But isn't the main reason for Blizzards desicion to prevent people from downloading the game and still play with friends? Then why not forcing the players to access this feature through Battle Net? That way they need a valid CD-Key to play.
Or are there other reasons to why they don't want people to have LAN?
Ya thats exactly what Blizzard wants. But its not what the fans want. All gamers like a diverse game where there are multiple options for how you want to play. If theres like 8 guys sitting in one room all they want is the ability to connect with each other using one of there computers as the host, not a server the otherside of the world!! Where i stay our lines are shaped & slow and we get these ridiculous caps of like 3gb a month for a good portion of your monthly wages. I dont buy this bullshit that Blizzard wants this utopia where gamers can easily connect to a fast battlenet and have the time of there lives etc etc. It's all money making BS!!!
D2 sold millions of copies regardless if it had lan, so whats the problem. Theres still gonna be tons of people playing battlenet!
Why take away these simple functions in a game when its not necessary!??!?
Because you know why, theres always some greedy asshole at the top that just can't have enough! thats why!!
Blizzard I still love you guys for all the great games :thumbsup:
Unless this hack is for personal use, which wouldn't affect Blizzard alot, it is going to spread. And when Blizzard gets their hands on it they can simply block it in the next patch. Since they will have complete access to all codes it shouldn't be that hard for them.
If someone were hell bent on creating a LAN piece for the game, no blizzard couldn't stop it. All they would need to do is throw up a packet sniffer like WireShark, capture the communication between the end users computer and bnet and they could create an application that talks on the same ports, throws back a dummy authentication between clients and voila there would be a LAN game. Blizzard's only way of blocking it would be to create an update to stop it and that would become a cat and mouse game. It wouldn't even be a major coding project in the scope of the game. If they are trying to stop piracy, it's a deterrent at best.
A better approach is what companies like Microsoft and Adobe are doing, they use product key authentication to to get updates. Blizzard could still use bnet authentication like this and still have LAN in it to be very effective. It would make it a royal pain in the ass to get D3 updates for anyone with a pirated copy, but someone will always find a way of spoofing or suppressing the communication if they wanted to. The end user though would not be able to use bnet or get updates easily, they would have to wait for a new hacked version to come out and that would be a pain. They could make it even harder by making updates integrated into the game only, that way they're is no down loadable executable. At the end of the day most people would just say "F" it it's easier to buy a copy than go through that BS, especially when it comes to expansion packs etc.
So Bashiok has had a few words to say about LAN in another thread. That's fine - he works for Blizzard and he knows what is happening. Important thing to note here is that BASHIOK IS WITH BLIZZARD. He's being decent about the whole thing but on these forums he's speaking as a compnay rep. not as a private individual. So what we're going to get is the 'official line' which is also OK. Among other things it seems that LAN has been 'taken out' of D3 (does this imply that at one stage it was IN?) and that Blizzard are confident they can offer 'something better'.
They can't.
Many of us want LAN for our own good and sufficient reasons. Blizzard can't say what is 'better' for us, but they can (and do) say what is better for Blizzard. Let's not forget that Blizzard is a company. Blizzard doesn't care more than it has to about the consumers because Blizzard's first responsibility is to their shareholders. Customers come in way down the line..
Piracy is not the real issue. Does Blizzard assume everybody who wants LAN is a potential pirate? Because that's certainly how it is looking to me.
Blizzard cut out LAN because they think they can make more money by so doing, so let's cut the BS about piracy and 'something better'. A little honesty might go a long way here guys. What's coming up? Pay to play? buying better items/equipment/upgrades with REAL money?
One of the things that killed Hellfire:London was the lack of LAN. If it had been in Flagship would still have been selling games - a couple extra to me for starters..
What happens if Blizzard goes down? It's not impossible. Bigger companies have disappeared. What happens to your battlenet accounts then?
Doesn't really matter. D3 would have been good - maybe even great - but remember, D3 is being written to make money. It won't make anything out of me and a lot of others because we don't like ANYBODY deciding what is 'better' for us and what isn't.
Does Blizzard assume everybody who wants LAN is a potential pirate? Because that's certainly how it is looking to me.
