What a dissapointment. I was already about to write off ever buying SC2 because of how they were releasing all the races as expansions, but no LAN capability puts the nail nail in that coffin for me.

Bah, SC2 is gonna suck.

there is a petition where you can sign to encourage blizzard to employ LAN in SC2.

it is - imho - written quite well and worth to be signed.

hopefully, it might be a small opportunity to push them in the right direction

-> http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html is the petition

Nah, this is Activision at work. They've got their fingerprints over a lot of stuff lately, like how WoW is now going to allow you to change a character's faction (and thus race), for a fee. That was previously something they said they weren't going to do.

That buyout is a bad, bad thing.

Actually, the only fair way to hold a tournie is to host it over a LAN. That way you make absolutely certain everyone is playing on equal ground as far as ping goes. With all the micro that the pro players use, you want the best possible connectivity, especially if its a tournie with a prize at the end.

Personally, I don't care... I won't be buying SC2 because they won't have all three racial campaigns available from the start. Now, if the asking price for each part was 1/3 of the usual, then I'd buy... but I bet you it will be full price.

I now have 4 computer at my home; 2 are not connected to the net.  We use them to play Lan games all the time, but obviously, won't be playing with SC2.  Besides, I'm not going to buy FOUR copies for one household. . .

Yeah, right.

Every game company buyout/merger follows that script at the time. It appeases the fans. It's usually not true. This whole thing fits Activision's M.O. to perfection. Exploit, develop rapid sequels, and monetize everything in sight. Blizzard suddenly changing directions on faction switching fits far too well to be something they just randomly decided to do, considering it's going to be a paid feature.

Why would you want six people all going to the Internet and back when you can connect locally and have zero latency? We used to play Starcraft games on laptops using ad-hoc networks that had no Internet. We'd also play at school during lunch in the computer lab, where they really didn't want you using Internet bandwidth on games (but didn't care a whole lot about LAN traffic).

Not to mention that every time Blizzard releases a new game, battle.net is a laggy broken mess for weeks. It happened with Starcraft, Diablo 2, and Warcraft 3.

This affects actual customers too. I'm one of them, I own every Blizzard release since Warcraft 2, and one from before they were even called Blizzard (Rock and Roll Racing for the SNES, that was a blast). Saying "oh you must be a pirate if you actually have a problem with them stripping out LAN" is just a nonsense cop-out.

Some of you (meaning most people) are pretty uninformed on this.

Blizzard have said that they'll implement L.A.N. through Battle.net 2.0 somehow.

And the release as a trilogy is just the same as releasing one game and then two expansions.

Means: first they'll release the core game which includes the Terran campaign and then they'll make two EXPANSIONS.

It's like buying starcraft 1 and then buying two brood war expansions (not relating to price).

Obvious information that many people don't seem to get.

Sorry if this post came out abit rude but it's incredibly annoying.

(odd, I can't type capital r anymore. It brings up some weird ruler thing instead.)

So when rob pardo said "we will not support LAN", what he really meant was "we will support LAN"?

I can see how that might confuse people.

What if the house where the lan party is going on doesn't have an internet connection or not a flat one? Surpise surpise...you can't play (or you're going to open a mutual at the bank in the second case), that is REALLY annoying and just add malcontent to loyal players and customers...not the right path to follow in my opinion.

Those childrens in Korea are also a good example, if they can't get on bnet they're just..doomed..funny! It just happened I got lucky not to be born there? Out of every logic as people will probably end up with torrent after summing up everything (hype/disappointment, no lan, price, game divided in more than one box, etc) and enjoy the singleplayer just because they feel offended to be treated like criminals and/or sheeps when they make sacrificies and pay up to every single cent...I certanly feel so.

They could add the free coffee-machine to bnet and even with that I couldn't care less, it's about how people are being treated. A principle issue, if you want. Someone once said "innocent, til proved guilty"...wise words.

They are actually supporting piracy, not stopping it, and they're not alone..sadly.

Now they just have to do this to Diablo 3, I will learn how to code and will personally make the cure myself, I swear, one less for the good side and one gained for evil...those are the results, now project them on a 50 years time span from now and think...

God bless Stardock and their protection-free-with-lan games.

Petition signed.

Lo

No... nope, I don't see that one at all.

It's like buying one third of a game at full price, then buying the other two thirds as expansions. Starcraft I had three playable factions, and a tri-fold storyline. So Starcraft II better have a damn epic story of megaawesomeness if they hope to justify the asking price.

Actually Gerry, I pretty much played every single title Blizzard released, all the way back to the original Warcraft.

And I did not say their games suck, though whether SC2 will be a shiny AAA rehash of things already seen or something actually new an original, remains to be seen.

Personally, although I love the works of Blizzard's CGI artists, cinematic movies do not define content for me. An intriguing storyline, interesting gameplay, those things are important. And as I said, they better have a whoopkickarse story and gameplay going on to justify splintering the races into three parts - otherwise its just a cheap way to make more money by selling the same cow three times.

IF B-net 2 makes it possible to actually link up computers in a physical lan, provided that some sort of server authentication takes place without requiring people to connect to a hub, then I see no problem with that.

Though if that is the case, then its also a waste of money because if the networking code exists, then hackers and pirates can just strip out the authentication part.