|
On March 21 2011 22:32 Gingerninja wrote:
"Sorry I realise you came to my house with your computer, but I can't play against you from 3 feet away.. because Battle.net / Internet issues. . hmm brood war anyone?"
And how often was battle.net down exactly? A couple of days so far?
SC2 is built to be played with >250ms round trip time, you can bet your ass on LAN version having the same lag added in.
On March 21 2011 22:28 XsebT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:11 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 22:00 XsebT wrote:On March 21 2011 17:43 iCCup.Diamond wrote:
Just to clear up two things
1: No iCCup SC2 server, not happening.
2: No tournament that has a license from Blizzard would EVER in hell get permission to use this crack.
That being said, this should encourage companies like ESL and MLG to lean on Blizz more about this 1990's basic feature missing from the largest ESport in the world right now... Think we're talking about the idea here... It doesn't have to be iccup making this.  It nice to see that when Blizzard fails, at least a part of the community fucks them all the way. This took much longer to crack than I anticipated though - so hell, it's about time. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20475This is what happens when someone actually pisses Blizzard off. There will be no, and I mean 0 popular SC2 private servers that will live long enough. KESPA can have a long trial cause they don't need battle.net but when Blizzard says you have to be connected to battle.net and you don't do that, then it's easy :D since you're stealing their code. Maybe not as popular as iccup, but I can assure you that there will be private servers. Just because something is illigal doesn't mean people won't do it. Exactly like we see it with WoW private servers (which is certainly losing blizzard way more money than sc2 private servers ever will).
The only people playing WoW private servers are those that simply cannot afford WoW or never played on live.
Back when WoW was launched I played US beta then due to all my money going to alcohol and clubs back at uni times I couldn't afford an account. I tried pirate server and damn I really couldn't stomach it with the crappy downtime, performance and population. It's not really comparable to SC2. In SC2 you'll be able to just P2P with the other guy with possibly a system to report results. But since you'll still have the latency included it will only help for those 2-3 days a year battle.net is down and the rage for some random disconnects :D
|
On March 21 2011 22:43 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:33 David Dark wrote:
You want something from blizzard? How about the players stop logging to bnet and not playing SC2 for a week? If that doesn't work a month, how about that? Don't buy the heart of the swarm if it doesn't give us lan? Hum?
Because I read the forums and theres so much hate about blizz and talking how they suck and don't care about players but everytime I check bnet theres like over 500.000 people online so why would they give a damn?
It's like you meet me on the street you say 'man you fucking suck' and then you put money in my pocket and walk away, how would I feel? Great, I would go and buy some buritos for your cash.
The blizzard staff has to be laughing hard when they imagine a sobbing progamer walking to the shop crying to the shopkeeper that he hasn't got lan and then he buy 3 copies of SC2 instead of 1 cuz he has to hide his builds. This argument is as asinine as it is old. Obviously desire for LAN is a niche concern; obviously Blizzard can just go tell everyone who wants LAN to piss off and it wouldn't affect their sales. But, why? Why would we give up on something we like and want to be better? We're all here because we like Blizzard's game(s); why would we not want them to improve them? As an aside, the number of people on battle.net includes WoW, whose playerbase far and away eclipses Starcraft 2's at any given moment.
Actually, I don't think that it includes WoW; it does include, however, Starcraft/BW, Warcraft 3/TfT, and Diablo 1/2/LoD.
On March 21 2011 22:46 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:32 Gingerninja wrote:
"Sorry I realise you came to my house with your computer, but I can't play against you from 3 feet away.. because Battle.net / Internet issues. . hmm brood war anyone?"
And how often was battle.net down exactly? A couple of days so far? SC2 is built to be played with >250ms round trip time, you can bet your ass on LAN version having the same lag added in.
I think that he was talking about internet issues too, like, his own personal internet issues. Maybe he doesn't have a very good connection?
And SC1 was built to be played on normal speed, on dial-up connections. I can assure you that it's much better on fastest with 1 ping connections. I see no reason as to why SC2 wouldn't be better without 250 ms.
|
On March 21 2011 22:15 Synk wrote:
People trying to justify pirating is why the PC gaming market is so barren now. It's no different from stealing plain and simple and every game developer is losing millions of dollars a year to it ( on pc ), which is why so many are sticking to consoles where its much harder to pirate games.
