|
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.
Are you for real? Yeah, they want one big community that's connected, and they separated the game into like a dozen disconnected server without the ability to even play cross-server. Makes sense...
|
People are asking for the reason why they removed it, and they don't think about it.
The reason is because they want all people to play in the same place. If there was something such as LAN, there would immediately start coming up new "Hamachi networks"," Garena Networks" that started their own ladders. So you would have this large SC2 community divided into so many small ladders, there would be one ladder for every single nation in the end cause it would be the demand.
With thousands of ladders they wouldn't even be able to watch games to balance it for the greater good.
Now it's all probably going to go down that way in the end anyway. However, Im just trying to say that there isn't just "greed" behind all of this. If everyone plays B.net it's far better than having to start multiple accounts over different laddersites to play good SC2.
|
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.
Releasing this 'LAN Server' basically gives people the executable code that can run a multiplayer SC2 game, and that's huge.
Now hackers just have to reverse engineer and modify the 'LAN Server' to bypass battle.net and we have a LAN server that lets people play for free!
You say can't be done? I say Blizz won't take it's chances.
Forget LAN in SC2. It's not crucial. How come SC2 has had dozens of successful tournaments? How GOM manages to make so many tournaments with no problems without lan?
And most of you wouldn't even use it. For what? Playing with friends? bnet ping too much to play with your friend? What?+++
|
And I don't support guys who say that LAN is dead... If you don't use LAN, cool bro but
you are stupid. An extra LAN button is going to confuse you when you log in to play?
My thoughts exactly... Even though we have the internet, there is nothing more awesome, to get together with some friends and have a LAN party... Or to go to a major LAN event.
And it would fix alot of problems, that names major LAN events have. Cause most of them don't have the internet speed needed for SC II, although granted, it doesn't need alot.
This would fix alot of problems and would make SC II even more popular on LAN events... Hope they will implement it after this happenede in HotS...
|
I simply dont get why they dont release LAN with connection, to LAN, no reason to have a game stop for loss of Battle ner, just auto update the the data of the game that was played, once the connection is back. Just keep it so that you have to be connected to start a game. no lags but still constant BNET connection
|
Although this is a great effort and I really support it, you guys have to realize that it's not about the players, it's about the money.
I am 99 percent sure that blizzard will NEVER EVER implement LAN support, cuz in their eyes it's a loss of money ( pirating ), and we all know how corporations as huge as blizzard work.
A lot of stuff is missing from bnet 2.0, there were countless pleas from the community ( integrated chat channels, lan, clan support etc. ), and blizz just ignored them. You see, it's not the programming or time that's the problem, it's their financial calculation at the end of the day that counts.
Unfortunately for all of us, blizzard is not the company from 10 years ago,
Today's blizzard is the same shit as EA or Microsoft, a money-milking company.
When Blizzard got really huge with WoW, it got bought by greedy rich share holders who's only concern is how to make as much money as possible, while minimizing losses and removing the "outdated" parts of the game.
I mean, they fucking charge money for CHANGING YOUR NICKNAME.
I don't see how you guys can expect something more for the players when a simple thing like changing you nickname is not so simple.
So you see my dear fellow starcraft and blizzard fans,
it's not our opinion that counts,
It's our money that counts.
And as long as we are obedient little fanboys who give them money, they won't give a fuck at what we want.
Sadly, blizzard is not the only company that got ruined by money, for example, just look at bioware when they got bought by EA, the quality of their games dropped drastically. Money ruins everything, and the video game industry is no exception, games today are just money milking tools with awesome graphics and 0 content ( 90 percent of them ), and it's a trend that will continue. Sadly, we the players are those who are at fault, we allowed for this shit to happen cuz we kept on buying shitty games, and the game companies know this.
That's why today you have bnet 0.2 and terran edition starcraft 2.
But there's more: zerg edition starcraft 2 is coming up! And after you spend another 50 bucks on it, there's more! that's right, protoss edition kids!
Who gives a shit about balance or chat channels when you have 1/3 of a game on the market?
there's plenty of time !
So let's all be good fanboys and buy HOTS.
|
On August 15 2011 19:05 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +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. Are you for real? Yeah, they want one big community that's connected, and they separated the game into like a dozen disconnected server without the ability to even play cross-server. Makes sense...
Region locking is most likely a misguided attempt to offer the best possible localized support for each region.
I've stated in the past how much I hate region locking, and it's quite shameful that it's never going to go away.
