Starcraft II DRM?

[tk149]

I did a quick skim of the thread and could not find this information posted.

Not only is the Starcraft II DRM a one time activation on install, it also requires a 30 day reactivation. Meaning you have to log into your battle.net account at least once every 30 days to keep playing.

I will not buy this or any future Blizzard games.

I only found this out after e-mail Blizzard to confirm the online authentication.

Quote from e-mail.

"Greetings!

You would need to connect to the internet at least once every 30 days to re-authenticate your StarCraft II account in order to continue to player the game in offline mode, that is correct. StarCraft II requires an active internet connection to play. This is stated in the System Requirements on the retail box, as well as our online System Requirements. Without an active internet connection, you will not be able to log in to Battle.net to authenticate your copy of StarCraft II.

When in offline mode, you can save your games and those games will be saved locally on your computer. If you play while logged into battle.net, your autosave points in the campaign will be saved on our servers. When transfering to a new computer, there is always the option of simply moving the entire game folder to the new computer's Hard Drive in which case you won't lose your saved game.

We are committed to making StarCraft II as enjoyable as possible. We appreciate your feedback. I will forward your report to the appropriate people. While I cannot guarantee a response, I can assure you it will be read.
If you have any further technical questions or problems, please feel free to contact us at techsupport@blizzard.com

Farewell,
Game Master Aurilaquet
Customer Services
Blizzard Entertainment
www.blizzard.com/support"

Please help me spread this information. I can not find it publically anywhere and I am appalled by this fact. I was so looking forward to buying the game and I am glad I researched this before dropping any cash on it.

WTF? This is real? This sucks.

Currently, I live in apartment during the workweek where I do not have internet access. I was actually considering buying SC2 and hauling my tower PC back home (where I do have internet access) just to get the initial activation done, but there's no way I'm hauling the whole tower back and forth, once per month just to satisfy Blizzard.

I'm not even interested in multiplayer. I just want to play the single-player campaign.

How does this prevent piracy in any way? Once you do an initial activation, what is the reasoning behind making us do follow-up activations?

Also, does skirmish (single-player) mode require an internet connection?

 

[darkxshade]

I think people are confusing activation from login? They are not the same. You only need to activate once[link a cd-key to an account], the 30 day thing is that you have to log in to battlenet once every 30 days in order to play in offline mode. So complaining Blizzard lied to you is rather moot at this point since the one time activation requirement and a once every 30 day bnet login is not the same thing. That's how I took it at least, I doesn't make sense to have to enter a cd-key once every month which is what the defintionition of activation means.

 

[Pia]

How does this prevent piracy in any way?

It doesn't, of course. The whole activation thing is about making people wary of buying the game used. Fear, uncertainty, doubt.

Once you do an initial activation, what is the reasoning behind making us do follow-up activations?

Also, does skirmish (single-player) mode require an internet connection?

Yes, they force you to play skirmishes and custom maps on Battle.net.
As for reactivations, I have absolutely no idea why they would want the games of people playing the campaign in their homes to "call home".

darkxshade:
Anything that deliberately asks for your active participation (registering a key, logging in) to keep the game in a functional state is activation. You can see the Blizzard customer representative use the word "re-authenticate". That logging on bnet is slightly easier than the initial process does not change the fundamental nature of the situation: do this, or else.

 

[darkxshade]

darkxshade: Anything that deliberately asks for your active participation (registering a key, logging in) to keep the game in a functional state is activation. You can see the Blizzard customer representative use the word "re-activation" so they certainly think that way.

ok granted, but the outcry from the replies make it sound as if people think the one time activation is the same as the login activation[since they are complaining Blizzard lied to them about only having to do it once but in actuality have to do it once a month which they don't]. The login requirement is an entirely different thing altogether and as someone pointed out, the box clearly says an internet connection is required so you should be online while playing anyway, SP or MP and each time you would have to login anyway. So boo hoo if it's an inconvenence for those who want to play offline to have to log in at least 12 times a year. I logged in at least 12 times just this week.

As for reactivations, I have absolutely no idea why they would want the games of people playing the campaign in their homes to "call home".

