motbob Profile Blog Joined July 2008 United States 12383 Posts #1 Please keep it respectful in the thread. If you have a counterargument, don't be rude or condescending; simply state it in the thread, and I'll try to respond to it in the OP. Don't bring up other grievances with Blizzard... it would take me a very long time to answer every little problem that people have with the game.



There are a few reasons why fans are pissed off at Blizzard right now. Most of these reasons were exacerbated by Frank Pearce's disgraceful interview given a couple days ago, which I'm sure everyone reading this thread has read by now. I'm going to try to explain why you shouldn't be so angry about the stuff that you're angry about.



An aside: I'm buying the game at launch with the confidence that the stuff everyone is angry about will be fixed, for the most part. If it's not, then hey, np, I just won't buy another Blizzard game. Shouldn't this be everyone's attitude? When has Blizzard ever not shown extensive support for one of their games post-release?



Anyway, on to the specific rage-inducers!

+ Show Spoiler [A summary] + - Blizzard is not implementing LAN support

- Blizzard is not implementing chat rooms

- Blizzard is not implementing cross-region play

- Blizzard's "premium map" system is a moneygrab

- Having to add email addresses to add friends SUCKS

- Blizzard is taking over ESPORTS

- Blizzard is not implementing LAN support.



Blizzard has already released a statement regarding why they're not including LAN:



Don't bring up other grievances with Blizzard... it would take me a very long time to answer every little problem that people have with the game.There are a few reasons why fans are pissed off at Blizzard right now. Most of these reasons were exacerbated by Frank Pearce's disgraceful interview given a couple days ago, which I'm sure everyone reading this thread has read by now. I'm going to try to explain why you shouldn't be so angry about the stuff that you're angry about.An aside: I'm buying the game at launch with the confidence that the stuff everyone is angry about will be fixed, for the most part. If it's not, then hey, np, I just won't buy another Blizzard game. Shouldn't this be everyone's attitude? When has Blizzard evershown extensive support for one of their games post-release?Anyway, on to the specific rage-inducers!Blizzard has already released a statement regarding why they're not including LAN: We don't currently plan to support LAN play with StarCraft II, as we are building Battle.net to be the ideal destination for multiplayer gaming with StarCraft II and future Blizzard Entertainment games. While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with StarCraft II and safeguard against piracy.



Several Battle.net features like advanced communication options, achievements, stat-tracking, and more, require players to be connected to the service, so we're encouraging everyone to use Battle.net as much as possible to get the most out of StarCraft II. We're looking forward to sharing more details about Battle.net and online functionality for StarCraft II in the near future. - Bob Colayco, Blizzard PR



Unlike Frank Pearce, Mr. Colayco is very good at PR. While it was easy to get annoyed at Pearce's statements, it's much harder to dig through the LAN response and figure out what to get mad at. Basically, Colayco's statements about cutting out LAN in order to "ensure a quality multiplayer experience" are obviously disingenuous. It's the admission that the removal of LAN is to defend against piracy that we should focus on.



Piracy in PC games is a



Now, I know the obvious counterargument against this is that "Battle.net 2.0 SUCKS! It's laggy and there are a whole bunch of other problems. I want LAN so that I have a better alternative."



Well, yeah. B.net 2.0 does suck. A lot. For one thing, it has bad netcode. I mean, the netcode was so unsatisfactory that they introduced NEW netcode in Patch 13, a patch that dropped an atomic bomb on the servers (which is actually a fact that I'll use to support some of my later arguments about chat rooms and cross-region play.)



But here I'm going to put forth an argument that I'm sure you're all sick of hearing: "It's the beta." Saying "It's the beta" isn't a good argument all of the time. For example, if you think that the way units counter each other is gamebreaking, a good counterargument is not "It's the beta." The way units counter each other is a basic facet of SC2 multiplayer. If the beta were to go on for another two years, that aspect of SC2 wouldn't ever get fixed, if indeed it needs fixing.



However, B.net is clearly going to be better on release. Like I said a few paragraphs ago, they just introduced entirely new netcode! They're trying their hardest to make B.net release-ready (which it obviously is not at the moment.) If 3v3s and 4v4s are still completely broken at release, they won't release the game. If they do, that's the end of Blizzard's reputation.



Anyway, back to the reason LAN probably won't ever be implemented in SC2: Blizzard has a right to make it more difficult for a pirate server to function. LAN is easily emulated (see: Hamachi) and LAN in the game would give people an incentive to pirate instead of buying the game. Once again, Blizzard has a right to try and prevent that.



Of course, the best case scenario is that multiplayer gets cracked and Blizzard sighs and implements LAN.



- Blizzard is not implementing chat rooms

- Blizzard is not implementing cross-region play



First of all, I think Blizzard was planning to have clan chat support in the clan patch they promised, and that's only one step away from general chat rooms anyway. That's all guesswork, though, so it might happen that clans won't have chat rooms at first, which would be totally fucked up.



But that's really irrelevant anyway, since after Patch 13, any complaining about missing features from battlenet 2.0 is misplaced. Battlenet 2.0 is fucked up right now. I'm sure that the division of Blizzard that's working on Bnet is going INSANE at the moment. I mean, picture this: your team has just implemented UDP, which was an enormous failure. You have to either troubleshoot that, or go back to the netcode that you deemed unsatisfactory. In the last reset stress test, there were tens of thousands of people who couldn't log in at all. The game is one and a half months from going gold. Single player is finished, multiplayer is finished except for high level balancing (which game reviewers won't care about) and it's only your part of the game that people are really mad about. If Starcraft 2 comes out and gets bad review scores it's going to be all your fault.



In that environment, would chat rooms and cross region support be a very high priority?



+ Show Spoiler [facebook integration] + Yeah, yeah, I know what you're saying. They had time for facebook integration, right? Well, I know it might be difficult for some of you to believe, but facebook integration is so cool. I was able to play a few games of SC2 with a friend who had graduated from the college I'm attending because of the facebook function. I just know that when Blizzard first thought of the possibility of facebook integration, they thought, "Oh man, people would really enjoy that. That would be a really cool feature." And they were right, in my case.



Also, what exactly did it take to implement facebook integration in terms of manpower? A button on the "add friend menu"... a login box to facebook... and then SC2 simply uses the Facebook API to grab people's email addresses and match them with bnet accounts. Easiest thing in the world.



On the other hand, cross-region play is a really tough nut to crack. How do you implement that? Allowing people to make an account for NA bnet and another for EU bnet is just begging for people to share the game with people who haven't bought it by letting them use the second account. Allowing people to connect to the other server directly sounds like a tricky technical feat.



I'm not saying that they shouldn't implement cross-region play or chat rooms. I'm saying that they really have other things to worry about right now.



- Blizzard's "premium map" system is a moneygrab



No, man. You're joking, right? People can still upload free UMS maps of their making. Also, the promise of monetary compensation will make people more likely to spend lots of time working on UMSes, so we're more likely to get something of really high quality. Blizzard takes a cut of the proceedings, but why should they allow others to make money off of their service?



- Having to add email addresses to add friends SUCKS



Yes. Yes it does. I think this will be fixed by release since it's just so stupid. However, even if it isn't, it's not such a drawback for the released game. I mean, it really sucks having to add friends right now, but once you've added them, you don't have to add them again. Honestly, though, there's no reason this won't be changed.



- Blizzard is taking over ESPORTS



People seemed to think this was OK a few days ago. In the "Blizzard signs agreement with GOM" thread:







What's changed since then? Not much... GOM is still in charge of the Korean scene.



