No LAN Play For Starcraft II


Recommended Posts

Can somebody please explain to me why this matters.

In todays age,as long as Blizzard does it right (which they will they obviously are amazing with net code now after WoW) any standard internet connection should be more than adequate for a room full of people pleaying a strategy game. The only difference I can see is no multiplayer for people with cracked copies and this is a good thing.

Now there will be more stat tracking etc.

canceled my pre-order... I have lan parties every weekend.

Stardock is my favorite company, they treat gamers right. We use impulse anywhere to get more copies for our lans, and as a result 4 more people so far have purchased Demigod. The same thing happened for Sins of a Solar Empire.

+ They are partners with Neowin :)

Yay Stardock! Blizzard is getting more douchy over the years and Stardock just keeps getting better

I don't think so. Without any LAN play, you're forced to log into Battle.net to play against other users. That means any online activity will be carried out with that service. Essentially, you won't get the same reduction in latency as you would in a LAN game.

On the plus side, this will mean more players on Battle.net at any given point in time. And more players means Blizzard will put more money and resources into powering Battle.net. Hopefully, this will translate into better ping, features, etc.

I think the game is only authenticated online pre-match. Any lag to battle.net would only be felt then. After that it's p2p so it's just like a local game if everyone is on the same network. So in-game performance in any circumstance should not be effected by this decision. The only draw back is having an internet connection.

It sucks, but online is the future...won't be long till games only support online and there is no single player "offline" either. Problem is online sucks, I never play games online because every time I do, there are some ###### who completely ruin it and make it a horrible experience. I know for many online is awesome but I personally fail to see it, with all those cheaters and teens trash talking I fail to see the "fun". A LAN game with mates is great though, guess that is dead and buried too...sad :( that is my 2 cents, take with a grain of salt.

Can somebody please explain to me why this matters.

In todays age,as long as Blizzard does it right (which they will they obviously are amazing with net code now after WoW) any standard internet connection should be more than adequate for a room full of people pleaying a strategy game. The only difference I can see is no multiplayer for people with cracked copies and this is a good thing.

Now there will be more stat tracking etc.

It matters because you can't get together with your mates and have a LAN game together, you have to go through the internet which is just a pain in the arse frankly. Sure, playing online with your mates can be fun from home but it's not the same as being with your mates in a LAN party and plus it can easily be spoil by some undesirable(s) who decide to "crash the party"...I'm sure many people will argue the benefits of online over LAN but until they can figure out how to ban the "idiots" from the internet, LAN will always be better then online gaming to me. That is my 2 cents, take with a grain of salt.

Edited by Xerxes
It matters because you can't get together with your mates and have a LAN game together, you have to go through the internet which is just a pain in the arse frankly. Sure, playing online with your mates can be fun from home but it's not the same as being with your mates in a LAN party and plus it can easily be spoil by some undesirable(s) who decide to "crash the party"...I'm sure many people will argue the benefits of online over LAN but until they can figure out how to ban the "idiots" from the internet, LAN will always be better then online gaming to me. That is my 2 cents, take with a grain of salt.

You can still do LAN parties. You just need an internet connection.

I personally do not find it inconvenient to be connected to the internet in order to play seeing as I am always connected to the internet. It would be a hassle for those on dial-up, but those people probably aren't going to be buying starcraft anyway.

Do we want them to try to stop piracy or not? From what I hear in this thread, it seems that many find it greedy to. Would it be better if they did not try to stop piracy but raised the price instead?

I think the game is only authenticated online pre-match. Any lag to battle.net would only be felt then. After that it's p2p so it's just like a local game if everyone is on the same network. So in-game performance in any circumstance should not be effected by this decision. The only draw back is having an internet connection.

it makes almost too much sense that way, but i hope your right about it!

You can still do LAN parties. You just need an internet connection.

I personally do not find it inconvenient to be connected to the internet in order to play seeing as I am always connected to the internet. It would be a hassle for those on dial-up, but those people probably aren't going to be buying starcraft anyway.

Do we want them to try to stop piracy or not? From what I hear in this thread, it seems that many find it greedy to. Would it be better if they did not try to stop piracy but raised the price instead?

That is a huge inconvenience, but that is just me. Here in Australia we have metered internet so having all your mates over to play "LAN" games over your personal internet connection isn't cool (sure games don't eat that much bandwidth but it'll all adds up). I'm sure many will argue I'm wrong but this is how I feel about it.

