"It's called LAN!"

[Gifted]

This is a really, really, really truly god awful reason for removing LAN support.

If Battle.net 2.0 is as good as they say it will be, they have no reason to remove LAN - people who can play on Bnet 2.0 WILL play there. People who CAN'T, won't.

If you are saying that Blizzard's vision for the next battle.net is different than yours, then that is acceptable that you don't agree with it. But I wouldn't say it's a terrible reason to remove "offline play" when their mentality is "The online experience".

It literally costs them nothing to allow for LAN support - infact, they already have it in the game! It's not a feature they have to spend time coding in, it's a feature they have to spend time removing!!

Actually if it's modular, then it's already easily removed, still trivial information. At Blizzcon, they confirmed that when adding lan, they have to recode a lot and I don't believe that SC2 would be an exception. The current LAN they have could be significantly rudimentary and not the LAN they would want to incorporate. I believe it's good speculation to consider that just believe "it works and is LAN" doesn't mean it's acceptable for ship and would require a lot of focus if not a complete rewrite.

No LAN will not affect me in the slightest - provided I can still play with a LAN-like latency after authing, but it will affect others. An example given to me by Daigomi on TL (from south africa) when we were discussing whether allowing LAN after an internet auth would be a good solution, was the situation of internet in SA.

Even the best internet you can get [in SA] isn't going to be good enough to allow an entire LAN of people to connect - all at once - and auth via Battle.net. It'd cost a fortune to set up the amount of internet connections you'd need to support a big LAN that way.

This is one of the cases that I find semi-legit. Other examples are those who are in a circumstance that has no Internet at all, such as a marine on a ship. Something of an interesting source to read: http://kotaku.com/5343640/blizzard-l...is-no-big-deal

Ultimately though, no matter these circumstances I hold an opinion that's different than yours. This in no way disrespects your opinion, however. May I present two points:

1. I believe that the issue there is truly lack of affordable connection and not a company considering the removal of LAN in that case. By creating a game that requires no lan and others creating games that will follow in suit, the demand of the industry will shift over time faster than it already is. The demand for local internet will start being recognized and plans to take part of the competition may increase it's availability, therefore reducing it's cost. This is of course speculation that takes place over years unfortunately... it wouldn't be immediate and would happen even if No-LAN games were not introduced... but I wouldn't be surprised to see them as a factor eventually.

2. There are certain solutions that could involve a single 56k connection to auth 8 games for an "authorized LAN game". I'm not saying it's reliable but there are ways to split that connection and therefore if that technology were recognized and introduced by Blizzard's standards then I believe it should be ok. This is also personal speculation, but still a standard that could work. I know it's might still have issues with the cost there, but is that something for Blizzard to fix... or the local companies?

I suspect SA isn't the only country with such limitations, and even if it was, "bnet 2.0 is so awseome you should never want to play on LAN" is not a good reason to physically stop me from playing via LAN.

Personally, I know I'll spend the majority of my time playing on Bnet 2.0, I love AMM, but it's beside the point.

Again, I'll agree with the small segments of people who have a legit concern but I think you're placing your opinion in an odd place. I find a lot of arguments/discussion involving them "stopping" you from playing lan odd. If they aren't going to ship with lan, they aren't stopping you from playing it, they aren't taking it away from you.. they're merely not injecting the code into the game for reasons of their own. The power to "fix" an injustice like this would be boycotting the game or not purchasing it. If the results of people in certain countries not purchasing the game show larger than expected then I'm sure they'll look into new alternatives to assist with them. (per the source above)

I feel a lot of people approach it as if it's "right" or "wrong" to remove LAN.... ultimately, it's Pros and Cons which are significantly more enlightening to the decision's results. A person can judge the pros and cons and realize results instead of just separate them. The cons on this decision may be bigger on the short term.. but look at it in terms of the long term.. as they remove it from D3 and products beyond, the initial "wrong" will be accepted. Countries that depend on LAN to reduce the command for internet will instead increase the demand for internet, allowing power to companies to change their current structure. In terms of years, things will improve though for many people it will be painful in the short term.

The point is that removing LAN for the given reasons, is BULLSHIT.

Removing LAN to fight piracy is honestly something I'm much less outraged about than the stated reasons. It's still stupid, it's just more understandable.

I have a personal opinion after understanding their true standings that them saying it's because of piracy would be worse. Because it would be a lie to the public. Whether you agree or disagree with them, I still think it's better to disagree with the truth than agree with a lie.

That's more a personal opinion than most, but one I suspect you might agree with.

.... oh bugger... there's that wall of text, been a few days since it came out...

[FrozenArbiter]

If you are saying that Blizzard's vision for the next battle.net is different than yours, then that is acceptable that you don't agree with it. But I wouldn't say it's a terrible reason to remove "offline play" when their mentality is "The online experience".

Explain this to me then:

If the reason is not fighting piracy, why not include LAN but keep anyone with an internet connection connected to Battle.net at the same time? That way the people who truly cannot play on battle.net due to their [lack of] connection get LAN, while everyone who is physically able will get the "Online Experience".

Actually if it's modular, then it's already easily removed, still trivial information. At Blizzcon, they confirmed that when adding lan, they have to recode a lot and I don't believe that SC2 would be an exception. The current LAN they have could be significantly rudimentary and not the LAN they would want to incorporate. I believe it's good speculation to consider that just believe "it works and is LAN" doesn't mean it's acceptable for ship and would require a lot of focus if not a complete rewrite.

I'm once again (just as in the Chat channel thread) of the opinion that a "get-you-by" solution is better than no solution at all.

Again, I'll agree with the small segments of people who have a legit concern but I think you're placing your opinion in an odd place. I find a lot of arguments/discussion involving them "stopping" you from playing lan odd. If they aren't going to ship with lan, they aren't stopping you from playing it, they aren't taking it away from you.. they're merely not injecting the code into the game for reasons of their own. The power to "fix" an injustice like this would be boycotting the game or not purchasing it. If the results of people in certain countries not purchasing the game show larger than expected then I'm sure they'll look into new alternatives to assist with them. (per the source above)

I think that when every previous Blizzard title (except WoW, which is an MMORPG and for obvious reasons has no LAN play) has shipped with LAN, you are justified in saying that they are taking LAN away from us.

And when LAN is actually already in the game, for all of the Blizzcon events, I think it's even more fair to say that they are - in fact - taking LAN away from us.

If they are going to allow people who can't connect to battle.net to somehow play LAN, they might as well just allow LAN period.

I feel a lot of people approach it as if it's "right" or "wrong" to remove LAN.... ultimately, it's Pros and Cons which are significantly more enlightening to the decision's results. A person can judge the pros and cons and realize results instead of just separate them. The cons on this decision may be bigger on the short term.. but look at it in terms of the long term.. as they remove it from D3 and products beyond, the initial "wrong" will be accepted. Countries that depend on LAN to reduce the command for internet will instead increase the demand for internet, allowing power to companies to change their current structure. In terms of years, things will improve though for many people it will be painful in the short term.

I think many of the countries affected by this have much bigger problems to solve than getting high speed internet... And as n00bonicplague has said, maybe one day you can remove LAN (why you actually would - aside from piracy - I have no idea) without hurting anyone, but that day is not today.

I have a personal opinion after understanding their true standings that them saying it's because of piracy would be worse. Because it would be a lie to the public. Whether you agree or disagree with them, I still think it's better to disagree with the truth than agree with a lie.

That's more a personal opinion than most, but one I suspect you might agree with.

I'm not saying I think they are necessarily doing this because of piracy, I'm saying that if they were, I'd be sympathetic. Annoyed that I as a paying customer was getting the shaft due to the action of others, but on the whole, fine with it.

By bullshit I didn't mean "lie" as much as "ridiculous".

[Gifted]

Explain this to me then:

If the reason is not fighting piracy, why not include LAN but keep anyone with an internet connection connected to Battle.net at the same time? That way the people who truly cannot play on battle.net due to their [lack of] connection get LAN, while everyone who is physically able will get the "Online Experience".

I'll do my best to explain my opinion, please understand it's just that. The vision is "The always online experience" but there is a slew of people out there that play offline because they have the option. With this vision, it only gets stronger the more people who partake of it.

When you introduce lan, you introduce a means that is not aligned with the core vision. Now, if you don't agree with the core vision, then you don't agree with the reason that lan was removed.. and that's ok. But it doesn't change the vision that Blizzard is setting forward with all their games in the future 10-50 years. This isn't about Starcraft, it's about every game they create from here on out. When the scope is increased, it's obvious that eventually, they would want to phase out LAN.

When to do that is where I think you and I differ of opinion. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I perceive your point as "LAN removal can be explainable at the right time, I don't believe it's the right time yet" and somehow simultaneously the point of "I don't understand why it would be removed and therefore there might never be a right time..."

My view is... the greater majority of the world has internet access, but not everyone. There will never be an "everyone". Blizzard has facts that state that between 12-15 million people AT THIS TIME play Blizzard games online. This doesn't involve the market share of people who play online on other games. Whether this is the "right time" or not... it's a time that's acceptable in terms of pros and cons.

Let's look at the alternatives, they could make this announcement with Diablo 3, which would be significantly worse, cause battle.net would exist and we'd TRULY be removing LAN. We could incorporate it later on when the new MMO came out, or at a time they'd revamp B.net, but it doesn't sound like that's in the plans anytime soon. In short, when faced with decisions in the scope of 10 years instead of 10 months, the decision looks a LOT more realistic.

I'm once again (just as in the Chat channel thread) of the opinion that a "get-you-by" solution is better than no solution at all.

This is only by the terms of "solution". What you perceive as a problem could be completely different than what Blizzard perceives as a problem. They don't see the populous that doesn't have internet connection as a problem at this point and to be examined after the release. All information supports the game will be successful in today's industry. The vision they have will benefit more if they provide no alternatives and if the vision suceeds the people who ultimately benefit are the people who partake of the vision.

I think that when every previous Blizzard title (except WoW, which is an MMORPG and for obvious reasons has no LAN play) has shipped with LAN, you are justified in saying that they are taking LAN away from us.

I hold an opinion that I disagree with this mentality. But I look at the gaming industry as "games" and not "Games within genre". I don't look at RTS games as RTS games, because it limits the potential. The only reason why you accept WoW as a game that doesn't have LAN play is because it's generally accepted that "MMO" does not have "LAN" but if you examine games that are called "Persistent worlds" such as all the mods for NWN, you find that the only difference is the amount of people connected and the scope of the world is on a smaller scale. It can be ran on a Local Area Network and setup in a building where people play by the hour.

It's been discussed that PWRPG and MMORPG has no difference in genre at all but the fact that one allows LAN play and the other one theoretically is considered over the internet... but if you put an MMORPG server in a building with 100 terminals, it would work just fine. I wouldn't be surprised that people testing WoW internally use "LAN" as you define it.

All those people you speak to who play SC with lan probably don't complain that they can't play WoW because they've accepted that "this game doesn't allow for lan". The only difference is pure perception. SC2 doesn't allow for LAN, WoW doesn't allow for LAN, PWRPG games allow for LAN, all different points but all are based on perception.

Let's look into why MMORPGs are "accepted" as no lan. It's general believe that it's Server-client. But what matters most is: People know that from the first time they've "heard" of them, they were not on lan. They've "always" been that way and have been accepted thus.... Even if their roots involve being played over LAN. (True fact) One day, the person who created MMOs decided "this would thrive better if it was online and not in a Network" and that changed his development plan.

This last line is all that Blizzard is doing with battle.net. Battle.net happens to have Starcraft 2 integrated into it. Battle.net happens to have Diablo 3 integrated into it If you look at this as a decision from the battle.net standpoint and not a Starcraft 2 standpoint, it helps my perception of the scope.

At the same time, you're completely allowed to disagree with my points, which is perfectly acceptable I'm just doing the best attempt to explain my side on this point.

And when LAN is actually already in the game, for all of the Blizzcon events, I think it's even more fair to say that they are - in fact - taking LAN away from us.

If they are going to allow people who can't connect to battle.net to somehow play LAN, they might as well just allow LAN period.

If I were on your side, I would elaborate that "I disagree with this production decision" but I still wouldn't consider it as LAN being taken away. If it was introduced at ship, and then removed in a later patch, then I'd consider that it's a feature I paid good money for that was removed.

Another example that may relate is that the game menu currently has Video capture options. They are using this for internal testing and due to many reasons (such as performance or just distribution issues) they don't have it confirmed if this will stay or not. Using likewise theory, they could be using LAN as a tool they use to test internally or to alleviate concerns at an event... would it be considered "taking away from the public" when it's never in the public version?

At Activision, they have hacked game systems that allow for you to have unlimited lives, save states, take screenshots and other such features in attempts to test it correctly... by removing this from the game does it mean that they are stealing that functionality to the consumer?

My answer and opinion is no, because we haven't paid compensation for this feature yet.. we've merely been reading forums and sharing opinions. It can't be taken away from us if we haven't paid for it. We don't own anything. By the same statement... boycotting is a way to show that this functionality has helped us make a decision.

I personally won't boycott the game, so Blizzard's decision, be it "right" or "wrong" in taking functionality away won't matter.. because in the end, the product is produced with a feature set I understand when purchasing the game. It's up to me if the product is worth my money as a consumer, I still judge it so. The fact that other people with these unfavorable circumstances have a harder time with that decision is unfortunately but not "stolen" or "taken". If they purchase the game with no LAN... they purchased a game with no LAN, be it Starcraft, WoW or "The Sim's online". We can't blame Blizzard for our monetary choices, that's my thoughts at least. If the game is not valuable to a person because it requires internet and lacks lan, then they have just as much power to decline the game, which sucks but in the whole scheme of things it's not a big deal.

I want to play Final Fantasy sequels but don't have a PS3 or XBOX 360 right now. I hear it's not coming out on PC when older games did come out on PC. It sucks a lot for me but that's their vision, whether I benefit or agree with it or not.

I think many of the countries affected by this have much bigger problems to solve than getting high speed internet... And as n00bonicplague has said, maybe one day you can remove LAN (why you actually would - aside from piracy - I have no idea) without hurting anyone, but that day is not today.

Every decision made in developing a game will hurt someone. It's not about right or wrong in my perception, it' about pros and cons. By not integrating a co-op mode in singleplayer, a potential selling point is lost... but that's not part of the scope of the game and if it was integrated, a lot of other cons would be introduced.

The removal of lan will never have a "right" time. I'll agree to that, but I also state that I don't view it as "right or wrong", I view it as pros and cons. For their vision for battle.net (nothing about sc2) lan provides more cons than pros. If you feel differently than the vision of SC2, then you have the right to disagree with the decision.. but understand that you are not on the same page as blizzard and therefore will not be able to communicate in a fashion that's productive.

Example: If Blizzard was in front of you, and say "We have a vision for an always online expirience, tell me the pros and cons of leaving LAN in... and do so in a form that explains how LAN benefits the always online expirience more than hinders it" I think you'll have a hard time.

Again, personal opinion and I personally respect yours. Going on...

I'm not saying I think they are necessarily doing this because of piracy, I'm saying that if they were, I'd be sympathetic. Annoyed that I as a paying customer was getting the shaft due to the action of others, but on the whole, fine with it.

By bullshit I didn't mean "lie" as much as "ridiculous".

I think there was a miscommunication here. My intent was not to say "you should think this" but rather "These were the options they could have proceeded with, this is my perception of them".

