SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
Two words:
NO RESALE.
While I kind of figured that it would have to be attached to a battle.net account, it's now confirmed. And with the online install option, that definitely confirms the fact that once you're done with the game, you have lost your right of first-sale. It also means you won't be hopping over to FS/FT to buy a used copy at a cheaper price from someone who didn't like the game, unless you want to go all in and buy their battle.net account too...
... but wait, you can't! Because that's going to be against Blizzards ToS. Sure, it's against the ToS to sell a WoW account and people still do it - but when they force people to use battle.net to link up their WoW accounts, those that want to try Starcraft II and/or Diablo 3 (you can rest assured these same systems will be used in Diablo 3!), well all of a sudden you've linked one of these games that you find you don't want to your battle.net account, and oh... heavens... you can't get rid of it without selling off your precious WoW account too!
To some, this is little more than an inconvenience. To others, they're going to say "Well you should have done your research before you bought the game, so tough shit." To the latter group, are you going to say the same thing when you have <insert various random political agenda here> shoved down your throat that you don't agree with?
This is Activision (not likely Blizzard themselves) going in for the kill. If there was ANYTHING any producer/publisher ever would want, it would be to kill the used game market. Hell, look at most publishers and how much that absolutely loathe GameStop.
It sucks to be a consumer in this day and age.
Grrr. I always get annoyed when I have to sign up for something. I don't mind the internest activation that much, but to be forced to sign up for a Battle.Net account sucks. If I want to play the game with friends I will do so over a LAN ... oh wait ...
Yeah, I have too many frickin' Usernames/Passwords/Accounts/etc. as it is.
And quit making me register for every other frickin' Web page I go too (exaggeration).
Damn, that's another thing I'm sick of - giving my life history just to visit/read an article :|
I have no intention or desire to play any game online, so why the h*ll would I want a Battle.net account?
Just one more Process running on my System that I have no need for . . . .
No sale = No worries.
ViviTheMage
Lifer
PieIsAwesome
Diamond Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 4,054
- 1
- 0
ZzZGuy
Golden Member
- Nov 15, 2006
- 1,855
- 0
- 0
Hate it all you want, Bateluer is right.
As a paying consumer you speak with your wallet. By buying a game with X DRM you are telling that company that you love the game and the DRM, and there are no problems in using X DRM in the future. Just because you might not know the game has DRM doesn't change a thing. Though you can send a angry email could help unless everyone else like you (bought it but don't like the DRM) are small minded idiots who go with the "but I'm just a drop in the bucket" mentality.
And what the hell is with the lack of imagination in here? Not buying a game because of DRM, "ZOMG he's gona pirate it!!". Online activation will cause problems for many, "YOUR A PIRATE" / "But EVERYONE in the ENTIRE WORLD has the internet, duh!!" Many here don't seem to realize someone can not buy a game and not pirate it as well, or that not everyone can get internet in their homes (some countries more then others), have a extremely slow connection or go to remote areas to work.
blurredvision
Lifer
- Oct 19, 2000
- 17,860
- 4
- 81
I have a hard time subscribing to your "sky is falling" view of SC2 and Blizzard games in general. I am a little biased though, since I typically do not purchase or sell used games. If this is how Actiblizzard wants to play things, then vote with your wallet and go on about your life. There's not much sense in getting upset about it.
In the end, Activision and Blizzard are out to get money. That is their sole purpose of existing. Why does it surprise you when they continue to implement devices to gain more money?
With that said, I'm skipping SC2 at this point because they are splitting it up into 3 separate games. If anyone thinks they won't each be full price, then you're kidding yourself. I just want SC2, not SC2, SC3, and SC4 within a year or two of each other.
blurredvision
Lifer
- Oct 19, 2000
- 17,860
- 4
- 81
Please. Simply buying a game doesn't imply to the developer that you automatically love it. That's a fucked up way of looking at things. Regardless of that viewpoint, you can still buy a product for certain purposes but hate other things about it.
I never said anybody was going to pirate it because of the DRM, just making a statement. Quit trying to read so much into it.
Lack of internet access isn't my problem, should it be my problem that not everyone can afford a nice enough rig to run every game that comes out?
There's nothing in the bill of rights that entitles you to be able to play a certain game, in order to do so, you need XYZ, if you can't meet those requirements, tough titties.
There's nothing in the bill of rights that entitles you to be able to play a certain game, in order to do so, you need XYZ, if you can't meet those requirements, tough titties.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
It's not SC2 or Blizzard - it's the model that the entire industry is moving to. No, the sky isn't falling, but it's the end of a market avenue as we knew it. I agree with every single point you have made; the problem is as Bateluer said - I'm one drop in the bucket, and it's my job to try to educate others. My wallet isn't enough.
In the mean time, what I'm trying to point out is that people like me suffer because we're locked out of the market on a title like this. We have no change of picking it up second hand... EVER. Worse yet, (not that it's likely to happen) what about 10 years down the road for nostalgia's sake that someone wants to play SC2? What do they do? Imagine the situation that it's not available in retail anymore, and/or the installation servers are down. Sure, maybe battle.net still exists, so you can play the game - just a hypothetical as they'll probably leave it on for new games that come out over the years. But imagine this scenario. You simply can't play the title anymore because it can't be installed. Or worse, imagine if battle.net goes away. Bye bye SC2. Could you imagine that situation if this form of DRM was included in Diablo 2 or the original Starcraft? 3/4 of Asia would collectively implode.
Again, I'm talking extremes here, but it's a very real possibility. The decisions these companies are making in the best interests of their bottom lines may cause you to shrug your shoulders and say "So?" Sure, it's a game... who cares? Right? But it does have real future ramifications that people need to be aware of, no matter how insignificant you may think they are.
Elcs
Diamond Member
- Apr 27, 2002
- 6,278
- 6
- 81
Dawn of War 2 had this with GFWL/Steam. It ended up being a non-issue to most people.
The only problem I had with DoW2 was when my internet was down for a few days due to my ISP hooking me up to one of their 50 meg servers and not upgrading my modem, I was able to launch the program but without being able to login to GFWL it refused to let me play a skirmish vs. the computer.
For single player and LAN, I would hope that no internet access is required beyond an initial activation. To me this represents common sense and a "level of DRM" which is acceptable. If it requires an "always on" connection whilst playing in a traditionally offline mode then in my opinion they are making a mistake and I would hesitate on my purchase, perhaps until it had been patched out and/or bargain binned.
For online multiplayer, it becomes a non-issue.
I was left a little frustrated that Blizzard had adopted DRM when I saw the Thread Title. However upon reading the text I find that it seems that it could be a bit of a stick in the mud or it could be a complete non-issue.
The only problem I had with DoW2 was when my internet was down for a few days due to my ISP hooking me up to one of their 50 meg servers and not upgrading my modem, I was able to launch the program but without being able to login to GFWL it refused to let me play a skirmish vs. the computer.
For single player and LAN, I would hope that no internet access is required beyond an initial activation. To me this represents common sense and a "level of DRM" which is acceptable. If it requires an "always on" connection whilst playing in a traditionally offline mode then in my opinion they are making a mistake and I would hesitate on my purchase, perhaps until it had been patched out and/or bargain binned.
For online multiplayer, it becomes a non-issue.
I was left a little frustrated that Blizzard had adopted DRM when I saw the Thread Title. However upon reading the text I find that it seems that it could be a bit of a stick in the mud or it could be a complete non-issue.
I fully support all DRM that doesn't kill my drives and limit activations to a SMALL number, why?? Because I buy my games, I don't intend to sell them, I really don't think I will ever need to reinstall a game more than a few times (if I do I can crack it at that point an not feel bad cause I PURCHASED said item), and I am not too ignorant to see that these companies want to make money and not have every asshat steal their work. There will always be piracy, but even with the slightest DRM they kill off MOST of it that would have potentially happen, because most people don't really know what DRM is or how to crack it or where to go to find said cracks. Stop crying about unobtrusive DRM and don't even begin to think that your voting with your wallet will have any effect on it WHAT-SO-EVER, if anything it will make these companies think that their DRM was insufficient and you just pirated the game, thereby creating a need for a bigger/better (read: annoying, obtrusive) DRM that will MAKE you buy their next one.
CoinOperatedBoy
Golden Member
- Dec 11, 2008
- 1,809
- 0
- 76
I guess I just don't know why you'd even mention Steam. It's not like it would be a better alternative than the mandatory activation mentioned in this thread.
Anubis
No Lifer
personally i disslike this as i also hate that certian games liek HL2 you have to connect to steam to install even if you have the CDs
ill most likely never play it online
ill most likely never play it online
I'm sure this will cause problems for a small number of people, but at the end of the day, I blame the pirates for making companies do this, not the companies themselves.
it's a business and I can't blame them for trying to do everything they can to ensure that their product isn't stolen en mass.
it's a business and I can't blame them for trying to do everything they can to ensure that their product isn't stolen en mass.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
Until Bliz can guarantee that lag.net performs as well as my LAN... no LAN no buy.
With what Blizzard has been doing to WoW lately (micromanaging everything) and eliminating LAN from a game solely as an anti piracy measure, I have no problem boycotting Blizzard products altogether.
Because I buy almost exclusively from Steam. And in doing so an activation doesnt bother me at all because of steam. With SC2 i will make an exception. But any other game that doesnt come via Steam doesnt see my money.
But I am "hoping" they offer it via Steam.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter