StarCraft 2: help us mourn the death of content freedom(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
StarCraft 2: help us mourn the death of content freedom
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/starcraft-2-the-latest-game-to-control-user-created-content.ars
121 comments
The game was just released. Blizzard does a great job of releasing incremental updates for their games and servers. I remember BATTLE.net changing significantly over time when I was playing the original SC, from pretty horrible to pretty fantastic. I'm pretty sure the same thing happened with WCIII as well.
They will listen to their community and continuously make this thing better, I guarantee it!
They will listen to their community and continuously make this thing better, I guarantee it!
I would sympathize if this was Blizzard's first networked RTS with a modding community, but it's hard to understand why they would decide to throw away ten years of aforementioned incremental improvements to SC:BW and WC3's community features and implement a far worse system from scratch.
I'm sure lots of people would probably disagree with you about that. Just because a small handful of people think the system is HORRIBLE doesn't mean the average gamer will say the same thing.
Maybe they just wanted to change things up a bit, or maybe they want to restrict things at first to see what people's reaction(s) are.
Maybe they just wanted to change things up a bit, or maybe they want to restrict things at first to see what people's reaction(s) are.
Blizzard's problem is that their communication is awful. This leads people to imagine what they are - and aren't - doing, which you can't fault them on.
Blizzard have already shaped Battle.net and StarCraft 2 in ways that people disagree vehemently with. Add to this the number of cock-ups in the recent weeks, which successfully removed any benefit of doubt that their decade of StarCraft goodwill had accrued.
The best recent conciliation on their part was to promise that some things would be addressed "eventually" with such controversial things as region realm restrictions for players in multiplayer. That's not exactly magnanimous.
Blizzard have already shaped Battle.net and StarCraft 2 in ways that people disagree vehemently with. Add to this the number of cock-ups in the recent weeks, which successfully removed any benefit of doubt that their decade of StarCraft goodwill had accrued.
The best recent conciliation on their part was to promise that some things would be addressed "eventually" with such controversial things as region realm restrictions for players in multiplayer. That's not exactly magnanimous.
You are correct in your points. Blizzard is great at polishing as well as adding features to existing products. This is proven practically (see WoW).
However, their communication channels with their communities are broken beyond belief. I remember when WoW and WC3 were first launched, tech support was stellar, forum support was awesome. WC3 came to an equilibrium eventually (as did SC) but WoW, since it's ever-growing like any self respecting MMORPG, was made to look like a broken piece of software:
- nothing is for granted; "balance" and perceived character-item-zone values may change from one patch to another. Blizzard clearly has a train of thought behind those changes, but it is never revealed to the community from fear of exploitation (not from a security PoV).
- their community managers grew into a bunch of condescending robots.
- A lot of over-hyped features were totally abandoned. A lot of problematic features were adopted/implemented that made the game even more difficult to manage, content and player-wise (see Titan Grip - it was a good April Fools joke at first, a bad feature later).
I don't like pointing fingers without proof, but ever since Activision bought Blizzard, things are getting weirder. Could it be that they are indeed revolutionizing gaming? I can't see it myself, but I sincerely hope I'm that short-sighted.
However, their communication channels with their communities are broken beyond belief. I remember when WoW and WC3 were first launched, tech support was stellar, forum support was awesome. WC3 came to an equilibrium eventually (as did SC) but WoW, since it's ever-growing like any self respecting MMORPG, was made to look like a broken piece of software:
- nothing is for granted; "balance" and perceived character-item-zone values may change from one patch to another. Blizzard clearly has a train of thought behind those changes, but it is never revealed to the community from fear of exploitation (not from a security PoV).
- their community managers grew into a bunch of condescending robots.
- A lot of over-hyped features were totally abandoned. A lot of problematic features were adopted/implemented that made the game even more difficult to manage, content and player-wise (see Titan Grip - it was a good April Fools joke at first, a bad feature later).
I don't like pointing fingers without proof, but ever since Activision bought Blizzard, things are getting weirder. Could it be that they are indeed revolutionizing gaming? I can't see it myself, but I sincerely hope I'm that short-sighted.
So bitching about it now is essential to getting it fixed in the future.
But public version control is a solved problem. If Blizzard didn't demand perpetual control of user-generated content distribution, the community would ultimately build a better and more open distribution model with off-the-shelf tools.
Blizzard's intention isn't really to make things easier for the users; it's to create a walled-garden ecosystem for user-generated content, so they can monetize modders' work for themselves, which is pretty sleazy.
Blizzard's intention isn't really to make things easier for the users; it's to create a walled-garden ecosystem for user-generated content, so they can monetize modders' work for themselves, which is pretty sleazy.
How is Blizzard monetizing on a modder's work? I can't find information on cost for the service.
Blizzard has announced that they are going to have a system where map creators can charge for particular maps, and Blizzard will take a big cut.
In other words, they are going to make it so map creators can make a profit somewhere they never could before. God damn you, Blizzard.
I'm not saying it's a terrible idea, only that it's probably a big portion of their motivation to centralize and control map distribution.
The 25MB file size limit and 5 map limit are the biggest problematic facets of bnet I've heard of IMHO. They deserve to be addressed.
Obviously Blizzard is trying to prevent an explosion of crappy maps on their servers.
What's the compromise? Award more space and more map slots to authors who release popular maps. How the better maps are determined is up for discussion, but I think that would be an excellent move on Blizzard's part.
Obviously Blizzard is trying to prevent an explosion of crappy maps on their servers.
What's the compromise? Award more space and more map slots to authors who release popular maps. How the better maps are determined is up for discussion, but I think that would be an excellent move on Blizzard's part.
The centralized distribution system is a real convenience,
Having a centralized distrubition system with some light editorial control is indeed a great convenience. Having that system to the exclusion of letting users decide to run maps from other sources is very limiting.
I would compare this to the Android Market. It is centralized, easy to access, and has some limited editorial controls so I can feel relatively safe I am not downloading malware. But, the architecture is relatively open so if I choose for whatever reason to run an Android App from a different source I can do so without too much trouble.
Having a centralized distrubition system with some light editorial control is indeed a great convenience. Having that system to the exclusion of letting users decide to run maps from other sources is very limiting.
I would compare this to the Android Market. It is centralized, easy to access, and has some limited editorial controls so I can feel relatively safe I am not downloading malware. But, the architecture is relatively open so if I choose for whatever reason to run an Android App from a different source I can do so without too much trouble.
I know that somewhere in this wide world there must be a heartbreaking work of staggering genius remixing corporate logos, edgy speech, and full-motion video into a mindblowing coming of age story about tolerance and true love that could only possibly be shown in the Starcraft engine, but you know how I read this headline? Starcraft 2: More Zergs, Less Penis.
That is a tradeoff I can live with.
That is a tradeoff I can live with.
No man, don't give up freedom on such short-sighted things like "we're better off them banning penis-maps". There are things nobody can imaging right now that also will never happen, because the environment is too restrictive for it. See, if Starcraft 1 would have had the same limitation that SC2 now has, the korean esport boom - a totally unexpected event - might have never happened and in effect SC2 might have never been developed.
It's probably silly to argue about ideology and principles in a video game, but this seems to be a trend that manifests itself in all facets of society. It scares me how people are willing to give up freedom, reasoning that it's probably not needed anyways.
It's probably silly to argue about ideology and principles in a video game, but this seems to be a trend that manifests itself in all facets of society. It scares me how people are willing to give up freedom, reasoning that it's probably not needed anyways.
It's a straw man argument, anyway- I played custom map games for WC3 throughout high school, and never once saw a penis map, race war map, or anything else particularly objectionable. There were a few copyright infringing maps, but most were either blizzard-derivative or bizarre and novel.
Which warcraft were you playing? it was constantly games where the map was just a nude pic. Really annoying.
Maybe this is because me and friends hosted a decent percentage of the games we played, but through thousands of rounds of Footmen Frenzy I've never seen a penis map. Starcraft I had a good deal of "sexy pics" maps, however I don't think I ever ended up in some unintentionally ;)
US West- it's possible it was different elsewhere.
You make a pretty good argument against a priori restrictions in general. E.g. who knows how amazing our cities would be today if urban development hadn't been forced into a static, prescriptive zoning paradigm for the past 70 years?
Too many people think about freedom in terms of individuals' rights in isolation, but its important to recognize that freedom alone encourages the kind of broad variation from which real, substantive improvement emerges, and is the true driver of human progress.
It's extremely important to make this point in any and every context in which it's relevant.
Too many people think about freedom in terms of individuals' rights in isolation, but its important to recognize that freedom alone encourages the kind of broad variation from which real, substantive improvement emerges, and is the true driver of human progress.
It's extremely important to make this point in any and every context in which it's relevant.
It's funny that a game about racial warfare with no way to seek peaceful coexistence could exclude "offensive content." Not that I don't cheerfully and shamelessly enjoy such games; I do. And I haven't played a sexually themed game since Leisure Suit Larry 2 when I was thirteen. I just think it's funny that they could get so worked up over penises that they would go beyond placating obnoxious prudish customers and actually advance the state of the art in prudery. Why in the world would they bother? Are they really that horrified by game mods containing nudity, or are they just control freaks?
P.S. What is the deal with "penis maps" anyway? Do people upload cool-looking maps that you enjoy until you're almost done and then BAM you get ambushed by a horde of huge, veiny penis monsters?
P.S. What is the deal with "penis maps" anyway? Do people upload cool-looking maps that you enjoy until you're almost done and then BAM you get ambushed by a horde of huge, veiny penis monsters?
When Alien-knockoff insectoids are fighting psychic space elves, that's not really a race war in the usual sense of the term...
> Are they really that horrified by game mods containing nudity, or are they just control freaks?
I'm sure it's the latter. Having complete control over distribution makes it far easier to monetize the content. See the iphone app store for example.
I'm sure it's the latter. Having complete control over distribution makes it far easier to monetize the content. See the iphone app store for example.
