything illegal. And it also is because I don't feel shy about myself and I don't feel as if my life is this big secret I need to protect from the eyes of the world. I'm not some fundamentalist nut job in the midwestern united states. That's me personally. The question is, how bad is the crime in the place you're living in that CCTV cameras need to be bought? Do you really want to live in a neighborhood that is so bad that they need CCTV cameras?
I was only trying to get a point across through analogy. In actively taking tough measures against piracy, publishers are treating customers like potential pirates rather than treating pirates like potential customers.
|
On June 23 2011 11:28 branflakes14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 11:24 PepperoniPiZZa wrote:
Funny how you guys keep going on when I've already showed you the perfect unexploitable solution for this whole lag problem. Blizzard needs to implement Dual Screen Play. Every modern machine has 2 video outs and enough USB slots to hook up all the required equipment. All we lack is a software patch by blizzard. Sounds exploitable to me.
It's a videosignal generated by a GPU, you can't just reroute it to somewhere without any signficant loss in quality and huge delay.
On June 23 2011 11:27 latan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 11:24 PepperoniPiZZa wrote:
Funny how you guys keep going on when I've already showed you the perfect unexploitable solution for this whole lag problem. Blizzard needs to implement Dual Screen Play. Every modern machine has 2 video outs and enough USB slots to hook up all the required equipment. All we lack is a software patch by blizzard. Because your solution only addresses 2 player matches.
Pick one:
A solution
or
No solution
|
On June 23 2011 11:23 VGhost wrote:
I completely understand the reasoning. I have no way of knowing how much money piracy has cost game developers, and the game developers should get the money - they made the game.
On the other hand, would piracy be less rampant if games were more reasonably priced? I'm enough of a fan that I got the special edition of SC2 for the full $100, but in the abstract, for a game I'm not sure is going to be awesome, I wouldn't want to pay more than $30-$40. Maybe I'm out of touch with the market, but to me it seems like video games are kind of over-priced on the whole. Obviously not extremely overpriced as sales are huge, but selling for more than they're "worth".
I wouldn't care that much about LAN if playing over the internet, everything going to the servers, was more reliable. But right now it doesn't, and while that's not exactly Blizzard's "fault" - they have nothing to do with the infrastructure - it's still frustrating (and happens everywhere).
Even though there will always be countless people who claim to "pirate to see if it works", or "pirate and then buy", the vast, vast majority of people will pirate no matter what and because it's free. Thus, factoring pirates into pricing decisions is stupid.
Companies should charge to optimize (number of people willing to pay price) * (price) which I'm sure they've given a LOT of thought to. What it's "worth" really has little to do with it.
Furthermore, it's impossible to tell how much it's really "worth". A lot of times studios have to invest millions into flops and then make it back on the one hit. Do you factor the cost of development of the failed game into the value of the successful game? What about the cost of marketing - maybe it coudl be less, or maybe the more people buying it allows that aforementioned price to be lower because number of people went up.
As far as the piracy argument I think the guy in the reddit thread nailed it. I also think there is a psychological aspect at work where game studios, besides protecting their monetary interests, hate the feeling of being wronged by the pirates. If you put your blood sweat and tears into a product and then someone played it without paying the price you asked for, you would probably want to stop them too regardless of whether it made economic sense.
|
On June 23 2011 11:31 PepperoniPiZZa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 11:28 branflakes14 wrote:On June 23 2011 11:24 PepperoniPiZZa wrote:
Funny how you guys keep going on when I've already showed you the perfect unexploitable solution for this whole lag problem. Blizzard needs to implement Dual Screen Play. Every modern machine has 2 video outs and enough USB slots to hook up all the required equipment. All we lack is a software patch by blizzard. Sounds exploitable to me. It's a videosignal generated by a GPU, you can't just reroute it to somewhere without any signficant loss in quality and huge delay.
