Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Blizzard Previews Revamped Battle.net

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the find-out-precisely-how-bad-you-are dept.

The Internet 188

Blizzard updated the official StarCraft II site today with a preview of how the revamped Battle.net will function. They emphasize the social features, competitive matchmaking system, and the ease of sharing mods and maps. Quoting: "When the legacy Battle.net service introduced support for user-created mods such as DotA, Tower Defense, and many others, these user-created game types became immensely popular. But while Battle.net supported mods at a basic level, integration with tools and the mod community wasn't where it needed to be for a game releasing in 2010. The new Battle.net service will see some major improvements in this area. StarCraft II will include a full-featured content-creation toolkit — the same tools used by the StarCraft II design team to create the single-player campaign. To fully harness the community's mapmaking prowess, Battle.net will introduce a feature called Map Publishing. Map Publishing will let users upload their maps to the service and share them with the rest of the community immediately on the service. This also ties in with the goal of making Battle.net an always-connected experience — you can publish, browse, and download maps directly via the Battle.net client. Finding games based on specific mods will also be much easier with our all-new custom game system, placing the full breadth of the modding community's efforts at your fingertips."

cancel ×

188 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great stuff! (1)

dushkin (965522) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083502)

I think they really recognized one of the strengths of their game(s).

Sounds great, Blizz!

Who cares? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31083514)

Just say no to DRM, lack of LAN support, and splitting the game into multiple parts.

Boycott Starcraft II!

Re:Who cares? (4, Funny)

dnwq (910646) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083614)

Yes, that will work so well [imageshack.us] .

Re:Who cares? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31084082)

Ok, 30 kids didn't like it but still got it as a present or just bought it.

That does not mean that we shouldn't express our opinions.

Re:Who cares? (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086014)

That's.... not a boycott though.

Re:Who cares? (1)

ztransform (929641) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083874)

Boycott Starcraft II!

I hate DRM, I have been close to spitting tacks over the multiple mandatory online accounts and SecureROM havoc played with my system by Grand Theft Auto, but I have been longing for Starcraft II for years now.

Re:Who cares? (1)

insnprsn (1202137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084580)

DRM... well we can only hope but given most of the rest of the industry...
Lack of LAN support... honestly who gives a crap if Blizz comes through with features in Battle.net to make up for it as they have indicated
Splitting games into multiple parts... yeah this is really a huge huge deal, i honestly cant think of any other games that are releasing as episodic content, and the fact that these multiple parts will be full length game is just a terrible idea

Boycott Starcraft II... really? Good luck with that
a) There are far to many people who realize that the complaints such as you have logged are either minor (lack of LAN support, Battle.net features should compensate) or completely insane (breaking the game into 3 parts is a bad thing, 3 full length games > 1 full length game)
b) There are far to many Blizzard fan boys for this

Re:Who cares? (3, Insightful)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085660)

Just say no to a company that likes suing their own [wikipedia.org] fans [wikipedia.org] to the ground and directly expanded [wikipedia.org] the reach of EULAs in the United States.

DRM, LAN, they're all just the nip in the proverbial bud of Blizzard's evil, reasons to boycott them we've had for years now.

Re:Who cares? (4, Insightful)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087462)

Ridiculous. What other company still supports servers for a 10+ year old game? What other company ignores release pressures and won't release a game until it is done? Evil my ass.

But let's talk about bnetd. Bnetd was where people went to play pirated copies of Starcraft. You can argue some minority of people owned the game and preferred playing. But the reality is, that is where people who didn't pay for the game played. If you owned a company, I am sure you would shut down anyone who did the same to you. This is where some people argue "But the bnetd people said they would do key checks if Blizzard would give them their key gen algorithm". And this is where I look at them funny for being so stupid. Do you really think a company would hand that over to some random people. Give me a break.

Never even heard of Freecraft. Sounds like Blizzard didn't like the name association and its copying of Warcraft's idea. So they changed the name and actually tried to make a unique game instead of copying. Sounds find to me.

As far as Glider is concerned...are you serious? Bots ruin MMOs. People running Glider were getting banned since you had to dig around on the site to even know that it was something that violated the ToS. It was an application made EXPLICITLY to do something that would get you banned. There was absolutely no other application of Glider but to cheat. It deserved to be shut down and was something that benefited people who actually played the game.

You can not like them for doing these things, but you have to realize from a business perspective it is all completely logical. Companies have to protect their IP. If you counter balance this with the fact that they still support and update really really old games and that they make some of the best games ever, you can't really hate them without looking like some sort of hyper-polarized buffoon.

I am not trying to convince you to buy their games. I am just saying, you aren't going to change my mind with those examples since they are all justified by any reasonable person.

