Starcraft 2 won't support LAN play

[Gargantou]

I sure do, you'd be surprised how much the women like the fact I can remvoe my fingers from their joints!

 

[CyberPitz]

...
I envy you, sir.
*Bows*

*EDIT*

The more I'm thinking....Valve has the ability to let you play games via LAN. Steam requires internet, so what does it do to allow you to play without an internet connection? That's a serious question, I'm not sure. What if Blizzard incorperated something like that into Bnet 2.0. You log into bnet, it recognizes you don't have internet. It does what Steam does, whatever that is, and says "OK, you can play in offline mode." Then you're in a bnet-esque place where you can view games created via the network.

AH hell, I don't know. I'm just going to sit and wait for what they will say.

I'd laugh like a little girl if they were just talking about the Beta not having LAN. Since the announcement they made was during a talk about the beta, essentially.

 

[Stigmata]

They won't backtrack. They said they won't support LAN at all. They WILL have an alternative to LAN. Will it mean you have to have an internet connection and verify? More than likely. But don't think they will backtrack and say "JUST KIDDING, WE HAVE LAN." Nope....though, not sure how it will pan out, but it will. Blizzard isn't exactly retarded.

I don't know... If they meant "we will have an alternative to LAN," but then said "we will not support LAN" instead, can you really say that's not even slightly retarded?

 

[CyberPitz]

I don't know... If they meant "we will have an alternative to LAN," but then said "we will not support LAN" instead, can you really say that's not even slightly retarded?

PR =/= Blizzard as a whole.

As of right now, you can play LAN through bnet. *I know, there is a LAN feature incorporated into the game, but I don't see how this won't work with SC2.* If two people on a network join bnet, make a game and only those two are in it, you'll be playing just fine. I'd imagine that's what will happen with bnet2.0.

 

[CyberPitz]

Karune is all over Bnet replying to this whole bash for no LAN...just two that I've seen.

The first 4 pillars are ALL being made better.

1) Development time for StarCraft II have far exceeded the original StarCraft in both the standard of quality and duration, to ensure the highest in quality RTS experience we can possibly create.

2) Not only is it free to play online, Battle.net 2.0 is designed with the new generation of online community and eSports in mind.

3) As long as there are people playing our games, we will continue to support them, and we have continued with this tradition with our legacy titles like the original StarCraft.

4) StarCraft II was created with eSports as a cornerstone in design philosophy. StarCraft evolved into an eSport.

5) Map Editor will be better than any we have ever released.

and:

6) ??? - will have to wait and see

For me personally- I loved LAN parties, but the direction in which Battle.net is headed, I would always choose to play on Battle.net > 99% of the time and even if for whatever reason I did decide to lug my computer to a friend's house in this day of age (<1%), I would still be playing with them on Battle.net against others at their place.

And

As mentioned by Rob Pardo in interviews, piracy is a serious problem and often times tie in closely with LAN. At the end of the day, we want the best for the community and fans that support our games, and having chunk of the community pirate the game actually hurts the community.

1) Pirated servers splinter the community instead of consolidating all players who love to play the game. Battle.net will bring players together in skirmishes, ladder play, custom games, and allow everyone the opportunity to share a common experience.

2) More people on Battle.net means more even more resources devoted to evolving this online platform to cater to further community building and new ways to enjoy the game online. World of Warcraft is a great example of a game that has evolved beyond anyone's imagination since their Day 1 and will continue to do so to better the player experience for as long as players support the title. The original StarCraft is an even better example of how 11 years later, players still love and play this title, and we will continue to support and evolve it with patches.

We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better.

If I were to buy StarCraft II or any other title, I know the money I spent would be going to supporting that title. Personally, I would be upset that others were freeloading while others are legitimately supporting a title that has great potential and goals of making this title have 'long legs.'

If you like a song a lot, buy it, and that artist will only come out with more awesome songs for you. If you like a game, buy it, and we will promise to constantly work to make the player experience better at every corner we can.

Support the causes you believe in (This is applicable to all things, not just gaming).
Don't be a leech to society, innovation, and further awesome creations.

He has some good points, and one of the things I was thinking, answer me this.

Those of you who are "OMFG BLIZZARD THAT'S GAY!"....why? Do you have some deep loving nature towards the LAN feature? Is that how you mainly played the game? Are you speaking out of the whole, what, 2-3 times a year you're going to lug your shit to a LAN center to play the games? Out of those times that you do that, though, what are the chances that you will get a venue that has internet? I know there are a few places out there that have nowhere with internet...but around here, any LAN venue has internet. And for LAN, you don't need an awesome WAN connection. Just enough to get everybody onto Bnet, then join your game. While you're playing, you'll have zero lag...the same good ol' 5ms.

If you for some reason don't have internet *It crashed, sporadic, etc* then why not just 1.) Play singleplayer or 2.) Wait until you get internet if SP isn't enough.

 

[Rico]

Personally, what I hate is the de-evolution and removal of user freedom. Sure, maybe I don't have LAN games going 24/7 but what happens if my internet dies and I still want to play multiplayer? Too bad?

Why should we "wait to get internet"? We've had LAN ever since multiplayer games existed, it is a fast, great way to play together with friends and people in close proximity. Gaming is already anti-social enough, do you honestly think that people will "get together" to play SC2 in the same room, even though they'd have to connect to Bnet and essentially log on online to do it?

I remember another developer who removed LAN play from their game for the same reasons. Flagship. They also had the same talk about making the game an online community and evolving it and blah blah blah and guess what, players go the raw end of the deal, and the company is no longer around.

So when I see developers talking about removing features that players have loved for decades... Good, solid features, it bothers me. If any developer can afford to have their game pirated, it's Blizzard.

My question is: Is Bnet 2.0 is so great and awesome and messianic, why do they even need to bother removing LAN play? If Bnet 2.0 is that great, people will buy legit copies of the game just to play on Bnet. It pisses me off when developers shove this garbage on us that is blatantly made to serve their agenda, and tell us that it's for our benefit somehow. How do I benefit from losing features I already had?

Pure BS.

 

[Dog--]

Stupid. You are aware that a lot of gaming happens in impromptu get togethers in which an internet connection (or even a concrete LAN) is entirely absent (you create the LAN through your computers wireless card, etc). No, internet connections are in fact often absent in the case of LAN play, stop assuming everyone lives the same life you do.

Not to mention the latency issues.

Well if you're posting on here you have the internet, so there goes that argument. And as for latency issues.. Blizzard is a pretty big company, chances are they'll have good enough internet code bullshit when they make this game, as they made WoW, of which I played on dial up with no lag.

So if there is lag in Starcraft 2, Blizzard would REALLY have to drop the ball.

BTW I know what LAN is it's still stupid. It was good back in the day when no one had internet or just had slow dial up, but there is no reason for it today.

 

[CyberPitz]

Personally, what I hate is the de-evolution and removal of user freedom. Sure, maybe I don't have LAN games going 24/7 but what happens if my internet dies and I still want to play multiplayer? Too bad?

Why should we "wait to get internet"? We've had LAN ever since multiplayer games existed, it is a fast, great way to play together with friends and people in close proximity. Gaming is already anti-social enough, do you honestly think that people will "get together" to play SC2 in the same room, even though they'd have to connect to Bnet and essentially log on online to do it?

I remember another developer who removed LAN play from their game for the same reasons. Flagship. They also had the same talk about making the game an online community and evolving it and blah blah blah and guess what, players go the raw end of the deal, and the company is no longer around.

So when I see developers talking about removing features that players have loved for decades... Good, solid features, it bothers me. If any developer can afford to have their game pirated, it's Blizzard.

My question is: Is Bnet 2.0 is so great and awesome and messianic, why do they even need to bother removing LAN play? If Bnet 2.0 is that great, people will buy legit copies of the game just to play on Bnet. It pisses me off when developers shove this garbage on us that is blatantly made to serve their agenda, and tell us that it's for our benefit somehow. How do I benefit from losing features I already had?

Pure BS.

Your entire arguement fails because of your immature point RIGHT THERE. Seriously? "Oh we've got enough money, so let's let an ENTIRE country *IE China* pirate our game, we can afford it."
Seriously? That's part of your argument?

Anyway, you're upset because you're losing LAN. You never answered my question. Did you REALLY use it often to warrant them LOSING MONEY from piracy on it? If your internet goes down, how long IS it down? A couple hours? Why did it go down? Mostly, I'd assume a power outage, which renders LAN useless anyway.

