|
On June 23 2011 07:56 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:52 SKC wrote: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.
And according to that same guy, the only reason it's this hard is because of the way bnet 2.0 works, adding LAN would have made it a lot easier. It's hard to say anything is completelly uncrackable.
Plus, this amount of control may make it a lot easier to break cracks with patching.
|
On June 23 2011 07:56 Clbull wrote: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 Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:49 Seronei wrote: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?
Reread, I told you why pirates hasn't cracked battle.net. (Or didn't some chinese dudes do it?)
|
On June 23 2011 07:58 leizar wrote: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)
Stupid question here as pretty much everyone owns it already...
|
Atrocious argument without any underlying models or proof. The facts he pushes off of (gaming companies are in it to make money, good business can, in principle, mean worse customer service, and so forth) are sound and true - but the conclusions he draws don't follow from these facts. One would need to prove that introduction of LAN will increase piracy of a given game while decreasing sales. And, considering that SC2 is already pirated to hell, and that Battle.net, even with introduction of LAN, would still be virtually necessary to play against more than a few people (yes, one could set up illegal hosting servers etc. - but that would take far longer than it takes for most of the revenue to come to the company after the release), there are sound logical arguments against his predictions, while there is no proof that LAN would actually increase piracy.
|
woops wrong thread - SORRY! >.<
|
On June 23 2011 07:59 simme123 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:58 leizar wrote: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) Stupid question here as pretty much everyone owns it already...
Even worse example, if you have ever seen a WoW private server. They don't even deserve to be called the same game. It's almost unplayable.
|
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.
Latency, the simple fact that you don't need to route game data to a server(bnet in SC2 case) is enough reason for LAN. Countless tournaments that were fucked up thanks to lack of LAN support.
|
On June 23 2011 07:56 worldsnap wrote:
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.
lol, I said it twice for the sake of reiteration because they selectively read my post and argued on pretty much no basis.
Pirates were not consumers in the first place = "While a pirated copy of something is definitely not always a lost sale."
Enough said.
edit: quotations
|
On June 23 2011 07:46 redFF wrote:
I think they should give companies like MLG,GSL, Dreamhack etc lan copies for their big tournaments.
And what happens when that copy gets leaked a few people get sued to hell and the cats out of the bag for blizzard. People aren't practicing on lan so why make a tournament with lan you would have the same simulated delay as there always has been the 125ms(the delay used for sc2 b.net and the delay in SC1 lan) the only thing that is different is no Internet requirement and a fairly more stable connection. That's convenience to a tournament organizer not to blizzard game companies get burned when people leak shit to pirate all the time you see games break release date so trust isn't exactly high there.
|
On June 23 2011 07:59 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:56 travis wrote:On June 23 2011 07:52 SKC wrote: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. And according to that same guy, the only reason it's this hard is because of the way bnet 2.0 works, adding LAN would have made it a lot easier. It's hard to say anything is completelly uncrackable. Plus, this amount of control may make it a lot easier to break cracks with patching.
Well you should remember the context of my original post...
|
I go to the store and steal a steak. It costs everyone who made that steak money to get that steak there. I argue that I would've never bought the steak in the first place, but since I could take it I did.
Honestly, how is piracy tolerated at all? Companies don't pay millions of dollars developing a game with the mindset "well, people are going to steal this anyway but atleast we can be proud of what we made." That's bullshit. Game developers, movie & tv producers, all of them deserve money for what they make. If piracy is supposed to be okay, then start paying for games with 5 minutes of unblockable advertising for every minute you play because that's how they're going to have to pay for it.
|
On June 23 2011 07:56 coddan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:52 starmeat_ wrote:...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.
I dunno. I think you can see when developers put true passion into their games, and Blizz is definitely that type of company, whenever I see their games, I see blizzard, their games have "soul" and few developers manage to do that.
I really respect blizzard for having that huge quality. I don't think they could develop games this good with the attitude the hon developer shows. Making tons of cash doesn't mean they don't put making good games as their first objective, it only means they have great marketing as well.
In a similar note, when I played HoN, I instantly hated it. It played like DotA, felt like that type of game, had tons of heroes and features. But it just didn't have the soul and character of the warcraft universe, it was just... terrible, I can't really explain it well, but it just lacks something, and the same goes for many other game developers. It's also noticeable when comparing the CoD games. God the first ones were brilliant, something happened there, maybe money became their primary concern, I dunno.
|
On June 23 2011 07:59 simme123 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:58 leizar wrote: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) Stupid question here as pretty much everyone owns it already...
I probably should have used past tense, it could easily be applied to HoTS or LoTV though.
|
And you better bet piracy is on the rise. I'm not blaming anybody, though- just the same way that the smart Business is drawn to removing LAN because of piracy, the smart Consumer is drawn to piracy because it is rational to not buy a game for 30 dollars when I can download almost the same game for free.
this sums the whole debate quite nicely,
i don't see any reason for carrying on this discussion. noone but the biggest sharks in the industry like Blizzard could take the millions upon millions of dollars in losses from piracy and still be productive, 90% of the companies risk going down if they don't find some other magical incentive to add to their game to make people actually want to buy it. how do you think the LOL or Bloodline model came to be, doh.
and there isn't even any comparison between a video game to universally used software like Windows or Office, there's a difference between a product that targets billions and businesses and a product that targets millions of individuals. plus, i don't think Microsoft would mind having the multi-billions of dollars they lose to piracy every year.
now, who would have bought sc2 if they could have it in the same way anyone could always own BW, i mean, you can play the campaign and solo customs vs. ai on a pirated version, so you're
paying 60eu/$ for multiplayer on a crap ladder that has so few features it's pretty laughable for such a high profile game. a lot of people would have, but millions less, even people from countries that have high enough wages to afford multiple titles monthly would have pirated it if they only had a small group of friends they wanted to play with.
we're gonna have to live with it, take it and move on.
|
On June 23 2011 07:59 Seronei wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:56 Clbull wrote: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 On June 23 2011 07:49 Seronei wrote: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? Reread, I told you why pirates hasn't cracked battle.net. (Or didn't some chinese dudes do it?)
If I remember correctly, a lot of stuff ran through the UPlay system Ubisoft implemented into AC2 as well like the saving system which ran through into Ubisoft's servers whether you liked it or not, maybe not as much as Battle.net but still, explained why it took just over a month for AC2 to get completely cracked and for the pirates to win again.
UPlay's original incarnation was a really big example on why single player PC games should not have been treated like online games in terms of having permanent connection requirements to play.
|
You kids really arent that smart.
If Blizzard was to release a LAN Support in anyway,like the need to log in within 24 hours to be able to LAN, hackers will allow it to be able to be used for everyone.
How did all you kids forget about hackers? Seriously...
They would able to manipulate it to make a server of their own like IccUP for BroodWar. Then Blizzard will have no way of securing who has a real cd key and who doesnt.
Just like WoW private servers. And if that got popular more and more people will switch not needing to buy the expansions either. If you are a casual gamer then this wouldnt be a bad idea.
|
its a bit annoying with the pirates and if the net would have been so well spread like it is now 15 years ago, broodwar would run without lan as well. (piracy profits too from the good internet hehe). Anyway i prefer how it is now, those dark old lan times have been horrible hehe. (even if spawn version of sc2 would be cool)
And i don't think they will ever implent lan into sc2, thats just unnecessary extra work.
Games got too expensiv, pirating the stuff to easy. So to many people are tempted.
PS: And about that release lan after you sold your copies thing. Thats something you can do for the last game you are going to ever make. But if you plan to make another game afterwards ... people will not buy it and wait till other people buy it, so they can steal it then via lan. Great plan lol.
|
On June 23 2011 08:01 ThePurist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:56 worldsnap wrote:
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.
lol, I said it twice for the sake of reiteration because they selectively read my post and argued on pretty much no basis. Pirates were not consumers in the first place = "While a pirated copy of something is definitely not always a lost sale." Enough said. edit: quotations
Saying that a pirated copy isn't necessarily a lost sale doesn't prove that pirates were not consumers in the first place. Unless you have actual proof of this for us, since you're the one claiming it?
|
On June 23 2011 08:03 dudeman001 wrote:
I go to the store and steal a steak. It costs everyone who made that steak money to get that steak there. I argue that I would've never bought the steak in the first place, but since I could take it I did.
Objection! The store can't sell the steak anymore, while a pirated copy doesn't make the other copy disappear.
|
On June 23 2011 08:00 Volkov wrote:
Atrocious argument without any underlying models or proof. The facts he pushes off of (gaming companies are in it to make money, good business can, in principle, mean worse customer service, and so forth) are sound and true - but the conclusions he draws don't follow from these facts. One would need to prove that introduction of LAN will increase piracy of a given game while decreasing sales. And, considering that SC2 is already pirated to hell, and that Battle.net, even with introduction of LAN, would still be virtually necessary to play against more than a few people (yes, one could set up illegal hosting servers etc. - but that would take far longer than it takes for most of the revenue to come to the company after the release), there are sound logical arguments against his predictions, while there is no proof that LAN would actually increase piracy.
Programs like Garena, which I've heard even added HoN, that has no native LAN, would add SC2 really quickly. A lot more people play WC3 in them and in the actual BNet, so no, there are pretty strong arguments that say you would be able to play with a lot of people really quickly.
You say his argument has no proof, but it definatelly has a sound logical basis, which is basically the same thing you required for the arguments against his predictions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
