EPTWell, sad news...
http://www.incgamers.com/News/22943/not-even-semi-lan-in-starcraft-ii
No "semi-LAN" in StarCraft II
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Leord
United Kingdom6 Posts
Well, sad news... http://www.incgamers.com/News/22943/not-even-semi-lan-in-starcraft-ii | ||
|
Grend
1600 Posts
Kind of obvious why Blizzard does not include this, as the current state of Piracy Vs Game Company means that people would pirate the game en masse and then play it over the net using hosting services. Most LAN parties have sick internet connections anyway these days, so I do not see this as too big a problem. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On May 28 2010 00:19 Grend wrote: Why do people need LAN anyway? Unless I was going to a LAN party, I only ever used LAN for illegal purposes like playing stone age games over the internet using Hamachi. Kind of obvious why Blizzard does not include this, as the current state of Piracy Vs Game Company means that people would pirate the game en masse and then play it over the net using hosting services. Most LAN parties have sick internet connections anyway these days, so I do not see this as too big a problem. 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. | ||
|
MaYuu
Sweden516 Posts
As tasteless said, it's all about cutting corners, and everything builds up. Connection, hardware etc etc. | ||
|
Gigaudas
Sweden1213 Posts
On May 28 2010 00:19 Grend wrote: Why do people need LAN anyway? Unless I was going to a LAN party, I only ever used LAN for illegal purposes like playing stone age games over the internet using Hamachi. ? In addition to LAN, I believe it's important for competitive play due to its stability. Sure, there have been a few disconnects and crashes in professional SC but overall it has been very stable. | ||
|
Deleted User 61629
1664 Posts
| ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On May 28 2010 00:19 Grend wrote: Why do people need LAN anyway? Unless I was going to a LAN party, I only ever used LAN for illegal purposes like playing stone age games over the internet using Hamachi. Kind of obvious why Blizzard does not include this, as the current state of Piracy Vs Game Company means that people would pirate the game en masse and then play it over the net using hosting services. Most LAN parties have sick internet connections anyway these days, so I do not see this as too big a problem. sorta explains the entire reason for it | ||
|
virusak
Czech Republic344 Posts
On May 28 2010 00:19 Grend wrote: Why do people need LAN anyway? Unless I was going to a LAN party, I only ever used LAN for illegal purposes like playing stone age games over the internet using Hamachi. Kind of obvious why Blizzard does not include this, as the current state of Piracy Vs Game Company means that people would pirate the game en masse and then play it over the net using hosting services. Most LAN parties have sick internet connections anyway these days, so I do not see this as too big a problem. forcing to be connected to the internet all the time? really? not being able to play when bnet is down? we used LAN for garage all night LAN parties (where no internet connectin is aviable) that were awesome, not anymore | ||
|
Readersblock
United States43 Posts
| ||
|
Kerm
France467 Posts
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 | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
On May 28 2010 00:19 Grend wrote: Why do people need LAN anyway? Unless I was going to a LAN party, I only ever used LAN for illegal purposes like playing stone age games over the internet using Hamachi. Kind of obvious why Blizzard does not include this, as the current state of Piracy Vs Game Company means that people would pirate the game en masse and then play it over the net using hosting services. Most LAN parties have sick internet connections anyway these days, so I do not see this as too big a problem. Because a lan connection is far more reliable than internet There is far less latency "sick internet" doesn't matter when your games are all routed through a blizzard server anyway Because punishing legit consumers just to curtail piracy is not a sensible practice. | ||
|
Grebliv
Iceland800 Posts
On May 28 2010 00:19 Grend wrote: Why do people need LAN anyway? Unless I was going to a LAN party, I only ever used LAN for illegal purposes like playing stone age games over the internet using Hamachi. Kind of obvious why Blizzard does not include this, as the current state of Piracy Vs Game Company means that people would pirate the game en masse and then play it over the net using hosting services. Most LAN parties have sick internet connections anyway these days, so I do not see this as too big a problem. Playing online at a lan is like playing soccer in hiking boots got to love pr: 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." | ||
|
decemvre
Romania639 Posts
Find other ways to fight piracy you turds ! How can you have competition when you take away the most important tool ? | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
On May 28 2010 00:30 Kerm wrote: 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 u're saying this like it defends blizzard somehow, looks like the reverse to me | ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
| ||
|
Spidermonkey
United States251 Posts
| ||
|
Grend
1600 Posts
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. | ||
|
QueueQueue
Canada1000 Posts
Whether this is ideal is another debate, but I don't think the high level tournies would be using BNet like everyone else does while playing. | ||
|
Grebliv
Iceland800 Posts
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. this is 999999% drm stuff, too bad how prevalent it seems to have become, local lans don't really have the brightest of futures. Why show up at a lan if it's going to be just as laggy as online (yes there are reasons still but less of them). | ||
|
CryMore
United States497 Posts
The main problem with playing off LAN is that b.net has a base delay (I'm not sure what this is) and there is no way to circumvent this because the game is hosted on the Blizzard server. This is also a problem for custom games (namely a possible DOTA port) where programs that were designed to reduce delay are worthless. | ||
|
Scorch
Austria3371 Posts
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? | ||
|
Herculix
United States946 Posts
| ||
|
fabiano
Brazil4644 Posts
On May 28 2010 00:30 Kerm wrote: 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 | ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
| ||
|
marconi
Croatia220 Posts
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. | ||
|
roemy
Germany432 Posts
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! | ||
|
WhistlingMtn
United States190 Posts
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... | ||
|
skinnyrl
Netherlands125 Posts
| ||
|
skipgamer
Australia701 Posts
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. | ||
|
Moony
United States533 Posts
| ||
|
Garrl
Scotland1972 Posts
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. | ||
|
kmdarkmaster
France188 Posts
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. | ||
|
MidKnight
Lithuania884 Posts
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.. | ||
|
IrT4nkz
229 Posts
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. | ||
|
11cc
Finland561 Posts
On May 28 2010 01:51 MidKnight wrote: "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. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
Guess we'll see how blizzard plans to do it. | ||
zatic
Zurich15328 Posts
| ||
| ||
