UPDATE: This story on VG247 suggests that they really mean it: no LAN support of any kind. Bananas.
An abundance of Starcraft II stuff has appeared on the grainy info screens of RPS HQ, including project lead Dustin Browder saying that the beta is set to last “four to six months”. Which means they’ll be right up against it if they’re aiming to get the game out before Christmas. In rather more bizarre news, Blizzardian hyperboss Rob Pardo has said that that the game won’t support a LAN option, and that the decision not to include it “is because of the planned technology to be incorporated into Battle.net.” Which presumably means they are going to support play over a local network, but you’ll still need to be online and logged into Battlenet on individual accounts to play. Maybe. I could be quite, quite wrong.
Seven minutes of footage – watch those tiny dudes eviscerate! – courtesy of Joystiq, below.
Related Stories:
@cliffski: Pirates either have no money or are (at least morally) idiots. DRM will not fix either of these things. Like gun control (haha, inflammatory!), it only affects the law abiding citizen. Ignore those morons and sell unencumbered games (like the kinds the pirates get to play) to people who buy games.
I guess I’ll never play it, then.
@Perilisk: ‘Piracy’ is sort of a flawed term. Try ‘lost sale’. When you lend someone a book, that’s a copy of the book that *didn’t get sold*, and the same applies to, say, selling your games second hand (publisher doesn’t see a cent). So, if you LAN on a single disc, Blizzard potentially loses sales (people have fun without forking over dough).
Re ‘the definition of piracy’: I think that’s more or less what modern EULAs make it (not sure that you’re licensed to lend/resell most games). Movies etc don’t have the same EULA. . .
The game will not be playable on LAN.
Fixed version, Warez remix:
The game will NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP be playable on LAN.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you forgot to mention that Battle Report 3 is out:
http://www.starcraft2.com/features/battlereports/3.xml
@Clockwork Harlequin
There’s a flaw in your (and Blizzard’s) logic. Namely, if a person is only interested in LAN MP (as would be implied by a person not interested in buying the game due to the presence of single disc LAN play) why would they buy a game that lacks the only mode of play that interests them?
“who plays a pirated game online anyway? There are enough hackers and cheaters as it is without playing a hex-edited .exe version that you can’t patch.”
I agree completely, but it is crackers, not hackers please. ;)
“Games aren’t $500 each, the cost per hour of fun is tiny.”
Sure, but the price of a product is not related to cost per hour, but to supply and demand. There are tons of games with 20+ hours of high quality content competing against each other, and consumers have a limited time/money budget.
forgot to add @cliffski to the top of my post: ^^^ . (I miss that edit button…)
Ranger: What is this about most people barely playing RTS for the multiplayer?
I mean, I’ve heard statistics to that effect before, but they tended to be older. This is 2009. Multiplayer isn’t an afterthought to the main show anymore– especially with a game that has as much of an e-sports presence as Starcraft.
Correct me if I’m wrong here but people keep saying when they played SC over lan it was piracy, but did not the origonal SC have a spawn mode where you could install a multiplayer only copy on someone elses computer and then could play against them. There was a disc limit I believe (like 1 disc for ever 2 or 3 players, I can’t recall) I know WC2 had this.
@Derek K
“Um, just fyi, that is piracy. Playing a game you didn’t buy, other than a demo, is piracy. Someone that doesn’t own it is playing it. That’s the *definition* of piracy. ”
You’re quite right, of course. I assume the ability to use a bit of mild piracy to play a LAN game with one’s friends is the main reason why most people care if LAN mode is supported or not, right? Considering how hard it is to get a group of diverse friends to all get the same game to play, there also isn’t really any good way to have a LAN of any size without it (Starcraft is so huge it may of course be the exception to this rule).
What I should have said was that it didn’t result in any lost sales for the developer, quite the opposite. A little “piracy” for us to play LAN together tends to convince people who haven’t bought the game to buy it themselves so they can play single player and online. My assumption is that that is the reason why Valve tend to leave a loophole allowing us to do this. I don’t think Blizzard will be doing themselves any favors if they disallow it completely.
Hmm… while I don’t fully know the reasons, I think that removing LAN is generally unnecessary and silly. Even if the usual pirates can’t play multi for free, this will probably end up with them just not buying the game at all, so Blizzard is losing x amount of sales either way.
