|
On June 24 2011 01:24 Slegg wrote:
People cant legally publish stuff with copyright on torrents or any other hosting service, the thing that is legal-ish is downloading it from direct sites, downloading from torrents is already slightly illegal as you are sharing the files you downloaded with other people. (and very illegal for the original uploader)
You've continuously made stuff up in this thread, talk about things you dont know about (music vs radio and this whole pirating issue tbh).
Ive given a reason why companies should include LAN etc. and you chose to ignore that a concentrate on poorly written sentece.
You believe in cutting people's rights, corporations sabotaging individuals and basically black mailing them, airport staff touching your balls.
I would not be surprised to find out you download music and movies from the internet.
I have nothing more to say to you.
A.) I'm glad you agree that file sharing is illegal.
B.) You seeing a reason for LAN does not counter Blizzard's reason for not having LAN. Both reasons can exist without either being wrong. In other words--you don't actually have a good reason for why not having LAN is wrong other than you feel like it.
C.) I don't believe in cutting people's rights. I'm simply saying that I'm the type of person who believes in treating people exactly like you yourself are treated--and that I'm glad that Blizzard isn't me. If you read my post you'd see that I said it was a good thing that Blizzard wasn't like me. I come from a country where if homeless people showed up on your property and built a shack while you were off in the beach, the law of the land would not kick them out and tell you to just accept your new neighbors. I come from a country where laws are broken daily in front of police officers who feel that those laws being broken in front of them are harmless unless they feel its not. I come from a country where the firefighters can choose to not show up to a fire unless it's big enough to worry about. I hated that.
I moved to the US and I hear that laws are only going to be pushed if the perpetrator is rich enough/poor enough? I think that is bullshit. So stop with your privileged mindset that punishment is only something corporations should get because they deserve it and that everyone in your class/age/economic/social bracket is a saint that is simply doing what he can to get by. It's favoritism and its no different than my neighbor's house burning down because the fire marshal wanted to take a shower before he left the station and so they left half an hour after they were called in.
Just because you think something is harmless does not make it so.
D.) As someone who knows people who work in the airport. I find it offensive that you would rather they "don't mind" that people stole their planes and crashed it into buildings. I find it offensive that you think they should just "calm down" after they are given such immense government pressures to control their passengers. That you would think that riding a plane is this easy thing that you deserve to have and that its not one of the most expensive things to drive *IN THE WORLD.* After 9/11 airports had a hard time making enough money to pay for the fuel to transport people--let alone make a profit. They can't afford to be known as the plane that terrorist hijacked, or that had a shoe bomb explode. It's their right to worry about those kinds of things as business owners.
When business owners are being abused by "fringe groups," it is within their right to get pissed off and try to make a safer product.
C.) Did you read that post you linked about the music industry? It only became a problem *because* DJ's decided to upload the content without paying the producer of the music. In essence, the Music Companies only got upset when radio hosts decided to act *EXACTLY* like pirates do now. They didn't mind having music on the radio. It's cheaper for them to have it on the radio. They mind when people don't pay for the music they made because that is *stealing.*
|
You made me this way, Darkspore. Me and Steam, we used to be tight. I was legit. If devs want to cut down on piracy they need to cut down on the number of terrible games that are released at the standard 49.99 price point (@HoN dev, when did you last pay 30 dollars for a game that wasn't B-list or 3 years old?). The ice cream man does his thing to make money and not to put a smile on my face, sure, but if he puts shit in a cone and tries to call it chocolate at 4.99 you can bet I'll be stealing my next shitcone just to be safe. All it takes is one overpriced, bad game to make a permanent cynic who is more likely to "try" the next game before buying it. Similarly it only takes a couple of incidents like MW2 to make developers feel like taking out popular but admittedly risky features like LAN is also just safer. I'm sorry we can't trust each other any more, PC devs, but maybe we can get some ice cream and talk sometime.
|
On June 24 2011 01:50 AGsc wrote:
You made me this way, Darkspore. Me and Steam, we used to be tight. I was legit. If devs want to cut down on piracy they need to cut down on the number of terrible games that are released at the standard 49.99 price point (@HoN dev, when did you last pay 30 dollars for a game that wasn't B-list or 3 years old?). The ice cream man does his thing to make money and not to put a smile on my face, sure, but if he puts shit in a cone and tries to call it chocolate at 4.99 you can bet I'll be stealing my next shitcone just to be safe. All it takes is one overpriced, bad game to make a permanent cynic who is more likely to "try" the next game before buying it. Similarly it only takes a couple of incidents like MW2 to make developers feel like taking out popular but admittedly risky features like LAN is also just safer. I'm sorry we can't trust each other any more, PC devs, but maybe we can get some ice cream and talk sometime.
Um... sorry but if I knew the ice-cream man was putting shit in the cone and trying to pass it off as chocolate, I wouldn't even steal it.
|
On June 24 2011 01:40 V2. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 01:25 lorkac wrote:On June 24 2011 01:09 Angry_Fetus wrote:On June 24 2011 01:00 lorkac wrote:On June 24 2011 00:55 Spacedude wrote:On June 24 2011 00:34 Lodgeinator wrote:If I were Blizzard, I'd not be scared to pirate games and simply sue every person who downloaded the game, every website that tried posting the game up for downloading. I would then hire hackers to create viruses that destroys and erases hard drives and put those up as free downloads on torrent sites so that people who do download get viruses that harm the entire computer maliciously. I would infest every single torrent site with as many viruses as I can to make it so harmful and dangerous to download "free" content that no one would download anymore.
This is very illigal. Jesus christ. Let's just operate chips into people's brains instead. It's people with psychopathic opinions like his we should be afraid of. Not pirates. Open your eyes to the real threat here people. This mindset is the Pirates mindset. Blizzard is being nice simply doing things like No Lan instead of doing illegal things to get what they want (Pirates) Why doesn't Blizzard do this? BEcause there is so much stuff out there to STOP them from doing it. Blizzard is punished for putting stuff on torrents but Pirates are not. Do you see how silly that double standard is? It's okay to punish Blizzard for posting torrents but its' not okay to punish everyone else from posting torrents. Do you see how silly that is? Despite how frightening close corporations in America are to being considered persons, they don't have equal rights of a person. You actually think a corporation should hold the same rights as an individual? That's insane. No. I think that the law should not care who is standing in front of it. Much like I don't want the law to turn a blind eye to a corporation--I also don't want the law to turn a blind eye to some dude just because he's not a corporation. It's not about treating a corporation like an individual. It's about turning a blind eye when someone does something you deem illegal only if the person doing it is poor. If the person doing it is rich, suddenly all hell breaks lose and you whine about how bad and awful the rich person is for doing exactly what non-rich people are doing. Corporations in America being allowed to fund politicians more than citizens can? That's bullshit because that is giving more rights to a corporation than a citizen. Corporations in America being given stimulus for having a failing business while citizens don't get any stimulus for the same thing? Bullshit because Corporations are being given more support than a citizen. Corporations being punished for doing stuff on a torrent site that many other citizens are doing? Bullshit because citizens are being given more protection than business owners. No. It is illegal for both of them, Blizzard is not going to risk having their reputation affected by such egotistical acts of vigilantism. If a torrent turns out to have a virus on it, few people will download it, and if many more turn up people might begin to wonder why. There are other very legal ways to punish pirates, although none of them actually to deter pirates, like how Valve handles people who are found playing a pirated version of their game in mulitplayer. Putting DRM onto a product just delays the time it takes for it to be cracked and able to be pirated, it doesn't stop pirating, there's anecdotal evidence suggest it actually increases pirating.
Being that majority of a company's sales comes from the early purchases of a product--delaying piracy is all the company wants.
Yes, it is illegal for both. And yes, there are more "legal" ways of punishing.
It is however, NOT OUR CALL how Blizzard deals with its problems. As I have said before--I'm glad Blizzard is a nicer person than me because if blizzard had the same mindset as myself or had the same mindset as pirates, bad things would happen.
To get mad at Blizzard for minding their own business and deciding to pursue a reductive form of problem solving so that they don't have to hunt people down is stupid. To think Blizzard is being malicious about not putting in LAN--is stupid. To think Blizzard is removing LAN *just* to save money on SC2 and not because Blizzard is attempting to find a good business model through trial and error--is stupid.
