|
On July 01 2009 03:26 B1nary wrote:
Not to encourage pirating, but I heard (from a friend) that the players on HaoFang are generally really really good, like >250apm even in 1v1 noob games. Can anyone verify/refute this?
This reminds me of iccup lol!
Remember diablo 2 did not support lan per se, but since tcp/ip is the de facto standard for both lan and internet you could always type those 192.168.1.x addresses and it would work fine. The fact that SC2 will not support lan might not be an issue if Blizzard somehow allows for 2 players to log on from the same internet address.
|
On July 01 2009 03:55 HuskyTheHusky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 03:06 AdunToridas wrote:Nice ideas.. Karune also said something about LAN parties with SC2 in THIS Blue post. I have to say, I'm not convinced... //edit: Tsagacity posted it before ^^ Wow, Karune's response to those posts is absolutely disgusting. Everything he replies with is his personal way of liking to do things and saying that private servers fracture the community? Please. That's their way of saying 'we want everyone to pay for this game, anyone living in a poor country who cant afford it? too bad'. And pulling the 'I would be upset if I knew someone was free loading multiplayer while I paid for the real thing'. WTF... that argument reminds me of the 'don't copy that floppy' video... people stopped buying that argument a LONG time ago. Which brings me to my next point... he uses the example of supporting a music artist by buying their songs, which really they get a very small percentage of the actual sale. If you want to actually support an artist go to their concerts, that's where they become rich. Especially when their music is something you wouldn't really buy anyway if you had no other means of listening to it. He also shrugs off the possibility of internet not working during big LAN events. I really don't think he's been to any 500+ events like this, because if he had he would know that the internet is very spotty at best and usually has problems throughout the day. To try and run tournaments and live broadcasts with the risk of everything stopping because of down internet is so stupid. He even says its just as likely for the power to go out as it is the internet.... lol wat? One last point that I'd like to add. He says that people playing on private servers is fracturing the community. This is COMPLETE bs. All they are doing is making it harder for people to host their own tournaments, especially at big events. How is that not fracturing the community instead of making the game playable to more people across the world? The whole thing just smells of greed.
I quote this guy just because that's the fucking smartest comment I've read on TL for a while.
|
On July 02 2009 01:01 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2009 00:27 Excalibur_Z wrote:On July 02 2009 00:06 genryou wrote:
Despite the outrage, 90% of the netizen will still buy SC2 for fun sake.
All this arguments is just a way to blow off steam. I think we can all bank on the "peer pressure" scenario: LAN_Supporter: Hey what's up? Friend: Oh hey dude just playing SC2 with our other friends, you should log on and play with us! LAN_Supporter: Oh really? Eh, I don't think so, they took out LAN play, I won't support an evil company that robs its customers of basic necessities. Friend: Uh what are you talking about? Quit being a nerd and log on to Bnet and play with us, we need one more for a full 3v3. LAN_Supporter: They took out LAN so I'm not buying the game on principle. Friend: On the principle of you being dumb? Everyone is playing so just swallow your pride and get it. LAN_Supporter: Your mom swallowed my pride. Friend: Whatever man, enjoy crying in your corner and keep up your LAN crusade as an Internet warrior. Just get the damn game. LAN_Supporter: =( Rural Country Player: Hey guys, wanna play some SC2 multiplayer? Friends: Sure man, let's set it up. Rural Country Player: Oh wait. Sorry we can't, there's no decent ISP in this area, so we have no decent internet access. Friends: Ahh that's right, oh well. *Plays Starcraft 1* Man on Vacation: Hey there, wanna play some SC2. Friend: Sure, fire it up! Man on Vacation: !@#$ I forgot. We don't have internet over here. Friend: Oh yeah, that sucks. Oh well *Plays Starcraft 1* College Student: Sweet guys, let's play some SC2. Friends: Alright! We've been so excited for this game. College Student: Ahh shit, I can't log in Battlenet. The college firewall blocks it. Friends: Can't we plan offline though? College Student: Sorry, no LAN play in this game. Friends: Wow what a rip-off. Oh well. *Plays Starcraft 1* Man with Internet: Wanna play some SC2? Friend: Sure, we got internet so it's fine. Let's get on BattleNet. Man with Internet: Sure, I'm going online right no- OH SHIT the internet is down! Friend: Dammit, why now of all times? Man with Internet: Great, now we can't play SC2. Oh well *Plays Starcraft 1* Pirates: Hey guys. Don't you hate it when you can't play the key feature of the game you paid money for? Well why not use our product: Starcraft 2 with LAN. It has all the features of SC2, but it has that LAN feature you've been wanting so badly. Man with Internet: Hey now that's a good deal. College Student: Yea. It sucks we can't use Bnet, but some multiplayer is better than none. Man on Vacation: Sounds awesome, let's use it. *Players pirate cracked version of Starcraft 2*
Too bad so sad?
