|
On June 11 2010 11:37 Tyraz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 11:27 CheezDip wrote:But do you REALLY want a comprehensive response from Blizzard? Plans have changed ;( http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25170615347&sid=5000&pageNo=2#24Also while we obviously wanted to let everyone know before hand we were aware and working on something to address the major concerns, plans have kind of changed. We came to the conclusion that just throwing out a huge post that goes over everything would really dilute the conversation and make it difficult to hold a dialogue on any one concern. Everyone would just be replying to whatever issue they felt was most important, or detailing out a response to every thing in one reply. (And then good luck to me to try to reply to any of it.) So we'll be taking a more natural forum response approach to keep all the various concerns focused so we can discuss each more easily. Did the quote REALLY have to be prepositioned like this? I think this is a good thing. The community would really benefit from something like this, and will prevent the trolls/ragers from derailing discussion to whatever happens to be making THEM so angry. Hopefully, with decent moderators, we'll really get some decent info from this.
I agree. Its also what many respected members of the SC community have called for, meaningful dialogue, such as the content staff of SClegacy.
http://sclegacy.com/news/23-sc2/732-battlenet-20-concerns
As well as various mods from TL.
Frankly, this thread shows why dialogue is more meaningful then response. Blizzard could say anything, and you people wouldn't respect their viewpoint. So many people in this thread have derided this response as PR trash. Which is understandable, its not (only) your fault. Blizzard often fails to respect the player viewpoint, accidentally or through ignorance, but a failure nonetheless.
Short of turning their programmers into jesus velociraptor, they can't speak with an action, its too late in development for that. The core issue stems from a disconnect between Blizzard and the community, and as long as that disconnect remains, nothing they say will assuage your fears because your fears are very valid.
Bridging this disconnect through meaningful dialogue would be far more helpful then as many others have said in this thread, the response "Yo we get it but its too late in the development process but we understand your concerns and were working rly hard to fix it".
|
On June 11 2010 11:37 Tyraz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 11:27 CheezDip wrote:But do you REALLY want a comprehensive response from Blizzard? Plans have changed ;( http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25170615347&sid=5000&pageNo=2#24Also while we obviously wanted to let everyone know before hand we were aware and working on something to address the major concerns, plans have kind of changed. We came to the conclusion that just throwing out a huge post that goes over everything would really dilute the conversation and make it difficult to hold a dialogue on any one concern. Everyone would just be replying to whatever issue they felt was most important, or detailing out a response to every thing in one reply. (And then good luck to me to try to reply to any of it.) So we'll be taking a more natural forum response approach to keep all the various concerns focused so we can discuss each more easily. Did the quote REALLY have to be prepositioned like this? I think this is a good thing. The community would really benefit from something like this, and will prevent the trolls/ragers from derailing discussion to whatever happens to be making THEM so angry. Hopefully, with decent moderators, we'll really get some decent info from this.
Better communication between the community and Blizzard is of course a necessity, but it's Blizzard's end that has slacked the most. Don't forget that every time they've replied to forum threads to address the major issues with bnet2.0, it has been to tell us to stop living in the past and that their plan is best. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but when they say they want to further the "discussion", I immediately wonder what is left to discuss--we've stated our position, they've stated theirs--and it sounds like they'll just try to convince us that their position is the better one. I'd rather they just admit that they've been out of touch with the community, admit that bnet2.0 is awful, and set some timelines for fixing it, even if it'll take a year to accomplish. Better than defending what they have now.
|
Blizzard's PR is as good as Bnet 2.0. Promises much and fails to deliver. This is very disappointing to see because the community is near unanimous on several of these major issues like LAN/Chat room, but Blizzard still won't address them.
|
On June 11 2010 12:47 CheezDip wrote:
Better communication between the community and Blizzard is of course a necessity, but it's Blizzard's end that has slacked the most. Don't forget that every time they've replied to forum threads to address the major issues with bnet2.0, it has been to tell us to stop living in the past and that their plan is best. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but when they say they want to further the "discussion", I immediately wonder what is left to discuss--we've stated our position, they've stated theirs--and it sounds like they'll just try to convince us that their position is the better one. I'd rather they just admit that they've been out of touch with the community, admit that bnet2.0 is awful, and set some timelines for fixing it, even if it'll take a year to accomplish. Better than defending what they have now.
I don't get it. Your concern is with the current state of b-net 2.0, not the one in a year. In a year, we'll have group chats, which functions like normal chats with a different undisclosed set of features, and clans. And possibly cross region play, due to our recent collective feedback. And probably a better custom games UI.
|
On June 11 2010 12:52 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 12:47 CheezDip wrote:
Better communication between the community and Blizzard is of course a necessity, but it's Blizzard's end that has slacked the most. Don't forget that every time they've replied to forum threads to address the major issues with bnet2.0, it has been to tell us to stop living in the past and that their plan is best. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but when they say they want to further the "discussion", I immediately wonder what is left to discuss--we've stated our position, they've stated theirs--and it sounds like they'll just try to convince us that their position is the better one. I'd rather they just admit that they've been out of touch with the community, admit that bnet2.0 is awful, and set some timelines for fixing it, even if it'll take a year to accomplish. Better than defending what they have now. I don't get it. Your concern is with the current state of b-net 2.0, not the one in a year. In a year, we'll have group chats, which functions like normal chats with a different undisclosed set of features, and clans. And possibly cross region play, due to our recent collective feedback. And probably a better custom games UI.
Uh, the issue has always been with the list of features that Blizzard said they have no plans of implementing.
|
On June 11 2010 12:57 CheezDip wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 12:52 Half wrote:On June 11 2010 12:47 CheezDip wrote:
Better communication between the community and Blizzard is of course a necessity, but it's Blizzard's end that has slacked the most. Don't forget that every time they've replied to forum threads to address the major issues with bnet2.0, it has been to tell us to stop living in the past and that their plan is best. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but when they say they want to further the "discussion", I immediately wonder what is left to discuss--we've stated our position, they've stated theirs--and it sounds like they'll just try to convince us that their position is the better one. I'd rather they just admit that they've been out of touch with the community, admit that bnet2.0 is awful, and set some timelines for fixing it, even if it'll take a year to accomplish. Better than defending what they have now. I don't get it. Your concern is with the current state of b-net 2.0, not the one in a year. In a year, we'll have group chats, which functions like normal chats with a different undisclosed set of features, and clans. And possibly cross region play, due to our recent collective feedback. And probably a better custom games UI. Uh, the issue has always been with the list of features that Blizzard said they have no plans of implementing.
Like what? Lan. Thats it. Chat Channels are being replaced with Group Chat. You do not have any information about group chat, so you cannot make an informed judgement at this point in time.
And regarding the loss of lan, I believe thats the only decision imo that came exterior to the b-net design team. I think that was decision from corporate, most DRM measures are, so you can't do anything about that. Almost all design is left to designers, but usually DRM isn't. Removal of lan is mostly a DRM thing.
And you can't really change that.
|
On June 11 2010 12:59 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 12:57 CheezDip wrote:On June 11 2010 12:52 Half wrote:On June 11 2010 12:47 CheezDip wrote:
Better communication between the community and Blizzard is of course a necessity, but it's Blizzard's end that has slacked the most. Don't forget that every time they've replied to forum threads to address the major issues with bnet2.0, it has been to tell us to stop living in the past and that their plan is best. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but when they say they want to further the "discussion", I immediately wonder what is left to discuss--we've stated our position, they've stated theirs--and it sounds like they'll just try to convince us that their position is the better one. I'd rather they just admit that they've been out of touch with the community, admit that bnet2.0 is awful, and set some timelines for fixing it, even if it'll take a year to accomplish. Better than defending what they have now. I don't get it. Your concern is with the current state of b-net 2.0, not the one in a year. In a year, we'll have group chats, which functions like normal chats with a different undisclosed set of features, and clans. And possibly cross region play, due to our recent collective feedback. And probably a better custom games UI. Uh, the issue has always been with the list of features that Blizzard said they have no plans of implementing. Like what? Lan. Thats it. Chat Channels are being replaced with Group Chat. You do not have any information about group chat, so you cannot make an informed judgement at this point in time. And regarding the loss of lan, I believe thats the only decision imo that came exterior to the b-net design team. I think that was decision from corporate, most DRM measures are, so you can't do anything about that. Almost all design is left to designers, but usually DRM isn't. Removal of lan is mostly a DRM thing. And you can't really change that.
