|
On June 24 2011 07:26 Aruno wrote:
Anyone that's compares pirating software to the equivalent of stealing a real life object, or committing a real crime like rape. Is a complete moron.
Pirating ONLY means the developers get less money. OK????!?!
No one dies from pirating, no one gets raped.
Not having LAN support is just today's way of company's/developers trying to get more money.
THAT IS ALL.
It's not even going to work either.
*note: I do like Blizzard. I don't want them to fail. But piracy will never take down blizzard. People do buy stuff they have pirated if they can get better support from the bought version.*
I have tested games like Magicka, realised it's a fun game. Then bought it. Fuck people who say pirating is causing developers to lose money.*
downloading a game is the equivalent of stealing.. you have to pay to play Sc2 and if you do download it you can play it for free. you have to pay for food, or you can steal it and eat it for free. the difference is that when you steel a material item the producer looses money because of the actual loss of that product, where as the loss from piracy means the loss of a possible client.
YOu can compare the two and it does not mean that you are moronic... Sc2 is not loosing money from piracy but it is in the sense that it is loosing prospective revenue. piracy does loose the company money and there IS something wrong with that, or are you one of those people who walks around with a che guevara shirt who hates when companies fufil their function? piracy wont take down blizzard, but why should it hamper them? why shouldn't they try to make more money.
have you ever taken a commerce course or a marketing course?
|
The era of software being a possession that you can own and make use of is over.
Software is now a service. When you buy a game, you're not buying the game, you're buying the right to play the game. To make use of their service. Pirating a game is kind of like sneaking into a movie theater. Or maybe like hiring a lawyer and then refusing to pay him. It's not about stealing a material object, but rather refusing to pay for a service.
Because of this, something like LAN is either going to have to undergo radical changes, or it'll never be back. Don't ask me what those changes are though, because there isn't much you could do to let people enjoy the benefits of lan without it being too easy for hackers to get rid of any safeguards or protection. But if they do come up with something that won't make them vulnerable to piracy, there's no doubt they would do it. Pleasing your customers is part of making a game successful.
|
downloading a game is the equivalent of stealing.. you have to pay to play Sc2 and if you do download it you can play it for free. you have to pay for food, or you can steal it and eat it for free. the difference is that when you steel a material item the producer looses money because of the actual loss of that product, where as the loss from piracy means the loss of a possible client.
YOu can compare the two and it does not mean that you are moronic... Sc2 is not loosing money from piracy but it is in the sense that it is loosing prospective revenue. piracy does loose the company money and there IS something wrong with that, or are you one of those people who walks around with a che guevara shirt who hates when companies fufil their function? piracy wont take down blizzard, but why should it hamper them? why shouldn't they try to make more money.
have you ever taken a commerce course or a marketing course?
Have you ever downloaded food?
Stop trying to compare the two.
Next time I steal food from you, by copying the food, and leaving your food alone and where I found it. Are you going to cry?
Yeah you sure are missing out.
Piracy is free marketing.
Microsoft and Bill Gates on Piracy:
Microsoft has admitted that piracy of its Windows operating system has helped give it huge market share in China that will boost its revenues when these users "go legit".
Bill Gates said, "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not."
He has also said in reference to China:
As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade. - Bill Gates
|
FFS just get a fake servers set up. I'll be a more complicated lan but a lan nontheless.
|
On June 24 2011 08:49 Aruno wrote:Show nested quote +downloading a game is the equivalent of stealing.. you have to pay to play Sc2 and if you do download it you can play it for free. you have to pay for food, or you can steal it and eat it for free. the difference is that when you steel a material item the producer looses money because of the actual loss of that product, where as the loss from piracy means the loss of a possible client.
YOu can compare the two and it does not mean that you are moronic... Sc2 is not loosing money from piracy but it is in the sense that it is loosing prospective revenue. piracy does loose the company money and there IS something wrong with that, or are you one of those people who walks around with a che guevara shirt who hates when companies fufil their function? piracy wont take down blizzard, but why should it hamper them? why shouldn't they try to make more money.
have you ever taken a commerce course or a marketing course? Have you ever downloaded food? Stop trying to compare the two. Next time I steal food from you, by copying the food, and leaving your food alone and where I found it. Are you going to cry? Yeah you sure are missing out. Piracy is free marketing. Microsoft and Bill Gates on Piracy: Microsoft has admitted that piracy of its Windows operating system has helped give it huge market share in China that will boost its revenues when these users "go legit". Bill Gates said, "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not." He has also said in reference to China: As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade. - Bill Gates
You can't think of it that way. Problem with windows is that they can't really ensure that all the copies of their software are legit, because a skilled person can bypass pretty much all the defenses. Sure, you can disable updates for false copies, but the system still works. I'm sure that if they could ensure that every single copy of win was pair for, they would.
|
Also, i would like to remind everyone the companies like S2 games, Blizzard and developers generally sell games for living. I find it ridiculous that you even think you have any right to give them "tips" about how being prone to piracy will in the long run make them more money.
|
It's interesting to note that since Starcraft 2 does not have LAN, it has not been hacked so far.
The only way to convince Blizzard that LAN is viable financially, may be to have Starcraft 2 be hacked in its current state, without LAN.
|
I find it ridiculous that you even think you have any right to give them "tips" about how being prone to piracy will in the long run make them more money.
Sometimes I find things people tend to say, to be ridiculous. We're consumers, we automatically have a right to tell the producer of the product we're purchasing how we would like it. They're doing something that is actually harming the user base.
|
On June 23 2011 07:14 Erionn wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Not really, if you just had it so that you would need to be connected to b.net but in a LOCALLY HOSTED GAME, then it would be fine.
|
On June 24 2011 09:13 datscilly wrote:
It's interesting to note that since Starcraft 2 does not have LAN, it has not been hacked so far.
The only way to convince Blizzard that LAN is viable financially, may be to have Starcraft 2 be hacked in its current state, without LAN.
Sc2 SP was hacked on the first day of release.
I have no doubt that the multiplayer will eventually be hacked.
P.S: HoN has been hacked, there are HoN private servers.
|
On June 24 2011 09:15 AppLeCheesE wrote:Show nested quote +I find it ridiculous that you even think you have any right to give them "tips" about how being prone to piracy will in the long run make them more money. Sometimes I find things people tend to say, to be ridiculous. We're consumers, we automatically have a right to tell the producer of the product we're purchasing how we would like it. They're doing something that is actually harming the user base.
You have right to say them that you want LAN, because you want LAN. But saying that they should add lan and thus allow for piracy in order to make more money, which is a case some people make, is just stupid. BTW, i would love lan in sc2, not for me necessarily but for the tournaments that look really stupid when the lag screen pops up.
|
On June 24 2011 09:17 Nik0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 09:13 datscilly wrote:
It's interesting to note that since Starcraft 2 does not have LAN, it has not been hacked so far.
The only way to convince Blizzard that LAN is viable financially, may be to have Starcraft 2 be hacked in its current state, without LAN. Sc2 SP was hacked on the first day of release. I have no doubt that the multiplayer will eventually be hacked. P.S: HoN has been hacked, there are HoN private servers.
I think i read during the beta that there was a team working on sc2 private server but it was C&D by blizzard. Not sure if its true thought
|
On June 24 2011 06:58 Angry_Fetus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 06:29 Kazeyonoma wrote:On June 24 2011 06:27 Solicer wrote:On June 24 2011 06:05 RoyalCheese wrote:On June 24 2011 05:55 Solicer wrote:
So I was thinking of a way to change the way the game worked so that you had to be registered online in order to play a offline in a LAN mode, so to speak.