Why does everything have to be a market? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31083520)

Isn't adding a monetary incentive for mods going to overshadow the inherent incentive of creating something fun?

Re:Why does everything have to be a market? (1)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083596)

Payments aren't required. This will provide the perfect mechanism to allow full game replacement mods as those usually involve a small team of developers and real monetary investment. There is nothing wrong with giving mod developers the option to be paid for their work.

Re:Why does everything have to be a market? (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086084)

My hope is that people resist the urge to get greedy, and the only maps that end up being pay-to-play are the truly commercial-grade level of mods for the game, like completely new campaigns with new art, new units, etc.

My expectation is any stand-alone maps that cost money will simply be copied, with or without enough changes to justify a legal defense, and made available for free, undercutting the entire paid DLC model on Battle.net.

Will it stay free? (1)

Shag (3737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083526)

Just wondering. The subscription model of WoW has kept me using WC3. :)

Re:Will it stay free? (3, Informative)

Noghlin (1223690) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083536)

Re:Will it stay free? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085028)

Yes, it's free.

So there's no ongoing benefit to Blizzard keeping the Starcraft 2 servers going after about a year when the sales start to trail off.

What is it like TWELVE YEARS now and people are still playing Starcraft against one another via LAN? You think there's any chance that Blizzard is going to still be running a Starcraft 2 server in 2022?

Sometimes, being a fan of a product to the extent that you'd buy it no matter what works against your own best interest.

Re:Will it stay free? (5, Informative)

space_jake (687452) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085176)

It's been 12 years since Starcraft came out and legacy Battle.net is still up.

Re:Will it stay free? (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086112)

Yeah, I don't think we really have to worry about Blizzard taking their servers down any time soon. They sell their new games based on the fact that Battle.net is so good and reliable for more than a decade now.

Re:Will it stay free? (2, Informative)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085634)

Isn't Diablo 2 *still* active on battle.net?

Re:Will it stay free? (1)

darkvizier (703808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086840)

Yup. There's still quite a few playing Diablo 2. Though Blizzard has pissed a lot off with the upcoming patch... lot of failed expectations there.

Re:Will it stay free? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087194)

These days, I think there's more spambots than players though.

They're not only annoying, they're badly coded. They enter a game, spew their crap and then leave in less than one second. Lags the game to hell, annoys all the players.

The worst part is: five seconds later, another spambots enters the game and spew the SAME crap again. And then you get a bonus spambot spewing crap for another website three seconds later.

Re:Will it stay free? (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087492)

Are you completely stupid? If you can judge by the history of Blizzard which still runs battle.net for Starcraft, a 10+ year old game. Then yes. Yes it would still be up.

Turn in your gamer card for not knowing that.

Re:Will it stay free? (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085722)

For now.

Facebattle.net (5, Insightful)

tuxedobob (582913) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083546)

Great, more of this "social networking" garbage? Can't a game just be a game anymore?

Re:Facebattle.net (3, Interesting)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083624)

It's garbage to include these kinds of tools in a game that is primarily played as multiplayer? Gaming has become a very social activity over the past few years, in case you haven't noticed. Adding social networking to Battle.net is a pretty obvious choice when you see the success of Xbox Live! and PSN as gaming platforms. They do so well because people have the ability to create groups. You can keep in touch with all the people you enjoy playing with instead of just playing endless games against people you don't know. A multiplayer platform without social networking abilities is pretty much an oxymoron today.

Re:Facebattle.net (1)

zoloto (586738) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083930)

Purely moronic actually :P

Re:Facebattle.net (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31083988)

Gaming has become a very social activity over the past few years, in case you haven't noticed.

He has. That's the nature of his complaint. I'm equally annoyed by this movement, and miss the day when multiplayer gaming just meant playing against an opponent smarter than the single-player AI, not someone that would want to talk and otherwise have to be thought of as a human being.

Most importantly, what I miss the most are games where the single-player experience is placed above the multiplayer aspects. Sure, every once in a while we get games like Mass Effect, but those are the exception, not the rule.

Re:Facebattle.net (2, Insightful)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084006)

You might miss those days, but the vast majority of gamers don't seem to miss it. Hell, some probably don't remember it. You're not the market. They are.

Re:Facebattle.net (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084634)

I have to agree. I have no interest in BNet. I would rather play with a few of my close friends (as in people I actually know and have met in person). I find most people in these online communities to be about as desirable as 'Anonymous' for personalities. They tend to be irresponsible, infantile, or just douche bags in general when the whim suits them.

I'm one of those that was very disappointed that I would even have to log into BNet just to play Diablo. What I find most amusing out of all of this is that the 'social aspect' that the younger crowd extols as being the be all end all of platforms, turns out more social misfits than I've seen in my life. Younger people are simply socially awkward in many aspects these days. They lack basic social skills. They get so used to hiding behind an IP address, that they just don't know how to interact very well when they are face to face with a real person.

Re:Facebattle.net (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087678)

Then don't friend random people and only friend the people you know and like to play with. It just makes it easier for you guys to organize and play together. I swear, people on here complain about everything. It is like you are all 70 year old men with bad health problems.

Re:Facebattle.net (4, Funny)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085678)

You and tuxedobob should move in together. With your powers combined none of us would dare tread on your lawn ever again.

Re:Facebattle.net (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087660)

Your argument makes absolutely no sense. You can still play against strangers. But now, if you find someone you like playing with, it is a lot easier to know when they are online, chat with them, and set up a game. There is no downside. If you don't want to deal with that side of the game, ignore it. No one is forcing you to make friends.

You must be completely blind. There are more games with great single player experiences than any other time in history. Fallout 3, Borderlands, Tales of Vesperia (or others on different consoles, Dragon Age Origins, Mass Effect 2, BioShock (and now the sequel), Fable 2 just to name a few. There are so many great games right now, I can't keep up.

Re:Facebattle.net (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084192)

I just wish they would have made a deal with somebody at some point. I'm all over the "gaming social networks" because I'm a heavy gamer - there's LIVE, PSN, Xfire, Steam, Facebook (in a way), and now BNET 2.0. I wish they would have just cut a deal with Steam like so many games do and saved a whole bunch of people the headache.

This takes me back to the IM client wars of the early 00s...

Re:Facebattle.net (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084444)

>>there's LIVE, PSN, Xfire, Steam, Facebook (in a way), and now BNET 2.0.

Almost every company is making their own usually terrible social network site. For example, you have to enroll with Bioware's shitty social networking site to play Dragon Age or (presumably) ME2, or at least to get the collector's edition items that you probably should have just gotten included when you bought the game. I'm principally annoyed at them since they had two different email addresses on file for me, and kept bouncing me back and forth between the two saying that my email was wrong each time, which kept me from being able to play Dragon Age for nearly a week until they fixed the bug in their software. And my character on their online site is permanently stuck at level 12, even though it shows me having the achievement for hitting level 20. And... yeah. It's pretty bad.

But the thing that really bugs me is: Why do I need to be part of a social networking site to play Dragon Age or Mass Effect? They're single fucking player games. Adding "friends" or whatever doesn't make the slightest bloody difference.

Re:Facebattle.net (1)

BlueTrin (683373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084550)

/agree with you, had some issues on the launch date, it was pretty annoying.

But to answer the question, it was needed because they plan to make some additional money by selling expansions and additional content.

Re:Facebattle.net (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085522)

>>But to answer the question, it was needed because they plan to make some additional money by selling expansions and additional content.

An online store is one thing. A social network, though? That's kind of inexplicable.

Re:Facebattle.net (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085888)

Steam has some pretty rudimentary social networking features. Profile pages, a wall, groups, and chat(+groupchat)/buddy list that works in game, with voicechat/group voicechat. The groups and chat are indespensible though. We managed to get six people together for a competitive 6v6 team and schedule games that way using the group and groupchat features. I probably wouldn't be playing TF2 still (and Valve selling tons and tons of copies of TF2 2.5 years after the release date) if it weren't for the community features. Prior to Steam you had to run your own website and recruit players and keep in touch with them via email. Now you just have your steam name/number which isn't publicly tied to an email address allowing people to be more willing to casually join a group or team. It's worked very well for Valve and I'd imagine Blizzard's service will be a clone of Steam with some more advanced features (an online "mapp store" - heh, get it?).

Re:Facebattle.net (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085666)

it was needed because they plan to make some additional money by selling expansions and additional content.

There must be a different meaning for the word "needed" that I'm unaware of.

Re:Facebattle.net (1)

johny42 (1087173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084694)

This takes me back to the IM client wars of the early 00s...

When did the IM wars end? Most people I know still use 2-3 distinct IM services, and now that anyone providing any kind of service feels that it is necessary to have IM as a part of it (e-mail services, social networks, and now, it seems, games), it's only getting worse. At least, with Google's support, XMPP is finally gaining some traction (even between non-geeks).

Re:Facebattle.net (1)

jerep (794296) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084506)

It still should be optional, people should be free to decide whether they want to use the bnet integration or not. I myself will most likely run sc2 behind a firewall when i play the single player campaign to not be bothered and find a bnet-to-lan utility for lan gaming.

Re:Facebattle.net (5, Insightful)

sgtrock (191182) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085100)

It's garbage to include these kinds of tools in a game that is primarily played as multiplayer? Gaming has become a very social activity over the past few years, in case you haven't noticed.

You youngsters don't know what you missed during id software's heyday. Gaming "has become" a very social activity??? You never played a player mod for Doom ][ or Quake, then, I take it. You never got to play with Homer Simpson as your avatar. Never played Quess, or Weapons Factory, or the original Team Fortress, or QRally, or Loki's Minions, or the original Threewave CTF, or any number of other lesser known player created mods. You never played the original Counter-Strike betas on the HL engine, either.

You never played on team ladders like those hosted by OGL [worldogl.com] . You never listened in on Tapper's live netcasts on Radio Evil.

You never found a handful of servers that you played on regularly. Never got to know the regulars as friends. Never participated on a hosting clan's forums.

Going even further back, you never played Empire on PLATO [daleske.com] .

Online gaming has always been a very social activity. The only real change is that many gaming companies, Valve among them, are making it tougher and tougher to create player created and managed communities. I see this as a HUGE step in the wrong direction. :-(

Re:Facebattle.net (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085776)

As long as I don't have to disclose everything including the times I'll probably sit on the can as in most other "social" websites with the rest of the world, I can stomach it.

Face it, what do I want from a "multiplayer community platform"?

a) A matchmaking service that pits me against (or with, in co-op games) players of a similar skill level.
b) A way to keep track of the people I liked to play with (today elevated to "friend" status, but personally, I'd use the word far more selectively).
c) A way to keep me from having to play with cheaters and other morons.

I don't care about these people's shitting habits or their pets and families. For all I care they could be well made scripts. I pick friends to talk with and exchange ideas and discuss worries in the real world. When I play a game, I want to play a game. Not more. Not less. I don't care about what music they listen to or that they are in emotional turmoil because some movie star got divorced. Tell your shrink if you can afford it or your friend if you have any. I'm not your friend. I am your game partner. Not more. Not less.

Re:Facebattle.net (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31083632)

No. This is simply poorly hidden DRM.

"Lets give the sucker... erm, 'customers' some features they -already had-, but make them call-home constantly in order to use it, so that when we want to release SC3, we can just shut this version down and make them all 'upgrade'"

Re:Facebattle.net (1)

alienzed (732782) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083662)

It's not fun until people you know know you think it's fun.

Re:Facebattle.net (1)

DavidD_CA (750156) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083828)

Yes. Just don't log on to Battle.net.

*always* connected? (3, Insightful)

xlsior (524145) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083760)

From their site: In the past, Battle.net was presented as a multiplayer option off to the side, off of the main menu of Blizzard Entertainment titles. That is all changing. With the new Battle.net experience, the service and the game are now interwoven into one experience. Whether you are in single-player or multiplayer StarCraft II, you are always connected, and enjoy a bevy of new and enhanced functionality.

Just... Great.

Yet another game that you can't play without being tethered to the internet. No biggie for multiplayer, but it really shouldn't have any business in single-player campaign mode...

Re:*always* connected? (1)

ztransform (929641) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083882)

Yet another game that you can't play without being tethered to the internet

Heaven forbid you could entertain yourself on a long haul flight, or on a high-speed long distance train journey.

Re:*always* connected? (1)

shadedream (1225698) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084844)

... or on a high-speed long distance train journey.

You obviously don't travel in the states...

Re:*always* connected? (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086158)

Believe it or not, but there are trains here.

Re:*always* connected? (1)

shadedream (1225698) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086258)

Oh believe me I do know, I've taken them many times. A descriptor I would not use for them is "high speed" though... I think half of a lot of the trips were spent cruising slowly through residential areas or stopped waiting for freight traffic.

That said I still prefer it to flying... it just takes too long given the speeds, track sharing and the whole having to use Chicago as a central hub thing.

Re:*always* connected? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086384)

There are quite a few long distance train services in the US. Most of them are scenic routes because nobody wants to sit on a train that long.

Here is a site you can go to for tickets if you want to sit on one of these long boring rides: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/HomePage [amtrak.com]

They even offer sleeping cars because some of these trips are days...

Re:*always* connected? (1)

shadedream (1225698) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086464)

Yes, but they don't exactly qualify as "High Speed".

Re:*always* connected? (1)

zoloto (586738) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083938)

Could always have your firewall block and play in offline mode. It's not like they'll prevent it like Steam tried to, right?

Re:*always* connected? (2, Insightful)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084042)

Other than assuming the worst, there's no reason to assume the game cannot function in single player without being connected to battle.net.

