Preview: StarCraft II

[ZippyDSMlee]

I'm not saying you are wrong and you should certainly vote with your money, but how come Steam doesn't garner the same response from you? That's what Blizzard has made though, a system where you loose some rights for other services.

Who says it doesn't? What Steam doesn't do is: slow my games down, limit my installs, limit my use of mods, force me to use one d/l system, and snoop without my permission.
What it does do is give me instant messaging that I can turn off, a robust package and reasonable prices some of the time. It also support independent developers and talks to its community.

That counts for a lot, and while I understand that companies have all gone down the DRM route, there are fair trade-offs and unfair trade-offs. I won't buy from those I believe have made unfair trade-offs.

Steam also crashes occasionally, have a support staff where sarcasm is an inbred trait and hides too many options away; but if I have to have a DRM, it's the one I'll put up with.

I guess we could go through and weigh every feature to see where the scales land, but my point is that that's precisely what the new Battle.net system does. Unlimited install, downloadable clients, cross game chat, etc. If that's your DRM of choice, I don't see why this one is any different at least in a broad sense of the scheme.

The best thing about it it will be riped out of the game and it given lan ability in less than a year after they release it to the public. It seems to me its rather moot to try and put everything under DRM. But I guess it makes them feel better.... At least they are going in a better direction than Ubisoft...but not by much.... at least part of the industry is starting to add carrots but I see to many sticks around still....

Doesn't matter if it's a new Mona Lisa. I won't be buying it until they remove the DRM and restore the LAN.

Okay, that's just childish.

Nope, exercising my rights as a consumer to protest against a direction I don't like.

I'm not saying you are wrong and you should certainly vote with your money, but how come Steam doesn't garner the same response from you? That's what Blizzard has made though, a system where you loose some rights for other services.

it IS pretty shitty that you can't play LAN though. Starcraft was always a hit at LAN parties... now it's not possible to do so unless you somehow also get an internet connection.

they removed lan because thats how pirates played the first one online with the use of himachi.

I think lan mode will be introduced with a patch that requires u to be logged into battle.net to download. therefor still preventing pirates from getting it.

WOW is working fine on non blizzard severs what makes you think this will stop them from doing SC2?

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Thank GOD they fixed that stupid unit selection thing.
If there was anything that turned me off from StarCraft it was being able to only select 12 units at a time.
Really that is probably one of the dumbest things you can do for an RTS IMHO.

 

[Slycne]

Do you know if you have to be logged into battle.net to access the single player game? I know the beta doesn't include single player content, but I haven't been following the battle.net features very closely so I'm hoping you knew.

I researched a bit, but I couldn't find a definite answer. Currently you have to login to Battle.net to access the home page which you can then select single and multi player, among everything else. If I had to guess I imagine it will work something like their LAN feature, you'll have to connect once to get on, but you are free to play from there. That's just my guess though.

I hope there is a feature to opt for offline play though, playing Starcraft on my laptop is still my preferred method of passing the time on planes.

 

[Sky Captanio]

Looks a bit too much like Dawn Of War to me. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But I already have Dawn Of War so I'll pass.

 

[Zanez]

From the moment you start up the game, you are always connected to battle.net, so yes you will need to be connected to battle.net to play the single player campaign. From what I have seen and heard, there is little to no delay for SC2. The servers are solid and reliable. Now, if you live in a third world country, a deep swamp, or a cave on mars where internet access is scarce, then I can understand why you would be skeptical about the removal of LAN and the fact that internet connectivity is required. Although, you know who is to blame, right? It is the people who refuse to buy a product because they want to 'stick it to the man', and choose to download illegally instead. Thankfully, no one will be able to do that with this game.

It is 'cool' to hate what is popular. It makes you feel special, and like you don't conform to the masses. Blizzard is unmistakably popular. WoW is the most popular game of all time, and Starcraft is probably in second place, so it is no big surprise that a good chunk of people are vocal about their dislike for it.
Sure there are no intense innovations that add to the pool of depth, but any smart developers know (and yes, Blizzard Developers are among the best in the biz), if you add too much depth a game will drown in it.

 

[the_carrot]

NDA doesn't prevent journalists from posting video of the unreleased game? Or the NDA doesn't stipulate any restriction on video/screenshots for anyone in the beta? Just curious. You're not the only site to have some video of the new game, and Blizzard has released some themselves...So really it's just curiosity about the NDA with regards to that.