Stop piracy? that is a laugh, you can't stop piracy. Forcing online authentication, activation limits, raising the prices etc is only fueling piracy not stopping it. Even if if games dropped to $1 and had no DRM or online authentication or anything, there will still be rampant piracy simply because people can. Instead of stopping piracy they should be encouraging people to part with their money for the game, not making the people who did feel like criminals, but once again that is only my opinion so take with a grain of salt.

You can still do LAN parties. You just need an internet connection.

Do we want them to try to stop piracy or not? From what I hear in this thread, it seems that many find it greedy to. Would it be better if they did not try to stop piracy but raised the price instead?

I think a lot of comments about Blizzard being greedy are based on false assumptions that they will be charging for Bnet. I doubt the removal of LAN support will have any impact on piracy. Those who just want to play the single player still can, and I'm sure a hack/emulator will be released for those who want to play over LAN. In fact the only impact I see this having is some legitimate users being forced to hunt down the aforementioned LAN hacks to play the game they legally purchased.

Yes, you can still do LAN parties if you have internet... but imagine a large event (100+ people) all using that connection at the same time, or better yet, all connecting to Bnet at the same time. There is a reason big LAN events often disable the internet.

I think a lot of comments about Blizzard being greedy are based on false assumptions that they will be charging for Bnet

Not for using it, but they are going to charge for services like tournaments, that now are done using LAN (In korea, for example). So yes, they are doing this to win money, they don't seem to care much about what made starcraft so popular and are screwing customers.

I think the game is only authenticated online pre-match. Any lag to battle.net would only be felt then. After that it's p2p so it's just like a local game if everyone is on the same network. So in-game performance in any circumstance should not be effected by this decision. The only draw back is having an internet connection.

Perhaps. We'll know for sure once Blizzard shares more information about Battle.net and its features.

Not for using it, but they are going to charge for services like tournaments, that now are done using LAN (In korea, for example). So yes, they are doing this to win money, they don't seem to care much about what made starcraft so popular and are screwing customers.

I dont get how you can argue that they are screwing customers? for Blizzard wanting a cut on the E-Sports profits? E-Sport tournaments have nothing to do with the customers regarding money. I'd also agree with Blizzard in that case, they've been watching KESPA in Korea take all the money while Blizzard gets 0% of the share, even though its there game :p

This is mainly done to stop people using Lan Speed programs for online multiplayer which dont require you to login to Battle.Net (so you can download a piracy copy and then play multiplayer with ease).

If this really was such a bad thing Steam would have been flopped years ago, but it didn't. People are just making false assumptions with false information. Battle.net will stay free and it is only used for Authentication purposes.

Anyone saying removing direct LAN from Starcraft 2 won't affect piracy is so wrong, or maybe they just have never heard of virtual LANs. If you have ever heard or used programs like Garena you'd know there's a lot of people out there who use pirated copies of games and play online using these Virtual LAN services.

That is a huge inconvenience, but that is just me. Here in Australia we have metered internet so having all your mates over to play "LAN" games over your personal internet connection isn't cool (sure games don't eat that much bandwidth but it'll all adds up). I'm sure many will argue I'm wrong but this is how I feel about it.

Stop piracy? that is a laugh, you can't stop piracy. Forcing online authentication, activation limits, raising the prices etc is only fueling piracy not stopping it. Even if if games dropped to $1 and had no DRM or online authentication or anything, there will still be rampant piracy simply because people can. Instead of stopping piracy they should be encouraging people to part with their money for the game, not making the people who did feel like criminals, but once again that is only my opinion so take with a grain of salt.

Do we want them to try to stop piracy or not?

Do you have evidence that forcing authentication contributes to piracy? I think games that require online authentication to a master server like Battlefield 2 are pirated at a lower rate than those without any drm like World of Goo.

In fact, World of Goo's piracy rate is at 90% (Sauce). According to you World of Goo did everything right, and yet they still lost at the very least half of their sales. Do you still think that if starcraft were released with no DRM it will sell better?

Do you think they are not encouraging people to part with their money btw?

I think a lot of comments about Blizzard being greedy are based on false assumptions that they will be charging for Bnet. I doubt the removal of LAN support will have any impact on piracy. Those who just want to play the single player still can, and I'm sure a hack/emulator will be released for those who want to play over LAN. In fact the only impact I see this having is some legitimate users being forced to hunt down the aforementioned LAN hacks to play the game they legally purchased.

I don't think anyone believes that it will stop piracy, but it will no-doubt hinder it. This is especially important right after the release of the game. If people can't find a pirated copy for a while and do not wish to wait or if the cracking procedure is too complex/obscure or even non-existent, they are tempted to buy it. I've seen this happen first hand with games like Bioshock and Empire:Total War.

