Figured I'd post this here since it's not really anything new, but does answer some pertinent questions that fans might have been unclear about:
Official Blizzard Quote:
Oh Clan-Iraq... you say things that are so Clan-Iraq.
This should probably be in the SC2 forums, but... eh... here ya go! Me shouting down your hyperbole once again.
Quote: 1) No LAN Support
Correct.
Quote: 2) No chat rooms
There will be chat rooms, they're just not making the launch of SC2.
Quote: 3) Paid DLC
It seems that maps and "expansion packs that are really part of the base game" are bumping the total price of SC2 to over $100 quite easily. I have no plans to buy the game, but I find that a little alarming. I hate to imagine how much D3 will cost in total- combined with the next factor:
Alarming! How much was it to buy Diablo II and the Lord of Destruction expansion when they were released? Right. Expansions are sold at expansion prices. This is not news.
Quote: 4) Pay-to-play
It has turned out that SC2 is indeed Pay-to-Play, despite all the promises we've had otherwise, in regions outside of the US. For example, Russian and South American players must subscribe to battle.net and get a set amount of "game hours" that expire and need to be renewed. Will such a system exist for D3?
We tailor our business models for each country/region based on many factors. Here in the US I can walk into a game store, buy a boxed product for about $60, take it home, and I generally expect that to include free multiplayer (unless I know it's a subscription MMO or whatever). That's not something you can do in all other countries, most don't have game stores, and so it's not something they generally work with. The exact same tailoring has been used for World of Warcraft.
Quote: 5) Region Locking
Here's the last thing that was said on region locking (this was Sigaty btw):
Q: How far in the 'long term' are those plans which allow for swapping to U.S. servers on an E.U. account - or a global account?
A: Jumping to the region you want is definitely in the long term plan for Battle.net, although we do have some concerns about communicating properly to the player what's happening if they choose this because it WILL affect the latency of the game. As far as a date on when, I don't have one yet. There are a number of features that we want to make sure get out their first and jumping to different servers is lower on the priority list at the moment.
Quote: 6) Statistical Balance Design
The developers for SC2 have been strictly using a statistical approach to balancing their game, ignoring player feedback and instead using only data harvested from the beta gameplay to balance their units.
Hahaha. You're hilarious. We all play. All the designers and developers play. Some on semi-pro levels. We're in contact with many pro players, our friends and family that are playing, we read the forums, we read fansites, etc. etc. What I see as the main issue here is that a lot of the time people want balance changes based on flavor of the minute strategies without understanding that it's constantly evolving. So much so that from day to day the matchups could change dramatically.
Not seeing the balance changes you think should be made implemented is not the same as us ignoring the community and making arbitrary changes based on nothing but statistics. They're definitely a tool, but by no means are the sole or even biggest factor for balance changes.
Quote: 7) Privacy Issues
Like Facebook and Google, Blizzard has been suffering its own acute privacy debacle- email addresses have been leaked
Well now you're just making stuff up.
Quote:
and SC2 requires questionable privacy details with an unsafe EULA- being able to share details like your Facebook account, and not allowing you to 'friend' users unless you're willing to show them your "Real Name" and Facebook, etc. I hate to imagine this spilling over to D3
Everything stated here is vaguely incorrect to flat out wrong. You can add people to your friends list without being a RealID friend with them. The choice to ask for friend invites with Facebook friends is your choice. I don't even know what 'questionable privacy details with an unsafe EULA' is supposed to mean, but it SOUNDS like I should be pretty scared now.
Quote: 8) Complete Lack of Innovation
Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Seriously though, game play first. We're not going to try all sorts of crazy things just to try to be different. Our interest is in putting out a fun game, not one that exists to try out unproven mechanics, or push graphics/computing boundaries.
Quote:
9) The switch to voice chat is horrendous. It leaves nothing to the imagination and makes you hate the people your playing with because of their ridiculous voices/accents (they all sound the same) and the breathing noises. Voice chat is horrible. I haven't played bnet voichat but every other voicechat i've ever played, counterstrike, xbx, ps3 is horrendous.
??? You can chat in-game through text, same as always. If you want though:
Menu -> Options -> Voice -> Uncheck "Enable Voice Chat"
Then there's no chance you'll ever hear anyone. But it's a great tool for quick communication between teammates if you have a regular two's partner. Or whatever.
Quote: 4) Pay-to-play
It has turned out that SC2 is indeed Pay-to-Play, despite all the promises we've had otherwise, in regions outside of the US. For example, Russian and South American players must subscribe to battle.net and get a set amount of "game hours" that expire and need to be renewed. Will such a system exist for D3?
We tailor our business models for each country/region based on many factors. Here in the US I can walk into a game store, buy a boxed product for about $60, take it home, and I generally expect that to include free multiplayer (unless I know it's a subscription MMO or whatever). That's not something you can do in all other countries, most don't have game stores, and so it's not something they generally work with. The exact same tailoring has been used for World of Warcraft.
Quote: 5) Region Locking
Here's the last thing that was said on region locking (this was Sigaty btw):
Q: How far in the 'long term' are those plans which allow for swapping to U.S. servers on an E.U. account - or a global account?
A: Jumping to the region you want is definitely in the long term plan for Battle.net, although we do have some concerns about communicating properly to the player what's happening if they choose this because it WILL affect the latency of the game. As far as a date on when, I don't have one yet. There are a number of features that we want to make sure get out their first and jumping to different servers is lower on the priority list at the moment.
Ok, now that is downright ridiculous. South America is getting p2p too? seriously, theres no way I'm paying to play a game that is not a MMORPG.
And on top of that we wont be able to change servers, just great, I'm stuck in a server with less people and wont be able to communicate with 90% of the people on it, since i don't speak spanish.
Way to go Blizzard. But i guess this shouldn't be a surprise, after seeing all the lackluster decisions they're making in SC.
Get real, folks, the diablo you all knew is dead, a few years ago i said right here in this forum that D3 had a pretty good chance of being blizzard first bust (i was flamed to death ofc), and what you know, its not even beta and its already looking that way.
Yes, its true, you're supposed to always have the option to just buy the full game regardless and not have to P2P. Hopefully.
Yes, its completely dumb or I should say insanely retarded that you're stuck playing only with people where you are. Thats like... the biggest step back in online gaming I have ever seen. I don't care what stupid excuses they can make for it, and great, sure, they'll add it "at some point", but its still ridiculous. Its easily the most retarded limitation I have ever seen in an online game. There's no other way to put this.
No chat rooms on SC2 launch also make me laugh at them so, so much. Its pathetic, really.
Technically the games are fine, but its crazy how bad Battle net 2.0 is for now. It has Activision's stench all over it.
Bashiok tryed his best, but lack of innovation is not a matter of opnion.
B.net 2 is nothing but a usual, LOW QUALITY, platform. No chats, no clan support, pathetic interface, ridicolous rank system, players are not allowed to name their rooms... And nothing new. I can't imagine old b.net > new b.net. It's unbelievable but it's true...
Bashiok tryed his best, but lack of innovation is not a matter of opnion.
B.net 2 is nothing but a usual, LOW QUALITY, platform. No chats, no clan support, pathetic interface, ridicolous rank system, players are not allowed to name their rooms... And nothing new. I can't imagine old b.net > new b.net. It's unbelievable but it's true...
Really, wtf is going on there =/
Well of course a new upgrade is going to be low quality. Most of that stuff has been said to be on its way to battle.net 2, chats are even addressed in the post by bashiok this thread is about.
Theres a clear and defined difference between saying that they aren't going to be innovative for the sake of being innovative and saying that they wont innovate at all. One means they are going to keep what they see as good elements of D2, and adding other elements, the other means they're going to be making the same game.
[size="2"]
I can express my feelings that your post was not very innovative, but then another user says it quite is, in fact, innovative.
Unfortunately, the majority thinks like this too, just go look the beta forum and teamliquid.net
Oh wait... I think I heard something about Blizzard stating that StarCraft 2 is still in Beta...
I wonder what this might mean?
It means we´re 20 days from launch and they are releasing a broken/unfinished product. Or you think blizzard is hiding some SUPER cool features up in they're sleeves? Anyway:
Good stuff, that's what's going on there.
Well, now, guess what? That's a matter of opinion, and this one is not a majority one.
I'm sure they think that about you too.
Can't say im happy with chat rooms gone, but since they will be there (god knows when), it's fine, but removing gamenames/password is a blasphemy, they killed the entire custom game community with it. Dota, tower defense and all the other maps DEPENDS on this simple feature. What good is SC2 with its map editor if the makers can't delivery the product?
Oh, wait, i know what you're going to say, its betaa dudeee.
Get real, folks, the diablo you all knew is dead, a few years ago i said right here in this forum that D3 had a pretty good chance of being blizzard first bust (i was flamed to death ofc), and what you know, its not even beta and its already looking that way.
One thing that is great about Diablo III is that if Battle net 2.0 turns out to be a failure, and everyone playing sc2 complain about it, Blizzard will most likely fix it, and Diablo 3 will be fine
Mwahahahaha....