That's all folks! - Bob Colayco, Blizzard PRUnlike Frank Pearce, Mr. Colayco is very good at PR. While it was easy to get annoyed at Pearce's statements, it's much harder to dig through the LAN response and figure out what to get mad at. Basically, Colayco's statements about cutting out LAN in order to "ensure a quality multiplayer experience" are obviously disingenuous. It's the admission that the removal of LAN is to defend against piracy that we should focus on.Piracy in PC games is a well-documented problem. When companies introduce stupidly restrictive DRM, or provide less support for the PC version of their game, or stop producing PC games entirely, it's not because they enjoy making the lives of consumers who own a PC difficult. It is because they want to be paid for their work. Blizzard has a right to try to force anyone who wants to play online onto a legit server.Now, I know the obvious counterargument against this is that "Battle.net 2.0 SUCKS! It's laggy and there are a whole bunch of other problems. I want LAN so that I have a better alternative."Well, yeah. B.net 2.0 does suck. A lot. For one thing, it has bad netcode. I mean, the netcode was so unsatisfactory that they introduced NEW netcode in Patch 13, a patch that dropped an atomic bomb on the servers (which is actually a fact that I'll use to support some of my later arguments about chat rooms and cross-region play.)But here I'm going to put forth an argument that I'm sure you're all sick of hearing: "It's the beta." Saying "It's the beta" isn't a good argument all of the time. For example, if you think that the way units counter each other is gamebreaking, a good counterargument is not "It's the beta." The way units counter each other is a basic facet of SC2 multiplayer. If the beta were to go on for another two years, that aspect of SC2 wouldn't ever get fixed, if indeed it needs fixing.However, B.net isgoing to be better on release. Like I said a few paragraphs ago, they just introduced entirely new netcode! They're trying their hardest to make B.net release-ready (which it obviously is not at the moment.) If 3v3s and 4v4s are still completely broken at release, they won't release the game. If they do, that's the end of Blizzard's reputation.Anyway, back to the reason LAN probably won't ever be implemented in SC2: Blizzard has a right to make it more difficult for a pirate server to function. LAN is easily emulated (see: Hamachi) and LAN in the game would give people an incentive to pirate instead of buying the game. Once again, Blizzard has a right to try and prevent that.Of course, the best case scenario is that multiplayer gets cracked and Blizzard sighs and implements LAN.First of all, I think Blizzard was planning to have clan chat support in the clan patch they promised, and that's only one step away from general chat rooms anyway. That's all guesswork, though, so it might happen that clans won't have chat rooms at first, which would beBut that's really irrelevant anyway, since after Patch 13, any complaining about missing features from battlenet 2.0 is misplaced. Battlenet 2.0 isright now. I'm sure that the division of Blizzard that's working on Bnet is going INSANE at the moment. I mean, picture this: your team has just implemented UDP, which was an enormous failure. You have to either troubleshoot that, or go back to the netcode that you deemed unsatisfactory. In the last reset stress test, there were tens of thousands of people who. The game is one and a half months from going gold. Single player is finished, multiplayer is finished except for high level balancing (which game reviewers won't care about) and it's only your part of the game that people are really mad about. If Starcraft 2 comes out and gets bad review scores it's going to beIn that environment, would chat rooms and cross region support be a very high priority?I'm not saying that they shouldn't implement cross-region play or chat rooms. I'm saying that they really have other things to worry about right now.No, man. You're joking, right? People can still upload free UMS maps of their making. Also, the promise of monetary compensation will make people more likely to spend lots of time working on UMSes, so we're more likely to get something of really high quality. Blizzard takes a cut of the proceedings, but why should they allow others to make money off of their service?Yes. Yes it does. I think this will be fixed by release since it's just so stupid. However, even if it isn't, it's not such a drawback for the released game. I mean, it really sucks having to add friends right now, but once you've added them, you don't have to add them again. Honestly, though, there's no reason this won't be changed.People seemed to think this was OK a few days ago. In the "Blizzard signs agreement with GOM" thread:What's changed since then? Not much... GOM is still in charge of the Korean scene.That's all folks! Moderator Good content always wins.

semantics Profile Blog Joined November 2009 9878 Posts Last Edited: 2010-05-30 01:52:43 #2 I think everything will turn out well a year after the game is released but i don't have much hope for anything too current fixing the many "flaws" fans point out. Imo my problem with their ums system is not that it's a potential money grab but that there will be limits for published ums' limits suck, and it's not like me and my friends can just download the map off a site and play it, we basically trick battle.net into letting us do it which is a problem shouldn't be that hard.

pyr0ma5ta Profile Joined May 2010 United States 458 Posts Last Edited: 2010-05-30 01:52:52 #3 You raise a very good point about the BNet dev team probably working every available hour and shitting their pants, but that doesn't excuse them for not succeeding at custom map publishing. Nor does it excuse their servers crashing/dropping people/locking people out. It means their dev team isn't on top of the ball, and that July 27 might be greedy. But if we're consumers paying cash for this product, and we are, we have every right to demand all of these things and be upset if they're not there.



Oh, and Blizz saying they're not going to do chat, etc is not a good sign. "I made you a zergling, but I eated it." - Defiler

Rucky Profile Joined February 2008 United States 717 Posts #4 well done. all very reasonable.



i think everything will be fine. Beyond the Game

Mr.Eternity Profile Joined May 2010 United States 143 Posts #5

I hope people wont be nerdraging so much now... Thank you very much for thisI hope people wont be nerdraging so much now... "Because nobody can make it alone"

Half Profile Joined March 2010 United States 2554 Posts Last Edited: 2010-05-30 02:01:03 #6



I posted this in another thread like five seconds ago. I hope you don't banhamma me, but I think its really relevant. I agree [I'm agreeing to a post in the exact nature of the OP] I honestly believe that blizzard isn't "evil", but that they've become insular, their company's become bloated, and that they've lost touch with the needs of the players, and too caught up in their own world of corporate politics and internal visions of glory for their new system without taking into account the desires of their playerbase.



I think when people try to put up their torches, they're really just oversimplifying a much more complex...and less objectively evil...scenario. And it doesn't do anyone any good.



I seriously don't think that their doing this purely just for money. Some things are. But I don't think this is. I think it's the byproduct of an increasingly corporate culture becoming increasingly cut off from their playerbase.



I've been advocating for days before this recent frenzy. Frank Pierce was partly responsible for the decision that remade SC1 from the ground up when the fan reaction was negative.



He was their since the beginning. And if he isn't an avid gamer at the moment, I still, honestly, believe hes a gamer at heart, and respects the industry. You don't go from someone who redesigns what you've avidly poured time on for four years to someone who says "fuck you customers". He isn't a Koctick. You just...don't.



Look at it from a bigger picture.



Blizzard has five hundred white collar employees in Irvine alone. That's big. I couldn't imagine working in a game development studio that large. Because thats what they are. A development studio. They answer directly to a board of of Stockholders which include some of the biggest forces for monetization in the game industr. You don't have to be a Kotick to get detached from the playerbase in those circumstances. It's understandable. I doubt any of his statements were malicious. In fact, if anything, he was being genuine and frank, something to be admired in this age of PR shmooze and shit.



But really....



I've wanted to sort of post something like the OP did and assuage some of the unwarranted and childish crap, but ultimately I refrained, and maybe even contributed (even looking at this rationally, it's hard not to be upset).



But I don't think that may be positive. Up until this moment, I've posted saying "Yes, it sucks, but lets worry about the ends, which are bad, not the means, which probably aren't as clear cut greed as you might think". But sometimes you need a little bit of passionate-and baseless- hate in a movement.





Because you know what?



In the end of the day, these policies are killing the long term future of Starcraft 2.





And they need to stop.



So hate away.





Motbob. I'm in agreement with you. I've always advocated a voice of dissent in moderation. Not to let our emotions consume our judgement, but not to let our rights as consumers be eaten away by indifference and corporate interest.





But It's of upmost importance that Blizzard gets the message that this is not ok. This will kill SC2 if it is left unaddressed. It isn't something that can be "let slide". It is something that must be resolved as soon as possible, with no delay. Certainly not a delay to implement some superficial social feature like facebook intergration.



And the best way to do that is with rage, with impassioned pleas, with drama, with hate. They'll tell you otherwise, but a unilateral response of disbelief, cyncism, aversion, and disapproval, and of impassioned hatred gets a message across. Motbob. I'm in agreement with you. I've always advocated a voice of dissent in moderation. Not to let our emotions consume our judgement, but not to let our rights as consumers be eaten away by indifference and corporate interest.. This will kill SC2 if it is left unaddressed. It isn't something that can be "let slide". It is something that must be resolved as soon as possible, with no delay. Certainly not a delay to implement some superficial social feature like facebook intergration.And the best way to do that is with rage, with impassioned pleas, with drama, with hate. Too Busy to Troll!

petered Profile Joined February 2010 United States 1200 Posts #7 Your level-headedness is refreshing.



Something like chat-rooms isn't really that hard to implement. If people keep making noise, I am positive that it will get changed. In fact, if you buy the game, it is more likely to get changed. If the game produces revenue the company will have greater incentive to keep working on it even after release.



As for the technical problems with BNet, that is something I think we should give blizzard grace for. I trust that Blizzard wants to put out a good product, not just because I am sure they care about their work but because it will make more money that way. We all know it is possible to make BNet a great server, but that is going to take time. It really isn't helpful to freak out every time BNet has issues.

For example, during the TSL there were a lot of technical difficulties. It was frustrating, but I trusted that Team Liquid cared enough about the tournament that it would get taken care of. It wouldn't be helpful at all to say, "Team Liquid sucks I'm never watching their tournaments again" This, my friends, is the power of the Shikyo Memorial for QQ therapy thread. We make the world a better place, one chainsaw massacre prevention at a time.

Level10Peon Profile Joined April 2010 United States 59 Posts #8



Finally, a calm and rational response. Good job, motbob Finally, a calm and rational response. Good job, motbob

Two_DoWn Profile Blog Joined October 2009 United States 7512 Posts #9 I understand where you are coming from, but I would have more faith if Blizz actually laid out a plan or a timeline for making bnet a "quality multiplayer experience." I have no doubt that bnet could very well rival the success of iccup for bw, given proper support. However, the only things we have seen from blizz regarding actually making the platform better have ranged from ambiguous (chat/clans at some point in the future), backwards (removal of identifiers), to just plain insulting (recent interview/ facebook taking such a high precedent on their list.)



I would be much happier with blizzard if they gave us a firm outline of what was going to be in bnet, and when it was going to happen. I can wait. I just want to know I'm not waiting in vain. "What is the air speed velocity of an unladen courier?" "Dire or Radiant?"

Half Profile Joined March 2010 United States 2554 Posts Last Edited: 2010-05-30 02:07:18 #10 On May 30 2010 11:00 Level10Peon wrote:





Finally, a calm and rational response. Good job, motbob Finally, a calm and rational response. Good job, motbob



I can't think of a single time a calm and rationale response changed history. I can think of several revolutions, beheadings, coups, and riots. Even in non-violence, King and Gandhi did not write dissertations which freed their people. They staged boycotts, walks outs, strikes, and mass movements of public disobedience.



I'm not saying that a video game is on a similar scale of importance, fuck no. But I'm illustrating that not once has something been changed because some guy made a "calm and rationale response".



I'm a centrist in politics and in person. And sometimes theirs a time to be irrational on purpose. I can't think of a single time a calm and rationale response changed history. I can think of several revolutions, beheadings, coups, and riots. Even in non-violence, King and Gandhi did not write dissertations which freed their people. They staged boycotts, walks outs, strikes, and mass movements of public disobedience.I'm not saying that a video game is on a similar scale of importance, fuck no. But I'm illustrating that not once has something been changed because some guy made a "calm and rationale response".I'm a centrist in politics and in person. And sometimes theirs a time to be irrational on purpose. Too Busy to Troll!

motbob Profile Blog Joined July 2008 United States 12383 Posts Last Edited: 2010-05-30 02:08:05 #11 On May 30 2010 11:01 Two_DoWn wrote:

I understand where you are coming from, but I would have more faith if Blizz actually laid out a plan or a timeline for making bnet a "quality multiplayer experience." I have no doubt that bnet could very well rival the success of iccup for bw, given proper support. However, the only things we have seen from blizz regarding actually making the platform better have ranged from ambiguous (chat/clans at some point in the future), backwards (removal of identifiers), to just plain insulting (recent interview/ facebook taking such a high precedent on their list.)



I would be much happier with blizzard if they gave us a firm outline of what was going to be in bnet, and when it was going to happen. I can wait. I just want to know I'm not waiting in vain.

I know what you're saying, but Blizzard is historically really insular about this stuff. They generally don't release much information at all, and that can be really frustrating. I really doubt what you want is going to happen.



On May 30 2010 11:01 Half wrote:

Show nested quote +

On May 30 2010 11:00 Level10Peon wrote:





Finally, a calm and rational response. Good job, motbob Finally, a calm and rational response. Good job, motbob



I can't think of a single time a calm and rationale response changed history. I can think of several revolutions, beheadings, coups, and riots. Even in non-violence, King and Gandhi did not write dissertations which freed their people. They staged boycotts, walks outs, strikes, and mass movements of public disobedience.



I'm a centrist in politics and in person. And sometimes theirs a time to be irrational on purpose. I can't think of a single time a calm and rationale response changed history. I can think of several revolutions, beheadings, coups, and riots. Even in non-violence, King and Gandhi did not write dissertations which freed their people. They staged boycotts, walks outs, strikes, and mass movements of public disobedience.I'm a centrist in politics and in person. And sometimes theirs a time to be irrational on purpose.

Well, maybe we need both. Anger to help Blizzard get the idea, and well thought-out posts so that they'll actually agree. I know what you're saying, but Blizzard is historically really insular about this stuff. They generally don't release much information at all, and that can be really frustrating. I really doubt what you want is going to happen.Well, maybe we need both. Anger to help Blizzard get the idea, and well thought-out posts so that they'll actually agree. Moderator Good content always wins.

XeliN Profile Joined June 2009 United Kingdom 1755 Posts #12 I don't mean to belittle your post at all, but a large aspect of it seems to be on simply trusting Blizzard and I disagree with this, especially when it would be very simple for them to quell all of these irritations or rumours. Simply announce that they will definately have chatrooms, and definately have cross realm support e.t.c



The fact they have not done so makes it seem more than justified in treating the situation asif they intend not to or are not overly interested in implementing these features. Adonai bless

Tone_ Profile Joined May 2009 United Kingdom 553 Posts #13 Some good points, some areas like chat rooms and cross region play haven't really had relevant reasons discussed I feel. "Other things to work on" I guess would be a matter of opinion regarding priorities. Yes sorting out the netcode and Bnet is the priority, but chat room development would have had to have begun before beta, so there wasn't any forward thought there imo.



I think there's some good ideas, and some people are bashing Blizzard too much, but the basics are that many of the complains are founded, are to be expected and some features are falling below expected standard. Like some other posts and other people I expected Bnet to be a thriving social playground and the chatroom issue has to be my biggest worry currently. Hell not even chat rooms just a better chat facility than is currently available. Hasta La Victoria Siempre | 톤

FallenWraith Profile Joined May 2010 United States 26 Posts #14 One of my major irritations if the fact it isn't an opt in information exchange, it is an opt out. This allows Blizzard to basically sell personal information such as email, name, address etc. This coupled with the fact that BNet is forced and as of right now there are massive issues is the wrong way to go about it.



The reason why so many people are so irritated is because these are all things which BNet 1.0 has. These are things which the dev teams realized they needed years ago and yet when they release the new platform they don't learn. They talk about no LAN because they want everyone to desire to be online to have a better playing experience, but as shown by the communities outrage their idea and ours don't line up.



This isn't an issue typically but Blizzard has a history, and they are making the most or one of the most hyped game of the decade. Their fan base is like that of Starwars, who got pissed which Lucas sold out with Episode 1-3.



They are using a franchise name, but not continuing the expansion of features which were in the previous release. Think if Microsoft decided that the new word wouldn't have spell check, would you still buy it, or would you want the previous version because it had the features which you actually used?

Tareth Profile Joined March 2004 United States 46 Posts #15 Blizzard right now seems to have their own vision of what they want Battle.net 2.0 to be, and I think they should keep with that vision, for now at least. That doesn't mean that the community shouldn't be voicing their concerns or anything. If these concerns continue to persist, then I believe Blizzard will listen.



Maybe I'm too trusting, though.

Level10Peon Profile Joined April 2010 United States 59 Posts #16 On May 30 2010 11:01 Half wrote:

Show nested quote +

On May 30 2010 11:00 Level10Peon wrote:





Finally, a calm and rational response. Good job, motbob Finally, a calm and rational response. Good job, motbob



I can't think of a single time a calm and rationale response changed history. I can think of several revolutions, beheadings, coups, and riots. Even in non-violence, King and Gandhi did not write dissertations which freed their people. They staged boycotts, walks outs, strikes, and mass movements of public disobedience.



I'm not saying that a video game is on a similar scale of importance, fuck no. But I'm illustrating that not once has something been changed because some guy made a "calm and rationale response".



I'm a centrist in politics and in person. And sometimes theirs a time to be irrational on purpose. I can't think of a single time a calm and rationale response changed history. I can think of several revolutions, beheadings, coups, and riots. Even in non-violence, King and Gandhi did not write dissertations which freed their people. They staged boycotts, walks outs, strikes, and mass movements of public disobedience.I'm not saying that a video game is on a similar scale of importance, fuck no. But I'm illustrating that not once has something been changed because some guy made a "calm and rationale response".I'm a centrist in politics and in person. And sometimes theirs a time to be irrational on purpose.



I don't mind the anger, I mind the "Blizzard has become pure EVIL!" stuff.

I don't mind the anger, I mind the "Blizzard has become pure EVIL!" stuff.

Half Profile Joined March 2010 United States 2554 Posts Last Edited: 2010-05-30 02:11:32 #17 On May 30 2010 11:10 Level10Peon wrote:



I don't mind the anger, I mind the "Blizzard has become pure EVIL!" stuff.





Of course, that pisses the shit out of me too. But ifs something your going to have to tolerate because a lot of people can't handle complex emotional responses for some reason.



Like "this is bullshit". But I can understand how it happened. But it needs to change. Now. Of course, that pisses the shit out of me too. But ifs something your going to have to tolerate because a lot of people can't handle complex emotional responses for some reason.Like "this is bullshit". But I can understand how it happened. But it needs to change. Now. Too Busy to Troll!

Laski Profile Joined July 2009 United States 10 Posts #18 It has always seemed that Battle.net 2 is in a very early and experimental form (the ui has changed dramatically over the course of the past month and a half), which would support the idea that battle.net 2 construction didn't start until early this year and thus delaying the beta. While I don't agree with the things Frank Pearce (who probably shouldn't be doing interviews) said, I understand that things can and probably will change, especially with the large outburst in the community.



I think people forget that it takes time for Blizzard to create and implement things, that there isn't a magic battle.net fairy who snaps her fingers and instantly implements features. The first phase of beta was just extended 1 week, this announcement coincides with the upheaval about battle.net. If I were a betting man I would expect a patch with battle.net changes next week before the beta goes down.

Sadistx Profile Blog Joined February 2009 Zimbabwe 5497 Posts #19 You didn't really support any of your arguments. Your entire line of discussion revolves around "well, it's not as bad as people say it is, because I wrote so. Also because it's the beta", which you said yourself is a bad argument.



The funny thing though is, even though you didn't support your arguments in the post, you're actually right, because most of the drawbacks that you listed can be ignored simply by not using them or they do not actually exist.



Chat rooms already de facto exist, because you can invite any number of friends into your chat room, plus you'll have clan chat implemented ( I hope so). Besides, the primary function of bnet was always to play and get games, which it fulfills fine.



Facebook integration was never a drawback, because you can just opt to not use it.



Netcode WILL get better, knowing Blizzard.



Emails for friends aren't that bad, but it does detract a lot from internet anonymity. I mean there are tons of people that I know that I do not want to have my email or real name, but that's easily circumvented by making a special fake email just for SC2.



The _REAL_ drawback and what irks people is no cross-realm play so to speak. It detracts from the idea of globalized esport community more than anything ever could. It breaks up individual ties between friends across continents AND makes esport events that much more difficult to coordinate.

This is the dick move, the punch in the groin that took a lot of us by surprise. 180$ to play across the globe? How about fuck you blizzard. I know it's not that much money, but why do it anyway?



Why can I in HoN play with people from anywhere on the planet with almost 0 latency, for 30$, and Blizzard is forcing me to pay 6 times that amount? Oh, SC2 has much higher production value you'll say. Well, yes, it does, and it has a great single player campaign. But why in the fucking world do I have to pay for the campaign 3 times over?





motbob Profile Blog Joined July 2008 United States 12383 Posts #20 On May 30 2010 11:07 XeliN wrote:

I don't mean to belittle your post at all, but a large aspect of it seems to be on simply trusting Blizzard and I disagree with this, especially when it would be very simple for them to quell all of these irritations or rumours. Simply announce that they will definately have chatrooms, and definately have cross realm support e.t.c



The fact they have not done so makes it seem more than justified in treating the situation asif they intend not to or are not overly interested in implementing these features.

Absolutely nothing can make me lose faith in Blizzard until the game is released. I cannot believe that, after Blizzard's track record, people are not simply trusting the company. I cannot believe that people are pledging not to buy the product before it is released. If you buy SC2 and it sucks, and it doesn't stop sucking, the Blizzard name is forever soiled and you can't ever have faith again. But before then, just relax. Absolutely nothing can make me lose faith in Blizzard until the game is released. I cannot believe that, after Blizzard's track record, people are not simply trusting the company. I cannot believe that people are pledging not to buy the product before it is released. If you buy SC2 and it sucks, and it doesn't stop sucking, the Blizzard name is forever soiled and you can't ever have faith again. But before then, just relax. Moderator Good content always wins.

1 2 3 4 5 13 14 15 Next All