Well it could be a lot worse. They could have said "We were looking around for community systems, and GFW Live looked really promising so..."
GFW Live is something that needs to die...like today...at this very moment.
I agree.
I disabled my mic on GFW live and the next day started to play on my xbox and spent a whole day wondering why the fuck my mic wouldnt work at all.
Once I figured it out I changed the setting on GFW live and went back to my 360... and it red ringed
Dude, the same thing happen to me the three days ago, I started up DOWII again and got tired of mic always being on so I turned it off, noticed same problem with xbox mic, and turned it back on. Next thing I know, I got the three rings of death.
Well it could be a lot worse. They could have said "We were looking around for community systems, and GFW Live looked really promising so..."
GFW Live is something that needs to die...like today...at this very moment.
I don't understand what so many people have against GFWL. It's not perfect by any means, but it certainly isn't as horrible as some people make it out to be. Some things definitely vary from game to game.
just wanted to post that all battlecruisers will rip apart all carriers
that is all
Commencing.
A question for Starcraft fans. I always had it in the back of my head that the battlecruiser admiral was meant to be a reference to the 80's series "Robotech". Anyone else get that impression?
Well, quoting the starcraft wiki
Note: The voice of the battlecruiser is homage to Admiral Gloval from the anime Robotech. Just as the Yamato cannon it fires is homage to the anime Space Battleship Yamato.
It seems that you're not the only one who noticed that - I don't know Robotech though, but I'd be surprised if this isn't intentional (depending on how close the resemblance is), Blizz games (especially rts) being filled with references and eastereggs like this to the brim.
Basically the show was based around a super-huge starship (alien, it was reconstructed over a decade after having crash-landed on Earth). The admiral chosen for the ship was Russian in that show as well, so it seemed like an obvious reference, but I wasn't sure.
Well it could be a lot worse. They could have said "We were looking around for community systems, and GFW Live looked really promising so..."
GFW Live is something that needs to die...like today...at this very moment.
I agree.
I disabled my mic on GFW live and the next day started to play on my xbox and spent a whole day wondering why the fuck my mic wouldnt work at all.
Once I figured it out I changed the setting on GFW live and went back to my 360... and it red ringed
Dude, the same thing happen to me the three days ago, I started up DOWII again and got tired of mic always being on so I turned it off, noticed same problem with xbox mic, and turned it back on. Next thing I know, I got the three rings of death.
Well it could be a lot worse. They could have said "We were looking around for community systems, and GFW Live looked really promising so..."
GFW Live is something that needs to die...like today...at this very moment.
I don't understand what so many people have against GFWL. It's not perfect by any means, but it certainly isn't as horrible as some people make it out to be. Some things definitely vary from game to game.
I don't really hate it as such, but it's still more annoying when I have to use it. Despite all this time MS still haven't made an external client for the system, and if ANYONE should be able to do that it's the owners of the OS. Then there's other niggles like the "Trueskill" matchmaking, which in my experience is more accurately labled as "crapshoot", no community rooms or groups to set up, not even having a push-to-talk option (that's only been standard on PC games for as long as they've had voice coms), and voice coms system in place is so flaky that I've actually had much a much better VoIP connection using the Steam chat overlay instead. Heck, they even spent a load of time and resources creating an external client for GFWL marketplace, which could have easily incorporated other features like friends and account management, but they didn't.
I can understand why, since realistically they can't charge a fee for it the investment money is going to go towards what they can make money off of, i.e. XBL. Valve can afford to invest in Steam, Steam IS their business model and there's a much greater impetus to see it fully functioning and make it a real preferred choice. But to put it another way, whatever system Blizzard put in place for the new BattleNet, I already suspect that it's going to be more convenient and functional than GFWL currently is.
How exactly does the current Battle.net track stats? I'd guess that it just trusts the clients to accurately report wins or losses, meaning that you could theoretically spoof a message that the other player dropped, and thus get credit for winning the game. Or did they manage to figure out a better system that is more secure without needing to actually directly monitor the games? Requiring a server to follow along with the game in order to make sure that no cheating is being done seems like it would miss the point of peer to peer connections.
How exactly does the current Battle.net track stats? I'd guess that it just trusts the clients to accurately report wins or losses, meaning that you could theoretically spoof a message that the other player dropped, and thus get credit for winning the game. Or did they manage to figure out a better system that is more secure without needing to actually directly monitor the games? Requiring a server to follow along with the game in order to make sure that no cheating is being done seems like it would miss the point of peer to peer connections.
