Why Blizzard Should Enable LAN to SC2/D3
A brief look at an obvious reason why Activision Bizzard should include LAN support for StarCraft II and Diablo III.
Recently Activision Blizzard revealed that its upcoming sci-fi themed RTS StarCraft II would not feature LAN support when the first installment hits the streets by the end of the year. Just yesterday, it was revealed that Diablo III would more than likely depend on Battle.net for the multiplayer portion, and not include LAN support.
The company cited piracy and security issues, but as one disgruntled fan wrote on a (now deleted) forum post, removing LAN only hurts the legitimate customers. After all, pirates will reverse-engineer the games and enable LAN support anyway; they'll even launch dedicate servers to enable multiplayer across an illicit Internet network.
So from Activision Blizzard's point of view--seemingly rather cocky at the moment after recent threats to halt development for the PlayStation 3--why would the company invest development funds to include LAN support in its upcoming games? After all, the company has (presumably) dumped loads of financial resources to make Battle.net the final multiplayer destination for all Blizzard games. For those fans who have already set up an account on the new Battle.net 2.0, Activision Blizzard has overhauled the free service, enhancing it visually and even offer digital downloads of older games when provided serial numbers. There's even speculation that the service will eventually offer a paid service, however Blizzard CEO and President Mike Morhaime ignored the question when asked during E3 2009, only saying that he was not ready to talk about the subject.
But let's face it: there's no replacing LAN play. When asked to write an article on why LAN support should be included in StarCraft II and Diablo III, the first image that came to mind were the faces of friends, all unshaven, sleep deprived, with bags of food and crumbled empty soda cans littering the floor. While the Internet brings the world together, LAN support brings friends together whether it's in the basement, the living room, or stretched out across the house in a crazy jungle of electronic vines. There's nothing better than to hear the anguish of defeated buddies, their cursing voices echoing off the walls. LAN support makes the game more personal, which in turn makes the experience that more enjoyable.
Of course, it's highly possible to have a fake LAN game on Battle.net using wireless connections. But what if the connections are limited, or there's no Internet access in the area? What if gamers simply want to whip out laptops on the road and battle each other without tethering or using wireless minutes? Activision Blizzard will deny that ability with StarCraft II, and that's really not fair. It's not fair that legitimate customers--those who work hard and shell out the bucks for a new game during tough economic conditions--have no say on how--or where--they get to play the game. In one sense, that's like Ford saying that your new truck can't drive on dirt roads.
Obviously, that's a bit of an exaggeration. There's a lot of passion behind LAN play, and many gamers obviously reject the idea of playing without the support. Who can blame them? On a personal level, Activision Blizzard's claim about piracy and security reasons seem bogus. The company wants its consumers to play on Battle.net only; it wants to know when and for how long gamers play the games. While this may sound like a conspiracy theory, there really doesn't seem to a be a valid point for removing LAN without further explanation. Just how is LAN a security issue, and if that is indeed the case, how was that handled with previous StarCraft and Diablo titles which actually do offer LAN support? And how exactly is LAN a piracy issue? If the game must be activated through Battle.net, gamers could still skirmish offline.
No, the reasons sound bogus.
Maybe players don't care about achievements, stat-tracking and some of the other features Battle.net supposedly will offer. Maybe gamers just want to kick their friend's ass just like the old days.
As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
- Acer Chief Says There Are Too Many PC Companies
- Microsoft Facing EU Antitrust Probe for Office
- OP: Is There a Difference Between Google & MSFT?
- Google Announces Chrome Operating System
- QOTD: What Determines Your Upgrade Cycle?
- No LAN for Diablo III Too?
- Bing is Growing Out of Beta Too
- Google Apps Crawl Out of Beta Status, Finally
- Microsoft Warns Users of 'Zero Day' Security Issue
- Asus Eee Keyboard Taken Apart and Explored
- Google Announces Chrome OS Partners
- Google: Yes, the Chrome OS Will Be Free
- Leaked: First Images of Chrome OS? (Not)
- QOTD: How Much Are Google's Services Worth?
- Windows 7 Family Pack Priced at $20-$30 More?
- Watch the Flashy Office 2010: The Movie Trailer
- Nvidia Desktop GPUs Hit 40-nm
- Patriot SSDs Offer 10-Year Warranty
Well if no LAN support makes it in then bomb battle.net with DoS until nobody can play it. Or don't buy the game.
Money is obviously their motivator, hit them where it hurts.
@LePhuronn I don't think that's the answer.
Ironically as had been pointed out. Hackers can mod the game for LAN so the only people enjoying LAN play will be the people who have pirated the game.
I will not be buying the game unless it offers LAN support. If that means I have to go get a cracked copy with some patches to get what I want then Blizz have only themselves to blame.
The great thing about Starcraft and D1 & D2 was the LAN support those games have. As this article says, there is nothing better than having all your friends in a room hacking and slashing.
It is a huge shame and very disapointing when companies forget what there customers really want. I'm a big fan of Blizzard games. I think they make games that people want to play. The best way to enjoy there games will always involve LAN. Anything else will still be enjoyable, but it won't be as good as it could be.
That's the truth of it.
I dont care if DS3 has no LAN support, I would rather be able to play co-op mode through Battle net than not at all and if this also secures updates and patches.
How many peopl dont have some sort of internet access and why do you need to have the game LAn based?
@euphoria
It is the answer - People who are paying good money for the game are getting hurt. People who were never going to buy the game will get the hacked version the paying customer wants!
It's DRM and the only thing a company will listen to is the sound of no money. Don't buy it and tell them why in an email.
Find the lead guys name in the credits online and send him and email. Can't find that, write them a letter.
Dear Sir
I would love to buy your game at full price and see all your team’s hard work. It looks great and seems well worth the £30 -$60.
Unfortunately, your company or publisher has added in some DRM software / requires online activation / no lan support / which means I shall not be purchasing it,
As I do not enjoy being treated like a criminal when paying for a product.
There are rather a lot of games I wish to play; but will not. It is a shame that pirates get to play version which do not have such intrusive DRM software installed, yet legitimate customers such as myself get punished for paying for a product.
Tages, SecuROM and the other DRM software have been totally ripped open and I cannot see why publishers bother!
I’d love to buy a no DRM version of your game. I really want to enjoy all your effort and hard work.
Regards
It's nice to play a game face to face across a desk with someone. Verbally abuse the hell out of them, then have a drink afterwards, describing all the best bits of the game you just played. Internet games are faceless by comparison.
LAN Parties have produced some of the best gaming moments for me. I've played in online Quake tournaments and had great moments playing in tense team deathmatch games, but nothing that beats the LAN for fun, especially with alcohol involved.
@euphoria It is the answer - People who are paying good money for the game are getting hurt. People who were never going to buy the game will get the hacked version the paying customer wants!
I was saying that Dos attacks were not the answer, that would harm the paying customer and is a selfish way to get what you want. I do agree with your other points though.
I feel that Blizzard has lost their way, but they do still listen to their fans, although this normally only happens after a long time and they realise that they could be making more money.
I was saying that Dos attacks were not the answer, that would harm the paying customer and is a selfish way to get what you want.
It will probably happen though. Quite often when a game comes out that requires a central authentication service, that system goes down at peak times for the first few days under the weight of game or from DDoS traffic.
I buy about 1-2 PC games a year at the moment. I cant be bothered with the bugs or political nonsense surrounding them. PC gaming only exists because nVidia and ATi push it and I'm stupid enough to buy the damn cards to gain about an hours worth of pleasure per year.
I want Doom II and Duke Nukem 3D days back. Real no nonsense gaming.
I after admit I’ve downloaded quite a few games over my time in pc gaming .but the fact is if the game is good people will buy it fact. take the Sims for example .I will be buying it Blizzard's always made great games and I’ve always paid for them. it’s not about piracy and let’s be honest it about how good the game is .people will download startcraft 2 but even if they could not they would not buy it anyway .take crisis for example the devs were jumping up and down why the game was not selling .why because it was not playable on most pc.s why bring a game out that nobody can play .I conclude that starcraft might not be as good Blizzard wants use to believe does not sound like confidence in there product .
the removal of lan support could stop people from buying the game and download a pirated version instead which has been modified to support lan.
i think they will eventually like alot of companies switch to make you pay per month for online play, i herd EA plans to do that with the new
"CODMW2", that or blizzard is just so cocky they don't think games will actually protest not buying the game, i know if they choose this route they lost me as a life long customer, just like EA did when they used DRM.
Well said, there is no fun in playing against random's online... The real is fun facing up against your friends and tormenting them with your victory, having them head home and practise for the next LAN to make their comeback!
I planned to fly across the world back to my home country to hookup with my good friends (Which I had lanned Diablo 2 countless times for weeks in a row) for a week long LAN when Diablo 3 is released!! This news is so dissapointing to us all!
I am losing heart for Blizzard for the first time ever.. This doesn't bode well.
"What if gamers simply want to whip out laptops on the road and battle each other "
implying gaming on laptops I LOLED
"What if gamers simply want to whip out laptops on the road and battle each other "implying gaming on laptops I LOLED
If you look at the standard LAN games like, Warcraft 3, CS:S, CS:1.6, Q3 and Q4, most of them except maybe Q4 will run on most laptops, and some will run on netbooks.