As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Starcraft 2: No Lan Support

17810121346

Posts

  • chevluhchevluh Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    urahonky wrote: »
    Do people actually play games at LANs where there is no connection to the internet?

    As noted above, have you tried playing online at a LAN party with over 30 people hooked up to the same internet.

    It sucks.
    I'm pretty sure all Battle.net would require of you is authentication and matchmaking. Once you're in the game it's not going to route all traffic from one LAN computer, around the internet, and to another LAN computer.

    But, uh, when you look at this:
    We don’t currently plan to support LAN play with StarCraft II, as we are building Battle.net to be the ideal destination for multiplayer gaming with StarCraft II and future Blizzard Entertainment games.[...]We’re looking forward to sharing more details about Battle.net and online functionality for StarCraft II in the near future

    They're really describing it as an absence of LAN, not LAN-with-online-authentification

    chevluh on
  • His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I agree that the quote sounds like that. However all game packets are not going to be routed through Blizzard's servers for logistical reasons. If all you're left with is the ability to log into Battle.net, join a passworded game with your LAN buddies, and have the game send packets within your LAN, it's functionally equivalent to a LAN game, minus multiplayer spawns.

    His Corkiness on
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I'm going to assume it means you just play it on b.net, which means things are routed. Do you know how things are handled now when you play b.net?

    Like if I create a game and someone joins, does that link our computers instead of going through the b.net servers? (I assume yes) So if that's the case, the Blizzard server still acts as a router to point the packets to the correct location.

    But again this is all assumptions based on their old b.net technology.

    urahonky on
  • His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Yeah I guess there's two uses of the word 'router'. One is the technical side of matchmaking, where Battle.net says to each client "The other players' IPs are x.x.x.x, etc., now go send data to each-other" (which I believe is how it works currently, and how I think it would work with SC2). The other is the act of sending each packet to Battle.net, which then sends it to its correct destination, like a physical router. I don't think the latter will be the case.

    His Corkiness on
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I hope not. But the thing is, when b.net was having issues... Then the lag in some SC games was atrocious. So that made me think it was the latter.

    urahonky on
  • GoombaGoomba __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    bongi wrote: »
    I love Blizzard.

    Shut up, we hate blizzard ITT

    Even though they make high quality games and support them almost as well as the industry leaders in customer fellatio (valve)
    Valve has some of the worst customer service I've ever seen.

    Goomba on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    urahonky wrote: »
    I hope not. But the thing is, when b.net was having issues... Then the lag in some SC games was atrocious. So that made me think it was the latter.

    I think, but don't quote me on this, that it will run in the latter mode if the clients are unable to directly connect with each other (NAT/firewalling getting in the way) but defaults to "Player 1 is x.x.x.x, Player 2 is y.y.y.y, connect to each other kthxbai"

    PeregrineFalcon on
    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    IIRC, SC1 uses B.Net for auth and matchmaking, but the actual players exchange game data peer to peer.

    On the flip side, D2 has had the Blizzard-hosted Realm games for years to help prevent cheating.

    They could very well be planning to run servers to host SC2 games in this same manner. I mean, sure it'll cost $Texas, but they already make $Northamerica monthly anyway, so I think they can afford it. :P

    Houn on
  • AJAlkaline40AJAlkaline40 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2009
    urahonky wrote: »
    Wish Blizzard would think outside the box and try a new genre and/or a new IP for once.

    They actually are making a new IP. It's going to be an MMO, we don't know what type of MMO it's going to be, but presumably it's not going to compete with WoW so you know it won't be a clone at least.

    AJAlkaline40 on
    idiot.jpg
  • PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    ib World of Starcraft jokes

    PeregrineFalcon on
    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    urahonky wrote: »
    Wish Blizzard would think outside the box and try a new genre and/or a new IP for once.

    They actually are making a new IP. It's going to be an MMO, we don't know what type of MMO it's going to be, but presumably it's not going to compete with WoW so you know it won't be a clone at least.

    Wish it were a puzzle or adventure game.

    Hell I'll take a FPS. :P

    urahonky on
  • BakerIsBoredBakerIsBored Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    You people are trying to speculate on all this b.net crap, and the point you all are missing is that half the LAN parties out there don't have internet.

    BakerIsBored on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • GoombaGoomba __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2009
    Blackthorne MMO obviously.

    Goomba on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    You people are trying to speculate on all this b.net crap, and the point you all are missing is that half the LAN parties out there don't have internet.

    I'm not missing it in the slightest. I'm not sure anyone is, actually.

    Houn on
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    You people are trying to speculate on all this b.net crap, and the point you all are missing is that half the LAN parties out there don't have internet.

    Oh yeah I know. I was just worried about the one I frequent. :) It has internet, but it's incredibly slow. So if all it has to do is authenticate and then never actually use the 'net, then I'll be fine.

    Otherwise we'll find another strategy game to play and enjoy.

    urahonky on
  • PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    urahonky wrote: »
    You people are trying to speculate on all this b.net crap, and the point you all are missing is that half the LAN parties out there don't have internet.

    Oh yeah I know. I was just worried about the one I frequent. :) It has internet, but it's incredibly slow. So if all it has to do is authenticate and then never actually use the 'net, then I'll be fine.

    Otherwise we'll find another strategy game to play and enjoy.

    What kind of ass-backwards LAN parties are you going to without a T3 line into every machine lol get with the times hurf durf.

    Also, just noticed your title/location. Congrats. :)

    PeregrineFalcon on
    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    urahonky wrote: »
    You people are trying to speculate on all this b.net crap, and the point you all are missing is that half the LAN parties out there don't have internet.

    Oh yeah I know. I was just worried about the one I frequent. :) It has internet, but it's incredibly slow. So if all it has to do is authenticate and then never actually use the 'net, then I'll be fine.

    Otherwise we'll find another strategy game to play and enjoy.

    What kind of ass-backwards LAN parties are you going to without a T3 line into every machine lol get with the times hurf durf.

    Also, just noticed your title/location. Congrats. :)

    Haha thanks :)

    And I'm in Ohio. Best we got is Cable interwebs.

    urahonky on
  • GoombaGoomba __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    You people are trying to speculate on all this b.net crap, and the point you all are missing is that half the LAN parties out there don't have internet.

    I'm not missing it in the slightest. I'm not sure anyone is, actually.
    A lot of people are, like Henroid. But his posts are just special like that.

    But the point is that there's no LAN, Blizzard is going to have some other, new, exciting thing to make up for it, and there's really no point in arguing about it.

    Goomba on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Goomba wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    You people are trying to speculate on all this b.net crap, and the point you all are missing is that half the LAN parties out there don't have internet.

    I'm not missing it in the slightest. I'm not sure anyone is, actually.
    A lot of people are, like Henroid. But his posts are just special like that.

    But the point is that there's no LAN, Blizzard is going to have some other, new, exciting thing to make up for it, and there's really no point in arguing about it.

    See, this part? I don't buy this. What other "new, exciting" thing could possibly replace the ability to connect two PCs together and play a game between them? I've got a healthy imagination, but I'm at a loss to conceive of this wondrous thing that others seem capable of.

    So help me out. What's going to replace LAN? Keep in mind that Blizzard has said nothing about a LAN replacement, just a removal.

    Houn on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Meh

    Supreme Commander is a better LAN game anyways. Can't carpet nuke that guy quite so effectively nor can you black out his base with strategic bombers.

    Robman on
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Meh

    Supreme Commander is a better LAN game anyways. Can't carpet nuke that guy quite so effectively nor can you black out his base with strategic bombers.

    3 Terran bases with nukes ready. A swarm of medics + ghosts (stealthed), all setup to nuke a zerg base... That is some amazing shit right there!

    urahonky on
  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Meh

    Supreme Commander is a better LAN game anyways. Can't carpet nuke that guy quite so effectively nor can you black out his base with strategic bombers.

    I'm surprised that someone else here likes Supreme Commander as well.

    Stay classy Robman. :^:



    EDIT: @ urahonky:

    We're talking something a few orders of power bigger than that here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COUN_EzmVNA

    subedii on
  • bongibongi regular
    edited June 2009
    I want to play SupCom sometime now that I have a computer that can actually play the damn game

    bongi on
  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    Goomba wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    You people are trying to speculate on all this b.net crap, and the point you all are missing is that half the LAN parties out there don't have internet.

    I'm not missing it in the slightest. I'm not sure anyone is, actually.
    A lot of people are, like Henroid. But his posts are just special like that.

    But the point is that there's no LAN, Blizzard is going to have some other, new, exciting thing to make up for it, and there's really no point in arguing about it.

    See, this part? I don't buy this. What other "new, exciting" thing could possibly replace the ability to connect two PCs together and play a game between them? I've got a healthy imagination, but I'm at a loss to conceive of this wondrous thing that others seem capable of.

    So help me out. What's going to replace LAN? Keep in mind that Blizzard has said nothing about a LAN replacement, just a removal.

    As was speculated on pages 2 and 3 of this thread, it is probably some akin to Steam's offline mode, except for b.net 2.0

    Metal Gear Solid 2 Demo on
    SteamID- Enders || SC2 ID - BurningCrome.721 || Blogging - Laputan Machine
    1385396-1.png
    Orikae! |RS| : why is everyone yelling 'enders is dead go'
    When I say pop it that means pop it
    heavy.gif
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    urahonky wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Meh

    Supreme Commander is a better LAN game anyways. Can't carpet nuke that guy quite so effectively nor can you black out his base with strategic bombers.

    3 Terran bases with nukes ready. A swarm of medics + ghosts (stealthed), all setup to nuke a zerg base... That is some amazing shit right there!

    You haven't RTS'd until you've sent in the troops right after a nuclear strike

    Hell by most late-game base assaults you need a nuke for your ground troops to get through the defensive lines

    Robman on
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Hm. Yeahhh I've never really had the patience to play any other strategy games other than Starcraft/Warcraft but that looked pretty cool.

    urahonky on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Oh, I hate micro so I'm very happy that there is an RTS where micro involves setting up 20 factories and building waves of heavy assault bots to storm an enemy base.

    Robman on
  • The Reverend Dr GalactusThe Reverend Dr Galactus Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    You know, in addition to the obvious "omg piracy" angle here, I think there's a second, perhaps nearly as important factor in Blizzard's B.net-only decision: Stat tracking and player data persistence.



    In the post-WoW era, everything you do in a multiplayer game counts. "/played" counts everything, LAN games and probably even single-player. Your resource efficiency, your k/d ratio, everything is tracked and you can look at the graphs to chart your improvement. Achievements, ranks -- you're going to be accruing these things wherever you're playing, too, so it makes sense to require a Battle.net connection for that.

    I'm pretty sure that everyone suggesting LAN support will simply be B.net-mediated is correct. Most likely, LAN gaming will simply become an invisible optimization when the server detects multiple players behind the same NAT IP.

    The Reverend Dr Galactus on
    valar-moreshellus.png
    PSN:RevDrGalactus/NN:RevDrGalactus/Steam
  • PeewiPeewi Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    urahonky wrote: »
    Wish Blizzard would think outside the box and try a new genre and/or a new IP for once.

    The last time they made a game in a new genre it was an MMO. The time before that it ended up getting cancelled.

    Peewi on
  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Meh

    Supreme Commander is a better LAN game anyways. Can't carpet nuke that guy quite so effectively nor can you black out his base with strategic bombers.

    3 Terran bases with nukes ready. A swarm of medics + ghosts (stealthed), all setup to nuke a zerg base... That is some amazing shit right there!

    You haven't RTS'd until you've sent in the troops right after a nuclear strike

    Hell by most late-game base assaults you need a nuke for your ground troops to get through the defensive lines

    What's funny is when they've got an anti-missile system up, but you know it's got only 5 shots before they need to regenerate. So you just build multiple strategic launchers and spam it with incoming fire, seeing each missile getting shot down in turn until they've run out.

    And then, sunlight. You know it's special when it's visible from orbit. :lol:

    I'm looking forward to SupCom 2, looks like they're really streamlining the game and making it more immediate, whilst keeping the focus on the large scale combat.

    Anyway /derail.

    subedii on
  • RohanRohan Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    zilo wrote: »
    People still care about LAN play? People who aren't pirates bummed that they won't be able to Hamachi themselves into some multiplayer? Wow. I honestly thought LAN parties were basically extinct now that broadband and voip are widely available. I play PC games online pretty heavily and I haven't played anything over a LAN, virtual or not, since AvP2.

    And I am the world, therefore nobody plays games over LAN anymore I guess. Q.E.D.

    My friends and I love to get together and have a LAN. Two of them live outside of town; two have wireless broadband which is terrible for gaming, and the other has one of the worst phone lines possible, making a mockery of his 3mb connection (it frequently disconnects and his download speeds typically only reach around 80k). Eircom, Ireland's national telecommunications company that has a massive grip on the market, says they can do nothing about it, which is bullshit. Either way, that means three of the six that are a part of the lan cannot join Skype and then a game.

    Only one or two of us are technically competent (my flat-mate and I), having worked in tech support before, and every time there's a lan there are games that need installing, patches, mods, they can't see the network game because stupid Windows Firewall is being a douche, the game won't install/launch/has a garbled screen/etc... fixing all of that is difficult enough at a lan where you have limited time, but doing that over an Internet connection would be impossible.

    And besides, there is nothing better than listening to and seeing their howls of frustration as they get killed in whatever game. GameCon, a lan gaming event is held in Ireland twice a year. It holds over two hundred pc and console users and in between the tournaments, people are playing all sorts of games (like Soldat, for example) and having a laugh. And it isn't even the only lan event in the country, as far as I'm aware there are two other events held in different areas of the country that are just as popular. At GameCon, no matter what 'net connection they get, it's always a joke because too many people are connected. Having to log into that asshole of a service, Steam, just to play a simple lan game with friends, on a connection slower than dial-up is an exercise in patience like you wouldn't believe.

    So take our last lan for example, this past weekend. Our 7mb broadband connection was extremely slow and didn't improve until I turned off the router yesterday for an hour. It was simply to the point of overloading, having to deal with four computers connected via ethernet, two desktops via wi-fi, and the two laptops that are always connected via wi-fi, also. Logging into Steam was a joke. So, we didn't. We stayed with games that had a good, properly coded lan component, like CoD4, World at War, Battlefield 1942 with Pirates mod, Halo, Supreme Commander, Warcraft III with and without mods... and we had a blast.

    We were all looking forward to adding Starcraft II to our list of games we play over the lan, but screw Blizzard if we have to go anywhere near the Internet in order to do it. The game isn't worth the hassle it would cause trying to get it to run. It's my flat-mate I feel sorry for, we were all looking forward to the game, but he's the big fan. If someone manages to hack lan capability into the game, then we will go with that option, enjoy ourselves and stick a big metaphorical (and not so metaphorical) finger in Blizzard's direction.

    Rohan on
    ...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.

    Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    AkimboEG wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Either way Blizzard is going to lose out on potential sales by cutting LAN. Look at the feedback their getting, not just on this forum, but practically all gaming forums.

    Look at how many people throw fits regarding WoW, declarations of quitting and such. It hasn't hurt their business much.

    yeah, junkies will complain, but they'll pay any price for their fix
    With the difference being, that for many the ability to LAN is the actual fix.
    I doubt they'll lose enough sales to actually notice, though.

    blizzard is not stupid, and it would be incredibly stupid to not allow play over a LAN
    what it most likely will be is authentication over bnet & gameplay over the lan

    autono-wally, erotibot300 on
    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    bongi wrote: »
    I love Blizzard.

    I'm craving for WoW again.. Just one fun-raid, no strings attached! I can play it casually?
    hahaha
    hahah

    :cry:

    autono-wally, erotibot300 on
    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    AkimboEG wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Either way Blizzard is going to lose out on potential sales by cutting LAN. Look at the feedback their getting, not just on this forum, but practically all gaming forums.

    Look at how many people throw fits regarding WoW, declarations of quitting and such. It hasn't hurt their business much.

    yeah, junkies will complain, but they'll pay any price for their fix
    With the difference being, that for many the ability to LAN is the actual fix.
    I doubt they'll lose enough sales to actually notice, though.

    blizzard is not stupid, and it would be incredibly stupid to not allow play over a LAN
    what it most likely will be is authentication over bnet & gameplay over the lan

    And if you have no internet...?

    Actually let me finish that for you. If you have no internet, you have no gameplay over LAN.

    Houn on
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    AkimboEG wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Either way Blizzard is going to lose out on potential sales by cutting LAN. Look at the feedback their getting, not just on this forum, but practically all gaming forums.

    Look at how many people throw fits regarding WoW, declarations of quitting and such. It hasn't hurt their business much.

    yeah, junkies will complain, but they'll pay any price for their fix
    With the difference being, that for many the ability to LAN is the actual fix.
    I doubt they'll lose enough sales to actually notice, though.

    blizzard is not stupid, and it would be incredibly stupid to not allow play over a LAN
    what it most likely will be is authentication over bnet & gameplay over the lan

    And if you have no internet...?

    Actually let me finish that for you. If you have no internet, you have no gameplay over LAN.

    I am glad someone else understands this.

    Axen on
    A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
  • MachismoMachismo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Jesus. I know a lot of military guys in god forsaken parts of the world that won't be playing SC2 or Diablo 3.

    Machismo on
    steam_sig.png
  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Axen wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    AkimboEG wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Either way Blizzard is going to lose out on potential sales by cutting LAN. Look at the feedback their getting, not just on this forum, but practically all gaming forums.

    Look at how many people throw fits regarding WoW, declarations of quitting and such. It hasn't hurt their business much.

    yeah, junkies will complain, but they'll pay any price for their fix
    With the difference being, that for many the ability to LAN is the actual fix.
    I doubt they'll lose enough sales to actually notice, though.

    blizzard is not stupid, and it would be incredibly stupid to not allow play over a LAN
    what it most likely will be is authentication over bnet & gameplay over the lan

    And if you have no internet...?

    Actually let me finish that for you. If you have no internet, you have no gameplay over LAN.

    I am glad someone else understands this.

    Again, speculation at this point, but most likely you'll need to authenticate over b.net initially, then from there you can use it in an offline type mode to play whenever you don't have internet

    You really, really want Blizzard to be bad at making games don't you?

    Metal Gear Solid 2 Demo on
    SteamID- Enders || SC2 ID - BurningCrome.721 || Blogging - Laputan Machine
    1385396-1.png
    Orikae! |RS| : why is everyone yelling 'enders is dead go'
    When I say pop it that means pop it
    heavy.gif
  • MachismoMachismo Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Axen wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    AkimboEG wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Either way Blizzard is going to lose out on potential sales by cutting LAN. Look at the feedback their getting, not just on this forum, but practically all gaming forums.

    Look at how many people throw fits regarding WoW, declarations of quitting and such. It hasn't hurt their business much.

    yeah, junkies will complain, but they'll pay any price for their fix
    With the difference being, that for many the ability to LAN is the actual fix.
    I doubt they'll lose enough sales to actually notice, though.

    blizzard is not stupid, and it would be incredibly stupid to not allow play over a LAN
    what it most likely will be is authentication over bnet & gameplay over the lan

    And if you have no internet...?

    Actually let me finish that for you. If you have no internet, you have no gameplay over LAN.

    I am glad someone else understands this.

    Again, speculation at this point, but most likely you'll need to authenticate over b.net initially, then from there you can use it in an offline type mode to play whenever you don't have internet

    You really, really want Blizzard to be bad at making games don't you?

    So even if you authenticate and can play offline, that still means multiplayer is OUT unless you go online for it.

    Machismo on
    steam_sig.png
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Axen wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    AkimboEG wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Either way Blizzard is going to lose out on potential sales by cutting LAN. Look at the feedback their getting, not just on this forum, but practically all gaming forums.

    Look at how many people throw fits regarding WoW, declarations of quitting and such. It hasn't hurt their business much.

    yeah, junkies will complain, but they'll pay any price for their fix
    With the difference being, that for many the ability to LAN is the actual fix.
    I doubt they'll lose enough sales to actually notice, though.

    blizzard is not stupid, and it would be incredibly stupid to not allow play over a LAN
    what it most likely will be is authentication over bnet & gameplay over the lan

    And if you have no internet...?

    Actually let me finish that for you. If you have no internet, you have no gameplay over LAN.

    I am glad someone else understands this.

    Again, speculation at this point, but most likely you'll need to authenticate over b.net initially, then from there you can use it in an offline type mode to play whenever you don't have internet

    You really, really want Blizzard to be bad at making games don't you?

    But what you suggest implies LAN support, which they have said they will not do.

    Axen on
    A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    AkimboEG wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Either way Blizzard is going to lose out on potential sales by cutting LAN. Look at the feedback their getting, not just on this forum, but practically all gaming forums.

    Look at how many people throw fits regarding WoW, declarations of quitting and such. It hasn't hurt their business much.

    yeah, junkies will complain, but they'll pay any price for their fix
    With the difference being, that for many the ability to LAN is the actual fix.
    I doubt they'll lose enough sales to actually notice, though.

    blizzard is not stupid, and it would be incredibly stupid to not allow play over a LAN
    what it most likely will be is authentication over bnet & gameplay over the lan

    And if you have no internet...?

    Actually let me finish that for you. If you have no internet, you have no gameplay over LAN.
    either there will be some sort of activation, or.. it sucks to be you
    I'm using the internet since 1997 and can't remember a single time I had an outage when I wanted to do somethin important. Sure, you could say "but what if I'm on a trip lolo"
    Well, use cell phone internet over bluetooth!

    Ok, that was more of a joke, but where would you conceivably have a lan set up, without any access to the internet being possible?
    Military installation?

    autono-wally, erotibot300 on
    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.