Blizzard: DRM is a Losing Battle

[triculious]

[citation][nom]Cryogenic[/nom]They have nothing personal against you the gamer that wants' to play a LAN game with it's friends, on the contrary.The problem is that the LAN feature is used by 3rd party gaming platforms (like G-Arena and others) to offer their own match matching ladders, and they also monetize those services while allowing pirated copies of the game (sometimes the cracked versions are "required" in order to play).Blizzard is disallowing LAN in order to stop the huge amount of virtual network services to take over the game.Just deal with it, you can play with your friends over battle net too, not just in LAN, and battle net is more fun also, way more fun.[/citation]

So what should be a legal issue handled between clearly labeled companies gets to be a great deterrent for paying customers?

Sounds smart

"Hey there, my paying customers! Some other company has been pirating the games you enjoy and have paid for, so, as I have clearly identified the culprit of this heinous act I will take action against YOU."

I'm ok with the way Blizzard handles DRM. I'm not ok with Blizzard taking action against paying customers.

 

[banthracis]

[citation][nom]theroguex[/nom]Battle.net is NOT way more fun than a group of people sitting in a living room with their computers all networked, playing together and trash-talking each other RIGHT THERE. Without having to bother running a network cable to the modem, etc. Sorry.[/citation]

I'm confused, what's stopping you and a group of friends sitting in a living room, but just playing over battle.net instead of over a LAN? Thanks to the magic of wireless tech there's no difference...

 

[orionite]

[citation][nom]RipperjackAU[/nom]No LAN functionality = The death of the LAN party.[/citation]
I think it's the other way around: The death of the LAN party => No LAN functionality

While I'm sure there are still people who drag their computer around to play with other people locally, I would think that this is becoming increasingly rare. Even if you do, you can play face to face, but connect through b-net. Should you really cater for the minute amount of people that have no internet, but a network, or who regularly have so many people over, that their internet connection can't handle it?

 

[selits]

Doesn't sound bad like Ubisoft's DRM was.

It boils down to... if people didn't pirate stuff... then there would be no need to have any sort of DRM. Yeah, companies can be greedy but they are there for profit not to hand out free stuff and we are defiantly not owed anything by them except making the best game they can make at a price thats worth it and even that they don't owe to anyone... its not like we have to buy their games.

 

[IFLATLINEI]

I dont really care to get into this but I will say this. Developers have the right to protect themselves but whatever they do must be totally transparent to the legitimate end user. Otherwise there are going to be issues.

 

[Gin Fushicho]

So I only have to get online once to activate? That seems fair.

 

[matm347]

I can't stand intrusive DRM. I don't mind Steam so much..it gives me the option to install on any computer which is the way I feel it it should be. I buy the right to play the game whenever/wherever. I have been exposed and purchased games I would normally never have. The pop-up ads are starting to get on my nerves though.

 

[razor512]

all DRM is bad, no DRM currently known has ever stopped software from being pirated, but it is a constant annoyance for legit customers.

Steam DRM is not as annoying when the original company DRM is replaced completely with the steam DRM.

the problem with steam is you need an internet connection to play even single player games, with out it, your games eventually stop working. And I believe that steam cant do much about this because if the games didn't expire after a certain offline time, 1 user will buy a game and have all friends log into his or her steam account, download the game then go into offline mode and everyone enjoys the game at the same time.

If steam goes out of business, then your games will soon follow

many of the activation based DRM's are bad as when those activation servers die, the games will no longer be able to activate if you ever need to reinstall.

 

[proxy711]

[citation][nom]RipperjackAU[/nom]No LAN functionality = The death of the LAN party.Blizzard just wants to cocoon you in your home, so you can suckle from their digital teat... for a price of course.[/citation]

I go to LANs all the time and play online games with friends it doesn't ruin the fun. We live in a world that doesn't rely on dial up for internet. 100 more ping isn't going to ruin game play. for some games its more fun to play them online because they require more then the amount of people at a LAN.

And do anyone of you people doubt someone is going to come up with a way to play SC2 on a LAN? i mean we cracked assassins creed 2's DRM, we have a program that allows you to play vs AI even without being invited to the SC2 beta....i don't see any reason why someone couldn't come up with a program or something to allow LAN play.

 

[zaam]

"We need our development teams focused on content and cool features, not anti-piracy technology."

Perhaps the developement team also needs to focus on getting LAN support back.

 

[genab]

The removal of the lan feature is NOT THE DEATH OF LANS.
I'm hopeful that creators have thought this through a little bit more than the rest of us...
considering they have the largest resources (investors are happy to get *any* slice of the game) and most positively received dev team in the world (big claim but pretty sure everything sc1 is absolutely brilliant)

So what i mean to is, AT LANS you will connect to battle.net (not hard unless you haven't caught up with technology (how are you playing sc2 on that rig anyway??) you establish the connection with your friends at the lan through battlenet, Then some sophisticated mumbo jumbo network features allows you use your lan connections while playing the game.

I'm fairly hopeful and confident that it will occur something like this, Bnet will be more of authentication just for lans.
But seriously to everyone that cries about buying this game when they just want to try it at lans....
BUY THIS GAME, it well worth the penny's, not just a fully featured game... probably the most epic pc game..

 

[genab]

and i do recognise that you will maintain a connection to the internet during lan play,but the bandwidth required will small enough that the smallest of bandwidth's will cope with it.

 

[redgarl]

DRM is actually... making me buy less games...

I buy games that deserve to be bought.

 

[Cespenar]

Being an invalid I have been known to play games on my PC for up to 10 hours. I don't play on the internet because of slow thinking and also the way that internet play ruins the single player universe.
I recently bought a game that had to be activated via the internet before any play. The activation would not work come hell or high water.
I'll never buy another game that doesn't have decent single player!
Yesterday I checked my "To Buy" list and I want to buy 10 games.
I wonder how many of those games would fall into the "To Hard Basket" and the "publisher/whoever" will lose my money.
I've never played LAN either, but I can see those players being upset about the future, where their fun is reduced. How many LAN players will not buy games?

 

[welshmousepk]

After Ubisofts endless press releases, this is a welcome change.

I'm not a fan of blizzard, but they have just regained some of my respect.

 

[megamanx00]

Of course, we all have known this for some time. It's nice to see a company coming around and seeing the light.

 

[doorspawn]

Talk is cheap.
If you actually believed DRM is a losing battle you'd be removing it.
Until you do (or until you add LAN) I won't buy.


You have the top selling RTS games out, and they don't have DRM. If you honestly believe you'll sell more copies with DRM you need a reality check (which can be achieved by searching for DRM titles on the pirate bay).

If a hypothetical pirate copy of your game could enable features that would be disabled if your company went offline, you have DRM. This includes installation, single-player and multiplayer.

 

[Guest]

What kind of LAN party doesn't have an Internet connection? All you have to do is party up on Battle.net and play. Some people can complain about anything.

 

[anotherzen]

[citation][nom]theroguex[/nom]And within a few months, all of those virtual network services will take over the game anyway.Battle.net is NOT way more fun than a group of people sitting in a living room with their computers all networked, playing together and trash-talking each other RIGHT THERE. Without having to bother running a network cable to the modem, etc. Sorry.[/citation]

If your LAN doesn't have internet access, your LAN sucks

 

[kathiki]

yet another discussion that leads to piracy .........

if only developers/publishing companies would only see that it is definitely NOT piracy that is hurting their sales.... IT IS THEM and only them......

while prices for original copies of a game (70-80 USD or 70-80 EUROS) may seem a reasonable price for some people in certain countries it is definitely a major RIP-OFF for other people in other countries with lower income.

Throw in a bad game with an exorbitant price- game lasting a few hours- and you have unhappy customers....... Make/publish games with very good content and acceptable prices and you have HAPPY CUSTOMERS who do not wish to pirate.....

Haven't we all talked about how many people WOULD NOT buy a specific game if they were to buy it orignal anyway?

i will once again bring the awesome example of LARIAN STUDIOS and their awesome game divinity EGO DRACONIS once again ...... a very addictive game for its genre, HUGE, with a compelling buying price of 20 euros....

the also awesome example of Ascaron Entertainment with a 4 key cd, awesome LAN management. Huge game as well.....

Really disgusted at how companies will always blame piracy for their own flawed games...... Flawed as in buggy, very short lasting, lukewarm gameplay.

cheaper prices could lead to higher sales.... Stop abusing consumers so that they stop abusing you.

As for our current game, i do not think that i want to be connected to the internet all the time on battle.net to talk with friends while playing a SOLO campaign..... sorry but this sort of excuse is really ridiculous to me..... that sort of gaming belongs to mmorpgs or multiplayer games in general.... these games should actually set the example of why people WILLINGLY pay the 14 euro fee very single month.

Command and Conquer: Tiberian wars...... rest in peace in my dust bin...

 

[Guest]

"We need our development teams focused on content and cool features, not anti-piracy technology."

Good Job!

 

[kartu]

"...that's why we removed offline LAN support".

 

[bildo123]

[citation][nom]culgor[/nom]"DRM is a losing battle" says the company that isn't providing LAN support to their upcoming game.[/citation]

Still...with the LAN support. Impressive! Get over it! Face it, we are all pretty much in a LAN if you think about it (hadn't heard the screech of a 56k modem in a LONG time) . There are far more intrusive DRM's, and really it's time to let go of that ancient method of gaming. Poor thing, I'm sure you'll pull through.

 

[jalek]

Like it'll take long for a "private server" to be released to the net by someone for LAN parties to use...

I don't really care, but to expect that not to happen is just wishful thinking.

 

[BloodyIron]

Starcraft 1 has LAN play and it has never hurt for sales. As such, this is completely hypocritical of Blizzard to say they are against DRM yet not allow a basic method of playing through LAN play.

I don't mind Battle.net v2. It looks pretty cool, but LAN play is a necessity for LAN plays and proper tournaments. Because internet cannot be guaranteed 100% of the time, and as such relying on Battle.net for LAN parties and top-tier tournaments is going to fail. Blizzard cannot guarantee that somewhere along the internet the connection will not break.