|
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? Way to generalize? Hi, I'm from Sweden and grown up in a family of Social Democrats(or as Tea-Party'ers would say, a communist) and I most certainly would mind having a CCTV camera in my home. Just because you don't mind doesn't mean that it's okay for everyone else.
I lived for 5 years in the most troubled area in my city(which, admittedly, is pretty damn safe compared to the slums of some of the worlds major cities, but we had our share of shootings in the street where I lived) and I would vehemently have opposed CCTV-like camera systems around where I lived. The money spent on cameras would always be better spent on better education and measures aimed at eliminating poverty(hint: poverty is the cause of most violent crime).
|
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. Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 11:27 latan 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. Because your solution only addresses 2 player matches. Pick one: A solution or No solution
Yes you're right.
I pick a solution: LAN.
What you are proposing a PARTIAL solution that would benefit almost no-one, but would take developer time to be implemented.
So actually, no solution is better than your "perfect" alternative.
|
On June 23 2011 11:36 branflakes14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 11:34 Fruscainte wrote: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: ![[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. 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.
Diablo 2 was not even worth the trouble haha.
And yeah, even for most multiplayer games it's possible to test them out with Tuungle. I know I bought at least 5-6 games in the past year I would have completely avoided when I pirated them and played them on Hamachi or something. Most notable being Section 8.
The loudest part of the Piracy community is the smallest minority, unfortunately.
|
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.
That would take one heck of a computer to run.
|
I don't understand the people in this thread that don't undertand their point, look at Korea for example. Starcraft 1 is on every single computer practically, do you honestly think every single computer with a copy was purchased? I had SC BW on all my computers growing up but I only owned one copy because if I wanted to play LAN with some friends I'm obviously not going to buy 3 copies for my own house. It makes perfect sense to me, all I wish was that they could implement something like others have suggest where you can play on LAN connection but you need a valid battle.net ID to log in. I don't know how it would work, not an expert obviously, but something like that would do wonders for SC tourneys.
|
On June 23 2011 07:14 ThePurist wrote:
Microsoft operating systems and office software are two of the biggest pirated softwares and they still make money. This guy tries to act like a realist but he doesn't really have a clue about economics.
The opinions are too pessimistic and overgeneralizes the vast majority of people who purchase games with their hard-earned cash. Pirates don't stop revenue streams pirates were not a consumer in the first place. The assumption that a pirated copy was a sale is flawed imo and his last few personal statements are questionable as I perceive them as a cop-out when his whole opinion was about "simple economics".
Every single friend I know that owns SC2 would have pirated it instead if given the chance. They aren't non-consumers.
"and they still make money" is kind of a dumb argument, because they are still losing money regardless. You can't just legitimize it by saying, well at least they make some money!
I'm definitely annoyed that there is no LAN but I can understand the reasoning behind it. If not for Blizzard, at least for S2 with HoN, which is a MUCH smaller company who it WOULD affect a lot more in terms of revenue.
Bottom line though is, whether it's good or bad, right or wrong, companies most definitely would lose money if their game could be pirated. It's literally millions of copies pirated.. and of course not all of the would have bought the game, but quite a lot would have.
|
Taking out LAN doesn't stop piracy. Hell I pirated SC2 when it first came out to see if I'd like it since I wasn't in the beta and there was no demo. I played through the entire single player when I pirated it and then I bought it a week later and played through the single player again.
Dear companies, not everyone fucks you over. So stop crying out piracy as a blanket excuse for making shitty games and removing features.
|
On June 23 2011 11:46 Schnell wrote:
Taking out LAN doesn't stop piracy. Hell I pirated SC2 when it first came out to see if I'd like it since I wasn't in the beta and there was no demo. I played through the entire single player when I pirated it and then I bought it a week later and played through the single player again.
Dear companies, not everyone fucks you over. So stop crying out piracy as a blanket excuse for making shitty games and removing features.
They aren't talking about single player.
|
On June 23 2011 11:46 Angra wrote:
They aren't talking about single player.
Not everyone pirates for just MP. They already have ways to make it so you can't play MP if you don't have a real copy of the game. Not having LAN doesn't matter.
|
On June 23 2011 11:48 Schnell wrote:Not everyone pirates for just MP. They already have ways to make it so you can't play MP if you don't have a real copy of the game. Not having LAN doesn't matter.
If they had LAN pirated copies can run multiplayer on Hamachi (and eventually a more robust service, similar to ICCUP)
|
I think the solution is to just start developing games for free and rely on a microtransaction model. The whole idea of games as a service is definitely more lucrative than selling retail imo and its pointless for the consumer to pirate a game they can download for free anyway.
Having basic functionality be free, such as LAN, while requiring a monthly fee to play online would be ideal.
Obviously this only applies purely to multiplayer games, so I'm not sure how content such as sc2's campaign could be handled.
|
I´ve pirated my fair share of games over the years but I´ve always bought the games I really enjoyed playing, the games I didn´t buy I would never have bought anyway. I pirate games that I´m unsure if they are worth buying or not since very few games release demos that give a good overview of the actual game.
I have definitely bought more games due to piracy, games that I would never have tried in the first place if I couldn´t download them and try for free. If someone creates a really good game that I enjoy playing, I would feel bad about not buying it. I don´t buy a large percentage of the games I pirate though since there´s so many bad games released.