Hence the quick attempt at post salvage :D
Though it'd take a mighty computer to run something like that. Although I guess if you're running a big tournament that's the least of your worries.
|
On June 23 2011 11:30 branflakes14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 11:28 lorkac wrote:On June 23 2011 11:18 branflakes14 wrote:On June 23 2011 11:14 lorkac wrote:
Which means the only people who would complain about no LAN are the people who are trying to not buy SC2. And the only reason you don't want a CCTV camera in your living room is because you want to commit crimes. What other reason can there be? The camera doesn't stop you doing anything you were normally going to do so you shouldn't have a problem with it. I actually would not have a problem with a CCTV camera in my room, personally. And yes, it is because I don't plan on doing anything illegal. And it also is because I don't feel shy about myself and I don't feel as if my life is this big secret I need to protect from the eyes of the world. I'm not some fundamentalist nut job in the midwestern united states. That's me personally. The question is, how bad is the crime in the place you're living in that CCTV cameras need to be bought? Do you really want to live in a neighborhood that is so bad that they need CCTV cameras? I was only trying to get a point across through analogy. In actively taking tough measures against piracy, publishers are treating customers like potential pirates rather than treating pirates like potential customers.
And this is the issue. Take a look at this picture:
![[image loading]](http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/9881/bitgamerp.png)
Relatively recent poll from Bitgamer. Look at those numbers. People are pirating games and THEN SUBSEQUENTLY BUYING THEM.
That's the piracy community, at least 87% of them according to this poll of 12,000 people of the best private tracker in the world. Instead of treating us like criminals who are literally stealing their livelihoods and actually producing quality games and removing DRM would make me, and a majority of others to buy their games. I outright bought Witcher 2 because of the removal of DRM after I played it a bit.
The voice of "I PIRATE EVERYTHING SINCE I DONT PAY FOR EVERYTHING" is a very small part in the community but consequently the loudest -- giving the illusion they are the majority when in fact most of pirates hate their fucking guts if they like the game and don't buy it after. Every major cracker tells you to buy the products if you enjoy them. There are thousands of comments of people saying "SO BUYING THIS" after torrenting them.
These are potential customers that they are driving away as criminals. That's my issue with this crap. They take away something that is basically mandatory in a game like this and then when people flip a shit about it, they blame it on pirates.
|
On June 23 2011 11:34 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 11:30 branflakes14 wrote:On June 23 2011 11:28 lorkac wrote:On June 23 2011 11:18 branflakes14 wrote:On June 23 2011 11:14 lorkac wrote:
Which means the only people who would complain about no LAN are the people who are trying to not buy SC2. And the only reason you don't want a CCTV camera in your living room is because you want to commit crimes. What other reason can there be? The camera doesn't stop you doing anything you were normally going to do so you shouldn't have a problem with it. I actually would not have a problem with a CCTV camera in my room, personally. And yes, it is because I don't plan on doing anything illegal. And it also is because I don't feel shy about myself and I don't feel as if my life is this big secret I need to protect from the eyes of the world. I'm not some fundamentalist nut job in the midwestern united states. That's me personally. The question is, how bad is the crime in the place you're living in that CCTV cameras need to be bought? Do you really want to live in a neighborhood that is so bad that they need CCTV cameras? I was only trying to get a point across through analogy. In actively taking tough measures against piracy, publishers are treating customers like potential pirates rather than treating pirates like potential customers. And this is the issue. Take a look at this picture: Relatively recent poll from Bitgamer. Look at those numbers. People are pirating games and THEN SUBSEQUENTLY BUYING THEM. That's the piracy community, at least 87% of them according to this poll of 12,000 people of the best private tracker in the world. Instead of treating us like criminals who are literally stealing their livelihoods and actually producing quality games and removing DRM would make me, and a majority of others to buy their games. I outright bought Witcher 2 because of the removal of DRM after I played it a bit. The voice of "I PIRATE EVERYTHING SINCE I DONT PAY FOR EVERYTHING" is a very small part in the community. Every major cracker tells you to buy the products if you enjoy them. There are thousands of comments of people saying "SO BUYING THIS" after torrenting them. These are potential customers that they are driving away as criminals. That's my issue with this crap. They take away something that is basically mandatory in a game like this and then when people flip a shit about it, they blame it on pirates.
I can vouch for this. I've pirated many games and then bought them because I just thought they were worth buying. Brood War, Diablo 2 (while avoiding a minefield of trojans) and Starcraft 2 included.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
