Speaking of THQ, and something they can possibly bank on, how did the first Darksiders sell? Amazing game, but I seem to remember it hitting bargain bin prices pretty quickly. It launched same day as Bayonetta, another game that didn't set the world on fire, but it launched the same month as Mass Effect 2 as well...
I believe it did a little over a mil which is pretty good all things considered.
It's no Men of War, in terms of nicheness. I mean, unless you consider PCs niche
Not niche exactly, but I would say the only recognizable-to-mainstream PC-exclusive titles are the ones coming from Valve and Blizzard
EDIT: Never mind, Valve's stuff isn't even PC-exclusive
Are we talking mainstream, or something we'd categories as successful (or even very successful)? Because the two aren't necessarily the same. For that matter, are we talking mainstream as in people outside of gaming know about it, or "mainstream" as in its well hyped in gaming?
Because I'm wondering where something like Minecraft sits on that spectrum. Or the Total War series. I mean, a game series like Dead Space is relatively well know in gaming circles, but it's even outsold by STALKER (something like 1-3 million units sold for each iteration. And that's a game set in Ukraine and which hardcore fans like to play in Russian).
Tieing this back to Company of Heroes 2, yeah, I'd definitely expect THQ to push it some more.
subedii on
0
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
what were space marines actual numbers? i would like to see if it made a net profit or even a straight up return on investment
Hard numbers are starting to come out of the Activision v. Infinity Ward case as things continue to ramp up towards the actual trial, which is currently slated to take place next month. Specifically, Activision revealed during a hearing last Friday that it has paid out in excess of $493 million in bonuses to Infinity Ward, a figure that includes the $42 million payout that occurred earlier this month, according to Polygon.
That $439 million encompasses all bonuses paid out to Infinity Ward since the original Call of Duty launched in 2003. To date, IW has been granted bonuses for games it was directly involved with as a studio, as well as games that used its tech and the Call of Duty IP, like the Treyarch-developed Call of Duty: World at War.
Attorneys for former IW heads Vince Zampella and Jason West argued that the ex-Infinity Ward employee group is also owed its share of "launch quarter" bonuses from the release of Black Ops and Modern Warfare 3, a point that Activision obviously disagrees with.
439 looks like a typo and should be 493.
Damn, that is a lot of money.
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
Since 2003 so that's
Call of Duty(it was also later re-released on XBLA/PSN)
Call of Duty 2
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Call of Duty: World at War (Worked on by Treyarch but used IW engine)
Quantum of Solace(used IW engine)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Call of Duty: Black Ops(again developed by Treyarch but used IW engine
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops II(probably didn't get paid for this since it isn't out yet)
So...that's about 500 mil between 8 games...so that's like 60-ish million on average. And no doubt some of the bonuses were bigger for some games than others.
I don't know how many employees are on the team...but man that's quite a bit.
0
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
The top performer was Warhammer 40K: Space Marine, which managed to sell 1.2 million units across all platforms during the quarter, a little under half of which were sold in North America.
The worst part is that the 38 Studios money was 60% of RI's economic development fund. This was definitely not the basket to put all our eggs in. Providence and the state has a lot of potential, but we have a ways to go before we start living up to our re-branding as the "Creative Capital". A big problem is that we have world renowned schools right here in Providence, Brown University and Rhode Island School Of Design. Yet, most of the graduates leave the state, because there aren't enough jobs here for them, or jobs that would take advantage of a high level degree. That's why a (well run, financially sound) game company would have been a great start for us.
60%?!? Holy cheesus.
Had schilling at least not used some of the loan to repay his original investment, they'd still have some money. Dude shouldn't have gotten a dime back until the game was out, like any damned investor.
Hard numbers are starting to come out of the Activision v. Infinity Ward case as things continue to ramp up towards the actual trial, which is currently slated to take place next month. Specifically, Activision revealed during a hearing last Friday that it has paid out in excess of $493 million in bonuses to Infinity Ward, a figure that includes the $42 million payout that occurred earlier this month, according to Polygon.
That $439 million encompasses all bonuses paid out to Infinity Ward since the original Call of Duty launched in 2003. To date, IW has been granted bonuses for games it was directly involved with as a studio, as well as games that used its tech and the Call of Duty IP, like the Treyarch-developed Call of Duty: World at War.
Attorneys for former IW heads Vince Zampella and Jason West argued that the ex-Infinity Ward employee group is also owed its share of "launch quarter" bonuses from the release of Black Ops and Modern Warfare 3, a point that Activision obviously disagrees with.
439 looks like a typo and should be 493.
Damn, that is a lot of money.
I'm a little worried at the play Activision is making with that information. It seems to be them saying, "Of course we pay bonuses! SEE!" while also slighting West and Zampella, trying to make the pair look like they're 1) greedy, or 2) impatient about bonus payouts, or 3) both. Hopefully there's enough evidence to put Activision on its ass about this, especially with that note about "launch quarter" bonuses. So at the very least, West and Zampella covered themselves with a scheduling of bonuses. Something I imagine could be easy to overlook when establishing contracts.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
A Blizzard community manager gave a very frank response to the Diablo 3 hack issues, and this was a part of his spiel:
Well, the cause is people desiring a shortcut in their games by buying gold. If you mean the technical cause, as I mentioned previously the gold selling companies use a vast array of methods. A good friend of mine is a long time network admin (and a very good one at that), who had decided to not use an authenticator because he'd never had any security issues with his computer over the years. Well, an Adobe Flash vulnerability popped up a couple years ago, and he procrastinated applying the update by a whole week. As you can probably guess by the fact that I'm relating this anecdote, his WoW account was compromised and stripped because of that one week window.
