EPTBlizzard will respond to Bnet 2.0 Issues. - Page 20
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
NicksonReyes
Philippines4431 Posts
| ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On June 12 2010 16:03 Malgrif wrote: saying facebook is for idiots is the same as saying that chatrooms are for losers without any friends. which is obviously not the case, i enjoy the new facebook integration as it has allowed me to reconnect with several other people who I didn't know played starcraft. I don't disagree that facebook integration was not needed during the beta, but it's a welcomed feature, at least by me. Hating on the fact that it's in the game shows that you're ignorant to the fact that most internet users have a facebook account which leads to the obvious conclusion that it beneficially increases the social dynamic of the game. Just because you don't use facebook and would rather have chat rooms doesn't mean that the facebook integration isn't useful to other people. I beg to differ. Chat rooms are a lot more than that. For example, channels allow us to manage tournaments easier as well as chat with people of similar interests. It is far more convenient and non-intrusive. Facebook and Twitter on the other hand has a bad rep for all the loopholes in privacy. Some people start to think way too highly of themselves over that technology as well. We don't need up to the minute updates on what you are doing let alone have conversations on what facebook coins a wall. That's what chatrooms are for facepalm. I'd say there is a pretty big difference between the two. Facebook is complete garbage. Yes, it's a network, but I would never call it a 'social network' because it's more of a disconnect from real-life than anything else. 3 of my old friends got their identities stolen over it. That's what happens when you become a small-time celebrity, no pun intended. Why they haven't reported it to the authorities yet is beyond me. The other thing I hate about both is the stalker friendly nature of the technology. I'm surprised no one has wrote a horror movie based on it yet. Hm, that gives me an idea. | ||
|
omeg
Poland19 Posts
On June 12 2010 15:36 wiesel wrote: Well Bnet 2.0 was already emulated. But was taken down from Blizzard. Surely it was posted already. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28213/Blizzard_Sues_StarCrack_Hackers_Promptly_Dismisses_Suit.php Emu is still around in dark irc channels but well.. I don't think it will take too long after release when Blizzard just can't handle the private servers anymore and with the actual state of Bnet2.0 im not too unhappy about it. Region lock being my main concern. They were still MILES away from real emulation, just got the authentication process done and some other minor things. | ||
|
aka_star
United Kingdom1546 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
Saying "Facebook is for idiots" is about as valid as "computer gamers are 16 - 24 year old boys who have pale skin and no real friends". Thats about it though with the positive things I have to say about Facebook. Lets look at what FB does: It lets you accumulate "friends" and share parts of your daily life and preferences with those friends ... cool, right? Wrong! The thing is that it can be a good thing if it is done in moderation, but too often people get too many friends because it is easy to make them. If you have more than 20 friends and only a part of them regularly update their "life stories" you need to check up on that, which takes time. This time is basically "empty time" when there is nothing new, but you are looking anyways. The more "friends" you have the more time you will spend searching for news. If you only have your "real life friends" on Facebook too, you dont really need to have that page, but could use all that time spent on updating your own page and looking for updates at your friends pages to actually talk with your friends. So in effect Facebook with real life friends is lost time for actual friendship. If most of your friends are "virtual friends" you actually have no friends, because you dont do "real stuff" with them and even if you find something new on one of your friends pages it is wasted time which could have been spent with much better things. On spending time All your time is spent in several degrees of quality. The more senses you use the higher the quality of the time spent.
The list isnt totally precise, but I hope you get my meaning, because everyone of us only has 24 hours each day and only 7 days every week. Getting ever more and more does not make our lives better, but filling it with better quality will improve it. Thus Facebook is bad, because it is only passively consuming the information presented to you (sure there is a small possibility for discussion, but its small). Even spending time on Forums like this is better (but not that much), because you can think about the opinions presented here and thus use your brain while writing a response. The really bad part about integrating Facebook is the email part, because there are loads of spammers out there already and loads of people make money from selling email addresses. Thus SC2 will be an interesting target for hackers who arent interested in games usually. Personally I stopped playing WoW almost 30 months ago, but NOW I am getting fake emails from Blizzard about my address ... go figure out what will happen if Blizzard sticks to their version of BNet 2.0. I for one have made a fake ID and would have had a "Captain Obvious" ID on Facebook too, if they would have let me be a Captain as first name. :p On Blizzard working on a comprehensive address Everyone who is willing to give them the benefit of a doubt after such a response has not lived long enough yet to know what such a vague answer means or is hopelessly naive. The quote is from the link HuskytheHusky gave us on page 1, first post ... | ||
|
badboymav
Australia74 Posts
I made a thread on bnet for the cause, kudos to everyone who has spoken out about the atrocities by our beloved blizzard. this whole situation, and others like it scream civilian revolt. the government must appease the masses or be taken down by them. | ||
|
Malgrif
Canada1095 Posts
On June 12 2010 23:00 Rabiator wrote: On Facebook Saying "Facebook is for idiots" is about as valid as "computer gamers are 16 - 24 year old boys who have pale skin and no real friends". Thats about it though with the positive things I have to say about Facebook. Lets look at what FB does: It lets you accumulate "friends" and share parts of your daily life and preferences with those friends ... cool, right? Wrong! The thing is that it can be a good thing if it is done in moderation, but too often people get too many friends because it is easy to make them. If you have more than 20 friends and only a part of them regularly update their "life stories" you need to check up on that, which takes time. This time is basically "empty time" when there is nothing new, but you are looking anyways. The more "friends" you have the more time you will spend searching for news. If you only have your "real life friends" on Facebook too, you dont really need to have that page, but could use all that time spent on updating your own page and looking for updates at your friends pages to actually talk with your friends. So in effect Facebook with real life friends is lost time for actual friendship. If most of your friends are "virtual friends" you actually have no friends, because you dont do "real stuff" with them and even if you find something new on one of your friends pages it is wasted time which could have been spent with much better things. On spending time All your time is spent in several degrees of quality. The more senses you use the higher the quality of the time spent.
