Blizzcon Writeup

This past weekend I braved the tangled web of deceit and lies that is commercial air travel to haul myself out to Anaheim, CA for Blizzard Entertainment's first attempt at a convention, "Blizzcon". Like any con there were good times and bad times but considering they had turnout on par with other major conventions and the fact that this was their first pass at a solo con, the result was nothing less than the level of excellence that we have come to expect from Blizzard.

It is very obvious that the developers have been working overtime to bring a TON of new features to World of Warcraft and Starcraft Ghost. I was impressed by the amount of care and attention to detail with so many of the new features. It is quite obvious that the developers have been listening to the general population and life is good.

Starcraft Ghost players were in the definite minority when it came to pure obsession but it should be no less exciting to fans of Blizzard games and console games in particular. Amidst the sea of Xbox consoles that they had set up for players to use I managed to find a seat (briefly, after all, without WoW every couple of hours I get the shakes) and kill a few space marines. The main thing to be noted about Ghost is the aiming interface (or lack thereof). This seemed to be the most talked about aspect of the game after the excitement of playable zerg wore off. Yes, don't let that be too much of a side note, there are playable zerg in all of their infinite sexiness. My corrupted space marine killed more than a few of his previous brethren. The aiming interface, however, made me feel like I was playing with oven mitts on, a fact that the developers also commented on. The promise is that this particular piece of functionality is nowhere near where it will be before they release and seems to be one of the main things that they are working on. The only other complaint that I heard among a sea of praise was that the Terran faction seemed to be horribly "under balanced". At first I couldn't help but agree with this assessment. My FPS skills, especially on the console, are about as bad as Jonathan Wendell's are good. Even with my lack of skill I seemed to be able to dominate over the Terrans most of the first day of the con. However, coming back the second day this was certainly not the case. The Terran faction is a much more "cerebral" gaming experience, you have to learn how to aim, drive vehicles, protect your assets, and work together. Once you are able to master these facets however the Terrans become a horribly lethal race. Definitely keep an eye out for this title as I'm sure it will provide countless hours of entertainment through both a solid single player campaign and a running tally of turning your friends into pixelated giblets.

The World of Warcraft expansion "The Burning Crusade" made its debut this weekend and promises a new race for each faction which was actually a point of quite a bit of resentment from alliance players. The horde's new race, Bloodelves were an incredibly polished race with a promising future in the overall WoW universe while the alliance were left with empty speculation as to what their race would be. The press room seemed to be an endless stream of people trying to squeeze even the smallest piece of information out of the developers about the alliance race to no avail. Do not despair alliance, you may have met disappointment in your new race but patch 1.9 will be your salvation. The rest of the expansion also promised raising the level cap to 70, the opening of the Dark Portal revealing the continent of "Outland", flying mounts, several new instances, Jewelcrafting (the newest profession on the block), socketed items, and quite a bit more. I feel like I am back in the days before beta, waiting on the edge of my seat for any news and counting the days until release.

The upcoming patch also offered quite a bit of excitement for the future of Warcraft. Paladins, who many have considered the longest running joke in World of Warcraft appear to be getting a breath of fresh air. (CT: /dance) The announcement was made and it was as if a million angry shaman cried out in terror and then went silent. The class discussion panel actually spent about 2/3 of the alloted time talking about and answering questions regarding the paladin. The highlight of the new paladin abilities seem to be a greater separation and enhancement of the three talent trees allowing paladins to further specialize into their role as a healer, a tanker (aggro management abilities ala taunt were promised!), or a damage dealing machine. The one announcement that drew more cheers and applause than any other during the weekend was the news that Paladin's would be receiving new blessings that would last 15 minutes in duration. This news alone was enough to draw the complete adoration of every alliance player in the room but when the noise quieted down the developer on the stage was able to further clarify that these 15 minute blessings would be castable by class over the entire raid! This means that if a paladin casts this "group blessing" of might on a rogue, every rogue in the group would get that same buff for 15 minutes. After this the crowd seemed to disintegrate into a gibbering mass of disbelief and excitement seeing nothing but stars for the next few seconds or days, it was hard to tell. The only other thing that could rival this news in terms of excitement was the promise of linked auction houses in every major city. It is very clear to me that a lot of overtime and TLC has been worked into the upcoming additions to the World of Warcraft universe and I cannot wait to see what else they have in store.

Each panel seemed to be custom tailored to fit one or several of the developers consuming obsessions so the level of "exciting news" in each panel really helped to drive the convention at the same frenzied pitch the whole weekend. The "Items and Professions" panel was certainly no different. Some of the more exciting news was that both Tailoring and Alchemy will be getting specialization trees akin to the Blacksmith/Weaponsmith/Armorsmith setup. Word on the street is that Alchemy will get three choices (Elixers, Potions, and Transmutations) but still no word on what tailors will get. There was a shouted suggestion from the back of the room for "Shadoweave Tailoring" followed by a great pause from the presenter and a mumbled "duly noted" which elicited quite a laugh from the crowd. More news on the items and professions front was that epic items will now disenchant into "nexium crystals" for the new high level enchants, new caster items will have a "proc on cast" ability, spell penetration vs spell resistance will be much more pronounced, new tier two graphics (no more placeholders!), enchanters will be getting a new UI for sorting their recipes (thank god), and the new dungeons will offer upgrades to existing spells based on your items. The only other major news to come out of this panel was the unveiling of their new profession "Jewelcrafting" which will have the ability to make necklaces, rings, crowns, and mystic gems that you can place into the new socketed items. The amount of customization and variation that the new items being worked into the game offer is quite exciting and seem to promise that World of Warcraft will remain (at least in the near future) a very dynamic experience for everyone from the casual player to the seasoned power gamer.

The general con floor offered many other distractions once I was able to tear myself away from the individual shiny bits that could have held me enthralled for several days. The vendor area was relatively small compared to most cons (especially for the amount of potential consumers) but Microsoft was in attendance and bought popularity through a live DJ, comfortable couches, and a fully stocked snack bar complete with what can only be called a butler-esque attendant. Intel, Creative, and NewEgg all had booths with computers allowing you to playtest their hardware with the new expansion which was one of the best kept secrets of the con by the players who didn't want to wait in the 3 hour expansion line. NVidia had a green screen where you could get your picture taken with your friends in one of six locations around Azeroth. Western Digital had a few shiny boxes to catch your eye, a coupon to tempt your wallet, and a flashing bouncy ball that you could annoy your hotel roommates with until the wee hours of the morning. The Penny Arcade crew was there in force with enough t-shirts for an army and indeed many of the con denizens were sporting "Rogues do it from behind" or "/spit" shirts after the first few hours of the con. Unfortunately (or fortunately I suppose) for the Penny Arcade guys, Blizzcon came equipped with TWO armies and they were pretty much sold out long before the con ended.

My last panel of the weekend was the combined Penny Arcade, PVP, and GU Comics event. The guys jumped right into questions, handling the crowd with an ease born of time in the webculture limelight. The quick wit and topical humor held the audience enthralled and laughing right up until Caydiem (one of the Blizzard moderators) called for the last question. The questions that they fielded covered a wide range of aspects but most people seemed to want to know where each of the artists drew their inspiration from. After the third or fourth rephrasing of this question Mike "Gabe" Krahulik chimed in that when looking for inspiration on a comic about a dinosaur raping someone he generally looked to Charles Shultz. Krahulik's usual deadpan delivery drew a hearty laugh from the audience and pretty much laid that particular line of questioning to rest. These panelists proved once again that they continue to keep their thumb on the pulse of the gaming community and are rewarded with the respect and adoration of many.

Regardless of how you felt about the convention itself the wrap-up concert on Saturday really helped the con go out with a bang. The act started out a little slow with an in-house act called "Level 60 Elite Tauren Chieftain" (say that 10 times fast) who seemed to be an old axel rose impersonator turned death-metal band. I admit it wasn't exactly up my alley but they made a good showing as a garage band in their first ever live performance. What a way to start, too, playing as an opening act for The Offspring and getting to use some of their cool toys. The second act was comedian Christian Finnegan who seemed content to perch himself firmly on the fence between insulting the crowd and identifying with growing up as a geek. He drew quite a few laughs but proved to be a poor segue between two pretty intense acts. This was something he commented on when he mentioned that Blizzard had put a heavy metal band on the stage to whip the crowd into a frenzy and then tossed the "worlds biggest pussy" in front of them. I am glad that he put the crowd in a generally good mood because we were forced to wait almost an hour with no explanation before The Offspring were able to take the stage. Once they took the stage, however, it was pure showmanship and excitement until the end. Approaching this concert from a geek perspective there was one thing that I couldn't help but notice, the lighting was fantastic. Now, many people may laugh at this observation but in addition to a great performance by The Offspring their lighting tech looked more like an artist painting his masterpiece than some random roadie who was just along to make the band look good. He freehanded almost as much as did with cues and it was tough to decide what to watch, the main stage or the tech stage as they were equally impressive.

Blizzcon was a great experience and a hell of a "first try" for a convention. One of the real strengths of this con was the ability for the core of Blizzard (the developers and upper management) to really make themselves available to the common man. I even noticed the president and lead developers wandering the showroom floor and stopping to talk to J. Random Citizen. This meeting of the "old guard" of Blizzard also made something that has been rather intangible in the past very clear. While the core of Blizzard that has weathered so many storms together is still just as strong as ever their "public face" is really struggling to keep up. I remember the days of beta and even early launch when the in game GM's were helpful, courteous, and knowledgeable. I even sent several glowing letters of review to their superiors because it was such a welcome change from the Sony mafioso in Star Wars Galaxies that I had just come from. A prime example of how the public relations folk are really struggling was the press/vip line during con check-in. A regular con badge could be accessed and retrieved in a matter of seconds due to a neat little database check-in program written by one of their technophiles. A press/vip pass however could only be found by thumbing through each and every pass, they didn't even have a list of who was authorized. This led to the "loss" of my badge and if it hadn't been for the use of my wife's badge (general admission) I would have missed the unveiling of the expansion, waiting until noon before they could figure things out.

We all need to remember that Blizzard is still the new kid on the MMO block and in many ways is still trying to "find themselves." The public relations department is working overtime to try and catch up to the overwhelming demand that WoW has generated and they are not doing a bad job. However, the problem comes in the fact that due to their inexperience they are trying to emulate other companies that have had some measure of success on the MMO scene, this is the worst thing that they could do. Blizzard gained a large degree of success from not doing things the same old tired way that other companies had already tried. It is my hope that Blizzard came away from this con with just as much learned as their fans did. If, in true Blizzard fashion, they were able to come up with a public relations solution that is all their own and no one else's their fans would love them for it.

I imagine that next year their organization will certainly be much more adept and they will be able to shorten their lines and wait time for many of the different attractions. Given the overwhelming attendance and success of this con I foresee many different vendors trying to get on board possibly leading to a separate vendor hall entirely which I think would help to alleviate some of the lines along with bringing more money into the con. Blizzard may be playing to a very limited audience in terms of scope, but sheer numbers and overwhelming loyalty seem to be more than enough to ensure that Blizzcon will continue to be a successful con for years to come.

Comments

gay

[Anonymous Coward]

gay

sniffle

[orson_of_fort_worth]

All that text and Firefox's Find function (it's not like I was going to read the whole thing) couldn't locate one single reference to Diablo. Oh well.

Re:sniffle

[Surt]

As a hint, you might note that they just recently shut down blizzard north. Since blizzard north was responsible for the diablo series, it would be reasonable to expect that no new diablo title is forthcoming in the next couple of years.

Re:sniffle

[TychoCelchuuu]

All the Diablo chaps went off to work on Guild Wars and Hellgate: London.

Re:sniffle

[Anonymous Coward]

shit, i did the exact same thing. i dont give a shit about wow. Just give me D3!!! What realm you play on sniffle?

Re:sniffle

[Surt]

And whatever castaway is doing, they got most of the key people really.
http://www.castawayentertainment.com/about.html

Re:sniffle

[cdmz1]

I have to agree - I recently dusted off D2X and have been really enjoying it. Great gameplay, great interface, excellent replayability (especially after 3 years). Heck the battle.net is FREE and still as good as ever. I'm too cheap to pay $40 otc and $20 mrc just to play a game. If you have not I recommend reintalling and firing up a game.

Well....off to play some D2. later on.

jsargevt

Re:sniffle

[tbmaddux]

couldn't locate one single reference to Diablo.

Doesn't the whole world get destroyed (or something to that effect) at the very end of the Lord of Destruction expansion, anyway?

Re:sniffle

[dgrgich]

LOL - this was the first thing I did as well. Great minds think alike.

Re:sniffle

[KDR_11k]

I think Tyrael makes it clear that noone really knows what exactly will happen but they know that something will happen.

Re:sniffle

[KerberosKing]

Well at least you can see ONE diablo thing at blizzcon.

New WoW alliance races.

[DrEldarion]

The horde gets the blood elves, but alliance isn't announced yet.

Rumor has it that they wanted to put the Pandaren in, but are afraid of the reaction of the Chinese to a bunch of people going around killing pandas.

Re:New WoW alliance races.

[F_Scentura]

I'm betting it'll be the Nagas.

Re:New WoW alliance races.

[Anonymous Coward]

So the chinese are okay with the killing of people, but not of pandas? :)

Re:New WoW alliance races.

[Anonymous Coward]

You DO know the history of the CCP, right?

Re:New WoW alliance races.

[Feral Bueller]

Naga please!

Re:New WoW alliance races.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.

How did the Tauren ever get in the game? Hindus don't like people killing cows, either. Seriously, seriously stupid, makes no sense whatsoever.

what a loser you are scuttle monkey

[Anonymous Coward]

" This past weekend I braved the tangled web of deceit and lies that is commercial air travel"

Then drive, self-righteous weenie. You DO have choice.

Real life "pvp"

[TimeSpeak]

With foam lances in hand, the jousters did their best to not lose their balance while trying to knock each other off of a three-foot-wide square platform
 
  Not knowing the soft "gel like substance" they landed in after being defeated was nothing but the melted transmorgified corpses of their fellow defeated gamers.

Re:Real life "pvp"

[xaque]

TRANSMOGRIFIED!!! It's spelled transmogrified!

Re:Real life "pvp"

[Anonymous Coward]

if this is a reference to harry potter I am going to kill you both.

Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[daVinci1980]

This is a post that I made on WoW's general forums a ways back, but which was silently deleted after it received several pages of responses.

---

Blizz should take a page from id's book

It really irritates me (and several people I know) that Blizz is charging $120 for a ticket to Blizzcon. Why? A little history...

Back in the 1990's, there was this company (which still exists today, actually) called id software. id had some really kickass people, and wrote several wildly popular games. You might have heard of several of them; they're names were generally single words, things like "Quake" and "Doom" (and several sequels). After id made their millions (and millions, and ...), they decided that they would start throwing an annual event to celebrate the people that had made them successful, their fans.

And thus, Quakecon (http://www.quakecon.org/) was born. Every year around August, id software throws a big ass, multi-day con for their fans. For free. FOR FREE. This past year, there were approximately 10-15,000 attendees. Over 6000 brought their computers to enjoy the largest LAN party in the western hemisphere. Attendees heard keynotes from key personnel at id, Raven, as well as many other companies, browsed through companies' newest products and got to play--for the first time ever--id's newest title Quake 4. For free.

Blizz, take a page from id's book. With revenue in the millions every month from all of your subscribers, the $120 per ticket isn't just wrong. It's plain greedy. And it's disgusting.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Anonymous Coward]

id had some really kickass people, and wrote several wildly popular games... "Quake" and "Doom"

That's several alright.

No need to exaggerate, the obvious point of your post is that you don't want to shell out the coin.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Gruneun]

I thought the same thing. I could easily afford the entrance fee, but there's a consistent, monthly charge on my account that already shows my support for their product (not to mention the new recruits dragged into that world). The conference already had a lot of big-name sponsors. Asking for additional money from their customers to be part of an event that furthers the community aspect of their own game is somewhat shameful.

I have to give them some credit. Essentially, they had a giant press conference and people paid to get in and hear their news. Most companies can't buy the kind of publicity they just got.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[daVinci1980]

I'll bite the AC troll stick.

Wolfenstein 3D, Commander Keen, Quake, Doom, Hexen, & Heretic. Plus all of the associated sequels. Actually, pound for pound, id has had more successful games than most studios.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[nnnneedles]

I suspect that with 4 MILLION WOW players, it's a way of not having too many people show up, not a way to make money.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Anonymous Coward]

Asking for additional money from their customers to be part of an event that furthers the community aspect of their own game is somewhat shameful.

As someone pointed out, WoW has 4 Million+ active subscribers. Likey, the cost is there to keep the people who don't care enough to spend $120 away.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[TrumpetX]

I attended Quakecon: 2000, 2001, 2002

I was a VIP (friends in the right places -- gogo Wino!), but IIRC, Quakecon charged for some basic services like the BYOC. It was a nominal sum like $20 or $40 to hook your comptuer up, but the actual convention was indeed free.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[dills]

You have forgotten the golden rule of business:

Do not give away that which people are willing to pay for.

Clearly $120 is not outrageous; their main problem seemed to be from too many people. Economics tells us they didn't charge ENOUGH.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[CanSpice]

Except that there are more than likely way more Quake and Doom players than WoW players.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[daVinci1980]

I have friends who've been at quakecon (in the BYOC) every year since '99. They indicate that it has been free every year. I personally have only attended 3 quakecons (all in the BYOC), in 2000, 2001, and 2005. They were free the years that I went.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Torgo's Pizza]

Technically, id Software does *NOT* host Quakecon. It's all fan driven, created and run. id Software shows up and that's about the extent of their participation.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Arkiel]

Sorry, does anyone have statistics on Blizzard's revenue? They got 4 million subscribers, but how much does that really leave them with at the end of the fiscal year? Do Chinese gamers pay the yuan equivalent of $12 a month (forgive me if this amount is off by -2 dollars)? While it seems certain that they are breaking even, they might not be in a position to suddenly lose the amount of money it would cost to manage a small-to-medium sized convention like Blizzcon. You could take this as a hopeful sign. Perhaps Blizzard has been reinvesting its profits into new, unannounced projects, or to keep the fantastic rate of new content flowing to World of Warcraft (I use fantastic having played UO, EQ, Gemstone III... pretty static by comparison). Bottom line: don't assume that a company getting millions a month ain't spending it just as quickly, and don't be a ****ing cheapskate. If nothing else, the door charge tacks on a neat disclaimer to parents who might be flustered to find they've dragged their twelve year-olds to a play where *gasp* alky-holl is served!

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Trogre]

But you have to think like a conference organizer:

A cover charge keeps the riff-raff out.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[darkmayo]

If you said counterstrike I might agree with you.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they were having problems filling the bookings. So they announced that everyone that bought a ticket would get an automatic invite into the next blizzard beta, and rounded up some fansite operators to give talks (and drag their fans there with them). Then it sold out quickly.

$120 is just greedy.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[tbradshaw]

While the staff is entirely a volunteer, id Software is definitely the host. They handle most hotel and sponsor relations, with quite a bit of input from the executive board of the volunteer staff.

Travis "Ash" Bradshaw
Director of Volunteer Services
QuakeCon

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Anonymous Coward]

COMANDER KEEN!!!!!

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but have you met a WoW player? They're fanatics. I thought I was really into FPS, playing UT2004 8 or so hours a week. These guys log in before they brush their teeth in the morning - they play more like 8 hours a DAY. At least with FPS you have to stop to eat, so you max out at 7.5...

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Maserati]

Yup, and from all accounts it was packed even at $120 a head. That's just selecting out the hardest-of-the-hardcore fans. And, if anyone wants to go to give the devs shit about something, they have to want to do it badly enough to pay $120 for the privilege of being thrown out of a Q & A session.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Maserati]

And that probably wasn't actually the wallet inspector either. Poor guy.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[daVinci1980]

You work for Blizzard, don't you? Assuming you don't, I'll answer your post. Although I only give it a 2/10 on the troll-o-meter.

Based on Blizzard's own statistics, they have approximately 1M US subscribers. Even if every one of those subscribers is paying the lowest possible rate ($12.95), blizzard is making a cool $12.95M a month. (See how that worked out?) That works out to ~$40M a quarter. Even assuming everyone else pays $0 (they don't), Blizz is still doing pretty well for this one property.

Frankly, if they are spending $40M a quarter on their hosting and content development, then they are fucked. (PS: You can say 'fuck' here, it's okay. Your mom probably isn't reading). And actually, compared to any reasonable analysis of id's revenues over the past 15 years, you'd see that Blizz is on track to make in a year what id has made during pretty much their entire tenure in the game industry.

You mention that Blizz could be reinvesting, which is certainly possible. But you fail to see how throwing a 'for-free' con is investing. It's advertising to the Nth degree. You create incredibly loyal fans, who are much more loyal and fanboish than if you make them acutely aware of your love for the almighty dollar. Also, if you consider the rate that Blizz is releasing new content to be fantastic, then I pity you. It's definitely at least an approximately acceptable rate. But fantastic? (This was where you gave away your employment, for future reference).

You also don't seem to understand how cons work, so let me explain something. Blizzard is making money from the vendors who showed up to pimp their wares. A lot of money. That's how Quakecon manages to stay free. The vendors (+id) cover the costs so that the attendees don't have to.

Bottom line: Don't assume that a company smart enough to make millions of dollars a month is stupid enough to blow through it all. And don't assume that random people on the internets are cheapskates due to their rantings about expensive tickets. Honestly, I would've bitched if the entrance fee had been $5 due to the reasons I've already mentioned. The issue is not that the prices were exhorbitant (which they were). The issue is that the con is a shill, and comparing them to the likes of id makes that obvious.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[drugdealer]

I once knew this ho, she give it away for free, man. Yeah, she good. But my new girl, she make me buy her all kinds of shit. I says to her, why can't you be like that other ho, the one who don't want nuthin'? She say, "I ain't her, asshole, now where's my coke, daddy-o?" I gots to admit, though, my new girl, she's stacked! So I took out $120 and ran on down to get my girl some blow.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Anonymous Coward]

For someone telling people not to make assumptions, you're certainly making a few yourself.. You seem pretty smart so I'll assume that you know that Blizzard is a child company of Vivendi so all of that money is not necessarily being put back into Blizzard but could be dispersed throughout a much much larger operation

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the first quakecon that was open to the public (qcon 97) required $25 :)

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[KDR_11k]

Apparently Microsoft is in their current position and on the receiving end of antitrust lawsuits because they ignored exactly that rule.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[daVinci1980]

The logic that the $120 makes sure that only the hardest-of-the-hardcore attended is broken.

Supply & Demand only promises that as the price goes up, the demand goes down. If we all had the same amount of money, then your logic would hold. But we don't. The determining factor of whether someone is willing to pay the $120 entrance fee then is opportunity costs. What does someone have to give up in order to pay the money to get in? And the wealthier you are, the lower your effective opportunity costs. (Your actual OC is the same regardless of income).

But for example, if you had budgeted the $120 on strippers and booze, that's different than someone who had budgeted that $120 for gasoline and bills.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Anonymous Coward]

Offspring ain't cheap. Did you go to the convention? What, you didn't?! Wow, you missed out. I paid around a thousand dollars in air fair, hotel and my con pass, quit complainin' about $120.
Offsprinh ain't cheap. I'm sure microsoft wasn't there for free. I'm sure those Xbox all needed to be purchased. It was their first attempt. Did you go? once again, i think you didn't. It was worth the money. As is the game. Quit complaining.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[sandwiches]

I've had the pleasure of working with Ash for the past two years while in Reg and Security and I think ID shows a great appreciation for their fans through Quakecon. I only wish Blizzard showed the same appreciation.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Arkiel]

id Software make games which, with the exception of patches, stay static and do not require an investment from them to maintain. I don't know the financial standings of either company (and apparently neither do you), but I would guess that id has a lot more assets it could liquidate quickly.

All you have done is multiply the subscription rate by the number of American subscribers, which is all fine and dandy if the game was being hosted on the client's computers. How much bandwidth does each server go through in a month, and who is providing the pipes for that? How about server resource management? How many physical units are required to run each server? I've read that all the US servers are housed in a single location despite the early time-zone segregation, but what about the European and Korean servers? How quickly do they burn through hardware? How many staff members is required to maintain each server location? How many GMs actually exist (meta or sever-specific), and how much do they get paid?

And overseas conditions, particuarly the services they provide in China, must be a great deal different. At least they haven't ratted any bloggers out yet.

Anyway, try to keep the age-related commentary to a minimum, it lowers the level of discourse. My age is immaterial, but I assure you I could order from the cash bar.

And please qualify the statement you made concerning the rate of content being published as only acceptable. With Ultima Online (up until they added the new continents), most patches were concerned with trying to figure out how to stop people from breaking in to your house. I left just as, Oh Shock!, the different colored ores were released. With Everquest, I never noticed a significant update outside of the expansions except for a few quests and minor tweaks to monks (that class and druid, I played). I would (superficially) compare the rate of content release about on level with CoH, though WoW's schedule is incremental, whereas CoH is episodic. If you are referring to AO, EQ2, Lineage 1 or 2, or AC 1 or 2, do tell, I have not played any of those titles long enough to know about their patch schedule.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Anonymous Coward]

I went and saw Metallica, Korn and Kid Rock for $75. Offspring may not be cheap, but they're no Metallica.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Anonymous Coward]

...and it sold out anyway.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[buffer-overflowed]

Bear in mind this is coming from someone who has been told many times to get a life thus far in the conversation due to his addictive gaming tendencies.

If you honestly think Blizzard isn't making a ridiculious amount of profit off of their revenue, you're insane. Because honestly I haven't seen *NEAR* enough content to suck up the kind of cash Blizz is making. With the amount of money they are pulling in, we should be seeing a significant content patch every month if they were spending even a fraction of it on that.

We're talking enough money to pay for server costs, a dozen programmers, a big-name special effects studio, and a mainstream writer's services for a month, every month, with plenty leftover.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[daVinci1980]

Hello-

First off, in a static business such as id's, patches are very expensive to make. They are effectively lost revenue, as the time you spend on patches is time you cannot spend on new, money making endeavors. For a company that's making an MMO, a patch is supposed to help you keep your existing (paying) customers, and help you attract new customers. Also, realize that the game industry is small. There's only about 30,000 of us, and we all kinda know each other. And we know each other's business.

The rate at which Blizz burns through hardware is irrelevant--they don't own the hardware they're running on. World of Warcraft is hosted by AT&T's high availability clusters (at least in the US), as reported back in press release here, and mentioned quite a lot during the closed beta.

You must realize that if an area is not going to be a commercial win for Blizzard, they are not going to provide service there. It's one of the reasons they have not added servers in Australia. They mention this on their forums time and time again.

I think you misunderstood my chastising you for not spelling out the word 'fuck.' It was not to insinuate that you were young, but rather to insinuate that when you write something like '****ing', it just makes you look foolish. Cuss words only have negative meaning because we give them negative meaning. I'm certainly not going to take less offense because you chose to write it out or not. The thought was there either way, which is what is offensive (if anything). Just write it out, and be explicit. The only people who aren't going to take offense because you wrote 'sh*t' instead of 'shit' are most likely dimwits who are too wrapped up in appearances to have interesting or meaningful opinions anyways (or moms, who always take offense at that kind of thing.. Although your opinion is very valid mom, if you're reading this).

I'm comparing the rate of content releases by Blizzard to the rate of releases by NCSoft for Guild Wars, which is--by the way--free of subscription charges. They have a million subscribers, and they manage to release 2-3 updates a month. Blizzard, on the other hand, failed to get any patches out for the first 3 months, and still--9 "major" and 2 minor patches later--has failed to address issues that were plaguing WoW during beta. Then there's also City of Heroes, which releases the equivalent of Expansion packs *for free,* and has released 6 of them since their inception. They've also released patches that are too numerous to count. The MMOs that you cite with terrible patch times are the forerunners of the MMO industry. They were--by and large--the first guys out onto the pitch. Of course they were going to take longer to patch. But compare them to any of their competitors now, and they are sadly lacking.

Oh, and before I get any comments like "if you hate it so much you should quit..." I did. I cancelled my subscription a couple of months ago. Unfortunately, I'm on the six month renewal, so I still have 'till January before my subscription actually ends. I now play WoW about an hour a week, if that. And mostly that's just because I still pay for it. (I did, however, miss the entire 1.6 and 1.7 patches as I didn't play at all during that time).

Anyways, cheers!

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Arkiel]

Guild Wars is not an MMORPG though, it is more of a semi-persistant thing. This I have played. I thought of it as a 3D Diablo, with a 3D chat interface. If you are comparing WoW's patch rate with that of GW, which is a bit shallower (though not so much as CoH), then maybe there is a problem. But from my experience, that patches are coming fast and hard. Whatever, fuck it.

Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book

[Arkiel]

Okay, new tangent that came to me after reading last response to my sub-thread. Blizzard might not have been willing to put out the money it would take to host a free event. Make something free and people will be coming out of the woodwork, and just get pissed off when all the reserved slots are filled. This happened anyway, but with a $100+ "control", things were not as intense as they might have been.

The logistical problems of putting ten thousand people through the same schedule they had printed up for this Blizzcon also could have been a problem. And finding a single structure big enough, not only to house all these people but get information to them as well.

There's also the question of whether or not you'd have enough people qualified to give presentations. Renting out a sports complex to show off 3rd-Tier armor design next year would be pretty funny, though.

You got to be kidding me

[buffer-overflowed]

What!? They can't buff paladins DPS because of those infernal bubbles. So long as they have them, and can stand up to a full 40-man assist train for their duration, allowing them to deal significant damage is so overpowered it's retarded. It's already bordering on the stupid that a damage-immune character can nail you with what amounts to a ranged execute(Hammer of Wrath), and the only way to get rid of it(which barely works), is to have a protection specced warrior hit em with a shield slam and pray for the lottery.

I can't believe blizz keeps listening to the hordes(pun-intended) of alliance whiners(like the Will of the Forsaken nerf that happened even though they swore up and down they would never nerf it). Half of whom have no understanding of group dynamics. And to make it worse they listen to the worst crop of the worst side, the suckiest of the suck, the Paladin players. Most of whom get confused if they try out any class with more than 2 buttons. The Paladin class doesn't suck, you do.

The only people who think Paladins are weak atm are people who don't have to fight them in BGs. Their lack of DPS is more than made up for with their utility(best debuff remover in game) and survivability(only healer that can survive an assist train). A single paladin can hold a position long enough for his entire team to respawn. Sure, they're incredibly boring to play at later levels, but so is a raidspec priest. The blessing change is a convienance thing, no problem there. But they should also change totems to affect the entire raid to close the PvE alliance/horde gap that's just going to worsen all that much more from the change. Paladins affect the tide of a battle not by killing, but rather by tying up opposing resources. And they're damn good at it even if that's not what they're shooting for.

What blizz SHOULD have done and SHOULD do, is open up Paladins to horde(maybe under a different name/ability names), and Shamans to alliance. Or at the minimum work on both classes at the same time and be DAMN sure they're balanced against each other in total, as they are now(Shamans better PvP, Pally's better PvE, an offensive hybrid and a defensive one). Because this side-specific class shit is both incredibly tricky and has the possibility of causing a whole side to pull out of PvP until balance is reestablished, in effect ruining it for everyone. Blizz in doing this, fell into one of the biggest pitfalls in multiplayer game design, and I still say it's been a mistake.

I for one will NOT enter a BG if Paladins can deal damage while immune. I will more than likely suspend my account or withdraw into bluebie land until that abortion of an idea is fixed, and a bunch of other primary horde players will too, worstening the side discrepancy even more(there's what, an average of 2-3 alliance to every horde across all servers, with only 2 servers having a large horde->alliance discrepancy) and ensuring the alliance doesn't get a chance to PvP.

It is nice to see that they're pulling an inverse of release with the expansion and finishing/polishing the horde first as opposed to as an afterthought. My initial characters were horde, and we really got the short end of the stick for a very long time.

I have, btw, a 60 shaman, 60 pally, 60 priest, 60 mage, and a 60 warlock all on PvP servers(all but the pally horde on the same server). I have access to(and have played via character swap with guildies) a 60 rogue, a 60 warrior, and a 60 druid. The only class I can't stand is the hunter.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[Anonymous Coward]

I have, btw, a 60 shaman, 60 pally, 60 priest, 60 mage, and a 60 warlock all on PvP servers(all but the pally horde on the same server). I have access to(and have played via character swap with guildies) a 60 rogue, a 60 warrior, and a 60 druid. The only class I can't stand is the hunter.

Now you only need a life. Complaining here just shows how sick you are.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[quarrel]

Cry more noob ! :)

Re:You got to be kidding me

[Frangible]

Oh don't worry, they've said they will be nerfing our "extreme durability" for more "controllable DPS". Great for the noob whiners on the paladin forum who expect rogue damage output I suppose.

Paladins are a defensive support healer, why are they breaking the class into some sort of mediocre damage dealer? I don't really want to sacrifice the few things I do well to suck less, but still suck, in DPS. I'm cool with playing a defensive support healer, that's why I picked the class, if I wanted to be a DPS class I would've rolled a rogue.

-60 paladin

Re:You got to be kidding me

[Anonymous Coward]

Your $10/month will be missed.

Warm Regards,

Blizzard Management

Re:You got to be kidding me

[buffer-overflowed]

Actually that's only about 1/2 an hour a day to get 6 characters to 60 over the almost year since release. I probably put in an average of 3-4 a day. It's what I do instead of watching TV.

But, yea, I am sick. MMOs are the devil.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[buffer-overflowed]

I still don't think Blizz knows what they're doing with the Pally class, or hybrids in general(buffing individual aspects of them to close to pure-class levels, which is getting really insane for classes like druids).

I would've started on the judgement system(which is mostly busted), and then started to play up the sheer annoyance and confusion a pally can inflict on massed horde in large scale PvP. Give em an on-death ability like priests have, which either does a heal or an AoE short-duration stun. Stuff like that.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[Frangible]

All I really wanted was for buffing to not suck, and maybe judgements to be useful (last for a couple minutes, take less mana?). I don't think paladins suck, and it's going to make me cry if the class gets gimped for a small DPS boost. Even shaman DPS isn't that great, and I don't think it will be higher than theirs.

And honestly, I think druids needed those buffs, but I don't like the fundamental design of the druid class in WoW in general.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[traid]

You have way too much free time if you have that many 60s. Paladins can deal dmg while immune very very slowly (50% decreased attack speed). They don't deal much dmg in the first place so... that's pretty irrelevent. Tying up resources in PvP? Just don't attack the paladin when it's bubbled. Not a hard concept. You can tell when it's bubbled, move on to another target. Do you stop attacking a mage when it's mana shielded or a priest when it's shielded? Mages and priests can attack while shielded at full force. The hammer can only be used below 20% life and uses more than 300 mana. If you are at the end of a big battle where you are healing you generally don't have 300 mana left to cast it. Comparing it to execute is pretty lame. I would love to have an Alliance Shaman so the Horde can finally see how stupidly powerful the Shaman is. Take away their mail armor and give them leather at level 40 instead and we'll call it even. Please suspend your account so we don't have to hear you whine in game. Thanks.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[Anonymous Coward]

Paladins = auto-attack = boring as hell.

even PRIESTS, the uber healers, can do awesome dmg.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[buffer-overflowed]

Shaman lottery burst DPS is insane(a series of windfury procs is like the hand of god coming down). And their ability to control-burst DPS is pretty decent via shocks, but all in all their consistant DPS isn't *that* much higher than a paladin's.

Judgements do suck, and they should really be fixed. So do blessings(inconvienant as hell), totems(party only and cost a lot of mana), inner fire for priests(3 min duration and provides attack power!?), and shards not stacking for warlocks(which is because of soulfire, but still sucks).

The problem with druids, is they've been buffed too far now. A feral druid in mainly blues now hits for 400, critting for 800, with higher AC than most warriors. They can out-MT-heal a priest and have a decent mana pool in caster gear. They can break CC via shapeshifting. They have access to the most powerful ability in the game, stealth, by default, and now, via feral, can effectively dish out almost as much damage as a rogue. It's really starting to get very, very silly as they've almost become a priest/rogue/warrior all rolled into one. IMO, a pure-class should blow a hybrid out of the water when it comes to what they specialize in(since they do little else) and specced appropriately. Warriors for tanking, Rogues for melee DPS, priests for healing.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[Anonymous Coward]

spend that time coding and furthering the OSS movement.
that'll cure you

Re:You got to be kidding me

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

I'll interject with the official Official WoW Forums response to a post like this:

O RLY?

Re:You got to be kidding me

[SatanicPuppy]

You know, I kinda thought they might be angling to open up the Paladins to the Horde and the Shaman's to the Alliance through their choice of new races. Blood Elven paladins aren't that much of a stretch and Pandarin shamans seem almost a given.

I certainly don't have a problem with it. I'd love to see the diehard Horde types play the freaking Paladin that they sooo incessantly complain about, and vice versa with the alliance and the supposedly unstoppable shamans.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry I call bs. It has become documented by many players that it takes the most hardcore of players only 8 days playtime to reach 60 with casual players like you are trying to claim to be on up to 16+ days. This comes out to be 192 hours. If you played only 1/2 an hour a day you'd have to play 384 days on one character. If you played more like what it sounds, 4 hours a day at least, it would take you 48 days to reach 60 with one character, which would mean it would take you 284 days to get 6 characters to 60.

I'm sorry, but in reality you've probably logged 6-8+ hours daily since 8 days was only for the most hardcore.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[gknoy]

Yeah, that's givin' him the bird ... :D

Re:You got to be kidding me

[Frangible]

The same applies to Seal of Command, really... get a lucky string of procs/crits and you'll get lots of "O RLY?"s from people. Anyway though, I think the current druid issues extend back to the core design of the class, you either make them so close an analog to the classes they shift between they are an acceptable substitute, or not so close and unacceptable. It was thought perhaps the ability to shift between roles would make up for not doing a role acceptably, but this turned out to be untrue.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[SatanicPuppy]

I call bullshit. It took me about nine days of playing time to get to level 60 with ONE character, and thirty minutes a day for 365 days is only about 8 days of total time, which is a hell of a lot less than the average amount of time it takes to hit sixty.

Your amazing ability to level 6 characters to 60 in 80% of the time it takes a normal insane WoW junkie to hit 60 with ONE character, leads me to the only possible conclusion: No freaking way.