If Blizzard were to do illegal things--people would be in an uproar. But when Pirates do illegal things--it's the company's fault?
It's a stupid double standard that sounds silly when pointed out. It's easy to say "Blizzard can't put stuff online for people to download; that would be illegal!" and yet they still don't see that it's just as illegal for pirates to do it also.
|
From what I've seen, the best way to make money despite piracy is to change the pricing model to have little to no upfont cost, and then use microtransactions to earn money. Or just microtransactions in general to make money, since consumers are surprisingly willing to spend money on cosmetic items.
|
On June 24 2011 02:03 Spawkuring wrote:
From what I've seen, the best way to make money despite piracy is to change the pricing model to have little to no upfont cost, and then use microtransactions to earn money. Or just microtransactions in general to make money, since consumers are surprisingly willing to spend money on cosmetic items.
The credit system that became popular in America around the 50's is actually very similar to this model.
Instead of spending X on a house, you borrowed money from a bank and bought a house while making paying Y dollars a month to eventually "pay off" the house.
In essence, instead of making games cost $60 dollars, people bought the game for $0 upfront and simply had a monthly payment of Y dollars a month until the $60 is payed in full. Then add cosmetic things much akin to when people buy a house how they always "spend a bit more" to fix counter tops, change the paint on the walls. etc...
That makes a lot of sense to do. It really does.
Question though...
Why should Blizzard implement a new business model if they don't want to? (I'm not saying they shouldn't. Heck, to me it sounds like a great idea. But then again I'm not Blizzard. Different strokes for different folks right?)
|
Do games without LAN get pirated less than games that have it. The way I see it is they are gonna steal it anyway so cutting corners to punish a paying customer isn't helping anyone either.
|
The actual funny thing is that cracked SC2 versions are out that "HAVE" Lan support.
How ironic is that ?
Get the game for real cash => no LAN.
Steal it from the internet => get LAN.
If you just stop giving features to the players because it is "somehow" potentially risky , than its totally stupid to sell your game with all your game code to the customer.
If you want to be ridiculous safe , produce a server that runs the game and connect players to it ; without any data on the client.
Ofcourse that means a giant amount of "streaming" or whatever, but any other solution simply means its a matter of time and effort of the pirates to crack your game and any security you think you have.
At the end, Blizzard just "fuks" the players that really spend money on the game, and i feel very bad if i not even get a LAN mode to play a nice game i actual paid for.
If you made a LAN-party in the last couple of months you can play all old stuff from the galaxy as it has LAN , but nobody played SC2 even as we all bought the game and the overall feeling was bad to be unable to play it within the LAN. Then there was someone with a cracked version which had LAN; just guess what happened .....
What ever the solution is, it simply can not be to totally remove LAN.
You have to get a model that gives you LAN and allows protection, any other solution is just bad for the peops that really pay money for your game , the pirate players will get the cracked game, LAN and a custom Battle Net hacked server anyway ; and they really do ...
|
On June 24 2011 02:10 Baarn wrote:
Do games without LAN get pirated less than games that have it. The way I see it is they are gonna steal it anyway so cutting corners to punish a paying customer isn't helping anyone either.
Kespa.
Massive giant Lawsuit.
It was about LAN. (Well, indirectly, it's actually a bit confusing if you go deep into the details, but the overall gist is LAN)
Blizzard, while in a lawsuit about LAN, releases a game without LAN.
A year later, Blizzard's game still has servers packed with players that did not drift off to ICCup and other LAN servers.