If you have shoddy internet, you don't have to be connected the entire time. Just long enough to connect to b.net, start a game. Then the internet means nothing. You're connected to the LAN, you're good to go. Who said you have to be in teh same room? Laptops these days all come with wireless cards, and even PCI wireless cards are out there. OR, make yourself a nice long cable for $2, then set up a table somewhere in the house/room.

do you honestly think that people will "get together" to play SC2 in the same room, even though they'd have to connect to Bnet and essentially log on online to do it?

So, playing in teh same room is OK, but once you add internet and an account into the mix, it's complete bullshit? Right. :upstare:

*Edit* @ Dog--

Agreed. LAN is 99% useless in today's world. Even most LAN centers have internet...

 

[Rico]

Yes I do use LAN play quite often. And you're picking one small sentence out of my argument and ignoring everything else. I have bought every single Blizzard game out there right now, barring the last WoW expansion.

You are basing your argument on things Blizzard has not even stated:

If you have shoddy internet, you don't have to be connected the entire time. Just long enough to connect to b.net, start a game. Then the internet means nothing. You're connected to the LAN, you're good to go. Who said you have to be in teh same room? Laptops these days all come with wireless cards, and even PCI wireless cards are out there. OR, make yourself a nice long cable for $2, then set up a table somewhere in the house/room.

They haven't said it will work that way. And no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise, yes it will affect net performance. Sure, internet connection holds fine for one person but then lets assume that you have one of your 20 or 30 person internet LAN and then make them connect to battle.net as an internet game. Your DSL connection dies, not to mention the possible network issues you may have because Battle.net doesn't like your network setup (which has happened to my brother and I billions of times in other online RTS games with similar systems. Only one could play at a time without having to go and configure the network)

Now go ahead and take all the usual set up required for a LAN, then throw in having to configure computers and the network whenever you want to play a game because you HAVE to go through Bnet to play together. A major pain... Versus what we ALREADY have, which is a seamless, easy and enjoyable experience.

Developers can use whatever means they want to prevent piracy, but to me, this is just as bad, if not worse than Starforce and all those stupid anti-piracy systems that hurt the paying customer more than they do the pirates.

None of these companies can stop piracy. If someone wants to buy the game, they'll buy it. If not, they'll pirate it or not bother with it.

Like I said, Lizzard-Vission isn't exactly hurting for money right now. I have seen smaller developers take the high road and ship without any kind of protection and sell very well. This is just plain BS.

"We don't need it blah blah blah"

Correction: You don't need it, but others might. It's the might that is important. That is why people are annoyed, the only reason this feature is being removed is to help their budget, by crippling a portion of the consumers that buy their product.

 

[CyberPitz]

Yes I do use LAN play quite often. And you're picking one small sentence out of my argument and ignoring everything else. I have bought every single Blizzard game out there right now, barring the last WoW expansion.

That doesn't mean that a company can afford to have their games pirated. LAN play is a feature, not a requirement. They can do with that as they see fit to protect their intellectual property.

You are basing your argument on things Blizzard has not even stated:


They haven't said it will work that way. And no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise, yes it will affect net performance. Sure, internet connection holds fine for one person but then lets assume that you have one of your 20 or 30 person internet LAN and then make them connect to battle.net as an internet game. Your DSL connection dies, not to mention the possible network issues you may have because Battle.net doesn't like your network setup (which has happened to my brother and I billions of times in other online RTS games with similar systems. Only one could play at a time without having to go and configure the network)

No, take B.Net right now. You CAN do this. You can take 24 players. Throw them on a network with 3 games, 8 players each. You will have no lag, because you are not using internet while playing the game as much as you think. The information in the game is being transferred computer to computer, it's not leaving the network. I can not see how that will have an effect on the network at the slightest of bits. Actually, it won't, as I've seen it done.

Now go ahead and take all the usual set up required for a LAN, then throw in having to configure computers and the network whenever you want to play a game because you HAVE to go through Bnet to play together. A major pain... Versus what we ALREADY have, which is a seamless, easy and enjoyable experience.

Now here, I would have to agree. Although, I've not had any extra issues connecting to the internet than I do connecting to the network. Every time I've taken my box to another persons house for some casual gaming, if I've ever had an issue, it was the network. Once that was sorted, the internet was flawless. So really, I don't see how you're running into any additional issues besides just making a bigger deal out of something not so big to begin with.

Developers can use whatever means they want to prevent piracy, but to me, this is just as bad, if not worse than Starforce and all those stupid anti-piracy systems that hurt the paying customer more than they do the pirates.

None of these companies can stop piracy. If someone wants to buy the game, they'll buy it. If not, they'll pirate it or not bother with it.

