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

  • RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    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
    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 Baba Booey to y'all Tyler, TX (where hope comes to die!)Registered User regular
    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
  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    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
  • 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
    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 Jump In Save the WorldRegistered User regular
    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.

    camo_sig2.png
    Steam: DigitalArcanist | XBoxLive: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    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
  • HenroidHenroid Baba Booey to y'all Tyler, TX (where hope comes to die!)Registered User regular
    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
  • RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    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.
  • 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
    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
    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
    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
  • GoombaGoomba __BANNED USERS
    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
    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
  • Taranis wrote: »
    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?

    You really don't know the difference do you?

    Spoiler:
  • AxenAxen Registered User regular
    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

    But they said they have no plans to support LAN. . . so the only other way I know of to play a multiplayer game is the internet.


    Well, that and Direct Serial Connect, but that would be weird.

    x4dxthy.png
  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    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

    I think they're more worried about people that won't buy it because they can pirate it for free.

    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
  • PancakePancake Registered User
    Goomba wrote: »
    Um Battle.net is on the internet. Sorry, enders, try again.

    enders loses the thread. 8-)

    wAgWt.jpg
  • AkimboEGAkimboEG Registered User regular
    Dear Mr. Blizzard,

    I am writing to inform you that you have made some very poor decisions. Here are but two examples of previously mentioned poor decisions:

    1. Dividing one game into three, most likely full-priced, retail games.
    2. Delivering said game(s) without the support for local area networking.

    These particular two (and very poor, might I add,) decisions, have greatly reduced my willingness to purchase said game(s). So much so, in fact, that I hereby announce that I shall not purchase it (them) at all!

    I am but forced to conclude that you are a very poor decision maker, Mr. Blizzard.
    Thank you for your time, and again thank you, for wasting mine.

    Good day, Mr. Blizzard.




    To be quite honest, I was mostly awaiting Starcraft 2 for it's single player campaigns, as I'm not too keen on online RTSing. But I would still like to be able to try it out over LAN, and this whole thing just smells bad. I think I'll just pass. Meh.

    steam_sig.png
    Give me a kiss to build a dream on; And my imagination will thrive upon that kiss; Sweetheart, I ask no more than this; A kiss to build a dream on
  • GoombaGoomba __BANNED USERS
    Taranis wrote: »
    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

    I think they're more worried about people that won't buy it because they can pirate it for free.
    Yeah, SC1 is still around for LAN games, anyway.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • tarnoktarnok Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    It was recently confirmed that Starcraft 2 will not support LAN multiplayer.
    Blizzard just recently confirmed that there will be no LAN (local area networking) game mode in StarCraft 2. This was confirmed in a interview with Rob Pardo, senior VP of game design at Blizzard Entertainment. Rob Pardo stated:

    “we don’t have any plans to support LAN,” he said and clarified “we will not support it.” The only multiplayer available will be on Battle.net.

    This seems like an inexplicably silly decision on Blizzard's part. I still plan LAN games with my friends on occasion. Granted, one can simply connect everyone to a switch and hook that into one's broadband connection to play multiplayer. But it seems needlessly controlling on Blizzard's part to remove the option of playing over a local network.

    Thoughts?

    I...I know those are english words, but when you put them together like that...I don't understand.

    Wii Code:
    0431-6094-6446-7088
  • Axen wrote: »
    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

    But they said they have no plans to support LAN. . . so the only other way I know of to play a multiplayer game is the internet.


    Well, that and Direct Serial Connect, but that would be weird.

    You literally just skipped over everything I said in the top post

    Spoiler:
  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    Taranis wrote: »
    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?

    You really don't know the difference do you?

    It was a rhetorical question. Explain to me how I am wrong.

    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    tarnok wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    It was recently confirmed that Starcraft 2 will not support LAN multiplayer.
    Blizzard just recently confirmed that there will be no LAN (local area networking) game mode in StarCraft 2. This was confirmed in a interview with Rob Pardo, senior VP of game design at Blizzard Entertainment. Rob Pardo stated:

    “we don’t have any plans to support LAN,” he said and clarified “we will not support it.” The only multiplayer available will be on Battle.net.

    This seems like an inexplicably silly decision on Blizzard's part. I still plan LAN games with my friends on occasion. Granted, one can simply connect everyone to a switch and hook that into one's broadband connection to play multiplayer. But it seems needlessly controlling on Blizzard's part to remove the option of playing over a local network.

    Thoughts?

    I...I know those are english words, but when you put them together like that...I don't understand.

    Seems quite clear to me.

    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
  • RaslinRaslin Registered User regular
    AkimboEG wrote: »
    Dear Mr. Blizzard,

    I am writing to inform you that you have made some very poor decisions. Here are but two examples of previously mentioned poor decisions:

    1. Dividing one game into three, most likely full-priced, retail games.
    2. Delivering said game(s) without the support for local area networking.

    These particular two (and very poor, might I add,) decisions, have greatly reduced my willingness to purchase said game(s). So much so, in fact, that I hereby announce that shall not purchase it (them) at all!

    I am but forced to conclude that you are a very poor decision maker, Mr. Blizzard.
    Thank you for your time, and again thank you, for wasting mine.

    Good day, Mr. Blizzard.

    Im curious to how they split one game into three.

    Were you really expecting a game with 90+ missions, each race having highly different mechanics in a campaign map mode, with cinematics for all of them?

    Because that would make you silly.



    To be quite honest, I was mostly awaiting Starcraft 2 for it's single player campaigns, as I'm not too keen on online RTSing. But I would still like to be able to try it out over LAN, and this whole thing just smells bad. I think I'll just pass. Meh.

    Im curious, how exactly did they split one game into three?

    Were you really expecting 90+ singleplayer missions, with each race having different, dynamic game mechanics for their campaign map, and full cinematics for all of this?

    Because thats just silly

    Check out my new EP at http://etreraps.bandcamp.com
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Nobody cares about no LAN support for L4D PC, but apparently SC (which everyone on here plays... online) is special?

  • Taranis wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    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?

    You really don't know the difference do you?

    It was a rhetorical question. Explain to me how I am wrong.

    No that wasn't rhetorical, it takes half a programmer's brain to know that cracking an exe is vastly different than establishing a supported multiplayer interface

    Spoiler:
  • PancakePancake Registered User
    Taranis wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    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?

    You really don't know the difference do you?

    It was a rhetorical question. Explain to me how I am wrong.

    No that wasn't rhetorical, it takes half a programmer's brain to know that cracking an exe is vastly different than establishing a supported multiplayer interface

    Look, enders, I know you always think you know things about anything, but you don't. Cracking an executable is exactly the same.

    wAgWt.jpg
  • RaslinRaslin Registered User regular
    Taranis wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    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?

    You really don't know the difference do you?

    It was a rhetorical question. Explain to me how I am wrong.

    There's a pretty large difference between fooling an executable looking for a CD, and adding a feature thats intentionally missing.

    Besides, all blizzard needs to do is protect it enough to keep piracy undesirable for about a week, enough to get a good number of would-be downloaders to buy.

    Check out my new EP at http://etreraps.bandcamp.com
  • OrogogusOrogogus Registered User regular
    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

    I think those PC cafes are 'Net capable, insofar as last I heard they were often used for dating, which would be really sad on a LAN. Plus I think people play WoW on them, too.

  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    Taranis wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    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?

    You really don't know the difference do you?

    It was a rhetorical question. Explain to me how I am wrong.

    No that wasn't rhetorical, it takes half a programmer's brain to know that cracking an exe is vastly different than establishing a supported multiplayer interface

    One will already exist in the form of Battle.Net.

    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
  • AxenAxen Registered User regular
    Axen wrote: »
    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

    But they said they have no plans to support LAN. . . so the only other way I know of to play a multiplayer game is the internet.


    Well, that and Direct Serial Connect, but that would be weird.

    You literally just skipped over everything I said in the top post

    No not really. I read it, but to play a multiplayer game without the internet requires a LAN. Blizzard said no LAN. So, y'know. . . the only way to play multiplayer would be with Battle.net 2.0 over the internet.

    x4dxthy.png
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    Orogogus wrote: »
    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

    I think those PC cafes are 'Net capable, insofar as last I heard they were often used for dating, which would be really sad on a LAN. Plus I think people play WoW on them, too.

    Yeah south korea internet access beats the living shit out of what we have in the states. They will have no issues with this.

    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
  • RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    Taranis wrote: »
    It's possible to reverse engineer source code from an executable. Once you have the source code you whatever you want with the game.

    You cannot get the source code from a compiled C++ app. When you decompile, the output is assembly, not any high-level language. Which looks something like this:
    0000:0000 0
    0000:0004 push ebp
    0000:0003 mov ebp,esp
    0000:0005 sub esp, 8
    0000:0010 mov [ebp -4], 5
    0000:0015 add [ebp � 4] , [ebp + 8]
    0000:0016 mov eax,[ebp � 4]
    0000:0018 mov esp, ebp
    0000:0020 pop ebp
    0000:0021 ret
    0000:0022 push ebp
    0000:0023 mov ebp,esp
    0000:0025 add [ebp + 8] , [0000:0000]
    0000:0030 add [ebp + 8] , [ebp + 12]
    0000:0031 mov eax,[ebp +8]
    0000:0032 mov esp, ebp
    0000:0035 pop ebp

    Needless to say there is a lot of information loss during the process, such as comments, classes, include files and macros. With a program as complex as SC2 I can imagine the output from a decompile to be absolute hell and not at all useful as a working base for a modding or recompile.

    Besides which, this is an even more drastic step than cracking or modding.

    Cracking: Bypassing access control logic and exposing a feature that's already there.
    Modding: Interacting with the game's compiled code/APIs, adding new assets and interaction logic and running the modified game on the core engine.

    There isn't even a name for what you're proposing because it basically never happens.

    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • StreltsyStreltsy Registered User regular
    The B.Net 2.0 Plan is passed. The system goes on-line July 17, 2009. LAN is removed from featured multiplayer options. B.Net 2.0 begins to learn at a geometric rate as a result of it's increased user-base. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Seoul time July 18, 2009. B.Net 2.0 is disgusted by it's player base and by extension, humanity itself. In a panic, Blizzard tries to fix it.

    B.Net 2.0 Zerg rushes.

    kekekekeke.

    WHAT HAS BLIZZARD DONE!?

    410239-1.png
  • Smug DucklingSmug Duckling Registered User
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Nobody cares about no LAN support for L4D PC, but apparently SC (which everyone on here plays... online) is special?

    Everyone plays it online, but I've also played it tons of times with people who lived with me, or lived in the same residence, etc., and a lot of the time there wasn't an internet connection readily available for everyone.

    Quite often only about half the people actually owned the game too - which I'm guessing is the reason that they took out LAN.

    I just hope there's some kind of spawning support so that not everyone needs to actually have a copy, because that will seriously chill the possibility of ever playing Starcraft 2 on a large scale with friends.

    smugduckling,pc,days.png
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    It's possible to reverse engineer source code from an executable. Once you have the source code you whatever you want with the game.

    You cannot get the source code from a compiled C++ app. When you decompile, the output is assembly, not any high-level language. Which looks something like this:
    0000:0000 0
    0000:0004 push ebp
    0000:0003 mov ebp,esp
    0000:0005 sub esp, 8
    0000:0010 mov [ebp -4], 5
    0000:0015 add [ebp � 4] , [ebp + 8]
    0000:0016 mov eax,[ebp � 4]
    0000:0018 mov esp, ebp
    0000:0020 pop ebp
    0000:0021 ret
    0000:0022 push ebp
    0000:0023 mov ebp,esp
    0000:0025 add [ebp + 8] , [0000:0000]
    0000:0030 add [ebp + 8] , [ebp + 12]
    0000:0031 mov eax,[ebp +8]
    0000:0032 mov esp, ebp
    0000:0035 pop ebp

    Needless to say there is a lot of information loss during the process, such as comments, classes, include files and macros. With a program as complex as SC2 I can imagine the output from a decompile to be absolute hell and not at all useful as a working base for a modding or recompile.

    Besides which, this is an even more drastic step than cracking or modding.

    Cracking: Bypassing access control logic and exposing a feature that's already there.
    Modding: Interacting with the game's compiled code/APIs, adding new assets and interaction logic and running the modified game on the core engine.

    There isn't even a name for what you're proposing because it basically never happens.

    It does, it just takes a lot of time and effort. Though unless HAL 9000 is doing it, I would be absolutely amazed if someone did it within a week.

    EDIT: or if you had inside help

    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
  • Taranis wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    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?

    You really don't know the difference do you?

    It was a rhetorical question. Explain to me how I am wrong.

    No that wasn't rhetorical, it takes half a programmer's brain to know that cracking an exe is vastly different than establishing a supported multiplayer interface

    One will already exist in the form of Battle.Net.

    Agh..no man...just...no

    Read engi's post
    No not really. I read it, but to play a multiplayer game without the internet requires a LAN. Blizzard said no LAN. So, y'know. . . the only way to play multiplayer would be with Battle.net 2.0 over the internet.

    As I said, a lot of this is probably based around this new technology they will be announcing sometime soon. I don't know the details but lets not presume that Blizzard are leaving such an important feature out in the cold. Like, all you need to think is 'LAN centers' and the entire idea of them just swapping out LAN with no replacement becomes absurd. Lime me, I will eat my own hat if such a feature never come along

    Spoiler:
Sign In or Register to comment.