|
On February 02 2009 07:05 Fen wrote:
The problem with this thread is we have two sides. The group of people pointing out the problems with removing LAN and the group of people who's only reason for supporting the removal of LAN is that they think it won't affect them. There are also a lot of strong arguments here by the Pro-LAN people that are just being completely ignored by the anti-LAN people.
The problem with this thread is we have two sides. The group of people pointing out the pros with removing LAN and the group of people who's only reason for opposing the removal of LAN is that they're too poor to afford internet acess. There are also a lot of strong arguments here by the Anti-LAN people that are just being completely ignored by the pro-LAN people.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On February 02 2009 08:45 Pendragon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 07:05 Fen wrote:
The problem with this thread is we have two sides. The group of people pointing out the problems with removing LAN and the group of people who's only reason for supporting the removal of LAN is that they think it won't affect them. There are also a lot of strong arguments here by the Pro-LAN people that are just being completely ignored by the anti-LAN people.
The problem with this thread is we have two sides. The group of people pointing out the pros with removing LAN and the group of people who's only reason for opposing the removal of LAN is that they're too poor to afford internet acess. There are also a lot of strong arguments here by the Anti-LAN people that are just being completely ignored by the pro-LAN people.
Name one.
There are no god damn arguments for why I, as a consumer, wouldn't want LAN. The only argument against it is "piracy" which doesn't matter a bit for me as I won't be pirating the game.
|
On February 02 2009 03:05 Daewon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 22:59 maybenexttime wrote:
By whom exactly? Chris Sigaty? Yeah he said it. If you want the exact quote, go through some of the previous posts in this thread, one of the staffers i believe linked to it. BTW congrats on getting bronze in handball (if you care at all hehe). Denmark had a collective mental breakdown in the fight for third, just like they had in the semi :-) ErOs_LeO you need to calm down, eat a cookie or something. First of all, where in my post did I flame you? oh wait that's right I didn't flame you, at least no more than you did in your post. Second, I didn't bother to go through all the posts in this thread to link to the source, you can do that yourself. And thirdly by "Blizzard" I mean a Blizzard producer working on SC2 is that good enough for you, or doesn't that qualify for Blizzard? In short: go though the posts and find the source, and then be quiet please. Oh btw I couldn't care less whether or not you'd like to see LAN stay or go.
I didn't mean to hurt you, i know it's hard to admit that ur wrong but quoting Chris Sigaty as a reliable source is just sad imo.. (plus he's never said they'd remove LAN)
I bet most "Anti-LAN" people have never been to a LAN party, they'd rather stay home, spread rumors and eat cookies lol
|
Until we get PROOF of the no LAN thing, isnt this topic pointless?
Find real proof.. Not "No LAN in D3" cause thats obvious.
|
On February 02 2009 08:50 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Name one.
There are no god damn arguments for why I, as a consumer, wouldn't want LAN. The only argument against it is "piracy" which doesn't matter a bit for me as I won't be pirating the game.
Reasons against LAN
1. Simplicity. While more options is better for consumer, it's worse from a programming perspective. Multiplayer over IPX and direct modem is probably gone, despite still being used by some infitisimal proportion of the population. LAN requires resources to program and update that can instead go into Battle.net 2.0.
2. Profile / ladder stats. It can now be kept in one place, and there's not a need for separate tracking of offline stats. Though some could also call this a disadvantage, I think it would be kind of neat if everyone played in the same place.
3. Piracy. More time spent fighting piracy is less time spent on the game we love. Remember that annoying CD check that everyone got a no-CD crack for? Many games have even more complex security systems. If Blizzard has a simple way of reducing piracy, like no LAN, please let them use that instead of the more fucked up systems.
4. Patching. Ever been to a LAN party where someone has not played SC in awhile? It takes awhile before we figure out why we can't start a game, and then we end up using an internet connection to update anyways.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 02 2009 15:37 hunter3 wrote:Reasons against LAN
1. Simplicity. While more options is better for consumer, it's worse from a programming perspective. Multiplayer over IPX and direct modem is probably gone, despite still being used by some infitisimal proportion of the population. LAN requires resources to program and update that can instead go into Battle.net 2.0.
