|
On June 23 2011 07:46 visual77 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:45 thesundowners wrote:On June 23 2011 07:39 n0ise wrote:
Anyway. From S2's pov, a small company trying to make it out there, I understand it. From Blizzard's, who at this point would lose almost nothing compared to what they made, there's no excuse for not bringing out LAN. -At LEAST- as a special client, privileged for major competitions (GSL, DH, MLG, etc).
Having LAN in your game in this day and age is basically encouraging piracy, no matter how big you are it does not look good to shareholders. I know we all want game developers to be benevolent beings who exist only to make us happy, but in the end making money is what it's about and making decisions that will only lose you money isn't exactly a good idea The problem with this statement is the belief that all sharing is 100% bad and no sharing can ever be beneficial to the company. I know it's a different industry, but just look at what Trent Reznor has done with Nine Inch Nails by embracing sharing.
Trent Reznor is an independent musician, he can do whatever he wants with his music and nobody can tell him otherwise. It's an entirely different situation.
|
On June 23 2011 07:47 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:40 SKC wrote:On June 23 2011 07:36 travis wrote:On June 23 2011 07:19 Eury wrote:On June 23 2011 07:17 DeltruS 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 Hackers could fairly easily remove all safeguards like a log-in requirement. Fairly easy = couple of hours. I am no computer genius but it seems to me that what's needed for tournaments is network play. Games could still be setup through battle.net. The problems occur during the actual game when the information is sent through the battle.net servers rather than peer to peer. Will hackers still be able to "remove all safeguards" when the game is programmed so that you have to be on bnet 2.0 to connect to each other? I am also no computer genius, but I do believe that this way would be crackeable. Maybe not in a couple of hours, but probally wouldn't take too long. it seems like it would be crackable in the same way someone could make their own "lan bnet 2.0" already if they really really wanted to.
I'm pretty sure it's a lot more complicated than that.
In one of them you have bypass the "I am on bnet 2.0 checker" while the other changes the way every single bit of data is transfered.
Some people were even saying you could just make them log once before playing, that's basically how the campaign works, and it was cracked instantly.
|
...any gaming company out there is out there to make money first and make good games second. I'm sorry if this truth offends you but the video game market is an industry and people make games to make money the same way a guy who sells Ice-cream does his job to make money and not to put smiles on people's faces (although I'm sure he does enjoy putting smiles on people's faces).
with that kind of language, i'll be avoiding HoN like dog poo.
to note, there are developers out there like Blizzard, who sell ice-cream to put a smile on people's faces, and by doing this they're intelligent enough to figure they'll make bucket loads of cash.
i'm just throwing a thought out there for you Mr. Developer, just a thought.
EDIT: not that i have ever played HoN, but i've been curious to see how it played, not anymore, i'm pulling a Destiny (standing for what i believe to be right).
|
Canada686 Posts
On June 23 2011 07:22 aksfjh wrote:
That also has to do with Windows and Office being so widespread along with skills related to them. Businesses, for the most part, don't pirate. They buy Office and Windows because most people have at least some experience with them. Then, people use them for work, so their kids use them for school. So on and so forth. In the world of office management and skills, market penetration can sometimes be more beneficial than overall sales.
On June 23 2011 07:30 zyzski wrote:
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.
Two birds, one stone.
There is a fundamental flaw in your critiques of my example. My example was not to be evaluated on what type of software it is and its respective implications. That is a given that I understood and hoped people wouldn't point it out as it is of little value to the discussion at hand.
Going back to what I was saying, the fundamental flaw is that you did not read the latter portion of my opinion where I explicitly comment that:
- Pirates don't stop revenue streams
- Pirates were not consumers in the first place
- The assumption that a pirated copy was a loss in sale is flawed
You do realize there many alternatives to operating systems and office software that are completely free right?
aksfjh - Thanks for the mentioning market penetration. I guess in the world of "office management and skills" market penetration can be beneficial. I want to point out that you used the term incorrectly and that first point is pretty much universally understood (I hope).
zyzski - Profit isn't tied down to "business apps and operating systems" so I have no idea what you are trying to prove in the last line lol except your stupidity. To be sure, video games can be more profitable than business applications.
|
On June 23 2011 07:48 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:46 asdfjh wrote:On June 23 2011 07:19 Eury wrote:On June 23 2011 07:17 DeltruS 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 Hackers could fairly easily remove all safeguards like a log-in requirement. Fairly easy = couple of hours. Well they got pirated SC2 campaign working... Because the SC2 campaign works offline, even without an internet connection.
But still required you to login if done legitly
|
Can anyone honestly say they were not surprised by this reasoning? It's commonsense, and a damn good business choice. Sucks for us players though.
|
I agree with everything but the phrase "Developers make games to make money first, and to make good games second", this explains why HoN is such a soft game, it just seems so bland. Of course they need to make money, it's their job. But you do other things if your objective is to make money, you don't go into the videogame industry.