Isn't it a bit more than just peer to peer? I have a friend who installed a mod that improved the StarCraft AI, and he was repeatedly getting kicked mid-game on Battle.net until he uninstalled it.
How exactly does the current Battle.net track stats? I'd guess that it just trusts the clients to accurately report wins or losses, meaning that you could theoretically spoof a message that the other player dropped, and thus get credit for winning the game. Or did they manage to figure out a better system that is more secure without needing to actually directly monitor the games? Requiring a server to follow along with the game in order to make sure that no cheating is being done seems like it would miss the point of peer to peer connections.
Isn't it a bit more than just peer to peer? I have a friend who installed a mod that improved the StarCraft AI, and he was repeatedly getting kicked mid-game on Battle.net until he uninstalled it.
The obvious cause for getting kicked from a game would probably be causing a desynch due to giving commands that would be impossible for the other players to carry out, meaning that your client had somehow altered the resources or units, or just somehow broadcast an illegal command (given how the AIs tend to cheat, it's possible that the programmer messed something up for multiplayer). I have to wonder how the system assigns blame for that, though. Just making the player who sent the incompatable command lose wouldn't work, since you could alter your own client to make it think that your opponent has fewer resources than he actually does.
It's actually a moderately big issue for custom maps. Carrying out a bit of logic like "If current player is player 1, create <unit>" will result in an inevitable desynch, since even if that unit is never given a command, it will eventually interfere with everything else, leading to a unit that should be dead surviving or a unit that should be alive dying.
There may be other consistancy checks involved as well that I'm not aware of. I know that in general, the only safe thing to do for only one player is broadcasting text, since there's no way for the player to interact with it. Then again, maps get away with putting up a menu for each player and having their votes counted, so there's probably some way around that as well.
I think I'm going to just start buying every game that doesn't use DRM on principle, even if I'd never play it.
Raiden333 on
There was a steam sig here. It's gone now.
0
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited August 2009
Ehh...that's not the most obstructive form of DRM out there.
Though I'm wondering why the worry over piracy, considering that the original Starcraft still makes them piles of money to this day and doesn't have a lick of piracy-protection.
Ehh...that's not the most obstructive form of DRM out there.
Though I'm wondering why the worry over piracy, considering that the original Starcraft still makes them piles of money to this day and doesn't have a lick of piracy-protection.
I just hate DRM because it actively rewards piracy.
I have never once heard of a successful form of DRM that prevented its game from being pirated, so all it does is give us who legally buy the games extra hassle.
I just hate DRM because it actively rewards piracy.
I have never once heard of a successful form of DRM that prevented its game from being pirated, so all it does is give us who legally buy the games extra hassle.
Is there a better way to prevent piracy that our society would be willing to tolerate, though?
Also, bear in mind that the important thing is to lock out people who aren't tech-savy from pirating. If the consumer base takes up piracy, the market is in trouble. If the consumer base decides they like piracy enough to be willing to learn more about it, the market is pretty much irrevocably screwed.
It also sends a cultural message. No DRM means that even though a developer may not like piracy, they accept that it's going to happen and aren't going to do anything about it, meaning that unless you're feeling particularly benevelent, there's no reason not to pirate the game. DRM means that the developer dislikes piracy enough that they're willing to go to a good deal of effort to stop it, even if their attempts are ultimately futile. In order to play the game without paying for it, you have to go to a bit of effort to do so, and have a chance to feel bad about it.
CD-Keys should be enough. Most generators can not give you a valid key to play online anyway (unless you get really lucky I suppose). With the emulated battle.net servers, it doesn't matter because there is no cd check at all. Most people do not know about or play on emulated servers, and the player base wont be as big (there was only one time when it was, and it was during war3 beta when only 5k people were let in). However, with LAN support as we know it removed (aka not through battle.net type stuff), more people will research methods to play LAN and inevitably find emulated servers.
Yeah, the Battle.net only is almost certainly influenced in part by foreign gaming cultures. I don't think any of my Korean friends own a ligit copy, and a lot of Koreans just play in cyber cafes anyway.
I just hate DRM because it actively rewards piracy.
