No LAN in Starcraft 2 - why that might not at all be the case

Very interesting idea. I could see how a hybrid system like that would have its advantages.

Blizzard is in an interesting predicament. It has quite a spectrum of needs to to fulfill. From casual gamers, to groups of enthusiasts, all the way to the professional gaming leagues of Korea.

I for one, am really interested in how they tackle the networking issue. I know they have an eye for detail over there and won't let something big like this just slip through the cracks. I am hoping they do come up with something that is a good experience and fulfills the needs of their users(ie: me) Good post. we'll see what happens.

 

Myself, I blog about gaming for the sheer love of it, and play simply because it's fun. Had I been naturally more talented at it, maybe I would have tried to be the next Idra, but as it is - just enjoying Starcraft as the best eSport in the world is good enough in itself. Still, I do realize that makes Blizzard go around is money, and their development decisions are guided by that.

That is why, ultimately, I am convinced that they will enable local hosting of Starcraft 2 multiplayer. That way, far more players will hace access to the game, giving Blizzard a larger audience that not only buys the game but will also be exposed to their other revenue streams - i.e. advertisements, which is by far the most lucrative source of green.

It will be interesting to see exactly how they accomplishes this, but I have faith

 

I also have faith that Blizzard know what they're doing on this issue.  My reasons mainly center around the fact that, the more steps Blizzard take into the world of E-sports, the more they have to lose if things don't function perfectly (or at least better than it does now). 

I very much doubt that they would take all that responsibility for themselves; presenting themselves as the ones to blame if there are any technical hitches, if they weren't sure they could pull it off.

Given the serious attitude that many (most), in the SC scene, have towards competitive gaming, Blizzard are likely very much aware that if SC2 is unplayable at a competitive level, on or offline, gamers will simply go elsewhere (back to SC1 probably).

 

Very true, I hope that the people at Blizzard don't suffer from delusions of grandeur so that they try to become the Illuminati of eSports all by themselves. What they know is how to build great games and support communities, and while I believe them to be capable of expanding beyond that, they ought not to do it alone.

Rather, I believe, will they invite other established people and elements of the professional gaming-community to come on board and together create a new governing body of eSports. It would make sense for Blizzard to build on existing friendships with GomTV, Teamliquid and other prominent parts of the Starcraft-universe to get the talent and know-how necessart to accomplish this - once they have rolled out the product and Battle.net 2.0

Even if it takes more than one blink of an eye to make Starcraft 2 a better eSport than Brood War, Blizzard will make that happen - and gather whatever help they need to do so. It may become exciting times for professionally minded nerds to make their voices heard, eh?

 

steam offline mode? i think so

 

What the f are you talking about?

Blizzard clearly stated there is no LAN. They have not said anything about the superlan that you created out of your mind that they will gift to us for free because Blizzard grew into such a dominant mechanical corporation that they want to help us poor consumers out of big corporate love (you know, like what happens in the Bible part IV).

This type of thinking is not logical (nor mature). You hope for the fantastic best in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Logic helps predict and prepare for the future (however dismal). Logic requires looking at evidence/facts/trends or lack of evidence/facts/trends. Wishful thinking in the face of contrary evidence/facts/trends serves no purpose other than getting yourself prepared for nothing and getting screwed by the dismal future over and over again in your life.

They took out lan to control progaming. It has nothing to do with piracy. Blizzard is not the same company that created SC1. In SC1, everyone in the company was intimately involved. Now, those people are just managers, spokes people for the company enjoying their wealth, or have moved on to other companies.

SC2 is helmed by corporate suits spending their days thinking on different ways to milk consumers and WOW addicts.

 

Whilst I'm sad to hear that you find my speculations immature, I do respect your point of view.

As to whether it is illogical to interpret the vagueness of Blizzard on the matter of LAN-like functionality, maybe so - logic can only do so much. Just as you say, it all comes down to money - something that Blizzard has become accustomed to and wants more of. Control, by forcing us gamers to play SC2 multiplayer via Battle.net, will give them heaps of cash.

However, what I am arguing for is this: Blizzard can still maintain this control over their consumers whilst also allow for locally hosted games. They do not need to rob us of that opportunity, and it would cost them a lot of money if they did, hence a function similar to LAN is more than likely to appear in SC2. Not very much like any part of the Bible at all, but rather like a good day on Wall Street.

 

PolygonreVue - You deserve to be commended for restraining yourself against Mikebay, who obviously uses the fact that he can hide behind his keyboard as an excuse to **** on other people. Kudos to you for showing him the respect he didn't think you deserved.

I just wanted to let you know that I agree with you 100%. Yes, Blizzard, like all companies, are after their own best interest. It just happens to be that with great companies like Blizzard, they realize their best interest coincides with their customer's best interest. I have every reason to believe (going on the track record this company has) that they will come up with a solution that works. Yours seems plausible to me, and I really hope that's what they do. If not, they should hire you to come up with their ideas

Great post!

 

LAN isn't a brand though, it's not a service that is owned by another company, what reason would Blizzard have to say no LAN and then have something that is the same but by another name?

and lol at the fanboys minus voting a post that actually has something contrary to say. Seems debates are frowned upon here.

 

You can debate without being disrespectful to the person you're debating with.

And about the LAN, I think you may have missed the point of the post. Blizzard may offer a solution to people who want LAN that forces them to prove through battlenet first that they own the game. It's only optimistic thinking along those lines knowing that Blizzard has a history of delivering what players want. We can at least afford them the benefit of the doubt until we have all the facts.

What it comes down to is we'll all just have to wait and see.

 

Wait and see aka wishful hoping and eating whatever big corporation serves you (which is as little as they think they can get away with and make a profit).

The reason I'm making a fuss over LAN as with a minority of others is that we hope to make a difference while WE STILL CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. The time to make a difference is not when SC2 is all finished and in stores. By then, it's definitely too late. Game over!

Including LAN would be the best for fans and gamers who want lag free competition. By forcefully leaving out lan, Blizzard is stating they don't care about SC1 players ... all they care about is monopolizing game tournaments. That's just wrong because they cannot hold as many and as exciting tournaments as the Koreans and SC popularity will die down. Look at what happened ... Bnet took off ladders. 

Also, Bnet 1.0 sucks in terms of lags and laggers and droppers and bots and map/stat/drop hackers ... don't tell me you haven't experienced that. Bnet 2.0 will only get worse by including more options. LAN is the only lagfree and painfree way of having a frustration free tournament.

I was restraining myself when I posted too. I don't like it when a consumer sides with an evil corporation because that means they are trying to brainwash the rest of us that whatever the corporation does is correct ... that's not thinking, that's just believing a corporation is a god and that everyone must obey the corporate god ... that's idiotic but it happens to many fanboys.

Last, I can't believe how soft worded the LAN petition sounded. It said something like: "please blizzard ... please include lan ... we will still buy ur game if u don't but please do ... thanks ... don't hurt us (crouches and covers head with both hands)."  That pissed me off. That was NOT how to get things done. That's what I'm trying to do ... you have to put it on the line that "WE WILL NOT BUY SC2 IF BLIZZARD DOES NOT INCLUDE LAN ... WE WILL BOYCOTT BROWDER (crappy CC programer) and SIGATY (former SC1 game tester) and Blizzard/Activision for LIFE!"  No more soft wiimpy fans. Guys, grow some balls, demand what you want OR ELSE! Otherwise, you're nothing to Blizzard ... just some sucker who they'll take all their money from. Enemies respect strength not weakness and submission.

 

See Blizzard as your enemy, and you have already lost. We are all here because we share a passion for Starcraft, 1 or 2 or both. I will not boycott or threaten those who are the only ones who can make the next chapter of this saga happen. Nor am I a crazed fanboy without balls, rather a sensible man who has thought long and hard on the matter - and concluded that the view I've presented is the one most likely.

We do not need to fight, talk about strength or weakness - what would bring this issue forward (to the conference table of Browder and Sigaty, with a bit of luck) is s-e-n-s-i-b-l-e debating, so as to intellectually bring the matter forward. Angry online-petitions is like throwing rocks at a giant, and as you have already pointed out - this is not the Bible and so Goliath beats David. I argue that locally hosted games are likely to be an option in Starcraft 2, by all means disagree with me - but turning this debate into a flame war is not a viable tactic. The enemy, as you put it, will not respect that.

 

They already said No to LAN. How will soft feelings and discussions change that. You have to show emotion and get their ATTENTION. Corporations trample weak feelings.

My point is they made their initial decision and they are trying to brainwash us that bnet 2.0 is a substitute for LAN. It is not due to lag. That's a fact. It is a big deal. And you siding with Blizzard by saying you will support Blizzard whatever it does. Wow, that makes no sense if you want change. No sense at all.

Blizzard is a big big corporation these days. They listen through money. Not soft feelings. ANyway. You have your soft strategy and I have mine. I like to try something different. I dont keep doing the same thing if it doesn't work. I dont follow sheep. I don't blindly accept corporate public messages. I look at their actions and I analyze where they are going with their actions. Hope is for those lazy people who don't want to do anything but hope things get better. Things only get better when people work hard at it! Don't just hope ... DO SOMETHING. SOMETHING THAT GETS A BIG CORPORATIONS ATTENTION because right now they choose to screw us all!

 

It seems like we both want the very same thing, but interpret the information given to us differently. More importantly, we strongly disagree on the strategy. I wish you the best of luck with fighting for SC2 LAN your way, because in the end that's what we all want.

As a suggestion for how to best pick your fight with Blizzard - blog here at Starfeeder as well. If this community can represent different views of the same thing, maybe Blizzard can choose which one they like the best.

 

Mikebay=Michael Bay

Why are we listening to Michael Bay in the first place? It's not like hes done anything good for humanity. (Transformers2)

 

Because he, against all odds, knows Megan Fox?

 

I remember that they already stated that from their point of view internet on LANs is as reliable and naturally as a steady power supply, hence I think an internet connection is necessary to play the game in multiplayer mode. That makes sense considering it gives them total control over tournaments, which seems to be what they are after. They want this game to succeed as an esport and - for the first time - they want to be on top of it.

While I do think that locally connected players will use that local connection and not the detour via internet (so the latency is indeed LAN) I am convinced you will need to log in to Battle.net 2.0 to host/join a game - so internet is indeed a requirement (even for LANs).

And should they announce some sort of local area network that doesn't require internet but isn't called LAN ... well, congrats Blizz...you fooled us all. (with the exeption of PolygonreVue of course *g* )

 

First of all, thank you all very much guys for the support. It made my day.

In terms of LAN och LAN-ish solutions for Starcraft 2, everything that these speculations are based on is a certain vagueness in the Blizzard-statement - which is far from written even in wood, let alone stone. However, as so many already have said, it is likely (even logical, perhaps?) that we will be pleseantly surprised when Blizzard announce their new surprises. Not because they are good, hard-working gamers "just like the rest of us", but because they have learnt how to make a lot of money by making excellent and popular games. That's the exact reason why they will not remove an immensely sought-after function from original Starcraft (i.e. sitting in dark basements eating crisps, drinking luke warm coke and lurker rushing your best mate - those were the days...) without also giving us a suitable replacement.

In these hard times, removing locally hosted-solutions would be like throwing out the back seat of a family station wagon just because those in the front are so much nicer. Though that might be true, the back seat has a lot of nice features as well, and since that enables more people to join the ride, Blizzard will make sure that some kind of LAN is a part of SC2

 

My point is they made their initial decision and they are trying to brainwash us that bnet 2.0 is a substitute for LAN. It is not due to lag. That's a fact. It is a big deal.


I don't see any facts here. Are you a network engineer? Can you honestly say with certainty that there is no possible way to have players log in through battle.net and then play locally with LAN ping? Do you really think that Blizzard, who has been pushing SC2 as an e-sport will completely forgo having the possibility of low ping for their tournaments?

Sure I can understand people that want to play LAN that don't have internet connections whining about LAN but that's about it until we actually get to see the new battle.net.


Blizzard is a big big corporation these days. They listen through money. Not soft feelings. ANyway. You have your soft strategy and I have mine. I like to try something different. I dont keep doing the same thing if it doesn't work. I dont follow sheep. I don't blindly accept corporate public messages. I look at their actions and I analyze where they are going with their actions. Hope is for those lazy people who don't want to do anything but hope things get better. Things only get better when people work hard at it! Don't just hope ... DO SOMETHING. SOMETHING THAT GETS A BIG CORPORATIONS ATTENTION because right now they choose to screw us all!

So people that aren't throwing a tantrum over the internet about a video game are "lazy". Right....

If you think really Blizzard  is a big evil corporation and you can't stand Dustin Browder as the lead designer or the fact that Sigaty is the lead producer of SC2 (God forbid anyone work their way up in an evil corporation over 11+ years) why even bother getting angry about the game? Just don't buy it.

 

Can you honestly say with certainty that there is no possible way to
have players log in through battle.net and then play locally with LAN
ping?

Battle.net 1.0 already does this, at least with Diablo 2 and with regards to the global IP address. I don't know if it works like that when two players are behind the same NAT, but I don't see it as a problem. But being forced to log into Battle.net 2.0 in LANs does pose at least two problems:
1. In case of many (10-20+) persons loging in to B.net at the same time from a home net connection (even high speed), won't pings go through the roof? Even if the games themselves are played on the local subnet, it still poses the problem of always reporting to B.net and making matches on it before playing. This is even more of a problem in big events. Bandwidth may not be a problem, but pings will. Let's remember that what Blizzard have is a theory on paper only, saying that B.net 2.0 will never lag. But I don't think they tested it at big non-corporate-backed-with-huge-pipes LAN events. Again, generally on the net B.net 2.0 will not be laggier than ingame. Of course, on this issue only time (and the beta) will tell.

2. A simple CD key check to a central server (as in most server-client type FPS games) would be enough if it was a matter of piracy. Not including LAN at all proves that Blizzard are trying to capture the e-sports market in a big sweep with a kind of Digital Rights Mismanagment move. Basically, they learned from Microsoft: they will force an update with some seemingly benign features (B.net 2.0), along the actual update (Starcraft 2), that they sell as an "enhancements" (i.e. "B.net 2.0 is so good it can replace LAN!!") but which are in fact crippling to their customer's freedom (i.e. now you can't have events not licensed through Blizzard). They are trying to play the benevolent dictator but it doesn't work because 1. they are a for-profit company, 2. they have not been appointed by the esport community. The reason sports league/tournaments work is that the sports themselves are not owned by one entity. Look for example at some proprietary sports, like Arena Football. The last thing we need is another company trying to lock down a sport. The koreans have enough on their hands with KeSPA as it is and they're not even for-profit, although they are controlled by commercial interests. But you see, even KeSPA can't control everything, and that's why you have other pro tournaments like those hosted by GomTV.

If Blizzard wanted to create and International Starcraft Federation (like CoreCodec is doing for the Matroska container) or something like that and retain 51% control, that would be great. But trying to inject themselves into e-sports by restricting e-sport itself is in the end self-defeating and will result in a mutual loss situation.

 

I think you raise some very crucial issues, that are difficult to answer. How an alleged hybrid-function that allows for locally hosted games through Battle.net-authentication would work technically I don't know, perhaps it's possible and so we shall see.

Regarding your second point, I think you might be right, sadly. As much as Browder seems to be the world's most benevolent super-nerd, Activision-Blizzard is driven by the urge to buy themselves ever so many more Ferraris. With Starcraft 2, they might attempt to overtake the community-based phenomenon of eSports and make it into their business, with varying results. We don't want Blizzard to enforce their own monopoly on competitive gaming, that would be harmful for a sport that is right now thriving and growing.

Having said that, these tools that Blizzard will provide will also enable so much more in terms of organisation and administration, the possibilities are quite endless. If Blizzard are smart enough to realise that all they need to do is to supply us with the arena, Starcraft as a sport will develop exponentially. It all depends on their ambitions, and I hope they choose the route of the free market.

 

You totally don't get it do you? The time to make a fuss is NOW. Not wait and see what Browder and friends do out of kindness of their hearts.

NO. You wait. YOU LOSE. WE ALL LOSE. Because that means Blizzard will set a new precident in giving us LESS for more MONEY.

You are so obsessed with not criticizing Blizzard that you forgot that they are supposed to provide things that consumers want. Not the other way around. Companies are not supposed to tell the consumer want they want.

Still don't get it? Then you're hopeless.

Once again. We make a fuss now. So they can give us the OPTION of LAN (lagfree competition like in the old days of Blizzard ... when games were good still sold very well). You make a fuss to get attention ... to get things fixed right.

You don't stay silent and pretend that Blizzard is doing a perfect job.

Get it??? Ever hear of the saying "a squeeky wheel gets oiled." You stay silent and Blizzard will steamroll us with even more crap like Bnet 2.0 charges (which I believe is coming since they said it was).

Some fanboys are just sooo religious about their favorite corporation ... it's like they would sacrifice their family for a corporation... sad. Start thinking for yourselves ... quit worshipping a ficticious (albeit huge) entity.

 

Actually, a company's first priority is it's shareholders, not it's customers.  (That is actually corporate law)

I have no doubt that Blizzard are acting in the best interests of their finances.  What this means to us consumers, though, is that they are confident that the alternative to LAN that they are offering will provide us with a good enough service to make them money.

The difference between the effects of each order of priorities may seem minor to you, but it is that very difference that assures me and, indeed, all who have an interest in the games industry, that Activision-Blizzard aren't denying consumers a service that they feel they can't replace.

Just one thing though - how exactly are Activision-Blizzard a "fictitious entity"?

 

Your type of thinking is what created WOW type games.

Sure WOW is popular and made Blizzard lots of money.  But, competitive gamers know that WOW does not have deep gameplay like SC1. I can't wait to see you try to justify that WOW is somehow a great skill based game. Because it's not. It just makes Blizzard lots of money and got Blizzard into turning all of its game into continual fee based money generators. Blizzard throws a few changes here and there and charges addicts a large lump of money and repeat all over again until the phenomenom is no longer popular.

Your type of thinking is what makes you a fleeting fanboy. You don't care what is popular, you just want to be part of whatever is popular. And to you, if it is popular, it must be good. In other words, you have no individual taste and is too afraid to develop a sense of individual taste. In that sense, you are unable to honestly judge anything let alone predict that SC2 will somehow surpass SC1 in terms of deep game play and longevity.

Again, I know you will say SC2 will make lots of money. BUT, that doens't mean its a good game. Look at WOW. WOW sucks to most SC1 rts players. You need to learn to distinguish the difference and quit trying to pretend you work for Blizzard because we as consumers don't care how much money Blizzard milks us for. We just want a competant rts game. If you keep pretending you work for Blizzard, then you must be deluded or definitely anti-consumer personality which is just wierd since you are a consumer.

Including LAN is not a bad thing since it eliminates lag and allows more tournaments. Taking it out is a bad thing. If you can't grasp that, you are no gamer. Just souless guy running from 1 popular news phenomenom to another. You need to get a set of principles, values, some taste and a life.

 

Lol!  Where to begin..

I'm sorry that I've obviously struck such a nerve with you, that you feel the need to go to lengths to try and (falsely) create a psychological profile for me, based on my stating of nothing more than fact about the way the games industry and, indeed, business as a whole, works.

You've argued yourself into quite a bit of a corner there by bringing up WoW and other such irrelevant topics.  You say that "WoW sucks to most SC1 RTS players".  I'm not sure why that in any way is significant in this discussion.  Firstly, you can't compare an MMORPG with an RTS.  They are two very different genres. Particularly when the MMO is aimed at a casual demographic and the RTS at the more hardcore market.

I find it hilarious that you accuse me of being a Blizzard fanboy; one who justifies everything they do and thinks that WoW has "deep", "skill-based" gameplay nonetheless.  Especially considering that the only Blizzard game I have ever played is Starcraft.  And, even then, only for the multiplayer.

You somehow misinterpreted my confidence that Blizzard are extremely business savvy, for "fleeting fanboyism".  I merely stated that I believe their actions are more carefully planned and thought out than you or I know, as any business decision should be. 

Also, my comments in no way stated an opinion on whether or not SC2 will be a good game, so I'm not sure where all that "I know you will say SC2 will make lots of money. BUT, that doens't mean its a good game" came from. 

"Including LAN is not a bad thing since it eliminates lag and allows
more tournaments. Taking it out is a bad thing. If you can't grasp
that, you are no gamer."  Hmm.. So are you trying to tell me that Blizzard have purposefully increased lag and removed the potential for tournaments?  Stop.  Count to 10.  Now, think about that again for a second.

I don't know why I'm even bothering to argue with you, to be honest.  I really hope that, for your sake, you are trolling me (and everyone here) and that you, in fact, don't display such ignorance in your day-to-day life.

 

Blizzard is a big big corporation these days. They listen through money. Not soft feelings. ANyway.

So blizzard doesn't care what people wants?  I think blizzard should think about this...

 

sucks living in a 3rd world country D:

 

Yeah too bad...

 

With the credit crunch wreaking havoc through London like it does, I've come to realize that soon the difference will be very small :/