There's absolutely nothing shameful about getting compromised, these companies are good at what they do. Heck, the former head of Blizzard Customer Service had his account compromised. It's because of how devious and high-tech the gold-selling companies have gotten that we implemented the physical and mobile authenticators. We can't physically go to everyone's computer and make it safe, so we've provided a tool that does it for you.
I've been a computer tech for a long time, and I've never had a single malicious security breach on any of my computers that I'm aware of, but I attached one of the very first batches of physical authenticators to my account. Why? Because no matter how good I am, sooner or later they were going to get me. But now, they can't.
I'm sure people are going to wave their hand with a scoff and say, "PFFT, HE'S JUST TRYING TO SELL MORE AUTHENTICATORS." Or maybe you can realize that he has a point. Practically speaking, the authenticator is a damn good security tool. The bottom line is, people who expect prevention 100% of the time are silly as shit. What you judge the companies who get hacked on is their response time and means of response and the effectiveness of that response. Look back to what happened with Sony during that whole goddamn thing - they took days to respond and were bad at it, which is why people held it up for so long as a major issue.
A Blizzard community manager gave a very frank response to the Diablo 3 hack issues, and this was a part of his spiel:
Well, the cause is people desiring a shortcut in their games by buying gold. If you mean the technical cause, as I mentioned previously the gold selling companies use a vast array of methods. A good friend of mine is a long time network admin (and a very good one at that), who had decided to not use an authenticator because he'd never had any security issues with his computer over the years. Well, an Adobe Flash vulnerability popped up a couple years ago, and he procrastinated applying the update by a whole week. As you can probably guess by the fact that I'm relating this anecdote, his WoW account was compromised and stripped because of that one week window.
There's absolutely nothing shameful about getting compromised, these companies are good at what they do. Heck, the former head of Blizzard Customer Service had his account compromised. It's because of how devious and high-tech the gold-selling companies have gotten that we implemented the physical and mobile authenticators. We can't physically go to everyone's computer and make it safe, so we've provided a tool that does it for you.
I've been a computer tech for a long time, and I've never had a single malicious security breach on any of my computers that I'm aware of, but I attached one of the very first batches of physical authenticators to my account. Why? Because no matter how good I am, sooner or later they were going to get me. But now, they can't.
I'm sure people are going to wave their hand with a scoff and say, "PFFT, HE'S JUST TRYING TO SELL MORE AUTHENTICATORS." Or maybe you can realize that he has a point. Practically speaking, the authenticator is a damn good security tool. The bottom line is, people who expect prevention 100% of the time are silly as shit. What you judge the companies who get hacked on is their response time and means of response and the effectiveness of that response. Look back to what happened with Sony during that whole goddamn thing - they took days to respond and were bad at it, which is why people held it up for so long as a major issue.
The problem is that there was a hard enough time convincing people they needed authenticators for WoW. That only eventually won out thanks to the whole monthly fee bit and unique time/money relationship MMO's tend to have.
Now we have a game that in many eyes is viewed as either a solely single player experience, or as a multiplayer game no different than any other game or genre out there. Now you got the tall tale of convincing them why this game is so special enough that it requires an authenticator. Since they'll just respond with "Well I don't need one for Call of Duty/Mass Effect/Final Fantasy/ect ect ect, why the fuck do I need one for this?".
At least Blizzard has done a good job so far getting these things out there, though there are still some big holes. Not everyone has a compatible device for the free option. And in my case, those gouging fuckers wanted $12 US to ship the thing to Canada. And what really busted my nut was that Blizzard is based in California, right? Well a guild member who lives there and had gone to every Blizzcon had a dozen spares lying around and she offered to give me one. And it only cost her about $3. So, fuck them on that front.
Nothing short of physically giving them away via stuffing them in the game box is going to make the issue go completely away.
Oh well. If nothing else, I am rather looking forward to the inevitable nuclear explosion on the horizon that will occur when you mix account hacking with the real money auction house.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
A Blizzard community manager gave a very frank response to the Diablo 3 hack issues, and this was a part of his spiel:
Well, the cause is people desiring a shortcut in their games by buying gold. If you mean the technical cause, as I mentioned previously the gold selling companies use a vast array of methods. A good friend of mine is a long time network admin (and a very good one at that), who had decided to not use an authenticator because he'd never had any security issues with his computer over the years. Well, an Adobe Flash vulnerability popped up a couple years ago, and he procrastinated applying the update by a whole week. As you can probably guess by the fact that I'm relating this anecdote, his WoW account was compromised and stripped because of that one week window.
There's absolutely nothing shameful about getting compromised, these companies are good at what they do. Heck, the former head of Blizzard Customer Service had his account compromised. It's because of how devious and high-tech the gold-selling companies have gotten that we implemented the physical and mobile authenticators. We can't physically go to everyone's computer and make it safe, so we've provided a tool that does it for you.
I've been a computer tech for a long time, and I've never had a single malicious security breach on any of my computers that I'm aware of, but I attached one of the very first batches of physical authenticators to my account. Why? Because no matter how good I am, sooner or later they were going to get me. But now, they can't.
I'm sure people are going to wave their hand with a scoff and say, "PFFT, HE'S JUST TRYING TO SELL MORE AUTHENTICATORS." Or maybe you can realize that he has a point. Practically speaking, the authenticator is a damn good security tool. The bottom line is, people who expect prevention 100% of the time are silly as shit. What you judge the companies who get hacked on is their response time and means of response and the effectiveness of that response. Look back to what happened with Sony during that whole goddamn thing - they took days to respond and were bad at it, which is why people held it up for so long as a major issue.
