|
Source: https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-gb/news/20297652/battlenet-update-21-09-2016
Blizzard announced they will be moving away from the Battle.net brand that served as the multiplayer system for their games since Diablo 1, Starcraft 1 and Warcraft II. The 'Blizzard' brand will feature more prominently.
We’re going to be transitioning away from using the Battle.net name for our gaming service and the functionality connected to it. Battle.net technology will continue to serve as the central nervous system for Blizzard games—nothing is changing in that regard. We'll just be referring to our various products and services using the Blizzard name instead. You've already seen this recently with things like "Blizzard Streaming" and "Blizzard Voice," and more changes are on the way.
When we created Battle.net, the idea of including a tailored online-gaming service together with your game was more of a novel concept, so we put a lot of focus on explaining what the service was and how it worked, including giving it a distinct name. 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.
We just wanted to make sure everyone was aware as we moved forward with this change over the next several months; we’ll provide any relevant updates as the transition progresses.
|
Yeah at this point Blizzard needs to go away
User was temp banned for this post, based on posting history.
|
Meh. A branding change nothing more.
|
Battle.net is a perfect brand per se. Everyone knows it's Blizzard's and that word represents company's whole all-in-one service.
|
On September 22 2016 06:39 LongShot27 wrote:
Yeah at this point Blizzard needs to go away
For changing the name of something? Righto.
|
Wat? The name has always been Battle.net  . Does that mean it's Blizzard.net now? Doesn't feel quite right to log onto Blizzard.net .
|
United States996 Posts
at least i can still say bnet
|
ugh ... there are people out there that get confused by this. Enough to make Blizzard consider and going through with name changing one of their iconic names.
Computers are to accessible nowadays lol.
Origin and Steam namechanging soon ? ;( though I guess Valve is happy that people don't know they own steam lol.
|
BTW, I wonder how people read battle.net, "battle dot net" or "battlenet"
|
I will forever say bnet or battlenet
|
Yeah I really don't understand why they would throw away such a powerful name  . Multiple generations of gamers know about it and enjoyed it. If anything using 'Blizzard' for everything is more confusing as you won't know if someone is referring to the publisher or the online service. 'Blizzard is down' lol
|
On September 22 2016 07:08 Thouhastmail wrote:
BTW, I wonder how people read battle.net, "battle dot net" or "battlenet"
For me it's battlenet and then derivatives for different cases (like "on battlenet" = "na battlenecie")
|
It's been battle.net since I was a kid, always bnet in my heart bros.
|
On September 22 2016 06:55 Phredxor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 06:39 LongShot27 wrote:
Yeah at this point Blizzard needs to go away For changing the name of something? Righto.
Considering this is worth doing.
Releasing an unfinished expansion.
Not addressing balance.
|
|
|
Yup I see no real reason for this. Wasting time and energy on things that don't need to be changed.
|
I know it doesn't change anything really, it's just a name, but really? I really dislike any time a company throws away its established icons and slogans, its long-built traditional image, in a vain attempt to look trendy or chic. I never understand the motivation behind it, and it always just results in a more boring, sterile image.
|
On September 22 2016 07:24 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
'Blizzard is down' lol
I thought the same thing. This will become really confusing saying stuff like: "Blizzard is slow today", "I was kicked out of Blizzard again", "Blizzard went down", "Blizzard needs maintenance". It just doesnt sound right.
|
It feels like the end of an era.
|
Seeing as how all the Blizzard games' forums are on battle.net, I wonder if the websites will change...
|
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 get it from a marketing standpoint, but still.... if you were going to do this you should've done it when SC2 WoL released with battle.net 2.0 , not now that people just got familiar with it!
|
i always call it b.net so i dunno
|
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.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Optimization is really boring sometimes. ..
|
My future children will be saying "Blizzard" when talking about the StarCraft 3 servers. I'll have to lecture them about the good ol' B.Net 1.0 days.
|
Pretty sure a lot of people are still going to keep saying battle net, just like how most people refused to call TSL.Killer "Swagger".
|
End of an era.
