backtop


Print 194 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Jul 8 at 8:47 AM

Blizzard cites piracy as one of the reasons to nix LAN support

With the upcoming release of Valve's Left 4 Dead 2 still causing some gamers to froth at the mouth, the latest announcement from another of gaming's darling developers Blizzard is sure to cause a fresh batch to bubble forth. After enduring the ire of loyal fans by splitting the sequel into a trilogy, Blizzard dropped the second proverbial Terran Nuke when it announced StarCraft II will not support LAN play, with multiplayer being exclusive to Blizzard's updated Battle.net service.

"We don't have any plans to support LAN," VP of game design Rob Pardo told IncGamers in an interview Sunday. This was later confirmed with a statement from Blizzard PR rep Bob Colayco:

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. 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. We’re looking forward to sharing more details about Battle.net and online functionality for StarCraft II in the near future.

Users of pirated copies of games will often utilize LAN-over-VPN programs or services, such as Hamachi, in order to form ad-hoc gaming communities. By removing the ability for LAN play, Blizzard hopes to nip this in the bud and bring more gamers to their revamped Battle.net service.

Thankfully, the rumors about Battle.net becoming a paid service are untrue for the moment; at least if you live in North America or the European Union. Pardo hinted that due to Asia being "a little different how they do things" some features might require microtransactions, similar to the ability to pay additional money to transfer servers in World of Warcraft.

StarCraft II is currently scheduled for a late-2009 release; as long as "it is ready."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Complete and total BS
By bighairycamel on 7/1/2009 10:00:33 AM , Rating: 5
Damnit, this is completely stupid. The LAN-over-VPN community is so miniscule, this is just greed, plain and simple.

If I want to install a game on 2 of my PCs at home and use them to play LAN games with family members this is completely within my rights. They're just using Battle.net to milk as much profit from this cash cow as possible. It's getting ridiculous when you have to buy 2 copies just to play a game with your brother. Pricks.




RE: Complete and total BS
By mofo3k on 7/1/2009 10:10:07 AM , Rating: 3
Actually it's not within your rights. That is called software piracy. You're supposed to pay for 2 copies of the game if you're gonna install it on 2 pc's. Unless it's a game like WOW where you pay for the account to play online, but even then you can't use that same account on another pc at the same time.

I wish it were the way you want to use it but lets be honest, piracy is killing the pc game market.


RE: Complete and total BS
By theslug on 7/1/2009 10:21:46 AM , Rating: 5
Not necessarily. For SC1, you could spawn a copy of the game on another computer for free, as long as it was used for LAN play.


RE: Complete and total BS
By mofo3k on 7/1/2009 10:26:58 AM , Rating: 4
True, but it's "Within Blizzard's Rights" not to allow you to do that this time. That was my whole point. I'm all for a cheaper game experience, but if the publisher/developer doesn't allow it, then it's not "within your rights" to do it.

There aren't many games that let you do that anymore and SC1 was released like 11 years ago when the internet and software piracy were not as big as they are now.


RE: Complete and total BS
By mofo3k on 7/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Complete and total BS
By ockky on 7/1/2009 12:32:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There aren't many games that let you do that anymore and SC1 was released like 11 years ago


Actually, Demigod allows this, and it just came out a little over two months ago...


RE: Complete and total BS
By kwisatzCA on 7/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Complete and total BS
By Hyperion1400 on 7/1/2009 2:12:52 PM , Rating: 3
RTF Copyright Act of 1976!


RE: Complete and total BS
By kwisatzCA on 7/1/2009 5:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
That too!!! Neither of which gives license or "rights" to do as he states he wants.


RE: Complete and total BS
By TheEinstein on 7/6/2009 9:50:23 AM , Rating: 3
In 2000 to 2001 I studied the online file sharing 'phenomenon' in depth. I did this as an outside security expert expanding his knowledge into the realm of computer security to enhance my forthcoming book on security, and as to further increase the realm of security related knowledge I have. I studied industry quotes on the problem, and involved myself in the various communities. I tracked servers and services, I tracked total seeders, bandwidth capabilities, I tracked different trends and time availabilities. As a statistics hobbyist (now into theory) I was able to identify a higher bound by far than what the 'industry' quoted so frequently.

The issue is much larger, in my opinion, than anyone realizes. This includes the fact that accounting for hand made copies increases the total numbers, but by an unknown factor. I do believe this is why many software makers are going only to platforms if they can, and refer to the PC market as extra change. Notice also the direct and huge reduction in name brand top quality pc games. I used to be able to buy one of a dozen any given month. Now I might find one in a given month. The models are changing due to the huge criminal market for stealing, copying, and never paying... We now have thinned the best games to two choices in the PC market... top line video card versions, which reduces the total thefts to those who can afford already big purchases, and the online gaming side.

Game makers could easily make a quality game with less intense requirements, but they would see a mere fraction of the revenue, and never would they pay off the costs of making the game.

Blizzards choice is a part of the natural progression for the few remaining top quality games which do not have intense system requirements. This is due to the utter collapse of the dividends for games of quality which are peer to peer bait.


RE: Complete and total BS
By bighairycamel on 7/1/2009 10:21:49 AM , Rating: 2
Totally wrong. It is within my rights according to fair use to install a game I purchase on any of my PCs. Why else do you think Steam lets you install the game more than once? Or why PSN lets you download games on up to 5 systems? So they can support fair use.

While having a second player use the other PC is a gray area, no one is going to sue me over it. And when that second player is a family member who lives in the same house and uses my PC with permission, it leans more towards fair use than piracy.


RE: Complete and total BS
By mofo3k on 7/1/2009 10:41:34 AM , Rating: 2
It's fair use if you have it installed on 1 pc, then uninstall it and reinstall on a different pc. It's piracy when you have it running on 2 pc's at once. Unless the game developer/publisher allow for it. Try activating the same copy of Windows on 2 pc's and claim "fair use". I don't think there has been a fair use precedence set for this type of scenario quite yet. Plus I don't think that Steam lets you play online with the same account on multiple pc's signed in.

I don't know about wanting to test the legality over the use of the same game on multiple pc's, but I'll let you fight the battle for all of us.


RE: Complete and total BS
By bighairycamel on 7/1/2009 11:29:48 AM , Rating: 5
§ 117 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

-States you can make "copies" of any software you own, and precedent shows that you can install the software on another PC that you own as a "copy" and precdent even allows for installs on a "portable PC" so if it came down to it the precident could apply to desktops. The starcraft EULA states that you can't make any copies, which is void according to the copyright act.

Like I said, having a second user play the game on PC2 is a piracy gray area, but the act of installing it is not.


RE: Complete and total BS
By mofo3k on 7/1/2009 11:47:07 AM , Rating: 1
Source: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

"(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."

It doesn't say your brother can play at the same time. While that particular point in the EULA might be void, I don't see where it says you can install it on multiple pc's just to have it there.

And since you keep pressing the point:

quote:
having a second user play the game on PC2 is a piracy gray area


It's not a gray area, it's illegal. Deal with it. Whether to prosecute or not might be a fiscal gray area though.


RE: Complete and total BS
By geddarkstorm on 7/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Complete and total BS
By mofo3k on 7/1/2009 2:12:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Archiving means in the first place to "install"


An Archive in Computer Science
A long-term storage area, often on magnetic tape, for backup copies of files or for files that are no longer in active use.

I think that in this reference, installing and using it on 2 pc's is not archiving. If you just copy the disc, and keep either the copy or original in a safe place, then you are archving.

PS - I love how there are so many downrated posts with seemingly level headed responses on this page.


RE: Complete and total BS
By ClownPuncher on 7/1/2009 2:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
The people have voted.


RE: Complete and total BS
By mofo3k on 7/1/2009 2:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
Arrr, yes they have.

Look I'm not trying to say that piracy is going away, and I'm not saying that I won't pirate anything in the future. I'm just saying that maybe we shouldn't pretend that what we're doing is justified or right.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that someone will come out with a crack or mod that allows you to emulate BN servers or add lan play in some other way anyway. But what really speaks volumes is money. If the first or second version of SC2 don't do well because gamers refuse to buy it until they add lan support, then guess what. They'll add it in.


RE: Complete and total BS
By ClownPuncher on 7/1/2009 3:02:16 PM , Rating: 5
SC1 was a huge hit for LAN parties, despite the crap people say, LAN parties are still happening every day. Part of the draw of a LAN party is the social aspect of it, no lag, starting clans, and showing off your hardware. Not to mention mod crews forming, modelers for CS:S weapons etc. Alot of these people meet at LAN parties still.

I have no reason to doubt that SC2 would be anything but a huge boon to people that enjoy LAN parties, if it were allowed.

Part of the problem is that there haven't been many hardcore RTS style games recently with the following that SC1 had and still has. They are either fun but taxing on the hardware (WiC anyone?) or just not fun at all.

In effect, Blizzard is cutting out the more hardcore players by dumbing down content (WoW) and eliminating LAN play. Don't assume that since there are 40 people at a LAN party, that any of them are "pirating", the ones I have been too pretty much everyone owned their own copy of the game.


RE: Complete and total BS
By Alexstarfire on 7/1/2009 4:02:16 PM , Rating: 4
Look, I don't see why the hell people are getting so F'in upset over this. As mofo3k clearly pointed out running two copies of the same program on different computers is illegal. It was great when SC1 allowed you to use a "spawn" to play LAN games, but let's go take a look back in 1998. Many, MANY people back then didn't even have internet, let alone anything faster than dial-up 99% of the time.

Fast forward to today where easily 90+% of the people have internet, even if many are still on dial-up, I just don't see why they'd need a LAN option and "spawns." Might as well complain you can't do serial connections for multiplayer as well not being able to just type in there IP. Things change. If people still want to have a "LAN" party with this game it's not like they can't just connect to battle.net anyway. The whole point of a LAN party wasn't the method of connection, it was the fact that you were actually sitting next to the people you were playing against. That isn't going to change.

I can only see people complaining about this because they don't want to get all 3 sections of the game. Though considering how some of these online games get hacked I don't see it being a problem for those who really want it.

I also suppose many of you have never been to an internet cafe in Taiwan or China either. They have tons of cracked games to play and for games like SC and WC3 there are several non-Blizzard servers to play on so you can play with any pirated copy of the game.


RE: Complete and total BS
By ClownPuncher on 7/1/2009 6:01:06 PM , Rating: 4
So you're saying if we want to play LAN style, either stfu or go to Taiwan? Nice business model.

If you've never lived in a dorm, had roomates, or enjoyed LAN parties them I am sure this option is worthless. But since millions of people DO play games this way, why cut them out? I don't care if you can't "spawn" copies anymore, require everyone to use an original cd and verify the cd key when you install. Sure people will use cracks, but bnet isn't going to stop that either, especially with emulator servers.

Sure, we can log on bnet and play with the guy sitting next to us with a super high ping, but why when we really shouldn't need to?

So, if it isn't about piracy, and it isn't about pay-to-play...what was the point of cutting out a multiplayer option that people DO still use?

Why are you so upset that people are upset with Blizzard for cutting out part of a game that has been a staple for years?


RE: Complete and total BS
By Alexstarfire on 7/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Complete and total BS
By r31nismoid on 7/2/2009 4:44:05 AM , Rating: 5
Question is mate - have you?

I play daily on Battle.net. I've been playing on this server for roughly 8 years, average 20hrs per week as im often oncall (IT) so i need something to do while im waiting for call backs... So i speak from great experience.

I use the USWest Server for Warcraft III TFT expansion.
Its the ONLY option i have as a gamer from Australia... same as the many 10,000's of other Australians.

Pings at their best for AUS are 180-200ms , vs the average US players ping if around 20-30ms .
Battle.net regularly spikes.
Battle.net regularly looses connection.
Battle.net regularly times out when loading games/search errors and so on.

