"It's called LAN!"

[n00bonicPlague]

I'll be the first to say I enjoy face-to-face gaming. I have 4 solid computers that will run SC2 easily in my house all with 25+ inch monitors. With that said, I'd like to say a few points I'd like to hear your thoughts on Xyrik.

1. I understand your frustration with the moving on of traditional LAN as we know it. I do believe that LAN will still live on with SC2 with a stipulation that the internet is a required facet. I'll be the first to admit this may be a breaking point for certain minorities of the world... but again, it's my opinion that the blame can't be on Blizzard for this one, but the parties involved that supply the internet.

2. I see a lot of points about people who lack internet access or lack good internet access. This is the type of shift in the industry that could actually put a focus on better internet availability. If a majority of gaming industries over the next few years increase the demand for better internet, companies will follow suit and consider ways to improve their supply. It won't be overnight though.

An example being Floppy Disks. They were fully in demand once upon a time. When CDs started to take the market. CD-ROMs used to be expensive, but as the companies increased the relevance of CDs, the industry was influenced and provided more pressure than there already was to increase availability of CD-ROMs.

On a side note... EVERYONE complained about CDs and their high cost over Floppies at the time, because EVERYONE had floppies. Just an interesting tidbit.

3. I've heard many people speak on how LAN was responsible for the growth of SC. That may be true, but I'd still like to make a small point that things have changed... internet accessibility is very widespread. And that while there is a small percentage of people who will be legitimately impeded with this decision... I would not say that Blizzard is not thinking of the customer with this decision.

I think the scope of this project is significantly larger than something as small as "Starcraft 2"... that's my thoughts.

Yes there is a time for change, and there will most likely be a day when LAN is fully obsolete — and really no one has a problem with that. We do have a problem, however, with this move being now. It's just too early. The technology just isn't widespread enough. It will be soon, but it isn't right now.

I remember the move from floppy to CD. Hell, I can vaguely recall the move from the 5¼ to 3½. Those transitions were smooth because, like you said, the technology was readily available. But you can't go down to the store, buy good quality PC-based internet, and take it with you anywhere. It has a limited reach.

Also, you can't really split all of the issues up as if they are their own little problems. They are one big problem. Each issue relates to the others — overlapping and intertwining. Several small minorities put together make one large minority — maybe even a majority.

Now I've got great internet, so this really doesn't effect me: thus, I am able to view this from a very objective point of view — possibly even "anti-subjective" if you know what I mean. Sure, we don't NEED LAN. But you know what else we don't NEED? Any technology whatsoever. All that humans really NEED is food, water, and shelter. But isn't technology something so highly desired that it looks like a need?

LAN is the same way. Not only is it used by people who have amazing internet anyway, but it also will bring the most unexpected people out of the woodwork who will buy the game SIMPLY because it has LAN. There is no separate internet crowd and LAN crowd. They are very, very overlapped — almost one in the same.

Yes there will be a time for LAN to go, but it's just not yet.
I'm just asking blizzard to hold out a little longer for people.

Just a little longer.

[Gifted]

I can see your point, thanks for elaborating. Unfortunately, I remember the disk to CD era as a different side than you it seems. I had people all over really hyped about CDs as it brings "Something new" but at the same time, I had more people complaining as they had literally floods of Disks that they invested and didn't want to let go of.

Typically when asked, they'd say "Oh, I don't use them, but I don't want to let them go." That was my experience at least, nothing to argue a point with.

Going forward though, It's a first step that some might not welcome, but in light of their view for battle.net 2.0 I feel it's going to be required for Blizzard to achieve their ultimate goal, which is the "online experience". At least they aren't "removing" lan persay, they are just converting it to require an internet connection. Further quote to help elaborate on that, Chris Sigaty:

Precisely. So I think ultimately, it's going to be a great experience. We're really concerned--of course, it's our bread and butter, is a good, connected, fun multiplayer game. Playing with low latency, and having an experience where you're not complaining about the connection. I know people are saying, "But I do it this way now." There's things that we're going to try to do that if you are close to one another, you get the best connection possible. So we're going to try to alleviate all of people's concerns, but until people play it and see it, I think they'll just react to what they see on paper.

I mean, we've gone through a lot of this so far on the project. Even things as much as us saying we're going to add unlimited selection to the game was met with all sorts of various crazy reactions, even on our own team. It's funny, thinking about the unlimited selection argument--that's still ongoing, although I think it's going to turn out to be just fine. But unlimited selection, originally that was a huge deal, and on our team as well. And one of the guys on our team recently went back and was playing original StarCraft some more, and he said, "Wow, I don't know why I ever pitched a fit, because I can barely go back and think of the older interface in that way." [laughs]

This was further elaborated on in Blizzcon, I can't remember the question but they further referred to the technique which is officially known as "pinholing" which is utilized to allow LAN speed, such as the B.net in WC3 which has been referred to a few times in this post... if you have a LAN party and a connection, it has the potential to verify you all online, and have LAN latency/connection.

So instead of "removing" lan if that were the case, they are simply adding a new requirement for the game, which isn't new at all... just new to THIS genre. It's been in MMOs since the beginning, which is why it's easily acceptable.

[Gifted]

... My largest problem with the whole LAN issue has always been Blizzard's trying to pull the "it's to fight piracy!" line. ...

Just to elaborate more on that angle, the original reason that Blizzard gave was that it was due to "technologies that existed that replaced LAN functionality" which seems to be true in hindsight. The piracy was said in few lines that simply said "It would also reduce piracy" which was also a true in hind sight. I believe the community as a whole turned it into a mountain that it shouldn't have been. Results being that a majority of people felt some misinformation from the original quotes, I don't know if you can count yourself as part of that group... but I suspect that may be the case

This is my personal thoughts mind you, nothing more ^_^

[Xyvik]

Just to elaborate more on that angle, the original reason that Blizzard gave was that it was due to "technologies that existed that replaced LAN functionality" which seems to be true in hindsight. The piracy was said in few lines that simply said "It would also reduce piracy" which was also a true in hind sight. I believe the community as a whole turned it into a mountain that it shouldn't have been. Results being that a majority of people felt some misinformation from the original quotes, I don't know if you can count yourself as part of that group... but I suspect that may be the case

This is my personal thoughts mind you, nothing more ^_^

When I first read the news, I got it from IGN/Gamespy and Gamespot almost at the same moment. Those three sources all focused on Blizzard as having "fighting piracy" as one of the primary reasons they were doing this.

Even checking more reputable sources minutes later, the piracy aspect was being heavily mentioned. From those I came to the conclusion that fighting piracy had been one of the driving reasons. And that fanned the flames of righteous indignation within me. I will forever and always battle anyone in the industry who says invasive DRM or other measures are necessary to fight piracy. I've had that stance for years, but only recently have more enlightened co-members of the industry come out strong publicly and said so.


So that's really it. I can see why LAN as a whole needs to go, but I also feel with n00bonic over here that it just isn't time yet. But it doesn't really affect me if the switch to LAN happens once we're connected.

Just my thoughts on the subject as well

[Hav0x]

When I first read the news, I got it from IGN/Gamespy and Gamespot almost at the same moment. Those three sources all focused on Blizzard as having "fighting piracy" as one of the primary reasons they were doing this.

Even checking more reputable sources minutes later, the piracy aspect was being heavily mentioned. From those I came to the conclusion that fighting piracy had been one of the driving reasons.

The #1 reason behind removing classic-style LAN play is that they want all stats and things of that nature tracked by Battle.net

And that fanned the flames of righteous indignation within me. I will forever and always battle anyone in the industry who says invasive DRM or other measures are necessary to fight piracy.

This is hardly "invasive". While you are installing you go to battle.net and link your cd-key to your battle.net account (or make one if you don't have one). After that you will be able to install it as many times as you want on as many computers as you want. You will just have to to connect to the internet for multiplayer and extra stuff like achievements.

So that's really it. I can see why LAN as a whole needs to go, but I also feel with n00bonic over here that it just isn't time yet.

When is the time? Every time a company tries to skip out on LAN people will be up in arms about it. It will never be time. A company is just going to have to make the switch no matter how much the community whines. I just happens to be Blizzard at the forefront.

Just be glad this isn't like C&C4 where you can't even play singleplayer if you aren't connected.

[Xyvik]

The #1 reason behind removing classic-style LAN play is that they want all stats and things of that nature tracked by Battle.net

I know that now didn't know that then.

This is hardly "invasive". While you are installing you go to battle.net and link your cd-key to your battle.net account (or make one if you don't have one). After that you will be able to install it as many times as you want on as many computers as you want. You will just have to to connect to the internet for multiplayer and extra stuff like achievements.

Removing a major component (thus far) of PC gaming is what I would label "invasive," personally. Especially if said component didn't need to be removed for the operation in question. At least it isn't as bad as 3-Hits-You're-Out-EAGames, true, but still more invasive than Steam, which lets you keep LAN.

Just be glad this isn't like C&C4 where you can't even play singleplayer if you aren't connected.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the -exact- same situation? That SC2 is supposed to be always connected, even for SP? I thought one of the threads in here said as much. I don't recall.

[Gifted]

Removing a major component (thus far) of PC gaming is what I would label "invasive," personally. Especially if said component didn't need to be removed for the operation in question. At least it isn't as bad as 3-Hits-You're-Out-EAGames, true, but still more invasive than Steam, which lets you keep LAN.

I think I see where you're coming from... invasive might not be the correct word but then again I can't think of a better word to fit the feeling I think you're trying to convey... it's still just semantics...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the -exact- same situation? That SC2 is supposed to be always connected, even for SP? I thought one of the threads in here said as much. I don't recall.

The idea is to make it so you never want to be offline. However, you have the option of playing Singleplayer (or challenges) "Offline" as a "guest". If you look at screen shots, right side, top button it will say something like "Play as guest".

[Xyvik]

I think I see where you're coming from... invasive might not be the correct word but then again I can't think of a better word to fit the feeling I think you're trying to convey... it's still just semantics...

Yeah, I couldn't think of something better. Perhaps unnecessary, but that word is a little too light to truly convey the feeling. It's like taking out your liver because your foot hurts, kind of thing. But since that is no longer among their primary reasons, if it ever was, I can safely move on from that feeling and tackle the other issues.

The idea is to make it so you never want to be offline. However, you have the option of playing Singleplayer (or challenges) "Offline" as a "guest". If you look at screen shots, right side, top button it will say something like "Play as guest".

Gotcha, wasn't sure what the current situation was. That makes sense. It's also pretty much what Steam does...when you're offline none of your achievements count and your stats aren't changing. I've lived with that since Steam came out, so I can live with it now

[Justamonster]

The issue is latency.

Exactly.

[FrozenArbiter]

The #1 reason behind removing classic-style LAN play is that they want all stats and things of that nature tracked by Battle.net

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.