 |
|
|
| |
BlizzCon 09: Internet-Authenticated LAN For StarCraft II Likely
by Chris Remo [PC, Console/PC]
|
|
| |
|
August 22, 2009
|
| |
Although StarCraft II will not feature pure offline LAN play -- a cause of significant outcry from the sizable StarCraft community -- it is likely to feature a mode that allows players to play through a local area network after authenticating online through Battle.net.
Such a mode would allow for the minimal level of latency that comes with a direct LAN connection, while also maintaining Blizzard's stated aim of making StarCraft II an always-connected experience.
"That's certainly something we're discussing," said lead designer Dustin Browder, after being asked by Gamasutra about the inclusion of the feature.
Battle.net lead Greg Canessa, a former lead on Xbox Live, also spoke up on the matter in another BlizzCon interview. "Maintaining a connection with Battle.net, I don't know if it's once or periodically, but then also having a peer-to-peer connection between players to facilitate a very low-ping, high-bandwidth connection... those are the things that we're working on," he told consumer site Shacknews.
Separately: "We really wanted to have a very integrated experience for our players," Blizzard lead designer Browder told Gamasutra of the decision to push constant Battle.net connectivity. "A lot of games these days require an internet connection to play."
He added: "We really wanted to bring all these players together and keep them in the same pool, and make everything work, so your achievements work, your friends list works, everything just works correctly, as opposed to having two separated ways to play."
Blizzard did confirm this weekend that it is possible to play StarCraft II's single-player mode offline, but players will only be able to use a "guest account," not their persistent accounts, to do so. A similar method was used in 2000's Diablo II, which requires online-enabled characters to only play the game when connected to Battle.net.
The studio has big plans for its online service, including allowing mod-makers to sell StarCraft II custom games. And Blizzard's Rob Pardo dropped the surprising news that Battle.net is bigger than World of Warcraft.
Gamasutra will feature full interviews with both Browder and Canessa in the coming days and weeks.
|
| |
|
|
"A lot of games these days require an internet connection to play" is not an excuse for shafting a big percentage of your fans / buyers. This is not an MMO.
There are a reason why Stardock wrote that SP games must not demand Internet connection, it is the same reason why a skirmish-based MP game would suck demanding Internet connection.
Shame on you Blizzard, you are acting stupid in the last year, bizarre art direction on Diablo III and no LAN (with LAN being maybe the most important feature of the game in facT) in Starfract II... It look like you exchanged your top execs by Activision ones...
Im sorry Blizzard but this doesn't cut the mustard in the slightest. Your company continues to disappoint in this post-merger era.
Where I live, internet uptime is like 70% IF you pay LOTS of money (like me... 200 USD/month my 12Mbps connection with 70% uptime usually... Altough in contract only 10% of uptime is guaranteed).
Also, the place where I most play Warcraft III is on the university labs, where a firewall prevent connections to battle.net.
Also, like I said, I pay LOTS for my connection, the majority gamers that I know, are still stuck on dial-up.
Now do you get it?
"Blizzard did confirm this weekend that it is possible to play StarCraft II's single-player mode offline, but players will only be able to use a "guest account," not their persistent accounts, to do so."
Does this mean if i use my battle net account and complete half the missions in the campaign, then for some reason my net connection is down I can't continue playing from where I left off because I need to use a guest account instead?
This whole thing is getting ridiculous.
Forgetting this can be brutal to sales in games with a strong online play component.
Starcraft is rapidly using up a lot of the good grace that comes with a belated sequel to a much beloved game. From what we have seen, the game itself isn't a huge leap ahead of the original game. Better graphics and bits and pieces of gameplay mechanics they took from Warcraft 3. And now they are talking about removing some of the core features of the original game that made it so popular to begin with: open LAN.
I was incredibly excited when they first announced a sequel, but I am just not impressed with where they are going with it. I am strongly considering not bothering to buy it. I spend more money on games in a year than on any other form of entertainment, by leaps and bounds. If I want to play a game with my friends without having to convince them to buy the damn game themselves first, that doesn't make me, or them, criminals. I don't know when the trend started where the idea of multiple people playing a multiplayer game on one copy became so bad, but I grew up in the eighties, and it was the most common thing in the world for people to get together and play a game without everyone involved forking over the full price individually.
Here's a good halfway solution: provide a freebie LAN shell. Downloadable, or off the disc. Make it so that they can't host games, they can only connect to games hosted by an actual client, who will themselves verify their copy via Battlenet.
There, problem frigging solved.
@Gomez - I know you're a flame, but I have to call you out here: That's crap. I find myself in plenty of situations where I'd like to game without an internet connection. Such as a plane, on road trips, at my grandma's house. Cheapo commercial flights don't offer internet, and won't anytime soon. I'm not going to get mobile broadband just to cover the few times a year when I'm stuck somewhere with no internet.
I first played starcraft in highschool, in a computer lab, with no internet, using the multiplayer install. I learned the basics and got hooked (and spanked). Told my friend, who bought a copy, i played with him using a multiplayer install. Then I eventually bought not one, but TWO battlechests: for me and my sis. And my WHOLE FAMILY bought copies of diablo i/ii. It's a game that was actually meant to be shared, and did well because of it.
Requiring a connection in order to maintain your stats, achievements, and savegames is a non-starter with me and many others - I don't care how great your product is. I've bought everything blizzard makes except warcraft 3 ( which I didn't think was all that great). But I won't be buying this, and if Diablo III is the same way, I'll be voting with my wallet.
Wow dude talk about inappropriate conduct. Why don't you go an imply that Helder is a bunch of other horrible things while you are carpet bombing his rep? I hope gamasutra cans your account.
@Anthony
I think you summed up all our feelings here on this. We loved Blizzard and their games because they were great at creating viral marketing, treated players like players (not theives) and just worried about created a great experianced regardless if you were a freeloader playing the "lan install" or were/become a full user because you liked the game so much.
Personally I think heads should roll for the way that this post-merger stuff has gone down and the first head to roll should be at the top with Kotick. Hes been the leadership behind destroying one of the best brands in the industry.
As I said in another thread here on gamasutra, I have no problem with Blizzard wanting to, or trying to thwart pirates. By all means do. But don't do it at the expense of the games features. And LAN is one of those features. Recently, I wen't away in a summerhouse with a bunch of friends. We bought a couple of fresh new copies of Starcraft I to bring with us. We made sure to bring the latest patches as well. We did this, because the summerhouse we went to, does not have internet. I will not be able to do that with SC II.
Note that we bought the damn thing, even if its 15 years old. even if we could just as easily have downloaded a cracked version. Why ? Because we're honest people, and because we're happy with paying for a good game. which is also why SC I *still* sells after so many years. Because people are happy with paying for a legitimate good product.
Blizzard: Stop treating your customers like they are thieves. Start treating your customers nicely again. You'll make more money that way. It aint rocket science.
Even if you are on 56k dialup, it only needs to 'authenticate' once and you are good to go. Extremely little bandwidth is needed for that.
Sure, this is a slap to LAN parties, but that is the absolute only drawback here (not a trivial one either). However if you can't get dialup access to authenticate, I just don't know what to say.
In Brazil, a 2 minutes connection on dial-up (for "authentication') during a commercial day (that is: not between midnight and 6:00 in the morning), you need to pay 2 USD...
So, each time you need to start a game you need to pay 2 USD... It makes much more sense to not play the game at all, it is more expensive than a subscription.
That is: 2 USD more or less, in some places of the country it can achieve like 10 USD...
I bet that 100% of the US does not have broadband too, and that dial-up is not free too.
You're in the majority. That may cover 85% of the customer base, but I'd like to paint my picture for you:
I'm married w/kids. Thus, my gaming simply doesn't occur at home. It happens when there's a LAN party (which typically has internet) where I'm not worried with who-hit-who or ran into what, stinky diapers, and unannounced visitors. 90% happens when we're on vacation visiting family in Jamaica. And I'm not talking about a resort either. I'm talking about a nice quiet house in the country that requires a 2.5 hour car trip along I-don't-know-how-many cliffs. I'm too worried about electricity to even think about broadband!
Last time, I got to know my PSP... and had a BLAST!!! Next time, I'll bring my PC. So if I pay $50+ for a game, I had better get every feature I pay for. If I want to be forever connected, I'd buy an MMO - since it has a REASON for that. Most of us simply aren't carefree and 21 anymore. The only 8hr marathon in my life is from 9-to-5. (With the sole exception of Shadow Complex, best 1200 points I ever spent on XBL, period)
I just don't want to be left out just because Blizzard is worried about a problem that will be cracked within a week anyway. Since when have their sales been "down" enough to warrant all of this? I *want* to play Diablo III and even SC2. But I've never enjoyed b.net, zerg rushes, and the random people. I played through D2 with friends, offline. And the next opportunity to play would be if I brought it as a gift the on my next trip to the island.
Blizzard is going to take that away, so I'll have to choose something else. It's a big deal. While Mr. Canessa can easily discount this as being fringe, my general feeling about buying/collecting games (Yes, collect - I own over 400 titles, all told.) If a game can't run because a server is down, or a connection isn't available - I don't own it. If I can't play it in the setting that matters to me (being away from civilization), then it's worthless.
How much people Compuserv served? How much was the price to stay connected, and how much people there are in the world that don't had Compuserv (for geographical reasons) or cannot pay to stay connected?
So here's a question. Why should any game developers care about the opinion of software pirates? No matter what Blizzard does, pirates will attempt to steal the game. Whether true or not, Blizzard believes this will reduce piracy and give an audit-trail that will allow the banning of troublemakers. Unlike governments (which force themselves upon you at gunpoint... what's that thing on a cop's hip?), you are under no obligation to subject yourself to the horrible, life-destroying practice of Internet-based authentication. Blizzard gets to do this.
