StarCraft II lead producer stands firm on LAN policy |
Ó
Last month, Destructoid's Jonathan Ross got to pay Blizzard a visit, and there he got to talk with the lead producer of StarCraft II, Chris Sigaty. Of course, hot on everyone's mind is their decision to remove LAN support from the game. "There's a lot of reasons," Sigaty said. "Probably the biggest reason, the most important factor for us is, when you experience the new online experience -- it's an integrated experience." And while it was a tough decision to drop LAN, it was ultimately the only way their vision for Battle.net could work - to have everybody be on board in the same network.
But that's what the people want, right? To have a wicked multiplayer experience? To this, he reassured that Blizzard is "working on technology right now to enable a best-case connection for the situations when you are all close to one another so that you have a good experience."
It still does not answer for the fact that the fans specifically want LAN. How does he think this will impact their sales? That people will turn to piracy just so they can have their LAN fix? Sigaty said that they are very much aware of the possible scenarios that might happen, but that they really have their eyes set on the Battle.net goal. The key, therefore, is to have people log in to Battle.net, play the game and realize that Battle.net is just as good as having LAN, probably if not better.
I'm sure a lot of you are still skeptical about this. And from the way things are going, it looks like this is gonna be one tight deadlock, especially as the Online Petition for LAN on StarCraft II just landed a wicked cool 100,000 support signatures.
Related Articles:
- Analysts: Blizzard cannot be rushed into launching StarCraft II, can earn up to US$ 4 million
- Blizzard confirms: We won't be seeing StarCraft II till 2010
Via Destructoid
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
Accessories
Artwork
Betas, Testing
Deals
Demo
Drivers
Events
Featured Articles
Genre
Guides, Tips, and Tricks
Hardware
Humor
Interviews
Lore
Mods
News
Off Topic
On Shelves This Week
Opinions & Analysis
Patches
Previews
Reviews
Rumors
Scans
Screenshots
Site News
Steam
Titles
Utilities
Videos
Windows Live
XNA Studio Homebrew
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments [refresh]
What is more important? Do you please your fans who will (and already have made) make you rich? Or do you please your investors or whatever string pullers there might be by pissing your fans off? Blizzard is focusing on the "have nots" instead of the things they have...
11 Million copies of Star Craft sold and Blizzard is crying about how they could have made sooo much more if piracy wasn't an issue. While it is 100% true that companies lose money to piracy, they're losing sight of how much they actually have made. Its never good enough. Its just sick to me that they have such a corporate view: "We're not growing, we're dieing!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yFCW6YTWl8
Blizzard = John Goodman in this case.
at least it looks like they're going to be utilizing LAN connections at least.
I guess what'll happen is you can go online, create a private game and have people in your LAN join, then the game picks that up and uses LAN connection so there's no speed hit
And my ***** stands firm, on the "Blizzard can suck my *****" policy.
I think the idea behind this is if Blizzard can contain you to Battle.net no matter what, then they can also start throwing in charges for things. Battle.net premium anyone?
You have just lost another customer out of the many more that will come
This, "New" battlenet had been be friggen amazing with ZERO lag and 1/3 of the bugs that normal battlenet has. I doubt it. I've already had my WoW account bugged out thanks to the switch to the new battlenet. So yeah, not that optimistic.
But hey, let me give them the benefit of the doubt. If it works great, awesome. If it doesn't, well... I'll buy it anyway. LAN has always been awesome, I signed the petition, but I'm not going to pretend like I won't buy it. With 100,000 people signing a petition, I'm betting someone will find a way around it.
I remember playing Warcraft III with one disc and some ghetto rigging for LAN play. It was awesome and I didn't have to buy a copy. That being said, that is exactly what they are trying to stop, so yeah...
What's the big deal with not having lan, sounds like the only people that want lan want to pirate the game.... Blizzard sounds to me like they want to keep battle.net strong and also make sure you're just not pirating the thing and then just playing on a lan connection. They'll probably set it up to where the data only goes across your network but you'll just have to sign into battle.net to make sure your version isn't pirated. You're all a bunch of whiners who will end up buying it regardless. Blizzard spends millions and millions of dollars on development and feeds a ton of families..... pay for the game
I'm not going to pirate it, and I'm not going to buy it if it doesn't have LAN. LAN is the closest you can get to 0 lag. When playing a Real Time Strategy game, you kind of lose the whole "real time" with 125ms of lag. This is obviously not important to you, but it is important to tons of people. 100,000 signatures are proof of that. You need to stop whining about things that don't even effect you.
That's a big saying. How about that # get to like a million then we start talking or even half a million.