Battle.net 2.0 Revealed

On August 22 2009 10:41 PokePill wrote:
These are mockups right?

On August 22 2009 10:40 dronebot wrote:
looks a lot like xbox live

On August 22 2009 10:42 Shade692003 wrote:


No they aren't. i don't know why you say that.

Also, the play as guest thing is to play offline.

On August 22 2009 11:02 Tsagacity wrote:
Cute how his rating is 9001

On August 22 2009 11:05 PokePill wrote:


Lots of things

-The chat look fake
-I doubt they spent the time to replicate a DOTA map, probably placeholder
-A LOT of users, a LOT of games (War3 has barely over 2x many games running normally)

On August 22 2009 11:29 keV. wrote:
This looks tacky as shit. Couldn't they make it not look like shit.

I prefer minimalist skins, but honestly this is stupid looking.

On August 22 2009 11:52 StorrZerg wrote:
any idea when betas gonna fucken come out?

On August 22 2009 11:34 Husika wrote:



i think it looks great, and i also think doesnt matter what blizzard do you will find something wrong with it. shut up please

On August 22 2009 11:58 keV. wrote:


Good post. That is a bold assumption.

My opinion isn't because I genuinely find it tacky and far too colorful and WoW like. Its because:

it doesn't matter what blizzard do, you will find something wrong with it. shutup please.

Yes, I who frequent a STARCRAFT fansite (thats a blizzard game) am out to get blizzard with my opinions on their generally uninspired interface designs.

Thanks for the contribution and your enlightened reasoning.

On August 22 2009 12:01 Aegraen wrote:


Seems to me that any color other than gray that Blizzard uses the morons en masse scream WoW. Good lord, the castration to the color palette is laughable.

The GUI in no way looks cartoonish.

On August 22 2009 11:57 Hyde wrote:

No word yet still unfortunately. But with 11K people playing it I'm not sure what they were delaying, looks ready to go imo. Hopefully they will announce something either today or tomorrow.

On August 22 2009 12:04 keV. wrote:


Actually, the pallete is irrelevant in the WoW comparison, if you have played WoW, you would notice that the achievement screen is literally an exact copy of its WoW counterpart.

I don't think its unreasonable to call teal/blue and orange/gold/yellow tacky. Because it is. Unless you're a Suns fan.

On August 22 2009 12:17 Aegraen wrote:


SC is in outer-space and most of the colors inside of space (That is, not the blackness of space) are those colors. Super-Novas, Quasars, Stars like our Sun which make up the majority of solar bodies, nebulas, etc. are all or made up of that color palette. It is no far stretch to use them.

What would you rather have? Dark greens, Blacks, maroon, etc.?

It is not irrelevant because you compared it to the "colorful" aspects of WoW, which is about palettes. There is nothing wrong with vibrant colors especially in a space theme.

I suppose you believe the Earth is tacky and cartoonish? I'm sure you have seen pictures of the Earth from outerspace and it is made up of vibrant bright colors.

On August 22 2009 12:14 FrozenArbiter wrote:
September is part of summer sigh

I think summer officially ends on sep 22nd?

On August 22 2009 12:45 Nitro68 wrote:
What is "Enoyls.slyone" on some screenshots (Profile View, Public Achievements, Avatar Rewards) ?

On the others it's only "Enoyls"...

On August 22 2009 12:45 Nitro68 wrote:
What is "Enoyls.slyone" on some screenshots (Profile View, Public Achievements, Avatar Rewards) ?

On the others it's only "Enoyls"...

On August 22 2009 12:45 Nitro68 wrote:
What is "Enoyls.slyone" on some screenshots (Profile View, Public Achievements, Avatar Rewards) ?

On the others it's only "Enoyls"...

On August 22 2009 12:56 Alizee- wrote:
This looks very far along and we already know the state of replays and somewhat on observer mode. I'd say september is looking licely? And I'd like to echo Aegraen's comments, it seems like if you use any colour brighter than the emo clothes you wear its a cause for uproar. It looks great, its nice and fun looking. Its an interface not descriptive of any particular race.

