EPTNo LAN for SC2, it's confirmed - Page 16
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
SkY)CosMoS
Dominican Republic106 Posts
| ||
|
00Zarathustra
Bolivia419 Posts
Sorry for that. We don't only have shitty ISP here, but also shitty English schools. I won't edit it so the quotes make sense. | ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
On July 01 2009 01:26 oSS-Zarathustra wrote: Sorry for that. We don't only have shitty ISP here, but also shitty English schools. I won't edit it so the quotes make sense. made my day  | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
Regardless, my view of the analysis is off kilter slightly in that I compared a money cost with a time cost in terms of the money potentially made in that time, when in reality the time sacrificed would be recreational to begin with. Close, but not a totally accurate way to convert time and money. Since how people spend their recreational time varies so much, ultimately we're at the whims of peoples' laziness. Still, if the time and money comparison is deemed reasonable, a person making less than 60$ an hour would find that time well spent accessing a 60$ product. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 01 2009 00:56 Yenzilla wrote: 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). You people still don't get it. No LAN support might stop a few casual pirates, but why would it encourage people to buy it then? It wouldn't. Piraters will just say, "Lets find a new game then!" Furthermore, any good pirater that takes the time to get the game will make it easy for everyone following him, so it only have to be done a couple times and then it becomes easy for all pirates. Finally, the entire point is that this hurts a significant portion of the fanbase for no good reason - Blizzard didn't think this through and they sure as hell need to change this or else they are going to look like morons. | ||
|
SlayerS_`HackeR`
United States190 Posts
DO IT NAO | ||
|
CyberPitz
United States428 Posts
I'm not entirely sure why they would remove LAN. It's not exactly something I imagined them doing right off the bat. We'll have to wait and see what Blizzard has planned before judgment is passed and the ropes are tied to the trees. | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
Forgive me if I take it all with a truly massive grain of salt. | ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
Cost-benefit doesn't translate well with luxury products because they exist for your enjoyment, mostly, and you really can't measure enjoyment. This has to do with your argument that paying 100 dollars (really, 60) vs. piracy favours the latter. I would also like to point out that directly translating how 'worth it' pirating is to time vs. cost doesn't work very well unless you end up with the exact same product in the end. The inconvenience, which ideally exists to sway a potential pirate, is not limited in how much time they'd have to invest in pirating (really, not that much, especially if you know what you're doing) but the difficulty of it and how much they may stand to lose. In this case, in investing heavily on Battle.net 2.0, pirating Starcraft 2 may lose you features that might only exist there, as well as, obviously, an easy to use multiplayer. Your logic is also fairly dangerous, as it can advocate pirating everything. After all, seeing as how most modern games are $60 retail, and most people do not make that much at work in the hour (or, most likely, much less) it might take them to get a pirated copy of a game working. @Staros_speAr: Once again, there's that polarization of outcomes when it comes to pirates. Not every pirate is the type who doesn't pay for games out of principle, and, in the face of a game they might not be able to effectively pirate, go find another. After all, people have their interests, too. Let's say I really want to play Starcraft 2, and somehow find myself in a situation where I have to choose between two choices: someone offers to give me the game for free, or I'm told I have to go buy it myself. Obviously, given the choices, I would take it for free. This does not, however, mean that if I don't get it for free, I'm not going to get it at all. On the same thread, if I'm interested in a game and find myself unable to pirate it, it doesn't mean I'll suddenly lose interest because the potential that I might need to buy it comes up. Unless you're someone who is strongly against purchasing games, you are most likely going to be convinced, at least a little, that purchasing this particular game might be worth it. If, however, you can pirate it easily to begin with, well, what the hell, you don't need to even think of purchasing it, you can play it already. EDIT: Lastly, internet petitions ALWAYS WORK. | ||
|
Refrige
United States179 Posts
On June 29 2009 19:19 Tiwo wrote: I'm good for the LAN latency when you connect to b.net, but I see a problem when you have a private lan party, people bring their PC's over so your there with some friend, and guess what, you can't get the Internet work for everybody, or your ISP fails thats night. Now what? this  . I have cable internet and my router only has so many ethernet slots..how can I go on in lyfe | ||
|
CyberPitz
United States428 Posts
On July 01 2009 02:12 Refrige wrote: this . I have cable internet and my router only has so many ethernet slots..how can I go on in lyfe Go buy a Hub. Plug it into your router, and you have extra ethernet slots! | ||
|
Pufftrees
2449 Posts
