|
On October 30 2011 23:41 dafunk wrote:
Why do people talking about BW here arnt banned ?
Its a SC2 forum for god sake. If you want to talk about why BW is better or why you feel cheated and so on, go on your forum.
Thanks.
Note how the title of this thread is. BW Teams... playing Starcraft 2. This is a thread about both games.
Thanks.
|
On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:On October 30 2011 23:22 figq wrote:On October 30 2011 23:13 Fenrax wrote:
This is a serious question: How could SC II ever be a serious sport if the game doesn't even have LAN? Not sure if you followed, but there were a number of "accidents" already due to the lack of LAN. Funniest at IPL3, where a whole luxury casino complex with its red velvet seats and so on has a major Internet breakdown, and the tournament can't be played for half a day. As a result Huk and Boxer played Broodwar.  Because it has LAN. Constant issues with lag in big events, even in those closely supervised by Blizzard, because if there's no good ping to Battle.net, SC2 can't run. So yeah, the issue is getting very serious. Dustin Browder from Blizz said that LAN is not planned at all, but they are trying to work with big tournaments. Perhaps provide them with special version of the game that supports something like LAN (at least so that if there's no Internet, they can still play, and bad ping to bnet doesn't lag the game). Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down. LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game. I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly.
Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011.
My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-)
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On October 30 2011 23:47 Stiluz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:On October 30 2011 23:22 figq wrote:On October 30 2011 23:13 Fenrax wrote:
This is a serious question: How could SC II ever be a serious sport if the game doesn't even have LAN? Not sure if you followed, but there were a number of "accidents" already due to the lack of LAN. Funniest at IPL3, where a whole luxury casino complex with its red velvet seats and so on has a major Internet breakdown, and the tournament can't be played for half a day. As a result Huk and Boxer played Broodwar. Because it has LAN. Constant issues with lag in big events, even in those closely supervised by Blizzard, because if there's no good ping to Battle.net, SC2 can't run. So yeah, the issue is getting very serious. Dustin Browder from Blizz said that LAN is not planned at all, but they are trying to work with big tournaments. Perhaps provide them with special version of the game that supports something like LAN (at least so that if there's no Internet, they can still play, and bad ping to bnet doesn't lag the game). Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down. LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game. I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly. Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011. My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-)
It is not called "fucking over". It is called competition.
|
Switzerland1365 Posts
On October 30 2011 23:52 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2011 23:47 Stiluz wrote:On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:On October 30 2011 23:22 figq wrote:On October 30 2011 23:13 Fenrax wrote:
This is a serious question: How could SC II ever be a serious sport if the game doesn't even have LAN? Not sure if you followed, but there were a number of "accidents" already due to the lack of LAN. Funniest at IPL3, where a whole luxury casino complex with its red velvet seats and so on has a major Internet breakdown, and the tournament can't be played for half a day. As a result Huk and Boxer played Broodwar. Because it has LAN. Constant issues with lag in big events, even in those closely supervised by Blizzard, because if there's no good ping to Battle.net, SC2 can't run. So yeah, the issue is getting very serious. Dustin Browder from Blizz said that LAN is not planned at all, but they are trying to work with big tournaments. Perhaps provide them with special version of the game that supports something like LAN (at least so that if there's no Internet, they can still play, and bad ping to bnet doesn't lag the game). Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down. LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game. I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly. Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011. My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-) It is not called "fucking over". It is called competition.
For me competition is more if you make your own game to compete with another game.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On October 30 2011 23:54 Sandermatt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2011 23:52 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:47 Stiluz wrote:On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:On October 30 2011 23:22 figq wrote:On October 30 2011 23:13 Fenrax wrote:
This is a serious question: How could SC II ever be a serious sport if the game doesn't even have LAN? Not sure if you followed, but there were a number of "accidents" already due to the lack of LAN. Funniest at IPL3, where a whole luxury casino complex with its red velvet seats and so on has a major Internet breakdown, and the tournament can't be played for half a day. As a result Huk and Boxer played Broodwar. Because it has LAN. Constant issues with lag in big events, even in those closely supervised by Blizzard, because if there's no good ping to Battle.net, SC2 can't run. So yeah, the issue is getting very serious. Dustin Browder from Blizz said that LAN is not planned at all, but they are trying to work with big tournaments. Perhaps provide them with special version of the game that supports something like LAN (at least so that if there's no Internet, they can still play, and bad ping to bnet doesn't lag the game). Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down. LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game. I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly. Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011. My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-) It is not called "fucking over". It is called competition. For me competition is more if you make your own game to compete with another game.
Let's assume you buy a Basketball. Would you say it is totally fair if you had to log onto the basketball producing companies site EVERY TIME when you want to shoot a few baskets with a friend or the basketball won't work. And if their site or your internet doesn't work you can't play. And if they have an issue with you then you can't play somewhere else.
|
On October 31 2011 00:00 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2011 23:54 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:52 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:47 Stiluz wrote:On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:On October 30 2011 23:22 figq wrote:On October 30 2011 23:13 Fenrax wrote:
This is a serious question: How could SC II ever be a serious sport if the game doesn't even have LAN? Not sure if you followed, but there were a number of "accidents" already due to the lack of LAN. Funniest at IPL3, where a whole luxury casino complex with its red velvet seats and so on has a major Internet breakdown, and the tournament can't be played for half a day. As a result Huk and Boxer played Broodwar. Because it has LAN. Constant issues with lag in big events, even in those closely supervised by Blizzard, because if there's no good ping to Battle.net, SC2 can't run. So yeah, the issue is getting very serious. Dustin Browder from Blizz said that LAN is not planned at all, but they are trying to work with big tournaments. Perhaps provide them with special version of the game that supports something like LAN (at least so that if there's no Internet, they can still play, and bad ping to bnet doesn't lag the game). Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down. LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game. I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly. Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011. My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-) It is not called "fucking over". It is called competition. For me competition is more if you make your own game to compete with another game. Let's assume you buy a Basketball. Would you say it is totally fair if you had to log onto the basketball producing companies site EVERY TIME when you want to shoot a few baskets with a friend or the basketball won't work. And if their site or your internet doesn't work you can't play. And if they have an issue with you then you can't play somewhere else.
But the basketball producing company didn't invent the sport and doesn't have the rights to that sport, so that analogy doesn't work.
edit: and I can't think of a real life analogy that works the same as videogame/e-sports licensing, so that's not a dig or anything.
LAN would benefit us, the end users. It would not benefit Activision (or rather, only in an indirect way through consumer satisfaction, while opening up a slew of dangers - now either their internal calculations have shown that the risk is too high or Activision suits simply shut down this avenue right from the start).
That's really all there's to it. Disillusioning, yes. But these are business realities. :/
|
On October 30 2011 23:47 Stiluz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:On October 30 2011 23:22 figq wrote:On October 30 2011 23:13 Fenrax wrote:
This is a serious question: How could SC II ever be a serious sport if the game doesn't even have LAN? Not sure if you followed, but there were a number of "accidents" already due to the lack of LAN. Funniest at IPL3, where a whole luxury casino complex with its red velvet seats and so on has a major Internet breakdown, and the tournament can't be played for half a day. As a result Huk and Boxer played Broodwar. Because it has LAN. Constant issues with lag in big events, even in those closely supervised by Blizzard, because if there's no good ping to Battle.net, SC2 can't run. So yeah, the issue is getting very serious. Dustin Browder from Blizz said that LAN is not planned at all, but they are trying to work with big tournaments. Perhaps provide them with special version of the game that supports something like LAN (at least so that if there's no Internet, they can still play, and bad ping to bnet doesn't lag the game). Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down. LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game. I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly. Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011. My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-)
So you're defending this multi billion corporation and their actions because you want them to make more money and give you a worse product. I guess you also like the fact that they take money from tournament organizers since poor blizzard really struggles nowadays.
