|
Hey guys,
(I seem to be pretty fail at making correct StarCraft 2 threads, so if this one is all out of whack just sweep it under the rug.)
Some of you may have seen the tons of threads talking about Battle.net 2.0. After reading some of them I made a video (featuring cute kittens) talking about my stance on the issue.
Video:
+ Show Spoiler +
Recently, Blizzard has taken note of the community's complaints, and has posted a public response:
Thanks for the collection of feedback and the constructive tone. Always appreciated.
We're fully aware of the concerns that are being discussed in the various threads, on fansites, detailed through kitten videos, etc. and we're in the midst of working on a comprehensive address that should hit most of the major concerns. Just a heads up.
And also:
Q u o t e:
***************************************************
I don't want to complain too much when I got what I wanted, but why does it have to take this long to respond publicly to a major topic?
***************************************************
It's a fully justified complaint, and hopefully something we can correct moving forward.
It sounds like Blizzard may actually be addressing these specific issues directly soon. I'm really curious to see how they reply in the days moving forward.
Edit: SOURCE http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25170840862&sid=5000&pageNo=3
|
Good to finally hear a response, a promising one at that, but I won't get my expectations all worked up just yet.
|
Link to where they responded?
also awesome video lmao
|
Cool, love the kittens too.
|
We shall see I hope they do but not gonna get my hopes up yet I was hyped for bnet 2.0 so yeah  .
|
One can only hope! Also where is the source?
|
Sorry, added the source and am trying to improve the layout T_T
|
The lesson in this: anything is possible through the power of kittens.
|
The kittens. We should thank them.
|
Amen brother. I think it's natural for Blizzard to collect their thoughts and respond in a comprehensive, thoughtful manner. They have a much larger public persona to worry about and if they mistakenly say something such as, "Do you really want chat channels?" when they might mean, "Don't you want a tool to facilitate communication that's even better than chat channels?"
I'm talking hypothetical here but I hope you get the point.
I think Blizzard's response, if history is any indication, will be along the lines that they love the passion their fans have for the Starcraft universe. They understand there are areas where Battle.net 2.0 is deficient but this is a work in progress and rest assured we will give you a tool to facilitate organizing and communicating with large groups of people. We will implement some form of cross realm play. To do this right it will take time and we appreciate your patience as we enhance Battle.net 2.0 to be the awesome platform that we all want it to be.
At least that's what I hope they say :-)
|
|
|
you melted acti-blizzard's icy heart
|
Good to hear that they are responding to these issues, always expected they would eventually, but I look forward to hearing their fixes and the timetables for them.
|
WE WIN! HUSKY I WANT TO KISS YOU RIGHT NOW!
big <3<3<3<3 to blizzard
|
Even Blizzard cannot say no to kittens!
|
On June 05 2010 08:39 HuskyTheHusky wrote:
Sorry, added the source and am trying to improve the layout T_T
thanks thanks, good post
also the kittens video was 10/10
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
|
Interesting, the future will tell if these are empty words or if something will actually happen.
|
Haha, they even referenced the kittens. I loved that video, well done Husky.
I'm glad to hear they're at least responding to it and really curious what will come out of this.
|
Note to self, kittens get results. Now hopefully they actually mean what they say...
|
People will probably just shift all their complaint energies to whichever major issue they don't address (They pretty much admitted in that post that there will be at least one major issue NOT addressed and didn't say anything about minor issues)
|
It's great that they finally publicly acknowledged the concerns. Looking forward to reading the "comprehensive write up", hopefully it will contain good news for chat channels and region lock.
|
Woah they acknowledged the kittens?
|
Thanks for this husky, its great to see a well known figure say something about the situation, mad props to you for this. All i hope now is that blizzard make the right decision about what they are going to do with bnet.
|
thanks for posting this. great summary of the problems and im glad its got their attention. i dont think i could of put it better.
|
I predict they will say exactly what they have been saying with fancier words. I'll try not to be too cynical when I read their response though.
|
Of course they simply said they would respond to them.
Not fix them.
|
I believe Xordiah mentioned before that they've read our mass of complaints, but they don't seem willing to budge due to no real constructive criticism for Blizzard to go on. I feel that this response means that they realize they screwed up and they're working hard to fix it and have a more marketable product. By the way, the kittens sorta distracted me from the commentary :D
|
detailed through kitten videos
Epic response. Glad to see that theyre gonna do something though. Wonder if were gonna see changes for release, or for phase 2.
|
now I wonder why I went and canceled my pre-order.... should have been patient, tisk tisk....
|
![[image loading]](http://blog.cold-comfort.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/funny-pictures-kitten-will-fix-it.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_laEM-_EA8XU/SMwUi7KZufI/AAAAAAAAAWc/YWgpOjYVG7E/s400/fix.jpg)
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 05 2010 09:09 Rorschach wrote:
now I wonder why I went and canceled my pre-order.... should have been patient, tisk tisk....
You should probably wait for the response...lol
|
Huskys video has almost 300k hits, I think that is major reason for this response. Obviously the polls and threads on TL.net / B.net is a huge part aswell.
Still, they can just write a huge long post and deny all our needs for various reasons. But atleast they acknowledge our concerns.
|
Blizzard will have redeemed themselves if they really end up addressing all these issues.
|
My favorite is this one, regarding the massive protest about the lack of chat channels:
I think this thread is beyond the point of readable usability. It is nice as a meter of importance though, 83 pages! Impressive.
If you want to keep any discussions going let's make them more focused. This thread is too unwieldy to be useful for us at this point.
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25170606873&pageNo=83&sid=5000#1648
Way to go forum spam! Make your arguments in quantity, not quality.
|
Man, I hope Blizzard reconsiders some of the boneheaded things they had planned (or didn't have planned) for the games after watching this/listens to all of the feedback.
K TO THE ITTENS KITTENS!
|
kittens are so cute!!
Great points i loved the video.
Blizzard is better than that.
![[image loading]](http://i363.photobucket.com/albums/oo78/fakehustle/markjackson2.jpg)
|
My WOW experience tells me we should wait until we see their "solutions" before we celebrate too much, but kittens idd seems to help out :O
|
I listened to the whole thing and agree 100%, and I think a lot of other blizz fanboys have just been chewed up and spat out.
I think one point that was missed was that the way Blizzard made money was because of their unparalleled customer service, it was a niche business model but it was also very successful and put them in a really secure position.
The new business model is going to have to make them compete with the giants, this will work very well in the short-term (loyal fanbase + tonnes of income) but if people start leaving Blizzard will be screwed. The problem right now is the Activision stakeholders can't see past just getting more cash in their pockets.
|
OMG KITTENS :D
But yeah, nice video Husky. Very eloquent. Not gonna get my hopes up just yet though.
|
This is great... but I have an idea of what the address will say ><
Also, I PMed you Husky incase you missed it.
|
I'm waiting Blizzard...
*taps foot*
|
|
|
love the kittens.
love your post.
thumbs up and totally agree with your thoughts on bnet 2.0!!
|
Thank the kittens since it was they who prolly made Blizzard feel that they had to respond.
|
We have found Blizzards weakness, cute furry animals.
|
Hopefully these are the right fixes that they will be doing...
|
I hope to god it won't be yet another reiteration of all the stuff they already said. They'd better prepare something different this time around
|
Just watch them ignore cross realm issues. Online/no lan is to kill kespas power nothing else.
You will never see Lan until all the contracts are setup in korea locking those companies together under blizzards terms via GOM. ONLY after that Lan might see light of day in some form but don't count on it as they want to make sure they control China tourneys too where they wouldn't be able to rely on any offical routes to getting what they wanted if they ever bring out anyform of lan play in a client as then you'd see an ICCUP style server go up insanely fast in China. And there would be no way for them to control anything after that as with the editor a single version of the client could be used with lan play with custom maps and that would be the end of Blizzard power in china.
Anything that costs them any amount of potential money won't happen. We will probably be given word that chat channels will come down the line and maybe get it in a year or three. Remember there track record is quite terrible regardless of how long they support a game in half assed manner.
|
grats on being heard by blizzard, hope u manage to make a direct influence on some changes 
|
Good to see that Blizzard has taken in the feedback, now hopefully they'll be able to implement some fixes. Good job kittens.
My faith in them had been wavering slightly, but if they do a good job fixes some of these issues, then my faith may yet be restored. (Though I always expected single player to be great.) Still, no matter what happens, I shall withhold my final judgment until the game comes out.
|
nice vid
ky00t kittens get results qwik
|
|
|
They want to release their game soon. I think they just want people to shut up and stop down-rating them.
|
Oh Husky you've saved the community with power of Kittens. Good job buddy! I knew thar was a reason I subscribed to you all those months ago. <3
Keep up the good work
Oh and umm, to all the doomsayers of some sort about activision blizzard empire of evil sillyness, good day sir. Good day.
Kitten rule by the way. Give them kittens a reward.
|
This is good news, nice to see a response and a validation that they actually do follow the forums and take in our concerns. I did still believe, or want to believe that Blizzard was still that company that had a passion for good games and listened to its fans that I have known and loved since warcraft 2 but I hope that this is the sign that this faith was not misplaced.
Although when it comes to fixes, I think people need to get their hopes straight, there are certain things that Blizzard for very specific reasons will not want to or even be able to fix, those would be LAN support and full cross server play. I wouldn't get hopes up for those. Not saying I wouldn't want them but its not going to happen I'm afraid.
However things that they can address and I think this might be a good sign that they will is stuff like chat rooms, refining the ladder system, and while not explicitly implementing cross server play directly I think they may very well add functionality for us to get all clients for all regions without having to buy the game several times.
If anything I hope they at the very least fix the chat rooms just so that I can get an apology from all those people who literally sent me borderline death threats through PM just for saying that I was confident that chat rooms would eventually be fixed.
|
I really honestly hope that this tones down the general tone of the forum..
|
On June 05 2010 09:40 ymirheim wrote:
This is good news, nice to see a response and a validation that they actually do follow the forums and take in our concerns. I did still believe, or want to believe that Blizzard was still that company that had a passion for good games and listened to its fans that I have known and loved since warcraft 2 but I hope that this is the sign that this faith was not misplaced.
Although when it comes to fixes, I think people need to get their hopes straight, there are certain things that Blizzard for very specific reasons will not want to or even be able to fix, those would be LAN support and full cross server play. I wouldn't get hopes up for those. Not saying I wouldn't want them but its not going to happen I'm afraid.
However things that they can address and I think this might be a good sign that they will is stuff like chat rooms, refining the ladder system, and while not explicitly implementing cross server play directly I think they may very well add functionality for us to get all clients for all regions without having to buy the game several times.
If anything I hope they at the very least fix the chat rooms just so that I can get an apology from all those people who literally sent me borderline death threats through PM just for saying that I was confident that chat rooms would eventually be fixed.
My sentiment exactly.
|
Thanks god!!!
It is only good that they fix the issues, not only for us and SC2 itself, but for the e-sport scene that hopefully will grow even stronger after SC2 release!!!
in 1.5 year we will be screaming "GARIMTO fighting!!!!"
|
Provided they address things on a specific level (I'm not going to change my opinion on Bnet 2.0 if they just give a blanket "we heard all your complaints and we'll fix them later" sort of answer), and there is at least some give on some things I'll be happy.
Giving us LAN is probably a non-starter, but I don't see a reason why they couldn't have at least some give on pretty much every other common complaint.
|
Kittens are overpowered against Blizzard! :D
|
Kittens are op against life.
|
On June 05 2010 09:30 Adeeler wrote:
Just watch them ignore cross realm issues.
Some blue posts already 'addressing' this.
+ Show Spoiler +You copied the first sentence, while the rest of the paragraph answers your question for the most part. StarCraft was made in the 28k-56k modem era and because the game is not that demanding, today (many years later) it is possible to play against American and (some) Korean players (still not Chinese for example, because of latency). Even in Warcraft III if you wanted to play against someone from the USA being in Europe it would mean ~250ms and possibly some spikes. In case of players from Asia or Australia for that matter it would be much higher and rarely stable. How many times have you played on the Lordaeron (US) or Kalimdor (Asia) gateway in e.g. WC3 or any newer games than BW for that matter? What was the percentage of players you could play against without lag issues? Would you like to jump from game to game constantly and leave, discouraged by huge latency? Also think about your opponents - wouldn't it affect them as well? I personally just cannot see players not getting frustrated by lags given how many discussions we have had that 125ms in-built latency is way too high. I don't even mention the matchmaking, because it would be unplayable and with proper filters it would match you against European players only anyway.
Please reconsider and don't rage without thinking it over. I am sure it will be possible in the future, but for now “the technology's just not there yet”.
+ Show Spoiler +When you read the Frank Pearce interview you will notice that he didn't answer the cross-realm question the way you try to picture it. He was asked directly about a possibility of playing in different regions. We don't encourage it, it is not meant to be a "money grab" and it is only a possible workaround, as while we don't want you to do it, we also are not going to prevent it from happening. It's not like Frank Pearce said "yes, we give you this amazing opportunity and we have a special promotion for you: when you buy copies for all 3 regions, you will get a 2% discount". In our opinion it is not a good way of experiencing the game, but we are going to pass on your feedback.
So we can't moderate are own ping issues in custom games, and they don't want us playing with friends in different regions, but they don't mind as long as we pay extra.
Hopefully the response this thread refers to is more encouraging.
|
Haha, the video with the kittens is so amazing that blizzard could NEVER resist! Now instead of failed tactics like boycotting, everyone will be video taping their cats while talking about what is wrong with their respective game! The internet never ceases to amaze, great job Husky!
|
Blizzard won't listen to their customers, but they are willing to listen to some ultra cute kittens.