What if, in order to plan on a LAN mode of sorts, you had to connect to battle.net at least once on the machine you play in order to get 'recognized,' or rather, so battle.net can give you the privilege of playing in the offline LAN mode. It would be like saying,"We just want to make sure you bought the game/activated your account (you know, the CD keys/codes). Now that you have made contact with Battle.net with a legitimate account that has access/bought the game, we will give you the privilege on this machine to run in the LAN mode."
I know that there are always downsides of something, and with this, if you wanted to play on a brand new machine, you would NEED access to the internet still, at least at first, to play on the LAN mode. Also, I am not that knowledgeable in regards to how easy it would be to bypass this, so I'm not sure how secure this would be.
And, this may have been suggested before. Nonetheless, could someone enlighten me a little bit more as to why Blizzard wouldn't have something set up at least similar to this? It's not as easy as that. It's not hard to find a "auth.blizzard.com/authenticate" (example of url upon which the authentication service would listen) and replace it with "auth.pirated.com" in binary file and thus bypassing the whole auth. Of course you could use some sort of public/private key encryption which would validate that the message token from blizz authentication service was really sent from blizzard but, as with the auth url, the public key can be found and replaced in order to make the fake tokens seem legit. I see. So, is there any way at all to have the LAN mode disabled until you can verify, through the internet, that you have bought the game (with the correct keys/codes, and a legitimate account)? Or is there no way to do this because of the nature of the files/data that is needed to activate the LAN mode? The only truly bypassing way (and it still can be bypassed btw), is to force the client to check and check often with the bnet servers to reauthenticate enough times to make it difficult/annoying for piracy to break the code, but at that point, if you need to connect through to bnet so often, why not just do it ON bnet. While I agree that I don't think LAN will be implemented due to certain result of it getting pirated, saying that LAN wouldn't be worth it with constant verification checks is illogical. The game would still be played over LAN, and therefore would result in sub 10ms delay, instead of say 200ms to the BNet servers. That is a huge advantage. Besides the fact that game traffic wouldn't have to go over the ethernet connection, greatly shrinking bandwidth usage.
So, assuming that the constant verification checks would help prevent the pirating, would this idea still basically work? The computers are still 'online,' with B.net still making sure that the accounts are active/legitimate accounts, but they are using a newly implemented LAN mode only useable when B.net recognizes that the accounts are legitimate.
|
On June 24 2011 09:29 Solicer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 06:58 Angry_Fetus wrote:On June 24 2011 06:29 Kazeyonoma wrote:On June 24 2011 06:27 Solicer wrote:On June 24 2011 06:05 RoyalCheese wrote:On June 24 2011 05:55 Solicer wrote:
So I was thinking of a way to change the way the game worked so that you had to be registered online in order to play a offline in a LAN mode, so to speak.
What if, in order to plan on a LAN mode of sorts, you had to connect to battle.net at least once on the machine you play in order to get 'recognized,' or rather, so battle.net can give you the privilege of playing in the offline LAN mode. It would be like saying,"We just want to make sure you bought the game/activated your account (you know, the CD keys/codes). Now that you have made contact with Battle.net with a legitimate account that has access/bought the game, we will give you the privilege on this machine to run in the LAN mode."
I know that there are always downsides of something, and with this, if you wanted to play on a brand new machine, you would NEED access to the internet still, at least at first, to play on the LAN mode. Also, I am not that knowledgeable in regards to how easy it would be to bypass this, so I'm not sure how secure this would be.
