Blizzard co-founder and StarCraft II executive producer Frank Pearce sees digital rights management as the wrong approach in fighting piracy. Speaking to Videogamers.com, Pearce said that the solution for StarCraft II lies rooted in Battle.net and an activation code. StarCraft II, which is scheduled for release on July 27, will require the use of an included one-time activation code and a registered Battle.net account. Once that short process is complete, players will be able to get busy with the game's single player campaign in offline mode.
Blizzard also believes that the new and improved Battle.net will convince pirates to buy the game:
"If we've done our job right and implemented Battle.net in a great way people will want to be connected while they're playing the single player campaign so they can stay connected to their friends on Battle.net and earn the achievements on Battle.net," Frank Pearce, Blizzard co-founder and executive producer on StarCraft II told VideoGamer.com. "The best approach from our perspective is to make sure that you've got a full-featured platform that people want to play on, where their friends are, where the community is."
Of course that is probably wishful thinking: the only thing that will draw fans of pirated goods in is online play, which is only available via Battle. But Pearce doesn't feel strongly about the use of DRM at all; they see the fight in controlling the more important features through Battle.net.
"That's a battle that we have a chance in. If you start talking about DRM and different technologies to try to manage it, it's really a losing battle for us, because the community is always so much larger, and the number of people out there that want to try to counteract that technology, whether it's because they want to pirate the game or just because it's a curiosity for them, is much larger than our development teams," said Pearce. "We need our development teams focused on content and cool features, not anti-piracy technology." There is, however, one causality to Blizzard's focus on Battle.net for security: LAN play. Blizzard revealed that it would remove support for LAN play to combat piracy. Again, controlling the online play and require activation codes is what the company sees as the best defense against piracy.
Source: videogamer.com
Comments
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
im glad to hear that acti-blizz is starting to think forwards, but im disappointed to read that my group's favorite feature is being removed.
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
So if there's no DRM I can make as many backup copies of the game discs as I want and I don't need the original to play the game, right blizzard?
my vanity is justified
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
Personally I don't care about LAN and so long as I don't need to be connected to their servers to play single player then I'm happy.
Also it's good to see that they understand that focusing efforts on anti-piracy rather than content is a futile battle and will only drive customers away.
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
Battle.net is no worse than Steam, really. Steam is actually worse.
Clearly having to have a Battle.net account and having to stick your key onto that account (aka: registering your game) is a DRM in it's own right, it's incredibly foolish to think people will think it isn't because you say it is (and it's extremely ignorant to say it isn't because they say it is -- it's still a method of managing their digital rights).
The difference between Steam's method and Blizzard's method is that I do not have to register my game on Battle.net to play it. Even once registered I can still play it offline, I can still play the singleplayer mode, and for this, that mode will suffice. If I want online play then clearly, I'm going to need internet access. The denial of a LAN game-mode is, in my opinion, a really shoddy idea, but that's another story.
Steam, on the other hand, requires online activation of a game and requires me to be online to play that game. I cannot play the game until I've made an account with Steam, downloaded Steam, and then activated that game on Steam. I can't play a game without having first been online, only then can I use the supposed "offline" mode.
If I want to play Half-Life 2's singleplayer campaign I can't, unless I'm online, and that's what is absolute bullshit. At least I'll be able to play through Diablo III's and StarCraft II's campaign.
-- Randi Tastix
----
Randi Tastix - http://randomtastic.com
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
Apparently you can't read. Only ONCE you have used your one-time activation code with battle.net can you use it offline. EXACTLY like Steam... without a list of other features...
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
"requires me to be online to play that game"
No it does not... steam has an offline mode that allows you to play the game without being online. I used to play my steam games all the time while i was offline
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
I don't get what you're saying about Steam. My net conenction died for several days a month or two ago and I was able to play Half Life 2 just fine.
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
Well they are trying...kinda....... here's how they should have done it..
First off You will need a key to unlock online mode, there is no activation but without online mode you pretty much have the SP game as it is out of the box with a few updates for the non online upgrade game. The key would be checked randomly to see if there is abuse on the key more than a couple dozen instances of duplicate key use in a month, if your key gets blacklisted you'll have to buy a new one at a discounted price(10$) if you have no key to trade in you buy the game after a 30% off retail price of the game.
I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/
I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/what-is-cigital-disobedience/
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
I won't buy it. Neither any of my friends (even the hardcore blizzard or just SC fans...)
