What if Blizzard decides to tack SecuROM on to StarCraft II?
Last edited:
A terrible, terrible thought occurs to me
- Thread starter Tek7
- Start date
XionTawa
New Member
What is Blizzard decides to tack SecuROM on to StarCraft II?
Do not speak such evils...I don't want to have nightmares tonight...
Keero
Tribe of Judah Membership Administrator
I dunno, the sentence doesn't make much such. XD
I know, right?Do not speak such evils...I don't want to have nightmares tonight...
Infinity Ward dropped dedicated server support for Modern Warfare 2.
John Carmack said Rage, id Software's next title, won't support dedicated servers, either. (Admittedly, id Software is not nearly as relevant as they once were.)
EA is going to tack SecuROM on to both the Steam and retail versions of Bad Company 2.
There are no plans for LAN support in StarCraft II.
Shoddy PC ports are the order of the day: Borderlands, Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Halo 2, and the list goes on.
Ubisoft is planning to push a DRM that will be even more restrictive than SecuROM starting with Assassin's Creed 2. (Relevant forum thread here.)
The more I read about PC gaming, the more I want to take the money I would spend on new PC games and put it toward a PS3.
Valve and Blizzard haven't abandoned us yet, but Blizzard tacked SecuROM on to WarCraft III when it was released and Valve released Left 4 Dead 2 a year after the first Left 4 Dead while failing to follow through on statements that they would add new weapons and new characters.
Don't get me wrong: I don't think PC gaming is dead or even dying. I just think that "core" (which I admit is a nebulous term) gamers may need to turn away from major publishers like EA, Activision, and Ubisoft to find polished PC gaming experiences.
I still have a lot of love for Team Fortress 2 and I haven't quite gotten bored with Left 4 Dead 2 yet. Global Agenda turned out to be more fun than expected and unexpected gems like Madballs in... Babo:Invasion are always a pleasant surprise.
And, of course, there are plenty of great games for the Wii and DS (and consoles I don't own), too. I don't think we'll lack for great games any time soon.
Still, it's sad to see companies make decisions which, while possibly more financially prudent, seem to disregard the opinions of PC gamers.
Nor does yours, sir (assuming you meant "sense" instead of "such").
And I fixed the typo in my original sentence, but I left it in Xion's quote of the OP to prevent confusion.
Keero
Tribe of Judah Membership Administrator
For the record, Mass Effect 2 was ported/built by the Bioware guys this time, not Demiurge, so kudos for a rather solid game this time around. Looks better and runs much smoother. ;D
blackgravity
New Member
It can't be as choppy and and annoying control-wise than 360. There's just no way.
edit: i am referring to the first one
Odale
Active Member
SC2 can have all the SecuROM they can throw at it. I'll never play it. 
I recently said that I don't delete posts simply because I disagree with them.SC2 can have all the SecuROM they can throw at it. I'll never play it.
...But man, am I tempted in this case.
Let this serve as proof of my fairness as a moderator.
Avesther
New Member
Who says the new battle.net is not a form of proprietary secureROM? You won't be playing multiplayer on their battle.net without a battle.net account which will require a valid registration key.
Keero
Tribe of Judah Membership Administrator
I'll never play it either. Starcraft with better graphics... I r @m@zed.
>_______________>
>_______________>
Avesther
New Member
http://www.gossipgamers.com/starcraft-2-getting-drm-protection/
http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forums/showthread.php?p=167738
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55354
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...eenshots-and-trial-version-but-no-co-op/News/
http://www.incgamers.com/News/17885/starcraft-ii-gets-drm
http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forums/showthread.php?p=167738
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55354
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...eenshots-and-trial-version-but-no-co-op/News/
http://www.incgamers.com/News/17885/starcraft-ii-gets-drm
Neirai the Forgiven
Christian Guilds List Manager
StarCraft II will require a Battle.net account, which will make SecuROM unnecessary.
By doing this, Blizzard protects their right to have licensing, while not bogging you down with "legit" spyware.
By doing this, Blizzard protects their right to have licensing, while not bogging you down with "legit" spyware.
Avesther
New Member
Basically what each of those links talk about. Install will require a battle.net account (new or existing) and then after that, you will only need a battle.net account to play on battle.net. Solo play will not require online access.
As long as that's all there is to it, I'm fine with that.
Let's see if Activision will allow Blizzard to stick to that alleged plan.
EDIT: And I think what some of the authors of those articles seem to forget is that WarCraft III released with SecuROM attached, so Blizzard has used an invasive DRM before. As long as Blizzard does not use SecuROM or another invasive DRM to enforce the "must log in to Battle.net once to install" rule, I think I can live with this. Still, given that Activision will publish the game, I'm going to withhold my opinion until the retail release.
Last edited:
RyanB
Legacy of Elijah Guild Leader
Yeah, just the other day I had a nightmare that Starcraft 2 wouldn't have LAN...
The thing that we all have to realize is that the Blizzard we all knew and loved is dead. There is no Blizzard; there is only Activision. Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 will be on the new battle.net, and Bobby Kotick has been very vocal about squeezing gamers for their last penny. The guy brags about how his company is ripping people off, and has vowed to monetize the new battle.net in every way possible.
I would expect monthly fees, ads, and all sorts of other garbage to go along with the DRM.
The thing that we all have to realize is that the Blizzard we all knew and loved is dead. There is no Blizzard; there is only Activision. Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 will be on the new battle.net, and Bobby Kotick has been very vocal about squeezing gamers for their last penny. The guy brags about how his company is ripping people off, and has vowed to monetize the new battle.net in every way possible.
I would expect monthly fees, ads, and all sorts of other garbage to go along with the DRM.
Avesther
New Member
Just might have to either dust off the old SC cd's or go back to MSFS or get my second XBox360 working.
I was up...
...and now I'm down.
I think we all agree that Activision is evil. That's a given. The question is how severely their evil will influence Blizzard.
I've read that most of the key players who helped create and shape StarCraft have since left Blizzard, but I'm still holding out hope. Maybe I believe in Blizzard just because I want to believe in Blizzard--and because so many other developers and publishers have turned their back on PC gaming, I just want to believe in someone, and Blizzard seems like the best candidate. Regardless of the inspiration for my hope, my hope persists.
For now, at least.
EDIT: Blizzard maintains that playing StarCraft II on Battle.net won't require a monthly fee. Click here and scroll down to the blue post. (For those not familiar with Blizzard forums, posts from Blizzard employees are displayed in blue text.)
Joshinator
Christian Gamers Alliance TeamSpeak 3 Server Opera
Fixed.
Wow. I think you are grossly exaggerating the state of gaming. Blizzard's always been a great company, and that continues to show through today. If they weren't great they would have released StarCraft II two or three years ago, but they haven't; they've held on. And you act like the old battle.net was great, and it most definitely wasn't. Even at the time it came out I realized it wasn't nearly as great as the game; and now with all the new features battle.net 2.0 has I think it will be far superior than its predecessor. I think it works well within the game-play and the two appear to complement each other very well.
And Activision is not the only greedy corporation Blizzard has been owned by. While I agree Activision is evil, so was Universal. Just like Universal didn't effect Blizzard's franchise's nor do I think Activision will. I think/hope Blizzard is too smart to let someone interfere in the game design and production.
Lastly, as cool as LAN is, and as sad as I am to see it go, I really don't see how it makes a difference in the long run. LAN is not nearly as popular now as it was 10 years ago (if it was ever really popular then). I could definitely see living without it.
Last edited: