Starcraft 2 - worth buying?

[LavCat]

Yeah. I used to get a lot of games out of bargain bins. I've still got a few that have the shrink wrap still on them. Just because a game has been around for ten years doesn't mean it isn't new to me the first time I play it.

Don't suppose you have an extra shrink wrapped copy of Wasteland (for PC or Commodore) lying about, do you? If so I'd like to buy it!

I've had Wasteland installed for years, and I have the original documentation, but as far as I can find, no discs to reinstall. The game is still playable but I'd like to be able to start fresh. Wasteland has no monthly payments.

[Archon_Wing]

The single player aspect is quite good. The campaign is way more varied than it was in sc1. If you generally play single player, it'd be a nice buy-- the AI opponent is decent as well.

However Bnet 2.0 is a huge joke. It lacks many features that the old bnet had (chat rooms, inability to change servers, etc) Hopefully that will be remedied and that is when I would say buy the game for the multiplayer

[Frag]

However Bnet 2.0 is a huge joke. It lacks many features that the old bnet had (chat rooms, inability to change servers, etc) Hopefully that will be remedied and that is when I would say buy the game for the multiplayer

Disagree that it's a joke. Agree that the lacking issues are a problem. I can't even begin to say how big of a deal it is for me that the random matches I play are against people that have a shot of beating me, and I have a shot of beating them. Smashing my head against 25 smurfs in a row in WC3 nearly cost me a computer.

I'm seriously hoping that region lock is gone within a reasonable timeframe (~Christmas) and chatrooms should be out here pretty quickly.
~Frag

[Chesspiece_face]

[quote='Archon_Wing' pid='178524' dateline='1281118067']I can't even begin to say how big of a deal it is for me that the random matches I play are against people that have a shot of beating me, and I have a shot of beating them. Smashing my head against 25 smurfs in a row in WC3 nearly cost me a computer.

I've not played any rated vs. matches in SCII yet but if the ratings in Starcraft actually work to place you against players that are evenly matched I'll be pleased. Every time I've heard Blizzard talk about their ideals for matchmaking that you should win about 50% of your matches and lose 50% I thought "Yeah well I won about 50% of my WC3 matches as well and I doubt I ever had more than about 5 matches that were actually fun." They were all blowouts. 50% I destroyed them, 50% they destroyed me.

So far I'm not a fan of how the "Beginner" maps are designed. The rocks that block the paths end up just giving Protoss a huge advantage. I know they needed a way to slow down rushes for people that are learning but Protoss with blinking Stalkers can just circumvent them leaving Terran or Zerg players stuck behind the rocks and the Protoss rushing straight to blinking into the back of another players base.

[Kevin]

So far I'm not a fan of how the "Beginner" maps are designed. The rocks that block the paths end up just giving Protoss a huge advantage. I know they needed a way to slow down rushes for people that are learning but Protoss with blinking Stalkers can just circumvent them leaving Terran or Zerg players stuck behind the rocks and the Protoss rushing straight to blinking into the back of another players base.

I hated these in the beta, especially when I wasn't aware that was the design because I was playing like it was a more open map, and then realized that you either needed to rush air units, or as you say be toss and blink the stalkers. Which is just not how games really go. If you tried to get the rocks down, it was easy enough to get a simple tower defense by them to really mess up the person who was trying to break them. Just didn't like em at all.

[Chesspiece_face]

I hated these in the beta, especially when I wasn't aware that was the design because I was playing like it was a more open map, and then realized that you either needed to rush air units, or as you say be toss and blink the stalkers. Which is just not how games really go. If you tried to get the rocks down, it was easy enough to get a simple tower defense by them to really mess up the person who was trying to break them. Just didn't like em at all.

Yeah. I lost my first game because it was never specified how the map worked and I did a normal build. Ended up getting really confused when my scout probe just ended up going around in circles in my base. Then I wasted about 3 minutes of focus looking around the map and finding that there was no direct path around the map and never realized that you could break the rocks as that wasn't something that was ever explained.

Second game I defended off a Blink rush because I had early expanded to the Gold Crystals. Lost my first base to the rush but was able to take my Cruisers and Stalkers up and back door his base which he wasn't able to rebuild.

