no LAN support for SC2?
polycounter lvl 18
http://www.incgamers.com/Interviews/190/StarCraftIIDevelopersInterviewed?gr_i_ni
i
LAN gaming. i dont' do it much, but i love it. so at first, my knee-jerk response was, "where's padme...?"
but, i'm wondering what you think, will Blizzard not supporting LAN play for StarCraft 2 even be that big of a big deal? does this mean the game can't or will be difficult to be played at a LAN party? like, all this means is that we require an internet connection in order to play multi-player. i just don't get why they wouldn't support LAN play. i'm assuming it has something to do with the new battle.net service, to funnel more users through the service. i'm sure it will workout, but the main reason i was stoked about StarCraft 2 was to get it going at a LAN party, because you just KNOW that game is perfect for that scene and there just aren't very many good new games out now for LAN gaming.
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/29/lan-support-not-included-in-starcraft-ii/
you dare utter such ignorance! you shut your whorish mouth JC Fletcher! you know not what you speak of!
Will StarCraft II be available on consoles, or over LAN?
We got quite different answers about local area networking (LAN), where both Dustin or Sigaty said they were still discussing it, however, Pardo knew immediately: "we don't have any plans to support LAN," he said and clarified "we will not support it." The only multiplayer available will be on Battle.net."
i
LAN gaming. i dont' do it much, but i love it. so at first, my knee-jerk response was, "where's padme...?"but, i'm wondering what you think, will Blizzard not supporting LAN play for StarCraft 2 even be that big of a big deal? does this mean the game can't or will be difficult to be played at a LAN party? like, all this means is that we require an internet connection in order to play multi-player. i just don't get why they wouldn't support LAN play. i'm assuming it has something to do with the new battle.net service, to funnel more users through the service. i'm sure it will workout, but the main reason i was stoked about StarCraft 2 was to get it going at a LAN party, because you just KNOW that game is perfect for that scene and there just aren't very many good new games out now for LAN gaming.
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/29/lan-support-not-included-in-starcraft-ii/
If this is true, Battle.net is the only multiplayer option in StarCraft II, and the era of the LAN party has officially ended
you dare utter such ignorance! you shut your whorish mouth JC Fletcher! you know not what you speak of!
Replies
I think you can go LAN aslong as you are also connected to Battle net.
puhleeasse
That took a couple seconds to absorb.
I dont think it will be that big of a deal, or maybe it will be through battle.net like thewinterlord mentioned.
From the 90's gameplay, to multiple episodes, from videos with such strategies as blocking building space to this kind of stuff, I'm almost convinced that Blizzard entered a bet that they could release a dumb game and still sell more than the competition.
Considering Blizzard games are massively popular because of their multiplayer only, that would be a pointless strategy that would change nothing. Instead of pirating copies, people could just distribute a spawn installer and the end effect would be the same. Basically what they're doing right now is the best way they can fight piracy.
Except I guarantee that sc2 games will be available over LAN programs within a month of release with no authentication required regardless.
I don't mind the B.NET only option. Blizzard has proved their reliability with this type of thing through WoW. Whether or not piracy is the primary reason for the decision, I honestly think it's a good and healthy move.
We'll have to see, though.
Some companies have put in place a bandwidth limit and you're in danger of not only being charged an insane rate if you go over but being dropped all together. Which is pointless since the traffic can easily be handled locally. Checking in with Battle.net shouldn't be an issue, but the traffic shouldn't go through it, that's a pretty big waste on all fronts, but I guess if the benefits out weight the costs its worth it.
Sigh. I suppose it isn't all that big of an issue in the long run. If you have friends over, you can still all play Starcraft II. You will just all have to be hooked up the internet to do it. In these days of innexpensive wireless routers, it isn't all that hard to set up. It isn't a problem so much as it is a performance issue. Everyone knows that the best way to get seamless, stable multiplayer is with a LAN. Again, it isn't as much an issue with an RTS as it would be for an FPS, but the principle is the same.
I guarantee that this move has nothing to do with improving services or providing additional multiplayer features, and everything to do with combatting piracy.
Zwebbie, yes, multiplayer IS what sells, especially for Blizzard titles. All of the most recent Blizzard titles have had very strong multiplayer components, and thriving multiplayer communities long after their release. Starcraft, Diablo II, and Warcraft III had immense on-line communities that drastically increased the longevity of those titles. Multiplayer is a big deal. It's just local multiplayer that isn't as big of a deal as it used to be.
I'd say Blizzard is trying to force those post-release and future players to buy the game rather than allowing them to pirate it and still enjoy multiplayer. Could be wrong though.
oh hello... oops AHhaha, not you, the joystiq journalist one
Okay, now THAT would make sense. Removing support for LAN play altogether just doesn't add up for a title like Starcraft. Requiring that players be logged into Battle.NET if they want to play local multiplayer matches? That is a bit more reasonable than removing the feature altogether.
Sure, it would be a touch of DRM bastardry. But with modern piracy, you can't really blame them.
Though at some point, after the game has been out for a sufficiently long time the LAN networks can actually contain more players that are at a higher level. A good example is DoTA games for War3, where Garena has more stable connections and less leavers than b.net.
The smaller ones (under 12 people) where they rent space. You cant make that judgment.
Mike, Sam, George, and Phil all hang out at the park alot waiting for their events to happen. They decide to have a LAN between them.
Saying the net is easy everywhere. Especially on the move is shortsighted. I had to push for LAN support for some of our games because our audience especially cannot be simply thought to have net and especially BROADBAND wherever they are.
What if they are behind a firewall they cannot access that blocks that port to outside the lan itself?
I realize this is more an aside, I just hate the assumptions that people have these days about first net access, and second consistent or high speed access.
I wonder if this EVER happens at all, especially with a girl like Sarah involved. Who the hell plays lan games on their laptops on the bus???
If it only required Battle.net for authentication I wouldn't mind so at all, as there will most probably be multiple copies of starcraft in my household anyway. It's a bit of a douchebag move from blizzard, but you can't really blame them.