|
found a lovely metaphore on the blizzard feedback forum I gotta share with you guys.
Say that blizzard is a restaurant, Starcraft 2 is the food they serve and battlenet 2.0 is the waiter that brings you the food.
Now the food is hands down awesome, it's the best thing you've ever ate, in fact it's so good your mouth orgasms when your tongue touches that culinary delight.
How ever the waiter is a dick.
He doesn't allow you to talk to any one else at the table, but you can whisper to some one close to you as long as no one else hears what you're saying (no chat channels).
When you see some friends of yours at the next table he doesn't allow you to get up and go to them unless you order the exact same thing you've ordered at your table once you reach their table (no xrealm)
If you want salt on your food you have to pay extra, if you want pepper you have to pay extra, if you want to use the napkin, you have to pay extra, if you want a tooth pick, you have to pay extra, if you want to go to the bathroom you have to pay extra (map marketplace).
While you order the waiter places a microphone under your table in order to gather personal information about you, information that he will use to make statistics and sell to other restauranats.
Sharing food between you and your loved one is completly forbidden since there have been case where people would eat for free by doing this (no lan)
The plates, knives, forks and the dinner table are filled with adds.
At the end of the lunch you can't see the whole bill, just the first 2 items you've baught and how much the overall price is, but not the price for the individual items (no world wide ranking)
Now would you WANT to go again to the same restaurant? Even if the food is good?
Would you really be surprised if some one would say "let's not go here anymore untill they fire that waiter?"
Discuss!
|
|
|
While you order the waiter places a microphone under your table in order to gather personal information about you, information that he will use to make statistics and sell to other restauranats.
= privacy
Also an addition:
If you tell other people your name, and the waiter doesn't like it, he tells you to change your name or kicks you out of the restaurant. Even when your surname means "General" in some language. (naming policies)
The waiter also knows some languages and has a sharp ear, waiting for you to say some words and when you say them he will shriek out some nonsense, making it impossible for the ones you're talking to understand what youre saying. Unfortunately the waiter is so incompetent, that even when you use daily used / normal words he will shout out nonsense (the word "hier" in Dutch means 'here', yet it gets blocked). ("coarse" language filter)
|
|
|
|
|
i don't think i will come back after they finish giving their free food, unless something happen
|
|
|
I'd probably tell the manager the food was great and I'd never eat here again because of the waiter.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
So ture. Nice comparison, Fire that waiter and bring back to old one!
|
Title is wrong!
Blizzard = Restaurant
B.net 2 = Waiter
|
Mmm delicious threads
I approve heartily
this waiter probably adds the tip to the bill without asking either
|
On May 30 2010 21:52 lolaloc wrote:
Title is wrong!
Blizzard = Restaurant
B.net 2 = Waiter
whatever -_-
|
And you remember what a nice guy the old waiter was who served you last time you were at the restaurant. I miss him. ='(
|
|
|
On May 30 2010 21:57 teapot wrote:
And you remember what a nice guy the old waiter was who served you last time you were at the restaurant. I miss him. ='(
Yup, even though he was getting old and it was showing on him, he still knew really well what the customers wanted 
|
|
|
This is probably the best and most accurate analogy ever!
|
Nice analogy, I hope blizzard realizes that they've screwed up badly with B.net 2.0, but I'm not even a bit optimistic, this new bnet abomination isn't about customer service, it's about revenue and how to maximize it in the long term.
|
wow some1 actually made a thread that wasnt retarded, nice post
|
On May 30 2010 22:15 RiGun wrote:
Nice analogy, I hope blizzard realizes that they've screwed up badly with B.net 2.0, but I'm not even a bit optimistic, this new bnet abomination isn't about customer service, it's about revenue and how to maximize it in the long term.
I am pretty sure they will fail hard in terms of long term revenue with this approach.
|
btw Goodvibes in the battle.net forum work for blizzard ??
seriously i just dont read what he post anymore in the battle.net forum .
i cant belive someone can be that stupid ... just cant ...
|
that was amazing. I have been trying to describe how SC2 and Bnet 2 aren't that great but couldn't find a way to. This sums it up perfectly.
|
Loved it! But I’m hungry now...
|
|
|
It's funny although I have to disagree with map marketing
I think it's awesome idea because it will keep people motivating to make better and better maps. I really wouldn't mind throwing extra dollars if map is worth it.
|
at least it's not like wow restaurant where you have to pay your table per 5 minutes :s
but ye, if you want do "add-on" chairs you have to pay additionally ofc.
|
That is phenomenal. That man is is a genius :p
|
[B] (the word "hier" in Dutch means 'here', yet it gets blocked). ("coarse" language filter) It means "yesterday" in French and it's so ridiculous to block that :<
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
|
This is exactly what I feel about Bnet.2.0.
Starcraft 1 and 2 has been obviously created by gamers.
Bnet.2.0 seems not.
