• 154 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Posted by Brad (2881 posts) -
IPX OR BUST. 
Amidst all the news and video that surfaced for StarCraft II, there was a minor hubbub over the revelation via Blizzard head honcho Rob Pardo that the game will not contain support for LAN play. That means the one and only way to play against other people, even those in the same room with you, is via an Internet connection to the revamped but as yet undetailed Battle.net service.

Needless to say, some folks were less than pleased about being forced to play over the Internet, when a local network connection provides for gameplay with essentially zero latency. I figured I'd give Blizzard a chance to explain itself, so I asked what went into the decision. And this is what they said.

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. 


This will probably affect the hardest of the hardcore competitive players, who demand a completely lag-free environment in which to flex their skills. Personally, I sure as heck wasn't planning to schlep my PC to any LAN parties anytime soon, so I can't say I'm too disappointed in this omission. The number of people using third-party LAN play services like Hamachi and Garena is probably big enough for Blizzard's bottom line to feel it, so I can't say I'm surprised they're trying to keep their game as profitable as possible.

Does this ruffle anyone else's feathers?

Staff
#1 Posted by Brad (2881 posts) -
IPX OR BUST. 
Amidst all the news and video that surfaced for StarCraft II, there was a minor hubbub over the revelation via Blizzard head honcho Rob Pardo that the game will not contain support for LAN play. That means the one and only way to play against other people, even those in the same room with you, is via an Internet connection to the revamped but as yet undetailed Battle.net service.

Needless to say, some folks were less than pleased about being forced to play over the Internet, when a local network connection provides for gameplay with essentially zero latency. I figured I'd give Blizzard a chance to explain itself, so I asked what went into the decision. And this is what they said.

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. 


This will probably affect the hardest of the hardcore competitive players, who demand a completely lag-free environment in which to flex their skills. Personally, I sure as heck wasn't planning to schlep my PC to any LAN parties anytime soon, so I can't say I'm too disappointed in this omission. The number of people using third-party LAN play services like Hamachi and Garena is probably big enough for Blizzard's bottom line to feel it, so I can't say I'm surprised they're trying to keep their game as profitable as possible.

Does this ruffle anyone else's feathers?

Staff
#2 Edited by theMcNasty (741 posts) -

Blizzard rolled a natural 20 at pissing me off today.

Edit:  Finally, solid proof that only the honest consumer gets hurt by piracy.

#3 Edited by Dion (28 posts) -

Good for them. I trust that they will optimize Battlenet instead, and considering that almost everything they have done have been for the hardcore players they probably won't screw them over with this.

Edit: Clearly I was first. Now I can elaborate.

#4 Posted by lordofultima (6213 posts) -

I don't even plan on playing it and it still pisses me off. Way to go Blizzard.

#5 Posted by Seraphim2150 (325 posts) -

Thats a bit annoying

#6 Posted by skywing (1153 posts) -

I had a starcraft lan pary 4 days ago

this feature must be in the game!!!
#7 Posted by Termite (2398 posts) -

It doesn't ruffle my feathers, although I do think it's kind of a lame move to not include LAN. I always felt like Blizzard was a real "for the fans" sort of establishment sort of like Valve but this goes against that.

#8 Posted by mrsmiley (1062 posts) -

This is a horrible idea. Latency is a big issue, especially in the pro scene. It's seems absolutely insane for Blizzard to leave this feature out, although I can understand them doing it to fight piracy. This is going to hurt the pro scene big time, and since pro Starcraft has really only recently started hitting the main stream, it sounds like they will be crippling it before it can even get started. Great move.

#9 Posted by Deusoma (3001 posts) -

I was only ever planning on playing the singleplayer, so it doesn't affect me too much, but how in the hell is preventing local multiplayer going to do anything about piracy? That makes about as much sense as saying you can pirate Halo 3 by playing split-screen co-op.

#10 Posted by chililili (1328 posts) -
@skywing said:
" I had a starcraft lan pary 4 days ago
this feature must be in the game!!!
"
@mrsmiley said:
" This is a horrible idea. Latency is a big issue, especially in the pro scene. It's seems absolutely insane for Blizzard to leave this feature out, although I can understand them doing it to fight piracy. This is going to hurt the pro scene big time, and since pro Starcraft has really only recently started hitting the main stream, it sounds like they will be crippling it before it can even get started. Great move. "
I agree with you both. Its an incredibly stupid move on their part.  I think it will ultimately affect their sales even more than whatever piracy through hamachi could have. As for achievements they would simply just need to make them unnatainable offline. BUt yes the only time I would multiplayer Starcraft was through LAN and this is a horrible, horrible choice which I hope does not also carry over to Diablo, but here it would be leess of an issue.
#11 Posted by CactusWolf (539 posts) -

I'm of the belief that this is stupid.

That is all.

#12 Posted by zityz (2360 posts) -

Figures.

#13 Posted by Nasar7 (2608 posts) -

This is really stupid, there is no reason to not include LAN support. It's not like it's gonna stop anybody from pirating. My three bros and I still play over LAN when we can bc we don't have a corporate T3 line so the network can be inconsistent and laggy even within the same house. 

#14 Posted by Win (541 posts) -

First they split the single player campaign into 3 separate titles and now this? It's like Blizzard knows the game will be great but they are just trying to get as much money from the players as possible.

#15 Posted by MmmSkyscraper (312 posts) -
#16 Posted by Peach (63 posts) -

I feel that this omission is ripping my nostalgic memories of SC parties at the seams... I don' know how I will live on.

#17 Posted by LtSquigs (253 posts) -
@Deusoma said:
" I was only ever planning on playing the singleplayer, so it doesn't affect me too much, but how in the hell is preventing local multiplayer going to do anything about piracy? That makes about as much sense as saying you can pirate Halo 3 by playing split-screen co-op. "
The reasoning behind it is that the replay value of starcraft is in the multiplayer, and in fact some people will get the game to play just the multiplayer and the problem occurs with LAN because since it doesn't connect to Battle.Net they can't always authenticate that the game is a real copy. This can be seen in starcraft, I know TONS of people who never bought that game and just pirated it so that they could play the LAN, of course they couldnt play the online matches but the LAN was enough for them, so thats where the concern about piracy comes in. Of course they could use other forms of protection like SecurROM, however these are easily cracked and circumvented, as well as provide not only an inconvienence to the user (such as install limits) but also have a stigma associated with them that can kill a games popularity, having to force someone to connect to Battle.Net to authenticate is more secure. I'm not saying this is the right move though, but I can't think of any other alternatives that wouldn't just be easily circumvented. (Also I assume that the reasoning behind only allowing achievments to be got through online play would be because there will most likely be cheat codes in single play)
#18 Posted by Lowbrow (840 posts) -

I predict battlenet will be an interface you need to login to first, then be able to play Starctrat 2. Its gonna be like steam - its all part of the plan.

#19 Posted by Driadon (2995 posts) -

"The entire nation of South Korea was engulfed in riots today at the announcement that alleged video game 'StarCraft II' will not support locally hosted games. Several of the rioters where heard chanting 'You make us beg: no more lag'."

...and so begins the reformation of Korea against the western world...

#20 Posted by Cday (164 posts) -

People will make a big deal about anything. Blizzard doesn't owe you jack. It's their game, they can put whatever they want in it. Don't like it? Don't buy the game.

At least they aren't going to have DRM that forces you to call support after 3 installs and installs rootkits on your computer. (Anno 1404)

#21 Posted by HeavyMental (117 posts) -

lans are so 2007

#22 Posted by sfighter21 (795 posts) -

hmm...well, whatever.

#23 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -
the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with StarCraft II and safeguard against piracy.

I bet that the illusion of fighting piracy is the only "real" reason. So, once again, the pirates will play the modded version, which in this case, again, will be better because they WILL find a LAN-solution, and the honest customer is screwed over.

As always.

There will be a time when companies realize that you cannot fight piracy and that your only chance is to make the bought product more attractive, but it is not today.
#24 Posted by Meltbrain (2968 posts) -

Well, that's a retarded move. Good job.

#25 Posted by Inf225 (503 posts) -

I dont really care.. expect this seems kinda like a push to make battle.net a pay service like wow is... so yea... that wouldnt be good

#26 Posted by Dante_the_Jedi (326 posts) -

Well I am unsold on the game now, shame about that. I still do LAN gaming with the people in my house. Also LAN gaming is really what all the competitive what and need so they have shot themselves in the foot for that.

#27 Edited by Chris2KLee (2331 posts) -
Too see my personal feeling about LAN, see Giant Bombcast 05-20-2008 at around the 54 minute mark. "A LAN". For me this is meaningless, but I agree that a zero latency environment would be ideal for tournament play (which I never participate in). Still, feels like a small speed bump to me. I just want the game.
#28 Posted by Atomic_Tangerine (359 posts) -

I would probably never use that feature, but I would still like the option in some way.  It just seems a little silly that you would have to play online against some guy in the same room.  I bet the pirates will just find a way around it while I will buy this game and never figure it out.

#29 Posted by VWGTI (1919 posts) -

To everyone bitter at Blizzard, you can redirect your anger torwards pirates or yourself if you're a pirate.

#30 Posted by ghostNPC (763 posts) -

Just wait for a hack to allow LAN. And there will be one.

#31 Posted by AaronAlex (182 posts) -

Oh wow. I can see why they'd do it, but thats going to piss alot of people off.

I personally dont play starcraft, but i lan occasionally.
#32 Posted by LethalKi11ler (1405 posts) -

WTF? I love LAN parties :s And even though I mostly plan FPSes in LAN, I love WC3 in LAN and was really hoping for some SC2 LAN love from Blizz... This and the 7-min long boring video are making me wonder if I should actually get that game...

#33 Posted by Haoshiro (115 posts) -

It's like gun control, it only stops honest people and the criminals get the "advantage", lol!

#34 Posted by Jimbo (9775 posts) -

Brad (et al),  I'm thinking they could include a LAN-esque option inside Battle.net  So all the players (on a LAN) have to sign into the service, but then the game data itself goes directly between the players rather than via Battle.net - meaning zero latency but still the need for people to 'sign in' every game.

These matches would obviously have to be unranked though.


#35 Posted by Moztacular (467 posts) -

Good for blizzard trying to get around piracy issues, bad for honest consumers who might miss this feature. Personally lack of LAN support means absolutely nothing to me

#36 Posted by Foil1212 (444 posts) -

It ruffles my feathers.  When you're at college, you can haul your computer somewhere and have a LAN party.  And we have used brood war before.

#37 Posted by Jon93 (156 posts) -

You hear that? That's the horde of thousands of angry Korean E-Sports players.


They do realize this just gives the Anti-DRM groups more to talk about right?

#38 Posted by MmmSkyscraper (312 posts) -
@HeavyMental said:
" lans are so 1997 "
Fixed.
#39 Posted by momentarylogic (416 posts) -

This virtually ensures that d3 is internet only, couple this with the poor attention to the potential satanic de-emphasis of diablo and starcraft singleplayer split 3 ways suggests that the don't care about their fans. It was bound to happen, and hopefully they learn a thing or two about it in the process.

#40 Posted by killdave (1073 posts) -

Will it be FREE battle.net like Starcraft 1 had .. or will it require a WOW style subscription to use it ??

#41 Posted by Axion (51 posts) -

Isn't LAN and the competitive scene what has given Starcraft its longevity in the first place? This doesn't affect me personally, I don't go to LANs or play competitively, but this isn't good for the core. Apparently that's not Blizzard's focus anymore.

#42 Posted by Reverseface (1221 posts) -

Basically blizzard made this new shiny battle.net and they want to FORCE people to use it cause they spent alot of time developing it. basically fuck you blizzard.

#43 Edited by MrBrian (69 posts) -

yes this is dumb
starcraft2 will sell well enough you rich bitches,  give us LAN support geeze louise
Suddenly I would rather just keep playing the original..       well that not true i guess.   goddammit

Online
#44 Posted by Mcubed (63 posts) -

I have to say I'm rather upset about this. I know the big event of a 'LAN Party' is somewhat a thing of the past, but I know at least a few people that still do it. Heck I used to play at a friends house with a bunch of people not 2 years go. I also have a roommate who I play pc games with. If we aren't playing with others online than we prefer the LAN situation. Don't people understand that the internet can still go down? And if you have a bandwidth cap per month I sure as hell don't want to waste my bits playing with someone in the next room!

#45 Posted by ParadoxControl (172 posts) -

Good, LAN is dead, and only supports the players who don't actualy buy  the damn game. I couldn't care less about LAN support. 

#46 Edited by Keithcrash (99 posts) -

It would have pissed me off 8 years ago when I owned a LAN shop.  Starcraft was one of the most played games, along side Counter Strike and Diablo 2.  Any LAN was better then the DLS we had then.  Now?  It's no big deal. Even if I owned a LAN shop today, internet speed is much faster and cheaper then it was.

#47 Posted by Warchief (653 posts) -

this does not bother me at all. glad to see this is the solution to piracy. lets hope the days of stealing games is at an end. 

#48 Posted by Cerza (1653 posts) -

" We are building Battle.net to be ideal destination for multiplayer gaming."

What a load of PR bullshit. Wasn't B.Net supposed to be the best destination for online multiplayer back in the 90's? Am I the one that remembers the train wreck that was Diablo 1 online multiplayer??? My limited experience with StarCraft 1 and Diablo 2 on Battle.net was laggy, cheattastic, and not a lot of fun. As I stated in the previous thread about this, I have no desire to return to Battle.net regardless of how much money they have thrown at it. I had little interest in StarCraft 2 before and now that I know I won't be able to LAN it with my friends and house mates I am not buying it since the LAN has been how I've played and enjoyed multiplayer in Blizzards games with every game they have produced since Diablo 1. To not include LAN play in such a majorly competitive multiplayer PC game is a mistake. With the way they are doing this it sounds like an X-Box 360 game, but they are making the mistake of releasing it on PC.

Also, the authentication bullshit with Battle.net to fight piracy is bullshit. My brother and his friend use pirated copies of StarCraft and Diablo 2 to play online on Battle.net just about every night. All they had to do was download the game ISO's and use their other friends CD-Keys from his legitly purchased copies and bingo they can play. The whole fighting piracy nonsense and the measures that publishers take for that is stupid, because it does nothing more than screw over the legitamate consumer. This isn't about protecting anything. It's about squeezing as much money out of the customer base as possible.

#49 Posted by Ben_H (3315 posts) -

In order to add LAN, Blizzard requires more vespene gas.

#50 Posted by Chris (120 posts) -

If it means no (or very little) piracy I'm quite happy for the game to require logging in and connecting to Battle.net.

It's a shame that LAN had to go but I can totally understand the decision given the rampant piracy of PC games.  At this point I'm perfectly happy to make certain small sacrifices in order to stick it to pirates.