http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boycott
to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions

So unless no LAN in SC2 causes them to refrain from purchasing ANY BLIZZARD GAME (not just SC2), it's not a boycott, even technically.

I have never cared about StarCraft so I'm indifferent. However, I know that I would be pissed about the lack of LAN support if I did care.

I would strongly suggest everyone who wants LAN play to write the company and let them know your dissatisfaction with their decision. The good devs actually listen to their customers so it is worth a shot.

Double post.

@ your first post. 

Yes it does sound strange but only because you used a horrible example.

Think of it this way, you boycotted the pencil because it was made from trees and you happen to be a tree hugger. There, you have succesfully boycotted the pencils even though you can still continue to buy pencil sharpers made by the same company.

@ your second post.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boycott

http://www.yourdictionary.com/boycott

transitive verb

1. to join together in refusing to deal with, so as to punish, coerce, etc.
2. to refuse to buy, sell, or use to boycott a newspaper

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/boycott

TRANSITIVE VERB: 
boy·cott·ed , boy·cott·ing , boy·cotts

When that stupid cheetos boycott came up, were the parent and teachers boycotting fritolays (the company) or cheetos (the product)?

When the farmers boycotted california lettuce, grapes and wine. Did they boycott everything from california or just the grapes, lettuce and wine?

I think it's this part is what he's getting at.

Here, I'll give an example: Imagine the next Xbox did not have media playing capabilities (like the 360 currently does). I might refrain from buying the console for that reason - however, not to protest against Microsoft's decision, but because the product no longer meets my needs.

It's the same with Starcraft 2's lack of LAN. People may have just been looking for a game with LAN play. If Blizzard removes it, the game is no longer a desired product, and there is no reason to buy it.

a boycott is meant to hurt the product's company. ALthough not buying a company's product does hurt it slightly, the intent is different.

Not buying something because it lacks something you want is simply not buying.

Not buying something because it is morally offensive to you or for the sake of others, is boycotting. Hell, you can even boycott a really awesome product. Say for example SC2 had lan, and everything you wanted and more. Say it was made in North Korea and you do not want to support North Korea in any way. That is a boycott.

However, in favor of this being a boycott, a boycott is sometimes used when a product is desired but something needs to be changed before you buy it, for example, moving the company out of North Korea.

So, in a way, you're both right. However, most of the people that want LAN play in this scenario, want it for pirating purposes ie: Installing one copy of the game on multiple computers for more than one person to play at a time. So it's slightly more "not desirable" than "boycotting".

jesus, now this has become an argument of semantics

well anyways, no one in this threat is trying bring blizzard to its knees by refusing to starcraft 2. Anyways, I think final fan is correct in this case. If I don't buy a Wii, it is not because I want nintendo to change its practices, its because I dont have enough interest (well that and can't justify another console with my lack of funds).

According to your definition bbsin, then everything I didn't buy would be an act of boycotting (and there are many, many things I dont buy)

Even if you follow some of the definitions, the most widely accepted use of boycott is to use a group to hurt the sales of a company in order to cause change. The general lag of organization and attempt to try change.
At this point, the people express that dont want to buy simply don't feel the product is worth it for them.

Thank you.  Yes, a boycott is a statement along the lines of "I hate you / what you did, so I'm not buying this even though I want it" as opposed to "I don't want to buy this product".  Some people may feel that offended by the lack of LAN, but I think the people in this thread were simply saying, "lack of LAN means I don't want to buy this anymore". 

(sigh)

One guy from this thread said: "No Lan = no buy.... torrent then"

Another one seemed so disgusted that he went on to talk about Blizzard as if they're doing some horrible deed then goes on to imply that he'll also pirate the game.

Based off the posts from those people, you can easily tell that they are disgruntled by Blizzard's decision and method but they still want the game due to the fact that they plan to torrent it, illegally. Heck, if they didn't want the game, why some people be so fired up about the removal of LAN support?

So..."I hate you / what you did, so I'm not buying this even though I want it"

Doesn't that sound familiar?

Some people are disfavoring the decision to take away LAN and are not buying the game as a result to show it. It's not as simple as: "oh, the sole purpose of having starcraft is so I can play via LAN" or "SC2 MUST have LAN for me to deem it valuable". In that case, you're all telling me that they wouldn't torrent SC2 if it did have LAN? Think about it. They're not buying SC2 because they want to express their disfavor towards Blizzard's decision, which ultimately hurts the company.

It's not hard to grasp at all, especially if you read. I suppose some of you happen to think that a boycott without riots, hate signs and an attempt to bring a dealer down doesn't exist. If that's the case, it'd be a waste of my time to expect any reasonable outcome from continuing.

@Theshrike: Well first off, I never directed my boycott statement towards anyone in this thread, you assumed that I did, that's how it started. Secondly, it doesn't matter whether a definition is "widely" used over another, that doesn't negate the fact that another meaning exist. Third, your example (as well as c0rd's) is nothing like how some people in this thread expressed their decision in not buying SC2. And finally, you're not getting my point if you think I'm implying that as long as someone refrains from buying a product, it'd be considered a boycott. That's simply not the case. It depends on the context of the situation, the reasoning of both parties' actions and the results.

Have to agree with bbsin here, half the people that said no lan= no buy added they would pirate the game...