(sorry for my poor english)
|
That was so perfect. The metaphorical restaurant is absolutely, unrealistically, retarded. The best part, once you think about it, is that it isn't even an exaggeration. It's real. It's Bnet 2.0 in its current state.
|
the food at Starcraft Broodwar restaurant is better : o
|
|
|
im a waiter and i would never do that to anyone!
|
|
|
I'm lovin it.
see what I did there?
|
On May 30 2010 23:04 nurle wrote:
the food at Starcraft Broodwar restaurant is better : o
if the chefs that worked over 12 years is getting old 
|
The person who made that up is a genuis, sadly, it is also very very true.
On May 30 2010 22:54 Scotchy wrote:Show nested quote +[B] (the word "hier" in Dutch means 'here', yet it gets blocked). ("coarse" language filter) It means "yesterday" in French and it's so ridiculous to block that :<
In what way would 'hier' be reference to any 'coarse language' in english? (Blizzard forums apparently also block the word 'kikker' (dutch for 'frog' ) because it might remotely look 'kike')
|
You are also allowed to look at the underwear and wallet of everyone you can see, even if he doesnt want that. (being able to see every achievement someone has gained by looking at his profile and NOT only the ones he chose to display).
Btw. "hier" in german means "here".
|
If only the food was good enough to compensate the waiter...
but no way.
|
the food isnt that amazing either, imo!
|
On May 30 2010 23:11 Shizuru~ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2010 23:04 nurle wrote:
the food at Starcraft Broodwar restaurant is better : o if the chefs that worked over 12 years is getting old
Older is wiser
|
What about the Facebook integration? :D
|
On May 30 2010 23:23 Zexion wrote:
What about the Facebook integration? :D
A good number of your friends (the facebook ones) will know you are in the restaurant and the type of food you got (achievements such as X wins as X race)
|
Facebook = the paparazzi and the broker magazines that jump on anything that is midly related to someone.
|
The restaurant or the waiter being jerks might even make you consider going on diet. Diet might be hard, but it improves your life.
I don't want to go on diet, I want my complaint to be heard to the restaurant owner.
|
So as he says, even tho you don't need to pay any extra for the core experience = food.
You can't really enjoy it without everything else included = everything other than the food.
That's at least how usually micro transaction games sells themselves.
Of course the core experience is free, but eventually you are going to pay extra because you'll shift towards those stuff, to get more out of the experience because the core just isn't enough any more.
And by stripping down the original feature list, you'll end up with more stuff to offer to pay for.
Clever use of game marketing mechanism.
Oh btw, the waiter is a jerk! :p
|
|
|
On May 30 2010 22:54 Scotchy wrote:Show nested quote +[B] (the word "hier" in Dutch means 'here', yet it gets blocked). ("coarse" language filter) It means "yesterday" in French and it's so ridiculous to block that :<
and if you write "weniger" (= less in german) you'll read we?%&$.... there are couple more i forgot :<
quite stupid this blockingsystem
|
To quote myself:
TL.net 2.0 - The Community Experience!
Features:
You can't see any posts, unless you've added the poster as a buddy.
Facebook integration.
|
|
|
Ah, that is a great metaphor. Couldn't agree any more.
|
The best, wonder if Blizzard is reading these threads at all...
|
because there is no privacy at the restaurant everyone is completely naked.
|
man haha this is awesome. how would it be if the battle net 1.0 sexy waitress came back x3
|
What about facebook integration?
|
I Wish the restaurant had take away.
Loved the analogy, so true!
|
Very good way of taking blizzards policy ad-absurdum. Maybe they can understand the way many fans feel if it's in this form (kinda funny but nonetheless critical).
|
The food in my opinion isnt quite as orgasmically, deliciously, mouth-watering-ly good as you make it out to be.
It's fairly good, but has a long way towards becoming the best. Luckily, we should be able to assume that the chef who is preparing (patching) the food will steadily improve over time, even adding new courses to the menu.
|
rofl was a nice read and so right
|
Nice thread but imo the dinner also sux cause I find sc2 horribly bad for a RTS in 2010 after 4 years of devolpment.
|
Funny analogy. Agree with some of it.
|
Hey, at least you'll get an achievement for ordering every dish 25 times.
|
Love it. Bnet forums are full of bad metaphors, although this is pretty spot on.
|
Reminiscent of the Soup Nazi :O
|
|
|
|
|
I would just eat there alone (single player), or get take-out and eat it with others (UMS).
|
That's an amazing analogy. Love it.
|
haha thats pretty clever! can someone get the new waiter fired. pretend to slip on the floor and sue the restaurant!
|
Brilliant, fits my mood exactly
|
or get take-out and eat it with others
This would "Piracy".
|
hmmm did some say metaphor? good job at finding that gem OP
|
should always give credit to the original author, very creative
|
On May 31 2010 01:28 Half wrote:This would "Piracy".
Take-out would be playing offline (not connected - to the restaurant).
Stealing the food would be considered piracy - or eating w/o paying, or going into the shop and copying the food and then share it with other people.
|
Amazing.
True.
Clever.
Kudos for you.
|
|
|
Likewise, if the place is good and the food is good most people will want to support the institution. If customers feel gypped they're more likely to break the rules selfishly. I'm not going to walk out on a tab from a place I like, but I sure as hell will just get up and leave if I'm extremely dissatisfied with a place that is bad.
|
Hahahaha this is awesome! 
|
Haha this is so spot on! God people are just amazing, coming up with things like this.
While you order the waiter places a microphone under your table in order to gather personal information about you, information that he will use to make statistics and sell to other restauranats. I find that kind of scary :| Dont want blizzard to know all about my personal stuff.. thats why its personal, isnt it?
|
|
|
you forgot 1 thing..
they lease out part of their waiter/ service to a different fast food joint
( face book)
this other waiter only lets u go to his food ur friends list on facebook ..and lets u talk in whispers to ur face book friends.....
which is like letting u eat a few crumbs off what someone else ate.
|
i really hate they use ur whole name in ur friends list now.. bull chit.
|
that post made my day, thank you OP :3
|
|
|
On May 30 2010 21:43 Bananas wrote:
Haha :D
Spot on!
Aside for the League ranking metaphor
Fixed.
Funniest thing I read in the past 24 hours and it was inciteful.
To fix up the league ranking joke.
I would say before you leave the restaurant you are asked to leave feedback on their service on their website or any other you prefer. Unfortunately the feedback pages are fixed so on a daily basis reviews are chosen in a rotated format to show a limited range of negative, positive or neutral reviews of the restaurant. When you look up your review to see when it will be posted you learn the rotation is not based on your time of entry but your relative disposition compared to the disposition of other feedback reports you can't even read!
|
On May 31 2010 01:28 Half wrote:This would "Piracy".
Not really. This is where the analogy fails. You and your friends can't both eat the same food, unlike pirating.
Pirating would be making the food yourself.
|
|
|
This is prettttty hilarious XD
|
You also forgot that the restaraunt is part of a chain of restaurants and the place won't allow you to visit any other branch unless you pay off the sister store in advance, for the same shitty service you got at the first place. (no realm crossing)
|
very accurate
nice job with the analogy
|
perfect description of B.net 2.0
|
Excellent analogy. Its too bad none of these analysis are actually reaching blizzard's ears because they threw away all our petitions -_-
|
B.net 2.0 blocks came, past tense of cum i guess. But if you don't like it you can turn off the language filter. It's in options under social
|
|
|
On May 31 2010 01:55 Omegalisk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 01:28 Half wrote:or get take-out and eat it with others This would "Piracy". Not really. This is where the analogy fails. You and your friends can't both eat the same food, unlike pirating. Pirating would be making the food yourself.
No it wouldn't because the food would be a lower quality, and legally yours.
|
On May 30 2010 21:47 milly9 wrote:
I'd probably tell the manager the food was great and I'd never eat here again because of the waiter.
Then the manager tells you 'the waiter we've created provides the kind of experience our customers want, and we are working to improve any problems with him'.
|
Think this sums up Bnet and SC2 pretty well givent the last interview
|
On May 30 2010 22:24 Gibybo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2010 22:15 RiGun wrote:
Nice analogy, I hope blizzard realizes that they've screwed up badly with B.net 2.0, but I'm not even a bit optimistic, this new bnet abomination isn't about customer service, it's about revenue and how to maximize it in the long term. I am pretty sure they will fail hard in terms of long term revenue with this approach.
The sad truth is, they wont fail, Activision Blizzard does have a long term approach to Blizzard games, you will buy SC2, pretty much everyone here will even though they say they wont and even if you dont, it wont matter. All those ''casuals'' will buy it, sure they'll get bored after a month, so what ? some months after SC2 they'll buy Cataclysm, then they'll buy Diablo 3 some months after that, sure they'll just leave those get dusty somewhere after another month too, but they'll just NEED to have the SC2 ''full priced expansion'' which will, again, get pretty boring pretty quickly, no need to worry though, im sure the first full priced Diablo 3 expansion is already on its way, after all they need something to cover the time between the next full priced SC2 expansion, and after that, theres that new MMO, oh that'll put some more money in their pockets, and then they'll just start it all over again.
|
I can't believe how well this fits
|
C'mon Blizzard, you're better than this!
|
The people boycotting it probably are smart enough to realize that someone will crack it so they will still get the 1P and storyline modes almost as fast as everyone else. Only the little kids who are stuck in the mentally infantile state of "I have to have my new toy NOW NOW NOW I WANT IT" would make their parents pay the hundreds of dollars it'll take to play the "full version" of SC2.
|
The old waiter let me and my friends have free food.
|
On May 31 2010 02:44 Diminotoor wrote:
The people boycotting it probably are smart enough to realize that someone will crack it so they will still get the 1P and storyline modes almost as fast as everyone else. Only the little kids who are stuck in the mentally infantile state of "I have to have my new toy NOW NOW NOW I WANT IT" would make their parents pay the hundreds of dollars it'll take to play the "full version" of SC2.
