EPT[News?] OS2L + LAN - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
T0fuuu
Australia2275 Posts
| ||
|
_EmIL_
Sweden138 Posts
On June 15 2010 04:47 JustAnotherKnave wrote: yes it is genius. but i hardly call this taking over esports, just Blizzard lording over SC2, and like duh - they should. moreover, i find it very very smart to maintain Korea as the capital of the esport; this is the honor Korea deserves for making BW the success it is/was. Korea will be for pro-SC2 what England and the Premier League is for soccer. and to be honest, i'd rather have access to proSC2 matches through the game itself than what i currently have to do which is through some TL's livestream. At least with Blizzard i know that ads will actually be targeted at me instead of swill like "Hot in Cleveland". and i can't overstate my desire for english commentators LIVE Thx for making me laugh. Im still boycotting so I cant say anything ontopic. User was warned for this post | ||
|
shinigami
Canada423 Posts
On June 14 2010 06:27 moopie wrote: And how do you figure? if there's LAN that only blizzard is allowed to use for official blizzard tournaments how the hell does that help the actual playerbase who have wanted LAN features to play with friends or at local LAN parties? this won't put an end to anything, other than showing that Blizzard did take the time to code LAN for sc2, but they don't trust the playerbase with it. Don't misunderstand Blizzard's decision; it's not meant to help LAN parties or playing with friends. It is a good compromise to circumvent piracy, but certainly not an effective one since one can still pirate it and basically play SC2 for free using VPNs (likely to be their main concern with the way WC3 is currently going in that particular scene). I think it's safe to say that it's far more profitable and prudent not to openly trust the players with features that can be manipulated into playing the game for free. By having two different versions, they set a limit to how much of the game can be exploited. | ||
|
LittLeD
Sweden7973 Posts
On June 14 2010 11:44 xtfftc wrote: The point of no LAN is to force platforms like Garena out of business, because a lot of people would favour using it instead of Battle.net because it drastically reduces the latency. Garena will survive just off all the Wc3/Dota/CoD and CS games going on. They dont need SC2 | ||
|
Endorsed
Netherlands1221 Posts
| ||
|
LittLeD
Sweden7973 Posts
| ||
|
moopie
12605 Posts
On June 16 2010 02:05 shinigami wrote: Don't misunderstand Blizzard's decision; it's not meant to help LAN parties or playing with friends. It is a good compromise to circumvent piracy, but certainly not an effective one since one can still pirate it and basically play SC2 for free using VPNs (likely to be their main concern with the way WC3 is currently going in that particular scene). I think it's safe to say that it's far more profitable and prudent not to openly trust the players with features that can be manipulated into playing the game for free. By having two different versions, they set a limit to how much of the game can be exploited. ...I'm aware of that (check my other reply later on page 3 of this thread). This was a reply to PanzerDragoon who wrote that this "should put an end to LAN crybabying", as it the people who wanted LAN wanted it for Blizzard tournaments. | ||
|
thorgrimstarcraft
Norway33 Posts
Jesus, get over it, we are in 2010. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 16 2010 06:03 Thorgrim wrote: LAN partys are from the 90s. When we didnt have good internet, like we do now. Jesus, get over it, we are in 2010. ... Yes, because clearly Scandinavia is representative of fucking Australia/South Africa/Peru/China/Russia. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On June 15 2010 20:10 _EmIL_ wrote: Thx for making me laugh. Im still boycotting so I cant say anything ontopic. User was warned for this post Well that sucks for you. You can miss out on a good game but I am going to buy it and enjoy it. This OSL + tournament LAN is good it almost sounds likle people would rather have it either have absolutely no LAN at all even for tournaments or have it for all. Your not gonna get both so at least be happy with this (assuming its true). | ||
|
thorgrimstarcraft
Norway33 Posts
On June 16 2010 06:07 FrozenArbiter wrote: ... Yes, because clearly Scandinavia is representative of fucking Australia/South Africa/Peru/China/Russia. You have a point, but Blizzard cant make everyone happy and make money at the same time. | ||
|
Disastorm
United States922 Posts
On June 16 2010 06:56 Thorgrim wrote: You have a point, but Blizzard cant make everyone happy and make money at the same time. well nearly all tournaments for almost any game are at lan centers. People still use lan. | ||
|
Scorch
Austria3371 Posts
| ||
|
roam
United States54 Posts
And we would be back to square 1, where the pirated version has more features than the legitimate. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On June 16 2010 06:07 FrozenArbiter wrote: ... Yes, because clearly Scandinavia is representative of fucking Australia/South Africa/Peru/China/Russia. Not to mention the fact that LANs are not only about playing on lan. They about socializing and meeting the people you play with WHILE you play with them. I thought the community realized how important the social aspect of gaming is based on how shit bnet 2.0 has dealt with that aspect. How can you bitch about bnet 2 and say that LAN is unimportant when they are based on the same fundamentals. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 16 2010 08:24 Scorch wrote: A Blizzard dude coming to an approved tournament, running a LAN capable mini Battle.net server on his laptop. It's quite the obvious way to handle things when you want a monopoly over serious tournaments. Has this been talked about for months, or did I just think about it by myself? It doesn't surprise me either way. It's how WoW tournaments have been handled for a long time, which I think has caused all but the biggest tournaments to say "fuck it, not worth the effort". On June 16 2010 06:56 Thorgrim wrote: You have a point, but Blizzard cant make everyone happy and make money at the same time. Steam can, apparently (LAN after authentication). | ||
|
WhistlingMtn
United States190 Posts
On June 17 2010 06:14 FrozenArbiter wrote: It's how WoW tournaments have been handled for a long time, which I think has caused all but the biggest tournaments to say "fuck it, not worth the effort". Steam can, apparently (LAN after authentication). I don't play other video games, but how is steam? Has the code that authenticates LAN been cracked yet? I seem to remember a lot of people saying that even LAN after authentication is not good as they still can't play unless they have the internet in the first place. -------------------- On topic. I've always thought this scenario would play out, I just thought they'd offer it in a more scalable fashion. Support LAN up to 8/16/32/64/128 at once. Hook this little thing up to the network and the games will run through it, can support up to 8 players for 100 bucks, 16 for 180, 300 for 32, etc. Amounts to everyone kicking in 10 bucks the first time. | ||
|
DeltruS
Canada2214 Posts
| ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
It's how WoW tournaments have been handled for a long time, which I think has caused all but the biggest tournaments to say "fuck it, not worth the effort". I think the "WoW" part caused all the tournaments to say "fuck it, not worth the effort". | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 17 2010 12:22 Kraz.Del wrote: LAN on steam doesn't need to be cracked; LAN is a SC thing and most users who have steam have stable internet connections. More importantly, not a whole lot of Steam games are played at LAN's and there aren't any games worth mentioning on Steam that are truly competitive. | ||
| ||