|
On October 31 2011 00:00 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2011 23:54 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:52 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:47 Stiluz wrote:On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:On October 30 2011 23:22 figq wrote:On October 30 2011 23:13 Fenrax wrote:
This is a serious question: How could SC II ever be a serious sport if the game doesn't even have LAN? Not sure if you followed, but there were a number of "accidents" already due to the lack of LAN. Funniest at IPL3, where a whole luxury casino complex with its red velvet seats and so on has a major Internet breakdown, and the tournament can't be played for half a day. As a result Huk and Boxer played Broodwar. Because it has LAN. Constant issues with lag in big events, even in those closely supervised by Blizzard, because if there's no good ping to Battle.net, SC2 can't run. So yeah, the issue is getting very serious. Dustin Browder from Blizz said that LAN is not planned at all, but they are trying to work with big tournaments. Perhaps provide them with special version of the game that supports something like LAN (at least so that if there's no Internet, they can still play, and bad ping to bnet doesn't lag the game). Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down. LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game. I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly. Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011. My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-) It is not called "fucking over". It is called competition. For me competition is more if you make your own game to compete with another game. Let's assume you buy a Basketball. Would you say it is totally fair if you had to log onto the basketball producing companies site EVERY TIME when you want to shoot a few baskets with a friend or the basketball won't work. And if their site or your internet doesn't work you can't play. And if they have an issue with you then you can't play somewhere else.
I've seen many bad sports analogies on the topic of Blizzard, LAN and Kespa but this one takes the cake.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On October 31 2011 00:02 Bobster wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 00:00 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:54 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:52 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:47 Stiluz wrote:On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:On October 30 2011 23:22 figq wrote:[quote]Not sure if you followed, but there were a number of "accidents" already due to the lack of LAN. Funniest at IPL3, where a whole luxury casino complex with its red velvet seats and so on has a major Internet breakdown, and the tournament can't be played for half a day. As a result Huk and Boxer played Broodwar. Because it has LAN. Constant issues with lag in big events, even in those closely supervised by Blizzard, because if there's no good ping to Battle.net, SC2 can't run. So yeah, the issue is getting very serious. Dustin Browder from Blizz said that LAN is not planned at all, but they are trying to work with big tournaments. Perhaps provide them with special version of the game that supports something like LAN (at least so that if there's no Internet, they can still play, and bad ping to bnet doesn't lag the game). Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down. LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game. I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly. Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011. My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-) It is not called "fucking over". It is called competition. For me competition is more if you make your own game to compete with another game. Let's assume you buy a Basketball. Would you say it is totally fair if you had to log onto the basketball producing companies site EVERY TIME when you want to shoot a few baskets with a friend or the basketball won't work. And if their site or your internet doesn't work you can't play. And if they have an issue with you then you can't play somewhere else. But the basketball producing company didn't invent the sport and doesn't have the rights to that sport, so that analogy doesn't work. edit: and I can't think of a real life analogy that works the same as videogame/e-sports licensing, so that's not a dig or anything. LAN would benefit us, the end users. It would not benefit Activision. That's really all there's to it. Disillusioning business realities. :/
And IF a company had monopoly rights to basketball back then and would use it the same way Blizzard does then there would be no NBA. And that is a big point. No LAN is destroying Esports. And I am not kidding. That is the dinosaur. Who makes Broodwar and SCII big? Siege Tanks and Hydralisks or Flash and NesTea? Mineral lines or Stork and HuK?