GO GO KITTEN POWERS!!! XD
|
Wowza, the number of views on the video is almost 300 000 now. That's pretty freaking hillarious.
|
I WOULD LIKE TO VOTE FOR THIS VIDEO AS THE "VOICE OF STARCRAFT COMMUNITY" TO BLIZZARD
sr for caplocks but its so touch.... If Husky was being more emo, i would have been crying by now T__T
|
On June 05 2010 10:07 NB wrote:
I WOULD LIKE TO VOTE FOR THIS VIDEO AS THE "VOICE OF STARCRAFT COMMUNITY" TO BLIZZARD
sr for caplocks but its so touch.... If Husky was being more emo, i would have been crying by now T__T
Husky is the voice of a generation. Not Kanye anymore!!
|
I'm so drawn in by the kittens. I have no idea what husky's saying. xD
|
My prediction: minor concessions (i.e. channels) and a lot of bullshit regarding cross realm play and LAN.
|
You stated how I feel exactly Husky. No chat means no way to meet new sc2 buddies. No xrealms means I can't play with my online buddies in australia, britain, and europe.
So basically there is no point in me buying the game unless I want a soul-less ladder grind after I play the campaign.
Its why I canceled my pre-order. I will still track the esports side of it because I love watching the emerging sc2 pros duke it out with good commentary. However I won't be purchasing the game unless chat and cross realms are put in.
What I dont understand is why you can't have cross realm customs without ladder. They are worried that people wont want lag? Fine, disable the ladder if your not playing in the realm your copy of the game is for because your latency will tick off the other player, thats completely reasonable.
However to not allow me to create and play custom games with my buddy in australia is frankly stupid. Yes we will have lag, we have lag in any game we choose to play together. We accept that because its fun to hang out and play together.
|
Man, Bashiok is so great.
I'm convinced Blizzard will never back down on the LAN issue, but I believe in my heart of hearts that they can and will fix everything else.
|
The delay in addressing our concerns is probably from the Blizzard PR dept interns needing more time to collect footage of baby animals for their response video.
CHAT CHANNELS
SO 2002
<puppies wrestling>
INTERNATIONAL PLAY
TOO LAGGY
<polar bear cubs slipping on ice>
|
i wonder if they are going to actually "fix" these problems, or just round up more excuses as to why we cant have basic functions in bnet2.0
|
I think we all Husky a big thanks for finally piercing through and getting Blizzard to respond. No doubt that Kitten video with 300,000+ views was a major factor.
So here's to you Husky. 
|
WOO Husky thank you for being the voice of the community. Good work man. I'm glad we're getting a response.
|
On June 05 2010 10:14 mucker wrote:The delay in addressing our concerns is probably from the Blizzard PR dept interns needing more time to collect footage of baby animals for their response video. CHAT CHANNELS SO 2002 <puppies wrestling> INTERNATIONAL PLAY TOO LAGGY <polar bear cubs slipping on ice>
Hahaha, but at least we could get more cute animals~!
|
I already see a cheat code for this in release.
|
On June 05 2010 09:40 ymirheim wrote:
This is good news, nice to see a response and a validation that they actually do follow the forums and take in our concerns. I did still believe, or want to believe that Blizzard was still that company that had a passion for good games and listened to its fans that I have known and loved since warcraft 2 but I hope that this is the sign that this faith was not misplaced.
Although when it comes to fixes, I think people need to get their hopes straight, there are certain things that Blizzard for very specific reasons will not want to or even be able to fix, those would be LAN support and full cross server play. I wouldn't get hopes up for those. Not saying I wouldn't want them but its not going to happen I'm afraid.
However things that they can address and I think this might be a good sign that they will is stuff like chat rooms, refining the ladder system, and while not explicitly implementing cross server play directly I think they may very well add functionality for us to get all clients for all regions without having to buy the game several times.
If anything I hope they at the very least fix the chat rooms just so that I can get an apology from all those people who literally sent me borderline death threats through PM just for saying that I was confident that chat rooms would eventually be fixed.
Exactly what I wanted to tell.
I also believe that Blizzard should release a third party application to reduce the latency of specific custom games.
|
Husky, you are the real Savior of Starcraft.
<3333333333333333
|
I don't think they'll budge on the LAN issue but if they could only give us chat I would be happy at this point
|
The vid was great, but I would have liked to see online replays mentioned. I'm sure the kittens would agree.
|
and we're in the midst of working on a comprehensive address that should hit most of the major concerns
I hope this doesn't mean that they are searching for the right combination of examples and wording to convince us that their plan is the best plan.
|
Well, with that I'm pre-ordering tomorrow even though theres only another 13~ days till it comes out O.O?
|
Please reconsider and don't rage without thinking it over. I am sure it will be possible in the future, but for now “the technology's just not there yet”.
wtf are they on. Its possible now people do it already. ffs i am playing on american server and im in australia nad its fine no one even notices any lag.
|
i still dont hold my hopes :/
|
On June 05 2010 10:33 Nub4ever wrote:
Well, with that I'm pre-ordering tomorrow even though theres only another 13~ days till it comes out O.O?
its almost 2 months.. what ur smokin
|
Funny how it takes a video with almost 300k views before blizzard actually gets it in their heads that they need to address the issues brought forward by the playerbase.
|
I suffered a major cuteness overload though that..oh god
|
On June 05 2010 10:35 Shiladie wrote:
Funny how it takes a video with almost 300k views before blizzard actually gets it in their heads that they need to address the issues brought forward by the playerbase.
Wow hadn't noticed it was so viewed.
Thanks Husky. =D
|
The depressing thing about this is that it is difficult for rational discussion to lead to a rational conclusion. All Blizzard ever sees is mountains of spam (yes, even on TL if they even pay attention to stuff here).
How can knowledgeable people with legitimate complaints get their point across and compete with spam? It seems like we have to resort to "using" "celebrities" to get 300k views.
|
Its a common PR tactic. Called the bait and switch. "We're looking into it." One year later, they'll say "We said we were looking into it, we looked into it, and we're not doing it."
|
WITNESS THE POWER OF BABY FELINES!
|
Husky needs to make a video something along the lines of "Chat channels or we kill the kittens!"Dun dun dun!
|
i'd reserve my judgement on Blizzard until they actually announce their public addresses, looking at their recent PR efforts i wouldn't be putting too much hope on it, if they're serious on fixing most of the issues it would've been better imo if they delay the release dates.
|
On June 05 2010 10:18 HDstarcraft wrote:I think we all Husky a big thanks for finally piercing through and getting Blizzard to respond. No doubt that Kitten video with 300,000+ views was a major factor. So here's to you Husky.
I couldn't agree more. Husky, you (and HD as well) have earned a very recognizable status in the Starcraft community and it's great to see you responsibly putting it to good use.
|
This just made my day! Thanks Husky!
|
Anyone else got the feeling that by "address", they don't plan to fix anything, but just once again go on about how we don't really want chat channels... or LAN or online replays etc etc
|
Thats the best news I heard all week.
Seriously, I was faithful and it seems Blizzard may actually be making major changes to their "revolutionary" Battle.net 2.0.
On June 05 2010 10:33 Nub4ever wrote: Show nested quote +Well, with that I'm pre-ordering tomorrow even though theres only another 13~ days till it comes out O.O? its almost 2 months.. what ur smokin
Edit: Win for iPod touch apps, its exactly: 52 days and 2 hours (EST) until SC2 launch.
|
On June 05 2010 10:49 Rhodan wrote:
Anyone else got the feeling that by "address", they don't plan to fix anything, but just once again go on about how we don't really want chat channels... or LAN or online replays etc etc
I think they'll do a switch-a-roo, claiming they had planned to implement chat channels from the beginning and all this is a giant misunderstanding.
|
Your video was super awesome. I didn't even go surf around other stuff while listening to your voice because of the kittens :D
And thank you for addressing so many of the problems with battle.net 2.0 in one great place. I don't know if you have concerns over map size limits or those map making limitations in general, but I agree with all the concerns you did mention in your video. I hope Blizzard listens.
For every decision Blizzard doesn't fix, god kills one of Husky's kittens. 
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On June 05 2010 10:35 Shiladie wrote:
Funny how it takes a video with almost 300k views before blizzard actually gets it in their heads that they need to address the issues brought forward by the playerbase.
Not the case. They read the forums intently.
|
On June 05 2010 10:56 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 10:49 Rhodan wrote:
Anyone else got the feeling that by "address", they don't plan to fix anything, but just once again go on about how we don't really want chat channels... or LAN or online replays etc etc I think they'll do a switch-a-roo, claiming they had planned to implement chat channels from the beginning and all this is a giant misunderstanding.
I wouldn't mind to be honest. I just want a good Bnet.
|
So we can't moderate are own ping issues in custom games, and they don't want us playing with friends in different regions, but they don't mind as long as we pay extra.
|
I want to see Husky's Huskies. Not kittens :/
|
Not putting in chat channels was retarded.
Trying to make people pay to play their friends in other regions was all about the dollar bills and in the process screwing their loyal customers. To me Blizzard's image will be tarnished unless they make this part right. Yea boohoo, i'll still buy the game and who cares if someone gets offended right? Well, in the long run these things matter for a company's lasting appeal and profit line.
|
Thanks for the video Husky. Maybe Blizzard will get it through their heads.
They fail to realize how important chat channels were. Without them there is no culture; no community.
Not to mention chat channels and b.net 1.0 as a whole were a lot less personal. They had more of a water cooler effect where you can have gamers come in to your channel just to communicate a bit but you didn't have to be good friends with them and know all their personal info.
|
Activision just needs to fuck off a little and let Blizzard do their thing.
Assuming the post-WoW Blizzard isn't also a group of moneygrubbing corporate suits.
I'm not worried about chat channels and LAN so much as the entire ATTITUDE that Activision/Blizzard has towards their fans, customers, and their own games. If changes are made but the attitude remains impure, then all we're asking for is for Blizzard to polish the apple while the worm remains in the core.
|
I agree with pretty much everything husky said. Blizzard has to let us know that they are doing something to fix this. I expect to see a much better Battle.net 2.0 before release. Not expecting perfection off the bat but it needs to be a lot better.
|
that thread you posted on their response seems a little more like an auto-post to me..
|
Is a step forward so is very good.
Cute video
|
Team Liquid used "Kittens"
The attack was super effective!
words are words though
now patches...those are patches...
lets wait and see
|
On June 05 2010 11:01 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 10:56 nam nam wrote:On June 05 2010 10:49 Rhodan wrote:
Anyone else got the feeling that by "address", they don't plan to fix anything, but just once again go on about how we don't really want chat channels... or LAN or online replays etc etc I think they'll do a switch-a-roo, claiming they had planned to implement chat channels from the beginning and all this is a giant misunderstanding. I wouldn't mind to be honest. I just want a good Bnet.
this. i dont give a fuck how the solve all this and what excuses they bring up. we arent trying to bring blizzard down even when it looked that way with the giant shit storm n stuff. all we want is our core multiplayer features.
and when blizz finally communicates and does what needs to be done im sure 99% will ignore evrything that happened and be happy customers again.
|
A couple things.
lol blizzards been aware of this since day one.
-and-
Their is no conspiracy. Calm down folks. They're really that stupid/out of touch.
Here are my predictions/analysis. First of all, some reevaluation of priorities has occurred through blizz HQ. Our recent collective community outburst had an impact. That being aid, I doubt chat channels will make launch. Instead, the upcoming situation report will work towards bridging a player to developer gap -and- a developer to player gap. It's going to acknowledge that the developers are aware of many of our recent issues (specifically, case by case, not just a broad acknowledgment). Which they may or may not have actually been aware of prior to this shitstorm. And how these issues tie back into there overarching plan. Finally, their going to acknowledge some changes they've made as a result of us. Probably moreso in the Global play and Custom games list then in chat channels. Then end.
Just try to take it at face value. The fact that they're going out of there way for a unilateral response in itself is reassuring because they care about our outcry and value our still somewhat minority reaction.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 05 2010 09 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 05 2010 09 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 05 2010 09 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:10 wanderer wrote:User was temp banned for this post.
Why?
|
Well it took them a long time to respond to a huge issue, and then they dodged this question:
***************************************************
I don't want to complain too much when I got what I wanted, but why does it have to take this long to respond publicly to a major topic?
***************************************************
It's a fully justified complaint, and hopefully something we can correct moving forward.
So they have no reason for not coming forward earlier, and this coming forward comes in the form of a reply to a topic. Not any official Blizzard team announcement.
So until I see some progress or something official, I'm not going to get my hopes too high. It could just be business as usual.
|
why are ppl complaining so much about BNet 2.0?
In point form, I can only see 2 issues:
- No chat rooms
- No LAN
anything else?
I have a dl limit where I live so i can't watch the kitten video for now
|
Husky you are my hero. After watching your video I was so deppressed about how bad Bnet 2.0 was but this has bolstered my spirits.
I'm still concerned about acti-blizzard and that monster who is trying to suck the money out of us.
|
On June 05 2010 11:53 Kindred wrote:
why are ppl complaining so much about BNet 2.0?
In point form, I can only see 2 issues:
- No chat rooms
- No LAN
anything else?
I have a dl limit where I live so i can't watch the kitten video for now
The the whole region locking prevents people from playing in tournaments unless they feel like shelling out more money for extra copys.
|
So did Blizzard just troll us with a viral interview from Frank Pearce? >_<
|
damn those kittens are cute
|
They'll just be annoying and add only 1 of them.
|
On June 05 2010 12:00 Kralic wrote:
So did Blizzard just troll us with a viral interview from Frank Pearce? >_<
That would probably be the FUNNIEST troll in history if so. But it's too good to be true.
|
so i opened the video and played it and i didn't plan on listening to it, but i did play it and i ended up listening to the whole thing! it was such a great video (i loved the kittens holy shit cute) and i agree with everything you said and no you weren't overreacting. you see the cool thing about not caring about deadlines is that it shows that you actually care about the quality of the game, the more time you put into something the better it's going to get. i've decided that i will not buy sc2 until this shit gets fixed, it's ridiculous how they're going about it and annoying to no end. and lol@ that guy who said he wants to squeeze as much money on sc2 as possible that.. is just.. i'm at a loss of words.. fuck him, that's all i got to say, i hope he gets diarrhea at a bad point in his life.
|
On June 05 2010 10:33 Nub4ever wrote:
Well, with that I'm pre-ordering tomorrow even though theres only another 13~ days till it comes out O.O?
