EPTD3 Bnet is going the same way as SC2 - Page 3
| Forum Index > Diablo 3 |
|
Count9
China10928 Posts
| ||
|
nvs.
Canada3609 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States5272 Posts
On February 07 2012 11:03 Urbz wrote: Exactly, as said before; see you all at release. And if not, your loss. =) None of us needs this game. There are tons of other games and other companies. Maybe there's one person in the thread who has a fetish and gets off patronizing bad companies. The rest of us figure if we are going to waste our time, it might as well be with a game we like. It blows my mind that companies keep creating this situation where they vacuum every grain out of the community's sandbox because the studio insists on being internet nannies. Hopefully Blizzards will be self-defeating in the long run and we can have a good industry again. | ||
|
jimmyjingle
United States472 Posts
Asserting that blizzard doesn't listen to it's community is also a bit silly. But do remember that Blizz is making more intelligent business decisions than before, and as they've grown, they've had to distinguish their brand of services. There literally isn't a better way to do that than a client-server-client system. Also, kindof related, WoW. On release in 2004, literally most of the time spent "playing" was socializing and running around the world. You couldn't really enjoy the game without making friends, that was the whole appeal. Today in 2012, you can defeat the end boss without talking to a single person. | ||
|
Kamikiri
United States1319 Posts
| ||
|
Playguuu
United States926 Posts
What's the difference? We'll all still buy it anyway, right? | ||
|
Nilrem
United States3684 Posts
On February 07 2012 11:52 jimmyjingle wrote: I'll play the devil's advocate, fine, whatever. The new BNET's lack of features is not due to incompetence or negligence (lol.) Asserting that blizzard doesn't listen to it's community is also a bit silly. But do remember that Blizz is making more intelligent business decisions than before, and as they've grown, they've had to distinguish their brand of services. There literally isn't a better way to do that than a client-server-client system. Also, kindof related, WoW. On release in 2004, literally most of the time spent "playing" was socializing and running around the world. You couldn't really enjoy the game without making friends, that was the whole appeal. Today in 2012, you can defeat the end boss without talking to a single person. Not a very good devils advocate since you refrained from even explaining why! Than again, that may be partly due to playing devils advocate on a topic where one does not even believe it, makes it a bit difficult. I do agree with the second point about Blizzard not listening to the community. Blizzard obviously does, that does not necessarily translate over to doing as the community demands. | ||
|
Medzo
United States627 Posts
I still like blizzard, a lot, but what the hell man? In my opinion, they need to replace whoever is in charge of Battle.net and rethink how they interact with their fans about works in progress. Sadly though, they are still better than almost every other game company out there. VALVe is starting to look better and better though. | ||
|
jupiter6
205 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Gliche
United States811 Posts
| ||
|
jimmyjingle
United States472 Posts
On February 07 2012 12:03 Nilrem wrote: Not a very good devils advocate since you refrained from even explaining why! Than again, that may be partly due to playing devils advocate on a topic where one does not even believe it, makes it a bit difficult. I do agree with the second point about Blizzard not listening to the community. Blizzard obviously does, that does not necessarily translate over to doing as the community demands. Why what? The old BNET features are now redundant. IRC style chat is no longer necessary and contradicts battletags. people forget the value of simplicity | ||
|
Serpico
4285 Posts
On February 07 2012 12:57 jimmyjingle wrote: Why what? The old BNET features are now redundant. IRC style chat is no longer necessary and contradicts battletags. people forget the value of simplicity Simplicity in this case meaning regression. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On February 07 2012 11:48 oBlade wrote: It blows my mind that companies keep creating this situation where they vacuum every grain out of the community's sandbox because the studio insists on being internet nannies. Hopefully Blizzards will be self-defeating in the long run and we can have a good industry again. And yet you manage to find time to complain about companies you dont like when you may well be doing the same thing. Hyperbole I know, just had to say it anyway. I personally hate the idea of Open channels, it means you spend alot of meaningless time in game. Join a guild, play with your friends, if people have been playing so many "other" games for years and havent found like minded friends to try new games with then well