EPTWill you buy SC2 or pretend you won't but then buy it anyw…
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
| ||
|
dhe95
United States1213 Posts
On June 09 2010 04:30 snpnx wrote: I will buy the original game. But if they're not improving the Bnet and it's predictable that it'll fail as an competitive game after release, I won't buy the expansions Oh don't worry, the two expansions will fix everything that you want to be fixed. Then you'll buy the two expansions and find out they did absolutely nothing you wanted them to do. | ||
|
makoplux
88 Posts
Seriously guys.... both Starcraft II itself and BNet2.0 are in beta. I can only assume that Diablo III will also run on BNet2.0 and so Blizzard obviously has the intentions of developing it for quite some time. You're going to boycott Stracraft II because of some ridiculous standards you had envisioned for it that aren't being met? It's as though you feel like Blizzard is indebted to you and you've been violated in some way. News Flash: If anyone is in debt here it's us. Blizzard has consistently made AMAZING game experiences for us for over a decade. Now it appears they're either a) not quite meeting your social expectations on BNet or b) just haven't gotten around to it yet and you are boycotting their game? This does nothing more than make you all look like whining, crying, spoiled children who can't believe they're not being given everything EXACTLY the way they want it. The least you can do if you're going to boycott the game is not talk about it so much. You're poisoning forums which are otherwise an enjoyable experience. | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
| ||
|
danbel1005
United States1319 Posts
| ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On June 09 2010 04:58 makopluxx wrote: Thank god no good players will be boycotting the game. Not a single one of you will be missed. I have to wonder if the same part of your brain that makes you unnecessarily bitter towards Blizzard is the part that controls your inability to be good at it. Seriously guys.... both Starcraft II itself and BNet2.0 are in beta. I can only assume that Diablo III will also run on BNet2.0 and so Blizzard obviously has the intentions of developing it for quite some time. You're going to boycott Stracraft II because of some ridiculous standards you had envisioned for it that aren't being met? It's as though you feel like Blizzard is indebted to you and you've been violated in some way. News Flash: If anyone is in debt here it's us. Blizzard has consistently made AMAZING game experiences for us for over a decade. Now it appears they're either a) not quite meeting your social expectations on BNet or b) just haven't gotten around to it yet and you are boycotting their game? This does nothing more than make you all look like whining, crying, spoiled children who can't believe they're not being given everything EXACTLY the way they want it. The least you can do if you're going to boycott the game is not talk about it so much. You're poisoning forums which are otherwise an enjoyable experience. So in your opinion, what exactly would be a good reason to boycott the game? I don't see why you feel we're indebted to Blizzard for anything. We're the ones buying the games and paying their salaries to make those games. I don't thank a restaurant for giving me good food when I'm paying for it... That's just stupid. If Blizzard wants our money, they need to give us what we want. It's as simple as that. I'm not going to buy a car with problems that make it unsuitable to me hoping that the manufacturer will eventually get around to fixing it. Why would I buy a game I'm not satisfied with hoping that the problems I have with it will eventually get addressed sometimes down the future after I've already spend $60+ for it? It makes no sense. If you're not satisfied with a product as it is, I think that's as good a reason as any not to purchase it. Also keep in mind that what may not be a big problem for you may certainly be a major issue for someone else. I don't think it's fair to accuse them of having "ridiculous" expectations since there's really no standard by which to compare these things. Who's to say that your expectations are not just "ridiculously low"? Another thing to note is that not everyone shares your opinion that Blizzard has consistently made amazing game experiences for us for over a decade. Blizzard has made some good games, but has had little to do with creating a great in-game experience for users. It's largely been the community and third parties that have taken Blizzard's games and bumped it up to the next level without any contribution from Blizzard. Left to Blizzard alone, Starcraft and Warcraft 3 would both be long gone and forgotten by now or right alongside Diablo 2 in the "played only by hackers, abusers, exploiters, and bots" category of games. In terms of the in-game experience, WGT, PGT, and ICCup have contributed way more to the quality of the player experience than Blizzard ever has. Forums exist for discussion and not everyone is going to have the same opinion. If you have a serious problem with reading complaints, either don't read them or stay far away from the internet. Where there's people, there will be complaints. It's unavoidable. I would take a forum where both sides can speak their minds over a forum where nobody is allowed to say anything negative at all because censorship is what really "poisons" a forum in my opinion. | ||