And the opinion of software thieves is unimportant.
Is there anyone here who thinks SC2 is going to be some sort of failure because Blizzard doesn't want its game stolen? Really?
I never caught where this became about piracy. No one here is arguing, or has argued against their anti-piracy measures. I don't mind authentication-on-install and such. What I mind is being required to be online to play, when that isn't always a possibility. If this is similar to Steam - which started off kinda bad, but now seems to work even when I go dark, then that's fine. (I played Warhammer DoW/Soulstorm on my last plane ride, quite fun)
...But to start snipping features for not being online is unacceptable. (For ex. Gears of War for windows, you can't save unless signed in - So I played it on the 360 instead) I think a better way to ask it (without accusing everyone of being a pirate) is "Should Blizzard tie a single-player game into an online environment?" And "Do customers have the right to play offline?" Will this "guest" account even be able to save? I believe I have a right to know what I'm getting into beforehand.
As someone who grew up in a rural area - LAN parties were the norm. I was the only one who had an ethernet hub and cards growing up, so my house was the venue. That's why *craft was such a hit. Do you think I was "stealing" games with a 28.8 connection in a house with only one phone-line? If so, I find that quite offensive. On the other hand, since your opinion seems to be that of the majority, maybe I'm just blowing hot air and need to look forward to some other release.
Man.. CompuServe. That takes me back.
Hélder Gomes Filho said:~~There are a reason why Stardock wrote that SP games must not demand Internet connection, [...]~~
Terrible example. As stated above, players will be able to play the game offline by using guest accounts. The reasoning is implied to be due to tying achievements and similar features to an online account (think with what Left 4 Dead does in Steam). Anything spoken about how you might not be able to continue playing a campaign if you're switching between playing online and offline is pure conjecture, and should be ignored until Blizzard clarifies their position (which they certainly will before release, if reviewers or similar dont).
@Anthony Clay, L Foz: Hélder Gomes Filho is a pirate. A quick search of his past comments will prove this, as he states it himself multiple times. That doesn't make it (or him) morally right or wrong, but that makes it a fact by admission. Flaming in the opposite direction isn't solving anything.
But still, I think that is of sheer arrogance or stupidity when developers assume that everyone are in the same condition as them.
Not everyone has this ultimate machine that can run the game on high (Crysis...), not also everyone has internet all the time (Gears, Starcraft II...), not everyone has Windows (companies that ignore Mac and Linux... Happily iD is not one of those \o/), not everyone lives in NA, EU or JP (ie: all stupid region locked sotware and hardware... I had some stuff pirated because the original don't work), not everyone has a HDTV (ie: all those idiotic XBOX 360 games that use a stupid font that is impossible to read on a normal TV).
This is what drew me to this discussion, not that I can or not pirate the game because it has LAN or not... If it supports TCP/IP, it WILL get cracked to work pirated, even without LAN... There are garena for example (where I play War III because it has better features than bnet, and less lag), private WoW servers (I don't play WoW for those wondering, not even private or not private). What matter here is the arrogance (or stupidity) of a developer to think that they can go around doing that sort of stuff and think that they will still be a blockbuster (and when they fail, they complain that it was piracy and used games fault... Crysis again... While I only ever saw 2 PCs in front of me with Crysis running, one was a musician workstation, with original Crysis, not pirated, and the other was a showcase machine of a custom computer store, that I doubt that was using a pirated game...)
The game can be played offline as a Guest with limited features. All that probably means is no stat tracking, achievements, friend lists, etc. That really isn't a big deal. The "core" of the single player experience will probably still be intact. Supposedly they're working on a solution to implement LAN. Periodic authentication checks might suck, but if 90% of LAN players are serviced, isn't that at least something? Fact is companies, generally speaking, can't afford to accommodate 100% of the populace. It just isn't feasible.
I kind of find it funny that people are calling Blizzard "arrogant" when, largely, their games have accommodated more system types than most companies. Maybe not all connection speeds but sometimes, in the case of WoW specifically, you're forced to make decisions for the entire game populace not the individual. I couldn't imagine trying to play WoW with a healer in my party that had a 56k modem. It'd be an unplayable nightmare.
As far as MP goes, they aren't going to reward people achievements for LAN based play, because they can't assure the rest of us that it was even a legit match and deserved to be considered an achievement. I find it so comical that people want what we had over 10 years ago, when the landscape has changed so much.
Back then, Blizzard needed to do viraling marketing to get customers. Now they have tons of loyal customers and need to protect them and serve them with this sequel.
It's a shame that there are so many people crying over this when it is really a non-issue. If you really think that Blizzard is shafting you then go play another game. Most of us will remember that their history and track records are pretty pristine and that giving them the benefit of the doubt has worked out pretty good for the customer in the past.