I doubt I'll play any more of the beginner maps. Probably just play matches against the computer to fool around with builds and when I have a decent feel for them just skip right to ranked play.

[[vL]Kp]

From what I understand you have to reregisted the game periodically even if you want to play offline. That's 100% crap if you ask me.

So what? It's still their service that they're providing, so they get to say how it works. It isn't as if they're a health provider or someone else providing an essential service. It's just for playing games, not exactly important.

The box states "Internet connection required." According to what was posted here, it does not state "Internet connection required on a regular basis." Based on that distinction, I could see somebody buying it, lugging their hardware to a friend's Internet connection, activating it once, and taking it back to their home. They would then be quite surprised to find that they need to do this on a somewhat regular basis. Even Windows activation is a one-shot deal, assuming you leave the hardware static.

I still can't find where I said make it illegal.

What did you mean then by "The federal government needs to step up and make a ruling on behavior like this?" Since you obviously don't like the practice, you must want the government's ruling to say that they're not allowed to do it. Isn't that tantamount to saying you want it made illegal?

For at least ten years now, some (most? all?) U.S. retail stores have refused to accept returns of opened software. If they give a reason at all, it is some hand waving about how the customer might have copied the discs and so the store might be in some way involved in copyright infringement if they accepted the returned disks and refunded you the purchase price. At the time, there was at least some sense to this argument. Games of the day had little or no activation requirements, and such requirements could typically be defeated without resorting to cracked copies of the software.

In light of the severe usability restrictions Blizzard has imposed on the game, it seems fair that stores be required to accept prompt returns of Starcraft 2 and provide a refund of the purchase price (or that the customer be entitled to pursue the same remedies directly from Blizzard, if the store cannot or will not process the return). By prompt, I mean the store can impose a short time window, on the order of one to a few weeks, in which the return will be accepted. After that window closes, the sale is final and nonrefundable. Today, that window closes as soon as you open the box, which usually precludes even reading the EULA unless you have the foresight and luck to find a copy of the EULA text online. Even if the customer copied the discs, they would be useless after the reactivation interval. This strikes me as a good balance: the customer has an opportunity to get a refund if the product is defective (fails to run or contains unacceptable EULA provisions) and Blizzard can continue to impose strict requirements on their games. Customers who have no problems with the current model will barely notice the difference. The store is protected from severe revenue swings if customers decide after months of possession that they no longer want the discs, and the short time window also minimizes the ability to abuse the return window by buying it, playing for a while, returning it, and repeating the whole cycle. Stores that object to the return window can refuse to carry games that encounter a high return rate, potentially discouraging vendors from releasing subsequent titles with misfeatures that prompt returns. The biggest weakness I see in this scheme is that it allows customers who buy the game and discover they do not like it to get a refund. Some might consider this a feature, since it only hurts the vendor if the game deviates significantly from customer expectations.

Various details, such as whether a restocking fee can be charged against the refund, would need to be worked out before such a rule could be finalized. However, I think the overall aim of the rule would produce a more fair balance than exists today.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Various details, such as whether a restocking fee can be charged against the refund, would need to be worked out before such a rule could be finalized. However, I think the overall aim of the rule would produce a more fair balance than exists today.

I like your idea. I would prefer that software houses quit playing these foolish games that don't slow down the real pirates but do inconvenience the legit owners. And I think a restocking fee is a good idea if the shrink wrap was removed.

--Pete

[Jester]

Don't suppose you have an extra shrink wrapped copy of Wasteland (for PC or Commodore) lying about, do you? If so I'd like to buy it!

I've had Wasteland installed for years, and I have the original documentation, but as far as I can find, no discs to reinstall. The game is still playable but I'd like to be able to start fresh. Wasteland has no monthly payments.

Wasteland is now abandonware, isn't it? Hell, Fallout 2 is probably abandonware by now, let alone the great granddaddy.

-Jester

[Frag]

Agreed about the beginner maps. Just play around with the AI and skip to the promotion fights, as the beginner 50 map fights don't really encourage you to learn what you need to learn to work your way up the ladder. If you really want some time to play against a real person before testing the waters, hit me up on here or ingame and I'll be happy to run a bunch of games against you with differing BO's so you can practice.

