EPTThis change isn't "bad" per-say, just completely unnecessary and unwarranted.
Battle.net name to be phased out - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Shinta)
United States1716 Posts
This change isn't "bad" per-say, just completely unnecessary and unwarranted. | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
On September 22 2016 07:43 GGzerG wrote: It's been battle.net since I was a kid, always bnet in my heart bros. Same. What a way to fuck up my morning. | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
Spazer
Canada8035 Posts
On September 22 2016 14:14 BigFan wrote: Pretty stupid change if you ask me. As mentioned many times, battle.net is already known throughout the gaming industry. Why change it now? Because they want their brand to be easy to find for people who aren't necessarily part of the gaming industry. | ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
| ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12248 Posts
They've actually been taking steps to transition away from Battle.net for a long time now: WoW is worldofwarcraft.com, Hearthstone is playhearthstone.com, Overwatch is playoverwatch.com. There's no denying that Battle.net is an established brand, but they're right that it's a relic from the days where you had a centralized gaming service like TEN, Mplayer, Heat.net, Dwango, Zone, Kali, and so on. Battle.net was the competitor to those services. These days, every company's got their own multiplayer servers, so there's less of a need to spawn something with a different name. | ||
|
Thouhastmail
Korea (North)876 Posts
On September 22 2016 12:48 Djzapz wrote: Oh well, everything good about my childhood is dying. And that's the way life goes. Actually, what we love is ourselves in those times, not the old time itself. | ||
|
endy
Switzerland8970 Posts
| ||
|
XenOsky
Chile2356 Posts
| ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
But I don't get why it has to be such a bad/useless/stupid/... decision in anyway. Over time, though, we’ve seen that there’s been occasional confusion and inefficiencies related to having two separate identities under which everything falls—Blizzard and Battle.net. Given that built-in multiplayer support is a well-understood concept and more of a normal expectation these days, there isn’t as much of a need to maintain a separate identity for what is essentially our networking technology. This is quite an explicit reason, and it make sense. There are new players everyday, but there is a fixed (or even decreasing) number of veteran. And in any case, this won't prevent me from keeping calling it bnet anyway. As it is quite a symbol, I just hope they'll have some 'hidden' references to bnet in future interfaces/game menus. | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1159 Posts
| ||
PinoKotsBeer
Netherlands1385 Posts
| ||
|
ndesktop
Romania109 Posts
| ||
|
Shana
Indonesia1814 Posts
| ||
nimdil
Poland3767 Posts
On September 22 2016 08:44 B-royal wrote: Sounds like a really dumb decision over something inconsequential. I guess "Blizzard is down" or "when will Blizzard be back up again?" will become common sentences in the future :D I agree. I think they should put more branding effort into battle.net, instead they just called their platform by company. Unless of course no new games ever again - only patches, visual updates to old titles, expansions and online gaming. In which case Blizzard = battle.net. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany1160 Posts
If your ID is good, and well known, dont change your ID. Keep the fugging name. | ||
|
SharkStarcraft
Austria2271 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
I guess random marketing dep guy has to justify its salary, though | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
| ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
| ||
| ||