|
On October 30 2011 23:47 Stiluz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:On October 30 2011 23:22 figq wrote:On October 30 2011 23:13 Fenrax wrote:
This is a serious question: How could SC II ever be a serious sport if the game doesn't even have LAN? Not sure if you followed, but there were a number of "accidents" already due to the lack of LAN. Funniest at IPL3, where a whole luxury casino complex with its red velvet seats and so on has a major Internet breakdown, and the tournament can't be played for half a day. As a result Huk and Boxer played Broodwar. Because it has LAN. Constant issues with lag in big events, even in those closely supervised by Blizzard, because if there's no good ping to Battle.net, SC2 can't run. So yeah, the issue is getting very serious. Dustin Browder from Blizz said that LAN is not planned at all, but they are trying to work with big tournaments. Perhaps provide them with special version of the game that supports something like LAN (at least so that if there's no Internet, they can still play, and bad ping to bnet doesn't lag the game). Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down. LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game. I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly. Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011. My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-)
I cant believe people support no lan.So many tournaments and games are ruined by greedy blizzard.If you want this game competely fair you have to add lan support at least at tournaments.
|
Switzerland1365 Posts
On October 31 2011 00:12 Silentenigma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2011 23:47 Stiluz wrote:On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:On October 30 2011 23:22 figq wrote:On October 30 2011 23:13 Fenrax wrote:
This is a serious question: How could SC II ever be a serious sport if the game doesn't even have LAN? Not sure if you followed, but there were a number of "accidents" already due to the lack of LAN. Funniest at IPL3, where a whole luxury casino complex with its red velvet seats and so on has a major Internet breakdown, and the tournament can't be played for half a day. As a result Huk and Boxer played Broodwar. Because it has LAN. Constant issues with lag in big events, even in those closely supervised by Blizzard, because if there's no good ping to Battle.net, SC2 can't run. So yeah, the issue is getting very serious. Dustin Browder from Blizz said that LAN is not planned at all, but they are trying to work with big tournaments. Perhaps provide them with special version of the game that supports something like LAN (at least so that if there's no Internet, they can still play, and bad ping to bnet doesn't lag the game). Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down. LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game. I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly. Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011. My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-) I cant believe people support no lan.So many tournaments and games are ruined by greedy blizzard.If you want this game competely fair you have to add lan support at least at tournaments.
If they add the tournament servers it will be like lan at tournaments, but without the piracy risk.
|
Some arguments here are so flawed it makes Palin a genius compared to these guys.
It's like this .. no It's like this .. no fuck you it isn't .. yes it is .. fuck you ..
*sigh*
On October 31 2011 00:15 Sandermatt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 00:12 Silentenigma wrote:On October 30 2011 23:47 Stiluz wrote:On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:On October 30 2011 23:22 figq wrote:On October 30 2011 23:13 Fenrax wrote:
This is a serious question: How could SC II ever be a serious sport if the game doesn't even have LAN? Not sure if you followed, but there were a number of "accidents" already due to the lack of LAN. Funniest at IPL3, where a whole luxury casino complex with its red velvet seats and so on has a major Internet breakdown, and the tournament can't be played for half a day. As a result Huk and Boxer played Broodwar. Because it has LAN. Constant issues with lag in big events, even in those closely supervised by Blizzard, because if there's no good ping to Battle.net, SC2 can't run. So yeah, the issue is getting very serious. Dustin Browder from Blizz said that LAN is not planned at all, but they are trying to work with big tournaments. Perhaps provide them with special version of the game that supports something like LAN (at least so that if there's no Internet, they can still play, and bad ping to bnet doesn't lag the game). Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down. LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game. I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly. Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011. My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-) I cant believe people support no lan.So many tournaments and games are ruined by greedy blizzard.If you want this game competely fair you have to add lan support at least at tournaments. If they add the tournament servers it will be like lan at tournaments, but without the piracy risk.
WTF is Piracy risk?? There is already a LAN feature on a hacked version of WoL. Implementation of No-LAN doesn't stop piracy, it encourages it.
|
On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:
It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly.