Its like when people were talking about readability of units OMG I can't tell which is which, then it was OMG its too bright and too colourful, same story here. The main background view is a shot of space, what do you want the planet to be grey and the rest of space be black including stars? Come on now. Contrast has appeal and that's exactly what it has in a tasteful manner. Sorry, but I'd trust the art team whom many have taken courses on colour and design over someone who doesn't know any better.

And yes Chuiu I'm the same way, but you figure once you graduate then what do you base it on? The technical start and end of seasons at that point on.

On August 22 2009 14:17 Tsagacity wrote:
I'm not going to comment on the opinion argument, people are welcome to their opinions, but the thing about color and design classes is definitely not "a retarded thing to say." There is certainly some science and research behind the effects of different colors. Blue and orange are also complimentary so I don't know why you're surprised by this

It's the blue and brown (seen within some orange) that annoys the hell out of me, and it's brighter than I would expect from Starcraft.

As for achievements, I doubt anyone here is going to care about those that's for a casual crowd. It's a really good idea, just not really for anyone here.

On August 22 2009 13:49 keV. wrote:


I didn't catch the battlenet 2.0 panel. Unless someone specifically said "We are very far along" these screen shots are a horrible indicator. An experienced blizzard Dev would be able to whip up this interface in less than a days work, even with functional buttons. That doesn't mean they are far along at all. There is a good chance the chat and the features visible here are faked.

The interface (GUI) is probably about 10% of battlenet 2.0 and the other 90% is how the user features actually network with each other.

People aren't entitled to an opinion about what is annoying for them because they haven't taken classes in color and design? What a retarded thing to say, considering any two art teachers could be complete polar opposites in their style and preferences in design.

Taste is subjective. I personally feel that Blue and Orange together is never tasteful.

On August 22 2009 14:27 Aegraen wrote:


Dude, you're talking about Blizzard. They aren't going to show or announce something that is a days worth of work. What the fuck kind of weird twilight zone episode are you living in?

Yep, they are going to show you a fake Bnet2.0.....I'm no psychiatrist, but given this is Blizzard I think you are showing delusional tendencies. Just me....

On August 22 2009 14:30 keV. wrote:


Considering a GUI is not the same as a game, everything you just said is irrelevant.

I was simply pointing out that interfaces even with functional moving art like sliding frames and such that I'm sure was present in the panel discussion, is a poor indicator of progress in what is primarily a sophisticated social network program.

On August 22 2009 14:33 Aegraen wrote:


Well to me it just sounded like you had pinned your hopes that what they showed was a placeholder for both looks and functionality. I wouldn't get your hopes up. They also postponed the announcement in June because of BNET2.0 so I think it's a good guess to say most of BNET 2.0 is finalized they are just finishing the coding work (However long a process that will end up being).

To be honest, I'm more curious about the ladder and stats. I want to see more of that! Most of the time I'll be in the game so GUI isn't as important as ladder and functions associated.

To each their own though, just sounded like you wanted to hear and see something that wasn't there (fake BNET 2.0).

On August 22 2009 14:46 Halfpastnoob wrote:
Anyone up for heriocs??? lol they are trying to keep wow alive,when this game comes out.

On August 22 2009 14:36 keV. wrote:


Yea, I'm in a bad mood today. Blizzcon is really jabbing me, especially after the "No SC2 beta this summer" announcement. There is a good chance I come off as angrier then usual.

On August 22 2009 14:55 iMate wrote:


where was this said? just curious =\

On August 22 2009 12:04 FrozenArbiter wrote:
As long as it doesn't lag or have a ton of animations everytime you navigate to or from a page, I like it a lot.

On August 22 2009 14:43 Whiplash wrote:
I dont like how everything has it's own separate window, I wish it was more structured like wc3.

On August 22 2009 16:13 Koof wrote:
So this is what the complaints have come down to...

On August 22 2009 10:54 ArvickHero wrote:
very nice and shiny, but I sorta miss the old gritty look of SC's bnet, it was very fitting.

On August 22 2009 20:18 Boundz(DarKo) wrote:
what the fuck si this achievement stuff?? we are not 10 year old boys who wanna make 100 marines to get a cool avatar. we wanna focus on 1v1 proplay lol da fuck. haha I just can't take it... don't make starcraft a noob game =_=

On August 22 2009 20:18 Boundz(DarKo) wrote:
what the fuck si this achievement stuff?? we are not 10 year old boys who wanna make 100 marines to get a cool avatar. we wanna focus on 1v1 proplay lol da fuck. haha I just can't take it... don't make starcraft a noob game =_=

On August 22 2009 21:47 BBS wrote:
Don't like the statistics to be honest, I want cool % figures and no text stuff like "Won most against Zerg" .. that's boring! Furthermore I don't get the sence of this avatar thing, you don't have to play for an avatar anymore, you now gain achievments?! Boring, too .. Although it somehow favours players who are not going to be 24/7-obsessed with sc2 ^^

On August 22 2009 21:59 a11 wrote:

There was another company once here in Germany, all into big ESPORTS and stuff, sponsoring tournaments with 500.000€ (afair), and still it sucked an no one cared. Also, take a look at EA, they sponsor and hype one of their games after another and they all suck.

On August 23 2009 05:07 stroggos wrote:
ugh, in the battle cruiser screen shot dustin browder is saying "anyone up for some heroics later in WoW?"

On August 23 2009 05:07 stroggos wrote:
ugh, in the battle cruiser screen shot dustin browder is saying "anyone up for some heroics later in WoW?"

On August 22 2009 20:43 Polis wrote:
Achievements are awesome:
http://armorgames.com/play/2893/achievement-unlocked

On August 23 2009 03:44 imperator-xy wrote:

you can only be talking about intel Extreme Masters, but actually the money was splitted between cs (1.6 of course) and wow and cs got like 70% of the money.
its also the biggest tournament for cs (the biggest esports game in europe) and the most famous one.
but i think you are right, on german scene pages like readmore.de (they were the biggest esports page in 2007 i think) nearly everyone dislikes wow as it replaces wc3. but im sure they will add sc2 after this season, which ends on Cebit in Hannover.

On August 23 2009 06:55 Alizee- wrote:
Anyone else sensing the huge amount of irony? You guys want sc2 to be huge yet things that help it be huge i.e. achievements for casual players, etc. you complain about them being in the game? Achievements above anything won't effect a person playing more seriously and at the same time make it more fun.

On August 23 2009 06:55 Alizee- wrote:
Anyone else sensing the huge amount of irony? You guys want sc2 to be huge yet things that help it be huge i.e. achievements for casual players, etc. you complain about them being in the game? Achievements above anything won't effect a person playing more seriously and at the same time make it more fun.

On August 24 2009 03:09 hornqvist wrote:


The problem is not Blizzard catering to the casual players, but not the harcore.

On August 22 2009 10:39 Hyde wrote:
But what's the "Play as Guest" in the second screenshot?

On August 24 2009 03:35 FrozenArbiter wrote:

I only feel disappointed because they have all the achievment things I don't care about, but completely ignore things like online replays, waaaghtv etc

On September 06 2009 21:32 Zabestrial wrote:
go to the game lobby pic.
dude i see little microphone symbols, does that mean voice chat???


-Zabestrial

On September 06 2009 21:32 Zabestrial wrote:
go to the game lobby pic.
dude i see little microphone symbols, does that mean voice chat???


-Zabestrial

On September 06 2009 22:48 movmou wrote:


I thought that this feature was confirmed (or at least talked about by blizzard) for awhile now?

On September 06 2009 23:28 Zabestrial wrote:


maby i just havent seen it before/looked it up anywhere i really hope it has one.
what i got an idea...

Voice changers.

you know for each race you use a vioce changer?

thoughts?


-Zabestrial

EDIT: sorry that is kinda stupid idk though it could be cool!