I would see one error roughly every 50-70 games. Considering your average game length is 10-12mins thats a lockup once every 9-10hrs which is pretty pathetic in my view. Sometimes its worse than others and will occur 3-4 times in a 4hr period and then suddenly "Battle.net is going down for maintainence"

Its certainly not my internet connection as i have the best money can buy for ADSL2+ in this country...
I also play on via Steam regularly using Australian servers, various games. I have not had one single drop out issue like i get with Battle.net

Also what Blizzard have forgotten about (and lots of other people here) are the large Tournaments played via LAN's in Europe/America/Asia.
Look at some of the professional players making over $100,000/year+++.
They are not playing via Battle.net are they?
These big tournaments attract massive attention so they wouldn't be using illegitimate copies for a start.

LAN has its place - Simple as that.

However its very very much a massive greed-grab here once again by Blizzard. They are trying to bring all these Tournaments run by other companies making big $$$ back into their own pockets first and foremost.

WoW was the start of it all, SC2 will continue it and only make it worse.


RE: Complete and total BS
By mofo3k on 7/1/2009 11:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
When did I say that? I understand and personally would rather that they include this in the game. I hope that they at least include this option in the 2nd or 3rd chapters of SC2. I'm sure they'll here a lot of backlash from it's omission in the first one.


RE: Complete and total BS
By MRwizard on 7/2/2009 6:10:45 AM , Rating: 4
why? because i now have to conect to the internet and PAY FOR MY USAGE.im in a 3rd world coutry, and i have a limited amount of hours on the net. now i cant have a 1v1 with my gf whenever i feel like it. this seriously upset me, i have JUST cancelled my pre-order, and i'm pretty sure my gf too will be after this news.
thank you blizzard for restoring my faith in you. i will never buy another game from you ever again


RE: Complete and total BS
By andylawcc on 7/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Complete and total BS
By ClownPuncher on 7/1/2009 5:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
No.


RE: Complete and total BS
By BZDTemp on 7/1/2009 6:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
More like those which seek every excuse to not pay their way in life have voted. Everyone know an archive is a place for storage not a place for use. Installing is installing not something else.

With the brains voting in this place getting voted down is actually a compliment.


RE: Complete and total BS
By lco45 on 7/1/2009 10:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
And man are they dumb...

Luke


RE: Complete and total BS
By Ratinator on 7/2/2009 11:45:32 AM , Rating: 1
archive <> install
archive != install


RE: Complete and total BS
By andylawcc on 7/1/2009 3:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
what's the point of installing it (the legal part) and not run/play it by the second party (the illegal part)?


RE: Complete and total BS
By Alexstarfire on 7/1/2009 4:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
Just assuming here, but perhaps it's so that the rightful user of the program can use the program on that computer. Anyway, installing it is technically illegal too.


RE: Complete and total BS
By MrDiSante on 7/1/2009 11:49:35 AM , Rating: 3
I'm very unhappy with this as well, and not because I use multiple copies of the game accross multiple computers (ally of my friends have their own copies), but because sometimes it's nice to bypass Battlenet due to latency or internet issues.

For instance, a friend of mine gets dropped from Battlenet seemingly at random for some reason or other (this doesn't happen with any other game). What do we do? We VPN and play Starcraft/WCIII.

Or alternatively if we feel like having a LAN-party (which admittedly is happening less and less often, but sometimes it does), most of our internet connections introduce enough lag to be nigh-unplayable if there are 8 of us on the same line.

Yeah, generally speaking it's not such a great big deal to do this and Blizzard may think that it'll help with piracy, but it does show a new hostile attitude towards Blizzard's loyal fanbase. As for helping piracy - it won't. I can always go ahead and download bnetd or pvpgn or somesuch if I'm hell-bent on piracy. Long story short, I think this move does a lot more damage to the Blizzard-gamer relations than it will bring added (if any) profit to Blizzard.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/3/2009 9:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For instance, a friend of mine gets dropped from Battlenet seemingly at random for some reason or other (this doesn't happen with any other game). What do we do? We VPN and play Starcraft/WCIII.

I had this problem once upon a time, what you need to do is open a port on your router for both TCP and UDP traffic and tell WC3 to use that port in the options page. If you only allow TCP packets then this weird seemingly random Battle.net disconnect happens (I experienced it mostly in DOTA games rather than ladder).


RE: Complete and total BS
By jbourne77 on 7/1/2009 10:54:21 AM , Rating: 4
bighairycamel, you are very confused. You are entitled to make one back-up of your game, and for BACK-UP PURPOSES ONLY. In some cases, you're even allowed to install it on multiple PC's, but the caveat is that YOU must be the user of the software, regardless of which PC it's executing on. There's no "my brother is playing it on the other PC" clause in any EULA or in any law that could override the EULA.

You have no rights afforded to you BY LAW that inherently allow you to buy one copy to be used by two people simultaneously. The EULA forbids this, and no applicable laws override this part of the EULA.

Just because you're outraged doesn't mean you're right or entitled to XYZ. Just because you were permitted to do this over a decade ago doesn't mean you're right or entitled to XYZ.


RE: Complete and total BS
By kamel5547 on 7/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Complete and total BS
By Smilin on 7/1/2009 11:33:13 AM , Rating: 2
Steam allows you to install on more than one machine at a time but it does not allow you to PLAY on more than one machine at a time.

Also, having a second player use your other PC is NOT a gray area...it's piracy.

Suck it up dude.


RE: Complete and total BS
By Targon on 7/2/2009 2:54:54 AM , Rating: 2
Fair rights states that you may install it on as many computers at one time, but you may only play it on one computer at a time per paid/licensed copy. So, install the game on all your computers, but you can only be playing on ONE of them at the same time with that CD/license key.


RE: Complete and total BS
By Erudite on 7/2/2009 8:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why else do you think Steam lets you install the game more than once?


Actually, while Steam does let you do that, you cannot run Steam online on more than one PC at once. It will sign you out of the existing online account if you log in from somewhere else. Granted you can start in offline mode, but I don't believe that multi-player only or the multi-player mode part of a single player game will work. You can still play the games you want to in single player with one online and multiple offline sessions, though I imagine the legality of that is questionable at best, at least if the same game is being run on both at the same time.


RE: Complete and total BS
By Boze on 7/1/2009 10:25:10 AM , Rating: 3
You're right on the money here, and its really sad that PC gaming is suffering from software piracy given how much cheaper the games are.

I picked up Ghostbusters The Video Game the other day... had planned to get it for Xbox 360, but it was $59.97 at Wal-Mart. It was $29.97 for the PC version. I'll take the PC version, thank you very much.

Same for Street Fighter IV and why I'm picking it up today. $59.99 for Xbox 360, $39.99 for PC. What kills me though is seeing someone with a monster gaming rig, you know, one of those that is around $2500 to $4000, and they're pirating games left and right. Its almost as if they feel like the high cost of entry for the very best hardware is a license to pirate games.


RE: Complete and total BS
By The0ne on 7/1/2009 11:13:32 AM , Rating: 2
Piracy is all over, not just PC games. Consoles don't have it any easier although PS3 is doing quite well. That's only because Blu-ray hasn't picked up and it's way too costly for the players and media :D (compared to CD/DVD).

I need to buy the new ghostbuster game for PC. Just haven't had the time. Hope it's good game :)


RE: Complete and total BS
By Triple Omega on 7/1/2009 1:15:51 PM , Rating: 3
Where do you people keep getting that the industry is "suffering"? See http://torrentfreak.com/economy-profits-from-file-... for a nice report stating that piracy has a positive effect on the dutch economy and little negative effect on the industry.

And here another from the Harvard Business School about music piracy: http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March...

quote:
Downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero, despite rather precise estimates. Moreover, these estimates are of moderate economic significance and are inconsistent with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the recent decline in music sales.


So I see any action against piracy as a negative one. The industry won't get any significant boost in sales and the economy and the people will suffer from it. How is that a good goal to strive for from anyones viewpoint? Why don't the industries just stop fighting and bank all that cash they spend on their war-on-piracy each year? That will net them far more extra profit then any decline in piracy ever will!


RE: Complete and total BS
By Devo2007 on 7/1/2009 1:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
The reason Ghostbusters is so cheap on the PC is that it does not contain multiplayer - the console versions do.


RE: Complete and total BS
By MrPoletski on 7/1/2009 11:58:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I wish it were the way you want to use it but lets be honest, piracy is killing the pc game market.


No it is not. Period.


RE: Complete and total BS
By mofo3k on 7/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Complete and total BS
By Shmak on 7/1/2009 1:12:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yup piracy is killing the PC game market, just like it killed the music industry. Oh wait, just like it killed the film industry. Hold on...

Fact is, piracy kills the companies that make money from the distribution of hard copies. The developers are sometimes financed by distributors, though not always. Developers will not stop making games. The distribution model is just going out the window (like it should).


RE: Complete and total BS
By MrPoletski on 7/2/2009 3:36:06 AM , Rating: 5
I'm fed up of telling people, that's why I don't bother making an argument here.

The biggest cause of piracy is anti-piracy measures.


RE: Complete and total BS
By MrPoletski on 7/2/2009 8:55:12 AM , Rating: 2
and tbh, about as good and your 'honest' and 'is' argument really.


RE: Complete and total BS
By GlassHouse69 on 7/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Complete and total BS
By mofo3k on 7/1/2009 2:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
mofo3k is a fucktard.


Aww, why did this get downrated? He didn't even once advocate against piracy. LOL.


RE: Complete and total BS
By lco45 on 7/1/2009 10:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
That's like saying if you find a good book you should buy a copy for each member of your family, so they can all read it.

It might be piracy in the strictest sense to install your game to two computers for a little inter-filial gaming, but it doesn't feel like it.

Luke


RE: Complete and total BS
By Blight AC on 7/1/2009 10:30:49 AM , Rating: 3
My main concern is that I'll be seeing this with Diablo III as well. It was fun to run previous Diablo games on 2 PC's and play with my SO, but she doesn't play enough to make a 2nd game purchase (with expansion packs) worthwhile.

I hope that Blizzard will at least allow a buddy system kinda like the Xbox Live service does, where you can have a buddy using the same Xbox and game logged in with you playing on Live. However, since Startcraft 2 and Diablo III are PC based, and you really can't have two people playing on 1 PC, I'm not sure it would be feasible.


RE: Complete and total BS
By invidious on 7/1/2009 10:58:44 AM , Rating: 1
If you like the game that much buy multiple copies. I have two sets of cd keys for diablo 2. One for my desktop and one for my Laptop. For the amount of time I played Diablo 2 it was more than worth it. And considering battle.net is free and Blizzard is just all around awesome I don't mind supporting them.


RE: Complete and total BS
By The0ne on 7/1/2009 11:03:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, definitely. I got whole family into SC, WC and Diablo :)


RE: Complete and total BS
By Blight AC on 7/6/2009 4:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
I liked the game, my wife played it a number of times with me that I could count on one hand, which is definitely not worth the purchase of a second copy IMO.

It's nice to be able to try it out and see if it's something we could enjoy together or not, without spending $50 bucks on a 2nd copy.


RE: Complete and total BS
By Danish1 on 7/1/2009 11:39:10 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think the LaN market justifies supporting it anymore.

Most if not all potential multiplayers got net access so
I see nothing wrong with blizzard deciding to drop a dying standard.


RE: Complete and total BS
By MrPoletski on 7/1/2009 12:01:17 PM , Rating: 5
Lets face it in fifteen years time the new wave of n00bs getting into computing aren't even going to know what a LAN was.


RE: Complete and total BS
By camylarde on 7/2/2009 8:02:31 AM , Rating: 2
Lets see it the other way around. My 15 friends will all have the game purchased very soon after the release. Next year, when our LAN party will be thrown out, again, i'll be scratching my head whether I'd like to buy the game too to play with them. Then I remember hey, there is no LAN support, and BT won't handle 16 comps playing the game from one place, sending it over to bnet, and back 16 times, and Im sure I won't be buying the game.


RE: Complete and total BS
By Danish1 on 7/3/2009 6:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yea I'm sure you would have bought to play on LAN once a year in the first place.


