| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (66)

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 10:12AM beqerel said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
F U Blizzard , Activision and all capitalists

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 10:20AM aurickle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@beqerel
Without capitalism you wouldn't even be playing any of the games that you currently enjoy. Even if you only play fully f2p games, you wouldn't have a computer to run them on.
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 10:30AM Grimlijuice said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@aurickle Everything isn't free in a socialist society, pay 2 play games would still exist.....just without the greedy publishers behind them ready to pounce on small studios and developers for small contractual and copyright infractions.
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 11:06AM Sorithal said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Lulz at people who act like they know capitalism.
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 11:52AM nomoredroids said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@Grimlijuice What are you talking about? What incentive would there be to produce games at all in a socialist economy? The reason we have super-ultra-expensive games with high production values is because businesses are able to make money off them: that's capitalism. Otherwise, if we had computers with games at all, the only games we'd ever play are the games people produce in their spare time for fun.
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 11:57AM beqerel said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@aurickle When you loose job you'll see what the capitalism is.and hungry kids w8 you at home.
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 12:02PM aurickle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Grimlijuice
The desire for profit is what has driven the vast majority of innovation throughout history.

Capitalism drives the development of the video card that allows your game to look pretty. Competition between nVidia and ATI has driven the ongoing innovation that allows these cards to keep becoming more powerful and your games to keep looking better.

Capitalism drives the development of the other components in your system. AMD vs. Intel to provide the CPU, for example.

Capitalism drives people to invest millions in developing a high quality game. Yes, without that capitalism there would still be auteurs developing their indy titles on low budgets and for the sheer love of the game. The vast majority of those, however, are junk.

In point of fact it was capitalism that led to the development of StarCraft and eventually StarCraft 2. In other words, without capitalism this whole topic wouldn't exist because there would never have been a game for these people to mod in the first place. And given that Blizzard has spent vast amounts of money on this title it is within their rights to protect that investment.

How would you like it if I walked into your house and fixed myself dinner with the stuff in your kitchen? How about if I went so far as to put up a sign out front of your house saying, "Free eats here! Come on in!" That's a pretty close analogy to what these modders have done. For that matter, we don't know that they've been told not to continue with their project. We only know that they've been told to take down the sign.

I'm not arguing that capitalism is perfect. It's not. But please, point me to one quality game or the last major computer innovation that has come out of socialist societies. Even Allods Online backs up my argument, given that it's capitalist Russia that created the environment for its development.
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 12:13PM KDolo said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@aurickle

That's BS. Most innovation comes, or rather came, from necessity and a real desire to make a difference. Profit seekers simply exploit these innovations.

However, this is a matter of copyright infringement, not really an economic ideological war. Blizzard owns the Starcraft mythos and has every right to exercise their control over it. Whether it's smart or not is an entirely different question. Certainly, doing so makes them huge douches.
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 12:25PM CaseyTheBrash said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@aurickle

Vast corporations are the least likely to invent or evolve, as stated by the poster above me all they excel at is acquiring and exploiting. This is fact.
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 12:36PM Utakata said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@beqerel

The road to progressive change and socail economic just comes from mostly within, by making things better for everyone one step at time. And not by saying things that will piss everyone off. Just saying.
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 12:44PM yeppers said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@beqerel

I take it you've pre-ordered that MMO in development titled "World of China"? And you think that's better?
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 1:13PM aurickle said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@CaseyTheBrash
You are making a mistake of logic by believing that large corporations equal capitalism. They are a subset of it, only. Small business makes up 60% of all jobs in America. In times of economic trouble, small business accounts for 80% of all new hires. All business -- whether it's a large corporation or a small enterprise -- operates with the goal of making a profit. The small business owners very often are doing something that they love, but they're in business to make money with that love.

This is capitalism at its core. It is not evil in and of itself.
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 5:18PM Icemasta said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Yay for people that don't understand the concept of capitalism.

By definition, capitalism merely means that the majority of means of production are privately owned by the people and not the state. That in itself has nothing to do with progress of technology. Russia and the USSR were on par with the American technologies during the cold war, and they were a socialist state.

Now, what capitalism means in the nowadays reality is the quickest buck for minimal losses. What this means for an economy is the opposite of expansion, but rather the milking of a genre using 2 methods. 1) Milk a gameplay mechanic. For instance, Call of Duty and all the "Realistic generic Brown shooters" that came after that using the scope down. That worked, now everyone does it, where are all the Unreal tournament style games? Gone, because between those 2, one will make more money ,even though the other genre could use a new game. 2) Milking an IP(intellectual property) and that is cross genre. Need for Speed was a decent racing game, they brought it in the MMO world.

MMOs were an untouched market until WoW came around and in the past 3 years everyone has been trying to get a share of the MMO pie until the fad passes.

Just look at the trend of music games that happened after Guitar Hero was a success, it lasts for about a year before it died down.

So is capitalism helping the development of new and unique games? Nope. They milk those. DOTA used to be a mod, now you have DOTA2, League of Legends, Heroes of Newerth.

Most popular games and new development in games are done by the indy community.

