First of all, I am a long time lurker here at TL, back to 2003 I think. I enjoyed TL a lot but too lazy to post. But now I find a very good reason to share my point of view and information that I’ve obtained. We all know that currently Blizzard have no plan to support LAN in the upcoming SC2, and many wonder why? I think I may have answers to many of your questions. The reason lies in pirating and particularly in China. First of all let me do a quick introduce about the backbone of Chinese SC/WC3 gaming platform in China: As we already known Chinese SC players are among the best outside of Korea, and I can guarantee you that most of Chinese SC players don’t even play on Bnet. They play on a gaming platform called Haofang(and few others but Haofang is the 1st and the biggest) A few thing about Haofang: It is biggest gaming site in China, it has millions of users for many games including SC and WC3. It is free and using LAN(TCP/IP protocol) to allow players to play. How Haofang works: You download a small program for Haofang, run it, tell it where your SC folder is. You join a room(max 255 players because TCP/IP can handle max to 255)then hit RUN, the little program will load your SC up and instead of log on to Bnet you go to LAN, and can find many games their to play since 255 players in the same room is a lot. Why it is bad: Cos millions of players in China were/are/going to using pirated SC/WC3 to play without any limitation. Why Blizzard cares: Of course they care, if even SC2 is going to last only half the life of SC the next big market is definitely China(cos Korea is given). If things going on like SC/WC3 Blizzard is going to lose tons of money. Did Blizzard do anything about it: Yes they did but failed. A few year back Blizzard sued Haofang but lost and Haofang is continue to grow and now become the most recognize site in China(among gamers of course). Why is Haofang able to sneak pass Blizzard: Haofang told that they only allow players play via LAN(TCP/IP) they do not do anything to mess with Blizzard Battle.net and thus can not be judged. I know it is bullshit since it allows players with pirated copies play multi play which is the life SC, but it holds true in the EULA and Blizzard can do nothing about it.
So to conclude, When I see the news about Blizzard not support LAN, to tell the truth I wasn’t surprised at all. I knew it gonna come it some form or another. I am just deeply sorry for us those dedicated gamers got affected by pirate using scum. I feel deeply for Blizzard, this is a very difficult decision for them to make but I think it is a necessary one. Long live BLIZZARD. That’s it for now, discuss whatever you want!
[UPDATE] For people that think that Blizzard removing LAN support to prevent the game being hacked, it is not true. SC2 will be hacked and put on torrent sharing site within a week when it comes out. What Blizzard is trying to do here is prevent company like Haofang which encourage mass piracy. In China and many others place in the world people only go out to buy the game after they find out that there is no way or ivery troublesome for their pirated copy to play online. Even if this increase the people that buy the game in developing countries buy 10-20% it is a huge gain for Blizzard.
What I think we need to discuss now is how Blizzard should do it to make it less painful for legimated gamers. Maybe like many people have pointed out a system like Stream should work?
I loved LAN parties, but the direction in which Battle.net is headed, I would always choose to play on Battle.net > 99% of the time and even if for whatever reason I did decide to lug my computer to a friend's house in this day of age
The only thing that pisses me off is that they have nothing to announce yet, and are just teasing with us. "We're taking LAN and giving you something else that's much better, but we won't tell you what it is!"
As mentioned by Rob Pardo in interviews, piracy is a serious problem and often times tie in closely with LAN. At the end of the day, we want the best for the community and fans that support our games, and having chunk of the community pirate the game actually hurts the community.
1) Pirated servers splinter the community instead of consolidating all players who love to play the game. Battle.net will bring players together in skirmishes, ladder play, custom games, and allow everyone the opportunity to share a common experience.
2) More people on Battle.net means more even more resources devoted to evolving this online platform to cater to further community building and new ways to enjoy the game online. World of Warcraft is a great example of a game that has evolved beyond anyone's imagination since their Day 1 and will continue to do so to better the player experience for as long as players support the title. The original StarCraft is an even better example of how 11 years later, players still love and play this title, and we will continue to support and evolve it with patches.
We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better.
If I were to buy StarCraft II or any other title, I know the money I spent would be going to supporting that title. Personally, I would be upset that others were freeloading while others are legitimately supporting a title that has great potential and goals of making this title have 'long legs.'
If you like a song a lot, buy it, and that artist will only come out with more awesome songs for you. If you like a game, buy it, and we will promise to constantly work to make the player experience better at every corner we can.
Support the causes you believe in (This is applicable to all things, not just gaming). Don't be a leech to society, innovation, and further awesome creations.
They have the right idea targeting splintered communities at least. A new battle.net that gives players everything they need and contains 99% of the community would be absolutely amazing. Hopefully we'll have awesome LAN latency, AMM, team support, and constant tournaments. No longer will you have to go on a private server to play against the best teams maybe?
I loved LAN parties, but the direction in which Battle.net is headed, I would always choose to play on Battle.net > 99% of the time and even if for whatever reason I did decide to lug my computer to a friend's house in this day of age
-Karune
I find this completely ridiculous. It is always, without fail, more fun to play a multiplayer game when your opponent is sitting right across from you. There's way more interaction than anything the internet can currently provide. Oh and also lugging computers around isn't that difficult if you have this thing called a laptop, buddy...
On the other hand, I can see that haofang is a major issue, but I don't think it would be so difficult to implement a CD-key check for LAN play the way there is on Bnet. Then again that could get complicated, but I'm kinda blown away by their decision to completely eliminate LAN. There is definitely a possibility of a compromise that they're throwing away. In my book real life competition beats the shit out of interwebs competition any day.
I wouldn't say Blizzard is teasing us, per say. Obviously, it sucks that they told us there'd be no LAN without being able to tell us what they've added to Battle.net 2.0 to replace it, but it was revealed by an interview question they answered, right? They probably didn't plan to say, until they had Battle.net 2.0 to show us.
Also: CD-key checks don't work for LAN the same reason why CD-checks don't work (at least, have a very simply bypass): its done locally. It's fairly easy to edit a file or two to either stop it from checking, or tricking it into thinking you're good.
It will just be a matter of time before some one figures out how to make a LAN option or reduce the lag so it is like LAN on Bnet or make it so people can still play with other people using pirated versions. It's almost impossible to prevent some one from playing a pirated version on line with some program.
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?
I loved LAN parties, but the direction in which Battle.net is headed, I would always choose to play on Battle.net > 99% of the time and even if for whatever reason I did decide to lug my computer to a friend's house in this day of age
-Karune
I find this completely ridiculous. It is always, without fail, more fun to play a multiplayer game when your opponent is sitting right across from you. There's way more interaction than anything the internet can currently provide. Oh and also lugging computers around isn't that difficult if you have this thing called a laptop, buddy...
On the other hand, I can see that haofang is a major issue, but I don't think it would be so difficult to implement a CD-key check for LAN play the way there is on Bnet. Then again that could get complicated, but I'm kinda blown away by their decision to completely eliminate LAN. There is definitely a possibility of a compromise that they're throwing away. In my book real life competition beats the shit out of interwebs competition any day.
i think you miss-understood karunes' statement. he is saying that even if he is at his friends' house he would choose the bnet to play with his friend instead of playing over lan. (so he still have the interactions, because he is at his friends' home, but don't net the lan function)
I loved LAN parties, but the direction in which Battle.net is headed, I would always choose to play on Battle.net > 99% of the time and even if for whatever reason I did decide to lug my computer to a friend's house in this day of age
-Karune
I find this completely ridiculous. It is always, without fail, more fun to play a multiplayer game when your opponent is sitting right across from you. There's way more interaction than anything the internet can currently provide. Oh and also lugging computers around isn't that difficult if you have this thing called a laptop, buddy...
Huh? I'm pretty sure he's saying even while LANing with friends you're going to be better off playing with them over battle.net.
you're still playing with your opponent sitting in the same room, you're just logged onto or authenticated through b.net too.
It'll probably work like Steam. You authenticate your version with the main server, and as long as you are connected to that, you're allowed to play on LAN.
I thought I heard somewhere that people in China can't connect to bnet due to the government or something?(same reason it took so long for them to get WoW) and thats why haofang started? or was i just on a massive trip?
On July 01 2009 03:25 Dgtl wrote: It will just be a matter of time before some one figures out how to make a LAN option or reduce the lag so it is like LAN on Bnet or make it so people can still play with other people using pirated versions. It's almost impossible to prevent some one from playing a pirated version on line with some program.
For crying out loud, as mentioned thousands of times before on this very forum there won't be any need for "lag reducers". Reason why old BattleNet have extra latency is by choice to reduce lag spikes particular for dial-up connections. BattleNet 2 won't be made for dial-up connections in mind so it won't have that extra latency either.
For sure someone will release a program that will bypass BattleNet, but this time around without a LAN option in the game, that will be illegal. So Blizzard can sue the people behind Garena, for an example, if they try to bypass BattleNet in SC 2.
On July 01 2009 03:25 Dgtl wrote: It will just be a matter of time before some one figures out how to make a LAN option or reduce the lag so it is like LAN on Bnet or make it so people can still play with other people using pirated versions. It's almost impossible to prevent some one from playing a pirated version on line with some program.
For crying out loud, as mentioned thousands of times before on this very forum there won't be any need for "lag reducers". Reason why old BattleNet have extra latency is by choice to reduce lag spikes particular for dial-up connections. BattleNet 2 won't be made for dial-up connections in mind so it won't have that extra latency either.
For sure someone will release a program that will bypass BattleNet, but this time around without a LAN option in the game, that will be illegal. So Blizzard can sue the people behind Garena, for an example, if they try to bypass BattleNet in SC 2.
This.
I am fine with this, because I think everyone should BUY Starcraft 2, especially if they pirated the original.
After reading posts from Karune I think It only makes my statement more concrete. Blizzard is definately think of a way to battle Piracy. Though It makes life of real gamers like us a little bit harder but if this works againt piracy Blizzard totally has my support. What i'm trying to do by posting this thread is we need to stop blame Blizzard about no LAN support but think of some ways to battle Piracy.
On July 01 2009 03:38 Spawkuring wrote: That's interesting about China pirating network. It's a shame that China's justice system let that bullshit loophole slide.
Hopefully Blizzard will just go the Steam route when it comes to LAN. I can't imagine them removing it entirely.
I loved LAN parties, but the direction in which Battle.net is headed, I would always choose to play on Battle.net > 99% of the time and even if for whatever reason I did decide to lug my computer to a friend's house in this day of age
-Karune
I find this completely ridiculous. It is always, without fail, more fun to play a multiplayer game when your opponent is sitting right across from you. There's way more interaction than anything the internet can currently provide. Oh and also lugging computers around isn't that difficult if you have this thing called a laptop, buddy...
On the other hand, I can see that haofang is a major issue, but I don't think it would be so difficult to implement a CD-key check for LAN play the way there is on Bnet. Then again that could get complicated, but I'm kinda blown away by their decision to completely eliminate LAN. There is definitely a possibility of a compromise that they're throwing away. In my book real life competition beats the shit out of interwebs competition any day.
i think you miss-understood karunes' statement. he is saying that even if he is at his friends' house he would choose the bnet to play with his friend instead of playing over lan. (so he still have the interactions, because he is at his friends' home, but don't net the lan function)
aha! facepalm Though that still leaves the problem of getting all the computers on the internet, which could be a bitch especially if you have many participants. Seems like even broadband would have some issues with net traffic in and out from 8 people playing a game at once, so here's hoping Blizz works some miracles with net coding... and now this is all speculation anyway so maybe it's time to start waiting for details lol.
Yeah I don't think there's any question that the LAN thing is for any purpose except to fight piracy. And of course, no one pirates software as much as China.
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?
There are many good players on Haofang and more recently VS(another system similar to Haofang) since most Chinese players play on those platform. It is pretty safe to said that even well known Chinese players like Pj, Lx, F91 they all spent alot of time on Haofang of VS.
On July 01 2009 03:38 Spawkuring wrote: That's interesting about China pirating network. It's a shame that China's justice system let that bullshit loophole slide.
Hopefully Blizzard will just go the Steam route when it comes to LAN. I can't imagine them removing it entirely.
Haofang isn't a pirating network and that wasn't a loophole though. Haofang is basically a giant public hamachi. They don't do anything with pirating, they just give you the artificial LAN to play on. An unfortunate side effect of this is that pirated copies can be easily used on the network. The legal system made the right call.
It is very likely this factored heavily into the decision to not include LAN in SC2, though.
As mentioned by Rob Pardo in interviews, piracy is a serious problem and often times tie in closely with LAN. At the end of the day, we want the best for the community and fans that support our games, and having chunk of the community pirate the game actually hurts the community.
1) Pirated servers splinter the community instead of consolidating all players who love to play the game. Battle.net will bring players together in skirmishes, ladder play, custom games, and allow everyone the opportunity to share a common experience.
2) More people on Battle.net means more even more resources devoted to evolving this online platform to cater to further community building and new ways to enjoy the game online. World of Warcraft is a great example of a game that has evolved beyond anyone's imagination since their Day 1 and will continue to do so to better the player experience for as long as players support the title. The original StarCraft is an even better example of how 11 years later, players still love and play this title, and we will continue to support and evolve it with patches.
We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better.
If I were to buy StarCraft II or any other title, I know the money I spent would be going to supporting that title. Personally, I would be upset that others were freeloading while others are legitimately supporting a title that has great potential and goals of making this title have 'long legs.'
If you like a song a lot, buy it, and that artist will only come out with more awesome songs for you. If you like a game, buy it, and we will promise to constantly work to make the player experience better at every corner we can.
Support the causes you believe in (This is applicable to all things, not just gaming). Don't be a leech to society, innovation, and further awesome creations.
They have the right idea targeting splintered communities at least. A new battle.net that gives players everything they need and contains 99% of the community would be absolutely amazing. Hopefully we'll have awesome LAN latency, AMM, team support, and constant tournaments. No longer will you have to go on a private server to play against the best teams maybe?
With this nice explanation karune did, and the intention to group the whole community on the same server, i feel no remorse for LAN (like before, but with a better reasoning)
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?
I personally don't believe in intellectual property, once you make something that is an idea it belongs to the world and not to any person or organisation. I will buy my sc2 but i don't mind people being able to pirate it, more players to play!.
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, thats where they become rich. Especially when their music is something you wouldnt really buy anyway if you had no other means of listening to it.
The whole thing just smells of greed.
Oh no I can't steal a game blizzard must be the greedy ones in this exchange
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, thats where they become rich. Especially when their music is something you wouldnt really buy anyway if you had no other means of listening to it.
The whole thing just smells of greed.
This. Brilliant post here. The only thing I want to add is that it's not just saying "F you" to poor countries, but it says "F you" to a number of smaller communities that thrive on LAN. The main thing about a LAN connection is that it's reliable - THE INTERNET IS NEVER RELIABLE. It is so pathetically easy to have one spike go through your connection, causing everyone to lag, or to just have a blackout in your area, or any other number of problems that go along with the internet, that it is NEVER reliable enough to play high-stakes, important games like tournaments on.
On July 01 2009 03:57 nttea wrote: I personally don't believe in intellectual property, once you make something that is an idea it belongs to the world and not to any person or organisation. I will buy my sc2 but i don't mind people being able to pirate it, more players to play!.
If sc2 "belonged to the world" after it was released, what incentive would blizzard have to hire and pay developers if they weren't going to get any money back? Why would anyone develop intellectual property in such a world if you can only be paid for creating physical products? Copyright laws are certainly over-restrictive and enforcement of them is overzealous in many cases, but saying that an organization shouldn't be able to get a fair return on their investment just because they're making software instead of furniture would be a good reason to stop making software (or at the very least selling managed services sort of like how an organization has to pay for enterprise Linux because of the technical support for it even though the software itself is free, which would lead to higher costs than box sales if the game has any appreciable longevity).
On July 01 2009 03:30 Klogon wrote: It'll probably work like Steam. You authenticate your version with the main server, and as long as you are connected to that, you're allowed to play on LAN.
On July 01 2009 03:57 nttea wrote: I personally don't believe in intellectual property, once you make something that is an idea it belongs to the world and not to any person or organisation. I will buy my sc2 but i don't mind people being able to pirate it, more players to play!.
If sc2 "belonged to the world" after it was released, what incentive would blizzard have to hire and pay developers if they weren't going to get any money back? Why would anyone develop intellectual property in such a world if you can only be paid for creating physical products? Copyright laws are certainly over-restrictive and enforcement of them is overzealous in many cases, but saying that an organization shouldn't be able to get a fair return on their investment just because they're making software instead of furniture would be a good reason to stop making software (or at the very least selling managed services sort of like how an organization has to pay for enterprise Linux because of the technical support for it even though the software itself is free, which would lead to higher costs than box sales if the game has any appreciable longevity).
On one hand, of course Blizzard needs to make money on their games, otherwise they wouldnt exist. Everyone knows that. But to hint that including LAN capability would hurt their bottom line is a bit far fetched.
Just look at the DRM they included with Spore. (If you dont know what I'm talking about, read some of the thousands of comments HERE. Taking away peoples freedom to do what they want with a game is bad business. Saying anyone without an internet connection cant play with their friends is taking away a common feature in just about every game made today.
If they want more and more customers then simply add features in B.Net that you cant get any other way. This is something they're doing and I think they should just stick with that. They could learn a lot from games like Spore.
Sorry everyone, but i agree to Karune in everything. Its interesting how ppl are just defending piracy so openly, not just LAN. This only shows how ppl (not eveyone, but most of them) like LAN because of piracy.
Anyway here are some more posts Karune did:
Karune: Dreamhack is often referenced as the largest LAN party in the world... but in today's age, that LAN is also connected to the internet.
I definitely hear your concern about the internet going out, which would be a huge, huge bummer! But as equally as unlikely, the power could go out...
Question: Karune, what about latency issues involved in online play. ICCUP in Starcraft and LC games in Warcraft 3 are all attempts to reduce Battlenet lag. What is Blizzard doing to combat this lag if they are removing LAN play?
Answer by Karune: This is definitely a legitimate concern that would be best to be brought up again if needed when we talk about Battle.net 2.0.
Question: Oh, Karune, you know as well as I do that anti-piracy and LAN are not mutually exclusive.
Step 1: Connect to Battle.Net Step 2: Authentication Step 3: Access LAN games thereafter
There you go. Authenticated LAN play. Low latency. LAN parties. Happy customers.
-Clive
Answer by Karune: I will be sure to forward ideas in regards to LAN as described. I too have many fond memories of LAN parties.
Karune seems like one of those guys that goes to a LAN party and fires up WoW to play online instead of with the people sitting around him.
Blizzard needs to just come out and say what it is they are planning to do with this. You can't just say "no LAN" and leave it at that and cause all sorts of commotion. Karune has been fucking with the war3 community for a long time with stuff like this, I really hope he does not continue the trend for SC2.
I don't think it is really a pirating issue. These private servers/programs only came about well after the game was already out. Blizzard did not want to upgrade their online play so other people did. Most of the people who play there bought the game anyway. I do not see the issue with that.
On July 01 2009 04:19 danieldrsa wrote: Sorry everyone, but i agree to Karune in everything. Its interesting how ppl are just defending piracy so openly, not just LAN. This only shows how ppl (not eveyone, but most of them) like LAN because of piracy.
Question: Karune, what about latency issues involved in online play. ICCUP in Starcraft and LC games in Warcraft 3 are all attempts to reduce Battlenet lag. What is Blizzard doing to combat this lag if they are removing LAN play?
Answer by Karune: This is definitely a legitimate concern that would be best to be brought up again if needed when we talk about Battle.net 2.0.
On July 01 2009 04:20 ReS wrote: Karune seems like one of those guys that goes to a LAN party and fires up WoW to play online instead of with the people sitting around him.
This is a myopic attitude to hold. When my friends and I had BW/WC3 LAN parties, we would exclusively play team games against other players on Battle.net. Karune's suggestion that he would choose to play on Bnet anyway if he were at a LAN doesn't preclude him from playing with the other people at the LAN party in any way.
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'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture.
I cannot believe that there's an amount of people bigger than ZERO % believing in Blizzard's trash talk that "we're thinking abouit the community because we all know that pirate servers hurt the community!!"
Have you short memory randoms forget what ICCUP is?
They're only removing LAN because they care most about they own profit than about the quality of the product they're delivering. Not because they "have something better they just can't tell you yet" or because they "care about the community". If the OP in this thread isn't enough to convince you of that, I really don't know what could ><
To compare the removal of LAN to the DRM included with Spore is ridiculous. While one would stop you from playing the game altogether after a certain number of installs, the only simply forces you to play the game with the service they made for it. Doesn't really translate.
On July 01 2009 04:25 VIB wrote: I cannot believe that there's an amount of people bigger than ZERO % believing in Blizzard's trash talk that "we're thinking abouit the community because we all know that pirate servers hurt the community!!"
Have you short memory randoms forget what ICCUP is?
They're only removing LAN because they care most about they own profit than about the quality of the product they're delivering. Not because they "have something better they just can't tell you yet" or because they "care about the community". If the OP in this thread isn't enough to convince you of that, I really don't know what could ><
There is no need for iCCup if Blizzard maintains it's own ladder, has LAN latency mode, patches against hacks regularly, and hosts tournaments for 3rd parties all over Battle.net.
Most of the anti-DRM guys on the Internet are pirates that just want to steal games. This is nothing like limited activations, where there can be legitimate concern by paying customers. Online activation to prevent piracy is GOOD, and we know from their history that Blizzard isn't turning off Battle.net, ever.
Anyone who has been to a LAN party knows that many of the people there have pirated copies of the game.
Question: Oh, Karune, you know as well as I do that anti-piracy and LAN are not mutually exclusive.
Step 1: Connect to Battle.Net Step 2: Authentication Step 3: Access LAN games thereafter
There you go. Authenticated LAN play. Low latency. LAN parties. Happy customers.
-Clive
Answer by Karune: I will be sure to forward ideas in regards to LAN as described. I too have many fond memories of LAN parties.
I'd like this idea to be explored further. Does this mean you'd need to authenticate per session? If so, why bother with LAN at all when you're already connected to Battle.net? If you don't need to authenticate per session and it's a one-time registration, what's to stop spoofing (or pilfering Battle.net accounts)?
On July 01 2009 04:25 VIB wrote: I cannot believe that there's an amount of people bigger than ZERO % believing in Blizzard's trash talk that "we're thinking abouit the community because we all know that pirate servers hurt the community!!"
Have you short memory randoms forget what ICCUP is?
They're only removing LAN because they care most about they own profit than about the quality of the product they're delivering. Not because they "have something better they just can't tell you yet" or because they "care about the community". If the OP in this thread isn't enough to convince you of that, I really don't know what could ><
You're misinterpreting Karune's quote. His argument is "too many servers split the community". ICCUP doesn't do that because it was lucky enough to be the "new Battlenet". He's absolutely right that splitting communities is a bad thing, and there is nothing wrong with what he said. The reason why more than 0% of us support Blizzard's statement is because we aren't immediately jumping on them with a biased attitude.
Question: Oh, Karune, you know as well as I do that anti-piracy and LAN are not mutually exclusive.
Step 1: Connect to Battle.Net Step 2: Authentication Step 3: Access LAN games thereafter
There you go. Authenticated LAN play. Low latency. LAN parties. Happy customers.
-Clive
Answer by Karune: I will be sure to forward ideas in regards to LAN as described. I too have many fond memories of LAN parties.
I'd like this idea to be explored further. Does this mean you'd need to authenticate per session? If so, why bother with LAN at all when you're already connected to Battle.net? If you don't need to authenticate per session and it's a one-time registration, what's to stop spoofing (or pilfering Battle.net accounts)?
It would definitely be per session. Most people making this suggestion believe it should be analogous to Valve's Steam service, which I think is per session.
On July 01 2009 04:27 Zzoram wrote: There is no need for iCCup if Blizzard maintains it's own ladder, has LAN latency mode, patches against hacks regularly, and hosts tournaments for 3rd parties all over Battle.net.
That's so predictable, I was gonna add an answer to that but I thought it would make my post too long. Why do you think, in your opinion, that bnet1 didn't keep up in the first place? Since bnet1 didn't keep up with the hundreds of thousands of developers around the globe, what could possibly make you think that bnet2 would? Their word? The guy who is selling you a product told you their product is good just because they told you so?
And lets not forget the main reason why this is bad. As Husky have already posted multiple times. This just adds one more thing to make offline esport tournaments go wrong. We all have seen 20min delays only because someone's mouse isn't working. Now you have to connect to the internet? What about all the offline Steam tournaments that wen't wrong because the Steam server or the local internet connection was down?
On July 01 2009 04:25 VIB wrote: I cannot believe that there's an amount of people bigger than ZERO % believing in Blizzard's trash talk that "we're thinking abouit the community because we all know that pirate servers hurt the community!!"
Have you short memory randoms forget what ICCUP is?
They're only removing LAN because they care most about they own profit than about the quality of the product they're delivering. Not because they "have something better they just can't tell you yet" or because they "care about the community". If the OP in this thread isn't enough to convince you of that, I really don't know what could ><
Most of the anti-DRM guys on the Internet are pirates that just want to steal games.
This used to be true, and large portion still are, but most people complaining about DRM today are fans that realize DRM is a failed system that only hurts legitimate customers. There has never been a game with DRM that was not available in a cracked form within a day or 2 of release.
Removing LAN mode will do nothing to prevent piracy. There will be hacked versions within days. The people that this hurts are the people with legitimate reasons for wanting a LAN feature. Groups of friends that want to play together offline, esports organizations, LAN parties. It just adds one more thing that can go wrong and isn't necessary.
On July 01 2009 04:44 VIB wrote: That's so predictable, I was gonna add an answer to that but I thought it would make my post too long. Why do you think, in your opinion, that bnet1 didn't keep up in the first place? Since bnet1 didn't keep up with the hundreds of thousands of developers around the globe, what could possibly make you think that bnet2 would? Their word? The guy who is selling you a product told you their product is good just because they told you so?
And lets not forget the main reason why this is bad. As Husky have already posted multiple times. This just adds one more thing to make offline esport tournaments go wrong. We all have seen 20min delays only because someone's mouse isn't working. Now you have to connect to the internet? What about all the offline Steam tournaments that wen't wrong because the Steam server or the local internet connection was down?
Battle.net didn't keep up in the first place because they were working on World of Warcraft for 5 years, in addition to Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3, and they were a much smaller company back then. WoW has given them the money to massively expand their staff.
Starcraft 2 will have MUCH longer support because instead of 1 expansion pack released during the same year (Starcraft and Broodwar are both 1998), they are releasing 2 expansion packs more than 1 year apart (they said it would take AT LEAST as long as it took to make Frozen Throne).
So if Starcraft 2 Terran comes out December 2009, SC2 Zerg comes out June 2011, SC2 Protoss comes out Dec 2013, they have plenty of opportunities to update Battle.net with those expansion packs. Also, they are clearly emphasizing the eSports thing, so they will keep it updated for that reason as well, something they never got involved in for Starcraft Broodwar.
On July 01 2009 04:25 VIB wrote: I cannot believe that there's an amount of people bigger than ZERO % believing in Blizzard's trash talk that "we're thinking abouit the community because we all know that pirate servers hurt the community!!"
Have you short memory randoms forget what ICCUP is?
They're only removing LAN because they care most about they own profit than about the quality of the product they're delivering. Not because they "have something better they just can't tell you yet" or because they "care about the community". If the OP in this thread isn't enough to convince you of that, I really don't know what could ><
Most of the anti-DRM guys on the Internet are pirates that just want to steal games.
This used to be true, and large portion still are, but most people complaining about DRM today are fans that realize DRM is a failed system that only hurts legitimate customers. There has never been a game with DRM that was not available in a cracked form within a day or 2 of release.
These cracks allow single player, and single player games have always been hurt most by piracy, and I agree they should loosen up the DRM on those. However, Starcraft 2 will be multiplayer focused. Without LAN based online gaming for pirates, they will have to buy the game to play online.
On July 01 2009 04:25 VIB wrote: I cannot believe that there's an amount of people bigger than ZERO % believing in Blizzard's trash talk that "we're thinking abouit the community because we all know that pirate servers hurt the community!!"
Have you short memory randoms forget what ICCUP is?
They're only removing LAN because they care most about they own profit than about the quality of the product they're delivering. Not because they "have something better they just can't tell you yet" or because they "care about the community". If the OP in this thread isn't enough to convince you of that, I really don't know what could ><
Most of the anti-DRM guys on the Internet are pirates that just want to steal games.
This used to be true, and large portion still are, but most people complaining about DRM today are fans that realize DRM is a failed system that only hurts legitimate customers. There has never been a game with DRM that was not available in a cracked form within a day or 2 of release.
These cracks allow single player, and single player games have always been hurt most by piracy, and I agree they should loosen up the DRM on those. However, Starcraft 2 will be multiplayer focused. Without LAN based online gaming for pirates, they will have to buy the game to play online.
No they will have to buy the game to play on battlenet. There's a huge difference. There will be hacked versions that allow lan play in a matter of days. Its happened before, it will happen again. Just watch.
On July 01 2009 04:52 Idle wrote: No they will have to buy the game to play on battlenet. There's a huge difference. There will be hacked versions that allow lan play in a matter of days. Its happened before, it will happen again. Just watch.
Except this time, because there is no legit LAN play, they can sue the people who host private LAN services like Hoafang to shut them down.
And it sounds like the new Battle.net will be awesome, much better than the one from Warcraft 3, so I don't see why people are against playing on it unless its because they want to steal the game.
On July 01 2009 04:19 danieldrsa wrote: Sorry everyone, but i agree to Karune in everything. Its interesting how ppl are just defending piracy so openly, not just LAN. This only shows how ppl (not eveyone, but most of them) like LAN because of piracy.
Anyway here are some more posts Karune did:
Karune: Dreamhack is often referenced as the largest LAN party in the world... but in today's age, that LAN is also connected to the internet.
I definitely hear your concern about the internet going out, which would be a huge, huge bummer! But as equally as unlikely, the power could go out...
Question: Karune, what about latency issues involved in online play. ICCUP in Starcraft and LC games in Warcraft 3 are all attempts to reduce Battlenet lag. What is Blizzard doing to combat this lag if they are removing LAN play?
Answer by Karune: This is definitely a legitimate concern that would be best to be brought up again if needed when we talk about Battle.net 2.0.
Question: Oh, Karune, you know as well as I do that anti-piracy and LAN are not mutually exclusive.
Step 1: Connect to Battle.Net Step 2: Authentication Step 3: Access LAN games thereafter
There you go. Authenticated LAN play. Low latency. LAN parties. Happy customers.
-Clive
Answer by Karune: I will be sure to forward ideas in regards to LAN as described. I too have many fond memories of LAN parties.
The last post shows promise (if it lets you play on LAN after actually buying the game, in other words 'unlocking' that feature).
His first post is very lulzy though. See my previous posts as to why.
The problem is you need to connect to internet first!!! to use the lan feature.
On July 01 2009 04:19 danieldrsa wrote: Sorry everyone, but i agree to Karune in everything. Its interesting how ppl are just defending piracy so openly, not just LAN. This only shows how ppl (not eveyone, but most of them) like LAN because of piracy.
Anyway here are some more posts Karune did:
Karune: Dreamhack is often referenced as the largest LAN party in the world... but in today's age, that LAN is also connected to the internet.
I definitely hear your concern about the internet going out, which would be a huge, huge bummer! But as equally as unlikely, the power could go out...
Question: Karune, what about latency issues involved in online play. ICCUP in Starcraft and LC games in Warcraft 3 are all attempts to reduce Battlenet lag. What is Blizzard doing to combat this lag if they are removing LAN play?
Answer by Karune: This is definitely a legitimate concern that would be best to be brought up again if needed when we talk about Battle.net 2.0.
Question: Oh, Karune, you know as well as I do that anti-piracy and LAN are not mutually exclusive.
Step 1: Connect to Battle.Net Step 2: Authentication Step 3: Access LAN games thereafter
There you go. Authenticated LAN play. Low latency. LAN parties. Happy customers.
-Clive
Answer by Karune: I will be sure to forward ideas in regards to LAN as described. I too have many fond memories of LAN parties.
The last post shows promise (if it lets you play on LAN after actually buying the game, in other words 'unlocking' that feature).
His first post is very lulzy though. See my previous posts as to why.
The problem is you need to connect to internet first!!! to use the lan feature.
Wow nice job Blizzard.
Which is increasingly a non-issue. Every small LAN party hosted at a house or school should have Internet access. Big ones in warehouses like Dreamhack have Internet now too.
Most of the anti-DRM guys on the Internet are pirates that just want to steal games. [/QUOTE]
This used to be true, and large portion still are, but most people complaining about DRM today are fans that realize DRM is a failed system that only hurts legitimate customers. There has never been a game with DRM that was not available in a cracked form within a day or 2 of release.
Removing LAN mode will do nothing to prevent piracy. There will be hacked versions within days. The people that this hurts are the people with legitimate reasons for wanting a LAN feature. Groups of friends that want to play together offline, esports organizations, LAN parties. It just adds one more thing that can go wrong and isn't necessary. [/QUOTE]
I dont think you understand my post. Removing LAN is not a way to prevent SC2 being hacked. Of course SC2 will be hack within a week when It comes out. Removing LAN is a way to prevent things like Haofang happens. Haofang allow people with hacked copies play online as good as people with legimated copies. Maybe its nothing in the West, but in country like China, many people only go out and buy a legimate copy if there is no way for them to play online. So what Blizzard is trying to do here isnt trying to stop piracy, but trying to stop company like Haofang which is the one who encourage mass pirate ( By mass pirate I mean millions of copies)
On July 01 2009 04:19 danieldrsa wrote: Sorry everyone, but i agree to Karune in everything. Its interesting how ppl are just defending piracy so openly, not just LAN. This only shows how ppl (not eveyone, but most of them) like LAN because of piracy.
Anyway here are some more posts Karune did:
Karune: Dreamhack is often referenced as the largest LAN party in the world... but in today's age, that LAN is also connected to the internet.
I definitely hear your concern about the internet going out, which would be a huge, huge bummer! But as equally as unlikely, the power could go out...
Question: Karune, what about latency issues involved in online play. ICCUP in Starcraft and LC games in Warcraft 3 are all attempts to reduce Battlenet lag. What is Blizzard doing to combat this lag if they are removing LAN play?
Answer by Karune: This is definitely a legitimate concern that would be best to be brought up again if needed when we talk about Battle.net 2.0.
Question: Oh, Karune, you know as well as I do that anti-piracy and LAN are not mutually exclusive.
Step 1: Connect to Battle.Net Step 2: Authentication Step 3: Access LAN games thereafter
There you go. Authenticated LAN play. Low latency. LAN parties. Happy customers.
-Clive
Answer by Karune: I will be sure to forward ideas in regards to LAN as described. I too have many fond memories of LAN parties.
The last post shows promise (if it lets you play on LAN after actually buying the game, in other words 'unlocking' that feature).
His first post is very lulzy though. See my previous posts as to why.
The problem is you need to connect to internet first!!! to use the lan feature.
Wow nice job Blizzard.
I do see the point and I agree to an extent. I'd rather have it where you only have to connect to the internet once to always have the LAN feature available rather than having to be on the internet to even host a LAN game.
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'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture.
I mostly meant that in regards to being able to afford high speed internet. The wording was rather poor I admit. Though I think most the points presented are valid
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.
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.
1) Have you ever ran a LAN party of 15+ people?
2) Have you ever lived in a college dorm?
3) Have you ever lived somewhere with unreliable internet with friends/family who game too?
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'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture.
I mostly meant that in regards to being able to afford high speed internet. The wording was rather poor I admit. Though I think most the points presented are valid
I cannot believe that there are hardcore online gamers in 1st world countries that do not have high speed Internet. These people simply do not exist. For 3rd world countries, even many of these have pretty high broardband penetration now. The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
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.
1) Have you ever ran a LAN party of 15+ people?
2) Have you ever lived in a college dorm?
3) Have you ever lived somewhere with unreliable internet with friends/family who game too?
4) Have you ever been to a 500+ person LAN party?
I've been to LAN parties of 15+ people, at University campuses, and most of them had Internet. The only one I went to without Internet was the Teamliquid Waterloo LAN, which was in a separate residence. The only reason Internet wasn't set up was because everyone was lazy. One guy had his computer on the Internet, but nobody bothered to connect the router everyone was using online.
I have not been to a 500+ person LAN party, but Dreamhack has Internet now, so it's clearly possible.
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'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture.
I mostly meant that in regards to being able to afford high speed internet. The wording was rather poor I admit. Though I think most the points presented are valid
I cannot believe that there are hardcore online gamers in 1st world countries that do not have high speed Internet. These people simply do not exist. For 3rd world countries, even many of these have pretty high broardband penetration now. The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
Believe it or not, there is still a large portion of areas that do not get broadband, even in the US. Not every person that plays SC2 will be a hardcore gamer. There are plenty of people who played sc1 with their siblings / friends on 2 computers at home with no internet connection. There will be lots of people who would like to do the same for sc2.
On July 01 2009 05:09 BC.KoRn wrote: Damn chinese!
Basically. If it wasn't for millions of Chinese pirates, they wouldn't care about the thousands of people who would exploit LAN. But millions is a lot more than thousands, and SOMEONE has to teach China to pay for things.
The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
lol... not even going to address further posts if you honestly think thats how the rest of the world outside North America works.
We'll see what Blizzard says over the next couple days but its looking pretty grim. Hopefully it gets the attention it deserves.
On July 01 2009 05:09 BC.KoRn wrote: Damn chinese!
Basically. If it wasn't for millions of Chinese pirates, they wouldn't care about the thousands of people who would exploit LAN. But millions is a lot more than thousands, and SOMEONE has to teach China to pay for things.
wow... you really know nothing about foreign countries do you...
On July 01 2009 04:27 Zzoram wrote: There is no need for iCCup if Blizzard maintains it's own ladder, has LAN latency mode, patches against hacks regularly, and hosts tournaments for 3rd parties all over Battle.net.
That's so predictable, I was gonna add an answer to that but I thought it would make my post too long. Why do you think, in your opinion, that bnet1 didn't keep up in the first place? Since bnet1 didn't keep up with the hundreds of thousands of developers around the globe, what could possibly make you think that bnet2 would? Their word? The guy who is selling you a product told you their product is good just because they told you so?
The SC Battle.net Ladder failed because of: - rampant maphacking - failed enforcement - win-trading - being limited to Fast game speed - imbalanced maps - a (generally) static map pool - drop-hacking - being limited to 1v1 or FFA battles - not being the default game mode (reduced participation/accessibility) - reduced incentive for continued participation (people who attained high ratings would stop playing) - no double-blind matchmaking - a grace period allowing people to back out of games after determining the opponent's race or strategy with no penalty
Compare all those failures with the much-improved Ladder system in War3. Most, if not all, of those problems have been eliminated.
The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
lol... not even going to address further posts if you honestly think thats how the rest of the world outside North America works.
We'll see what Blizzard says over the next couple days but its looking pretty grim. Hopefully it gets the attention it deserves.
On July 01 2009 05:09 BC.KoRn wrote: Damn chinese!
Basically. If it wasn't for millions of Chinese pirates, they wouldn't care about the thousands of people who would exploit LAN. But millions is a lot more than thousands, and SOMEONE has to teach China to pay for things.
wow... you really know nothing about foreign countries do you...
What I was saying is that videos games are not a necessity, and if someone is too poor to afford to play them, then they shouldn't, and can spend their money on other things they need more, or can afford.
I know that in China there is tons of piracy and no respect for intellectual property. Obviously some of these people are poorer and can't afford VIDEO GAMES, but it's hard to feel bad for people who can't afford LUXURY ITEMS and complain about it.
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'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture.
I mostly meant that in regards to being able to afford high speed internet. The wording was rather poor I admit. Though I think most the points presented are valid
I cannot believe that there are hardcore online gamers in 1st world countries that do not have high speed Internet. These people simply do not exist. For 3rd world countries, even many of these have pretty high broardband penetration now. The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
Believe it or not, there is still a large portion of areas that do not get broadband, even in the US. Not every person that plays SC2 will be a hardcore gamer. There are plenty of people who played sc1 with their siblings / friends on 2 computers at home with no internet connection. There will be lots of people who would like to do the same for sc2.
There might be "lots" of people wanting to do that, but it will definitely be far, far fewer than in 1998. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/53/41551452.xls US broadband penetration has increased 129x
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'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture.
I mostly meant that in regards to being able to afford high speed internet. The wording was rather poor I admit. Though I think most the points presented are valid
I cannot believe that there are hardcore online gamers in 1st world countries that do not have high speed Internet. These people simply do not exist. For 3rd world countries, even many of these have pretty high broardband penetration now. The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
Believe it or not, there is still a large portion of areas that do not get broadband, even in the US. Not every person that plays SC2 will be a hardcore gamer. There are plenty of people who played sc1 with their siblings / friends on 2 computers at home with no internet connection. There will be lots of people who would like to do the same for sc2.
There might be "lots" of people wanting to do that, but it will definitely be far, far fewer than in 1998. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/53/41551452.xls US broadband penetration has increased 129x
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.
Ummm taking out Lan support for people who bought the game isn't an answer to blizzard losing some fucking money.
They make enough dirty money taking a graphically enhanced version of a computer simulated yeast infection and shoving it up peoples asses for $15 a month.(WoW for those who are stupid or uneducated)
Having to have an internet connection to play is bullshit. Couldn't they have some kind of authenticator that you had to update like 1nce a month to play in a LAN? I hope Blizzcon has so many problems with their network and they fail @ presenting SC2. Just so they have to deal with their greedy shit like we have to.
On July 01 2009 05:13 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Show nested quote + The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
lol... not even going to address further posts if you honestly think thats how the rest of the world outside North America works.
We'll see what Blizzard says over the next couple days but its looking pretty grim. Hopefully it gets the attention it deserves.
Show nested quote + On July 01 2009 05:13 Zzoram wrote: On July 01 2009 05:09 BC.KoRn wrote: Damn chinese!
Basically. If it wasn't for millions of Chinese pirates, they wouldn't care about the thousands of people who would exploit LAN. But millions is a lot more than thousands, and SOMEONE has to teach China to pay for things.
wow... you really know nothing about foreign countries do you...
What I was saying is that videos games are not a necessity, and if someone is too poor to afford to play them, then they shouldn't, and can spend their money on other things they need more, or can afford.
I know that in China there is tons of piracy and no respect for intellectual property. Obviously some of these people are poorer and can't afford VIDEO GAMES, but it's hard to feel bad for people who can't afford LUXURY ITEMS and complain about it.
Oh and lets take away your electricity and see if you don't bitch. Fucking hypocrite.
On July 01 2009 05:23 Bebop Berserker wrote: Ummm taking out Lan support for people who bought the game isn't an answer to blizzard losing some fucking money.
They make enough dirty money taking a graphically enhanced version of a computer simulated yeast infection and shoving it up peoples asses for $15 a month.(WoW for those who are stupid or uneducated)
Having to have an internet connection to play is bullshit. Couldn't they have some kind of authenticator that you had to update like 1nce a month to play in a LAN? I hope Blizzcon has so many problems with their network and they fail @ presenting SC2. Just so they have to deal with their greedy shit like we have to.
You may hate WoW, but 11.5million ACTIVE people are currently happy to pay money for it. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean that other people don't think it's great and well worth the money.
Unlike you, I hope Battle.net2 is awesome and Starcraft 2 is fun, because then I can enjoy it.
On July 01 2009 05:23 Bebop Berserker wrote: Ummm taking out Lan support for people who bought the game isn't an answer to blizzard losing some fucking money.
They make enough dirty money taking a graphically enhanced version of a computer simulated yeast infection and shoving it up peoples asses for $15 a month.(WoW for those who are stupid or uneducated)
Having to have an internet connection to play is bullshit. Couldn't they have some kind of authenticator that you had to update like 1nce a month to play in a LAN? I hope Blizzcon has so many problems with their network and they fail @ presenting SC2. Just so they have to deal with their greedy shit like we have to.
On July 01 2009 05:13 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Show nested quote + The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
lol... not even going to address further posts if you honestly think thats how the rest of the world outside North America works.
We'll see what Blizzard says over the next couple days but its looking pretty grim. Hopefully it gets the attention it deserves.
Show nested quote + On July 01 2009 05:13 Zzoram wrote: On July 01 2009 05:09 BC.KoRn wrote: Damn chinese!
Basically. If it wasn't for millions of Chinese pirates, they wouldn't care about the thousands of people who would exploit LAN. But millions is a lot more than thousands, and SOMEONE has to teach China to pay for things.
wow... you really know nothing about foreign countries do you...
What I was saying is that videos games are not a necessity, and if someone is too poor to afford to play them, then they shouldn't, and can spend their money on other things they need more, or can afford.
I know that in China there is tons of piracy and no respect for intellectual property. Obviously some of these people are poorer and can't afford VIDEO GAMES, but it's hard to feel bad for people who can't afford LUXURY ITEMS and complain about it.
Oh and lets take away your electricity and see if you don't bitch. Fucking hypocrite.
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.
On July 01 2009 05:23 Bebop Berserker wrote: Ummm taking out Lan support for people who bought the game isn't an answer to blizzard losing some fucking money.
They make enough dirty money taking a graphically enhanced version of a computer simulated yeast infection and shoving it up peoples asses for $15 a month.(WoW for those who are stupid or uneducated)
Having to have an internet connection to play is bullshit. Couldn't they have some kind of authenticator that you had to update like 1nce a month to play in a LAN? I hope Blizzcon has so many problems with their network and they fail @ presenting SC2. Just so they have to deal with their greedy shit like we have to.
On July 01 2009 05:13 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Show nested quote + The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
lol... not even going to address further posts if you honestly think thats how the rest of the world outside North America works.
We'll see what Blizzard says over the next couple days but its looking pretty grim. Hopefully it gets the attention it deserves.
Show nested quote + On July 01 2009 05:13 Zzoram wrote: On July 01 2009 05:09 BC.KoRn wrote: Damn chinese!
Basically. If it wasn't for millions of Chinese pirates, they wouldn't care about the thousands of people who would exploit LAN. But millions is a lot more than thousands, and SOMEONE has to teach China to pay for things.
wow... you really know nothing about foreign countries do you...
What I was saying is that videos games are not a necessity, and if someone is too poor to afford to play them, then they shouldn't, and can spend their money on other things they need more, or can afford.
I know that in China there is tons of piracy and no respect for intellectual property. Obviously some of these people are poorer and can't afford VIDEO GAMES, but it's hard to feel bad for people who can't afford LUXURY ITEMS and complain about it.
Oh and lets take away your electricity and see if you don't bitch. Fucking hypocrite.
So because I can afford electricity, poor people deserve to get free 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.
Wow are you stupid?I said "you would bitch if you didn't have a certain luxury too. Stop complaining at people for something your not near perfect at." also yes i understand pirating is wrong, but punishing the people buying it ISNT THE ANSWER.
On July 01 2009 05:23 Bebop Berserker wrote: Ummm taking out Lan support for people who bought the game isn't an answer to blizzard losing some fucking money.
They make enough dirty money taking a graphically enhanced version of a computer simulated yeast infection and shoving it up peoples asses for $15 a month.(WoW for those who are stupid or uneducated)
Having to have an internet connection to play is bullshit. Couldn't they have some kind of authenticator that you had to update like 1nce a month to play in a LAN? I hope Blizzcon has so many problems with their network and they fail @ presenting SC2. Just so they have to deal with their greedy shit like we have to.
On July 01 2009 05:13 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Show nested quote + The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
lol... not even going to address further posts if you honestly think thats how the rest of the world outside North America works.
We'll see what Blizzard says over the next couple days but its looking pretty grim. Hopefully it gets the attention it deserves.
Show nested quote + On July 01 2009 05:13 Zzoram wrote: On July 01 2009 05:09 BC.KoRn wrote: Damn chinese!
Basically. If it wasn't for millions of Chinese pirates, they wouldn't care about the thousands of people who would exploit LAN. But millions is a lot more than thousands, and SOMEONE has to teach China to pay for things.
wow... you really know nothing about foreign countries do you...
What I was saying is that videos games are not a necessity, and if someone is too poor to afford to play them, then they shouldn't, and can spend their money on other things they need more, or can afford.
I know that in China there is tons of piracy and no respect for intellectual property. Obviously some of these people are poorer and can't afford VIDEO GAMES, but it's hard to feel bad for people who can't afford LUXURY ITEMS and complain about it.
Oh and lets take away your electricity and see if you don't bitch. Fucking hypocrite.
So because I can afford electricity, poor people deserve to get free online video games? Great logic.
Wow are you stupid?I said "you would bitch if you didn't have a certain luxury too. Stop complaining at people for something your not near perfect at."
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.
On July 01 2009 05:23 Bebop Berserker wrote: Ummm taking out Lan support for people who bought the game isn't an answer to blizzard losing some fucking money.
They make enough dirty money taking a graphically enhanced version of a computer simulated yeast infection and shoving it up peoples asses for $15 a month.(WoW for those who are stupid or uneducated)
Having to have an internet connection to play is bullshit. Couldn't they have some kind of authenticator that you had to update like 1nce a month to play in a LAN? I hope Blizzcon has so many problems with their network and they fail @ presenting SC2. Just so they have to deal with their greedy shit like we have to.
On July 01 2009 05:13 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Show nested quote + The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
lol... not even going to address further posts if you honestly think thats how the rest of the world outside North America works.
We'll see what Blizzard says over the next couple days but its looking pretty grim. Hopefully it gets the attention it deserves.
Show nested quote + On July 01 2009 05:13 Zzoram wrote: On July 01 2009 05:09 BC.KoRn wrote: Damn chinese!
Basically. If it wasn't for millions of Chinese pirates, they wouldn't care about the thousands of people who would exploit LAN. But millions is a lot more than thousands, and SOMEONE has to teach China to pay for things.
wow... you really know nothing about foreign countries do you...
What I was saying is that videos games are not a necessity, and if someone is too poor to afford to play them, then they shouldn't, and can spend their money on other things they need more, or can afford.
I know that in China there is tons of piracy and no respect for intellectual property. Obviously some of these people are poorer and can't afford VIDEO GAMES, but it's hard to feel bad for people who can't afford LUXURY ITEMS and complain about it.
Oh and lets take away your electricity and see if you don't bitch. Fucking hypocrite.
So because I can afford electricity, poor people deserve to get free 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.
Wow are you stupid?I said "you would bitch if you didn't have a certain luxury too. Stop complaining at people for something your not near perfect at." also yes i understand pirating is wrong, but punishing the people buying it ISNT THE ANSWER.
It's not a punishment if it's never offered in the first place. Blizzard can advertise free multiplayer, but they don't have to mention anything about LAN play. In terms of customer base, I'm sure a majority appreciate the opportunity to play "Free multiplayer via Battle.net" as advertised on the game box.
On July 01 2009 05:23 Bebop Berserker wrote: Ummm taking out Lan support for people who bought the game isn't an answer to blizzard losing some fucking money.
They make enough dirty money taking a graphically enhanced version of a computer simulated yeast infection and shoving it up peoples asses for $15 a month.(WoW for those who are stupid or uneducated)
Having to have an internet connection to play is bullshit. Couldn't they have some kind of authenticator that you had to update like 1nce a month to play in a LAN? I hope Blizzcon has so many problems with their network and they fail @ presenting SC2. Just so they have to deal with their greedy shit like we have to.
On July 01 2009 05:13 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Show nested quote + The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
lol... not even going to address further posts if you honestly think thats how the rest of the world outside North America works.
We'll see what Blizzard says over the next couple days but its looking pretty grim. Hopefully it gets the attention it deserves.
Show nested quote + On July 01 2009 05:13 Zzoram wrote: On July 01 2009 05:09 BC.KoRn wrote: Damn chinese!
Basically. If it wasn't for millions of Chinese pirates, they wouldn't care about the thousands of people who would exploit LAN. But millions is a lot more than thousands, and SOMEONE has to teach China to pay for things.
wow... you really know nothing about foreign countries do you...
What I was saying is that videos games are not a necessity, and if someone is too poor to afford to play them, then they shouldn't, and can spend their money on other things they need more, or can afford.
I know that in China there is tons of piracy and no respect for intellectual property. Obviously some of these people are poorer and can't afford VIDEO GAMES, but it's hard to feel bad for people who can't afford LUXURY ITEMS and complain about it.
Oh and lets take away your electricity and see if you don't bitch. Fucking hypocrite.
So because I can afford electricity, poor people deserve to get free 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.
Wow are you stupid?I said "you would bitch if you didn't have a certain luxury too. Stop complaining at people for something your not near perfect at." also yes i understand pirating is wrong, but punishing the people buying it ISNT THE ANSWER.
It's not a punishment if it's never offered in the first place. Blizzard can advertise free multiplayer, but they don't have to mention anything about LAN play. In terms of customer base, I'm sure a majority appreciate the opportunity to play "Free multiplayer via Battle.net" as advertised on the game box.
It's not like you can't play with your friends anymore without LAN, you just have to do it somewhere you have Internet. A large group of PC gamers with gaming PCs that want to play a multiplayer game will find access to Internet.
On July 01 2009 05:23 Bebop Berserker wrote: Ummm taking out Lan support for people who bought the game isn't an answer to blizzard losing some fucking money.
They make enough dirty money taking a graphically enhanced version of a computer simulated yeast infection and shoving it up peoples asses for $15 a month.(WoW for those who are stupid or uneducated)
Having to have an internet connection to play is bullshit. Couldn't they have some kind of authenticator that you had to update like 1nce a month to play in a LAN? I hope Blizzcon has so many problems with their network and they fail @ presenting SC2. Just so they have to deal with their greedy shit like we have to.
On July 01 2009 05:13 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Show nested quote + The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
lol... not even going to address further posts if you honestly think thats how the rest of the world outside North America works.
We'll see what Blizzard says over the next couple days but its looking pretty grim. Hopefully it gets the attention it deserves.
Show nested quote + On July 01 2009 05:13 Zzoram wrote: On July 01 2009 05:09 BC.KoRn wrote: Damn chinese!
Basically. If it wasn't for millions of Chinese pirates, they wouldn't care about the thousands of people who would exploit LAN. But millions is a lot more than thousands, and SOMEONE has to teach China to pay for things.
wow... you really know nothing about foreign countries do you...
What I was saying is that videos games are not a necessity, and if someone is too poor to afford to play them, then they shouldn't, and can spend their money on other things they need more, or can afford.
I know that in China there is tons of piracy and no respect for intellectual property. Obviously some of these people are poorer and can't afford VIDEO GAMES, but it's hard to feel bad for people who can't afford LUXURY ITEMS and complain about it.
Oh and lets take away your electricity and see if you don't bitch. Fucking hypocrite.
So because I can afford electricity, poor people deserve to get free online video games? Great logic.
Wow are you stupid?I said "you would bitch if you didn't have a certain luxury too. Stop complaining at people for something your not near perfect at."
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.
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.
On July 01 2009 05:23 Bebop Berserker wrote: Ummm taking out Lan support for people who bought the game isn't an answer to blizzard losing some fucking money.
They make enough dirty money taking a graphically enhanced version of a computer simulated yeast infection and shoving it up peoples asses for $15 a month.(WoW for those who are stupid or uneducated)
Having to have an internet connection to play is bullshit. Couldn't they have some kind of authenticator that you had to update like 1nce a month to play in a LAN? I hope Blizzcon has so many problems with their network and they fail @ presenting SC2. Just so they have to deal with their greedy shit like we have to.
On July 01 2009 05:13 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Show nested quote + The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
lol... not even going to address further posts if you honestly think thats how the rest of the world outside North America works.
We'll see what Blizzard says over the next couple days but its looking pretty grim. Hopefully it gets the attention it deserves.
Show nested quote + On July 01 2009 05:13 Zzoram wrote: On July 01 2009 05:09 BC.KoRn wrote: Damn chinese!
Basically. If it wasn't for millions of Chinese pirates, they wouldn't care about the thousands of people who would exploit LAN. But millions is a lot more than thousands, and SOMEONE has to teach China to pay for things.
wow... you really know nothing about foreign countries do you...
What I was saying is that videos games are not a necessity, and if someone is too poor to afford to play them, then they shouldn't, and can spend their money on other things they need more, or can afford.
I know that in China there is tons of piracy and no respect for intellectual property. Obviously some of these people are poorer and can't afford VIDEO GAMES, but it's hard to feel bad for people who can't afford LUXURY ITEMS and complain about it.
Oh and lets take away your electricity and see if you don't bitch. Fucking hypocrite.
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.
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.
It depends on what country you're in. I would certainly hope cars in the UAE would have air conditioning standard. I know it's not standard in Britain and it shouldn't need to be standard for most of Canada, either, but it's standard in the US.
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.
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.
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.
Why anyone would actually defend the removal of feature baffles me. 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.
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.
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.
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'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture.
I mostly meant that in regards to being able to afford high speed internet. The wording was rather poor I admit. Though I think most the points presented are valid
I cannot believe that there are hardcore online gamers in 1st world countries that do not have high speed Internet. These people simply do not exist. For 3rd world countries, even many of these have pretty high broardband penetration now. The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
Believe it or not, there is still a large portion of areas that do not get broadband, even in the US. Not every person that plays SC2 will be a hardcore gamer. There are plenty of people who played sc1 with their siblings / friends on 2 computers at home with no internet connection. There will be lots of people who would like to do the same for sc2.
There might be "lots" of people wanting to do that, but it will definitely be far, far fewer than in 1998. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/53/41551452.xls US broadband penetration has increased 129x
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.
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'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture.
I mostly meant that in regards to being able to afford high speed internet. The wording was rather poor I admit. Though I think most the points presented are valid
I cannot believe that there are hardcore online gamers in 1st world countries that do not have high speed Internet. These people simply do not exist. For 3rd world countries, even many of these have pretty high broardband penetration now. The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
Believe it or not, there is still a large portion of areas that do not get broadband, even in the US. Not every person that plays SC2 will be a hardcore gamer. There are plenty of people who played sc1 with their siblings / friends on 2 computers at home with no internet connection. There will be lots of people who would like to do the same for sc2.
There might be "lots" of people wanting to do that, but it will definitely be far, far fewer than in 1998. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/53/41551452.xls US broadband penetration has increased 129x
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?
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.
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.
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'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture.
I mostly meant that in regards to being able to afford high speed internet. The wording was rather poor I admit. Though I think most the points presented are valid
I cannot believe that there are hardcore online gamers in 1st world countries that do not have high speed Internet. These people simply do not exist. For 3rd world countries, even many of these have pretty high broardband penetration now. The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
Believe it or not, there is still a large portion of areas that do not get broadband, even in the US. Not every person that plays SC2 will be a hardcore gamer. There are plenty of people who played sc1 with their siblings / friends on 2 computers at home with no internet connection. There will be lots of people who would like to do the same for sc2.
There might be "lots" of people wanting to do that, but it will definitely be far, far fewer than in 1998. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/53/41551452.xls US broadband penetration has increased 129x
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?
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.
maybe internet will become MUCH cheaper. And the LAN parties will be played on Bnet. Like every computer is connected to the internet, and they all have a blast on bnet, but sitting right next to each other?
Of course Blizzard is removing Lan-latency mainly for one reason only, to combat pirating and not as a community service. I can understand people being dissapointed because no matter how good b.net 2.0 will become there always are some situations were lan latency would be the better/only way to play. 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.
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'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture.
I mostly meant that in regards to being able to afford high speed internet. The wording was rather poor I admit. Though I think most the points presented are valid
I cannot believe that there are hardcore online gamers in 1st world countries that do not have high speed Internet. These people simply do not exist. For 3rd world countries, even many of these have pretty high broardband penetration now. The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
Believe it or not, there is still a large portion of areas that do not get broadband, even in the US. Not every person that plays SC2 will be a hardcore gamer. There are plenty of people who played sc1 with their siblings / friends on 2 computers at home with no internet connection. There will be lots of people who would like to do the same for sc2.
There might be "lots" of people wanting to do that, but it will definitely be far, far fewer than in 1998. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/53/41551452.xls US broadband penetration has increased 129x
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?
Actually, I can. If a Russian group (or any group) creates a large community where thousands to millions (well, only the Chinese would have millions) of people playing over some sort of lan group with their pirated copies then I expect blizzard to sue them.
They won't stop pirates, but they sure as hell stop pirates from playing online with thousands of other pirates. So for all the people who want to DL a cracked copy and play with their friends, go ahead blizzard probably doesn't care very much, but to those millions in China who have to buy the game to play online. (And most can with China's growing economy, its just they (like many others, although China is perhaps the worst) like to DL games for free if they don't have to pay and can play online with many others.
This does hurt some legit players (although very few), and perhaps the poorer countries, but if it makes blizzard a stronger company with the resources to produce even more games then I'm not too worried.
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'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture.
I mostly meant that in regards to being able to afford high speed internet. The wording was rather poor I admit. Though I think most the points presented are valid
I cannot believe that there are hardcore online gamers in 1st world countries that do not have high speed Internet. These people simply do not exist. For 3rd world countries, even many of these have pretty high broardband penetration now. The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
Believe it or not, there is still a large portion of areas that do not get broadband, even in the US. Not every person that plays SC2 will be a hardcore gamer. There are plenty of people who played sc1 with their siblings / friends on 2 computers at home with no internet connection. There will be lots of people who would like to do the same for sc2.
There might be "lots" of people wanting to do that, but it will definitely be far, far fewer than in 1998. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/53/41551452.xls US broadband penetration has increased 129x
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?
Your talking a lot of shit. This is battlenet 2.0 were talking about, not 1997 "omg people cheat online?" battlenet. Just look at blizzards latest game WoW, private servers are free, and yet hardly anyone plays them except for the type of people who would play runescape.
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'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture.
I mostly meant that in regards to being able to afford high speed internet. The wording was rather poor I admit. Though I think most the points presented are valid
I cannot believe that there are hardcore online gamers in 1st world countries that do not have high speed Internet. These people simply do not exist. For 3rd world countries, even many of these have pretty high broardband penetration now. The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
Believe it or not, there is still a large portion of areas that do not get broadband, even in the US. Not every person that plays SC2 will be a hardcore gamer. There are plenty of people who played sc1 with their siblings / friends on 2 computers at home with no internet connection. There will be lots of people who would like to do the same for sc2.
There might be "lots" of people wanting to do that, but it will definitely be far, far fewer than in 1998. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/53/41551452.xls US broadband penetration has increased 129x
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?
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.
If it makes no sense to you then you know nothing about Russia so I forgive you. Who says they don't have high paying jobs? Believe it or not some things are done for fun and for other people.
Actually, I can. If a Russian group (or any group) creates a large community where thousands to millions (well, only the Chinese would have millions) of people playing over some sort of lan group with their pirated copies then I expect blizzard to sue them.
I don't see that happening with hostings all over the world. If you were right torrent trackers that are full of illegal stuff wouldn't exist.
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.
Your statement is even more senseless because I have not mentioned governments.
A company is trying to increase their profits. Obviously they must be evil.
When did maximizing your profits become such a terrible thing. I mean, i can sorta understand anti price gouging laws after a natural disaster or something....but this isn't a big deal.
Blizzard will make tons with SC2 regardless of the piracy, which will happen regardless of the inclusion of the LAN feature as anyone who knows anything about the internet aready realizes. The real, very much money-related reason is to keep control over esports. Of course the end user wanting to play LAN isn't worth much weighed against a blizzard cut on all the pro scene tournaments.
But even understanding all this, doesn't mean as a gamer I'm going to defend such a decision.
I love the wannabe hardcore capitalists here who think it's great a company defends its own interest but for some reason customers can't or shouldn't organize to do the same because then it's bad...
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'.
He's right. If you can't afford it, that doesn't give you a right to STEAL it. This sense of entitlement is one of the worst things to come out of Internet culture.
I mostly meant that in regards to being able to afford high speed internet. The wording was rather poor I admit. Though I think most the points presented are valid
I cannot believe that there are hardcore online gamers in 1st world countries that do not have high speed Internet. These people simply do not exist. For 3rd world countries, even many of these have pretty high broardband penetration now. The people who cannot afford broadband Internet should probably be spending their money on food and housing instead of buying computers and games anyways, at least until they get a better job.
Believe it or not, there is still a large portion of areas that do not get broadband, even in the US. Not every person that plays SC2 will be a hardcore gamer. There are plenty of people who played sc1 with their siblings / friends on 2 computers at home with no internet connection. There will be lots of people who would like to do the same for sc2.
There might be "lots" of people wanting to do that, but it will definitely be far, far fewer than in 1998. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/53/41551452.xls US broadband penetration has increased 129x
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?
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.
If it makes no sense to you then you know nothing about Russia so I forgive you. Who says they don't have high paying jobs? Believe it or not some things are done for fun and for other people.
So those super Russians are going to make their own superior version of Battlenet on their spare time and get it out quickly after Starcraft 2's release?
I think you guys are overestimating the money in eSports. I think stopping millions of Chinese and Russians from playing pirated copies online, and converting even some percentage of them to paying customers is worth much more money.
DIdn't everyone already realise that removing LAN support was just to prevent pirating in PC cafe and VPN settings? This specific example hardly sheds any more light on the matter. <.<
On July 01 2009 06:10 stroggos wrote: 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.
What could be a substitute for LAN play? It's not some specific method, it's a general concept of playing within a network without access to an internet server. There's no way to play within a LAN, without, well, support for playing within a LAN.
Also, the whole "BNet 2.0 will be so great that LAN play will be completely unnecessary" argument and all the other things people are saying to justify this is bullshit. In the end, the only purpose BNet serves is to setup games between players. Beyond making that as easy as possible, there's absolutely no feature that Blizzard can add that will have any real value, or in any way make up for the inconvenience of having to connect to their servers whenever you want to play a game. It's obviously nothing but a marketing move, and while it's unavoidable it's ultimately detrimental to the game. Anyone trying to make it seem like a good idea for the end consumer is fooling themselves.
One thing with Haofang is surely if they don't use like something like this the game is gonna be shit for them due to China net? I'm sure many more Chinese gamers would play on iccup if their net wasn't so bad to other others outside China.
On July 01 2009 06:31 Zzoram wrote: I think you guys are overestimating the money in eSports. I think stopping millions of Chinese and Russians from playing pirated copies online, and converting even some percentage of them to paying customers is worth much more money.
We aren't talking about a MMO here, it's not a subscription or anything. You buy the game and then maybe some extra service once in a while..
I think you are underestimating the money in esports and Blizzard on the contrary is smart enough to foresee where it's going. When one final's prize can be worth 40k USD, and that's just the money going to the actual player, you know there's money in esports.
On July 01 2009 06:31 armed_ wrote: DIdn't everyone already realise that removing LAN support was just to prevent pirating in PC cafe and VPN settings? This specific example hardly sheds any more light on the matter. <.<
On July 01 2009 06:10 stroggos wrote: 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.
What could be a substitute for LAN play? It's not some specific method, it's a general concept of playing within a network without access to an internet server. There's no way to play within a LAN, without, well, support for playing within a LAN.
Also, the whole "BNet 2.0 will be so great that LAN play will be completely unnecessary" argument and all the other things people are saying to justify this is bullshit. In the end, the only purpose BNet serves is to setup games between players. Beyond making that as easy as possible, there's absolutely no feature that Blizzard can add that will have any real value, or in any way make up for the inconvenience of having to connect to their servers whenever you want to play a game. It's obviously nothing but a marketing move, and while it's unavoidable it's ultimately detrimental to the game. Anyone trying to make it seem like a good idea for the end consumer is fooling themselves.
It is still conceivable that there will be a LAN mode available after authenticating your copy of the game with Battle.net, which would require minimal bandwidth and only a few moments of internet connection. I know that doesn't satisfy everyone's needs, so please nobody blow up in my face.
On July 01 2009 06:31 Zzoram wrote: I think you guys are overestimating the money in eSports. I think stopping millions of Chinese and Russians from playing pirated copies online, and converting even some percentage of them to paying customers is worth much more money.
We aren't talking about a MMO here, it's not a subscription or anything. You buy the game and then maybe some extra service once in a while..
I think you are underestimating the money in esports and Blizzard on the contrary is smart enough to foresee where it's going. When one final's prize can be worth 40k USD, and that's just the money going to the actual player, you know there's money in esports.
People in Korea don't even pay for tickets to watch. There can't be THAT much money. Also, Americans are not receptive to the idea, they see gamers as "geeks, nerds" and will never see them as being "cool", especially not when douchebags like Fata1ty are the representatives of eSports in America.
On July 01 2009 06:35 theqat wrote: It is still conceivable that there will be a LAN mode available after authenticating your copy of the game with Battle.net, which would require minimal bandwidth and only a few moments of internet connection. I know that doesn't satisfy everyone's needs, so please nobody blow up in my face.
Of course. You only have to connect to the servers to set up the game because the netcode will still be p2p once it's started, latency will still be ideal. This is a given, pretty much everyone complaining is already aware of this. ;p
Edit: Unless you mean you could only connect once and then set-up games within the LAN, which is still pretty much the same thing unless someone's internet only works for like 5 seconds at a time. <.<
On July 01 2009 06:31 armed_ wrote: DIdn't everyone already realise that removing LAN support was just to prevent pirating in PC cafe and VPN settings? This specific example hardly sheds any more light on the matter. <.<
On July 01 2009 06:10 stroggos wrote: 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.
What could be a substitute for LAN play? It's not some specific method, it's a general concept of playing within a network without access to an internet server. There's no way to play within a LAN, without, well, support for playing within a LAN.
Also, the whole "BNet 2.0 will be so great that LAN play will be completely unnecessary" argument and all the other things people are saying to justify this is bullshit. In the end, the only purpose BNet serves is to setup games between players. Beyond making that as easy as possible, there's absolutely no feature that Blizzard can add that will have any real value, or in any way make up for the inconvenience of having to connect to their servers whenever you want to play a game. It's obviously nothing but a marketing move, and while it's unavoidable it's ultimately detrimental to the game. Anyone trying to make it seem like a good idea for the end consumer is fooling themselves.
It is still conceivable that there will be a LAN mode available after authenticating your copy of the game with Battle.net, which would require minimal bandwidth and only a few moments of internet connection. I know that doesn't satisfy everyone's needs, so please nobody blow up in my face.
I honestly wouldn't mind that, but then it raises the question as to why Blizzard stated "No LAN mode" and generated so much outrage. All it does is cause bad PR and loss of potential sales.
On July 01 2009 06:39 Spawkuring wrote: I honestly wouldn't mind that, but then it raises the question as to why Blizzard stated "No LAN mode" and generated so much outrage. All it does is cause bad PR and loss of potential sales.
Internet forum nerdrage is NOT representative of normal people.
On July 01 2009 06:35 theqat wrote: It is still conceivable that there will be a LAN mode available after authenticating your copy of the game with Battle.net, which would require minimal bandwidth and only a few moments of internet connection. I know that doesn't satisfy everyone's needs, so please nobody blow up in my face.
Of course. You only have to connect to the servers to set up the game because the netcode will still be p2p once it's started. This is a given, pretty much everyone complaining is already aware of this. ;p
I'm not talking about that, though I understand your confusion. I'm talking about the possibility of a game menu that says "Single Player" and "Battle.net". If you click Battle.net, Battle.net challenges your game for a legal key. If it is successful, you get the option of a pure LAN mode immediately with no further internet connection required. You also get the option to continue to full-on Battle.net. This would allow slow or poor connections to do the minimal amount necessary. I personally don't think it would make much difference, but this is an option some have latched on to.
Again, this isn't what they've said they'll do, but it's conceivable. Karune has seen at least one post suggesting it and has said he will forward that idea to the developers.
On July 01 2009 06:42 theqat wrote: I'm not talking about that, though I understand your confusion. I'm talking about the possibility of a game menu that says "Single Player" and "Battle.net". If you click Battle.net, Battle.net challenges your game for a legal key. If it is successful, you get the option of a pure LAN mode immediately with no further internet connection required. You also get the option to continue to full-on Battle.net. This would allow slow or poor connections to do the minimal amount necessary. I personally don't think it would make much difference, but this is an option some have latched on to.
Again, this isn't what they've said they'll do, but it's conceivable. Karune has seen at least one post suggesting it and has said he will forward that idea to the developers.
I'm sure they'll eventually do somethiing like this. Anyways, I just want the damn beta to start. It's been 11 years.
On July 01 2009 06:42 theqat wrote: I'm not talking about that, though I understand your confusion. I'm talking about the possibility of a game menu that says "Single Player" and "Battle.net". If you click Battle.net, Battle.net challenges your game for a legal key. If it is successful, you get the option of a pure LAN mode immediately with no further internet connection required. You also get the option to continue to full-on Battle.net.
Again, this isn't what they've said they'll do, but it's conceivable. Karune has seen at least one post suggesting it and has said he will forward that idea to the developers.
Yeah, you missed my edit. ;p
Really that doesn't solve anything besides very intermittent internet access, since you still have to set it up through their servers. It'll still likely be too much trouble for LAN cafe owners to bother with, still makes it impossible for anyone without internet. And really, the number of people who have an internet connection to get into that LAN mode in the first place yet wouldn't be able to set up all of their games individually through the servers is very small.
On July 01 2009 06:39 Spawkuring wrote: I honestly wouldn't mind that, but then it raises the question as to why Blizzard stated "No LAN mode" and generated so much outrage. All it does is cause bad PR and loss of potential sales.
Internet forum nerdrage is NOT representative of normal people.
This isn't just minor forum rage. All gaming websites by now have reported this as big news, and pretty much every gaming community is in outrage. While it's true that gamers don't consist of the majority of customers, poor word of mouth can spread like wildfire, and people are already wary of Blizzard due to the trilogy deal. The trilogy on one hand was at least debatable as a good decision, the removal of LAN on the other hand is a flat out bad decision.
EDIT: And just wait until Blizzard announces microtransactions. Whooo boy...
On July 01 2009 06:42 theqat wrote: I'm not talking about that, though I understand your confusion. I'm talking about the possibility of a game menu that says "Single Player" and "Battle.net". If you click Battle.net, Battle.net challenges your game for a legal key. If it is successful, you get the option of a pure LAN mode immediately with no further internet connection required. You also get the option to continue to full-on Battle.net.
Again, this isn't what they've said they'll do, but it's conceivable. Karune has seen at least one post suggesting it and has said he will forward that idea to the developers.
Yeah, you missed my edit. ;p
Really that doesn't solve anything besides very intermittent internet access, since you still have to set it up through their servers. It'll still likely be too much trouble for LAN cafe owners to bother with, still makes it impossible for anyone without internet. And really, the number of people who have an internet connection to get into that LAN mode in the first place yet wouldn't be able to set up all of their games individually through the servers is very small.
I agree. I just see this as the most conceivable outcome. It seems very, very unlikely that they will move LAN mode out from behind some kind of legitimacy test if they reintroduce LAN at all.
On July 01 2009 06:31 Zzoram wrote: I think you guys are overestimating the money in eSports. I think stopping millions of Chinese and Russians from playing pirated copies online, and converting even some percentage of them to paying customers is worth much more money.
Hmm, i really don't know about that. I read somewhere KTF put $50million into starcraft, and that was a while ago. You have to consider a lot of things. 2 TV channels= a lot of money, stage matches, the amount of pro gamers and their salaries. Jaedong has probably earned about 10,000 copies of starcraft alone.
Zzoram. I don't mean to pick on you man but kinda an angry day i suppose. You really have no idea what you are talking about on multiple accounts.
1.) saying there is not much money in E sports is a freebie. Top gamers make 200k+ a year now and its growing!
2.) No one intelligent is arguing poor people should be able to play for free. What we are arguing is why take away a feature JUST so they can make money? It really is quite frustrating when money> people
3.) Saying a company increasing profit is a good idea is a debatable issue. You obviously haven't researched or you would have typed an educated reason why this is true. Have you heard of a monopoly control? or the recent crisis on wall street? or the one before that? or the Industrial revolution? or slavery? I can go on but you get the point. All of these came out of greed. Saying Blizzard isn't greedy in the evil sense is saying blizzard isn't greedy at all. Greed isnt good or evil(Like anything else), but Blizzard is taking away from the rightful and the unrightful to make money. Period. That is wrong. That sends the message: "Yes we want our customers to like us...... so you can give us money."
Anyway, just saying you have a very simple minded "I'm right, your wrong" attitude(I do often as well) and did the beta not start yet????
Edit:Lol I took out a rather aggressive message that i wrote becaus e i knew you would type this... these are large scale examples of how greed is used for wrong. Sure maybe it isn't going to make the same impact, but its the same idea. I just wish companies said fuck it and made a game. People WILL crack it and WILL make hamachi like programs. It's just a reality check when you realize Blizzard only makes good games because they like the money...
On July 01 2009 06:57 Bebop Berserker wrote: Zzoram. I dont mean to pick on you manbut kinda an angry day i suppose. You really have no idea what you are talking about on multiple accounts.
1.) saying there is not much money in Esports is a freebie. Top gamers make 200k+ a year now and its growing!
2.) No one intelligent is arguing poor people should be able to play for free. What we are arguing is why take away a feature JUST so they can make money? It really is quite frustrating when money> people
3.) Saying a company increasing profit is a good idea is a debatable issue. You obviosly havent reasearched or you would have typed an educated reason why this is true. Have you heard of a monopoly control? or the recent crisis on wall street? or the one before that? or the Industrial revolution? or slavery? I can go on but you get th epoint. All of these came out of greed. Saying Blizzard isn't greedy in the evil sense is saying blizzard isn't greedy at all. Greed isnt good or evil(Like anything else), but Blizzard is taking away from the rightful and the unrightful to make money. Period. THat is worng. That sends the message: "Yes we want our customers to like us...... so you can give us money."
Anyway, just saying ou have a very simple minded "I'm right, your wrong" attitude(I do often as well) and did the beta not start yet????
I would like them to reinclude LAN, I know why they don't want to, and I can accept that. Blizzard isn't stealing candy from babies, or enslaving a race of people (I suppose you could make a case for Koreans, lol). They're not including LAN from a game which will have a robust Battle.net2 instead. They don't have a monopoly on games, there are plenty of alternatives if you prefer them.
I just think you guys are going way too far. Blizzard does not equate to slave traders because their next game won't have LAN.
On July 01 2009 06:57 Bebop Berserker wrote: Zzoram. I dont mean to pick on you manbut kinda an angry day i suppose. You really have no idea what you are talking about on multiple accounts.
1.) saying there is not much money in Esports is a freebie. Top gamers make 200k+ a year now and its growing!
2.) No one intelligent is arguing poor people should be able to play for free. What we are arguing is why take away a feature JUST so they can make money? It really is quite frustrating when money> people
3.) Saying a company increasing profit is a good idea is a debatable issue. You obviosly havent reasearched or you would have typed an educated reason why this is true. Have you heard of a monopoly control? or the recent crisis on wall street? or the one before that? or the Industrial revolution? or slavery? I can go on but you get th epoint. All of these came out of greed. Saying Blizzard isn't greedy in the evil sense is saying blizzard isn't greedy at all. Greed isnt good or evil(Like anything else), but Blizzard is taking away from the rightful and the unrightful to make money. Period. THat is worng. That sends the message: "Yes we want our customers to like us...... so you can give us money."
Anyway, just saying ou have a very simple minded "I'm right, your wrong" attitude(I do often as well) and did the beta not start yet????
I would like them to reinclude LAN, I know why they don't want to, and I can accept that. Blizzard isn't stealing candy from babies, or enslaving a race of people (I suppose you could make a case for Koreans, lol). They're not including LAN from a game which will have a robust Battle.net2 instead. They don't have a monopoly on games, there are plenty of alternatives if you prefer them.
I just think you guys are going way too far. Blizzard does not equate to slave traders because their next game won't have LAN.
Cut the Strawman talk already. Hardly anyone is comparing Blizzard to that extreme. We're justified to being upset over this decision, and oftentimes the best way to get through to a company is to make noise.
On July 01 2009 06:57 Bebop Berserker wrote: Zzoram. I dont mean to pick on you manbut kinda an angry day i suppose. You really have no idea what you are talking about on multiple accounts.
1.) saying there is not much money in Esports is a freebie. Top gamers make 200k+ a year now and its growing!
2.) No one intelligent is arguing poor people should be able to play for free. What we are arguing is why take away a feature JUST so they can make money? It really is quite frustrating when money> people
3.) Saying a company increasing profit is a good idea is a debatable issue. You obviosly havent reasearched or you would have typed an educated reason why this is true. Have you heard of a monopoly control? or the recent crisis on wall street? or the one before that? or the Industrial revolution? or slavery? I can go on but you get th epoint. All of these came out of greed. Saying Blizzard isn't greedy in the evil sense is saying blizzard isn't greedy at all. Greed isnt good or evil(Like anything else), but Blizzard is taking away from the rightful and the unrightful to make money. Period. THat is worng. That sends the message: "Yes we want our customers to like us...... so you can give us money."
Anyway, just saying ou have a very simple minded "I'm right, your wrong" attitude(I do often as well) and did the beta not start yet????
I would like them to reinclude LAN, I know why they don't want to, and I can accept that. Blizzard isn't stealing candy from babies, or enslaving a race of people (I suppose you could make a case for Koreans, lol). They're not including LAN from a game which will have a robust Battle.net2 instead. They don't have a monopoly on games, there are plenty of alternatives if you prefer them.
I just think you guys are going way too far. Blizzard does not equate to slave traders because their next game won't have LAN.
Cut the Strawman talk already. Hardly anyone is comparing Blizzard to that extreme. We're justified to being upset over this decision, and oftentimes the best way to get through to a company is to make noise.
Ok, people are upset about no LAN. I just don't believe they will add it in no matter how loudly people complain, because most people won't care, and because of the piracy. Personally, I think a good Battle.net2 is better than LAN, if it works as well as it should. I would want all my games to add to my Achievements and stats.
They were probably going to confirm the lack of LAN and then reveal what would replace it (on the press tour) but since there was a bug/problem and they couldn't talk about Battlenet 2 anymore, we were left with "There is no LAN". I'm not worried, Blizzard is not stupid, we just have to wait and see what their plans are.
WoW is online only, with the servers having to run the game world(and not just connect people with each other) and there are still lots of private servers for it, so how the hell would they stop people from pirating SC2 by removing LAN? This will just piss off potential customers.
And this is quite a change from what they said in older SC2 interviews, which was that they don't consider piracy a serious problem and it didn't even come up as a topic in their meetings(it was during blizzcon 2007 or 2008).
Blizzard is putting in millions of dollars to make a superb game, now they want people to pay for this product instead of illegaly downloading it just to play lan/SP. Business is cruel, isn't it?
Stability and latency will be on par or even better than current sc1/lan latency. There is no doubt about that fact.
If you crash playing a p2p game, don't blame blizzard for making a logical desicion and removing LAN option and thus reducing piracy, blame your internet provider for crying out loud.
On July 01 2009 07:00 Zzoram wrote: They're not including LAN from a game which will have a robust Battle.net2 instead. They don't have a monopoly on games, there are plenty of alternatives if you prefer them.
You do, at least, understand that this move is aimed to increase monopoly? It takes away from your "plenty of alternatives if you prefer them", right?
With LAN -> competition with pirate servers With no LAN -> no competition with pirate servers
You also understand that the only reason why many people who have sc1 cd-keys, play on ICCup instead of bnet because it's better? We have that option because of competition. Blizzard wants to remove that competition.
- "Oh but Blizzard will make something better. That is why!" If there ONLY goal was to make something better, they would make something better and people would use their service because it's better. If bnet was just as free as playing ICCup on a pirate copy, but bnet was better. -> Then people would use bnet. We don't, because bnet sucks.
That would be competition.
But since pirate copies are free. Blizzard cannot compete with that. They would not make any money if their service was only "better", but free.
If we cannot compete with their price. How do we solve this? -> Monopoly. They remove the competition. They remove your "plenty of alternatives if you prefer them".
It's that simple. All I'm trying to say is that this is a move to make more profit only. Not a move to deliver a better product as they advertise. If their only goal was to make a better product they would simply do it without removing LAN. One thing don't interfere the other.
On July 01 2009 03:30 Klogon wrote: It'll probably work like Steam. You authenticate your version with the main server, and as long as you are connected to that, you're allowed to play on LAN.
hopefully this is right, it would make the most sense. But why would blizzard just straight up say there is NO LAN anymore all together. That is kind of dick.
They are either trying to gain publicity from this stunt or using it as some sort of marketing research to see how the community reacts to such a bold claim.
On July 01 2009 03:57 nttea wrote: I personally don't believe in intellectual property, once you make something that is an idea it belongs to the world and not to any person or organisation. I will buy my sc2 but i don't mind people being able to pirate it, more players to play!.
This is usually how people who lack the talent to have ideas original enough to be called "intellectual property" feel. If you're going to steal the damn thing, at least acknowledge you're doing it. : /
Removing lan will definitely make some pirates buy a real copy of SC2. But how much more copies will they sell and will it be worth it to piss off people who play at lan parties. Seriously how much more money will they expect to earn.
They have a right to squeeze whatever profits there is out of SC2 but it's really unethical when they start hurting the customers.
Whenever someone makes a cool product but limits it such that it can only work with their service or cannot be fixed by the user, I'm really sad. Its not a design that yields a long lasting and well loved product, it is a design that yields sales and profit. Its just like planned obsolescence.
On July 01 2009 10:19 -fj. wrote: Whenever someone makes a cool product but limits it such that it can only work with their service or cannot be fixed by the user, I'm really sad. Its not a design that yields a long lasting and well loved product, it is a design that yields sales and profit. Its just like planned obsolescence.
Steam is an example of a product that strikes a good balance between the need to satisfy customers and the need to keep people from being able to get your stuff for free. I don't see why Battle.net 2.0 can't do that as well.
On July 01 2009 06:57 Bebop Berserker wrote: 2.) No one intelligent is arguing poor people should be able to play for free. What we are arguing is why take away a feature JUST so they can make money? It really is quite frustrating when money> people
What we are arguing is why take away a feature JUST so they don't loose money through theft?
3.) Saying a company increasing profit is a good idea is a debatable issue.
Saying a company putting in place security measures that prevent a loss of profit is a good idea is a debatable issue. Is it really? And talk to anyone from any industry and you will see that with increased security there is always decreased usability.
Have you heard of a monopoly control?
Monopoly control? Of their own product? Yeah... I think I would want that too. You relalise that the stats from every game played via battle.net 2.0 are recorded don't you? By playing on a private server you are taking away from blizzards sensus data. If you know anything about big business you know how much sensus data is worth. Not to mention that it is also used internally to help create better balance and probably influence the changes made with each expansion. Private (unsanctioned) servers may not have been illegal in SC1 but I am willing to bet that they are in SC2 because blizzard has so much more to loose from their use. Information is money.
or the recent crisis on wall street? or the one before that? or the Industrial revolution? or slavery? I can go on but you get the point.
...
Saying Blizzard isn't greedy in the evil sense is saying blizzard isn't greedy at all. Greed isnt good or evil(Like anything else)
So if I don't think their greedy in the evil sense their not greedy at all... but greed isn't good or evil? What?
but Blizzard is taking away from the rightful and the unrightful to make money. Period.
How are they taking away anyones right to make money? Who's making money from LAN that won't make money without it? Do you believe that these people should have the right to make money off SC without paying some kind of royalty to blizzard (For example... In the form of sanctioned dedicated servers for compettitions? Because I don't.)
That sends the message: "Yes we want our customers to like us...... so you can give us money."
If you ever make a business of any kind. Yes. You will want your customers to like you, so you can make money. If you don't then GL with your government bailout when you fail.
Honestly... all this is getting way out of hand. It's their game and they should be able to do what they want with it without the fear of being shanked at every turn. If you pirate they loose, if you make a dedicated server they loose... If you have a legitimate reason why they should keep LAN, or even just want to say 'I hate that they removed it' then go ahead. But don't start this wall street crisis crap and try to make at least a little sense.
Edit: On a side note... I want them to include LAN. And I am a little pissed off that I will have to play via battle.net between the 3 comps here. But I support (or at least accept) their decision, and will still love the game.
On July 01 2009 10:27 Polyphasic wrote: It wont be hard to set up fake online servers. Even WOW can do it. This is a stupid thread.
This is a stupid argument. Give how not a single anti-virus program in existence has a 100% effectiveness, is it then a reasonable argument there's no point in using them altogether? This might not stop pirating of the game altogether (nor, I'm betting, is Blizzard trying to that goal, while it would be ideal), but it will limit it, and make it more difficult for it to happen (and spread, afterwards). While you'll still lose sales either way, there's a difference between a few hundred thousand people with illegal copies, and a few million.
And, really, to use your WoW example. I'm almost certain that the proportion of players that play WoW (or just about any MMO) on private servers and those that play legitimately is far lesser than what exists with pirated and legitimate copies of single player (or, even, not wholly multiplayer) games. With the Internet, it makes it far easier to verify that the copy in use is legitimate.
Lastly, yeah, I would like to know, how DO people get Battle.net (not any private version) working with a pirated copy of the game?
@Planned obsolescence: This isn't a case of Blizzard designing their product to become obsolete over time, rather, it would be the opposite. In keeping the community from splintering off, the impression of decay as the game's user-base shrinks (as it inevitably will) will appear somewhat lessened. Unless, of course, somewhere along the line, they decide to shut down old Battle.nets (I believe they said they would not), I don't see how it could be anything of the sort.
On July 01 2009 10:52 Yenzilla wrote: Lastly, yeah, I would like to know, how DO people get Battle.net (not any private version) working with a pirated copy of the game?.
Pretty sure they don't. (Certain they don't in B.net2 )
Bashiok on D3 Forums also commented the abscense of LAN:
Bashiok More so than overbearing/invasive anti-piracy measures that would affect everyone who buys the game regardless of how they're going to play it instead of just those that may want a LAN feature? I would doubt it.
I don't know a lot about it, Diablo III isn't really facing the brunt of the Battle.net 2.0 features just yet, but I think that removing LAN in an attempt to avoid more severe anti-piracy measures is pretty cool. We're saying "Hey, we're pretty sure you're going to love our game. The multiplayer is really the best part though. In order to get in on that that we'd just like to make sure you bought the game. Cool?"
On July 01 2009 10:19 -fj. wrote: Whenever someone makes a cool product but limits it such that it can only work with their service or cannot be fixed by the user, I'm really sad. Its not a design that yields a long lasting and well loved product, it is a design that yields sales and profit. Its just like planned obsolescence.
Steam is an example of a product that strikes a good balance between the need to satisfy customers and the need to keep people from being able to get your stuff for free. I don't see why Battle.net 2.0 can't do that as well.
Steam is pretty much the perfect example of how to do this the right way. It sucked at first but I would be ecstatic if bnet 2.0 was like the current incarnation of steam. The ability to purchase completely digital copies of your software, have your entire library available wherever you go as long as there's access to steam. There's one thing that makes me sure this isn't where they're going, though. Every popular game on steam HAS LAN SUPPORT. You log into steam the first time, activate / unlock your software, and then have the ability to go into offline mode and use the lan capability without having an internet connection. This is how blizzard should be modeling their system. It strikes an excellent balance between protecting their property and not royally pissing off their customers. Removing LAN in its entirety is taking it too far to the extreme.
Somehow I don't' get why everyone is so angry that Blizzard is trying to make money. I mean, they are a company right? Why do people think it's so bad that they're trying to make more money? Why do people somehow feel entitled to LAN play?
On July 01 2009 13:58 Kaneh wrote: Somehow I don't' get why everyone is so angry that Blizzard is trying to make money. I mean, they are a company right? Why do people think it's so bad that they're trying to make more money? Why do people somehow feel entitled to LAN play?
Being a good business is pleasing your customers so they can pay you more money. Removing LAN does nothing to please customers, and Blizzard only loses money out of doing this. Blizzard doesn't seem to realize how many people they're screwing over by making this decision, so we're complaining in the hopes to get them to change their mind.
On July 01 2009 13:58 Kaneh wrote: Somehow I don't' get why everyone is so angry that Blizzard is trying to make money. I mean, they are a company right? Why do people think it's so bad that they're trying to make more money? Why do people somehow feel entitled to LAN play?
Being a good business is pleasing your customers so they can pay you more money. Removing LAN does nothing to please customers, and Blizzard only loses money out of doing this. Blizzard doesn't seem to realize how many people they're screwing over by making this decision, so we're complaining in the hopes to get them to change their mind.
they lose mostly only chinese ppl, ppl that wouldn´t have bought it anyway
Really, a smart business would still need to balance how much they are willing to sacrifice in order to please their customers, and where it eventually reaches the point of diminishing returns. For this game, for example, pleasing all their customers (a large number of different communities) would require Blizzard to produce and publish a number of different games (SC1 with engine rehash, Warcraft in space, and whatever the hell else others want). This, of course, is far from reasonable. Obviously, I am taking things to the extreme a little, but it may be possible that Blizzard has decided that the negatives of providing support for LAN far outweigh the positives from a simple financial perspective, and that it simply isn't a smart decision for them financially to include such a feature.
The bottom line is that businesses exist to make a profit, and making sure your customers is simply another part of maintaining sales. However, there exists a point where further satisfying your customer either stops providing returns in sales, or is detrimental to it (see: Demigod, no DRM, and its piracy woes). Sure, it'd be nice to make sure your customers are all always perfectly satisfied, but its not exactly reasonable to expect from a business.
Finally, I would let Blizzard's accounting division do their own projections as to whether or not an addition is going to be detrimental to their profit line. I will say, however, that there is absolutely no way that there are no sales to be gained from potential pirates. I've argued this so many times in this thread already and do not feel the need to regurgitate (especially seeing as how, if I remember correctly, you were one of the people I directed these points at).
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.
Does Blizzard not know that you don't need Haofeng, Garena or any of these programs to play online illegally. The Chinese can simply just start a private server similar to gamei and iccup. Removing LAN won't solve the piracy issue at all.
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.
But blizzard is adapting a Top-bottom approach to esports and gaming in general, didn't they always succeed in the past (wc/sc/diablo) because of the community at grassroots level (a bottom-up approach).
On July 01 2009 14:50 FieryBalrog wrote: For all your bitching a lot of RTS games don't include LAN play these days
Name one major RTS that does not have LAN play.
Dawn of War 2.
On July 01 2009 15:38 Gunman_csz wrote: But blizzard is adapting a Top-bottom approach to esports and gaming in general, didn't they always succeed in the past (wc/sc/diablo) because of the community at grassroots level (a bottom-up approach).
WC3 was somewhat top down.
Diablo certainly didn't succeed because of the community, the community was a bunch of hacking and botting asshats.
On July 01 2009 15:38 Gunman_csz wrote: But blizzard is adapting a Top-bottom approach to esports and gaming in general, didn't they always succeed in the past (wc/sc/diablo) because of the community at grassroots level (a bottom-up approach).
WC3 was somewhat top down.
Diablo certainly didn't succeed because of the community, the community was a bunch of hacking and botting asshats.
Blizzard knows that all it takes is one person to reverse engineer a Bnet login and then route it through Haofang and then everyone is using haofang instead of Bnet. Blizzard can't control piracy, it will still be around. Basically, they eliminate LAN play, which everyone is affected by, because they know it will take at least a little while for someone to crack the login, so Blizz gets a few days or weeks of clean play when the game is first released.
So, say goodbye to LAN forever so Blizzard can have a few days or weeks of clean play. I have loved Blizzard games, but I'm no apologist that will apologize for anything Blizzard does. This is Blizzard being straight of FAIL.
Interesting to see this thread was tranlated into Chinese and read by a lot of Chinese gaming communities, even a popular tech blog post it.
There are many other pirate networks like Haofang (OK, its real name is Holdfast) in China. Blizzard did nothing against them in many years. But it has to be an end. I always know this day is coming.
By the way, Haofang is owned by the biggest Chinese gaming company Shanda.
Sadly we Chinese will have an isolated BN2.0 when SC2 is out. Might write something more about all the weird SC-related things that happen in China.
It requires online connection. Which is the complaint, right?
On July 01 2009 16:47 ggfobster wrote: Blizzard knows that all it takes is one person to reverse engineer a Bnet login and then route it through Haofang and then everyone is using haofang instead of Bnet. Blizzard can't control piracy, it will still be around. Basically, they eliminate LAN play, which everyone is affected by, because they know it will take at least a little while for someone to crack the login, so Blizz gets a few days or weeks of clean play when the game is first released.
So, say goodbye to LAN forever so Blizzard can have a few days or weeks of clean play. I have loved Blizzard games, but I'm no apologist that will apologize for anything Blizzard does. This is Blizzard being straight of FAIL.
Drama much? Who knows its forever? What if there's LAN play like Steam does it?
But wait, being calm on the internet? Don't be stupid, the internet is for exaggerated outrage about everything!
Just had to finaly register after seeing all this retarded crap. No lan will do nothing against piracy, since people can make local battlenet servers and play lan thru that. Or play online on some major pirate server like iccup etc
Me and my friends played sc1 since release and we all bought it... yet we often make weekend lans for all 10-20 of us in some party hall that obviously has no internet connection (drinking, barbecue often included etc). Now, since there is no lan, and we all were gonna buy SC2 because we just love the game and would just play on battle.net as well as lan, we have to become criminals so we can enjoy SC2 on LAN?
To sum it up: no lan does nothing against piracy, its just blizzard taking a dump on paying customers and fans... all while forcing them to become pirates... so, they made more pirates out of paying customers than making paying customers out of pirates!
i say awesome "EA style" decision welcome to my blacklist, atleast EA gets some company there! im not going to support companies that insult me with crap like that
edit: ive been following this site for a loooooong time, just never had anything so say... now i do
On July 01 2009 18:39 Emlary wrote: Interesting to see this thread was tranlated into Chinese and read by a lot of Chinese gaming communities, even a popular tech blog post it.
There are many other pirate networks like Haofang (OK, its real name is Holdfast) in China. Blizzard did nothing against them in many years. But it has to be an end. I always know this day is coming.
By the way, Haofang is owned by the biggest Chinese gaming company Shanda.
Sadly we Chinese will have an isolated BN2.0 when SC2 is out. Might write something more about all the weird SC-related things that happen in China.
They translate this thread and dont know that I am now staying in Shanghai and speak perfect Chinese... Just too lazy to go to Chinese gaming sites like plu or playsc. Thank you for letting me know about this
There is little doubt a hacked offline mode will be available (a B.Net 2.0 emulator) in a short while after the release, which will effectively make the private LAN parties independent from the Internet connection, but Blizzard will still have a legal foundation to prevent encouragement of mass piracy by public services that allow pirated copies to play online. I think this is reasonable enough.
before, 'haofang' was the biggest in china, but now is 'vs' it works the same way as 'haofang'.. if u win ull get exp based on your opponents lvl (the higher your oppnents lvl the higher exp ull get) im in china right now and still using haofang and vs.. its really a sad news that sc2 cannot be plyd via lan.
On July 01 2009 21:25 botaxkeren wrote: before, 'haofang' was the biggest in china, but now is 'vs' it works the same way as 'haofang'.. if u win ull get exp based on your opponents lvl (the higher your oppnents lvl the higher exp ull get) im in china right now and still using haofang and vs.. its really a sad news that sc2 cannot be plyd via lan.
VS is absolutely horrible in terms of how many people hack. I mean even on the show when Lx (or was it F91?) was playing some random lvl...16? VS pub on Blue Storm, the pub activated a hack that made like 15 Battlecruisers appear. Seriously, what the fuck :/
On July 01 2009 19:20 FieryBalrog wrote: Drama much? Who knows its forever? What if there's LAN play like Steam does it?
But wait, being calm on the internet? Don't be stupid, the internet is for exaggerated outrage about everything!
An online verification like Steam would be nice, but then that raises the question as to why Blizzard flat out stated no LAN. "No LAN play" and "LAN play needs online log-in" are two completely different statements. If Blizzard comes out and say that LAN will work like Steam, then they are basically contradicting themselves. And it also raises the question as to why they are so reluctant to clarify on it if this is true. Saying LAN will require log-in doesn't give away key features of Bnet, so there's really no reason to keep stringing us along like this since they are only damaging their reputation by doing so.
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: =(
On July 02 2009 00:27 Excalibur_Z wrote: 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: =(
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.
I really hope that if they dont include a genuine LAN option atleast there is a "Play over LAN" menu on Battle.net. They already said that multiplayer games are going to be routed through battle.net (rather then P2P) so practically if there is no LAN and you want to play a game against the dude in the same room you will have a latency which equals your battle.net latency, so no lagless multiplayer games? And what about the people which have poor pings with the battle.net servers?
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*
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 03:06 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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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?
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 02:13 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.
On July 02 2009 02:22 Yenzilla wrote: @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.
It is simple really, they are introducing limitation that will hurt customers to make more money. Why should you respect that? A+ long term thinking about they bank accounts at the cost of the product. Why people respect greed so much?
It is nice that they will rotate the maps, and have diferent ladders, but what is with the believe that they will take care about bn 2.0 when the game will get older, and no longer will be selling. They can decide that it is against they A+ long term planning.
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?
Nice straw man. There is an obvious difference between expecting to get paid, and maximizing profits by the cost of the customers. every Blizzard game that had LAN sold great, spawn installations would also not limit it, or not much.
On July 02 2009 02:38 Polis wrote: Nice straw man. There is an obvious difference between expecting to get paid, and maximizing profits by the cost of the customers. every Blizzard game that had LAN sold great, spawn installations would also not limit it, or not much.
Spawn copies would horrible. Only 1 person in a group could buy the game, and they could all play spawn copies, instead of buying it. There is no way that feature is EVER coming back to a game that costs money to buy.
You also have to consider the year. It is 2009, not 1998. The number of gamers that have Internet is almost 100%, and piracy is easier than ever.
Look at recent situations with piracy, similar to what Blizzard will face in the near future with Diablo III.
Titan Quest was made by Iron Lore, it's a Diablo-style game that was quite good and fun. It sold enough to make slightly more money than it cost to make, but that still forced their company to close, because they needed to make enough money to fund working on another game for 2 years as well, not just to cover their initial costs and debt. Why did they go bankrupt? Titan Quest has was massively pirated. Even worse, it was pirated before it came out, and the crack was a sloppy job so it caused a lot of random crashes. These pirates posted all over the Internet how the game was a buggy mess, and hurt REAL sales of the game, even though the retail copy did not have these bugs. Why would people pirate a Diablo-style game that is clearly multiplayer focused? It had LAN play, so they could still play multiplayer. If the only way to play with friends was to buy the game, maybe they would've sold a few thousand more copies, and that could've been the difference between Titan Quest 2, and Iron Lore going bankrupt. I'm sure not EVERYONE who pirated played LAN, but you can bet a hell of a lot of them did, because just like Diablo, much of the appeal of this type of game is to play with your friends.
The research indicated that Titan Quest players were 80% pirates in North America, 90% pirates in Europe, and basically all pirates in Asia. If even 5 or 10% of those pirates payed for the game, they would've made twice as much money. If removing LAN from Diablo III convinces 10% of pirates to buy Diablo III, that's a fuck ton more money.
Look at games like Bioshock and Call of Duty 4. These games are made by hardcore PC developers, and are clearly best played on PC. They sold over 5 times better on Xbox 360 than on PC (10x better in the case of CoD4). Why the hell would companies want to make PC games anymore, if everyone just pirates their work, when they can make console games instead? More and more, everyone is moving to console because piracy has gotten so bad.
If no LAN means I can keep playing quality Blizzard games on PC, then I am all for it. I would rather they make a lot of money on PC and stay on PC, than to make their games for console and PC, which most of the time leads to dumbing down the game.
With this information I guess we have no choice but to competely agree with Starcraft and Blizzard, because of the loss of their community becuase of piracy :-/
On July 02 2009 03:03 Zzoram wrote:Spawn copies would horrible. Only 1 person in a group could buy the game, and they could all play spawn copies, instead of buying it. There is no way that feature is EVER coming back to a game that costs money to buy.
That is not true only the full installation can create games, and those that have spawn version can only join that one game. One copy per house/room, and still it would be with limitation.
On July 02 2009 03:03 Zzoram wrote:You also have to consider the year. It is 2009, not 1998. The number of gamers that have Internet is almost 100%, and piracy is easier than ever.
Warcraft 3 had LAN, and that was in 2003.
Look at recent situations with piracy, similar to what Blizzard will face in the near future with Diablo III.
On July 02 2009 03:03 Zzoram wrote:Titan Quest was made by Iron Lore, it's a Diablo-style game that was quite good and fun. It sold enough to make slightly more money than it cost to make, but that still forced their company to close, because they needed to make enough money to fund working on another game for 2 years as well, not just to cover their initial costs and debt. Why did they go bankrupt? Titan Quest has was massively pirated. Even worse, it was pirated before it came out, and the crack was a sloppy job so it caused a lot of random crashes. These pirates posted all over the Internet how the game was a buggy mess, and hurt REAL sales of the game, even though the retail copy did not have these bugs.
Good example of how DRM had lead to lesser number of copies sold. Company bankrupt becouse they did not sell enough copies not becouse it was pirated to much, it is not the same thing, most popular games get pirated the most it don't stop them from being successful.
On July 02 2009 03:03 Zzoram wrote:Why would people pirate a Diablo-style game that is clearly multiplayer focused? It had LAN play, so they could still play multiplayer.
Not true they servers was crup that was the reason, it was also not protected.
On July 02 2009 03:03 Zzoram wrote:If the only way to play with friends was to buy the game, maybe they would've sold a few thousand more copies, and that could've been the difference between Titan Quest 2, and Iron Lore going bankrupt. I'm sure not EVERYONE who pirated played LAN, but you can bet a hell of a lot of them did, because just like Diablo, much of the appeal of this type of game is to play with your friends.
The facts are that War3 sold great, and bigger piracy in 2003 didn't stop it, neither did it stop Diablo 2 from selling great.
if they would not have stupid DRM, and good servers that would require CD-key to play on, they game would most likely sell good. LAN feature would matter very little as blizzard games prove, and other successful games with LAN future, or that are SP only.
On July 02 2009 03:03 Zzoram wrote:The research indicated that Titan Quest players were 80% pirates in North America, 90% pirates in Europe, and basically all pirates in Asia. If even 5 or 10% of those pirates payed for the game, they would've made twice as much money.