After all (and ignoring that GFWL is crap for a second), I could make the same statements about Fallout 3, Dawn of War, or Resident Evil 5 and GFWL. Being able to be "always connected" for "enhanced functionality". None of them require you to log into GFWL to function in single player though. Or any Steam game for that matter (you can go to offline mode, but then you lose the "enhanced functionality" of steam achievements and friends.

I'd expect something similar to the Steam overlay for the new battle.net.

Re:*always* connected? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31085600)

Its been stated before, but there are plenty of steam games that will not let you play single player unless you are connected to steam. Left 4 Dead 2 is just one example. You can get in less than 5 minutes before the game dies and kicks you out for not being connected to steam. This includes offline mode.

Posting as Anon because I've modded in this thread.

Re:*always* connected? (1)

s1lverl0rd (1382241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084326)

What makes you think it isn't optional? I think you'll be able to play the game without Battle.net quite well.

Re:*always* connected? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084458)

It doesn't say that it's mandatory, just that it's available. XBox Live and Steam both have an online presence in singleplayer games, it didn't stop you starting the software offline.

Re:*always* connected? (1)

regular_gonzalez (926606) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084502)

I imagine the subset of the population that this will impact is vanishingly small. Your desktop is obviously always connected, so we're looking at laptops. Given that the graphics are fairly modern, we can eliminate vast swaths of the notebook market. RTS games require a mouse - using a touchpad for an RTS is an exercise in frustration and can only sound like a viable option to someone who has never actually tried it. So now we're looking at a gaming laptop with enough flat area to use a mouse - something like a desk or table. Certainly a larger area than, say, the fold-up tray on an airplane; something more like a table at your local coffee shop (which almost assuredly has free wifi). It's not a huge leap to say that the number of people who will play this game on a gaming laptop in an area with no internet connection is miniscule.

And that's not even taking into account that there will likely be an offline mode similar to Steam.

I beg to differ (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084972)

Your desktop is obviously always connected

I beg to differ. A lot of people who stick to single-player or split-screen gaming do so because they live where they can't get anything above dial-up and don't want to tie up the phone line for an hour at a time. Even people who live in range of low-end DSL often have PPPoE, and my mother reports that PPPoE will deny her a connection if too many other users are connected to the same DSLAM.

Given that the graphics are fairly modern, we can eliminate vast swaths of the notebook market.

I beg to differ. Any chipset with a better GPU than Intel's "Graphics My Ass", such as the NVIDIA ION chipset, can run video games.

How to do tournament play? with out have the on li (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084876)

How to do tournament play? with out have the on line part? as for tournament you need to keep stuff to local systems only as any kind of lag / server mess up may mess things up and being on line makes it more likely to not be 100% the same for all players. also people may not want to get banded for what ever software may be on the tournaments systems that are not there own systems.

arg... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31083772)

Can't read it here in Korea since it just endlessly redirects me to the empty Korean version of the site.

Re:arg... (1)

ascendant (1116807) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084452)

I'm sure if you press F5 fast enough it'll eventually load.

Nice deep integration but hoping for API (1)

tarkin (34045) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083810)

I like the deep cross-game integration of status, matchmaking and voice chat but I wish all the players building their own closed social gaming platforms would also build a proper external API to go with it (Xbox Live, Steam etc.).

Maybe we need a Open Game Achievement Standards Body RFC comity group thingie?

Fawks (1, Interesting)

Ruatxnjr06 (1481315) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083830)

That's ok for moders. What about those of us who will not buy StarCraft II without LAN party capability? I think I irritated a Blizzard employee one time when we met. I told him, I hope Blizzard does not screw up StarCraft II like they did WarCraft III. I hated the look of WCIII and did not even finish the human single player campaign. Thats after paying $70 for the special box set of WarCraft III. If they do not have LAN capability in StarCraft II, I will not even waste my money on purchasing the game.

Re:Fawks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31083970)

Don't worry, there will be offline play and LAN capability in the TPB-version of Starcraft 2

Re:Fawks (1)

dnwq (910646) | more than 4 years ago | (#31083998)

"I bought your product even though I thought you screwed it up, but if you screw it up again I won't buy it. Honest!"

(plus, bonus "I hated and didn't finish one of your GOTY titles, thus demonstrating I am not your representative customer and can be safely ignored")

Re:Fawks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31084496)

Mod parent up. If you don't plan to buy their game because it doesn't feaure LAN play out-of-the-box then...boo-hoo? I'm sure Blizzard will cry themselves to sleep on their humongous piles of money.

Re:Fawks (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085418)

"I bought your product even though I thought you screwed it up, but if you screw it up again I won't buy it. Honest!"

Actually, wasn't this more of a "I bought one of your products and found out while playing it that it sucked, and if you screw it up again I won't buy the next one. Honest!"

Re:Fawks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31084208)

Blizzard had one simple job: release a sequel to StarCraft. All they needed to do was give us a new race, some UI enhancements, increase the unit cap and make a few other tweaks. Instead, over a decade late, we get this nerf'd piece of shit. But "oooh it's got nice graphics." Right..

Re:Fawks (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084266)

That's really, really wrong. You see, the thing with some games is the fact that they aren't overly complicated to jump on, but are very deep on another level. They don't really need to fix what's not broken. Go play Age of empire if you want to play with 20 something races. No one is forcing you to play SC2. It's like you don't even know what blizzard's made of.

Re:Fawks (1)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084362)

over a decade late

Pffth! It only took them seven years to make it.

Re:Fawks (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087634)

What about those of us who will not buy StarCraft II without LAN party capability?

Your money will scarcely be missed.

Re:Fawks (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087790)

I really don't get people like you. You don't finish a game because the artistic style is so offensive to you. I thought game play mattered more than graphics?

If I were a Blizzard employee, I would be annoyed with you too. They probably had nothing to do with the development of WC III. And you just come up and randomly trashing a game their company makes.

I think you have severe social skill problems. And that says something when you are on a tech site.

This gets published on Slashdot? (1)

Elokane (1558107) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084552)

All of this information was already revealed during the last Blizzcon, and it wasn't exactly mind blowing then if you compare it to what's already available for WarCraft 3. http://www.sc2blog.com/2009/08/24/blizzcon-2009-battle-net-2-0-and-the-galaxy-editors-hour/ [sc2blog.com]

Re:This gets published on Slashdot? (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086236)

The more interesting story in my mind is the fact they've got an investor conference call today, the SC2 beta forums got created (and then quickly made private) on battle.net on Monday, and rumors are going around about the beta coming out on Friday, at least since last week sometime. This battle.net preview thing is really just more evidence that they're getting close to beta, since basically the game was delayed until 2010 due to battle.net taking too long.

WINE (1)

emanem (1356033) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084622)

Honestly I just hope it will work in WINE.
If it does I might give it a shot. Will DRM not make work it in WINE?
Well one less customer.
Have fun!

Rejoin game? (1)

killsome (1591325) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084788)

The most important feature would be, to be able to reconnect to a running match. I don't want to know how much time I have waisted because someone was disconnected...

Selling mods... (1)

kungfugleek (1314949) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085294)

From TFA: "With the StarCraft II Marketplace, players will be able to browse, download, rate, comment on, and even buy mods if their creators choose to put a price tag on their work."
That's neat and all, but I'm wondering if there will be some way to prevent a user from buying a mod, changing it just slightly, and re-uploading it for free.

Re:Selling mods... (1)

Necroman (61604) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086266)

As many people I've talked to about this feature has brought this up as well, I'm guessing Blizzard has already thought of this. Maybe Blizzard will specially encrypt maps that you had to pay for so you can't distributed or edit them. I'm pretty sure it's been thought of, but we'll have to see the protection method when the game goes into beta/live.

Re:Selling mods... (2, Insightful)

mrxak (727974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086280)

Probably nothing will prevent somebody from doing that, other than edit protections built into the maps themselves. Such things tend to get hacked, though. The real thing will be simply folks making a very similar map for free. My guess is, the folks trying to actually charge for maps will be laughed/scorned so much that nobody really bothers, though maybe we'll get some commercial-grade full campaign mods that cost a bit of money (and actually be worth it).

Re:Selling mods... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086908)

Copyright.

Here is a Problem (4, Insightful)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085396)

Here is a problem that has risen from social networking and what not and I can point the finger at Blizzard.

In WoW they came up with all this great new data mining and achievements. We end up with gear scores and Wow Heroes etc.

Now I have a friend that just decided to start playing back in October. He signs up and starts playing on Elune for instance. In 3 months he never was invited into a single group. Ever. Why? "He didn't have any heirloom gear" and "His gear score is too low." etc... The digital equivalent of "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

At far as what I've seen most of this social networking crap is only going to frustrate new players and build walls to keep new players out. Most game related social networking results in Clique building and tribal nonsense. I survived the ACiD, TRiBE, iCE ANSI wars in the BBS era. I witnessed the grand flame wars of Usenet. I saw the clan wars in the MMO days, I saw the Guild fights in the early days of the MMOs culminating in the rise of the Uber guilds. The one thing I can say with certainty is "The more 'social' networking tools the more 'anti-social' people behave." or another way to say it is "Social networking is the fertilizer on the asshole crop". I am also fond of "Shit floats in the waters of user content" but that is a bit off topic.

I fear that, from what I've seen, Bnet's new social networking tools is going to be more about shutting people out rather then bringing people together.

Re:Here is a Problem (1)

emanem (1356033) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086042)

Please don't confuse a fashion game like WoW, where you have to be dressed (errmm equipped) with latest gear to be able to be defined WoW player, with a RTS game like SCII/Wc3 where your skill is what makes you a better player.
I think this is a bit OffTopic.
Cheers,

Re:Here is a Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086096)

When's the last time you play? 5-man groups are formed by the blizzard random machine in the latest patch as long as you sign up via the in-game LFG interface. You'll only be quizzed about your gearscore and achievement if you try to join a raid group. And why is your friend not playing on your server? It's easy to boost a new player into full t9 now with emblem farming.

Re:Here is a Problem (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086346)

You really can't compare MMORPG drama with social tools like having a buddy list in an RTS matchmaking system. There's no persistent gear in Starcraft II. There's going to be battle.net clans, but there already are battle.net clans. The new tools will help those clans keep in touch with each other better, that's really it. As for the achievements, they amount to "this guy finished the campaign" or "this guy reached rank 10 on the multiplayer ladders", neither of which will really matter beyond what will already be readily apparent.

Re:Here is a Problem (1)

scamper_22 (1073470) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086488)

so... you have a problem with humanity then?

Online social networks are not much different from regular life networks

Have you grown out of the high school stage where you sit there pointlessly wondering "why can't everyone be invited to the party?"

Well everyone can't. The house only fits 20 people. You can't be friends with everyone, because there's only 24 hours in a day and you won't get to know anyone a friend without sacrificing time with someone else. Socializing means excluding some others. Just accept that as a fact of reality.

And the same is with guilds. No different than regular groups of people in life... just more exclusive. Like car owner clubs, or sports clubs...

You have nothing to fear but your own denial of reality. Form your own guild and help your buddy out and when it comes time for you guys to enjoy your group, you'll have to exclude people too...

Re:Here is a Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31087396)

So you're blaming the tool and not the assholes who don't use it correctly?

http://www.mmo-champion.com/raids-dungeons/gearscore-%28long-you%27ve-been-warned-dont-bitch%29/

Re:Here is a Problem (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087652)

Now I have a friend that just decided to start playing back in October. He signs up and starts playing on Elune for instance. In 3 months he never was invited into a single group. Ever. Why? "He didn't have any heirloom gear" and "His gear score is too low." etc... The digital equivalent of "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

So wait... you're blaming Blizzard's tools for the fact that these other players are morons? Any WoW player with any sense knows that it's not worth obsessing over someone's gear for 5-mans, let alone the low-level ones. It's unfortunate that Elune is apparently populated by elitist morons, but I don't think we can blame the Armory for that. Before there was the Armory, there was inspecting someone, and yes, people got booted from groups when they got inspected and their gear wasn't up to someone's "standard".

Re:Here is a Problem (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087840)

All new players are going to feel left behind when they join an MMO years after it started. It isn't hard to find a group because of gear, it's hard because most people don't run lower level instances any more. At higher levels, there isn't much of a problem finding groups unless you really have no idea what you are doing.

Needed Mod (1)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085562)

They emphasize the social features, competitive matchmaking system, and the ease of sharing mods and maps.

Great! Maybe someone will make a mod for playing LAN games.

Steam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31085636)

Wow. They created Steam. Kind of.

Congrats.

The right way of fighting piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31085802)

Offering a great online experience is the best way to fight piracy. It forces users to have an authentic copy if they want all the features. Make enough great online features (which blizzard is fully capable of) and get people to want to pay.

Hats off to you Blizzard. Stay classy.

Re:The right way of fighting piracy (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086372)

Actually, the best way to fight piracy is to make a product pirates aren't interested in.

Re:The right way of fighting piracy (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087862)

Um, which would be to make a horrible game. It's Starcraft 2. It is going to be pirated even if they priced it at 5 bucks and washed your car.

Terrible GUI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086138)

Without even having to use it I can tell you that the GUI will piss people off in no time. Where have all the simple Menus gone that don't require transitions for everything? If I want to play a quick match, I also want to get to play the match quickly.

Map Publishing (3, Informative)

AlpineR (32307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086318)

The Map Publishing feature is interesting to me. I have released dozens of popular Starcraft maps and distribution has always been a problem. For one, maps are copied peer-to-peer, so the only way to get a new map is to find somebody else who happens to be hosting it at the moment you're looking. For another, maps are not cryptographically signed, so it's trivial for somebody to alter a map so they can cheat in the game. Although I have a reputation as a skilled mapmaker, there are maps circulating with my name still on them that are rigged or badly modified.

On the other hand, the viral transmission and mutation of maps is part of what keeps the mapmaking community alive. Players find a map they like, try to modify it, and set the new version loose in the wild. If it's good it will spread and become the basis for others to tinker with.

So the Marketplace sounds like a potentially good way to encourage the creation of polished maps. But I wonder if closed-source mapmaking can really keep pace with open-source development or if many players will accept (or even discover) pay maps.

TheNevermind

Re:Map Publishing (1)

darkvizier (703808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086984)

Good points. I find the map features interesting as well. I like the idea of having some sort of organization there, as with Starcraft you just had people appending a bunch of random ascii characters to a name and throwing it out there. Dunno about others but I often found it confusing to determine exactly what I was looking at. Giving the option of paid maps/mods is a good idea too... players can decide for themselves whether something is of value, and conversely map/mod makers will have to tell a convincing story in order to get people to pay.

Also really looking forward to a more robust set of editing tools. One of the funnest things for me was building storyline maps. Triggers were a wonderful asset for that, but some customization was still missing. Can't wait to get my hands on the new map editor.

The Only Factor That Matters Is: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086688)

Will bnet be secure from hacks? will alterations to
code be detectable via hashkey checks, MD5 sums
or whatever would be most appropriate, I don't know :/

Will the new system be running continuous checks
to confirm unaltered code? I run a quadcore, most of us
have enough GHZ to spare. CHECK EVERY PLAYER
BEFORE EVERY GAME, EVERY TIME.

If people in sc2 use MH and Drophacks. Then there is absolutely
no reason to include any upgrades to battlenet at all.
Any upgrades to anything are worthless. I'd rather play
LEGIT in 640 x 480 resolution than play the newest
HD eye candy with a BUNCH OF HACKS!

A.C.

What about spammers? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087096)

If anyone has been playing Diablo 2, then you know how annoying spambots have been lately.

Will this "revamped Battle.net" stop them or will they continue to rouin the game?

Re:What about spammers? (1)

subanark (937286) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087816)

Considering the number of spam bots you get in WoW... probably not.

Even though WoW has a $20 initial purchase fee (you can't spam trade channels with a trial account), you still get a lot of spammers. This is due to player accounts getting stolen though key loggers. After the account is striped of anything useful, the spammer creates characters on other servers and starts spamming trade channels with them.

Additionally, even with a trial account you can still create a character, run to the town, and start spamming stuff in /say near the auction house where many players reside. Another tactic used is the creation of a lot of trial accounts, and using a game hack tool, spammers will get their characters killed in such a way as to form a corpse message with their dead bodies.

Until Blizzard can figure out a way to prevent this from happening, we will see this keep continuing. Although with the reporting tool, if enough players "report spam" on a player, that account will be temporary muted from standard channels and private tells (unless responding to another player). The report spam does have the draw back of being able to silence someone you don't like if you get enough friends to help you (as there is no penalty for using this feature).

Few StarCraft players here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31087886)

I can tell that very few of you were StarCraft players back in the day, or you wouldn't be complaining so much about the social networking features of the new Bnet. I saw a few complaints about how this will create "cliques." Clue train is here! Better get on! Clans/Guilds are a huge part of online gaming. I do not know of a single game that does not have them. Clans were a huge part of the original B.net, which lacked any sort of features for this. We had to change our names and now we called ourselves a group. The b.net released with Warcraft 3 added some support, but didn't do much beyond providing dedicated channels with moderator support.

These features address many of the desires that players have wanted over the years. One, for example, is the Real ID which will let you tie a person's multiple game names to one identity. Having multiple names was common for any semi-serious player, so you could go and goof off without hurting your ranking. Yes, rank matters. Also a big deal is the online content delivery, so no more having to wait for everyone to download the map in the starting room, which usually resulted in people leaving because they don't want to wait. In Warcraft 3 they decided to start kicking people who didn't have the map, so now you had to tab out and look around the Internet for updates.

Instant messaging is also nice, although it may seem redundant. However, communicating with whispers can be a hassle. Sometimes you get other people messaging you, and then you can't use /r anymore, sometimes you say things to the wrong people, and it always gets scrolled offscreen by all the chat going on in the channel.

The "always connected" feature may kind of suck for single player, on the other hand it may not be bad at all. I'm not sure they would totally bar you from playing the game when you have no connection; there will most likely be an offline mode. The vast majority of Starcraft players spend most of their time in multiplayer anyway, and being always connected is sort of the point in that case.

I suppose this was a waste of my time, and it also reveals what a rabid fanboy I am. If you don't like these sorts of things to begin with, then this game isn't for you, and no amount of fanboying will make you like it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?