People seam to think that everyone has a broadband/internet connection, all the time, everywhere in the world, but statisticly this is very very false. As of march 2011 there are ~30% internet users in the world, which means that 70% of the population can't play Starcraft 2, because it requires a internet connection, and not just any internet connection, you need a good broadband connection, so I should lower the user access for SC2 to ~15-20% of world population. This might not even sound bad, and it probably isnt very bad stats, but for people that don't have a broadband connection, it seams like a pretty stupid decision from blizzard, not to implement LAN, and are happy about this kind of news.
As for my self, I have a broadband internet connection at home, and I play alot of SC2 while I am at home, but my job is on a ship, so I am onboard a ship, with sattelite connection only, for 6 months total every year. We sometimes play some games against each other, like bw and many other games, but its a pain that we can't play SC2 for 6 months a year, just because there isnt a LAN function built into the game. So I very much support this kind of thing that these people are doing. Untill blizzard implements LAN, I will use this, while Im out to sea.
"Now that a post exists since lot of day and nobody of Blizzard stops the subject" i cant take a post seriously when it makes no sense.. and isn't anything involving hacking blizz against tl rules??
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.
But that's already happened according to this thread. At least it would be LAN for paying customers.
I still maintain that it should be impossible to (legally) use multiplayer SC2 without using Battle.net. And this is Blizzard's stance, they want all players on Battle.net so there is one community and one ladder (apart from the whole region lock thing, which is very bad).
Blizzard can try to delay the inevitable as much as they want, but sooner or later, there will be LAN support for their game, either supported by them, against their ToS.
Seeing as it's inevitable that it is going to exist, allowing people who want to pirate to play the game anyway, wouldn't they rather have the LAN under their terms?
Think about it: If Blizzard supported LAN exists, all the legit players will still be logged in through battle net, so it's not really jeopardizing any 'online community' that they are (poorly) attempting to foster. If non-Blizzard supported LAN exists, all the legit players will have to log out of BNet to play LAN. Under both circumstances, pirates still get to play the game.
What Blizzard should actually be offering is support for a decent laddering system. As long as they continue to offer this, people will still buy the game (should they not own it). If I didn't own SC2, but instead played on pirated LAN, how am I meant to get better? I can't practice on the ladder, I'd have to find someone who feels like playing SC2 as much as I want, and whenever I want.
Also, the longer blizzard leaves it, the more likely someone else will come up with a fully functional BNet replica (with a DND feature!). Once that exists, they've lost their last reason for people to purchase SC2 - the ladder.
So in conclusion: 1) It is inevitable that there will be LAN support of some kind, either supported by blizzard or not. 2) Blizzard would be better off including the LAN support themselves, since it would be on their terms. 3) Blizzards real product should be their laddering system, not their game.
It was unreasonable for Blizzard to think they could stop people from implementing their own versions of a much wanted feature.
On August 15 2011 12:52 koonst wrote: not having lan evens the playing field for the little guys like myself i can practice witho ut worry that theres always gonig to be some lag . and i can access evens far away from my home town .. i am a poor man i cant aford to make trips to lan having lan will only exclude people like myself from alot of things. just my two cents.
So by that logic you should also hold world class sports events at run down school gyms. Also why do you get excluded from anything if dedicated lan tourneys are held on local servers, its not like you can remotely participate in a local lan event anyways.
It is absolutely grotesque that we live in a world where two people playing a computer game sitting next to each other have to waste massive ressources sending all their game data halfway across the fucking continent. This type of absurd decadence could be coming straight from a Douglas Adams novel.
Creating LAN hack may be illegal, but it is also an act of common sense.
People like you need to calm down. Yes, having LAN would be beneficial for us. But having LAN doesn't make sense for Blizzard. You can argue all you want - Blizzard has crunched the numbers and looked at a data and has realized that LAN would cost them more than it would gain them.
Not having LAN is a reasoned and researched position. There is nothing "absurd" about it. Just because you aren't happy with it does not make it an atrocity. You cannot blame Blizzard for doing what makes the most sense for them.
So you basically say its not idiotic practice to send local game data over half the world using up lots of bandwith because you assume that somebody at blizzard carefully researched that it is reasonable for blizzard.and therefore its must be a reasonable thing overall.
Guess with religiousness declining in the west, people just find new entities to put their blind faith in ...
It's not idiotic if more profit is gained by not having LAN than the cost of "send[ing] local game data half the world using up lots of bandwith".
It has nothing to do with "blind faith". It's me assuming that Blizzard acts rationally. Which is much more reasonable than the half-assed theories that involve Blizzard willingly throwing away profits and the goodwill of their consumers.
Blizzard is of course acting rationally for their business.
But why do you want to conclude from that, that the results therefore are safe from being completely idiotic - especially if you look at them from any other than their very own financial perspective? Why not rather evaluate for yourself instead of doing unpaid propaganda work?
Mind the harsh example, but you could, in the same vein, claim that its a completely rational to bribe researchers to produce articles denying global warming, and also conclude its ok.
To decide for us whether it is a good idea or not in general having to send game data halfway across a continent at the cost of us all even when it seems to be not necessary it is of no importance if Blizz is actually acting rationally for their business. They could base their own decisions on the color of their parrots morning poo-poo for all I care.
But the question is if the consequences are appropriate in relation to what is intended. And while denying the obvious absurdity that everybody can see, you rather speculate about Blizzard probably knowing what theyre doing, assuming some sort of goodwill underneath economic decisions. Thats blind faith if you ask me.
...trusting businesses to act like businesses is not blind faith.
And I don't know where you got the idea that I think Blizzard has any sort of "goodwill" behind their actions. As long as their actions aren't morally questionable (like bribing researchers) - there is no reason for the amount of anger towards Blizzard that you have shown. The results are not idiotic because they came from a rational, reasonable, *culturally acceptable* process. And no. The decision making process matters.
This is where we disagree, you say the process matters if something is silly or not, and I say its the overall result that should be looked at.
And I am still convinced that just because something is a culturally accepted business decision, it will not automatically yield overall acceptable results, otherwise environment wasnt as fucked up as it is, and lot of people in the third world also wouldnt get fucked over like they are. Wasting resources is not as much a delicate moral matter, but it results from the same type of ignorance.
Just because somthing has grown to be a standard practice doesnt prevent it from being pretty plain irresponsible. I understand that its more comfortable to think otherwise though.
If not having LAN ruins the game for you, you should not have brought SC2...instead of being pointlessly angry at it after the fact.
TBH I dont even care personally about the LAN functionality, I would not use it. Last time I did LAN with a friend we were playing the then brand new duke nukem 3D. My motivation is really just that it is not acceptable how people have to send data around, beacuse it is such an idiocy and a waste.
If Blizzard was withholding LAN b/c of a trivial reason, I'd be pissed. But because I know it's rational for them to withhold LAN, I understand their decision. I'd rather have LAN too... but all this hate at Blizzard is completely unwarranted. If you were Blizzard, chances are you would make the same decision as well.
I'm not angry towards Blizzard, I love them for the great games they've been making for about 20 years now. I dont expect responsibility from a business that has no incentive to be.
Its the job of the people (oh shit, there are responsibilities coming with our freedom, damn...) to use their heads and look at the results (and not the decision making process which is pretty obvious). And they should have an incentive to straight up point to the ressource wasting. Let businesses make their money, but lets not have them act that silly, please.
I am only angry towards ignorant people who bring up lazy arguments with big convincing words like "research", "rational" or "standard" and even prevent others from thinking for themselves, abusing that those who have never done actual research work in natural sciences seem to be so easily impressed by these words.
im not sure if people are aware of the $10,000 "LAN" tournament that was held by cybergaming in vancouver recently that blizzard actually IP banned because of some rule stating that all tourneys over 10,000 need to give blizzard a cut
this kind of shit is unacceptable. the game cannot grow in korea without lan and its not like lan is gonna hurt sales, anyone nerdy enough to link two computers together to play is gonna be down to ladder when their friends arent at their house.
On August 15 2011 12:52 koonst wrote: not having lan evens the playing field for the little guys like myself i can practice witho ut worry that theres always gonig to be some lag . and i can access evens far away from my home town .. i am a poor man i cant aford to make trips to lan having lan will only exclude people like myself from alot of things. just my two cents.
So by that logic you should also hold world class sports events at run down school gyms. Also why do you get excluded from anything if dedicated lan tourneys are held on local servers, its not like you can remotely participate in a local lan event anyways.
It is absolutely grotesque that we live in a world where two people playing a computer game sitting next to each other have to waste massive ressources sending all their game data halfway across the fucking continent. This type of absurd decadence could be coming straight from a Douglas Adams novel.
Creating LAN hack may be illegal, but it is also an act of common sense.
People like you need to calm down. Yes, having LAN would be beneficial for us. But having LAN doesn't make sense for Blizzard. You can argue all you want - Blizzard has crunched the numbers and looked at a data and has realized that LAN would cost them more than it would gain them.
Not having LAN is a reasoned and researched position. There is nothing "absurd" about it. Just because you aren't happy with it does not make it an atrocity. You cannot blame Blizzard for doing what makes the most sense for them.
So you basically say its not idiotic practice to send local game data over half the world using up lots of bandwith because you assume that somebody at blizzard carefully researched that it is reasonable for blizzard.and therefore its must be a reasonable thing overall.
Guess with religiousness declining in the west, people just find new entities to put their blind faith in ...
It's not idiotic if more profit is gained by not having LAN than the cost of "send[ing] local game data half the world using up lots of bandwith".
It has nothing to do with "blind faith". It's me assuming that Blizzard acts rationally. Which is much more reasonable than the half-assed theories that involve Blizzard willingly throwing away profits and the goodwill of their consumers.
Blizzard is of course acting rationally for their business.
But why do you want to conclude from that, that the results therefore are safe from being completely idiotic - especially if you look at them from any other than their very own financial perspective? Why not rather evaluate for yourself instead of doing unpaid propaganda work?
Mind the harsh example, but you could, in the same vein, claim that its a completely rational to bribe researchers to produce articles denying global warming, and also conclude its ok.
To decide for us whether it is a good idea or not in general having to send game data halfway across a continent at the cost of us all even when it seems to be not necessary it is of no importance if Blizz is actually acting rationally for their business. They could base their own decisions on the color of their parrots morning poo-poo for all I care.
But the question is if the consequences are appropriate in relation to what is intended. And while denying the obvious absurdity that everybody can see, you rather speculate about Blizzard probably knowing what theyre doing, assuming some sort of goodwill underneath economic decisions. Thats blind faith if you ask me.
...trusting businesses to act like businesses is not blind faith.
And I don't know where you got the idea that I think Blizzard has any sort of "goodwill" behind their actions. As long as their actions aren't morally questionable (like bribing researchers) - there is no reason for the amount of anger towards Blizzard that you have shown. The results are not idiotic because they came from a rational, reasonable, *culturally acceptable* process. And no. The decision making process matters.
This is where we disagree, you say the process matters if something is silly or not, and I say its the overall result that should be looked at.
And I am still convinced that just because something is a culturally accepted business decision, it will not automatically yield overall acceptable results, otherwise environment wasnt as fucked up as it is, and lot of people in the third world also wouldnt get fucked over like they are. Wasting resources is not as much a delicate moral matter, but it results from the same type of ignorance.
Just because somthing has grown to be a standard practice doesnt prevent it from being pretty plain irresponsible. I understand that its more comfortable to think otherwise though.
If not having LAN ruins the game for you, you should not have brought SC2...instead of being pointlessly angry at it after the fact.
TBH I dont even care personally about the LAN functionality, I would not use it. Last time I did LAN with a friend we were playing the then brand new duke nukem 3D. My motivation is really just that it is not acceptable how people have to send data around, beacuse it is such an idiocy and a waste.
If Blizzard was withholding LAN b/c of a trivial reason, I'd be pissed. But because I know it's rational for them to withhold LAN, I understand their decision. I'd rather have LAN too... but all this hate at Blizzard is completely unwarranted. If you were Blizzard, chances are you would make the same decision as well.
I'm not angry towards Blizzard, I love them for the great games they've been making for about 20 years now. I dont expect responsibility from a business that has no incentive to be.
Its the job of the people (oh shit, there are responsibilities coming with our freedom, damn...) to use their heads and look at the results (and not the decision making process which is pretty obvious). And they should have an incentive to straight up point to the ressource wasting. Let businesses make their money, but lets not have them act that silly, please.
I am only angry towards ignorant people who bring up lazy arguments with big convincing words like "research", "rational" or "standard" and even prevent others from thinking for themselves, abusing that those who have never done actual research work in natural sciences seem to be so easily impressed by these words.
I'm pretty sure nobody but you is worried about this issue because of the impact of no LAN on the environment - because the material "waste" of doing such is minimal, and clearly not deserving of such intense statements such as "This type of absurd decadence could be coming straight from a Douglas Adams novel."
Free market fails in the face of negative externalities (externalities are costs/benefits that a company causes but does not take into consideration). Then it falls to the government to implement regulation that forces companies to internalize the effect of these externalities in their business decisions. A negative externality would be pollution, and pollution caps and fines makes the company responsible for the costs of this pollution. If you don't make companies internalize the costs of their actions, then they won't ever care about the consequences.
If you really feel that no LAN is wasteful, then the correct course of action would be to put in motion an effort to make not-having LAN fine-able by the government. That's the only way you can ensure that companies won't waste those precious internet pipe resources.
