|
On May 23 2010 23:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2010 23:02 ymirheim wrote:
Actually the reason Dustin Browder does not want to answer directly why they don't want LAN support is simply because it does not sound very well from a marketing point of view. Everyone at blizzard knows that they don't want LAN support because as long as all gaming must be done through their servers you cannot copy the game, you have to buy it and they got full control over content and users so that they are free to ban hackers etc.
Blizzard will say stuff like that it is for our experience because while there is a shred of truth in things like anti smurfing, no lan is for their benefit. Although on this one I got to admit that if I worked at blizzard I would had done the same thing. As a developer these days you really have to do stuff this way.
This is the reason why there is no LAN support and will never be LAN support, no matter what Browder says. I am afraid that unlike some of the other things that are missing, the lack of LAN is just a matter of welcome to the current times. MMO's, steam, x-box live etc. The PC market was being hit badly by piracy to the point where the consoles were taking over the entire market. The developers have realized that through online functions like steam they can get around it without keys and securom's and stuff that just gets broken eventually anyway.
LAN is dead, and it is not an sc2 issue, it is dead for gaming overall. Ok, so tell me why we can't have LAN that you have to first authenticate the game on bnet  ? So, login to bnet, then in the custom game browser you can pick "LAN" and join games thare hosted on your Local Area Network. It's pretty stupid how you can't even host LAN events for SC2 now, since they apparently have a limit to how many connections can come from 1 IP....
Because at a technical level, authentications like that are unfortunately in the same category as securom stuff in that it can be broken. Unless you have to actually play the game through battlenet then as soon as you are offline you can break the authentication.
While admitting to no wrongdoings myself  Windows update works kind of like this, you need to authenticate your windows version temporarily and then you get access to download updates without any authentication beyond that. I don't know about windows 7 but in xp and vista it was a rather simple task of installing a third party software that broke the authentication fooling the system that your windows was authenticated when it wasn't.
The limit on connections from one ip is just retarded though, is this true? I had no idea. Seems really retarded =/
|
It's pretty stupid how you can't even host LAN events for SC2 now, since they apparently have a limit to how many connections can come from 1 IP....
You mean if theres a LAN like say DreamHack, just a few ppl there can play SC2? sorce for this?, it sounds to dumb to be true ^^
|
as a huge blizzard fan I feel obliged to support this thread.
all these suggested features simply must be in the game! chat channels, clan/community-systems, watching online replays together, LAN.
|
On May 23 2010 23:10 Kafkaesk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2010 23:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:On May 23 2010 23:02 ymirheim wrote:
Actually the reason Dustin Browder does not want to answer directly why they don't want LAN support is simply because it does not sound very well from a marketing point of view. Everyone at blizzard knows that they don't want LAN support because as long as all gaming must be done through their servers you cannot copy the game, you have to buy it and they got full control over content and users so that they are free to ban hackers etc.
Blizzard will say stuff like that it is for our experience because while there is a shred of truth in things like anti smurfing, no lan is for their benefit. Although on this one I got to admit that if I worked at blizzard I would had done the same thing. As a developer these days you really have to do stuff this way.
This is the reason why there is no LAN support and will never be LAN support, no matter what Browder says. I am afraid that unlike some of the other things that are missing, the lack of LAN is just a matter of welcome to the current times. MMO's, steam, x-box live etc. The PC market was being hit badly by piracy to the point where the consoles were taking over the entire market. The developers have realized that through online functions like steam they can get around it without keys and securom's and stuff that just gets broken eventually anyway.
LAN is dead, and it is not an sc2 issue, it is dead for gaming overall. Ok, so tell me why we can't have LAN that you have to first authenticate the game on bnet ? So, login to bnet, then in the custom game browser you can pick "LAN" and join games thare hosted on your Local Area Network. It's pretty stupid how you can't even host LAN events for SC2 now, since they apparently have a limit to how many connections can come from 1 IP.... I guess that's because Blizzard wants Battle.net to be the new leading platform for onlinegaming and selling. Steam prooved, that those platforms can be extemely powerful economy wise, and Blizzard just wants to follow this trend.
Steam still has LAN functionality.
What in god's name are you talking about.
And all I hear from people is *speculation, speculation, speculation* as to why it's not included. I'd rather hear from the horses mouth why they haven't honestly answered the question - they aren't being transparent.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 23 2010 23:13 SpurvL wrote:Show nested quote +
It's pretty stupid how you can't even host LAN events for SC2 now, since they apparently have a limit to how many connections can come from 1 IP....
You mean if theres a LAN like say DreamHack, just a few ppl there can play SC2? sorce for this?, it sounds to dumb to be true ^^
I assume it's not intentional:
On May 23 2010 06:28 Reborn8u wrote: I'm actually at a lan right now, we had a ton of delays because there is some kind of ip limit on Bnet so everyone (over 100 people) had to proxy to play. Then battlenet went down in the round of 16. Everyone had to replay games. It's pretty retarded. No chat rooms, No lan, everyone is having lag issues ON LAN! Giving away your email or facebook info is retarded. Here's a picture from the Fl lan. We're getting the games done now but it's been pretty rediculous! ![[image loading]](http://i49.tinypic.com/4q6gch.jpg)
On May 23 2010 23:11 ymirheim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2010 23:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:On May 23 2010 23:02 ymirheim wrote:
Actually the reason Dustin Browder does not want to answer directly why they don't want LAN support is simply because it does not sound very well from a marketing point of view. Everyone at blizzard knows that they don't want LAN support because as long as all gaming must be done through their servers you cannot copy the game, you have to buy it and they got full control over content and users so that they are free to ban hackers etc.
Blizzard will say stuff like that it is for our experience because while there is a shred of truth in things like anti smurfing, no lan is for their benefit. Although on this one I got to admit that if I worked at blizzard I would had done the same thing. As a developer these days you really have to do stuff this way.
This is the reason why there is no LAN support and will never be LAN support, no matter what Browder says. I am afraid that unlike some of the other things that are missing, the lack of LAN is just a matter of welcome to the current times. MMO's, steam, x-box live etc. The PC market was being hit badly by piracy to the point where the consoles were taking over the entire market. The developers have realized that through online functions like steam they can get around it without keys and securom's and stuff that just gets broken eventually anyway.
LAN is dead, and it is not an sc2 issue, it is dead for gaming overall. Ok, so tell me why we can't have LAN that you have to first authenticate the game on bnet ? So, login to bnet, then in the custom game browser you can pick "LAN" and join games thare hosted on your Local Area Network. It's pretty stupid how you can't even host LAN events for SC2 now, since they apparently have a limit to how many connections can come from 1 IP.... Because at a technical level, authentications like that are unfortunately in the same category as securom stuff in that it can be broken. Unless you have to actually play the game through battlenet then as soon as you are offline you can break the authentication. While admitting to no wrongdoings myself Windows update works kind of like this, you need to authenticate your windows version temporarily and then you get access to download updates without any authentication beyond that. I don't know about windows 7 but in xp and vista it was a rather simple task of installing a third party software that broke the authentication fooling the system that your windows was authenticated when it wasn't. The limit on connections from one ip is just retarded though, is this true? I had no idea. Seems really retarded =/
I'm assuming the connection thing isn't intentional. Anyway, there are gonna be cracked servers anyway, so if you need a crack to play on LAN illicitly either way, does it really matter?
Yeah, one is harder than the other to accomplish, but once someone does accomplish it.... it's just as easy for everyone coming after him.
|
that youtube video is shit. Who the fuck gives a shit about decals and avatars.
|
On May 23 2010 23:22 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I'm assuming the connection thing isn't intentional. Anyway, there are gonna be cracked servers anyway, so if you need a crack to play on LAN illicitly either way, does it really matter?
Yeah, one is harder than the other to accomplish, but once someone does accomplish it.... it's just as easy for everyone coming after him.
Yeah, there will be private servers but generally companies are fine with that trade off. Private servers takes a lot more time to get working than cracks to a game and they generally figure that the number of players who will play on them will be dramatically reduced by the fact that such servers are generally very buggy or lack content or due to the lack of maintenance/support.
They much rather live with the existence of private cracked servers than cracks. Its a situation where they have to weigh how much money they would loose in either situation and they loose way less to private servers so they go for that. I'm afraid that my experience trying to make a living as a game designer has made me understand why blizzard and every other developer like those of LoL, HoN etc are going for this solution. It is a shame, because LAN is useful and it is a bit problematic to have to rely on having constant internet access but at the same time this is not something that is going to change unfortunately, it is a market thing and within ten years every single game will be working like this.
I would also in an ideal world love LAN support for myself, I am just resigned to the fate that those days are gone.
|
|
|
The thing is, we actually have a community that is positioned to he heard a lot moreso than most gaming communities. If the myriad of issues mentioned here aren't remedied in some way I think that there are enough well known, popular people in the community whose voices will be listened to that there could potentially be enough resistance to get Blizzard to listen or at the very least TALK to us.
To be clear, by remedied I do not meet that Blizzard immediately gets all this stuff fixed and in Bnet by release. I would be happy with, for example, "No, chatrooms will not be in the game at release, but we have definitive plans to add them shortly thereafter and they absolutely will be there eventually".
But, ya know, for all of us here who are pissed off about this, I think there are ways to resist and make ourselves heard. The problem is, I think, that for any of it to work a significant portion of us have to be prepared to not buy the game. If we're all gonna buy it anyway none of this will matter to anyone at Blizz.
|
I can't even complete a single game anymore, crash every game
|
On May 23 2010 23:31 ymirheim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2010 23:22 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I'm assuming the connection thing isn't intentional. Anyway, there are gonna be cracked servers anyway, so if you need a crack to play on LAN illicitly either way, does it really matter?
Yeah, one is harder than the other to accomplish, but once someone does accomplish it.... it's just as easy for everyone coming after him. Yeah, there will be private servers but generally companies are fine with that trade off. Private servers takes a lot more time to get working than cracks to a game and they generally figure that the number of players who will play on them will be dramatically reduced by the fact that such servers are generally very buggy or lack content or due to the lack of maintenance/support. They much rather live with the existence of private cracked servers than cracks. Its a situation where they have to weigh how much money they would loose in either situation and they loose way less to private servers so they go for that. I'm afraid that my experience trying to make a living as a game designer has made me understand why blizzard and every other developer like those of LoL, HoN etc are going for this solution. It is a shame, because LAN is useful and it is a bit problematic to have to rely on having constant internet access but at the same time this is not something that is going to change unfortunately, it is a market thing and within ten years every single game will be working like this. I would also in an ideal world love LAN support for myself, I am just resigned to the fate that those days are gone.
I know plenty of people who pirate games, and none of them would consider buying a game just because they can't crack it. They just drop the idea of playing the game at all and move to another game. Pirates are not people who care about any particular game from my experience. They just want to get a quick dose of fun, and move to other games quickly.
By removing LAN (and all that other crap) Blizzard are not gaining new customers (since those who'd pirate the game are unlikely to buy it anyway). On the other hand, they are pissing off a lot of their actual customers - myself included. And I'm not buying the game as of now. I'm not playing the beta anymore nor am I going to sign their stupid ToS either. Regardless of whether they care, they've lost one customer already.
|
On May 23 2010 23:48 maybenexttime wrote:
Regardless of whether they care, they've lost one customer already.
Make that two.
|
Blizzard instead decided to add Facebook. I don't mean to be blunt, but who actually wanted that?
Blizzard received MILLIONS of dollars from Facebook for selling out their fans with this "integration".
It wasn't a "decision" by Blizzard developers. It was a direct order from the financial department at Blizzard, to the developers. They take orders from money-grabbing leeches now. You're all missing the point here. When you refer to Blizzard, you're talking about people who've probably played two hours of video games their entire lives. They have NO IDEA what people want, or what they're doing wrong. It's all about the big $.
And I'm not buying the game as of now. I'm not playing the beta anymore nor am I going to sign their stupid ToS either. Regardless of whether they care, they've lost one customer already.
I haven't signed into the beta for a week, and I don't intend to buy the game. I won't be treated like cattle. It was humiliating and degrading every time I used to log on to Battle.net. If they think they can get away with crap like this, let's see how awake people really are. I still have faith in the common people, against abusive corporate greed like what we're seeing from Blizzard.
- Former, huge Blizzard fan.
|
On May 23 2010 23:48 maybenexttime wrote:
I know plenty of people who pirate games, and none of them would consider buying a game just because they can't crack it. They just drop the idea of playing the game at all and move to another game. Pirates are not people who care about any particular game from my experience. They just want to get a quick dose of fun, and move to other games quickly.
By removing LAN (and all that other crap) Blizzard are not gaining new customers (since those who'd pirate the game are unlikely to buy it anyway). On the other hand, they are pissing off a lot of their actual customers - myself included. And I'm not buying the game as of now. I'm not playing the beta anymore nor am I going to sign their stupid ToS either. Regardless of whether they care, they've lost one customer already.
Yeah, there are lots of people who pirate games who would not buy them either way, just as there are also a lot of people who would possibly buy the game but opts to pirate it because it when they can. I have been young too, I know how it is. I can honestly say that in my youth when I had less money that I downloaded a lot of games that I would probably had bought if I couldn't pirate it.
Even if you don't buy the game because of no LAN support Blizzard will be fine with loosing that money because they would loose more the other way around. But as I have said this is an issue that encompasses the entire market, not just Blizzard. So this is quite a broader issue than just sc2.
Bottom line is that Blizzard would loose more money and have less control with LAN mode, whether you agree with that or not it is one of those things that are not going to be negotiable. There are other things about the game that we can battle with blizzard on and try to get into the game, this is one we just have to let go.
|
On May 24 2010 00:05 Perfect Balance wrote:Show nested quote +Blizzard instead decided to add Facebook. I don't mean to be blunt, but who actually wanted that? Blizzard received MILLIONS of dollars from Facebook for selling out their fans with this "integration". It wasn't a "decision" by Blizzard developers. It was a direct order from the financial department at Blizzard, to the developers. They take orders from money-grabbing leeches now. You're all missing the point here. When you refer to Blizzard, you're talking about people who've probably played two hours of video games their entire lives. They have NO IDEA what people want, or what they're doing wrong. It's all about the big $. Show nested quote +And I'm not buying the game as of now. I'm not playing the beta anymore nor am I going to sign their stupid ToS either. Regardless of whether they care, they've lost one customer already. I haven't signed into the beta for a week, and I don't intend to buy the game. I won't be treated like cattle. It was humiliating and degrading every time I used to log on to Battle.net. If they think they can get away with crap like this, let's see how awake people really are. I still have faith in the common people, against abusive corporate greed like what we're seeing from Blizzard. - Former, huge Blizzard fan.
you have any sources to back that up or is just speculation?
|
On May 23 2010 23:18 rewsky wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2010 23:10 Kafkaesk wrote:On May 23 2010 23:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:On May 23 2010 23:02 ymirheim wrote:
Actually the reason Dustin Browder does not want to answer directly why they don't want LAN support is simply because it does not sound very well from a marketing point of view. Everyone at blizzard knows that they don't want LAN support because as long as all gaming must be done through their servers you cannot copy the game, you have to buy it and they got full control over content and users so that they are free to ban hackers etc.
Blizzard will say stuff like that it is for our experience because while there is a shred of truth in things like anti smurfing, no lan is for their benefit. Although on this one I got to admit that if I worked at blizzard I would had done the same thing. As a developer these days you really have to do stuff this way.
This is the reason why there is no LAN support and will never be LAN support, no matter what Browder says. I am afraid that unlike some of the other things that are missing, the lack of LAN is just a matter of welcome to the current times. MMO's, steam, x-box live etc. The PC market was being hit badly by piracy to the point where the consoles were taking over the entire market. The developers have realized that through online functions like steam they can get around it without keys and securom's and stuff that just gets broken eventually anyway.
LAN is dead, and it is not an sc2 issue, it is dead for gaming overall. Ok, so tell me why we can't have LAN that you have to first authenticate the game on bnet ? So, login to bnet, then in the custom game browser you can pick "LAN" and join games thare hosted on your Local Area Network. It's pretty stupid how you can't even host LAN events for SC2 now, since they apparently have a limit to how many connections can come from 1 IP.... I guess that's because Blizzard wants Battle.net to be the new leading platform for onlinegaming and selling. Steam prooved, that those platforms can be extemely powerful economy wise, and Blizzard just wants to follow this trend. Steam still has LAN functionality. What in god's name are you talking about. And all I hear from people is *speculation, speculation, speculation* as to why it's not included. I'd rather hear from the horses mouth why they haven't honestly answered the question - they aren't being transparent.
Steam DID NOT have Lan when it was released. An offline mode came later after about 1 year.
This way they did force the users to log in into steam and use the online functions, stores etc.
I'm sure Blizzard is acting the same way, wants to force the users to use Battle.net all the time, and will put in an offline mode later on.
|
You have to understand, Blizzard has become a purely business driven company, the quality of their work has gone down. They just want to make more and more money. Adding facebook does not create any better playing experience at all. That was added to get more money from facebook. Greed has taken a toll on Blizzard...
|
On May 24 2010 00:16 Sashimi wrote:
You have to understand, Blizzard has become a purely business driven company, the quality of their work has gone down. They just want to make more and more money. Adding facebook does not create any better playing experience at all. That was added to get more money from facebook. Greed has taken a toll on Blizzard...
We can understand that without being complicit in it.
|
As far as anyone commenting "well you seemed content with b.net 2.0 until the lag issue came up and now you're simply taking your anger out on something" couldn't be further from the truth.
I think the lag issue is a good thing because a lot of the b.net 2.0 hate that is currently being generated shows how little to do there is on b.net 2.0 when you can't play a game. On old b.net you could sit in chat rooms and socialize with the community, join a different realm, or play lan, whenever you couldn't play a game because of server instability. Anyone that used to play SC actively realizes how important those functions are to maintain a RTS fanbase.
|
Blizzard tried to reinvent the wheel and came up with a square.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