On September 07 2009 00:16 marshmallow wrote:
Valve made HLTV in 2001 when E-Sports were still in its infancy.

Will Blizzard have an equivalent in 2010 for SCII? -.-

HLTV.org Timeline
In 2001, when the Counter-Strike scene was still blossoming, Martin Rosenbæk decided to provide a needed service to the gamers out there. With his band of merry men Martin created and started HLTV.org. Since then we have grown to become the largest provider of HLTV servers for the competitive Counter-Strike scene.

On September 07 2009 01:02 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
Valve?

On September 07 2009 04:36 graemej wrote:
there's not actually 11k people, honestly use your brain. its a placeholder, the UI is actually done, they are just putting in reasonable numbers to represent what it will look like when its out. and yeah i doubt there is a dota map finished either, its just place holders.

On September 07 2009 05:17 Retsukage wrote:


There are 11 million on the OLD battle.net, unique accounts that is.

Also, blizzard officially stated much earlier in development that they will NOT be making a DOTA map, instead just put the tools in place so that the community can make it if it wants to.

On August 22 2009 10:24 Highways wrote:

Avatar Rewards

On September 07 2009 16:22 Adeny wrote:
How is 11k online people unreasonable? Heres of Newerth has about 20k online at all times, and that's in closed beta. Battle.net 2.0 will have hundreds of thousands, of not millions when D3 comes out aswell.

On September 07 2009 21:23 FrozenArbiter wrote:
LOL at exorcist girl to the left of the panda-marine

On August 22 2009 10:35 Beaudereck wrote:
It looks crazy with the Battle Cruiser in the background !
And everything seems so nice to click on !
The only thing that seems out of place is UMS with ladder games
And lol@Dota Allstars.

On August 22 2009 12:27 keV. wrote:


"Far too colorful and WoW like" does not mean I'm comparing it to the color aspects of WoW, hence the "and," indicating a separate idea or entity. I already explained the WoW like was brought up because of the carbon copy achievement screen.

I was hoping it would be easier on the eyes. I prefer a more monochrome pallete, IE not full of contrasting colors.

On August 22 2009 12:30 Chuiu wrote:

My perception of seasons is pretty strange to most people.

Summer starts and ends in my mind when school ends and starts. Just something embedded into me since school. Fall begins with school and ends once first snow hits (or once it gets too damn cold). Spring starts when I can start opening my window and not freeze my ass off.

On August 22 2009 12:43 Drowsy wrote:
lol I sure hope they didn't delay sc2 developing this crap.

Does anyone actually care about achievements and social networking type features? I really just want there to be a good incentivized frequent tournament system, a perfectly run hack free ladder, and a well developed matchmaking system. All the flashy colors and graphics in the world and special achievement points are pretty trivial and stupid. Maybe I'm alone here, what do you guys think?

On August 22 2009 12:58 Zelniq wrote:
so are they still not planning on adding replay support for Battle.net?

On August 22 2009 13:49 keV. wrote:


I didn't catch the battlenet 2.0 panel. Unless someone specifically said "We are very far along" these screen shots are a horrible indicator. An experienced blizzard Dev would be able to whip up this interface in less than a days work, even with functional buttons. That doesn't mean they are far along at all. There is a good chance the chat and the features visible here are faked.

The interface (GUI) is probably about 10% of battlenet 2.0 and the other 90% is how the user features actually network with each other.

People aren't entitled to an opinion about what is annoying for them because they haven't taken classes in color and design? What a retarded thing to say, considering any two art teachers could be complete polar opposites in their style and preferences in design.

Taste is subjective. I personally feel that Blue and Orange together is never tasteful.

On August 22 2009 14:18 Pape wrote:
Where is the paypal section?

On August 22 2009 14:23 keV. wrote:


Complimentary and contrasting colors mean the same thing in the art world, even though webster would disagree. It is also widely agreed (in the art world) that they are horrible when dealing with text. I'd say an interface like battlenet or steam is pretty heavily text oriented.

That is all from me.

On August 22 2009 14:30 keV. wrote:


Considering a GUI is not the same as a game, everything you just said is irrelevant.

I was simply pointing out that interfaces even with functional moving art like sliding frames and such that I'm sure was present in the panel discussion, is a poor indicator of progress in what is primarily a sophisticated social network program.

On August 22 2009 14:43 Whiplash wrote:
I dont like how everything has it's own separate window, I wish it was more structured like wc3.

On August 22 2009 15:18 Physician wrote:
Just on what Blizz has shared so far on battle.n3t 2.0, makes something in me cry...
& yeah agree with some, kev's got a legitimate point, the rainbow coloring has been getting to me too - but that is a minute part of the disappointment I felt with that q&a.. .

Did they ever even listen to what gamers actually want? Where is the voice chat function?
Where is the a mention of something even close to a bwtv capability? i.e. ability to have one game be watched by thousands? I didn't hear a mention about how they will try and prevent hacking or ladder abuse (except for using real id). I didn't hear a mention on a policy update about third party programs etc.. Where would Brood War today be without programs like bwchart etc?..

The achievement and rewards friends online? bah, I laugh but I am sure it will be popular and many will enjoy it - but is it going to offer more than a messenger program? Is this the "2.0" in battle.net? Pay to download "premium" maps .. (I am not going to touch the LAN issue, its been beaten to death, but wtf, still a sore subject in my book - now we hear "guest mode" what?).

The "real id" is as old as vanilla battle.net when every disc had a battle.net account number that any player could check for (regardless the screen name, the id remained the same), which they discontinued in the early years; but I guess at least they have had the sense to go back to it - now at least it will be "somewhat" easier to sanction hackers. I have always been harping for and been an advocate for real ID but I hope there is more to battle.net 2.0 than just this.

Dunno o_Oa, I was kind of expecting more of battle.net 2.0 and I honestly see no worthy innovation to deserve the title of "2.0" - I truly hope there is more to battle.net 2.0 when it is ready for everyone and it doesn't end up just like the "Web 2.0" hype i.e. "piece of jargon".

Really mixed feeling here..

On September 08 2009 01:35 dcttr66 wrote:
haven't read all the replies...but i like this

guest play

if you look at the button over on the right it says play as guest. this should solve the smurfing issues.

On September 08 2009 04:09 Crompee wrote:


Guest play = Offline mode. They said this at Blizzcon.

(i.e. single player with no achievements)

On August 22 2009 12:04 FrozenArbiter wrote:
As long as it doesn't lag or have a ton of animations everytime you navigate to or from a page, I like it a lot.

On October 12 2009 Blizzard wrote:
A few months ago, we unveiled the Battle.net account, our new way for players to log in to World of Warcraft and future Blizzard games, sign up for upcoming beta tests, shop the online Blizzard Store, and more with just one username and password. This was just the first step in the rollout of the brand-new Battle.net; in the future, players will be able to use Battle.net to participate in cross-realm chat in World of Warcraft, create real-life friends lists, communicate across different games, and a whole lot more.

In preparation for the launch of these new features, on November 11, 2009, all current World of Warcraft players will be required to merge their World of Warcraft accounts with a Battle.net account in order to log in to the game. As our way to say "thanks" for taking a moment to go through the process, existing World of Warcraft accounts that upgrade to Battle.net (including those that have already switched over) will receive a brand-new penguin in-game pet -- check for him in your in-game mailbox later this week. Starting on November 11, all World of Warcraft players will need to log in to the game using a Battle.net username and password, and anyone who wishes to create a new World of Warcraft account will need to start with a Battle.net account.

Creating a Battle.net account is simple and free. To merge your existing account with a Battle.net account, go here. For more info, check out the Battle.net site or read the FAQ.

On October 14 2009 02:14 The_Master wrote:
I didn't think this was worth it's own thread.



Source: http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/news/?d=2009-10#121400


This isn't anything on the StarCraft 2 aspect of Battle.net 2, but if they have a set date for the merging of WoW accounts to Battle.net then development must be pretty far along.