No Lan in SC2

if smith wanted to have a match with his brother, father and grandma

then

1) Must buy 4 SC2 CDs
2) Must have an awesome internet connection that allows 4 computers to send and receive at an awesome rate

You CAN survive online play and single player
but you get killed when you try to play with friends and family who are in the same house

isn't the point of having games is to have fun not just with yourself, but also with friends and families NOT several houses or computer shops away

and what about comp shops with 20 PCs?

they buy 20 copies so that each PC can play online?

its like buying individual huge bottles of shampoo for the whole family when you can use that just one bottle
(because there is no retail shampoo available )

if you were a fan of an upcoming red alert 4, and you were a member of a red alert 4 site, you were a great member for a couple of months to several years, waiting for it to come out

then the company announced that the awesome RTS that you loved because of the screaming of you and your friends when you guys play or LAN tournaments comp shops set up, decided to just remove the LAN altogether and replace it with a dumbass feature that the computer shop you play in CANT support that feature because his internet connection isn't godlike, then at least you're still staying here because you want to point out your view on the company's decision and maybe, just maybe, the company would reconsider because there are MANY guys like you who feel the same way...

its like you're saying i shouldn't fight for something worth fighting for, or at least give some effort even though i know that i cant win, at least i tried


and now im off to play DOTA 5 on 5 with my friends in a computer shop that we can all taunt, scream, and have fun
because playing online alone, where no one can hear your taunts just doesn't give you that satisfaction

 

You're lumping everything into one large pile. They can play Bnet, single player, etc already. What you AREN'T realizing is what that one CD allows you to do....play with someone else WITHOUT that CD *legally*. Never have I thought that when I purchase a CD, it's a family agreement. The EULA sure doesn't say that.

I think you're being a bit blinding/biased due to what you want, without listening to reason.

Everybody would like how it has been to be a reality. That we buy one CD and can have fun with anybody locally because they don't have to buy the CD. That's not the way it was envisioned when these types of things were created, and just because it's what you're used to....that's not making it right.

 

Ursa I try very hard to avoid judgement on anything until I know what is on the other side of the equals sign. We don't know anything beyond the fact that there is no LAN that is stand-alone from Battle.net. We don't know if there is features connected to Battle.net that could circumvent many of the problems posited in this thread. We simply don't know enough and anyone who willingly goes full speed with their condemnations of Blizzard (or anybody else) without knowing the entire picture, is really demonstrating their opinion should be ignored.

I don't know how many times I am going to say it, but until you start incorporatiing it into your arguments I am going keep saying it, being able to play with your sibling is not the ONLY thing being bought when you buy a second copy of the game. What is being bought is the ability to play at the game at the same time as each other, which playing with each other is a subste of, but not the only thing.

To demonstrate this another way lets say you have one brother and you share one computer. Theoratically you both have access to all the features and games of the computer, except you can't play a specific game with each other (assuming it is free and multiplayer). The jist of your argument is that by buying a second computer the only thing you gain is the ability to the game with each other, which really isn't accurate. I am not sure about your household but I can't count the number of times I wanted to use something me and my brother shared at the same time he did, this was expecially true when we shared a computer. In essence if you plug me and my brother into the previous situation we are gaining not just the ability to play the game with each but to both be able to use a computer at the same time, which in reality is what you and your brother would be gaining as well, even though you are only focused on the one game.

As for your earlier comments about Hamachi and other things like it here is how it works. When you use Hamachi or a similar program you make your computer (and every other computer involved) believe an internet connection between each other is really a LAN connection between each other. Which means anything that can be done over LAN can be done over Hamachi (abeit at a slower speed). This is a major problem with RTS piracy because the best way to prevent it is to check the cd-keys in use to ensure everyone has a legal copy, which requires everyone going through an authentication server owned by a company. When LAN was originally placed in RTS games it was designed as a way to play with local friends without to much restriction (effectively allowing people to play with each other with only one copy of the game, but they had to have a physical connection between there computers). When you team a VPN like Hamachi with a game that suuports a LAN you effectively allow everyone around the world to play with each other without any sort of authentication, which makes having full use of pirated games exceptionally easy (expecially if the game doesn't require a CD in a drive, which Blizzard is trying to get away from).

As an example of how easy Hamachi makes pirating, me and a couple of my friends wanted to play Diablo 2 with each but we didn't have any cd-keys, but we did have one set of disks. What we did was look for a cd-key online use it for all 3 of us, update the game so we didn't require a cd in the drive, and download Hamachi. Once all of that was done we just used the in built LAN of Diablo 2 and Hamachi to play with each other even though we were dozens of miles away from each other. Assuming the game is a little more secure than D2 and requires a cd in the drive all we would need to do is mount an ISO of the disk. Next assuming we can't get the updates without a cd-key, all we would need to do is either download an updated copy of the game or get one legal cd-key and then share the updates. The only real way to stop this is to remove LAN and force people to go through an authentication server. If that is done then someone would have to actually modify the game code or get a copy of b.net server software before they could play a multi-player game together, both of which are substanially more diffcult to do and much easier to prevent than the problems LAN generates.

P.S. The only reason me and my friends did the above was because we had lost the cd-keys we actually bought and we only wanted to play with each other, and I certainly don't condone piracy in general. Also, I had to rush the end of this post so if I made a spelling or grammar mistake I apologize and will fix it when I get back.

 

@ CyperPitz. You're talking about how it is in theory, but now how it is in reality. If you had a brother, and your brother wanted to play the StarCraft2 campaigns, is he going to use your copy or buy his own? If he wanted to make a map or scenario, is he going to use your copy, or buy his own? If he wanted to play over Battle.Net, is he going to use your copy or buy his own? Regardless of what the EULA says, every single member of the household shouldn't have to buy their own individual copy in order to play or try it out. It's unreasonable.

@ LK. Well, the thing is, that if I'm playing StarCraft2, and my brother's playing StarCraft2, why wouldn't we be playing together anyway?

However, the point is that there's really nothing of playing separately at the same time. It's hardly a challenge to be able to manage time, and, keeping the fact that Blizzard are moving away from requiring the CD to be in while playing and that we've already established that you should need two CD keys for two accounts, the only thing that's still being kept from us is playing multiplayer, and against each other.

Besides, it's really not that hard to manage time like that. I mean, how often do you see families go out and buy several copies of a book, because only one of them can read it at a time?

As for Hamachi, I'm aware of how it works like that. My suggestion was to remove the TCP/IP connection options, to stop people from being able to play over LAN, but still allowing people with the actual direct LAN connection cables to play. People aren't going to pirate StarCraft2 by going over to their mate's house and plugging their computer into theirs.

 

CyperPitz

The pattern seems to be painted closer to that from my view point too. ( Or perhaps it's a never ending theme of true miss communication on my part as well)

Itzahexgor, if you or your brother are truly impressed, and enticed to play Stracraft 2 together...then the answer is YES - it is worth another copy for that [1] feature you believe it "only" gives.

IF nothing changes to replace LAN by the time the game comes out...buy 1 copy and have both you and your brother try it out online. If the experience(not just connection experience, but the feel/units/theme of the game) is not up to standards(and both you and/or him don't care much to play each other)...well, you now know you don't need a second copy.

But, if you're indeed interested, as well him to play each other...then you are showing that your passion to play each other over this one game, this one feature, is demanding enough that you do need a second copy.

I feel Karune's quote needs to be brought back up,

If the game has merit in your eyes and fun to play, as well your brother craves to play it too, both with you in vs matches or however he chooses to spend his time with it...you show that the game is worth the price.

There are other games out there....you are not forced to buy this one...so don't make it sound like they are ripping you off making you pay a full box price for a feature you feel is the only thing you are getting.


Again, even if it's the only feature you were getting, you've shown the argument that you are strongly attached to that one feature making it most certainly have a price to play it.

-

 

No, you have it completely backwards now. Just because they can play the game BY THEMSELVES without you present, doesn't mean that they instantly should be given the right to play the game WITH you.

What if your friend comes over? He has the right to build a campaign, play SP or even play on Bnet with your CD. So what, he has those same 'rights' you feel your brother should have? When does it end? When does it NOT become free to the next person?

If they like the game, and would like to play with you, then they should have to buy it. Regardless if they could just play it on your machine without you. That's the key part right there. WITH or WITHOUT you. That single key has no way of allowing you to play with that other person without downloading the game/doing MP spawn *Not done anymore*.

 

@Itza most people I know only have X amount of free hours on a given day or in a given week, and those times tend to line up with each other, which means the more time each person wants to spend using something shared by multiple people the better chance there is that there will be a conflict. I just find it hard to imagine the only thing you could possibly be gaining by buying a second copy of a game is the ability to play with a sibling. If by some miracle you are one of the lucky few people in a situation like that, then congrats, but that still doesn't fix the slippery slope that exists in a scenario like this. Anything that would allow siblings to play the game together with only one copy can be expanded to allow any group of people to play together with only one copy. Blizzard can't limit SC2's LAN capability (assuming it had it) only to true LAN connections because as far as SC2 is concerned Hamachi is a true LAN connection. There really is no way for Blizzard to do what you want them to without making piracy substanially easier, unless it is done by going through battle.net (which means Blizzard would specificly allow guest accounts, which I don't think is a half bad idea to give everyone X number of guest hours a month to share with friends).

 

@ RT. No, you should not have to buy the whole game again to get a single feature. Buying the game should buy you the game. That gives you the campaign and single player, Battle.Net 2.0 and the map editor. That's what you should get when buying StarCraft2. If you want to play against each other, then at most, you should be buying the ability to play against each other. You should not be buying the campaign and single player, Battle.Bet 2.0, and the map editor to play against each other.

What you're saying about whether or not I'll be wanting to buy another copy is irrelevant. By buying that copy I'm paying for everything I have. You see, buying StarCraft2 will cost, however much. Three hundred, say. Now that's the cost they've set for the full, StarCraft2 experience. Now why am I to be paying the cost of the full StarCraft2 experience for a couple more features? The magnitude of these features have almost nothing on StarCraft2, so why on Earth should they cost the same?

If I enjoy the game, find it fun to play, gameplay's exciting, campaigns are epic, the map editor's powerful, etc, etc, then I'm going to buy the game at, again, whatever price it ends up being. But why should I be forced to pay twice as much in order to get a little bit more, when everyone else, who appreciates the game just as much, doesn't have to? I mean, why don't you buy two copies of the game? I mean, if it's worth the extra cost, and if you can take solace in the knowing the money was going toward supporting Blizzard, why not? You'd even get the ability to play against any mates you have over.

@ CP. It ends with the fact that my brother has near twenty-four hour access to the game. Believe it or don't, but friends most often don't live under the same roof as you do, and fairly great effort would have to be taken for your mate to be playing so much that Blizzard begins to lose out on something. Besides, keep in mind what the converse side is, and it's prohibiting non-StarCraft players from even being able to try the game with their mates. Seriously, if you have a mate over and want to show him a game, you'll have to buy a second copy of the game. Remember what I said about it being unreasonable?

Seriously, it's as though, if you'll excuse the analogy, if you wanted a sponge cake with chocolate icing sugar from a bakery. Sounds simple enough. First they sell you the plain sponge, which is understandable, and when buying the icing sugar, you have to pay for a whole sponge cake that's already got the icing sugar on it. Suddenly you've realised you've bought and paid for two whole cakes, just to get some icing sugar, instead of paying for what you're getting. Yes, it's understandable that in order to play against my brother I should buy another copy, but there is no way that you can justify a portion of StarCraft2 costing the same amount as the entirety of StarCraft2, just as there's no way you can justify the icing sugar of a cake costing the same amount as the whole cake.

As for the bias, it's two sided. You may think I'm just trying to get more out of it, but I think that you're just unaffected, so you don't really care. I mean, if Blizzard forced me, personally, to pay a thousand dollars for Wings of Liberty, just because they pulled my name out of a hat, or whatnot, I can hardly picture the community caring, and again, If I argued that I shouldn't have to pay more when everyone else gets it for less, I'd just be biased because of what I want, right? You guys are seriously looking at it with far too much of an idealistic view, that everyone who plays the game should buy the game. I'm trying to look at it with a realistic view, where if I buy the game, my brother has complete access to the game, and if anyone who has a sibling buys the game, their siblings have complete access to the game. If you already have the game, you shouldn't have to pay as much as you did for the entire game in order to get one, or two if you really want, features. You shouldn't be paying full price for something you already have.

@ LK. I don't know if you've had some conflict with your brothers or sisters, or room mates, and it might just be me and my brother, but it's really not that hard to divide up the time, particularly if Blizzard is aiming for this to be one Hell of a spectator sport. Back when we only had the desktop, that's what we had to do. It's like having a book. You don't buy a second copy so that two people can read it at once.

As for what else there is to be gained, well, what else is there to be gained? It's not as though being able to play with my brother will give me free access to all future Blizzard games or allow me to sell bootleg StarCraft2 on the streets.

And I find it hard to believe that Blizzard can't restrict what LAN is capable of. Direct cable connection game's don't have the capability of working through a UDP connection, so even just removing the buttons for TCP/IP and UDP connections would limit what people can do, yet alone removing their capabilities altogether.

 

Blizzard can pull stupid stunts all they want

well, considering the fact that I live out in the boonies with crappy internet and most of my friends (that I still occasionally play the original starcraft with) have slow internet as well, I probably wont even purchase starcraft 2 if it does not have a lan feature. There would be no point, if blizzard doesnt want to listen to its fans then that's fine I'll just get the single player campaign for free, via pirating. :yes:

 

I can't see where you're going with this, again, it keeps going back and forth. Are you arguing over your siblings and friends buying another copy...or just LAN. Because, face it, please...face it...if LAN was in the game...you and your brother wouldn't buy the second copy....period. Why would you? Your claim is that you feel it's not worth the fee for what you can only fathom as 1 feature. So in all saneness in the world...admit that if LAN was in the game, you would buy 1 copy only.

If I can at least reason with you on that level...then we can also agree that in Blizzard pulling out LAN, they are still making the same amount of profit from you as a customer as they would with out LAN.

Again, if we can continue that formula...those that would not buy the game due they can just play it through LAN(Which LK shows that slippery slope) will not pay anything for Blizzard's product to play it.

Sense they were not going to buy the product in the first place if it had LAN - even if they all pirate, or not bother with the game, Blizzard breaks dead even.

Of course, the only flaw I foresee, is human nature kicking in, and people being so stubborn that they upright don't pay for the game because they want it as close to free as possible(such as person [A] whom buys it for persons 1-10+ to leech off of), even if the 2 features they gain from their own copy(Playing at their own time, and multiplayer) are the key reasons in the end for just about anyone to buy the game. (But WAIT! There's more! You also get everything, that's right Everything thing in this product with that price, yes - you heard me, every feature included in this great deal!) Sad Billy Mays attempt.
--------------

That is...just, gah, pains me to see you pile so much passion into this debate, and have that mind set. No matter how many times I repeat it, or anyone else in this thread....whom has, you just wont accept the fact that this is an all or nothing deal.

]Please, list all the games that come as a package, and then split off their features into separate deals.

I need that list to see where your getting this idea that it's a good business plan, and why those company's do that...because if none do, you're harping Blizzard for not breaking a tradition that's set in stone not by them, but all games.

(Sense it seems to be miss-read, I directed this at the multilayer feature being of fair magnitude for a full price payment)
Yes, I know, because no one will want to play Battle net/Multiplayer experience on one of the most debated up and coming RTS experience.

Don't try to pretend that playing on your own time, this is not just about your household but anyone out there...playing at their own time, and having the option to play online on a game is not a worth while feature in itself; which alot, alot....let me just say, a lot of people would consider this an online game. For every person who enjoys it's single player features, others enjoy only the online experience...its' not just a snazzy 'look at me' feature you're trying to paint it.

It's not about you anymore after the first copy. It's about everyone else who wants to play, DESPITE what features they only want...

So you aren't being forced, and nether are you getting more...it's your family members, and friends that get everything you get(BOOM! then you pop the flag that your house hold already gets access) Everyone, get over to Itza house to play SC2! Oh wait....then we all free load...yet, you don't see any issue there I suppose, so long as only 1 copy in the world is bought, it's a fair deal, I guess(what other logic can I tie that too...?)

Because clearly, you imply* it...after 1 person buys the game...it's those fools out their wasting money to buy the exact same product....such simpletons they are, am-I-right? ( or is it your logic that 1 copy per family is fair? You can't have it that way sadly, because others will abuse it to out side their house hold - and NO LAN is a fix to that)

Who else are you referring to that's getting off Scot free where as your suffering? Those with out Friends and family? Because if so...that's the first I've seen it spun around that those with out families and friends are being envied by others because they don't have own multiple SC II copies to enjoy the game.

I will, because it's how I've treated every Blizzard product in my house.(As well other games I find merit) I'm not rich, I'm just a huge fan of a good product when I see it, and I'm foolish with my money when I don't have a lot of it to spend. But multiple games I buy 2 so my family can play it in the same apartment while I'm playing on my computer too.

Correct.

If only this is how you truly could grasp it. Yet again, I believe you honestly feel 1 copy is a legit buy for a group ranging from 2 persons to infinite persons.
LordK showed you this, but it seems you keep grasping that people aren't capable of taking a feature you enjoy and see no wrongs with, and making that feature go way out of proportion.

@ trevuar25

(If believed to be a direct insult[which was not my intent], I replied to this reading that they will openly pirate the game, due to not being able to access lan, when that could also be a way to just play for free in the same instance. I don't personally believe you can call your self a fan to out right pirate a company's product despite you not yet given them a chance to show why the product still has face value to pay full price.)

You're not a fan of Blizzard, just a fan of their games apparently, oh wait...you're not even that...cause you'll go out of your way to get it for free because you couldn't get it for free(or allow your family/friends) in the first place. (in the sense that lan has an open doorway to play for free, even if that's not everyone's intent)

Oh yeah...that made sense...

 

as far as i can see... there are two types of person in this thread

those rich@ss, awesome internet connection, "Ive been playing with B.net for A LONG TIME now so it doesn't bother me one bit that they're removing LAN because i never really used it because i enjoy being inside my house in my room, just me, alone..." types, who shows the "business" side of the game... because they think the "weaklings" doesn't really matter and doesn't really care that blizz doesn't show concern about 3rd world countries with weak internet connection.

and those who are struggling to change blizzard's mind because they grew up loving the game from a computer shop WITH FRIENDS, enjoying and having a GREAT TIME, because that is one of the MAJOR factors of a game, and these type of people are the ones who make up a great portion of the fans of the game...
oh, and did i mention because it's easy to setup a LAN tournament from any comp shop?


in other words
no matter how we look at it
we're all biased


last biased note
some/most of the fans who look forward to buying the game will
A) want to buy the game because they want to play with friends and not AI's
B) will not have the convenience of awesome internet connection

i doubt blizzard hasn't experienced the effect of piracy
but im not sure if they experienced piracy + loss of fans/buyers
not to mention the mediocre reviews because no LAN made a huge gash in the scores

 

@ RT. You're continually forgetting, or simply choosing to leave out the fact that these people already have the game. If someone wants to give someone else a lift in their car, they don't have to buy another car. If someone needs to buy a birthday cake, they don't have to buy a second cake so that they can share it. If I buy an ice cream I don't need to buy another ice cream for someone to have a lick of mine. These are not good analogies, but you're seriously not getting it. It's not as though I'm trying to get my mates a copy for free, I'm trying to stop Blizzard from selling me and my brother something we already have for a ridiculous price. I'm not wanting to buy a second copy because I've already got the game. My brother, too, already has the game. We both have the game. There's no sale that Blizzard would be missing out on if they included LAN, because they're trying to unfairly gain an extra sale. There's a big difference.

I've got no clue what you're even trying to say with the whole package thing, but I'm almost certain you've missed the point. Perhaps I need to show it visually.



You're saying these things are worth the same price?

Or, to put it another way, how many more copies do you need to buy to play against someone who already has the game?

No, not those without friends and families. Those who aren't required to buy two copies to play against someone who already has the game.

