EPTBlizzard: "No plans for chatrooms, crossrealm play" - Page…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
| ||
|
TriniMasta
United States1323 Posts
So I can use my same account? No. lol short ownages are just epic =P | ||
|
psion
106 Posts
Samething for future units, possibly. They might sell the Defiler or something. The Defiler is the only way for zerg to combat mech, so you're forced to buy it to remain competitive. "Okay, $20 please." @.@ Blizzard has proven to me that they don't care about the competitive players or esports. I'm sure they view esports as free advertising and nothing more. They want to keep our balls in their hands, and there's not much we can do besides let them squeeze or shed a tear and say goodbye to Starcraft. | ||
|
Rho_
United States971 Posts
| ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
On June 02 2010 13:05 Archerofaiur wrote: I really hope you guys are joking about that. There is no way you really believe the developers intentionatly want SC2 to not make allot of money. its not like that .. i really hope they get paid for SC2. the only problem here is that they dont care for the consumers/fans aslong as they get paid, instantly! they got paid for BW but it took time, and they dont want to wait so they want you to buy, and then some. | ||
|
gREIFOCs
Argentina208 Posts
"Ten years ago, we weren't making 3D games." Frank Pearce, 2010. Is he kidding or i woke up in 2002? | ||
|
0mgVitaminE
United States1278 Posts
| ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
On June 02 2010 15:02 0mgVitaminE wrote: Why the hell would they want small divisions for "competing" within and achievements so bad, when they don't even give a fuck about chat rooms and lan play? I don't see any purpose in disposing of either. In no way would chat rooms hurt the experience even if someone didn't want them, and offline lan play wouldnt promote pirating if you had to sign in first. i know.... i guess the lan mechanics that would have to be included in starcraft could aid in the piracy somehow, emulating the sign-in is probably 100X easier than emulating constant battle.net connection. But the no chatrooms thing makes no sense to me, do they truly believe chatrooms won't be worth the hassle? i can find no reasonable explanations for them not including them... Bandwidth issues? lol its fucking text messaging -.- any further load on the servers should be pretty marginal. Maybe someone who knows can explain if that's not the case. | ||
|
Plethora
United States206 Posts
Maybe they really do think that their yet to be fully implemented group chat system thing whatever it is will do the job. I doubt it, but it is possible that they do really think that, even if its a somewhat deluded thought. | ||
|
SkyTheUnknown
Germany2065 Posts
On June 02 2010 08:37 Archerofaiur wrote: Activision views it as a investment risk. How can Actvision not see that not implementing chat rooms is a way greater risk of losing profit? Decreased sales and harmed reputation are already happening right now, without "inappropiate comments in chatrooms". Players who stay attached to the game, because they are fully integrated into the community over chatrooms, will buy all of the SC2 Addons. People (a casual player without much RTS experience) will quit the game bored and frustrated after playing the campaign and losing 20 Bnetgames in a row. Communication is THE way to have the players staying attached with SC2. Bnet 2.0 is a very lonely place, people who don't want to socialize don't play online games! A good game is NOT enough to make it succesfull on the long term. (sorry for my terribad english) | ||
|
Noise
Australia47 Posts
| ||
|
cnas
Sweden640 Posts
On June 02 2010 14:41 gREIFOCs wrote: A small detail: "Ten years ago, we weren't making 3D games." Frank Pearce, 2010. Is he kidding or i woke up in 2002? Diablo 2 was released 2000, it isn't a 3D game. Blizzes first 3D game was warcraft3 from 2002 | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 02 2010 08:27 Takkara wrote: 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? Maybe I'm underestimating the difficulty of this, but removing the server restriction on accounts seems like it would be well within blizzard's capabilities.......I mean, they are pretty good at their job I hear. On June 02 2010 17:38 cnas wrote: Diablo 2 was released 2000, it isn't a 3D game. Blizzes first 3D game was warcraft3 from 2002 When do you think they started working on WC3  ? On June 02 2010 08:32 Gnarg wrote: I think Blizzard should enable a compromise. I think the prime argument against cross realm play, is laggy people fucking up ladder games. However we dont care about playing ladder on the other server, we want to play with friends. Blizzard should enable ladder only for your own realm, and custom games on any realm. The thing is, it actually isn't laggy for anyone other than the one playing on a non-optimal server. If I play a ladder game on asia, I'll have a lot more delay than on europe (maybe, I don't know, half a second) but the person I'm playing against, will not have any delay at all. | ||
|
koonst
United States215 Posts
| ||
|
teapot
United Kingdom266 Posts
Arguing about latency will get you nowhere. It is irrelevant. You may as well write to 20th Century Fox and ask them why you can't play your American DVD in your Region 2 player. The infrastructure now is that your game is tied to a regional account. So it's not like changing a file is going to help if your account is being authenticated on a regional basis. It has got nothing to do with how simple it might be. Basically, you're asking them to change their business model. It is BS, but this is my interpretation of it. | ||
|
speedphlux
Bulgaria962 Posts
I'm sorry, I don't understand this. How can you already be installing EU SC2 from a DVD and then US SC2 from a DVD if they were on different regions ? Besides, it's not that hard to change your regional settings. It's like 2 clicks away. Latency or no, people will want to cross to another realm because of FRIENDS. I'm sure the majority of people will gladly put up with a bit of lag, just so that they're able to play with their FRIENDS. And FRIENDS, my FRIEND, are important !  | ||
|
Samsonite85
Germany23 Posts
Im really getting angry about the people defending blizzard/activision. I mean, they are a big company. They know what they are doing. There is no way that they thought chat isnt so important. There is no way that they thought, people werent getting angry about no lan/no crossrealm play etc. And they pulled it off anyway. Because they can do. Because this game will be sold millions of times. Because most of the people dont care. Really makes me sad that they are getting away with this | ||
|
teapot
United Kingdom266 Posts
On June 02 2010 18:37 speedphlux wrote: DVD region what ?! I'm sorry, I don't understand this. How can you already be installing EU SC2 from a DVD and then US SC2 from a DVD if they were on different regions ? Besides, it's not that hard to change your regional settings. It's like 2 clicks away. Latency or no, people will want to cross to another realm because of FRIENDS. I'm sure the majority of people will gladly put up with a bit of lag, just so that they're able to play with their FRIENDS. And FRIENDS, my FRIEND, are important ! In this instance it is your battle.net account that determines what region you are on. Not the game itself, which aside from some localizations, are universal. Again, this is less to do with the game itself, than the fucktarded decisions in making battle.net 0.2 | ||
|
PobTheCad
Australia893 Posts
what this did was destroy the second hand market for blizzard games , if you want to play you cannot buy it second hand you must buy it brand new another scheme by activision to get ever more dollars | ||
|
Jezvin
United States5 Posts
| ||
| ||
