|
On June 23 2011 07:24 Osmoses wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:18 darkscream wrote:
Bad argument made by propagandist.
Pirates wouldn't have bought the game anyway, and including LAN would let your game get exposed to new people for free. This is like saying "terrorists ruined travel", even though it's the government ruining travelling.
Not to mention that most of these games have online ladder systems and that's what people buy the game for - The competitive ladder.
What can you really say. As a game developer he has to talk like that because its his bread and butter. But, because of this I feel like his opinion is pretty much not relevant because it's strongly biased without any actual proof/evidence to his claims. Just saber rattling towards pirates. Had I not been able to download the vast majority of the games on my computer, I would have bought them instead. I never play SC2 on ladder, I only play against friends. What is your post if not biased, without any actual proof/evidence?
This is me exactly, if i can play a game without paying for it..... then i don't pay for it. If a game requires a legit copy to play multiplayer, I generally try to find a way to play for free first and see if its worth buying.... with SC2 I wanted to play it and knew I had no option but to buy it if i wanted to play online and since i'm a blizz junkie i just went out and bought it, infact i bought it twice lol
While many pirates would never pay for the game, there are many who will when forced to. There is a steam patch that allows you to play DN forever with a pirate copy, guess what..... i know a ton of people who were gonna buy it that just downloaded it instead once they found out they could play multiplayer for free......
|
I Can understand why a business would not want the have lan support, yet cant they make it so you need to authenticate with blizzard to Start a LAN, perhaps with small checks every few mins to authenticate this way a connection is still required but a stable one is not.
|
Isn't the Witcher 2 a bad example though? It did sell well, although there is no reason for a rational human being with the internet to buy it. Goodwill does make money.
Besides LAN is different. Tell me if I'm wrong but IMO people would still buy it to get the full experience online.
"you're convincing the wrong people"
Then who are we supposed to convince, pirates?
|
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".
you do realize that microsoft makes money because you NEED to use legit copies in business.
if your company gets caught without a license, there's a good chance you will get fucked (while there's almost no risk to pirating a game).
comparing MS, which ships the most popular operating system + business apps in the world, to a video game is pretty stupid. especially when it comes to profit, lol.
|
On June 23 2011 07:20 akaname wrote:
i'm genuinely intrigued about the people saying this article is nonsense...
Why are Blizzard not including LAN? Like, seriously, it's annoyed a lot of fans and wouldn't be that difficult technically? For what reason are they deciding not to?
It's pretty simple, with LAN, you can have things like ICCUP/brainclan, etc. where you dont need to pay for SC to play, and you can play online, with real rankings, etc. Blizzard doesn't make any money off of this, and people that might buy the game would just pirate it instead.
That being said, I think they should introduce a 'tournament' edition, but only under really strict/controlled circumstances (Eg. Only in GSL, MLG mainstage/booth, dreamhack mainstage/booth) so atleast important broadcasted games are un-interrupted, without the chance for people stealing it.
|
On June 23 2011 07:29 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:24 Osmoses wrote:On June 23 2011 07:18 darkscream wrote:
Bad argument made by propagandist.
Pirates wouldn't have bought the game anyway, and including LAN would let your game get exposed to new people for free. This is like saying "terrorists ruined travel", even though it's the government ruining travelling.
Not to mention that most of these games have online ladder systems and that's what people buy the game for - The competitive ladder.
What can you really say. As a game developer he has to talk like that because its his bread and butter. But, because of this I feel like his opinion is pretty much not relevant because it's strongly biased without any actual proof/evidence to his claims. Just saber rattling towards pirates. Had I not been able to download the vast majority of the games on my computer, I would have bought them instead. I never play SC2 on ladder, I only play against friends. What is your post if not biased, without any actual proof/evidence? This is me exactly, if i can play a game without paying for it..... then i don't pay for it. If a game requires a legit copy to play multiplayer, I generally try to find a way to play for free first and see if its worth buying.... with SC2 I wanted to play it and knew I had no option but to buy it if i wanted to play online and since i'm a blizz junkie i just went out and bought it, infact i bought it twice lol While many pirates would never pay for the game, there are many who will when forced to. There is a steam patch that allows you to play DN forever with a pirate copy, guess what..... i know a ton of people who were gonna buy it that just downloaded it instead once they found out they could play multiplayer for free......
You make me a bit sad. Why wouldn't you buy a game you spend time playing even if you can pirate it?
|
It's a shame, But finally we all get to see the real consequenses of pirating.
|
On June 23 2011 07:19 kNyTTyM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:14 Erionn wrote:On June 23 2011 07:10 mdma-_- wrote:
that still doesnt explain why they cant allow people to play each other in lan with the necessecity of being logged into bnet/whatever online client.
cheap excuse just to blame it on pirates tbh What the hell would be the point of LAN if you had to be logged into Bnet? The entire issue with no LAN is retarded internet problems that tournaments seem to constantly have. This allows players to practice on LAN environment. Then you give large tournament organizers a "special version" that has true lan. I have no idea how much effort blizz would have to put into this but there are ways for lan to be incorporated
It's a bit unreasonable to think that Blizzard is going to hand tournament organizers a multi-million dollar 'key' and just hope it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. All it takes is once for it to be leaked and then everything is fucked.
|
Even if the justification is reasonable (it is I think), it doesn't explain why you can't have a LAN version ONLY for major tournaments. Tournaments on the scale of MLG, GSL, DH, IEM should not have to rely on the internet.
|
On June 23 2011 07:31 MK4512 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:20 akaname wrote:
i'm genuinely intrigued about the people saying this article is nonsense...
Why are Blizzard not including LAN? Like, seriously, it's annoyed a lot of fans and wouldn't be that difficult technically? For what reason are they deciding not to?
It's pretty simple, with LAN, you can have things like ICCUP/brainclan, etc. where you dont need to pay for SC to play, and you can play online, with real rankings, etc. Blizzard doesn't make any money off of this, and people that might buy the game would just pirate it instead. That being said, I think they should introduce a 'tournament' edition, but only under really strict/controlled circumstances (Eg. Only in GSL, MLG mainstage/booth, dreamhack mainstage/booth) so atleast important broadcasted games are un-interrupted, without the chance for people stealing it.
I've wondered why they don't do this myself but the truth is that kind of thing will leak out no matter how much you try to stop it
|
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.
Just because you say it's not debatable, doesn't mean it's the truth.
Let's look at what you say, and apply it to SC2:
Pirates: Can only play single player.
Customers: Have to suffer through lag that is pretty damn annoying in local tournaments or lan parties.
I would say that it harms someone that pirates SC2 more than a customer.
It doesn't matter where you stand in this, but don't act like only your point is valid.
|
For those of you looking for a LAN backbone with an authentication service (including me), it's quite an engineering task. How do they make it run while authenticating, without creating problems that we already have with bnet? If the authentication is too lax, it gets hacked very quickly. If it's too demanding, we all might as well play on bnet anyways. Either way though, once LAN is supported and something goes wrong, the game will be forever pirated, since there's no way to brick the copies which have been pirated.
|
On June 23 2011 07:31 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:29 emythrel wrote:On June 23 2011 07:24 Osmoses wrote:On June 23 2011 07:18 darkscream wrote:
Bad argument made by propagandist.
Pirates wouldn't have bought the game anyway, and including LAN would let your game get exposed to new people for free. This is like saying "terrorists ruined travel", even though it's the government ruining travelling.
Not to mention that most of these games have online ladder systems and that's what people buy the game for - The competitive ladder.
What can you really say. As a game developer he has to talk like that because its his bread and butter. But, because of this I feel like his opinion is pretty much not relevant because it's strongly biased without any actual proof/evidence to his claims. Just saber rattling towards pirates. Had I not been able to download the vast majority of the games on my computer, I would have bought them instead. I never play SC2 on ladder, I only play against friends. What is your post if not biased, without any actual proof/evidence? This is me exactly, if i can play a game without paying for it..... then i don't pay for it. If a game requires a legit copy to play multiplayer, I generally try to find a way to play for free first and see if its worth buying.... with SC2 I wanted to play it and knew I had no option but to buy it if i wanted to play online and since i'm a blizz junkie i just went out and bought it, infact i bought it twice lol While many pirates would never pay for the game, there are many who will when forced to. There is a steam patch that allows you to play DN forever with a pirate copy, guess what..... i know a ton of people who were gonna buy it that just downloaded it instead once they found out they could play multiplayer for free...... You make me a bit sad. Why wouldn't you buy a game you spend time playing even if you can pirate it?
Because you have a limited amount of money, if you don't buy that game you can afford going to that concert with your favorite band and when you can get the game for free it doesn't make any sense to prioritize the companies well being above your enjoyment.
On June 23 2011 07:27 akaname wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:26 Seronei wrote:On June 23 2011 07:24 akaname wrote:On June 23 2011 07:21 Seronei wrote:
They think Lan will increase piracy, but there is no way to know until they add lan and see an increase in pirated software coupled with a decline in sales. Else they're just playing a guessing game. Until then they're just spouting bullshit.
Also the reddit link has nothing to do with "goodwill" it has everything to do with the Witcher 2 being hyped as shit among PC-gaming crowd and graphics that uses high end pc hardware. that's really dumb logic, sorry: "walking down through those dark alleyways in this rough neighbourhood at night might get me mugged... but there's no way to know until I try. Well, there's no way to know unless I try, else I'm just playing a guessing game!" if it's a potential threat, why would they risk it? Because it might increase sales? The same way you would walk through a shady neighborhood because the way is faster. LOL, you got me there. I love how you extended the metaphor <3 i do think it's their call to make on the relative risks though, and they must have thought it through in some depth.