It's their game and their licensed IP, of course they have every right to a monopoly to it. Using SC without consent - be it for tourney or whatever- is piracy. Also, there was no tournament where lack of LAN was really the issue, it was always the venue's internet that was breaking down and causing the issue (especially shameful at last year's blizzcon, hehe) - of course with LAN it would have been possible to continue the tourney regardless, so LAN would be nice to have for big tourneys. But it is really not that big of an issue (except for piracy, which is a good thing it's shut down).
|
On October 31 2011 00:12 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 00:02 Bobster wrote:On October 31 2011 00:00 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:54 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:52 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:47 Stiluz wrote:On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:
[quote]
Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down.
LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game.
I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly. Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011. My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-) It is not called "fucking over". It is called competition. For me competition is more if you make your own game to compete with another game. Let's assume you buy a Basketball. Would you say it is totally fair if you had to log onto the basketball producing companies site EVERY TIME when you want to shoot a few baskets with a friend or the basketball won't work. And if their site or your internet doesn't work you can't play. And if they have an issue with you then you can't play somewhere else. But the basketball producing company didn't invent the sport and doesn't have the rights to that sport, so that analogy doesn't work. edit: and I can't think of a real life analogy that works the same as videogame/e-sports licensing, so that's not a dig or anything. LAN would benefit us, the end users. It would not benefit Activision. That's really all there's to it. Disillusioning business realities. :/ And IF a company had monopoly rights to basketball back then and would use it the same way Blizzard does then there would be no NBA. And that is a big point. No LAN is destroying Esports. And I am not kidding. That is the dinosaur. Who makes Broodwar and SCII big? Siege Tanks and Hydralisks or Flash and NesTea? Mineral lines or Stork and HuK?
Sorry, I can't quite follow you there. We have no NBA? What does that mean? That we have no tournaments?
There are a ton of great tournaments all competing with each other for the domestic and an international audience.
edit: don't forget that I'm totally for LAN, because the playing field should be as level as possible. Internet issues and lag hinder that.
|
On October 31 2011 00:12 Silentenigma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2011 23:47 Stiluz wrote:On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:On October 30 2011 23:22 figq wrote:On October 30 2011 23:13 Fenrax wrote:
This is a serious question: How could SC II ever be a serious sport if the game doesn't even have LAN? Not sure if you followed, but there were a number of "accidents" already due to the lack of LAN. Funniest at IPL3, where a whole luxury casino complex with its red velvet seats and so on has a major Internet breakdown, and the tournament can't be played for half a day. As a result Huk and Boxer played Broodwar. Because it has LAN. Constant issues with lag in big events, even in those closely supervised by Blizzard, because if there's no good ping to Battle.net, SC2 can't run. So yeah, the issue is getting very serious. Dustin Browder from Blizz said that LAN is not planned at all, but they are trying to work with big tournaments. Perhaps provide them with special version of the game that supports something like LAN (at least so that if there's no Internet, they can still play, and bad ping to bnet doesn't lag the game). Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down. LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game. I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly. Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011. My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-) I cant believe people support no lan.So many tournaments and games are ruined by greedy blizzard.If you want this game competely fair you have to add lan support at least at tournaments.
Tbh they are not greedy. Well in that case at least.
The wc3/dota story was ridiculous, I can't even begin to imagine how much money did they lose from pirated wc3.
|
On October 31 2011 00:12 Silentenigma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2011 23:47 Stiluz wrote:On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:On October 30 2011 23:22 figq wrote:On October 30 2011 23:13 Fenrax wrote:
This is a serious question: How could SC II ever be a serious sport if the game doesn't even have LAN? Not sure if you followed, but there were a number of "accidents" already due to the lack of LAN. Funniest at IPL3, where a whole luxury casino complex with its red velvet seats and so on has a major Internet breakdown, and the tournament can't be played for half a day. As a result Huk and Boxer played Broodwar. Because it has LAN. Constant issues with lag in big events, even in those closely supervised by Blizzard, because if there's no good ping to Battle.net, SC2 can't run. So yeah, the issue is getting very serious. Dustin Browder from Blizz said that LAN is not planned at all, but they are trying to work with big tournaments. Perhaps provide them with special version of the game that supports something like LAN (at least so that if there's no Internet, they can still play, and bad ping to bnet doesn't lag the game). Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down. LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game. I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly. Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011. My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-) I cant believe people support no lan.So many tournaments and games are ruined by greedy blizzard.If you want this game competely fair you have to add lan support at least at tournaments.