2. Profile / ladder stats. It can now be kept in one place, and there's not a need for separate tracking of offline stats. Though some could also call this a disadvantage, I think it would be kind of neat if everyone played in the same place.
3. Piracy. More time spent fighting piracy is less time spent on the game we love. Remember that annoying CD check that everyone got a no-CD crack for? Many games have even more complex security systems. If Blizzard has a simple way of reducing piracy, like no LAN, please let them use that instead of the more fucked up systems.
4. Patching. Ever been to a LAN party where someone has not played SC in awhile? It takes awhile before we figure out why we can't start a game, and then we end up using an internet connection to update anyways.
Reasons for LAN(which I'm sure I'm re-iterating):
1. Simplicity: Allowing players to play eachother without having to concern themselves with a third-party, accounts, or other extraneous details, is very useful, simple, and enjoyable.
2. Latency: LAN play is always faster than */IP play, even with LAN Latency hacks. Forcing people to play on a third-party server that may be too far away to provide reasonable response times (i.e. from countries in a great deal of the southern hemisphere, notably NZ(could Plexa please confirm this) and South Africa) is a great way to piss them off and turn them off from your game.
3. Re Patching: Patches can be handled offline with manual updates or .exe/.mpq copying over USB drives or direct connections. I remember the last school tournament we had to synchronize maps, which is conceptually similar(though handled both by direct copying and the built-in download functionality). As well, if another 1.16.0 occurs, we don't want to be all stuck using a sub-par patch because some exec is paranoid about "piracy", an often counterproductive attitude.
|
CA10835 Posts
On February 02 2009 15:37 hunter3 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 08:50 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Name one.
There are no god damn arguments for why I, as a consumer, wouldn't want LAN. The only argument against it is "piracy" which doesn't matter a bit for me as I won't be pirating the game. Reasons against LAN 1. Simplicity. While more options is better for consumer, it's worse from a programming perspective. Multiplayer over IPX and direct modem is probably gone, despite still being used by some infitisimal proportion of the population. LAN requires resources to program and update that can instead go into Battle.net 2.0. 2. Profile / ladder stats. It can now be kept in one place, and there's not a need for separate tracking of offline stats. Though some could also call this a disadvantage, I think it would be kind of neat if everyone played in the same place. 3. Piracy. More time spent fighting piracy is less time spent on the game we love. Remember that annoying CD check that everyone got a no-CD crack for? Many games have even more complex security systems. If Blizzard has a simple way of reducing piracy, like no LAN, please let them use that instead of the more fucked up systems. 4. Patching. Ever been to a LAN party where someone has not played SC in awhile? It takes awhile before we figure out why we can't start a game, and then we end up using an internet connection to update anyways. wait, did you just say that there is a demand for (offline) LAN stats? lol.
|
On January 13 2009 10:06 Manifesto7 wrote:
Unless you have a source for the no-LAN support, don't post. I have a hard time believing Blizzard would not allow their games to be played offline.
Why not ? Just think about it : bnet has an ad in the top of the screen. When playing lan there's nothing. Same goes for iccup ladder and everything. It's just another way to be sure to win everything. Don't think it'll work though.
|
On February 02 2009 15:37 hunter3 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 08:50 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Name one.
There are no god damn arguments for why I, as a consumer, wouldn't want LAN. The only argument against it is "piracy" which doesn't matter a bit for me as I won't be pirating the game. Reasons against LAN 1. Simplicity. While more options is better for consumer, it's worse from a programming perspective. Multiplayer over IPX and direct modem is probably gone, despite still being used by some infitisimal proportion of the population. LAN requires resources to program and update that can instead go into Battle.net 2.0.
Simplicity? It is much simpler to join a game via LAN than it is to join a game via Bnet.
LAN requiring too much effort? They already built LAN for the blizzard events. It requires next to no effort at all.
2. Profile / ladder stats. It can now be kept in one place, and there's not a need for separate tracking of offline stats. Though some could also call this a disadvantage, I think it would be kind of neat if everyone played in the same place.
No-one cares about profiles or ladder stats on LAN.
3. Piracy. More time spent fighting piracy is less time spent on the game we love. Remember that annoying CD check that everyone got a no-CD crack for? Many games have even more complex security systems. If Blizzard has a simple way of reducing piracy, like no LAN, please let them use that instead of the more fucked up systems.
