Starcraft Remastered is out today

[Stg-Flame]

This was posted five days ago. I guess I missed it while searching, but this should be "fixed" now.

Posted by Mark Chandler
Hi Commanders,

The client does have a feature that allows offline play with HD for 30 days when you login at least once.

When you restart the game client the back ground should have a red hue and say StarCraft Remastered in the top right corner and you are free to play LAN and SP.

So, as long as you log in once a month, you should be able to go offline with the HD graphics. A lot of people are saying it still isn't working properly and they are getting authentication errors when trying to switch to HD graphics (press F5 on the main menu), so it's still up in the air right now. But it seems they are working on a temporary solution. Logging in once a month isn't bad, but for those who travel a lot, it's sure going to be a major kick in the nuts if they forget to log in before going on a trip and run out of their 30 days.

Edit: Here's the link to the thread: https://us.battle.net/forums/en/starcraft/topic/20758488035
A lot of people are still saying it's not working, so if you fall under this category, sift through the thread (only 4 pages) and maybe there's a workaround you can try.

 

[Tweak155]

Good to hear. Still not ideal I suppose but seems very workable I would think for people that might be impacted.

EDIT:

Once they fix it, of course

 

[Ancalagon44]

It's a bit of a tear-between for me as I'm a software developer and a consumer. On one hand, I don't blame them for trying to "defeat" pirates, and on the consumer hand I don't like the methods they choose to implement. That said, I also don't know what the better option is besides removing any and all DRM, which relieves the consumer but not the producer.

If you're going to cry about DRM but do nothing to help solve the problem, I don't really care to hear the crying. Since I also am equally doing nothing to help solve the problem, I choose to still buy the game as I can appreciate what their goal is... until that DRM directly impacts me I will choose to accept it.

I buy plenty of other things that have their downsides, and I also choose not to buy other things due to their downsides. In this case, DRM is not a no-buy for me, although I do not like it.

The thing is, DRM is ineffective at best - it simply does not prevent piracy. I don't know of any game that has never been cracked - all of them are eventually cracked. DRM may delay that a few months, that is all.

Somebody even developed a World of Warcraft server replacement. Server replacement! It is insane!

So that is the one thing - DRM simply does not prevent piracy and never has. It only delays it.

Next question - does DRM lead to increased sales? You see, the executives suppose that, if one were not able to pirate the game, that one would automatically buy it. But this is false for all types of content that can be pirated.

You know what leads to a major drop in movie and series piracy? The introduction of good streaming services. As soon as things like Netflix and Amazon Prime video become available in third world countries, piracy drops dramatically. This is an indication that the reason people pirate is not always to steal, it is sometimes because there are no legal alternatives in their country for getting hold of the content they want to consume. Given the chance to pay for content, they actually do.

It is the same for games - I'll bet that the introduction of Steam in a country often leads to dramatic drops in piracy.

Another thing is an increase in standards of living. When people cannot afford video games, they pirate them. If they cannot pirate them, this does not mean they will buy them, because as I said, they don't have the money anyway. I am not at all saying that this excuses piracy in any way - all I am saying is that it does not automatically follow that if people are unable to pirate, they will buy.

This then is the central problem with DRM - it is built on the incorrect assumption that people would prefer to steal than to pay, given a choice. The reality is the reverse - if people have the money to pay and legal, convenient means to buy, then they buy. Ironically, I'm sure some people pirate to avoid DRM (although this is just a guess).

 

[Tweak155]

...

Ultimately I think if there was more proof that no DRM would increase sales, every large company would be doing it. However, likely the data does not support what you're saying, although you may feel that way and may be able to feel you can prove it. If that were the case, these large companies would not be shooting themselves in both feet, 1 by paying for the DRM and then 2 the further loss of sales. That makes less sense to me in the long run than any reason I've heard to dump DRM. If the proof conclusively pointed to that, these companies designed to make money would not be doing it then.

Not to say that I know for sure one way or the other, I just feel these companies have major incentives to get it right whereas I do not.

 

[Red Storm]

Ultimately I think if there was more proof that no DRM would increase sales, every large company would be doing it. However, likely the data does not support what you're saying, although you may feel that way and may be able to feel you can prove it. If that were the case, these large companies would not be shooting themselves in both feet, 1 by paying for the DRM and then 2 the further loss of sales. That makes less sense to me in the long run than any reason I've heard to dump DRM. If the proof conclusively pointed to that, these companies designed to make money would not be doing it then.

Not to say that I know for sure one way or the other, I just feel these companies have major incentives to get it right whereas I do not.

You'd be surprised how often companies are sold into ideas that are not in their best interest. Typically it comes down to the people in charge not being knowledgeable enough and falling for sales tactics. Add on to that DRM being a standard practice for a long time and it's no wonder it is still so prevalent.

One of my previous employers was successfully using Google Apps for education, and then one of the higher ups was sold on the idea of switching to Microsoft because they were willing to provide everyone with a free tablet. Mind you, that tablet was slow and crappy and a chore to use, but it didn't matter. The person heard the word "free" and made the decision for the company to switch.

