ktimekiller
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2003
- Messages
- 4,838
- Reaction score
- 40
no lan in lan party = T_T
Boycotting Starcraft 2
- Thread starter SpiderPig
- Start date
StarBob
Tank
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 2,677
- Reaction score
- 0
How much lag can you get with local broadband from everyone's connection? In my random beta action I don't think I encountered more than five laggy games and the person lagging usually dropped. As for security... I don't know what secrets you're trying to keep playing Starcraft... lol
Really I just don't get it. There's hardly an argument. LAN gaming is slowly fading away. The propagation of universal broadband internet connections will be the sword that killed it. It'll be just like the death of direct modem connections (yeah I did that plenty) and no one will notice.
Bad^Hat
The Freeman
- Joined
- May 13, 2003
- Messages
- 19,983
- Reaction score
- 530
ITT people fail to comprehend the appeal of LAN parties.
The point is having everyone play in one place at a time. Of course they can still meet up and play through battle.net, but splitting a single broadband connection between 10+ people is uhh... not exactly ideal.
That said, I agree with their reasons for doing so - LAN parties did make it kind of easy to copy the game from someone else and play with others, while never interacting with the systems in place to prevent you from doing so (online play). So, in principle I don't think it's a bad move, but Blizzard is a company whose games have always been played avidly at LANs, so it seems like their cutting out a portion of their fanbase by doing this, and possibly some potential customers. It mightn't be such a big deal if they'd meet people half way, maybe include the ability for friends to play spawn copies online as long as you were playing with them (remember that from Diablo 1?), but that's doubtful.
Now that I think of it though, how did people play Diablo II at LANs? It had the ability to play locally, but it was segregated from battle.net in that you could only use your single player characters - the online characters were hosted server side to prevent hacks (and if you played Diablo 1 you understood why
). Maybe it just wasn't popular at LANs? Idunno.
Edit: Also, no one has an issue with the servers being split between regions? I'd think of all places, hl2.net would understand the appeal of being able to play with people from other countries.
The point is having everyone play in one place at a time. Of course they can still meet up and play through battle.net, but splitting a single broadband connection between 10+ people is uhh... not exactly ideal.
That said, I agree with their reasons for doing so - LAN parties did make it kind of easy to copy the game from someone else and play with others, while never interacting with the systems in place to prevent you from doing so (online play). So, in principle I don't think it's a bad move, but Blizzard is a company whose games have always been played avidly at LANs, so it seems like their cutting out a portion of their fanbase by doing this, and possibly some potential customers. It mightn't be such a big deal if they'd meet people half way, maybe include the ability for friends to play spawn copies online as long as you were playing with them (remember that from Diablo 1?), but that's doubtful.
Now that I think of it though, how did people play Diablo II at LANs? It had the ability to play locally, but it was segregated from battle.net in that you could only use your single player characters - the online characters were hosted server side to prevent hacks (and if you played Diablo 1 you understood why
). Maybe it just wasn't popular at LANs? Idunno.Edit: Also, no one has an issue with the servers being split between regions? I'd think of all places, hl2.net would understand the appeal of being able to play with people from other countries.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2004
- Messages
- 20,876
- Reaction score
- 435
I DON'T PLAY LAN SO CLEARLY NO ONE ELSE DOES SO SHUT UP. Last time I played a LAN game with no internet connection was a couple of months ago, but myself and my friends last year played a hell of a lot of C&C over ad-hoc networks last year. At least once a week.
Dynasty
Space Core
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2004
- Messages
- 4,976
- Reaction score
- 17
Haha, last time I played LAN was Worms 2 at Uni 4 years ago. Somehow our PCs were LAN'd together across our entire halls (3 buildings) yet it also acted as our bband (which gave me a 1250k download speed sometimes, got the screenshot hidden around somewhere), so we just had games with 20 or 30 people in a tournament.
PSN Plus is irrelevant in this case as it does not change the current situation of PSN. It is NOT obligatory to play online, unlike Xbox Live Gold. PSN Plus is just there if you want it. If you dont want it, not having it doesnt change anything.
Basically Microsoft force you to pay to play online, how that money benefits the online experience when you compare it to PSN I will never know as PSN is perfectly fine, whereas Sony dont. And now that the consoles are so evenly priced, thats going to make a difference.
But Blizzard, or more to the point Activision after seeing MW2 sales and the money eyes welled up with excitement, are definitely being hindered as they need to pump out more games to maintain their stock prices, attract new investment, and keep everyone happy that is making money. Its just basic economics. Human nature; money is our biggest downfall.
No LAN is just crying for a hack like people here have said earlier, and that is CERTAINLY going to be the number one reason for the piracy.
''Heres the world's greatest, newly improved blueberry pie. But we forgot to add blueberries...Please buy it and love it anyway. Oh and if we catch you putting in blueberries yourself, we'll do everything we can to make you burn in hell. And dont try to share a piece with your friends overseas. You'll need to buy a whole new blueberry pie without blueberries if you want to do that. Have a nice day.''
If anything, Starcraft 2 sales will plummet the second someone introduces a LAN hack, and B. Net will suffer the whiplash effect as it grinds to a halt like hitting a brick wall.
PSN Plus is irrelevant in this case as it does not change the current situation of PSN. It is NOT obligatory to play online, unlike Xbox Live Gold. PSN Plus is just there if you want it. If you dont want it, not having it doesnt change anything.
Basically Microsoft force you to pay to play online, how that money benefits the online experience when you compare it to PSN I will never know as PSN is perfectly fine, whereas Sony dont. And now that the consoles are so evenly priced, thats going to make a difference.
But Blizzard, or more to the point Activision after seeing MW2 sales and the money eyes welled up with excitement, are definitely being hindered as they need to pump out more games to maintain their stock prices, attract new investment, and keep everyone happy that is making money. Its just basic economics. Human nature; money is our biggest downfall.
No LAN is just crying for a hack like people here have said earlier, and that is CERTAINLY going to be the number one reason for the piracy.
''Heres the world's greatest, newly improved blueberry pie. But we forgot to add blueberries...Please buy it and love it anyway. Oh and if we catch you putting in blueberries yourself, we'll do everything we can to make you burn in hell. And dont try to share a piece with your friends overseas. You'll need to buy a whole new blueberry pie without blueberries if you want to do that. Have a nice day.''
If anything, Starcraft 2 sales will plummet the second someone introduces a LAN hack, and B. Net will suffer the whiplash effect as it grinds to a halt like hitting a brick wall.
flamingdts
Spy
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 773
- Reaction score
- 0
I would actually laugh if they introduced lan about half a year after the release.
taviow
Tank
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2007
- Messages
- 3,171
- Reaction score
- 8
Yeah that's what worries me the most :|
Similar threads
