|
On June 29 2009 23:32 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2009 23:23 Fitzsimmons wrote:
PR FAIL.
They generated a ton of hype with the NDA... and the big announcement that everyone is focusing on is about something that the game won't have.
It's justified. Lack of LAN is ridiculous. true that, what a failure of PR. They should have kept shut until they could give 100% of the info away. Now all its gonna do is swarm the forums with complains, making them stay in a position of confrontation with the community, as if they needed it.
I don't think Blizzard really minds the negative feedback. They freely showed off SC2 when it was in pre-alpha even though they got a lot of heat for that. Obviously it doesn't matter now that the graphics look much better. Any negative PR they get now will be wiped away the moment beta comes out.
|
On June 29 2009 23:32 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2009 23:23 Fitzsimmons wrote:
PR FAIL.
They generated a ton of hype with the NDA... and the big announcement that everyone is focusing on is about something that the game won't have.
It's justified. Lack of LAN is ridiculous. true that, what a failure of PR. They should have kept shut until they could give 100% of the info away. Now all its gonna do is swarm the forums with complains, making them stay in a position of confrontation with the community, as if they needed it.
hahahaha, so true XD
|
No LAN for the beta itself is quite natural, and it is possible that some of the statements were really about the beta and that caused confusion.
No LAN for the final game will be a terrible idea, as there are places without Internet where people will still want to be able to play together. The only reason Blizzard could want to do things that way is to stop piracy, but it will end up working exactly the other way around - it will promote hackers to make an unofficial battle.net replacement even faster than otherwise.
|
This is a dumb decision. It really limits gamers.
What if you're going over to a friend's house and you've got like 4 people that want to play starcraft, but you only have one internet connection? If you play online you'll be really laggy, but lan play would be great.
|
On June 29 2009 23:25 wtfhi2u wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2009 23:09 Eury wrote:
Will smaller LAN parties, that might not be able to provide internet access to all the attendees, suffer? Most likely yes, but it is a shrinking part of their customer base Btw hipster swede guy, if you don't realize the activity around a game such as SC goes much much beyond sanctioned events (still to this day), you're a fucking moron. Go play devil's advocate elsewhere.
May you advice me why you think LAN parties without internet access today is a vital part of Blizzard's customers?
I'm really looking forward to your answer.
|
On June 30 2009 00:04 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2009 23:25 wtfhi2u wrote:On June 29 2009 23:09 Eury wrote:
Will smaller LAN parties, that might not be able to provide internet access to all the attendees, suffer? Most likely yes, but it is a shrinking part of their customer base Btw hipster swede guy, if you don't realize the activity around a game such as SC goes much much beyond sanctioned events (still to this day), you're a fucking moron. Go play devil's advocate elsewhere. May you advice me why you think LAN parties without internet access today is a vital part of Blizzard's customers? I'm really looking forward to your answer.
From what I've heard, there are several colleges that block services like BattleNet from working. No LAN would be a huge blow for those people, especially since college students make up a large portion of the gaming market.
|
On June 29 2009 19:19 GTR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2009 19:08 Suc wrote:
Now how will I play sc2 at school with mates!??!?!
But in all seriousness, Blizzard isn't retarded, they are probably implementing a feature that is similar to steam, i.e. you connect first and then you can go into LAN. I am in no way a Blizzard fan boy (sc only game), but I have complete faith in them pulling through with a successful system (hmm, may be becoming a Blizz fanboy D: ). gl playing sc2 on school computers
The computers at my uni are one year old dual cores with 2 gigs of RAM and 9800 GT's. (Used for video classes etc, although a lot of them time they are used to play games). I'm pretty sure its like that at most schools/uni's nowadays.
|
On June 30 2009 00:04 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2009 23:25 wtfhi2u wrote:On June 29 2009 23:09 Eury wrote:
Will smaller LAN parties, that might not be able to provide internet access to all the attendees, suffer? Most likely yes, but it is a shrinking part of their customer base Btw hipster swede guy, if you don't realize the activity around a game such as SC goes much much beyond sanctioned events (still to this day), you're a fucking moron. Go play devil's advocate elsewhere. May you advice me why you think LAN parties without internet access today is a vital part of Blizzard's customers? I'm really looking forward to your answer.
I didn't know that blizzard is an ISP, but to answer the question more seriously the product Blizzard sells is not Battle.net, it is a game. The way I see it Battle.net is only an extra.
On June 30 2009 00:07 ghermination wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2009 19:19 GTR wrote:On June 29 2009 19:08 Suc wrote:
Now how will I play sc2 at school with mates!??!?!
But in all seriousness, Blizzard isn't retarded, they are probably implementing a feature that is similar to steam, i.e. you connect first and then you can go into LAN. I am in no way a Blizzard fan boy (sc only game), but I have complete faith in them pulling through with a successful system (hmm, may be becoming a Blizz fanboy D: ). gl playing sc2 on school computers The computers at my uni are one year old dual cores with 2 gigs of RAM and 9800 GT's. (Used for video classes etc, although a lot of them time they are used to play games). I'm pretty sure its like that at most schools/uni's nowadays.
You probably don't know anything about my country. My personal PC had 224mb ram two years ago, but I upgraded it and know has 608mb. The number is strange because the video card is GForce2 Integrated and takes away 32mb from the memory in order to function. Processor is AMD Athlon 1.7ghz and hard disk is 18.6gb. Most of the school computers in my country have similar parameters, unless it's some school that the president or some other important political guy visited in his weekend, which happens rarely.
