On June 24 2011 14:15 xHassassin wrote: Stupid developers killed LAN and PC gaming, not pirates.
Look at Valve. They've never once whined like a little bitch about how piracy kills games and they're still making a killing of what is it, only 3 games released in a past 3 years in 3 separate series?
Also indie developers can make profits. Look at World of Goo. Two indian guys made a great, simple 2D game and got paid big for it, even though the game was only single player and easily pirated.
Valve is not a good example. They ruined TF2 with microtransactions and hats.
Valve is the perfect example. TF2 is now Free because of microtransactions.
Valve and Riot understand what the gaming market is like in the present and immediate future.
ActiBlizz and S2 are stuck in the past with their obsession over piracy like Ubisoft and EA.
On June 24 2011 12:54 Valentine wrote: What about the companies that are not insanely huge like Blizzard? The developers work hard to create a good game and only get a fraction of what they should have back in return because nerds are too greedy to actually buy the game?
On June 24 2011 12:54 Aruno wrote:
On June 24 2011 12:33 Rifty wrote: Piracy is not stealing? You are enjoying other people's work and not paying a single dime for it, what type of for-profit industry in the will allow that? Studios spend 2-3 YEARS dedicating their time to create a great game, if you don't pay for the game why should you get to play it for free and why do people justify doing so?
I'm not ordering anybody to stop pirating, but I want people to at the very least realize what they are doing is wrong..
Piracy can also mean you "try before you buy". Your assuming "pirates" don't give money to good game developing company's.
Piracy is not the reason why developers fail. Stop looking at piracy like a blanket bad thing. It's not.
I still don't understand how you don't see piracy as a bad thing. Giving people the option to pay for what they want to play? Meaning that everyone has the right to give the creators 0%?
...You mean the company that merged with Activision? Blizzard didn't seem to have a problem with LAN when making WC3 or its other games prior to its merger..
??
I don't really get what you're trying to say. I'm just saying that it harms the small companies (unlike Blizzard) to deprive them of the funds they would receive if people were not stealing their software.
When will people understand that 99% of the "pirates" that dont buy the game actually would never buy the game? they are not potential customers.
So that makes it OK for them to steal the game? Why do they get the experience of playing the game without paying for it? If they aren't willing to pay for a service, they should not be able to get it for free. And your 99% of pirates are not willing to buy the game is just an absurd number you pulled from thin air... even if that 1% of people that were willing to buy the game don't because they can pirate it, it means that is potential revenue lost, no matter how little.
Yes, it makes it OK if it's being discussed from a sales/company standpoint.
The whole "it's unethical" standpoint is nonsensical. Once again, the reason why it would be "unethical" for someone to steal is that it causes harm to a person through physical loss of the possession. Here, the only loss is from potential sales, which means that the "ethical" question really boils down to the same bottom line of whether or not a company loses sales.
Given numerous arguments that have not been substantively addressed by the naysayers: A) Microsoft's success through piracy B) the fact that pirate-ers who do not purchase the game would not have done so anyways
Sales seem to not be harmed, and even possibly aided by piracy.
Your only point then is "it's not fair for them to play." But remember that A: this ability is available for everyone, so it's "fair" since everyone has equal access, and B: people who pirate a game like SC2 do not get full functionality, ie they lack the ability to play online. Given that Battle.net is a huge aspect of multiplayer play, the idea that someone could say pirate WC3 while I pay for it is fine if all they can do is play single player and the occasional LAN with a couple of friends, while I get to play with tens of thousands of people online on an official ladder system.
Stealing is NOT just the theft of physical property..... do i really need to explain this? There's a million intangible non physical things you can steal, and stealing half a game is still stealing.
Legally? Sure. Ethically? Nope. I think the repetition of "unethically" twice in two consecutive sentences should have been a big enough hint. If you want to make this a question of legality, then the law is inherently utilitarian, which again collapses into an issue of whether or not piracy promotes sales or hurts them.
[Edit] And God forbid you try to argue that legality is good for the sake of legality.
Im still having an issue as to why LAN is IMPOSSIBLE to have without piracy? Is it an ICCUP thing they are afraid of? if so im pretty sure they could sue into the stone age with sc2.... if its really to prevent kids from sharing the game and having 10 people play it off one game purchase in some basement lan.. then thats a very small percentage of players..
even then, wouldnt it be amazing advertising to buy the real thing with single player and battlenet and the whole ordeal? I can think of endless games where i played at a buddy's place for the first time and immediately went out and bought it to play more.
Different person wrote When will people understand that 99% of the "pirates" that dont buy the game actually would never buy the game? they are not potential customers.
When will people understand that 99% of the pirates that never buy games still play an hour or more a day, and would almost certainly pay for games if they were unable to pirate them? When will people understand that one of the reasons World of Warcraft has such staggering revenue numbers is because the game is almost impossible to effectively pirate? When will people understand that a multi-billion dollar industry spends more on researching this shit than any random individual on the internet?
If you argue, you should atleast know the facts.
WoW nearly impossible to pirate? You could google a list with private Servers, download the game legally with test version from Blizzard, change one text file -> there you have it. Pirated WoW. And there are pretty good private servers, even with gamemasters and all the stuff. Of course it's more fun to play it on official servers.
But almost impossible to pirate? lol no. WoW is so successfull because it's a good game with good support, nothing more. I never regret my 5 years of money to Blizzard, even though i knew everytime about private servers.
Different person wrote When will people understand that 99% of the "pirates" that dont buy the game actually would never buy the game? they are not potential customers.
When will people understand that 99% of the pirates that never buy games still play an hour or more a day, and would almost certainly pay for games if they were unable to pirate them? When will people understand that one of the reasons World of Warcraft has such staggering revenue numbers is because the game is almost impossible to effectively pirate? When will people understand that a multi-billion dollar industry spends more on researching this shit than any random individual on the internet?
I watch easily an hour a day of SC2, and I will not pay for a GOMTV ticket to watch the matches. I'll get up for them live, but if I oversleep, or like yesterday fall asleep in the middle of the match and am unable to watch, then I wait for them to pop up on youtube, or I don't watch them at all - there are still four GSL/GSTL finals series that I haven't yet seen - I haven't seen nestea vs. sCfOu despite constantly hearing how great a game it was. I cannot afford the ticket, so regardless of having no option to "pirate" (as watching elsewhere is essentially the same thing) I would not count as a sale for GOMtv.
I also haven't bought a game besides SC2:WoL since... 2003, so maybe I'm not the best example, eh?
On June 24 2011 12:54 Valentine wrote: What about the companies that are not insanely huge like Blizzard? The developers work hard to create a good game and only get a fraction of what they should have back in return because nerds are too greedy to actually buy the game?
On June 24 2011 12:54 Aruno wrote:
On June 24 2011 12:33 Rifty wrote: Piracy is not stealing? You are enjoying other people's work and not paying a single dime for it, what type of for-profit industry in the will allow that? Studios spend 2-3 YEARS dedicating their time to create a great game, if you don't pay for the game why should you get to play it for free and why do people justify doing so?
I'm not ordering anybody to stop pirating, but I want people to at the very least realize what they are doing is wrong..
Piracy can also mean you "try before you buy". Your assuming "pirates" don't give money to good game developing company's.
Piracy is not the reason why developers fail. Stop looking at piracy like a blanket bad thing. It's not.
I still don't understand how you don't see piracy as a bad thing. Giving people the option to pay for what they want to play? Meaning that everyone has the right to give the creators 0%?
...You mean the company that merged with Activision? Blizzard didn't seem to have a problem with LAN when making WC3 or its other games prior to its merger..
??
I don't really get what you're trying to say. I'm just saying that it harms the small companies (unlike Blizzard) to deprive them of the funds they would receive if people were not stealing their software.
? The point was pretty straight forward. Blizzard was an example of one of the "smaller" companies pre-Activision merger, and its games had LAN pre-Activision merger, and it still succeeded.
I was pretty sure you were trying to say that Blizzard wouldn't be harmed due to how big they are. Blizzard (pre-Activision) is still a "big" company by my example. For instance, let's look at S2 games (the ones who make HoN). They have only created 3 games, have a tiny amount of employees, and really only 1 of their products is widely known or used (HoN). Blizzard was "small" after years of WoW money coming in? Bullshit.
On June 24 2011 14:15 xHassassin wrote: Stupid developers killed LAN and PC gaming, not pirates.
Look at Valve. They've never once whined like a little bitch about how piracy kills games and they're still making a killing of what is it, only 3 games released in a past 3 years in 3 separate series?
Also indie developers can make profits. Look at World of Goo. Two indian guys made a great, simple 2D game and got paid big for it, even though the game was only single player and easily pirated.
Valve is not a good example. They ruined TF2 with microtransactions and hats.
Valve is the perfect example. TF2 is now Free because of microtransactions.