I didn't mean to say you were right or wrong, just as this entire post is that way. I don't think you or I are "right" or "wrong". I'm just merely sharing my perceptions and you're sharing yours. That's how I see it.

In short, I felt that them being honest about a vision that I don't think you agree with would frustrate you less than later finding out that them saying "Piracy is the reason" could be an outright lie.

Just a personal observation that has the complete chance of being incorrect. We both know the reason isn't piracy, and I can understand that either of the two options I provide are not making you happy.. I'm just commenting on what could be the lesser of two evils.

Btw, sorry about the wall of text, it's been warned in my signature afterall. I find discussion rather good

[Ghost_828]

In the wake of Gifted's gargantuan post, I feel it apt to further point out that, even though thousands of players will dearly miss LAN, myself included, it is an unfortunate sacrifice made for the greater good.

As Gifted mentioned, this is about Blizzard's "always online" goal. Yes, this will hamper people who are in a situation that precludes them from having decent internet access. Yes, gamers will be upset. Yes, this will damage SC2's viability at large LANs, but this is the direction technology and the gaming industry is moving.

I believe that the issue there is truly lack of affordable connection and not a company considering the removal of LAN in that case. By creating a game that requires no lan and others creating games that will follow in suit, the demand of the industry will shift over time faster than it already is. The demand for local internet will start being recognized and plans to take part of the competition may increase it's availability, therefore reducing it's cost.

While I realize this is speculation, allow me to correct you. South Africa is in the wonderful position of only having one overall telecommunications company, aptly named Telkom. The fact that they are the only 'real' ISP allows a monopoly, with extortionate prices and line speeds reminiscent of bricks. They will not budge a milimeter because of the gaming industry.

Combine this with Africa's overall bad infrastructure and connectivity and you get the situation that is currently prevalent in South Africa.

[Gifted]

Thanks for elaborating on that point on South Africa's telecommunications company. I'll admit that while my information was general and speculation (thanks for recommenting that) it is always nice to include more stable information.

This puts a further pressure on an alternate point in my post, that the issue on that is not Blizzard but the monopoly itself. It's a shame to hear that legit circumstance.

[schofs]

I can understand why Blizz is concerned about piracy, but I don't think removing LAN was the right answer to the problem. Yes it's true I'm always connected to the internet, but I'm out in the middle of nowhere in North Dakota. My internet is unstable and latency is bad and I have no other option for internet in this town. I fear the number of disconnects I'm gonna be seeing because of it. I wish they would compromise and put lan back into the game, but force us to authenticate first with the battle.net 2.0 servers. Then they'll be happy cuz it makes it less likely the game will be hacked and I'll be happy cuz i can play over lan and take advantage of the 0 latency with my pals.

Edit: After digging through some of the earlier postings it looks like what i said might actually be how it work. I just hope if I lose my internet I don't lose my connection to people in my LAN.

[Xyvik]

Two points I'd also like to burst in here past the Dreaded Wall Of Text (was wondering when we'd get one from you, Gifted! )

1: Why piracy is the worst reason they could use
I'd like to direct your attention to a little article that quotes the opinions of two of my co-industry-mates who I admire and wholeheartedly agree with. Take a look-see here and you will understand part of my stance on the issue: Why Bother With DRM
(this article seems a bit contradictory at first glance, but I can't find the direct one with Brad Wardell so this one will do)

In short, people who pirate games cannot be considered customers anyway, because the chances of them actually buying the game in the first OR last place are almost non-existant. If you ignore the pirates and focus on the CUSTOMERS, you will make a product that is more likely to be bought by the people who would have bought it anyway.

Or as Valve once put it: "make it easier to purchase than to pirate."

I will defend that viewpoint until the death of invasive DRM and I will do so almost religiously. It is a stance that more of the games industry needs to look at, and I take it serious enough to hound the issue even with the gamers. If the gamers don't understand the issue then it becomes harder for those of us in the industry who care to actually do something about it.

2: The world internet situation

These numbers are to be taken with a grain of salt, and the second chart is two years old, but the numbers themselves are rather sobering. Broadband and internet in general have made great strides but they can't be considered the majority just yet.

World Stats
Broadband Stats

Again these numbers may or may not be completely accurate, and they are looking at the entire world population (a certain fraction of which doesn't even have computers, yet alone internet) but at the very least they inject a bit of sobering reality into the argument.


Having moved on from "White Knight Defender Of 'Anti-Invasive-DRM' and 'Anti-Industry Stupidity Of Blaming Everything On Piracy'" I can now look on the issue as it really is, with full objectivity on both sides of the coin. This issue doesn't affect me entirely, but there really are a large number who it does. The 'online experience' is, after all, only so much of the issue. After all, SC2 is being split into 3 products, not because of the online experience, but because of the SINGLEPLAYER experience.

PS-Someone liked that line of mine so much they suggested I use it in my signature. I like it myself so I did

[Gifted]

Good points on the other side posted there buddy. Amazingly, it was presented well enough that I don't need a wall of text

1. DRM: I agree with parts of that article without a problem. I think the defining aspect that will separate people is the term "invasive" in invasive DRM. While something simple as CD-keys and an internet check for the internet experience may exist for the product, I personally would not consider them invasive (As compared to what invasive DRM TRULY could be)

I do believe that lowkey or maybe if you want to call it "low-invasive drm" serves a very solid purpose as it helps drive the moral line for some people who find the morales borderline on it. If it has no DRM, then there is open option to copy it (A good example being cassette tapes, many people copied because there was no inconvience at all that helped them consider it to be "wrong" for friends) By adding something as simple as a CD-Key, it at least provides a basic check for people to look at and say "Hrm.. I have to get a cd-key grabber, at least if I do it I know that I'm doing something that could be potentially 'wrong'." I'm not saying it will sway them, but there is a certain amount of people it would affect and sway them to purchase in an acceptable fashion.

Curious if you agree with me on this simple point...

2. While that statistic may be "sobering" in some ways, there are more things to consider overall. A true statistic is how many people who play video games have access to high speed internet? While your statistic may be vital in some ways, it's an incorrect spectrum for the conversation at hand, even if it's interesting. Try www.census.gov and you might find better results. But you'll find a lot of articles simply showing that the availability of high speed internet has skyrocketed over the last two years in particular at a potentially exponential rate. Here's an example of an article that shows basic information from 2007 - 2009 but it's very generic: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...es/013849.html

No matter the case, I don't believe an issue is specifically about the lack of high speed internet. No matter the case of statistics thrown out, there is no doubt in my personal mind that the market of people that Blizzard is targetting with Battle.net has some sort of internet access. Whether it's successful or not in grabbing them, that's something that I think can be speculated on. They can easily derive this statistic based on IP logs from World of Warcraft and existing battle.nets combined. (Which will be inaccurate with the amount of people who play on non-Blizzard servers such as ICCUP)

[FrozenArbiter]

I'm having a really hard time understanding your view-point... And I don't mean I don't understand what you are saying, more so that I don't understand how you can be fine with what you are saying you are fine with. Doesn't mean you are wrong, just means I look at what you say and I just cannot understand how this doesn't bother you.

To me, saying you can't play it on LAN because "we have a vision" is like giving someone a football then telling them they can't use it for playing against 1 goal only with a couple of friends, they have to play a full match or nothing at all.

It's an artifical restriction, it's a deliberate limitation. Whether it's technically a removed feature or not doesn't really matter, when to most people who have played on LAN in Blizzard's previous titles that's what it feels like. And isn't what it feels like more important in this case?

Furthermore, why can't they take the same route with LAN as they have with single player? If you have an internet connection, you will play single player while still connected to battle.net. But hey, if you don't have one, you'll play it offline.

Taking this and applying it to LAN, there's really nothing that says it couldn't work. I want to play on LAN? Well, I'm connected 364 days a year (I think my internet downtime probably adds up to less than a day a year, but 364 is close enough), so when I play on LAN I'll probably be connected to Bnet, taking part in the "Online Experience".

But if I can't connect (or am one of the people who never can), then hey, I'll just hook up with some nearby computers and LAN a little.

If someone goes to such great lengths to avoid Blizzards Online Experience that they shut down their internet connection just to play on LAN without going via battle.net... does it really matter? It's going to be a miniscule portion of players that feel that strongly about not playing on Bnet.

When to do that is where I think you and I differ of opinion. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I perceive your point as "LAN removal can be explainable at the right time, I don't believe it's the right time yet" and somehow simultaneously the point of "I don't understand why it would be removed and therefore there might never be a right time..."

I don't think there's ever a need to remove LAN, but if it has to be done I don't think it should be yet.

I personally won't boycott the game, so Blizzard's decision, be it "right" or "wrong" in taking functionality away won't matter.. because in the end, the product is produced with a feature set I understand when purchasing the game. It's up to me if the product is worth my money as a consumer, I still judge it so. The fact that other people with these unfavorable circumstances have a harder time with that decision is unfortunately but not "stolen" or "taken". If they purchase the game with no LAN... they purchased a game with no LAN, be it Starcraft, WoW or "The Sim's online". We can't blame Blizzard for our monetary choices, that's my thoughts at least. If the game is not valuable to a person because it requires internet and lacks lan, then they have just as much power to decline the game, which sucks but in the whole scheme of things it's not a big deal.

Using whether the game will sell or not as justification for whether to include LAN does not sit well with me at all.

Of course the game will sell! The actual gameplay looks fantastic, Battle.net 2.0 will be overall great. But would it be a better product if it had LAN? YES!

That last question is, to me, all that matters.

And for MMOs, it doesn't bother me because that's the entire point of the genre? Massive Multiplayer Online games, built around a business model of charging people by the month which isn't really something you can do if you allow offline play...

[Gifted]

My viewpoint:

So your viewpoint is that you don't understand why I'm ok and this doesn't bother me? I'll do my best to explain. Maybe it's just the mentality of my expirience as a person who worked in the industry. I've been in the meetings on a team who had to make decisions like these involve game production. I think that influences my thought to be able to look at this as a producer, a person in charge of a scope of a project and lastly as a consumer.

May I venture a guess that perhaps the true issue that you feel is that you place no value into the vision that Blizzard is putting value into. I personally will miss LAN, as said before, I have 4 computers that will run SC2 perfectly. But I'm also able to look at it in terms of how they came across to the decision and find myself accepting of their decisions. I'm personally finding it hard to place value into the "always online experience" until I try it myself, but I will also be willing to give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt based on the information provided.

EDIT: On another note, I think that my perception of this in terms of 10-50 years might expand the vision on the decision a bit more than looking at it in the terms of 10 months until the Starcraft 2 release. It helps keep perception in line with what truly matters.


About Lan "working" and a curiousity of why it should be removed

My personal thoughts... it's not about "LAN" but about "alternatives". In the past, they felt that people were splintered all over. While there were 12 million players on battle.net, it's not uncommon to see people say "I don't go on battle.net, I get what I need through other means". I've even seen some people quite a few times say "I play multiplayer offline just because of the lag issue, I'd rather play offline".

Blizzard has stated they are working on ways of fixing the lag, even moreso looking into abilities to reduce it for LAN persons. If that's the case, people can then choose LAN or online play. Or even LAN while online.

Let's take it a step further... what are the ultimate issues by simply saying "All multiplayer is in our collective community" ... yes, it takes away a choice of the people. Maybe that's what you feel is taken away is a right to choose to use the product your own way *considers*. But at the same time, would it benefit the community for people to see when others are playing Blizzard games? Their vision is to say "yes, it would".

When other contriversial decisions are placed, this is why gamers suggest adding a toggle because they want a choice. Multiple building selection? "Can we have a way to turn it on?" Unlimited unit selection? "Can we have it so 12 is a maximum?" Those were common responses... because people typically fear change. I personally hold the belief that with all the concerns now, 1 year after release no one will bat an eyelash at it as the general populous would not be scared of change, they'll accept that "Blizzard games from now on will have no LAN".


On the theory of purchasing the game

I think there was a misunderstanding on your end. While you think the game will sell well, there is more than just that to consider. Global numbers are not the only numbers when looking at sales.

Let's say they examine worldwide sales and using your example see that compared to Starcraft, the amount of sales in South Africa dropped 80%. While that is not a significant number in the "large amount" it can show a trend to help identify how much LAN is truly an issue. Cited in multiple interviews, Rob Pardo and Chris Sigaty both have admitted that while they aren't worried about LAN, they are watching the concern and will know more after sales figures come in after ship. Ironically, this point semi-supports your end of the conversation.


Will it be a better product if it had LAN?

While it may be instinctive to immediately say yes.. consider this.

In World of Warcraft, they had people complaining about joining "random groups" called PUGs to try and do instances. They devised a tool called "Looking for group" that allowed people to find other people but they never truly put in a reason to do so, just put it in there and said "Hey! Use this instead of spamming the game trade channels".

People didn't use it, not because it wasn't a good tool, but because it wasn't what "THEY" wanted.. so they made the choice to not use it and continue what they were doing. Blizzard fixed it, implemented new channels, removed them, tried fixing it again, but ultimately what it came down to is that they took what people "used" and forced that to only be available if people used the tool.

If you look at that simple short description... it looks like Blizzard took a choice away, and in many ways they were right. But only when they did that, did the tool get used the way it was intended, and from the momentum gained from that... it skyrocketed. The more people using it, the more it's useful.

This is true with many games, people typically do what they're used to, and "changes" are typically harder to use if implemented in the middle of a game that people have already found their own way.

If you look at this as "Starcraft 2 doesn't have LAN" then yes, it doesn't make sense, they had it in the first game.. but it's not here. I personally view Battle.net as a completely different entity than Starcraft 2. They have an online platform that will thrive only if people are on there. If not, it has the potential to flop. By removing LAN and the majority of offline play, by removing the "Choice" then battle.net will be the better product for it.

Now let's say they give the equivelent of LAN only while connected and setting up a game through battle.net.... Then you have no lag concerns and Battle.net and everyone involved wins.

Yes, while unorthidox as it seems in our times, I agree that battle.net will be a better expirience if you remove the alternatives. I've seen too many games that benefitted by providing a better service by removing a choice... players eventually accept it. That's my stance, I know it's harsh, but it's honest. I know not everyone will agree with me either.. but I like to feel that I'm looking on two sides of the coin... developers and the customers they build projects for.


On the people who don't have access to internet

While that may stink for them, and it's a legit concern, the ultimate situation is that the world changes and they will either find a way to change with it, or not. I know it sounds like a lack of compassion, but if gaming was based on the lowest common denominator on many of it's industry changing decisions, there's a chance some of our games would still be compatible with the almighty 586. I know that's an exaggeration, but ultimately if they can't access the internet while over 15 million can access the internet SPECIFICALLY for Blizzard games.. while it may be frustrating for them and their circumstances, I don't feel it's right to blame the developer for that.

I am a firm believer that if a person doesn't like their situation, weighs the pros and cons and finds their situation undesirable... you can be a victum and let it affect you, or step above it and take action to find a circumstance that provides more pros than cons. I'll be happy to elaborate on this if you want.

Starcraft 2 is a game, a luxury. It's not like they lack food or water, shelter or air by the removal of a feature in this game that could limit their ability to play it.

As said above, I truly want to play the new Final Fantasies that are released on PS3 or XBOX 360... but for me to be able to do that, I have to pay overabundant amounts of money. I make a choice as a consumer that as much as I love Final Fantasy, it's my issue if I don't buy the game system and the game. It's not Squaresoft's problem for not offering them on PC anymore.