Actually, programmers program with the mindset that every single user of their application is out with the intent of exploiting their program.
Further, I'm pretty sure I have more confidence in a multi-billion-dollar company than any amount of surveys that have shown in the past to be full of false signatures, as was the case with the art petition, and any amount of real signatures. I highly doubt, being realistic, that that many people are not going to buy the game.
Anyone here is probably going to argue further about that, but it's the truth. I'll be waiting after release to repeat it again.
Further, I'm pretty sure I have more confidence in a multi-billion-dollar company than any amount of surveys that have shown in the past to be full of false signatures, as was the case with the art petition, and any amount of real signatures. I highly doubt, being realistic, that that many people are not going to buy the game.
.
I want to see blizzard do a few surveys about the controversial aspects of the game and then post them for all to see. They won't of course for obvious reasons but non the less it would be interesting.
Actually, programmers program with the mindset that every single user of their application is out with the intent of exploiting their program.
Further, I'm pretty sure I have more confidence in a multi-billion-dollar company than any amount of surveys that have shown in the past to be full of false signatures, as was the case with the art petition, and any amount of real signatures. I highly doubt, being realistic, that that many people are not going to buy the game.
Anyone here is probably going to argue further about that, but it's the truth. I'll be waiting after release to repeat it again.
I hate to post just to emphasize, and God forbid I utter something like 'QFT', but, really, I'm not sure it can be said any better than this.
I think there's a place for LAN gaming and admittedly I feel for LAN-only gamers here, but I think they need to be ready to accept they are a minority, an (I'm willing to bet) incredible minority. I'm sure there are at least 10 weirdies out there that would have to have pink unicorn mounts in D3 and they may not buy the game due to a lack of them, but should Blizz cater to them as well?
They can't / will never try to please everyone, just as many as they plausibly can without compromising their vision for the game.
I also think Bashiok's posts have given a very reasonable and (to me) acceptable reason for LAN gaming being removed -- I mostly don't see why just playing on Bnet is a big deal. You can still get together and play in the same room. Bnet 2.0 isn't going to suffer (hopefully) from the same latency issues we're all familiar with, and if you used 2 common cents in setting up your home network there shouldn't be any issues in doing the aforementioned.
You'd think from the sounds of some posts that Blizzard is going to keep people from getting together IRL to play D3, and that's absolutely false.
So Bashiok has had a few words to say about LAN in another thread. That's fine - he works for Blizzard and he knows what is happening. Important thing to note here is that BASHIOK IS WITH BLIZZARD. He's being decent about the whole thing but on these forums he's speaking as a compnay rep. not as a private individual. So what we're going to get is the 'official line' which is also OK. Among other things it seems that LAN has been 'taken out' of D3 (does this imply that at one stage it was IN?) and that Blizzard are confident they can offer 'something better'.
They can't.
Many of us want LAN for our own good and sufficient reasons. Blizzard can't say what is 'better' for us, but they can (and do) say what is better for Blizzard. Let's not forget that Blizzard is a company. Blizzard doesn't care more than it has to about the consumers because Blizzard's first responsibility is to their shareholders. Customers come in way down the line..
Piracy is not the real issue. Does Blizzard assume everybody who wants LAN is a potential pirate? Because that's certainly how it is looking to me.
Blizzard cut out LAN because they think they can make more money by so doing, so let's cut the BS about piracy and 'something better'. A little honesty might go a long way here guys. What's coming up? Pay to play? buying better items/equipment/upgrades with REAL money?
One of the things that killed Hellfire:London was the lack of LAN. If it had been in Flagship would still have been selling games - a couple extra to me for starters..
What happens if Blizzard goes down? It's not impossible. Bigger companies have disappeared. What happens to your battlenet accounts then?
Doesn't really matter. D3 would have been good - maybe even great - but remember, D3 is being written to make money. It won't make anything out of me and a lot of others because we don't like ANYBODY deciding what is 'better' for us and what isn't.
There are so many fallacies in so many bits of your logic I don't even know where to begin.
I might grant (I don't really know) that lack of LAN was technically one of the many factors involved in Hellfire: London tanking, but from what I do know I don't think it was a big reason, or even a remote reason.
But, the real thing you're missing is this: yes, D3 is being made to make money. So was D2. We all get that. Their goal is to make money -- they can't do that if they make a product that tanks. The logic here is sound and easy -- if they were going to lose enough customers by cutting LAN play to make it profitable to keep it included, they would have. They know what they're doing, they know how to make a profitable product (their track record on this is essentially perfect), so no, they may not make any money out of you, but part of being in the incredible minority means realizing your specific need may not always be met. Fact of life, life isn't fair, blah blah blah.
Why was it included in D2? Because technology was a lot different 10 years ago, and LAN play was necessitated. Things have changed, and it no longer is. That's the summary of Bashiok's explanation for the decision.
It comes down to this: you're mad because they're deciding what's 'best' or something? This is also true of, well, basically every single product or service you consume / use / enjoy / despise every single day, from your mattress to your car, your computer brand, your soda, your coffee, whatever. Why do you still pay when you're not 100% happy with a product because it wasn't tailor made for every one of your desires?
Because it's as close as you can get, the best available. D3 is, most likely, going to be the equivalent of that when it comes to your gaming needs, judging by the fact you've enjoyed the series enough to be posting in this conversation on this forum. Which is why you'll still probably buy it; if you don't, then I'm sorry, but Blizzard is not going to miss your $50. They won't miss $500, or $50,000, or probably even $500,000. They know that. They balanced the cost of this decision months and months ago and have moved on.
I'm not saying the discussion shouldn't continue, I'm just saying it's not constructive. This one can be let go (though I'm sure it won't be).
I'm not sure on the viability of home-brew hacks way after release allowing people to work out some kind of patched-together LAN play, but I suppose it's plausible. If enough people want it I'm sure it could happen, so in the end it'll happen anyway. That still requires buying the game (or pirating it, if you can, I guess). What is there left to say?
My only beef with the LAN aspects being gone is that since it's gone... it may be a safe bet to say open bnet will be gone as well... which means playing mods together is absolutely out of the question... which means no mods... which sucks to a degree.
I hope so, we will see. I take no comfort in their being big as proof they will get it right. Too many big companies have hosed the you must reach and touch us thing over the years. People are rightly skeptical, these type of efforts often been so bungled by companies they have earned their backlash and resentment. Microsoft (bend you over) Licensing, Netscape Agitator, Real (pain in the ass) player, AOHELL, and the list goes on. I went to a good many Microsoft TechNet events for the 6 years of development of Vista and we we're constantly told they were listening to us, it was going to be great, blah, blah, blah. When Vista launched, I wanted to cry.
:offtopic::
I think Windows 7 is the byproduct of a number of come to Jesus staff meetings, would have loved to been a fly on the wall as Balmer blew a gasket.
None of whom, not -one-, have Blizzard's track record.
Call me a fanboy. I really don't care. Tell me I'm being too optimistic.
Say whatever you want, but the minute you tell me Blizzard's track record isn't essentially flawless, you're lying to yourself. Yes I'm a fanboy, but I also think Blizzard may actually be one of (if not the only) gaming company anyone can be said to 'know what they are doing'.
They certainly aren't perfect, but if this was going to be half as big as some of you seem to think (i.e., tanking the company!?) they'd already know about it, and LAN play would be included.
It has no relation to being 'big' -- compared to an EA, Blizzard is actually pretty freaking small. It's the body of work, top to bottom, and I'm not sure there's a gaming company that can measure up to Blizzard's success, particularly because of their relatively small size.
You can only judge people/companies on their past performance otherwise its just hearsay and conjecture I'm not saying its a definite thing that blizzard will deliver but I have a good feeling about Diablo 3.
None of whom, not -one-, have Blizzard's track record.
Call me a fanboy. I really don't care. Tell me I'm being too optimistic.
OK since you said I could... you are a fan boy and are being too optimistic :D. If you are talking about sales and popularity of it's products as track record, Microsoft easily has that track record. Some bad ideas are self evident before they get launched, I've worked in IT long enough to be able to pick the obvious ones, taking out LAN is an obvious one. What will offset this is a huge Diablo fan base dying to play the new D3 regardless, Blizzard knows this and so they are doing what they want like it or not, so they will get away with it.
I completely understand where they are comming from about not including LAN into Diablo 3, however, i really enjoyed playing Diablo 2 over a LAN with some of my best friends growing up. This was back in the day when high speed internet was more expensive and we were still using dial up. For what ever reason we did not join battle.net. I remember having some problems getting my junky old gateway laptop to connect using dial up. Those days bring back a lot of memories and despite my understandings of why they are not including the LAN option, I really do see that as a shame and unforitonate. Oh well, none of us seem to be able to do anything about it, so i guess we will have to go where they take the game. I hope however that they change their mind.
OK since you said I could... you are a fan boy and are being too optimistic :D. If you are talking about sales and popularity of it's products as track record, Microsoft easily has that track record. Some bad ideas are self evident before they get launched, I've worked in IT long enough to be able to pick the obvious ones, taking out LAN is an obvious one. What will offset this is a huge Diablo fan base dying to play the new D3 regardless, Blizzard knows this and so they are doing what they want like it or not, so they will get away with it.
I love win-win arguments:
Either I point out that if it was that obvious then I (and I'm sure just about anyone else) would agree that Blizzard would take care of it, even if they are apparently without your brilliant input on game design.
Or I just acknowledge that you agreed what we both know: Blizzard will 'get away with it'. It's in their interest to make the most profitable product they can. If that meant including LAN play, they would. They aren't, so it isn't. Finding this out would not be altogether difficult, so I'm betting they didn't get this one wrong.
All I'm really seeing here is a bit of anger that Blizzard is trying to make money. This isn't a problem with Blizzard or their decision regarding LAN play inclusion in D3; it's a problem with your expectations. I'm glad you and others are here discussing the issue on this forum, because I'm betting you also know which of those two factors is going to change by you doing so.
All I'm really seeing here is a bit of anger that Blizzard is trying to make money.
I think it's more the loss of something people enjoyed, I'm not happy about it for that reason. The old trying to coral a horse into a smaller area after it had free roam of the range. No one likes being limited.
I certainly hope they decide to change their mind and put in a LAN feature. I doubt such a thing would happen, but it'd be nice. Without LAN I wont be playing this multiplayer. I have a separate computer I use for gaming and prefer not to put it on the internet. I was hoping to play D3 LAN much like I did D2 since that was the main way my fiancee was interested in playing it. Chances are she might play it through once on single player but will lose interest quickly without the prospect of playing it together.
I'll still definately get the game and enjoy the single player, but I can't help feel very disappointed about the lack of LAN support
There's a difference between saying you're unhappy LAN has been left out and saying that it shouldn't have been left out.
I'm unhappy my Ford Focus doesn't have a supercharged V8 in it, but I'm not saying Ford should have included one, for the same reason Blizzard shouldn't include LAN play: it's no longer pragmatic for them to do so.
PS- Cyber zombies say "RRRAAAAMMMM!"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A dripping sword / removes all memories.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ya thats exactly what Blizzard wants. But its not what the fans want. All gamers like a diverse game where there are multiple options for how you want to play. If theres like 8 guys sitting in one room all they want is the ability to connect with each other using one of there computers as the host, not a server the otherside of the world!! Where i stay our lines are shaped & slow and we get these ridiculous caps of like 3gb a month for a good portion of your monthly wages. I dont buy this bullshit that Blizzard wants this utopia where gamers can easily connect to a fast battlenet and have the time of there lives etc etc. It's all money making BS!!!
D2 sold millions of copies regardless if it had lan, so whats the problem. Theres still gonna be tons of people playing battlenet!
Why take away these simple functions in a game when its not necessary!??!?
Because you know why, theres always some greedy asshole at the top that just can't have enough! thats why!!
Blizzard I still love you guys for all the great games :thumbsup:
If someone were hell bent on creating a LAN piece for the game, no blizzard couldn't stop it. All they would need to do is throw up a packet sniffer like WireShark, capture the communication between the end users computer and bnet and they could create an application that talks on the same ports, throws back a dummy authentication between clients and voila there would be a LAN game. Blizzard's only way of blocking it would be to create an update to stop it and that would become a cat and mouse game. It wouldn't even be a major coding project in the scope of the game. If they are trying to stop piracy, it's a deterrent at best.
A better approach is what companies like Microsoft and Adobe are doing, they use product key authentication to to get updates. Blizzard could still use bnet authentication like this and still have LAN in it to be very effective. It would make it a royal pain in the ass to get D3 updates for anyone with a pirated copy, but someone will always find a way of spoofing or suppressing the communication if they wanted to. The end user though would not be able to use bnet or get updates easily, they would have to wait for a new hacked version to come out and that would be a pain. They could make it even harder by making updates integrated into the game only, that way they're is no down loadable executable. At the end of the day most people would just say "F" it it's easier to buy a copy than go through that BS, especially when it comes to expansion packs etc.
They can't.
Many of us want LAN for our own good and sufficient reasons. Blizzard can't say what is 'better' for us, but they can (and do) say what is better for Blizzard. Let's not forget that Blizzard is a company. Blizzard doesn't care more than it has to about the consumers because Blizzard's first responsibility is to their shareholders. Customers come in way down the line..
Piracy is not the real issue. Does Blizzard assume everybody who wants LAN is a potential pirate? Because that's certainly how it is looking to me.
Blizzard cut out LAN because they think they can make more money by so doing, so let's cut the BS about piracy and 'something better'. A little honesty might go a long way here guys. What's coming up? Pay to play? buying better items/equipment/upgrades with REAL money?
One of the things that killed Hellfire:London was the lack of LAN. If it had been in Flagship would still have been selling games - a couple extra to me for starters..
What happens if Blizzard goes down? It's not impossible. Bigger companies have disappeared. What happens to your battlenet accounts then?
Doesn't really matter. D3 would have been good - maybe even great - but remember, D3 is being written to make money. It won't make anything out of me and a lot of others because we don't like ANYBODY deciding what is 'better' for us and what isn't.
Actually, programmers program with the mindset that every single user of their application is out with the intent of exploiting their program.
Further, I'm pretty sure I have more confidence in a multi-billion-dollar company than any amount of surveys that have shown in the past to be full of false signatures, as was the case with the art petition, and any amount of real signatures. I highly doubt, being realistic, that that many people are not going to buy the game.
Anyone here is probably going to argue further about that, but it's the truth. I'll be waiting after release to repeat it again.
I hate to post just to emphasize, and God forbid I utter something like 'QFT', but, really, I'm not sure it can be said any better than this.
I think there's a place for LAN gaming and admittedly I feel for LAN-only gamers here, but I think they need to be ready to accept they are a minority, an (I'm willing to bet) incredible minority. I'm sure there are at least 10 weirdies out there that would have to have pink unicorn mounts in D3 and they may not buy the game due to a lack of them, but should Blizz cater to them as well?
They can't / will never try to please everyone, just as many as they plausibly can without compromising their vision for the game.
I also think Bashiok's posts have given a very reasonable and (to me) acceptable reason for LAN gaming being removed -- I mostly don't see why just playing on Bnet is a big deal. You can still get together and play in the same room. Bnet 2.0 isn't going to suffer (hopefully) from the same latency issues we're all familiar with, and if you used 2 common cents in setting up your home network there shouldn't be any issues in doing the aforementioned.
You'd think from the sounds of some posts that Blizzard is going to keep people from getting together IRL to play D3, and that's absolutely false.
There are so many fallacies in so many bits of your logic I don't even know where to begin.
I might grant (I don't really know) that lack of LAN was technically one of the many factors involved in Hellfire: London tanking, but from what I do know I don't think it was a big reason, or even a remote reason.
But, the real thing you're missing is this: yes, D3 is being made to make money. So was D2. We all get that. Their goal is to make money -- they can't do that if they make a product that tanks. The logic here is sound and easy -- if they were going to lose enough customers by cutting LAN play to make it profitable to keep it included, they would have. They know what they're doing, they know how to make a profitable product (their track record on this is essentially perfect), so no, they may not make any money out of you, but part of being in the incredible minority means realizing your specific need may not always be met. Fact of life, life isn't fair, blah blah blah.
Why was it included in D2? Because technology was a lot different 10 years ago, and LAN play was necessitated. Things have changed, and it no longer is. That's the summary of Bashiok's explanation for the decision.
It comes down to this: you're mad because they're deciding what's 'best' or something? This is also true of, well, basically every single product or service you consume / use / enjoy / despise every single day, from your mattress to your car, your computer brand, your soda, your coffee, whatever. Why do you still pay when you're not 100% happy with a product because it wasn't tailor made for every one of your desires?
Because it's as close as you can get, the best available. D3 is, most likely, going to be the equivalent of that when it comes to your gaming needs, judging by the fact you've enjoyed the series enough to be posting in this conversation on this forum. Which is why you'll still probably buy it; if you don't, then I'm sorry, but Blizzard is not going to miss your $50. They won't miss $500, or $50,000, or probably even $500,000. They know that. They balanced the cost of this decision months and months ago and have moved on.
I'm not saying the discussion shouldn't continue, I'm just saying it's not constructive. This one can be let go (though I'm sure it won't be).
I'm not sure on the viability of home-brew hacks way after release allowing people to work out some kind of patched-together LAN play, but I suppose it's plausible. If enough people want it I'm sure it could happen, so in the end it'll happen anyway. That still requires buying the game (or pirating it, if you can, I guess). What is there left to say?
You've got your answer right there.
I remember being very disappointed in spore.
"One does not simply rock into Mordor."
"There's no I in Team America!"
Call me a fanboy. I really don't care. Tell me I'm being too optimistic.
Say whatever you want, but the minute you tell me Blizzard's track record isn't essentially flawless, you're lying to yourself. Yes I'm a fanboy, but I also think Blizzard may actually be one of (if not the only) gaming company anyone can be said to 'know what they are doing'.
They certainly aren't perfect, but if this was going to be half as big as some of you seem to think (i.e., tanking the company!?) they'd already know about it, and LAN play would be included.
It has no relation to being 'big' -- compared to an EA, Blizzard is actually pretty freaking small. It's the body of work, top to bottom, and I'm not sure there's a gaming company that can measure up to Blizzard's success, particularly because of their relatively small size.
"One does not simply rock into Mordor."
"There's no I in Team America!"
OK since you said I could... you are a fan boy and are being too optimistic :D. If you are talking about sales and popularity of it's products as track record, Microsoft easily has that track record. Some bad ideas are self evident before they get launched, I've worked in IT long enough to be able to pick the obvious ones, taking out LAN is an obvious one. What will offset this is a huge Diablo fan base dying to play the new D3 regardless, Blizzard knows this and so they are doing what they want like it or not, so they will get away with it.
I love win-win arguments:
Either I point out that if it was that obvious then I (and I'm sure just about anyone else) would agree that Blizzard would take care of it, even if they are apparently without your brilliant input on game design.
Or I just acknowledge that you agreed what we both know: Blizzard will 'get away with it'. It's in their interest to make the most profitable product they can. If that meant including LAN play, they would. They aren't, so it isn't. Finding this out would not be altogether difficult, so I'm betting they didn't get this one wrong.
All I'm really seeing here is a bit of anger that Blizzard is trying to make money. This isn't a problem with Blizzard or their decision regarding LAN play inclusion in D3; it's a problem with your expectations. I'm glad you and others are here discussing the issue on this forum, because I'm betting you also know which of those two factors is going to change by you doing so.
I think it's more the loss of something people enjoyed, I'm not happy about it for that reason. The old trying to coral a horse into a smaller area after it had free roam of the range. No one likes being limited.
I'll still definately get the game and enjoy the single player, but I can't help feel very disappointed about the lack of LAN support
Signature and avatar courtesy of Indestructible.
Afraid of cyber zombies?
I am too.
There's a difference between saying you're unhappy LAN has been left out and saying that it shouldn't have been left out.
I'm unhappy my Ford Focus doesn't have a supercharged V8 in it, but I'm not saying Ford should have included one, for the same reason Blizzard shouldn't include LAN play: it's no longer pragmatic for them to do so.
PS- Cyber zombies say "RRRAAAAMMMM!"