Edit: Sorry for the off topic, I just got floated away with the "it's that way here, so it has to be that way everywhere else" stuff.
|
On June 30 2009 00:07 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2009 00:04 Eury wrote:On June 29 2009 23:25 wtfhi2u wrote:On June 29 2009 23:09 Eury wrote:
Will smaller LAN parties, that might not be able to provide internet access to all the attendees, suffer? Most likely yes, but it is a shrinking part of their customer base Btw hipster swede guy, if you don't realize the activity around a game such as SC goes much much beyond sanctioned events (still to this day), you're a fucking moron. Go play devil's advocate elsewhere. May you advice me why you think LAN parties without internet access today is a vital part of Blizzard's customers? I'm really looking forward to your answer. From what I've heard, there are several colleges that block services like BattleNet from working. No LAN would be a huge blow for those people, especially since college students make up a large portion of the gaming market.
Yes, for people still on dial-up, and people for whatever reason can't access BattleNet, this is pretty much a raw deal. Fortunately you can without too much difficulty bypass many of those firewalls that are blocking access.
Obviously having a LAN option is preferably than not having one for most, if not all, end users. However Blizzard apparently feels that the pros outweighs the cons, and that their decision won't affect too large portion of their customer base. Otherwise they are raging mad. 
|
|
|
On June 30 2009 00:18 Eury wrote:Obviously having a LAN option is preferably than not having one for most, if not all, end users. However Blizzard apparently feels that the pros outweighs the cons, and that their decision won't affect too large portion of their customer base. Otherwise they are raging mad.
That right there is the problem. Even you admit that having LAN wouldn't hurt despite the fact that you're trying to defend Blizzard.
While it's true that internet is widespread nowadays, there are still plenty of situations where a person is without an internet connection and wants to play SC with friends. LAN parties are the most common since actually being with your friends is more fun than playing miles away from them. Like I said before, if Blizzard wants people to play on Bnet, then just make Bnet the best online experience out there. People don't play on ICCUP/hamachi/etc. to rebel against Blizzard, they play it because it's superior to Bnet. Removing LAN or making it require an internet connection does nothing but hurt players.
|
On June 30 2009 00:18 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2009 00:07 Spawkuring wrote:On June 30 2009 00:04 Eury wrote:On June 29 2009 23:25 wtfhi2u wrote:On June 29 2009 23:09 Eury wrote:
Will smaller LAN parties, that might not be able to provide internet access to all the attendees, suffer? Most likely yes, but it is a shrinking part of their customer base Btw hipster swede guy, if you don't realize the activity around a game such as SC goes much much beyond sanctioned events (still to this day), you're a fucking moron. Go play devil's advocate elsewhere. May you advice me why you think LAN parties without internet access today is a vital part of Blizzard's customers? I'm really looking forward to your answer. From what I've heard, there are several colleges that block services like BattleNet from working. No LAN would be a huge blow for those people, especially since college students make up a large portion of the gaming market. Yes, for people still on dial-up, and people for whatever reason can't access BattleNet, this is pretty much a raw deal. Fortunately you can without too much difficulty bypass many of those firewalls that are blocking access. Obviously having a LAN option is preferably than not having one for most, if not all, end users. However Blizzard apparently feels that the pros outweighs the cons, and that their decision won't affect too large portion of their customer base. Otherwise they are raging mad.
And Blizzard can't be wrong, eh? This idea is pure stupidity - there's no good reason to not include a LAN option. It kills off the idea of having any kind of LAN parties, especially if there are any internet difficulties. It will definitely mean they won't sell as many copies because people don't want to buy a game that makes it difficult to play with your buddies. Like others have said, it also increases the likelihood of pirated copies, which they CANNOT and WILL NOT stop, even if they attempt to. This is the dumbest fucking decision I have ever seen Blizzard make.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Shut up until they announce b.net 2.0.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
BNet 2.0 will be announced at somepoint. I have no idea when...just assume blizzard isn't completely retarded and that there is reasoning behind removing it...they haven't shown what it's replacement is. When they do then fan boy out to your hearts' content.
|
This blows. I want LAN. LAN parties don't always have the most stable internet connection. How the fuck do you expect to have good games when 20 guys at a house are sharing an already questionable DSL connection?
|
what will pro team houses do?
|
|
|
On June 30 2009 02:56 Machine[USA] wrote:
what will pro team houses do?
Let's say you have two people on a LAN. They both connect to battle.net and join a game together that has no players from outside that LAN. Once they click Start Game and the game lobby disappears, Battle.net is no longer an intermediary, so the two computers will be connected by the LAN and the game will proceed with 5ms latency or whatever it is that LAN has. It shouldn't be a big deal.
|
On June 30 2009 02:49 Psyqo wrote:
This blows. I want LAN. LAN parties don't always have the most stable internet connection. How the fuck do you expect to have good games when 20 guys at a house are sharing an already questionable DSL connection?
Pretty much, I can see why some people wouldn't care as much since they have amazing internet connections (Korea, Japan, Sweden, Finland....), the rest of the world has shitty DSL and cable.
|
On June 30 2009 00:51 Kennigit wrote:
BNet 2.0 will be announced at somepoint. I have no idea when...just assume blizzard isn't completely retarded and that there is reasoning behind removing it...they haven't shown what it's replacement is. When they do then fan boy out to your hearts' content.
Ok i'll have to trust them TT
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
