EPTHonestly who cares about facebook, achievements, and many other useless features. We want chatrooms, lan, custom maps(both melee and ums), and really just a game that takes a step forward instead of a step back.
BNet2.0 Will Harm Custom Content - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Deleted User 47542
1484 Posts
Honestly who cares about facebook, achievements, and many other useless features. We want chatrooms, lan, custom maps(both melee and ums), and really just a game that takes a step forward instead of a step back. | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
20MB is a joke. 1GB would be ok I guess, but it could be higher. You should be able to push the engine to its limits, or at least that was the plan at some point. There's no way you can do that with a 20MB limit. And hell yes, SC2 is meant to stay from 2010 to 2020 or something like that. 1GB is nothing, even with millions of users (plus most users won't publish at all). 5 maps total is just plain ridiculous. The censoring has always been horrible. It's getting worse it seems. But at this point it doesn't really matter how bad it is exactly. It's too bad. | ||
|
Starparty
Sweden1963 Posts
| ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
the size issue, though, i think, should stay the same for "normal" users. most map makers are not top caliber and i don't want to be downloading 200 megs of content every time i want to try a new map. my hard drive cannot handle that. edit: on second thought, if the maps that i did download were that good, i guess it'd be alright. | ||
|
Deleted User 47542
1484 Posts
On May 24 2010 18:41 danl9rm wrote: well, you sure know how to throw me into worry. i hope changes are made. the size issue, though, i think, should stay the same for "normal" users. most map makers are not top caliber and i don't want to be downloading 200 megs of content every time i want to try a new map. my hard drive cannot handle that. It's your choice to download the maps, and they are really easy to get rid of as well. But honestly, these days you can get 2TB hard drives at around $100, storage is so cheap! There should be no limitations since "normal" users will never be able to get a lot of people to download and play their crappy maps anyways. | ||
|
iMAniaC
Norway703 Posts
My thoughts are: It seems to me that what Blizzard is trying to implement here, is primarily not a good match making system, not a great editor, not an awesome game, but the age og micro transactions and getting even more money off your customers. I think the line of thinking is something like: "It's only obvious that people who use our IP the most, pay us a little more than everyone else". So they define the lowest threshhold in which the game seems like a one time investment. This is for the players that buy the game, play it for a couple of months and never get dedicated to it. It is also for the reviewers. In this package goes the one time investment and the awesome, completely free, map making and online play, as well as the single player game. This is undoubtedly game of the year, if not the decade. However, after the initial reviews and sales, the game isn't generating any money anymore, so that's where we need micro transactions. Introducing custom decals and whatnot is a great way to rip off the ladder players, of course, everyone would like their own decals to show when they're playing, so that they can feel special. But there's got to be a way to rip off people who spend their time in the editor as well. After all, they're using Blizz's product without paying anything extra for it. So the answer is to limit the number of free maps to 5. After that, you can probably buy more map slots and in that way, they've gotten the users to pay for using the editor. And yeah, I'm just speculating here, but it's pretty clear to me, that's the way it's going. Oh, and map of the month? Yeah, that'll cost you. Because that would be their way to collect additional money from the people who like single player. They'll probably back it up by saying that it's the same quality as premium maps, and as such, it would be unfair towards the map makers and destructive to the map market to release it for free. Also, there's one post I'd like to comment: On May 24 2010 15:29 Bael wrote: Playing devil's advocate for a moment, does it seem reasonable to suspect that with such a restriction on the number of maps available to upload and host, that the quality of these maps will invariably be very high? With no room to host the 4 millionth version of a tower defense spinoff, it seems like Blizzard are encouraging every player who uses Battle.Net to have a crack at the editor and see what they can come up with, rather than relying on a select few mapmakers to provide the bulk of entertainment. Concordantly, those mapmakers who do excel above and beyond the masses will be encouraged to refine and perfect the maps they have uploaded rather than building big mess of different ones. The size issue could be Blizzard's way of encouraging smaller 'demo' style maps that showcase various features of the SC engine, with the possibility of granting the most popular demos increased space and bandwidth with which to host the 'full' version of the map. Just a thought from a different perspective. You're probably right, but is that really what they/we want? There's a great joy in itself making your own map. Or perhaps you like to make maps just to play with your friends and don't really care about popularity. There's been a tradeoff here. Take away some of the fun in order to gain something on the average quality of your market place. So is the SC2 editor about being creative and having fun, or is it about producing the highest quality products for free, for Blizzard to sell? That's my perspective. TL;DR: I think they'll introduce additional map slots for money, just to get some more money off those who spend their time in the editor. Also, they want to use map makers as a resource for money rather than having the editor be a tool for fun. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33723 Posts
On May 24 2010 18:34 Go0g3n wrote: Where do you get the idea that Blizzard should support custom-game makers more than they do now? They've already given out an incredibly powerful tool, a platform for releases and (in perspective) an ability to sell custom maps and scenarios. Is this not enough for you? Blizzard are the only ones who do this kind of stuff, be it MMOs or RTS. The current system supports custom game makers LESS than SC/WC3. | ||
|
IskatuMesk
Canada969 Posts
On May 24 2010 18:34 Go0g3n wrote: Where do you get the idea that Blizzard should support custom-game makers more than they do now? They've already given out an incredibly powerful tool, a platform for releases and (in perspective) an ability to sell custom maps and scenarios. Is this not enough for you? Blizzard touts the editor as a primary feature. To this end, they should make it the best it can be, no? The editor is powerful, but the interface is sloppy and irritating. On top of that, the only way to play your maps with your friends is to adhere to Battle.net's ridiculous limitations. The ability to sell things is not for us, friend. It's for them. They take a portion of the profit. It's a way of introducing micro transactions into the game and giving them yet more money. Think of it as akin to character transfers on WoW, or DLC for console games. This way it's just more enticing to the mappers. I personally would never sell anything I created. What I want is for Blizzard to put some effort into their game. I want them to start settling for something more than half-assed, thoughtless garbage. Companies who are series about this kind of thing release massive SDK's like Epic did, companies who are serious about this kind of thing communicate to their userbase and better themselves and their product, like GPG and Valve and Bioware. Every man wants the game to be balanced. I want the game to be fun to mod and without arbitrary bullshit getting in my way. Is that too much to ask? Then I shall move on. This is not accounting for the fact that the current system is a complete and total downfall from what Starcraft 1, much less wc3, established already. My thoughts are... Exactly. | ||
|
DanceDance
226 Posts
Don't get me wrong, the game itself is very good. But the medium that it is being delivered on is extremely terrible. It has made me not want to play the game. Custom content is fail. What happened to local hosting? There is NO community on B.net, it is LIFELESS. What happened to channels? Can someone explain to me how to add a friend? Could you also tell me where I rank on the global ladder? R.I.P LAN! And finally, goodbye to clan support, you will be dearly missed. /signed loyal fan since 1998 (future loyal attitudes towards Blizzard are unknown at this point.) | ||
|
Kuzmorgo
Hungary1058 Posts
On May 24 2010 10:11 Stripe wrote: I remember downloading locally hosted maps in SC and WC3 that's only several MB. The download could be really slow especially if there were other people downloading at the same time. I dread to think how long it would take to get a full house trying to distribute a 120 MB map. Downloading it from Blizzard servers solves this, but as you mentioned the bandwidth is pretty high. Every popular map was uploaded somewhere though, so i dont think that would be an issue... | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
Is the 20MB limit for custom content just for Starcraft or for all games? Diablo III and any other games which Blizzard decides to publish are going to be BNet 2.0 too and if the limit is reached by one game you are screwed for custom content on the others. A "blind man with a cane" could see the problems with that. | ||
|
IskatuMesk
Canada969 Posts
On May 24 2010 19:43 Rabiator wrote: Just another thought to add: Is the 20MB limit just for Starcraft or for all games? Diablo III and any other games which Blizzard decides to publish are going to be BNet 2.0 too and if the limit is reached by one game you are screwed for custom content on the others. A "blind man with a cane" could see the problems with that. You won't be able to mod Diablo 3 from an official standpoint. It will be like Diablo 2 (underground, so to speak, and it's dependent on playing over LAN. Which D3 does not have. Which may be fatal to any concept of modding this game). We don't know enough about Blizzard's new service to really make any kind of a guess about future possibilities like that. | ||
|
Skinny G
Australia21 Posts
We have to remember this is Beta, and like all blizzard betas, they are doing most things in baby steps. Baby steps are easier to reverse if shit hits the fan. I'm sure we will see the same support as WC3 and BW for custom content, if not more. | ||
|
IskatuMesk
Canada969 Posts
On May 24 2010 20:02 Skinny G wrote: This can be easy solved. Even if they leave the DL limit of the maps on BNET2.0 @ 20 megs. Host the maps on other servers? Like a star craft 2 map site? You would still not be able to play them in multiplayer because they must be published in order for you to play. There is no local hosting. Additionally I tried this in wc3 and it still did not work. | ||
|
Go0g3n
Russian Federation410 Posts
On May 24 2010 18:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: The current system supports custom game makers LESS than SC/WC3. Depends how you look at it. The new editor, when it comes to functionality, is in a different league comparing to previous ones. Map size is probably a big issue, you can guess how much traffic and drag the whole thing could've generated, having allowed unlimited or large map size/storage for potentially millions of mapmakers. Of all the current Blizzard projects StarCraft 2 probably isn't on top of Blizzard (or Activision) accountant's "wish" list, as Diablo III and especially some new MMO can bring a lot more cash, so concessions have probably been made. As for the "obscene" language filter, this is a non-issue, especially for people who are 16/older and can come up with names not including the ~50 disallowed words. | ||
|
Kuzmorgo
Hungary1058 Posts
Ah whatever... Right now, im seriously considering not to buy this game afterall... at least not until its starting price goes down  | ||
|
Koffiegast
Netherlands346 Posts
Not only for the chats, but also those limits on content, maximum amount of projects and lan will certainly limit the amount of fun the game will be. | ||
|
IskatuMesk
Canada969 Posts
On May 24 2010 20:19 Kuzmorgo wrote: Couldnt they do this censorship stuff with parental control? Like the parents of the youngsters Question - why are Youngsters playing a T-rated game? Why would Blizzard try to cater to an audience that shouldn't be existing in the first place, thus implying that the ESRB ratings are just a gimmick and should not be taken seriously? I mean, that's true and all, but why should we suffer for such a retarded cause? As for the "obscene" language filter, this is a non-issue, You vastly underestimate the level of general censored content that is enforced right now. You CANNOT upload a map with any of these words in them or in the data files within them. you can guess how much traffic and drag the whole thing could've generated, having allowed unlimited or large map size/storage for potentially millions of mapmakers. As I have now said repeatedly, if you had been reading the whole thread that is, I do not ever expect the total filesize to be unlimited - only the number of maps. Which would be a non-issue if local hosting was possible. | ||
|
iCCup.Nove
United States260 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On May 24 2010 20:19 Kuzmorgo wrote: Couldnt they do this censorship stuff with parental control? Like the parents of the youngsters can setup his B.net account so that he cant play maps with censored words, or dunno, maybe he would have it censored or smthing. I mean it wouldnt matter, cause it wont affect 1% of the gamers anyway, but maybe it would satisfy the authorities who decide the rating of the game?? Ah whatever... Right now, im seriously considering not to buy this game afterall... at least not until its starting price goes down Do you really think that kids should play computer games this much and that they should dictate how the game works? Personally I think kids should learn to ... - do math without a calculator first, - walk before they try to fly a Jet Fighter, - read the book before the movie comes out and most importantly - develop "social competence" before getting dates over the Internet. *1 All these things are negated by the addiction of computer games coupled with the inability of interested children to say no to them. In the novel DUNE the young hero Paul Atreides gets tested if he is a "human" or an "animal" ... if he can control his emotions or if they control him. Most of our children havent learned to control their emotions yet, so they will fall for every temptation which is presented to them. Thus I would really like for Starcraft 2 to get a "mature" rating and get rid of the ridiculous censorship. Of course Blizzard wont do it, because they are greedy adults who dont care if they are ruining peoples lives by presenting them with an addiction in a young age. *1 I dont know how it is in your countries, but there are A LOT of commercials on TV for dating agencies for anything from marriage to one-night-stands ... Personally I find this really questionable, because we seem to become unable (or are too lazy) to do it ourselves in real life. | ||
| ||
