EPTSC2 will push e-sports to new heights - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Proposal
United States1310 Posts
| ||
|
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
| ||
|
Matoo-
Canada1397 Posts
On January 14 2009 05:06 Daewon wrote: If LAN is dropped from SC2 it will most likely be a purely business oriented move. By cutting LAN they're cramming all the players into the same place - B.Net2.0. This will present sponsors with a massive fan base and a huge audience. It will probably promote the brand of SC drastically, which means more players, more tourneys, etc. Could easily see SC2 becoming not only huge but MASSIVELY HUGE. In the end Blizzard will probably make a cynical calculation as to whether or not the gains from putting all players in one place, getting revenues from subscriptions, etc. will outweigh the losses in sales from those who arent gonna be able to play the game, due to truly shitty connections. Obviously removing LAN from SC would be a nogo but remember, SC is based on 10 year old coding/multiplayer techniques. 10 years is forever, when it comes to PC's / coding. I think the B.Net2.0 latency will impress no matter what Blizzard decides to go with. Sponsors get their money back when the targeted audience gets to see players wearing Adidas jackets and playing Shinhan Bank proleague with a Razer mouse on Intel computers. All of this will not be on bnet2.0 but still only on TV. If SC2 is successful as an e-sport, most of the people watching pro matches are going to be pure watchers who don't play the game anymore, or very rarely. That's how it works. These people are very prone to not give a damn about bnet2.0 since they don't play anymore. What they want is to watch their favorite pros under the spotlight, making ceremonies, answering interviews, etc. All of this is again not on bnet 2.0 but still only on TV. So basically: - Unless Blizz works up something revolutionary, bnet2.0 is going to be a bad media for sponsor advertisement; - Even if Blizz somehow makes it, most of the sponsors' targeted audience won't be there anyway. It would take so incredibly much to see bnet2.0 become an interesting place for sponsors to advertise on that I just can't see it happening. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12273 Posts
On January 14 2009 07:04 CFDragon wrote: + Show Spoiler + On January 14 2009 06:37 Excalibur_Z wrote: Originally, I didn't see the point of removing LAN, particularly because private servers could emerge. However, after thinking about it a bit more, it does make sense after some considerations. Removing LAN means Blizzard doesn't need to add DRM to the game, which is a major complaint about EA games, and that gameplay can be regulated through Bnet2.0. Now, if Bnet2.0 supports things like an extensive Ladder, external tournament/ranking support, and dynamic data rates which scale beyond the maximum allotted speed for online play (thereby minimizing lag in LAN-environment multiplayer games), then there really is no reason for a LAN option beyond piracy protection (although again, private servers will inevitably surface). We've already seen the parsing and rankings of War3, which has a very powerful and sophisticated Ladder system. A similar system for SC2 is just a stone's throw away. We've also seen they support community and sponsored events through SC's new external Ladder support. If this is expanded for SC2, maintaining third-party Ladders or tournaments will be easy. All they have to do is implement the third aspect I mentioned (latency) and LAN play is made completely obsolete. I wouldn't doubt that Blizzard has grandiose plans such as these for Bnet2.0, as they've already claimed it to be an ambitious venture. Assuming all of these features are added, what then could you argue in favor of LAN play beyond simply more options? Latency can not be fixed, you're still playing over the internet, not a direct LAN connection. The only reason it's really "fixed" with things like Chaos in BW is because the latency issues has to do with the game engine itself, because even a crappy internet connection can play the game with little ping. I suspect that SC2 will require a heavier internet connection than BW. Sure, it may not be very significant, especially for people who just play casually, but for professional gaming the difference between 40 and 140 ping is phenomenal. And how does this eliminate the need for DRM? Or rather, how does LAN validate a need for DRM? There are going to be ways to play with your friends online other than Battle.net, legally or not. So what difference does LAN make in stopping piracy? You want people to use B.net2, then make it a better choice than LAN, not the only choice. Not so, if the engine was able to dynamically identify the maximum throughput of a connection and the latency to other players and adjust the network speed and buffering automatically, which was my point. To explain a bit more, imagine you're playing on B.net with someone across the