As part of my trip to Blizzard last month, I spoke with the lead producer of StarCraft II, Chris Sigaty. Right off the bat, I asked him the question that's really been on everyone's mind -- why is there no LAN play in StarCraft II? His response?
"There's lots of reasons," he told me. "Probably the biggest reason, the most important factor for us is, when you experience the new online experience -- it's an integrated experience."
Chris went on to say that for the upcoming Battle.net is for players to "stay connected." He said that it was a tough decision to drop LAN, but ultimately having everyone be on the same network was the only way their vision for Battle.net would work. Finding friends to play with or against, comparing achievements -- those don't work if some people are connecting through LAN.
Hit the jump for more.
When I asked him how he thought the lack of LAN would impact tournament play, he said that Blizzard is aware that all people really want out of StarCraft II is a solid, fun multiplayer experience. He stated 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."
Finally, I questioned him a bit on how he thought the lack of LAN play would hurt sales, particularly in regards to piracy and people saying that pirates will patch LAN in on day one. He admitted that piracy is always a factor that they're concerned about, but they decided that achieving their goal for Battle.net took priority. He admitted that, of course, Blizzard doesn't want people hacking their games, and they don't know what people will eventually do, but the hope is that people will log into the new Battle.net, play the game, and realize that they don't really miss LAN all that much after all
I don't know if this will satisfy the more vocal critics of the decision to leave LAN out, but this why Blizzard chose not to include it. Once we actually get some hands on with the new Battle.net, we'll let you know if it actually accomplishes the goals that Blizzard has set.
Contest:
1:20 PM on 08.17.2009
| 
Deal with it. It's their game. They can do whatever they think is right for the experience they're producing that you have little grasp of.
Stop making assumptions based on the tiny pieces of information they've decided to show the public.
Stop second guessing their actions and their motives.
Dude, didn't you hear what Monster w12 Faces said? Your feeble little mind can't possibly comprehend Blizzard's reasons for taking out LAN play, so you shouldn't question or even criticize it.
That technology already exists. It's called Local Area Networking, or LAN for short. Now, what would be nice is if we had the new Battle.net alongside LAN. Then if Battle.net is so amazingly awesome that everyone wants to move onto it, then they can, but the LAN support is still there so the people who want it can enjoy it. Tada, everyone's happy.
This is like if Capcom took out versus mode in Street Fighter 4 and made it online play only.
However it is a very alien move for a very PC centric game company like Blizzard especially considering the original StarCraft is played in record numbers in LAN tournaments across the globe. I know there are ulterior motives in this action because of the things said about the new Battlenet do not seem to somehow invalidate the ability to perform LAN games. After all the things promised in the new Battlenet are already in Steam which does support LAN games. Even as they claim Battlenet will be like XBL which surprise surprise also supports LAN.
@gamadaya
Bandwidth. Since almost no RTS games use dedicated servers putting together of 8 people in the same room on the same line will get dicey. Shocking as it may be there are still a huge number of people who still use dialup or a sub-par broadband system and this would be absolutely nightmarish. Now consider local LAN places where there are 20-40 people or even big LAN tournaments where you're pushing at least triple to four digit attendance, multiple games all without a server on a single connection at once.
I can see the point if you elaborated saying that all of those have to get out to the internet on one connection, but the way you word it makes it sound like you are lacking ports.. in which case, I would reply to it is "the same way you find a place to plug in 16 computers for a LAN". A router plugged into a switch... finding a place to plug in 16 computers isn't the issue here.
I can understand them wanting to make sure Copy Protection is good, but really, seriously, this will make people who would have just bought the game and enjoyed themselves WANT to go out and get hacked versions so they can play it their way. That is not a good thing.
StarCraft II’s units and structures feel much more broad in their scope than what we’ve seen in the game’s multiplayer mode—all those upgrades would be nothing short of impossible to balance. It’s clear that Blizzard is heavily investing in both single and multiplayer for Wings of Liberty. The storytelling in the Terran campaign is expert, with plenty to dig deep into should players want to hear every single word of spoken dialogue, through which bits and pieces of backstory are delivered.
The decision to split StarCraft II into three separate campaigns was, obviously, concerning. But the amount of content that Blizzard appears to be packing into the first third of that trilogy allays most of those concerns. There’s an incredible amount of game here."