Reason: Internet here is usually utter crap. Internet good enough to warrant online play is hell expensive.
In fact, even "any" internet is expensive (several people has no internet).
But here LAN houses, LAN parties, and multiple young adults living in the same home (housing is also expensive) are REALLY common. And SC2 (and Diablo III... and Ubisoft new games too) are COMPLETLY USELESS in those settings.
So we will stick with SC1, Warcraft III, Counter-Strike and Rune... (yes, Rune! We love Rune!)
From my calculations, in my circle of college friends alone, it is around 100 lost sales...
criadordejogos.wordpress.com
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
My son and I play WoW online often.
This weekend, I guess someone hit a pole or something, but our internet was down for a couple of hours. Starcraft offered a lot of value with my son and myself being able to play on the LAN without any issues.
So much for that with SC2.
But - give it about 2 weeks, there will be 'work-arounds' - no doubt. Taking one potential and very viable option of play away does NOT offer value.
After all; Warcraft 1 and the original release of Warcraft 2, didn't even support TCP/IP - so IPX over LAN was the ONLY option for networked games.
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
"Blizzard revealed that it would remove support for LAN play to combat piracy"
I wonder how this will affect tournament play, especially in Korea/similar countries...
While LAN removal does irk me a lot, I don't have anyone nearby to play it with, so I'd need to be connected online anyway.
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
"We need our development teams focused on content and cool features, not anti-piracy technology."
Sounds reasonable...
"Blizzard revealed that it would remove support for LAN play to combat piracy. Again, controlling the online play and require activation codes is what the company sees as the best defense against piracy."
And then they proceded to shot themselves in the foot...
------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
So, the removal of LAN play is shooting themselves in foot? Frankly, that's the only difference I'm seeing between how they are handling SC2 and their other games. They have always used CD Keys, at least since I've been a fan of Blizzard, and the "Achievement" system linked to Battle.Net is a new feature, as far as I'm aware.
I mean, I might be biased, here, because I don't do LAN play, and I don't see a problem with connecting to Battle.Net to play with friends, but the LAN feature wasn't a big deal to me, and if they choose to remove it, so be it.
Yes, if, by some odd combination of events, you find yourself on a network with 3 friends and no internet connection, you guys wouldn't be able to play together, but how often does a situation like that happen? For me, in my nearly 20 years of gaming, it's never once happened.
The important thing to remember, here, is that you'd still be able to play the game you purchased, unlike what Ubisoft did. Just because you won't necessarily be able to play with your friends without the internet doesn't mean that Blizz is doing some draconian enforcement.
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
I also don´t play games on PC online, but I had friends playing RTS game on their office with lan without a subscription of any kind or being asked for a code or a DRM bullshit and they were fine.
Many people play like that, and now they are planning to take that away? Yes, is a shot on the foot. They are already earning billions of dollars. Why are they so mad against a bunch of kids pirating their games? Is not even real money they are losing.
If they focuses in subscriptions, services and extras instead of software they would be doing better.
Piracy is being used as an excuse for being greedy.
------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
"Yes, if, by some odd combination of events, you find yourself on a network with 3 friends and no internet connection, you guys wouldn't be able to play together, but how often does a situation like that happen? "
College. Tournaments. The old fasioned lan-parties. Also, can replace "no internet" with "slow internet".
Lag time will have an effect, if only a small one on us average 'amateur' players. But to the 'pros' who focus on squeezing every ounce of efficiency into their commands, maximizing clicks per minute, and most importantly response time to opponents' actions, this could be significant.
But other than that, I agree that this is a good step forward.
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
True, Lag time and a Slow Internet would have an effect on people. However, if my buddy can Main Tank ICC 25 with a ping of 750 (a feat I STILL can't wrap my head around), I think that, with a little practice, someone with a slow internet could probably be competative on Battle.Net.
Like I said before, LAN can be useful in some cases, but in reality, it's not THAT important.
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
I think that, with a little practice, someone with a slow internet could probably be competative on Battle.Net.
Are you serious? The moment someone starts to lag and all the players have to wait for that player's connection to get a better ping, they are voted out of the match. I have played Warcraft 2 on Battle.Net and that happened a number of times.
People don't like to wait for someone with crappy internet and will boot them from the match rather than let them continue.
So for someone with slow internet, their online experience will be horrible as they will nto be able to find anyone to play with.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
Two points:
1 - I doubt that every command in the game has to go through Blizzard's servers. That would cost them too much bandwidth-wise. Matchmaking, arbitration, reporting stats, etc. will go there, but not the vast majority of the game traffic.