RE: Complete and total BS
By frozentundra123456 on 7/1/2009 8:16:59 PM , Rating: 3
Why cant PC games be set up to allow 2 people to play on one computer???? If the Wii or xbox 360 can do it, surely a PC can. The PC hardware must be several times more powerful than the xbox 360, not to mention the Wii, which is from the dark ages technically.


RE: Complete and total BS
By Blight AC on 7/6/2009 4:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
PC typically have smaller monitors and only one Mouse and Keyboard. I just don't see people buying more then one mouse and keyboard for a PC anyhow, and typically multiple mice only control one pointer. Buying multiple game controllers for the console is far more commonplace.

PC games are usually PC games because their control scheme requires more then just a gamepad, otherwise, it'd also be available on the console, which is a far easier market to sell games to (hence the declarations of the death of PC gaming.)


RE: Complete and total BS
By mfed3 on 7/1/2009 10:43:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'm kinda angry about this too, but think of it from their side. The number of LAN connect users may be miniscule in the US, but maybe not in other countries like Korea. In some places, SC is basically the national sport and played by everyone. Immagine finding out that 75% of all these users didnt pay a dime for all your efforts and set up an entire network to get around paying the up front cost.

The $60 flat for a game in the US might be viable, but in Korea, they may want to charge $10 per year or something...


RE: Complete and total BS
By rudy on 7/1/2009 1:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
You are the first one to nail the point, In much of developing Asia everyone does this sort of thing at a internet cafe and those places basically pirate and LAN everything, in the US the internet Cafe is much less common and most people own their own computer. But steam has been running things more like this for a while and is working out well. I think this is just the way most software is headed you need an internet connection and they can make sure only 1 person is using it. Also the low price people pay for games on PCs is really not much just pay the 30$ or whatever and be done with it. The main reason consoles are overtaking PCs is because they have higher profits and can afford to advertize and reinvest more then PC games.

As a side note the better option may have been to program the server so it will not allow more then 1 person with the same CD Key to connect to the same server.


RE: Complete and total BS
By neothe0ne on 7/1/2009 2:15:09 PM , Rating: 3
Steam games have LAN support. Blizzard just came out and said there will be ZERO LAN support in StarCraft II (and Diablo III).


RE: Complete and total BS
By GodisanAtheist on 7/1/2009 3:54:51 PM , Rating: 1
On the contrary, I would think that the game's competitive nature and the fact that the game is being designed with competitive play in mind would lend itself to the inclusion of LAN play.

Nothing is going to top the ping time of a LAN, nor is it dependent on the state of your connection to the outside world.


RE: Complete and total BS
By Alexstarfire on 7/1/2009 4:11:50 PM , Rating: 1
That's true, but if you look at Blizzard's history of RTS gaming over the internet you'd see that latency/lag hasn't been much of an issue. Now go play a game like AoE 3 and tell me the same thing. I'm confident that lag won't be an issue in this game. I'll be sorely disappointed if it is.


RE: Complete and total BS
By neothe0ne on 7/1/2009 5:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
Latency and lag of the service (Battle.net) is irrelevant when there are ****ty connections out there that inherently have high latency. Again, high-speed != low latency.


RE: Complete and total BS
By Alexstarfire on 7/1/2009 8:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
True, but even with crappy connections, like Comcast for instance, is still hundreds of times better than dial-up, which was highly prevalent with SC1. Might suck for those who have crappy connections and want to play LAN, but I image that's far fewer than those who actually play at LANs anyway.


RE: Complete and total BS
By ICBM on 7/1/2009 10:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The amount of people using hamachi, etc. are way to small to make any impact. There are no stats, rankings, etc. People who play Starcraft are going to want to play on Battle.net for those reasons. When people go to a LAN party, they don't necessarily need/want stats, they are just there to have fun with their friends.

For the people who say, well you can just play using Battle.net at LAN parties, I would respond that where we have LAN parties, we don't have internet access. The only place large enough for 10-12 of us is in a friends equipment shed on their farm. I would think no internet is common for alot of small LAN parties.

I can completely understand Blizzard wanting to limit piracy as much as possible, however if piracy was that big of a problem, then it would not make any sense to make the game.


RE: Complete and total BS
By rndmize on 7/1/2009 11:33:33 AM , Rating: 2
Seems there's a lot of people making this mistake, but I'll just respond to this post. Hamachi is not the way the LAN system is abused; its programs like Garena which use the LAN component to create a full online game lobby that they're trying to stop. And the number of people that use programs like Garena is huge (going by what I remember from the ladder stats, there's tens of thousands of US players and likely a proportional increase for poorer countries).

I have a friend who, though he plays WC3/Dota almost every day, has yet to buy a legit copy of the game because programs like these exist (its worth noting he's Chinese, and this is probably one of the most common ways to play in China and eastern Europe). People will always find a way around such measures, but as long as it isn't as easy as downloading and installing a lobby program, this may have a reasonable effect for Blizzard.

Random article that notes this: http://www.sk-gaming.com/content/24895-No_LAN_supp...


RE: Complete and total BS
By fxsage on 7/1/2009 12:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it worth noting that he is Chinese? Do the Chinese have special powers?


RE: Complete and total BS
By The0ne on 7/1/2009 12:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
No, they support piracy or rather lack-thereof out in the open. Want to play a game and don't want to pay for it? No problem, the store can help you with that. Want a cracked PSP? No problem, this one on the counter does it just like that. And while we're at it, you can buy this memory with tons of games already loaded for $1

It is that easy there.


RE: Complete and total BS
By TSS on 7/1/2009 4:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
if they did they'd be able to earn enough money to legitimatly buy their software.

that's not to say there aren't any westerners who download out of habit/necessity. i'd wager there are quite a few. just fewer then in china.


RE: Complete and total BS
By meepstone on 7/1/2009 11:39:52 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
however if piracy was that big of a problem, then it would not make any sense to make the game.


Your an idiot. A business should stop making a product then..


RE: Complete and total BS
By MrPoletski on 7/1/2009 12:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
If Blizzard forsees piracy as a problem they should just release starcraft exclusively on steam.


RE: Complete and total BS
By Zapp Brannigan on 7/1/2009 2:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
dude, you can pirate all of valve's steam games quite easily.


RE: Complete and total BS
By callmeroy on 7/1/2009 10:56:45 AM , Rating: 5
I agree this is total BS....and here's why...

1) Piracy is the excuse now for everything these days --- be it Movies on DVD, Music on CD or Games on DVD....its the catch all excuse used by the three industries for limiting and essentially penalizing legit customers. In short its the excuse to charge more for less features (or even charge for the "features" that should be included -- in some cases). Fact of the matter is NO "policy" or business practice will EVER stop piracy -- for as long as humans live and breathe mark my words here and now -- piracy will remain. Pirates don't go "oh crap now I'm not gonna pirate SCII since you can't plan it on lan anymore" --- they'll do what they've done for years...hack the game to copy it and then use stolen or hacked up keys to register it. Battle.net will never no if the s/n is from a hack or a legit purchase --- the good pirates, yeah they are smarter than the software developers who make the games. This has been proven time and again.

2) If companies are really "sorry" in their fake releases that go "while we had a hard time coming to this decision...blah blah blah".....shut up...its an excuse to gain control on you monitoring my game play and or charging extra for it....nothing more. If the game company really cared they would be smart and come up with new security features in order to plan LAN games....like how about code in a module that each player joining the lan game must key in their own SN from their copy of the game AND in addition LAN play won't start up unless it detects the game CD/DVD in the drive as well.

What is so special that Battle.net does security related to this? Battle.net registers the game S/N -- that's all it does...I know because i'm a WoW player and WoW switched over to the new Battle.net a month or two ago -- all WoW players had to upgrade their accounts and register their game discs v/a S/N. So if Battle.Net does that and that's all it does security wise --- what's the difference if the LAN module would just require the same check?

That's how you know this is BS --- because they could easily implement a LAN feature with security if they really wanted.


RE: Complete and total BS
By Entropy42 on 7/1/2009 11:05:32 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
all WoW players had to upgrade their accounts and register their game discs v/a S/N

This isn't true. You had the choice to "upgrade" your account and tie it with you Bnet account, but you didn't have to. Mine is still not tied to my Bnet account, just because I don't want to have to type my email address every time I log in to WoW.


RE: Complete and total BS
By callmeroy on 7/1/2009 11:10:58 AM , Rating: 2
I mis-typed...and you misread the blue posts then....right NOW you don't *have* to upgrade your account...but if you read the official forums you will eventually *HAVE* to or else you won't be able to play the game.


RE: Complete and total BS
By mofo3k on 7/1/2009 11:16:16 AM , Rating: 1
LOL, There's always the little checkbox labeled "Remember Account Name". I can see where that'd be annoying on a shared pc though.


RE: Complete and total BS
By mofo3k on 7/1/2009 11:12:25 AM , Rating: 1
Piracy may be an excuse given by multiple industries and some of it might have some BS to it (Adobe). But the fact is that software piracy has hurt the gaming industry harder than anyone. Why? Because the people who are most active in software piracy play games and pirate games. Hollywood hasn't really lost much in illegal movie downloads, the musicians don't lose much from music downloads (they may even make more in the long run) but when people don't pay for games, the game developer can't make any money. That's where all their money comes from. They don't sell a lot of shirts, don't have concerts, don't sellout theaters, none of that.

I'm not really sure what your gripe with battle.net security is, if you're comparing this to WOW then you might be a little off base. Wow is a subscription based game and SC 2 is a one time payment. BN might only check your SN but what else do you expect it to do?


RE: Complete and total BS
By meepstone on 7/1/2009 11:47:56 AM , Rating: 2
I like how people such as yourself who know nothing about what you are talking about will critizice Blizzard and your solution is a vague statement.

Also, this will not stop piracy, pirated copies will be able to play single player now!!! good for Blizz.

Blizzard is not charging extra for less. They are not charging you extra for nothing more.


RE: Complete and total BS
By callmeroy on 7/1/2009 1:27:46 PM , Rating: 2
LOL -- its an discussion board, its full of personal views and opinions based on various sources -- sometimes the source is personal experience, sometimes its deeper than that like research. Whatever the motive your line in "I like how people such as yourself who know nothing about what you are talking about...." that's the classic cover all line of arrogance --- because that line infers to me that A) I know nothing of what I'm speaking and B) I'm suppose to bow to your all knowing wisdom because (of course) YOUR opinion is the correct one and YOU DO in fact know what you are speaking about....lol...its hilarious.

I don't hate Blizzard --- I forgot though most folks today see everything as an all or nothing thing -- certain so on these boards. I do think its an excuse and nothing more, borne from laziness, to not include LAN play. However, in all honesty -- I will not use LAN play anyway if it were included, it doesn't mean I have to agree with what they decided.

I've played all the Warcraft RTS, both Diablo's, Starcraft and WoW -- bought them all with my own money not a pirated copy in the mix and bought each during original release dates. I've been their customer for years and in fact agree they make some of the highest quality PC games out there.

There is (as I pointed out in another post) a definite pattern lately of them put price tags on more and more things through WoW, I've listened to their Blizzcasts, I've read interviews in gaming mags through out the years. Does this mean I'm special -- of course not....but I do think from those years of observing the experience of being a customer with them and reading what actions they take its a probably conclusion to come to they will eventually charge for Battle.net.

A service introduced many years ago.

So that's where my opinion was formed --- since you intimate I know nothing to base my criticism of Blizzard on -- please reveal what YOU KNOW to base THAT on....

i'm waiting......


RE: Complete and total BS
By Zapp Brannigan on 7/1/2009 2:48:17 PM , Rating: 3
it won't stop multiplayer piracy either, people play wow on private servers. Sure, it's crap but people still do it. SC3 will be hacked and people will play on private servers within a week of release. This is, at worst, a minor inconvenience for the hacker groups.