Taking a relatively low amount of time to 60 (ten days) and multiplying it by 6 gives me 60 days, otherwise known as 2 months, which, spread out over a year would indicate a minimum of four hours a day, and you'd have to instantly stop playing a lvl 60 as soon as you hit 60, and move on to the next one, something which seems utterly pointless and unlikely.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[buffer-overflowed]

Not really, I put in about 3-4 hours a day since release(it's been almost a year). It's what I do on weeknights and early mornings/afternoons on weekends now instead of watching TV or playing around on the internet. WoW is easy to level in. Takes about 20 days of playtime for your first 60 and you can get additional 60s in 9-10 days of playtime. Plus me and my roommate(a chef, keeps insane hours) played each other's alts. Oh and I took two weeks off work to powerlevel characters, because I know how I get with these games(It's not pretty, I'm a sick, sick individual).

I have fought shamans, as alliance(on a pally) and as horde via duels. I've played both sides of the fence. Try playing the other side, you'll see how balanced things actually are.

Priest and Mage shields are: A. Dispellable, and B. Do not scale with gear progression. While Power Word Shield used to be great, it's now taken out in less than a hit in the end game, and you can't chain cast it(even multiple targets, as it has a cooldown). Mage shields, AKA mana shield, drain mana for each hit, quickly, and are comparably weak. Mana is the very thing a mage needs to be useful, and if you're considering mana shield, mana shield probably isn't going to save you(it sucks, bad). There is also no gear in the game that improves either of these abilities. Pally shields are time based, and thus DO SCALE. They always protect the pally for the same amount of time regardless of how much damage that pally is taking and regardless of a paladin's gear. They're also, in the case of Divine Shield, reactive. They can break magic-based CC. They are equally effective against 1 person and 40 epic-geared people. The two classes of shields are not comparable in utility.

I can tell that if you even play the game, you're evidentally part of the teeming horde of incredibly shitty paladins, and I have no desire to educate you on how to be effective. I'll just say that the actual problems with the paladin class are not the ones bitched about by your ilk.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[buffer-overflowed]

SoC seems to do it less often than Windfury does. But yea, they're *about* equivalent.

Anyway, druids, the problem I have with that concept is, why would I play something other than a druid now? I can fill in for any of 3 roles. What do those 3 core-classes get that puts them above and beyond a druid? So far, nothing. By elevating the druid class, they've demeaned all the classes the druid can fill in for. Priests(which is my main and original character) especially are pretty pissed off about it, because we feel if we go raidspec we should make a druid healer look like a sick joke, and their big thing in a raid(if they go that way) is supporting us via innervate.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[SatanicPuppy]

Well, having recently rebuilt a druid to be all feral, which is the pure melee tree for those who don't know druids, I can definitely say my healing has gone to hell. It's not like being a pally, where you can fight and heal at the same time. I can fight, OR I can heal, and my heals aren't anywhere near as effective.

Mind you, I freaking rule in melee. But I'm not as good a rogue as a rogue, and I'm not as good a fighter as a fighter. And the lack of a real focus bites you in the ass, as often as not.

I'll be interested to see what they can do with the pally specializations. Right now you either get a little good damage dealing with Retribution (and pay for it by being gimpy in instances), or you get solid defense with Protection, and pay for it by having zero DPS. If you go 100% Holy, you're roadkill.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[buffer-overflowed]

Ehh I fucked up my math, and me and my roommate played each other's alts. I put in about 3-4 hours a day on a typical day, not counting the two weeks straight of 18 hour WoW days I put in for my "vacation." It took me 20 days to hit 60 on my first character, 15 on my other-side char, and around 9 a pop of playtime per alt. Average is around 5 hours a day, not all of it put in by me.

And yea, only one of my characters, my initial one, is effectively geared up with anything other than BoEs.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[Omestes]

Meh, I quit playing awhile ago because being a druid was so tedious in group (heal more). Perhaps I should go back now, seems like they finally made us viable, are druids still forced to heal after the patch? If yes, then you don't have to worry about them being over powered, since they aren't allowed to play still.

If not, you still don't have to worry much, since they can't do EVERYTHING, when in feral they have no mana, so just try to out last them, they'll run out of heals quick enough. In their in caster gear, just trinket out of roots, they have no armor AC. If in MK, then they have no health whatsoever.

It's a gear class, you need to compensate for their gear, not their abilities.

Perhaps you should be bitching about shammies? They are the ALPHA overpowered hybrid. We were the underpowered one, we got buffed, next is pallies, meaning we will be underpowered again. :)

Re:You got to be kidding me

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the way the trees are made, you really don't get more dps from retribution than from protection.

The retribution tree is crap. Vengeance is better with fast weapons - but seal of command, the only realistic pvp damage seal, requires a slow weapon to be any good. Contrast that with enrage or flurry. Conviction, the 5 point melee crit talent is tier *6* compared to the much lower tiers other classes. Improved retribution aura gives *1* extra damage per talent point (5 point talent)! Anticipation, which increases the defense skill is in the retribution tree, which makes no sense at all (neither does improved retribution aura, despite the name. It fits the theme of protection far better). I could go on.

The paladin trees are horseshit and have been from the beginning.

Dead on about holy, though. That's the worst of the three trees. A tier six talent that gives +10% strength? What the fuck were they smoking? Sanctity aura's 10% extra holy damage is almost NEVER better than unimproved retribution aura in terms of increased dps, despite sanctity being a tier 5 talent and having no extra utility.

There's no way paladin changes should have waited this long - the paladin as it is shouldn't have made it through beta. Period.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[peteMG]

rest bonus ftw!

Re:You got to be kidding me

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't you fucking idiots say (type) the word "paladin"?

Re:You got to be kidding me

[Maserati]

Druids are good to have around. We've had 6 or 7 shammies in a 20-man and at most 2 druids, if any. A couple people now have druid alts coming up, myself included. We recently recruited a druid who insisted on /ginvites for his warrior and rogue buddies. We might not have taken some random warrior or rogue, but for a druid ? We took 'em gladly.

Druids are, like shammies, a jack of all trades class. Much more than shammies, they are dependent on gear and spec to succeed in their chosen path. A shammie can cast heals while Earthshock is on cooldown, but a druid in her healing gear can't pick up a Core Hound if the MT goes down. A druid realy has to pick a path and stick to it, or be prepared to respec often and carry an extra set of gear.

We, incidentally, are The Steel Pack on Bonechewer. Come get some. I'm Khalgrim.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[Anonymous Coward]

bro. get a life!

Re:You got to be kidding me

[Omestes]

I can MT a hound in healing, sadly I can only do it for 20secs.

I really have been avoiding WoW, perhaps I should head back and give Panthra some lovin'.

Re:You got to be kidding me

[Slime-dogg]

I find it amusing that there is actually a serious discussion of Pallies and dps. The protection and holy trees are the only trees worth using, because any thought of increasing a pally's dps is completely, and utterly stupid.

If you wanted a dps class, you should have rolled a rogue, warrior, shadow priest, or mage. Hunters figure in there somewhere, too.

"Excellence"

[schon]

the result was nothing less than the level of excellence that we have come to expect from Blizzard

You mean they had you sign a release promising them the right to run spyware on your comptuer, then filed a bogus copyright lawsuit against you? :o)

Re:"Excellence"

[Thats_Pipe]

Why do people still believe Blizz is running spyware on their computers? It was shown(months ago, by the way) that the alleged program just makes a hash of your running proccesses to check that they weren't altered to allow for cheating in WoW. No personal info of any kind can be retrieved from a hash, NONE; it is not spyware like the crap 180solutions will install on your PC. It says in their EULA that they do it and that they will prosecute anyone they find by this method that is trying to cheat. Learn the whole story behind something before spouting it off as truth.

Re:"Excellence"

[schon]

Well, I *was* gonna say "they made you change your name, then filed a bogus copyright lawsuit against you", but I changed it because it was funnier. Looks like I made the right decision.

Re:"Excellence"

[Peter La Casse]

Why do people still believe Blizz is running spyware on their computers?

Exactly. The problem is that the license lets Blizzard do so if they wanted to, and that most people simply click "I agree" without reading what they're agreeing to, not a case of actual spyware being installed, as far as we know.

Personally, I think the license thing reflects less poorly on Blizzard than the bnetd lawsuit, but that's just me.

Re:"Excellence"

[Anonymous Coward]

People have the software running on the computer because the Warden is already installed on your computer with the patch BEFORE the user is presented with the EULA. This is halmark to trespass. The analogy is this - your neighbor opens the door to your house, quietly searches through your things, checks what he finds against a list of items he believes you stole from him, then quitely leaves without disturbing anything, but leaving a note on the door saying "I hope it was ok that I rifled through your house. Although I didn't find anything, I hope you're not mad." Yes, there are no 4th amendment issues because this is a private actor, like Blizzard, but you would still call the police. Why? Trespass. And no, you cannot consent to a violation of the law after the fact.

I canceled my account after finding the monitoring language when it first came out, and I can tell you that it was not highlighted in any way, nor was it flagged as an addition or put at the top of the agreement. Rather it was buried in a secondary agreement incorporated by reference, and was written in such vague terms that you wouldn't even expect to be agreeing to the installation of monitoring software. I just referenced the current version of the agreement, and everything is still couched in vague terms "may monitor" or "may" do this or that. In fact, as the agreement is written, I don't think you can fully argue that, by agreeing, a user consents to the installation of monitoring software - the nature and operation of which isn't even described.

Sure, if Blizzard included language akin to (by the way, I would only allow download and installation of the patch after the user agreed to the EULA if I were Blizzard's attorney):

"User agrees to allow Blizzard to install and access memory-resident software for the purpose of monitoring and extracting information from processes and programs running concurrent with World of Warcraft. (add in some disclaimers about possibility of encountering personal information, and how the software compiles and analyzes its info, and that is it phone-home capable)"

then people could make a properly informed decision about whether to consent to the agreement and installation of software onto their systems. Until such time, Blizzards behaviour, like that behind most EULA's, it unethical and, depending on how you structure your argument, potentially unconscionable.

BNetD

[s0abas]

...the result was nothing less than the level of excellence that we have come to expect from Blizzard.

Need I remind everyone of the BNetD case?

For those to lazy to read TFA, Blizzard took these guys to court for reverse engineering and creating a Battle.Net client. In the end, it was ruled that the EULA overrides personal rights. Rediculous IMO.

Re:BNetD

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that Mr. Florian Mueller (who I'm sure many slashsheep will be voting for) worked for Blizzard and supports them in their case against reverse engineering.

Re:BNetD

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Slashdot for you. Blizzard abuse the DMCA (until we feel like fawning over their latest game), DVDs include evil DRM (until we want to buy the latest Firefly DVDs), Amazon abuse the patent system (but we'll happily promote them for the few bucks we make from referral fees)... the list goes on. They'll be giving Adobe free advertising next.

Re:BNetD

[Sheetrock]

You can try.

Sometimes it even works, until the next game comes out. Then you might as well ask most of us to give up a limb.

At least as far as western culture goes, short term interest is the only consideration on the table. It takes a little dignity to stop buying from a company that offends you, but you'll find none here -- people would rather come to the point of arguing in favor of the EULA rather than recognizing their hypocracy... or heaven forbid going to the extreme of finding another game to buy from a company that didn't just attack an Open Source project.

Re:BNetD

[Overly Critical Guy]

Yeah, isn't it funny how in one article, all the Slashdotters will bitch and complain about "evil corporations" (never mind that Slashdot is owned by a Linux-selling corporation), copyright, DMCA, etc. Read all the rallying cries in the Bnetd articles of the past. But in another article, they become 12-year-old gamers again and jump up and down over anything Blizzard says?

But hey, they're throwing a Blizzcon, and you're just so addicted to WoW! Better write a long-ass article on Slashdot about it! Free advertising!

Re:BNetD

[Omestes]

Boohoo!
I didn't care then, I sure as heck don't care now.

Oh no! Some asshats violated a contract! Oh no! They had to stop doing it!

Damn Blizz for protecting their IP! How dare they!

Re:BNetD

[NanoGator]

" Blizzard took these guys to court for reverse engineering and creating a Battle.Net client."

Your summary should include the bit where BNetD ended up circumventing Blizzard's copy protection scheme. I'm supposed to boycott Blizzard even though these guys had absolutely no reason to act surprised for both being sued and losing the case.

Re:BNetD

[VGPowerlord]

...the result was nothing less than the level of excellence that we have come to expect from Blizzard.

Need I remind everyone of the BNetD case?

For those to lazy to read TFA, Blizzard took these guys to court for reverse engineering and creating a Battle.Net client. In the end, it was ruled that the EULA overrides personal rights. Rediculous IMO.

No, Blizzard took them to court for creating a Battle.Net server. The Battle.Net client is built into the games that support it.

I can see why they sued, too. Most of a Blizzard product's life cycle is as a multiplayer game. Battle.Net is a free online service that you could connect to... provided you had a real CD key, as, unlike the game itself, Blizzard has a list of valid CD keys, rather than relying on an algorithm to check them.

BNetD, on the other hand, had no CD key requirement. Surprise! The DMCA says that you can't bypass anti-circumvention technique, of which Battle.Net's CD key check qualifies.

Re:BNetD

[narfbot]

You don't know what a copy protection scheme is if you think Battle.net was one.

All battle.net was, was a game match-making service. It only came out after the lawsuit that they said it was any different. But in reality there are only two types of copy protection.

1) CD-KEY
2) A very convuluted method of checking if the disk is in the drive.

To pirate a copy of the game all you need to do is
1) Copy the game
2) Obtian a sufficiently working key
3) Apply a no cd crack

That's it. You can play multiplayer, single player all you want. YOU DON'T NEED BNETD, YOU NEVER DID. It's a lie that bnetd enabled pirating.

All battle.net did was check to make sure you weren't logged in twice, that doesn't constitute any towards a protection--although back when bnetd was written, battle.net allowed more than one connection because how buggy it was. Battle.net could check for modified executables, but that can by bypassed by more crafty methods, but that's besides the point because you don't need to connect to battle.net or bnetd to play the game.

If all people cared about was playing online, then all is required is a /tunnel/. Yes, it is simpler than you could even think. That was what zone.com, heat.net, and kali used (last of which got some people jobs at blizzard). Then why go through all the work of reverse engineering the battle.net prototcol if the ability to play online is already there? Question two, how do I play online if battle.net doesn't work? Question three, how can I form a community of players? It's because the bnetd authors got the idea, why not use the existing facilities of battle.net and provide alternate servers. That how we can use the match-making capabilities and provide a server that works when blizzard's doesn't. That would make reverse engineering the protocol worthwhile. The bnetd authors weren't in it for pirating, they were doing it because they wanted to play online.

You could argue that the EULA prevents it, but you must consider once again, they weren't pirating the game and they weren't a mechanism for pirating the game. So all we have here is an obscure contract fight that accomplished nothing except destroyed our rights at the point of sale. Point proven is that there are still people pirating the games anyways, bnetd and several derivatives still exist (after all, bnetd never worked with Warcraft 3). But there are a few less blizzard customers.

Re:BNetD

[narfbot]

By that logic, you could call blizzard's own installer a method at circumvention. With it's loose checking and a generator, you can get the program to install the game without any fuss. Now that's the DMCA violation your looking for. Now the copyright infringer can go on and play online using a tunnel a simulate a LAN where is doesn't and cannot ever check the CD-KEY. I don't see where bnetd is a problem here, but the game itself allows it.

(Hint: there is no such thing as copy protection, only lame attempts. The only thing that exists is the EULA and goodwill of the user. True, bnetd is against the EULA, but you cannot argue it as a violation of the DMCA when the system was already broken. The only thing we have therefore is goodwill of the people and blizzard has made millions from it to show.)

Re:BNetD

[NanoGator]

"That's it. You can play multiplayer, single player all you want. YOU DON'T NEED BNETD, YOU NEVER DID. It's a lie that bnetd enabled pirating."

Um. Heh. BNetD didn't authorize any keys. Pirated copies could be played on it without any challenges.

"All battle.net did was check to make sure you weren't logged in twice, that doesn't constitute any towards a protection"

Blizzard frequently blacklisted keys.

Re:BNetD

[AsiNisiMasa]

Yeah, different people feel differently about the points being discussed. You don't expect the entire community to come to a consensus and then stricty follow it, do you?

Re:BNetD

[Pofy]

>But in reality there are only two types of copy protection.
>
>1) CD-KEY

That is not a copy protection, it is an access protection, quite different. You can make a million copies of both the game and the CD-key and the fact that there is CD_key doesn't prevent the making of copies.

>2) A very convuluted method of checking if the disk is in the
>drive.

That is also an access check. Although the fact that the CD is created in such a way so that you can't just copy it normally IS a copy protection.

Re:BNetD

[Pofy]

>Your summary should include the bit where BNetD ended up
>circumventing Blizzard's copy protection scheme.

What scheme? What bnetd did was create an alternative to battle.net, nothing else. It doesn't affect the ability to copy any game (or play it) nor does it affect anything that controls the copying or access of the game.

Re:BNetD

[Pofy]

>BNetD, on the other hand, had no CD key requirement. Surprise!
>The DMCA says that you can't bypass anti-circumvention
>technique, of which Battle.Net's CD key check qualifies.

Sorry, but the protection has to be for a work, and you have to circumvent it to access the work. What work was accessed and what protection was circumvented? None. WHat they did was make an alternative server you could connect to. Nothing more, nothing less. No protection was circumvent to access or copy anything. The only new work accessed was their own alternative server. Game access (the client) is something the player allread has, with or without either battle.net or bnetd. That is controlled by the CD-key (which you need to install and playe the game to start with) and the CD itself. Bnetd doesn't affect any of this. Sure, to access battle.net there is an additional check on the cd-key, but then bnetd doesn't make you access battle.net at all so that protection is not circumvented, it makes you access their own work, bnetd.

Re:BNetD

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn Blizz for protecting their IP!

If you want to protect your IP, you install a firewall, not prosecute someone to oblivion.

Blizzard should have lost and bnetd upheld. Reverse-engineering a protocol should hardly be considered wrong, and the criteria to apply reverse-engineering censorship should be restricted to cases where it really matters e.g. national security, not protecting cash-cows.

However, clients using a copy of the Diablo 2 client to connect to a bnetd COULD be considered wrong since THEY agree to an "EULA=CONTRACT", which was NOT the case of the bnetd folks, since they could as well just have dreamed about how the bnet protocol works and implemented it like hand of god or whatever - you can't prove they actually clicked at an EULA. Blizzard should have gone after whoever connects to bnetd's, not the bnetd makers themselves. They just didn't admit that they lost to technology, much as RIAA/MPAA try to put down torrent sites since they can't admit that they lost on moral grounds, so their lobbyists come up with laws that have no moral or philosophical grounds like DMCA which are just weapons to protect their cash-cows.

People, laws should make SENSE first and foremost. Bnetd was right.

Re:BNetD

[NanoGator]

"It doesn't affect the ability to copy any game (or play it) nor does it affect anything that controls the copying or access of the game."

Blizzard blacklisted pirated keys so they couldn't be used on Battle Net. Yes, it was copy protection, and yes BNetD circumvented it, and yes they were irritatingly stupid for getting themselves into that trouble.

Re:BNetD

[Pofy]

>Blizzard blacklisted pirated keys so they couldn't be used on Battle Net.

So??? battle.net is irellevant since bnetd doesn't have you play in battle..net. It has nothing to do with copy protection either.

>Yes, it was copy protection,

Of what?

>and yes BNetD circumvented it,

Circuvented what and copying of what? If there is no copying going on, there can't be any circumvention of copy protection. Alternatively there is some access of a protected work that is going on, if not, there is no circumvetion of access control either. So what access are you talking about going on when someone create bnetd, or alternatively, use bnetd??? None.

Re:BNetD

[NanoGator]

"Circuvented what and copying of what?"

Oh brother. Is it really so fashionable to hate Blizzard around here that people are willing to throw common sense out the window to try to win on pedantic terms?

It was copy protection. Plain and simple. Inarguable. Online play is the main attraction of their games. They provided the service for playing online. They blacklisted pirated keys. This prevented illegal copies from being played online (before BNetD). This is copy protection. It protected the game from illegal copies being used on-line. Copies that were illegal were not allowed to play. Illegal copies could not be played on Battle Net. Not legal could copies pirated be. How many ways does this have to be phrased for the thicker people to get this extraordinarily simple concept? If I copied the game, gave it to a friend, and he used my code, and we used it at the same time, one of us would get booted. Copy.... protection... D U H.

How much lower are you going to sink in order to paint Blizzard as the bad guy here?

Re:BNetD

[Pofy]

>Oh brother. Is it really so fashionable to hate Blizzard around here that people are willing to throw
>common sense out the window to try to win on pedantic terms?

Who said I hate Blizzard? I don't, I have and still play several of their games.

>It was copy protection. Plain and simple. Inarguable.

Copy protection has to protect a work (that has copyright). For there to be a circumvention, you need to either access or copy that work (otherwise you have obviously not circumvente4d any protection). So the question I posed is relevant and you fail to answer it. A copy protection of WHAT is it that bnetd circumvent? That is, what work (that is protected) would you not be able to access or copy and so , in case you had not had bnetd? Since otherwsie you can't argue that bnetd is corcumveting any protection, now can you?

>Online play is the main attraction of their games. They provided the service for playing online.

So, who is arguing that?

> They blacklisted pirated keys.

So fine? They can do whatever they want with their service (battle.net). What does that have to do with bnetd? If you use bnetd, you are not using battle.net, you are not connecting to it and is not doing anything with battle.net.

> This prevented illegal copies from being played online (before BNetD).

No, it prevents them from playing on battle.net. You can still play them, single player or through other means which is appearant since there is no need to do ANYTHING with such copies to be able to play. The blacklisting (which is hardly a copy protection) is an access protection for battle.net. Nothing else. For it to be circumvented, you need to be able to access battle.net anyway. Bnetd doesn't allow you to do that, so it can't circumvent that protection. It is an ALTERNATIVE to battle.net, nothing else.

>This is copy protection.

No, it is acces protection of battle.net. You can copy the game just as easy if the cd-key is blacklisted or not.

> It protected the game from illegal copies being used on-line.

See above, it prevents such copies from playing on battle.net. Otherwise they are fully usable and playable in every aspect, including multi player over the net. The blacklisting doesn't affect the client, it just makes the battle.net not accepting connection. The client is fully working anyway.

> How many ways does this have to be phrased for the thicker people to get this extraordinarily simple
>concept?

No one is arguing about you about that. It prevents battle.net play. End of story, what does that have to do with bnetd? Nothing.

> If I copied the game, gave it to a friend, and he used my code, and we used it at the same time, one >of us would get booted. Copy.... protection... D U H.

If it were copy protection, you would not be able to copy it to start with. DUH! Since you maned it is not copy protection. DUH! How hard is THAT to understand? Since you both can't connect to battle.net, it is acces protection for BATTLE.NET (nothing else). DUH! How many ways does this have to be phrased for you to get this extraordinarily simple concept?

>How much lower are you going to sink in order to paint Blizzard as the bad guy here?

In what way am I painting the as a bad guy?

Re:BNetD

[NanoGator]

"That is, what work (that is protected) would you not be able to access or copy and so , in case you had not had bnetd?"

Playing on-line.

"What does that have to do with bnetd?"

The key appeal of their games was playing on-line. That was the reason to play the game. Few people bought that game so they could play the one-player mode. It's like protecting a bicycle from being stolen by removing its seat. Sure, the bike can still be stolen, but who wants a pole up their butt?

"No, it is acces protection of battle.net. You can copy the game just as easy if the cd-key is blacklisted or not."

If you cannot play the copy on-line, then for most people, it's totally worthless. Again, this is a very simple easy-to-understand premise. Yes, the CD key was copy protection. You can spin it any way you want, the end result was that the game was harder to pirate as a result of Battle Net + CD Keys. Then BNetD came along and gave value to those pirated keys. They.... enabled.... piraaaaaaaaaacy.

"If it were copy protection, you would not be able to copy it to start with."

Right. A worthless copy was made. That's successful copy protection.

"Since you both can't connect to battle.net, it is acces protection for BATTLE.NET (nothing else). "

Heh. Nothing else? They blacklisted widely pirated keys. Doh. What's really amusing about this comment is the idea that Blizzard would say "OKay, make sure this system ONLY and I mean ONLY prevents duplicate keys from being accessed at the same time. Do NOT enforce copy protection in any way with it." Oh, by the way, they actually did blacklist a number of pirated keys. Your claim of 'nothing else' is factually false.

"DUH! How many ways does this have to be phrased for you to get this extraordinarily simple concept?"

It'd help if you could make this statement without intentionally ignoring the on-line importance of Blizzard's games.

Re:BNetD

[Pofy]

>Playing on-line.

Playing online is not a "work". The DMCA covers protection that protects a work only, not a "mode" such as online play. Besides as I allready said, you can play online anyway since the protection only applies to battle.net. Did you not read what I wrote? Online play works perfectly in any case. The protection you talk about, your CD-keys ONLY controls ACCESS to battle.net, it does NOT conrol COPYING of the game and it does NOT control online play in general. This is evident since someone who has its cdkey blacklisted by battle.net, can copy the game, install the game, play the game single player and play the game multiplayer (online) without having to do anything. So indeed you can still play online as much as you want.

>The key appeal of their games was playing on-line. That was the reason to play the game.

Which is irrelevant really. We are talking about a supposed circumvenmtion of a protection.

>If you cannot play the copy on-line, then for most people, it's totally worthless. Again, this is a
>very simple easy-to-understand premise.

You are confusing "playing online" with "playing on battle.net". They are not the same. Playing on battle.net is only one of the many online possibilities and the only one the protection controls. Hence, any other type of online play does not circumvent that protection. I think I made that clear in my last post yet so seem to ignore it.

> Yes, the CD key was copy protection. You can spin it any way you want, the end result was that the
>game was harder to pirate as a result of Battle Net + CD Keys.

Battle net has nothing to do with copying, the game is just as easy to copy with or without battle net and its checks. It might be harder to ACCESS battle.net, but that has nothing to do with copying. How hard is it to understand?

>They.... enabled.... piraaaaaaaaaacy.

Enabling piracy is in itself not something the DMCA covers, it covers such things as circumventing a copy protection or an access protection. You may wish it said something else, but it doesn't. in addition, bnetd does not enable piracy sine any piracy (I assume you mean the copying of the game ilegally) is made with or without bnetd, bnetd does not help you copy it at all. You seem to have no clue what bnetd is. It is a server program with which anyone can offer a service similar to battle.net. Nothing else. It has nothing to do with the client, its copying or anything realted.

>Right. A worthless copy was made. That's successful copy protection.

How is it worthless? It is completely and fully functional and working in all possible ways!!! You could in fact even play with it on battle.net (although not at the same time as anyone else using the same CD-key). But the same can be said with the original in fact. So I fail to see your "worthlessness".

>Heh. Nothing else? They blacklisted widely pirated keys. Doh. What's really amusing about this comment
>is the idea that Blizzard would say "OKay, make sure this system ONLY and I mean ONLY prevents
>duplicate keys from being accessed at the same time. Do NOT enforce copy protection in any way with it.
>" Oh, by the way, they actually did blacklist a number of pirated keys. Your claim of 'nothing else' is
>factually false.

So what is this "else" you talk about then? Because the only thing the check of cd-keys on battle.net do is control if you are allowed to connect to it or not. You seem to have some strange idea that it can remotly disable the game, or that a blacklist of the sd-key on battle.net sudenly makes my copying program not work with Diablo 2 (or any other of the games Blizzard have). I can tell you it has no such effect though. So what is this "else" you talk about?

>It'd help if you could make this statement without intentionally ignoring the on-line importance of
>Blizzard's games.

The improtance of the online is irellevant. The relevant things is what the protection protects, and if i

Re:BNetD

[NanoGator]

" The protection you talk about, your CD-keys ONLY controls ACCESS to battle.net, it does NOT conrol COPYING of the game and it does NOT control online play in general."

For all practical purposes, it most certainly does prevent on-line play. Newer releases of Star Craft, for example, rejected black-listed keys during install. Copy protection.

"How is it worthless? It is completely and fully functional and working in all possible ways!!! You could in fact even play with it on battle.net (although not at the same time as anyone else using the same CD-key). But the same can be said with the original in fact. So I fail to see your "worthlessness"."

Blacklist. No battle.net. Worthless. That's why BNetD was created in the first place.

"The improtance of the online is irellevant. The relevant things is what the protection protects, and if it is circumvented when someone uses bnetd."

Just to be clear: I'm not talking about the DMCA here. I don't think it was properly used. I'm not talking about copyrights, I'm talking about whether or not copy protection was circumvented. It was circumvented. Illegally attained games could not connect to battle.net, but they could be connected to BNetD. If you don't like the word 'circumvented' fine, I don't care, you can have that. My point was that BNetD wasn't guily of violating the DMCA. My point was those idiots bypassed a system Blizzard had in place to keep the copies played legit. I don't feel sorry for them for kicking Blizzard in the butt, giving them the raspberry, then suddenly finding themselves in court. It should never have happened in the first place.

Re:BNetD

[Pofy]

>For all practical purposes, it most certainly does prevent on-line play. Newer releases of Star Craft,
>for example, rejected black-listed keys during install. Copy protection.

No, access protection. You can still create as many copies as you want. In addition, this seems to imply that you cna't install the game if you are not online or it would not work. However, this has nothing to do with bnetd, since bnetd would not in any way make it possible to install that game anyway. That cd-key check is built into the client/installer and exists regardless of bnetd.

>Blacklist. No battle.net. Worthless.

The game itself (the one you have on your computer) still work fully. You can still play both single and multiplayer on it. It is not affected.

>That's why BNetD was created in the first place.

Yes, but bnetd doesn't make it possible to connect to battle.net, now do it? It doesn't affect your client at all really. It is an alternative. Alternatives are not "circumvention". I don't circumvent anything if I go out and use something else instead.

>Just to be clear: I'm not talking about the DMCA here.

Then you are completely lost because it is the DMCA that deals with protection and the circumvention of it.

> I'm not talking about copyrights, I'm talking about whether or not copy protection was circumvented.

Yes, that is what the DMCA is about. There is no other law regulating it. Have you read it? You seem to use "copy protection" without having a clue what you talk about. The law specifies quite clearly and detailed what is protected (the work which should be covered by copyright to start with, hence no on line mode applicable) and what type of actions can be protected, typically those actions that are copyright infringement, copying be the main here, PLUS access which is the new added thing in the DMCA that is not otherwise part of copyrigh. You talk about some general "copy protection" believing anything that has in any remote way any affect on the possibility to play pirated game as being covered and called "copy protection". That is not so. The protection must specificall control for example the actual act of copying or the actual act of accessing a copyrighted work. Really, you should go read up on the law. And if you believe there is some OTHER law regulating it, fine, why not tell which, because it would be a huge surprise to people to knwo about this mystery and unknown law.

> Illegally attained games could not connect to battle.net, but they could be connected to BNetD.

So? Legally attained games can too, both connect to battle net and to bnetd. What does that have to do with anything? The law doesn't forbid you to connect to various services based on the legalness of your game?

>My point was that BNetD wasn't guily of violating the DMCA.

yes it was, or rather, the creatoers was in violation of it. The main part of the case was about the EULA though. Your initial post to which I replied to stated:

"Your summary should include the bit where BNetD ended up circumventing Blizzard's copy protection scheme."

Circumvenmtion adn "copy protection" is dealt by the DMCA. So now you say it did NOT violate the DMCA?

>My point was those idiots bypassed a system Blizzard had in place to keep the copies played legit.

Yes, but the bnetd doesn't affect that either. There are no more "illegal" copies on battle.net due to bnetd? The purpose of bnetd had in fact nothing at all to do with illegal copies, it was to allow players of the game an alternative to battle.net.

Re:BNetD

[NanoGator]

"Circumvenmtion adn "copy protection" is dealt by the DMCA. So now you say it did NOT violate the DMCA?"

As I quite clearly stated, I was talking about not feeling sorry for them. Yeesh, man. Lots of bla bla bla over such a simple point.

Re:BNetD

[Pofy]

>As I quite clearly stated, I was talking about not feeling sorry for them.

Then you should have writte so instead of continously thoughtout every post (including the first one) arguing about circumvention of copy protection when there is no such thing.

Re:BNetD

[NanoGator]

"Then you should have writte so instead of continously thoughtout every post (including the first one) arguing about circumvention of copy protection when there is no such thing."

I'm not backing down on that. I don't know if they broke the DMCA or not. They did, however, make it possible to play pirated games on-line. Indisputable. Sorry.

Re:BNetD

[Pofy]

>They did, however, make it possible to play pirated games on-line.
>Indisputable. Sorry.

You could do that before as well, including on battle.net!!!

Re:BNetD

[NanoGator]

You could play with a blacklisted key on battle.net?

Re:BNetD

[Pofy]

>You could play with a blacklisted key on battle.net?

Ehh, were have I said that? What part of my 11 word sentence implies that?

No, you can play with PIRATED games on battle.net (which was what you talked about). That is what you said. Pirated and blacklisted are two completely different things one does not imply the other. You can for example have a blacklisted key for a non pirated game as well.

Your argument was:

"They did, however, make it possible to play pirated games on-line."

Which is false since you can play pirtaed games online inlcuding on battle.net. Do you even remember what your own posts and arguments have been?

Re:BNetD

[NanoGator]

"Pirated and blacklisted are two completely different things one does not imply the other."

Pirated keys were blacklisted on Battle.net.

"Which is false since you can play pirtaed games online inlcuding on battle.net."

You're missing a very critical bit of info: Blizzard blacklisted pirated keys. It's documented all over the place.

"Do you even remember what your own posts and arguments have been?"

This is the sort of thing that people should say when they know what the fuck they're talking about.

Re:BNetD

[Pofy]

>Pirated keys were blacklisted on Battle.net.

You are using false logic. Just because some pirated keys are, it does not mean ALL are. It does further not mean that pirtaed games equals blacklisted ones. In addition, non pirtaed games can for example also be pirated. There are tons of people who have pirated games and have never ever connected to the next, and there are many who have pirated games that have connected, and played, including on battle.net.

Even so, what is your problem with this? That someone offers a service were someone else allready does? Do you say that since Blizzard offer an online service to match people up for games, no one else should be allowed to? And if they do, must they follow the same rules Blizzard do? If Ford offer a service to car owners, should I not be allowed to offer one myself? And if I do, must I have the same rules? That is just silly.

>You're missing a very critical bit of info: Blizzard blacklisted pirated
>keys. It's documented all over the place.

No, I am not missing it, they have blacklisted many keys, some "pirated", some not at all. There are many "pirated" keys used, including on battle.net still. So what is your point? The fact that Blizzard uses special keys to allow access to their service (the battle.net), what does that have to do with bnetd? Or anyone else offering services on the net? Since the games still work perfectly even without those battle.net checked keys" and can without modification connect and play on other servcies (or on their own), what does it have to do with what others offer? Do note that Blizzard has since changed their games, at least newer ones, not sure about older, so that they do not automatically work when conecting to other services, but at that time, Blizzard's games could freely and without modification connect to any other service and worked without the special keys blizzard used for battle.net.

Since you, by your own words, doesn't talk about what the law allows or not, I must assume that you simply is against competition. Since Blizzard offer a service, no one else should be allowed to offer a similar, unless they follow the exact same rules Blizzard do. If Blizzard blacklist a key from accessing their service, everyone else must also blacklist for some strange reason. Note that there is ALLREADY another check for a key built into the games on the players computers themselves, needed to run and install the game.

Re:BNetD

[NanoGator]

"You are using false logic. Just because some pirated keys are, it does not mean ALL are. It does further not mean that pirtaed games equals blacklisted ones. In addition, non pirtaed games can for example also be pirated."

OOooookay. So even though they're preventing keys that are known to be pirated from being played on battle.net... Yeesh, speaking of false logic. What's really amusing about this is that battle.net made it possible to find pirated keys. "WTF? There have been 1,000 connections using this key from all over the country!" Heh.

" Do you say that since Blizzard offer an online service to match people up for games, no one else should be allowed to?"

Nope. I've already stated what I think.

"No, I am not missing it, they have blacklisted many keys, some "pirated", some not at all. There are many "pirated" keys used, including on battle.net still. So what is your point? "

They very specifically blacklisted pirated keys. Copy.... protection. BNetD did not blacklist keys. Copy... circumvention. Point... clear... as crystal.... Duh.

" what does it have to do with what others offer?"

Copy protection brokie.

"I must assume that you simply is against competition."

Heh. Look man, it's plainly clear that your argument is crumbling, so you're hoping to 'win' by drawing me into an argument about my views or whatever. I don't feel like playing that right now. It's bad enough that you're being willfully ignorant to maintain your view, it's another thing altogether to waste my time with cheap attempts to make me look like a bad person. "Well.. my argument is correct if you really really narrow down the conditions, stretch the truth, close one eye, and interpret things in a surreal way. Besides, you're pro child slavery!!"

Re:BNetD

[Pofy]

>They very specifically blacklisted pirated keys. Copy.... protection. BNetD did not blacklist keys.
>Copy... circumvention. Point... clear... as crystal.... Duh.

Appart from appearantly thinking it is easier to understand you with lots of...., what does battle.nets blacklisting have anything to do with bnetd? Nothing. Just as if one store black list some customers (for whatever reason, including crime) does not mean every other store must lock them out either.

The blacklisting is for ACCESSING BATTLE.NET. Nothing else. A blacklisting on battle,net prevents accessing that service. it does not prevent creating copies of games, it does not prevent access to playing the game (except by accessing battle.net), it doe snot prevent access to other services and so on. So if it does not prevent for example access to toher services, you are not circumventing anyting. If bnetd allowed you to STILL access battle.net, then it would have been circumvention. Now it isn't, no matter how much you like it to be. bnedt has ntohing to do with battle.net, it is an alternative service, there is no reason for them to have either the same rules or same accees policy than their alternatives and so on.

>> what does it have to do with what others offer?"
>Copy protection brokie.

So, you claim that if someone connects to bnmetd, they suddenly can make a copy of the game that otherwise is not possible? I tell you a secret, you don't need to make any copy to start with, and even if you WOULD use a prated game, you would have had to make the copy to start with. It doesn't affect COPYING, it affect ACCESS of battle.net.

Why are you babling about COPY protection when it doesn't affect copying at all?

>Heh. Look man, it's plainly clear that your argument is crumbling, so you're hoping to 'win' by drawing
>me into an argument about my views or whatever.

Your arguments is just repeating "copy protection" when clearly there is NOTHING about copying going on. Perhaps you are under the impression that bnetd was a copying program? You are arguing that if Blizzard doesn't want someone to use a service they offer, then no one else should be allowed to offer a similar service (or else you appearntly cry "copy protecion"). That is all you have done in this thread.

