EPTPossible reason why Blizzard dropped LAN support - Also c…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Navane
Netherlands2749 Posts
| ||
|
Idle
Korea (South)124 Posts
On July 01 2009 05:39 Zzoram wrote: I don't bitch that I can't afford sports cars, or huge mansions. I can afford what I can afford. I just find it whiney that people who bitch about how they can't afford video games. Video games are not a right, they are a luxury item that should be low on the priority list on your budget. Electricity is high on the list, because you use it to cook food. Comparing electricity to video games in terms of importance is not a good comparison. Many people that can afford to pay one time for a game cannot afford to pay a broadband subscription. You're basically arguing that because you can't afford all the luxuries that you shouldn't buy any of them. | ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3128 Posts
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'.  Um...what in the name of Colney Hatch? So, apparently, Blizzard has now gotten so greedy, so filthy, so utterly irredeemable through their money-grubbing World of Warcraft ways, that they're now actually making people pay for their games before they can play them! *gasp* And, even worse, this new-fangled, before-unheard-of form of extortion will mean that if you don't have enough money to buy the game, you can't play it! The horrors! And, as if that wasn't enough, it also means that if you are a poor person who doesn't have enough money to buy the game, you also will not be able to play Starcraft 2! Clearly, this can mean only one thing: Blizzard hates poor people. Pass it on. (sigh)  | ||
|
Gunman_csz
United Arab Emirates492 Posts
On July 01 2009 05:32 Zzoram wrote: So because I can afford electricity, poor people deserve to pirate online video games? Great logic. If someone is too poor to afford a video game or the Internet to play it, then they shouldn't play it. They have no right to playing the game for free just because they want it and don't have money, or don't want to spend money. But people who buy the original game shouldn't be punished just because some Chinese will pirate the game. Lan functionality is a basic service - like Air condition or audio system in a car. They should try to find a different way to fight piracy, where buyers don't have to suffer. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On July 01 2009 05:43 Gunman_csz wrote: But people who buy the original game shouldn't be punished just because some Chinese will pirate the game. Lan functionality is a basic service - like Air condition or audio system in a car. They should try to find a different way to fight piracy, where buyers don't have to suffer. Actually you pay extra for air conditioning, and for a non-sucky sound system. The base model of most cars do not come with AC unless it's a high end luxury car base model. | ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
| ||
|
teh leet newb
United States1999 Posts
On July 01 2009 05:03 Zzoram wrote: How many of you honestly don't have your computer connected to the Internet all the time? It's not a big deal, and it stops pirates from playing online, encouraging them to actually pay for things instead of stealing. A LAN at a friend's house will still be easy Internet access. Wrong. My friends and I have been setting up 15+ people LAN parties for years. They're held in basements, which means that the router connected to the internet is on the first floor. We always bring a separate router to connect all our computers to, and this means no internet. Laptops will be okay because of WiFi, but very few desktops actually have WiFi cards. This would be a huge hassle for home LAN parties. Someone suggested a Steam-like system where you go online and then play LAN. That doesn't quite work either, since there are tons of cracked Steam games available for download. Whenever we play Steam games at our LANs, we end up downloading a cracked version and distributing it via external hard drives and network sharing. I can see similar things happening to SC2. | ||
|
d(O.o)a
Canada5066 Posts
| ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On July 01 2009 05:50 iCCup.d(O.o)a wrote: You're sure it has nothing to do with them implementing a eSports tax? Thank goodness. They won't charge for online play. However, they will likely charge a small fee to host eSports Tournaments, but they can also market it through Battle.net ads, and we still don't know if they will have some kind of Battle.net based way to Tournament casts. | ||
|
Bebop Berserker
United States246 Posts
NonY, “What [Blizzard] really need[s] to avoid is the best players all just playing with each other on LAN or on something else off battle.net.” | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On July 01 2009 05:59 Bebop Berserker wrote: Holy shit I now know why they dropped it! NonY, “What [Blizzard] really need[s] to avoid is the best players all just playing with each other on LAN or on something else off battle.net.” That is the whole "splitting the community" arguement, and it clearly has merit. No LAN is clearly a mix of both discouraging piracy (not preventing, but creating incentive to pay) and keeping everyone together in a single large community. | ||
|
whyohwhy
60 Posts
What exactly does any end user stand to gain from the removal of a feature that benefits other users? Absolutely nothing. Yet a bunch of people are roaming around here like they are literally on Blizzard's payroll for terrible terrible PR. Adding an online authentication check to play SC2 Lan adds a liability to the whole process which is the internet connection, which can go down (and then you can't play SC2 multiplayer because Blizzard decided to not let you enjoy the game you paid for if you can't connect), which can have network related problems especially in large LANs, which can lagspike, etc. Personally I am on roadrunner FL and my connection still screws up once in a while, or spikes. What then? It ruins my LAN game because Blizzard arbitrarily added this unnecessary inconvenience for paying customers? Awesome! Speaking of which, it's humorous how many of you here literally equate demand for LAN with piracy. Has it ever crossed your mind that you might just be talking to players who enjoy playing OFFLINE without having to setup a shared connection over a relatively large LAN, or enjoy not dealing with the liability of an often