StarCraft II Will Have LAN After All - Almost

[Ankhwatcher]

At Gamecon the internet connection kept dropping out for half the room. It didn't matter though, because we were PLAYING OVER LAN.
All this will do is annoy people and make Starcraft a non-option.
Fix Red Alert to use TCP/IP I say.

 

[olicon]

Hrrrm, I still smell a rat. What's so tough in just putting in a LAN mode and not having to go through Battlenet which is notorious for packet sniffing?

I got to agree with this. This is not a fair compromise. It is just a fucked up half assed measure.
What is soo damn hard with just having LAN? What if you are without internet? It just makes no damn sense.

Why would anyone with a computer capable of running SC2 be without internet at a time when they should be able to play games? Seriously--the only times we don't have internet nowadays are the time when we should be worrying about other things to begin with anyway, like say in class, at work, or deployed on a battlefield.
If you can't wait 2 hours to get home to play (or get out of the line of fire), then you have bigger problems to worry about.

Unless of course "not having internet connection" is an excuse for wanting to play pirated games.

 

[olicon]

Wow. That is actually one of the funniest things I have heard all week. You really think this will somehow stop people pirating and cracking that? Thats soo adorable.
Tell me, do you still believe in Santa and the tooth fairy too?
Seriously man, they will crack it within a week tops.
And believe it or not, some people do not have the internet... Shocking I know. Some times people can lose net service for a variety of reasons including the net company is screwing up. It does happen at times. Some times people also like to gather in big things call LAN parties and do not want to have to bother with setting them all up to the net or simply just hate the idea of having to sign into B.net at all. (especially with all the talk of it becoming a paid service) Same as I hate having to connect to windows live to play some games.

Aww, how cute. For someone who's able to set up a LAN party for 40 to not being able to connect the hub to the net.. I find that rather hard to believe.

Of course I know that it's going to be cracked--eventually. I happened to be from the capital of piracy business, so I know how things work--and how people can be "encouraged" off them. How many people would get games like SC2 just for the single player experience? Think back to your WC3 and SC2. Do you still play the campaign and skirmish over, and over, and over, after 10 years? Not being able to play multiplayer without a legit copy is enough to drive most people to buy the game.

I don't know where you live, but I'm assuming you have to be in a pretty damn remote part of Africa. How many times does your ISP screw up per month? I think not being able to play for an hour each month is probably not a big deal. (Incidentally if the ISP IS that crappy, get a new one. Seriously--most ISPs don't drop the connection more than once or twice every year. My country went through 3 coups, and we didn't lose connection for 1 second.) Additionally, if you can't pry yourself away from the game for an hour, you have a more pressing problem at hand. And before you say anything else, yes, I understand that as a customer, you would expect to be able to play your product at any given time. But this is the real world and nothing is perfect. Deal with it.

 

[ahac]

I go to a lanparty every year (and we also play Starcraft there).

They do have internet connection at that place but it just can't handle 100 people at the same time. Everyone is connecting somewhere... MSN, icq, facebook, twitter... they browse, they upload pictures, etc...

This year I couldn't even connect to WoW or Steam. But that's ok... wasn't intending to play WoW at a lan (only wanted to show off my chars) and Steam has an offline mode.

But if Starcraft 2 still wants to connect online then I wouldn't be able to play it even with this "lan mode".

So... unless they make it possible to play without connecting then I won't be able to play Starcraft at an event that exists only for such games.
And that sucks.

 

[Playbahnosh]

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.

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.

Than you are a very lucky person. Our annual LAN party didn't have an internet connection up until this year, and that 56k crap is very unreliable, it drops every few minutes (the place is in a somewhat remote area). So ,please don't tell me everyone should have an internet connection at every LAN party, just because you do. It's called douchebaggery. I know it's hard to believe, but there are people who just doesn't have/need/want internet connection at their LAN party.

 

[JaredXE]

Yeah, I never understood WHY they would remove LAN from Starcraft. Isn't LAN-play why it became popular in the first place? Did Blizzard really want the Zerg-rush of millions of Koreans storming their offices because they could no longer hold tourneys and all that? I mean, Starcraft is S. Korea's national sport as far as I know.

 

[JediMB]

Than you are a very lucky person. Our annual LAN party didn't have an internet connection up until this year, and that 56k crap is very unreliable, it drops every few minutes (the place is in a somewhat remote area).

Well, that sucks, needless to say.

So ,please don't tell me everyone should have an internet connection at every LAN party, just because you do. It's called douchebaggery. I know it's hard to believe, but there are people who just doesn't have/need/want internet connection at their LAN party.

Okay, for starters, I didn't say everyone "should". My words were "you can be pretty damn certain", which means that I do see the possibility that some places may not have it. But if that makes me rude, a douchebag, in your eyes... then so be it.

But chances seem good that a majority of Blizzard's consumer base for Starcraft II is capable of keeping a decent Internet connection up even for LAN play. This is how Blizzard has chosen to "cripple" the LAN party piracy that I know for a fact is very common, and I'm not going to object despite how I myself got locked out of Far Cry 2 and Spore for not having an Internet connection available when I installed them. (I had just moved at the time.)

 

[Playbahnosh]

Okay, for starters, I didn't say everyone "should". My words were "you can be pretty damn certain", which means that I do see the possibility that some places may not have it. But if that makes me rude, a douchebag, in your eyes... then so be it.

Well, for starters, I'm pretty damn certain MOST LAN parties have very unreliable/small scale internet connection or, in most cases, not at all. That's why they're called LAN parties, and not Internet Parties. Just look around this very topic. I understand that you are accustomed to having internet at your gatherings, but it doesn't make it the norm, mind you.

But chances seem good that a majority of Blizzard's consumer base for Starcraft II is capable of keeping a decent Internet connection up even for LAN play. This is how Blizzard has chosen to "cripple" the LAN party piracy that I know for a fact is very common, and I'm not going to object despite how I myself got locked out of Far Cry 2 and Spore for not having an Internet connection available when I installed them. (I had just moved at the time.)

Aw, c'mon! Not the piracy scapegoat again! Why don't you guys understand, it's not about piracy!!! The game will be pirated to the Moon and back, regardless of any anti-piracy measure Blizzard may apply to the game. It's about the possibility to play the game with friends without the need for constant, high-speed connection to the internet. Again, stable, broadband internet is not the norm around the world. In some places, there isn't any kind of connection available. On the other hand, even if we did have a high-speed connection that can service ten people playing through b.net at the same time, there might be problems with the service, as seem in many cases over the years.

Basically, if I wanna play with a friend, one cross-link cable should be enough. Or authenticate my game ONCE, and then let us play in offline mode, like on Steam. That's what this is all about.

 

[JediMB]

Well, for starters, I'm pretty damn certain MOST LAN parties have very unreliable/small scale internet connection or, in most cases, not at all. That's why they're called LAN parties, and not Internet Parties. Just look around this very topic. I understand that you are accustomed to having internet at your gatherings, but it doesn't make it the norm, mind you.

It depends entirely on what part of the world you live in. Generally countries that have heavy PC-usage also have better Internet availability. Guess what countries are likely to be the bigger markets for PC games.

Where is it you get your norm from, anyway?

Aw, c'mon! Not the piracy scapegoat again! Why don't you guys understand, it's not about piracy!!!

Yes, that's exactly what it is on Blizzard's end. And they're the ones developing the game.

The game will be pirated to the Moon and back, regardless of any anti-piracy measure Blizzard may apply to the game.

No doubt, but that's not going to stop developers and publishers from trying.

It's about the possibility to play the game with friends without the need for constant, high-speed connection to the internet. Again, stable, broadband internet is not the norm around the world. In some places, there isn't any kind of connection available. On the other hand, even if we did have a high-speed connection that can service ten people playing through b.net at the same time, there might be problems with the service, as seem in many cases over the years.

But you don't even need high-speed Internet to play on LAN with Starcraft II. All the connection to Battle.Net does is verify your copy of the game and keep track of statistics. All gameplay-related communication will be peer-to-peer through your LAN.

Basically, if I wanna play with a friend, one cross-link cable should be enough. Or authenticate my game ONCE, and then let us play in offline mode, like on Steam. That's what this is all about.

It's unfortunate that not all countries have as good Internet availability as, say, Sweden, or large parts of the United States, but the people who have fallen behind on the technological development aren't allowed to set the terms. It's like saying that developers should limit the graphical advancements in their games because you live in an area where it's hard to come by modern computer hardware.

Really, I'd rather not have all this DRM bullshit, but I recognize that the developers have the right to include it if that is their wish. It might improve sales, it might deter from sales, and it may or may not give the people who do buy the games a better experience, but regardless of that it's Blizzard making the decision based on what they themselves want.

