Blizzard: "No plans for chatrooms, crossrealm play" - Page…

Introduction

Rarely, in a world constantly consumed by change, does something merely "good" manage to transcend the life expectancy of its parts and become something great. The existence of three perfectly balanced races, an accessible, yet difficult to master, gameplay experience, a strong hardcore community, a thriving e-sports presence, and a host of other factors have led to the creation of a legend among video games. StarCraft is considered by many to be the pinnacle of RTS gaming perfection. By other, less hardcore fans, who played it if even for a short while, it is remembered fondly; yet everyone agrees that its success and vitality was an unintended fluke. Somehow, over the course of a decade, an abundantly flawed game found the correct mix of elements (not all of which were Blizzard's creations) and evolved into a masterpiece. Now, twelve years after StarCraft's intial release, its sequel is about to be unleashed. There are immense expectations. Most popular games have a hardcore fan base, and StarCraft fans take this dedication to a whole new level. Even before the announcement of StarCraft II, StarCraft fans devoted huge portions of their lives to this game. Understandably, we have a stake in the depth, development, and quality of the sequel. However, StarCraft II will be released under a radically different set of circumstances than its predecessor.

In 1998, StarCraft was expected to be a respectable game thanks to Blizzard's previous track record. There was a decent amount of buzz, and even a few fan communities were established pre-release. But now StarCraft has a rabid fan following. Half of us have one foot in the nostalgia and glory of Brood War and the other in embracing the potential of the long sought-after sequel.

A large majority of people are satisfied with StarCraft II's gameplay; it's enjoyable and provides an excellent spectator experience. We understand that it will likely take years for the game to be completely balanced and for the metagame to settle down. That isn't an issue, for we know that Blizzard has a long history of supporting their games reliably long after release. We have every confidence that eventually the gameplay of StarCraft II will be equal to or surpass that of the original. What the community takes issue with is the overall experience: Battle.net 2.0. And herein lies the crux of the success or failure of StarCraft II as a community driven experience and viable e-sport.

Blizzard has explained that their vision for Battle.net 2.0 centers around an "Always Connected Experience": that is to say that Battle.net is an integral and inseparable part of the entire product. While Brood War's global success as an e-sport was a fortunate accident, StarCraft II is being designed from the ground-up to be an e-sports superstar. With that ambitious of a goal, Blizzard has their proverbial hands full. As the beta and subsequent community dissatisfaction have demonstrated, that goal is still unrealized, and Blizzard's greatest failure may be their unwillingness to communicate with the community that has a wealth of experience and knowledge. While we cannot boast to have produced some of the most successful games of all time, we have been more plugged into StarCraft's uncanny rise than the creators. While Blizzard went on to create other blockbuster games in other worlds, we have continued to live and breathe StarCraft. For our commitment we claim some small measure of understanding. We as a community have grown and evolved along with StarCraft. While we would likely all agree, and rightly so, that Blizzard is the creator, we are the consumers. Our voice needs to be heard. Some will say that our hardcore communities will be a relative minority come release. While this may be true, our experiences granted by our tenure can still provide valuable insight; the thousands of us that have been fans for more than a decade have stayed for a reason.



From Diablo to WarCraft III, Battle.net 1.0 evolved over time

The feedback that we can provide in a logical and constructive manner may not fit with Blizzard's vision or plan (that's fine), but it at least needs to be heard and addressed. The uncomfortable communication between the development team and the community can be explained as a groupthink-like phenomenon. Groupthink is thought within a cohesive, isolated group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Blizzard Entertainment's communication of concepts is rooted firmly in marketing. Consequently, self-censorship of ideas that detract from the group's decisions occurs publicly. The issue regarding feedback is that the community views Blizzard through this narrow lens; as a result, both Blizzard and the community appear to suffer from this illogical thought process. The Battle.net development team appears to be isolated while the community is heavily restricted in its ability to provide feedback. To some degree it is inevitable, for both are relatively small groups with exclusive interests.

Within the community, the restricted discussion is most readily apparent across the various fan sites and community boards. We've all observed the flavor of the week posts, where Poster A finds an imbalanced, missing, or incomplete feature and the entire community works itself up into a frenzy; Posters B through Z agree, or "/sign", and we all sit around congratulating ourselves on our amazing deductive abilities while subsequently faulting Blizzard for their lack of intelligence. Rarely, does anything constructive result from this process and all too often does it repeat itself. While nuggets of important information can likely be found in these posts, the manner in which they are created and the cycle they perpetuate does not help the community and does not help the development of StarCraft II. As a community, we need to be more respectful of Blizzard and each other. We need to demand more from each other. We have the knowledge and the ability to be helpful toward impacting the success of our beloved game positively. But this outcome entails focusing on explanations and solutions. Feedback on many of the issues important to us needs to be more than pointing out the flaws. Being able to convey our thoughts maturely and constructively demonstrates to Blizzard that, aside for our extensive experience, there are other reasons why we deserve to be taken seriously. Remember, our demographic isn't the only target-audience. For the vast majority of us, a sale is already assured. There's a sense of misplaced entitlement in the community. While we have a vested interest in the game and experience, we aren't "owed" anything. We have to do our best to stay relevant for the journey; it is the only way to positively affect real change. While the community's issue stems from our limited experience with an unfinished product coupled with our desire to be both relevant and have a game worthy of our treasured history, Blizzard's issue with groupthink is slightly different and bit more complicated.