RE: Complete and total BS
By MrPoletski on 7/1/2009 12:12:16 PM , Rating: 3
Regarding number 1)

Piracy is the number one method for music/gaming/movie companies to cover up their poor business models and rubbish products.

It's always been my take on the music industry, it's YOUR fault CD sales are falling, NOT pirates. If you stopped packaging up a bunch of manufactured rubbish, try and fob us off with it saying it's "music" when all it really is is a softcore porn movie with an even WORSE soundtrack than the 70s then maybe you'd start seeing people above the age of 14 buying CD's again.

While I still turn on my radio and hear bob the builder, the pizza hut song and all that UTTER UTTER TRIPE I have no sympathy for you.

The same, but less so, applies to the PC game industry.

It does not apply to Blizzard, they are a great company that make great games. This is reflected by the fact that it seems that every time they release a new game, it becomes the fastest selling game of all time. They can't whinge about piracy when it happens this way.


RE: Complete and total BS
By artemicion on 7/1/2009 9:22:25 PM , Rating: 1
Yes CD sales are falling because the music industry isn't releasing anything that people want.

That's why you can't find any torrents for the new Green Day album, the new Eminem album, or any of the "tripe" in the top 40.

Just can't find them anywhere on the internet cuz it's sooo bad.

Yup, sooo bad, can't find any torrents for it cuz nobody wants to listen to it.

Same with movies like Dark Knight or Slumdog Millionaire.

Can't find any of that stuff on P2P networks cuz it's such bad tripe.

Nobody wants to watch it. Nobody's gonna share it.

Soooo bad, shouldn't need copy protection cuz nobody wants it.

No sales whatsoever. In fact, did you know that no album has gone platinum since 1995?

Yup, nobody's buying, listening, sharing, or anything.

No copyright needed.

No demand anywhere.

Nothing to worry about.

Can't even give the stuff away in front of a 7-11 cuz nobody wants to listen to it.

Music industry is doing so bad that Kanye West is NOT a millionaire and drives around in a Datsun from the 70s.

Not selling ANY albums. In fact, nobody's even heard of Kanye West cuz his tracks are so bad, nobody listens to him, nobody buys from him, so I don't even know how I heard about him.

Must've been from some bankruptcy filing I saw awhile ago, cuz he certainly isn't selling any CDs.

You know, cuz his music is so bad that nobody wants it and nobody is buying it.

DEFINITELY has never gone platinum cuz his music is so bad.

NOBODY is selling CDs right now cuz music is so bad.

Top sales charts must be 10 CDs sold for the #1 album cuz the music is so bad.

So few CDs sold, no need to prevent people from stealing it cuz it's so bad.

Yup, no need for copyright cuz nobody's listening to music anymore and no CDs are getting sold.

I heard a bum clapping two spoons together and I thought that was weird cuz I've never heard music in 10 years cuz it got so bad.

Didn't give him any money tho cuz it wasn't good enough to pay for his beats.

Nope. Music industry is in poor shape indeed.


RE: Complete and total BS
By MrPoletski on 7/2/2009 8:49:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yes CD sales are falling because the music industry isn't releasing anything that people want.


I didn't say that did I, I said when they stop releasing tripe they will start selling more records. That is not the same as saying they only release tripe. Maybe it is in your mind, but I deal with logic and reality.

quote:
That's why you can't find any torrents for the new Green Day album, the new Eminem album, or any of the "tripe" in the top 40.


Like I said, tripe. Although Green day at least used to be good.

quote:
Just can't find them anywhere on the internet cuz it's sooo bad.
Yup, sooo bad, can't find any torrents for it cuz nobody wants to listen to it.


It gets downloaded on torrent sites because nobody wants to BUY IT. Understand the difference?

quote:
Same with movies like Dark Knight or Slumdog Millionaire.
Can't find any of that stuff on P2P networks cuz it's such bad tripe.
Nobody wants to watch it. Nobody's gonna share it.


Are you retarded? have you heard of the concept of trying before you buy?

quote:
Soooo bad, shouldn't need copy protection cuz nobody wants it.


Copy protecting it 100% of the time fails to stop it being pirated.

quote:
No sales whatsoever. In fact, did you know that no album has gone platinum since 1995?


That's not true, right off the top of my head I can tell you Nine Inch Nails, The Fragile went double platinum and that was released in 1999. Pardon me if I accuse you of talking out your rear end.

quote:
Yup, nobody's buying, listening, sharing, or anything.
No copyright needed.
No demand anywhere.
Nothing to worry about.


Tell me, what colour is the sky in your world?

quote:
Not selling ANY albums. In fact, nobody's even heard of Kanye West cuz his tracks are so bad, nobody listens to him, nobody buys from him, so I don't even know how I heard about him.


I havent heard of him.

quote:
Top sales charts must be 10 CDs sold for the #1 album cuz the music is so bad.


How many single sales does it take to get to number 1 nowadays? how many did it take in the 60s?

oops. compare those resluts even before p2p sharing arrived and it's the same.

quote:
So few CDs sold, no need to prevent people from stealing it cuz it's so bad.


No need to prevent people downloading it because the difference it makes to sales is a drop is the ocean. If people didn't buy stuff because they could download it for free then how come Ghosts I-IV and The Slip by nine inch nails sold any copies at all? both were given away free by the artists himself. In fact you could download them in HIGHER than CD quality. Yet he still sold out of all special editions and sold loads of the standard CD's.

How did that happen? How did he make millions of these albums if they were given away free?

quote:
Yup, no need for copyright cuz nobody's listening to music anymore and no CDs are getting sold.


Yeah, because I said that didn't I, where do you get off with this trolling?


RE: Complete and total BS
By MrPoletski on 7/8/2009 8:47:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...compare those resluts even before p2p ....


best.typo.EVAR


RE: Complete and total BS
By artemicion on 7/1/2009 11:08:01 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
this is just greed, plain and simple.


Yes. Yes it is. The incentive to make money IS why most people get into the game development industry . . .

Did you think Blizzard did this for free?


RE: Complete and total BS
By callmeroy on 7/1/2009 11:20:01 AM , Rating: 2
While in 90% of all cases i'd agree with your sentiment with a company is in to make profit -- as most times that's a no brainer "well duh" kind of thing....

however in this case its greed. Profit isn't greed to be clear -- everyone who works hard to produce a good or deliver a service (assuming its legal) certainly deserves to make a reasonable profit.

Btw, so my post isn't confusing my argument isn't forcing folks to each buy their own copy of the game to plan over LAN as being greedy -- that's legit, my beef is knowing, that blizz will eventually charging for Battle.net as being greed.

This is how I view greed --- i want to eat at a diner. I pay $9.95 for some lunch special, but the bill comes and its $20 -- I come to find that they billed me a utensil and plate and napkin charge.....THAT is greed.

Paying for the main or essential expected product is fair , being charged extra for things needed to use the product is greed.

SCII will have a single player campaign but everyone full well and knows the main draw of the game its going to be multiplay --- when you are forced to use a specific product to play that feature that was always free for years and years and then suddenly should it (because it will) switch to pay to play...that my friend .....is greed.


RE: Complete and total BS
By mofo3k on 7/1/2009 11:28:53 AM , Rating: 1
So Blizzard is a dirty evil Greedy company because they keep saying that Battle.net is NOT going to be a pay to play service, but other people speculate that it will? "IF" they ever start charging for the service then your argument has some merit, but for now you're getting worked up for nothing.


RE: Complete and total BS
By callmeroy on 7/1/2009 1:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't say they were dirty or evil first off, didn't say they are charging for battle.net now. I did say I believe they will eventually based on how they are proceeding with its huge promotion, things they hinted out regarding Battle.net in the future (all roads leading to it a far as blizz games going), going game design philosphies stated in the very early stages of their most popular product WoW, only to cave in the last year charging extra for those things. Anyone who makes this a "they have the right to" argument is a moron. Of course they have the right to do with their products what they wish. Doesn't mean it doesn't reflect as greedy as some. I personally think Activision may have influenced most of that more than Blizzard, since they acquired them.

So let's leave the over dramatizing out please --- Blizzard isn't evil, they aren't dirty, my life isn't changing forever more based on a game companies decision...but if I have an opinion --- you are damn well sure I'll express it.

Especially if I believe on my own observations and experiences that I can reasonably predict the direct this is going.


RE: Complete and total BS
By artemicion on 7/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Complete and total BS
By callmeroy on 7/2/2009 8:20:56 AM , Rating: 3
Arty,

WTH are you talking about? You are rambling on and on trying to be a smartass doing nothing but one of those "one up you kind of posts" -- you know where you have no reason to post except to make a digg at someone. I post my opinion, then I follow up if people rail against it in order to defend it (or when someone states something that is clearly wrong factually speaking).

What's your point about battle.net, by my assumptions will go to pay-for-play one day being premature....so? Again its post of folks talking about opinions over what is greedy or BS...how is my opinion, based on observations of Blizzard's past actions invalid to state. Later in your post to me you said thanks Captain Obvious --- well, ironically thank you Captain Obvious as well for reminding me that Battle.net is currently free.

On the greed thing.....first I truly adore posts where folks TELL people what they meant. So now you can read my mind, thoughts and feelings. Are you going to tell me know if I really care about my family or how much I love my GF ?
I know the meaning of greed I was using when I said the word greed.....greed doesn't imply dirty or evil -- if YOU think so, your more corrupted in your views than me on the subject and I'd suggest you watch too many movies on the subject. Greed in many forms is actually quite good -- it drives competition. Greed at its core definition merely means "excessive desire for..." If you are greedy with money you have an excessive desire for it.

In summary, don't put words in my mouth (or I guess in this form of debate -- don't type words for me?).

I really don't care at this point what you think of my view, I am unchanged in my view from my first post to this post --- I think its an excuse for them to take LAN play out to promote the control they'll have over Battle.net, as again the same thing BNet does to "protect" against piracy could very EASILY be implemented with LAN --- require the serials to be entered for each copy of the game being played by a LAN member....btw, back when I did do LAN games my group ALWAYS had their own copy of the game so that's my thinking with LAN gaming. And finally, no its not greedy to rightfully expect compensation for your hard work -- that's why I have no issue with them charging for the game (even though you are naive if you don't see the REAL reason why SC2 is broken up into 3 games instead of just one huge ones -- the given excuse was development time --- from a company who's line has always been....its done when its done.....funny how the complete SC2 game will have an accumulated total cost of $90 with method).......

Anyway....I do see it being greedy should they charge for Battle.net in the future................which they will. :)

Have a great 4th of July....


RE: Complete and total BS
By callmeroy on 7/2/2009 8:25:14 AM , Rating: 2
lol..I'm laughing at my own horrendous amount of grammatical, spelling and typo errors in that post...hopefully everyone can understand what i meant?


RE: Complete and total BS
By Tkulchaw on 7/1/2009 11:37:37 AM , Rating: 1
How is blizz making people pay for the product they developed greed? they deserve every dollar IMO. If you really want to play the game then pay for it. plain and simple

quote:
then suddenly should it (because it will) switch to pay to play...that my friend .....is greed.


what are you basing your information on? Fear?


RE: Complete and total BS
By callmeroy on 7/2/2009 8:33:44 AM , Rating: 2
Yep fear....in fact I'm horrified more of how a game service will charge than I am of death itself....<rolls eyes>

Read my other posts...not repeating it again for the 3rd time...


By frozentundra123456 on 7/1/2009 8:10:03 PM , Rating: 4
This is one of the things I dont like about PC gaming. Even a technically backward console like the Wii allows head to head play on one machine. Why should one have to have two games and two gaming computers to play a game, especially co-op or one vs one? For instance I really wanted to play co-op with a person in my family for Red Alert 3, but discovered you could not play on the same computer, so you needed 2 comps and 2 games just to play co-op. No wonder consoles are taking over.
(BTW, the person I wanted to play with is only 11, but could have played immeasurably better than the AI allies in RA3. LOL)


RE: Complete and total BS
By MRwizard on 7/2/2009 6:22:44 AM , Rating: 2
yeah mate, now i have to pay per play in this POS 3rd world coutry. i only have 3GB a month to play with, and after updates it really ist that much.

