I dunno, if the lan works like MW2 where you have to be online to play (btw there are no ping issues because no packets are constantly moving back and forth) it wouldn't be so bad. The thing is, and still using MW2 for example, - the reason activision told INFINITY WARD to do it this way was to curb piracy... Thus inventing what Blizz now calls PSEUDO LAN.
So basically ACTIVISION told there Bro's at BLIZZ:
"Shit bro's! MW2 has made a fat-load of cash becuz it's incredibly hard to pirate! Because you have to be logged on to STEAM to play MP - ANY MP! You know what bro's? You should do as we do!"
It makes sense that Blizz watches ACTIVISION's products - they're one company!
You guys wanna know what tho? I think a D3 based on OP's opinion will not be such a bad thing...
I dunno, if the lan works like MW2 where you have to be online to play (btw there are no ping issues because no packets are constantly moving back and forth) it wouldn't be so bad. The thing is, and still using MW2 for example, - the reason activision told INFINITY WARD to do it this way was to curb piracy... Thus inventing what Blizz now calls PSEUDO LAN.
So basically ACTIVISION told there Bro's at BLIZZ:
"Shit bro's! MW2 has made a fat-load of cash becuz it's incredibly hard to pirate! Because you have to be logged on to STEAM to play MP - ANY MP! You know what bro's? You should do as we do!"
It makes sense that Blizz watches ACTIVISION's products - they're one company!
You guys wanna know what tho? I think a D3 based on OP's opinion will not be such a bad thing...
Whats funny is that mw2 was hacked/cracked so fast people who downloaded the game were playing online with people who bought the game within a few days of release. Activision failed. They didnt make cash because the game couldnt be pirated... LOL. By the way mw2 sucked.
I believe that with the release of BatleNet 2.0, all blizzard games will be dropping LAN...could be wrong though. We have all heard that bn2.0 will be much easier to use and will include a bunch of great features, but as for dropping LAN? My best guess is that bn2.0 will bring in either advertising revenue or microtransaction revenue... I hope to god it is the former. There could also be bonus feaures that you can only acccess by paying a monthly battlenet fee. As Blizzard mentioned that all blizzard games will be intertwined so that a person playing diablo can talk to someone playing WoW, it would be logical that all membership fees (WoW, possibly upgraded Bnet) will be payed through Bnet, different ammounts depending on what you subscribe to.
There could also be bonus feaures that you can only acccess by paying a monthly battlenet fee.
Already discuse... ARRRKKKK sorry but I don't buy the game if you need to PAY TO PLAY...
Blizzard intended to NOT do that.
thanks for giving blizz great ideas, you are right all games who don`t have monthly fee are stupid, lets make them all PAY 2 PLAY. I remind you that this is D3 forum not wow`s.
For a company, you have ethic limit to want make cash. I think IT'S STUPID to make a game where you need to PAY 2 PLAY each month. I see that like if the company mocks of us.
Quote from "emilemil1" »
It is already confirmed that there will be bonus features that might require real money to be accessed.
I'm not disagree to having more content but paying for it is a cheap shot.
A part of rich hardcore players will own others only because they PAY for better items !!! Nah not a good idea, it's break the gameplay, the fun and the systems of randomness.
P2P isnt an automatically BAD thing. However it only makes sense with games that will consistently push out more content and gameplay time for its users. In the case of d3, this definitely will not be the case and blizz isnt so dumb as to think otherwise.
On the topic of lan, it would be nice if you had to access bnet to load a lan game. that way you still have to 'login' but the actual server would be a local one so lag isnt an issue if you have lots of people.
The comments about Pseudo-LAN are correct: basically they said they would support LAN but you just have to connect to B.Net once per session to authenticate your game.
I think this is pretty fair. If your LAN party has a single computer with internet connection, you're set. You just share the connection to boot up the games and then LAN it up.
I think this is pretty fair. If your LAN party has a single computer with internet connection, you're set. You just share the connection to boot up the games and then LAN it up.
P.S. I don't care about LAN.
True.
Plus we're not in the age of dial-up anymore. Any body who's somebody already has a decent enough connection to play on Bnet2 at the same speed as LAN, unless they live under the mountains of Afghanistan...
P.S. I care even less about LAN
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Diablo 3, Hottest shit to happen to 21st Century Entertainment since Georges "Rush" St-Pierre.______________ --------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums -------- Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
I don't see how it can honestly be that difficult to code lan into your game. Also tho if Bnet 2.0 is made correctly and isn't hosted by AT&T which Bnet is ATM then you might not have to worry about such lag issues.
Plus we're not in the age of dial-up anymore. Any body who's somebody already has a decent enough connection to play on Bnet2 at the same speed as LAN, unless they live under the mountains of Afghanistan...
P.S. I care even less about LAN
I don't care about LAN that much as I haven't done any lan'ing for years. However to expect everyone to have a good connection is idiotic. The U.S. has one of the worst internet infrastructures in the developed world and most people are still on low-end connections(not dial-up, but certainly not high speed). In fact a friend that I play TF2 with her connection is fairly shitty and she gets pings of 200-300 to servers that are CLOSE to her, and she doesn't live in the boonies either.
With LAN, you can have multiple people at one location physically, while if they had to share the internet connection to go b.net, they'd lag.
Also not every place in the world has a proper internet.
This.
We pay shitloads for something that RESEMBLES internet. I'm paying 50$ for a 128 kb/s shared Broadband connection. You guys pay like, 2 cents for a 20 Mb/s connection.
That will cause immense lagging, and I'd rather play with my brother, his friends, and my cousin in a fun, lag free game.
Well look as far as I know then WoW is not on battle.net servers, which StarCraft 2 will be. So I doubt there will be a monthly fee.
WOW really requires lots of expensive servers, updates and people. A monthly fee is justified for WOW, because it would really cost Blizzard too much otherwise. This doesn't apply to SC2 though. Battle.net doesn't need so many servers because the games work on a peer-to-peer basis (in sc1 at least). A playing fee would scare off so many customers, I don't think it would be a good move even from a monetary point of view. Currently, Blizzard is so rich from WOW winnings that they can really concentrate on satisfying customers and extend their reputation as the best game developing company in the world.
WoW is roleplaying, and SC2 is RTS ... I don't see anything similiar.. if they make World of Starcraft, it will be pay 2 play... A real-time-strategy game does NOT have the addictive factor and huge player base of an MMORPG, the reason people get addicted to online RTS's is because they want to get good, and they have fun vsing good players and having a challenge and being forced to think, not because you're constantly trying to get that next-best item or level up.
Diablo 3 is an RPG, it has a single player mode, there are WoW private servers, meaning that there can be D3 private servers. This is something that Blizzard would want to avoid, pushing people into these options because they can't afford it is bad business. I think that Pseudo-LAN is an interesting suggestion because, quite simply, if you can't have internet, you can't have LAN. This is also not the greatest of ideas, but Blizzard needed to think of something to stem the uproar around "No LAN". I have only played LAN in internet cafes, where the experience is different from many of you I'm sure who have set up there LAN networks and gone for a game with a bunch of friends. Unfortunately this mechanic and the inclusion or exclusion of it will not be affecting me. Though it's still something I think should be put into a game as an intrinsic mechanic.
Blizzard makes a lot of money from every release it does, it also makes a lot of money from WoW, and it's games are still being bought today. This is a GOOD business model, make your games so good in 10 years time people will still buy them and play online.
I'm very sorry for going off-topic into SC2, but basically the same thing applies and I already have had this conversation on SC2 forums so I just copied and pasted myself from there :). Just go through and replace Diablo 3 with Starcraft 2 at every opportunity except the one about SC2 being an rts and you'll see how it correlates.
Look guys to sum up, if the game is P2P, that's bad, if it's not, that's good, why don't we wait until the game comes out? And then do a little bit of research before you buy. It's pointless hypothesising about it here when it will come out and all your questions shall be answered anyway. And then, when it is out, you can make a truly informed opinion about the game, rather than all the conjecture and baseless misinformation that is on the internet at the moment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A lot of fellows nowadays have a B.A., M.D., or Ph.D. Unfortunately, they don't have a J.O.B."
My friends and I created our own custom mod and I cannot play Diablo 2 without it now. So without a LAN option, that means no modding, which means no custom mods to make the game better for some of us. :mad:
People say hack-protection is a good reason to have no LAN.
But that makes no sense. In LAN, you play with whomever you want, whomever you know, in whatever fashion you want to, at any time. Hacking should never be an issue to those playing LAN and those that want to play on B.net will already be playing on B.net, thus having their much-vaunted 'protection'.
Let's suppose that I -want- to hack in a private game, for whatever reason? It surely won't affect anyone else in LAN games.
One possible scenario I can see is that those that would otherwise be inclined to hack or cheat in private games will be forced to do so on B.net, adding to the total sum of experience available to those that could possibly want to cheat or hack in non-private games - because ultimately, there'll be no difference between private and public games when it comes to hacking.
With LAN, there is.
No hack protection as in people hacking the game to pirate it. Not hacking in lan
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A lot of fellows nowadays have a B.A., M.D., or Ph.D. Unfortunately, they don't have a J.O.B."
128 kb/s???!!! That is... like... not much at all...
Wow, you're smart.
Let me put it this way. It takes about 2-5 days for me to download a movie. Just using that as an example, don't infract me for promoting piracy or whatever the fuck you guys call it.
Yeah, the Pseudo-LAN will probably be a big failure. The times when I really need LAN is when I have no internet connection at all.
I dont think its going to be a failure since most people use lan for a lag free multiplayer experience, but for the times you and your buddies wanna play and for some reason have no net connection yeah thats gonna suck
I can't really relate to that since I have never been to a place with so bad internet connection that you need LAN ^^ When I play with my friend we always prefer to play online instead of using LAN, even if we all are in the same room and with only us in the game. It is probably because it is very uncommon that all of us plays the same game all the time, and then we need other players unless we want to play with fewer people, and that is not as fun.
Its not always about your connection to the internet but the servers themselves that sometimes makes LAN appealing espically to competitive gamers. RTS games like WC3, DOTA, SC are all better in a LAN then over bnet because theres no delay at all unlike bnet. Hell even when bnet is barely laggy at all that tiny delay you get can make a difference in a competitive game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I dunno, if the lan works like MW2 where you have to be online to play (btw there are no ping issues because no packets are constantly moving back and forth) it wouldn't be so bad. The thing is, and still using MW2 for example, - the reason activision told INFINITY WARD to do it this way was to curb piracy... Thus inventing what Blizz now calls PSEUDO LAN.
So basically ACTIVISION told there Bro's at BLIZZ:
"Shit bro's! MW2 has made a fat-load of cash becuz it's incredibly hard to pirate! Because you have to be logged on to STEAM to play MP - ANY MP! You know what bro's? You should do as we do!"
It makes sense that Blizz watches ACTIVISION's products - they're one company!
You guys wanna know what tho? I think a D3 based on OP's opinion will not be such a bad thing...
Whats funny is that mw2 was hacked/cracked so fast people who downloaded the game were playing online with people who bought the game within a few days of release. Activision failed. They didnt make cash because the game couldnt be pirated... LOL. By the way mw2 sucked.
My 2 cents
Already discuse... ARRRKKKK sorry but I don't buy the game if you need to PAY TO PLAY...
Blizzard intended to NOT do that.
For a company, you have ethic limit to want make cash. I think IT'S STUPID to make a game where you need to PAY 2 PLAY each month. I see that like if the company mocks of us.
I'm not disagree to having more content but paying for it is a cheap shot.
A part of rich hardcore players will own others only because they PAY for better items !!! Nah not a good idea, it's break the gameplay, the fun and the systems of randomness.
On the topic of lan, it would be nice if you had to access bnet to load a lan game. that way you still have to 'login' but the actual server would be a local one so lag isnt an issue if you have lots of people.
I think this is pretty fair. If your LAN party has a single computer with internet connection, you're set. You just share the connection to boot up the games and then LAN it up.
P.S. I don't care about LAN.
True.
Plus we're not in the age of dial-up anymore. Any body who's somebody already has a decent enough connection to play on Bnet2 at the same speed as LAN, unless they live under the mountains of Afghanistan...