Yes, you can still do LAN parties if you have internet... but imagine a large event (100+ people) all using that connection at the same time, or better yet, all connecting to Bnet at the same time. There is a reason big LAN events often disable the internet.

Well firstly a network with 100+ computers will most likely have a internet connection able to sustain 100 users. Secondly, all the LAN matches would not use the internet for the round itself. The matchmaking will require internet, but this is just passing a relatively small amount of data and response time during this procedure is unimportant, does not detract from the game play itself and can probably be cleverly done while the game is still loading resources (that's how I would do it anyway).

Edited by Tiby312
Well firstly a network with 100+ computers will most likely have a internet connection able to sustain 100 users.

Not true. The large LAN parties I have attended had max 2-3 office computers connected to the internet, save for the one/two days every couple months the party was held.

Your own personal experience does it prove it to be untrue. If I were to get a raise, I would not be able to use that as proof of there not being a recession going on would I? Any game center or internet cafe without internet is in the minority. Sauce. You might also want to see

. Edited by Tiby312

Nor does your personal experience prove it to be true. I was not referring to dedicated gaming centers or cyber cafes in my post; their sole purpose is to provide gaming/internet every day, so obviously the connection will be up to par.

I'm talking about places that exist without a large number of PCs 99% of the time that will occasionally set up a byoc event, either private or public.

Then you do agree that my statement was true? I posted sources not personal experience btw. And what do you have to say about the video I posted? Is that a one out of a hundred occurrence according to you? (i'd like to know your source btw) LAN parties often have internet access according to wikipedia btw. Sauce.

Edited by Tiby312
Then you do agree that my statement was true?
I agree that game centers and internet cafes have internet access, which is, again, not what I'm talking about.
And what do you have to say about the video I posted? Is that a one out of a hundred occurrence according to you? (i'd like to know your source btw)
Do I think LAN parties the size of Dreamhack are a rare event? Yes. There are many more smaller and more frequent LAN events than that.
LAN parties often have internet access according to wikipedia btw. Sauce.
Yes, LAN parties sometimes have internet access, I never said none do. I said sometimes they don't, but when they do, usually the connection is to support a far smaller number of PCs than are connected. From your own wikipedia page: "LAN party events differ significantly from gaming centers and Internet cafes in that they are generally bring your own computer (BYOC) and are not permanent installations, often taking place in general meeting places or residences". i.e. community centers, churches, warehouses, off-hours businesses, private homes.. you know, places that would have no reason to have a premium connection.
I agree that game centers and internet cafes have internet access, which is, again, not what I'm talking about.

But do you agree with my statement that most networks with 100+ pcs have internet?

Do I think LAN parties the size of Dreamhack are a rare event? Yes. There are many more smaller and more frequent LAN events than that.

But why did Dreamhack need internet and especially high-speed internet if only '2-3' computers would need it?

Yes, LAN parties sometimes have internet access, I never said none do. I said sometimes they don't, but when they do, usually the connection is to support a far smaller number of PCs than are connected. From your own wikipedia page: "LAN party events differ significantly from gaming centers and Internet cafes in that they are generally bring your own computer (BYOC) and are not permanent installations, often taking place in general meeting places or residences". i.e. community centers, churches, warehouses, off-hours businesses, private homes.. you know, places that would have no reason to have a premium connection.

You said most don't. I'm not entirely sure what your quote from wiki proves. I agree that byocs happen in meeting places. Do you think LAN parties held in churches are a big enough occurrence to influence this debate? And if it is is a 'far smaller' byoc, why would you need premium connection in the first place?

But do you agree with my statement that most networks with 100+ pcs have internet?
They may or may not have internet, depending on the location. Remember, I'm not talking about a place that always has 100 PCs sitting there, networked together. People choose a place to meet and bring their computers. If there is internet, it may be disabled to prevent network saturation or overusing allotted bandwidth because, as I pointed out, usually that network was designed for a far smaller number of PCs.
But why did Dreamhack need internet and especially high-speed internet if only '2-3' computers would need it?
You missed the point. Badly. I wasn't talking about Dreamhack in that statement. Some LAN parties (like Dreamhack) have a connection designed specifically for the event. Those parties are a vast minority.
You said most don't.
I actually said it is often disabled, for the reasons I mentioned above. 'Often' meaning only that it's common but not necessarily in the majority.
Do you think LAN parties held in churches are a big enough occurrence to influence this debate? And if it is is a 'far smaller' byoc, why would you need premium connection in the first place?
Yes, I think LAN parties held in a wide variety of meeting places, including churches, are a big enough occurrence. A group of 100 is far smaller than 11,060, yet a connection for a location that has ~5 PCs 350 days of the year will still have trouble with 100 people those 15 days when the parties are held.
They may or may not have internet, depending on the location. Remember, I'm not talking about a place that always has 100 PCs sitting there, networked together. People choose a place to meet and bring their computers. If there is internet, it may be disabled to prevent network saturation or overusing allotted bandwidth because, as I pointed out, usually that network was designed for a far smaller number of PCs.

