Blizzard: Fighting Piracy with DRM 'A Losing Battle'

[0roo0roo]

tons of boohoo whining.
i'm sure there will be a cyber cafe license.
most games are played online regardless, very few drag their pc to friends houses these days.

 

[SunnyD]

What you can't wrap your head around is the concept of expecting Blizzard to support non paying customers. Those who play the game at internet cafes without a license are doing it illegally. AFAIK, the purchase of a Blizzard game grants the purchaser the right to play it, not to charge others to play it. So, therefore, Blizzard doesn't give a crap about people who wouldn't buy the game to begin with. This might cause some people who can't buy the game to miss out on it, but it doesn't equate much of a loss of revenue for Blizzard.

They prefer to make it as easy as possible for legitimate users to access the game in as many places as they can. That is the concept of fighting piracy: give you customers something worth buying.

I'm sure the RIAA would love your argument against fair use anyway. And the MPAA. And the console gaming industry too (though they're just about on top of this).

There is absolutely nothing illegal for me to allow my son, neighbor, friend, mother, random acquaintance, etc. (for example) to play a game I purchased. Of course your argument treads into reasons why EULAs are actually illegal. But this thread has absolutely nothing to do with EULAs, but rather DRM methods and how Blizzard's new method is actually a form of DRM control being exerted simply for profiteering of consumers, and doing so pretty damn effectively.

Come on people. Common sense. I know it's a foreign concept, but really... try it some time.

 

[digitaldurandal]

It is possible to create an environment where DRM works, but it requires the entire system to be designed around this. Unfortunately for developers (and somewhat fortunate for us), computers are not designed to be locked down units in such a manner.

You mean like xbox 360, ps3, wii, and ds?

All cracked securities with mods available. Heck it is easy to find and purchase a modded DS that comes with a flash disk with a 100 games.

Does it create another hoop to jump through? It does, but look at the number of Xbox live accounts becoming banned - piracy is a legitimate issue on consoles at this point.

 

[smackababy]

I'm sure the RIAA would love your argument against fair use anyway. And the MPAA. And the console gaming industry too (though they're just about on top of this).

There is absolutely nothing illegal for me to allow my son, neighbor, friend, mother, random acquaintance, etc. (for example) to play a game I purchased. Of course your argument treads into reasons why EULAs are actually illegal. But this thread has absolutely nothing to do with EULAs, but rather DRM methods and how Blizzard's new method is actually a form of DRM control being exerted simply for profiteering of consumers, and doing so pretty damn effectively.

Come on people. Common sense. I know it's a foreign concept, but really... try it some time.

IIRC there is something illegal about you purchasing software and then charging people to use it. I can't, legally, go pick up a copy of Photoshop from some store, install it on a computer and charge others to use it. That fact that Blizzard is selling a SINGLE user license for a game, and other people are selling access to this isn't something Blizzard cares about. I don't understand why people hate all DRM. It isn't ALL bad. When done without being in the way of the paying customer, it is fine.

If an internet cafe really wanted to do this, they would get authenticators and lend them out for accounts. Give them your ID, get the authenticator while you're playing.

 

[Wardawg1001]

IIRC there is something illegal about you purchasing software and then charging people to use it. I can't, legally, go pick up a copy of Photoshop from some store, install it on a computer and charge others to use it. That fact that Blizzard is selling a SINGLE user license for a game, and other people are selling access to this isn't something Blizzard cares about. I don't understand why people hate all DRM. It isn't ALL bad. When done without being in the way of the paying customer, it is fine.

If an internet cafe really wanted to do this, they would get authenticators and lend them out for accounts. Give them your ID, get the authenticator while you're playing.

Because most people who whine and cry about DRM don't actually care about whether it affects paying customers or not, that's just the lie they hide behind. What they really dont like is companies making money, and them not getting free shit.

 

[rivan]

IIRC there is something illegal about you purchasing software and then charging people to use it. I can't, legally, go pick up a copy of Photoshop from some store, install it on a computer and charge others to use it. That fact that Blizzard is selling a SINGLE user license for a game, and other people are selling access to this isn't something Blizzard cares about. I don't understand why people hate all DRM. It isn't ALL bad. When done without being in the way of the paying customer, it is fine.

If an internet cafe really wanted to do this, they would get authenticators and lend them out for accounts. Give them your ID, get the authenticator while you're playing.

Authenticators are tied to accounts, are they not?

Also, while there might be special licensing needs, Kinkos rents computer time at their stores on machines that include Photoshop, etc.

