|
On May 08 2012 16:08 Pitrocelli wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 15:45 jmbthirteen wrote:On May 08 2012 15:33 Pitrocelli wrote:
We are not getting this features.
We are forced to pay AGAIN to get features promised in game we already bought - WoL.
Shame on them unless they provide all this features in WoL patch for free. like you weren't gonna get HotS anyways. Believe it or not big percentage of former WoL players are done with Blizzard after 2 dissapointing years. People buying subpar products over and over again degraded into passive - milking cow position. You get candy, instantly forget about bad history and scream "Take my money !" Until consumers like this are extinct companies will be cutting content out of game and providing subpar products .. enjoy it, u are the one causing it
sorry, but no, a big percentage of former WoL players didn't leave the game because of ANY of these things Blizzard will be implementing in HotS.
and like the guy above said, these features weren't promised to be in WoL.
|
On May 08 2012 16:08 Pitrocelli wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 15:45 jmbthirteen wrote:On May 08 2012 15:33 Pitrocelli wrote:
We are not getting this features.
We are forced to pay AGAIN to get features promised in game we already bought - WoL.
Shame on them unless they provide all this features in WoL patch for free. like you weren't gonna get HotS anyways. Believe it or not big percentage of former WoL players are done with Blizzard after 2 dissapointing years. People buying subpar products over and over again degraded into passive - milking cow position. You get candy, instantly forget about bad history and scream "Take my money !" Until consumers like this are extinct companies will be cutting content out of game and providing subpar products .. enjoy it, u are the one causing it
That'll show em! Keep up the good fight
|
NO lan omfg omfg omfg omfg. /sarcasm
|
On May 08 2012 15:48 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 14:13 Seiniyta wrote:On May 08 2012 12:24 Liquid`Zephyr wrote:On May 08 2012 12:18 Probulous wrote:On May 08 2012 11:27 Liquid`Zephyr wrote:On May 08 2012 11:21 windsupernova wrote:
How dare Blizzard re add features Grrrrrr. Should have left Bnet as it is. Its almost like they realized they screwed up and are trying to correct their mistake it makes me soooo mad.
its not that we are mad that we will now have these features. its that blizzard intentionally left out basic functionalities that previous incarnations of a ~12 year old starcraft had [or other lesser RTS games] in order to readd them later to make more money. owning WoL feels like i bought an 2012 aston martin with a tape deck and roll down windows and its just frustrating That's a pretty big call. It is also possible that Blizzard just had completely the wrong idea about what the community valued in the previous game and have been playing catch up since then. The improvements they have made since launch suggests the latter to me. Companies make mistakes and to just assume they do them on purpose is a tad extreme. You're suggesting they intentionally sabotaged their major release product so as to provide old features during the expansion. What if WOL completely flopped? It's not impossible but I find it highly unlikely that they would do this on purpose. admittedly its just my opinion. if, while designing the biggest and most anticipated rts sequel of all time, Multiplayer resume from replay, Global Play, Multilanguage support, Clan/group system, Unranked matchmaking and Multiplayer replay viewing seem like things that never crossed blizzards minds as things that could be added to sc2 [while most have existed in other, older, blizzard games with overwhelming positive feedback], or you believe that they believed the community would not enjoy then you are free to take the other side. Contray to popular belief, despite the cash cow that's World of Warcraft Blizzard doesn't has an endless amounts of resources to work with when developing a game. I'm sure those things crossed Blizzard's mind during developement but their priority were elsewhere. The game engine, building the framework of battle.net 2.0, not only for SC2 but for World of Warcraft and Diablo 3. I think most of the work went into the game engine and made sure you can actually play it. They also probably looked at Battle.net 1.0 and saw what people were actually using things for, they initially scrapped chat channels in battle.net 2.0 because they found that chat channels in the first one were dominated of spammers and the like which isn't ideal. It was a bad idea to remove chat channels but I can understand their thought process. They probably went over all the stuff and cut things that they thought would speed up developement time by quite a bit. (remember, SC2 was in developement for ages). I also think that after WoW Blizzard kind of forgot that what works for a MMO doesn't always work for an RTS. (The lack of Global play) for example. Although Blizzard made some terrible decisions not including some crucial things It's probably not because of some marketing scheme. They prefer had all that stuff at launch and for HoTs come with actual new exciting changes to Battle.net instead of these overdue things. Yeh im sure there priorities were designing cool units like the collosus and the mauruders. Developing nice maps like steppes of war and incinetation zone, and making that facebook implementation stuff that nobody cares about, while having no clue what the community reallye wanted (really want chat channels?)
Dont be so cynical! Their priorities werent spent on that but rather on the most pivotal question the puppets of activision could possibly have to answer "How can we justify giving you any resources when your non-WoW franchises are stand alone games that dont require either annual re-lease like the wonderful and innovative Call of Duty cash cow or are not paid for monthly?" And being the good puppets of Activision it took them 3 years to figure it out. Of course! Why sell one game for 40 dollars and an expo for 20 like the old SC when you can sell one game for 180 dollars instead!
|
Awesome news! Now we just need LAN mode and then Imma be like  .
But seriously, it;s good to know in a concrete way that Blizzard is listening to feedback - they say they do all the time, but the proof's in the pudding. And this pudding is tasty indeed! Now if only I could find that cake...
|
On May 08 2012 16:15 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 15:48 Hider wrote:On May 08 2012 14:13 Seiniyta wrote:On May 08 2012 12:24 Liquid`Zephyr wrote:On May 08 2012 12:18 Probulous wrote:On May 08 2012 11:27 Liquid`Zephyr wrote:On May 08 2012 11:21 windsupernova wrote:
How dare Blizzard re add features Grrrrrr. Should have left Bnet as it is. Its almost like they realized they screwed up and are trying to correct their mistake it makes me soooo mad.
its not that we are mad that we will now have these features. its that blizzard intentionally left out basic functionalities that previous incarnations of a ~12 year old starcraft had [or other lesser RTS games] in order to readd them later to make more money. owning WoL feels like i bought an 2012 aston martin with a tape deck and roll down windows and its just frustrating That's a pretty big call. It is also possible that Blizzard just had completely the wrong idea about what the community valued in the previous game and have been playing catch up since then. The improvements they have made since launch suggests the latter to me. Companies make mistakes and to just assume they do them on purpose is a tad extreme. You're suggesting they intentionally sabotaged their major release product so as to provide old features during the expansion. What if WOL completely flopped? It's not impossible but I find it highly unlikely that they would do this on purpose. admittedly its just my opinion. if, while designing the biggest and most anticipated rts sequel of all time, Multiplayer resume from replay, Global Play, Multilanguage support, Clan/group system, Unranked matchmaking and Multiplayer replay viewing seem like things that never crossed blizzards minds as things that could be added to sc2 [while most have existed in other, older, blizzard games with overwhelming positive feedback], or you believe that they believed the community would not enjoy then you are free to take the other side. Contray to popular belief, despite the cash cow that's World of Warcraft Blizzard doesn't has an endless amounts of resources to work with when developing a game. I'm sure those things crossed Blizzard's mind during developement but their priority were elsewhere. The game engine, building the framework of battle.net 2.0, not only for SC2 but for World of Warcraft and Diablo 3. I think most of the work went into the game engine and made sure you can actually play it. They also probably looked at Battle.net 1.0 and saw what people were actually using things for, they initially scrapped chat channels in battle.net 2.0 because they found that chat channels in the first one were dominated of spammers and the like which isn't ideal. It was a bad idea to remove chat channels but I can understand their thought process. They probably went over all the stuff and cut things that they thought would speed up developement time by quite a bit. (remember, SC2 was in developement for ages). I also think that after WoW Blizzard kind of forgot that what works for a MMO doesn't always work for an RTS. (The lack of Global play) for example. Although Blizzard made some terrible decisions not including some crucial things It's probably not because of some marketing scheme. They prefer had all that stuff at launch and for HoTs come with actual new exciting changes to Battle.net instead of these overdue things. Yeh im sure there priorities were designing cool units like the collosus and the mauruders. Developing nice maps like steppes of war and incinetation zone, and making that facebook implementation stuff that nobody cares about, while having no clue what the community reallye wanted (really want chat channels?) Dont be so cynical! Their priorities werent spent on that but rather on the most pivotal question the puppets of activision could possibly have to answer "How can we justify giving you any resources when your non-WoW franchises are stand alone games that dont require either annual re-lease like the wonderful and innovative Call of Duty cash cow or are not paid for monthly?" And being the good puppets of Activision it took them 3 years to figure it out. Of course! Why sell one game for 40 dollars and an expo for 20 like the old SC when you can sell one game for 180 dollars instead!
Activision doesn't really has any say in what Blizzard does, it's Activision-Blizzard with Blizzard doing it's own thing. It's easy to blame Activision for mistakes that Blizzard made but it's just Blizzard fucking up.
