EPT
Confirmed chat channels - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Ronald_McD
Canada807 Posts
| ||
|
anch
United States5457 Posts
On June 18 2010 06:02 Zanez.smarty wrote: lol some very sad entitled children on this forums... Blizz says: We will give you chat channels some time after release, but they wont be public. Babies say: WAAHHHH WE WANT CHAT CHANNELS Blizz says: Uh yeah, you will get chat channels some time after release Babies say: WAAAAHHHH WE WANT CHAT CHANNELS SOON Blizz says: Uh yeah, chat channels are coming soon. Not right away, because we are busy, but soon. Babies say: WAAAHHHH WE WANT THEM NOW NOW NOW TEMPER TANTRUM. you must have a childhood filled with lies or empty promises. Blizzard didnt even announce chat channel until up to this thread. we werent throwing tantrum about getting them soon or now, we were weighing out the need of chat channel vs no chat channel the whole time. | ||
|
voltik
United States42 Posts
| ||
|
DemiSe
883 Posts
Good move by blizzard to listen to the community. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
Remember guys, this is not Battle.net 1.0. No, it's painfully obvious that it isn't =P It is not just a simple set of chat rooms and list of matches. No, right now it's a list of matches and no chat rooms. This is supposed to compete with Steam. You know Steam? That program you download games off of, cross gaming platforms that break the rules of the games themselves Blizzard have had their games downloadable for years now. (cross factional and cross server and cross battlegroups), that works in games, Like Battle.net 1.0? replays, Online replays were in Battle.net 1.0, not in Battle.net 2.0. single player mode, for existing AND future games of many different styles and backgrounds? Yeah that Steam. It has the exact same chat room style that Blizzard has announced will exist in Battle.net 2.0. If you think that Steam came out bulging with all the features that it has now, you are deluding yourself. If you think that Battle.net 2.0 should be as good or better than Steam on it's release day, your expectations are too high. If you think that Battle.net will not be constantly updated AFTER release then you are dumb (and yes, patches will come far more frequently than games are released). I'm not expecting it to be "as good as steam", I'm expecting it to be as good as Battle.net 1.0. Honestly, if it wasn't because I trusted Blizzard to actually add things in patches, the Bnet 2.0 that they have available for release would probably turn me off ANY other developers game. But it's Blizzard and I don't doubt they will make it good in the end - just don't make it out like we have these unreasonably high demands, cause we don't. Before the new Bnet had been unveiled, you know what kind of features people were talking about/hoping for? Intergrated WaaaghTV/HLTV, automated tournaments, livestreams viewable inside Bnet etc etc etc. Chat channels and cross region play? Nobody even CONSIDERED they wouldn't have this, like it seriously didn't even enter debate (same with online replays, everyone thought they for sure would be in this time). Anyway, this reminds me of my old idea for pay-to-play tournaments where Blizzard takes like 1-5% of the entrance fee and the rest goes to prizes, like Sit-N-Gos in Poker - now THAT'S a micro transaction I could support =] Totally off-topic I know. | ||
|
Doc Daneeka
United States577 Posts
as to complaints about them 'releasing an unfinished product', bnet2.0 is waaay more ambitious than the original. on one hand, blizzard has to know what we dislike about it, but on the other, be reasonable. the game was ready to beta test and bnet2.0 was functional. i actually don't understand this obsession with the game being perfect at release. you're playing the game right now, and you'll be playing the game when it's released. the main difference is the campaign will be out. seriously, someone explain this to me, cos i'm baffled. you get the game either way right? | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
cross factional what does that even mean? Does that mean I can party up with Night Elfs when I raid Chat Aleph? Cause I wouldn't mind that. The funny part is I've seen so many better systems that weren't even hyped. It was just put into the game, matter of fact, and the developers didn't make a huge fuss about it. Anyone here play Guild Wars? Hit P and you could instantly watch 3-6 high level competitive Guild versus Guild matches streamed live with a 12 minute delay. Its not even like we got that, then I'd be ok with Chat channels being delayed. The thing is we don't even have anything new for all that we've lost. | ||
|
Therick
Norway324 Posts
I shall have none of these lies until i see it | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 18 2010 07:15 Doc Daneeka wrote: i'm pretty sure i remember them saying that they wanted to put chat channels in at some point, but even if they didn't, it's not that surprising. they beta tested a new service, lack of chat channels was one of the main complaints, they decided to implement chat channels. pretty fucking basic. as to complaints about them 'releasing an unfinished product', bnet2.0 is waaay more ambitious than the original. on one hand, blizzard has to know what we dislike about it, but on the other, be reasonable. the game was ready to beta test and bnet2.0 was functional. i actually don't understand this obsession with the game being perfect at release. you're playing the game right now, and you'll be playing the game when it's released. the main difference is the campaign will be out. seriously, someone explain this to me, cos i'm baffled. you get the game either way right? At Blizzcon 2009 they said they wouldn't have chat channels but they had plans/wanted to do "something better" with no details, so people let it be. Then they delayed the game a ton, and when the beta finally came around and their answer was still "no chat channels, but we'll have something better AFTER RELEASE" people were understandably a little bit pissed off and wondered just what the hell was going on. Anyone here play Guild Wars? Hit P and you could instantly watch 3-6 high level competitive Guild versus Guild matches streamed live with a 12 minute delay. How were they streamed? Was it like WaaaghTV/HLTV (i.e a live-replay of sorts) or was it a bona fide stream? | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
How were they streamed? Was it like WaaaghTV/HLTV (i.e a live-replay of sorts) or was it a bona fide stream? live replay. 50 players per game "instance". The servers were more stable then WoW too lol, even though there was no monthly fee. They also had a custom spectator UI. Essentially think WoW BGs except you could go Eagle eye and pull up team statistics and stuff. Maintenance was a monthly occurrence at like 2 pm. Arena.net >>> Battle.net There only failure was PvP was reallly inaccessible. 8 players per team and no tangible rewards besides glory, some cosmetics and a 1k computer every year. It was actually really exciting to watch though, like Dota without creeps and with healers, way better then lolarenas which somehow have "esports" tournaments. Shame that games esport scene never went where it could have. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 18 2010 07:28 Half wrote: live replay. 50 players per game "instance". The servers were more stable then WoW too lol, even though there was no monthly fee. They also had a custom spectator UI. Essentially think WoW BGs except you could go Eagle eye and pull up team statistics and stuff. Maintenance was a monthly occurrence at like 2 pm. Arena.net >>> Battle.net There only failure was PvP was reallly inaccessible. 8 players per team and no tangible rewards besides glory, some cosmetics and a 1k computer every year. It was actually really exciting to watch though, like Dota without creeps and with healers, way better then lolarenas which somehow have "esports" tournaments. Shame that games esport scene never went where it could have. Hopefully this is something Blizzard will add later, unlike chat channels this is something I would have had absolutely no problem with. | ||
|
Doc Daneeka
United States577 Posts
On June 18 2010 07:27 FrozenArbiter wrote: At Blizzcon 2009 they said they wouldn't have chat channels but they had plans/wanted to do "something better" with no details, so people let it be. Then they delayed the game a ton, and when the beta finally came around and their answer was still "no chat channels, but we'll have something better AFTER RELEASE" people were understandably a little bit pissed off and wondered just what the hell was going on. i dunno. yeah i guess it's understandable if you were super hyped-up about it the whole time. personally though i'll just be ecstatic to finally be playing the game, and if bnet is a little clunky at release i think i can live with that, as long as they keep working on it. the thing is, i'm not a game designer so i'm just speculating, but if i were to make a guess, here's how i'm looking at it - the game wasn't just delayed because of bnet (though that was a big part of it) and i say this because stuff that was in the game as recently as december 09/january 10 was being adjusted and taken out. also, it's possible they wanted to concentrate on testing as few a number of things as possible in the new bnet, because it's new and the more variables that could go wrong, the more complicated it would be to fix. maybe the most important reason for them to get it out soon is because they've delayed the game so much and announced it such a long time ago. you can't keep hyping a product that never comes out and expect to make any money out of it. yeah, ideally money shouldn't matter, but it does and it's what allows blizzard to keep putting resources into developing these games. i know that's kind of optimistic and uncritical. just saying, i don't think it can be chalked up to negligence or apathy the way it's made out to be in a lot of posts. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