Battle.net was such a good name.
|
I always thought that Battle.net was a really great name. I can't really imagine calling it anything else, honestly. o.o
|
It makes sense because Battle.net comes from a historical standpoint where "multiplayer" was not virtually synonymous to internet multiplayer, but local area network or a direct IP connection. The Battle.net brand was used specifically to differentiate from those methods of multiplayer. However, newer Blizzard games no longer support those other modes. When you play Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3, you are simply playing "Multiplayer" which people automatically assume is internet-based.
|
Why? Just why?
Battle.net is so unique and a well known name for gaming industry now. Why would you change this name at all? I mean... Even my wife knows what is "Battle.net". Its soo cool...
I guess Chris Metzen somehow owns "Battle.net" name :D
Oh btw i hope they let battle.net name stay alive till 30 November... Its Battle.net's 20th birthday. Wow... 20 years in gaming industry..... And they change it.
|
Blizzard, what are you smoking?
|
|
|
I guess battle.net (the actual domain) is going to be redirected?
|
battle.net is literally the best name out of any gaming service
a possible outcome of this is to encompass more activision games. instead of b.net being associated to the starcraft, warcraft and diablo brands, being "blizzard.net" could extend itself into being more of a steam-like platform that sells you games on demand, even potential 3rd parties. We may even see hardware in the future similar to a steam-box. I'm not saying SC2 on your TV would become a thing, but maybe a dedicated blizzard.net streaming service and the ability to play PC games you already own as a console version such as Diablo/WoW/Overwatch on your TV. I think the brand of blizzard.net creates opportunity to go much further than just a simple desktop app that launches games.
wouldn't surprise me to see more activision involvement, maybe this is pressure from investors.
|
I'm really looking forward to Blizzard.net so we can play their newer titles on a LAN again.
Hopefully the technology is there yet.
|
I'm curious about the decision process on that one. "Battle.net" is something that is instantly recognizable as their multiplayer and social platform, why would they need to change it?
|
blizzard.net ? are you freaking kidding me ?
|
I can see why but battle.net was so iconic and cool
Oh well, everything good about my childhood is dying.
|
On September 22 2016 11:19 purakushi wrote:I guess battle.net (the actual domain) is going to be redirected?
lol you think they're just going to let this go?
they could sell it for millions if they wanted to
|
Yeah, can't say I like this "change". Should have kept is as Battle.net.
This change isn't "bad" per-say, just completely unnecessary and unwarranted.
|
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.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Pretty stupid change if you ask me. As mentioned many times, battle.net is already known throughout the gaming industry. Why change it now?
|
Canada8029 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.
|
bummer, o well not the biggest of deals.
|
United States12235 Posts
They're not gonna call it "blizzard.net", I don't know where you're getitng that idea. It's just gonna be "Blizzard Launcher", "Blizzard Account", "Blizzard BattleTag", and so on.
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
The amount of negativity is quite impressive. Sure bnet has always been our reference, I also grew up with it at some point.
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.
|
|
|
Marketing department needs to do something.... so they come up with stuff like this.
|
I think "The Artist formerly known as Battle.net" would be a good name.
|
|
|
Poland3748 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.
|
Tastetosis advice:
If your ID is good, and well known, dont change your ID.
Keep the fugging name.
|
Strange decision without any real reasoning behind it imo
|
Battle.net is an awesome name, I don't know what the fuck they're doing
I guess random marketing dep guy has to justify its salary, though
|
Nice to see they have their priorities straight. "Considering our brand has slipped a little bit.. what do you think we should do to boost our image?" "Lets change bnet to something else." "Ok."
|
battle.net will forever hold fond memories :D
|
for me Battle.net is a big and famous name. One of Blizzard's product
|
|
|
On September 22 2016 16:30 ndesktop wrote:
I think "The Artist formerly known as Battle.net" would be a good name.
Haha, shame no one got this reference.
|
Wasn't the Half-life / Sierra service WON (world opponent network) a thing before Steam existed? Or am I hallucinating from a fever dream?
|
|
|
I feel a little insulted by this. They must think that their playerbase are utter and complete morons. We get easily confused by the slightest mental challenge. Like that we have to log into Battlenet to play a Blizzard game is too mentally demanding for puny nerd brains. I dunno Blizzard used to respect its costumers intelligence more.
|
On September 22 2016 20:48 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 16:30 ndesktop wrote:
I think "The Artist formerly known as Battle.net" would be a good name. Haha, shame no one got this reference.
