Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Starcraft 2: No Lan Support

2456746

Posts

  • ShukaoShukao Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    All it takes is some Hamachi to add lan support to a multiplayer game.

  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Players have two options.
    1. Buy the game. Patches and support, and you can play on B-net.
    2. Pirate the game. Have to wait for patches to leak, and no B-net. But you can bet someone will have LAN capability cracked within a week of release.

    I imagine a lot of people will end up doing both.

    How do you suppose pirates will manage to "crack" a feature out of thin air?

    The same way people mod games and crack the install files.

    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
    steam | mwo: calverin
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Axen wrote: »
    Pancake wrote: »
    Axen wrote: »
    Okay, I feel I am entering into dangerous waters here, but what is up with this "game in three parts" thing I keep hearing?

    The first release of the game will be just a terran campaign. The zerg and protoss campaigns are coming as separate full price games.

    Wha-?

    Starcraft 2: Terran Campaign
    - Single player is all about the Terrans (you playing as)
    - Multiplayer has all the races available

    Starcraft 2: Zerg Campaign
    - Single player is all about playing as the Zerg
    - Multiplayer has all the races available, maybe some new expansion-like shit too

    Starcraft 2: Protoss Campaign
    - Single player is all about playing as the Protoss
    - Multiplayer has all the races available, maybe some new expansion-like shit too (units and such)

    All told, if the single player content is as lengthy as they boast, I don't see what the problem is. I mean, I get the position people are taking somewhat, but when the misconception is being made that we're getting shit for content, it makes me a little bothered. We haven't seen the content, we only know what they're boasting, and when it comes to boasting Blizzard is one of the companies that delivers on it for the most part.

    I hope I don't come across as a fanboy to them, that time is long since behind me. It's bullshit, but not as big as bullshit people make it out to be.

    The LAN support thing though is just bullshit.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • OrogogusOrogogus San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Streltsy wrote: »
    It would be really dumb releasing SC2 without some form of LAN considering it's supposed to replace an entire industry built around it's predecessor in South Korea and spark new development in the west.

    Doesn't South Korea have a super modern network infrastructure, with like 97% of the country online and on much faster connections than what we generally get in the US?

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Players have two options.
    1. Buy the game. Patches and support, and you can play on B-net.
    2. Pirate the game. Have to wait for patches to leak, and no B-net. But you can bet someone will have LAN capability cracked within a week of release.

    I imagine a lot of people will end up doing both.

    How do you suppose pirates will manage to "crack" a feature out of thin air?

    How about I just alter my DNS to resolve "battle.net" to whatever bnetd-like app I've written to facilitate multiplayer without Blizzard interceding?

    Anything made my a human can be broken by another human. Someone will crack it, one way or another.

    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • SuMa.LustreSuMa.Lustre Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Orogogus wrote: »
    Streltsy wrote: »
    It would be really dumb releasing SC2 without some form of LAN considering it's supposed to replace an entire industry built around it's predecessor in South Korea and spark new development in the west.

    Doesn't South Korea have a super modern network infrastructure, with like 97% of the country online and on much faster connections than what we generally get in the US?

    yes.


  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Taranis wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Players have two options.
    1. Buy the game. Patches and support, and you can play on B-net.
    2. Pirate the game. Have to wait for patches to leak, and no B-net. But you can bet someone will have LAN capability cracked within a week of release.

    I imagine a lot of people will end up doing both.

    How do you suppose pirates will manage to "crack" a feature out of thin air?

    The same way people mod games and crack the install files.

    But to create a multi-player interface out of nothing is not exactly the same thing

    It's like not MOD!, CRACK!, SHAZAM! and there's a LAN feature
    How about I just alter my DNS to resolve "battle.net" to whatever bnetd-like app I've written to facilitate multiplayer without Blizzard interceding?

    Anything made my a human can be broken by another human. Someone will crack it, one way or another.

    There's more to LAN than redirection of DNS

    Spoiler:
  • TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Tarranon wrote: »
    As an aside, what's with all the blizzard hate lately? IE All of their 'money grubbings and rawr we eat puppies'. They made an MMO 5 years ago, supported the shit out of it in terms of content for free, and now there are two expansions, both well received critically.

    So evil?

    The company's behavior is out of the norm from what people expect. And that behavior is that of a company that wants to make money, which is what all companies want to do in the long run. It's like when musicians 'sellout.' It's a job man, people do it to make a living. Shock and horror, the reality of the world. It has spilled into our pure slice of the gaming industry.

    The behavior isn't "evil," it's just different.

    It's not just different, it's sad, because Blizzard was always really awesome about things like LAN multiplayer, custom content, and spawned multiplayer installs. Hell, SC supported direct connect via serial. Which I sadly used more than once.

    It's kind of like Microsoft. In the beginning, it was all about getting your product out as far and wide as you could. Install spawned multiplayer/demos on your friend's computers! Play together via internet/lan/direct dial/carrier pigeon! Then, they got huge, made $Texas on WoW, and everything's about locking down piracy, scanning running apps in memory, authentication, etc.

    You say this, and yet I can plug in a serial code for SC I, because my cd is cracked, into their DD service and get the game right to my pc, at no charge.

    This is light years ahead of other companies, and in no way indicative of the sort of behavior you're trying to pin on them. Be reasonable.

  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    edited June 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Players have two options.
    1. Buy the game. Patches and support, and you can play on B-net.
    2. Pirate the game. Have to wait for patches to leak, and no B-net. But you can bet someone will have LAN capability cracked within a week of release.

    I imagine a lot of people will end up doing both.

    How do you suppose pirates will manage to "crack" a feature out of thin air?

    How about I just alter my DNS to resolve "battle.net" to whatever bnetd-like app I've written to facilitate multiplayer without Blizzard interceding?

    Anything made my a human can be broken by another human. Someone will crack it, one way or another.

    Hey look at that. Bnet lives on 127.0.0.1

    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Tarranon wrote: »
    As an aside, what's with all the blizzard hate lately? IE All of their 'money grubbings and rawr we eat puppies'. They made an MMO 5 years ago, supported the shit out of it in terms of content for free, and now there are two expansions, both well received critically.

    So evil?

    The company's behavior is out of the norm from what people expect. And that behavior is that of a company that wants to make money, which is what all companies want to do in the long run. It's like when musicians 'sellout.' It's a job man, people do it to make a living. Shock and horror, the reality of the world. It has spilled into our pure slice of the gaming industry.

    The behavior isn't "evil," it's just different.

    It's not just different, it's sad, because Blizzard was always really awesome about things like LAN multiplayer, custom content, and spawned multiplayer installs. Hell, SC supported direct connect via serial. Which I sadly used more than once.

    It's kind of like Microsoft. In the beginning, it was all about getting your product out as far and wide as you could. Install spawned multiplayer/demos on your friend's computers! Play together via internet/lan/direct dial/carrier pigeon! Then, they got huge, made $Texas on WoW, and everything's about locking down piracy, scanning running apps in memory, authentication, etc.

    Salmon'd for wut? Dude, Starcraft came out in 1996 and it certainly wasn't the only game at that time to support serial connection. Lucasarts did it with Rebellion and Jedi Knight, and the first Alien vs. Predator did it too (I forget what year that came out, later though).

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Players have two options.
    1. Buy the game. Patches and support, and you can play on B-net.
    2. Pirate the game. Have to wait for patches to leak, and no B-net. But you can bet someone will have LAN capability cracked within a week of release.

    I imagine a lot of people will end up doing both.

    How do you suppose pirates will manage to "crack" a feature out of thin air?

    How about I just alter my DNS to resolve "battle.net" to whatever bnetd-like app I've written to facilitate multiplayer without Blizzard interceding?

    Anything made my a human can be broken by another human. Someone will crack it, one way or another.

    Hey look at that. Bnet lives on 127.0.0.1

    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
    steam | mwo: calverin
  • BlueDestinyBlueDestiny Registered User
    edited June 2009
    So you're saying just because someone can break it means Blizzard shouldn't try to defend their product from theft?

    Any sufficiently advanced friendship is indistinguishable from magic.
  • ShukaoShukao Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Starcraft 2: Terran Campaign
    - Single player is all about the Terrans (you playing as)
    - Multiplayer has all the races available

    Most important thing, right there.

  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    So you're saying just because someone can break it means Blizzard shouldn't try to defend their product from theft?

    There are better ways to protect a product from theft than removing a feature from the product.

    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
    steam | mwo: calverin
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    So you're saying just because someone can break it means Blizzard shouldn't try to defend their product from theft?

    Well, the problem people have is the steps being taken. When it inconveniences honest customers, it's a bad thing. I will concede to that argument. Unless it's like, some nitpicky inconvenience.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Taranis wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Players have two options.
    1. Buy the game. Patches and support, and you can play on B-net.
    2. Pirate the game. Have to wait for patches to leak, and no B-net. But you can bet someone will have LAN capability cracked within a week of release.

    I imagine a lot of people will end up doing both.

    How do you suppose pirates will manage to "crack" a feature out of thin air?

    The same way people mod games and crack the install files.

    But to create a multi-player interface out of nothing is not exactly the same thing

    It's like not MOD!, CRACK!, SHAZAM! and there's a LAN feature

    Modders have given multiplayer to games with zero multiplayer support before.

  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Taranis wrote: »
    So you're saying just because someone can break it means Blizzard shouldn't try to defend their product from theft?

    There are better ways to protect a product from theft than removing a feature from the product.

    You forgot the part where they removed it because they're adding an as yet unannounced feature, which is probably the exact same feature, just over b.net 2.0

    Spoiler:
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Shukao wrote: »
    Starcraft 2: Terran Campaign
    - Single player is all about the Terrans (you playing as)
    - Multiplayer has all the races available

    Most important thing, right there.

    Indeed.

    To elaborate on the single player stuff, imagine each race's story being like a pie. You can either be delivered the pies as a whole one at a time, or getting 1/3 of each pie on three occassions. In the end, you still get all three. Why this is a problem I don't fucking know. Maybe the tradition of expansion story delivery being broken is making people confused and angry.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    edited June 2009
    Taranis wrote: »
    So you're saying just because someone can break it means Blizzard shouldn't try to defend their product from theft?

    There are better ways to protect a product from theft than removing a feature from the product.

    You forgot the part where they removed it because they're adding an as yet unannounced feature, which is probably the exact same feature, just over b.net 2.0

    If my LAN game requires internet connectivity, it isn't really a LAN game as one of the benefits of that is you don't need the interwebs to play.

    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Axen wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Players have two options.
    1. Buy the game. Patches and support, and you can play on B-net.
    2. Pirate the game. Have to wait for patches to leak, and no B-net. But you can bet someone will have LAN capability cracked within a week of release.

    I imagine a lot of people will end up doing both.

    How do you suppose pirates will manage to "crack" a feature out of thin air?

    The same way people mod games and crack the install files.

    But to create a multi-player interface out of nothing is not exactly the same thing

    It's like not MOD!, CRACK!, SHAZAM! and there's a LAN feature

    Modders have given multiplayer to games with zero multiplayer support before.

    Sure, but will it be 1) Stable 2) Needed at all?
    If my LAN game requires internet connectivity, it isn't really a LAN game as one of the benefits of that is you don't need the interwebs to play.

    how do you know it will require internet connectivity?

    Spoiler:
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Taranis wrote: »
    So you're saying just because someone can break it means Blizzard shouldn't try to defend their product from theft?

    There are better ways to protect a product from theft than removing a feature from the product.

    You forgot the part where they removed it because they're adding an as yet unannounced feature, which is probably the exact same feature, just over b.net 2.0

    Isn't the point of LAN to play multiplayer games when there is no internet available?

    Thats what I always used it for. LAN parties and such.

  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I quote again
    “is because of the planned technology to be incorporated into Battle.net.”

    I think we're jumping the gun on the 'omg no games without internet!!!' thing

    I'm thinking an offline mode or something along those lines, similar to steam

    Spoiler:
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    edited June 2009
    I quote again
    “is because of the planned technology to be incorporated into Battle.net.”

    I think we're jumping the gun on the 'omg no games without internet!!!' thing

    I'm thinking an offline mode or something along those lines, similar to steam

    If it has an offline mode like steam then there is no problem.

    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Axen wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Players have two options.
    1. Buy the game. Patches and support, and you can play on B-net.
    2. Pirate the game. Have to wait for patches to leak, and no B-net. But you can bet someone will have LAN capability cracked within a week of release.

    I imagine a lot of people will end up doing both.

    How do you suppose pirates will manage to "crack" a feature out of thin air?

    The same way people mod games and crack the install files.

    But to create a multi-player interface out of nothing is not exactly the same thing

    It's like not MOD!, CRACK!, SHAZAM! and there's a LAN feature

    Modders have given multiplayer to games with zero multiplayer support before.

    It's possible to reverse engineer source code from an executable. Once you have the source code you whatever you want with the game.

    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
    steam | mwo: calverin
  • RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Taranis wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Players have two options.
    1. Buy the game. Patches and support, and you can play on B-net.
    2. Pirate the game. Have to wait for patches to leak, and no B-net. But you can bet someone will have LAN capability cracked within a week of release.

    I imagine a lot of people will end up doing both.

    How do you suppose pirates will manage to "crack" a feature out of thin air?

    The same way people mod games.

    Actually that's called modding, not cracking.

    Also mods are created from custom models, sounds, maps and code that hooks into the game engine, just about always with the specific support from the original developer. If SC2 is hard-coded to interact with Battle.net to find games, IMO it would be basically impossible to get your code to run in-process, hook in to the game connection algorithms, integrate with the UI. This is all assuming you've got the LAN connection logic coded up yourself and you've managed to faithfully re-create the game hosting code to self-host.

    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    So you're saying just because someone can break it means Blizzard shouldn't try to defend their product from theft?

    Like I was saying about DoW II's anti lan hamachi features, you can always break something, but the key is to make it so annoyingly difficult that it crosses the convenience threshold for 99% of people who, if they are inclined to buy the game at all, would rather just shell out than bother with painful crack processes. And I support intelligent processes that make it harder to pirate stuff.

    I'm not so sure about this one.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I quote again
    “is because of the planned technology to be incorporated into Battle.net.”

    I think we're jumping the gun on the 'omg no games without internet!!!' thing

    I'm thinking an offline mode or something along those lines, similar to steam

    Yeah but when you incorporate something into an online service, you pretty much make it online. LAN is an offline thing traditionally.

    Edit - Damn you snuck that edit in. An offline mode like that would propose that Battle.net 2.0 isn't just going to be an updated server structure, but a program as well.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I quote again
    “is because of the planned technology to be incorporated into Battle.net.”

    I think we're jumping the gun on the 'omg no games without internet!!!' thing

    I'm thinking an offline mode or something along those lines, similar to steam

    Offline multiplayer? Hey wait I think there's a word for that, I think it's LAN.

    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
    steam | mwo: calverin
  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    I quote again
    “is because of the planned technology to be incorporated into Battle.net.”

    I think we're jumping the gun on the 'omg no games without internet!!!' thing

    I'm thinking an offline mode or something along those lines, similar to steam

    Yeah but when you incorporate something into an online service, you pretty much make it online. LAN is an offline thing traditionally.

    Edit - Damn you snuck that edit in. An offline mode like that would propose that Battle.net 2.0 isn't just going to be an updated server structure, but a program as well.

    It could just as easily interface with the game, I'm positive they've been pushing Battle.net into territories beyond online server structure.

    That's why they call it 2.0

    Spoiler:
  • StreltsyStreltsy Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I quote again
    “is because of the planned technology to be incorporated into Battle.net.”

    I think we're jumping the gun on the 'omg no games without internet!!!' thing

    I'm thinking an offline mode or something along those lines, similar to steam


    You basically won the thread.

    I don't know why everyone else is oblivious so I limed you.

    410239-1.png
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I quote again
    “is because of the planned technology to be incorporated into Battle.net.”

    I think we're jumping the gun on the 'omg no games without internet!!!' thing

    I'm thinking an offline mode or something along those lines, similar to steam

    Which is why I said I'm reserving full judgement until the details are available. They could easily just mean "olol friends list!" though. That phrase itself doesn't mean a whole lot. What we DO know, though, is that at this moment, you can't stick two computers on a LAN together and just play. Internet is required, either for authentication or actual game serving. This is a value negative to me.

    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Players have two options.
    1. Buy the game. Patches and support, and you can play on B-net.
    2. Pirate the game. Have to wait for patches to leak, and no B-net. But you can bet someone will have LAN capability cracked within a week of release.

    I imagine a lot of people will end up doing both.

    How do you suppose pirates will manage to "crack" a feature out of thin air?

    The same way people mod games.

    Actually that's called modding, not cracking.

    Also mods are created from custom models, sounds, maps and code that hooks into the game engine, just about always with the specific support from the original developer. If SC2 is hard-coded to interact with Battle.net to find games, IMO it would be basically impossible to get your code to run in-process, hook in to the game connection algorithms, integrate with the UI. This is all assuming you've got the LAN connection logic coded up yourself and you've managed to faithfully re-create the game hosting code to self-host.

    If you have to reverse engineer the source code in order to mod the game then it's both.

    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
    steam | mwo: calverin
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    I quote again
    “is because of the planned technology to be incorporated into Battle.net.”

    I think we're jumping the gun on the 'omg no games without internet!!!' thing

    I'm thinking an offline mode or something along those lines, similar to steam

    Yeah but when you incorporate something into an online service, you pretty much make it online. LAN is an offline thing traditionally.

    Edit - Damn you snuck that edit in. An offline mode like that would propose that Battle.net 2.0 isn't just going to be an updated server structure, but a program as well.

    It could just as easily interface with the game, I'm positive they've been pushing Battle.net into territories beyond online server structure.

    That's why they call it 2.0

    Boy that'll be fun. Playing WoW or SC2 or Diablo 3 and seeing popups about friends logging on, and getting messages asking to play one of the two I'm not playing.

    In all seriousness though, if Battle.net 2.0 has that sort of structure, I would be impressed. All I want is convenience.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Oh and yes you could reverse engineer the protocol and have your client talk to a custom server. But that is most certainly not something that people will "crack within a week of release".

    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Right

    I'm putting better faith into Blizzard in thinking that they know competition is what has kept SC alive, and if all those Korean PC cafes can't run Starcraft on some kind of lan network, well there goes half their base

    Spoiler:
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    edited June 2009
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Oh and yes you could reverse engineer the protocol and have your client talk to a custom server. But that is most certainly not something that people will "crack within a week of release".

    Yeah would take a month or more at least.

    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2009
    This is like trying to play SC LAN on modern Windows OSes.

    Not many people can figure out how to reinstall IPX. Unless you know how to do it, or if isn't locked down, you are not gonna be playing SC1 over LAN.

  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Oh and yes you could reverse engineer the protocol and have your client talk to a custom server. But that is most certainly not something that people will "crack within a week of release".

    It would be as simple as Houn made it out to be. Most games are cracked before they're released. Why would LAN support be that difficult?

    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
    steam | mwo: calverin
  • GoombaGoomba __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2009
    Um Battle.net is on the internet. Sorry, enders, try again.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Oh and yes you could reverse engineer the protocol and have your client talk to a custom server. But that is most certainly not something that people will "crack within a week of release".

    Yeah would take a month or more at least.

    Sure, if you do it without an app that converts the binary of an executable to source code.

    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
    steam | mwo: calverin
Sign In or Register to comment.