I have never once heard of a successful form of DRM that prevented its game from being pirated, so all it does is give us who legally buy the games extra hassle.
I think I'm going to just start buying every game that doesn't use DRM on principle, even if I'd never play it.
Having a disc check in previous games does not count as DRM? It was certainly an annoying thing that decided whether you could play. I'm okay with having to register games online, as I'd do it anyway for online play.
I'm pretty excited. We got all three major Blizzard franchises due to launch within 1-2 years of each other, so there's less focus on one game at a time like in the past. Letting Battle.net really connect the Blizzard community together is great.
i hope they did not ditch the traditional chat rooms, the instant messenger motif they've got going here looks odd. I saw the private chat room thing, but it is tiny, the battle.net channel style was nice. Also makes you wonder, are they ditching battle.net commands? The listed custom games still don't show the ping/latency (just like war3), I do not understand why this is still omitted, let's hope they get that in there. It also seems that they copied war3's "private" game and are unable to set a password (I think it is more convenient). You better be able to host replays! I think they said you can somewhere.
I kinda miss the animated menu stuff from original starcraft, had character, but it isn't too big of a deal that it is not present. It would be nice if you could customize the color scheme and such for the UI, not sure if that has been talked about. In-game friends list is nice, /f list would scroll off the screen sometimes, but hopefully during games it doesn't flash or do anything unless you access it yourself.
To be honest I hate achievements more than any of this other bullshit. Looking at those screens I was sort of let down when I saw that World of Warcraft-esque achievement list.
To be honest I hate achievements more than any of this other bullshit. Looking at those screens I was sort of let down when I saw that World of Warcraft-esque achievement list.
Waah waah wahhh
Oh noooooo, something that's completely and entirely option but that some people might find appealing, nooooooo.
The achievements giving avatars and custom unit decals sounds pretty neat.
Sorta like the avatar rewards in Warcraft III only not limited to just getting lots of wins (though I'm positive there will be a few achievements like that).
about fucking time! game saves saved online sounds like a fucking awesome idea
There's actually games already out that does that. I know that Trine and Bionic Commando uses Steam to put your saves online.
I wish Sins of a Solar Empire did this. Some games get so big playing them on my laptop turns into a slide show and I need to put them off until I can finish them on the PC
Posts
Dude, the same thing happen to me the three days ago, I started up DOWII again and got tired of mic always being on so I turned it off, noticed same problem with xbox mic, and turned it back on. Next thing I know, I got the three rings of death.
:tinfoil:
Steam Name: Dr.Oblivious
If you can't live for the now, at least live for the future.
I don't understand what so many people have against GFWL. It's not perfect by any means, but it certainly isn't as horrible as some people make it out to be. Some things definitely vary from game to game.
Basically the show was based around a super-huge starship (alien, it was reconstructed over a decade after having crash-landed on Earth). The admiral chosen for the ship was Russian in that show as well, so it seemed like an obvious reference, but I wasn't sure.
Never watched Battleship Yamato.
but, back in the beta
I don't really hate it as such, but it's still more annoying when I have to use it. Despite all this time MS still haven't made an external client for the system, and if ANYONE should be able to do that it's the owners of the OS. Then there's other niggles like the "Trueskill" matchmaking, which in my experience is more accurately labled as "crapshoot", no community rooms or groups to set up, not even having a push-to-talk option (that's only been standard on PC games for as long as they've had voice coms), and voice coms system in place is so flaky that I've actually had much a much better VoIP connection using the Steam chat overlay instead. Heck, they even spent a load of time and resources creating an external client for GFWL marketplace, which could have easily incorporated other features like friends and account management, but they didn't.
I can understand why, since realistically they can't charge a fee for it the investment money is going to go towards what they can make money off of, i.e. XBL. Valve can afford to invest in Steam, Steam IS their business model and there's a much greater impetus to see it fully functioning and make it a real preferred choice. But to put it another way, whatever system Blizzard put in place for the new BattleNet, I already suspect that it's going to be more convenient and functional than GFWL currently is.
Isn't it a bit more than just peer to peer? I have a friend who installed a mod that improved the StarCraft AI, and he was repeatedly getting kicked mid-game on Battle.net until he uninstalled it.
