Starcraft 2 won't support LAN play

[Eejit]

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.

When the defendant has already confessed

 

[Schall]

Disappointing, but ill still buy it..

 

[CyberPitz]

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.



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.

1.) How many times has B.net crashed, anyway?

2.) If you have a slow internet connection, you can still play. Just not with any sort of decent ping, and quite frustrating.

3.) DRM protects the entire game. DRM tells you to **** off, no Multiplayer or Singleplayer. Your internet goes down, well there always SP or hell, even skirmishes! Totally different sides of the world, and is not exactly like DRM. Maybe a bit if you want to look at technicalities, but worlds apart.

So, lets just call any form of anti-piracy a DRM. CD-KEYS ARE DRM, WATCH IT FOLKS!


*EDIT* Just to make things clear. I can understand some peoples disappointment. It's not like I'm blind to it all. I just don't see how it's as big of a deal as it is. It's being blown out of proportion, about the same as L4D2 *Although, I've not seen a BOYCOTT STARCRAFT 2 group yet...though there is a silly petition..* People are trying to use points that are valid...if it happens a lot. "Slow internet, cut internet, etc..." That isn't in the every day lives of most people. Blizzard are aiming their product at internet developed countries. In those countries, unless you are in the sticks, your internet should be pretty darned solid, otherwise get a different provider

Like I said, I understand, just why is this such a HUGE deal to everybody, when most aren't really affected, they like to argue....

*EDIT2* We also don't even have all of the information yet, something to also try and keep in mind....

 

[Stigmata]

I'll reply in the quote, it's easier that way.

1.) How many times has B.net crashed, anyway? It's not how many times Bnet crashes, it's how many times your LAN crashes while everyone tries to authenticate at once.

2.) If you have a slow internet connection, you can still play. Just not with any sort of decent ping, and quite frustrating. Which is why forcing internet-only play is a terrible, terrible idea. Broadband penetration is shit in the Americas. Sure it's better for Europe and Korea, but if the internet goes out there for whatever reason, then they're screwed just like those of us without internet, whether or not Bnet2.0 is "good".

3.) DRM protects the entire game. DRM tells you to **** off, no Multiplayer or Singleplayer. Your internet goes down, well there always SP or hell, even skirmishes! Totally different sides of the world, and is not exactly like DRM. Maybe a bit if you want to look at technicalities, but worlds apart. If the internet goes down and I want to play multiplayer, I'm not going to play singleplayer instead. I'm going to sit there with my friends for a minute and deliberate on how f*cking pissed we are that we can't play multiplayer. And then we play Smash Bros. Brawl or something.

So, lets just call any form of anti-piracy a DRM. CD-KEYS ARE DRM, WATCH IT FOLKS! CD keys are a traditional, non-intrusive form of DRM. Online authentication, less so. Forcing online play only, and we're getting closer to modern game-crippling DRM.


*EDIT* Just to make things clear. I can understand some peoples disappointment. It's not like I'm blind to it all. I just don't see how it's as big of a deal as it is. It's being blown out of proportion, about the same as L4D2 *Although, I've not seen a BOYCOTT STARCRAFT 2 group yet...though there is a silly petition..* People are trying to use points that are valid...if it happens a lot. "Slow internet, cut internet, etc..." That isn't in the every day lives of most people. Blizzard are aiming their product at internet developed countries. In those countries, unless you are in the sticks, your internet should be pretty darned solid, otherwise get a different provider

Like I said, I understand, just why is this such a HUGE deal to everybody, when most aren't really affected, they like to argue....

*EDIT2* We also don't even have all of the information yet, something to also try and keep in mind....

Look, in the end Starcraft should be playable at as many times as possible on as many machines as possible. I'm sure the system requirements are pretty low, so there's that, but the fact of the matter is that not everyone has internet. Not everyone has broadband. Not everyone has reliable internet. If EVERYONE had broadband ALL THE TIME then I would have much less of a problem with the direction Blizzard is going. I'd be miffed that there was no LAN but, hey, everyone I know has a T1 line so what's the big deal? But that's not how it is. My internet is shit half the time, and half of that time I can't even connect, let alone connect to Steam or Bnet. Maybe YOU have no problem with the lack of LAN, but you're not the Starcraft fanbase, and we have to consider everyone when we're talking about something that affects every player of the game.

 

[CyberPitz]

I'll reply in the quote, it's easier that way.



Look, in the end Starcraft should be playable at as many times as possible on as many machines as possible. I'm sure the system requirements are pretty low, so there's that, but the fact of the matter is that not everyone has internet. Not everyone has broadband. Not everyone has reliable internet. If EVERYONE had broadband ALL THE TIME then I would have much less of a problem with the direction Blizzard is going. I'd be miffed that there was no LAN but, hey, everyone I know has a T1 line so what's the big deal? But that's not how it is. My internet is shit half the time, and half of that time I can't even connect, let alone connect to Steam or Bnet. Maybe YOU have no problem with the lack of LAN, but you're not the Starcraft fanbase, and we have to consider everyone when we're talking about something that affects every player of the game.

OK, the fact remains is they did say they have an alternative/some way to resolve this 'LAN play'. Steam has done it, why is it so unreasonable to think that Blizzard may not have thought of a way also? Ah hell, this guy said it best on another forum.

I am sorry but at this moment this idea is immature and plain stupid. Dustin said that there are very good reasons for the removal of LAN and that LAN in some shape or form may still appear but most of all he said that the exact reasons for the removal of LAN will be disclosed once beta/battle.net 2.0 show up. He is aware of peoples mixed feelings and said he will look into it, making a petition about an issue that is not even properly known or recognized at this moment is not a smart move. So what if Blizzard really makes a blunder and somehow fails to recognize it? If you support petitions for such puny reasons like these do you think that the petitions would carry any sort of value?

Personally I think people should delay any sort of dramatic counter-actions until beta or until battle.net 2.0 is revealed. Then if things wont look fine please feel free to make a petition and I will gladly sign it but until then lets not whine about the unknown.

 

[Absinthe]

If a company is going to put out controversial and unpopular information, it should be called like it is. Why the Hell does it have to be "Oh, you just need to wait for more information!". Blizzard gets that excuse every damn month when it comes to WoW, and not everything is peachy. If they can't address this issue in its totality, then don't even ****ing bring it up.

No LAN sucks, and Blizzard's divulged reasoning for not supporting it is bullshit.

Maybe they have something up their sleeve, I don't know. But I'm tired of playing apolagetics for developers who make PR ****ups, and I'm supposed to withhold criticism until they decide to unveil their stupid magic solution. If the new Bnet makes up for all this, then that's great. Until then, this is crap.

Same shit with L4D2. It looks unimpressive and uninspired to me, but that won't stop anybody on this board saying "WAIT 4 MOAR INFIO RELEASE FOOL".

 

[Stigmata]

If a company is going to put out controversial and unpopular information, it should be called like it is. Why the Hell does it have to be "Oh, you just need to wait for more information!". Blizzard gets that excuse every damn month when it comes to WoW, and not everything is peachy. If they can't address this issue in its totality, then don't even ****ing bring it up.

No LAN sucks, and Blizzard's divulged reasoning for not supporting it is bullshit.

Maybe they have something up their sleeve, I don't know. But I'm tired of playing apolagetics for developers who make PR ****ups, and I'm supposed to withhold criticism until they decide to unveil their stupid magic solution. If the new Bnet makes up for all this, then that's great. Until then, this is crap.

Same shit with L4D2. It looks unimpressive and uninspired to me, but that won't stop anybody on this board saying "WAIT 4 MOAR INFIO RELEASE FOOL".

This. This this this this this.

OK, the fact remains is they did say they have an alternative/some way to resolve this 'LAN play'. Steam has done it, why is it so unreasonable to think that Blizzard may not have thought of a way also?

Let's try this another way. Let's say you have a girlfriend, and I sleep with her. But I explain, "No Pitz, you just don't understand, I have a very very good reason for doing this. I can't tell you yet, but just trust me." Are you going to be pissed, or are you going to wait calmly with no reaction until I eventually, maybe, give you a full explanation?

Or I drive you to work every day because you don't have a car p), but then one day I decide you have to start taking the bus, which is very inconvenient for you because the bus stop is a half hour walk from your house. But I explain, "No Pitz, I have a very good reason for doing this. You get to find out in two weeks." Are you going to be pissed, or are you going to be apologetic for me and spend those two weeks happily taking the bus, secure in the knowledge that my explanation will fully make up for my sudden douchey actions?

Of course you're going to be mad, and you're going to demand a full explanation immediately. And you won't get it, which will just make me seem like even more of a douche. See what I'm getting at?

 

[CyberPitz]

This. This this this this this.

Let's try this another way. Let's say you have a girlfriend, and I sleep with her. But I explain, "No Pitz, you just don't understand, I have a very very good reason for doing this. I can't tell you yet, but just trust me." Are you going to be pissed, or are you going to wait calmly with no reaction until I eventually, maybe, give you a full explanation?

Or I drive you to work every day because you don't have a car p), but then one day I decide you have to start taking the bus, which is very inconvenient for you because the bus stop is a half hour walk from your house. But I explain, "No Pitz, I have a very good reason for doing this. You get to find out in two weeks." Are you going to be pissed, or are you going to be apologetic for me and spend those two weeks happily taking the bus, secure in the knowledge that my explanation will fully make up for my sudden douchey actions?

Of course you're going to be mad, and you're going to demand a full explanation immediately. And you won't get it, which will just make me seem like even more of a douche. See what I'm getting at?

Those analogies are just plain retarded. One is affecting my life. This is a video game, hardly affecting life.

And they WERE going to explain it on Monday, but something came up and they decided to push the unveiling of bnet 2.0 for a week or something. Dear god, I didn't realize a partial news announcement would make the internet rage so hard. I guess you guys were bored after L4D2, and needing something else to latch onto with even LESS information than that game. Whatever, yell till your head is red. They have their reasons, and I have no reason to doubt it.

It seems some of the people have legitimate reasons for bitching *Aussies/etc*...others are just bitching to be heard. Whatever.

 

[Stigmata]

Those analogies are just plain retarded. One is affecting my life. This is a video game, hardly affecting life.

That's not the point, which shows you missed mine.

And they WERE going to explain it on Monday, but something came up and they decided to push the unveiling of bnet 2.0 for a week or something. Dear god, I didn't realize a partial news announcement would make the internet rage so hard. I guess you guys were bored after L4D2, and needing something else to latch onto with even LESS information than that game. Whatever, yell till your head is red. They have their reasons, and I have no reason to doubt it.

It seems some of the people have legitimate reasons for bitching *Aussies/etc*...others are just bitching to be heard. Whatever.

I get it, you're an apologist. Blizzard is being a real cock here and you just can't see it. Lots of people are clearly very angry about this issue, and the LEAST Blizzard could do is give us a single additional detail. If they said "Calm down, you just have to authenticate with Bnet to play a local game, you'll hear more details next week when we unveil Bnet2.0" then that would be fine. But they're not. They're being coy and cagey and talking in vague nonspecific PR-speak about something that, given how deeply the fanbase cares about the game, Blizzard really should have been more careful about in their wording. But they weren't, and that shows some contempt for the userbase.

That's about all there is to say about this until Blizzard speaks up about it. If it turns out they have a valid solution for this lack of LAN play, then I'll be happy about it when I hear about it.

 

[CyberPitz]

So you'd rather be pissed about it? What a waste of energy, don't you think?

 

[Stigmata]

It is a monumental waste of energy. Which is why I'm only pissed about it when I'm having this argument I just watched the interview you posted in your other thread, and I didn't once think about the lack of LAN. The game sounds really good.

 

[CyberPitz]

It is a monumental waste of energy. Which is why I'm only pissed about it when I'm having this argument I just watched the interview you posted in your other thread, and I didn't once think about the lack of LAN. The game sounds really good.

Good, we're on a safer page

I'm going to post a video in teh video section. A fan made cinematic to the intro of SC1. Check it out in a few.

 

[Absinthe]

HOW ABOUT YOU STOP WASTING YOUR ENERGY TYPING UP POSTS, PITZ.

Fairy.

Seriously, while the issue does tick me off, it took me a total of 30 seconds to write up my previous post and I contemplated its subject matter a grand total of once after I subsequently got into my car and went about town to take care of my shit. Why is it that when these topics come up everybody acts like there's some expense involved in talking about it. It's in the same vein as those "GO GET ANGRY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT MATTERS LIKE AFRICA" posts, which are just annoying.

 

[CyberPitz]

I don't spend energy posting. I have a robot that just does a neural connect and types out what it knows I would say.

Tosser.

 

[Stigmata]

Well stop your synapses from performing calcium reuptake, then!

 

[Gargantou]

I think trying to defend Blizzard to such an extreme extent as you are Pitz, is an equal waste of energy.

 

[Kyorisu]

The alternative will be a reverse engineered battlenet 2 ala http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PvPGN

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

How is connecting all the computers in the room to a server across the state going to ever be better than connecting all the computers in the room to each other? This man just told everyone that his bullshit is going to start tasting better than icecream. He just needs a neon sign over his head that says "Do not trust this man or anything he says."

hehe. I should mention I've never used bnet for anything. It's far easy to use a VPN and play over a virtual lan than it is to use the mess that is bnet.

 

[CyberPitz]

I think trying to defend Blizzard to such an extreme extent as you are Pitz, is an equal waste of energy.

I'm only defending until more info is abound, as I've said. I did the same thing when L4D2 was crucified, which is about equally as retarded...although I think this SC2 part takes the cake.

 

[Kyorisu]

Blizzard doesn't need defending. They are big boys and can handle themselves just fine.

 

[CyberPitz]

*EDIT* Shorter and sweeter.

That is the worst form of an arguement I've ever seen. Way to go, I guess you have ran out of things to say. Kinda like, "YOU DOODOO HEAD!"

 

[Gargantou]

What Blizzard needs is a cocky new CEO that truly has the balls to rebel against societal norms and give birth to a new generation of superior gamers!

 

[Absinthe]

I can't think of any way that Battle.net could be superior to simply retaining the option to have LAN play, which I needn't remind you is simply stringing computers together with a few network cables. It would have been well easy for him to say something like "Our Bnet client supports an offline mode for LAN games" or something to that effect, but he didn't. The support for it just isn't there.

How can Bnet - an online gaming service - make up for that? I have no doubt that their new incarnation of it will be much improved over what's come before, but it's inconceivable how they could possibly "do better" than LAN. And since I was looking forward to some SC2 matches with my roommates, this is totally relevant to me.

You say we're jumping the gun, but the truth is that there's no way to explain this issue away unless the man is just ****ing stupid and doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[CyberPitz]

I can't think of any way that Battle.net could be superior to simply retaining the option to have LAN play, which I needn't remind you is simply stringing computers together with a few network cables. It would have been well easy for him to say something like "Our Bnet client supports an offline mode for LAN games" or something to that effect, but he didn't. The support for it just isn't there.

How can Bnet - an online gaming service - make up for that? I have no doubt that their new incarnation of it will be much improved over what's come before, but it's inconceivable how they could possibly "do better" than LAN. And since I was looking forward to some SC2 matches with my roommates, this is totally relevant to me.

You say we're jumping the gun, but the truth is that there's no way to explain this issue away unless the man is just ****ing stupid and doesn't know what he's talking about.

I agree, I can't fathom how they could make something better or even equal to LAN with bnet as it is now. But they are revamping everything around Bnet. It's not just going to be something that you play games on, that's been said. I'm genuinely curious on how they do it. Only thing I can think of how it would be equal to LAN play is if you Authenticate in Bnet then viola, you have LAN.

But yeah, I do think it's jumping the gun if not all the information is out there. I've said that a shit ton, but it's not relevant to you guys, but to me. I give them the benefit of the doubt, until the info is released. Then I'll join in if it's a shitty idea or what not.

 

[Stigmata]

Let's all just agree that it appears that LAN isn't supported, and that some of us should and will be miffed until more info is released. Sound good?

 

[Gargantou]

Roger wilco on that 3-50, Stigmata!

 

[CyberPitz]

No Stig-
Wait....I like that idea.

Garg, when you said that, I couldn't help but think of the M*A*S*H episode in teh first season where a Sergent comes in with a Korean 'slave'. "Roger Wilco Hawkeye-san!"

 

[Kyorisu]

*EDIT* Shorter and sweeter.

That is the worst form of an arguement I've ever seen. Way to go, I guess you have ran out of things to say. Kinda like, "YOU DOODOO HEAD!"

Defending Blizzard's actions is pathetic. If people want to get angry about it let them, it doesn't effect you in anyway. They'll either be proven wrong or their anger will be justified by Blizzard being twats.

 

[CyberPitz]

Defending Blizzard's actions is pathetic. If people want to get angry about it let them, it doesn't effect you in anyway. They'll either be proven wrong or they're anger will be justified by Blizzard being twats.

Didn't you read Stig's post, damnit!

 

[Kyorisu]

I fail to see how that's relevant

 

[CyberPitz]

I fail to see how that's relevant

Because I'm about to break the damned 40 posts in this thread....I'm trying not to! *Number changes to 38*

 

[Stigmata]

What's so important about posting 40 times in a thread?

 

[Rico]

Those analogies are just plain retarded. One is affecting my life. This is a video game, hardly affecting life.

And they WERE going to explain it on Monday, but something came up and they decided to push the unveiling of bnet 2.0 for a week or something. Dear god, I didn't realize a partial news announcement would make the internet rage so hard. I guess you guys were bored after L4D2, and needing something else to latch onto with even LESS information than that game. Whatever, yell till your head is red. They have their reasons, and I have no reason to doubt it.

It seems some of the people have legitimate reasons for bitching *Aussies/etc*...others are just bitching to be heard. Whatever.

So far as I know I made a very calm, unrant-like first post in this thread before you jumped down my throat for saying that this may be a dumb on blizzard's part.

This forum is here for discussion. We are discussing what they have told us about LAN thus far. When/if something about this information changes, we will discuss it some more. In the meantime, there's no reason to get all riled up about people expressing their opinion about a game they're looking forward to. Like I said, if LAN play wasn't important to some people there would be no issue. Its fairly obvious to me that people care plenty about it, so it can't be as unused a feature as you may believe.

 

[CyberPitz]

and like I said, I think you guys are just freakin' to freak for the most part. "Oh that's no good, let's see what they do before I start calling them names" doesn't translate to "I can't believe they are doing that. Stupidest idea ever."

Also Stig, nothing significant...just a number I'm rounding to.

 

[Rico]

Nobody is freaking. The thread title is freaking, maybe the OP, but I'm not. if you can't see the value in discussion (which has often times swayed developers from making ridiculously bad moves) then that's fine, but I see nothing wrong with people expressing that removing LAN play, a feature present in almost every single multiplayer game since, well... ever, is being removed and according to one the spin of one PR person "for our benefit" to be a dumb move.

 

[Absinthe]

Well...

It is pretty stupid.

 

[Krynn72]

This doesnt affect me at all because im not interested in the game, but it does seem unlikely that they would announce this information and not announce the alternative that they have planned. And if the alternative just isnt finalized, its still stupid because you shouldnt announce the feature removal before you can announce the alternative you're providing. Perhaps its just stupid PR, but blizzard doesnt seem like they have bad PR reps, so i dont know about that. And if its not bad PR, then I doubt they will provide an alternative. Did they actually say they had one pitz?

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Nobody is freaking. The thread title is freaking, maybe the OP, but I'm not. if you can't see the value in discussion (which has often times swayed developers from making ridiculously bad moves) then that's fine, but I see nothing wrong with people expressing that removing LAN play, a feature present in almost every single multiplayer game since, well... ever, is being removed and according to one the spin of one PR person "for our benefit" to be a dumb move.

I tend to get all sensationalist when I write up a post, Fox News style, baby.

edit: just noticed it was moderated. srs biz.

 

[ríomhaire]

If you're playing a strategy game online...

often in places (such as the accomidation I was living in) with no internet at all

Being somewhere with a reliable and fast internet connection is a rarety for me. Even so, if I had access to one I would much prefer to play lan with my friends than online. I like having them there and I like the secuirity of knowing ping and connection issues won't pose a problem. The simpler something is the less likely it is to go wrong and connecting via a lan is far simpler than connecting through Battle.net, especially when we're both in the same room!

This is even more retarded than the RA3 co-op campaigns not being playable on lan (which is double retarded in the light that the RA2 did have lan-compatable co-op campaigns).

 

[Letters]

Clearly none of you ever played World of Warcraft... Blizzard are always cocks. Nothing new here! Just lay down and accept it... who knows, they might throw you a milk bone later.

 

[Lucid]

One thing I don't get is how everyone has accepted that Blizzard is going to be making us buy the game 3 times to experience the entire game.
No one has any issues with that? I mean come on, the game's campaigns can't possibly be that long.
Even if it were true, what's wrong with packaging it all onto a DVD? They're big enough to hold that much data. :|