"In order to spin the OBVIOUS reason that Starcraft 2 was split into three games to milk customers in buying the game three times, note how Kotaku is calling Starcraft 2 a ‘trilogy’ now. A trilogy would be three different games. Starcraft 2’s parts are just the same game with different single player missions. The best equivalent would be expansion packs that cost as much as a full game.
And what is this amazing content? UPGRADES! And SPOKEN DIALOGUE! Yes, I want to play the single player campaign over and over again just to hear spoken dialogue that I might have missed.
God, here was a game that is a surefire money maker, something everyone was looking forward to. It was bad enough that the game is split into three parts (which will all be full priced unlike the expansions of previous Blizzard games). Then they do things like take out LAN.
When this game comes out, I am going to wait. There will be screams of horror at people when they finish the Terran Campaign and wonder where the Zerg and Protoss Campaigns are as well as people discovering there is no LAN. I think it is going to be ugly when the product finally gets to the customers’ hands." - http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/
I'm still picking up SC2, in solidarity with the fact that blizzard likes to do simultaneous mac releases, BUT, it's a little ridiculous to read the above thinking, "I'VE FOUND MY FRIENDS, THEY'RE WITHIN A 10 FEET RADIUS OF ME CONNECTED TO MY SWITCH."
And you obviously don't understand sarcasm and apparently didn't even fully read my short comment because you're acting as if I don't think lack of LAN is a big deal. Please never speak on any issue again.
@Yehat
But that implies that LAN is totally useless. Don't they use LAN at these huge Starcraft tournaments, and not battle.net? There has to be some reason people use it. Or maybe they don't use LAN at tournaments. The one true thing that avatarless twit above you implied was that I'm not really into Starcraft. I could have some misconceptions.
Also in Starcraft 1 and other battlenet games getting two people on the same internet connection to connect into the same game was a surefire recipe for crashing games.
In Starcraft 1 blizzard actively supported allowing multiple people to play on a LAN with one license key and CD using a method they called "Spawning". This was entirely unnecessary but they did it because they used to be in touch with their customers. This is just corporate bullshit. To go from one extreme to the other where the only possible motive is DRM.
We're the consumers. We have the right to get angry about anything we want to, because it's our money Blizzard's getting. No LAN is a huge deal, no matter what their supposed reasons are. Most people aren't "second guessing" their motives for taking LAN out. They're flat-out saying their motives suck.
The Internet isn't flawless. Connections can have issues, the company could be experiencing technical problems, etc. etc. What if I just want to play with a friend in the same room as I am? Can't do that anymore, and that's the problem here.
But the point is, Blizzard has never done wrong, at least in my experience. And while I think some of their decisions as of late are questionable, I can't bring myself to think that they've got something up their sleeve that is going to surprise everyone. I've got a friend who interns at Blizzard in the post-production department, I'll see if I can't milk him for info.
I think I misunderstood your original comment.
In a big gaming convention LAN is used because if all users are required to connect to the internet simultaneously from the same building on the same connection the game's performance will be unplayable.
LAN does not require any user to connect to the internet instead each machine 'talks' to each other directly. In an online game it would require each computer to basically take 'the long road' over the internet and this is not a problem until you have the problem that I provided when they're all on the same internet connection and are clogging up bandwidth because now they're all going on the internet to talk to each other.
Now since the game also doesn't support dedicated servers (I can't think of a single RTS that has) it means the internet connection is peer to peer. Which means on top of a clogged up bandwidth each player's poor connection will hinder each others connection to a point of unworkability.
FinnE - Don't forge that this isn't just Blizzard we are talking about here...Activision has a part in this too. And we all know how much they just LOVE the consumers.
Translation:
Since I am gonna charge you for Battle.net I am not gonna let you not pay Battle.net.
"...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."
Translation:
No, you wont be able to play with your friends unless you pay me some money.
"...stay connected."
Translation:
What? I can´t hear you, I can only hear:
KA-CHING! KA-CHING! KA-CHING! KA-CHING! KA-CHING! KA-CHING! KA-CHING! KA-CHING! KA-CHING! KA-CHING! KA-CHING! KA-CHING! KA-CHING! KA-CHING! KA-CHING!
Thanks and have a nice day.
Is it me?