Valve and Riot understand what the gaming market is like in the present and immediate future.
ActiBlizz and S2 are stuck in the past with their obsession over piracy like Ubisoft and EA.
TF2 was good, then it got ruined. Now it's free, YAY!
Ive been having so much fun with TF2 this morning. I had bought the game way back when with the orange box but never really caught on to it. Then I heard it went free this morning. Called up my brother to see if he wanted to get it and am now considering....buying my first hat.
On June 24 2011 12:54 Valentine wrote: What about the companies that are not insanely huge like Blizzard? The developers work hard to create a good game and only get a fraction of what they should have back in return because nerds are too greedy to actually buy the game?
On June 24 2011 12:54 Aruno wrote:
On June 24 2011 12:33 Rifty wrote: Piracy is not stealing? You are enjoying other people's work and not paying a single dime for it, what type of for-profit industry in the will allow that? Studios spend 2-3 YEARS dedicating their time to create a great game, if you don't pay for the game why should you get to play it for free and why do people justify doing so?
I'm not ordering anybody to stop pirating, but I want people to at the very least realize what they are doing is wrong..
Piracy can also mean you "try before you buy". Your assuming "pirates" don't give money to good game developing company's.
Piracy is not the reason why developers fail. Stop looking at piracy like a blanket bad thing. It's not.
I still don't understand how you don't see piracy as a bad thing. Giving people the option to pay for what they want to play? Meaning that everyone has the right to give the creators 0%?
...You mean the company that merged with Activision? Blizzard didn't seem to have a problem with LAN when making WC3 or its other games prior to its merger..
??
I don't really get what you're trying to say. I'm just saying that it harms the small companies (unlike Blizzard) to deprive them of the funds they would receive if people were not stealing their software.
When will people understand that 99% of the "pirates" that dont buy the game actually would never buy the game? they are not potential customers.
So that makes it OK for them to steal the game? Why do they get the experience of playing the game without paying for it? If they aren't willing to pay for a service, they should not be able to get it for free. And your 99% of pirates are not willing to buy the game is just an absurd number you pulled from thin air... even if that 1% of people that were willing to buy the game don't because they can pirate it, it means that is potential revenue lost, no matter how little.
Yes, it makes it OK if it's being discussed from a sales/company standpoint.
The whole "it's unethical" standpoint is nonsensical. Once again, the reason why it would be "unethical" for someone to steal is that it causes harm to a person through physical loss of the possession. Here, the only loss is from potential sales, which means that the "ethical" question really boils down to the same bottom line of whether or not a company loses sales.
Given numerous arguments that have not been substantively addressed by the naysayers: A) Microsoft's success through piracy B) the fact that pirate-ers who do not purchase the game would not have done so anyways
Sales seem to not be harmed, and even possibly aided by piracy.
Your only point then is "it's not fair for them to play." But remember that A: this ability is available for everyone, so it's "fair" since everyone has equal access, and B: people who pirate a game like SC2 do not get full functionality, ie they lack the ability to play online. Given that Battle.net is a huge aspect of multiplayer play, the idea that someone could say pirate WC3 while I pay for it is fine if all they can do is play single player and the occasional LAN with a couple of friends, while I get to play with tens of thousands of people online on an official ladder system.
Stealing is NOT just the theft of physical property..... do i really need to explain this? There's a million intangible non physical things you can steal, and stealing half a game is still stealing.
Legally? Sure. Ethically? Nope. I think the repetition of "unethically" twice in two consecutive sentences should have been a big enough hint. If you want to make this a question of legality, then the law is inherently utilitarian, which again collapses into an issue of whether or not piracy promotes sales or hurts them.
[Edit] And God forbid you try to argue that legality is good for the sake of legality.
So you truly believe that ethically, there is nothing wrong with stealing? End result is: You get to play the game for free by stealing it. You don't pay a dime for the efforts and time of all the people that worked on the game. And you honestly believe that's perfectly OK and there is no problems associated with it?
its technically no problem to require bnet login and then route in-game traffic inside lan. blizzard possibly does not want to lose control (aka community driven ladders etc. ). piracy is a lame excuse
On June 24 2011 12:54 Valentine wrote: What about the companies that are not insanely huge like Blizzard? The developers work hard to create a good game and only get a fraction of what they should have back in return because nerds are too greedy to actually buy the game?
On June 24 2011 12:54 Aruno wrote: [quote]
Piracy can also mean you "try before you buy". Your assuming "pirates" don't give money to good game developing company's.
