|
On July 01 2009 06:10 despite wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 05:22 Zzoram wrote:On July 01 2009 05:21 theqat wrote:On July 01 2009 05:11 Idle wrote:On July 01 2009 05:06 Zzoram wrote:On July 01 2009 05:02 HuskyTheHusky wrote:On July 01 2009 04:25 Zzoram wrote:On July 01 2009 03:55 HuskyTheHusky wrote:
Wow, Karune's response to those posts is absolutely disgusting. Everything he replies with is his personal way of liking to do things and saying that private servers fracture the community? Please. That's their way of saying 'we want everyone to pay for this game, anyone living in a poor country who cant afford it? too bad'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture. I mostly meant that in regards to being able to afford high speed internet. The wording was rather poor I admit. Though I think most the points presented are valid  I cannot believe that there are hardcore online gamers in 1st world countries that do not have high speed Internet. These people simply do not exist. For 3rd world countries, even many of these have pretty high broardband penetration now. The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job. Believe it or not, there is still a large portion of areas that do not get broadband, even in the US. Not every person that plays SC2 will be a hardcore gamer. There are plenty of people who played sc1 with their siblings / friends on 2 computers at home with no internet connection. There will be lots of people who would like to do the same for sc2. There might be "lots" of people wanting to do that, but it will definitely be far, far fewer than in 1998. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/53/41551452.xls US broadband penetration has increased 129x http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news1999/oct99/news21020.html + http://www.internetworldstats.com/top25.htm overall web penetration has increased ~30% I seriously doubt there are more than a few thousand farmers without broadband that are also itching for Starcraft 2. However, there are millions of Chinese that might buy Starcraft 2 if they can't play on Hoafang or VS. Dude believe me when I tell you that blizzard can't make a "pirate" buy the game. Russians will crack it for LAN play quckly after release and make a better battle.net version 34.0 server and everything will be just fine. I can't imagine blizzard sueing Russia, can you?
Actually, I can. If a Russian group (or any group) creates a large community where thousands to millions (well, only the Chinese would have millions) of people playing over some sort of lan group with their pirated copies then I expect blizzard to sue them.
They won't stop pirates, but they sure as hell stop pirates from playing online with thousands of other pirates. So for all the people who want to DL a cracked copy and play with their friends, go ahead blizzard probably doesn't care very much, but to those millions in China who have to buy the game to play online. (And most can with China's growing economy, its just they (like many others, although China is perhaps the worst) like to DL games for free if they don't have to pay and can play online with many others.
This does hurt some legit players (although very few), and perhaps the poorer countries, but if it makes blizzard a stronger company with the resources to produce even more games then I'm not too worried.
|
On July 01 2009 06:10 despite wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 05:22 Zzoram wrote:On July 01 2009 05:21 theqat wrote:On July 01 2009 05:11 Idle wrote:On July 01 2009 05:06 Zzoram wrote:On July 01 2009 05:02 HuskyTheHusky wrote:On July 01 2009 04:25 Zzoram wrote:On July 01 2009 03:55 HuskyTheHusky wrote:
Wow, Karune's response to those posts is absolutely disgusting. Everything he replies with is his personal way of liking to do things and saying that private servers fracture the community? Please. That's their way of saying 'we want everyone to pay for this game, anyone living in a poor country who cant afford it? too bad'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture. I mostly meant that in regards to being able to afford high speed internet. The wording was rather poor I admit. Though I think most the points presented are valid I cannot believe that there are hardcore online gamers in 1st world countries that do not have high speed Internet. These people simply do not exist. For 3rd world countries, even many of these have pretty high broardband penetration now. The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job. Believe it or not, there is still a large portion of areas that do not get broadband, even in the US. Not every person that plays SC2 will be a hardcore gamer. There are plenty of people who played sc1 with their siblings / friends on 2 computers at home with no internet connection. There will be lots of people who would like to do the same for sc2. There might be "lots" of people wanting to do that, but it will definitely be far, far fewer than in 1998. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/53/41551452.xls US broadband penetration has increased 129x http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news1999/oct99/news21020.html + http://www.internetworldstats.com/top25.htm overall web penetration has increased ~30% I seriously doubt there are more than a few thousand farmers without broadband that are also itching for Starcraft 2. However, there are millions of Chinese that might buy Starcraft 2 if they can't play on Hoafang or VS. Dude believe me when I tell you that blizzard can't make a "pirate" buy the game. Russians will crack it for LAN play quckly after release and make a better battle.net version 34.0 server and everything will be just fine. I can't imagine blizzard sueing Russia, can you?
