|
On July 01 2009 10:27 Polyphasic wrote:
It wont be hard to set up fake online servers. Even WOW can do it. This is a stupid thread.
This is a stupid argument. Give how not a single anti-virus program in existence has a 100% effectiveness, is it then a reasonable argument there's no point in using them altogether? This might not stop pirating of the game altogether (nor, I'm betting, is Blizzard trying to that goal, while it would be ideal), but it will limit it, and make it more difficult for it to happen (and spread, afterwards). While you'll still lose sales either way, there's a difference between a few hundred thousand people with illegal copies, and a few million.
And, really, to use your WoW example. I'm almost certain that the proportion of players that play WoW (or just about any MMO) on private servers and those that play legitimately is far lesser than what exists with pirated and legitimate copies of single player (or, even, not wholly multiplayer) games. With the Internet, it makes it far easier to verify that the copy in use is legitimate.
Lastly, yeah, I would like to know, how DO people get Battle.net (not any private version) working with a pirated copy of the game?
@Planned obsolescence: This isn't a case of Blizzard designing their product to become obsolete over time, rather, it would be the opposite. In keeping the community from splintering off, the impression of decay as the game's user-base shrinks (as it inevitably will) will appear somewhat lessened. Unless, of course, somewhere along the line, they decide to shut down old Battle.nets (I believe they said they would not), I don't see how it could be anything of the sort.
|
On July 01 2009 10:52 Yenzilla wrote:
Lastly, yeah, I would like to know, how DO people get Battle.net (not any private version) working with a pirated copy of the game?.
Pretty sure they don't. (Certain they don't in B.net2  )
|
there will probably be a spawn version to join Lan or connect to private server.
this will seriously fuck up live tournaments if its all Bnet.
If somone forgot to /dnd their screen will be full of shit.
Your friend JD has enter the game %&^*(^@
Your friend Bisu has logged on to Battle.net.
Bisu: sup?
Your friend Bisu has logged off on Battle.net
or the Waiting for Player lag box.
|
Hopefully they won't remove LAN for Diablo 3, but I think they will  Oh well.
|
Bashiok on D3 Forums also commented the abscense of LAN:
Bashiok
More so than overbearing/invasive anti-piracy measures that would affect everyone who buys the game regardless of how they're going to play it instead of just those that may want a LAN feature? I would doubt it.
I don't know a lot about it, Diablo III isn't really facing the brunt of the Battle.net 2.0 features just yet, but I think that removing LAN in an attempt to avoid more severe anti-piracy measures is pretty cool. We're saying "Hey, we're pretty sure you're going to love our game. The multiplayer is really the best part though. In order to get in on that that we'd just like to make sure you bought the game. Cool?"
http://www.blizzblues.com/us/quit-qqing-about-lancaptchas-18031100434.html
|
On July 01 2009 10:25 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 10:19 -fj. wrote:
Whenever someone makes a cool product but limits it such that it can only work with their service or cannot be fixed by the user, I'm really sad. Its not a design that yields a long lasting and well loved product, it is a design that yields sales and profit. Its just like planned obsolescence.
Steam is an example of a product that strikes a good balance between the need to satisfy customers and the need to keep people from being able to get your stuff for free. I don't see why Battle.net 2.0 can't do that as well.
Steam is pretty much the perfect example of how to do this the right way. It sucked at first but I would be ecstatic if bnet 2.0 was like the current incarnation of steam. The ability to purchase completely digital copies of your software, have your entire library available wherever you go as long as there's access to steam. There's one thing that makes me sure this isn't where they're going, though. Every popular game on steam HAS LAN SUPPORT. You log into steam the first time, activate / unlock your software, and then have the ability to go into offline mode and use the lan capability without having an internet connection. This is how blizzard should be modeling their system. It strikes an excellent balance between protecting their property and not royally pissing off their customers. Removing LAN in its entirety is taking it too far to the extreme.
|
Somehow I don't' get why everyone is so angry that Blizzard is trying to make money. I mean, they are a company right? Why do people think it's so bad that they're trying to make more money? Why do people somehow feel entitled to LAN play?
|
On July 01 2009 13:58 Kaneh wrote:
Somehow I don't' get why everyone is so angry that Blizzard is trying to make money. I mean, they are a company right? Why do people think it's so bad that they're trying to make more money? Why do people somehow feel entitled to LAN play?
Being a good business is pleasing your customers so they can pay you more money. Removing LAN does nothing to please customers, and Blizzard only loses money out of doing this. Blizzard doesn't seem to realize how many people they're screwing over by making this decision, so we're complaining in the hopes to get them to change their mind.
|
|
|
On July 01 2009 14:05 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 13:58 Kaneh wrote:
Somehow I don't' get why everyone is so angry that Blizzard is trying to make money. I mean, they are a company right? Why do people think it's so bad that they're trying to make more money? Why do people somehow feel entitled to LAN play? Being a good business is pleasing your customers so they can pay you more money. Removing LAN does nothing to please customers, and Blizzard only loses money out of doing this. Blizzard doesn't seem to realize how many people they're screwing over by making this decision, so we're complaining in the hopes to get them to change their mind.
they lose mostly only chinese ppl, ppl that wouldn´t have bought it anyway
|
@Spawkuring:
Really, a smart business would still need to balance how much they are willing to sacrifice in order to please their customers, and where it eventually reaches the point of diminishing returns. For this game, for example, pleasing all their customers (a large number of different communities) would require Blizzard to produce and publish a number of different games (SC1 with engine rehash, Warcraft in space, and whatever the hell else others want). This, of course, is far from reasonable. Obviously, I am taking things to the extreme a little, but it may be possible that Blizzard has decided that the negatives of providing support for LAN far outweigh the positives from a simple financial perspective, and that it simply isn't a smart decision for them financially to include such a feature.
