| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Redouane
Algeria12 Posts
http://www.readmore.de/index.php?cont=news&id=5583 http://starcraft.incgamers.com/blog/comments/no-lan-in-starcraft-ii-confirmed/ "we don't have any plans to support LAN," he said and clarified "we will not support it." The only multiplayer available will be on Battle.net. your thoughts ? i think that sucks please, sign this http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
| ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
I feel bad for those that have less than stellar internet access though. This doesn't really come as a surprise though; Blizzard wants to focus the whole community in one place, and this will also help combat piracy somewhat. Sure, there will be private servers, but as long as they shut down the more popular ones, private servers will be unattractive for most players. | ||
|
DeCoup
Australia1933 Posts
On June 29 2009 18:32 Klockan3 wrote: That hopefully means that B-net 2.0 allows for you to customize the latency yourself. Its been 11 years. Latency will not be an issue on b.net 2.0. Or at worst online latency will be better than sc1 LAN latency. The amount of net coding blizzard has learned in the last 11 years makes me positive of this. | ||
|
tobi9999
United States1966 Posts
| ||
|
shindigs
United States4795 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On June 29 2009 18:35 Eury wrote: I feel bad for those that have less than stellar internet access though. Why? They can still play as if it was a Lan. As long as all of them logs into B-net the host is still the one everyone connects to in the game so the game would play just as if it were a Lan as long as you can set the latency to whatever you want. The difference is of course that piracy gets harder which is good. | ||
|
Impulse
United States18 Posts
Personally I believe it probably will have something like LAN, you just need to log on first to verify that you have a legit copy. Seems like a logical thing for Blizzard to do atleast IMO. | ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
The only people this affects is those without an internet connection. | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66172 Posts
| ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
On June 29 2009 18:51 konadora wrote: But LAN makes playing at lan shops fun LAN shops don't have an internet connection? | ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
On June 29 2009 18:42 Klockan3 wrote: Why? They can still play as if it was a Lan. As long as all of them logs into B-net the host is still the one everyone connects to in the game so the game would play just as if it were a Lan as long as you can set the latency to whatever you want. The difference is of course that piracy gets harder which is good. I meant people that are still using dial-up, or for some reason sitting behind a firewall that can't access Bnet (even though you can bypass that if you know what you are doing). | ||
motbob
United States12546 Posts
| ||
|
Tracil
Australia505 Posts
| ||
|
Suc
Australia1569 Posts
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: ). | ||
|
chongu
Malaysia2586 Posts
and avoiding the lags/latency issues are the sole purpose of me going to LAN shops : ( | ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
On June 29 2009 19:08 chongu wrote: Not good for people living in developing countries where ISP monopolize and give inconsistent lousy connections and avoiding the lags/latency issues are the sole purpose of me going to LAN shops : ( If the LAN shop has an internet connection, you will still be able to play on LAN. You will just need to connect to Bnet first. | ||
|
Garnet
Vietnam9022 Posts
| ||
GTR
51468 Posts
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 | ||
|
Tiwo
Netherlands306 Posts
Now what? | ||
|
Latham
9562 Posts
But looking on the bright side I think B.net 2.0 will largely make up for it! | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5598 Posts
On June 29 2009 18:42 Klockan3 wrote: Why? They can still play as if it was a Lan. As long as all of them logs into B-net the host is still the one everyone connects to in the game so the game would play just as if it were a Lan as long as you can set the latency to whatever you want. The difference is of course that piracy gets harder which is good. I'm no expert, but afaik you'd still have to connect through your internet provider and not directly between the two computers. | ||
|
Phritz
Philippines1 Post
On June 29 2009 18:37 DeCoup wrote: Its been 11 years. Latency will not be an issue on b.net 2.0. Or at worst online latency will be better than sc1 LAN latency. The amount of net coding blizzard has learned in the last 11 years makes me positive of this. 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. I can understand if they're trying to squash things like Garena (up to 90,000 peeps playing WC3 DotA on it, maybe 75% illegal keys and 25% knowing that the lat on Garena is 100 times better than on Bnet) but if the lat on SC2 is anything like WC3 then making multiplayer exclusively via BNet is a horrible decision on Blizzards part. Not to mention how the starleagues will react. You do remember when they refused to upgrade to 1.16 because of some lag issues? Well afaik they wont be able to do that now. I just get the feeling that Blizzard is starting to care a lot more about how much money they can make... | ||
|
stafu
Australia1196 Posts
| ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
On June 29 2009 19:20 maybenexttime wrote: I'm no expert, but afaik you'd still have to connect through your internet provider and not directly between the two computers. If the connections are on the same local area network, the information will be sent straight to the other computers, not over the internet. | ||
|
Vasoline73
United States7801 Posts
Whatever. It just seems like a dumb choice | ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
On June 29 2009 19:23 Vasoline73 wrote: Really fucking stupid imo. No reason to get rid of it other than to be greedy because they want people playing with CD keys. Whatever. It just seems like a dumb choice It is outrageous that Blizzard wants people to buy their game and not steal it! Blizzard is a business. One of their goals is to make money. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5598 Posts
On June 29 2009 19:22 SearingShadow wrote: If the connections are on the same local area network, the information will be sent straight to the other computers, not over the internet. And how will the game know that that's the case? How will the Bnet 2.0 know that they're not supposed to be connected like regular players? | ||
|
I3oxerfan
215 Posts
Really sad news. They can't stop stupid people from pirating their games but without lan, thei are punishing the whole community. | ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
On June 29 2009 19:30 maybenexttime wrote: And how will the game know that that's the case? How will the Bnet 2.0 know that they're not supposed to be connected like regular players? When your in a game with another player, information is sent between them. This information goes directly between the two players. The information does not go to the Blizzard server. If two players are on the same network the information will travel just like if you were on LAN. It does this in Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 1. I'm sure it will be the same with Starcraft 2. | ||
|
foeffa
Belgium2115 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5598 Posts
On June 29 2009 19:34 SearingShadow wrote: When your in a game with another player, information is sent between them. This information goes directly between the two players. The information does not go to the Blizzard server. If two players are on the same network the information will travel just like if you were on LAN. It does this in Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 1. I'm sure it will be the same with Starcraft 2. Yes, but doesn't the information go through the internet? I always thought that was the case. | ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 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. I can understand if they're trying to squash things like Garena (up to 90,000 peeps playing WC3 DotA on it, maybe 75% illegal keys and 25% knowing that the lat on Garena is 100 times better than on Bnet) but if the lat on SC2 is anything like WC3 then making multiplayer exclusively via BNet is a horrible decision on Blizzards part. Not to mention how the starleagues will react. You do remember when they refused to upgrade to 1.16 because of some lag issues? Well afaik they wont be able to do that now. I just get the feeling that Blizzard is starting to care a lot more about how much money they can make... WC3's version of Bnet was still made for dial-up connections and not broadband. The extra "lag" is by purpose to make it more stable if you play on dial-up. Bnet 2 will be made for broadband connections, you won't be needing hamachi, garena etc to get better latency. | ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
On June 29 2009 19:38 maybenexttime wrote: Yes, but doesn't the information go through the internet? I always thought that was the case. No. Your router wont send the information to your ISP just to have it sent back. Your router will send the information straight to the other computer. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
Blizzard has just placed everyone who is interested in multiplayer at the mercy of their internet service. | ||
Hyde
Australia14568 Posts
On June 29 2009 19:42 Fen wrote: Blizzard has just placed everyone who is interested in multiplayer at the mercy of their internet service. That can't be good news, not for Australians anyway | ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 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. I can understand if they're trying to squash things like Garena (up to 90,000 peeps playing WC3 DotA on it, maybe 75% illegal keys and 25% knowing that the lat on Garena is 100 times better than on Bnet) but if the lat on SC2 is anything like WC3 then making multiplayer exclusively via BNet is a horrible decision on Blizzards part. Not to mention how the starleagues will react. You do remember when they refused to upgrade to 1.16 because of some lag issues? Well afaik they wont be able to do that now. I just get the feeling that Blizzard is starting to care a lot more about how much money they can make... On Battle.net, 250ms delay is added to your latency to reduce in game lag spikes. Programs like Ghost++ and Listchecker reduce this delay to 80-100. Your ping in game is still the same but the added delay has been reduced. Changing the Latency settings in a Starcraft game changes the delay Battle.net adds. | ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
On June 29 2009 19:42 Fen wrote: What happens when my internet is capped and cant get onto bnet? Capped means slowed down because you have reached your download cap? In that case you will still be able to get on Battle.net. Even if your speed is very poor, you will still be able to play will people on your network at very fast speeds. What happens when my internet is down? You will not be able to play multi player. What happens when we have lans that we cant get everyone onto an internet connection? Why can't you get them onto an internet connection? | ||
|
despite
Bulgaria105 Posts
On June 29 2009 18:30 Redouane wrote: your thoughts ? i think that sucks It sucks. I probably won't play this game. | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
If there is even 5 ping it is seriously stupid. This is not like Blizzard at all. I sure hope they at least fix bnet 2.0 to allow more than one connection per IP onto the internet at once... if that isnt fixed then FML | ||
|
DragoonPK
3259 Posts
| ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
On June 29 2009 19:54 SearingShadow wrote: What happens when my internet is capped and cant get onto bnet? Capped means slowed down because you have reached your download cap? In that case you will still be able to get on Battle.net. Even if your speed is very poor, you will still be able to play will people on your network at very fast speeds. What happens when my internet is down? You will not be able to play multi player. What happens when we have lans that we cant get everyone onto an internet connection? Why can't you get them onto an internet connection? Because the internet is unreliable and every computer is different. If you have a LAN party of 15 people you honestly think they will all get connected without a hitch? Is Blizzard seriously this stupid? I'm baffled right now | ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
On June 29 2009 19:58 HuskyTheHusky wrote: They better allow me to play with my roommates without having ANY ping. If there is even 5 ping it is seriously stupid. This is not like Blizzard at all. I sure hope they at least fix bnet 2.0 to allow more than one connection per IP onto the internet at once... if that isnt fixed then FML I've never had problems with multiple IPs connecting to Battle.net. | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
On June 29 2009 20:00 SearingShadow wrote: I've never had problems with multiple IPs connecting to Battle.net. In my last 3 places of residence I havent been able to connect to WC3 or sc with more than one computer per house. Its a pretty well documented problem, works for some people and doesnt work for a lot of others. | ||
|
Suc
Australia1569 Posts
Yeah lol I know my school computers would fail hard with sc2, it's just so many fond memories of LAN sc at school :D | ||
|
despite
Bulgaria105 Posts
Edit: To make it a longer post... What I mean is that gathering with friends is more fun than just staying in front of the screen and playing all day long like a game bot. Heroes 3 can be played on the internet but has always been more fun with hot seat. Same thing goes for starcraft lan parties. Its not the game that makes the fun, its friends. | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
Also, being connected to the internet can cause problems of its own. One more thing to make your computer crash -_- | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
On June 29 2009 20:03 despite wrote: Starcraft without lan is like Heroes 3 without hot seat. might want to clarify that you meant HoMaM  edit: didnt mean for double post  | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On June 29 2009 20:02 HuskyTheHusky wrote: In my last 3 places of residence I havent been able to connect to WC3 or sc with more than one computer per house. Its a pretty well documented problem, works for some people and doesnt work for a lot of others. You probably do something wrong, I never had a problem with it. And yes you do get 0 ping to each other if you do. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
On June 29 2009 19:54 SearingShadow wrote: What happens when my internet is capped and cant get onto bnet? Capped means slowed down because you have reached your download cap? In that case you will still be able to get on Battle.net. Even if your speed is very poor, you will still be able to play will people on your network at very fast speeds. Ever tried it? Its frustrating. Getting a game going can take a very long time when on Lan it would be done in 10 seconds. On June 29 2009 19:54 SearingShadow wrote:What happens when my internet is down? You will not be able to play multi player. And thats fair how? Will blizzard pay for internet upgrades in Australia for us? On June 29 2009 19:54 SearingShadow wrote:What happens when my internet is down?What happens when we have lans that we cant get everyone onto an internet connection? Why can't you get them onto an internet connection? How many lans have you been to? Its a problem we encounter EVERY time. Generally due to not having the appropriate hardware to get everyone on the net. The bottom line is that paying customers are going to be screwed over so blizzard can make it slightly harder for the non-paying customers. And everyone already knows that removing LAN is going to do fuck all to reduce pirating of this game. What if im on a plane with a buddy and we wanna play starcraft 2 on our laptops to kill the time? | ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
On June 29 2009 20:07 HuskyTheHusky wrote: And also doesnt that mean that all these professional events will have to have internet connections on all their computers... thats just one more thing to go wrong while setting up computers between matches. Also, being connected to the internet can cause problems of its own. One more thing to make your computer crash -_- Once the game has started the internet connection because irrelevant. Even if the connection disconnects it will not affect the game. Pretty sure an internet connection can't crash a computer. | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
On June 29 2009 20:12 Klockan3 wrote: You probably do something wrong, I never had a problem with it. And yes you do get 0 ping to each other if you do. Yes. I do something wrong by connecting 2 computers to the internet and then trying to connect to battle.net. There really isnt much that you can screw up. I know of more people who have problems with multiple accounts on one IP address than I know who have no problem. I am glad it works for you. If you have the magic answer onto how its my fault that it doesnt work then please, feel free to share it. Until then, Starcraft 2 not having LAN makes playing with friends a nightmare. I really dont see the point. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
On June 29 2009 20:02 HuskyTheHusky wrote: In my last 3 places of residence I havent been able to connect to WC3 or sc with more than one computer per house. Its a pretty well documented problem, works for some people and doesnt work for a lot of others. Ive actually had the same problem, I think it ended up being something with the modem as it went away when we got a new one. Ive also had a problem where people cannot join my games on battlenet. Not a problem when your playing via LAN. | ||
|
shaozu
China178 Posts
not to mention to make it even harder to set up an "offline" event here. | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
On June 29 2009 20:17 Fen wrote: Ive actually had the same problem, I think it ended up being something with the modem. Ive also had a problem where people cannot join my games on battlenet. Not a problem when your playing via LAN. Yeah, I've had 3 different modems, 2 different internet providers, and 3 different routers and have always had the same problem. Thankfully at my new place I can have people join my games (never could before) so thats a good change I suppose. I just dont see why they'd expect e-sports events to have all their computers connected to the internet. That just seems like it would cause a world of pain considering something as small as a mouse, keyboard, headphones, LAN, monitor etc etc etc can cause delays. | ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
On June 29 2009 20:18 shaozu wrote: this is terrible for chinese progamers...we don't have good internet connections like korea. You can play on LAN through Bnet. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
And if your in a LAN cafe and you want to throw out an open invitation for anyone whos on the LAN with you to play a game of starcraft 2. How do you go about doing this using Bnet? With LAN its as simple as going to the lan lobby and making a game. | ||
|
shaozu
China178 Posts
i thought the lan option was removed. so there is stillt the lan option but you have to access bnet first? | ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
On June 29 2009 20:23 Fen wrote: And if your in a LAN cafe and you want to throw out an open invitation for anyone whos on the LAN with you to play a game of starcraft 2. How do you go about doing this using Bnet? With LAN its as simple as going to the lan lobby and making a game. Hopefully Blizzard adds the ability to filter games so that you can only see games hosted by people on your network. | ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
On June 29 2009 20:26 shaozu wrote: i thought the lan option was removed. so there is stillt the lan option but you have to access bnet first? If you play on battle.net with people on the same network as you, there will be no lag. | ||
|
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
what's stopping someone, yes someone.... creates a custom program..... yes a custom program... that bypass the BNET requirement to play on LAN? ZING!!!! and besides, we didn't even get to play on the BNET 2 yet, everyone comes straight to the conclusion that ppl with fucked up ISP is gonna get screwed over... wait till we get to the beta then start your QQ's although blizzard should just do everyone a favor and let us play on LAN without going through BNET. it does jack squat against piracies, and took away so much from this game... | ||
|
IceCube
Croatia1403 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
although blizzard should just do everyone a favor and let us play on LAN without going through BNET. it does jack squat against piracies, and took away so much from this game... .. Which is why all the "QQ"ing is justified. | ||
|
520
United States2822 Posts
Seriously, I think this is a great move. It squashes piracy without eliminating the core LAN capabilities in the game. | ||
|
Samurai-
Slovenia2035 Posts
On June 29 200+ 9 20:27 SearingShadow wrote: If you play on battle.net with people on the same network as you, there will be no lag. Lan through B.net? What kind of bullshit is this.. Playing on LAN means playing games without internet.. That is the point of LAN ( local area network ). There is no gateway ( Router ) that connects to modem that connects to the internet.. Specialy when there are 50 + computer in LAN.. When friends say hey, lets have a LAN party, it doesnt mean we ll connect 50 computers together and browse the same page, it means we ll create local games and play them, only us, NO LAG. Saying you can have LAN on bnet is moronic, (specialy because places for large amounts of people usually dont have the internet at all <- true lanparties in out town) and you need to get to bnet first, and sc2 not having lan is utterly retarded.. blizzard, you greedy bastards.. | ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
On June 29 2009 20:33 Shizuru~ wrote: although blizzard should just do everyone a favor and let us play on LAN without going through BNET. it does jack squat against piracies, and took away so much from this game... This just isn't true. It won't stop all piracy but it will hinder it quite a bit. People are lazy, if you make it harder to pirate, many will just buy the game instead because it just isn't worth the trouble playing on private servers. If you can just download a game from a torrent site,install it and then click play, many will do that because it is convenient and free. | ||
|
DeCoup
Australia1933 Posts
You won't need a fast internet connection to use battle.net (for lan), all you are downloading is the chat window and the list of open games. Once you connect your information is sent via LAN and there will be 0 latency. Even with multiple people connecting from 1 connection it won't really make much difference. @WC3 was still crap with 12 players. WC3 is 7 years old and its latency and lag compensation systems are hardly comparable to sc2. I 100% support this change. I hope that all of you who mentioned having a heap of mates over for a SC lan all own a copy btw. | ||
|
Psycho-SoniC
Switzerland31 Posts
a) As an honest customer I am being denied a STANDARD and IMPORTANT feature for absolutely no reason. It's to prevent pirating? Ok but as a paying customer I don't care about pirates. I just want to be able to play in my LAN. b) Pirates will find a way to create some kind of local server / BNet anyway. So basically this is just another kind of barrier like all copy protection measures are: A pain for the paying customer and furthermore no real protection against pirates. I'm sure Blizz will include LAN play in the end because lots of ppl won't like this decision. | ||
|
Boundz(DarKo)
5311 Posts
| ||
|
MidKnight
Lithuania884 Posts
I just hope Blizz will implement something of that sort in SC II, because otherwise it will suck big time | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
On June 29 2009 20:55 Eury wrote: This just isn't true. It won't stop all piracy but it will hinder it quite a bit. People are lazy, if you make it harder to pirate, many will just buy the game instead because it just isn't worth the trouble playing on private servers. If you can just download a game from a torrent site,install it and then click play, many will do that because it is convenient and free. Which is why instead of removing LAN, blizzard should focus on making battlenet destroy private servers. People wanna get a game, install and play. If they get an awesome matchmaking service, a ladder, support for all sorts of custom stuff that they want to do, people will want to play bnet instead of some crappy private server in which its a hassle to get games going, has no built in matchmaking services or ladders etc. If Bnet 2.0 is as kickass as they say its going to be, then the only people who pirate are the people who arent going to pay for the game regardless. Everyone else will be paying for the game so they can get onto bnet. | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
Am I misunderstanding something here? How are you supposed to have huge tournaments at events like this? Anyone? | ||
|
Samurai-
Slovenia2035 Posts
On June 29 2009 21:06 HuskyTheHusky wrote: One thing no one is talking about is huge events with 500-5000 people (I dont know if there is larger ones). They SERIOUSLY expect events like that to have internet for every member there and expect them to have it for tournaments? Am I misunderstanding something here? How are you supposed to have huge tournaments at events like this? Anyone? Maybe blizzard will implement additional paying service that you need to pay like WOW to have LAN enabled .. | ||
|
Samurai-
Slovenia2035 Posts
On June 29 2009 20:59 DeCoup wrote: I 100% support this change. I hope that all of you who mentioned having a heap of mates over for a SC lan all own a copy btw. Copy? You mean own original copy? | ||
|
Murlox
France1699 Posts
Will progamers have to play on two boots using Internet network now? "LAGUUUUUUU" "DROPO DROPO DROPO" Huh? | ||
|
prOxi.tRuK_
Australia2 Posts
| ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
On June 29 2009 21:03 Fen wrote: Which is why instead of removing LAN, blizzard should focus on making battlenet destroy private servers. People wanna get a game, install and play. If they get an awesome matchmaking service, a ladder, support for all sorts of custom stuff that they want to do, people will want to play bnet instead of some crappy private server in which its a hassle to get games going, has no built in matchmaking services or ladders etc. If Bnet 2.0 is as kickass as they say its going to be, then the only people who pirate are the people who arent going to pay for the game regardless. Everyone else will be paying for the game so they can get onto bnet. They seem to going for both: removing LAN and trying to make Battle.net 2 as good experience as possible. While I'm not ecstatic over no LAN, I can see why they are doing it. This is something that affect a shrinking part of their audience, that will continue to get smaller in the future. They obviously think that the benefits outweighs the part of their customers this decision inconvenience. | ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
On June 29 2009 21:06 HuskyTheHusky wrote: One thing no one is talking about is huge events with 500-5000 people (I dont know if there is larger ones). They SERIOUSLY expect events like that to have internet for every member there and expect them to have it for tournaments? Am I misunderstanding something here? How are you supposed to have huge tournaments at events like this? Anyone? Pretty sure that Pro leagues and events will have their own special servers. Kinda how WoW events and leagues works today. You can draw a conclusion from that, that if you want to run an event or a PRO league in SC 2 you will have to be sanctioned by Blizzard ala GomTV. Kespa won't be happy. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 29 2009 20:59 DeCoup wrote: @Shaped internet connection, or dial-up regions. You won't need a fast internet connection to use battle.net (for lan), all you are downloading is the chat window and the list of open games. Once you connect your information is sent via LAN and there will be 0 latency. Even with multiple people connecting from 1 connection it won't really make much difference. @WC3 was still crap with 12 players. WC3 is 7 years old and its latency and lag compensation systems are hardly comparable to sc2. I 100% support this change. I hope that all of you who mentioned having a heap of mates over for a SC lan all own a copy btw. 1) Everyone owns SC. 2) If they don't, it's free advertisement -_- "OMG this game is awesome, I'm gonna go buy it now so we can play 2v2s on bnet". Supporting this change is stupid. Why should I be punished for something someone else might do :/ It's stupid, it's wrong, it shouldn't happen. Having a FEATURE (yes, LAN play is a FEATURE) that was present in SC1 taken away from me, is BAD. I don't see how you can support this - understand it, yes, but support? | ||
|
lazz
Australia3119 Posts
| ||
|
WolfStar
United Kingdom155 Posts
| ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
On June 29 2009 21:26 FrozenArbiter wrote: 1) Everyone owns SC. 2) If they don't, it's free advertisement -_- "OMG this game is awesome, I'm gonna go buy it now so we can play 2v2s on bnet". Supporting this change is stupid. Why should I be punished for something someone else might do :/ It's stupid, it's wrong, it shouldn't happen. Having a FEATURE (yes, LAN play is a FEATURE) that was present in SC1 taken away from me, is BAD. I don't see how you can support this - understand it, yes, but support? 1) Sadly not true. Diablo 2, Warcraft 3 and WoW are all more successful games for Blizzard when it comes to profits. I'm sure they want and expect that Starcraft 2 will be a bigger game than their previous titles (except WoW...). 2) True, piracy can have some beneficial effects, however you can argue about how large those are for a company like Blizzard that is pretty much a household name by now when it come to game companies. Well, only reason I see why someone would favor this change would be that it somehow would lead to a stronger Bnet community. However I think a good enough Bnet 2 is enough to allow for that without removing all other options. I got a feeling that Blizzard wants more control over their work this time around, and that is the reason for the change. | ||
|
Murlox
France1699 Posts