Thought the exact same thing. *High Five*
While no LAN makes me a bit sad, it's pretty pointless to complain about that. Like Darwin famously said-
learn to adapt motherfuckers.
Good ol' Darwin. :biggrin:
Should feel a bit sorry for SC fans though... Oh wait, I don't...
Mehehehehe.
PS- Hold your breath Jaky, it's only me. :sorcerer:
One thing that is great about Diablo III is that if Battle net 2.0 turns out to be a failure, and everyone playing sc2 complain about it, Blizzard will most likely fix it, and Diablo 3 will be fine
Which, of course, will delay the release, just like StarCraft II! Which means there is no way we will see this game in 2011!
Um what? By the time D3 is out SC2, and bnet 2 with it, will have been out for a year +. Theres no way that they wouldnt have gotten the kinks out in that amount of time, and if there are bnet 2 related problems that delay D3's release until 2012, then it probably wouldn't have been released in 2011 with or without bnet 2's issues.
DotA was WC3's most popular custom map - arguably keeping Wc3 alive even today.
People really should start being more subjective with their claims. It ruined Wc3 for you. Which seems odd to me, because, like, no one was forcing you to play. I never really got interested in DotA either, but I was very content with Sheep Tag, TD maps, and vanilla matches.
Bashiok tryed his best, but lack of innovation is not a matter of opnion.
As a matter of fact, it is.
I can express my feelings that your post was not very innovative, but then another user says it quite is, in fact, innovative.
B.net 2 is nothing but a usual, LOW QUALITY, platform. No chats, no clan support, pathetic interface, ridicolous rank system, players are not allowed to name their rooms... And nothing new. I can't imagine old b.net > new b.net. It's unbelievable but it's true...
Oh wait... I think I heard something about Blizzard stating that StarCraft 2 is still in Beta...
I wonder what this might mean?
Did you actually ever used the b.net 2? There one single feature that are good: the ping balance. Other then that show me ONE b.net 2 feature that makes it superior to the last version. Really, one thing is launch a avarage platform for multiplay, other is hype the platform saying it's going to be inovative and show us something that existed 10 years ago.
And SC2 is going out of beta next week. And it doesn't matter of they gona add it sooner or later. They WILL launch the game w/o most of b.net content. And even if thjey fix everything, b.net 2 has nothing better then b.net 1, so whats the point ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In time the hissing of her sanity
Faded out her voice and soiled her name
And like marked pages in a diary
Everything seemed clean that is unstained
The incoherent talk of ordinary days
Why would we really need to live?
Decide what is clear and what's within a haze
What you should take and what to give" - Opeth
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Official Blizzard Quote:
Oh Clan-Iraq... you say things that are so Clan-Iraq.
This should probably be in the SC2 forums, but... eh... here ya go! Me shouting down your hyperbole once again.
Correct.
There will be chat rooms, they're just not making the launch of SC2.
Alarming! How much was it to buy Diablo II and the Lord of Destruction expansion when they were released? Right. Expansions are sold at expansion prices. This is not news.
We tailor our business models for each country/region based on many factors. Here in the US I can walk into a game store, buy a boxed product for about $60, take it home, and I generally expect that to include free multiplayer (unless I know it's a subscription MMO or whatever). That's not something you can do in all other countries, most don't have game stores, and so it's not something they generally work with. The exact same tailoring has been used for World of Warcraft.
Here's the last thing that was said on region locking (this was Sigaty btw):
Q: How far in the 'long term' are those plans which allow for swapping to U.S. servers on an E.U. account - or a global account?
A: Jumping to the region you want is definitely in the long term plan for Battle.net, although we do have some concerns about communicating properly to the player what's happening if they choose this because it WILL affect the latency of the game. As far as a date on when, I don't have one yet. There are a number of features that we want to make sure get out their first and jumping to different servers is lower on the priority list at the moment.
Hahaha. You're hilarious. We all play. All the designers and developers play. Some on semi-pro levels. We're in contact with many pro players, our friends and family that are playing, we read the forums, we read fansites, etc. etc. What I see as the main issue here is that a lot of the time people want balance changes based on flavor of the minute strategies without understanding that it's constantly evolving. So much so that from day to day the matchups could change dramatically.
Not seeing the balance changes you think should be made implemented is not the same as us ignoring the community and making arbitrary changes based on nothing but statistics. They're definitely a tool, but by no means are the sole or even biggest factor for balance changes.
Well now you're just making stuff up.
Everything stated here is vaguely incorrect to flat out wrong. You can add people to your friends list without being a RealID friend with them. The choice to ask for friend invites with Facebook friends is your choice. I don't even know what 'questionable privacy details with an unsafe EULA' is supposed to mean, but it SOUNDS like I should be pretty scared now.
Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Seriously though, game play first. We're not going to try all sorts of crazy things just to try to be different. Our interest is in putting out a fun game, not one that exists to try out unproven mechanics, or push graphics/computing boundaries.
??? You can chat in-game through text, same as always. If you want though:
Menu -> Options -> Voice -> Uncheck "Enable Voice Chat"
Then there's no chance you'll ever hear anyone. But it's a great tool for quick communication between teammates if you have a regular two's partner. Or whatever.
(Source.)
Ok, now that is downright ridiculous. South America is getting p2p too? seriously, theres no way I'm paying to play a game that is not a MMORPG.
And on top of that we wont be able to change servers, just great, I'm stuck in a server with less people and wont be able to communicate with 90% of the people on it, since i don't speak spanish.
Way to go Blizzard. But i guess this shouldn't be a surprise, after seeing all the lackluster decisions they're making in SC.
Yes, its completely dumb or I should say insanely retarded that you're stuck playing only with people where you are. Thats like... the biggest step back in online gaming I have ever seen. I don't care what stupid excuses they can make for it, and great, sure, they'll add it "at some point", but its still ridiculous. Its easily the most retarded limitation I have ever seen in an online game. There's no other way to put this.
No chat rooms on SC2 launch also make me laugh at them so, so much. Its pathetic, really.
Technically the games are fine, but its crazy how bad Battle net 2.0 is for now. It has Activision's stench all over it.
B.net 2 is nothing but a usual, LOW QUALITY, platform. No chats, no clan support, pathetic interface, ridicolous rank system, players are not allowed to name their rooms... And nothing new. I can't imagine old b.net > new b.net. It's unbelievable but it's true...
Really, wtf is going on there =/
Well of course a new upgrade is going to be low quality. Most of that stuff has been said to be on its way to battle.net 2, chats are even addressed in the post by bashiok this thread is about.
Theres a clear and defined difference between saying that they aren't going to be innovative for the sake of being innovative and saying that they wont innovate at all. One means they are going to keep what they see as good elements of D2, and adding other elements, the other means they're going to be making the same game.
There is so much more than just any problems with Bnet 2.0 to delay it even more. I just jinxed it, didn't I?
Damnit
Recruiting for East Realm
Also recruiting for Sc2 on both EU and NA servers
Bod home Page
That's a relief!
Recruiting for East Realm
Also recruiting for Sc2 on both EU and NA servers
Bod home Page
Unfortunately, the majority thinks like this too, just go look the beta forum and teamliquid.net
It means we´re 20 days from launch and they are releasing a broken/unfinished product. Or you think blizzard is hiding some SUPER cool features up in they're sleeves? Anyway:
Well, now, guess what? That's a matter of opinion, and this one is not a majority one.
Can't say im happy with chat rooms gone, but since they will be there (god knows when), it's fine, but removing gamenames/password is a blasphemy, they killed the entire custom game community with it. Dota, tower defense and all the other maps DEPENDS on this simple feature. What good is SC2 with its map editor if the makers can't delivery the product?
Oh, wait, i know what you're going to say, its betaa dudeee.
Seriously?
Mwahahahaha....
Thought the exact same thing. *High Five*
While no LAN makes me a bit sad, it's pretty pointless to complain about that. Like Darwin famously said- Good ol' Darwin. :biggrin:
Should feel a bit sorry for SC fans though... Oh wait, I don't...
Mehehehehe.
PS- Hold your breath Jaky, it's only me. :sorcerer:
Um what? By the time D3 is out SC2, and bnet 2 with it, will have been out for a year +. Theres no way that they wouldnt have gotten the kinks out in that amount of time, and if there are bnet 2 related problems that delay D3's release until 2012, then it probably wouldn't have been released in 2011 with or without bnet 2's issues.
People really should start being more subjective with their claims. It ruined Wc3 for you. Which seems odd to me, because, like, no one was forcing you to play. I never really got interested in DotA either, but I was very content with Sheep Tag, TD maps, and vanilla matches.
Did you actually ever used the b.net 2? There one single feature that are good: the ping balance. Other then that show me ONE b.net 2 feature that makes it superior to the last version. Really, one thing is launch a avarage platform for multiplay, other is hype the platform saying it's going to be inovative and show us something that existed 10 years ago.
And SC2 is going out of beta next week. And it doesn't matter of they gona add it sooner or later. They WILL launch the game w/o most of b.net content. And even if thjey fix everything, b.net 2 has nothing better then b.net 1, so whats the point ?