[skip all navigation]

No LAN in SC2

Pages: 1 2 3 » 5 >
Creator: mikelat
Time: Jun 29 2009, 5:19 pm

Post #1     mikelat Jun 29 2009, 5:19 pm

[Avatar]
offlinecontact
Rank: Regular
In a recent interview somewhere, they confirmed no plans for LAN http://www.incgamers.com/News/17129/NoLANInStarCraftIIConfirmed . Anyways, my reply on battle.net forums:
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=18031189466&postId=180295281180&sid=3000#0
Quote
First off, most people these days have medicore DSL connections. While it could support a few people connecting to battle.net, first off it'll cause a chokepoint in your network if you have too many people, now making it impossible to play it side by side (one of the biggest reasons why SC was so fun was to LAN beside your friends), not to mention it's an unnecessary 100 ping or whatever when you're right beside your buddies.

Second, it's stupid to expect every single person at a lan to show up with a copy of the game. It just doesn't happen. So yes, while people will be copying it around, they still lack the online play capability, and LAN play and campaign only goes so far. Heck, you even provided a spawn version for the original SC cd, meaning you wanted people to be able to play with their friends on LANs. The only difference between spawn versions and pirated versions is that the pirates get the campaign, and how much do you really think that does? If they like the game, which most people do, they'll go out and buy a copy and get the battle.net.

Third, it's a significant downgrade from what your other games used to be. Whenever people think about blizzard games, they think about quality, improvement, and getting far more for their moneys worth. Usually blizzard games are a huge improvement over their predecessor, but if you're removing some of the bigger features, this is not a trait of the blizzard we once knew. Ever since you had the cash cow wow, and merged with activision, we only have to wonder if you're interest is with your fans or with the amount of money you'll be making.

Last, there is only one reason you'd be removing LAN. Let's be honest, pirating has never really been an issue for you blizzard, and you know if battle 2.0 was good enough that it'd make people go on there automatically over LAN whenever possible. Plus you and I both know you're going to make a killing no matter what on launch day, so why offer a significantly worse product unless there was more to be gained by not offering it? You know, such as a subscription fee to play online. But then people might use virtual lans and stuff because they don't want to pay. Oh no, gotta remove that so we can pump out more money. If you really are planning a subscription fee for battle.net, SC2 is ruined, period.

I'm not buying it on launch day anymore. I'm going to wait and see for other people to find out what you've decided to screw up in the name of making money and decide later if its worthwhile. You buy SC for the multiplayer, and if you're removing large parts of multiplayer for more money, you're not making a sequel to SC, you're making a cash cow. If thats the case, you should of merged with EA.

Top

Post #2     Excalibur Jun 29 2009, 6:04 pm

[Avatar]
On your six boss!
offlinecontact
Rank: Veteran
I almost didn't believe it when I read it on TL.net. Agree with you completely, we'll see how it goes. Also lulz at the guy making an online petition. Those TOTALLY work. :P

Is it in you now?
To watch the things you gave your life to broken
And stoop and build them up with worn out tools
Top

Post #3     UnholyUrine Jun 29 2009, 6:12 pm

[Avatar]
I choose you!.. um.. if that's alright with you...
onlinecontact
Rank: Regular
Grammar mistake at the last sentence.. Should've .. should HAVE .. not of :P

Back on Topic...
I am not too negative against the removal of LAN gaming, as it doesn't directly affect me. But I see no point in removing it, and I'll have to agree that Blizzard will screw up Internet Cafes if they have to buy an SC2 copy for each computer.. Maybe that's what they're trying to pull?

However.. if Battle.net 2 requires a subscription fee. I will not buy sc2 for the sake of it. At least not until the price drops dramatically...

Lastly... what does activision has to do with all this? :stfu:

BEWARE!
I'm watching you.. (signature image) .. as you Pee
source for avatar
Top

Post #4     ForTheSwarm Jun 29 2009, 6:19 pm

[Avatar]
offlinecontact
Rank: Regular
Activision merged with Blizzard. That's what they have to do with this. :P

Top

Post #5     Forsaken Archer Jun 29 2009, 8:56 pm

[Avatar]
offlinecontact
Rank: Elite
I'm not personally affected too much, but this seems like a feature that should be so simple to include that cutting it out just seems stupid. The only logical explanation would be to fight piracy and taking actions like drm or cutting out lan only pisses off legit customers while only adding a bit of hassle to pirates. I'm sure a lan hack will appear soon enough if it's not included, or at the least, emulated b.net servers.

I can not be ignored...
DON'T THINK YOU'LL LEAVE WITHOUT ME!
I can not be alone...
JUST SAY YOU'LL NEVER LEAVE ME!
Top

Post #6     BiOAtK Jun 29 2009, 9:35 pm

[Avatar]
offlinecontact
Rank: Regular
A LAN hack will be extremely easy for pirates to pull off. This move is completely useless for everybody.