The file size limitation is the killer, if you ask me. Starcraft and Warcraft III both had huge mod communities which produced astounding content. In at least two cases, entirely new genres of gameplay: the tower-defense genre began with Starcraft mods, and the WC3 mod "Defense of the Ancients" has inspired several similar standalone games. Anything that limits the capabilities of mod designers is bad in my book.
Sorry no: Tower Defense games began in 1990 when Atari Games released Rampart.[6] Early tower defense games later began to appear post-1997 in minigames for other platforms, such as Final Fantasy VII. By 2000, maps for StarCraft, Age of Empires II, and WarCraft III were following suit.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_defense)
Well tower defense was indeed further defined and expanded in warcraft 3 where it saw its biggest market, and this just further supports modding of games. DOTA however is from wc3 and it is especially amazing that there have been two independent games made from it, as well as many other interesting game types.
Given the large time gap between Rampart and the RTS maps, I find the link to modern TD dubious.
Good point! I guess I never thought of those games as being quite the same thing, but clearly they're genetic ancestors in the "build-defend loop" family.
[deleted]
This is what I was thinking. Riot Games (makers of League of Legends) came into existence due to Defense of the Ancients. DOTA (and all the Warcraft licenses it sold) was only possible because they could build a mod of impressive size.
DOTA is still a small file size (7.2mb) and there are already dota clones for StarCraft2.
The file size limitation for SC2 is only an issue if you want to include multiple custom 3D models for a total conversion.
The file size limitation for SC2 is only an issue if you want to include multiple custom 3D models for a total conversion.
SC2 doesn't have as many characters as wc3 though so it may actually need quite a bit of custom 3d models to be on par with dota.
The single player campaign has 3D models for every unit in the original StarCraft, as well as mercenaries, heroes, and unique campaign enemies that you might not have seen in previews or from playing multiplayer.
I was going to say, until I got to the end of your post, DoTA is a much better example than Tower Defense, which didn't start with Starcraft. Which after continued reading, I now see that someone has already mentioned.
"I know that somewhere in the wide world there must be a heartbreaking work of staggering genius..."
Works of genius that emerge from an openly (freely?) mod-able environment are not hard to find or point out: Consider "Team Fortress", a Quake mod and "Counter Strike", the brilliant mod of Half Life.
The kind of engineering and design effort that went into those two projects would have been impossible in the environment described in this article. Both those projects changed the world [of gaming].
Works of genius that emerge from an openly (freely?) mod-able environment are not hard to find or point out: Consider "Team Fortress", a Quake mod and "Counter Strike", the brilliant mod of Half Life.
The kind of engineering and design effort that went into those two projects would have been impossible in the environment described in this article. Both those projects changed the world [of gaming].
i bought both of those (on source) after playing the original free versions. best game purchase ever, literally.
So the creators of TF and CS are geniuses, but not genius enough to create standalone games? I realize that creating a mod is easier than creating a game from scratch, but doesn't talent always out?
It is highly unlikely they would have gone to the effort had they been forced to write an entire game from the ground up. Both those games evolved from simplistic (sometimes very simplistic) origins to where they are today.
It's not just 'easier', there are different orders of magnitude of work involved. Modding a complete game is like fast prototyping game design ideas with a very specific DSL.
> That is a tradeoff I can live with.
That is the attitude that has led to erosion of rights, that unfortunately, I'm force to live with.
That is the attitude that has led to erosion of rights, that unfortunately, I'm force to live with.
I appreciate that in general this attitude has led to erosion of rights. However...
I don't see how anyone other than Blizzard has any right to free speech on their privately owned gaming platform.
Even if Blizzard has created a new medium of expression in Starcraft II maps, why should they should be compelled to enable the distribution of any map they don't like?
I understand that people may not like Blizzard's decision to moderate their platform, but it's a big stretch to say that they are trampling on our right to free speech. Is a newspaper trampling on your right to free speech by choosing which editorials to print?
I don't see how anyone other than Blizzard has any right to free speech on their privately owned gaming platform.
Even if Blizzard has created a new medium of expression in Starcraft II maps, why should they should be compelled to enable the distribution of any map they don't like?
I understand that people may not like Blizzard's decision to moderate their platform, but it's a big stretch to say that they are trampling on our right to free speech. Is a newspaper trampling on your right to free speech by choosing which editorials to print?
There are no rights here to erode.
It's the opposite actually. A few days ago you had no means to make Starcraft 2 maps of any description. Now you can, so long as you don't make an ass of yourself.
How is that not a good thing?
It's the opposite actually. A few days ago you had no means to make Starcraft 2 maps of any description. Now you can, so long as you don't make an ass of yourself.
How is that not a good thing?
Rights are inalienable, but their recognition by those in power is delicate and must be protected everywhere -- even when it doesn't seem like it matters.
Besides, how hard would it be to implement a reputation system instead of censorship? Bonus: they wouldn't have to pay the censors.
Besides, how hard would it be to implement a reputation system instead of censorship? Bonus: they wouldn't have to pay the censors.