Like do you cry a river when your computer isn't up to minimum specs for a game too?
|
On July 02 2009 01:14 Judicator wrote:
Too bad so sad?
Like do you cry a river when your computer isn't up to minimum specs for a game too?
So your only response is "Too bad". Is that really a good reason to remove a popular feature? I thought Blizzard was removing LAN for a good reason. If the only argument the anti-LAN crowd has is "Tough luck", then that only shows just how bad this decision is.
|
There are also other problems:
1)As mentioned what about things like changing maps in bn2.0? Competing ladders are also a good thing, imagine having only bn ladder with lt, and some few older maps. Ladder competition is a good thing the ones that are run best will likely get on top. In theory diferent ladders could be part of bn2.0 but they will likely not give that option.
So the game will die as soon as Blizzard will decide that they want to cut money spend on SC2 bn2.0, but giving LAN option would allow the game to survive as long as there is enough dedicated players.
2)Likely bn 2.0 will work for SC2 even after many years, but what about cheats? They will likely just limit support to minimum just like they did in the past, and if nobody cracks SC2 or private servers will get closed then you will not be able to play in cheat-free ladder, and be left on Blizzard good will.
3)I have few PC now installing the game on all to play sporadically is evil piracy but in past it was not only possible but even legal with spawn installations. In those days it is completely normal to have couple decent PC I have notebook, and a tabletop PC. I definitely don't find it worth it to buy 2 copies (x3) just for that reason. Why do you use justification that some other companies are doing even worse things now? All developers should drop down to the lowest level? Why would customers support lowering of standards, that is just ridiculous. Please can you give at least one rational reason on why customers should do it? Do you really believe that SC2 would flop with LAN?
|
Gamespot asked Blizzard about the LAN abscence, heres the answer:
"We don't currently plan to support LAN play with Starcraft II, as we are building Battle.net to be the ideal destination for multiplayer gaming with Starcraft II and future Blizzard Entertainment games," a Blizzard representative said in a statement. "While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with Starcraft II and safeguard against piracy."
"Several Battle.net features like advanced communication options, achievements, stat-tracking, and more, require players to be connected to the service, so we're encouraging everyone to use Battle.net as much as possible to get the most out of Starcraft II," the statement continued. "We're looking forward to sharing more details about Battle.net and online functionality for Starcraft II in the near future."
"We're definitely talking about ways with Battle.net that we can provide the best online experience for our customers so that there's not an incentive to pirate the product but instead an incentive to be part of that community of gamers playing that game and they'd want to be part of that social experience on top of the single-player experience," he said.
source: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6212765.html?tag=latestheadlines;title;1
|
On July 01 2009 15:04 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 14:50 FieryBalrog wrote:
Haha, all I can say is good luck finding an RTS with a better online system. For all your bitching a lot of RTS games don't include LAN play these days, and none of them have anything close to Battle.net. Hell, most of them can't even match SC1's Battle.net since they are using horrible shit like Gamespy or GFWL.
I love the internet revolutionaries in here going on about how Blizzard is the next Satan because they took out LAN play (I know, thats almost like punching babies and kittens). You think this is bad "DRM"? This barely qualifies as DRM to boot. Look at Spore (or any EA game just about) for hideously bad DRM, and even Steam is much more invasive than Blizzard is. You guys are living in some fantasy candyland if you think this is outside the norm, its actually better than the norm.
