Blizzard Makes An Official Statement On Starcraft II Without LAN Support

souliisoul — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:58:27 GMT

oopomopoo,

In my region I get 1000+ easy and worst case it actually hit 3000+.

Yes it is Blizzard's game but at the end of the day, They don't have a game if we do not play the game.

Actually I don't want Blizzard to fail but stop using the old marketing scenario of trying to control everything and thats why it is located in USA in terms of servers. Only reason they put servers in China was because 5 million plus chinese is a lot to lose if they are complaining about lag.

Interesting that WoW have always gone after gold selling accounts, but have not banned a lot of people in China who actually collect the game and sell it to the merchants.

Note: Lag is due to number of issues but you will not see much lag if you located in USA and have a decent broadband service, good network card and decent amount of RAM.

I ran MACPRO with 8Gb memory quad version 2.8Ghz and 30" screen. My lag is all to due to server location.

oopomopoo — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:32:48 GMT

Btw just curious, what is your latency where you currently live? (India, correct?)

I play with roughly 200-300, in Texas. I just want to know what type of latency difference we are actually dealing with, as that is the most stated problem with no lan.

oopomopoo — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:37:34 GMT

Soul, i try not to put people down. However if they have no will to even accept my view, why should i? For example, llama understood, as i understood him. I treated him with respect.

I know that major piracy doesn't occur due to LaN, but it is still piracy none the less. I do understand that this is not excellent news, as I enjoyed playing LaN with my family (As i said in another post.) Hopefully they do add more servers around the globe, but until then there is not much to do. This is Blizzards game, they can create it however they want.

By the way, dont get the wrong idea. I do actually want LaN in the game, but i understand why Blizzard is not putting it in. I also agreed with Naxeem, except for the Blizzard turning into EA.

At least be glad they announced they were not adding LaN. I can tell you quite a few games that did not.

souliisoul — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:57:53 GMT

oopomopoo,

I had the chance of living in Europe, USA, Singapore Australia now India. I understand a lot of people's issue with SCII not having LAN support and if you read the comments slowly and understand the reaction, you will understand the fuss. BTW MAJOR piracy does not occur due to LAN support being available, not sure where you got that information from but it is wrong in my experience and opinion.

IF we go by Blizzard experience with WoW were the only servers in region are China, since there have 5.5 million players, then I very much doubt Blizzard will spend any money on regionalization of servers. It will be like WoW, Oceanic server sitting in USA!!

Read Naxeem message because he is correct in his comments.

Btw I live in second most populated country in the world and Blizzard has not ever tried to give us a server or sold its game. So don't tell us to hope.

Lastly stop putting people down, since everyone is allowed their opinion, be more constructive in your feedback. Just my opinion of you.

Soul

oopomopoo — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:31:41 GMT

Ok llama, i see your point and agree with it 100%. And sorry about the bot misinterpretation, thought you meant spam bots in channels. ;)

Airddragon... I dont remember reading where you have to be loggin in just like steam. Besides, does it really matter? a good game is a good game. Quit crying because ONE feature you will use on rare occasions is not in the game. What do you have against having to log in to play a game? Do you hate MMOs? They require you to log in. Do you hate Xbox and PS3 games? They have achievements (Which is the main reason they require you to log in.)

What? What is it that makes having to log in such a bad thing? And keep in mind you will not have to log in to play SC2.

Digiatal_Seraphim — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:30:50 GMT

I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'm blown away by this, but it definitely snatched a double take. Blizzard had and still has the gaming market by the jewels in popular games; Diablo, WC, SC, WoW, they can do whatever they want.

airddragon — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:26:38 GMT

I stated it before and I think I need to state it again.

How is this different then requiring you to log on and send a message to the server to play?

Here let me help you with that answer. It isn't. This is the same crap as the Spore DRM all prettied up and packaged to look cleaner. Its still a dirty policy and Blizzard knows there are better ways to prevent piracy. Make downloadable buyable content that is worth it is one.

I didn't buy Spore and I will not be buying this PoS because of this. Period. If Blizzard does the same thing with D3 I will also not buy it. If I wanted to buy a game and have to log in for it each time I would go buy some steam games. And at least most of those still allow/have LAN.

naxeem — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:08:06 GMT

I don't know why, but some here are missing several critical facts:

- forcing B.net will not stop piracy:

- piracy is mostly used for singleplayer as multiplayer players usually buy

- there is 0 to none chance Blizzard will prevent B.net server simulators that will be available very soon after the release

- believe it or not, but RTS games are played where no Internet connection is available too. LAN parties are one of the most successfull nerd summer fun in my country, not mentioning islands with no phone (only electricity available), student apartments with no Internet etc.

Blizzard is doing this because they can: their arrogancy since world of cash has reached heights not even God has seen.

Blizzard is slowly becomming what EA is and there is no way out.

llamaschool — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:06:50 GMT

I understand what you are saying oopo, but I also think that players are very justified in their fuss, seeing as LAN is much more largely used than you think. The fact is that people are angry that they DO have to put up with lag just for the sake of playing with someone sitting next to them.

You compared removing clans from games to LAN in your post, which I think sums this whole thing up very nicely. They could be compared if, for example, Blizzard removed clans from Starcraft II simply because the matchmaking system would connect them to players with similar skill, thus removing the need for people to play with their friends. Such a thing would be highly unnecessary and would provoke a similar reaction from paying customers.

While multiple users playing a single copy of a game is a grey area in terms of licensing, it is not strictly piracy. Games such as Spore would not have allowed players to create more than one account per game if such was the case. Piracy would be if you illegally downloaded Starcraft to play with your mum and bro, which in my personal opinion will not be stamped out if LAN is removed.

I also think you misunderstood what I said about bots. I was referring to the single player AI, which is hardly negative.

Sorry about all the text, I have a bit too much time on my hands right now so I thought I would word it out a bit =P

oopomopoo — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:54:46 GMT

llama, i am not truely defending blizzard. I am simply stating that people are making far too much fuss about this. Should they cut the price due to a few thousand people (out of roughly 400 thousand, estimating of course) not being happy they have to play with a bit more lag to play with their friend?

And bots affected gameplay in a negative way, so you cannot compare bots to lan.

The upside is that people will need to buy more than one copy of the game. Currently with lan, i am able to use my one SC CD to play with my mom and bro. This is one of the piracy things blizzard is talking about.

What i would compare to lan, would be taking out clans / guilds / whatever you want to call it, or something of that nature. They do not actually affect gameplay, but people enjoy being in one.

PS - As I stated above, i do play lan when bored with my family. However it will not affect my decision to buy SC2 in the slightest.

llamaschool — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:21:07 GMT

It stuns me that people are defending Blizzard's decision to take away features in a game they will most likely buy.

Playing with bots didn't make Starcraft either, but would you still be defending them if they took that out?

And will the price be changed now that the game does contain less features? No. As SCGroot said we will probably be paying extra later.

So where is the upside to this decision?

oopomopoo — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:56:42 GMT

One thing i would like to point out. :)

But i agree that is sucks having to play with that lat with the guy next to you. Hopefully blizzard will add more regions to B.Net to make up for this.

Orisai — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:52:12 GMT

What about latency? Why do I have to play with 250+ ms latency with the guys or girls in my same room?

oopomopoo — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:00:13 GMT

Orisaie, i see your point. But one thing i would like to point out, that if you use the internet only for SC2, then there is a VERY small chance you will be subject to malware and viruses, due to blizzards built in anti hacking system. B.Net has never had an actual server problem, if i remember correctly.

Chrono — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:15:14 GMT

Overplay the importance of the removal of the LAN feature*

Bleh! need to sleep ;p