Yes I agree completely. I don't expect Blizzard to release lan ever which is why I rather ask for a way to rejoin custom games you've disconnected from.
|
On June 23 2011 07:31 MK4512 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:20 akaname wrote:
i'm genuinely intrigued about the people saying this article is nonsense...
Why are Blizzard not including LAN? Like, seriously, it's annoyed a lot of fans and wouldn't be that difficult technically? For what reason are they deciding not to?
It's pretty simple, with LAN, you can have things like ICCUP/brainclan, etc. where you dont need to pay for SC to play, and you can play online, with real rankings, etc. Blizzard doesn't make any money off of this, and people that might buy the game would just pirate it instead. That being said, I think they should introduce a 'tournament' edition, but only under really strict/controlled circumstances (Eg. Only in GSL, MLG mainstage/booth, dreamhack mainstage/booth) so atleast important broadcasted games are un-interrupted, without the chance for people stealing it.
they have said a tournament edition is a possibility, but thats the closest we will ever get to lan
|
On June 23 2011 07:27 branflakes14 wrote:
That's a poor excuse for no LAN, especially when games like League of Legends and Quake Live ARE available for free. And remember Brood War? How did that game even sell a single copy when it had LAN!?
League of Legends earn it's money on micro-transactions, Quake Live on ads (though it's main purpose is to stroke the fanbase), and when Brood War was big it wasn't as easy as googling "starcraft +crack". Though obviously when a crack was found me and my friends wasted no time copying the shit out of it and spreading it around lan parties.
|
This picture comes to mind:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xp0Cr.jpg)
I find it sad that so many developers only look at the negatives of sharing and completely ignore the positives (exposure, in particular). Yes, there are thieves who download and enjoy games simply because they don't want to buy, but there is a huge segment out there that downloads to try it, because they can't afford it (potential loyal customer, if you don't threaten them at this stage), or for other reasons.
|
Vatican City State334 Posts
If this guys attitude is indicitive of the HoN developers' then the idea of paying money to reset stats makes so much sense now.
|
On June 23 2011 07:27 branflakes14 wrote:
That's a poor excuse for no LAN, especially when games like League of Legends and Quake Live ARE available for free. And remember Brood War? How did that game even sell a single copy when it had LAN!?
I literally downloaded a pirate copy of BW from ICCUP because I was too lazy to find where I put the disc. That's how easy it is to do. You can make a server that tricks a game client into thinking it's a LAN. Remember, ICCUP is technically an illegal pirate server, so it's not like there isn't precedent.
What if Blizz made LAN, and then ICCUP or somebody made a pirate server with a private ladder using GSL Maps? You think that wouldn't be really popular?
On June 23 2011 07:30 MilesTeg wrote:
"you're convincing the wrong people"
Then who are we supposed to convince, pirates?
Yes.
|
On June 23 2011 07:18 darkscream wrote:
Bad argument made by propagandist.
Pirates wouldn't have bought the game anyway, and including LAN would let your game get exposed to new people for free. This is like saying "terrorists ruined travel", even though it's the government ruining travelling.
Not to mention that most of these games have online ladder systems and that's what people buy the game for - The competitive ladder.
What can you really say. As a game developer he has to talk like that because its his bread and butter. But, because of this I feel like his opinion is pretty much not relevant because it's strongly biased without any actual proof/evidence to his claims. Just saber rattling towards pirates.
Rather than claiming that every instance of piracy is a lost sale (the common developer claim) or that pirates would not have bought the game anyway (common pirate claim) it's clearly somewhere in the middle - there is likely a significant set of potential customers in the middle who may likely pirate a game if they can but will go ahead and buy it if a pirated version isn't available.
|
For the people saying that that the computer would not have lost money otherwise, that is simply not true. Not 100% of the people who pirate it are people who just wanted to try it out, and in no way would they have bought it. A percentage of the people who pirated it liked the game, and had the money, but found out there was an inexpensive way ($0) method to get the game. This is true.
The percentage of the people who pirate the game that would have in fact bought it is debatable. Let's say for the argument that its 10%. 10% of the people who pirated the game would have bought the game if there was no method the pirate it.
Someone earlier threw out a number of 4 million pirated copies of MW2. So they lost 400 000 customers if we assume the 10%. Lets say each game is 60 bucks. The company lost 24 million dollars due to lost sales.
Lets say the percentage is 1%. That still is a lost of 2.4 million dollars.
So, economically, not including LAN makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
