Piracy caused removal of LAN play in StarCraft 2, Petition begins

When I heard the news and read this post, I was just about ready to start taking heads off. But then I stopped and had a little bit of a think. I tried to make sense of it. I mean sure, the fact that being able to play multilayer solely on the internet may bring down piracy (Pleeeeeaaassseeee). But it doesn't make any sense!!
It brings up all kinds of arguments such as
*   Not everyone has internet access
*   Will there be local servers so that latency won't be so bad etc, etc etc
But in the end it isn't our choice. MMO's are all online. We don't complain that WoW doesn't have LAN or single player.
The point is, we can fight and scream and kick as much as we want. In the end, it's up to the developers to decide.

Yes, it's going to suck that we won't be able to sit down at a LAN with a couple of friends and not be able to play SC2 over the LAN. But there are other games. I only hope that this doesn't set the trend. Blizzard often sets a trend. I am just frightened that this move threatens LAN gaming as a whole. I mean if all the other major companies start to follow then we will end up with no LAN gaming unless you have an active internet connection. In which case, you could have stayed at home.

 

I don't want to point our the faults here, but I do have to correct you on something.

"But in the end it isn't our choice. MMO's are all online. We don't complain that WoW doesn't have LAN or single player."
WoW is an MMO. It's made that way. SC and SC2 is an RTS, it's made that way. That is the genre. Did you think that SC2 is made to be an MMO? lol
No matter, Blizzard not making SC2 support LAN basically forces it to become an MMO or some MMO-RTS hybrid now.

"Yes, it's going to suck that we won't be able to sit down at a LAN with
a couple of friends and not be able to play SC2 over the LAN. But there
are other games."
Sure, there are tons of other games... But how long have fans been waiting for SC2, and can't wait to play it? Now they hear this news and all their dreams and expectations are crushed...
Fan: "Guys, want to come over and take each other on in some epic battles in SC2 and have some beers or a braai later? - No wait, we can't coz it doesn't have LAN!!!"
Fans will rot at home now, get all depressed coz the long awaited SC2 screwed them from behind.

 

This is what happens when I comment before having my morning cup of coffee.

Let me rephrase. There are games made for online gaming. Such as WoW (an MMO yes). It is an idea taken by the developers and implemented.
The same is true here. They have taken an idea and implemented it. The point i was trying to make, is that it's not our choice and we can't really complain. I agree 100% the idea blows worse than a vuvuzela at 3 in the morning. But What can we do? Sign a petition sure. But does it truly help?


Sure, there are tons of other games... But how long have fans been
waiting for SC2, and can't wait to play it? Now they hear this news and
all their dreams and expectations are crushed...

I agree yes. I quote myself
"Blizzard often sets a trend. I am just frightened that this move
threatens LAN gaming as a whole. I mean if all the other major
companies start to follow then we will end up with no LAN gaming unless
you have an active internet connection. In which case, you could have
stayed at home."
This is what I'm worried about. It's sad that SC2 won't have LAN. It's frightening to think that this may be the way all games are going to go. Gamers will once again be turned into those stereotypical, sit behind the computer, in the dark, never see the sun geeks.

 

+1 for the vuvuzela comparison. Man that thing is the worst invention ever!

I see your point better now. But signing a petition is the least anyone can do to stand up for what they would like in a product that they will pay for, and have been waiting on the edge of their seats for. The LAN-less news just made me stand up and walk out the room in frustrating anger and disappointment.

I mean, this will probably be the 1st time a famous game, and highly anticipated, sequel to the best RTS of all time, be LAN-less!
Extremist: "Trying to prevent piracy is a weak excuse. Security is a weak excuse.
It's about control and they just don't have the kahunas to come out and
say it."

 

It definitely is a sad day for gaming. We've been waiting for years. SC2 just won't be the same without a good LAN. *Sigh* Maybe it's a hoax? Maybe they are pulling our legs? We can only hope

 

We can hope but its unlikely they'll back down from this. We just don't form part of a demographic that Blizzard really cares about, I think. If we buy the game then sweet, if we don't... eh, no great loss.

