PC Starcraft II has no LAN. =(

Gerry

Gerry

Gareld Mcreadie (FFXIV)
Adventurer
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
4,593
Age
37
Location
Someone get me out of here!!! /cry
Website
www.myspace.com
Nation Banner
Sandy
Main Job
Paladin-Male
Secondary Job
Warrior-Male
Third Job
Dragoon-Male
Server
Quetzalcoatl
Linkshell
Chibiimers
FFXI
Gerry
FFXIV
Gareld Mcreadie
Kinda old but relevant:

http://www.destructoid.com/no-lan-for-you-starcraft-ii-won-t-have-local-support-137916.phtml

StarCraft II will not have LAN support.

Speaking with IncGamers, Blizzard’s vice president of game design Rob Pardo made it spectacularly clear that players won’t be able to play against each other the old way -- without the Internet. Instead, players will have to use the revolutionary Battle dot Net service to host, create and join matches.

“We don’t have plans to support LAN,” Pardo said shortly before putting the statement in stone with, “we will not support it.”

This, of course, comes with a caveat: IncGamers was speaking with a panel, and the other two guys, producer Chris Sigaty and lead designer Dustin Browder, weren’t so sure. They said Blizzard was still discussing it before Pardo answered.

Despite the disagreement within the panel, we’re sure StarCraft II won’t support LAN for a couple of reasons. First, Pardo knows. Second, this is the year 2009. This thing called the Internet lets people do all sorts of wild things like look at porn and play RTS games over it. Pretty hip, really.
Click to expand...

You know what this means right?

A Petition was made (Which I signed, no LAN is BS).
 
This thing called the Internet lets people do all sorts of wild things like look at porn and play RTS games over it.
Click to expand...

That is the most retarded argument I've ever heard.
 
Petitions work, true story, specially if they're internet based. See Diablo 3 graphics

Spoiler:
that is, they work in making hilarity


dumb idea imo but whatever, not that big of a deal to me
 
I like how no one's thinking of WHY they're not going to support LAN playing; instead they're just bitching.

There's two big reasons why they'll want to not support LAN playing, both related to business; but one's a much better reason than the other.

One, is they want Battle.net to become a bigger portal for online gaming, by forcing people to use Battle.net on such a highly anticipated title they'll be in a better position to get other companies to want to use their service.

Number two is a much better reason; Blizzard wants to cut down on piracy of their games. Most of the people who are going to buy Starcraft 2 are going to want to play with other people; probably people they know in real life. By not allowing LAN support, they'll be able to check the serial of every game that logs on to battle.net; so you won't be able to have 20 people all with the same pirated version playing with each other. Most of the multi-player is going to be using the internet, not a LAN, so this isn't really a vital feature anyways. This move isn't a "fuck you" to legitimate players, it's a move against piracy; and it's one of the most non-invasive methods against piracy I've ever heard of. You can still pirate the game, play single player, enjoy skirmishes; you just can't play multiplayer without a legitimate copy. Buy the game(which you should do anyways), and get over it.

I don't care either way if they have the support or not; since I generally detest multi-player RTS and was never planning on doing it anyways.
 
Last edited:
I understand that they want to promote battle.net some more, which, in itself is awesome, but taking away LAN can potentially kill the game for fans who don't have a great connection.

If you look at a few of the comments on the petition, some of them are coming from Africa/South Africa, and, as far as I'm aware, they don't exactly have a stable connection to the internet. But who knows.
 
Bajaratt said:
I like how no one's thinking of WHY they're not going to support LAN playing; instead they're just bitching.

There's two big reasons why they'll want to not support LAN playing, both related to business; but one's a much better reason than the other.

One, is they want Battle.net to become a bigger portal for online gaming, by forcing people to use Battle.net on such a highly anticipated title they'll be in a better position to get other companies to want to use their service.

Number two is a much better reason; Blizzard wants to cut down on piracy of their games. Most of the people who are going to buy Starcraft 2 are going to want to play with other people; probably people they know in real life. By not allowing LAN support, they'll be able to check the serial of every game that logs on to battle.net; so you won't be able to have 20 people all with the same pirated version playing with each other. Most of the multi-player is going to be using the internet, not a LAN, so this isn't really a vital feature anyways. This move isn't a "fuck you" to legitimate players, it's a move against piracy; and it's one of the most non-invasive methods against piracy I've ever heard of. You can still pirate the game, play single player, enjoy skirmishes; you just can't play multiplayer without a legitimate copy. Buy the game(which you should do anyways), and get over it.

I don't care either way if they have the support or not; since I generally detest multi-player RTS and was never planning on doing it anyways.
Click to expand...

it is kinda a fuck you to their old ways though :( remember Starcraft had the ability to put it on multiple computers so you could have lan parties with only one disc/copy. Ah well... understandable though.
 
It just doesn't make sense to connect to a server hundred kms away when the dude is sitting literally 2 feet away from me. I read a comment on destructoid or kotaku, I don't remember which site and the guy was saying something along the line of:

"I was in college, the institution blocked the ports of the network, so if we wanted to play SC, we had to do it in LAN, it was the only way to play multiplayer."

Beside, I'll mention it again, in LAN parties you do not necessarily have access to Internet or you have hell of a slow connection in most case. You'll notice a "small" difference when you'll have 200 persons connected to your damn school T1 dowloading porn, playing CS, etc. Unless you manage to control the bandwith itself to give you more juice for SC2.

I'm a legit player when it comes to good games or softwares. I'm a pirate too. I'm not hiding it. I've been to both side of the fence and the way Blizzard handle the thing right now, they're just pissing off customers.

And yeah btw, we use all the same key to save time when I'm home with my friends but I know for a fact they all got a cd-key at home to play SC, the same with Diablo. And before you say anything about the keys, that's what regedit is for if you want to go on BNet.
 
Doesn't bother me. I played the original Starcraft via lan back in the 90s. Even then those computers had internet access. Just because internet access was not needed, and therefore people shuffling around small PCs and laptops to lan parties didn't bother acquiring internet access for those LANs, doesn't mean they couldn't get it easily. It's not like internet access is hard.
 
Firestreak said:
Doesn't bother me. I played the original Starcraft via lan back in the 90s. Even then those computers had internet access. Just because internet access was not needed, and therefore people shuffling around small PCs and laptops to lan parties didn't bother acquiring internet access for those LANs, doesn't mean they couldn't get it easily. It's not like internet access is hard.
Click to expand...

Source games, which are mostly digitally distributed from Steam, have online verification for retail copies and still support LAN play. The problem with requiring Internet isn't requiring Internet, it's bandwidth strain or limitations on the amount of local connections. It's a shitty thought playing a game with 11 other people in the same room(or hundreds at organized LAN parties,) suffering 250ms+ ping times and connection interruption pop ups because you're required to play this game on the internet. Just because you can get internet access easily doesn't mean it's quality enough to support playing games on for one person, not to mention dozens or hundreds.
 
Last edited:
1. Are we even sure that once the internet connection is used to connect the players together the computers won't communicate directly to each other?

2. Is it going to even matter with a RTS? It's not like playing Virtua Fighter.
 
It sure axes any notion of tournament play in SC2. Those silly Koreans will have to keep to 1 if they want to keep the low, low latencies that LAN parties bring.
This is funny, though.
 
Firestreak said:
1. Are we even sure that once the internet connection is used to connect the players together the computers won't communicate directly to each other?

2. Is it going to even matter with a RTS? It's not like playing Virtua Fighter.
Click to expand...

1- How battle.net works, yeah you'll need internet the whole time.
2- Yup. Even with 1 the server can get pretty congested sometimes and you have to wait 2-3 seconds before your units even respond, pretty shitty.
Either way, someone will find a way to put LAN in the game even if they don't officially support it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top