Your last paragraph in your post is a least a bit more sound in argument though. It seems as though the intention is that SCII is more of a connected experience, though I disagree with the need to make such when the core gameplay should not require it. Blizzard's decision though, and it won't affect my purchasing of the game in this case.
Anyway, what I only meant, is that companies should not leave behind a good portion of people, there are no problem in making a 800x600 game when only 1% of the people has 640x480, but that is not the case with LAN (in my opinion).
Also mind you, pirating is not stealing, in my view having 3000 MP3s is diffrent from having a 3000 USD stolen car...
Yet, I don't ever said that I current go around pirating all the time that I can or something like that, I said that yes, I do have pirated stuff, mostly old stuff that in fact was not even me that actually pirated it (it was mostly gifts), and I am buying (slowly, but still doing it) the pirated games that I liked, I already bought Age of Empires I and II for example (and the Rise of Rome expansion that I don't had pirated), Half-Life (I finished it twice pirated, then I bought it on steam and never installed it), Portal (I finished once pirated, liked it, bought it, finished 3 times again after buying it).
But all those games that I have bought, I bought them because they were acessible, no region locks, no absurd price, no DRM that damages computer, nothing of that.
Also I did not said that I never played StarCraft (I said that I DO played StarCraft on the university LAN on machines that had it installed), only that I don't own it (not even pirated for your information).
Also I have no regret over having pirated stuff because without it I would never be where I am now, I would never love computers and game programming if I do not had access to all those pirated games when I was young, plainly because it was the ONLY way to have games (they were not sold legally where I lived, and internet was not avaible at all, not even dial-up).
But all this does not mean that you can go around saying that I am a evil thief that cannot have the opinion respected. In fact, I DO try to convince people to stop pirating without reason and buying games, but I will not be a hyprocrite and liar and say that I never pirated anything. I for exmaple own several versions of 3DS Max and Windows pirated, because I had to use 3DS Max (that is windows only) on the university, and the university labs are not always avaible, and I don't have 1000 or 2000 USD or something like that for the license. Now if you think that I should just give up the university because I don't have money to buy a single software, then I see where your egotism went when you think that all pirates are stealing your money (as all anti-pirated on gamepolitics stated).
Someone with stolen software is a potential customer. They want your product, and most likely would pay for your product (in some cases might have already paid for it), but for whatever reason they cannot afford it or gain reasonable access to it through legit means. Most importantly, they don't knowingly copy this stolen merchandise for others to use. Although, they do point others towards the source.
Someone who steals software is not a potential customer. They are planning on using that software well beyond the normal limits that an average user would, and even give it to others. They want to exploit the hard work of the company for their own benefit and there's very little that can be done about this, short of turning their audience against them.
Any company that doesn't consider the feelings of the people getting merchandise from mafia types that 'knock over' their shipments and redistribute them is naive and stupid. Blizzard is at the top of the Pyramid right now, and I don't think anyone can call them naive and stupid.
Battle.Net allows them to reach people who have stolen software; without it the people stealing software become the heroes instead of the creators. With it, people with stolen software still feel like they don't have the complete product and may be compelled to go legit.
Mind you, I respect Blizzard, and I can say that they never made a bad game (really... Blackthorne and Rock and Roll racing are awesome), I only critized their decision for making no LAN, I still think that is bad idea, but Christopher post showed that to them it may make sense.
Also, I don't stealed any software, I copied or bought a copy. This does not prevent the IP owner for making money, specially since I don't go around promoting piracy and asking people to not buy, when I can I buy myself, and when other people can, they buy it too, for example I keep asking one of my roomates to buy Unreal 3 so he can play with me and another roomate (we both already have our own totally legal Unreal 3 copies, and I can proudly say that I never played a pirated Unreal 3, I was so happy with Unreal 2004 that I bought Unreal 3 legally without even trying a demo, that in fact is what make Blizzard thinking not really stupid, they expect Starcraft I players to play Starcraft II).
Copyright infrigment has this legal name, because copyright infrigment is not stealing.
Also I am not saying ever that piracy is a good thing, I am saying that sometimes it is needed, and not because only the price, when I think that a game is too expensive, I don't buy it, plain that. But tell me, if you lived in a place where no game is legally avaible, you would just not play any game at all? Here where I live, legal games are a rarity, several games the only way to obtain is ilegally, either copying, actual stealing or smuggling. But so, if the game was smuggled then is fine to you because you got paid?
I think that the people that are so fiercely anti-pirate are people that never saw "the other side", the side where a pirated game dealer give WAAAY better service than the developer/publisher/retailer chain. I saw games that are not sold legally here (so you smuggle, steal or copy), but that have street dealers selling them with a localization that kick ass of some major localization studios, localized manual, price according to what people pay, and really importantly: accept returns.