This is not true. I dont think piracy costs the developers/publishers that much. In fact, if the game is really good, it often helps them to sell more. Take me for example: I admit to have pirated a lot a few years ago, but simply because I didnt have the money to buy games. 50-60€ for a computer game that lasts you maybe 10 hours (singleplayer) is just way too much. Only games with a really good multiplayer or a lot of solo content (take oblivion or mass effect) justify that cost. I cant say I have pirated any game I would have bought instead. Take the blizzard games: I had pirated diablo2, wc3 and sc1 on lan parties wich eventually lead me to buy WC3 and Diablo2, WoW and SC2. On the other hand, I pirated a lot of (for me) singleplayer games like Quake 4 which I didn't even finish. IMO, piracy does mostly lead to good developers selling more, because the games are more widely known, and bad games selling less. The numbers publishers publish (no pun intended) about piracy are just wrong: they assume every pirated copy is a 100% loss for them, when in reality there is maybe only 10% of the people pirating that would have bought the game. Also, people often buy games after having pirated them, when they feel they're worth the money.
Its the same thing with Photoshop. Having a lot of piracy is beneficial for adobe, because a lot of people get used to PS and companies still have to buy the software while the popularity rises through piracy.
If you look at SC2, I can imagine piracy having a positive effect: People bring the game to LANs and play with their friends. Those friends either dont like the game (would not have bought it anyways) or, if they really like it, they will buy it to play it online. Thats at least how I got hooked on a lot of games including WC3
|
On March 21 2011 22:15 Synk wrote:
People trying to justify pirating is why the PC gaming market is so barren now. It's no different from stealing plain and simple and every game developer is losing millions of dollars a year to it ( on pc ), which is why so many are sticking to consoles where its much harder to pirate games.
Negative. The reason the PC gaming market is so barren is that around 2000 and/or 2001, the sales divide between computer gaming and video game consoles was about two-to-one, meaning the personal computer as a platform was roughly even with the PlayStation and the Nintendo 64. That was the closest that sales ratio has ever been, and it's not much of a surprise that a lot of people consider the late nineties and early aughts to be the highest point in the history of computer game development. That ratio exploded as the PlayStation 2 took off in popularity, giving less incentive for companies to develop for personal computers. That incentive was then completely killed off as budgets continued to spiral out of control, as the industry became more corporate and those corporate suits decided there was no way to maximize profits with computer-oriented development. They especially weren't going to do it with an audience that has historically been entitled and very fickle about the product. You can see that simply in the way computer gamers respond to ports of games that were clearly created with consoles in mind.
|
On March 21 2011 19:38 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 19:11 Gheed wrote:On March 21 2011 18:52 SirMilford wrote:On March 21 2011 18:39 Gheed wrote:
Are you a troll? It doesn't matter if you're 2 feet from your opponent, you have to go through battle.net. That's the point of wanting LAN. Also nobody cares about private servers; there are dozens of private WoW realms and people still play WoW.
Don't mean to be rude but the reason that no one cares about private servers is because we aren't directly effected by them. Blizzard is and as such they care. Just because "maybe" a lan version for the chinese version has been released does not mean that Blizzard is suddenly entitled to create one for players. They will try to avoid private servers as much as possible and considering that the game has not even been released for one year I do not blame them. They can still make money off the game and as such will not release LAN support for awhile to come. Well of course Blizzard cares about pirate servers. Blizzard charges 25 dollars for a virtual unicorn. It's their job to be greedy. Players, however, wouldn't care about any of the extra features a private SC2 server would offer, as they could replicate them all with custom maps with the possible exception of a custom ladder. Piracy is a drop in the bucket for a big name title like SC2, and the technical requirements to download a specific client and successfully connect to a pirate server is enough to deter most people. The person I was responding to seems to be either trolling or doesn't understand why people want LAN in the first place. I'm not trolling. Maybe it cause i'm spoiled by a great internet connection. I've had lans and never noticed any latency. Also your rationalization for piracy is laughable. Saying stuff like Blizzard are greedy, you don't need any of the features, it's a drop in the bucket and the classic "technical know-how of piracy deters people". None of those are reasons why someone shouldn't buy a product, and some of them are just false. I'm not anti piracy per se, but people who argue like you are just as bad as the companies claiming that 100 downloads equal 100 lost sales. The true figure is somewhere inbetween, not 100% and not "a drop in the bucket".
