|
On June 23 2011 08:10 theOnslaught wrote:
These guys just dont get it... pirating is not killing any industries, most of the people who pirate wont even buy the game anyways, if pirating wasnt possible, you would see people lending their games, as they do with DVD's, or books, to friends after they finish reading them.
If anything, pirating is good for all industries, as people will not likely buy something that they havent tested, and liked... there is a bigger chance of someone pirating SC2, liking it and then, buying the game, than anything else, since lets get serious here, the real deal in RTS games is not the missions, not even lan (playing with your friends), the real deal is online play, and great online playing systems should alone be a reason to have to buy the game, rather than them forcing you through silly tactics that are only holding e-sports back (because of how common issues like disconnections and lag are in local tournaments).
There is a great video arround youtube about a book writer, that at first hated pirating, because he though of it as people stealing him money, but when he noticed the places where he was beign pirated had a GREAT increase in sales (like russia), he understood that pirating was a way for new people to get to know his work, and then, if they liked it, buy it.
How many people have you met that said they didn't buy SC2 because they couldn't test it first? And not just as a "protest" because of the lack of LAN, but because they didn't actually knew if the game was good.
Now think about how many people wouldn't have bought the game if they could play online without paying.
It's not that simple, for both sides. You will never bring a argument and everyone will just say.
OMG I had never though about that! It makes sense now! This kind of discussion will go on forever.
People keed saying "It's fine to pirate it if you don't have the money to buy it, even if you like it", but seriously, who has a PC capable of running recent games and has actually no money to buy a single game? Just because you spent all your money in other things, doesn't mean you wouldn't have spent it on the game instead of something else if you couldn't pirate it.
I know several people that only buy games that can't be pirated, and not because they are the only good games.
|
On June 23 2011 08:13 theOnslaught wrote:
BTW, what is infact killing the induestries is pricing though, all games, specially xbox & ps3 games are overpriced, i remember when steam did a price reduction to left 4 dead as an experiment, they reduced the cost in half, to $25 usd. That day alone they sold more games than the 3 months the game had been out. Game pricing and greedyness is killing the game industries, not pirating, pirating is only helping them, like any demo would.
Human beings are cheap and prefer not to spend money when they don't have to? You don't say! I guess we better just give away everything for free, then...
|
On June 23 2011 08:10 theOnslaught wrote:
These guys just dont get it... pirating is not killing any industries, most of the people who pirate wont even buy the game anyways, if pirating wasnt possible, you would see people lending their games, as they do with DVD's, or books, to friends after they finish reading them.
If anything, pirating is good for all industries, as people will not likely buy something that they havent tested, and liked... there is a bigger chance of someone pirating SC2, liking it and then, buying the game, than anything else, since lets get serious here, the real deal in RTS games is not the missions, not even lan (playing with your friends), the real deal is online play, and great online playing systems should alone be a reason to have to buy the game, rather than them forcing you through silly tactics that are only holding e-sports back (because of how common issues like disconnections and lag are in local tournaments).
There is a great video arround youtube about a book writer, that at first hated pirating, because he though of it as people stealing him money, but when he noticed the places where he was beign pirated had a GREAT increase in sales (like russia), he understood that pirating was a way for new people to get to know his work, and then, if they liked it, buy it.
Piracy can for sure increase sales, but it can lower them as well. Its a matter of the genre being discussed and other circumstances (ie. An unknown producer may in fact benefit quite a bit from piracy as they get more publicly). Claiming one aspect of the game is "the core" of the game is completely subjective (I do however agree with you that it is all about multiplayer, dont get me wrong). There is still a large consumer base that only play the SC2 campaign, they buy that game specifically to play the campaign.
|
I still don't understand why they don't supply LAN for professional environments like GSL, MLG, etc. as they promised to do.
I can understand why they don't want LAN for everyone.
|
On June 23 2011 08:15 ThePurist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 08:11 andrewlt wrote:On June 23 2011 08:01 ThePurist wrote: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 You're wrong. Pirates make many real consumers feel like suckers. This leads some of them to start pirating as well. Personal insecurities have no value. I can claim that I feel good when I buy games as opposed to "feeling like a sucker" because I see to it that money goes to where money is well-deserved. I can coerce my friends and people within my network to purchase software too to make them also "feel good". ^ You realize your argument is a personal sentiment of yours and holds no bearing as neither does my hypothetical situation
Your statements that pirates aren't real customers has no bearing either, then. That statement has no value and no truth to it no matter how many times you repeat it. Your original argument is a personal statement of yours, too. Don't try to twist it around.
|
On June 23 2011 08:18 brentsen wrote:
I still don't understand why they don't supply LAN for professional environments like GSL, MLG, etc. as they promised to do.
