ClayMeow Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 I think what you were saying with that comment was "I don't have a problem with it, so you shouldn't either." After all, that's pretty much been your stance all along. You've basically just been saying that you play a certain way and you can't understand why anyone would play differently (and rather condescendingly and even insultingly at times). You think that because you're fine with it, everyone else should be. Fine. Whatever. But it's not a constructive addition to the discussion. Dismissing someone's opinion simply because it doesn't match yours isn't really a useful stance. And just because "the internet is here to stay" doesn't mean we have to stand for unnecessary and overbearing DRM. THAT is what we're talking about, after all. Your internet comment, again, fails to really constructively address the situation, unless you feel that the presence of the internet dictates that all games should dial home when you start them. To me, I don't see the connection there. If you've followed the whole thread, you'd see that even to this day, I still play SC over the LAN (in fact, I just did this past Friday). However, unlike some of you, I do accept that times have changed and companies no longer feel "safe" in letting their products be played without some sort of verification. I also game on my laptop and often do so without an Internet connection. As such, that means SC2 will unfortunately be one of the games I will not be able to play under those circumstances, and will have to be relegated only to times I have a connection. Does that suck? Yeah, a little bit. But enough for me to boycott the game? Not even close. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
greengiant912 Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/60156 You happy now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 (edited) However, unlike some of you, I do accept that times have changed and companies no longer feel "safe" in letting their products be played without some sort of verification. *sigh* Complacency isn't going to help anything. It doesn't matter what companies feel "safe" doing if the only thing it does is piss off legitimate buyers. http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/60156 You happy now? Nope. Until I don't need the internet to play I'm not going to buy it. It's the principle of the thing... Edited August 24, 2009 by Waco Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zertz Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 Nope. Until I don't need the internet to play I'm not going to buy it. It's the principle of the thing... It's ok, millions will enjoy it while you don't Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 It's ok, millions will enjoy it while you don't Good for them. They can be complacent. I don't forget what I believe in that easily. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zertz Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 I don't forget what I believe in that easily. A world with no Internet access? Oh wait... Just joking Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 A world with no Internet access? Oh wait... Just joking A world where I can pay for a game and play it whenever I want regardless of internet access or server availability. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fogel Posted August 29, 2009 Posted August 29, 2009 More on offline play: Looks like you can play the Single Player Campaign in two ways: On-Line - You earn achievements ...yipty freakin' do Off-Line - You won't earn achievements b/c it could be easy to hack ...w/e The B.Net 2.0 pictures shows a "guest account". I'm not sure if this is the only way to play single player offline or if it can be used for other features and how many Guest Accounts you get. Don't think it can be used for multi-play on B.Net. Like others I'm not crazy about HAVING to be online just to play a game, so being able to play the single player offline is definitely a step in the right direction. Now they need to remember what made SC1 so popular in the 1st place. I'm sure they are a little butt hurt in that they didn't think SC1 would be so popular so they're probably crying over all that lost revenue. (Korean tournaments for example) ...but again, it's not just the awesome gameplay that made the game popular - it was the flexibility. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkrow21 Posted August 29, 2009 Posted August 29, 2009 A world where I can pay for a game and play it whenever I want regardless of internet access or server availability. But what's preventing you from creating a private battle.net games and inviting your friend who's in the next room? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3bruts1d Posted August 29, 2009 Posted August 29, 2009 But what's preventing you from creating a private battle.net games and inviting your friend who's in the next room? Battle.net outage and/or ISP service interruption Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost Posted August 29, 2009 Posted August 29, 2009 they are gonna enable some kind of lan, but u'll have to connect to battle.net to get authenticated before u can play. this whole nolan thing was to prevent people from playing a bootleg game Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted August 29, 2009 Posted August 29, 2009 I'm not going to write up the whole article, but here is the section you guys seem most concerned about: Lag caused by internet latency almost certainly won't be an issue--even though you'll connect to Battle.net online, you'll also be directly connected to your friend sitting next to you, so you'll still enjoy the same smooth speed you did with LAN play once the game starts. (Almost all RTS games use a peer-to-peer multiplayer architecture rather than a client-server setup. Blizzard won't be hosting the games on their servers.) Now, if Battle.net's servers were to go down for any reason, you'd be unable to play multiplayer--but if anyone knows a thing or two about keeping servers up and running 24 hours a day, it's Blizzard. So what are gamers who aren't planning to pirate StarCraft II really upset about? One of the factors that made StarCraft so popular among LAN gamers is its ability to install multiplayer-only "spawn" copies on multiple PCs, which allowed you play an entire 8-player LAN game with just one purchased copy. For gamers with more than on PC in their homes that they use for multiplayer sessions with family or visiting friends, this was a huge value. They fear that Blizzard isn't planning to allow spawn installs of StarCraft II, forcing them to purchase one copy per player--and that tab could add up quickly. However, all hope isn't lost on that front yet. Blizzard isn't yet talking about Battle.net's functionality, and wouldn't rule out the possibility of allowing spawn installs when inquired. With the Battle.net authentication in place to keep an eye on things, there's no reason Blizzard can't still allow multiplayer-only spawn installs--it just depends on how generous Blizzard is feeling. 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