I have just cancelled my pre-order. the fact that i MUST have internet to play a quick 1v1 against my gf is a load of BS. no thank you, i work hard enough for my money, i dont need more monthly bills.

seriously, blizzard is getting a big head. i hate them now, if they do do this i will be certain to NEVER pay for another blizzard game again.

PS: i never buy games i can't LAN over a network cable, its just not a fun game then


RE: Complete and total BS
By Hawkido on 7/7/2009 4:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
This is easy to fix:

1. Just rip off the battle.net software and run it on another machine.

2. Use the hosts file on your computer and redirect your traffic to the Faux Battle.net server you created.

3. login and play.

Just look at what they did with WOW, people ripped off the server and stood up their own private servers. I think blizzard plugged that hole with WotLK, but give the hack community some more time and they will once again "privatize" WOW, if they haven't already. (and no you didn't have to pay for the Private servers)


Hahaha
By The0ne on 7/1/2009 9:56:05 AM , Rating: 4
I'm off the bandwagon. My family uses the LAN feature, my friends use the LAN feature. Very few of us use Battlenet for the game. Nice move Blizzard. Keep on being greedy, it's working great!




RE: Hahaha
By TheSpaniard on 7/1/2009 9:59:21 AM , Rating: 2
I really dont like these games that are multiplayer based but they dont include LAN... am I the only one who likes playing games after the company decides the game is no longer worth supporting?


RE: Hahaha
By bighairycamel on 7/1/2009 10:04:36 AM , Rating: 2
No you aren't the only one. From the looks of things, I'll happily be playing good-old-fasioned SC1 instead of SC2.


RE: Hahaha
By invidious on 7/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hahaha
By jbourne77 on 7/1/2009 10:56:09 AM , Rating: 1
It must be a shocking experience to wake up every day to the harsh reality that the world still isn't revolving around you.


RE: Hahaha
By wempa on 7/1/2009 3:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
No you're not. I absolutely hate being dependent on something out of my control, like their Battle.Net servers. There are plenty of reasons to want LAN play, many of which do not include piracy.


RE: Hahaha
By WoWCow on 7/1/2009 10:05:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Keep on being greedy, it's working great!


Yes, hence it is why in time, you will buy a starcraft 2 cake and eat it.

To be honest, I enjoyed the LAN parties I've had 5~10 years years ago with the original SC and BW, but I've also seen enough to know it is illegal and quite unprofitable.

Simply put, 1 guy would buy the game and share the CD-Key with 7 others just to have the LAN party going. Now with 4 different servers to choose from, 1 CD key can allow 4 different players to be online (Battle.net) at the same time, albeit not on the same server.

Sure its great and all, but for a game developer/retailer, you have just lost 3 to 7 potential customers.

Also, have you heard of the stuff called "Steam" from Valve and "Impulse" from Stardock?


RE: Hahaha
By Spivonious on 7/1/2009 10:09:57 AM , Rating: 3
Sharing games at LAN parties is part of the fun.

Blizzard could kill two birds with one stone here by allowing LAN play without a CD key, but internet and single-player would require one.


RE: Hahaha
By Boze on 7/1/2009 10:17:31 AM , Rating: 4
I've never had a class in logic, so I can't really nail down the proper term for why you're argument is bullshit, I can only tell you that your argument is bullshit. Maybe someone more educated than myself could provide for me the proper term.

You're making the case that a LAN party is synonymous with software piracy. Now I'll be the first to admit that I've only ever been to two LAN parties, but I never heard about nor saw anything like that going on.

We all had legal, licensed copies of the games we were playing.

Not providing LAN support means that a StarCraft II LAN party is going to be X amount of players all hooking up to a switch, then that switch leading out to an Internet connection on the premises. My concern is that the connection won't have enough bandwidth for the players. So what that means to me is that now for a decent LAN party, someone has to rent a fatty pipe for all the players. I'm guessing T-1 minimum and likely some sort of fractional T-3. I can't imagine a 50 to 100+ person LAN party being worth a damn using a cable or xDSL connection. Maybe 20 / 50 mbps Verizon FIOS, but that's hardly a widespread connection.

If I'm wrong in my understanding of how this will work in the future, given that everyone is required to connect to Battle.net for multiplayer, then someone please correct me... but it stands to reason, to me at least, that if you have 100 people at your LAN party and a limited amount of upstream bandwidth for them to use for gaming, they'll experience a degradation of gaming quality... am I understanding this correctly?

Hell, I thought the whole point of a LAN party was to meet people, not have to deal with the headache of things like poor Internet service, and avoiding latency as a performance hit in gaming. Am I off the mark here?


RE: Hahaha
By Bryf50 on 7/1/2009 12:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
This might not be correct. For the original starcraft after a game was started it was a direct connection to the other players. This is true because it was possible to be kicked off battle.net without being thrown out of the game. If this game is smart enough it should know that the fastest route to the other computers is through the switch and not over the internet. If I had to guess I would say that this is how it will work and I'm not 100% sure but it's possible the original starcraft works this way too.


RE: Hahaha
By theslug on 7/1/2009 10:26:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, my friends and I use steam to play Valve's games, even if we're in the same place. I don't see why lack of LAN support would influence my decision to purchase the game.


RE: Hahaha
By The0ne on 7/1/2009 10:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
I'm talking about doing things Legal, not buying one copy for the family to play on LAN with. My family members are huge. I mean, just our main family is 11 in total. The count the nieces and nephews for those that are married, which most are hehe, and it's not a small LAN party :)

I'm referring to each one of us having their own copy of the game like we do now. As someone said it above, we are a small percentage that uses the LAN feature more then the battlenet feature so why not include LAN? They could even restrict the use of the game on LAN via the CDkey if they wanted to. We don't really care since we each have a copy of our own. In this day and age does it really make any sort of sense, besides business greed, to not include LAN?


Of course they don't have any plans to support LAN...
By Boze on 7/1/2009 9:59:26 AM , Rating: 4
...because once Battle.net becomes a pay-to-play service (and it will kiddos, you don't even need to hold your breath for this one, Activision Blizzard has seen how successful World of Warcraft is, and hell, I would know, I played it for five years), even if its only a $4.99 a month fee, all those StarCraft II players will pay for it.

So why drop LAN support? Simple, you can't make $4.99 a month off a bunch of people going to LAN parties and/or using emulation software!

Just you wait... the days of Blizzard being a game company by gamers for gamers are long gone. Blizzard is now all about the bottom line, and the sad part is, I honestly think this happened before Activision purchased them. All the "add-on" services for World of Warcraft gave me that impression.

In fact, I'll go so far as to predict that Activision Blizzard announces a pricing tier of some kind of Battle.net within the next 12 months.




By FITCamaro on 7/1/2009 10:16:11 AM , Rating: 1
Battle.net is $4.99 a month? Thought it was free...


By Boze on 7/1/2009 10:20:20 AM , Rating: 2
Blizzard doesn't currently charge for it FIT, and they say they won't charge for it, but I've seen enough posts from Blizzard developers and executives and know that if they can squeeze a dollar from a "value-added service", they will.

Faction changes for World of Warcraft. Told since Day One of release this would never happen. My girlfriend told me just last night they're planning on putting that in the game, so for a nominal fee you can change your faction (and consequently, race) from Horde to Alliance or Alliance to Horde.

Once the suits see 15 million or 20 million or 30 million or however many million StarCraft II players using Battle.net, it'll only be a matter of time until they realize they can get away with asking for a few bucks a month for Battle.net.


By smackababy on 7/1/2009 10:37:25 AM , Rating: 2
I could easily see them charging for it. They would use Xbox Live as the excuse/model for it.


By Mojo the Monkey on 7/1/2009 10:55:20 AM , Rating: 2
Except they are nothing alike, and it would NOT serve as a "model" in any way.


By FITCamaro on 7/1/2009 1:09:56 PM , Rating: 2
I was merely asking. Personally I don't care. I won't be playing it online period. Assuming I get it.


By theslug on 7/1/2009 10:18:49 AM , Rating: 1
This is all speculation. Battlenet is free for now, so just use that to play.


By The0ne on 7/1/2009 10:59:14 AM , Rating: 2
It's free now so they can get more users "hooked" on it and when it comes time to place your hard earned $4.99/month to it you addition is going to force you to do so. Heck, even your Wow account can be linked to the battlenet account...for "security" of course. :)


By Bateluer on 7/1/2009 10:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. You could see this during WoW's development, no matter how much you wanted to deny it.


By callmeroy on 7/1/2009 11:08:31 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, I think a charge is on the way for it -- only the amazingly ignorant or exceedingly naive would believe otherwise.

Speaking of WoW add-on charges , since you mentioned you play, don't you think its funny when you read the posts at the WoW boards about how such and such a feature will never happen, then months go by and some "blue" posts --- "because the player community wanted it we are now going to implement [name of service/feature]".....

Surprisingly they then announce the fee for the service....lol.....I always get a kick out of that stuff....like this new proposed alliance/horde faction change coming up --- something that was shot down time and again as it would NEVER EVER happen....now suddenly it is....funny how it'll be a paid feature ....

So yeah I think WoW actually is known in the Activision Blizzard board room as "Project: Let's See How Much Money We Can Milk Them For".

And you are right they used to be (even in interviews they'd state this) "they are gamers all for gamers....".....not anymore you aren't...


By Boze on 7/1/2009 11:26:33 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah I actually mentioned the faction changes in another post on this article.

Many of the younger players who got to know Blizzard solely from World of Warcraft haven't had a chance to see the changes firsthand like older players (myself included) have.

The first Blizzard game I played was Warcraft: Orcs and Humans. This was one of their first games. Actually I think the first one I played was Blackthorne, but I don't count that as I played it on the SNES (Or was it Sega Genesis?) and not the PC. At any rate... I've seen the company grow, with game quality consistently getting better and better.

And yet Wrath of the Lich King is what did it in for me. It felt like a marked decrease in quality from the previous WOW expansion, and almost like an omen of things to come. Maybe I'm being melodramatic about it... I'm not incomprehensibly excited about Diablo III like everyone else I know. I'm not even excited about StarCraft II.

I used to be. 18 months ago, I was dying to check those titles out, but now with Wrath of the Lich King behind me and my eyes starting to open up and realize that Blizzard is more interested in turning as much profit as possible, instead of making amazing games, I'm less and less excited about their upcoming products.

The sad part is, the cynical assholes will come shit all over this post with things like, "DUH, TEHY ARE A BIZNESS, STOOPID, TEHY EXIST TO MAEK MONIES!" Well no shit, Sherlock. Everyone starts a business with the hopes its profitable. There's a difference in profitability and changing the entire core stated focus of your business just to expand for more money though.

Gamers had respect for Blizzard because they didn't compromise. They didn't adhere to release dates, they always put out the most polished product imaginable.

Fellow game makers respected them because their games took off like rockets because they actually gave a damn about how well their game was made, and that translated over to financial success.

Nowadays though, it just seems like Blizzard is content to put out a very above average, highly polished game, and watch the cash flow in by name recognition alone. My past experience with World of Warcraft leaves me to believe they're no longer interested in producing a game by which all other games are judged (although you can argue this for World of Warcraft I suppose).

Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm embittered because World of Warcraft has changed to be a casual player's game and is no longer the realm of the hardcores. Or maybe I'm sick of seeing tons of ridiculous World of Warcraft merchandise... maybe I'm tired of seeing Blood Elf themed cock rings, such is the broad swath of products based on WOW.

Doesn't there come a time when your company and your franchise's dignity has to be considered??


By Tkulchaw on 7/1/2009 11:41:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
maybe I'm tired of seeing Blood Elf themed cock rings


WHERE CAN I BUY THEZZE


By The0ne on 7/1/2009 12:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
Same here, these young gamers really have no clue about the history of Blizzard and what they've gone through (bad and good) to get to this state. This new blizzard with new teams and owners/shareholders is really more about milking consumers.