It like studying medicine vs studying engineering in my country. They have roughly the same requirements, but if I really want to make money, I'll go a hundred times for engineering instead.
I sincerely hope he never sells another copy again, I felt a bit insulted by this statement really, as ridiculous as it may sound lol.
On topic though, I believe it's legit to avoid LAN because of piracy. Piracy is incredibly prevalent, and even without knowing if it truly affects sales, it's still a theft of my intellectual property and if I can avoid it, I will, I think it's that simple.
|
While it is true that a pirated copy isn't necessarily a lost sale, you can't really prove that someone who pirates a game wouldn't have bought it anyway.
|
They definitely have strong reasons and I cant help but agree. That kinda sucks. Very effective solution to stop piracy though.
|
saying that pirates killed lan is stupid. People get mmo games to play them online. The LAN feature is only really neccessary for things like tournaments and when you want to play some games with your friends. If they actually want to play online and get the full benefit of the game, then obviously they need to buy a key. I think what blizzard thinks is that the campaign is actually an important and key feature of starcraft when this isn't so. Most people i know, and most people who i've played on ladder havent even touched the campaign.
|
On June 23 2011 07:41 Strayline wrote:
The thing I'm wondering about is how long will it be before someone just sets up an alternate battle.net server in China. People set up fake WoW servers and such so it's not like it's impossible to set up pirate servers without LAN support already in the game--LAN just makes it much easier. After this happens will Blizzard then release LAN support to the rest of the community?
There were talks of Chinese hackers making progress in producing a "LAN mode" via a B.net emulator.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=203497
The way that B.net is set up right now, it's pretty difficult to create a crack since it would need to emulate quite a bit of the B.net architecture in order for it to work (or so I've heard). The hackers are already making small progress in cracking the multiplayer despite the difficulty, and I assume that adding in a LAN mode would only make their efforts easier.
|
On June 23 2011 07:52 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:47 travis wrote:On June 23 2011 07:40 SKC wrote:On June 23 2011 07:36 travis wrote:On June 23 2011 07:19 Eury wrote:On June 23 2011 07:17 DeltruS 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 Hackers could fairly easily remove all safeguards like a log-in requirement. Fairly easy = couple of hours. I am no computer genius but it seems to me that what's needed for tournaments is network play. Games could still be setup through battle.net. The problems occur during the actual game when the information is sent through the battle.net servers rather than peer to peer. Will hackers still be able to "remove all safeguards" when the game is programmed so that you have to be on bnet 2.0 to connect to each other? I am also no computer genius, but I do believe that this way would be crackeable. Maybe not in a couple of hours, but probally wouldn't take too long. it seems like it would be crackable in the same way someone could make their own "lan bnet 2.0" already if they really really wanted to. I'm pretty sure it's a lot more complicated than that. In one of them you have bypass the "I am on bnet 2.0 checker" while the other changes the way every single bit of data is transfered. Some people were even saying you could just make them log once before playing, that's basically how the campaign works, and it was cracked instantly.
I doubt it's THAT complicated. I mean you send a recieve tcp/ip packets you can just look at what is in the packets and engineer a server program based on it. And according to one guy I got a reply from, some chinese guys already did so.
|
Crapping all over your customer base is what's going to increase piracy to be honest.
Look at Spore for instance, people hated the inclusion of restrictive and draconian installation limits and the notorious SecuROM rootkit being implemented upon installation. It was so bad that Spore became the most pirated game of the year.
In short, removing essential features for gamers such as LAN support, multiple installs, dedicated server support amongst other things only hurts the legitimate consumer.
I'm not condoning priacy here but when a pirated product which one can illegally obtain for free gives better incentives than actually purchasing the real product.
Not a SC2 related analogy but it's like when one purchases a movie on DVD as opposed to pirating it.
If you pirate, you just put the DVD in the drive and watch the movie. Simple as.
If you purchase the DVD, you put the DVD in the drive and have to deal with about three or four several minute long unskippable trailers for upcoming movies which you may fastforward but cannot skip, then you have to deal with one or two adverts for other products, then you get several long copyright warnings, again treating the customer as if he/she is a potential criminal, and then FINALLY after that, you can go to a menu and hit "play."
On June 23 2011 07:49 Seronei wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:45 Destro wrote:
not giving the players and fans what they want is a bad business decision no matter the circumstances. Theres ways around of excluding lan all together. I find this excuse to be old and tired. Why is it so terrible to log into a paid and authenticated account and then play lan? Its not as if many people run with no internet connection at all..
its silly and downright ignorant to exclude an important part of the multiplayer gaming experience because of an exploitable issue. Remember games before cd-keys? lol Just having to be connected to battle.net doesn't prevent pirates from cracking it. Just look at Assassin's Creed 2 which required a constant connection to play it, withing a month there was a crack out that made it possible to play it offline. The only reason Battle.net hasn't been cracked yet is because everything goes through it, if you only need to get a message that says that you're connected pirates can just fake it so the client thinks it's connected to battle.net.
