battle.net 2.0 is a restaurant! - Page 11
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Capteone
United States197 Posts
| ||
starcraft911
Korea (South)1263 Posts
| ||
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
On June 01 2010 01:34 BadWithNames wrote: Apparently the project manager for Battle.net 2.0 is a man by the name of Greg Canessa. He's the one "training the waiters" so to speak. Since Bnet 2.0 is his baby he's the person I'd like to hear from now that issues with the features of Bnet 2.0 (or lack there of) have shown up. http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1187 Here's an interview with him. Excerpt (post psuedo LAN/low latency solution discussion): Shack: And you couldn't possibly be abandoning the competitive leagues of StarCraft II. Greg Canessa: Right, and we have solutions for location-based tournaments and other things. We just haven't announced the specifics for a lot of things. But we're working on it. Really? Now's the time to start talking about it. Greg Canessa: Right, and we have solutions for location-based tournaments and other things. We just haven't announced the specifics for a lot of things. But we're working on it. Read: We've already made an internal decision on the system's implementation, and we feel that the features we're providing are adequate. | ||
Zerluth
Argentina78 Posts
Is that because of Blizzard being practically owned by Activision? Of course everyone wants to make money, but should they f**k every customer which gets in the restaurant? | ||
NAquariti
Canada3 Posts
On May 30 2010 21:48 Smu wrote: Cute. Most of the associations are quite clever, except for the "you can't see the whole bill = no world ranking" one. Doesn't make much sense. But yeah, the overall "product is good but you are treated like an idiot" picture is a good relation. | ||
SpiritAshura
United States1271 Posts
| ||
craz3d
Bulgaria856 Posts
On June 01 2010 01:50 starcraft911 wrote: pretty epic... fire the waiter please. And fire the chef too, cause the food is pretty bad as well. | ||
Nub4ever
Canada1981 Posts
| ||
Deleted User 47542
1484 Posts
| ||
MrSilent
United States27 Posts
| ||
Licmyobelisk
Philippines3682 Posts
| ||
DTWolfwood
38 Posts
Im questioning how much of this Autonomy from Activision is true <.< Sure sounds like a Kotick Plan | ||
Manimal_pro
Romania991 Posts
| ||
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On June 01 2010 01:34 BadWithNames wrote: Apparently the project manager for Battle.net 2.0 is a man by the name of Greg Canessa. He's the one "training the waiters" so to speak. Since Bnet 2.0 is his baby he's the person I'd like to hear from now that issues with the features of Bnet 2.0 (or lack there of) have shown up. http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1187 Here's an interview with him. Excerpt (post psuedo LAN/low latency solution discussion): Shack: And you couldn't possibly be abandoning the competitive leagues of StarCraft II. Greg Canessa: Right, and we have solutions for location-based tournaments and other things. We just haven't announced the specifics for a lot of things. But we're working on it. Really? Now's the time to start talking about it. For all those people that say "we have no idea why Blizzard is doing this" here is your answer, from that article. Shack: Can you clear up this whole LAN issue? How is that actually going to work from the end-user's perspective? Are you looking at a pseudo-LAN solution? Is that something that's on the table? Greg Canessa: Well really the goal with Battle.net is to maintain a high-quality, always-connected experience that Rob [Pardo] and I talked about on stage. We want to eliminate griefing, we want to eliminate smurfing, we want to eliminate all these things. We want to give people that persistent character and the attachment to that character, so they're not going to misbehave. It's about community enforcement, and it's also about piracy and other things. So the new Battle.net is an always-connected experience. Well, LAN, if you think about it, LAN play underpins--now that you understand our design, and you understand what we're trying to do, hopefully it makes a little more sense--because it kind of undermines what we're trying to do with the always-connected experience. So we are looking at--we do understand and acknowledge and sympathize with some people's concerns about latency in certain scenarios, in certain regions of the world, location-based tournaments--and we are working on solutions. With regard to things we can do that maintain connectivity to Battle.net in some way, but also provide a great quality connection between players playing. Shack: Maybe something where you connect once to Battle.net, but from that point on you'd only connect every now and then, and the connection would essentially act as a zero-ping LAN? Greg Canessa: Something like that. Maintaining a connection with Battle.net--I don't know if it's once or periodically--but then also having a peer-to-peer connection between players, so that it'll facilitate a very low-ping, high-bandwidth connection between two players. Those are the types of things that we're working on. So we understand and acknowledge and sympathize. I think part of this LAN thing was that people saw that out of context, without understanding what we were doing with the service. And hopefully now that people understand this huge service we're building. Whether you believe them or not, whether you agree or not, there are their reasons behind 1 account per CD key and no LAN support. | ||
LastToNight
Israel4 Posts
| ||
Nitron
Singapore177 Posts
| ||
WGT-Baal
France3289 Posts
EDIT: that is to say until they get a new waiter | ||
Afterhours
United States125 Posts
On June 02 2010 23:23 Takkara wrote: For all those people that say "we have no idea why Blizzard is doing this" here is your answer, from that article. Whether you believe them or not, whether you agree or not, there are their reasons behind 1 account per CD key and no LAN support. Thanks for the post. Im interested to see what happens next. | ||
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
| ||
Plethora
United States206 Posts
On June 02 2010 23:23 Takkara wrote: For all those people that say "we have no idea why Blizzard is doing this" here is your answer, from that article. Whether you believe them or not, whether you agree or not, there are their reasons behind 1 account per CD key and no LAN support. Ya know, its funny you bring up the 1 account per CD thing. When that news first broke it didn't bother me at all because I saw the upside and have never had any problem whatsoever giving my money to Blizzard in the past. I purchased 5 or 6 copies of the SC battlechest over the 12 years SC has been around and was happy to do it. Before there was a bnet account from which you could just install it again once registered, if I wanted to play SC and didn't have it installed, I would just buy a new copy. It didn't bother me one bit that I would be buying 2 copies at least, one for me and one for my g/f. Now... well now I don't even want to buy 1, nevermind 2. | ||
| ||