Yesterday, Escapist Magazine launched an article regarding the stance of LAN capabilities for play in StarCraft II. If anyone can recall, this was a crux of high controversy for some time (see here). It would seem, though, that they have finally caught on to either the 100,452-person petition for the function to return or this has been a waiting secret for some time:
Quote from name="Rob Pardo" »
We don't think anyone will really need LAN, but if people do need LAN, we'll work on giving them something like it.
StarCraft II Designer Dustin Browner told the people over at Gamasutra about one of their main concerns with allowing LAN playability in the game and what it was that caused them to conceive this "quasi-LAN" idea: The new Battle.net aspiration of "integrated experience", something that was shown in the presentation here for StarCraft II's Battle.net functionality:
So, what was proposed, or at least told to reporters, was something along the lines of a system that would allow players to connect on a LAN level, low ping, yet still require a very minimalistic internet connection to keep friends connected on their Friends Lists, keep achievments dynamic, and so forth:
Quote from name="Dustin Browner" »
We really wanted to bring all these players together and keep them in the same pool, and make everything work, so your achievements work, your friends list works, everything just works correctly, as opposed to having two separated ways to play[.]
The Lead Designer for the new Battle.net system for the up-coming games, Greg Canessa, elaborated a bit more on this functionality at an interview with ShackNews:
Quote from name="Greg Canessa" »
Maintaining a connection with Battle.net, I don't know if it's once or periodically, but then also having a peer-to-peer connection between players to facilitate a very low-ping, high-bandwidth connection.. those are the things that we're working on.
The Escapist article went on to announce that Diablo III employee Jay Wilson said that we will be seeing the same thing or something very similar in Diablo III:
Quote from name="Jay Wilson" »
Diablo III chief Jay Wilson confirmed that his game would be supporting the same pseudo-LAN functionality, so if it works well, that should be cause for rejoicing.
At first glance, this sounds to be a very compelling half-way point between the desires of the player community to play directly with each other without the intrusions of or the lag frequently attributed to Battle.net and the goals of Battle.net and game developers for a more cohesive and dynamic system that still works in to the online portion.
Whether it works out all that great will remain to be seen. Thanks goes out to VZLANemesis who first posted about this article here.
not really, I never lagged in old bnet, people just need to upgrade their internet if they can' play online, this isn't 10 years ago when fast connections were hard to find or pay for
gaming is a hobby, and like all hobbies you have to fund it
if you are unwilling to fund it, you have no right to qq
A lot of people are trying to find tons of reasons why they don't want to be forced to log on Battle.net to be able to play, when their only real reason is: I want to download a pirate version of the game and be able to play the single player & in lan with friends, like a lot of games. Screw that.
I say it's a good thing that Blizzard's trying to include every features that was in the previous games, while still requiring a(minimal) internet connection, to make sure they have a legit account and paid for the game.
They say they want to require a connection to Battle.net for your friendlist and achievements? Thats the politically correct way to say it. They should simply say: Because we want to make sure that if you play, you paid for the f.ing game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you can't amaze people with your intelligence, confuse them with your bullshit.
They say they want to require a connection to Battle.net for your friendlist and achievements? Thats the politically correct way to say it. They should simply say: Because we want to make sure that if you play, you paid for the f.ing game.
I thought the same when I read it, but since they didn't actually say that, I didn't want to put it in to the report. It would obviously be assumed and subjectional, although, I feel, logical.
Yup, the truth is "control". They want every person to pay for the game. The real problem I see with Blizzard, is that they are trying to assume a big -steam like- control and thats just not something I agree with, especially since Steam banned me the second my account got hacked (presumably the guy did something), which caused me to lose online to all my game because of a single click, its irreversible, and you have no right to argue about it.
Heck, from the look of it, you may have to connect to your account for single player.
Hi everyone !
I'm talking for people who are going to buy the game, not for pirates.. !
So basically what Blizzard is saying is that LAN won't be supported because in any cases you will have to be connected to the internet. So no real LAN.. I don't get why some people are getting happy.
Let me explain :
What is real LAN ? Real LAN is (example): " I'm with my cousin and we both bought Diablo III ( because we love Blizzard and their games, we bought them all.. ), but we are at our grandma's house for a week/month(whatever) where there is no internet connection..... Oh Blizzard forgot real LAN support so we can't play together..."
Same for Starcraft II....Sucks
I think that at some point it's a kind of disrespect towards the fans.
So conclusion : No real LAN it seems, you need internet in order to play multiplayer from now on !
This, kinda.
I'm lucky knowing I will not, personally, get into any situation where an internet connection is unavailable (unless something really bad happens), but yep, no real lans.
They are still giving enough tools for pirate to find a way to play between themselves. Would anyone be ashamed of saying, in a case like above (stuck where there is no internect connection, got 2 copy of the games), that they would use the pirated version to play together?
I know, its illegal. But I won't be ashamed to cross lines that shouldn't exist in the first place.
That said, I still think their decisions is a bad one. They are just trying to make it look shiny, but nothing changed.
What is real LAN ? Real LAN is (example): " I'm with my cousin and we both bought Diablo III ( because we love Blizzard and their games, we bought them all.. ), but we are at our grandma's house for a week/month(whatever) where there is no internet connection..... Oh Blizzard forgot real LAN support so we can't play together..."
sorry but both my grandmas have cable internet and one of them social networks (siiiigh) and the other games (yeazzz)
Yes they are doing this because they dont want people to play pirated versions... When they released SC1 it had a spawn version you could install to play on LAN (thats not pirating, I guess this is definately NOT in SC2.
Also its kinda dumb for them to even provide this kinda support because the way it used to be is a person host the game on their machine, it acts as a server and all TCP/IP communication is really through them with BNET interaction occasionally. Unless in the new BNET they are having everything routed through it (to minimize hacking or whatever there reason is) then two computers behind the same network router would talk quickly anyways.
I guess if your still on 56K this might be better but really they should be minimizing 'excess' traffic anyways! Also I'm sorry if your on 56K but you aren't really dont have any buisness playing games if you are. 56K@$20/M vs cable/DSL/Broadband@$30/month. Spend the extract $10.
My biggest disapointment is exactly what kanzaki_urumi said, when I am not in internet access, vacation or w/e it would be nice to play a game vs a friend through some wifi or (cabled i guess.)
I think somewhere(forum blizzard or interview) something was said that 56k internet connection won't be enough to play online correctly, I don't really remember what was said or how it was said, so I have no idea where to look to prove this.
For the LAN topic, would it be possible and/or enough to simply ask to confirmed the cd-key in battle.net once and then be able to use this LAN for like 6 month and then you would have to confirmed it again.
I think somewhere(forum blizzard or interview) something was said that 56k internet connection won't be enough to play online correctly, I don't really remember what was said or how it was said, so I have no idea where to look to prove this.
For the LAN topic, would it be possible and/or enough to simply ask to confirmed the cd-key in battle.net once and then be able to use this LAN for like 6 month and then you would have to confirmed it again.
no, cracks are fun
if blizzard forces people to autoupdate constantly they can catch cheaters
kinda like how VAQ operates, but forces people to actually play a game instead of being fine with being casual
Generally speaking, Bnet will always be slower compared to direct peer connection. Logically because the Bnet infra can never be as pervasive. I wouldn't be surprise if they implement a peer-to-peer type connectivity that still require initial handshaking within Bnet.
Like previous poster mentioned, it is all about control, advertising and curbing piracy.
StarCraft II Designer Dustin Browner told the people over at Gamasutra about one of their main concerns with allowing LAN playability in the game and what it was that caused them to conceive this "quasi-LAN" idea: The new Battle.net aspiration of "integrated experience", something that was shown in the presentation here for StarCraft II's Battle.net functionality:
(Provided by Terror - see full thread.)
So, what was proposed, or at least told to reporters, was something along the lines of a system that would allow players to connect on a LAN level, low ping, yet still require a very minimalistic internet connection to keep friends connected on their Friends Lists, keep achievments dynamic, and so forth:
The Lead Designer for the new Battle.net system for the up-coming games, Greg Canessa, elaborated a bit more on this functionality at an interview with ShackNews:
The Escapist article went on to announce that Diablo III employee Jay Wilson said that we will be seeing the same thing or something very similar in Diablo III:
At first glance, this sounds to be a very compelling half-way point between the desires of the player community to play directly with each other without the intrusions of or the lag frequently attributed to Battle.net and the goals of Battle.net and game developers for a more cohesive and dynamic system that still works in to the online portion.
Whether it works out all that great will remain to be seen. Thanks goes out to VZLANemesis who first posted about this article here.
gaming is a hobby, and like all hobbies you have to fund it
if you are unwilling to fund it, you have no right to qq
http://ypslon.deviantart.com/
http://www.livestrea...m/diabloiiibeta
A lot of people are trying to find tons of reasons why they don't want to be forced to log on Battle.net to be able to play, when their only real reason is: I want to download a pirate version of the game and be able to play the single player & in lan with friends, like a lot of games. Screw that.
I say it's a good thing that Blizzard's trying to include every features that was in the previous games, while still requiring a(minimal) internet connection, to make sure they have a legit account and paid for the game.
They say they want to require a connection to Battle.net for your friendlist and achievements? Thats the politically correct way to say it. They should simply say: Because we want to make sure that if you play, you paid for the f.ing game.
I thought the same when I read it, but since they didn't actually say that, I didn't want to put it in to the report. It would obviously be assumed and subjectional, although, I feel, logical.
Heck, from the look of it, you may have to connect to your account for single player.
This, kinda.
I'm lucky knowing I will not, personally, get into any situation where an internet connection is unavailable (unless something really bad happens), but yep, no real lans.
They are still giving enough tools for pirate to find a way to play between themselves. Would anyone be ashamed of saying, in a case like above (stuck where there is no internect connection, got 2 copy of the games), that they would use the pirated version to play together?
I know, its illegal. But I won't be ashamed to cross lines that shouldn't exist in the first place.
That said, I still think their decisions is a bad one. They are just trying to make it look shiny, but nothing changed.
sorry but both my grandmas have cable internet and one of them social networks (siiiigh) and the other games (yeazzz)
no excuses
Yes they are doing this because they dont want people to play pirated versions... When they released SC1 it had a spawn version you could install to play on LAN (thats not pirating, I guess this is definately NOT in SC2.
Also its kinda dumb for them to even provide this kinda support because the way it used to be is a person host the game on their machine, it acts as a server and all TCP/IP communication is really through them with BNET interaction occasionally. Unless in the new BNET they are having everything routed through it (to minimize hacking or whatever there reason is) then two computers behind the same network router would talk quickly anyways.
I guess if your still on 56K this might be better but really they should be minimizing 'excess' traffic anyways! Also I'm sorry if your on 56K but you aren't really dont have any buisness playing games if you are. 56K@$20/M vs cable/DSL/Broadband@$30/month. Spend the extract $10.
My biggest disapointment is exactly what kanzaki_urumi said, when I am not in internet access, vacation or w/e it would be nice to play a game vs a friend through some wifi or (cabled i guess.)
I think somewhere(forum blizzard or interview) something was said that 56k internet connection won't be enough to play online correctly, I don't really remember what was said or how it was said, so I have no idea where to look to prove this.
For the LAN topic, would it be possible and/or enough to simply ask to confirmed the cd-key in battle.net once and then be able to use this LAN for like 6 month and then you would have to confirmed it again.
no, cracks are fun
if blizzard forces people to autoupdate constantly they can catch cheaters
kinda like how VAQ operates, but forces people to actually play a game instead of being fine with being casual
Like previous poster mentioned, it is all about control, advertising and curbing piracy.