Anyway, while any reasonable person can be concerned, even if they don't have LAN play if you're not an internet hothead you might come to accept the fact that you can still play with your buddy right next to you at LAN latencies over B.net. Custom games are p2p and the data is going within your network. THANK YOU
Lets end the thread with this post, please.
|
@Spawkuring:
No offense, but you must have the shortest memory span ever. Did you forget the OP already? The 'good reason' is limiting piracy. Whether you like it or not, adding or removing features that would inconvenience legitimate customers as well is how anti-piracy measures work (just a question of the extent). And it's not anti-LAN, its "there's reasoning behind this decision".
@Polis:
1. Blizzard already stated that they're going to create more than one ladder (the beginner ladder being the main example right now), its entirely possible that they'll create one geared towards more competitive play (with specific maps).
2. Being connected to the internet allows for better tracking of whether or not someone uses a hack. The thing is, SC1's Battle.net is woefully out of date (despite being, largely, perfectly functional) and did not plan to accomodate for more competitive play, so did not factor in things like hacking.
3. Lowest level? It's a damn shame if making financially sound decisions is considered base and evil nowadays. This is just another example of a developer following a trend in the market. Multiple install features like spawns were a rarity, if I remember correctly, even in 1998.
|
Awwwwwww, poor blizzard. That company has a hard time with money already dont they... now maybe they can make a river made of money and crash lamborginis in them just like they always wanted. Just lost all my respect for blizzard
|
Sydney2287 Posts
On July 02 2009 01:14 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2009 01:01 Spawkuring wrote:On July 02 2009 00:27 Excalibur_Z wrote:On July 02 2009 00:06 genryou wrote:
Despite the outrage, 90% of the netizen will still buy SC2 for fun sake.
All this arguments is just a way to blow off steam. I think we can all bank on the "peer pressure" scenario: LAN_Supporter: Hey what's up? Friend: Oh hey dude just playing SC2 with our other friends, you should log on and play with us! LAN_Supporter: Oh really? Eh, I don't think so, they took out LAN play, I won't support an evil company that robs its customers of basic necessities. Friend: Uh what are you talking about? Quit being a nerd and log on to Bnet and play with us, we need one more for a full 3v3. LAN_Supporter: They took out LAN so I'm not buying the game on principle. Friend: On the principle of you being dumb? Everyone is playing so just swallow your pride and get it. LAN_Supporter: Your mom swallowed my pride. Friend: Whatever man, enjoy crying in your corner and keep up your LAN crusade as an Internet warrior. Just get the damn game. LAN_Supporter: =( Rural Country Player: Hey guys, wanna play some SC2 multiplayer? Friends: Sure man, let's set it up. Rural Country Player: Oh wait. Sorry we can't, there's no decent ISP in this area, so we have no decent internet access. Friends: Ahh that's right, oh well. *Plays Starcraft 1* Man on Vacation: Hey there, wanna play some SC2. Friend: Sure, fire it up! Man on Vacation: !@#$ I forgot. We don't have internet over here. Friend: Oh yeah, that sucks. Oh well *Plays Starcraft 1* College Student: Sweet guys, let's play some SC2. Friends: Alright! We've been so excited for this game. College Student: Ahh shit, I can't log in Battlenet. The college firewall blocks it. Friends: Can't we plan offline though? College Student: Sorry, no LAN play in this game. Friends: Wow what a rip-off. Oh well. *Plays Starcraft 1* Man with Internet: Wanna play some SC2? Friend: Sure, we got internet so it's fine. Let's get on BattleNet. Man with Internet: Sure, I'm going online right no- OH SHIT the internet is down! Friend: Dammit, why now of all times? Man with Internet: Great, now we can't play SC2. Oh well *Plays Starcraft 1* Pirates: Hey guys. Don't you hate it when you can't play the key feature of the game you paid money for? Well why not use our product: Starcraft 2 with LAN. It has all the features of SC2, but it has that LAN feature you've been wanting so badly. Man with Internet: Hey now that's a good deal. College Student: Yea. It sucks we can't use Bnet, but some multiplayer is better than none. Man on Vacation: Sounds awesome, let's use it. *Players pirate cracked version of Starcraft 2* Too bad so sad? Like do you cry a river when your computer isn't up to minimum specs for a game too?
I think you're severely underestimating how many people fit into these categories.
Going back to the college thing, just a couple of days ago myself and 3 other research students brought sc on our laptops into uni so we can play some games over our faculty's network, this wouldn't be possible if we had to connect to battle.net to play multiplayer due to firewall.
EDIT: I'm still going to buy SC2 because I *am* interested in online play, however I wouldn't expect someone who isn't now, to suddenly become so due to pretty much any features bnet might have as it's more than features, or a lack of, that is stopping them now.
I'm hoping someone will find a way to hack LAN connectivity into the game without internet pretty soon in the picture.
|
@pellejavel:
Just because they already make a lot of money, they shouldn't try to make money efficiently with future products? That's some A+ long-term planning. Criticizing Blizzard for trying to be a smart business is kind of outrageous.
|
On July 02 2009 02:19 pellejavel wrote:
Awwwwwww, poor blizzard. That company has a hard time with money already dont they... now maybe they can make a river made of money and crash lamborginis in them just like they always wanted. Just lost all my respect for blizzard
Ya who knew a company would want people to buy their games instead of stealing it.
|
On July 02 2009 02:13 Yenzilla wrote:
@Spawkuring:
No offense, but you must have the shortest memory span ever. Did you forget the OP already? The 'good reason' is limiting piracy. Whether you like it or not, adding or removing features that would inconvenience legitimate customers as well is how anti-piracy measures work (just a question of the extent). And it's not anti-LAN, its "there's reasoning behind this decision".
@Polis:
1. Blizzard already stated that they're going to create more than one ladder (the beginner ladder being the main example right now), its entirely possible that they'll create one geared towards more competitive play (with specific maps).
2. Being connected to the internet allows for better tracking of whether or not someone uses a hack. The thing is, SC1's Battle.net is woefully out of date (despite being, largely, perfectly functional) and did not plan to accomodate for more competitive play, so did not factor in things like hacking.
3. Lowest level? It's a damn shame if making financially sound decisions is considered base and evil nowadays. This is just another example of a developer following a trend in the market. Multiple install features like spawns were a rarity, if I remember correctly, even in 1998.
Blizzard also said they WILL be rotating the map pool. This means that the game will not stagnate like Warcraft 3.
|
On July 02 2009 02:21 Bockit wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2009 01:14 Judicator wrote:On July 02 2009 01:01 Spawkuring wrote:On July 02 2009 00:27 Excalibur_Z wrote:On July 02 2009 00:06 genryou wrote:
Despite the outrage, 90% of the netizen will still buy SC2 for fun sake.
All this arguments is just a way to blow off steam. I think we can all bank on the "peer pressure" scenario: LAN_Supporter: Hey what's up? Friend: Oh hey dude just playing SC2 with our other friends, you should log on and play with us! LAN_Supporter: Oh really? Eh, I don't think so, they took out LAN play, I won't support an evil company that robs its customers of basic necessities. Friend: Uh what are you talking about? Quit being a nerd and log on to Bnet and play with us, we need one more for a full 3v3. LAN_Supporter: They took out LAN so I'm not buying the game on principle. Friend: On the principle of you being dumb? Everyone is playing so just swallow your pride and get it. LAN_Supporter: Your mom swallowed my pride. Friend: Whatever man, enjoy crying in your corner and keep up your LAN crusade as an Internet warrior. Just get the damn game. LAN_Supporter: =( Rural Country Player: Hey guys, wanna play some SC2 multiplayer? Friends: Sure man, let's set it up. Rural Country Player: Oh wait. Sorry we can't, there's no decent ISP in this area, so we have no decent internet access. Friends: Ahh that's right, oh well. *Plays Starcraft 1* Man on Vacation: Hey there, wanna play some SC2. Friend: Sure, fire it up! Man on Vacation: !@#$ I forgot. We don't have internet over here. Friend: Oh yeah, that sucks. Oh well *Plays Starcraft 1* College Student: Sweet guys, let's play some SC2. Friends: Alright! We've been so excited for this game. College Student: Ahh shit, I can't log in Battlenet. The college firewall blocks it. Friends: Can't we plan offline though? College Student: Sorry, no LAN play in this game. Friends: Wow what a rip-off. Oh well. *Plays Starcraft 1* Man with Internet: Wanna play some SC2? Friend: Sure, we got internet so it's fine. Let's get on BattleNet. Man with Internet: Sure, I'm going online right no- OH SHIT the internet is down! Friend: Dammit, why now of all times? Man with Internet: Great, now we can't play SC2. Oh well *Plays Starcraft 1* Pirates: Hey guys. Don't you hate it when you can't play the key feature of the game you paid money for? Well why not use our product: Starcraft 2 with LAN. It has all the features of SC2, but it has that LAN feature you've been wanting so badly. Man with Internet: Hey now that's a good deal. College Student: Yea. It sucks we can't use Bnet, but some multiplayer is better than none. Man on Vacation: Sounds awesome, let's use it. *Players pirate cracked version of Starcraft 2* Too bad so sad? Like do you cry a river when your computer isn't up to minimum specs for a game too? I think you're severely underestimating how many people fit into these categories. Going back to the college thing, just a couple of days ago myself and 3 other research students brought sc on our laptops into uni so we can play some games over our faculty's network, this wouldn't be possible if we had to connect to battle.net to play multiplayer due to firewall.
I've played Battle.net games on my University campus. I've also played Team Fortress 2. Not every University bans games.
|
On July 02 2009 02:19 pellejavel wrote:
Awwwwwww, poor blizzard. That company has a hard time with money already dont they... now maybe they can make a river made of money and crash lamborginis in them just like they always wanted. Just lost all my respect for blizzard
You lost respect for people who work hard at their jobs, create great products, and support them for much longer than most other companies? Just because they expect payment for their work?
|
Sydney2287 Posts
On July 02 2009 02:24 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2009 02:21 Bockit wrote:On July 02 2009 01:14 Judicator wrote:On July 02 2009 01:01 Spawkuring wrote:On July 02 2009 00:27 Excalibur_Z wrote:On July 02 2009 00:06 genryou wrote:
Despite the outrage, 90% of the netizen will still buy SC2 for fun sake.
All this arguments is just a way to blow off steam. I think we can all bank on the "peer pressure" scenario: LAN_Supporter: Hey what's up? Friend: Oh hey dude just playing SC2 with our other friends, you should log on and play with us! LAN_Supporter: Oh really? Eh, I don't think so, they took out LAN play, I won't support an evil company that robs its customers of basic necessities. Friend: Uh what are you talking about? Quit being a nerd and log on to Bnet and play with us, we need one more for a full 3v3. LAN_Supporter: They took out LAN so I'm not buying the game on principle. Friend: On the principle of you being dumb? Everyone is playing so just swallow your pride and get it. LAN_Supporter: Your mom swallowed my pride. Friend: Whatever man, enjoy crying in your corner and keep up your LAN crusade as an Internet warrior. Just get the damn game. LAN_Supporter: =( Rural Country Player: Hey guys, wanna play some SC2 multiplayer? Friends: Sure man, let's set it up. Rural Country Player: Oh wait. Sorry we can't, there's no decent ISP in this area, so we have no decent internet access. Friends: Ahh that's right, oh well. *Plays Starcraft 1* Man on Vacation: Hey there, wanna play some SC2. Friend: Sure, fire it up! Man on Vacation: !@#$ I forgot. We don't have internet over here. Friend: Oh yeah, that sucks. Oh well *Plays Starcraft 1* College Student: Sweet guys, let's play some SC2. Friends: Alright! We've been so excited for this game. College Student: Ahh shit, I can't log in Battlenet. The college firewall blocks it. Friends: Can't we plan offline though? College Student: Sorry, no LAN play in this game. Friends: Wow what a rip-off. Oh well. *Plays Starcraft 1* Man with Internet: Wanna play some SC2? Friend: Sure, we got internet so it's fine. Let's get on BattleNet. Man with Internet: Sure, I'm going online right no- OH SHIT the internet is down! Friend: Dammit, why now of all times? Man with Internet: Great, now we can't play SC2. Oh well *Plays Starcraft 1* Pirates: Hey guys. Don't you hate it when you can't play the key feature of the game you paid money for? Well why not use our product: Starcraft 2 with LAN. It has all the features of SC2, but it has that LAN feature you've been wanting so badly. Man with Internet: Hey now that's a good deal. College Student: Yea. It sucks we can't use Bnet, but some multiplayer is better than none. Man on Vacation: Sounds awesome, let's use it. *Players pirate cracked version of Starcraft 2* Too bad so sad? Like do you cry a river when your computer isn't up to minimum specs for a game too? I think you're severely underestimating how many people fit into these categories. Going back to the college thing, just a couple of days ago myself and 3 other research students brought sc on our laptops into uni so we can play some games over our faculty's network, this wouldn't be possible if we had to connect to battle.net to play multiplayer due to firewall. I've played Battle.net games on my University campus. I've also played Team Fortress 2. Not every University bans games.