Your talking a lot of shit. This is battlenet 2.0 were talking about, not 1997 "omg people cheat online?" battlenet. Just look at blizzards latest game WoW, private servers are free, and yet hardly anyone plays them except for the type of people who would play runescape.
|
On July 01 2009 06:17 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 06:10 despite wrote:On July 01 2009 05:22 Zzoram wrote:On July 01 2009 05:21 theqat wrote:On July 01 2009 05:11 Idle wrote:On July 01 2009 05:06 Zzoram wrote:On July 01 2009 05:02 HuskyTheHusky wrote:On July 01 2009 04:25 Zzoram wrote:On July 01 2009 03:55 HuskyTheHusky wrote:
Wow, Karune's response to those posts is absolutely disgusting. Everything he replies with is his personal way of liking to do things and saying that private servers fracture the community? Please. That's their way of saying 'we want everyone to pay for this game, anyone living in a poor country who cant afford it? too bad'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture. I mostly meant that in regards to being able to afford high speed internet. The wording was rather poor I admit. Though I think most the points presented are valid I cannot believe that there are hardcore online gamers in 1st world countries that do not have high speed Internet. These people simply do not exist. For 3rd world countries, even many of these have pretty high broardband penetration now. The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job. Believe it or not, there is still a large portion of areas that do not get broadband, even in the US. Not every person that plays SC2 will be a hardcore gamer. There are plenty of people who played sc1 with their siblings / friends on 2 computers at home with no internet connection. There will be lots of people who would like to do the same for sc2. There might be "lots" of people wanting to do that, but it will definitely be far, far fewer than in 1998. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/53/41551452.xls US broadband penetration has increased 129x http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news1999/oct99/news21020.html + http://www.internetworldstats.com/top25.htm overall web penetration has increased ~30% I seriously doubt there are more than a few thousand farmers without broadband that are also itching for Starcraft 2. However, there are millions of Chinese that might buy Starcraft 2 if they can't play on Hoafang or VS. Dude believe me when I tell you that blizzard can't make a "pirate" buy the game. Russians will crack it for LAN play quckly after release and make a better battle.net version 34.0 server and everything will be just fine. I can't imagine blizzard sueing Russia, can you? Your whole post make no sense. I seriously doubt that Russian crackers will make a superior version of BattleNet in any time frame. If they were that skilled they would have high paying jobs in the industry, and being way too busy working.
If it makes no sense to you then you know nothing about Russia so I forgive you. Who says they don't have high paying jobs? Believe it or not some things are done for fun and for other people.
Actually, I can. If a Russian group (or any group) creates a large community where thousands to millions (well, only the Chinese would have millions) of people playing over some sort of lan group with their pirated copies then I expect blizzard to sue them.
I don't see that happening with hostings all over the world. If you were right torrent trackers that are full of illegal stuff wouldn't exist.
Corporations win lawsuits against governments all the time. And your statement is senseless anyways, because the Russian government isn't going to host pirate servers for Starcraft 2.
Your statement is even more senseless because I have not mentioned governments.
|
A company is trying to increase their profits. Obviously they must be evil.
When did maximizing your profits become such a terrible thing. I mean, i can sorta understand anti price gouging laws after a natural disaster or something....but this isn't a big deal.
|
Blizzard will make tons with SC2 regardless of the piracy, which will happen regardless of the inclusion of the LAN feature as anyone who knows anything about the internet aready realizes. The real, very much money-related reason is to keep control over esports. Of course the end user wanting to play LAN isn't worth much weighed against a blizzard cut on all the pro scene tournaments.
But even understanding all this, doesn't mean as a gamer I'm going to defend such a decision.
