No LAN Play For Starcraft II

[Slammers]

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.

[Boifido]

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

[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.

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.

[Xerxes]

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 July 4, 2009 by Xerxes

[Tiby312]

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?

[carmatic]

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!

[Xerxes]

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.

[drbobiii]

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.

[undu]

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.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

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.

[Crompee]

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).

[Dhalamar]

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.

[Tiby312]

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 July 4, 2009 by Tiby312

[drbobiii]

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.

[Tiby312]

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 July 4, 2009 by Tiby312

[drbobiii]

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.

[Tiby312]

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 July 4, 2009 by Tiby312

[drbobiii]

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.

[Tiby312]

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?

[SkyDX]

Aslong as it still allows spwan installs to play a quick match with friends I don't care.

[drbobiii]

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.

[Tiby312]

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 July 5, 2009 by Tiby312

[Minifig]

Everyone who says they won't buy this, eventually, will.

No LAN is just a poor excuse not to buy the game.

[PGHammer]

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).

[Treemonkeys]

It's not a big deal, and I'm sure it will help with piracy. If you want to LAN just make just get internet access on your LAN, it's not that hard. Battle.net accounts are free.