LAN, This

http://gamerant.com/blizzard-starcra...28Game+Rant%29

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Game Rant

"I’d like to take a quick moment to describe the similarities between this situation and a small piece of software I use that makes my life a little better, called Windows live Sync. It’s an online service provided by Microsoft that allows any number of computers to log in to the service and autosync files, anywhere in the world. However, if the two computers are behind a local network, the software detects this and starts using the local connection to transfer files. This is awesome, because I use it to sync over 20GB of .mp3 files. The software would be unusable if it didn’t use local network transfer, because it would be slow and costly."

---

Retain a required internet pass into Battle.net, require paid accounts, check for local subnet, play on local subnet. If there's no connection to Battle.net (just a ping back and forth), there's no multiplayer. Sometime before Heart of the Swarm? This is a desired feature, by more than the so-called "1%".

On a side-note, to thwart potential pirates, and because of Blizzard's very secure Battle.net account system... shouldn't spawn copies of the game (eventually) be very simple to setup? Each user who owns SC2 can activate a spawn copy for a single (subject to profitability) other Battle.net user, similarly to the "friend invites". There's no way to my knowledge to easily crack this system, as it'd be akin to cracking Battle.net access in the first place.

Spawn copy users would obviously be limited to only playing in the same multiplayer games as the parent user, plus whatever other limitations to insure eventual user purchases.

I don't see any reason for paid accounts, but otherwise I am wholeheartedly behind this idea. I don't know what Blizzard is thinking these days, but this is definitely what they should do.

Edfishy, this solution makes too much sense! :(

I have to agree with this article, I don't see why they can't attempt a pseudo LAN - and just use Bnet as a verifier. Is it something beyond what the coders can comprehend or what?

Normal networking code won't go thru a router to reach a computer sitting next to you by the very nature of networking itself, so the only ways to have a program that goes to the internet to end in the computer next to you are:

• You did that on purpouse.
• The code is shit.

I mean, your router has an external IP address. That address cannot repeat in the whole internet. The BN server knows that IP, so if both computers connect to the server thru the same router, they must be local networked, right? Of course, there could be more complex networks when this won't work, but it will in most cases, lag will be pure LAN, and in case the computers don't reach each other you can revert to thru-BN operation.

Also, the lag reason is bullshit. I played ICCup with no lag with people all over the world. The lag was better than BN 1 @ US East, and the only thing they did is to make a loader for the game.

.

http://origin.arstechnica.com/journa...dia/babbeh.jpg


"So can you guys explain to me the part where we make money from this? I'm sorry but I don't follow, people are supposed to play our product for free??..."



Good idea. Too bad it won't happen. Didn't happen with WC3, what makes you think it'll happen with SC2+ Kotick at the helm. Sorry, but the sad truth.

(I was referring to the Spawn clone thing. They stopped doing that a long time ago. And even with LAN, that opens up the possibilities of Habatchi and faux-users connecting to real battle.net via having one real copy of SC2 act as a log-in bot with the user and friends being able to go into the Faux-LAN game (i.e. how those faux-LAN DOTA Wc3 games are hosted) or something like that.
But regardless they're being dicks about it)

Warcraft 3 had LAN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyde

"So can you guys explain to me the part where we make money from this? I'm sorry but I don't follow, people are supposed to play our product for free??..."

---

If he actually said that, then my response would be: "Uh, the part where you make money is when you sell millions of copies of an original release and two expansions that could almost stand as their own games."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centipede

Warcraft 3 had LAN.

---

Sorry, forgot to make my post clear. Was talking about spawns.
Yeah and the LAN thing, like Modern Warfare 2, they want to be Acti-Blizz Control Freaks on their product. They know PC gamers aren't stupid but they'll do anything to circumvent easier methods of getting into legit games with a pirated copy. I remember when hacked Modern warfare 2 copies could get into the same games with legit players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague

If he actually said that, then my response would be: "Uh, the part where you make money is when you sell millions of copies of an original release and two expansions that could almost stand as their own games."

---

This is Activision-Blizzard we're talking about here.

"Do you really want chat rooms?"
-Blizzard

Thing is, Blizzard promised this kind of technology (look here), but apparently did not deliver. The question that naturally arises is, what makes BattleNet 2.0 better than the original?

P.S. And besides, region lock in many ways negates the very nature and spirit of the internet and multiplayer games in themselves. The whole point of the web is that you can easily connect and communicate with everyone around the globe (nevermind what countries like China or Iran try to do to prevent this). Compartmentalizing regions, even for a game, is a small but pretty worrying step towards an internet that is censored, controlled, divided and where economical differences between users matter as much as in the real world. So opposing it is a question of principle as much as gaming convenience. Practically all games that were released in the last two decads and had multiplayer, you could play with anyone around the globe, StarCraft 2 shouldn't be different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eligor

Thing is, Blizzard promised this kind of technology (look here), but apparently did not deliver. The question that naturally arises is, what makes BattleNet 2.0 better than the original?

P.S. And besides, region lock in many ways negates the very nature and spirit of the internet and multiplayer games in themselves. The whole point of the web is that you can easily connect and communicate with everyone around the globe (nevermind what countries like China or Iran try to do to prevent this). Compartmentalizing regions, even for a game, is a small but pretty worrying step towards an internet that is censored, controlled, divided and where economical differences between users matter as much as in the real world. So opposing it is a question of principle as much as gaming convenience. Practically all games that were released in the last two decads and had multiplayer, you could play with anyone around the globe, StarCraft 2 shouldn't be different.

---

Agreed. Battle.net 2.0 looked great at first until all this Gestapo police state stuff arised. I don't see the point in region locking. If they truly want the "best online experience" I have a simple solution.
Have the ability to change your license/region once every x months and/or be forced to have your entire battle.net account wiped on the old realm.
I see it the only compromise at this point, because Traditional LAN, Gateways, and Blizzard listening to fans is pretty much gone.

They've instead placed puppets that ask us if we really want chat rooms.
Pretty insulting if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyde

Battle.net 2.0 looked great at first until all this Gestapo police state stuff arised.

---

Somehow that put a smile on my face... Weird...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyde

http://origin.arstechnica.com/journa...dia/babbeh.jpg

---

That looks very creepy.