Claims of Chinese crack allowing lan mode

On March 21 2011 15:12 Brian333 wrote:
Translating right now, saving spot and will edit when done.

On March 21 2011 15:11 PhiliBiRD wrote:
even if there is a chinese crack, it does literally NOTHING for the community.

On March 21 2011 15:17 esaul17 wrote:


It certainly doesn't help tournament organizers or the like. All it could really do is help people practice build orders and games with no trace showing up in their match history on battle net. Could reduce the need for dummy accounts I guess, and allow for momentary offline play if needed.

But unless it spurs Blizzard to release a LAN version of their own, then it won't have much of an impact. It always disappoints me when people have to hack something to give it functionality the creator refused to add.

On March 21 2011 15:20 JayDee_ wrote:
Don't tell Kespa!

On March 21 2011 15:22 DirtYLOu wrote:


What does kespa have to do with anything ? T_T?

On March 21 2011 15:22 DirtYLOu wrote:


What does kespa have to do with anything ? T_T?

On March 21 2011 15:26 JayDee_ wrote:

By denying LAN and forcing BNet play, Blizzard is able to control who gets to run tournaments.

On March 21 2011 15:30 motbob wrote:
This is fantastic news since it makes the chance of Blizzard putting in LAN support much higher.

On March 21 2011 15:26 JayDee_ wrote:

By denying LAN and forcing BNet play, Blizzard is able to control who gets to run tournaments.

On March 21 2011 15:32 DirtYLOu wrote:


They will never put LAN support in SC2. Maybe after few years when the sales won't be that high, and when numbers of players will go down.

Thats why im saying give it to KeSPA, and we will have our DREAM SC2.

On March 21 2011 15:33 R0YAL wrote:

The whole dispute between Blizzard and kespa is because kespa refuses to pay them compensation.

On March 21 2011 15:34 motbob wrote:

There's no reason for them not to put it in, if it's been cracked.

On March 21 2011 15:37 Two_DoWn wrote:

Thats step one, step 2 is the crack actually becoming widespread so that they cannot possibly ban all of the users.

On March 21 2011 15:37 JayDee_ wrote:

Yes and Blizz is able to prevent organizations like kespa from using SC2 by denying LAN functionality.

On March 21 2011 15:41 R0YAL wrote:

Yeah thats why if kespa got a cracked sc2 with LAN capability, what could blizzard do?

On March 21 2011 15:41 R0YAL wrote:

Yeah thats why if kespa got a cracked sc2 with LAN capability, what could blizzard do?

On March 21 2011 15:46 JayDee_ wrote:

There is a HUGE difference between selling broadcasting rights to a legal game and selling broadcasting rights to a cracked game. The latter is much more blatant. Regardless I don't understand where you are going with these questions

On March 21 2011 15:46 peekn wrote:
It's cool that they made a crack for it, but anything that isn't approved by Blizzard and doesn't come from Blizzard doesn't really mean anything since you'll get banned for sure if you use it and they find out about it.

On March 21 2011 15:33 dacthehork wrote:
Please be true

Iccup Sc2

On March 21 2011 16:02 ShotoElite wrote:
does this mean that blizzard could have given us lan at any point and time, but simply refused because they didnt want to deal with piracy?

On March 21 2011 15:46 peekn wrote:
It's cool that they made a crack for it, but anything that isn't approved by Blizzard and doesn't come from Blizzard doesn't really mean anything since you'll get banned for sure if you use it and they find out about it.

On March 21 2011 16:02 ShotoElite wrote:
does this mean that blizzard could have given us lan at any point and time, but simply refused because they didnt want to deal with piracy?

On March 21 2011 16:10 Baarn wrote:
This is expected. If the creator's can keep up with the support for each new client version of the game without being prosecuted then this might succeed.

On March 21 2011 16:02 ShotoElite wrote:
does this mean that blizzard could have given us lan at any point and time, but simply refused because they didnt want to deal with piracy?

On March 21 2011 16:13 DirtYLOu wrote:


Since you are making YOUR OWN server. There is no problems with new client versions or what ever. Since you can do with it what ever u want. ( Maybe i understood something wrong )

On March 21 2011 16:16 Turgid wrote:

Only if you want an unpatched version of the game.

On March 21 2011 16:16 Turgid wrote:

Only if you want an unpatched version of the game.

On March 21 2011 16:15 Milkyst wrote:

yes, and because they also want people who want to hide build orders buy more accounts to practice on, since they force you to play on bnet

On March 21 2011 16:19 DirtYLOu wrote:


Yes but every patch is made, there is only "few" new changes. So in my eyes its the least problem they have.

On March 21 2011 16:21 haduken wrote:
I've being saying this since the start of Blizzard's decision to not include a server in China. What did you expect to happen?

China is one of the biggest nation for RTS fans and still no server...

On March 21 2011 16:21 haduken wrote:
I've being saying this since the start of Blizzard's decision to not include a server in China. What did you expect to happen?

China is one of the biggest nation for RTS fans and still no server...

On March 21 2011 16:22 Veldril wrote:
I think you guys are too optimistic about LAN and having private ladders like ICCUP for SC2 if this crack is true.

I really doubt that ICCUP would risk going into lawsuit against Blizzard if they use the "cracked" version, which is obviously illegal, to create ICCUP ladder for SC2. And if Blizzard is willing to sue OGN and MBC for IP rights, which is more debatable than using cracked version, I can really see Blizzard taking harsh reaction against those private ladders.

On March 21 2011 16:32 Backpack wrote:


Yep, before everyone blows their load, don't forget that Blizzard is 100% behind SC2 unlike BW.

Using pirated copies will only hurt esports by losing Blizzard's support. The only LAN we should be looking forward to is Blizzard's own.

On March 21 2011 16:34 emythrel wrote:
I dont get how LAN mode would work, the crack would have to add new feautures, or be like a stand alone bnet server.

I also love how all the conspiracy theorists come out in these threads. Blizzard didn't add LAn to stop kespa etc..... ridiculous. Blizz didn't add LAN simply to make it harder for people to pirate SC2 and to stop things like the iccup BW server which allows you to play multiplayer for free on aserver not controlled by blizz. Its their game they have the right to control who runs a server and who can play it.... you have to pay else we don't get any more games from blizz... that simple

On March 21 2011 16:34 emythrel wrote:
I dont get how LAN mode would work, the crack would have to add new feautures, or be like a stand alone bnet server.

I also love how all the conspiracy theorists come out in these threads. Blizzard didn't add LAn to stop kespa etc..... ridiculous. Blizz didn't add LAN simply to make it harder for people to pirate SC2 and to stop things like the iccup BW server which allows you to play multiplayer for free on aserver not controlled by blizz. Its their game they have the right to control who runs a server and who can play it.... you have to pay else we don't get any more games from blizz... that simple

On March 21 2011 16:39 Shinshady wrote:

Well there was always the way to get a CD key illegally... and I wouldn't be surprised if one of those popped up soon...

On March 21 2011 16:32 Backpack wrote:


Yep, before everyone blows their load, don't forget that Blizzard is 100% behind SC2 unlike BW.

Using pirated copies will only hurt esports by losing Blizzard's support. The only LAN we should be looking forward to is Blizzard's own.

On March 21 2011 15:41 R0YAL wrote:

Yeah thats why if kespa got a cracked sc2 with LAN capability, what could blizzard do?

On March 21 2011 16:34 DirtYLOu wrote:


You still believe that they gonna release LAN ? If they would do so, we would have be playing on LAN already.

On March 21 2011 17:06 Dont Panic wrote:
They had lan in the alpha client. Blizzard was being greedy and just wanted to control things. They are not trying to promote esports, they are simply trying to profit from it (trying to kespa and mbc all those fees LOL).

On March 21 2011 17:46 Carson wrote:


Just like we should've had chat channels and clan support at realease??

Seriously though, they may or may not come out with it, but this pirate LAN only hurts the product

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..

On March 21 2011 17:39 a_flayer wrote:
BW had LAN, spawned installs, iccup where you could just download the client instantly and sold 11 million copies, more than any PC game I can think of.

I think that says enough.

We need LAN for proper offline tournaments, no excuses.

On March 21 2011 17:49 MavercK wrote:
@Eury i've been trying to get it to test it. but wherever it is hosted is being hammered really badly. i can no longer access the website.

On March 21 2011 17:49 MavercK wrote:


no. it actually doesn't.
power to the community is NEVER A NEGATIVE THING
almost all of the greatest things in gaming are a product of the community

@Eury i've been trying to get it to test it. but wherever it is hosted is being hammered really badly. i can no longer access the website.

On March 21 2011 17:54 dakalro wrote:


Why do you even need LAN? How many times has battle.net actually been unavailable? The only use for LAN in the age of broadband is tournament finals that are played live and blizz could eventually rent/send a server to be used locally. Something like TSL would still be 100x better to be played on battle.net.

On March 21 2011 17:53 karpo wrote:


Why would LAN capability somehow remove the latency between korea and the us?

Do you know anything about routing/latency/computer networks?

On March 21 2011 17:43 dakalro wrote:


Blizzard can then buttrape them. Go search for the Blizz v Glider bot creator case ...

In the end LAN only helps for local play. No ICCUP servers or any other server will ever be as high quality as battle.net if you play on the internet. The simple fact that Blizzard's servers have latency added by default makes them a lot more balanced for inter-region play.

While it would be a nice feature it isn't actually needed except for major LAN events and GSL/NASL finals. Everything else is helping pirating even if not many people would want to admit it, it's been the same with SC1.

And this early in the game's life Blizzard will take your homes, cars and children if you even try to put up a public SC2 server.

On March 21 2011 18:04 R0YAL wrote:

But can Blizzard sue a korean company? Where does that case go to? I mean I understand that if this stuff happend in the US then Blizz could sue the crap out of you but how does it work for a company in another nation? I'm not educated with this legal stuff so please excuse me if this is common knowledge >_<

On March 21 2011 18:04 R0YAL wrote:

But can Blizzard sue a korean company? Where does that case go to? I mean I understand that if this stuff happend in the US then Blizz could sue the crap out of you but how does it work for a company in another nation? I'm not educated with this legal stuff so please excuse me if this is common knowledge >_<

On March 21 2011 18:23 Risen wrote:


It depends on country, and importance of a good, but in most cases international infringement cases like this (if the foreign country will not uphold the host company's rights) will only be resolved if the company's host country pressures the foreign country.

On March 21 2011 15:23 Maynarde wrote:


Very interested to hear an answer on this.

On March 21 2011 17:54 dakalro wrote:


Why do you even need LAN? How many times has battle.net actually been unavailable? The only use for LAN in the age of broadband is tournament finals that are played live and blizz could eventually rent/send a server to be used locally. Something like TSL would still be 100x better to be played on battle.net.

On March 21 2011 18:28 Gingerninja wrote:



Why would I ever need LAN? I duno So I can pick up my laptop.. walk it around to my friends house where we have a few other friends and LAN THEM. Where we don't have to worry about internet latency, drops, servers being down..
Some countries and locations don't have super-fast mega wonderful broadband. Not everyone has wireless. (I currently don't in my apartment.. my router is cabled only) So if I want to play multiplayer with a friend locally we have to crowd around my router rather than sitting somewhere else and just shoving a small cable between computers.
LAN in this day in age is a no brainer. Even for Broadband, taking away options on how people play, is not a good thing regardless how you try and frame it.

On March 21 2011 18:32 karpo wrote:


LAN in this day in age isn't a no brainer. Regular LAN is on the decline and has been for several years. Most popular games are either totally online or are player over developer run servers.

You could just connect a switch to your router and connect other persons to that.

Also you gotta understand how enabling LAN can provide alot of hacking and piracy options that are denied with login/server run games.

On March 21 2011 18:32 karpo wrote:


LAN in this day in age isn't a no brainer. Regular LAN is on the decline and has been for several years. Most popular games are either totally online or are player over developer run servers.

You could just connect a switch to your router and connect other persons to that.

Also you gotta understand how enabling LAN can provide alot of hacking and piracy options that are denied with login/server run games.

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.

On March 21 2011 18:52 SirMilford wrote:


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.

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.

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.

On March 21 2011 17:39 a_flayer wrote:
BW had LAN, spawned installs, iccup where you could just download the client instantly and sold 11 million copies, more than any PC game I can think of.

I think that says enough.

We need LAN for proper offline tournaments, no excuses.

On March 21 2011 19:11 Gheed wrote:


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.

On March 21 2011 16:23 Turgid wrote:

So... you would be okay with playing with an old version of the game? Without important balance changes?

On March 21 2011 18:59 Jetzki wrote:
I am currently living in Shanghai China and from my understanding of the local gaming scene the majority of PC gaming is done in internet cafes. If this crack gets improved a bit more and can allow for a localised bnet experience in a networked environment, I can see SC2 becoming HUGE in the net cafes here. Something like the iCCup server (which I had never heard of before this thread) might even spring up. I wouldn't be surprised if small tournaments started happening in net cafes either.

The majority of China (including PC gamers) are using very old computers, mostly still running XP. The average gamer won't be able to run SC2 at a good enough quality to play. Nearly all of the Chinese made MMORPGs have very poor graphics, this is because they know that this is all that their market can support. SC2 will need net cafes to grow in China, because they are where the majority of the gaming spec computers are located.

Maybe the fear of an available working crack will pump blizzard to add LAN by themself !

On March 21 2011 21:05 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Blizzard is happy to announce the release of patch 1.3, dubbed the E-Sports patch.