 

[The Heik]

Preview: StarCraft II

StarCraft II really does feel like the game we've been waiting for.

Read Full Article

Freakin' A!

I have been waiting for this for so long, and it looks totally worth it! So long as they put in a tutorial for all those newbies to the series, it'll be a great sucessor!

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I guess we could go through and weigh every feature to see where the scales land, but my point is that that's precisely what the new Battle.net system does. Unlimited install, downloadable clients, cross game chat, etc. If that's your DRM of choice, I don't see why this one is any different at least in a broad sense of the scheme.

There's also Battlenet's history, Blizzard's history, the kicking out of LAN/dedicated servers, and a whole mess of things (Battlenet runs a huge memory block, locks with alt-tabs, doesn't allow cross game chat in non-Blizzard games, has numerous snoop programs)

Within a fortnight of release, the non-DRM release will be available anyway, but I still won't be playing it. The game was promised for years, and like all the rest of the "MUST HAVE" games, it's just used it's critical success to slip in unwelcome downgrades for the sequel.

Sorry, made my decision. Sticking to it.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I'm not saying you are wrong and you should certainly vote with your money, but how come Steam doesn't garner the same response from you? That's what Blizzard has made though, a system where you loose some rights for other services.

Who says it doesn't? What Steam doesn't do is: slow my games down, limit my installs, limit my use of mods, force me to use one d/l system, and snoop without my permission.
What it does do is give me instant messaging that I can turn off, a robust package and reasonable prices some of the time. It also support independent developers and talks to its community.

That counts for a lot, and while I understand that companies have all gone down the DRM route, there are fair trade-offs and unfair trade-offs. I won't buy from those I believe have made unfair trade-offs.

Steam also crashes occasionally, have a support staff where sarcasm is an inbred trait and hides too many options away; but if I have to have a DRM, it's the one I'll put up with.

I guess we could go through and weigh every feature to see where the scales land, but my point is that that's precisely what the new Battle.net system does. Unlimited install, downloadable clients, cross game chat, etc. If that's your DRM of choice, I don't see why this one is any different at least in a broad sense of the scheme.

The best thing about it it will be riped out of the game and it given lan ability in less than a year after they release it to the public. It seems to me its rather moot to try and put everything under DRM. But I guess it makes them feel better.... At least they are going in a better direction than Ubisoft...but not by much.... at least part of the industry is starting to add carrots but I see to many sticks around still....

Blizz has mentioned the idea of letting you play LAN but checking up with the Bnet server every so often, is that something that'll see the light of day or was it just that, just an idea?

It could well be something they are merely waiting to implement but I think it hinges more on what activations suits think. I just do not care for the absolutes you MUST login, you MUST register, you MUST authenticate, you MUST be online, its rather disingenuous as anyone with half a brain can bypass these "MUST's" with ease. Passive checks that cripple on the sight of bad keys is the way to go, these "MUST" absolutes are unneeded.

I guess we could go through and weigh every feature to see where the scales land, but my point is that that's precisely what the new Battle.net system does. Unlimited install, downloadable clients, cross game chat, etc. If that's your DRM of choice, I don't see why this one is any different at least in a broad sense of the scheme.

There's also Battlenet's history, Blizzard's history, the kicking out of LAN/dedicated servers, and a whole mess of things (Battlenet runs a huge memory block, locks with alt-tabs, doesn't allow cross game chat in non-Blizzard games, has numerous snoop programs)

Within a fortnight of release, the non-DRM release will be available anyway, but I still won't be playing it. The game was promised for years, and like all the rest of the "MUST HAVE" games, it's just used it's critical success to slip in unwelcome downgrades for the sequel.

Sorry, made my decision. Sticking to it.

Not mention most of the must have triple A titles have been half a game with alot of money spent on pretty and more on advertisement.

 

[Zanez]

NDA doesn't prevent journalists from posting video of the unreleased game? Or the NDA doesn't stipulate any restriction on video/screenshots for anyone in the beta? Just curious. You're not the only site to have some video of the new game, and Blizzard has released some themselves...So really it's just curiosity about the NDA with regards to that.

There is no NDA actually. There are about 9 (probably more) livestreams running at any given moment, and thousands of youtube videos, and even replays you can download and watch on the client.

