EPTLoL to get LAN. Where's SC2s? - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
dragonblade369
Canada464 Posts
| ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
| ||
|
Xahhk
Canada540 Posts
| ||
|
Irave
United States9965 Posts
On October 13 2012 13:20 RockIronrod wrote: I don't know why we're using LoL as a benchmark for esports, especially since it is a travesty right now. The issues is likely the key reason why its getting the tournament lan. As far as it being a travesty, not even close. Watch the finals tomorrow, or at least look at the viewer count. | ||
mrtomjones
Canada4020 Posts
On October 13 2012 08:32 TotalBiscuit wrote: Counter-argument. Riot is not a charity, they rely on their unlock system to make money. As with all F2P games, this involves accounts being stored on the server to ensure that people do not get free shit. A LAN client opens up the door to hacking the game and allowing all champs and skins to be unlocked. This is equivalent to SC2 "piracy" that would result from LAN. Let's just ignore the fact that wringing your hands over piracy for a game that's 2 years old is just idiotic. Second point, this is not the real reason that SC2 doesn't have LAN, it's due to KESPAs previous bullshit. The use of a LAN client for tournaments would have to be authorized and monitored. If KESPA got ahold of it there's the potential to open pandora's box and cut off Blizzards influence in Korea once again, though you would think Blizzard has put MORE than enough legal protections in place to prevent that from happening now. One way or the other Blizzard should be ashamed of themselves. A F2P entirely online game is about to beat them in the "technology" race and clearly demonstrating that they care about the player experience and tournament legitimacy. I mentioned Kespa in my 2nd post but it and the pirating essentially are the same end goal in my opinion. I don't think SC2 should get LAN and it is entirely because of BW that I believe that. | ||
|
MaestroSC
United States2073 Posts
On October 13 2012 13:20 RockIronrod wrote: I don't know why we're using LoL as a benchmark for esports, especially since it is a travesty right now. because it doesn't draw 5-10x the numbers of any other esport currently in existence? But what does success have to do with success. But what does viewership really mean... in a sport where viewership means everything... like more money. Money isn't that important in business anyways tho, you are right. Money only funds teams, tournaments, and the company that makes the game. But what does that really mean besides a larger scene, with more teams, more sponsorship money, and even bigger prizes and tournaments? You are right. Clearly it makes no sense that other esports should strive to be as successful as LoL. the LoL PLAYOFFS (not even the finals) had over 500,000 concurrent viewers. Another game that has done that before is.... FALSE. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
| ||
|
Cubu
1171 Posts
| ||
|
HeeroFX
United States2704 Posts
| ||
|
LimeNade
United States2125 Posts
| ||
|
dragonblade369
Canada464 Posts
On October 13 2012 13:32 MaestroSC wrote: because it doesn't draw 5-10x the numbers of any other esport currently in existence? But what does success have to do with success. But what does viewership really mean... in a sport where viewership means everything... like more money. Money isn't that important in business anyways tho, you are right. Money only funds teams, tournaments, and the company that makes the game. But what does that really mean besides a larger scene, with more teams, more sponsorship money, and even bigger prizes and tournaments? You are right. Clearly it makes no sense that other esports should strive to be as successful as LoL. the LoL PLAYOFFS (not even the finals) had over 500,000 concurrent viewers. Another game that has done that before is.... FALSE. You do know how LoL viewship works right? They are not real viewers, client-embedded viewers are not watching the game lol | ||
|
PardonYou
United States1360 Posts
On October 13 2012 13:54 Cubu wrote: Does LAN really matter in this day and age? At tournaments? Yes. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7231 Posts
On October 13 2012 14:24 dragonblade369 wrote: You do know how LoL viewship works right? They are not real viewers, client-embedded viewers are not watching the game lol Inside the client there will be a link to view the stream if you want. But merely having the client open doesn't add to the viewer count. | ||
|
Seiniyta
Belgium1815 Posts
| ||
|
IcedBacon
Canada906 Posts
On October 13 2012 08:10 Fionn wrote: If SC2 was free-to-play, it would have LAN. It's not, so it doesn't have it. Yeah seriously, how hard was it to understand this difference between the two games? | ||
|
Catatonic
United States699 Posts
On October 13 2012 08:10 Fionn wrote: If SC2 was free-to-play, it would have LAN. It's not, so it doesn't have it. Though people could then pirate ingame champs, skins and other things which is where Riot makes all it's money so it does indeed apply. So I don't know where this oh it's ftp thing comes in as being valid cause it honestly isn't. I mean I could be wrong and if I am let me know but with LAN it opens them up to being pirated as well. | ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
On October 13 2012 13:32 MaestroSC wrote: because it doesn't draw 5-10x the numbers of any other esport currently in existence? But what does success have to do with success. But what does viewership really mean... in a sport where viewership means everything... like more money. Money isn't that important in business anyways tho, you are right. Money only funds teams, tournaments, and the company that makes the game. But what does that really mean besides a larger scene, with more teams, more sponsorship money, and even bigger prizes and tournaments? You are right. Clearly it makes no sense that other esports should strive to be as successful as LoL. the LoL PLAYOFFS (not even the finals) had over 500,000 concurrent viewers. Another game that has done that before is.... FALSE. Viewership isn't everything (also The International had more viewers). I was referring to the recent shit that's happened. MLG finals prize money splitting, shoddy production leading to mass cheating because Riot doesn't believe in booths, three different restarts due to drops, the constant shit swinging by Riot who seem to be actively trying to kill eSports with exclusivity clauses for teams and tournaments... Riot sold its soul for viewers, that is not something that should be emulated, standardised or admired. | ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
SC2 is not free so Blizz does | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
On October 13 2012 15:09 Forikorder wrote: LoL is already free so LoL doesnt ahve to worry about people ripping it off SC2 is not free so Blizz does On October 13 2012 08:09 strongandbig wrote: isn't lol ftp? The whole "we dont want people to pirate our game" thing doesn't apply. Not that I think blizzard is necessarily on the right side of that, but it's really a whole different question. It very much does still apply to LoL because they get their revenue from skins and hero unlocks and other stuff (runes, etc.)— a LAN version would allow all players the use of all purchasable content. Note that this is just a tournament version and not something intended to be released to the public. Sure there's security concerns, but SC2 wouldn't even have security concern really since 3rd party LAN already exists. I don't know if LoL has some sort of 3rd party LAN but I don't think so (as far as I know it uses [real/true]client-server communication in the games so it would be harder to emulate unlike Starcraft) On October 13 2012 08:10 Fionn wrote: If SC2 was free-to-play, it would have LAN. It's not, so it doesn't have it. Even if this were true (which it isn't, as I previously explained), that's improper reasoning. Starcraft 2 already has an excellent 3rd party LAN system, so it really makes very little sense for Blizzard not to allow LAN,since they're not really stopping anyone from playing LAN, they're just making it SLIGHTLY more of a hassle. On the other hand, the LoL does not have a 3rd party LAN (I could be wrong), and it's harder to emulate as far as I know, which makes it more reasonable to keep no LAN functionality. On October 13 2012 08:13 Narfinger wrote: Easy. Just ask Kespa. Did you already forgot what they did try a few weeks ago? Or to be precise: Lan just for tournaments kills competition because the players can't train with the same latency. Lan for everyone, says hello to Kespa. I haven't heard — can you explain? If some group (ie. KeSPA) is finally using 3rd party LAN for SC2 tournaments I'm glad; It's about time someone did. On October 13 2012 09:11 NeutraLiTe wrote: Some of you guys have really short memories. With no LAN, Blizzard essentially holds the nuclear option in any eSF/KeSPA debacle that can (and most likely will) arise in the future. Competition encourages healthy growth of esports, and if there was a LAN mode in the game KeSPA could essentially give the middle finger to eSF and Blizzard and pull all their players out of every foreign tournament and the GSL. Blizzard more than likely WAS going to step into the GSL Season 4 / Season 5 issue, but eSF took it upon itself to pull its players out of the OSL. This all isn't to say places like MLG, IPL, GSL, etc should not have a LAN client, but I'm sure Blizzard is terrified it could basically be "cracked" by tournament employees and thus the nuclear option is lost. Sorry dude but you must have been living under a rock for the last year or more — SC2 has had 3rd party LAN for a long time — that's not what's stopping people from playing LAN, it's the laws that are stopping them. | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1978 Posts
| ||
| ||
