My thoughts on the NO-LAN in Starcraft II controversy

My thoughts exactly.  However, other than the college campus that might block ports I have no sympathy for others crying about it.  I grew up going to LAN parties etc. but I also understand this is 2009.  If you're on the same private network you'll still get single digit millisecond response times, the only difference is that you have to authenticate with battlenet2, which is not a big deal if you actually paid for the game.  That is if the hosted game is on your machine but approved by battlenet first.

Blizzard is pretty much the only company that recognizes pro gaming on a serious level and have repeatedly talked about Starcraft 2 catering to competitive gamers.  I honestly doubt Rob is the type of person that just likes to take a crap all over fans of Starcraft and Blizzard games either, like so many conspiracy theory 16 year olds like to think.

Maybe someone just needs to give a better detailed explanation of how this is all going to work besides some drone-style gaming new site just quoting "no lan support".

 

"If you're on the same private network you'll still get single digit millisecond response times, the only difference is that you have to authenticate with battlenet2, which is not a big deal if you actually paid for the game."

You seem to be pretty confident there. You're a developer on Battle.NET then? You can make these statements with certainty or should they be flagged with [citation needed] tags?

'Maybe someone just needs to give a better detailed explanation of how this is all going to work besides some drone-style gaming new site just quoting "no lan support".'

On this point we can both agree. There is a distinct lack of information that is fuelling the outcry.

 

You seem to be pretty confident there. You're a developer on Battle.NET
then? You can make these statements with certainty or should they be
flagged with [citation needed] tags?

Well it's a good thing you left out the next sentence, "That is if the
hosted game is on your machine but approved by battlenet first." 

 

That's making an awful lot of assumptions about the way Battle.NET is going to work. Even if the game is hosted locally Blizzard will have to build a feature into Battle.NET to specifically let local traffic be routed locally rather than through the Battle.NET servers.

Given that the prevention of piracy is cited as the reason for the removal of LAN one might then also assume that new Blizzard games will not have the ability to locally host games as that's precisely the code hackers reverse engineer to set up "pirate" B.NET servers. If you can host a game locally, then people can connect to it without going through Battle.NET first if someone cracks it. The only semi-effective way is to have no server code in the game and have Blizzard host all the games. And that's until that gets packet sniffed, decrypted/hacked and reverse-engineered anyway.

That's why I was asking whether you had some esoteric knowledge regarding the feature set of the new Battle.NET. Because otherwise we're all just speculating here.

But I guess that's what you were trying to say in that next sentence? That we don't know what Blizzard is going to do with the new Battle.NET yet?

 

But I guess that's what you were trying to say in that next sentence?
That we don't know what Blizzard is going to do with the new Battle.NET
yet?

That would be correct.

 

Teh only i problem i see with having no LAN support is the fact that battle.net 1.0 latency is  far inferior and doesnt allow for many things such as Muta Micro.

There are obvious fixes such as iCCup running the Chaos algorithm that allows a LAN connection between two players to drastically reduce the latency and allow for such strategies.

With that in mind, it isnt impossible to believe that Blizzard has implemented this same algoritm and thus there is no need for LAN support. They have stated that they would not take away LAN if they did not believe they could provide something better.

The fuss so far is that no one knows exactly what Blizzard has done with b.net 2.0, as they have contiunously said "we have something better, but can't talk about it". In the end, blizzard will prevail and all our doubts will be put to rest

 

I shouldn't be surprised at how fickle so many fans are, but I can't help it sometimes, especially when that "fair-weather fan" mentality is being displayed by those of the SC community that I am so attached to.

I've tried on various forums to post up my opinions and thoughts on this, trying to encourage others to remain calm and patient; giving Blizzard the trust and respect that they not only deserve, but that they've also worked so hard to earn from us.

However, these numerous posts have been drowned in a sea of anger and bitterness, with many proclaiming that they will refuse to purchase SC2, as some sort of a statement.  While I find it doubtful that most will hold true to those claims, it still somewhat shocks me to hear such wild reactions.