I think the release date is July 27, your looking at 43 days.
|
I completely agree with everything you've said Husky. I don't understand why Blizzard has made all of these decisions with very little explanation when clearly the community is outraged by their implementation of Battle.net 2.0. The worst part is that they seem to want starcraft 2 to be a huge competitive game, but are taking away all of the features that would allow it to succeed...
|
Thanks for the collection of feedback and the constructive tone. Always appreciated.
Er... I remember seeing RAGE, me being part of it.
Overall, I'm impressed that they are responding to the people. I kind of consider it a lost art, you know? People are complaining about how governments never listens to its people (which is not always the case), however Blizzard is taking a step in the right direction by releasing this public statement.
I approve.
|
Bashiok is a pretty cool cat, I've seen his replies in the D3 community... He's one slick operator, and can shoot down bulshit pretty quick.
|
Eh I am pretty much of the view that these were pretty empty words from blizz, I'll believe them when I see good changes to the existing battle net service.
|
I am still not buying the game till I see chat room and x realm play.
Worst come to worst, private server.
|
|
|
We are a little too hard on Blizzard. Their ambitious plans can't be accomplished overnight, even if the game has been in development for 5 years...
Props to them for being so understanding of all the nerd rage.
|
impressive. i thought blizzard was just going to barrel through the complaints and release the game the way it is now (read busted).
i hope the changes they make are the ones everyone wants
|
All this does is promise that Blizzard will explain their reasoning for B.net2 being the way it is. It's going to be like the explanations that come with the patch notes posted by the WoW CM.
I really doubt any major feature is going to be put in this close to release due to the outcry. If they do put in anything it was already planned long ago.
|
thanks for the heads up husky.
also awesome video explaining all the problems with bnet 2.0
|
I believe chat rooms is the one thing they can implement fast and easily. I mean how hard can it be to add chat rooms? This would be a step in the right direction.
|
Blizzard has been great with PR in SC2 but I'll nod and smile when I see actual results and not just circular hyperbole like what Browder spouts in every interview.
I trust in Bashiok because I've read many of his posts but he is only the voice of one person right now. The fact that B.net has gotten as far as it has this way is not a coincidence or a mistake. They made the decision to do this, to exclude and demean the service. It will take a great deal of energy and work to pull it out of the cavern it's trapped in.
|
i hope teh kittens can save australia from SEA region lock
|
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH
I knew blizzard wouldn't let us down. They are always slow as fuck to address the public and implement changes, but it is blizzard after all.
|
Hope someone will specify to not make cross realm servers but gateway when you can choose where to connect.
I fear that that's why they keep saying it's impossible i (and they) keep reading cross "realm servers" and they obviously respond the lag will be awful if we put everyone on the same server.
If people keep talking incorrectly we will have another Phoenix "moving shot fix".
|
Blizzard: "Ok we've heard your complaints and concers, and now with the new patch, B.net 2.0 will have:
Twitter integration"
I really can see blizzard just doing this or something dumb. But im rly hopeful for chat channels and cross realm play ect ect...
|
Good to see Blizz picked up on the kitten vid, which was excellent, I think a little more optimism is in order, they will get it right eventually.
|
Thanks for the collection of feedback and the constructive tone. Always appreciated.
We're fully aware of the concerns that are being discussed in the various threads, on fansites, detailed through kitten videos, etc. and we're in the midst of working on a comprehensive address that should hit most of the major concerns. Just a heads up. hahaha ahaha
this will definately bite people in the arse, and it will sting. Badly.
|
|
|
On June 05 2010 14:18 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +Thanks for the collection of feedback and the constructive tone. Always appreciated.
We're fully aware of the concerns that are being discussed in the various threads, on fansites, detailed through kitten videos, etc. and we're in the midst of working on a comprehensive address that should hit most of the major concerns. Just a heads up. hahaha ahaha this will definately bite people in the arse, and it will sting. Badly.
"Thanks to the constructive criticism of beta testers and the community, we have decided to remove all communication functionality from the game. In addition, to maximize the gaming experience for players we have decided to add 300 additional regions to minimize lag. We think that the minimized latency will far outweigh the ability to play Starcraft 2 with anyone outside of a 250 mile radius from your house without buying additional Starcraft 2 clients."
|
This doesn't seem especially promising to me. "we'll respond" doesn't have anything to do with "we'll fix this nonsense."
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 05 2010 08:35 HuskyTheHusky wrote:Hey guys, (I seem to be pretty fail at making correct StarCraft 2 threads, so if this one is all out of whack just sweep it under the rug.) Some of you may have seen the tons of threads talking about Battle.net 2.0. After reading some of them I made a video (featuring cute kittens) talking about my stance on the issue. Video: + Show Spoiler +Recently, Blizzard has taken note of the community's complaints, and has posted a public response: Show nested quote +Thanks for the collection of feedback and the constructive tone. Always appreciated.
We're fully aware of the concerns that are being discussed in the various threads, on fansites, detailed through kitten videos, etc. and we're in the midst of working on a comprehensive address that should hit most of the major concerns. Just a heads up. And also: Show nested quote + Q u o t e:
***************************************************
I don't want to complain too much when I got what I wanted, but why does it have to take this long to respond publicly to a major topic?
***************************************************
It's a fully justified complaint, and hopefully something we can correct moving forward. It sounds like Blizzard may actually be addressing these specific issues directly soon. I'm really curious to see how they reply in the days moving forward. Edit: SOURCE http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25170840862&sid=5000&pageNo=3
Good to hear, thanks Husky, loved the kittens and the criticism. :D
|
Good news!
Thanks for the video Husky but also HUGE thanks to TL.net which provided an awesome place to discuss these issues with other hardcore fans of the best game in the world.
|
I don't know if this will wield the results we are all hoping for.
But in any case, Husky, thank you man. I <3 you and your kitten video.
Please Blizz, don't screw this up. I'm actually suprising myself in having my faith in you coming back. No bullshit excuses and status quo, just please the community .
|
On June 05 2010 14:05 NotGood- wrote:
Blizzard: "Ok we've heard your complaints and concers, and now with the new patch, B.net 2.0 will have:
Twitter integration"
I really can see blizzard just doing this or something dumb. But im rly hopeful for chat channels and cross realm play ect ect...
Disturbing part is that is a very real possibility.
|
Twitter Intergration comming. That way we can have a chat channel via Twitter posts.
|
Umm, hey Husky. Why are you so awesome?
|
I hate those big game companies (ea and activision), they ruin everything...
|
i think its good that blizzard will answer. we just have to keep good, constuctive arguments. because flaming and crying is more pussyish (...) than not do this from the beginning.
|
lip service. do not be so foolish.
are they going to integrate all the servers? world ladder ranking? get rid of facebook?
let you view your friend's profiles while they are not online? lan?
i spit in activllizard's general direction
|
OMG!! BLIZZARD!! i never lost faith in you <3 <3
|
Watching the Husky video again; makes me sad for C&C. EA ran that game into the crapper. Damn this Era of mass produced gaming. Give me the original SC, CS, C&C, etc anyday.
|
Ingenious idea with the kitten video.
|
I reserve judgement for the moment
|
Yet another game saved by kittens.
|
I will endure many of the bullshit proposals because I can understand from a business protection standpoint how they make sense. (No LAN = piracy, Single player online = piracy)
The seggregation of countries via regions without the option to change region however is a cash grab, a disgusting, community hurting cash grab and if this is not addressed, they will not see my money - period.
Fingers crossed.
|
Great thanks for the heads up Husky 
|
Chat Rooms are the only way I could play Broodwar with my IRL friends. Otherwise we had to join extremely laggy games that were probably hosted in Korea even though it was the US West Gateway.
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
Here's what it's gonna look like:
We're fully aware of the concerns that are being discussed in the various threads, on fansites, detailed through kitten videos, etc. and we're in the midst of working on a comprehensive address that should hit most of the major concerns. Just a heads up.
And this will be the address:
The course B.net 2.0 development took is the one of our choice and it will stay that way, because "We are and always have been committed to the highest possible standards when it comes to game development"......offering the best possible gaming experience.....the Blizzard way........however.......industry changed over the course of ten years.......needing to adapt our products and development module........still represent the highest standards........always open to suggestions.
Meaning: Fuck you, we don't give a crap about 50.000 whiny StarCraft fanatics, do whatever the hell you want, we're still selling 10 million of those babies.
|
I am concerned that the reason behind the poor communication options built into Starcraft 2 as well as the recent move to make user names non-unique are both aimed at inhibiting user run tournaments.
Now obviously it seems silly that a company would intentionally restrict the users of their product to less functionality than what previously existed, however there is a rather disturbing potential justification from Activition's point of view.
It has been stated that they intend to organize tournaments themselves through battle.net and with their current push to try an imbed micro-transactions in the platform it seems likely that they will try to charge for these tournaments.
Clearly, if it were easy for users to organize their own tournaments there would be little reason to go through the system Activision sets up once they start charging for it.
I realize this is a stretch but it is one of the few possible justifications for a number functionality changes. Hopefully they will reintroduce in game chat channels and return usernames to being unique which would immediately disprove this "conspiracy theory".
As a side note:
Is there evidence that the Starcaft 2 team are truly the ones building battle.net?
I almost get the impression that it is a separate team outside of the Starcraft 2 project since I've seen it mentioned that battle.net 2.0 it intended to be used for other future releases (diablo III).
It's just that the discrepancy of quality between the Starcraft 2 game and battle.net is so great it seems hard to believe it is the same company making both.
|
great work with the kitten attack video husky! :D
|
Finally! Ohohoho... I look forward to this and the consequential nerd rage to follow when everyone realizes that Blizzard really has no reasons for some of the things they are leaving out....
|
On June 05 2010 15:37 Equalizer wrote:
As a side note:
Is there evidence that the Starcaft 2 team are truly the ones building battle.net?
I almost get the impression that it is a separate team outside of the Starcraft 2 project since I've seen it mentioned that battle.net 2.0 it intended to be used for other future releases (diablo III).
It's just that the discrepancy of quality between the Starcraft 2 game and battle.net is so great it seems hard to believe it is the same company making both.
Well it can't be the exact same team since making a video-game is completely different than building an internet social interface/client (which is not very social atm *hum* ).
There are some common elements though to assure the transition between the 2 teams.
Now what can explain the state B.Net is :
Very bad executive direction ?
Rushed it ?
No one knows but Blizzard... we can just hope some of the issues will be addressed, maybe later.
|
More hollow words from the Blizz. When they start AT LEAST responding to the complaints specifically we can be happy.
Props on making the great video Husky. Even Blizzard loves it =)
|
Well, this is good news. I guess if they actually fix them I might "uncancel" my preorder.
|
terrible terrible terrible!! lol! no, you dont get a free pass! you dont get to steal DB's line
|
Like, when I really think about Blizzards direction it makes me super pissed. Everything your video says makes so much logical sense, I really don't understand Blizzards mindset either.
I really hope they listen... I really do. I've also been a Blizzard nut since the beginning.
|
I expect them to give the same answers they've given before. Why should their answers be any different.
Why no lan?
Because we want full control over our game.
Why no xrealms?
lag.
Why do you get to share our information?
That's just contract mumbo jumbo that we have to have, don't worry about it, we won't give your information away.
No chatroom?
We don't feel their necessary. Chat windows are good nuff.
Why not let us see our global ranking?
Because its irrelevant and it'll only make you feel bad about yourself.
Why are the patches so bad, and some of the important concepts like high ground advantage and moving shot not implemented into the game?
We feel its not necessary and we like things the way they are.
Answer to every other Bnet. issue and starcraft concerns: We're currently examining the problem and will fix it in the future if need be.
|
On June 05 2010 15:37 Go0g3n wrote:Here's what it's gonna look like: Show nested quote +We're fully aware of the concerns that are being discussed in the various threads, on fansites, detailed through kitten videos, etc. and we're in the midst of working on a comprehensive address that should hit most of the major concerns. Just a heads up. And this will be the address: The course B.net 2.0 development took is the one of our choice and it will stay that way, because "We are and always have been committed to the highest possible standards when it comes to game development"......offering the best possible gaming experience.....the Blizzard way........however.......industry changed over the course of ten years.......needing to adapt our products and development module........still represent the highest standards........always open to suggestions.Meaning: Fuck you, we don't give a crap about 50.000 whiny StarCraft fanatics, do whatever the hell you want, we're still selling 10 million of those babies.
Quality Blizzard bash right there.
|
On June 05 2010 15:37 Go0g3n wrote:Here's what it's gonna look like: Show nested quote +We're fully aware of the concerns that are being discussed in the various threads, on fansites, detailed through kitten videos, etc. and we're in the midst of working on a comprehensive address that should hit most of the major concerns. Just a heads up. And this will be the address: The course B.net 2.0 development took is the one of our choice and it will stay that way, because "We are and always have been committed to the highest possible standards when it comes to game development"......offering the best possible gaming experience.....the Blizzard way........however.......industry changed over the course of ten years.......needing to adapt our products and development module........still represent the highest standards........always open to suggestions.Meaning: Fuck you, we don't give a crap about 50.000 whiny StarCraft fanatics, do whatever the hell you want, we're still selling 10 million of those babies.
I bet 10 ESPORTS dollars on this mans quote.
|
On June 05 2010 15:05 Malgrif wrote:
OMG!! BLIZZARD!! i never lost faith in you <3 <3
Seriously, no offense but.. many of the posters in this thread remind me of those abused wives, they get hit and then they might threaten to call the police but as soon as their husband tells them ''oh no babe im sorry, i love you, i didnt want to do that!'' they'll go ''oh i was so foolish! forgive me, i love you so much!'' ''Orly? better not threaten me again then!*punch*''. I mean wtf.. no wonder Blizzard will sell millions of copies no matter what, apparently the promise of an eventual answer is enough to appease the majority of people, i mean they havent even answered us yet and already theres people posting about how they regret canceling their preorder lol
|
Dustin Browder probably has a kitten fetish and was like "Kittens... Starcraft... this might be hot"
"OH GOD DAMNIT, ANOTHER COMPLAINT VIDEO!"
|
nice too see that huskys video got such a response, seems like complaining is not usless at all.