On June 29 2009 21:26 Eury wrote: [Pretty sure that Pro leagues and events will have their own special servers. Kinda how WoW events and leagues works today. You can draw a conclusion from that, that if you want to run an event or a PRO league in SC 2 you will have to be sanctioned by Blizzard ala GomTV. Kespa won't be happy. Sharp reasoning. I don't know how the money is managed between Kespa, OGN, MBC and Blizzard as of now. I find it legally unlikely that Blizzard is out of Korean business, and i would appreciate to get enlighten on this... In any case, forcing any authority to get a server would ensure Blizzard more cash. | ||
|
ggfobster
United States298 Posts
| ||
|
despite
Bulgaria105 Posts
On June 29 2009 21:19 Murlox wrote: ESPORTS? Will progamers have to play on two boots using Internet network now? "LAGUUUUUUU" "DROPO DROPO DROPO" Huh? AhAHAHaH you're right PLAGUUUUU will be replaced by LAGUUUUUUUUUUU... or more like TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE LAGUUUUUUUUUUU. | ||
|
.Ix
Philippines266 Posts
| ||
|
Thug[ro]
Romania340 Posts
| ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
That being said, I still oppose this decision to remove LAN just because there's no guarantee I will always have an internet connection. If Blizzard wants a large Bnet community, then all they have to do is make it the best online experience possible. It's no different than piracy: make the game fun and people will buy it even if they could just as easily pirate it. No need to punish innocent people and remove options just to force a feature down our throats. | ||
|
MrRey
183 Posts
| ||
|
dhe95
United States1213 Posts
| ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On June 29 2009 22:12 ThugTerran wrote: bad decision Very. | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
| ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
On June 29 2009 21:37 Eury wrote: 1) Sadly not true. Diablo 2, Warcraft 3 and WoW are all more successful games for Blizzard when it comes to profits. I'm sure they want and expect that Starcraft 2 will be a bigger game than their previous titles (except WoW...). 2) True, piracy can have some beneficial effects, however you can argue about how large those are for a company like Blizzard that is pretty much a household name by now when it come to game companies. Well, only reason I see why someone would favor this change would be that it somehow would lead to a stronger Bnet community. However I think a good enough Bnet 2 is enough to allow for that without removing all other options. I got a feeling that Blizzard wants more control over their work this time around, and that is the reason for the change. 1) links? starcraft has sold over 10million copies...i thought it would be there their 2nd most profitable game so far. | ||
|
MrRey
183 Posts
http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html | ||
|
ggfobster
United States298 Posts
| ||
|
AdunToridas
Germany380 Posts
On June 29 2009 18:41 shindigs wrote: Blizzards counter to Hamachi? Yep, I thought of the same. If they make us to pay for Bnet2 we won't be able to dodge it.. | ||
|
Dyllyn
Singapore670 Posts
| ||
|
barth
Ireland1272 Posts
On June 29 2009 20:43 IceCube wrote: Its just to stop the illegal copies from playing and I support this 100% coz I have a good internet connection which works 100% of the time and I dont give a shit about people who dont and wont be able to play multiplayer at all a lot of the times. ...fixed + Show Spoiler + On June 29 2009 21:19 Murlox wrote: ESPORTS? Will progamers have to play on two boots using Internet network now? "LAGUUUUUUU" "DROPO DROPO DROPO" Huh? Ahh, Korean commentators jokes never get old  | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 29 2009 21:37 Eury wrote: 1) Sadly not true. Diablo 2, Warcraft 3 and WoW are all more successful games for Blizzard when it comes to profits. I'm sure they want and expect that Starcraft 2 will be a bigger game than their previous titles (except WoW...). 2) True, piracy can have some beneficial effects, however you can argue about how large those are for a company like Blizzard that is pretty much a household name by now when it come to game companies. Well, only reason I see why someone would favor this change would be that it somehow would lead to a stronger Bnet community. However I think a good enough Bnet 2 is enough to allow for that without removing all other options. I got a feeling that Blizzard wants more control over their work this time around, and that is the reason for the change. Eh, SC is the #1 selling PC RTS of all time, so that puts it ahead of WC3 at least. D2 I dunno, WoW definitely not. EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_video_games According to this, SC curbstomps D2's salesfigures. The sources are fairly old in some cases tho, WC3 especially is probably way higher than listed. EDIT2: Actually that list sucks, it seems hard to find any up to date info. But given the Guinness entry for SC, I think it's safe to say it beats WC3 in sales. | ||
|
Flopgun
Germany274 Posts
On June 29 2009 22:12 ThugTerran wrote: bad decision !!! | ||
|
wtfhi2u
United States65 Posts
| ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
| ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
On June 29 2009 22:29 stroggos wrote: 1) links? starcraft has sold over 10million copies...i thought it would be there their 2nd most profitable game so far. http://www.blizzard.com/us/press/080628.html The Diablo franchise had sold 18.5 million copies one year ago, a huge majority of those copies are Diablo 2. No lifetime sale numbers have ever been given out about Warcraft but we have a quote from Rob Pardo from this year's GDC that give us an indication at least. "...WarCraft III had been the company’s most successful game to date with no added subscription, but World of Warcraft ended up blowing that game’s sales out of the water..." http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22912 Now, maybe Starcraft and Diablo 2 somehow in the last few years outsold Warcraft 3 by a huge amount of copies, but I somehow doubt that. Safe to say no matter what, Blizzard is going to have tremendous expectations about SC 2 sale numbers. | ||
|
wtfhi2u
United States65 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
| ||
zatic
Zurich15342 Posts
However, it hurts ESPORTS big time. It's just not conceivable to have people play over battle.net on LAN events. I have yet to go to a LAN where there was no networking and / or internet problem. And I have my doubts if they can handle hundreds of simultaneous connections from one IP for bigger LAN events. Effectively this will kill SC2 for the LAN scene, which would just hurt the game. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5598 Posts
I know many people that use pirated games (unfortunately it's still an issue in Poland ;/) and absolutely none of them would buy the game in a situation they can't play an illegal copy. That's because they're like locust - they don't care if the game they're gonna be playing for the next week and then throw away is a true masterpiece like StarCraft 2 or some "half-assed WW2 RTS 3." So since Blizzard are unlikely to increase their their revenue, how do they benefit from no LAN? ;/ | ||
|
lokiM
United States3407 Posts
On June 29 2009 18:55 SearingShadow wrote: LAN shops don't have an internet connection? what lan centers do you go to? O_o ofc they have a connection | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On June 29 2009 23:09 zatic wrote: This is hardly about money they know quite well that a week after release there will be an illegal battle.net simulator or something similar out there that will let you play on LAN. However, it hurts ESPORTS big time. It's just not conceivable to have people play over battle.net on LAN events. I have yet to go to a LAN where there was no networking and / or internet problem. And I have my doubts if they can handle hundreds of simultaneous connections from one IP for bigger LAN events. Effectively this will kill SC2 for the LAN scene, which would just hurt the game. I really don't think Blizzard would just kill LAN if they didn't have a viable alternative in place. It's not as if Blizzard is ignorant on the issue. They know very well why we want LAN and what it does for e-sports. Bnet 2.0 will more than likely have a LAN-like feature to make up for it. I still think they should just put it in just to accommodate those without decent internet, but it's naive to assume that Blizzard is just doing this without a second thought. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
They dont need it. | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
On June 29 2009 23:04 wtfhi2u wrote: And really, coming out of Blizzard, are they THAT desperate for money, with their huge WOW cash cow (I should know I've been giving them 15/mo for 2 yrs on multiple accounts) that they have to not include LAN on SC2? Really? Fucking scrooges. The richest people are usually the most desperate for money. | ||
|
wtfhi2u
United States65 Posts
| ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
On June 29 2009 23:15 wtfhi2u wrote: LAN shops never needed to have a connection that could handle that many people on it, because you played on LAN (I know, what a concept). Now they do. This is just gay times over 9000. sc esports was born from lan play, and how will i play my ums games during class with the person next to me? (wireless is to slow) | ||
|
Koof
United States66 Posts
On June 29 2009 23:15 wtfhi2u wrote: If it's like Steam/Blizzard cares about E-Sports, there will be a lan option THROUGH battle.net. You will have to first connect to Blizzard, and then your multiplayer is unlocked for you to play LAN.LAN shops never needed to have a connection that could handle that many people on it, because you played on LAN (I know, what a concept). Now they do. This is just gay times over 9000. This is the only way I can see it, and this is just like how Steam handles it. | ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
On June 29 2009 23:09 zatic wrote: This is hardly about money they know quite well that a week after release there will be an illegal battle.net simulator or something similar out there that will let you play on LAN. However, it hurts ESPORTS big time. It's just not conceivable to have people play over battle.net on LAN events. I have yet to go to a LAN where there was no networking and / or internet problem. And I have my doubts if they can handle hundreds of simultaneous connections from one IP for bigger LAN events. Effectively this will kill SC2 for the LAN scene, which would just hurt the game. You are hyperbolising way too much. To give you an example: the last Dreamhack had a Blizzard sanctioned WoW tournament, thus they got access to a special arena server provided by Blizzard. What I know that tournament went just fine. Big events and PRO leagues will be just fine as long as they are sanctioned. 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, and providing internet access to everyone today on a LAN is much easier than a decade ago. Routers today are much more user friendly and easier to setup properly. | ||
|
wtfhi2u
United States65 Posts
| ||
|
Fitzsimmons
Canada36 Posts
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. | ||
|
wtfhi2u
United States65 Posts
| ||
|
Chuiu
3470 Posts
On June 29 2009 23:01 Eury wrote: http://www.blizzard.com/us/press/080628.html The Diablo franchise had sold 18.5 million copies one year ago, a huge majority of those copies are Diablo 2. No lifetime sale numbers have ever been given out about Warcraft but we have a quote from Rob Pardo from this year's GDC that give us an indication at least. "...WarCraft III had been the company’s most successful game to date with no added subscription, but World of Warcraft ended up blowing that game’s sales out of the water..." http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22912 Now, maybe Starcraft and Diablo 2 somehow in the last few years outsold Warcraft 3 by a huge amount of copies, but I somehow doubt that. Safe to say no matter what, Blizzard is going to have tremendous expectations about SC 2 sale numbers. IIRC, Warcraft 3 hasn't sold as many copies of Starcraft and Starcraft remains the best selling RTS of all time. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
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. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On June 29 2009 23:32 D10 wrote: 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. | ||
|
nataziel
Australia1455 Posts
On June 29 2009 23:32 D10 wrote: 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 | ||
|
georgir
Bulgaria253 Posts
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. | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
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. | ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
On June 29 2009 23:25 wtfhi2u wrote: 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. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On June 30 2009 00:04 Eury wrote: 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. | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
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. | ||
|
despite
Bulgaria105 Posts
On June 30 2009 00:04 Eury wrote: 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: 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. | ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
On June 30 2009 00:07 Spawkuring wrote: 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. | ||
|
wtfhi2u
United States65 Posts
| ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
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. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 30 2009 00:18 Eury wrote: 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
| ||
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
| ||
|
Psyqo
United States401 Posts
| ||
|
EGMachine
United States1643 Posts
| ||
|
ronaldmcdonald
United States8 Posts
| ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
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. | ||
|
calvinL
Canada416 Posts
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. | ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
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 | ||
|
ronaldmcdonald
United States8 Posts
| ||
|
zatic
Zurich15342 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. | ||
|
notrangerjoe
110 Posts
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. | ||
|
HiOT
Sweden1000 Posts
| ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
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? | ||
|
Nitrogen
United States5345 Posts
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. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On June 30 2009 04:21 404.Nitrogen wrote: 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. | ||
|
Abstruse
United States32 Posts
| ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
On June 30 2009 04:28 Spawkuring wrote: 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 | ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
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. | ||
|
Kim_Hyun_Han
706 Posts
right now i want kespa to do their job and block sc2 on sk + Show Spoiler + /KiDo/Ernu were right all the time | ||
|
Kratisto
United States199 Posts
On June 30 2009 03:37 Eury wrote: 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. | ||
|
rushz0rz
Canada5300 Posts
| ||
|
armed_
Canada443 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
