HellsingerAngel said:
There was also a time when the internet wasn't as wide spread as it is. You're correct in saying that your presumptions on whether or not this game requires online connectivity or not are just plain ignorant.
Thank you for being insulting yet again. My view is derived from playing pc games since 1985. I have seen many type of requirements come and go over the decades. Some of which were very stupid requirements, and some of which made sense for the advancement of the medium. But never have I seen a requirement like the one Blizzard has instituted. You can try to defend blizzards actions all you want, but requiring an online connection for a single player campaign holds no value to many people, and should be a bonus at best for those who want to connect with their friends for the below-forementioned "prestige".
You aren't excused for purchasing Blu-Ray instead of a regular DVD, you aren't excused for purchasing Xbox instead of Xbox 360, you aren't excused for purchasing a game in which you cannot run through hardware limitations, why should this be any different?
What you mentioned is a much different problem. In the statement above you are purchasing items that have either hardware limits, or are just the wrong format. Apples and oranges. If you purchase a 360 game when you have the normal Xbox, then that is not a mistake of the company that made the game, that is a mistake on your part. A similar mistake would be purchasing a Mac game to be played on a PC. That is Apples, and Apples. The same could be said for buying SCII, but with one minor problem for me. Like I mentioned before I have long ago built computers that were more then enough to play any game on full. I ignore the requirement label because it has become a waste of my time to check them long ago. So tell me why now, should I start checking the labels of games that have solo content in them, to make sure I'm able to play it offline?"
It's the reality of the situation that "buyer beware" and that you need to educate yourself about a product that you're about to purchase. That's capitalism. You have no one to blame but yourself.
A true statement. And one that has caused the collapse of the economy. But that being said I'll reserve my rights in capitalism. To not give Blizzard another dollar. Who is the real loser in this situation? As a company you don't want to lose customers, especial if they are very vocal. I'll cover that point a little more below.
Now, this would be the moment where you need to consider what StarCraft II really is. Does "single player" really define the solo experience, or would something like "campaign" be more accurate?
I have. The word "campaign" does not change what to expect in a game. In fact it is semantics. Campaign is a term to describe the story portion of the game. It does not denote, or infer an online portion of the game. Some games do offer a co-op campaign, but it is clearly separated, and placed within its own option. That being said to answer the question more clearly. "Single player" defines for me the solo experience. Campaign is but another word to describe the story portion (normally the solo portion) of the game.
You're online, gaining prestige on a highscore tables with millions of other people. Even if you are playing by yourself, there's still an affect on the online community.
And who's fault is that? Did I place a requirement that I have to be logged in, and constantly uploading my progression in the game? Oh yes there is a guest mode in the game. Let me tell you how that comes across to me. Maybe its my problem with the term, but when I sit down to play a game I own, I don't do it as a "guest". My take on that option was for a friend to come over and play my copy without messing with my progression. I didn't bother to read what the guest account was for. It may have helped if it was listed as "Offline" mode instead, but it wasn't. As for "prestige". Its a game. We aren't doing anything special when we play this game. True prestige is making a difference in your community. I could give a hoot about the prestige that all the 12 year olds love so much. Great now I sound not like my dad, but my grandfather. to quote a line from Lethal Weapon. "I'm getting to old for this sh*t"
You get constant connection to all of your friends while in-game and can converse with them. You get the latest updates as they appear and can choose to save your progress, exit, and download the patch if you so choose mid-mission when the alert pops up immediately. Regardless of your beliefs, how it's somehow morally wrong to make a game a social experience, defunking the preconceptions of sitting in room X in your home and playing a game, is beyond me. Honestly, the built-in networking Blizzard has created for its community is superb and a forerunner of this sort of medium. It benefits both consumer and developer.
Two points here.
First point: Being able to connect and talk to friends is a great
OPTION. Being able to keep your saved progress and play across computers is also a great
OPTION. (You can tell where this is going with option being in both caps, and bold.) That being said it should be
Optional. I know, I know you are thinking that it is as a guest account. This brings me to my..
Second Point: That being about this great server. It is great now. But where will it be in ten years? Just because I purchase something ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, does not mean that it should stop working even if I take care of the item. As it stands, if I want to break out my copy of SCII and play it in ten years. There is a good chance I wont be able to do so.
As for it being an affective DRM, take a guess why it isn't?
I'll take a real guess at it. Um because the hackers out number the game developers.
Could be because the technology of the game has the save state built right into it for those customers that wish to play offline. If there was absolutely zero coding to allow for offline saves to the hard drive, I'm not sure it would be at all worth while to input that coding in yourself if you were to crack the game. The fact is an entirely online model would eliminate the ability to play offline, which StarCraft II is not.
DRM isn't weak in the game because it has an ability to save locally. It's weak because of what I said above. This is just blizzards attempt to stop hackers from stealing their game. Which they are more then entitled to do. Here is the problem though. It never works. They waste the money developing the system, and constantly patching the holes, and the people who suffer aren't the hackers, but the paying customers. Also moving the save to an online server only would not be any stronger. There would be no need to write code to save the game locally. The only thing the hackers would need to do in that instance is spoof the game into thinking it is uploading the game to a online drive, when it was instead sending it to a spot on the local drive. DRM has never worked. Companies have only wasted their money, and lost customers because of it. Right now the only company I see doing DRM content right is Steam. I'm not a fan of DRM, but at least I know that I can play my game offline whenever I want, and I'm not restricted by a arbitrary thirty day log on requirement.
Now as for being a completely online game, I'm not sure why you're differentiating this from some sort of MMORPG.
Then you sir have little experience with what a MMORPG is then. I've played MMO games since 1997. And in the almost 14 years, I have played almost all of them including wow. I have never stopped playing them since 97 either (I still have a active UO acct). Some are betters then others, and most have failed outstandingly, but that is for another discussion. While many of the MMO can be played from lvl 1 to 80-90 you are still required to be connected to the game server for every last lvl. That is just how MMO games work. SCII is no were close to the same kind of game set up. To say otherwise is to really bend the hell out of the truth, to try to make a point that is both ill informed, and grossly incorrect.
-World of Warcraft can be played completely solo from 1-80. You do not require the assistance of anyone in that game to complete the majority of the content.
But it does REQUIRE a internet connection, as this is a MM
Online RPG.
-Raids could be considered the multiplayer portion of the game. You need other people, so you get other people.
The whole game can be considered multiplayer, and it is. Because the content has been made easy to level up solo now, does not negate that the game is not only online, but that you are also surrounded by thousands of people. If you are playing on a PvP server I'd really like to see you argument hold up there. You seem to only have passing knowledge of MMO games.
-The Auction House, Battlegrounds and other such multiplayer functions are optional and can have absolutely zero impact on how you play the game.
Not wholly true, but I'm not going to go much further into MMO games, this is a discussion on RTS games.
-You can converse with as many people as you wish within your circle of friends at any point in time while playing the game, either solo or within a seperate group.
I'm really unsure your point here. Being able to talk to people in a MMO game is a given. Being able to talk in multiplayer as well. Being able to talk to your friends in a solo game is something that has only come into being, in the last few years.
The models look very similar, no?
Please, pray tell, how does a games look mean that it is similar to another game play type? All books have the same shape and look, but are far different inside the pages.
I feel it very strange that as soon as you jump genres from RPG to RTS, somehow the arguments of needing to be online go from one extreme to the other.
It doesn't change. RPG is not synonymous with MMO. You are making that jump. There are allot of solo RPG games on the market, and 99% of them do not have online options. This is both PC, and console.
The way we conceptualize games is changing, all the time, and I'm not sure how this is any different. Change doesn't equate to being wrong.
Yes we are getting new type of game play all the time, but that is not what we are receiving in the case of SCII. Nothing new and different has been introduced with this game. What they have done is placed a limitation on how you can play the game. Less freedom is always < than more freedom. point in fact. The non inclusion of LAN play in SCII. I'm all for blizzard running their own servers for the game. And if they want to not include LAN that is their choice as well. But by doing so they have limited the ways people can play the game. In short they are saying this is how you should play their game, and that any other way of playing the game is wrong, and to do so will lose you the "privilege" of playing their game. Same goes with the solo play. Restricting how a person plays the game has never been a good thing. This time is no different.
This is a step forwards to creating new DRM that could possibly benefit both parties involved instead of something jarring like Assassin's Creed II was.
It's a step all right. But not forward. ACII was a disaster. DRM that restricts your customers is always a mistake. Blizzard is making the same mistake, because they think they know what is right for their customers. They may have good intentions, but the pathway to hell was paved with good intentions.
If that means that companies need to start supplying the cheat codes and mod programs, then people should follow suit to what Blizzard does.
Blizzard is not the first to do this. Almost every game made has cheat codes in them. It isn't a if, but a what. It would be a mistake if other companies took cues from Blizzard on this instance. Banning people for using other cheat methods, that aren't included by the company, in a solo play game is a
bad example to follow.
The trainers that were used online have no place in StarCraft II simply because their functions are already imbedded into the game save for one: the ability to circumvent the achievement lock.
What you just said is a subjective statement, and not one of fact. Trainers have their place in peoples solo game play how ever they see fit. Inclusion of cheat codes in a game does not negate the use of trainers. I dont use trainers b/c I gain achievements. I use them because they are are easier to use, and in many cases they allow for more cheats that aren't included in the game. I have extensive knowledge is using trainers, you though do not from your statements. I can understand your inability to understand peoples use of them. But that doesn't mean I will excuse a blanket statement like the one you just postulated.
The fact that some games are going to be 100% online in the near future is a reality and not a possibility at this point. But you know what? That's how capitalism works. The only way you can stop it is to promote those companies with business models you agree with and be an informed consumer.
Two points.
First point: It will be allot longer then shortly. The PC market might heavily be online, but the console market is not. There are still allot of people who refuse to hook up their consoles to the net. Companies are not going to cut out customers by limiting their customer base.
Second point: Your statement of "That's how capitalism works" is wrong. Capitalism isn't forcing a pointless change to game play onto the people who buy the game. Capitalism is about a free market. People speaking with their money. Buying what they like, and allowing companies to go under who supply product they find lacking. Blizzard didn't force this change because they saw this is where the market was going, they did it in an attempt to protect their property from pirates. So lets not confuse self interest, with a free market.
Now that all being said, and all talking points covered I'll close with this. The activities Blizzard are using would never fly in the real world. That is to say, if Blizzard was a brick and mortar store, that dealt with people face to face, they would be crucified by their customers, and soon would be closing their doors, unless they changed their policy on how they deal with customers. But by being online people have little recourse, if their voice isn't heard by blizzard. If they decree they are right and you are wrong, your only option is to sit back and take it, or stop giving them money. The same can be said of a brick and mortar with one exception. You can chose to stand there and fight the problem. Make noise and interrupt their business. This will get you more then a stone face refusal. But with online, because it is online, (even if people share on a forum) the complaint you make will not be an interruption to their business. People will go right along like sheep, and keep giving Blizzard money. Complaining loudly in a store may seem crude, but it gets the business attention to hear you out, and solve your problem. Brick and mortar stores don't want their business hurt from disgruntled customers. That is why often a customer gets what they want even if it is against the policy of the store. Its part of business, and while I hate this saying it is correct. "The customer is always right." That is if you want their money. That is true capitalism.
