Blizzard: Fighting Piracy with DRM 'A Losing Battle'

[Fenixgoon]

Unfortunately, blizzard most definitely doesn't get it. There's still DRM in the form of Battle.net and no LAN-play. They still get you where it counts.

no LAN really sucks. i hope they change their minds on that. my brother has satellite internet - the ping time is literally 1-2s, there's no way we'd be able to play over battle.net at his house.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

No LAN? That was one of the best things about Starcraft.

 

[simonizor]

There are plans for chat channels and for people to be able to change servers (regions). Neither may be implemented when SC2 releases, or both, it is not known at this time. Battle.net 2.0 is a platform though, not a game, and thus it will develop outside of the games themselves (though for obvious reasons, certain major features need to be working before SC2 is released, and other features may be timed to release on or around the same time as other games/expansions). Personally, I won't be using Battle.net 2.0 until Diablo 3 is released so I may be a little less concerned than other people about what features they develop first, since its not likely to release until mid to late 2011.

No chat channels upon release would be a huge mistake for them. The communities and clans were what made their old games thrive. I only really play SC for the custom maps because I don't really like RTS games, so I won't be playing SC2 until it's released anyways.

 

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

the exclusion of lan is terrible but i can survive

 

[lupi]

all they're doing is turning battlenet into steam for blizzard games. as if one steam wasn't bad enough, what we really need is for every developer to have their own version.

 

[FragKrag]

I'm pretty sure they have already announced that they will not support LAN

While LAN isn't exactly the most important thing to me, the chat channels and server switching are. I really can't see how Blizzard can possibly think separating their players over different servers and even in the same server is a good thing :/

 

[simonizor]

I'm pretty sure they have already announced that they will not support LAN

While LAN isn't exactly the most important thing to me, the chat channels and server switching are. I really can't see how Blizzard can possibly think separating their players over different servers and even in the same server is a good thing :/

When SC and D2 were in their prime, each server almost always had a huge population of people on them. Having servers for each region of the world was never really a problem. It actually helped a lot because all of the people that were playing on each server were usually relatively close together so they were all getting pretty good pings to the server that they were connecting to. No worrying about someone from asia having a huge ping and lagging your game up. Also, you pretty much never had to worry about seeing anyone speaking a foreign language.

 

[FragKrag]

That's really because you haven't seen how StarCraft competitive play has developed. There are huge amounts of extremely talented players in Korea (obviously), North America, South America, Europe, Australia, and China. Many clans are actually comprised of different players from different countries. The fact that every region is completely separated not only makes organizing tournaments and clan wars harder, but also simple in-clan communication.

As far as lag went, that was really only a problem with Chinese, South American, and Eastern European players (dominantly Chinese tbh) once ICCup was launched. If you haven't actually used ICCup, it's a server which has a launcher that includes both an Anti-hack, and a latency remover which mimicks LAN latency.

 

[simonizor]

That's really because you haven't seen how StarCraft competitive play has developed. There are huge amounts of extremely talented players in Korea (obviously), North America, South America, Europe, Australia, and China. Many clans are actually comprised of different players from different countries. The fact that every region is completely separated not only makes organizing tournaments and clan wars harder, but also simple in-clan communication.

As far as lag went, that was really only a problem with Chinese, South American, and Eastern European players (dominantly Chinese tbh) once ICCup was launched. If you haven't actually used ICCup, it's a server which has a launcher that includes both an Anti-hack, and a latency remover which mimicks LAN latency.

I've been playing on battle.net for years and I haven't seen anyone on battle.net complain about the servers being separated. It's not something that's difficult to work around. If your clan is on useast, you play on useast. If your clan is on a different realm, you play on that realm. It's not like it's difficult to switch realms with a game like SC, either. All that you lose by switching realms in SC is your stats.

 

[FragKrag]

simonizor because the servers are not truly separated in SC BW. You could still log onto the European server if you were in the US.

In SC2 however, you don't have the option of logging onto the European server if you are on the US server. You have to actually purchase the European version of the game in order to play on the Euro server. At least that's what the interview said.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Seems to me that Blizzard is using DRM. The difference is that the majority of the population is more than willing to overlook or not even notice this DRM in exchange for the services that it offers. I.E. Battle.net and the initial registration/activation...

This is the way that DRM schemes should exist. They should be unnoticeable to the player.

 

[smackababy]

Blizzard isn't denouncing DRM in of itself; they are denouncing retarded measures of annoying the player as if they were pirates.

 

[0roo0roo]

easy to do when online component is fundamental to the game.

 

[Maximilian]

When SC and D2 were in their prime, each server almost always had a huge population of people on them. Having servers for each region of the world was never really a problem. It actually helped a lot because all of the people that were playing on each server were usually relatively close together so they were all getting pretty good pings to the server that they were connecting to. No worrying about someone from asia having a huge ping and lagging your game up. Also, you pretty much never had to worry about seeing anyone speaking a foreign language.

Ill bet you are from the US... how do you think everyone else feels!? Ill have to play with freakin french/german/godknowswhatelse being european. Itll be like left 4 dead 2 all over again, ive always played on USwest or USeast bnet gateways.