The problem is that there was a hard enough time convincing people they needed authenticators for WoW. That only eventually won out thanks to the whole monthly fee bit and unique time/money relationship MMO's tend to have.
Now we have a game that in many eyes is viewed as either a solely single player experience, or as a multiplayer game no different than any other game or genre out there. Now you got the tall tale of convincing them why this game is so special enough that it requires an authenticator. Since they'll just respond with "Well I don't need one for Call of Duty/Mass Effect/Final Fantasy/ect ect ect, why the fuck do I need one for this?".
At least Blizzard has done a good job so far getting these things out there, though there are still some big holes. Not everyone has a compatible device for the free option. And in my case, those gouging fuckers wanted $12 US to ship the thing to Canada. And what really busted my nut was that Blizzard is based in California, right? Well a guild member who lives there and had gone to every Blizzcon had a dozen spares lying around and she offered to give me one. And it only cost her about $3. So, fuck them on that front.
Nothing short of physically giving them away via stuffing them in the game box is going to make the issue go completely away.
Oh well. If nothing else, I am rather looking forward to the inevitable nuclear explosion on the horizon that will occur when you mix account hacking with the real money auction house.
They should absolutely require you to have an authenticator on your account before allowing you to connect PayPal to your account, period full-stop.
I don't even really understand what the endgame is for Diablo account-hacking, since you can't mail shit around like you could in WoW.
A Blizzard community manager gave a very frank response to the Diablo 3 hack issues, and this was a part of his spiel:
Well, the cause is people desiring a shortcut in their games by buying gold. If you mean the technical cause, as I mentioned previously the gold selling companies use a vast array of methods. A good friend of mine is a long time network admin (and a very good one at that), who had decided to not use an authenticator because he'd never had any security issues with his computer over the years. Well, an Adobe Flash vulnerability popped up a couple years ago, and he procrastinated applying the update by a whole week. As you can probably guess by the fact that I'm relating this anecdote, his WoW account was compromised and stripped because of that one week window.
There's absolutely nothing shameful about getting compromised, these companies are good at what they do. Heck, the former head of Blizzard Customer Service had his account compromised. It's because of how devious and high-tech the gold-selling companies have gotten that we implemented the physical and mobile authenticators. We can't physically go to everyone's computer and make it safe, so we've provided a tool that does it for you.
I've been a computer tech for a long time, and I've never had a single malicious security breach on any of my computers that I'm aware of, but I attached one of the very first batches of physical authenticators to my account. Why? Because no matter how good I am, sooner or later they were going to get me. But now, they can't.
I'm sure people are going to wave their hand with a scoff and say, "PFFT, HE'S JUST TRYING TO SELL MORE AUTHENTICATORS." Or maybe you can realize that he has a point. Practically speaking, the authenticator is a damn good security tool. The bottom line is, people who expect prevention 100% of the time are silly as shit. What you judge the companies who get hacked on is their response time and means of response and the effectiveness of that response. Look back to what happened with Sony during that whole goddamn thing - they took days to respond and were bad at it, which is why people held it up for so long as a major issue.
The problem is that there was a hard enough time convincing people they needed authenticators for WoW. That only eventually won out thanks to the whole monthly fee bit and unique time/money relationship MMO's tend to have.
Now we have a game that in many eyes is viewed as either a solely single player experience, or as a multiplayer game no different than any other game or genre out there. Now you got the tall tale of convincing them why this game is so special enough that it requires an authenticator. Since they'll just respond with "Well I don't need one for Call of Duty/Mass Effect/Final Fantasy/ect ect ect, why the fuck do I need one for this?".
At least Blizzard has done a good job so far getting these things out there, though there are still some big holes. Not everyone has a compatible device for the free option. And in my case, those gouging fuckers wanted $12 US to ship the thing to Canada. And what really busted my nut was that Blizzard is based in California, right? Well a guild member who lives there and had gone to every Blizzcon had a dozen spares lying around and she offered to give me one. And it only cost her about $3. So, fuck them on that front.
Nothing short of physically giving them away via stuffing them in the game box is going to make the issue go completely away.
Oh well. If nothing else, I am rather looking forward to the inevitable nuclear explosion on the horizon that will occur when you mix account hacking with the real money auction house.
They should absolutely require you to have an authenticator on your account before allowing you to connect PayPal to your account, period full-stop.
I don't even really understand what the endgame is for Diablo account-hacking, since you can't mail shit around like you could in WoW.
can't you party up with someone, and than throw the gear on the ground to be picked up? or just trade it
A Blizzard community manager gave a very frank response to the Diablo 3 hack issues, and this was a part of his spiel:
Well, the cause is people desiring a shortcut in their games by buying gold. If you mean the technical cause, as I mentioned previously the gold selling companies use a vast array of methods. A good friend of mine is a long time network admin (and a very good one at that), who had decided to not use an authenticator because he'd never had any security issues with his computer over the years. Well, an Adobe Flash vulnerability popped up a couple years ago, and he procrastinated applying the update by a whole week. As you can probably guess by the fact that I'm relating this anecdote, his WoW account was compromised and stripped because of that one week window.
There's absolutely nothing shameful about getting compromised, these companies are good at what they do. Heck, the former head of Blizzard Customer Service had his account compromised. It's because of how devious and high-tech the gold-selling companies have gotten that we implemented the physical and mobile authenticators. We can't physically go to everyone's computer and make it safe, so we've provided a tool that does it for you.
