Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard Boss Says Restrictive DRM Is a Waste of Time
Stoobalou writes "Blizzard co-founder Frank Pearce reckons that fighting piracy with DRM is a losing battle. His company — which is responsible for one of the biggest video games of all time, the addictive online fantasy role player World of Warcraft — is to release StarCraft 2 on July 27, and Pearce has told Videogamer that the title won't be hobbled with the kind of crazy copy protection schemes that have made Ubisoft very unpopular in gaming circles of late. StarCraft 2 will require a single online activation using the company's Battle.net servers, after which players will be allowed to play the single-player game to their hearts' content, without being forced to have a persistent Internet connection."
...are destined to repeat it. I can remember, back in the early '80s, when computer games on floppies (remember them?) were "protected" by weird copy protection schemes, including scrambling the directory so that if you tried to copy the files you'd just get garbage. There were even games that blanked the directory as part of their startup, only re-writing it at the end, so that if you removed the disk before the game was over, you lost everything. It didn't last, because, among other things, people always found ways around it. Now, Blizzard is learning that old lesson Yet Again: copy protection is, and always will be a lost cause.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
The second link confirms that there still will be no LAN support - the 'offline' mode is for the single-player only. Any networked game, including on a LAN, has to go through Battle.net 2.
Yep -- proving once again that history goes in cycles even as it progresses, in line with the overarching wavicle nature of the universe. Next up: Bell bottoms, and leg warmers -- this time, together!
Whee!
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
but won't this "activation" business complicate reinstallation onto new OS/computer? And what about the lack of LAN play?
Don't get me wrong, less intrusive DRM is better than more intrusive DRM and I laud both Blizzard's actions and words here, but don't the standard criticisms still apply: that it only hurts paying customers (though it hurts fewer of them than worse DRM) and is ineffective against pirates?
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Their games are mostly played online, and they've left out home network play. Their DRM is not the usual crippleware, it's the new kind of crippleware that puts necessary software on the server while taking away features gamers have loved for over a decade.
Starcraft 2 requires an internet connection to Battle.net in order to play multiplayer. LAN support was stripped out during development.
They've removed features from the original game in order to "prevent" piracy in the sequel. That's pretty much the goddamned definition of onerous DRM.
Why the love? They are still shoving restrictive DRM at you, just not as restrictive as another company's DRM. That's like saying that the guy who broke both your legs was really nice because he didn't murder you. (Convert that to a car analogy if it makes you more comfortable)
When Microsoft implemented activation for Windows and Office I complained like mad and stopped upgrading. When games started doing it, I stopped buying games for a long time and just replayed my old ones as I didn't trust game writers enough to connect my game system to the Internet. Even now I try to avoid it by buying games on GOG.com.
You say you still play Diablo 2? How would you feel if you suddenly couldn't play it anymore because a 10 year old game had reached its end of life?
Unfortunately, they still require online activation, don't support LAN play, and are region locking SC2 so that you can't play with people from a different region without purchasing that regions version.
It's the DRM equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome.
What exactly are you talking about?
It's a single online activation. It would not surprise me if they release a patch sometime in the future to remove even that, especially if they take down the auth server. Blizzard has done similar things in the past, although on a small scale. You are not, since 1.15, required to have a CD in your CD drive to play Starcraft or Broodwars.
I don't mind that they are trying to protect the single player part of the game from casual copying. That multipalyer is forced to be on battle.net only is slightly annoying, but I had not intended to play anywhere else anyways.
mov ax, 4c00h
int 21h
How is a single online account signup, your key is then bound to this account, any real form of DRM?
I paid for the game, I bind it to my battle.net account which has 4-5 other games on. I can log in and play whenever I want with no restrictions. No install limits, nothing. I can sell my account with all the games bound to it. Or create multiple battle.net accounts one per game and sell them seperately. There's no DRM/DLC or crap like that being pushed by other companies.
If you count a simple restriction of a login to prove the account you logged in with at some point legally bought the game (note the person using the account didn't have to buy it, you could lend it to a friend, or whatever). Then you've missed the point. I download stuff as much as the next guy, but when a company lets me use my purchase of the game the way I want. Then thats a good thing and should be applauded.
I fail to see anything restrictive about what they are doing.
And here Blizzard has a trick : WoW requires a monthly fee. So used games resell aren't a "threat" to its income.
StarCraft 2 would essentially be played online thru its battle.net servers and there you will need to have a valid account and register your game, as you would need to with Ubisoft. No one plays offline and alone.
Ubisoft's AssassinCreed2 is a game you can play only alone. So the "phoning home" from the DRM is artificial while it is "hidden" in games with a naturally online gameplay.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Unless of course they DON'T release a patch.
Maybe because they at that point don't want to.
Or maybe they are bought out by someone else who doesn't want to.
Or maybe because they go bankrupt and there are simply no funds or willingness on the part of the company sweeping up the pieces to do so.
Copyright is NOT intended to protect media creators. It is intended to create public domain works by temporarily incentivising creators.
The deal is they get short term profits, humanity gets the product forever after. In addition there are fair use rights in the interim.
DRM breaks fair use, but not only that it breaks copyright itself.
Activation is DRM. DRM breaks copyright. By breaking their end of copyright yet taking advantage of OUR end of the bargain, they are stealing what does not belong to them. They are breaching a social contract.
What if they collect royalties for the many decades they're allowed to, and then just stiff us? What was supposed to be public domain is lost forever.
Please post your address, I'd like to come take all your stuff. You'll clearly be OK with that if I give you the vague impression that I'm "likely" to give it back to you someday.
This space available.
Please post your address, I'd like to come take all your stuff. You'll clearly be OK with that if I give you the vague impression that I'm "likely" to give it back to you someday.
Oh, come on. After that rant, you can't possibly be suggesting you believe individual people should be allowed to own stuff.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
What exactly are you talking about? It's a single online activation.
You just answered your question. Online activation seems so simple, until it all goes wrong. You might install it on a notebook without net access (admittedly less of an issue these days). The servers might crash. A pirate might have already used your ID and you can't install. There may be limits to how many times you can install, so reinstalling after a system crash will cause problems. I don't know if it may happen in this case, but upgrading your computer may cause the software to think it has been copied onto another system and demand reactivation (or just stop working). The company might go bankrupt or just decide the software is at end of life.
But all that wasn't my point of my original post. The point was that you can't go around saying you don't have restrictive DRM and then implement restrictive DRM, but just less so than someone else.
My friends and I used to play cracked Warcraft and Starcraft copies on our PCs. After we graduated and eventually had jobs, some of my friends bought authentic CDs because they felt that it was the right thing to do. They said that they've always wanted to buy the real thing but they didn't have money to do so. It was then that I realized that the figures that some companies claim to have lost to piracy are just a bunch of BS. I also realized that in order for a software company to be profitable, they need to make quality software that people actually use. Attempting to control how people copy their software is a waste of time.
Actually, quite a few people have been known to enjoy that.
Online activation for singleplayer mode is still leagues more restrictive than what we had just 5 years ago.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Yes, you will have trouble installing this on the non-existent computers that have no way to connect to the Internet, even temporarily, but still are modern enough to meet the other system requirements. Yes, if the authentication servers crash, you may be forced to suffer without a video game for an hour or two (or rather, without this particular video game -- presumably you'll still be able to play others if you really, really can't just read a book or watch TV or something). A meteor might come out of the sky and destroy your computer. YOU NEVER KNOW! So many things may prevent you from getting your SC2 fix at the particular instant you want it most...
But all that wasn't my point of my original post. The point was that you can't go around saying you don't have restrictive DRM and then implement restrictive DRM, but just less so than someone else.
Apparently, you can. Furthermore, since "restrictive" can be a very relative term, you can do so with a straight face, in perfect accuracy, and be understood by most competent speakers of the English language, just like you can claim you don't like hot beverages but then drink a "cold" beer that's hundreds of degrees above absolute zero.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
leg warmers? wait what? Those are out of fashion?
"your key is then bound to this account" because this put an extra burden to the second sale market. IMHO company like blizzard saw that DRM is useless for piracy, but that they could easily pretend to be only checking the validity of your copy without being intruding, when the goal all along is to kill the second hand market and bypass the first sale doctrine.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
How is a single online account signup, your key is then bound to this account, any real form of DRM?
Here's the test: try to run the game without signing up. If you can't do that then it is a restrictive DRM. That's fine if you have no problems with that, just don't try to claim that it isn't restrictive DRM.
I paid for the game, I bind it to my battle.net account which has 4-5 other games on. I can log in and play whenever I want with no restrictions. No install limits, nothing. I can sell my account with all the games bound to it. Or create multiple battle.net accounts one per game and sell them seperately.
How many people really create separate accounts with a view to reselling their games? I would find that a total pain. What do you do, keep logging out and back in again to play another game online?
I've seen exactly this happen. Two years ago my coworker and I were dragged to Spain and tossed into an apartment that didn't have internet.
First thing he did was put together a solid gaming machine that weighed a ton. But it was still another month before we would have internet so he was stuck hunting for a crack online just so he could play the game he payed for.
Alright! It's nice to see a fellow GOG'er, welcome brother! After trying Good Old Games I don't know if I can really stomach jumping through the other guy's hoops anymore. Having to deal with a bunch of discs, or having it phone home, install nasty viruses like SecuROM or Starforce, no thanks.
And from the looks of it they are just trying to put on a "happy face" to the same Ubisoft horseshit. And I quote "If we've done our job right and implemented Battle.net in a great way people will want to be connected while they're playing the single player campaign so they can stay connected to their friends on Battle.net and earn the achievements on Battle.net"
So how exactly is this different than the Ubisoft bullshit? He is just basically saying "We will make it so you WANT us to screw you hard baby!". I shouldn't need a fucking Internet connection to play a single player campaign and yet again it is just another excuse that screws the paying clients while the actual pirates laugh their asses off and don't have to deal with the bullshit. At least GOG treats me like a valued customer instead of a criminal. NO DRM, NO phoning home, NO payment hassles, NO limits to your installs, NO problems backing up the installers (just a single .exe), NO problems running on x64, in other words they make their option a better value than piracy instead of treating me like a thief for daring to give them my money.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Yes, you will have trouble installing this on the non-existent computers that have no way to connect to the Internet, even temporarily, but still are modern enough to meet the other system requirements
It can also be a question of location. When I get a new machine, I use the wizard thingy to move my home directory and installed apps across. One game, Escape Velocity Nova, notices that it's running on a new machine and wants to update. First time I noticed this was when I tried to play it on the train. Ooops, no Internet, couldn't play it. I then tried a bit later to play it on campus. Well, there is Internet, but the firewall blocks the port that they use for authentication. I don't think I've tried reactivating it since then, I just make a note not to give Ambrosia Software any more of my money (and wrote them a polite email explaining why).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The unofficial patch will be out within a few days after the game hits the shelves, I think it's safe for you to buy it ....
I'd rather just call you ignorant.
Blizzard is the same company that removed LAN play forcing an internet connection to play with friends from Starcraft II.
The same company that sued a producer of a cheat application on the basis that it hooks on their application, all the while including an application with World of Warcraft that does exactly that to all the other processes on your computer.
The same company that sued a group of people who produced a 3rd party solution for playing their games online so that you weren't restricted from playing when Blizzard had problems or deemed a game end of life, or otherwise restricted you playing the game you bought.
If you think Blizzard is a good company then it's a rather fucking sad reflection of how much a company can get away with nowadays without being chastised.
I remember a time when a good company was a company like id Software that released it's game to you, handed you a fuck load of mod tools, included no copy protection whatsoever, let you play it wherever and however you want, and eventually even released the full source code too.
It's like when Gabe Newell at Valve goes on about how he hates DRM and thinks it's useless, all the time whilst peddling the most restrictive gaming DRM on the planet via Steam until Ubisoft managed to outdo them for that title.
Just because someone at a company says they don't like DRM, doesn't unfortunately mean that their corporate strategy is to not use DRM, or to generally just not treat their customers like shit I'm afraid.
They released no-CD patches for Warcraft 3, Diablo 2, and Starcraft 1, you know. They have a good track record here.
Some people choose principles and self-respect over satisfaction, Dog-Cow. That doesn't make them retarded shits, Dog-Cow.
Rather than unable to connect, let's try unwilling to connect. I have always kept my games separate from my real computer network because I deem game programmers and DRM programmers to be suspect. Because I am installing things more often on a games system, there is more chance of things going wrong and viruses being introduced. For this reason, I always keep this away from my real data. The easiest way to do this is physical separation. This then limits access to the Internet.
So you are paranoid enough that you don't want your gaming machines connected to your network of machines with personal data on them for fear of sneaky game and DRM programmers. You then go on to say the necessity of physical separation from your real network prevents you from hooking these machines up to the internet implying that your network with "real data" on it you care about is connected to the internet.
Am I the only one surprised that someone would view games as a larger incursion threat than being connected to the net?
On a side note, complete physical separation is not necessary, what you need is a good switch hooked up to your cable modem (or whatever your point of access for the internet is) set up with your gaming machines and "real" machines on separate VLANs.
Yes, you will have trouble installing this on the non-existent computers that have no way to connect to the Internet, even temporarily, but still are modern enough to meet the other system requirements.
I come from a country where connecting to the internet is a luxury. Luxury, as in "no ISP will ever consider offering you the service without explicit authorization from the government (or without a bribe)". Connecting, and having something else than HTTP access, was unheard of (unless, like me, you happened to work at one ISP, in which case, maybe you could be NATted from work).
Now, I realize, or at least hope, that Cuba is the exception (but don't fool yourself thinking about all the poverty - I know plenty of people who have brought games abroad). But internet access is not a guaranteed everywhere, even if you can afford a to buy a game.
Battle.net 1.0 is still up and it's been 14 years. So far so good.
Bonus -- if you like LAN play, you get sued. Add Warden to the mix, and I hate Blizzard with a passion. "No onerous DRM?" Can't play on a LAN without access to your servers. Spyware monitoring your computer's memory every 15 seconds for an EULA violation. What are these? Pictures of cute little kittens?
Put identity in the browser.
If you don't have Internet access, you really have no need to play StarCraft 1 or 2. The whole point is the online play. I can see why people would get angry at online-activation for other games, but for competitive RTS games whose main purpose is online play, it really isn't an issue.
What? That may be your whole point to the game. Mine, I loved the campaigns, but I couldn't stand multiplayer games. Even if you are into multiplaying, with SC1, you could play over a LAN, no need for internet access. Don't be selfish and assume that because you (and a lot of other people) only enjoy the multiplayer games over the internet, no one else can enjoy any other form of play. We do - specially when online playing is not an option.
Of course, in Cuba, that point is moot. You have to be out of your mind pay for the game abroad, then violate the license by importing it to Cuba, then possibly violate some obscure Cuban law or directive by bringing it, then cracking it anyway to bypass the activation. But there are many people out of their minds... and while I can't be certain of it, if most Cuban gamers enjoyed SC1 without BattleNet, I can assume that many people who may have access to the game but not to the online services would also enjoy it.
It's not gay if it's with an elf
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.