The dealers are wrong? Yes, they are completly wrong, like Christopher commented above you, they get money using someone else work, and sometimes they are fueling mafia. But the developers/publishers/retailers should know too, that if they were doing a decent service, the illegal dealer services would not be needed.
My point is: We should not go around hunting costumers and pirate dealers, what we should do is improve our own product in a way that it sells more legally, games are a business about of games sold, not games not sold.
My guess is that if Blizzard allowed LAN, but also had a good online service, had a spetacular SP experience, and sold for 30 USD at most, they would sell much more. But like I said, this is a guess, a guess from a person that plan actually someday have a great game company too and is a student of a EA exec, so you can disregard it, but if you are disregarding my guess because I have a pirated Max, then I must say that I disagree with that.
And yes, I do ask software companies for copies of their stuff, and I got some wonderfull stuff, like Cosmigo Pro Motion (that I promised them that i would try to convince the university to use), several license extensions for Filter Forge, free high-res textures from Arroway.de, and I am thankfull for all those people, specially because I don't had to own a pirated copy of their stuff, and I don't like using pirated stuff, Windows and Max already bothers me (altougn my windows is "half" pirated.... I bought a computer with Windows Home but lost the CD and installed a Professional over it...)
As the CEO of a small company a while back, I bought seven copies of a 3D modeling package. Maybe something that rhymes with Tax. Or Hax. Anyway: Full price, no educational licenses, non nonsense like that. We bought the seven copies, because we had seven artists using max. You know what we did with those seven copies ? We put them on a shelf, unopened, and untouched, and used pirated versions instead. The install process, and license management and all other kinds of DRM nonsense just cost too much work and hassle, for us to bother with it.
THAT is my major gripe with DRM: When DRM gimps the product so badly, that the pirated version is actually a better product, then the company making the product is shooting themselves in the foot. really, really badly.
Blizzard is doing the same with SC II. And it annoys me. Sure, Blizz don't owe me anything, and are free to do whatever the hell they like, and sure I can vote with my wallet. Which I will. Which is why what they are doing is bloody stupid. Gimping LAN play sure as hell isn't going to make even one pirate extra buy their game, but it *will* make less people buy it.
They said that this whole thing is about 'connectivity,' but I don't see why people at a LAN party need to be 'connected' to participate in the LAN. If they want to provide owners of the game with a better experience, they don't need to validate every participant in a LAN before allowing the game to play. That is a bit like thanking the jailor for locking you away 'for your own safety.'
That may sound excessive - and it is - but I am trying to get across this point: Blizzard has changed their policy toward LAN gaming. They have gone from an inclusive policy(free advertisement, possible sales), to an exclusive policy(we are so big that we don't need advertisement, pay for the game or you don't get squat). And hey, that is their perogative. But it has nothing to do with piracy. LAN shells don't contribute to piracy efforts in the slightest: they don't even contain the single player content. It'd be vastly more simple to just pirate the single player game.
LAN shells are wonderful because they are A) Easier to get ahold of. You download it from a legit source, stick it on a disc, pass it around to your friends, everyone installs, you're golden. You don't have to go through the trouble of cracking a thing. Which means that B) When the LAN party is over, everyone has had a good time, but anyone who didn't own the game to begin with doesn't have a cracked, working copy of the game on their computer. All they have is a LAN shell that is useless until the next LAN party. So what is the end result? Potential customer.
So please, drop the piracy crap. This isn't about piracy. There's nothing wrong with anti-piracy measures, but this isn't about piracy at all. This is specifically about protectivism. This is essentially saying, no, you can't even LAN this game without buying it, so pay up. Allowing people to LAN without a full copy of the game is not going to promote or encourage piracy. People will pirate the game anyway. They will do it for the single player. There isn't anything you can really do to prevent that. However, their vain efforts are doing a lot to damage the paying customer's experience.
Though not specifically talking about Starcraft 2(Blizzard hasn't released enough information about their DRM's online components to determine how invasive/draconic it is), the increasing prevelance of these kinda of harsh DRM methods are to do one thing and one thing only: delay pirates long enough to grab as much of the 'impatient pirate' crowd as they can. If the game is cracked four hours after release, it makes a big difference in sales compared to the game being cracked a day later, two days later, three days later. The difference between the new methods and the old methods, is that before they were relatively transparent to the legit user. These days, it's a permanent inconvenience that persists long after the pirates have bypassed it. Like Lars up there said: it's the pirates who end up with the superior product, just by removing the hassle of DRM.
@ Lan Community. Starcraft / Warcraft III ARE competitive gaming. Do you really think that they are going to create an infrastructure that destroys this? The lack of LAN will not be as intrusive as you guys claim. If you want to play when you aren't near an Internet connection then use the Map Editor or get some good SP Maps before you put yourself in that position. Stop trying to make an excuse so that you can give your friends free copies (even if it is for a night) because they wouldn't play the game otherwise. Now you know what to get them for their birthday or just because you know they would like it.