country. Your ping to that person is ~200ms. The game adjusts accordingly, so network traffic and command buffering are executed at a level which we typically see on Bnet at present. Now, imagine you're playing on B.net but with someone on your LAN. Your ping would only be about 10-20ms. Here, the game would adjust again, but response times would be much faster, just like playing a LAN game of SC, even though you're both logged onto B.net2.0. SC2 shouldn't require more than a slight degree heavier internet connection than BW. All that needs to be sent over the network are unit markers, orders, chat, error-checking packets, etc. It should require no "heavier" an Internet connection than War3. LANs make it easy to pirate things, I think everyone knows this as a fundamental truth. If you are able to pirate a game, not require unique authentication on launch, and play on LAN, then the game is easily pirated. EA circumvents this by requiring authentication, and Blizzard apparently may choose to circumvent this by disallowing LAN play. So, with your concerns allayed and addressed, what then is your argument in favor of making LAN play a requirement? | ||
|
Dariush
Romania330 Posts
On January 14 2009 09:58 Excalibur_Z wrote: Not so, if the engine was able to dynamically identify the maximum throughput of a connection and the latency to other players and adjust the network speed and buffering automatically, which was my point. To explain a bit more, imagine you're playing on B.net with someone across the country. Your ping to that person is ~200ms. The game adjusts accordingly, so network traffic and command buffering are executed at a level which we typically see on Bnet at present. Now, imagine you're playing on B.net but with someone on your LAN. Your ping would only be about 10-20ms. Here, the game would adjust again, but response times would be much faster, just like playing a LAN game of SC, even though you're both logged onto B.net2.0. SC2 shouldn't require more than a slight degree heavier internet connection than BW. All that needs to be sent over the network are unit markers, orders, chat, error-checking packets, etc. It should require no "heavier" an Internet connection than War3. LANs make it easy to pirate things, I think everyone knows this as a fundamental truth. If you are able to pirate a game, not require unique authentication on launch, and play on LAN, then the game is easily pirated. EA circumvents this by requiring authentication, and Blizzard apparently may choose to circumvent this by disallowing LAN play. So, with your concerns allayed and addressed, what then is your argument in favor of making LAN play a requirement? Exactly, if they make the engine properly, playing with your LAN member on bnet or LAN would be the same thing...i don't think its a hard thing to do for them... besides, with GARENA's popularity, i can see why they're considering this. | ||
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
LAN competitions will still exist. Players will just have to connect to Bnet. Small LAN parties, like at a friend's house, shouldn't be a problem either. At my house 8 people can connect to the internet through my modem. If you have larger LAN parties, you can buy a HUB. | ||
|
obesechicken13
United States10467 Posts
| ||
|
Pendragon
Canada23 Posts
On January 14 2009 09:58 Excalibur_Z wrote: Not so, if the engine was able to dynamically identify the maximum throughput of a connection and the latency to other players and adjust the network speed and buffering automatically, which was my point. To explain a bit more, imagine you're playing on B.net with someone across the country. Your ping to that person is ~200ms. The game adjusts accordingly, so network traffic and command buffering are executed at a level which we typically see on Bnet at present. Now, imagine you're playing on B.net but with someone on your LAN. Your ping would only be about 10-20ms. Here, the game would adjust again, but response times would be much faster, just like playing a LAN game of SC, even though you're both logged onto B.net2.0. SC2 shouldn't require more than a slight degree heavier internet connection than BW. All that needs to be sent over the network are unit markers, orders, chat, error-checking packets, etc. It should require no "heavier" an Internet connection than War3. LANs make it easy to pirate things, I think everyone knows this as a fundamental truth. If you are able to pirate a game, not require unique authentication on launch, and play on LAN, then the game is easily pirated. EA circumvents this by requiring authentication, and Blizzard apparently may choose to circumvent this by disallowing LAN play. So, with your concerns allayed and addressed, what then is your argument in favor of making LAN play a requirement? This is an excellent post. I was originally against not having LAN, but you totally convinced me otherwise. A centralized and well-coded battle.net would do wonders for both Blizzard and the online Starcraft community as well. People have to remember that in 1998, when Starcraft was first released, Internet usage was not as widespread as today, so Blizzard naturally had to include LAN. Battle.net was a pretty large innovation in gaming. Now, everyone and their grandmother has broadband internet, so the argument for LAN is becoming weaker and weaker. Besides, even if pure online doesn't work out, Blizzard can easily introduce a patch to include LAN play in the future. | ||