Lets see if blizzard rly reacts to the wishes of the community.
|
On June 05 2010 16:36 Neverplay wrote:
seems like complaining is not usless at all.
Of course complaining is not useless.
Just look at the Terran Mech nerf.
T_T
|
On June 05 2010 16:29 Darkstar- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 15:05 Malgrif wrote:
OMG!! BLIZZARD!! i never lost faith in you <3 <3 Seriously, no offense but.. many of the posters in this thread remind me of those abused wives, they get hit and then they might threaten to call the police but as soon as their husband tells them ''oh no babe im sorry, i love you, i didnt want to do that!'' they'll go ''oh i was so foolish! forgive me, i love you so much!'' ''Orly? better not threaten me again then!*punch*''. I mean wtf.. no wonder Blizzard will sell millions of copies no matter what, apparently the promise of an eventual answer is enough to appease the majority of people, i mean they havent even answered us yet and already theres people posting about how they regret canceling their preorder lol
Blizzard actually didn't hit anyone yet, the game isn't released... With this analogy you are just a whiny bitch who thinks that Blizzard is hitting you when he doesn't do exactly what you want.
Now if the game gets released with super poor support and no in game community to talk about and they are about to release the next game and people are talking like this, then you can come and post the same post.
|
Wow, first sign of brain activity from blizzard in a long while! here's hoping my faith in them is not displaced -.-
|
H to the Usky GAMECHANGER here bringing you another paradigm shift...
|
On June 05 2010 16:41 intergalactic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 16:36 Neverplay wrote:
seems like complaining is not usless at all.
Of course complaining is not useless. Just look at the Terran Mech nerf. T_T
Im meant complaining about bnet 2.0, so far they didnt make any step in the right direction.
But anyways good to see the community gets heard by blizz.
|
On June 05 2010 15:12 abrasion wrote:
I will endure many of the bullshit proposals because I can understand from a business protection standpoint how they make sense. (No LAN = piracy, Single player online = piracy)
The seggregation of countries via regions without the option to change region however is a cash grab, a disgusting, community hurting cash grab and if this is not addressed, they will not see my money - period.
Fingers crossed.
the no cross-realm is bad enough when you live in american or europe, but when you live somewhere like australia it's an absolute nightmare.
|
This was a really good video response about how Blizzard's actions are gimping Battle.net 2.0 and their weird reason for releasing different version for each region.
Over the years playing I like you made tons of friends across the world and it's just a shame that I won't be able to do that in SC2.
And for crying out loud no lan? There goes many good nights down the drain.
|
I hope this isn't a repeat of "you really want chat channels?" But I have confidence in blizzard, because they've shown so far that they have at least been paying attention to the issues various communities have brought up.
|
I'll believe it when I see it.
Until then I will just assume Blizzard is going through a thesaurus to find new words that make their battle.shop 0.2 sound appealing.
|
AAAAAAWWWWWW. I'm in love with those kittens.
ps. good commentary. With the current state of B.net I'm not even going to bother buying the game.
I mean I can actually understand the no LAN part if you are trying to prevent piracy but the rest is just very sad.
No LAN can work if you somehow can ensure the servers won't be down ever and have back-up servers in case they do. However you'll also need CHATCHANNELS for all attendees of the LAN to meet up. Otherwise it's (almost) impossible to play games with the people you are on the LAN with.
|
Great one, saw this kittens in your first post too and wrote some comment there too.
But with this one is very strange for me. If Blizzard read's all this good Community sites such as TL.net or some others, I'm scared how they balance..
They read every XY IMBA DELETE!!! Thread and patch this units? I hope it's not like this... urghl.. now I know why Terran metal has got patched. Caus of this 123891123 Threads with: Terran to strong! :/
|
On June 05 2010 16:51 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 15:12 abrasion wrote:
I will endure many of the bullshit proposals because I can understand from a business protection standpoint how they make sense. (No LAN = piracy, Single player online = piracy)
The seggregation of countries via regions without the option to change region however is a cash grab, a disgusting, community hurting cash grab and if this is not addressed, they will not see my money - period.
Fingers crossed. the no cross-realm is bad enough when you live in american or europe, but when you live somewhere like australia it's an absolute nightmare.
Yep, I don't know how they can consciously even propose this, wtf are they thinking?
|
On June 05 2010 16:51 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 15:12 abrasion wrote:
I will endure many of the bullshit proposals because I can understand from a business protection standpoint how they make sense. (No LAN = piracy, Single player online = piracy)
The seggregation of countries via regions without the option to change region however is a cash grab, a disgusting, community hurting cash grab and if this is not addressed, they will not see my money - period.
Fingers crossed. the no cross-realm is bad enough when you live in american or europe, but when you live somewhere like australia it's an absolute nightmare.
Yep for Australians and New Zealand this is the worst thing....... South East Asia?!?!?!? seriously!!!!!!
|
This is just in: newsreport by Blizzard.
Do you really want chat channels?
Do you really want lan?
Do you really want cross-realm play?
They are sooooo 2002....
|
Good job kittens and Husky, looking forward to see what's next :p
|
Cars are also so 1900 but we still dont go around with flying machines cause its not practical. Until the next big thing is discovered and they should keep using chat channels until they come up with something better. They shouldnt try to make a new fashion but instead promote usability.
|
Big round of applause to the fansites and kitten videos, good work guys.
Lets hope something changes (for the better).
|
Here's a thought, maybe Frank Pearce made that infuriating interview on purpose to rile us up and force Activision Blizzard to drop their stanglehold on community sensorship
Hail Frank Pearce, martyr!
|
The thing that bothers me alot is custom map sharing, since everything is localized, map sharing between EU and US for example is extremely tedious, you can't simply download a map, put it in your map folder and play it, you have to upload it via the map editor, and hope all settings are correct.
if not, you basicly have to learn how to use the map editor before sharing a map... WHY would you want all that extra trouble just to play a frigging map?!
for example, I've been trying to get the Blood Pressure Marathon map to work on the EU server, I downloaded it from SC2mapster, but for some reason I can't seem to get it to work for public use, only private, aparently some dodgy option should be turned off but I can't seem to find a solution :/
This form of custom map sharing is so backwards and retarded it feels like we're going back in time >_<
and I've not even spoken on the way custom maps are shown... jeezus! what exactly is the purpose of the show new maps only button? why isn't there some kind of refresh button to get your map boosted to top so people actually know someone is playing that map? why are the same shitty maps always on top? whyyyyyy?!
k rant over.. god I hope they overhaul this bigtime...
|
Kind words are just that kind words. I learned that from APOC.
I will only be impressed with actions.
|
Not really suprised... i mean
Cute kittens + Husky's Voice = deadly combo
but tbh, i am still not that scared that they won't do anything about it, i will wait atleast after Bnet goes back up in some weeks, and the game comes out
Its nice to know that communities getting attention
|
I really hope they go for the change.
It seems they are finally listening and that's is a small thing, but good.
I have hopes
|
i love mr fix-it cat
made me laugh
so its nice to hear blizzard is listening and hopefully some major problems on bnet 2.0 will change
|
It's all because of the kittens.
|
Will retail have a kitten in a random part of the game? I think it just might.
Well done Husky.
I'm waiting to see how they address it though.
|
|
|
Really happy to see that Blizzard will try to fix this and finally heard our voices calling.
And that kitten video was awesome, but i ended up staring at the kittens too much instead of listening
|
ok the problems that video refers are true but who cares about channels when marauder cost 25 gas and is spammed from 3 barracks with one base.I think the priority must be the balance first and then bnet2 in the end i believe blizzard will fix both bnet2 and balance but i prefer the balance first.
|
On June 05 2010 19:54 nate_river wrote:
ok the problems that video refers are true but who cares about channels when marauder cost 25 gas and is spammed from 3 barracks with one base.I think the priority must be the balance first and then bnet2 in the end i believe blizzard will fix both bnet2 and balance but i prefer the balance first.
Balance is already fine IMO. Battle.net clearly needs to be prioritized now.
|
nerf kittens, cute is imba!
|
On June 05 2010 19:54 nate_river wrote:
ok the problems that video refers are true but who cares about channels when marauder cost 25 gas and is spammed from 3 barracks with one base.I think the priority must be the balance first and then bnet2 in the end i believe blizzard will fix both bnet2 and balance but i prefer the balance first.
Hey you're 3 months late to the marauder nerf train.
Besides that the game is more balanced than anyone could have realistically hoped and there's no huge problems right now save TvZ because of the incredible powerful/easy to execute mech play but Blizzard has already shown they're aware of it and looking to fix it.
|
Good video Husky, sad oocasion and content Just sad.
|
I think what blizzard has done with Bnet 2.0 doesn't so much have to do with Activision or "greed" but the general attitude of game developers these days. They seem to believe they have a better knowledge of what the customer wants than the customer himself/herself. While this could be true in some instances, it's always been the job of the developer to understand when the community will benefit from their suggestions or suffer. This I think is far more scary then the actual implementation of Bnet 2.0.
Regardless I hope they snap out of this approach and go back to how they have always operated.
|
Husky superb video, actually states EVERYONES concerns brilliantly. It seems it is the only thing that has made Blizzard stand up and take note...
|
Husky, your kitten video was just plain awesome!
I really hope that blizzard fixes the major issues with bnet 2.0.
If it they do we finally have proof that kittens >>>>> puppies.
|
Glad they noticed it, thanks so much for that video Husky, perfectly summarized what are the major concerns.
Let's what we'll get (propably already when beta gets up again?
|
On June 05 2010 09:41 Talic_Zealot wrote:
I really honestly hope that this tones down the general tone of the forum..
To respond to myself.. Won't happen sadly ..
|
I think you forgot to mention the "No possibility to view replays online with your friends" Issue in your video Husky. If someone would add this to the thread on battle.net I think that would be great just to have it out there and make them aware.
|
On June 05 2010 19:54 nate_river wrote:
ok the problems that video refers are true but who cares about channels when marauder cost 25 gas and is spammed from 3 barracks with one base.I think the priority must be the balance first and then bnet2 in the end i believe blizzard will fix both bnet2 and balance but i prefer the balance first.
The balance team and the Bnet 2.0 dev team are not the same, so they can focus on both at the same time. It is obvious, however, that Bnet needs to be heavily prioritized.
Thanks for the video Husky, you said pretty much everything that I thought needed to be vocalized, in a very watchable manner. We now know Blizz has a soft side for kittens!!!
|
Nicely stated. Wasn't condescending, except for a few parts, but I think the kittens more than made up for it. This is the most mature & well thought out discussion on the concerns of b.net I've seen.
|
On June 05 2010 20:43 HoracE wrote:
Husky superb video, actually states EVERYONES concerns brilliantly. It seems it is the only thing that has made Blizzard stand up and take note...
No not really bro.
Seriously you really give Husky too much credit and not enough credit to the moderators and -CM's, and more importantly, the player. If they were doing what they were payed to do, they summed up every post that was indicative of an IQ above room temperature (admittedly very few) to whoever they report too, and decided to/were told to just let it simmer for a while before an official response to gain a better player perspective of the issue.
The Kitten video was nice, but realize Blizzard is not a bunch of braindead stoners. They might be out of touch, they may make poor decisions, they may seem disingenuous at times or outright spiteful. They might not give you your pony. But at the very least they're professional and guess what? People do there jobs. It's a well run company, both in terms of management and in terms of quality of the employees and how much the employees care about what they're doing.
They were aware of the response probably an hour or so after their was a response.. And guess what? Every single player response that displayed some legit high process thinking helped, and collective, they helped a thousand times more then any single video by a starcraft celeb.
Give yourself more credit. That is, assuming you actually made decent responses to the issue other then OMG COMPANY IZ EVUL AND GREEDY.
On June 05 2010 14:05 NotGood- wrote:
Blizzard: "Ok we've heard your complaints and concers, and now with the new patch, B.net 2.0 will have:
Twitter integration"
I really can see blizzard just doing this or something dumb. But im rly hopeful for chat channels and cross realm play ect ect...
lol. that would be worth it for the lols alone. I think Teamliquid.net might literally burst into flames and tears. Or flaming tears.
Of course complaining is not useless.
Just look at the Terran Mech nerf.
T_T
I don't get it. Are you implying that terran mech was fine before the patch?
thas funny. Note the avatar too.
On June 05 2010 16:29 Darkstar- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 15:05 Malgrif wrote:
OMG!! BLIZZARD!! i never lost faith in you <3 <3 Seriously, no offense but.. many of the posters in this thread remind me of those abused wives, they get hit and then they might threaten to call the police but as soon as their husband tells them ''oh no babe im sorry, i love you, i didnt want to do that!'' they'll go ''oh i was so foolish! forgive me, i love you so much!'' ''Orly? better not threaten me again then!*punch*''. I mean wtf.. no wonder Blizzard will sell millions of copies no matter what, apparently the promise of an eventual answer is enough to appease the majority of people, i mean they havent even answered us yet and already theres people posting about how they regret canceling their preorder lol
Wait. How has blizzard hurt you by omitting features in the beta of a game that hasn't come out yet, let alone hurt you in a degree similar to physically beating a women. wtf.
|
Glad to see that blizz does care.
|
|
|
Ah, the power of kittens.
|
Awesome news! Hopefully what we hear from them is more or less along the lines of what we want. Thanks Husky for compiling the thoughts of the community together in the kitten video; as it seems to have taken a part in getting Blizzard's attention.
|
Ok, so most people seem to be happy that Blizzard cares.