 

[Dumac]

Blizzard: Fighting Piracy with DRM 'A Losing Battle'

They say as they stick DRM into their games via Battle.net

 

[simonizor]

simonizor because the servers are not truly separated in SC BW. You could still log onto the European server if you were in the US.

In SC2 however, you don't have the option of logging onto the European server if you are on the US server. You have to actually purchase the European version of the game in order to play on the Euro server. At least that's what the interview said.

I wasn't aware of that. If that's true, then many people are going to be upset. People are going to want to play with their buddies from the first SC, but they might not be able to if they live in a different part of the country/world unless they purchase the version for that region? That's pretty damn lame.

 

[Aikouka]

Ill bet you are from the US... how do you think everyone else feels!? Ill have to play with freakin french/german/godknowswhatelse being european. Itll be like left 4 dead 2 all over again, ive always played on USwest or USeast bnet gateways.

Can't you just buy an American version of the game kind of like Europeans did with WoW when it first came out?

 

[Sureshot324]

no LAN really sucks. i hope they change their minds on that. my brother has satellite internet - the ping time is literally 1-2s, there's no way we'd be able to play over battle.net at his house.

It actually might work fine. Battle.net just acts as a matchmaking service. Once you're in the game, you're directly connected to the host of the game. Not 100% sure on this though, since if it's connecting via external IP it may bounce the signal to your ISP and back, which in your case of course would be very bad.

 

[lupi]

Seems to me that Blizzard is using DRM. The difference is that the majority of the population is more than willing to overlook or not even notice this DRM in exchange for the services that it offers. I.E. Battle.net and the initial registration/activation...

This is the way that DRM schemes should exist. They should be unnoticeable to the player.

if you bought a book, could you give it to a freind when done. If you bought a car, do you resale it when you want a new one. amazing how such simple and basic rights are easily allowed to be taken away by the masses.

 

[EarthwormJim]

if you bought a book, could you give it to a freind when done. If you bought a car, do you resale it when you want a new one. amazing how such simple and basic rights are easily allowed to be taken away by the masses.

Create a separate battle.net account for the game. When it's time to sell the game, sell it along with the battle.net account.

 

[smackababy]

if you bought a book, could you give it to a freind when done. If you bought a car, do you resale it when you want a new one. amazing how such simple and basic rights are easily allowed to be taken away by the masses.

I was under the impression software wasn't a tangible item. You purchase a license that is nontransferable. At least, that is how it works in the business world most of the time.


Also, as far as people bitching about Blizzard using DRM, read what they said. They never said DRM was bad, they simply said companies have been doing it wrong. Look at bnet games, for example. Yes, they are tied to your account, but games like Diablo 2 and SC have been supported for how many years now? With how many patches and updates? They aren't saying DRM shouldn't be done; they are saying do it right.

Have any of you ever purchased a Blizzard game and not be able to play single player for some reason? Ever had trouble activating it? Yeah, me either...

 

[linkgoron]

I was under the impression software wasn't a tangible item. You purchase a license that is nontransferable. At least, that is how it works in the business world most of the time.


Also, as far as people bitching about Blizzard using DRM, read what they said. They never said DRM was bad, they simply said companies have been doing it wrong. Look at bnet games, for example. Yes, they are tied to your account, but games like Diablo 2 and SC have been supported for how many years now? With how many patches and updates? They aren't saying DRM shouldn't be done; they are saying do it right.

Have any of you ever purchased a Blizzard game and not be able to play single player for some reason? Ever had trouble activating it? Yeah, me either...

What was their last single player game? Warcraft 3?

 

[smackababy]

Yes, but regardless, any that you buy today, you have no problems whatsoever. True, they haven't released any new games since WoW, but they have one of, if not the, best legacy support of older games than any company.

I'd say Blizzard knows a little bit of what they're doing. I have yet to be disappointed by anything I have purchased from them.



Also, it should be noted, they are making sequels to, arguably, two of the best multiplayer games ever made.

 

[linkgoron]

Yes, but regardless, any that you buy today, you have no problems whatsoever. True, they haven't released any new games since WoW, but they have one of, if not the, best legacy support of older games than any company.

I'd say Blizzard knows a little bit of what they're doing. I have yet to be disappointed by anything I have purchased from them.



Also, it should be noted, they are making sequels to, arguably, two of the best multiplayer games ever made.

I'd say 7 years ago activation was almost non-existant.
I believe the first time online activation was really an issue was with Win XP. With games I think it started with HL2 and STEAM. There were probably others that existed earlier, but those are the first that I remember that had big issues.

I will agree,however, that their legacy support is one of the best around, if not the best. Then again, they release no games (except WOW) and they support games that are still played by thousands of players on Blizzard servers.

Your last statment is noted, but is not really relevant to the discussion.

 

[Maximilian]

Can't you just buy an American version of the game kind of like Europeans did with WoW when it first came out?

Yeah i guess but i would rather they just have gateways instead, its just easier.