HELP ME GET RID OF THIS WOMAN
-K_A

Fun? We don't tolerate that in these parts.
-Doodan

Neanderthals take Communism to a whole new level.
-BeDazed
Top

Post #7     Neki Jun 29 2009, 10:57 pm

[Avatar]
morals are made up, just like unicorns and rainbows.
offlinecontact
Rank: Regular
It's a weird decision really, would it really take a lot of programming to include a LAN mode?

Edit: Wow Yoshi, they are really giving you alot of crap. They have even resorted to calling you some cry baby with a crappy internet connection who can't afford to buy games. Not so mature over there.
This post was edited 1 time, last edit by Ultimo: Jun 30 2009, 2:44 am.

(signature image)
Top

Post #8     mikelat Jun 29 2009, 11:34 pm

[Avatar]
offlinecontact
Rank: Regular
Quote from BiOAtK
A LAN hack will be extremely easy for pirates to pull off. This move is completely useless for everybody.
It'll hurt legit users mostly. LANs will be that much harder to do, but lan hacks will probably get bundled with the pirate versions. So whats the point, really.

Quote from Ultimo
It's a weird decision really, would it really take a lot of programming to include a LAN mode?

Edit: Wow Yoshi, they are really giving you alot of crap. They have even resorted to calling you some cry baby with a crappy internet connection to can't afford to buy games. Not so mature over there.
Well I'm guessing they're planning on having a subscription for Battle.net 2.0, its why they're probably heavily focusing into it. They didn't deny doing subscription fees, but they flat out denied doing LAN. The only reason for doing that, is yeah, to have people pay subscription fees and not give them any possible way around it. If I wanted to play with my friends and I was presented with the choice of paying 10 bucks a month to blizzards shareholders through doing it through some convent service, or paying nothing and installing some virtual lan software, you can guess what a good part of the SC2 population would do.

I pretty much guessed after a few replies what kind of fanbase blizzard has now attracted. It's disappointing to say the least that blizzards fanbase no longer cares if they're getting screwed out of major game components, that's one fanbase I won't be a part of. If it's as bad as I fear then that'll be yet another developer that pumps out corporate crap (going the way of Epic, Bungie, Maxis, Microsoft Games, EA, Lucasarts, etc). I was hoping blizzard was somewhat immune but apparently not. I'll reserve my full judgment for when SC2 gets released, but my hopes aren't too high, as usually games that come out from good developers I'm usually excited, but for SC2 I'm expecting disappointment.

The real question is, if SC2 really does suck that hard, what'll happen to mapping community. Warcraft 3 wasn't blessed with the talented map makers the SC community had, and the maps were not nearly as fun, the same could easily go for SC2. Let's just hope they have some sense to reverse any cash cow decisions they may have made and that I'm completely wrong when the game gets released.

Top

Post #9     l)ark_ssj9kevin Jun 29 2009, 11:40 pm

[Avatar]
offlinecontact
Rank: Regular
Quote from Maplantian Topic
Holy shit, people on Battle.Net forums are either idiots or assholes.

I personally never used LAN (expect for Hamachi) but I think Blizzard's just being Blizzard and making extra cash by forcing them to use BNet.

Top

Post #10     Neki Jun 30 2009, 2:49 am

[Avatar]
morals are made up, just like unicorns and rainbows.
offlinecontact
Rank: Regular
A subscription for battle.net would be so lame though. I think they'd be losing a lot of customers by pulling crap like that, but who knows, I think people really love SCII. It's bad enough already with the separate campaigns. Comon Blizzard! Pull through and do the good thing for gamers!

(signature image)
Top

Post #11     mikelat Jun 30 2009, 3:43 am

[Avatar]
offlinecontact
Rank: Regular
Let's be honest. They think they're gaining more money if there's one subscriber apposed to having it for free.

Top

Post #12     Phobos Jun 30 2009, 4:01 am

[Avatar]
Delicious pharmaceuticals!
offlinecontact
Rank: Veteran
I used to feel love for Blizzard, but now... This is beyond loathing.

(user posted image)
Top

Post #13     Pandut Jun 30 2009, 1:05 pm

[Avatar]
offlinecontact
Rank: Member
Quote from Almost Alive
I used to feel love for Blizzard, but now... This is beyond loathing.
Yeah, I got to agree, It looks like blizzard is straying down the path EA took...

Top

Post #14     MC˛Hercanic Jun 30 2009, 3:48 pm

[Avatar]
offlinecontact
Rank: Regular
I'd like to reply in that thread, but the half-assed integrating of the new Battle.net logins leaves me unsure as to how the hell I can log in. It's certainly not recognizing that I'm already logged in on the new system, and I've never used the old system.

Top

Post #15     ClansAreForGays Jun 30 2009, 5:05 pm

[Avatar]
offlinecontact
Rank: Veteran
Those people sucking up to blizzard in your topic are disgusting. I am not looking forward to sharing SC2 with the previous WC3 fan base.