On August 15 2011 12:52 koonst wrote: not having lan evens the playing field for the little guys like myself i can practice witho ut worry that theres always gonig to be some lag . and i can access evens far away from my home town .. i am a poor man i cant aford to make trips to lan having lan will only exclude people like myself from alot of things. just my two cents.
So by that logic you should also hold world class sports events at run down school gyms. Also why do you get excluded from anything if dedicated lan tourneys are held on local servers, its not like you can remotely participate in a local lan event anyways.
It is absolutely grotesque that we live in a world where two people playing a computer game sitting next to each other have to waste massive ressources sending all their game data halfway across the fucking continent. This type of absurd decadence could be coming straight from a Douglas Adams novel.
Creating LAN hack may be illegal, but it is also an act of common sense.
People like you need to calm down. Yes, having LAN would be beneficial for us. But having LAN doesn't make sense for Blizzard. You can argue all you want - Blizzard has crunched the numbers and looked at a data and has realized that LAN would cost them more than it would gain them.
Not having LAN is a reasoned and researched position. There is nothing "absurd" about it. Just because you aren't happy with it does not make it an atrocity. You cannot blame Blizzard for doing what makes the most sense for them.
So you basically say its not idiotic practice to send local game data over half the world using up lots of bandwith because you assume that somebody at blizzard carefully researched that it is reasonable for blizzard.and therefore its must be a reasonable thing overall.
Guess with religiousness declining in the west, people just find new entities to put their blind faith in ...
It's not idiotic if more profit is gained by not having LAN than the cost of "send[ing] local game data half the world using up lots of bandwith".
It has nothing to do with "blind faith". It's me assuming that Blizzard acts rationally. Which is much more reasonable than the half-assed theories that involve Blizzard willingly throwing away profits and the goodwill of their consumers.
Blizzard is of course acting rationally for their business.
But why do you want to conclude from that, that the results therefore are safe from being completely idiotic - especially if you look at them from any other than their very own financial perspective? Why not rather evaluate for yourself instead of doing unpaid propaganda work?
Mind the harsh example, but you could, in the same vein, claim that its a completely rational to bribe researchers to produce articles denying global warming, and also conclude its ok.
To decide for us whether it is a good idea or not in general having to send game data halfway across a continent at the cost of us all even when it seems to be not necessary it is of no importance if Blizz is actually acting rationally for their business. They could base their own decisions on the color of their parrots morning poo-poo for all I care.
But the question is if the consequences are appropriate in relation to what is intended. And while denying the obvious absurdity that everybody can see, you rather speculate about Blizzard probably knowing what theyre doing, assuming some sort of goodwill underneath economic decisions. Thats blind faith if you ask me.
...trusting businesses to act like businesses is not blind faith.
And I don't know where you got the idea that I think Blizzard has any sort of "goodwill" behind their actions. As long as their actions aren't morally questionable (like bribing researchers) - there is no reason for the amount of anger towards Blizzard that you have shown. The results are not idiotic because they came from a rational, reasonable, *culturally acceptable* process. And no. The decision making process matters.
This is where we disagree, you say the process matters if something is silly or not, and I say its the overall result that should be looked at.
And I am still convinced that just because something is a culturally accepted business decision, it will not automatically yield overall acceptable results, otherwise environment wasnt as fucked up as it is, and lot of people in the third world also wouldnt get fucked over like they are. Wasting resources is not as much a delicate moral matter, but it results from the same type of ignorance.
Just because somthing has grown to be a standard practice doesnt prevent it from being pretty plain irresponsible. I understand that its more comfortable to think otherwise though.
If not having LAN ruins the game for you, you should not have brought SC2...instead of being pointlessly angry at it after the fact.
TBH I dont even care personally about the LAN functionality, I would not use it. Last time I did LAN with a friend we were playing the then brand new duke nukem 3D. My motivation is really just that it is not acceptable how people have to send data around, beacuse it is such an idiocy and a waste.
If Blizzard was withholding LAN b/c of a trivial reason, I'd be pissed. But because I know it's rational for them to withhold LAN, I understand their decision. I'd rather have LAN too... but all this hate at Blizzard is completely unwarranted. If you were Blizzard, chances are you would make the same decision as well.
I'm not angry towards Blizzard, I love them for the great games they've been making for about 20 years now. I dont expect responsibility from a business that has no incentive to be.
Its the job of the people (oh shit, there are responsibilities coming with our freedom, damn...) to use their heads and look at the results (and not the decision making process which is pretty obvious). And they should have an incentive to straight up point to the ressource wasting. Let businesses make their money, but lets not have them act that silly, please.
I am only angry towards ignorant people who bring up lazy arguments with big convincing words like "research", "rational" or "standard" and even prevent others from thinking for themselves, abusing that those who have never done actual research work in natural sciences seem to be so easily impressed by these words.
I'm pretty sure nobody but you is worried about this issue because of the impact of no LAN on the environment - because the material "waste" of doing such is minimal, and clearly not deserving of such intense statements such as "This type of absurd decadence could be coming straight from a Douglas Adams novel."
I am not worried on the impact on the environment, I was rather talking about a similar mindset that leads to a waste of ressources that could be used in a better way.
If you fail to acknowledge the absurdity in people sitting next to each other having to send information across the globe to communicate then you're pretty much a hopeless case.
Free market fails in the face of negative externalities (externalities are costs/benefits that a company causes but does not take into consideration). Then it falls to the government to implement regulation that forces companies to internalize the effect of these externalities in their business decisions. A negative externality would be pollution, and pollution caps and fines makes the company responsible for the costs of this pollution. If you don't make companies internalize the costs of their actions, then they won't ever care about the consequences.
Please stop arguing that its not absurd because some random quotes from your economy textbook might look that way. While they might be brilliant they were created to understand economy, not as an excuse to justify stupidity.
Economic theories, in the same way as scientific or philosophical theories can be great and/or correct, but always only within very special conditions. Its a good tradition of most the great minds and their following to overextend their very own brilliant theory to try and explain the whole world with it and fail miserably. Its usually not such a big deal and doesn't take away from the original thought, but with economists in blind faith using their market theories as ultima ratio to everything it gets fucking annoying.
Yeah sure, after crunching a lot of numbers and careful application of some market wisdom, somebody comes to the conclusion that having every LAN on the planet required to send all data to some server in a different country and back is perfectly reasonable and cost-effective.
If that doesnt sound like Douglas Adams, what else does?
If you really feel that no LAN is wasteful, then the correct course of action would be to put in motion an effort to make not-having LAN fine-able by the government. That's the only way you can ensure that companies won't waste those precious internet pipe resources.
I'm not expecting people to start a petition, after all there are far bigger problems to worry about. But I also wasn't aware that people are already brainwashed enough to not even start applying any common sense anymore as soon as someone brings up an explanation from a business standpoint and adds in some words like "researched" or "rational".
Reply to perestain: (since quoting will lead to a big block of text)
I'm not saying it makes sense from the consumers perspective, I'm saying it makes perfect sense from Blizzard's perspective - and that the people who question Blizzard's business decision making and pose their own reasons as to why it makes sense for Blizzard *to* include LAN should relax.
Claims such as "Having LAN won't increase piracy", or "they'll gain more sales through having LAN" are being stated as facts. People latch on to those ideas, and think that Blizzard is not having LAN just to spite us - rather than understanding that Blizzard has collected and analyzed information that has clearly told them those "facts" are simply not true.
My main stance is that people should trust instead of question Blizzard's business decisions - they know better than you. Does it lead to the best result for consumers (or society)? Not always. But the decision that led to that point was based in what is rationally best for Blizzard (because it maximizes their profits) - hence why I call it reasonable.
I'd like to reply to other points you made - but I don't wanna stray too far off-topic. Lemme know if you're okay with continuing that part of the convo via PM.
On August 17 2011 08:17 Thetan wrote: Reply to perestain: (since quoting will lead to a big block of text)
I'm not saying it makes sense from the consumers perspective, I'm saying it makes perfect sense from Blizzard's perspective - and that the people who question Blizzard's business decision making and pose their own reasons as to why it makes sense for Blizzard *to* include LAN should relax.
Claims such as "Having LAN won't increase piracy", or "they'll gain more sales through having LAN" are being stated as facts. People latch on to those ideas, and think that Blizzard is not having LAN just to spite us - rather than understanding that Blizzard has collected and analyzed information that has clearly told them those "facts" are simply not true.
My main stance is that people should trust instead of question Blizzard's business decisions - they know better than you. Does it lead to the best result for consumers (or society)? Not always. But the decision that led to that point was based in what is rationally best for Blizzard (because it maximizes their profits) - hence why I call it reasonable.
I'd like to reply to other points you made - but I don't wanna stray too far off-topic. Lemme know if you're okay with continuing that part of the convo via PM.
What you are saying is to appeal to authority for everything, basically. If some entity suddenly made claim of something as such as two and two makes five instead of four, you'd believe them because they said so and that they supposedly know better. You would not question them at all?
uh... thetan short for operating thetan...? L ron hubbard?
At this point, I honestly don't care that I have to log in to play anymore. However, the absence of locally hosted games, even while logged in, is ridiculous.
