Battle.net Relaunch "Up in the Air" with StarCraft II
When a bunch of industry press type folks went to Blizzard HQ about a week ago, they were all supposed to be checking out the new Battle.net... Then, the were supposed to be checking out single player for StarCraft II, then, Blizz was like "eh, just play more multiplayer."
So why the change? Looks like the planned 'relaunch' of Battle.net alongside StarCraft II isn't a certainty. Spong
Quote:
Browder said, "I can't tell you a whole lot because in reality, anything I say might be a lie. We're still working on it, and it's kind of up in the air. I kind of wish it wasn't, but it kind of is."
The reason for that, it would seem, is that Blizzard's plans for the service are spinning away from what they originally had planned.
"What you saw today is not where we're going", Browder went on. "It's a version that we have that has a lot of problems that we don't like. It was never meant to be the final version, but we're getting further and further away from that being close to the final version. We're trying to do more and more stuff."
My suspicion is that Battle.net 2 would be something akin to Steam with an external app tieing all your Blizzard games to your Battle.net account and allowing you to easily reinstall them. Further a communications app including text and voice communication.
I am then guessing that all of this requires a huge amount of infrastructure, and possibly Activision wants to interfere and use it as a publishing system for more than just Blizzard studio games.
There is already precedent for my suspicions looking at WoW, Battle.net, and the new Battle.net web portal. Tieing all of that together with an external game-independent client just makes sense.
Blizzard has never signed on with a third-party digital distribution system, and their methods so far have been game specific. A comprehensive solution would no doubt streamline their process and require less reinventing of wheels.
I don't see the point of a big dev like Blizzard signing on to Steam when they can just do their own thing. I'd rather have Impulse and Steam and whatever Blizz comes up with then just Steam.
Of course, that's if they are even contemplating such a thing. It is interesting that B.net 2.0 isn't ready for rollout. I wonder if they can get it all together for the targeted winter release.
Of course, that's if they are even contemplating such a thing. It is interesting that B.net 2.0 isn't ready for rollout. I wonder if they can get it all together for the targeted winter release.
You watch, they won't have it ready and they'll have to ship the game without Online Multiplayer.
That decision to remove LAN play just might bite them in the ass!
You watch, they won't have it ready and they'll have to ship the game without Online Multiplayer.
That decision to remove LAN play just might bite them in the ass!
Single-player Starcraft? AHAHAHAHA
Blizzard would have to be monumentally stupid to release SCII without multiplayer, and the truth is, they won't do it. The game will probably be pushed back again, and we'll end up waiting another year for it. No harm, no foul.
Blizzard is not known for releasing unfinished products. Sure, WoW had its issues at launch, but it was one of the least stressful MMO launches I've ever participated in.
The splitting of the single player campaign may be a little odd (and stupid, in my opinion, unless the expansions are not fifty bucks each), but the online is what will drive this.
I think they've run into some issues here. Battle.net used to be the best as far as free multiplayer services are concerned, and it still pretty much is. Being under different management, they are probably being told that something like battle.net, with all the features they want to include, should not be free and maintained indefinitely after the game's release date. In fact, it's very likely they want to try some different subscription models and see if they can get people to shell out for SC2 online. Possibly by offering upgraded B.net functionality. Now, I'm sure there are people at Blizzard who think that is asinine, but they may not be the ones in charge.
These days, when companies look at revenues like World of Warcraft, and xbox live, services that people are more than willing to shell out millions for each month, they will inevitably all attempt to repeat that model. Even the people who created the model would like to continue signing those million dollar paychecks.
All we can hope is that this isn't the case. Because from everything I've been reading and hearing, it sounds like the game was almost ready to go, and then someone decided it wasn't. Now, maybe that's because they want to add a more robust feature set to the game and to battle.net, but chances are fairly good it's because they are rethinking their stance on it being free.
Sure, WoW had its issues at launch, but it was one of the least stressful MMO launches I've ever participated in.