Top

Post #16     DevliN Jun 30 2009, 5:12 pm

[Avatar]
SOMETHING STATUS GO
offlinecontact
Rank: Administrator
I can't tell you how many times I've had friends over to play StarCraft LAN, all using my copy of StarCraft. This is ridiculous.

:devlin: CURRENTLY WORKING ON :devlin:
Shadowlands | Demonic: Urban Apocalypse
Invasion: Ares | Recon | OMG TEH ZOMBIES!!!
Top

Post #17     Forsaken Archer Jun 30 2009, 8:57 pm

[Avatar]
offlinecontact
Rank: Elite
I do believe it was confirmed that you will be able to fully use SC2 on b.net without subscriptions. Some blizz rep said something like "customer goes to retail, they will get a fully functional game without having to pay subscriptions".
However, by not saying there will be no subscriptions what so ever, I'm positive a subscription based account will be enhanced in multiple ways.

I can not be ignored...
DON'T THINK YOU'LL LEAVE WITHOUT ME!
I can not be alone...
JUST SAY YOU'LL NEVER LEAVE ME!
Top

Post #18     mikelat Jun 30 2009, 10:38 pm

[Avatar]
offlinecontact
Rank: Regular
Quote from isolatedpurity
I do believe it was confirmed that you will be able to fully use SC2 on b.net without subscriptions. Some blizz rep said something like "customer goes to retail, they will get a fully functional game without having to pay subscriptions".
However, by not saying there will be no subscriptions what so ever, I'm positive a subscription based account will be enhanced in multiple ways.
I read that recently too. I was extremely suspicious due to the fact they flat out denied the major stuff like LAN play, and then other major stuff like subscriptions they said "no comment", which I took as being on the table. It still is on the table but a few employees said that it's free out of the box. There might be however a tiered system, they did that for hellgate london and that sucked.

Somehow though, I have a feeling that ever since they've had a taste of the pot of gold at the end of the world of warcraft rainbow that they're going to pull something. SC is one of their biggest franchises, they managed to make warcraft into a bottomless moneypit, you can only bet they're wondering how they can justify it with SC.

This announcement came just after the weekend, where I had just had a BBQ and an SC lan at my place with a good number of people, but only 4 people could play on my network at a time, because battle.net lags like hell when I have more than 4 people attempting to play at one time, and I can't run a SC LAN for some reason (I used to be able to, but new lans don't work for some reason), the other computers never pick it up. I didn't have enough time to try setting up virtual lans or whatever. So I can't get a decade old game working on my lan.

Right after all these problems I was having getting good SC games going and the impossibility of getting all 8 machines to play at once, I read about the lack of LAN, protest against it, and the immediate response from battle.net is that I'm a worthless pirate because nobody does lans and apparently battle.net works fine. This is the very definition of irony.

Top

Post #19     UnholyUrine Jun 30 2009, 10:47 pm

[Avatar]
I choose you!.. um.. if that's alright with you...
onlinecontact
Rank: Regular
This may be of interest to you?

http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forums/showthread.php?p=299839#post299839

BEWARE!
I'm watching you.. (signature image) .. as you Pee
source for avatar
Top

Post #20     mikelat Jun 30 2009, 11:14 pm

[Avatar]
offlinecontact
Rank: Regular
That would. The first part he doesn't actually give any reason for removing LAN at all, it's mostly marketing talk. The parts which I find interesting are:
Quote
As mentioned by Rob Pardo in interviews, piracy is a serious problem and often times tie in closely with LAN. At the end of the day, we want the best for the community and fans that support our games, and having chunk of the community pirate the game actually hurts the community.
I remember reading an interview a while back where blizzard proudly stated how strong their fanbase was and how they don't alter games based upon what the pirates want, which makes their games better and their fanbase bigger. Boy, times sure do change when you merge with activision.

Besides. With a high profile release such as SC2, they're going to find ways around this. Some type of LAN emulation, Battle.net emulation, etc. So basically, its not the pirates that get hurt, its the legitimate users that do.
Quote
We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better.
They figured out how to make everybody play on a network and have less than 0 ping? Really?

Somebody suggested this:
Quote
Oh, Karune, you know as well as I do that anti-piracy and LAN are not mutually exclusive.

Step 1: Connect to Battle.Net
Step 2: Authentication
Step 3: Access LAN games thereafter

There you go. Authenticated LAN play. Low latency. LAN parties. Happy customers.
If blizzard is so uppity about piracy, they should at least allow this. It'd be less convenient than lan, but it's better than no lan.

Top
0 members in this topic (italic members are currently writing a reply): None
+ guest(s)


[05:02 am]
Dem0nS1ayer -- lolwut gigins
[04:34 am]
Dem0nS1ayer -- fataaaaaal
[03:58 am]
Roy -- Goodnight, Sacrieur.
[03:57 am]
Sacrieur -- nao*
[03:57 am]
Sacrieur -- I go sleep na.
[03:56 am]
Sacrieur -- everyone knows you can't internet in mud
[03:55 am]
Sacrieur -- Ah.
Please log in to shout.