|
On May 05 2010 05:13 palanq wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2010 08:26 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Can you please explain, then, why they cannot simply force you to authorize your copy everytime you want to play on LAN (or, at least the first time)? I mean, wouldn't that solve most of the no-LAN *AND* most of the piracy issues?
this. like I said before, there's like absolutely no reason why we can't have the best of both worlds by requiring connection before and after, not during the games. I think this is what the community should be pushing for, if Blizzard cares enough about the piracy issues to not implement complete disconnected LAN play. Heck, the battle.net servers don't even need to be up as long as some 'authenticator' servers are, right? (I don't know anything about network infrastructure).
I believe the reason is that If LAN capability is there, in order to pirate the game, all hackers must do is bypass the authenticator, which is much simpler than completely emulating BNET 2.0 or creating 3rd party LAN capabilities.
Heck, hackers already cracked a lot of BNET 2.0, and are able to bypass battle.net login, all that remains is the BNET2.0 emulation and establishment of 3rd party servers. If blizzard did all the work for them, I'm sure it would be a cinch to crack/bypass the authenticators, as all the LAN play would be client-side.
|
On May 05 2010 05:32 Chriamon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 05:13 palanq wrote:On May 04 2010 08:26 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Can you please explain, then, why they cannot simply force you to authorize your copy everytime you want to play on LAN (or, at least the first time)? I mean, wouldn't that solve most of the no-LAN *AND* most of the piracy issues?
this. like I said before, there's like absolutely no reason why we can't have the best of both worlds by requiring connection before and after, not during the games. I think this is what the community should be pushing for, if Blizzard cares enough about the piracy issues to not implement complete disconnected LAN play. Heck, the battle.net servers don't even need to be up as long as some 'authenticator' servers are, right? (I don't know anything about network infrastructure). I believe the reason is that If LAN capability is there, in order to pirate the game, all hackers must do is bypass the authenticator, which is much simpler than completely emulating BNET 2.0 or creating 3rd party LAN capabilities.
But they will eventually crack it anyways and as soon as sm1 cracked it, everyone will be able to do the same in no time.
|
On May 05 2010 05:35 kickinhead wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 05:32 Chriamon wrote:On May 05 2010 05:13 palanq wrote:On May 04 2010 08:26 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Can you please explain, then, why they cannot simply force you to authorize your copy everytime you want to play on LAN (or, at least the first time)? I mean, wouldn't that solve most of the no-LAN *AND* most of the piracy issues?
this. like I said before, there's like absolutely no reason why we can't have the best of both worlds by requiring connection before and after, not during the games. I think this is what the community should be pushing for, if Blizzard cares enough about the piracy issues to not implement complete disconnected LAN play. Heck, the battle.net servers don't even need to be up as long as some 'authenticator' servers are, right? (I don't know anything about network infrastructure). I believe the reason is that If LAN capability is there, in order to pirate the game, all hackers must do is bypass the authenticator, which is much simpler than completely emulating BNET 2.0 or creating 3rd party LAN capabilities. But they will eventually crack it anyways and as soon as sm1 cracked it, everyone will be able to do the same in no time.
Thats not guaranteed, because as soon as BNET2.0 emulation is cracked(which will likely take a long time), blizz can simply update BNET2.0 in a new patch, and emulated servers will be stuck back at where they were. Blizz has pretty much proved (with warden from classic bnet) that server-side security measures can win with frequent updates.
|
|
|
Blizzard is like:
Herp derp we're gonna stop the pirates for two weeks and "(#&/ over the customer for a long time (until we feel like patching in it). Tell dustin to talk crap about it being superior and other bull and our most hardcore blizz fans will eat it up and defend us on the forums.
Wait, people are trying to PLAY COMPETITIVELY in tournaments cross regions?! Haha, who would want to do tha-... o wait.. the community made starcraft a truly great e-sport all over the world... aaa shit.
How come we forgot that? Oh well we'll shut it down after all these years and people might forget how good starcraft 1 was WITH LAN in tournaments before release.. what KeSPA doens't care about our lawsuit?! aww...
Then we'll send our special versions to approved partners, "#)( the community (and KeSPA) they can wine all they want we control the media, the broadcasted events will be perfectly lag free.
Herp derp.
Ahhh, nerd rage is the best rage.
EDIT: one curse slipped in, also:
![[image loading]](http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/7423/12462592362.jpg)
|
SC2 is already a failure in my eyes at so many lvls.
Im not buying this game period
|
On May 05 2010 06:40 SkelA wrote:
SC2 is already a failure in my eyes at so many lvls.
Im not buying this game period
agreed on first point, though I'm probably inconsequent and stupid enough to buy it anyways....
hope dies last....
|
On May 05 2010 06:40 SkelA wrote:
SC2 is already a failure in my eyes at so many lvls.
Im not buying this game period
=(
|
Piracy is not the main reason for no lan. The majority of pirates are happy with cracked single player. Removing lan won't make pirates buy the game who wanted to play it on lan. And all pirates know that you can't have good online play with cracked games.
I think the sole main reason for no lan is to fuck Kespa, and any other unautorized, commercial esport use of the game. Without lan and with BNet2.0, anybody who wants to make official money from SC2 mutliplayer must involve and pay Blizzard.
Even if somebody tried to host a tournament via BNet2.0 that is not authorized, blizz could just disconnect those games from BNet. Big money tournaments will surely get the option to pay blizz to get some local lan server to run without any online issues.
Blizz won't add lan unless it becomes certain that there is no money to gain from SC2 esports.
It's just sad sad sad because any non-profit and small scale multiplayer play is fucked and has to suck up all the numerous disadvantages of online play like more lag, cheaters, players watching the livestream and BNet going down for maintenance.
|
On May 05 2010 06:40 SkelA wrote:
SC2 is already a failure in my eyes at so many lvls.
Im not buying this game period
I don't understand how people can have THIS bleak of an outlook during the beta of a new game. What they have now is a pretty awesome game for just a few months of customer feedback. Imagine what they can do with 2-3 years of feedback. Maybe nothing, but maybe something. Have faith!
|
Just want to mention something stated in the first page - they said they will have chat channels, its in the planning/development stage and will be patched in.
|
On May 05 2010 06:53 Blacker wrote:
I think the sole main reason for no lan is to fuck Kespa, and any other unautorized, commercial esport use of the game.
And therefore also themselves.... ^^'
Why d'you think SC2 got an adult-only-rating in South Korea and why not even a single progamer is playing sc2... okay - besides idra oc.
|
On May 05 2010 06:57 Bull-Demon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 06:40 SkelA wrote:
SC2 is already a failure in my eyes at so many lvls.
Im not buying this game period I don't understand how people can have THIS bleak of an outlook during the beta of a new game. What they have now is a pretty awesome game for just a few months of customer feedback. Imagine what they can do with 2-3 years of feedback. Maybe nothing, but maybe something. Have faith!
The game is OK, but they don't even want to fix several key issues (high ground and lack of micro to name a few and they're imo going in the wrong direction with the game. Not to mention the whole KeSPA debacle and their efforts to destroy the esport scene while trying to convince us they're doing the opposite.
I'm not buying it either.
|
On May 05 2010 07:07 kickinhead wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 06:53 Blacker wrote:
I think the sole main reason for no lan is to fuck Kespa, and any other unautorized, commercial esport use of the game. And therefore also themselves.... ^^' Why d'you think SC2 got an adult-only-rating in Soth Korea and why not even a single progamer is playing sc2... okay - besides idra oc.
Progamers are technically athletes... Here is a stupid example. Micheal Jordan was really good at basketball(SCBW). He decided he wanted to switch to a new sport, like baseball(SC2). Well since baseball is a different game he was not very good at it. He was in top condition from training for basketball that he wasn't terrible at baseball but he wasn't the best either. Expecting progamers to drop SCBW and switch to SC2 and be as good as they were in SCBW is a stretch. Why take the gamble and leave the spotlight you currently have?
edit: I am not denying that they will become the best @ SC2, but to expect them to stop training for the sport they are paid to play to learn a game going through beta does not really suit their lifestyle atm.
The no lan is a huge battle of words but you never know what the future holds.
|
On May 05 2010 06:57 Bull-Demon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 06:40 SkelA wrote:
SC2 is already a failure in my eyes at so many lvls.
Im not buying this game period I don't understand how people can have THIS bleak of an outlook during the beta of a new game. What they have now is a pretty awesome game for just a few months of customer feedback. Imagine what they can do with 2-3 years of feedback. Maybe nothing, but maybe something. Have faith!
Its MY opinion.... Havent played beta till now even tho i could get a few beta keys by now. The game doesnt look interesting to me and looks like a failure compared to BW. I wont invest money and TIME into something i know i wont have fun playing it.
|
On May 05 2010 06:57 Bull-Demon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 06:40 SkelA wrote:
SC2 is already a failure in my eyes at so many lvls.
Im not buying this game period I don't understand how people can have THIS bleak of an outlook during the beta of a new game. What they have now is a pretty awesome game for just a few months of customer feedback. Imagine what they can do with 2-3 years of feedback. Maybe nothing, but maybe something. Have faith!
It shouldn't take 2-3 years to make the game good, wtf are you talking about. They know what made starcraft 1 good. They've tried to implement much of it into sc2 without totally copying it and succeeded pretty well in doing so.
The game itself is good, the interface is NOT. Unless they do a 180 on these two MAJOR issues (no global play in any form & no way to not rely on the battle.net servers for EVERYTHING) it won't be as great as it should be. Ironically both these issues, which was a non-issue in sc1, can be solved by a hacked/pirated version since it isn't a problem with the game itself, just the server layout.
They NEED to rethink this otherwise the hacked (but paid for so you can still play ladder and all that) version will be the superior one.. that's not how a game should be designed.
Make it as good as you can get it, then "let" the hackers improve on it years later when the initial architecture has grown old.
Fine make me connect to battle.net for every game but don't force me to send ALL the packages trough your servers, in the long run blizzards server costs should go down and the pirate protection will still be there, but maybe not as strong as before.
As it stands now, every pro starcraft gamer will have a real version and a hacked one...
(just like everyone here who plays BW have prob only the hacked version.. why can't they just give us what we want instead of forcing us to do this?)
|
The game is good, but not good enough.....
It's like Blizzard was building a house but instead of finishing it, they suddenly stop and begin to demolish it with sledgehammers...
so close and yet so far away - makes me rage!
|
On May 05 2010 05:45 tnud wrote:Blizzard is like: Herp derp we're gonna stop the pirates for two weeks and "(#&/ over the customer for a long time (until we feel like patching in it). Tell dustin to talk crap about it being superior and other bull and our most hardcore blizz fans will eat it up and defend us on the forums. Wait, people are trying to PLAY COMPETITIVELY in tournaments cross regions?! Haha, who would want to do tha-... o wait.. the community made starcraft a truly great e-sport all over the world... aaa shit. How come we forgot that? Oh well we'll shut it down after all these years and people might forget how good starcraft 1 was WITH LAN in tournaments before release.. what KeSPA doens't care about our lawsuit?! aww...
Then we'll send our special versions to approved partners, "#)( the community (and KeSPA) they can wine all they want we control the media, the broadcasted events will be perfectly lag free. Herp derp.Ahhh, nerd rage is the best rage. EDIT: one curse slipped in, also:
The motivation to stopping the pirates is that the pirates will never have the full multiplayer experience with BNet (piracy was a huge problem for BW in China), and so there is less incentive to pirate.
Valve uses the same logic, and pretty much no one pirates TF2. No one talks about them being evil right
|
On May 05 2010 06:57 Bull-Demon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 06:40 SkelA wrote:
SC2 is already a failure in my eyes at so many lvls.
Im not buying this game period I don't understand how people can have THIS bleak of an outlook during the beta of a new game. What they have now is a pretty awesome game for just a few months of customer feedback. Imagine what they can do with 2-3 years of feedback. Maybe nothing, but maybe something. Have faith!
Because as a sequel to a popular game, it can never live up to their expectations.
|
Also, the no server integration thing is way more important than the LAN thing. I'd take integrated servers over LAN in a heartbeat
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
