POST STUFF
|
 by Slapnuts, Level 70
Last updated at July 1, 2009, 12:50 am
|
|
First up was a statement from Blizzard PR man Bob Colayco:
"We don't currently plan to support LAN play with StarCraft II, as we are building Battle.net to be the ideal destination for multiplayer gaming with StarCraft II and future Blizzard Entertainment games. While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with StarCraft II and safeguard against piracy.Several Battle.net features like advanced communication options, achievements, stat-tracking, and more, require players to be connected to the service, so we're encouraging everyone to use Battle.net as much as possible to get the most out of StarCraft II. We're looking forward to sharing more details about Battle.net and online functionality for StarCraft II in the near future."
It should come as little surprise that the backlash has been pretty negative. While in my post yesterday for the most part everyone was level headed, that didn't hold the same around the net. I read various forums and gaming publications yesterday and the response was overwhelming pretty pissed off.
What is the typical answer for pissed off folks on the internet? Petition time! A petition has been started asking for the return of LAN play noting that the benefits of Battlenet 2.0 should be motivation enough for fans to skip the piracy route and that a lack of ad hoc networking options is huge drawback. The petition has jumped 2,800 signatures just in the past couple hours and now sites at over 8,800.
I find it interesting the things we complain about, too much content in a new game and features cut from a new game. We gamers are a fickle bunch.
Report Post
178 comments
0 replies to Nvcn (hide)
0 replies to Nvcn (show)
Permalink
Post Reply
Reply to this comment
Alsn Jul 1, 2009 at 1:06 am
+1 votes
Why did GR eat my comment? Or was it because someone deleted the post I replied to?
Slapnuts Jul 1, 2009 at 1:07 am
+3 votes
What did you post?
If it was to the jflanden troll fest, it probably disappeared.
If it was to the jflanden troll fest, it probably disappeared.
Alsn Jul 1, 2009 at 1:08 am
+1 votes
I posted some very compelling arguments(or so I thought at least) why blizzard should stop being dickheads and just let us play D3 and SC2 in LAN. Ah well, not like they're gonna change their minds after my GR post anyway... 
Edit: Hah, it happened again when I tried to convince that flanden guy that blizzard was making a mistake(for the second time). I'm just gonna stop trying.
Edit: Hah, it happened again when I tried to convince that flanden guy that blizzard was making a mistake(for the second time). I'm just gonna stop trying.
Slapnuts Jul 1, 2009 at 1:14 am
+1 votes
Flanden thinks he knows me and my playing habits. Regardless, you are right, I dont need to play the game currently to realize what an anti-consumer move this is.
I haven't played SC in a couple years but I played it on LAN many times in college and even when lanning during my CS days. I pretty much stopped playing MP as I moved on to other games but I realize the importance of LAN play.
I haven't played SC in a couple years but I played it on LAN many times in college and even when lanning during my CS days. I pretty much stopped playing MP as I moved on to other games but I realize the importance of LAN play.
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 1:19 am
-2 votes
Slapnuts: "I don't even play SC multiplayer so personally I don't give two ****s."
Slapnuts Jul 1, 2009 at 1:22 am
+1 votes
I pretty much stopped playing MP as I moved on to other games but I realize the importance of LAN play.
Wow great, you just repeated what I just said. Congrats. Just because I haven't played SC MP in years doesn't mean I can't judge this move.
Wow great, you just repeated what I just said. Congrats. Just because I haven't played SC MP in years doesn't mean I can't judge this move.
Slapnuts Jul 1, 2009 at 1:32 am
+5 votes
Flanden, you are this close to being banned for complete moron.
I don't play SC MP anymore and I wont be playing SC2 MP because I have little interest in RTS multiplayer anymore. But that doesn't mean I can't see the significance of LAN having played it in the past and knowing how often it used for various tournaments.
You are definitely candidate #1 for the next "vote off the GR island", if you even make it that far...
I don't play SC MP anymore and I wont be playing SC2 MP because I have little interest in RTS multiplayer anymore. But that doesn't mean I can't see the significance of LAN having played it in the past and knowing how often it used for various tournaments.
You are definitely candidate #1 for the next "vote off the GR island", if you even make it that far...
Trusted Jul 1, 2009 at 4:22 am
+1 votes
You can pretend all you want that the fight against piracy is a legitimate excuse to take out an extremely important aspect of a game, its their job to make money and its ours to fight for the best game we can get and without LAN it is by far not the best game we can get.
Valve will forever be better then Blizzard and no one gives 'two ****s' about your terrible reasons for being a Blizzard Fanboy.
Valve will forever be better then Blizzard and no one gives 'two ****s' about your terrible reasons for being a Blizzard Fanboy.
windrunner Jul 1, 2009 at 6:41 am
+2 votes
i hate jflanden as much as the next guy but i'm pretty sure banning him because you don't like him and you don't agree with what he says is alot worse than just being a complete tool
Kyle P. Jul 1, 2009 at 12:28 pm
-2 votes
Its a pretty common internet practice to not flame site admins/moderators. Banning is a typical response to doing so. Not sure how that makes him worse than someone who is being a tool.
windrunner Jul 1, 2009 at 1:18 pm
+1 votes
why should flaming the site admins be worse than flaming any other user?
Vir Jul 1, 2009 at 1:38 pm
+0 votes
windrunner said
why should flaming the site admins be worse than flaming any other user?
You have to do something pretty over the top to get banned in my experience, especially by Slapnuts.
windrunner Jul 1, 2009 at 1:43 pm
+1 votes
that's because you're super awesome and jflandon is a douche
Slapnuts Jul 1, 2009 at 4:14 pm
+2 votes
It is borderline at this point. But jumping on every single post he sees fit and arguing with everyone single poster is getting a bit old, especially to the point where he just keeps posting the same thing over and over.
Kyle P. Jul 1, 2009 at 8:31 pm
+1 votes
windrunner said
why should flaming the site admins be worse than flaming any other user?
Its honestly a very, very simple concept that I think almost everyone on the internet understands.
That said, as Vir mentioned you have to be a real douche about it to get threatened with a ban. Criticism is one thing but repeated flaming... well, lets just say thats another thing a site admin and a host have in common. They both have every right to kick your ass off the property.
windrunner Jul 2, 2009 at 6:57 am
+1 votes
that reason is based on the fact that the host can throw you out it doesn't explain why he should. in addition that analogy is flawed becasue when you allow someone into your house you are demonstrating your trust in them whereas anyone can register for a website without anyone's permission
Nelo Jul 2, 2009 at 10:49 am
+1 votes
Kyle I think you are missing the point regarding moderation on forums or blogs. The point being made is that everybody should be treated equally and that forums admins or mods shouldn't be rimmed or ass-licked just because they are providing the means or platform on which to debate on. Also there are guidelines; maybe not written but implicit, I think at least in that there should be transparency and equality when moderating.
TLDR, Your analogy is flawed
and in short I agree with:
i hate jflanden as much as the next guy but i'm pretty sure banning him
because you don't like him and you don't agree with what he says is
alot worse than just being a complete tool
TLDR, Your analogy is flawed
and in short I agree with:
i hate jflanden as much as the next guy but i'm pretty sure banning him
because you don't like him and you don't agree with what he says is
alot worse than just being a complete tool
Kyle P. Jul 6, 2009 at 5:34 pm
+1 votes
Missing the point? I think this is actually exactly the point of moderation. Removing users who contribute nothing to a community except for strife and ad hominem attacks. What I don't understand is how we went from being a complete toolbag to at risk of "ass-licking the mods". There is a vast middle ground you skipped over for the sake of arguing your point.
