That is a tradeoff I can live with.
It's probably silly to argue about ideology and principles in a video game, but this seems to be a trend that manifests itself in all facets of society. It scares me how people are willing to give up freedom, reasoning that it's probably not needed anyways.
Too many people think about freedom in terms of individuals' rights in isolation, but its important to recognize that freedom alone encourages the kind of broad variation from which real, substantive improvement emerges, and is the true driver of human progress.
It's extremely important to make this point in any and every context in which it's relevant.
P.S. What is the deal with "penis maps" anyway? Do people upload cool-looking maps that you enjoy until you're almost done and then BAM you get ambushed by a horde of huge, veiny penis monsters?
I'm sure it's the latter. Having complete control over distribution makes it far easier to monetize the content. See the iphone app store for example.
The file size limitation for SC2 is only an issue if you want to include multiple custom 3D models for a total conversion.
Works of genius that emerge from an openly (freely?) mod-able environment are not hard to find or point out: Consider "Team Fortress", a Quake mod and "Counter Strike", the brilliant mod of Half Life.
The kind of engineering and design effort that went into those two projects would have been impossible in the environment described in this article. Both those projects changed the world [of gaming].
That is the attitude that has led to erosion of rights, that unfortunately, I'm force to live with.
Besides, how hard would it be to implement a reputation system instead of censorship? Bonus: they wouldn't have to pay the censors.
Impossible. They host the content, they're responsible for it, they're required to uphold the age rating the game is given.
"Online-enabled games carry the notice "Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB." This notice warns those who intend to play the game online about possible exposure to chat (text, audio, video) or other types of user-generated content (e.g., maps, skins) that have not been considered in the ESRB rating assignment."
has any game "lost" its rating, or had it modified, or whatever, because of user generated content?
I don't see how anyone other than Blizzard has any right to free speech on their privately owned gaming platform.
Even if Blizzard has created a new medium of expression in Starcraft II maps, why should they should be compelled to enable the distribution of any map they don't like?
I understand that people may not like Blizzard's decision to moderate their platform, but it's a big stretch to say that they are trampling on our right to free speech. Is a newspaper trampling on your right to free speech by choosing which editorials to print?
It's the opposite actually. A few days ago you had no means to make Starcraft 2 maps of any description. Now you can, so long as you don't make an ass of yourself.
How is that not a good thing?
If I'm wrong, please correct me.
(I'm not much for MP myself; I don't think I've ever owned a game that didn't have a single-player mode.)
Granted, given that this instance applies to a single PC game, and there are plenty of other games with thriving and robust modding communities, I'd hardly say this is an example of real oppression. But it's this kind of heavy-handedness - as we've also seen in their decision to eliminate LAN play - that has led to me not purchasing Starcraft II, despite looking forward to it for quite some time.
Which I suppose is just as well: Civ V will be out later this year, and I can't imagine Firaxis even having the inclination to treat their modders with such paternalistic contempt.
> "Keeping people from seeing your hate speech and obscene images on our private game service is not the same as relinquishing your constitutional freedoms in the hopes of increased personal/familial security," Bashiok continued. "Ben [Franklin] would tie you to a kite and let go of the string for making such comparisons."
While I don't necessarily agree that all user-made mods should be stored on Blizzard's servers, I also don't think that SCII map mods are a valuable or important form of personal expression. Blizzard isn't censoring an important channel for political opinions, they're making sure their game stays a game. This isn't necessarily a decision I agree with, but I think it's a defensible position to take.
see also catcher in the rye.