Well, this is very disapointing.
On the plus side:
It's still available http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~owend/free/bnetd.html, but I don't expect there to be one for Battle.Net II
What a dissapointment. I was already about to write off ever buying SC2 because of how they were releasing all the races as expansions, but no LAN capability puts the nail nail in that coffin for me.
Bah, SC2 is gonna suck.
I wouldn't be surprised if B.net 2.0 is a small fee per month, no LAN, forcing people to play on thier network, just invested massive amounts of time to overhaul it adding nice features, need some other cash cow to compare to WoW anyway.
there is a petition where you can sign to encourage blizzard to employ LAN in SC2.
it is - imho - written quite well and worth to be signed.
hopefully, it might be a small opportunity to push them in the right direction
-> http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html is the petition
Looks like they would like to milk more money out of their customers if they add a small fee per month but then again i am not surprise after all it is blizzard.
Nah, this is Activision at work. They've got their fingerprints over a lot of stuff lately, like how WoW is now going to allow you to change a character's faction (and thus race), for a fee. That was previously something they said they weren't going to do.
That buyout is a bad, bad thing.
No, it's not activision. It was made very clear when the merger took place that activision was going to have zero control over blizzard.
It makes me wonder if the people who don't like this are pirates. Forcing you to go through battle.net (which is free) should not be a big deal at all and if it is a big deal to you....the only reason that I can come up with is that you originally intended to pirate the game.
Actually, the only fair way to hold a tournie is to host it over a LAN. That way you make absolutely certain everyone is playing on equal ground as far as ping goes. With all the micro that the pro players use, you want the best possible connectivity, especially if its a tournie with a prize at the end.
Personally, I don't care... I won't be buying SC2 because they won't have all three racial campaigns available from the start. Now, if the asking price for each part was 1/3 of the usual, then I'd buy... but I bet you it will be full price.
Yup. Even when I played SC at LAN parties years ago, we always just used battlenet. Unless you don't have internet at home (in which case it's unlikely you'll be the host of a LAN party anyway), this won't have that much impact on you. It will affect VLAN-using pirates, though.
I now have 4 computer at my home; 2 are not connected to the net. We use them to play Lan games all the time, but obviously, won't be playing with SC2. Besides, I'm not going to buy FOUR copies for one household. . .
Yeah, right.
Every game company buyout/merger follows that script at the time. It appeases the fans. It's usually not true. This whole thing fits Activision's M.O. to perfection. Exploit, develop rapid sequels, and monetize everything in sight. Blizzard suddenly changing directions on faction switching fits far too well to be something they just randomly decided to do, considering it's going to be a paid feature.
Why would you want six people all going to the Internet and back when you can connect locally and have zero latency? We used to play Starcraft games on laptops using ad-hoc networks that had no Internet. We'd also play at school during lunch in the computer lab, where they really didn't want you using Internet bandwidth on games (but didn't care a whole lot about LAN traffic).
Not to mention that every time Blizzard releases a new game, battle.net is a laggy broken mess for weeks. It happened with Starcraft, Diablo 2, and Warcraft 3.
This affects actual customers too. I'm one of them, I own every Blizzard release since Warcraft 2, and one from before they were even called Blizzard (Rock and Roll Racing for the SNES, that was a blast). Saying "oh you must be a pirate if you actually have a problem with them stripping out LAN" is just a nonsense cop-out.
Where does this idea that certain companies happen to be angels come from?
Some of you (meaning most people) are pretty uninformed on this.
Blizzard have said that they'll implement L.A.N. through Battle.net 2.0 somehow.
And the release as a trilogy is just the same as releasing one game and then two expansions.
Means: first they'll release the core game which includes the Terran campaign and then they'll make two EXPANSIONS.
It's like buying starcraft 1 and then buying two brood war expansions (not relating to price).
Obvious information that many people don't seem to get.
Sorry if this post came out abit rude but it's incredibly annoying.
These comments are insanely close minded and inexperienced for several reasons:
First not everyone lives in locations where internet access is stable enough and strong enough for playing games on the internet and/or pay the monthly costs associated. An RTS game such as Starcraft needs a solid reliable connection.
Second of all LAN games without internet are overall more stable, faster and more secure because there's no need to worry about the bandwidth, security and stability for the company who's hosting these game servers.
Third no ISP is 100% stable... which means when they have an outage due to weather, crashes, upgrades, etc., etc., it means GAME OVER until it's been repaired which can be anywhere from 5mins to 2days.
To recap... every variable involved adds at least one more point of failure and sometimes several reasons for a failure. If a multiplayer game must pass thru your ISP then one additional problem variable has been added into gameplay stability. If a multiplayer game must be played on specific servers hosted by a specific company then two problem variables have been added into gameplay stability.
(odd, I can't type capital r anymore. It brings up some weird ruler thing instead.)
So when rob pardo said "we will not support LAN", what he really meant was "we will support LAN"?
I can see how that might confuse people.
