Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 Will Not Have LAN Support

[Pop]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's how it worked too.

[alanschu]

If this is the case then I roll my eyes a bit less at the anti-piracy motives.

[Humodour]

  alanschu said:

If this is the case then I roll my eyes a bit less at the anti-piracy motives.

 

I've never heard of that, but I don't know why Blizzard is tying it to LAN, since they could just, y'know, fix b.net instead.

[Mamoulian War]

  Krezack said:

  alanschu said:

If this is the case then I roll my eyes a bit less at the anti-piracy motives.

 

I've never heard of that, but I don't know why Blizzard is tying it to LAN, since they could just, y'know, fix b.net instead.

 

to much hassle

[alanschu]

  Krezack said:

  alanschu said:

If this is the case then I roll my eyes a bit less at the anti-piracy motives.

 

I've never heard of that, but I don't know why Blizzard is tying it to LAN, since they could just, y'know, fix b.net instead.

 

 

I'm not privy to either codebase, so I can only make assumptions for why they wouldn't choose to, y'know, fix battle.net instead.

 

Perhaps they see this as a cheaper overall solution (including lost sales for those that are upset about it).

[EUIX]

  alanschu said:

  Krezack said:

  alanschu said:

If this is the case then I roll my eyes a bit less at the anti-piracy motives.

 

I've never heard of that, but I don't know why Blizzard is tying it to LAN, since they could just, y'know, fix b.net instead.

 

 

I'm not privy to either codebase, so I can only make assumptions for why they wouldn't choose to, y'know, fix battle.net instead.

 

Perhaps they see this as a cheaper overall solution (including lost sales for those that are upset about it).

 

Blizzard losing fanbase because they took out some feature is like a dealer losing customers because he is raising the price per gram.

[Humodour]

  EUIX said:

  alanschu said:

  Krezack said:

  alanschu said:

If this is the case then I roll my eyes a bit less at the anti-piracy motives.

 

I've never heard of that, but I don't know why Blizzard is tying it to LAN, since they could just, y'know, fix b.net instead.

 

 

I'm not privy to either codebase, so I can only make assumptions for why they wouldn't choose to, y'know, fix battle.net instead.

 

Perhaps they see this as a cheaper overall solution (including lost sales for those that are upset about it).

 

Blizzard losing fanbase because they took out some feature is like a dealer losing customers because he is raising the price per gram.

 

Personally I think Diablo 3 is better than marijuana and speed. It also lasts longer.

[Shryke]

though speed and marijuana are much more available than diablo 3 at the moment

[Purkake]

  Shryke said:

though speed and marijuana are much more available than diablo 3 at the moment

 

There is a good chance that it will continue to be so for a while after the release...

[Lare Kikkeli]

Diablo 3 while high on marijuana will be the best. Add some YOB or any similar spacey doom and I'll never need any other entertainment ever (until Diablo 4).

[Pop]

It's pissing off some important people!

 

<url removed - Gorth>

Edited July 29, 2009 by Gorth
Sorry Pop, no direct linking to profanity...

[Lare Kikkeli]

  Pop said:

<url removed "no linking to profanity" - Gorth>

 

Is this really a rule? I mean that rules out over half of the internet.

[Humodour]

So will Josh Sawyer's signature be removed next because he links to profanity also?

 

Edit: He's changed it to his twitter page, but nevertheless, the concept of filtering a link because the page contains profanity inside the content seems ridiculous.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Krezack

[Lare Kikkeli]

Gotta keep them kids safe. Profanity leads to drug abuse and sexual deviance!

[Purkake]

Starcraft 2 delayed until 2010.

 

Blizzard strikes again!

[Tigranes]

  Quote

So will Josh Sawyer's signature be removed next because he links to profanity also?

 

Edit: He's changed it to his twitter page, but nevertheless, the concept of filtering a link because the page contains profanity inside the content seems ridiculous.

 

Consider it a contact-by-first-degree rule; if your link directly opens up to objectionable content then there's not much scope for dodging it. With something like Zero Punctuation, you get to actually take a look at the site then press play to listen to the profanity. Anyway, everyone feel free to PM with objections, but I will have to eviscerate your dogs afterwards.

 

  Quote

Starcraft 2 delayed until 2010.

 

Blizzard strikes again!

 

Shock and horror.

 

At this rate Diablo III will coincide with me starting my PhD.

[cronicler]

Actually I'm rather happy with the delay. If it was coming out for the New Year shopping spree, it would probably be a rushed product.

Better late then Bethesda, I mean buggy.

[Humodour]

  Tigranes said:

At this rate Diablo III will coincide with me starting my PhD.

 

Such a promising life down the drain.

[LadyCrimson]

I don't personally care about no LAN, because I generally play on bnet or single-player/solo...but hubby won't be pleased. If he wants to play, he wants to play only w/me, and doesn't like using the internet when we're in the same room. Oh well.

[Mamoulian War]

oh noes a spam bot O.o

[Morgoth]

So with rumors saying that the SC2 Beta is around the corner, I though I post some screenies from the new Battle.net.

 

 

 

Anyone else looking forward to SC2?

[Blarghagh]

Is that Boxer as in the king of Terran players?

 

  Purkake said:

Starcraft 2 delayed until 2010.

 

Blizzard strikes again!

 

Sorry, but this strikes me as really unfair. Blizzard didn't set a release date. Blizzard never sets release dates. Occasionally they will give a rough estimate of their current target always with the disclaimer that it's subject to change added to it, and when they don't make that, people make a fuss and say it was delayed again. It wasn't. It didn't meet an in-house target, but it wasn't delayed because it was never set to be released. This is just people who took an estimate far too seriously and have an enormous sense of self-entitlement.

[Mamoulian War]

According to Blizzard Starcraft 2 will have always connected feature for singleplayer... wheter it will be mandatory (same **** like ubisoft's ****) or voluntarily, is yet to be seen...

 

http://www.starcraft2.com/features/misc/battlenet.xml

[Purkake]

  TrueNeutral said:

  Purkake said:

Starcraft 2 delayed until 2010.

 

Blizzard strikes again!

 

Sorry, but this strikes me as really unfair. Blizzard didn't set a release date. Blizzard never sets release dates. Occasionally they will give a rough estimate of their current target always with the disclaimer that it's subject to change added to it, and when they don't make that, people make a fuss and say it was delayed again. It wasn't. It didn't meet an in-house target, but it wasn't delayed because it was never set to be released. This is just people who took an estimate far too seriously and have an enormous sense of self-entitlement.

I was obviously being sarcastic, I don't have any illusions about Blizzard ever releasing games on time and I don't fault them for that.

[Morgoth]

  Mamoulian War said:

According to Blizzard Starcraft 2 will have always connected feature for singleplayer... wheter it will be mandatory (same **** like ubisoft's ****) or voluntarily, is yet to be seen...

 

http://www.starcraft2.com/features/misc/battlenet.xml

And even if it's true that won't spoil my fun the slightest.