I like the idea of software returnables, but I'm not quite sure how it's possible with CD-keys in their current form...

~Frag

[Archon_Wing]

[quote='Archon_Wing' pid='178524' dateline='1281118067']I can't even begin to say how big of a deal it is for me that the random matches I play are against people that have a shot of beating me, and I have a shot of beating them. Smashing my head against 25 smurfs in a row in WC3 nearly cost me a computer.

I've not played any rated vs. matches in SCII yet but if the ratings in Starcraft actually work to place you against players that are evenly matched I'll be pleased. Every time I've heard Blizzard talk about their ideals for matchmaking that you should win about 50% of your matches and lose 50% I thought "Yeah well I won about 50% of my WC3 matches as well and I doubt I ever had more than about 5 matches that were actually fun." They were all blowouts. 50% I destroyed them, 50% they destroyed me.

So far I'm not a fan of how the "Beginner" maps are designed. The rocks that block the paths end up just giving Protoss a huge advantage. I know they needed a way to slow down rushes for people that are learning but Protoss with blinking Stalkers can just circumvent them leaving Terran or Zerg players stuck behind the rocks and the Protoss rushing straight to blinking into the back of another players base.

The ladder system is pretty good at finding you a good match for the most part. The beginner's maps don't really help very much because the rocks make it a completely different game, (strong terran bias typically) You'd probably benefit more by playing vs the computer which is actually a bit challenging on hard/very hard mode for a beginner and might be stronger than some players you'll come across.

Also, I would check out the single player challenges, very useful in teaching new players too. Those will help out new players much more than the practice league as it'll show them situations that will happen in your typical game.

[Chesspiece_face]

[/quote]

The ladder system is pretty good at finding you a good match for the most part. The beginner's maps don't really help very much because the rocks make it a completely different game, (strong terran bias typically) You'd probably benefit more by playing vs the computer which is actually a bit challenging on hard/very hard mode for a beginner and might be stronger than some players you'll come across.

Also, I would check out the single player challenges, very useful in teaching new players too. Those will help out new players much more than the practice league as it'll show them situations that will happen in your typical game.

Oh I'm not a new player. Although it has been a good 6+ years since I had played a match of Starcraft prior to this. Played a ton of Warcraft 3 in the midterm.

Good to hear that the matchmaking seems to be strong. I've not finished my initial 5 games to become ranked yet. Mostly been working through the campaign and playing around with some of the achievements. I started going through the campaign doing all the "hard mode" achievements but was disappointed when it got to the point that many of them couldn't be done unless you had unlocked later tiers of the research trees (Safe Haven I'm looking at you). For the life of me I cannot get the gold for the initial Zerg survival mission, best I've done is 15 lost units. The other races were easy. Pretty sure if I re-did the Terran over again I could get 4 or less lost units.

[[vL]Kp]

I like the idea of software returnables, but I'm not quite sure how it's possible with CD-keys in their current form...

In exactly their current form, it may not be possible. However, the current architecture whereby the vendor can remotely revoke the game resolves the single biggest stumbling block to allowing software returnables. The remaining component would be the ability to revoke a CD-key and issue a new CD-key to the second legitimate purchaser of a given instance of the media. Blizzard may already have some mechanism that can do this or could be extended to do this, to deal with cases where a customer is burned by theft of a CD-key. CD-keys can be stolen through spyware, user error (posting it on a forum due to ignorance that it ought to remain secret), or by individuals who enter a store, open the cardboard, examine and record the key, and then leave without purchasing the jewel case on which the key was written. In that final case, the first legitimate purchaser of the box will obtain a CD-key that is already "in use" by an unauthorized party, and so the customer needs some mechanism to revoke that key and receive a replacement. This is functionally identical to the software returnable scenario, with the difference that even the retail store is unaware they are selling a CD-key that is in use.

[Archon_Wing]

The ladder system is pretty good at finding you a good match for the most part. The beginner's maps don't really help very much because the rocks make it a completely different game, (strong terran bias typically) You'd probably benefit more by playing vs the computer which is actually a bit challenging on hard/very hard mode for a beginner and might be stronger than some players you'll come across.

Also, I would check out the single player challenges, very useful in teaching new players too. Those will help out new players much more than the practice league as it'll show them situations that will happen in your typical game.

