|
Sweden33723 Posts
I don't think he's talking about resolution etc, he means the battle.net interface.
On May 05 2010 09:28 laste wrote:
I really think(sincerely hope) the current state of bnet '2.0' is more of a sneak preview than anything. No one in their right mind would release something even remotely close to this trainwreck of a multiplayer system ;>
All you need to do is look at Games For Windows Live. I was gonna say it's even worse, but it's really almost the same system lol
|
On May 05 2010 13:45 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I don't think he's talking about resolution etc, he means the battle.net interface.
[...]
Yep. The UI is fine.
EDIT: Maybe I should have used another word for it but whatever. It works
|
On May 05 2010 09:28 laste wrote:
I really think(sincerely hope) the current state of bnet '2.0' is more of a sneak preview than anything. No one in their right mind would release something even remotely close to this trainwreck of a multiplayer system ;>
Considering that the game is due to release in less than 2 months, when are they going to beta test the "true BNET 2.0"?
I was hoping too that they were going to change lots of things, since I see a ton of bugs and lacking features, but I guess Blizzard's standard of quality isn't so high any more.
|
On May 05 2010 16:01 shalafi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 09:28 laste wrote:
I really think(sincerely hope) the current state of bnet '2.0' is more of a sneak preview than anything. No one in their right mind would release something even remotely close to this trainwreck of a multiplayer system ;> Considering that the game is due to release in less than 2 months, when are they going to beta test the "true BNET 2.0"? I was hoping too that they were going to change lots of things, since I see a ton of bugs and lacking features, but I guess Blizzard's standard of quality isn't so high any more.
Indeed, announcing a release date does imply that they are happy with the current version which is odd... lots off stuff to do before release in my opinion, including reconsidering patching in some kind of LAN functionality or cross gateway play.
|
On May 05 2010 13:45 FrozenArbiter wrote:I don't think he's talking about resolution etc, he means the battle.net interface. Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 09:28 laste wrote:
I really think(sincerely hope) the current state of bnet '2.0' is more of a sneak preview than anything. No one in their right mind would release something even remotely close to this trainwreck of a multiplayer system ;> All you need to do is look at Games For Windows Live. I was gonna say it's even worse, but it's really almost the same system lol
Compared to Classic BNet? Please; Classic Battle.NET is no Coke Classic.
The complaints about GfWL are almost entirely DRM-based (especially given that the DRM actually blocks gameplay in certain countries due to the encryption component); GfWL (even in the most well-known games featuring it) makes close to no appearance otherwise. (Also, while GfWL piggybacks on XBL, there's a lot of social features of XBL that GfWL does not use, and has never used. Quite frankly, it would be better if it did, even with the DRM.)
And therein lies the *real* issue; since Classic BNet's fifth anniversary, the state of online gaming portals (especially for consoles; witness XBL and PSN) has far outstripped that of Classic BNet. (A classic case is the multiplatform arcade racer Blur; instead of either using XBL or PSN, and locking out PC users, they have turned to Facebook for the social side of things in the game.)
For consoles (again, I direct you to XBL and PSN) the social networking is part of each console's value-add; however, each is a *closed system*, and you can't talk to players of another console over the network of the first except through common non-network-owned portals such as Facebook. The matching system issues are no better (and no worse) than those of any other game (be it RTS or FPS); the sore spots are more obvious in BNet 2.0 because the light shining on those warts is much brighter; can you name a single player-matching system (including IGN SmartMatch) that doesn't have the same issues, if not more? (I'm even including XBL and PSN; even as locked down and proprietary as those two networks are, they suffer the same issues as far as player-matching.)
|
I don't know why there is so much talk about piracy issues in this thread.
In my opinion Blizzard removed LAN not because they wanted to make pirates' life harder. No, this is only a nice extra bonus. The main reason is to get total control over SC2 e-sport managing. They want money from tournaments and TV broadcasting. With LAN implemented, companies like Kespa would have not problem whatsoever organizing big starcraft2 proligues. Without LAN Kespa is screwed.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On May 05 2010 17:17 PGHammer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 13:45 FrozenArbiter wrote:I don't think he's talking about resolution etc, he means the battle.net interface. On May 05 2010 09:28 laste wrote:
I really think(sincerely hope) the current state of bnet '2.0' is more of a sneak preview than anything. No one in their right mind would release something even remotely close to this trainwreck of a multiplayer system ;> All you need to do is look at Games For Windows Live. I was gonna say it's even worse, but it's really almost the same system lol Compared to Classic BNet? Please; Classic Battle.NET is no Coke Classic. The complaints about GfWL are almost entirely DRM-based (especially given that the DRM actually blocks gameplay in certain countries due to the encryption component); GfWL (even in the most well-known games featuring it) makes close to no appearance otherwise. (Also, while GfWL piggybacks on XBL, there's a lot of social features of XBL that GfWL does not use, and has never used. Quite frankly, it would be better if it did, even with the DRM.) And therein lies the *real* issue; since Classic BNet's fifth anniversary, the state of online gaming portals (especially for consoles; witness XBL and PSN) has far outstripped that of Classic BNet. (A classic case is the multiplatform arcade racer Blur; instead of either using XBL or PSN, and locking out PC users, they have turned to Facebook for the social side of things in the game.) For consoles (again, I direct you to XBL and PSN) the social networking is part of each console's value-add; however, each is a *closed system*, and you can't talk to players of another console over the network of the first except through common non-network-owned portals such as Facebook. The matching system issues are no better (and no worse) than those of any other game (be it RTS or FPS); the sore spots are more obvious in BNet 2.0 because the light shining on those warts is much brighter; can you name a single player-matching system (including IGN SmartMatch) that doesn't have the same issues, if not more? (I'm even including XBL and PSN; even as locked down and proprietary as those two networks are, they suffer the same issues as far as player-matching.)
I have no experience with any of those things you mentioned - I've never touched a PS3 or Xbox in my life ;p
Any system that does not have a chat lobby is, in my mind, automatically inferior to one that does - ergo, Bnet 2.0 is inferior to Classic Bnet (Wc3 already introduced the automatch-maker, so no points there). GFWL did not incorporate one into Dawn of War 2 so it fails as well.
Having never used any of the other ones you listed, I cant speak with any authority on them whatsoever. I'm sure you have a much better idea of where they stand in comparison to Bnet 2.0.
|
So because everything else sucks bnet 2.0 should suck?
|
On May 05 2010 18:13 guitarizt wrote:
So because everything else sucks bnet 2.0 should suck?
Yeah, basically because console gaming portals are bad, we should expect console-like portals, even though we're on pc and actually have things like a keyboard to use chatrooms.
So bnet 2.0 is really bnet 0.2 with achievements.
Lol @ all the fanboyism now.
|
On May 05 2010 07:23 PanzerDragoon wrote:
The motivation to stopping the pirates is that the pirates will never have the full multiplayer experience with BNet (piracy was a huge problem for BW in China), and so there is less incentive to pirate.
Valve uses the same logic, and pretty much no one pirates TF2. No one talks about them being evil right
You couldnt really have given a worse example than valve here.
Valve have recently spoken out against this kind of DRM (gabe newell at the GDC and Jason Holtman called pirates "unserved customers" recently). They gave an example of when releasing at the same time in Russia and in local language piracy drastically reduced because piracy was no longer providing a service (early local language release).
Also you can LAN on TF2 and play on servers anywhere in the world they leave it up to the community to provide the servers (except to support like with the competitive tf2lobby mod).
|
On May 05 2010 18:58 Vimsey wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 07:23 PanzerDragoon wrote:
The motivation to stopping the pirates is that the pirates will never have the full multiplayer experience with BNet (piracy was a huge problem for BW in China), and so there is less incentive to pirate.
Valve uses the same logic, and pretty much no one pirates TF2. No one talks about them being evil right You couldnt really have given a worse example than valve here. Valve have recently spoken out against this kind of DRM (gabe newell at the GDC and Jason Holtman called pirates "unserved customers" recently). They gave an example of when releasing at the same time in Russia and in local language piracy drastically reduced because piracy was no longer providing a service (early local language release). Also you can LAN on TF2 and play on servers anywhere in the world they leave it up to the community to provide the servers (except to support like with the competitive tf2lobby mod).
Pretty much shows that the true intentions behind B.Net2.0 don't really care about piracy of the game itself, but on third parties cashing in on it's success as an eSport without letting Blizzard have a piece of the cake.
Look at South Korea: A whole Industry has evolved around a little game called "Starcraft Broodwar" with companies spending millions to sponsor the big leagues and the progaming-teams. Compared to that huge part of where SC2 will create cash, the piracy of a game which will mostly be played online (and piracy of those games is essentially useless), is IMHO not a very big one.
Blizzard just want's to have control of every aspect of a game which will most likely be the biggest one in eSport-history. They want ppl to ask for permission to play SC2 in front of a live audiance, they want to get paid for it to be shown on TV, they want to have the power to apply pressure to companies by simply deniying them to let SC2 being played by their players etc.
|
Maybe when the game get released they will figure out a solution, who knows?
The best things in life are free
But you can keep 'em for the birds and bees.
Now gimme money (that's what I want)
That's what I want (that's what I want)
That's what I want (that's what I want), oh-yeh,
That's what I want.
|
Whats with all the crying about bnet 2, and how is it not better in every way than old spamfest bnet?