Well it's been around....... 10 - 11 months since Wings of Liberty has been officially launched. Even longer if you consider how long the beta lasted.
So tell me, why haven't pirates circimvented the need for Battle.net entirely, just to make Blizzard look like idiots by making a free version of the game available that has better features than the version that people have paid ~£40 for?
I'd say it's harder than it looks for pirates.
|
On June 23 2011 07:52 starmeat_ wrote:Show nested quote +...any gaming company out there is out there to make money first and make good games second. I'm sorry if this truth offends you but the video game market is an industry and people make games to make money the same way a guy who sells Ice-cream does his job to make money and not to put smiles on people's faces (although I'm sure he does enjoy putting smiles on people's faces). with that kind of language, i'll be avoiding HoN like dog poo. to note, there are developers out there like Blizzard, who sell ice-cream to put a smile on people's faces, and by doing this they're intelligent enough to figure they'll make bucket loads of cash. i'm just throwing a thought out there for you Mr. Developer, just a thought. EDIT: not that i have ever played HoN, but i've been curious to see how it played, not anymore, i'm pulling a Destiny (standing for what i believe to be right).
Let me tell you this. Of all the developers out there, Blizzard is definitely not the one "out ot put a smile on your face". Selling the game in three parts isn't to make you happy. It's to be able to sell it two more times with minimal effort.
You know what would make this whole community smile? LAN.
|
On June 23 2011 07:52 ThePurist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:22 aksfjh wrote:
That also has to do with Windows and Office being so widespread along with skills related to them. Businesses, for the most part, don't pirate. They buy Office and Windows because most people have at least some experience with them. Then, people use them for work, so their kids use them for school. So on and so forth. In the world of office management and skills, market penetration can sometimes be more beneficial than overall sales. Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:30 zyzski wrote:
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. Two birds, one stone. There is a fundamental flaw in your critiques of my example. My example was not to be evaluated on what type of software it is and its respective implications. That is a given that I understood and hoped people wouldn't point it out as it is of little value to the discussion at hand. Going back to what I was saying, the fundamental flaw is that you did not read the latter portion of my opinion where I explicitly comment that: - Pirates don't stop revenue streams - Pirates were not consumers in the first place- The assumption that a pirated copy was a loss in sale is flawed You do realize there many alternatives to operating systems and office software that are completely free right? aksfjh - Thanks for the mentioning market penetration. I guess in the world of "office management and skills" market penetration can be beneficial. I want to point out that you used the term incorrectly and that first point is pretty much universally understood (I hope). zyzski - Profit isn't tied down to "business apps and operating systems" so I have no idea what you are trying to prove in the last line lol except your stupidity. To be sure, video games can be more profitable than business applications.
You keep saying this over and over but it's still not true. While a pirated copy of something is definitely not always a lost sale (For example, i'm not going to actually rent all the movies i watch if i couldn't download them), but i sure as hell downloaded a lot of games until Steam made it even easier than pirating to get a game on release. And i'm by far not the only person in this position.
|
I can't believe some here are actually defending pirating. It's a special kind of stupid isn't it.
|
The companies opposing adding lan support even for live events are just a bit lame. I mean it doesn't even have to be a lan client since that might get pirated but on the venue servers as they did with quakelive isn't impossible so I just don't get why they wouldn't do that..
Btw it's hilarious that the HoN developers who are whining since they just pretty much stole their game idea from icefrog, not that he didn't agree to it or anything just that they are working on a pirated game concept :p
|
On June 23 2011 07:55 br3ak.g0d wrote:
saying that pirates killed lan is stupid. People get mmo games to play them online. The LAN feature is only really neccessary for things like tournaments and when you want to play some games with your friends. If they actually want to play online and get the full benefit of the game, then obviously they need to buy a key. I think what blizzard thinks is that the campaign is actually an important and key feature of starcraft when this isn't so. Most people i know, and most people who i've played on ladder havent even touched the campaign.
You can emulate Lan over the internet, so by allowing lan you can play online anyway and after that it's not too much work to make a private ladder and ta-da you have a pirate battle.net.
|
I really don't understand this logic. It seems to me like piracy is very little now compared to what it used to be. I think the best way to explain my perception of this is with a poll:
Poll: If SC2 was crackable for LAN, would you still buy it?Yes (58) 81% No (14) 19% 72 total votes Your vote: If SC2 was crackable for LAN, would you still buy it? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Now understandably this poll will be a bit biased due to the dedication of the TL community, but I bet it's true in general due to the existence of the ladder system (ie, why private World of Warcraft servers never really made a huge dent in it's sales or popularity)
|
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
The implementation of LAN is core programming. If it were implemented as you said people could still crack it. And knowing the nature of SC their are plenty of people willing to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