Oh I'm not a new player. Although it has been a good 6+ years since I had played a match of Starcraft prior to this. Played a ton of Warcraft 3 in the midterm.
[/quote]

Well it is a very different game, interface, units and all. Plus everything is very mobile which changes the whole pace of the game. Prior experience does help, but it will take a while to learn stuff.

For the life of me I cannot get the gold for the initial Zerg survival mission, best I've done is 15 lost units.

The challenges? Yea, that one is quite annoying. The best thing to do is to use the infestor and a few zerglings vs the immortal (just use use neural parasite). Also, 2 ultralisks are all you need against stalkers. Against the void rays you want to burrow hydralisks and unburrow them once they begin to fire on the pylon. Using a lot of burrow will help minimize losses.

[eppie]

Maybe the "Player is responsible" part wasn't translated properly?
~Frag

Thanks,

no I think it was my own stupid interpretation of that sentence ()....they talk about the fees to one's provider of course.

When I come back from holidays I will check the specs of my laptop and figure out if I can run the game.

In the meanwhile I bought command and conquer 4 (I remember I liked parts 1 and 2) (60 % discount), but I guess SC2 will soon follow.

[LennyLen]

When I come back from holidays I will check the specs of my laptop and figure out if I can run the game.

In the meanwhile I bought command and conquer 4 (I remember I liked parts 1 and 2) (60 % discount), but I guess SC2 will soon follow.

If you do get the game, I'd be interested in knowing it's performance on your system. I can just play C&C 4 if I turn all the graphical settings off or put them on minimum.

[Lokishadow]

(a) It has pretty tough online anti-piracy protection. You have to set up a batle.net account and register the key to play at all. Then when you play it is by default with an internet connection. You can play offline, but you need to re-register the game online every 30 days, so don't expect to go off to a desert island without internet access for a few years and bring along SC2 as your one computer game.

This is some of the biggest @#$%^&*( I've seen yet. The federal government needs to step up and make a ruling on behavior like this. Stuff like this, and limited reinstall really bother me. Nystul got it right, this is a lease not a purchase. Arrrrrrgh!!

Ummm....getting the federal government involved in something as piddly as a game is rather . . .extreme. On top of that, it restricts freedom of enterprise, which is loosely tied to freedom of expression (via the medium of video game).

I'd rather see the federal government get it's affairs in order and fix our broken economy. Oh, and regulate naked credit default swaps. And eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. And clean up the environment. And build a decent rail system. You get the idea.

While I agree that having to re-register your game via internet connection every 30 days is a crock of sh!#, asking the government to do something about it is overkill and a bad idea. We could just as effectively fix it by organizing some sort of boycott or protest. If we could get some major players like Husky, HD, WhiteRa, and some Korean players to sign on and talk about it in their shoutcasts, it would generate support from the fan-base. Enough fans start clamoring about it and Blizzard, as a business, HAS to listen.

Someone needs to read the EULA all the way through and see if the 30 day reactivation period in any way could affect the "implied right to use" of the product purchased. I mean, if I had to re-register my Avenged Sevenfold CDs every 30 days, I'd never buy A7X again. Oh, and I'd sue them for my money back. That's in glaring violation of the "fair use" clause inherent in the purchasing rights of the consumer. Sure, I can't modify it or transfer it, but it's still mine. And I think that's what you're trying to say.

And I agree.

Now who wants to help me start a petition?

-Loki

[VinnieJones]

(a) It has pretty tough online anti-piracy protection. You have to set up a batle.net account and register the key to play at all. Then when you play it is by default with an internet connection. You can play offline, but you need to re-register the game online every 30 days, so don't expect to go off to a desert island without internet access for a few years and bring along SC2 as your one computer game.

This is some of the biggest @#$%^&*( I've seen yet. The federal government needs to step up and make a ruling on behavior like this. Stuff like this, and limited reinstall really bother me. Nystul got it right, this is a lease not a purchase. Arrrrrrgh!!

Ummm....getting the federal government involved in something as piddly as a game is rather . . .extreme. On top of that, it restricts freedom of enterprise, which is loosely tied to freedom of expression (via the medium of video game).