Piracy is not the reason why developers fail. Stop looking at piracy like a blanket bad thing. It's not.
I still don't understand how you don't see piracy as a bad thing. Giving people the option to pay for what they want to play? Meaning that everyone has the right to give the creators 0%?
...You mean the company that merged with Activision? Blizzard didn't seem to have a problem with LAN when making WC3 or its other games prior to its merger..
??
I don't really get what you're trying to say. I'm just saying that it harms the small companies (unlike Blizzard) to deprive them of the funds they would receive if people were not stealing their software.
When will people understand that 99% of the "pirates" that dont buy the game actually would never buy the game? they are not potential customers.
So that makes it OK for them to steal the game? Why do they get the experience of playing the game without paying for it? If they aren't willing to pay for a service, they should not be able to get it for free. And your 99% of pirates are not willing to buy the game is just an absurd number you pulled from thin air... even if that 1% of people that were willing to buy the game don't because they can pirate it, it means that is potential revenue lost, no matter how little.
Yes, it makes it OK if it's being discussed from a sales/company standpoint.
The whole "it's unethical" standpoint is nonsensical. Once again, the reason why it would be "unethical" for someone to steal is that it causes harm to a person through physical loss of the possession. Here, the only loss is from potential sales, which means that the "ethical" question really boils down to the same bottom line of whether or not a company loses sales.
Given numerous arguments that have not been substantively addressed by the naysayers: A) Microsoft's success through piracy B) the fact that pirate-ers who do not purchase the game would not have done so anyways
Sales seem to not be harmed, and even possibly aided by piracy.
Your only point then is "it's not fair for them to play." But remember that A: this ability is available for everyone, so it's "fair" since everyone has equal access, and B: people who pirate a game like SC2 do not get full functionality, ie they lack the ability to play online. Given that Battle.net is a huge aspect of multiplayer play, the idea that someone could say pirate WC3 while I pay for it is fine if all they can do is play single player and the occasional LAN with a couple of friends, while I get to play with tens of thousands of people online on an official ladder system.
Stealing is NOT just the theft of physical property..... do i really need to explain this? There's a million intangible non physical things you can steal, and stealing half a game is still stealing.
Legally? Sure. Ethically? Nope. I think the repetition of "unethically" twice in two consecutive sentences should have been a big enough hint. If you want to make this a question of legality, then the law is inherently utilitarian, which again collapses into an issue of whether or not piracy promotes sales or hurts them.
[Edit] And God forbid you try to argue that legality is good for the sake of legality.
So you truly believe that ethically, there is nothing wrong with stealing? End result is: You get to play the game for free by stealing it. You don't pay a dime for the efforts and time of all the people that worked on the game. And you honestly believe that's perfectly OK and there is no problems associated with it?
Maybe you should read his post again and try a little harder this time to understand what he wrote? Physical and non-phisical property are very different in nature. This is just a fact, simply.
Watch this:
The word 'stealing' is simply to genderless is this case.
I'm not saying is okay/wrong to copy, but you guys need to learn to see that there's a fundamental difference between the two.
so let me try to switch the direction of the discussion a bit.
There could be alternatives to LAN that a game like sc2 could implement, for example, utorrent has a feature that tries to look for peers within the same network the computer is in. if sc2 is p2p they could do something similar, smart routing or something like that, im not a tech guy so im asking, would this be possible? so two computers with a direct connection to each other would p2p directly even if they're playing through b.net.
Wasn't The Witcher 2 one of the most pirated PC games this year or something? They didn't use any DRM at all yet apparently 'noble' pirates still chose to download and continue seeding it.
On June 24 2011 14:15 xHassassin wrote: Stupid developers killed LAN and PC gaming, not pirates.
Look at Valve. They've never once whined like a little bitch about how piracy kills games and they're still making a killing of what is it, only 3 games released in a past 3 years in 3 separate series?
Also indie developers can make profits. Look at World of Goo. Two indian guys made a great, simple 2D game and got paid big for it, even though the game was only single player and easily pirated.
Valve is not a good example. They ruined TF2 with microtransactions and hats.
Valve is the perfect example. TF2 is now Free because of microtransactions.
Valve and Riot understand what the gaming market is like in the present and immediate future.
ActiBlizz and S2 are stuck in the past with their obsession over piracy like Ubisoft and EA.
TF2 is free because you have to install Steam on your machine to play it. A free game to install a WHOLE STORE IN YOUR HOUSE is a very good plan. They want it to be free so you will spend more money in their store.
On June 25 2011 03:33 Shrewmy wrote: Pirates can be pretty hilariously hypocritical.
Wasn't The Witcher 2 one of the most pirated PC games this year or something? They didn't use any DRM at all yet apparently 'noble' pirates still chose to download and continue seeding it.
Yep. And let us not forget Demigod, which was pirated to hell and back. Stardock, who never has DRM on their games, said that one day one only 12% of the people playing on their servers were using legal copies of the game. Then they banned the 88% of the players who stole the game.
So exactly why should Blizzard give us LAN when the internet cannot be trusted?
On June 24 2011 14:15 xHassassin wrote: Stupid developers killed LAN and PC gaming, not pirates.
Look at Valve. They've never once whined like a little bitch about how piracy kills games and they're still making a killing of what is it, only 3 games released in a past 3 years in 3 separate series?
Also indie developers can make profits. Look at World of Goo. Two indian guys made a great, simple 2D game and got paid big for it, even though the game was only single player and easily pirated.
Valve is not a good example. They ruined TF2 with microtransactions and hats.
Valve is the perfect example. TF2 is now Free because of microtransactions.
Valve and Riot understand what the gaming market is like in the present and immediate future.
ActiBlizz and S2 are stuck in the past with their obsession over piracy like Ubisoft and EA.
Why isn't Riot going to develop LAN for tournaments also then?
Unless I heard wrong on Live on 3, it was not going to happen.
On June 25 2011 03:33 Shrewmy wrote: Pirates can be pretty hilariously hypocritical.
Wasn't The Witcher 2 one of the most pirated PC games this year or something? They didn't use any DRM at all yet apparently 'noble' pirates still chose to download and continue seeding it.
You need to think a little deeper, dude. Posts like yours are simply stupid and lack any reasoning skills. Yes, many are downloading 'The witcher 2', but that doesn't mean that the game hasn't been a selling success. On the contrary, it tells us that many people know about it and find it appealing/interesting. You simply cannot simplify that a downloader = a sale. This is logical for crying out load. Also, not all pirates are the same or downloads for the same reasons, ect. I know for a fact that many people want to support a company if they leave out DRM/features that only ruins it for the paying costumer. Treat all people as pirates and that is what you get in the end. Respect is the key.
People are so superficial in their thinking. You cannot ever cover all variables, but at least try to include a few. Sigh.
On June 24 2011 12:54 Valentine wrote: What about the companies that are not insanely huge like Blizzard? The developers work hard to create a good game and only get a fraction of what they should have back in return because nerds are too greedy to actually buy the game?
On June 24 2011 12:54 Aruno wrote:
On June 24 2011 12:33 Rifty wrote: Piracy is not stealing? You are enjoying other people's work and not paying a single dime for it, what type of for-profit industry in the will allow that? Studios spend 2-3 YEARS dedicating their time to create a great game, if you don't pay for the game why should you get to play it for free and why do people justify doing so?
I'm not ordering anybody to stop pirating, but I want people to at the very least realize what they are doing is wrong..
Piracy can also mean you "try before you buy". Your assuming "pirates" don't give money to good game developing company's.
Piracy is not the reason why developers fail. Stop looking at piracy like a blanket bad thing. It's not.
I still don't understand how you don't see piracy as a bad thing. Giving people the option to pay for what they want to play? Meaning that everyone has the right to give the creators 0%?
...You mean the company that merged with Activision? Blizzard didn't seem to have a problem with LAN when making WC3 or its other games prior to its merger..
??
I don't really get what you're trying to say. I'm just saying that it harms the small companies (unlike Blizzard) to deprive them of the funds they would receive if people were not stealing their software.
? The point was pretty straight forward. Blizzard was an example of one of the "smaller" companies pre-Activision merger, and its games had LAN pre-Activision merger, and it still succeeded.
I was pretty sure you were trying to say that Blizzard wouldn't be harmed due to how big they are. Blizzard (pre-Activision) is still a "big" company by my example. For instance, let's look at S2 games (the ones who make HoN). They have only created 3 games, have a tiny amount of employees, and really only 1 of their products is widely known or used (HoN). Blizzard was "small" after years of WoW money coming in? Bullshit.
I'm pretty sure that I have a better understanding of my intentions better than you do, so you can cut the presumptuous stubbornness here. WoW is obviously not an example of LAN games prior to Blizzard's merger with Activision, I'm talking Diablo 2, WC3, WC2, WC1, and obviously SC1.
On June 24 2011 12:54 Valentine wrote: What about the companies that are not insanely huge like Blizzard? The developers work hard to create a good game and only get a fraction of what they should have back in return because nerds are too greedy to actually buy the game?
On June 24 2011 12:54 Aruno wrote:
On June 24 2011 12:33 Rifty wrote: Piracy is not stealing? You are enjoying other people's work and not paying a single dime for it, what type of for-profit industry in the will allow that? Studios spend 2-3 YEARS dedicating their time to create a great game, if you don't pay for the game why should you get to play it for free and why do people justify doing so?
I'm not ordering anybody to stop pirating, but I want people to at the very least realize what they are doing is wrong..
Piracy can also mean you "try before you buy". Your assuming "pirates" don't give money to good game developing company's.
Piracy is not the reason why developers fail. Stop looking at piracy like a blanket bad thing. It's not.
I still don't understand how you don't see piracy as a bad thing. Giving people the option to pay for what they want to play? Meaning that everyone has the right to give the creators 0%?
...You mean the company that merged with Activision? Blizzard didn't seem to have a problem with LAN when making WC3 or its other games prior to its merger..
??
I don't really get what you're trying to say. I'm just saying that it harms the small companies (unlike Blizzard) to deprive them of the funds they would receive if people were not stealing their software.
? The point was pretty straight forward. Blizzard was an example of one of the "smaller" companies pre-Activision merger, and its games had LAN pre-Activision merger, and it still succeeded.
I was pretty sure you were trying to say that Blizzard wouldn't be harmed due to how big they are. Blizzard (pre-Activision) is still a "big" company by my example. For instance, let's look at S2 games (the ones who make HoN). They have only created 3 games, have a tiny amount of employees, and really only 1 of their products is widely known or used (HoN). Blizzard was "small" after years of WoW money coming in? Bullshit.
I'm pretty sure that I have a better understanding of my intentions better than you do, so you can cut the presumptuous stubbornness here. WoW is obviously not an example of LAN games prior to Blizzard's merger with Activision, I'm talking Diablo 2, WC3, WC2, WC1, and obviously SC1.
All I was saying is that I thought you meant something else. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or claim that you meant something other than what you did, I was just trying to make a fucking point based on what I believed you meant. And all I was making a point about was the size of the company. The only thing I was trying to get across is that I thought you were making a point based on Blizzard being small, and I disagreed awegwaoeiaoweaweg
kk why am I even trying. Done here. You win. Have a good day.
On June 24 2011 14:15 xHassassin wrote: Stupid developers killed LAN and PC gaming, not pirates.
Look at Valve. They've never once whined like a little bitch about how piracy kills games and they're still making a killing of what is it, only 3 games released in a past 3 years in 3 separate series?
Also indie developers can make profits. Look at World of Goo. Two indian guys made a great, simple 2D game and got paid big for it, even though the game was only single player and easily pirated.
Valve is not a good example. They ruined TF2 with microtransactions and hats.
Valve is the perfect example. TF2 is now Free because of microtransactions.
Valve and Riot understand what the gaming market is like in the present and immediate future.
ActiBlizz and S2 are stuck in the past with their obsession over piracy like Ubisoft and EA.
Valve uses Steam as a big brother to mandate their lan mode, it is essentially Battle.net with a much greater scope, it is big enough to the point where they can stop worrying about Piracy all together just because of the infrastructure that is already laid down with steam and how the community has formed around it.
Then you have LoL, which still doesn't have a lan mode and never will. In LO3, the "e-sports manager" for LoL said LAN will be distributed inhouse to tournament organizers using custom hardware from riot.
Saying LAN won't exist in the future probably isn't correct, I think a much more accurate way to say it would be that multiplayer in the future will not exist without a way to for the publisher to control piracy, most likely with some sort of big brother mechanism (ala Battle.net and Steam)
EA is already heading in this direction with their steam-esk service Origin.
It's on the right track, but doesn't actually explain the issue at hand. The gist of it is that any feature included on the game disc can easily be cracked and any security features can be stripped away. The reason you can't play starcraft 2 multiplayer with a pirated copy is because the game client doesn't have the infrastructure to do anything except connect to battlenet, all the code to connect to another player and sync up is stored server-side where pirates and crackers can't access it. Implementing lan means adding code to the game client that supports a direct connection to another player, at which point in security feature can be removed in a few hours and now people can play online with each other on pirates versions. You can argue all you want about the business motives behind the decision, but getting rid of lan support is certainly very effective at preventing pirates from playing multiplayer.
EPT
