|
| Thread: SC2 cheating |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
SKPRIMUS
Promising
Supreme Hero
The One and the Prime
|
posted January 29, 2012 05:32 AM |
|
|
that SC2 article was Oct 2010 & it's still the same
I can see eery parallels with this appalling 'achievements' thing that H6 has also jumped onto...
Because I can see the following warped thinking by games managers:
original DRM being bad to SP users
==> lets add 'achievements' so SP users think that DRM is ok
==> 'achievements' can be seen by others & compared/talked about
==> "sh*t, there are exploits/cheats that would ruin the 'achievements' functionality that I (as games manager/designer) introduced & there are also people that would make a huge fuss about it"
==> ban MP and SP exploits/cheating so the 'achievements' feature is still ok.
H6 currently disallows user-made MP maps to be played online vs other humans, probably because it will affect 'achievements' at the moment due to the way it's programmed. Also probably disallow mods online too...
The H6 case may or may not be the intention in the end; but it sure looks like that in my opinion of their initial decision!
So a side-effect of DRM can turn a minor completely unnecessary feature into a blood-sucking monster affecting some SP game out of all proportion to the original gameplay....Next people will be banned for heavily criticising an aspect of a game in a forum! [maybe this might happen to VIP fans if they break the rules ]
____________
Hope defeats despair - "a blatant clue"
too many idiots in VW
"to lose is to win, and he who wins shall lose"
bashing orcus 
|
|
Dragon_Slayer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
toss toss toss
|
posted January 29, 2012 05:43 AM |
|
|
This is what Blizzard should say....
You don't own this game, you are leasing it. You agreed to this when you forked out your money. You could have said no to the ridiculous level of DRM, but everybody who bought it couldn't help themselves. Well now you're stuck with this, and it will become the industry standard. You'll have nobody to blame but yourselves.
Edit: Say for example you bought a new car. Everything is great but the speakers just arent good enough to crank out your tunes. So you replace the factory speakers with better ones. You wouldnt expect the manufacturer of the car to come and repo it and keep your money would you? So why should bliz be able to remove someones right to play SC2 both online and offline, even when they legitimatly paid for the game
____________
|
|
SKPRIMUS
Promising
Supreme Hero
The One and the Prime
|
|
posted January 29, 2012 05:46 AM |
|
|
they should say things like that on the front cover of the boxed game...like there is a warning on console games that it will detect mods & render your console useless
____________
Hope defeats despair - "a blatant clue"
too many idiots in VW
"to lose is to win, and he who wins shall lose"
bashing orcus
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2012 12:00 PM |
|
|
There's a big set of rules for all kinds of sellers. In almost all countries, there are institutions you can turn to if you're faced with dishonest seller. There are law rules that protect the customers.
But video games? None. They can literally make a rule that can destroy your game without any reason for it and it's ok. Imagine if a car producer put a bomb in your car and destroyed it for "personal" reasons two days after you bought it. LOL. They wouldn't go out of the court for the next three years. They would be totally finished on the market after such a stunt,too.
Game/Movie/Music industry is too powerful and too influential. It's them who is above the law (seeing how they can influence the government to make documents such as ACTA and SOPA) and not the other way around.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted January 30, 2012 07:21 PM |
|
|
I agree stuff like this sucks big time and I don't think it should be allowed either. I would just like to add, that I don't think this is anything new, is it? Hasn't this problematic gone strong for a long time and no one mentions it anymore despite there being "countless" of examples exactly due to no change happening? Or rather if any change is happening, it's in the way towards worse?
In any case, doesn't this work analogous to all sorts of copy rights and isn't this actually just a single branded example of problems with copyrights in general?
|
|
|
|