However, the fact remains Blizzard wants only one community through Battle.net (separated only by regions). It's on the website:
Connect. Play. Unite. At this moment, gamers around the world are meeting up on Battle.net to prove their skill in epic multiplayer matches or simply to socialize with their friends. Blizzard Entertainment’s vision for the new Battle.net is to unite all Blizzard gamers under the banner of a single, powerful, and advanced online gaming service. For the first time since its inception in 1996, we have completely overhauled Battle.net to offer a more user-friendly, more consistent, and more fun online experience for Blizzard gamers. Read on to discover what the next-generation Battle.net service has to offer. Source: http://us.battle.net/en/what-is/
Just to be clear, my view is:
- SC2 should only be playable through Battle.net
- Battle.net 2.0 is a piece of crap, and needs many improvements
- Region locking is bad
- There should not be LAN as implemented in SC1 and WC3.
- Games played in Battle.net where all players are also on the same LAN, should have data go through LAN, i.e. implement a Battle.net-authenticated LAN.
|
On August 15 2011 19:51 marconi wrote:
Although this is a great effort and I really support it, you guys have to realize that it's not about the players, it's about the money.
I am 99 percent sure that blizzard will NEVER EVER implement LAN support, cuz in their eyes it's a loss of money ( pirating ), and we all know how corporations as huge as blizzard work.
A lot of stuff is missing from bnet 2.0, there were countless pleas from the community ( integrated chat channels, lan, clan support etc. ), and blizz just ignored them. You see, it's not the programming or time that's the problem, it's their financial calculation at the end of the day that counts.
Unfortunately for all of us, blizzard is not the company from 10 years ago,
Today's blizzard is the same shit as EA or Microsoft, a money-milking company.
When Blizzard got really huge with WoW, it got bought by greedy rich share holders who's only concern is how to make as much money as possible, while minimizing losses and removing the "outdated" parts of the game.
I mean, they fucking charge money for CHANGING YOUR NICKNAME.
I don't see how you guys can expect something more for the players when a simple thing like changing you nickname is not so simple.
So you see my dear fellow starcraft and blizzard fans,
it's not our opinion that counts,
It's our money that counts.
And as long as we are obedient little fanboys who give them money, they won't give a fuck at what we want.
Sadly, blizzard is not the only company that got ruined by money, for example, just look at bioware when they got bought by EA, the quality of their games dropped drastically. Money ruins everything, and the video game industry is no exception, games today are just money milking tools with awesome graphics and 0 content ( 90 percent of them ), and it's a trend that will continue. Sadly, we the players are those who are at fault, we allowed for this shit to happen cuz we kept on buying shitty games, and the game companies know this.
That's why today you have bnet 0.2 and terran edition starcraft 2.
But there's more: zerg edition starcraft 2 is coming up! And after you spend another 50 bucks on it, there's more! that's right, protoss edition kids!
Who gives a shit about balance or chat channels when you have 1/3 of a game on the market?
there's plenty of time !
So let's all be good fanboys and buy HOTS.
You're talking as if SC2:WoL wasn't worth the money. To me it was.
The reason they don't implement LAN is because it will make thousands of different ladders where noone is in the official one. That wouldn't really be good for you or me now would it?
SC2:HoS will also be worth the money, if you don't think so. Don't buy it.
|
People actually defending having less consumer rights year by year... interesting..
|
On August 15 2011 21:00 paralleluniverse wrote:
- Games played in Battle.net where all players are also on the same LAN, should have data go through LAN, i.e. implement a Battle.net-authenticated LAN.
People keep making this argument, but it's technically not feasible to do that. Once you have code in SC2 to allow Battle-net-authenticated LAN, it's just a matter of time before someone figures out how to spoof the authentification, and then you've just got regular LAN mode.
|
On August 15 2011 21:27 Eleaven wrote:
People actually defending having less consumer rights year by year... interesting..
Only this site.
Go to r/gaming and people pretty much laugh at what Blizzard is doing.
|
Removing regions so that people don't have to buy 4 copies to play with everyone in the world?
Adding LAN so people don't have to connect through our service?
Making a menu that's not bloated with shiny features that kids love?
Haha, what a foolish notion. Our resources could be spent so much wiser. Like adding a facebook-based matchmaking.
Now that's useful.
|
If a company releases LAN support in any way: they're essentially giving away the game for free. (VPN services)
So unless you REALLY want Blizzard to not profit from this game, and thus not make future games I don't see why everybody's complaining. Its like people complaining about a $2 season ticket for GSL or something.
|
IMHO, they don't care so much about hamachi and others LAN programs full of people that piracy the game.
That's because Blizzard knows that if you don't wanna pay for the game, you are not gonna pay for it, no mater what, but they also knows that people that pay for the game, would be able to keep paying for Dlc, expansions, features, etc.
So here the target to milk are the people that already got the game, they re preparing the Marketplace, which is the only real good thing that can milk over, and over the players, and that's why LAN cant be implemented, because that implies to store the maps on your own Pc, which means that you can easily share maps, and that is exactly what Bli$$ard doesn't want.
|
On August 15 2011 21:47 ryan1894 wrote:
If a company releases LAN support in any way: they're essentially giving away the game for free. (VPN services)
So unless you REALLY want Blizzard to not profit from this game, and thus not make future games I don't see why everybody's complaining. Its like people complaining about a $2 season ticket for GSL or something.
Starcraft 2 was the most pirated game of last year.
|
Do you really want Local area network?
Did we really want chat channels?
Do you really want the lurker back?
Blizzard is so out of touch with the community. Bravo Blizzard you almost didn't include chat channels THE most important feature in WC3 D2 and SC1.
Now they are against the LAN feature even though it doesn't have anything to do with piracy, they just want to make SC2 have pay elements and having LAN and ignoring all the paid crap like changing your username is not going to milk them more money from the consumer.
And we the community are not at fault they developed SC2 for 6 years, if you want more profit blizzard develop 2 years.
|
On August 15 2011 21:27 Eleaven wrote:
People actually defending having less consumer rights year by year... interesting..
There's a difference between trying to defend consumer rights when its a product where safety is concerned or when it falls under necessities of life kinda thing. You make it sound as if they're the government trying to take away freedom of speech.
lol customer rights. What about the right of the creator of intellectual property having the right to protect themselves? Its not as if they told you there would be LAN on the box and when you installed the game it wasn't there. LAN or lack of LAN isn't going to seriously hurt any one. It's just annoying as hell.
|
On August 15 2011 21:49 Aborash wrote:
IMHO, they don't care so much about hamachi and others LAN programs full of people that piracy the game.
That's because Blizzard knows that if you don't wanna pay for the game, you are not gonna pay for it, no mater what, but they also knows that people that pay for the game, would be able to keep paying for Dlc, expansions, features, etc.
So here the target to milk are the people that already got the game, they re preparing the Marketplace, which is the only real good thing that can milk over, and over the players, and that's why LAN cant be implemented, because that implies to store the maps on your own Pc, which means that you can easily share maps, and that is exactly what Bli$$ard doesn't want.
Sure, I also think map makers should continue working for free and with no possibility of profit with their hard work.
|
On August 15 2011 21:49 Aborash wrote:
IMHO, they don't care so much about hamachi and others LAN programs full of people that piracy the game.
That's because Blizzard knows that if you don't wanna pay for the game, you are not gonna pay for it, no mater what, but they also knows that people that pay for the game, would be able to keep paying for Dlc, expansions, features, etc.
So here the target to milk are the people that already got the game, they re preparing the Marketplace, which is the only real good thing that can milk over, and over the players, and that's why LAN cant be implemented, because that implies to store the maps on your own Pc, which means that you can easily share maps, and that is exactly what Bli$$ard doesn't want.
Pretty sure the idea of the Marketplace came from seeing how successful DOTA was - and how the game makers never made any real money off the game. By having a marketplace, it allows mapmakers to monetize their creations, instead of waiting for clones like HoN to take away profits that is rightfully theirs.
Edit:
And why are people saying that LAN won't lead to piracy? Video game companies have undoubtedly collected data and done analysis and they came to the conclusion that LAN DOES lead to piracy. Unless you have data that they don't have that you can use to support your argument, then kindly share. Until then, I'll trust the reasoned, educated judgement of the companies rather than baseless opinions of internet posters.
|
On August 15 2011 21:57 paradox_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2011 21:27 Eleaven wrote:
People actually defending having less consumer rights year by year... interesting.. There's a difference between trying to defend consumer rights when its a product where safety is concerned or when it falls under necessities of life kinda thing. You make it sound as if they're the government trying to take away freedom of speech. lol customer rights. What about the right of the creator of intellectual property having the right to protect themselves? Its not as if they told you there would be LAN on the box and when you installed the game it wasn't there. LAN or lack of LAN isn't going to seriously hurt any one. It's just annoying as hell.
They tried to protect themselves with there always-on approach, and it didn't work. sc2 one of the most pirated games of 2010 iirc. Now there's also a working lan crack.
Not adding lan to the official game at this point is ONLY punishing the legitimate players and tournaments. It can't "hurt blizzard" like you'd try to tell us, if the option is there to play lan, and people pirate it.. okay.. they would have pirated the lan version that's already out too.. either way it's not a sale for blizzard, but for legitimate organisations it's a lose-lose scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