 

[Weaver]

Do you know if you have to be logged into battle.net to access the single player game? I know the beta doesn't include single player content, but I haven't been following the battle.net features very closely so I'm hoping you knew.

I researched a bit, but I couldn't find a definite answer. Currently you have to login to Battle.net to access the home page which you can then select single and multi player, among everything else. If I had to guess I imagine it will work something like their LAN feature, you'll have to connect once to get on, but you are free to play from there. That's just my guess though.

Thanks for taking the time to look it up!
I found this interview (pg2):
http://www.incgamers.com/Interviews/204/starcraft-ii-developers-talk-single-player/2

A level of "DRM" will also be used by limit installation. Dustin explained "you need to connect once to install the game." While singleplayer will be available offline, installation must have an internet connection in order to proceed. You are also required to have or signup for a Battle.net account in order to install the game. All achievements and friends lists etc will be available as soon as you logon, but the actual single player game is available anyway.

"You can [play single player offline], but we don't encourage it." Browder said. "We totally allow it if you want to do it," but the point is "you don't get access a lot of the stuff."

----------------------

I'm still not sure what "the stuff" means, but I assume he's referring to all the battle.net features. While it's annoying to have to have online activation I'm sure most people can manage an internet connection at some point to install the game.

 

[Weaver]

From the moment you start up the game, you are always connected to battle.net, so yes you will need to be connected to battle.net to play the single player campaign. From what I have seen and heard, there is little to no delay for SC2. The servers are solid and reliable. Now, if you live in a third world country, a deep swamp, or a cave on mars where internet access is scarce, then I can understand why you would be skeptical about the removal of LAN and the fact that internet connectivity is required. Although, you know who is to blame, right? It is the people who refuse to buy a product because they want to 'stick it to the man', and choose to download illegally instead. Thankfully, no one will be able to do that with this game.

It is 'cool' to hate what is popular. It makes you feel special, and like you don't conform to the masses. Blizzard is unmistakably popular. WoW is the most popular game of all time, and Starcraft is probably in second place, so it is no big surprise that a good chunk of people are vocal about their dislike for it.
Sure there are no intense innovations that add to the pool of depth, but any smart developers know (and yes, Blizzard Developers are among the best in the biz), if you add too much depth a game will drown in it.

That's not why they removed LAN at all:
http://www.incgamers.com/Interviews/204/starcraft-ii-developers-talk-single-player/2

This is not the way they think of LAN mode, however. At the time of the interview, 80.000 fans had signed an online petition to convince Blizzard to include it. Today that number is 98.000. Since LAN mode is one of the main reasons for Blizzards "-Craft" games' [WarCraft & StarCraft] popularity, many have speculated what could be behind this decision, and most have attributed it to piracy. Pardo said it was not, explaining "I'm just saying that getting rid of LAN is not getting rid of piracy."

Dustin added "that's really not why it was done either." Piracy, he said, is not the motivating factor to remove LAN. "The really big reason for looking at this is we're trying to create an integrated experience. When you log into StarCraft you're logging into Battle.Net. When you sit down to play, when you're playing solo play - hopefully - you'll play on Battle.net with us. You'll have access to your friends list [and] you'll have access to your achievements."

General ScreenshotHe argued that if you add LAN to the equation, players can't get achievements or take part of Battle.net features, so it feels "a little bit dumb". There is also a lot of content "that really comes from Battle.net that we would have to duplicate again specifically for LAN." For Blizzard "it was a combination of making a better user experienceand also just trying to get the game done. These are some of the bigger issues there."

While they did not say so specifically, it seems the extra work, and lack of offline achievements are worth it for single player, but not LAN. They were, however, thinking of not even allowing single player offline at one time. Pardo said Blizzard "actually thought about, 'well, what if we just go full ahead'," but decided "maybe it's not quite time for this game."

 

[Nomad]

Doesn't matter if it's a new Mona Lisa. I won't be buying it until they remove the DRM and restore the LAN.

Crap. I was just thinking I might have to buy it, then you reminded me it won't have LAN... Which is the one thing that made Starcraft what it is.

 

[CincoDeMayo]

Starcraft 2 is THE game that I have been looking forward to for the last years, alongside Diablo 3. I can't wait 'til they release them, I'll quit whatever job I have and just shut myself in for another decade.

 

[Zanez]

I guess we could go through and weigh every feature to see where the scales land, but my point is that that's precisely what the new Battle.net system does. Unlimited install, downloadable clients, cross game chat, etc. If that's your DRM of choice, I don't see why this one is any different at least in a broad sense of the scheme.

