On June 24 2011 10:20 trx wrote: People don't actually want "LAN", they want P2P. People want to be able to play without lag from 1) latency to b.net servers 2) b.net malfunction.
It's not possible to create P2P that's not easily crackable.
However.. Ladder games and matchmaking (for custom games) should always be on B.net as it is now. "LAN"/P2P could be a complete separate system for single games between specific people.
In my opinion, B.net IS a reason enough to buy SC2. You can't get: 1) the whole ladder and all the players with a pirate copy, thus proper matchmaking. 2) get better at SC2 by just playing custom games over "LAN". The single player is already cracked. Adding LAN doesn't suddenly make you want to play SC2 a lot more.
Activision-Blizzard is really after a "quick buck". Region locking in this sense is much worse than not having P2P-mode (Custom games should be possible between every region). They want everyone to buy a copy, no matter how little you actually play it. Someone that plays the occassional game with a friend is never going to buy SC2.
With lan something like ICCUP might show up again (just for sc2) and thousands of people will play on there instead.
the issue i have is its not like lan will like let you go on battle.net or anything, you cant ladder with lan, it would just make it so you could like play with your friends when they come over, why should he have to have a copy of the game to? theres many other games that have multiplayer features that dont require you to go online and you can just play with your friends when they are over. its stupid. and if companies didnt charge outrageous amounts for their outdated games that are just digital downloads to begin with anyways, theres no production cost for a digital download its ridiculous that like for example blizzard sells WC3 for 40 dollars for the battle chest, 40 dollars still for Diablo 2 and like 20 dollars still for BW. just for a digital download, its a ridiculous cost for such an outdated game.
I just want to thank lorkac for being the biggest troll yet to be seen on TL, you really gave me some good laughs. :D
On a more serious note, If implementing LAN is such a detriment to sales, how come Valve have no problem implementing it on every release they make (Dota 2 anyone? So glad that it's Valve that makes Dota 2 and not Blizzard)
On June 27 2011 21:49 labbe wrote: I just want to thank lorkac for being the biggest troll yet to be seen on TL, you really gave me some good laughs. :D
On a more serious note, If implementing LAN is such a detriment to sales, how come Valve have no problem implementing it on every release they make (Dota 2 anyone? So glad that it's Valve that makes Dota 2 and not Blizzard)
On June 27 2011 21:49 labbe wrote: I just want to thank lorkac for being the biggest troll yet to be seen on TL, you really gave me some good laughs. :D
On a more serious note, If implementing LAN is such a detriment to sales, how come Valve have no problem implementing it on every release they make (Dota 2 anyone? So glad that it's Valve that makes Dota 2 and not Blizzard)
TF2 and Portal have LAN?
Authenticate through steam, host a server on the LAN, play on it.
On June 27 2011 21:49 labbe wrote: I just want to thank lorkac for being the biggest troll yet to be seen on TL, you really gave me some good laughs. :D
On a more serious note, If implementing LAN is such a detriment to sales, how come Valve have no problem implementing it on every release they make (Dota 2 anyone? So glad that it's Valve that makes Dota 2 and not Blizzard)
TF2 and Portal have LAN?
You can enable it on the console for portal 2. But of course you need to be connected through steam, so it's sort of like pseudo-LAN.
On June 23 2011 07:18 AndAgain wrote: He just said what any intelligent person already understands. Obviously companies have good reasons for not putting LAN.
Yea it's a pity. The problem is most of the prevention for piracy hurts the guys that buy the games too.
ALL forms of DRM and "prevention" (such as excluding LAN) hurt the paying customers more than pirates, this is not even a debate.
Yea well if guys just wouldn't pirate. It's rather saddening though. The consumers are the ones that have caused the gaming industry to become what it is today. Activision releasing CoD every year? That's us. No lan? That's us too. It sucks ;(
Don't kid yourself. Activision releasing a new CoD every year is because it gives them a billion dollars every year. No LAN is because companies believe that no one buys stuff if you can get it for free.
On June 27 2011 21:24 Keldrath wrote: the issue i have is its not like lan will like let you go on battle.net or anything, you cant ladder with lan, it would just make it so you could like play with your friends when they come over, why should he have to have a copy of the game to? theres many other games that have multiplayer features that dont require you to go online and you can just play with your friends when they are over. its stupid. and if companies didnt charge outrageous amounts for their outdated games that are just digital downloads to begin with anyways, theres no production cost for a digital download its ridiculous that like for example blizzard sells WC3 for 40 dollars for the battle chest, 40 dollars still for Diablo 2 and like 20 dollars still for BW. just for a digital download, its a ridiculous cost for such an outdated game.
Just fyi, you can buy most of the games you're talking about in a store for much cheaper then what blizzard is selling them for. War3 Battle Chest is $20 over at Gamestop, Diablo 2 Battle Chest is $30 (although I bought it for $20 years ago, funny), and Starcraft Battle Chest sells for $20 as well.
I understand the point you're trying to make with digital download, but you need to think of it as a convenience charge just like if you were to buy concert tickets or tickets to a sporting event. On top of whatever you're paying for the ticket, you're also paying anywhere from $2-15 (yes, I've seen it as high as $15), might want to keep that mind.
EPT