edit: source http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=18031370482&sid=3000&pageNo=3 his first post + Show Spoiler + The first 4 pillars are ALL being made better. 1) Development time for StarCraft II have far exceeded the original StarCraft in both the standard of quality and duration, to ensure the highest in quality RTS experience we can possibly create. 2) Not only is it free to play online, Battle.net 2.0 is designed with the new generation of online community and eSports in mind. 3) As long as there are people playing our games, we will continue to support them, and we have continued with this tradition with our legacy titles like the original StarCraft. 4) StarCraft II was created with eSports as a cornerstone in design philosophy. StarCraft evolved into an eSport. 5) Map Editor will be better than any we have ever released. and: 6) ??? - will have to wait and see For me personally- I loved LAN parties, but the direction in which Battle.net is headed, I would always choose to play on Battle.net > 99% of the time and even if for whatever reason I did decide to lug my computer to a friend's house in this day of age (<1%), I would still be playing with them on Battle.net against others at their place. [ Post edited by Karune ] his 2nd + Show Spoiler + As mentioned by Rob Pardo in interviews, piracy is a serious problem and often times tie in closely with LAN. At the end of the day, we want the best for the community and fans that support our games, and having chunk of the community pirate the game actually hurts the community. 1) Pirated servers splinter the community instead of consolidating all players who love to play the game. Battle.net will bring players together in skirmishes, ladder play, custom games, and allow everyone the opportunity to share a common experience. 2) More people on Battle.net means more even more resources devoted to evolving this online platform to cater to further community building and new ways to enjoy the game online. World of Warcraft is a great example of a game that has evolved beyond anyone's imagination since their Day 1 and will continue to do so to better the player experience for as long as players support the title. The original StarCraft is an even better example of how 11 years later, players still love and play this title, and we will continue to support and evolve it with patches. We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better. If I were to buy StarCraft II or any other title, I know the money I spent would be going to supporting that title. Personally, I would be upset that others were freeloading while others are legitimately supporting a title that has great potential and goals of making this title have 'long legs.' If you like a song a lot, buy it, and that artist will only come out with more awesome songs for you. If you like a game, buy it, and we will promise to constantly work to make the player experience better at every corner we can. Support the causes you believe in (This is applicable to all things, not just gaming). Don't be a leech to society, innovation, and further awesome creations. | ||
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
| ||
|
despite
Bulgaria105 Posts
On July 01 2009 03:13 Pufftrees wrote: Karune is all over BNET today going against the no-lan hate. edit: source http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=18031370482&sid=3000&pageNo=3 his first post + Show Spoiler + The first 4 pillars are ALL being made better. 1) Development time for StarCraft II have far exceeded the original StarCraft in both the standard of quality and duration, to ensure the highest in quality RTS experience we can possibly create. 2) Not only is it free to play online, Battle.net 2.0 is designed with the new generation of online community and eSports in mind. 3) As long as there are people playing our games, we will continue to support them, and we have continued with this tradition with our legacy titles like the original StarCraft. 4) StarCraft II was created with eSports as a cornerstone in design philosophy. StarCraft evolved into an eSport. 5) Map Editor will be better than any we have ever released. and: 6) ??? - will have to wait and see For me personally- I loved LAN parties, but the direction in which Battle.net is headed, I would always choose to play on Battle.net > 99% of the time and even if for whatever reason I did decide to lug my computer to a friend's house in this day of age (<1%), I would still be playing with them on Battle.net against others at their place. [ Post edited by Karune ] his 2nd + Show Spoiler + As mentioned by Rob Pardo in interviews, piracy is a serious problem and often times tie in closely with LAN. At the end of the day, we want the best for the community and fans that support our games, and having chunk of the community pirate the game actually hurts the community. 1) Pirated servers splinter the community instead of consolidating all players who love to play the game. Battle.net will bring players together in skirmishes, ladder play, custom games, and allow everyone the opportunity to share a common experience. 2) More people on Battle.net means more even more resources devoted to evolving this online platform to cater to further community building and new ways to enjoy the game online. World of Warcraft is a great example of a game that has evolved beyond anyone's imagination since their Day 1 and will continue to do so to better the player experience for as long as players support the title. The original StarCraft is an even better example of how 11 years later, players still love and play this title, and we will continue to support and evolve it with patches. We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better. If I were to buy StarCraft II or any other title, I know the money I spent would be going to supporting that title. Personally, I would be upset that others were freeloading while others are legitimately supporting a title that has great potential and goals of making this title have 'long legs.' If you like a song a lot, buy it, and that artist will only come out with more awesome songs for you. If you like a game, buy it, and we will promise to constantly work to make the player experience better at every corner we can. Support the causes you believe in (This is applicable to all things, not just gaming). Don't be a leech to society, innovation, and further awesome creations. This thread you have linked to is hilarious. And I think we have all been fooled by blizzard. We all thought this is going to be SC2 or WC4 as some people say, but in the end it turned out to be blizzard's next MMO project. ( MMORTS ???? ) | ||
|
barth
Ireland1272 Posts
On July 01 2009 03:13 Pufftrees wrote: Karune is all over BNET today going against the no-lan hate. edit: source http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=18031370482&sid=3000&pageNo=3 his first post + Show Spoiler + The first 4 pillars are ALL being made better. 1) Development time for StarCraft II have far exceeded the original StarCraft in both the standard of quality and duration, to ensure the highest in quality RTS experience we can possibly create. 2) Not only is it free to play online, Battle.net 2.0 is designed with the new generation of online community and eSports in mind. 3) As long as there are people playing our games, we will continue to support them, and we have continued with this tradition with our legacy titles like the original StarCraft. 4) StarCraft II was created with eSports as a cornerstone in design philosophy. StarCraft evolved into an eSport. 5) Map Editor will be better than any we have ever released. and: 6) ??? - will have to wait and see For me personally- I loved LAN parties, but the direction in which Battle.net is headed, I would always choose to play on Battle.net > 99% of the time and even if for whatever reason I did decide to lug my computer to a friend's house in this day of age (<1%), I would still be playing with them on Battle.net against others at their place. [ Post edited by Karune ] his 2nd + Show Spoiler + As mentioned by Rob Pardo in interviews, piracy is a serious problem and often times tie in closely with LAN. At the end of the day, we want the best for the community and fans that support our games, and having chunk of the community pirate the game actually hurts the community. 1) Pirated servers splinter the community instead of consolidating all players who love to play the game. Battle.net will bring players together in skirmishes, ladder play, custom games, and allow everyone the opportunity to share a common experience. 2) More people on Battle.net means more even more resources devoted to evolving this online platform to cater to further community building and new ways to enjoy the game online. World of Warcraft is a great example of a game that has evolved beyond anyone's imagination since their Day 1 and will continue to do so to better the player experience for as long as players support the title. The original StarCraft is an even better example of how 11 years later, players still love and play this title, and we will continue to support and evolve it with patches. We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better. If I were to buy StarCraft II or any other title, I know the money I spent would be going to supporting that title. Personally, I would be upset that others were freeloading while others are legitimately supporting a title that has great potential and goals of making this title have 'long legs.' If you like a song a lot, buy it, and that artist will only come out with more awesome songs for you. If you like a game, buy it, and we will promise to constantly work to make the player experience better at every corner we can. Support the causes you believe in (This is applicable to all things, not just gaming). Don't be a leech to society, innovation, and further awesome creations. OMG Blizz is right :O There is no LAN in WoW and its popular, so why not take out LAN from SC2? ...right? | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On July 01 2009 02:12 Yenzilla wrote: Not every pirate is the type who doesn't pay for games out of principle Nobody pirates games out of principle. They pirate it because they want it for free. If you don't like a product out of principle, you can choose not to buy it, you don't STEAL it. | ||
|
CyberPitz
United States428 Posts
On July 01 2009 05:59 Zzoram wrote: Nobody pirates games out of principle. They pirate it because they want it for free. If you don't like a product out of principle, you can choose not to buy it, you don't STEAL it. Agreed. It's not like I go, "You know, I don't like that couch set." *Load into truck and drive off real fast.* | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=96603 Shit I forgot that having LAN support means people can also play online without using BNet by using programs like Hamachi. So that sinks my arguments about whether or not this would really fight piracy. I might even agree with their decision, now. Nevertheless, this doesn't change the fact that a lack of LAN support (without an internet connection) is a significant loss for a number of gamers. People who think the internet is just magically available everywhere are still idiots. | ||
|
armed_
Canada443 Posts
| ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
On July 01 2009 05:59 Zzoram wrote: Nobody pirates games out of principle. They pirate it because they want it for free. If you don't like a product out of principle, you can choose not to buy it, you don't STEAL it. Man, you completely misconstrued that. You wouldn't pirate a game you don't like to spite it, obviously, but you might (and I know some who believe this) be of the opinion that games, considering what they are, are not things one should need to pay for. It's not paying for games out of the principle that games should be free, not that 'I don't like x' game, that would just be stupid. | ||
| ||