|
RageKage-KAD
United States10 Posts
Nothing will stop me from buying this game. | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
On June 09 2010 04:58 makopluxx wrote: ITS BETA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111. what you see will be what you get at sc2 release. Its not finished, yet sc2 was delayed for a very long time because of bnet 2.0. It makes you wonder what they spent their time doing when all you get is facebook integration and everything that made RTS a community is gone. There are several people, who have voiced their oppinions and made well thought out arguments for why bnet sux and if it is not fixed it will be detrimental to the overall online experience. Come release i will not buy the game. edit: I will buy it later, but even withholding your money for a month will reduce blizzards copies sold at release % and if enough people do not jump at the released game instantly like hungry dogs cheering blizzards name furthermore proving that you can do WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT with your game as long as you sugarcoat it with a popular brand. Companies will simply keep doing it untill the consumer base says STOP. it dosnt work the opposite way, because as long as their game hits a record high sales rate they will be able to call it a success. | ||
|
Ronald_McD
Canada807 Posts
Chat rooms now in B.net 2.0 The catch? You have to pay for them! Bnet 2 is a big smelly turd. It has some nice graphical improvements and matchmaking But I seriously think they took out more than they kept in the game platform that is Bnet However, I'm going to be buying StarCraft 2 for the game, not Bnet2.0. If there was any way to play it on some kind of other platform, I would totally do it. | ||
|
Wedge
Canada580 Posts
| ||
|
QueueQueue
Canada1000 Posts
On June 09 2010 05:24 Madkipz wrote: It makes you wonder what they spent their time doing when all you get is facebook integration People need to stop complaining about them "allocating time" to facebook integration. The facebook infrastructure allows for ease of pulling data from it. The only thing their facebook integration did was pull e-mails from the database. It so ridiculously simple that any one with any programming experience whatsoever can do it in SO little time. They added it because it was something simple that could be done in so little time. | ||
|
bokchoi
Korea (South)9498 Posts
| ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On June 09 2010 05:35 QueueQueue wrote: People need to stop complaining about them "allocating time" to facebook integration. The facebook infrastructure allows for ease of pulling data from it. The only thing their facebook integration did was pull e-mails from the database. It so ridiculously simple that any one with any programming experience whatsoever can do it in SO little time. They added it because it was something simple that could be done in so little time. I think it's similar to the feeling a person would get if they loaned you money because you were struggling financially and saw you go out and buy a 55" TV before you've totally paid them back. Even if the two issues are not necessarily related, it just sends the wrong impression and Blizzard should have known better... | ||
|
Grend
1600 Posts
| ||
|
Coraz
United States252 Posts
I'll buy sc2 battlechest for $40 in 3 years maybe | ||
|
tipakee
United States127 Posts
Also quit all the complaining on the forums. Blizzard's main intention is to make money (just like every other publicly traded company), not to make good games. Good games just happens to be the method blizzard chooses to make there money. | ||
|
DeCoup
Australia1933 Posts
 | ||
|
SchumyGR
Greece19 Posts
| ||
|
sneaky.waechter
Germany3 Posts
| ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On June 09 2010 05:35 QueueQueue wrote: People need to stop complaining about them "allocating time" to facebook integration. The facebook infrastructure allows for ease of pulling data from it. The only thing their facebook integration did was pull e-mails from the database. It so ridiculously simple that any one with any programming experience whatsoever can do it in SO little time. They added it because it was something simple that could be done in so little time. I find your argument pretty funny, because... Chat rooms are "something simple that could be done in so little time". IRC has existed pretty much since the internet and it's very simple to implement. Cross realm play is "something simple that could be done in so little time". You can even do it yourself by just replacing one small file, totally not a problem for them to add it at all. LAN play is "something simple that could be done in so little time". They already have online play, LAN is not somehow more complex or an issue at all. Are you even serious with your argument? Considering the facts it looks more like sarcasm, despite not being intended as such. | ||
| ||
