|
On June 30 2009 20:12 SearingShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2009 20:06 Faoladh wrote:
I just can't help but feel for oSS-Zarathustra. I know my situation is nowhere near as bad as his, but I live in a country where I suffer at labsolute best 300ms latency connecting to any US server. It's not much, but it is enough to make macro difficult, especially as things get hairy. The delay can mean the difference all too often between hitting a mine or not. (I know they've been removed.) Now if I want to play a friend at a netcafe, we are both going to get punished through lag on two computers separated by only 1 or 2 metres of physical space.
To be honest I hadn't even contemplated how this could effect people in considerably less fortunate countries, but I find it quite disenchanting that Blizzard would make a policy decision that could so jeopardise the playing experience of many fans. I know I'm being quite pessimistic reading "We will not be supporting LAN" as all information will be passed through battle.net-2, but really if local network play was to be supported, I'm personally confident that it would be advertised.
I've always been punished for playing overseas competitors due to the very substandard internet in Oz. But to be punished whilst playing personal friends in the same building is a bit much.
What's really pissing me off is the fact that I will still buy the game because this doesn't effect my home play. I've only ever played LAN at my house once. This effects my ability to duck into a netcafe and play a fun lag free 30 minute game before a movie or after uni with friends. No matter how improved bnet2 is over the original there are always going to be errors on my end of the connection slowing it down.
I'm not even getting the really short end of the stick here, it's more midrange. So I just can't help but feel for those who this decision will really effect in an extremely negative manner. You will be able to play on LAN. You just have to connect to Battle.net first. So if your on the same network as your friends, you will be able to play with no lag.
Didnt you read anything except what you wanted to read in this thread or are you this ignorant?
ITS NOT ABOUT LAG. Its about people NOT HAVING INTERNET CONNECTION AT ALL, be it because of poor ISP or lack of funds, and so not being able to connect to Battle.net. It wouldnt be a problem for them to play with friends if standard LAN feature would be applied.
|
On June 30 2009 20:27 despite wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2009 20:12 SearingShadow wrote:
You will be able to play on LAN. You just have to connect to Battle.net first. So if your on the same network as your friends, you will be able to play with no lag.
I would really like to see your source on the matter if that's not a problem. Or are you just making conclusions based on previous posts in this thread? All I have read about the differences between bnet1 i bnet2 is the option to make money transactions in order to make tournaments or set up leagues. If that's all about it I'll just give this game a good laugh and I'm not the only one.
This is what happens on Battle.net 1.0 so I am assuming it's the same for Battle.net 2.0. Custom games are P2P so if all players are on the same network, players will send information over LAN, not the internet.
- In the old Battle.net, it was P2P (Peer-2-peer). Is this different in Battle.net 2.0? (T/N: Old Battle.net forced users to connect to each other once in a game, that's why you can get disconnected from Battle.net but still be able to play)
▲ Dustin: It will be similar to Warcraft 3's router format. Gamers will be using Battle.net to play, so we will be able to check what the gamers are doing (i.e: keep track of who's abusing stats, hacking, etc).
Is it just me or sending information to the battle.net server causes delay?
Sending information to Blizzard does cause delay. I'm assuming information will only be sent to Blizzard in Automatic Matchmaking (AMM) matches, not custom games. This is how it is with Battle.net 1.0.
On June 30 2009 21:02 barth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2009 20:12 SearingShadow wrote:On June 30 2009 20:06 Faoladh wrote:
I just can't help but feel for oSS-Zarathustra. I know my situation is nowhere near as bad as his, but I live in a country where I suffer at labsolute best 300ms latency connecting to any US server. It's not much, but it is enough to make macro difficult, especially as things get hairy. The delay can mean the difference all too often between hitting a mine or not. (I know they've been removed.) Now if I want to play a friend at a netcafe, we are both going to get punished through lag on two computers separated by only 1 or 2 metres of physical space.
To be honest I hadn't even contemplated how this could effect people in considerably less fortunate countries, but I find it quite disenchanting that Blizzard would make a policy decision that could so jeopardise the playing experience of many fans. I know I'm being quite pessimistic reading "We will not be supporting LAN" as all information will be passed through battle.net-2, but really if local network play was to be supported, I'm personally confident that it would be advertised.
I've always been punished for playing overseas competitors due to the very substandard internet in Oz. But to be punished whilst playing personal friends in the same building is a bit much.
What's really pissing me off is the fact that I will still buy the game because this doesn't effect my home play. I've only ever played LAN at my house once. This effects my ability to duck into a netcafe and play a fun lag free 30 minute game before a movie or after uni with friends. No matter how improved bnet2 is over the original there are always going to be errors on my end of the connection slowing it down.
I'm not even getting the really short end of the stick here, it's more midrange. So I just can't help but feel for those who this decision will really effect in an extremely negative manner. You will be able to play on LAN. You just have to connect to Battle.net first. So if your on the same network as your friends, you will be able to play with no lag. Didnt you read anything except what you wanted to read in this thread or are you this ignorant? ITS NOT ABOUT LAG. Its about people NOT HAVING INTERNET CONNECTION AT ALL, be it because of poor ISP or lack of funds, and so not being able to connect to Battle.net. It wouldnt be a problem for them to play with friends if standard LAN feature would be applied.
The person I replied to said that he was unable to play on Battle.net because of a high latency. My response addressed this. No where in his post did he say that he had no internet connection.
|
I dont think i will buy SC2 with out lan play, i almost only play sc with my friends at the uni, and there is a firewall so tight that i dont think we will be able to connect to bnet2.
But there will probably be a pirate version with lan support with in a week and the i can buy sc2 and play the pirate version :/
|
Even if it is P2P, it still goes through my router because that's the IP which the bnet server sees me at. You may think that this one extra routing step is neglectable, but in some situations like huge corporate or university networks, or even big ISPs that don't give clients a real IP but keep them behind a NAT, it might slow things down. Maybe not a lot, but it is more than what could be possible in LAN.
And slowdowns are not the only concern. Requiring bnet adds more possible points of failure, plain and simple. Even if blizz can assure a great uptime for their own server on a fantastic ISP, my own ISP is way crappier and I am used to some periodic outages. My own old router is kinda giving up these days, so I'd need to wait to reboot it now and again, while my switch is working just fine in the meantime. Or when I forget to pay my monthly internet bill, go down to a rate that only allows me to use a single computer, or even cancel my subscription to save some cash, should I not be able to play SC2 with my roommates?
|
Really bad decision by Blizzard, now more people will have their point to play pirated versions...
Why?
People will simply need a LAN client sometimes, Starcraft was always one of the most popular games to play on LAN-parties. Now the issue is if they can't play on LAN with retail version, they will try hacked / modified versions out there.
It seems Blizzard is trying to get ALL the multiplayer games played on their new platform (BN 2.0), so they can easily handle all the tournaments, leagues and have their own complex e-sport platform (I really doubt this is to limit the piracy), so their actual income will come from all the microtransactions they are planning to implement.
Idea generally is great, it would offer new business ground for everyone who wants to contribute the e-sports (as a player, broadcaster or admin) if implemented properly, but lack of LAN support is simply really, really bad.
Cheers,
Maciej "Raven" Polak
http://www.terran.pl/
|
shocking move by blizzard
lan play was made sc1 so popular
the company has completely lost it as far as i am concerned
|
On June 30 2009 16:33 oSS-Zarathustra wrote:
...
We are COSTUMERS!!!!!!!
...
Nice post.
I think Blizzard will either fold under community pressure as shown in this thread or some nice hack-programmer might actually put his skills to good use and build a work around to make lan functional.
|
Blizzard releases SC2 without LAN.
A hacked version of SC2 that allows LAN becomes available.
The people that want/need LAN end up pirating the game.
Everyone loses.
|
Blizzard doesn't put in LAN = Rich customers get off fine. Poor customers get the shaft. Poor customers pirate game and rebel against Blizzard. Blizzard loses potential sales, and has to deal with shutting down pirates. Blizzard's reputation decreases.
Blizzard puts in LAN = All customers get off fine. People who just play LAN might be encouraged to play Bnet when they see all the new features. Blizzard gains potential sales, and their reputation increases. Everyone wins.
I really don't see how Blizzard went through the brain process of thinking LAN must be removed.
|
didn see this one coming..
|
@Spawkuring/rich-poor argument in general:
In an ideal world, people would only pirate games where its otherwise impossible to play. However, this isn't the case. If it were just 'the poor' (who probably would not have bought the game themselves, regardless), it would be much less of a problem, but given how pirating generally works (downloading large files), I would claim that's usually not the case. After all, if you're able to easily pirate a game yourself, you likely have access to the internet already (not to mention, a fair amount of available bandwidth).
The problem, however, is that a large number of people who pirate games are perfectly capable of purchasing the game, but would rather not out of convenience. If its easy to get a game working without having to pay, why the well would you bother with it? The fact is, removing LAN makes it harder and less convenient to play multiplayer with a pirated copy (simply because tools such as Hamachi make it pretty damn easy, otherwise). This extra hurdle will make it harder for what I previously mentioned as the 'casual' pirate to get an illegal copy and dissuade them from trying.
|
On June 30 2009 23:11 Yenzilla wrote:
The problem, however, is that a large number of people who pirate games are perfectly capable of purchasing the game, but would rather not out of convenience. If its easy to get a game working without having to pay, why the well would you bother with it? The fact is, removing LAN makes it harder and less convenient to play multiplayer with a pirated copy (simply because tools such as Hamachi make it pretty damn easy, otherwise). This extra hurdle will make it harder for what I previously mentioned as the 'casual' pirate to get an illegal copy and dissuade them from trying.
That argument doesn't make sense, at least not to me.
So a "casual" pirate will have harder time with the game because it doesn't have built in LAN, and because of that he is gonna go out and buy a $120 game (i guess something like that is what the full trilogy is going to cost) instead of spending one or two hours on Google to find a more elaborate way to pirate the multiplayer?
If someone really wants to pirate SC2, they will, and there is very little Blizzard can do about it. And not including LAN is only going to make a little harder for pirates while removing a functionality for the legit players.
I'm sure that makes sense in a corporate mind, but in the real world it has a bigger chance of hurting sales than of helping them.
The best way to fight piracy is to make it worthwhile to buy the game, with quality and added services, anything else just fails.
|
On June 30 2009 23:58 CrimsonLotus wrote:
If someone really wants to pirate SC2, they will, and there is very little Blizzard can do about it. And not including LAN is only going to make a little harder for pirates while removing a functionality for the legit players.
Yes, the ones who are intent on pirating the game will pirate it, but once again, those aren't the more 'casual' pirates. There's a difference between copy/pasting a crack and playing the game functionally the same, and needing to find servers entirely separate from Battle.net. I know people who are perfectly fine with the former, but would rather pay for the latter because of either a disdain for the 'smaller' feeling of private servers, or simply because its so much more of a hassle. There's a point for most people where convenience begins to outweigh being cheap (it's why plumbers, for example, have jobs), and making it difficult to pirate a game (even if its just an extra hour or two of work) will likely dissuade some (not all) from trying.
And, yes, the whole point of removing LAN is to make it harder for pirates. That's the whole point of every anti-piracy measure available. While you can't stop piracy completely with any single measure (or with a single game, for that matter), the goal is to limit the number of sales lost to it.
|
I don't see how they can remove LAN play. With satellite here, the only way to play is LAN, as the latency is so bad, internet games are impossible with the exception of TDs with latency hacks. So people say, "Well you probably just need to authenticate to B.net to get access to LAN play," which seems unlikely as there's no reason for Blizzard to withhold such information. Anyway, even if it is the case, the internet here cuts out during heavy rain/snow, and can slow to a crawl even in light weather. The only reason I have games through steam is it's offline mode, and if SC2 doesn't have that, I'm not interested in wasting my money on it.
|
On July 01 2009 00:31 `Orum wrote:
which seems unlikely as there's no reason for Blizzard to withhold such information.
Actually, if that were the case, it shouldn't come as a surprise at all for Blizzard to be keeping their mouth shut. After all, a ton of people thought last week's NDA was unwarranted, considering what we ended up learning.
|
Too much hype about BattleNet2.0 codename SKYNET!!!111one
|
I just want to be able to have a bunch of friends over play sc2 and not lag to hell cause we are all sharing one connection to the internet
|
Regarding the "casual" pirates:
For any reasonable, internet literate person, the cost-benefit analysis of paying upwards of 100 USD compared to spending at most an hour researching methods to play multiplayer without paying money favors piracy regardless. This of course won't be true for those with well above average income, but those people are inherently a minority.
The argument that some people are godawfully lazy does hold merit (basically I'll admit that some people are lamentable in this way), but it is difficult to justify via evidence since SC2 will be such a high ticket investment compared to other games on the market that the to pirate or not to pirate decision is incomparable to that in older games.
The previously posited possibility of no LAN in retail making illegal SC2 more competitive is also a danger worth fearing, though it too is also mere speculation at this point.
|
You shouldn't be allowed to post in this thread if you don't understand how P2P works. At least not until you have read all the posts in this very thread that explain why this have no barring on those with an internet connection, you will still have LAN latency if you are on LAN.
This decision largely effect those that don't have a connection, or for some other reason can't access BattleNet at all.
|
On July 01 2009 00:43 EchOne wrote:
Regarding the "casual" pirates:
For any reasonable, internet literate person, the cost-benefit analysis of paying upwards of 100 USD compared to spending at most an hour researching methods to play multiplayer without paying money favors piracy regardless. This of course won't be true for those with well above average income, but those people are inherently a minority.
The argument that some people are godawfully lazy does hold merit (basically I'll admit that some people are lamentable in this way), but it is difficult to justify via evidence since SC2 will be such a high ticket investment compared to other games on the market that the to pirate or not to pirate decision is incomparable to that in older games.
The previously posited possibility of no LAN in retail making illegal SC2 more competitive is also a danger worth fearing, though it too is also mere speculation at this point.
Except you aren't paying $100 in one go. I would liken it to the fact that while most people wouldn't be able to buy a house with money they have on hand, a pretty fair number are able to through a larger period of time. Seeing as how Blizzard won't be charging us interest on the trilogy, it makes it a fair bit easier, even.
Not only that, but you are in no way obligated to buy either of the expansions if LAN turns out to be a huge turnoff just as you weren't obligated to buy BW. The game is still perfectly functional with just the original (running approx. $60?). Hell, if you play around with numbers, you could argue a ton of people were entirely willing to pay upwards of $100 dollars for Starcraft 1 (since we're including what translates to expansions for SC2, it wouldn't be fair not to apply it here).
The standards for what constitutes as being worthwhile in terms of cost-benefit in gaming is wholly different from most other things. After all, video games are luxury products, and people already pay a lot for them (a console/proper PC will run you a few hundred a least). If $60 is considered, without argument, unreasonably expensive, you likely weren't thinking of buying games to begin with (considering how that happens to be, roughly, the standard).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
