Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Starcraft 2 : No LAN


  • Please log in to reply
146 replies to this topic

#1 thebridgerofdoom

thebridgerofdoom

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 156 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 July 2009 - 12:37 AM

I'm sorry if there is already a topic on this btw. I just can't seem to find it. mod pls remove this topic if there is already an old topic.

I was talking about starcraft 2 with my friend and he told me that blizzard won't be supporting LAN? Is it some kind of joke or is it true? How can the most anticipated rts game of 2009 be not supporting LAN?
Making a new rig.

#2 GaiusMaxwell

GaiusMaxwell

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Posted 07 July 2009 - 01:30 AM

I'm sorry if there is already a topic on this btw. I just can't seem to find it. mod pls remove this topic if there is already an old topic.

I was talking about starcraft 2 with my friend and he told me that blizzard won't be supporting LAN? Is it some kind of joke or is it true? How can the most anticipated rts game of 2009 be not supporting LAN?


One word - piracy

blizzard are refusing to support LAN for SF2 because they believe the game would be heavily pirated with no consequences to the piraters if they were to support LAN

You will still be able to play networked games however you will need to have a genuine copy and availability to battlenet

Edited by Whatislove, 07 July 2009 - 01:30 AM.


#3 Verran

Verran

    RIP 1981-2009

  • Honorary Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7026 posts
  • Location:Holt, MI

Posted 07 July 2009 - 01:31 AM

It's true. They say they're doing it to limit piracy because some people made hacks to the local LAN games to play on third party servers or something. 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. With this system, you can only go through battle.net, which will see that it's the same key and squash you.

The real debate seems to be whether it's moral/legal/right/whatever to buy one copy and install it on two or more computers in your home so that you and your friends can run a private LAN game like you could with SC1.
Posted Image
[E7400 Gaming]~[Q6600 Burning]~[Opt148 Wife's]~[3200+ HTPC1]~[3500+ HTPC2]
"Thank you for helping us help you help us all."

#4 GaiusMaxwell

GaiusMaxwell

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Posted 07 July 2009 - 01:51 AM

It's true. They say they're doing it to limit piracy because some people made hacks to the local LAN games to play on third party servers or something. 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. With this system, you can only go through battle.net, which will see that it's the same key and squash you.

The real debate seems to be whether it's moral/legal/right/whatever to buy one copy and install it on two or more computers in your home so that you and your friends can run a private LAN game like you could with SC1.


I think buying a game that you can use to install for 1 household/family is right/legal/moral

What i dont agree with is (and im sure every game company too) people that download a game (lets say SC2 if it had lan support) using torrents or whatever means, They could just walk into a lan party or something like that and play with all the other people who bought their copy legit

I think allowing networked games only through battlenet is a great idea - you have to have your own copy to experience the whole game which is rightfully so

Edited by Whatislove, 07 July 2009 - 01:52 AM.


#5 Deathmineral

Deathmineral

    No soup for you!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3811 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:MO, USA

Posted 07 July 2009 - 02:05 AM

In a way this sounds like a good idea but at the same time I think it is complete crap that you must purchase a copy for each computer, now if the game was only $20 or so I wouldn't mind but most are $50 or $60 new and the idea of spending $100 just to play a private game with my cousin... makes me sick. Also, I don't think a lot of the game developers out there understand that some people might never buy their game anyway if it wasn't for torrents.

Posted Image


#6 Verran

Verran

    RIP 1981-2009

  • Honorary Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7026 posts
  • Location:Holt, MI

Posted 07 July 2009 - 04:09 AM

What i dont agree with is (and im sure every game company too) people that download a game (lets say SC2 if it had lan support) using torrents or whatever means, They could just walk into a lan party or something like that and play with all the other people who bought their copy legit

I think allowing networked games only through battlenet is a great idea - you have to have your own copy to experience the whole game which is rightfully so

Sorry, but I disagree here. This is a perfect example of where anti-piracy punishes the paying customer. And what's worse is that for such a high-profile game, you know they're going to crack it anyways. There will be back-alley third-party battle.net servers up in six months. So who really loses? The guy that paid in full. Now every time I want to play multiplayer I have to connect to the internet.

When are these companies going to learn that all the time and money they put into DRM just pisses off their loyal, paying fans. The pirates still pirate. Any game to date that a pirate wants, he can get. It's bad enough that they're fighting a losing battle, but they're dumping all this money into it, making costs higher for paying customers, PLUS even once we pay we still get screwed by all the DRM, and meanwhile the pirates skip merrily along their way.
Posted Image
[E7400 Gaming]~[Q6600 Burning]~[Opt148 Wife's]~[3200+ HTPC1]~[3500+ HTPC2]
"Thank you for helping us help you help us all."

#7 ClayMeow

ClayMeow

    Member Title Exceeds Member Title Character Limit

  • Review Editor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19397 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, NY

Posted 07 July 2009 - 05:34 AM

It's true. They say they're doing it to limit piracy because some people made hacks to the local LAN games to play on third party servers or something. 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. With this system, you can only go through battle.net, which will see that it's the same key and squash you.

The real debate seems to be whether it's moral/legal/right/whatever to buy one copy and install it on two or more computers in your home so that you and your friends can run a private LAN game like you could with SC1.

That's not entirely correct. Back when SC1 came out, you didn't install the full version on multiple computers, the CD had an option install a Spawn copy, which allowed that computer to play multiplayer-only over a LAN. My friend and I did this all the time.

There is also nothing stopping you from installing SC2 on multiple computers, all this does is prevent you from actually playing multiplayer on two computers simultaneously. It's sorta like Steam in that respect...you can only be connected to b.net in one location at any given time. As such, if you have a PC and a laptop, you can install it both and play on whichever one you want at the time...you just can't play one while your friend plays the other. In reality, this is perfectly reasonable for Blizzard to do. In fact, most every other developer already does this. The controversy arose more because of what SC1 offered rather than was SC2 excludes. 10 years ago, people thought Blizzard was all about the gamers/fans (after all, has any other company done anything remotely similar to spawn copies before or after SC1??), and now, because of this move, driven mostly by piracy, people feel that Blizzard has lost touch with its fans.

I'm certainly a little pisses there won't be spawn copies and LAN play, but on the flip-side, I also completely understand the decision. Times have changed.

CMt.png
- Steam - Raptr - Xfire - GameSpot - Kongregate - IGN Blog -
- ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe - i7 3770k - NVIDIA GTX 770 - 2x8GB Mushkin Redline DDR3-1866MHz -
::: Follow OCC on facebook.png ::: OCC Xfire Clan ::: OCC Steam Community Group ::: OCC Rules :::

::: OCC E3 2013 Awards ::: CES 2013 ::: COMPUTEX 2010 :::

::: Razer Sabertooth Review ::: Watch Dogs Review :::


#8 Verran

Verran

    RIP 1981-2009

  • Honorary Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7026 posts
  • Location:Holt, MI

Posted 07 July 2009 - 05:44 AM

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?
Posted Image
[E7400 Gaming]~[Q6600 Burning]~[Opt148 Wife's]~[3200+ HTPC1]~[3500+ HTPC2]
"Thank you for helping us help you help us all."

#9 ClayMeow

ClayMeow

    Member Title Exceeds Member Title Character Limit

  • Review Editor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19397 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, NY

Posted 07 July 2009 - 06:00 AM

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 don't have a problem with requiring internet connection in this day and age, but then again, I love Steam. My only concern would be lag, and I'm going to give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt that they're going to have an insane amount of uber servers to handle b.net, seeing as they're putting two of the biggest upcoming games on it (SC2 and D3).