 

[Playbahnosh]

It's unfortunate that not all countries have as good Internet availability as, say, Sweden, or large parts of the United States, but the people who have fallen behind on the technological development aren't allowed to set the terms.

Excuse me? So, any part of the world that's in some ways inferior to the mighty western countries shouldn't be able to play video games? Just who are you to say such things like that? We are not dirt-eating cavemen over here either, some people just doesn't live in the high luxury you are accustomed to. It doesn't mean we deserve any less say in the matter.

It's like saying that developers should limit the graphical advancements in their games because you live in an area where it's hard to come by modern computer hardware.

That's exactly what they should do! At least optimize the code and the resources needed to run the game, so people without a NASA sticker on their rig can at least start the damn thing. Like I said, some people just don't live in the western luxury. The goal should be the common denominator amongst the people who do play. Yes, some people cannot afford or get the new cutting-edge GPU, CPU and RAM every month, or have a broadband connection just to be able to play the new releases. You do, good for you. But just because you are better off in some ways doesn't give you the right to deny us our fun.

Really, I'd rather not have all this DRM bullshit, but I recognize that the developers have the right to include it if that is their wish. It might improve sales, it might deter from sales, and it may or may not give the people who do buy the games a better experience, but regardless of that it's Blizzard making the decision based on what they themselves want.

Anti-piracy measure and DRMs are causing nothing but pain in the ass for legitimate customers. All the DRMs in history only did two things to piracy: jack and shit. Sure, the developers have the right to release any kind of crap they want, laced with all kinds of DRM, it doesn't matter, it will get pirated at some point. If they want to fight the lost battle, it's their choice. But Blizzard is where it is now because of the gamers and fans who actually bought their products, so they have an obligation to compromise with the people who brought them their fame and fortune. Without us, Blizzard wouldn't exist. We are not asking anything huge, it doesn't even cost anything (since it's already in the game), we are just asking for the right to play the game with our friends without the hassle of b.net or internet connection. Steam could do it. Thousands of other games could do it. Why not them?

 

[JediMB]

It's unfortunate that not all countries have as good Internet availability as, say, Sweden, or large parts of the United States, but the people who have fallen behind on the technological development aren't allowed to set the terms.

Excuse me? So, any part of the world that's in some ways inferior to the mighty western countries shouldn't be able to play video games? Just who are you to say such things like that? We are not dirt-eating cavemen over here either, some people just doesn't live in the high luxury you are accustomed to. It doesn't mean we deserve any less say in the matter.

If that's how you want to interpret what I said, sure.

Or you could just accept that the developers make the games how they want to, and it's up to them to decide whether or not it's worth it to turn up the technical requirements to a level that might reduce the number of potential customers. I mean, there's plenty of Starcraft fans who won't be able to play SC2 just because of the hardware requirements alone.

That's pretty much how PC gaming has always been. And that's part of why the video game consoles are so much more popular for gaming.

 

[Jugular]

Huh. Well if 1911 can crack a $200,000? securom copy protection system, think they can make a LAN crack/ patch for SC2? Or you could not buy the game in protest of no LAN! ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH

 

[Playbahnosh]

It's unfortunate that not all countries have as good Internet availability as, say, Sweden, or large parts of the United States, but the people who have fallen behind on the technological development aren't allowed to set the terms.

Excuse me? So, any part of the world that's in some ways inferior to the mighty western countries shouldn't be able to play video games? Just who are you to say such things like that? We are not dirt-eating cavemen over here either, some people just doesn't live in the high luxury you are accustomed to. It doesn't mean we deserve any less say in the matter.

If that's how you want to interpret what I said, sure.

Or you could just accept that the developers make the games how they want to, and it's up to them to decide whether or not it's worth it to turn up the technical requirements to a level that might reduce the number of potential customers. I mean, there's plenty of Starcraft fans who won't be able to play SC2 just because of the hardware requirements alone.

That's pretty much how PC gaming has always been. And that's part of why the video game consoles are so much more popular for gaming.

I know you don't really care about if people with less powerful rig would be able to play SC2, but I think Blizzard does, as they always did. Turning up the graphics and overall requirements may make the game look more awesome for the select few who can run it, but it makes the game practically unavailable to everyone else. Blizzard is famous for trying to cater to the players, and it's in their best interest doing so. By tuning up graphics and stuff, they limit their own customer base, and I don't think that's what they want.

