Starcraft II: No LAN Play For You! No Consoles Either!

[DoctorFinger]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3544/3671821667_0de96bcbf7.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/colonyofgamers/sets/72157620589067429/)
Click to see the rest of the images

A host of Starcraft II (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/tags.php?tag=starcraft+2) info is dropping today, some of which is very interesting, but one nugget of news will trigger a mini firestorm.

Starcraft II will not have LAN play.
"we don't have any plans to support LAN," [VP of game design Rob Pardo] said and clarified "we will not support it." The only multiplayer available will be on Battle.net.

Regarding consoles, it looks dark for anyone wanting to try out the RTS on anything but PC. We asked how large chance it is to see StarCraft II on consoles and Pardo replied simply: "Zero percent."The Starcraft LAN party is one of those gaming traditions which seems destined to fade into obscurity.

But there's a lot more about the game at the incGamers (http://www.incgamers.com/Interviews/190/StarCraftIIDevelopersInterviewed?gr_i_ni) link. Most interesting to me is that Blizzard seems to view the single- and multi-player modes as almost separate entities. The single player campaign will have several units which are not available in the multiplayer game (for balancing reasons) and the objectives will be more complex than those seen in MP.

We don't have a release date yet for Starcraft II, but expect some sort of announcement at Blizzcon later this summer.

Source - incGamers (http://www.incgamers.com/Interviews/190/StarCraftIIDevelopersInterviewed?gr_i_ni); Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/06/new-details-game-play-elements-of-starcraft-2-revealed.ars).

[Hawkzombie]

Wow, no LAN? I can both see why, but also scratch my head at this.

The Why: Broadband is no longer a thing rich/lucky (service in the area) people have, and there are now fewer homes with dial-up than broadband...at the time the first SC came out, the reverse was true, so carting your rig over to a friend's house not only was fun, it was practical.

But I wonder why NONE whatsoever...Is this a precursor to Battle.net involving some sort of fee, and them ensuring only those who pay get multi-play?

[Matthias]

I don't think Starcraft LAN parties will fade into obscurity- if the community as a whole is anything like my group of friends, we'll just play SC1 in LANs instead.

This is a dumb move for those of us in college- at least at A&M. Each dorm on campus has its own subnet that functions wonderfully for LAN games, but as soon as you try to tap into an external server, gaming gets packet-shaped into the slow lane. Most of my Starcraft-obsessed friends won't want to deal with this, and will simply play the original 90% of the time. The LAN game is the bread and butter of multiplayer for RTS games when you have a group of real-life people sitting right next to you wanting to play. My crowd has regular Civ4 and SC LANs, and I don't see this changing. We simply won't be playing their new product.

Also I'm not sure I like the unit differences between SP and MP; it smacks of a blatant way to have people buy their expansions- it's one thing to develop new units for the expansions, and another to dangle already-created units in front of players and say they *might* get to use them in future addons if they're good.

The "challenge" thing sounds like it could be fun though.

[Ancalagon]

This is just fucking stupid.

This is really just stupid, this is not the Blizzard I used to know. No LAN? Why the fuck not?

Let me guess - Battle.net is shortly to become not free, and thats why you need it to play multiplayer.

There is NO REASON to not support LAN if you are going to support multiplayer. LAN gaming, I would say, is quite often the simplest case as far as multiplayer goes, since you can assume that all players share a low latency high bandwidth connection, and they arent hidden behind firewalls and routers (in most cases). If you're going to do multiplayer, LAN is the easiest of the lot! Probably the most fault tolerant.

I dont know about you guys, but LAN gaming was a big part of my youth, and I suspect a large part of why SC1 was so popular was because of LAN gaming. Is the internet so ubiqitious now that people dont bother to bring their computers over to play games? Is that a good reason to not support LAN at all?

I guess it is if you plan to monetize battle.net in order to reap from it.

I'm aware of exactly what I sound like - a bitter fanboy jaded at the ugly world of business being exposed for the first time*. But really, I respect most of Blizzard's decisions, this is just too much. I really cant see any logic behind it at all.

*Somewhat of a fanboy but I'm well aware of the realities of software development.

[Mike Kelehan]

LAN parties used to be a big deal, but now, how many of your friends have laptops? This is a decision I really don't understand, and one that I think will probably be reversed either before the game is released or shortly after.

[Matthias]

This is just fucking stupid.

This is really just stupid, this is not the Blizzard I used to know. No LAN? Why the fuck not?

Let me guess - Battle.net is shortly to become not free, and thats why you need it to play multiplayer.

There is NO REASON to not support LAN if you are going to support multiplayer. LAN gaming, I would say, is quite often the simplest case as far as multiplayer goes, since you can assume that all players share a low latency high bandwidth connection, and they arent hidden behind firewalls and routers (in most cases). If you're going to do multiplayer, LAN is the easiest of the lot! Probably the most fault tolerant.

I dont know about you guys, but LAN gaming was a big part of my youth, and I suspect a large part of why SC1 was so popular was because of LAN gaming. Is the internet so ubiqitious now that people dont bother to bring their computers over to play games? Is that a good reason to not support LAN at all?

I guess it is if you plan to monetize battle.net in order to reap from it.

I'm aware of exactly what I sound like - a bitter fanboy jaded at the ugly world of business being exposed for the first time*. But really, I respect most of Blizzard's decisions, this is just too much. I really cant see any logic behind it at all.

*Somewhat of a fanboy but I'm well aware of the realities of software development.

Agreed. Even in middle and high school, when my friends and I all had broadband, we'd take our PCs over and LAN cuz it was fun. In fact, my birthday party every year centered around a LAN of PCs and Xboxes, and a SSBM tournament.

[LongStepMantis]

I also agree that this is a bullshit move.

LAN was the only way I ever played SC. Same with my friends. None of us played on B.net. The people on there playing Starcraft the few times I tried were like fucking machines designed to crush you before you have any fun.

So...I wonder if will Diablo 3 not support LAN either? Because I also only play(ed) Diablo 1 and 2 on LAN. I still play D2 on LAN with my wife. I don't have any use for B.net and don't plan on using it. If they do dump LAN for D3...well, I guess I'll be playing the game all by my lonesome.

[Deadend]

I still goto LAN parties.
This is just going to be a pain in the ass and make LAN's laggy as everyone has to connect to battle.net just to send the packets 200 feet.
Dicks.

[Vyzov]

No LAN play? Well, any doubts I had about not purchasing Starcraft II have disappeared. I no longer care about this game in the slightest.

[digitalErich]

Look for an announcement in the next year or two that B.net will require a subscription. It's an easy way to apply the WoW model to the SC and Diablo franchises without having to make an MMO for each game.

[DoctorFinger]

I'd bet that they'll make your WoW subscription into a Battle.net sub. One fee, all Blizzard game.

[Wilkz07]

so the only real downside is that SC nerds won't get any exercise. By exercise I mean unhooking their desktop, having their mom drop them off at the LAN party house and walking up the driveway to said house. Too Bad.

Still I look forward to Single Player SC2 just the same.

[Khrymsyn]

LAN is the only way I basically play Starcraft anymore, and have already spoken with a bunch of friends about playing LAN SC and LAN Sins of a Solar Empire this upcoming July 4th, so it's not exactly something I consider a "dying" mode. Hell, read the complaints on Co-Optimus when a game is announced with co-op, but not local co-op. No matter how good online multiplayer is, it still isn't as good as sitting in the same room with a bunch of friends and smashing baddies with them side by side.

What the bloody F are they thinking?

[Crowe]

Absolute fucking bullshit is what that is.

More and more people might have the internet but LAN is far from outdated, it's still relevant. This would appear to a business decision, one that sucks arse. I'm guessing those rumours about no D3 LAN will be coming true too..

As for Battlenet, I'll pay a fee to use it, but only once. If they want to charge me on a regular basis they can get fucked.

Honestly though, I just can't imagine them making Battlenet a subscription service, can you imagine the outrage.

[Spacetronaut]

This is an odd move. To me the exclusion of LAN support only makes sense if they're moving towards a subscription based service for Battle.net, but at the same time I can't imagine that they would require a fee to play any of their games online, the loss of customer good will would be huge.

Though, I suppose a move towards a universal subscription policy offers a lot of possibilities for encouraging game sales. If you payed a flat fee to play any Blizzard game online, including WoW, then you could market it to current WoW subscribers as a sort of free bonus, and those who subscribe for SC or Diablo would be more likely to buy WoW as they would already be paying the monthly fee. Maybe they feel increased sales within a smaller customer base coupled with subscription fees will make up for lower sales across the entire base.

[Ink Asylum]

Looks like Blizzard doesn't want anyone to get a full game for just $50 anymore. Enjoy your three campaign versions of Starcraft and monthly Battle.net subscription fee.

[Lekon]

It does seem an odd move. I have to agree, it really feels like Bliz is planning to make a subscription model out of this. The Lan parties were fun, and several places here in Vegas had site licenses for SC still, mostly since.. people still play it often. Its one thing to type Kekekeke. Its another when you can stand up and yell "eat zergling!"

[Crowe]

Maybe they feel increased sales within a smaller customer base coupled with subscription fees will make up for lower sales across the entire base.

They wan't more people playing their product though? I couldn't imagine any organisation willing to lose a chunk of their customer base...

[DoctorFinger]

I'd love to hear how this news is being taken in Korea. I know how they love their SC LAN parties.

[DoctorFinger]

They wan't more people playing their product though? I couldn't imagine any organisation willing to lose a chunk of their customer base...They're betting that the number of people who actually don't buy the game because of the NO-LAN decision will be minuscule when compared to the total sales.

[baz]

This is pretty retarded. I've had epic LANs at a few companies where we were allowed to bring our PCs in to some of the conference rooms for weekend LANs as long as we didn't plug into the network.

Plus we've had 20 mates round at the same place on quite a few occasions with only a crappy 256k connection.

[Khrymsyn]

with all of the mentions in this thread, I feel I was left out. Is Blizzard.net really going subscription? So I can't even play my friends multiplayer without a subscription fee, even if we're all in the same house??

Honestly, that right there could make me not buy this game (or any of the 3).

[Codicier]

I'd love to hear how this news is being taken in Korea. I know how they love their SC LAN parties.

I was just about to say, are they going to run those televised SC tourneys over battle.net?

And yes this sucks a fat one.

[ClannerDelta]

I'd love to hear how this news is being taken in Korea. I know how they love their SC LAN parties.

I'd imagine they are spawning more overlords.

[Codicier]

I'd imagine they are spawning more overlords.

Some may also be required to construct additional pylons.

[Doogie2K]

The only thing I can think of is that by forcing you onto Battle.net, they can clamp down on piracy. I mean, I'll be honest, I played a copied version of the first game for years before finally dropping $20 on the Battle Chest maybe four or five years ago, but it was no problem because I could always do direct-IP or, more commonly, LAN games. This removes that option for people, though in the process, as with all anti-piracy measures, it harms paying customers in the process.

[DoctorFinger]

The only thing I can think of is that by forcing you onto Battle.net, they can clamp down on piracy. I mean, I'll be honest, I played a copied version of the first game for years before finally dropping $20 on the Battle Chest maybe four or five years ago, but it was no problem because I could always do direct-IP or, more commonly, LAN games. This removes that option for people, though in the process, as with all anti-piracy measures, it harms paying customers in the process.I guarantee that the day SC2 launches, there will be a LAN-capable version of the game up on Pirate Bay, so in effect they're only encouraging piracy.

[Khrymsyn]

The only thing I can think of is that by forcing you onto Battle.net, they can clamp down on piracy. I mean, I'll be honest, I played a copied version of the first game for years before finally dropping $20 on the Battle Chest maybe four or five years ago, but it was no problem because I could always do direct-IP or, more commonly, LAN games. This removes that option for people, though in the process, as with all anti-piracy measures, it harms paying customers in the process.

I truly wouldn't even have a problem with having to sign in to Battle.net to get access to LAN multiplayer.

What I DO have a problem with is the concept that I might have to pay monthly for multiplayer with other people in the same house doing the same thing, especially since we all know how well multiplayer hosted games on most "game services" work when the machines are all behind the same router. Can't exactly forward the same port to 4 different machines...

[Talanvor]

I can't believe this! No LAN play? I know some clever monkeys are going to do some bnet stuff to get around this, but goddamn Blizzard!

Stop playing with Activision so much, it's rubbing off on you!

[LongStepMantis]

I don't know which info is more deal-breaking, No LAN or buying it in chunks. I didn't even know SC2 was going to be essentially split into three parts and sold separately.

My desire to play this game went from "I can't wait!" for the past few years to "I'll probably just pass on this one" in one day. :(

[Hawkzombie]

Looks like Blizzard doesn't want anyone to get a full game for just $50 anymore. Enjoy your three campaign versions of Starcraft and monthly Battle.net subscription fee.

I've been saying this since they announced it was going to be in three parts :p Well, something similar...heh.

Well, this is honestly a deal breaker for me, and a deal breaker for Diablo 3 if they don't include LAN play...my wife and I were REALLY looking forward to that one.

I was more interested in the single player aspect of the game, but honestly I enjoy playing against friends/my wife from time to time...and if it goes the route I think it is (Pay for B.Net), then screw it. I gave up WoW, I'm not gonna get sucked back into a monthly fee again because I simply want to play against my friends and family.

[Crowe]

Maybe the new BNET overhaul will include a client that needs to be installed. A bit like Steam, obviously all your games will need to linked to your BNET account and all LAN games will run through the clients. Obviously they would need to make it so you could play a LAN game offline and through the client.

[BigJonno]

Doogie's hit the nail on the head, it's an anti-piracy move. Khrymsyn's idea is a pretty good compromise, I think. Battle.net authentication for LAN play is better than no LAN play at all and it still gives the right message to the suits.

[DoctorFinger]

I don't know which info is more deal-breaking, No LAN or buying it in chunks. I didn't even know SC2 was going to be essentially split into three parts and sold separately.

My desire to play this game went from "I can't wait!" for the past few years to "I'll probably just pass on this one" in one day. :(The campaigns are going to be sold separately, but each version will have full multiplayer capabilities. And each of the 3 campaigns will be 30 missions, rather than the 30 total in SC1. I'm not necessarily defending the splitting, just explaining it.

[Doogie2K]

I truly wouldn't even have a problem with having to sign in to Battle.net to get access to LAN multiplayer.

What I DO have a problem with is the concept that I might have to pay monthly for multiplayer with other people in the same house doing the same thing, especially since we all know how well multiplayer hosted games on most "game services" work when the machines are all behind the same router. Can't exactly forward the same port to 4 different machines...

I wouldn't have a problem with having to be signed in in order to do LAN. Red Alert 3 requires you to sign into your EA account in order to do LAN co-op, if I remember correctly. It's a pain in the ass, but it's a good way to keep things on the up-and-up.

Do we know that BNet will be a subscription-based thing? I know they talked about monetizing it, but I always figured it would be microtransactions, or a premium sub for tournaments, advanced stat-tracking, etc., but regular gameplay was still free.

[LongStepMantis]

The campaigns are going to be sold separately, but each version will have full multiplayer capabilities. And each of the 3 campaigns will be 30 missions, rather than the 30 total in SC1. I'm not necessarily defending the splitting, just explaining it.

As far as content goes, that's great. I don't deny that at all.

What has me concerned is how much they will charge for each "chunk". Are we talking near-retail prices for each? $50 a section? If less, how much less? These are questions that will have to wait for answers I guess. So far, things aren't looking good for my interest in this game.

As I said before, I'm far more concerned with how this will affect Diablo 3. If they say D3 has no LAN support, I will drive out there and personally, one-by-one, shoot everyone in the face. Twice. ;)

[Spacetronaut]

They wan't more people playing their product though? I couldn't imagine any organisation willing to lose a chunk of their customer base...

Well, under the scenario I described they would be losing sales of one game to potential customers, but possibly expanding sales of all their games to existing customers. Say you lose 25% of your SC2 customers, but turn 50% of your WoW customers into SC2 customers because of the lower entry cost and you may well end up with a net gain. Then people who pay for the subscription for SC2 may be more likely to purchase Diablo 3 or WoW, as they are already paying for them, and so on. Existing customers are more likely to purchase new games, and new customers are more likely to purchase old games.

I don't know if that's what they are planning, but it's potentially a smart business move.

[Crowe]

Well, under the scenario I described they would be losing sales of one game to potential customers, but possibly expanding sales of all their games to existing customers. Say you lose 25% of your SC2 customers, but turn 50% of your WoW customers into SC2 customers because of the lower entry cost and you may well end up with a net gain. Then people who pay for the subscription for SC2 may be more likely to purchase Diablo 3 or WoW, as they are already paying for them, and so on. Existing customers are more likely to purchase new games, and new customers are more likely to purchase old games.

I don't know if that's what they are planning, but it's potentially a smart business move.

I see what your saying now. It's 5 am and I need to go to sleep, my brain is turning off.

I have a 2000 word essay to write in about 7 hours. Fuck.

[RandoM51]

No console? Good. Playing RTS on console is like playing Mozart on a ukelele.

As far as no LAN play, I think people are overreacting. LAN party organizers just have to make sure they've got a gateway available for bnet authentication. Unless you're living in a commune in the rocky mountains powering your LAN off of the methane from farm animal shit, shouldn't be too hard to slap a gateway together.

[Sl1pstream]

This will make exploiting the Starcraft IP and Battle.net a lot easier for Acti-Blizzard. It looked to me that Starcraft was still a popular game at most LAN parties. This is pretty lame news.

[Ancalagon]

I guarantee that the day SC2 launches, there will be a LAN-capable version of the game up on Pirate Bay, so in effect they're only encouraging piracy.

This will encourage people to release such a hacked version of the game out of spite. This is not a move that will make Blizzard a lot of friends.

Whats happening in our precious gamer world? Valve announces a full priced sequel to a year old game still lacking content it was promised to have by now, Blizzard splits one game into 3 and removes LAN play, while rumours about charging for battle.net abound. Whats going on?

[BigJonno]

This will encourage people to release such a hacked version of the game out of spite. This is not a move that will make Blizzard a lot of friends.

Whats happening in our precious gamer world? Valve announces a full priced sequel to a year old game still lacking content it was promised to have by now, Blizzard splits one game into 3 and removes LAN play, while rumours about charging for battle.net abound. Whats going on?

Big companies exist to make money and are not your friends.

[bapenguin]

No console? Good. Playing RTS on console is like playing Mozart on a ukelele.

As far as no LAN play, I think people are overreacting. LAN party organizers just have to make sure they've got a gateway available for bnet authentication. Unless you're living in a commune in the rocky mountains powering your LAN off of the methane from farm animal shit, shouldn't be too hard to slap a gateway together.

Though it's incredibly inefficient to have 6 or 8 connections to BattleNet through some 5MB pipe to the internet.

You're adding all these hops for no reason.

[cp#]

http://starcraft.incgamers.com/blog/comments/no-lan-in-starcraft-ii-confirmed/

IncGamers also got a clarification from Blizzard, shortly after the interview, saying the choice of excluding a LAN feature "is because of the planned technology to be incorporated into Battle.net," a topic they will reveal more about at a later date.

Wait and see, or keep barking. I know you will all choose the latter.

[Telefrog]

I remember some fun times with organized LAN parties back in the day, but I honestly don't see it around much anymore. I think a few of you are overestimating the negative impact this will have on sales.

[cp#]

I think a few of you are overestimating the negative impact this will have on sales.

Quite like L4D2

[RandoM51]

Though it's incredibly inefficient to have 6 or 8 connections to BattleNet through some 5MB pipe to the internet.

You're adding all these hops for no reason.

Plenty of reason when you consider the many yet to be named features of the new battlenet. The traffic between bnet and the clients is trivial---in terms of bandwidth---anyways. Put your gateway up, it doesn't even need that much bandwidth, only pass traffic to/from bnet servers and have your LAN party.

This is only the end of the SC LAN party for people who can't be bothered to try harder.

Can't say that I blame Blizzard after seeing the stats for Stardock's Demigod, 18,000 people bought the game, 120,000 are playing it. If mandatory bnet authentication can put a dent in something like that, then they should do it.

[Telefrog]

Quite like L4D2

Don't misinterpret what I posted as a dismissal of the complaint. There are some very valid reasons why some people won't be buying SC2 and this decision sealed the deal for a few of them. I was mainly referring to the comments like "WTF is Blizzard thinking?" and others.

I'm sure L4D2, Diablo 3, and SC2 will sell in record numbers. That doesn't mean we can't, or shouldn't, express our opinion on the matter, especially when the complaint is about a feature being removed from a series.

[Ancalagon]

Big companies exist to make money and are not your friends.

Everyone is well aware of that, they just dont like to be reminded of it.

Ha ha, new features in battle.net, most notably including some form of charging.

Then they confirm that LAN is being left out because its competition to battle.net. Great. Thanks Blizzard. Consumers first and all that.

[SilentScreams]

Damn, no LAN?
If only Blizzard had a dedicated service that would allow me to do the same thing...

[Sazime]

LAN is a pointless and near dead technology. You have a broadband connection? Guess what, you're set. Whining about this is like whining about any other game that doesn't have LAN support. No one will bother spending money on it because it's not worth their while.

ie, floppy disks, 56k modem support, anything other than Shader 2.0 support (that one bit me 2 years ago), standard VGA monitor connections on your video card, etc etc.

[Ancalagon]

LAN is a pointless and near dead technology. You have a broadband connection? Guess what, you're set. Whining about this is like whining about any other game that doesn't have LAN support. No one will bother spending money on it because it's not worth their while.

ie, floppy disks, 56k modem support, anything other than Shader 2.0 support (that one bit me 2 years ago), standard VGA monitor connections on your video card, etc etc.

All of those things went the way of the dinosaur for a reason. But theres no replacement for the LAN, because the LAN is in fact a component of the Internet (a metropolitan area network, such as the Internet, is made up of smaller local area networks).

The LAN still exists, is still used, and LAN parties still happen regularly, in which modern games are played. LANs arent dying out. Why remove it?

[SilentScreams]

Because in the age of broadband internet there's simply no need for LANs.

I have a totally craptastic broadband connection (8mb/s I believe) and I'm pretty sure I could still have 8 people hooked up to it playing a game without problems.

And if not, I don't know a single person without a broadband connection of their own.

[Ink Asylum]

LAN is far from dead. People still host small LAN parties, still go to huge LAN parties, and there are countless offices where people use the LAN during lunch or after work to play games.

LAN play is faster and easier for local groups that want to paly a game together. This is clearly a move to force people to use an inferior setup because Blizzard wants to monetize it.

[DiBiddilyBop]

Am I the only one who doesn't care about this? Even if this is a precursor to monetizing battle.net, I really can't complain that much. I'm one of those people who looks at the value I get out of things, and I've gotten a LOT of value out of battle.net over the years and never had to pay ANYTHING for it. If they decide to start charging a modest fee to use it, I really can't argue because it's overhead for Blizzard that they've done for decades purely as a fan service. Furthermore, since I don't haul my computer around to LAN parties and all of my multiplayer gaming for SCII was going to be over battle.net anyway, I don't mind one bit.

[Camel]

Because in the age of broadband internet there's simply no need for LANs.

I have a totally craptastic broadband connection (8mb/s I believe) and I'm pretty sure I could still have 8 people hooked up to it playing a game without problems.

And if not, I don't know a single person without a broadband connection of their own.
This seems like such a simple solution, so there must be something wrong with it or else there wouldn't be so much complaining here, right?

If I wanted to play Starcraft with all my friends in the same room, why couldn't they just connect to my internet and launch Battle.net? Would it really slow down the game that much?

[LongStepMantis]

LAN is a pointless and near dead technology. You have a broadband connection? Guess what, you're set. Whining about this is like whining about any other game that doesn't have LAN support. No one will bother spending money on it because it's not worth their while.

ie, floppy disks, 56k modem support, anything other than Shader 2.0 support (that one bit me 2 years ago), standard VGA monitor connections on your video card, etc etc.