The bottom line is that businesses exist to make a profit, and making sure your customers is simply another part of maintaining sales. However, there exists a point where further satisfying your customer either stops providing returns in sales, or is detrimental to it (see: Demigod, no DRM, and its piracy woes). Sure, it'd be nice to make sure your customers are all always perfectly satisfied, but its not exactly reasonable to expect from a business.
Finally, I would let Blizzard's accounting division do their own projections as to whether or not an addition is going to be detrimental to their profit line. I will say, however, that there is absolutely no way that there are no sales to be gained from potential pirates. I've argued this so many times in this thread already and do not feel the need to regurgitate (especially seeing as how, if I remember correctly, you were one of the people I directed these points at).
|
Haha, all I can say is good luck finding an RTS with a better online system. For all your bitching a lot of RTS games don't include LAN play these days, and none of them have anything close to Battle.net. Hell, most of them can't even match SC1's Battle.net since they are using horrible shit like Gamespy or GFWL.
I love the internet revolutionaries in here going on about how Blizzard is the next Satan because they took out LAN play (I know, thats almost like punching babies and kittens). You think this is bad "DRM"? This barely qualifies as DRM to boot. Look at Spore (or any EA game just about) for hideously bad DRM, and even Steam is much more invasive than Blizzard is. You guys are living in some fantasy candyland if you think this is outside the norm, its actually better than the norm.
Anyway, while any reasonable person can be concerned, even if they don't have LAN play if you're not an internet hothead you might come to accept the fact that you can still play with your buddy right next to you at LAN latencies over B.net. Custom games are p2p and the data is going within your network.
|
Does Blizzard not know that you don't need Haofeng, Garena or any of these programs to play online illegally. The Chinese can simply just start a private server similar to gamei and iccup. Removing LAN won't solve the piracy issue at all.
|
Osaka27178 Posts
On July 01 2009 14:50 FieryBalrog wrote:
Haha, all I can say is good luck finding an RTS with a better online system. For all your bitching a lot of RTS games don't include LAN play these days, and none of them have anything close to Battle.net. Hell, most of them can't even match SC1's Battle.net since they are using horrible shit like Gamespy or GFWL.
I love the internet revolutionaries in here going on about how Blizzard is the next Satan because they took out LAN play (I know, thats almost like punching babies and kittens). You think this is bad "DRM"? This barely qualifies as DRM to boot. Look at Spore (or any EA game just about) for hideously bad DRM, and even Steam is much more invasive than Blizzard is. You guys are living in some fantasy candyland if you think this is outside the norm, its actually better than the norm.
Anyway, while any reasonable person can be concerned, even if they don't have LAN play if you're not an internet hothead you might come to accept the fact that you can still play with your buddy right next to you at LAN latencies over B.net. Custom games are p2p and the data is going within your network.
THANK YOU
|
United Arab Emirates492 Posts
But blizzard is adapting a Top-bottom approach to esports and gaming in general, didn't they always succeed in the past (wc/sc/diablo) because of the community at grassroots level (a bottom-up approach).
|
On July 01 2009 14:50 FieryBalrog wrote:
For all your bitching a lot of RTS games don't include LAN play these days
Name one major RTS that does not have LAN play.
|
bnet 2.0 features still remain to be seen. but hey, it's no LAN or securom and i choose the former.
|
On July 01 2009 03:23 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 03:20 Boundz(DarKo) wrote:
Sad but interesting information... funny how there's always something to blame China about. Well, it isn't only China. Just check the amount of WC 3 players on Garena, many of them don't have a legal copy.
if you are saying this about garena, you can say this about iccup too, a lot of people who dont have legal copies play on iccup.
|
On July 01 2009 15:52 Raithed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 03:23 Eury wrote:On July 01 2009 03:20 Boundz(DarKo) wrote:
Sad but interesting information... funny how there's always something to blame China about. Well, it isn't only China. Just check the amount of WC 3 players on Garena, many of them don't have a legal copy. if you are saying this about garena, you can say this about iccup too, a lot of people who dont have legal copies play on iccup.
iccup actually runs a 'pirate' server rather than exclusively using VPN like garena or this chinese service.
|
On July 01 2009 15:44 Idle wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 14:50 FieryBalrog wrote:
For all your bitching a lot of RTS games don't include LAN play these days Name one major RTS that does not have LAN play.
Dawn of War 2.
On July 01 2009 15:38 Gunman_csz wrote:
But blizzard is adapting a Top-bottom approach to esports and gaming in general, didn't they always succeed in the past (wc/sc/diablo) because of the community at grassroots level (a bottom-up approach).
WC3 was somewhat top down.
Diablo certainly didn't succeed because of the community, the community was a bunch of hacking and botting asshats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
