4 ms·
Blizzard seem to be burning a lot of bridges and goodwill they've built up over the years. It's incredible what GoG is trying to do, for a profit of course but
by bilekas 2y ago
Blizzard seem to be burning a lot of bridges and goodwill they've built up over the years. It's incredible what GoG is trying to do, for a profit of course but all the same.
The idea of not being able to purchase older titles in a legitimate way only encourages piracy, yet if it will squeeze an extra few pennies out for shareholders, it seems like the right move.
The games industry really seems to be turning into the snake that eats itself. I'm just grateful for the indie scene still being a thing.
- thayne 2y ago> The idea of not being able to purchase older titles in a legitimate way only encourages piracy The solution is to dramatically decrease the length of copyright, so that old games (or other software) can be obtained legally (and modified) even if the original maker no longer sells it.
- portaouflop 2y agoOr just pirate it like we did for the last 30+ years… Copyright is broken and has failed it’s purpose - I have no hope that we can fix it in my lifetime.
- vanderZwan 2y agoIt's not like we have to choose between the two.
- BlueTemplar 2y agoThe issue here is that Blizzard is well known to be cease-and-desist letter-happy, as SC1 modders found out even before the merger with Activision (IIRC).
- r00fus 2y agoCopyright has been coopted by industry for a LONG time. Its purpose for the longest time has been to line the pockets of rights holders and screw everyone else.
- realusername 2y agoWhat does giving money to Blizzard is achieving for such ancient titles anyways? Nobody from that era probably works at Blizzard anymore and some are probably retired. Who piracy is even supposed to be spoiling here exactly even in theory?
- yreg 2y agoHow does pulling old games from stores squeeze an extra few pennies out?
- depr 2y agoThere are remastered versions of those games that Blizzard wants to sell instead.
- apetresc 2y agoWell, it's not just that - Blizzard is actively selling the non-remastered original versions (running on DOSBox exactly like the GoG ones) directly from the Battle.net launcher now too. They've essentially in-housed the exact same product that they originally commissioned for GoG. It may or may not be a jerk move, business-wise (I have no idea what their original agreement with GoG was when they launched it there), but from a purely preservationist point of view, nothing has yet been lost as a result of this. (And while it's tempting to say that in the long run GoG would have been better stewards of the old builds than Blizzard, and that would certainly be true for 99% of publishers out there, keep in mind that Blizzard has successfully kept up servers and downloads for games going back to the mid-90s up to the present day. Blizzard takes preservation much more seriously than almost anyone else.)
- bilekas 2y ago> They've essentially in-housed the exact same product that they originally commissioned for GoG. With added DRM? Because if I remember correctly the blizzard luncher has built in DRM, unable to launch the game without it?
- vanderZwan 2y agoIf Blizzard gets a percentage of Warcraft I and II sales on GoG, then inducing last minute panic buys on GoG could be beneficial to them
- SmallDeadGuy 2y agoThey've released a Warcraft Battle Chest which includes remasters of those games at three times the price (but also includes Warcraft 3), hoping to capture those old game sales into a more expensive offering. Awful for consumers to not just have both options, but shareholders > consumers for public companies unfortunately.
- dr-detroit 2y ago[dead]