The ability to play offline was probably a bonus they threw in there to try to accomodate those who aren't always online so they threw in this login requirement just so you don't pass your copy to friend who can install it and play through it entirely without incident while you're playing your copy online.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I think people are confusing activation from login? They are not the same. You only need to activate once[link a cd-key to an account], the 30 day thing is that you have to log in to battlenet once every 30 days in order to play in offline mode. So complaining Blizzard lied to you is rather moot at this point since the one time activation requirement and a once every 30 day bnet login is not the same thing. That's how I took it at least, I doesn't make sense to have to enter a cd-key once every month which is what the defintionition of activation means.

Trying to split hairs between validating the CD key and logging in with the account the key is attached to is mildly retarded when they have the same end result.

 

[darkxshade]

Trying to split hairs between validating the CD key and logging in with the account the key is attached to is mildly retarded when they have the same end result.

The end result is not the issue here. For 95 percent of the user base, logging in is not an inconvenience[click remember login and just type in pw each time]... having to register an authentication key once a month however would be. So again, making a big fuss out of nothing since the latter is not what they are asking you to do which is what the complaints make it sound like to be. It was never intended for anyone to play offline to begin with, it says "Internet connection required" on 5 sides of the retail box. So now Blizzard is getting hammered because they implemented a way to allow offline play but require a login once a month? Please. Maybe they shouldn't have been so accommodating if people were going to whine about this since everyone else pretty much has to log in every time they load up to game to play it as intended.

 

[tydas]

Looks like the DRM revolt has succeded:

'StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty sold more than 1.5 million copies in its first 48 hours, making it the top-selling PC game of the year, according to Blizzard ...'

One thing to say...."SHUT UP SLAVE!"

 

[Bun-Bun]

ok granted, but the outcry from the replies make it sound as if people think the one time activation is the same as the login activation[since they are complaining Blizzard lied to them about only having to do it once but in actuality have to do it once a month which they don't]. The login requirement is an entirely different thing altogether and as someone pointed out, the box clearly says an internet connection is required so you should be online while playing anyway, SP or MP and each time you would have to login anyway. So boo hoo if it's an inconvenence for those who want to play offline to have to log in at least 12 times a year. I logged in at least 12 times just this week.



The ability to play offline was probably a bonus they threw in there to try to accomodate those who aren't always online so they threw in this login requirement just so you don't pass your copy to friend who can install it and play through it entirely without incident while you're playing your copy online.

The inital activation is a log on as well. The only time a cd-key is entered is to tie the game to your battle.net account. The game activations are always battle.net log ins.

And the point everyone is trying to make is that this game has a major single player component and a lot of people have no desire to ever play the game online. Thus this controlling DRM seems outrageous to us as simpler DRM methods would allow us to play the game without internet access un hindered and accomplish the same thing... nothing. As all DRM accomplishes nothing.

The end result is not the issue here. For 95 percent of the user base, logging in is not an inconvenience[click remember login and just type in pw each time]... having to register an authentication key once a month however would be. So again, making a big fuss out of nothing since the latter is not what they are asking you to do which is what the complaints make it sound like to be. It was never intended for anyone to play offline to begin with, it says "Internet connection required" on 5 sides of the retail box. So now Blizzard is getting hammered because they implemented a way to allow offline play but require a login once a month? Please. Maybe they shouldn't have been so accommodating if people were going to whine about this since everyone else pretty much has to log in every time they load up to game to play it as intended.

Your failing to see the point. It is not a matter of inconveinence it is a matter for many to not be able to play at all due to the limitation of requiring an internet connection. There are plenty of examples given in the past few posts so I am not going to repeat any.

And the biggest issue is there appears to be no reason for it other then Blizzard (or Activision) wants to control how people use their games. And they advertise they are against DRM and say only a "ONE" time activation which is obviously not the case. So even if the DRM was "acceptable" they have still lied to there customers/fanbase and that above all is the most disturbing.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

The end result is not the issue here. For 95 percent of the user base, logging in is not an inconvenience[click remember login and just type in pw each time]... having to register an authentication key once a month however would be. So again, making a big fuss out of nothing since the latter is not what they are asking you to do which is what the complaints make it sound like to be. It was never intended for anyone to play offline to begin with, it says "Internet connection required" on 5 sides of the retail box. So now Blizzard is getting hammered because they implemented a way to allow offline play but require a login once a month? Please. Maybe they shouldn't have been so accommodating if people were going to whine about this since everyone else pretty much has to log in every time they load up to game to play it as intended.

You're completely failing to understand why people are upset.

 

[smackababy]

The inital activation is a log on as well. The only time a cd-key is entered is to tie the game to your battle.net account. The game activations are always battle.net log ins.

And the point everyone is trying to make is that this game has a major single player component and a lot of people have no desire to ever play the game online. Thus this controlling DRM seems outrageous to us as simpler DRM methods would allow us to play the game without internet access un hindered and accomplish the same thing... nothing. As all DRM accomplishes nothing.

Except, by forcing the user to connect to the internet at least once a month insures the experience remains top notch due to the availability of patches.

 

[Bun-Bun]

Except, by forcing the user to connect to the internet at least once a month insures the experience remains top notch due to the availability of patches.

Patches for offline play should be volentary. If there is an issue where I need to update or want to update my game I can do so at my discretion. Not have someone dictate to me how I use my computer.

Link to the Blizzard statement? I find it hard to believe, knowing Blizzard's past history. Especially with such a clear statement on the box.

Also, INTERNET CONNECTION REQUIRED is pretty clear, no matter how you look at it... You have it? You can play. You don't? You can't. It doesn't say "ONE TIME INTERNET AUTHENTICATION REQUIRED"... How can you even argue that?

And taltamir, servers going dong? Diablo 2 support is going strong for the past 10 years, Starcraft 1 the past 12 years... Warcraft 3 for 8 years... Should an unfortunate event occur, Blizzard will release a patch stopping the dependency of SP on their servers, of this I'm sure.

I quoted their e-mail to me in a previous post. And if you google starcraft ii drm you will find several interviews with the developers stating this with comments from people complaining about the same things I am. Also since release there are now comments popping up on those articles about the 30 day re-activation that was never mentioned before and people are upset.

Also typically in the past internet connection required has been there to mean for online play. It is easily understandable how people can assume that and buy the game not realizing that even single player requires an internet connection (and the game is advertised and known for its awesome single player campaign). And really, a single player game requiring an internet connection is just a rediculous notion. Certain features and updates, of course, but not the actual game itself.

Looks like the DRM revolt has succeded:

'StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty sold more than 1.5 million copies in its first 48 hours, making it the top-selling PC game of the year, according to Blizzard ...'

One thing to say...."SHUT UP SLAVE!"

The problem is, thanks to Blizzard keeping this all hush hush, very few people knew about the online activation and no one knew about the 30 day reactivation. So I am willing to bet their are many who purchased the game who are not upset. I would have been had I not taken the statement on the box in warning and e-mailed Blizzard to clarify.

Some games are worth this incredible inconvenience.

The game may be worth it. But supporting DRM is never worth it. The only thing publishers understand is money. The only way to send a clear message is to say I will not buy this game because and then hold true to it. That is the only thing they will ever understant. They dont care about us, they dont care about the developers that they are publishing for. They only see numbers and $$$.

EDIT:

I just want to add (cause this seems to be a spot of grey area for both people defending Blizzard and Blizzard themselves). If this game was a strictly online game period, we wouldn't be having this discussion. They wouldn't even have the activation to begin with it would just be like World of Warcraft.

However, the fact is this game has a significant part of it being purely single player. The single player campaign is awesome and many people only want the game for the single player campaign. Blizzard puts a lot of time and effort into the lore of their games and making them polished, this is why people enjoy the single player aspect of the game so much. This isnt just about an online RTS.

Honestly I almost wished they would do what EA did with Red Alert 3. While I don't like that situation either at least its now clear cut. The first release of Red Alert 3 was focused around being online. Even the campaign was based around co-op play. Then the expansion game out and it was purely offline single player. It's clear cut where has Blizzard seems to be stuck between the game being a classic RTS and MMORTS.

I am sick of MMO's and everything about them. But I will leave it at that in fear of de-railing this thread.

 

[darkxshade]

Your failing to see the point. It is not a matter of inconveinence it is a matter for many to not be able to play at all due to the limitation of requiring an internet connection.

Because they just don't have an internet connection, I got that. I'm not sure how this DRM[if you call it that] affects each country but the number of people who want to play only SP and coincidentally not have an internet connection is so few and far between that I'm afraid to admit Blizzard just don't give a rats ass about. But for the majority of people who bought the game, they should have known full well an internet connection is required as they practically labeled it on all sides of the box. And for this majority of people, they do not feel the effects of this "DRM". I hate DRM as much as the next guy, but I just don't feel the effects of it as this does not hinder me or my friends in anyway... some of which only wanted to play SP. I don't know what to tell you... you were just not part of their target market if you can't stand to or be able to login once a month all the while a month being more than enough time to complete the SP campaign.

 

[Pia]

It was never intended for anyone to play offline to begin with, it says "Internet connection required" on 5 sides of the retail box. So now Blizzard is getting hammered because they implemented a way to allow offline play but require a login once a month? Please. Maybe they shouldn't have been so accommodating if people were going to whine about this since everyone else pretty much has to log in every time they load up to game to play it as intended.

"Implemented a way to allow offline play"? Do you realize how absurd that sounds? (Rhetorical question. You wouldn't have written it if you did.)

Causing harm and subsequently negating a part of that harm is not okay and definitely not commendable.

 

[tk149]

Except, by forcing the user to connect to the internet at least once a month insures the experience remains top notch due to the availability of patches.

For a single-player game, I prefer the power to control what patches I install. Patches from other companies have destroyed gameplay (e.g. MOO2's infamous Everyone-Hates-Your-Race bug). Blizzard may have a better record than most other companies, but from what I recall from playing WoW awhile back, even Blizzard doesn't always get a patch right the first time.

 

[Anubis]

TBH the 30 day shit is pretty god damn annoying. people prob forget but Diablo 2 had something similar, and somewhat worse. you had to log in ever 30 or 60 days to each char you had sitting on Bnet or they would go inactive and you wouldn't be able to play them anymore, it however didnt effect single player.

 

[Bun-Bun]

Because they just don't have an internet connection, I got that. I'm not sure how this DRM[if you call it that] affects each country but the number of people who want to play only SP and coincidentally not have an internet connection is so few and far between that I'm afraid to admit Blizzard just don't give a rats ass about. But for the majority of people who bought the game, they should have known full well an internet connection is required as they practically labeled it on all sides of the box. And for this majority of people, they do not feel the effects of this "DRM". I hate DRM as much as the next guy, but I just don't feel the effects of it as this does not hinder me or my friends in anyway... some of which only wanted to play SP. I don't know what to tell you... you were just not part of their target market if you can't stand to or be able to login once a month all the while a month being more than enough time to complete the SP campaign.

DRM - Digital Rights Managment. The game requires you to logon to battle.net to authenticate the installation. The very definition of DRM.

No people do not feel it's affects like DRM from some other companies. But that does not mean that their are those who it doesn't affect and just because they don't feel the affects now doesn't mean they wont later and be pissed off then.

I do not like gaming companies thinking that they can control the way I use my computer. No one can control the way I use my computer or play my games but me. If they can't accept this then they don't get my money. It really is quite that simple.

TBH the 30 day shit is pretty god damn annoying. people prob forget but Diablo 2 had something similar, and somewhat worse. you had to log in ever 30 or 60 days to each char you had sitting on Bnet or they would go inactive and you wouldn't be able to play them anymore, it however didnt effect single player.

That was not DRM with Diablo II. The actual game itself was unrestricted as far as single player went.

What you are talking about was a limitation of Battle.net due to it being free.

What Blizzard is trying to do now is say your paying for Battle.net, not the game.

Honestly I would rather have them give the game for a normal price and then charge a one time fee to activate it for use on battle.net. Seems that would solve their internal issue they seem to be having around this game.

 

[golem]

"Implemented a way to allow offline play"? Do you realize how absurd that sounds? (Rhetorical question. You wouldn't have written it if you did.)

Causing harm and subsequently negating a part of that harm is not okay and definitely not commendable.

The box specifically states internet connect required. So just going by the box it would seem you need an online connection every time to play.

You may not like DRM, but just going by the statement on the box, the online connection requirement is actually MORE lenient that expected.

So if any "harm" was caused, it was self inflicted because you didn't bother to read the box.

 

[darkxshade]

"Implemented a way to allow offline play"? Do you realize how absurd that sounds? (Rhetorical question. You wouldn't have written it if you did.)

Causing harm and subsequently negating a part of that harm is not okay and definitely not commendable.

