Unless you're pirating a purely single-player game you accept that you won't be able to play online unless you get some friends together and go on Hamachi. So as it is, unless you don't know how or you're scared of getting caught, there's only two real reasons to buy a PC game: You want to play online, or you want to support the developers (or you want a physical copy for your collection, or some other meta-reason). If you wouldn't pay to go online even if you owned the game legitimately, then you lose nothing if you just pirate the game in the first place. And that's why if Blizzard has even the slightest clue they won't turn b.net into a pay-to-play system, and also is why for as long as piracy is as easy as it is now no PC game with a single-player mode has had or will have such a system.Lord-General Thunder wrote:As much as I hate that possibility myself, I feel compelled to mock you.Caesius wrote:I don't think they're going to require that you pay for b.net; if they do then that'll attract a wave of pirates that'll make what EA's DRM brought about look like a splash in the kiddie pool. Rather, they'll probably add stupid status crap like avatars and backgrounds, similar to XBLA. However if they make in-game unlockables like new weapons only available to those who pay for them then that's just as bad and Blizzard will have finally surpassed EA in absolute slimeball greediness.
"Oh dear, poor little pirate. He can't get the full game for free."
Then again, it's really hard to read what Blizzard is planning to do. They could be planning to churn out the Disappointment Of The Decade and make millions doing it, or SC II really is going to be so epic that it'll be worth $150. If it really, honest-to-Science is worth $150 then they will make so much more money than screwing people over ever will and nobody will have any reason to doubt Blizzard ever again. Otherwise I'll wait for the triple bundle when it's down to <$75.
[/end]