What research?
On July 02 2009 03:03 Zzoram wrote:If even 5 or 10% of those pirates payed for the game, they would've made twice as much money.
Those are rather big assumptions when we are talking about difference between product for 0$ and 50$.
The funny things is that there are still games that sold great despite piracy, plenty of bankrupting mmorpg despite that they block piracy the best, yet piracy is supposed to force Blizzard into something that they didn't have to do in 2003.
On July 02 2009 03:27 Polis wrote: The funny things is that there are still games that sold great despite piracy, plenty of bankrupting mmorpg despite that they block piracy the best, yet piracy is supposed to force Blizzard into something that they didn't have to do in 2003.
Agreed. Warcraft 3 sold well despite being amidst the wave of piracy. Spore sold well despite everyone actively trying to pirate it. Starcraft still makes a top seller despite being 10 years old and being even easier to pirate than any other example I can possibly give.
Good games sell well. Bad games don't. Stop blaming piracy for bad sales. Give us our LAN back.
Good games sell well. Bad games don't. Stop blaming piracy for bad sales. Give us our LAN back.
Thats retarded. If everyone has to run with lead boots on some people will still win the race and others will lose. But really the lead boots are dragging the runners down.
Piracy is one of the lead boots on PC sales. Consoles (except for the PSP- and guess what happens) are MUCH harder to pirate, very few people I know go to the big trouble of modding their console then having to burn stuff on discs. People just buy games, the same people torrent stuff on PCs because its absurdly easy. They're perfectly willing to buy stuff if its too much hassle- they're just cheap motherfuckers. People are cheap motherfuckers, its a fact, not little angels.
On July 01 2009 03:17 aeronexus wrote: I find this completely ridiculous. It is always, without fail, more fun to play a multiplayer game when your opponent is sitting right across from you. There's way more interaction than anything the internet can currently provide. Oh and also lugging computers around isn't that difficult if you have this thing called a laptop, buddy...
You can still play face to face buddy, just over bnet rather than lan, probably with the same latency from the way blizz is talking about it.
Operation transforms (i.e. Google Wave) should be able to result in virtually lagless gameplay. I hiighhly higggghhhhly doubt that B.Net 2.0 will incorporate this technology, however. Last time I checked, it is still state-based information that's sent over the tubes for multiplayer games (leading to loss of sync and lag).
I don't do much dev tho, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Good example of how DRM had lead to lesser number of copies sold. Company bankrupt becouse they did not sell enough copies not becouse it was pirated to much, it is not the same thing, most popular games get pirated the most it don't stop them from being successful.
It still hurts those games, you'd be incredibly naive to think otherwise, popular games are still hurt by piracy, they just still manage to make some money. Not many PC games make money on the PC anymore, I'm grateful Blizzard is still developing for the PC only and not selling out to consoles. Practically no one else is left, not Valve, not id, not any of the great PC houses are left PC-only except Blizzard. And everyone but Valve develops console first and then does quick dirty ports to PC that end up sucking, why? Its not worth the effort when everyone is going to torrent your game.
Blaming DRM is the easy way out, people don't really give a fuck and will pirate anything, DRM or no, its not some moral crusade. Easy proof? Demigod, published by Stardock which was hailed by pirates as the most forward-thinking company in the business, little to no DRM, consumers bill of rights, etc. Their reward? Demigod gets pirated out the ass and the overload which they didn't expect crashes the login servers for everyone for the first few days, hurting word of mouth immensely, and they didn't end up selling all that much out the gates.
Maybe if the pirate "community" (lol) supported Stardock instead of torrenting their game we wouldn't have this problem, or maybe the pirate "community" doesn't really exist and is mostly just a bunch of cheap lazy people who always have some excuse ready for why not buying it was justified.
On July 02 2009 02:38 Polis wrote: It is simple really, they are introducing limitation that will hurt customers to make more money. Why should you respect that? A+ long term thinking about they bank accounts at the cost of the product. Why people respect greed so much?
It is nice that they will rotate the maps, and have diferent ladders, but what is with the believe that they will take care about bn 2.0 when the game will get older, and no longer will be selling. They can decide that it is against they A+ long term planning.
Respecting and understanding the role of business is different from respecting greed. I'm not sure why there's such a large following here that businesses should function like charities. Making money effectively is neither good or evil, it is simply their role in society. Having a focus on making sure your customers are satisfied is nice, especially if it means they buy your product, but the ultimate goal is to make money, that is their raison d'etre. To expect anything else is naive, at best.
And is Blizzard going to continue supporting Battle.net 2.0 after sales start dwindling? Starcraft's Battle.net is still running (admittedly, with fewer servers), is it not ? I'm not entirely sure the original is still selling like hot cakes. Seriously though, applying one measure to minimize lost sales does not mean Blizzard will look for every available opportunity to save money. There's no real slippery slope in effect here.
On July 02 2009 04:01 FieryBalrog wrote:It still hurts those games, you'd be incredibly naive to think otherwise, popular games are still hurt by piracy, they just still manage to make some money.
I am sorry but Blizzard games made more then some money, and the number of copies sold are impressive even if you compare it to console games (except some nintendo titles), they also make games that don't sell/work to good on consoles hack&slash, and RTS games. There is any console rts or hack&slash that did sell better then any of the Blizzard games (since SC)?
On July 02 2009 04:01 FieryBalrog wrote:Not many PC games make money on the PC anymore, I'm grateful Blizzard is still developing for the PC only and not selling out to consoles. Practically no one else is left, not Valve, not id, not any of the great PC houses are left PC-only except Blizzard.
There are still good PC exclusives. I would say that the number of good games goes down in general. There is not that many exclusives per console either. Actually the PC exclusives line up don't look bad even if you would exclude Blizzard games, well at least if you like strategy games.
On July 02 2009 04:01 FieryBalrog wrote:Blaming DRM is the easy way out, people don't really give a fuck and will pirate anything, DRM or no, its not some moral crusade.
I did not said that I am on moral crusade. If I would be on crusade about anything in that matter it would be crusade to get the same options in my games that I had in past.
On July 02 2009 04:01 FieryBalrog wrote:Easy proof? Demigod, published by Stardock which was hailed by pirates as the most forward-thinking company in the business, little to no DRM, consumers bill of rights, etc. Their reward? Demigod gets pirated out the ass and the overload which they didn't expect crashes the login servers for everyone for the first few days, hurting word of mouth immensely, and they didn't end up selling all that much out the gates.
Yes that is pretty bad, still they didn't cry about it but fixed they mistakes with how they server works, and still made profit on demigod. Demigod didn't cost nearly as much as console blockbuster, and it did not have to sell as much to make a profit.
I am not saying that piracy on PC or consoles (on PC it is bigger) don't decreases number of copies sold. What I am saying is that Blizzard games, and many other games that are PC games still are selling good despite that, and there is no good reason to think that LAN future would change that. In 2003 piracy was about the same as today.
On July 02 2009 04:05 Yenzilla wrote:Respecting and understanding the role of business is different from respecting greed. I'm not sure why there's such a large following here that businesses should function like charities. Making money effectively is neither good or evil, it is simply their role in society.
Straw man again, where did I said that they should work as a charities? You either maximize profit or you work as a charity? There is big middle to that. Role of developers in society is developing goods for the public, things like piracy, and ow much exactly each make are sub effects of how the system works. Before next straw man, no just becouse I don't think that capitalism is perfect it does not mean that I am a communist.
On July 02 2009 04:05 Yenzilla wrote:And is Blizzard going to continue supporting Battle.net 2.0 after sales start dwindling? Starcraft's Battle.net is still running (admittedly, with fewer servers), is it not ?
Yes but the support is pretty bad, it is basically just server with no ladder or anti hack. It is well know that they support for the servers drops with time as the game gets older, and now they want to remove ability for community to solve those problems on they own (as a side effect). That is a real problem to worry about.
On July 02 2009 04:05 Yenzilla wrote:I'm not entirely sure the original is still selling like hot cakes. Seriously though, applying one measure to minimize lost sales does not mean Blizzard will look for every available opportunity to save money. There's no real slippery slope in effect here.
I am sorry you are asking to act them like charity now, or do you admit that your previous argument was a straw man?
Yes there is a real slippery slope it is sensible to assume that they will try to maximize they profits in diferent ways, if they already did it by removing LAN. First they had removed spawn installations, now they will remove LAN seems like a slippery slope effect so far.
Current WCG Champion NonY emphasized the importance of Battle.net to the development of the community. “I think that battle.net needs to be a training ground where anybody can play it [StarCraft II], and they can play with the best players if they’re good enough,” said NonY, “What they really need to avoid is the best players all just playing with each other on LAN or on something else off battle.net.”
On July 01 2009 04:20 ReS wrote: Karune seems like one of those guys that goes to a LAN party and fires up WoW to play online instead of with the people sitting around him.
Blizzard needs to just come out and say what it is they are planning to do with this. You can't just say "no LAN" and leave it at that and cause all sorts of commotion. Karune has been fucking with the war3 community for a long time with stuff like this, I really hope he does not continue the trend for SC2.
I don't think it is really a pirating issue. These private servers/programs only came about well after the game was already out. Blizzard did not want to upgrade their online play so other people did. Most of the people who play there bought the game anyway. I do not see the issue with that.
People saying that this will hurt paying customers are ridiculous. Most buyers would not be affected by this at all, since the vast majority of the demographic the game is targetted towards already have internet access. Secondly, the decision will result in more sales for Blizzard which means more money that that can be used to fund patches, sponsor E-sports, etc. This decision is win-win for everyone but the tiny minority who whine because they don't have internet access.
well i just wanted to vs my bro via lan... but friggin no lan lamer is being gay... no matter how fukin orgasmic the stupid game is im not gonna pay up double just to play with my bro couple of times for fun!
plus since now they link ur ID to the cdkey that means that if my bro wants to play as well as I then we HAVE to get 2 cdkeys... or he'll just have to use my ID...
On July 02 2009 04:46 Polis wrote: Yes but the support is pretty bad, it is basically just server with no ladder or anti hack. It is well know that they support for the servers drops with time as the game gets older, and now they want to remove ability for community to solve those problems on they own (as a side effect). That is a real problem to worry about.
These features don't exist because they were not features that weren't expected to be necessary upon release. Blizzard didn't decide that anti-hack and comprehensive ladder support was no longer necessary, and cut them. This is like complaining about model T's for not having air conditioning. While yes, its entirely possible that further down the line, but given Blizzard's declarations of support for esport, it's entirely possible that they'd provide further support (esport, after all, is a potential source of profit).
And yeah, I'm hyperbolizing just as you are. How is 'why do you respect greed' not exaggerating the point that 'businesses making money is normal and okay'? And, really, is how 'why are you calling me a communist' not another straw man?
Also, developers do not work for society, they work for their business. Your tax money does not go towards paying Blizzard's programmers, after all. They're producing these products for their business, and the business is selling these products for a profit.
On July 02 2009 05:02 R3condite wrote: well i just wanted to vs my bro via lan... but friggin no lan lamer is being gay... no matter how fukin orgasmic the stupid game is im not gonna pay up double just to play with my bro couple of times for fun!
plus since now they link ur ID to the cdkey that means that if my bro wants to play as well as I then we HAVE to get 2 cdkeys... or he'll just have to use my ID...
friggin gay...
So you think you should be able to purchase 1 copy of the game and install and play it on 2 computers? That's dumb.
On July 02 2009 02:38 Polis wrote: Nice straw man. There is an obvious difference between expecting to get paid, and maximizing profits by the cost of the customers. every Blizzard game that had LAN sold great, spawn installations would also not limit it, or not much.
Spawn copies would horrible. Only 1 person in a group could buy the game, and they could all play spawn copies, instead of buying it. There is no way that feature is EVER coming back to a game that costs money to buy.
You also have to consider the year. It is 2009, not 1998. The number of gamers that have Internet is almost 100%, and piracy is easier than ever.
Look at recent situations with piracy, similar to what Blizzard will face in the near future with Diablo III.
Titan Quest was made by Iron Lore, it's a Diablo-style game that was quite good and fun. It sold enough to make slightly more money than it cost to make, but that still forced their company to close, because they needed to make enough money to fund working on another game for 2 years as well, not just to cover their initial costs and debt. Why did they go bankrupt? Titan Quest has was massively pirated. Even worse, it was pirated before it came out, and the crack was a sloppy job so it caused a lot of random crashes. These pirates posted all over the Internet how the game was a buggy mess, and hurt REAL sales of the game, even though the retail copy did not have these bugs. Why would people pirate a Diablo-style game that is clearly multiplayer focused? It had LAN play, so they could still play multiplayer. If the only way to play with friends was to buy the game, maybe they would've sold a few thousand more copies, and that could've been the difference between Titan Quest 2, and Iron Lore going bankrupt. I'm sure not EVERYONE who pirated played LAN, but you can bet a hell of a lot of them did, because just like Diablo, much of the appeal of this type of game is to play with your friends.
The research indicated that Titan Quest players were 80% pirates in North America, 90% pirates in Europe, and basically all pirates in Asia. If even 5 or 10% of those pirates payed for the game, they would've made twice as much money. If removing LAN from Diablo III convinces 10% of pirates to buy Diablo III, that's a fuck ton more money.
Look at games like Bioshock and Call of Duty 4. These games are made by hardcore PC developers, and are clearly best played on PC. They sold over 5 times better on Xbox 360 than on PC (10x better in the case of CoD4). Why the hell would companies want to make PC games anymore, if everyone just pirates their work, when they can make console games instead? More and more, everyone is moving to console because piracy has gotten so bad.
If no LAN means I can keep playing quality Blizzard games on PC, then I am all for it. I would rather they make a lot of money on PC and stay on PC, than to make their games for console and PC, which most of the time leads to dumbing down the game.
I could't care less about piracy. All I want is a good game and i don't care if my friend or anyone pirated the game in order to play me. You are e fukin troll for not reading other people's posts when at least 10 diferent people stated that removing LAN takes away from the game. Nobody here is FOR piracy so I don't see what you are trying to prove apart from trolling everyone who has more experience in LAN gaming than you do.
On July 02 2009 04:46 Polis wrote: Yes but the support is pretty bad, it is basically just server with no ladder or anti hack. It is well know that they support for the servers drops with time as the game gets older, and now they want to remove ability for community to solve those problems on they own (as a side effect). That is a real problem to worry about.
These features don't exist because they were not features that weren't expected to be necessary upon release. Blizzard didn't decide that anti-hack and comprehensive ladder support was no longer necessary, and cut them. This is like complaining about model T's for not having air conditioning.
I was compering costs. Fighting with cheats, improving ladder requires much more resources then keeping servers alive.
On July 02 2009 05:05 Yenzilla wrote:While yes, its entirely possible that further down the line, but given Blizzard's declarations of support for esport, it's entirely possible that they'd provide further support (esport, after all, is a potential source of profit).
That is possible, LAN would make it almost certain.
On July 02 2009 05:05 Yenzilla wrote:And yeah, I'm hyperbolizing just as you are. How is 'why do you respect greed' not exaggerating the point that 'businesses making money is normal and okay'?
But they were making money with LAN option so your description of the situation is incorrect.
On July 02 2009 05:05 Yenzilla wrote:And, really, is how 'why are you calling me a communist' not another straw man?
No, but I would not be surprised if somebody would say so, that has nothing to do with the LAN trough, it was not completely serious comment.
On July 02 2009 05:05 Yenzilla wrote:Also, developers do not work for society, they work for their business.
Yes, but you had commented about they role in society, not what they personal interest may be. Those things are not the same, they can overlap in some places.
Perhaps some sort of middle ground can be reached? I know that Steam uses some sort of Offline mode to allow LAN play. Perhaps Battle.net will make use of something similar?
On July 02 2009 05:22 Tom Phoenix wrote: Perhaps some sort of middle ground can be reached? I know that Steam uses some sort of Offline mode to allow LAN play. Perhaps Battle.net will make use of something similar?
I'm hoping so, although it wouldn't solve 100% of the problem. The only issue is that Blizzard said "No LAN mode", which is different than just "LAN, but need initial log-in." Maybe Blizzard can clarify on it.
On July 02 2009 05:02 R3condite wrote: well i just wanted to vs my bro via lan... but friggin no lan lamer is being gay... no matter how fukin orgasmic the stupid game is im not gonna pay up double just to play with my bro couple of times for fun!
plus since now they link ur ID to the cdkey that means that if my bro wants to play as well as I then we HAVE to get 2 cdkeys... or he'll just have to use my ID...
friggin gay...
So you think you should be able to purchase 1 copy of the game and install and play it on 2 computers? That's dumb.
Blizzard was dumb in 1998 making game with that future that had sold over 10 mln copies. Now they are smart, and they remove futures. Maybe you should try to first get your facts right before you make a comment. Look for spawn installation.
Here is my counter argument: Stop bitching about pirating! I love how people are throwing numbers out like 90% of the game was pirated. There is no way to tell that unless you count downloads to copies bought.... which is still fucking wrong. Its a poor ass estimation. Everyone understands if a game is good that you need to go pay for it. Otherwise there won't be anymore.
Just one thing I couldn't get past: 1.) BUSINESSES ARE NOT CHARITIES NOR IS ANYONE ASKING THAT! However as i stated before... extreme cases of capitalism have either really good or really bad short term effects. This lack of LAN is a short term + for a long term - . Blizzard will reduce piracy and in effect force everyone to play over the internet. Hope you didn't want to play at your grandmother's house or at schol in between class or anywhere without internet. Hope Bnet doesn't go down and hope that blizzard keeps their antihack's in shape(Have yet to do so (see Starcraft, Warcraft I, II & III , Diablo I & II, ect. ect.)) Why is it okay that Blizzard can take away Lan support to make money but wont ensure hacking stops? Because 1 gets them money. Im not asking Blizzard to "Be a charity." Im asking One of the last few decent game making companies to have some sympathy. Because in the end, whenever Valve, Nintendo, and Blizzard are the only companies left.... They will each be extremely responsible for their own genres. I refuse to buy Blizzard's shitty games. I allow them to make WOW (the reason gaming sucks today) shove some high graphical mediocre stale game play to people. Im okay with that, because they make Some of the best games known to man. I will support Blizzard through all of their shit Fuck if blizzard asked for $10 from every gamer right now I would send a check in. I just ask they do the same damn thing for me.
The "role" of a motherfucking business isn't to make money! its to serve the people!!!!! get your shit straight. The reason America has no customer service, the reason you have to sit on hold for three hours to fix a 2 minute electrical problem, the reason when I go to McDonalds and order tomatoes and I dont get any and they dont get my change right and then the dude at circuit city in electronics doesnt know what a Gigahertz is... its all because of THIS MENTALITY: Business are here to make money. Demand some service so that to make money companies sat least have to pretend to serve people. Maybe this is all a stunt, but its not a cool one blizzard. Don't start fucking your customers Blizzard. You and Nintendo are the only companies truly left. I write all of this because I love Blizzard not because I don't want them to make money.
On July 02 2009 05:17 despite wrote: I could't care less about piracy. All I want is a good game and i don't care if my friend or anyone pirated the game in order to play me. You are e fukin troll for not reading other people's posts when at least 10 diferent people stated that removing LAN takes away from the game. Nobody here is FOR piracy so I don't see what you are trying to prove apart from trolling everyone who has more experience in LAN gaming than you do.
Except Blizzard doesn't (and shouldn't) make decisions based on personal sentiments. Yes, you might not care about piracy, but as a company, Blizzard does. I'm not sure how resorting to ad hominems will do. Most of the pro-LAN-removal advocates in this thread are in agreement that this move is justified by Blizzard as an anti-piracy measure, not that 'LAN IS USELESS' or 'YOU'RE ALL PIRATE LOVERS' (the latter would be completely off the wall, and hilarious). Everybody understands that removing LAN will take something away from the game (LAN, specifically), but you need to understand that it will also help Blizzard combat pirating and reduce their sales lost from it.
And @Polis:
I'm not going to disagree outright that LAN would do nothing in helping extend the shelf life of Starcraft 2. However, until Battle.net 2.0 (and all of its subsequent features) is released, I don't think it's particularly fair to the company to judge (these particular issues, at least).
And I was talking about a business' role in society, not the role of its parts. I would argue that the 'developer' really has no role in a society outside of that of the business. After all, without the business, there is no developer. As such, a developer has no obligation to society as a whole, no more, at the very least, than the business.
On July 02 2009 05:27 Polis wrote: Blizzard was dumb in 1998 making game with that future that had sold over 10 mln copies. Now they are smart, and they remove futures. Maybe you should try to first get your facts right before you make a comment. Look for spawn installation.
There's definitely a fallacy in there, but I can't even seem to make it out. Basically, just because Starcraft sold 10 million despite the existence of spawn, it doesn't then translate that spawn installs don't hinder the sales of a game. It could well be possible that, with sales lost with people sticking to spawn installs among their friends, they could've sold double the amount (unlikely, but without statistical evidence either way, this really does prove nothing).
And, of course, removing LAN does not automatically translate to removing the future of the game, as you're suggesting.
Starcraft supported LAN; Starcraft had long lasting appeal; Starcraft 2 will not support LAN; Therefore, Starcraft 2 will not have long lasting appeal.
On July 02 2009 05:02 R3condite wrote: well i just wanted to vs my bro via lan... but friggin no lan lamer is being gay... no matter how fukin orgasmic the stupid game is im not gonna pay up double just to play with my bro couple of times for fun!
plus since now they link ur ID to the cdkey that means that if my bro wants to play as well as I then we HAVE to get 2 cdkeys... or he'll just have to use my ID...
friggin gay...
So you think you should be able to purchase 1 copy of the game and install and play it on 2 computers? That's dumb.
Blizzard was dumb in 1998 making game with that future that had sold over 10 mln copies. Now they are smart, and they remove futures. Maybe you should try to first get your facts right before you make a comment. Look for spawn installation.
I know about the spawn installations and Blizzard obviously doesn't feel that it is a viable feature anymore. People can come up with scenarios where they are on a LAN with no internet access all day, but the fact is that situation is very rare in this day and age. And the number of people who will not buy SC2 because of the absence of LAN is small and will have little affect on Blizzard's bottom line, so don't kid yourself. Games evolve, and as DRM goes this is a rather unobtrusive option.
There is so much self-righteousness in this thread it's absurd. Please realize that no matter how many hundreds or thousands of hours you spent playing SC1, Blizzard does not owe you anything. They created a game that has given you so much enjoyment over the years that maybe (just maybe) you should put off getting red in the face about the LAN thing until you at lease see a beta.
On July 02 2009 05:55 sely wrote: I know about the spawn installations and Blizzard obviously doesn't feel that it is a viable feature anymore. People can come up with scenarios where they are on a LAN with no internet access all day, but the fact is that situation is very rare in this day and age. And the number of people who will not buy SC2 because of the absence of LAN is small and will have little affect on Blizzard's bottom line, so don't kid yourself. Games evolve, and as DRM goes this is a rather unobtrusive option.
And you know these situations are rare how? Just because you are fortunate enough to have internet readily available doesn't mean everybody is.
On July 02 2009 05:48 Yenzilla wrote: Basically, just because Starcraft sold 10 million despite the existence of spawn, it doesn't then translate that spawn installs don't hinder the sales of a game.
I did not say that it didn't. What I had said that Blizzard was a company that gave this feature before, and it did not stopped it from being a success. There is a spectrum of what developers can be mostly aiming for: maximum possible profit(1) - some gray are(2) - best possible service(3). Not perfect since some service is good for profit, but good enough to show my point.
What I am claiming is that Blizzard is moved closer to (1), while it was between (3) and (2) in the past, and that it had no financial necessarily to make more profit, they games are popular enough. So the only explanation that I am left with is greed.
On July 02 2009 05:48 Yenzilla wrote:It could well be possible that, with sales lost with people sticking to spawn installs among their friends, they could've sold double the amount (unlikely, but without statistical evidence either way, this really does prove nothing).
Only to elaborate on spawn versions: spawn don't work in that way it is to limited for that. It works great if you want to play with somebody that had visited you or with your brother.
On July 02 2009 05:48 Yenzilla wrote:Starcraft supported LAN; Starcraft had long lasting appeal; Starcraft 2 will not support LAN; Therefore, Starcraft 2 will not have long lasting appeal.
I did not said that. I had said that we are depended on what blizzard will do with bn 2.0 in the future (how good the support will), and that in the past we were not. If they will go with they philosophy of making as much money as possible, and if they will not make enough off esports then likely SC2 on bn 2.0 will be full of cheaters, and with ladder that only offers old maps.
On July 02 2009 05:55 sely wrote: I know about the spawn installations and Blizzard obviously doesn't feel that it is a viable feature anymore. People can come up with scenarios where they are on a LAN with no internet access all day, but the fact is that situation is very rare in this day and age. And the number of people who will not buy SC2 because of the absence of LAN is small and will have little affect on Blizzard's bottom line, so don't kid yourself. Games evolve, and as DRM goes this is a rather unobtrusive option.
And you know these situations are rare how? Just because you are fortunate enough to have internet readily available doesn't mean everybody is.
I understand there are plenty of people who do not have internet readily available, but if your computer is attached to others through a LAN and is new enough to be capable of running SC2, it most likely has some kind of internet access. You could have a LAN party in a barn and hook someone's cell phone up to a computer to authenticate with bnet and then play all you like.
On July 02 2009 05:37 Bebop Berserker wrote: Here is my counter argument: Stop bitching about pirating! I love how people are throwing numbers out like 90% of the game was pirated. There is no way to tell that unless you count downloads to copies bought.... which is still fucking wrong. Its a poor ass estimation.
No, it isn't. Just by looking at the number of seeds on a torrent and then a legitimate sales number you can see that most PC games have piracy rates of AT LEAST 15-20%, and way higher for casual games like Sims 3 or Spore.
Hope you didn't want to play at your grandmother's house or at schol in between class or anywhere without internet.
God, you're full of BS. You're going to play a starcraft match in a 10 minute period between classes? Or maybe the first thing you do at your grandmothers house is unpack your laptop and mousepad and tell her: hey I haven't seen you in a year, but wait, let me play a couple matches with my college buddies first. And btw, most grandparents are now tech savvy enough to have at least internet.
Why is it okay that Blizzard can take away Lan support to make money but wont ensure hacking stops?
Blizzard is much better than most, with the possible exception of Valve/steam at stopping hackers, maybe not in the 1997 battle.net, but I haven't seen many complaints about WC3 hacking so far, so they are doing something right.
I refuse to buy Blizzard's shitty games. Why don't you write a blog about it. I allow them to make WOW (the reason gaming sucks today) shove some high graphical mediocre stale game play to people. Good thing they didn't forget to ASK YOUR PERMISSION.
The "role" of a motherfucking business isn't to make money! its to serve the people!!!!! get your shit straight. The reason America has no customer service, the reason you have to sit on hold for three hours to fix a 2 minute electrical problem, the reason when I go to McDonalds and order tomatoes and I dont get any and they dont get my change right and then the dude at circuit city in electronics doesnt know what a Gigahertz is... its all because of THIS MENTALITY: Business are here to make money.
Well if you eat at McDonalds and shop for PC gear at Circuit City, that certainly explains a lot of things.
On July 02 2009 06:05 Polis wrote: I did not say that it didn't. What I had said that Blizzard was a company that gave this feature before, and it did not stopped it from being a success.
fixed: No offense meant I just wanted to make it clear for everyone.
On July 02 2009 05:55 sely wrote: I know about the spawn installations and Blizzard obviously doesn't feel that it is a viable feature anymore. People can come up with scenarios where they are on a LAN with no internet access all day, but the fact is that situation is very rare in this day and age. And the number of people who will not buy SC2 because of the absence of LAN is small and will have little affect on Blizzard's bottom line, so don't kid yourself. Games evolve, and as DRM goes this is a rather unobtrusive option.
And you know these situations are rare how? Just because you are fortunate enough to have internet readily available doesn't mean everybody is.
I understand there are plenty of people who do not have internet readily available, but if your computer is attached to others through a LAN and is new enough to be capable of running SC2, it most likely has some kind of internet access. You could have a LAN party in a barn and hook someone's cell phone up to a computer to authenticate with bnet and then play all you like.
Lol no offense but you don't go to many Lan parties and that is obvious. Having 10 or 20 people connected to the internet and ALL of them working without a problem is nothing short of a micracle. Especially if another computer wants on... oh god the ip conflicts and the router cache fuck ups.....
On July 02 2009 06:04 Yenzilla wrote: @Bebop Berserker:
Lament capitalist society all you want, but the fact of the matter is (and where Blizzard is concerned), business exists for the profit of its owners.
That is simply incorrect. Business exist for the reason on why it was created, and there is a profit that it must have to sustain itself. There is many examples of people working on less lucrative (less commercial) projects as they business. There is no magical rule that forces business to work only with the profit in mind.
On July 02 2009 06:05 Polis wrote: I did not say that it didn't. What I had said that Blizzard was a company that gave this feature before, and it did not stopped it from being a success.
fixed: No offense meant I just wanted to make it clear for everyone.
Oh, okay. Feature changes that post altogether, that then throws half my disagreements and confusions out the window.
On July 02 2009 05:55 sely wrote: I know about the spawn installations and Blizzard obviously doesn't feel that it is a viable feature anymore. People can come up with scenarios where they are on a LAN with no internet access all day, but the fact is that situation is very rare in this day and age. And the number of people who will not buy SC2 because of the absence of LAN is small and will have little affect on Blizzard's bottom line, so don't kid yourself. Games evolve, and as DRM goes this is a rather unobtrusive option.
And you know these situations are rare how? Just because you are fortunate enough to have internet readily available doesn't mean everybody is.
I understand there are plenty of people who do not have internet readily available, but if your computer is attached to others through a LAN and is new enough to be capable of running SC2, it most likely has some kind of internet access. You could have a LAN party in a barn and hook someone's cell phone up to a computer to authenticate with bnet and then play all you like.
Lol no offense but you don't go to many Lan parties and that is obvious. Having 10 or 20 people connected to the internet and ALL of them working without a problem is nothing short of a micracle. Especially if another computer wants on... oh god the ip conflicts and the router cache fuck ups.....
I don't need to go to LAN parties to understand how computer networks work. My point is that some people are assuming that when playing against their friends on LAN through bnet, every packet is going from their computer, to bnet, and back to their friends computer and there is no reason to assume this. Also, network problems can arise with or without and internet connection.
This is stupid. Even if "Haofang" hosts pirated starcraft games, it doesn't encourage it like the OP seems to think. China is the most populous country, also one of the poorest judging from the average income. This, plus internet access equals massive amounts of piracy. That simple.
A time to think a little of context, and relevance with current events. Blizzard is going to be releasing a Beta, of a game called StarCraft 2. Limited numbers of people are invited to this Beta. The beta will be 4-6 months duration (that means must WAIT for SC2 for 4-6 months) If it is pirated, even those who can afford to pay will pirate and play on LAN. By the time 4-6 months is up, there might very well be a pirate LAN scene that is too big to compete with even when Bnet becomes official.
With all this in mind, even without the freetards talking about their rights to steal a Ferrari because they can't afford one, do you honestly think its feasible that Blizzard would let a game become pirated to this extent enough to challenge the purpose of even buying the game in the first place?
When ANYONE in this forum can tell me, hand on heart, that if it has LAN they wont have a 'wee play' with a pirated copy before the full game comes out, then you might have half a change of justifying yourselves.
On July 02 2009 08:23 Tyraz wrote: Actually, do you know what would REALLY be funny?
A time to think a little of context, and relevance with current events. Blizzard is going to be releasing a Beta, of a game called StarCraft 2. Limited numbers of people are invited to this Beta. The beta will be 4-6 months duration (that means must WAIT for SC2 for 4-6 months) If it is pirated, even those who can afford to pay will pirate and play on LAN. By the time 4-6 months is up, there might very well be a pirate LAN scene that is too big to compete with even when Bnet becomes official.
With all this in mind, even without the freetards talking about their rights to steal a Ferrari because they can't afford one, do you honestly think its feasible that Blizzard would let a game become pirated to this extent enough to challenge the purpose of even buying the game in the first place?
When ANYONE in this forum can tell me, hand on heart, that if it has LAN they wont have a 'wee play' with a pirated copy before the full game comes out, then you might have half a change of justifying yourselves.
And yet again with the "You want LAN therefore you are a pirate" accusation. Please read the thread.
On July 02 2009 05:55 sely wrote: I know about the spawn installations and Blizzard obviously doesn't feel that it is a viable feature anymore. People can come up with scenarios where they are on a LAN with no internet access all day, but the fact is that situation is very rare in this day and age. And the number of people who will not buy SC2 because of the absence of LAN is small and will have little affect on Blizzard's bottom line, so don't kid yourself. Games evolve, and as DRM goes this is a rather unobtrusive option.
And you know these situations are rare how? Just because you are fortunate enough to have internet readily available doesn't mean everybody is.
I understand there are plenty of people who do not have internet readily available, but if your computer is attached to others through a LAN and is new enough to be capable of running SC2, it most likely has some kind of internet access. You could have a LAN party in a barn and hook someone's cell phone up to a computer to authenticate with bnet and then play all you like.
Lol no offense but you don't go to many Lan parties and that is obvious. Having 10 or 20 people connected to the internet and ALL of them working without a problem is nothing short of a micracle. Especially if another computer wants on... oh god the ip conflicts and the router cache fuck ups.....
I don't need to go to LAN parties to understand how computer networks work. My point is that some people are assuming that when playing against their friends on LAN through bnet, every packet is going from their computer, to bnet, and back to their friends computer and there is no reason to assume this. Also, network problems can arise with or without and internet connection.
Yeah, but it still sucks that in order to play in a barn I have to hook up someones cellphone to a router for all of us to play one game of Starcraft II. Not to mention I dont know anyone with a cellphone plan that lets them use the internet cheaply. I guess we'll see just how they do it and how it works out in a couple of months.
On July 02 2009 05:55 sely wrote: I know about the spawn installations and Blizzard obviously doesn't feel that it is a viable feature anymore. People can come up with scenarios where they are on a LAN with no internet access all day, but the fact is that situation is very rare in this day and age. And the number of people who will not buy SC2 because of the absence of LAN is small and will have little affect on Blizzard's bottom line, so don't kid yourself. Games evolve, and as DRM goes this is a rather unobtrusive option.
And you know these situations are rare how? Just because you are fortunate enough to have internet readily available doesn't mean everybody is.
I understand there are plenty of people who do not have internet readily available, but if your computer is attached to others through a LAN and is new enough to be capable of running SC2, it most likely has some kind of internet access. You could have a LAN party in a barn and hook someone's cell phone up to a computer to authenticate with bnet and then play all you like.
Lol no offense but you don't go to many Lan parties and that is obvious. Having 10 or 20 people connected to the internet and ALL of them working without a problem is nothing short of a micracle. Especially if another computer wants on... oh god the ip conflicts and the router cache fuck ups.....
I don't need to go to LAN parties to understand how computer networks work. My point is that some people are assuming that when playing against their friends on LAN through bnet, every packet is going from their computer, to bnet, and back to their friends computer and there is no reason to assume this. Also, network problems can arise with or without and internet connection.
Yeah, but it still sucks that in order to play in a barn I have to hook up someones cellphone to a router for all of us to play one game of Starcraft II. Not to mention I dont know anyone with a cellphone plan that lets them use the internet cheaply. I guess we'll see just how they do it and how it works out in a couple of months.
Then don't play in a barn! For god sakes you don't see me complaining that I can't play SC underwater. It's like people feel like they can play SC anywhere despite the inconveniences.
Anyways I looked at the link to the Chinese blog which translated the OP. It seems that many Chinese netizens are pretty rascist. Lots of them were like lol the guy is Vietnamese, he's a hypocrite and his opinions are not valid. Is this common on Chinese forums? And how much would a legit copy of SC2 cost in yuan anyways?
On July 02 2009 05:55 sely wrote: I know about the spawn installations and Blizzard obviously doesn't feel that it is a viable feature anymore. People can come up with scenarios where they are on a LAN with no internet access all day, but the fact is that situation is very rare in this day and age. And the number of people who will not buy SC2 because of the absence of LAN is small and will have little affect on Blizzard's bottom line, so don't kid yourself. Games evolve, and as DRM goes this is a rather unobtrusive option.
And you know these situations are rare how? Just because you are fortunate enough to have internet readily available doesn't mean everybody is.
I understand there are plenty of people who do not have internet readily available, but if your computer is attached to others through a LAN and is new enough to be capable of running SC2, it most likely has some kind of internet access. You could have a LAN party in a barn and hook someone's cell phone up to a computer to authenticate with bnet and then play all you like.
Lol no offense but you don't go to many Lan parties and that is obvious. Having 10 or 20 people connected to the internet and ALL of them working without a problem is nothing short of a micracle. Especially if another computer wants on... oh god the ip conflicts and the router cache fuck ups.....
I don't need to go to LAN parties to understand how computer networks work. My point is that some people are assuming that when playing against their friends on LAN through bnet, every packet is going from their computer, to bnet, and back to their friends computer and there is no reason to assume this. Also, network problems can arise with or without and internet connection.
Yeah, but it still sucks that in order to play in a barn I have to hook up someones cellphone to a router for all of us to play one game of Starcraft II. Not to mention I dont know anyone with a cellphone plan that lets them use the internet cheaply. I guess we'll see just how they do it and how it works out in a couple of months.
Then don't play in a barn! For god sakes you don't see me complaining that I can't play SC underwater. It's like people feel like they can play SC anywhere despite the inconveniences.
Anyways I looked at the link to the Chinese blog which translated the OP. It seems that many Chinese netizens are pretty rascist. Lots of them were like lol the guy is Vietnamese, he's a hypocrite and his opinions are not valid. Is this common on Chinese forums? And how much would a legit copy of SC2 cost in yuan anyways?
I think there is some spite between the Chinese and Vietnamese due to the Sino-Vietnamese War and the border incidents in the 80`s (although I am honestly suprised any of it maintains to this day).
well, conflicts between Chinese and Vietnamese over territory sometimes still happen though.
I don't know how much a legit copy of SC2 costs in China but here in Vietnam a legit copy of any recent PC games is expensive for casual Vietnamese gamer.
Removing LAN play is stupid imo, as said before removing LAN would remove viable alternatives and hurts legit customers as well. Instead of removing LAN to "reduce piracy", Blizzard should focus on making Bnet2 rape so that people would actually have an incentive to buy the game to play on Battle.net. Take SC1 for example, there really is no incentive to buy the game because ICCUP > Bnet. If blizzard wants people to buy their games then they should give them more reasons to.
Ofc there will be plenty of people who are willing to buy the game just because it's a good game, but for the other cheapskates who pirate, you should offer them benefits that cannot be given on a pirated version.
On July 02 2009 05:37 Bebop Berserker wrote: Here is my counter argument: Stop bitching about pirating! I love how people are throwing numbers out like 90% of the game was pirated. There is no way to tell that unless you count downloads to copies bought.... which is still fucking wrong. Its a poor ass estimation.
No, it isn't. Just by looking at the number of seeds on a torrent and then a legitimate sales number you can see that most PC games have piracy rates of AT LEAST 15-20%, and way higher for casual games like Sims 3 or Spore.
Hope you didn't want to play at your grandmother's house or at schol in between class or anywhere without internet.
God, you're full of BS. You're going to play a starcraft match in a 10 minute period between classes? Or maybe the first thing you do at your grandmothers house is unpack your laptop and mousepad and tell her: hey I haven't seen you in a year, but wait, let me play a couple matches with my college buddies first. And btw, most grandparents are now tech savvy enough to have at least internet.
Why is it okay that Blizzard can take away Lan support to make money but wont ensure hacking stops?
Blizzard is much better than most, with the possible exception of Valve/steam at stopping hackers, maybe not in the 1997 battle.net, but I haven't seen many complaints about WC3 hacking so far, so they are doing something right.
I refuse to buy Blizzard's shitty games. Why don't you write a blog about it. I allow them to make WOW (the reason gaming sucks today) shove some high graphical mediocre stale game play to people. Good thing they didn't forget to ASK YOUR PERMISSION.
The "role" of a motherfucking business isn't to make money! its to serve the people!!!!! get your shit straight. The reason America has no customer service, the reason you have to sit on hold for three hours to fix a 2 minute electrical problem, the reason when I go to McDonalds and order tomatoes and I dont get any and they dont get my change right and then the dude at circuit city in electronics doesnt know what a Gigahertz is... its all because of THIS MENTALITY: Business are here to make money.
Well if you eat at McDonalds and shop for PC gear at Circuit City, that certainly explains a lot of things.
Wow. Good thing you made a useful comment and didnt just trash talk.
On July 02 2009 05:55 sely wrote: I know about the spawn installations and Blizzard obviously doesn't feel that it is a viable feature anymore. People can come up with scenarios where they are on a LAN with no internet access all day, but the fact is that situation is very rare in this day and age. And the number of people who will not buy SC2 because of the absence of LAN is small and will have little affect on Blizzard's bottom line, so don't kid yourself. Games evolve, and as DRM goes this is a rather unobtrusive option.
And you know these situations are rare how? Just because you are fortunate enough to have internet readily available doesn't mean everybody is.
I understand there are plenty of people who do not have internet readily available, but if your computer is attached to others through a LAN and is new enough to be capable of running SC2, it most likely has some kind of internet access. You could have a LAN party in a barn and hook someone's cell phone up to a computer to authenticate with bnet and then play all you like.
Lol no offense but you don't go to many Lan parties and that is obvious. Having 10 or 20 people connected to the internet and ALL of them working without a problem is nothing short of a micracle. Especially if another computer wants on... oh god the ip conflicts and the router cache fuck ups.....
I don't need to go to LAN parties to understand how computer networks work. My point is that some people are assuming that when playing against their friends on LAN through bnet, every packet is going from their computer, to bnet, and back to their friends computer and there is no reason to assume this. Also, network problems can arise with or without and internet connection.
Yeah, but it still sucks that in order to play in a barn I have to hook up someones cellphone to a router for all of us to play one game of Starcraft II. Not to mention I dont know anyone with a cellphone plan that lets them use the internet cheaply. I guess we'll see just how they do it and how it works out in a couple of months.
Then don't play in a barn! For god sakes you don't see me complaining that I can't play SC underwater. It's like people feel like they can play SC anywhere despite the inconveniences.
Anyways I looked at the link to the Chinese blog which translated the OP. It seems that many Chinese netizens are pretty rascist. Lots of them were like lol the guy is Vietnamese, he's a hypocrite and his opinions are not valid. Is this common on Chinese forums? And how much would a legit copy of SC2 cost in yuan anyways?