Sign o' the times bro
|
|
|
strange, battle.net sounds so powerfull, well it´s their desicision
|
On September 22 2016 20:48 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 16:30 ndesktop wrote:
I think "The Artist formerly known as Battle.net" would be a good name. Haha, shame no one got this reference.
Nah, it just wasn't that funny.
|
On September 22 2016 22:57 rotta wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 20:48 207aicila wrote:On September 22 2016 16:30 ndesktop wrote:
I think "The Artist formerly known as Battle.net" would be a good name. Haha, shame no one got this reference. Nah, it just wasn't that funny.
Everyone's a critic eh.
|
This seems a bit daft, but I can kind of understand why they'd do it. However Battle.net is famous anyway :/
|
This is dumb. They should just keep it for the older games (< Warcraft 3) since at least back then it was still good.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On September 22 2016 14:34 Spazer wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I think the history greatly outweighs this name change. Terrible idea.
|
On September 22 2016 06:58 Qwyn wrote:Wat? The name has always been Battle.net . Does that mean it's Blizzard.net now? Doesn't feel quite right to log onto Blizzard.net .
No. I think it simply won't have a name.
You just play multiplayer online and that's it, like how there's no name for the single player service.
It's understandable but I like Battle.net and will continue to call it that.
|
On September 23 2016 00:46 Lucumo wrote:
This is dumb. They should just keep it for the older games (< Warcraft 3) since at least back then it was still good.
That would be nice.
|
On September 23 2016 00:46 Lucumo wrote:
This is dumb. They should just keep it for the older games (< Warcraft 3) since at least back then it was still good.
I think because of the confusion about bnet 1.0 and 2.0, it merges to "Blizzard Launcher" (Bnet 2.0 functionality) and we can play D2 LoD HD, D1 HD, WC3 HD and SC:BW HD on "Blizzard Launcher".
|
On September 23 2016 01:27 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 00:46 Lucumo wrote:
This is dumb. They should just keep it for the older games (< Warcraft 3) since at least back then it was still good. I think because of the confusion about bnet 1.0 and 2.0, it merges to "Blizzard Launcher" (Bnet 2.0 functionality) and we can play D2 LoD HD, D1 HD, WC3 HD and SC:BW HD on "Blizzard Launcher".
Was there ever confusion though? It was always Battle.net for Blizzard and the names completely belong together. Even for people who are new and never visited a forum or anything for the game they are playing, it's not hard to see that this is the platform for the game and the platform's name obviously isn't the company's name.
From the way I see it, the move is partly to increase the Blizzard brand (make it more visible) and partly to say: "Hey, you guys are too dumb to see that this belongs to us".
|
First online game I played was WC2 Battle.net edition. But honestly? I really don't think this is a big deal.
|
United States12235 Posts
On September 23 2016 02:01 Lucumo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 01:27 Dingodile wrote:On September 23 2016 00:46 Lucumo wrote:
This is dumb. They should just keep it for the older games (< Warcraft 3) since at least back then it was still good. I think because of the confusion about bnet 1.0 and 2.0, it merges to "Blizzard Launcher" (Bnet 2.0 functionality) and we can play D2 LoD HD, D1 HD, WC3 HD and SC:BW HD on "Blizzard Launcher". Was there ever confusion though? It was always Battle.net for Blizzard and the names completely belong together. Even for people who are new and never visited a forum or anything for the game they are playing, it's not hard to see that this is the platform for the game and the platform's name obviously isn't the company's name. From the way I see it, the move is partly to increase the Blizzard brand (make it more visible) and partly to say: "Hey, you guys are too dumb to see that this belongs to us".
It wasn't uncommon to read posts on the Battle.net forums that said "BNET FIX UR GAME", "I HAVE BEEN A BNET CUSTOMER FOR YEARS" and so on.
|
What the fuck... Blizz seems to be losing it's shit. Lame! Battle.net 1.0 forever in my heart!