Yes, it sounds absurd. I didn't write the game but all things considered, the login does not affect you unless you are either one of the few who does not have an internet connection or one of those who take offense just because of the idea that you have to login once a month offends you. Would it be easier if you can save login data and it automatically logs in for you when you load up the game? I don't think it's the process of typing a pw and pressing enter that bothers you, just the idea that you have to be connected at least once a month. So yea, that sucks for some since you have 30 days to play SP offline all you want after your initial login which should be plenty of time so what's the issue? I honestly don't get what the fuss is about. I'm thinking of course the number of people who are severely affected by this vs the rest of the population who bought or wanted to buy the game. Help me understand because I really don't.

 

[Bun-Bun]

So if any "harm" was caused, it was self inflicted because you didn't bother to read the box.

For the record I haven't bought the game. And to what I expect out of a single player game, no it is not lenient at all.

Yes, it sounds absurd. I didn't write the game but all things considered, the login does not affect you unless you are either one of the few who does not have an internet connection or one of those who take offense just because of the idea that you have to login once a month offends you. Would it be easier if you can save login data and it automatically logs in for you when you load up the game? I don't think it's the process of typing a pw and pressing enter that bothers you, just the idea that you have to be connected at least once a month. So yea, that sucks for some since you have 30 days to play SP offline all you want after your initial login which should be plenty of time so what's the issue? I honestly don't get what the fuss is about. I'm thinking of course the number of people who are severely affected by this vs the rest of the population who bought or wanted to buy the game. Help me understand because I really don't.

You are completely and utterly failing to see the point. It has nothing to do with the actual act of logging in that bothers people. It's the fact that it contains DRM that they did not say it would and the face that DRM is controlling/restrictive and shouldn't be in games. There are people that it does affect to the point they could not play and could be a serious problem in the future.

No where has Blizzard stated they would patch the game if they even went out of buisness. Nor could you even install the game therefore a patch would be useless.

And to the beat the game in 30 day argument. Given my schedule and the way I play games I doubt I would complete it in a month. Not to mention I like to replay games.

 

[smackababy]

For the record I haven't bought the game. And to what I expect out of a single player game, no it is not lenient at all.



You are completely and utterly failing to see the point. It has nothing to do with the actual act of logging in that bothers people. It's the fact that it contains DRM that they did not say it would and the face that DRM is controlling/restrictive and shouldn't be in games. There are people that it does affect to the point they could not play and could be a serious problem in the future.

No where has Blizzard stated they would patch the game if they even went out of buisness. Nor could you even install the game therefore a patch would be useless.

And to the beat the game in 30 day argument. Given my schedule and the way I play games I doubt I would complete it in a month. Not to mention I like to replay games.

I think you're missing the point where Blizzard knows you're not entitled to play their game. If you don't like the price of admission, don't buy a ticket.

And for the record, I did buy it, and I beat it in 3 days.

 

[golem]

For the record I haven't bought the game. And to what I expect out of a single player game, no it is not lenient at all.

I have bought the game, and I agree with you it does sort of suck and is inconvenient.

I'm just saying compared to what it says on the box, it is lenient. Of course, compared to what you expect it isn't.

 

[golem]

No where has Blizzard stated they would patch the game if they even went out of buisness. Nor could you even install the game therefore a patch would be useless.

And to the beat the game in 30 day argument. Given my schedule and the way I play games I doubt I would complete it in a month. Not to mention I like to replay games.

Well, if they go out of business, you could always just use a crack. I believe, but may be wrong that this is legal because of the recent ruling on breaking DRM for fair use. In any case since they are out of business, who would prosecute?

This is only a problem if you don't have internet access for those 30 days. You don't have to beat it in 30 days. You have to play once or just log in once every 30 days.

What I'm curious about though, is if you don't re-authenticate in those 30 days what happens? Does the your DVD become a coaster and you can on longer play, period. Or do you have to somehow contact Blizzard to re-active you account or game and all that happens is that you lose your saves on bnet servers (still sucks of course to lose your saves)? I found the email from CS a little confusing on this point.

 

[Bun-Bun]

I think you're missing the point where Blizzard knows you're not entitled to play their game. If you don't like the price of admission, don't buy a ticket.

And for the record, I did buy it, and I beat it in 3 days.

It's not the price, its the hoops and loops to jump through to get the ticket.

And that's nice that you have that sort of time to play. Not everyone does.v

Well, if they go out of business, you could always just use a crack. I believe, but may be wrong that this is legal because of the recent ruling on breaking DRM for fair use. In any case since they are out of business, who would prosecute?

This is only a problem if you don't have internet access for those 30 days. You don't have to beat it in 30 days. You have to play once or just log in once every 30 days.