There's also Battlenet's history, Blizzard's history, the kicking out of LAN/dedicated servers, and a whole mess of things (Battlenet runs a huge memory block, locks with alt-tabs, doesn't allow cross game chat in non-Blizzard games, has numerous snoop programs)

Within a fortnight of release, the non-DRM release will be available anyway, but I still won't be playing it. The game was promised for years, and like all the rest of the "MUST HAVE" games, it's just used it's critical success to slip in unwelcome downgrades for the sequel.

Sorry, made my decision. Sticking to it.

Blizzards history of releasing some of the greatest games in the genre and sticking true to them with constant patches and free releases that are true to its customer base.
Battle.net1.0 is an old and outdated system. This is Battle.net2.0, and it works similar to steam. At SC2 release it will allow communication with WoW players, and all future Blizzard games. All Blizzard gamers will be able to communicate with one another through battle.net and the expanded friends system. Granted it doesn't currently allow for non-blizzard games, but you could get xfire or load it up with steam or use vent or something simple.
Battle.net1.0 never locked with alt-tabs for me, maybe it is your system? Steam is really bad for that.

Many people claim that computer gaming is dieing because of pirates. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Interestingly enough, these desperate measures aren't that limiting. This is the age of the internet and wireless. Hooking your computers together with wires is a thing of the past.

 

[the_carrot]

NDA doesn't prevent journalists from posting video of the unreleased game? Or the NDA doesn't stipulate any restriction on video/screenshots for anyone in the beta? Just curious. You're not the only site to have some video of the new game, and Blizzard has released some themselves...So really it's just curiosity about the NDA with regards to that.

There is no NDA actually. There are about 9 (probably more) livestreams running at any given moment, and thousands of youtube videos, and even replays you can download and watch on the client.

Well that's different. Are you in the beta?

 

[Zanez]

That's not why they removed LAN at all:
http://www.incgamers.com/Interviews/204/starcraft-ii-developers-talk-single-player/2

Oh my mistake. I haven't seen that.
I honestly still don't feel they are gone in the wrong direction for this. I am on steam (and windows live but eeewwww) while I play Bioshock 2, so I am connected to the internet, friends and family and such. Does anyone here know a gamer who doesn't have internet? Whats the difference between a LAN party and hooking up a router and being all connected to the internet?

 

[Zanez]

Well that's different. Are you in the beta?

To my intense dismay, no, i am not in beta :'(
I have been following it very closely, however because I am a HUGE fan.
Looking forward to playing it so much, and would have a livestream of my own if i could

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I guess we could go through and weigh every feature to see where the scales land, but my point is that that's precisely what the new Battle.net system does. Unlimited install, downloadable clients, cross game chat, etc. If that's your DRM of choice, I don't see why this one is any different at least in a broad sense of the scheme.

There's also Battlenet's history, Blizzard's history, the kicking out of LAN/dedicated servers, and a whole mess of things (Battlenet runs a huge memory block, locks with alt-tabs, doesn't allow cross game chat in non-Blizzard games, has numerous snoop programs)

Within a fortnight of release, the non-DRM release will be available anyway, but I still won't be playing it. The game was promised for years, and like all the rest of the "MUST HAVE" games, it's just used it's critical success to slip in unwelcome downgrades for the sequel.

Sorry, made my decision. Sticking to it.

Blizzards history of releasing some of the greatest games in the genre and sticking true to them with constant patches and free releases that are true to its customer base.
Battle.net1.0 is an old and outdated system. This is Battle.net2.0, and it works similar to steam. At SC2 release it will allow communication with WoW players, and all future Blizzard games. All Blizzard gamers will be able to communicate with one another through battle.net and the expanded friends system. Granted it doesn't currently allow for non-blizzard games, but you could get xfire or load it up with steam or use vent or something simple.
Battle.net1.0 never locked with alt-tabs for me, maybe it is your system? Steam is really bad for that.

Many people claim that computer gaming is dieing because of pirates. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Interestingly enough, these desperate measures aren't that limiting. This is the age of the internet and wireless. Hooking your computers together with wires is a thing of the past.

I dunno why people say this WC3 was bad....sure MP side was good but the SP side was well....."bioshock" easy due to the crappy AI they didn't take the time to work on or polish....