In regards to this;

What the Hell? If you're just reverted to trolling, that's fine, but if you're going to just toss out some generic reply that doesn't even relate to what was being said, just stop. For the umpteenth time, we both have access, and we'll both play. Allowing for people who already have the game to play against each other will not affect Battle.Net. I'm not even sure if that relates to what you were trying to say, but I think we can agree that that's largely your fault.

And no, this has very, very little to do with friends, apart from playing without lag, which we'd already finished discussing earlier, and the ability to introduce people who don't have StarCraft2 to the game. Overall, friends are not gaining anything from what I'm talking about. Not unless they also happen to be your brother. Seriously, I've made that so clear that I'm starting to wonder if you're still reading.

And as I've been trying to discuss with LK, LAN or no LAN isn't that clear cut. As I've been trying to say, there's a difference between direct cable connection and Hamachi. Hamachi allows for piracy. Simple as that. Direct cable connection networks, do not. Removing any ability for TCP/IP connections would mean that people will either have to have bought the game or be in a position where they would otherwise have full access to the game, much like a brother, if they're wanting to play over the direct cable connection.

If you believe that what I'm after allows for 'two persons to infinite persons' to play the game, then you truly haven't understood anything I've been trying to say, so until you start posting intelligently again, good luck on getting a reply. I honestly don't enjoy spending a great amount of time replying to people who are attacking me because they don't understand.

And I love how this move is supposed to stop piracy.

 

Wow,

Letting it sink in...

...

...

...ok

Clearly, we have a miss communication here, and it's going to continue. Both our styles of typing and presenting our side doesn't click for the other.

You're starting to take this far too personal, accusing me of trolling when I'm desperately trying to correct what I see as a major flaw in your argument. You go as far as you accuse me of why certain sub-topics go off track,(as if you are incapable of misreading my post for what it is not implying) and as well believe me to be attacking you.

Not sure how you've warped my text into a, what ever it is you believe it to be. But I'm not going to continue this if you're just going to repeat your post, and me mine - making us only end up at square one.

Any credible information that was mentioned in ether of our past responses is the best it'll get, so I'll end my debate with you...mainly because you're claiming it to be something it's clearly not from my stand point.

Sense it kinda bugs me, I'll leave with this,

- was directed at this quote;

Not sure what you find offensive or confusing about this, but the reason I typed that out was I took from your argument, that the feature to play with others was not worth a full game price. But the feature to play with others is arguably the biggest reason any one will even buy the game....for just that one feature. (in hindsight, you could have meant the features not including playing others, I can't follow such unspecific text, so I'd call it fault on both of us) (I also just tied it back into the argument that you feel if people want SC II for just that one feature, why pay full game price...might I add that it can be argued it is what makes the game worth even paying that price then? ..my apologies, I don't want a response, just trying to let you know I'm more aware of certain lines then you perhaps believe me to be)

I thought too, you would have stopped repeating your self if you truly understood me, but you went and threw the first stone accusing me of being too stubborn to read your posts, and claim out-right you're the masterful poster...and that there is no room to misunderstand your posts. Well, text is very hard to read its true meaning, as opposed to the person typing it out.


I did truly wish to continue, though at the same time I became perhaps equally flustered as you, seemingly we were making no headway. So I'll put this to rest as far as replying to you in this thread.

 

@Ursa which one do you think I am? I have made my stance on this issue pretty clear, if you can't figure it out then you are only reading what you want to.

@Itza lets approach this another way. Your argument is that when you bought one full copy of SC1 you and anyone living with you (assuming you managed your time well) could enjoy all aspects of SC1, including the ability to play against each other (though, not on battle.net with other people). By comparison to SC2 which you can do everything you could do in SC1 except play against everyone living with you in an enclosed environment (basically not with other people on battle.net). You argue this is unfair because you now have to buy additional copies of SC2 to make up for the one lost feature.

If this isn't you point, can try stating it another way so we can understand it better? Assuming it is though, here is one of the points I have been trying to make; there are added benefits to buying additional copies of SC2 other than the ability to play with people whom you live with. One for example, is now the people you live could play with you while playing online with other (or maybe even distant friends) on battle.net (this is actually the main benefit of the additional copies because single player is redundant after the first copy, but there still may be others depending on how battle.net is setup). Because you seem to ignore these additional benefits one of my main counter arguments to you is that your focus only on one added benefit suggests that the situation you claim is unfair may be unique to you or only a small portion of the population, which means the benefits of rectifying your situation in the way you suggest may do more harm than good.