 

[smackababy]

Authenticators are tied to accounts, are they not?

Also, while there might be special licensing needs, Kinkos rents computer time at their stores on machines that include Photoshop, etc.

Yes, they are tied to accounts. The shop sets up, say, 10 accounts each with an authenticator.

And I am pretty sure Kinkos doesn't have the basic license for software. Blizzard, however, only offers one type and that is for a single user. It is also non transferable.

 

[Brainonska511]

IIRC there is something illegal about you purchasing software and then charging people to use it. I can't, legally, go pick up a copy of Photoshop from some store, install it on a computer and charge others to use it. That fact that Blizzard is selling a SINGLE user license for a game, and other people are selling access to this isn't something Blizzard cares about. I don't understand why people hate all DRM. It isn't ALL bad. When done without being in the way of the paying customer, it is fine.

If an internet cafe really wanted to do this, they would get authenticators and lend them out for accounts. Give them your ID, get the authenticator while you're playing.

But are internet cafes charging people to use the software or are they charging people for the time that they are allowed to use the computer (and not necessarily the software)? It's more like individuals are buying access time at the internet cafe and not buying use of x program.

 

[smackababy]

But are internet cafes charging people to use the software or are they charging people for the time that they are allowed to use the computer (and not necessarily the software)? It's more like individuals are buying access time at the internet cafe and not buying use of x program.

If that is the case, then they can bring their own bnet accounts and shouldn't be bitching right? I know in some Asian countries they play MMOs at internet cafes. They supply their own accounts, not the cafe. The same can be said for the bnet multiplayer.


Buying a Blizzard game comes with the battle.net experience included in the price. If you want to take part in this experience, you have to pay the price of admission.

 

[SunnyD]

If that is the case, then they can bring their own bnet accounts and shouldn't be bitching right? I know in some Asian countries they play MMOs at internet cafes. They supply their own accounts, not the cafe. The same can be said for the bnet multiplayer.

Buying a Blizzard game comes with the battle.net experience included in the price. If you want to take part in this experience, you have to pay the price of admission.

Because there is no other way to do it with said titles. This is the exact reason why Blizzard (nee Activision, and even EA, et al) is so keen on moving all of their titles to some form of online authentication model. It is essentially the ultimate form of DRM.

That said, if you're fine with having your rights as a consumer stripped away for you en masse, good for you. Personally, I'm not fond of the practice especially since it is being used solely for corporate gain, and not the betterment of society as a whole. I can understand the discussion for this treatment purely from an economics standpoint, but then again that's where society is failing these days. Everybody is all about making a buck - screw anyone that gets in the way.

 

[Rezident]

WTF!? I don't know who these Blizzard people are but I am going to start buying their games. Some of that money that could have gone to Ubisoft will instead go to a far more deserving dev. Fair play!

 

[Dumac]

WTF!? I don't know who these Blizzard people are but I am going to start buying their games. Some of that money that could have gone to Ubisoft will instead go to a far more deserving dev. Fair play!

Uh...

wat

 

[smackababy]

Uh...

wat

At first I was like "no way" but now I think maybe some people just don't follow developers like they used to.

 

[BladeVenom]

Because most people who whine and cry about DRM don't actually care about whether it affects paying customers or not, that's just the lie they hide behind. What they really dont like is companies making money, and them not getting free shit.

The most baseless and ignorant post I've read all month.

 

[Wardawg1001]

The most baseless and ignorant post I've read all month.

Oh and I suppose you have a basis for your view and can prove with empirical evidence that I'm wrong? No?

 

[smackababy]

Oh and I suppose you have a basis for your view and can prove with empirical evidence that I'm wrong? No?

Why would I dislike companies making money? If they don't make money, they discontinue development of products. That means no more games for me.

 

[Wardawg1001]

Why would I dislike companies making money? If they don't make money, they discontinue development of products. That means no more games for me.

I wasn't addressing you. You seem to have an understanding of why Blizzard is incorporating this type of DRM into their games.

 

[kalrith]

Blizzard is full of crap. The omission of LAN play is ridiculous, and a ton of people are at least somewhat miffed about it, so obviously there's demand for the feature.

They want everything to go through Battle.net to prevent piracy. If LAN play was included, people could pretty easily pirate the game, find a way to crack the activation/online authentication, and then play with friends on a local network. Leaving LAN out is one way to make things more difficult for pirates. Unfortunately it also creates more hassles for legit customers as well. Sounds a lot like other DRM schemes that people complain about.

ITA. With WC3 someone could purchase 1 copy, install it on 20 different computers, and then use all the computer at a LAN party. I haven't minded the "DRM" of Blizzard in the past, because it hasn't inconvenienced me as a paying customer (I've purchased every Blizzard game), but this really irks me. It makes no sense to leave out LAN play other than an anti-piracy step.

 

[BladeVenom]

Oh and I suppose you have a basis for your view and can prove with empirical evidence that I'm wrong? No?

You made a claim, so the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim, otherwise it's baseless like I said. You're making an argument from ignorance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


Here's a few examples anyways:

Go to any torrent site and look at the games available. Most games will have cracks, so those pirating the game will not have to deal with the DRM. The people who purchase the game, and don't violate the DMCA, are the ones stuck with DRM.

Now go to almost any game site that uses invasive DRM, and it's almost guaranteed you will see posts from people having problems the DRM. Ubisoft's latest games require you to have a constant connection to their servers for even single player games to work. Everyone at one time or another has a problem with internet connectivity, and every company has problems with servers sooner or later. Just read the post on these forums about Splinter Cell: Conviction, DRM is causing problems. Chronicles of Riddick 2 had lots of problems with DRM. There are plenty of other examples if you care to look.

There are many game developers who don't like DRM. It's usually the publishers who insist on it. Read Brad Wardell's views on DRM, he's the owner of Stardock and Impulse. His view is basically that DRM causes more inconvenience to paying customers than it causes obstacles to pirates, and isn't worth it. The first priority is to do what's best for the paying customers.

When Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 DRM was causing problems, Ubisoft stole a pirated exe crack to get their game working right. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...afu-reminds-us-whats-wrong-with-pc-gaming.ars

Just last month Rockstar did the same thing. To get their DRM ladden game to work on Steam they also stole a pirated crack. Check the Steam forum if you want evidence. So DRM is even a hassle to the company who owns the game.

 

[Wardawg1001]

Yea, great regurgitation of the DRM argument thats available in like 7 different threads from the last 30 days alone. Unfortunately you failed at reading comprehension and its all for naught, what a shame.

You made a claim

Because most people who whine and cry about DRM don't actually care about whether it affects paying customers or not, that's just the lie they hide behind. What they really dont like is companies making money, and them not getting free shit.

This, (pause for effect) is an opinion. It is not a claim, it is not a fact, and it is not an argument, nor was it meant to be understood as such, and I won't treat it as such. I'm sorry that you are so worked up about this issue that you can't read someones opinion without starting an argument, but I'm sure you'll get over it some day. If it makes you feel any better, I didn't quite state my opinion in the way I really feel about the situation, but I care so little about it that I'm not even going to correct it.

For your reading pleasure, I went and found a few threads from the last 2 months that cover this issue in great detail for you:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2075827
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2074071
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2072897
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2072119
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2069659
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2068680
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2070132
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2068346
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2058742
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2066700
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2056441
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2051566

To quell your thirst for debate, just read these threads, they cover everything that you, or me, or anyone else could possibly say on the topic. Now lets leave this thread on topic with Blizzard and their DRM.

 

[BladeVenom]

If it's not a claim or argument, you're just trolling.

 

[Golgatha]

Since all Blizzard games going forward are going to have no LAN play and require a B.Net account which ties your serial key to the account; you'd have to be a moron to not realize Blizzard's PR speak concerning their stance on DRM is anything but a two-faced lie.

However...

Once their copy is activated, players won't need to be connected to the internet to play the single-player campaign, though Blizzard is also banking on the hope that the the connection to friends, achievements, and multiplayer offered by an improved Battle.net service will compel potential pirates to make a purchase instead.

Kudos to them for at least giving gamers this reach around. Any game requiring an Internet connection for SP automatically goes on my "do not buy" or "wait until it's priced like a rental before considering a purchase" list.

 

[Wardawg1001]

If it's not a claim or argument, you're just trolling.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Oceandevi]

I think a cafe could use authenticator keys to keep their accounts secure from "borrowers"

 

[mindcycle]

Because most people who whine and cry about DRM don't actually care about whether it affects paying customers or not, that's just the lie they hide behind. What they really dont like is companies making money, and them not getting free shit.

What i'm tired of is people coming into threads about DRM and immediately assuming everyone posting is a pirate and just wants free shit, wants to whine, etc.. Let me ask you this.. Why would a pirate give two shits about DRM when they aren't the ones actually dealing with it? Besides that obvious flaw in your above statement, it would be retarded for even a pirate to want a company not to make money, because that would mean their source of entertainment, free or otherwise, disappears..