I never said every university bans games. Simply because your university allows it doesn't mean there aren't a significant amount that do block all traffic other than browsing.
|
I wonder if there is a reason why the gaming market doesn't do things like downloadable software. The software is free and easy to get but you only have a week trial after which you need to have a key to activate it.
|
On July 02 2009 02:13 Yenzilla wrote:
@Spawkuring:
No offense, but you must have the shortest memory span ever. Did you forget the OP already? The 'good reason' is limiting piracy. Whether you like it or not, adding or removing features that would inconvenience legitimate customers as well is how anti-piracy measures work (just a question of the extent). And it's not anti-LAN, its "there's reasoning behind this decision".
Every company likes to think that their Anti-Piracy measure will actually reduce piracy. So far, none of them have worked, and almost all of them only end up encouraging piracy because customers don't appreciate being treated like criminals. DRM is hated because companies constantly fail to realize that inconveniencing your customers too much will eventually cause them to bite back.
So far Blizzard hasn't given a good reason for this decision. No amount of achievements and chat improvements make up for no LAN. We've all seen how Spore's brilliant DRM went, so I don't know why Blizzard thinks that their DRM will suddenly work, and yes, removing LAN is a DRM. Blizzard obviously isn't some evil blood-sucking company, and they probably just want what they feel is the best experience, but you know what they say about what the road to hell is paved with...
|
On July 02 2009 02:29 Jonoman92 wrote:
I wonder if there is a reason why the gaming market doesn't do things like downloadable software. The software is free and easy to get but you only have a week trial after which you need to have a key to activate it.
They do. Google Burnout Paradise, EA made it, and it contains the entire game in the demo, including 8-player multiplayer. It doesn't have all the cars, and it has a time limit.
EA tried really hard to promote this game, with a great demo, and lots of free content added later, but in the end it didn't sell very well, so they probably see this experiment as a semi-failure.
|
On July 02 2009 02:29 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2009 02:13 Yenzilla wrote:
@Spawkuring:
No offense, but you must have the shortest memory span ever. Did you forget the OP already? The 'good reason' is limiting piracy. Whether you like it or not, adding or removing features that would inconvenience legitimate customers as well is how anti-piracy measures work (just a question of the extent). And it's not anti-LAN, its "there's reasoning behind this decision". Every company likes to think that their Anti-Piracy measure will actually reduce piracy. So far, none of them have worked, and almost all of them only end up encouraging piracy because customers don't appreciate being treated like criminals. DRM is hated because companies constantly fail to realize that inconveniencing your customers too much will eventually cause them to bite back. So far Blizzard hasn't given a good reason for this decision. No amount of achievements and chat improvements make up for no LAN. We've all seen how Spore's brilliant DRM went, so I don't know why Blizzard thinks that their DRM will suddenly work, and yes, removing LAN is a DRM. Blizzard obviously isn't some evil blood-sucking company, and they're probably just wanting what they feel is the best experience, but you know what they say about what the road to hell is paved with...
People didn't pirate Spore because they wanted the DRM-free version, they pirated Spore because they wanted it for free. If they weren't full of shit, they would've BOUGHT the game, and if they ever hit the activation limit, they would then crack it out. Of course, they would NEVER hit the activation limit, given that you can use their Deactivation tool to reclaim old activations before you build a new computer or reformat. If you just reinstall it on the same computer without reformatting, you don't use up an activation. Of course, pirates never bring that part up, because they just want to make themselves feel better about stealing a game.
Battle.net2 WILL prevent piracy, because it will be good and only paying customers can use it, the question is how many people will it convince to not pirate the game. People will still pirate the campaign, people will still try to make private servers, and Blizzard will have the legal authority to shut them down now that LAN isn't an official feature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
