StarCraft 2 to have no LAN


AKA Ass-Bandit
Blizzard has decided, despite at least 100,000 people complaining about it, to do away with LAN multiplayer in the latest StarCraft game completely, stating that LAN will be "a great footnote in our history, just like DOS was".

One problem Bliz - MS-DOS was replaced with an OS that was somewhat better. Could you kindly point to a method of multiplayer that allows 20 people to share the same connection and still reach speeds of roughly 1 Gbit/s?

By removing the LAN feature entirely, Blizzard are effectively dicking over everyone who goes to LAN parties or wants to play a couple of games with their house mates, owns one of those LAN gaming stores, and those gaming tournaments that run off LAN connections. I'm now wondering what % of Korean SC players primarily game over LAN vs what % game over the Internet.

I'm also wondering if we'll see a pirated version with LAN features cracked into the game.
Last edited:


Registered Member
First off that is just stupid for that kind of game to not have a LAN. I am not a fan of the game but I know it is a major part of the whole game in the first place. And yes I can see pirated versions coming out that will have LAN added into it.


The Hierophant
I hope that there is a cracked LAN version of SC2. Granted, I don't know anyone here in AZ that would want to LAN with me, but when I was in PA, me and my buddies would LAN the shit out of SC and Warcraft with various maps. Doing away with the LAN is a mistake and they should know it.

At least there'll still be online play. Hopefully they don't take that away, too.
This is another reminding that no matter how many people want something Blizzard does what THEY want and not the consumer. It's not like anybody was against it or anything, they just like to throw LAN parties and... play.

A bad move, and Blizzard is basically giving the finger to the people who want LAN. =(
Last edited:


AKA Ass-Bandit
Oh, there'll be online play. What they're essentially doing, though, is forcing everyone to connect to 2.0 if they want to do any sort of multiplayer gaming.

Which makes me wonder how it will affect connection speeds at conventions such as PAX.


Staff member
Well that pretty much settles it. I will not be buying this game.

LAN is a very normal feature that every game has nowadays. They want to force everybody to log onto online servers, meaning each computer has to have a license.

It's absolutely ridiculous that they would remove/not include it. Hopefully a lot of people will boycott the game because of this.


The Hierophant
As much as I'd like to boycott SC2 because of that, I don't think I'll be able to. I still have a raging boner for that game.
Wow, how the times have changed. I think it's ironic how SC had the ability to create a spawn of the game for the sole purpose of doing things such as LAN. (Granted you couldn't get on B.N with it, but it made LANS so much easier)

Now because of pirating and the game industry "trying to protect" their product, they have done a complete 180. SC2 will still be popular, they will still make their money, it's just sad to see that the gaming industry has truly become an industry about money.

I remember when Gamers ran the industry not economists. Such a shame.


- Diderot Reborn -
lets all blame Bill Gates, shall we? he was Mr. McGiveusourmoney, bitches before anyone even knew what was happening, and last I checked Blizzard's owned by Microsoft.

(quick fact check on that)

neverind, maybe that only happened in my head. or it was a different company.

either way...what was I saying?

RIGHT! I think there'll be a huge slice of people who will boycott the game because LAN was their modus operandi for RTS games, but the fact of the matter is, the starcraft franchise has a large enough die hard fanbase that they'll buy it just because its got hydralisks for them to suck on.

for example, I'm still gonna buy it because I'm a passive gamer who never played a LAN game when I was into starcraft, rarely played online then and don't play anything online now on my 360. I'll buy it solely for the campaign, and that'll take me so long I'll feel like I got my money's worth. so even though I'm not exactly proud of Bliz for their decision, its not like I'm suffering or anything.


AKA Ass-Bandit

...I just found this.

Something from 2008 said:
Diablo III’s director Jay Wilson recently told an audience at BlizzCon that Blizzard and Activision are looking to make some money with the Battle.Net service. How Blizzard will be seeking to “monetize” is unknown, but Wilson said it was necessary to keep the financially crippled Blizzard alive and kicking.

From the panel discussion:

"We are looking to monetize Battle.Net so that we get to keep making these games and updating features. We kind of have to."

Wilson didn’t elaborate, but I think we all know how much Blizzard has been suffering the past few years. After the colossal failure that was once a promising game, World of Warcraft, Blizzard has had to revaluate its existence and make some tough spending decisions. It’s a shame that World of Warcraft never took off, but we have the massive success (over 15 million subscribers) of Star Wars: Galaxies to thank for that., how exactly are players going to pay for it? Are we talking paid subscriptions to play online, or something else?

Either way, I don't like the look of it.