|
On September 23 2016 02:15 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 02:01 Lucumo wrote:On September 23 2016 01:27 Dingodile wrote:On September 23 2016 00:46 Lucumo wrote:
This is dumb. They should just keep it for the older games (< Warcraft 3) since at least back then it was still good. I think because of the confusion about bnet 1.0 and 2.0, it merges to "Blizzard Launcher" (Bnet 2.0 functionality) and we can play D2 LoD HD, D1 HD, WC3 HD and SC:BW HD on "Blizzard Launcher". Was there ever confusion though? It was always Battle.net for Blizzard and the names completely belong together. Even for people who are new and never visited a forum or anything for the game they are playing, it's not hard to see that this is the platform for the game and the platform's name obviously isn't the company's name. From the way I see it, the move is partly to increase the Blizzard brand (make it more visible) and partly to say: "Hey, you guys are too dumb to see that this belongs to us". It wasn't uncommon to read posts on the Battle.net forums that said "BNET FIX UR GAME", "I HAVE BEEN A BNET CUSTOMER FOR YEARS" and so on.
Wow what since when?
Guess I'm glad I don't peruse that place anymore...
|
|
|
On September 23 2016 02:15 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 02:01 Lucumo wrote:On September 23 2016 01:27 Dingodile wrote:On September 23 2016 00:46 Lucumo wrote:
This is dumb. They should just keep it for the older games (< Warcraft 3) since at least back then it was still good. I think because of the confusion about bnet 1.0 and 2.0, it merges to "Blizzard Launcher" (Bnet 2.0 functionality) and we can play D2 LoD HD, D1 HD, WC3 HD and SC:BW HD on "Blizzard Launcher". Was there ever confusion though? It was always Battle.net for Blizzard and the names completely belong together. Even for people who are new and never visited a forum or anything for the game they are playing, it's not hard to see that this is the platform for the game and the platform's name obviously isn't the company's name. From the way I see it, the move is partly to increase the Blizzard brand (make it more visible) and partly to say: "Hey, you guys are too dumb to see that this belongs to us". It wasn't uncommon to read posts on the Battle.net forums that said "BNET FIX UR GAME", "I HAVE BEEN A BNET CUSTOMER FOR YEARS" and so on.
Are you sure they weren't "trolling" or something? If it's legitimate, then it would still be a bad move since then those...people speak bad about Blizzard instead of "BNET".
Google didn't give any results for "BNET FIX UR GAME" by the way 
|
United States12235 Posts
"BNET FIX UR GAME" was just an example :V You used to see it a lot in the early SC2 and D3 days. New casual users who didn't necessarily know the Blizzard name but did know the games.
The German WoW page reporting "Blizzard Tech" as a proper name is very unusual, because other versions of the report say "We'll just be referring to our various products and services using the Blizzard name instead." You shouldn't expect to log into the Blizzard Tech servers, or using the Blizzard Tech Launcher, that's not how it's going to be presented.
|
Well this is strange and unexpected, I am so used to called it battle.net :S Might take some time to get used to but will always be battle.net.
|
I know, I was just being cheeky (hence the smiley). Well, normally you see the developer's/publisher's name on the box you buy or the site you are buying it from etc. Do some people not even read what they are buying? I guess it's just unfathomable to me.
Either it's a mistake or they accidentally "spilled" (not that it's of any importance) it.
|
Jesus... Blizzard is losing it. A lot of their decisions in many different aspects make it look like they don't know what they're doing anymore.
I feel like they're a shade of their former self. I don't know if Activision influence is somehow the problem, but something major has definitely changed over the years.
|
On September 23 2016 03:21 DuckloadBlackra wrote:
Jesus... Blizzard is losing it. A lot of their decisions in many different aspects make it look like they don't know what they're doing anymore.
I feel like they're a shade of their former self. I don't know if Activision influence is somehow the problem, but something major has definitely changed over the years.
Couldn't agree more.
These guys are responsible for Warcraft, Warcraft 2 (Tides of War or something epic), Warcraft 3, Brood War, SC2, DIABLO (possibly one of the best single-player experiences in gaming history).
What has happened...
|
Maybe they'll rename it Blizzard's Battle.net?
|
On September 23 2016 02:04 TheDougler wrote:
First online game I played was WC2 Battle.net edition. But honestly? I really don't think this is a big deal.
That's because you have no pashun
|
Why would you throw away a well known brand name like this? Doesn't the marketing department have anything else to do?
|
On September 22 2016 21:22 sparklyresidue wrote:
Wasn't the Half-life / Sierra service WON (world opponent network) a thing before Steam existed? Or am I hallucinating from a fever dream?
yes it was. I actually was very resistant to change back then too, I wanted to keep using single executables that launched a game, not download some "steam" thing. But of course, steam is great so maybe this will be too. The old name is great but I could care less in the end as long as the product is still good. We all know that a name change is only the beginning, as long as whatever new platform they roll out is godlike them I'm fine with whatever they call it.
|
It makes sense. Call it the Cadillac lesson. Blizzard's current customers are going to die eventually and new customers who aren't even born yet will have no clue why bnet existed.
|
United States12235 Posts
On September 23 2016 06:14 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 21:22 sparklyresidue wrote:
Wasn't the Half-life / Sierra service WON (world opponent network) a thing before Steam existed? Or am I hallucinating from a fever dream? yes it was. I actually was very resistant to change back then too, I wanted to keep using single executables that launched a game, not download some "steam" thing. But of course, steam is great so maybe this will be too. The old name is great but I could care less in the end as long as the product is still good. We all know that a name change is only the beginning, as long as whatever new platform they roll out is godlike them I'm fine with whatever they call it.
It's already out: that's what the Blizzard Launcher is.
|
I don't really have a big emotional connection to the name bnet or battle.net, to me this sounds like a pretty good idea from Blizzard.
|
Petition against it. Lets do it?
|
RIM changed their name to Blackberry. How'd that go? 
On September 23 2016 03:21 DuckloadBlackra wrote:
Jesus... Blizzard is losing it. A lot of their decisions in many different aspects make it look like they don't know what they're doing anymore.
I feel like they're a shade of their former self. I don't know if Activision influence is somehow the problem, but something major has definitely changed over the years.
i won't get EMO and go overboard and claim Blizzard totally sucks balls in every way. That just ain't true. However, they are definitely not dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" the way they did when they pumped out 1 game at a time.
a lot of their work is still excellent, As they start mass producing games they drop the ball in small ways in areas they are not laser focused. For example, Blizzard's support of the OW console product is mediocre. And considering it is a multiplayer only game. That's bad.
|
so battle net is turning into blizzard net, bnet nonetheless 
|
Battle.net sounds way more badass, sad they aren't keeping it. Also member berries.
|
So this is why Chris left.
|
I think this might be somewhat related to the fucking PoodleCorp incident when they have constantly DDOS'd Blizzard servers. But please correct me, if I am wrong...
For those who don't know, PoodleCorp has DDOS'd Blizzard servers twice and ransomed the servers for 2000 and 3000 retweets respectively. They are a notorious hacker group for hacking into big youtube channels and prominent gaming servers. They have just realized a threat to DDOS the upcoming Battlefield game.
Just want to inform you guys as much as I can because people seem to be stuck in the nostalgia trip.
|
On September 24 2016 03:15 hansonslee wrote:
I think this might be somewhat related to the fucking PoodleCorp incident when they have constantly DDOS'd Blizzard servers. But please correct me, if I am wrong...
For those who don't know, PoodleCorp has DDOS'd Blizzard servers twice and ransomed the servers for 2000 and 3000 retweets respectively. They are a notorious hacker group for hacking into big youtube channels and prominent gaming servers. They have just realized a threat to DDOS the upcoming Battlefield game.
Just want to inform you guys as much as I can because people seem to be stuck in the nostalgia trip.
Don't see what this has to do with a hacker group DDOS'ing Blizzard servers lol. It's highly unlikely they'll stop due to a name change of the service like "Shit, Battle.net is gone, where did it go?! What the fuck are we gonna DDOS now?!?!".
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On September 24 2016 03:25 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 03:15 hansonslee wrote:
I think this might be somewhat related to the fucking PoodleCorp incident when they have constantly DDOS'd Blizzard servers. But please correct me, if I am wrong...
For those who don't know, PoodleCorp has DDOS'd Blizzard servers twice and ransomed the servers for 2000 and 3000 retweets respectively. They are a notorious hacker group for hacking into big youtube channels and prominent gaming servers. They have just realized a threat to DDOS the upcoming Battlefield game.
Just want to inform you guys as much as I can because people seem to be stuck in the nostalgia trip. Don't see what this has to do with a hacker group DDOS'ing Blizzard servers lol. It's highly unlikely they'll stop due to a name change of the service like "Shit, Battle.net is gone, where did it go?! What the fuck are we gonna DDOS now?!?!".
lol same thought here. What does a name change have to do with this hacker group? :S
|
On September 24 2016 00:48 TT1 wrote:so battle net is turning into blizzard net, bnet nonetheless
I wish it was Blizzard.net, that would make half a sense. It's confirmed they're naming it "Blizzard Tech", which just sounds stupid and doesn't roll off the tongue at all.
|
This seems like another incidence of a bunch of Really Smart People sitting around in a conference room coming up with Really Dumb Ideas that they think are Really Smart because they're Really Smart. They all pat each other on the back about how Really Smart their idea is and there's no one to pop the bubble of the echo chamber so they go ahead with it.
Battle.net is a strong brand, there's no reason to abandon it for a new brand.
|
United States12235 Posts
|
On September 24 2016 05:12 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's not a new brand.
Judging from the reaction it certainly is being taken that way. Consumer perception > all.
|
United States12235 Posts
On September 24 2016 05:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:Judging from the reaction it certainly is being taken that way. Consumer perception > all.
Is "Blizzard Streaming" a new brand? Is "Blizzard Voice" a new brand? They're subsets of the Blizzard brand. The "Battle.net Desktop Agent" is now called the "Blizzard Launcher", and that's a prime example of how things will change moving forward. It's not the "Blizzard Tech Launcher" or anything like that. It's actually extremely straightforward and people are overthinking it. It's consumer confusion.
|
|
|
On September 24 2016 03:15 hansonslee wrote:
I think this might be somewhat related to the fucking PoodleCorp incident when they have constantly DDOS'd Blizzard servers. But please correct me, if I am wrong...
For those who don't know, PoodleCorp has DDOS'd Blizzard servers twice and ransomed the servers for 2000 and 3000 retweets respectively. They are a notorious hacker group for hacking into big youtube channels and prominent gaming servers. They have just realized a threat to DDOS the upcoming Battlefield game.
Just want to inform you guys as much as I can because people seem to be stuck in the nostalgia trip.
People these days DDOS servers for... retweets?
What?
|
I'm actually downloading the launcher right now and it says "Installing Battle.net" which does sound pretty awkward.
Edit: Also in this iteration it doesn't seem to support the titles deemed as Classic on the Battle.net website (Starcraft 1, Diablo 2, WC3) so maybe that will change along with this.
|
On September 24 2016 04:25 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 00:48 TT1 wrote:so battle net is turning into blizzard net, bnet nonetheless I wish it was Blizzard.net, that would make half a sense. It's confirmed they're naming it "Blizzard Tech", which just sounds stupid and doesn't roll off the tongue at all.
BecH, fuck lets just call it Beck
|
|
|
Stupid, stupid change... If it aint broke, dont fix it!
|
I really hope the "new" Launcher faster than the current one. It takes more times than the game itself.
|
On September 25 2016 01:27 Dingodile wrote:
I really hope the "new" Launcher faster than the current one. It takes more times than the game itself.
It's only a name change you know
|
Not the best idea Blizzard ever had.
Battle.Net is a name with such a depth and prominence, built since Diablo 2 was released. Battle.Net stands for countless hours of grinding but also for the highest peaks of e-sports.
While admittedly slightly confusing in these days, Battle.Net has such recognition and reputation, I would not let this name go.
|
I don't get why Blizzard would do such a rebranding.
Battle.net is a very strong and recognisable brand across the PC gaming community. It may have made sense back when RealID and the early launch of Wings of Liberty were tainting the brand that Battle.net 2.0 was built upon, but Battle.net 2.0 is almost as strong as its pre-WoW predecessor and we put the controversy that always-online DRM in Diablo III and the lack of LAN support in SC2 generated behind us long ago.
|
this thread is literally a bunch of consumers who dont work in marketing arguing about how marketing works lol
|
On September 25 2016 23:24 brickrd wrote:
this thread is literally a bunch of consumers who dont work in marketing arguing about how marketing works lol
I'm pretty sure that as a consumer, you don't need a phd in marketing to know what you like and dislike.
|
On September 25 2016 23:24 brickrd wrote:
this thread is literally a bunch of consumers who dont work in marketing arguing about how marketing works lol
this forum is literally a bunch of proletarians who dont work in cooperatives arguing about how the class struggle works lol
|
battle.net is iconic, i dont support this change.
