Comments on: Blizzard chooses cloud over LAN for new game

Game developer Blizzard Entertainment has decided that cloud-based services are more important than LAN gaming. It's a good decision.

[cor2879]

LAME

[AzazelsFury]

This is bull. I've been playing Starcraft for over a decade now. I knew this game was gonna be crap when they didn't release it 5+ years ago. All they had to do was a few upgrades to increase the number of units you can control, maybe add an interface plugin system like WoW, a new race and BOOM you'd have a winner but no, they decided to go for fancy graphics to try and get the morons to play.

"ensure a quality multiplayer experience with Starcraft II AND SAFEGUARD AGAINST PIRACY."

Make no mistake about it, this is what its all about. Blizzard has become just another fat greedy game company. In my time I've bought more than 10 copies of Starcraft, Diablo, battle packs, ALL THAT CRAP and I know lots of others who have done the same. The idea that they're losing money on piracy on StarCraft is laughable. It's been selling for $10 dollars for at least 6 years. Who HASNT bought a couple copies?

I was looking forward to this game but now, looking at the previews and trailers and now THIS, there's no way I'm buying it. Sorry Blizzard, you lost a loyal customer.

[LieutenantFrost]

While depressing, this is just another reason for me to not buy SC2, with the primary reason coming the day they announced it would be sold as a "trilogy" (i.e. one race at a time to maximize profit). I've played StarCraft since it was released, and I cannot count how many LAN games I've taken part in.

When you have four people in one house in the middle of nowhere with only a shoddy dial-up internet connection, the question of how you're going to get four computers talking to each other doesn't even get raised. And as much as the major game companies (and the rest of the software industry, I guess) would like to believe, "Cloud" computing isn't a viable option in these situations. If you want the game to be even remotely playable, the connections between each machine have to be flawless.

Complete bunk.

[Homncruse]

Are you serious? I have 3-4 friends over every Saturday for LAN gaming, and we *still* spend more time on Starcraft than any other game -- I'd even be so bold to say we spend more time on Starcraft than all *other* games combined. We usually start and end with it.

One of those friends has a really shoddy ClearWire internet connection. It's barely a fraction better than dial-up. If we moved locations to his house, there's no way we'd have enough bandwidth for 4-5 players sending data out only to come right back in again. And that's assuming firewalls/routers aren't a problem. Communicating with the Blizzard servers will require opening a port, and that port can only be forwarded to one computer unless the firewall is disabled entirely and everything is placed in DMZ. Not a good idea. The only way around this is to make the game port configurable, but I doubt that'll be the case.

Wow, Blizzard. Wow. I've gobbled up just about everything you've ever released except WoW (because I dislike MMORPGs as a whole, not that it is specifically a bad game), and I've been looking forward to SC2 for *years*, and now you pull LAN support? LAN parties just don't happen without Blizzard games.

Oh well, I guess it's only a matter of time before game crackers figure out a privatized server I can run in my own house. I give it two months at most. Way to curb piracy. PIRATES WILL NEVER BE DISCOURAGED! They will *always* find a way. And if Blizzard is pulling LAN support, I shall wait for that private server and do the same.

[pithenumber]

So Blizzard hates LAN parties?

[pentest]

Yes, they hate it.

Moron, this company a hates _________ is tiresome.

It is nothing but a ploy to make more money, which I hope will blow up in their faces.

[Forbin376]

This is very disheartening. Blizzard has figured out how to host multiple accounts at the same location behind a firewall, they do it all the time with WoW. I can see their desire to have tighter control on CD keys by using a centralized server and it is certainly easier to make updates to all the client software. That said ? this is a terrible idea ? one of the weaknesses of WoW is the fragile nature of the Internet, if it is down you are not going to play period. It may be Blizzard is down, or just your local provider, or somewhere in the ether between! You have no control over it. With WarCraft II, III, and StarCraft having LAN play has been a fundamental reason for the purchase of these games within our household. The other popular RTS series is the Age Of Empires. On line updates, but local LAN play. I could live with the ?size? and ?scope? of the new StarCraft II being ?so big? it needed to be released in three parts ? well mostly - ok. But no LAN? This is just a bad idea from a technical perspective. Of course in the future it would allow a monthly charge to play ? oh but they would never do this ? right? We regularly have eight people playing LAN games at our home ? ALL have legal CDs. Most of us work making software, we understand, no problem. If battle net becomes more that a match making service the bandwidth issue will be fatal to such gatherings!

[mikrucio]

WELL THATS JUST *****> YOUR NOT GETTING MY MONEY BLIZZARD!

[firemonk]

Hey I have a question, maybe someone has the answer. How does South Korea do their professional Starcraft leagues? Do they all fight over b.net, or do they LAN? When they do the semi-finals or the finals, do they still fight over b.net, or over LAN? This is relevant information. If it is over b.net, then n/m. But if they do it over LAN, how can Blizzard ignore one of their biggest markets?

Will Diablo 3 follow the no LAN solution?

Well, if Activision Blizzard decides not to support LAN, I will decide not to support Activision Blizzard. I will not be punished for the crimes of others'.