No LAN in my StarCraft 2

[SimpleComplexity]

...

We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better.

If I were to buy StarCraft II or any other title, I know the money I spent would be going to supporting that title. Personally, I would be upset that others were freeloading while others are legitimately supporting a title that has great potential and goals of making this title have 'long legs.'

If you like a song a lot, buy it, and that artist will only come out with more awesome songs for you. If you like a game, buy it, and we will promise to constantly work to make the player experience better at every corner we can.

Support the causes you believe in (This is applicable to all things, not just gaming).
Don't be a leech to society, innovation, and further awesome creations.

I think its time again...

On a different forum someone said he will pirate it because it won`t have LAN, lulz.

 

[Tails]

I'm amazed that no one replied to that Karune with quote of new EULA and its retarded User Content part. I really like to see his explanation for that stupid move. Maybe it's one of those BN 2.0 awesomes he talks about...

 

[Secretninja]

So nice you will buy it thrice

 

[Hamster]

Yes, removing LAN is a dumb decision, but it still pales next to their "our game is worth $150" horseshit.

And why exactly is this horseshit? Each of those three games will be as long as entire first SC, thats what they promised, right? Considering that it is normal these days to release a 6 mission shit as single player campaign, entire SC2 trilogy will have about 10 times more singleplayer content than usual startegy game. I'll pay 150$ for that.

 

[VonVentrue]

This is the new Blizzard folks. It's all about teh money.

Unbelievable.
This is a business, not a charity. Making a game with high production values for years/ running an online service like Battle.net costs a shitload of money. How DARE they try to prevent millions of morons with pirated copies from playing multiplayer over Hamachi?
You reap what you sow, dear "constantly not removing anything from an inventory" gentlemen. In order to turn a profit these days, companies have no choice but to turn their games into MMOs or at least make sure the only multiplayer available is via a dedicated online service.
With that said, I'm relatively sure it will be possible to play play over a local area network (internet connected), provided everyone signs into Battle.net first. I would heartily recommend waiting until new information regarding Battle.net 2.0 have come to light before moaning and bitching.

 

[Darth Roxor]

...And millions of pirates cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

How DARE they try to prevent millions of morons with pirated copies from playing multiplayer over Hamachi?

I love you put everyone into one basket.

 

[Kraszu]

Yes, removing LAN is a dumb decision, but it still pales next to their "our game is worth $150" horseshit.

And why exactly is this horseshit? Each of those three games will be as long as entire first SC, thats what they promised, right? Considering that it is normal these days to release a 6 mission shit as single player campaign, entire SC2 trilogy will have about 10 times more singleplayer content than usual startegy game. I'll pay 150$ for that.

They will make those campaigns on the existing enginge, and wast majority of art will be reused. In past it was called expansion, and you were charged less for that.

This is a business, not a charity.

Black, and white thinking aye?
.

You reap what you sow, dear "constantly not removing anything from an inventory" gentlemen

Oh so for those that had brought SC:BW there will be special SC2 version with LAN support? Great where can I sing for it?

In order to turn a profit these days, companies have no choice but to turn their games into MMOs or at least make sure the only multiplayer available is via a dedicated online service.

What is with this bs of calculating some virtual potential money that they could make? The money that they actually made used to be enough to be very successful in past, piracy did go up since W3? They are just fucking greed they games were selling in ~10mln copies, it is impossible to turn a profit from that? What you are suggesting has nothing to do with reality.

 

[Kraszu]

Oh, and people with legal copies also play on pirate bn servers becouse they are better, they offer lan latency and anti hack. Maybe it will be the case with bn 2.0, but it would not be surprising if they would just stop taking much care of it in few years just like they had alweys did.

 

[Raapys]

In order to turn a profit these days, companies have no choice but to turn their games into MMOs or at least make sure the only multiplayer available is via a dedicated online service.

Yah, that's why all single-player-only games are bankrupting the developers that made them.

At any rate, BattleNet2 will be cracked within a few months at most I'd wager, so in the end all this likely ends up doing is hurting the real customers who do want and/or need the LAN feature. Then again, there is a chance that once the private servers start popping up, Blizzard will reintroduce LAN in a patch.

What's more interesting is how they are going to handle the whole 2 expansion packs thing in multiplayer. Right now you only have two modes; BW or stock. With two expansion packs you could be looking at like 4 different configurations depending on which expansion packs the player has. So we'll be seeing four different game lobbies?