I see nothing new and exciting in the new games. Not WoW, not SC2, not Diablo3. Sure they have a huge following but they use to be the ones improving the standards, if not the genre itself. I'm really baffled why gamers are impressed with SC2 and Diablo3 game footage. Prettier graphics maybe? Or maybe they just didn't get to experience other games that contain these features Blizzard is raving about already.

Blackthorn was released on SNES first. Good game at that too.


By r31nismoid on 7/2/2009 4:58:12 AM , Rating: 1
I couldn't agree more.

As i said earlier i've been playing on battle.net for nearly 10 years and been an avid follower of Blizzard

But even i can see the writing on the wall.

Battle.net WILL become pay-for-play in the overall term.
Like i also said earlier - it all started with WoW as you said.
Once the chiefs see the $$$ rolling in, their pay packets getting fatter and the company making more and more $$$... its the simple route.
Most companies get corrupted by money eventually and the last 5 years (and then the last 18months in many respects) has shown this.


By Mjello on 7/1/2009 10:52:30 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you think multiplayer games (especially MMO) is almost the only thing still being made for the PC in later years?

Music piracy is nothing compared to what PC gaming endures. Games are way more expensive to make compared to music. They need the money. A little software company www.nitrostuntracing.com is taking an interesting approach to the money problem any good game concept faces. Selling the game in stages and providing free updates almost like a MMO.

That is why this game will only support gaming through a webbased server. And I think its a good thing. Everyone will still have the singleplayer campaign. So they still get the game spread far and wide. But when you come to the second fase of gaming (Playing with your friends). You'll just have to buy the game.

And if this game is made in the normal way. Itll use peer to peer to connect to clients. Thereby removing the bottleneck of the internet connection in LAN.

IMHO i think this game will have a large enough following for some community to crack this method of piracy protection.




By Bateluer on 7/1/2009 11:00:40 AM , Rating: 2
No, this sort of policy will bring about the second implosion of PC gaming. Which, ironically, would probably be a good thing. Bring the power back to the people rather than lawyers and executives.


By BaDaBooM on 7/1/2009 11:24:44 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know why the focus is on piracy... They could allow LAN play by activated copies of Starcraft that have signed into Battlenet before - not that I like that idea (and yes it would be cracked but so will this). This looks more like a way to generate revenue if they start charging for Battlenet.


By FITCamaro on 7/1/2009 2:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how you crack a feature that doesn't exist.


By Bateluer on 7/1/2009 3:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
And how long to do you think it will take for modders and crackers to 'implement' the feature?

We shouldn't be using the term 'feature' either. LAN play on an RTS is a core game component. Lacking it means the game is critically broken and should not be purchased until the game is repaired.


By elgueroloco on 7/1/2009 12:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
It will not save PC gaming if it drives long time enthusiasts, such as myself, away. I still play SC. I have been frothing at the mouth to buy SC2 since I heard of it. I no longer plan to.

If they do this with Diablo III (and I still play Diablo II), I will not be buying that either.


By ClownPuncher on 7/1/2009 2:21:20 PM , Rating: 3
PC gaming dying = red herring.


sounds like a fair trade...
By smackababy on 7/1/2009 9:59:18 AM , Rating: 2
Instead of risking a few thousand pirated copies, they put off a few thousand would be customers and lose sales. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

I am just loving how Starcraft 2 is becoming this megafail project. Good game Blizzard, good game.




RE: sounds like a fair trade...
By Boze on 7/1/2009 10:01:34 AM , Rating: 4
All of South Korea is going to buy the game anyway, so let's keep the outrageous cries of failure to ourselves. This game won't fail being split into three parts, it won't fail with lack of LAN support, hell, it won't even fail when they announce pay-to-play Battle.net!

StarCraft II is to the hardcore RTS player what the Second Coming of Jesus is to most Christians - no matter bad it is, they won't miss it for the world.


RE: sounds like a fair trade...
By smackababy on 7/1/2009 10:05:52 AM , Rating: 3
I doubt it. I still play StarCraft at least twice a week. I was even considering buying all three of the trilogy. But no LAN support is just plain stupid and greedy. I don't care if all of South and North Korea buy this game, I won't be.


RE: sounds like a fair trade...
By FITCamaro on 7/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: sounds like a fair trade...
By The0ne on 7/1/2009 10:56:03 AM , Rating: 2
You mean they bought and like the first SC very much. If this second version is crappy they, like us here, aren't going to be happy. It doesn't take much to ruin your reputation and in recent years Blizzard hasn't been living to it's old standards (IMO).


RE: sounds like a fair trade...
By acase on 7/1/2009 10:02:36 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. At least if it was getting pirated, it would at least be getting played.


Petition to change this
By BaDaBooM on 7/1/2009 10:41:19 AM , Rating: 2
Regardless of any of these other reasons, that's the main part of the game I played so I won't buy SC2 if they do this. I remember Battle.net getting bogged down all the time and I don't care how much they upgrade it, I won't get any better latency than my own LAN.

Here is a petition to submit to Blizzard:

http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html




RE: Petition to change this
By Bateluer on 7/1/2009 11:02:47 AM , Rating: 4
Since LAN play was one of the greatest things about SC1, Blizzard is being idiotic not including it with SC2. If they don't implement it, it'll be cracked and modded in.


RE: Petition to change this
By elgueroloco on 7/3/2009 12:06:50 PM , Rating: 1
I read that petition. It's pathetic. Whoever wrote it just sucks blizzard's dick the whole time instead of telling them we want LAN play supported. It's the most pathetic, weak-kneed, groveling piece of nonsense I've ever seen. It actually includes in it a ton of argument against including LAN play, and if I were at Blizzard, and read that petition, it would actually convince me that taking out LAN was a fine choice.


RE: Petition to change this
By BaDaBooM on 7/4/2009 10:46:12 AM , Rating: 2
I read it too.... and that's how intelligent people actually try to convince someone to change their mind instead of just sound like a child throwing a tantrum. You have to acknowledge the reasons why they are doing it to make counterpoints against their decision that they will listen to. This is very basic stuff you learn in college. It sounds like if you wrote it, they would just dismiss it as a rant and not even finish reading it.


RE: Petition to change this
By elgueroloco on 7/6/2009 8:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
Really? Because when I read it, it didn't sound very intelligent to me. They pretty much said that Blizzard is the best, that everyone is going to buy the game, and that everyone is going to play it on the new battle.net. I understand the need for a congenial tone, but the author of the petition engaged in outright, abject groveling. It was pathetic.

They then said that even though they probably won't use the LAN option, it's nice to have it there, just as an option. Just so they feel like they have options.

So what did they say, really? They said that a) everybody will buy the game even if it doesn't have LAN play, and b) they probably won't really use the LAN play even if it is included. How on earth is that at all convincing?

I would have been short and to the point. I would have told them that LAN play is key to the social aspects of the game, that SC1 was wildly popular as a LAN game, and that no battle.net communication system could possibly be as good as being in the same room with your friends. I would then say that without LAN play included, the undersigned will not be purchasing the game. Short, to the point, forceful, yet not ranting or childish.

Further, if the college you went to taught you the kind of argumentative skills displayed in that petition, you might want to think about asking for a refund, because even my community college taught better writing than that. Hell, I was writing better arguments than that in 9th grade.


RE: Petition to change this
By elgueroloco on 7/6/2009 8:22:40 AM , Rating: 2
BTW, if you are actually going to ask for a refund, you might want to take an English Writing or Debate class at a college that doesn't suck before you write up your request. If your refund request sounds anything like that petition you thought so highly of, they will be sure to turn you down.


By Bateluer on 7/1/2009 11:07:19 AM , Rating: 3
So, take a 4 door sedan car. Remove the AC, rear sets, passenger seat, radio, CD player, air bags, only a speedometer in the dash, remove the truck, and remove the rear view mirror. Then, segment the vehicle into three parts, each carrying a full MSRP of 18K. Naturally, this will net the company more money because the consumer will have to pay all 3 parts of the vehicle, plus extra for any options they want. Perfect analogy to Blizzard's bone headed decision. /Sarcasm




By heero884 on 7/1/2009 10:26:22 PM , Rating: 3
Here's a solution to your 4 door sedan scenario. Don't buy it. There's competing RTS games.. go buy one of those instead.


By Bateluer on 7/2/2009 10:25:26 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, I intend to vote with my wallet. I decided yesterday that I wouldn't be buying SC2 until its fixed.


Blizzard is a business
By Crota on 7/1/2009 12:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
First and foremost, Blizzard is in the business of making money. Plain and simple. It is completely within Blizzard's right to not allow LAN play if it believes it will curb the amount of Pirating/stealing of their software. When I look at entertainment, either from movies, tv shows, and games, I am simply blown away. No where else am I able to play so little for so much. Take for example SC2. If I were to estimate that it took 250,000 hours to create and test SC2 (This is just a guess don't quote me) I will be paying $.000024 a hour to get my very own copy of this game.

Don't get me wrong, it is disappointing that LAN is not being supported, espically for those who do not have access to the internet and would still like to play against their friends, but please don't scream bloody murder on how Blizzard is robbing you by not giving you XYZ. If you want to play against your friend at home from a second computer, just pay an extra $.000024 per hour it took to make the game and have some fun.





RE: Blizzard is a business
By wempa on 7/1/2009 12:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. They are completely within their right to do so. As customers, we are completely within our right to NOT purchase the game if it does not meet our expectations. LAN play is something that a lot of gamers have come to expect. Of course there is going to be some backlash if something like that is taken away.


RE: Blizzard is a business
By JakLee on 7/1/2009 3:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
And that really is the Key point. Blizzard can design the game to have whatever functionality they choose. In fact, if they added a 4th race - the dofins of doOm or whatever- they would have EVERY right to do so. But the point is if we don't like their decision we can choose to voice that opinion. And if the decision is a poor enough one we can exercise our option to not purchase the game.


RE: Blizzard is a business
By Targon on 7/2/2009 3:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with the whole "piracy" reasoning is that it won't take too long before a new "alternative" to Battle.net is created by the hacker community which people can put on a local network. That would solve the problem of there being no LAN support.

Honestly, it probably will not take more than a year, and unless the game uses an IP address instead of a server name, just adding an entry to the HOSTS file would take care of it.


Blizzard jerking around their fans
By TomCorelis on 7/1/2009 3:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
sure makes me glad I was never particularly partial to StarCraft.




RE: Blizzard jerking around their fans
By icanhascpu on 7/1/2009 4:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
Same here.

Right now all Wow is is a testing ground for future products. Its kind of disgusting what they are doing. They are a company that makes fantastic games, but if they go too far, it is just going to turn sour and not be worth it anymore. EA is ahead of them in that line.

They had just better deal with Diablo III in a proper manner or there will be riots.

THQ! Youre our only hope...


RE: Blizzard jerking around their fans
By TomCorelis on 7/1/2009 5:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
If my past editorials are any guide, I'd be a bit miffed it they started screwing with D3 :-)

Other than that, though, I could care less with what becomes of the Warcraft/Starcraft franchises. The lack of LAN support is troubling, though... I have been to LAN parties where the internet connection is iffy and something like this would ruin a perfectly good time. Being stuck on a 384up/3000down DSL line, I probably wouldn't be able to host a StarCraft LAN party of more than a few people.

And honestly, I think EA has turned a new leaf in the past few years. I'm not so worried about them other than the fact that they tend to milk their cash cows til the poor bovines are stone dry...


By bighairycamel on 7/1/2009 6:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'm the opposite of you. I can safely say Starcraft has probably been my favorite game of all time. Having said that I won't be buying this unless things change.

I went over to the Blizzard forums expecting to see other disgruntled players, but apparently the users on their forums have their tongue so far up Blizzard's ass that they would knowingly take a pile of crap as long as it was in a box with a Blizzard logo on it. People with legitimate logical complaints are flamed by the majority of other posters. I just hope Blizzard browses forums like this to see what the non-fanboy masses really think.