The vast majority of PC games use an "integrated" system like he described for grouping with friends and matchmaking, and still have LAN play. I can list a hundred games here spanning over the last decade, but is that necessary? How about everything Valve has made that uses Steam? Blizzard with their income greater than most nations on Earth can't afford to hire developers as competent as Valve's?
Here is a solution for making everyone happy Chris; Post an opening on Craigslist that Blizzard needs a competent network infrastructure developer. Apparently you weren't aware you needed that. The WoW team probably has a dozen they might loan you.
@Monster w21 Faces
What the hell, is Blizzard God now or something? I'll question and second guess whatever I wish too, thanks. It's called being an intelligent and informed consumer.
I now declare you cannot question or second guess my criticisms. Hush!
It's hard to tell from the article if you don't know how a LAN works or if you don't know what wifi is, Jonathan. But it is clear that you're confused on one of those points, if not both.
In order to have a LAN you would need to have the same number of wired connections in your mom's basement as you would for Internet play. Unless you were connecting clients wirelessly, at which point you would need the same number of wifi clients for either LAN or Internet play. What exactly do you think these things mean? How do you think they work?
Please don't tell me that you believe wifi = Internet! That would be painfully stupid.
No offense to the Destructoid staff, but most of you seem to be fairly exclusively console gamers and have a hard time relating to the difference in culture and technology. I own and play a Wii and 360, and enjoy both, so I don't want to sound like the cliched PC gamer snob, but there are market differences in what I expect from a game on my PC versus what I expect on my 360.
To a 360 player, I can see them saying, "No LAN? So what, how is that even relevant?" To a PC gamer, that could be one of the most crucial factors in the determining whether or not to purchase it. Just as PC gamers fret about things like system requirements, expansions, free DLC, and modability and developer tools.
It's hard to relate to if you haven't been part of the culture. But it is important to realize that doesn't mean our concerns aren't valid, just that you don't understand them.
Lame and PR excuse is lame and PR.
...As a matter of fact, I've never played a PC game without a LAN option, beyond MMOs (for obvious reasons) and single-player games such as Elder Scrolls. Seriously, I wonder why this has become an issue. It can't be that hard to throw in working LAN.
Another example is more recent, and that was at magfest 2007 (I believe). We had a lot of computers set up, but not consistent Internet connection to use, so what could we do but play over the lan.
I know personally that I would rather use a lan to play a pc game with my room mates rather than going on bnet to do it.
I think if its more of a piracy issue they should play it like steam does. You connect once to validate that you have a legitimate copy of the game, and if there is no Internet connection after than you can still play over lan.
Me and my room mates stopped playing Demi God because we expected that it would have lan play... so now we just stick to dota.
I'm more than likely going to buy sc2 anyways, but I'm a bit miffed about not having lan functionality. What if my internet goes down and me and my room mates want to play against each other?
Your college examples are very similar to my own and I wouldn't doubt many others'. Our Internet traffic on campus was unreliable, throttled, monitored, and many ports were blocked. We regularly hosted on campus LAN parties in rec rooms that had no Internet access, because we didn't have any reason to need Internet access.
I've personally hosted LAN parties with 2 dozen plus people and the only Internet was a half-duplex (look it up) 1 Mb DSL connection. Impossible to play a game online with that, but it worked fine.
As a WoW player for 5 years, I can assure you Blizzard's servers have the most downtime of any service I've ever used, and I'm paying $15/mo. for that. What do you think downtime on a free service where we have no legal rights is going to be?
Sorry about that, that is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever written. I know how LANs work -- we always used to run our LANs through LAN spoofers stuff because no one ever had a hub because we were all cheap bastards, and that's what I was thinking about when I wrote that (That's what happens when I write late). I promise you I don't think wifi is the internet. Really!
Never mind the implications in tournaments. If you don't have high speed internet, you're screwed. And people usually want private games with friends instead of random strangers. Sure, beating on random strangers is fun, but talking trash within earshot of each other is still the best.
That sounds more like somthing blizard would do.
Even on a really old msn messenger, if you sent someone who was on your same network a file the transfer speed would be equal to the LAN one and not the internet one, i still see no reason to believe something like this won't be the case of starcraft 2, that you'll just need internet to be "online" and identified while taking advantage of the gigabit network or whatever you have while playing in a local network.