EPTBnet 2.0 replacing LAN - Page 13
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
voltik
United States42 Posts
| ||
|
theSAiNT
United States726 Posts
There is something to be said for community outcry. For instance, Valve famously tried to engage with the community regarding l4d and l4d2. Although Valve is arguable a lot different to Activision Blizzard, but it's worth a shot. | ||
|
Rizzelet
United States74 Posts
Not even close. It's all a money grab. That goes without saying. Blizzard is a company and they need to make money. They're not spending years and years working on this game out of the goodness of their hearts just to have their intellectual property repeatedly stolen. | ||
|
tnud
Sweden2233 Posts
On May 07 2010 01:11 tnud wrote: I think I remember how the second and third starcraft 2 (protoss and zerg) was originally just the single player that differed, now they are expansions. So 60+40+40 (hopefully! prob 60+60+60 = 180..) for the full game. 140 *3 (+shipping) for global starcraft 2. 420$ (or 540) + http://starcraftrankings.com/ (sorry guys, but a real-time ladder would be better) + external chat solution (TL IRC to the rescue!) + external clan solution (dunno, some standard how to name your character + IRC + website) + external send my screen to you/count down from 3 on skype (to watch a replay with a friend) + 3rd party LAN hack and the risk of viruses/getting your account with all your games banned :/ EDIT: a bit negative, but truth. also, LAN support (and hamachi) removes the need for two points on the list (and lowers cost to 140). Not a bad deal for something AS FRIKKING BASIC AS LAN. My post from the facebook thread, but just as suited for topic. (Please don't hate for "double" post, at least I didn't start a new topic..) | ||
|
dNo_O
United States233 Posts
On May 05 2010 07:23 PanzerDragoon wrote: 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 no. valve's steam for cafes idea is shitty too. the lans i've played 1.6 at that were running steam for cafe i had at least 2 matches that i played in where someone would get steam errors that would alt tab them in the middle of a round (because steam for cafe randomly chooses what steam id to log you onto and will log in people at the same lan on the same id and since lan centers have certain ids that they can use because that's what they pay the licensing fee based on... when someone else is logged into the cafe client and gets the same id the valve content servers will throw a shit fit about it)... also, technically the lan centers have to pay this fee to use this client so that they can host tourneys. technically valve can sue any venue that hosts one without proper licensing from them. they pay a fee according to how many computers they have that run the client and what games are on it. in smaller less populated communities(even cities as big as seattle) there's no way a lan center can generate the revenue necessary to stay in business while paying this fee so they all pretty much closed up or just run xbox lans now... the first lan in washington after steam was released had to use a cracked steam client because the steam servers kept going down and kicking everyone out of the servers they were in the same room as... a perfect example of how not having true lan sucks: http://www.hltv.org/news/3797-video-minet-goes-bananas i know, i know the network was being ddos'd but still... if you had true lan the network could have been invulnerable to ddos because you wouldn't need an internet connection to use steam. just have everyone plugged into a switch and have the broadcasters hooked up to the internet separately... cpl and wsvg '06 (not 100% on the year) had a setup like that and even though the broadcast got ddos'd a couple times the actual matches went flawlessly. this is probably what will end up happening with bnet 2.0 imo... blizzard won't fuck with the really small lans for less than $1k, but big ones like wcg or esl will have to pay fees to run their larger international big-prize competitions... which are of course what draws people into the game as a sport and not just some casual bullshit like MW2. | ||
|
dNo_O
United States233 Posts
On May 05 2010 23:14 Zato-1 wrote: This makes absolutely no sense. LAN or no LAN, if you want to establish a FOR PROFIT BUSINESS around BLIZZARD'S GAME, you need Blizzard's permission to do it. In Kespa's case, Blizzard is only giving Kespa permission to operate with SC2 if Kespa will relinquish ownership of all content they create to Blizzard. LAN has absolutely nothing to do with this issue; Kespa of all entities should manage to find a way around this limitation if that's all it took. But no, the crux of the matter in the Kespa issue is that when it comes to Blizzard's game, you play by Blizzard's rules, and Kespa doesn't want to. Whether Kespa can run tourneys on SC2 or not is not a technical issue (LAN), it's a legal issue where Blizzard holds all the cards. that's hilarious because in 06 lan centers that used steam for cafe's were supposed to pay a monthly license fee to valve so that they can have as many accounts as they need logged in from the same ip. as i was told, in '06 valve also wanted money for permits to host LAN tourneys for steam games at "non-steam cafe lan centers" (where competitors would have to use their own steam account to play)... if i remember correctly the potential fine steam quoted in an email to one of the lan centers near seattle for not using steam cafe was something around $1 ~ 2k depending on how many computers were used in a tournament that resulted in a cash prize for the winner... edit : crap i didn't realize nobody else had posted yet, i figured someone would have by now... sorry for two posts together like this :X | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/7423/12462592362.jpg)