However, do not expect them to implement LAN play! Ever. Do not expect them to do exactly what the community wants. SC2 is still their product and we either buy it, or we do not.
|
sounds legit, I don't have any reason not to believe a blizz rep. However working for a corp you tend to hear them spout bullshit just long enough for you to buy their product. Whatever here's hoping!
|
hahahah! <3 Husky! good idea with the kittehs! TL prevails!
|
I see major upgrades during the down time of the beta. chat channels???
|
lol @ the kitten videos part, I guess Husky and HD get enough viewers to get attention from blizzard.
|
Good video, incredibly cute
but Madden 2010 was one of the best Maddens in years and 2011 looks great also. Lots of stuff change every year in sports games. The belief that it doesn't is a nerd stereotype.
|
On June 06 2010 01:48 PanzerDragoon wrote:
Good video, incredibly cute
but Madden 2010 was one of the best Maddens in years and 2011 looks great also. Lots of stuff change every year in sports games. The belief that it doesn't is a nerd stereotype.
Not enough to warrant $60.
|
Husky, the kittens was an absolutely brilliant way to hold a viewer in place while you brainwashed him with your truths and revelations while people who had the mental fortitude to withstand the power of the kittens found your arguments to be well presented and justified.
Overall, Blizzard has been making questionable decisions, but the community's always there to guide them back (through any means necessary! >=D).
|
It should be really easy to verify the legitimacy of a game copy and then allow offline LAN support for say, 24 hours. There is no reason NOT to allot it with a system like that.
|
On June 06 2010 00:48 Spiffeh wrote:
Ah, the power of kittens.
It's pretty amazing to see how much power HD and Husky have now with youtube, they can pretty much shape the perceptions hundreds of thousands of people which is pretty cool. I read other sites that have nothing to do with starcraft and you see people talking about TheLittleOne is the best player in the universe and Idra being a bad mannered macro player who thinks cheese is evil.
|
This thread makes me mad because there are now going to be 9000 "HuskyKitten69"s on Battle.net.
Not that I'll see any of them in chat...
|
haha Husky, seems like the kitten softened their hearts :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitten videos are the only way to get through to evil companies! Blizzard didn't care about our complaints until they saw the video.
|
A wild Evil Company appeared.
Husky used Kittens.
It's super effective!
|
On June 06 2010 04:22 Salty wrote:
It should be really easy to verify the legitimacy of a game copy and then allow offline LAN support for say, 24 hours. There is no reason NOT to allot it with a system like that.
Except wouldn't that just allow crackers to look at the complete netplay code, making the whole thing pointless in the first place? With piracy protection it's all or nothing.
|
On June 06 2010 05:29 Redmark wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2010 04:22 Salty wrote:
It should be really easy to verify the legitimacy of a game copy and then allow offline LAN support for say, 24 hours. There is no reason NOT to allot it with a system like that. Except wouldn't that just allow crackers to look at the complete netplay code, making the whole thing pointless in the first place? With piracy protection it's all or nothing.
i dont see why sc2 would even bother to protect against piracy because they will crack the game eventually regardless.
|
Except by making "piracy protection" you are hurting the customers that bought the game MORE than the ones that didn't. The only way to stop piracy is to make a product that is worth a buy so that those that would buy the game buy it and those that pirate it are ones that would have never bought it regardless.
Almost every attempt at anti-piracy has hurt the buyer more than the pirate. So I highly doubt no lan is a piracy issue, it's more of a control issue or some ignorant "we know what's best" view. Eventually the industry will see that they are just crippling themselves with this nonsense and move on. At least I hope they do.
|
Everyone remember the kitten-trick for future exploitation.
Thanks for the video and update, Husky!
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
This really has nothing to do with piracy, Blizzard is a good steady seller, and having a lan feature can't hurt the sales, leaked Battle.net 2.0 server could, but that's a whole other story (although leaked PVPGN that was used by absolutely everybody didn't stripe them of selling 11m copies of StarCraft, 7m of Diablo II and War III each).
It's all about controlling the scene and gaming experience to the bone, this is what the clause "Blizzard must be notified of every sponsored/commercial tournament" is for, as is their behavior towards KeSPA and Korean scene.
|
|
|
The argument that implementing LAN would lead to piracy is the most ridiculous one that gets touted around like it's gospel. It doesn't matter what Blizzard, or any other company, does, the hackers will crack their product, period. The more draconian their methods, the more hackers view it as a challenge.
They should actually be following their policy of having Bnet 2.0 be so awesome that people won't WANT to play on cracked versions and servers when they come out, which is absolutely not the case right now. If a hacked version comes out with LAN support, chat rooms, unlocked regions, and an ICCUP style ladder, then it's a no brainer. Lots of people will play on it because it's flat out better.
Leaving LAN out does nothing to deter piracy, it simply insures that the cracked/pirated versions will be more widely used.
|
|
|
On June 06 2010 05:29 Redmark wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2010 04:22 Salty wrote:
It should be really easy to verify the legitimacy of a game copy and then allow offline LAN support for say, 24 hours. There is no reason NOT to allot it with a system like that. Except wouldn't that just allow crackers to look at the complete netplay code, making the whole thing pointless in the first place? With piracy protection it's all or nothing.
Nothing is always the better choice. Because All eventually becomes nothing anyway after some amount of time, and it also forces more people to do it faster, so it may even increase piracy.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 06 2010 05:34 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2010 05:29 Redmark wrote:On June 06 2010 04:22 Salty wrote:
It should be really easy to verify the legitimacy of a game copy and then allow offline LAN support for say, 24 hours. There is no reason NOT to allot it with a system like that. Except wouldn't that just allow crackers to look at the complete netplay code, making the whole thing pointless in the first place? With piracy protection it's all or nothing. i dont see why sc2 would even bother to protect against piracy because they will crack the game eventually regardless.
"Eventually" is a bad argument, because such a large percentage of sales are made within a short time of the game's release. Being pirated on day 1, and being pirated at the end of week 3 have dramatically different end results on sales figures.
Take, for example, GTA IV, which sold 8.5 million copies in the first month it was out. 3.6 million of those were sold on the first day of it's release, and 6 million were sold within the first week. I'm pretty sure developers are well aware that piracy prevention doesn't last forever, but if it lasts more than a few weeks, then from their perspective, it has done its job (from that perspective, it also makes sense to add LAN in via patch after the first major wave of sales has died down).
|
On June 06 2010 00:39 Half wrote:
Seriously you really give Husky too much credit and not enough credit to the moderators and -CM's, and more importantly, the player. If they were doing what they were payed to do, they summed up every post that was indicative of an IQ above room temperature (admittedly very few) to whoever they report too, and decided to/were told to just let it simmer for a while before an official response to gain a better player perspective of the issue.
Room temperature in Fahrenheit or Celsius?
|
On June 06 2010 06:26 Disastorm wrote:
Nothing is always the better choice. Because All eventually becomes nothing anyway after some amount of time, and it also forces more people to do it faster, so it may even increase piracy.
If you take out the part about piracy this sounds like a profound philosophical insight.
|
On June 06 2010 06:26 Disastorm wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2010 05:29 Redmark wrote:On June 06 2010 04:22 Salty wrote:
It should be really easy to verify the legitimacy of a game copy and then allow offline LAN support for say, 24 hours. There is no reason NOT to allot it with a system like that. Except wouldn't that just allow crackers to look at the complete netplay code, making the whole thing pointless in the first place? With piracy protection it's all or nothing. Nothing is always the better choice. Because All eventually becomes nothing anyway after some amount of time, and it also forces more people to do it faster, so it may even increase piracy.
Or people will buy the game because they dont want to wait till its cracked. Then once it is, the people who werent gunna pay for it get to play and us who did get lan. This way Blizzard gets paid, with no piracy protection who would buy it?
|
I think LAN play is unlikely to come because that would let for example MBC and OGN and whoever else wanted to run their own local tournament, broadcast, make tons of money from it. Blizzard is heading completely away from that direction.
Unless they did a hybrid with LAN game servers and Blizzard login servers. That's probly the only way I see LAN coming.
|
Congratulations for the kitten !
I'm waiting for the Bnet 2.0 debriefing, and who knows, maybe some upgrades for the current version.
|
I think this is what we will get for bnet after all the feedback they got from community:
1. Chatrooms will make it to bnet
2. No global ranking but instead diamond league and pro league gets one ladder.
3. No cross realm
4. No lan
I wish though there was a global ranking cuz i will never play in diamond league but will be playing in gold-plat and even though i'm not pro I wanna now how I compare to others!
|
At first I was really pleased after reading this, but then I noticed that all it said was that there would be a comprehensive address. Considering all the blue posts on these subjects have been a deconstruction on why what we want won't be in the final game, I re-evaluated my excitement and changed it to cautious optimism. If Blizzard literally only puts out a response, basically saying, 'We know this is what you want, but we know what's best for you,' that would be the last straw; I would boycott the game at that point. It's Blizzard's opportunity to correct and add what we want, so we will see if they do that.
|
On June 07 2010 02:26 Salv wrote:
It's Blizzard's opportunity to correct and add what we want, so we will see if they do that.
They are pretty much aware of this and that's why I'm expecting them to do what has to be done.
|
On June 07 2010 02:43 lolaloc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2010 02:26 Salv wrote:
It's Blizzard's opportunity to correct and add what we want, so we will see if they do that. They are pretty much aware of this and that's why I'm expecting them to do what has to be done.
I think we're all a bit naive to think they'll fix all these major issues 2 months from release. If anything, we can expect a longer response and promises on what can be done down the line, post-release.
I think that is what to expect - words, not actual actions. Its too late for that.
|
On June 07 2010 02:46 Senx wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2010 02:43 lolaloc wrote:On June 07 2010 02:26 Salv wrote:
It's Blizzard's opportunity to correct and add what we want, so we will see if they do that. They are pretty much aware of this and that's why I'm expecting them to do what has to be done. I think we're all a bit naive to think they'll fix all these major issues 2 months from release.
They have a full team dedicated for Battle.net 2.0. I think one month is adequate for them to make a "fix" for at least one issue.
|
LAN is out because of piracy, to avoid net play and paralel servers. Of course the game is going to get cracked and playable, but SINGLEPLAYER. To create a BNet 2.0 emulator to play between peers they are going to need a year in the better scenario, and that's the time window Blizzard needs to make enough sales. If you put LAN in, you can create a whole comunity of "hamachi-like" players with ladders, tourneys and stuff.
|
I don't get the optimism in this thread. I'm pretty sure the "press conference" will go something like this: Look, we know what you guys want, but we know best, so you ain't getting it....
|
On June 06 2010 06:47 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2010 05:34 Madkipz wrote:On June 06 2010 05:29 Redmark wrote:On June 06 2010 04:22 Salty wrote:
It should be really easy to verify the legitimacy of a game copy and then allow offline LAN support for say, 24 hours. There is no reason NOT to allot it with a system like that. Except wouldn't that just allow crackers to look at the complete netplay code, making the whole thing pointless in the first place? With piracy protection it's all or nothing. i dont see why sc2 would even bother to protect against piracy because they will crack the game eventually regardless. "Eventually" is a bad argument, because such a large percentage of sales are made within a short time of the game's release. Being pirated on day 1, and being pirated at the end of week 3 have dramatically different end results on sales figures. Take, for example, GTA IV, which sold 8.5 million copies in the first month it was out. 3.6 million of those were sold on the first day of it's release, and 6 million were sold within the first week. I'm pretty sure developers are well aware that piracy prevention doesn't last forever, but if it lasts more than a few weeks, then from their perspective, it has done its job (from that perspective, it also makes sense to add LAN in via patch after the first major wave of sales has died down).
Exactly. The whole reason why Spore's DRM was such a failure from the company's standpoint wasn't because the DRM was cracked, but because it was cracked before the game even came out. Gamers are inpatient and will buy a game when it comes out rather than wait for the crack (proven by sales figures) so DRM just has to stave off the hackers for a week to be extremely successful and worth it for the company.
Blizzard could probably take advantage of this by maybe giving us LAN at a later date than release. If cracking SC2 multiplayer takes anywhere as long as cracking took during the beta then there would be plenty of time to accumulate sales before releasing offline LAN, assuming the "always connected" multiplayer experience is what is holding the hackers back.
That said, there have been no indications whatsoever that Blizzard currently has any plans for LAN at all.
|
There is so much problems about bnet 2.0 and i just can't actually realize how soon they can fix them if they of course really want to...
|
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned too much as of late is watching replays online with friends. I realize that it's not as critical as some of the map publishing and custom game hosting concerns, but for me watching replays online with friends was one of my favorite parts of playing SC1: when a friend logs on and says "oh man I just played this insaaaaaaaaaaaaane game, come watch it with me!" it's so much fun, and it's a great way to focus on your play with another person commenting on it.
I thought that most people felt this way about online replays, and I don't understand how Blizzard could not realize how important this is to some people. They've promised it "in a future content patch," but given that they "promised" that online replays would be delivered "in a future content patch" for Warcraft III and, to this day, WC3 still doesn't have online replays, I'm not sure I believe them.
|
I feel like you raven, but if they never added this in wc3, and now we are bickering over chat channels, I dont have much faith blizzard will ever add it.
|
This sounds promising. Good job with the cats.
|
They might make a concession, but I don't think they'll ignore their policy.
|
They have one month before the game releases. There is no way they can change anything major in that time period. They will most likely try to throw some stuff out there, but will most likely be post-release.
|
Sorry to ask this question here but I searched a bit for answer but I couldn't find anywhere else.
Will BNET 2.0 be with Monthly Payment? Like WoW?
|
On June 07 2010 05:09 -Desu- wrote:
Sorry to ask this question here but I searched a bit for answer but I couldn't find anywhere else.
Will BNET 2.0 be with Monthly Payment? Like WoW?
nope unless you live in like russia or something and choose too
|
On June 07 2010 05:10 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2010 05:09 -Desu- wrote:
Sorry to ask this question here but I searched a bit for answer but I couldn't find anywhere else.
Will BNET 2.0 be with Monthly Payment? Like WoW? nope unless you live in like russia or something and choose too
I live in Europe but I didn't get why ppl in Russia have to pay monthly
|
On June 07 2010 05:11 -Desu- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2010 05:10 blade55555 wrote:On June 07 2010 05:09 -Desu- wrote:
Sorry to ask this question here but I searched a bit for answer but I couldn't find anywhere else.
