And now they're just choosing to remove the function altogether to save a bit of cash, and give a bull**** excuse why they're doing it. THAT is something EA would do.|||Quote:
Your school don't have internet ? lol
Every LAN I've been at we have an internet access too.. I'd rather be at home where I can browse internet every now and then, than being at LAN where I have no internet, well I guess I could browse internet with my cell phone tho.I guess u have missed the point of the MMO's beating the game with big groups 25+.. hard to do it solo
If that game had single player it would be a very short joy.. after you hit level 60 thats pretty much it, since you cant solo any dungeons etc.Well, I don't go to school anymore, bit too old for that, but they had internet, but wouldn't let us use it for that purpose when we did have LAN parties there.
My friends had parties at their church as well, which didn't have the internet. CS, Battlefield 1942, the original UT, Diablo, Diablo 2, none of them required an internet connection to play.
Well the dungeons would be adjusted for 1 player if they had a single player WOW.
I personally thought indoor raiding was one of the worst parts of the game, outdoor raiding was a bit more fun because it was pretty much a PVP event that people actually cared about, instead of those stupid PVP grounds that they later added.
Spending a ton of hours in a dungeon being ordered around by a guild leader isn't my idea of fun.
Before the game came out, I got the impression that the game was all about PVP, that you're at all out war with the opposite faction.
But the PVP ended up being a separate but unequal part of the game.
I know having an army of people kill a big dragon was the point of WOW, but I don't think that it really made it fun.|||Hai Guyz, It's 1996, where's my LAN?!?
Lan would be a poor business decision, period.
Expecting a company to shoot themselves in the foot because a very small number of people are stuck in 1996 is a pretty excessive expectation.
And btw, the only people who really lose out with the absence of LAN are the people who have no internet connection. That is a very very small portion of the core gaming community.|||Quote:
Hai Guyz, It's 1996, where's my LAN?!?
Lan would be a poor business decision, period.
Expecting a company to shoot themselves in the foot because a very small number of people are stuck in 1996 is a pretty excessive expectation.
And btw, the only people who really lose out with the absence of LAN are the people who have no internet connection. That is a very very small portion of the core gaming community.
Yeah playing with 400ms of ping is awesome. Just as good as LAN.
"Expecting a company to shoot themselves in the foot"?
They're shooting themselves in the foot by NOT adding LAN...
Anyway, I don't even know why i'm responding to you. You're just a clueless troll after all.|||Quote:
I don't mean it like that. EA are a bunch of money hungry businessmen who spend more money on marketting than their actual games. The reason i'm so pissed off is because playing with my friends over LAN in D2 was my only reasonable option due to the distance between Australia and the bnet servers.
And now they're just choosing to remove the function altogether to save a bit of cash, and give a bull**** excuse why they're doing it. THAT is something EA would do.
I do agree that Lan should be included, but the reasons for it being excluded have yet to be said. Perhaps they want to release the game sooner whatever the reason I cannot see one to justify why it is not in. I don't think Blizzard is hurting that much for money, but, if they do say why I don't think its that reason.
This is a business. The companies are here to make money first, and make a fun creative game second. You have to come to realize this, this is life. Now, I wish more companies would market their products better, but how they do this is up to them. If EA had quality games and marketed them well would you still complain? Its not the marketing its the games.
In conclusion, yes I agree LAN should be included. But, don't compare Blizzard to EA. EA ruined my beloved Westwood so I will never forgive them for such atrocity.
Anyways, that said, unless you have dial-up there is no reason you cannot play D3 or any game online. With broadband it doesn't matter how far away the servers are.
I played FFXI and the servers are in japan and I lived in Tampa Bay, FL (Clearwater ish) and it was not laggy at all. If it was it was in the milliseconds difference between me and japanese.|||Quote:
I do agree that Lan should be included, but the reasons for it being excluded have yet to be said. Perhaps they want to release the game sooner whatever the reason I cannot see one to justify why it is not in. I don't think Blizzard is hurting that much for money, but, if they do say why I don't think its that reason.
