No LAN support for Starcraft 2

DirkVoodoo

Yup. Really poor move in my opinion, as good as battle.net is, if I'm playing with my brother then a LAN is far more convenient in terms of speed.

Oh well!

Link

Retr0gamer

When I heard this first I thought it was a joke. I'm sure there will be a work around but for me it seems to be greed fueling this decision. It's in there as an antipiracy measure although starcraft 2 if it's anyway good will be a multimillion selling game.

DirkVoodoo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

When I heard this first I thought it was a joke. I'm sure there will be a work around but for me it seems to be greed fueling this decision. It's in there as an antipiracy measure although starcraft 2 if it's anyway good will be a multimillion selling game.

I'm all for antipiracy, but it's nice to be able to play a game with my bro at home and use one cd and just LAN it. Forking out 100 euro, for 2 copies is not the worst part, I would nearly do that. But having to log on to battle.net and pray that whatever realm I am on is stable for 2 computers that are in the same house really grinds my gears.

It is greed, you are right. It is not like coding LAN support is that hard, it's just a suckerpunch to the customer.

This is up there with breaking the game into 3 parts. So that would be 6 copies I need to buy now. Cha-ching Blizzard!

Hercule

what a comically stupid and unnecessary thing to do honest gamers.

forcing players onto a proprietry server/game browser system is the ultimate anti-piracy however - C&C3 : Kanes Wrath apparently at one stage had more people playing on hamachi vLAN servers then it did on the main browser - I could see stracraft being in a similiar situation.

as it stands tho I am not seeing how this game is going to be better then its predecessor - taking out something so fundamental to the game only makes it even more difficult to achieve

DirkVoodoo

I think the focus Blizzard are putting on pushing this as a "pro-gamer" product for the Korean market is disappointing. Hey, I know I'm being naive, but to me Starcraft carried on the great mythology of orcs versus humans into a truly unique and fantastic universe. Lots of sci-fi cliches sure, but they pulled it off brilliantly. I loved SC multiplayer, but the story was always the main focus for me.

Seeing this move just makes me wonder if we are going to get a game made for the fast paced online strategy with a single player component as an add-on.

I doubt it, and I really hope I am right.

"Any multiplayer, as long as it's battle.net"

W!zard

Lan code for games is easy to do, i know!

This is a major program for SC 2 to drop this .. really bad move:mad:

Sabre0001

Not happy - I think it will interfere with the pro scene in Korea too (look at the issues QuakeLive is having with gaining proper LAN support)...and it looks like Blizzard is turning into every other company. Expect Starcraft 3 in under two years

Honestly, I'm a spectator of Starcraft more than anything (haven't actually played it myself). Love the pro scene. One thing that was great for South Korea and pro gaming was the stability (and the fact that the original SC was accessible even for people with low-end computers). Not sure I'm liking some of the stories I am hearing now though......I see a split coming up.

Tar.Aldarion

That is ridiculous. Code it right or I'm not buying it. They've lost a customer. Aren't they releasing all the campaigns as seperate games too?

grizzly

Does battle.net charge a sub?

Kinetic^

No it's free.

Bad move by Blizzard here.

Dreddybajs

Wow, this seems like a bizzarrely awful move on Blizzard's part.

edit: Though thinking about it, when you create a custom game on Bnet currently, battle.net servers are only involved in showing you on the list for other players to connect to - once the game is on, battle.net isn't involved at all in the sending/receiving of data. You can disconnect from battle.net during the game and still host it. Therefore LAN games shouldn't be affected as long as they have an internet connection in the first place.

W!zard

Dreddybajs wrote: »

Wow, this seems like a bizzarrely awful move on Blizzard's part.

edit: Though thinking about it, when you create a custom game on Bnet currently, battle.net servers are only involved in showing you on the list for other players to connect to - once the game is on, battle.net isn't involved at all in the sending/receiving of data. You can disconnect from battle.net during the game and still host it. Therefore LAN games shouldn't be affected as long as they have an internet connection in the first place.

It's as if Blizzard is trying to stop Gaming Cafes from using StarCraft over Lan .. or Lan parties. I am sure Blizzard will have a "Special" Version for major competitions to use Lan .. as otherwise these Competitions would not be friendly to B.net as players can blame lag spikes.

They better turn it around .. or is it just one good marketing bet to get people talking about SC2 before it is released!

Dreddybajs

No they couldn't blame it on lag spikes. Did you read my post before quoting it?

If battle.net works as it currently does, and you create a custom game and players on your LAN join, it is the same latency as a LAN game created without going on battle.net.

edit: And gaming cafes and LANs could still run competitions provided they had internet access (and which ones wouldn't these days?). All they are doing is stopping gaming cafes pirating the game for LAN use.

W!zard

Dreddybajs wrote: »

No they couldn't blame it on lag spikes. Did you read my post before quoting it?

If battle.net works as it currently does, and you create a custom game and players on your LAN join, it is the same latency as a LAN game created without going on battle.net.

edit: And gaming cafes and LANs could still run competitions provided they had internet access (and which ones wouldn't these days?). All they are doing is stopping gaming cafes pirating the game for LAN use.

Fair enough

It is still abit unreal that LAN will not be supported, I was thinking out load

Hopefully Battle.net will work the same but they could charge a small subscription due to WoW success, but thats hearsay, it is very very strange to remove Lan & only have Battle.net is all i am saying

Dreddybajs

It was a bit of a shock to hear about, but thinking about it it makes a lot of sense as a piracy-killer. Games companies have been forced to do this sort of thing nowadays with how prevalent piracy is.

I highly, highly doubt it'll cost money to use battle.net.

W!zard

I hope so

Wait & see now .. of what Blizzards next move is gonna be

DirkVoodoo

Wait, playing on battle.net still means you are exchanging data between players through the Blizzard servers, no?

And yes, the campaign is being broken down into 3 separate, full priced games. The first release is the terran campaign: wings of liberty. Pirating the customers i tells ya!

Blatant profiteering by me, I can't imagine how they will flesh out a full campagin (30 odd missions) without padding and repetition.

W!zard

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Wait, playing on battle.net still means you are exchanging data between players through the Blizzard servers, no?

And yes, the campaign is being broken down into 3 separate, full priced games. The first release is the terran campaign: wings of liberty. Pirating the customers i tells ya!

Blatant profiteering by me, I can't imagine how they will flesh out a full campagin (30 odd missions) without padding and repetition.

Now that is crap .. as I will likely buy all 3 .. but it is a right rip off. Why mess with a perfectly good system.. :mad:

Dreddybajs

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Wait, playing on battle.net still means you are exchanging data between players through the Blizzard servers, no?

If you're playing a ladder game then yes, you play on a Blizzard hosted server. If you're playing a custom game, then Blizzard just serves to show you in the custom game list, people connect to you, and from then on you act as the server. After players have connected to your game, it doesn't even matter whether you're connected to battle.net.

edit: This is why, for example, in Warcraft 3 there's a custom kick program which allows you to boot other players from the custom games you're hosting while they're in progress. You are simply cutting off their IP from accessing your PC (the game server).

W!zard

Dreddybajs wrote: »

If you're playing a ladder game then yes, you play on a Blizzard hosted server. If you're playing a custom game, then Blizzard just serves to show you in the custom game list, people connect to you, and from then on you act as the server. After players have connected to your game, it doesn't even matter whether you're connected to battle.net.

edit: This is why, for example, in Warcraft 3 there's a custom kick program which allows you to boot other players from the custom games you're hosting while they're in progress. You are simply cutting off their IP from accessing your PC (the game server).

That would explain the Battle.net Connection Drop out when in mid-game but the game continues, happens a few times

Static M.e.

Speaking of, when is this due for release?

W!zard

Static M.e. wrote: »

Speaking of, when is this due for release?

Someone on the boards said this Winter .. need to recheck, so if anyone has any good dates do share!!

DirkVoodoo

Yeah christmas.

As usual, Blizzard's stance is "It's released when it's ready", which is why I wish they wouldn't talk about Diablo 3 a good 2 years (at least) before it is ready.

DirkVoodoo

W!zard wrote: »

Now that is crap .. as I will likely buy all 3 .. but it is a right rip off. Why mess with a perfectly good system.. :mad:

I don't buy it either (the concept that is, I will be powerless to resist SC2 when it arrives). Just reading about Michael Jackson's "Thriller" album there. Apparently he and Quincy Jones came up with 300 songs which were whittled down to 9 for the release. Now, I'm sure Michael Jackson could have released all 300 over several albums and done pretty well, but he decided to focus on quality and released the greatest selling album of all time. I'm somewhat suspicious that Blizzard will be able to make each campaign as successful as 30 missions broken down into the 10/10/10 we all know and love.

I have yet to find out if all 3 races will be available in multiplayer from the get go. I can't see how they would be, as the slow reveal of units level-by-level is a strategy gaming staple.