So, the removal of one feature is the same as a game crippling DRM? More over-exaggerating ftw.

Like I said, Lizzard-Vission isn't exactly hurting for money right now. I have seen smaller developers take the high road and ship without any kind of protection and sell very well. This is just plain BS.

Again, that's the immature thoughts that have no place in an argument. The fact they are doing very well has nothing to do with the fact that they want to protect their intellectual property. They have every right, and they should.

"We don't need it blah blah blah"

Correction: You don't need it, but others might. It's the might that is important. That is why people are annoyed, the only reason this feature is being removed is to help their budget, by crippling a portion of the consumers that buy their product.

You're right, I don't need it. And I can't count more than a handful of people that do. So, Blizzard should not make an attempt at protecting their product, but instead leave it open because of the small percentage of people that are in a country that has a poor internet infrastructure and/or don't have a fast internet. Well, fast internet isn't really an issue, as people with 56k should be able to play the game still, though it would probably be a hassle. If you don't have internet, then why are you buying a game for the soul purpose of multi player? It's like someone complaining about needing internet for HL2, when it says on the box what is required.

 

[Rico]

The US is not the only country that plays video games. I started playing Starcraft when I was in Venezuela on a LAN.

Multiplayer != Internet. Not always. It may be that to you, but some people prefer to play their games with friends. I'd much rather have a game of SC with my friends than on Bnet. Why? Because Bnet is full of 1337 12 year old kids with nothing better to do than to look up build orders and watch demos and videos of korean players all day. The best games of starcraft I have EVER had were on my LAN.

You must remember that this game is a world-wide thing, not just localized to the US or Europe. Not all countries and people are in the same situation. Internet is not as widely available in all countries as in the US, the connection speeds are not the same...

Also, did you stop to think about what this would do if you get charged by bandwidth rather than a flat monthly fee? That's how its done in Venezuela. LAN = no bandwidth usage, which means no money spent in that situation. Then going through Bnet to play on a LAN, you're going to be essentially "wasting" your money to pay for "would be pirates". Consumer gets screwed again.

Bandwidth metering is a common practice in a lot of countries.

What it boils down to is that there are many reasons why LAN play still exists to this day. Blizzard is going to be shooting themselves in the foot by removing this and while I may still consider buying SC2, I can see how a lot of people wouldn't now that this is announced.

 

[CyberPitz]

Since when did I say otherwise?

You can easily play with friends and play SC2. Just log into B.net. Why is that such a tough situation if you have internet already? Do they not have internet in Venezuela or something? *I know they do.*

Hell, I also got my start with SC on LAN with a friend from school. Does that mean I need to nut love on LAN because of that? Nah, technology has come a long way, and yes, most countries have internet these days.

 

[Rico]

I edited my post, as I realized I did not explain my position fully.

 

[Shakermaker]

You must remember that this game is a world-wide thing, not just localized to the US or Europe. Not all countries and people are in the same situation.

Correct, but you have to keep in mind that Blizzard is in the money making business, it's not the UN of Games. The company made the decision to target the markets with a high broadband penetration, i.e. Europe, the Far East and North America. If am quite sure they calculated in the risk of losing a couple of customers due to dropping the LAN option. But it is diddly squat compared to the total sales figures if you ask me.

 

[CyberPitz]

I'm sure there will be some people that won't buy the game just because it's not worth it right out the door. Maybe down the line they will, when they get more stable/just plain get internet, or what have you. But as of right now, as Shaker said, they are target selector. They know what they are doing, and saying they will "Shoot themselves in the foot" is completely incorrect. If they didn't have an alternative? Yes, that would be true. But they have said they have an alternative, and all we are doing together, right now, is 100% speculation. We've not seen what is in store with bnet 2.0. We have absolutely no idea what their alternative is. The only thing we can do is wait and see, and when we have all of the information, then base an opinion.

*EDIT*

Also, think of bnet2.0 like Steam...ish. For all we know, it may hold the same idea of "Offline Mode" that works! First you authenticate, then you can do the offline mode. Again, speculation, but that seems like a good idea, if any.

 

[Rico]

Correct, but you have to keep in mind that Blizzard is in the money making business, it's not the UN of Games. The company made the decision to target the markets with a high broadband penetration, i.e. Europe, the Far East and North America. If am quite sure they calculated in the risk of losing a couple of customers due to dropping the LAN option.