Not everyone is under 14 and has their parents buying their games, in-fact most people on this forum are probably more like 20 and pay for games on their own.
|
|
|
leomon
Canada169 Posts
100% agree with OP's post
|
|
|
Coming July 27th! All new battle.net 2.0 features!
Realistic Bobby Kotick dildo! It's self aware and will animate to rape you (and your wallet) every 12 hours!
Chat Channels! (You have to pay per word)
Cross realm play! (You have to pay per game)
LAN! (You have to pay per second used)
|
|
|
On May 31 2010 02:53 Rabiator wrote:Unlikely ... you more or less get served by ... + Show Spoiler +
Hahaha, you know those series?
I wouldnt like to see such a person as a waitress in my restaurant :D
|
|
|
XD thats great! (dang waiter)
|
|
|
hit the nail on the head, but the food isn't all that great
|
I agree. This is a great metaphor.
The sad part, is that it isn't even complete. and Blizzard is worse than that. You can be removed from the restraunt at any time for any reason.
|
A very good analogy. I certainly hope Blizzard takes notice of that waiter!
|
Is the food even that good? Some have said that it is not... (some people said sc2 sucks)
|
Czech Republic1860 Posts
And once in while, the waiter shits in your food...
(disconnects...)
|
It's kinda like that old comic I read where the customer is like
Customer:"Waiter, waiter, there is a fly in my soup!"
Waiter: "Why, yes there is!" plucks out fly* "Oh look, there's a beetle in here too. I'll just pluck it out."
Customer: Sputters* "I already ate several spoonfuls!"
Waiter: " Oh, and look here, a centipede, sorry about that."
Customer faints*
Waiter: "There we go, all good to eat!"
|
|
|
hilarious. thank you who ever posted.
|
|
|
And that is definitely a reason why waiters are so nice . The food can sometimes sell itself, but for the most part, people won't be coming back....
|
On May 31 2010 02:50 SichuanPanda wrote:
Not everyone is under 14 and has their parents buying their games, in-fact most people on this forum are probably more like 20 and pay for games on their own.
I didn't say the people on here were kids. I said that people who pay all these fees are stuck in the infantile mindset of "I want my new toy I want it NOW NOW NOW". Your opinion is based on an assumption, not a fact. Try reading before you respond.
|
I love this metaphor lol.
|
the old waiter used to like us eating our food at home ( lan ) or have a party with ur friends and free food at some lan spot)
the old waiter didnt care what u said or when u said it.. or who u sad it too.. ( free speech sorta) soo it was like america the waiter!
now we got a nazi bnet.20 .. lame i dont want sour kraut
|
On May 31 2010 03:33 Zaphid wrote:
And once in while, the waiter shits in your food...
(disconnects...)
Well, that happens in every restaurant, and often times that's fault of the guys who delivery food to the restaurant.
Rarely though, customers themselves shit in other customers food, or even in their own food, to avoid being slapped with paycheck
|
Haha, best creative way to bash Blizzard's massive fail wave.
|
God I hate this new waiter. Give me another one!
Great metaphore.
|
this is one of those posts that make my day better
|
|
|
maybe we should say screw this joint.. and go to the hooters down the road?
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
|
I thought it's like being in a traffic jam. You're stuck in the same scenario with hundreds of other people, but it's impossible to talk to any of them even though they're right next to you. All you can do is look at each other and mutually think "I'm fucked" because you're in a traffic jam.
|
Awesome metaphor!
Can someone make a petition against Bnet 2.0? I'm confident we could get some hundreds of thousands to sign <.<
|
On May 31 2010 04:01 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 03:33 Zaphid wrote:
And once in while, the waiter shits in your food...
(disconnects...) Well, that happens in every restaurant, and often times that's fault of the guys who delivery food to the restaurant. Rarely though, customers themselves shit in other customers food, or even in their own food, to avoid being slapped with paycheck
Most restaurants dont shit in your food nearly as often as this restaurant does.
|
|
|
most restaurants dont claim the crap is crap ( this one exclaims yes there wont be any chating between ugys! or ur foreign friends or anyone in a chat room..
but u can look at ur friends on face book?) in other words
shut up eat this crap and like it because we arent listening.
|
|
|
I love it man, great metaphor.
|
United States889 Posts
And the waiter keeps asking you if you really want chat rooms. No tip for him.
|
agreed. i m gonna hold off on my purchase of SC2 for the sole reason that Bnet 2.0 is pissing me off way to much. I feel so insulted for what they have done.
I play games for fun. I dont wanna feel like I am being locked in a jail cell with 9 other gay men with penis enlargement and have taken viagra.
|
Perfect, and no I would not go to that restaurant.
|
|
|
On May 31 2010 05:32 Mastermind wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 04:01 InRaged wrote:On May 31 2010 03:33 Zaphid wrote:
And once in while, the waiter shits in your food...
(disconnects...) Well, that happens in every restaurant, and often times that's fault of the guys who delivery food to the restaurant. Rarely though, customers themselves shit in other customers food, or even in their own food, to avoid being slapped with paycheck Most restaurants dont shit in your food nearly as often as this restaurant does.
lol Well, concerning this most recent diarrhea outburst, at least we know that the waiter has a doctor's appointment scheduled in about a week
|
hah i got a kick out of that
|
|
|
But the restaurant has record sales and makes millions of dollars while the food connoisseur remember the good days of sc1.
|
On May 30 2010 21:41 Tiazi wrote:Show nested quote +
...
Sharing food between you and your loved one is completly forbidden since there have been case where people would eat for free by doing this (no lan)
...
That part made me laugh. This is spot on.
|
|
|
could be perfected but its ok
|
the marketplace comparison is bullshit.
We pay extra for desert, not for toothpicks. And you have 100000000 deserts to pick from all over the world from the best cooks, maybe even better than the cooks at the restaurant itself.
|
This part I completely disagree with. So many people fail to understand the concept of the map marketplace. The metaphor wouldn't be...
If you want salt on your food you have to pay extra, if you want pepper you have to pay extra, if you want to use the napkin, you have to pay extra, if you want a tooth pick, you have to pay extra, if you want to go to the bathroom you have to pay extra (map marketplace).
...it would be if you want an expensive wine to go with your meal.
I hope people understand, premium maps are going to be COMPLETELY CUSTOM games. All the graphics in them will be custom, and the game will be fairly big and complex. The only thing the premium games will have in common with SC2 is they will be using the same engine, thats it. I feel their is nothing wrong with having to pay for a game that you would enjoy that is only using the SC2 engine and everything else in the game is custom. I would think if the game is good the a few dollars (what I would expect any good indie game to cost) like $15.99 - 9.99 is completely reasonable.
|
On May 31 2010 06:21 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 05:32 Mastermind wrote:On May 31 2010 04:01 InRaged wrote:On May 31 2010 03:33 Zaphid wrote:
And once in while, the waiter shits in your food...
(disconnects...) Well, that happens in every restaurant, and often times that's fault of the guys who delivery food to the restaurant. Rarely though, customers themselves shit in other customers food, or even in their own food, to avoid being slapped with paycheck Most restaurants dont shit in your food nearly as often as this restaurant does. lol Well, concerning this most recent diarrhea outburst, at least we know that the waiter has a doctor's appointment scheduled in about a week
Too bad the restaurant will be temporarly closed down for awhile, it's that fucking waiter again...
|
Is there anything good about this waiter guy at all?! Seems like we have no choice but to open a pub down the road and steal the food yet again lol
Too bad our bald cook friend won't be happy about that
|
I hope people understand, premium maps are going to be COMPLETELY CUSTOM games. All the graphics in them will be custom, and the game will be fairly big and complex. The only thing the premium games will have in common with SC2 is they will be using the same engine, thats it. I feel their is nothing wrong with having to pay for a game that you would enjoy that is only using the SC2 engine and everything else in the game is custom. I would think if the game is good the a few dollars (what I would expect any good indie game to cost) like $15.99 - 9.99 is completely reasonable.
You see, I'm basing this on the vast variety of Premium maps I've played.
|
Activision raped Blizz and stole its virginity
|
This is from Husky's youtube post about the state of battle.net 2.0
|
On May 30 2010 23:44 amatoer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2010 22:54 Scotchy wrote:[B] (the word "hier" in Dutch means 'here', yet it gets blocked). ("coarse" language filter) It means "yesterday" in French and it's so ridiculous to block that :< and if you write "weniger" (= less in german) you'll read we?%&$.... there are couple more i forgot :< quite stupid this blockingsystem
iirc "come" is blocked
|
I think I know this waiter guy, his name is Kotick. Seriously, that guy makes me raaage.
|
lol that's pretty amazing, would like to see blizzard's response to this
|
The analogy is good, and its a funny idea, but its poorly written and kind of insulting. I think most people will understand that subtext without having it spelled out in parenthesis.
|
One of the best posts ever!
One more thing the "chef" spit on the food.
|
On May 30 2010 21:44 Koffiegast wrote:
The waiter also knows some languages and has a sharp ear, waiting for you to say some words and when you say them he will shriek out some nonsense, making it impossible for the ones you're talking to understand what youre saying. Unfortunately the waiter is so incompetent, that even when you use daily used / normal words he will shout out nonsense (the word "hier" in Dutch means 'here', yet it gets blocked). ("coarse" language filter)
i have to admit i hate battle.net lack of multiple language support. but that's always been around. are they ever going to fix that?
On May 30 2010 23:34 Deyster wrote:
The restaurant or the waiter being jerks might even make you consider going on diet. Diet might be hard, but it improves your life.
I don't want to go on diet, I want my complaint to be heard to the restaurant owner.
