EPTBlizzard: "No plans for chatrooms, crossrealm play" - Page…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Spidermonkey
United States251 Posts
| ||
|
RumZ
United States956 Posts
On June 02 2010 06:36 Takkara wrote: 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. Joey.RumZ - Having a second name on the same account, such as a smurf account, or additional character slots. Rather than buying the entire single player experience as well as another online pass with a second game box, I could see this becoming a price point for a micro transaction. 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. Joey.RumZ - You don't think they would release small digital content expansions with micro transactions involved? I wouldn't personally be surprised if down the line in cataclysm you pay a small transaction to gain access to a dungeon. I don't see how this is so crazy. 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. Joey.RumZ - Why do you have to pay for content that should have been accessible in the release? Why do people have to pay more for fluff? Why is that fair? Oh it's okay because it's not required? In war3x I didn't have to pay for Rexxar's campaign missions. But it's okay now? This is the problem, that attitude. "I'm not buying it who cares." That is until something you do think looks spiffy and unique, and you are the one shelling out the extra money on top of a retail game. 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. Joey.RumZ - If you boil a pot of water while a frog is inside of it, and it gradual gets hotter, eventually the frog does not realize that the pot of water is killing him, and simply dies. If you throw a frog into boiling water, the frog attempts to escape and jump out immediately. Which route does it look like Blizzard is taking currently? Why not try to stop it before it becomes an issue. 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. Joey.RumZ - Blizzard said the pay content has to be "completely unique material" and that, according to D.B., even DOTA would not pass for a P2P micro-transaction. But honestly, I don't believe that. Professional map makers that make the pro-curcuit maps, if they are smart will damn sure ask for some pocket change for their work. At this rate, Blizzard would not surprise me if I had to pay for those maps to use them inside or outside of the ladder. having access to a map only on a playlist isn't very efficient, and I could see the point where you download the ladder maps that you haven't paid for personal use, and them uninstalling after the game was over so you didn't have a simple way to access some of them. According to The Escapist, an article here claims that Frank Pearce is now saying "oh maybe later but no Micro transactions for now." That is the typical jargon. Not long before this he decided that custom leagues and such would be available later for a cost. Well, what makes Chat rooms, Gateway use, and LAN any different? After that it will only get worse. There is a great picture that is in the other thread Kennigit started that I will post here: ![[image loading]](http://i50.tinypic.com/9i5yfm.jpg) And to bring the point that I made in that thread back into this discussion as well, why wouldn't people be calling for doomsday? Blizzard posters have already noticed the concern many of us players have, and even on their forums even more frequently. They claim the technology isn't there yet, these are functions that have been involved in the community of their core games for a decade now, and suddenly it's just 'not possible.' It's quite honestly, utter bullshit. They have no real rational reasoning, aside from a price point. And one way or another, between taking your money slowly, or forcing you to buy multiple copies to play with people from other areas around the world, they want your wallet. And it isn't something we should all just let slip by, because taking functionality that was great ten years ago, and removing it or asking for a little few dollar bills here and there in a sequel, shouldn't be accepted by the community. Edit: Clarify what I was typing. Edit: Someone mentioned that Blizzard posted that an in-game advantage would never be an exchange for a monetary value. Blizzard also said the following would not happen, which as of now has most certainly happened: (These are WoW examples, so sue me.) - Pallies and Shaman on same faction - Faction transfers - Race Changes - Server Transfers - And they explicitly said there would NEVER be PvP to PvE transfers or vice versa - ANY in game items for real money I don't think it's fair to say "Blizzard would never..." because they clearly will, and when they don't tell you why they are not implementing features from a decade ago, it's time to question what is really going on. Too bad Blizzard has not responded. | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On June 02 2010 06:53 Joey.rumz wrote: And to bring the point that I made in that thread back into this discussion as well, why wouldn't people be calling for doomsday? Blizzard posters have already noticed the concern many of us players have, and even on their forums even more frequently. They claim the technology isn't there yet, these are functions that have been involved in the community of their core games for a decade now, and suddenly it's just 'not possible.' It's quite honestly, utter bullshit. They have no real rational reasoning, aside from a price point. And one way or another, between taking your money slowly, or forcing you to buy multiple copies to play with people from other areas around the world, they want your wallet. And it isn't something we should all just let slip by, because taking functionality that was great ten years ago, and removing it or asking for a little few dollar bills here and there in a sequel, shouldn't be accepted by the community. The rest of your post is completely well-reasoned. You seem like a reasonable person. So I'll try to bring this up one more time and see if it can affect your vision of the situation a little more. BNet 1.0 functionality != BNet 2.0 functionality. By that I don't mean