Home › News › Gaming
StarCraft 2 to lack LAN support, no chance of a console release
In an interview with IncGamers, Rob Pardo of Blizzard specifically mentioned that they have no plans to include local multiplayer support for the game. Instead, all multiplayer features will only be available for Battle.net users. This will remain a free service, so you won't find any complaints there, but the lack of support for LAN play has the potential to be a controversial move. Not everyone would have access to Battle.net at all times, and some people might just want to bring friends over to play.
In the same interview, it was also revealed that there is a “zero percent” chance that StarCraft II will appear on any modern console, with Blizzard dead set on the PC as the only supported platform. I'm still looking forward to the future release of StarCraft, but it does seem possible that Blizzard may end up alienating players as a result of these decisions. What's your opinion, is Blizzard making a mistake?
Related Stories
User Comments (38)
Post a comment|
Rick
on June 30, 2009 3:25 AM |
It is only logical. Best anti piracy method. If you want to have a value of multiplayer, you have to buy the game. I support this move by Blizzard as this is better then any other DRM out there. No, it isn't and it is very sad that anyone would support having their options arbitrarily limited. The better way to do this is to require a Battle.net logon before you can play a LAN game. Blizzard gets the exact same anti-piracy protection by verifying your product key and bnet account, but also maintains the freedom for its customers to play local games with their friends. There is no clear reason to completely remove LAN gameplay, except out of sheer laziness or contempt for customers. What makes this a step backward is that yes -- legitimate owners get multi-player via Battle.net -- but they get fewer multi-player options. Blizzard is actually taking away a common multi-player feature. In a sense, they are punishing paying customers by limiting your options. Nearly everyone expects to be able to play LAN games and its a shame Blizzard has chosen the 'easy' way out, by not programming the game with LAN support. |
|
Guest
on June 30, 2009 4:06 AM |
That's 2x .357 magnum shots, one in each foot... ouch! But it may turn out to be just a publicity stunt. |
|
shossofe
on June 30, 2009 4:34 AM |
oh my effin jeebus..........no console?????????????? Why no effin console release??!?!! Halo Wars was a perfect example on how good RTS is for console! Why not this game?! anywho, not a big shocker. Blizzard already tried their Starcraft console port to the N64 back in the day. Funny thing is that I never heard about that Starcraft 64 when I was actually playing with my N64. Blizzard failed at that game so I guess they learned their lesson and will stay away from console. (and the fact that they make games for PC mainly). But what the hell, Blizzard. No LAN support? Why no LAN? Are their exploits in your other games that take advantage of LAN (i dunno, are there?)? There is no reason to not have LAN support. That totally kills the fun from a LAN party. uhhhhhh, oh crap. Just remembered this as I type. Actually, having no LAN can actually prevent some piracy for the game. *goes into story mode* Once upon a time, I went over to IGN.com and found out that Left 4 Dead came out. Excited for the game but still skeptical, I went over to *censored* the game. Since it is a *censored* version of the game, there is no internet/multi-player capabilities. But there is LAN capabilities for Left 4 Dead. I then went ahead and downloaded *censored* (a program which makes users around the world connect to each other like a LAN server via the program) I then played the game happily for a month with these people around the world even though it is a *censored* version of the game.%%% LAN does has it's good perks. But Blizzard probably knows about this and wants no LAN option because of this growing concern over piracy. %%% I ended up buying the game so don't bother me about how I'm such a bad person. (search me up on steamcommunity if you like) hmmmm, on a totally different topic. These companies are all #itchin' about piracy and what not. Yet, the most effective so far would be the pathetic DRM thing that EA used to used. Games get cracked before they are even released, that's how much the security sucks for these games. Let's see.......USA - bad game security, Europe - bad game security, Asia - Japan can't do crap. Let's see here, games get cracked before they are even released made by the U.S./Europe/Japan/etc. but suprisingly, a KOREAN company, yes, a KOREAN company made the BEST anti piracy to date. this KOREAN company has made several hit PSP games (in korea) which had trouble being cracked (those games were cracked one week after they were released) Now, they made PC port and so far.........it has been a whole YEAR and it still isn't cracked. Secret to this is a USB dongle. The game requires you to plug in a special USB that requires it to play.Sad to say that the Koreans didn't #itch about piracy but actually did something about it. sorry.......It's 3 am and I am bored and tired.......... |
|
Guest
on June 30, 2009 9:26 AM |
Imagine, for a moment, turning on your Xbox/Ps3 to play Madden at a party with friends, only to find out that you can't play with the friends next to you unless you log into the internet. I refuse to buy this game without LAN support. Period. |
|
hellokitty[hk]
on June 30, 2009 11:40 AM |
oh my effin jeebus..........no console?????????????? Why no effin console release??!?!! Halo Wars was a perfect example on how good RTS is for console! Why not this game?! Just like starcraft64, at least I know how greatly successful and amazingly easy to play that was I think blizzard wants starcraft2 to stay a highly competitive game, which means consoles are simple to play it on XD. Please, everybody must realize LAN IS THE SAME THING AS MULTIPLAYER, instead of clicking on LAN and setting up a game and yelling at people next to you to join (screen cheat ftw?), you will have to click on a different icon saying BNET and set up a PASSWORDED game, then yell at everyone next to you to join. BNet is complicated, yes? |
|
yukka
on June 30, 2009 1:26 PM |
All Blizzard are doing is guarenteeing the creation of a pirate copy of the game with the lan feature built in. In the same way that you cant play the single player story without buying 3 copies of the game - again guarenteeing the creation of a pirate copy with all the story included. What the heck are they thinking? |
|
hellokitty[hk]
on June 30, 2009 2:22 PM |
I think mr. unnamed guest has a very valid point, I didn't finish reading but it sounds very good. I think you rather missed the point, when asking about why not STEAM or something similar... The LAN party fans are upset because they don't want to (or in many cases can't) connect through the internet for the party. So seriously, what good would an online authentication system do in a LAN party situation? If you already have the internet access, you don't necessarily NEED the LAN support. By definition, the 2 formats are basically mutually exclusive in this situation.