I'm not sure exactly what it is that Blizzard have up their sleeve, but I have no doubt that it will be a very workable and viable alternative to LAN play.  I, along with a few others, have also speculated that Blizzard will be supporting a form of offline play, but they aren't calling it LAN.  Perhaps they are working on a more 'secure' means of connection.

In a statement regarding this issue, a spokesman for Blizzard stated, "we’re encouraging everyone to use Battle.net as much as possible to get the most out of StarCraft II".  Now, the "as much as possible" part increases my confidence in the fact that this announcement not to support LAN isn't quite what it seems.

I agree with all of your above thoughts, Lipton, and must say I have also wondered about what Blizzard envisions for "esports 2.0", as they clearly have a very clear projection regarding it's future and their part in it.

Finally, we would do all well to remember that Blizzard have produced several of the most successful games of all time.  They have a reputation for caring about (and listening to) their communities.  Furthermore, they know much more than the average gamer does about the logistics of multiplayer gaming, so if they claim to have a better alternative to LAN, wouldn't it be logical to believe them?  At least until we've actually seen what that alternative really is.

 

 

Yeah, that is true, but it doesn't really seem like they're catering to the masses on this one, does it?  I mean 9/10 people aren't happy with this decision at all.  I wouldn't really call that catering to the masses.

 

Love the eSport idea, but can think of a lot of reasons why it can't possibly work as well on Battle.net. I bet Blizzard has a LAN solution, but will only allow it at sanctioned events (like S. Korea pro tourneys). Needless to say, I just signed the Starcraft 2 LAN petition.

 

I agree with everything said in OP and comments, but I have 3 questions at least:

Shouldn't we be aware of Blizzard being a software house, not an eSport organization?

If Blizzard is taking that big step into being a giant eSport entity, doesn't it sound like they're making Starcraft2 as a lever to push them there?

And the worst, as my judgement: shouldn't we be afraid of a single company playing a major eSport organization role and, at the same time, the company that develops those games? Shouldn't we be willing to see a clear separation between those two since companies are subject to change without the community consensus, as the economics is their main concern?

 

I personally think it's a good thing Blizzard is getting involved.  This way if there's a problem it's going straight to Blizzard or coming straight from Blizzard.

 

Also, think about the blunders and mistakes that these so-called e-sports organizations have made.  Things that have seemed obvious to us gamers.  It seems that a lot of the official e-sports bodies are coming from a traditional business background and are treating e-sports as such.

Now, if Blizzard get involved, they will be coming from a background in games first, then business after.  This might work out well, it might not, but I mentioned that to state that there is at least a fresh perspective being brought to the table of e-sports.  And, boy does it need one!

 

I think it's a delusion to believe that Blizzard is still the "games first, business after" entity we all grew to know and love over the course of WarCraft (pre-WoW), StarCraft and Diablo's lifetimes. Blizzard is all business and this move to control how their games are played proves that.

That doesn't mean their new games aren't going to be great, of course. Unfortunately I'm in the obviously insignificant "1%" that won't be able to play StarCraft multiplayer because I'll be living too far away from any Battle.NET server guaranteed. And before anyone responds talking about the speed of Internet connections here's a fast fact: There's a difference between bandwidth/line speed, and latency.

 

You just made my point for me.  No matter where they are now, in your opinion, Blizzard have a very good history of being all 'about the game(rs)' first, then about the business second.  Even if it was up until WoW, as you put it, that's still more than can be said about most other organizations trying to muscle in on the esports racket.

 

I guess my point, though I didn't state it explicitly, is that history is all fine and well but each product or service a company puts out needs to be evaluated without taking reputation into consideration.

And in this case I'm asserting there is no first and second. In order to achieve their goals Blizzard needs to release a *great* game. If StarCraft 2 isn't awesome then no amount of Battle.NET 2.0 will give Blizzard a stake in e-sports. In this case the business and the game(r) are the same, and as such they are not placing one ahead of the other.