And I hope you realize that the people who design the units and the likes are different then the ones that work on features for battle.net right?
|
Germany86 Posts
wow, feels like only 2 things are missing
GOD DAMN FREAKIN LAN SUPPORT!
and live ingame streaming! (i wanna handle that camera on my own and dont let casters ruin it)
|
Love all of these features. The multiplayer resume-from-replay thing should be a good enough solution to the tournament disconnects issue. Mostly I love that we'll finally have CLAN functionality :D
|
On May 08 2012 16:12 dezi wrote:
Anyone else expierenced real-id features for friends added without the real-id? Some of my contacts just started to show up the status of what they're currently doing beside the fact i didn't added them per real-id Oo
I think that has to do with battle-tag thing they added.
|
Yeah it's really funny how it is. I wouldn't be surprised if they just intentionally didn't put all those features into the game so that they could force-feed HotS. I wouldn't be surprised they added something like LAN and decent custom game system to Legacy Of The Void in order to force-feed that as well.
Really annoying that companies do this. It's not like people really have a choice, either.
|
On May 08 2012 16:20 choe wrote:
wow, feels like only 2 things are missing
GOD DAMN FREAKIN LAN SUPPORT!
and live ingame streaming! (i wanna handle that camera on my own and dont let casters ruin it)
Lan support is never gonna happen and people still asking for it are banging their heads against a wall.
|
On May 08 2012 16:27 Shikyo wrote:
It's not like people really have a choice, either.
Yes they do, don't buy the freaking game.
|
It's disappointing that they completely ripped off the idea of resuming games from replays without giving any credit to the guys who have already designed a mod that does that. Also, they say it will be ready "at or around the release date." If some non-Blizzard employed modders managed to do it, surely a multi million dollar company like Blizzard should be able to churn out that shit easily by the release date.
|
withholding unranked matchmaking has lost them a lot of casual players
|
On May 08 2012 16:13 jmbthirteen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 16:08 Pitrocelli wrote:On May 08 2012 15:45 jmbthirteen wrote:On May 08 2012 15:33 Pitrocelli wrote:
We are not getting this features.
We are forced to pay AGAIN to get features promised in game we already bought - WoL.
Shame on them unless they provide all this features in WoL patch for free. like you weren't gonna get HotS anyways. Believe it or not big percentage of former WoL players are done with Blizzard after 2 dissapointing years. People buying subpar products over and over again degraded into passive - milking cow position. You get candy, instantly forget about bad history and scream "Take my money !" Until consumers like this are extinct companies will be cutting content out of game and providing subpar products .. enjoy it, u are the one causing it sorry, but no, a big percentage of former WoL players didn't leave the game because of ANY of these things Blizzard will be implementing in HotS. and like the guy above said, these features weren't promised to be in WoL.
Also if you don't think HOTS will sell well you are silly :D
|
Iceland4053 Posts
On May 08 2012 16:29 jsemmens wrote:
It's disappointing that they completely ripped off the idea of resuming games from replays without giving any credit to the guys who have already designed a mod that does that.
They've been doing it for a long time(addons in WoW). Blizzard isn't really big on giving props to developers in the community.
|
"Multiplayer resume from replay" - Blizzard heard us after all!:D
|
On May 08 2012 16:36 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 16:29 jsemmens wrote:
It's disappointing that they completely ripped off the idea of resuming games from replays without giving any credit to the guys who have already designed a mod that does that. They've been doing it for a long time(addons in WoW). Blizzard isn't really big on giving props to developers in the community.
Isn't the fact that they're implementing it the biggest credit/props of them all?
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
On May 08 2012 16:24 Powster wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 16:12 dezi wrote:
Anyone else expierenced real-id features for friends added without the real-id? Some of my contacts just started to show up the status of what they're currently doing beside the fact i didn't added them per real-id Oo I think that has to do with battle-tag thing they added.
Maybe - but some friend that already have created their Battle-Tag don't show up their status like those other guys do Oo
|
On May 08 2012 16:17 sephirotharg wrote:Awesome news! Now we just need LAN mode and then Imma be like . But seriously, it;s good to know in a concrete way that Blizzard is listening to feedback - they say they do all the time, but the proof's in the pudding. And this pudding is tasty indeed! Now if only I could find that cake...
Well with the replay resume option i think we will never see a lan mode.
and i hope there are some news about the beta at the event to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