|
On September 26 2016 00:49 Lazare1969 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 23:24 brickrd wrote:
this thread is literally a bunch of consumers who dont work in marketing arguing about how marketing works lol this forum is literally a bunch of proletarians who dont work in cooperatives arguing about how the class struggle works lol
This forum is literally a bunch of people from a wide range of demographics with diverse opinions on how things work.
|
United States12235 Posts
FYI, today's update to the desktop client officially included a name change to Blizzard App, along with a new icon (the Blizzard logo). Alas, this means the end of the cool-looking Battle.net icon which was designed by none other than XG3 of StarCraft Legacy fame.
|
|
|
dunno about you guys, but I'm still calling it bnet
|
The new icons are ugly. Blizzard needs to hurry up and come up with a replacement name and logo.
|
Finland926 Posts
So now you launch Blizzard to play games made by Blizzard, but this is somehow less confusing?
Thankfully it should have no big impact on how StarCraft 2 App or Overwatch App is played.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
I appreciate that the Battlenet name yet lives on in the app.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eVsmtnS.png)
|
still the old logo at my win7 start menu
|
|
|
'Battle.net required update' then suddenly it's gone RIP
Also marketing must be feeling great now that battlenet is dead but the blizzard logo as a square icon in my taskbar looks terrible. It's just a mess with so little pixels.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/I7hLihS.jpg)
|
The Battle.net Launcher is now the Blizzard app, wowza SO MODERN. APP NATION11!
|
On March 24 2017 20:05 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:'Battle.net required update' then suddenly it's gone RIP Also marketing must be feeling great now that battlenet is dead but the blizzard logo as a square icon in my taskbar looks terrible. It's just a mess with so little pixels.
Yeah... The Blizzard icon within the launcher is not bad here:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6HaVFPd.png)
But on the taskbar... horrible is not an enough word to describe it.
|
Strange move from Blizz but follows the trend of dumbing things down.
|
Sad day.
The taskbar icon looks so bad.
|
god that taskbar icon is hideous
|
I actually like the taskbar icon honestly
|
This makes it doubly frustrating that they changed 'Blizzard Allstars' to the obscure Heroes of the Storm.
I'm convinced that BAlls would have been a far bigger mainstream success than HotS.
|
OMG it's sooooooooooooooo UGLY.
"Blizzard" is too many letters to fit into a icon.
They should either make the icon include only the "B", or even better, make the Battle.net logo the Blizzard logo so that it can be retained as the icon for the app.
|
On March 24 2017 21:41 DickMcFanny wrote:
This makes it doubly frustrating that they changed 'Blizzard Allstars' to the obscure Heroes of the Storm.
I'm convinced that BAlls would have been a far bigger mainstream success than HotS.
I would convince all my friends to play BAlls with me.
|
should just call it blizzard.net or bnet for short
that way no one notices the change
|
I can accept a name change using the same B.net logo, but having a scrunched up "Blizz" to serve as a logo is kinda silly.
They should adopt a new logo to use as their icons or use the old battle.net logo as the "Blizzard" logo.
|
Yeah this new logo is just ugly I changed it back for the shortcut. Unfortunately I can't do that for the .exe.
Edit: Shouldnt that also mean a rebrand for the battle.net site? Everything else just seems halfhearted.
|
Hopefully it will be Blizzard.net, so bnet^^
|
The taskbar icon looks terible.
|
So many strange decisions by Blizz... Why the hell you needed to change the thing which was known for almost 20 years I don't get it...
|
get ready for mobile online mini games related to and advertising other platforms blizzard games showing up as the true reason for the name change^^
|
On March 24 2017 20:05 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:'Battle.net required update' then suddenly it's gone RIP Also marketing must be feeling great now that battlenet is dead but the blizzard logo as a square icon in my taskbar looks terrible. It's just a mess with so little pixels.
omg, what the hell is that thing?
|
i just don't understand why, much like when I lose games as terran in sc2.
|
they should have made it like valve, where they choose something related to a Blizzard. Oh wait they had that with the Bnet short.
Curious if this will have a positiv effect and then everyone else will follow suit with their online store names xD.
|
On March 25 2017 03:30 FeyFey wrote:
they should have made it like valve, where they choose something related to a Blizzard. Oh wait they had that with the Bnet short.
Curious if this will have a positive effect and then everyone else will follow suit with their online store names xD.
idk, EA has Origin, Riot have PVP.net, Valve has Steam. Maybe Blizzard th ought the name was kinda redundant because its used exclusively for Blizzard games, its not really a 3rd party store like origin and Steam can be. Does Riot use PVP.net for anything?
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
Should have named themselves BlizzardKingPrime.
|
That sounds like something you'd get at a Dairy Queen.
|
|
|
On September 22 2016 07:08 Thouhastmail wrote:
BTW, I wonder how people read battle.net, "battle dot net" or "battlenet"
when i first got SC: BW i would say battle dot net in my head, now i just say battlenet
|
It's always been B-NET to me =)
|
On March 24 2017 15:54 Excalibur_Z wrote:
FYI, today's update to the desktop client officially included a name change to Blizzard App, along with a new icon (the Blizzard logo). Alas, this means the end of the cool-looking Battle.net icon which was designed by none other than XG3 of StarCraft Legacy fame.
nooooo
SC:L was the best back in the day
|
I remember playing Warcraft II Battle Net Edition
Time flies
|
err...blizzard battle.net ?? seems like both us and them are happy now.
|
|
|
Better. But it still says Blizzard App in my taskbar.
|
Really glad they changed their mind. Blizzard App doesn't sound good or exciting. Sounds like mobile crap, and it doesnt sound like a service which is what Battle.net is.
|
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.
|
China6327 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.
|
On August 15 2017 22:49 digmouse wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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?
|
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
|
On August 16 2017 06:49 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +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
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
|
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.
|
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...
|
they avoided the coca cola mistake
good job
|
Probably battle.net is not PC enough anymore.
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
|
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!
|
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!
|
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 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?
|
Let me take a stab at why you were warned LSN.. you came into this thread regarding the Battle.net name and begin rambling, managing to hit on social darwinism, Trump, transexuals, vegetarians, racial discrimination and freedom of speech, then wonder why you get warned because it was all a "joke?"
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.
|
United States12235 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.
|
On August 16 2017 13:30 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
United States12235 Posts
I didn't warn you. No need to get defensive.
It looks like you got warned for triple-posting (don't keep spamming posts) and going ultra-hard on politics where there is none. Not everything has a political agenda. Occam's razor.
|
Yeah dropping battle.net makes perfectly sense. It was obsolete like most posters in these forums are. I hope I could have made this clear now. All is fine, there is nothing to be discussed. I hope everybody likes me. Bye, hug and big kiss!
|
|
|
the Desktop Client has 2 sections now. Namely, (1) Blizzard and (b) Activision. Because it has these 2 named sections the old name Battle.Net is more neutral. if it were called the "Blizzard App" there would be the perception that Destiny2 and Activision is the red-headed step child of the "Blizzard App".
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wzV0tzw.jpg)
COMBINE the above reality with the grassroots outcry of ultra long term customers... and this is the result. Battle.Net lives.
anyhow, that's my conspiracy theory.
|
Yeah, I can imagine a lot of kids whining "It's no longer Blizzard's, it's ActivisionBlizzard's Battle.net and not Blizzard's Battle.net now.
All this discussion makes me wonder if we'll ever see use of Riot Games' PVP.Net and we didn't see much competition from Arena.net
|
On August 17 2017 09:01 lestye wrote:
Yeah, I can imagine a lot of kids whining "It's no longer Blizzard's, it's ActivisionBlizzard's Battle.net and not Blizzard's Battle.net now.
All this discussion makes me wonder if we'll ever see use of Riot Games' PVP.Net and we didn't see much competition from Arena.net
zero kids are whining about it.. but Bungie sure is...they already had to abandon 6v6 mode.
|
On August 17 2017 09:16 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 09:01 lestye wrote:
Yeah, I can imagine a lot of kids whining "It's no longer Blizzard's, it's ActivisionBlizzard's Battle.net and not Blizzard's Battle.net now.
All this discussion makes me wonder if we'll ever see use of Riot Games' PVP.Net and we didn't see much competition from Arena.net zero kids are whining about it.. but Bungie sure is...they already had to abandon 6v6 mode.
I've seen some people whine about it before, I think the concern I heard the most is that people didnt want the battle.net client to have a million installments of call of duty
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
