I was kind of on the fence about buying SC2 as I'm not a huge fan of SC in the first place, I enjoyed the first one, but got bored with it quickly. However, after finding this out I will NOT be buying SC2. Crippling a product in response to piracy is absolutely retarded, this has nothing to do with a "quality multiplayer experience" In the end, it will either be modified to enable LAN play, or someone will create a battlenet server emulator, either way the only people getting screwed by this are the legitimate customers. Piracy is impossible to stop, the only way you can get more people to buy your game is by making it a more attractive product. They'll probably do this with Diablo 3 too.
Yeah really not a wise move by blizzard, the tournament scene that has given starcraft 1 its longevity is going to be pissed at this. When you piss off whats your largest base for a game odds are you don't really "get it". Open your eyes blizzard, you're making a great game i haven't a doubt but don't cripple it by removing features that are dam easy for you to put in and you know dam well it won't help your sales by removing them either. If a person is going to pirate he'll do it regardless, if you don't put Lan play in then someone will figure out a way to make bypass your servers and make there own computer act as the BNet, if you piss off the tourny players they aren't going to stick with you. Seriously it's a losing battle and you're killing your own franchise by doing it. Just plain dumb.
My best guess is that this is a non-issue - the game will likely support peer-to-peer traffic just like the first one. In other words - there won't be any lag on a LAN.
BS. LANs are the way for people with terrible internet connections (and yes, those still do exist) to play together, and BNet is still lagtastic during peak hours, so zero latency won't be an option.
Also, how the hell are they going to do SC2 tournaments? Tournaments generally run LAN to minimize latency so it's not an issue. Fucking stupid.
It's sad that Blizzard has chosen this, and its also sad that it won't affect anyone's decision to buy the game.
My best guess is that this is a non-issue - the game will likely support peer-to-peer traffic just like the first one. In other words - there won't be any lag on a LAN.
"
Edit: Ahh... yes... I forgot about that... Even so... That means you have to have internet connectivity. We don't all have that... I mena, I do, and I don't plan on LANin it up, but still...
What? Why would you NOT put LAN in? That's like saying "Well most people love chocolate and like vanilla, so we're going to only have chocolate even though we can easily have both at once!"
This would only suck if they started nickel and diming Battle.net users for certain features. Otherwise, this doesn't really bother me at all. Most people who play SC2 won't be "pro" gamers, they'll just be dudes who go online and play.
Honestly, if this works for SC2 sales, more developers and publishers should look at it as a way to revive PC gaming.
It has everything to do with piracy. Now we have programs like Hamachi which provide "LAN play" over the internet. And when playing Blizzard's games over LAN it doesn't verify if you have a unique CD key like it does through Battlenet.
Oh man... now i feel like a dickhead... I told RetartedFishy yesterday that there is no way in hell that they wouldn't include LAN... bah... Sorry dude!!
To be fair, if you want to set up VPN's (in my opinion) - GameRanger is superior compared to Hamachi. It provides easy lobby acces to hook you up with different players, it also allows you to easily choose who you play with whereas Hamachi usually takes alot of effort to find a proper hub. The only problem is connectivity, since the players aren't localized like a Northrend realm on BNet is. But who would want to VPN StarCraft 2? The best part about WarCraft 3 was the multiplayer, and how easy it was to acces. If you have trouble hosting it's not the game that's the problem, it's your inability to setup a router.
Meh, as I said earlier - if B.Net's basic functions are free of charge it wont bother me. If I am without an internet connection I'm not near mates to play over LAN anyway. It's times like those that you take out SoaSE for a good singleplayer experience.
It's really likely that this is also to prevent piracy, as pirated versions of command and conquer games can still play lan but not online. I know this because if im not sure about a game i always download it then buy it because i cba waitin for rental and i rarely need to do it anyway.
Also it affects me because my family are all gamers and we meet up at my dads or uncles house on a friday every 2 weeks to lan, usually around 6 of us present.
lol. the idea that anyone could ever disagree with any business move blizzard ever makes is the real stupidity here(aimed at the people complaining about this, not brad).
they didnt become the company they are today by making poor choices. they're just flexing their confidence in the new battle.net system they're rolling out and good for them. Any respectable lan party has internet access anyways. having a complete record plus access to stats/achievements/everything over every single multiplayer match played of starcraft 2 can do nothing but good. CHILL OUT ANGRY NERDS.
" Just wait for a hack to allow LAN. And there will be one. "
This. And how many times I can remember playing Warcraft II over LAN with friends and family. There are more LAN gamers than pirated copies. This is not anti-piracy, this is greed.
This is a BIG concern. The real misconception here is the statement of it only affecting the hardest of hardcore players. I have never shipped my gaming desktop anywhere or have even been involved in any PC gaming tournaments. However, I do use LAN occasionally when playing my bro on RA3 or when friends come over. Hell, it bugs me that I can't play co op campaign over LAN on RA3. This really should be looked at again because it affects the casual audience just as much as it affects those who want to get the best latency times. BLIZZ RECONSIDER THIS MISTAKE
Shut up, people. They gave you the real reason. Piracy. By making you required to log in to the Battle.net service, they're just making it that much harder for pirates. Otherwise you'd have pirate LAN parties.
So there's no point complaining. Piracy kills all the fun.
And no point boycotting the game either. It's like when Jeff and them were talking about indie game developers. People's need to eat comes first. The developers want to get paid. They need to prevent people from stealing their product. Just admit it, like Brad, you weren't going to lug your PC around to LAN parties either. Don't pretend like you were, and this one feature breaks the whole game for you.
This game just dropped from "must-buy" to "useless" in roughly 40 seconds. Blizzard clearly forgets about the LAN gamers who cannot access Battle.net, such as those at school.
OK blizz just encouraged a new cottage industry. Instead of IPX/SPX to TCP/IP converter programs like Himatchi we'll have the exact opposite to simulate bnet locally. I'll bet within 10 days of release there will also be cracked servers everywhere. So thanks Blizz for making local play a needless voyage through Bnet to give your executives that ten days of serenity and leave your legit users grumbling for the next 10 years. -1 Blizz.
people hate DRM. Companies hate piracy. It's a no win situation, and ultimately the company has to protect its bottom line. Don't hate the player, hate the news.
It's absolutely amazing how any StarCraft 2 news is met with hostility.
Everyone who can post on this website clearly has internet access. If you have an internet connection, you can share your internet connection over your network. Login to battle.net, authenticate, and you're good to go. Stop the bullshit saying that your 65ms latency to Battle.net is unplayable.
I can see one upside of having all multiplayer games go through BNet. Imagine all the telemetry data being captured. Every professional level tournaments will be available (regular Battlecasts) and statistical breakdowns like Steam's death heat map.
That's just some of the off-the-top-of-my-head ideas, but I bet Blizzard has more interesting services up their sleeves.
Translation: by removing lan play and forcing users to use only battle.net we can ensure they have to go through as many checks as we please to ensure they are not pirating a copy.
How can it be greed and _not_ anti-piracy? How is it going to sell more copies if it's not going to prevent piracy?
I think there are some valid concerns though.. Especially the blocked-port concern. And if people are trying to play this game professionally, what happens if Blizzard is ddosed? They will definitely become a target for that if the sport games are high profile.
I think they felt they especially had to do this because of South Korea. The piracy rate there is off the charts, every single game has to be online only. This game will still have the single player component that will be most likely be heavily pirated... which could be a strategy, they probably see that as the hook that gets people to pay for multiplayer.
@Sunjammer: I don't think its unfair at all. I havn't had to play any game over a LAN network in years, theres no need for it. Lugging computers over some one elses house is more work then its worth, just to play a game that you could play online. Maybe your still doing it, but me and my friends don't have that kind of time. If your ISP shits the bed, then you go do something else, and you can still play SC with out an interenet connection.
What it comes down to is this: There is a HUGE group of people who, if they can get there hands on a game iligialy, will play it online via apps like Hamachi, or other services that exploit an active internet connection to redirect LAN Packets over the internet. Theres a large group of people who do it with DOTA, and it dosn't stop there.
This is such a bad idea! I go to some LAN parties, specifically the Nor'Easter, that are just way to big to provide internet access to everyone. LAN play is such a basic feature, there is absolutely no reason to not include it.
And what is with the people who hate LAN parties? Some of us have real life friends that we like to play games with, just because you don't like LAN parties is no reason to not have LAN functionality. There are plenty of us who love to LAN.
So I would guess then that Korean tournaments will have a Blizzard approved 'special edition' of Starcraft 2 in order to play on a LAN, these guys still use CRT monitors so every microsecond counts. But to anyone outside of this professional scene, it's a big F@$K YOU from Blizzard to the fans. I think that Starcraft 2 will set new records for illegal downloads, beating out Spore, because of this debacle. I'll probably buy the game regardless but will check the torrent sites for a hack that allows the game to be 'un-crippled'. Again Pirates win because they will end up with more features than legitmate buyers.
wow, lotta people making new accounts just to call this one out... Fraid of being banned or something guys? w/e.
This isn't a great decision, I see no reason for it... Kinda sucks really but if they dont want local multiplayer, it's their product they can do what they like, i'm not going to pirate it simply because I can't play the guy next to me without connecting to the internet. If you are going to, you need a reality check. Sucks that they are kicking the LAN party folk in the ass though.
Pirates always find a way, they're just screwing over real customers. I played Starcraft with my friends in computer class where there is no internet, I am sad I will not be able to do this with Starcraft II.
Seems like a great way to stop piracy. Hamachi is probably used by most people who download games, so omitting this does make sense in my mind. And honestly, how many LANS don't have access to internet in today's day and age?
Piracy cannot and is not and will not be stopped. Ever. People will pirate the hell out of StarCraft 2. I could even imagine they lost a few potential buyers with this decision.
The one thing that I loved about the original starcraft was the Spawn versions you could install on other PC's to allow Lan play. I think this option reduced piracy of this game in particular because they really gave little reason for you to do so (but Im sure there were some dishonest people out there). I think that this is just the completely wrong move on their behalf.
They seem to be in contact with some professional Starcraft players, as they had two demonstrate the Zerg and Protoss in a video. I wonder what kind of input they are getting from the pros. I thought Blizzard would have put in LAN as it is one of the most popular ways to play Starcraft competitively. It could be considered the most popular game to play competitively, as a matter of fact, so I am bewildered by their decision.
" Seems like a great way to stop piracy. Hamachi is probably used by most people who download games, so omitting this does make sense in my mind. And honestly, how many LANS don't have access to internet in today's day and age? Live with it people. Good decision. "
Right, because for the first time ever in gaming history, a single game will come away with breakthrough technology to prevent pirated copies. In the coming age of companies placing bandwidth caps on users, well, I think that speaks out against your internet LAN theory.
Welcome to the crappy world in which you cannot use one copy of the game to play against your brother or often-visiting friend. "Hey man, wanna have a game of this with me? Buy your own damn copy".
Lame.
Also, Warcrat 3 and Frozen throne combined have sold about 8 million copies, and you could pirate the hell out of both of those, so in conclusion, bite me Blizzard.
"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 "
I fear the "BNet-paid-subscription" scenario too. Or, to be precise, I guess I don't anymore because all of Blizzards bullshit-moves surrounding their post-WC3 games killed my interest in what they're doing nowadays. This newest development emphazises - yet again - that their games just aren't for me anymore, so I'll save the money and spend it on customer friendly and original games...
Yup, removing a feature is the answer. Making Battle.net a more compelling experience wouldn't work. I suppose less functionality is the new DRM, or will it have that too? This will definitely make it more likely for pirates to buy the game.
Log in to comment