As for the analogy. my intent wasn't to make it perfect. I made the assumption that the concept is a fairly well understood one. Apparently, I shouldn't have.
Instead, consider a business. Anyone can walk in, but picking a fight with a manager is probably going to get you kicked right back out. Arguing with another customer on the other hand, unless things get violent, is far less likely to get you removed. This is because in a real life business and an internet blog/forum there is a sense of propriety surrounding the individual or group of people running the show. Whether you like these people or not, agree with them or not, its usually a good idea to defer to them or, at the least, ignore them.
The real irony of this is that if we exercised the ability to ban users more often then there would probably be no complaints for the removal of such an obvious troll as jflanden. The fact is, we rarely ban (around once a month 1 person gets banned) people and those bans are primarily reserved for people spamming or some other highly disruptive activity.
Also, if we banned people because we didn't like them Slap would have banned Gib 6-8 months ago. The only reason we'd ban someone you might assume we don't like is because they are being unnecessarily hostile and have a tendency to make personal and/or racist attacks.
As for the analogy. my intent wasn't to make it perfect. I made the assumption that the concept is a fairly well understood one. Apparently, I shouldn't have.
Instead, consider a business. Anyone can walk in, but picking a fight with a manager is probably going to get you kicked right back out. Arguing with another customer on the other hand, unless things get violent, is far less likely to get you removed. This is because in a real life business and an internet blog/forum there is a sense of propriety surrounding the individual or group of people running the show. Whether you like these people or not, agree with them or not, its usually a good idea to defer to them or, at the least, ignore them.
The real irony of this is that if we exercised the ability to ban users more often then there would probably be no complaints for the removal of such an obvious troll as jflanden. The fact is, we rarely ban (around once a month 1 person gets banned) people and those bans are primarily reserved for people spamming or some other highly disruptive activity.
Also, if we banned people because we didn't like them Slap would have banned Gib 6-8 months ago. The only reason we'd ban someone you might assume we don't like is because they are being unnecessarily hostile and have a tendency to make personal and/or racist attacks.
r0kzilla Jul 1, 2009 at 1:08 am
+1 votes
blizzard doesn't want people on private servers
especially after that 2.4.3 wow server fiasco
especially after that 2.4.3 wow server fiasco
r0kzilla Jul 1, 2009 at 1:35 am
+1 votes
BeddaDenToes said
and yet, they ***** it out for arena tournaments.
BeddaDenToes Jul 1, 2009 at 1:30 am
+1 votes
Every person (56) at the last LAN I attended had legit copies of every game we played.
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 1:43 am
-3 votes
56 people brought their own computer to a LAN and didn't just play on computers that had SC1 already installed? I doubt that.
BeddaDenToes Jul 1, 2009 at 1:48 am
+1 votes
It's pretty normal around here that people buy things they enjoy.
Slapnuts Jul 1, 2009 at 1:50 am
+1 votes
What? You mean not everyone pirates every single game out there? but, but...
BeddaDenToes Jul 1, 2009 at 1:55 am
+1 votes
Oh wait, I'm a PC gamer and I play MMOs. Therefore I'm a fat, lazy, virgin, jobless, living with my mother pirate who hasn't bought a game since 1997.
Slapnuts Jul 1, 2009 at 1:57 am
+1 votes
People bring their own computers to a LAN? What is this craziness!
Clearly getting out of the basement and going to actual LAN that isn't a LAN center is a new concept.
Clearly getting out of the basement and going to actual LAN that isn't a LAN center is a new concept.
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 1:56 am
+0 votes
These aren't people visiting Piratebay here and torrenting Sims 3 and ****. Pirating Warcraft 3/Starcraft is hardly even seen as pirating through most people's eyes as its just the normal thing to do at LANs, one guy buys the game then all his buddies get to play at the LAN with him. Blizzard is saying "No, if you want your buddies to play Starcraft 2 with you, make them buy the game."
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 1:54 am
-1 votes
Okay, they may have bought the game before, but did they really all bring their OWN computer to a LAN? They most likely didn't and most likely the SC1 used at the LAN were mostly pirated.
BeddaDenToes Jul 1, 2009 at 1:57 am
+1 votes
It's the rules of the LAN, if you don't bring your own rig, you can't play. It prevents pirating and malicious behavior. 56 computers did show up, we did have to make some network cables tho.
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 2:01 am
+0 votes
Assuming all 56 of you didn't head into your basement to play, how come this place, that has 56 people willing to bring their computers to, not able to provide internet to the computers? To this very day do a **** load of people still bring their computers there? It's probably much easier to provide internet to each computer than trying to find a workaround for offline LANing. What is so hard about providing internet to multiple computers in the year 2009? If Blizzard forced a Bnet connection in 1998, then that would be ****** up.
BeddaDenToes Jul 1, 2009 at 2:09 am
+1 votes
We LAN at a church about 4 miles out of town. They don't even have phones there so they'd have to have lines installed before even thinking about internet. Stop being retarded, places like this still exist. Go back to your comfy city where everything is spoonfed to you.
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 2:16 am
-4 votes
It's real funny, it really is. Every single LAN I have been to has been able to provide internet for every computer(20-30) yet MOST of them pirated Warcraft 3/Starcraft.
So we have people that actually bought the game(Or so they claim that every comp had a "legit" copy.) that couldn't afford to have internet set up at their LAN to support a lot of computers THEN we have people that pirated the game yet they DID have internet set up and was supporting every computer there.
Maybe if you guys pirated more you could afford better LANs. No, I don't care about how hard it is at church, go somewhere else or stop living in the middle of nowhere.
So we have people that actually bought the game(Or so they claim that every comp had a "legit" copy.) that couldn't afford to have internet set up at their LAN to support a lot of computers THEN we have people that pirated the game yet they DID have internet set up and was supporting every computer there.
Maybe if you guys pirated more you could afford better LANs. No, I don't care about how hard it is at church, go somewhere else or stop living in the middle of nowhere.
Ghork Jul 1, 2009 at 4:34 am
+3 votes
flanden, we do this often out in a barn (that we've converted to a conference room, rent it out to various people, and 3 times a year lan in it), we dont have inet on purpose as thats a distraction from lan gaming. ppl tend to read forums, post on gameriot or something useless ^^ see i'm doing it now, if i couldn't do that, i'd be playing games more. which is the point of our lans
Slapnuts Jul 1, 2009 at 2:01 am
+1 votes
Any LAN that I have been to that wasn't hosted at a center has operated exactly the same way. Everyone brings their own PC or you don't play. You don't come to give your PC play time to someone else.
The rats nest of CAT5 is always amusing.
The rats nest of CAT5 is always amusing.
Runnin Jul 1, 2009 at 3:32 am
+4 votes
Playing Starcraft at a LAN off of one disc is not pirating. Blizzard allowed you to install a "spawn" version of the game specifically for this purpose.
"StarCraft is also one of the few games that include a "spawn"
installation, which allows for limited multiplayer. It must be
installed from a disc, and requires a product key
to work just as the full version does. However, one product key can
support up to eight spawned installations with access to Battle.net.