------

Now back to our piracy and LAN discussion. I find it amusing that you say I am not posting intelligently (which suggests I am not intelligent) and then claim I am attacking you? First I would be interested to know how you think I attacked you in any of my previous posts, and second I would interested to know what you think of the hypocrisy in your own statement?

Anyways, here are the multiplayer options in SC1:
Battle.net
LAN (IPX)
Modem
Direct Cable Connection
LAN (UDP)

Of those, only two are still really used commonly, Battle.net and LAN (UDP). As far as I know the use of telephone modems is extremely rare (and anyone who would be required to use one to connect two computers is going to have other problems playing SC2). Next, LAN (IPX) was just pretty much overtaken by LAN (UDP), both of which I believe can be used over Hamachi. The last option, Direct Cable Connection is what you suggest as a solution to this LAN piracy dilemma. The reason Direct Cable Connections fell out of use is because LAN does what it does but better (connecting any number of computer together instead of just two). Because LAN over came Direct Cable Connections in popularity there really is no modern Direct Cable Connection available to the public. Which means if Blizzard wanted to include this as a feature they would have to code the necessary software to make it work as well as provide the necessary cables. Finally, what stops someone from jury rigging the software (or writing new code) to make the game thing a LAN connection is a Direct Cable Connection? Functionally the only difference is one only connects two computers together while the other can connect hundreds together. And before it is said, yes I know Blizzard could specially modify the cable or software to make this jury rigging extremely difficult, but this would take substantially more effort and why would Blizzard go through the effort when the whole point of Battle.net is circumvent this problem.

There are much easier ways for Blizzard to circumvent your intial dilemma without comprimising to much security, which begs the question; why do you so strongly support this method?

P.S. Besides the two above arguments, it would also be easy to make arguments based on Blizzard's perspective but these would sound callous and greedy, so I would rather not involve them. But, I would like to point out the whole reason we are having this argument is because you (and other people in your position) are essentially fighting becuase you don't want to pay for something you want. In fact your are arguing that someone should do more work so you don't have to pay them as much for the previous fruits of their labor. I am not trying to offend anyone with this last bit, but it is something to think about.

 

judging by this post, id say yarr the first one

 

That's what I thought you would say. Here has been my position the entire time. LAN should be removed, but the advantages LAN provided should be emulated as much as possible in Battle.net. I think Blizzard should put in a way for people to host LAN games through Battle.net so they can take advantage of the speed, I also think Blizzard should implement some knid of guest system for the dillemas like Itza's. I like the idea of Blizzard cracking down on piracy and I like the ability SC1 provided to just play with a group of friends without the hassle of syncing up several copies of the game. I don't see those as mutually exclusive and I don't understand why other people do.

 

The game looks superb , all great until this stupid announcement, while the REASONS are the most stupid of all.


First of , I have read all about it, everything became clear , thus my conclusion is a short and simple one.

I won't be forcefully using battle.net to connect for "emulated LAN"

And that the no Lan will actually encourage game hacking, cracking , downlodading > piracy

who even thought up this stupid idea at blizzard.


@LAN should be removed, but the advantages LAN provided should be emulated as much as possible in Battle.net

You think that's practical enough to even try it. Lan without Lan. Well go forth , I won't play such nonsense with earthshattering lag while PCs are 5m apart. nor even mentioning paying for anything in battle.net

That's the worst thing you can do to a game, I mean , what the heck in this world games can't be done right , either EA with their crap games or blizzard with superb masterpiece , while some maniak comes to ruin everything cause stupid reasons ,well there are those good , not many , ID software is one of them....

 

I have tried to avoid this conversation entirely actually, but I find myself a bit irritated and with some things to say.