What I'm curious about though, is if you don't re-authenticate in those 30 days what happens? Does the your DVD become a coaster and you can on longer play, period. Or do you have to somehow contact Blizzard to re-active you account or game and all that happens is that you lose your saves on bnet servers (still sucks of course to lose your saves)? I found the email from CS a little confusing on this point.

Just ask yourself how rediculous that sounds to use a crack to play a game you paid for. Granted I have had games that for technical reasons the cracked version works while the regular game doesn't. But thats a unintenional technical difficulty.

What happens if you don't reactiveate in 30 days is then next time you try and play the game in offline mode it will tell you that you need to connect to your battle.net account. Until you do so you can not play the game. As soon as you get internet access and log on to your battle.net account then everything is peachy.

At least that's how I assume it to work.

 

[darkxshade]

You are completely and utterly failing to see the point. It has nothing to do with the actual act of logging in that bothers people.

I think you are failing to undertand that I do see the point.

Did you completely gloss over the part where I said:
"I don't think it's the process of typing a pw and pressing enter that bothers you, just the idea that you have to be connected at least once a month."

It's unfortunte that you think that developers should write games completely free of any form of digital protection. Also unfortunate for you is that they won't feel much of a backlash since this/their DRM[I concede that debate at this point] for the most part does not affect the greater population. Sure it'll affect some, and it may affect others at inopportune times but in the end and over time, that segment is just a drop in the bucket compared to total number of players who aren't affected by this at all.

Sucks you feel you were lied to by Blizzard... won't be the first time, won't be the last. How many times have they lied about release dates? So voice your opinion with your wallet and hope it makes a dent... I doubt it will because even though I hate DRM too, this one I can accept. To me, the MP aspect has taken over the SC franchise, the SP portion does not have nearly the replay value than MP and for those that only play for SP, they would more than likely be done in a month never to be bothered by the login issue at all. Most of those that take longer won't mind the once a month login and whatever is left over from that bunch can shout as loud as they like but that noise will be drowned out by the majority who just don't feel their pain.

So I get it... you're against DRM in any form because you feel entitled to have full control of your computer but then devs should have full control over their product. You're not going to win, just hope they create a DRM that you can live with and I can live with this one.

 

[Bun-Bun]

I think you are failing to undertand that I do see the point.

Did you completely gloss over the part where I said:
"I don't think it's the process of typing a pw and pressing enter that bothers you, just the idea that you have to be connected at least once a month."

It's unfortunte that you think that developers should write games completely free of any form of digital protection. Also unfortunate for you is that they won't feel much of a backlash since this/their DRM[I concede that debate at this point] for the most part does not affect the greater population. Sure it'll affect some, and it may affect others at inopportune times but in the end and over time, that segment is just a drop in the bucket compared to total number of players who aren't affected by this at all.

Sucks you feel you were lied to by Blizzard... won't be the first time, won't be the last. How many times have they lied about release dates? So voice your opinion with your wallet and hope it makes a dent... I doubt it will because even though I hate DRM too, this one I can accept. To me, the MP aspect has taken over the SC franchise, the SP portion does not have nearly the replay value than MP and for those that only play for SP, they would more than likely be done in a month never to be bothered by the login issue at all. Some of thoe who are won't mind and whatever is left over from that bunch an shout as loud as they like but that noise will be drowned out by the majority who just don't feel it.

Actually Blizzard rarely lies about release dates as they do not promise release dates at all. Usually a release date about a Blizzard game is pure speculation from Journalist and random people on the web. All Blizzard will say is its coming. They do this purposefully because they would rather spend a year longer making the game what it should be then release it prematurely.

And actually if you do a quick google search you will see that now people are discovering the 30 day reactivation part of the DRM that was previously not mentioned at all by Blizzard and is now being put under some criticism. I have no doubt that this will grow as more people realize the full extent of Blizzards DRM.

And about the MP vs SP... That is purely your opinion. To me and many others the SP far out weighs the MP as it is what contains the story/lore and the bulk of what went into the game. Online is just... meh. But that is my opinion.

The point is they are artificially restricting their audience for what is zero purpose. The game was cracked within hours of release, their DRM suceeded at nothing.

And I never said games shouldn't have some form of copy protection. I have no issues with basic disc checks that prevent simpletons from putting the disc in the drive to copy it and distribute it amongst their friends.