EPTNo LAN for SC2, it's confirmed - Page 8
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
ronaldmcdonald
United States8 Posts
| ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
| ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
On June 30 2009 03:16 ronaldmcdonald wrote: This requires setting up internet connection sharing properly with different OS, which most casuals might have a hard time with, also assumes you actually have an internet connection, IE two laptops in the back of the car on a trip can't play SC2 because Blizzard wants all their money. (of course as with all piracy arguments this is assuming all the pirates have money to give to Blizzard in the first place) He was asking about professional team houses--not casuals and not pirates. I was not answering with regard to those two groups, either. | ||
|
ronaldmcdonald
United States8 Posts
| ||
|
Zabestrial
United States194 Posts
Suckish blizzard | ||
|
Kratisto
United States199 Posts
I've been lurking for months, but I wanted to add my two cents to make the landslide of criticism heavier. Maybe Blizzard will change their minds. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
| ||
|
Too_MuchZerg
Finland2818 Posts
If SC2 doesn't have LAN, perhaps Diablo 3 won't have LAN either. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On June 30 2009 03:16 zatic wrote: Well no matter how super fantastic B.net 2.0 is this won't do shit for you if you want to setup a LAN and don't have Internet or can't connect to bnet I agree with this. I honestly wouldn't care even if Bnet 2.0 did your homework, finished your chores, organized your documents, cooked you dinner, gave you blowjobs, and cured cancer. If I can't give me LAN play, then I'll be pissed. Even if Blizzard hasn't revealed their LAN replacement yet, I can pretty much guarantee you that it will work a la Steam where you need an internet connection to play offline. If by some chance it didn't, then there would be no need to freak us out over "no LAN". Getting rid of LAN benefits nobody and harms many. Anyone who gets screwed over by this decision isn't going to say "Oh well let's just get Bnet," rather they're going to say "Oh well let's get those torrents running." | ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
On June 30 2009 03:28 Kratisto wrote: Lame. No LAN means no LAN parties and having to deal with horrible B.Net lag (I'm unconvinced that B.Net 2 will improve upon this to compare with LAN or Hamachi -- In fact, that sounds impossible). It seems like they're only doing it to prevent people from playing on a LAN without buying the game. This just means more restrictions on what promises to be a great game. I've been lurking for months, but I wanted to add my two cents to make the landslide of criticism heavier. Maybe Blizzard will change their minds. How is it impossible for BattleNet 2 to be as good as, or even better than, Hamachi? Are there some kind of brilliant geniuses that will never come again that created Hamachi, or what? Hamachi for your information is a quite simple program in the grand scale of things. As mentioned many times before, the lag on the current revision of BattleNet is mostly there by choice. It a byproduct from minimizing lag spikes in an era where dial-up connections were prevalent. | ||
|
fickazzz
Germany152 Posts
On June 30 2009 03:32 Too_MuchZerg wrote: little off topic (if posted already): If SC2 doesn't have LAN, perhaps Diablo 3 won't have LAN either. i am pretty sure blizzard stated allready that D3 wont have a LAN feature | ||
|
Manaldski
229 Posts
| ||
|
ZeitgeistMovie
144 Posts
On June 29 2009 23:14 stroggos wrote: The richest people are usually the most desperate for money. QFT Blizzard is trying to be ignorant like EA. They think they can "fight" piracy. They think of piracy as an enemy. They are sorely mistaken, as other companies before them. I see piracy as a huge ocean wave, it's powerful, it's loud, it's a force to be reckoned with. If you get in the way you're going to get crushed. What Blizzard is essentially doing is trying to stop a movement, which will only end in failure. This huge wave (piracy) has no malicious intent, nature has just carved it up. Blizzard will have to move out of the way, or just get crushed. If Blizzard bans LAN, uses DRM and all those other security crap, we will see a second coming of the Spore debacle x10. | ||
|
Medzo
United States627 Posts
On June 29 2009 19:20 Phritz wrote: Have you ever played a Warcraft 3 game with 10 players on bnet? (hosted via Bnet, not with a LAN tool like Ghost++ and Listchecker)? You have delays anywhere from 2 seconds to 5 seconds. This is bullshit. My friend plays over at my apartment with me (on battle.net). And his ping is 5ms (LAN). Guys list checker and "LAN speed connection" is not actually Local Area Network. Edit for clarification: Log onto battle.net with people on the same network and create a game, then their connection to you is still a LAN. It might be laggy for other players if they join your game, but no one on your network will lag. Now if you join a game with people on your network, that isn't the same story. | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
If you've ever played an fps you probably know what a rate is. Rate is the amount of kbs that your connection to the server uses, and higher means it sends more data at faster intervals. If your rate is too low it doesn't matter how good your ping is because you're only getting data from the server every second or worse. This is why connection settings in starcraft doesn't actually do anything anymore because it was meant for dialup speeds. The reason that Hamachi and friends function so well is that the LAN netcode is different and has a hilariously high rate that would have been impossible online when starcraft came out. Now it is not only possible but easy. This is the SINGLE reason that these programs work so well - b.net is purely a matchmaking server and ignores the game once it is started. So basically, if you are satisified with all the latency changing programs that Starcraft and Warcraft 3 have to offer then you'll be satisified with Starcraft 2's netcode because all they need to change is a single number in the data files...and there will probably be more improvements than that. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On June 30 2009 03:48 ZeitgeistMovie wrote: QFT Blizzard is trying to be ignorant like EA. They think they can "fight" piracy. They think of piracy as an enemy. They are sorely mistaken, as other companies before them. I see piracy as a huge ocean wave, it's powerful, it's loud, it's a force to be reckoned with. If you get in the way you're going to get crushed. What Blizzard is essentially doing is trying to stop a movement, which will only end in failure. This huge wave (piracy) has no malicious intent, nature has just carved it up. Blizzard will have to move out of the way, or just get crushed. If Blizzard bans LAN, uses DRM and all those other security crap, we will see a second coming of the Spore debacle x10. I honestly don't think Blizzard is doing this to combat piracy. I just think that they have this wide-eyed idealistic vision of everyone playing on Bnet in harmony, and they feel that LAN is a necessary sacrifice. The reason for this outrage is that we don't want LAN to be a sacrifice. It's unnecessary and damaging to both the game's longetivity and Blizzard's reputation. The only thing Bnet 2.0 needs to be successful is to be good. There's no need to kill a perfectly viable game mode to accomplish that. | ||
|
Inzek
Chile802 Posts
i hope this feat will still be available... so a friend brings his laptop i install with my cd key an we are able to play "LAN" (however that works in bnet2) | ||
|
ZidaneTribal
United States2800 Posts
| ||
|
grimace
2 Posts
| ||
|
ClockworkBlues
Canada74 Posts
I am proud to say that I own everyone Blizzard game legitimately. But if they keep SC2 this way I will not invest a single motherfucking dime into it. This decision was not made for the gamers, they took LAN support out for selfish reasons. Why should everyone play on one gigantic server? What good will come of that? Only more money for Blizzard, only more sanctioned private data going to the Blizzard headquarters. Everyone in the world will have no choice but to play on Bnet2. To me this just feels like dictatorship. You can throw the pirating issue in there too, if you like... But think about it this way: SC2 is being made by one of the biggest gaming companies EVER. They have created the most succesful MMO of all time. They have set the precedent for RTS and hack/slash RPG's. SC2 is going to be HUGE. You don't think that people are going to set up their own servers? Or find I way to get onto Bnet without a CDkey? I garun-fucking-tee you they will. Illegitimate users will always find a way to beat the system. I am dead serious when I say I will not buy SC2 if they take out LAN. So many things about the game look dissappointing to me already that I just cannot abide this. | ||
| ||
