|
On May 03 2010 12:51 Zato-1 wrote:
Ultimately, it's not my call, it's not your call, it's their call. They've already made this decision, and that's that. As a consumer, you only get one decision, one vote: vote with your wallet. Is SC2 worth US$60 to me, even without LAN functionality?
Hell yes.
...and when it comes time for this game to get pirated*, it will be your call, and my call, but, try as they might, NOT their call whether any of us actually use the pirated version instead. Because we fucking want LAN. And because everyone who knows anything about any of this stuff knows that DRM efforts not modeled on Valve's Steam** can't work, won't work...don't work.
Moreover, why even bother making a post like this, and declare to Blizzard that you are giving up your voice? Though it's true that the lack of LAN play won't stop very many potential buyers from making the purchase anyway, customer satisfaction is a long-term phenomenon, and Blizzard is certainly no stranger to cultivating it - Blizzard continued to patch Diablo II long after such patches could have had any meaningful impact on their revenues. This is just one obvious example of Blizzard 'caring' about their customers, beyond what's in their pocketbooks. Blizzard's high standards for technical support are another.
Buyers do forgive perceived slights, but they don't like making a habit out of it. There is no doubt that currently, Blizzard sees the lack of LAN play not as an improvement, or as a meaningless omission, but as a calculated sacrifice (maximize profits without pushing satisfaction levels to unacceptable, financially significant lows...what a surprise). As far as we know, they still think this is a sacrifice worth making. For my part, I will buy SC2 and 'publicly' lament it's lack of LAN until it is implemented. Why not? It is about as easy for Blizzard to implement LAN play as it is for me to bitch about its absence - it's the least I can do. But: if the PR on this continues to get worse for Blizzard, I wouldn't mind participating in a boycott. The scale of any effective boycott would have to be absolutely massive though, so I guess it won't happen  .
In the end, I just don't get Blizzard's angle. Though this stance might produce more upfront profits at game launch, the lack of LAN functionality is the biggest motive I have ever seen in this industry for players to seek non-official avenues to enjoy the game. But, as someone suggested above, maybe they are so cynical that they plan to ride this initial profit wave until LAN playability becomes a net-gainer for their margins. Too bad they can't give their fans a more favorable shake. Too bad Blizzard ain't Valve. Frankly, I find it all a little disgusting.
*Personally, I predict someone will have SC2 cracked before the release date, and certainly not long afterward.
**For those of you who don't know, Steam protects Valve's intellectual property without compromising [to any significant degree] the gaming experience. First off, all one need do to play Valve's games offline is complete a really simple verification process. Secondly, because the benefits of playing online through Steam are so attractive, and (perhaps still more so) because the service is so god damn slick anyway, gamers who want to play Valve games see no reason to turn elsewhere - even if the game can be gotten for free instead. Battle.net 2.0 resembles a crappier knock-off of Steam right now. The hype it has been getting from Blizzard is laughable in the context of how long Steam has been around. One more small point: through Steam, Valve has made downloading their primary product distribution method. Rather than asking consumers to drive all the way to the store, they looked at the pirates' distribution model and copied it. Valve has proven that free or not, convenience is king. On the other hand, Blizzard's bloated Collector's Edition, with it's critical WoW mount to bring in an extra few million, and its antiquated promotional scheme through Gamestop both strongly suggest that Blizzard is not the visionary AAA developer that is going lead the gaming industry into the future, but a juggernaut from the past, a moneymaker with a fantastic aptitude for game design. These days, I only wish that this aptitude didn't look so misplaced in their hands.
tl;dr;
Keep bitching about LAN, because it is better that we continue to do so.
|
The Stars War tournament games were awesome and totally lag free... LAN or a LAN substitute would be completely superfluous.
|
my two cents, is that bnet 2.0 does a great job in theory but fails in due to several issues...
It requires internet, granted if the event has great internet then great it will do a perfect job... But most events do not have great stable internet... WCG national finals always has outages and stability issues, or poor connection speeds. I dont see bnet working great in that situation, as the network at those types of events are usually at conventions etc and the internet is in use by other people as well.
another issue what if a USA player say goes to an international event in a different region, and the tournament requires your account? bnet then does a horrible job at the lan as the region locking will then force that player to buy a bnet account on that region before hand... Which in the future could get expensive if blizz doesnt make the base game cheaper and throws expansions on top of it.
I expect blizzard to learn first hand, when a major event happens and the internet goes out, or has issues especially if the developers are there.... i just hope im not at an event like that but there is a good stream, especially if it has alot of spectators...
|
i dont believe they said it was exactly going to replace LAN. they just want the community to be very tight knit, so EVERYONE who plays is on b.net. together.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On May 04 2010 06:59 CowGoMoo wrote:
The Stars War tournament games were awesome and totally lag free... LAN or a LAN substitute would be completely superfluous.
Are you being sarcastic :s? I'm guessing you are given that there were huge lag problems there.
On May 03 2010 12:51 Zato-1 wrote:
Blizzard has been asked before as to why they're not including LAN. Their answer has been... bullshit. "Bla bla bla better user experience if you're always connected to Battle.net all the time, you can chat with your friends from WoW and Diablo 3, you get achievements, bla bla bla". This thread, its poll, and many other threads in the past have made it painfully evident that the community would much rather have a LAN option than not. If there's one thing that the beta patches have told me, is that Blizzard reads these forums. They know what our opinion on the LAN issue is, fully well. And yet, they will not budge; they are knowingly crippling their product (removing LAN capability), to the detriment of their honest, paying customers.
That last phrase may have tipped you as to why they're really removing LAN- because of the 'non-paying customers'. Yes, the issue is piracy alright. They've denied it in the past, but actions speak louder than words. Fans are clamoring for LAN, and yet Blizzard keeps mum about the issue if asked on an interview about it, and gives us, literally, bullshit as their official reason as to why they're not including LAN. They are hurting the consumer with this course of action; we know it, they know it, we know they know it. Why would they do something like this? For sales, and for profit.
Digital Rights Management (DRM) on PC games has been a delicate issue, industry-wide. Some companies will screw paying customers over pretty hard with intrusive DRM. Blizzard is forcing you to play on Battle.net 2.0, or not play at all. Yes, it is a form of DRM. Yes, it leads to a worse user experience. Yes, Blizzard has given us a lot of crap to hide the fact that this basically amounts to their formula for DRM.
Now that I have established that no LAN = SC2's DRM, I have mixed feelings about this decision. I certainly would like LAN functionality on SC2, so it kinda sucks that it won't be available. On the other hand, if they're taking it out because they're fairly sure it will mean more money for them, then that's not too bad. I mean, SC2 has to be a profitable product for Blizzard- Otherwise, they should just go ahead and dedicate all their work to WoW. I want companies that give me stuff I like to make money; it's a market reward mechanism that says, "Hey, I like what you're doing. Here, have some encouragement to give me more of it". Blizzard clearly wants to make money too, so they'll look after their own interests, and that's fine- as long as they stay in business and stay profitable, they'll continue to make great games for us.
Ultimately, it's not my call, it's not your call, it's their call. They've already made this decision, and that's that. As a consumer, you only get one decision, one vote: vote with your wallet. Is SC2 worth US$60 to me, even without LAN functionality?
Hell yes.
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?
On May 04 2010 07:26 KiF1rE wrote:
my two cents, is that bnet 2.0 does a great job in theory but fails in due to several issues...
It requires internet, granted if the event has great internet then great it will do a perfect job... But most events do not have great stable internet... WCG national finals always has outages and stability issues, or poor connection speeds. I dont see bnet working great in that situation, as the network at those types of events are usually at conventions etc and the internet is in use by other people as well.
another issue what if a USA player say goes to an international event in a different region, and the tournament requires your account? bnet then does a horrible job at the lan as the region locking will then force that player to buy a bnet account on that region before hand... Which in the future could get expensive if blizz doesnt make the base game cheaper and throws expansions on top of it.
I expect blizzard to learn first hand, when a major event happens and the internet goes out, or has issues especially if the developers are there.... i just hope im not at an event like that but there is a good stream, especially if it has alot of spectators...
Yeah, the issue with players travelling and being unable to use their account is gonna be fun for sure.
|
who cares, soon it will be noobs in sc2, gosus in sc, and people who prefer micro back at wc3, and SC2 will only been seen as a divider of the communities, more a nuisance to esports than a gift. At least if they continue the streak of decent game play matched by shitty mechanics. Lets be honest, sc2 is stale already compared to sc1 and wc3, as far as esports goes and sc2, we are years away from development and it will take the community, and the 60$ extensions for this game to become worthwhile competition wise.
Right now the skill cap it way to low in general, and the lack of international support hinders this tenfold.
|
On May 04 2010 08:26 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2010 06:59 CowGoMoo wrote:
The Stars War tournament games were awesome and totally lag free... LAN or a LAN substitute would be completely superfluous. Are you being sarcastic :s? I'm guessing you are given that there were huge lag problems there.
yes
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On May 04 2010 09:23 CowGoMoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2010 08:26 FrozenArbiter wrote:On May 04 2010 06:59 CowGoMoo wrote:
The Stars War tournament games were awesome and totally lag free... LAN or a LAN substitute would be completely superfluous. Are you being sarcastic :s? I'm guessing you are given that there were huge lag problems there. yes
Ah good, it was so deadpan I wasn't sure haha >_<
|
On May 04 2010 08:26 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 12:51 Zato-1 wrote:
Blizzard has been asked before as to why they're not including LAN. Their answer has been... bullshit. "Bla bla bla better user experience if you're always connected to Battle.net all the time, you can chat with your friends from WoW and Diablo 3, you get achievements, bla bla bla". This thread, its poll, and many other threads in the past have made it painfully evident that the community would much rather have a LAN option than not. If there's one thing that the beta patches have told me, is that Blizzard reads these forums. They know what our opinion on the LAN issue is, fully well. And yet, they will not budge; they are knowingly crippling their product (removing LAN capability), to the detriment of their honest, paying customers.
That last phrase may have tipped you as to why they're really removing LAN- because of the 'non-paying customers'. Yes, the issue is piracy alright. They've denied it in the past, but actions speak louder than words. Fans are clamoring for LAN, and yet Blizzard keeps mum about the issue if asked on an interview about it, and gives us, literally, bullshit as their official reason as to why they're not including LAN. They are hurting the consumer with this course of action; we know it, they know it, we know they know it. Why would they do something like this? For sales, and for profit.
Digital Rights Management (DRM) on PC games has been a delicate issue, industry-wide. Some companies will screw paying customers over pretty hard with intrusive DRM. Blizzard is forcing you to play on Battle.net 2.0, or not play at all. Yes, it is a form of DRM. Yes, it leads to a worse user experience. Yes, Blizzard has given us a lot of crap to hide the fact that this basically amounts to their formula for DRM.
Now that I have established that no LAN = SC2's DRM, I have mixed feelings about this decision. I certainly would like LAN functionality on SC2, so it kinda sucks that it won't be available. On the other hand, if they're taking it out because they're fairly sure it will mean more money for them, then that's not too bad. I mean, SC2 has to be a profitable product for Blizzard- Otherwise, they should just go ahead and dedicate all their work to WoW. I want companies that give me stuff I like to make money; it's a market reward mechanism that says, "Hey, I like what you're doing. Here, have some encouragement to give me more of it". Blizzard clearly wants to make money too, so they'll look after their own interests, and that's fine- as long as they stay in business and stay profitable, they'll continue to make great games for us.
Ultimately, it's not my call, it's not your call, it's their call. They've already made this decision, and that's that. As a consumer, you only get one decision, one vote: vote with your wallet. Is SC2 worth US$60 to me, even without LAN functionality?
Hell yes. 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?
Because it's trivially easy to bypass. It's all about whether the check is client-side or server-side; if you make the checks server-side (i.e., the games are hosted on Battle.net, so they get to verify your CK-key and if they don't like what they see, you don't get to play), then it's a lot harder to play a pirated version of SC2 for free. If you play through LAN, then the games are going on outside of Battle.net- you could have SC2 make a client-side check-in with Battle.net to see whether to allow your LAN session to start or not, but since it's your local SC2 game that needs to get an answer, you can easily get a third party program that intercepts SC2's message to the Battle.net servers and simulates a valid answer from Battle.net back to SC2.
You can mess around with your own computer MUCH more easily than you can mess around with the Battle.net servers, basically.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
So essentially you need to hack the game, which is what's going to happen anyway when people make private servers? I don't see the difference :S
In addition, tho it's not ideal, you could force people to maintain a connection to bnet during the game, even while playing over LAN, couldn't you?
It would still make the game somewhat susceptible to bnet downtime, but at least it would prevent:
- People getting spammed by random people on TV
- Lag.
|
TossFloss
Canada606 Posts
On May 05 2010 01:17 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2010 08:26 FrozenArbiter wrote:On May 03 2010 12:51 Zato-1 wrote:
Blizzard has been asked before as to why they're not including LAN. Their answer has been... bullshit. "Bla bla bla better user experience if you're always connected to Battle.net all the time, you can chat with your friends from WoW and Diablo 3, you get achievements, bla bla bla". This thread, its poll, and many other threads in the past have made it painfully evident that the community would much rather have a LAN option than not. If there's one thing that the beta patches have told me, is that Blizzard reads these forums. They know what our opinion on the LAN issue is, fully well. And yet, they will not budge; they are knowingly crippling their product (removing LAN capability), to the detriment of their honest, paying customers.
That last phrase may have tipped you as to why they're really removing LAN- because of the 'non-paying customers'. Yes, the issue is piracy alright. They've denied it in the past, but actions speak louder than words. Fans are clamoring for LAN, and yet Blizzard keeps mum about the issue if asked on an interview about it, and gives us, literally, bullshit as their official reason as to why they're not including LAN. They are hurting the consumer with this course of action; we know it, they know it, we know they know it. Why would they do something like this? For sales, and for profit.
Digital Rights Management (DRM) on PC games has been a delicate issue, industry-wide. Some companies will screw paying customers over pretty hard with intrusive DRM. Blizzard is forcing you to play on Battle.net 2.0, or not play at all. Yes, it is a form of DRM. Yes, it leads to a worse user experience. Yes, Blizzard has given us a lot of crap to hide the fact that this basically amounts to their formula for DRM.
Now that I have established that no LAN = SC2's DRM, I have mixed feelings about this decision. I certainly would like LAN functionality on SC2, so it kinda sucks that it won't be available. On the other hand, if they're taking it out because they're fairly sure it will mean more money for them, then that's not too bad. I mean, SC2 has to be a profitable product for Blizzard- Otherwise, they should just go ahead and dedicate all their work to WoW. I want companies that give me stuff I like to make money; it's a market reward mechanism that says, "Hey, I like what you're doing. Here, have some encouragement to give me more of it". Blizzard clearly wants to make money too, so they'll look after their own interests, and that's fine- as long as they stay in business and stay profitable, they'll continue to make great games for us.
Ultimately, it's not my call, it's not your call, it's their call. They've already made this decision, and that's that. As a consumer, you only get one decision, one vote: vote with your wallet. Is SC2 worth US$60 to me, even without LAN functionality?
Hell yes. 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? Because it's trivially easy to bypass. It's all about whether the check is client-side or server-side; if you make the checks server-side (i.e., the games are hosted on Battle.net, so they get to verify your CK-key and if they don't like what they see, you don't get to play), then it's a lot harder to play a pirated version of SC2 for free. If you play through LAN, then the games are going on outside of Battle.net- you could have SC2 check in with Battle.net to see whether to allow your LAN session to start or not, but since it's your local SC2 game that needs to get an answer, you can easily get a third party program that blocks SC2's message to the Battle.net servers and always returns a valid answer. You can mess around with your own computer MUCH more easily than you can mess around with the Battle.net servers, basically.
Someone's going to make a b.net 2.0 emulator. Yes, it's more work than hacking a basic authenticator, but a lot easier than creating an emulator for MMOs where most of the game logic remains server-side.
And users don't need to hack the game to play LAN; they just need for someone else to publish a hack
|
On May 05 2010 01:28 FrozenArbiter wrote:
So essentially you need to hack the game, which is what's going to happen anyway when people make private servers? I don't see the difference :S
In addition, tho it's not ideal, you could force people to maintain a connection to bnet during the game, even while playing over LAN, couldn't you?
It would still make the game somewhat susceptible to bnet downtime, but at least it would prevent:
- People getting spammed by random people on TV
- Lag.
Actually, you couldn't. Again with the client-side vs. server-side checks; if it's SC2 that's checking whether you're connected to Battle.net, it's very easy to fool it into thinking you are connected to Battle.net when you really aren't. Any authenticity check that SC2 needs to make can be fooled easily, whereas checks that Battle.net needs to make can't- and you don't really need Battle.net in this last case you proposed, you just need SC2 to think Battle.net is there.
On May 05 2010 01:32 TossFloss wrote:
Someone's going to make a b.net 2.0 emulator. Yes, it's more work than hacking a basic authenticator, but a lot easier than creating an emulator for MMOs where most of the game logic remains server-side.
And users don't need to hack the game to play LAN; they just need for someone else to publish a hack
Yes, someone will make a b.net 2.0 emulator, and there's very little Blizzard can do about that. If they think this will result in less piracy than allowing LAN, however, then I can see why they'd stick to the 'no LAN' position.
|
Blizzard are really shooting themselves in the foot with no LAN play, all it will do is force more and more people to set up pvpgn-like servers when they want to play LAN.... Same goes for ping too really. Why go through battle.net when you can get a better service for free...
I admit I never bought sc1/bw... Or at least not for the first 3-4 years I played it, but the sole reason was there was no point as I got a better service from pvpgn servers (as an australian battle.net ping sucked)... I can see the same thing happening with sc2 the way things are going.
|
On May 05 2010 02:22 skipgamer wrote:
Blizzard are really shooting themselves in the foot with no LAN play, all it will do is force more and more people to set up pvpgn-like servers when they want to play LAN.... Same goes for ping too really. Why go through battle.net when you can get a better service for free...
I admit I never bought sc1/bw... Or at least not for the first 3-4 years I played it, but the sole reason was there was no point as I got a better service from pvpgn servers (as an australian battle.net ping sucked)... I can see the same thing happening with sc2 the way things are going.
Well, Battle.net 2.0 should be better in several ways. Staying in contact with friends and acquaintances playing Blizzard games helps; if the majority of the community plays on Battle.net, then to play with them you're also going to have to go to Battle.net. Localization and servers should allow better latency- heck, I'm playing the beta from Chile, and I've only had 1 game out of 30 in which I had noticeable lag.
There's also the fact that Blizzard is a company, and like all companies, they have other stakeholders besides their clients. What do you think stockholders would think if Blizzard told them they're doing absolutely nothing to protect their products against piracy? Stockholders would look at the rest of the industry, laugh, and then ask Blizzard if they're being serious. That just doesn't fly these days.
I don't know how effective no LAN will be as a form of DRM. But having spoken with a good friend of mine who makes a living working for a company that makes video games, he knows the industry rather well and is fairly convinced that no LAN is Blizzard's form of DRM. We'll have to see how it shakes out and how big a deal private servers end up being, but if I had to make an educated guess... I think Battle.net 2.0 will be huge compared to the pirate servers.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
SC1 battle.net is, incidentally, also huge compared to the pirate servers, especially when it still had a functioning ladder...
As is WC3 battle.net.
I mean, that's a really poor unit of measurement.
|
On May 05 2010 02:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:
SC1 battle.net is, incidentally, also huge compared to the pirate servers, especially when it still had a functioning ladder...
As is WC3 battle.net.
I mean, that's a really poor unit of measurement.
True, I suppose. But at least I hope I've established more or less convincingly that no LAN on SC2 is a piracy issue- it really would make no sense otherwise, what with the community feeling so strongly about the issue. If they're taking this feature out even though it's to our detriment, it must be because they actively don't want LAN capabilities on their product for some reason- then there's also the fact that they won't openly talk about why they're so adamant about no LAN, and there's only one plausible explanation: They want to deter piracy, but don't want to be anywhere near the 'DRM' acronym as far as gaming press and gaming sites are concerned, because it makes gamers drool venom.
|
On May 04 2010 06:59 CowGoMoo wrote:
The Stars War tournament games were awesome and totally lag free... LAN or a LAN substitute would be completely superfluous.
Can somebody please link a VOD of this tournament? I've done some google-ing to no avail and as far as I can tell, it's not been linked anywhere on Bnet forums. It might be useful to demonstrate the extent to which LAN is essential for competitions.
|
On May 05 2010 03:01 theSAiNT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2010 06:59 CowGoMoo wrote:
The Stars War tournament games were awesome and totally lag free... LAN or a LAN substitute would be completely superfluous. Can somebody please link a VOD of this tournament? I've done some google-ing to no avail and as far as I can tell, it's not been linked anywhere on Bnet forums. It might be useful to demonstrate the extent to which LAN is essential for competitions.
http://www.sc2p.com/Video/Detail/2242
It took me nearly an hour to find a good video. I kept trying to update my IE to view the original videos on a chinese site but it wouldnt work (FU IE) Eventually I crawled through the tourny thread and found that link.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On May 05 2010 02:52 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 02:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:
SC1 battle.net is, incidentally, also huge compared to the pirate servers, especially when it still had a functioning ladder...
As is WC3 battle.net.
I mean, that's a really poor unit of measurement. True, I suppose. But at least I hope I've established more or less convincingly that no LAN on SC2 is a piracy issue- it really would make no sense otherwise, what with the community feeling so strongly about the issue. If they're taking this feature out even though it's to our detriment, it must be because they actively don't want LAN capabilities on their product for some reason- then there's also the fact that they won't openly talk about why they're so adamant about no LAN, and there's only one plausible explanation: They want to deter piracy, but don't want to be anywhere near the 'DRM' acronym as far as gaming press and gaming sites are concerned, because it makes gamers drool venom.
Oh, yeah - no disagreement there.
|
I really do think Blizzard didn't think this one through... Maybe Activision had their dirty paws in Blizzards Business... -.-°
- Imagine SC2 being played Live in LAN-like-situations in front of many viewers like SC:BW is being played in Korea or WC3 in China etc.
- Now think about the last OSL-Finals between Flash and Lee "power outage" Jae-dong.
---> Now think about stuff like that happening ALL THE TIME - I'm thinking about these things in particular:
- "Incoming server reset - servers will shutdown in 5 Minutes" at Live-Events
OR
- Huge Lag-Problems
OR
- Server-Crashes
OR
- Internet-Crashes
Just think about the latency-issues: In SC:BW, basically entire strategies were just less viable online than offline, jsut because of latency-issues! Think about Muta-Micro for example - just not the same Online as Offline, which is fine, but if awesome players are playing live in front of an audiance, you wil not want the Latency to restrict them from playing as good as possible....
Also, the ppl truly suffering from this are the true fans, the competetive scene etc. People who will buy the game anyways. But the noobs that would potentially download it illegally, have a minor nuisance, but it will get cracked eventially anyways.
Also, Blizzard shouldn't forget that SC:BW is where it is right now, just because there were third parties involved that had monetary interests in SC:BW, like KeSpa. By Blizzard cutting off those parties, they cut off ressources that made their game go further as anyone could've possibly imagine when it first came out!
I mean, there are other way's to get ppl to buy and not illegally download your game than by restricting ppl.
But of course I focus on all the bad stuff about the Overmind that is B.Net2.0, maybe it's nice to get data from every match ever played or potentially watch reps or tune in live to every game you want ingame, but we'll just have to w8 and see....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