yeah, sucks for you. Ive played WoW pretty hardcore for 4-5 years and I dont ever remember talking to anyone outside my guild. And I enjoyed the social aspect of it sure but I dont see why open channels were appealing there. I didnt play broodwar but war3 was pretty much the same. Honestly if people are such vets of mmo/multiplayer they cant possibly have made NO likeminded friends to enjoy the game with. Its a weak arguement and ofcourse its a seflish opinion but Im not trying to make new D3 friends sorry, I have a community and Im going to enjoy it with them. There has never really been an awesome broad community" if there has people always talk about it with disdain. No one ever talks about the masses in a positive tone ever, well atleast until apparantly its been taken away from them. Hell alot of the time people like to talk about the larger community even of this forum like theyre a bunch of idiots in every other thread that has some kind of difference of opinion involved, not realising ofcourse that they are apart of said community. D3 will mean sub groups of similar players will find ways to find each other and enjoy the game together more, just for the most part like SC2. Bnet 2.0 is annoying sure but not because you cant go into random country channels and what not. Its not the same social buzz it used to be, but its a more mature and efficient one. Theyll get it right eventually, and if they dont. Well then people have already expressed the desire to play other games. The AH looks ok to me aswell. I feel they will only make money if they take cuts for people who buy items with actual cash (not sure if theres an ingame currency system having looked into it, but I doubt it wont exist) then well yeah they take cuts just like any other AH. TL:DR dont really care either way, but I dont see what the fuss is about. | ||
|
Kywalk
Brazil23 Posts
Joining the gosu kr ops to get stomped. The WC3 dota channels...good times. This new bnet stinks.I miss the old custom game list , in WC3 it was a dota fest but it still worked fine.The lack of clan support..I used to stare at the clan tags in channels all day wishing someday I would be part of that team. Honestly I'll still buy the game just because the only blizzard game where channels didnt matter to me was D2.But I thoguht they would upgrade the current sc2 bnet , but if they are using the same philosophy in D3 I don't think the system will change. | ||
|
AndyJay
Australia833 Posts
| ||
|
jimmyjingle
United States472 Posts
On February 07 2012 13:02 Serpico wrote: Simplicity in this case meaning regression. These games were released twelve years apart and you're trying to compare them on a checklist. It's like the PC vs Mac debate, trying to compare them is useless and nonproductive because each has their own market and design. Unless you really want to prepare a counter-argument about how typing /whisper /join every few seconds is actually more pleasurable than not, and how an [intimidating] heavy-featured game client will be better for blizzard as a company than BNET2, uh, go ahead. | ||
|
Serpico
4285 Posts
On February 07 2012 13:29 jimmyjingle wrote: These games were released twelve years apart and you're trying to compare them on a checklist. It's like the PC vs Mac debate, trying to compare them is useless and nonproductive because each has their own market and design. Unless you really want to prepare a counter-argument about how typing /whisper /join every few seconds is actually more pleasurable than not, and how an [intimidating] heavy-featured game client will be better for blizzard as a company than BNET2, uh, go ahead. ummm ok...I dont see how comparing features is flawed at all. Games 10 years in the future SHOULD have more features because we should have more resources to provide those features. I dont understand the rationalizing of removing incredibly simple yet enjoyable things like chat channels. It boggles my mind the mental gymnastics people will go through to tell themselves that less is better when it comes to the products you buy. I'd like more for my money, thank you very much. | ||
|
jimmyjingle
United States472 Posts
On February 07 2012 13:35 Serpico wrote: ummm ok...I dont see how comparing features is flawed at all. Games 10 years in the future SHOULD have more features because we should have more resources to provide those features. I dont understand the rationalizing of removing incredibly simple yet enjoyable things like chat channels. It boggles my mind the mental gymnastics people will go through to tell themselves that less is better when it comes to the products you buy. I'd like more for my money, thank you very much. Oh, I guess it's a slight misunderstanding. I don't mean "more features" is better or worse than the original BNET and I really don't mean to tell you what's good or bad. I'm saying that more features will alienate users and make BNET more difficult to use. | ||
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
| ||
|
Sinensis
United States2513 Posts
| ||
| ||