And, this may have been suggested before. Nonetheless, could someone enlighten me a little bit more as to why Blizzard wouldn't have something set up at least similar to this? It's not as easy as that. It's not hard to find a "auth.blizzard.com/authenticate" (example of url upon which the authentication service would listen) and replace it with "auth.pirated.com" in binary file and thus bypassing the whole auth. Of course you could use some sort of public/private key encryption which would validate that the message token from blizz authentication service was really sent from blizzard but, as with the auth url, the public key can be found and replaced in order to make the fake tokens seem legit. I see. So, is there any way at all to have the LAN mode disabled until you can verify, through the internet, that you have bought the game (with the correct keys/codes, and a legitimate account)? Or is there no way to do this because of the nature of the files/data that is needed to activate the LAN mode? The only truly bypassing way (and it still can be bypassed btw), is to force the client to check and check often with the bnet servers to reauthenticate enough times to make it difficult/annoying for piracy to break the code, but at that point, if you need to connect through to bnet so often, why not just do it ON bnet. While I agree that I don't think LAN will be implemented due to certain result of it getting pirated, saying that LAN wouldn't be worth it with constant verification checks is illogical. The game would still be played over LAN, and therefore would result in sub 10ms delay, instead of say 200ms to the BNet servers. That is a huge advantage. Besides the fact that game traffic wouldn't have to go over the ethernet connection, greatly shrinking bandwidth usage. So, assuming that the constant verification checks would help prevent the pirating, would this idea still basically work? The computers are still 'online,' with B.net still making sure that the accounts are active/legitimate accounts, but they are using a newly implemented LAN mode only useable when B.net recognizes that the accounts are legitimate.
no it wouldnt work because it would be to easy to bypass the security check and the cracks for pirate lan mode would be out in no time... also stuff like Garena and hamachi servers would be up and running in no time.
so no... lan is too much of a risk for blizzard.
and for the people quoting bill gates about piracy.
Its a whole different thing... microsoft makes most of his sales from schools,governments and bussines wich need to have a legal copy or else they can get in a shit ton of trouble.... on the other hand most of the sells from starcraft 2 come from common people not organizations that blizzard can control... so people getting pirate copies of sc2 is a ton of money lost because you cannot track all of the players using cracked versions down but on the other hand microsoft haves an easy time finding organizations , schools and governments that use pirate software making it easy for them to control their main income.
|
On June 24 2011 06:45 latan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 06:37 Shaithis wrote: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". Dumb dumb dumb dumb post. Do you have a clue about economics? If you did, you would realize that the fact that piracy drives up prices across the board. Say that you are trying to determine the present value of an project with a known market size. In order to price out the product, you must account that a certain percentage of users will not pay. Piracy is most definitely a sale, the provider of the software just does not get paid. That's all jibberish, you can't just throw a bunch of economist lingo out there expecting it to form an argument by accident.
Noob, are you serious? I make businesses profitable for a living, so I do kinda have a bit of an idea of what I am talking about. That paragraph was not even that hard to understand, I am sorry that you are having difficulty.
Edit - checked your post history and found this gem:
On June 23 2011 11:16 latan wrote:
The fact is that no one know how or how much piracy affects sales.
In some cases piracy brings exposure and sales, in others it makes buying redundant. But piracy has always been around, and the gaming industry got HUGE in a relatively short ammount of time, so i think it's safe to say that, while potentially harmfull, piracy doesn't even scratch the industry. Make a good game, provide a good service, your game will sell, the better it is, the more it will sell. period.
OK, let's see if you can follow this. Growth of an industry is a function of profitability and market size. Growth of the gaming industry had everything to do with a compelling product ($30-50 for 30+ hours of entertainment) and a growing market (kids who grew up and had more kids and made it into pop culture, etc).
The concept of piracy having a positive effect on exposure and sales is dubious. Up until a few years ago, the majority of games had demos available; first through media such as PC Gamer monthly demo discs and later through free downloads. Simply put, you do not pirate a game without knowing about it first. You pirate it because you want it for free. If you are unable to pirate it, you would need to purchase it. As such, if pirating were impossible, the profitability and growth rate of the gaming industry would be even higher.
There's always an exception to the rule; for instance, a game goes viral via piracy and brings attention to the developers, who go on to make a buttload of money. All that is well and good, but should have no bearing on your willingness to scour the web for Mass Effect 3 cracks once the game is released.
