|
On June 30 2009 01:13 omninmo wrote:dude... you dont get it. i applaud your efforts.. but seeriously. they know exactly what they are doing. they do not want SC2 to be played anywhere except battle.net. not on garena, not on iccup, not on hamachi, not in the privacy of your home offline with pals on LAN... nowhere but under the watchful eye of the Activlizzard. this is all by design. its not like the model of the DT that is open to fan input... no LAN is by design and frankly quite repulsive.
are you trying to insinuate that the activision/blizzard merger has absolutely anything to do with this decision?
|
Also, did you guys get to talk with David Kim at all? He said he was ranked #1 on their in-house ladder. I'm really curious about any details you could give about that (i.e. how many employees on it, if they play with all blizzard employees worldwide online, who's #2, etc).
|
On June 30 2009 01:28 wtfhi2u wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2009 01:20 omninmo wrote:
how do you cut out the competition? cut out LAN. simple. Sounds like a good way to make sure the community around the game never really takes off that much. Which is why it's idiotic.
exactly man. its really mindblowing. no wonder the game is being delayed so much.. they are just trying to figure out how to make battl.net support 10 million players. seriously, all your guys in canada, austria, etc... have you guys ever seen a PC cafe with 500 cpus packed to the brim 24 hours a day with guys/girls playing WoW, wc3, and starcraft? that is what its like in china and korea. its as if ASLmessenger, or someone else with no knowledge of the community, is in charge of sc2 network issues.
this is a perfect example of what happens when game studios get big. assholes in suits throw ridiculous sums of money at them and say, "you guys just keep making games, we will handle all that annoying PR, marketing, and image stuff". then some suit with absolutely no idea about how the community functions decides that the new game will only be played on battle.net. someone is getting a raise for this "brilliant" idea.
|
On June 30 2009 01:31 Dyno. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2009 01:13 omninmo wrote:dude... you dont get it. i applaud your efforts.. but seeriously. they know exactly what they are doing. they do not want SC2 to be played anywhere except battle.net. not on garena, not on iccup, not on hamachi, not in the privacy of your home offline with pals on LAN... nowhere but under the watchful eye of the Activlizzard. this is all by design. its not like the model of the DT that is open to fan input... no LAN is by design and frankly quite repulsive. are you trying to insinuate that the activision/blizzard merger has absolutely anything to do with this decision?
im not insinuating. this is a known industry fact. remember when SC vanilla came out. probably not. anyway, they had a "spawn" option on the CD which allowed your friends to install a multiplayer-only version of the game sans CDKEY so that if you bought it you and some friends (who werent willing to buy a game they never played before) could play each other over LAN connections. that was how blizzard did business. they were gamers for gamers.
blizzard is dead.
activlizzard uses the blizzard name, which it owns along with all of blizzard's intellectual property, but does not operate at even half the class-level as the latter on its worst day.
|
On June 30 2009 01:44 omninmo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2009 01:31 Dyno. wrote:On June 30 2009 01:13 omninmo wrote:dude... you dont get it. i applaud your efforts.. but seeriously. they know exactly what they are doing. they do not want SC2 to be played anywhere except battle.net. not on garena, not on iccup, not on hamachi, not in the privacy of your home offline with pals on LAN... nowhere but under the watchful eye of the Activlizzard. this is all by design. its not like the model of the DT that is open to fan input... no LAN is by design and frankly quite repulsive. are you trying to insinuate that the activision/blizzard merger has absolutely anything to do with this decision? im not insinuating. this is a known industry fact. remember when SC vanilla came out. probably not. anyway, they had a "spawn" option on the CD which allowed your friends to install a multiplayer-only version of the game sans CDKEY so that if you bought it you and some friends (who werent willing to buy a game they never played before) could play each other over LAN connections. that was how blizzard did business. they were gamers for gamers. blizzard is dead. activlizzard uses the blizzard name, which it owns along with all of blizzard's intellectual property, but does not do business anything like the latter ever did.
so you're really saying that, had blizzard not merged with activision, they would have chosen to include traditional LAN support
okay just making sure
|
I've bought almost every single blizzard game until now but I may not even buy SC2 anymore, little things like no LAN pisses me off about this new centralized direction blizzard is going. I'll gladly side with crackers and wait for pirate servers if so be it, at least they're pro-freedom.
|
Last Romantic: Are the tech trees in the original post accurate? If so, did anyone ask if they are open to changes? Requiring Stargate instead of Robotics Facility for Robotics Support Bay and requiring Stargate for Templar Archives seems so . . . weird  Well, not necessarily weird, but illogical. Though I guess you need a Facility to build a Colossus anyway.
|
On June 30 2009 01:44 omninmo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2009 01:31 Dyno. wrote:On June 30 2009 01:13 omninmo wrote:dude... you dont get it. i applaud your efforts.. but seeriously. they know exactly what they are doing. they do not want SC2 to be played anywhere except battle.net. not on garena, not on iccup, not on hamachi, not in the privacy of your home offline with pals on LAN... nowhere but under the watchful eye of the Activlizzard. this is all by design. its not like the model of the DT that is open to fan input... no LAN is by design and frankly quite repulsive. are you trying to insinuate that the activision/blizzard merger has absolutely anything to do with this decision? im not insinuating. this is a known industry fact. remember when SC vanilla came out. probably not. anyway, they had a "spawn" option on the CD which allowed your friends to install a multiplayer-only version of the game sans CDKEY so that if you bought it you and some friends (who werent willing to buy a game they never played before) could play each other over LAN connections. that was how blizzard did business. they were gamers for gamers. blizzard is dead. activlizzard uses the blizzard name, which it owns along with all of blizzard's intellectual property, but does not do business anything like the latter ever did.
That logic is ridiculous. It wouldn't have been reasonable to stick to the old distribution methods of Starcraft, regardless of whether Actizzard or old school Blizzard happened to be behind the wheel. By applying your 'logic' and 'industry facts', Warcraft 3 (being a Blizzard game, whine about it all you want) then would've, or should've, allowed spawns.
The 'fact' is, companies have been moving towards putting games online (see Steam), as its a relatively effective (as well as largely unintrusive-- hell, DRM shitstorms) way to prevent piracy. Considering how much more accessible the internet is nowadays, this should hardly be a problem, anyways.
|
|
|
United States20661 Posts
Pretty sure that tree is wrong.
IMO twilight council -> Dark Shrine/Templar Archives;
Stargate -> Fleet Beacon.
|
This thread is all LAN complaints, yes we know theres not LAN and no LAN sucks but i think we have all heard it -.-.
With Protoss, like in SC you should be able to go Core > whatever you like, having to go Core > Port > Whatever you like is gay. I also don't like how DT's and High temp's are on different techs =[
|
man i hope terran isnt imba 
|
|
|
On June 30 2009 01:52 Yenzilla wrote:
The 'fact' is, companies have been moving towards putting games online (see Steam), as its a relatively effective (as well as largely unintrusive-- hell, DRM shitstorms) way to prevent piracy. Considering how much more accessible the internet is nowadays, this should hardly be a problem, anyways.
If my internet goes down, I can still play Left 4 Dead with my roommates on our LAN despite being a steam game. But not starcraft 2?
|
Yes in SC we had spawn version that allowed you legally to play on bn as long as you did enter to the game created by normal installment copy with the same cd-key. So practically almost fully working mp bn service for free for up to 8 players per copy. Now 10 years later there is even no LAN. They actually included diferent installation version to allow playing on bn by many people, and now it is evil piracy. How can anybody claim that this is not much of a difference in how they approach customer, and what they offer?
|
Hey LR.
If you have any information about this, could you explain how they can rewind replays?
How does the code behind this works and stuff?
It was always said that it is impossible to rewind replays, so now im interested how they found a solution.
|
|
|
On June 30 2009 01:52 Yenzilla wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2009 01:44 omninmo wrote:On June 30 2009 01:31 Dyno. wrote:On June 30 2009 01:13 omninmo wrote:dude... you dont get it. i applaud your efforts.. but seeriously. they know exactly what they are doing. they do not want SC2 to be played anywhere except battle.net. not on garena, not on iccup, not on hamachi, not in the privacy of your home offline with pals on LAN... nowhere but under the watchful eye of the Activlizzard. this is all by design. its not like the model of the DT that is open to fan input... no LAN is by design and frankly quite repulsive. are you trying to insinuate that the activision/blizzard merger has absolutely anything to do with this decision? im not insinuating. this is a known industry fact. remember when SC vanilla came out. probably not. anyway, they had a "spawn" option on the CD which allowed your friends to install a multiplayer-only version of the game sans CDKEY so that if you bought it you and some friends (who werent willing to buy a game they never played before) could play each other over LAN connections. that was how blizzard did business. they were gamers for gamers. blizzard is dead. activlizzard uses the blizzard name, which it owns along with all of blizzard's intellectual property, but does not do business anything like the latter ever did. That logic is ridiculous. It wouldn't have been reasonable to stick to the old distribution methods of Starcraft, regardless of whether Actizzard or old school Blizzard happened to be behind the wheel. By applying your 'logic' and 'industry facts', Warcraft 3 (being a Blizzard game, whine about it all you want) then would've, or should've, allowed spawns. The 'fact' is, companies have been moving towards putting games online (see Steam), as its a relatively effective (as well as largely unintrusive-- hell, DRM shitstorms) way to prevent piracy. Considering how much more accessible the internet is nowadays, this should hardly be a problem, anyways.
i wasn't drawing conclusions in my OP i was simply listing facts. i was not implying that sc2 ought to have spawns, hell it ought to not even be sold in stores. it should be downloadable from the blizzard site after paying the fee. what you do with it afterwards is your own business. the new model is akin to going to the gym, buying a basketball and sneakers and being told that you can only play with the ball and shoes on their court.
|
On June 30 2009 01:55 wtfhi2u wrote:
"relatively effective"? Are you kidding?
I'm playing a cracked fallout3 right now just because I don't want anything to do with games for windows live.
I also played L4D for a while on pirated servers, no problem, worked like a charm.
How is any of this crap relatively effective?
The ONLY thing this move is going to hurt as far as SC2 is concerned, is the community. No ICCUPS, Garenas and no small scale LANs.
It's relatively effective, because its much harder to pirate relative to other anti-piracy measures. Where with most CD protections, you have cracks, and most CD keys, you have keygens, you're forced to play, as you say, on pirated servers. While, obviously, not everyone would mind, pirated servers do not give you the full experience of, say, Battle.net.
Obviously, piracy will happen regardless, but requiring internet connections is still a fairly effective way to limit it (moreso than anything else I can think of)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
