Reddit User Finds Starcraft Source Code, Gets Rewarded by Blizzard When He Returns It

[Seanchaidh]

Strictly speaking, no. This is an odd case where the actual value of the disk is hard to define in any objective sense. There's no par value or sales price for it, and while aficionados might have paid a very pretty penny for it, let's be honest aficionados are almost defined by the fact that they're willing to pay well over fair price for things related to the subject they're passionate about.

For a single item, aficionados define the fair market price for an item. The one who is willing to pay the most is the one who gets it: that's fair.

I suppose that is accurate to the extent that it follows the aforementioned rule. My intended point was that by non-aficionado standards, aficionados are wont to overpay. It's more or less auction philosophy. Highest bid technically sets the fair value, but the price they set is usually above what most others would be willing to pay for it.

Even things as mundane as unskilled labor satisfy that condition, though. Most people aren't willing to pay even minimum wage most of the time: the buying side of the labor market is dominated by a relatively small portion of the population. Only the things that literally almost everyone buys have a fair market value which correspond to what most people would pay.

That being said, I don't want anyone to mistake me for saying that this model of pricing is a moral imperative that I endorse. It's an established convention and little more.

 

[Hawki]

... What successful RTS are there, anyway? Age of Empires, StarCraft, AOE II, Command & Conquer, ... and?

Dune, Company of Heroes, Homeworld, Warcraft, Supreme Commander, Dawn of War, etc.

Not sure how you define "success," but the RTS genre isn't one of flops bar the exceptions.

 

[RJ 17]

I may have grown out of playing Blizzard games now, but they're still a good company and stuff like this shows it.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhh I wouldn't go that far. This was certainly a nice gesture on their behalf for someone doing the right thing and returning the source code. But a "good company"? Lets not start deifying them just yet. The plethora of micro transactions throughout all their games knocks them down a peg or three...especially since said micro transactions in Overwatch - and now Heroes of the Storm as well - equate to gambling for cosmetics.

 

[Xorph]

Trade Secrets, really? What sort of amazing piece of code could -possibly- be sitting in a nearly 20-year-old game that would have any relevance in the market today beyond just being neat to look at/having nifty historical value?

I'd have been far happier if he'd just leaked it, especially given that other industry giants' source codes (such as Doom) were released, officially even, WELL before their two-decade marks.

 

[Hawki]

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhh I wouldn't go that far. This was certainly a nice gesture on their behalf for someone doing the right thing and returning the source code. But a "good company"? Lets not start deifying them just yet. The plethora of micro transactions throughout all their games knocks them down a peg or three...especially since said micro transactions in Overwatch - and now Heroes of the Storm as well - equate to gambling for cosmetics.

Microtransactions are bad because...reasons.

Not that I play Overwatch, but as I understand, you pay for the base game, then get free new heroes, free events, free maps, etc., with the microtransactions only being cosmetic. HotS is F2P, so you need to purchase new heroes as well as cosmetics, but you can get every hero you want in the game without spending a dime if you want. Potentially skins as well if you grind long enough.

I could look at their other games as well, but Blizzard's been quite generous across the spectrum. And don't start with that gambling nonsense, if people want to gamble, it's their choice - I have no sympathy for people who claim to be the victim when they lose their money, virtual or otherwise, when gambling. It's called personal responsibility.

 

[Xorph]

Microtransactions are bad because...reasons.

Not that I play Overwatch, but as I understand, you pay for the base game, then get free new heroes, free events, free maps, etc., with the microtransactions only being cosmetic. HotS is F2P, so you need to purchase new heroes as well as cosmetics, but you can get every hero you want in the game without spending a dime if you want. Potentially skins as well if you grind long enough.

I could look at their other games as well, but Blizzard's been quite generous across the spectrum. And don't start with that gambling nonsense, if people want to gamble, it's their choice - I have no sympathy for people who claim to be the victim when they lose their money, virtual or otherwise, when gambling. It's called personal responsibility.

I won't bash all microtransactions, charging for cosmetic stuff is generally OK in my book, but loot crates are pretty undeniably more anti-consumer than just about any other paid content implementation. Requiring the user to pay in increments of $1 or whatever the price of a box is for a <1% chance to get a particular item is ridiculous compared to just charging $5 or even $10 for specific skins and etcs. The fact that Blizz is perfectly okay with using a system known for how it exploits people lacking in self control speaks a lot about their character as a company.

Also, don't go around generalizing a group that includes people who -are- the victims of severe gambling addictions and/or other mental health issues. Saying "well hurr it was your personal responsibility to not lose your cash gambling!" is tantamount to telling a war veteran it was their responsibility to not suffer from a PTSD episode.

 

[Hawki]

I won't bash all microtransactions, charging for cosmetic stuff is generally OK in my book, but loot crates are pretty undeniably more anti-consumer than just about any other paid content implementation. Requiring the user to pay in increments of $1 or whatever the price of a box is for a <1% chance to get a particular item is ridiculous compared to just charging $5 or even $10 for specific skins and etcs. The fact that Blizz is perfectly okay with using a system known for how it exploits people lacking in self control speaks a lot about their character as a company.

Also, don't go around generalizing a group that includes people who -are- the victims of severe gambling addictions and/or other mental health issues. Saying "well hurr it was your personal responsibility to not lose your cash gambling!" is tantamount to telling a war veteran it was their responsibility to not suffer from a PTSD episode.

In an ideal world, both systems would exist, but I still prefer the current HotS system - there was no way I was going to spend $25 on a unicorn mount for instance. The freebies I can get through the loot chest system is preferable because it costs no money, and if I do want to spend money, I can use virtual currency, which can be used to buy individual skins/mounts/whatever.

That said, Blizzard or otherwise, the idea of exploiting those who lack self-control...okay, fine, but I'll deal with the mental health analogy first. PTSD isn't comparable to gambling addiction, because PTSD is a condition that comes as a result from an action, said action being done in service of the state. Gambling addiction is a more intrinsic medical condition, and a form of addiction. I'm not downplaying it, nor am I saying that people shouldn't be afforded support, but I do disagree with the idea that it's the responsibility of the provider of the good/service to deal with it. Mental health support is more the purview of family/the state/charity.

To use a more common example when this comes up in conversation, I don't smoke, because I know it's putting poison in my body. I don't eat from McDonalds, because I know that the food is bereft of nutritional value. But not doing so is my choice. If a person chooses to consume these products, and gets cancer, or becomes obese, then they get some sympathy (especially if these actions were undertaken before the health hazards were more apparent), but I'm against the idea of the provider of the good/service being held culpable, since consumption is on the part of the consumer.

 

[Cether]

By the same token Blizzard didn't have to do anything once he returned it, they could have just gone 'thank you citizen,' and carried on as if nothing happened. It was good of them to take the time to send him free stuff. I bet plenty of the other publishers wouldn't have bothered.

Let's be real, most other companies probably would've sent the police after him first, threatened a huge lawsuit, and done everything in their power to preemptively ruin the guys life. Blizzard evidently did not do that because there would've been a story about it.

Not being a shitter doesn't make Blizzard a better company, but not being a shitter and being pretty cool about it does.

 

[Saltyk]

and others called him out for owning it.

What does this even mean? I have no idea what "calling someone out" for owning a cd of source code entails.

I'm guessing people suspected he'd acquired it by dubious means. How do you just get hold of something like that, anyway?

Honestly, I'm way more interested in the story of how it got to him than anything else. How did it get out of Blizzard's possession in the first place? Disgruntled employee? Corporate espionage? Did someone leave it on a bus? What did the person who had it before do with it? And why put it in some grab bag of Blizzard stuff they sold on eBay?

Moving offices most likely. It would've went something like this:

- employee prints/has a print of the master for work
- at some point, no longer has use for it, puts it in a box in the office storage room with all the other work related crap he no longer needs/cares for (remember, this is '98 Bliz)
- completely forgets about it/maybe even leaves the company, who cares really
- company grows, decides to move to a bigger office
- staff starts cleaning the place out, everyone packs their stuff, and a bunch of crap is still left in storage nobody took and the company doesn't need(it's not like they'd put important stuff there, doh, oh also still '98)
- so staff starts sorting through it, everyone, from devs to cleaners, call dibs on whatever's found and take what they fancy, the leftovers go into the garbage
- as a result, some guy picked up a box of tat that happens to contain the disk, probably not even a dev, unbeknownst to him, he gets the disk
- he shoves that box of stuff into his attic, where it stays for a number of years
- for whatever reason, after a pretty long time, he starts going through it to see if he can get rid of it for some scratch on ebay, puts the whole box up for grabs
- the hero of our tale buys this box of mouldy crap because he likes Blizzard, and while sorting through it, finds the source disk

boom, he got it by complete accident, and no one was the wiser

Now you might think that that sequence of events is farfetched. You'd be right somewhat, but that doesn't change the fact that similar sequence of events have happened several times already. Most famously, the discovery of the Nintendo Playstation prototype, which a guy got alongside a box of porcelain plates he took from his office that was closing down. There's quite the precedent for such happenstance.

Doesn't sound farfetched to me at all. I can totally see something like that happening. As you pointed out, things have played out like that in the past. It still seems odd that someone would accidentally sell something like this. It's like if you bought a old dresser and found an original copy of Steamboat Willie.

 

[Xorph]

In an ideal world, both systems would exist, but I still prefer the current HotS system - there was no way I was going to spend $25 on a unicorn mount for instance. The freebies I can get through the loot chest system is preferable because it costs no money, and if I do want to spend money, I can use virtual currency, which can be used to buy individual skins/mounts/whatever.

That said, Blizzard or otherwise, the idea of exploiting those who lack self-control...okay, fine, but I'll deal with the mental health analogy first. PTSD isn't comparable to gambling addiction, because PTSD is a condition that comes as a result from an action, said action being done in service of the state. Gambling addiction is a more intrinsic medical condition, and a form of addiction. I'm not downplaying it, nor am I saying that people shouldn't be afforded support, but I do disagree with the idea that it's the responsibility of the provider of the good/service to deal with it. Mental health support is more the purview of family/the state/charity.

To use a more common example when this comes up in conversation, I don't smoke, because I know it's putting poison in my body. I don't eat from McDonalds, because I know that the food is bereft of nutritional value. But not doing so is my choice. If a person chooses to consume these products, and gets cancer, or becomes obese, then they get some sympathy (especially if these actions were undertaken before the health hazards were more apparent), but I'm against the idea of the provider of the good/service being held culpable, since consumption is on the part of the consumer.

My bad, I didn't mean to imply that Blizz or other companies were meant to be held accountable for the problems resulting from overusing their products, I moreso meant to point out that the moral integrity of the company is suspect on account of the fact they're providing a service well known for harming those who partake in it (eg cigarette companies are basically Satan because they know full well they're selling cancer sticks, Blizz are assholes because they willingly chose an anti-consumer MT model, etc).

PTSD was a bad example on my part, I was pressed for time and just went with the first potential analogy that came to mind.

And yeah, for me the seemingly most optimal solution would be to keep the level-up loot boxes/dupe credits, but remove the buyable ones and replace that with directly buying specific items.

 

[Basement Cat]

I have zero trouble flipping my cynicism switch to "Off" in this case.

I like.

This is a feel good story for me.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

See? Look what happens to honest/nice people Ethics is a good thing, despite what the Kardashians say....

You get shortchanged with a pile of crap they had leftover in storage, an oversized coupon and get to waste a couple of days on a mediocre event? Doesn't feel like he got paid what he was worth at all.

I mean it says he talked to a lawyer first before sending it so it sounds like he didn't have a legal leg to keep it or he would have had.

I mean think about it. if you had such a thing, would you just give it back unless you really had to? Of course not... the fact that he's getting any compensation at all is a kind gesture, but I do agree it's rather weak compared to what he could of done with it.

 

[MHR]

I don't see how throwing a guy some merch, some Overwatch crates, a cocktail, and an invitation to come buy stuff from them makes Blizz a good company.

I also don't know how whoring out microtransactions makes them a bad company. Almost never are microtransactions pay-to-win. People losing hundreds of dollars trying to gamble for the sexiest skin on Widowmaker cause their own problems, not Blizzard. They'd probably spend all that money on booze or actual casinos anyway, so at least they're losing money in a way that doesn't involve being drunk and angry on the Vegas Strip. I like microtransactions because they're like getting stupid people to pay for games for me.

Not suing the balls off him right off the bat is probably an indicator of something though.

But what do I think? Well, Blizzard ruined Alterac Valley. People don't understand that AV used to be like DOTA with 80 players. So to me, Blizzard would be the equivalent of the manger doctor that aborted baby Jesus. People might be upset if they knew, but it didn't get to grow up to be the messiah, so they don't.

 

[Scytail]

I don't see how throwing a guy some merch, some Overwatch crates, a cocktail, and an invitation to come buy stuff from them makes Blizz a good company.

I also don't know how whoring out microtransactions makes them a bad company. Almost never are microtransactions pay-to-win. People losing hundreds of dollars trying to gamble for the sexiest skin on Widowmaker cause their own problems, not Blizzard. They'd probably spend all that money on booze or actual casinos anyway, so at least they're losing money in a way that doesn't involve being drunk and angry on the Vegas Strip. I like microtransactions because they're like getting stupid people to pay for games for me.