God forbid Blizzard makes $50 on everyone that plays their games, when a good portion of consumers will blindly throw $60 at subpar games because the marketing is everywhere.
Mind you, that I said that no legal way is avaible, I meant for example that there are no such movies on DVD to you buy for example, I live in a country in the southern part of the planet, here movies, games, music, software, cigarretes, drinks, medicine, shampoo, shades, and LOTS of stuff is not sold here but with few exceptions, thus pirating all that (yes, drinks, shades, shampoo included too) is really common here (And in other countries too from what I researched without any really good scientific method before someone start to complain of that all the time).
Also, I did not say that we had rampant Crysis piracy, what I am saying about Blizzard was exactly that: They make something bad (altough I can say that SFII probably will not be bad...), and then they say that is piracy fault... First, it should be known that the "internet piracy" is minor, the majority of piracy is CD and DVD-R on the streets, that companies in fact ignore for some reason unknown to me. And also, games like Crysis, get only pirated popularly on internet (if it get pirated at all), but I bet that while there are 500k of downloaded Crysis around, there are millions of pirated Quake III copies got from actual burned disks, usually twice each semester, I go to the street where pirates gather when the police is not much active (yes, the police DO crackdown on them... but that does not mean that they don't insist and show up even if for 20 minutes while no cop is around...), and I ask them what is selling and what is not:
Usually these are the results:
Valve games, Stardock games, and any high-end game (Crysis for example) sell poorly or don't sell at all, the exception is Counter-Strike (that is banned here by the government, there are no way to get it legally).
EA, Activision and Take-Two games usually sell a horrendous amount, specially Maxis stuff, sports stuff and older games.
All this to say:
Don't tell me that people have money to have internet (like I said, my argument about LAN is that they don't, if they don't have internet to use LAN obviously they don't have to pirate too). Or that they have expensive computers (they don't... A computer capable of running Crysis costs around 3000 USD here, and the majority of the population has as salary 100 USD), or stuff like that.
One extra note: The most pirated stuff is not PC games, it is Playstation (1 and 2) games, plainly because they are the cheapest console with good games that you can smuggle inside the country (yes, SMUGGLE, BECAUSE IT IS NOT SOLD HERE LEGALLY WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS OF SOME STORES THAT IMPORT FROM OTHER STORES AND NOT SONY AND THEN SELL HERE FOR A HIGH PRICE, altough the smuggled work the same way, you will never finda PS2 here for 99 USD, even smuggled ones, since the smuggler had to buy it for 99 USD from a store and then bring it here).
And no, steam is not popular, it demands internet, and like I stated several times, this is a rarity here.
And no, amazon is even less popular, because few people has international credit cards (that are expensive), and amazon refuse to send some stuff here because the way how our corrupted customs work (ie: the customs even if you are doing it completly legally, still ask for a bribe, for example to pass your stuff ahead, instead of putting it on the end of the queue, that is always huge and lasts several months...).
And my attitude is not promoting piracy or somthing like that, is understand the reasons for piracy and fix it, not fix the symptoms. This is important when the symptom is not result of "evilness", when it is result of something else.
When it is "evilness" (Blackwater... some guys from them were found in our rainforest, and our army had to ask a judge to go near their area... seriously! I live in a country where Blackwater can roam around our own forest armed to the teeth while the Army need special permission to cross their route?) then the only stuff that can be done is attack the thing itself, but that is not the case with piracy (in fact, most pirated good buyers don't even know that legal games exist, they only see for sale in their life the pirated stuff on street, to them that is the norm...)
Earn achievements
Have cross-game chat with my friends in WoW, or Diablo3 (probably even in single player)
Participate in official tournaments
Produce and sell high quality custom maps and mods via their map store
Instantly download any number of free maps and mods through battle.net (not from a 3rd party site)
All you pirates will be stuck with LAN play. Not connected to battle.net, because they can't authenticate you.
I'm sure there's many more reasons to keep their players connected, but these alone more than warrant restricting LAN play to guest accounts in my opinion.
As Crumpett eloquently put it earlier with the HDTV example, Blizzard is changing the game.
If you don't have regular internet access, or live in a smaller country, I really feel for you. At this point, you're the minority however and the times... they are a changin'.
Even less some other countries that reach the billion mark and has infrastructure problems too...
Also I don't think that all this people are a minority.
What you describe as a "policy" is just one approach that has been used in the past, not a stated long-term position of Blizzard.
Also generally speaking, I completely understand the frustration of those who don't have consistent internet access and I think that's a completely valid complaint about this game.
But at the same time, when I spoke to Greg Canessa about this, he said Blizzard's thinking was largely that the PC is essentially synonymous with being online these days--for most people who have PCs, the reason they have a PC is to go online, be it for news, instant messaging, social networking, streaming or buying music or films, buying things, and so on. From that perspective, he said, Blizzard views one of its distinctions from the consoles as that it is an always-online gaming machine, whereas the consoles cannot assume that.
