| Page 24 of 179 |
|
|
 Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 08:07 Post subject: |
|
 |
| crossmr wrote: | | The point was lan play would benefit all those scenarios. He claimed there was no reason to include lan play. I just gave several scenarios in which lan play would be superior to having to go to battle.net Reading comprehension FTW! |
Nope. LAN = piracy. If everyone owns a copy there is no problem to just enter bNet and play with one another.
C2D E6750 @ 3.2Ghz, 4GB 800MHz DDR2 4-4-4-12, GeForce GTX 260 c216 OC 896MB, 3.2TB, Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Xbox 360 Elite, PS2 Slim, Xbox
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 08:23 Post subject: |
|
|
| Glottis wrote: | | crossmr wrote: | | The point was lan play would benefit all those scenarios. He claimed there was no reason to include lan play. I just gave several scenarios in which lan play would be superior to having to go to battle.net Reading comprehension FTW! |
Nope. LAN = piracy. If everyone owns a copy there is no problem to just enter bNet and play with one another. |
Well there is the problem of lag... I mean, I sometimes meet with some buddies at someones house and play UT2004, and there are like 3 pcs and 7-8 laptops, and obviously in one house you propbably only have one dsl line, and even if it's 7mbit it still lags like hell due to shitty upload speed, while on LAN it's smooth as silk.
But most important of all: do you guys really think there will be no "private server crack"? There was for almost every multiplayer oriented game of the last decade, starting with the UT series and including all the blizzard games.... so in the end this measure will only hurt the legit customers, pirates will still probably play it on cracked servers if they want.... imho it's the biggest dick move....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 08:29 Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Leaf wrote: | | Well there is the problem of lag... I mean, I sometimes meet with some buddies at someones house and play UT2004 |
Wouldn't Starcraft 2 be peer-to-peer centric in design, not client-server like UT and most other multiplayer games (except strategy games)?
In other words, even though it might not be optimized for LAN, game traffic (except I imagine, the authorization to battle.net servers and the occassional keep-alive) would be routed locally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 08:34 Post subject: |
|
|
| Parallax_ wrote: | | The_Leaf wrote: | | Well there is the problem of lag... I mean, I sometimes meet with some buddies at someones house and play UT2004 |
Wouldn't Starcraft 2 be peer-to-peer centric in design, not client-server like UT and most other multiplayer games (except strategy games)?
In other words, even though it might not be optimized for LAN, game traffic (except I imagine, the authorization to battle.net servers and the occassional keep-alive) would be routed locally. |
Didn't know about that, it's a good idea under a technological point of view (tho I want to see how they deal with cheaters if all the data is exchanged between peers without a central authority), but it just makes it more likely that there will be a private server patch as I said before if the battle.net server is only used for authentication....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-=Cartoon=-
VIP Member
Posts: 8823
Location: South Pacific Ocean
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 09:40 Post subject: |
|
|
| Surray wrote: | I'm sure they have their reasons.
|
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ they dont make enuff from Wow
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-=Cartoon=-
VIP Member
Posts: 8823
Location: South Pacific Ocean
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 09:43 Post subject: |
|
|
| Glottis wrote: | | crossmr wrote: | | The point was lan play would benefit all those scenarios. He claimed there was no reason to include lan play. I just gave several scenarios in which lan play would be superior to having to go to battle.net Reading comprehension FTW! |
Nope. LAN = piracy. If everyone owns a copy there is no problem to just enter bNet and play with one another. |
Cool so our flat has 4 computers setup.. we lan all the time.
So if our internets down... we cant play vs each other even thou we are meters away ??
And have to run it throu a server (most likely on the other side of the word) to play someone next to us ??
Fucking stupid..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 09:50 Post subject: |
|
|
You still host your own games probably, just your cd key will be validated online with the master server like any game from the past 10 years has done.
Some clever guy will probably make a workaround for this that your cd key validates locally and then play via hamachi or something.
Still, this could seriously impact the professional gaming scene's adaptation of SC2 if LANs are not supported.
"YARR! We be stealin' yer games an plundrin' yer gold!" sez the pirate.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 10:48 Post subject: |
|
|
The connection in the game will of course be using the shortest path, so even if you have to login to battle.net, you're still having a direct connection between players in the game.
However that's not really the point, the point is that maybe not all lans have a good internet connection, you may even be places where you can't play lan because of firewalls blocking your connection to Battle.net.
This is not a CD-key check, it's rather a battle.net account check, which means that in order to enable local play you have to emulate a battle.net server, that may not be particular hard, but it's not like you just disable a cd-key check and you can play lan.
No you have to emulate battle.net for account creation, login and the lobby.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 11:46 Post subject: |
|
|
If you're in a place where firewalls block battle.net, you probably shouldn't even be playing starcraft then ^^
I totally understand why Blizz is doing this, and with the announced upgrades and features of Battle.net they're going to implement a lot of online features that aren't possible locally.
Anyway, people should buy this game anyway. Blizzard is still one of the developers around today that deserve respect for what they're doing.
I like their attitude:
"Fuck deadlines. You want to publish this game? Then wait till it's done and quit whining."
^^
Sure, the removal of LAN play is possibly a major criticism, but alot of games have only online play today and you don't hear a lot of people whining about those games.
"YARR! We be stealin' yer games an plundrin' yer gold!" sez the pirate.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 12:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| Flowmo wrote: | | If you're in a place where firewalls block battle.net, you probably shouldn't even be playing starcraft then ^^ |
If you're pirating a game that incorporates copy protection, you probably shouldn't be pirating it.
What if i live on a Campus, and while we're allowed to do whatever we want outside of classes we can't because of an inadequate network setup?
What if i want to play ad-hoc over wireless with a friend where there is no connection?
It's understandable they want to keep the "Battle.net" experience, but seriously that is only an issue if you allow direct ip connections(Which a lan wouldn't nessecary have to do), and piracy is also a non-issue.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 12:52 Post subject: |
|
|
| Flowmo wrote: |
I totally understand why Blizz is doing this |
As do I. They'll make more cash. Very good business decision. And notice how it is *only* to the company's advantage and not the customer's. They get added sales from pirates who want to play multiplayer and for the advertising on BattleNet( more people using it = more revenue ), the customer loses the option of playing multiplayer offline or, should he get himself banned in whatever way, the option of playing multiplayer period.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baleur
Posts: 2343
Location: South Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 15:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| Glottis wrote: | | crossmr wrote: | | The point was lan play would benefit all those scenarios. He claimed there was no reason to include lan play. I just gave several scenarios in which lan play would be superior to having to go to battle.net Reading comprehension FTW! |
Nope. LAN = piracy. If everyone owns a copy there is no problem to just enter bNet and play with one another. |
Your argument fails.
If LAN = piracy, then No Copy-Protection even more = piracy.
Yet Galciv2 + No Copy-Protection = huge retail/online success.
Therefor, LAN can't = piracy.
They just didnt include it because they are asses. But i still love Blizzard.
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 RAM: 4gb Kingmax DDR2 800mhz Video: Asus GeForce 250GTS 1gb Sound: Asus Xonar.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surray
Posts: 5409
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 15:40 Post subject: |
|
|
you can't blame any developer for taking steps to protect their games from piracy.
just be happy it's just the removal of lan (multiplayer with cracked games over hamachi is pretty big nowadays) and not some crazy new copy protection.
Likot Mosuskekim, Woodcutter cancels Sleep: Interrupted by Elephant.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 17:04 Post subject: |
|
|
You can blame them, if it hurts people with a legit copy.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 17:25 Post subject: |
|
|
Official statement:
| Quote: | "We don't currently plan to support LAN play with StarCraft II, as we are building Battle.net to be the ideal destination for multiplayer gaming with StarCraft II and future Blizzard Entertainment games. 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." |
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/30/starcraft-2-blizzard-responds-to-lack-of-lan-support/
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
- Albert Camus
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 19:53 Post subject: |
|
|
I am amazed each time, by fanbois who'd justify anything their beloved company would shove down their throats. In fact, they'd bend over and demand to have it served up their asses!
Boy oh boy, SC2 looks so appealing. First they split it, then they gimp it!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 19:54 Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, they actually said it out loud. Though they did try to hide it behind tons of hype for the new Battlenet.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 20:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | I am amazed each time, by fanbois who'd justify anything their beloved company would shove down their throats. In fact, they'd bend over and demand to have it served up their asses!
Boy oh boy, SC2 looks so appealing. First they split it, then they gimp it! |
Can't agree more. Seems like Blizzard can get away with anything while any other company who would have done the same thing would have been immediatly boycotted forever.
Really pathetic IMO. Sad how people think that the blizzard of today is the same blizzard that gave us SC, D1/D2, WC2/3 and all those classics. They used to be really good but now they are nothing more than EA 2.0
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 20:43 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | I am amazed each time, by fanbois who'd justify anything their beloved company would shove down their throats. In fact, they'd bend over and demand to have it served up their asses!
Boy oh boy, SC2 looks so appealing. First they split it, then they gimp it! |
Let me guess, this is another of your pretentious posts where you nitpick AAA title and find an excuse not to buy it?
I bought WarCaft III and Frozen Throne the day they came out and played countless hours of multiplayer (and still play it occasionally). Not once did I need a shitty LAN option. It's not year 1999 anymore where majority of PC multiplayer happens over LAN. Times change.
And no, I DON'T support microtransactions.
C2D E6750 @ 3.2Ghz, 4GB 800MHz DDR2 4-4-4-12, GeForce GTX 260 c216 OC 896MB, 3.2TB, Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Xbox 360 Elite, PS2 Slim, Xbox
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 21:39 Post subject: |
|
|
Majority isn't all that matters. Even if 20% of the customers want it, it should be included, it's a standard option for PC games (not ported crap). It's an RTS for fuck's sake.
CoD 4 and 5 have LAN, and they're ultra-successful, even though it's being exploited for online play.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 22:33 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm really sad about this, every year I play War3+TFT in LAN and we have no internet connection where we do it, so... A really lame attempt from Blizzard and I couldn't agree more with people saying Blizzard today is nothing like the old Blizzard. Really, I was a fanboy before, but now I realize how EA they have become.
They are actually NOT punishing pirates doing so, but punishing people who will legitely buy the game : they will have to find workarounds (use some illegal fake battlenet) to actually play this game multiplayer without an internet access.... Shame on you Blizzard
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Jun 2009 23:12 Post subject: |
|
|
| Glottis wrote: | | I bought WarCaft III and Frozen Throne the day they came out and played countless hours of multiplayer (and still play it occasionally). Not once did I need a shitty LAN option. |
Ah, excellent argument. I don't need it, so no one else does either.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Jul 2009 00:03 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Yondaime on Mon, 2nd Dec 2024 16:01; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Jul 2009 01:09 Post subject: |
|
|
but if for example me and my brother want to play eachother we have to buy 2 games? anybody think of that?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Jul 2009 01:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Yes. Blizzard thought of that. That's why they fucking removed it in the first place. Buying one copy and installing it 8 times for 8 people to play costs them money.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Jul 2009 01:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| JeanPerrier wrote: | | but if for example me and my brother want to play eachother we have to buy 2 games? anybody think of that? |
Wait, what?
Unless you are siamese twins, isn't that how it should be? 
 Spoiler: | I've read that question somewhere else...hmm |
Squirrely: Now come on y'all. We can't waste time arguing. There could still be survivors out there. We need to hunt them down, and kill them.
Beary: How about we kill them, and then rape their bodies so we can use their blood as lubricant.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 24 of 179 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
