LAN support not included in StarCraft II
by JC Fletcher 
{ Jun 29th 2009 at 4:30PM }
If this is true, Battle.net is the only multiplayer option in StarCraft II, and the era of the LAN party has officially ended -- we suppose you could still bring your computer over to someone else's house, but you no longer need to. More than that, we suspect that this will be just one of the things that thousands of daily StarCraft players are going to freak out about, because it's something in the new game that is the slightest bit different from the old game.
[Via IGN]
Gallery: Starcraft II (6/29/09)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
deaftly @ Jun 29th 2009 4:31PM
Korea is fucked.
whylekat @ Jun 29th 2009 4:45PM
Yeah really! How are they ever gonna sell out those stadiums without Starcraft LAN battles!?
Ha still amazes me that video games sell out before sports or pop stars over there.
tDI Hennessy @ Jun 29th 2009 4:59PM
I will vote with my wallet. No buy. They just killed 3 client sales from my house alone. I know it wont kill them to not have my money, but on the other hand... thats 3 OTHER games I can buy to play with my family.
XGM @ Jun 29th 2009 5:13PM
Yea hope that doesn't piss them off too much, with their nukes and all.
Frostybolts @ Jun 29th 2009 5:19PM
South and North Korea will finally be reunited, but on the side of EVIL
WiredKnight @ Jun 29th 2009 6:18PM
Oh noes, I guess they'll just have to connect to the internet!
AtomicPlayboy @ Jun 29th 2009 7:34PM
Yeah, even though I couldn't care about LAN play myself, and suspect most players won't miss it either, I'm surprised that this feature is absent, given the popularity of SC in SK and the importance of near-zero-lag for their intense, extremely popular matches. I'd also think it would be really, really simple to implement. Go figure.
Giroro @ Jun 30th 2009 12:31AM
Isn't LAN one of the barest essentials to ANY multiplayer PC game?
I mean is it that hard to include something so basic, or will people playing in the same room just have to deal with internet latency?
The Baron @ Jun 29th 2009 4:32PM
This is a terrible decision if they want to make the millions of Starcaft players to rebuy the game.
Hakaisou @ Jun 29th 2009 5:09PM
You people are all complete idiots. What exactly is to stop you from bringing your laptop/gaming rig to your friends house, hook up to their network, and play over battle.net? The only way this actually functionally restricts people is if they are using bootleg/unauthorized copies of the game, because they never performed those tests when you connected directly via LAN.
Also, the argument that not everyone has internet access is pretty weak because most people who can't wait for Starcraft II to drop already have internet access, and as far as organizing tournaments, I seem to recall something about Blizzard saying that they were redesigning Battle.Net to help facilitate that sort of thing.
Lukeyo @ Jun 29th 2009 5:11PM
Well I'll tell you what, I'm no idiot. Every few months I have a LAN party up at my family's cabin, and there's no internet where we're at.
It's a ridiculous decision to leave out any form of viable multi-player.
Dummy00001 @ Jun 29th 2009 5:20PM
> It's a ridiculous decision to leave out any form of viable multi-player.
I guess this was another of those "think of legitimate buyers!!!!" decisions.
If SC2 would be as half as popular as SC1, I'm pretty sure that "bnetd" or similar would appear sooner than later allowing for LAN parties as before.
Frankly: lack of LAN party is f****ed up.
Personally, not a huge fan of SC - but speaking on behalf of all of my friends who are.
Alphathon @ Jun 29th 2009 5:23PM
@Hakaisou: Ever hear of lag? What if Battle.net goes down when you want to play? Or your internet connection? What if you actually want a LAN sonewhere where there isn't internet (when I was at UNI we used to have LANs in one of the unis rooms that we'd rent out, and it had no internet)
mayq @ Jun 29th 2009 9:20PM
@Hakaisou
I got my internet connection about a year after I moved into japan, it's a little bit hard to get one if you can't understand their language well. We could only play LAN games during that time.
I also have some friends who have unreliable internet connections, sometimes, their connection would be temporarily cut off when someone calls their landline.
Most people may not really need lan support for starcraft 2, but some do, and how would you feel if you're included in that minority?
The Baron @ Jun 30th 2009 9:34PM
LAN is a big part of the Starcraft culture. I'm not one of them, and you're perfectly entitled to call them idiots, but at the end of the day they're the ones with wallets and Blizzard is the one with shareholders.
Cicadymn @ Jun 29th 2009 4:34PM
It's already in three parts. Couldn't they give their players a break? Seems excessive to not put that in to me.
mietha CAG @ Jun 29th 2009 4:36PM
Seriously. We are talking about a fan base that is still avidly playing a game released last MILLENNIUM. LAN play was a huge part of SC's popularity, and many will rightly be quite upset by it's absence.
Lone Starr @ Jun 29th 2009 4:50PM
Last millennium? That's not quite fair...
That being said, I agree this is FUBAR.
obiewanshinobi @ Jun 29th 2009 4:37PM
This is a horrible trend in gaming. At my college dorm we tried to hook up two Xbox 360s on two separate TVs for 4 v 4 COD 4 multiplayer and we ended up finding out it only supported 1 v 1.
My first experience with Starcraft was in an after school lan tournament in the seventh grade. As a result, I bought the battlechest.
My first experience with counterstrike was with lan play at a summer camp after the eighth grade.
To the future people who say this doesn't matter: You're noobs with no friends.
Storm Eagle @ Jun 29th 2009 4:39PM
In reference to my post below:
I'm not saying it doesn't suck. I'm right there with you. My first Halo experience was at an Xbox LAN party. So I know the joy LAN can bring. All I'm saying is Starcraft fans will buy it regardless.
Dummy00001 @ Jun 29th 2009 5:22PM
> To the future people who say this doesn't matter: You're noobs with no friends.
+1.
But most horrifying: they are not n00bs. They are simply well used to lube up are and bent over.
Penguin Warlord @ Jun 29th 2009 9:38PM
Finally someone gets it.
I have to say, there must be more people than me who really enjoy games the most when playing with friends, in the same room. Why do games cut out 4 player co-op (or at the very least 4 player splitscreen)?? Me and my friends always end up playing Halo 3, or Rockband. These are the only good 4 player games for the 360. CoD is fun for a while but 4 players is not enough for a good battle.
And can someone explain why L4D is only 2players per console ????
Andrew @ Jun 29th 2009 10:32PM
Thank you very much, sir. You've summed up my opinion on modern gaming in general.
I don't understand that when the stereotype of the gamer was a shut in, local multiplayer with friends & family was abundant, but now in the age where gamers are being accepted as social (read: normal) people, they are being shut in a basement or a computer room alone to play with other gamers online?
rallion @ Jun 30th 2009 12:56AM
The easiest way to play with friends is over bNet, not LAN. I remember back when SC was out I would play with my school friends 3-4 times per week, but we sure as hell weren't going to have LAN parties that often.
Dustin @ Jun 29th 2009 4:37PM
Can you say subscription service?
aristokrat @ Jun 29th 2009 5:36PM
The writing's on the wall. PC gamers have opened themselves up to a terrible fate with the success of subscription gaming, and it's only going to get worse. If it weren't for the PSN being free (because it had to be in order to compete), I'm sure console subscription charges would be heavy too.
Sarth @ Jun 29th 2009 4:36PM
To: Blizzard
From: Korea
Subject: Fuck You
Read On>>
mouldtooth @ Jun 29th 2009 4:40PM
what do you mean?
lawlersauce @ Jun 29th 2009 4:43PM
Koreans love Starcraft, more importantly, Koreans love LAN Starcraft.
They are like...born loving it or something. Koreans not loving Starcraft is like...white people not loving yoga and dogs with human names.
Jobias @ Jun 29th 2009 4:46PM
@mouldtooth
A significant number of people in Korea play Starcraft in PC bangs (internet cafes), playing against other people in the same room. While so far it sounds like this will still technically be possible, having to sign online and maintain a valid Battle.net account in good standing in order to play with someone 2 feet away from you won't help unseat Brood War in Korea.
In addition, this may completely remove the ability to play anonymously, forcing you to use an identity which may be freely looked up whenever you play, even if it's in a PC bang. Some people might think that this is a good thing (ie. discourages griefing), but I'm sure someone can provide plenty of legitimate reasons to preserve anonymous multiplayer (perhaps you're working on strategies for an upcoming tournament that you want to practice on privately).
Ordeith @ Jun 29th 2009 4:50PM
One word.. LAG.. it matters.
Play a gam on the LAN eliminate the lag.
Drew -- PS360: uphillbothways @ Jun 29th 2009 5:03PM
Kevin is deeply offended.
Kevin is my dog.
Help me! @ Jun 29th 2009 5:24PM
Good luck doing anything anonymously in Korea
chispito @ Jun 29th 2009 7:09PM
I can't imagine that an 8-player match would run smoothly over most Internet connections. This is a stupid move if they really aren't planning to put in any sort of LAN play.
Storm Eagle @ Jun 29th 2009 4:37PM
Pfft. Like it matters. Diehard fans will bitch and complain all the way up til the game's release and then be the first people in line to buy the game when it does come out.
mike @ Jun 29th 2009 5:09PM
Didn't know that sales were the be-all and end-all for games. Aren't you supposed to play them afterwards or something? Not having LAN would still matter in that case.
Ally @ Jun 30th 2009 8:15AM
Are you that naive?
They run a business, they're there to make money!
evantravers @ Jun 29th 2009 4:37PM
LAN is over? I highly doubt it... has anyone seen Counter Strike? :P
Drew -- PS360: uphillbothways @ Jun 29th 2009 5:04PM
Has anyone seen a college dorm?
CaramelZappa @ Jun 29th 2009 4:39PM
I'm getting less and less interested in this game.
gamer4250 @ Jun 29th 2009 4:41PM
Not like somebody is going to make a mod that enables LAN mode or anything.
Ubercharged @ Jun 29th 2009 4:42PM
This is ridiculous, I literally had a starcraft lan two days ago and it was a ton of fun. And it isnt like we could all still meet and connect to battlenet because in our case the router wasnt connected to the internet. I cant believe that they wouldnt include something like this, it seems so basic.
Shagittarius @ Jun 29th 2009 4:42PM
That's just plain lazy really.
jduke @ Jun 29th 2009 4:43PM
"we suspect that this will be just one of the things that thousands of daily StarCraft players are going to freak out about, because it's something in the new game that is the slightest bit different from the old game."
Slightest bit different?
LAN was a major feature in the game, and plenty of people still gather together to play LAN now. This is plain and simply removing a feature, most likely to to force multiplayer eyes on ads that will be in the new battle.net
Discotheque @ Jun 29th 2009 4:43PM
Fuck that! What a dumb move.
lokar82 @ Jun 29th 2009 4:45PM
I don't think it's laziness, I think they are scared of piracy is why they are doing this. If everyone has to phone home to Blizzard to play multiplayer, you can't have a LAN party where everyone uses the same CD to install.
Danthok @ Jun 29th 2009 4:51PM
I agree with you. However, how much money does a company need? They are already raking in how many million a month with WoW subscription fees?
Come on Blizzard take the high road, think of your fans! You are at risk of alienating thousands of them, this one included.
Yakapo @ Jun 29th 2009 4:56PM
As usual the people that buy the game will be handicapped.
Dante G @ Jun 29th 2009 5:20PM
Yep, this is DRM done the "fuck the user" way.
Ordeith @ Jun 29th 2009 5:31PM
I'd like to think this is the Activision side of the company shining through.