I live in sweden aswell and I have the fastest internet available here, 100/100. Even though I don't think the latency on sc2 is major it's definetely more than LAN. Try playing a game online and then switch to campaign mode. It's noticeable to say the least, my guess would be 100-250ms on bnet and on hamachi/garena-style servers it's like 5-30ms mostly. It doesn't matter how you put it, if you can bypass blizzard servers your latency will become lower.
However from blizzards point of view there's not much incentive to add LAN, and I do agree with you that the future of games probably lie in LAN-less games to prevent piracy, it's sad nonetheless.
|
On March 21 2011 22:11 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:00 XsebT wrote:On March 21 2011 17:43 iCCup.Diamond wrote:
Just to clear up two things
1: No iCCup SC2 server, not happening.
2: No tournament that has a license from Blizzard would EVER in hell get permission to use this crack.
That being said, this should encourage companies like ESL and MLG to lean on Blizz more about this 1990's basic feature missing from the largest ESport in the world right now... Think we're talking about the idea here... It doesn't have to be iccup making this. It nice to see that when Blizzard fails, at least a part of the community fucks them all the way. This took much longer to crack than I anticipated though - so hell, it's about time. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20475This is what happens when someone actually pisses Blizzard off. There will be no, and I mean 0 popular SC2 private servers that will live long enough. KESPA can have a long trial cause they don't need battle.net but when Blizzard says you have to be connected to battle.net and you don't do that, then it's easy :D since you're stealing their code.
And now show me the same story for a guy not living in the US 
Also you basically dont steal the code but reverse engineer the protocols (which is legally allowed in i.e. Germany)
Of course offering a service you got via RE would be illegal, but imagine some Russian / Chinese guys running the server. You think Blizz could take those down with the ease they can take down an US citizen?
Overall I'd appreciate a LAN option. My home isnt big enough to have more than 3 additional PCs here - so if we do one of our 8man LANs (sometimes up to 16^^) I have to resort to my parents house. I myself have a 20mbit, but my parents only have 2mbit (and 16kB/s upstream) and cannot get a better internet, because they live ~20km from the nearest city. There's nothing better available for them. And 16kB/s upstream isnt enough to let 8 people play SC2 over the internet
Also one tournament: MLG Dallas finals. If I remember it right the problem was neither Blizzard's nor MLG's but the carrier in between? With LAN no problem would've occured.
|
On March 21 2011 22:47 MaGariShun wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:15 Synk wrote:
People trying to justify pirating is why the PC gaming market is so barren now. It's no different from stealing plain and simple and every game developer is losing millions of dollars a year to it ( on pc ), which is why so many are sticking to consoles where its much harder to pirate games. This is not true. I dont think piracy costs the developers/publishers that much. In fact, if the game is really good, it often helps them to sell more. Take me for example: I admit to have pirated a lot a few years ago, but simply because I didnt have the money to buy games. 50-60€ for a computer game that lasts you maybe 10 hours (singleplayer) is just way too much. Only games with a really good multiplayer or a lot of solo content (take oblivion or mass effect) justify that cost. I cant say I have pirated any game I would have bought instead. Take the blizzard games: I had pirated diablo2, wc3 and sc1 on lan parties wich eventually lead me to buy WC3 and Diablo2, WoW and SC2. On the other hand, I pirated a lot of (for me) singleplayer games like Quake 4 which I didn't even finish. IMO, piracy does mostly lead to good developers selling more, because the games are more widely known, and bad games selling less. The numbers publishers publish (no pun intended) about piracy are just wrong: they assume every pirated copy is a 100% loss for them, when in reality there is maybe only 10% of the people pirating that would have bought the game. Also, people often buy games after having pirated them, when they feel they're worth the money. Its the same thing with Photoshop. Having a lot of piracy is beneficial for adobe, because a lot of people get used to PS and companies still have to buy the software while the popularity rises through piracy. If you look at SC2, I can imagine piracy having a positive effect: People bring the game to LANs and play with their friends. Those friends either dont like the game (would not have bought it anyways) or, if they really like it, they will buy it to play it online. Thats at least how I got hooked on a lot of games including WC3
That is a very glorified version of piracy. I know loads of people who NEVER buy games. They play several hours a day but everything is torrented.
|
On March 21 2011 22:46 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:32 Gingerninja wrote:
"Sorry I realise you came to my house with your computer, but I can't play against you from 3 feet away.. because Battle.net / Internet issues. . hmm brood war anyone?"
And how often was battle.net down exactly? A couple of days so far? SC2 is built to be played with >250ms round trip time, you can bet your ass on LAN version having the same lag added in.
Didn't MLG(I am not sure the name) had bnet problems during some of it's sc2 matches?
Can't remember if GSL had any disc because of bnet
|
On March 21 2011 22:46 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:43 Gheed wrote:On March 21 2011 22:33 David Dark wrote:
You want something from blizzard? How about the players stop logging to bnet and not playing SC2 for a week? If that doesn't work a month, how about that? Don't buy the heart of the swarm if it doesn't give us lan? Hum?
Because I read the forums and theres so much hate about blizz and talking how they suck and don't care about players but everytime I check bnet theres like over 500.000 people online so why would they give a damn?
It's like you meet me on the street you say 'man you fucking suck' and then you put money in my pocket and walk away, how would I feel? Great, I would go and buy some buritos for your cash.
The blizzard staff has to be laughing hard when they imagine a sobbing progamer walking to the shop crying to the shopkeeper that he hasn't got lan and then he buy 3 copies of SC2 instead of 1 cuz he has to hide his builds. This argument is as asinine as it is old. Obviously desire for LAN is a niche concern; obviously Blizzard can just go tell everyone who wants LAN to piss off and it wouldn't affect their sales. But, why? Why would we give up on something we like and want to be better? We're all here because we like Blizzard's game(s); why would we not want them to improve them? As an aside, the number of people on battle.net includes WoW, whose playerbase far and away eclipses Starcraft 2's at any given moment. Actually, I don't think that it includes WoW; it does include, however, Starcraft/BW, Warcraft 3/TfT, and Diablo 1/2/LoD.
The games you listed are all on battle.net "1.0" I'd suppose you call it. If I logged onto USEast, it would indeed list those games. WoW and SC2 (and D3 in the future) are on b.net 2.0 and are included in the number listed where it says "x players on battle.net"
|
Great, I would go and buy some buritos for your cash.
The blizzard staff has to be laughing hard when they imagine a sobbing progamer walking to the shop crying to the shopkeeper that he hasn't got lan and then he buy 3 copies of SC2 instead of 1 cuz he has to hide his builds.
LOL, Im litteraly laughing for once 
And about the boycotting blizzard part:
People already do that. The people who have no reliable internet, and/or just wanted to play at a friend's house that has no reliable internet didnt buy SC, and are not playing it.
Anyway, personally, if the choice was between SC2 with lan, and SC2 without lan, Id rather have SC2 with lan.
But since instead, the choice is between SC2 with lan, and SC2 without lan, hots, lotv, balance patches and improvements over time, diablo 3, and all the other games that will be released in the future by evil evil blizzard... Ill take SC2 without lan, and be happy that they make enough profit to make more stuff in the future.
|
On March 21 2011 22:49 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:47 MaGariShun wrote:On March 21 2011 22:15 Synk wrote:
People trying to justify pirating is why the PC gaming market is so barren now. It's no different from stealing plain and simple and every game developer is losing millions of dollars a year to it ( on pc ), which is why so many are sticking to consoles where its much harder to pirate games. This is not true. I dont think piracy costs the developers/publishers that much. In fact, if the game is really good, it often helps them to sell more. Take me for example: I admit to have pirated a lot a few years ago, but simply because I didnt have the money to buy games. 50-60€ for a computer game that lasts you maybe 10 hours (singleplayer) is just way too much. Only games with a really good multiplayer or a lot of solo content (take oblivion or mass effect) justify that cost. I cant say I have pirated any game I would have bought instead. Take the blizzard games: I had pirated diablo2, wc3 and sc1 on lan parties wich eventually lead me to buy WC3 and Diablo2, WoW and SC2. On the other hand, I pirated a lot of (for me) singleplayer games like Quake 4 which I didn't even finish. IMO, piracy does mostly lead to good developers selling more, because the games are more widely known, and bad games selling less. The numbers publishers publish (no pun intended) about piracy are just wrong: they assume every pirated copy is a 100% loss for them, when in reality there is maybe only 10% of the people pirating that would have bought the game. Also, people often buy games after having pirated them, when they feel they're worth the money. Its the same thing with Photoshop. Having a lot of piracy is beneficial for adobe, because a lot of people get used to PS and companies still have to buy the software while the popularity rises through piracy. If you look at SC2, I can imagine piracy having a positive effect: People bring the game to LANs and play with their friends. Those friends either dont like the game (would not have bought it anyways) or, if they really like it, they will buy it to play it online. Thats at least how I got hooked on a lot of games including WC3 That is a very glorified version of piracy. I know loads of people who NEVER buy games. They play several hours a day but everything is torrented.
And what makes you think that they'd even play video games if the option wasn't there to download them for free? I know I didn't listen to anything but the radio before music became easily available over the internet. I wouldn't be out there, putting down cash for new albums, if I couldn't download them.
I'd still be going to concerts, though. Heh.
On March 21 2011 22:52 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:46 goiflin wrote:On March 21 2011 22:43 Gheed wrote:On March 21 2011 22:33 David Dark wrote:
You want something from blizzard? How about the players stop logging to bnet and not playing SC2 for a week? If that doesn't work a month, how about that? Don't buy the heart of the swarm if it doesn't give us lan? Hum?
Because I read the forums and theres so much hate about blizz and talking how they suck and don't care about players but everytime I check bnet theres like over 500.000 people online so why would they give a damn?
It's like you meet me on the street you say 'man you fucking suck' and then you put money in my pocket and walk away, how would I feel? Great, I would go and buy some buritos for your cash.
The blizzard staff has to be laughing hard when they imagine a sobbing progamer walking to the shop crying to the shopkeeper that he hasn't got lan and then he buy 3 copies of SC2 instead of 1 cuz he has to hide his builds. This argument is as asinine as it is old. Obviously desire for LAN is a niche concern; obviously Blizzard can just go tell everyone who wants LAN to piss off and it wouldn't affect their sales. But, why? Why would we give up on something we like and want to be better? We're all here because we like Blizzard's game(s); why would we not want them to improve them? As an aside, the number of people on battle.net includes WoW, whose playerbase far and away eclipses Starcraft 2's at any given moment. Actually, I don't think that it includes WoW; it does include, however, Starcraft/BW, Warcraft 3/TfT, and Diablo 1/2/LoD. The games you listed are all on battle.net "1.0" I'd suppose you call it. If I logged onto USEast, it would indeed list those games. WoW and SC2 (and D3 in the future) are on b.net 2.0 and are included in the number listed where it says "x players on battle.net"
Oh, I see. I learn something new every day.
|
On March 21 2011 22:53 morimacil wrote:Show nested quote +Great, I would go and buy some buritos for your cash.
The blizzard staff has to be laughing hard when they imagine a sobbing progamer walking to the shop crying to the shopkeeper that he hasn't got lan and then he buy 3 copies of SC2 instead of 1 cuz he has to hide his builds. LOL, Im litteraly laughing for once And about the boycotting blizzard part: People already do that. The people who have no reliable internet, and/or just wanted to play at a friend's house that has no reliable internet didnt buy SC, and are not playing it. Anyway, personally, if the choice was between SC2 with lan, and SC2 without lan, Id rather have SC2 with lan. But since instead, the choice is between SC2 with lan, and SC2 without lan, hots, lotv, balance patches and improvements over time, diablo 3, and all the other games that will be released in the future by evil evil blizzard... Ill take SC2 without lan, and be happy that they make enough profit to make more stuff in the future.
BW, WC3, Diablo, etc. all had LAN and received both expansions and patches...
|
On March 21 2011 22:51 mmdmmd wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:46 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 22:32 Gingerninja wrote:
"Sorry I realise you came to my house with your computer, but I can't play against you from 3 feet away.. because Battle.net / Internet issues. . hmm brood war anyone?"
And how often was battle.net down exactly? A couple of days so far? SC2 is built to be played with >250ms round trip time, you can bet your ass on LAN version having the same lag added in. Didn't MLG(I am not sure the name) had bnet problems during some of it's sc2 matches? Can't remember if GSL had any disc because of bnet
MLG Dallas(?) had internet connectivity issues during the finals. It turned out to be unrelated to battle.net itself, but having LAN would have prevented any sort of internet related problems in the first place. The 2 hour intermission between games while they sorted out the technical problems was a pretty big embarrassment but day9/wheat made the best of it.
|
On March 21 2011 17:53 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 17:15 DirtYLOu wrote:
And also guys think of leagues like NASL, TSL. Playing without lag... Cuz i don't have to tell u guys that players will play with MASSIVE lags.. Why would LAN capability somehow remove the latency between korea and the us? Do you know anything about routing/latency/computer networks?
I think the better question here is, do you know anything about computers/ networking? If you've ever played on LAN you know that the direct connection between computers allows for much smoother games. If you don't think that a clean connection between Korea and US can be established you should go play a Korean on iCCup with AH turned off, and then play him again with AH turned on. If you don't notice a difference instantly (from the worker split) then I don't know what to tell you...
|
Err, the password of "Iloveyou2" has me paranoid about that one virus that went around via e-mail a while ago. Even though this is completely difference, my paranoid-ness is running full steam.
|
On March 21 2011 22:46 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:32 Gingerninja wrote:
"Sorry I realise you came to my house with your computer, but I can't play against you from 3 feet away.. because Battle.net / Internet issues. . hmm brood war anyone?"
And how often was battle.net down exactly? A couple of days so far? SC2 is built to be played with >250ms round trip time, you can bet your ass on LAN version having the same lag added in.
You seem to be the only person actually against LAN... for some odd reason. If SC2 was built with Lag in mind, then it'd be a lot better without. Building in compensations for something you could eliminate entirely seems like an odd choice. Playing with 250ms is NOT optimal under any circumstances. Some gaming servers kick you if you spike above 100.. and we're playing with 250? No added ms would mean better control, more responsiveness.
and Yes I do live in an area with shitty internet, I don't have mega mind blowing broadband because of where I live, Blizzard have been good at keeping the servers up admittedly obviously the practice from WoW has served them well, but it's not 100% and I think we've all seen tournaments ruined by online problems and odd Battle.net outages. Don't think I really need to hear tastless's "Technology is the vehicle of E-sports" speech many more times to have to memorised I'll be honest. Computers will always fail, but if we can cut out something, then that's one less thing can go wrong.
|
On March 21 2011 22:46 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:43 Gheed wrote:On March 21 2011 22:33 David Dark wrote:
You want something from blizzard? How about the players stop logging to bnet and not playing SC2 for a week? If that doesn't work a month, how about that? Don't buy the heart of the swarm if it doesn't give us lan? Hum?
Because I read the forums and theres so much hate about blizz and talking how they suck and don't care about players but everytime I check bnet theres like over 500.000 people online so why would they give a damn?
It's like you meet me on the street you say 'man you fucking suck' and then you put money in my pocket and walk away, how would I feel? Great, I would go and buy some buritos for your cash.
The blizzard staff has to be laughing hard when they imagine a sobbing progamer walking to the shop crying to the shopkeeper that he hasn't got lan and then he buy 3 copies of SC2 instead of 1 cuz he has to hide his builds. This argument is as asinine as it is old. Obviously desire for LAN is a niche concern; obviously Blizzard can just go tell everyone who wants LAN to piss off and it wouldn't affect their sales. But, why? Why would we give up on something we like and want to be better? We're all here because we like Blizzard's game(s); why would we not want them to improve them? As an aside, the number of people on battle.net includes WoW, whose playerbase far and away eclipses Starcraft 2's at any given moment. Actually, I don't think that it includes WoW; it does include, however, Starcraft/BW, Warcraft 3/TfT, and Diablo 1/2/LoD. Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:46 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 22:32 Gingerninja wrote:
"Sorry I realise you came to my house with your computer, but I can't play against you from 3 feet away.. because Battle.net / Internet issues. . hmm brood war anyone?"
And how often was battle.net down exactly? A couple of days so far? SC2 is built to be played with >250ms round trip time, you can bet your ass on LAN version having the same lag added in. I think that he was talking about internet issues too, like, his own personal internet issues. Maybe he doesn't have a very good connection? And SC1 was built to be played on normal speed, on dial-up connections. I can assure you that it's much better on fastest with 1 ping connections. I see no reason as to why SC2 wouldn't be better without 250 ms.
Because Blizzard built it that way, to be played on 250ms+. And if they'll enable LAN they'll add 250ms to your 1 ping. SC1 was built to be played mostly on LAN and a bit on the internet not the other way around. I have yet to play SC1 on battle.net.
|
On March 21 2011 22:49 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:47 MaGariShun wrote:On March 21 2011 22:15 Synk wrote:
People trying to justify pirating is why the PC gaming market is so barren now. It's no different from stealing plain and simple and every game developer is losing millions of dollars a year to it ( on pc ), which is why so many are sticking to consoles where its much harder to pirate games. This is not true. I dont think piracy costs the developers/publishers that much. In fact, if the game is really good, it often helps them to sell more. Take me for example: I admit to have pirated a lot a few years ago, but simply because I didnt have the money to buy games. 50-60€ for a computer game that lasts you maybe 10 hours (singleplayer) is just way too much. Only games with a really good multiplayer or a lot of solo content (take oblivion or mass effect) justify that cost. I cant say I have pirated any game I would have bought instead. Take the blizzard games: I had pirated diablo2, wc3 and sc1 on lan parties wich eventually lead me to buy WC3 and Diablo2, WoW and SC2. On the other hand, I pirated a lot of (for me) singleplayer games like Quake 4 which I didn't even finish. IMO, piracy does mostly lead to good developers selling more, because the games are more widely known, and bad games selling less. The numbers publishers publish (no pun intended) about piracy are just wrong: they assume every pirated copy is a 100% loss for them, when in reality there is maybe only 10% of the people pirating that would have bought the game. Also, people often buy games after having pirated them, when they feel they're worth the money. Its the same thing with Photoshop. Having a lot of piracy is beneficial for adobe, because a lot of people get used to PS and companies still have to buy the software while the popularity rises through piracy. If you look at SC2, I can imagine piracy having a positive effect: People bring the game to LANs and play with their friends. Those friends either dont like the game (would not have bought it anyways) or, if they really like it, they will buy it to play it online. Thats at least how I got hooked on a lot of games including WC3 That is a very glorified version of piracy. I know loads of people who NEVER buy games. They play several hours a day but everything is torrented.
I do know alot of people who pirate things, and this is not true for one of them. I myself pirate games aswell, but there's no way I'd buy that game in the first place, it's more of a 'im bored ill download something' thing. If you want a game you purchase it since the real deal is always better then a cracked one. For single-player games they MIGHT be at loss, but for multiplayer I think it's the opposite. Take WoW for example, you can pirate the game but it's not a major problem. Pirated servers always sucks ass and they come nowhere close to being as fun as the real WoW.
|
On March 21 2011 23:00 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:46 goiflin wrote:On March 21 2011 22:43 Gheed wrote:On March 21 2011 22:33 David Dark wrote:
You want something from blizzard? How about the players stop logging to bnet and not playing SC2 for a week? If that doesn't work a month, how about that? Don't buy the heart of the swarm if it doesn't give us lan? Hum?
Because I read the forums and theres so much hate about blizz and talking how they suck and don't care about players but everytime I check bnet theres like over 500.000 people online so why would they give a damn?
It's like you meet me on the street you say 'man you fucking suck' and then you put money in my pocket and walk away, how would I feel? Great, I would go and buy some buritos for your cash.
The blizzard staff has to be laughing hard when they imagine a sobbing progamer walking to the shop crying to the shopkeeper that he hasn't got lan and then he buy 3 copies of SC2 instead of 1 cuz he has to hide his builds. This argument is as asinine as it is old. Obviously desire for LAN is a niche concern; obviously Blizzard can just go tell everyone who wants LAN to piss off and it wouldn't affect their sales. But, why? Why would we give up on something we like and want to be better? We're all here because we like Blizzard's game(s); why would we not want them to improve them? As an aside, the number of people on battle.net includes WoW, whose playerbase far and away eclipses Starcraft 2's at any given moment. Actually, I don't think that it includes WoW; it does include, however, Starcraft/BW, Warcraft 3/TfT, and Diablo 1/2/LoD. On March 21 2011 22:46 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 22:32 Gingerninja wrote:
"Sorry I realise you came to my house with your computer, but I can't play against you from 3 feet away.. because Battle.net / Internet issues. . hmm brood war anyone?"
And how often was battle.net down exactly? A couple of days so far? SC2 is built to be played with >250ms round trip time, you can bet your ass on LAN version having the same lag added in. I think that he was talking about internet issues too, like, his own personal internet issues. Maybe he doesn't have a very good connection? And SC1 was built to be played on normal speed, on dial-up connections. I can assure you that it's much better on fastest with 1 ping connections. I see no reason as to why SC2 wouldn't be better without 250 ms. Because Blizzard built it that way, to be played on 250ms+. And if they'll enable LAN they'll add 250ms to your 1 ping. SC1 was built to be played mostly on LAN and a bit on the internet not the other way around. I have yet to play SC1 on battle.net.
[Citation needed] on your 250 ping hypothesis. I believe the game tries to normalize the delay between players in a given game, but I've never read that they have lag hardcoded into the game.
|
On March 21 2011 23:00 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 22:46 goiflin wrote:On March 21 2011 22:43 Gheed wrote:On March 21 2011 22:33 David Dark wrote:
You want something from blizzard? How about the players stop logging to bnet and not playing SC2 for a week? If that doesn't work a month, how about that? Don't buy the heart of the swarm if it doesn't give us lan? Hum?
Because I read the forums and theres so much hate about blizz and talking how they suck and don't care about players but everytime I check bnet theres like over 500.000 people online so why would they give a damn?
It's like you meet me on the street you say 'man you fucking suck' and then you put money in my pocket and walk away, how would I feel? Great, I would go and buy some buritos for your cash.
The blizzard staff has to be laughing hard when they imagine a sobbing progamer walking to the shop crying to the shopkeeper that he hasn't got lan and then he buy 3 copies of SC2 instead of 1 cuz he has to hide his builds. This argument is as asinine as it is old. Obviously desire for LAN is a niche concern; obviously Blizzard can just go tell everyone who wants LAN to piss off and it wouldn't affect their sales. But, why? Why would we give up on something we like and want to be better? We're all here because we like Blizzard's game(s); why would we not want them to improve them? As an aside, the number of people on battle.net includes WoW, whose playerbase far and away eclipses Starcraft 2's at any given moment. Actually, I don't think that it includes WoW; it does include, however, Starcraft/BW, Warcraft 3/TfT, and Diablo 1/2/LoD. On March 21 2011 22:46 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 22:32 Gingerninja wrote:
"Sorry I realise you came to my house with your computer, but I can't play against you from 3 feet away.. because Battle.net / Internet issues. . hmm brood war anyone?"
And how often was battle.net down exactly? A couple of days so far? SC2 is built to be played with >250ms round trip time, you can bet your ass on LAN version having the same lag added in. I think that he was talking about internet issues too, like, his own personal internet issues. Maybe he doesn't have a very good connection? And SC1 was built to be played on normal speed, on dial-up connections. I can assure you that it's much better on fastest with 1 ping connections. I see no reason as to why SC2 wouldn't be better without 250 ms. Because Blizzard built it that way, to be played on 250ms+. And if they'll enable LAN they'll add 250ms to your 1 ping. SC1 was built to be played mostly on LAN and a bit on the internet not the other way around. I have yet to play SC1 on battle.net.
What do you even mean it was built to be played on 250 ms+ lol? Are you seriously arguing that you cannot play sc2 with under 250 ms? Either case you should try playing the single player, afaik it has no latency added to it and breaks your whole argument. As long as the people playing have a sufficient internet connection to play at a lower speed then 250 ms, you can play the game at lower then 250 ms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