One way or another there will be LAN. My guess from the direction they're moving with this is that you won't play LAN matches over bnet, You'll just do a key check or something over bnet and the rest will be local (maybe someone has already presented this possibility, if so sorry i didn't read every post.). That is in my opinion a reasonable system. And one which doesn't merit much complaint because it will probably be an easy bypass if you still don't want to buy 2 copies. However -most- people will likely just pick up 2 copies of the game. The ones that will end up not buying the game, or just pirating/cracking it so they can play LAN would have done that anyway in most cases. So I 1) don't really see anything wrong with the move. It's not really unfair to expect each person who plays simultaneously to own a copy of the game right? and 2) don't understand why everyone is so uppity about LAN anyway. Even if blizz excludes it -completely- from the game there will be a workaround, and I highly doubt you will have to wait very long for it.

The only thing i can really understand is the "Why would blizzard alienate part of their fan-base" concept. I doubt, however, that they would. At any rate everyone should rest assured that there WILL be LAN in one way or another. Even if blizz doesn't directly create support for it.
And as one final thought, I highly doubt that 2 or more people playing from the same room over bnet will see much lag. If blizz sets bnet2.0 up properly. I do not have a spectacular connection and have had 4 people connected simultaneously to battlefield 2 and 2142 64 man servers. It will be the exact same concept. If the setup is done right. In that setting all of the game data doesn't have to be retrieved 4 times, the packets just need to be tailor fitted for that setup.

In closing, you will have your LAN, trust me. I don't want to read the news bulletins about blizz fan-boys having heartattacks while frantically jotting down their latest thoughts on exactly how much of their <insert humiliating appendage> blizz employees should place in their mouths, and how much it would 'r0x0r' if they could play the game without buying it.

 

i agree with you L3ttuc3

alot of you are acting like blizz has no idea what they are doing when it comes to this they removed it and they will add something better

One of the big reasons the had lan is because internet wasen"t that huge back then and i understand your frustration but the fact still remains the game isent even in beta yet.

 

Ok, I've tried to spend a bit of time thinking this over to decide what is the best way to explain it, so much so that I've been writing this over a couple of days, which is convenient because I haven't had that much time to type recently. Unfortunately, I can't think of any other way to say it, other than the ways in which I already have.

So, without wanting this to dissolve again into suggestions of how Blizzard would only sell a single copy in LAN was permitted or playing Blizzard copious amounts of extra money because they deserve it, I'm simply going to restate my side, which I think is what you're after anyway, and is best. I'll also add here that I'm merely using "me and my brother" for the sake of it being easier than "everyone who plays StarCraft and their sibling or siblings who also play StarCraft".

Basically, as I've said, siblings all have practically complete access to the game. Depending on whether Blizzard chooses to force people to have the CD in while playing, which, in my opinion based off all their other games, is unlikely, sharing would be the biggest issue, and that's hardly a significant issue at all. The only other problem would be needing several accounts to play on Battle.Net, but we're already differentiated between access to the game and Battle.Net accounts.

So, they all practically have complete access to the game, and this is where my opinion comes in. Siblings shouldn't have to pay any more to play against someone who already has the game than non-siblings do. If you've got full access to the game you should be able to play against anyone else who has full access to the game. If both have full access to the game, they shouldn't have to buy it again to play against each other. Ideologically it may be best for everyone to buy their own personal copy of the game, but in practice it doesn't work like that.

Now I'm definitely not after anything like Hamachi or something to be able to be used for LAN games, as I've said many times. I'm only after some way of playing through direct cable connections, which would only give enough benefits to be worthwhile for people living under the same roof. That would mean stopping piracy, allowing for siblings to play, for friends to be properly introduced to StarCraft2, for LAN parties to work and for tournaments in developing countries to continue. I do find it very hard to believe that allowing direct cable connections will allow for TCP/IP or UDP connections to be made, simply because it's impossible to host a game over Hamachi or other programs through a direct cable connection hosted game. The connections are obviously different, allowing for the inclusion of some while excluding others, and not only could they not include certain connections, but they could actively prohibit them, which they're most likely doing anyway.

And as for whether Blizzard will introduce something better, if they haven't thought enough of us to tell us how they're even planning for it to work when they've obviously already got a system either planned or up and running, otherwise they wouldn't have made the no LAN announcement in the first place, I fail to see why we should assume it'll solve everything.

In other news, four thousand.