I agree that Blizzard games are typically worth waiting for. However, as someone who has played just about every AAA MMO since UO I have to say that the 2 months post WoW launch rank up there in the top two or three worst launches in my experience. They weren't able to get the service working reliably and remove the persistant unplayable levels of lag until April... 5 months after launch.
Even Anarchy online had their shit together in just a few months post launch, hell WWII online, probably THE WORST launch imo only took a month to straighten things out.
Blizzard is lucky they have a strong name and the content there when people could play was super compelling, otherwise they could have gone the way of the dodo like most games that botch their launch.
As an aside, I feel that blizzard is actually going downhill, and has since Warcraft 3. The switch to 3D was offputting to a lot of people.
Diablo 2, especially battlenet interactions, were a bloody mess and rife with bugs for weeks after launch. This was the first time I'd actually seen what I would call Pri1/Sev1 bugs in a released Blizzard game.
Since then they have, for me gone further and further down the path that separates the company from their users. The split SP campaign for SC2 and no LAN play are just the latest examples.
I dunno, these days the Blizzard name has just lost some of the sheen it once had to me.
I agree that Blizzard games are typically worth waiting for. However, as someone who has played just about every AAA MMO since UO I have to say that the 2 months post WoW launch rank up there in the top two or three worst launches in my experience. They weren't able to get the service working reliably and remove the persistant unplayable levels of lag until April... 5 months after launch.
Even Anarchy online had their shit together in just a few months post launch, hell WWII online, probably THE WORST launch imo only took a month to straighten things out.
Blizzard is lucky they have a strong name and the content there when people could play was super compelling, otherwise they could have gone the way of the dodo like most games that botch their launch.
As an aside, I feel that blizzard is actually going downhill, and has since Warcraft 3. The switch to 3D was offputting to a lot of people.
Diablo 2, especially battlenet interactions, were a bloody mess and rife with bugs for weeks after launch. This was the first time I'd actually seen what I would call Pri1/Sev1 bugs in a released Blizzard game.
Since then they have, for me gone further and further down the path that separates the company from their users. The split SP campaign for SC2 and no LAN play are just the latest examples.
I dunno, these days the Blizzard name has just lost some of the sheen it once had to me.
I agree, blizzard seemed to be off the ball on the WoW launch with servers. Even still they take down servers every mon night/tues morning. However the launch can be attributed to the large success WoW had at the time, and still does. I played for 3 years off and on. Clean now for over a year. *twitch*
Back on topic, I plead for blizzard to push back SC2 again (as we're a decade post release, I'm sure it's been pushed back before). I'm willing to wait another christmas season.
Here is the current possibility:
SC2 contains in the box.
- Terran Campaign
- Multiplayer with old battle.net?
- Map Editor
- Cut Scenes
Or we can wait a while and get that Plus the new battle.net. I vote to wait. Even if it means missing 2009. 2010 or bust baby!
I've always appreciated Blizzard not releasing games which weren't ready, or didn't have an adequate amount of polish to it. It's ready when it's ready. If they don't want to release a half-ass product to meet a deadline, they don't have to.
I agree, blizzard seemed to be off the ball on the WoW launch with servers. Even still they take down servers every mon night/tues morning. However the launch can be attributed to the large success WoW had at the time, and still does. I played for 3 years off and on. Clean now for over a year. *twitch*
Back on topic, I plead for blizzard to push back SC2 again (as we're a decade post release, I'm sure it's been pushed back before). I'm willing to wait another christmas season.
Here is the current possibility:
SC2 contains in the box.
- Terran Campaign
- Multiplayer with old battle.net?
- Map Editor
- Cut Scenes
Or we can wait a while and get that Plus the new battle.net. I vote to wait. Even if it means missing 2009. 2010 or bust baby!
You do know that almost every MMO in existence that runs stable has weekly server maintenance, right?
