View Full Version : Blizz just lost my SC2 purchase
Given that the majority of my planned SC2 play was on a LAN and that battle.net is a wasteland of fail, I now have no reason to purchase this game.
"We don't currently plan to support LAN play with StarCraft II, as we are building Battle.net to be the ideal destination for multiplayer gaming with StarCraft II and future Blizzard Entertainment games. While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with StarCraft II and safeguard against piracy.
Several Battle.net features like advanced communication options, achievements, stat-tracking, and more, require players to be connected to the service, so we're encouraging everyone to use Battle.net as much as possible to get the most out of StarCraft II. We're looking forward to sharing more details about Battle.net and online functionality for StarCraft II in the near future."
Grimnoc
1 Jul 2009, 4:16pm
No LAN play? NO LAN play? NO LAN PLAY!?!!?!?!?!?!?!
RRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!
Burn it, burn it at the stake.
Koreish
1 Jul 2009, 4:24pm
Good thing I don't play multiplayer.
I should also note that there is a high probability that I will never play the single player campaign.
Cyclonite
1 Jul 2009, 4:36pm
What a ridiculous load of bullshit.
Bliz-tard... you will back at this decision and regret not killing the person that made the it. When SC2 fails to live up to anyone's expectations and sales drop like a rock, you will wish you had made the game LAN-tastic. Heck, you will sell your soul to have access to STEAM so you can burn your slow and glitchy battle.pet idea.
UPSLynx
1 Jul 2009, 5:35pm
I'm out.
D3, you will command all of me. I no longer care about any other Blizzard IP.
pigflipper
1 Jul 2009, 6:02pm
This may be a deal killer for me.
Cyclonite
1 Jul 2009, 6:12pm
I'm out too. How much more can they do to ruin it?
primesuspect
1 Jul 2009, 6:49pm
I think you guys are slightly overblowing it, maybe. I've never played starcraft, but what do I know.
From an outsider's perspective: I'm 100% POSITIVE that you will be able to play on a LAN, just having to authenticate via battle.net. I guarantee their #1 goal is anti-piracy, which is a fair shake because LANs have traditionally consisted of one copy of starcraft being distributed to all attendees.
Nobody bitches that every single person has to authenticate with Steam in order to play TF2 at LANs... I'm sure this means that the servers have to be on battle.net, that's all.
No, they've specifically detailed in ensuing posts that your LANs will have to play on Battle.NET to play. Not just authentication.
This means that every LAN game will have to go out to the internet so Bnet can negotiate the hosting. This would be like the EXPO being required to play on the IC server.
I think you can see the absurdity.
Winfrey
1 Jul 2009, 6:59pm
Blizzfail.
Koreish
1 Jul 2009, 7:27pm
How will Korea survive this devastating blow?
This is so fail. Definitely not purchasing the game until this is addressed. Most of my play would be over Battle.net but just on principle, I can't support this. This also kills the prospects of EPIC 2010 SCII tourneys.
Grimnoc
1 Jul 2009, 7:42pm
I'll second Lynx, basically I'm only looking forward to Diablo III (which I now have a rig that will be able to run it all buttery smooth, wOOt). Blizzards game are always great, but I guess I'm just worn out on Warcraft and Starcraft. Sucks for you guys who were really looking forward to SC II though.
Black Hawk
1 Jul 2009, 8:11pm
I'm with mas0n. Not buying it on principle. I'll play it, but I won't buy it.
Snarkasm
1 Jul 2009, 8:13pm
Oooh, you're so principled.
Winfrey
1 Jul 2009, 8:17pm
;D
This is so fail. Definitely not purchasing the game until this is addressed. Most of my play would be over Battle.net but just on principle, I can't support this. This also kills the prospects of EPIC 2010 SCII tourneys.
I don't understand why we can't play scii on b.net
GnomeWizardd
1 Jul 2009, 9:34pm
Thats BS but I will still buy it
fatcat
1 Jul 2009, 10:46pm
:( and the sad part is people will still buy this part 1 of the game and blizzard will hail SC2 a huge success
ardichoke
2 Jul 2009, 12:17am
I think this is far more deserving of a boycott than that other game that's getting boycotted. This one announcement just killed all the excitement I had built up over the past couple years about SCII.
Koreish
2 Jul 2009, 6:01am
This is what I fail to understand. Everyone's upset about Battle.Net which they say they've improved just for this game so no one knows if it will super special awesome or not, but they're not upset about it being delivered as three different titles?
Why do we have any reason to get upset yet? We have no idea if the price of the three titles will exceed the cost of a typical retail game. What's more, the full multiplayer experience is being delivered with the first entry in the series.
Koreish
2 Jul 2009, 6:19am
But you're all up in a shitstorm about having to use Battle.Net and don't know what they've done to it.
It doesn't matter. Going out to the internet to facilitate LAN play is obtuse. It introduces potential network issues, activation issues, latency issues and so much more.
Using WAN to host a game that could be done locally with less latency is just dumb. Nobody connected to the IC server during the LAN because we all know that local hosting is a superior choice. The same is true here.
I don't care about stats, rankings, tracking, or any other metadata blizzard could collect. I was going to buy the game to play on a LAN, and that's it.
RyderOCZ
2 Jul 2009, 3:18pm
Such as the LAN we just finished having at ICHQ.
Can you imagine the 44 people that were playing TF2, trying to do so over the Internet on 1 15/2 line? It wouldn't work, the game would fail horribly.
For all those with a Twitter account... Tweet about it and use a common tag like #Starcraft2 or something. Make the Twitter do the work. ;)
Winfrey
2 Jul 2009, 3:29pm
I really don't see Blizzard gaining much by eliminating LAN play. People will still pirate it. People who might have bought it, won't now. People who do buy it should feel screwed by the elimination of a very convenient multi-player feature.
It's poor logic on Blizzard's part.
If you've read D&D 4th Edition then you know Blizzard is not too bright on what the customers want. :(
If you've read D&D 4th Edition then you know Blizzard is not too bright on what the customers want. :(
I really don't get what your implying with that one.
It's poor logic on Blizzard's part.
Replying to his comment...
Right - I don't get what that has to do with D&D 4e though. D&D 4e =/= Blizzard.
chrisWhite
2 Jul 2009, 8:48pm
I don't know guys, this doesn't really matter to me at all, I understand in principle but I wonder if you only feel that way because previously Blizzard RTS's haven't done that. Obviously we can look at Demigod's big fail in this respect but I think the Blizzard guys are probably a little better in expecting a heavy load.
Honestly though, I'll play way more single player campaign and I can't tell you the last time I played anything over LAN. We put up with this model so many other places already.
That's why you don't care, and that's why I do. Single player is dead to me, and the vast majority of my play was going to be on a LAN.
chrisWhite
2 Jul 2009, 8:59pm
Yeah, I see your point and understand your frustration here for sure.
Right - I don't get what that has to do with D&D 4e though. D&D 4e =/= Blizzard.Mentally I put Wizards of the Cost and Blizzard together. ;D In my head my statement made sense. Ooppsss... Carry on, nothing to see here. :D
kryyst
2 Jul 2009, 10:09pm
Mentally I put Wizards of the Cost and Blizzard together. ;D In my head my statement made sense. Ooppsss... Carry on, nothing to see here. :D
I would have accepted the tangent if you went along the lines of D&D 4e learning from Blizzard, but that's an entirely different argument.
Church4252
6 Jul 2009, 11:03pm
blizzard is going to regret this but i am still going to purchase the game
xx insane xx
13 Jul 2009, 7:00pm
put a password on your server and tell your friends?
MiracleManS
13 Jul 2009, 11:09pm
You missed the point.
Quote for Truth and great justice.
The point is why should I have to play through their halfassed servers at what will turn out to be much slower response speed just to feed their ridiculous notion of how to "stop piracy".
MAGIC
13 Jul 2009, 11:18pm
It'll be hacked so we can play over a LAN. It sucks that it has to be done that way but it'll happen one way or another.
It'll be hacked so we can play over a LAN. It sucks that it has to be done that way but it'll happen one way or another.Yep... some sort of config file to point to a dummy server. Other online games have done it (WoW) so I'm positive that a hack will be produced in short order getting around this but what a waste.
At EPIC2009 we played 3 games and I'd bet we were close to 100% legal. Why? STEAM. Yeah we had to be online in order to login but after that we were able to make local games. TF2 and L4D were given but then with the addition of Unreal Tournament 2004 going on Steam, many of us used that route. So, Blizzard... why try to recreate the wheel and then only get a square. Jump onboard the STEAM wagon. ;)
Koreish
14 Jul 2009, 6:13pm
Because Steam doesn't help them make money, like it helps Valve or the Indie companies. We may eventually see SCII on Steam but it will probably be several months after its release.
Sledgehammer70
18 Jul 2009, 12:55am
I will play the SP version of the game purely for the Cinematics.
UPSLynx
18 Jul 2009, 1:26am
If there is one thing Blizzard consistently knocks out of the park, it's their cinematics.
The only part of WoW that I enjoyed was the intro video. It is stellar.
Good thing you can just rip the DiVX files from the MPQ and never waste time on the SP.
Sledgehammer70
18 Jul 2009, 1:43am
Waste time? that is why I love Blizzard games. They have fun SP games. Don't get me wrong, I am just as pissed over no LAN as you are, especially coming form a LAN background... But in all I will still buy the game, which is some small fashion is sad :(
Hey Blizzard allow more than 1 game to be hosted per IP on Bnet!!! do it :)
DocFrazier
20 Jul 2009, 3:43pm
Fist off, your going to have to buy 3 titles, at full market price to get the full game, fucking bullshit blizzard. Second, I agree with the above statements the LAN play is what makes computer play enjoyable, the ability to hook a bunch of computers up and host my own server and play the game, Steam only does authentications, no problem with that, its a good way to knock out piracy because if i really like a game i should support those that made it, Blizzard, has completely removed the option. Forcing you to go to Their servers and play through there networks. Whats even worse is there are rumors in wich Blizzard may Charge for the use of battle.net . that is kinda like the last straw on the camels back for me. Such a fucking money hungrey beast that pulls in millions of dollars monthly from WoW, can't make a game thats all inclusive, and well done as blizzard titles have a habbit ofbeing, because they want to make a few more dollars. Whats worse is they have people convinced that its okay, yeah, I don't like what there doing but i'm going to buy their game anyway. I don't mind paying for server upkeep on a game like WoW, its "Massive" and requiers alot of time in to make it work properly. But i have to buy a game(three times!?!) and then pay to play with my friends through some server hub, when my buddie is in the other room. FUCK THAT BLIZZARD. Also, the only truely original blizzard IP is diablo, and they have done very well with thats franchize. Warcraft, a compleat rip-off from Games Workshops products, StarCraft, another almost exact Rip-off from a Games Workshop Game. I've overlooked this fact as i've played these games because blizzard really makes good games, but now, blizzard isn't making games cause they enjoy it or even because they want the coustomers to enjoy it, they are making games to suck as much money out of the market as they can. *deep breath* in closing, to blizzard, learn the error of your ways, or suffer for it.
Nobody yet knows if the three titles are each the price of the full game. Let's limit our outrage to what we know. :P
DocFrazier
20 Jul 2009, 4:07pm
@ thrax, all the info i have says they will be 50 $ each
Koreish
20 Jul 2009, 6:04pm
Solution: Buy only the story you're interested in, buy all three when the price drops, don't buy any of them and buy Diablo instead.
DocFrazier
21 Jul 2009, 12:57am
is that how you justify paying over $129 for a single title? :p
Gargoyle
21 Jul 2009, 1:06am
Episodic content is around because it makes them more money. I don't know if it'll be $129 all together or not, but I'm pretty sure we're going to be paying more per units of game content (or units of game developer hours, or whatever) than we should be.
I use "we" somewhat liberally, because I was never that into Starcraft, and won't be buying it.
Sledgehammer70
21 Jul 2009, 3:19am
You know the same can be said about Lord of the Rings & Star Wars etc... why not just button it into one big movie?
The fact is we as a consumer will buy pretty shiny packages as long as there is an incentive behind it. For me I love SC series and genre! that alone is enough for me to buy all 3 boxes at full price. In general I bought all 3 LOTR films on DVD & thsan respent the money for the extend versions & will most likely buy the BLu-Ray versions down the road.... Am I stupid for it - probably - do I care? Nope.
Wow was not the first game to push expansions of its title and charge for a pay to play platform... with that the company needs to make money to keep it all online and to fund the many aspects that ride along with it.
Your fact about making games to enjoy etc.. is bull crap. No developer or development team make games with years of investment without the hope of you enjoying it. Each game made has a team of guys & gals who put a crap ton of time into the title with the hope it will be the best product ever. Now with that hard work the publishers want to make some money on it so they can fund their next projects and possibly make some extra cash after it is all said and done. I see no fault in that and have no problem in paying $150 for 3 solid titles to help pay for the $100+ million is cost to make it.
I sure am glad there's someone that faithfully encourages developers to rape consumers by breaking the paradigm to make more money.
DocFrazier
21 Jul 2009, 3:46am
You know the same can be said about Lord of the Rings & Star Wars etc... why not just button it into one big movie?
The fact is we as a consumer will buy pretty shiny packages as long as there is an incentive behind it. For me I love SC series and genre! that alone is enough for me to buy all 3 boxes at full price. In general I bought all 3 LOTR films on DVD & thsan respent the money for the extend versions & will most likely buy the BLu-Ray versions down the road.... Am I stupid for it - probably - do I care? Nope.
Wow was not the first game to push expansions of its title and charge for a pay to play platform... with that the company needs to make money to keep it all online and to fund the many aspects that ride along with it.
Your fact about making games to enjoy etc.. is bull crap. No developer or development team make games with years of investment without the hope of you enjoying it. Each game made has a team of guys & gals who put a crap ton of time into the title with the hope it will be the best product ever. Now with that hard work the publishers want to make some money on it so they can fund their next projects and possibly make some extra cash after it is all said and done. I see no fault in that and have no problem in paying $150 for 3 solid titles to help pay for the $100+ million is cost to make it.
power to the consumer man, thats where its at, money talks. I'm just one internet sap with an opinion, just like every other of the 6 billion out there. My biggest deal, is the no LAN support, in a medium that is pretty much built around LAN capability, and the fact that buying one single title, not expansions for a game that come out months down the road, (though i do think they are stagering the release's of the three boxes) costs so much. they are not expansions, they are something that came all together in the original. I'm all about supporting game companies, especially ones that do good work, but if we don't like something in the industry we love and support, then we have tsay something, tell them thats not what we want, or the hunger for profits will consume the enjoyable part.
lordbean
21 Jul 2009, 3:50am
Wait.
They want to force SC2 multiplayer to run through their servers requiring an internet connection at all times, and they want to charge a service fee for battle.net?
Fuck Blizzard. That is all.
I'm glad I quit world of warcraft. Blizzard as a company is degrading from an entity that used to make enjoyable games with the consumer in mind, to a money-sucking vortex of wasted time.
1. We don't know what the price of the games will be. At all. In any way.
2. Battlenet will continue to be free. Straight from the horse's mouth.
The only substantiated fact in this thread is that Blizzard has removed LAN play from SC2.
Let's save out outrage for real things, please.
DocFrazier
21 Jul 2009, 4:21am
last word... ;D
lordbean
21 Jul 2009, 6:07am
I don't even play RTS games, and I find the idea of removing LAN play repulsive. That merits outrage in and of itself, if you ask me.
DocFrazier
21 Jul 2009, 6:13am
I don't even play RTS games, and I find the idea of removing LAN play repulsive. That merits outrage in and of itself, if you ask me.
agreed
I think you gents might like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHA71B_wbXY
be careful though the language, while it is just text, is NSFW
Quady the Turnip
6 Aug 2009, 1:47am
Wow, i never thought i'd ever agree with Hitler on anything! But there you go!
(Or is that I never though i'd ever agree with "Hitler"?)
Koreish
6 Aug 2009, 4:49am
Old with a hint of new.
ardichoke
6 Aug 2009, 8:57am
Oh man... I love those videos. Even the one about L4D2 (the point of which I vehemently disagree with) amused me to no end.
GnomeWizardd
6 Aug 2009, 11:12am
OH MY! FREAKING HILARIOUS!
Obsidian
23 Aug 2009, 11:28am
While Blizzard still won't have LAN in the traditional sense, they have announced that they will have something very similar facilitated through Battle.net and Diablo 3 will use the same system. Don't get your panties in a bunch ladies, the universe tends to unfold as it should :wink:
Sauce
(http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/60156)
ardichoke
23 Aug 2009, 6:41pm
That doesn't assuage my complaint that I am forced to connect, and stay connected to, Battle.net in order to play with people on a LAN. Screw "pseudo-LAN" support, they have LAN support in the game already (most likely), they've had LAN support in the previous RTS titles they put out... just give me some true blue LAN support. If they choose not to, I won't buy the game. Simple as that.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.