 

[Tails]

How DARE they try to prevent millions of morons with pirated copies from playing multiplayer over Hamachi?

So this excuses Blizzard for taking out Lan, that would be used also by people who buy original game? It will end up like with Half-Life 2 - buyers get punished instead of pirates. Many ppl who didn't have Internet connection buyed HL2 when was released. They could only cry when people that get pirated version only laugh + enjoyed game. And for sure there will be ppl who make unofficial Lan patch for SC2.

In order to turn a profit these days, companies have no choice but to turn their games into MMOs or at least make sure the only multiplayer available is via a dedicated online service.

Yeah right... especially Blizzard for me it's just cheeky way to get bigger control on game that someone buys.

I would heartily recommend waiting until new information regarding Battle.net 2.0 have come to light before moaning and bitching.

It's hard not to moan and bitch when EULA has retarted User Content part. Plus getting rid of Lan part of game shows that Blizzard just wanna force players to buy more then one copy of game.

That reminds me one thing: The "new" Bestsellers release of Starcraft don't have spawn option available. Probably because of piracy, eh VonVentrue?

 

[Silellak]

Yes, removing LAN is a dumb decision, but it still pales next to their "our game is worth $150" horseshit.

And why exactly is this horseshit? Each of those three games will be as long as entire first SC, thats what they promised, right? Considering that it is normal these days to release a 6 mission shit as single player campaign, entire SC2 trilogy will have about 10 times more singleplayer content than usual startegy game. I'll pay 150$ for that.

The general decline in game length does not justify increasing the price to $150 for the single player campaign of any game.

I don't care how long a game is, I don't think any single player campaign is worth $150, even if it's three times the length of the first Starcraft. Should Baldur's Gate 2 have been priced at $400 because it has the potential for 8 times the content of a 10-hour FPS game? What about Oblivion? You can play that game for 200 hours! That's 20 times the length of a 10 hour game! The Sims has potentially UNLIMITED content! Maybe it should have a monthly fee!

But wait - I can play multiplayer with only one game in the SC2 trilogy! Shouldn't that mean I don't need to pay for the multiplayer component AGAIN? Or is the multiplayer component FREE? I'm so confused!

 

[Hamster]

In past it was called expansion, and you were charged less for that.

In past maybe, but in present 50$ gets you 6 retarded singel-player missions. Blizzard is doing more than other developers and i can understand why they want more money for it.

 

[vrok]

This is a business, not a charity. Making a game with high production values for years/ running an online service like Battle.net costs a shitload of money. How DARE they try to prevent millions of morons with pirated copies from playing multiplayer over Hamachi?

Dumbass. If "millions of people" play it over Hamachi instead of Battle.net 2.0 it means Battle.net 2.0 isn't worth the price of entry. That's all Blizzard needs to fix, make Battle.net 2.0 compelling enough that it alone makes it worth it to buy the game for MP, and it has nothing to do with removing LAN play. That's exactly why Starcraft 1 is played on LAN/Hamachi/iCCup. Battle.net 1.0 blows. Even Warcraft 3 with matchmaking and ladders has fierce competition from alternative servers.

The number one reason for all this is the latency that Battle.net 1.0 artificially adds to all games to stabilize performance. The alternatives eliminate or greatly reduce this added latency. The number two reason is anti-cheat. All alternatives completely obliterate Battle.net 1.0 in fighting cheats. With LAN/Hamachi you always know who you're playing and the alternative servers almost always utilize advanced loaders (which can get you banned from Battle.net for no reason at all) that more efficiently helps detect cheats than Blizzard does server-side alone. The policing is also much faster and efficient.

Unless Battle.net 2.0 fixes these issues (no word so far) and adds great value, beyond useless fluff like stats and achievements, to the package it will be reverse engineered (it probably will anyway) and superior alternatives will show up, again. Making the piracy excuse a joke, again.

 

[Hamster]

I don't care how long a game is, I don't think any single player campaign is worth $150, even if it's three times the length of the first Starcraft. Should Baldur's Gate 2 have been priced at $400 because it has the potential for 8 times the content of a 10-hour FPS game? What about Oblivion? You can play that game for 200 hours! That's 20 times the length of a 10 hour game! The Sims has potentially UNLIMITED content! Maybe it should have a monthly fee!

If publisher thinks that customers are prepared to pay than yes, they should do all of the above. I think Blizzard knows very well that people will pay 150$ for their game.

But wait - I can play multiplayer with only one game in the SC2 trilogy! Shouldn't that mean I don't need to pay for the multiplayer component AGAIN? Or is the multiplayer component FREE?

Well, i don't need multiplayer component in most games, why should i pay for it at all? I want games sold to me for 25$ and without multiplayer.

 

[Kingston]

Remember the days when Blizzard games also came with a "spawn" installation? You could use that to LAN with other people who didn't have the CD. I guess they were just being communists back then.

 

[Silellak]

I don't care how long a game is, I don't think any single player campaign is worth $150, even if it's three times the length of the first Starcraft. Should Baldur's Gate 2 have been priced at $400 because it has the potential for 8 times the content of a 10-hour FPS game? What about Oblivion? You can play that game for 200 hours! That's 20 times the length of a 10 hour game! The Sims has potentially UNLIMITED content! Maybe it should have a monthly fee!

If publisher thinks that customers are prepared to pay than yes, they should do all of the above. I think Blizzard knows very well that people will pay 150$ for their game.

But wait - I can play multiplayer with only one game in the SC2 trilogy! Shouldn't that mean I don't need to pay for the multiplayer component AGAIN? Or is the multiplayer component FREE?

Well, i don't need multiplayer component in most games, why should i pay for it at all? I want games sold to me for 25$ and without multiplayer.

There was a time when Blizzard didn't think "what can we get away with charging", but actually seemed to genuinely care about making good games. On the other hand, it's entirely possible I imagined this period of time, and they were always just money-grubbing hacks, but I like to think it existed at least.

A fair pricing strategy would be a price cut for each game in the "trilogy" you already have - $50 for the first one, $30 for the second, $20 for the third. $100 for everything. Still a bit expensive, but no more than a game with two decently-sized expansions. Blizzard still makes a shit-ton of money, and doesn't cock-slap their fans in the process. Everyone wins.

Games should not be priced based on how much content is in them. My absurd examples were meant to point out how it opens up the door to a whole world of insane pricing schemes based on how much content the publisher claims the game will have. When you buy, rent, or go see a movie, do you want to pay a per-minute price based on the length of the movie? All that leads to is artificially increased length in order to justify the higher price. Sure, Blizzard claims 26-30 SP missions per game, but how many of those are 30-minute "you control a small group of unit"-style missions? Numbers are meaningless when it comes to determining the "amount" of content in a game. I'd rather play a 5-hour game that is infinitely replayable than a 100-hour game that's stuffed with filler bullshit. Oblivion is a fantastic example. OMG, hundreds of dungeons! That's amazing! Except they're all basically the same, and clearly just filler designed to make the game sound more impressive in the marketing material.

That said, it would be pretty cool if you could choose to buy an RTS or FPS game without a multiplayer component at a discounted price, but somehow I don't see that ever happening.

Finally...were there people out there who actually thought the StarCraft SP campaign was too short? I thought it was a decent length, and maybe even a bit overly-long at times. At no point did I think "wow, I sure wish I could play 30 missions as each race!" I find it extraordinarily hard to believe Blizzard will keep the single player game interesting and fresh throughout all 90 missions. That's sounds tedious as Hell to me. Maybe I can buy a $50 cliff-notes version that only has the good missions?

 

[kingcomrade]

Eat some more cock, Hamster. Blizzard juices running down your face.

 

[Major_Boobage]

Danger Danger

King Butthurt has entered the thread.

A fair pricing strategy would be a price cut for each game in the "trilogy" you already have - $50 for the first one, $30 for the second, $20 for the third. $100 for everything. Still a bit expensive, but no more than a game with two decently-sized expansions. Blizzard still makes a shit-ton of money, and doesn't cock-slap their fans in the process. Everyone wins.

I think this is going to be the case, the 2 extra games are going to be expansions and will have a reduced price.

 

[Shannow]

When you buy Starcraft 2, you buy communism.

And support capitalism in its most obscene (for gaming standards) form. You can't <s>win</s>lose!

Oh, and I'm going to pirate SC2. I was going to buy it when all thirds of the game together reached an acceptable price but the sanctimonious preaching against "pirates" and in defense of Blizzard's money-grabbing-schemes in tthis thread made me puke. Such an masochistic consumer point of view has to be purged with repeated downloads. When Blizzard whine about pirates while sitting in their castle of pure gold you can be sure that my ten downloads cost them 500 bucks. No money left to wipe their arses with. Oh how I will laugh.

 

[VonVentrue]

Black, and white thinking aye?

No, it's called not living in an alternate universe when rampant piracy doesn't exist.

Oh so for those that had brought SC:BW there will be special SC2 version with LAN support? Great where can I sing for it?

Like I've already said, there will be a replacement for LAN. Wait for the details to surface.

The money that they actually made used to be enough to be very successful in past, piracy did go up since W3?

Primo: Yes, piracy is easier and much more widespread than ever. Do not deny that fact.
Secundo: The sheer cost of making a game is uncomparably higher than it was in 1998, or even 2003.

They are just fucking greed

How many games have you made? Do you run your own business?

Yah, that's why all single-player-only games are bankrupting the developers that made them.

Funny that you fail to notice companies creating single player games are slowly drifting towards the "DLC" route in order to ensure profitability.

Yeah right... especially Blizzard

In case you haven't noticed, they have learnt one thing with WoW - games built around an online service are much more resistant to piracy. Hence their decision to encourage people to embrace the new Battle.net.

That reminds me one thing: The "new" Bestsellers release of Starcraft don't have spawn option available. Probably because of piracy, eh VonVentrue?

Let's ask Vince to give away copies of Age of Decadence for free and see how willing he is to agree with such ideas.

I don't care how long a game is, I don't think any single player campaign is worth $150, even if it's three times the length of the first Starcraft.

In that case, the original Starcraft should have been priced at $5 at most, for its single player part was ridiculously short compared to, say, Wizardry 7.

What about Oblivion? You can play that game for 200 hours!

I can also "play" Starcraft for 200 hours by staring at the main menu. Much more fun than walking ad nauseam in Oblivion, on top of that, clicking on animated figures actually has a "gameplay" feel to it.

Should Baldur's Gate 2 have been priced at $400 because it has the potential for 8 times the content of a 10-hour FPS game?

The question is - how much money has been put into the development of a game or, more importantly, does it deliver in the gameplay department?
Bloodlines was incredibly short compared to Baldur's Gate 2 or Arcanum, do you feel Troika blatantly ripped you off by asking $50 for it at release?

Dumbass. If "millions of people" play it over Hamachi instead of Battle.net 2.0 it means Battle.net 2.0 isn't worth the price of entry.

No, that means they are worthless parasites that wouldn't buy the game even if it cost a dime. Moron.

 

[shardspin]

It's not like Blizzard games were particularly fun at LAN parties anyways.

 

[Darth Roxor]

How many games have you made? Do you run your own business?

In after the best argument ever (TM).

 

[Silellak]

Danger Danger

King Butthurt has entered the thread.

A fair pricing strategy would be a price cut for each game in the "trilogy" you already have - $50 for the first one, $30 for the second, $20 for the third. $100 for everything. Still a bit expensive, but no more than a game with two decently-sized expansions. Blizzard still makes a shit-ton of money, and doesn't cock-slap their fans in the process. Everyone wins.

I think this is going to be the case, the 2 extra games are going to be expansions and will have a reduced price.

Maybe. The pricing is still up in the air, but last I heard, Blizzard was basically saying "If it has the same amount of content as the first game, then we'll charge full price for the game." My guess? Each of the "sequels" will be $40...less than a regular game, more than an expansion, which still leaves us at $130 for the "priviledge" of playing each race's campaign.

Bloodlines was incredibly short compared to Baldur's Gate 2 or Arcanum, do you feel Troika blatantly ripped you off by asking $50 for it at release?

See my earlier post about how I think it's ridiculous to put a price tag on the "amount of content" a game has, because it's not a purely objective idea. You can claim your game has 200 hours of content, and then price it accordingly, but if 195 of those hours suck, then you've just screwed your customers.

At 26-30 missions per race in a single player RTS game, does anyone actually think those will all be high-quality content?

At least with expansions/DLC, you typically get the full game, with the option to add more content if you really liked the game. With Blizzard's SC2 approach, you basically have to buy their "expansions" if you want the full experience. Unless you consider playing 30 missions of a single side to be a solid SP RTS experience.

 

[kingcomrade]

Blizzard fanboys are always amazing

 

[Major_Boobage]

It's not like Blizzard games were particularly fun at LAN parties anyways.