What about cross-region play? Is that a corporate decision or developmental?
Personally I see it as purely a corporate. Yes Blizzard will make the pathetic case about latency, etc. But it really just falls down to their current scheme of charging people $60 repeatedly if they want to have accounts in different regions.
Yeah, thats the way to build the community, separate everyone via $60 toll bridge. Blizzard, you're such a troll.
|
On June 11 2010 13:05 Nottoway wrote:
What about cross-region play? Is that a corporate decision or developmental?
Personally I see it as purely a corporate. Yes Blizzard will make the pathetic case about latency, etc. But it really just falls down to their current scheme of charging people $60 repeatedly if they want to have accounts in different regions.
Yeah, thats the way to build the community, separate everyone via $60 toll bridge. Blizzard, you're such a troll.
No, thats not what it is.
A minuscule amount of the population would actually buy 2 copies of Starcraft and its expansions to play cross regionally. Certainly less then even a fraction of a percent. You're looking at maybe 5000 increased sales at most. Now the downside is your hurting esports. Esports is basically free advertisement for your product and increased incentives to buy it. Go on Husky SC channel, and on the front page you'll see like five people saying something like "Hey I didn't play Starcraft but this is really cool".
Its simply a decision which they view as a niche feature and isn't very high on their list of prioties. (Like chat channels and clans).
And also as a corporate decision it would be dumb as fuck. The pricing model doesn't optimize profit at all.
|
On June 11 2010 12:52 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 12:47 CheezDip wrote:
Better communication between the community and Blizzard is of course a necessity, but it's Blizzard's end that has slacked the most. Don't forget that every time they've replied to forum threads to address the major issues with bnet2.0, it has been to tell us to stop living in the past and that their plan is best. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but when they say they want to further the "discussion", I immediately wonder what is left to discuss--we've stated our position, they've stated theirs--and it sounds like they'll just try to convince us that their position is the better one. I'd rather they just admit that they've been out of touch with the community, admit that bnet2.0 is awful, and set some timelines for fixing it, even if it'll take a year to accomplish. Better than defending what they have now. I don't get it. Your concern is with the current state of b-net 2.0, not the one in a year. In a year, we'll have group chats, which functions like normal chats with a different undisclosed set of features, and clans. And possibly cross region play, due to our recent collective feedback. And probably a better custom games UI.
So as consumers and ardent supporters of Blizzard we should wait for basic online features to be implemented in ... a year? Blizzard has been developing SC2 for at least four years. They already delayed SC2 into this year because of bnet 2.0, and people can easily see why. And yet, one month before release, bnet .5 still looks incredibly hollow and as a multiplayer platform, it is simply underwhelming. Blizzard's goal was to make bnet good enough so that you would "never want to play on lan." Do you think they have succeeded in that goal? I do not.
Blizzard has set incredibly high expectations for themselves, and rightfully so. Even in its early stages the game they have created is very fun and well done; it will only get better once the expansion packs come out. Unless changed, bnet 2.0 will hold SC2 back from realizing its potential as a competitive game and as a true successor to BW. The decisions they have made towards bnet 2.0 are arrogant and disrespectful towards the community.
|
They are not arrogant, they don't have enough time with their small teams to do everything at once. SC2 is one of the biggest PC game projects ever. Whether they will address them long-term or not, we can't say yet.
|
So you believe Rob Pardo's discussion over the lack of LAN did not show hubris? I almost threw up when he asked Blizzon if we really wanted LAN like it was such a bewildering thing. Blizzard happens to be the #1 most profitable developer and they have had many years to implement these features, that is not a good excuse for their behavior towards the community on these issues.
|
On June 11 2010 13:24 0neder wrote:
They are not arrogant, they don't have enough time with their small teams to do everything at once. SC2 is one of the biggest PC game projects ever. Whether they will address them long-term or not, we can't say yet.
