Fans Petition For StarCraft II LAN, Blizzard Responds

[John Funk]

I just signed the petition, 22237 people are on it so far.

Give me my fucking LAN, I read that Hamachi thing that Credge posted, and I just wonder, how the hell is that piracy?

It's one thing to crack the CD key on a local copy. Very, very easy.

It's another thing entirely to try and fool Blizzard authenticators (or Steam, etc)

 

[TaborMallory]

I wouldn't mind this move very much if my dad wasn't threatening to get rid of the internet in our house.

I'd have to wait on multiplayer until I move out :/

 

[castan]

I dunno. I'd really like LAN play (my Internet connection blows) but at the same time, of the 20 or 30 people I've played Starcraft with on LANs back in high school, I think about 4 of us actually bought it. I'd be more than happy with LAN play that touched Blizzard's servers just long enough to authenticate all of the players before beginning each game. That should be feasible even on a 56K, and negligible on my pathetic excuse of a DSL.

**edit** In retrospect I think everyone I played with back then did buy it eventually, and I only ever saw the burned copies running off of one CD because that was more convenient...so scratch that I guess

 

[Virgil]

You see? This is why the L4D2 boycott was a good thing!

How does getting a message from a company that repeats their earlier statements with some slightly different words equate to a good thing? From where I'm sitting, what I see in all of these protests/petitions/boycotts/whatever is a huge amount of ineffectual posturing. All the hooplah only managed to get someone to release a statement saying "We heard you, but we're doing it anyway".

Could someone please explain to me why LAN = Piracy? I'm really confused because multiplayer is pretty much the #1 piracy deterrent.

Multiplayer is only a piracy deterrent if you're planning on playing a game with servers that do some sort of key verification. LAN games, on the other hand, rarely go beyond checking to make sure there aren't duplicate keys. It's generally very easy to get pirated copies installed with different keys, therefore a group could play LAN games together as much as they want without ever buying a game.

It's a lot more complicated to play multiplayer with a pirated copy if the only way to play is to use a service run by the game's creator. In this case, the pirates would not only have to crack the install, which is still relatively easy, but they'd also either have to figure out a way around the authentication (unlikely) or reverse engineer the server and run their own (difficult). Both of these can happen, but they're a lot more difficult, and you'd have to be a dedicated pirate to jump through all those hoops.

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

I think you'd find that, despite how you feel about it, the amount of people that *really* care about LAN play is much smaller than the amount that are complaining. When it comes down to it, there's only a small number that care about actually playing on a LAN (as opposed to spawning copies, which is totally different). Most will be perfectly happy if they can play multiplayer with people connecting from the same network, and not care that they have to go through a different server to do so.

I did an informal poll of the Escapist staff (that were in the office at the time) and I found one case of someone having played a game over a LAN in recent history, and only then because they were messing around with a $5 re-release of an old game that only had LAN support. Many of the staff, on the other hand, play games using an external server while connected on the same LAN (MMOs, TF2, etc...). People that play games on a LAN in the era of the internet are a dwindling niche.

Even if you disregard the piracy angle, it's probably not worth the development/debugging time for such a small audience.

 

[Seydaman]

according to the petition site 22964 Signatures Total
edit 22980

 

[nathan-dts]

Doesn't concern me as I don't PC game, but I hope you people get your LAN.

 

[Carnagath]

If B.net - a free service -

Ok, I am quoting Blizzard's very words from the thread "Update: StarCraft II Will Not Support LAN"

"We spent a lot of money on Battle.net, right, so we need some way to sustain it," said SC2 lead Dustin Browder

Also, on the same topic:

One idea which has been discussed in different iterations is microtransactions, meaning the service is free, but added value services like starting a custom tournament, league, or the like would cost a small amount of money.

Even now, they are saying completely different things every day. So yeah, don't count on that. Battlenet will be a free service. At the start. Until they decide that it no longer will be. Because they are poor and they can't keep a Battlenet server up. What they are trying to do is rob you of all options, trap you in Battlenet exclusively, then BAM charge you with several "microtransactions". I've said it before and I'll say it again: They are fast proving to be nothing more than greedy, moneygrubbing whores.

 

[Sevre]

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

I think you'd find that, despite how you feel about it, the amount of people that *really* care about LAN play is much smaller than the amount that are complaining. When it comes down to it, there's only a small number that care about actually playing on a LAN (as opposed to spawning copies, which is totally different). Most will be perfectly happy if they can play multiplayer with people connecting from the same network, and not care that they have to go through a different server to do so.

I did an informal poll of the Escapist staff (that were in the office at the time) and I found one case of someone having played a game over a LAN in recent history, and only then because they were messing around with a $5 re-release of an old game that only had LAN support. Many of the staff, on the other hand, play games using an external server while connected on the same LAN (MMOs, TF2, etc...). People that play games on a LAN in the era of the internet are a dwindling niche.

Even if you disregard the piracy angle, it's probably not worth the development/debugging time for such a small audience.

You can't avoid the minority, I don't mind playing over B.Net but I don't have constant internet access so I'd still prefer the option to play over LAN. It doesn't really matter if they don't release LAN at first, they have 3 games to put out and also patches so I'm sure it'll find its way into the game at some point.

 

[John Funk]

If B.net - a free service -

Ok, I am quoting Blizzard's very words from the thread "Update: StarCraft II Will Not Support LAN"

"We spent a lot of money on Battle.net, right, so we need some way to sustain it," said SC2 lead Dustin Browder

Also, on the same topic:

One idea which has been discussed in different iterations is microtransactions, meaning the service is free, but added value services like starting a custom tournament, league, or the like would cost a small amount of money.

Even now, they are saying completely different things every day. So yeah, don't count on that. Battlenet will be a free service. At the start. Until they decide that it no longer will be. Because they are poor and they can't keep a Battlenet server up. What they are trying to do is rob you of all options, trap you in Battlenet exclusively, then BAM charge you with several "microtransactions". I've said it before and I'll say it again: They are fast proving to be nothing more than greedy, moneygrubbing whores.

Karune explicitly said, as other Blizzard representatives have *explicitly said* in the past, that Battle.net will be 100% free for customers who have bought their games to play online. There's no contradiction here; this is what they've been saying the entire time.

What they *can* do is, like they said, microtransactions for optional content like what Microsoft does for Xbox Live. Gamerthemes, icons, etc. Or, if you want to set up a formal tournament using their stat tracking system, it'll run you (pulling a number out of my ass) $5 or whatever.

Monetizing something and making it pay-to-play are entirely different things, and the party line has been very consistent since the first day they ever mentioned monetizing B.net - the service will remain free for all players who have purchased a legitimate copy of their game.

 

[Darknacht]

It wont matter if they allow LAN game there will probably be an unofficial LAN patch available before the game is even released.

 

[DamienHell]

LAN is going to be available via Battle Net I think, SC lan parties still exist, I can't see blizzard ignoring them all.

 

[Carnagath]

Karune explicitly said, as other Blizzard representatives have *explicitly said* in the past, that Battle.net will be 100% free for customers who have bought their games to play online. There's no contradiction here; this is what they've been saying the entire time.

What they *can* do is, like they said, microtransactions for optional content like what Microsoft does for Xbox Live. Gamerthemes, icons, etc. Or, if you want to set up a formal tournament using their stat tracking system, it'll run you (pulling a number out of my ass) $5 or whatever.

Monetizing something and making it pay-to-play are entirely different things, and the party line has been very consistent since the first day they ever mentioned monetizing B.net - the service will remain free for all players who have purchased a legitimate copy of their game.

I'm all for them charging small amounts for gamerthemes, icons or funky flashing profile signatures. But there is a very thin line between monetizing a service that way and actually invading and charging its supposedly free online gameplay functionalities. The only example of a pay-to-use service that they have given is that of the custom tournament, and that one is already clearly crossing that line in my opinion. If I want to make a custom tournament for me and my 10 friends, then I should be able to do it. For free. Using the advanced Battlenet 2.0 features that I bought the game for. It's not like we have the option to make a lanparty instead now, do we? The thing is, we just don't know. We don't know exactly what Blizzard will choose to charge people for on Battlenet, because they haven't yet gone into details. But the only example that they have used is already gameplay-hampering, and that is, if anything, bad news.

 

[John Funk]

Karune explicitly said, as other Blizzard representatives have *explicitly said* in the past, that Battle.net will be 100% free for customers who have bought their games to play online. There's no contradiction here; this is what they've been saying the entire time.

What they *can* do is, like they said, microtransactions for optional content like what Microsoft does for Xbox Live. Gamerthemes, icons, etc. Or, if you want to set up a formal tournament using their stat tracking system, it'll run you (pulling a number out of my ass) $5 or whatever.

Monetizing something and making it pay-to-play are entirely different things, and the party line has been very consistent since the first day they ever mentioned monetizing B.net - the service will remain free for all players who have purchased a legitimate copy of their game.

I'm all for them charging small amounts for gamerthemes, icons or funky flashing profile signatures. But there is a very thin line between monetizing a service that way and actually invading and charging its supposedly free online gameplay functionalities. The only example of a pay-to-use service that they have given is that of the custom tournament, and that one is already clearly crossing that line in my opinion. If I want to make a custom tournament for me and my 10 friends, then I should be able to do it. For free. Using the advanced Battlenet 2.0 features that I bought the game for. It's not like we have the option to make a lanparty instead now, do we? The thing is, we just don't know. We don't know exactly what Blizzard will choose to charge people for on Battlenet, because they haven't yet gone into details. But the only example that they have used is already gameplay-hampering, and that is, if anything, bad news.

Not at all. If you want to run it exactly how you'd run a tournament via LAN - keeping a bracket yourself, organizing the matchups via pen and paper - they would have no way of charging you at all. It's far more likely that they'll have specific tools for organizing and running tournaments and leagues, and that's what they'll charge a small fee for. If you want to do it yourself and keep track of everything yourself, there's literally no way they can stop you. But if you want the ease and convenience of their added functionality, it'll run you a few bucks.

It's paying more for added functionality. You lose nothing, and can only gain things. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[Jumplion]

You see? This is why the L4D2 boycott was a good thing!

How does getting a message from a company that repeats their earlier statements with some slightly different words equate to a good thing? From where I'm sitting, what I see in all of these protests/petitions/boycotts/whatever is a huge amount of ineffectual posturing. All the hooplah only managed to get someone to release a statement saying "We heard you, but we're doing it anyway".

Do I really have to tell you to read my post again?

Change a few things with the L4D2 boycott. Change the complaints on L4D2 to complaints on DRM and the like. Change VALVe to EA. Change 30,000 people to, say, 700,000 people as I am sure there are plenty of people who hate DRM regardless if they buy EA games or not.

There you go, you have successfully established a boycott/protest that doesn't rely on the fear factor (AKA: Pirating the game you're protesting) to get your point across, which is most likely counter-productive with what you want them to do.

If we could transfer the useless boycotts to the useful boycotts, such as DRM or the endless amounts of Guitar Heroes being released, then it would be much more productive than a mass-pirating session which only reinforces the idea that EA needs more restrictive DRM.

 

[nova18]

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.

I'm with you.
Plus, its Starcraft 2.

I wouldnt even know what a LAN party is if it wasnt for Starcraft.

 

[dochmbi]

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.

Exactly. As long as the game has LAN feature (which it must have, because of Korean e-sports), someone will develop a way to bypass the authentication.

The e-sport issue is huge. Starcraft is pretty much the national sport of S-Korea, 10% of the population own the game, it has sold 4,5 million copies.

 

[randommaster]

Spoiler

Everybody's up in arms aboutthis, but Blizzard knows what they're doing and isn't going to do something completely idiotic. They will, in all likelyhood, have some option to use B.net to play local games off-line. I could very well be wrong, though.

I've seen this happen with other game companies, and the public outrage is usually unwaranted.

Except this time it isn't unwarranted. Granted I will accept the complain from the company of piracy but the argument is being over used where any video game company can use piracy to accept any changes to their came despite the loss to consumers.

The exclusion of LAN support and the requirement of Battle.net to play games stems this problem and society. As hard is it is to believe not everyone has broadband or college connections to play computer games online. There is a still a considerable amount of people who live in the United States and other first world nations that despite their desire to have a fast or any connection to the internet cannot happen due to the loss internet providers will lose having to set up the connection to those parts of the nation.

Now imagine trying to have games where two people living across the street where one has a T1 connection and the other has 56k modem connection. I do not think it takes any stretch of the imagination of how bad trying to play a computer game will be. I used to sell internet service and a majority of the time one house would be able to get a broadband connection while the other houses wouldn't be eligible for any internet service and this is in Southern California.

Second this model is also bad for businesses and social groups. More specifically internet cafes and LAN centers and colleges. The ability to LAN games made the ability to meet friends and competition at locations and socialize and share a passion of the hobby of gaming. This exclusion hurts LAN centers due to the reliance of having a reliable broadband connection and there are some LAN centers that still do not have internet access but rely on LAN games to sustain their business model. How do you think those businesses or clubs will do when the latest game tells those who build their community to all stay at home to play a game?

The purpose of LAN is critical to the video game industry and the preservation and socialization of gamers. Contrary to what Activision-Blizzard believes that us gamers are shut-ins they assume this and are actually destroying one of the few places where gamers can meet each other, network and have fun. While the game will not flop from the exclusion of LAN support Activision-Blizzard is destroying the fanbase that they created by supporting the segregation of gamers.

As for the piracy argument, sure piracy does and will happen and this includes Starcraft II. There is a give and take knowing thieves and pirates will not purchase their game but the best salesperson will always create a solution to encourage even the most adamant thief to buy their game because of the quality of the product. For those who cannot be sold and pirate the game that just means they are that, a pirate. A person who cannot financially support a better standard of living and must steal not based on need but want and there is no good reason to not throw the book at the individual.

I wasn't saying that not having LAN support is not a big deal, but that people are making a big deal out of there being no LAN support when there will probably be some way to play locally offline. I am very familiar with issues of needing an internet connection for multiplayer, but I have some faith that Blizzard wouldn't just take away a local network option. When I said people are making a big deal about nothing, I meant people are acting like this is the end of Starcraft multiplayer without considering any other options that Blizzard might include to replace LAN support.

 

[obisean]

Is there even any piratable copies of Blizzard games, because I just made a search and I'm not finding many that look realistic.


(I'm just wondering if Blizzard games are piratable, I don't want to dl them)

I just did a search for "starcraft or warcraft or diablo" on Newsleecher Supersearch here was my result:

 

[Paragon Fury]

This just in from Blizzard:

No Starcraft II MLG/Pro Gaming Circuits. Sorry folks.





Honestly, I don't really have a problem with no LAN myself, as I never, ever played any game on anything other than one TV, save for the original Halo, but kicking a good deal of your community in the family jewels just to combat priracy is not cool. At least DRM is managable -completely cutting out a feature isn't cool. Hell, even EA hasn't gone that far yet.