*shrug* It's their call, like I said. I am fully aware that the only thing people can do is vote with their wallets.

I'll probably still buy SC2, but I already know several people who won't because of this. I will probably be less trusting of the quality of their products as a result however, as I am less likely to trust a company that doesn't trust me enough to give me features I've had in games since networks have existed.

 

[CyberPitz]

Why are you going all hellbent hostile "I won't trust the company..." because they have only given you part of the information.

Think WON. When it was dropped to Steam, people freaked out. The Offline mode was horrible/rarely worked, things weren't so great. In the end? It's good. Why not wait until the puzzle comes together instead of hastily jumping to conclusions? Are you that desperate to distrust them?

 

[Shakermaker]

*shrug* It's their call, like I said. I am fully aware that the only thing people can do is vote with their wallets.

I'll probably still buy SC2, but I already know several people who won't because of this. I will probably be less trusting of the quality of their products as a result however, as I am less likely to trust a company that doesn't trust me enough to give me features I've had in games since networks have existed.

It is not a question of trust, it is evolution of technology. Imo complaining about this is like being angry that the dial has been removed from the TV and that you now have to use a remote control. I can understand that some people still want to turn that dial to see what is on, but the alternative is so much better. Like Pitz said, Battlenet 2.0 is gonna be a sort of next gen Steam. Should offer some pretty cool features. Really looking forward to it myself.

 

[CyberPitz]

It is not a question of trust, it is evolution of technology. Imo complaining about this is like being angry that the dial has been removed from the TV and that you now have to use a remote control. I can understand that some people still want to turn that dial to see what is on, but the alternative is so much better. Like Pitz said, Battlenet 2.0 is gonna be a sort of next gen Steam. Should offer some pretty cool features.

Or in a more comparative stance, what if you have no batteries? How will you change the channel?

That's not exactly something people are complaining about these days.

TBH, we don't know what Bnet 2.0 is going to hold for us. Shaker may be right, which is what everything is pointing to *Bnet being integrated into WoW...*. OR, he may be wrong, along with all of us on some things, and we'll find out when the info is provided.

 

[Shakermaker]

Or in a more comparative stance, what if you have no batteries? How will you change the channel?

Mental note: stock 3 cases of AA and AAA Duracells.

 

[Rico]

No distrust, no conclusion jumping. I am making my opinions based on what they have officially announced. When they announce an offline mode like in Steam, I will be a happy camper. Until then though, I will take them to their word and expect no LAN play whatsoever.

I don't see why I would want to "hate" a company. I'm a consumer, I buy whatever gives me the best game for my buck. Blizzard has given me that in the past, but I'd be dumb not to reassess my opinion when things seem to start changing.

 

[CyberPitz]

I can't make that into the analogy. "Stock 3 cases of internet and WiFi"?

BAH!

*EDIT* I hardly see how an outdated piece of technology is a change for the worse, but whatever. You come to shallow conclusions all you want. I'll be enjoying every bit of SC2 and D3, including the omission of LAN.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

tl;dr: Fire Pardo. Worst. PR. Ever.

 

[CyberPitz]

Pardo isn't the best, but he wasn't wrong at least. He was going to announce that weather or not something went down on Monday. Monday was supposed to be the day Bnet 2.0 was unveiled in all it's glory. That didn't come around, obviously, so we only heard one part of the story. Sucks, but it happens.

 

[Rico]

I can't make that into the analogy. "Stock 3 cases of internet and WiFi"?

BAH!

*EDIT* I hardly see how an outdated piece of technology is a change for the worse, but whatever. You come to shallow conclusions all you want. I'll be enjoying every bit of SC2 and D3, including the omission of LAN.

No need to devalue my opinion simply because we disagree. I get it, LAN is not important to you. It is to me and others.

No shallow conclusions here, just facts, straight out of their mouths. I am not theorizing any Steam.net 2.0's like you guys are doing. I'm taking them to their word.

 

[CyberPitz]

No need to devalue my opinion simply because we disagree. I get it, LAN is not important to you. It is to me and others.

No shallow conclusions here, just facts, straight out of their mouths. I am not theorizing any Steam.net 2.0's like you guys are doing. I'm taking them to their word.

I only devalue peoples opinions when the whole story isn't about yet. It's like a murder trial when the key witness hasn't shown up yet.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Man, I expected this sort of explosion from starcraft2forum.org, but they were all pretty logical about it. You guys freaked out like kids that didn't get candy that day.