Adding a chat interface to a game when EVERY game you have made prior to it has had one isn't much a feat lol.
They probably just don't want us chatting about how bad the rest of Bnet 0.2 fails.
|
On June 11 2010 13:34 Butigroove wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 13:24 0neder wrote:
They are not arrogant, they don't have enough time with their small teams to do everything at once. SC2 is one of the biggest PC game projects ever. Whether they will address them long-term or not, we can't say yet. Adding a chat interface to a game when EVERY game you have made prior to it has had one isn't much a feat lol. They probably just don't want us chatting about how bad the rest of Bnet 0.2 fails.
QFT
|
On June 11 2010 13:22 setzer wrote:
So as consumers and ardent supporters of Blizzard we should wait for basic online features to be implemented in ... a year? Blizzard has been developing SC2 for at least four years. They already delayed SC2 into this year because of bnet 2.0, and people can easily see why. And yet, one month before release, bnet .5 still looks incredibly hollow and as a multiplayer platform, it is simply underwhelming. Blizzard's goal was to make bnet good enough so that you would "never want to play on lan." Do you think they have succeeded in that goal? I do not.
Blizzard has set incredibly high expectations for themselves, and rightfully so. Even in its early stages the game they have created is very fun and well done; it will only get better once the expansion packs come out. Unless changed, bnet 2.0 will hold SC2 back from realizing its potential as a competitive game and as a true successor to BW. The decisions they have made towards bnet 2.0 are arrogant and disrespectful towards the community.
See now you're quoting me out of context. The fact that your getting needed features in a year is an entire different (and more valid) issue then not getting features at all.
|
Stop being such a blizzard fanboy and look at the facts please.
|
On June 11 2010 13:24 0neder wrote:
They are not arrogant, they don't have enough time with their small teams to do everything at once. SC2 is one of the biggest PC game projects ever. Whether they will address them long-term or not, we can't say yet.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Blizzard is one of the biggest, certainly the most well-funded game development house on the planet, they have an effectively infinite line of credit and a queue of talented developers curling round the block bashing down their doors, desperate to be employed by them. Do NOT try and pull that bullshit here, how dumb do you think people are?
|
nice so Blizzard is stalling the community promising a comment and then they shut down the forums. No one complains anymore, easiest thing in the world! gg
Maybe they didn't come up with good ideas why the features should be missing, idk.
|
I simply do not understand, everyone can bitch all they want but SC2 is simply a VERY good game. I can't believe that a company that is able to make a game as good as SC2 doesn't see that Bnet 0,2 is totally horrid.
The only explanation I can see is that they KNOW that the Bnet fucked up but that they are to proud to admit it and are sacking the development team nternally.
|
somebody make a kittens vids for all issues on the planet plz..
|
On June 11 2010 18:30 Mithrandror wrote:
I simply do not understand, everyone can bitch all they want but SC2 is simply a VERY good game. I can't believe that a company that is able to make a game as good as SC2 doesn't see that Bnet 0,2 is totally horrid.
The only explanation I can see is that they KNOW that the Bnet fucked up but that they are to proud to admit it and are sacking the development team nternally.
I doubt it is a pride thing. They are usually pretty vocal on how they mess up things. There was an interview with Rob Pardo, I believe, where he went through all their games and pretty much pointed out all of their shortcomings and how they tried to improve on the flaws in their next version. Example were the D2 money/loot system where gold became useless, and they did not like this at all. They supposedly corrected this in WoW (I dunno, never played the game. Is gold valuable / not useless?). I think they are going to realize the shortcomings of b.net 2.0 eventually and improve upon it dramatically. Especially if it goes retail without a lot of the functionality that many people (even casuals) are expecting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