Don't say "chat" either, they said a long time ago that they would have chat in the end. They just don't want it in beta.
|
On May 05 2010 19:37 DrSmoke wrote:
Whats with all the crying about bnet 2, and how is it not better in every way than old spamfest bnet?
Don't say "chat" either, they said a long time ago that they would have chat in the end. They just don't want it in beta.
have you even read a single post in this thread?
|
That's rather unfortunate theyd do that.
I hope its a sign of confidence in their bnet 2.0 uptime and its ability to provide similar lowlag/latency otherwise its a pretty big loss.
|
On May 05 2010 17:48 Kaoz wrote:
I don't know why there is so much talk about piracy issues in this thread.
In my opinion Blizzard removed LAN not because they wanted to make pirates' life harder. No, this is only a nice extra bonus. The main reason is to get total control over SC2 e-sport managing. They want money from tournaments and TV broadcasting. With LAN implemented, companies like Kespa would have not problem whatsoever organizing big starcraft2 proligues. Without LAN Kespa is screwed.
I talked about DRM only in terms of why BNet 2.0 isn't really about DRM (while GfWL is); further, I reminded folks about a lot that is missing in GfWL (which the XBL parent service actually has) and why it's lacking (deliberate on Microsoft's part).
I also pointed out that *nobody* has a good track record when it comes to auto-matching players. It shows up with a brighter glare in the more popular titles (the original UT had the same issue, and no version since then has solved it), but it may well be unsolvable, especially if players deliberately tilt the ladders one way or the other (with the better players deliberately flying under the radar, while the good players are playing above their normal capabilities; in other words, tankers and overachievers). Instead, we well see more *pick-up* matches (if not pick-up tournaments) that BNet 2 will host. The pro-league scene (not just KeSPA, but all professional e-sports, including the the US-based Cyber-Athletes' League) caught both developers *and* publishers flat-footed (even id, who could very easily be "blamed" for the birth of professional e-sports with the QuakeCon tournaments); throw in the rising cost of developing AAA-list titles, and a publisher will be looking to monetize every avenue possible in most cases. (EA, for example, actualy considered selling the rights to "Battlecast PrimeTime" to, believe it or not, NBC.)
Could Blizzard be considering a similar deal?
Two words - why not?
|
On May 05 2010 17:48 Kaoz wrote:
I don't know why there is so much talk about piracy issues in this thread.
In my opinion Blizzard removed LAN not because they wanted to make pirates' life harder. No, this is only a nice extra bonus. The main reason is to get total control over SC2 e-sport managing. They want money from tournaments and TV broadcasting. With LAN implemented, companies like Kespa would have not problem whatsoever organizing big starcraft2 proligues. Without LAN Kespa is screwed.
This makes absolutely no sense. LAN or no LAN, if you want to establish a FOR PROFIT BUSINESS around BLIZZARD'S GAME, you need Blizzard's permission to do it. In Kespa's case, Blizzard is only giving Kespa permission to operate with SC2 if Kespa will relinquish ownership of all content they create to Blizzard. LAN has absolutely nothing to do with this issue; Kespa of all entities should manage to find a way around this limitation if that's all it took. But no, the crux of the matter in the Kespa issue is that when it comes to Blizzard's game, you play by Blizzard's rules, and Kespa doesn't want to.
Whether Kespa can run tourneys on SC2 or not is not a technical issue (LAN), it's a legal issue where Blizzard holds all the cards.
|
There are no recent LAN thread on Bnet EU forums so I've made one linking to the poll here:
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=24702391055&sid=5010
Sadly, I suspect the EU forums are the least well read (it is certainly that way for WoW), so it would be great if somebody could also link it on to the US forums.
A lot of people don't think we have any influence on Blizzard's decision on this but the least we can do is make our voice heard.
|
On May 05 2010 23:59 theSAiNT wrote:There are no recent LAN thread on Bnet EU forums so I've made one linking to the poll here: http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=24702391055&sid=5010Sadly, I suspect the EU forums are the least well read (it is certainly that way for WoW), so it would be great if somebody could also link it on to the US forums. A lot of people don't think we have any influence on Blizzard's decision on this but the least we can do is make our voice heard.
Oh, Blizzard knows about this all right, they'd just much rather not have to make comments about it (in fact, I was pretty surprised at Cowgomoo's comment on the Stars War tourney :p). If you mean to make our voice heard on the gaming press or to just raise awareness of the LAN issue, then that's commendable- at least it might help deter Blizzard from making decisions that end up hurting its legitimate customers in the future.
|
Yaaaay, facebook instead of useful stuff....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