LOL
On May 31 2010 01:44 Infernus wrote:
While you order the waiter places a microphone under your table in order to gather personal information about you, information that he will use to make statistics and sell to other restauranats. I find that kind of scary :| Dont want blizzard to know all about my personal stuff.. thats why its personal, isnt it?
it's good for me. i don't like water with ice so if restaurants were telling other restaurants that i don't like water with ice then i don't have to keep telling them that i don't want ice in my water.
also i like vegetables cooked until they're soft, i can tell the restaurant that and all the other restaurants will know too? sounds good to me.
|
Shitty analogies don't deserve to be in the spotlight on the front page. Over exaggeration for a problem that's being discussed in several other threads doesn't need a new topic thread. You could always consolidate to have one big discussion, as opposed to 30 threads of the same topic with the same discussion.
But that's not how attention whoring works, I guess.
|
On May 31 2010 09:23 ghosthunter wrote:
Shitty analogies don't deserve to be in the spotlight on the front page. Over exaggeration for a problem that's being discussed in several other threads doesn't need a new topic thread. You could always consolidate to have one big discussion, as opposed to 30 threads of the same topic with the same discussion.
But that's not how attention whoring works, I guess.
Maybe it's just that important to everyone else that there needs to be threads spreading awareness. It's not like Bnet 2.0 and SC 2 havent been a long time coming and have a huge and extremely loyal fanbase that wants the game to succeed or anything.
|
On May 31 2010 09:27 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 09:23 ghosthunter wrote:
Shitty analogies don't deserve to be in the spotlight on the front page. Over exaggeration for a problem that's being discussed in several other threads doesn't need a new topic thread. You could always consolidate to have one big discussion, as opposed to 30 threads of the same topic with the same discussion.
But that's not how attention whoring works, I guess. Maybe it's just that important to everyone else that there needs to be threads spreading awareness.
Spreading awareness instead of discussion isn't all that productive however. And a post with 200 pages is much more indicative of discussion than many posts just saying blizzard sucks.
On a side note, Does this really aid the sake of discussion? Shouldn't the discussion focus on what value these systems add and how necessary they are, as opposed to how them not being implemented is like a restaurant.
I suppose my end point is this, if you really want to implement change, giving valid reasons is always much more effective than a petition thread. Since this population will never represent any sort of practical market share, petition threads with everyone agreeing isn't really a reason. Logical discussions are much more convincing.
|
This is awesome.
|
So good :p
SC2 was delayed by at least half a year because Blizzard was busy training the "perfect waiter" to serve their food, and now it just blows my mind how bad it turned out to be.
|
This is pretty funny. Except the food is really bland too, it's not that good. ^__^
|
On May 31 2010 09:23 ghosthunter wrote:
Shitty analogies don't deserve to be in the spotlight on the front page. Over exaggeration for a problem that's being discussed in several other threads doesn't need a new topic thread. You could always consolidate to have one big discussion, as opposed to 30 threads of the same topic with the same discussion.
But that's not how attention whoring works, I guess.
No need to get angry.
|
|
|
Very good analogy. I'll have to keep this in mind.
|
Hahaha, that's pretty damn good. I don't know what they're thinking, it's pretty clear at this point that Activision's shareholders are making the push out the game with these broken features. It's too bad they're not free to make the game the way Blizzard intended, I really feel like they're just not allowed to have certain things in the game because they're being told they can't.
|
That was delightfully accurate.
FIRE TEH WAITER!
|
At first I lawled.
Then I went back to crying...
|
really really good and interesting metaphore
|
On May 31 2010 09:28 ghosthunter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 09:27 Serpico wrote:On May 31 2010 09:23 ghosthunter wrote:
Shitty analogies don't deserve to be in the spotlight on the front page. Over exaggeration for a problem that's being discussed in several other threads doesn't need a new topic thread. You could always consolidate to have one big discussion, as opposed to 30 threads of the same topic with the same discussion.
But that's not how attention whoring works, I guess. Maybe it's just that important to everyone else that there needs to be threads spreading awareness. Spreading awareness instead of discussion isn't all that productive however. And a post with 200 pages is much more indicative of discussion than many posts just saying blizzard sucks. On a side note, Does this really aid the sake of discussion? Shouldn't the discussion focus on what value these systems add and how necessary they are, as opposed to how them not being implemented is like a restaurant. I suppose my end point is this, if you really want to implement change, giving valid reasons is always much more effective than a petition thread. Since this population will never represent any sort of practical market share, petition threads with everyone agreeing isn't really a reason. Logical discussions are much more convincing.
To be fair, reasons have already been discussed in the more serious, focused threads. If all threads even remotely related to any of the issues community members are having with the outlook of Bnet 2 were to be filled entirely with posts on reasons... it would be pretty unreasonable, dry, and inhuman. People aren't like that. A mix of outbursts, arguments, jokes, theses, even satire as in here is the way a group of individuals naturally complains, not one robotic, organized spreadsheet of the same reasons parroted in a perfectly logical fashion over and over.
Underestimating awareness and raw emotion does not lead to an accurate understanding of communication. Awareness, reach, exposure are all metrics used in marketing to gauge how powerful a campaign can become. Awareness is the foundation of every ideological campaign, from the Great Awakening to modern Presidential races. Emotion is the stone bulwark that all onlookers stare transfixed at. Reason merely comprises the fancy crenellations that are difficult to assess and that many completely ignore.
