The whole point of LAN is the ability to multiplay without the internet. So, still fail, but less than their previous ones.
I agree completely.Khell_Sennet said:
StarCraft II Will Have LAN After All - Almost
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
I find it mind-boggling that you can't picture such circumstances. If we're talking about, say, 4-20 person LAN amongst friends and acquaintances, that kind of LAN fits perfectly in someone's workplace over the weekend. You just need a conference room, access to refrigerator and a toilet. Agreeing on use of a limited set of spaces for X amount of time is dead easy for all involved. Necessary safety precautions amount to basic access control and oversight (= one person has keys, lets everyone in personally and doesn't nod off). There are game and media clubs at my university who do exactly this all the time for LANs, demo parties, coding workshops, etc. But suppose you had to negotiate to go through the company/school/university network? Plug in twenty machines that are not secured, checked and pre-approved by the network admins? Impossible. Sure, there are Ethernet jacks in the room that would connect you directly into trunk fiber through a set of 100Mbit switches, but as far as the LAN is concerned, the place has no internet connection at all.CantFaketheFunk said:
And there are lots of other spaces highly suitable for LANs. My apartment complex, for instance, has a "party room" that has everything necessary: large room, tables, chairs, kitchen, toilet, even a pool table. I can reserve it and have a ten person LAN any day of the week. Needless to say, no internet there.
The issue is that the new way carries no benefit whatsoever to the gamer. Having the option of playing a regular LAN game is strictly better than not. If the new Bnet is compelling, and I don't doubt it will be, then everyone who can have an internet connection will be on Bnet anyway. Those who can't, need the LAN play to be there as it has been since freaking Warcraft I.
Anyway. When Blizzard wants to stick a DRM dick up our collective asses, please have the honesty to call it as such, instead of regurgitating this PR stuff. "Core facets of integrated Battle.Net experience going forward"? Bullshit.
Bnet is a game lobby. Its purpose is to make games happen - indeed, it should strive to do so with minimum fuss, to provide as small of an experience as humanly possible and get out of the way. If it, instead, stops a game from happening - like demanding an internet connection when none is necessary - it has failed as hard as it possibly can fail in that particular case.
Whatever functionality the new Bnet might have, a small or midsize LAN doesn't need it. You've got people sitting in the same room, you can walk up to them and set up games, you can draw up a tournament roster on a whiteboard. You can have every winner go "I'm about to drop the hammer!" in their best Siege Tank imitation voice and do a jäger shot. Whatever.
I wonder does everyone have to connect to the internet? Cause if everyone has to connect and get past firewalls and wireless connections figured out thats gonna be a pain.
Not if you have to get authentication from the Blizzard Server to be able to use the local multiplayer. It's not that hard to implement and stops this kind of thing. If it's not there in the released game, it'll get patched it quickly.paketep said:
I find it hilarious that all the people here bitching about having to connect to the internet are complaining about it on the internet. If your computer can load this web page in a reasonable amount of time, it shouldn't have any problems sending some numbers to B.net.
The vast majority of people that live ing the places Blizzard is marketing to have at least a minimal internet connection. If you don't have an internet connection, then you probably aren't setting up LAN parties, and if you live at a school, there will probably be a way to get around firewalls. If you can afford a computer, an extra hundred dollars or so each year isn't a lot to ask for, especially since you can get internet access pretty much anywhere these days.
People complained about not having LAN, presumably because they wanted a local connection, but now they're saying that it's the princible of the matter, that they shouldn't have to be online at all. Given the fact that almost every electronic gizmo today that is more complex than a camera can connect to the internet, it's not unreasonable to ask someone to have a minimal degree of online connectivity for a game. It's not even like you can't play the game at all offline, you just can't play with others.
As bad as video game fanboys are, it's much more entertaining to watch the Magic: the Gatherring community complain. There is not middle ground in anything, you either heve people who vow to quit the game for an announced change people who herald the change as the best thing ever. It's like people complaining that not only will Fallout 3 be horrible, but it will make the previous games horrible as well. The best part, though is that this happens whenever ANYTHING new is announced, so you have doomsayers pop up about four times a year. Within days of the release, however, you'll see those doomsayers argueing about how good the new cards are.SirSchmoopy said:
It's gotten to the point where people fully expect outrage from the community about anything new and people get worried when nobody starts using caps lock.
OK, that makes sense finally. The idea is that you couldn't play with a totally closed LAN, but you would still gain the Peer-to-Peer benefits of the connections, therefore still getting that instant connection but requiring an internet connection for BN2.0. I mean, instant messaging doesn't take massive bandwidth so the actual functionality of the system seems fine. They just made it sound like they were abandoning that concept altogether. I think the idea there is to take the good parts of Steam (Piracy prevention, friends lists and game management) and integrate them into Blizzard's games. If it works as well as they seem to think it will, I'm fine with it, I just wish they'd said that to begin with.
Let me just say now, I fully support requiring an internet connection to verify games (at least initially) like Steam has, but Steam really needs to be more lenient on offline play. Just let me verify it once so I don't have to deal with that problem if I want to play Half-Life and my connection is down. Lets see that happen, Blizzard!
(you too, Steam)
Let me just say now, I fully support requiring an internet connection to verify games (at least initially) like Steam has, but Steam really needs to be more lenient on offline play. Just let me verify it once so I don't have to deal with that problem if I want to play Half-Life and my connection is down. Lets see that happen, Blizzard!
(you too, Steam)This smells of catering to the masses that demanded stat tracking on everything including the main menu. I wouldn't be surprised if a large chunk of the population from that petition has also signed the current one demanding exactly the opposite. The vocal minority of "hardcore" Blizzard fans are unpleaseable and generally idiots.Wandrecanada said:
"wow needs more classes"
Goes to
"deathknights killed wow, ban everyone who has one"
As soon as the wrath beta ends.
"omg blizz is abandoning old wow"
Becomes
"qq blizz is lazy and recycling everything"
Minutes after cataclysm is announced.
"We demand stat tracking that says how fast we skipped the intro in WC3/SC2/Whatever game is released next"
And now
"Bnet iz ebil!!!1!!!!112"
See a pattern here?
Ever since I heard the news about the LAN removal, I predicted that they'd still put in some sort of local multiplayer feature. I never doubted my prediction for a second.
They put in from day one when they announced no LAN as we know it in SC2 that they would tell us the fantastic new thing that would replace it. Now they announced it, disguised as a compromise to appease the whining masses, and the whining masses are still...whining. Blizzard practically invented the Ladders for multiplayer gaming, which demands statskeeping. Best way to keep track of those stats? Battlenet. And the only way to get on Battlenet is the internet. May as well use that same feed for a good form of DRM (not the best, DRM's shouldnt even be necessary).
Frankly I am going to wait and see when the first episode comes out how multiplayer is, and even how the game goes. I'll save my torch for if and when it's revealed the Xelnaga are actually Pandaren. I jest....maybe.
I'm not saying stop whining, as quite a few the objectors do come up with strong points. If you remain constructive in your objections, and even present good ideas, it can help things improve. More power to ya.
Frankly I am going to wait and see when the first episode comes out how multiplayer is, and even how the game goes. I'll save my torch for if and when it's revealed the Xelnaga are actually Pandaren. I jest....maybe.
I'm not saying stop whining, as quite a few the objectors do come up with strong points. If you remain constructive in your objections, and even present good ideas, it can help things improve. More power to ya.
I don't think blizzard actually understands how this looks to 95% of people out there.
I guess the easiest analogy I can think of for those people that "don't get it". Not that I really understand whats not to get. Some people are kind of missing the point entirely. It's not an issue of pragmatism. I think in the long run gamers would survive without LAN, it's not the end of the universe, its just what you would call a low blow.
Blizzard have have their annoying fans, but generally speaking even with all the whiners out there they are still loved. Their games sell exceptionally well, and by all accounts they are a successful company. It's like if you go to your favourite restaurant and find out that they stopped serving something you really liked on the menu because it doesn't fit in with their vision of the future. Maybe you still love the other stuff but you feel disappointed. Maybe you don't go so far to believe its a personal vendetta against you but it just feels pointless and unfair.
I guess the easiest analogy I can think of for those people that "don't get it". Not that I really understand whats not to get. Some people are kind of missing the point entirely. It's not an issue of pragmatism. I think in the long run gamers would survive without LAN, it's not the end of the universe, its just what you would call a low blow.
Blizzard have have their annoying fans, but generally speaking even with all the whiners out there they are still loved. Their games sell exceptionally well, and by all accounts they are a successful company. It's like if you go to your favourite restaurant and find out that they stopped serving something you really liked on the menu because it doesn't fit in with their vision of the future. Maybe you still love the other stuff but you feel disappointed. Maybe you don't go so far to believe its a personal vendetta against you but it just feels pointless and unfair.
the man reason I want LAN is because when you're out roaming around places, some times you just don't have any internet at all. for example, me and my friends play warcraft at school during breaks some times, and we can't connect to the net from out computers.
the level of pirating of blizz games actaully helps blizz make more money anyway.
i really hate this anti-piracy stuff that goes too far. why do corperations no liten to the people?
all they need to do is basically mirror what they did in WC, maybe add a few options to help fix things like connection trouble (direct ip-join).
the level of pirating of blizz games actaully helps blizz make more money anyway.
i really hate this anti-piracy stuff that goes too far. why do corperations no liten to the people?
all they need to do is basically mirror what they did in WC, maybe add a few options to help fix things like connection trouble (direct ip-join).
Eh. ZOMG d00d achievemnets and stat trackinz!
That shit's worth less than a mummer's fart to me. I hardly get on Battle.net as it is...and that's usually for Diablo II.
That shit's worth less than a mummer's fart to me. I hardly get on Battle.net as it is...and that's usually for Diablo II.
Normally you could, but I have been to LAN parties where the modem blew or there were terriable issues with getting connected to the internet. These issues were not a major bother though as we could play regardless. And as mentioned before, why would you want to be connected to Battle.net and use it and friends lists when everyone you want to talk to is in the same room.JediMB said:
Seeing as I've hosted and attended numerous small-scale (4-8 people) LAN parties, I'm not feeling very confused. We always have an Internet connection, since there's no telling when you need to look something up, download a new mod, or send a message over MSN to tell that last friend to hurry it the hell up and get over there with his computer.Playbahnosh said:
What'll be lovely with this scenario is if the servers go down for maintenance. Oh no, you can't play your game. Gods, it's Tuesday night (here in Aus, it's 8:11pm as I write), and I can't play WoW. I'll be -pissed- if I can't play SC2 or D3 one night a week.