> Besides, how hard would it be to implement a reputation system instead of censorship?
Impossible. They host the content, they're responsible for it, they're required to uphold the age rating the game is given.
Impossible. They host the content, they're responsible for it, they're required to uphold the age rating the game is given.
aren't there big notices on the box like "online interactions are not rated"?
It doesn't work like that. It's not some kid shouting obscenities down a crackly microphone. They're choosing to host the content, it affects the rating of the overall product. To keep the 'T' rating the content needs to be moderated.
i won't deny that mom and dad aren't going to care about the difference, a la penny arcade, but, from the ESRB:
"Online-enabled games carry the notice "Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB." This notice warns those who intend to play the game online about possible exposure to chat (text, audio, video) or other types of user-generated content (e.g., maps, skins) that have not been considered in the ESRB rating assignment."
has any game "lost" its rating, or had it modified, or whatever, because of user generated content?
"Online-enabled games carry the notice "Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB." This notice warns those who intend to play the game online about possible exposure to chat (text, audio, video) or other types of user-generated content (e.g., maps, skins) that have not been considered in the ESRB rating assignment."
has any game "lost" its rating, or had it modified, or whatever, because of user generated content?
Rating boards aren't exactly impartial and scientific, as the "hot coffee" GTA incident showed. It would take exactly one report on Fox News about how young kids can be exposed to nude pictures while playing "SexCraft" to get Blizzard in trouble.
I feel depressed to see you make such a shortsighted comment. Seeing it modded up makes it worse. :(
Does anyone remember the item that you had to carry around in the zerg single player missions in SC1? If that wasn't a giant penis I don't know what is.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
You were pre-empted by the article itself:
> "Keeping people from seeing your hate speech and obscene images on our private game service is not the same as relinquishing your constitutional freedoms in the hopes of increased personal/familial security," Bashiok continued. "Ben [Franklin] would tie you to a kite and let go of the string for making such comparisons."
While I don't necessarily agree that all user-made mods should be stored on Blizzard's servers, I also don't think that SCII map mods are a valuable or important form of personal expression. Blizzard isn't censoring an important channel for political opinions, they're making sure their game stays a game. This isn't necessarily a decision I agree with, but I think it's a defensible position to take.
> "Keeping people from seeing your hate speech and obscene images on our private game service is not the same as relinquishing your constitutional freedoms in the hopes of increased personal/familial security," Bashiok continued. "Ben [Franklin] would tie you to a kite and let go of the string for making such comparisons."
While I don't necessarily agree that all user-made mods should be stored on Blizzard's servers, I also don't think that SCII map mods are a valuable or important form of personal expression. Blizzard isn't censoring an important channel for political opinions, they're making sure their game stays a game. This isn't necessarily a decision I agree with, but I think it's a defensible position to take.
If creation isn't an important form of personal expression, what else is left?
Does modding a video game really classify as an essential liberty?
Why shouldn't it? Everything described at that level of specificity seems to be trivial in comparison to such grand notions as "essential liberty"; but if we want our concept of liberty to have any real substance, we have to understand what it means especially in the context of our superficially-trivial day-to-day endeavors.
Granted, given that this instance applies to a single PC game, and there are plenty of other games with thriving and robust modding communities, I'd hardly say this is an example of real oppression. But it's this kind of heavy-handedness - as we've also seen in their decision to eliminate LAN play - that has led to me not purchasing Starcraft II, despite looking forward to it for quite some time.
Which I suppose is just as well: Civ V will be out later this year, and I can't imagine Firaxis even having the inclination to treat their modders with such paternalistic contempt.
Granted, given that this instance applies to a single PC game, and there are plenty of other games with thriving and robust modding communities, I'd hardly say this is an example of real oppression. But it's this kind of heavy-handedness - as we've also seen in their decision to eliminate LAN play - that has led to me not purchasing Starcraft II, despite looking forward to it for quite some time.
Which I suppose is just as well: Civ V will be out later this year, and I can't imagine Firaxis even having the inclination to treat their modders with such paternalistic contempt.
Is a sub-case of the more general "freedom to tinker" with the things you own.
If I read the article correctly, you can tinker with it. You just can't use your tinkered version to host a game.
If I'm wrong, please correct me.
If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Well, considering that their infrastructure also prevents you from hosting a game on your LAN or even playing it in an entirely singleplayer mode...
Really? Then that really does put quite a damper on things.
(I'm not much for MP myself; I don't think I've ever owned a game that didn't have a single-player mode.)
(I'm not much for MP myself; I don't think I've ever owned a game that didn't have a single-player mode.)
Or, they could, as the article suggest, not host all the content themselves, and then there's no need for a tradeoff.
[deleted]
This is not the issue at hand. Nobody would mind Blizzard taking down penis maps on their map browser, but that you CAN'T distribute your own maps by yourself is a big deal. This becomes a closed platform much like the Appstore. Seems like Apple is pioneering a few bad things...
patio11 reference:
http://www.m.amazon.com/Heartbreaking-Work-Staggering-Genius...
see also catcher in the rye.
see also catcher in the rye.
Greed is probably the motive, but....
I get the feeling no CEO wants to be testifying at a congressional hearing and try to explain that the content some kid saw wasn't created by their company. "This appears in your video game and as we all know (like animation) all video games are for kids" "No sir, that was not created by us....." "You should stop this..."
I get the feeling no CEO wants to be testifying at a congressional hearing and try to explain that the content some kid saw wasn't created by their company. "This appears in your video game and as we all know (like animation) all video games are for kids" "No sir, that was not created by us....." "You should stop this..."
Especially after the GTA "Hot Coffee" debacle. That was a different issue of course, but the general public doesn't seem to understand what a mod is, and assume the game publisher is responsible for any and all content, regardless of source.
The difference with Hot Coffee is that it really was created by the studio and it really was in the game — it just wasn't normally accessible. That's why Rockstar was able to patch it out, which wouldn't have been possible if the entire sequence were actually being modded in. Similarly, somebody who exploited a wallwalking glitch to get to Mount Hyjal in the early days of World of Warcraft couldn't really be said to have added Mount Hyjal to the game — it was definitely Blizzard content.
Somewhat different motivation, but Disney had similar issues making sure no one got harassed on their servers either. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1581628
Seems like HN commenters are confused as to what mod and content are as well...
Bethesda was the source of the content for Hot Coffee. It was included in several versions of the game.
A mod was made to enable access to this content.
As the authors and distributors Bethesda is/was/and should be responsible for releasing that content.
Bethesda was the source of the content for Hot Coffee. It was included in several versions of the game.
A mod was made to enable access to this content.
As the authors and distributors Bethesda is/was/and should be responsible for releasing that content.
Rockstar developed GTA. Bethesda made Elder Scrolls and Fallout 3.
Which is why I said it was a different issue. My point was that the public attention that issue received could make publishers more wary of anything perceived as similar.
Penny Arcade covered this wonderfully regarding Little Big Planet: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/10/22/
I bought SC2 and it's a good game. The licensing system is absurd though. The more interesting part is that the license is non-transferable, which is true for almost all MMOs, but this is the first 'normal' game that I think I've purchased which can't be resold. You have to register the game to your real identity, and blizz is 100% in control of what you can do with it. It's by far the least-free software I've ever purchased.
As a user, I'm going to let blizz get away with this one, because the game is good and we've been waiting something like 12 years for it to be finished. So I did buy it. But if other companies think that I'm buying their game if they pull this kind of crap, well, it's not happening.
As a user, I'm going to let blizz get away with this one, because the game is good and we've been waiting something like 12 years for it to be finished. So I did buy it. But if other companies think that I'm buying their game if they pull this kind of crap, well, it's not happening.
Actually there is no real used game market for pc games and it has been that way for a very long time, starcraft one was only allowed 1 copy to be on battlenet at a time the only difference now is that games are online so much of the time that they are much more limited.
The thing that I don't like is that you have to login to battlenet for anything single player (other than playing as a guest) and this is an issue I wouldn't accept for any other game than sc2.
The thing that I don't like is that you have to login to battlenet for anything single player (other than playing as a guest) and this is an issue I wouldn't accept for any other game than sc2.
You can play offline single player, but it won't log your achievements.
That sounds completely fair. But you should still by able to resell the game.
C&C4 is worse. You have to be online to play. You can't even start the game if you're not, and if you disconnect during play, on single player campaigns, then your progress and achievements won't be saved because those only exist on EA's servers.
As a trade off, you can play on any other computer.
But doesn't Steam also work similarly?
But doesn't Steam also work similarly?
[deleted]
Anybody who's ever run a site with user-generated content quickly changes their opinion about free speech.
The internet has all the freedom you'll ever need, but you shouldn't expect to have that freedom everywhere you go on it. You can post anything you like to your blog, but I can't post anything I like to it. I have to do that at my own.
Deleting obnoxious custom maps from a video game is no different from trimming Ugg Boot spam from the front page of HackerNews. It's not impinging on anybody's freedom in any meaningful way. It's just making the game universe a better place to be.
The internet has all the freedom you'll ever need, but you shouldn't expect to have that freedom everywhere you go on it. You can post anything you like to your blog, but I can't post anything I like to it. I have to do that at my own.
Deleting obnoxious custom maps from a video game is no different from trimming Ugg Boot spam from the front page of HackerNews. It's not impinging on anybody's freedom in any meaningful way. It's just making the game universe a better place to be.
I've never been so happy to not buy a game. I've also never been so sad to not buy a game.
A nasty side effect of consumer-inherent complacency. As long as you keep consumers' appetites satiated just enough for them to want more, this sort of thing by and large will go condoned. People who don't develop Apps on the iPhone didn't care about the crappy developer agreement. People who just log onto Facebook to gossip about Johnny and Chachi didn't care about openGraph. People who only bought Starcraft to build pylons wont care about this.
