Right as rainy

Starcraft 2 should right now be one of the most eagerly awaited new games. In true Blizzard fashion there is a lot of anticipation, but also a lot of hype. And amidst the hype, the countless previews and hands-on reports, there are a few news that tend to instill a bit of worry. For example the one that Starcraft 2 would ship in three installments – one for each Single Player campaign. Which is just going with the general tendency of releasing short games, as it is doubtful that any campaign will span more than ten hours of playtime – but it seems like a bit of a rip-off even to people who usually tend not to care that much. And ten years ago even Blizzard would not have gotten away with it.

But that’s a bit beside the point. Blizzard is good at making successful games, and even better at giving themselves a license to print money – see World of Warcraft. However, what is a bit more concerning is the recent announcement to drop LAN support from the multiplayer portion of the game. Instead, Blizzard is planning on making their revamped online service Battle.Net the pivotal point of SC2 multiplayer (and, highly likely, Diablo 3).

They openly admit that they consider this a safeguard against piracy. Which may be true enough. While it won’t really deter the ones who are only keen on playing the campaigns and don’t really give a hoot about multiplayer, it won’t easily be possible to go online with a pirated copy. And that’s only fair. But less optimistic people – including me – don’t think that that is the full story. Because experience teaches us that there’s always more to it than meets the eye, especially when potentially tons of money are involved, we ask questions. For example – what is the next step?

Closed infrastructures are nothing new in the gaming world. Steam and Xbox Live/Windows Live are only two of the more prominent examples. While these structures have their advantages – controlled and unified netcode, guaranteed updates – they also have drawbacks. To an extent, players are giving up certain freedoms when they use such an infrastructure. For one, the operator of the network has got fullest control over what is being played, said and done on their network. They make the rules as they please, and even the smallest infringement, committed knowingly or unknowingly, can get you into trouble. But the buck doesn’t stop here.

In the last 1 1/2 decades, the games that survived longest were the ones that offered ways to modify and customize them. If you were skilled enough, you could use tools provided by the publisher to alter the game, create your own add-ons, maps, new game modes. Unreal Tournament 2003/2004, a competition staple up to today, would never have survived for as long as it has without the countless modifications and user-created maps. Something similar goes for games from the Elder Scrolls series, namely Morrowind and Oblivion, which are kept alive by hundreds of small and large mods, even total gameplay conversions. This kind of user input is only possible when the creators of the game are willing to open their games and engines far enough, and supply the necessary tools. In a closed infrastructure however, while it is certainly possible to make this kind of user input available, it has yet to be seen on a notable scale. A reason might be that while the operator of the network has got full control over what is allowed and what isn’t, a lot of modders won’t be too happy to put up with the sometimes doubtful quality control mechanisms of such a publisher – never mind relinquish certain rights they have in their creation, which would most likely be the case. With the common legal terms that you usually have to agree to, it would open doors for the publisher to commercially exploit the works of their users without even having to compensate them. Yeah, call me a pessimist.

The other worry is that this will just be another step into a more and more prevalent pay-to-play environment. It is becoming fashionable to make gamers pay for extra content or certain features. Take XBox live. While the free Silver membership is available, most people go for the paid-for Gold membership. Most features that are essential for multiplay are only available to Gold members. Basically you’re paying for the game and then you’re paying again to play online. The Silver membership seems to be more of a fig leaf for Microsoft to say that no one is forced to pay for XBox Live. But in reality, it makes little to no sense to not have Gold. Blizzard might just decide to go the same way. Make it available for free in the beginning, but step by step they may introduce features that require players to pay in order to use them.

The number of people who are unhappy with these developments is small – but the ones complaining are usually the more enthusiastic, more knowledgeable and more opinionated customers. They are the ones that keep a game alive far beyond the point where the anonymous masses move on to the next title. They are also the ones that give the most input. Essentially Blizzard may be trading those customers for the ones who are just happy to play whatever they are given. Whether that’s a good thing or not remains to be seen. I for one was perfectly willing to buy Starcraft 2 until these developments transpired. But right now it seems that I will be saving my cash for other titles.