You show you have no clue about what or how the DMCA (which deals with circumvention of protecion) works. You have shown you have no idea about the difference of a protection that controls copying versus one that controls access. And you have shown you really have no clue about how Blizzard's cd-keys work and how battle.net work. Since you further seems to believe that bnetd is a program that helps you make copies of a game, I really have no clue what you really want, hence my questionb. Since you repeatedly seems to come back to "bnetd must do the same as Blzizard or it is copyprotection", then I ask, what is your point with those false statements?

> it's another thing altogether to waste my time with cheap attempts to make me look like a bad person.

Your person is most likely a not bad, I don't even know me. I have not commented on your person, so stop putting words in my mouth). Your arguments are bad though, and more important, your understanding of the facts, like what the DMCA says, how the cd-keys work, what prevents copying, what prevents access, what the difference of access and copying is, how bnetd works and what it is, how ballt.net works and so on, they are all wrong to varying degrees. Which leads to your arguments being "copy protection" in reply to things were there is not even copying going on. Oh well.

Re:BNetD

[NanoGator]

" what does battle.nets blacklisting have anything to do with bnetd?"

Blacklisting was being used to disable the ability to play pirated copies of Blizzard's games on Battle.net.

"Why are you babling about COPY protection when it doesn't affect copying at all?"

It affects copy protection quite nicely. I should know, it forced me to buy a new copy when I lost the number to my old one. None of the serials I could find would work. Battle.net barfed on them. The only real saving grace to it was by then it only cost $20 or so. Rather spiffy at preventing me from acquiring a pirated copy, though I was a legit customer. (grumble grumble.)

"Since you repeatedly seems to come back to "bnetd must do the same as Blzizard or it is copyprotection", then I ask, what is your point with those false statements?"

If you were actually understanding my point instead of trying every which way to dodge it, I wouldn't be repeating myself. BTW, it's really cute that later you whine about my putting words in your mouth. Heh. I have a feeling you've had an imaginary conversation with me that goes into great detail about what Blizzard should have done, what BNetD should have done, and general discussion about how I think competition should work. In that case, I hope you toss it, because I'm expending an awful amount of energy babbling about this excess garbage when my point was so simple.

"I have not commented on your person, so stop putting words in my mouth."

Directly? Maybe not. I'm quite confident, however, that you meant to.

"I must assume that you simply is against competition."

Not a nice thing to say, nor was it a solid conclusion to draw. My motivations/biases/etc aren't terribly related to this debate unless you intend to 'win' by muddy'ing my character. Given your other attempts to do so, you'll pardon me for not apologizing.

"And you have shown you really have no clue about how Blizzard's cd-keys work and how battle.net work."

I thought I'd respond to this last because it's so amusing. Let's forget my personal experience with the matter, or the number of websites that have reported this, or that this came up in court, or my subscription to a delusion shared by lots and lots of people, and get to a really really interesting question: Why would Blizzard not blacklist pirated keys when it'd be so easy to do and be so effective?

Boy I can't wait to read your next overly long-winded rebuttal with more lines of dialog that I never delivered.

Re:BNetD

[Pofy]

>> what does battle.nets blacklisting have anything to do with bnetd?"
>
>Blacklisting was being used to disable the ability to play pirated copies of Blizzard's games on
>Battle.net.

So? It still doesn't have anything to do with bnetd. What Blizzard do on battle.net is their bussiness, bnetd doesn't change that, doesn't remove any blacklisting and so on. You were talking about circumvention, bnetd doesn't circumvent anythiong so that you can go to battle.net if you are blacklisted for example, so the question still stands and you have not answered it.

>>"Why are you babling about COPY protection when it doesn't affect copying at all?"
>
>It affects copy protection quite nicely.

No, since you can copy the game just as easilly or hard regardless of if there is or if you use bnetd.

> I should know, it forced me to buy a new copy when I lost the number to my old one.

Bceause of bnetd???? You had to go out and buy a new copy??? You turn stranger every day.

Also, when talking about cd-keys, there are TWO different protections, don't confuse them. One is built into the game and installer and controls your ability to install and play the game. That can by the way not be "blacklisted" or contorled by Blizzard, nor does it have anything to do with battle.net. The other is another check done when you try to access battle.net. That seems to be what you usually talk about by the way. Don't mix them up. You tend to do that in your posts. In neither case does them affect your ability to COPY the game though. hence it has nothing to do with a COPY PROTECTION, which prevents or controls copying.

> None of the serials I could find would work. Battle.net barfed on them.

??? You lost me here. Either you had installed the game, then it keep track of your cd-key and uses it when you log in. Or you had no installed the game, and then you can't even connect to battle.net.

> Rather spiffy at preventing me from acquiring a pirated copy, though I was a legit customer.

How did it prevent you from doing that? you could just as easilly have copied the game, installed it with whatever key, either with the same as the one you copied, or even another one. And BINGO, you would have had a copy!!! CD-keys doens't prevent copying, it prevents access to battle.net, and in a limited form access to the game.

>>I must assume that you simply is against competition."
>Not a nice thing to say, nor was it a solid conclusion to draw.

If it is nice or not, I really can't judge, but from your arguments, it is the only conclusion I could draw. Your argument is that bnetd doesn't do the same thing as Blizzard, hence it is bad. You say that if Blizzard likes to blacklist keys, bnetd for some strange reason would have to as well, and since they don't, it is a bad program. And for some even stranger reason you claim they "circumvent copy protection". So how SHOULD a competitor to battle.net go about according to you?

>I thought I'd respond to this last because it's so amusing.

Since it is not a question, you cna't answer it. Apeparantly you still don't understand it though you seem to have read a bit about it.

>Why would Blizzard not blacklist pirated keys when it'd be so easy to do and be so effective?

No idea, can't see any reason. I feel it is good for them to do so. I don't see why everyone else in the world should care if Blizzard blacklist keys though. Should my grocer close to me care and blacklist people with that key? The local internet cafe blacklist the same that wants to come in and play games (including playing on bnetd?) and so on.

Your main point, which is what I originally replied to deals with "circumvention". Appearantly half way through you seem to say that you are not basing anything on the laws though, so that creates the troubble of knowing WHAT you base anything at all on. Still you have not clarified WHAT is being protected (although I assume you refer to battle.net) and HOW bnetd managed to make people still access that protected thing (battle.net). Feel free to tell, because you always "reply" with completely irellevant things.

Re:BNetD

[NanoGator]

"So? It still doesn't have anything to do with bnetd."

They bypassed the protection.

"bnetd doesn't circumvent anythiong so that you can go to battle.net if you are blacklisted for example,"

BNetD is letting you play the game with a pirated copy of the CD Key.

"No, since you can copy the game just as easilly or hard regardless of if there is or if you use bnetd."

With BNetD, ALL of those pirated keys can be used.

"Bceause of bnetd???? You had to go out and buy a new copy??? You turn stranger every day."

Heh. Dude, c'mon, I know you don't want to agree with my point on any level, but are you really going to sink to that level? My point was clear. Battle.net prevented pirated copies of the game from being played. If I had used BNetD, I could have used a pirated copy of the game. There, simple.

"Your argument is that bnetd doesn't do the same thing as Blizzard, hence it is bad."

Heh. I didn't make any arguments about what BNetD should have done.

"Since it is not a question, you cna't answer it. Apeparantly you still don't understand it though you seem to have read a bit about it."

Hehehehe.

"Still you have not clarified WHAT is being protected"

Hehe again. You don't have much credibility left to lose, man. I'm trying to be respectful here, but you're really making it difficult.

Re:BNetD

[Pofy]

>>>Blacklisting was being used to disable the ability to play pirated
>>>copies of Blizzard's games on Battle.net.
>>
>>So? It still doesn't have anything to do with bnetd.
>
>They bypassed the protection.

You keep repeating that and yet, please tell me how bnetd allows people to access battle.net? That is what you are saying. People using bnetd aren't even connecting to battle.net, so how can they bypass its protection?

>>"bnetd doesn't circumvent anythiong so that you can go to battle.net if
>>you are blacklisted for example,"
>
>BNetD is letting you play the game with a pirated copy of the CD Key.

No it doesn't. It allows you to access an alternative servince on the net. The game is playable without bnetd as well. The pirtaed key has nothing to do with it, it doesn't stop the game from working, it only stops access to battle.net. How hard is that to understand?

People are free to chose whatever services they want, right? So people chose to play on bnetd instead of battle.net. People with pirtaed games can do the same, they can also chose to play on either.

you do realse that a copied game is completely identical to a non copied right? Otherwise it would noe be a copy. For the sake of, I made a copy (pirated it if you want) of the game, installed it and played on battle.net for a while, worked perfectly. Connected to a bnetd server as well (yes, they exist) worked as well. I then played my non pirated game, connected to both battle.net and bnetd, both worked OK. So what is your problem? The CD-key did not prevent my copying or pirating at all.

>With BNetD, ALL of those pirated keys can be used.

No, you can play the game regardless of which. A "pirated" key doesn't make the game non playable. Gee, how hard is that to understand. Again, try to understand how the cd-keys work and its different functions. I specifically told you in my last post. although you have appearantly decided to ignore it.

>Battle.net prevented pirated copies of the game from being played.

No it doesn't. It only prevents blacklisted copes to be plöayed. Huge difference. And those blacklisted does not nessecarilly have to be pirtaed. In addition, I just tried playing with a pirtaed game, and it worked perfetly, both on and off battle.net. You also realise that playing on battle.net is just ONE of MANY ways to play the game right?

>If I had used BNetD, I could have used a pirated copy of the game. There,
>simple.

You could have used just as easy and much without bnetd. You are confusing "using the game" with "playing on battle.net". It is not the same.

>Heh. I didn't make any arguments about what BNetD should have done.

Yes you do, you claim that unless they do the same blacklisting as battle.net, they are in the wrong.

>>"Still you have not clarified WHAT is being protected"
>
>Hehe again. You don't have much credibility left to lose, man. I'm trying
>to be respectful here, but you're really making it difficult.

Interesting how you don't even answer the question. I assume you don't have an answer then.

So lets see if we can clear this up. You do understand the difference between protection against COPYING and protection against ACCESS, right?

If not it is pointles discussing with you and so far, you have made nothing to show you understand the difference.

You do know what bnetd is, right? It is a matchmaking service for different games. To even use it, you must have a game to start with, it doesn't help you create or copy games.

If you don't understand that, it is again, pointless to discuss with you since you don't know what you talk about.

You do realise that the battl.net check on cd-keys, which is done ONLY when you use that service, only contrrls the access to that service, right? It doesn't affect your ability to play the game or use the game at all?

Again, if you don't underst

Re:BNetD

[NanoGator]

"The pirtaed key has nothing to do with it, it doesn't stop the game from working, it only stops access to battle.net. How hard is that to understand?"

How hard is it to understand that this is a rather effective form of piracy prevention?

"Interesting how you don't even answer the question. I assume you don't have an answer then."

Already answered it. You complained about my repeating myself so I saved you that. Sooooorrrry.

"People with pirtaed games can do the same, they can also chose to play on either."

Except those that have blacklisted keys, they can't play on battle.net.

"You do know what bnetd is, right? It is a matchmaking service for different games. To even use it, you must have a game to start with, it doesn't help you create or copy games."

... and if you have a pirated copy of the game with a pirated key, you can still play it! Wee!

"It doesn't affect your ability to play the game or use the game at all?"

(unless you want to play on-line... sssshhh!!!)

"Again, if you don't understand these simple concepts, it is pointless discusssing with you." ... said the guy who's failing to understand an even simpler concept.

"With bnetd, you can't access anything you would not be able to access anyway without it."

You could access on-line play that wouldn't be allowed on battle.net.

"Your claim that one can't pirtae the game without bnetd is false since I have just tried it and done it without bnetd."

You didn't use a blacklisted key. Very scientific. Hmm I wonder why lots of people banded together and made up a bunch of stories about this before BNetD came along? Strange what people will do on the internet these days.

"Bnetd doesn't affect the ability to pirate games at all..."

Yeah, it only allows blacklisted keys to be played so people don't actually have to run out to the store and purchase it.

"Circumventing a protection, means you manage to do what the protection tried to prevent."

Yeah, like blacklisting pirated keys so they can't play the most 'fun' area of the game.

"Yes you do, you claim that unless they do the same blacklisting as battle.net, they are in the wrong."

Nah, I didn't. But given your overzealous defense of BnetD, I can see why you see it that way. Part of me is considering letting you in more on what I think of the situation. But I have to be honest, besides the fun of watching you trip over your own feet in this debate, I honestly don't think you're going to spend any time at all trying to work this out with me in a civilized matter. In other words, anything I say that doesn't sound like "Oh you were right and I'm wrong, I'm such a twit!" is simply going to result in yet another long winded overstated undercooked argument.

On a more serious note, hope you had a good weekend.

Re:BNetD

[Pofy]

>How hard is it to understand that this is a rather effective form of
>piracy prevention?

It is not in my opinion since you can both copy and play the game without involving battle.net. Had battle.net been the ONLY way to play, then it would be somewhat effetive. However, bnetd did not affect that, it only allowed to play games that themselves had the ability to connect to other services. hence I don't see any problem with that. The problem of piracy in that case have nothing to do with bnetd but about the game being dead easy to pirateand play anyway. It is not up to bnetd to make it harder than it allready is to pirate the game, they can't affect that. Note that later Blizzard games have been changed so that you can't connect to other services than battle.net without major changes to the client game code. For bnetd, you did not need to make ANY changes to the client code.

>Except those that have blacklisted keys, they can't play on battle.net.

So? That has nothing to do with pirating the game since a pirated game does not correspond to a blacklisted key. There is no connection. Blacklisting doesn't prevent a game from being copied OR used, it only prevent connection to battle.net, not any other type of play. That seems to be were the problem for you lies, you assume that if Blizzard blacklist a key, one can't even copy, install or play the game at all. That is not the case.

>You could access on-line play that wouldn't be allowed on battle.net.

Huh, so? What does that have to do with bnetd? You can do it just as easilly without bnetd. Besides, why should bnetd care what Blizzard do with battle.net? It is an alternative service. Just as if Ford decide to deny me comming to them for service of my car, should they or anyone else be allowed to cry "foul" if I go to someone else? Of course not.

>You didn't use a blacklisted key. Very scientific.

No, but I used a pirtaed game. You are talking about pirating and pirated games. This clearly show that pirated games and blacklisting has nothing to do with each other so you can't use one to argue about the other, they are not related. Your claim is that bnetd help pirating and uses blacklisting as example when they are not connected. I am answering to your claim that pirated games can't play on battle.net but on bnetd when in fact that is not true.

>Yeah, it only allows blacklisted keys to be played so people don't
>actually have to run out to the store and purchase it.

So? You can play the game anyway without bnetd. Just because a competing service doesn't use the same blacklisting doesn't make it bad. If one pub blacklist you so you can't go there, should other pubs need to follow that? Do you cry foul when they allow you to enter? It is not against the law to not follow someone else blacklisting.

Besides, you again mix up "pirated games" with "blacklisting". My comment was:

"Bnetd doesn't affect the ability to pirate games at all..."

To which you reply about blacklisting. I was talking about pirated games. Two completely different things. Blacklisting has nothing to do with pirating, copyright or protection circumvention. There is no legal requirement to follow other peoples blacklisting for example.

So try to keep on suibject, don't reply about blacklisting when I comment a statement you make about pirating and the other way arround, they are not the same.

>"Circumventing a protection, means you manage to do what the protection
>tried to prevent."
>
>Yeah, like blacklisting pirated keys so they can't play the most 'fun'
>area of the game.

Huh? You can still play the area of the game, you can't just do it on battle.net. That is perfectly legal. Just because you can't go to one site offering a service does not mean you can't go to another. That is not what circumvention is about, try reading up on the laws. Actually that would be an extreme case of not allowing ANY competing service or product. If I sell a toaster and for

Re:BNetD

[NanoGator]

" Had battle.net been the ONLY way to play, then it would be somewhat effetive."

Not necessarily. You had to work harder to get a game going.

" However, bnetd did not affect that, it only allowed to play games that themselves had the ability to connect to other services. hence I don't see any problem with that."

I do, since pirated keys were allowed on without any challenge.

"The problem of piracy in that case have nothing to do with bnetd but about the game being dead easy to pirateand play anyway."

That's a pretty flimsy rationalization, man. Software is always easy to pirate. Blizzard took an extra step and BNetD bypassed it.

"So? That has nothing to do with pirating the game since a pirated game does not correspond to a blacklisted key."

Step 1. Download ISo of Game
Step 2. Acquire pirated CD key so ISo will install
Step 3. Shout 'fuck' when Battle.net won't let you on
Step 4. use BNetD to get on instead.

"That seems to be were the problem for you lies, you assume that if Blizzard blacklist a key, one can't even copy, install or play the game at all. That is not the case."

Right, I understand this. I never disputed this. The catch is that you can't use Battle.net. The client built into your game that made it sooOOOoo easy to connect on-line against other people would not let you on. Your alternatives? Welp, they weren't GameSpy or MSN. You found yourself seeking alternatives then. In other words: use a pirated copy? Get annoyingly inconvience. You're talking technical, I'm talking practical.

" This clearly show that pirated games and blacklisting has nothing to do with each other"

No, you clearly showed that key wasn't blacklisted.

"To which you reply about blacklisting. I was talking about pirated games."

They blacklisted pirated keys.

"Blacklisting has nothing to do with pirating, copyright or protection circumvention."

They blacklisted pirated keys.

"So try to keep on suibject, don't reply about blacklisting when I comment a statement you make about pirating and the other way arround, they are not the same."

Heh. I have to ask: Are you even trying to understand where I'm coming frm here?

"My "defence" is only that it has not done anything ilegal from a circumvention point of view..."

For the record: I never said that, either. I never made a comment on the legality of BNetD's actions. My point was that I had no sympathy for them getting sued. I would have preferred it if they had won, actually. Still, I'm not about to join the "Boycott Blizzard!" pitchfork party when they acted completely as expected given BnetD's little misstep.

Re:BNetD

[Pofy]

>Step 1. Download ISo of Game
>Step 2. Acquire pirated CD key so ISo will install

And you have a pirated game!!!! No bnetd was needed. At this time you have a game that you can play.

>Step 3. Shout 'fuck' when Battle.net won't let you on

Althpough it has nothing to do with the copying, I allready told you that you can play on battle.net with pirated keys. You use the fals logic that pirated keys are the same as blacklisted, it is not. In addition, you still don't see the difference between COPYING and ACCESSING. Since you seems to think it is the same, it is really pointless to discuss.

> Right, I understand this. I never disputed this. The catch is that you can't use Battle.net.

>No, you clearly showed that key wasn't blacklisted.

Huh, yes, but it was still pirated, STOP talking about pirating if you refer to blacklisting then.

Indeed, but your ability to play on battle.net doesn't mean you can't copy the game, it doesn't mean you can't install the game, it doesn't mean you can't play the game.

>Heh. I have to ask: Are you even trying to understand where I'm coming frm here?

I see very well were you are coming from but I have tried to show you that it is erronous. You are confusing COPYING with ACCESSSING, do you see the difference?

