No LAN support for StarCraft II

By Robert Purchese Published 30 June, 2009

There is only Battle.net.

Blizzard chief game designer Rob Pardo has said that there will be no LAN support in StarCraft II, as all multiplayer will go through online portal Battle.net.

"We don't have any plans to support LAN," Pardo told IncGamers. "We will not support it."

The chances of StarCraft II heading to console are equally slim, or "zero per cent", according to Pardo - as if anyone thought otherwise.

StarCraft II: Terrans - Wings of Victory, the first of three parts, launches later this year on PC.

Head over to our freshly-minted hands-on impressions of the StarCraft II beta to find out much, much more.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (36) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • patchbox360 #1 3 years ago

    how similar is this game to warcraft 3??

  • menschenfracht #2 3 years ago

    *devil laugh*

  • Huntcjna #3 3 years ago

    Dumbest decision ever. Is it really that hard to have a LAN option?

  • menschenfracht #4 3 years ago

    i think this has something to do with piracy.

  • towser #5 3 years ago

    I'm thinking that their reason is so they can track stats...

    I bet you and a buddy can still connect and play together but only how Blizzard want's you to. ;-)

  • Dizzy #6 3 years ago

    Strange decision.... probably to make sure internet cafes can't run "illegal" copies.
    Edited by 1 at 30/06/09 @ 14:33

  • DFawkes #7 3 years ago

    That's a real shame. With most households having more than one machine now (I say from the evidence of me and my geeky friends, which isn't really fair I suppose) I'd have thought a LAN option would be easy as pie. I suppose most of those multi-PC homes will have net access, but still. I actually use the LAN options, especially in RTS games.

  • XanderFish #8 3 years ago

    I play all my multiplayer PC games over LAN, including the original Starcraft. I may think twice before buying this now.

  • Ryuken #9 3 years ago

    You could have guessed this as Jay Wilson said the same thing about Diablo III (also a Battle.net 2.0 game) almost a year ago. The popularity of Hamachi with pirates seems like a reason to go through with this... hopefully Battle.net 2.0 really does deliver the goods (and is stable/fast/hack free unlike previous Battle.net iterations) then because Blizzard sure is betting a lot on it.

  • Shinji #10 3 years ago

    I don't see anything in Pardo's statement which suggests that you won't be able to play the game over a LAN - it's just that it's not going to have a specific LAN play option. Instead you'll set up your LAN games over Battle.net, but still play them locally. The main benefit being that you can track your LAN game stats along with your online game stats.

    This isn't actually that dissimilar from just quite a lot of other games in recent years, which just treat LAN games in the same way as online games.

  • MightyMouse #11 3 years ago

    So it's a straight trade between consumer good and anti-piracy? Not the absolute worst option they could have gone for really though I'm wondering how much research they did to convince themselves that few people used LANs.

  • paketep #12 3 years ago

    It's "StarCraft II: Terrans - Epic Fail" now.

  • hiddenranbir #13 3 years ago

    Pirates can't hamachi it now. :)

  • Nithron #14 3 years ago

    Yep. Now that pirates can't play it multiplayer on Hamachi, until someone makes a workaround, watch the sales just soar.

    It's a good job Blizzard don't mind removing functionality for the sake of annoying a few pirates, because lord knows, they need all the cash they can get right now.

  • skillian #15 3 years ago

    Sad that functionality gets removed these days but just a sign of the times I guess.

    Most LANs have an internet connection so shouldn't be too big a deal, but sucks for those who don't or whose connection is unstable.

  • wellzy4eva #16 3 years ago

    No LAN eh? well I guess most computer networks have the internet anyway, so going through Battle.net isn't such a huge deal.

    But is it just me, or don't you get a quite a bit of lag when more than one computer/console plays online gaming?

  • Whizzo #17 3 years ago

    No LAN play seems like a very poor decision.

  • Kerome #18 3 years ago

    Definitely to do with piracy... expect to see significant amounts of functionality tied into Battle.Net. It's a very natural move for them to make, really, but if Blizzard's previous record is anything to go by there will be value for the player in there somewhere.

  • hahayou #19 3 years ago

    If all this b.net 2 stuff was so compelling and great people would choose to use it without them taking away the alternative. This is strictly anti-piracy, they aren't making themselves look good by trying to spin it.

    I really hope it doesn't extend to playing solo against multiplayer bots. If I can't have a skirmish on my laptop then no sale.
    Edited by 1 at 30/06/09 @ 16:36

  • Xerx3s #20 3 years ago

    Damn, the only time that I played SC online was over a lan. I hope that they change their mind and support lan for Diablo 3 or it's going to be a serious kick in the teeth.

  • bionutz #21 3 years ago

    I prefer Battle.net. No more stupid bots, no more cheating. All my friends are in different parts of the world now, so I wouldn't be able to play at home with anyone. Battle.net is good for you.

  • sneetch #22 3 years ago

    Well, what's the problem?

    You and your friends sitting on your household LAN will connect to Battle.net, authenticate, create a lobby, launch the game and it then hands over the networking to your client machines and you end up having a LAN game.

  • craziii #23 3 years ago

    like sneetch typed, what is the problem?

  • Ryuken #24 3 years ago

    The problem is that it isn't clear those friends will all need a separate copy of the game or not this way. If they do then there isn't much of a point introducing the game to other people. They haven't even confirmed Battle.net will hand over the networking to your client machines after a possible Battle.net check so that you end up with a LAN game after all.

    Blizzard only have themselves to blame for this uproar, just like Valve with L4D2. It's about time developers start being clear about their projects and underlying services.