Limitations of a spawned installation include the inability to play
single-player missions, create multiplayer games or use the campaign
editor." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft
"StarCraft is also one of the few games that include a "spawn"
installation, which allows for limited multiplayer. It must be
installed from a disc, and requires a product key
to work just as the full version does. However, one product key can
support up to eight spawned installations with access to Battle.net.
Limitations of a spawned installation include the inability to play
single-player missions, create multiplayer games or use the campaign
editor." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 5:41 am
-4 votes
Not really, spawn installation is a thing of the past, it's main reason was to get friends interested enough in the game to buy it, kind of like a buddy key. Blizzard used this for Warcraft 1 and 2, Diablo 1, and Starcraft. Back then, Blizzard basically needed that to help sell the games since those were new franchises/not well known and Pirating games wasn't a popular thing.
Blizzard ditched spawn installations with Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3 because they didn't need it anymore, Blizzard already established themselves as being great developers and their games had great reviews.
A lot of **** has changed in the past 10 years, pirating is a big issue for developers now and Blizzard knows that their past games have been getting pirated like crazy. Blizzard would be stupid as hell if they allowed offline LAN support in Starcraft 2, it's the year 2009, everyone/everywhere should have access to the internet, if you want to LAN, it's going to have to be through logging at Bnet so you cheap bastards don't make Starcraft 2 the "Most Pirated Game of the Year!".
Blizzard ditched spawn installations with Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3 because they didn't need it anymore, Blizzard already established themselves as being great developers and their games had great reviews.
A lot of **** has changed in the past 10 years, pirating is a big issue for developers now and Blizzard knows that their past games have been getting pirated like crazy. Blizzard would be stupid as hell if they allowed offline LAN support in Starcraft 2, it's the year 2009, everyone/everywhere should have access to the internet, if you want to LAN, it's going to have to be through logging at Bnet so you cheap bastards don't make Starcraft 2 the "Most Pirated Game of the Year!".
Yiska Jul 1, 2009 at 6:10 am
+1 votes
It will be cracked and there is nothing they can do about it. Look at ICCup. Same thing will happen for starcraft2, lan is the smallest issue of gamepirating. You're delusional if you think that most pirating takes place on LANevents.
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 6:24 am
-2 votes
You are failing to realize that most people that pirated Starcraft/Warcraft 3 did it extremely casually, these aren't the people downloading torrents all day and going to sites like thepiratebay; pirating Starcraft/Warcraft 3 was TOO easy, with one of Starcraft 2's main attractions being playing with friends, there would be no need for a lot of people to even buy the game if it supported offline LAN.
You know how a CD key doesn't do much against piracy? Well, if PC games didn't have a CD key then believe it or not, MORE games would be pirated. The easier it is, the more people do it.
Crack or not, this will result in more sales for Starcraft 2. No offline support only benefits me since I don't go to **** LANs that aren't even able to provide an internet connection and it will force people to play on Bnet, which is where I will be playing, instead of third party servers like Garena.
You know how a CD key doesn't do much against piracy? Well, if PC games didn't have a CD key then believe it or not, MORE games would be pirated. The easier it is, the more people do it.
Crack or not, this will result in more sales for Starcraft 2. No offline support only benefits me since I don't go to **** LANs that aren't even able to provide an internet connection and it will force people to play on Bnet, which is where I will be playing, instead of third party servers like Garena.
Yiska Jul 1, 2009 at 6:46 am
+2 votes
If people only casually pirated SC/WC3 than the same people won't care about buying the game. Currently as it stands if you add up all the illegal servers such as G-Arena ICCup etc. there are more people playing on these than on the Bnet. You can't argue that they all got it from LAN. Of course less people will pirate, but it's retarded to believe that these guys will buy a copy instead. It's no significant number to even consider implenting a change like this.
No offline support only benefits me since I don't go to **** LANs that
aren't even able to provide an internet connection and it will force
people to play on Bnet, which is where I will be playing, instead of
third party servers like Garena.
Because you don't have friends, for obvious reasons. People attending professionally hosted LANs because:
1.) It's near them and they want to try it out
2.) Tournaments with pricemoney
3.) You get to see good games being played by good players
4.) You meat people you got to know online, and you are disappointed because 90% are social rejects
5.) You drive there with reallifefriends because it's expensive as **** and you could probably do better in your friends basement???
in that order.
You must be incredibly lonely. Attending professionally hosted LANs for everything else than playing at these tournaments or observing the games is retarded anyway. You don't understand that 95% of all lans are not professionally hosted and if you are at a lan and play over the internet (with horrible pisspoor ping, there are ALWAYS massive problems) chances are you are retarded and you could've bootcamped at someone's place with your buddies way easier and way less expensive.
No offline support only benefits me since I don't go to **** LANs that
aren't even able to provide an internet connection and it will force
people to play on Bnet, which is where I will be playing, instead of
third party servers like Garena.
Because you don't have friends, for obvious reasons. People attending professionally hosted LANs because:
1.) It's near them and they want to try it out
2.) Tournaments with pricemoney
3.) You get to see good games being played by good players
4.) You meat people you got to know online, and you are disappointed because 90% are social rejects
5.) You drive there with reallifefriends because it's expensive as **** and you could probably do better in your friends basement???
in that order.
You must be incredibly lonely. Attending professionally hosted LANs for everything else than playing at these tournaments or observing the games is retarded anyway. You don't understand that 95% of all lans are not professionally hosted and if you are at a lan and play over the internet (with horrible pisspoor ping, there are ALWAYS massive problems) chances are you are retarded and you could've bootcamped at someone's place with your buddies way easier and way less expensive.
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 7:07 am
+0 votes
No, if they casually pirated the game then they will just end up buying it if they want to play with friends. If they could play with friends without having to buy it, very easily, then why would they even contemplate buying it? Blizzard is eliminating the easy way so players actually end up buying the game. It will be funny if a crack is discovered to then be fixed in a balance/changes patch that Blizzard makes.
First of all, I hardly ever go to a professional LAN center, especially since they keep going out of business, but I can see that a social reject like yourself has a lot of experience. I usually go to a friend's house for the LAN and because they aren't living in **** holes, they can actually provide internet to all the computers. You know that you can still do an offline LAN while being connected to the internet at the same time, moron? I know, it's amazing what you can do in the year 2009. About your LANs having "horrible pisspoor ping", you may want to actually upgrade from Dial Up first.
First of all, I hardly ever go to a professional LAN center, especially since they keep going out of business, but I can see that a social reject like yourself has a lot of experience. I usually go to a friend's house for the LAN and because they aren't living in **** holes, they can actually provide internet to all the computers. You know that you can still do an offline LAN while being connected to the internet at the same time, moron? I know, it's amazing what you can do in the year 2009. About your LANs having "horrible pisspoor ping", you may want to actually upgrade from Dial Up first.
BeddaDenToes Jul 1, 2009 at 8:18 am
+2 votes
I'm glad I don't see people like you at LANs. We "lose invitations in the mail" to people like you that "need" an inet connection.
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 8:28 am
-1 votes
Sorry, I don't go to church for LANs. Maybe you should start praying for an internet connection next time you go.
Yiska Jul 1, 2009 at 8:53 am
+1 votes
| 16556. | Klim | Please, include the LAN functionality. In Belarus, acording to the quality of Internet, it's the best way to play multiplayer games. |
| 16579. | Bjarne Berthelsen | Please give LAN, I used to play SC1 alot with some friends on a network without internet. Would be a shame if that's not possible with SC2. |
| 16544. | Andreas Spaeth | please bring lan to SC2, i barely play games online, but we love to play in lan here. Blizzard always had a leading role when it came to be userfriendly, please continue that way. |
| 16513. | Andreas Krimm | I simply won't buy starcraft II if it comes without LAN mode, since i played Starcraft only via LAN... |
| 16503. | DUPLEX | I will not buy SC2 if I can't play in LAN... |
| 16460. | Steve | Will not buy the game if there is no LAN support. Screwing loyal customers to battle pirates is a big no no. Shame on you blizzard, shame on you. |
| 11030. | Steven M Gruel | I love to play LAN quick and easy with my friends at home and I don't feel the need to do all of this via your b-net. Your anti-piracy attempts and your high costs for single campaigns only drive me to like this game less and less before it's even out. |
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 9:25 am
+0 votes
12312 jonny -WTF BLIZZ I WANT TO PIRATE UR GAEM THIS IS CRAP!
23456 bobby- way to ruin my fun blizz i have been playing ur games 4 free 4evar
654321 Yiska- WTF! My inbred family of 20 now ALL have to buy a copy of SC2, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO AFFORD THAT IN ADDITION TO ACTUALLY HAVING A STABLE INTERNET CONNECTION!?!
2653 stevey- i play at CHURCH bc im a ******* moron, GOD DOES NOT PROVIDE AN INTERNET CONNECTION, WTF BLIZZ
63521 andy- i has no job not internet i leech neighbors wireless nd i cant afford sc2 how am i suppos to play now blizz????
23456 bobby- way to ruin my fun blizz i have been playing ur games 4 free 4evar
654321 Yiska- WTF! My inbred family of 20 now ALL have to buy a copy of SC2, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO AFFORD THAT IN ADDITION TO ACTUALLY HAVING A STABLE INTERNET CONNECTION!?!
2653 stevey- i play at CHURCH bc im a ******* moron, GOD DOES NOT PROVIDE AN INTERNET CONNECTION, WTF BLIZZ
63521 andy- i has no job not internet i leech neighbors wireless nd i cant afford sc2 how am i suppos to play now blizz????
Yiska Jul 1, 2009 at 9:51 am
+2 votes
You are so delusional it's silly. I feel bad for you, because you don't seem to have even 20 friends. Some of my friends own 2+ million euro houses and they still wouldn't be able to provide internet connection for 20+ people. You fail to realize that internet for 20+ people would be about around 10 grand and even then it would lag badly. You are too bad at videogames to attend LANs and play tournaments to realize how uncommon internet for everyone is at LAN events because, guess what moron, it's called LAN for a reason. You have never disagreed with blizzard even once and just blindly fanboying every decision they made without any real argument. Let me tell you as a real blizzard fan, that this company is not the admireable gameforge that it used to be. They became cashcows. If you are willing to pay so much more to experience features which were included for free in the past, you are taking this game way to serious and need to get some daylight. You can pretend all you want that you have so much money at hand and even if you have. Paying more for less content and brag with it, is imbecility at it's finest. Why would a customer be happy about having to pay 30 extra bucks to experience the whole game and having to organize overly expensive hardware to play the game. They are abandoning their roots and they will eventually pay for it.
If my post was the 654321th are you seriously arguing that your opinion would be vaible?
If my post was the 654321th are you seriously arguing that your opinion would be vaible?
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 10:47 am
-2 votes
Don't worry, my delusional friend, I feel sorry for you because I bet your dad isn't even an astronaut. My dad can travel to the moon and still have an internet connection to play SC2. You fail to realize that in the year 2009, it's not very hard, especially for million dollar home owners, to provide an internet connection for a 20+ player nerd gathering. You said that most professional LAN centers provide internet for every computer, stop having pro LAN tourneys in your basement. Sorry buddy, you and your gang of 20 are going to have to start going to professional LAN centers from now on or you can keep playing SC1. I don't disagree with this change because it doesn't affect me negatively ONE BIT but instead it does me more good. Your logic with having to pay more to experience the whole game is hilarious, Blizzard stated that each game will be full single player games with complete stories; you are better off *****ing about things like L4D2 which isn't even being marketed as an expansion but as a SEQUEL.
Yeah, it is possible that there will be 654320 whiny poor *****es before you signing that petition and Blizzard still won't care because this change is for the better: More money for Blizz which is more development money and more players on the Bnet servers.
Yeah, it is possible that there will be 654320 whiny poor *****es before you signing that petition and Blizzard still won't care because this change is for the better: More money for Blizz which is more development money and more players on the Bnet servers.
Yiska Jul 1, 2009 at 10:58 am
+2 votes
ONE BIT but instead it does me more good
How does it benefit you in the slightest? Does it make you all warm and fuzzy inside that other people also have to pay for the game just like you did? Haha, oh god that is the most pathetic thing I've ever heard. What a bitter nerd you are.
Sorry buddy, you and your gang of 20 are going to have to start going
to professional LAN centers from now on or you can keep playing SC1
Funny thing is that SC1 will probably stay the e-sports of choice for the community.
Your logic with having to pay more to experience the whole game is
hilarious, Blizzard stated that each game will be full single player
games with complete stories;
It's still 3 different stories you have to pay the same money for. If anything that encourages pirating.
you are better off *****ing about things like L4D2 which isn't even being marketed as an expansion but as a SEQUEL.
Oh sir I did. It's even more ridiculous if you ask me.
Yeah, it is possible that there will be 654320 whiny poor *****es
before you signing that petition and Blizzard still won't care because
this change is for the better: More money for Blizz which is more
development money and more players on the Bnet servers.
That's 10% less people buying the game. Are you seriously that dense? GC stated himself that extra money for the development of the game doesn't do ****. Bnet servers have never been limited.
I just checked and there are currently 2 times as much people playing on Garena+ICCup alone than people are playing on bnet. (Hint: this problem isn't solved by denying users LAN access without internet) All hop on the failtrain with Jflanden, who didn't even knew that you bring your own pc to a normal lan. Smoke some more pot crackhead.
How does it benefit you in the slightest? Does it make you all warm and fuzzy inside that other people also have to pay for the game just like you did? Haha, oh god that is the most pathetic thing I've ever heard. What a bitter nerd you are.
Sorry buddy, you and your gang of 20 are going to have to start going
to professional LAN centers from now on or you can keep playing SC1
Funny thing is that SC1 will probably stay the e-sports of choice for the community.
Your logic with having to pay more to experience the whole game is
hilarious, Blizzard stated that each game will be full single player
games with complete stories;
It's still 3 different stories you have to pay the same money for. If anything that encourages pirating.
you are better off *****ing about things like L4D2 which isn't even being marketed as an expansion but as a SEQUEL.
Oh sir I did. It's even more ridiculous if you ask me.
Yeah, it is possible that there will be 654320 whiny poor *****es
before you signing that petition and Blizzard still won't care because
this change is for the better: More money for Blizz which is more
development money and more players on the Bnet servers.
That's 10% less people buying the game. Are you seriously that dense? GC stated himself that extra money for the development of the game doesn't do ****. Bnet servers have never been limited.