|
On June 24 2011 00:21 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 00:04 Gingerninja wrote:On June 23 2011 23:55 lorkac wrote:On June 23 2011 23:42 Gingerninja wrote:
All I know, is that I live in Japan right now... So does my Friend. I come from Europe, He comes from Canada.. I can't play SC2 against him, either online or offline, despite living close enough I could probably hit his front door with a book from my balcony. LAN would solve that problem, so would Region free online. Blizzard aren't providing either, and it can't be to keep the online experience good for people, because I get better connection from here to Europe than I do from the UK to Europe. So that excuse is total bollocks too. Is Blizzard's choice to not have LAN a good idea? Maybe, maybe not. That's subjective. Is Blizzard crazy for worrying about piracy? No they're not. I wish they were harsher on pirates through punishment (financial punishment) instead of making their game more secure. But that's me personally, I'm not Blizzard. I'm not the one shelling out the money to make a game. I'm just the consumer. I'm just a consumer, and my enjoyment of the product is being totally stopped dead in it's tracks by blizzards stance on that issue, in what is an industry standard feature not being present. Sure they have every right to worry about piracy, but as a legit customer (for every blizzard game I own.. every steam game, every console game.. I don't even use an R4 card or w/e the hell it's called on the DS all my games are legit. ) I reserve the right to be annoyed when a feature is denied to me because someone else is stealing. Not my problem, I paid you my money, yet I can't play the "Multiplayer" with a friend, who lives next to me. No amount of sales talk can sidestep that fact. Me (a legit customer) and my friend (another legit customer) cannot play the "Multiplayer" option together. Either Online or Offline. nation is bombed by terrorist. airport security goes up. Innocent passenger is annoyed by heightened security. Is the fault on the airport for adapting to cultural norms, or is the fault on the terrorist for changing cultural norms?
I don't believe your using terrorism as an analogy for lack of lan..
If you want to play that analogy..
Airport security might be annoying (it is.. don't lie) but it's not removing your in flight meal to deter terrorists from buying tickets to the plane. They're checking your not doing anything illegal before they allow you to carry non your journey as normal. In as much as it's like Steam.. You go through your security checks (sign in online) then you can carry on as normal, (online play, Lan, whatever)
|
On June 24 2011 02:14 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 02:10 Baarn wrote:
Do games without LAN get pirated less than games that have it. The way I see it is they are gonna steal it anyway so cutting corners to punish a paying customer isn't helping anyone either. Kespa. Massive giant Lawsuit. It was about LAN. (Well, indirectly, it's actually a bit confusing if you go deep into the details, but the overall gist is LAN) Blizzard, while in a lawsuit about LAN, releases a game without LAN. A year later, Blizzard's game still has servers packed with players that did not drift off to ICCup and other LAN servers.
Wat? That didn't answer my question at all. Had nothing to do with LAN. It was coming to a fair deal for both sides. You make it sound like Kespa, ogn, mbc weren't interested in coming to a deal at all. Exaggerate something already settled more. pfft I doubt Iccup would make a star 2 server at all.
|
On June 24 2011 02:18 Gingerninja wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 00:21 lorkac wrote:On June 24 2011 00:04 Gingerninja wrote:On June 23 2011 23:55 lorkac wrote:On June 23 2011 23:42 Gingerninja wrote:
All I know, is that I live in Japan right now... So does my Friend. I come from Europe, He comes from Canada.. I can't play SC2 against him, either online or offline, despite living close enough I could probably hit his front door with a book from my balcony. LAN would solve that problem, so would Region free online. Blizzard aren't providing either, and it can't be to keep the online experience good for people, because I get better connection from here to Europe than I do from the UK to Europe. So that excuse is total bollocks too. Is Blizzard's choice to not have LAN a good idea? Maybe, maybe not. That's subjective. Is Blizzard crazy for worrying about piracy? No they're not. I wish they were harsher on pirates through punishment (financial punishment) instead of making their game more secure. But that's me personally, I'm not Blizzard. I'm not the one shelling out the money to make a game. I'm just the consumer. I'm just a consumer, and my enjoyment of the product is being totally stopped dead in it's tracks by blizzards stance on that issue, in what is an industry standard feature not being present. Sure they have every right to worry about piracy, but as a legit customer (for every blizzard game I own.. every steam game, every console game.. I don't even use an R4 card or w/e the hell it's called on the DS all my games are legit. ) I reserve the right to be annoyed when a feature is denied to me because someone else is stealing. Not my problem, I paid you my money, yet I can't play the "Multiplayer" with a friend, who lives next to me. No amount of sales talk can sidestep that fact. Me (a legit customer) and my friend (another legit customer) cannot play the "Multiplayer" option together. Either Online or Offline. nation is bombed by terrorist. airport security goes up. Innocent passenger is annoyed by heightened security. Is the fault on the airport for adapting to cultural norms, or is the fault on the terrorist for changing cultural norms? I don't believe your using terrorism as an analogy for lack of lan.. If you want to play that analogy.. Airport security might be annoying (it is.. don't lie) but it's not removing your in flight meal to deter terrorists from buying tickets to the plane. They're checking your not doing anything illegal before they allow you to carry non your journey as normal. In as much as it's like Steam.. You go through your security checks (sign in online) then you can carry on as normal, (online play, Lan, whatever)
I'm not using the analogy for lack of LAN. The analogy is to Blizzard *deciding* to make their product safer and people getting upset at the wrong people.