|
ven
Germany332 Posts
| ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
When this happens, my brother and I cant play any online games anymore due to the speeds and we generally play a lot of LAN games together while we wait out the month. How are we going to play SC2 in this situation? | ||
|
Kong John
Denmark1020 Posts
I dont think LAN is going to be utterly nessesary, they will have to find some way to surcumvent the problem of having small unofficial LAN's. I really dont see how that is going to work. I do belive that the impact on progaming will be abysmal, im sure they can make some kind of deal with blizzard to get dedicated servers or something since they are a major company. Actually it might even be that since progamers are going to play over Bnet, many more people are going to tune in. If there is a big news rooster "savior vs bisu, LIVE NOW, click here to watch!", that would be great since everyone who would like to watch some really cool games are going to tune in. If that happens it would HUGE for progaming, it would be so much more well known. One of the biggest problems with progaming is that people dont know about it, if there will be just as many people playing starcraft 2 as W3 this would be the best thing thats ever happened to progaming (since BW ofc). So its really not like that these progaming is going to suffer. Majorv official LAN's wont suffer either, but if you have a few friends over to play it may be a problem but they may also find a sollution for that, i play left4dead with my friends purely over the internet and will do so too with SC2 so its not going to bother me. Dont know about dudes from Ukraine though  sucks to be you i guess, or maybe in the future youll get better acces to internet. | ||
|
Sayara
Finland42 Posts
But how about the ones that have no internet/their internet connection sucks/their parents don't let them use their internet for gaming and still want to play against other people? Again, it's about money. These sort of people are simply so small minority these days, that if Blizzard thinks excluding them via leaving LAN out of the product helps getting more customers than leaving it in will get for them, they'll do it. Now all this said, people working at Blizzard aren't stupid. Besides making great games, they'll be most likely doing something good with Bnet2.0 if they're willing to leave LAN out like that. We can just wait and see what happens. Who knows, maybe we'll get rid of maphackers this time. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5899 Posts
On January 14 2009 09:58 Excalibur_Z wrote: Not so, if the engine was able to dynamically identify the maximum throughput of a connection and the latency to other players and adjust the network speed and buffering automatically, which was my point. To explain a bit more, imagine you're playing on B.net with someone across the country. Your ping to that person is ~200ms. The game adjusts accordingly, so network traffic and command buffering are executed at a level which we typically see on Bnet at present. Now, imagine you're playing on B.net but with someone on your LAN. Your ping would only be about 10-20ms. Here, the game would adjust again, but response times would be much faster, just like playing a LAN game of SC, even though you're both logged onto B.net2.0. SC2 shouldn't require more than a slight degree heavier internet connection than BW. All that needs to be sent over the network are unit markers, orders, chat, error-checking packets, etc. It should require no "heavier" an Internet connection than War3. LANs make it easy to pirate things, I think everyone knows this as a fundamental truth. If you are able to pirate a game, not require unique authentication on launch, and play on LAN, then the game is easily pirated. EA circumvents this by requiring authentication, and Blizzard apparently may choose to circumvent this by disallowing LAN play. So, with your concerns allayed and addressed, what then is your argument in favor of making LAN play a requirement? Except for the fact that removing LAN doesn't solve the problem of illegal servers for pirated copies, and competely screws some other aspects of the game for people with legal copies, as mentioned previously. ;/ | ||
|
Lamentations
Australia211 Posts
