EPTBattle.net name to be phased out - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
seemsgood
5527 Posts
| ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
Blizzard Battle.net, apparently. | ||
|
Jae Zedong
407 Posts
| ||
|
lestye
United States4242 Posts
| ||
|
Creager
Germany1962 Posts
Now they only need to have an option to disable skins in SC2. | ||
digmouse
China6331 Posts
On August 15 2017 16:56 Creager wrote: Well, it's good to see that they listened and canned the rebrand, but still have to wonder why they thought changing it was a good idea in the first place without reaching out to your customers for feedback? Now they only need to have an option to disable skins in SC2. From what I heard apparently in the business world a lot of their partners have no idea Battle.net belongs to Blizzard, resulting lots of confusion that BN is a standalone platform and Blizzard is just a partner of it. | ||
|
Creager
Germany1962 Posts
On August 15 2017 22:49 digmouse wrote: From what I heard apparently in the business world a lot of their partners have no idea Battle.net belongs to Blizzard, resulting lots of confusion that BN is a standalone platform and Blizzard is just a partner of it. Interesting, but in the end it doesn't come down to being recognizable in the business world, it's about being recognizable for your customers. | ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
Not complaining per se, but WTF! I thought destiny was an activision product edit: Did Blizz devote developer time for the new Destiny? Or is this just cross-company advertising? | ||
|
lestye
United States4242 Posts
On August 16 2017 06:41 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Im not sure where to post this, and it might warrant a thread of it's own, but Blizzard Battle.net has Destiny now. Not complaining per se, but WTF! I thought destiny was an activision product edit: Did Blizz devote developer time for the new Destiny? Or is this just cross-company advertising? This was announce ages ago. It is an Activision product. "We’re big fans of Destiny here at Blizzard, and we’re honored to be able to help the talented folks at Bungie and Activision bring their much-anticipated sequel to a new platform. Being on Battle.net will allow Destiny 2 to plug in to our existing global network, freeing up the developers at Bungie to focus their energy and resources on making the best and most fun game they possibly can. This also means Destiny 2 players will have access to our online social functionality, including chat with friends, the ability to see which of their friends are online in Destiny 2 or in Blizzard games, and the ability to stream gameplay directly to Facebook." They didn't put development time into it, Bungie has one of Activision's other studios working on the PC port. A lot of people speculate that Activision didn't want give 30% of their income to Valve for this huge blockbuster game, so that's a big reason why they'd want it on Battle.net | ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
On August 16 2017 06:49 lestye wrote: This was announce ages ago. It is an Activision product. "We’re big fans of Destiny here at Blizzard, and we’re honored to be able to help the talented folks at Bungie and Activision bring their much-anticipated sequel to a new platform. Being on Battle.net will allow Destiny 2 to plug in to our existing global network, freeing up the developers at Bungie to focus their energy and resources on making the best and most fun game they possibly can. This also means Destiny 2 players will have access to our online social functionality, including chat with friends, the ability to see which of their friends are online in Destiny 2 or in Blizzard games, and the ability to stream gameplay directly to Facebook." They didn't put development time into it, Bungie has one of Activision's other studios working on the PC port. A lot of people speculate that Activision didn't want give 30% of their income to Valve for this huge blockbuster game, so that's a big reason why they'd want it on Battle.net Cool I didn't know they were planning on this. Yeah, it's cool if they wanna endorse their own products, but holy fuck that is a huge number of players being exposed to all of Blizzard's products, and vice versa. This is going ot make bank for Activision/Blizzard | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
|
reneg
United States859 Posts
On August 16 2017 08:21 TheFish7 wrote: The word "App" annoys me irrationally. I know what a computer program is, thanks for assuming I'm an idiot who only knows how to press colorful buttons on a phone. But at no point do they seem to assume that? It IS an application after all... | ||
|
Makro
France16890 Posts
good job | ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
Blizzard will focus even more on kids as a target group. Battle.net name can be a problem for parents of these kids. Thats what I read between these lines. At least that is one possible option. Blizzard does not want to be connected with battling, battles and all the implied stuff that much anymore. In the 90s it was a thing to go to battle, it was reputable to figure out the battle, to come out on top in battle, to defeat the enemy in battle = "only the strong survive". Now stuff should be easy to figure out and handle, not a battle. Instead of battle your enemy you shoulda find and make friends, reveal and develop social skills, be friendly, feel comfortable, there is room for everybody, just come in and be happy! I believe some of their probably newly acquired social justice developers pushed that forward and insisted to make the world a better place that way, especially as long as trump is in charge, which is bad enough. We don't need a battle net at the same time, which would be two bad things. lol As well girl guys, don't forget girl! Battle is bad for girl. Make love not war! How would girl ever identify with battle? I am pretty convinced these are the true reasons. Probably some young marketing geniuses insisted on it to be not PC enough and it limiting their target group. In that sense I suggest calling it happy.net or something. Also that would create less customer support cases. When people do not imply battle when using the service, there will be less dispute between player and less stuff to handle, so ultimately reducing costs. It as well hints at the upcoming procuct line, as oringinally mentioned. Probably battle wont fit well for all of these anymore. Can we expect new software which is not connected to battle in any way from blizzard? Software which would suffer when being run from a place called "battle..."? The reason they pretend for the change is no honest to me. Having two such powerful brands is an advantage, not a disadvantage. It is like big mac and burger king, you know it belongs together and it is full of meat, which is bad for vegetarians though and hence makes world a bad place! ;-( Welcome to happy.net guys! And now FINALLY get happy, create less tickets, bring your gf, god damn! User was warned for this post | ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
