Starcraft 2 - worth buying?

[weakwarrior]

I think that if Blizzard were taken to task about this, they would be forced to patch the game so you don't have to re-register every 30 days as long as the packaging does not state that you must have internet to play.

The packaging does say you need internet.

If the packaging does say as much, then Blizz will probably win the battle. At that point it will depend on the lawyers and the judge. If you could get a gamer-friendly jury, that'd be a different story.

I doubt this could go to a jury. It is probaby a question of law, not of fact, and therefore would be up to the judge to decide. Of course you might have a gamer-friendly judge.

[Lokishadow]

I think that if Blizzard were taken to task about this, they would be forced to patch the game so you don't have to re-register every 30 days as long as the packaging does not state that you must have internet to play.

The packaging does say you need internet.

If the packaging does say as much, then Blizz will probably win the battle. At that point it will depend on the lawyers and the judge. If you could get a gamer-friendly jury, that'd be a different story.

I doubt this could go to a jury. It is probaby a question of law, not of fact, and therefore would be up to the judge to decide. Of course you might have a gamer-friendly judge.

Ah! I didn't know if it said that on the box. Thanks for the info!

Now, my perspective? As long as it isn't pay-to-play, and the re-registration isn't terribly complicated, I don't mind. Blizzard has a right to ensure that their game isn't being pirated. And since they'll track my purchase and let me re-download and keep track of my saves on the newer games, it gives me data redundancy. And that makes me happy.

-Loki

[weakwarrior]

In the way of far more material than people here are interested in, there is an excellent article by Molly Shaffer van Houweling called "The New Servitude," which talks about how the law deals with the fact that computer companies are packaging programs with all sorts of limitations (i.e a Microsoft CD with a not for resale note).

[Nystul]

There was a recent court case about circumventing DRM in order to use a product legally being legal. Here is an article about it.

With that ruling, it might actually be completely legal for somebody to hack SC2 so that it is playable without the re-registering every 30 days. You purchased the right to play the game and so breaking the DRM in order to do so isn't actually breaking any law.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think electronic freedom dudes created a lot of panic by vastly overstating the scope of what the DMCA was really about to begin with. In any case, when Starcraft was introduced, that law didn't exist. Blizzard still required users to have a valid CD key and insert the CD into the tray. Blizzard didn't do that to prevent legal users from playing the game without the CD. They did it to prevent illegal users from playing the game without buying it. But oddly enough, the game got cracked pretty quickly (although playing on b.net maybe was another story).

Software companies use anti-piracy measures with the hopes that they will work. Even if they only work for a couple months it would be a big victory. It is not about just throwing it out there so you have grounds to sue people based on the DMCA. Bottom line is that this trend will continue as long as people have persistent internet connections and buy the games.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Software companies use anti-piracy measures with the hopes that they will work. Even if they only work for a couple months it would be a big victory.

I think you are pretty much right. However, I don't know of an anti-piracy measure that has lasted a couple of weeks, much less months. The warez community competes to see who can crack the security first. Often they do it on beta code and use it, maybe tweaked, on the golden version. Most games are cracked and available for download within a day of release.

So, if anti-piracy measures do not work, why are they implemented? They don't stop the bad guys, they penalize the good guys, and they burn some of the development funds. Most, if not all, programmers know this. So, when you say 'game companies', who are the people that decide this in those companies? The developers and programmers? They usually don't have the clout. No, it's the management, many of whom are MBAs and lawyers with little technical knowledge. And they, indeed, are not looking for a technical solution. They are looking for a provable technical violation so they can use their usual methods of attacking.

So, the anti-piracy techniques exist, IMO, not so much to stop piracy as to generate a provable action to take to court when suing the pirates.

Either that, or the management is a pack of idiots -- which also merits consideration.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Either that, or the management is a pack of idiots -- which also merits consideration.

Both. Back in the day... When I was a part of developing shrink wrapped software, we'd build in just enough copy protection to make it difficult to crack, but not impossible. It's like a lock keeping the honest people honest. The dishonest ones will figure it out. So, why spend thousands of hours trying to build bigger locks.

The best defense is "on going licensing" or "subscription", which if you agree to pay a % of the purchase price annually, qualifies you for "free" upgrades to the product. Then, the software developers release a new upgraded version every 6 months to a year, and minor releases every month or two. The pirates cannot sustain a development effort to keep up with an organized development shop, who is also developing a closer relationship with the consumer.

Now that everyone is mostly connected to the internet, patching can be done automatically as a service (such as what Blizzard, or Redhat does).

DDO has created another model, more limited, with a free basic MMO, with purchasable add ons. I think the future (of Blizzard, or Steam) is closer to what NCSoft is doing, and would evolve into a subscription service where you don't pay per game, but per month to access their portfolio of games. Think of Steam's portfolio, but without having to buy the games, but instead paying $30/month for unlimited family entertainment. Not much different than a cable TV package, and maybe even offered through your cable provider.

[Swiss Mercenary]

My few cents:

The game itself is very good. The single-player is polished, and is about of about the right length.

Performance-wise, I get "Hiccups" on both my laptop and desktop - while running below recommended graphical settings. Given that both machines exceed the recommended requirements, this does not make me a happy panda.

Multiplayer balance looks pretty good - it's too early to tell if it's going to be as deep a game as SC:BW was, but it looks to be close.

Blizzard have completely dropped the ball on Battle.Net 2.0. It's lacking many basic social features... And is a very, very lonely place. Aside from automatic matchmaking, it's a pretty clear step backwards from the original Battle.Net.

Custom games are a complete mess. The editor is quite unstable, and the interface for playing them is atrocious - it keeps popular maps popular, and prevents new maps from breaking in, so to speak. It's impossible to fill a game on a map that's not in the top ~30.

For anyone onely interested in the single-player, 1v1 ladder, or playing custom games with their friends (Existing friends, you're not going to make any new ones on Battle.Net 2.0), the game's fantastic, as long as you can stomach Battle.Net latency, and the DRM. In other areas, Blizzard has... Dropped the ball.

Mind you, they have said that they will implement chat channels and group features in the future, but we've heard nothing about custom games, or the problems with 2v2/3v3/4v4.

[Zippyy]

(Existing friends, you're not going to make any new ones on Battle.Net 2.0)

What you said about it being a lonely place is all too true. I wind up mostly playing with real-life friends. Very fun, but not an option for all players.

I can say, though, that I have made a friend or two by playing 1v1. After a game, you can send a friend invite to the person you played.

It's no substitute for chat channels, but at least there is some way to meet people.

[esiaschdeprap]

The federal government needs to step up and make a ruling on behavior like this.

While I personally can't stand these sorts of practices, I don't see why your government, or any other for that matter, should have the right to tell Blizzard how to grant access to their servers. It's not like you have a right to play games. If you don't like the way they do business, then don't buy their product.

Nystul got it right, this is a lease not a purchase. Arrrrrrgh!!

So you want to make it illegal to lease software then? Why stop there? Let's make all forms of rent illegal.

I think you are oversimplifying it a little. The problem in my opinion is that the legal meaning of ownership has not yet extended itself into the digital realm. We see this in music and media. So then, it is the act of "selling" a product to us that we do not own thereafter that is dishonest not the act of leasing in a fair manner.

Would an ideal government fix this problem...yes. Or should I say maybe. Should our government do something about it? Not anytime in the near future. They already have so many things to NOT be doing...

[--Pete]

Hi,

Welcome to our domicile. Hope you like it here and stay for maybe quite a while.

I think you are oversimplifying it a little. The problem in my opinion is that the legal meaning of ownership has not yet extended itself into the digital realm. We see this in music and media. So then, it is the act of "selling" a product to us that we do not own thereafter that is dishonest not the act of leasing in a fair manner.

I think the problem extends beyond that. It has to do with just what ownership means. In the strictest sense, if you own something, it is yours to do with as you wish. You can sell it, give it away, destroy it, or duplicate it. Copyright and patent laws restrict what owning something means in order to protect the originators of new ideas. And already things become complex. Look at books. Except for specific uses, it is illegal to duplicate copyrighted books. You can resell it, or give it away, or even lend it, but not duplicate it. In effect, you own the media but not the message.

The software industry is not working on a new concept, but rather on making the existing concept work. There was a time when making a single copy of an item was more trouble than it was worth. Pirates had to have a fair degree of machinery to duplicate a vinyl album or a movie or a book. That made them reasonable targets for legal actions. Starting, probably, with the reel to reel tape deck, duplicating things, especial intellectual property, has become progressively easier. It is this problem that the software companies (and other media companies) are facing, trying to solve, over reacting to (maybe), and irritating their customers with.

It's not really so much a question of ownership -- that was settled when the first copyright was issued -- but one of protection and enforcement.

And I have absolutely no idea of how to do it, but all attempts to date are good examples of how not to do it.

--Pete

[esiaschdeprap]

And I have absolutely no idea of how to do it, but all attempts to date are good examples of how not to do it.

--Pete

I'm in the same position. I have no idea how this problem will be remedied but what has been tried thus far is just not working on any level. The only people being more than the slightest bit inconvenienced are the legitimate buyers. All over the place I'm hearing that people going into the music business are being encouraged to try to revolutionize the industry to fix this problem but I have not heard one realistic idea yet. We'll see.

Your perspective makes a lot of sense to me. That is pretty much where I stand. BTW thanks for the welcome.

[kandrathe]

And I have absolutely no idea of how to do it, but all attempts to date are good examples of how not to do it.

Biometric dual key encryption embedded at point of sale. Pressing play reads your fingerprint and authorizes the use of the media. Each copy is unique and DL'd or burned to disc as needed. But, were about 5-10 years away from it being common. I think we'd see it on car, or home locks first. It still won't stop Warez pirates from decrypting and distributing in an unencrypted form. But, when the common media players are expecting a particular format (e.g. Blu-ray) then, it becomes awkward to have raw MPEG4. Some tech savvy consumers may be able to handle it, but most would rather not deal with the inconvenience.

I am surprised by how many laptops have built in biometric inputs now. At the last consulting gig I had, my laptop's hard drive was encrypted needing my fingerprint to enable sign-on, as well as a key fob PIN generator synchronized to a server. You have to tack the PIN to the end of your PW to get access to the network. But, information security is all moot if you have a Bradley Manning in your organization.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Biometric dual key encryption embedded at point of sale.

I went in for a pulmonary function test two weeks ago. For a while, it looked like the test was not going to happen. In their overzealous desire to protect patient information, the SCCA has started to use biometric sensors. I guess they work when they work. For 20 minutes, this one didn't.

Also, what are you going to do when your kids want to play your games and you need to be elsewhere? Leave them your thumb?

I think we'd see it on car, or home locks first.

I hope not. Mythbusters did a segment on that. Stealing someone's fingerprint was amazingly easy. Other bio id is either too much of a problem (retina scans) or too variable (skin temperature, resistivity, etc.)

It still won't stop Warez pirates from decrypting and distributing in an unencrypted form. But, when the common media players are expecting a particular format (e.g. Blu-ray) then, it becomes awkward to have raw MPEG4.

Right. So, we get to put up with the inefficient crap to stop us from doing what we weren't doing in the first place, and those that need stopping aren't even going to be slowed. Good plan.

Besides, a properly cracked item works the same as and is easier to use than the original

I am surprised by how many laptops have built in biometric inputs now. At the last consulting gig I had, my laptop's hard drive was encrypted needing my fingerprint to enable sign-on, as well as a key fob PIN generator synchronized to a server. You have to tack the PIN to the end of your PW to get access to the network. But, information security is all moot if you have a Bradley Manning in your organization.

The number of times my fingerprints were altered beyond recognition from burns, cuts, scrapes, and leaving them super-glued to a surface is beyond my count. Can I get time off, with pay, if the machine won't let me log on?

--Pete

[Chesspiece_face]

I think the problem extends beyond that. It has to do with just what ownership means. In the strictest sense, if you own something, it is yours to do with as you wish. You can sell it, give it away, destroy it, or duplicate it. Copyright and patent laws restrict what owning something means in order to protect the originators of new ideas. And already things become complex. Look at books. Except for specific uses, it is illegal to duplicate copyrighted books. You can resell it, or give it away, or even lend it, but not duplicate it. In effect, you own the media but not the message.

--Pete

Ironically the solution, which some businesses are finally wrapping their heads around, is a total reversal of the commonly held paradigm. In a technological environment where copying essentially creates infinite supply, demand will eventually drop to zero. In this environment it doesn't matter how hard you try you cannot control the message. The only other option is to control the media.

When you're talking about a hard copy like a book the old methods make perfect sense. When you suddenly shift the media from the old hard copies to platforms like the iPad, Kindle or Nook it no longer matters if you control the message. If a customer wants to read something at some point in the chain they have to go through you (you in this case being iTunes, Zune, whatever.) The key then becomes less about controlling the "message" files but monetizing the system so that it's low enough price of entry that most people will just pay the fees to access the content directly but also pricing it high enough, more like insurance, so that the people that pay for the service but don't utilize it heavily end up covering much of the secondary copied market.

Want to watch movies? Pay your monthly fee for Netflix, Zune, or iTunes. Want to play Blizzard games? Pay your monthly fee for Battle.net. You're already seeing a lot of this shift with services like Xbox Live or Playstation Plus. I'm sure if Blizzard started charging $15 a month for Battle.net and included in that fee you gained account access for all of their MMOs as well as access to the multiplayer sections of their RTS's a lot of players would still pay that. And they could always sweeten the pot by offering subscribers access to their older, out of market games.

[Hammerskjold]

All over the place I'm hearing that people going into the music business are being encouraged to try to revolutionize the industry to fix this problem but I have not heard one realistic idea yet. We'll see.

With music and movies, we can argue that it has the communal aspect that is pretty duplicate-resistant. Yeah there's the T-Shirt bootleggers and unapproved unofficial concert recordings, but even now they're not exactly broadcast quality. Though I guess they could be subverted if the band handles them as unpaid advertising. eg: youtube.

And unless we're going to see holodeck technology come to pass within the next decade, there's still something about going to a movie premiere (or concert\live performance) especially if it's a movie you look forward to seeing, with fellow fans. There's an excitement and energy that simply can't be duplicated and fully captured in a blu-ray disc.

(We'll leave aside for a second the benefits of seeing a movie\listening to music privately without having to deal with the hassle of inconsiderate a-holes who treats every public space as their own living room.)

Now I think it gets more tricky with video games. LAN parties\net cafe\live tournaments does have some live interaction, communal aspect to it. But most of the games involved are competitive in nature. As of this time, it's probably more accurate to say it's more of an e-sport.

Guitar Hero\Rock Band is probably close to party\board game night type of interaction. (Don't get me wrong, it's damn fun, I've read some bars hold a Guitar Hero night event, but it's not something you'd probably pay to see as a concert.)

MMOGs have and depends greatly on the social interaction, but players can play in their own physical space, no real need in having them together in a shared meat-space for the game to work. A big draw for them or any other multi-player online game is that you can play with\against someone halfway across the world.

And some of my favourite video gaming moment are games that are Single Player, the communication happens between the creator and the audience-player. There's no real 'concert' equivalent of that.

So pirating an SP game can potentially hurt the developers-creators more vs a subscription model. Not only does that suck for the creators, but I think it doesn't bode well either for players. I'd hate to see the day that SP games are relegated to either Console only, and even then it needs an online component to be able to play. Or nearly every game (especially triple A titles) is a subscription based model, even for SP.

I guess the gift \ curse of a video game is how complex it can be. It doesn't always readily fit into any one existing model.

So circling back the original topic of SC2, if they drop the 'every 30 days revalidation' and region lock for multi, I'd be a lot more interested. Otherwise, there's always other games and companies. Or vacuuming. My floor can always use some more vacuuming.

[LennyLen]

I think you are oversimplifying it a little. The problem in my opinion is that the legal meaning of ownership has not yet extended itself into the digital realm.

My post was not about ownership at all, but about how far governments should be allowed to interfere with how businesses practice.

[kandrathe]

Biometric dual key encryption embedded at point of sale.

I went in for a pulmonary function test two weeks ago. For a while, it looked like the test was not going to happen. In their overzealous desire to protect patient information, the SCCA has started to use biometric sensors. I guess they work when they work. For 20 minutes, this one didn't.

Also, what are you going to do when your kids want to play your games and you need to be elsewhere? Leave them your thumb?

I think if entertainment companies are smart, they'll think about "family" licensing.

I think we'd see it on car, or home locks first.

I hope not. Mythbusters did a segment on that. Stealing someone's fingerprint was amazingly easy. Other bio id is either too much of a problem (retina scans) or too variable (skin temperature, resistivity, etc.)

The good stuff isn't easy to replicate. Kicking it in or breaking a window is still easier. But... Malaysia car thieves steal car, owners finger...

It still won't stop Warez pirates from decrypting and distributing in an unencrypted form. But, when the common media players are expecting a particular format (e.g. Blu-ray) then, it becomes awkward to have raw MPEG4.

Right. So, we get to put up with the inefficient crap to stop us from doing what we weren't doing in the first place, and those that need stopping aren't even going to be slowed. Good plan.

Which is the nature of all locks. It's much less of a bother to never have to lock your front door, or remember to carry your keys around with you. But, we lock, and unlock our doors, just to keep out the simplest of thieves. Motivated bandits break down the doors or go through the windows, and the skilled ones don't worry about locks. The direction of the industry is to make the player only accept a media format with embedded encryption. The player will enforce the copyright.

Besides, a properly cracked item works the same as and is easier to use than the original

But, your off the shelf player won't play an unencrypted file, and re-encrypting it will lock it to a single individual again.

The number of times my fingerprints were altered beyond recognition from burns, cuts, scrapes, and leaving them super-glued to a surface is beyond my count. Can I get time off, with pay, if the machine won't let me log on?

You can usually store many fingers of prints (including your bosses), so if you damage them all, a keyboard may not be very usable anyway.

[Kevin]

So I've decide I'm spending the $60 this month on additional exercise equipment and not SC2. Maybe next month. Cost vs value analysis comes out on the side of continue my workouts.

[Frag]

I have to respectfully disagree, Valhauros. Given the lack of time so far, the custom maps are alone worth the admission price, and they've been getting better by the day. There's RPG's, Tower Defenses, Arenas, Movies(!), Card Games and more are being made, all without having to pay a monthly fee.

Diggin it,
~Frag

[Thecla]

I feel that the exodus of Blizzard North happened for a reason, and that its effects are greater than most want to believe.

Though Blizzard North never had anything to do with Starcraft --- that was done entirely by Blizzard in Irvine.

It does seem like Blizzard wasn't happy with how Blizzard North was developing D3 and completely redid D3 their own way after closing Blizzard North in 2005. I think that has had huge effects on D3 --- whether they're for better or worse I guess we'll find out in a year or two.