On August 16 2011 23:11 KenZo- wrote: As of march 2011 there are ~30% internet users in the world, which means that 70% of the population can't play Starcraft 2.
I think if you wanted a more meaningful ratio you would use % with internet vs. total computer users. There are a lot of people in the world who can't even afford a computer.
On August 15 2011 02:29 Antoine wrote: forgive my lack of technical understanding, but isn't this not lan but merely a private server?
Well, if they have private WoW servers, I can forsee in the future private SC2 servers that emulate Battlenet and have its own game and matchmaking system where blizzard cant really do anything about them but shut them down slower than they crop up, and thus people can even play pirated copies that they didnt pay for online.
hell, I have a copy of WoW for a private server on my computer right now, cause some gearhead jock guy installed it for me to play with him. a double exp server too. Played the Legal WoW version, and quit after the bullshit that is the outlands greens making all puyrples of 60 or less worthless in comparison, in what is the most bull money grab ever. Get to outland to massively buff your gold income to be able to buy these uber weapons or live in obscurity being outdone by everyone. Money grab. So i have no will to play even this hacked version.
My point is, no matter what DRM you try to put on your product, people WILL pirate it. you only hurt your legal consumers.
I know the whole theory of "locks are only there to keep honest people honest", but lets be brutally honest. people won't pay for the game if they intended to pirate it in the first place. People who do pirate it may actually be testing the game to see if they like it. And anyone who doesn't like the game wont be tricked into paying for it anyway, or will even sell it off (in contrast to the ToS agreement).
So blizzard truly has no money to make from denying legitimate customers what they want. How the F%*# can a company that denies legitimate customers the product they want stay in business? Too many fanboys blindly sucking the tit?
On August 17 2011 08:17 Thetan wrote: Reply to perestain: (since quoting will lead to a big block of text)
I'm not saying it makes sense from the consumers perspective, I'm saying it makes perfect sense from Blizzard's perspective - and that the people who question Blizzard's business decision making and pose their own reasons as to why it makes sense for Blizzard *to* include LAN should relax.
Yes and No. Blizzard cares about their interests pretty well themselves, they wont need us looking at the whole thing from their perspective. You can't on the other hand blame people for worrying about their own interests, because that is something that Blizzard will obviously not do for them. And it is not exactly common interest that suddenly masses of bandwidth have to be used just for some new control and anti-piracy shenanigans of a computer game.
Claims such as "Having LAN won't increase piracy", or "they'll gain more sales through having LAN" are being stated as facts. People latch on to those ideas, and think that Blizzard is not having LAN just to spite us
While those examples may be bad arguments, you can't deny that these people obviously have something they want to express. The problem is that they formulate their arguments in terms of Blizzards interests and not their own.
- rather than understanding that Blizzard has collected and analyzed information that has clearly told them those "facts" are simply not true.
This is a pretty bold assumption. I doubt that conclusive data on the matter even exists, but that is another story. The bottom line is there is no way to know the exact reasons or procedures behind the decision. If they remove standard computer network features from their product, they better have some explanationn if they expect people to understand. "What, you really want LAN?" or "We designed Bnet 2.0 so nobody will miss LAN" didn't cut it.
My main stance is that people should trust instead of question Blizzard's business decisions - they know better than you. Does it lead to the best result for consumers (or society)? Not always. But the decision that led to that point was based in what is rationally best for Blizzard (because it maximizes their profits) - hence why I call it reasonable.
I wouldnt call letting a business just maximize their profits no matter what happens "reasonable" at all, but that is the main point of our disagreement I guess.
What do you base your trust on? What incentive could a business possibly have to also care for common interests, especially if society is more or less looked down upon (in a non-emotional way) as a mass of "consumers"? Trusting in that sort of goodwill feels a bit suicidal to me.
Or do you just mean you trust that Blizzard will do fine for themselves with their business decision? I don't think anyone is really worrying about that, even if some peoples words were not completely clear in that respect..
I'd like to reply to other points you made - but I don't wanna stray too far off-topic. Lemme know if you're okay with continuing that part of the convo via PM.
You can shoot me a pm of course. I don't think it is necessary too much off-topic though. After all we are discussing what the right stance should be towards "No LAN" and its consequences, which is in direct connection to the hacking if I understood the OP correctly.
Also it might be fun for others to watch two opinions clash and produce a lot of funky debris around it.
On August 17 2011 09:30 nalgene wrote: What you are saying is to appeal to authority for everything, basically. If some entity suddenly made claim of something as such as two and two makes five instead of four, you'd believe them because they said so and that they supposedly know better. You would not question them at all?