BNETD and maphack were both derived from LAN play.
@Derek K
“Playing a game you didn’t buy, other than a demo, is piracy. Someone that doesn’t own it is playing it. That’s the *definition* of piracy.”
No, it’s not. Piracy is another word for Copyright infringement, and that is not defined by “playing a game you do not own”.
As a counter example to L4D, you are free to use a single license of Stardock’s Demigod to play in a LAN with as many People as you wish. Stardock even encourages this.
@Serondal
You’re entirely right, in fact allowing LAN play from a single disc (and in some cases even INTERNET play from a single disc) was fairly common in games of that era. At some point, developers and publishers decided that they could get more sales by removing that capability (which is basically saying “lets give them less value and they’ll buy more product!”). I’m not sure whether it’s worked or not, but sadly it wouldn’t surprise me if it had.
As sad as it is, nowadays I have to say I would be filled with joy if the only copy protection of a game would be preventing multiplayer if you don’t buy the game.
Too many copy protection systems are a hinderance to a paying customer, and also about as small hiderance to those who don’t pay. Seems like a good idea would be to avoid that.
But account based multiplayer play in a game that atleast expects to have considerable amount of multiplayer is one thing that makes some people who’d pirate the game buy it. Just think of Team Fortress 2. As far as I know there are pirate copies, you just can’t play on Steam servers with them. That’s a massive hinderance. Sure, some people still pirate and play them, but atleast personally I can see plenty of people who’d otherwise pirate the game buy it.
Sadly, I doubt that’ll be the only copy protection. We might even see something draconian and buggy. Like apparently with Anno 1404 which I’m only gonna buy after a few patches and price drop – thanks to awful drm and overpriced digital download.
Piracy debate besides, does anybody else get the nibbling sense that the gameplay looks exactly like Starcraft?
Down to the original “mobs of hard counters being danced around to play with hardcoded unit ranges”?
I know people have been weaned on the teat of Starcraft for a decade or more at this point, but we’re not playing Quake-style deathmatches right now. CoH came out. Where’s the innovation to go with the clearly gargantuan development budget?
If you read the interview, you’d see they expressly decided not to majorly revamp the multiplayer. They’re spending the budget on a 30+ mission branching campaign for each race and making all maps “great” instead of “ok”.
It seems that no matter how much developers / publishers do to shaft their paying customers, people fall over themselves to lap it up.
The more we fall for it, the more they will fuck us.
“The thing about people who rant on the internet…
Most have no willpower, and will purchase things regardless.”
This is exactly right. Why should they care if people bitch and moan on some forums. That’s what the internet is for, right? Bitching and moaning. Why should they care if these people don’t like what they do, if they buy their product anyway?
@Nalano
I genuinely think they’re afraid that, if they alter the MP play too much, they’ll lose their best market (specifically, South Korea and the other regions of Asia that regard Starcraft as a competitive sport).
My guess is this is because they’re moving to an entirely online account based system where what you’re buying is a SC2 battle.net account, and the physical media or software install is irrelevant.
I would expect there will probably be a way to play on an Internet connected LAN, but not without everyone signing into Battle.net.
@Vinraith
Well, they wouldn’t be gods of marketing if they did anything else, I suppose.
But I’ve heard the “we wanna make everything great rather than merely good” line before. It gives me shivers, and not the good kind.
nobody is being ‘fucked’ or ‘assraped’ as i often read. Some people have made a video game. You may decide to buy it, or to not do so. Thats as dramatic as it gets tbh.
@Nalano
Don’t get me wrong, I entirely share your skepticism. If they don’t innovate a bit, or at least incorporate some modern RTS advancements and polish the hell out of them, I’m not going to be interested. From the original announcement, it’s been clear that S. Korea’s the primary market. They’re not making the game with you and I in mind, so I think we’re well served to take a “wait and see” approach to the whole thing.
@Vinraith
What a concept; us not being the primary market anymore.
I have seen the future, and the future looks like Maple Story
“I have seen the future, and the future looks like Maple Story” -Nalano
I wonder how much Rob Pardo will make me pay to add bling to my battlecruisers, or schoolgirl outfits for my medics. Just kidding; I haven’t had a desire to play Starcraft in any form since Big Game Hunters ruined the internet multiplayer forever. Combined with my usual distaste for the community Blizzard titles tend to attract (I call them “Blizzkids”), the only time I would have ever played SC2 was at the weekly LAN. If thats not an option… not even a $20 “Battle Chest” of all the SP content would interest me.
Instead of bitching for or against DRM, I’ll just say that this vid leave me uninterested. 90s gameplay (basebuilding) with colourful graphics (a.k.a. WOW gayness colour palette)
Good god, what happened to the edit button?
I don’t think I am the only person who is evangelically against piracy, and also rabidly against the erosion of consumer rights and freedoms with digital media.
Call it what you like, but we as consumers are clearly losing the ability to do things that used to be simple. When I was 13 and I installed a pirated copy of Wolf 3D on my dad’s PC it didn’t end the world. It was my first step into a lifetime obsession with gaming, which has garnered id and other companies obscene amount of my money now that I am an employed adult.
The “anti-piracy” crusade, at least in the first-world, is effectively a failed attempt to prevent 13 year olds and poor college students from playing games they can’t afford or aren’t allowed to buy anyway.
Piracy is free advertising. I know few in the industry want to admit that, but chances are, if you have media that people are passionate about, and they can afford to, people are they are going to buy it.
Can’t be arsed to read everything but isn’t this the same thing steam does? Perfectly acceptable i reckon.
@cliffski: Very good point. I guess it just feels like being hard done by when people used to get something for free (e.g. LAN play on one disk) and don’t anymore. If there had never been such free LAN play no one would care so much I imagine.
I always feel sad when new games don’t allow LAN play on one disk/account whatever, but as you say it isn’t like the developers that don’t allow it do it to spite me personally. I can still get the game or not. We got two copies of ARMA 2 because I like Bohemia interactive and don’t mind paying them twice for the game. We might get another copy.
Of course, if they do multiple expansion packs with individual keys and expect multiple payments I might get annoyed. But it’s in their rights!
@Nalano “gameplay looks exactly like Starcraft”
I think that is exactly how it should be:Starcraft, Part 2.
I really like how companies like Relic or Massive Entertainment have interesting new approaches on how RTS games should play. But I see no improvement over the traditional Starcraft-style RTS, just (welcome, interesting) alternatives.
For example, scouting is a huge and interesting part of Starcraft multiplayer games, and it is almost not existent in Relic’s games. You always know how strong your enemy is in CoH or DoW2, just look at the resource distribution on the minimap. And the resource model in Starcraft is the source of countless interesting tactics.
Also, Blizzard is the only company I know who makes RTS games that work as a software platform as much as they work as a game. Editors and modding tools have been first class features of Starcraft and Warcraft. That is why WC3 has been used to create all kinds of awesome games, like Diablo style action games, adventures, tower defense games or successful multiplayer games like DotA. I do not see any other company doing this right now. You can be happy if there is a map editor and some kind of scripting interface.
Isn’t it a fairly obvious given that they will have some kind-of LAN available, even if you have to log-in first? I mean, I assume all of those competitive South Koreans are playing over LAN at tournaments.
Single disc LAN play was a glorious thing, and while I miss its presence in my games, what AAA title these days still has that?
I should add that I’m not just “giving in to the man” here with my comment; I think it’s stupid to take out single disc LAN play because I think in the end that’s *customers* (if not straight sales) lost. Nearly all of the big PC gaming franchises I keep up with (read: buy every new version of + expansions) I was introduced to by playing for free on the three computer LAN network at my gamer friend’s house (who had a gamer Dad to buy and set up a three computer LAN gaming rig in 1995). Plus, all of the households I know with more than one “serious” gamer living there all have a copy per-person of every game anyway, so that they can play on Battlenet (or the proprietary equivalent) at the same time.
This game looks worse every time I see it. It’s amazing that more than 10 years later they aren’t trying anything new with SC2. How about some more tactics and squad-based units? How about cover and more deformable terrain? How about not having to worry about optimal speed-builds and managing little drones and economy. Boring. I’ll still be playing DOW2 when this comes out.
So why do you want Blizzard to make a game that is like Dawn of War 2 if there is already Dawn of War 2 ?
It’s amazing how only a handful of comments are about the game itself. Gaming today is so meta:)
I think SC2 will flop on the long run. Only the Koreans will eat it up… maybe.
Loss of LAN support is a small price to pay for less c***s playing the game when they haven’t paid for it when I have.
“How about not having to worry about optimal speed-builds and managing little drones and economy.”
Those things are precisely what starcraft is about. If you take those away you are talking about a different game entirely. I’m not sure I’d like to see Blizz “innovate” quite so dramatically.
Cliffiski: Well what do you honestly expect them do? release the game as free?
Games like this cost a fortune to make. It might seem ’silkly’ to you for them to try and prevent widespread piracy of it, but the conversation in the board room will be:
“Either we have some DRM to prevent offline play, or we just make an MMO”
If you want to be angry at someone about it, be angry at the pirates. The future is Civony, and games like it. Thats what games companies have been driven to.
yes it sucks.
You know, I love explanations like this. It’s not like the pirates won’t pirate the game anyway. And its not like people won’t be running faux battle.net servers anyway. Like they don’t run faux wow servers now.
I can see that this might be an experiment, but when you basically take away a key feature in PC gaming that has been in existence since the inception of multiplayer, I MUST PROTEST.
I really wonder how the Koreans will manage with no LAN option…
Also:
Clockwork Harlequin: “When you lend someone a book, that’s a copy of the book that *didn’t get sold*, and the same applies to, say, selling your games second hand (publisher doesn’t see a cent).”
That’s a shitty example. In my experience most cases don’t involve you lending books to people after they’ve asked you if you have THAT EXACT BOOK and could lend it. What really happens is that you liked the book and think they’d enjoy it too, while they had never heard of neither book nor author and thus wouldn’t have bought it anyway. Later they might then go and buy more books by the same author if they liked yours, or they don’t and didn’t. Just sucks if you’re a lazy author only ever managing to write one book – but can’t have everything, I guess.
Same thing with pirated LAN play, at least as long as there isn’t a good multiplayer demo you could point someone to instead, and the online multiplayer still requires an original to play on official servers.
Used sales on the other hand satisfy a genuine, pre-existing interest to buy your product and are thus much worse (although I still don’t think they’re OMG, THE DEVIL, TO THE PROPAGANDAMOBILE).
NERRRRRDDDD RAGGGEEEEEEE
Yeah guys, I’m sure they completely neglected to consider the massive LAN audience, particularly in South Korea that turned Starcraft into a damned national religion.
Nope, no alternative solutions. No nothing. Fuck those guys!
If this really is for piracy though — and it most likely is — are they not confident in that Battle.net’s offerings will detract enough from that? I remember Valve speaking about how pirates are just really “underserved customers”, and here we have Blizzard with a new version of Battle.net, that if it holds true to their promises really should be so great a service it couldn’t possibly underserve anyone.
LAN play was one of the main reasons I got into StarCraft in the first place–several jobs ago we’d all fire the game up in the office while we waited for traffic to die down.
Given the number of proxies that most companies and university campuses have these days, and how quickly Bnet access will go away (if it’s not gone already), having zero LAN option would mean a decrease in revenue. Must not be enough to offset the amount they think they’ll gain in an effort to stave off piracy.
None of the flying units I’ve seen in SC2 are as good as the packs of Brawlers in Total Annihilation, and that game came out years ago.
Ah, the sweet smell of unilateral dickishness. When exactly did Blizzard and EA swap personalities, anyway?
Activision.
Y’know…
I don’t really care.
Well, chalk this up to having no one to play LAN with.
But besides that, I’ve lost all sympathy for the whiny bastards that love go all knee-jerk and DEMAND three miniature campaigns instead of one awesome massive campaign, JUST because it’s what they’re used to and the concept of it being different in a Blizzard game is just SO HORRIBLE that they CANNOT comprehend how it could POSSIBLY not suck and/or drain money out the ass (despite most likely having paid well over $150 on WoW subscriptions alone)….
So, yeah. I guess you could say I’m out of touch with most of the so-called Blizzard “fan base”. Oh, well.
‘Isn’t ‘eviscerate’ a transitive verb?’
keep your grammar off the internet.
@Zyrusticae:
The Blizzard fandom is one of the worst ever. All change is bad change. Until change happens again, then the old change was better you should go back baaaaaaaaaaw.
From what I’ve read about the South Korean phenomenon, there is absolutely no guarantee that they will even like SC2. They are not in it for the story, or because they are huge Blizzard fans. For all we know, they’ll just say “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?” and keep playing the original.