Forbidden Donut

Well that's going to be a requirement since my FB account is attached to my Temple email which has been defunct for almost 5 years now.

But that's hardly the point.

It's been announced already that this isn't just a happy friends list. "additional features will be added over time" was the official statement.

I don't want facebook "features" in my battle.net. Features like what? Gifts to your friends? A B.Net Wall? Zergville?

I suspect targeted advertisements to be rolled out almost immediately.

I will *probably* still pick it up when it comes out, after reading some reviews. But dammit... the only reason they aren't tying your RealID to your RealName is because that turns out to be the worst idea in the history of online gaming. Wait, actually it's because their was a huge outcry about a week ago.

I preorder games I'm excited about and Blizzard has managed to somehow make me NOT EXCITED ABOUT STARCRAFT II.

I'm not going to lie but it seems like the only thing you're actually concerned about is targeted advertisements. There were ads in Warcraft 3 and Starcraft (Battle.net, that is). Can't say I paid them any attention nor would I care if they were more geared towards me because something was crawling my Facebook page and know I don't like country music.

The RealID friends list actually has nothing to do with Facebook. It's just another way to add somebody onto your Battle.net friends list and will show them online with any of their characters and show their real name (As opposed to adding someone's character to your friends list which will in turn not show them online if they log in as a different character). The "Facebook" integration simply scans all your friends pages on your Facebook account (Gasp, voluntary!) to see if any of them have email address' that match Battle.net accounts and will then give you a list and you can proceed to add them. Mind you if you don't want to be added this way you can just change the privacy of your emails listed on your Facebook page to not be shown.

Ignoring your hyperbole I still have a hard time imagining actually being less excited for any game running online through Battle.net just because Battle.net has some "features" that I wouldn't use or care about. This exact same Battle.net will be present in Diablo 3 online play and I wouldn't be shocked to see some integration (more in depth than the current WoW model) into their new MMO.

Just try to keep in mind that Facebook has no bearing on the play of the actual game. The fact that it would impede your anticipation for the game is fairly outlandish.

I certainly hated the shit out of Steam when it first came out but it didn't bleed over into any sort of hatred for Counter-Strike.

I'm certainly not trying to say that I can't see where you're coming from because I can. I understand that some people hate Facebook anyway, but even if you don't you might not want it linked to your Battle.net account but I think the hysteria about this whole thing is so ridiculous.

I wanted to add a few things, although I can understand Andrew's frustrations about privacy and whatnot.

Battle.net is terrible. It really is bad, and it has been bad for a really long time. When it first came out, it was unprecedented and awesome, and almost nothing has changed in its format since then. Meanwhile, other gaming platforms have been developed that have blown battle.net away.

I hated Steam when it came out. But now, years later, I truly believe it is the single greatest addition to PC gaming since internet multiplayer. I just bought 47 games with a few clicks, and they are all linked to my central account. I think that is more games than I have accumulated in my entire life. I can download them and play them anywhere. I never need to own a game case or keep track of a key ever again. I can follow my friends into any game they are playing; I can chat with them while they are in mid game. I can easily purchase new games and be playing them within an hour or two of doing so.

So Steam has grown on me despite the fact that I thought at the time that there could not possibly be a worse addition to gaming as a whole. I remember thinking that Steam would kill Counter-Strike. The friends list alone was such a new concept for a gaming platform that I honestly could barely see the use in it at the time (I disabled it entirely for years, actually).

I'm not saying the changes to Battle.net are as significant as those made by Steam, but I think it is pretty silly to dismiss the changes it is making (social networking integration for example) without seeing what type of impact they will actually have on people. Who knows... maybe in a couple of years, social networking integration will help remove some of the anti-social stigma surrounding PC gaming. Additions like this could be a massive boon for what some would call a dying industry that is overshadowed by its less-stigmatized requiring-significantly-less-talent console-based cousin.

It could also do little more than allow Blizzard to generate some more revenue while allowing those that want to use the system to its fullest to be slightly more social in the process.

tl;dr: give it a shot
p.s., Missing LAN support is a fuck load of bullshit.

I will certainly agree that Battle.net has been lagging behind in seemingly simple way compared to the way that Steam has evolved, but they've also evolved into two very different things. Blizzard isn't opening this up to other companies as any means of distribution or anything like Steam has. In fact... they're almost unrelated in most regards. And in the new Battle.net (Something you like about Steam and I do too), I can just log in to the Battle.net website and download and install any of my games.

I think you're last part is potentially huge and maybe not even in this iteration of Battle.net but maybe the next if it makes a good push.

Hell, I think if the nerds of the world could just act like civilized human beings every so often Blizzards push to use real names on the forums wouldn't have been such an issue. And while I agree there is far too much information available online knowing someone's name I was almost dying in laughter reading the threads on the announcement.

I think sooner than later we're going to find that many public places online (beyond the many that already have; Jesus, if those people knew that sites already existed where people posted under their names) will begin moving more and more towards that.

Targeted ads are my immediate concern. But it's about the *why*. Activision/Blizzard has been very forthright in their strategy to not give a fuck about its consumers. If they are planning on adding features, I do not happen to trust them to be features that do anything other than generate revenue for Activision/Blizzard. Imagine ads that talk when you mouse over them in B.Net. Imagine in-text ads that pop boxes open on mouse over.

These are all steps forward in precisely the wrong direction.

If you look back at other threads, I let 3 or 4 decisions by the company to moderately fuck us over roll right off my back.

No Lan Support
3 Games instead of one
Absurdly ambiguous release dates for D3/SC2
I'm sure there's others...

It's not like targeted advertisements are the spawn of Satan and absolutely intolerable. I'm not especially worried about privacy issues yet either. But since I preordered StarCraft II nearly 3 years ago Blizzard has thought it acceptable to periodically cock-slap me.

Like I said, I fiddled with the beta, and the game has tremendous potential to live up to its predecessor and more, so I'll likely end up owning this game. But fuck-em. Pre-orders help their sales stats and I don't need to be playing StarCraft II the day it comes out.

No LAN support; I can understand why they want to do it as much as I can understand why local gamers are mad it's not included. Running 10 computers through a cable connection trying to play SC2 obviously isn't going to work that well. But I can also appreciate the business side of it and why they did it. I do feel as though it would be a marginal impact if they did include it so I think they should have (Unless they know something we don't).

3 games; Blizzard has said multiple times that each campaign (game) will be at least as long as SC1. Also, each campaign plays totally differently to further the feel of each race, Terran you're a merc you gain money and "buy" the upgrades and new units instead of them just being handed to you as you progress allowing you to play through again totally different, Zerg will apparently play more like an RPG as you level Kerrigan to gain more power and what not. Thanks, I'll take 3 games for that kind of stuff.

Release dates; If you're upset about this I find it hard to believe you've followed Blizzard much before since they're always freaks about release dates.

Will all 3 games have completely identical multiplayer? I believe they'd said so previously. Which means the mechanics for all 3 races will have to be in place from the time the terran campaign is released. If they are all there then the only thing they are adding in each game is story. I enjoy the story just fine. Do I enjoy it enough to spend 100 dollars more to see it when I could instead just play the game competitively like I intended to after finishing the campaigns anyway? No.

I would have enjoyed the story thoroughly for 60 maybe even 70 bucks. But 150 - 180? Come on... really?

It was the understanding that the change from game to game would be story driven alone in conjunction with the revelation that this and the changes to battle.net were going to delay the release, followed by this new revelation that those b.net changes are teh dicksauz that irks me.

I am not, I repeat, am NOT trying to say that I disapprove of STARCRAFT II. I disapprove of Blizzard's handling of this product. I feel that it demonstrates greed and arrogance right in line with that of their new parent and bff Activision. I don't like that.

I'm antsy.

Gamestop called and told me they were having a pre-order party. I haven't decided yet if I'm going to even pick the game up when it gets released or not.

Well it's released tonight at midnight, so... might want to decide soon, haha.

Me going and picking it up will do nothing but bad things for my grades right now.

Got my laptop literally just in time.

I guess I will download the virtual copy tomorrow?

Anything bad about buying the copy? IS it better in the fact that you can download it anywhere?

I has too! /biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" />

You will always be able to download your games now through Bnet anywhere. Just getting the digital copy means no box/cd/manual etc.

I bought a physical copy and I still can download the game too. I just like actually possessing the cd in my hand.

My only concern with the download version is that I'm not sure how their servers will hold up on a release day. Other than that, I prefer the download options all the way. Physical games are just clutter for me, and I'd much prefer to never have them waste space around my office again.

That being said, I pre-ordered the physical copy anyway since it got me into the beta. Oh well; cheers to paperweights.

What about the gameplay? I'm thinking about purchasing it once I get moved and settled in etc, but I want to hear what those of you who have it and have been playing it think about how it compares to the first one, and in general what the quality of play is like, with special emphasis on multiplayer.

I haven't played the release yet, but I did play the beta. I thought the multiplayer was pretty solid. It definitely was of the quality of the original, and I thought the additions they made to each race really made the game its own. It was similar enough to the original that I felt like I was playing Starcraft, but differed enough that I had an absolute blast.

Single Player is awesome, very long (still haven't finished). Pretty unique style, not just mission after mission. Multiplayer is very amazing!

Short and sweet.

edit: if you get it, pm me your bnet email address so I can add you all

Single player is really amazing. I'm ecstatic about this.

Installing now!

I haven't played games in a long while because of the shitty laptop.

Let me know if you guys start any games.

I know during the beta I was playing the hell out of the custom maps. There was a good DOTA clone already out, plus a number of defense type maps and RPing maps. I want to get it. I'm resisting.

During the install, there was a recap of what went down in the original game, but there was barely any reference to the events from Brood War. Are they ignoring that entirely, or did they just not go into details with it because the events didn't have a significant impact on Raynor's story?

I've heard the brood war mentioned numerous times thus far. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Yeah, it is probably just in the install voice over. I heard Brood War mentioned in the opening movie.

By the way, everyone should add Starcraft 2 to their steam account so that we can see when each other are playing.

The friends thing works pretty well, just need to make our emails public to add everybody. I was playing single player and you are still able to chat with people online.

Yeah, loving the new friends thing so I can harass the shit out of my friends that still play WoW.

But you have to be in the game to use the friends list. That is, at best, nearly worthless to me.

Solved by never closing SC2.

Sounds like I'll be grabbing the game in about a week and a half to two weeks. I'm looking forward to getting back into an RTS

They will be adding additional multiplayer content with each additional campaign.

Blizzard: "You WILL spend 150 dollars for this game. Your move."

Edit: Will be picking up the DL copy this weekend.

Andrew, would you mind elaborating on what bothers you about this decision? I know the whole internet has gone back and forth about it a million times, but I'm still struggling to see what the problem is. I'm beginning to think that perhaps I'm totally missing something.

As far as I see it: every successful RTS or RPG gets expansion packs. Every Blizzard game except for Warcraft: Orcs and Humans has had at least one expansion pack. Blizzard, anticipating the success of the second installment of their most successful RTS series to date and perhaps the most anticipated RTS of all time, decided to plan those expansion packs in advance in such a way that the single player experience is maximized.

What specific details about the three-game situation frustrates you?

First of all, I'm not necessarily against the 3 game release system. That being said...

I don't play SC for the single player. I play it for the multiplayer. They are mostly touting the 2nd and 3rd release for the additional single player campaigns ("Each campaign is as large as the entire first game's single player blah blah blah"). I have trouble seeing them being able to add any additional content multiplayer wise that has any huge ramifications. The only multiplayer content I can thing of for Brood War would have been approximately 2-3 new units per race, more competent AI in the multiplayer, and some additional maps (of which I would consider Blizzard maps to be no better or worse then player made maps). All of that I can accept for the price of an expansion, since nothing of any real substance was added.

I don't know what new content can be added to the multiplayer releases of the 2nd and 3rd games that would be very substantial. Up to Blizzard to surprise us I guess. You won't get the advanced AI of Brood War, (Anyone that has played a computer on hard, much less insane difficulty knows its not needed). Some new units; I like that, that's always fun. New maps, same as above. Player made maps are just as good, and in the case of custom Use Map Settings maps, often better when made by players. You get those free.

My whole point to this is, in my opinion the best thing they could do is allow you to buy one version of the game at full price ($50-60) and buy the 2nd and 3rd version of the games at expansion pack price ($30). Easy enough to do with online purchases. I just don't feel that I will get the full money's worth of the games when it's unlikely I will ever play the single player campaigns in their entirety.

On the flip side, maybe they will unveil some ungodly new aspect of the multiplayer that changes my experience entirely. Short of making a new game however, I don't see it being enough to warrant a full priced game, at least for my desires.

Hell, I'd be happy if all they did was let me pay a $10 "downloadable content" price to get the multiplayer aspect of the new titles and not the single player campaigns of the 2nd and 3rd games.

It will fracture the multiplayer community worse than Left 4 Dead 2.

Blizzard hasn't confirmed or denied whether WoL will be required to install or play the other two "expansions". Lets assume it isn't.

Will the multiplayer content that is on the zerg disc be included on the protoss disc? Will all the terran content be in the zerg game? Can I just buy the protoss game alone in ... what is it... 5 - 7 years? and have the full multiplayer experience?

Can I buy the WoL campaign and buy the multiplayer content only?

Cause I see kids playing WoL online until at least 2012, and then I see some people buying the zerg game and then not being able to play with the WoL community unless those people all pick up the zerg game too. And then I see the community fractured further with the release of a protoss campaign with additional multiplayer content.

Blizzard seems to be operating on the assumption that people will keep up to date. They can make one of two decisions.

1. Standalone games. Which fractures the community.

2. 50 dollar "expansions" that all require WoL. Which is not terribly expensive for me today, but would have been completely prohibitive in high school and college. Whether it effects me or not, it's a dick move designed to prey on their own fans for profit.

@ Phey: Brood war was a completely different game. Medics inherently changed terran strategy and there were easily 4 additional support unit types for zerg. And they added the cloaked protoss units.

If I didn't have brood war I couldn't play with *anyone* who did. Those few units make a hell of a big difference.

The only experience we have with this is what they've done with expansion packs for their other RTS games. In that case, each expansion will add additional units to each of the races. Perhaps the biggest selling point for Starcraft is the balancing of the races, so I doubt they even considered releasing a game that adds units to only one race.



There are definitely people that do not upgrade their game and continue to play the original. History shows us that the vast majority do upgrade however. Brood War and Frozen Throne are great examples of this in blizzard games. Each of those had the potential to "fracture" the community as you say, and neither had negative consequences for either community.

In particular, Brood War was one of the most heralded expansion packs of all time, and the community thrived on it.


Blizzard is operating under that assumption based on their experience with every single multiplayer game they've released to date. The vast majority upgrade their games, and the multiplayer experience is better for it.


So do you not think these expansions won't offer the same significant improvements to the game, or do you just not think the improvements are worth it?

I'm absolutely astounded that you guys are shocked and concerned that Blizzard is following the exact same development style as Starcraft and Warcraft. On top of that that you're assuming that doing so will fracture the community? Has WoW been hurt by expansion packs? Did TFT? Did BW?

I don't think people, in reality (even though they want to bitch and moan about it now) are going to have any problem spending another $40 or however much it will be for the expansion packs in 18 or so months. That's a year and a half from now... If you're in High School and can't afford that then you can't afford the computer to play them anyway so it's no biggie.

Brood War Retail Price: 30 bucks.

Frozen Throne Retail Price: 34 bucks.

Cataclysm Retail Price: 20 bucks.

This is also completely different than any of them because none of them was touted as a standalone game. These SC "expansions" are. If people are required to collect all three games in order to have it work properly that's kind of a dick move. One that Blizzard has been more and more willing to engage in since their marriage with Activision.

If people are able to purchase, install and play the zerg campaign alone in 2012/2013 when it comes out it is more like the L4D issue and less like previous RTSs. Especially if the zerg release has all the content of the terran release.

If Blizzard is operating on the assumption that this will work like all their other games, perhaps it would be in their interest to make it work like their other games. But then, Blizzard fans have been known to spend just shy of 200 dollars a year and 20 bucks ever couple years to play WoW. So this will probably be a winning strategy for Blizzard.

I think it's kind of exploitative myself.

I have no idea how you came up with that last inference Court. These expansions will expand on the game just as much, if not more than Broodwar did. But BROODWAR WAS AN EXPANSION PACK AND NOT A STANDALONE GAME.

Blizzard refuses to clarify that status with these other games.

I guess squeezing an additional 20 bucks out of each and every one of their consumers is a totally kosher business practice to some people... I happen to think it's a transparent money grab that relies on their rabid fanbase being completely insatiable and roughly 10 years older (and 10 years more gainfully employed) than they were when they became fans.

Additionally THERE IS NO LAN PLAY which would mean that those disc whorings of WCII:TFT and SC:BW would be impossible.

But you know, we all bought the game, right?

If they announced this I would shut up, leave work, purchase, install and start playing StarCraft II right now.

Maybe I missed some press releases but where are these games being touted as "stand-alone" and not as expansions, all I've heard from Blizzard is that they're being treated as expansions. You'll need to have WoL to play. It will be priced accordingly. The WoW expansion packs were priced at $40 ($60 CE), where have you heard that Cata will be $20? It being a rehash of the entire original game I suppose I could see it cheaper but in general Blizzard's recent expansions are $40.

You seem to be operating under some strange pretenses that I haven't heard about before, all I've heard is the games will be treated as expansion packs the same way Blizzard always does.

- Additional single player missions.
- Additional multi-player features.
- Will undoubtedly require the earlier versions of the game to play (Somehow this is a dick move?)
- Will be expansion priced (~$40).

When did paying money for expansions become this hard-core money grabbing scheme?

They're exploiting their fans? Because you have to buy expansion packs? Because they MIGHT cost $40 (it wont be out for a year and a half, little early to bitch about price)?

These are preplanned expansion packs. All of a sudden, they're exploiting fans because they know they couldn't fit everything they wanted into one release and so are planning on expansion packs? That for all reasonable assumptions will operate exactly the same way every expansion Blizzard has ever release will. Somehow this is money-grabbing? Exploiting? All of a sudden after like 15-20 years this is bad practice? Evil doing?

Next thing we'll hear is Blizzard is a bad company because they practice "When it's done." But it was okay when they did it with Brood Wars.

I have no references to back this up (I didn't look for any) but I was under the impression that these are all three standalone games.

http://us.starcraft2.com/faq.xml#trilogy

Hm. Separate forum on that 20 bucks pricepoint. Gameslop has it listed at 40. My mistake. I also happen to think that WoW is a blatant money factory, but I recognize it as a fun money factory.

Listen, I really don't care enough to continue the discussion of why I'm annoyed with Blizzard. It's like arguing with people about why I don't like DRM. Or why I don't like Apple. I simply don't care. I'll just think you are deliberately missing the point and you'll think I'm just a jackass. Whatever.

ilu

<3u2 brah.

gays

So, can all the people that actually have this game and play post of their info so we can add each other to friends lists? Or just PM me your info if I don't have it and I'll be happy. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Think I have most of you on my friends already but if I don't.

[email protected]

bring it on spambots!

I do play, but I don't play very much. I only have a few hours a week to play games (less than 10, I would estimate), and I am currently toggling between borderlands, bad company 2, and sc2.

governor at thisdomain is my realid

cutchins at gmail