|
As many of you know by now SC:L has written a wall-of-text regarding Battle.net. You may not find many new complaints, but hopefully you'll find a different take on the whole situation. We're offering suggestions and we present a broader overall theme regarding Blizzard/community communication.
Please keep in mind that the article isn't a complete discussion of everything and our suggested solutions are just one of many ways Blizzard could improve B.net. As always we enjoy constructive criticism and we appreciate the opportunity to present this to you. Keep in mind that we came across a few sections that we briefly addressed but saved the majority of discussion for separate editorials.
![[image loading]](http://sclegacy.com/features/sc2beta/b.netconcerns/header.jpg)
http://sclegacy.com/articles/730-battlenet-20-concerns
I'm very interested to see what everyone here thinks!
<3
~LoA
|
|
|
Specifically guys, I think the vast majority of TL could benefit from reading these wise words of wisdom....
Within the community, the restricted discussion is most readily apparent across the various fan sites and community boards. We've all observed the flavor of the week posts, where Poster A finds an imbalanced, missing, or incomplete feature and the entire community works itself up into a frenzy; Posters B through Z agree, or "/sign", and we all sit around congratulating ourselves on our amazing deductive abilities while subsequently faulting Blizzard for their lack of intelligence. Rarely, does anything constructive result from this process and all too often does it repeat itself. While nuggets of important information can likely be found in these posts, the manner in which they are created and the cycle they perpetuate does not help the community and does not help the development of StarCraft II. As a community, we need to be more respectful of Blizzard and each other. We need to demand more from each other. We have the knowledge and the ability to be helpful toward impacting the success of our beloved game positively. But this outcome entails focusing on explanations and solutions. Feedback on many of the issues important to us needs to be more than pointing out the flaws. Being able to convey our thoughts maturely and constructively demonstrates to Blizzard that, aside for our extensive experience, there are other reasons why we deserve to be taken seriously. Remember, our demographic isn't the only target-audience. For the vast majority of us, a sale is already assured. There's a sense of misplaced entitlement in the community. While we have a vested interest in the game and experience, we aren't "owed" anything. We have to do our best to stay relevant for the journey; it is the only way to positively affect real change. While the community's issue stems from our limited experience with an unfinished product coupled with our desire to be both relevant and have a game worthy of our treasured history, Blizzard's issue with groupthink is slightly different and bit more complicated.
Blizzard's problem is twofold. Firstly, they have tasked themselves with following up a universally adored game and reinventing the entire online gaming experience in the process. This has led to expectations that cannot be met. Without adequate communication to the fan base, the result is disappointment in various shades. To be fair, during the development of StarCraft II Blizzard has been the most open and transparent that they have ever been regarding one of their games. We have been granted Q&A Batches, Battle Reports, and fan site press events. These were incredible, and they helped energize the base. However, Battle.net - the platform upon which the entire system had to run - was kept secret. Obviously, there are many reasons why Blizzard chose to do this. The issue is that Blizzard has promised to revolutionize every aspect of the online RTS experience and failed to account for their limited experiences in many of the areas required for a polished online experience. Their product remains unfinished and flawed. Without engaging the community, with all of our various talents and experiences, in an open dialogue they relied exclusively on their in-house tunnel vision. This isn't to say that there isn't great debate and discussion in-house regarding the various aspects of the game or the service, but rather that there is no outside dissent. This is readily apparent when you read or watch any of the various interviews with the game designers, producers, or officers. They seem woefully out of touch with what the community is really interested in. The exclusion of chat channels is just one example.
The expectations were set high with StarCraft
Time and time again we see a developer or a producer ask us if the feature is something we really want. Either our thunderous outcry is being communicated inadequately or the decision-makers inside Blizzard are too insulated. Blizzard's isolated stance in conjunction with the tightly controlled message exemplifies groupthink, and this brings us to the second issue regarding the phenomenon: Blizzard is perhaps a victim of its own success. In many regards, they looked on a very high-level at what they have produced in the past and used that as their basis to move forward. To some extent they must feel that they know what is best, and it is evident from some of the interviews that they are in fact "telling" us what we want. A certain amount of "we know what you want" is noticeable. Realistically, while Blizzard has its own vision and desires for Battle.net 2.0 they can't possibly tell what we want. Now, granted that they aren't catering Battle.net just to us, but our concerns should probably still be addressed. It's just good business.
When people have spent years of their lives working on something very specific, tunnel vision is inevitable. Sometimes that works; look at many of the other products Blizzard has created without outside consultation. However, for many of the things that Blizzard and the community want to accomplish with StarCraft II, an open dialogue is important. This is where Blizzard has missed the proverbial bus. Despite the fact that our feedback could be communicated more effectively, they haven't yet figured out how to best receive and evaluate it.
Traditionally, Blizzard Entertainment has developed games quietly. They were characterized as a disengaged, aloof developer, yet they planned, implemented, and supported games reliably. Marketing and public relations has always been a component of Blizzard, but fan sites have largely been excluded from this. Up until the creation of Blizzard's RTS Community Team in the summer of 2007, community sites were largely ignored by the Public Relations department. In the decade preceding the announcement of the sequel, with the exception of the Sandlot Tournament, we were a dismissed demographic. The PR team judged us to be a superfluous extension of their success. We were never engaged despite our best efforts while general gaming publications and traditional news outlets were granted access to which we had traditionally been shut out of. It is only in recent years that we've been recognized as an important part of the overall target market.