CMt.png
- Steam - Raptr - Xfire - GameSpot - Kongregate - IGN Blog -
- ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe - i7 3770k - NVIDIA GTX 770 - 2x8GB Mushkin Redline DDR3-1866MHz -
::: Follow OCC on facebook.png ::: OCC Xfire Clan ::: OCC Steam Community Group ::: OCC Rules :::

::: OCC E3 2013 Awards ::: CES 2013 ::: COMPUTEX 2010 :::

::: Razer Sabertooth Review ::: Watch Dogs Review :::


#10 Verran

Verran

    RIP 1981-2009

  • Honorary Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7026 posts
  • Location:Holt, MI

Posted 07 July 2009 - 07:07 AM

I don't have a problem with requiring internet connection in this day and age, but then again, I love Steam. My only concern would be lag, and I'm going to give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt that they're going to have an insane amount of uber servers to handle b.net, seeing as they're putting two of the biggest upcoming games on it (SC2 and D3).

You have a valid point. I can't really argue that. I mean anyone and everyone has internet these days and generally really good internet at that. So it's not really a question of internet availability limiting the functionality of the game. I doubt it will ever affect me when I buy it and play multiplayer. For me, it's more the principle. Everything dials home these days, and I don't like it. It's just one more level of control. One more way to make sure I don't truly own my game, but rather that I'm just being allowed to use it for the moment.
Posted Image
[E7400 Gaming]~[Q6600 Burning]~[Opt148 Wife's]~[3200+ HTPC1]~[3500+ HTPC2]
"Thank you for helping us help you help us all."

#11 greengiant912

greengiant912

    hl2.exe has stopped working

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1453 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Waukesha, WI

Posted 07 July 2009 - 08:06 AM

It's true. They say they're doing it to limit piracy because some people made hacks to the local LAN games to play on third party servers or something. 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. With this system, you can only go through battle.net, which will see that it's the same key and squash you.

The real debate seems to be whether it's moral/legal/right/whatever to buy one copy and install it on two or more computers in your home so that you and your friends can run a private LAN game like you could with SC1.



They arn't worried about the guy who is at home with a friend so much as those who would pirate the software across the web.

I don't have a problem with requiring internet connection in this day and age, but then again, I love Steam. My only concern would be lag, and I'm going to give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt that they're going to have an insane amount of uber servers to handle b.net, seeing as they're putting two of the biggest upcoming games on it (SC2 and D3).


Blizzard has some of the most powerfull non government supercomputers in the industry, that handle World of Warcraft, I am pretty sure this is a non-issue :)

Edited by greengiant912, 07 July 2009 - 08:07 AM.

My Website  Twitter  XBL  PSN  STEAM

MSI Z68A-GD65(G3) - Intel i7 2600k - eVGA GTX570 Classified - 16gb Gskill DDR3 - Windows 7 Professional x64

15 inch Macbook Pro with Retina Display - Apple iPhone 5s 32gb - iPad 2 - 32gb - Xbox 360 Elite - PlayStation 3 (Slim) - Nintendo Wii - Xbox One - PlayStation 4

Server+ Certified - A+ Certified - Bachelors of Science in Information Technology


#12 ClayMeow

ClayMeow

    Member Title Exceeds Member Title Character Limit

  • Review Editor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19397 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, NY

Posted 07 July 2009 - 08:22 AM

Blizzard has some of the most powerfull non government supercomputers in the industry, that handle World of Warcraft, I am pretty sure this is a non-issue :)

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.

CMt.png
- Steam - Raptr - Xfire - GameSpot - Kongregate - IGN Blog -
- ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe - i7 3770k - NVIDIA GTX 770 - 2x8GB Mushkin Redline DDR3-1866MHz -
::: Follow OCC on facebook.png ::: OCC Xfire Clan ::: OCC Steam Community Group ::: OCC Rules :::

::: OCC E3 2013 Awards ::: CES 2013 ::: COMPUTEX 2010 :::

::: Razer Sabertooth Review ::: Watch Dogs Review :::