I can see why Blizzard went the way they went, because I've seen a few LAN parties myself where lots of "mysterious unlabeled CD" copies were passed around so everyone could play. If you force the connection to be through the internet, I'm guessing through an authentication check of some sort, at least you are making the piracy to play by LAN harder. After all, a cracked version that had LAN support could be played anytime anywhere. I can foresee official LAN support coming sometime after the initial launch, probably as a patch, once the initial sales rush has died down, and piracy is not as big an issue to Blizzard. It's that first huge rush that publishers worry about piracy affecting the most anyhow... After that period, they tend to do things like loosen up (or remove) DRM, etc. |
|
Guest
on June 30, 2009 7:18 PM |
I bet they still make money. And I bet the game will be so fun that no one will ditch it just because of no lan support. As for so called pirating, come on guys. You made a game in 1997 and people are still hacking it today. What else is wrong? Your diamond shoes are a little slippery in the rain? Your supermodel wife not giving you enough sleep? |
|
Guest
on July 1, 2009 12:34 AM |
Battle.net emulator. Remove the 45-day inactivity character deletion. Bam. LAN BNet server. Play with friends. Choose whatever you want. |
|
Guest
on July 4, 2009 8:58 PM |
I guess blizzard doesn't realize that all anti-piracy measures fail within a few hours to a few weeks of the game coming out, so really their ******. And so is all the other company's that try these stupid things to prevent piracy, it doesn't work. And forcing you to use Bnet is basically like saying "your renting the game from us, at any time we can take it away" And **** these who were at the AE lan this year know how much use Lan is... We had no internet for 3 days |
|
Guest
on July 18, 2009 10:28 PM |
I really doubt this will stop piracy at all. The people who won't buy it because of no LAN support will probably just download a hacked version anyway just to play the campaign. |
|
Guest
on July 31, 2009 6:33 AM |
As much as i agree with the reasoning, I am certain there would be better ways of doing it, such as monthly authentication etc, and i couldn't possibly support such a move. I still play starcraft to this day, (had a game this morning) and i play on GGC, which for those who don't know is a lan based gaming client. The same is true for when i play WC3. I wouldn't play either of those games anymore if it wasn't for the LAN function. I suppose, this isn't exactly a problem for blizzard, because they did sell the game both times to me, and now they have their money they don't care anymore. I have always supported blizzard for keeping the public's experience over money making, and i believe this is partly true with WoW, despitesubscription, as it keeps the game constantly updated. Another example is their continuation of Mac support as a top priority, even though the vast majority do not use Mac (myself included). I will still by SC2 when it comes out, but if i stop playing within a year, i will be very disappointed in blizzard. Emmanuel |
|
Guest
on August 8, 2009 2:14 AM |
I'm so glad that Blizzard didn't give in and release a console version, it's one thing I hate bethesda for, I have to install 20+ addons before oblivion or fallout 3 are playable, because it's made for consoles. long live PC gaming. |
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
-
iOS 5.1.1 untethered jailbreak tool released, supports 4S, iPad 3
-
After five days, Facebook ranks as worst IPO flop of the decade
-
Rumor: Windows 8 RC will launch June 1, will ship with Adobe Flash
-
Rumor: AMD "Piledriver" FX CPU production to begin Q3 2012
-
Diablo III becomes the fastest-selling PC game in history
Editors' Laptop Picks
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and tech breaking news.
