Starcraft 2 not to have LAN support?

So what about the veteran players? People who go to LANs and competitions are usually veteran players, after all. How are they gonna take it when you say, "sorry, we're gonna make things slower than they used to be."F1_2004

having a ping of 30 instead of 0 isnt going make the game slower....Ping doenst have anything to do with how fast the game itself plays.

also, I doubt any of the Korean players actually played LAN in Starcraft. I suspect the entire country kinda skipped the whole Lan phase entirely.

Well you'd be wrong, on both accounts. Watch some VODs on how fast they play SC in Korea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00l7BvBApQE check out 7:15F1_2004

ping has nothing to do with how fast the game plays...especially not at a sub 30 level.

We don't worry about ping. At most, my ping on my Grandma's internet in Seoul is about 8. Maximum. A ping of 5 is average. If somebody from Tokyo is on, a ping of 18. (Grandma's internet is at 45 Mbps down/30 Mbps up). Then there is my uncle who has 60 Mbps down, 30 Mbps up, so I expect ping on his connection to be 3 average (I've never played StarCraft or many other games on it)

And not many here have LAN party's for StarCraft. There is little need as Battle.net is enough.

If blizz are really trying to stop piracy with no LAN support, why don't they just make it that we log on to battle.net first, then have the option to go LAN? It's a win win situation.

But I don't see why blizz are removing LAN, it is just giving pirates another reason to pirate, as I doubt it would be that hard for pirates to add some LAN feature.

Is it me or does Starcraft look a bit boring.

it looks like five year old game and i'm talking about gameplay here and not graphics.

Is it me or does Starcraft look a bit boring.

it looks like five year old game and i'm talking about gameplay here and not graphics.

Poshkidney

:D Welcome to the wonderful world of RTS games.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]Well you'd be wrong, on both accounts. Watch some VODs on how fast they play SC in Korea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00l7BvBApQE check out 7:15cobrax75

ping has nothing to do with how fast the game plays...especially not at a sub 30 level.

What do you mean welcome I've been playing way before the first Starcraft

Blizzard grubbing for money? NO WAI!

...looks at WoW with $15/month fee ....looks at $40 WoW xpacs

...looks at WoW trading card game

...looks at other WoW related merchandise ...looks at $120 Blizzcon

...looks at banner ads on Blizzard forums ...looks at Starcraft 2 being split into 3 games

...looks at announcement for monetizing "certain aspects" of B.net

...Now looks at no LAN for SC2

...oh wait....

I think it's safe to say that the disgusting amount of profit Blizz made on WoW unleahed the green demon inside them.

All I can say is the gaming community brought this on ourselves. From what I understand D3 won't have LAN either. Personally I think it's a very smart move on Blizzards part (you want to play online, buy the game) and won't effect my purchasing decision at all. With Himachi and other programs it's far too easy for pirates to play online. And I expect more and more companies to follow suit.dnuggs40

Blizzard grubbing for money? NO WAI!

...looks at WoW with $15/month fee ....looks at $40 WoW xpacs

Looks at so many other devlopers doing that ? Looks at the good amount of quality content WoW has ? Looks at the fact that the $40 xpacs have more content than many $50 full games

...looks at WoW trading card game

Looks at the part where blizzard if forcing you to play ... cannot find that

...looks at other WoW related merchandise ...looks at $120 Blizzcon

Looks at the part where blizzard if forcing you to buy or come... cannot find that

...looks at banner ads on Blizzard forums

Looks at similiar ads on other sites

...looks at Starcraft 2 being split into 3 games

Looks away in sadness from people whining that they should get 3 full lengths games as one, just because the yare not named with 2,3,4 at the end

...looks at announcement for monetizing "certain aspects" of B.net

Looks and couldn't find it

...Now looks at no LAN for SC2

Looks and couldn't find how no Lan for SC 2 is a indicator that Blizzard is greedy

...oh wait....

Yes, I would advise look again

I think it's safe to say that the disgusting amount of profit Blizz made on WoW unleahed the green demon inside them.

I don't think so

Ninja_Dog

Giving people the OPTION to buy something is not exploiting them lol. And Blizzard provides tons of free stuff with their $15/mo fee, and like just about every other major MMO developer does expansions for major content as well. The reality is Blizzard has provided one of the most content rich MMO out there...and the content that is there is extremely high quality. The prices they charge are inline with the industry as a whole.

Sorry, you are not bringing a convincing argument. ...seems more like mindless bandwagon hate.

*edit*

And I wasn't calling you names, I was speaking about your *opinion* on the subject...not you personally.

Get real...dnuggs40

@naval And here is a link to the battle.net monetization. http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/11/blizzards-wilson-some-battle-net-features-to-be-monetized/ Google is your friend.Ninja_Dog

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/blizzcon-2008-rob-pardo-talks-battle-net-monetizing

"We charge people if they want to switch servers or if they want name changes, things that aren't core to the game experience, they're really just optional things that some people want. It takes us some development work to do it, so it makes sense to charge for it. We would never do something like say to get the full game experience, you'll have to pay extra."

Is this all you got regarding Blizzard turning greedy :roll: ?

1. Also, regarding the the other things : just because they are rich, doesn't means they are running a charity. what's next MS should start giving out free copies of XP :lol:. And it's not like they are charging it more than the industry standard.

2. Once agan, it is optional. no one is forcing anyone

3. I don't see any add, url pls ? Also, how does ads affect fans ? Many games even have ads when they start, something like "Intel inside" etc. Does that really has any affect ?

The thing with the trading card game and the merchandise is that it is CRAP and is milking loyal fans who will buy anything from Blizzard. Ninja_Dog

Ever thought they like it? Embrace diversity, don't be a commie:P

[QUOTE="Ninja_Dog"]@naval And here is a link to the battle.net monetization. http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/11/blizzards-wilson-some-battle-net-features-to-be-monetized/ Google is your friend.naval

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/blizzcon-2008-rob-pardo-talks-battle-net-monetizing

"We charge people if they want to switch servers or if they want name changes, things that aren't core to the game experience, they're really just optional things that some people want. It takes us some development work to do it, so it makes sense to charge for it. We would never do something like say to get the full game experience, you'll have to pay extra."

Is this all you got regarding Blizzard turning greedy :roll: ?

1. Also, regarding the the other things : just because they are rich, doesn't means they are running a charity. what's next MS should start giving out free copies of XP :lol:. And it's not like they are charging it more than the industry standard.

2. Once agan, it is optional. no one is forcing anyone

3. I don't see any add, url pls ? Also, how does ads affect fans ? Many games even have ads when they start, something like "Intel inside" etc. Does that really has any affect ?

[QUOTE="Ninja_Dog"] The thing with the trading card game and the merchandise is that it is CRAP and is milking loyal fans who will buy anything from Blizzard. Baranga

Ever thought they like it? Embrace diversity, don't be a commie:P

"1.Of course they are not a charity. I guess it all comes down to class. As a consumer, I vote with my dollar, and I am much happier supporting a company like valve who goes beyond the "industry standard" with things like The Orange Box."

Blizzard does go beyond the standard...that's why they are so successful. Their MMO is one of the most content rich out there and they release tons of stuff for the basic fee. Go through all the patches...lots of stuff. They also are known for supporting their games even years after release...which is why all of their games...even ones nearing a decade old...are still popular online.

"2. This crappy merchandise seems to me like they are whoring out their franchises"

Maybe some people don't think it's crappy? Seriously...stop the arm flailing...

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

[QUOTE="Ninja_Dog"] The thing with the trading card game and the merchandise is that it is CRAP and is milking loyal fans who will buy anything from Blizzard. Ninja_Dog

Ever thought they like it? Embrace diversity, don't be a commie:P

Are you poor? And anyways, capitalism is great...it's the reason why we have all these great games to play ;)

Evolve your perspective.

if they remove LAN i will have lost every last shred of what respect i had for blizzard left...bet the people os south korea will be P I S S E D probly

What is even the point of playing a game over LAN these days? Just to reduce latency? That seems rather nitpicky.

Honestly I think a lot of the reason they aren't bothering is that nobody gives a crap about LAN gaming anymore, and of a lot of the people who do, it's just because they have a cracked version. Obviously Blizzard does not give a crap about making the pirates happy, so how many people does that leave to bother implementing LAN play for? A very small percentage of the overall player base I'd say.

I also think most of the people saying they aren't going to buy it now just because of this are full of crap. That seems a little bit dramatic to me. Like I said, I don't understand what the big deal is about playing over LAN versus a free online service. Personally, I haven't played a game over LAN in a hell of a long time, so maybe I have a skewed perspective. I wouldn't miss it myself, that's for sure.

I think it's also a distinct possibility that they are fundamentally changing the way the multiplayer is coded, such that it would be impossible to come up with a maphack for use on battle.net. Obviously the only way to do that would be if the game used a client-server model for multiplayer games instead of peer-to-peer. Now, that wouldn't mean they couldn't also code for LAN play, but they'd have to essentially code two rather different versions of multiplayer. I have absolutely no idea if they are actually doing this, but I've wanted them to use a client-server model to make it impossible to maphack way back when I started routinely getting teammates in Starcraft who would tell me they were using it. Maphacking was one of the chief things that got me to stop playing Starcraft altogether at the time that I did. I got tired of always wondering whether someone in the game was using it or not, particularly when someone would have impeccable timing on attacking an out-of-the-way expansion. I'd guess there's probably a large number of people using some maphack in Warcraft III as well. I'd gladly give up a feature that I don't care about anyway in order to eliminate the biggest way of cheating in a RTS game. I can only hope they are actually doing this.

Its not like lan cant be put in a patch if enough people cause a stir i guess they will be forced to put it in, but possibly they might end up making a very similar version of lan on battlnet to stop people from pirating the game. I wouldn't think that blizzard wouldn't have lan for the hell of it. Blizzard is known for games to be the best of quality and always will change, remove, or add something in a game if enough people complain about it.

I have to say prety dissapointing on Blizzards part but not a big deal. Although If they charge for Battle. Net then that would be annoying. In that case it would be :- - CA charging extra for units with a specail Edition - Valve releasing L4D sequel just after one year - Blizzard charging for battle.net And worst - Trine $20 on PSN and $40 on PCnaval

Trine is 29.99 on steam.

Im failing to see any issue here.

What exactly is the difference between playing LAN, and everyone in a room all connecting to one game over Battle.NET?

I play online with my brother about 15 feet away. We get around 15 - 30 ping relative to each other. Lag is not an issue.

What is even the point of playing a game over LAN these days? Just to reduce latency? That seems rather nitpicky.

Honestly I think a lot of the reason they aren't bothering is that nobody gives a crap about LAN gaming anymore, and of a lot of the people who do, it's just because they have a cracked version. Obviously Blizzard does not give a crap about making the pirates happy, so how many people does that leave to bother implementing LAN play for? A very small percentage of the overall player base I'd say.

I also think most of the people saying they aren't going to buy it now just because of this are full of crap. That seems a little bit dramatic to me. Like I said, I don't understand what the big deal is about playing over LAN versus a free online service. Personally, I haven't played a game over LAN in a hell of a long time, so maybe I have a skewed perspective. I wouldn't miss it myself, that's for sure.

I think it's also a distinct possibility that they are fundamentally changing the way the multiplayer is coded, such that it would be impossible to come up with a maphack for use on battle.net. Obviously the only way to do that would be if the game used a client-server model for multiplayer games instead of peer-to-peer. Now, that wouldn't mean they couldn't also code for LAN play, but they'd have to essentially code two rather different versions of multiplayer. I have absolutely no idea if they are actually doing this, but I've wanted them to use a client-server model to make it impossible to maphack way back when I started routinely getting teammates in Starcraft who would tell me they were using it. Maphacking was one of the chief things that got me to stop playing Starcraft altogether at the time that I did. I got tired of always wondering whether someone in the game was using it or not, particularly when someone would have impeccable timing on attacking an out-of-the-way expansion. I'd guess there's probably a large number of people using some maphack in Warcraft III as well. I'd gladly give up a feature that I don't care about anyway in order to eliminate the biggest way of cheating in a RTS game. I can only hope they are actually doing this.

SpaceMoose

[QUOTE="naval"]I have to say prety dissapointing on Blizzards part but not a big deal. Although If they charge for Battle. Net then that would be annoying. In that case it would be :- - CA charging extra for units with a specail Edition - Valve releasing L4D sequel just after one year - Blizzard charging for battle.net And worst - Trine $20 on PSN and $40 on PCCicatraz_ESP

Trine is 29.99 on steam.

You guys are also forgetting that during LAN Parties and such - not everyone has the game. This will now force each individual person to own a copy of the game to play at a LAN event. I also can't even skirmish with my brother unless he buys his own copy...even though we live in the same household. Ridiculous if you ask me.Bumzur

Is it me or has Blizzard been abit too conservative with their games.

Diablo III and starcraft look like they havn't changed anything and and i can see that biting them in arse.

They "look", but that's not the case.

I wouldn't support the consumers (read: haters) either if you weren't supporting me (read: Blizzard) in turn. Shame on you for turning your backs on a great company. lrn2 21st century

Is it me or has Blizzard been abit too conservative with their games.

Diablo III and starcraft look like they havn't changed anything and and i can see that biting them in arse.

Poshkidney

Well something a bit more modern and I'm NOT talking graphics wise I'm talking about the game play, it just looks like the old Starcraft and nothing new.

It will probably be disappointing, as better strategy titles have bettered the original Starcraft

Well somethingthing bit more modern and I'm talking graphics wise I'm talking about the gameplay it just looks like the old Starcraft and nothing new.

Poshkidney

Generally, thats called a "sequel" i.e. more of the same game + improvements to make the game better.

I hate starcraft anyways and never played the first one because I hate that style of RTS. So no big deal for me.

The point here is that not everyone has a fast connection to handle a server connection, and if you think only a small percentage of the population uses the LAN, then you`re not going out enough.

Well something a bit more modern and I'm NOT talking graphics wise I'm talking about the game play, it just looks like the old Starcraft and nothing new.

It will probably be disappointing, as better strategy titles have bettered the original Starcraft

Poshkidney