Sections

More than 100,000 sign StarCraft II LAN petition

Sunday, 16th August 2009 16:16 GMT By Patrick Garratt

starcraft2_logo1

Over 100,000 people have now signed a petition to get Blizzard to include LAN support in StarCraft II.

The company confirmed in June that offline network play wouldn’t make the sequel’s final cut.

StarCraft II was recently pushed back into 2010.

Latest

19 Comments

  1. Hunam

    Have you poked Blizzard for a response to this 100,000 milestone?

    #1 5 years ago
  2. Patrick Garratt

    I’ll be speaking to them tomorrow.

    #2 5 years ago
  3. Hunam

    That’s handy then :)

    #3 5 years ago
  4. Phoenixblight

    They won’t change it Activision influence is too strong and they see Cash in the new Battle net system.

    #4 5 years ago
  5. Hunam

    I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if Battle.net will be a two-tier system with subscribers and normals getting different things.

    #5 5 years ago
  6. TristanMike

    How many, do you think, out of the 100K are unique signatures ? And out of those, how many do you think will actually boycott Starcraft 2 when it’s released if LAN is not implemented ?

    Just curious of what others here think. (Percentages are accepted) :)

    #6 5 years ago
  7. Hunam

    I won’t boycott the game, but when I don’t have the drive to buy something, It usually takes me a few years to get it, possibly at a nice £7.99 price point.

    #7 5 years ago
  8. Eury

    Yeah, good luck with that. Blizzard games aren’t like console games, they sell for years, and they won’t lower the price for years either.
    You will probably need to wait at least a decade for 7.99.

    #8 5 years ago
  9. jeremycafe

    I think 90% of the people would be less upset if they actually realized that when you host a game with only people on the same network, you do not play over battle.net and the game functions as a lan game.

    This system has to work for professional tournaments in south korea, i highly doubt it will fail to meet the needs of your average gamer wanting to lan.

    #9 5 years ago
  10. absolutezero

    I like how most poeple have just accepted the fact that its one game split over 3 full price releases and have instead focused on something the vast majority never touch.

    #10 5 years ago
  11. Eury

    Why would anyone object to a game + two expansions?
    More content is better in my book, but I guess you can always skip the last expansion, and it will be just like Starcraft + Brood War.

    #11 5 years ago
  12. Hunam

    Then I’ll wait a decade, maybe get a good deal on the whole bullshit trilogy idea. Doesn’t bother me one bit :)

    #12 5 years ago
  13. Eury

    Good for you. I just hope Blizzard can manage until then.

    #13 5 years ago
  14. Hunam

    I love that attitude. Why bother doing anything eh? Nothing will ever make a difference. It’s not a political statement anyway, I just want to get a good deal on something which so far seems kinda iffy. How is this bad?

    #14 5 years ago
  15. Gamoc

    Well, as far as the ‘Why bother doing anything eh? Nothing will ever make a difference.’ thing goes – why bother doing anything? It won’t make a difference?

    That has 100,000 signatures. Compare that to the millions on top of fucking millions who will buy the game? Yeah, Blizzard don’t care. Look at the Diablo 3 colour pallette conundrum – Blizzard openly mocked the people who complained about it.

    #15 5 years ago
  16. Hunam

    It’s a fair bit different really. And at the end of the day, it’s worth a try, only takes 60 seconds of someone’s time to sign and the community at least gave it a go.

    Sitting around playing with your dick all day never really solved anything, letting developers know they are not serving their loyal fans might have a positive effect. It certainly got Valve on the defensive.

    #16 5 years ago
  17. Phoenixblight

    Valve is a much smaller company than Blizzard much much smaller. They have Activision which is the leading Publisher at the moment, so ofcourse they don’t care they smell money in this new Battle.net system. Article stated it was aimed to just be like Xbox live so another thing people will subscribe to.
    It was a famous band (Pearl Jam?) Went exclusive to a top retailer and practically said fuck you to the small mom and pop record stores and didn’t let them get shipment of the upcoming cd where these mom and pop record stores had helped the band climb the top. People are just jack holes when it comes to money.

    #17 5 years ago
  18. Eury

    First of all it was Kotick that compared it to Xbox Live for investors. That is like a blind leading a blind.

    Second, Blizzard have already confirmed that it will be free to play Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 on Battle.net.

    #18 5 years ago
  19. jeremycafe

    all these complaints and comparisons are just dumb. They have every right to fight piracy and make every $$ they deserve.

    Who the hell still lans? And when you do, i highly doubt its a problem to have an incoming connection plugged into the hub.

    These complaints are not valid. the “100k signatures” are not “loyal fans”. most probably just dont understand how the system works.

    God this lan thing is annoying. I wish they just never announced the legacy style of lan wouldn’t be there. LAN IS STILL THERE. who the f cares if you have to verify your account online first. FUCK.

    #19 5 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.