Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Blizzard: StarCraft II Will Re-Energize RTS Genre

Last response: in News comments
Share
May 24, 2010 5:28:07 PM

No LAN support still? boo.

How about zoom out?
Score
11
May 24, 2010 5:29:17 PM

Re-energize it by not support local lan parties that made Blizzard their fortune. Turn your backs against those who made you rich. Good job, Blizzard.
Score
22
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
May 24, 2010 5:31:49 PM

Looks like it's becoming a trend for developers to turn their backs on the source that started them off. I would have never discovered the first one if it wasn't for a LAN party.
Score
22
May 24, 2010 5:32:12 PM

Blizzard wants you to pay for a copy. There are multiple massive networks in China/Korea which do not even touch battle.net, thus avoiding piracy.

With that said, would it be so bad for Blizz to allow Lan and STILL check the copy at their servers? Yes you would need a internet connection, but not a high speed one. However this would be cracked. With no LAN code - you would need to do major modifications to the code to run over LAN.

In the end I still think we will see a BNET2.0 server which will allow 'pirated' copies. The game is that popular.
Score
4
May 24, 2010 5:32:38 PM

No LAN? lol!
Score
-5
May 24, 2010 5:34:03 PM

Been playing the Beta and still waiting to feel that warm tingly feeling like I did when I fired up the first one... I must admit though, the level editor is really quite good. It still needs local LAN support, this is a no-brainer.
Score
1
May 24, 2010 5:35:08 PM

dman3kRe-energize it by not support local lan parties that made Blizzard their fortune. Turn your backs against those who made you rich. Good job, Blizzard.


Companies just don't understand LAN support is what really spreads their title around. Our LAN group will not buy a game that can't be played on LAN. That's 10 possible sales. In Starcraft's case though, they won't care because they'll probably be the #1 selling RTS game of all time even without LAN support.

Games like SupCom2 suffered far more.
Score
1
May 24, 2010 5:35:23 PM

lan old, who has no internet = stone age ...
Score
-20
May 24, 2010 5:35:33 PM

"this point that we're not including LAN." His reasoning is that StarCraft II stays connected, tracking everything players accomplish. Because of that, LAN is not "a necessary" feature. What do you think? Does that make sense?"

I love starcraft and I believe I will love the starcraft 2... but do I really want Blizzard to track everything I accomplish in the game?... nope...

Since I am not interested to be the world champon or something... I don't think it is necessary to have them tracking on me all the time.

However, I actually think LAN function is even more important this days... since most of people have their intranet set up in their house... with good enough speed for gaming.

I know most likely Blizzard decide to kick the LAN for some business reason... but from my (as a user) point of view... I will like LAN support more than tracking everything I have done in the game.
Score
9
May 24, 2010 5:38:43 PM

Sorry but no LAN does knock a few points off in my mind. One of the greatest things about Star Craft was packing up your rig to go to a friends house and lay the smack down. Or as some would call it a LAN party! No internet required, just a group of people a switch, and wave after wave of killing...
Score
8
May 24, 2010 5:43:37 PM

Game is still fun and good regardless of LAN. Except maybe for the facebook update, that is just odd.
Score
2
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
May 24, 2010 5:43:41 PM

Pirated to hell and high water with someone creating a LAN 'mod' on teh side.
Score
0
May 24, 2010 5:45:44 PM

Blizzard cutting out LAN play... Epic making UT3 a console game... Team17 continuing that 3d worms bs (yes i heard about the steam relaunch)...

The companies I believed in are dying. Killing themselves.

On a lighter note I had a thought: I didnt have a lot of money for games growing up (hell I still don't) and because of that Blizzard played a VERY big part in my gaming experience. Between SC/WC they managed to get RTS right. Between Diablo/WoW they managed to get RTS/MMO right.

What if they had made an FPS? Gaming would be more of a religious affiliation than any console zealotry has shown us yet.
Score
2
May 24, 2010 5:48:05 PM

no lan no buy.
Score
11
May 24, 2010 5:49:52 PM

No lan = no buy for me. I know I'm being a stickler here... but I will not waste my and my friends time trying to play on laggy severs.
Score
9
May 24, 2010 5:52:52 PM

F#@!#@% Activision. They screw up IW with no dedicated servers in MW2, and now they do it again to SC2 by killing LAN. This is screwed up!
Score
3
May 24, 2010 5:53:15 PM

Do LAN parties even exist anymore? I haven't seen any of those in a long time. I tend to agree with blizzard that this is becoming obsolete and people who play online at all, have a reliable internet connection. Lag in an RTS is not much of an issue anyway.
Score
-5
May 24, 2010 5:55:24 PM

While I do agree that not including LAN support is a horrid idea... I can't even remember the last time I went to a LAN party that didn't have internet access.
But then again, maybe thats just my experience.
Score
0
May 24, 2010 5:56:20 PM

I don't see a big problem. Just connect LAN to internet and you can play.
It may be problematic in some cases but you can play on lan pary anyway.
Score
0
May 24, 2010 6:00:29 PM

I personally think that Blizzard will always be a solid company as long as it exists.

They get pretty much EVERYTHING right. I was not into Bliz years ago being that I am relatively young but I dont think that no LAN will be an issue for me.

However.. they don't count custom games as part of your statistics so why not just add it. People clearly want it.

I am sure that there is just some reason that they have neglected to publically say..
Score
3
May 24, 2010 6:01:41 PM

I guess I should be thankful for all the money game companies are saving me lately (I don't even look at EA titles anymore). I like playing with my friends, but not with the 'world'. Without LAN options, games, for me anyway, are useless. At least I still have Stardock.
Score
2
May 24, 2010 6:01:53 PM

orioniteDo LAN parties even exist anymore? I haven't seen any of those in a long time. I tend to agree with blizzard that this is becoming obsolete and people who play online at all, have a reliable internet connection. Lag in an RTS is not much of an issue anyway.


I didnt mind having
Score
-2
May 24, 2010 6:02:26 PM

Lag is an issue....playing WarCraft 3 online you can make the server start to perform poorly....this game is much more complex

why can't they just grow a pair and say they are doing no LAN to keep piracy at bay instead of making these lame ass excuses
Score
5
May 24, 2010 6:05:03 PM

Irony at its best. The same people who are bitching about Blizzard killing LAN support are the same people that convinced Blizzard that they had to it with their endless illegal downloading. Talk about setting a fire then bitching about the fact that there is a fire. Stop being the cause and you won't have to feel the effects.
Score
1
May 24, 2010 6:07:50 PM

It's been so long since a well done RTS has come out. I think what people are blaming on the genre lagging is really a matter of the ones that came out for so long were just halfassed games. There are so many halfassed fps games coming out these days, but nobody blames those games on the genre lagging.

Blizzard, the master of well done games, just has to come out with something and it will spark a resurgence in the genre.
Score
0
May 24, 2010 6:09:25 PM

What an idiot. RTS game scene wont be revitalised by sc2 and there are reasons why new rts games keep "getting away from what was established" - it got primitive and boring. Sure it was fun to build stuff when sc was released..10 years ago...people got a little bit more needy nowdays, than the simple scheme of those old games can offer. I dont know about you, but sc2 is just more of same, no progress in anything, except the battle.net system.

And by my reasoning, as his overall idea is pretty stupid, the no-lan idea is just as stupid and irrational, no wonder wow people work on sc2.
Score
-5
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
May 24, 2010 6:09:58 PM

Nope.
Score
-2
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
May 24, 2010 6:12:19 PM

Beta key Mayhem! Enjoy!

4HWCDF-EVW6-JGZK4C-HMPY-WE4KWW
NVRBVP-X6XV-DTWHKE-XNT2-4EBHFT
G4P7VP-H2CC-Z2YCKX-VRG9-G9668R
YVTMD8-TGTM-PTP9WN-T8ER-NW9JKY
RD4N2Z-HGHE-2RCFE6-NPRG-42NX47
NK9DPC-J9VF-9GBPME-H72X-GXXT66

Try your luck at more keys here! --} http://fileups.net/1767e2
Score
-6
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
May 24, 2010 6:13:20 PM

I have been testing the Beta from Turkey sice February. The internet infrastructure in Turkey is very bad.Let me say one thing I could never play a Starcraft game in the past without lag.
Now for SC2 even from Turkey I did not experience even one laggy game.I don't know how they did it but no lag at Battlenet no more.You can be sure none of you will have lag at SC2.If you do it is because of your rig. I have a P4 and I can play the game at medium settings and I think that is great in terms of system requirements.
As to lan parties, they were fun but now they are history. You can still play when you go to a friend ove battlenet as if you are on LAN. But I do not think that will be the case for SC2 because the game has microphone support now so why bother carry your laptop over?
Score
-2
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
May 24, 2010 6:19:34 PM

10-15 years ago I would totally agree that LAN play was a must have, today though I'm not so sure. You have to ask, why did we need LAN support for gaming? I'd say it was largely because of the lack of broadband, which is a problem that's "mostly" solved here in the US. The vast majority of Blizzard's audience does have broadband at this point.
On top of this, if you wanted to play SC2 at a LAN party, what's stopping you? Anywhere you're going to hold a LAN party will almost certainly have broadband available and I don't believe b.net blocks multiple connections from the same IP (correct me if I'm wrong.)
Score
6
May 24, 2010 6:23:03 PM

LAN gaming was the #1 thing that made the RTS genre so fun back in the day. No LAN = no resurgence. I may have considered re-igniting the LAN party at work if this was good enough. Guess I'll stick to my DoW2 tyvm. That's the new yardstick of the RTS.
Score
2
May 24, 2010 6:23:30 PM

blargerBlizzard cutting out LAN play... Epic making UT3 a console game... Team17 continuing that 3d worms bs (yes i heard about the steam relaunch)...The companies I believed in are dying. Killing themselves.On a lighter note I had a thought: I didnt have a lot of money for games growing up (hell I still don't) and because of that Blizzard played a VERY big part in my gaming experience. Between SC/WC they managed to get RTS right. Between Diablo/WoW they managed to get RTS/MMO right.What if they had made an FPS? Gaming would be more of a religious affiliation than any console zealotry has shown us yet.


to me this whole down spiral really started with bioware going console mainly , granted Dragon age was desgined for pc Bioware started going console mostly on Knights of teh Old republic. I think we lost blizard teh day they turned warcraft into a MMORPG every since then the company seems to be designing by the dollar sign.

zmbcatWhat an idiot. RTS game scene wont be revitalised by sc2 and there are reasons why new rts games keep "getting away from what was established" - it got primitive and boring. Sure it was fun to build stuff when sc was released..10 years ago...people got a little bit more needy nowdays, than the simple scheme of those old games can offer. I dont know about you, but sc2 is just more of same, no progress in anything, except the battle.net system.And by my reasoning, as his overall idea is pretty stupid, the no-lan idea is just as stupid and irrational, no wonder wow people work on sc2.



i agree with you hundred percent , RTS have grown stale, most are a balancing game. i really think RTS is a game type that need to be folded into other genres problem is often these games don't do a good job on the RTS end. I look forward to nuclear dawn (an rts/fps combo) it seems it may have some promis in thsi regard . as far as whats out currently i think Mount and blad made a good effort to blend rts with action RPG , though it's RTS elements coudl ahve been better executed , event eh expansiuon teh game is a little less tahn it could be on the rts side. but it isa far shot from teh standard rts game.
Score
0
May 24, 2010 6:26:48 PM

I have to agree with some of the other posters. LAN play is a critical component to RTS for me. Removing it isn't effective as an anti-piracy measure, but in the interview they never said it was an anti-piracy measure, did they?

Based on his comments in the interview, it sounded to me like Chris Sigarty knew this major omission was FAIL.
Score
0
May 24, 2010 6:29:41 PM

I personally think leaving LAN out of SC2 is kinda a big mistake. Online play is still a main factor, but nothing beats getting a group of your friends into somebody's basement and having an awesome LAN party, complete with lots of pizza, beer, and five gallons of ice cream. If you think about it, the LAN party is sort of what started the decline of PC gaming. Back when the PC (and indeed, the RTS specifically) reigned supreme, it was the only platform that supported LAN. Then came the first Xbox and the first Halo game. Suddenly, the PC had some real competition, being as the main draw of Halo wasn't the single-player campaign which had been traditional for consoles up until that point, it was the "newfound" ability to get 16 people in one room for one giant profanity-loaded fragfest. This was the first sign of the decline of the PC, which was further accelerated with Halo 2, Xbox Live, and, later, the Xbox 360. All these things were great for gaming as a whole; more people play video games now then ever have before, but a lot of this has been at the expense of the system that started it all: the PC. With all this in mind, the lack of LAN support for SC2, which is probably the strongest PC offering in recent memory, is a huge step backward that will make PC gaming even less appealing. Hopefully, as brknarow pointed out, Stardock will be able to gain more momentum.

I hope that SC2 can deliver and revive not only the RTS, but PC gaming as a whole. I want a return to the Glory Days of Gaming, back when games like SC, Red Alert, Jedi Outcast, Homeworld, Diablo, and MechWarrior were the big guys. More importantly, I want Homeworld 3...
Score
3
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
May 24, 2010 6:33:50 PM

I got bored playing Beta. SC2 is basically WC3 with SC1 skins in 3D. It's so boring compared to other RTS games made in the past 4 years. I'll pass on the final verison.
Score
-2
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
May 24, 2010 6:36:57 PM

One of the nicest things i liked about SC was that we could do a lot of lan parties at lunch on work or a friends house. With no lan support I think they are overseing the gamers need and wishes. If they are afraid of piracy, keep the need to verify over the internet, but dont yank a nice feature like lan for that.
Score
0
May 24, 2010 6:44:26 PM

Lack of lan support in SC2 is probably why all the foxconn employees are killing themselves.
Score
6
May 24, 2010 6:46:10 PM

I'm scare as shit since my internet is i believe the worst internet ever..
out of 10 games on sc2 beta i can finish only 3 and maybe 4 do to connection problems T_T ..........
Score
1
May 24, 2010 7:05:10 PM

Although I have broadband, there's still a lot of people where I live that can't get anything better than Dial-Up or (if they're lucky) an unreliable cell-phone hookup. Will the game even be playable on a non-broadband connection? What if you can't connect, will you be unable to play the game then?

If they're going this route, will they at least allow us to install the game on multiple computers and allow only one to be usable//online at a time, much like World of Warcraft? That way, I could install the game on my work computer and play a little SC2 on a slow day.
Score
1
May 24, 2010 7:09:30 PM

I guess this will make the battlenet emulator more of a priority scene.
Score
3
May 24, 2010 7:23:07 PM

i just hope they make connectivity more forgiving for multiplayer for spiky internet services ...
Score
1
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
May 24, 2010 7:29:29 PM

So the guy thinks that LAN is bad because it splits the Star Craft 2 community up???

Um, hello!? Region lock anyone? I'm unable to play with all my international friends, because unlike Warcraft 3, Star Craft 2 is 100% region locked, no simple menu to change regions, you need a whole new account/game.
Score
0
May 24, 2010 7:34:23 PM

Of course it will, we have to pay for it three times.
Score
0
May 24, 2010 7:39:47 PM

I've owned Bought 4 Copies of SC. 2 before my house burned down and 2 more after. I use the lan feature almost exlusively. No LAN means I don't buy. If a crak come out that enables LAN I may buy it, but kindof pointless if I have to use it illegally anyway!
Score
1
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
May 24, 2010 7:45:58 PM

The decision to not include LAN support is a precarious one; on the one hand Blizzard risks alienating long-time fans in a move similar to IW's elimination of dedicated servers. On the other hand, Blizzard is investing (wisely) into their new Battle.net service.

It is difficult to be a long-time gamer and let go of tradition. But, such Luddite-esque thought is a hindrance to PC game health. Blizzard is a company that has seen mass global consumption of their products at an unheard of level. Furthermore, the company's prevalence as a major contributor to modern culture is at an unheard of level--they are at the forefront of industry revolutionaries that have brought video games from its fringe-culture beginnings to an intractable part of life.

Starcraft's success will hinge on its ability to keep gamers networked despite the lack of LAN. Through the battle.net system Blizzard must simulate that communal feeling of playing in a room full of friends. One must realize that a major step towards overcoming the loss of LAN is in Starcraft's forgiving system requirements that allow the wireless laptop to be an effective "LAN-machine."
Score
0
May 24, 2010 7:47:40 PM

sliemNo LAN support still? boo.How about zoom out?

Use the minimap.
Score
1
May 24, 2010 7:50:50 PM

HolyCrusaderAlthough I have broadband, there's still a lot of people where I live that can't get anything better than Dial-Up or (if they're lucky) an unreliable cell-phone hookup. Will the game even be playable on a non-broadband connection? What if you can't connect, will you be unable to play the game then?If they're going this route, will they at least allow us to install the game on multiple computers and allow only one to be usable//online at a time, much like World of Warcraft? That way, I could install the game on my work computer and play a little SC2 on a slow day.


Yes, that's already being done.
Score
0
May 24, 2010 7:54:16 PM

Why include LAN when most will never use it? Quit your boohooing, LAN was spawned out of necessity. Such necessity no longer applies. I remember said LAN parties from back in the day. Most players had pirated copies of these games. I support blizzard in this course of action.

I'm sorry this upsets some of you bit torrent kiddies who were hoping for a repeat. Don't buy or build a computer if you can't afford the games and services. It's like buying an expensive car you can not afford the gas for, except, when you steal gas, you have a better chance of getting caught.
Score
0
!