Oh, and don't talk smack about piracy not even scratching the industry when you obviously have no idea about its history. Many good companies closed down, got bought out, merged, reformed, etc, in the past two decades, because they were not making enough money. Surely, the sales they lost to idiots like you who believe in piracy would have helped them, mmm?
|
On June 24 2011 09:29 Solicer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 06:58 Angry_Fetus wrote:On June 24 2011 06:29 Kazeyonoma wrote:On June 24 2011 06:27 Solicer wrote:On June 24 2011 06:05 RoyalCheese wrote:On June 24 2011 05:55 Solicer wrote:
So I was thinking of a way to change the way the game worked so that you had to be registered online in order to play a offline in a LAN mode, so to speak.
What if, in order to plan on a LAN mode of sorts, you had to connect to battle.net at least once on the machine you play in order to get 'recognized,' or rather, so battle.net can give you the privilege of playing in the offline LAN mode. It would be like saying,"We just want to make sure you bought the game/activated your account (you know, the CD keys/codes). Now that you have made contact with Battle.net with a legitimate account that has access/bought the game, we will give you the privilege on this machine to run in the LAN mode."
I know that there are always downsides of something, and with this, if you wanted to play on a brand new machine, you would NEED access to the internet still, at least at first, to play on the LAN mode. Also, I am not that knowledgeable in regards to how easy it would be to bypass this, so I'm not sure how secure this would be.
And, this may have been suggested before. Nonetheless, could someone enlighten me a little bit more as to why Blizzard wouldn't have something set up at least similar to this? It's not as easy as that. It's not hard to find a "auth.blizzard.com/authenticate" (example of url upon which the authentication service would listen) and replace it with "auth.pirated.com" in binary file and thus bypassing the whole auth. Of course you could use some sort of public/private key encryption which would validate that the message token from blizz authentication service was really sent from blizzard but, as with the auth url, the public key can be found and replaced in order to make the fake tokens seem legit. I see. So, is there any way at all to have the LAN mode disabled until you can verify, through the internet, that you have bought the game (with the correct keys/codes, and a legitimate account)? Or is there no way to do this because of the nature of the files/data that is needed to activate the LAN mode? The only truly bypassing way (and it still can be bypassed btw), is to force the client to check and check often with the bnet servers to reauthenticate enough times to make it difficult/annoying for piracy to break the code, but at that point, if you need to connect through to bnet so often, why not just do it ON bnet. While I agree that I don't think LAN will be implemented due to certain result of it getting pirated, saying that LAN wouldn't be worth it with constant verification checks is illogical. The game would still be played over LAN, and therefore would result in sub 10ms delay, instead of say 200ms to the BNet servers. That is a huge advantage. Besides the fact that game traffic wouldn't have to go over the ethernet connection, greatly shrinking bandwidth usage. So, assuming that the constant verification checks would help prevent the pirating, would this idea still basically work? The computers are still 'online,' with B.net still making sure that the accounts are active/legitimate accounts, but they are using a newly implemented LAN mode only useable when B.net recognizes that the accounts are legitimate.
With respect to computer security, there is no black-and-white "works" or "not works". Rather it's a spectrum of confidence in the security of the system. That being said, a verification-only server deters attempts to break the system, but it is still technically subvert-able by either faking the verification step or hacking the client. How likely this happens is not just a function of the effort put in by the developers but by the desire of the community to break such security. Given the popularity of starcraft, it is very likely to be broken.
|
On June 24 2011 08:49 Aruno wrote:Show nested quote +downloading a game is the equivalent of stealing.. you have to pay to play Sc2 and if you do download it you can play it for free. you have to pay for food, or you can steal it and eat it for free. the difference is that when you steel a material item the producer looses money because of the actual loss of that product, where as the loss from piracy means the loss of a possible client.