I think the topic went from no lan vs lan to "Should companies be able to take the game and not own anything to blizz?". I think LAN is good, however I can understand why blizz doesn't implement it. If LAN didn't= piracy I'm sure they would implement it.
|
The wc3/dota story was ridiculous, I can't even begin to imagine how much money did they lose from pirated wc3.
You cannot multiply "lost" sales by the price to get lost revenue, it doesn't work like that. These people probably wouldn't have bought WC3 legitimately, or DOTA would not have become popular in those areas.
I would argue that DOTA actually made money for Blizz despite the piracy because some friends of those with pirated copies introduced to DOTA will have bought WC3 itself. It brought the game to a wider audience and some % of that will have bought official clients.
DRM will, in general, neither increase sales nor deter piracy (because LAN hacks still exist for SC2). All they do is mean pirates get a better copy of the game (i.e. one with LAN and cross region play) than people who pay do.
|
On October 31 2011 00:16 aimaimaim wrote:Some arguments here are so flawed it makes Palin a genius compared to these guys. It's like this .. no It's like this .. no fuck you it isn't .. yes it is .. fuck you ..*sigh* Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 00:15 Sandermatt wrote:On October 31 2011 00:12 Silentenigma wrote:On October 30 2011 23:47 Stiluz wrote:On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:On October 30 2011 23:22 figq wrote:On October 30 2011 23:13 Fenrax wrote:
This is a serious question: How could SC II ever be a serious sport if the game doesn't even have LAN? Not sure if you followed, but there were a number of "accidents" already due to the lack of LAN. Funniest at IPL3, where a whole luxury casino complex with its red velvet seats and so on has a major Internet breakdown, and the tournament can't be played for half a day. As a result Huk and Boxer played Broodwar. Because it has LAN. Constant issues with lag in big events, even in those closely supervised by Blizzard, because if there's no good ping to Battle.net, SC2 can't run. So yeah, the issue is getting very serious. Dustin Browder from Blizz said that LAN is not planned at all, but they are trying to work with big tournaments. Perhaps provide them with special version of the game that supports something like LAN (at least so that if there's no Internet, they can still play, and bad ping to bnet doesn't lag the game). Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down. LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game. I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly. Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011. My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-) I cant believe people support no lan.So many tournaments and games are ruined by greedy blizzard.If you want this game competely fair you have to add lan support at least at tournaments. If they add the tournament servers it will be like lan at tournaments, but without the piracy risk. WTF is Piracy risk?? There is already a LAN feature on a hacked version of WoL. Implementation of No-LAN doesn't stop piracy, it encourages it.
That doesnt even make sense.. its not encouraging piracy because you cant play multiplayer with piracy.. not many ppl will go thru the trouble with a hacked version of sc2...
|
On October 31 2011 00:26 raf3776 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 00:16 aimaimaim wrote:Some arguments here are so flawed it makes Palin a genius compared to these guys. It's like this .. no It's like this .. no fuck you it isn't .. yes it is .. fuck you ..*sigh* On October 31 2011 00:15 Sandermatt wrote:On October 31 2011 00:12 Silentenigma wrote:On October 30 2011 23:47 Stiluz wrote:On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:On October 30 2011 23:22 figq wrote:[quote]Not sure if you followed, but there were a number of "accidents" already due to the lack of LAN. Funniest at IPL3, where a whole luxury casino complex with its red velvet seats and so on has a major Internet breakdown, and the tournament can't be played for half a day. As a result Huk and Boxer played Broodwar. Because it has LAN. Constant issues with lag in big events, even in those closely supervised by Blizzard, because if there's no good ping to Battle.net, SC2 can't run. So yeah, the issue is getting very serious. Dustin Browder from Blizz said that LAN is not planned at all, but they are trying to work with big tournaments. Perhaps provide them with special version of the game that supports something like LAN (at least so that if there's no Internet, they can still play, and bad ping to bnet doesn't lag the game). Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down. LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game. I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly. Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011. My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-) I cant believe people support no lan.So many tournaments and games are ruined by greedy blizzard.If you want this game competely fair you have to add lan support at least at tournaments. If they add the tournament servers it will be like lan at tournaments, but without the piracy risk. WTF is Piracy risk?? There is already a LAN feature on a hacked version of WoL. Implementation of No-LAN doesn't stop piracy, it encourages it. That doesnt even make sense.. its not encouraging piracy because you cant play multiplayer with piracy.. not many ppl will go thru the trouble with a hacked version of sc2...
OMG Yes you can .. WTF did I just said? .. There is already a Hacked version of WoL with LAN support!
|
On October 31 2011 00:29 aimaimaim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 00:26 raf3776 wrote:On October 31 2011 00:16 aimaimaim wrote:Some arguments here are so flawed it makes Palin a genius compared to these guys. It's like this .. no It's like this .. no fuck you it isn't .. yes it is .. fuck you ..*sigh* On October 31 2011 00:15 Sandermatt wrote:On October 31 2011 00:12 Silentenigma wrote:On October 30 2011 23:47 Stiluz wrote:On October 30 2011 23:38 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:34 Sandermatt wrote:On October 30 2011 23:31 Fenrax wrote:On October 30 2011 23:25 Bobster wrote:
[quote]
Fairly certain he just said that to calm people down.
LAN's not coming. Everything must go through battle.net. They don't want a repeat of another organisation "running away" with their game.
I dislike it as much as anyone else, but Activision-Blizzard is a reality, and it's obviously affecting the company's decisions. A weak community is also the reality. I didn't buy the game because of the lack of LAN. I will buy it the instant it gets LAN (so probably never). How can Blizzard even dare to fuck their customers like that? How does the community let them get away with it? Refuse to watch games of this company. Refuse to register at their or their partners sites. Talk bad about them wherever you can because they deserve it. Attack their reputation. Don't give them money. LAN is the big thing, the fat giant dinosaur in the room, but people don't realize just how important LAN is to Esports. Connectivity issues are just a small part of it. What else except the occasional connectivity issues is part of it (does the ping really hinder the players, when they do not play cross server?) It is about control. Without LAN Blizzard can control all tournaments at all times. No one can make a SCII tournament if Blizzard doesn't want them to. They have a perfect monopoly. Which is great. It would be much harder for an organization like Kespa to fuck Blizzard over, since all games have to go through Bnet. I personally support Blizzard's decision to not include LAN - It would be like giving away tons of copies for free (with stuff like virtual network programs etc). Maybe it worked for Broodwar, but this is 2011. My only gripe is that they haven't optimized the latency yet, so that an EU -> KR connection is still laggy. This should be fixable though, coming from a huge company like Blizzard. :-) I cant believe people support no lan.So many tournaments and games are ruined by greedy blizzard.If you want this game competely fair you have to add lan support at least at tournaments. If they add the tournament servers it will be like lan at tournaments, but without the piracy risk. WTF is Piracy risk?? There is already a LAN feature on a hacked version of WoL. Implementation of No-LAN doesn't stop piracy, it encourages it. That doesnt even make sense.. its not encouraging piracy because you cant play multiplayer with piracy.. not many ppl will go thru the trouble with a hacked version of sc2... OMG Yes you can .. WTF did I just said? .. There is already a Hacked version of WoL with LAN support! but how many people will go through the trouble to get a hacked version for lan purposes only.. more ppl will buy the game to play online. So it doesnt encourage piracy..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