Will BNET 2.0 be with Monthly Payment? Like WoW? nope unless you live in like russia or something and choose too I live in Europe but I didn't get why ppl in Russia have to pay monthly
They don't have to, it's an option so they don't have to buy the game at full price
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
On June 07 2010 05:11 -Desu- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2010 05:10 blade55555 wrote:On June 07 2010 05:09 -Desu- wrote:
Sorry to ask this question here but I searched a bit for answer but I couldn't find anywhere else.
Will BNET 2.0 be with Monthly Payment? Like WoW? nope unless you live in like russia or something and choose too I live in Europe but I didn't get why ppl in Russia have to pay monthly
Because the game will be priced @ 20$ for jewl and 30$ for standard instead of $50-60, therefore they've decided to test their inevitably upcoming subscription feature.
|
On June 06 2010 00:47 Trezeguet23 wrote:
Glad to see that blizz does care.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well ofcourse they do. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
|
On June 07 2010 05:16 Sputty wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2010 05:11 -Desu- wrote:On June 07 2010 05:10 blade55555 wrote:On June 07 2010 05:09 -Desu- wrote:
Sorry to ask this question here but I searched a bit for answer but I couldn't find anywhere else.
Will BNET 2.0 be with Monthly Payment? Like WoW? nope unless you live in like russia or something and choose too I live in Europe but I didn't get why ppl in Russia have to pay monthly They don't have to, it's an option so they don't have to buy the game at full price
ok, so we will buy the game at full price and won't be paying every month for BNET 2.0, and then if someone in certain areas want to buy the game without the full price, he will be paying every month summing up to total price of the game.
Did I get it right?
And are you sure there will be monthly subscription in the future Googen?
|
On June 07 2010 05:18 -Desu- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2010 05:16 Sputty wrote:On June 07 2010 05:11 -Desu- wrote:On June 07 2010 05:10 blade55555 wrote:On June 07 2010 05:09 -Desu- wrote:
Sorry to ask this question here but I searched a bit for answer but I couldn't find anywhere else.
Will BNET 2.0 be with Monthly Payment? Like WoW? nope unless you live in like russia or something and choose too I live in Europe but I didn't get why ppl in Russia have to pay monthly They don't have to, it's an option so they don't have to buy the game at full price ok, so we will buy the game at full price and won't be paying every month for BNET 2.0, and then if someone in certain areas want to buy the game without the full price, he will be paying every month summing up to total price of the game. Did I get it right? And are you sure there will be monthly subscription in the future Googen?
Officially, there wont be a monthly subscription in the future, hes just guessing that based on how crappy blizzard is now, that they will change their mind.
|
United States7166 Posts
i've been interpreting their comment ". and we're in the midst of working on a comprehensive address that should hit most of the major concerns"
to mean theyre going to give us a statement/response, rather than the other meaning of "address" which is to actually work on the bnet issues
which is right?
|
On June 07 2010 06:00 Zelniq wrote:
i've been interpreting their comment ". and we're in the midst of working on a comprehensive address that should hit most of the major concerns"
to mean theyre going to give us a statement/response, rather than the other meaning of "address" which is to actually work on the bnet issues
which is right?
they most likely mean that they will be making a statement on the issues either confirming that they are legit problems and that they plan on attending to them, confirm that they are legit concerns and that they already have solutions to them, or try to convince us that what they are doing is better suited for their envisions of the bnet 2.0 environment.
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
On June 07 2010 05:18 -Desu- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2010 05:16 Sputty wrote:On June 07 2010 05:11 -Desu- wrote:On June 07 2010 05:10 blade55555 wrote:On June 07 2010 05:09 -Desu- wrote:
Sorry to ask this question here but I searched a bit for answer but I couldn't find anywhere else.
Will BNET 2.0 be with Monthly Payment? Like WoW? nope unless you live in like russia or something and choose too I live in Europe but I didn't get why ppl in Russia have to pay monthly They don't have to, it's an option so they don't have to buy the game at full price ok, so we will buy the game at full price and won't be paying every month for BNET 2.0, and then if someone in certain areas want to buy the game without the full price, he will be paying every month summing up to total price of the game. Did I get it right? And are you sure there will be monthly subscription in the future Googen?
There will be an option to upgrade the accout to a 'full' status for an additional $30-40, an optional ~5$/mo subscription is also rumored.'
Blizzard will start changing eventually, maybe for extra map-packs (they certainly didn't plan the map store for users), B.net features, could even be full-n subscriptions after 1st or 2nd expansion.
As for the LAN, there is absolutely no way it can damage the sales, because:
1. The feature can be made accessible via B.net 2.0 only, at least on after-login screen, meaning that even if B.net 2.0 is down and the login/billing service is up (which usually is a separate server), players will still be able to use it.
2. Having Lan doesn't mean having the whole server, sure there may be some hamachi stuff, but that's absolutely nothing.
3. Even if the whole B.net 2.0 service leaks (unlikely), it still probably won't make much of a difference, PVPGN (B.net 1.0) leaked back in 98, every1 had it, StarCraft still sold 12m copies, Diablo II still sold 7m, WarCraft III also sold 7m copies.
|
A "comprehensive address" doesn't mean they'll change anything. In fact, it sounds more like that they will simply make previous responses they had towards complaints in smaller interviews publicly published.
|
On June 07 2010 06:25 zomgzergrush wrote:
A "comprehensive address" doesn't mean they'll change anything. In fact, it sounds more like that they will simply make previous responses they had towards complaints in smaller interviews publicly published.
Anyone who's read a lot of these Bnet2.0 threads knows that I have been as critical of Blizzard as anyone.
That said I will wait for their statement with guarded optimism. Blizzard has genuinely been a good company for a long time and for that I will at least give them the chance to have their say before condemning them forever. I am not an advocate of trusting them unconditionally, but if they are actually going to take the time to respond then I will listen to what they have to say, at the very least.
As for the content of their address, I'm not expecting them to tell us that all our concerns will be fixed by launch. I AM expecting to have the various concerns addressed in a specific manner. For me at least any kind of blanket statement isn't going to fly. They should go down the list, point by point, and they should answer everything honestly and straightforwardly. If something is going to change, I don't expect it to be at launch, but I absolutely want some assurance that it will happen, and a rough timetable as to when. If something is not going to be in, or they have no plans for it, I would appreciate a more detailed explanation as to why it won't be (though I don't expect it). Answers like "Who wants chatrooms, lol", and "We're making Bnet so good that you won't want LAN", are both stupid and insulting.
Here is the sort of thing that would make me happy:
1) Chatrooms- we're sorry on this one, we really didn't realize how much people wanted them and we will be putting them in at some point. They won't be in for launch but look for them in the first couple of months afterwards.
2) Leagues- We understand the concerns of the competitive gamers out there and are looking into ways to tweak the current system. We will be including a global rank for players in platinum and above and we will see how it goes.
3) LAN- Sorry, but for the time being this is not planned and is not changing. We realize that some people may be dissapointed by this decision but we feel that it is in our best interest as a company to continue in this direction.
4) etc.etc. etc.
Now I'm not saying that is what I want to hear in terms of content, but if that is the tone and layout of their address, and there is some evidence of concessions and/or changes on their part, I will be happy enough for now.
Basically I want to know that they are listening to us and care what we think. If I get that impression I'll buy the game. If I don't then I won't.
|
I don't think that the whole anti-B.Net movement would have been nearly as successful as it has been without that kitten video, and more specifically, without those kittens.
|
On June 07 2010 10:01 im a roc wrote:
I don't think that the whole anti-B.Net movement would have been nearly as successful as it has been without that kitten video, and more specifically, without those kittens.
"I call this meeting of the video game protest society to order! I hereby move that henceforth all protest videos be done with the aid of kittens, all in favor?"
lol
|
On June 07 2010 10:01 im a roc wrote:
I don't think that the whole anti-B.Net movement would have been nearly as successful as it has been without that kitten video, and more specifically, without those kittens.
It would seem that cute kittens are the key to Blizzard's heart, who can deny their power now??
|
I posted a thread on the bnet forums titled
"Blizzard to address complaints about Bnet (Date)"
And the post said "Can you give us an indication as to when this address will come? Thanks."
Moderators then deleted my post.
|
On June 05 2010 10:59 Kennigit wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 10:35 Shiladie wrote:
Funny how it takes a video with almost 300k views before blizzard actually gets it in their heads that they need to address the issues brought forward by the playerbase. Not the case. They read the forums intently.
Yes, but what I mean is that they don't ever give very much feedback about what they are planning on doing, or what they are working on. While I understand the reasons behind not giving out everything they are working on, it can feel like we're talking to a brick wall sometimes with our suggestions/criticisms. Which in turn makes us less inclined to spend the time reporting it all if we feel they arn't listening.
|
On June 05 2010 08:44 Qwerty. wrote:
you melted acti-blizzard's icy heart
He cooled their hot heart with a cool kitten video.
|
|
|
On June 08 2010 06:57 Iwbhs wrote:
have they responded yet?
In other news: Scientists theorize that 'the end of time' might, in fact, be closer than we previously thought.
|
This thread needs more kittens.
On-topic: It's great to see Blizz actually saying something. They had been sitting stagnant on these threads for too long.
|
FINALLY A RESPONSE.
Thank you Blizzard, for saying SOMETHING.
It did take way, way too long though.
|
On June 07 2010 10:31 Plethora wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 07 2010 10:01 im a roc wrote:
I don't think that the whole anti-B.Net movement would have been nearly as successful as it has been without that kitten video, and more specifically, without those kittens. "I call this meeting of the video game protest society to order! I hereby move that henceforth all protest videos be done with the aid of kittens, all in favor?" lol
-Raises Hand-
|
United States22883 Posts
If it goes the way WoW comprehensive dev responses have gone for the past 6? years, I'm guessing most of you will be very disappointed.
|
Meh dont be too optimistic people.
|
The fact that is taking so long is a good sign. If they are going to give assurances regarding new functionality or cross region play they have to clear it higher up in the bureaucracy, which takes time.
If they were just rewording what they've already said they would have done it by now. Probably. Maybe.
|
On June 06 2010 05:39 404.Delirium wrote:
Everyone remember the kitten-trick for future exploitation.
lmao, this. xD
Those kittens were absolutely adorable. I want them all. :x
As for the update...
I just hope it works out.
|
I have a question, does not having Lan mean that things such as GGC will not be able to work ever? Or will other alternatives surface?
The reason I ask, is because I am puzzled by everyones anger at the no cross-realm play, because Ifor about a year in warcraft 3 I played against a number of asians and europeans in various leagues, and never ever went to their Bnet server to play them... but rather used ggc.
Can anyone answer this question?
As for chatrooms, not having them will definitely entice me to actually play the game instead of jus chillin out lol
|
Well. I prefer to decide for myself whether I want to play the game or be "jus chillin out".
I really dislike those types of arguments. "It might be good to not have A because it will force me to do B." Why would you reason like that.
|
On June 08 2010 15:58 Soel wrote:
I have a question, does not having Lan mean that things such as GGC will not be able to work ever? Or will other alternatives surface?
The reason I ask, is because I am puzzled by everyones anger at the no cross-realm play, because Ifor about a year in warcraft 3 I played against a number of asians and europeans in various leagues, and never ever went to their Bnet server to play them... but rather used ggc.
Can anyone answer this question?
As for chatrooms, not having them will definitely entice me to actually play the game instead of jus chillin out lol
Did you play the beta? I only dropped for a couple of games and then left to do something else. The game lacked any sense of community when being online. It definitely did not entice me to play more. But maybe that's just me.
As for your question: you are spot on. No such thing will be available.
|
lol calm yourselves me saying I don't care about chatrooms (which consist of spam, afk, and stupid jeopardy), doesn't matter. you act like me saying that will result in blizzard changing their stance or something...
blizzard already said I believe that there would be clan wide chat, which is acceptable to me
|
H to the USKY HUSKY FTW :D
Nice to see a response from blizzard. Having my fingers crossed x
|
I also think this doesn't sound all that promising. They will try to explain our complaints away, but there will be no policy changes.
|
I think they'll probably give on something to appease us. Or put together a canned response saying their vision of chat channels is the future, x-realm is technologically infeasible (funny considering I played on the US more than I did on EU with no problems during the beta), and LAN is outdated technology that supports pirating.
|
Does anyone know when blizzard will be responding?
|
The blue response does not mean anything but the fact that he has forwarded everything he can and now we need to wait for the information to reach upwards to get a response, I would urge players to still turn the forums into a shitfest because there still has not been a proper response.
|
|
|
The addition of in-game clans and chat channels would make my life =D
|
|
|
|
|
On June 10 2010 03:32 Snowfield wrote:
ESPORTS shall prevail!
The more and more I think about it, I think Blizzard just did this to shut people up so they won't boycott it as much so Blizzard's SC2 will get better sales. I mean really. It makes sense, next they will say everything will be implemented 3 weeks into the release of the game to make people buy it with high expectations and then they will say there was some error with them so it will be another 3 weeks, etc. I really hope that doesn't happen. There is a lot of potential in this game for eSports in North America as well as Europe.
@eSports prevailing
KeSPA and Blizzard seem knocking heads. If Starcraft 2 isn't popular or broad casted in Korea it will take away from the market in many other places as well. A lot of people as well as myself have been spending endless hours on Starcraft 2 trying to be the best they can be and dreaming "oh, I wanna get really good at Starcraft 2 and move to Korea, join a pro gaming team, house or clan, etc.." If there is no "pro league" there won't be those dreams.
|
First of all, sorry to all for making a new thread to talk about this rather than joining in here. My bad.
Here's what I wrote, anyway:
+ Show Spoiler +BNet 2.0 isn't exactly feature-complete. In fact it's hard to reconcile the resources allegedly devoted to it with the end product: superficially a slick but otherwise workmanlike front-end.
It's tempting to indulge one's inner rage and attribute this kind of thing to incompetence, but that doesn't really add up. I can't imagine taking a tour of Blizzard and, after the amazing art and design and coding departments, being shown the room where they keep a bunch of monitor-licking morons assigned to the core component of the multiplayer experience. That just doesn't sit well with me.
What fits better is to suppose they're doing something difficult, and they're doing it carefully. This is after all supposed to be a platform upon which to knit together all their future titles. That is such a huge undertaking; I mean, I've been writing and designing commercial games for a couple of decades and just the shadow cast by that task is fucking scary. You can't think purely in terms of a feature set to suit SC2; you have to think about what Diablo III players are going to want to do, and WOW players, and remember you're creating a single point of failure for all these massively popular titles.
For me, the best explanation for the current lack of - say - chat channels is not that chat channels are problematic, but that they're trivial. They've been done a thousand times already. You don't set up a beta to test stuff you already know how to do. What needed testing - what could only be tested on a large scale - was the whole practice/placement/matchmaking/ladder system - so that's what they forced all their beta-testers to use.
The same goes for all kinds of features. Custom ladders: clearly they are going to be in there at some point, so groups of friends (guilds) can set up their own private leagues, or TL can set up an invitational pro-league, or whatever. In itself it's an easy feature to implement so the question would seem to be 'why not put it in already?' Ah, but look at the recent BNet 2.0 interface changes. Look at the 'ladder' screen - hey, you can customise the list of ladders displayed there. Isn't that nice? What an elegant way to accommodate custom private ladders in the future, right there in the core interface. I bet you'll be able to drop your Diablo III and WOW PVP ladders right in there, too.
It's so important to keep front-and-centre the fact that a) this is a beta, so what you get given to play with is what most needs testing by a large contingent of beta testers, and b) there is a really, really big picture into which BNet's support of SC2 has to fit. We will get guilds, and with that will come guild chat, guild ladders, guild tournaments with direct invitational support. I fully expect to see support for broadcast of live games, with host-assignable 'caster' status so spectators can listen to their choice of commentary, toggle between their view of the game and the caster's, etc etc. Maybe support for delayed live broadcasts to hamper cheating. I expect to see all these things because I look at what's been achieved in the rest of the product and nothing else makes sense.
I was subsequently criticised for making 'battered wife' excuses, and:
cba to go further in debt, your entire thread can be summed down to ITS BETA L2p 1111 and ultimately and you are just another user with a sub 100 post count from rotten asparagus.com that is content in letting blizzard take you from behind.
This reaction is understandable enough, but it's not deserved. Believe me, I'm the first to wince whenever someone begins a sentence with "It's only a beta..." because I know exactly how far along a game is by the time it hits beta. If creating a game were likened to getting pregnant, beta would be the drive to the hospital with fingernails embedded in your forearm.
I should have made it clearer that I don't expect a fully-featured BNet to be ready by the game's release. What I'm saying is that - from a developer's perspective - attributing 'missing' BNet features to incompetence, or laziness, or lack of care, or corporate bullshit just doesn't fit. Honestly, the attention to detail in what is there, on every level, just blows my mind.
As a for-instance: the patching system that still lets you launch replays recorded in older versions. Ok, there's been the odd bug with that, but to make it happen at all is... I literally don't know how to explain what a big deal that is. Replay files don't store the positions and movements of every unit. They couldn't. Instead they store player input, and literally replay the game all over again as you watch. That's why you can't just click forward in the timeline when you start the replay. But that means you have to be able to roll back all the rules, all the settings, all the maps, everything, so the game plays out exactly as it did in the earlier patch. The care and forethought, and lack of corporate bullshit required to make that kind of architecture happen in a full commercial product is monumental. And of course there are spin-off benefits like the super-powerful editor, because so much logic has been pulled out of the executable.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Nothing about SC2 feels careless or low-rent, on any level. So when I look at BNet 2.0, and I think about how many people have been working on it, and I think about the concerns and questions voiced on this site... It's like the end of 'Wargames'. On the one hand you've got screens clearly showing the inbound missiles and fingers reaching for the 'fuck it all' button, and on the other you've got some guy saying "Yes, but does it make sense?" Could it really be that Blizzard managed to source all their infrastructure guys from the vegetable aisle?
I find myself thinking thus: what we've been playing is a beta, and large-scale betas serve a specific purpose: to test and refine features that cannot be meaningfully tested any other way, in this case multiplayer balance, the matchmaking systems, and servers under load. Chat channels, clans/guilds, private ladders and tournaments - all this good stuff can be implemented without our help. So Blizzard has a few choices:
1. It can put all the good stuff that doesn't need mass testing into BNet first, then the matchmaking, then open up the beta and hope players aren't too distracted by chat, clans and private ladders to actually test the matchmaking like they're supposed to.
2. It can beta-test the matchmaking and balance first, then sit on an essentially complete game without releasing it until all the extra BNet features are in place. 'All' being, moreover, an entirely arbitrary line in the sand because it'll always be possible to add more stuff.
3. It can beta-test the matchmaking and balance, release the game with this core online functionality so we can start enjoying it straight away, and tech-up BNet later.
4. Same as 3, except that after release they just give everyone the finger and don't enhance BNet, despite it being the cornerstone of success for at least four future retail products.
In short, would you rather be playing SC2 while you're waiting for chat channels and clans to get done, or not? If the latter, you can easily simulate Blizzard doing the 'right thing' by just not buying the game for a while. I totally respect that decision if you genuinely can't enjoy the game as it stands.
|
In short, would you rather be playing SC2 while you're waiting for chat channels and clans to get done, or not? If the latter, you can easily simulate Blizzard doing the 'right thing' by just not buying the game for a while. I totally respect that decision if you genuinely can't enjoy the game as it stands.
in short would you rather send a message to blizzard that releasing an unfinished product, a gold nugget wrapped in shit. Will you tell them that it is wrong? or will you buy the game and cast away the one thing you can take from them, buyer statistics.
Because i guarantee you that lesser companies will take this as an example and keep the trend going, (not that there is any game but this one worth buying in the near forseeable future).
|
KITTEH!!!!! <3<3<3<3<#
That's all blizz needs in the game is Kittehs =D Then they will win life.
The Itteh Bitteh Kitteh Comitteh will fix bnet 2.0... with cuteness!
|
When is this "comprehensive address" happening?
Either they're putting it off out of fear, or they don't actually know what they are/are not including at the moment.
It doesn't take more than a few hours to put together an "address", so it can't be that they need time.
So what do you guys think? Are they scared of the rage, or do they actually not know wtf they're doing anymore?
|
On June 10 2010 10:53 Subversion wrote:
When is this "comprehensive address" happening?
Either they're putting it off out of fear, or they don't actually know what they are/are not including at the moment.
It doesn't take more than a few hours to put together an "address", so it can't be that they need time.
So what do you guys think? Are they scared of the rage, or do they actually not know wtf they're doing anymore?
They probably have better things to do than to address us on what they're doing to B.net right now. They'll let us know when they want to.
I expect a statement sometime next week or the week after. It's literally been two days. Maybe they don't even know what they can fit into the time window for release and are probably holding back before they have a better idea of what they can or cannot do (hence the 1-2 week speculation before they say something)
|
Anyone else find it ironic how blizzard keeps claiming that gameplay and functionality come first, and the development + pricing model comes last, yet EVERY aspect of Starcraft 2 REEKS of money grabs and gimpy implementations
|
Has it only been 2 days? Shit I thought it had been longer, lol. Guess I'm rushing them a little then I still genuinely wonder though if they actually know exactly what they want to do with Bnet right now.
Please, please give us cross-realm Blizzard
|
Neither of you 2 bothered to check the date on the first post?
|
It's possible Blizzard is in talks with the Money Cow aka Activision about all this. After all, the only reason why they wouldn't have cross-region is play is money.
|
On June 10 2010 11:55 ZergTurd wrote:
It's possible Blizzard is in talks with the Money Cow aka Activision about all this. After all, the only reason why they wouldn't have cross-region is play is money.
I can't imagine the money they would make from people buying more then 1 copy of the game would be significant at all. No casual players will buy multiple copies and most competitive players will be able to share accounts with other competitive players. I honestly cant imagine more then a few thousand extra copies being sold for people wanting to play on multiple realms.
|
for every day blizzard doesnt fix bnet 2.0 issues, a kitten dies...
|
in short would you rather send a message to blizzard that releasing an unfinished product, a gold nugget wrapped in shit. Will you tell them that it is wrong? or will you buy the game and cast away the one thing you can take from them, buyer statistics.
Well, like you just quoted me as saying, I respect anyone's decision not to buy something they don't want. Are you prepared to respect my decision to purchase something I do want? You're adamant I should not 'cast away' my leverage as a consumer, but you don't seem to think I can be trusted with it either. I should hand it over to you because your opinion about what constitutes a 'finished' game is more valid, right?
Tell you what, let's think about it this way: I've been creating games for pretty much twice as long as anyone here has been playing Starcraft, so if I decide a company should be rewarded with my money for crafting what I consider to be a superlative product, I reckon I've earned that right. Mmm?
|
On June 10 2010 12:04 Bosu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 11:55 ZergTurd wrote:
It's possible Blizzard is in talks with the Money Cow aka Activision about all this. After all, the only reason why they wouldn't have cross-region is play is money. I can't imagine the money they would make from people buying more then 1 copy of the game would be significant at all. No casual players will buy multiple copies and most competitive players will be able to share accounts with other competitive players. I honestly cant imagine more then a few thousand extra copies being sold for people wanting to play on multiple realms.
i think you will be able to pay for access to other realms without having to buy another copy.
it's ALL about the microtransactions, the real money maker in modern video game business.
the lack of LAN has nothing to do with piracy, they just want to be able to charge you for custom tournaments.
|
They wont charge people to organize custom tournaments comparable to LAN parties...
As soon as you can play the game on Battle.net, you can organize a tournament without Blizzard's agreement.
I dont see what you'd have to pay for...
|
On June 10 2010 22:19 101TFP wrote:
the lack of LAN has nothing to do with piracy, they just want to be able to charge you for custom tournaments.
Sigh
|
think every TL member is anxiously waiting blizz's response. I really hope its not a simple "this is why what we think is better" just like with MW2.
|
On June 10 2010 11:51 Mastermind wrote:
Neither of you 2 bothered to check the date on the first post?
The blizz post was on Friday night. Weekends generally don't involve announcements, so Monday was the first business day after Bashiok's statement. So yeah, Wednesday would have been exactly two business days.
|
i would be happy with cross realm, clan chatrooms and making diamond and above one big ladder.
|
On June 10 2010 22:48 Subversion wrote:
think every TL member is anxiously waiting blizz's response. I really hope its not a simple "this is why what we think is better" just like with MW2.
People who know Blizzard, however, know that's exactly what it's going to be. The best we could hope for out of this is that they say they've heard the concerns of the community and they'll work to improve the feature set towards what we want in line to be released with Heart of the Swarm.
|
They will propably say something like.we WILL keep working on Bnet2.Bnet2 is an ONGOING project.Feature1,Feature2,3,4,5 etc etc WILL be added in the FUTURE. So basically nothing is fixed everyones concerns are put to rest for a succesive launch and no features will be added in the next 4 months.
|
Blizzard likes Kittens, who doesn't remember KT's cat in naxx 10/25/40?
|
Thanks for this video, Husky. You've done the SC2 community justice. I agreed with everything he said.
|
Didn't see this addressed in the past couple pages so: Amazon sent me an e-mail talking about a "chat with the developers" of SC2. Apparently you can upload questions that Amazon will send to Blizzard to get answered in a video. A few TL people have already uploaded questions so go thumbs up them!
|
|
|
SC2 has been sticking so close to the MW2 business model that i fear, like many others, that it will just be a bunch of nonsense excuses.
I think that they might add a few things, but certainly less than half of what we're hoping for.
|
On June 10 2010 22:28 MooiSh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 22:19 101TFP wrote:
the lack of LAN has nothing to do with piracy, they just want to be able to charge you for custom tournaments. Sigh
Jews did WTC. Haven't you heard?
|
On June 11 2010 10:53 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 22:28 MooiSh wrote:On June 10 2010 22:19 101TFP wrote:
the lack of LAN has nothing to do with piracy, they just want to be able to charge you for custom tournaments. Sigh Jews did WTC. Haven't you heard?
Jews or muslims or christians... How's one to know
|
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#24
Also 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.
|
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#24Show nested quote +Also 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.
|
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.
|
"we're in the midst of working on a comprehensive address"
This says it all: They are working on a "propaganda response" and have no intention of changing their minds ... or else he should have said that they are trying to fix the issues. It reminds me of half the treatment we got from Sonys Everquest team whenever there was a clear and obvious bug in the game (and they had A LOT of them): "Everything is working as intended." which made us come up with the saying "Its not a bug, its a feature!" So BNet 2.0 isnt bad, because it is working as intended ...
"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."
Its the oldest trick in the book known to the "old romans" 2000 years ago: Divide et impera (divide and conquer).
Blizzard is getting ever deeper into the mire of dissatisfied potential customers with these responses from "public relations experts". The only response we want to hear is:
"Ok, we screwed up and you will get chat channels, LAN, titles for custom games and custom map publishing like you know and love from our older games AND we will remove Facebook and all our email-data-acquisition from the game."
There would be ZERO discussion needed after such a response and I would even give them more time to finish these things.
|
"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."
They've really fallen off the deep end. What a frustrating response.
|
"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."
Where did you see this response?
|
why does everyone hate on facebook integration? =(
|
Okay you guys really need to stop whining about their recent posts. A comprehensive address is in the making. They have to take time on it since they're probably discussing what to do with Bnet after hearing feedback as well as finding out the best way to deliver the message. It's going to take time, and we'll eventually get it, so be patient.
|
Husky FTW I hope this slow chunky battle net ends up working out to make the game best as possible because right now it reminds me of nothing but failure and frustration love the game, just not the other stuff
|
Everyone is hating on the facebook integration because it was completely unneeded and a lot of other things that needed work on were ignored.
And Facebook is for idiots.
|
|
|
Kittens --> CUTE! Ty husky!
|
On June 12 2010 15:22 Zombo Joe wrote:
Everyone is hating on the facebook integration because it was completely unneeded and a lot of other things that needed work on were ignored.
And Facebook is for idiots.
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.
|
They unlocked regions yet? Oh.. ok still no sale then.
|
On June 12 2010 15:22 Zombo Joe wrote:
Everyone is hating on the facebook integration because it was completely unneeded and a lot of other things that needed work on were ignored.
And Facebook is for idiots.
This is the stupidest post I've seen in a long time. Facebook is for idiots? How can you say that with a straight face? How can you say that and imagine any part of the rest of your argument is going to take you seriously?
Please, don't spew ignorance ont he forums.
|
OK i wont go as far as the other guy saying stupid stuff like facebook is for idiots etc.But i think that Blizzard has completely misunderstood the success of Facebook.Yes Facebook has a gazillion users and growing but i can easily say that
a)a big majority of them users(including myself,made an account and use it now once a month)
b)the huge majority of its users have hardly played any serious game other than farmville and especially a demanding one like SC.
c)even the users that are playing SC a lot and like to use FB prefer to chat about games using irc,MSN,Skype or something else because FB is just not practical.
Yes Facebook is a big success but is that success based on PC users that play games a lot? Definitely no.
|
the point of facebook is to find people you know so you can play the game with them, it's not an end all means of some new dynamic chat system blizzard was conjuring up... and i find it weird that some people claim that there is a correlation of playing games a lot and not using facebook much. it seems like a biased opinion more then anything as i know plenty of gamers who use facebook.
|
On June 12 2010 17:05 DiTH wrote:
OK i wont go as far as the other guy saying stupid stuff like facebook is for idiots etc.But i think that Blizzard has completely misunderstood the success of Facebook.Yes Facebook has a gazillion users and growing but i can easily say that
a)a big majority of them users(including myself,made an account and use it now once a month)
b)the huge majority of its users have hardly played any serious game other than farmville and especially a demanding one like SC.
c)even the users that are playing SC a lot and like to use FB prefer to chat about games using irc,MSN,Skype or something else because FB is just not practical.
Yes Facebook is a big success but is that success based on PC users that play games a lot? Definitely no.
I'm sure you have sources for all your assertions.
|
Ofc i have sources.Currently 3 ppl out of my 400 friends are planning to play SC2.Thats a good enough source for me.
And btw stop being so picky.I dont have to do a poll with 10 Million randomly selected people across the globe using facebook to make some remarks.Most of the polls even made for political reasons are made by phone and usually are around 1k-2k mark.
Its my fault that a university professor hasnt done a study yet concerning the relation of FB and Games so no1 should try and make an argument about it.
If you feel something i said is wrong say it and dont respond with a random oneliner.
|
On June 12 2010 17:30 DiTH wrote:
Ofc i have sources.Currently 3 ppl out of my 400 friends are planning to play SC2.Thats a good enough source for me.
And btw stop being so picky.I dont have to do a poll with 10 Million randomly selected people across the globe using facebook to make some remarks.Most of the polls even made for political reasons are made by phone and usually are around 1k-2k mark.
Its my fault that a university professor hasnt done a study yet concerning the relation of FB and Games so no1 should try and make an argument about it.
If you feel something i said is wrong say it and dont respond with a random oneliner.
You said it yourself, if there's no proof then people shouldn't make an arguement about it. Oh, and I use facebook quite a lot and still play plenty of video games, not the least of which is Starcraft and Starcraft 2.
Just because you may not like facebook doesn't mean it's instantly a failure and holds no place in the world. Basically my opinion on the Facebook integration this entire time has been: If you don't like the feature, don't use the feature. There's nothing forcing you to use your facebook in game, or get a facebook if you don't have one. But for those of us with a facebook it's a very helpful tool to find out who among our friends are playing SC2.
|
They won't admit that their product is flawed/incomplete this close to release.
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
It's a bit odd to protest against Facebok, it's a decent enough feature, thousands of B.net 2.0 users, be it for SC2, Diablo 3 or next MMO will be using it, - thumbs up for that.
|
They should add chat ASAP to not lose players at release, and then just promise the rest by the time the 3rd expansion comes out and I would be satisfied.
|
Finally! I expect it to be the best b.net 2.0 buff since patch 1. Now things would be balanced.
|
On June 12 2010 16:03 Malgrif wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2010 15:22 Zombo Joe wrote:
Everyone is hating on the facebook integration because it was completely unneeded and a lot of other things that needed work on were ignored.
And Facebook is for idiots. 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.
|
They were still MILES away from real emulation, just got the authentication process done and some other minor things.
|
chat channels are important, so much so that someone created a chatroom custom map that was full constantly with people that wanted to chat with other like minded people... Blizzard just put in chat its not fricken hard,
|
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.
- E-Mail conversation: 1 sense mostly (vision) -> 1 star
- Actually writing on paper: 2 senses (vision and touch) -> 2 stars
- Talking on the phone: 1 sense (hearing) -> 1 star
- Talking face-to-face: 3 senses (hearing, vision, smell) -> 3 stars
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 ...
|
it would appear that blizzards response is because of the pussy, they're pussy whipped. gw husky
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.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 12 2010 23:00 Rabiator wrote:On FacebookSaying "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 timeAll your time is spent in several degrees of quality. The more senses you use the higher the quality of the time spent. - E-Mail conversation: 1 sense mostly (vision) -> 1 star
- Actually writing on paper: 2 senses (vision and touch) -> 2 stars
- Talking on the phone: 1 sense (hearing) -> 1 star
- Talking face-to-face: 3 senses (hearing, vision, smell) -> 3 stars
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 addressEveryone 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 ...
|
lol they saw your kitten video husky that great
|
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...
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.
|
On June 13 2010 03:43 Malgrif wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 12 2010 23:00 Rabiator wrote:On FacebookSaying "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 timeAll your time is spent in several degrees of quality. The more senses you use the higher the quality of the time spent. - E-Mail conversation: 1 sense mostly (vision) -> 1 star
- Actually writing on paper: 2 senses (vision and touch) -> 2 stars
- Talking on the phone: 1 sense (hearing) -> 1 star
- Talking face-to-face: 3 senses (hearing, vision, smell) -> 3 stars
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 addressEveryone 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 ... /facepalm i see that you don't realize the initial purpose of facebook. it's not to make new friends but to keep in touch with old ones. as for security breaches i've heard of a few individual cases but it's hardly a widespread phenomena, you don't hear about peoples getting their whole lives ruined over facebook nor do you hear about mass stalkers using facebook exclusively. The security of facebook is fine as long as you know how to set your profile on hidden. no one can view, or even search for it, but yourself and your friends... and btw stop making up statistics, you nor do i have any proof that "all too often" people get addicted to facebook and if you eliminate that point half your argument is invalid. the other half about spammers, i'm not quite sure what the problem really is, spam filters filter out billions of spam emails a day. even if hackers and spammers were to get their hands on your email how does the pose any threat to your security at all?
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.
|
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... Show nested quote +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.
"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.
|
On June 13 2010 12:08 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 03:43 Malgrif wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 12 2010 23:00 Rabiator wrote:On FacebookSaying "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 timeAll your time is spent in several degrees of quality. The more senses you use the higher the quality of the time spent. - E-Mail conversation: 1 sense mostly (vision) -> 1 star
- Actually writing on paper: 2 senses (vision and touch) -> 2 stars
- Talking on the phone: 1 sense (hearing) -> 1 star
- Talking face-to-face: 3 senses (hearing, vision, smell) -> 3 stars
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 addressEveryone 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 ... /facepalm i see that you don't realize the initial purpose of facebook. it's not to make new friends but to keep in touch with old ones. as for security breaches i've heard of a few individual cases but it's hardly a widespread phenomena, you don't hear about peoples getting their whole lives ruined over facebook nor do you hear about mass stalkers using facebook exclusively. The security of facebook is fine as long as you know how to set your profile on hidden. no one can view, or even search for it, but yourself and your friends... and btw stop making up statistics, you nor do i have any proof that "all too often" people get addicted to facebook and if you eliminate that point half your argument is invalid. the other half about spammers, i'm not quite sure what the problem really is, spam filters filter out billions of spam emails a day. even if hackers and spammers were to get their hands on your email how does the pose any threat to your security at all? 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. using that logic eating is a bad thing. i guess we should stop eating also. /sarcasm
|
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.
|
On June 14 2010 13:27 Malgrif wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 12:08 Rabiator wrote:On June 13 2010 03:43 Malgrif wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 12 2010 23:00 Rabiator wrote:On FacebookSaying "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 timeAll your time is spent in several degrees of quality. The more senses you use the higher the quality of the time spent. - E-Mail conversation: 1 sense mostly (vision) -> 1 star
- Actually writing on paper: 2 senses (vision and touch) -> 2 stars
- Talking on the phone: 1 sense (hearing) -> 1 star
- Talking face-to-face: 3 senses (hearing, vision, smell) -> 3 stars
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 addressEveryone 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 ... /facepalm i see that you don't realize the initial purpose of facebook. it's not to make new friends but to keep in touch with old ones. as for security breaches i've heard of a few individual cases but it's hardly a widespread phenomena, you don't hear about peoples getting their whole lives ruined over facebook nor do you hear about mass stalkers using facebook exclusively. The security of facebook is fine as long as you know how to set your profile on hidden. no one can view, or even search for it, but yourself and your friends... and btw stop making up statistics, you nor do i have any proof that "all too often" people get addicted to facebook and if you eliminate that point half your argument is invalid. the other half about spammers, i'm not quite sure what the problem really is, spam filters filter out billions of spam emails a day. even if hackers and spammers were to get their hands on your email how does the pose any threat to your security at all? 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. 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:
- You can survive without Facebook, but you can not survive without eating.
- The negative effects from eating too much can be seen by everyone who meets you in real life, but those from excessive useage of Facebook (or computer games) can not. Thus your friends / parents could try to intervene / help you with your eating disorders, but it is much harder to do for "invisible damage" from surfing too much.
So ridicule my arguments if you like, that doesnt make them less valid in the slightest.
|
"Hello everyone, Dustin Browder here."
"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
|
It took a while, but i'm glad that they decided to fix the problems.
I mean who can say no to cute kittens?
|
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.
|
yeah thank god they got the message
|
On June 14 2010 20:01 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 13:27 Malgrif wrote:On June 13 2010 12:08 Rabiator wrote:On June 13 2010 03:43 Malgrif wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 12 2010 23:00 Rabiator wrote:On FacebookSaying "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 timeAll your time is spent in several degrees of quality. The more senses you use the higher the quality of the time spent. - E-Mail conversation: 1 sense mostly (vision) -> 1 star
- Actually writing on paper: 2 senses (vision and touch) -> 2 stars
- Talking on the phone: 1 sense (hearing) -> 1 star
- Talking face-to-face: 3 senses (hearing, vision, smell) -> 3 stars
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 addressEveryone 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 ... /facepalm i see that you don't realize the initial purpose of facebook. it's not to make new friends but to keep in touch with old ones. as for security breaches i've heard of a few individual cases but it's hardly a widespread phenomena, you don't hear about peoples getting their whole lives ruined over facebook nor do you hear about mass stalkers using facebook exclusively. The security of facebook is fine as long as you know how to set your profile on hidden. no one can view, or even search for it, but yourself and your friends... and btw stop making up statistics, you nor do i have any proof that "all too often" people get addicted to facebook and if you eliminate that point half your argument is invalid. the other half about spammers, i'm not quite sure what the problem really is, spam filters filter out billions of spam emails a day. even if hackers and spammers were to get their hands on your email how does the pose any threat to your security at all? 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. 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: - You can survive without Facebook, but you can not survive without eating.
- The negative effects from eating too much can be seen by everyone who meets you in real life, but those from excessive useage of Facebook (or computer games) can not. Thus your friends / parents could try to intervene / help you with your eating disorders, but it is much harder to do for "invisible damage" from surfing too much.
So ridicule my arguments if you like, that doesnt make them less valid in the slightest. 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.
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.
|
So I was worried about buying SC2 because I'm moving to Europe in a few months and don't want to be locked in a region I'm not going to be living in. I've been scouring this forum and the SC2 beta forums looking for an answer. I then sent an e-mail to Blizzard account services asking if it was possible to change my region once I get to Europe. Here's their response:
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.
|
On June 14 2010 17:52 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +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.
lol I'm glad there are a few people who at least realize this is a likely part of why facebook was integrated in.
I trust nothing in Blizzard's words anymore, I expect to be let down by their updates for awhile so I guess I'll reserve my true judgement on whatever "patch" they put out to respond to this (watch them monetize chat rooms haha)...I still just think it's ridiculous Heroes of Newerth can have features BNet 2.0 doesn't...I only payed $30 for that hell.
|
I honestly think the majority of problems battle.net has in it's current form will be rectified before release, if not a bit later. Time will tell, though
|
we seem to be getting this response rather piecemeal... i thought there was going to be one big address.
|
On June 18 2010 10:55 Subversion wrote:
we seem to be getting this response rather piecemeal... i thought there was going to be one big address.
Since when does blizzard do stuff that way, except at Blizzcons etc?
|
On June 05 2010 08:55 Robstickle wrote:
Note to self, kittens get results. Now hopefully they actually mean what they say...
This is what I said to myself lol. Hmmmm.... maybe I can bribe my teachers with a video of kittens next year.^^(lol jk but it would be cool if it worked)
Husky, you are ritardo! Thats Husky in Italiano(first word in Italian I learned lol).
|
On June 15 2010 00:32 SpiritAshura wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 17:52 Umpteen wrote: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. lol I'm glad there are a few people who at least realize this is a likely part of why facebook was integrated in. I trust nothing in Blizzard's words anymore, I expect to be let down by their updates for awhile so I guess I'll reserve my true judgement on whatever "patch" they put out to respond to this (watch them monetize chat rooms haha)...I still just think it's ridiculous Heroes of Newerth can have features BNet 2.0 doesn't...I only payed $30 for that hell.
Same about Tribal Trouble which is also $30. Plus The Battle For Wesnoth has more features in its lobby than B.net2.0 does, and its FREE.
edit: oops double post!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/1/4/128755632615620381.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx153/BlindFremen2/horatiopussywhipped.jpg)