On January 14 2009 16:23 Fen wrote: An example of a predicament that I encounter is that when we go over our download limit, we get our internet speed capped at 64kps (just slightly above dial-up speeds) till the end of the month. When this happens, my brother and I cant play any online games anymore due to the speeds and we generally play a lot of LAN games together while we wait out the month. How are we going to play SC2 in this situation? The price we pay for having nice beaches and sunshine I guess  LAN cafés perhaps? Also, that could be the time to brush up on your SC:BW or WC3 skills  I rarely use LAN but if playing online is their anti-piracy feature of choice then so be it if it means there is none of this registering or having to connect to the internet and log in to even play single player. I remember Guild Wars having a delayed replay system in place for guilds in the top100 ranking and it was very, very awesome. Something like this in SC2 would be great - not sure if it will be live or slightly delayed but either way it will be a lot of fun with mates. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5899 Posts
So aren't Blizzard sacrificing one minority to fight another one? ;; | ||
|
aeronexus
United States392 Posts
On January 13 2009 18:21 Daewon wrote: ... Also Blizzard has time and again said that they are focusing hard on the community, on bringing people together (sounds like a slogan for Microsoft or something). What better way than to dump LAN and have every single multiplayer match played over B.Net. I would argue that the kind of "together" that takes place over the internet is vastly less enjoyable than actual in-person "together" As for B.Net crashing.. well I guess it’s no different than if the servers crash for the WoW addicts, just have to wait until they get up before you can continue playing. well wouldn't this suck? solely because bnet is down, I suddenly have absolutely no way of playing starcraft except campaign or against the computer. fuckin' sweet. Also don’t forget about piracy, they can cut down on piracy BIG TIME if they actually decide to drop LAN, don’t think they have many problems with piracy for WoW. this point is moot because the vast majority of blizzard's WoW profits come from subscribers. the game is utterly useless without a paid account. just eliminating LAN play won't stop people from installing it on other computers for the campaign or whatever. no LAN play is just that and no more: no LAN play. Personally I’ve never played a game over LAN. ICCup or B.net for me, so I couldn’t care less if they drop it from the game. you are missing out, sir | ||
|
Matoo-
Canada1397 Posts
On January 14 2009 16:51 Kong John wrote: Actually it might even be that since progamers are going to play over Bnet, many more people are going to tune in. If there is a big news rooster "savior vs bisu, LIVE NOW, click here to watch!", that would be great since everyone who would like to watch some really cool games are going to tune in. If that happens it would HUGE for progaming, it would be so much more well known. One of the biggest problems with progaming is that people dont know about it, if there will be just as many people playing starcraft 2 as W3 this would be the best thing thats ever happened to progaming (since BW ofc). If you're talking about a HLTV-like thing, like joining Savior vs Bisu in obs mode, it's not going to happen. If people start obsing pro-games instead of watching them on the regular OGN/MBC/GOM tv channel it's a terrible advertising revenue loss for these companies so they simply won't allow their matches to be obs'ed. And anyway most people prefer watching live video streams, with players' faces and all, not just obsing the game. Most people don't care if FBH started his rax at 1:30 or 1:32, they just want to watch him doing stupid ceremonies or crying after he gets humiliated. That's where the emotion is. If current BW pro-gaming had no vods nor live streaming but only reps and obsing mode it would've been dead for years. Bnet2.0 is going to be very good for people who actually play the game. But for people who want to follow the pro-gaming scene, I'm pretty sure it's not going to be the main meeting point.Unless Blizz works out something revolutionary, as I already said before, but I doubt they will. First, revolutionizing is always hard, and second, it would be so far away from their core business that I'm not even sure they want to try doing it. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5899 Posts
Progaming leagues would simply not use the whole system. ;] | ||
|
Ki_Do
Korea (South)981 Posts
 ZerO lmao- knowledge about starcraft ~ as usual.atm IF, IF star2 manage to get popular in korea and develop its own proleagues it will most likely share the televisioned match programation with brood war leagues. then. without lan the already thin chances star2 have against brood war will grow thinner. No doubt star2 will become big in ocident,[sarcasm on] but who cares for the left side of the globe[/sarcasm off] but if u check the korean bnet forums, or navi through cafes you will realize that these obnoxious ideas that have growth last days doesnt even scratch the korean opinion on "스타2" | ||
|
dcttr66
United States555 Posts
| ||
| ||
