|
On May 28 2010 00:51 Grend wrote:Did not think of the high level problem, but there has been talk of Blizzard having the same setup as they had for high level arena play in wow, where they brought a mini battle.net to tournaments and competitions. So that way competitions can have LAN latency with Blizzard watching over you  Just realized how clever this is by Blizzard to ensure control of the Esport part of gaming.
If they do that, I'm sure this mini battle.net server application would be leaked. If everyone can set up their private little bnet server, why not allow LAN in the first place?
|
i wouldn't call it clever. trying to control people in such a way that would so obviously piss said people off, who have resources to find shortcuts around restrictions when motivated enough to do so, is not clever at all. i know i will likely spend a majority of my time on SC2 online but i think it's terrible to take these things away while simultaneously posturing as if these actions are in Esport's best interest when they are clearly selfish. i can think of a couple different reasons why LAN wouldn't be in this game, i'm more sold on forcing Battle.net into all your SC2 games more than anything. either way, as much as this beta has opened my eyes to lots of potential bullshit on Blizzard's part, i'm still reserving judgement until a month or 2 after release where we get the real game and Blizzard gets a little bit of time to realize "we fucked up."
|
On May 28 2010 00:30 Kerm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 00:21 Boblion wrote:
After the whole MSL fiasco what we need now is some good old disco.
No LAN is a serious issue for competition and and high level tournaments.
For those who did not get it yet : Blizzard wants to have the upper hand on competition and high level tournaments. If they've got two pound of smarts they'll do exactly as Wizard of the Coast did for MtG. And the best way to ensure they keep a firm control on this is to force the game to be played thru their network, that's obvious. -Kerm
why do people sign their posts? never got that....
the problem of no lan is bnet 2.0, its not ready yet, but we are close to the release date and bnet is failing hard. If blizzard want to host any successful tournament they will have to ensure that bnet is stable and wont fuck up during the games
|
If you saw the aggravation we had at the TL FL meetup you'd see how bad this really is. Full of fail Blizzard, let me tell you how cool it is to be lagging and disconnecting when your playing a person sitting next to you, at a state wide lan party that you drove for 3 hours to get to. I don't know how any professional SC2 can exist if there is no way to have a lan connections. It will just be a long series of constant fail to have any real pro league with this crap. BNET2.0 is trash, it exists for the sole reason of profit. It's a matter of time before they want your credit card number and start Nickel and diming you for maps, membership, features ect. The guy in charge of BNet 2.0 (Greg Cannessa) is the guy who headed Xbox live for the last decade. I've been playing on xlive for almost that whole time and I can tell you they charge you for everything. They release new maps and then after 2 months they put them in the matchmaking map pool and you cannot play if you haven't bought them. Just one of the many rude things that will be happening constantly in the name of profit. Mark my words.
|
Among the discussion of fans, a rumour has circulated that Blizzard would implement a system where you could connect to Battle.net and then start a limited LAN, as long as some connection (although perhaps a poor dial-up one shared by several PCs) was available. "That functionality is not there," Pearce said, "Our goal is to make sure that connectivity to the Battle.net servers is such that [it's] the experience people want."
What kind of stupid-ass answer is that? what the people WANT? they WANT LAN connectivity ffs. Every time some1 posts a question about the serious issues of bnet 2.0, they give answers like this, what the hell is wrong with these people? do they seriously believe we are dumb idiots who will actually buy such crap? it's insulting to our intelligence that they even give such retarded answers.
|
great... i won't even be able to use single-player when traveling or wherever.........
what's with this f!"§$ing leash they're putting us on? total bliz control everywhere (see custom maps, friend/facebook system, younameit)
i may be a left-y, but i'm a liberal: gtfo my lawn!
|
On May 28 2010 01:05 Herculix wrote:
i wouldn't call it clever. trying to control people in such a way that would so obviously piss said people off, who have resources to find shortcuts around restrictions when motivated enough to do so, is not clever at all. i know i will likely spend a majority of my time on SC2 online but i think it's terrible to take these things away while simultaneously posturing as if these actions are in Esport's best interest when they are clearly selfish. i can think of a couple different reasons why LAN wouldn't be in this game, i'm more sold on forcing Battle.net into all your SC2 games more than anything. either way, as much as this beta has opened my eyes to lots of potential bullshit on Blizzard's part, i'm still reserving judgement until a month or 2 after release where we get the real game and Blizzard gets a little bit of time to realize "we fucked up."
It's basically a card they had to play at this point in time, but yea it's frustrating from a fan's perspective, and we all hope it fails miserably.
You shouldn't have to have internet in order to play starcraft. They're under the delusion that the game was popular in poor countries because of how awesome it was, and not because it could be spawned, and then eventually pirated, and played without internet. Subscription fees in countries like Brazil and Russia? lol...
|
if i think about it no lan support is idd not rly good. However it came to my mind that quake live is also only via a webbrowser which means it can only be played through the internet. But at intel extreme masters idsoftware themselves created a server which infact was hosted locally. So basically Blizzard could do the same for their tournaments with gomtv.
|
I just really can't see a reason for there Not being LAN... The pirates will still find a hacky way around it, that is inevitable... And when I ask all my friends (who are in the beta + have pre-purchased) "if you were at a lan party and someone had a hacky version of starcraft, would you copy it to play at the lan?" They all say yes...
So all it is doing is making it harder for those who have purchased the game to play at a lan.
The idea that there wont be a hacky LAN version or some sort of b.net 2.0 emulator and that more people will purchase the game because of this is quite frankly a joke.
Personally, I think Blizzard knows this and is solely continuing this stance for the sake of good PR (from the industry) and for the sake of the share-holders. They are a business after all.
|
if blizzard is really going to do this i think the best we can hope for is an iccup launcher of sc2 that some how enables us to connect to lan if that's possible.
|
When asked if there was a DRM connection to this decision, Pearce said "That is not really our primary focus with it. We just want an online destination for a community to be united. So if we do our job well in terms of the future commercial nature and component nature of the Batte.net experience, then we hope people will want to play."
That's absolute bullshit. Please hook this man up to a lie detector next time.
|
F**k Blizzard you make me way too angry
OK no LAN = no money for you, I will stick with SC1 and when a hack/crack comes out I will download it instead of buying SC2. I bought SC1 but now you make me angry you will get nothing and I will encourage my friends not to buy this shitty RTS game with no LAN support.
Don't expect to have one bit of control over me you want people to obey to your ridiculous rules you will get it SC2 is doomed without LAN.
|
On May 28 2010 01:23 marconi wrote:
Among the discussion of fans, a rumour has circulated that Blizzard would implement a system where you could connect to Battle.net and then start a limited LAN, as long as some connection (although perhaps a poor dial-up one shared by several PCs) was available. "That functionality is not there," Pearce said, "Our goal is to make sure that connectivity to the Battle.net servers is such that [it's] the experience people want."
What kind of stupid-ass answer is that? what the people WANT? they WANT LAN connectivity ffs. Every time some1 posts a question about the serious issues of bnet 2.0, they give answers like this, what the hell is wrong with these people? do they seriously believe we are dumb idiots who will actually buy such crap? it's insulting to our intelligence that they even give such retarded answers.
"Us" aka hardcore SC fans unfortunately only make a very small part of their profits.90%+ of sales depend on casual guys, who don't really care too much about the competition and tournaments..
So for them no-lan makes no difference..
|
I remember seeing something in a post where one TL member hosted a SC2 LAN party or something along those lines, it ended up failing cause it was too laggy and everyone else played BW or something else.
Thinking of having your mates over at your house for a LAN party? Won't happen cause 5+ people trying to share a home connection doesn't cut it.
|
On May 28 2010 01:51 MidKnight wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 01:23 marconi wrote:
Among the discussion of fans, a rumour has circulated that Blizzard would implement a system where you could connect to Battle.net and then start a limited LAN, as long as some connection (although perhaps a poor dial-up one shared by several PCs) was available. "That functionality is not there," Pearce said, "Our goal is to make sure that connectivity to the Battle.net servers is such that [it's] the experience people want."
What kind of stupid-ass answer is that? what the people WANT? they WANT LAN connectivity ffs. Every time some1 posts a question about the serious issues of bnet 2.0, they give answers like this, what the hell is wrong with these people? do they seriously believe we are dumb idiots who will actually buy such crap? it's insulting to our intelligence that they even give such retarded answers.
"Us" aka hardcore SC fans unfortunately only make a very small part of their profits.90%+ of sales depend on casual guys, who don't really care too much about the competition and tournaments.. So for them no-lan makes no difference..
On the short term maybe. But I don't know if it's clever for any community to start investing to sc2 if blizzard can anytime start asking money for the tournaments. Yea it's free now, but if TSL3 happens to be a little to awesome and gains a little too much popularity and attention, TL just might have to pay blizzard for the next one.
|
Sigh there will be a lan created just like in modern warfail 2 imo. Its just will they use it for competitive tournaments? Probably not. I wish blizzard would think a little bit of how much lan is needed for competitive play with no command lag.
Guess we'll see how blizzard plans to do it.
|
Zurich15365 Posts
This is no news. There will be no LAN mode whatsover. We have enough threads about this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