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. | ||
|
Boundz(DarKo)
5311 Posts
Anyways folks, do your bit - http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?LANSC2 | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
| ||
|
Pyrrhuloxia
United States6700 Posts
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. | ||
|
Kim_Hyun_Han
706 Posts
On June 30 2009 05:17 FrozenArbiter wrote: Why are you speaking of yourself in 3rd person -.- sheesh i dont want a ban again | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On June 30 2009 05:30 Boundz(DarKo) wrote: 1337 Total SignaturesBlizzard, please tell me WHY?????? Anyways folks, do your bit - http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?LANSC2 lol I'm not gonna sign it so I don't screw that sacred number. | ||
|
the hamburglar
United States6 Posts
| ||
|
n00bonicPlague
United States197 Posts
| ||
|
shimmy
Poland997 Posts
| ||
|
despite
Bulgaria105 Posts
On June 30 2009 00:44 Kennigit wrote: Shut up until they announce b.net 2.0. Man I already hate bnet2. Even if they implement flying naked asian girls in the bnet2 menu it cannot make up for the loss of LAN. | ||
|
n00bonicPlague
United States197 Posts
Even if they implement flying naked asian girls in the bnet2 menu it cannot make up for the loss of LAN. rofl -- I'm with this guy XD | ||
|
520
United States2822 Posts
| ||
|
ActualSteve
United States627 Posts
I play StarCraft on a laptop against similar situated people. LAN makes sense. Sweet, Blizz! | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
On June 29 2009 19:33 I3oxerfan wrote: So stupid. Fucking stupid. Really sad news. They can't stop stupid people from pirating their games but without lan, thei are punishing the whole community. No, they're not. Most people never play LAN and don't give a crap. | ||
|
Shade692003
Canada702 Posts
On June 30 2009 06:53 FieryBalrog wrote: No, they're not. Most people never play LAN and don't give a crap. No, YOU don't give a crap. A shitton of people play with lan. Lan parties, internet cafe, playing in a lagless environment with friends. LAN is still to this day very popular. | ||
|
danieldrsa
Brazil522 Posts
Yes some ppl play on lan with original games Yes piracy never stoped the SC1 sucess But, imo most of bash is because ppl will need more originals Wich i dont think is totally truth, since alternative Bnet could still be possible. | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
On June 30 2009 06:55 Shade692003 wrote: No, YOU don't give a crap. A shitton of people play with lan. Lan parties, internet cafe, playing in a lagless environment with friends. LAN is still to this day very popular. LAN partys is never on LAN but on the internet nowadays anyway | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
I'm sure lots of groups of people do the same in their own cities. Finding a good venue for a LAN is hard enough as it is. Now the venue needs to provide everyone with internet connections? With SC1, all we need is a big room and a router to have a LAN. This new "feature" adds so many barriers for us that we might just give up trying to have an SC2 LAN. I'd like to know, just how big is the "target audience" for this anti-piracy "feature"? If LAN games were available, these people would pirate the game and be content playing nothing but LAN games with their local friends. But with this anti-piracy "feature", these LAN-only people will suddenly buy the game? I doubt that. If the allure of online games couldn't convince them to buy SC2, then will a total lack of multiplayer do it? Or will they just shrug and play the latest Command and Conquer RTS, or Counterstrike, or some console game? As a fighting game player, I can tell you that being unable to play an awesome fighting game with your online friends (who live in different cities or countries) SUCKS. If someone loves SC2, they're not gonna be content with LAN-only: they'll start on LAN with a pirated copy, realize the game is awesome, and go out to buy the real thing so that they can play with all the guys they know online. And if they don't love SC2, then the odds of them buying SC2 are low. And then you have to subtract the pirates who can't afford SC2, anyway. Speaking of people discovering they love SC2 after playing a pirated copy on a LAN, this is like having the pirate community develop and test a demo version of SC2 for you. Now, there won't be a way for people to demo (and get hooked on) SC2 before buying it, unless Blizzard spends extra money making one -- but then why not let the pirates make it for free while simultaneously making your paying customers happier? Lastly, as an SC player who switched to console fighting games, I've discovered that playing with your friends in-person adds a LOT to the experience of gaming. Yet ironically, Blizzard is taking a step backwards by making it much harder for local friends to get together and play SC2 in-person. It is unbelievable. I hope Blizzard tests this new "feature" by playing SC2 only in their own homes from now on, isolated from everyone else. This will simulate the reduced- or in-ability for many of us to have SC2 LANs. | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
On June 30 2009 06:55 Shade692003 wrote: No, YOU don't give a crap. A shitton of people play with lan. Lan parties, internet cafe, playing in a lagless environment with friends. LAN is still to this day very popular. Very much a minority of total sales. Besides, they will probably make it like Steam where you can play on LAN after signing into BNET. Its not the end of the world. Of course, it is if you've been relying on a cracked copy and play solely in internet cafes. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On June 30 2009 07:02 Zoler wrote: LAN partys is never on LAN but on the internet nowadays anyway I'd love to see people like you come here to Waterloo and organize a small (10-15 people) SC2 LAN with little or no venue fee (i.e. no paying $20+ to play at the local gaming centre). Doing so for an SC1 LAN is a bit of a hassle but it is doable. Then go to a smaller city that has no gaming centre or LAN cafe, and try to organize an SC2 LAN at all. What are you going to do, rent a hotel event room for ~10 people? The venue fee per person would be outrageous. | ||
|
ToT)OjKa(
Korea (South)2437 Posts
| ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On June 30 2009 07:07 FieryBalrog wrote: Very much a minority of total sales. Besides, they will probably make it like Steam where you can play on LAN after signing into BNET. Its not the end of the world. Of course, it is if you've been relying on a cracked copy and play solely in internet cafes. I've purchased SC 3 times, WC2 2 times, WC3+TFT 3 times and diablo 2 once. I'm not a pirate, I'm the opposite of a pirate. I'm someone who has multiple licenses I can't use concurrently because of lost CD keys. I'm seriously considering not getting SC2 because of the lack of lan. When I started playing SC, I was in grade school. I'm doing my second and third degrees at the moment. When I look back, the memories I had were of inviting everyone to my birthday party at a little sweaty garbage Lan center and having a bunch of 8 way FFAs. We all loved it. We weren't good. Fuck, I'm STILL not good, but we loved it. I built a bunch of cannons in my friend's main base, and then I unallied him. I told him they were for protection and we laughed about it for a week. When I rediscovered starcraft, a friend of mine had bought a few copies of starcraft for an otherwise defunct university science computer lab and set up a small charity lan event. I won a tiny cake. It tasted like 4 pool and delicious. My SC experience, and I'm pretty sure there are MANY other people in the same boat, was defined by games in LAN. Diablo 2, by contrast, was never a lan-centric game for me. I wouldn't give a shit if they gutted that option. But for starcraft? The starcraft that grew up as a game to share between friends? No. I'm sorry. Its not a small deal. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On June 30 2009 07:21 L wrote: I've purchased SC 3 times, WC2 2 times, WC3 ane expansion 3 times and diablo 2 once. I'm seriously considering not getting SC2 because of the lack of lan. When I started playing SC, I was in grade school. I'm doing my second and third degrees at the moment. The memories I had were of inviting everyone to my birthday party at a little sweaty garbage Lan center and having a bunch of 8 way FFAs. We all loved it. We weren't good. Fuck, I'm STILL not good, but we loved it. When I rediscovered starcraft, a friend of mine had bought a few copies of starcraft for an otherwise defunct university science computer lab and set up a small charity lan event. I won a tiny cake. It tasted like 4 pool and delicious. My SC experience, and I'm pretty sure there are MANY other people in the same boat, was defined by games in LAN. Diablo 2, by contrast, was never a lan-centric game for me. I wouldn't give a shit if they gutted that option. But for starcraft? The starcraft that grew up as a game to share between friends? No. I'm sorry. Its not a small deal. I've had this kind of experience only a few times so far, but I'd love to have it more often. Guess it's not gonna happpen. Thanks Blizzard for making us all a little less social. | ||
|
Tsagacity
United States2124 Posts
If this is just for piracy prevention (I doubt it is), then this seems like a really bad choice =/ We had a thread about how to make money off b.net a few weeks ago, I wonder if they're going to sell a lan expansion for $10 | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
| ||
|
CROrens
Croatia1005 Posts
On June 29 2009 18:50 SearingShadow wrote: There will be LAN on Battle.net. The only people this affects is those without an internet connection. Well thats kinda the point of LAN, playing MP offline... Imagine a LAN party with 20 people, so now they all have to be online... meaning they have to share the same connection... lag much? | ||
|
Shade692003
Canada702 Posts
On June 30 2009 07:07 FieryBalrog wrote: Very much a minority of total sales. Besides, they will probably make it like Steam where you can play on LAN after signing into BNET. Its not the end of the world. Of course, it is if you've been relying on a cracked copy and play solely in internet cafes. Logging in BNET for lanning is my only hope right now Seriously, If I play with 7 other friends, sitting right next to me, why should the connection hop to servers all around the country only to send back the information to someone right next to me. I LAN with my friends almost everyday in the school year, I much prefer having minimal lag than unnecessary higher ping. | ||
|
illu
Canada2531 Posts
| ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
On June 30 2009 07:31 CROrens wrote: Well thats kinda the point of LAN, playing MP offline... Imagine a LAN party with 20 people, so now they all have to be online... meaning they have to share the same connection... lag much? What? Have you ever tried playing on the same network online? Its practically the same as LAN because the data is going within the network. Its not like BNET hosts custom games anyway, its all hosted on your side. BNET is just a chat/matchmaking lobby and a server for ladder games. Some of these comments just don't make any sense and are just blind outrage. On June 30 2009 07:21 L wrote: My SC experience, and I'm pretty sure there are MANY other people in the same boat, was defined by games in LAN. Diablo 2, by contrast, was never a lan-centric game for me. I wouldn't give a shit if they gutted that option. But for starcraft? The starcraft that grew up as a game to share between friends? No. I'm sorry. Its not a small deal. Play on bnet together from the same room, whats the difference? At least have your complaints grounded in reality. The lack of LAN doesn't prevent any of the things you talked about. All you need is a router and an internet connection (oh wait, you pretty much need those anyway). | ||
|
ManWithCheese
Canada246 Posts
| ||
|
Tomed
United States176 Posts
Can't say I mind. What kind of LAN cafe, LAN party, or any place in the world doesn't have an internet connection these days? You can still play with your LAN friends with no lag whatsoever since BNet 2.0 won't have the nagle algorithm enforced. Not that Blizzard really needed the help but this pretty much destroys any type of piracy short of single player gaming. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Play on bnet together from the same room, whats the difference? The difference is that, in both instances, none of us were actually online. The lan center I talked about for my grade school birthday was actually a LAN center. They had a few consoles hooked up to TVs, some computers in lan, and like 4 with a shared internet connection for people to play counterstrike. We pretty much took all their other computers. In the second instance, the computer lab was defunct; there was no internet. The cables had been rerouted to new labs, so we just rigged up a router and played on our own after installing the games. I could mention a number of impromptu matches I've had at university and at high school using laptops and spare computers off the grid, but that's somewhat irrelevant. The point is that the game was social. We were there connected together. Why go on battle.net with 56k modems when half our buddies didn't even have the net? On a technical level, sure there's the entire ping issue which is massive, but that wasn't 'it' for us. The entire point was that we weren't a small group having to lock a custom game on battlenet so that our friends could shuffle in. We were 8 buddies, THE 8 buddies. We didn't need to remember passwords, we could change our names to L is a retard lol! we didnt' need to walk around the room going "okay guys, the pass is "bananas". We just said "join L" and we were off. When we regamed: "join L" and we were off again. If you didn't have this experience with starcraft, and I'm not sure many of the newer post-broadband people would have such an experience, then you simply wouldn't get it. The default response is "oh yeah, just go online and do it", but that's not where the magic of the game was. That's not where I was captured by starcraft. I was captured because starcraft was a social event. Starcraft was something I'd look forward to because my friends would be there. Now there's a fairly large hurdle involved if I want that experience. A hurdle which shouldn't be there. A hurdle which is between me and what I wanted to get out of this game. I'll just soldier on and wait for D3. | ||
|
Valio
Finland77 Posts
On June 29 2009 18:50 SearingShadow wrote: There will be LAN on Battle.net. The only people this affects is those without an internet connection. U know what LAN means right? I believe you mean a latency as good as on LAN? | ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
On June 30 2009 08:22 Valio wrote: U know what LAN means right? I believe you mean a latency as good as on LAN? No I mean LAN. | ||
|
520
United States2822 Posts
No you don't. LAN implies that you don't need an Internet connection to get on. Battle.Net 2.0 does. | ||
|
Tsagacity
United States2124 Posts
Battle.net doesn't sound very "local"  | ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
| ||
|
520
United States2822 Posts
On June 30 2009 08:37 theqat wrote: For the thousandth time, if all players in a Bnet game lobby are on the same LAN, once the game starts it will behave EXACTLY as if you were using LAN mode in War3 or Starcraft The issue is the fact that they need to have Internet access first. Many large-scale LANs operate just on a large network without Internet access. | ||