times less-than-awesome ISP? The level of dumb here is frankly quite astounding. What happens to college dorms that won't let you connect to Bnet? "tough shit"? Great attitude guys, great attitude. The SC2 community is bound to be awesome with some of the posters here defending it. I could add a word on the unstoppable force, as someone mentioned earlier, that is piracy. Within 2 days of release you can bet someone will have a cracked SC2 on piratebay, and within a week with multiplayer capability outside of Bnet. Why make legitimate customers pay for something that is going to happen anyway and take away a feature that so far has been standard in years of RTS gaming? And the obvious answer is: controlling the esports scene, pretty much taxing it through "sanctioned" events.. $$$. Now if you think Blizzard is going to be a better manager, or that the scene will do better with heavier requirements superimposed onto it, then all the best to you, but I don't think you're too smart. Again, I don't see any reason for anyone to defend this type of decision which does nothing but hurt legitimate customers, unless you're pretty much on Blizzard's payroll. In which case good luck with your TERRIBLE TERRIBLE PR. | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
On July 01 2009 03:55 HuskyTheHusky wrote: 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. Maximizing profit should always be the number 1 goal of a company(unless it means murder/injury/sickness), it benefits both the gaming industry and society. Blizzard isn't greedy either(at least in an evil greed sense), they happen to be very passionate in creating games, far more passionate than most other game companies imo. Blizzard spends a lot of time catering for both the hardcore and average gamer customer of theirs. No other company spends so much time trying to make the game important for the hardcore gamer. And no other company spends so much time working on the game after it is done. Furthermore, saving games from piracy is a really good thing for us. If piracy was unstoppable there would be no games. I know blizzard would still make huge amounts of with lan support, but piracy needs to be eradicated. Lastly, you don't even know all the features of Bnet2.0, so how can you make judgments? SC2 might have a really good substitute for Lan. If you guys want to see a greedy company look at EA. | ||
|
despite
Bulgaria105 Posts
On July 01 2009 05:22 Zzoram wrote: I seriously doubt there are more than a few thousand farmers without broadband that are also itching for Starcraft 2. However, there are millions of Chinese that might buy Starcraft 2 if they can't play on Hoafang or VS. Dude believe me when I tell you that blizzard can't make a "pirate" buy the game. Russians will crack it for LAN play quckly after release and make a better battle.net version 34.0 server and everything will be just fine. I can't imagine blizzard sueing Russia, can you? | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On July 01 2009 06:10 despite wrote: Dude believe me when I tell you that blizzard can't make a "pirate" buy the game. Russians will crack it for LAN play quckly after release and make a better battle.net version 34.0 server and everything will be just fine. I can't imagine blizzard sueing Russia, can you? Corporations win lawsuits against governments all the time. And your statement is senseless anyways, because the Russian government isn't going to host pirate servers for Starcraft 2. Individuals and businesses might, and they can be shut down through legal action. They don't have to make all pirates buy the game, they can just be happy with stopping pirates from playing online. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On July 01 2009 06:10 stroggos wrote: Maximizing profit should always be the number 1 goal of a company(unless it means murder/injury/sickness), it benefits both the gaming industry and society. Blizzard isn't greedy either(at least in an evil greed sense), they happen to be very passionate in creating games, far more passionate than most other game companies imo. Blizzard spends a lot of time catering for both the hardcore and average gamer customer of theirs. No other company spends so much time trying to make the game important for the hardcore gamer. And no other company spends so much time working on the game after it is done. Furthermore, saving games from piracy is a really good thing for us. If piracy was unstoppable there would be no games. I know blizzard would still make huge amounts of with lan support, but piracy needs to be eradicated. Lastly, you don't even know all the features of Bnet2.0, so how can you make judgments? SC2 might have a really good substitute for Lan. If you guys want to see a greedy company look at EA. EA was really bad, but lately they've been pretty moderate. Activision is the new evil empire. | ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
On July 01 2009 06:10 despite wrote: Dude believe me when I tell you that blizzard can't make a "pirate" buy the game. Russians will crack it for LAN play quckly after release and make a better battle.net version 34.0 server and everything will be just fine. I can't imagine blizzard sueing Russia, can you? Your whole post make no sense. I seriously doubt that Russian crackers will make a superior version of BattleNet in any time frame. If they were that skilled they would have high paying jobs in the industry, and being way too busy working. | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
On July 01 2009 05:59 Bebop Berserker wrote: Holy shit I now know why they dropped it! NonY, “What [Blizzard] really need[s] to avoid is the best players all just playing with each other on LAN or on something else off battle.net.” lol, i doubt anything would be able to contend with Bnet 2.0. | ||
|
Sonu
Canada577 Posts
| ||
|
Substandard
Italy270 Posts
The problem is there's a legal loophole which allows lan-servers to legally act as private B.nets without cd-key authentication. Given that, it should come as no surprise that Blizzard simply chose to remove the feature. I really can't understand why people are calling Blizzard greedy for this. They simply want to get people to pay for their product as they should. And the argument that some people in poor countries can't afford the game is of course invalid. Most of us can't afford everything we would like to have still that doesn't mean we have the right to steal it. | ||
| ||