As someone that's not remotely interested in professional e-sports I think I fall outside Blizzard's target demographic, as I'm sure most people complaining about the removal of LAN do. There's the casual "I want to play with my friends offline" crowd, and there's the "we run largish LANs with or without sponsorships and/or prizes and/or entry fees and can't get an Internet connection (or good enough Internet connection) to our LAN" crowd. Purely specultaive, but I don't think Blizzard could care less about those demographics, and that's sad to me.

The only demographic Blizzard cares about is the one that's going to make them money. That would be the players that's going to make their new e-sport initiative take off. Those of us that want to have 5-10 player LANs in our garages are inconsequential because to Blizzard, PC gaming has moved away from being about license sales as the major revenue stream.

 

Yea, I do see your point.  And I'm not trying to say that Blizzard are 100% right with this decision, or any other decisions either.  I only wanted to point out that Blizzard, as opposed to other, newer, businesses trying to set-up in e-sports, will have more of a reputation and history to defend. 

Of course this doesn't in any way make them free from blame on their questionable decisions.  As you very rightly said, "each product or service a company puts out needs to be evaluated without taking reputation into consideration". However, at the same time, when we know very little about said product or service, what else do we have to go on?  A company's track-record and reputation should count for something.

As we've already seen, they have a large community that will watch them and question them on any dubious move/decision that they make; not pulling any punches when it comes to disagreeing with their decisions.

I personally was completely dumbfounded for the first few seconds after reading the "no LAN support" announcement, but then I realized, "hey, this is Blizzard", they're not going to do anything without taking the time to way up the pros and cons.  I very much doubt they will just marginalize the massive parts of the SC (and gaming in general) community that don't have such great connections, or no internet connections at all.  This doesn't seem like a smart business model to me. 

I could be wrong; they know more about the market than we do.

 

me n my friends still LAN all the time so this kinda sucks. sure, we can play on stolen internets but there's that extra bit of lag =/

 

Best sort of Lan parties are those WITHOUT internet, the internet is EVIL when it comes to lan parties, ppl will be stuck chatting browsing checking forums etcl. and actual gaming will be cut by 80% to useless **** that I do all the time at home.  So since us humans have no willpower whatsover just going to a huge barn reworked as a big conference room is ideal for lan parties. 

but noooooo now we cant play sc2 or d3 there, thats just bull 

 

I just love how Karune is like 'Well since our new Battle.net 2 is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO great I really would never go to a LAN party again!'

Please, that is such BS. Most LAN parties dont just revolve around playing games you can play on battle.net, and even when they are you still have them for the fun of being around your friends, hanging out, etc etc etc.

Just because Karune is too old to enjoy LAN parties doesnt mean the rest of us are. Give me a break.

 

I actually started laughing when I read that reply.  That is so completely out of touch with the people that play their games I'm honestly astounded I'm hearing it from a blizzard employee.  I mean I did participate in the WoW community for 4 years and saw that frequently, I guess I was just hoping that the SC team would take a little more effort to be in touch with their fans.

 

It's quite interesting how the people defending Blizzard's decision are basing their argument on faith not facts.

 

Interestingly, I haven't heard anyone actually defend Blizzards decision.  I've only heard people suggesting that we wait for more facts.

 

And while waiting for more facts, having faith and hoping Blizzard doesn't screw it all up.


Honestly, I'm a huge fan of Blizzard as a company itself, the same for iD Software, but the market is a beast. Since the merge with Activision by Blizzard and ZeniMax buying iD, two bigger publishers which are the resource sources from both companies now, I can't really rely on faith or reflect my reasoning in a past when there was a homogeneous pace, where game developers were normal software houses. Now it's e-Sports and like somebody said "it's Wild West".

 

I agree with all the statements about getting Blizz involved in eSports.  They have obviously contributed more to the eSports community in terms of strong games than any other software company out there.  I still do not however agree with the removal of LAN support in SC2.  I host LAN parties on a weekly basis and have only a mediocre internet connection.  If we all had to connect through Battle.NET before we could play a LAN game I have a feeling that the game would be laggy.  Playing with friends online will never replace the ability to get a bunch of buddies together and eat pizza and drink beer while pwning each other in SC.