Starcraft II drops LAN support

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 06 Jul 2009, 21:02

Unless Blizzard add it back in in a patch later (once the 'shine' has worn off the game for the pirates') no LAN is a done deal. If it reduces piracy without resorting to online activation nonsense, it's the least of several evils.

whismerhill · Post by **whismerhill** » 07 Jul 2009, 02:07

[quote]yeah what else could it be ?

Could be a LAN without any internet connection
yup but according to current laws and official statements by companies you are still a pirate for doing that. :wink:
Whether you own a legit copy is irrelevant (not that I condone those laws)

Using anything to circumvent/defeat protections or modifying anything (that is reverse engineering, read "cracks") is considered illegal in a bunch of countries.

whismerhill · Post by **whismerhill** » 07 Jul 2009, 02:15

Unless Blizzard add it back in in a patch later (once the 'shine' has worn off the game for the pirates') no LAN is a done deal. If it reduces piracy without resorting to online activation nonsense, it's the least of several evils.

I don't agree, but to each his own I guess!

If you can revoke, I prefer to activate a product online (some even offer alternative offline activation) and be done with it rather than having to be online all the time to get a sort of "LAN support".

and a patch to activate real LAN support ? I don't see that coming easily

either LAN is built in or it's not...
if it's not built in, the cost to put it back in is more important than deactivating a simple online activation or any cd protections as some companies have done in the past after the first year or two of commercialization.

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 07 Jul 2009, 13:05

Blizzard seem to have announced that Diablo 3 won't have LAN support... and in fact no Blizzard game from here on will have LAN support.

Hm.

Methinks Activision have done some corporate wrangling.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,689265/Diablo-3-like-Starcraft-2-without-LAN-support/News/

ChainSOV · Post by **ChainSOV** » 07 Jul 2009, 13:33

so, whats next, single-player only when connected to the battle.net? :?
can be justified the same : omg, pirates&hax, how dare of you to cheat with a 3rd party trainer in our game, its a security breach of our intellectual property and gives you an unfair advantage vs. AI.
you need to be connected the whole time so that your pc can be monitored closely!

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 07 Jul 2009, 13:55

That's probably what is next, yes.

Well, any game I need to be online all the time simply to play the single player game is a game that I won't be buying.

Honestly, if it wasn't for the fact that my PS2 doesn't exactly look amazing on an HDTV (although it doesn't look bad...) I'd probably say that that is the system I now have the most fun gaming on. With very rare exceptions for some other titles.

whismerhill · Post by **whismerhill** » 07 Jul 2009, 14:12

I guess blizzard wants bigger money now that they tasted how much income they can make with WoW ... :roll:

Post by **GeneralAdmission** » 07 Jul 2009, 17:50

The Diablo3 news was obviously the other "shoe" waiting to drop, but even so, I've officially moved from disappointed to irritated on the reaction scale. Far be it from me, the customer, to actually know what features I want in a game.

All hail the wisdom of almighty Blizzard. :evil:

any game I need to be online all the time simply to play the single player game is a game that I won't be buying.

Case in point: Mass Effect's initial every-10-day-online-check DRM lunacy. It's only a matter of time before this comes around again. Hopefully nerdrage will squash it again.

infernus · Post by **infernus** » 08 Jul 2009, 05:34

I know Blizzard's trying to make Bnet a better service but a LAN is just a more predictable and reliable environment, imho. There ARE LANs and LAN parties that have no internet connection too, simply because it's pointless and easier if you're all playing together.

LeeNux · Post by **LeeNux** » 10 Jul 2009, 04:37

yeah .... it wasnt the lan support that made sc a great game :)
hope they make bnet2.0 able to directly connect over lan if your logged in online, so the pros are able to game with lan pings and not bnet-pings (most times ok, but then again, there are alwaysexceptions ...)

skeeder · Post by **skeeder** » 10 Jul 2009, 23:29

I think its lame. And all people will do is find ways around it.

No matter what they do to prevent piracy...it will be undone.

Tanuki · Post by **Tanuki** » 06 Aug 2009, 22:43

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6214823.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;3

Blizzard attributed the delay to a desire to release Starcraft II alongside the relaunch of its online networking service Battle.net.

Blizzard has previously indicated that the newly redesigned Battle.net will factor heavily into the game maker's antipiracy initiative

DaFox · Post by **DaFox** » 07 Aug 2009, 00:19

This is a good thing.

Tanuki · Post by **Tanuki** » 07 Aug 2009, 07:47

This is a good thing.

For the quality of the game?

Or?

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 07 Aug 2009, 13:46

Blizzard seem to be making the 'new' Battle.net more like XBox Live.

Oh, good, DLC and micropayments. Blizzard Points.

We don't need another system like this on the PC.

We've already got Steam, Impulse, Games for Windows Live, EA Downloader... how many more do we get?

skeeder · Post by **skeeder** » 08 Aug 2009, 15:49

Every company will want to do their own rendition. It will spiral out of control.

StingingVelvet · Post by **StingingVelvet** » 08 Aug 2009, 23:24

Every company will want to do their own rendition. It will spiral out of control.

I don't know about every company, but the large, PC-focused ones certainly. Blizzard probably thinks it is too big, too important to join Steam or Games for Windows... the problem of course is that this is all annoying for the consumer.

Of course, since when have companies cared about that.

Widescreen Gaming Forum