Removing LAN will NOT stop piracy. It will barely even deter it. If someone can work out how to use hamachi, they can work out how to get onto a private server.
Also blizzard will use whatever anti-piracy measures they deem fit. Just because there is no LAN mode will not stop them from implementing any DRM they want. Your reasoning is flawed.
4. Patching. Ever been to a LAN party where someone has not played SC in awhile? It takes awhile before we figure out why we can't start a game, and then we end up using an internet connection to update anyways.
Ever played a game where the most recent patch wasnt perfect? (Cough 1.16).
How is your inability to realise that someone has a different version to you a con of LAN mode? It sounds more like a con in your ability to think logically. Removing LAN will not stop people from being dumb.
Now I believe Ive sufficiently countered your four arguments. Try to counter my four arguments.
1. No internet connection for (insert one of hundreds of reasons here). LAN still allows these people to play multiplayer.
2. Battlenet is down. LAN still allows people to play multiplayer during the down time.
3. People behind firewalls which prevent them from logging on to battlenet. LAN still allows them to play on their network.
4. People who want to play multiplayer on a different patch version for (insert one of many reasons here) LAN wont force people to play on a specific patch version.
|
Having two computers at home (and my father will buy another one in a few months), I can't imagine gaming without LAN. I would be really pissed of there'd be no LAN support for SC2...
|
Removing LAN will NOT stop piracy. It will barely even deter it. If someone can work out how to use hamachi, they can work out how to get onto a private server.
There's a huge difference in the volume of people on fake battlenet servers and the amount of people on, say, ggc.
|
On February 02 2009 19:30 L wrote:Show nested quote +
Removing LAN will NOT stop piracy. It will barely even deter it. If someone can work out how to use hamachi, they can work out how to get onto a private server.
There's a huge difference in the volume of people on fake battlenet servers and the amount of people on, say, ggc.
Im not familiar with ggc but im curious if the numbers of starcraft players compares to iccup.
Either way however, just because ggc is popular, doesnt mean that removing LAN would do a damn thing. How many WoW games get played on ggc? None obviously because theres no LAN option in WoW, but it sure as hell doesnt stop the thousands of people playing on WoW private servers.
ggc is just the current thing to use. Just because a game is not supported on their platform will not stop the thousands of pirates who want to play online. It just changes where they go to get matches (to a private server if you havent already guessed).
Removing LAN will NOT stop piracy.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On February 02 2009 15:37 hunter3 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 08:50 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Name one.
There are no god damn arguments for why I, as a consumer, wouldn't want LAN. The only argument against it is "piracy" which doesn't matter a bit for me as I won't be pirating the game. Reasons against LAN 1. Simplicity. While more options is better for consumer, it's worse from a programming perspective. Multiplayer over IPX and direct modem is probably gone, despite still being used by some infitisimal proportion of the population. LAN requires resources to program and update that can instead go into Battle.net 2.0.
Again, from a consumer standpoint, I don't give a fuck.
2. Profile / ladder stats. It can now be kept in one place, and there's not a need for separate tracking of offline stats. Though some could also call this a disadvantage, I think it would be kind of neat if everyone played in the same place.
Who gives a damn about "Offline stats"? If you want those kept, keep them yourself 
3. Piracy. More time spent fighting piracy is less time spent on the game we love. Remember that annoying CD check that everyone got a no-CD crack for? Many games have even more complex security systems. If Blizzard has a simple way of reducing piracy, like no LAN, please let them use that instead of the more fucked up systems.
First of all, pirates are just gonna use private servers if they really don't want to pay for the game, no LAN isn't gonna make anyone go "Oh snap, guess I'll buy this game" -_-
Secondly lol "annoying cd-check"  ? I just kept my CD in my drive until the day Blizzard came out with their own no-cd patch, didn't find it annoying.
4. Patching. Ever been to a LAN party where someone has not played SC in awhile? It takes awhile before we figure out why we can't start a game, and then we end up using an internet connection to update anyways.
What the hell kind of stupid reason is this???
On February 02 2009 19:30 L wrote:Show nested quote +
Removing LAN will NOT stop piracy. It will barely even deter it. If someone can work out how to use hamachi, they can work out how to get onto a private server.
There's a huge difference in the volume of people on fake battlenet servers and the amount of people on, say, ggc.
Maybe that's because 1) A ton of those people are legit customers 2) It's a chinese invention (I'm almost sure), and China is the motherland of piracy ; [?
|
Maybe that's because 1) A ton of those people are legit customers 2) It's a chinese invention (I'm almost sure), and China is the motherland of piracy ; [?
Ergo blizzard hates the fact that they're going to lose millions of sales to pirates in china.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
Which they will regardless? It's not like the chinese wouldn't play on a private server if they didn't have GGC >_<
|
someone correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it possible to mirror games through lan? so that people could possibly avoid a pay-per-month b.net
that's the only reason i can see that being a "good decision" for them, although i don't really know anything about networking and i'm sure there is another way to do it
ps i believe i've read through most of this thread so delete this if it's already been posted
|
United States12270 Posts
On February 02 2009 07:05 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 06:50 Excalibur_Z wrote:On February 02 2009 06:39 Sonu wrote:On January 13 2009 10:21 Highways wrote:
Bad decision.
Both Lan and Bnet have their own purposes and cannot be substituted for one another. I agree. Reasons for Lan: - Dont need to get an actual internet subscription (that would cost a lot for staged events) - Reliable (because the computers are just connected to a router, and thats it) Reasons for Bnet: - You dont need to go over to your friend's house to play with them - You can face random people you have never met before Sums it up I think you're missing something. Battle.net will be in the game no matter what. The only question is whether LAN play will be in the game. So unless you're derailing the topic, it's not an "either LAN or Battle.net" argument, it's an "either LAN or nothing" argument. Battle.net isn't going anywhere. He's aware of that, hes just pointing out that both have their pros and cons and that both have their place depending on the conditions that someone wishes to play. BNet will never be as reliable as LAN when two computers are networked which is why both need to be implemented. The problem with this thread is we have two sides. The group of people pointing out the problems with removing LAN and the group of people who's only reason for supporting the removal of LAN is that they think it won't affect them. There are also a lot of strong arguments here by the Pro-LAN people that are just being completely ignored by the anti-LAN people.
I think that's another misconception. I don't believe there are anti-anything people in this thread. There are those who rely on LAN and then there are those who find that it's not a necessity.
|
On February 03 2009 01:27 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 07:05 Fen wrote:On February 02 2009 06:50 Excalibur_Z wrote:On February 02 2009 06:39 Sonu wrote:On January 13 2009 10:21 Highways wrote:
Bad decision.
Both Lan and Bnet have their own purposes and cannot be substituted for one another. I agree. Reasons for Lan: - Dont need to get an actual internet subscription (that would cost a lot for staged events) - Reliable (because the computers are just connected to a router, and thats it) Reasons for Bnet: - You dont need to go over to your friend's house to play with them - You can face random people you have never met before Sums it up I think you're missing something. Battle.net will be in the game no matter what. The only question is whether LAN play will be in the game. So unless you're derailing the topic, it's not an "either LAN or Battle.net" argument, it's an "either LAN or nothing" argument. Battle.net isn't going anywhere. He's aware of that, hes just pointing out that both have their pros and cons and that both have their place depending on the conditions that someone wishes to play. BNet will never be as reliable as LAN when two computers are networked which is why both need to be implemented. The problem with this thread is we have two sides. The group of people pointing out the problems with removing LAN and the group of people who's only reason for supporting the removal of LAN is that they think it won't affect them. There are also a lot of strong arguments here by the Pro-LAN people that are just being completely ignored by the anti-LAN people. I think that's another misconception. I don't believe there are anti-anything people in this thread. There are those who rely on LAN and then there are those who find that it's not a necessity.
Yeah I agree with that, I just had to name the two sides of the debate something 
|
On February 03 2009 01:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Which they will regardless? It's not like the chinese wouldn't play on a private server if they didn't have GGC >_<
And private servers are still MASSIVELY popular in China as far as WC3's concerned - despite LAN. ;;
|
On February 03 2009 03:27 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2009 01:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Which they will regardless? It's not like the chinese wouldn't play on a private server if they didn't have GGC >_< And private servers are still MASSIVELY popular in China as far as WC3's concerned - despite LAN. ;;
and they always will be, at least for a long time probably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