Look. Either you have internet access or not. If you don't have internet, i'm sorry, but you are a minority. You'll have to change venues or go to a friends house or just get internet. It's 2009. If you do have internet, what's the problem?

You missed the point. Badly. I wasn't talking about Dreamhack in that statement. Some LAN parties (like Dreamhack) have a connection designed specifically for the event. Those parties are a vast minority.

You didn't answer the question. The fact that they have it or not is not the point I was pressing, but the reason why they had to have it.

I actually said it is often disabled, for the reasons I mentioned above. 'Often' meaning only that it's common but not necessarily in the majority.

You said my statement that it was the majority was false. Therefore you meant it to be in the majority. But now that it seems you are starting to open up to its being a minority, wouldn't you agree that it is smart for a company to prioritize the largest demographic?

Edited by Tiby312
I don't think so. Without any LAN play, you're forced to log into Battle.net to play against other users. That means any online activity will be carried out with that service. Essentially, you won't get the same reduction in latency as you would in a LAN game.

On the plus side, this will mean more players on Battle.net at any given point in time. And more players means Blizzard will put more money and resources into powering Battle.net. Hopefully, this will translate into better ping, features, etc.

Also, unlike when Starcraft originally shipped, Internet access (especially faster-than-dial-up Internet access) is commonplace outside of ruralities (my own first exposure to Starcraft was at a gaming center of the period, specifically for an all-night Starcraft event; I was completely unaware that Starcraft had a LAN play option).

I would, in fact, purchase the BattleChest (now Anthology) a week later.

However, times have changed. Internet access is cheaper and more common, and bandwidth available to the average person has increased significantly. The availability of broadband is what has led to the death of LAN play for SC II (and the dearth of LAN play even for those games that still include it, such as UT 3 or even Quake 4, RA3, or C&C 3, for that matter).

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "What an interesting smell you've discovered"
    • It could EASILY be 70 for the base game BUT + lots of FOMO to make it up to 100-120, like a few days Early Access, online money, pre-order bonus cars, weapons, missions, clothing, avatars or profile stuff, etc... And still WAY TOO MANY people would buy those and make Rockstar insane money.
    • Just to understand: your solution to getting rid of an online password manager is...another online password manager?
    • Cjam 2.5.0.0 by Razvan Serea Cjam is a lightweight and fast MP3 editor for Windows that lets you cut, join, and edit MP3 files without re-encoding. This means your audio quality remains untouched, and edits happen instantly. Cjam is ideal for quick, lossless edits—whether you're trimming music, combining tracks, or preparing audio for learning tools or podcasts. It features batch processing, scripting support, cue and playlist file handling, and a simple interface. Cjam is perfect for anyone who needs efficient MP3 editing without the complexity of full audio suites. Cjam requires a PC running Windows 10 or later and Microsoft .NET 6.0 or later. Key features for Cjam: No Re-encoding: Edit MP3 files without losing quality. Cut and Join MP3: Easily cut, trim, and combine MP3 tracks. Batch Processing: Edit multiple files at once for faster workflows. Scriptable Interface: Automate tasks with a custom command language. Cue and Playlist Support: Handle CUE and playlist files for seamless audio management. Fast and Lightweight: Quick processing with minimal system resources. Lossless Audio Editing: Ensure your edits don't affect audio quality. Simple User Interface: Clean, intuitive design for easy navigation. File Format Support: Works with MP3, Cjam-specific file formats (CJAMC, CJAMJ, CJAM). Cjam 2.5.0.0 changelog: Added clipboard-based import/export support for mp3DirectCut Added clipboard-based export support for REAPER Added support for naming IMP3 elements Changed the Reset behavior to preserve Undo/Redo history; use Shift key + Reset button to clear it Added a new command parameter (qcp) Added 8 new entries to lang.txt (main_c124-126, main_d150-151, main_m082, vme_c014, vme_d005) Fixed a bug where the il parameter was incorrectly applied when pasting VMP3s into the main list Fixed several other minor bugs Download: Cjam 2.5.0.0 | 1.4 MB (Freeware) Links: Cjam Home Page | Cjam Manual | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      163
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      91
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!