SC2 - must be on bnet to play single player?!?

[treave]

Who needs LAN when you have, FACEBOOK INTEGRATION?

Treave, it appears you are a disciple of Lord Popamole and his next-gen horde. Everything you listed reeks of next-gen gimmicks aimed at the lowest common denominator. LAN is bad for Blizzard because they won't be able to advertise DLC and charge for minuscule things. BNET is not a replacement for a LOCAL Area Network.

It is not a replacement.

It is better, that's the whole point. It's so superior that the moment you log onto Bnet 2.0 you'll forget about LAN. The only way it can be even more awesome than it is now with Facebook is if it allowed you to Twitter as you play. That'll be the future of cybersports, pal.

Who, in this day and age, still plays LAN except for pirates anyway? And South Koreans, obviously. And the Chinese. But they're all yellow scumbags who are depriving Blizzard of their rightful income. I mean, they made Starcraft but they aren't seeing a cent from all these South Korean Starcraft tourneys.

Bnet 2.0 is gonna change all that.

 

[Kraszu]

It would be awesome if you would play farmville when the map load or when you wait for the match. They should remove offline SP for this. Mini window in menu with farmville going on, and the same window on your spaceship in campaign mode for better immersion, and if you would for example harverst 200 corns then you would get a free max supply for your next mission, the possibilities are endless.

 

[DraQ]

Who needs LAN when you have, FACEBOOK INTEGRATION?

Treave, it appears you are a disciple of Lord Popamole and his next-gen horde. Everything you listed reeks of next-gen gimmicks aimed at the lowest common denominator. LAN is bad for Blizzard because they won't be able to advertise DLC and charge for minuscule things. BNET is not a replacement for a LOCAL Area Network.

It is not a replacement.

It is better, that's the whole point. It's so superior that the moment you log onto Bnet 2.0 you'll forget about LAN.

I assume that includes less lag?


You're either a superb troll or a complete, utter moron.

 

[treave]

I assume that includes less lag?


You're either a superb troll or a complete, utter moron.

Lag will be minimal, it'll be as good as playing in the same room if you're pretty much in the same region as the others. The lag only becomes an issue if you're playing with people from other countries, but you can't connect a LAN over five hundred miles of wasteland so that point is really moot. There is no issue with Bnet 2.0, it'll herald a marvelous new era the same way Bnet 1.0 revolutionized multiplayer gaming.

Still... I thought I was doing a pretty blatant troll considering I just made a post in this very thread taking a potshot at Blizzard's greed. "Value-added features for a low additional fee" should've given it away.

 

[DraQ]

Still... I thought I was doing a pretty blatant troll considering I just made a post in this very thread taking a potshot at Blizzard's greed. "Value-added features for a low additional fee" should've given it away.

Troll is only blatant when it significantly exceeds baseline stupidity.

 

[Gragt]

Still... I thought I was doing a pretty blatant troll considering I just made a post in this very thread taking a potshot at Blizzard's greed. "Value-added features for a low additional fee" should've given it away.

It seemed pretty blatant to me (still, 8/10) but redding is teh hard I guess. Good show, old sport.

 

[DraQ]

Still... I thought I was doing a pretty blatant troll considering I just made a post in this very thread taking a potshot at Blizzard's greed. "Value-added features for a low additional fee" should've given it away.

It seemed pretty blatant to me (still, 8/10) but redding is teh hard I guess. Good show, old sport.

Likewise, would rage again.

 

[Sceptic]

Troll is only blatant when it significantly exceeds baseline stupidity.

Oh come on. "Facebook integration" gave it away. I still rated him 8/10 because I almost fell for it at first.

 

[Kraszu]

I assume that includes less lag?


You're either a superb troll or a complete, utter moron.

Lag will be minimal, it'll be as good as playing in the same room if you're pretty much in the same region as the others. The lag only becomes an issue if you're playing with people from other countries, but you can't connect a LAN over five hundred miles of wasteland so that point is really moot. There is no issue with Bnet 2.0, it'll herald a marvelous new era the same way Bnet 1.0 revolutionized multiplayer gaming.

Incorrect, BN 1 and 2.0 servers force lag, low latency in BN mp settings =/= LAN latency.

 

[SCO]

I remember when the campaigns came on the same box:

You're just getting ass-raped.

 

[Metro]

Look at those baby soft hands!

 

[Gragt]

The hands of someone used to count money.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Good show Treave!



But seriously, there ARE people out there willfully sucking Blizz cock and clamoring how this is all A GOOD THING, just as there were dumbfucks clamoring that lack of dedicated servers and limiting max players from 24 to 9 was A GOOD THING for modern gayfare2.

And I'll be damned if it wasn't Activision/Kotick involved in both - surprise surprise.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

My main issue is that I am only getting the game to play multiplayer - there is very little chance I will even start the singleplayer, let alone finish it. It is pretty annoying that I will be heavily taxed on the expansions (which I must get to realistically continue to play online) which will only add a relatively small amount of content I am interested in.

But how is that different from any other game that gets an expansion?

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

I remember when the campaigns came on the same box:

You're just getting ass-raped.

Meet Homeworld, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, etc.

edit: On a side note, I DO NOT like the lack of LAN support and the direction behind B.Net 2.0. That said, I think the uproar over the two expansion packs is retarded in the extreme.

 

[Achilles]

But seriously, there ARE people out there willfully sucking Blizz cock and clamoring how this is all A GOOD THING.

I think it's a very bad thing, mainly because I don't believe they will sell the two expansions at a reduced price. However, if you want to protest this decision hold off your purchase until all three campaigns cost the same as a single game. That way you send a message that "your pricing structure sucks, change it". If you pirate it and never pay for it, you'll send the message that PC gamers don't buy games.

Starcraft II will most likely be a great game and if it sells well, it could spark a renewed interest in RTS and strategy games from both the mainstream gamers and the big companies. It could show the world that an old-school PC exclusive can top the charts and sell millions. Starcraft II's release is a milestone. If you think you'll like the game and would like to see more games like this in the future, buy it. Now, later, when the Complete version is released, whenever. Just buy it.

 

[Destroid]

My main issue is that I am only getting the game to play multiplayer - there is very little chance I will even start the singleplayer, let alone finish it. It is pretty annoying that I will be heavily taxed on the expansions (which I must get to realistically continue to play online) which will only add a relatively small amount of content I am interested in.

But how is that different from any other game that gets an expansion?

Expansions are cheaper, Blactivision has clearly stated they intend to sell them at full price.

THQ in DoW and DoW2 integrated the original and expansions so everyone still plays together (with new units etc) but you only have access to races that you have purchased.

It would be nice if the upgrades came for free, because realistically it's only going to be like 2 units per faction, but that isn't going to happen.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

My main issue is that I am only getting the game to play multiplayer - there is very little chance I will even start the singleplayer, let alone finish it. It is pretty annoying that I will be heavily taxed on the expansions (which I must get to realistically continue to play online) which will only add a relatively small amount of content I am interested in.

But how is that different from any other game that gets an expansion?

Expansions are cheaper, Blactivision has clearly stated they intend to sell them at full price.

Have they? Do you have anything to back that up? I was always under the impression that they would sell at the expansion pack price point.

 

[Cassidy]

And I'll be damned if it wasn't Activision/Kotick involved in both - surprise surprise.

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

They said something along the lines of "They will have a full game's worth of content and be competitively priced" or some such, which is where the whole expansions costing full price thing came from. Unless there's been more news and I haven't heard about it which is likely since I haven't been paying attention since they mentioned all the shitty b.net changes.

 

[Hamster]

Well, if they have full game's worth of content then what is the problem?
Fucking DoW don't even have full game's worth of content and i did not see anyone complaining about it.

 

[Cassidy]

Well, if they have full game's worth of content then what is the problem?

They said

 

[Hamster]

Oh yes, evil Blizzard lied and there will be less than 10 missions in each game, amiright?

 

[Metro]

But seriously, there ARE people out there willfully sucking Blizz cock and clamoring how this is all A GOOD THING.

I think it's a very bad thing, mainly because I don't believe they will sell the two expansions at a reduced price.

Considering the Diablo 2 Battle Chest still costs $40 after over a decade it might be a long wait.

 

[Xor]

I won't pay for them if they're full price regardless of how much content they have. I didn't play the SC1 campaigns that many times anyway.