Plus they announced that Diablo 3 wouldn't have LAN pretty much right from the beginning. It's unlikely that any Blizzard game will have LAN from here on in.

Since Activision and Blizzard are now the same company I wonder if the next Call of Duty games won't eschew LAN for Battle.NET :P

 

@Cleric: +1 For quoting the legend. ... ;-D I would -1 for calling my vuvu the worst invention ever but I can't minus after I've plussed.

 

Karune replied to a LAN thread with...
The first 4 pillars are ALL being made better.

1) Development time for StarCraft II have far exceeded the original
StarCraft in both the standard of quality and duration, to ensure the
highest in quality RTS experience we can possibly create.

2) Not only is it free to play online for people who purchase the
game, Battle.net 2.0 is designed with the new generation of online
community and eSports in mind.

3) As long as there are people playing our games, we will continue
to support them, and we have continued with this tradition with our
legacy titles like the original StarCraft.

4) StarCraft II was created with eSports as a cornerstone in design philosophy. StarCraft evolved into an eSport.

5) Map Editor will be better than any we have ever released.
and:
6) ??? - will have to wait and see

For me personally- I loved LAN parties, but the direction in which
Battle.net is headed, I would always choose to play on Battle.net >
99% of the time and even if for whatever reason I did decide to lug my
computer to a friend's house in this day of age (<1%), I would still
be playing with them on Battle.net against others at their place.

----
Was in response too,
I think the reasons starcraft has lasted so long as a game and community are because:

1) Well designed and fun to play game.

2) Free battle.net - Having a place where gamers can come together
and play the game 24/7 helps to foster a bolster and lively community.

3) Continued support for the game even after 11 years, they still patch it when it needs a patch.

4) Pro-Starcraft gaming. This is a big deal to serious starcraft
players or to anyone that enjoys competition. These games are fun to
watch and makes casual players want to play the game.

5) Lan support. - Lan parties are fun.

If you take away LAN support you will still have the 4 other
pillars for a strong starcraft community. Plus if LAN support helps rid
battle.net of hackers, cheaters and piracy because the network traffic
is harder to decipher then all the better. That only strengthens the
spirit of fair competition on battle.net.



Thread: http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=18031370482&pageNo=1&sid=3000#15

Has some other responses from him as well

 

So this has been the only issue in gaming I've felt strongly enough over to want to sign the petition. Trying to prevent piracy is a weak excuse. Security is a weak excuse. It's about control and they just don't have the kahunas to come out and say it.

On a side note: Way to straw man the Left 4 Dead 2 gripes.

 

What fun is there in not stirring the pot up even just a little bit? 

You are exactly right though, this is completely about control.  Sims 3 is like the most pirated game of the year already and it isn't even the full game.  This move is going to do nothing to stem the tide of pirates.

 

In my long gaming experience, and many big LAN events I have gone to,
people enjoy playing a game with their friends. Not always against
strange over experienced players that will pwn them within 5 min of a
game, that mostly happens online anyway. The one cool thing of LAN too
is to go have an post game chat after wards where many things that
happened will be discussed or just be reviewed in laughter and joyful
humorous comments.

Taking away LAN makes the game online only, and online only eliminates
the fun of the get-together after wards, the cool reenactments of
certain battles etc.



Gamers are getting upset about the lack of the LAN option in SC2 not
just because of that, but no matter how big or small the LAN party is,
they won't be able to enjoy the game with their friends anymore. They
have to stay home all the time. Where is the fun socializing and
get-together in that!?



Also what I've learned, "where there is a hacker, there is a way".
Having the LAN option in or not won't stop piracy. It's like the common
cold of the digital age. No matter what you do, at some point you'll
get a runny nose. (Bad analogy, but I'm sure you get my point)



I'm simply saying that fans are getting so upset because the LAN option
is what makes any game enjoyable anywhere, anytime. Removing it now,
you might as well call SC2 an MMO-RTS.



Unless Blizzard makes the Battle.net 2.0 work offline, so gamers still
need Battle.net 2.0 to play, but works offline. Sort of like steam has
the offline option.

I have not read or heard anything about this, so that is why I'm
wondering about its. If that is indeed Blizzard's plan, I'd like to get
some official news on that.

 

This news really wasn't all that shocking after the Diablo III no LAN play announcement. Its becoming a trend in multi-player centric games.

People act like the ability to play the game with people in the same room is going to be completely missing from Starcraft II, which is not true. You'll still be able to play with each other, but instead of creating your game from the LAN lobby, you'll need to create it in the Battle.Net lobby.

Its true that not everyone has an internet connection, but, and I risk sounding like a complete ******* here, they fall into a very small minority that Blizzard is obviously not targetting with SC II.

Most of the planet has 24/7 broadband connections now. This won't really have any affect on most honest buyers.

 

"Most of the planet has 24/7 broadband connections now. This won't really have any affect on most honest buyers."

Not true. I work for an ISP. If you truly want to know the percentage of people who have internet access, do some searching. The percentage of the world that has internet access............. 23%.

In South Africa : approximately 5.6% of which about 3% are still on dial up.... Scary stats huh?

Don't want to believe? go here http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

So by making the game available for multiplayer only for internet users... You're looking at a small percentage of 23% of the world population who will be able to play.

Remember don't take what you have for granted.

 

He wasn't referring to all the schmoes sitting in the 1960s. He was refering to the potential customers of StarCraft II. Of those, you can bet anything that the overwhelming majority will have internet access.

 

Yet again, this is why I should have a cup of coffee first before posting anything. lol. I didn't mean to flame you Blackhand. I just wanted to point out that unfortunately, the world may have ease of broadband access, but unfortunately a small percentage of the world can actually afford/use it.

 

If they're so confident in Battle.net, then make LAN a feature you need to activate online with a Battle.net account.  Then you have LAN and your anti-piracy, because if Battle.net isn't going to get hacked, neither will your LAN feature.  Put your money where your mouth is, Blizzard.

 

I'm confident now that saying you've done something in your production plan "to prevent piracy" is like the same excuse businesses use when they screw up something and say it's due to "9/11." Wait, what? Yeah, pretty much same reaction. Frankly it's a load of bull****, and they know that, as Starcraft 2 will be pirated to kingdom come, no matter what they try to do.

Also:

"I find it interesting the things we are critical about, too little content in a new game and features cut from a new game.  We gamers are a smart bunch." ftfy

 

Ag

I did mention that in the WoWriot post.  Sims 3 leak wasn't even the full game and it is still one of the most pirated pieces of software already this year.  This tactic on Blizzard's part isn't going to change the piracy factor.

 

It certainly isn't going to help their public image either. I signed the petition about three minutes ago, hit refresh just a second ago, and a hundred more signatures popped up. Why is every developer trying to be like EA now?

 

Honestly I think its more Activision trying to be EA.  And I think they have already out-EA'd EA.  Just from what I have gathered over the past year or so regarding their business practices...

 

That would make more sense. I keep trying to forget Activision is part of Blizzard these days. If there is anyone that has no trouble looking like an idiot in PR it is Bobby Kotick after he pretty much said if a game wouldn't make a buttload of money then they wouldn't bother making it in the first place.

Honestly, for the first time I don't think I'm actually looking forward to any games in the near future.

 

It seems like a week or two can't go buy without Activision doing something anti-consumer.

Suing to try and delay Brutal Legend because they gave up the rights to it?  Smooth...

Their threat to drop the PS3 if their isn't a price cut.  Sure they will...

The utter rape of the GH franchise with more versions than pokemon, terrible platform support, etc. 

Until say Nov, there really are only a couple of games I am considering.  Madden ( I know, I know, but I am a NFL nut), Batman and maybe Brutal Legend.  The later two depend on reviews.

 

and modern warfare 2 price rise (just uk atm) with 5 different versions on release. also might have monthly fee online.

 

The monthly fee has already been ruled out.  Where is the news on price rise and different versions?

 

http://dailygamesnews.com/2009/06/rumour-modern-warfare-2-will-retail-at.html
amazon.co.uk and play.com both have this listed as the rrp, no sign of the other versions yet though.

 

There has been no such report of 5 SKUs or I would have seen it.  You can expect the standard and probably a collectors edition however.

And that is just a rumor about a price increase =p

 

well all the big uk websites are quoting £54.99 now.

 

That's lame.  I loved CoD4, but even MW2 doesn't impress me enough for that.

 

well online sites have cut the price by £10 like they always do, but there still inflating game costs at a time where no body is supposed to have any money for no reason except they expect the game to be amazingly huge.
also price rise is console only atm

 

I guess they've got no real competition either, except their own older game.  I can't think of any FPSes anyone has been anticipating.

 

The LAN option, like most people have already stated, is for LAN-parties. It isn't the same to play online far away than been inside a room making jokes of each other when you beat them, someone goes to the corner store to get more drinks and such.

And playing online in the same room is a bit hard. Maybe for two or up to three players "might" be ok sharing the same Internet connection, but I think not. And not everybody have enough bandwidth for all of their friends, while a LAN is really easy to setup and play on the same ground (low ping) for FPS as an example.

And cybercafes make money from LAN enabled games too. Many use illegal copies, but there are also many that use legal copies for those who don't have the privilegue of a fast Internet connection, laptop or carry the whole CPU around to play a game in a LAN party or over the 'net.

At collegue too, I mean, who hasn't got into the cafeteria and everybody got with their laptops (another bonus why SC is so popular is low resources) or even around campus using the LAN option as a time killer before next class? That is before IT started to block everything and hit back :P

 

Sigh. Anti piracy gimmicks never stop piracy and only hurt legitimate customers. 

 

+1 for the truth.

Was Spore and countless other games proof that DRM tactics don't work?  Sony's rootkits, Apples Fairplay, none of that **** works.  It never has.

 

The difference in this case though vs. Spore DRM, is that this will be 100% effective at locking pirates out of the best part of the game. There's no crack when logging into an online service such as Battle.Net.

Meaning, that Blizzard will have succeeded in their goal, making the retail copy of the game have significantly more value than the pirated copy. A pirate copy would be like a demo version.

I know it sounds like I'm pro "no LAN", I'm not, its going to be a hassle to get a SC2 LAN going, especially big ones. However, I see it from Blizzard's side aswell. It was the most effective way to not have 10 different online activation, cd in cdrom, install limit DRM systems in their game (which would likely be cracked a week before release) and still be a damn effective counter measure to piracy.

 

The most retarded part of all this is that blizzard isn't learning from the past.

There was such a huge piracy push for starcraft 1 that BnetD and FSGS were developed, and subsequently sued into oblivion.

How long will it take before the demand for LAN play swells up and the community creates an emulator to satisfy that demand? 

Supply and demand isn't just a business practice, its psychology, and blizzard is really dropping the ball by not offering lan play, *especially* as an effort to reduce piracy.

Look at half life 2, or counter strike, all with *LAN* play. deployed via steam, and yet they still have piracy.

Businesses need to get over this idea that you can control consumers. There are some people who just won't pay for ****, and you'll never reach them, and you can't control them. Adding DRM just makes them play a different game, or not play your game at all. Path of least resistance > all.

Add in Blizz's ridiculous idea of 'splitting' the game into 3 seperate campaigns so you 'only have to buy the race you want' is absolute bull****. Its a total money grab and everyone knows it. They want 150$ and all they're going to get is venom. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going to speak with my wallet, not some petition that won't even get a second glance.

 

I agree with all except your final point. The reason the game will be in three parts is that each one will be as long as the full three campaigns from the original game, as well as having full multiplayer capabilities. If you want, you can just buy one and get a full single player game, as well as a full multiplayer game.

Just consider them as three full single player games.