EDIT: these topics were also recently mentioned by chill and kennigit's in their latest podcast:
Activizzard's upcoming release, Starcraft 2, is poised to be the the biggest thing to hit e-sports since its predecessor Starcraft: Brood War. Game mechanics aside there is one aspect of the sequel which ought to have all esport fans apprehensive- lack of LAN support. All signs point to this since everytime Karune is asked about LAN support he skirts around the issue offering only the very vaguest replies.
One thing is for sure if the game ships without LAN : every match of SC2 plays under their roof, in their arena- Battle.net 2.0. Ironically, the original battle.net was instrumental in BW's rise to fame and was one of the necessary material causes allowing SC to explode as an esport. It was the wild fronteir of esports where hackers, pros, and noobs all coagulated to form the substrate from which would grow the original progamers. Now it is merely the scheme by which Activizzard will take over the SC e-sport raquet. It is sterile, cold, and uninspiring. Without LAN, public ladders like ICCUP might still function (assuming they allow custom gateways) but this is very doubtful and depends on just how tight they choose to tighten their grip. Even with custom battle.net gateways, constant game updates could make ladders like ICCUP hard to maintain.
There many notable on consequences to the above- most notably is the fact that KeSPA, at least initially, will not run SC2 progaming. Activizzard and KeSPA, whose board of directors shares many names with progaming team SK-T1's, are currently in a heated battle over who will control SC2 esports. It would certainly make it easier for the former to usurp power by simply removing that which allows the pro/starleagues to function, viz. LAN support.
* * *
In the distance adherents of Activizzarrd's no-LAN SC2 bleat, "Battle.net 2.0 is hacker free!~~ We are finally saeph!"
No LAN is a great way of killing Hamachi, as well as associated piracy.. Granted it is purely better for the consumer to have every option, but I can see why they would do it. If it helps them keep the game from being DRM-laden, I would be all the more happy.
There has been NO word one way or another about LAN
Diablo 3 wont have LAN, but it's not SC2. The SC2 builds that have been played at events have obviously had LAN, but whether it makes it into the final product remains to be seen.
I have no idea what Blizzard's refusal to address this question actually means.
I mean, they also dodge every single question regarding the watchability of replays online. Are we to assume they won't have this feature either? Infact, almost everything related to BNet has been dodged.
On June 08 2009 03:34 dhe95 wrote: I bet there'll be a private server within 6 months anyway.
yes, but that isn't a way to run a league. If you run a televised league, they can get you with all sorts of copyright/trademark/intellectual property laws (if it's not on battle.net)
I'm worried that they're not going to take care of it. The sc community thrives right now on a private server that blizzard doesn't run. I feel like they missed that part.
On June 08 2009 03:44 FrozenArbiter wrote: There has been NO word one way or another about LAN
Diablo 3 wont have LAN, but it's not SC2. The SC2 builds that have been played at events have obviously had LAN, but whether it makes it into the final product remains to be seen.
I have no idea what Blizzard's refusal to address this question actually means.
I mean, they also dodge every single question regarding the watchability of replays online. Are we to assume they won't have this feature either? Infact, almost everything related to BNet has been dodged.
this is misleading FA. there has been word. karune always says "we are not sure about this". sometimes he makes it sound like, "of course we are gonna have lan" and sometimes he make it seems as there is no hope for LAN.
probably because even karune has no idea at this point? it's something that can be tweaked however they like in minimal time. I'd prefer they shy away from comments on it entirely (just say "tba" or something) until they've made up their mind (with the obvious disclaimer that they can change it of course)
yea, karune has no idea. that is true. that fact is. this isnt a developer team decision. obviously, gamers want LAN. this is an administrative decision. this is a money decision. an investment decision, a political one. I worked in the gaming industry long enough to see its underbelly. assholes in suits with no love for games but only nice figures make these kinds of decisions. let us hope the community has enough power to overturn something like this should it happen.
On June 08 2009 03:34 dhe95 wrote: I bet there'll be a private server within 6 months anyway.
yes, but that isn't a way to run a league. If you run a televised league, they can get you with all sorts of copyright/trademark/intellectual property laws (if it's not on battle.net)
I'm worried that they're not going to take care of it. The sc community thrives right now on a private server that blizzard doesn't run. I feel like they missed that part.
The SC community does not thrive on a private server that blizzard doesn't run.
Compared to bnet, iccup does not have nearly as many games going. At any given time bnet has way more users logged in, way more games up, and even more games running. You can't even compare the two on that level.
iCCup definitely is keeping SC alive on the competitive level outside of Korea, but not everyone plays competitively, or is even interested in doing so.
On June 08 2009 03:34 dhe95 wrote: I bet there'll be a private server within 6 months anyway.
yes, but that isn't a way to run a league. If you run a televised league, they can get you with all sorts of copyright/trademark/intellectual property laws (if it's not on battle.net)
I'm worried that they're not going to take care of it. The sc community thrives right now on a private server that blizzard doesn't run. I feel like they missed that part.
The SC community does not thrive on a private server that blizzard doesn't run.
Compared to bnet, iccup does not have nearly as many games going. At any given time bnet has way more users logged in, way more games up, and even more games running. You can't even compare the two on that level.
iCCup definitely is keeping SC alive on the competitive level outside of Korea, but not everyone plays competitively, or is even interested in doing so.
the point is not that LAN keeps SC going. the point is that LAN capability allows for a more dynamic community.
On June 08 2009 04:44 Ingenol wrote: I also really hope they upgrade the netcode for Bnet 2.0. The latency is absolutely atrocious.
i'm taking this as a given, do you really think they're going to set latency values again assuming dialup connections from 1998? the developers should have control over this one, and they should be well aware of the community's attempts to circumvent the high default latency on bw's bnet. if they don't reduce the minimum latency, then they're just stupid.
I would be really surprised if it was released without LAN. It's just a ridiculous concept ~_~ I hope we get to watch replays online, I never understood the point of removing them from online War3. Retarded.
Without examing/analysising too much into this; i wonder how a business decision such as this can be justified? When you weighted up all different options, LAN support will certainly do them more good than harm. It's not like taking away LAN will give them ultimate control of the community, soon or later rogue developers will make something that circumvent this, it's not technically impossible, watever network protocol they use can and will be reverse engineered and BW community is certaintly not short of capable programmers.
Blizzard is a game production house, their existing business is more profitable than E-sport; look at e-sport now, who is actually making money? Why would blizzard want to take it over? If they just want a piece of the action, i think this will just be a huge overkill.
Blizzard's business is innovation/creativity, pumping out great titles is a straight equation to get their profit; trying to be a sponsorship/tournament runner is not their business.
On June 08 2009 16:57 haduken wrote: Without examing/analysising too much into this; i wonder how a business decision such as this can be justified? When you weighted up all different options, LAN support will certainly do them more good than harm. It's not like taking away LAN will give them ultimate control of the community, soon or later rogue developers will make something that circumvent this, it's not technically impossible, watever network protocol they use can and will be reverse engineered and BW community is certaintly not short of capable programmers.
Blizzard is a game production house, their existing business is more profitable than E-sport; look at e-sport now, who is actually making money? Why would blizzard want to take it over? If they just want a piece of the action, i think this will just be a huge overkill.
Blizzard's business is innovation/creativity, pumping out great titles is a straight equation to get their profit; trying to be a sponsorship/tournament runner is not their business.
my friend, Blizzard died long ago. From their ashes arose the Activizzard. We are not dealing with the company that brought us Starcraft. Then Blizzard was FGBG or for gamers by gamers. If Blizzard was Anakin. Activizzard is Vader. The innovative titles they create now are highly scrutinized to ensure that games are easily monetized and profit can be maximized, consider World of Warcraft and the new Battle.net.
I do not underestimate the community's ability to circumvent lack of LAN but I also do not underestimate the Activizzard's cunning nerd-melting lazer eyes.
There many notable on consequences to the above- most notably is the fact that KeSPA, at least initially, will not run SC2 progaming. Activizzard and KeSPA, whose board of directors shares many names with progaming team SK-T1's, are currently in a heated battle over who will control SC2 esports. It would certainly make it easier for the latter to usurp power by simply removing that which allows the pro/starleagues to function, viz. LAN support.
latter? u mean former rite? or did u get the mean of usurped confused?
There many notable on consequences to the above- most notably is the fact that KeSPA, at least initially, will not run SC2 progaming. Activizzard and KeSPA, whose board of directors shares many names with progaming team SK-T1's, are currently in a heated battle over who will control SC2 esports. It would certainly make it easier for the latter to usurp power by simply removing that which allows the pro/starleagues to function, viz. LAN support.
latter? u mean former rite? or did u get the mean of usurped confused?
EPT