P.S. I care even less about LAN
--------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums --------
Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
I don't care about LAN that much as I haven't done any lan'ing for years. However to expect everyone to have a good connection is idiotic. The U.S. has one of the worst internet infrastructures in the developed world and most people are still on low-end connections(not dial-up, but certainly not high speed). In fact a friend that I play TF2 with her connection is fairly shitty and she gets pings of 200-300 to servers that are CLOSE to her, and she doesn't live in the boonies either.
This.
We pay shitloads for something that RESEMBLES internet. I'm paying 50$ for a 128 kb/s shared Broadband connection. You guys pay like, 2 cents for a 20 Mb/s connection.
That will cause immense lagging, and I'd rather play with my brother, his friends, and my cousin in a fun, lag free game.
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
Well yes P2P will be a kick in the ass for me, any P2P is going to piss me off, even this kind of P2P:
http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93406
And this is how I know there will be a single player mode:
http://diablo3x.com/diablo-3-singleplayer/
Well look as far as I know then WoW is not on battle.net servers, which StarCraft 2 will be. So I doubt there will be a monthly fee.
WOW really requires lots of expensive servers, updates and people. A monthly fee is justified for WOW, because it would really cost Blizzard too much otherwise. This doesn't apply to SC2 though. Battle.net doesn't need so many servers because the games work on a peer-to-peer basis (in sc1 at least). A playing fee would scare off so many customers, I don't think it would be a good move even from a monetary point of view. Currently, Blizzard is so rich from WOW winnings that they can really concentrate on satisfying customers and extend their reputation as the best game developing company in the world.
WoW is roleplaying, and SC2 is RTS ... I don't see anything similiar.. if they make World of Starcraft, it will be pay 2 play... A real-time-strategy game does NOT have the addictive factor and huge player base of an MMORPG, the reason people get addicted to online RTS's is because they want to get good, and they have fun vsing good players and having a challenge and being forced to think, not because you're constantly trying to get that next-best item or level up.
Diablo 3 is an RPG, it has a single player mode, there are WoW private servers, meaning that there can be D3 private servers. This is something that Blizzard would want to avoid, pushing people into these options because they can't afford it is bad business. I think that Pseudo-LAN is an interesting suggestion because, quite simply, if you can't have internet, you can't have LAN. This is also not the greatest of ideas, but Blizzard needed to think of something to stem the uproar around "No LAN". I have only played LAN in internet cafes, where the experience is different from many of you I'm sure who have set up there LAN networks and gone for a game with a bunch of friends. Unfortunately this mechanic and the inclusion or exclusion of it will not be affecting me. Though it's still something I think should be put into a game as an intrinsic mechanic.
Blizzard makes a lot of money from every release it does, it also makes a lot of money from WoW, and it's games are still being bought today. This is a GOOD business model, make your games so good in 10 years time people will still buy them and play online.
I'm very sorry for going off-topic into SC2, but basically the same thing applies and I already have had this conversation on SC2 forums so I just copied and pasted myself from there :). Just go through and replace Diablo 3 with Starcraft 2 at every opportunity except the one about SC2 being an rts and you'll see how it correlates.
Look guys to sum up, if the game is P2P, that's bad, if it's not, that's good, why don't we wait until the game comes out? And then do a little bit of research before you buy. It's pointless hypothesising about it here when it will come out and all your questions shall be answered anyway. And then, when it is out, you can make a truly informed opinion about the game, rather than all the conjecture and baseless misinformation that is on the internet at the moment.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
amen!!
No hack protection as in people hacking the game to pirate it. Not hacking in lan
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Wow, you're smart.
Let me put it this way. It takes about 2-5 days for me to download a movie. Just using that as an example, don't infract me for promoting piracy or whatever the fuck you guys call it.
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
I dont think its going to be a failure since most people use lan for a lag free multiplayer experience, but for the times you and your buddies wanna play and for some reason have no net connection yeah thats gonna suck
Its not always about your connection to the internet but the servers themselves that sometimes makes LAN appealing espically to competitive gamers. RTS games like WC3, DOTA, SC are all better in a LAN then over bnet because theres no delay at all unlike bnet. Hell even when bnet is barely laggy at all that tiny delay you get can make a difference in a competitive game.