I'd rather see the federal government get it's affairs in order and fix our broken economy. Oh, and regulate naked credit default swaps. And eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. And clean up the environment. And build a decent rail system. You get the idea.

While I agree that having to re-register your game via internet connection every 30 days is a crock of sh!#, asking the government to do something about it is overkill and a bad idea. We could just as effectively fix it by organizing some sort of boycott or protest. If we could get some major players like Husky, HD, WhiteRa, and some Korean players to sign on and talk about it in their shoutcasts, it would generate support from the fan-base. Enough fans start clamoring about it and Blizzard, as a business, HAS to listen.

Someone needs to read the EULA all the way through and see if the 30 day reactivation period in any way could affect the "implied right to use" of the product purchased. I mean, if I had to re-register my Avenged Sevenfold CDs every 30 days, I'd never buy A7X again. Oh, and I'd sue them for my money back. That's in glaring violation of the "fair use" clause inherent in the purchasing rights of the consumer. Sure, I can't modify it or transfer it, but it's still mine. And I think that's what you're trying to say.

And I agree.

Now who wants to help me start a petition?

-Loki

Essentially you've got it, however I would like to see a ruling regarding ownership/lease of software since it's rather fuzzy these days. And it's not just games, but software and now music as well. Essentially electronic products.

[Lokishadow]

Okay, I'm deleting all the quotes because it's getting huge.

I'm enrolled in a business management course. This by no means makes me an expert, but:

Their is a very old U.S. law which I believe is called the "fair use" law. The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) violates the "fair use" clause that is inherent in ALL transactions conducted in the U.S. The only problem is that the supporters of the DCMA have a point: Yes, music is software, and yes, you have a right to do whatever you want with a product. Yes, you can let your friends listen to it, yes you can loan it out. The problem arises in the basic morality issue of "We never actually SOLD a copy of our movie to Billy in London, yet he possesses the movie, and so does the original purchaser." This is basic piracy.

Why am I rambling about this? Because it ties in with "fair use."

Fair use essentially says you can do whatever you want with anything you own, as long as you don't violate someone else's rights by doing so. The problem is that businesses have a right to make money off of their investments.

I'm sure you've all heard/read some variation of this before.

The problem is that Blizzard can do whatever they want with their product, but you can too. Unfortunately, Blizzard put in that requirement that you have an internet connection. Fine. But does it say so on the box? If you MUST have internet to play the game, i.e. by re-registering every 30 days, then the packaging needs to state as much. NOT the EULA. I've been looking for the EULA for a couple hours, and I can't find it. I'm definitely not buying SC2 until I read the EULA, especially now that there is a controversy blowing up on Bnet over the possibility of being charged a monthly fee to access Bnet . . .which would essentially equal "pay to play" for SC2, even the single player campaign.

Now THAT would be a deal-breaker.

Back to the fair use: Unless Blizzard expressly states on the OUTSIDE of the box that you MUST have internet to play the game, you have the right to play the game without internet. The EULA is insufficient because once you've opened the box, you can't return the product. That means you just gave Blizzard $60 for essentially nothing if you don't have internet. And that means they are violating your right to fair use.

I you want my opinion on rights, however, go check out George Carlin on Youtube. But I digress.

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. 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.

So, Blizzard is essentially violating the fair use clause of it's customers.

Once again, we really need a petition. I'll go email Husky, HD, and Crota.

-Loki

[swirly]

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. Now you would likely still be breaking the TOS with Blizzard which is another can of worms and might allow them to no longer support you for online play or who knows what else.

In terms of the law though...it might be legal now to bypass the re-registering. I say might cause you never know how much the writers of an article are reading into the specifics of what happened in a court case. Some lawyers will argue it applying to one extent while others might argue it applying to another more limited extent. So there are clearly more details to be worked out here and clarification to be had. I find it interesting though that it at least opens the door to the possibility of it being completely legal to by-pass DRM like the 30 day re-register requirement.

If some more of these court cases come up and up-hold this interpretation then it makes one wonder if companies might stop putting these annoyances into their software. Before it was considered illegal to break DRM for any purpose. Now it is a much more grey area. So the more clearly legal it gets the less useful it may be for companies to bother in the first place.

Just an interesting slightly side topic for discussion.