On a side note, according to Wikipedia (I generally try not to use them as a source, sorry) Blizzard has plans for a "next-gen MMO". This makes me think that they are releasing the SC2 game as a trilogy in order to build a hefty lore so that when the WoW cow is finally milked dry they still have a whole other universe they can exploit.


Everyone Loves Blizzard..... right?
By Astral Abyss on 7/1/2009 7:30:59 PM , Rating: 3
Blizzard can do no wrong in most people's eyes...

Blizzard could put a doorway on the edge of a cliff, paint the words "Blizzard SC2 & Diablo 3 Early Release" on it, put a guy in a Blizzard polo shirt beside it to collect the $50 fee, and watch as an endless line of people gladly paid to hurl themselves to their death through the doorway. Even when the bodies start piling up at the bottom and the people waiting in line could easily see the true result of walking through the doorway, they'd still do it because of their need to prove their unflinching loyalty to Blizzard.

(Fortunately for many, Blizzard doesn't want to lose their unending stream of money syphoned from the pockets of these folks, so this idea will never be implemented (a blue post said so))

Ok, ok, I'm kidding.

But seriously though, if Blizzard keeps trying new money making schemes in World of Warcraft like "paid realm transfers, paid name changes, paid gender/appearance changes, paid faction changes, paid account transfers" and people keep gladly giving up their money for it, you'd be pretty naive to think they won't try adding pay features to battle.net. There's so many things they could implement and charge for it'd be nearly impossible for you to avoid it if you want to be able to play but not be limited with who you can play with. Charging for map packs is the first thing I see being implemented. All your friends and your clanmates have that fun new map pack! ...when are you gonna quit being cheap and pay for it? "cha-ching!" Access to the "gold level" non-overcrowded, non-queued, non-laggy servers is the 2nd thing I see. "cha-ching!" But of course, access to the "silver level" servers will always be free.... The expansion packs themselves can be seen as a "fee" because much like the original Brood Wars, if you didn't have it, you only got to play against the left-over folks who hadn't upgraded... which became less and less as time went on. See that changing this time around? I don't. 2 full priced expansions? "CHA-CHING!"




By Astral Abyss on 7/1/2009 7:32:57 PM , Rating: 3
Hey, I just realized... they could charge for a LAN pack add-on too!


Social aspect of the game destroyed.
By elgueroloco on 7/1/2009 12:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
Taking out LAN play completely destroys the social aspect of the game for me.

I played SC at LAN parties with my friends for years. We had a blast getting together at my house and playing. That is no longer possible. The game is, therefore, ruined for me.

They can talk all they want about stupid advanced communication options on battle.net. Whatever they have will still not be as good as turning my head and speaking to my friend who is right there. Oh, and can I eat pizza and egg rolls with my friends over battle.net? I don't think so. If we all gather in the same house and try to use the one internet connection to play on battle.net, I'm pretty sure the gameplay will suck, so I won't be doing that either.

I still have SC on my computer. I have been rabidly awaiting SC2 for over a year now. I no longer plan to buy it.




By mofo3k on 7/1/2009 12:23:57 PM , Rating: 3
Some good points there, particularly about the pizza and egg rolls (sorry it's almost lunch time here).

I haven't been to a lan party for quite some time, are they still popular, but this is definately one game that might bring me to more again. Hopefully, since they're releasing 3 versions of this game, they'll add that in to one of the next two versions after all the backlash they get from their fans.

I think a good way to appease both parties here is to allow for lan games, but require an active internet connection for verification purposes. No internet, no lan play. I'd be ok with that.


There are other games that I will choose to buy
By Megadeth on 7/1/2009 1:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We don’t currently plan to support LAN play with StarCraft II


Then I don't currently have any plans to purchase or play SC2. This will be true with all of my friends as well.

90% or more of our SC game play was during LAN parties, which by the way, we all had our own copy of the game! All this does is punish the people who do obey the rules.

One hard fact I have to face in life is that I don't have time to do everything that I want to do. This is as true with gaming as it is with every aspect of my life. So that mean that I have to prioritize my purchase of games. With this feature lacking, it won't be worth my money right now to buy this game. I have several other games that have now been promoted on my list.

*Sigh* I suppose that after a few years, when the game is in the $10 bargain bin, I might finally pick it up.




By funkykuma on 7/1/2009 2:13:09 PM , Rating: 3
As much as we like to whine and dine with cheese, I'll probably still buy the game. As I get older, I find myself limiting the games I play due to time constraints. As long as the game itself is well made, provides decent support (Blizzard isn't perfect but does anyone remember those lovely EQ/SWG rollouts by Sony EOE?), I don't mind paying a few extra dollars for a good product.

I personally don't like having the option taken out of our hands, but if the revamped battle net structure allows for multiplayer games to run pretty smoothly, then I"ll have no qualms ... I even suspect like the others on this board that BNET will soon be pay to play (I wouldn't mind if they included BNET as pay to play but drop the monthly fees on WOW and other games to reflect no real change if you just stick with one game ... say 5/mo for BNET, and only 5-10/mo for each game played on it).

Like the Godfather movies ... "It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business."


battlenet emulator to come
By berkes on 7/1/2009 10:46:39 AM , Rating: 2
Oh well , time to start working on those battle.net server emulators again ...

the more they try to block piracy , the better the ways to bypass those become.




By GlassHouse69 on 7/1/2009 12:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
yeah.

Add 10 million pissed of azn kids
1 company patching 4x a year
= raped game in 4.32 seconds.


less QQ
By invidious on 7/1/2009 11:02:56 AM , Rating: 2
The only thing this matters for is tournaments where the latency of SC1 battle.net was way too bad for competative play. You litterally can not play on the same level on battle.net, if they fix up the servers then this will not be an issue. I assume they are aware of the impact this will have on the pro esports scene.

If you think its not fair because you want to install on all your PCs for free then too bad. And if you think you like LAN more than battle.net for SC1 then be quiet until you at least play SC2 and the new battle.net, give it a chance.




RE: less QQ
By elgueroloco on 7/2/2009 3:22:57 AM , Rating: 2
The thing is, it will cost me around 90 dollars to give it a chance. Sorry. Not gonna.

Why? Aside from the price tag, I know that no online system is ever going to beat sitting in the same room with people. It's impossible.


By Indigo64 on 7/1/2009 8:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
Don't buy the damn game. I'm not going to either.




By heero884 on 7/1/2009 10:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
Someone that makes some sense in this discussion. If you don't agree with the way Blizzard is doing things then vote with your dollars, don't buy SC2.

Personally I'm buying SC2 for sure. It'll be the 2009 Game of the Year.. if it comes out this year.


Big mistake
By troysavary on 7/2/2009 7:11:00 AM , Rating: 2
LAN is what made Blizzard. Face it, none of their games were that great as single player games. Diablo had as much RPG depth as the puddles in my driveway. Warcraft and Starcraft were a bit better. But none of these games would have been the success they were without the LAN component. Kinda like how Metallica was make popular by trading bootleg concert cassettes back in the day, then spurned the very community that made them successful when they went after Napster.




RE: Big mistake
By MRwizard on 7/2/2009 9:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
This is just silly market-speak
By KashGarinn on 7/2/2009 7:37:32 AM , Rating: 2
Let me start with saying: Pirates will pirate games for 2 reasons:
1) the challenge of cracking the game. The actual people who crack the games actually like the challenge of cracking it, they most likely have completely legal copies of it, and most with sincerity post a comment in their readmes: "If you like the game, support the game developer and BUY IT"

2) to fit the game to their playstyle. No LAN option? What do you think will come out as a hack for SC2 after a couple of weeks? Yes, a LAN option.

3) People who want to buy the game, and love the LAN option will either i) buy the game, then hack it so they can play on a LAN ii) get pissed off that there's no LAN option and pirate the game and use the hack to play on a LAN.

- With that said, let's break down their marketing speak:

quote:
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.

- This is the same as saying: we don't care that you had fun on LAN, we want to DEVALUE our product for more CONTROL over how and where you play the game.
- How are they devaluing it? If I play over a LAN, there's
a) a guaranteed low ping rate
b) Living on an island, I don't have to use my bandwidth to connect to remote servers in foreign countries, bandwidth which is capped.
c) I don't have to rely on uptime of servers, I just connect to my LAN peers and play.
d) one persons legal copy is enough for a whole bunch of people on the LAN to enjoy the game together.

quote:
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


- Before I let him go on, if this was in any way a difficult decision for them, it is because people realized that they are DEVALUING their game. Battle.net is something they control completely. It is a way to make sure that no family buys just one copy of the game for everyone at home to enjoy, it makes sure that your brother or sister will have to buy the game as well, even though you just wanted a simple LAN game between your family.

quote:
a quality multiplayer experience with StarCraft II


- How they can say that with a straight face is just ludicrous.. wait, there isn't a video of them saying it, they must have been laughing their ass off thinking about all the money everyone would have to pay to be able to play while saying this.

quote:
and safeguard against piracy.


Another complete and utter strawman argument. Would you call it piracy if you're playing with your brother or sister over LAN with one copy of the game? Hell no. Would you call it piracy if you invite your friends over, and you play the game over LAN, some have the game, some don't? Hell no. It's about enabling you and your friends to have fun together, limiting every single copy to just one person isn't about enabling people to have fun together, it's about making sure you make people bleed as much money as possible.

quote:
Several Battle.net features like advanced communication options, achievements, stat-tracking, and more, require players to be connected to the service


- Yes, you definitely NEED communication options when on a LAN, could they be any more stupid? And you definitely NEED to connect to a outside server to know who won the game, otherwise, who would know? Can they be any more distrustful?

quote:
, so we’re encouraging everyone to use Battle.net as much as possible to get the most out of StarCraft II.


- And here comes the Fallacy deduction from the illogical logic which came before. They are trying to justify DEVALUING their product, and LIMITING the freedom of the owner of the game to his detriment.

quote:
We’re looking forward to sharing more details about Battle.net and online functionality for StarCraft II in the near future.


- Well, it's your chain and balls over all your players, of course you will try and advertise it as something it's not; a way to make sure everyone has to pay for the game.

quote:
Users of pirated copies of games will often utilize LAN-over-VPN programs or services, such as Hamachi, in order to form ad-hoc gaming communities.


- What liar and pig did they get to write this piece of crap? NORMAL PEOPLE will often use HAMACHI and other LAN-over-VPN programs to play together. And guess what, NORMAL PEOPLE also use LAN as an option to enjoy their games. And it's NORMAL PEOPLE who create their own communities because they want to themselves be in control of them, and not have to depend on some battle.net servers they have NO CONTROL OVER. How many Battlefield 2 servers are out there which EA has no control over? How many half-life related servers are out there which valve has no control over? Why are they calling each and everyone of these normal people pirates?

quote:
By removing the ability for LAN play, Blizzard hopes to nip this in the bud and bring more gamers to their revamped Battle.net service.


- hey, finally he isn't lying. They want to stop normal people to enjoy their games the way they are used to, and make sure that everyone has to buy their own license, has to register to their servers, and they will be in control whether you play the game or not, not you. You really think they won't be able to ban your license to connect to their servers so you can't play with anyone online?

quote:
Thankfully, the rumors about Battle.net becoming a paid service are untrue for the moment ;


- Can we trust him? Hell no. This is what they are thinking, they want to reduce peoples freedom to just enjoy the game, and willingly DEVALUE their product to get more control over you and your playing.

quote:
at least if you live in North America or the European Union. Pardo hinted that due to Asia being "a little different how they do things" some features might require microtransactions, similar to the ability to pay additional money to transfer servers in World of Warcraft.


- Liar. Liar, liar, liar.

Conclusion: Let's look at what they're doing. For the price of $XXX (don't know the price yet) you get a third of a single player game and a limited online experience which already has ads and in the future you will have to pay for.
- If that is something you can accept and would enjoy, then by all means support Blizzard in what they're doing.