The obvious cause for getting kicked from a game would probably be causing a desynch due to giving commands that would be impossible for the other players to carry out, meaning that your client had somehow altered the resources or units, or just somehow broadcast an illegal command (given how the AIs tend to cheat, it's possible that the programmer messed something up for multiplayer). I have to wonder how the system assigns blame for that, though. Just making the player who sent the incompatable command lose wouldn't work, since you could alter your own client to make it think that your opponent has fewer resources than he actually does.
It's actually a moderately big issue for custom maps. Carrying out a bit of logic like "If current player is player 1, create <unit>" will result in an inevitable desynch, since even if that unit is never given a command, it will eventually interfere with everything else, leading to a unit that should be dead surviving or a unit that should be alive dying.
There may be other consistancy checks involved as well that I'm not aware of. I know that in general, the only safe thing to do for only one player is broadcasting text, since there's no way for the player to interact with it. Then again, maps get away with putting up a menu for each player and having their votes counted, so there's probably some way around that as well.
I think I'm going to just start buying every game that doesn't use DRM on principle, even if I'd never play it.
Though I'm wondering why the worry over piracy, considering that the original Starcraft still makes them piles of money to this day and doesn't have a lick of piracy-protection.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
CD-Keys aren't for piracy protection?
I have never once heard of a successful form of DRM that prevented its game from being pirated, so all it does is give us who legally buy the games extra hassle.
Is there a better way to prevent piracy that our society would be willing to tolerate, though?
Also, bear in mind that the important thing is to lock out people who aren't tech-savy from pirating. If the consumer base takes up piracy, the market is in trouble. If the consumer base decides they like piracy enough to be willing to learn more about it, the market is pretty much irrevocably screwed.
It also sends a cultural message. No DRM means that even though a developer may not like piracy, they accept that it's going to happen and aren't going to do anything about it, meaning that unless you're feeling particularly benevelent, there's no reason not to pirate the game. DRM means that the developer dislikes piracy enough that they're willing to go to a good deal of effort to stop it, even if their attempts are ultimately futile. In order to play the game without paying for it, you have to go to a bit of effort to do so, and have a chance to feel bad about it.
This. I won't go into any details, but it's been years (as in more than 6) since I've seen my friends play on regular Bnet.
Hell, I've been plenty of times to Costa Rica I don't think I've met someone who has payed for his Starcraft CD in his lifetime.
Steam
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Edit: Although I do prefer Steam many other types of DRM.
Having a disc check in previous games does not count as DRM? It was certainly an annoying thing that decided whether you could play. I'm okay with having to register games online, as I'd do it anyway for online play.
I won't lie. I totally played the BroodWar beta on an illegal server. I bought the real thing though.
http://kotaku.com/5343008/battlenet-and-starcraft-in-pictures/gallery/
http://kotaku.com/5342994/upcoming-blizzard-battlenet-feature-draw-from-warcraft-xbox-live-life
New Battle.net seems great.
I kinda miss the animated menu stuff from original starcraft, had character, but it isn't too big of a deal that it is not present. It would be nice if you could customize the color scheme and such for the UI, not sure if that has been talked about. In-game friends list is nice, /f list would scroll off the screen sometimes, but hopefully during games it doesn't flash or do anything unless you access it yourself.
Too bad the Blizzard community is almost exclusively a bunch of smacktard dickwads.
Waah waah wahhh
Oh noooooo, something that's completely and entirely option but that some people might find appealing, nooooooo.
:^:
Sorta like the avatar rewards in Warcraft III only not limited to just getting lots of wins (though I'm positive there will be a few achievements like that).
That would be super freaking lame if you ALWAYS had to be connected
AKA [PA]Ilovepandas
They'll want you to be connected to Battle.net while playing singleplayer, but I don't think they've said anything about whether it is required.
Giant Bomb has an interview about Battle.net. Battle.net will store our game saves online. I think that's new info.
They have said you will be able to play single player without being connected. Basically you play as a guest, so you don't get achievements and such.
There's actually games already out that does that. I know that Trine and Bionic Commando uses Steam to put your saves online.
I wish Sins of a Solar Empire did this. Some games get so big playing them on my laptop turns into a slide show and I need to put them off until I can finish them on the PC
Tricia Heifer as Kerrigan.
Discuss.
her voice
is awesome
and her acting
(and the rest)
Oh, shit. Carla from Burn Notice! Inspired choice, I'd say.