Sure logically, reason justifies the issue. That's simply not how people work, though. In reality, creating an issue justifies someone spending the time to look at the reasons.
I mean honestly, even though the spectrum of complaints still being leveled against SC2 may be legion, it would take no more than 3 pages to state and justify them all in a readable fashion. Creating such an open letter of suggestions would be the best way to purely convey complainants' reasons. I personally wouldn't count on it having an impact because 1: no reliable delivery mechanism, 2: no assurance that the development situation is amenable to any changes, 3: likelihood of messages being lost in translation across the feedback chain.
|
i vote we fill out comment cards so they fire the waiter
|
On May 30 2010 22:46 AyJay wrote:
It's funny although I have to disagree with map marketing
I think it's awesome idea because it will keep people motivating to make better and better maps. I really wouldn't mind throwing extra dollars if map is worth it.
I agree, I don't have a problem with the map marketplace. However, they have stated that they're going to be taking "micropayments" for things like changing your name, etc. So maybe the author's comment was directed at that aspect of it.
|
|
|
On May 30 2010 21:52 lolaloc wrote:
Title is wrong!
Blizzard = Restaurant
B.net 2 = Waiter
A restaurant hires a waiter, they dont develop it with total control...so this the former is better.
|
re: The Map Market
Given the lack of cross server functionality. You will probably have to repurchase all your maps for any battle.net account you have.
I hope you don't intend to play any DoTA with your cross continent friends. Could be pricey.
|
Fuck blizzard. I'm so pissed off that they are ruining a game that GAMERS created. Blarg. Ruin COD, ruin Counter-Strike, ruin Halo and ruin mother fucking farmville for all I care.
But please, for the love of god, stop ruining Starcraft. Stop with the achievements. Stop with the horrible functionality. Stop with the kiddy bullshit that ruins competitive gaming. I don't fucking care that I got 10 wins as terran, and woooow a cool new avatar! There is a million other genres they can use for money grubbing. Just please, for the love of God and competitive gaming stop ruining starcraft 2.
I didn't wait 10 years for this. I'm nostalgia'ing all over the place at my 13 year old self discussing how great SC2 would be. Believe me, even as a 13 year old, I wasn't imagining "the fantastic possibility of avatars next to my name", I was dreaming of gaming becoming recognized as something more than just a waste of time, or fun.
They should start giving out "mini-trophies" in hockey whenever a hockey team wins more than 3 games in a row. They could add an extra hour of televised time by having little congratulatory events.
Only people would stop watching, because they watch the NHL to watch hockey, not bullshit award ceremonies.
|
On May 31 2010 18:57 h4xh4xh4x wrote:
Fuck blizzard. I'm so pissed off that they are ruining a game that GAMERS created. Blarg. Ruin COD, ruin Counter-Strike, ruin Halo ....
I soooo agree with you that activision ruined COD with ignoring his community from a cry out loud for a new patch back in the days I was playing call of duty 2 competitively.
But the starcraft community is soo much bigger. So much better organised. The can't ignore us. Can they..?
|
|
|
Well, out of all this, I hate the lack of freedom of speech in the restaurant.
I would also like if they had some sharper bouncers in the restaurant.
As it is now, when I go to use the bathroom, people from the street come into the restaurant, take my food and start a food fight (hacking my old WoW account cancelled months ago and selling gold or smth, I don't know). The restaurant owner decides I am to blame and throws me out... (close account). He is happy to have me back if I order a new portion. Well, I decide - next time I will not have that stale mashed potato anymore, but I am worried about the roastbeef (SC2) - will I suffer the same fate?
|
Sharing food between you and your loved one is completly forbidden since there have been case where people would eat for free by doing this (no lan)
For me it is more like:
You have 5 friends over and you want to order some take out. However, you're not allowed to call and order for all 6 of you. No, they all have to order their own food. During a separate call. On their own phone cause they can't use yours
Great metaphor! From a business I understand a great deal of the choices Blizzard has made. I even understand (if support is big word) that they want to force everyone to use battle.net2.0.
But lets say my same 5 friends want to play some SC2 after ordering this aforementioned take-out. How the hell am I supposed to do this? They can bring their own PC but I do not have 5 internet connections ready. Has anybody found a solution to this?
Also, how possible would authenticated LAN be? I mean, you make a local, offline party, you connect to battle.net though 1 PC, Blizzard authenticates all your licenses and you can play your own little LAN.
Possible?
|
I enjoyed the post for the most part except for the slam on the map marketplace. I trust that blizzard will only allow quality maps to be paid for. The marketplace is simply to give mapmakers motivation to create something that is truly mindblowing. To make it analagous with food: Starcraft 2 + BNet 2.0 is like a cheese pizza, and the maps on the marketplace are like paying for pepperoni, sausage, banana peppers, etc.
|
On May 31 2010 22:32 [wh]_ForAlways wrote:
To make it analagous with food: Starcraft 2 + BNet 2.0 is like a cheese pizza, and the maps on the marketplace are like paying for pepperoni, sausage, banana peppers, etc.
