According to today's Joystiq article, Blizzard confirmed that Starcraft2 will not support local multiplayer via LAN. Each player will have to connect to Battle.net via the internet. Blizzard made some vague comment about piracy as the reason for this.
What the heck are they thinking? One of the reason Blizzard was such a great company was that they didn't put such ridiculous requirements on the gamer like this. Heck, you could even spawn a multiplayer-only copy of Starcraft for your friend to use so you didn't have to buy 2 separate copies. That was great, and I'm sure it actually helped increase their sales.
I've also heard that Diablo3 will also lack LAN support, for the same vague reaons
>According to today's Joystiq article, Blizzard confirmed that Starcraft2 >will not support local multiplayer via LAN. Each player will have to >connect to Battle.net via the internet. Blizzard made some vague comment >about piracy as the reason for this.
>What the heck are they thinking?
The only anti-piracy measure that works on the PC is only letting one CD key play online on the Internet at a time. By forcing LAN games on to Battle.net it should be an effective anti-pirary measure, at least until someone comes up with a fake Battle.net server. Even then that'll be a pain enough to use that most would be pirates looking to play online will still be detered. It's hard to blame them really, it's not 1997 anymore, everyone has Internet access and LAN play would so little used (by legitimate players) that it would be hard to justify the development and QA time necessary to implement it anyways.
>One of the reason Blizzard was such a >great company was that they didn't put such ridiculous requirements on the >gamer like this. Heck, you could even spawn a multiplayer-only copy of >Starcraft for your friend to use so you didn't have to buy 2 separate >copies. That was great, and I'm sure it actually helped increase their >sales.
Yah, spawn copies definately wasn't going to happen. Blizzard doesn't need to this anymore, the Blizzard and Starcraft names will sell millions of copies without this.
>According to today's Joystiq article, Blizzard confirmed that Starcraft2 >will not support local multiplayer via LAN. Each player will have to >connect to Battle.net via the internet. Blizzard made some vague comment >about piracy as the reason for this.
>What the heck are they thinking? One of the reason Blizzard was such a >great company was that they didn't put such ridiculous requirements on the >gamer like this. Heck, you could even spawn a multiplayer-only copy of >Starcraft for your friend to use so you didn't have to buy 2 separate >copies. That was great, and I'm sure it actually helped increase their >sales.
>I've also heard that Diablo3 will also lack LAN support, for the same >vague reaons
>I just don't get it.
Well... I rememer there were a lot of complains, by non-game companies, that employees were cloging up office networks with games of Warcraft, etc...
<rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: >Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote: >>According to today's Joystiq article, Blizzard confirmed that Starcraft2 >>will not support local multiplayer via LAN. Each player will have to >>connect to Battle.net via the internet. Blizzard made some vague comment >>about piracy as the reason for this.
>>What the heck are they thinking?
>The only anti-piracy measure that works on the PC is only letting one CD >key play online on the Internet at a time. By forcing LAN games on to >Battle.net it should be an effective anti-pirary measure, at least until >someone comes up with a fake Battle.net server. Even then that'll be >a pain enough to use that most would be pirates looking to play online >will still be detered. It's hard to blame them really, it's not 1997 >anymore, everyone has Internet access and LAN play would so little used >(by legitimate players) that it would be hard to justify the development >and QA time necessary to implement it anyways.
Actually that's not true. People may have Internet access but often when they are using LAN play it's at a different location where Internet access is either not available or where it's not allowed. Think of people getting together in a club house or people wanting to play after work. As far as it being a huge amount of time I doubt that's the case since they've already done much of the base work in the past, and it's likely that they did some work on it for D3/SC2.
>>One of the reason Blizzard was such a >>great company was that they didn't put such ridiculous requirements on the >>gamer like this. Heck, you could even spawn a multiplayer-only copy of >>Starcraft for your friend to use so you didn't have to buy 2 separate >>copies. That was great, and I'm sure it actually helped increase their >>sales.
>Yah, spawn copies definately wasn't going to happen. Blizzard doesn't >need to this anymore, the Blizzard and Starcraft names will sell millions >of copies without this.
Unfortunately that's true. These games have such a brand name recognition that even if they sucked they would probably still be a best seller.
> I've also heard that Diablo3 will also lack LAN support, for the same > vague reaons
> I just don't get it.
Think of these as gradual steps toward a battle.net monthly fee. First, they have to make sure that everyone is forced to use battle.net, otherwise there's no point. Then, there will be "premium" features for those who want to pay (imagine a Hellgate model for D3 -- perhaps not so far off from the truth?). Then, eventually, you will have to pay the same fee to play Warcraft IV multiplayer as you do to play World of Warcraft.
I'm just glad that I was never really a big fan of Starcraft -- I had shelved the game after finishing the campaign, and then I only got Brood War because in college all my dorm friends were playing the game on the LAN... oops. Looks like I'll be skipping the purchase of SC2.
Basically, Blizzard knows that they can do whatever they want with SC2 and the sheeple will follow. That means making people go through battle.net to play with two computers in their own house. That means selling the single-player game across three different boxes. That means, in all likelihood, forced installs of Warden and other spyware that is already being used to collect data from people's computers.
Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: >>What the heck are they thinking?
> The only anti-piracy measure that works on the PC is only letting one CD > key play online on the Internet at a time. By forcing LAN games on to > Battle.net it should be an effective anti-pirary measure, at least until > someone comes up with a fake Battle.net server. Even then that'll be > a pain enough to use that most would be pirates looking to play online > will still be detered. It's hard to blame them really, it's not 1997 > anymore, everyone has Internet access and LAN play would so little used > (by legitimate players) that it would be hard to justify the development > and QA time necessary to implement it anyways.
From my memories from the first Starcraft, CD key generators were already a problem with people trying to register their legitimate CDs only to be told their CD key had already been taken. Then comes the adversarial call to tech support wherein the customer had to convince Blizzard he wasn't a pirate. I can't see how this online-only system addresses this problem.
Yeah, it's not 1997 anymore, and internet access is more ubiquitious than ever, but some folks are still doing the LAN-party thing. Even then, there are still instances where it'd be nice to have a LAN game, especially since certain places, like colleges, restrict certain types of internet traffic.
> Yah, spawn copies definately wasn't going to happen. Blizzard doesn't > need to this anymore, the Blizzard and Starcraft names will sell millions > of copies without this.
Maybe so, but it was still a terrific way to help sell the game, and treated the customers like responsible adults, instead of the normal "guilty of piracy until proven innocent" mentality that's become all too common in the PC game industry.
> Well... I rememer there were a lot of complains, by non-game > companies, that employees were cloging up office networks with games > of Warcraft, etc...
Yeah, my friends and I spent a few hours after work playing Starcraft and Diablo on the LAN...
But this is just my point. As an office IT manager (who was one of the aforementioned "friends" ;) ) I'd prefer to keep such traffic local, rather than buring up the WAN connection. Most offices are at least 100mbps, if not gigabit, but the WAN connection could still be a measely T1. If you're going to be playing with local friends, why involve the internet? That just doesn't make sense. Why not simply include a highly simplified version of the server that someone runs on their computer to host the game? Even limiting it to 4 players would be fine, with larger skirmishes requiring Battle.Net.
Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > The only anti-piracy measure that works on the PC is only letting one CD > key play online on the Internet at a time. By forcing LAN games on to > Battle.net it should be an effective anti-pirary measure, at least until > someone comes up with a fake Battle.net server. Even then that'll be > a pain enough to use that most would be pirates looking to play online > will still be detered. It's hard to blame them really, it's not 1997 > anymore, everyone has Internet access and LAN play would so little used > (by legitimate players) that it would be hard to justify the development > and QA time necessary to implement it anyways.
>From my memories from the first Starcraft, CD key generators were already >a problem with people trying to register their legitimate CDs only to be >told their CD key had already been taken. Then comes the adversarial call to >tech support wherein the customer had to convince Blizzard he wasn't a >pirate. I can't see how this online-only system addresses this problem.
Better key generation seems to have largely solved that problem. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to make difficult enough so "causual" pirates find it easier to just buy the game.
>Yeah, it's not 1997 anymore, and internet access is more ubiquitious than >ever, but some folks are still doing the LAN-party thing. Even then, >there are still instances where it'd be nice to have a LAN game, >especially since certain places, like colleges, restrict certain types >of internet traffic.
I'm not sure why colleges residences would be restricting access to Battle.net. Unlike P2P networks, games take up very little bandwith. On a office LAN, where they'd restrict access so people don't play games instead work, sure it'll get restricted, but offices are also a hotbed of piracy so I'm not sure it's going to make much difference to legitimate users.
>Maybe so, but it was still a terrific way to help sell the game, and >treated the customers like responsible adults, instead of the normal >"guilty of piracy until proven innocent" mentality that's become all too >common in the PC game industry.
Well, so long as playing the single player campaign doesn't also require Battle.net, I don't think it really going to make much difference to people. CD check for offline play, CD-keys for online play has been the standard in PC games for a long time now.
Doug Jacobs wrote: > According to today's Joystiq article, Blizzard confirmed that Starcraft2 > will not support local multiplayer via LAN. Each player will have to > connect to Battle.net via the internet. Blizzard made some vague comment > about piracy as the reason for this.
> What the heck are they thinking? One of the reason Blizzard was such a > great company was that they didn't put such ridiculous requirements on the > gamer like this. Heck, you could even spawn a multiplayer-only copy of > Starcraft for your friend to use so you didn't have to buy 2 separate > copies. That was great, and I'm sure it actually helped increase their > sales.
> I've also heard that Diablo3 will also lack LAN support, for the same > vague reaons
> I just don't get it.
In all honesty, here is my prediction:
Within 2 weeks there will be a "patched" version which allows people to connect to home bnet servers, allowing us to LAN with impunity without the need to connect to an online bnet.
Ceowulf <non...@toknow.askifyoudo> wrote: >In all honesty, here is my prediction:
>Within 2 weeks there will be a "patched" version which allows people to >connect to home bnet servers, allowing us to LAN with impunity without >the need to connect to an online bnet.
If it were any other game, I'd disagree with you, but given Starcraft's popularity, especially in Korea, I can see it happening though it'll probably take more than two weeks. Even then I think it'll be enough of a pain to download and setup that it'll keep most people honest.
Ross Ridge wrote: > Ceowulf <non...@toknow.askifyoudo> wrote: >> In all honesty, here is my prediction:
>> Within 2 weeks there will be a "patched" version which allows people to >> connect to home bnet servers, allowing us to LAN with impunity without >> the need to connect to an online bnet.
> If it were any other game, I'd disagree with you, but given Starcraft's > popularity, especially in Korea, I can see it happening though it'll > probably take more than two weeks. Even then I think it'll be enough > of a pain to download and setup that it'll keep most people honest.
Private battlenet server software already exists and is a pinch to setup. So the adapation of Starcraft 2 to use them will not be long in the making.
> Private battlenet server software already exists and is a pinch to setup. > So the adapation of Starcraft 2 to use them will not be long in the > making.
But that is with unprotected clients. Undoubtedly Blizzard will be looking to encrypt and otherwise obfuscate the packets that are transmitted by SC2. Reverse engineering is possible, but it will probably be the better part of a year before we see a usable grey-market server. As well, most of the existing servers were developed at a time when there were no legal hindrances; this time Blizzard is likely going to start filing lawsuits on day one, which will affect at least in some way the willingness to create and distribute bnet emulators.
cyg wrote: > "Ceowulf" <non...@toknow.askifyoudo> wrote in message > news:4a5b4964$0$9745$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... >> Private battlenet server software already exists and is a pinch to setup. >> So the adapation of Starcraft 2 to use them will not be long in the >> making.
> But that is with unprotected clients. Undoubtedly Blizzard will be looking > to encrypt and otherwise obfuscate the packets that are transmitted by SC2. > Reverse engineering is possible, but it will probably be the better part of > a year before we see a usable grey-market server. As well, most of the > existing servers were developed at a time when there were no legal > hindrances; this time Blizzard is likely going to start filing lawsuits on > day one, which will affect at least in some way the willingness to create > and distribute bnet emulators.
I can't argue with that logic unfortunately :/
This really is a bitch, from day one my friends and I were planning on purchasing Starcraft 2 and some epic lan's were planned. We _never_ have net connections available when we lan as we always use a hall of some sort. Even if we did get a net connection, having 8+ people all having to connect through a single connection to the bnet server to play with is ludicrous.
If this plan of theirs is a reality when it's released, they've lost the sales of my friends and I. I can't say we will be unique in our decisions either.
cyg wrote: > "Ceowulf" <non...@toknow.askifyoudo> wrote in message > news:4a5b4964$0$9745$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... >> Private battlenet server software already exists and is a pinch to setup. >> So the adapation of Starcraft 2 to use them will not be long in the >> making.
> But that is with unprotected clients. Undoubtedly Blizzard will be looking > to encrypt and otherwise obfuscate the packets that are transmitted by SC2. > Reverse engineering is possible, but it will probably be the better part of > a year before we see a usable grey-market server.
Plus, doesn't the American DMCA make reverse-engineering illegal? criminally so? That might be a bigger threat than lawsuits.
Ceowulf wrote: > ... some epic lan's were planned. We _never_ have > net connections available when we lan as we always use a hall of some > sort.
This bit fascinates me.
So ... you would rent a hall, then you all pack up your home PCs and transport them to the rented hall, and then you each sit at your own PCs on rented tables in one big room and play a game together?
I can't conceive of even relocating my PC, let alone gaming together like that. Wouldn't it be more convenient to play via the Internet from the comfort of your den or home office?
Are there many people who play LAN games still? Is it just Starcraft or other games?
cyg <nom...@example.com> wrote: > But that is with unprotected clients. Undoubtedly Blizzard will be looking > to encrypt and otherwise obfuscate the packets that are transmitted by SC2. > Reverse engineering is possible, but it will probably be the better part of > a year before we see a usable grey-market server. As well, most of the > existing servers were developed at a time when there were no legal > hindrances; this time Blizzard is likely going to start filing lawsuits on > day one, which will affect at least in some way the willingness to create > and distribute bnet emulators.
Such laws and lawsuits will only be effective against Americans. Fortunately, America does not have a monopoloy on smart, talented programmers.
David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote: > Plus, doesn't the American DMCA make reverse-engineering illegal? > criminally so? That might be a bigger threat than lawsuits.
They have to be careful. The DMCA is unconstitutional as written. So if Blizzard starts waving the DMCA around indiscriminately it could result in not only having the case thrown out, but the DMCA thrown off the books entirely. This is why there are people trying to goad companies into suing them because of DMCA violations.
Besides which, the American law only applies within America's borders. Any attempt to try and sue someone in, say, Canada for creating a workaround to this problem will only result in a bunch of legal red tape and negative publicity for Blizzard.
Doug Jacobs wrote: > David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote: >> Plus, doesn't the American DMCA make reverse-engineering illegal? >> criminally so? That might be a bigger threat than lawsuits. > This is why there are people trying to goad companies > into suing them because of DMCA violations.
More power to them, but I hope they have a big legal defence fund!
> Besides which, the American law only applies within America's borders.
I'd like to believe that, but there's this thing called "extraterritoriality" that us non-Americans find very annoying; the US of A is really good at finding ways to extend its laws beyond its own borders.
Sheldon England wrote: > Ceowulf wrote: >> ... some epic lan's were planned. We _never_ have net connections >> available when we lan as we always use a hall of some sort.
> This bit fascinates me.
> So ... you would rent a hall, then you all pack up your home PCs and > transport them to the rented hall, and then you each sit at your own PCs > on rented tables in one big room and play a game together?
You hit it on the nail :) We buy pizza, get beer, play games, talk shit, insult reach other, burp, belch, fart, you name it :) It's a great time and an excellent excuse to have a boy only social event ;) Yes our gf's all hate it, and that's their right. We've all said they are more than welcome to come and be our beer wenches afterall! hehe
> I can't conceive of even relocating my PC, let alone gaming together > like that. Wouldn't it be more convenient to play via the Internet from > the comfort of your den or home office?
More convenient maybe, but a great deal less fun and social. And really it's not even that convenient, nothing beats face to face communication when planning strategy.
> Are there many people who play LAN games still? Is it just Starcraft or > other games?
Yes, quite a few I think :) And there are _lots_ of games. Age of Empires 2 still gets a good stomping, it has the best maps (big), and the best base building concepts around. In addition it allows multiple people to play the same race! Meaning you can have two people playing one race. One person can be devoted to base economy, the other to military and so on. It's a huge amount of fun.
We also play DoTA (Warcraft 3 - Defence of the Ancients custom map), Titan Quest, Call of Duty and so on.
But I've got to stress it's not just the games, it's the socialising :)
>cyg <nom...@example.com> wrote: >> But that is with unprotected clients. Undoubtedly Blizzard will be looking >> to encrypt and otherwise obfuscate the packets that are transmitted by SC2. >> Reverse engineering is possible, but it will probably be the better part of >> a year before we see a usable grey-market server. As well, most of the >> existing servers were developed at a time when there were no legal >> hindrances; this time Blizzard is likely going to start filing lawsuits on >> day one, which will affect at least in some way the willingness to create >> and distribute bnet emulators.
>Such laws and lawsuits will only be effective against Americans. >Fortunately, America does not have a monopoloy on smart, talented >programmers.
What's more to the point smart talented programmers can pretend to be from anywhere. With TOR and proxy servers and other methods it's entirely possible to create a server and release it to the wild anonymously. You won't get the joy of telling everyone of your accomplishment but you also won't end up being sued or jailed for your accomplishment either. (That last bit is going to make a number of people that might be interested in the challenge look elsewhere for a challenge to overcome.)
shawn <nanoflo...@gmail.com> wrote: >What's more to the point smart talented programmers can pretend to be >from anywhere. With TOR and proxy servers and other methods it's >entirely possible to create a server and release it to the wild >anonymously.
It's a moot point really. The smart talented programmers that will eventually come up with Battle.net emulation for Starcraft 2 will most likely come from somewhere in Asia or maybe Eastern-Europe.
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:39:20 +0800, Ceowulf <non...@toknow.askifyoudo> wrote:
>Yes, quite a few I think :) And there are _lots_ of games. Age of >Empires 2 still gets a good stomping, it has the best maps (big), and >the best base building concepts around. In addition it allows multiple >people to play the same race! Meaning you can have two people playing >one race. One person can be devoted to base economy, the other to >military and so on. It's a huge amount of fun.
That is exactly what I did with a friend of mine. I did not care for the military fighting part of the game. My friend did not really like the base building part of the game. So we each played the portion we did like on the same race. It was definitely fun.
Ceowulf wrote: > You hit it on the nail :) We buy pizza, get beer, play games, talk shit, > insult reach other, burp, belch, fart, you name it :) It's a great time > and an excellent excuse to have a boy only social event ;) Yes our gf's > all hate it, and that's their right. We've all said they are more than > welcome to come and be our beer wenches afterall! hehe
That honestly sounds like a lot of fun. Though I would probably want a second PC to do this. (No pizza fingers get anywhere near my machine!)
>> Are there many people who play LAN games still? Is it just Starcraft >> or other games?
> Yes, quite a few I think :) And there are _lots_ of games. Age of > Empires 2 still gets a good stomping, it has the best maps (big), and > the best base building concepts around. In addition it allows multiple > people to play the same race! Meaning you can have two people playing > one race. One person can be devoted to base economy, the other to > military and so on. It's a huge amount of fun.
> We also play DoTA (Warcraft 3 - Defence of the Ancients custom map), > Titan Quest, Call of Duty and so on.
I can understand the advantage of that.
I have only once played a LAN game -- Warcraft 2 (a long, long time ago) and we were in two rooms. We couldn't see each other but we could hear the taunts and screams of agony. Now with Vent and in-game voice for MMO playing it's about the same ... I can hear their joy or pain but not see it.
> But I've got to stress it's not just the games, it's the socialising :)
Fair enough. I was just surprised that people would still LAN. Across the street from where I work is a business that, according to the window signage, is all about hosting LAN parties. I figured it was just a front for drug dealing or a gang but maybe it's legit! :p
Mike S. wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:39:20 +0800, Ceowulf <non...@toknow.askifyoudo> > wrote:
>> Yes, quite a few I think :) And there are _lots_ of games. Age of >> Empires 2 still gets a good stomping, it has the best maps (big), and >> the best base building concepts around. In addition it allows multiple >> people to play the same race! Meaning you can have two people playing >> one race. One person can be devoted to base economy, the other to >> military and so on. It's a huge amount of fun.
> That is exactly what I did with a friend of mine. I did not care for > the military fighting part of the game. My friend did not really like > the base building part of the game. So we each played the portion we > did like on the same race. It was definitely fun.
It really is isn't it? The chap I usually paired up with a base building whiz. Whereas I was a sneaky, aggressive and comprehensive on the military side. Especially with the huge maps, you could have multiple, walled, well hidden bases from which to operate from.
My favourite trick was to, at the soonest possible stage, set up a small forward base inside a targets outer perimeter, usually behind their main base in a small nook of the map they were unlikely to explore.
Sheldon England wrote: > Ceowulf wrote: >> But I've got to stress it's not just the games, it's the socialising :)
> Fair enough. I was just surprised that people would still LAN. Across > the street from where I work is a business that, according to the window > signage, is all about hosting LAN parties. I figured it was just a front > for drug dealing or a gang but maybe it's legit! :p
> Thanks for the reply and info.
Haha my pleasure, it probably was just a front! ;) But no those places exist and there are I can guarantee, at least several in every city :)
|