that BNet 2.0 does not have the functionality of BNet 1.0, I'm saying that BNet 2.0 and BNet 1.0 are fundamentally different. Fundamentally. They are not based on the same architecture in any any way. Simply saying "well BNet 1.0 had something 10 years ago, so BNet 2.0 could have it trivially" is not being totally honest. SC2 and BNet 2.0 is a framework that communicates in a particular way with a particular volume of traffic. For example, there are games you used to be able to play flawlessly in the past with a 28k modem. That doesn't mean that because some game solved the latency problem in the 28k modem days that all games thereafter should always be solved. Even across the lifetime of a particular product there are no guarantees that a particular method of communication is going to be equally effective. In WoW (the same technological framework in terms of architecture that BNet 2.0 is being grafted onto), at the start of the game there were some people still rocking out modems, but at this point in the lifecycle there are some high-speed internet setups that aren't strong enough to deliver a consistent experience to players in America connecting to American servers. Not all games and not all traffic is the same. I don't know if anyone has done an analysis. It could very well be that the ways that SC2 and SC1 communicate is fundamentally different. SC2 traffic could be far less fault-tolerant and far more latency-prone. Supposing for a moment that it is, because otherwise it doesn't make sense why Blizzard's tests showed issues where issues didn't used to be, then it makes some sense why they've chosen what they did. Again, BNet 2.0 is being grafted onto the same architecture as WoW (and all future games also). This means that you have accounts that are region-limited. That's just a fundamental component. It's certainly possible they could have put the entire world into one region. But the technology is not there yet (NOTE: WHEN THEY SAID THIS QUOTE THEY MEANT INTERNET CONNECTION TECHNOLOGY NOT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY) to allow players from all across the world to play each other without noticing latency variations. The average player would attribute these variations to a "poor game" and therefore avoid the game. There's not currently any tech in the framework, either, that allows people to access multiple regions. They could certainly add this tech, but since they wouldn't be adding it for the match-making system but would add it only so that a smaller, competitive, portion of their client-base can initiate matches in other regions. This might be determined to not be a cost-effective use of their time, and therefore becomes a low-priority item which is what they've said. They also have some other big fish to fry (latency in local regions, disconnects, bugs, etc) that need to get hammered out BY release or else the product is in poor shape. After that they can get to the things that are "non-essential." I agree with you that it should be in. It totally should. But to say there is "no rationale at all" is just blind to the way that BNet 2.0 is constructed. It's not the old BNet. It's not the BNet of WCIII. It's more akin to WoW than the old RTS'. Which I think is the fundamental issue, but it is what it is, unfortunately. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On June 02 2010 06:43 Takkara wrote: 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. Currently its "you're limited to 1 account per CD key unless you pay 60 bucks for an extra account slot". Now you tell me why you cant see that. And im not trying to bully you. This is logic. On June 02 2010 06:48 Takkara wrote: 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. Mounts are one of the most expensive purchases in the game. You have to spend boat loads of time farming to get the money to buy one. Or for 25 dollars you can have this one that automatically scales with your level. That affects gameplay. | ||
|
mainerd
United States347 Posts
if bliz ever gets its act together I will buy this game and most likely the expansions (even though I think it should have been 1 complete package). between the lack of overall server ranks, cross realm play, no public/private chat channels and no lan, this game does not suit me one bit. campaign sounds like it will be fun but thats what, 25 hours of gameplay? just give me some sensible online competition  | ||
|
RumZ
United States956 Posts
On June 02 2010 07:09 Takkara wrote: The rest of your post is completely well-reasoned. You seem like a reasonable person. So I'll try to bring this up one more time and see if it can affect your vision of the situation a little more. BNet 1.0 functionality != BNet 2.0 functionality. By that I don't mean that BNet 2.0 does not have the functionality of BNet 1.0, I'm saying that BNet 2.0 and BNet 1.0 are fundamentally different. Fundamentally. They are not based on the same architecture in any any way. Simply saying "well BNet 1.0 had something 10 years ago, so BNet 2.0 could have it trivially" is not being totally honest. SC2 and BNet 2.0 is a framework that communicates in a particular way with a particular volume of traffic. For example, there are games you used to be able to play flawlessly in the past with a 28k modem. That doesn't mean that because some game solved the latency problem in the 28k modem days that all games thereafter should always be solved. Even across the lifetime of a particular product there are no guarantees that a particular method of communication is going to be equally effective. In WoW (the same technological framework in terms of architecture that BNet 2.0 is being grafted onto), at the start of the game there were some people still rocking out modems, but at this point in the lifecycle there are some high-speed internet setups that aren't strong enough to deliver a consistent experience to players in America connecting to American servers. Not all games and not all traffic is the same. I don't know if anyone has done an analysis. It could very well be that the ways that SC2 and SC1 communicate is fundamentally different. SC2 traffic could be far less fault-tolerant and far more latency-prone. Supposing for a moment that it is, because otherwise it doesn't make sense why Blizzard's tests showed issues where issues didn't used to be, then it makes some sense why they've chosen what they did. Again, BNet 2.0 is being grafted onto the same architecture as WoW (and all future games also). This means that you have accounts that are region-limited. That's just a fundamental component. It's certainly possible they could have put the entire world into one region. But the technology is not there yet (NOTE: WHEN THEY SAID THIS QUOTE THEY MEANT INTERNET CONNECTION TECHNOLOGY NOT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY) to allow players from all across the world to play each other without noticing latency variations. The average player would attribute these variations to a "poor game" and therefore avoid the game. There's not currently any tech in the framework, either, that allows people to access multiple regions. They could certainly add this tech, but since they wouldn't be adding it for the match-making system but would add it only so that a smaller, competitive, portion of their client-base can initiate matches in other regions. This might be determined to not be a cost-effective use of their time, and therefore becomes a low-priority item which is what they've said. They also have some other big fish to fry (latency in local regions, disconnects, bugs, etc) that need to get hammered out BY release or else the product is in poor shape. After that they can get to the things that are "non-essential." I agree with you that it should be in. It totally should. But to say there is "no rationale at all" is just blind to the way that BNet 2.0 is constructed. It's not the old BNet. It's not the BNet of WCIII. It's more akin to WoW than the old RTS'. Which I think is the fundamental issue, but it is what it is, unfortunately. I thank you for taking the time out and reading, and pointing out that I might actually be rational, bonus points for you buddy. And I completely understand where you are coming from. But it doesn't sit right with me, just let's take our communicative differences and similarities and try to come up with something here. This post, to be fair, will be trying to blow yours down. But within reason, I promise. I don't know for sure how exactly the data is being sent and received in comparison to SC1. To be quite honest, I only played sc1 recently. When the game was at it's peak, I was playing Everquest and playing 3 sports, and etc. When I was about 12 I asked my parents for SC1 and they said "absolutely not," or something to that degree. Whatever. I do know R1CH was running tests at one point with Wireshark, I frequently watch streams, if anyone would know the differences in connectivity, I suppose he would? I do not know who else. But at the core fundamentalism the reason your points back towards myself doesn't seem to sit well, is because Blizzard claimed that this game would run at 'Lan Like capabilities through Battle.net," now if this was the case, wouldn't the architecture of their framework have to be vastly improved from SC1's in terms of connectivity and technology? I understand that they are built differently. But I think it is a fair question to ask, why are they built so differently? I can play SC2 beta on the Asia and EU server with a relatively low ping from my work station without too much of a problem. I know Blizzard consistantly says "The connectivity isn't there yet," but I hate to say it, for some people, and I gather it is the more hardcore gamers are more in this group, the connectivity IS there already and has been since people like myself were logging onto the Asia War3x server to play tournaments when there were no Blizzard tournaments being held on the US E / US A / or EU server. I did it fine a few years ago, and when something is supposed to be smoother, it puzzles me that Blizzard is deciding that the internet connectivity as a whole isn't strong enough. And what bothers me even more is when they tell you this, and decide that the connectivity is strong enough that the LAN feature is rendered obsolete. If that was the case.... than why the double standard? Makes little to no sense. On July 27th (midnight) I am having a LAN party here with about 11 other computers in my house, I suppose that will be the first true test to how stable it is for the common house home, and see how this connectivity is "LAN Like," from the tournaments that have been held so far in person, if I had to guess, I am going to expect the following: - Massive Lag - Massive Disconnects - Massive service errors from using the same IP/ISP. And the problem won't be on my internet connection, it will be on their poor/shoddy framework that was supposed to be able to eliminate lan, but not be good enough to allow cross gateways. | ||
|
Sokalo
United States375 Posts
On June 02 2010 06:36 Takkara wrote: 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. I think with the celestial mount they did cross that line though. Mounts were either earned as rewards or bought with gold. They were fairly cheap, it was generally the skill to ride them that took the most gold and not the mount itself, but you did need in-game currency to buy them. Faction/realm/class transfers are also treading that line. If you want to play a new class or play on a new server, you have to start over from scratch. But if you already have a max level character and are willing to make some charges to your credit card, Blizzard will take care of everything for you. These aren't game breakers by any means, but you can gain a leg up by throwing some money around now. And in the end the player who shells out the cash isn't going to have a competitive advantage over the one who doesn't, but they will have gotten to that end faster, and it's hard to say that's not an advantage in itself. Vanity pets and name changes were kosher. The paid services they offer now don't tell me they respect that originally philosophy anymore. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On June 02 2010 07:14 Archerofaiur wrote: Mounts are one of the most expensive purchases in the game. You have to spend boat loads of time farming to get the money to buy one. Or for 25 dollars you can have this one that automatically scales with your level. That affects gameplay. Mounts are about an order of magnitude cheaper than the training required to get them. The amount of time required to farm the mount is negligible in comparison to the training. And buying a 25 dollar mount doesn't give you training for it. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On June 02 2010 07:43 TheYango wrote: Mounts are always at least an order of magnitude cheaper than the training required to get them. The amount of time required to farm the mount is negligible in comparison to the training. And buying a 25 dollar mount doesn't give you training for it. I remember when I played it was something like 40 gold for mount 60 for training. They may have changed it since. Regardless the principle still stands. It changes the gameplay when your giving players that pay a gameplay effect (free mount that scales with skill) that players who dont pay do not get. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Sokalo
United States375 Posts
On June 02 2010 07:49 travis wrote: the "purely cosmetic" argument is seriously flawed anyways. what does it matter if it's "purely cosmetic". That which is "purely cosmetic" is a lot more important for some people. it's an imbalance where one person has an advantage because they pay more money. takkara just considers something "purely cosmetic" to not be an advantage because he is a competitive gamer and doesn't care about that. If there's a market for these things and the additional revenue is creating a supply of them, I'm perfectly fine with that. It doesn't affect the players who have no interest in them. On the other hand, if they start selling weapons with 1 million dps on them, it starts to affect others whether they wanted them or not. One is superficial. The other is substantial. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
Again, BNet 2.0 is being grafted onto the same architecture as WoW (and all future games also). This means that you have accounts that are region-limited. That's just a fundamental component. It's certainly possible they could have put the entire world into one region. But the technology is not there yet (NOTE: WHEN THEY SAID THIS QUOTE THEY MEANT INTERNET CONNECTION TECHNOLOGY NOT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY) to allow players from all across the world to play each other without noticing latency variations. The average player would attribute these variations to a "poor game" and therefore avoid the game. There's not currently any tech in the framework, either, that allows people to access multiple regions. There is nothing stopping them from letting you connect to other servers with one client - all you need to change to do this right now, is a 20 mb file. There is nothing stopping them from having a notice to the effect of "performance might deteriorate when playing on distant servers, please choose the one closest to your current location for optimal performance". There is nothing stopping them from letting one account create a profile on every server other than restrictions they have artificially implanted. Saying "it was that way in WoW" is not a valid excuse | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On June 02 2010 08:07 FrozenArbiter wrote: all you need to change to do this right now, is a 20 mb file. And 60 dollars. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
| ||
|
Neoshan
Germany49 Posts
| ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On June 02 2010 08:17 FrozenArbiter wrote: 180$, you are forgetting the expansion packs. Actually I heard that they use your banks credit cards line to carry the battlenet info to another country. They kind of piggy back the data unto your fee. | ||
|
Elizar
Germany431 Posts
Reading this makes me happy, that I did not preorder. Maybe I´m not buying it at all. GJ Blizzard! | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 02 2010 08:20 Archerofaiur wrote: Actually I heard that they use your banks credit cards line to carry the battlenet info to another country. They kind of piggy back the data unto your fee. So Bnet 2.0 will be going up and down as banking holidays come and go then? | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On June 02 2010 08:07 FrozenArbiter wrote: There is nothing stopping them from letting you connect to other servers with one client - all you need to change to do this right now, is a 20 mb file. There is nothing stopping them from having a notice to the effect of "performance might deteriorate when playing on distant servers, please choose the one closest to your current location for optimal performance". There is nothing stopping them from letting one account create a profile on every server other than restrictions they have artificially implanted. Saying "it was that way in WoW" is not a valid excuse Right, and they've said they'll let you download any client you want. The point remains, if I'm not mistaken, even in Beta after you swap the 20MB file, you still need an EU account, a US account, and an Asia account to play on each of the servers. To be clear, the part that isn't set-up at the moment is the ability to flag an account to be valid on multiple regions. The way Beta works now is the same way that they're going to run live it's just that extra beta keys haven't cost us $60. Again, to be clear, I'm not saying it should stay the way it is. I'm just saying there is a reason it's the way it is. But if we cannot even cede to Blizzard the benefit of the doubt, then how can we reasonably expect them to engage in any form of dialogue with us in good faith? | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On June 02 2010 08:25 FrozenArbiter wrote: So Bnet 2.0 will be going up and down as banking holidays come and go then? Yes. Unless of course you buy another version of the game for those days. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8KvDDFi0Fuo/0.jpg)
