| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
HeIios
Sweden2523 Posts
I also doubt that even Sweden is going to be able to support it's lans of 11,000 to play games online simultaneously. Well even if they would play simultaneously (people sleep, jack off under jackets etc) it shouldn't be a problem, I think it's something like 40gigabit per second. But at least you guys in Australia have kangaroos... [edit] Oh and you have vegemite too, seriously :/. | ||
|
Batch
Sweden692 Posts
On June 14 2010 23:24 Acies wrote: I sometimes get lag with 1.5MB/s (around 150kb/s). You forget that not all countries are blessed with high population densities with strong internet infrastructure and located relatively close to the nearest BNet server. A 100Mb/100Mb is not laughably cheap here, nor is it simple to obtain anywhere you want. LANs of large sizes are usually hosted in city halls, gymnasiums and community centres which usually host events that do not require internet and as such are not built with the location of the nearest internet exchange in mind or have fibreoptic cables installed. Maybe in Sweden where you have dreamhack such a setup might be trivial but it is not so in countries whose telecommunications budgets go into achieving coverage of large areas rather than high quality in dense populations. I also doubt that even Sweden is going to be able to support it's lans of 11,000 to play games online simultaneously. It just boggles the mind that anyone can consider it sane to transfer game data 12,000 km across oceans rather than 5m over a local network. All for some misguided attempt to thwart piracy that has time and time again proved only to bolster it. First I want to say that my post wasn't intended to be a brag post about Internet infrastructures, it was posted as a reply to the claim that you would need a big bandwidth connection to support medium sized LANs. Secondly you mentioned Dreamhack. They would actually don't have any problems with their connections since they got a realy fat pipe shoveling data to and from the internet. If Blizzard provides larger LANs with a local Battle.net 2 proxy this would be a non problem since Dreamhack should qualify as being a large LAN. Finaly I agree that it would be much better to avoid the long distance game data traveling and I think a LAN feature would be great but I understand Blizzards reasoning since they probably will sell at least twice as much games if they can avoid the game from being pirated. I would have done the same solution as Blizzard and don't blame them for doing so. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
The issue never was with these massive lans. The issue is with the small group of friends that are UNABLE to play with each other in the same building as there is no support for it. This has nothing to do with eSports or any grander competition. It's the little guy that gets screwed over. Unlike popular belief not everything has the capabilities or having 5+ people playing at the same time online. I actually find this quite funny. I remember when console games used to come with split screen and how awesome it was to just put in a disk and jam with some friends but now thanks to internet consoles have become simplified PCs lacking what made them great in the first place. It seems even PC games are going that way. | ||
|
Acies
Australia196 Posts
On June 15 2010 00:06 Batch wrote: First I want to say that my post wasn't intended to be a brag post about Internet infrastructures, it was posted as a reply to the claim that you would need a big bandwidth connection to support medium sized LANs. Secondly you mentioned Dreamhack. They would actually don't have any problems with their connections since they got a realy fat pipe shoveling data to and from the internet. If Blizzard provides larger LANs with a local Battle.net 2 proxy this would be a non problem since Dreamhack should qualify as being a large LAN. Finaly I agree that it would be much better to avoid the long distance game data traveling and I think a LAN feature would be great but I understand Blizzards reasoning since they probably will sell at least twice as much games if they can avoid the game from being pirated. I would have done the same solution as Blizzard and don't blame them for doing so. I guess that post came off more defensive than I intended. In my city, there are two major lans with around 300-400 attendees. There are also many smaller lans. The reality is SC2 will be unplayable due to lag there. In my hometown there is a regular lan with 100-200 attendees with no internet at all. You will not even be able to watch replays at that lan. Many rural areas are lucky to get 56K dialup. For them LAN was the only option for multiplayer. The SEA Bnet server will be located in Singapore. When I ping singapore the latency is roughly 230ms. For some it is 400ms. A LAN offers sub10ms pings. That is a play experience that bnet2 cannot match no matter how many bells and whistles they throw in. Furthermore, it is ahistorical to think this will increase sales letalone double them. Oblivion is a single player game. There is no multiplayer code for it whatsoever yet there is a lan crack for multiplayer. It is not the best multiplayer experience but for the efforts of a single person on a single-player game it is an accomplishment that goes to show how futile excluding lan is. Ubisoft requires all their new games to be online activated. What ubisoft game has not been successfully cracked? What game in history has not been successfully cracked? It is naive to think you can the first person ever to stop piracy and plain foolish to think that making the game experience for legitimate customers worse will increase sales. | ||
|
Batch
Sweden692 Posts
I guess aussies are the ones who got the worst relative location to the Battle.net 2.0 servers and I feel bad for you. On June 15 2010 00:34 Acies wrote: What game in history has not been successfully cracked? It is naive to think you can the first person ever to stop piracy and plain foolish to think that making the game experience for legitimate customers worse will increase sales. Blizzard don't need to completely stop the game from being cracked. They will need to make it troublesome to play a pirated version and this way they sell more copies of their game. Once again, I would very much like to see LAN included but I understand the reason why Blizzard wants to keep it out. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On June 15 2010 01:55 Batch wrote: Blizzard don't need to completely stop the game from being cracked. They will need to make it troublesome to play a pirated version and this way they sell more copies of their game. Once again, I would very much like to see LAN included but I understand the reason why Blizzard wants to keep it out. You don't understand. The game WILL be cracked and so will the bnet. This would mean that the people that play the cracked version will have access to lan while the ones that play the legit version will not. How is that going to make more sales? It's the exact same logic that is destroying ubisoft products. The only possible increase in sales would be an extreme short term basis. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
| ||
|
pettter
Sweden1032 Posts
That is preliminaries as in one place, one time, not a whole round of prelims for a copmlete starleague. Goes to show that people willing to go the extra mile to make features people actually want will get the customers, I guess. | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
On June 14 2010 06:20 Tone_ wrote: Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. If one pro edition were to get out on the web wouldn't that shitrape all of the no LAN anti piracy altogether though? the internet consists of anon, if anon wants Lan for private people, it shall be. I get your point that LAN is needed to get a pleasant gaming experience when using dail up connections. blizzard has made it so that up to 16 people from one location can play sc2 off one location. No more, so when you go to say a nationwide lan event and 1500 people play sc2 in addition to a tournament they either 1. will have to get blizzard to help host a low budget tournament or 2. Pirate it. Guess what will end up being the widespread "thing to do"? yea it will be easy to take the pirate route especially with the current Peer 2 peer community and as Reloaded says, if you like the game buy it. We did. In the end it isnt about piracy, its about freedom. The thought of playing the game you want, when you want, whenever you want and if i want to host a local "in town" 30 man lan event at my high school. I cba to ask blizzard to have someone show up to set it up. Its tedious, will take years to set up and probably costs money. Why shell out a few bucks when there is a doable solution on the intarwebz? | ||
|
Jon The Baptist
Ireland24 Posts
Chat channels .. that's something I can't understand not having, hell If I was Blizzard I'd do everything in my power to protect my investment, and if not having LAN is the price then so be it. | ||
|
Batch
Sweden692 Posts
On June 15 2010 02:05 Numy wrote: You don't understand. The game WILL be cracked and so will the bnet. This would mean that the people that play the cracked version will have access to lan while the ones that play the legit version will not. How is that going to make more sales? It's the exact same logic that is destroying ubisoft products. The only possible increase in sales would be an extreme short term basis. If you re-read what I wrote you might understand that I never questioned that the game will be cracked. It will be. But if the crack can be delayed as long as possible and be as troublesome as possible to use then they will sell much more copies of the game the first few months. They might also be able buy themselves some time to develop Battle.net 2.0 to a state where it gives an additional value to gamers which makes them want to play there instead of on pirated servers. If they get to this stage then they won't need to think about pirated games since they only would be used to play on LANs. I didn't get what you meant with the last part about the logic that destroys ubisoft products. | ||
|
Grend
1600 Posts
Hate the anon thing, I just hate it. | ||
|
groms
Canada1017 Posts
I mean obviously not immediately b/c they believe(falsely, I think) that if they can prevent people from cracking their game for a few months that they will get more sales. I would guess that a few patches in they will add in LAN support along with chat and whatever else they can cram in there. They probably just believe its in their best interest to do it this way. To those who think Blizzard believes piracy can be prevented indefinitely... do you really believe they are that naive? Piracy is like death and taxes. Its gonna happen one way or another. They are just trying to mitigate the losses. | ||
|
artanis2
United States732 Posts
On June 14 2010 15:41 Half wrote: Skype Premium Edition. Or even WoW lol, private servers kind of suck. You can have pirated Starcraft 2 with everything broken and 300 ms. You kidding? SC2 doesn't do any processing on the server. It's basically 100% packet bounce with checksum. Where's that magic 300ms ping going to come from on my LAN? | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
Batch I get what you saying I'm sorry for misunderstanding that point about being cracked but the underlying logic is flawed. If the game started out with enough value to make it worth buying instead of getting a cracked version there would be increased sales. Instead what you are saying is that they are removing functionality to delay their game being cracked so they can actually produce a product that will be worth buying? That just doesn't seem like a solid basis for anything. I remember an interview with the guy from valve(Gabe something I believe). Where he mentions how Russia has tons of piracy but valve took the approach of releasing their games at the same time in Russia as everywhere else and thus actually increased sales. Where as other developers did insane DRM or didn't release until way way later in Russia. To me this seems the approach EVERYONE should be taking on piracy. There will be pirates but more people will pay money for something that is worth paying money. That's been blizzard's moto forever but seems it has changed. I'm sorry if this post is extremely hard to follow but I'm kinda tired ;P. I'll try get more point across better later | ||
|
Batch
Sweden692 Posts
On June 15 2010 02:41 Numy wrote: If the game started out with enough value to make it worth buying instead of getting a cracked version there would be increased sales. Instead what you are saying is that they are removing functionality to delay their game being cracked so they can actually produce a product that will be worth buying? I completely agree with you on this one. But as the gaming industry looks these days they need to get out the games as fast as possible and fix them or add content to them after the release. Best scenario would be if Battle.net 2.0 was too awesome for anyone to even consider playing anywhere else.  | ||
|
artanis2
United States732 Posts
| ||
|
Maul
Australia130 Posts
| ||
|
Woyn
United Kingdom1628 Posts
| ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3128 Posts
That they can say Korean Air is the first sponsor this early makes me suspicious of this information but Im hoping that its true but this is all fantastic news! Well, the event is already legitimately confirmed to be taking place in the Korean Air hangar...so it's not that big of a leap. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
CranKy Ducklings
Escore
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
