Thing is it's looking increasingly likely that a Battlenet connection will be mandatory for all multiplayer, and possibly single player, as an anti-piracy method.
Seriously though, the game is fantastically well balanced. Not so much when it first came out but Blizz did an awesome job patching it.
Starcraft is a classic. SC2 won't be. The Blizzard who developed the original SC is a VASTLY different company than the one who developed SC2.
Incidentally, I notice no mention of the "There will be 3 different releases, one for each race" nonsense. Have they dropped that? Or are they hoping people might forget that money gouging nonsense?
If Point 1 was valid, Bethesda would not have charged for the many Oblivion addons. And Fallout 3 addons. Let's not forget all the stuff you can buy for The Sims franchise. And Spore etc...
Point 2 is the old "PC gaming is dying" argument that has been touted for at least the last ten years. It's utter bollocks. Yes, the consoles have a bigger audience, but the fact is PC gaming isn't going anywhere.
As for point 3... We've been seeing expansion packs released for PC games for over a decade now. So how is the DLC thing any different? PC gamers would accept the DLC model because they're just as stupid and gullible as their console owning brothers. They seem to like being parted from their money for stuff that in many cases should have been in there in the first place, just like the console owners they look down on.
If this wasn't the case, the market for expansion packs wouldn't exist. (One reason I wait for the inevitable "Gold" edition of a game which will bundle game and expansion, usually for less than the original game cost on its own.)
As I said higher up, I don't mind paying if it adds something to the game, like Big Surf Island in Burnout Paradise.
But you get situations like Resident Evil. I think there was some DLC on release day to unlock something that was very clearly already on the disk. Lot of people got mad about that but, as always, the furore dies down and it returns to business as usual.
The problem is not whining. It's complacency. People get annoyed, angry, "I won't stand for this" and then after a few days it'll be situation normal and the business of gouging the player continues without so much as a word.
It only happens because the customer lets it happen. Want to see evidence? Go check out Xbox Live.
The new update that dropped on the 11th lets you buy, as in pay hard currency for, outfits and items for your avatar. Already in games like 1 vs 100 I'm seeing folk who have these new outfits. Outfits that cost 400 Microsoft Points. (Around $5 or so, depending on where you are in the world.)
If you ever needed graphic proof of people having more money than sense, there you go. These people are absolute morons, buying virtual clothes for a virtual character with REAL money!
What games are you playing that need five minutes of setup? Hardest to setup in my experience are race sims and setting up my wheel. That takes a couple of minutes at best.
Flight sims, with my analog stick, about the same.
I own an Xbox 360 and a PC (obviously). If I can get a game on the PC I will choose that over the console usually. Stuff like TF2, L4D etc... I fail to see the point of them on the consoles. FPS games on a console are a big bag of fail IMO. Only people who defend them in my experience are ones who haven't spent years using the superior mouse/keyboard combination.
For the DLC, I believe Microsoft FORCE Valve to charge. Gabe (who looks more like Peter from Family Guy by the day) has said that they want to give it away, but MS won't let them. Not sure how much truth there is in that given Valve have recently turned to the dark side and taken this DLC to its natural conclusion and are releasing what should be DLC for Left 4 Dead as a full title.
The games I have on my Xbox are ones you can't GET on the PC, or ones that work best with a gamepad. Like Burnout Paradise. The PC version is out, but I'd much rather sit on my couch and play on my HDTV with my kids than sit at my desk and play it.
Though the situation with DLC is getting crazy. Two recent examples:
EA had DLC for Madden on release day! I bought Madden on Friday. (First time I've ever bought a Madden title within two years of its release.) Pop the disk in to discover there is already paid content to download. It amounts to super scouts for franchise mode and the ability to unretire players etc... And play as any player you'd like in Superstar mode... But again, release day and after slapping down $70 for the game EA go "Give us a little more."
Worse still is that it's already been announced what the first paid DLC will be for Beatles Rock Band. Game isn't even OUT yet and they've already basically said "You're getting an incomplete game and will have to pay again."
The whole DLC thing really annoys me. If it's something really does add to the game, like Big Surf Island for Burnout Paradise, then fine. (I bought the game used, so even with that the game still only cost me about $20). But announcing stuff you're going to have to pay for before the game is even released?! That is just despicable. But then I guess at least you have warning and can say "I'm not going to buy that." (Like anybody will actually do that.)
Companies now realise that instead of a full expansion for, say, $20, they can now put it out in chunks and make twice that.