Now that I think about it I´ve actually bought every release from Blizzard since the first Warcraft except the expansion for Diablo I, Hellfire or whatever it was called.
|
On June 23 2011 11:52 gurrpp wrote:
I think the solution is to just start developing games for free and rely on a microtransaction model. The whole idea of games as a service is definitely more lucrative than selling retail imo and its pointless for the consumer to pirate a game they can download for free anyway.
Having basic functionality be free, such as LAN, while requiring a monthly fee to play online would be ideal.
Obviously this only applies purely to multiplayer games, so I'm not sure how content such as sc2's campaign could be handled.
..Are you seriously saying you think the solution to this is to have a subscription fee + item shop?
Are you fucking serious?
Could you come up with an even more stupid idea?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 23 2011 11:39 ak1knight 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. That would take one heck of a computer to run.
Considering that most pros prefer to play at the lowest settings, I strongly doubt it.
On June 23 2011 11:37 latan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 11:31 PepperoniPiZZa wrote: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. On June 23 2011 11:27 latan 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. Because your solution only addresses 2 player matches. Pick one: A solution or No solution Yes you're right. I pick a solution: LAN. What you are proposing a PARTIAL solution that would benefit almost no-one, but would take developer time to be implemented. So actually, no solution is better than your "perfect" alternative.
The benefit for professional play would be huge.
|
On June 23 2011 11:54 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 11:52 gurrpp wrote:
I think the solution is to just start developing games for free and rely on a microtransaction model. The whole idea of games as a service is definitely more lucrative than selling retail imo and its pointless for the consumer to pirate a game they can download for free anyway.
Having basic functionality be free, such as LAN, while requiring a monthly fee to play online would be ideal.
Obviously this only applies purely to multiplayer games, so I'm not sure how content such as sc2's campaign could be handled. ..Are you seriously saying you think the solution to this is to have a subscription fee + item shop? Are you fucking serious? Could you come up with an even more stupid idea?
You start off with the three workers, but you either have to win a ton of games or pay some cash to unlock each new unit. I could see it working 
|
On June 23 2011 11:54 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 11:52 gurrpp wrote:
I think the solution is to just start developing games for free and rely on a microtransaction model. The whole idea of games as a service is definitely more lucrative than selling retail imo and its pointless for the consumer to pirate a game they can download for free anyway.
Having basic functionality be free, such as LAN, while requiring a monthly fee to play online would be ideal.
Obviously this only applies purely to multiplayer games, so I'm not sure how content such as sc2's campaign could be handled. ..Are you seriously saying you think the solution to this is to have a subscription fee + item shop? Are you fucking serious? Could you come up with an even more stupid idea?
Nothing in that post mentioned a subscription. I think he meant games along the lines of League of Legends. Free with optional cash stuff if you like the game.
|
Best solution would seem to me to be this: release the game with no LAN to prevent piracy in the initial release period and offer a solid online component. Then 6 month - 1 year down the track release a patch that enables LAN play for those that want it. At this point piracy is less of a problem anyway (most games sell the vast majority of copies in the first few months) and you get to announce it as a big new feature. This gives you free publicity, sells additional copies to those people that wanted LAN play and allows some more people to pirate the game (which actually can be beneficial since many of those pirates will be poor high school/college students who will have nice paying jobs once the inevitable sequel rolls around will then be more likely to buy it). It really is win/win.
|
On June 23 2011 11:34 Fruscainte wrote:
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.
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.
So you think self-reporting surveys are accurate. Do you really think that nobody lied about whether they buy the game?
Furthermore, what about all the people who don't vote because they are ashamed. Or even better, the fact that MOST PEOPLE ARE APATHETIC means that the same people who don't give a shit about pirating and not buying are the same people who don't give a shit about your surveys examining the ethics of it.
It's called a silent majority. You are in extreme rationalization mode if you really think most pirates buy games they like, and it's also a LOT easier to "not like" a game that you've played for 20 hours if it lets you talk yourself into keeping 60 bucks.
|
On June 23 2011 11:50 ak1knight wrote:
If they had LAN pirated copies can run multiplayer on Hamachi (and eventually a more robust service, similar to ICCUP)
You missed the overarching theme to my original post. My point is that not everyone screws over companies and will buy the game if it's good enough. Even if it had LAN pirates would play with a small group of people regardless. Pirating is a pain in the ass, constant updates deter pirates from pirating because they have to wait to fix their games or stay on the current version and not get any new features. Taking out features because of a threat that you can't get even remotely reliable numbers to is bad for everyone.
|
On June 23 2011 11:57 branflakes14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 11:54 Fruscainte wrote:On June 23 2011 11:52 gurrpp wrote:
I think the solution is to just start developing games for free and rely on a microtransaction model. The whole idea of games as a service is definitely more lucrative than selling retail imo and its pointless for the consumer to pirate a game they can download for free anyway.
Having basic functionality be free, such as LAN, while requiring a monthly fee to play online would be ideal.
Obviously this only applies purely to multiplayer games, so I'm not sure how content such as sc2's campaign could be handled. ..Are you seriously saying you think the solution to this is to have a subscription fee + item shop? Are you fucking serious? Could you come up with an even more stupid idea? Nothing in that post mentioned a subscription. I think he meant games along the lines of League of Legends. Free with optional cash stuff if you like the game.
requiring a monthly fee to play online would be ideal.
Uhhhhh
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