I've been a computer tech for a long time, and I've never had a single malicious security breach on any of my computers that I'm aware of, but I attached one of the very first batches of physical authenticators to my account. Why? Because no matter how good I am, sooner or later they were going to get me. But now, they can't.
I'm sure people are going to wave their hand with a scoff and say, "PFFT, HE'S JUST TRYING TO SELL MORE AUTHENTICATORS." Or maybe you can realize that he has a point. Practically speaking, the authenticator is a damn good security tool. The bottom line is, people who expect prevention 100% of the time are silly as shit. What you judge the companies who get hacked on is their response time and means of response and the effectiveness of that response. Look back to what happened with Sony during that whole goddamn thing - they took days to respond and were bad at it, which is why people held it up for so long as a major issue.
The problem is that there was a hard enough time convincing people they needed authenticators for WoW. That only eventually won out thanks to the whole monthly fee bit and unique time/money relationship MMO's tend to have.
Now we have a game that in many eyes is viewed as either a solely single player experience, or as a multiplayer game no different than any other game or genre out there. Now you got the tall tale of convincing them why this game is so special enough that it requires an authenticator. Since they'll just respond with "Well I don't need one for Call of Duty/Mass Effect/Final Fantasy/ect ect ect, why the fuck do I need one for this?".
At least Blizzard has done a good job so far getting these things out there, though there are still some big holes. Not everyone has a compatible device for the free option. And in my case, those gouging fuckers wanted $12 US to ship the thing to Canada. And what really busted my nut was that Blizzard is based in California, right? Well a guild member who lives there and had gone to every Blizzcon had a dozen spares lying around and she offered to give me one. And it only cost her about $3. So, fuck them on that front.
Nothing short of physically giving them away via stuffing them in the game box is going to make the issue go completely away.
Oh well. If nothing else, I am rather looking forward to the inevitable nuclear explosion on the horizon that will occur when you mix account hacking with the real money auction house.
They should absolutely require you to have an authenticator on your account before allowing you to connect PayPal to your account, period full-stop.
I don't even really understand what the endgame is for Diablo account-hacking, since you can't mail shit around like you could in WoW.
Seems like an excellent way to launder money (criminally-gained money->gold->buy a bunch of items owned by another account controlled by the same group).
EDIT: Or just people having an easier time turning compromised accounts into paydays.
A Blizzard community manager gave a very frank response to the Diablo 3 hack issues, and this was a part of his spiel:
Well, the cause is people desiring a shortcut in their games by buying gold. If you mean the technical cause, as I mentioned previously the gold selling companies use a vast array of methods. A good friend of mine is a long time network admin (and a very good one at that), who had decided to not use an authenticator because he'd never had any security issues with his computer over the years. Well, an Adobe Flash vulnerability popped up a couple years ago, and he procrastinated applying the update by a whole week. As you can probably guess by the fact that I'm relating this anecdote, his WoW account was compromised and stripped because of that one week window.
There's absolutely nothing shameful about getting compromised, these companies are good at what they do. Heck, the former head of Blizzard Customer Service had his account compromised. It's because of how devious and high-tech the gold-selling companies have gotten that we implemented the physical and mobile authenticators. We can't physically go to everyone's computer and make it safe, so we've provided a tool that does it for you.
I've been a computer tech for a long time, and I've never had a single malicious security breach on any of my computers that I'm aware of, but I attached one of the very first batches of physical authenticators to my account. Why? Because no matter how good I am, sooner or later they were going to get me. But now, they can't.
I'm sure people are going to wave their hand with a scoff and say, "PFFT, HE'S JUST TRYING TO SELL MORE AUTHENTICATORS." Or maybe you can realize that he has a point. Practically speaking, the authenticator is a damn good security tool. The bottom line is, people who expect prevention 100% of the time are silly as shit. What you judge the companies who get hacked on is their response time and means of response and the effectiveness of that response. Look back to what happened with Sony during that whole goddamn thing - they took days to respond and were bad at it, which is why people held it up for so long as a major issue.
The argument that you can never be too secure is valid enough.
However the argument I'm constantly seeing is that if you didn't buy an authenticator, you are automatically the one to blame, which is not.
I mean people have literally sworn at me on these forums just because I didn't buy one of Blizzard's authenticators, saying I "deserve everything I get" (yes that's a quote) when I'm inevitably hacked. This was in the STARCRAFT thread because that's the only game I have on BNet. Grief I hate that attitude.
If it's required security, then it should come with the game box by default. No exceptions (or one perhaps, digital distribution, and frankly, then DD users should get a discount on price and a suggestion / offer to buy). Otherwise no, having the customer pay extra for this or else it's their fault isn't a valid argument. And maybe it's just where I live, but I've never seen a box bundle Diablo 3 with an authenticator on shelves. Not even the special edition, and it's not like increased cost is an issue there.
subedii on
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Nothing short of physically giving them away via stuffing them in the game box is going to make the issue go completely away.
Even then, people will refuse to use them. Don't forget, a sizeable portion of the populace thinks the moonlandings never happened, wearing a seatbelt is more dangerous than not, and 9/11 was a vast government conspiracy.
Blizzard should be able to throw out a disclaimer that says "we take no responsibility when morons lose money because they refuse to use a proven method of security" and be done with it.
So far they have the authenticator and SMS confirming options. Why the hell haven't they added an email option like Steam does when you first use a new computer?
A Blizzard community manager gave a very frank response to the Diablo 3 hack issues, and this was a part of his spiel:
Well, the cause is people desiring a shortcut in their games by buying gold. If you mean the technical cause, as I mentioned previously the gold selling companies use a vast array of methods. A good friend of mine is a long time network admin (and a very good one at that), who had decided to not use an authenticator because he'd never had any security issues with his computer over the years. Well, an Adobe Flash vulnerability popped up a couple years ago, and he procrastinated applying the update by a whole week. As you can probably guess by the fact that I'm relating this anecdote, his WoW account was compromised and stripped because of that one week window.
There's absolutely nothing shameful about getting compromised, these companies are good at what they do. Heck, the former head of Blizzard Customer Service had his account compromised. It's because of how devious and high-tech the gold-selling companies have gotten that we implemented the physical and mobile authenticators. We can't physically go to everyone's computer and make it safe, so we've provided a tool that does it for you.
I've been a computer tech for a long time, and I've never had a single malicious security breach on any of my computers that I'm aware of, but I attached one of the very first batches of physical authenticators to my account. Why? Because no matter how good I am, sooner or later they were going to get me. But now, they can't.
I'm sure people are going to wave their hand with a scoff and say, "PFFT, HE'S JUST TRYING TO SELL MORE AUTHENTICATORS." Or maybe you can realize that he has a point. Practically speaking, the authenticator is a damn good security tool. The bottom line is, people who expect prevention 100% of the time are silly as shit. What you judge the companies who get hacked on is their response time and means of response and the effectiveness of that response. Look back to what happened with Sony during that whole goddamn thing - they took days to respond and were bad at it, which is why people held it up for so long as a major issue.
If the company really believed that and weren't hiding behind some lousy anecdotes and trying to incite fear into their customer base to sell more products, then they would include authenticators in their game purchases. But of course, this is just PR spin so whatever; it's the customers fault for not buying the extra product, not Blizzard's for being unable to provide a secure system. Yup, sure.
The bulk of sales are through physical means, let's try not to shift the debate by including the minority of how the product gets sold.
But you're right, I bet there's no other company out there that provides a means of security through digital means. Oh wait, there's that Steam place, right?
The bulk of sales are through physical means, let's try not to shift the debate by including the minority of how the product gets sold.
But you're right, I bet there's no other company out there that provides a means of security through digital means. Oh wait, there's that Steam place, right?
I wanted to say something about Steamguard but I pretty much already know where that argument's going (which is getting shouted at some more). In real terms it's effectively the same as the authenticator, because BNet doesn't actually ASK for the authenticator once it's established you're using a set PC, only once you deviate from it. Crikey, Gabe Newell even made his login and password public and let people try.
I can see the point in that it's not a physical device, and therefore less secure. I can understand that, I really do. But again, if this device is crucial, then Blizzard can easily make it mandatory for all DD purchasers as well. Just ship it to the customer (you HAVE their address), and allow them to login regularly until it arrives. It'll cost more? Fine, whatever, everyone's saying this is mandatory right? Then actually SAYING so and requiring it should not be an issue. After all, Blizzard would be well within their rights to say "we take no responsibility when morons lose money because they refuse to use a proven method of security", or so I'm told.
And all this still provides zero explanation as to why an authenticator is not bundled with the physical gamebox (again, not even the special edition) if it is in fact required security. At least the option (since as some people below have already said, you can get a smartphone version).
subedii on
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
Seems to me the reasonable thing would have been to have a digital authenicator or whatever and just give people the option of buying a physical one if need be.
Seems to me the reasonable thing would have been to have a digital authenicator or whatever and just give people the option of buying a physical one if need be.
You mean the absolutely free mobile authenticator?
Seems to me the reasonable thing would have been to have a digital authenicator or whatever and just give people the option of buying a physical one if need be.
You mean the absolutely free mobile authenticator?
Not everyone has cell phones compatible with that program!
OH FUCK!
This argument of "You need to buy an additional layer of security, or have a fairly expensive device compatible with a free version of that security" is absolutely fucking retarded, straight up.
Seriously, if we don't do it to bank accounts, we shouldn't do it to game accounts.
Especially if we're going to be linking game accounts to bank accounts sometime in the near future.
Also, any complaints about the authenticator being a required additional layer of security are made completely irrelevant by Battle.Net passwords not being case sensitive.
MechMantis on
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
Apparently, not everyone has cell phones. I believe Blizzard has filed that under "outside of the demographic we care about". The US has a population of around 313 million. There are 327 million mobile phones in the US.
At some point, you just write certain people off.
EDIT: I believe they had a Java-based widget you could use on non-smartphones. They discontinued that.
some of us are stuck in the stone age and don't have smart phones
Yes, this. Or any desire to own one.
Buying additional security for a video game account is just dumb, especially when the company itself doesn't even provide for honest to God powerful passwords for some unfathomable reason.
It is the most glorious kind of racket.
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
Apparently, not everyone has cell phones. I believe Blizzard has filed that under "outside of the demographic we care about". The US has a population of around 313 million. There are 327 million mobile phones in the US.
At some point, you just write certain people off.
I... what?
Cell phones=/=smart phones. You need a smart phone to run the authenticator program.
Apparently, not everyone has cell phones. I believe Blizzard has filed that under "outside of the demographic we care about". The US has a population of around 313 million. There are 327 million mobile phones in the US.
At some point, you just write certain people off.
I... what?
Cell phones=/=smart phones. You need a smart phone to run the authenticator program.
Further, what kind of bullshit is this?
The kind of bullshit that happens as a business decision every day?
"If we do plan #2, we will lose X amount of customers not support under that plan."