The problem with DLC is it's a GREAT idea, but greed has, like with so many other things in life, ruined it.
I'm sorry, but with these sites, if that's how they feel, get the fuck of the internet. It was fine before you came along, and it'll be fine after you assholes have left.
Guess they have to raise the funds to pay Billy West somehow...
Was already skipping Starcraft 2 due to the multiple releases they're planning to gouge the consumer. I would not be at all surprised to find Battlenet is mandatory. The sad thing is there ARE still people out there with no constant access to the internet. Where my mother-in-law lives, your option is dialup. LIMITED dialup. You get 100 hours a month. Over that you're charged something like $3 an hour!
I wonder what the situation would be for servicemen overseas?
But of course Blizz and the like don't give a shit about people who live in rural areas. They make the misguided assumption that piracy costs them X number of sales and figure they'll make more money by "ending" piracy and probably assume people who live in small towns aren't gamers. Too busy raising barns or something...
You know given how much the industry claims to lose to piracy, and how all those nasty pirated copies are lost sales, you'd assume the first uncopyable game would be the biggest selling games ever.
Oh, but wait, we've had that. With Starforce. Early Starforce protected games were uncrackable leaving actually buying the title as the only option. And oh, surprise surprise, they sold about the same as everything else.
I realise that's going off topic, but if Battlenet is mandatory, I feel sorry for the folk in situations where they can't use it. And even if Battlenet doesn't do that, you know that sooner rather than later, being online permanently will become the norm for PC titles to "crush piracy". (Translation: So we can control every little thing, and pull stunts like Sony did with Wipeout HD.)
Used to love XKCD. In fact it produced my favourite piece of comic art of all time, and I mean from ANY medium.
Then earlier this year he wrote the asinine Firefly stuff and my interest died as instead of the usual whimsy and intelligence, it devolved into sad Whedon fanboy stupidity that was neither funny nor clever and I realised the guy is a fraud.
What do you mean "trying to make it"? EULA's have been that way for well over a decade now.
Sadly I doubt 99% of people will bother raising a stink over this and Sony will rake in the money. As I said earlier, the money they make from whoring the game will be more than they'll lose from upset customers.
Just another reason to add to the reasons I refuse to buy Sony anything.
Yep. I'd estimate in my experience for every 20 or so people who say "Screw them, I'm not buying that", 1 will actually follow through.
I've boycotted a hell of a lot of games over the years due to copy protection, greed of the developer etc... I realise my boycott makes no difference to the company. But it does make a difference to me.
Sony will make more money from the advertising than they'll lose from disgruntled customers sadly, until such time as the consumer at large grows a set and stands up to say "Enough".
Sounds like a newspeak term for slave labour to me.
What people seem to forget is in the case of the unemployed, as in those who had a job but then lost it, have PAID INTO this program. It's not like they are stealing other peoples money. Christ, I paid into it then moved out of the country. Meaning I've lost quite a bit of money to the UK system which I have no chance of ever claiming back. OH NOES! But then I'm actually a caring, calm individual who realises that 99.99% of those claiming benefits actually need it, and there will always be a few bad apples. You know what I do? I get over it.
It's all about juking the stats. Making it look like Brown and friends haven't sucked just as badly as the last guys.
So if you can't find work, you don't get welfare. Yeah, that makes sense.
That's hilarious. In a collapsing economy where more people lose their jobs every day, you're advocating a system where people need a job to get the benefits they need to survive...
So basically what you're saying is "I have a job and income. Fuck everyone else."
For every person claiming benefits who is a lazy bum, there are a 100 with legitimate needs.
Slashdot Mirror
Thing is it's looking increasingly likely that a Battlenet connection will be mandatory for all multiplayer, and possibly single player, as an anti-piracy method.
So a LAN patch may not be quite that simple.
It's such a ridiculous argument...
Everyone knows Protoss is best...
Seriously though, the game is fantastically well balanced. Not so much when it first came out but Blizz did an awesome job patching it.
Starcraft is a classic. SC2 won't be. The Blizzard who developed the original SC is a VASTLY different company than the one who developed SC2.
Incidentally, I notice no mention of the "There will be 3 different releases, one for each race" nonsense. Have they dropped that? Or are they hoping people might forget that money gouging nonsense?
If Point 1 was valid, Bethesda would not have charged for the many Oblivion addons. And Fallout 3 addons. Let's not forget all the stuff you can buy for The Sims franchise. And Spore etc...
