d3bruts1d Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 I'm pissed off about no LAN in SC II. I think it's incredibly stupid. 99% of all SC games that I ever played were on a LAN or at a LAN Party where internet was restricted (i.e. the OCC LAN Party). With any luck, someone will release a hack to enable multiplayer over LAN, or something that would mimic a BNet server. And you're telling me there have never been issues with LAG in WOW??? Come on now. Sure there is... but in WoW you have to handle hundreds of people. In SC, you have at most 8. Not to mention that response time is much more critical in an RTS. Response time is pretty critical in any game... FPS, RTS, even RPGs. http://www.overclockersclub.com/news/25087/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
greengiant912 Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 And you're telling me there have never been issues with LAG in WOW??? Come on now. Not to mention that response time is much more critical in an RTS. I'm not saying they're not capable, but to say it's inline with the latency of a LAN is ridiculous. Woah there buddy, first off think about how many people play wow, 12 MILLION. Secondly think about for the amount of players they have the lag and the down time is very minimal considering... I think they are doing a great job supporting the game and have no doubt that they will have the server power to run bnet. Thirdly Blizzard's servers are managed by AT&T, so to blame blizzard directly for the very minor issues that come up in the game from time to time is not totally correct. Alot of people seem to forget that Blizzard is an RTS company, with the sucess of WoW alot of people forget that their roots and their passion is in RTS games. Starcraft 2 is coming from a company that not only had one of the best selling RTS' of all time but 3 (Warcraft 2, Starcraft, andj War3). That said, Blizzard is a company that dose what their fans want. Granted it may take some time for them to get it done, but they have done every single thing that their fans have asked for in WoW and even have changed things in Star2 because of fan feedback. If EA can Remove DRM from their games because of public outcry, I think Blizzard will eventully include lan support, it might not be there at product ship, but it will be added. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Sure there is... but in WoW you have to handle hundreds of people. In SC, you have at most 8. I'm not saying there will be lag problems over b.net, but what I'm saying is that just because Blizzard has been able to handle WoW, doesn't mean there won't be any issues to contend with on b.net. It's also a little misleading to say that WoW handles hundreds (more like thousands) of people, but SC only handles 8. I'm pretty sure that Blizzard isn't going to have one server dedicated to each game on b.net . They probably handle it similar to the notion of shards, wherein each server cluster has a soft limit and a hard limit. @greengiant, I never blamed Blizzard directly for the lag. It doesn't matter who's "fault" it is...it's Blizzard's responsibility to ensure smooth gameplay, and all I'm getting at is that a LAN will almost always provide less latency than the web. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
feetfats Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 My concern is really not what you're describing though. Personally, I think it's perfectly moral to install my one copy of SC twice in my home and play against my brother or whatever. But if Blizz says that's not cool, that's their right and I can't really act that surprised. My beef is that we will now have to connect to the internet every time we want to play multiplayer. It's the same rant I always give with Steam. Why should the internet stand between me and a game I bought and own? Why should internet outages mess up a local LAN game between a few folks at my house when it needn't? Because Blizz thinks DRM is more important than customer satisfaction. If I have three friends in my house, all on PCs on my network and we want to play SC, why should we need an internet connection? I agree,,, it is horrible that we cannot play a single player game without being hooked to the internet. It is at the point now where a computer just wont work without the internet because there is always some update that you need or internet validation required this is something that a console has an advantage on,,, hook it to power and a tv and away you go, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 I agree,,, it is horrible that we cannot play a single player game without being hooked to the internet. It is at the point now where a computer just wont work without the internet because there is always some update that you need or internet validation required this is something that a console has an advantage on,,, hook it to power and a tv and away you go, Woah, nobody said anything about having to be online to play the single player campaign. B.net is for multiplayer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verran Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 99% of all SC games that I ever played were on a LAN or at a LAN Party where internet was restricted (i.e. the OCC LAN Party). I probably played 200 LAN games for every one b.net game I played. Seriously. I guess that's part of the reason it bugs me so much. As for this WoW vs. SC2 stuff, you guys are crazy. Yes, WoW has server farms that probably rival most government facilities, but what's that got to do with StarCraft? You think the WoW servers will be hosting b.net? What do you think the income is from monthly fees from those 12 million-some WoW players? 180 Million-ish? Now what's the monthly income going to be from SC2? Zero. So why exactly are we assuming they'll be using the same hardware? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