I still use LAN for probably 50-75% of my PC gaming. So if it's dead, that's news to me. :p

Part of the reason being some games simply don't work right, for us, here, if we go through the net instead. The last time we had a few people here playing Diablo 2, we tried just running over the net so everyone could still have readily available internet access. Our internet provider here kind of sucks though, so we would get sync errors and slowdowns/catch-ups even though it was essentially going out and coming back in. We went back to LAN shortly after. For some of us, the net simply doesn't work as a replacement to LAN.

[Camel]

I still use LAN for probably 50-75% of my PC gaming. So if it's dead, that's news to me. :p

Part of the reason being some games simply don't work right, for us, here, if we go through the net instead. The last time we had a few people here playing Diablo 2, we tried just running over the net so everyone could still have readily available internet access. Our internet provider here kind of sucks though, so we would get sync errors and slowdowns/catch-ups even though it was essentially going out and coming back in. We went back to LAN shortly after. For some of us, the net simply doesn't work as a replacement to LAN.
Ah, I see some of the problems that would arise then. I guess I never really play games all that much with friends in the same place unless we are all playing on the same TV, so LAN play just doesn't matter that much to me.

Also, here's hoping that Battle.net stays free! It's stayed free even though tons of people bought Diablo and Starcraft games in the past, right? Right??? :(

[LongStepMantis]

Also, here's hoping that Battle.net stays free! It's stayed free even though tons of people bought Diablo and Starcraft games in the past, right? Right??? :(

This is my #1 concern. I can pass on SC2. I wanted to play it, but I'm kind of over my days playing RTS games at this point anyways.

I just want to play Diablo 3 with my friends without having to pay a fee to do so. If they charge for it, well, guess D3 will be a single-player only experience for us, which makes me very sad. My wife and I are both getting it for sure, but we're not going to pay to play together. Money is tight enough around here already.

[Laughing Penguin]

No console? Good. Playing RTS on console is like playing Mozart on a ukelele.



So... pretty damn awesome?


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/syBIyW5ihUU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/syBIyW5ihUU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


:D

[Matthias]

This seems like such a simple solution, so there must be something wrong with it or else there wouldn't be so much complaining here, right?

If I wanted to play Starcraft with all my friends in the same room, why couldn't they just connect to my internet and launch Battle.net? Would it really slow down the game that much?

As I said before, on my campus and most large school campuses (where a LOT of starcraft is played), gaming traffic is prioritized right near the bottom of the list- it's packet-shaped and filtered quite a bit. I know the Xbox Live lag meter rarely makes it out of the red zone in my dorm. Why would we want 8 laggy connections to battle net to play a game when we're a lot of times we're all in the same room, or maybe two rooms?

That being said, an authentication to a Blizzard server on startup would be acceptable, though it would mean making sure your LAN router also hooks up to the internet, something which didn't always happen in high school. But that's really only a minor annoyance compared to not being able to play independently.

Being forced to play through battle net and paying a monthly fee to do so are both deal breakers for me; I never play online and don't plan to, so being forced to pay to play with my roommates is not acceptable.

[SilentScreams]

This is my #1 concern. I can pass on SC2. I wanted to play it, but I'm kind of over my days playing RTS games at this point anyways.

I just want to play Diablo 3 with my friends without having to pay a fee to do so. If they charge for it, well, guess D3 will be a single-player only experience for us, which makes me very sad. My wife and I are both getting it for sure, but we're not going to pay to play together. Money is tight enough around here already.

Yup, I also hope it stays free, but considering how much it must cost them to keep up and running, I'm beginning to doubt it will do so.

With that said, I'm not going to rule out paying for it. It depends what I'd be getting for my money. Constant Diablo 3 updates? I'd pay for that. Imagine Diablo 2 with new areas and loot being added all the time. I'd still be addicted today.

[LongStepMantis]

Yup, I also hope it stays free, but considering how much it must cost them to keep up and running, I'm beginning to doubt it will do so.

With that said, I'm not going to rule out paying for it. It depends what I'd be getting for my money. Constant Diablo 3 updates? I'd pay for that. Imagine Diablo 2 with new areas and loot being added all the time. I'd still be addicted today.

I could get behind that, if the price was reasonable and updates/content were frequently added. I'll wait and see how things develop in the meantime. I just don't want to pay for what B.net is now, essentially paying just so you can play with others, with little to no added incentive over other modes. Sure, B.Net play for D2 has the Uber Tristam crap and some online-only runewords and such, but that's mostly for the super hardcores who have been playing forever. Very little of the B.net content applies to the average player. The patches took care of that area, with things like skill synergy, etc.

[cp#]

Blizzard has confirmed that SC2 (and D3) will be free to play online. There won't be a monthly subscription fee to play these games online.

So what they were really saying is that they are going to (sooner or later) charge a monthly subscription fee to play these games online?

[roboninja]

Also, here's hoping that Battle.net stays free! It's stayed free even though tons of people bought Diablo and Starcraft games in the past, right? Right??? :(

Yes, but Acti-fucktards were never involved back then. I still hold out hope that Blizzard can remain autonomous enough to keep this from happening, but I am nowhere near as confident as I would be if Blizzard were still on their own.

[Voodoo]

I thought that Battle.net game packets are peer to peer. Wouldn't this mean that if you are on a LAN, it will only route authentication packets to the internet while everything else stays on the LAN.

[Ancalagon]

I thought that Battle.net game packets are peer to peer. Wouldn't this mean that if you are on a LAN, it will only route authentication packets to the internet while everything else stays on the LAN.

If that were true, I would have thought they would have just said yeah we support LAN play but you need to be authenticated to play still. Problem solved.

I doubt its as simple as that.

[Doogie2K]

Because in the age of broadband internet there's simply no need for LANs.

Because God forbid I feel like having another human being in the same building as myself, with whom I can share a certain experience. You know why people have LAN parties? To hang out. To have fun. Shoot the shit. Yell at each other, punch each other in the shoulder, high-five each other, clink beer bottles and raise pizza slices in celebration...you know, people things.

[Telefrog]

Because God forbid I feel like having another human being in the same building as myself, with whom I can share a certain experience. You know why people have LAN parties? To hang out. To have fun. Shoot the shit. Yell at each other, punch each other in the shoulder, high-five each other, clink beer bottles and raise pizza slices in celebration...you know, people things.

God only knows how you could possibly play together in the same game without a LAN solution. If only someone would work out a solution to this conundrum!

[Narradisall]

I never LAN, and have no desire to do so. I still think not including LANs in this is not the best of moves, since SC has a huge LAN following. If it is an anti pirarcy attempt like others have said they'll get round it day 1 anyway.

Although it does have me wondering how many Koreans actually have a bought copy of the game. I never considered before since they LAN on a national scale on this thing, I wonder if they actually buy it (not saying they dont, but there are no barriers for them in that case).

As for the unit thing. I imagine the way they are building the campaigns (i.e. one race a pop) they'll adding all the jazzy units into the Human campaign so you can use them, but as they aren't throwing the Zerg and Protoss ones in (probably will in the expansions to drive the MPers to buy) it WOULD be unbalanced if the Terrans on MP have 3 extra kick ass units. So I see the point in them doing that, and by adding units in the expansions/other games they get the MP crowd picking them up. So I don't have a problem with that.....

.... well, assuming they price them as expansions. I'll wait to actually see what they are doing with regards to Bnet and the expansions before I raise hell though.

[Narradisall]

Because God forbid I feel like having another human being in the same building as myself, with whom I can share a certain experience. You know why people have LAN parties? To hang out. To have fun. Shoot the shit. Yell at each other, punch each other in the shoulder, high-five each other, clink beer bottles and raise pizza slices in celebration...you know, people things.

Doogie, keep your other 'human beings' out of my fucking unsocial gaming ffs.

[Ancalagon]

God only knows how you could possibly play together in the same game without a LAN solution. If only someone would work out a solution to this conundrum!

Yeah, lets connect to the internet, send our packets half way across the world to Blizzard so that they can then send them back. That makes so much more sense.

Oh heck, Blizzard is so nice that after we all connect to their Battle.net server, they help us to communicate on a peer to peer method, using our local area net.....

Oh wait.....

This is still retarded in every way.

[TheFlyingOrc]

What has me concerned is how much they will charge for each "chunk". Are we talking near-retail prices for each? $50 a section? If less, how much less? These are questions that will have to wait for answers I guess. So far, things aren't looking good for my interest in this game.

The game is exactly 3 times as long. If they charge you the same price 3 times, it would not be that ridiculous.

[Narradisall]

I think you guys are just missing the point.

Blizzard have already torn local socialising apart and created a generation of gamers who only know each other online. They're in on the ground floor of this gaming phenomenon. It makes perfect sense for them to build on this social success! Why can't you all just get this and stop physically seeing your friends? I mean why do you need to anyway? Would you rather see the spotty face of your slightly overwieght best friend, or his hot female avatar of some alien race?

I think you all know the answer, its big breasted and comes from another planet.

[Telefrog]

Yeah, lets connect to the internet, send our packets half way across the world to Blizzard so that they can then send them back. That makes so much more sense.

It does if you're Activision/Blizzard and you want to minimally combat piracy, encourage the use of BNet, and want to cut down on simple LAN-spoof hacking.

[Hemalin]

Now how will me and my three friends play with a single copy?

[Voodoo]

If that were true, I would have thought they would have just said yeah we support LAN play but you need to be authenticated to play still. Problem solved.

I doubt its as simple as that.
So, in theory, Starcraft 2 is going to do a subnet check to see if everyone playing is on the same subnet or not? That seems a bit over-reaching to me. I can't imagine them telling two SC2 owners that they may not play with eachtother if they are on the same subnet. I could also not imagine a retarded network model that would require all game packets to be routed through Battle.net along with the authentication packets.

It seems to me that, in other words, Blizzard is stating that only Battle.net authorized game sessions can take place be them LAN or otherwise.

[violent]

There is no good reason why this feature won't be available. I feel strongly that it will be implemented eventually though.

[Ancalagon]

Now how will me and my three friends play with a single copy?

Take turns against the computer?

Buy another game from anyone other than Activision Vivendi?

[SilentScreams]

Take turns against the computer?

Buy another game from anyone other than Activision Vivendi?

Riiight, because nobody but Activision have ever done that.

[Loki]

Still buying it day 1. Going to be absolutely amazing!

[Rune_74]

Stupid move....I never play on battlenet.....no urge to, and won't be playing this.

[Vector]

I can see how this would effect others but I'm buying this for the SP campaign

[OrangePulp]

All about hamachi and piracy. By routing all traffic through bnet, they hope to reduce easy multiplayer piracy. We'll see if people can spoof bnet, but you know they'll at least put a lot more security on it than they did for their earlier games.

As far as the whole "They're going to start charging for Bnet OMG" reaction, I really think it's overblown. They've already said they won't charge a monthly fee; the entire success of bnet is based on the fact that it's free. It drove all the pay-based online gaming networks out of business. My assumption has always been advertising, but you know, I don't mind advertising when I'm getting something for free.

As far as things like the death of college lan parties, well, I kinda wonder how many people paid for their copy, etc.

[J Arcane]

You know who else still runs LAN games? Blizzard. Come on, has no one ever seen a BlizzCon? It's basically one big LANfest, interspersed with a couple marketing speeches.

Who the fuck thinks it's a good idea to release a new edition of one of the world's most popular competition/tournament games, without LAN support?

It's like launching a new wrestling league for quadriplegics.

[Loki]

Weee for hyperbole! Would you mind explaining to me and everyone here on how the lack of LAN would make it so that the game is no longer playable as a competitive game?

[Rogue_hunter]

Now how will me and my three friends play with a single copy?

True. What about the "Spawn" install option? That install (to my knowledge) only did the multiplayer components, and was reliant on the LAN because it used the same CD key. Will they even be implementing a "spawn" install option?

[Telefrog]

True. What about the "Spawn" install option? That install (to my knowledge) only did the multiplayer components, and was reliant on the LAN because it used the same CD key. Will they even be implementing a "spawn" install option?

I think the spawn option is a dying breed. What was the last game to encourage it? :confused: I don't even think it's a bullet point anymore.

[J Arcane]

Weee for hyperbole! Would you mind explaining to me and everyone here on how the lack of LAN would make it so that the game is no longer playable as a competitive game?
How do you think most competitions run their games?

No one runs serious tournaments online because latency is too much of an issue.

[Rogue_hunter]

I think the spawn option is a dying breed. What was the last game to encourage it? :confused: I don't even think it's a bullet point anymore.

True, but it was still cool. Really, it was the only reason I initially played StarCraft and got me interested enough to buy the game and expansion. Not that it's a "no-sale" if it's not included, but that option did really streamline LAN parties.

[Doogie2K]

God only knows how you could possibly play together in the same game without a LAN solution. If only someone would work out a solution to this conundrum!

Yes, but that's not always feasible, depending on the quality of Internet connection or, in the case of a campus rez, what the routers will let you do, as noted by others. Furthermore, I was responding specifically to the notion that LAN parties are dead/unnecessary in the age of broadband Internet, not the feasibility of playing in the same room without LAN operability.

[MagGnome]

Blizzard is well on their way to getting a big "Fuck you!" from me.

Keep it up guys, and I won't have to contribute ANY money to Activision. ;)

Really though, this is a dick move, and I'm sure it has everything to do with milking their customers on Battle.net and perhaps trying to get a slice of the Steam pie in some way, shape, or form.

[Rakael]

Welp, I wasn't all that interested in SC2 anyway, but now my interest has gone below zero. I now actively hate the game and its makers.

I was very interested in D3 however, but if there is no LAN, they can forget my dollars. In fact, I may just pirate both of these fuckers to spite them.

I never thought I would say this, but fuck you Blizzard. Fuck you with a big, splintery stick.

[MagGnome]

Because God forbid I feel like having another human being in the same building as myself, with whom I can share a certain experience. You know why people have LAN parties? To hang out. To have fun. Shoot the shit. Yell at each other, punch each other in the shoulder, high-five each other, clink beer bottles and raise pizza slices in celebration...you know, people things.

NO, real human contact is scary!!

To all those saying that people should just hop online and play together from the same room - isn't that kind of silly? Why send the data out and then back when you could just cut out the middleman?

Edit - It would be really tragic if Diablo 3 shared the same fate as SC2, with no LAN, split three ways, etc. I'm hoping that's not the case, but if it happens with D3 as well than I guess I'm done buying Blizzard games. There are plenty of other companies who actively encourage my support.

[Rakael]

NO, real human contact is scary!!

To all those saying that people should just hop online and play together from the same room - isn't that kind of silly? Why send the data out and then back when you could just cut out the middleman?

Like everyone else, the only thing I can figure is because you will have to pay for it.

[cp#]

I always played on Bnet, never LANed. Use Map Settings, Free For All, Top vs. Bottom. Oh joy

[Crowe]

LAN will all run through BNET, I'm sure of it.

Who know's if you will still need to connect to BNET to do it, or whether it will have an offline mode. Either way I'm sure it will be there somewhere.

[cp#]

LAN will all run through BNET, I'm sure of it.

Who know's if you will still need to connect to BNET to do it, or whether it will have an offline mode. Either way I'm sure it will be there somewhere.

This is what I was thinking. Sort of how Steam still works in "Offline mode."

[Loki]

I think we really should invest with a jump to conclusions matte for everyone who is assuming that b.net is going to be something you purchase separately or have a subscription.

[Hemalin]

True. What about the "Spawn" install option? That install (to my knowledge) only did the multiplayer components, and was reliant on the LAN because it used the same CD key. Will they even be implementing a "spawn" install option?
Spawns have been on the way out for a while. People abused the hell out of that system and now it's been taken away.

[Xydarc]

Thank you, Blizzard, for this. Now I can put the money I might have spent on StarCraft II on another, more deserving, game.

[AbeLincoln]

Yeah, lots of games are dumping LAN support. It's really sad. Like was said though, it's an anti Hamachi, anti piracy thing. Lame, and annoying... Doubly so for RTSs I only ever played those at LANs. Online play with friends was hard to organize, and online play with randoms meant getting raped.

[H.Bogard]

No LAN multiplayer in a PC game?

Haha... what's next? No mouse support either? Fucking idiots. I'm not gonna touch this piece of shit now.

[Ancalagon]

No LAN multiplayer in a PC game?

Haha... what's next? No mouse support either? Fucking idiots. I'm not gonna touch this piece of shit now.

We did a study and found that 100% of pirates use mice. Not 95% you understand, 100%. Every single pirate uses a mouse to interact with his computer. Not a coincidence. Therefore, we removed mouse support - it was the only thing we could do to make sure our game wont be pirated.

If this is an anti piracy scheme, its as half baked as DRM. You piss off a HUGE bunch of your fans (it actually seems to rile more people than DRM ever did) in return for.... what? I guarantee piracy will still occur. People will run pirate battle.net servers, they will hack the game, its going to happen.

Oh.... maybe LAN play is unlocked by a $20 expansion?

[GigaFuzz]

This is what I was thinking. Sort of how Steam still works in "Offline mode."

Games on Steam have a built-in LAN mode, though.

[Disgustipated]

So... pretty damn awesome?


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/syBIyW5ihUU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/syBIyW5ihUU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


:D

Wow, that was incredible! Bravo!

[SilentScreams]

I could show this thread to a group of people attending a lecture on over-reacting to things (for some reason).
Keep up the good work guys, this is comedy gold. :D

[Widgetcraft]

I'd bet that they'll make your WoW subscription into a Battle.net sub. One fee, all Blizzard game.

That is what I was thinking. Then you have everyone who plays a Blizzard game also having a Warcraft account. They all have a Warcraft account, so they all play it to some extent. Then they all start buying expansion packs, and premium services... etc.

Anyhow, I've never really done LAN multiplayer outside of LAN centers, where the internet connection is so good that you could probably just setup a b.net game and have everyone in the center (who you want to play with) join and play over the internet, and still see no noticeable lag. This doesn't really effect me at all.

[BigJonno]

Would you rather see the spotty face of your slightly overwieght best friend, or his hot female avatar of some alien race?

I think you all know the answer, its big breasted and comes from another planet.

That's way too easy, I'm not touching it with an 11-foot pole. ;)

[Dark Acre Jack]

Oh.... maybe LAN play is unlocked by a $20 expansion?
Heh. Much like Fight Night Round 4's face buttons, perhaps they're thinking of making LAN playability into DLC. :D

[H.Bogard]

"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."

Ahahaha. Safeguard against piracy.

Who's betting on zero day cracks?

[Ancalagon]

Ahahaha. Safeguard against piracy.

Who's betting on zero day cracks?

I never understood the mentality of pissing off your customers in order to combat piracy.

Good honest customers miss out on a very basic feature to include in a game, while pirates will crack it anyway. Way to go Blizzard, you're trying your hardest to out EA the old EA.

[Crowe]

I could show this thread to a group of people attending a lecture on over-reacting to things (for some reason).
Keep up the good work guys, this is comedy gold. :D

You don't find the removal of LAN a little bullshit. I'm hoping that it's still there via offline Bnet but H. Bogard ^ post does not instil confidence.

With the sales and popularity of all their previous games is there any reason for Blizzard to remove LAN in an attempt to curb piracy. I'm sure there will be cracked BNET servers up in no time...

[SilentScreams]

You don't find the removal of LAN a little bullshit. I'm hoping that it's still there via offline Bnet but H. Bogard ^ post does not instil confidence.

With the sales and popularity of all their previous games is there any reason for Blizzard to remove LAN in an attempt to curb piracy. I'm sure there will be cracked BNET servers up in no time...

Sure it's a minor inconvenience, but it won't stop me and my friends from getting together at my place and playing it. Nor will it stop anybody with a halfway decent broadband connection.
So while it's an inconvenience, it's not the game killer most people are making it out to be. That's what I mean by over-reacting.

[Voodoo]

Yeah, lots of games are dumping LAN support. It's really sad. Like was said though, it's an anti Hamachi, anti piracy thing. Lame, and annoying... Doubly so for RTSs I only ever played those at LANs. Online play with friends was hard to organize, and online play with randoms meant getting raped.
I read your post but I'm hard pressed to think of any PC game that has dumped LAN support. I knew a few that require authentication before you play multipler, just as Starcraft 2 will. But I don't know of any that will not allow you to play with others on the same LAN as yourself.

[Narradisall]

You know the more I think about this, the less it makes sense that they will drop lan.

As I said before, and many others have said. Blizzcon, Professional gaming etc, LANs are the staple diet of the gaming at these, and SCII would be as huge at these things as SC is. If it wasn't for the statement saying "no support" I would have concluded they would just provide LAN play but with you having to be logged on (as others have said similar to Steam offline).

"It just doesn't, make, sense!"

[Ancalagon]

I read your post but I'm hard pressed to think of any PC game that has dumped LAN support. I knew a few that require authentication before you play multipler, just as Starcraft 2 will. But I don't know of any that will not allow you to play with others on the same LAN as yourself.

See, if it was just authenticate the game once then you can play LAN I'd be fine with it. Yeah, its not an ideal solution to piracy (didnt work for spore) but hey, its a compromise. At least I could play it on a LAN without needing to worry about an internet connection.

What they are saying though, is that Battle.net has been so tightly integrated into the multiplayer experience that a standalone LAN game isnt... well what they want. Not that it isnt feasible, but it isnt what they want. From H.Bogards post, it seems they added stat tracking etc. Very nice, but honestly, I dont care. I cant guarantee that every LAN party I ever go to will have a sufficient internet connection for local multiplayer, and why should I?

This is "value added LAN", but it requires an internet connection ostensibly for piracy's sake. Why the fuck should I care if gimps in China pirate the game? I wont pirate it, why shouldnt I get LAN play?

I imagine that the monetization of battle.net is an added bonus to this. Perhaps heavy users of the game could pay for added bonuses like having their replays stored in the cloud, or a custom avatar or something. I imagine both Blizzard and Activision will laugh all the way to the bank, while still suffering massive piracy.

[Doogie2K]

I think we really should invest with a jump to conclusions matte for everyone who is assuming that b.net is going to be something you purchase separately or have a subscription.

http://www.photochopz.com/gallery/data/505/jump.jpg

[Voodoo]

See, if it was just authenticate the game once then you can play LAN I'd be fine with it. Yeah, its not an ideal solution to piracy (didnt work for spore) but hey, its a compromise. At least I could play it on a LAN without needing to worry about an internet connection.

What they are saying though, is that Battle.net has been so tightly integrated into the multiplayer experience that a standalone LAN game isnt... well what they want. Not that it isnt feasible, but it isnt what they want. From H.Bogards post, it seems they added stat tracking etc. Very nice, but honestly, I dont care. I cant guarantee that every LAN party I ever go to will have a sufficient internet connection for local multiplayer, and why should I?

This is "value added LAN", but it requires an internet connection ostensibly for piracy's sake. Why the fuck should I care if gimps in China pirate the game? I wont pirate it, why shouldnt I get LAN play?

I imagine that the monetization of battle.net is an added bonus to this. Perhaps heavy users of the game could pay for added bonuses like having their replays stored in the cloud, or a custom avatar or something. I imagine both Blizzard and Activision will laugh all the way to the bank, while still suffering massive piracy.
I see what they are doing here as no different than a fully patched version of Company of Heroes. Though, the difference between the two will be with CoH to play on LAN on a disconnected network you must insert the original DVD for verification. I don't imagine that Starcraft 2 will have such a feature...

From the description given by Blizzard, it sounds like Battle.net will be used for game authentication checks and stats. The only difference, which wouldn't make sense, is if they required all game packets to be routed through Battle.net instead of peer-to-peer which I seriously doubt they plan to do. If this is indeed their plan, it is quite heavily retarded.

[MagGnome]

Thank you, Blizzard, for this. Now I can put the money I might have spent on StarCraft II on another, more deserving, game.

Bingo! There are plenty of companies out there that are worth supporting, so I'll give my dollars to them instead. Elemental: War of Magic cannot come out fast enough! :D

I never understood the mentality of pissing off your customers in order to combat piracy.

Good honest customers miss out on a very basic feature to include in a game, while pirates will crack it anyway. Way to go Blizzard, you're trying your hardest to out EA the old EA.

Agreed. DRM/stripping features is a bad way to combat piracy. It makes things easier on my wallet I guess, but it's still frustrating to see developers that I once had a lot of respect for do things like this.

[Xydarc]

Has this news hit South Korea yet? Or are they going to get a "special" edition of SC II with LAN play enabled?

[SilentScreams]

Instead of blaming the developers, why not blame the criminals? Just throwing that out there.

[J Arcane]

Instead of blaming the developers, why not blame the criminals? Just throwing that out there.
Nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to remove LAN support.

Last I knew free will was still a valid concept, and so was accountability.

Other games and developers have made different decisions in the face of the same theoretical pressures.

[Narradisall]

Screw it. I'll just go get this changed.

Wait, can't Squid get this sorted?

[J Arcane]

Screw it. I'll just go get this changed.

Wait, can't Squid get this sorted?
man what

:confused:

[Narradisall]

man what

:confused:

Eh, screw it. I don't play LAN anyway.

If they left it redundant from the alpha but still in the code it'll get hacked in a day anyway.

BNET will be free.

The expansions hopefully will either be full games or cheaper expansions.

It'll be fine in the end.

[SilentScreams]

That's the spirit!

[Zanzibar]

I'm late to the party and don't wanna read 7 pages, but I'm guessing it's already been mentioned that going through Battle.net will significantly reduce piracy AND cheating?

[J Arcane]

I'm late to the party and don't wanna read 7 pages, but I'm guessing it's already been mentioned that going through Battle.net will significantly reduce piracy AND cheating?
Hah hah hah. Like Battle.net's ever really prevented cheating. Someone's never played much Diablo on B.net.

[BigJonno]

Nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to remove LAN support.

Last I knew free will was still a valid concept, and so was accountability.

Other games and developers have made different decisions in the face of the same theoretical pressures.

To be fair, the last high-profile different decision resulted in the game's servers being butt-fucked, spoiling it for thousands of legitimate customers.

[Zanzibar]

Hah hah hah. Like Battle.net's ever really prevented cheating. Someone's never played much Diablo on B.net.

True that. But Diablo's ten years old. Perhaps by having all multiplayer matches set up via B.Net means that they could randomly 'check' data packets for cheating during the matches.

[Doogie2K]

I'm late to the party and don't wanna read 7 pages, but I'm guessing it's already been mentioned that going through Battle.net will significantly reduce piracy AND cheating?

Where's that "50 posts per page!" faux-Soviet propaganda poster when you need it? ;)

[MagGnome]

Instead of blaming the developers, why not blame the criminals? Just throwing that out there.

Are you serious?


Wow, I guess I should blame the pirates every time developers do something I don't like? :confused:

[Hawkzombie]

Are you serious?


Wow, I guess I should blame the pirates every time developers do something I don't like? :confused:

It's fun!

You can even make a game of it, adding more nonsensical words in an expletive fashion.

What the...CD Check?!? MOTHER LOVING PIRATES OF THE THIRD MOON OF NEBLAR!

[H.Bogard]

You can't blame Blizzard, I mean... after the terrible experiences with piracy that the Diablo games and WC3 faced, they have to do something about it if they want to make money!

Oh wait...

[J Arcane]

You can't blame Blizzard, I mean... after the terrible experiences with piracy that the Diablo games and WC3 faced, they have to do something about it if they want to make money!

Oh wait...
It must be hard to have to keep your games on shelves for over a decade just to make back all that money lost to those nasty people borrowing their friend's copy for some LAN gaming.

[Telefrog]

You can't blame Blizzard, I mean... after the terrible experiences with piracy that the Diablo games and WC3 faced, they have to do something about it if they want to make money!

Oh wait...

I've never understood this argument. Because a game series is successful, the publisher/developer shouldn't worry about any piracy?

Here's just one way that people abuse the current LAN-friendly games Blizzard put out:

GGC (Good Game Client) is a third party application to play various games online. Including Warcraft 3, Counter Strike 1.6 and Starcraft. It is the second largest third party client in the DotA scene, with over 2.9 million subscribed gamers, and over 5000 posts on the forum per day.

The reason why some people would prefer GG-Client, is because it reduces delay, and gives a faster connection from the host to the client. This is because game data is sent more frequently from host to clients, thus reducing delay and decreasing game stability.

It is also used by many people who do not possess a valid Warcraft CD-key. Players on GGC do not need a valid copy of warcraft to play.

Now, of course, it may well be that not all 2.9 million users of GGC are pirating their copies, but it's still would be a concern to anyone whose system was being circumvented.

[SilentScreams]

Are you serious?


Wow, I guess I should blame the pirates every time developers do something I don't like? :confused:

So are you saying they have nothing to do with it?
If people didn't pirate games, then developers would have nothing to protect them from.
I'm not shifting the blame as much as spreading it around evenly.

Of course, they could just take away any kind of protection. That worked out great for Stardock...
Stardock, while admirable in their intentions, only proved that if you try to do something nice, people will screw you over.

[Ink Asylum]

I've never understood this argument. Because a game series is successful, the publisher/developer shouldn't worry about any piracy?

Not at the cost of punishing paying customers. Even EA has learned that lesson and released one of their flagship titles, The Sims 3, with minimal piracy prevention.

[Zanzibar]

Not at the cost of punishing paying customers. Even EA has learned that lesson and released one of their flagship titles, The Sims 3, with minimal piracy prevention.

I still say this is more to prevent cheating than piracy, although the system handles both. WoW has virtually no piracy and very little cheating that goes unpunished for long. I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't apply what they've learned from WoW and apply it to their other titles.

The Sims 3 is single-player, thus the need to prevent cheating is minimal because you're not going to ruin anyone else's experience if you cheat.

[Ink Asylum]

If you're playing on a LAN chances are you're playing with people you know personally. If someone's cheating the other players can get up and give him a smack. What does Blizzard care if people cheat in that environment? LAN games don't count towards Bnet rankings.

[Telefrog]

LAN games don't count towards Bnet rankings.

It will now. :p

[mister slim]

Are you serious?


Wow, I guess I should blame the pirates every time developers do something I don't like? :confused:

It's really the fault of the ninjas. As the natural predator for the pirate they are supposed to limit piracy numbers to an acceptable level, but with the decline in ninja population the number of pirates is growing out of control.

[ShivaX]

I still say this is more to prevent cheating than piracy, although the system handles both. WoW has virtually no piracy and very little cheating that goes unpunished for long. I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't apply what they've learned from WoW and apply it to their other titles.

The Sims 3 is single-player, thus the need to prevent cheating is minimal because you're not going to ruin anyone else's experience if you cheat.

Well pirating WoW doesn't do you much good since its an MMO. You can try to find some stand-alone server and play with the people on there, but very few people are going to bother with that.

When it comes to a game like SC2 I can understand why they'd want to be careful about it. Then again I suspect most people who pirate RTSs don't plan on ever playing them with someone else, they just play through the single player and quit.

[Disgustipated]

It's really the fault of the ninjas. As the natural predator for the pirate they are supposed to limit piracy numbers to an acceptable level, but with the decline in ninja population the number of pirates is growing out of control.

Awesome.

2short

[Narradisall]

It's really the fault of the ninjas. As the natural predator for the pirate they are supposed to limit piracy numbers to an acceptable level, but with the decline in ninja population the number of pirates is growing out of control.

Best response. Ever.

most sigworthy

[alienmastermind]

See this.
Consider my response to Blizzactivision to be this:

http://dipswitchcomics.com/pictures/ds34final.jpg

And Friday's comic is about this issue. ;)

Piracy exists. Removing functionality to thwart them means they will spectacularly work around it anyway. If you want to avoid piracy, make hot dogs and pancakes instead of video games or software.

I'm not buying this cheeseburger anymore. :(

[Hawkzombie]

Dammit mastermind...now I want a burger.

[SilentScreams]

Although for the comic to be accurate, it would need to be three cheeseburgers for $50 each.
Or a $50 cheeseburger than two large fries for $25 each.

Of course, I'm speculating here, but so is the original comic.

[Zanzibar]

Okay, you can have LAN play, but you'll have to wait three more months. Deal?

One of the reasons for doing this is to limit the number of data systems you have to manage and test. Making it so that ALL multiplayer matches go through b.net means that you only have to test that one pathway for bugs/errors.

[MagGnome]

Although for the comic to be accurate, it would need to be three cheeseburgers for $50 each.
Or a $50 cheeseburger than two large fries for $25 each.

Of course, I'm speculating here, but so is the original comic.

When has a Blizzard "expansion" ever been $25?

Keep dreaming. ;)

[Matthias]

I still can't understand the big stink over the expansions. They're simply guaranteeing two expansions instead of one; the only difference is that all the missions for a race are together instead of being split in three. I guess a "short attention span" argument can be made, but at that point you might as well clamor for the ability to alternate races between each mission.

[OrangePulp]

The burger thing is a shitty analogy. Multiplayer is full featured, and it's what a majority of the audience is going to be buying it for. Singleplayer is still quite robust; it's only for one race, but from the sound of things, there's going to be a lot more variety in the missions than there ever was in starcraft.

[Hawkzombie]

The argument, really, is more the fact that we're going to (The single-players) pay over 50 bucks for a full game, while the multi-players get a fully featured game right out of the box.

That make sense? It's speculation still, but the general thought is very little will change in the way of Multi-player over the next two 'expansions' with the only incentive being to buy them for single play. Which is what bones over those interested in it. Even if the expansions are only 20 bucks a piece, that's still almost 100 dollars for a game someone else paid 50 to get THEIR full experience out of.

[Matthias]

The argument, really, is more the fact that we're going to (The single-players) pay over 50 bucks for a full game, while the multi-players get a fully featured game right out of the box.

That make sense? It's speculation still, but the general thought is very little will change in the way of Multi-player over the next two 'expansions' with the only incentive being to buy them for single play. Which is what bones over those interested in it. Even if the expansions are only 20 bucks a piece, that's still almost 100 dollars for a game someone else paid 50 to get THEIR full experience out of.

And you didn't pay more than $50 for the full story of the first Starcraft? Of course you did- you bought the expansion. If their plot was set up so that you had some missions from each of the three races in each game but there were the same number of missions in each, you'd still buy both expansions, likely for the same price.

And by saying that they're holding Terran units out of the first MP game for balance reasons, they've all but said there will be new MP units in the second and third "games", just like there were in Brood War.

Really, the only probable difference is that each expansion can function independently of the other two, so if you really only care about one race (and don't care missing out on the storyline), you only need to buy one game. Blizzard isn't even the first company to do this. Didn't Dawn of War function the same way?

[Hawkzombie]

Yeah, but didn't Brood War add units to Multiplayer as well? The way this is, Multi gets everything right out of the box...Terran Vs Protos Vs Brood. Single gets boned and we have to wait X amount of time before we can complete the story. But even if Brood didn't add new units to multi...

Expansions usuall ADD more to the finished story (WC3 'ended' in a way, but the expansion added more lore and story to the end, creating a richer experience)...this seems like we are being forced to buy expansions to play the game as it was intended, not to enhance the experience like an expansion usually does. Hell, you can play WoW without the expansions, but they add so much more. This doesn't seem the case.

Again, though, it's all speculation. I could very well be proven wrong, and I really hope I am, or it all just puts me in a sour place.

[Ancalagon]

Okay, you can have LAN play, but you'll have to wait three more months. Deal?

One of the reasons for doing this is to limit the number of data systems you have to manage and test. Making it so that ALL multiplayer matches go through b.net means that you only have to test that one pathway for bugs/errors.

I've never heard of a company leaving out something critical like LAN play because they couldnt be bothered to QA it. Especially not Blizzard.

"Hey guys, its gonna take us too long to make sure that installer thingy works, lets just sell the game as is. Give people instructions on how to copy stuff etc."

[Narradisall]

Eh, the speculation about the game pricing always baffles me.

SC1 was (for arguements sake) $50. For that you got a 30ish main campaign and full MP. They added an expansion for something like $30 which basically gave you another campaign of 30ish missions and some added units to MP. *Ok, I don't know the exact prices as it was £40/£20 in the UK.

Now SC2 for all intensive purposes seems to be following the same formular in the campaign at least, 35 missions, although per race, split over 3 games rather than 10 missions per race per game, then an expansion with the same 10 missions per race, per game.

Prices haven't even been discussed so I don't know why so many people are hitting the drama button over it.

If MP is your only main interest, you get that complete out the box in the first game. Unless they find some incidious way to make the 2 follow up games MP waaaay more fun or add units you just HAVE to have, buying the original game should make no difference on your view.

Personally, I'll pick up the first game, and wait till the expansion/sequel games are closer to release to see what the fuss is about. If they turn round and say they are adding 35 more missions in SP and 2 extra units per race (Ala Broodwar) but at $50. I'll wait and pick it up cheaper. If they're realsing it at expansion price. I'll probably by it as such.

As for the LAN, I'm more curious to see how the Koreans are going to run their HUGE gaming contests (which are just basically giant LANs like all torny's are) if they don't include some sort of LAN work around.

[Ink Asylum]

for all intensive purposes

"for all intents and purposes"

Sorry. It's a common mistake. :)

[Narradisall]

"for all intents and purposes"

Sorry. It's a common mistake. :)

Damn you! :eek:

[Matthias]

Yeah, but didn't Brood War add units to Multiplayer as well? The way this is, Multi gets everything right out of the box...Terran Vs Protos Vs Brood. Single gets boned and we have to wait X amount of time before we can complete the story. But even if Brood didn't add new units to multi...

Expansions usuall ADD more to the finished story (WC3 'ended' in a way, but the expansion added more lore and story to the end, creating a richer experience)...this seems like we are being forced to buy expansions to play the game as it was intended, not to enhance the experience like an expansion usually does. Hell, you can play WoW without the expansions, but they add so much more. This doesn't seem the case.

Again, though, it's all speculation. I could very well be proven wrong, and I really hope I am, or it all just puts me in a sour place.

In the OP, Blizzard stated that there were units available in the Terran SP campaign that were being left out of MP for balance reasons. This probably means there are likely Protoss and Zerg units that they want to unveil in their respective SP campaigns, and when they do, will release the Terran SP units to MP as well, so that the game will balance better.

Even not hearing the above, when did Blizzard say that there would be no new MP units in the protoss and zerg packs? It'd be very unlike Blizzard to not flesh out or create new units in the months between releases. Of course, they could split MP and SP purchases up and make it a nice modular DLC, where each game will give you its race's campaign and a vanilla MP game, and you buy the MP unit packs separately. This seems overly complex though, since most people will be playing both SP and MP.

[Camel]

When I saw the bit about units in SP not being available in MP, I took that to mean something like a big ship you have to escort or something, or a hero-type unit that has different skills that other units. Stuff that would make sense in the story, but wouldn't make sense or would be overpowered if it went to the MP side.

I could be completely wrong, but I didn't take that to mean that there would be units that would eventually be added when the other SP campaigns came out.

[Matthias]

When I saw the bit about units in SP not being available in MP, I took that to mean something like a big ship you have to escort or something, or a hero-type unit that has different skills that other units. Stuff that would make sense in the story, but wouldn't make sense or would be overpowered if it went to the MP side.

I could be completely wrong, but I didn't take that to mean that there would be units that would eventually be added when the other SP campaigns came out.

Those are typically considered a class of their own, and it's not unusual to see special units in RTS... I don't know why they would feel a need to mention that, but I guess it could be part of a typical hype machine. The way it was worded, I would guess the units would be considered normal units, that simply don't have a counterbalance in the other races yet- and because Blizzard tends to be perfectionists about things, the only reason they wouldn't have added Zerg/Protoss counters is because they have plot-based reasons to wait and reveal them later.

[MagGnome]

"for all intents and purposes"

Sorry. It's a common mistake. :)

Thank you! I see that all the time and it bugs me as well.


Haven't most of Blizzard's "expansions" been $40? I'm almost positive that they were.