Patch 1.3 Notes

- Fixed a bug where players were able to play with no latency

On March 21 2011 19:38 karpo wrote:


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".

On March 21 2011 21:32 Gheed wrote:


Uh, I'm not justifying piracy. I've bought every blizzard game since Orcs and Humans. Some multiple times because I lost my CD keys. Not giving us LAN because a small number of people choose to pirate is bullshit, though. If a real LAN hack gets introduced, it'd be great even for those of us who bought the game.

On March 21 2011 21:39 disciple wrote:
Very interesting. Cannot wait to see if this gets confirmed.

In my opinion Blizzard just want to have full control over their product, even if that means compromising it and removing a feature that would make the game better. Blizzard's games are a full package where the customer pays for the product and for a service that would allow him to use the product, its their ways of doing things. I know we are speaking of a completely different products that target different customers, but I cannot help thinking about Adobe and their policy. A full CS with all their products costs around 1300$. Yes, 1300$, not a mere 40 bucks like SC2, Photoshop as standalone is about 400-500$. Just imagine how much money they are losing for each cracked copy that gets used around the world. Have in mind also all the graphics content that gets produced in different media.

Now, if Adobe were to get bitchy about that they would "present" a service that will put the use of their product under control. For example a global server where all adobe's users to store their work. Having that implemented, Adobe will remove the ability to save your own work on your pc, forcing you use their server. Then they will sell the trick as "unique feature that allows you to open your work from every computer with connection to the internet, which will make your work more flexible", unless ppl in Europe wont be able to open their work files if they went to NA.

I got carried away, but I think I made my point with this product vs service thing, I really think blizzards focus in the past years is selling the second, even if that means making the first worse

On March 21 2011 21:46 btlyger wrote:
The reason blizzard didn't add LAN support is because of all the people in this thread saying "ICCup 2.0" and it sucks for everyone.

I hope people realize how much they are actually supporting high level players, after adding 3 new leagues in for them you think people would be supportive.

However, the crack will probably lead to blizzard support if it becomes popular; that or blizzard will start raining down law suits against anyone who uses it (which is their current cup of tea).

On March 21 2011 21:48 dakalro wrote:
And I still don't see any real reason why LAN is needed.

On March 21 2011 21:50 mmm wrote:
IMO the least Blizzard could do is to sell Lan Licenses to tournaments...
there would be little risk and they could make some more money.

On March 21 2011 21:50 GrackGyver wrote:


I guess you haven't seen tournament games lag/drop in SC2.

It's happened quite a few times already, and it's a pretty awesome facepalming experience every time.

On March 21 2011 16:02 rauk wrote:
can't wait for iccup 2.0 to get raped by D/D- koreans again

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...

On March 21 2011 21:47 GrackGyver wrote:
Kids just out of high school arguing against LAN because someone told them it wasn't cool in this day and age. Gotta love customers fighting for corporate interest. "yeah screw me harder please ooh"

On March 21 2011 21:39 disciple wrote:Just imagine how much money they are losing for each cracked copy that gets used around the world.

On March 21 2011 22:08 dakalro wrote:


Haha, if only I wasn't HS 14 years too old for HS. LAN was the only thing back then, BNC 10 mbit with line terminators, internet was through dial-up.

But now when I have a central server with thousands of players, 99%++ uptime, normalized latency which means neither of the 2 players will have an advantage why would I ever actually need LAN, except for ensuring the extra 0.9% uptime in big tournaments.

You would still get the server added latency even in a LAN enabled SC2, Blizzard won't allow different gaming experiences between LAN and battle.net, not for SC2. And you still won't have rock solid uptime, power outages and network collapse can still happen for various reasons (cat bites the wires win).

On March 21 2011 21:48 dakalro wrote:
Blizzard will not add LAN to the game, they would most likely just send an armored car with a battle.net server on it for tournaments. They'll just change the comm protocol with a better one.

And I still don't see any real reason why LAN is needed. Or for that matter why chat channels were needed, esp when they ended up neutered, they're worthless for forming communities, better off staying on IRC/forums.

On March 21 2011 22:00 XsebT wrote:

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.

Oh, and blizzard's supporting us by increasing our ping rates! That was nice of them. I always wanted a massive delay in commands when I play with people on different continents

On March 21 2011 22:13 morimacil wrote:


A local area network (LAN) is a computer network that connects computers and devices in a limited geographical area such as home, school, computer laboratory or office building

You have a lan cable drawn to a different continent? o.O

On March 21 2011 22:13 morimacil wrote:


A local area network (LAN) is a computer network that connects computers and devices in a limited geographical area such as home, school, computer laboratory or office building

You have a lan cable drawn to a different continent? o.O



And yeah, they want full control of the product, and who uses it, when, and where.
Its a bit sad that they want/need so much control over it, but then again, its also a bit sad that if they dont have absolutely full control over it, within the hour people will be stealing their software and using it without paying them, as well as using it to make tons of money with no benefit to them.

Releasing lan support might be good for the game itself, but considering the fact that it would mean millions of lost sales in hots and lotv, along with tonf of profits lost due to organizations such as kespa using their products to make large amounts of profits without paying anything back, its unlikely to happen.


Imagine a supermarket without any cashiers or security, and no cameras, where you just pick up whatever you want to buy, and then put the money yourself in the register. That would in theory be great for the customers, since they would end up getting cheaper products, due to not having to pay for those security measures. But if that were implemented, people would just steal everything, and leave the company with nothing.
Sad that the companies need to have so much control over their products, but if they dont, they get riped to shreds by thieves.

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.

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.

On March 21 2011 22:11 dakalro wrote:


http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20475

This 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.

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.

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.

On March 21 2011 15:32 DirtYLOu wrote:


They will never put LAN support in SC2. Maybe after few years when the sales won't be that high, and when numbers of players will go down.

Thats why im saying give it to KeSPA, and we will have our DREAM SC2.

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.

On March 21 2011 22:38 goiflin wrote:


I wouldn't say that people here hate blizzard; I'm sure many of them enjoy SC2. It'd just be nice if we had a LAN functionality, which was taken out because of piracy issues, which apparently has been bypassed. Why not add it in?

Do you not like good customer services and products, or something? Are you against the idea that we should actually get MORE functions as future games get released? You're a strange man.

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?"

On March 21 2011 22:28 XsebT wrote:

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).

On March 21 2011 22:43 Gheed wrote:


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.

On March 21 2011 22:46 dakalro wrote:


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 22:15 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.

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.

On March 21 2011 19:38 karpo wrote:


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".

On March 21 2011 22:11 dakalro wrote:


http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20475

This 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.

On March 21 2011 22:47 MaGariShun wrote:


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 22:46 dakalro wrote:


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 22:46 goiflin wrote:


Actually, I don't think that it includes WoW; it does include, however, Starcraft/BW, Warcraft 3/TfT, and Diablo 1/2/LoD.

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.

On March 21 2011 22:49 karpo wrote:


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 22:52 Gheed wrote:


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"

On March 21 2011 22:53 morimacil wrote:

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 22:51 mmdmmd wrote:


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 17:53 karpo wrote:


Why would LAN capability somehow remove the latency between korea and the us?

Do you know anything about routing/latency/computer networks?

On March 21 2011 22:46 dakalro wrote:


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 22:46 goiflin wrote:


Actually, I don't think that it includes WoW; it does include, however, Starcraft/BW, Warcraft 3/TfT, and Diablo 1/2/LoD.



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 22:49 karpo wrote:


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 23:00 dakalro wrote:


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 23:00 dakalro wrote:


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 23:02 Gheed wrote:


[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 23:05 Bergys wrote:


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.

On March 21 2011 23:00 dakalro wrote:


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 23:00 dakalro wrote:


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 23:08 mmdmmd wrote:


You brought this 250ms thing up over and over again. Can you please provide some proof?

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.

I would imagine that if a crack becomes very widespread Blizzard would drop support for the game. If it happens soon we may have to kiss the expansions goodbye. What would be the point of them creating games if a large portion of people are just going to bypass the need to buy the game.

On March 21 2011 23:08 Yettyman wrote:
I would imagine that if a crack becomes very widespread Blizzard would drop support for the game. If it happens soon we may have to kiss the expansions goodbye. What would be the point of them creating games if a large portion of people are just going to bypass the need to buy the game.

I admit that bnet isn't always the most reliable and sometimes the lag is unbearable. However, they are a business that creates video games for profit.
Imagine if everyone just stole everything that they wanted. Obviously people don't care that they acting immorally and without any consideration of the consequences of their actions.

Sure the people that create the games are wealthy but what about the other people that work for the company or are associated with the video game making process.
There are secretaries, janitors, delivery men, manufacturers, store employees, etc.
You are not just pulling one over on Blizzard, you are hurting everyone in the process because if Blizzard ( or any industry) has to cut back to loss of profits they will start from the bottom up.

I still know that most people will say w/e the greedy corporation is evil and needs to be brought down as you step over the homeless man that lost his job because that same corporation had layoffs.

Besides all of that LAN will be great!

On March 21 2011 22:56 GreEny K wrote:


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...