I think that's a valid direction to take, even if it--really unfortunately--doesn't apply to every person. After all, look at the success of World of Warcraft, a game that can ONLY be (legitimately) played online. There's no guest mode or authenticated LAN or anything, it's a purely online game, and it has been more successful, not just in revenue but in pure user count, than anything Blizzard has ever made, including in countries like China. Surely Blizzard looks at that and realizes there are more people playing that online game, which has no free spawn copy and no LAN play, than ever played StarCraft using any kind of connection method, and they must think the market for a purely-online game is still massive. I can't blame them.
After I got a international card, I bought Portal, and stopped pirating Valve games (when I want it, I buy it on Steam, my game list on Steam is pretty big in fact, and most of those games I don't pirated first).
But why just I don't stop? Well, I am stopping (like I said I am buying pirated stuff legally, or exchanging them for open source software and so on, currently like I stated, only Windows and Max is pirated on my machine, I don't even own office, I use happily Open Office). But even with ME stopping, other people are not.
So I figure why other people are not, and then I figure what is needed to make them stop. And it is not DRM or suing them. That is my point from the start.
You are not getting my arguments because you are only thinking on it personally, you are thinking that I am justifieing my past actions and that I want to continue being a evil criminal or something like that... You are skipping the parts where I say that I am only trying to explain what is needed to decrease piracy and increase profits.
In fact, you are even insulting me saying that I am full of shit, before even paying attention to what I wrote, I already done what I are asking me to do.
You have no idea what my motivations are. I don't LAN anymore: I used to. I know the usefulness of LAN for selling games to potential customers. I have been to maybe six or seven proper LAN parties(aside from just getting together with a friend or three) and, in a time when I had less money than I had free time, it sold me more games than any advertisement or suggestion from friends. However, it also gave me a number of pirated copies of games, because there was just no other way to LAN them without pirating them. Had the developers provided stripped-down LAN shells, those games could have been potential sales. In the end they weren't.
These days, when I have more money than free time, I buy the games I play. I do occasionally pirate games in order to demo them if they don't have an official demo. Just the other day I decided to try Neverwinter Nights 2, having never played it. I looked without success for a demo, ended up downloading it, and then bought it(and the first expansion) after about three hours of play. Hell, I actually accidentally ended up with a legit copy of a Paradox game(due to a mistake on Gamers Gate's part), but since I didn't pay for it I don't have the heart to play it. So don't make the error of assuming you know my motivations. My motivation is simply this: this is a bad policy decision.
People underestimate the power of a positive demo experience. LAN is almost certainly the best possible scenario for a positive demo experience. You have a situation where a person can try a small portion of the game, in the best possible circumstances. People who try a game and walk away with a good impression of it, are much more likely to buy it.
And no, people aren't going to spend hundreds of dollars buying copies of a game for their friends. Are you completely mad? At fifty dollars a copy(not even including taxes), that's two hundred dollars just to play Starcraft 2 with three friends. Maybe if you LAN every weekend that might be worth it(I would argue it's not), but ultimately what is going to happen, is people will find a work around. You might not see the moral reasoning behind a person not wanting to spend enormous sums of money for a night's entertainment, but expecting the world at large to not take the easy route and just pirate the damn thing for a LAN party is more than a little naive. People have been distributing pirated copies of games at LAN parties for ages. It is a fact of life. All you can do is make the best of a dubious situation. In this case that would be LAN shells. Blizzard is failing to do that, and in the end is actually encouraging piracy as the only alternative for people who aren't rolling in equal quantities of cash and generosity.
Personally, if I get Starcraft 2, it will be on the merits of its singleplayer. I'm uninterested in the multiplayer aspect for the most part, and am unlikely to play it via LAN. The only multiplayer I play these days is cooperative games with my partner and a handful of friends when we have time. SCII is not WoW, and it will never be WoW. It's a terrible comparison to make. Competitive match play is not the same thing as persistant online worlds. Simply throwing messaging in there doesn't turn SCII into an MMO, and it won't increase sales in the slightest. Assuming that because there is in-game messaging and stat-keeping that it will somehow be more likely to reach the heights of WoW is rather ridiculous. That, again, is not why they are implementing this new policy toward LAN gaming. They are viewing every LAN player as a potential customer. Which they are. But it's a lot harder to sell a game to a customer that hasn't tried your product, which is what Blizzard is doing. Creating an exclusive product instead of an inclusive one. There's a decent chance they will provide a demo instead, possibly even a multiplayer demo. That's fine, but it doesn't support the LAN community, a community that helped make Blizzard what they are today. Should Blizzard support the LAN gaming community? I think so, yes. If you don't, then that's where we differ.