|
ggfobster
United States298 Posts
On June 30 2009 08:42 scintilliaSD wrote: The issue is the fact that they need to have Internet access first. Many large-scale LANs operate just on a large network without Internet access. Not only this but sometimes people are behind firewall and can't play on bnet or log in to bnet, so LAN play is the only option. Blizzard really sailed the FAIL BOAT on this one. | ||
|
Murdoink
Chile1219 Posts
| ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
The main issue with Bnet 2.0 is the fact that players will most likely need an internet connection to play offline since all signs are pointing to Blizzard taking the Steam approach with Bnet. This of course is a big problem since people have lives outside their wired home. People might go visit friends who don't have internet. Some people travel a lot and can't always bring their internet with them. Some people live on colleges that block BattleNet due to its firewall. Some people gather for LAN parties or cafes that don't have online capabilities. Internet may be more widespread, but it's far from omnipresent. Getting rid of LAN only counteracts the very goal Blizzard is trying to achieve. People will be MUCH more likely to play Bnet after trying out LAN rather than not having multiplayer at all due to lack of internet. Still hoping that Blizzard either reconsiders, or has a solution that doesn't require internet. | ||
|
furymonkey
New Zealand1587 Posts
There was a similar uproar when steam first came out, and now no one complaints. World is changing, so stick with it. IMO its no different than hardwares requirement, they don't stay 2D just because some players don't have graphic card, they are choosing the best option for themself, and the majoirty. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On June 30 2009 09:04 furymonkey wrote: Just what kind of shitty large-scale LANs do you go to? There was a similar uproar when steam first came out, and now no one complaints. World is changing, so stick with it. IMO its no different than hardwares requirement, they don't stay 2D just because some players don't have graphic card, they are choosing the best option for themself, and the majoirty. What's with this "no one complains" business? Even to this day I still see a lot of opposition to Steam, and I've experienced problems with it as well. Trying to play a game while Steam is down isn't the funnest thing in the world. Just because Valve isn't bursting in flames doesn't mean that everyone is perfectly fine with them. | ||
|
Kim_Hyun_Han
706 Posts
On June 30 2009 07:36 ManWithCheese wrote: I can't help but laugh at those threatening to not buy s2 because of this, because for some reason I already know you will be buying it. u dont know u believe thats more like religion | ||
|
Crimson
United States311 Posts
| ||
|
Stripe
United States67 Posts
To everybody complaining that they won't be able to play multi-player due to lack of internet, sucks to be you. You have my sympathies. The vast majority of us don't give a crap as this change won't affect us one bit. Go ahead, don't buy SC2; I guarantee you the impact would be next to nothing, maybe 5k in sales max. Times have changed since SC1; everyone has internet these days and broadband will continue to proliferate. This is a good decision by Blizzard; they'll definitely gain more sales than they lose. | ||
|
520
United States2822 Posts
On June 30 2009 09:04 furymonkey wrote: Just what kind of shitty large-scale LANs do you go to? There was a similar uproar when steam first came out, and now no one complaints. World is changing, so stick with it. IMO its no different than hardwares requirement, they don't stay 2D just because some players don't have graphic card, they are choosing the best option for themself, and the majoirty. I know PAX, while not a huge LAN, doesn't have Internet access there from experience. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Repeat once an hour for 6 hours and you get.....ugh. What would be lost by allowing lan? Seriously nothing is gained by cutting out a very easy feature to keep. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On June 29 2009 18:50 SearingShadow wrote: There will be LAN on Battle.net. The only people this affects is those without an internet connection. /facepalm | ||
|
Kim_Hyun_Han
706 Posts
On June 30 2009 09:31 Stripe wrote: People already addressed the issue that Bnet would be slower, so the only valid reason for opposing this is because you lack internet. To everybody complaining that they won't be able to play multi-player due to lack of internet, sucks to be you. You have my sympathies. The vast majority of us don't give a crap as this change won't affect us one bit. Go ahead, don't buy SC2; I guarantee you the impact would be next to nothing, maybe 5k in sales max. Times have changed since SC1; everyone has internet these days and broadband will continue to proliferate. This is a good decision by Blizzard; they'll definitely gain more sales than they lose. troll moar | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
On June 30 2009 07:54 L wrote: The difference is that, in both instances, none of us were actually online. The lan center I talked about for my grade school birthday was actually a LAN center. They had a few consoles hooked up to TVs, some computers in lan, and like 4 with a shared internet connection for people to play counterstrike. We pretty much took all their other computers. In the second instance, the computer lab was defunct; there was no internet. The cables had been rerouted to new labs, so we just rigged up a router and played on our own after installing the games. I could mention a number of impromptu matches I've had at university and at high school using laptops and spare computers off the grid, but that's somewhat irrelevant. The point is that the game was social. We were there connected together. Why go on battle.net with 56k modems when half our buddies didn't even have the net? Its 2009. Times have changed, its not the stone age of internet anymore. Get internet. "Why go on battle.net with 56k modems when half our buddies didn't even have the net?" Thanks for proving my point. On June 30 2009 07:54 L wrote: If you didn't have this experience with starcraft, and I'm not sure many of the newer post-broadband people would have such an experience, then you simply wouldn't get it. The default response is "oh yeah, just go online and do it", but that's not where the magic of the game was. Dude, I started playing on battlenet in 1998 on a 56K connection which my parents had to pay for by the minute (so I barely ever played). I've also LAN'd extensively in college, but the new system would work fine for us. In fact I just met up with 2 friends last tuesday for the express purpose of LANing at his apartment, he hacked his router so we could play BGH vs pubbies. On June 30 2009 07:54 L wrote: That's not where I was captured by starcraft. I was captured because starcraft was a social event. Starcraft was something I'd look forward to because my friends would be there. Now there's a fairly large hurdle involved if I want that experience. A hurdle which shouldn't be there. A hurdle which is between me and what I wanted to get out of this game. Jesus Christ, its like you're inventing problems. You can still do that. What hurdle? Are your friends incapable of connecting to a wireless connection where you play over BNET? Or let me guess, the "magic" is gone because instead of connecting to each other via the UDP protocol now you are using a different internet protocol?  | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
On June 30 2009 09:31 Stripe wrote: People already addressed the issue that Bnet would be slower, so the only valid reason for opposing this is because you lack internet. To everybody complaining that they won't be able to play multi-player due to lack of internet, sucks to be you. You have my sympathies. The vast majority of us don't give a crap as this change won't affect us one bit. Go ahead, don't buy SC2; I guarantee you the impact would be next to nothing, maybe 5k in sales max. Times have changed since SC1; everyone has internet these days and broadband will continue to proliferate. This is a good decision by Blizzard; they'll definitely gain more sales than they lose. I'm not affected by this decision any more than you, but I remain unconvinced that it will generate sales. Ostensibly the decision is aimed at boosting sales by reducing piracy, but solid counterarguments abound against this unsubstantiated position. If I'm a pirate who refuses to pay money for games, encountering a more difficult to pirate SC2 will make me either a.) Put in extra effort to pirate it anyways, or b.) Pirate a different game and continue my fun times. Purchasing the game is not an option compatible with a dedicated pirate's lifestyle. I am, in fact, a dedicated pirate. There has not been a game too difficult for me to pirate. The five PC games I remember purchasing in my lifetime were all Blizzard games. Personally I love Starcraft more than ice cream in summer, and will be honored to spend hundreds of dollars supporting the franchise of what I believe is the best game made by humankind. Removing LAN does nothing to benefit my paid experience, does nothing to attract shoppers on the market for a good RTS, and does nothing to increase sales. If Battle.Net 2.0 is sufficient capability wise, allowing eSports and the community to flourish, that will not somehow make this removal a good decision, merely a less bad one. Everyone can only stand to benefit from this feature. I'm sure Blizzard has a tenable strategy for supporting eSports. What's doubtful is whether removing LAN plausibly enhances this yet-to-be-revealed strategy. EDIT: Regarding detriments: Connecting machines physically and playing via UDP is significantly simpler and more reliable than relying on a shared internet connection. The latter may not be difficult at all, but the uncertainty involved with ISP reliability makes the former superior. The situations where this relationship is material are only limited by one's imagination. For Battle.Net games between people on the same local connection, even if the data transit during any given game essentially operates as it would in LAN, the internet connection must remain to coordinate further games. | ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
On June 30 2009 10:04 EchOne wrote: I am, in fact, a dedicated pirate. There has not been a game too difficult for me to pirate. Anti-piracy measures are rarely targeted towards you, though. Sure, the fact of the matter is, regardless of how well protected a game is, someone will eventually find a way to pirate it, but that's not the point. Instead of stopping piracy altogether (kind of impossible), the goal is to limit it, and prevent the more 'casual' pirating. For example, a number of my friends are capable of copy/pasting cracks or using keygens, but wouldn't have the slightest idea as to how to go about finding private servers or how to get them working. This either leaves them with two options for multiplayer-only games: buy them, or not play them altogether. Obviously, this potentially translates to a sale that would never happen, but for, say, Starcraft, they'll likely buy it if that was the only way they could think of playing. Ultimately, spawn installs (and, to an extent, LANs) make it far easier to pirate, and will likely create more of the 'casual' piraters. While there are definitely many sales that would likely not have been made regardless, without any measures, there will be others who probably would've bought it had it not been so easy to get it free. Honest to god, I don't think any of my friends had a copy of Starcraft, and yet we used to play that game a shitton. | ||
|
C3nsuRED_cz
Czech Republic4 Posts
On June 30 2009 09:58 FieryBalrog wrote: Its 2009. Times have changed, its not the stone age of internet anymore. Get internet. Please get your head out of your ass. I don't know if you noticed, but it's 2009, and world is in the middle of economic crisis. Maybe for you it is really easy to say "get internet", but for me as a student from middle/east europe, where average salary is 3 times smaller than in USA... And moreover, like a LOT of lan parties here are in places without internet connection. And I bet lot of people get to know starcraft from lan parties... and now we cannot throw lan party without internet connection? Like wtf? | ||
|
PokePill
United States1048 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. I can understand if they're trying to squash things like Garena (up to 90,000 peeps playing WC3 DotA on it, maybe 75% illegal keys and 25% knowing that the lat on Garena is 100 times better than on Bnet) but if the lat on SC2 is anything like WC3 then making multiplayer exclusively via BNet is a horrible decision on Blizzards part. Not to mention how the starleagues will react. You do remember when they refused to upgrade to 1.16 because of some lag issues? Well afaik they wont be able to do that now. I just get the feeling that Blizzard is starting to care a lot more about how much money they can make... This is just a huge fabrication lol. Even when I play on asia from east it's only 300 ms tops (+100 ms for the natural delay). And the amount of players in a game hosted by Bnet doesn't change the latency at all. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Its 2009. Times have changed, its not the stone age of internet anymore. Get internet. Proving what point? I was explaining that back before broadband, starcraft got its start as a game which was extensively played at lan centers, where you were physically near the other players. That's the type of experience starcraft was on a casual level, and the type of experience that the majority of players are going to want to re-capture. "Why go on battle.net with 56k modems when half our buddies didn't even have the net?" Thanks for proving my point. How am I going to 'Get' internet for a room that simply isn't wired for it, but otherwise perfectly works for Lan purposes? Should I fucking call my IT department and be like "hey, blizzard are being douchebags, so I need you to drill another huge hole in the wall, put up some cable guards and run 16-24 ethernet cables from the.. we don't have another router? How much do the 24 slot ones go for? 300-500$? Maybe I'll just.. not do this". Dude, I started playing on battlenet in 1998 on a 56K connection which my parents had to pay for by the minute (so I barely ever played). I've also LAN'd extensively in college, but the new system would work fine for us. In fact I just met up with 2 friends last tuesday for the express purpose of LANing at his apartment, he hacked his router so we could play BGH vs pubbies. So what happens when you want to Lan in a lobby outside of your classes, or just set up a game between you three without having to 'hack a router'? Oh you can't. Jesus Christ, its like you're inventing problems. You can still do that. What hurdle? Are your friends incapable of connecting to a wireless connection where you play over BNET? I'm not inventing anything. I've already given you two examples which simply could NOT HAVE HAPPENED. So no, I couldn't fucking do it. Additionally, there's no hurdles? Go ahead and set up the ports for 8-12 of your friends on your wireless router. You'd pretty much use every slot to open the required ranges (and then some), and you'd then have 8+ people who are in the same room using a single connection connecting to B.Net. I dunno how fast your connection is, but splitting throttled bandwidth 8 ways is not my idea of high performance. Or let me guess, the "magic" is gone because instead of connecting to each other via the UDP protocol now you are using a different internet protocol? The additional interface hassles which aren't present in, say, UDP Lan, also make playing there a much more enjoyable experience. I mean, its 2009, so I should just stay at home, play online and have less interaction with the people I like most? Somehow it seems technology went the wrong way. 2009 isn't all its cracked up to be. | ||
Bockit
Sydney2287 Posts
| ||
|
Chuiu
3470 Posts
On June 30 2009 11:45 Bockit wrote: For everyone saying that you should have the internet connection to handle 4-8 players in a LAN/Wireless network being able to connect to the internet at the same time, that might be the case where you live, not everyone is in the same demographic though :o. Different countries, different incomes, different infrastructure. Exactly part of my point. I used to live in Honduras and down there the cable connection (while I lived there) was equivalent to a 56k connection in the United States. Now if my friends and I were to have a lan party (like we had, several of) it would mean that we would all have to connect through battle.net over one connection. On that connection impossible, it would also mean we would need a proper router for the job (or switch, which would be better) and ours was very ill equipped. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 30 2009 09:31 Stripe wrote: People already addressed the issue that Bnet would be slower, so the only valid reason for opposing this is because you lack internet. To everybody complaining that they won't be able to play multi-player due to lack of internet, sucks to be you. You have my sympathies. The vast majority of us don't give a crap as this change won't affect us one bit. Go ahead, don't buy SC2; I guarantee you the impact would be next to nothing, maybe 5k in sales max. Times have changed since SC1; everyone has internet these days and broadband will continue to proliferate. This is a good decision by Blizzard; they'll definitely gain more sales than they lose. Really? How about you give us one damn reason that there SHOULDN'T be LAN - oh wait, there isn't. It won't stop pirating because it's an unstoppable force - people will pirate it no matter what, and if they can't play multiplayer by pirating, they just won't get the game at all. Literally all you guys are saying is, "Well, sucks to be you guys, suck it up and go with whatever Blizzard tells us." There's a lot of places that don't have a good enough internet connection to support a decent game of SC, or to support a high number of players. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if you have no lag on a B.net game between people on the same LAN - the problem is that if one spike goes through your internet connection or your internet just goes down or B.net goes down, there's NO other option to play SC2 multiplayer. Stop being such a selfish asshole and realize what the other side's problem is. | ||
|
Chuiu
3470 Posts
| ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
You say it stops pirates, IT DOESN'T. PEOPLE WILL PIRATE IT. You want me to explain a code thing? Give Starcraft II a code so you can't simply burn it onto another CD without hacking it, THERE YA GO. You know how many "casual pirates" that will reduce? MORE THAN REMOVING LAN. Seriously Blizzard, what are the detriments to having LAN? What do they lose by keeping LAN in the game? You know what they lose by removing LAN? Advertising and audience. Good job. | ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
While, yes, a ton of people will pirate the game regardless, there's still a large number who either don't know how to use private servers, or do not enjoy them. Those are the sales that are at stake, not Mr. I'll-pirate-everything-anyways. And, like it or not, the exclusion of LAN is likely one of the easier to implement and least intrusive anti-piracy measures available. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 30 2009 12:39 Yenzilla wrote: Again and again, I read "ITS STUPID BECAUSE IT WON'T STOP ALL PIRATES", but really, that's equivalent to saying anti-virus programs aren't worth using because they won't stop/detect viruses with 100% effectiveness. As awesome as polarizing to extreme outcomes is (NO ANTI-PIRACY MEASURES WILL KILL YOU GAME A LA DEMIGOD), its hardly realistic. While, yes, a ton of people will pirate the game regardless, there's still a large number who either don't know how to use private servers, or do not enjoy them. Those are the sales that are at stake, not Mr. I'll-pirate-everything-anyways. And, like it or not, the exclusion of LAN is likely one of the easier to implement and least intrusive anti-piracy measures available. Except that 1) it kills noticeable pockets of the community and 2) it won't affect sales really at all, and it might even reduce them. All this will do to the pirating scene is make the piraters work harder or make them move on to another game. It will in no way convince piraters to buy the game because they were never interested in buying it in the first place. All this does is reduce the number of multiplayer options we have and hurts the community. Absolutely horrific move by Blizzard, worse than some of their WoW decisions. | ||
|
gokai
United States812 Posts
| ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
Not that I won't manage, but still... | ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
On June 30 2009 12:44 Stratos_speAr wrote: It will in no way convince piraters to buy the game because they were never interested in buying it in the first place. That's part of the polarization problem again. Not everyone who pirate games fall under that umbrella. I know a number of people who pirate games out of convenience, and entirely willing to dish out money for games that are more of a hassle to get working (multiplayer games, generally). I'll cite Demigods again, you really think the proportion of legitimate users would've been as low if it wasn't just laughably easy to get? Hell, even in SC1's case, my group of friends used to play (close to 8 of us) with not a single real copy between us (at least, not until I buckled and bought it a while later) because spawns just made it easier to have one CD and throw it around. | ||
|
malathion
United States361 Posts
On June 29 2009 18:42 Klockan3 wrote:The difference is of course that piracy gets harder which is good. No, SC2 will be cracked a week before it hits retail stores just like every other game, and the people who actually paid their money for the game will be endlessly buttfucked by this. Remember how people who bought Doom 3 were cracking it because the DRM was so fucking annoying? You couldn't run the game if you even had Nero installed on your computer. Blizzard clearly thinks that it's worth it to screw their paying customers so that 5-10% of software pirates who aren't smart enough to log on to The Pirate Bay can't steal the game. | ||
|
Elric
United Kingdom1327 Posts
| ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On June 30 2009 12:39 Yenzilla wrote: Again and again, I read "ITS STUPID BECAUSE IT WON'T STOP ALL PIRATES", but really, that's equivalent to saying anti-virus programs aren't worth using because they won't stop/detect viruses with 100% effectiveness. As awesome as polarizing to extreme outcomes is (NO ANTI-PIRACY MEASURES WILL KILL YOU GAME A LA DEMIGOD), its hardly realistic. Strawman. I wasn't saying it shouldn't be implemented because it doesn't stop all piracy, I said there are much better ways to try and stop piracy. One such example is like games where they don't allow you to burn copies that easily. If you can't even get your hands on a copy of the game, how will you be able to abuse the LAN? Taking away LAN is hardly effective. While, yes, a ton of people will pirate the game regardless, there's still a large number who either don't know how to use private servers, or do not enjoy them. Those are the sales that are at stake, not Mr. I'll-pirate-everything-anyways. And, like it or not, the exclusion of LAN is likely one of the easier to implement and least intrusive anti-piracy measures available. Okay, then make B.net great, like they promise. If they don't know how to use private servers and don't enjoy them, while B.net is much better and more friendly, AND it's hard to obtain an illegal copy, don't you think that's much better to fight against piracy? They can get those sales with the features they already have, and having more features only helps their case. After all, HOW does not having LAN fight against piracy BETTER than making a code that needs to be cracked before they can say, transfer the data onto computers or burning the CD? Furthermore, HOW does taking away LAN reduce piracy in any significant way? On June 30 2009 12:54 Yenzilla wrote: That's part of the polarization problem again. Not everyone who pirate games fall under that umbrella. I know a number of people who pirate games out of convenience, and entirely willing to dish out money for games that are more of a hassle to get working (multiplayer games, generally). I'll cite Demigods again, you really think the proportion of legitimate users would've been as low if it wasn't just laughably easy to get? SO DON'T MAKE IT LAUGHABLY EASY TO OBTAIN AN ILLEGAL COPY! LAN=/=illegal copy of the game. People using LAN=/=pirates. If people want convenience, and the new B.Net is more convenient, then they would go to B.Net! LAN wouldn't be more convenient for piracy, because they still have to OBTAIN a copy first, and if it is harder to make said copies, then it is harder to obtain. Having the LAN or not doesn't change that. Hell, even in SC1's case, my group of friends used to play (close to 8 of us) with not a single real copy between us (at least, not until I buckled and bought it a while later) because spawns just made it easier to have one CD and throw it around. And how is that the LAN feature fault and not the Spawn fault? | ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
| ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
| ||
MrHoon
10183 Posts
Some of you guys are taking this shit too far in the wrong direction. "LOL IM NOT GUNA BAI SC2" please shut the fuck up. My ass you guys aren't going to buy it hell I bet you guys are going to ask your moms to drive you in front of target during the midnight opening. If lan isn't really coming back, I really do hope blizzard has a solution for this shit. | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
On June 30 2009 13:29 MrHoon wrote: Although I agree no lan fucking sucks and blizzard's decision to anti-piracy is a rather dumbfuck solution... Some of you guys are taking this shit too far in the wrong direction. "LOL IM NOT GUNA BAI SC2" please shut the fuck up. My ass you guys aren't going to buy it hell I bet you guys are going to ask your moms to drive you in front of target during the midnight opening. If lan isn't really coming back, I really do hope blizzard has a solution for this shit. I completely agree. It is VERY stupid to not include LAN but at the same time I'm going to be there for the midnight release no matter what I have going on that day. Like today for example, I've been playing on LAN with my friend for about the last 6 hours, its really a shame that we might lose that in a lot of situations (dorms with weird firewalls, hanging out at parents with no internet, lan parties with glitchy internet, big events with tournaments, etc etc). I dont think the benefit outweighs the negative aspects. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
(its prolly for anti piracy tho) | ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
On June 30 2009 13:12 ghrur wrote: Strawman. I wasn't saying it shouldn't be implemented because it doesn't stop all piracy, I said there are much better ways to try and stop piracy. One such example is like games where they don't allow you to burn copies that easily. If you can't even get your hands on a copy of the game, how will you be able to abuse the LAN? Taking away LAN is hardly effective. But it is the argument a lot of people are putting out. Namely, the one that suggests that they're not gaining any sales because pirates are an unstoppable force. Even if you don't gain all the sales lost from pirates (obviously not the case), developers stand to lose far more from the less hardcore ones. On June 30 2009 13:12 ghrur wrote: Okay, then make B.net great, like they promise. If they don't know how to use private servers and don't enjoy them, while B.net is much better and more friendly, AND it's hard to obtain an illegal copy, don't you think that's much better to fight against piracy? They can get those sales with the features they already have, and having more features only helps their case. After all, HOW does not having LAN fight against piracy BETTER than making a code that needs to be cracked before they can say, transfer the data onto computers or burning the CD? Furthermore, HOW does taking away LAN reduce piracy in any significant way? Making Battle.net great would be ideal, and I'm almost certain Blizzard is gunning for that. It would be nice to give them to opportunity to show people how great (or terrible) it'll turn out. On June 30 2009 13:12 ghrur wrote: SO DON'T MAKE IT LAUGHABLY EASY TO OBTAIN AN ILLEGAL COPY! LAN=/=illegal copy of the game. People using LAN=/=pirates. If people want convenience, and the new B.Net is more convenient, then they would go to B.Net! LAN wouldn't be more convenient for piracy, because they still have to OBTAIN a copy first, and if it is harder to make said copies, then it is harder to obtain. Having the LAN or not doesn't change that. ... And how is that the LAN feature fault and not the Spawn fault? Except, as has been mentioned many times already in this thread, that would IMPOSSIBLE. With the internet and the, getting a copy of the game on your hard drive is and will be, unless something dramatic happens, laughably easy. While pirating, getting the game (torrents, or whatever) is likely the smallest step (despite being the longest one). And, as hamachi would suggest, LANs are usually the easier method to get multiplayer working when pirating. Hell, the only reason mass pirating with spawns worked in the original is because the game didn't check for CD-keys (which could've been easily bypassed, had it existed, given the standard) while playing on LAN. Because everything is done locally, its easier to bypass any sort of protection systems in place. | ||
|
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
On June 30 2009 13:12 ghrur wrote: Strawman. I wasn't saying it shouldn't be implemented because it doesn't stop all piracy, I said there are much better ways to try and stop piracy. One such example is like games where they don't allow you to burn copies that easily. If you can't even get your hands on a copy of the game, how will you be able to abuse the LAN? Taking away LAN is hardly effective. This is like the opposite of reality. No game is impossible to copy. Controlling multiplayer has been the only effective anti piracy measure. It will always be possible to copy a disk. If all multiplayer runs through a central server (for initial connections at least) it won't always be possible for pirates to have multiplayer. I hate lack of LAN for many previously mentioned reasons, but it is probably the best anti piracy measure they could take. What I'm not sure about is if it's really a good idea to focus so much on defeating piracy if it will have such detrimental effects on the legit community. They've found the best way to fight piracy, but is it a good idea? | ||