 

[Tweak155]

You'd be surprised how often companies are sold into ideas that are not in their best interest. Typically it comes down to the people in charge not being knowledgeable enough and falling for sales tactics. Add on to that DRM being a standard practice for a long time and it's no wonder it is still so prevalent.

One of my previous employers was successfully using Google Apps for education, and then one of the higher ups was sold on the idea of switching to Microsoft because they were willing to provide everyone with a free tablet. Mind you, that tablet was slow and crappy and a chore to use, but it didn't matter. The person heard the word "free" and made the decision for the company to switch.

Yes, definitely a possibility. Like I said, I don't have enough incentive to really dig into it, and I still feel it's likely the majority of them get it right. Sure, a few might get duped that way, but all the major companies save for maybe 1 (I think whoever makes Witcher does not do it?)... I just think it's more likely the DRM is adding to sales. Ultimately I don't have skin in the game one way or the other, though.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Ultimately I think if there was more proof that no DRM would increase sales, every large company would be doing it. However, likely the data does not support what you're saying, although you may feel that way and may be able to feel you can prove it. If that were the case, these large companies would not be shooting themselves in both feet, 1 by paying for the DRM and then 2 the further loss of sales. That makes less sense to me in the long run than any reason I've heard to dump DRM. If the proof conclusively pointed to that, these companies designed to make money would not be doing it then.

Not to say that I know for sure one way or the other, I just feel these companies have major incentives to get it right whereas I do not.

Don't make the assumption that all business decisions are data driven. I have in fact seen statistics supporting what I have posted, and yet DRM remains. This does not mean that the statistics were wrong, it could mean that they were just not used by the decision makers.

My theory - the decision makers have very old fashioned views about DRM and don't care what the data says. This is why newer, independent studios tend to have a more lenient stance to DRM and older, more established studios have a less lenient stance. If DRM increased sales as you claim, then everybody should be using it, including all independent developers. But few independent developers do.

 

[Tweak155]

Don't make the assumption that all business decisions are data driven. I have in fact seen statistics supporting what I have posted, and yet DRM remains. This does not mean that the statistics were wrong, it could mean that they were just not used by the decision makers.

I don't think business decisions are necessarily data driven, I think they're profit driven (as in they will attempt to make the choices which equates to more money). As far as the bolded, I agree with you, but I also think it could mean the statistics were wrong as well, and it's also possible their decisions WERE data based. We don't know since we weren't there.

My theory - the decision makers have very old fashioned views about DRM and don't care what the data says. This is why newer, independent studios tend to have a more lenient stance to DRM and older, more established studios have a less lenient stance. If DRM increased sales as you claim, then everybody should be using it, including all independent developers. But few independent developers do.

Regarding smaller studios / independent, it's not necessarily a bad thing to give your product away to help build your brand name. The major players are already well known and would not benefit from this as much.

Also, I make no claims as to whether or not DRM increases sales, I just think it is likely due to the companies that use it. I don't know whether it in fact does or not.

 

[Ancalagon44]

I don't think business decisions are necessarily data driven, I think they're profit driven (as in they will attempt to make the choices which equates to more money). As far as the bolded, I agree with you, but I also think it could mean the statistics were wrong as well, and it's also possible their decisions WERE data based. We don't know since we weren't there.

Of course they are profit driven - the question is, how do they know what will lead to greater profits? In some cases, execs use their gut feel, and in other cases, they use data. I would bet that in this case, it is mostly gut feel.

Regarding smaller studios / independent, it's not necessarily a bad thing to give your product away to help build your brand name. The major players are already well known and would not benefit from this as much.

Also, I make no claims as to whether or not DRM increases sales, I just think it is likely due to the companies that use it. I don't know whether it in fact does or not.

You are forgetting CD Projekt Red, the makers of the Witcher, and their entire GOG.com store. Both have very wide brand recognition and both explicitly decry DRM. So, they don't need people to pirate their software to get their brand out there, and yet they are still against DRM. If DRM really hurt sales, don't you think they would be using it?

And there are other large independent vendors including Beamdog that don't use DRM. Or at least, only very basic forms of it. It isn't just the tiny mom and pop independent video game developers that avoid DRM, it is practically all of them. Again, some of them may include basic DRM but none of them use always online DRM.

 

[Tweak155]

Of course they are profit driven - the question is, how do they know what will lead to greater profits? In some cases, execs use their gut feel, and in other cases, they use data. I would bet that in this case, it is mostly gut feel.



You are forgetting CD Projekt Red, the makers of the Witcher, and their entire GOG.com store. Both have very wide brand recognition and both explicitly decry DRM. So, they don't need people to pirate their software to get their brand out there, and yet they are still against DRM. If DRM really hurt sales, don't you think they would be using it?

And there are other large independent vendors including Beamdog that don't use DRM. Or at least, only very basic forms of it. It isn't just the tiny mom and pop independent video game developers that avoid DRM, it is practically all of them. Again, some of them may include basic DRM but none of them use always online DRM.

No, I'm not:

...Sure, a few might get duped that way, but all the major companies save for maybe 1 (I think whoever makes Witcher does not do it?)...

GOG does not make games (that I'm aware of) and now you're narrowing it to always online DRM. I don't know why you think you need to prove anything? Can't we just have our own opinions?

 

[sweenish]

gog.com is wholly owned by CD Projekt, and it's CD Projekt Red that developed The Witcher series. All fall under the same parent, but they are their own entities.

 

[Stg-Flame]

Edit: All the old maps are compatible with the remaster and it seems a lot of the older maps are getting renewed.

 

[Igo69]

Does anyone know why my score doesn't get recorder when I play melee or is it a new bug that is not solved yet?

 

[Craig234]

What's the verdict, while it's on sale for $10?

 

[Stg-Flame]

If you enjoyed it before, you'll still enjoy it now. It's the same game with better graphics and more people playing online. They also recently patched in the UMS (Use Map Settings) feature so you can now replay all your favorite maps from the 90s.

 

[Ns1]

yesssss bgh for days.

 

[Craig234]

If you enjoyed it before, you'll still enjoy it now. It's the same game with better graphics and more people playing online. They also recently patched in the UMS (Use Map Settings) feature so you can now replay all your favorite maps from the 90s.

I barely played it before, a few hours.

So it's more, are the improvements worth buying. I saw someone who said it's mainly aimed at the competitive gamers - I'd prefer single player.

 

[Zenoth]

I barely played it before, a few hours.

So it's more, are the improvements worth buying. I saw someone who said it's mainly aimed at the competitive gamers - I'd prefer single player.

Considering you only played the original a few hours, I'd say that in your case you shouldn't ask yourself if the improvements are worth buying; rather if StarCraft (period) is worth playing. If you had played it "to death" or something years ago then I might have said not really, since it's indeed "just" the same game being remastered.

Anyway, I don't own the remaster myself but I'm sure it still has the same single player content. The campaign (obviously) and the offline skirmishes (well, "offline" I.E. you need to launch the game via the B.net app online but you don't have to play with or against other human players, pretty sure you can still just play versus A.I. and coop with A.I. if you want). And... well, dude, it's StarCraft and it's HD now. S'not like StarCraft was (and still is) popular for 19+ years for no reasons. It's a very good RTS in and of itself even if you don't play it in multiplayer. I'd say yeah, go for it especially on sale.

 

[Craig234]

Considering you only played the original a few hours, I'd say that in your case you shouldn't ask yourself if the improvements are worth buying; rather if StarCraft (period) is worth playing. If you had played it "to death" or something years ago then I might have said not really, since it's indeed "just" the same game being remastered.

Anyway, I don't own the remaster myself but I'm sure it still has the same single player content. The campaign (obviously) and the offline skirmishes (well, "offline" I.E. you need to launch the game via the B.net app online but you don't have to play with or against other human players, pretty sure you can still just play versus A.I. and coop with A.I. if you want). And... well, dude, it's StarCraft and it's HD now. S'not like StarCraft was (and still is) popular for 19+ years for no reasons. It's a very good RTS in and of itself even if you don't play it in multiplayer. I'd say yeah, go for it especially on sale.

To be clear, option 1, play the original for free, option 2, play the remastered version for $10. So it's whether the improvements are worth $10.

 

[Stg-Flame]

I barely played it before, a few hours.

So it's more, are the improvements worth buying. I saw someone who said it's mainly aimed at the competitive gamers - I'd prefer single player.

The improvements are purely aesthetic to someone who is only interested in the single player. So, if graphics mean that much to you, go for it. If not, just play the original for free. It's the same game but with lower resolution and graphics. Still an amazing game regardless of the version.

 

[Craig234]

The improvements are purely aesthetic to someone who is only interested in the single player. So, if graphics mean that much to you, go for it. If not, just play the original for free. It's the same game but with lower resolution and graphics. Still an amazing game regardless of the version.

A review this morning said that the reviewer couldn't even notice the difference without putting them side by side.

So, I figured no need for it now.

 

[Stuka87]

A review this morning said that the reviewer couldn't even notice the difference without putting them side by side.

So, I figured no need for it now.

He must be blind. The differences are gigantic.

 

[Raduque]

We don't all have time or desire to play such a game online, that doesn't mean we aren't part of the userbase.

Bah, these days, us single player gamers are second class citizens. Since we want a story instead of having to interact with a bunch of toxic, foulmouthed man-children, nobody cares about us.

 

[Stg-Flame]

A review this morning said that the reviewer couldn't even notice the difference without putting them side by side.

So, I figured no need for it now.

Stick to reviews from people who have actually played the game. The differences are quite astounding, but it plays the exact same as the original, so pick whichever suits you best. If you end up getting into the original and really enjoy it, invest in the remaster.

 

[Craig234]

Stick to reviews from people who have actually played the game. The differences are quite astounding, but it plays the exact same as the original, so pick whichever suits you best. If you end up getting into the original and really enjoy it, invest in the remaster.

Well, he had played it. I looked at some comparison videos, and could see the point that it doesn't look greatly difference full screen, but they'd zoom in to details to show a lot of difference.

Given that the original and SC 2 are in my backlog, it can wait to get the remastered. Hell I have a ton of remastered games to get to - homeworld, Metro series...