This is a business. The companies are here to make money first, and make a fun creative game second. You have to come to realize this, this is life. Now, I wish more companies would market their products better, but how they do this is up to them. If EA had quality games and marketed them well would you still complain? Its not the marketing its the games.
In conclusion, yes I agree LAN should be included. But, don't compare Blizzard to EA. EA ruined my beloved Westwood so I will never forgive them for such atrocity.
Anyways, that said, unless you have dial-up there is no reason you cannot play D3 or any game online. With broadband it doesn't matter how far away the servers are.
I played FFXI and the servers are in japan and I lived in Tampa Bay, FL (Clearwater ish) and it was not laggy at all. If it was it was in the milliseconds difference between me and japanese.
I admit Blizzard are far.... FAR from becoming the scum that is EA, but this is the first time I can recall Blizzard sacrificing a part of their franchise for a bit of extra cash. And to everyone saying LAN is dead. You have absolutely no idea. Assumptions are the mother of all ****-ups so unless you have any decent references to back up your argument please don't post.
Unforunately, distance is everything when it comes to gaming over the internet. I have the fastest broadband available in Australia and I still get 450ms in WoW. It's much the same in Warcraft 3.
If ping wasn't an issue I wouldn't be so upset about the absence of LAN.|||Quote:
I admit Blizzard are far.... FAR from becoming the scum that is EA, but this is the first time I can recall Blizzard sacrificing a part of their franchise for a bit of extra cash. And to everyone saying LAN is dead. You have absolutely no idea. Assumptions are the mother of all ****-ups so unless you have any decent references to back up your argument please don't post.
Unforunately, distance is everything when it comes to gaming over the internet. I have the fastest broadband available in Australia and I still get 450ms in WoW. It's much the same in Warcraft 3.
If ping wasn't an issue I wouldn't be so upset about the absence of LAN.
Your first paragraph you just assumed yourself, so really I call that a hypocrit but whatever. You have absolutely no idea why they scratched LAN, YOU assume it is because of MONEY. Now, quote me where they said they are not including LAN because it is Money.
"so unless you have any decent references to back up your argument please don't post"
^ The same could be said about you, don't you see the irony in your post?!
450ms isn't so bad you are unable to play the game online. Now, that said, I still don't know why they excluded lan, but, you still can play the game online, so I don't see why the exclusion of lan would prevent you from buying, after all you can still play single player. But, whatever floats your boat.|||Well number 1, they're saving cash by not adding LAN. There's no doubt about that. And secondly, i'd like to hear one plausible reason for not adding LAN that doesn't involve money.
Also, as Jay Wilson seemed to do in the (poorly translated) interview, is make up a pretty damn pathetic reason for not adding LAN.
And of course he's not going to say "We didn't add LAN because it doesn't make us any money and we want people to pay to play on b.net."
I will still buy the game because I love the Diablo story and the game is looking fantastic and either way I was going to play single player first. The decision to not add LAN though is very surprising to me and also very disappointing coming from Blizzard.|||Quote:
450ms isn't so bad you are unable to play the game online. Now, that said, I still don't know why they excluded lan, but, you still can play the game online, so I don't see why the exclusion of lan would prevent you from buying, after all you can still play single player. But, whatever floats your boat.
Half a second between each action. It's a nuisance in WoW. It will be unplayable in Diablo, the game is just to fast paced for that.
And if he can still play single player remains to be seen. The exclusion of LAN could very well mean that a connection to battlenet is required.|||Quote:
Half a second between each action. It's a nuisance in WoW. It will be unplayable in Diablo, the game is just to fast paced for that.
And if he can still play single player remains to be seen. The exclusion of LAN could very well mean that a connection to battlenet is required.
How you assume that I don't know. Multiplayer and Singleplayer have ALWAYS been seperated. LAN is Multiplayer, not singleplayer.
Also, that said what is your internet speed? I had DSL back when I was in Fl and I could play FFXI just fine with hardly any lag besides areas that had a large density of players, and that was mostly because my comp sucked bigtime.
I hardly think Australia > USA (wherever they locate server) or Auss > Europe is further than Florida > Japan. Is my reasoning off base?
No comments:
Post a Comment