The casual gamers and casual consumers outnumber power users at least 5:1, and that's what allows these sort of things to perpetuate and continue on the rate that they are.
The casual gamers and casual consumers outnumber power users at least 5:1, and that's what allows these sort of things to perpetuate and continue on the rate that they are.
It's not casual gamers, it's gamers in general. All of my friends who have bought this game ignore issues with it because "IT'S STARCRAFT II!!!!!!!!". Gamers are the weak, and easy to manipulate, they give in, boycotts aren't effective, and for video games you can forget about having any sort of unified front. Back when I still read reddit's /r/pics there'd be a weekly posting of BOYCOTT MWII steam group of some sort and everyon was playing MWII.
I think that's kind of a woeful generalization. The most vocal members of the population certainly have something like that, but plenty of people who play games (myself included) bought SC2 because they were happy enough with the content and not dissuaded enough by the downsides - I'm sure plenty of other people quietly went about their business, passing it up because of the various issues discussed in this thread.
For most gamers the upside of playing the game overrules the downside all the time. Me? I haven't bought SC2, L4D2 or MW2, because all of them disrespect the platform, and it's users. I want more features than I had in 1995, not less, I want companies to stand by their promises, and I don't want some neutered 1:1 console port, respectively. I also don't want Blizzard controlling the upstream of game content. Bobby Kiotik will want to monetize that, I'm not stupid. There's going to be Starcraft 10$ map packs soon. I refuse to relinquish my rights to companies who have proven that they are untrustworthy, even with entertainment.
>Those of us who remember looking through Duke Nukem 3D fan pages for a new, great map to play and share with friends know what we've lost here, and, to put it bluntly, it sucks. Every now and again you'd trip over a swastika, but the Star Wars total conversions, the Predator sound packs, and the maps based on Star Trek ship layouts were always a good time. Those days are behind us.
Only if you buy this shit. I've got a large library of games with minimal DRM and large modding communities. Graphics stopped adding to the experience five years ago. I am quite content to battle away on Age of Mythology, Morrowind, Neverwinter Nights, Age of Empires III, the original Jedi Knight, and a dozen others.
When I game at all. It's just appalling that people so casually accept censorship in this day and age. As Ars says, this isn't a simple matter of keeping the trolls at bay:
>There is also the matter of the rating: StarCraft 2 is rated Teen, and if Blizzard doesn't keep Mature-rated content out, there could be a serious backlash.
Good content will be banned to keep the environment at a teen level. This is disgusting, and make no mistake it is censorship.
Only if you buy this shit. I've got a large library of games with minimal DRM and large modding communities. Graphics stopped adding to the experience five years ago. I am quite content to battle away on Age of Mythology, Morrowind, Neverwinter Nights, Age of Empires III, the original Jedi Knight, and a dozen others.
When I game at all. It's just appalling that people so casually accept censorship in this day and age. As Ars says, this isn't a simple matter of keeping the trolls at bay:
>There is also the matter of the rating: StarCraft 2 is rated Teen, and if Blizzard doesn't keep Mature-rated content out, there could be a serious backlash.
Good content will be banned to keep the environment at a teen level. This is disgusting, and make no mistake it is censorship.
> "Good content will be banned to keep the environment at a teen level. This is disgusting, and make no mistake it is censorship."
Actually, it's irrelevant anyways. Note that games have explicit disclaimers that online play is unrated by the ESRB and may be effectively higher than the game's box rating.
The ESRB acknowledges and accepts this - games are rated based on predictable content (e.g., dialogue in singleplayer) and do not include unpredictable player-generated content within reason (e.g., people swearing in multiplayer).
So, the whole ratings argument is bogus - SC2 will not suffer a ratings change even if its users distribute obscene user content.
Actually, it's irrelevant anyways. Note that games have explicit disclaimers that online play is unrated by the ESRB and may be effectively higher than the game's box rating.
The ESRB acknowledges and accepts this - games are rated based on predictable content (e.g., dialogue in singleplayer) and do not include unpredictable player-generated content within reason (e.g., people swearing in multiplayer).
So, the whole ratings argument is bogus - SC2 will not suffer a ratings change even if its users distribute obscene user content.
I just like how everyone is nerdraging about how bad Blizzard is, etc, and have completely overlooked possibly that you live in an era where offensive crap is automatically blamed on the company.
Think, if you will, what the hell Fox or CNN or someone would do with a SCII map that utilized suicide bombers or something. Good christ.
Talk about giving the idiots that think that all of us gamers are off to kill hundreds of innocent people because we do it in a video game a carton-load of ammo.
Then we'll have any good or "innovative" games completely yanked, and you'll bitch more about "losing" freedoms because some company didn't cover their ass.
Swear it's like a bunch of bickering high school kids in here sometimes.
Think, if you will, what the hell Fox or CNN or someone would do with a SCII map that utilized suicide bombers or something. Good christ.
Talk about giving the idiots that think that all of us gamers are off to kill hundreds of innocent people because we do it in a video game a carton-load of ammo.
Then we'll have any good or "innovative" games completely yanked, and you'll bitch more about "losing" freedoms because some company didn't cover their ass.
Swear it's like a bunch of bickering high school kids in here sometimes.
I'm pretty sure your post was downvoted because of your immature tone and your downright ridiculous arguments - Starcraft II "innovative"? Ha! You're right though, that it is sometimes like high school, with the unsubstantiated arguments that are mostly just appeals or assertions, and the general lack of professionalism.
Gillian Anderson couldn't do anything about Adobe Photoshop, and if the anti-videogame crusaders couldn't manage to do anything significant with Manhunt and Hot Coffee, custom content for SCII isn't going to be any worse. (For that matter, "GTA Raoul Moat" fetched Rockstar an apology from the Daily Mail. http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=256635)
Gillian Anderson couldn't do anything about Adobe Photoshop, and if the anti-videogame crusaders couldn't manage to do anything significant with Manhunt and Hot Coffee, custom content for SCII isn't going to be any worse. (For that matter, "GTA Raoul Moat" fetched Rockstar an apology from the Daily Mail. http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=256635)
Wasn't saying SCII was innnovative in specificity, merely that games that allow sandbox innovation would be more likely to face intense scrutiny as to what they release as any sort of content from any user or otherwise.
HN: If you don't agree with the collective, gtfo.
Well, the Zerg do have suicide units....
Seems like we need to get that conversation started, so that society can move forward, then.
I think that the statement made about Benjamin Franklin is rather inaccurate. Ben Franklin was a printer, publisher, and writer for most of his life, which puts his occupation at a parallel with what Blizzard is currently doing. However, Ben never displayed censorship at this level. In fact, he published plenty of pieces which were considered quite racy and controversial by the day's standards. It is true that he would not publish articles that were malignant in nature, but I have a hard time believing he would condone the censorship that Blizzard is currently demonstrating.
With war3, we always had to download 10 different maps manually and put it in the "right" place to watch a replay. For instance, the replay wanted the map in:
maps/download/(2)blabla and not maps/frozen throne/(2)blabla.
I honestly hope that blizzard will fix that by hosting everything.
And I'm sure that if 25mb is not enough, blizzard will increase it.. It's one of the few game company that encourage users to create maps and fan art.
Lastly, in my 10 years playing starcraft1 and warcraft3, I've never seen a map with mature content or things like that.. so in my opinion, it doesn't make a difference whether blizzard control maps or no.
maps/download/(2)blabla and not maps/frozen throne/(2)blabla.
I honestly hope that blizzard will fix that by hosting everything.
And I'm sure that if 25mb is not enough, blizzard will increase it.. It's one of the few game company that encourage users to create maps and fan art.
Lastly, in my 10 years playing starcraft1 and warcraft3, I've never seen a map with mature content or things like that.. so in my opinion, it doesn't make a difference whether blizzard control maps or no.
Is all this nerdraging warranted? The game is worth $60 without any custom maps at all. It's probably worth $60 without multiplayer. It's the most satisfying game I've played in years.
I think some people, judging by the comments here, have a giant void of actual problems in their lives and have nothing better to do than to complain about everything.
I think some people, judging by the comments here, have a giant void of actual problems in their lives and have nothing better to do than to complain about everything.
But everyone is judging it by what SC1 did. SC2 won't, in my opinion, have the half life (pun intended) of the original because of this. E-Sport companies are restricted by the new EULA. Modders can't do what they use too. In the end, Blizzard isn't protecting anyone, they are trying to gain control on the whole user experience and they will want to monetize it. Map Packs, paid tournaments, ....
I bought the game and like someone else said, if this wasn't blizzard I wouldn't have bought it. Same with the iPhone, how many would have bought it knowing the restriction if it wasn't made by apple. Same hardware, same software, same management.
I bought the game and like someone else said, if this wasn't blizzard I wouldn't have bought it. Same with the iPhone, how many would have bought it knowing the restriction if it wasn't made by apple. Same hardware, same software, same management.
Does anyone really think that "prevent obscenity" is the real reason, and that it has got nothing to do with the fact that pirated copies will have a hard time connecting to Blizzard's servers?
Seems pretty obvious to me.
Seems pretty obvious to me.
How much of this is an anti-piracy measure?
If you have to connect to a central sever it gives them a chance to check your account (whether they take it or not). I assume pirates would rather download an anonymous map over HTTP than from Blizzard.
If you have to connect to a central sever it gives them a chance to check your account (whether they take it or not). I assume pirates would rather download an anonymous map over HTTP than from Blizzard.
A lot of it is an anti-piracy measure. Activision wants games to be bound to their servers as tightly as possible, because that's the best possible defense against piracy. It also creates a kind of lock-in that they hope to exploit to get WoW-style recurring income.
This is fine, while companies like Infinity Ward / Activision / Blizzard censor artists and developers and remove creativity from PC Gamers, companies like Id, Epic, and Valve are filling in the gaps. Valve just released Alien Swarm for free with all the dev tools needed to modify the game.
Blizzard, you need to return to your roots, and remember your fans, not your wallets.
Listen dudes - if these limitations ACTUALLY impede the community's ability to enjoy the game, rather than just IN THEORY which is what this post and most of these comments are arguing about, then Blizzard isn't going to sit there and watch its potential sales of the next two StarCraft 2 games and other parts of the franchise slowly die because people are getting bored with multiplayer due to lack of innovative community-content as a result of these restrictions.
Let the market decide - if most devs have trouble making a fun map / scenario / mod that's under 25 megs in size, then obviously blizzard will change it. That being said, 25 megs is probably sufficient anyways. Relax.
Let the market decide - if most devs have trouble making a fun map / scenario / mod that's under 25 megs in size, then obviously blizzard will change it. That being said, 25 megs is probably sufficient anyways. Relax.
[deleted]
I don't mind this. I like controlled systems because they tend to keep the garbage out of my sight (steam, itunes). If they allow the masses to create really obscene things, it only hurts the developers that spend countless hours creating quality mods and maps because the consumer has to wade through trash 98% of the time.
Another point is that the game is still new. That 25 MB limit is probably not a hard limit. It 'could' go up if they start seeing a show of hands with people needing more space.
Another point is that the game is still new. That 25 MB limit is probably not a hard limit. It 'could' go up if they start seeing a show of hands with people needing more space.
I don't think the big issues is what they allow on their servers. I think the bigger issues is that a lot of new games don't allow you to host your own content outside their system. I can see reasons for this (and I am sympathetic), but I do miss the old days of getting a WarCraft map from a friend.
You can still do that for single-player maps AFAIK -- the Map Editor lets you run any map that you can download.
Yeah, you can create a map and distribute it for single player vs. the AI.
- http://www.sc2mapster.com/maps/
- http://sc2.curse.com/downloads/sc2-maps/default.aspx
- http://www.sc2mapster.com/maps/
- http://sc2.curse.com/downloads/sc2-maps/default.aspx
Don't forget that Blizzard plans to rake in some money off of content creation (for Blizzard and the developers).
The company that spent millions making the game intends to make money off it? The horror!
I don't think they're concerned about money at this point. Akin to the iTunes app store (1% of Apple's gross profit), they're not going to make a ton off of it all.
What they probably want is a really awesome modding community surrounding their games that they control and are able to reward for efforts produced. Which is awesome in my mind.
What they probably want is a really awesome modding community surrounding their games that they control and are able to reward for efforts produced. Which is awesome in my mind.
I guarantee that at some point in the future, if Blizzard doesn't get their heads out of the asses, somebody will crack some future rev of the software to allow LAN play and custom multiplayer maps and such, and that that will become the de facto version that everybody plays and shows up on Korean Starcraft channels. All this is is really a fantastically complex DRM scheme designed to keep the "we're in control" ball on Blizzard's side of the table.
Bizarre. It's like they took everything that made Starcraft a decade's long phenomenon, and decided to try and put a fence around it so they could control it. Mind bogglingly stupid and guaranteed to turn SC2 into just another RTS that disappears in a year or two unless they fire whoever is responsible for such a brain dead idea and revert back to a more sane model.
The article conveniently ignores every other game that does not have the same restrictions on user generated content, and then claims the "death of content freedom." Starcraft 2 is one datapoint.
Where was the article trumpeting the "renewal of content freedom" when Alien Swarm came out?
Where was the article trumpeting the "renewal of content freedom" when Alien Swarm came out?
I honestly, after seeing what Uno is like on XBoxLive, completely back blizzard in this.
Blizzard it taking more control than ever. The users can't tinker with it. The same happen to many games. Of course, this is only possible because those game are are proprietary.
Did anyone thought about free game engines?
Did anyone thought about free game engines?
A friend just sent me an SC2 map. We're going to try to make a small custom game together. I'm at work so I can't open it, but I was surprised to see it in my mail box after reading the article and comments.
so what, just torrent it and sooner or later there will be private servers/maps/lan. blizzard is too greedy from the WOW gravy train.
Damn, there goes my ZergNigger mod.
Amen.
- The 25MB file size limit is absurd and could cause real harm. I can't imagine any rationale at all for this. Storage is so cheap. There's also an arbitrary limit of 5 maps at a time per author, which is hilariously strange; needless to say, the most fun custom maps in WC3 and SC:BW came from prolific authors.
- Ars doesn't mention the fact that their current system for browsing and playing custom maps is broken beyond belief. It's more or less impossible to play maps that aren't among the most popular on Battle.net. (details: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=139...)
- The change everyone is complaining about stems from an actual good idea. In WC3 and SC:BW, people would constantly make tiny, ineffectual changes to custom maps, resulting in a profligation of one million versions of those maps, each of which you would have to download when you encountered them. You also had little assurance that someone had not modified a map to let them cheat it. The centralized distribution system is a real convenience, as it has the potential to avoid these problems (although they are still present right now, thanks to Blizzard's horrific design.) Unfortunately, it makes Blizzard somewhat responsible in the eyes of consumers for the content on the system.