"Is the revenue loss of customers who require features under plan #1 worth the savings we gain from switching to plan #2"
They can decide yes or no. They decided "yes". They believe enough of their user base has smartphones or is willing to purchase an authenticator.
Blizzard has decided you're not worth protecting fully. What you do with that information is up to you.
Apparently, not everyone has cell phones. I believe Blizzard has filed that under "outside of the demographic we care about". The US has a population of around 313 million. There are 327 million mobile phones in the US.
At some point, you just write certain people off.
I... what?
Cell phones=/=smart phones. You need a smart phone to run the authenticator program.
Further, what kind of bullshit is this?
The kind of bullshit that happens as a business decision every day?
"If we do plan #2, we will lose X amount of customers not support under that plan."
"Is the revenue loss of customers who require features under plan #1 worth the savings we gain from switching to plan #2"
They can decide yes or no. They decided "yes". They believe enough of their user base has smartphones or is willing to purchase an authenticator.
Blizzard has decided you're not worth protecting fully. What you do with that information is up to you.
They can also decide to make their passwords case sensitive, like every other large organization known to man. I cannot comprehend this thought process. I simply can't.
There's a reason we don't blame the victim in this kind of situation. Because it's not the goddamn victim's fault! The argument of "You should have bought an authenticator" is literally identical to "You should have worn a longer skirt" Neither are acceptable!
MechMantis on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
Seriously, if we don't do it to bank accounts, we shouldn't do it to game accounts.
You need to find a better bank.
You had to pay for security measures at your bank?
Did the other patrons of that bank also engage in victim blaming? Please tell me what bank you use so I can avoid ever using it.
I was mainly referring to using an authenticator, which may be misreading your post. My bank gave me one for free. Blizzard is an entertainment company, not a bank, and they also provide you with a free authenticator. So I don't really get what the problem here is.
edit: Oh hey, equating your game account getting hacked and losing some virtual gold to someone being actually raped. Stay classy, classy guy.
reVerse on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
If the company really believed that and weren't hiding behind some lousy anecdotes and trying to incite fear into their customer base to sell more products, then they would include authenticators in their game purchases. But of course, this is just PR spin so whatever; it's the customers fault for not buying the extra product, not Blizzard's for being unable to provide a secure system. Yup, sure.
There's absolutely nothing shameful about getting compromised, these companies are good at what they do. Heck, the former head of Blizzard Customer Service had his account compromised. It's because of how devious and high-tech the gold-selling companies have gotten that we implemented the physical and mobile authenticators. We can't physically go to everyone's computer and make it safe, so we've provided a tool that does it for you.
It's called read everything and then respond, not read what you want that supports your predispositions.
It's not about assigning blame on the consumers. The CM here is very much saying, "These hackers are fucking good at what they do and they suck for it." Now, should the authenticator be complimentary and just be given? That's a different argument from the point of what I was saying in the first place. I actually regret bringing Diablo 3 back into the industry thread now, I apologize everyone.
Also, any complaints about the authenticator being a required additional layer of security are made completely irrelevant by Battle.Net passwords not being case sensitive.
That's always been really bizarre to me. They don't keep it case sensitive, but unlike other games they require you to manually input it every time. The latter doesn't actually do much to improve security since if your computer has been compromised, requiring a manual password input does precisely jack-all. And can in fact be the converse if you've got a keylogger.
I spent ages remembering a 20 digit random password only to get really annoyed when I found out they don't store the case sensitivity.
Getting back to the authenticators issue, it's really simple. If the authenticator is mandatory on the consumer or else Blizzard are not responsible to do anything for you, the user is always totally at fault, or whatever, then it should BE MANDATORY. And all the courses of action that it presumes Blizzard would then have to take with it being mandatory. Either it is due diligence, or it isn't. This is a ridiculous scenario where the consumer is being blamed for everything, but the company is being defended as having no responsibility at their end.
Seriously, if we don't do it to bank accounts, we shouldn't do it to game accounts.
You need to find a better bank.
You had to pay for security measures at your bank?
Did the other patrons of that bank also engage in victim blaming? Please tell me what bank you use so I can avoid ever using it.
I was mainly referring to using an authenticator, which may be misreading your post. My bank gave me one for free. Blizzard is an entertainment company, not a bank, and they also provide you with a free* authenticator. So I don't really get what the problem here is.
*With the purchase of an iOS or Android device. That is not the same thing as a free as in beer authenticator!
The problem is the rampancy of people blaming the victim for not buying an authenticator when the entertainment company in question isn't even doing their hardest to make security sans authenticator as strong as possible.
Also, we should be holding them up to a hell of a lot more scrutiny than we already are considering the launch of the Real Money Auction House somewhere in the near future. Once a group starts playing with real money transactions, both ways, things need to tighten down, and fast.
EDIT: Please re-read my sentence. I'm saying the ARGUMENT is identical. That is, ascribing actions that the victim could have done might have changed the outcome of an event done to the person by an outside force.
I could have used something like "If you hadn't have walked down that alley, you wouldn't have gotten mugged". The "If you X, then you wouldn't have had Y happen" is what I am objecting to.
MechMantis on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Seriously, if we don't do it to bank accounts, we shouldn't do it to game accounts.
No, your counter argument is retarded. You have physical interaction with your bank. You are your own 'authenticator' in that regard. You don't walk to Blizzard Entertainment centers in your local town to handle business with them.
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
Well, I will agree with him that not having case sensitive passwording in this day and age seems a bit weird.
Heck I know most sites are starting to at least force you to put one cap in.
Posts
I believe it did a little over a mil which is pretty good all things considered.
Are we talking mainstream, or something we'd categories as successful (or even very successful)? Because the two aren't necessarily the same. For that matter, are we talking mainstream as in people outside of gaming know about it, or "mainstream" as in its well hyped in gaming?
Because I'm wondering where something like Minecraft sits on that spectrum. Or the Total War series. I mean, a game series like Dead Space is relatively well know in gaming circles, but it's even outsold by STALKER (something like 1-3 million units sold for each iteration. And that's a game set in Ukraine and which hardcore fans like to play in Russian).
Tieing this back to Company of Heroes 2, yeah, I'd definitely expect THQ to push it some more.
Damn, that is a lot of money.
Call of Duty(it was also later re-released on XBLA/PSN)
Call of Duty 2
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Call of Duty: World at War (Worked on by Treyarch but used IW engine)
Quantum of Solace(used IW engine)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Call of Duty: Black Ops(again developed by Treyarch but used IW engine
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops II(probably didn't get paid for this since it isn't out yet)
So...that's about 500 mil between 8 games...so that's like 60-ish million on average. And no doubt some of the bonuses were bigger for some games than others.
I don't know how many employees are on the team...but man that's quite a bit.
This is all I was able to find on it
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/02/thqs-sales-exceeded-expectations-in-q2-space-marine-sold-1-2/
- The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (2017, colorized)
Had schilling at least not used some of the loan to repay his original investment, they'd still have some money. Dude shouldn't have gotten a dime back until the game was out, like any damned investor.
I'm a little worried at the play Activision is making with that information. It seems to be them saying, "Of course we pay bonuses! SEE!" while also slighting West and Zampella, trying to make the pair look like they're 1) greedy, or 2) impatient about bonus payouts, or 3) both. Hopefully there's enough evidence to put Activision on its ass about this, especially with that note about "launch quarter" bonuses. So at the very least, West and Zampella covered themselves with a scheduling of bonuses. Something I imagine could be easy to overlook when establishing contracts.
The problem is that there was a hard enough time convincing people they needed authenticators for WoW. That only eventually won out thanks to the whole monthly fee bit and unique time/money relationship MMO's tend to have.
Now we have a game that in many eyes is viewed as either a solely single player experience, or as a multiplayer game no different than any other game or genre out there. Now you got the tall tale of convincing them why this game is so special enough that it requires an authenticator. Since they'll just respond with "Well I don't need one for Call of Duty/Mass Effect/Final Fantasy/ect ect ect, why the fuck do I need one for this?".
At least Blizzard has done a good job so far getting these things out there, though there are still some big holes. Not everyone has a compatible device for the free option. And in my case, those gouging fuckers wanted $12 US to ship the thing to Canada. And what really busted my nut was that Blizzard is based in California, right? Well a guild member who lives there and had gone to every Blizzcon had a dozen spares lying around and she offered to give me one. And it only cost her about $3. So, fuck them on that front.
Nothing short of physically giving them away via stuffing them in the game box is going to make the issue go completely away.
Oh well. If nothing else, I am rather looking forward to the inevitable nuclear explosion on the horizon that will occur when you mix account hacking with the real money auction house.
They should absolutely require you to have an authenticator on your account before allowing you to connect PayPal to your account, period full-stop.
I don't even really understand what the endgame is for Diablo account-hacking, since you can't mail shit around like you could in WoW.
can't you party up with someone, and than throw the gear on the ground to be picked up? or just trade it
Seems like an excellent way to launder money (criminally-gained money->gold->buy a bunch of items owned by another account controlled by the same group).
EDIT: Or just people having an easier time turning compromised accounts into paydays.
The argument that you can never be too secure is valid enough.
However the argument I'm constantly seeing is that if you didn't buy an authenticator, you are automatically the one to blame, which is not.
I mean people have literally sworn at me on these forums just because I didn't buy one of Blizzard's authenticators, saying I "deserve everything I get" (yes that's a quote) when I'm inevitably hacked. This was in the STARCRAFT thread because that's the only game I have on BNet. Grief I hate that attitude.
If it's required security, then it should come with the game box by default. No exceptions (or one perhaps, digital distribution, and frankly, then DD users should get a discount on price and a suggestion / offer to buy). Otherwise no, having the customer pay extra for this or else it's their fault isn't a valid argument. And maybe it's just where I live, but I've never seen a box bundle Diablo 3 with an authenticator on shelves. Not even the special edition, and it's not like increased cost is an issue there.
Even then, people will refuse to use them. Don't forget, a sizeable portion of the populace thinks the moonlandings never happened, wearing a seatbelt is more dangerous than not, and 9/11 was a vast government conspiracy.
Blizzard should be able to throw out a disclaimer that says "we take no responsibility when morons lose money because they refuse to use a proven method of security" and be done with it.
Twitter
If the company really believed that and weren't hiding behind some lousy anecdotes and trying to incite fear into their customer base to sell more products, then they would include authenticators in their game purchases. But of course, this is just PR spin so whatever; it's the customers fault for not buying the extra product, not Blizzard's for being unable to provide a secure system. Yup, sure.
But you're right, I bet there's no other company out there that provides a means of security through digital means. Oh wait, there's that Steam place, right?
Is that true? I figured most PC game sales would be digital nowadays. Especially for games like this where you have to be online
As for how you include a physical authenticator in a digital download? You, uh, just give your address and they send you an authenticator?