| ||
|
fdsdfg
United States1251 Posts
On June 18 2010 07:15 Doc Daneeka wrote: as to complaints about them 'releasing an unfinished product', bnet2.0 is waaay more ambitious than the original. on one hand, blizzard has to know what we dislike about it, but on the other, be reasonable. the game was ready to beta test and bnet2.0 was functional. i actually don't understand this obsession with the game being perfect at release. you're playing the game right now, and you'll be playing the game when it's released. the main difference is the campaign will be out. seriously, someone explain this to me, cos i'm baffled. you get the game either way right? Bolded: Really? What do we get that's new? We have matchmaking, friends lists, arranged team games, browsable ladders, etc... all of this was in bnet 1.0. What do we get, avatars and achievements? Yes, we get the game at release when we buy it - but we don't get battle.net - at least not the one we all are used to. We get a gimped version that asks for more money and is unfinished. You're baffled as to why customers get upset when we are asked to pay for an unfinished product? | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
browsable ladders Actually, so far you can't browse any ladders except your own division+your friends, whereas in WC3... well, look for yourself - it's a lot better: http://classic.battle.net/war3/ladder/gateway-select.aspx?Game=W3XP | ||
|
RogerChillingworth
2781 Posts
On June 18 2010 07:53 FrozenArbiter wrote: It's probably not negligence, nor apathy, but it is SOMETHING. They started working on the game in 2003, announced it in 2007. Since the announcement in 2007, the game has been roughly the same gameplay wise - of course it is a million times more polished now, and there have been mechanics added etc but it makes you wonder what they were doing about Battle.net all this time if they can't get basic features into it by release after working on the game for 7 years. They just entrusted the wrong people to do important things. It happens now and again. A big blunder nonetheless. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On June 18 2010 08:44 fdsdfg wrote: Bolded: Really? What do we get that's new? We have matchmaking, friends lists, arranged team games, browsable ladders, etc... all of this was in bnet 1.0. What do we get, avatars and achievements? Yes, we get the game at release when we buy it - but we don't get battle.net - at least not the one we all are used to. We get a gimped version that asks for more money and is unfinished. You're baffled as to why customers get upset when we are asked to pay for an unfinished product? Thats probably the only part of his post that was actually right lol. It is more objectively ambitious then rehashing a (functiona) fifteen year old system. The rest? Not so much. But its ambitious :p. You can't argue that. Nothing about b-net 2.0 is really new. Because it sucks atm. But its clear Blizzard has very ambitious goals with it, the thing is that they haven't delivered on any of them. | ||
|
hacpee
United States752 Posts
On June 18 2010 09:34 Half wrote: Thats probably the only part of his post that was actually right lol. It is more objectively ambitious then rehashing a (functiona) fifteen year old system. The rest? Not so much. But its ambitious :p. You can't argue that. Nothing about b-net 2.0 is really new. Because it sucks atm. But its clear Blizzard has very ambitious goals with it, the thing is that they haven't delivered on any of them. I can see where its ambitious. The new bnet 2.0 is designed to allow Activision Blizzard to charge you for "services" much more easily. Want a new skin? You can buy it with Bnet 2.0! | ||
|
ckw
United States1018 Posts
| ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On June 18 2010 10:18 hacpee wrote: I can see where its ambitious. The new bnet 2.0 is designed to allow Activision Blizzard to charge you for "services" much more easily. Want a new skin? You can buy it with Bnet 2.0! um..ye. | ||
| ||