I totally understand they worked tirelessly on this new b.net, and I'm quite sure it will be awesome for the people who care about such things as leaderboards, gamescores, statistics, achievements and online play. But it shouldn't be forced on people who only wanna do the single player and maybe play a few rounds with friends on LAN. It should be an option, as it was in every Blizzard game, and not mandatory.

 

[dochmbi]

Well, that's what I figured all the way. There has to be a LAN connection there because otherwise there could be no pro gaming in south korea.

 

[mooncalf]

When a developer says "We want A and B to go together, we think it'd be really awesome, so no more seperate A and B!" I melon-scratch. It's like they're selling two dandy-fine drinks, and then only selling them premixed.

This article does make it clear (thankfully) that the Blizzard team is not quite so completely disconnected from reality as earlier implied. There is (and was?) no intent to use it's own server bandwidth and the user's to facilitate what would amount to VPN traffic to local machines...

At a time when developers are engaging in a little spat of spitefulness and pirate-paranoia towards the PC community, I'll be placating, and show my support through legal tender.

I just hope these companies do eventually come to the realisation that I don't buy macguffins to be the seller's friend or - necessarily - engage in their idea of social networking. I don't particularly want to be "ranked" by my computer, or chaperoned in it's use.

 

[Xbowhyena]

Well if it gets the ignorants' to stop bitching about Lan play, I'm cool. Blizzard didn't need to do this.

 

[UnravThreads]

SC2 Lead Designer Dustin Browder told Gamasutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=24953] that while the goal of having an "integrated experience" for their players via Battle.net was still crucial to the company - "We really wanted to bring all these players together and keep them in the same pool, and make everything work, so your achievements work, your friends list works, everything just works correctly, as opposed to having two separated ways to play" - they were working on an option to allow for the best of both worlds: LAN-level connectivity, but a plug into Battle.net regardless.

...

As I understand it, then, the proposed system would require an initial internet connection to authenticate via the Battle.net servers, and then would revert to normal peer-to-peer functionality, perhaps checking in every so often to update friends lists and the like.

If my understanding is correct and that is in fact their proposed system, I... find it hard to see a downside. The primary complaint I see against the lack of LAN functionality is that sending truckloads of data through a single pipeline (say at a tournament) will result in serious bottlenecks, and it's a similar problem for people with slow connections or for those who might be behind firewalls - like college students. As long as the only information being sent to Battle.net is a simple authenticity check, you could probably have a LAN party and not need anything more than a 56k modem.

Fail. Fail, fail, fail, fail!

They address the problems of Group A, and totally ignore Group B.

What about the people who don't WANT to have to authenticate via the Battle.Net service? Not for piracy reasons, I'm anti-pirate, but for the reasons of a Battlenet server crash, we are all still denied multiplayer. Or if Blizzard goes tits up (no company lasts forever) we can't multiplay the game anymore.

Battle.net servers, in my experience, have been damn reliable. I converted my WoW account to a battle.net one, and I can't remember ever having issues.

Starcraft 2 is Blizzard's property. If they don't want you to play it online after a certain date, then come Hell and high water, you won't be playing it. It's their property, not yours. You've no more right to play it online than anyone else. They may drop a patch at some point to disable the need for Battle.net, but don't expect to see it for years.

Like I've said before, I can see both sides of this argument. But at the end of the day, LAN players are a minority, and they'd be putting man hours into what will be, on average, an unused and overlooked feature. They've tried to meet them half way, but it's just being thrown back in their face. TBH, I'd be thankful Blizzard even tried to meet people half way on this, as it's their property and can do whatever they wish with it.

 

[Faeanor]

Starcraft 2 is Blizzard's property. If they don't want you to play it online after a certain date, then come Hell and high water, you won't be playing it. It's their property, not yours. You've no more right to play it online than anyone else. They may drop a patch at some point to disable the need for Battle.net, but don't expect to see it for years.

I'm sorry, I believe that is a flawed analogy. If I buy software, it's now mine. I do not expect some Blizzard rep to come to my house in a few years saying "Starcraft 2 no longer works, we're here to take it back." Saying that a product that somebody sells you is still the seller's the property is bogus.

OT: I think at this point I'm not going to buy Starcraft 2 purely out of spite.