SirSchmoopy said:Good thing they didn't have the Internet (as we know it) in 1988 then.AceDiamond said:
Although that's probably an in-joke by now given how there's an alt costume of him in the Super Smash Bros. games that looks like that.
StarCraft II Will Have LAN After All - Almost
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
On the contrary, it's absolutely a compromise - one that enables LAN functionality but still preserves their goal of having an integrated B.net experience. That's what a compromise is - a solution with things that both parties want. Having LAN support without B.net wouldn't be a compromise at all, that'd be completely going one way. (Not saying that it would be an inherently bad thing, just that it wouldn't be a compromise in the strictest sense of the word)Avykins said:
Exactly. The main point of LAN play, is NOT needing an internet connection. This is Blizzards way of completely missing the point!triorph said:
I know they are doing this mostly as an anti-piracy measure, but ONE online authentication should be enough. Even Steam has an offline mode, and in offline mode you can still use the LAN functionality. Blizzard should consider that approach...
Better, but still retarded. They're still requiring a net connection.
If they do that, a pirate server will be put together quickly. Result?. Pirates will be able to play LAN without net connection. Buyers won't. Pirates get a better product without paying for it.
Why not simply give us the old, reliable and fantastic classic LAN option?. At this point, one has to ask who at Blizzard really enjoys making fans miserable. I'd guess it's Pardo, given his last memorable lines, you know "footnote in history..." and other silly things.
If they do that, a pirate server will be put together quickly. Result?. Pirates will be able to play LAN without net connection. Buyers won't. Pirates get a better product without paying for it.
Why not simply give us the old, reliable and fantastic classic LAN option?. At this point, one has to ask who at Blizzard really enjoys making fans miserable. I'd guess it's Pardo, given his last memorable lines, you know "footnote in history..." and other silly things.
Why would anyone in a LAN party, a game that shouldn't be stat trackable in the first place, care about being connected to B.Net at all? Will they be chatting with friends outside the party via B.Net? Perhaps they will be accepting an invite from someone outside the LAN and decide to play with others in another game?
LAN gaming is specifically to allow people in very close quarters to play the same game side by side without people not on the network. I read this and boggled at the stupidity of someone thinking a LAN player would want anything to do with B.Net during the course of their game.
Requiring an ISP connection to the WWW completely defeats the purpose of a LAN game period. This smells of DRM and software protection.
LAN gaming is specifically to allow people in very close quarters to play the same game side by side without people not on the network. I read this and boggled at the stupidity of someone thinking a LAN player would want anything to do with B.Net during the course of their game.
Requiring an ISP connection to the WWW completely defeats the purpose of a LAN game period. This smells of DRM and software protection.
But in 2009 you can be pretty damn certain that any LAN you might want to play the game at also has an Internet connection.Playbahnosh said:
It's DRM. That much has been clear since the beginning. The people who're complaining likely just want it to be easier to pirate the game.
But... they don't.paketep said:
The advantage of the LAN over B.net is nigh-instant ping. If you can get that plus the shiny bells and whistles that come with B.net 2.0, assuming they're good enough, then the pirates who only get the nigh-instant ping have the inferior product.
On a personal note, speaking as a PC gamer and a person and not so much a member of the Escapist staff - I find it mind-boggling that in this day and age people think a LAN party won't have even the slowest, most cursory connection to the internet. The previous complaints - what if we're behind a firewall, or what if there are 20 of us playing on one pipeline - were completely valid, because those would result in genuine gameplay issues. Complaining at this point (assuming we're interpreting this functionality correctly) feels like splitting hairs because you're not getting full support for an archaic system exactly how it was, instead of a pretty-damn-close approximate for said archaic system that requires the slowest of Internet connections.
I think you are confusing LAN parties with huge gaming events. I was referring to small LAN parties, with only a few friends. Bring over your rig, connect to the switch, tank up with soda and snacks, shut the door, and prepare for wanton gaming for a week. Having internet at a LAN party is like having your would be wife at your bachelor party. Just wrong. Not to mention the places that doesn't have internet but does have people who wanna play games in LAN.JediMB said:
As for piracy, it's not an issue with a game of this caliber. Since profits will rocket sky high regardless of how many people are pirating it. Take a look at StarCraft, people STILL buy it, because it's awesome AND cheap now. If it's good, people will buy, but if you make your customers gaming experience a nightmare, no matter how much protection you use, your game will get gangraped by crackers, mutilated by modders and flamed upon on the internet. That's street justice for ya.
Pirates get the Single player and a 'cracked' version of LAN which may work with dubious efficiency and be prone to crashes as pirated copies tend to, all for free.paketep said:
Legitimate players get the Single Player, a proper version of the LAN, the full online multiplayer and their new super-duper-awesome-cures cancer-magical girl spawning BattleNet, costing...uh, £40? £45?
As a long time Blizzard supporter, the decision isn't really that hard.
I went a year without an Internet connection, not on a deployment but in bases inside my own country. Had to apply for permission to bring a personal laptop on base. Hell, I might still have the permits with the laptop's serial number and company commanders' signatures somewhere among my old papers. That laptop was about the only personal item I had. Nothing more would fit in the personal locker after issued gear.CantFaketheFunk said:
Militaries do what militaries do. Security, discipline, necessity, etc. Don't think your USAF mechanic is the rule.
It sounds reasonable, but there still might be a scenario, albeit rare, in which computers are connected to a LAN, but not to the internet.
Either way, it's about time Blizzard payed attention to 125 thousand signatures pleading for something that has been present ever since WarCraft 2 (if not before).
Either way, it's about time Blizzard payed attention to 125 thousand signatures pleading for something that has been present ever since WarCraft 2 (if not before).
Yeah, offers achievement whores more things to do. Now, we will see online games where people join only to build 100 supply depots, or kill 100 marines or whatever. Yay, graet! NOT!Credge said:
I can connect with my friends in person, or through MSN, thankyouverymuch, I don't care about raising arbitrary numbers or getting transparent titles, I don't care about leaderboards and I don't want to have anything to do with B.net! I want to play StarCraft2 for the story, the action and maybe play with some friends OFFLINE, nothing else.
Blizzard completely misses the point.