In addition, you constantly mix up pirating and blacklisting when i tis clear that it is not the same. You make a statement about PIRATING which I show is wrong and you end up replying about backlisting.
For example:

ME>>>"Your claim that one can't pirtae the game without bnetd is false since I have just
ME>>>tried it and done it without bnetd."
>>
YOU>>You didn't use a blacklisted key. Very scientific.
>
ME>No, but I used a pirtaed game. You are talking about pirating and pirated games.

I clearly show that one can pirate a game (which is what you claim bnetd some way helps), without bnetd, and CAN play such pirated game on battle.net and a pirated game is not the same as a blacklisted game, and you end up making the obvious and irellevant statement of they key not being blacklisted. So? YOU mentioned pirating, I talked about pirating, and you end up suddenly replying about blacklisting. Something very different.

BLACKLISTING deals with access to battl.net, PIRATING deals with copying the game in an infringing way. You can do one without the other, not realed. bnetd has NOTHING to do with the copying/pirating which you claim.

>For the record: I never said that, either. I never made a comment on the legality of BNetD's actions.
> My point was that I had no sympathy for them getting sued.

I suppose you know will claim that the suing has nothing to do with anything connected to legalities?

Your original comment was:

>Your summary should include the bit where BNetD ended up circumventing Blizzard's copy protection
>scheme.

Whihc clerly is about the circumvention and what is DMCA which is all about the legality.

Since you don't understand the difference between COPYING and ACCESSING and since you don't understand what the CD_key do in relation to battl.net and since you can't understand the different between COPYING a game and using a service I see no point in discussing any more until you learn such basic things.

Re:BNetD

[NanoGator]

"without bnetd, and CAN play such pirated game on battle.net and a pirated game is not the same as a blacklisted game,"

You proved you could play the game you found. Fine. You did not prove that they didn't blacklist pirated keys. Good luck doing that though, since they did and it's well documented.

"In addition, you still don't see the difference between COPYING and ACCESSING. Since you seems to think it is the same, it is really pointless to discuss."

Considering that it made piracy of Blizzard games more difficult, you're right, it really is pointless to discuss.

"I suppose you know will claim that the suing has nothing to do with anything connected to legalities?"

I don't know why you'd trust your assumptions that have regularly failed up to this point.

"Whihc clerly is about the circumvention and what is DMCA which is all about the legality."

Funny. Not only did I not say this, but I've clarified my point, but you're STILL gunning on your assumption. Heh. What do you want me to say? "Here's what I think, but please argue with what I didn't say."

Re:BNetD

[narfbot]

You totally missed the point. I said that a tunnel is all that is required to play some of the blizzard games over the internet. If there is no "challenge" to use this sort of "lan" then playing multiplayer is no challenge at all. Battle.net was not meant to be a form of copy protection regardless of their ability to blacklist keys. If it were that easy to just set up a tunnel, (which Kali, zone, and friends all did legally by the way) then bnetd was useless. The only thing the bnetd authors wanted was the interface.

Con images...

[BronxBomber]

There were some pretty excellent images taken, especially those of the booth bunnies who secretly laugh at the con fanboys. check out www.worldofwarcraft.com for the gallery.

As a side note, I certainly hope that PLDs can lend a little help tanking. It will let me focus on being a fullforce DPS whore warrior that is just dying to be unleashed.

There are, I noticed, far more adults at the con than I thought. But maybe its because of the guild I run with on Sargeras.

Re:Con images...

[Isca]

Mostly because of the fact that it's a CON.

Even accounting for the fact that things are way more expensive then 15 years ago, I know I couldn't have afforded the price, nor could I have travelled cross country as a teenager to go.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't have been playing the game at 13 though.

"result was nothing less than the level of ..."

[millisa]

No, he means there were long lines, and whenever they got near the vendors they ended up walking really slow, people would appear out of nowhere, and there were lots of pink haired mostly naked short people dancing.

It was a rager...

[ankarbass]

Well, at least this guy thought so. I think in this photo the G indicates that this is a girl.

Re:It was a rager...

[ankarbass]

I'm sure of it now, see, this guy is licking his lips but he's NOT SURE if the object of his affections is a girl because she's lost her G tag.

Re:It was a rager...

[fromtheblueline]

but did she smack her ass and giggle?

Re:It was a rager...

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I saw this one earlier and was definitely disturbed. From the waist up, looks like a girl, waist down...I'm putting my money on a guy. Hands look like a chick but the legs and um...well, what looks like a package seems like a dude.

Yuk...

Name tags

[Kelson]

the result was nothing less than the level of excellence that we have come to expect from Blizzard

Hey, as long as they didn't make you replace your name badge, it's all good!

Re:Name tags

[DAldredge]

If CmdrTaco had read/followed the damn WoW TOS he would never have had to change his name. Don't blame Blizzard for CmdrTacos inability to follow the rules.

And now the horde shall feel the 13-yr olds wrath!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a mature Alliance player in a mature guild I just can't WAIT for the expansion. Every 13 year old 3l33t dud3 is going to flock to the horde now.

You just wait, Horde. Just wait for the idiots join your side!

Ahahahahahaahhahahahaahahahhaaaaaaaaaaa!

The level of what?

[Minwee]

"the result was nothing less than the level of excellence that we have come to expect from Blizzard."

You mean Blizzcon looked great, but came out eighteen months after it was originally scheduled?

Re:The level of what?

[Kelson]

You mean Blizzcon looked great, but came out eighteen months after it was originally scheduled?

And Mac users don't get in until next year's con?

Re:The level of what?

[Elfboy]

While I can apreciate the joke re: Mac gaming...

Blizzard is actually one of the few that does simultaneous platform releases...(install discs are usually dual platform even)

Now Quake 4 on the other hand...(and don't even get me started on Half Life...)

EULA = C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T

[Trolling4Columbine]

It's not a civil right; it's a contract. You want to use the service? Then you have to agree to these terms. Feel that the contract is unnecessarily restrictive? Then don't buy their game!

Re:EULA = C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T

[Anonymous Coward]

What service are they using?

They were trying to create thier own service for WC3 (think private ladders).

Re:EULA = C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T

[s0abas]

It's not a civil right; it's a contract. You want to use the service? Then you have to agree to these terms. Feel that the contract is unnecessarily restrictive? Then don't buy their game!

You're right. And that's fine for the people who _play_ the game. Blizzard sued the guys who were actually doing the reverse engineering, not necessarily playing the game. It sets a dangerous precedent.

Re:EULA = C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T

[Anonymous Coward]

License != Contract

"End User License Agreement" != "Contracted User Necessary Terms"

Re:EULA = C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T

[Anonymous Coward]

EULA = End User Liscense Agreement

If it were a C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T, it would be called a EUCA. But it's not a contract, it a liscense. And yes, there is a big difference.

Re:EULA = C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T

[Anonymous Coward]

Split hairs if you want, but it is still a legally-binding agreement.

Re:EULA = C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T

[C0rinthian]

I like the second acronym better.

WOW

[SparafucileMan]

the result was nothing less than the level of excellence that we have come to expect from Blizzard.

ahhhhh... the sound of fanboys rolling in the warm morning mud is always so unpleasant to watch.

Re:WOW

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

How do you watch a sound?

Re:WOW

[cas2000]

> How do you watch a sound?

in one word: "synaesthesia".

Re:WOW

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

By Golly - you're right!

A more wretched hive of geeks and horde not found

[avatar139]

Ahh, Blizzcon, You have never seen a more wretched hive of geeks and horde in your life. As a longtime fan of Blizzard, (after all what other company does hybrid disks for both Macs and PCs, I ask you, now if only they supported Linux), I have to say it was wonderfully put together, and fully embraced the Blizzard style of not neccesarily adding anything new to a genre of gaming (or in this case a convention), but rather concentrating on polishing the elements; the bits and pieces of which the whole convention was made up of, to full diamondy perfection. Kudos to the inventation of Scott, Tycho and Gabe, whose witty dialogue made for a fun addition that wasn't necessarily fully related to WOW or any of the other franchises, but whose presence I felt added an icing on the provierable cake. The offspring concert was a grand send off and I hope fervently that Blizzard will try another effort such as this sometime in the future. First Post, so please go easy on me...

Pretty Sure

[Shadow Wrought]

It's the first Blizzard that has ever visited Anaheim. Though my Grandpa once told me that it snowed there once (I think he said in the 50's).

Oh The Other Hand...

[EXTomar]

Bliz seems to like integrating "real world" cultural themes into their games. Dwaves are somewhat Scottish (in speach and faciniation with alcohol ;)). Trolls have a touch of Jamacian. Tuaren definately have that Naitive American tribal thing going. Why not have a strongly eastern themed race like the Panderan?

Besides I bet a Pandaren Warrior can fend for itself and doesn't need the WWF (that is not the wrestling guys!) to help out. I personally hold out the Allience race is our favorite anthrophoric pandas but the other strong rumor are those creapy ET looking guys you find in Blasted Lands (name of which I'm drawing a blank at the moment).

Re:Oh The Other Hand...

[ejito]

The east Asian themes run throughout. Many of the NPCs have asian names (Takata Steelblade, Marukai/Mitsuwa [names of markets], Ping, and other more subtle ones), as real-life races are considered neutral in Warcraft races.

Here's some (just off the head) comparisons:

• Night Elf architecture is a combination of ancient greek/roman plus japanese/chinese design. The culture is similar to Navajo Indians.
• Trolls do have Jamaican accents, but their culture follows closer to the South American and East African civilizations.
• Human culture is anglo, and don't really have much twists or turns. However, since humans can also be black in color, and many human NPC names vary, they really don't have a set inner "race".
• Dwarves do follow classic tolkien dwarf culture (Scottish, and some hints of Irish), but are also race neutral like humans.
• Gnomes are more of an independent European invention, but classically follow more Northern European culture.
• Taurens do have strong Native American influences, but also adopt cowboy culture.
• Orcs follow no set culture, but are more likely modelled after Muslim or Mongolian warriors. If you look at art design for orcs, you'll see many cultural influences (including Asian).

I'm actually quite pleased with how Blizzard has handled race in WoW. Though there are lots of "black is bad" cliches in WoW (dark iron, black dragons, grim totems, *cult orcs), night-elves vs. blood elves are an outstanding exclusion.

The race you're talking about in the last statement are known as the dranei, or "lost ones". I hope the pandaren don't go to alliance, because it wouldn't make much sense.

Re:Oh The Other Hand...

[I Like Pudding]

Taurens do have strong Native American influences, but also adopt cowboy culture.

/rimshot

Re:Oh The Other Hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope the pandaren don't go to alliance, because it wouldn't make much sense.

Yeah, it would make as much sense as Blood Elves joining the Horde, which consists of three races that worked hard to annihilate as many of the High Elves as possible, causing the remaining High Elves to rename themselves the Blood Elves in memory of their fallen brothers and sisters.

Oh, wait...

Re:Oh The Other Hand...

[phlinn]

Which 3 races are you referring to? If you distinguish forsaken from the scourge, the only possible race issue would be orcs because of the War 20 years before. On the other hand, they were betrayed by the Alliance and are incapable of peacfully coexisting with the night elves. That betrayal is why they became the blood elves.

Re:Oh The Other Hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Orcs, Trolls, and Undead. All three at different times worked to elliminate the High Elves.

Don't forget, Trolls HATE all Elves, and all Elves HATE all Trolls. The concept of the Darkspeare allowing Blood Elves anywhere near Orgrimmar is laughable. Elves and Trolls can't stand each other.

Well, according to the old lore. In the new lore, apparently they don't care. Kinda like how Jaina and Thrall had an alliance that's randomly dissolved.

Is Ghost ever, ever EVER going to be released???

[StarvingSE]

Seriously, I thought this was an awsome looking game from when I saw the first screenshots.... but then delay.... delay...DELAY....

I have come to expect delays from blizzard, and I don't mind because the end product is a game of higher quality. But I'm starting to wonder if this game has started down the road to vaporware.

Alliance Vs. Horde

[rampant mac]

"The horde's new race, Bloodelves were an incredibly polished race with a promising future in the overall WoW universe while the alliance were left with empty speculation as to what their race would be."

So, kinda like an exact role-reversal from which the Horde is normally used to?

/plays Horde
/misses the "fit and polish" the Alliance side seems to take foregranted.

Re:Alliance Vs. Horde

[packeteer]

I dont know what he meant by "Bloodelves were an incredibly polished race" when the race has yet to be released and is mostly Night Elves with a different set of textures, in fact some textures are the same with a different color pallet. I play on horde side and am really skeptical that when this race comes out it will be how it was displayed at blizzcon. So let me get this straight the horde get an AoE stun and AoE silence racials?

There will be far too many alliance (the majority of the players of WoW" crying about balance if most of the things shown at blizzcon come out.

That's odd IE found it real quick.

[CDPatten]

Just kidding. Do you tihnk Diablo will come out on the next Gen game consoles? I hope so, playing through the web with the headsets would be pretty sweet.

Re:That's odd IE found it real quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

The web is not the internet. Your post gets 1/10 for clearly demonstrating your lack of intellect. Now go play Diablo and never log on to slashdot again.

Re:That's odd IE found it real quick.

[CronoCloud]

Blizzard ignores the consoles even though they got their start doing console dev as "Silicon and Synapse" Rock & Roll Racing for the SNES, that's Blizzard. They're PC partisans now. They'll let others do ports on ocassion, like the well regarded PSone port of Diablo

Well regarded enough that Snowblind did a sort of an "extended tech demo" Diablo clone using an amazing engine for the PS2 called Balder's Gate: Dark Alliance. That got Sony's notice, and they then bought Snowblind and incorporated them into SOE. It didn't take them too long to do an improved version of BG: DA set in the Everquest universe with internet play and headset support: Champions of Norrath. They did a sequel: Champions: Return to Arms. And there's a very similar game for the PSP set in new world called Aven: Untold Legends. (There's other games that use Snowblinds engine, or similar engines)

So essentially Blizzards lost any chance to seize any action RPG mindshare on the consoles. They had a couple of years from say late 2000 to 2002, but their PC only focus prevented that

.

$120!? Who in the.. what? This is serious?

[Viewsonic]

People actually paid $120 to get into a convention for WoW? Don't they already pay $15 a month to play the game? I suppose they had a few bands play, but man. For $120 I would have expected a Cirque show done entirely in Blizzard themed garb.

Sorry, didn't mean to come off like a troll or anything. But $120? That is just crazy. You could buy a Nintendo DS for that much.

Re:And now the horde shall feel the 13-yr olds wra

[secolactico]

Every 13 year old 3l33t dud3 is going to flock to the horde now

There are several there already. Just tune into Barrens General Chat.

WoW in the MMORPG vicious circle

[Crouty]

1. Stuffing new content in the game, make it so every player who wants to stay competitive needs to buy the extension (piss of others), ignore player feedback, bundle the game with spyware, make crafting pointless (still no carpenter/fletcher?), change the type of PvP every few weeks from almost nothing to total anarchy to battlegrounds to even more battlegrounds. Basically not making the game somehow special.
2. ? ? ?
3. Profit!
   1. Not gonna fly. At least not for me. Been there with DAoC. Cancelled WoW a week ago.

Blizzcon was a lot of fun

[kyliaar]

I went there by myself and really didn't know what to expect. However, they had scheduled realm meetings so when I first got in, I wandered over to our table and met up with a group of players from my server and we wound up hanging together the whole time, forming a team for the Arathi Basin tournament, etc.

Regarding the pally being the running joke of the Alliance, my whole view shifted after playing on the Horde side (for once) in AB and seeing a well played pally become an unstopable force as well as an escape artist. Shammies just don't compare IMHO. Shammies have better burst DPS but loose out on the survivability.

Anyways, here are the pics that I took there:

www.gilbertcon.com/wow

Re:Blizzcon was a lot of fun

[Anonymous Coward]

People talk about seeing/being beaten by good paladins. For the most part, they're the same paladins but proccing soc more often due to dumb luck.

But what makes paladins a joke is that they have no interactivity and boring roles.

Re:Blizzcon was a lot of fun

[kyliaar]

No interactivity and boring roles?

Only if PVE when they are elected to be out of combat rezzers.

In PVP, they wade into battle and cast heals as no one can do enough damage to interrupt them as well doing decent damage if they are pvp specced.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

He makes Michael look good.

----
BTW, my text image word was "specials"

Friends don't let friends use commercial

[mi]

air-travel...

web of deceit and lies that is commercial air travel

Open-source air-travel only!

offspring

[Anonymous Coward]

is is true that hardly anyone went to see 'offspring' ?

Why Play Blizzard Games

[GuruThrill]

When you could be spending your time getting voted rich?

http://www.votemerich.com

What? 15 minutes for Pally buffs?

[kremehild]

Druids buff for 1 hour. Why should Paladins suck so bad and only have 15 minutes? That's just plain ridiculous.

Excellence

[Anonymous Coward]

...the result was nothing less than the level of excellence that we have come to expect from Blizzard.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at that.

BBC Article on Spyware in WoW

[billstewart]

Coincidentally, a mailing list I'm on had a posting pointing to the following
BBC Article URL

Warcraft game maker in spying row
By Mark Ward Technology Correspondent, BBC News website

Screenshot of dwarves on ram mounts from World of Warcraft, Blizzard Warden watches as gamers explore Warcraft's world.
Game maker Blizzard has been accused of spying on the four million players of World of Warcraft.

Net activists branded software used to spot cheats "spyware" because it gathers information about the other programs running on players' PCs.

In its defence Blizzard said nothing was done with the information gathered by the anti-cheat software. And many players seem happy to have the software running if it cuts the amount of cheating in the game world.

Home invasion

The watchdog program, called The Warden by Blizzard, has been known about among players for some time.

It makes sure that players are not using cheat software which can, for example, automatically play the game and build up a character's qualities.

However, knowledge of it crossed to the mainstream thanks to software engineer Greg Hoglund who disassembled the code of The Warden and watched it in action to get a better idea of what it did.

Screenshot of stone giant from World of Warcraft, Blizzard
Warcraft players back Blizzard's anti-cheat system

He found that it performed a quick analysis on other programs running on a PC to see if their characteristics match known cheating programs.

But Mr Hoglund found that The Warden also scans the text in the title bars of any Window for any other program.

Writing in his blog about what he found Mr Hoglund said: "I watched The Warden sniff down the e-mail addresses of people I was communicating with on MSN, the URL of several websites that I had open at the time, and the names of all my running programs."

Mr Hoglund noted that the text strings in title bars could easily contain credit card details or social security numbers.

Digital rights group The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) branded The Warden "spyware" and said its use constituted "a massive invasion of privacy".

The EFF said that it was not acceptable simply to take Blizzard's word that it did nothing with the information it gathered. It added that the Blizzard could get away with using The Warden because information about it was buried in licence agreements that few people read.

Fair play

Blizzard took to the forums on the central community site for World of Warcraft to defend itself and correct what it saw as "misinformation" about its actions.

It said that The Warden did not gather any personally identifiable information about players only data about the account being used. It also re-iterated that the only thing done with data gathered was to look for evidence of hack or cheat programs.

For their part many gamers seem happy to tolerate The Warden even though they acknowledged that it eroded their privacy to an extent.

Jason Justice, speaking on behalf of members of the Low Red Moon guild, said many in its ranks supported the programs used by Blizzard if it kept the cheats out of the game.

Pack shot from Diablo II, Blizzard
Cheats spoiled the online version of Diablo II
"The concern most have is that the program has the capability to read text from open programs, potentially compromising the privacy of some sensitive programs."