I love the wannabe hardcore capitalists here who think it's great a company defends its own interest but for some reason customers can't or shouldn't organize to do the same because then it's bad...
|
On July 01 2009 06:25 despite wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 06:17 Eury wrote:On July 01 2009 06:10 despite wrote:On July 01 2009 05:22 Zzoram wrote:On July 01 2009 05:21 theqat wrote:On July 01 2009 05:11 Idle wrote:On July 01 2009 05:06 Zzoram wrote:On July 01 2009 05:02 HuskyTheHusky wrote:On July 01 2009 04:25 Zzoram wrote:On July 01 2009 03:55 HuskyTheHusky wrote:
Wow, Karune's response to those posts is absolutely disgusting. Everything he replies with is his personal way of liking to do things and saying that private servers fracture the community? Please. That's their way of saying 'we want everyone to pay for this game, anyone living in a poor country who cant afford it? too bad'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture. I mostly meant that in regards to being able to afford high speed internet. The wording was rather poor I admit. Though I think most the points presented are valid I cannot believe that there are hardcore online gamers in 1st world countries that do not have high speed Internet. These people simply do not exist. For 3rd world countries, even many of these have pretty high broardband penetration now. The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job. Believe it or not, there is still a large portion of areas that do not get broadband, even in the US. Not every person that plays SC2 will be a hardcore gamer. There are plenty of people who played sc1 with their siblings / friends on 2 computers at home with no internet connection. There will be lots of people who would like to do the same for sc2. There might be "lots" of people wanting to do that, but it will definitely be far, far fewer than in 1998. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/53/41551452.xls US broadband penetration has increased 129x http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news1999/oct99/news21020.html + http://www.internetworldstats.com/top25.htm overall web penetration has increased ~30% I seriously doubt there are more than a few thousand farmers without broadband that are also itching for Starcraft 2. However, there are millions of Chinese that might buy Starcraft 2 if they can't play on Hoafang or VS. Dude believe me when I tell you that blizzard can't make a "pirate" buy the game. Russians will crack it for LAN play quckly after release and make a better battle.net version 34.0 server and everything will be just fine. I can't imagine blizzard sueing Russia, can you? Your whole post make no sense. I seriously doubt that Russian crackers will make a superior version of BattleNet in any time frame. If they were that skilled they would have high paying jobs in the industry, and being way too busy working. If it makes no sense to you then you know nothing about Russia so I forgive you. Who says they don't have high paying jobs? Believe it or not some things are done for fun and for other people.
So those super Russians are going to make their own superior version of Battlenet on their spare time and get it out quickly after Starcraft 2's release?
OK then, just don't get your hopes up too high.
|
I think you guys are overestimating the money in eSports. I think stopping millions of Chinese and Russians from playing pirated copies online, and converting even some percentage of them to paying customers is worth much more money.
|
DIdn't everyone already realise that removing LAN support was just to prevent pirating in PC cafe and VPN settings? This specific example hardly sheds any more light on the matter. <.<
On July 01 2009 06:10 stroggos wrote:
Lastly, you don't even know all the features of Bnet2.0, so how can you make judgments? SC2 might have a really good substitute for Lan.
What could be a substitute for LAN play? It's not some specific method, it's a general concept of playing within a network without access to an internet server. There's no way to play within a LAN, without, well, support for playing within a LAN.
Also, the whole "BNet 2.0 will be so great that LAN play will be completely unnecessary" argument and all the other things people are saying to justify this is bullshit. In the end, the only purpose BNet serves is to setup games between players. Beyond making that as easy as possible, there's absolutely no feature that Blizzard can add that will have any real value, or in any way make up for the inconvenience of having to connect to their servers whenever you want to play a game. It's obviously nothing but a marketing move, and while it's unavoidable it's ultimately detrimental to the game. Anyone trying to make it seem like a good idea for the end consumer is fooling themselves.
|
One thing with Haofang is surely if they don't use like something like this the game is gonna be shit for them due to China net? I'm sure many more Chinese gamers would play on iccup if their net wasn't so bad to other others outside China.
|
On July 01 2009 06:31 Zzoram wrote:
I think you guys are overestimating the money in eSports. I think stopping millions of Chinese and Russians from playing pirated copies online, and converting even some percentage of them to paying customers is worth much more money.
We aren't talking about a MMO here, it's not a subscription or anything.
You buy the game and then maybe some extra service once in a while..
I think you are underestimating the money in esports and Blizzard on the contrary is smart enough to foresee where it's going. When one final's prize can be worth 40k USD, and that's just the money going to the actual player, you know there's money in esports.
|
On July 01 2009 06:31 armed_ wrote:DIdn't everyone already realise that removing LAN support was just to prevent pirating in PC cafe and VPN settings? This specific example hardly sheds any more light on the matter. <.< Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 06:10 stroggos wrote:
Lastly, you don't even know all the features of Bnet2.0, so how can you make judgments? SC2 might have a really good substitute for Lan. What could be a substitute for LAN play? It's not some specific method, it's a general concept of playing within a network without access to an internet server. There's no way to play within a LAN, without, well, support for playing within a LAN. Also, the whole "BNet 2.0 will be so great that LAN play will be completely unnecessary" argument and all the other things people are saying to justify this is bullshit. In the end, the only purpose BNet serves is to setup games between players. Beyond making that as easy as possible, there's absolutely no feature that Blizzard can add that will have any real value, or in any way make up for the inconvenience of having to connect to their servers whenever you want to play a game. It's obviously nothing but a marketing move, and while it's unavoidable it's ultimately detrimental to the game. Anyone trying to make it seem like a good idea for the end consumer is fooling themselves.
It is still conceivable that there will be a LAN mode available after authenticating your copy of the game with Battle.net, which would require minimal bandwidth and only a few moments of internet connection. I know that doesn't satisfy everyone's needs, so please nobody blow up in my face.
|
On July 01 2009 06:34 whyohwhy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 06:31 Zzoram wrote:
I think you guys are overestimating the money in eSports. I think stopping millions of Chinese and Russians from playing pirated copies online, and converting even some percentage of them to paying customers is worth much more money. We aren't talking about a MMO here, it's not a subscription or anything. You buy the game and then maybe some extra service once in a while.. I think you are underestimating the money in esports and Blizzard on the contrary is smart enough to foresee where it's going. When one final's prize can be worth 40k USD, and that's just the money going to the actual player, you know there's money in esports.
People in Korea don't even pay for tickets to watch. There can't be THAT much money. Also, Americans are not receptive to the idea, they see gamers as "geeks, nerds" and will never see them as being "cool", especially not when douchebags like Fata1ty are the representatives of eSports in America.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On July 01 2009 03:04 lantern77 wrote:
Where can you get HaoFang? Just kidding....
I'm not :S
|
On July 01 2009 06:35 theqat wrote:
It is still conceivable that there will be a LAN mode available after authenticating your copy of the game with Battle.net, which would require minimal bandwidth and only a few moments of internet connection. I know that doesn't satisfy everyone's needs, so please nobody blow up in my face.
Of course. You only have to connect to the servers to set up the game because the netcode will still be p2p once it's started, latency will still be ideal. This is a given, pretty much everyone complaining is already aware of this. ;p
Edit: Unless you mean you could only connect once and then set-up games within the LAN, which is still pretty much the same thing unless someone's internet only works for like 5 seconds at a time. <.<
|
On July 01 2009 06:35 theqat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 06:31 armed_ wrote:DIdn't everyone already realise that removing LAN support was just to prevent pirating in PC cafe and VPN settings? This specific example hardly sheds any more light on the matter. <.< On July 01 2009 06:10 stroggos wrote:
Lastly, you don't even know all the features of Bnet2.0, so how can you make judgments? SC2 might have a really good substitute for Lan. What could be a substitute for LAN play? It's not some specific method, it's a general concept of playing within a network without access to an internet server. There's no way to play within a LAN, without, well, support for playing within a LAN. Also, the whole "BNet 2.0 will be so great that LAN play will be completely unnecessary" argument and all the other things people are saying to justify this is bullshit. In the end, the only purpose BNet serves is to setup games between players. Beyond making that as easy as possible, there's absolutely no feature that Blizzard can add that will have any real value, or in any way make up for the inconvenience of having to connect to their servers whenever you want to play a game. It's obviously nothing but a marketing move, and while it's unavoidable it's ultimately detrimental to the game. Anyone trying to make it seem like a good idea for the end consumer is fooling themselves. It is still conceivable that there will be a LAN mode available after authenticating your copy of the game with Battle.net, which would require minimal bandwidth and only a few moments of internet connection. I know that doesn't satisfy everyone's needs, so please nobody blow up in my face.
