|
Is this for real? This doesn't feel like Blizzard at all.
As far the fundamental user experience goes, battlenet 2.0 is a step back in almost every way.
Ability to play across regions: Removed
Ability to play LAN: Removed
Chat rooms: Removed(Public chat rooms - yes those have turned into a waste of time. Private chat rooms - how in the world do you not include these off the bat?)
Global ranks: Removed(I can understand the intramural idea, but that's not how it's implemented. If you played against your own division this would make since. That's not the case. This is just pure rank obfuscation.)
Microtransactions: YUCK. I don't mind the premium map idea, as it will probably result in some better customs and will be completely optional...but the other ideas they've suggested just turn my stomach.
|
On June 02 2010 03:33 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 03:11 Captain Peabody wrote:I There are timelines that need to be kept, there might be priorities that you don't understand, I think this might be the craziest thing of all. This is the first time I have EVER seen a Blizzard member talk about deadines in my long long history of following Blizzard.
Yeah that response really got me worried. Again, Ive NEVER heard anything about deadlines from blizzard. *sadface*
|
I think this might be the craziest thing of all. This is the first time I have EVER seen a Blizzard member talk about deadines in my long long history of following Blizzard.
Realize that Blizzard North was closed due to it's inability to follow deadlines.
|
I still think it's pertinent to note that there should be a large ugly feeling that anything that truly isn't released in this game at launch has a high probability to end up becoming part of a micro-transaction, which should not be tolerated.
Could you imagine paying a little bit extra on top of the games cost for:
Chat rooms
Gateway switching (which probably wont be so cheap.)
LAN capability
My wallet hurts thinking about it.
|
On June 02 2010 05:30 Sokalo wrote:
Global ranks: Removed(I can understand the intramural idea, but that's not how it's implemented. If you played against your own division this would make since. That's not the case. This is just pure rank obfuscation.)
Seems this at least wont be the case =]
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25170778573&sid=5010&pageNo=7
halfway/bottom of page.
|
The biggest point to reinforce is the fact that if they keep pushing these features off into a "patch" after release, that it will suffice for the community. Only then once everyone has bought the product, can they safely backtrack on the promise and never follow through. I am 75% sure that is what will happen.
Which is sad, because I used to have faith in Blizz. But now I can only sit and be pessimistic about what outcome will occur.
|
On June 02 2010 05:35 Half wrote:Show nested quote +I think this might be the craziest thing of all. This is the first time I have EVER seen a Blizzard member talk about deadines in my long long history of following Blizzard. Realize that Blizzard North was closed due to it's inability to follow deadlines.
Coincidently Diablo 2 is what I consider the last of the "Old Blizzard" games.
|
On June 02 2010 05:35 Joey.rumz wrote:
I still think it's pertinent to note that there should be a large ugly feeling that anything that truly isn't released in this game at launch has a high probability to end up becoming part of a micro-transaction, which should not be tolerated.
Could you imagine paying a little bit extra on top of the games cost for:
Chat rooms
Gateway switching (which probably wont be so cheap.)
LAN capability
My wallet hurts thinking about it.
Yes, I don't want microtransactions. I am willing to pay 60 dollars for a game and 40 dollars for an expansion. Thats it. I don't want to pay for more expansions just so I can keep up with the online play. I don't want to pay to change my name. I could do that for free in Broodwar. SC2 could have been released last year if it weren't for Bnet2.0. They should have used WC3's system and be done with it.
|
On June 02 2010 05:35 Joey.rumz wrote:
I still think it's pertinent to note that there should be a large ugly feeling that anything that truly isn't released in this game at launch has a high probability to end up becoming part of a micro-transaction, which should not be tolerated.
Could you imagine paying a little bit extra on top of the games cost for:
Chat rooms
Gateway switching (which probably wont be so cheap.)
LAN capability
My wallet hurts thinking about it.
A few years ago this would have been unthinkable. Not the case anymore.
With WoW they've slowly moved from purely novelty stuff that doesn't affect the core of the game at all, to things that are now leaning towards something like an advantage(account wide celestial mounts, class/faction changes).
My favorite part of the this is how adamant their position about account/item/gold selling has been and how monetizing parts of the game is detrimental to the gaming experience. Ironic.
|
I am very disappointed in Blizzard for making a move like this or should I say NOT making a move at all for keeping the way Bnet 1.0 was. I'm not sure if Activision is playing a role in this or if it's solely Blizzard wanting more money when they make over a billion on WoW. I'm really ashamed. I have plenty of friends over in Korea who I play with competitively and I'll be really angry if I have to end up paying an extra 60 dollars just to play a couple of games with them. Wow, I'm pissed.
Edit
I had to bold PISSED
|
On June 02 2010 05:53 Sokalo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 05:35 Joey.rumz wrote:
I still think it's pertinent to note that there should be a large ugly feeling that anything that truly isn't released in this game at launch has a high probability to end up becoming part of a micro-transaction, which should not be tolerated.
Could you imagine paying a little bit extra on top of the games cost for:
Chat rooms
Gateway switching (which probably wont be so cheap.)
LAN capability
My wallet hurts thinking about it. A few years ago this would have been unthinkable. Not the case anymore. With WoW they've slowly moved from purely novelty stuff that doesn't affect the core of the game at all, to things that are now leaning towards something like an advantage(account wide celestial mounts, class/faction changes). My favorite part of the this is how adamant their position about account/item/gold selling has been and how monetizing parts of the game is detrimental to the gaming experience. Ironic.
Ah yes, ah yes. Very good points.
I was going to bring up the profits that the celestial mount had brought up.
For those of you that read a lot of these posts, and are a little lost by the WoW Jargon I will most certainly provide a link to what is being discussed here:
Celestial Steed
This was a mount that was utilized by your epic flying skill. At the 'modest' cost of 25 dollars (Which is more than a month of game play,) you could purchase one of these bad boys and add it to your mountain of mounts in the game. Twenty Five Dollars. That's half of an expansion cost. Sounds screwed up right? Well the WoW addicts didn't think so, and last I read Blizzard posted a huge profit from that quarter and that mount being a giant boon to it. (I wish I could dig up the article but I wouldn't know where to start on what economic website.)
On top of this:
For just ten dollars (2/3s of a month of play time,) you could purchase a cosmetic pet:
Lil-XT (A mini version of a boss in the second tier of the WOTLK expansion)
Lil' KT - (A mini version of the final boss in the first Tier of the WOTLK expansion.)
A Pandaren Monk - It's a pandaren monk, need I say more.
And not only were these pets neat to look at, they naturally were more functional (when idle they did some moves and such) that 95% of the other pets couldn't even fathom doing. You know, those pets that, pfft, you could get by achieving puny weak accomplishments by having fun and accomplishing something in the game, and not opening your wallet. How lame is that? Doing something in a game to get a reward, and not opening up your credit card... /sarcasm.
I just feel like this can span across mulitple games for multiple reasons aside from the possibilities I have mentioned, such as:
Want extra character slots in SC2? Money.
Want to get that that new act that Diablo 3 is putting out? Money.
Want to buy an icon in SC2? Money.
Want to buy a cool decal in SC2 that is custom made? Money.
Even more frightening, you know how some of those low price point / pay as you go games work such as League of Legends and Combat Arms work? What if you have to pay a small price for using certain units in the upcoming expansions in multiplayer?
I know some of this sounds absurd, but quite frankly 5 years ago, the idea of buying a mount in world of warcraft sounded just as crazy.
Don't let Blizzard do this and trend towards it, it will only end badly for the hardcore/more-than-casual group of their games. And by badly, I certainly mean a more vacant pocket.
|
|
|
On June 02 2010 06:20 Joey.rumz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 05:53 Sokalo wrote:On June 02 2010 05:35 Joey.rumz wrote:
I still think it's pertinent to note that there should be a large ugly feeling that anything that truly isn't released in this game at launch has a high probability to end up becoming part of a micro-transaction, which should not be tolerated.
Could you imagine paying a little bit extra on top of the games cost for:
Chat rooms
Gateway switching (which probably wont be so cheap.)
LAN capability
My wallet hurts thinking about it. A few years ago this would have been unthinkable. Not the case anymore. With WoW they've slowly moved from purely novelty stuff that doesn't affect the core of the game at all, to things that are now leaning towards something like an advantage(account wide celestial mounts, class/faction changes). My favorite part of the this is how adamant their position about account/item/gold selling has been and how monetizing parts of the game is detrimental to the gaming experience. Ironic. Ah yes, ah yes. Very good points. I was going to bring up the profits that the celestial mount had brought up. For those of you that read a lot of these posts, and are a little lost by the WoW Jargon I will most certainly provide a link to what is being discussed here: Celestial SteedThis was a mount that was utilized by your epic flying skill. At the 'modest' cost of 25 dollars (Which is more than a month of game play,) you could purchase one of these bad boys and add it to your mountain of mounts in the game. Twenty Five Dollars. That's half of an expansion cost. Sounds screwed up right? Well the WoW addicts didn't think so, and last I read Blizzard posted a huge profit from that quarter and that mount being a giant boon to it. (I wish I could dig up the article but I wouldn't know where to start on what economic website.) On top of this: For just ten dollars (2/3s of a month of play time,) you could purchase a cosmetic pet: Lil-XT (A mini version of a boss in the second tier of the WOTLK expansion)Lil' KT - (A mini version of the final boss in the first Tier of the WOTLK expansion.)A Pandaren Monk - It's a pandaren monk, need I say more.And not only were these pets neat to look at, they naturally were more functional (when idle they did some moves and such) that 95% of the other pets couldn't even fathom doing. You know, those pets that, pfft, you could get by achieving puny weak accomplishments by having fun and accomplishing something in the game, and not opening your wallet. How lame is that? Doing something in a game to get a reward, and not opening up your credit card... /sarcasm. I just feel like this can span across mulitple games for multiple reasons aside from the possibilities I have mentioned, such as: Want extra character slots in SC2? Money. Want to get that that new act that Diablo 3 is putting out? Money. Want to buy an icon in SC2? Money. Want to buy a cool decal in SC2 that is custom made? Money. Even more frightening, you know how some of those low price point / pay as you go games work such as League of Legends and Combat Arms work? What if you have to pay a small price for using certain units in the upcoming expansions in multiplayer? I know some of this sounds absurd, but quite frankly 5 years ago, the idea of buying a mount in world of warcraft sounded just as crazy. Don't let Blizzard do this and trend towards it, it will only end badly for the hardcore/more-than-casual group of their games. And by badly, I certainly mean a more vacant pocket.
It is only a matter of time.
You can quote me on that.
It is only a matter of time.
|
On June 02 2010 06:20 Joey.rumz wrote:
Want extra character slots in SC2? Money.
Want to get that that new act that Diablo 3 is putting out? Money.
Want to buy an icon in SC2? Money.
Want to buy a cool decal in SC2 that is custom made? Money.
Even more frightening, you know how some of those low price point / pay as you go games work such as League of Legends and Combat Arms work? What if you have to pay a small price for using certain units in the upcoming expansions in multiplayer?
There's a big gap between your example. A philosophical divide that Blizzard has tried their hardest not to cross. That's not to say they won't, but there's no present evidence they will.
Want extra character slots in SC2? Money.
Micro-transaction won't be used to give an in-game advantage. Plus what do you mean? You mean you'd have to pay to have more than one login account? Highly unlikely. If they offer such a service all signs point to the fact it'd be given for free.
Want to get that that new act that Diablo 3 is putting out? Money.
Totally dumb point. If the act is in D3 then, it's free. If the act is in the expansion pack, it's free. If the result of the micro-transaction could in any way affect gameplay, it's free. In this case, they'd have to itemize the new act and therefore they wouldn't allow money to give players an unfair advantage in game.
Want to buy an icon in SC2? Money.
Want to buy a cool decal in SC2 that is custom made? Money.
Yeah, definitely these. They'll almost CERTAINLY charge for cool "Raynor" or "Kerrigan" avatars or decals. So what? Does it affect the game? Does it hurt you for not having it? Does it hurt you that others may buy it? Of course not.
That's the big difference here. Blizzard will of course release all this fluff stuff for people to waste money on. But that's fine. It's their money and they can spend it how they will. It doesn't make Blizzard evil to release cosmetic items for real-life money. It WOULD make them evil if they require money for something that affects actual game play. For example, they wouldn't release a pay-for unit (like Lurkers) that you could only use if you bought it first. That would be outrageous and would never ever happen. And if it did, well that would pretty much be the end of the Blizzard scene.
The big question mark is maps, but I think the heuristic here is this: only if it's not essential. Ladder maps will always be free, but I can see Blizzard releasing UMS or additional melee maps in map packs that cost some amount of money. That's fine. As long as the ladder maps are free that's all that matters in the end. For the rest of it, let the people have their toys.
|
On June 02 2010 06:36 Takkara wrote:
Want extra character slots in SC2? Money.
Micro-transaction won't be used to give an in-game advantage. Plus what do you mean? You mean you'd have to pay to have more than one login account? Highly unlikely. If they offer such a service all signs point to the fact it'd be given for free.
lol they do offer the service. Its called by another copy of the game.
On June 02 2010 06:36 Takkara wrote:
It WOULD make them evil if they require money for something that affects actual game play.
![[image loading]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8KvDDFi0Fuo/0.jpg)
|
On June 02 2010 06:26 Archerofaiur wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 02 2010 06:20 Joey.rumz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 05:53 Sokalo wrote:On June 02 2010 05:35 Joey.rumz wrote:
I still think it's pertinent to note that there should be a large ugly feeling that anything that truly isn't released in this game at launch has a high probability to end up becoming part of a micro-transaction, which should not be tolerated.
Could you imagine paying a little bit extra on top of the games cost for:
Chat rooms
Gateway switching (which probably wont be so cheap.)
LAN capability
My wallet hurts thinking about it. A few years ago this would have been unthinkable. Not the case anymore. With WoW they've slowly moved from purely novelty stuff that doesn't affect the core of the game at all, to things that are now leaning towards something like an advantage(account wide celestial mounts, class/faction changes). My favorite part of the this is how adamant their position about account/item/gold selling has been and how monetizing parts of the game is detrimental to the gaming experience. Ironic. Ah yes, ah yes. Very good points. I was going to bring up the profits that the celestial mount had brought up. For those of you that read a lot of these posts, and are a little lost by the WoW Jargon I will most certainly provide a link to what is being discussed here: Celestial SteedThis was a mount that was utilized by your epic flying skill. At the 'modest' cost of 25 dollars (Which is more than a month of game play,) you could purchase one of these bad boys and add it to your mountain of mounts in the game. Twenty Five Dollars. That's half of an expansion cost. Sounds screwed up right? Well the WoW addicts didn't think so, and last I read Blizzard posted a huge profit from that quarter and that mount being a giant boon to it. (I wish I could dig up the article but I wouldn't know where to start on what economic website.) On top of this: For just ten dollars (2/3s of a month of play time,) you could purchase a cosmetic pet: Lil-XT (A mini version of a boss in the second tier of the WOTLK expansion)Lil' KT - (A mini version of the final boss in the first Tier of the WOTLK expansion.)A Pandaren Monk - It's a pandaren monk, need I say more.And not only were these pets neat to look at, they naturally were more functional (when idle they did some moves and such) that 95% of the other pets couldn't even fathom doing. You know, those pets that, pfft, you could get by achieving puny weak accomplishments by having fun and accomplishing something in the game, and not opening your wallet. How lame is that? Doing something in a game to get a reward, and not opening up your credit card... /sarcasm. I just feel like this can span across mulitple games for multiple reasons aside from the possibilities I have mentioned, such as: Want extra character slots in SC2? Money. Want to get that that new act that Diablo 3 is putting out? Money. Want to buy an icon in SC2? Money. Want to buy a cool decal in SC2 that is custom made? Money. Even more frightening, you know how some of those low price point / pay as you go games work such as League of Legends and Combat Arms work? What if you have to pay a small price for using certain units in the upcoming expansions in multiplayer? I know some of this sounds absurd, but quite frankly 5 years ago, the idea of buying a mount in world of warcraft sounded just as crazy. Don't let Blizzard do this and trend towards it, it will only end badly for the hardcore/more-than-casual group of their games. And by badly, I certainly mean a more vacant pocket. It is only a matter of time. You can quote me on that. It is only a matter of time.
Oh I am fairly certain that it is truly only a matter of time. Consider their new 'MMORPG,' coming up. I will not be surprised in the least if it works similarly to this system.
Average Gamer:
The new Blizzard MMO is only going to cost 10 dollars without a monthly fee, this is awesome!
Educated Gamer that does the research:
Yeah but if you want to be any good it will cost you about 30 dollars a month steadily until you quit.
Average Gamer: Who cares! It's only 10 Dollars!
Guess which category most people fall under and are going to cause the biggest issues?
|
On June 02 2010 06:37 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 06:36 Takkara wrote:
Want extra character slots in SC2? Money.
Micro-transaction won't be used to give an in-game advantage. Plus what do you mean? You mean you'd have to pay to have more than one login account? Highly unlikely. If they offer such a service all signs point to the fact it'd be given for free.
lol they do offer the service. Its called by another copy of the game.
Right, and that already exists in another "slot-limited" game WoW. If you expend your total of character slots, you're welcome to buy another copy of the game to get more. So what? That's always been the case with any game that's limited in a similar fashion.
|
On June 02 2010 06:38 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 06:37 Archerofaiur wrote:On June 02 2010 06:36 Takkara wrote:
Want extra character slots in SC2? Money.
Micro-transaction won't be used to give an in-game advantage. Plus what do you mean? You mean you'd have to pay to have more than one login account? Highly unlikely. If they offer such a service all signs point to the fact it'd be given for free.
lol they do offer the service. Its called by another copy of the game. Right, and that already exists in another "slot-limited" game WoW. If you expend your total of character slots, you're welcome to buy another copy of the game to get more. So what? That's always been the case with any game that's limited in a similar fashion.
You just said they would not charge you money to make an additional charector. Guess what? They do. Right now. Thats what it is.
|
On June 02 2010 06:40 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 06:38 Takkara wrote:On June 02 2010 06:37 Archerofaiur wrote:On June 02 2010 06:36 Takkara wrote:
Want extra character slots in SC2? Money.
Micro-transaction won't be used to give an in-game advantage. Plus what do you mean? You mean you'd have to pay to have more than one login account? Highly unlikely. If they offer such a service all signs point to the fact it'd be given for free.
lol they do offer the service. Its called by another copy of the game. Right, and that already exists in another "slot-limited" game WoW. If you expend your total of character slots, you're welcome to buy another copy of the game to get more. So what? That's always been the case with any game that's limited in a similar fashion. You just said they would not charge you money to make an additional charector. Guess what? They do. Right now. Thats what it is.
There's a fundamental difference from saying "you're limited to 1 account per CD key" and "you're limited to 1 account per CD key unless you pay 10 bucks for an extra account slot". If you can't see that, then you're just being blind ranting. I know you're upset man, but you need to be logical here. You don't change things by trying to bully people on TL to agree with you.
|
On June 02 2010 06:37 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 06:36 Takkara wrote:
It WOULD make them evil if they require money for something that affects actual game play.
It doesn't affect actual game play. It's a cosmetic item. It confers upon you no benefits you did not already possess in the game. I'll spoiler the technical details for the interested.
+ Show Spoiler +
The mount you buy scales with you mount skill. If you can only ride land mounts, it's limited to a land mount. If you can fly slowly, it's a slow air mount. If you can fly fast, it's a fast air mount. If you have a mount from another means (earned in game) that allow you to travel faster even than that, then it automatically scales itself to the fastest speed you can travel.
If you are dumb enough to waste the money without having the ability to use a mount in the game, then you have a really expensive item in your bags that you cannot use. It's as simple as that. No pay for items that affect gameplay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