So you pay for your cheese pizza and you pay again for every single extra topping you want? Even if your old pizza place had everything already?
I think most people fear the market place because nobody knows exactly what "premium goods" means. Let's say Python. Or Destination and HeartBreakRidge. If SC1 was on battlenet2.0, would we have to pay to play on these maps?
|
I didnt know they are going to charge for map market maps?
wow.. that sucks
I can see the waiter now.. Dressed in red with his fancy towel draped over his ar and that nose in the air . bringing ur food on paper plates.. Now those paper plates do the job and doesn't make the food less tasty
The next table over.. are eating on fine china.
You're like sayin WTF . Wondering dam.why am i eating on a paper plate?
The waiter then informs you that u have to Pay to eat on a normal plate . Or extra on fine china (the big league .. league maps)
|
On May 31 2010 22:52 koonst wrote:
I didnt know they are going to charge for map market maps?
wow.. that sucks
I can see the waiter now.. Dressed in red with his fancy towel draped over his ar and that nose in the air . bringing ur food on paper plates.. Now those paper plates do the job and doesn't make the food less tasty
The next table over.. are eating on fine china.
You're like sayin WTF . Wondering dam.why am i eating on a paper plate?
The waiter then informs you that u have to Pay to eat on a normal plate . Or extra on fine china (the big league .. league maps)
They have only hinted at plans to implement it. Blizzard said that instead of a weekly featured map, they would approach the map makers and offer them small royalties and then sell the map to the community. I'm actually hoping that this is only for well thought out custom campaigns. But I know deep down this isn't the case
|
I disagree with it being delicious food because its not even close to what the old restaurant had to offer but otherwise it was awesome :D
|
The problem is you can never win this argument because you still get to choose whether you go to that "restaurant" or not. The only way to get Blizzard to listen to you is to affect their bottom line and that means not buying the game until they add these features. I get the feeling that the hardcore community that is mostly behind this bitching would buy Starcraft 2 even if they replaced SCVs with floating turds that gave you the finger occasionally throughout the game.
|
On May 31 2010 03:54 Diminotoor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 02:50 SichuanPanda wrote:
Not everyone is under 14 and has their parents buying their games, in-fact most people on this forum are probably more like 20 and pay for games on their own.
I didn't say the people on here were kids. I said that people who pay all these fees are stuck in the infantile mindset of "I want my new toy I want it NOW NOW NOW". Your opinion is based on an assumption, not a fact. Try reading before you respond.
Overall I think you're stuck in the infantile mindset of 'I'm right because I'm on a forum and don't have to face people face to face so I feel like I'm entitled to act like a knowitall'. Get out.
|
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.
|
hilarious... and sickening lol
|
pretty epic... fire the waiter please.
|
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=1187Here'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.
|
Really funny and I agree on most of it.
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?
|
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.
|
lol so true...unfortunately! we can only hope it seems at this rate.
|
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.
|
This, is the best comparison ever!
|
So all we need is a new waiter right? :D
|
doesnt matter there will still be million of players that are gonna still play 24hours a day 7days aweek... just be mad at ur self that u didnt think of a brilliant idea such as this...
|
that waiter keeps spitting on our food
|
what?! they gonna make u pay for maps?!
Im questioning how much of this Autonomy from Activision is true <.< Sure sounds like a Kotick Plan
|
i've yet to see a better comparisson
|
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=1187Here'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.
|
Loved it, loughed on it, completely agree.
|
|
|
Great analogy and i totally agree not to go to that restaurant again!
EDIT: that is to say until they get a new waiter
|
On June 02 2010 23:23 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +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=1187Here'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. Show nested quote +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.
Thanks for the post. Im interested to see what happens next.
|
Well at lest the chatting with other customers doesn't slow you down.
|
On June 02 2010 23:23 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +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=1187Here'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. Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On June 03 2010 06:31 Plethora wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 23:23 Takkara wrote: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=1187Here'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. 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.
One of the things most people really liked about original bnet, was how hey COULD random channel it with a couple buddies, and not have to worry about a bunch of knobs pissing them off. Ever been to a LAN party? Kick EFFin A! Who wants a bunch of internet buddies annoying u when ur lanning? Yes, I see what they're trying to do, but why not add a lan option AFTER the game is verified online or something? Make EVERYONE happy. If blizzard wants to make a game where all SC players are connected, make world of SC or some other gay shiz, Having to toss out an Email address for every friend u add is just dumb.
|
On May 30 2010 22:54 Scotchy wrote:Show nested quote +[B] (the word "hier" in Dutch means 'here', yet it gets blocked). ("coarse" language filter) It means "yesterday" in French and it's so ridiculous to block that :<
What are they trying to block with that (in ANY language) ? Heh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://noshades.lutzkicksass.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/1hooters.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://twiggiessis.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/50_plus-48-1783-0510072033-ma_flodder1.jpg)