greengiant912 Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) I probably played 200 LAN games for every one b.net game I played. Seriously. I guess that's part of the reason it bugs me so much. As for this WoW vs. SC2 stuff, you guys are crazy. Yes, WoW has server farms that probably rival most government facilities, but what's that got to do with StarCraft? You think the WoW servers will be hosting b.net? What do you think the income is from monthly fees from those 12 million-some WoW players? 180 Million-ish? Now what's the monthly income going to be from SC2? Zero. So why exactly are we assuming they'll be using the same hardware? I was merely stating that Blizzard from their past experiences has the ability to provide high quality servers, and that they will have the bandwidth for the game. They will be receiving monthly income to keep battle.net going, it wont be coming directly from the customers, but more likely ad generated. As for that income how much of it is actually income? A lot of it goes back into the costs of running the game. Edited July 7, 2009 by greengiant912 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 I was merely stating that Blizzard from their past experiences has the ability to provide high quality servers, and that they will have the bandwidth for the game. They will be receiving monthly income to keep battle.net going, it wont be coming directly from the customers, but more likely ad generated. As for that income how much of it is actually income? A lot of it goes back into the costs of running the game. They've stated that the current "new" b.net contains no ads. That's no to say they won't include ads, but as of now they're looking to avoid doing so. They'll be having some microtransactions for certain things, like creating tournaments and whatnot, but most of it is 100% free. Oh, and trust me, they make a ton of income on WoW. I'd be surprised if anything more than half of the monthly fee cost goes toward the server maintenance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
greengiant912 Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) They've stated that the current "new" b.net contains no ads. That's no to say they won't include ads, but as of now they're looking to avoid doing so. They'll be having some microtransactions for certain things, like creating tournaments and whatnot, but most of it is 100% free. Oh, and trust me, they make a ton of income on WoW. I'd be surprised if anything more than half of the monthly fee cost goes toward the server maintenance. They have stated in a recent interview that was held at their media event a few weeks ago, "The current build contains no ads." The first battle.net contained ads and I am pretty sure that 2.0 will need to contain ads as well. They have gone back and forth with ads, but they do have agreements with companies that provide ad revenue so I doubt the final version of star2 will not have ads. They make alot of income on WoW, just not as much as people think. Think of the price of bandwidth its expensive... Think about how much bandwidth 12million players per month use. Then add the server power, and the price to maintain those servers, you could easily be in the millions range in no time. Then you gotta take into account the customer service staff, the continued development of the game, etc. WoW has a very high overhead. 12m x $15 = $180,000,000. Which might seem like alot of money, but take into account that overhead and you might only be left with a few million at the end of the month. I'm not saying that wow isn't making them rich, they made alot of money off the game, its just not as much as people think... Anyways with that lets get back on topic lol.... Starcraft 2 will have some sort of revenue generation. To deny it would be stupid as it will cost something to support battle.net, not as much as wow as it dosn't have the high overhead as wow dose but it will def need some support. I look at it this way for Lan though, EA got alot of heat for their use of DRM and they caved, Blizzard is known for caving to its fans, which they take their time and do it right by finding the balance. Edited July 7, 2009 by greengiant912 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 They make alot of income on WoW, just not as much as people think. Think of the price of bandwidth its expensive... Think about how much bandwidth 12million players per month use. Then add the server power, and the price to maintain those servers, you could easily be in the millions range in no time. Then you gotta take into account the customer service staff, the continued development of the game, etc. WoW has a very high overhead. 12m x $15 = $180,000,000. Which might seem like alot of money, but take into account that overhead and you might only be left with a few million at the end of the month. I'm not saying that wow isn't making them rich, they made alot of money off the game, its just not as much as people think...Not many companies, especially in the gaming industry, make millions per month. I look at it this way for Lan though, EA got alot of heat for their use of DRM and they caved, Blizzard is known for caving to its fans, which they take their time and do it right by finding the balance. Just because EA did it, doesn't mean Blizzard will. The problem with EA, which they didn't anticipate, was that people could enjoy Spore without the user content. Although people could pirate SC2 and enjoy the single player, and maybe even play over the LAN if someone cracks it, many SC fans are into the multiplayer, and in order to play on b.net and be ranked, they will need to buy the game. Obviously there will be piracy with every game, but it won't hit SC2 as bad as it hit Spore, backlash or no. I hope you realize that I'm fully in support of LAN play and Spawn copies...I loved that about SC. I'm just being realistic. The world is not the same as it was 10+ years ago. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkrow21 Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) What they're really trying to do is cut down on, for example, when I buy my copy and install it on two computers so I can LAN game with a friend at my house. You mean, piracy? Either way, I have never lanned because I think it's ridiculous to have two high-end computers in a home anyway. Maybe an extra laptop for mobility. Edited July 7, 2009 by tkrow21 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 You mean, piracy? Either way, I have never lanned because I think it's ridiculous to have two high-end computers in a home anyway. Maybe an extra laptop for mobility. to this day, i bring my laptop over to my friend's place and play SC over the LAN. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now