EPTAnd honestly, to me, it's a little depressing to see "Valve > Blizzard" on TL.net, home of Starcraft tournament coverage. ):
Blizzard, a bunch of liars. - Page 3
| Blogs > yejin |
|
DeckOneBell
United States526 Posts
And honestly, to me, it's a little depressing to see "Valve > Blizzard" on TL.net, home of Starcraft tournament coverage. ): | ||
|
Garnet
Vietnam9056 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
Now blizzard is trying to get a new one for sc2 as well as Valve trying to remake it almost exactly. What is going to happen is the community will be so fragmented that the genre could just die out. You will just have a bunch of people arguing about which game is better, then patches could come and reverse the order of best competitive dota style game back and forth and fanboys and poor players will just stick to the one they know/can play and more and more players will bleed off into other games until every game just has such small following it becomes like wc2 where there is only a handful of diehards running their own custom servers or whatever. PS- Have they still not come up with a fucking name for this genre of game? I'm sick of calling everything 'dota type' or whatever. | ||
|
ffswowsucks
Greece2298 Posts
| ||
|
vek
Australia936 Posts
On October 28 2010 04:28 Kralic wrote: Valve vs Blizzard on doing good and bad deeds is silly. Both companies have done good things and also bad things in the past and present. Valve practically pioneered the DRM concept yet no one really hates them for it anymore. Blizzard does Battle.net 2.0 and is crucified because it has DRM. The simple way to put it every game producer and developer is evil in the eyes of their customers at one or more points in their companies history. People will forget about this in years to come, just like how Valve was forgiven for paving the way of DRM. I don't get why people are under the assumption Blizzard is getting upset about valve "doing it first". They are just stating that they think it is not a good choice to try and trademark the word "DOTA". Could be a hidden message here but it is all speculation and conjecture. I love & hate both companies time to time. [Edit]: Read the Steam EULA and you will cringe as well. I think the reason people accepted Valve's Steam as a DRM platform while Blizzard got blasted for battle.net 2.0 was because Steam added many features and did not take away any old ones. Steam: - LAN support (obviously for games that have it included). - Ability to use local custom content without ridiculous censorship. - Chat across all games not just ones developed by Valve. - Global community. - Steam cloud for save games/configs across multiple computers. In Steam's case you end up with more features than before as a "trade" for DRM. Battle.net 2.0: - Locked the community into regions they couldn't choose. - Removed LAN. - Removed Chat. - Cross game "Real ID" chat did not work as advertised for SEA players. - Awful custom game interface, brilliant games removed for pathetic censorship reasons even though the game is rated Teen. In battle.net 2.0's case... well yeah. A bit off-topic I know but you don't have to think very hard to work out why people accepted Steam more readily than battle.net 2.0. On topic.. good to see Rob Pardo is still as childish as ever, Blizzard had nothing to do with the original DOTA D: | ||
|
SpaceChick
173 Posts
FACTS: 2 years ago, Blizzard offered Icefrog to join in and rework Dota inside Blizzard. The goal was to make a quick game with basically no additionnal development needed, and sell it: a cash machine . Source for your bold-cap-facts please And i just found this while searching the net, interesting http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/showthread.php?s=5d887059e0f925d0e193bd52b09747a3&t=159905 Icefrog worked for S2 games, S2 owns rights to use atleast 3 years of dota's development however they wish, Valve/Icefrog is trying to claim these rights for themselves. From Pendragon, creator of Dota-allstars.com http://www.dota-allstars.com/index.html While I originally intended to leave this out of this letter, in light of the fact that this information is now out in the open, I think it’s important to set the record straight. Many believe that Icefrog left because I wanted to commercialize, and he did not. In reality – I had learned that Icefrog had been secretly working for S2Games after conducting a series of meetings where he was attempting to sell a full DotA game concept to a number of companies (including Riot). The differences of opinion that we had were merely that I chose to be transparent and honest about the project that I was working on, and the direction my career was going. | ||
|
HeadhunteR
Argentina1258 Posts
| ||
|
Kralic
Canada2628 Posts
On October 28 2010 20:22 vek wrote: I think the reason people accepted Valve's Steam as a DRM platform while Blizzard got blasted for battle.net 2.0 was because Steam added many features and did not take away any old ones. Steam: - LAN support (obviously for games that have it included). - Ability to use local custom content without ridiculous censorship. - Chat across all games not just ones developed by Valve. - Global community. - Steam cloud for save games/configs across multiple computers. In Steam's case you end up with more features than before as a "trade" for DRM. Battle.net 2.0: - Locked the community into regions they couldn't choose. - Removed LAN. - Removed Chat. - Cross game "Real ID" chat did not work as advertised for SEA players. - Awful custom game interface, brilliant games removed for pathetic censorship reasons even though the game is rated Teen. In battle.net 2.0's case... well yeah. A bit off-topic I know but you don't have to think very hard to work out why people accepted Steam more readily than battle.net 2.0. On topic.. good to see Rob Pardo is still as childish as ever, Blizzard had nothing to do with the original DOTA D: I will give you that, but you must also know that Steam was terrible when it first came out as well. -Friend system wasn't working for a long time. -No chat channels -Limited games -A lot of bugs that froze games you were playing. -If you use paypal and your account has a dispute with Valve they lock and close your account. -Valve releasing a fake "leaked" version of HL2 so they could mass ban those who used the cd-key(not a bad thing, but a dick move for the company to grab money off of all the HL1, CS, Blue shift, Opposing Force games they banned the cd-keys on). -No account security options. The list can go on for Valve as well. Battle.net 2.0 is in its new stage and Blizzard has admited they need to do a lot of work on it still. You mean LAN play as in you have to be connected to steam to be able to use those games?(Not all but a lot need a internet connection to launch so you can play the game to play LAN). Blizzard;s DOTA is just a fun mod they are doing of course most people will probably choose Valve's version because like you said Steam has more friendly features. I still don't agree with Valve trying to trademark the name "DOTA" though. At least HON and LOL were able to come up with their own names for the game. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11567 Posts
blogs like this are really fucking annoying when one person makes up a few lies and everybody gets to bandwagon against blizzard -_- | ||
|
DeckOneBell
United States526 Posts
On October 29 2010 02:14 FragKrag wrote: I don't see what's wrong with Rob Pardo's comment? Why is it ok for Valve to trademark a name that has been free to use for anyone in the past? blogs like this are really fucking annoying when one person makes up a few lies and everybody gets to bandwagon against blizzard -_- You so cool, FragKrag. Really doesn't seem like a big deal to me. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32161 Posts
.... ......... hahahahahahhahahah no aint nothing wrong with what valve is doing | ||
|
OpticalShot
Canada6330 Posts
| ||
| ||