  • Spekingur #25 3 years ago

    So when battle.net is down you won't be able to play the game with you friends? This warrants a big Yay! in a sarcastic way.

  • mull #26 3 years ago

    I think this is great. Cloudy gaming with stats, keyboard profiles, social stuff and integration FTW. Can't wait to see what they do with Battle.net 2.0

  • Xerx3s #27 3 years ago

    The problem is that battlenet only save your stuff for so long and then throws it out. The problem is that sometimes we like to use mods on a lan because we only have very little time. The problem is that when you have a shit internet connection - or worse, no connection - you will have a hard time playing. The problem is that if battlenet is down, you can just as well stop lanning.

    etc.etc.etc.

    However, no problem, people will soon have hacked the connection and we will be able to run our own private servers.

  • mkreku #28 3 years ago

    Oh, I remember the Starcraft games over LAN at my university network.. Ten nerds crammed into a computer lab. I wonder if that will even be possible now?

  • CouldntResist #29 3 years ago

    This will become more and more common over the next few years imo for the following reasons:

    1. Combating piracy - need to authenticate on Bnet before playing
    2. Increasing internet speed / coverage - LAN becomes more and more obsolete
    3. Ties all MP activity into a single service - allows easier tracking of MP player activity

    Just a few points on some of the comments made:

    1. 'You have to be connected to BNET to play MP' / 'BNET needs to work for you to play MP' - Battle.net has comparative service uptime to mobile phone companies - you don't ever expect to lose mobile connectivity do you?

    2. 'Friends needing a separate copy of the game' - what exactly is the problem with this. Lend them your copy if they want to try it?

    3. Not being able to play MP mods - valid point, but i doubt mods in the traditional sense will form a big part of SC2 play. Customisation will be in the form of custom maps. Anyone who has played ums on SC or custom maps on WC3 will realise the power that the map editor will allow those who are creatively inclined.

    4. 'Slow internet connection' - a dying breed, and if i were a game developer with a big fanbase such as Blizzard, i wouldn't consider catering for such a niche market at the expense of making my game more vulnerable to piracy.
    Edited by 1 at 30/06/09 @ 20:56

  • bionutz #30 3 years ago

    @Watkins381 lol £10 bet that bionuts works for Skynet.
    No :), am just an SAP consultant who travels a lot :)... not even in UK :(.

  • Ryuken #31 3 years ago

    "2. 'Friends needing a separate copy of the game' - what exactly is the problem with this. Lend them your copy if they want to try it?"

    If you're doing a LAN among friends you can hardly expect everyone to already have a copy of the game, most RTSs figured that one out as you can just play on a LAN with one copy by installing it on every PC. That's where the "introduce the game to friends" comes from you see.

    As for Battle.net being online all the time, we'll see how BN 2.0 turns out at launch day and the first week after the release ok? :) There have been plenty enough examples of BN failing in those circumstances. Diablo II anyone?

  • Hantheman #32 3 years ago

    People actually have lan parties? I thought that was a joke.

  • Spekingur #33 3 years ago

    They seem to have forgotten what made the first Starcraft so popular. And that was not the combatting-piracy part.

  • schachmatt #34 3 years ago

    Exactly, as others have already pointed out, the possibility of the SC to play multiplayer matches with just one copy was what made it more popular than other rts-games and ultimately sold them more copies.
    Even though I probably wouldn't have used it it would have been a nice gesture including it.

  • sneetch #35 3 years ago

    @Ryuken
    If you're doing a LAN among friends you can hardly expect everyone to already have a copy of the game, most RTSs figured that one out as you can just play on a LAN with one copy by installing it on every PC. That's where the "introduce the game to friends" comes from you see.

    You can't expect them to have a copy of the game that you've arranged to meet up to play? I think you can. You might as well say you can hardly expect everyone to already have a PC.

    To be honest most RTSs I've seen require you to have separate copies (and indeed the CD/DVD in the drive while you play, quite a few stop working if you remove the disc from the drive, others like MOO3 don't allow you to connect to another copy installed with the same CD key) that you may be able to fool or crack their security systems is, I believe, unintentional.

    To play in a SCII LAN you will need a Battle.net account per player and you will need to have SCII registered with that account. I don't know if they are planning on simulating the "single copy" style of game in any way but I doubt it, they want to sell the game not provide a few free hours of entertainment for people who haven't bought it. That said, allowing people with SCII to issue invites to their friends for a trial that lasts a few hours would IMHO be a very good idea from a marketing/sales point of view.

  • sneetch #36 3 years ago

    @Xerx3s
    The problem is that battlenet only save your stuff for so long and then throws it out.

    Throws out what, specifically? Your authentication details? I doubt it, Battle.net 2.0 will be like Steam in that way.

    The problem is that sometimes we like to use mods on a lan because we only have very little time.

    I don't know what the modding plans are for SCII but I don't see why that would be a problem, if they allow mods in SCII then surely having to authenticate through Battle.net won't affect that. If however you mean hacked game files then they will probably detect that as "cheating" or whatever.

    The problem is that when you have a shit internet connection - or worse, no connection - you will have a hard time playing.

    Well, as it will only require you to authenticate a shit connection will do. It's not like you'll be running off a Battle.net server after all, (I'm 100% positive Blizzard won't be hosting the games) the games will still be peer-to-peer or off private servers like SCI and WCIII so you won't need to send your actual game traffic to Battle.net.

    No connection will make it impossible but even dial-up should do. I've never been at a LAN where there was no connection but yeah it is possible.

    The problem is that if battlenet is down, you can just as well stop lanning.

    Yes, this will be a problem and damned annoyance. It will (hopefully) be more likely that your internet connection will be down (which would be just as annoying :) ).