Point 2 is the old "PC gaming is dying" argument that has been touted for at least the last ten years. It's utter bollocks. Yes, the consoles have a bigger audience, but the fact is PC gaming isn't going anywhere.
As for point 3... We've been seeing expansion packs released for PC games for over a decade now. So how is the DLC thing any different? PC gamers would accept the DLC model because they're just as stupid and gullible as their console owning brothers. They seem to like being parted from their money for stuff that in many cases should have been in there in the first place, just like the console owners they look down on.
If this wasn't the case, the market for expansion packs wouldn't exist. (One reason I wait for the inevitable "Gold" edition of a game which will bundle game and expansion, usually for less than the original game cost on its own.)
As I said higher up, I don't mind paying if it adds something to the game, like Big Surf Island in Burnout Paradise.
But you get situations like Resident Evil. I think there was some DLC on release day to unlock something that was very clearly already on the disk. Lot of people got mad about that but, as always, the furore dies down and it returns to business as usual.
The problem is not whining. It's complacency. People get annoyed, angry, "I won't stand for this" and then after a few days it'll be situation normal and the business of gouging the player continues without so much as a word.
It only happens because the customer lets it happen. Want to see evidence? Go check out Xbox Live.
The new update that dropped on the 11th lets you buy, as in pay hard currency for, outfits and items for your avatar. Already in games like 1 vs 100 I'm seeing folk who have these new outfits. Outfits that cost 400 Microsoft Points. (Around $5 or so, depending on where you are in the world.)
If you ever needed graphic proof of people having more money than sense, there you go. These people are absolute morons, buying virtual clothes for a virtual character with REAL money!
What games are you playing that need five minutes of setup? Hardest to setup in my experience are race sims and setting up my wheel. That takes a couple of minutes at best.
Flight sims, with my analog stick, about the same.
I own an Xbox 360 and a PC (obviously). If I can get a game on the PC I will choose that over the console usually. Stuff like TF2, L4D etc... I fail to see the point of them on the consoles. FPS games on a console are a big bag of fail IMO. Only people who defend them in my experience are ones who haven't spent years using the superior mouse/keyboard combination.
For the DLC, I believe Microsoft FORCE Valve to charge. Gabe (who looks more like Peter from Family Guy by the day) has said that they want to give it away, but MS won't let them. Not sure how much truth there is in that given Valve have recently turned to the dark side and taken this DLC to its natural conclusion and are releasing what should be DLC for Left 4 Dead as a full title.
The games I have on my Xbox are ones you can't GET on the PC, or ones that work best with a gamepad. Like Burnout Paradise. The PC version is out, but I'd much rather sit on my couch and play on my HDTV with my kids than sit at my desk and play it.
Though the situation with DLC is getting crazy. Two recent examples:
EA had DLC for Madden on release day! I bought Madden on Friday. (First time I've ever bought a Madden title within two years of its release.) Pop the disk in to discover there is already paid content to download. It amounts to super scouts for franchise mode and the ability to unretire players etc... And play as any player you'd like in Superstar mode... But again, release day and after slapping down $70 for the game EA go "Give us a little more."
Worse still is that it's already been announced what the first paid DLC will be for Beatles Rock Band. Game isn't even OUT yet and they've already basically said "You're getting an incomplete game and will have to pay again."
The whole DLC thing really annoys me. If it's something really does add to the game, like Big Surf Island for Burnout Paradise, then fine. (I bought the game used, so even with that the game still only cost me about $20). But announcing stuff you're going to have to pay for before the game is even released?! That is just despicable. But then I guess at least you have warning and can say "I'm not going to buy that." (Like anybody will actually do that.)
Companies now realise that instead of a full expansion for, say, $20, they can now put it out in chunks and make twice that.
The problem with DLC is it's a GREAT idea, but greed has, like with so many other things in life, ruined it.
It is rather disturbing.
Of course you know what will happen. They'll make it so people need less sleep so they can work longer.
Not like they'll be allowed to spend their new awake time on leisure. "Hurray! We can now work people an extra 20 hours a week!"
Don't you mean LIVE, since it appears every usage of the word LIVE must be in capital letLIVEters...
Their business model is dying, and again they're trying to come up with ways to corner a market they've already lost, with a format that will fail.
Good evening to our beloved Republican moderators.
Oh yes, and I love how he says "news websites".
