|
On August 15 2011 13:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
It's not hard to see why Blizzard doesn't want LAN, and they've stated this hundreds of times.
They want everyone to play through Battle.net so that there is always one big and connected community.
Adding in LAN, the way it was done in SC1 and WC3 would mean people can play SC2 through services like Hamachi and ICCup. Sure, Battle.net 2.0 is a piece of crap, but I'm still glad Blizzard isn't rewarding these pirate servers, and I agree that SC2 should only be played through Battle.net for the above reason.
However, Blizzard's argument doesn't exclude LAN through Battle.net, i.e. if everyone in a Battle.net game is also on the same LAN, then all game data is sent through LAN.
There's really no excuse not to add this type of LAN, especially since LAN has now been hacked.
I agree. It's not all good news if LAN is added to the game. It WOULD hurt the size of the online community. I'm still in two minds about it....
|
Many people here forget that first and main Blizzard's goal is to make money, not to please community or make good, but unprofitable gestures. They don't care about your complaints. I'm almost sure they won't add LAN in the nearest future (~ 5 years).
But if you are not a Blizzard employee, advocating idea to not have LAN is ridiculous. If something makes game better, why it's bad? Is it bad to play tournaments without lag and disconnects, caused by battle.net/internet issues? Is it bad to play LAN with friends when there is no good internet? Having LAN is only benefit for everyone, (if you don't need it - you just don't use it, easy).
LAN itself won't cause any, even little noticeable, lose of profit for Blizzard. Those who want to buy SC2, will do it anyway. Those who don't have intention/possibility to buy it, won't buy it even if there would be no pirated version.
Valve has LAN in all its games and apparently has no financial problems caused by it.
Blizzard makes good games, but greediness prevent them make products better (like improve battle.net or add LAN support).
|
On August 15 2011 14:38 Unnamed wrote:
Many people here forget that first and main Blizzard's goal is to make money, not to please community or make good, but unprofitable gestures. They don't care about your complaints. I'm almost sure they won't add LAN in the nearest future (~ 5 years).
But if you are not a Blizzard employee, advocating idea to not have LAN is ridiculous. If something makes game better, why it's bad? Is it bad to play tournaments without lag and disconnects, caused by battle.net/internet issues? Is it bad to play LAN with friends when there is no good internet? Having LAN is only benefit for everyone, (if you don't need it - you just don't use it, easy).
LAN itself won't cause any, even little noticeable, lose of profit for Blizzard. Those who want to buy SC2, will do it anyway. Those who don't have intention/possibility to buy it, won't buy it even if there would be no pirated version. [citation needed]
Valve has LAN in all its games and apparently has no financial problems caused by it.[citation needed]
Blizzard makes good games, but greediness prevent them make products better (like improve battle.net or add LAN support).[citation needed]
You, like most people in this thread, make a lot of vague baseless claims as if they were absolute fact.
|
i honestly imagine a lot of you who complain about no LAN wouldn't even use LAN if it was ingame
imo only LAN they should have is for big tournaments to prevent drops
|
On August 15 2011 14:38 Unnamed wrote:
Many people here forget that first and main Blizzard's goal is to make money, not to please community or make good, but unprofitable gestures. They don't care about your complaints. I'm almost sure they won't add LAN in the nearest future (~ 5 years).
But if you are not a Blizzard employee, advocating idea to not have LAN is ridiculous. If something makes game better, why it's bad? Is it bad to play tournaments without lag and disconnects, caused by battle.net/internet issues? Is it bad to play LAN with friends when there is no good internet? Having LAN is only benefit for everyone, (if you don't need it - you just don't use it, easy).
LAN itself won't cause any, even little noticeable, lose of profit for Blizzard. Those who want to buy SC2, will do it anyway. Those who don't have intention/possibility to buy it, won't buy it even if there would be no pirated version.
Valve has LAN in all its games and apparently has no financial problems caused by it.
Blizzard makes good games, but greediness prevent them make products better (like improve battle.net or add LAN support).
From what I learned in interviews, Activision handles Battle.net 2.0; they let Blizzard handle the gameplay. So it's not Blizzard's fault, although when they talk about Bnet it sounds like they assume the responsibility. (If you were Activision you wouldn't want to have part of your company revealing negative things about the bigger half of Activision-Blizzard?)
|
On August 15 2011 14:38 Unnamed wrote:
{...}
Valve has LAN in all its games and apparently has no financial problems caused by it.
{...}.
Thank god someone said this. i agree 100%. LAN and having LAN parties is what makes games enjoyable.
i went to a lan just the other day and some people bought some copies of CS:S so we could all play it. we had to wait till everyone was in bed before 4 of us could play a game together.
ALOT of places dont have the bandwidth to support 8+ people on the internet, ESPECIALLY in Australia.