YOu can compare the two and it does not mean that you are moronic... Sc2 is not loosing money from piracy but it is in the sense that it is loosing prospective revenue. piracy does loose the company money and there IS something wrong with that, or are you one of those people who walks around with a che guevara shirt who hates when companies fufil their function? piracy wont take down blizzard, but why should it hamper them? why shouldn't they try to make more money.
have you ever taken a commerce course or a marketing course? Have you ever downloaded food? Stop trying to compare the two. Next time I steal food from you, by copying the food, and leaving your food alone and where I found it. Are you going to cry? Yeah you sure are missing out. Piracy is free marketing. Microsoft and Bill Gates on Piracy: Microsoft has admitted that piracy of its Windows operating system has helped give it huge market share in China that will boost its revenues when these users "go legit". Bill Gates said, "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not." He has also said in reference to China: As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade. - Bill Gates
How do you even manage to walk?
User was warned for this post
|
Blizzard actively hunts down people trying to make server emulators plus SC2 is quite complicated so I doubt there will be any pirate LAN servers soon. The only thing that might lead to LAN is if some code gets leaked or someone really decides to work on it in private, with inside information or not.
|
There is no way to stop piracy. It will never and can never be stopped. When will people learn this? The sooner they do the sooner the legit consumer can stop being punished. One bad apple ruins it for the rest, AWFUL logic. This Developer and his mentality infuriates me.
|
On June 24 2011 06:58 Angry_Fetus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 06:29 Kazeyonoma wrote:On June 24 2011 06:27 Solicer wrote:On June 24 2011 06:05 RoyalCheese wrote:On June 24 2011 05:55 Solicer wrote:
So I was thinking of a way to change the way the game worked so that you had to be registered online in order to play a offline in a LAN mode, so to speak.
What if, in order to plan on a LAN mode of sorts, you had to connect to battle.net at least once on the machine you play in order to get 'recognized,' or rather, so battle.net can give you the privilege of playing in the offline LAN mode. It would be like saying,"We just want to make sure you bought the game/activated your account (you know, the CD keys/codes). Now that you have made contact with Battle.net with a legitimate account that has access/bought the game, we will give you the privilege on this machine to run in the LAN mode."
I know that there are always downsides of something, and with this, if you wanted to play on a brand new machine, you would NEED access to the internet still, at least at first, to play on the LAN mode. Also, I am not that knowledgeable in regards to how easy it would be to bypass this, so I'm not sure how secure this would be.
And, this may have been suggested before. Nonetheless, could someone enlighten me a little bit more as to why Blizzard wouldn't have something set up at least similar to this? It's not as easy as that. It's not hard to find a "auth.blizzard.com/authenticate" (example of url upon which the authentication service would listen) and replace it with "auth.pirated.com" in binary file and thus bypassing the whole auth. Of course you could use some sort of public/private key encryption which would validate that the message token from blizz authentication service was really sent from blizzard but, as with the auth url, the public key can be found and replaced in order to make the fake tokens seem legit. I see. So, is there any way at all to have the LAN mode disabled until you can verify, through the internet, that you have bought the game (with the correct keys/codes, and a legitimate account)? Or is there no way to do this because of the nature of the files/data that is needed to activate the LAN mode? The only truly bypassing way (and it still can be bypassed btw), is to force the client to check and check often with the bnet servers to reauthenticate enough times to make it difficult/annoying for piracy to break the code, but at that point, if you need to connect through to bnet so often, why not just do it ON bnet. While I agree that I don't think LAN will be implemented due to certain result of it getting pirated, saying that LAN wouldn't be worth it with constant verification checks is illogical. The game would still be played over LAN, and therefore would result in sub 10ms delay, instead of say 200ms to the BNet servers. That is a huge advantage. Besides the fact that game traffic wouldn't have to go over the ethernet connection, greatly shrinking bandwidth usage.
Hahahaha.
But on a more serious note, sc2 is p2p, so I guess that if someone really wanted lan and had lots of free time, he could do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