With the exception of MMOs, every game that comes to mind that enforces an online component(GTA IV, for example), has had a lackluster online reception. GTA IV is an incredible single player experience. It also has multiplayer, and probably a pretty good multiplayer, but people don't spend a lot of time on Rockstar's online network. I can't think of a single person who has ever, not even once, mentioned using their online service. At all. Despite knowing many people who own the game, including myself. I deeply suspect that Starcraft 2 will be similar in that regard.
Now, finally, I'd like to talk about Brazil and piracy. Here's how I see it: telling a person not to pirate games because they have a 'moral imperitive' to deny themselves access to something that you have access to, is the most painfully, misguidedly American thing I have heard in a long time. If Blizzard is not shipping their games to X part of the world to sell, then it is their own fault if people resort to piracy. If you deprive a market of a product that is in demand, it will supply its own demand. It's really easy for an American living in a world where there is easy access to every conceivable form of necessity and luxury, to get on their soapbox and start lecturing people in disadvantaged parts of the world on their 'moral obligations' to respect American copyright law. It's really, really frigging easy. And until you live in a part of the world where you don't have access to 85% of the things you enjoy every day, today, simply because you can't afford them(due to unfair prices) or because they simply aren't even offered, then your opinion on their situation is invalid. End of story. Blizzard doesn't lose a dime when people they refuse to sell their game to, pirate their game. There is no potential sale and therefore no potential loss. Games only lose money to pirates when pirating interferes with sales. This isn't the case here.
If you want to pretend like they're bad people for it, fine. From my perspective, it makes you look incredibly arrogant. Some people fail to see the big picture. All they see is how easy they have it in their whitebred, American, urban/suburban paradise, where money flows, luxuries are around every corner, and there's cheap internet access for hundreds of miles around. That is your world. It is not the whole world.
Unlike some people, I am capable of thinking of someone other than myself.
Thanks!
You explained much too :)
I agree with the notion that a pirate can produce any reason to justify their pirating. It's very difficult to concede that your well reasoned , well intentioned actions directly cause the practices you decry.
I agree with you on Brazil but I think you summed up the reason why they don't want to support the LAN community any more than they have to:
"People have been distributing pirated copies of games at LAN parties for ages. It is a fact of life. All you can do is make the best of a dubious situation. "
Granted, you think LAN shells are the answer, but they've tried that and it didn't exactly keep the pirates at bay (hehe). They want to discourage pirated sales of their games as much as possible and reward people for investing in Blizzard and spending their time playing Blizzard games.
As for gifting a game, you don't have to buy everyone you know a game. I was just stating that it is the right thing to do if you want to get a friend to play. I honestly wouldn't worry about people not having a chance to demo the game.
What Blizzard did with Starcraft I was implement a Spawn system. And based on the success of trial accounts with WOW, I'm sure that they'll reintroduce the spawn service through Battle Net. Sure they'll monitor the connections, take your personal information, and of course get more chances to sell the game to guests; but is that really so bad. Seems like a decent compromise to me.
Blizzard is definitely trying to curb piracy, but like in a lot of cases of excessive DRM, it seems fairly plain(to me anyway) that it is a method that does more to drive down sales than it does to prevent actual piracy. Unless they succeed in making Starcraft LAN impossible to crack(highly doubtful), then people are still going to find ways to LAN the game, and that way is going to be cracking full copies of the game. Which means that everyone attending a LAN party who plays Starcraft will wind up with a working full copy of the game regardless. There just isn't another option. The vast majority of people who end up in this position aren't going to buy the game, no matter how much they enjoyed it, because the number of people willing to pay for something they already have is pretty darn low.
I suggested LAN shells because it prevents piracy by necessity. It won't cut down on intentional piracy, but it would definitely make LANs a non-issue. And I'm doubtful that their current policy is going to cut down on piracy either.
But we can't really know anything for sure until we have the full details on what that policy is.
While I am sure it would only be a matter of time until there is a hack out to resolve the whole authentication issue, it's still the principle of the thing that's a problem. There are better ways to prevent piracy, and while this probably still wouldn't be enough to keep me from buying the game, their claim to a "unified experience" doesn't do anything to increase my desire for this game.
If I made a game and somebody said they pirated it, I would asked them if they enjoyed it and if they said yes I would tell them the good old reasons that they should buy it and buy the next ones, and to also spread the word that it was good. I would not turn my nose and claim that they are the scum of the earth.
I am here to make games, not money. Oh sure, I want to get paid for my time and the buying public are the source of that money, but if I go under I would blame me for making a bad game, or the BigWigs for taking their pay-packet and running to leave us in the dust.
Oh back on topic: Yes Blizzard you are bad, I don't like you. Makes good games, bad decisions. Thank you for Starcraft 1.5
PS: I'm well aware that my utter desire to not put pirates heads on pikes could attract flaming accusations of being a pirate. I'd like to let you know that calling a pirate a pirate is not an insult, and hasn't been this entire thread. I don't pirate my console games, whoops 90% are second hand.