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
On June 29 2009 18:55 SearingShadow wrote: LAN shops don't have an internet connection? oo burn | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On June 30 2009 13:51 Yenzilla wrote: Except, as has been mentioned many times already in this thread, that would IMPOSSIBLE. With the internet and the, getting a copy of the game on your hard drive is and will be, unless something dramatic happens, laughably easy. While pirating, getting the game (torrents, or whatever) is likely the smallest step (despite being the longest one). I'm not arguing if it will be possible or not, or how easy it is or how hard it is. I'm saying it will be better for piracy than stopping LANS without the same amount of cons. And, as hamachi would suggest, LANs are usually the easier method to get multiplayer working when pirating. Hell, the only reason mass pirating with spawns worked in the original is because the game didn't check for CD-keys (which could've been easily bypassed, had it existed, given the standard) while playing on LAN. Because everything is done locally, its easier to bypass any sort of protection systems in place. And you're saying people won't bypass the protection systems in place anyway? LANs might be easier to get multiplayer pirating to work, but not so if most people can't get a copy of the game unless they buy it. Also, servers like hamachi wouldn't be needed as much because, guess what, B.Net will be more convenient. These 2 things together make it so the point is moot for stopping the "casual pirates." | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
| ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
On June 30 2009 14:07 ghrur wrote: I'm not arguing if it will be possible or not, or how easy it is or how hard it is. I'm saying it will be better for piracy than stopping LANS without the same amount of cons. And you're saying people won't bypass the protection systems in place anyway? LANs might be easier to get multiplayer pirating to work, but not so if most people can't get a copy of the game unless they buy it. Also, servers like hamachi wouldn't be needed as much because, guess what, B.Net will be more convenient. These 2 things together make it so the point is moot for stopping the "casual pirates." So your point is that making it hard, or nigh-impossible to get a copy through pirating is ideal? Yes, it would be ideal. But, as nice as it would be, its not something that would be at all reasonable, or possible to implement. The reality is, getting a copy of the game is easy and will always be easy as long as the internet exists as it does now. You can't plan for ideals, you have to work with realities. And, given the realities, taking away small things that make pirating more convenient, is fairly practical. | ||
|
armed_
Canada443 Posts
On June 30 2009 14:07 ghrur wrote: I'm not arguing if it will be possible or not, or how easy it is or how hard it is. I'm saying it will be better for piracy than stopping LANS without the same amount of cons. If Blizzard really wants to maximize sales, I propose that rather than focusing on the game-side design of things, they simply convert every person in the world into someone who will mindlessly buy the game. That would stop piracy completely. | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On June 30 2009 14:01 MamiyaOtaru wrote: I dislike too strict anti piracy measures, but I'm not in agreement with a lot of what you said. This is like the opposite of reality. No game is impossible to copy. I never said it was. Controlling multiplayer has been the only effective anti piracy measure. I'd actually argue that there has been no "effective" anti-piracy measures since piracy is still at large. I'd also say that anti-piracy is mostly about converting the "casual pirates" into people who buy the game, and "casual pirates" would usually aim for the option with more convenience. In this case, having more options, having pirated material harder to make/find/locate, and having better services would definitely make buying the game much more appealing than pirating it. This would deter "casual pirates" much more than taking away an option to me. =/ It will always be possible to copy a disk. Never said it wasn't. If all multiplayer runs through a central server (for initial connections at least) it won't always be possible for pirates to have multiplayer. I disagree because hackers will be hackers. There will still be key generators. There will still be pirates. Always. So, it again comes down to converting "casual pirates" into part of the audience and customers. I hate lack of LAN for many previously mentioned reasons, but it is probably the best anti piracy measure they could take. I disagree for reasons stated above. What I'm not sure about is if it's really a good idea to focus so much on defeating piracy if it will have such detrimental effects on the legit community. They've found the best way to fight piracy, but is it a good idea? It isn't necessarily the best way to fight piracy to me, and the detrimental effects are definitely quite large to Starcraft fans. So your point is that making it hard, or nigh-impossible to get a copy through pirating is ideal? Yes, it would be ideal. But, as nice as it would be, its not something that would be at all reasonable, or possible to implement. The reality is, getting a copy of the game is easy and will always be easy as long as the internet exists as it does now. You can't plan for ideals, you have to work with realities. And, given the realities, taking away small things that make pirating more convenient, is fairly practical. It's not unreasonable at all... it's called encrypting. o_o It makes pirating that much harder to be effective. Given the realities, taking away LAN might cause much more... displeasure for lack of better word, than the anti-piracy it will provide. | ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
On June 30 2009 14:19 ghrur wrote: I'd actually argue that there has been no "effective" anti-piracy measures since piracy is still at large. I'd also say that anti-piracy is mostly about converting the "casual pirates" into people who buy the game, and "casual pirates" would usually aim for the option with more convenience. In this case, having more options, having pirated material harder to make/find/locate, and having better services would definitely make buying the game much more appealing than pirating it. This would deter "casual pirates" much more than taking away an option to me. =/ This leads back to my point against polarizing outcomes. That pirates will still exist doesn't mean the measure isn't effective, just as how not a single anti-virus program has a 100% effectiveness (in finding viruses and false positives) doesn't mean they're not worthwhile. To aim to destroy piracy altogether is not an issue for a single game to tackle, but limiting the potential damage it may do to its sales is. Controlling the game through mandatory internet connections is fairly effective, even if it doesn't constitute a perfectly effective measure. For example, I will boldly claim that the proportion of the legitimate user base and pirates in major multiplayer-only games (MMOs) is much more in the developer's favour than any other. | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
| ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On June 30 2009 13:23 HuskyTheHusky wrote: One good point you mention that I didn't think of before:Pretty much sums up everything I really care to discuss about it. I really dont see the benefit. "At e-sport events, it's just one more thing to go wrong. We all seen matches have 20 or so minutes delay only because someone's mouse isn't working. Now everyone also must have an internet connection?" Comparing it that way makes it even more scary. One thing I said before is that simply comparing it to CS and steam you can see what problems it might cause. There are many cases of offline e-sport tournaments that either had a big delay or had to be completely canceled simply because there was some problem connecting to the Steam server. | ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
On June 30 2009 14:25 ghrur wrote: Yenzilla, I came to the same conclusion as you did about the 100% effectiveness, which is why I wrote that casual pirates part in. That's how you limit the potential damage it does to sales. Controlling the game through mandatory internet connection might decrease sales too, due to, oh, half the world not having internet connection? As unfair as it may be, Starcraft 2 isn't being geared towards 'half the world'. Also: Encryption wouldn't work unless you want legitimate owners unable to play the games themselves. After all, you would need a key to de-encrypt the data, if that were available (as it would have to be) someone would make it available online. | ||
|
DeCoup
Australia1933 Posts
On June 30 2009 13:17 DamageControL wrote: Great now I have to buy two copies. I hope to god your trolling | ||
|
hacpee
United States752 Posts
On June 29 2009 21:26 Eury wrote: Pretty sure that Pro leagues and events will have their own special servers. Kinda how WoW events and leagues works today. You can draw a conclusion from that, that if you want to run an event or a PRO league in SC 2 you will have to be sanctioned by Blizzard ala GomTV. Kespa won't be happy. I'm pretty sure WoW events connect through Blizzard's tournament realm. They don't have LAn latency IIRC> | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
| ||
|
e4e5nf3
Canada599 Posts
| ||
|
LuDwig-
Italy1143 Posts
| ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
As for legality: 1)spawn install are legal. 2)Just becouse something is not legal it don't automatically make it bad. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 30 2009 15:05 e4e5nf3 wrote: I'm hoping Blizz is just holding off lan implementation until one or both of the expansions is released. Perhaps they're calculating that since the game won't be fully balanced anyhow until all the expansions come out, it should be alright to hold off lan implementation. The SC2 esport scene won't be in full swing until the game is complete anyhow. Plus it gives people more incentive to buy the expansions. At least I'm hoping this is the case. That's still a dumb move. Leave out a key part of countless games' multiplayer aspect just to put it in an expansion? I can't think of many ways that would be more greedy and money-grubbingly selfish than that. If they did that, I would lose ALL respect I had for Blizzard. | ||
|
00Zarathustra
Bolivia419 Posts
On June 30 2009 15:36 Polis wrote: Ok why are you people so concerned about piracy? Every blizzard game was a big commercial success, having spawn installation didn't stop SC from being one. Why do you defend greed that hurt customers? It would be understandable if Blizzard games were not so popular, but that is not the case SC2 would sell great even with spawn installation. If they are selfish, they why I should be selfless towards them, and support lower standards that they offer now? By doing so you are promoting changes that are bad for you, think about it. This is what we are really talking about. Let Blizzard worry about the pirates. We are COSTUMERS!!!!!!! So the ones defending blizzard are the "rich costumers" or at least wealthy enough to have internet connection wherever they go. What they don't realize is that having the LAN option takes nothing from them. It the same with or without LAN. So including it wont hurt them. Why do you waste your time talking about pirates and sales? Are you Blizzard executives? No ur not. Ur costumer like the rest of us. So STFU. Then there are the other type of costumers: The "third world - poor costumers" including me. This are the ones that should be complaining. Why? Because taking the LAN of the game, is taking the only multiplayer option we have. "Get an internet connection" we don't have the money to pay even for 512kbps connection. Most of the cybercafe (where everyone plays SC here) have 2 separated rooms. 1 with internet and one without it. This is so the non playing ppl can have available machines for net surfing, while the gamers can play LAN with no trouble. Why not putting internet on every machine? Expenses. As i said is really expensive to have big internet connections here. So the internet is used for really important matters, not games. So imagine i listen to you ppl saying to get an internet connection. I go and talk to the cybercafe owner to get an internet connection to be able to play a game. + 1) He wont pay additional 100$us (more than the average paycheck here) so we can play a LAN game. I mean why would he? there are tons of games you just have to click a button to play LAN. why should he pay to do this? Should his kinds miss their private school so we can play SC2? Or should LAN be available with a single click like it always been? 2)He doesn't give a **** if SC2 is the most epic game ever!!! He has a family to feed. So its just a game to him. He already has to make the investment in the game itself. i repeat "there are tons of games you just have to click a button to play LAN. why should he pay to do this?" So pre-answering you possible responses: Why not share the internet with the internet only room? u just need to log in to bnet and then you are not using the bandwidth anymore? Well here 1 of every 1000 ppl has home internet the rest of us just use a cybercafe. That includes but not limits to: business mails, relatives mail, corp. mails. internet homework, internet studies, internet learning, internet business, etc. So the machines are restricted to that use. Because you know gamers are hardcore and will use the Pc for hours leaving a lot of unfinished business from ppl that really need it. So games are banned from those pcs no matter what. So this is my friend's case and mine. At least in Bolivia that is the rule not the exception. There are a lot of other cases, a lot of other countrys, a lot of other places in the world where internet is not an option. IT JUST IS NOT AN OPTION. So to you ppl that are lucky enough to have easy access to internet: STOP defending a cause that is not yours. This LAN problem is not a problem to you, so don't flame. This LAN problem is a problem to us, so let us complain!!!!!! So resuming: No LAN = maybe good for Blizzard - Good for "you" - Bad for "us" LAN = Not bad for Blizzard (will sell millions anyway) - Good for "you" - Good for "us" Key: "you" = "rich consumer/easy internet access" ; "us" = "poor consumer/limited or no internet access" I hope you understand "us" know. And to the ones that do thx. P.S.: to the guy that said that its 2009. Come on!!!! We are in the middle of a world crisis like somebody already said. Get out of your little perfect tiny world. Its harder for us to get internet today than it was 2 years ago. And the ones that had it (like me), couldn't keep it. So...... LET US COMPLAIN | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
competitive lan game without any lan support win | ||
|
despite
Bulgaria105 Posts
wait wut? EDIT: On June 30 2009 17:06 Aurious wrote: Solution: allow the download like wow activate CD-Key per account like wow problem fixed...no? Dude not everyone here has played wow, you can try to explain this a little bit. | ||
|
Aurious
Canada1772 Posts
| ||
|
lokiM
United States3407 Posts
| ||
|
georgir
Bulgaria253 Posts
On June 30 2009 16:33 oSS-Zarathustra wrote: We are COSTUMERS!!!!!!! Yeah, but my costume is at the cleaner's. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
What about those of us with less-than-great internet connections? I don't get consistently good connections through bnet...but VPNs get me decent games...not to mention being able to play at home offline is a big plus. This is fucking stupid...this is just a huge fucking DRM thing, and it fucking sucks ass. | ||
|
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
| ||
|
jtype
England2167 Posts
Have some faith in the guys that made SC1. | ||
|
Teh_Arbitur
Sweden60 Posts
| ||
|
isleyofthenorth
Austria894 Posts
| ||
|
Faoladh
Australia1 Post
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. | ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
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. | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
On June 30 2009 07:28 floor exercise wrote: No LAN is really disappointing and will kill small tournaments and lanparties. I didn't think Blizzard was the kind of company that would intentionally cut things out of their game just to potentially make a few extra bucks when they know it will negatively impact the community. If you don't live in a third world country you have internet on your LAN's | ||
|
despite
Bulgaria105 Posts
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. EDIT: I just read that in the other thread about the two developers. - 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? | ||
|
barth
Ireland1272 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
On June 30 2009 20:27 despite wrote: 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: 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. | ||
|
rasmusm
Denmark11 Posts
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 :/ | ||
|
georgir
Bulgaria253 Posts
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? | ||
|
kimchiterran
Poland81 Posts
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/ | ||
|
PobTheCad
Australia893 Posts
lan play was made sc1 so popular the company has completely lost it as far as i am concerned | ||
|
prayanavita
Hong Kong86 Posts
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. | ||
|
CrimsonLotus
Colombia1123 Posts
A hacked version of SC2 that allows LAN becomes available. The people that want/need LAN end up pirating the game. Everyone loses. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
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. | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
| ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
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. | ||
|
CrimsonLotus
Colombia1123 Posts
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. | ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
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. | ||
|
`Orum
United States6 Posts
| ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
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. | ||
|
Telemako
Spain1636 Posts
| ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
| ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
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. | ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
This decision largely effect those that don't have a connection, or for some other reason can't access BattleNet at all. | ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
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 $60 is considered, without argument, unreasonably expensive, you likely weren't thinking of buying games to begin with (considering how that happens to be, roughly, the standard). | ||
|
SkY)CosMoS
Dominican Republic106 Posts
| ||
|
00Zarathustra
Bolivia419 Posts
Sorry for that. We don't only have shitty ISP here, but also shitty English schools. I won't edit it so the quotes make sense. | ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
On July 01 2009 01:26 oSS-Zarathustra wrote: Sorry for that. We don't only have shitty ISP here, but also shitty English schools. I won't edit it so the quotes make sense. made my day | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
Regardless, my view of the analysis is off kilter slightly in that I compared a money cost with a time cost in terms of the money potentially made in that time, when in reality the time sacrificed would be recreational to begin with. Close, but not a totally accurate way to convert time and money. Since how people spend their recreational time varies so much, ultimately we're at the whims of peoples' laziness. Still, if the time and money comparison is deemed reasonable, a person making less than 60$ 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. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On July 01 2009 07:40 Yenzilla wrote: 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. How does this contradict what I said? Nobody really believes games should be free, it's just crap they make up to justify to themselves why being a dirty thief is ok, when really it's not and they are still a dirty thief. If you owned a store, and people just shoplifted because they didn't believe your products should cost money, I bet you would be pissed. The Internet just makes it easier to steal, so people decided all of a sudden that products shouldn't cost money. | ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
Either way, I don't see why we're arguing this point. I don't, on the whole, agree with piracy (save for the swashbuckling variety, but even then, I like my teeth and lack of scurvy), and I think its stealing also. I'm not justifying anything, I'm just explaining some of the perspectives I've seen when it comes to people who choose to pirate. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On July 01 2009 07:56 Yenzilla wrote: Actually, in the other thread, there was at least one person who stated that they didn't believe in intellectual property. I don't agree with the viewpoint either, but some people may actually think that (though, I agree, most are simply giving themselves excuses). Either way, I don't see why we're arguing this point. I don't, on the whole, agree with piracy (save for the swashbuckling variety, but even then, I like my teeth and lack of scurvy), and I think its stealing also. I'm not justifying anything, I'm just explaining some of the perspectives I've seen when it comes to people who choose to pirate. That's fine. All I'm saying is that there is no legitimate reason to steal a game instead of paying for it, and all justifications are just to make the thieves feel better about themselves. I know you're joking, but swashbuckling pirates are pretty damn horrible. They raid innocent ships, steal their cargo, and ransom the ship and crew. In the olden days, they would just kill the crew and take the ship and cargo. It's a shame that Disney felt the need to glorify them. | ||
|
Kim_Hyun_Han
706 Posts
On July 01 2009 07:59 Zzoram wrote: That's fine. All I'm saying is that there is no legitimate reason to steal a game instead of paying for it, and all justifications are just to make the thieves feel better about themselves. I know you're joking, but swashbuckling pirates are pretty damn horrible. They raid innocent ships, steal their cargo, and ransom the ship and crew. In the olden days, they would just kill the crew and take the ship and cargo. It's a shame that Disney felt the need to glorify them. thats right anyway starcraft is blizzard's property =/ whining is just whining, fools where the ones who allowed themselves to create a bond with a software | ||
|
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
You all know that the only reason they're doing this is to prevent things like garena/hamachi to work with SC2. And there's no way around that but to take it out completely. And so they did. Fuck 3rd wold countries, they don't have too much money to spend on our products anyway, right? ...blizzard are jerks. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Here is a question for you all: 1. If I buy the game and want to play it with my wife at home on our 2 computers, do I have to buy 2 copies and 2 copies of all the expansions like it is with WoW or can I just buy one copy and it work over "lan play" (you would still need the CD for single player) like you could with Starcraft 1? original complaint: + Show Spoiler + I just thought I would throw something out I am sure has already been mentioned...but what the heck. 1. WoW has no lan available. Supposedly "no lan" fixes piracy. 2. But you CAN play WoW without a subscription on private servers if you look for it. 3. This doesn't happen very often because WoW is completely based on people/people interaction (it is a massively multiplayer online game). If there were only 3 ppl on your server, that would be boring as heck. 4. Starcraft in NOT an MMO and therefore point 3 does not apply to it. All you need to enjoy the game is 2 people and some system for finding someone who wants to play. therefore: 5. Starcraft will be hacked and pirates will still play off of battle.net. Taking out LAN did not fix the problem and all it did is take away from all of us who don't plan on pirating the chance to play on a lan with friends/family. Boo. Seriously. Nothing gained and something of value lost. | ||
|
poor newb
United States1879 Posts
| ||
|
sely
United States30 Posts
On July 02 2009 06:26 poor newb wrote: how can you have professional gaming leagues which all that lag, even the smallest amount of delay is unacceptable for programing Because players with have to connect to bnet for authentication only. After that it will be like playing over LAN, at least latency wise. | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On July 01 2009 05:53 barth wrote: + Show Spoiler + 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? No. Wow is a mmorpg, SC isn't a mmorts. Besides, SC was really fun playing in lans and etc . | ||
|
ManWithCheese
Canada246 Posts
On July 02 2009 06:43 Pika Chu wrote: No. Wow is a mmorpg, SC isn't a mmorts. Besides, SC was really fun playing in lans and etc .Not a single person is stopping you from playing at lans. Make sure there is an internet connection available, log onto battle.net, play together. | ||
|
Mykill
Canada3402 Posts
you can play b-net beside each other.... | ||
|
SkylineSC
United States564 Posts
On July 02 2009 06:26 poor newb wrote: how can you have professional gaming leagues which all that lag, even the smallest amount of delay is unacceptable for programing FYI. money raised in those pro leagues does NOT go to blizzard here is a question, do blizzard really care about the small fraction of competitive players? they prolly lose more money by letting people have pirate servers, than gaining from drawing in the competitive players. most of their money will come from pubs, and to them they don't care about having LAN or whatnot, a free b.net 2.0 is plenty for 90% of the public. sorry blizzard doesn't cater to the small competitive community by allowing private piracy servers, they actually like to make money off games. i mean so they lose a few hardcore gamers who refuse to play b.net 2.0, but i doubt it will hurt their sales if they let people have pirate servers. because there are a LOT more people willing to pirate this game than people who are willing to give up sc2 because the lack of LAN. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On July 01 2009 17:31 CubEdIn wrote: Everyone who is talking about piracy are missing the actual point: not our problem. How is it not our problem? Piracy --> less money for Blizzard --> less resources with which to make games and support the community (that's us btw) Of course we should care about SC2 being pirated. | ||
|
Suc
Australia1569 Posts
| ||
|
omninmo
2349 Posts
On July 02 2009 10:48 Bill307 wrote: How is it not our problem? Piracy --> less money for Blizzard --> less resources with which to make games and support the community (that's us btw) Of course we should care about SC2 being pirated. so misunderstood. vivendi does not make fat stacks of cash from simply selling copies of their games... that is the old business model of "make a good game and sell a bunch of copies.. rinse repeat" activlizzard's new business model is to make tons of money from residual income over time (see WoW) which comes via micro-transaction on bnet2, and through esporting events, sponsors, and broadcasting fees. They will make millions by selling the game three times but that is chump change compared to the profits of the next 10 years from their esports hegemony. Piracy only hurts small scale software companies. If Activlizzard was just starting up and depending solely on game purchase revenues then having their game pirated would be disastrous. A game like SC2, which will have lunchboxes, pepsi promotions, etc is not hurt by piracy. The absence of LAN is only going to "fight piracy" indirectly. Their goal and purpose for removing LAN is to ensure that all games from casual to starleague level are played on battlenet where players are more likely to partake in micro transactions and to cut out the chinese inspired lan clients like Garena so that their hegemony can prevail unchallenged. | ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
On July 02 2009 13:08 omninmo wrote: Piracy only hurts small scale software companies. Don't be ridiculous. While it may not be crippling (like it would be to an independent company) a lost sale is a lost sale, and that hurts the company. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
| ||
|
SkylineSC
United States564 Posts
they DONT CARE about the group of drunken college kids who want to play SC on a LAN in one room they DONT CARE about the handful of remaining PRO GAMERS in korea, again... their proceeds does NOT go to blizzard, why should blizzard care? they DONT CARE even more about the foreign "pro gamers" who use lan servers. they CARE about the millions of public players who will be drawn to SC2 because of WoW, or video games in general. they CARE about the countless of those will torrent the game on the day of its release. look, the fact is, the audience LAN caters to is NOT in anyway significant compare to all those potentially pirated copies played on private LAN servers, if LAN was implemented. the thing is, all those people whining about it, about how "we will not play SC2 because there is not LAN". blizzard DOES NOT care that they don't. for every one of these whiners, there probably 10 whiners that now have to pay for a SC2 rather than pirating it. Blizzard is not losing money because of this... | ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27149 Posts
If you wish to continue the intellectual property debate, there is a fine thread here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=96625¤tpage=last going on right now. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs TBD
TBD vs Mong
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Cure vs Classic
ByuN vs TBD
herO vs TBD
TBD vs NightMare
TBD vs MaxPax
OSC
PiGosaur Monday
Afreeca Starleague
herO vs TBD
Royal vs Barracks
Replay Cast
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
MaxPax vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs herO
Cure vs Rogue
Classic vs HeRoMaRinE
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
