Starcraft II - NO LAN FOR YOU!

[Umbran]

Frakkin' Comcast.

It isn't Comcast as a whole. I've had Comcast for something approaching a decade, and not lost connection due to them. I have had multiple routers die on me, but the connection was still here.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

It isn't Comcast as a whole. I've had Comcast for something approaching a decade, and not lost connection due to them. I have had multiple routers die on me, but the connection was still here.

It's amazingly interesting how, occasionally, at (say) 8 PM, my connection will go from great to kaput. And then stay that way until, oh, 10 PM. On the dot.

That *has* to be them.

Brad

 

[Thanee]

There, you have it. Playing via LAN is no quality. They just want to save you from that misery!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Nylanfs]

It's amazingly interesting how, occasionally, at (say) 8 PM, my connection will go from great to kaput. And then stay that way until, oh, 10 PM. On the dot.

That *has* to be them.

Brad

That is because cable is a series instead of parallel. Ie if everyone in your neighborhood (or heaven forbid, a apartment complex) starts requesting data at roughly the same time then everyone's throughput diminishes.

 

[TwinBahamut]

From Wired.com
-------------------
When asked by Joystiq about the lack of LAN support, Blizzard rep Bob Colayco responded, “While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with StarCraft II and safeguard against piracy.”

...what?

I really am having trouble believing this to be true. It just sounds so... strange. Especially from Blizzard of all companies.

Can it really be that problematic to implement LAN play capability? LAN play is the main way I have played Starcraft and Warcraft 3 multiplayer. Most often, I just prefer to play with my brother, and it is much easier to do so with a direct connection compared to signing in to Battle.net and going through all the hassle of setting up a game that way.

 

[Thanee]

It surely is not because they cannot implement it.

They chose not to, so everyone has to use battle.net 2.0.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Moon_Goddess]

I suspect that there's also some cheating prevention going on there, much easier to prevent if it's all going through battle.net it's much easier to regulate what mods have gone in than if it is peer to peer,

Look at how WOW works in regards to mods.

 

[TwinBahamut]

It surely is not because they cannot implement it.

They chose not to, so everyone has to use battle.net 2.0.

Bye
Thanee

I only half meant that, since of course they can implement it (and sarcastically questioning a company's programming competence only really works for companies other than Blizzard).

Saying that it might "too problematic" can also mean that implementing it would lead to other problems, not just that the implementation itself would be the problem.

Anyways, this still is really annoying to me.