Why do I say a third? Look at any RTS out there, they have all given you more than one faction to play a campaign through from the start, it's a mold they themselves imitated with from Dune 2, it's been in RTS since the beginning, and they're again DEVALUING their game from what players expect to SELL MORE. If supreme commander would have done that from the start only given you one faction as a campaign, or command & conquer...

- I'm quite surprised that sites like anandtech, gamespot and others don't actually do articles on this kind of thing, they do articles on reviews, they criticize hardware vendors for faults and fixes, why not game companies?
Starcraft 2 will definitely not be the game players expect it to be, people will think they have the same freedom as with older games, freedoms they have enjoyed for more than a decade, and it won't be in there, and the only reason it won't be seems to be; because they can.

I encourage any game review site, if I'm so lucky that any editor or article writer for them reads this, to not jump on the fanboy train automatically and just report blizzard material, There is alot of good you can do to weigh in on the direction Blizzard is taking and making sure people realize what they're doing, and how they're doing it (with lies and strawmen like "pirates might kill it").




By MRwizard on 7/2/2009 9:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
yep, they just lost me as a customer. i will NOT be buying SC2 just because its not goign to be as much fun as the first. (damn 3rd world country bandwidth caps)

Seriously though, i cannot see this game being any good at all now. i have cancelled my pre-order and i know of atleast 1 more person who's goign to cancel it once they know this.

**** you blizzard, i really wanted to buy this game - now i'm going to have to find another RTS


Sad that it came to this
By mofo3k on 7/1/2009 10:57:59 AM , Rating: 2
I think that this is all a testament to how we gamers have simulaniously made and broke the pc game industry. Blizzard had to make this game amazing or else they would be ripped for eternity, and they had to make a profit. Unfortunately while StarCraft 1 has been hugely popular, it was also one of the most pirated games ever. Blizzard had to spend a lot of money making this game and they have to make it back somehow. They might anger some devoted fans, but will probably still set record sales numbers. They are a business and will have to make good "business" decisions, and that means combating piracy any way they can.




Piracy?
By dk494922 on 7/1/2009 11:27:28 AM , Rating: 2
What if I have two computers and I want to play both computers in the same game against myself or against the CPU? is that out of my right to do so?




Does anyone remember...
By fxsage on 7/1/2009 12:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone remember... That if you tried to play SC or Diablo 1&2 on Battle.net from the same IP that it would lag like crazy?

So the only way you could play with your roommates/friends/family was through LAN.

Hopefully the new Battle.net will not have this problem. Because it was a stupid problem that they should have patched ages ago.




awesome
By Maiyr on 7/1/2009 12:27:22 PM , Rating: 2
One less game I have to buy now. Idiotic. SC saw a lot of LAN action at my house with many friends (each their own copy). We were planning to of course play SC2 via LAN. Myself and at least two others I know now aren't even going to bother with the game. LAN was the only time we really played it.




Necessary items for Battlenet
By Kary on 7/1/2009 12:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
So long as Battlenet:
1) only requires a login before playing
2) allows a direct connection to other players
3) allows choosing specific logins to play with (members of my local LAN)
4) is free

and you already have internet access on your LAN, then this IS STILL A LAN PARTY GAME.

The sad part for me is that all games are turning into these online play only crap that I hated in the first place and now single player sucks.




By Emryse on 7/1/2009 12:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
I won't be buying Starcraft II until LAN support is completely reinstated.

Perhaps they don't want paying customers after all...

And I don't want to hear any BS about "how often do you LAN, etc..." I want OPTIONS.




By jojo29 on 7/1/2009 12:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
Blizzard. You used to be one of the few companies that strived to be different. That were "for their fanbase" by releasing quality products...

Lately, you have reeked of yet, another greedy corporation. Lately, you seem only concerned with money.

Let' see your current trends, only pertaining to Starcraft:

- Releasing the game as a Trilogy
- Having to pay FULL price for each "trilogy" expansion pack
- Having to buy said "expansion"( that is all it is ) in order to continue the lore and story
- Taking away LAN Support

Taking away. That is the reason people will be so upset. In a time of economic strife, where people are looking at the value of things moreso than ever, releasing a product that TAKES AWAY options....is just stupid.

On top of that, LANs, although a niche and small minority, are on of the big reasons the original Starcraft was such a big hit: Look at all the Korena LAN tournaments....

its a slap in the face to Blizzard's Fan and Starcraft fans...




Oh boy.
By kaoken on 7/1/2009 12:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
Blizzard keeps letting us down. If blizzard drops another nuke, they can be sure this will be one fan that won't be picking up their game.




Please Don't Do This For Diablo 3
By wempa on 7/1/2009 12:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
As much as I loved Diablo 2, I may seriously skip Diablo 3 if they don't include LAN plan. It has nothing to do with piracy either, as I've purchased 3 separate copies of Diablo 2 + LOD. Nothing against Battle.net. It's a great service. However, I enjoy local play where I don't depend on their network. I also hate how they delete your characters if they haven't been used in a few months. My gaming time goes through cycles so I've lost characters that I had invested quite a bit of time into. I hope they keep the Diablo 3 multi-player options the same as Diablo 2.




They have just lost a sale.
By ThePooBurner on 7/1/2009 2:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
I have gone 11 years without knowing more about the storyline of StarCraft. I can easily never learn the rest. I don't give a crap about online play. I hate online play for anything besides FPS' and i don't really care to do that except as a simple tide over till the next lan party. This game has 0 value to it without lan play. I hate Battle.NET. I've never liked it. I've avoided it everywhere i could. I don't give a crap about central stats and e-peenchievments. How about having a stat tracker on the local computer like UT did?

First splitting it into 3 episodes. Now this BS. F-that crap i don't need to buy this game and i won't. Same goes for D3 if they pull similar crap. I've already quit WoW a few months ago. They screwed every character i play up with the last few patches that any desire i might have had to find out the rest of the story line or play again left me entirely. Baring some miracle i think i am done with blizzard.

StarWars: The Old Republic is probably where i will find myself now.




Hacked Battle.net Accounts
By plonk420 on 7/1/2009 2:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
i really didn't care about this until recently when my World of Warcraft account got hacked, but

YOUR BATTLE.NET ACCOUNT IS ESSENTIALLY A STEAM ACCOUNT NOW.

and blizzard encourages you to tie your World of Warcraft account to it. and there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of (WoW) accounts that have gotten hacked lately. i for one was one of them. one friend at work as well (out of the multiple players there, too).

and i'd LIKE to think i have decent security practices (as well as that friend): no viruses in the last 10-12 years (except one i knew about when i was downloading a TSR cheater back in the DOS days that i was able to successfully clean, and then later use). one spyware instance that i was able to deal with within hours and never hear from again nor need to reload OS (~2003 or so). this was with a password Goggle considered strong.

the thing that scares me with this hack is that i have no idea if it was something on my system (an online scanner on at least one of my 2 gaming systems reported it clean; the other crashed as it was an OC that was only running at that speed for a few days and i didn't pause my distributed computing ;) or a brute force of Blizzard's site or the WoW login. AND if they actually know my password, which, admittedly, i use on a couple other sites (but not ALL!). well, they're now all changed.

lame.




My vote
By mcnabney on 7/1/2009 3:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
Too many delays
+
Decision to release the game in sections
+
eliminate LAN play
=
one less customer

Oh well, I am sure someone else will earn my business.




BS
By badmoodguy on 7/1/2009 4:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
This is about stopping people from reselling the game back to Gamestop or wherever. They are trying to stop the used game market. Perhaps the used game market could get a study done on how many sales this type of DRM is costing them.




IMO I will never miss it
By technerdftw on 7/1/2009 7:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
I played SC, war3, diablo 2 and i almost never used the lan feature. the only times i did is when i cant host games due to port forwarding issues to play with friends.

Also, i love the fact that it is split in 3 games.
would you rather pay $120 for a single game that comes out in 4 years, or $40 for each game and one comes out each year. I rather get it sooner than later and pay the same amount. Of course who comes out with a $120 game, but if the content is at least 3 times that of starcraft, i would.

Its basically 1 game and 2 expansion packs, ppl never complained about sc, diablo, war3 and wow getting expansion packs.

also piracy is a huge issue for gaming, there are articles from game developers moving from pc to console purely due to piracy concerns.




steam
By AznAnarchy99 on 7/2/2009 4:35:13 AM , Rating: 2
you might be able to install steam on more than one computer but you still cant play the same game at the same time on 2 diff computers.




By Gymnogene on 7/2/2009 8:31:28 AM , Rating: 2
It's obviously greed, and obviously they don't care about their customers, but I suppose they can do what they want and people don't have to buy and play the game. They know people are like sheep and they've got such a strong brand most guys (including me) will rush out and buy the game without knowing or caring how good or bad it is.

However, I think it will backfire on them in the long run.
The longevity of Starcraft is very much thanks to LAN support. In my experience people play a game online for a while and then move onto some other games and get drawn back into a game by playing against friends/family on a LAN and realising how cool it actually was.

Once someone leaves an online game the chances are small of going back to it if there's no LAN support, because you simply won't play the game again. I have no doubt Starcraft II will reign supreme for a while but I give it a few years at most (not 10) with this kind of approach.




aoe2
By Aoe2 on 7/3/2009 12:33:56 AM , Rating: 2
if only microsoft would remake age of empires 2.. to show blizzard how rts games should rly be.




Cash
By excelsium on 7/3/2009 8:53:30 AM , Rating: 2
They are making so much money off of WoW, only greed explains this move.




LAN?
By pickleman2000 on 7/4/2009 3:09:38 AM , Rating: 2
The days of downloading/installing games on your computer are nearing an end.
Soon everything will be terminal services over the internet.
Just like 1980 terminals but with directX
Then you just log in by swiping your rfid chip implanted hand over the secure scanner.
Enjoy!




By Codeman03xx on 7/4/2009 2:19:11 PM , Rating: 2
OK First. They drag every dollar out of the game possible by release it as 3 games first is $49.99 2nd is $39.99 3rd is $39.99... WHAT THE HECK BLIZZARD THIS IS ROBBERY. They make Millions of dollars a minute for charging for WOW which the price is still retardly high. $12.99 for per month, come on Blizz. Secondly no LANING ROTFLMAO. Come on what is that about Star Craft is a key thing to the Lanning community. I go to 100-200 Man LAN's so now we won't be able to play Star Craft 2 there because internet for 200 people would bog down everything. I mean the whole purpose of doing a LAN is so that you have no Latency, and unless the internet can start getting everyones Latency times far below 20ms I will not be apart of that. Think about playing online with a DSL or Dial-up game. BLEH not buying it at all. waste of time.




At this point in the game...
By Crota on 7/7/2009 10:55:26 AM , Rating: 2
I wont say that I am not a little soured by the news that you can only plan with an active connection to battle net. Concerns over Lantency and other similar issues are a major concern but I still have to wait and see how Blizzard implements this "No LAN Support."

I am assuming that there will still be Custom Games and similar chat rooms compared to the current WC3 battle net. If battle net and its routing system is set up in an intelligent way, I can see LAN Parties, even those with only a 56k Dial Up connection, to enjoy a low lag experience assuming they are on a low lantency LAN.

At this point Blizzard has earned a lot of my trust. I've purchased multiple copies of SC, Broodwar, WC3 and one copy of Diablo 2 and D2X (is your integrity not worth more $50?) espically for great games. If Blizzard doesn't get it right, they will make it right. For those of us who remember when they added a replay feature to the Original Starcraft, that was huge bonus in what I believe was the 1.07 Patch. If the need arises perhaps we will see LAN Support as a Patch or an addition to the Trilogy.

Hell has no fury like a gamers scorn and the gaming community it definately letting Blizzard know how they feel. Blizzard has shown that they will listen to community. Just look at the art direction immediatly after the first BlizzCon where the Sunction Cup Siege tank appeared. People played, people commented, Blizzard chose to listen. Blizzard may not always listen to community, but they have earned my trust and I will be purchasing SC2.




“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki