# Starcraft II - NO LAN FOR YOU!



## TheLe (Jun 30, 2009)

[imager]http://www.armchairempire.com/images/action-figures/starcraft-2/starcraft-2-2.jpg[/imager]Q+A from the Starcraft Development Team

*Q:  Will StarCraft II be available on consoles, or over LAN?
*
A: We got quite different answers about local area networking (LAN), where both Dustin or Sigaty said they were still discussing it, however, Pardo knew immediately: "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.


----------



## Phaezen (Jun 30, 2009)

Could this be Blizzards biggest blunder ever?


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 30, 2009)

Biggest blunder ever?  Probably not.  In fact, I highly doubt it will even make a dent in their income.  However, I do think it is a mistake.


----------



## sckeener (Jun 30, 2009)

Insane.

I played starcraft I on a LAN for months before I ever played on Battle.net.   I attended LAN parties just to play Starcraft.  

I was already figuring out VPN solutions to my starcraft friends of old just so I play with them again after all these years. (side note: we decided on hamachi since it is free and works so well.)

and now I hear no LAN at all....what insanity is this?


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 1, 2009)

No LAN? Did Blizzard games not practically give birth to the LAN Party? I mean, getting a good internet connection is not exactly hard, but nothing beats LAN when the 'net is down and you have multiple computers ready to go.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 1, 2009)

Kaodi said:


> but nothing beats LAN when the 'net is down and you have multiple computers ready to go.



Sounds like an unlikely situation. 

I have two computers at home, but only one guy to use them. My internet connection hasn't been down since... I don't know, since I got it?


----------



## TheLe (Jul 1, 2009)

The best theory out there is that BLIZZARD is doing this to curb perceived Piracy. 

That's crap though. I'm not a pirate, so they should stop treating me like one. PC Owners are legit. We bought Starcraft I and put it on the map, so this is insulting.

-The Le


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 2, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Sounds like an unlikely situation.
> 
> I have two computers at home, but only one guy to use them. My internet connection hasn't been down since... I don't know, since I got it?




h8!

Frakkin' Comcast.

Brad


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 2, 2009)

Hmph. No wonder I've pretty much entirely moved away from PC gaming.


----------



## TheLe (Jul 2, 2009)

From Wired.com
-------------------
When asked by Joystiq about the lack of LAN support, Blizzard rep Bob Colayco responded, “While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with StarCraft II and safeguard against piracy.”


----------



## Umbran (Jul 2, 2009)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> Frakkin' Comcast.




It isn't Comcast as a whole.  I've had Comcast for something approaching a decade, and not lost connection due to them.  I have had multiple routers die on me, but the connection was still here.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 3, 2009)

Umbran said:


> It isn't Comcast as a whole.  I've had Comcast for something approaching a decade, and not lost connection due to them.  I have had multiple routers die on me, but the connection was still here.




It's amazingly interesting how, occasionally, at (say) 8 PM, my connection will go from great to kaput.  And then stay that way until, oh, 10 PM.  On the dot.

That *has* to be them.

Brad


----------



## Thanee (Jul 3, 2009)

There, you have it. Playing via LAN is no quality. They just want to save you from that misery!   

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Nylanfs (Jul 5, 2009)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> It's amazingly interesting how, occasionally, at (say) 8 PM, my connection will go from great to kaput.  And then stay that way until, oh, 10 PM.  On the dot.
> 
> That *has* to be them.
> 
> Brad



That is because cable is a series instead of parallel. Ie if everyone in your neighborhood (or heaven forbid, a apartment complex) starts requesting data at roughly the same time then everyone's throughput diminishes.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jul 5, 2009)

TheLe said:


> From Wired.com
> -------------------
> When asked by Joystiq about the lack of LAN support, Blizzard rep Bob Colayco responded, “While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with StarCraft II and safeguard against piracy.”



...what?

I really am having trouble believing this to be true. It just sounds so... strange. Especially from Blizzard of all companies.

Can it really be that problematic to implement LAN play capability? LAN play is the main way I have played Starcraft and Warcraft 3 multiplayer. Most often, I just prefer to play with my brother, and it is _much_ easier to do so with a direct connection compared to signing in to Battle.net and going through all the hassle of setting up a game that way.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 5, 2009)

It surely is not because they _cannot_ implement it. 

They chose not to, so everyone _has_ to use battle.net 2.0.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Jul 5, 2009)

I suspect that there's also some cheating prevention going on there, much easier to prevent if it's all going through battle.net it's much easier to regulate what mods have gone in than if it is peer to peer, 

Look at how WOW works in regards to mods.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jul 5, 2009)

Thanee said:


> It surely is not because they _cannot_ implement it.
> 
> They chose not to, so everyone _has_ to use battle.net 2.0.
> 
> ...



I only _half_ meant that, since of course they can implement it (and sarcastically questioning a company's programming competence only really works for companies _other_ than Blizzard).

Saying that it might "too problematic" can also mean that implementing it would lead to other problems, not just that the implementation itself would be the problem.

Anyways, this still is really annoying to me.


----------