Is capitalism bad for an economy? Yes and no. Right now, Activision is acting like the fat load that it is. It is too big and there is too much cash involved, and the company wants more cash. They have games that have been out for 5 years that are still selling at full price. They are bad for the game market, they'll release the same crap year after year (CoD every since CoD4) and Guitar Hero and buy out new innovation and STOP innovation because the shareholders are afraid of losing money by pushing new development.

I think the best example is the Guitar Hero series. The game started great in GH1, by dev by Harmonix, released by RedOctane. RedOctane was then bought by Activision. Meanwhile, Harmonix continued on the production of GH2, which was even better than the first one, they polished the controls and IMHO, that is the peak of the guitar hero series.

Then the usual that happens with Activision happened. The original creators wanted to continue on expanding the Guitar Hero series, Activision didn't want, and since Activision owned the IP, they kicked Harmonix out, gave it to Neversoft, then you had the GH3 that was pretty miserable IMHO since it was basically GH2 with news songs, nothing worthy of the 3 title, meanwhile Harmonix went on its way and created the Rock Band series and continues that brand.

That, my friend, is capitalism. The big eats the smalls one and take in the profits for the innovation of the smaller ones. Why do smaller developers have to be original? Because that's the only way they can pierce to get into the market.
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 5:59PM ShivanSwordsman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Icemasta

Capitalism also creates the greed that has sunk the economy, causing penny pinching executives to cut jobs so they can keep paying themselves big bonuses. In fact, the point of capitalism is moot with the court system, since there are a notorious bunch that create a patent for certain inventions, then sit on it. Such have been lawsuits that literally sought Nintendo to stop selling the NINTENDO WII in the United States.

Whilst there does need to be an incentive for people to be urged to do better, the system, as it stands, is currently broken. If anyone comes up with a similar idea, it's taken to court, and smashed into the ground. Please see what happened to captain Marvel after he started getting more popular than Super Man. The sad thing? People thought the Starcraft 2 MMO Mod looked great. It was just that, a Mod. You'd have to have the game to even play it. But they don't care.

Tribes had something like this called "Tribes RPG", and something based off Tribes RPG, "Redmoon". Both mods, one even built off the other. There were several Tribes RPG offshoots, and it flourished into OTHER versions, just like Tribes Renegade. People loved these games better than the original, but they still needed the base game to play it. Tribes flourished, and had it's own Gaming Ladder. I even worked with a guy that created a Starcraft Mod for Tribes.

Now? It's all about lawsuits, crushing innovation, and making it so they can milk you for features. Besides, Blizzard had no problem stealing the creations of other people and putting it in THEIR game. Quest trackers? The community made those, but Blizzard stole it. The various UI upgrades? Again, made by the community, stolen by Blizzard. Apparently, it's ok when they do it.

My hope is that they at least give these guys a break, and hire them to flourish their dream. I don't expect it though, as Blizzard signed a deal with the same devil that refused to pay royalties to Infinity Ward after they made them billions of dollars. Still, this is a great incentive for me to never buy a Blizzard product again. Torchlight 2 just gets better looking every day...
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 7:14PM aurickle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Icemasta
"By definition, capitalism merely means that the majority of means of production are privately owned by the people and not the state. That in itself has nothing to do with progress of technology. Russia and the USSR were on par with the American technologies during the cold war, and they were a socialist state. "

True. But how much of that technology was in the hands of the general populous? THAT, my friend, is the difference. Which comes right back to my initial argument that under a socialist regime this whole topic with World of Starcraft would never have come up because Starcraft itself would never have come about. Nor would this particular debate even be happening because neither of us would have a computer to provide the venue!
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 8:52PM Icemasta said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@aurickle
Well, at best your argument is plausible in a rhetoric fashion assuming that specific conditions of known socialist regime, technology wouldn't be unlocked for the people. Remember that the Utopian version of socialism is one of every single thing developed FOR the people as opposed to for the state. In which case, World of Starcraft would be free and would have been produced by the state for entertainment for the people and every single person would have a computer for their entertainment.

Then again, that is also rhetoric because we're merely stipulating a possible outcome to better our views. It was stupid in the first place to blame capitalism because that has nothing to do with IP and laws in regard to the patent/copyright laws that exist in the US and differs from country to country. Blizzard was fully in their right to shut down the project because they own the Starcraft name. BUT, while they had the right, was it the best course of action? I don't believe so, but then again, Activision has been banning maps and mods all year long since release because they encroached on someone's IP (Final Fantasy, Risk, etc...).
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 10:15AM ManaByte said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
You're allowed to make StarCraft II mods...

...as long as they're not cooler than what we're making.

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 10:20AM Barinthos said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@ManaByte

This is EXACTLY what I thought.

It almost reeks of jealousy that someone that doesn't have billions of dollars can do something they still haven't bothered to get their head out of their asses to figure out.
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 11:08AM Sorithal said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@ManaByte

I'm guessing Blizzard's response was this: "WTF THAT'S SUCH A GREAT IDEA. LET'S QUICKLY CALL COPYRIGHT SO WE CAN USE IT FOR OURSELVES LATER!"

Yay for the creation of custom maps being restricted further.
Reply

Posted: Jan 19th 2011 10:18AM DemonXaphan said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
This could also be the use of the name "World of StarCraft" that may be the reason for copyright infringement and youtube ban.

Featured Stories

Global Chat: Doom and WAAAGH!

Posted on Jul 22nd 2014 8:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW