Meh, the effectiveness of DRM is dubious at best. When studies that study ( :P) this matter count "X pirated copies" as "Y lost revenue"....I don't think there's anything left to say about the accuracy of said studies.
Some savings is better than none, but I agree it's impossible to quantify the actual savings. In many cases with pirating people didn't have the disposable income to purchase the game in the first place.
So it's okay for them to get the game for free because they couldn't afford it? And Blizzard is wrong to try and stop them from doing that?
Not trying to put words in your mouth, just playing devil's advocate.
Saying that "if X people hadn't pirated the game, then X more copies would've been sold" is incredibly dishonest. You realise that, right?
I realize it's a false claim, I wasn't arguing that. My comment was from a "it's the principle" viewpoint.
Meh, the effectiveness of DRM is dubious at best. When studies that study ( :P) this matter count "X pirated copies" as "Y lost revenue"....I don't think there's anything left to say about the accuracy of said studies.
Some savings is better than none, but I agree it's impossible to quantify the actual savings. In many cases with pirating people didn't have the disposable income to purchase the game in the first place.
So it's okay for them to get the game for free because they couldn't afford it? And Blizzard is wrong to try and stop them from doing that?
Not trying to put words in your mouth, just playing devil's advocate.
D2 online only would have been a mistake. Reason: availability of internet
D2 was very much online though, and a huge success while we are at it. If i remember correctly it was the start of battlenet.
Didn't say otherwise, though battle.net should have been around since StarCraft. I said, having the offline option for D2 was important because not even flat rates were the norm back then.
Battle.net started with Diablo and Starcraft, and WC2 got a bnet update at some point.
"I don’t think people necessarily remember how mad they themselves were that they had an offline mode and online mode in Diablo II," Martens said. "This will probably be controversial for me to say. People will be like, 'I wasn’t mad!' But I was there at the time, and then I studied this for a living. It sucks when your friend or brother is online and he wants to join this game, but you realize you’re an offline character and he’s an online character, and there’s no way to transfer over because offline characters can be hacked and hex-edited to hell and back, right?"
While I'm sure this situation happened to some people, I think even then most people understood the difference between online and offline characters. And while it sucks to not be able to play online with someone if you've been playing single player only, that's not really a good enough reason to take away the choice.
Granted, there ARE other reasons, but the article makes it sound like that's the only reason. I doubt that's what Kevin is implying.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I realize it's a false claim, I wasn't arguing that. My comment was from a "it's the principle" viewpoint.
So it's okay for them to get the game for free because they couldn't afford it? And Blizzard is wrong to try and stop them from doing that?
Not trying to put words in your mouth, just playing devil's advocate.
Battle.net started with Diablo and Starcraft, and WC2 got a bnet update at some point.
While I'm sure this situation happened to some people, I think even then most people understood the difference between online and offline characters. And while it sucks to not be able to play online with someone if you've been playing single player only, that's not really a good enough reason to take away the choice.
Granted, there ARE other reasons, but the article makes it sound like that's the only reason. I doubt that's what Kevin is implying.