2 - If you're playing with your friends it wouldn't matter how if you're lagging... they're presumably not going to vote you out of the game.
So in a pseudo-LAN environment (ie a bunch of you in one room but connected to Battle.Net) you should have 0 problems. Unless you have no internet connection at all, or a very crappy one.
===============
Chris Kimberley
===============
Chris Kimberley
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
DRM is a losing battle. Removing LAN is losing customers.
Me and my ~20 mates are not buying StarCraft 2 because of it. And we won't buy Diablo 3 either, if it also comes without LAN (as it will probably happen). Your loss, Blizzard.
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
Honestly, I'd say it's YOUR loss. I mean, really, what's the big difference between LAN play and Battle.Net? If you ask me, Battle.Net provides a much better gaming experience, with rank tracking, achievement tracking, better chat, friend tracking, and other features. What does LAN provide that it can do better than Battle.Net? (Assuming that you can log in multiple Battle.Net accounts from the same geographical location, of course. If Blizzard doesn't allow that, then you have a point.)
If there's one thing I've learned about Blizzard's games, going all the way back to Diablo, Warcraft II (Lets forget Warcraft I ever existed!), and Starcraft, their games are always a cut above the rest. Storytelling, art, gameplay, you name it, Blizzard's usually right on the leading edge of it. Every game they've released since the Big Trilogy of products have started were absolute MUST BUY games.
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
Let's look at your list:
better gaming experience: Its the same experience as found in a LAN match just with people 1000 miles away and requirement to always be connected to the internet and have yet another gaming account to manage.
rank tracking: You need a server in California telling you that you lost to your friend X amount of times?
achievement tracking: Some people don't care about any achievement other than how many times they have beaten their friend.
better chat: Yes because talking into a headset is so much better than talking to someone in the same room as you. I guess the ability to mute the person using a headset could be considered a better feature.
friend tracking: Is my friend at his computer? Yes, he is there. All I had to do was look at his desk/table space.
other features: How about not needing an internet connection or a Battle.Net account in order to play with friends. Can you do that with Battle.Net? No.
What about Tournements? I still think the Battle.net requirement will put some serious damage to local tournaments. Now in order to host a Starcraft tournament, the host will need to find a venue with an internet connection capable of supporting all the players that want to play. This would make hosting and joining a tournament more expensive as before all they needed was enough power outlets for people's computers and some network hubs and cables.
Really, the only people this is going to benefit are the Xbox Live generation of people addicted to gamerscores. A lot of people don't care and don't want to submit to that crap but still have access to multiplayer. Unfortunately, that is getting less and less possible for fans of larger companies' games.
Here is another situation to consider. Games that Support LAN have a longer life cycle than games that require a connection to proprietary servers. People are still playing Starcraft 10 years after release. Will we be able to say that about Starcraft 2? Will Blizzard keep Battle.Net running for as long as people want to play Starcraft 2? I find that hard to believe.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
I understand the allure of LAN for some people, but to me, the Battle.Net experience is far, far better. This applies to just playing with friends, as well. Most of my friends aren't going to go through the trouble of setting up a LAN network for us to play together. We'd rather just play on Battle.Net from our various homes, or on occasion when we all happen to be hanging out and in the same location, assuming there are spare computers/laptops to facilitate gaming, we're more than happy to log into Battle.Net to accomplish those goals.
I will admit that Tournament play could be affected, but on a personal note, I don't give two shits about Gaming tournaments. It sucks that some of the small scale "community style" tournaments will be affected, but the bigger "Pro" gaming circuits are pretty dumb, in my opinion, and I really wouldn't care if those go away.
"Really, the only people this is going to benefit are the Xbox Live generation of people addicted to gamerscores."
How the Xbox Live generation factors into this, I'm not seeing it. I've never really played on XBL, hated the community, and never really cared about my GamerScore. I've ALWAYS preferred Battle.Net to any other form of multiplayer. I've never really liked LAN play, because it didn't feel as full-featured as Battle.Net did. I can see it's utility, but it's never really been a required feature in my games.
As for your question about Battle.Net support ending for Starcraft 2 after a while, it's certainly a valid concern, but if Diablo 2 is any indicator, I don't think you'll have to worry about it 10 years from now. Hell, I doubt you'll have to worry about it 15 years from now.