I find the particular way in which you behaved on the internet discussion forum halflife2.net to be utterly unacceptable and childish. You should see the distinguished and well behaved denizens of the vastly superior board which pertains exclusively to game being discussed, they put you to shame.

 

[CyberPitz]

I find the particular way in which you behaved on the internet discussion forum halflife2.net to be utterly unacceptable and childish. You should see the distinguished and well behaved denizens of the vastly superior board which pertains exclusively to game being discussed, they put you to shame.

I WANT MY MOMMMYYYYYY

GIMME A HOTDOG!

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I'll give you a hotdog alright...

/unzips

 

[CyberPitz]

I'll give you a hotdog alright...

/unzips

Yayyyyy!

Also, People may not know this, but Blizzard made an attempt to sue a company over in China which the prime reason for it being open is supplying a LAN connection for Starcraft *Think Himachi, but dedicated to one thing.* That let people download SC, then just use that service to play. They didn't charge for the service, so the lawsuit failed when Blizzard went after them. Blizzard is trying to prevent anything like this from happening, so no loopholes will exist like that.

 

[ríomhaire]

Over the college year my friends and I must have played a hundred C&C skirmishes with each other using ad-hoc LANs, often in places (such as the accomidation I was living in) with no internet at all. On the other hand I have never played a strategy game online and have no interest in playing one with strangers. If Blizzard are really not going to support LAN at all, all they are doing is removing freedom from the player.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

hear, hear-ríomhaire. I hope that they reconsider or are simply being misinterpreted.

 

[CyberPitz]

Over the college year my friends and I must have played a hundred C&C skirmishes with each other using ad-hoc LANs, often in places (such as the accomidation I was living in) with no internet at all. On the other hand I have never played a strategy game online and have no interest in playing one with strangers. If Blizzard are really not going to support LAN at all, all they are doing is removing freedom from the player.

If you're playing a strategy game online, and don't want to play with strangers....play with friends?

I've been doing that with hl2net folks on bnet for many months.

@BHC

They are not. Karune has come on saying that's exactly what's up. No LAN due to piracy.

 

[Rico]

They are doing it to help enhance our experience. Right? :-P

I love PR people.

 

[CyberPitz]

Lol yeah. "To bring the community together"

Yeah, that makes sense . The more we talk about this, though, the more I want to see what is going to be on bnet2.0. I just want it NOW!

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Regardless, I just phoned Blizzard and tried my best to arrange an interview with Rob Pardo. He is being forwarded my information (cell and email) and I'll dictate the thing to all the major gaming webbies. Looking forward to chatting with him, even though chances are they'll just throw away my number and lol.

I did get through to Jeff Kaplan once and had a great discussion with him, same for Gabe and Eric of Valve fame. Here's to hoping I get extended the same kind of courtesy I've had in the past with personally contacting game developers.

 

[CyberPitz]

You're calling some guy from Blizzard in hopes to talk about this LAN issue? Or am I misreading what you're saying?

If you are, I don't imagine you getting far/changing any minds. This is one of those big things that I'm sure they thought of as "OK, how much shit can we get into if we do this."

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I'm calling because instead of ranting on forum boards and crying about it I feel like talking to the people who are making these statements. It's worked in the past, I've had more than one discussion with Jeffry Kaplan (ex-lead WoW designer) and Gabe Newell, who have both changed the way I look at their games to this very day.

It's great to talk to developers.

 

[CyberPitz]

If you can, great. They've already had their Community Manager out *Karune* trying to stave this off as much as possible. So, I'm not entirely sure how far you can get.....but like I said, if you can, more power to ya.

 

[Kyorisu]

No SC2 at Reloaded then I guess. As it stands when you have 500 computers all vying for internet access on an ADSL2 connection just for Steam (everything else is blocked). You get slow downs while people wait for Steam to get it's shit together.

So, the removal of one feature is the same as a game crippling DRM? More over-exaggerating ftw.

I've been ignoring most of what you write Pitz because it's just you trying to put a positive spin on everything and that's rather annoying when we have no real information other than no LAN. Anyway how is it different to DRM? No internet? No Multi-player. What happens when bnet goes down? What happens when your Internet is shaped to 64/64k? They're trying to protect themselves not the consumer. If they actually gave a damn about the consumer you can bet your arse LAN would be included and this discussion wouldn't be happening.