If the most respected bunch of mathematicians came out, and published in a respected, peer-reviewed math journal a rigorous proof that 2+2=5, then yes - I'd "believe them because they said so and that they supposedly know better". I might be wary of it - but I would believe it until someone proved it otherwise.
On August 17 2011 10:15 Truedot wrote: My point is, no matter what DRM you try to put on your product, people WILL pirate it. you only hurt your legal consumers.
Your first point is true. The second sentence is a factual claim without any evidence. DRM may not stop pirating - but if it makes pirating more difficult/complex, it can reduce the number of pirates. Yes DRM hurts legal consumers. But you need to show that DRM doesn't help software companies for your second sentence to be true - and I don't think you can do that
On August 17 2011 10:15 Truedot wrote: People won't pay for the game if they intended to pirate it in the first place. People who do pirate it may actually be testing the game to see if they like it.
I counter that with the idea that people also pirate because it's cheaper getting it for free than paying for it. Why would I pay $60 for something if I can get the same thing for free? Yes, some people won't buy the game no matter what - but how many people tell themselves "I will never buy anything - even if the item is worth the money". Legal demo versions exist for most games for those who want to test the game out - piracy is not needed.
I'm not gonna lie. If there was no DRM, if I could pirate every game and have the same functionality and perks as people who brought the game.... I'd probably pirate everything. With piracy being both socially acceptable and with essentially no legal consequence it wouldn't make much sense to do otherwise.
On August 17 2011 10:15 Truedot wrote: How the F%*# can a company that denies legitimate customers the product they want stay in business?
By giving legitimate customers a product they DO want... Starcraft 2 w/o LAN capabilities.
On August 17 2011 12:52 perestain wrote: You can't on the other hand blame people for worrying about their own interests, because that is something that Blizzard will obviously not do for them....The problem is that they formulate their arguments in terms of Blizzards interests and not their own.
I agree with that. When people think that "...blizzard truly has no money to make from denying legitimate customers what they want" they're making claims of blizzards interest - inciting a "FUCK BLIZZARD" mentality that is misinformed and undeserved. I would be nice to have LAN - but I don't think anyone should blame Blizzard for not having it.
On August 17 2011 12:52 perestain wrote: This is a pretty bold assumption. I doubt that conclusive data on the matter even exists, but that is another story. The bottom line is there is no way to know the exact reasons or procedures behind the decision. If they remove standard computer network features from their product, they better have some explanationn if they expect people to understand. "What, you really want LAN?" or "We designed Bnet 2.0 so nobody will miss LAN" didn't cut it.
I'll give you that it's an assumption - but I wouldn't call it bold. I do not doubt that video game companies have all done research on the matter - far more than the average poster on the internet. And that anti-piracy measures have only increased tells me that video game companies at the very least has evidence that suggests that piracy *is* a problem that effects their profits and sales.
And though I'm sure Blizz would love to make bnet good enough so that it acts like LAN, I'm sure the actual business message is closer to "We designed bnet 2.0 to have functionality close enough to LAN so that not-having LAN leads to more profit (less-piracy, one ladder, more control, etc...) than costs (people not buying the game b/c of no LAN functionality, etc.)."
On August 17 2011 12:52 perestain wrote: I wouldnt call letting a business just maximize their profits no matter what happens "reasonable" at all, but that is the main point of our disagreement I guess.
What do you base your trust on? What incentive could a business possibly have to also care for common interests, especially if society is more or less looked down upon (in a non-emotional way) as a mass of "consumers"? Trusting in that sort of goodwill feels a bit suicidal to me.
Or do you just mean you trust that Blizzard will do fine for themselves with their business decision? I don't think anyone is really worrying about that, even if some peoples words were not completely clear in that respect..
I agree that business outcomes are not necessarily optimal for society (pollution, etc) - and the main reason is explained by the existence of negative externalities (businesses don't take into consideration the social cost of their actions.) All you have to do (through regulation or whatever) is to force businesses to consider these social costs. As long as company incentives perfectly align with social cost/benefits, then I have a whole lot of trust for capitalism. Aligning those incentives (Blizzard makes the most money by doing everything that consumers want) can be the tricky part.
So yea. I don't trust corporations to always do what is best for us. I trust them to do what's best for them. But I think it's unreasonable to think that they should think of us before themselves - which is the stance many people are actually taking. People are disappointed b/c they don't have LAN - that's understandable. Turning that disappointment into anger at Blizzard is unwarranted. Anger at pirates for helping to misalign incentives is much more reasonable...but instead pirates are rigorously defended.
I just don't understand how you can be angry at Blizzard for not having LAN.
On August 17 2011 12:52 perestain wrote: I don't think it is necessary too much off-topic though. After all we are discussing what the right stance should be towards "No LAN" and its consequences, which is in direct connection to the hacking if I understood the OP correctly.
Also it might be fun for others to watch two opinions clash and produce a lot of funky debris around it.
As long as we keep everything in the Blizzard/LAN frame it's fine. I was more worried about possibly this devolving into a discussion on the general correct usage of economic theory and whatnot
And I dunno dude. Funky debris seems unnecessarily wasteful... trusting in the goodwill of debris seems suicidal to me. Just look at what happened to the dinosaurs. Stuff can be dangerous. :D
On August 15 2011 03:02 Topdoller wrote: You forget, SC1 died a death in western culture no one played it as it was hacked to death, only the Koreans kept it alive. Bnet might not be perfect but it does bring the people together. The region zoning is there to stop high latency.
Have you actually stopped to think why every man and there dog has an XBOX 360. Its the bringing of all the players together that counts. Sonys online version sucks balls
I know a lot of people who dumped their Wii's and PlayStation's too play live with a 360 with their friends online. They get a few beers and have small events and enjoy team play from their own home.
I paid £36 for SC2 and its been well worth the value. The only people who moan about LAN are pirates. I dont see pros moaning about it,
You are completely incorrect. Sc1 died because Blizzard didn't support it. Hacks is what kept it alive. Players such as Idra, Incontrol, Day 9, Artosis and Tasteless (aka as the most famous members of our community) would be nothing without things such as iccup (which was illegal). Had it not been for iccup, BW may have died in the west, sc2 would have had far less hype and people like Day 9 wouldn't exist. If it weren't for hacks such as iccup, Idra would have become a physicist, day 9 a mathematician and Artosis would have kept to a job instead of practicing for Starcraft.
Every single pro gamer has complained about no lan. Don't speak on things you know nothing about.
Do you know what a LAN is? ICCup is Internet based isnt it where you connect to a central server so all it did was replace BNET, the principle is the same, a central point where people can connect and play together
As i said BNET might not be perfect and i suspect it will improve after HOTS. Don't forget over the coming years Internet latency will improve as technology improves,so think long term.
The world is coming together with the internet, its amazing, Look at WOW with its 40 man raids bring people from all over the region having fun
We wouldnt have HD Starcraft if it wasnt for hacks. They have their good sides you know
I would like to note that as a tournament organizer, the lack of LAN support makes my life MUCH MUCH harder. It is hard enough to find a good venue for an event, but add in requiring a good internet connection it becomes much more difficult and much more expensive.
Not having LAN hurts smaller organizations and start-ups. and impedes the grassroots growth of Starcraft and eSports locally.
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.
More of that, the team of developers of SF(StarFriend) states that if Blizzard release an official LAN, the team will stop their project.
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?
Serutan Some point of view from DeeBo & ROFL
I just stumbled upon this thread today, and as I was reading the opening post, I got to some words that were very familiar. It turns out you were using part of my post that I made in the other thread. Plus you gave me credit, Thanks! lol
Anyway, I really hope they add LAN. Like I posted on the Bnet forums, LAN was my favorite part of SC1. We used to play at my friend's cabin in the woods without internet. It was awesome! Sadly, we can't do that with SC2, which is suppose to be superior. My friend's and I can't even have a "LAN" party over Battle.net because our internet can't support it. Now I do still love SC2, it just pains me to see it without LAN. That's my two cents.
On August 15 2011 01:49 ImsorryKarelyn wrote: Anyone care to enlighten me on blizzard's stance on no LAN for sc2 beside piracy? I haven't been keeping up with all the news looked into deeply with blizzard's history but hasn't recently Diablo 3 will support cash auction system where they stated in the video interview that "it gonna happen anyway might as well us do it" (not direct quote but somewhere along that line). I'm all at loss with blizzard's philosophy approach right now. Was it all just bs just to maximize profits?
Their reasons are piracy and making battle.net 2.0 the best multiplayer platform, which is funny considering how fucking terrible it is. It's speculated that maximising profits is one of the main reasons too. Sadsadsad I still can't believe this game doesn't have LAN.
Are you serious? Have you played Warcraft 3? The lag on Battle.net was almost one second for even the best connections in Europe. So yes they have greatly improved the latency for bnet 2.0, and it's nowhere near as horrible as you make it to sound. And yes they don't want LAN because they don't want piracy ofc. Saw that comming since WoW came out to be honest.
There was built in latency in WC3, so that people would be on a more even footing. Having latency change a lot within a game is also worse than having a constant (but higher) latency.
EPT