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
Most of my friends aren't going to go through the trouble of setting up a LAN network for us to play together.
So you don't have a wireless network at home? That is all it takes for casual LAN gaming. If you don't have a wireless network, all wireless cards have the ability to be set up as a network hub for other wireless cards to connect to.
I will admit that Tournament play could be affected, but on a personal note, I don't give two shits about Gaming tournaments.
And there are a lot of people that disagree with you.
How the Xbox Live generation factors into this, I'm not seeing it.
The New Battle.Net is nothing but Blizzard's private Xbox Live. It will come complete with achievements and overall game scores to compare with your friends. Just as useful on Battle.net as tehy are on Xbox Live. That would be zero usefulness.
I've ALWAYS preferred Battle.Net to any other form of multiplayer. I've never really liked LAN play, because it didn't feel as full-featured as Battle.Net did.
Personally, I don't think I should be dependent on a 3rd party in order to play games with my friends. Can you imagine having to get confirmation from the NBA everytime you wanted to play ball with your friends? Can you imagine if not only did you have to get permission, but they had to have visual access to your game to make sure you are playing by regulation rules? Can you imagine that if the connection to the NBA ever got dropped in the middle of your game that you had to imediately stop playing? Doesn't that sound stupid? Why is having to be connected to Battle.Net in order to play a quick round of Starcraft any less stupid?
As for your question about Battle.Net support ending for Starcraft 2 after a while, it's certainly a valid concern, but if Diablo 2 is any indicator, I don't think you'll have to worry about it 10 years from now. Hell, I doubt you'll have to worry about it 15 years from now.
What does Diablo 2 have to do with this? Diablo 2 supports LAN play. Are people still playing it on Battle.Net? Yes. People are still Playing Warcraft 2 as well. But I have very little confidence that a studio owned by Activision will maintain that support indefinitely..
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
As a follow up to Zach's comment ... I can still can pull out my Diablo Cds install it on my computer and my fiancee's computer and bam no internet connection needed we have the ability to co-op through the entire game. Same goes for Diablo 2.
I have to agree that frankly the lack of LAN has hindered my desire to purchase Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3. I like the fact that when I go on trips we can pull out our laptops and set up a game to play with each other on (I guess gaming companies don't like that for some really stupid reason). Frankly if Blizzard wants to fight piracy with Battle.Net that is fine but do it through added features not taking away features other games had and ones we have grown to love; that isn't fighting piracy that is fighting your consumer and you will eventually lose that fight.
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
Let's see - better latency, no requirement for internet (LAN != WAN)
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
Hm -- good point, as requiring battle.net simply to play against other people on the same LAN DOES create an additional barrier to play, even if it's a small one. (I've avoided GFW up to this point, simply because signing up for an account is a hassle.)
From the technical side, I don't expect it to create gameplay issues -- RTS doesn't require the same kind of split-second precision that an FPS or fighting game would.
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
So in other words they require an internet connection like Ubisoft, but don't make the mistake of calling it DRM. I don't like this trend...
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
A one-time registration would differ greatly from UBI-DRM, which keeps checking back with the
master server, and if you loose so much as a single packet, you will be thrown out of your single
player game, losing all your progress.
...and that's why I'm never touching another UBI-soft product ever again.
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
Yeah, I hate how you need an Internet connection to play World of Warcraft.
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
World of Warcraft is an MMO, a game specifically engineered to be played with multiple people. StarCraft II has a multiplayer component and an expansive single player component. Your argument that they're in any way similar is ridiculous.
Parallax Abstraction
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
blog.digital-lifeline.ca
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
Actually it is a pretty valid comparison as you only need the internet connection for the online portion and achievements. The single player campaign and single player modes can be played offline... so much like world of warcraft, you only need a constant internet connection for the multiplayer portion of the game
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
You need to tweak your sarcasm detector. He was obviously making a joke.
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
Actually, I have seen that same comment in plenty of other discussions on the lack of LAN play. While said tongue in cheek, it is often used to "show" how dumb the person complaining about having to maintain a constant internet connect is.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
Sort of.
They require an online connection for multiplayer and for single player achievement gathering.
You can play single player offline as long as you don't care about player ranking and achievements.
Personally I am still miffed that they are not including LAN play, but that is okay as I am not buying the game.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
Re: DRM is a Losing Battle, Says Blizzard
That makes sence. As for the lack of Lan I think people are overblowing the removal quite a bit.
http://www.magicinkgaming.com/