And when Blizzard shuts off support for Starcraft 2, no one will be able to play it ever again. Aren't DRM and the DMCA wonderful?

What about the single player? I don't see a shelf life on that.

While I understand your point, that server support is necessary for MP, the nature of on line is rapidly becoming more complicated and ever larger. The sheer numbers of persistent users boggles the mind.

The movement of such a mass is ponderously slow, prone to misconceptions, and historically develops fractions and factions as time goes on. (Think flocking algorithms, there's always one trailer...)

This means investment and development to meet the large scale demands needs some framework, some sort of contractual bounds to give scope so you know how far to go or go beyond. While I agree DRM and DMCA is not ideal, it forces the questions to be asked, litigated, and hopefully, updated.

And as a side note, I'd agree with your assessment for most of the industry...it's just that Blizzard is an odd duck and doesn't fit the general market cycle on title release, support, and cycle.

@Ken,

Yes you will be able to play the single player campaign long after the B.net servers are shut down, but the core draw of an RTS is to play other people. With Multiplayer tied to a proprietary server, that becomes an impossibility when that server is no longer active.

I have no issue with Battle.net support as long as it is an option. Warcraft 2 and 3 have both Battle.Net support and LAN support. Starcraft 1 is the same. I really don't think that the features provided by Battle.net outweigh the ability to get two - eight people together to play a few quick matches.

I stand by the point I made recently that people will still be playing Starcraft 1 long after Starcraft 2 gets shut down.

@Ephriam Knight
You're forgetting one thing.
For Warcraft 3, they patched out the need for the disk.

If they ever shut down SC2 on Bnet, 40 years from now, they'll release a patch.

Friendly wager then?

My bet is one year post SC2 launch in NA and Asian markets. This does not mean that Blizzard will shut down support for SC1, but that the over all pick up for the title will amount to a few hundred sales per the calendar year.

While I support your stance over server side support for the consumer as a player, I cannot support it as a fiduciary rep for any company--if the numbers aren't there and I can't justify the ROI, it would be my keester out the door.

As an added note however, you might want to consider that serial releases such as episodic content and DLC increase the lifespan of a title release. If there should be support or updates of content from Blizzard for SC1, that would considerably change the status quo on project lifespans...and now that I consider it, change the bet. (All negotiable terms and agreements are null and void should something something be announced...)

So the momentary concerns aside, if there is a 'size-able' market of SC1 players which server usage will certainly reflect, I doubt Blizzard will be flipping the off switch anytime soon. However, should SC2 usage skyrocket and SC1 drop to a trickle, there are still service agreements that would maintain service over some length of time, giving the opportunity for the community to have a second shot at increasing SC1 usage.

Finally, I do see in-built LAN being addressed at some point. A lot of big publishers are looking at it as a post profit cycle possibility, something out sourced to reduce over all costs once the final title gets released. This would allow the lag time in-between title releases for a brand to remain viable, but it needs the right cost to benefit ratio. Counter-Strike is a good example but relies on modders, a community that makes publishers nervous. But enough modders got together to form several companies or at least be a pool of developers from which mainstream studios draw from.

So it doesn't look bleak, just delayed and being sorted out. It just needs a studio to be successful with that model and for now, it just appears to be Blizzard.

@Wolf

Not that I don't have faith that they will do that, it is still unproven. Most all these companies say they will patch out DRM when they shut down the servers, but the question remains on whether that will happen or not.

There are a lot of situations that result in things happening so fast that a patch cannot be developed. Then there is the question of where one might find the patch when that developer is no longer around.

I am not trying to be negative here, I am just trying to point out that in this current trend of making everything online capable, the consumer is asked to take a lot of this on faith.

Ephriam, I think you have a good point and I agree, I'm not a fan of DRM or the restrictions within Steam where I can't even play single player unless I'm connected to the interwebs (does it still work that way?).

However, since people are already building battle.net emulators and we're just in beta, I'm sure by the time Blizzard shuts down the SC2 servers someone will have software out there to emulate the process and allow for private servers or LAN connection or whatever. With Blizzard no longer providing that functionality they will find it pretty hard to sue those who do... and honestly at that point I don't think they would care.

I don't play any of the Warcrafts or Starcraft but I know LAN play is very popular for those games, so I do sympathize with those who are disappointed LAN support won't be native to SC2 upon release.

@ken,

The reason I say that SC1 will continue after SC2 is long dead, is that SC1's multiplayer has more options than just B.Net. LAN support will keep SC1 going while SC2's dependency on B.Net will be its downfall eventually.

