Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 Will Not Have LAN Support

[Magister Lajciak]

Blizzard has decided to not include LAN support in Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 as an anti-piracy measure. This means that unless things change, I won't be purchasing Starcraft 2, which for me is a primarily multiplayer LAN game, though I will still likely purchase Diablo 3, where I expect the single-player component to be strong enough to justify buying the game on that basis alone. Here is an article on the matter: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-318442.html

 

As a point of interest, the Petition for LAN now has about 70 thousand signatures: http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html

 

It would be nice if Blizzard changed its mind on this issue, though I am sceptical.

[Humodour]

So ****ing stupid. Blizzard doesn't NEED to worry about pirates. People love them. So many people buy their games. And so many people WANT to play on b.net and PREFER it.

 

If there was one thing Blizzard could do to make my doubt whether I'll buy Diablo 3, this is it.

[Blarghagh]

Yeah I was just about to come on here and post this thing. LAN is important to me. Ad hoc LAN parties in my friends connectionless basement make up a significant portion of my gamer memories.

[213374U]

Uh. Another stupid and utterly useless initiative. EA tried that too - only to have people code an EA master server emulator to play on LAN. Seriously, who are they really hurting with this? Because it sure isn't the pirates...

[Morgoth]

Starcraft was always about the singleplayer campaign to me, and Diablo about the Bnet. So no loss for me there. Both games are day 1 purchases.

[Magister Lajciak]

If there was one thing Blizzard could do to make my doubt whether I'll buy Diablo 3, this is it.

 

Indeed - I too didn't think Blizzard would do something to make me doubt a day 1 purchase of both Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3. As I said, I will probably still get Diablo 3 for the single-player component (though I would strongly prefer playing it with my friends and family and LAN), but Starcraft 2 really needs offline multiplayer functionality for me to buy it. It is ironic, that there may be hackers who add LAN functionality and if they succeed, I may buy the game thanks to those hackers. I am not sure that's exactly what Blizzard had in mind when they decided to fight piracy in this manner, but hey, it may work for me (offline multiplayer) and Blizzard (they could get my money), but that's assuming hackers succeed in doing that.

[Pidesco]

I don't think this is about the piracy. I'm guessing they are just trying to get more people on BNet. It still seems like a retarded decision, though.

[Maria Caliban]

Blizzard has decided to not include LAN support in Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 as an anti-piracy measure.

 

I notice the article you linked to didn't mention piracy at all.

 

Programmers don't have a magic 'include LAN support' button. They didn't include LAN because they didn't want to spend the time and effort to develop and support it on top of the time and effort they're putting into Bnet.

[Deraldin]

I notice the article you linked to didn't mention piracy at all.

 

Programmers don't have a magic 'include LAN support' button. They didn't include LAN because they didn't want to spend the time and effort to develop and support it on top of the time and effort they're putting into Bnet.

 

Did you read the article? From the first paragraph...

 

Blizzard today confirmed for GameSpot that LAN functionality will be absent from Starcraft II's multiplayer component, as both a piracy prevention mechanism and a quality-assurance initiative.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Yeah I was just about to come on here and post this thing. LAN is important to me. Ad hoc LAN parties in my friends connectionless basement make up a significant portion of my gamer memories.

Are they still connectionless? It's part of my memories too, but that was 10 years ago. Broadband penetration is a bit better now, even in the U.S.

 

EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that South Korea has incredible broadband penetration.

[Magister Lajciak]

I don't think this is about the piracy. I'm guessing they are just trying to get more people on BNet. It still seems like a retarded decision, though.

 

Well, they did explicitly cite fighting piracy as a reason behind the move, along with the 'providing a better experience' cover. That said, there could be auxiliary reasons for their decision. Battlenet 2 is being created and even though it will remain free to play, there are rumors that it could contain some services for a charge - one example given by Bashiok (one of Blizzard's community managers) as a possibility was resurrecting hardcore characters in Diablo 3 for a fee. So yes, an auxiliary reason could be to gain extra revenues from Battlenet 2 by forcing everybody to use it.

 

Blizzard has decided to not include LAN support in Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 as an anti-piracy measure.

 

I notice the article you linked to didn't mention piracy at all.

 

Deraldin already pointed out that the article does indeed mention it. It has also been mentioned several other times by Blizzard staff posting on the Battlenet boards.

[Maria Caliban]

Did you read the article? From the first paragraph...

 

Blizzard today confirmed for GameSpot that LAN functionality will be absent from Starcraft II's multiplayer component, as both a piracy prevention mechanism and a quality-assurance initiative.

 

Yes.

 

I just didn't read it well.

[Magister Lajciak]

Yeah I was just about to come on here and post this thing. LAN is important to me. Ad hoc LAN parties in my friends connectionless basement make up a significant portion of my gamer memories.

 

Are they still connectionless? It's part of my memories too, but that was 10 years ago. Broadband penetration is a bit better now, even in the U.S.

 

EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that South Korea has incredible broadband penetration.

 

Broadband penetration is rising, but in many countries it is still not near-universal. In Slovakia, for example, almost everybody has a computer, but only about 11% percent of households have broadband internet (the figures are from 2006, so it is surely more people than that by now, but penetration is still nowhere near universal).

 

Besides that, connections are often restricted in such a way that you are not legally allowed to invite your friends over to connect their computers at your place using your connection. In parctice, I am not sure the ISP could control it much, but going against that contract is not really different from pirating games.

 

To top things off, even if all my friends and family had broadband, I wouldn't game online with them. We prefer to game and socialize at the same time, in the same room. LAN is essential functionality for that.

 

Finally, the issue with internet-only multiplayer is similar to online authentication in the regard that if those servers are ever taken offline, the gamers are stranded, just as users of DRMed Walmart music, Yahoo music and Microsoft music got stranded once these companies (I believe it was these three, but I have read the relevant stories some time back) have decided to take down their servers. I never purchase games or music where this can happen (My wider family had some attrocious experience with Sony's music DRM) - so any game with online-only multiplayer is a game I will treat as a single-player game only when making my purchasing decision. Any game that requires online connection/authentication/whatever even for single-player, I automatically won't purchase.

[alanschu]

Did you read the article? From the first paragraph...

 

Blizzard today confirmed for GameSpot that LAN functionality will be absent from Starcraft II's multiplayer component, as both a piracy prevention mechanism and a quality-assurance initiative.

 

Yes.

 

I just didn't read it well.

 

 

Perhaps you just read it "good."

[alanschu]

I no longer attend LAN parties, and always played Diablo 2 through Battle.net, so I don't really feel affected by this.

 

 

I'm not sure how this combats piracy. I'd like to hear the explanation. Unless the game requires a battle.net connection in order to be played at all.

[Maria Caliban]

Perhaps you just read it "good."

 

I will read gooder next time.

[Oner]

Perhaps you just read it "good."

 

I will read gooder next time.

Gut, besser, G

[Humodour]

Blizzard has decided to not include LAN support in Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 as an anti-piracy measure.

 

I notice the article you linked to didn't mention piracy at all.

 

Programmers don't have a magic 'include LAN support' button. They didn't include LAN because they didn't want to spend the time and effort to develop and support it on top of the time and effort they're putting into Bnet.

 

Well you'd be wrong, sorry, because Blizzard has actually repeatedly mentioned this is about fighting piracy. Also, adding LAN supporting is stupidly easy if you've added battle.net support, it almost is a magic button.

 

Look up posts by Bashiok which refer to Blizzard removing LAN to 'fight piracy'.

[alanschu]

They'd have the network hooks no doubt, but I imagine the entire process is hidden behind the scenes which would mean they'd have to create the GUIs for the entire process. Not to mention QA support for all the interfaces, the service itself, etc.

 

It's entirely possible they don't feel all that is worth the effort.

[Pidesco]

Well you'd be wrong, sorry, because Blizzard has actually repeatedly mentioned this is about fighting piracy.

 

 

I'd trust them on that about as far as I can throw them. LAN support doesn't really affect piracy in any meaningful way, and they are trying to turn Battlenet into an actual money maker.

[alanschu]

As someone that has been hired by video game companies to implement intrusive draconian DRMs, I have to agree that I'm not sure how this will fight piracy. I think running AllanROM will be more effective!!!

[Darth InSidious]

As someone that has been hired by video game companies to implement intrusive draconian DRMs, I have to agree that I'm not sure how this will fight piracy. I think running AllanROM will be more effective!!!

I can just see the articles now: In an effort to protect the game from piracy, Bioware announces that Mass Effect 2 will not contain single-player or multiplayer support...

[LostStraw]

It wont stop pirates who only want play the singleplayer campaigns but multiplayer is a very large draw for both of these games.

[Blarghagh]

Yeah I was just about to come on here and post this thing. LAN is important to me. Ad hoc LAN parties in my friends connectionless basement make up a significant portion of my gamer memories.

Are they still connectionless? It's part of my memories too, but that was 10 years ago. Broadband penetration is a bit better now, even in the U.S.

 

EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that South Korea has incredible broadband penetration.

 

The basement still is, yes.

 

I have bad experiences with LAN parties with internet anyway. At some point everyone just starts playing some stupid MMO. Kind of defeats the point.

[Humodour]

Yeah I was just about to come on here and post this thing. LAN is important to me. Ad hoc LAN parties in my friends connectionless basement make up a significant portion of my gamer memories.

Are they still connectionless? It's part of my memories too, but that was 10 years ago. Broadband penetration is a bit better now, even in the U.S.

 

EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that South Korea has incredible broadband penetration.

 

The basement still is, yes.

 

I have bad experiences with LAN parties with internet anyway. At some point everyone just starts playing some stupid MMO. Kind of defeats the point.

 

You have poor LAN parties.

 

Over here people play Quake 3 Arena, Unreal Tournament, DOTA (lots of DOTA), Warcraft 3 normal. Call of Duty, etc. And the LAN party gets big enough that you have multiple groups playing multiple games. Admittedly when it's just my comp sci class in the ocmp labs all we do is play DotA non-stop.