EPTOn January 17 2009 07:52 maybenexttime wrote:
Or it's an unfounded rumour...
Or it's an unfounded rumour...
We're speaking hypothetically anyway.
SC2 will push e-sports to new heights - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Excalibur_Z
United States12270 Posts
We're speaking hypothetically anyway. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5893 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 17 2009 07:21 Excalibur_Z wrote: From the point of view of an outsider and the point of view of Blizzard's sales department, the burden of proof IS on you to show that there is no correlation between piracy and LAN play. If LAN play is removed due to piracy concerns, it's for one of two reasons: either they have researched and calculated that it's worth it to remove it, or they are playing it safe because of the possibilities of piracy. You're forgetting that you are the one petitioning to keep LAN play, so you need to present the evidence to support your position. See the difference is, I don't need to talk about piracy in order to say why LAN should be kept. 1) Latency is better on LAN than online, which is convenient for those who can play on LAN, and for competitive events where random high latency can throw randomness into competition. 2) Allows multiplayer for people with poor/no internet connection Both of these can be supported by actual evidence or fact. Conversely, the only reason thats been raised to remove LAN is to combat piracy, which is questionably true. Which presents a stronger argument, 2 facts, or one piece of speculation? If Blizzard doesn't feel like adding LAN because they don't feel like it, thats fine by me. But don't try to pretend that they spent a long time thinking about it, because weighing the pros and cons ends up weighing a strong argument FOR LAN and a weak argument against it. Tthey even clearly SAID they haven't finished thinking it through, so stop trying to make it sound like they did. Researched and calculated? Please. It would probably take less time and money for them to just code the LAN stuff than to collect and analyze statistical data on the correlation between the inclusion of LAN play and piracy, especially given the sparsity of data on that particular subject, and the fact that I know of no statisticians that work at Blizzard. Playing it safe? Name me an RTS that has online multiplayer, but no LAN play. The absence of LAN play is NOT the status quo, so removing it cannot be considered "playing it safe." | ||
|
PunkSkeleton
Poland226 Posts
The only thing they could fuck up is making all games hosted on their servers. And BTW. at WWI the game felt much more responsive than SC at Lan Latency. Raven (former Pol-Team captain and mYm member) said that you could do all this tiny micro that was impossible in SC. This is mostly because of map grid being much denser but reduced latency also contributes. | ||
|
Zozma
United States1626 Posts
In other words, pirates will find a way to play. Also, most of them are people who wouldn't buy the game in the first place. Rather than trying to reduce your losses through pirates, it's better to try to reduce losses of people who won't buy the game because there's no LAN. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
http://forums.diii.net/showthread.php?t=687933 <--- Link confirming LAN-less Diablo 3 Blizzard seems to be hyping up Bnet 2.0 a lot. If they're going to remove LAN for it, they had better make sure that it lives up to every single promise and then some. | ||
|
blabber
United States4449 Posts
| ||
|
DeCoup
Australia1933 Posts
| ||
|
Sonu
Canada577 Posts
People with illegal copies of starcraft can still play with their friends :O. They use Hamachi, create a little network and use UDP... Also iccup doesnt have a CD checker like the Blizzard Gateways do. and most of the good 1 on 1's and 2v2 players are in iccup (if not all i tihnk) If they dont have a UDP option or something, then people will be forced to use true copies of the game to play with each other. thats just my 2 cents (or 5 cents xD) | ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
Reason why iccup is as popular as it is, is due to Starcraft's version of Bnet being extremely outdated and poor in comparison. Will be interesting to see how the Bnet support for custom tournaments/ladders will look like though. | ||
|
Pendragon
Canada23 Posts
On January 18 2009 12:08 Zozma wrote: Piracy is going to happen. No matter what kind of protection you try to use, pirates will still be able to get around it. Even the strictest DRM systems are basically useless. In other words, pirates will find a way to play. Also, most of them are people who wouldn't buy the game in the first place. Rather than trying to reduce your losses through pirates, it's better to try to reduce losses of people who won't buy the game because there's no LAN. I hate this argument. Yes pirates are going to be pirates, but given enough incentives many of them would actually go out and buy the game. Even if 10% of pirates buy SC2, that would be a huge increase in sales. The only argument for keeping LAN is because of no Internet access. This concerns such a small, small fraction of SC2 costumers that removing LAN would have minimal impact. When was the last time you had 2 or more computers together without internet and really wanted to play SC? Most LAN parties have internet access anyways. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
Pirates? Pirates are impossible to defeat. Even WoW being as complicated to pirate as it is still gets plenty of illegal private servers. The best way to fight pirates is to make a good product that non-pirates will want to buy. Punishing honest customers by overloading the game with annoying protection methods only gives pirates even more reason to pirate. Encouraging people to use Bnet? The best way to encourage Bnet use is to make it so fun and polished that people will go out of their way to use it. Forcing it upon people will only turn them away from the game itself. A person who normally plays LAN won't go to SC2 and say, "Well I normally play LAN, but since SC2 doesn't have it I'll just get a good internet connection." They'll say, "Well SC2 doesn't have LAN, so I'll just go back to SC1". Taking options away from the player never does any good, and Bnet 2.0 will be no exception, no matter how good Blizzard thinks it will be. Now I know that no-LAN has only been confirmed for Diablo 3 so far, but I still think removing LAN play completely for either game is a bad idea. Blizzard might gain 1 or 2 extra customers, but lose many LAN players and damage their reputation in the process. There is simply no reason to remove LAN at all. None. Nada. Zero. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 19 2009 04:32 Pendragon wrote: The only argument for keeping LAN is because of no Internet access. This concerns such a small, small fraction of SC2 costumers that removing LAN would have minimal impact. When was the last time you had 2 or more computers together without internet and really wanted to play SC? Most LAN parties have internet access anyways. You're on a competitive Starcraft site, and you're forgetting about the effect on competitive play? Even though the netcode for competitive multiplayer games has advanced a long way, a large portion of competitive multiplayer events are still held using LANs, and not over online servers. Why? Because LAN still has lower latency. No matter HOW GOOD your netcode is, LAN play will still have lower latency. Yes, to a casual player it might be miniscule, but in a competitive environment, where little things matter, more latency is bad. People should have the option to play LAN, period. If they have a direct connection to their opponent, there is absolutely ZERO reason they should have to put up with the higher latency online. | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
On January 17 2009 09:38 TheYango wrote: It would probably take less time and money for them to just code the LAN What do you mean by that? ;P They already have it in the game ever since first announcement at WWI On January 18 2009 17:23 Spawkuring wrote: The reason why the "no LAN" thing is scary because there is already a strong indication that they will remove it. Diablo 3 has already been confirmed to be LAN-less, so there's a possibility that Starcraft will lose it too. http://forums.diii.net/showthread.php?t=687933 <--- Link confirming LAN-less Diablo 3 Blizzard seems to be hyping up Bnet 2.0 a lot. If they're going to remove LAN for it, they had better make sure that it lives up to every single promise and then some. Please, Diablo 3 doesn't indicate anything. It's absolutely different multiplayer experience. Diablo 3 is basically mmorpg. | ||
|
MuR)Ernu
Finland768 Posts
Most people play in battlenet =P And yes diablo is basically a mmorpg. Only thing different is that you only play with 8 players max at a time. But in most mmo's you solo over half of the time anyways >.< But No-lan for starcraft is a no-no for me. It might not be the biggest thing ever, but its still annoying, for example, if my modem breaks, or something. And there are people who don't have epic connections. It would be wrong that if they couldn't play starcraft at lan parties because they have a sucky connection. | ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
For the last time custom games; games that you create yourself by choosing a game name and click create game in other words a game you are hosting - is p2p. Bnet have nothing to do with the game once the game have started. This is how it works in Warcraft 3 and that is how it probably will work in SC 2. Also I doubt esport players will play on the regular Bnet when they are playing tournaments etc for various reasons like privacy and maintenance (that won't be very common but it can still happen). Guess what another Blizzard title is already doing that; it is called World of Warcraft. Esport players in that game do not play on regular servers when they are playing their tournaments. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
If a pirate wants to play multiplayer, he will play on a private server. There is no stopping this. Removing LAN is only going to hurt the people who actually bought the game. If blizzard wants people to buy their game, all they need to do is make Bnet 2.0 awesome. People pay their money for wow each month not because they cant work out how to play on a private server. They pay it because the quality of game on the official servers far outranks that of the private ones. SC2 should be the same, people should buy the game not because they cannot get a game going using a pirated copy, but because Bnet2.0 is worth buying the game. | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
| ||
|
Daniri
387 Posts
On January 19 2009 23:10 Fen wrote: Well its also extremely rude to the customers. They are basically saying "we dont trust you so we are going to limit you to make sure you pay for this game". Like CD-Keys? And the biggest reason, to overshadow all others, that EA isn't liked is because EA games suck. If a pirate wants to play multiplayer, he will play on a private server. There is no stopping this. Security and deterrence isn't a failure if it doesn't stop everybody. If you think this, as you seem to right here, you have a severe misunderstanding of their purposes. If it wasn't for LAN support StarCraft would have never become as popular as it did in South Korea (or for that matter in all the other countries the game is still being played with the exception of the US). This isn't really pertinent. Should we still be using VHS? Should we not switch over to digital broadcast because analog has been so great? | ||
|
armed_
Canada443 Posts
On January 20 2009 01:38 Daniri wrote: This isn't really pertinent. Should we still be using VHS? Should we not switch over to digital broadcast because analog has been so great? For the love of god, LAN IS IN NO WAY OBSOLETE. STOP ARGUING THAT IT IS. For anything that can be done both over the internet and with a direct connection over a LAN, the connectivity over a LAN will always be better, however marginally. It's like saying that now that phones exist, I should not be allowed to speak to the people I live with, since face-to-face communication is obsolete and I can just phone them. It makes absolutely no sense. | ||
| ||
