Fans Petition For StarCraft II LAN, Blizzard Responds

[John Funk]

Fans Petition For StarCraft II LAN, Blizzard Responds

Over 13,000 StarCraft fans have signed a petition for LAN support in the upcoming sequel, but community rep Karune says the company is committed to its Battle.net platform.

Fans unhappy about the recently announced Internet petition [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/92748-Update-StarCraft-II-Will-Not-Support-LAN]. In said petition, the undersigned demand - er, very politely request - that the company reconsider its decision to make the Battle.net service the default for multiplayer:

[blockquote]We understand you will be adding amazing new features to Battle.net that you can't talk about yet, but regardless of any features you might add online, we would still like to be able to play in a traditional network where no internet connection is needed. For an internet connection might not always be available.

The new Battle.net sounds absolutely awesome from the sneak peeks you have given us, and people will most likely be using it exclusively, even if they only play single player. However, there is no harm in allowing LAN play as well, and it does bring further depth and life to what will probably become the top RTS of the next decade.[/blockquote]

The points they make in support of LAN have been made before, but that doesn't undermine their validity: Internet is something you have to pay for and might find yourself without, lag-free connections, and so on.

Valid though their points might be, Blizzard seems to be holding firm. Blizzard's StarCraft community manager Karune defended the choice [http://www.gossipgamers.com/blizzards-response-to-no-lan-support-for-starcraft-2/], saying that while piracy was a concern (as many had predicted), it was a question of functionality. Battle.net 2.0 will still be a free service, said Karune, and that the decision would bring the StarCraft community together in one spot.

Beyond that, though, Karune - who claimed to have been a LAN diehard in the day - expressed confidence that the new features and functionality in the upcoming Battle.net (powerful stat trackers and ease of replay sharing, among others) would win the doubters over: "We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better."

It's still a hard sell, and many remain unconvinced. Those in despair over the change may still have some hope, though - when one poster on the StarCraft forums pointed out that it would be perfectly possible to enable LAN play through Battle.net verification, Karune answered, "I will be sure to forward ideas in regards to LAN as described. I too have many fond memories of LAN parties."

(BlizzBlues [http://www.blizzblues.com/us/lan-parties-and-free-bnet-are-the-reasons-18031370482.html])

Permalink

 

[countrysteaksauce]

Blizzard, I know you want as many people as possible on your precious bnet, but honestly how hard is it to put LAN functions into a game?

This is a case where you can have your cake and eat it too

 

[microhive]

Blizzard, I know you want as many people as possible on your precious bnet, but honestly how hard is it to put LAN functions into a game?

This is a case where you can have your cake and eat it too

They had it implemented in a last years build but decided to remove it.

If they do implement LAN we can expect a shitload of pirated games and services like Garena. I hope they choose to stay with Battle.net

 

[Sevre]

LAN would just make this game that much better, I don't see why leave it out.

 

[samsonguy920]

Guess we have to wait for the release on the details for Battle.Net. I am keeping my fingers crossed that they are actually implementing an awesome idea and not pulling some stupid EA-brained move. This may turn out to be a much better answer to piracy prevention than DRM, but we'll see. I am not getting SC2 just for the single player, though I am jazzed at how the storyline continues after Kerrigan handed everyone's butts to themselves.

EDIT: And big kudos to whoever wrote the heading for the petition. Hints at the outrage while still being mature and concise.

 

[Extravaganza]

Karune, Don't be a douche

 

[D_987]

It comes back to piracy again...

 

[KeyMaster45]

Give it a month or two after SC2 comes out, someone somewhere will figure out how to hack the code and add in LAN support. After that its only a matter of time before said person makes it available to the public.

 

[Soulfein]

An internet petition! What will they do to combat it! Counter-Petition? Or just ignore it.

 

[Brotherofwill]

No way you spin it, it's a no-win situation for them.

Either they include it and face the expected piracy with the fans happy or they cut lan and lose the enthusiastic basement fans for a little more money. I think if they actually cut it they might see an even stronger rise in piracy with people downloading modded versions of the game that include off-line lan.

It boils down to this: Removing lan from the sequel of the poster-child of lan parties is always stupid.

 

[Ligisttomten]

I think it's beyond retarded. Imagine if you couldn't play Starcraft 1 in LAN. That's exactly how retarded it is.

 

[John Funk]

Give it a month or two after SC2 comes out, someone somewhere will figure out how to hack the code and add in LAN support. After that its only a matter of time before said person makes it available to the public.

Well, it *does* come down to functionality. If B.net - a free service - can provide a better gaming experience than a LAN can, why use a LAN? Of course, that's a big *if*.

 

[velcthulhu]

Who cares if they can offer something better? Never, EVER, take an option out of a game that was in a previous game, even if you think you have something better. Maybe the new B-net stuff will be better, and I'll never want LAN. But someone will want it, and there's no good reason to leave it out. (preventing piracy is not a good reason. Making your game worse to prevent piracy only encourages it, especially since anyone who knows how to crack a game will know how to add LAN, so the pirates will get the features that paying customers are denied.)

 

[Royas]

If they were soooo sure that Bnet 2.0 is going to be soooo good that nobody will want to use anything else, then what harm would there be including LAN functionality as well? It won't effect their numbers, and will provide more options for their customers. Taking options away from customers is always, ALWAYS, a bad idea. It's pretty clear that adding LAN functions isn't all that hard, given that most multiplayer games have some form of it. I'm a bit disappointed with Blizzard's decision on this, even though I'm probably not even going to be buying the new Starcraft, much less play multiplayer.

 

[Izerous]

Sigh LAN was the best way to play. We could take 8 laptops to school and play over the lunch break. The School's wireless firewalls would never allow b.net connections. But an 8 port switch was a perfect alternative.

 

[Jumplion]

You see? This is why the L4D2 boycott was a good thing! I've stated this before, if over 30,000 gamers can come together to petition on something relatively insignificant (face it, the boycot was doomed from the start) against a very well known company such as VALVe, who knows what people could acomplish if they worked together for a more reasonable cause!

I hope this won't boil down to more people pirating the game because it doesn't have LAN, I want petitions and boycott groups like this to continue to move and (hopefully) improve the game they're boycotting. A boycott group with 600,000 members against EAs DRM crap will do much more good than 600,000 people pirating their next game because the latter will only reinforce EA to continue their restrictive DRM stuff.

This is why the L4D2 boycott was a good thing, this is how we should demand changes to games that we are not warranted. Granted, some may be for stupid reasons (Fiddle music? WTF?) but if we could move these boycotts and protests to more productive things, then it could really turn out great.

 

[Alcari]

Free translation, from Necktie to English:

We don't want people playing over Hamachi. We belief that the number of people who will now buy instead of pirate the game is worth it. We do not care about what the fans want, because they are all nerds who will buy the game whether it includes LAN or not.

Bend over,
Blizzard

 

[Credge]

Well, it *does* come down to functionality. If B.net - a free service - can provide a better gaming experience than a LAN can, why use a LAN? Of course, that's a big *if*.

You're talking about some magical stuff there, especially since the point of a LAN is so you don't have to be connected to the net to use it.

So, unless they come up with some sort of magic-voodoo that allows me to connect to Bnet without being connected to the internet, sure. That seems highly unlikely though.

Of course, if they go with the Steam method of doing things then that would be acceptable. Register your CD-Key online, force me to connect to Bnet once every two weeks in order to activate LAN. That'd be just fine and dandy. Also, acceptable.

As it stands, there's no way they can do anything with BNet that is better than a LAN.

 

[oliveira8]

*snip*

The other difference is that Blizzard actually listens to the community while VALVe goes "LolSteamwut?" and theres some few ways to get their attention:

A) You track down their STEAM ids(They all on Steam.)

B)You go to their HQ in Seattle.

I still say online petitions don't do that much good agaisnt big corporations. It only worked with Blizzard cause they talk more with the public...something that VALVe seems to completly forget sometimes.

"Public? Whats this Public?"
"The guys who buy our stuff."
"Oh right right..."

 

[Utarefson]

I didn't buy Hellgate:London simply because there was no LAN multiplayer.
And i don't plan on buying starcraft 2 now, even though i was a big fan of the first game (i even still play it)