01-12-2009, 01:59 AM
Quote: That's just it. To the best of my knowledge, Bliz could run a full RustStorm, with no advanced warning to really clean house. As many times as they want. The question is not of technical prowess. The real question is it in their best -financial- interest to do so?
I misunderstood here. I thought you were trying to say that the actual process of running RustStorm was a financial drain.
Quote:Maybe it's my cynicism, but I'd contend that bliz or the company that signs their paychecks, already looked at the majority of their fan base. To me bliz's actions does cater to most of them or at least not do anything to drive them off b.net permanently even if they could, because like any company they will listen to the majority.
One look at the general public realm should convince you of the observation that fan base does -not- include us.
I think this is partially deceiving. The keyword you use here is public. How many Lurkers play publicly, or hang out in trade channels? How about the folks over at the Basin? In a self-perpetuating cycle, the non-cheaters stop playing public games because an increasing percentage of the remaining players is composed of people they'd rather not play with. While I'm sure not convinced that there are fewer cheaters than non-, I do think that the general perception is inflated.
Mostly, though, I find I agree with you when I think about it, except...why the bannings? Is that a financial move? Were those the several thousand they felt were most likely to buy another copy of the game?
I respect Blizzard as a company and a financial organization even if a lot of their more recent decisions have led me to lose respect for them as game-designers (or perhaps more accurately, game-maintainers). I'm sure they did their homework and found the most lucrative way to run Battle.net. I just don't see the connection sometimes, and I think my brain tries to twist that into some kind of hope that they are actually looking out for those of us who want clean realms.
--me