Also, alot of people in this thread is making me angry. stop being morons. "i bet the ones that want lan wont even use it." "ive never been to a lan that didnt have an internet connection" are some of the most retardedest comments ive ever seen.
|
Even MW2 had psuedo-LAN in IWNet, you'd have LAN ping 
|
They just made LAN more desirable. After the merge I have serious lag issues. Would it really break their bank to get sufficient servers for the load? And a second server so they don't have to take our crack dealer out of business like every two weeks for x hours. While they patch 1900 century style.
q> How come billionares are so fukin cheap????
a> That's how they become billionares...
Ps. My first starcraft experience was lan, that's how get got me hooked. Install SPAWN mmmh
|
On August 15 2011 01:45 NuKedUFirst wrote:
Hope someone D/C's during Blizzcon Tourny/GSL game at Blizzcon.. Would really stick it to the man.
I remember during the casts of some BNet invitationals that the caster mentioned some zerg winning despite the heavy lag spikes running against him (wasn't that even Sheth?).
|
On August 15 2011 15:41 Fir3fly wrote:the most retardedest
lol
|
I vote yes for LAN 
And yes, as above poster, there are many places that still doesn't have a reliable internet connection, like what we had here in my country. Yes we have a really huge improvement in the last decade, but still there are many places that doesn't have a good connection, thus limiting the offline tournament numbers. I remembered that about almost 1 year ago, one of the event organizer here tried to held a big LAN tourney with about 200 (or event 500?) computers, which unfortunately failed due to the connection issue. If that event was successful, I believe it will attract more and more competitions. I was there in that event, and I came with a huge expectations, that turns out to be a huge turn off for me.
The dilemma for LAN and piracy, I must honestly say, is there and remain to be the point of arguments. IMO since the biggest selling point for SC2 is online play, then I believe people will buy the original, unless for those people without internet connection, which in that case buying original SC2 is useless since you have to connect to be able to play. So taking this point of view, it may be possible that "always connect" feature refrain some people to actually buy the original one.
..
|
I'm mindboggled at the amount of people who want Blizzard to shut down this LAN hack lmao. You, along with Activision Blizzard's greed, are crippling the competitive scene of this game that you love so much. The decision to remove LAN is one of the worst decisions that Blizzard has made regarding this game. LAN does not contribute to piracy or hurt sales. For most users Battle.net is the core function of the game. LAN is an add-on that comes secondary to most users but is absolutely critical for proper competitive play and the decision to exclude it is an example of Activision's wanton greed.
For the Chinese hackers that made this possible, I have nothing but the deepest respect for stepping up where Activision Blizzard and corporate greed have failed consumers and esports.
|
I don't get why they couldn't make a 'legit' LAN solution with the use of some
basic public/private key encryption.
What we want is to be able to have local servers for tournaments, yes?
If they released a 'LAN Server' that required all users first to be authenticated by Battle.Net, but then subsequently be handled by the server, it would be OK.
I.E, in simple terms:
1.) Server is registered and authenticated at Battle.Net.
2.) When a new user connects to server, credentials is passed to Battle.Net for authentication.
3.) Once the user is authenticated, the local server handles all in-game communication.
This way Blizzard would have full control over end users and licenses (pirating would require being able to falsify credentials to Battle.Net, much as today), but servers could be set up to minimize lag for everyone. Maybe I am missing something, but I just don't see why this could not work.
|
On August 15 2011 01:37 Serutan wrote:Welcome ! Now that a post exists since lot of day and nobody of Blizzard stops the subject (here : http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2973007615?page=1 ), I think that we can discuss here about the apparition of this hack without a violation of the TOS... I don't see why we can speak about the hack on the official forum moderated by Blizzard salaried employee and can't here... This hack was developed since a lots of time and support 1.3.6 clients (enGB,enUS, ... ) by a team named StarFriend. I see that you can use the legal Starcraft 2 and this hack on the same Starcraft 2 without any problem... Personnally, I think that LAN is the heart and soul of StarCraft. It wasn't Battle.net that made SC1 popular, it was LAN.
Hell , It's about time....
Still , Theres no real clan support over a year into SC2s release (User modifyable clan tags , clan chat etc) so i doubt Blizzard will bring in LAN.
|
I'd use lan feature nearly every day if it was there..
the 1000's of professional games that have been played would probably love it too.. god bless google
|
On August 15 2011 17:21 writer22816 wrote:
I'm mindboggled at the amount of people who want Blizzard to shut down this LAN hack lmao. You, along with Activision Blizzard's greed, are crippling the competitive scene of this game that you love so much. The decision to remove LAN is one of the worst decisions that Blizzard has made regarding this game. LAN does not contribute to piracy or hurt sales. For most users Battle.net is the core function of the game. LAN is an add-on that comes secondary to most users but is absolutely critical for proper competitive play and the decision to exclude it is an example of Activision's wanton greed.
For the Chinese hackers that made this possible, I have nothing but the deepest respect for stepping up where Activision Blizzard and corporate greed have failed consumers and esports.
I'm mindboggled at the amount of people who want Blizzard to add LAN because a hacking group is trying to coerce them lmao.
Ya, lets encourage and "respect" the theft/piracy (semantics, lets not argue this shit) of IP because you want LAN. The day when you create something worthwhile and some random group halfway around the world screws you out of something you worked for, I wonder how much you'd respect them then. If you are a believer of open source that's fine but don't hate on those who would like to make money off their product. In the market if you want to show a company what they're doing is wrong, you have to vote with your wallet, nothing else. Their responsibility is to their primary stakeholders, the professional gaming community is pretty low on that list if at all.
Now if you believe LAN isn't hurting revenues, is anyone capable of showing Blizzard that it wont? The day you do a cost benefit analysis showing that lack of LAN hurts revenues more than the potential risk of having it and convince them the analysis isn't out of your ass, they'll add LAN. QQing about lag isn't enough.
|
On August 15 2011 18:00 Zergnub wrote:
I don't get why they couldn't make a 'legit' LAN solution with the use of some
basic public/private key encryption.
What we want is to be able to have local servers for tournaments, yes?
If they released a 'LAN Server' that required all users first to be authenticated by Battle.Net, but then subsequently be handled by the server, it would be OK.
I.E, in simple terms:
1.) Server is registered and authenticated at Battle.Net.
2.) When a new user connects to server, credentials is passed to Battle.Net for authentication.
3.) Once the user is authenticated, the local server handles all in-game communication.
This way Blizzard would have full control over end users and licenses (pirating would require being able to falsify credentials to Battle.Net, much as today), but servers could be set up to minimize lag for everyone. Maybe I am missing something, but I just don't see why this could not work.
Assassin's creed 2 required "authentication" of sorts. A server emulator can easily bypass all that.
|
On August 15 2011 18:00 Zergnub wrote:
I don't get why they couldn't make a 'legit' LAN solution with the use of some
basic public/private key encryption.
What we want is to be able to have local servers for tournaments, yes?
If they released a 'LAN Server' that required all users first to be authenticated by Battle.Net, but then subsequently be handled by the server, it would be OK.
I.E, in simple terms:
1.) Server is registered and authenticated at Battle.Net.
2.) When a new user connects to server, credentials is passed to Battle.Net for authentication.
3.) Once the user is authenticated, the local server handles all in-game communication.
This way Blizzard would have full control over end users and licenses (pirating would require being able to falsify credentials to Battle.Net, much as today), but servers could be set up to minimize lag for everyone. Maybe I am missing something, but I just don't see why this could not work.
What I've said before -_-"
It really wouldn't be that hard for blizzard to do something like that or something like this.
Or, they could release a "Tournament" Version of the Software to MLG, Dreamhack etc...
The tournament software in the options menu has a spot for the IP address of the Blizzard licensed server and can only be put in by somebody with knowledge of a secret key/password, an authenticator or a code that comes with the license of the server. Then, All user credentials will be passed to their authentication servers and passed back to the server. All of the games would be hosted on the server.
All major tournaments are required to have a minimum of 2 servers for redundancy.
Under this new server there should be a new automatic feature like: All players/Casters are set to unmessage-able once a game has begun (except in game chat).
To top it off: All languages would be available in the game to support international tournaments.
I think this fixes everything :3
|
I agree that LAN is something that blizzard should implement, but I also recognize that it has its problems. I personally think that LAN is a huge thing, for its usefulness and all that, and while I also think that it should be put into the game, I don't believe that there should be any drama or harm caused/used in order to get it. If blizzard has decided that the costs outweigh the benefits, then let it be.
|
On August 15 2011 18:19 Oktyabr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2011 18:00 Zergnub wrote:
I don't get why they couldn't make a 'legit' LAN solution with the use of some
basic public/private key encryption.
What we want is to be able to have local servers for tournaments, yes?
If they released a 'LAN Server' that required all users first to be authenticated by Battle.Net, but then subsequently be handled by the server, it would be OK.
I.E, in simple terms:
1.) Server is registered and authenticated at Battle.Net.
2.) When a new user connects to server, credentials is passed to Battle.Net for authentication.
3.) Once the user is authenticated, the local server handles all in-game communication.
This way Blizzard would have full control over end users and licenses (pirating would require being able to falsify credentials to Battle.Net, much as today), but servers could be set up to minimize lag for everyone. Maybe I am missing something, but I just don't see why this could not work.
Assassin's creed 2 required "authentication" of sorts. A server emulator can easily bypass all that.
Sure, that's a risk.
Given that groups have already managed to make LAN solutions though, I don't really see what the drawback is. It would give Blizz control over the servers and users, and since LAN effectively would exist, the incentive to 'hack' the serverside would be much lessened.
If someone is skilled enough to reverse engineer the server (LAN Server) AND emulate the authentication mechanism, you can't protect yourself from that anyhow. Most such solutions for most games that have them, also suffer flaws (bugs, downtime etc) which make them really unattractive compared to buying the game, especially considered that this game has no monthly cost anyhow...
I imagine most organisations and people would rather use the legit (and more bugfree) solution.
People who can stand downtime + having to wait months for hacker groups to reverse engineer the latest server changes etc, to play the game are not really customers you can expect would pay for the game in the first place anyhow. So, no income loss there for Blizz...
Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