The day Fox start reporting actual NEWS is the day Satan goes to work in a snowplow.
I'm sorry, but with these sites, if that's how they feel, get the fuck of the internet. It was fine before you came along, and it'll be fine after you assholes have left.
Guess they have to raise the funds to pay Billy West somehow...
Translation: "We have too much traffic on our websites so plans are in place to drop that volume of visitors dramatically."
LOL! I know you're carrying on a long tradition of trolls here on the dot, but that wasn't even a good try.
He's here all week. Don't forget to try the waiter and tip the veal.
I know people this has happened too.
Was already skipping Starcraft 2 due to the multiple releases they're planning to gouge the consumer. I would not be at all surprised to find Battlenet is mandatory. The sad thing is there ARE still people out there with no constant access to the internet. Where my mother-in-law lives, your option is dialup. LIMITED dialup. You get 100 hours a month. Over that you're charged something like $3 an hour!
I wonder what the situation would be for servicemen overseas?
But of course Blizz and the like don't give a shit about people who live in rural areas. They make the misguided assumption that piracy costs them X number of sales and figure they'll make more money by "ending" piracy and probably assume people who live in small towns aren't gamers. Too busy raising barns or something...
You know given how much the industry claims to lose to piracy, and how all those nasty pirated copies are lost sales, you'd assume the first uncopyable game would be the biggest selling games ever.
Oh, but wait, we've had that. With Starforce. Early Starforce protected games were uncrackable leaving actually buying the title as the only option. And oh, surprise surprise, they sold about the same as everything else.
I realise that's going off topic, but if Battlenet is mandatory, I feel sorry for the folk in situations where they can't use it. And even if Battlenet doesn't do that, you know that sooner rather than later, being online permanently will become the norm for PC titles to "crush piracy". (Translation: So we can control every little thing, and pull stunts like Sony did with Wipeout HD.)
Yes.
Used to love XKCD. In fact it produced my favourite piece of comic art of all time, and I mean from ANY medium.
Then earlier this year he wrote the asinine Firefly stuff and my interest died as instead of the usual whimsy and intelligence, it devolved into sad Whedon fanboy stupidity that was neither funny nor clever and I realised the guy is a fraud.
Or you could just, you know, visit the website.
So much environmental stuff. Climate change, pollution, rampant deforestation etc... And here we are. Making books of websites.
It's a PS3 downloadable title you fuckwit. Good luck pirating that.
Get back under your bridge fucknut.
What do you mean "trying to make it"? EULA's have been that way for well over a decade now.
Sadly I doubt 99% of people will bother raising a stink over this and Sony will rake in the money. As I said earlier, the money they make from whoring the game will be more than they'll lose from upset customers.
Just another reason to add to the reasons I refuse to buy Sony anything.
Yes, because putting ads in a game is exactly the same as compromising a system at the root level and leaving it exposed to god knows what.
Yep. I'd estimate in my experience for every 20 or so people who say "Screw them, I'm not buying that", 1 will actually follow through.
I've boycotted a hell of a lot of games over the years due to copy protection, greed of the developer etc... I realise my boycott makes no difference to the company. But it does make a difference to me.
Sony will make more money from the advertising than they'll lose from disgruntled customers sadly, until such time as the consumer at large grows a set and stands up to say "Enough".
I love how you are all saying "they would HAVE to work", as if there is some infinite job market with jobs for everyone willing to work.
What planet are you people living on? Because it sure as hell isn't this one.
Mandatory work?
Sounds like a newspeak term for slave labour to me.
What people seem to forget is in the case of the unemployed, as in those who had a job but then lost it, have PAID INTO this program. It's not like they are stealing other peoples money. Christ, I paid into it then moved out of the country. Meaning I've lost quite a bit of money to the UK system which I have no chance of ever claiming back. OH NOES! But then I'm actually a caring, calm individual who realises that 99.99% of those claiming benefits actually need it, and there will always be a few bad apples. You know what I do? I get over it.
It's all about juking the stats. Making it look like Brown and friends haven't sucked just as badly as the last guys.
"Tie welfare into a real job paycheck."
So if you can't find work, you don't get welfare. Yeah, that makes sense.
That's hilarious. In a collapsing economy where more people lose their jobs every day, you're advocating a system where people need a job to get the benefits they need to survive...
So basically what you're saying is "I have a job and income. Fuck everyone else."
For every person claiming benefits who is a lazy bum, there are a 100 with legitimate needs.