On September 23 2016 02:19 outscar wrote: What the fuck... Blizz seems to be losing it's shit. Lame! Battle.net 1.0 forever in my heart! Welcome happy.net to your heart or gtfo! | ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
On September 22 2016 09:04 claybones wrote: Why would they do this? Valve's online service is Steam and people seem to do just fine with that. I guess you could argue that Steam encompasses more than just Valve products but it's still the service supporting their titles. Also, Battle.net just sounds cool as hell. You really can't abandon that cool of a name. It only sounds cool to you, it is discriminating against minorities (e. g. gurl/kid/non white(cause of colonialization & hitler, you know). Get along with it or be a racist! | ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
But I had to make some fun of that. But in all seriousness, I am pretty convinced that battle.net had to fall as a victim of language hygiene. I am serious about that and I can't come up with anything else reasonable. It makes as few sence as if valve dropped steam as a name or burger king big mac. The official reasons they give don't seem to be conclusive to me, time will tell tho. Edit: You warn me for that post? Are you serious TL-Staff? :D Something is going majorly wrong here if you can't put posts like that up, which are meant to be funny. You guys got some serious issues. Everything I wrote is pure freedom of speech, I am not even sure what is wrong about that. Why would people even come into these forums if it isn't allowed to speak your mind here? Is it cause I mentioned trump? Or is it cause I did not mention blizzard in an exclusively positive way? No idea why I get a warning for that. Not that I bother, just out of interest, will you ever tell the reason or is it some secret shit nobody has to know? | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5226 Posts
Imagine if every thread was filled with these "jokes." It wouldn't be funny at all, it'd be annoying because no one but you came here to politicize anything. But with that said, the first thing I did was get the icon for the old Battle.net shortcut and replace the Blizzard launcher icon with it while renaming my Blizzard launcher Battle.net. And I never looked back because I am creature of habit and I have so many fond memories of Battle.net. I'm glad to hear that Blizzard decided to keep Battle.net though. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12252 Posts
On August 16 2017 13:15 LSN wrote: No, lets be serious guys. I know sarcasm isn't understood well online, or at all, lol. But I had to make some fun of that. But in all seriousness, I am pretty convinced that battle.net had to fall as a victim of language hygiene. I am serious about that and I can't come up with anything else reasonable. It makes as few sence as if valve dropped steam as a name, as mentioned. The official reasons they give don't seem to be conclusive to me, time will tell tho. It's not a political correctness measure. The reasons make perfect sense. When SC1 and Diablo1 were developed, there were already several branded third-party matchmaking services: TEN, Mplayer.net, Heat.net, Gamespy, DWANGO, Bungie.net, Kali, etc. It made perfect sense at the time to create an alternative branded online gaming service: Battle.net. By the time War3 came out, many of those competitor services had died out, and it was becoming more common for developers to host their own online multiplayer services. There was no longer any need for them to differentiate themselves from competitor services because those competitors no longer existed. The "Battle.net 2.0" effort was mostly grandfathering the name. Any other company would have just called that environment "Multiplayer" or simply [gamename] itself. You don't log into a service when you play Hearthstone. You're just playing Hearthstone. You don't log into Battle.net to play HotS, you're just playing HotS. The backend service doesn't need to exist as a separate entity or separate brand anymore, it's built-in. | ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
On August 16 2017 13:30 Excalibur_Z wrote: It's not a political correctness measure. The reasons make perfect sense. When SC1 and Diablo1 were developed, there were already several branded third-party matchmaking services: TEN, Mplayer.net, Heat.net, Gamespy, DWANGO, Bungie.net, Kali, etc. It made perfect sense at the time to create an alternative branded online gaming service: Battle.net. By the time War3 came out, many of those competitor services had died out, and it was becoming more common for developers to host their own online multiplayer services. There was no longer any need for them to differentiate themselves from competitor services because those competitors no longer existed. The "Battle.net 2.0" effort was mostly grandfathering the name. Any other company would have just called that environment "Multiplayer" or simply [gamename] itself. You don't log into a service when you play Hearthstone. You're just playing Hearthstone. You don't log into Battle.net to play HotS, you're just playing HotS. The backend service doesn't need to exist as a separate entity or separate brand anymore, it's built-in. Well ok, so you warned me cause you are of different opinion and didn't understand irony/sarcasm in my post. Great to know, seems to be best practise here. | ||
| ||