I honestly wouldn't mind that, but then it raises the question as to why Blizzard stated "No LAN mode" and generated so much outrage. All it does is cause bad PR and loss of potential sales.
|
On July 01 2009 06:39 Spawkuring wrote:
I honestly wouldn't mind that, but then it raises the question as to why Blizzard stated "No LAN mode" and generated so much outrage. All it does is cause bad PR and loss of potential sales.
Internet forum nerdrage is NOT representative of normal people.
|
On July 01 2009 06:38 armed_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 06:35 theqat wrote:
It is still conceivable that there will be a LAN mode available after authenticating your copy of the game with Battle.net, which would require minimal bandwidth and only a few moments of internet connection. I know that doesn't satisfy everyone's needs, so please nobody blow up in my face. Of course. You only have to connect to the servers to set up the game because the netcode will still be p2p once it's started. This is a given, pretty much everyone complaining is already aware of this. ;p
I'm not talking about that, though I understand your confusion. I'm talking about the possibility of a game menu that says "Single Player" and "Battle.net". If you click Battle.net, Battle.net challenges your game for a legal key. If it is successful, you get the option of a pure LAN mode immediately with no further internet connection required. You also get the option to continue to full-on Battle.net. This would allow slow or poor connections to do the minimal amount necessary. I personally don't think it would make much difference, but this is an option some have latched on to.
Again, this isn't what they've said they'll do, but it's conceivable. Karune has seen at least one post suggesting it and has said he will forward that idea to the developers.
|
On July 01 2009 06:42 theqat wrote:
I'm not talking about that, though I understand your confusion. I'm talking about the possibility of a game menu that says "Single Player" and "Battle.net". If you click Battle.net, Battle.net challenges your game for a legal key. If it is successful, you get the option of a pure LAN mode immediately with no further internet connection required. You also get the option to continue to full-on Battle.net. This would allow slow or poor connections to do the minimal amount necessary. I personally don't think it would make much difference, but this is an option some have latched on to.
Again, this isn't what they've said they'll do, but it's conceivable. Karune has seen at least one post suggesting it and has said he will forward that idea to the developers.
I'm sure they'll eventually do somethiing like this. Anyways, I just want the damn beta to start. It's been 11 years.
|
On July 01 2009 06:42 theqat wrote:
I'm not talking about that, though I understand your confusion. I'm talking about the possibility of a game menu that says "Single Player" and "Battle.net". If you click Battle.net, Battle.net challenges your game for a legal key. If it is successful, you get the option of a pure LAN mode immediately with no further internet connection required. You also get the option to continue to full-on Battle.net.
Again, this isn't what they've said they'll do, but it's conceivable. Karune has seen at least one post suggesting it and has said he will forward that idea to the developers.
Yeah, you missed my edit. ;p
Really that doesn't solve anything besides very intermittent internet access, since you still have to set it up through their servers. It'll still likely be too much trouble for LAN cafe owners to bother with, still makes it impossible for anyone without internet. And really, the number of people who have an internet connection to get into that LAN mode in the first place yet wouldn't be able to set up all of their games individually through the servers is very small.
|
On July 01 2009 06:40 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 06:39 Spawkuring wrote:
I honestly wouldn't mind that, but then it raises the question as to why Blizzard stated "No LAN mode" and generated so much outrage. All it does is cause bad PR and loss of potential sales. Internet forum nerdrage is NOT representative of normal people.
This isn't just minor forum rage. All gaming websites by now have reported this as big news, and pretty much every gaming community is in outrage. While it's true that gamers don't consist of the majority of customers, poor word of mouth can spread like wildfire, and people are already wary of Blizzard due to the trilogy deal. The trilogy on one hand was at least debatable as a good decision, the removal of LAN on the other hand is a flat out bad decision.
EDIT: And just wait until Blizzard announces microtransactions. Whooo boy...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