If Blizzard means LAN will be available thru the game option Battle.net 2.0 without using the internet then this is good.
If Blizzard means those playing LAN must connect thru an ISP which then connects to the Battle.net 2.0 servers then this is bad... as explained within my reply #42.
What if the house where the lan party is going on doesn't have an internet connection or not a flat one? Surpise surpise...you can't play (or you're going to open a mutual at the bank in the second case), that is REALLY annoying and just add malcontent to loyal players and customers...not the right path to follow in my opinion.
Those childrens in Korea are also a good example, if they can't get on bnet they're just..doomed..funny! It just happened I got lucky not to be born there? Out of every logic as people will probably end up with torrent after summing up everything (hype/disappointment, no lan, price, game divided in more than one box, etc) and enjoy the singleplayer just because they feel offended to be treated like criminals and/or sheeps when they make sacrificies and pay up to every single cent...I certanly feel so.
They could add the free coffee-machine to bnet and even with that I couldn't care less, it's about how people are being treated. A principle issue, if you want. Someone once said "innocent, til proved guilty"...wise words.
They are actually supporting piracy, not stopping it, and they're not alone..sadly.
Now they just have to do this to Diablo 3, I will learn how to code and will personally make the cure myself, I swear, one less for the good side and one gained for evil...those are the results, now project them on a 50 years time span from now and think...
God bless Stardock and their protection-free-with-lan games.
Petition signed.
Lo
Don't be stupid and act like Blizzard is like everyone else. If Activision was in control SC2 would have been out a year ago and it would be half the game it's probably going to be. Just look at how they are pumping out different versions of certain other games.
No... nope, I don't see that one at all.
It's like buying one third of a game at full price, then buying the other two thirds as expansions. Starcraft I had three playable factions, and a tri-fold storyline. So Starcraft II better have a damn epic story of megaawesomeness if they hope to justify the asking price.
This is from Karune, Blizzard's Community Manager on their B.net forums.
"As mentioned by Rob Pardo in interviews, piracy is a serious problem and often times tie in closely with LAN. At the end of the day, we want the best for the community and fans that support our games, and having chunk of the community pirate the game actually hurts the community. 1) Pirated servers splinter the community instead of consolidating all players who love to play the game. Battle.net will bring players together in skirmishes, ladder play, custom games, and allow everyone the opportunity to share a common experience. 2) More people on Battle.net means more even more resources devoted to evolving this online platform to cater to further community building and new ways to enjoy the game online. World of Warcraft is a great example of a game that has evolved beyond anyone's imagination since their Day 1 and will continue to do so to better the player experience for as long as players support the title. The original StarCraft is an even better example of how 11 years later, players still love and play this title, and we will continue to support and evolve it with patches. We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better. If I were to buy StarCraft II or any other title, I know the money I spent would be going to supporting that title. Personally, I would be upset that others were freeloading while others are legitimately supporting a title that has great potential and goals of making this title have 'long legs.' If you like a song a lot, buy it, and that artist will only come out with more awesome songs for you. If you like a game, buy it, and we will promise to constantly work to make the player experience better at every corner we can. Support the causes you believe in (This is applicable to all things, not just gaming). Don't be a leech to society, innovation, and further awesome creations."
Manshooter, maybe you haven't experienced any Blizzard games before but there is actually quality behind their games. Browder already confirmed that there is 20+ cinematic movies going into just the first of the trilogy. So basically their single player just grew so large that it needed to be split up into different games just to justify the amount of content coming from it.This and it's a means of keeping B.net 2.0 free for everyone. After experiencing Gamespy, Games for Windows Live, and whatever the hell Demigod was run off of I'm fine supporting a polished matchmaking service.
As for what Karune said, I'd say I agree with this but it will affect a minority of people who would like to LAN without connecting to B.net. Seeing as the release is 6 months away we can only speculate as to what it is that B.net 2.0 has up their sleeve to "better" the LAN experience, but my guess is a steam authentication-like process which you just need to have internet to make sure that you are on a actual cd with a key. And in this day and age if you are without internet or on a 56k you need to catch up with the times lol
Actually Gerry, I pretty much played every single title Blizzard released, all the way back to the original Warcraft.
And I did not say their games suck, though whether SC2 will be a shiny AAA rehash of things already seen or something actually new an original, remains to be seen.
Personally, although I love the works of Blizzard's CGI artists, cinematic movies do not define content for me. An intriguing storyline, interesting gameplay, those things are important. And as I said, they better have a whoopkickarse story and gameplay going on to justify splintering the races into three parts - otherwise its just a cheap way to make more money by selling the same cow three times.
IF B-net 2 makes it possible to actually link up computers in a physical lan, provided that some sort of server authentication takes place without requiring people to connect to a hub, then I see no problem with that.
Though if that is the case, then its also a waste of money because if the networking code exists, then hackers and pirates can just strip out the authentication part.
Blizzard is not the same company it was 10 years ago. Far, far from it.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