I just checked and there are currently 2 times as much people playing on Garena+ICCup alone than people are playing on bnet. (Hint: this problem isn't solved by denying users LAN access without internet) All hop on the failtrain with Jflanden, who didn't even knew that you bring your own pc to a normal lan. Smoke some more pot crackhead.
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 11:43 am
-1 votes
You think that every "signature" on that petition = One person who won't buy the game? And you are calling ME dense?
Glad you checked that because Bnet doesn't support DotA which is why a **** load of people are playing. I would be willing to bet a **** load of money that by the time of release that their will be at least 10times more SC2 players on the Bnet servers than Garena+ICCup and it will be because of this change.
GC stated himself that extra money for the development of the game doesn't do ****.
Straight from a SC2 Developer: More people on Battle.net means more even more
resources devoted to evolving this online platform to cater to further
community building and new ways to enjoy the game online. World of
Warcraft is a great example of a game that has evolved beyond anyone's
imagination since their Day 1 and will continue to do so to better the
player experience for as long as players support the title. The
original StarCraft is an even better example of how 11 years later,
players still love and play this title, and we will continue to support
and evolve it with patches.
Glad you checked that because Bnet doesn't support DotA which is why a **** load of people are playing. I would be willing to bet a **** load of money that by the time of release that their will be at least 10times more SC2 players on the Bnet servers than Garena+ICCup and it will be because of this change.
GC stated himself that extra money for the development of the game doesn't do ****.
Straight from a SC2 Developer: More people on Battle.net means more even more
resources devoted to evolving this online platform to cater to further
community building and new ways to enjoy the game online. World of
Warcraft is a great example of a game that has evolved beyond anyone's
imagination since their Day 1 and will continue to do so to better the
player experience for as long as players support the title. The
original StarCraft is an even better example of how 11 years later,
players still love and play this title, and we will continue to support
and evolve it with patches.
Yiska Jul 1, 2009 at 12:03 pm
+2 votes
You think that every "signature" on that petition = One person who won't buy the game? And you are calling ME dense?
Haha oh boy, it's obvious I exagerrated and every not dense person would've realized this by simply knowning that there will be way more than 6 million copies sold...
Glad you checked that because Bnet doesn't support DotA which is why a **** load of people are playing.
How does Bnet not support Dota? Bull****. Dota is only played on GArena because the ping is so much better.
I would be willing to bet a **** load of money that by the time of
release that their(hihi) will be at least 10times more SC2 players on the
Bnet servers than Garena+ICCup and it will be because of this change.
Surprise ******. These programms will obviously take time to adept and code bnet mimics. Now I also think that there will be more people playing on bnet than on GArena or ICCup, but not ANY less than with the support of LAN without internet. It will not get any more complicated for users once these communities support SCII.
Haha oh boy, it's obvious I exagerrated and every not dense person would've realized this by simply knowning that there will be way more than 6 million copies sold...
Glad you checked that because Bnet doesn't support DotA which is why a **** load of people are playing.
How does Bnet not support Dota? Bull****. Dota is only played on GArena because the ping is so much better.
I would be willing to bet a **** load of money that by the time of
release that their(hihi) will be at least 10times more SC2 players on the
Bnet servers than Garena+ICCup and it will be because of this change.
Surprise ******. These programms will obviously take time to adept and code bnet mimics. Now I also think that there will be more people playing on bnet than on GArena or ICCup, but not ANY less than with the support of LAN without internet. It will not get any more complicated for users once these communities support SCII.
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 12:55 pm
-1 votes
If Bnet had random solo matchmaking, random group matchmaking, and a ranking system for DotA, more people would be on Bnet over Garena.
Surprise(hihi, someone FORGOT A COMMA!!!!!) ******. Pointing out miss-spellings and bad grammar on gameriot comments is weak, especially when you **** up in the same comment pointing out mine.
Blizzard plans on soon releasing more info about Battle.net 2.0 which is supposed to be a big improvement. By the time people **** around with trying to find a crack, people will be settled in nicely with the Battle.net servers with little reason to leave to a private server with less players. Blizzard isn't stupid, they will make sure that Battle.net will be better than private servers.
Here are few quotes from developer:
-"Battle.net 2.0 is designed with the new generation of online community and eSports in mind."
-"For me personally- I loved LAN parties, but the
direction in which Battle.net is headed, I would always choose to play
on Battle.net > 99% of the time and even if for whatever reason I
did decide to lug my computer to a friend's house in this day of age
(<1%), I would still be playing with them on Battle.net against
others at their place."
Blizzard, sometimes, needs to make very tough decisions, decisions that won't make EVERYONE happy. A good example of this is the 2vs2 change of no longer getting the best rewards from that bracket, there is a **** LOAD of people petitioning, whining, crying, and threatening to cancel their sub. It is a needed change though to progress Arena in the right direction.
With no offline LAN support, they are choosing less pirating/Battle.net community over people that LAN without having access to the internet. Everyone can't win, I am happy that I am on the winning side though with this as Battle.net will be able to grow because of it with less pirating/less people on private servers and MORE on Battle.net.
Surprise(hihi, someone FORGOT A COMMA!!!!!) ******. Pointing out miss-spellings and bad grammar on gameriot comments is weak, especially when you **** up in the same comment pointing out mine.
Blizzard plans on soon releasing more info about Battle.net 2.0 which is supposed to be a big improvement. By the time people **** around with trying to find a crack, people will be settled in nicely with the Battle.net servers with little reason to leave to a private server with less players. Blizzard isn't stupid, they will make sure that Battle.net will be better than private servers.
Here are few quotes from developer:
-"Battle.net 2.0 is designed with the new generation of online community and eSports in mind."
-"For me personally- I loved LAN parties, but the
direction in which Battle.net is headed, I would always choose to play
on Battle.net > 99% of the time and even if for whatever reason I
did decide to lug my computer to a friend's house in this day of age
(<1%), I would still be playing with them on Battle.net against
others at their place."
Blizzard, sometimes, needs to make very tough decisions, decisions that won't make EVERYONE happy. A good example of this is the 2vs2 change of no longer getting the best rewards from that bracket, there is a **** LOAD of people petitioning, whining, crying, and threatening to cancel their sub. It is a needed change though to progress Arena in the right direction.
With no offline LAN support, they are choosing less pirating/Battle.net community over people that LAN without having access to the internet. Everyone can't win, I am happy that I am on the winning side though with this as Battle.net will be able to grow because of it with less pirating/less people on private servers and MORE on Battle.net.
Yiska Jul 1, 2009 at 1:29 pm
+2 votes
If Bnet had random solo matchmaking, random group matchmaking, and a
ranking system for DotA, more people would be on Bnet over Garena.
+ better ping, less disconnects. So what you are saying is, if battlenet wasn't so ****ty, more people would be playing there? Wow, didn't think of that mate.
Surprise(hihi, someone FORGOT A COMMA!!!!!) ******.
Pointing out miss-spellings and bad grammar on gameriot comments is
weak, especially when you **** up in the same comment pointing out mine.
Oh you're getting really worked up bro. A missing comma is the best you can find in my pisspoorly written 3rd language english? Rage more.
Blizzard plans on soon releasing more info about Battle.net 2.0 which
is supposed to be a big improvement. By the time people **** around
with trying to find a crack, people will be settled in nicely with the
Battle.net servers with little reason to leave to a private server with
less players. Blizzard isn't stupid, they will make sure that
Battle.net will be better than private servers.
You mean in the same fashion their tournamentrealms are worse than the private 2.4 realm? Of course the majority of people will stick to Battle.net servers because the product is more polished and it's surely not the techguys who are major **** ups in blizzard, it's those morons who come up with dense stuff like the laddersystem in WC3 and WoW. I just hope they will not waste development time in bull**** like achievements but will implent largescale spectator features to make up for the execution for waaghtv in SCII.
-"For me personally- I loved LAN parties, but the
direction in which Battle.net is headed, I would always choose to play
on Battle.net > 99% of the time and even if for whatever reason I
did decide to lug my computer to a friend's house in this day of age
(<1%), I would still be playing with them on Battle.net against
others at their place."
Just shows how much out of touch they are with the not so vocal community. Obviously he's not going to argue against their decision. SC1 is the LAN game, and it's sad that they haven't realized it after 11 years. Even Valve acknownledge how retarded it is to require internet to play their games.
With no offline LAN support, they are choosing less pirating
Yeah like 5% less pirating *clap*
/Battle.net community over people that LAN without having access to the internet.
Yeah it's sad isn't it? I guess the usual mom's basement cavenerd pays better than the guy with reallife friends.
Everyone can't win, I am happy that I am on the winning side
though with this as Battle.net will be able to grow because of it with
less pirating/less people on private servers and MORE on Battle.net.
First somewhat valid argument. I hope it just won't backfire into immense lag like wc3 ladderplay has been during the first 2 years. 150ms+ is not fun playing with.
ranking system for DotA, more people would be on Bnet over Garena.
+ better ping, less disconnects. So what you are saying is, if battlenet wasn't so ****ty, more people would be playing there? Wow, didn't think of that mate.
Surprise(hihi, someone FORGOT A COMMA!!!!!) ******.
Pointing out miss-spellings and bad grammar on gameriot comments is
weak, especially when you **** up in the same comment pointing out mine.
Oh you're getting really worked up bro. A missing comma is the best you can find in my pisspoorly written 3rd language english? Rage more.
Blizzard plans on soon releasing more info about Battle.net 2.0 which
is supposed to be a big improvement. By the time people **** around
with trying to find a crack, people will be settled in nicely with the
Battle.net servers with little reason to leave to a private server with
less players. Blizzard isn't stupid, they will make sure that
Battle.net will be better than private servers.
You mean in the same fashion their tournamentrealms are worse than the private 2.4 realm? Of course the majority of people will stick to Battle.net servers because the product is more polished and it's surely not the techguys who are major **** ups in blizzard, it's those morons who come up with dense stuff like the laddersystem in WC3 and WoW. I just hope they will not waste development time in bull**** like achievements but will implent largescale spectator features to make up for the execution for waaghtv in SCII.
-"For me personally- I loved LAN parties, but the
direction in which Battle.net is headed, I would always choose to play
on Battle.net > 99% of the time and even if for whatever reason I
did decide to lug my computer to a friend's house in this day of age
(<1%), I would still be playing with them on Battle.net against
others at their place."
Just shows how much out of touch they are with the not so vocal community. Obviously he's not going to argue against their decision. SC1 is the LAN game, and it's sad that they haven't realized it after 11 years. Even Valve acknownledge how retarded it is to require internet to play their games.
With no offline LAN support, they are choosing less pirating
Yeah like 5% less pirating *clap*
/Battle.net community over people that LAN without having access to the internet.
Yeah it's sad isn't it? I guess the usual mom's basement cavenerd pays better than the guy with reallife friends.
Everyone can't win, I am happy that I am on the winning side
though with this as Battle.net will be able to grow because of it with
less pirating/less people on private servers and MORE on Battle.net.
First somewhat valid argument. I hope it just won't backfire into immense lag like wc3 ladderplay has been during the first 2 years. 150ms+ is not fun playing with.
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 1:44 pm
+0 votes
Yeah it's sad isn't it? I guess the usual mom's basement cavenerd pays better than the guy with reallife friends.
Notice the "without having access to the internet" part, this won't affect people LANing with friends that actually have access to an internet connection.
Notice the "without having access to the internet" part, this won't affect people LANing with friends that actually have access to an internet connection.
Yiska Jul 1, 2009 at 2:41 pm
+1 votes
Maybe it's just not as much of a deal for you americans as a) your internet per head is a bit higher and b) LAN parties don't seem to be that integrated into your youth culture as much. Don't get me wrong, it won't affect me much at all since I simply don't have time to waste my time for this and actually really partying with friends is generally a better idea. Now if you are 16 or younger and you don't hang out in clubs as yet that is a pretty big part for europeans from what I've experienced and heard. For instance my cousin does lans in my uncles garage once in a month and they barrely have enough power for his clanmates. (He's pretty frat in CS check EpII on youtube heh)
Yiska Jul 1, 2009 at 8:37 am
+2 votes
No, if they casually pirated the game then they will just end up buying it if they want to play with friends.
Bull ******* ****, cracks are updated 2 weeks after a new patch is released in every blizzardgame to date. Do you honestly think that people at LANs only want to play the most recent patch? Bull****.
If they could play with friends without having to buy it, very easily, then why would they even contemplate buying it
Because they want to reward the developers for doing a good job. I had a friend who made an UI compilation for WoW (caith). When they introduced donationbuttons on curse etc. people donated a ****ton and he ended up with the middle of 4 digit numbers in $. If you are confident in your product you don't have to care about piracy, although of course you won't make as much money. In the past that hasn't concerned blizzard in the slightest because they made quality games because they loved to.
First of all, I hardly ever go to a professional LAN center, especially
since they keep going out of business, but I can see that a social
reject like yourself has a lot of experience.
You know mate, the "MIRROR/NO U" argument is inappropriate once you mentally leave kindergarten. I've only been to northcon and one other small 150 people lan because I was sponsored and was sent there and it was been ridiculously lame other than the tournament. Infact most of the european LANs still don't provide internet access because generally it is very unneccesary. I'm sure if I did some research the same would be the case for US LANs.
I usually go to a friend's house for the LAN and because they aren't
living in **** holes, they can actually provide internet to all the
computers.
Yeah for 5 people or so. You have many friends bro. EVERY household can provide that. The thing is that below 20 people, you might aswell play at home and meet after. It's ridiculously lame and not really a LAN. I promise you the petition will at least reach 50k people and. It's not even clear if you will still be able to play over the LAN protocol and you might be forced to play with ****ty battlenet ping with multiple users.
About your LANs having "horrible pisspoor ping", you may want to actually upgrade from Dial Up first.
I'm fairly sure I have a better connections than you have (16000DSL, usually 1,8mbit/s down 500kb/s up stream) and it is still nothing anywhere near lan ping and if you don't recognize the difference you are a baddy.
Bull ******* ****, cracks are updated 2 weeks after a new patch is released in every blizzardgame to date. Do you honestly think that people at LANs only want to play the most recent patch? Bull****.
If they could play with friends without having to buy it, very easily, then why would they even contemplate buying it
Because they want to reward the developers for doing a good job. I had a friend who made an UI compilation for WoW (caith). When they introduced donationbuttons on curse etc. people donated a ****ton and he ended up with the middle of 4 digit numbers in $. If you are confident in your product you don't have to care about piracy, although of course you won't make as much money. In the past that hasn't concerned blizzard in the slightest because they made quality games because they loved to.
First of all, I hardly ever go to a professional LAN center, especially
since they keep going out of business, but I can see that a social
reject like yourself has a lot of experience.
You know mate, the "MIRROR/NO U" argument is inappropriate once you mentally leave kindergarten. I've only been to northcon and one other small 150 people lan because I was sponsored and was sent there and it was been ridiculously lame other than the tournament. Infact most of the european LANs still don't provide internet access because generally it is very unneccesary. I'm sure if I did some research the same would be the case for US LANs.
I usually go to a friend's house for the LAN and because they aren't
living in **** holes, they can actually provide internet to all the
computers.
Yeah for 5 people or so. You have many friends bro. EVERY household can provide that. The thing is that below 20 people, you might aswell play at home and meet after. It's ridiculously lame and not really a LAN. I promise you the petition will at least reach 50k people and. It's not even clear if you will still be able to play over the LAN protocol and you might be forced to play with ****ty battlenet ping with multiple users.
About your LANs having "horrible pisspoor ping", you may want to actually upgrade from Dial Up first.
I'm fairly sure I have a better connections than you have (16000DSL, usually 1,8mbit/s down 500kb/s up stream) and it is still nothing anywhere near lan ping and if you don't recognize the difference you are a baddy.
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 9:15 am
-1 votes
Your first reply to what you quoted makes to no sense, try again. It is pretty funny that you supposedly already know the update schedule of the LAN crack though. If something is unbalanced/bugged/good change is made, yeah people at LANs will want to be up to date.
Lol, this isn't some donation fund, Blizzard is a business and this is a very smart business move. Very few people actually care about "supporting" a product, if they can easily, very casually, be able to get their hands on something free, they aren't going to go "oh golly! this game is so good im going to run to the store right now and buy it for the hell of it even though I only LAN with friends!"
You know, insulting someone anonymously on the internet, that you don't know, about being lonely/friendless is usually a projection. It doesn't matter how many people sign the petition, I can sign it multiple times and most of the signers could be people that wanted to pirate SC2 easily.
If your ping is so amazing then you won't have any trouble signing into Bnet and direct connecting with the people at your LAN. Sorry to tell you this but Blizzard's response is basically the same as mine:
Go read the SC2 forums yourself.
-Private servers splits the multiplayer community, this will definitely hurt the private servers, crack or not because it will inevitably make more people stick to Bnet servers.
-In today's age, most LANs have an internet connection.
-This won't hurt the competitive scene, big name tournaments have the appropriate equipment to log onto the internet(lol so hard) and the internet going out during a match is just as likely as the power going out.
Lol, this isn't some donation fund, Blizzard is a business and this is a very smart business move. Very few people actually care about "supporting" a product, if they can easily, very casually, be able to get their hands on something free, they aren't going to go "oh golly! this game is so good im going to run to the store right now and buy it for the hell of it even though I only LAN with friends!"
You know, insulting someone anonymously on the internet, that you don't know, about being lonely/friendless is usually a projection. It doesn't matter how many people sign the petition, I can sign it multiple times and most of the signers could be people that wanted to pirate SC2 easily.
If your ping is so amazing then you won't have any trouble signing into Bnet and direct connecting with the people at your LAN. Sorry to tell you this but Blizzard's response is basically the same as mine:
Go read the SC2 forums yourself.
-Private servers splits the multiplayer community, this will definitely hurt the private servers, crack or not because it will inevitably make more people stick to Bnet servers.
-In today's age, most LANs have an internet connection.
-This won't hurt the competitive scene, big name tournaments have the appropriate equipment to log onto the internet(lol so hard) and the internet going out during a match is just as likely as the power going out.
poega Jul 2, 2009 at 4:01 am
+1 votes
Your whole argument is pretty ****** as wc3 is like the only game from its time I CANT pirate as u really do need to pay for the cd key to play online. U act like once u have the offline version of the game u can play it forever and its awesome to play it for free. But its simply not. I still buy wc3 tft and roc for when I lose my old keys but I can pirate every other game in the world.
And as ppl already said, not having inet on a lan can be a good thing if ure many as it removes distraction.
And as ppl already said, not having inet on a lan can be a good thing if ure many as it removes distraction.
jflanden Jul 2, 2009 at 12:25 pm
-1 votes
Wow, do you actually read what you type before posting? How ******* stupid are you? Of course the pirated versions of the game can't go online on Bnet, THATS WHY THEY ARENT SUPPORTING OFFLINE LAN, YOU ******* IDIOT, TO PREVENT PIRACY.
poega Jul 2, 2009 at 4:53 pm
+1 votes
U need to ******* get my point retard, which is obvious if u dont happen to be the most defensive nerd on the planet.
My point is that this is a greed/***** move by blizz as 95% of the players who would buy the game will buy the game and that im against no LAN in SC2.
My point is that this is a greed/***** move by blizz as 95% of the players who would buy the game will buy the game and that im against no LAN in SC2.
jflanden Jul 2, 2009 at 5:13 pm
+1 votes
I read your comment, you have no idea what you are talking about. People Pirated Blizzard games because of the offline-LAN feature, which also allowed people to go on private servers like Garena, if you force people to connect through Bnet in order to LAN then you effectively prevent Piracy. Will there be a way around it? Maybe, but the harder it is to pirate, the LESS people pirate.
Mikevercetti Jul 1, 2009 at 1:20 am
+2 votes
Petition signature #9153. **** yeah.
Never even played Starcraft, nor do I intend to play the second, but as a Korean, I'm obligated.
Never even played Starcraft, nor do I intend to play the second, but as a Korean, I'm obligated.
Slapnuts Jul 1, 2009 at 1:24 am
+1 votes
That is one of two things Activision Blizzard isn't short on, money and plastic guitars.
Mikevercetti Jul 1, 2009 at 1:27 am
+1 votes
Do you think these types of moves are because of the Activision merger? Was thinking about it just a minute ago, when considering this, the upcoming WoW faction change ability, and other things of the sort. Blizzard seems to be doing whatever they can to scrape the bottom of the barrel for every last dollar.
Slapnuts Jul 1, 2009 at 1:36 am
+1 votes
You mean the multiple SC2 games, dozens of Guitar Hero games doesn't seem similar?
Blizzard is the best thing going on at Activision no doubt. But I have little doubt that the merger has affected some of their policies thanks to the evil Bobby Kotick who will do anything to earn a dollar.
Blizzard is the best thing going on at Activision no doubt. But I have little doubt that the merger has affected some of their policies thanks to the evil Bobby Kotick who will do anything to earn a dollar.
Mikevercetti Jul 1, 2009 at 3:17 am
+1 votes
Totally agree, Blizzard is still the best thing Activision has going for them right now, it just seems that, after the merge, Blizzard is making poor decisions, in my opinion, just to make an extra dollar.
Eriaa Jul 1, 2009 at 1:44 am
+1 votes
Things like transfers are their to keep the players happy. One can look at it as good customer service, giving the players what they want, but yes, it does come down to money. Someone wants to quit, but sees they can xfer factions now. They pay the 10-25 bucks to try a new part of the game, and keep paying a month. Blizzard makes money, and the customer is happy again. It's just smart business to offer all the types of things they do like transfers, name changes, etc..
Cutting off LAN from SC2 however, is probably more about pirating than anything. Call bnet an enhancement of gameplay all you want, but it comes down to what each player wants. If a players wants LAN and can't get it, then you have an unhappy customer. Hopefully those people who are bitter about their not being LAN stick to their guns and don't buy the game. The best way to tell a company how you feel is not through petitions or forum post, but with your wallet.
I don't think Blizzard is by any means short on cash. But I wonder if the recent banning of gold farming in China, the issue they have with The9 over there, and the fact that they can't get WotLK released in China, will have an impact on their profits.
Cutting off LAN from SC2 however, is probably more about pirating than anything. Call bnet an enhancement of gameplay all you want, but it comes down to what each player wants. If a players wants LAN and can't get it, then you have an unhappy customer. Hopefully those people who are bitter about their not being LAN stick to their guns and don't buy the game. The best way to tell a company how you feel is not through petitions or forum post, but with your wallet.
I don't think Blizzard is by any means short on cash. But I wonder if the recent banning of gold farming in China, the issue they have with The9 over there, and the fact that they can't get WotLK released in China, will have an impact on their profits.
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 1:50 am
-1 votes
Blizzard isn't retarded, they knew they would get some backlash from the community and they don't care. This change was an extremely smart business move. It's the year 2009, start upgrading your LANs with internet, if you have 20person LANs then make every single one of them chip in to upgrading their precious LAN. I can almost guarantee you that if you are connected to Bnet with players in the same house, that they will implement something where you will have near non-existant latency as if you were offline LANing in the first place like making someone the host in a player 2 player connection.
Everyone signing the petition will buy the game. The funny part about it is that most were most likely planning to not even buy the game but will end up buying it now.
Everyone signing the petition will buy the game. The funny part about it is that most were most likely planning to not even buy the game but will end up buying it now.
Ghork Jul 1, 2009 at 4:38 am
+1 votes
no doubt its a good buisiness move, i hate those ******* playing war 3 on hamachi garena, just because a few doesn't have a key, much easier to just bnet.
however as i've stated before there's huge merits to internetless lans. i'm seriously pissed off at this move, yes it will probally generate more revenue but jesus not from me.
however as i've stated before there's huge merits to internetless lans. i'm seriously pissed off at this move, yes it will probally generate more revenue but jesus not from me.
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 6:39 am
-2 votes
You will buy the game, you know it. Once you realize that there is absolutely nothing to gain in "Sticking it to Blizzard" by not buying your 1 copy out of millions that will be sold, you will end up buying the game, which will be release day.
Ghork Jul 1, 2009 at 7:21 am
+1 votes
why though? i already own total annihilation and the expansion
Ghork Jul 1, 2009 at 7:27 am
+1 votes
and supremme commander and the expansion, was what i was gonna type, but wrote wrong. exelent game btw
RedKiwi Jul 1, 2009 at 7:54 am
+1 votes
The main reason for using Garena or Hamachi isn't to by-pass the need of buying an original copy, it's because of the low latency you have which makes the games feel so much better. This was ok when you could use LC for hosting games on bnet but I heard it got banned now.
To tell you the truth, if the latency will be the same as it is now for war3 battle.net, I will not play that.
Lan play has almost no latency delay compared to internet, and that's a very important thing on which Jflanden doesn't even touch upon, I am beginning to doubt he even played these games but likes to ride Blizzard's cokc as the good fanboy that he is.
To tell you the truth, if the latency will be the same as it is now for war3 battle.net, I will not play that.
Lan play has almost no latency delay compared to internet, and that's a very important thing on which Jflanden doesn't even touch upon, I am beginning to doubt he even played these games but likes to ride Blizzard's cokc as the good fanboy that he is.
tokeshlol Jul 1, 2009 at 1:25 am
+1 votes
i dont think this would have been that big a deal if garena hadn't started to explode to upwards of 100k dota players
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 1:32 am
-4 votes
That's only because Bnet doesn't support DotA. If Bnet actually supported it with rankings/random games/group matchmaking, there would be a LOT less people on Garena. I would rather the multiplayer community NOT be split.
Slapnuts calls this DRM, I see it has making my gameplay experience even more enjoyable with more people actually playing on the Bnet servers.
Slapnuts calls this DRM, I see it has making my gameplay experience even more enjoyable with more people actually playing on the Bnet servers.
Yiska Jul 1, 2009 at 5:03 am
+1 votes
Every pro match is also played on G-Arena when you watch ESL-TV everyonce in a while. Battlenet ping is just too godawful.
Ghork Jul 1, 2009 at 7:25 am
+1 votes
just host with vck or so, and not battlenet ping, battlenet ping is fine its the same as garena
wc3 is polling based, and bnet polls every 250 ms, and lan every 100, you can use tools like lc or vck to change that on bnet though
wc3 is polling based, and bnet polls every 250 ms, and lan every 100, you can use tools like lc or vck to change that on bnet though
Yiska Jul 1, 2009 at 7:54 am
+1 votes
If you have to use these tools, you might aswell use GArena which is far less complicated and more established in asia. Pretty much every european vs korean match is played on GArena because the host can also channel.
poega Jul 2, 2009 at 4:05 am
+2 votes
jflanden said
That's only because Bnet doesn't support DotA. If Bnet actually supported it with rankings/random games/group matchmaking, there would be a LOT less people on Garena. I would rather the multiplayer community NOT be split.
Slapnuts calls this DRM, I see it has making my gameplay experience even more enjoyable with more people actually playing on the Bnet servers.
Slapnuts calls this DRM, I see it has making my gameplay experience even more enjoyable with more people actually playing on the Bnet servers.
its strictly a matter of lag.
Legionnaire Jul 1, 2009 at 1:26 am
+1 votes
Yeah because there is no way the community would just make a work around for LAN play.
DeadLy Jul 1, 2009 at 1:34 am
+1 votes
Battle.net would suck, LAN gaming is much better. Also latency issues... that'd put many players into a disadvantage especially the best players in SC1 who live in the opposite side of the globe. There will always be a disadvantage in latency, even if they try to spread a couple of servers around.
jflanden Jul 1, 2009 at 1:38 am
-4 votes
Lol, so you are LANing with "the best players in SC1 who live in the opposite side of the globe"?
stuck Jul 1, 2009 at 1:54 am
+1 votes
blizzard needs to stop waving their dicks around and release this **** already, LAN or not
GameRiot's source for gaming news on the PC, console and portable front. Home of the Epic Drop!
203 Subscribers
3 Likes: 7 November 20, 2009, 11:50 pm3 Likes: 13 November 20, 2009, 9:51 pm67 Likes: 25 November 20, 2009, 1:56 pm88 Likes: 32 November 20, 2009, 5:49 am11 Likes: 11 November 20, 2009, 3:24 am34 Likes: 16 November 19, 2009, 3:35 pm39 Likes: 42 November 19, 2009, 1:35 pm43 Likes: 29 November 18, 2009, 4:15 pm77 Likes: 34 November 18, 2009, 1:37 pm76 Likes: 37 November 17, 2009, 1:07 pmStarted December 20, 2007
1969 Total Entries
1969 Total Entries
THE SPOTLIGHT
Arrested over tip, Hassan terrorist, Chuck, Avatar…
|
|
1 of 9 |
Your Comment is being posted. Please wait...