I wanted to say something about Steamguard but I pretty much already know where that argument's going (which is getting shouted at some more). In real terms it's effectively the same as the authenticator, because BNet doesn't actually ASK for the authenticator once it's established you're using a set PC, only once you deviate from it. Crikey, Gabe Newell even made his login and password public and let people try.
I can see the point in that it's not a physical device, and therefore less secure. I can understand that, I really do. But again, if this device is crucial, then Blizzard can easily make it mandatory for all DD purchasers as well. Just ship it to the customer (you HAVE their address), and allow them to login regularly until it arrives. It'll cost more? Fine, whatever, everyone's saying this is mandatory right? Then actually SAYING so and requiring it should not be an issue. After all, Blizzard would be well within their rights to say "we take no responsibility when morons lose money because they refuse to use a proven method of security", or so I'm told.
And all this still provides zero explanation as to why an authenticator is not bundled with the physical gamebox (again, not even the special edition) if it is in fact required security. At least the option (since as some people below have already said, you can get a smartphone version).
You mean the absolutely free mobile authenticator?
http://us.battle.net/support/en/article/authenticator-add-mobile
OH SHIT!
You essentially describe the current options for Battle.net users.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
Not everyone has cell phones compatible with that program!
OH FUCK!
This argument of "You need to buy an additional layer of security, or have a fairly expensive device compatible with a free version of that security" is absolutely fucking retarded, straight up.
Seriously, if we don't do it to bank accounts, we shouldn't do it to game accounts.
Especially if we're going to be linking game accounts to bank accounts sometime in the near future.
Also, any complaints about the authenticator being a required additional layer of security are made completely irrelevant by Battle.Net passwords not being case sensitive.
Apparently, not everyone has cell phones. I believe Blizzard has filed that under "outside of the demographic we care about". The US has a population of around 313 million. There are 327 million mobile phones in the US.
At some point, you just write certain people off.
EDIT: I believe they had a Java-based widget you could use on non-smartphones. They discontinued that.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
Yes, this. Or any desire to own one.
Buying additional security for a video game account is just dumb, especially when the company itself doesn't even provide for honest to God powerful passwords for some unfathomable reason.
It is the most glorious kind of racket.
You need to find a better bank.
I... what?
Cell phones=/=smart phones. You need a smart phone to run the authenticator program.
Further, what kind of bullshit is this?
EDIT:
You had to pay for security measures at your bank?
Did the other patrons of that bank also engage in victim blaming? Please tell me what bank you use so I can avoid ever using it.
The kind of bullshit that happens as a business decision every day?
"If we do plan #2, we will lose X amount of customers not support under that plan."
"Is the revenue loss of customers who require features under plan #1 worth the savings we gain from switching to plan #2"
They can decide yes or no. They decided "yes". They believe enough of their user base has smartphones or is willing to purchase an authenticator.
Blizzard has decided you're not worth protecting fully. What you do with that information is up to you.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
They can also decide to make their passwords case sensitive, like every other large organization known to man. I cannot comprehend this thought process. I simply can't.
There's a reason we don't blame the victim in this kind of situation. Because it's not the goddamn victim's fault! The argument of "You should have bought an authenticator" is literally identical to "You should have worn a longer skirt" Neither are acceptable!
I was mainly referring to using an authenticator, which may be misreading your post. My bank gave me one for free. Blizzard is an entertainment company, not a bank, and they also provide you with a free authenticator. So I don't really get what the problem here is.
edit: Oh hey, equating your game account getting hacked and losing some virtual gold to someone being actually raped. Stay classy, classy guy.
It's not about assigning blame on the consumers. The CM here is very much saying, "These hackers are fucking good at what they do and they suck for it." Now, should the authenticator be complimentary and just be given? That's a different argument from the point of what I was saying in the first place. I actually regret bringing Diablo 3 back into the industry thread now, I apologize everyone.
That's always been really bizarre to me. They don't keep it case sensitive, but unlike other games they require you to manually input it every time. The latter doesn't actually do much to improve security since if your computer has been compromised, requiring a manual password input does precisely jack-all. And can in fact be the converse if you've got a keylogger.
I spent ages remembering a 20 digit random password only to get really annoyed when I found out they don't store the case sensitivity.
Getting back to the authenticators issue, it's really simple. If the authenticator is mandatory on the consumer or else Blizzard are not responsible to do anything for you, the user is always totally at fault, or whatever, then it should BE MANDATORY. And all the courses of action that it presumes Blizzard would then have to take with it being mandatory. Either it is due diligence, or it isn't. This is a ridiculous scenario where the consumer is being blamed for everything, but the company is being defended as having no responsibility at their end.
*With the purchase of an iOS or Android device. That is not the same thing as a free as in beer authenticator!
The problem is the rampancy of people blaming the victim for not buying an authenticator when the entertainment company in question isn't even doing their hardest to make security sans authenticator as strong as possible.
Also, we should be holding them up to a hell of a lot more scrutiny than we already are considering the launch of the Real Money Auction House somewhere in the near future. Once a group starts playing with real money transactions, both ways, things need to tighten down, and fast.
EDIT: Please re-read my sentence. I'm saying the ARGUMENT is identical. That is, ascribing actions that the victim could have done might have changed the outcome of an event done to the person by an outside force.
I could have used something like "If you hadn't have walked down that alley, you wouldn't have gotten mugged". The "If you X, then you wouldn't have had Y happen" is what I am objecting to.
No, your counter argument is retarded. You have physical interaction with your bank. You are your own 'authenticator' in that regard. You don't walk to Blizzard Entertainment centers in your local town to handle business with them.
Heck I know most sites are starting to at least force you to put one cap in.