I think there is some spite between the Chinese and Vietnamese due to the Sino-Vietnamese War and the border incidents in the 80`s (although I am honestly suprised any of it maintains to this day).
Nah, Chinese netizens are like netizens everywhere - a fair number of immature douchebags, with the added problem that a lot of them have a major chip on their shoulder and make up for it with ultra-nationalist sentiments. They would say the same of anyone who wasn't Chinese.
Hell, even when a Chinese athlete like Yao Ming gets injured and can't compete, they go apeshit and insult him.
Didn't read through, so a lot of this might have already been said...
Blizzard claims to have removed LAN support because (1) doing so combats piracy and (2) they are "offering something better."
The second point first. If Blizzard is offering something that is really better, then users will use that better thing, not LAN. Why presume to make that choice for them?
I don't know the implementation details so I won't comment on possible problems with low bandwidth connections - these guys might be smarter than I think.
Now, about piracy. I'm sure that if it's easier to pirate a game than to buy a legitimate copy, there are many who will choose to pirate. I'm also sure that if it's easier to buy a legitimate copy, many of the previous group will then buy. Thus DRM was born.
But then, consider this reasoning. If a legitimate copy of a game is crippled in functionality or dotted with unavoidable ads (such as in B.net, which would actually become unavoidable for real SC2), and a pirated version is not, how many people will choose to pirate even if it's harder to do so?
No obvious choice, but that's my point - when there isn't such a clear gain, why piss off your customers?
Hope you didn't want to play at your grandmother's house or at schol in between class or anywhere without internet.
God, you're full of BS. You're going to play a starcraft match in a 10 minute period between classes?
Maybe he isn't. I don't know about playing in the 10-minute break between classes, but I played Starcraft through almost each lecture of a required but boring as hell class at my university during my last year.
On July 02 2009 06:08 Sadistx wrote: Or maybe the first thing you do at your grandmothers house is unpack your laptop and mousepad and tell her: hey I haven't seen you in a year, but wait, let me play a couple matches with my college buddies first. And btw, most grandparents are now tech savvy enough to have at least internet.
Well, when I was a child I spent my summer vacations (2-3 months) at my grandparents and I can assure you, even if I could convince them to buy a Internet connection for me, that wasn't (and is still not) possible (because of their location).
Don't discard situations as absurd just because you haven't experienced them.
However you spin this, having less options (only bnet) can't be better than having more options. For some people it is the deciding factor whether they buy the game or not. Even if it's only 1% of lost sales, make an effort to imagine the frustration of those ppl in that 1% category.
Also, there's maybe another 0.1% of ppl like me that make (the irrational) decision not to buy the game out of spite when they hear LAN is removed due to "piracy concerns". I hate companies screwing their customers and I own very few games (all without DRM or other signs of customer-screwing tactics).
I hate to see Lan-function go, but hey. I am going to buy SC2 nonetheless, However to fix the lan-party problem just make sure you have two Starcraft 2 installs, one with lan-support (and leechable so others can play with me as well.... :|) and your own -legit- one.
Lan>Internet always! In term off ping, packetloss and setting up.
1. I could host more than three people on the b.net 2.0 at home without it lagging for others. 2. Trying to connect to other people isn't a pain like it is in BW ("Latency too high" errors).
I run a DSL connection too (zomg broadband), so that can't be the problem. *rolls eyes*
I guess the removal of LAN was due to piracy reasons as well. Lots of software emulating LAN to play over the internet. Did not know about Haofang. That was an interesting read.
Didn't read all the replies so I apologize if I'm just mentioning what others have already mentioned...
Blizzard's supposed position (as said by the OP) makes two assumptions... or at least faces two problems:
1. China will actually play SC2 on a large scale if LAN capabilities, along with Haofang, are eliminated. (obvious affordability and substitution issues)
2. LAN capabilities will not be created by some third party anyway.
If what the OP is saying is true (Blizzard's reason for eliminating LAN), I think this is a mistake by Blizzard. The decision alienates certain fans and weakens the community. I think in the long run Blizzard will be worse off.
On July 01 2009 03:30 Klogon wrote: It'll probably work like Steam. You authenticate your version with the main server, and as long as you are connected to that, you're allowed to play on LAN.
Not really on topic but still slightly related to the no lan issue: anyone knows if there will be off-line mode? Like I know you need internet to play bnet2.0 (duh!) but will you be able to load sc2 without an internet connection and still manage to see replays/play vs AI, etc?
On July 07 2009 00:29 WeSt wrote: Not really on topic but still slightly related to the no lan issue: anyone knows if there will be off-line mode? Like I know you need internet to play bnet2.0 (duh!) but will you be able to load sc2 without an internet connection and still manage to see replays/play vs AI, etc?
they said no lan not no off line single player >< so ofcourse you will be able to play off line.
On July 07 2009 00:29 WeSt wrote: Not really on topic but still slightly related to the no lan issue: anyone knows if there will be off-line mode? Like I know you need internet to play bnet2.0 (duh!) but will you be able to load sc2 without an internet connection and still manage to see replays/play vs AI, etc?
they said no lan not no off line single player >< so ofcourse you will be able to play off line.
I honestly admit, that at this point. I'm not 100% sure :S
In Street Fighter 4 single player is severely limited if you play offline. You do can play arcade mode offline. But you lose features such as unlocking new characters, you lose those if you close the game. Those are saved on your online profile, which you won't have access to if you play offline.
I definitely do not doubt Blizzard going the same road and only allow you to progress in the campaign if you authenticate your CD-Key on bnet.
I just remembered something.... I really enjoyed in playing LAN mode (even when playing by myself) in WC3/TFT (don't remember if this was in SC/BW) for one reason - no automatic pausing when alt-tabbed or clicking outside the window in windowed mode. Gah, that was annoying.
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.
1) Have you ever ran a LAN party of 15+ people?
2) Have you ever lived in a college dorm?
3) Have you ever lived somewhere with unreliable internet with friends/family who game too?
4) Have you ever been to a 500+ person LAN party?
You think the people who can organize a 500 person lan party doesn't have the ingenuity or brains to freaking secure internet for the area too, wth is up with that logic it's like saying a can design a table but i don't know how to put it together.
On July 01 2009 03:30 Klogon wrote: It'll probably work like Steam. You authenticate your version with the main server, and as long as you are connected to that, you're allowed to play on LAN.
You have to authenticate your steam account one time online then you can switch to offline mode if you want to. But without authentication you wouldnt be able to play cs offline. I guess they plan kinda the same thing yes.
On July 01 2009 03:30 Klogon wrote: It'll probably work like Steam. You authenticate your version with the main server, and as long as you are connected to that, you're allowed to play on LAN.
You have to authenticate your steam account one time online then you can switch to offline mode if you want to. But without authentication you wouldnt be able to play cs offline. I guess they plan kinda the same thing yes.
Steam is easy to crack so I doubt it, also that would be LAN, so they would most likely phase themselves differently.
Hm Steam is easy to crack? For offline Podbot play its easy but online you can only play these crappy russian cracked servers and cant play on the real servers. But im not really into this cracking stuff so maybe things developed since the last time i heard about cracked steam versions
On July 07 2009 04:56 wiesel wrote: Hm Steam is easy to crack? For offline Podbot play its easy but online you can only play these crappy russian cracked servers and cant play on the real servers.
I was talking about cracked LAN. CS has LAN programmed, SC2 will not have it.
The topic about the petition for LAN support in SC2 has been closed by a mod, though I've read on Starfeeder that over 64000 users took part in this petition, and I think this is amazing
On July 15 2009 23:54 AdunToridas wrote: The topic about the petition for LAN support in SC2 has been closed by a mod, though I've read on Starfeeder that over 64000 users took part in this petition, and I think this is amazing
edit: Starfeeder says 55k but meanwhile it's around 64k..
I just read that mini-article, man i really hope that petition gets them to put LAN back in SC2, that would make me a very happy person. Laptops can still feasibly connect through LAN :D
On July 07 2009 00:29 WeSt wrote: Not really on topic but still slightly related to the no lan issue: anyone knows if there will be off-line mode? Like I know you need internet to play bnet2.0 (duh!) but will you be able to load sc2 without an internet connection and still manage to see replays/play vs AI, etc?
they said no lan not no off line single player >< so ofcourse you will be able to play off line.
I honestly admit, that at this point. I'm not 100% sure :S
In Street Fighter 4 single player is severely limited if you play offline. You do can play arcade mode offline. But you lose features such as unlocking new characters, you lose those if you close the game. Those are saved on your online profile, which you won't have access to if you play offline.
I definitely do not doubt Blizzard going the same road and only allow you to progress in the campaign if you authenticate your CD-Key on bnet.
uhh...
no.
You can create an offline profile, and it will save all the unlock etc.
On July 16 2009 22:06 Kennigit wrote: 64,000 people look like fucking idiots.
There was a typo in your post, here I fixed it.
Anyway, a connection between two computers always go through the smallest amount of hops possible. So a game where all players are connected locally will be pretty much be LAN.
One thing worth mentioning is the potential loss of new players. I know the single most common way I've introduced people to SC is through giving a friend a (hush!) pirated copy of SC, showing them how cool of a game it is in LAN games, and if they catch the bug, they buy their own copy because, playing LAN against the same opponent gets old fast. It'll be tougher to introduce new people if you always have to find someone else's computer/game to play on.
this Haofang thing sound like it works similar to GG Client. if GGC is legal i m sure Haofang is too.
i really doubt blizzard is gonna be successful with this move. its too ez to build a bnet emulator. just have it run in the background (like warden) and highjack the packets and redirect them to another server of your choice. this is essentially what GGC with LAN anyways.
Having never played WoW, I'm going to just assume I'm missing something, because otherwise it sounds like there's a monthly fee for battle.net in SC2, and that's fucking ridiculous.
Anyway, I'm rather scared by the fact that they're specifically saying they won't include LAN support. Yes, they say they have a feature which will replace it, but...you'd think they'd have the good sense to still refer to it as LAN if it was LAN, even if it was LAN a la Steam.
Assuming they do include something of the sort...I hope one will still be able to play without an internet connection. Apparently my gaming experience is different from a lot of other peoples', but I do a lot of gaming via ad hoc wireless networks in areas where either there's no internet to be had, or the ports required to do anything like connect to Battle.net are blocked (university networks). If that was no longer possible in SC2, I'd say roughly 40% of the multiplayer gaming I do would be, by definition, not done in SC2.
Hopefully Blizzard will figure out a way they can protect The Bottom Line without compromising our ability to enjoy their game.
On July 17 2009 23:54 CaptainPlatypus wrote: Anyway, I'm rather scared by the fact that they're specifically saying they won't include LAN support. Yes, they say they have a feature which will replace it, but...you'd think they'd have the good sense to still refer to it as LAN if it was LAN, even if it was LAN a la Steam.
Assuming they do include something of the sort...I hope one will still be able to play without an internet connection. Apparently my gaming experience is different from a lot of other peoples', but I do a lot of gaming via ad hoc wireless networks in areas where either there's no internet to be had, or the ports required to do anything like connect to Battle.net are blocked (university networks). If that was no longer possible in SC2, I'd say roughly 40% of the multiplayer gaming I do would be, by definition, not done in SC2.
On July 17 2009 22:06 Kennigit wrote: 64,000 people are about to look like fucking idiots.
You sure about that? I have a feeling Blizzard is about to look like fucking idiots to all the college kids whose firewalls block access to Bnet. But hey, I hope I'm wrong.
Having never played WoW, I'm going to just assume I'm missing something, because otherwise it sounds like there's a monthly fee for battle.net in SC2, and that's fucking ridiculous.
Anyway, I'm rather scared by the fact that they're specifically saying they won't include LAN support. Yes, they say they have a feature which will replace it, but...you'd think they'd have the good sense to still refer to it as LAN if it was LAN, even if it was LAN a la Steam.
Assuming they do include something of the sort...I hope one will still be able to play without an internet connection. Apparently my gaming experience is different from a lot of other peoples', but I do a lot of gaming via ad hoc wireless networks in areas where either there's no internet to be had, or the ports required to do anything like connect to Battle.net are blocked (university networks). If that was no longer possible in SC2, I'd say roughly 40% of the multiplayer gaming I do would be, by definition, not done in SC2.
Hopefully Blizzard will figure out a way they can protect The Bottom Line without compromising our ability to enjoy their game.
Battle.net will be free for automated matchmaking and custom games
On July 17 2009 09:02 Aboud wrote: One thing worth mentioning is the potential loss of new players. I know the single most common way I've introduced people to SC is through giving a friend a (hush!) pirated copy of SC, showing them how cool of a game it is in LAN games, and if they catch the bug, they buy their own copy because, playing LAN against the same opponent gets old fast. It'll be tougher to introduce new people if you always have to find someone else's computer/game to play on.
This is a good point but I think what will happen is a few months after release there will probably be a trail version that people can play the game on battle.net 2.0 only and their account will last for like two weeks, giving new players the option of getting sucked into the game and then having to buy it.
Chinese people won't buy SC2 since their parents won't let them/too cheap to buy it. I'm serious about this.
Also, no doubt that sc2 will be on torrents within hours of being released btw.
Doesn't matter because there's going to always be a way for private servers to be run. I bet there's an experienced hacker out there that's willing to hex edit some files to let SC2 connect to an IP, then packet sniff and suddenly you got another PvPGN.
On July 20 2009 19:14 dhe95 wrote: Chinese people won't buy SC2 since their parents won't let them/too cheap to buy it. I'm serious about this.
...
Doesn't matter because there's going to always be a way for private servers to be run. I bet there's an experienced hacker out there that's willing to hex edit some files to let SC2 connect to an IP, then packet sniff and suddenly you got another PvPGN.
Yes, but apart from the ability to pirate the game, why would you want to? Playing is free, theres features galore, a private server would still require logon to play LAN (it would just be a logon to the private server instead of b.net)... What would you gain from doing it?
This is the point that blizzard is trying to make with b.net 2.0. If they can make b.net good enough, what possible reason will you have to use a pirate server, except to play a pirate copy of the game? Why did people play iccup? (With the exception of piracy...) 1 reason. They could play at 'LAN latency'. Do you expect b.net 2.0 to have this flaw? Clearly it wont. Net coding has improved in the last 10 years.
Piracy is terrible and I hope to hell blizzard delivers such a good product in b.net 2.0 that the only reason to play on a pirate server is piracy. Because then I won't have to play with those kinds of people. I have no problem with iccup because it IS a superior product to battle.net. Blizzard could have quite easily seen that iccup had worked out how to produce LAN latency and incorporated it into battle.net, but they didn't. And that is their own mistake, and why iccup is still so popular.
If there is another reason to play on a pirate server that I have not considered here please tell me, so I can remove my bias on the subject
edit: Oh and the 'I am poor so I'll pirate it' argument is crap. I can't afford a BMW, and you don't see me jacking one.
On July 20 2009 19:14 dhe95 wrote: Chinese people won't buy SC2 since their parents won't let them/too cheap to buy it. I'm serious about this.
Also, no doubt that sc2 will be on torrents within hours of being released btw.
Doesn't matter because there's going to always be a way for private servers to be run. I bet there's an experienced hacker out there that's willing to hex edit some files to let SC2 connect to an IP, then packet sniff and suddenly you got another PvPGN.
I'm not sure if you will be paying for the actual SC2 disc in China. Rob Pardo stated a month ago that BattleNet 2 was going to be free to play in Europe and North America, but he didn't say anything about Asia.
They might be charging SC2 per hour in China instead, something most Chinese gamers are used to, and can better afford than paying one big lump sum.
Doesn't matter because there's going to always be a way for private servers to be run. I bet there's an experienced hacker out there that's willing to hex edit some files to let SC2 connect to an IP, then packet sniff and suddenly you got another PvPGN.
Yes, but apart from the ability to pirate the game, why would you want to? Playing is free, theres features galore, a private server would still require logon to play LAN (it would just be a logon to the private server instead of b.net)... What would you gain from doing it?
This is the point that blizzard is trying to make with b.net 2.0. If they can make b.net good enough, what possible reason will you have to use a pirate server, except to play a pirate copy of the game? Why did people play iccup? (With the exception of piracy...) 1 reason. They could play at 'LAN latency'. Do you expect b.net 2.0 to have this flaw? Clearly it wont. Net coding has improved in the last 10 years.
Piracy is terrible and I hope to hell blizzard delivers such a good product in b.net 2.0 that the only reason to play on a pirate server is piracy. Because then I won't have to play with those kinds of people. I have no problem with iccup because it IS a superior product to battle.net. Blizzard could have quite easily seen that iccup had worked out how to produce LAN latency and incorporated it into battle.net, but they didn't. And that is their own mistake, and why iccup is still so popular.
If there is another reason to play on a pirate server that I have not considered here please tell me, so I can remove my bias on the subject
edit: Oh and the 'I am poor so I'll pirate it' argument is crap. I can't afford a BMW, and you don't see me jacking one.
Chances are you jacking a BMW has more repercussions than stealing a video game since you know, basically nothing happens when you steal a game these days online, but if you steal a car......
On July 20 2009 19:14 dhe95 wrote: Chinese people won't buy SC2 since their parents won't let them/too cheap to buy it. I'm serious about this.
...
Doesn't matter because there's going to always be a way for private servers to be run. I bet there's an experienced hacker out there that's willing to hex edit some files to let SC2 connect to an IP, then packet sniff and suddenly you got another PvPGN.
Yes, but apart from the ability to pirate the game, why would you want to? Playing is free, theres features galore, a private server would still require logon to play LAN (it would just be a logon to the private server instead of b.net)... What would you gain from doing it?
This is the point that blizzard is trying to make with b.net 2.0. If they can make b.net good enough, what possible reason will you have to use a pirate server, except to play a pirate copy of the game? Why did people play iccup? (With the exception of piracy...) 1 reason. They could play at 'LAN latency'. Do you expect b.net 2.0 to have this flaw? Clearly it wont. Net coding has improved in the last 10 years.
Piracy is terrible and I hope to hell blizzard delivers such a good product in b.net 2.0 that the only reason to play on a pirate server is piracy. Because then I won't have to play with those kinds of people. I have no problem with iccup because it IS a superior product to battle.net. Blizzard could have quite easily seen that iccup had worked out how to produce LAN latency and incorporated it into battle.net, but they didn't. And that is their own mistake, and why iccup is still so popular.
If there is another reason to play on a pirate server that I have not considered here please tell me, so I can remove my bias on the subject
edit: Oh and the 'I am poor so I'll pirate it' argument is crap. I can't afford a BMW, and you don't see me jacking one.
Chances are you jacking a BMW has more repercussions than stealing a video game since you know, basically nothing happens when you steal a game these days online, but if you steal a car......
Just because you don't get caught as easily, doesn't make stealing games morally acceptable when stealing anything else isn't. It's also still technically illegal.
Doesn't matter because there's going to always be a way for private servers to be run. I bet there's an experienced hacker out there that's willing to hex edit some files to let SC2 connect to an IP, then packet sniff and suddenly you got another PvPGN.
Yes, but apart from the ability to pirate the game, why would you want to? Playing is free, theres features galore, a private server would still require logon to play LAN (it would just be a logon to the private server instead of b.net)... What would you gain from doing it?
This is the point that blizzard is trying to make with b.net 2.0. If they can make b.net good enough, what possible reason will you have to use a pirate server, except to play a pirate copy of the game? Why did people play iccup? (With the exception of piracy...) 1 reason. They could play at 'LAN latency'. Do you expect b.net 2.0 to have this flaw? Clearly it wont. Net coding has improved in the last 10 years.
Piracy is terrible and I hope to hell blizzard delivers such a good product in b.net 2.0 that the only reason to play on a pirate server is piracy. Because then I won't have to play with those kinds of people. I have no problem with iccup because it IS a superior product to battle.net. Blizzard could have quite easily seen that iccup had worked out how to produce LAN latency and incorporated it into battle.net, but they didn't. And that is their own mistake, and why iccup is still so popular.
If there is another reason to play on a pirate server that I have not considered here please tell me, so I can remove my bias on the subject
edit: Oh and the 'I am poor so I'll pirate it' argument is crap. I can't afford a BMW, and you don't see me jacking one.
Exactly. It is ridiculously easy to play on a private server on WoW. It's a matter of editing a single file. You can play WoW for free instead of 15$ a month. Yet people don't do it. Why? Because Blizzard's service is that much better. Same thing will happen in Bnet 2.0.
I dont understand what is the difference between this haofang and a pirated server. Of course, technically they could sue a pirated server, but they failed to kill ICCUP, so how thay can kill a similar community? Of course ICCUP is not prepared to be playable by 5 million players, but it does not die with 5000 logged in, right?
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?
The average players are probably as crappy as everywhere else.
I think Blizzard, while it does have a great sc2 department that is trying to care for gamers, is starting to care more about its profit margins and less about its customers. They associate LAN with piracy, so they remove it, regardless of the effect it will have on game quality.
Forgive me for not being up to date on this LAN situation, but what happens to countries that aren't near any Blizzard servers (almost all of them)? They can't take part in eSports for this title because practicing in 200+ ping is unrealistic?
EPT
Though that still leaves the problem of getting all the computers on the internet, which could be a bitch especially if you have many participants. Seems like even broadband would have some issues with net traffic in and out from 8 people playing a game at once, so here's hoping Blizz works some miracles with net coding... and now this is all speculation anyway so maybe it's time to start waiting for details lol.
Oh well.
![[image loading]](http://www.firesafetraining.com/images/FireExtinguisher1.png)