"If someone is afraid of the program reading sensitive information from their programs, one possible solution is simply to not run any additional programs while playing World of Warcraft," he said, "which is certainly advisable from a performance standpoint to begin with."

He told the BBC News website: "It is entirely Blizzard's responsibility to protect their intellectual property and the fairness of the game experience, and if they have code sophisticate

Re:BBC Article on Spyware in WoW

[Starsmore]

Welcome to last month. Population: You.

Seriously. We know about Warden. It's been posted to Slashdot, dupe-posted, and then the dupe was duped. And we know that the guy leading the battlecry is one of the developers of several different bots and cheats for World of Warcraft, all of which Warden has effectively shut down. It's not news just because BBC posted it.

About the horde...

[nacs]

Penny Arcade has an opinion posted.

Bloodelves will tip the balance.

[Erik_]

Worstening the side discrepancy even more(there's what, an average of 2-3 alliance to every horde across all servers, with only 2 servers having a large horde->alliance discrepancy) and ensuring the alliance doesn't get a chance to PvP.

I seriously think that the Bloodelves race, will seriously tip this balance. Some people select their race because of their presentation, some races by belief/affinity. I hope the alliance will get something like a semi-giants race to counter the Tauren in size.

STARCRAFT 2 and other Strategy Games

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, that's all fine and good...
But was there any word on when we're going to see the next iteration of strategy games?
It seems there has been a complete and total shift to MMORPG and abandonment of the RTS roots.
Hello, Blizzard? Where is Starcraft 2?

Re:STARCRAFT 2 and other Strategy Games

[ajdowntown]

I know, seriously! I have been waiting many years for starcraft 2! Looks like I will have to wait many many more...

Re:STARCRAFT 2 and other Strategy Games

[milimetric]

Lets take over blizzard and make it ourselves. Actually, less radical, check out Project Revolution, a warcraft starcraft mod.

Re:STARCRAFT 2 and other Strategy Games

[Anonymous Coward]

ooohhhhh.....shiny....

Starcraft Ghost?!?

[fireduck]

So, what's the over/under on how many next generation console systems will be released before this game sees the light of day? Quickly followed by, how much of an additional delay will ensuring xbox 360 compatibility introduce?

Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could someone explain why Slashdot did not declaired a boycott on all things related to Blizzard and Vivendi long ago?

Honestly, what does it take for them to be labeled as worthless assholes?

Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[Red Flayer]

" Honestly, what does it take for them to be labeled as worthless assholes?"

Conventional Wisdom says that as long as their games are fun, people will find reasons to not dislike the company.

Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[kwerle]

Could someone explain why Slashdot did not declaired a boycott on all things related to Blizzard and Vivendi long ago?

How about a reasonable complaint?

Honestly,

Original link dead.

what does

Hard to believe they shut down Freecraft - golly...

it take

Follow the clearly stated rules?

for them

Return the box, eh?

to be

Who'd have thunk they'd shut down bnetd - golly.

labeled as worthless

Software shipped and was not bug/issue free! Now there's a shocker.

assholes?

Failing to anticipate how many copies would be sold hardly seems to qualify as a mortal sin.

But, really, one of the newest and most popular MMO's just did their first con. Even if the company running it were complete assholes, it'd still be newsworthy.

Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they've addicted Taco & co. to WoW. Addicts just have to suck it up to get their next fix from the pushers...

FWIW, I don't (and don't intend to) own any of their crap. Honestly, the bnetd stuff was just plain nasty. I mean, I understand the business purpose behind it just fine, but I don't think companies should be allowed *any* legal right to prevent reverse engineering under any circumstances, whatsoever.

It's not like bnetd *could* authenticate the CD keys, anyhow, with the information required to do so being Blizzard's database of valid CD keys. Oh well, I suspect the code is still out there on the Internet for those who want to find it, and development can continue outside of their reach. If I'd ever actually bought anything from them to begin with, I'd be tempted to do what I could to host it and make it available to others.

So yeah, it's newsworthy and I can see why it's here (and even why they rave over it), but I'm not an addict, so I have no problem whatsoever considering Blizzard to be bastards.

----
My opinions are my own and not necessarily shared by my employer or anyone else for that matter. The above states my personal views on the matter rather than some supposed fact of any the people at Blizzard actually having been born out of wedlock or whatever. This disclaimer is here because I think they might be bastards enough to sue or try to sue me if it wasn't :P

Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[narfbot]

They didn't shut down freecraft. The lead maintainer left and others picked up the project. It's now named stratagus.

I remember the lead developer of Bnetd saying the same thing as the freecraft maintainer, he was done with supporting blizzard products. So the lawsuit was meant nothing, more like a facade over suing the ISP of bnetd. Of course fair use rights are gone. But the same thing that happened with freecraft a year later happen with bnetd earlier, somebody else picked it up. Bnetd still exists.

So all around, these threats and lawsuits have meant nothing but one thing. Why are these developers up forgetting about blizzard? It's the community -- something about 12 year olds up and all whining to blizzard, discovering *some* people playing online with pirated games and *some* people playing a game that looks like War2. Nothing to do with having an alternative server that actually works, and having an engine that works on an alternative OS. So it's all about being backstabbed by twelve year olds who think they should be proactive and over protective of a company they idolize, and the rest of us are doing it for fun, but suddenly there is no fun it it. *That* is why these developers gave up. That is *why* there is a boycott. It's a matter of prinicple -- it's just a game and it doesn't matter.

(PS Bnetd is not a mechanism to playing pirated games. You can play online all you want using a tunnel (which zone, heat, kali, won, all used, legally), which is much simpler and requires no reverse engineering. All the bnetd people wanted was an alternative to /battle.net/ when it was always laggy *and* have the same match-making services. The copy protection is already broken anyway when some one can run the game, so bnetd broke no protection. CD-KEYs are a joke, and installers fail to be strict about them anyways. You could argue that it was against EULA, but really think, if you had the game, does it matter? It doesn't!)

Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[kwerle]

I remember the lead developer of Bnetd saying the same thing as the freecraft maintainer, he was done with supporting blizzard products.

You're using "supporting" in a funny way here. It seems to mean "impelenting some portion of the game so as to circumvent some part of blizzard's system". I call BS.

... So it's all about being backstabbed by twelve year olds who think they should be proactive and over protective of a company they idolize, and the rest of us are doing it for fun, but suddenly there is no fun it it...

It's about protecting your IP to the extent allowable by law in this country. It is about protecting your assets and income. Because they don't do this for fun, as it were. Everything they do costs money, and if they didn't think it mattered, they wouldn't do it.

(PS Bnetd is not a mechanism to playing pirated games. You can play online all you want using a tunnel (which zone, heat, kali, won, all used, legally), which is much simpler and requires no reverse engineering.

Which is to say, the IP travels over networks. ie. you said nothing.

All the bnetd people wanted was an alternative to /battle.net/ when it was always laggy *and* have the same match-making services. The copy protection is already broken anyway when some one can run the game, so bnetd broke no protection. CD-KEYs are a joke, and installers fail to be strict about them anyways.

You talk about protection a lot for something that is "not an issue". That makes me think it is an issue. That and the fact that you *can* use bnetd to circumvent the copy protection. Not to mention the fact that if all the traffic travels through blizzard, they can *at the very least* get some info on who is playing network.

You could argue that it was against EULA, but really think, if you had the game, does it matter? It doesn't!)

Which is to say "yeah, they're in the rights, but it sucks." Sure - I can buy that. bnetd (and freecraft) were both interesting projects. Admirable in scale, and all that. But they were copying blizzard's IP. They gotta expect to be shot down. They were. Get over it.

Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[MMaestro]

one of the newest and most popular MMO's just did their first con. Even if the company running it were complete assholes, it'd still be newsworthy.

FFXI recently had their own open media event (in the U.S. no less) last August yet that went unreported.

Why not report Lineage 2 news? They have an even bigger playerbase. Or why not City of Villians news? It was released yesterday and its the first MMO to let you REALLY play as the bad guy (not counting role-playing, nor SWG since the storyline leaves room for debate, and WoW's horde doesn't count since they're technically not 'bad' in context to the Warcraft storyline.) This isn't newsworthy, this is fanboyism. Will the release of the new WoW expansion be considered 'newsworthy' as well?

Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[Pofy]

>You talk about protection a lot for something that is "not an
>issue". That makes me think it is an issue. That and the fact
>that you *can* use bnetd to circumvent the copy protection.

WHAT protection and of WHAT work? What work does bnet allows you to copy or access through circumventing any protection? What it do is provide an alternative server for you to connect to. There is nothing copied or accessed that would not be so without bnetd, so I fail to see the circumvention of a protection for any work.

>But they were copying blizzard's IP.

Exactly WHAT did they copy? And what do you mean by IP? Are you talking about any patents copied? Did they copy any trademark? Did they copy any copyright? Or if you want to be a bit loose about "copying IP", did they copy anything that was protected by a patent? A trademark? A copyright? In all cases I would answer no, so what do you mean? Actually the case has nothing about copying anything at all.

Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[Dracolytch]

Very simply:

Blizzard is providing a fairly high quality product with lasting value at a reasonable price. So, you'll have some people that have bad experiences, and others who have to deal with the ugly business side of business, but the vast majority of people see lasting value and have a good to excellent overall experience.

So, what will it take to get a large number of people to dislike a company that provides them a good to excellent experience? Quite a bit.

~D

Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when does "golly" qualify as a rebuttal to a valid complaint?

Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[Rallion]

All the bnetd people wanted was an alternative to /battle.net/ when it was always laggy *and* have the same match-making services.

Blizzard took action against bnetd once it began to be used for Warcraft III -- a game that uses bNet for matchmaking only. The lagginess of the servers doesn't affect the speed of the actual games, because it isn't involved in the actual games.

Plus, you really have no idea what the point of Blizzard's CD-keys are. They're not meant to prevent people from installing and playing single player. People will always manage to do that anyway. They're meant to prevent people from playing multiplayer without purchasing the games.

Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[kwerle]

WHAT protection and of WHAT work? What work does bnet allows you to copy or access through circumventing any protection? What it do is provide an alternative server for you to connect to. There is nothing copied or accessed that would not be so without bnetd, so I fail to see the circumvention of a protection for any work.

Refresh my memory, here - it's been a LONG time.

Battlenet does or does not require you to log in, using a unique name/password that guarantees you paid admission? Doesn't it require the CD key?
Battlenet does or does not require the client checksum itself, verifying it is not hacked?

bnetd does or does not fail to implement these [and other features].

Exactly WHAT did they copy? And what do you mean by IP?

bnetd copied the battlenet protocol. Which is also blizzard's IP.

Are you talking about any patents copied? Did they copy any trademark? Did they copy any copyright? Or if you want to be a bit loose about "copying IP", did they copy anything that was protected by a patent? A trademark? A copyright? In all cases I would answer no, so what do you mean? Actually the case has nothing about copying anything at all.

I bet they infringed on a copyright, but IANAL.

But let's turn this on it's head: if blizzard was selling the battlenet service for $5/month, and someone wrote bnetd, would anyone be surprised they got shut down? Would you? If so, we can just agree to disagree now.

As it turns out, blizzard IS selling battlenet. The price is $0/month. That makes it a little more surprising that they're getting shut down, but the rules are the same.

Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[kwerle]

FFXI recently had their own open media event (in the U.S. no less) last August yet that went unreported.

Why not report Lineage 2 news? They have an even bigger playerbase. Or why not City of Villians news? ...

I'll make this multiple choice:
A. WoW has (by far) the biggest MMO player base in America, check the Korean /. for Lineage 2 news.
B. Nobody submitted news on any of these other events.
C. People at /. play WoW, not these other games
D. Vivendi owns /.
E. It's a conspiracy. Against you.
F. All the above.
G. Some of the above.
H. Cowboy Neal

Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[Pofy]

>Refresh my memory, here - it's been a LONG time.
>
>Battlenet does or does not require you to log in, using a unique name/password that guarantees you paid
>admission? Doesn't it require the CD key?
>Battlenet does or does not require the client checksum itself, verifying it is not hacked?

You are missing the issue. For there to be a circumvention of a protection, you need to either do some copying that the protection prevents or controls, OR you need to access some work that the protection prevents or controls. Now, what such copying or access is going on when a user uses bnetd? None. What happens on battle.net is irellevant since a bnetd user will not be accessing battle.net. The copy protection (it is really an access protection though, no copying is going on) prevents access to battle.net. To circumvent that protection, you need to still access battle.net, while circumventing the protection. Since n one would be accessing battle.net while using bnetd, there can't be any circumvention of the protection either.

>bnetd does or does not fail to implement these [and other features].

So what? Neither do almost any other program in the world. bnetd is a server that allows other programs to connect to it, there is no protection needed to access bnetd, so no circumvention is needed.

>netd copied the battlenet protocol. Which is also blizzard's IP.

What do you mean by "IP"? Are you claiming they hold some patent to it? Some trademark? Copyright? If so please state what you mean instead of tossing out a meaningless "IP" since it doesn't help the discussion at all. To my knowledge there is no patents on the protocol. Trademark would be irellevant and you won't get copyright on a protocol. So what is it you are trying to say?

>I bet they infringed on a copyright, but IANAL.

You bet? So you are basically just guessing? And if you mean copyright? Why not state so instead of using a very vague and confusing "IP"? Laws and how patents work are for example very different to copyright. So lets see what copyright infringement there was, any copying of Blizzard's code? No, any distribution of their code? No. Any piublic performance? No and so on. There is no copyright infringement. So you lost your bet.

>But let's turn this on it's head: if blizzard was selling the battlenet service for $5/month, and
>someone wrote bnetd, would anyone be surprised they got shut down?

Yes, if they charge for it is irellevant. This is common market and competition. If someone starts a service (regardless of if they charge for it or not), would you be surprised if someone started a competing service and got shut down just because it was competing? Of course you would.

>As it turns out, blizzard IS selling battlenet. The price is $0/month. That makes it a little more
>surprising that they're getting shut down, but the rules are the same.

That is completely irellevant. And no, they don't seel it anyway, but even if they would it would not change anything. From a copyright perspective it would certainly not.

Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[Pofy]

>Blizzard took action against bnetd once it began to be used for
>Warcraft III --

As far as I can recall, bnetd did never support WC3. It supported Diablo, Diablo 2 (open game play, it did not host games) and Star Craft. Since the source code of bnetd was made available, there was others (can't recall the name) that added support for WC3 beta, the game had not yet been released. That was the time that Blizzard took action.

>The lagginess of the servers doesn't affect the speed of the
>actual games, because it isn't involved in the actual games.

Bnetd did never host games (Diablo 2 being the only game then that was actually hosted by battle.net). SO not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

bnetd copied the battlenet protocol. Which is also blizzard's IP.

I bet they infringed on a copyright, but IANAL.

Well your uninformed guesswork is completely wrong. You can't copyright a protocol.

Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?

[narfbot]

Bnetd never worked with Warcraft III. You're talking about Warforge which was strangly the ones not sued.

Cadiem??

[Anonymous Coward]

It's CAYDIEM.. thanks

Before you bash Blizzard's customer service...!

[Anonymous Coward]

Very few people understand how hard it is to provide good customer service for an MMORPG.

This is due in no small part to the subscription fees being too low. (yes, that's right, too LOW).

Blizzard may have room for improvement, but they're doing as good a job as any large-scale MMO has ever done. Certainly a better job than Sony/Verant has ever done!

Re:Before you bash Blizzard's customer service...!

[briancarnell]

Nonsense. Their customer support sucks.

You could just do a "Very few peple understand how hard it is to provide good custmoer supoprt service for [fill in the blank.]"

Sorry, but could care less. I purchase a product that promises a certain level of support, and I don't want to hear whining about how difficult it is to provide that support.

Besides, Blizzard doesn't provide any support...how hard can that be?

Re:Before you bash Blizzard's customer service...!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a good example of sucky Blizzard customer support:

1) I play for 6 months on a name developing a reputation as a good healer and instance player.
2) Have your name nerfed for the most ambiguous reason in their naming policy - "or otherwise offensive"
3) I send in a reply saying there is no possibility it could be offensive because it's a made up word with no definition.
4) Receive reply saying "good point," the name isn't offensive, it's association with a website is what is offensive.
5) I mention that said website is no longer active.
6) Blizzard then changes its reason, saying a player petition forced the namechange.
7) I send a reply saying that, according to ToS, player whim alone isn't enough to change name. So I ask for a copy of the petition, including the faction of the reporting player. I imagine if it was an Alliance member (I played Horde), and I recently killed them, that would provoke such a sudden response considering 6 months had elapsed with no complaints whatsoever.
8) Receive reply saying Blizzard has a policy of not releasing such info.
9) I ask to see a copy of that policy, along with the phone number of a managing supervisor who can verify its existence to make sure some GM isn't jerking me around.
10) Receive reply saying they can't give out that information.
11) I refocus on the argument that the name isn't offensive because players are warned by the ERSB rating scheme on the box that the game contains violence, blood, gore, alcohol, adult themes, etc. so therefore that includes exposure to potentially offensive names.
12) No response to my argument, although they change their reason again that the name doesn't comply.
13) In the meantime, they randomly assign me a name which happens to violate their own naming convention by being a geographical place name.
14) When I ask why I see me ex-name on another player in the same realm, the GM says he will no longer speak to me and my e-mail gets blacklisted. Yes, as in, no further replies, from any address I sent to naming support.

That's why Blizzard support sucks. And that is why I quit the game.

Re:Before you bash Blizzard's customer service...!

[Kredal]

So... what was your name?

Re:Before you bash Blizzard's customer service...!

[F_Scentura]

When you're paying 15$ a month (or less) you can't expect regular contact with reps who are paid around 10$/hr. Now, I'm not suggesting their support is great by any means, but had that AOL unpaid assistant class action suit not screwed over all MMORPG players we'd be much better off.

Re:Before you bash Blizzard's customer service...!

[Anonymous Coward]

You just cost Blizzard money. It would have been cheaper to ban you.

Re:Before you bash Blizzard's customer service...!

[Anonymous Coward]

CmdrTaco

Nah

[Anonymous Coward]

it's the chinese gold market that will suffer.

regular story lines updates...

[Erik_]

I beg to differ with your new content. I don't believe the WoW patches really add all that much content compared to Asheron's Call monthly story lines. I've had the please to play Asheron's Call (the first doh) for over 4 years. It's what kept people playing. Even it's sequel AC2 is dying off in a few weeks...

SC: Ghost

[clragon]

one thing that worries me is that they are releasing Ghost, on the XBOX, NEXT YEAR! that time is when the next-gen consoles are hyped the most, no one is going to pay attention to a non-next-gen game unless they know what they are looking for. i heard a back a month ago that Blizz was hire next-gen graphic designers and there was rumour about Ghost being released on XBOX 360, that would have made more sense and would put Ghost up on the par next year with all the new next-gen titles. but then Blizzard can also design the game so well that people would actualy buy it and play it on their XBOX 360 with the back-wards compatible feature... but thats not likely because everyone will probably get hyped up about the new games with awsome graphics and stuff... but then again, im a PC gamer... so i'd probably have to go to a friend's house to play it >.> i wanted to cry when they said Ghost was strickly for Consoles O N L Y >.

Re:SC: Ghost

[Baldrake]

This is how Blizzard does things. 12 months from now, there will be millions more Xbox 1's than Xbox 360's out there. At >$300 each for the 360, it's going to be a while before the Xbox classic is out of style.

Exactly What We've Come To Expect...

[Anonymous Coward]

considering...the result was nothing less than the level of excellence that we have come to expect from Blizzard.

We've heard about the two hour queues. But did the convention center randomly crash, kicking everyone out and make them queue all over again too?

Re:And now the horde shall feel the 13-yr olds wra

[Axalon]

Dunemaul? Barrens chat scares me. Anyway, Blizzard had better hurry with Ghost, as it is going to be released for Current-gen consoles and the X-Box 360 is only a month away...

Re:most important thing missed

[Anonymous Coward]

The most important point would be how they are going to implement an xpansion pack. I cant see them making new xpack servers, and they cant force us to buy the new game, yet must support the old one. I would guess this means some of the content will be free as a D/L (like a patch), and the xpack will simple unlock a few more sections?

Blood Elves?

[patonw]

Being affiliated with horde or anyone for that matter makes about as much sense as Tauren being affiliated with the Forsaken and Night Elves with Dwarves and Gnomes.

Lorewise Tauren and Night Elves should have their own faction and Blood Elves are... well not associated with trolls. They make more sense as an Alliance race than Night Elves.

Wow, I'm a nerd =\

Re:Blood Elves?

[CountBrass]

Agreed.

And what the hell are the honourable Tauren and Orcs doing allied with undead who are plotting to start a new plague to kill all living creatures and hate anything that lives (the forsaken, multiple quest lines) and associate with demons!

I still can't understand how Warlocks are a playable class: if there is one group of "ultimate baddies" it's The Scourge who are those demons. And in WC3 then only character who could summon demons was a scourge hero!

Blizz really screwed up world-lore in WOW.

Re:Blood Elves?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know your lore as well as you thought.

In WC III, the Tauren allied themselves with the Orcs to drive off the centaur. They owe a blood debt to the Orcs, specifically Thrall, and will not leave the Horde, especially not while Thrall is still the chief.

If the Night Elves didn't ally themselves with the Tauren in the many millenium since the breaking of the world, why do you think they'd do it now? The Night Elves knew of their existance, but did nothing to help or hinder them in their struggles against the centaur.

As for the Blood Elves, they could never be an Alliance race. After the Scourge destroyed Quel'Thelas and the Sun Well, the remaining High Elves succumbed to their vast desire for magic. As a result they were shunned by the alliance. Many of them joined Illidan after his promise to help them (see WCIII:TFT). The ones still remaining on Azeroth are trying to find their way to Outworld. They have some allegiance to the Forsaken because Sillvanas was once one of them. Like the Forsaken, the Blood Elves believe the Horde will provide the most support toward their goals.

Bleh

[Just-some-person]

"nothing less than the level of excellence that we have come to expect from Blizzard."

Do you mean this excellence?

I don't get how anyone still likes Blizzard...

Re:Bleh

[F_Scentura]

"I don't get how anyone still likes Blizzard..."

Because none of those complaints bother me any.

Rumours

[ShakaUVM]

A friend of mine showed me a week or two ago a password protected post on his guild's forum. It stated blood elves would be the new horde race and dranei the new alliance race. It also said that northrend would be a 80 man raid with 40 alliance and 40 horde working together with the Argent Dawn to take down Arthas.

I dunno about the rest, but the blood elves at least turned out to be right.

The new class is supposed to be the spellbreaker, with talent trees doing different crazy things. One is a talent that turns you into an evolving ooze (once every 10 minutes you become immune to the school of magic that just affected you). Talents for raising resists to different schools of magic, etc.

Overall, I guess they could be interesting.

Re:Rumours

[MMaestro]

No offense, but did you even play WC3: Frozen Throne? Almost half of the entire single player campaign involved the Blood Elves (it basicly chronicals their fall from favor, to breaking away from the humans, to the siding with Naga and running away through the Dark Portal.) As for the Dranei as far as the Warcraft 3 storyline is concerned no one beyond the Blood Elves, and the Night Elves who chased after them, is even aware of the existance of the Dranei.

A raid against Arthas would be the worst thing Blizzard could add to WoW as well. Northrend is more or less a giant island fortress at the end of WC3. All humans, orcs, night elves and renegade undead have more or less pulled out of the area. The blood elves and naga who went up there to stop Arthas in the first place are more or less wiped out/cut off from resupply/are leaderless since Arthas kills Illidan in the end. Oh and lets not forget the fact that you left several fully developed but-simply-left-them-behind-for-speed bases behind in your path during the undead campaign at the end of WC3.

Oh and Spellbreakers were a new unit in WC3: Frozen Throne as well. Sounds like people were just making estimated guesses based on what happened at the end of WC3's storyline.

Re:Rumours

[ShakaUVM]

Except they were right about the level cap being raised to 70 and the blood elves being the next race for the horde. They had a backstory which may or may not be real, involving the blood elves infiltrating the horde for nefarious purposes.

Re:Rumours

[Starsmore]

People are making educated guesses, but for the parts of your comments about the Dranei and Arthas killing Illidan, WoW's covered that. Apparently there is an enclave of 'Lost' Dranaei around the location of the Cavern of Time (I forget the zonename at the moment), that give quests and expand on their part of the lore, and for the four new dragons rampaging around the various World Trees, kill one of them and it gives you an item quest that reveals that Illidan is alive and brooding in the Outland.

Re:Rumours

[Profcrab]

According to the guys on the expansion and quest panel at BlizzCon eventually you will be able to fight Arthas, but that is not this expansion. When asked, "Why not Northrend?". One dev responded "Let me put it this way, do you honestly think that Arthas is level 70?" There were also mentions of places beyond The Outlands through portals. 70 is certainly not the last level increase.

Why people go to cons...

[StarkRG]

It's not the games and displays and booths and things (though they are perks), BLUE CHICKS!!!

The best place to get information from BlizzCon.

[antdude]

WorldofWar.net posted new and confirmed information and media such as photographs, screenshots, and movie footages (including panels and presentations) of the BlizzCon (year 2005). The video presentations are quite funny to hear the fans yelling. Here are some samples of videos:

• Expansion Blood Elf Warrior gameplay Movie [28Mb]
  
• Sound-alike Contest Movie [86Mb]
  
• Original Song Contest Movie [35Mb]
  
• Dance-Alike Contest Movie [29Mb]
  
• Costume Contest [129mb]
  
• BlizzCon floor walkabout video [30.22Mb]
  
• Interviews and many more.
  

Reposted from an earlier comment.

you're looking in the wrong place...

[squidsoup]

For that Diablo 3 goodness, try Guild Wars.

Re:you're looking in the wrong place...

[Pofy]

>For that Diablo 3 goodness, try Guild Wars.

I fail to see what GW has to do with Diablo. I assume you might be thinking about persons leaving Blizzard North, but most of the key persons at Blizzard North actually went to Flagship, the ones doing Hellgate:London.

Re:you're looking in the wrong place...

[squidsoup]

In terms of gameplay, I see Guild Wars as a significantly evolved Diablo.

This is kind of amazing

[adamb1]

Dont you think?

Buy the Game and Pay Again to Play It - NOT!!!!

[queenb**ch]

My qualms arise from the fact that game makes expect me to pay $50 for their game (give or take a few dollars depending on the title) and then pay to play it every month. Frankly, I flatly refuse to do it. If you want me to pay by the month, fine - sell me the game for cheap. It should cost well under $20 and the monthly fee should be reasonable. While the monthly fee to pay WoW is fairly reasonable (about $15/month), paying $50 for the game so that I turn around and pay another $15/month to play my game isn't.

How hard is it to do the math? Charge me $20 for the game and $18/month to play. Over the course of 18 months, you've actually made an extra $4 per player and you likely have more players.

2 cents,

Queen B

Re:Buy the Game and Pay Again to Play It - NOT!!!!

[AsiNisiMasa]

I'm sure a lot of people play for 18 months, but I'd be willing to bet that a whole lot more quit after one or two. If increasing profits in a way that made customers happy were as easy as you make it sound, they'd probably do it. They're not stupid.

Re:Buy the Game and Pay Again to Play It - NOT!!!!

[patio11]

If you've got a friend with the game, they just got a password in the email which gives them the ability to give you a week-long free trial, and then if you choose to play you don't have to buy the CDs because you already installed your friend's, so its just the $15 per month. They can only use this password once, but as soon as you actually fork over your first month's payment to Blizzard they get a free month of time, so its a win-win.

Re:Buy the Game and Pay Again to Play It - NOT!!!!

[Cederic]

Yeah, but since WoW came out in (the UK in) February I've bought one other game. Normally I'd have bought 3-4 in that time. So that's £50-90 saved (depending on purchase price) which compares pretty reasonably with the £63 I've paid in subscription so far.

Good MMORPGs have longevity beyond most games. UT, the CM series, and the Total War series are the only games in the last 5 years to have kept going that long. Heck, even X2 only lasted 3 months before I moved on..

Re:Buy the Game and Pay Again to Play It - NOT!!!!

[Morth]

Unfortunately, you still need an original cd key after the 10 days trial.

Re:Buy the Game and Pay Again to Play It - NOT!!!!

[patio11]

Ah, I just re-read the email. You're right, my bad.

When your friend completes their 10 free days, they will be given an option to upgrade to a full version of World of Warcraft by purchasing a retail copy of the game.

Re:Buy the Game and Pay Again to Play It - NOT!!!!

[beowulfcluster]

You get a month free with the game though, so you could say the game is only $35.
Well, only or "only" depending on yer point if view I suppose.

Re:Buy the Game and Pay Again to Play It - NOT!!!!

[Damvan]

If you don't want to pay the monthly fee, then don't play the game.

I really don't understand why, every time WoW is mentioned, you get the usual idiots coming out of the woodwork bitching and complaining about the having to pay for the game and a monthly fee. If you don't want to pay, don't play. But do you really need to come here and bitch?

Re:Buy the Game and Pay Again to Play It - NOT!!!!

[danzona]

How hard is it to do the math? Charge me $20 for the game and $18/month to play. Over the course of 18 months, you've actually made an extra $4 per player and you likely have more players

I think it is a mistake to assume that they haven't done the math.

I didn't buy the game, but some of the people at work did and none of them lasted a year. They had a tremendous amount of fun for the first few months, but then they found that each month they were playing it less and finally suspended their accounts.

Also, you might want to consider that Blizzard set their pricing structure to attract the committed player. By charging $50 for the game, they erect a barrier to keep out people who would just try the game out for a week or two and then bail.

I won't pretend that I know why they use the pricing structure they do, but if I was going to hypothesize I would start from the assumption that they thought it through and came up with a strategy that maximizes profits.

Re:Buy the Game and Pay Again to Play It - NOT!!!!

[mmkkbb]

the $50 is so retailers make money on it. if retailers don't make money, they won't sell a product. if they don't sell a product, you're only sucking money out of the pockets of people who shop on the internet. why limit your market?

Re:Buy the Game and Pay Again to Play It - NOT!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, isn't having the usual idiots coming out of the woodwork to bitch the point of /.?

They didn't advertise this too well

[MMaestro]

The general rule of thumb is that less than 1% of your fanbase will ever show to a convention no matter where/when/how its setup. Assume 45% the playerbase lives outside of the U.S. and you can take them off the list. Assume another 20% is too busy, 20% too poor, and 10% not hardcore enough to make the trip. Mark the last 4% as anything from 'not interested' to 'simply didn't know about the event'.

The fact that there was an entry fee, unlike QuakeCon, didn't help either. Charging people $140 just to get in (not to mention hotel, travel and food costs) is not a good way to start a convention let alone a convention aimed solely at Blizzard games (E3 this ain't).

Re:most important thing missed

[secolactico]

Maybe it will be like everquest.

You won't be able to access the new areas until you buy the expansion pack (and they won't be downloaded since you won't need it). You will probably download (via a patch) the artwork for the new races, tho you won't (or might not) be able to roll one of those.

Re:Is Ghost ever, ever EVER going to be released??

[bleckywelcky]

I'm dreading the wait for StarCraft 2. Let's see, StarCraft 1 was released in 1997. Here it's almost 2006 and nothing has even been mentioned about StarCraft 2. Assuming they start leaking info about StarCraft 2 by 2010, it'll be 2015 before we might be able to play.

Hmmm, 2015 ... I'll be how old then? And when StarCraft 2 finally comes out, I'll be like "wow, I remember the good old days back when I was a kid in high school and StarCraft 1 came out". *sigh*

Anyone who went to "Blizzcon" is an asshole

[Ath]

This is a company that sues their customers for "violating the DMCA". What the fuck happened to slashdot to post such a butt-licking story? Pathetic.

There are plenty of companies with cutting edge technology and the ethics that match up with what people want. If you went to Blizzcon or pay them a single cent for their games then you are just a whore for their crap. You pay for the lawyers that represent them in court, suing people who make a non-commercial alternative to their control of your life. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.

Re:Anyone who went to "Blizzcon" is an asshole

[ildon]

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that companies were supposed to let people pirate their games and not try to defend their trademarks (hey, it's not like they'd lose it!).

Re:Anyone who went to "Blizzcon" is an asshole

[Damvan]

Great input from the 12 year old's on /.

I attended Blizzcon.Here is my ScreenShot naration

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been to a Blizzard convention last at Fry's Electronics in Fountain Valley, CA-CA. Their cinematographer was one fat ass moron -- I know where they got all their ugly from. Just a bunch of prissy developers is what Blizzard has become. Just the story-line on all the "Entertainment" is of no linguistic value.

So, I'll narate the Blizzcon screenshots

Blizzard porn; pastor Deacon Fred says that she is our angel, and that it isn't adultry if you thought to know her
Oh Blizzard, where do you find such handsome signature plagiarists? Bank of America? Washington Mutual? Department of Treasury?
Blizzard Anim porn, Nikkita!
The correct place to put a muzzle on a chink bitch
She's realy just an albino nigger in a white wig
My Pastor, Deacon Fred, says to burn the witches
Blizzard is trying to say God chooses morbidly obese acne-pocked white girls are angels -- blasphemy!
Momy's daughter left the basement
He hasn't eaten any food since he made It, and now he's Come
More sorry-ass idolatres
Little fat-ass Jimmy got the nerve to stand with a hooker-hired Poser for the upcoming game! Don't put your standards too high for Pr0m Night
Assface
Almost porn!
http://www.blizzcon.com/photos.shtml?6@20,/images/ screenshots/,232,317,http://www.blizzcon.com/photo s.shtml?6@20#none">If only he drew the body first, and then give the option of drawing the clothes...
Another bleached Albino Nigger in poseur formation
Bless those vampires on our children
LAME!
LAMER
Who let Richard Stallman in the building? Goddam, how many oranges did he peel on hisself?
Some fresh velvet deamon-dominatrix porn threesome
Moppy brush
Brushy nigger mop
Blizzard PORN!
He advertises his victory, having "Made It" with the girl on the right. Or was it his right?
Wooo! Blizard porn meets Richard Stallman

Re:Is Ghost ever, ever EVER going to be released??

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed.. I want Starcraft 2 more than anything. I'm SICK of Blizzard milking the Warcraft franchise. We've had 3 Warcraft games in a row now, soon to be 4 with the expansion. And I could care less about SC:Ghost. It's console only, not Blizzard developed, and has been delayed for ages now.

Level 60 Elite Tauren Chieftain not a garage band

[AHumbleOpinion]

"Level 60 Elite Tauren Chieftain" was not exactly a garage band, they were Blizzard employees. That was part of the fun of it.

LIES!!!

[Mustang Matt]

Level 60 camping me waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!

Re:And now the horde shall feel the 13-yr olds wra

[An ominous Cow art]

Yes. We definitely need an "Age 35+" server.

But, dude....

[slappyjack]

You obviously didn't see the Hott Succubus in the costume contest.

She can violate my DMCA any day!

(This post was sarcasm.)

Re:What? 15 minutes for Pally buffs?

[DisKurzion]

Um...because a group buff (which is cast once) is insanely powerful and cheap?

Besides, Druids were DESIGNED to be "support", not tanks like the pally. Buffs + Combat rez FTW! /me plays a warlock. On a PvP server. You don't know ridiculous.

Blizzard Lost my support..

[NullProg]

When they migrated to that stupid CD/DRM scheme. Kids love Blizzard. I have kids. But they are not allowed to play with the originals. No backups, no purchase. I have all my original game media since 1979.

$400 worth of Blizzard games and I get from Blizzard support, 'You can't make a copy, but your allowed one backup'. Screw them, I'm not a re-occuring fee customer.

End rant,
Enjoy.

Re:Level 60 Elite Tauren Chieftain not a garage ba

[cbuskirk]

The bass player is in fact the Co-founder and CEO of Blizzard.

Re:Level 60 Elite Tauren Chieftain not a garage ba

[Rihahn]

Yep. The lead screamer is none other than Samwise, the guy who prettymuch dictates what Warcraft looks like. www.sonsofthestorm.com

Re:A more wretched hive of geeks and horde not fou

[beowulfcluster]

(after all what other company does hybrid disks for both Macs and PCs, I ask you, now if only they supported Linux)

SI Games put their Football Manager games on PC/Mac discs, *woohoo*

Re:Is Ghost ever, ever EVER going to be released??

[CronoCloud]

The delay of SC: Ghost is not Blizzards fautl, they farmed that title out. Not a very good idea, they should have done it in house. They NEED modern console dev experience badly.

Never been to GenCon, hmm?

[kria]

Although I'm sure that BlizzCon was cool, GenCon will no doubt remain the king of geek gatherings. And I enthusiastically attend with my husband every year. ;)

Re:What? 15 minutes for Pally buffs?

[Anonymous Coward]

the dropped group buffs Gift of the Wild are one hour and require a regent (wild thornroot at several silver a piece for the top of that line).

Regular Mark of the Wild is 30 minutes, Thorns are 10 minutes, and if specced to have it Omen Of Clarity is 5 minutes.

Re:most important thing missed

[Anonymous Coward]

Near Strat, there is a night elf named Adon. This is likely the area you cannot access without the XPack.

Re:Level 60 Elite Tauren Chieftain not a garage ba

[Starsmore]

Still a garage band. Just a garage band composed of Blizzard Employees.

Yawn...

[wfolta]

I guess this explains what they've been doing instead of fixing the MANY bugs that remain in the product a year after retail. And the many holes: things like endless 40-man raiding being the ultimate goal of the game, poorly designed and terribly performing Battlegrounds, talent trees full of talents that are well-known to be worthless (because of class evolution since beta), way too much grinding, many ways of griefing left in the system, professions that don't provide much benefit or income, etc, etc.

They're so busy puffing the NEW stuff (maybe a year out) and my guess is this gives full permission to ignore the current problems. Glad I stopped paying my monthly fee. (Had a 60 Shaman and a 60 Warlock.)

I used to respect Blizzard as the BEST game company. The early Warcraft series were AMAZING. They're in over their heads on this one, which might not be so bad if they were honest, but instead they resort to arrogant "working as intended" answers -- when they occasionally do answer -- they ignore their user base when meaningful suggestions are made (Warlock) yet cave in to popular demand (Paladin), and they insist they will change something and never do then turn around and say they'll never change something and then do a 180.

If they'd established a track record of meaningful beta testing, waiting to release new patches until they were debugged, listening to customer feedback when it's well-reasoned, and communicating with users, I'd be second-guessing my decision to quit. As it is, I see even more content that will have the same problems. No thanks.