The list isnt totally precise, but I hope you get my meaning, because everyone of us only has 24 hours each day and only 7 days every week. Getting ever more and more does not make our lives better, but filling it with better quality will improve it. Thus Facebook is bad, because it is only passively consuming the information presented to you (sure there is a small possibility for discussion, but its small). Even spending time on Forums like this is better (but not that much), because you can think about the opinions presented here and thus use your brain while writing a response. The really bad part about integrating Facebook is the email part, because there are loads of spammers out there already and loads of people make money from selling email addresses. Thus SC2 will be an interesting target for hackers who arent interested in games usually. Personally I stopped playing WoW almost 30 months ago, but NOW I am getting fake emails from Blizzard about my address ... go figure out what will happen if Blizzard sticks to their version of BNet 2.0. I for one have made a fake ID and would have had a "Captain Obvious" ID on Facebook too, if they would have let me be a Captain as first name. :p On Blizzard working on a comprehensive address Everyone who is willing to give them the benefit of a doubt after such a response has not lived long enough yet to know what such a vague answer means or is hopelessly naive. The quote is from the link HuskytheHusky gave us on page 1, first post ... | ||
|
Yung
United States727 Posts
| ||
|
telfire
United States415 Posts
On Blizzard working on a comprehensive address Everyone who is willing to give them the benefit of a doubt after such a response has not lived long enough yet to know what such a vague answer means or is hopelessly naive. You're mistaken. I've lived long enough to see this exact same scenario play out time and time again involving various companies with great track records (including Blizzard itself with the release of nearly every game, and for that matter practically every patch). The top company of nearly any industry goes through this EXACT SAME THING. History repeats itself thusly: - People look at what isn't there instead of what is, and proceed to complain endlessly about it. - The company usually recognizes it relatively quickly, and responds saying they're going to fix it as soon as they can. Often times they had already planned for it, but it just wasn't their #1 priority and they didn't have the resources to complete it yet. - Some of the complainers will simply ignore the response and pretend it doesn't exist; others dismiss it and say anyone who believes it is naive. - The company almost always fixes the problem at some point, and especially in Blizzard's case, they usually do so extremely well. - Most of the complainers simply disappear at this point, and pretend they never took part in the QQfest. A few will stick it out, insisting that the feature should have been there to begin with, and the company has wronged everyone by not getting it out sooner. That's what I've seen happen time and time and TIME again. I have absolutely no reason to believe it's not the same scenario that we're going through now. I'd be absolutely BAFFLED if I was wrong, and I'd eat my words if in a year we still don't have chat. But that simply won't be the case, and if you think it will be, I'd have to say you're the naive one. The track record is absolutely in Blizzard's favor. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On June 13 2010 03:43 Malgrif wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 12 2010 23:00 Rabiator wrote: On Facebook Saying "Facebook is for idiots" is about as valid as "computer gamers are 16 - 24 year old boys who have pale skin and no real friends". Thats about it though with the positive things I have to say about Facebook. Lets look at what FB does: It lets you accumulate "friends" and share parts of your daily life and preferences with those friends ... cool, right? Wrong! The thing is that it can be a good thing if it is done in moderation, but too often people get too many friends because it is easy to make them. If you have more than 20 friends and only a part of them regularly update their "life stories" you need to check up on that, which takes time. This time is basically "empty time" when there is nothing new, but you are looking anyways. The more "friends" you have the more time you will spend searching for news. If you only have your "real life friends" on Facebook too, you dont really need to have that page, but could use all that time spent on updating your own page and looking for updates at your friends pages to actually talk with your friends. So in effect Facebook with real life friends is lost time for actual friendship. If most of your friends are "virtual friends" you actually have no friends, because you dont do "real stuff" with them and even if you find something new on one of your friends pages it is wasted time which could have been spent with much better things. On spending time All your time is spent in several degrees of quality. The more senses you use the higher the quality of the time spent.