The airport would rather not have ANY security other than the person checking the ticket. Xray machines, metal detectors, airport security blah de blah de blah are all expensive and reduces ticket sales. But they do what they do because they *have* to. because of government pressure, because of people forging tickets, because of stow aways, because of terrorists, because of many many factors not all of which are legitimate. Because they live in a world that requires it--airports hire people they'd rather not hire (to cut costs) who run expensive machines to do something that scares away customers.
It's the company's right to do that. Airplanes and Videogames are not privileges people are entitled to. They are products of a global market bought and sold be the economics of trade.
|
On June 24 2011 02:20 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 02:14 lorkac wrote:On June 24 2011 02:10 Baarn wrote:
Do games without LAN get pirated less than games that have it. The way I see it is they are gonna steal it anyway so cutting corners to punish a paying customer isn't helping anyone either. Kespa. Massive giant Lawsuit. It was about LAN. (Well, indirectly, it's actually a bit confusing if you go deep into the details, but the overall gist is LAN) Blizzard, while in a lawsuit about LAN, releases a game without LAN. A year later, Blizzard's game still has servers packed with players that did not drift off to ICCup and other LAN servers. Wat? That didn't answer my question at all. Had nothing to do with LAN. It was coming to a fair deal for both sides. You make it sound like Kespa, ogn, mbc weren't interested in coming to a deal at all. Exaggerate something already settled more. pfft I doubt Iccup would make a star 2 server at all.
Oh, sorry.
Kespa was a lowly organization whose sole intent was for the goodness of all and Blizzard was an evil tyrant who wished to plunge the world into the darkness of its evil ways.
Does that sound better?
Will it sound better if I added that Blizzard enjoys killing kittens? how about if I add that Kespa is completely innocent and was never ever corrupt at all? Would that make it sound better?
Please oh wise one--how should it have sounded?
|
I just think Blizzard should implement a tournament version of the game that has LAN, and if you want/need to practice with lan latency then you can buy that version, as well as any major tournament organizations.
|
On June 24 2011 02:29 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 02:20 Baarn wrote:On June 24 2011 02:14 lorkac wrote:On June 24 2011 02:10 Baarn wrote:
Do games without LAN get pirated less than games that have it. The way I see it is they are gonna steal it anyway so cutting corners to punish a paying customer isn't helping anyone either. Kespa. Massive giant Lawsuit. It was about LAN. (Well, indirectly, it's actually a bit confusing if you go deep into the details, but the overall gist is LAN) Blizzard, while in a lawsuit about LAN, releases a game without LAN. A year later, Blizzard's game still has servers packed with players that did not drift off to ICCup and other LAN servers. Wat? That didn't answer my question at all. Had nothing to do with LAN. It was coming to a fair deal for both sides. You make it sound like Kespa, ogn, mbc weren't interested in coming to a deal at all. Exaggerate something already settled more. pfft I doubt Iccup would make a star 2 server at all. Oh, sorry. Kespa was a lowly organization whose sole intent was for the goodness of all and Blizzard was an evil tyrant who wished to plunge the world into the darkness of its evil ways. Does that sound better? Will it sound better if I added that Blizzard enjoys killing kittens? how about if I add that Kespa is completely innocent and was never ever corrupt at all? Would that make it sound better? Please oh wise one--how should it have sounded?
Still aren't answering my question about if pirates steal games with LAN or no LAN more. Your best response is no response at all still.
|
My beef with no LAN is that if my internet goes out and i'm playing against a friend in the same room on the same network, which is typically what I do when I play, then I don't get to play the game I purchased anymore. Sure I can single player offline, but it really is not great when I want multi-player.
As well, I should NOT have to have internet to play ANY RTS vs a person. Nor should there ever be lag when I am playing on the same bloody network, which thanks a lot BNET, there is!
edit: Plus the layout of bnet sucks horribly, its like the designer has never used a f**king computer
|
While most pirates are probably not lost customers, some of them undoubtedly are.
Even if 5% of pirates were potential customers, when games get pirated 5 million times (like Call of Duty), that's still 250,000 sales lost, millions of dollars lost.
|
On June 24 2011 02:31 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 02:29 lorkac wrote:On June 24 2011 02:20 Baarn wrote:On June 24 2011 02:14 lorkac wrote:On June 24 2011 02:10 Baarn wrote:
Do games without LAN get pirated less than games that have it. The way I see it is they are gonna steal it anyway so cutting corners to punish a paying customer isn't helping anyone either. Kespa. Massive giant Lawsuit. It was about LAN. (Well, indirectly, it's actually a bit confusing if you go deep into the details, but the overall gist is LAN) Blizzard, while in a lawsuit about LAN, releases a game without LAN. A year later, Blizzard's game still has servers packed with players that did not drift off to ICCup and other LAN servers. Wat? That didn't answer my question at all. Had nothing to do with LAN. It was coming to a fair deal for both sides. You make it sound like Kespa, ogn, mbc weren't interested in coming to a deal at all. Exaggerate something already settled more. pfft I doubt Iccup would make a star 2 server at all. Oh, sorry. Kespa was a lowly organization whose sole intent was for the goodness of all and Blizzard was an evil tyrant who wished to plunge the world into the darkness of its evil ways. Does that sound better? Will it sound better if I added that Blizzard enjoys killing kittens? how about if I add that Kespa is completely innocent and was never ever corrupt at all? Would that make it sound better? Please oh wise one--how should it have sounded? Still aren't answering my question about if pirates steal games with LAN or no LAN more. Your best response is no response at all still.
Pirates steal both.
Games with LAN have servers formed which are more stable that games without LAN.
These servers pull away customers and encourages more piracy.
WC3, DoTA, etc...
|
On June 24 2011 02:41 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 02:31 Baarn wrote:On June 24 2011 02:29 lorkac wrote:On June 24 2011 02:20 Baarn wrote:On June 24 2011 02:14 lorkac wrote:On June 24 2011 02:10 Baarn wrote:
Do games without LAN get pirated less than games that have it. The way I see it is they are gonna steal it anyway so cutting corners to punish a paying customer isn't helping anyone either. Kespa. Massive giant Lawsuit. It was about LAN. (Well, indirectly, it's actually a bit confusing if you go deep into the details, but the overall gist is LAN) Blizzard, while in a lawsuit about LAN, releases a game without LAN. A year later, Blizzard's game still has servers packed with players that did not drift off to ICCup and other LAN servers. Wat? That didn't answer my question at all. Had nothing to do with LAN. It was coming to a fair deal for both sides. You make it sound like Kespa, ogn, mbc weren't interested in coming to a deal at all. Exaggerate something already settled more. pfft I doubt Iccup would make a star 2 server at all. Oh, sorry. Kespa was a lowly organization whose sole intent was for the goodness of all and Blizzard was an evil tyrant who wished to plunge the world into the darkness of its evil ways. Does that sound better? Will it sound better if I added that Blizzard enjoys killing kittens? how about if I add that Kespa is completely innocent and was never ever corrupt at all? Would that make it sound better? Please oh wise one--how should it have sounded? Still aren't answering my question about if pirates steal games with LAN or no LAN more. Your best response is no response at all still. Pirates steal both. Games with LAN have servers formed which are more stable that games without LAN. These servers pull away customers and encourages more piracy. WC3, DoTA, etc...
Great response. Still lost revenue if they steal for campaign only because that was the only interest anyway. Way I see it is a thief is a thief. If they could download ferrari then should ferrari cut features on their car? Even with pirates that hijacked ships the dutch, french and spanish didn't cut features on their ships because of the fear pirates might make use of the ship at some point. YAAAAAARRRRRRRRR they make ships of poor quality now to haul goods and gold. Maybe we shouldn't be pirates anymoooooooooore.
|
I've decided that it's silly trying to show pirates that what they're doing is harmful and it's shocking to me how a site like TL can have people this disrespectful to ESports. It's just frustrating and sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