Please try to think of Developers as legit human beings and realize that they're capable of making mistakes in design or bad decisions, completely unrelated to their desire to make a profit.
Because frankly, if the reason behind this was a higher up decision coming from corporate suits, which I highly doubt it is, their is nothing in the world that you can do that will make them listen to you. You might as well just stop caring now. In all likelihoods thought, it was not.
Corporate boards rarely concern themselves in such specific details of design anyway. I don't think they even get the difference between group chat and chat channels.
|
I like the custom game browser image in there... great stuff :D
|
Thanks for the feedback guys! We have some more stuff in the works but we knew we had to push this one out ASAP. 
~LoA
|
On June 11 2010 07:03 LordofAscension wrote:Thanks for the feedback guys! We have some more stuff in the works but we knew we had to push this one out ASAP. ~LoA
I thought this was a great article. You guys poured hours of effort into this and it shows. I feel like your work has been drowned alittle bit in all the other critisim of BNET 0.2. Do you think that we will ever hear Blizzards "comprehensive address" of BNET issues that Bashiok talked about?
|
read the whole thing, displays the concerns very well and potential fixes... I just felt that all of what was mentioned had already been discussed very vocally and i'm not sure it needed that full write up - you can find most of that information on TL.net threads if not all of it.
The only benefit I can see from it is that the site is extremely well known and you may have some links to Blizzard that means someone from there may actually read it and take note..
We have already in response to the communities outcrys heard that Blizzard will be making an announcement, I am pretty sure that they were talking in relation to all of the things you have written about.
I dont want to sound negative about an extremely well written article and something that has obviously taken time. I hope the fact that the concerns are all there easy to identify with potential fixes will mean that Blizzard will take notice. In fact I think it may even be worth posting them a transcript via recorded delivery.
|
The article is very well thought out, and you can see that a large amount of time was put into researching and constructing the article. I hope that blizzard do take notice of it, because it is definitely one of the better articles on the issues of bnet 2.0 avaliable.
|
|
|
Someone read my posts, yay!
I liked the article, it was well-written and managed to harbor considerably less rage than mine.
|
So.. we get one of these threads per user (maybe more not sure). Why not make one official general thread about b.net 2 with a main post updated with the latest developments and be done with it..
|
this post talks a lot more then just about chat rooms and cross relam play. This article is also much longer and also better written.
|
Starcraft Legacy's work wasnt really getting the recognition it deserved in that thread. I included it there so that people looking for info could find related material.
|
Personally I think it is great to have such a comprehensive and clear written article on another well known fan site particularly it being an editorial. The more vocal people are in putting their concerns in constructive ways the more likely action will be taken.
Well done, nice article.
|
On June 11 2010 08:56 Archerofaiur wrote:Starcraft Legacy's work wasnt really getting the recognition it deserved in that thread. I included it there so that people looking for info could find related material.
Fair enough. I liked the article. My in-depth response I won't cross-post, but I feel that it's definitely a more moderate response. A good starting point for civil conversation. Although to be honest, at this point it just feels that until Blizzard does or says something else, I don't think we can be any more clear about what we want.
|
Thanks for the feedback so far guys!
<3
~LoA
|
I have read the editorial, and its better than the dumb "constructive" crap you see in the actual Blizzard forum. The article understood the conflict. I like the research and detail of each conflict and how they evolved to what it is now. I like how the editorial talks about how Blizzard is fulfilling their 3 main design goals when it comes to Bnet. The concerns of Bnet are falling through the cracks of these main goals, and the product you see before you will meet them nonetheless. Overall, I loved the editorial, it was a well mannered rant that had feasible suggestions that Blizzard can look up on. Personally, I can understand that Blizzard does not want to see Bnet go "out of control", as they want to keep things confined and under a watchful eye as it seems. However, the missing links are there, and we can only wait and see if this will be a hit or a miss. E-sports will def. feel this in the years to come.
|
This is pretty much a perfect response. It highlights the problems, shows why it's a problem, and possible solutions.
|
While I understand that these are features a lot of people want, no one seems to understand that MOST people do not care about these features. That doesn't mean you should be ignored but it does mean they have more pressing concerns they should deal with first. No matter what order they choose to do things in people are going to complain.
Personally I'm quite glad gameplay comes first to them. Gameplay is more important than Battle.net by a massively wide margin, absolutely no question. If you disagree with that statement, fine, don't buy the game. Most people buy a game for the game itself, not social networking features. And make no mistake, the things people want -- chatting and clans -- are just as much "social networking" as the Facebook integration (which for the record probably didn't take a single developer more than 1 day to implement).
Bottom line: Stuff takes time to make, Blizzard can either use that time and wait to release the game a few more years, or they can release it now and continue to work on it over the next few years. Personally I prefer the ladder. People seem to think there's some mystical 3rd option of get the fairies to use their pixie dust and magically add these features to Battle.net, but that simply isn't reality. Stuff takes time. End of story.
We waited 10 years, and I'm not waiting 10 more because something like 0.1% of the people who are going to buy it want chat. You will get your chat and clans. It just isn't their first priority, and I agree with that decision.
|
Maybe you could have a custom map called something like "chat 1" (for example) with maximum player slots, the only altering to the game would be the ability to stretch the chat window in the lobby.
Orrrr
If only Blizzard could implement open games that were free to join throughout gameplay, then chat channels could be as chill as walking around a town going to starcraft related bars or something hahaha
just an idea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
