No LAN, no chat rooms, no password-protected games--for how long?

[Tek7]

Setup for my question: Blizzard refuses to add LAN to StarCraft II and they (so far) have refused to add chat rooms and the ability to password-protect games.

Question: How long until hackers develop a Battle.net 2.0 emulator (like PvPGN for Battle.net 1.x) with these much-desired features?

Many people who ran Battle.net 1.x servers (myself included) ran them NOT to play pirated copies, but to actually be able to play with more than 3 other people in the same game.

I say we see alpha versions of at least one BNet 2.0 emulator inside 60 days of the release of StarCraft II.

This is a PC game. If Blizzard refuses to add the features players request, the more technically adept will create an emulator that adds on the features so many players want.

For cute kittens, click here.

 

[Bowser]

http://sc2armory.com/forums/topic/16293

 

[Tek7]

http://sc2armory.com/forums/topic/16293

No offense intended to Blizzard, but I'll believe it when I see it. They've had several months to incorporate chat rooms and password-protected games and we're less than two months from release. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

 

[Bowser]

They didn't say they were going to add anything. They just said they're going to address it. I'm looking forward to that. Also, I think Blizzard deserves some credit for even acknowledging those things (even though it should have been obvious).

 

[Logos]

aaahhh blizzard, the company I can't trust anymore...sad sad

 

[Keero]

So this thread is asking when will hackers add things to the game? >.> Why not ask the hacking groups? <.<

 

[Tek7]

So this thread is asking when will hackers add things to the game? >.> Why not ask the hacking groups? <.<

Because I wanted the tone to be more conversational than academic. It was more of a casual question.

And please don't misunderstand: I'm not advocating the violation of an EULA. I'm simply suggesting that the inevitable outcome of refusing to listening to PC gamers' requests will only lead to unofficial and unauthorized modifications of the product in question (as we saw with Modern Warfare 2).

 

[Shinigami Naruto]

My opinions on the state of battle.net 2.0

I hope they don't try to charge for more maps or anything. That would really just annoy me. The gaming world is gettin more and more corporate, and I bet its because none of the higher ups are really gamers themselves, or they don't remember what its like to be a young gamer without $60(Game)+$30(Expansion)+$12(1st map pack of many) that they can just blow willy nilly on stuff. IMO (and i'm definatly not justifying it) but thats what leads to soo many pirates, especially in poorer countries. I lived in Mexico last year (which is why no cross region gaming is gonna stink, cause i still have friends there), and games come out starting at $90 because of taxes and such, and not everyone/kid in Mexico has that much money to drop for a game.
I don't like piracy because the people who worked on the game deserve something for their hard work. Just it looks really petty when they try to charge you for every little thing.

 

[Hescominsoon]

The CEO of activision is on public record saying he intends to milk SC and WOW for everything they are worth until they dry up. Don't expect things to change form this model they have started.

 

[Lloren]

The CEO of activision is on public record saying he intends to milk SC and WOW for everything they are worth until they dry up. Don't expect things to change form this model they have started.

Sounds like a good business practice. Anything less would be a disservice to their stockholders.

 

[Tek7]

Sounds like a good business practice. Anything less would be a disservice to their stockholders.

Two words: Guitar Hero.

EDIT: StarCraft Legacy staff wrote a novella entitled Battle.net 2.0 Concerns.

 

[Shinigami Naruto]

Sounds like a good business practice. Anything less would be a disservice to their stockholders.

But then its a disservice to the actual consumer. Which IMO is bad business practice. They lose fanbase. The problem is, is when they think they have everyone in their pocket already, and just assume everyone will buy it anyway. And they might be right at first, but if a similar game comes out that offers more and gives more fan service for less, most non-hardcore will go to that instead. Then blizz loses money.

 

[Elader Arkon]

Two words: Guitar Hero.

And it is because of Guitar Hero they learned the limits as to what customers will go for. Hence, less upcoming GH games over the next few years and a consolidation/elimination of developers.

I would more likely expect a business model more along the lines of what has happened to the C&C series.

 

[Tek7]

I would more likely expect a business model more along the lines of what has happened to the C&C series.

You mean another series that was run into the ground and poorly managed?

 

[Keero]

I'll admit, CNC4 was a turd, but CNC3 and Red Alert 3 were awesome.

 

[Elader Arkon]

Eh, I don't know how C&C 4 turned out because I gave it a pass due to DRM issues. However I did enjoy the others and am perfectly happy to let them continue to make more, as long as EA sticks with their promises of getting away from terribad DRM.

 

[SlavidZee]

Waaaaah! I wish I owned vivendi stock!

But yeah, I'm not exactly caught up on the latest BNet news, but I think Blizzard is leaving the door open for a premium subscription for BNet, right? If not that, at least micropayments :cP.

I'll go on record as choosing under 60 days, say 30 days from July 27th until we see the first server/lan mods.