I can understand why they don't want LAN for everyone.
Try reading the thread, it's been asked and answered multiple times now. No matter how hard they try to keep it under wraps it will leak out.
|
On June 23 2011 07:12 Coldplum wrote:
I don't see why there can't be some sort of security feature built in that forces you to log onto Bnet before you can access LAN. Or even have a separate LAN security identifier accessory...i.e. like an identifier key-chain that you purchase in conjunction with your account.
because thats not feasible, a realistc security via connecting to bnet then lan can be easily cracked.
its just not gonna happen, the best chance we'll see is LAN is 10 years down the road when bliz thinks they cant sell anymore copies of SC2.. thats bout it
|
On June 23 2011 08:05 SKC wrote:
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 definitely has a sound logical basis, which is basically the same thing you required for the arguments against his predictions.
See, the thing is, when comparing two numbers, X and Y, the burden of proof lies with the one proving that they are NOT equal (within some tolerance), and failing to do that, they are considered equal. What you just described are (fairly sound) logical arguments that could explain why X > Y. But, a logical argument is NOT proof -- it's a theory, but theory is tested by experiment. Some experimental data that would suggest the quality of this logical argument is necessary to actually prove that X > Y, as opposed to suggest a way for why it may be so. (Here X = total sales with LAN enabled, Y = total sales with LAN disabled).
Let me point out, by the way - while there are both logical arguments for X ~ Y, and X > Y, it's X > Y that needs to be proven, and in the absence of that proof, the default hypothesis is held: X ~ Y. (Yes, arguments exist against the use of null hypothesis, but the reality is that when comparing two populations, one perturbed and one not, the strength of perturbation can best be analyzed by attempting to reject the null hypothesis that the perturbation is negligible). And logical arguments do not constitute proof, not without the theory being experimentally tested (at least in some form).
Also - it may very well be true that X > Y. Problem is, there is no proof of it.
And I never suggested that the addition of LAN would not result in additional piracy + multiplayer games. I suggested that there is no indication that it would result in reduced sales. Because, as has been stated multiple times, piracy does not constitute lost sales.
|
On June 23 2011 08:15 Zapdos_Smithh wrote:
K well at least they should compensate for this and give us lan latency on bnet.
Exactly.
I think that some of the problems generated from lack of LAN (forced latency; dropped games) can easily be addressed with other features.
A LAN latency mode would remove the problem of B.net latency in a LAN environment.
A re-connect feature would remove the problem of regames in the event of dropped games due to B.net, internet, or computer problems.
|
On June 23 2011 08:13 theOnslaught wrote:
BTW, what is infact killing the induestries is pricing though, all games, specially xbox & ps3 games are overpriced, i remember when steam did a price reduction to left 4 dead as an experiment, they reduced the cost in half, to $25 usd. That day alone they sold more games than the 3 months the game had been out. Game pricing and greedyness is killing the game industries, not pirating, pirating is only helping them, like any demo would.
Take into consideration the time line of that promotion though. This was presumably some time after the release of the time, I doubt any rational distribute would lower the cost of their product close to the launch date. Game pricing is what is keeping this industry GROWING, look at how many more innovations are being created regularly and how many new games are being released all the time. Its simply because of the profit motive, that's why more are going into the industry.
|
On June 23 2011 08:20 Volkov wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 08:05 SKC wrote:
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 definitely has a sound logical basis, which is basically the same thing you required for the arguments against his predictions.
See, the thing is, when comparing two numbers, X and Y, the burden of proof lies with the one proving that they are NOT equal (within some tolerance), and failing to do that, they are considered equal. What you just described are (fairly sound) logical arguments that could explain why X > Y. But, a logical argument is NOT proof -- it's a theory, but theory is tested by experiment. Some experimental data that would suggest the quality of this logical argument is necessary to actually prove that X > Y, as opposed to suggest a way for why it may be so. (Here X = total sales with LAN enabled, Y = total sales with LAN disabled). Let me point out, by the way - while there are both logical arguments for X ~ Y, and X > Y, it's X > Y that needs to be proven, and in the absence of that proof, the default hypothesis is held: X ~ Y. (Yes, arguments exist against the use of null hypothesis, but the reality is that when comparing two populations, one perturbed and one not, the strength of perturbation can best be analyzed by attempting to reject the null hypothesis that the perturbation is negligible). And logical arguments do not constitute proof, not without the theory being experimentally tested (at least in some form). Also - it may very well be true that X > Y. Problem is, there is no proof of it. And I never suggested that the addition of LAN would not result in additional piracy + multiplayer games. I suggested that there is no indication that it would result in reduced sales. Because, as has been stated multiple times, piracy does not constitute lost sales.
Please, this is no scientific paper.
The logical argument that X > Y is sounder. So they won't risk huge amounts of money because "scientific rigor says they have to prove X isnt ~ to Y" They don't have to prove anything. They have to make the decisions that will most likely give the best amount of profit to the company.
The "default hypothesis" is whatever their manager believe will bring more money. In this case X>Y. If you prove that X~Y, they may change, but there is no reason to believe that, if they have better arguments that X>Y.
Almost no business decision is proven as correct. If they were that simple, it would be easy.
|
what exactly is new? everyone knows that
|
On June 23 2011 08:16 dogmeatstew wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 08:03 travis wrote:On June 23 2011 07:59 SKC wrote: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:
[quote]
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... Following along with this I've been thinking about how something like this could be implemented and alot of the issue comes down to that for your game client to authenticate with bnet your local files hold the key to what the game expects from a successful authentication so a fake could be set up that could convince your game that it connected to bnet. You could complicate the authentication by all sorts of means but it would still be very crackable... On the othe rhand, if blizzard simply wrote a script that changed a "seed" value within the authentication process and updated this locally once a week (although not that straight forward) you could make it so that pirated copies would have a very high upkeep rate to keep then running. At the very least it would require someone with a legal copy to re-crack the encryption every time it happened and for it to be redistributed to all pirated copies which would quickly make having a pirated copy just not worth the effort... On the other hand I don't work for blizzard and its way easier for them to just leave the game as is...
It's not that simple. They'll figure out the specific call that makes the encryption check, override it with their own code, and make it always return some type of successful result. Generally this results in a system where only pirated copies can play together; this was somewhat similar to something used on one of the various Rainbow 6 games - in that games would validate against each other. Over time, everyone just started playing with Pirated copies because there's no decent way to know who has a "real" copy so the only assumption is that everyone else is a pirate. Eventually, people with legit copies are unable to play with friends or on popular servers being run on pirated copies ( e.g. people would run the pirated copy to mitigate copy protection or to install 3rd party patches ).
|
On June 23 2011 08:20 Volkov wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 08:05 SKC wrote:
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 definitely has a sound logical basis, which is basically the same thing you required for the arguments against his predictions.
See, the thing is, when comparing two numbers, X and Y, the burden of proof lies with the one proving that they are NOT equal (within some tolerance), and failing to do that, they are considered equal. What you just described are (fairly sound) logical arguments that could explain why X > Y. But, a logical argument is NOT proof -- it's a theory, but theory is tested by experiment. Some experimental data that would suggest the quality of this logical argument is necessary to actually prove that X > Y, as opposed to suggest a way for why it may be so. (Here X = total sales with LAN enabled, Y = total sales with LAN disabled). Let me point out, by the way - while there are both logical arguments for X ~ Y, and X > Y, it's X > Y that needs to be proven, and in the absence of that proof, the default hypothesis is held: X ~ Y. (Yes, arguments exist against the use of null hypothesis, but the reality is that when comparing two populations, one perturbed and one not, the strength of perturbation can best be analyzed by attempting to reject the null hypothesis that the perturbation is negligible). And logical arguments do not constitute proof, not without the theory being experimentally tested (at least in some form). Also - it may very well be true that X > Y. Problem is, there is no proof of it. And I never suggested that the addition of LAN would not result in additional piracy + multiplayer games. I suggested that there is no indication that it would result in reduced sales. Because, as has been stated multiple times, piracy does not constitute lost sales.
I think under these circumstances, its actually the consumer with the burden of proof unfortunately. Companies likely have done internal projections on the effects of piracy and determined it was unfeasible. Whether their projections are correct or not, that's the evidence they hold and it is will not sway unless consumers give insight on how they could be wrong.
|
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'd rather pay 3 times for a game i'm going to play for the next 5-6 years with constant updates, as well as 2 massive expansion updates to an already amazing game, as opposed to paying $40-50 for a second rate, infrequently updated, will this game exist in 2 years time?, will this hold my interest for even 1 more month?, type of a game.
sure, Blizzard is an A-hole of a game developer wondering how to sap people's cash, just like all other major game developers out there, but they're just that little bit less evil and they actually do this by making a truly great game which you know will be updated for years to come.
You know what would make this whole community smile? People attempting to understand other people's point of view, rather than go on a tangent and argue a point i was never contesting.
|
On June 23 2011 08:18 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 08:15 ThePurist wrote:On June 23 2011 08:11 andrewlt wrote:On June 23 2011 08:01 ThePurist wrote: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 You're wrong. Pirates make many real consumers feel like suckers. This leads some of them to start pirating as well. Personal insecurities have no value. I can claim that I feel good when I buy games as opposed to "feeling like a sucker" because I see to it that money goes to where money is well-deserved. I can coerce my friends and people within my network to purchase software too to make them also "feel good". ^ You realize your argument is a personal sentiment of yours and holds no bearing as neither does my hypothetical situation Your statements that pirates aren't real customers has no bearing either, then. That statement has no value and no truth to it no matter how many times you repeat it. Your original argument is a personal statement of yours, too. Don't try to twist it around.
I'm not gonna respond to your feeble points from now because there is nothing of value in our little debate and I hope you can see to it as well.
Why does my statement that pirates = aren't customers has no bearing?
No value? No truth?
My original argument "is a personal statement too" "don't try to twist it around?"
First and foremost I'm not trying twist anything around and of course all my statements are personal or else whose statements are they lol? Now that that's cleared up, I've stated it 3 times now because of people who can't read.
Let's logically break this down:
1) Pirates = individuals who get involved in unauthorized copying of computer software. Copyright infringement of this kind is extremely common
2) They do this for several reason, one of them predominantly is because they don't wish to purchase the software
3) Buy not choosing not purchase the software and to pirate it, that indicates they didn't have the intentions of purchasing in the first place, nor did they end up as a customer (they could have been, but unlikely)
I don't have any data on this as I did not conduct a study on this but since you feel so strongly about the issue and feel I am wrong in my logic, maybe you should 
edit; pun intended
|
On June 23 2011 08:05 Seronei wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The pirate is taking a product that cost someone money to make without offering any just compensation. The action is equivalent to stealing.
|
You want a game to be hyper popular and eventually be able to make you massive tourny dollars?
Get the multiplayer out for free, then charge for things IN the game that don't affect balance. If the next SC2 expansion goes out for free and proceeds to charge for things IN game, hell yea I'd support the shit out of blizzard and buy boat loads of crap.
I've done the same for LoL because I liked the idea of the company succeeding.
Idk, seems stupid and really myopic, where blizzard misses the forest for the trees in the idea of esports, where you make money off the SPORT not the balls you sell to play the game.
|
So I guess we'll have to wait till the day pirates reverse engineer the code and give us LAN support... and seriously all the argument against LAN support is just a red herring.. which industries fell or bankrupt due to piracy???
|
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
Come on guys ! I think removing the Lan option is brilliant , and gives me so much more, than it takes away... Maybe most of you guys played Broodwar , which had a few and good people playing it in the later stages but... Have you ever been around games like dota? maybe hon?
What No-Lan provides us is QUALITY. The person that buys the game , and decided to play it , commits to it. I don't know about you but the reason we have such a wonderfull community is pretty much this. The fact that when people pay about something they automatically take it more serious..
We can all understand that if they include LAN (lan in the form of WC3) we will end up playing Sc2 in garena , which may boost the people playing it but will ruin the quality.
If they add a feature that requires internet for authentication and then you can play Lan, i am pretty sure that if the <<Thing>> returns again to your pc it will be again very easy to hack it.
You want true LAN ? then guess what the solution is...Gamecards!?! We don't want that do we..
Now the tournamet only lan.. that is a good idea.. and i believe the minds in Blizzard have a pretty good excuse for not adding it.. And be honest.. everything is running great till now , except a coupe of drops.
<3 Blizzard and Everything she does...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