There is no real reason they could not have followed the same release pattern they have had since Warcraft 2, this feels like something inspired by their massive success following WoW.

Pugsley

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I have yet to find out if all 3 races will be available in multiplayer from the get go. I can't see how they would be, as the slow reveal of units level-by-level is a strategy gaming staple.

If you can only play the race of the version you buy, then unless they release all 3 versions at the same time, which would be blatent extortion, as their reason for the 3 releases is apparantly to ensure 'they can spend time in making 3 top quality campaigns' or suitable marketing sillyness, then you will have several months of TvT only (I assume terran come first). If this is the case, the multi player will fall on its face. One race to play? The whole success of SC was based on 3 perfectly balanced races (well really really badly balanced on release, but by now it's spot on) that all play very differently. Mirror matchs back to back will get repetitive and even the current pro's will be hard pressed to all play the same race for months.

As for no LAN support, absolute c*ck dribble, pointless decision with no merit at all. It is said to be for anti piracy, but if pirates want to play LAN on a game as big as SC2, pirates will play on LAN. You can secure a small release game, but no amount of protection will protect SC2, and if they advertise 'pirate proof!' then it will be by-passed even faster.

Nietzschean

the no lan support is quite annoying, but the original lan support in SC was annoying in of itself(IPX fun!) . Not too bothered by it, as has been said battle.net should just be providing lobby capabilities....that said i'd be alot less bothered by it if they include their old idea of a 'Spawn Copy' , let you play against your bro/friend in the same room or whatever via battle.net , if they like the game the old spawn copy was so limiting they would buy the full one...

Dreddybajs

Of course all 3 races will be available in multiplayer from the start.

As for no LAN support, absolute c*ck dribble, pointless decision with no merit at all. It is said to be for anti piracy, but if pirates want to play LAN on a game as big as SC2, pirates will play on LAN. You can secure a small release game, but no amount of protection will protect SC2, and if they advertise 'pirate proof!' then it will be by-passed even faster.

What does this even mean? How will pirates play on LAN? There may be hacked battle.net shard servers (which Blizzard's track record show they're pretty good at putting a stop to if they feel like it), but I really have no idea what you're saying here apart from that.

DirkVoodoo

Well, that just shows their focus is firmly on a multiplayer game.

Call me old fashioned, but I like the "trickle" of units in a single player campaign, I remember when I got the first game I was so excited to see the Protoss for the first time (remember, the demo featured only terran and zerg) that I hopped straight into a skirmish game. It basically spoiled the surprise of trying out each unit in a campaign setting. Now it seems Blizzard are happy to force that upon me.

Nietzschean

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Well, that just shows their focus is firmly on a multiplayer game.

i don't really follow? once they've built the engine/races they will all be available in multiplayer/skirmishes? it doesn't mean they have placed an undue focus on multiplayer, since its somewhat un-related(other than the race is filled out rather than a few units needed for missions).

Call me old fashioned, but I like the "trickle" of units in a single player campaign, I remember when I got the first game I was so excited to see the Protoss for the first time (remember, the demo featured only terran and zerg) that I hopped straight into a skirmish game. It basically spoiled the surprise of trying out each unit in a campaign setting. Now it seems Blizzard are happy to force that upon me.

You were in all likelyhood going to have played as one of the other races in a multiplayer game long before you'd the missions finished anyway no?

Dreddybajs wrote:

What does this even mean? How will pirates play on LAN? There may be hacked battle.net shard servers (which Blizzard's track record show they're pretty good at putting a stop to if they feel like it), but I really have no idea what you're saying here apart from that.

I think he's implying exactly that, if people put their minds to it there will likely be quick lan/lobby type servers built for sc2 to emulate bnet, defeating the point of not including lan support in some people's view(not mine).

DirkVoodoo

Nietzschean wrote: »

i don't really follow? once they've built the engine/races they will all be available in multiplayer/skirmishes? it doesn't mean they have placed an undue focus on multiplayer, since its somewhat un-related(other than the race is filled out rather than a few units needed for missions).

If they were concerned with story, surely they would have all the single player missions completed by the time the game is ready to ship? It seems they were focused on getting multiplayer balance spot on (no problem here) and then launching the game. Releasing the 2nd and 3rd installments as expansion packs just shows that story-telling is taking a back seat to multiplayer and more importantly, Blizzard believe they can charge 3 times the price for what is really just one game and get away with it. Believe it or not, I don't actually have that much of a problem with all this, the more starcraft the better, but I just think that some element of repetition is going to set in to the single player campaign. 30 terran missions? I hope the engine will allow them a lot more freedom than the trigger based approach of the first, otherwise it's going to be quantity over quality.

You were in all likelyhood going to have played as one of the other races in a multiplayer game long before you'd the missions finished anyway no?

Nope. I always played starcraft (and Diablo and Warcraft) for the story. Diablo 2 was great, but it was almost the beginnings of what we are seeing with starcraft 2: multiplayer focus influencing single player design. The single player was pretty weak unless you were playing with a team of people on battle.net. Warcraft 3 had a great campaign and great multiplayer, followed up by a cracking expansion. I just have this slight niggling feeling that SC2 is forsaking single player for an excellent multiplayer.

Can't I have both?

I also look forward to kicking your ass over b.net come christmas Nietzchien

Nietzschean

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

If they were concerned with story, surely they would have all the single player missions completed by the time the game is ready to ship? It seems they were focused on getting multiplayer balance spot on (no problem here) and then launching the game.

Generally very different teams would be working on that, alot of the spill over work so far would have been about game balance mechanics which effect both sp and mp. I've come across a few wildly unbalanced games at release which has impacted on the sp(some missions would go from stupidly easy at launch to very hard as they re-balance the game massively)...

Releasing the 2nd and 3rd installments as expansion packs just shows that story-telling is taking a back seat to multiplayer and more importantly, Blizzard believe they can charge 3 times the price for what is really just one game and get away with it

I suspect the extra installments will be alot cheaper so probably something like 160% of a normal game price by the end maybe?

Believe it or not, I don't actually have that much of a problem with all this, the more starcraft the better, but I just think that some element of repetition is going to set in to the single player campaign. 30 terran missions? I hope the engine will allow them a lot more freedom than the trigger based approach of the first, otherwise it's going to be quantity over quality.

well 30 missions does sound like a hell of alot, i'm just hoping for something max payne like in greatness from the sp story line.... or even the DoW story line would do(they only released missions for one faction at launch).

I just have this slight niggling feeling that SC2 is forsaking single player for an excellent multiplayer.

I wouldn't think they would, because i imagine there's more money to be made in the short-medium term from the sp? but tbh if the MP was epic i'd survive with no SP at all...

Pugsley

Dreddybajs wrote: »

What does this even mean? How will pirates play on LAN? There may be hacked battle.net shard servers (which Blizzard's track record show they're pretty good at putting a stop to if they feel like it), but I really have no idea what you're saying here apart from that.

Player shards are one work about, but their for on-line play. A localised Bnet system would be the logical one (when you log into a fake Bnet with only LAN options). Some form of bypassing the Bnet requirement for LAN play will be found, especially for Hamachi players.

W!zard

I need everyones help here ..

I have put in the formal request for a new StarCraft Forum (StarCraft 2 included in it).

Please support it & cast your votes. Thanks !!!

Link: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055610455

pixelburp

Is anyone that surprised though by Blizzard's actions with SC2 to this point? World of Warcraft has shown that there is a veritable gold mine to be harvested with the right amount of carrot/stick. Whether it breaks WC's terms of service or not, when you have a game that people are feverishly spending their own cash through ebay for upgrades or weapons they can't get (or situations like those Chinese gold farmers), the only winner here is Blizzard in the end. There's consumer loyalty and then there's consumer addiction & Blizzard I think are trying to shape the same thing for SC2.

The breaking of the SP campaign into 3 games & now the discontinuation of LAN does show that they want to turn it into a closed environment Blizzard can control & thus can dictate to the market how consumers use the product. It also belps when you have an entire country devoted to your game. However, that doesn't necessarily mean they are forsaking the quality of the game itself.

To be fair, from what I have seen of the SP campaign it does look fairly substantial. The plot looks interesting, cut-scenes semi-interactive which is a new idea & in a recent interview they said they wanted a campaign that wasn't the standard "build up your base and squash the enemy" type & were trying out some fun ideas.

I also think I read somewhere (a very recent interview that I think came with the latest Beta report) that the subsequent 2 games would be introducing new units, Brood War style so perhaps all is not as black as it first seems. Afterall, from what I remember, it was only with the introduction of Brood War that Starcraft 1 became the big multiplayer behemoth that it is today.

I would have been one of those people who balked at the 3 game idea, but watching the beta videos I'm slowly thinking that they're going to eventually realise a fairly enviable game. I like my traditional RTS games and SC2 looks as polished as they come.