Battle.net Could Host Activision Games

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Battle.net Could Host Activision Games



The head of Blizzard's Battle.net service didn't rule out the multiplayer service hosting other games from its publishing partner Activision.

Battle.net has always been one of PC gaming's best free arenas for online gaming but it's been restricted to Blizzard's own titles. With the latest update to Battle.net "2.0" host all of the games played in StarCraft 2, and the excellent matchmaking that game employs, it only makes sense for Activision games to be hosted there as well. Battle.net project director Greg Canessa said that that it wasn't out of the question but that his focus was on making it work for Diablo III.

"Someday, maybe we'll add other titles in there, who knows," Canessa said. "When we really feel like we've delivered that great set of experiences for Blizzard games, and we feel that we've grown the team... when I've got that sustainability, when we really feel like we've got that dialed in and nailed down, who knows what the future holds."

Canessa sees wisdom in focusing on baby steps. "Today, [the team is concentrating on] Blizzard games, and making sure Diablo III is a kick-ass online experience, and making sure we evolve and add features of StarCraft II, make sure that WoW kicks ass for Cataclysm and beyond," he said.

"We've got so many opportunities in front of us, I think the mistake we could make as a company - and I don't think we will make the mistake because we are aware of it - is to get spread too thin and go into too many different directions," said Canessa.

It seems like Blizzard's head is in the right place with Battle.net. Making sure that it works 100 percent with its in-house titles is super important and only after the team is completely comfortable with how the service operates will we see them experiment with hosting, say, Call of Duty matchmaking.

But, man, wouldn't it be sweet if it did?

Source: Gamasutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/31200/Blizzards_Canessa_Talks_Potential_For_Activision_Titles_On_Battlenet.php]



Permalink
 

Pebsy

New member
Jun 12, 2008
121
0
0
cursedseishi said:
Yeah, personally no thanks. I already hate the current incarnation of the system as is, and I don't want to see it spread further. Having to sign onto it JUST to start up a game is a rather... well stupid idea, and the only reason it hasn't been chewed out nearly as bad as Ubisoft is because it doesn't require that connection to be 24/7.
a lot major games nowadays requires you to log onto something before playing the game. Ubisoft had its DRM, MW2 had to be linked too your steam account, not sure if theres anything for Black ops. Battlefield games always had to be hooked up to an EA account first. Its just how things are going to be, so just get used to it. And there is offline mode for everything...
 

Traun

New member
Jan 31, 2009
659
0
0
cursedseishi said:
Yeah, personally no thanks. I already hate the current incarnation of the system as is, and I don't want to see it spread further. Having to sign onto it JUST to start up a game is a rather... well stupid idea, and the only reason it hasn't been chewed out nearly as bad as Ubisoft is because it doesn't require that connection to be 24/7.
Game developers are after the second hand market, might as well get used to it.
 

tk1989

New member
May 20, 2008
865
0
0
I am sure that this will happen in due course, but I am currently very much satisfied with Steam
 

ionveau

New member
Nov 22, 2009
493
0
0
Dendio said:
darkszero said:
Considering how crap battle.net 2.0 is, please no.
Honestly whats so bad about battle.net 2.0?
MMO RPG style login system, i lost my old WC3 user/pass like 10 times thanks to my key being tied to the game not the account i was able to make a new account.

you lose your account your done

No spawn play is an act of greed(SC2)

You can only upload like 5maps i believe? my favorite thing on WC3 was to make maps and play them w/ my buddy's

NO LAN?????? NO LAN REALLY??????

Do you know who will enjoy it? MMO RPG players thats who, they treat games with more "respect" then a person looking for a game to PLAY, also they have their accounts engraved into their brains so no problem for them

anyway they turned B.NET from a system better then steam to something thats just annoying i would say its worse then ubisofts DRM atlest i dont need to remember anything to login to play the GAME,


note im not a person that will play the same thing over and over everyday, if i get starcraft(and i wont) i wil play it for a few weeks stop playing for half a year start playing again oh look i forgot my account what now?
 

Valiance

New member
Jan 14, 2009
3,823
0
0
Dendio said:
darkszero said:
Considering how crap battle.net 2.0 is, please no.
Honestly whats so bad about battle.net 2.0?
Pretty much everything about it compared to Battle.net 1.0, and Battle.net 1.0 wasn't really that amazing either.

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/NSapO.jpg" /img>

Seriously, you can't even do a 2vs2vs2vs2 game on Battle.net 2.0. There is no clan support. There is no CHAT CHANNELS, unbelievable. Do you know what that does to tournaments? Even a "meet in this channel and then find your opponent" is sort of annoying (battle.net 1.0). However, compared to everyone having to add everyone by EMAIL ADDRESS ONLY, it was much improved. At this point, Blizzard finally added a fix so now you have a number attached to your nickname and they can add "Amaterasu 750" or whatever.

Oh, yeah, no unique nicknames. I've ran into roughly 200 people named "Boxer" and "Esports" and such online, because the game just gives you a character id number. So you anyone can walk around with anyone's name.

I'll stop because I don't mean for this to be a "me bitching about b.net 2.0" but it's mostly the fact that quite frankly, no one should care whether or not battle.net 2.0 hosts Activision games or not. It's not that great. Kotick is a tool and Facebook updates through a game really are not a selling point for a game.

To be totally honest, it would probably be better than any matchmaking that Activision would have. Considering that Activision isn't even putting out games that would be using matchmaking on PC other than Black Ops. Barring that, I don't see how this matters at all in the coming year. Unless Battle.net is going to run on the Wii for Goldeneye, here's a list of what Activision is putting out in 2010 so far:

2010

* Cabela's Dangerous Hunts 2011 (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii)
* Call of Duty: Black Ops (November 9) (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, PC, DS)
* GoldenEye 007 (Wii, DS)
* James Bond 007: Blood Stone (PS3, Xbox 360, PC, DS)
* DJ Hero 2 (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii)
* Monster Jam 2011 (PS3, PSP, Xbox 360, Wii, DS)
* True Crime: Hong Kong (PS3, Xbox 360, PC)
* Apache: Air Assault (PS3, Xbox 360)
* Blood Drive (PS3, Xbox 360)

There's only a few PC titles, the only one of which MIGHT have online play through Battle.net is Black Ops. Maybe Blood Stone?
 

RandV80

New member
Oct 1, 2009
1,507
0
0
Well, it would be an improvement over Activisions console style multiplayer PC players got for MW2, put compared to the old PC FPS multiplayer standard I don't see why you would need to move it over to battle.net, built for RPG's & RTS's.
 

GoGo_Boy

New member
May 12, 2010
218
0
0
lol @ people bitching about BNet. It's far from perfect but it's still one of the best online platforms out there or do you wanna tell me where you play your RTS / H'n'S in a better environment.

Apart from that, I hope this won't happen anytime soon. As I'd like Activision to be kept away from Blizzards work as much as possible even though this probably would increase the games multiplayer aspect by a huge margin.
But BNet needs constant maintenance and care for every implanted game. And who would want Blizzard to waste their time on a piece of shit that's an Activision brand.
 

mad825

New member
Mar 28, 2010
3,379
0
0
NLS said:
But, can't they just use Steam?
....you can't be that 2 dimensional..Can you?
--------------------------------------

this move is not too surprising although from what I've been hearing about BN 2.0 it's more of a downgrade when compared to 1.0
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
John Funk said:
The_root_of_all_evil said:
Battle.net has always been one PC gaming's best free arenas for online gaming
Citation needed. Three counts I believe.
StarCraft, Diablo, WarCraft 3.

Three counts. :)
I was referring to the bold worlds. "Always been" is pushing it. "Best" is subjective at the very least. And "Free"? Well...Internet Explorer is free with Windows, but you'd hardly cite that as a feature.

And that's without bringing in controversies like bnetd, RealID, resource hogging, multiple player scams, no chat channel systems and direct link to Facebook.

While opinions are all well and good, it's somewhat disheartening to see it reported as truth rather than op. ed.