The list isnt totally precise, but I hope you get my meaning, because everyone of us only has 24 hours each day and only 7 days every week. Getting ever more and more does not make our lives better, but filling it with better quality will improve it. Thus Facebook is bad, because it is only passively consuming the information presented to you (sure there is a small possibility for discussion, but its small). Even spending time on Forums like this is better (but not that much), because you can think about the opinions presented here and thus use your brain while writing a response. The really bad part about integrating Facebook is the email part, because there are loads of spammers out there already and loads of people make money from selling email addresses. Thus SC2 will be an interesting target for hackers who arent interested in games usually. Personally I stopped playing WoW almost 30 months ago, but NOW I am getting fake emails from Blizzard about my address ... go figure out what will happen if Blizzard sticks to their version of BNet 2.0. I for one have made a fake ID and would have had a "Captain Obvious" ID on Facebook too, if they would have let me be a Captain as first name. :p On Blizzard working on a comprehensive address Everyone who is willing to give them the benefit of a doubt after such a response has not lived long enough yet to know what such a vague answer means or is hopelessly naive. The quote is from the link HuskytheHusky gave us on page 1, first post ... The "initial purpose" does not matter. The "average decent usage" does not matter. Just take the worst case scenario an you know Facebook is a bad thing. That is the problem with all electronic things ... excess makes people "detach from real life" and no one has any guidelines for excess or even tries to check that. Excess to such electronic gadgets usually also means addiction and when servers are down you dont know what to do with your time. We - as a society / as humanity - can not afford to lose the 5% of excess users who are leading their lives on Facebook or who do nothing else than play WoW or whatever computer game they fancy. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On June 13 2010 11:08 telfire wrote: There's a ton of things people have said that I'd like to address but I just don't have the time. Did want to note this though... You're mistaken. I've lived long enough to see this exact same scenario play out time and time again involving various companies with great track records (including Blizzard itself with the release of nearly every game, and for that matter practically every patch). The top company of nearly any industry goes through this EXACT SAME THING. History repeats itself thusly: - People look at what isn't there instead of what is, and proceed to complain endlessly about it. - The company usually recognizes it relatively quickly, and responds saying they're going to fix it as soon as they can. Often times they had already planned for it, but it just wasn't their #1 priority and they didn't have the resources to complete it yet. - Some of the complainers will simply ignore the response and pretend it doesn't exist; others dismiss it and say anyone who believes it is naive. - The company almost always fixes the problem at some point, and especially in Blizzard's case, they usually do so extremely well. - Most of the complainers simply disappear at this point, and pretend they never took part in the QQfest. A few will stick it out, insisting that the feature should have been there to begin with, and the company has wronged everyone by not getting it out sooner. That's what I've seen happen time and time and TIME again. I have absolutely no reason to believe it's not the same scenario that we're going through now. I'd be absolutely BAFFLED if I was wrong, and I'd eat my words if in a year we still don't have chat. But that simply won't be the case, and if you think it will be, I'd have to say you're the naive one. The track record is absolutely in Blizzard's favor. "A comprehensive address" is something completely different from "we will be fixing this and that". The post which announces the address was made almost 10 days ago and I think that should have been enough time to come up with Blizzards answer. The thing also is that Blizzard has already said they would not do several things we think are absolutely necessary, so I cant understand your faith in them to deliver LAN or lifting the restriction on which server we want to play on. Their track record does is exceptional, BUT they got several new people to manage the business affairs since their merger with Activision and that probably changed their expectations on profit and on the whole management of the game. The whole design of Battle Net 2.0 is geared towards Blizzard having full control, but that is something totally new for a game from them. This kind of control is a bad idea ... kinda like being restricted to only Blizzard maps, when the best maps and ideas always came from the community itself. The excellent post about Activisions role here has shown how Blizzard has become greedy with their WoW and all the "extras" you have to pay for. If you think they wont try the same for Starcraft you are hopelessly optimistic. | ||
|
Malgrif
Canada1095 Posts
On June 13 2010 12:08 Rabiator wrote: using that logic eating is a bad thing. i guess we should stop eating also. /sarcasmThe "initial purpose" does not matter. The "average decent usage" does not matter. Just take the worst case scenario an you know Facebook is a bad thing. That is the problem with all electronic things ... excess makes people "detach from real life" and no one has any guidelines for excess or even tries to check that. Excess to such electronic gadgets usually also means addiction and when servers are down you dont know what to do with your time. We - as a society / as humanity - can not afford to lose the 5% of excess users who are leading their lives on Facebook or who do nothing else than play WoW or whatever computer game they fancy. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On June 12 2010 17:05 DiTH wrote:Yes Facebook is a big success but is that success based on PC users that play games a lot? Definitely no. So let me get this straight: Blizzard is integrating SC2 into a massively popular social networking engine with a proven track record of driving word-of-mouth sales, exposing their title to tens of millions of PC owners who are not currently being influenced by normal advertising channels? Those morons.  | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On June 14 2010 13:27 Malgrif wrote: using that logic eating is a bad thing. i guess we should stop eating also. /sarcasm Obviously you are right: An excess of eating is bad, but there are two key differences between eating and Facebook:
So ridicule my arguments if you like, that doesnt make them less valid in the slightest. | ||
|
aloT
England1042 Posts
"Firstly I would like to thank all the fans (whether or not you participated in the beta) in making the development of Starcraft 2 one of the most enjoyable and fulfilling challenges anyone could possibly hope for. The game has been in development now since the finalization of Warcraft 3: Frozen Throne, and has since seen some truly massive overhauling. As some of you may know, we completely scrapped and refitted the engine to Starcraft 2 a while back because it did not fulfill the very high level of expectations we at Blizzard have always set for our products. I would like to re-emphasize this standard of polish and design that we have traditionally set, and we will always strive to meet these when designing our games. For us at Blizzard, the fans have always been at the very heart of all of our design processes. We create games with the interests of the fans before anything else, and for Starcraft 2 this is no exception. It is because of the incredible success of the original Starcraft, (an amount to which no games developer could ever hope to achieve) that we decided to continue the incredible saga of the Terran, Protoss and Zerg and all the incredible characters that reside in it. To this end, we always do our very best to take all of our fans concerns into consideration during our design process. At Blizzard, our design philosophy has always revolved around the long-term commitment of our games. It is for this reason that Starcraft 2 has been conceived as a trilogy, with both the expansions "Legacy of the Void" as well as "Heart of the Swarm" complementing the forthcoming release of Wing's of Liberty with it's own 25-31 mission campaign, multiplayer improvements and unit additions. We would like to ask all our fans to please bear in mind that because of the long development cycle that Starcraft 2 will have through continued patches, in addition to the expansions, it is very probable that any features which you may feel are currently missing from the launch of Wings of Liberty will almost certainly be added to the game at a point in the future. Finally, I would like to personally thank all the Blizzard fans for their long patience and continued support, and we look forward to playing with you all come the release of Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty on July 27th." + Show Spoiler + I just made this up, I expect no specific reference to any concerns put forth or any mention of Battle.net, just a general praise of the fans and a one fingered salute to current needs User was warned for this post | ||
|
TDC
United States197 Posts
I mean who can say no to cute kittens? | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On June 14 2010 22:00 TDC wrote: It took a while, but i'm glad that they decided to fix the problems. I mean who can say no to cute kittens? What have they "fixed"? So far NOTHING has come from Blizzard except that they will give LAN to big tournaments with special Blizzard supervisors to unlock the functionality. Other than that we are still waiting for the "comprehensive response" from them addressing the issues. | ||
|
Stato
United Kingdom51 Posts
| ||
|
Malgrif
Canada1095 Posts
On June 14 2010 20:01 Rabiator wrote: LOL, sir an excess of anything is bad. and again, using your logic i guess we shouldn't even have computers! your arguments are invalid since you think that the minority holds a stronger opinion than the majority(which you don't). in other words you seem to believe that since there is a chance at addiction it makes the use of the application bad. however, just like anything else, if used properly, facebook is not a bad thing it allows people to stay in touch and helps to maintain a proper network of friends and acquaintances. and here's where you agree with me and disagree with yourself.Obviously you are right: An excess of eating is bad, but there are two key differences between eating and Facebook:
So ridicule my arguments if you like, that doesnt make them less valid in the slightest. Lets look at what FB does: It lets you accumulate "friends" and share parts of your daily life and preferences with those friends ... cool, right? Wrong! The thing is that it can be a good thing if it is done in moderation, but too often people get too many friends because it is easy to make them. this was your initial point.(which in itself was flawed -_-", but lets ignore that) after my rebuttal you say this. The "initial purpose" does not matter. The "average decent usage" does not matter. really now? if you agree with the premise that a moderate usage is a good thing, how can you ignore the actions of the majority using the application? You can't, you'd have to conclude that overall facebook is a good thing. | ||
|
Holzmann
United States24 Posts
Currently Blizzard has yet to release a public statement on the possibility of region to region transfers. The best way to investigate this issue is to review our SC2 forums at: http://forums.battle.net/index.html?sid=5000. Great customer service. I cancelled my preorder as soon as I closed the e-mail. It's amazing, I've been waiting years for this game and this is how it ends, atrocious customer service and bitter disappointment. Fucking hell. | ||
| ||