Blizzard's problem is twofold. Firstly, they have tasked themselves with following up a universally adored game and reinventing the entire online gaming experience in the process. This has led to expectations that cannot be met. Without adequate communication to the fan base, the result is disappointment in various shades. To be fair, during the development of StarCraft II Blizzard has been the most open and transparent that they have ever been regarding one of their games. We have been granted Q&A Batches, Battle Reports, and fan site press events. These were incredible, and they helped energize the base. However, Battle.net - the platform upon which the entire system had to run - was kept secret. Obviously, there are many reasons why Blizzard chose to do this. The issue is that Blizzard has promised to revolutionize every aspect of the online RTS experience and failed to account for their limited experiences in many of the areas required for a polished online experience. Their product remains unfinished and flawed. Without engaging the community, with all of our various talents and experiences, in an open dialogue they relied exclusively on their in-house tunnel vision. This isn't to say that there isn't great debate and discussion in-house regarding the various aspects of the game or the service, but rather that there is no outside dissent. This is readily apparent when you read or watch any of the various interviews with the game designers, producers, or officers. They seem woefully out of touch with what the community is really interested in. The exclusion of chat channels is just one example.



The expectations were set high with StarCraft

Time and time again we see a developer or a producer ask us if the feature is something we really want. Either our thunderous outcry is being communicated inadequately or the decision-makers inside Blizzard are too insulated. Blizzard's isolated stance in conjunction with the tightly controlled message exemplifies groupthink, and this brings us to the second issue regarding the phenomenon: Blizzard is perhaps a victim of its own success. In many regards, they looked on a very high-level at what they have produced in the past and used that as their basis to move forward. To some extent they must feel that they know what is best, and it is evident from some of the interviews that they are in fact "telling" us what we want. A certain amount of "we know what you want" is noticeable. Realistically, while Blizzard has its own vision and desires for Battle.net 2.0 they can't possibly tell what we want. Now, granted that they aren't catering Battle.net just to us, but our concerns should probably still be addressed. It's just good business.

When people have spent years of their lives working on something very specific, tunnel vision is inevitable. Sometimes that works; look at many of the other products Blizzard has created without outside consultation. However, for many of the things that Blizzard and the community want to accomplish with StarCraft II, an open dialogue is important. This is where Blizzard has missed the proverbial bus. Despite the fact that our feedback could be communicated more effectively, they haven't yet figured out how to best receive and evaluate it.

Traditionally, Blizzard Entertainment has developed games quietly. They were characterized as a disengaged, aloof developer, yet they planned, implemented, and supported games reliably. Marketing and public relations has always been a component of Blizzard, but fan sites have largely been excluded from this. Up until the creation of Blizzard's RTS Community Team in the summer of 2007, community sites were largely ignored by the Public Relations department. Each day, more and more people find our sites, and our power to effect the community will continue to grow. In the decade preceding the announcement of the sequel, with the exception of the Sandlot Tournament, we were a dismissed demographic. The PR team judged us to be a superfluous extension of their success. We were never engaged despite our best efforts while general gaming publications and traditional news outlets were granted access to which we had traditionally been shut out of. It is only in recent years that we've been recognized as an important part of the overall target market.



StarCraft II introduces the next stage: Battle.net 2.0

The interaction between Blizzard and the online community is improving. We now have the fan site summit, and we are invited to press events. Going forward, more communication and interaction can only help bridge the divide. The community's presence, quality, and professionalism is growing exponentially, and our focus on specific subject matter allows us to be outside experts. Each day, more and more people find our sites and our power to effect the community will only continue to grow. As Blizzard realizes that a StarCraft fan's perception about the game is impacted more by what community partners write than the articles found on a traditional generalized gaming website, hopefully the communication dynamic will realign to be more productive.

With all of that being said, this article is intended to help inform both Blizzard and the community regarding Battle.net 2.0. The criticisms enumerated below need to be aired constructively; however, we have not simply pointed out perceived problems. We have also included our humble suggestions as to how to mitigate the issues presented. While we understand that there are those within the community and within Blizzard that will disagree with our take, hopefully this editorial will help to construct a better understanding between Blizzard and the community. Twelve years has been a long time for everyone, and we should all start communicating now to make the next twelve even better.