Not suing the balls off him right off the bat is probably an indicator of something though.

But what do I think? Well, Blizzard ruined Alterac Valley. People don't understand that AV used to be like DOTA with 80 players. So to me, Blizzard would be the equivalent of the manger doctor that aborted baby Jesus. People might be upset if they knew, but it didn't get to grow up to be the messiah, so they don't.

Because they didn't have to do that? The guy committed a good deed and was rewarded for it. Some people feel that the reward wasn't good enough but that's entirely subjective.

I mean, the all expense paid BlizzCon trip could potentially be valued at more than a thousand dollars depending on where this person lives.

 

[RJ 17]

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhh I wouldn't go that far. This was certainly a nice gesture on their behalf for someone doing the right thing and returning the source code. But a "good company"? Lets not start deifying them just yet. The plethora of micro transactions throughout all their games knocks them down a peg or three...especially since said micro transactions in Overwatch - and now Heroes of the Storm as well - equate to gambling for cosmetics.

Microtransactions are bad because...reasons.

Not that I play Overwatch, but as I understand, you pay for the base game, then get free new heroes, free events, free maps, etc., with the microtransactions only being cosmetic. HotS is F2P, so you need to purchase new heroes as well as cosmetics, but you can get every hero you want in the game without spending a dime if you want. Potentially skins as well if you grind long enough.

I could look at their other games as well, but Blizzard's been quite generous across the spectrum. And don't start with that gambling nonsense, if people want to gamble, it's their choice - I have no sympathy for people who claim to be the victim when they lose their money, virtual or otherwise, when gambling. It's called personal responsibility.

I've no issue with microtransactions in general, however these specifically are pretty shitty. HotS' old system was a good way to handle microtransactions. You see the skin you want, you buy it. Simple as that.

However microtransactions based on gambling - and it is gambling considering the randomized outcome - are an entirely different thing. I don't have an issue with gambling either. As you said, you should be responsible for yourself. The issue comes from the fact that OW is rated Teen...meaning teens make up a significant portion of the playerbase. I don't know about you, but I don't know very many 13, 14, and 15 year olds that have their own self-sufficient, stable income. So whose money are they gambling away when they want that new Widowmaker skin so they buy $50 worth of loot boxes, don't get it, and decide to buy some more? It's very easy to throw personal responsibility out the window when you're gambling with other people's money.

Gambling marketed to adults who have their own money and are capable of deciding what to do with it is one thing. Gambling marketed to impulsive teenagers who - chances are - are using their parent's money is another story all together.

 

[Naldan]

... What successful RTS are there, anyway? Age of Empires, StarCraft, AOE II, Command & Conquer, ... and?

Dune, Company of Heroes, Homeworld, Warcraft, Supreme Commander, Dawn of War, etc.

Not sure how you define "success," but the RTS genre isn't one of flops bar the exceptions.

I sometimes need some time to think straight, apparently, and post sooner than my thoughts finish. You're right, but I mean the base-building classic part of the genre. Warhammer (II + III) and Company of Heroes differ a bit far from that in specific due to lack or sparsity of base building, and I have a harder time calling Supreme Commander an immense success in comparison to the others.

Don't know about Homeworld and totally agree on WarCraft, including III (III being a supreme example of something I really like to see the source code being released).

Now that I think about it, what about Earth 2150?

Anyway, my point was that almost no source code of any was released as far as I'm aware and that's a shame.

 

[SupahEwok]

Trade Secrets, really? What sort of amazing piece of code could -possibly- be sitting in a nearly 20-year-old game that would have any relevance in the market today beyond just being neat to look at/having nifty historical value?

I'd have been far happier if he'd just leaked it, especially given that other industry giants' source codes (such as Doom) were released, officially even, WELL before their two-decade marks.

It's possible that Starcraft 2 still has some old legacy code from the original Starcraft. Or any other modern Blizzard game. A game isn't just a graphics engine, the same basic gameplay coding can end up being used for a very, very long time across several games. Could also be an insight into Blizzard coding standards and practices, which would allow people to guess at exploits in other Blizzard games. And lastly, Starcraft is still played competitively. The source code getting out could wreak havoc on the scene as people find exploits, or mod in their own.

 

[Quellist]

He got some really nice loot for it. Say whatever you want about Blizzard, but we all know that certain companies would have threatened to sue him instead.

Pretty much this. Nice to see at least one company prefers the carrot to the stick