|
On June 30 2009 04:05 grimace wrote:They *think* it'll make them more money. And they're right when it comes to esports. It's just for the rest of the userbase that it's more harmful than good.
I would think that E-Sports organizations would be the most against this. Imagine the internet suddenly going out or being unreliable in the middle of a tournament. How they're going to deal with such things is the big question that I want Blizzard to answer.
|
The problem for me is that "LAN Option" is needed for people without internet connection and still want to play multiplayer with friends.
|
This is stupid.
What does adding a LAN feature hurt them in? Add a code to your SC2 or something, so people can't just get all the files and install it everywhere, and that hurts piracy more than disabling a LAN.
What are the cons of having a LAN feature? none... So why would they remove LAN then?
|
On June 30 2009 04:13 ghrur wrote:
This is stupid.
What does adding a LAN feature hurt them in? Add a code to your SC2 or something, so people can't just get all the files and install it everywhere, and that hurts piracy more than disabling a LAN.
What are the cons of having a LAN feature? none... So why would they remove LAN then?
ehh i'm not really sure what you're saying with the whole code thing, but it wouldn't really work. the best way to stop piracy is to disable lan because then everyone would need a cd key to play. and i think they kind of want the community to be united into one area to play, instead of now where we have tons of hamachi networks and private servers etc, and bnet.
|
On June 30 2009 04:21 404.Nitrogen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2009 04:13 ghrur wrote:
This is stupid.
What does adding a LAN feature hurt them in? Add a code to your SC2 or something, so people can't just get all the files and install it everywhere, and that hurts piracy more than disabling a LAN.
What are the cons of having a LAN feature? none... So why would they remove LAN then? ehh i'm not really sure what you're saying with the whole code thing, but it wouldn't really work. the best way to stop piracy is to disable lan because then everyone would need a cd key to play. and i think they kind of want the community to be united into one area to play, instead of now where we have tons of hamachi networks and private servers etc, and bnet.
The main reason why so many private servers and the like exist is because the Bnet for SC1 is horrible. No AMM, laggy, poor features in comparison to today's standards. It has nothing to do with LAN. If Bnet 2.0 is really all it's hyped up to be, then there's no need to remove LAN since most people will go for Bnet anyway.
|
|
|
On June 30 2009 04:28 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2009 04:21 404.Nitrogen wrote:On June 30 2009 04:13 ghrur wrote:
This is stupid.
What does adding a LAN feature hurt them in? Add a code to your SC2 or something, so people can't just get all the files and install it everywhere, and that hurts piracy more than disabling a LAN.
What are the cons of having a LAN feature? none... So why would they remove LAN then? ehh i'm not really sure what you're saying with the whole code thing, but it wouldn't really work. the best way to stop piracy is to disable lan because then everyone would need a cd key to play. and i think they kind of want the community to be united into one area to play, instead of now where we have tons of hamachi networks and private servers etc, and bnet. The main reason why so many private servers and the like exist is because the Bnet for SC1 is horrible. No AMM, laggy, poor features in comparison to today's standards. It has nothing to do with LAN. If Bnet 2.0 is really all it's hyped up to be, then there's no need to remove LAN since most people will go for Bnet anyway.
it was quite inovative and sexy when it came out. i mean going from no servers or paying to free was just WTF GG
|
On June 30 2009 04:32 Abstruse wrote:
Downfall of KeSPA?
There's no need for that as long as they can afford whatever Blizzard wants to charge them in order to be Blizzard-certified (I assume Blizzard will be presenting GOM as an example of how things should work from now on). But Kespa looks like a stubborn organization in other ways, so I guess we'll see.
|
no lan?
right
now i want kespa to do their job and block sc2 on sk
+ Show Spoiler +/KiDo/Ernu were right all the time
|
On June 30 2009 03:37 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +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.
When I said it was impossible for B.Net to be as good as a LAN, I was specifically referring to a real LAN, not a VPN (Hamachi). This is necessarily true. Whether or not it will surpass Hamachi is yet to be seen.
|
Wow. Bad move Blizzard, bad move.
|
Denying legitimate customers worthwhile features is the best kind of DRM~!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 30 2009 04:43 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:no lan? right now i want kespa to do their job and block sc2 on sk + Show Spoiler +/KiDo/Ernu were right all the time
Why are you speaking of yourself in 3rd person -.-
And while no LAN sucks, it really does not mean the end of competition. I believe the people that say you'll be able to play LAN-style over Bnet, the only reason I dislike the removal of LAN is that it means removing a feature of SC1. Why should a sequel take a step back?
So, no LAN = BAD, but not the end of the world.
KESPA can't block SC2 anyway, and I have no idea why you would want them to. It's up to the public to decide which game they prefer.
|
|
|
The benefits of removing this well used and appreciated capability are unproven at best. I sincerely hope upcoming information regarding B.Net 2.0 will reveal reasonable justifications for this decision.
|
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
4 years ago my public school had random computers laying around that could play halo, I'm sure many schools have comps that can play sc2. They certainly will by the time SC2 has been around a while.
|
On June 30 2009 05:17 FrozenArbiter wrote:Why are you speaking of yourself in 3rd person -.-
sheesh i dont want a ban again
|
1337 Total Signatures
lol I'm not gonna sign it so I don't screw that sacred number.
|
|
|
Even if they implement some bizarre system where all you have to do is let B.net check the players and THEN it lets you play in a LAN-ish fasion, there is still the problem of having to deal with ISPs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