I don't think that SC1's B.Net usage will remain as it is when SC2 is released. It probably will drop considerably. But I don't think that SC1's B.Net usage even compares to the LAN use of the game. I know all those South Korean players are not all playing on B.Net

Will they drop SC2 support any time soon? Probably not. Blizzard does have long support cycles. But it will happen. The question remains: What will happen to all the copies of the game after that?

But if you look at Blizzard, why should you have to ask? They never release a game they thought wasn't good enough for the consumer & I'll admit, I feel each time they do that, the wait is more than worth it. When you get some sort of support from Blizz, they don't fail to come through in any area. I've been playing games from Blizz since the SC1 & Warcraft days & I have to say that anyone who knows the company knows they come through on what they say. Unexpected problems do occur here and there, but to not expect that to happen is to be retarded. The point is, even if it takes them a tiny bit of extra time to do so (sometimes a lot, lol), it gets done, end of story. I think the LAN thing will eventually be addressed b/c there's still a large section of the community that wants it & makes use of it. The only thing on that is a matter of time as to implementation, Ken got that one good. The problem of that leap of faith is when you get outside of the Battle.net & Steam communities where the model isn't so well developed. With Blizz & Steam, it's felt more like a baby step of faith, lol.

As for where to find those patches if the dev ain't around any more, where else? Bittorrent of course. Most old content like that is torrent hosted already, slapping a patch in there isn't going to be any more difficult. I mean, seriously, I can still find old obscure games like Tyrian (& the Tyrian 2000 remake), why would it be any harder to find a simple patch?

They will, like old soldiers, slowly fade away.

I was as Vivendi when they closed down the Sierra division, and it was my department that received all the assets accumulated by Sierra over it's history--either in direct development or license acquiring. I can tell you it was like walking through a sepulcher of titles that had gone before, my entire childhood in bins, cabinets, and boxes.

And just in the same storage cage were a ton of Blizzard shirts from Blizzcon to be used as promotional items. Companies persist or don't, it's market Darwinism.

But I reiterate the my previous point. LAN usage is something that needs to have tangible returns on investment. That will come in increased project life cycle, and if there's a MP studio around to do LAN implementation and accept out-sourced work, it will be done.

Personal Note: I know of several eastern European studios that have done this in the past--implement network play and not just for LAN but also service side implementation. Some studios base their operating cycle on this...but are going more towards LIVE and PSN integration since consoles have a better revenue stream for terms of service over product lifespan.

@Tim Carter

Awesome

"and jeopardizes our goodwill with legitimate players."
"maintain the quality and integrity of Battle.net for our players."

These quotes bother me.

@Bob

Yeah, and I understand there was some discussion about that. For me, I recall Valve and Vivendi's arguments about fees and services arising from PC shops and CS.

You have to remember that services, the publisher, and developers have different opinions and positions over what constitutes a necessary investment in providing a service, then there is the additional efforts to block out how and who, how it is going to work and who has to be involved to ensure service. This discussion starts 'top-tier' and usually gets parceled out as task groupings get spec'd.

I can't comment on functionality outside of development--as I have only been in development. It does cause problems, particularly if it exposes some "unintended functionality" but it depends on the level of over all exposure.

Personally, I don't doubt there's a solution--I just doubt whether the justification can be made to implement the functionality without incurring additional risk AND cost. I could be wrong, but so far all I've heard is someone outside of the developer is implementing features. So the question is should it be more stringent or up the costs to include the functionality?

I'm 100% certain that those who say "the game will die post b.net2.0" are kidding themselves. To this day PvPgn servers are running for starcraft 1, and see just as much, if not more use than the official b.net servers... Sure Blizzard are making a big deal about it now (as they did with starcraft when these unofficial servers were first developed), however once the hype has died down, and the games have been around for a few years and they are working on the next big thing, I'm pretty sure they will just let it go.

Hell, even for all their hard-balling they are still allowing some private WoW servers to stay in operation. They just need PR like this or everyone will be saying "Blizzard has no problem with it, so there's nothing stopping us."

"In addition to providing players with a high-quality online experience for Blizzard Entertainment games, the service is one of the most effective measures we have for preventing piracy of our software over the internet."
What's the connection? Providing paying players with quality online experience is absolutely not connected to pirates playing on pirate servers. Pirate servers cause no harm to Blizzard servers. These are 2 different worlds.
Spokesmen...

So is it okay to stop calling Activision-Blizzard a game company and start calling them a lawfirm which occasionally makes games?