Star Craft 2 and Diablo III - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Gaming Forum
-- Star Craft 2 and Diablo III
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

Posted by ChriSiZm on May-17-2009 23:45:

Yeah, I agree with that. I was playing private server WoW for a bit until Blizzard shut it down... spewing...

Posted by psymon.d on Jun-01-2009 03:01:

quality!

http://www.starcraft2.com/features/...ons.xml

Posted by Cpt.Cocaine on Jun-01-2009 03:38:

quote:
Originally posted by ChriSiZm
Does anyone whether theres going to be a Warcraft 4 as well to go along with these two?

If there's a warcraft 4 at all, which I doubt there will be, it won't be for another ten years at least.

Posted by psymon.d on Jun-02-2009 23:53:

just watched the two replays they have on the SC2 site....I cannot wait

Posted by ChriSiZm on Jun-04-2009 00:11:

quote:
Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine
If there's a warcraft 4 at all, which I doubt there will be, it won't be for another ten years at least.
fucking spews

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jun-09-2009 13:19:

quote:
Originally posted by ChriSiZm
fucking spews

you should be playing supcom: forged alliance anyhow. warcraft is FULL of rock-paper-scissors-yawns.

Posted by BTG on Jun-09-2009 21:42:

i've secretly been playing diablo 2 again :/

it's so easy to get sucked into it. grar

Posted by psymon.d on Jun-09-2009 22:08:

quote:
Originally posted by BTG
i've secretly been playing diablo 2 again :/

it's so easy to get sucked into it. grar

I've secretly been playing Starcraft 1, and same scenario

Posted by Philby on Jun-10-2009 08:16:

quote:
Originally posted by BTG
i've secretly been playing diablo 2 again :/

it's so easy to get sucked into it. grar

doesn't run on my laptop

Posted by ChriSiZm on Jun-11-2009 23:51:

Dude, I know how addictive it is. I love it!

Posted by psymon.d on Jun-27-2009 00:51:

anyone watch any of the replays on the starcraft 2 website? it's not good to the old patience reserves.

Posted by Philby on Jun-30-2009 01:17:

no lan for starcraft 2, multiplayer will be on battle.net only

http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/999/999171p1.html

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jun-30-2009 02:55:

quote:
Originally posted by Philby
no lan for starcraft 2, multiplayer will be on battle.net only

http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/999/999171p1.html

that's fucking shit.

Posted by CONNERMAN2000 on Jun-30-2009 06:21:

That's probably the dumbest thing to happen in the history of PC gaming.

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jun-30-2009 07:38:

i bet those apples are tasting pretty sour captain cocaine! how you like them?

Posted by SuspicionVandit on Jun-30-2009 07:43:

lag.

Posted by ChriSiZm on Jun-30-2009 09:14:

If I die it's lag.

Posted by david.michael on Jun-30-2009 12:50:

That is indeed probably one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

I'm sure people will find a way to emulate the battle.net servers and do it anyway, but, seriously? What a stupid move on Blizzard's part.

Ah well, still gonna play it, and there will be workarounds (just connect via battle.net anyway)... just don't see the logic there.

Posted by CONNERMAN2000 on Jun-30-2009 17:01:

quote:
Originally posted by david.michael
Ah well, still gonna play it, and there will be workarounds (just connect via battle.net anyway)... just don't see the logic there.

Yeah, it isn't THAT big of a deal, but it just seems like a dumb move to slap the gaming community in the face like that. A big reason Starcraft has such a following is because of its internet-cafe popularity (especially in Asia); a place that very much uses the LAN feature.

But really, this can be worked around. Nowadays if you have a system that can access a LAN, you can probably access the internet as well, which, obviously, allows Battle.net. However, like you said...don't see the logic here. It's creating an unnecessary second step.

Posted by david.michael on Jun-30-2009 17:14:

quote:
Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000
Yeah, it isn't THAT big of a deal, but it just seems like a dumb move to slap the gaming community in the face like that. A big reason Starcraft has such a following is because of its internet-cafe popularity (especially in Asia); a place that very much uses the LAN feature.

But really, this can be worked around. Nowadays if you have a system that can access a LAN, you can probably access the internet as well, which, obviously, allows Battle.net. However, like you said...don't see the logic here. It's creating an unnecessary second step.

My big gripe is, what's the point in adding all the extra hops if you want to play with someone sitting next to you?

Posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY on Jun-30-2009 17:42:

lol, lag

Posted by weymouth on Jun-30-2009 18:22:

Looks like Blizzard is stepping up its anti-piracy by creating bnet only multiplayer where you have to have a battle.net account that verifies the legitness of the game.

I for one am happy for this change as I hate people that steal games.

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jun-30-2009 23:16:

quote:
Originally posted by weymouth
I for one am happy for this change as I hate people that steal games.

yeah, but i dont hate them so much that i want blizzard to fuck me in the arse too.

Posted by Omega_Blue on Jun-30-2009 23:30:

quote:
Originally posted by weymouth
Looks like Blizzard is stepping up its anti-piracy by creating bnet only multiplayer where you have to have a battle.net account that verifies the legitness of the game.

that, and i'm sure they probably wanted streamline the multiplayer process so users can just use an all-in-one solution/menu option instead. maybe they'll incorporate lan settings for battle.net, i dunno i don't use it so i don't know how it works exactly

Posted by BTG on Jul-02-2009 05:02:

it's not that bad.

blizzard is too loyal to its fan base to just charge a monthly fee.

and there might be a spawn copy available..but doubtful.

anywyas. who cares. who has lan parties anyways?

Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »