Battle.net 2.0 Will Be Like Xbox Live, Caused SC2 Delay

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
Battle.net 2.0 Will Be Like Xbox Live, Caused SC2 Delay



Here's the reason why StarCraft II was delayed to 2010 - Blizzard wants to roll the game out alongside its brand-new upgraded Battle.net, which will reportedly be "similar to Xbox Live."

Predictably, yesterday's announcement that the long-awaited StarCraft II would be delayed [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/93671-StarCraft-2-Officially-Delayed] resulted in much wailing and gnashing of teeth. The good news, though, is that according to the official press release, the delay seems to not be related to SC2 itself, but to its close relationship to the under-construction Battle.net. In the Activision-Blizzard Q2 Earnings conference call, Blizzard founder and president Mike Morhaime explained the situation:

[blockquote]The new version of Battlenet is being integrated with Starcraft 2 more tightly than in any previous Blizzard game. Over the past few weeks, it has become clear that it will take longer than expected to prepare the new Battlenet for the launch of Starcraft 2. This means, as [Acti-Blizz CEO Bobby Kotick] mentioned, that we will not be ready to launch Starcraft 2 in 2009. We recognize that we only get one chance to make a first impression. It's much easier to retain a player that has a great initial experience than to bring them back after a mediocre one.

While we could rush into beta and launch an inferior game and service experience this year, fixing that experience over time, our track record has proven that there is a far greater value for us and for our players in making sure that the experience is great right from the start. [/blockquote]

"A true online destination platform, Battle.net will become the foundation for connecting the tens of millions of members of the Blizzard community in a social gaming network across all Blizzard's future games," added Kotick. "To put Battle.net into context, it will be a service similar to Xbox Live and it will leverage the technologies, infrastructure, and expertise that Blizzard has developed over the last decade in multiplayer play and social networking." And, Kotick continued, there would be no better time to launch the new service than alongside the hugely anticipated SC2.

While Kotick's comparison of the new Battle.net to Microsoft's Xbox Live service is sure to have doomsayers running for the hills shouting about subscription costs despite evidence to the contrary [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/92818-Fans-Petition-For-StarCraft-II-LAN-Blizzard-Responds], Blizzard's Morhaime elaborated that "[T]he next generation of Battle.net will add social networking features, cross-game-communication, unified login and account management, and more ... allowing them to connect, communicate, and share experiences with each other through the service regardless of which Blizzard game [they're playing]."

In other words, it'll be more like Xbox Live Silver - see your friends no matter what game they're in, chat with a D3 ladder-climbing buddy while you're in a game of WarCraft 3: DotA, so on and so forth - than Xbox Live Gold.

In other interesting news, it looks like Blizzard is officially referring to the Zerg and Protoss installments of SC2 as expansions now. To quote Morhaime, "Once we release Starcraft 2 next year, we will move immediately on to the first of two expansions."

The full transcription of the Activision-Blizzard Conference Call is available at Seeking Alpha [http://seekingalpha.com/article/154118-activision-blizzard-q2-2009-earnings-call-transcript?page=-1].

(Via Edge Online [http://www.edge-online.com/news/starcraft-ii-delayed])

Permalink
 

Capo Taco

New member
Nov 25, 2006
267
0
0
If you deliver a vastly superior product compared to competitors you can allow yourself to be a little greedy.
 

johnman

New member
Oct 14, 2008
2,915
0
0
Cant they rip off a good program like steam instead, which most Pc gamers will already have?
As for providing a good service, thats bollocks until they add LAN support.
 

Cousin_IT

New member
Feb 6, 2008
1,822
0
0
dunno why they think that. Its an rts with an already massive legion of hangover fans from SC1 so not like itl have a problem retaining players...unless its worse than SC1
 

Dys

New member
Sep 10, 2008
2,343
0
0
Oh god...like xbox live.
Filled with winy 12 year olds, terrible matchmaking and severe lag. awsome.
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
Dys said:
Oh god...like xbox live.
Filled with winy 12 year olds, terrible matchmaking and severe lag. awsome.
Methinks you're taking it a bit literally ;P
 

j0z

New member
Apr 23, 2009
1,762
0
0
johnman said:
Cant they rip off a good program like steam instead, which most Pc gamers will already have?
As for providing a good service, thats bollocks until they add LAN support.
I rather agree. Or why not use Steam itself? It is a reliable platform with a huge install base. They might have to fork over some dough to VALVe, but they wouldn't have to do a complete retool of Battle.net either.
 

Dys

New member
Sep 10, 2008
2,343
0
0
CantFaketheFunk said:
Methinks you're taking it a bit literally ;P
'Course I am, it's how I roll :p
I'd imagine (hope) there are far better models they could work off of. Games for windows live felt broken in DoW2 (which is an xbox live like system) and it completely killed universe at war (or at least assisted).

I guess I generally dislike mass matchmaking systems, I'd rather if they let you access game through specifc rooms similar to how the garena system works, or even keep it how bnet is at the moment (with the player seeing potential games and choosing one at their leisure). Also, easy lan (with no internet connection) is really a must.
 

Proteus214

Game Developer
Jul 31, 2009
2,270
0
0
Maybe they will want to make it as an available platform for consoles? Not that console RTSs are that great.
 

randommaster

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,802
0
0
People need to give Blizzard some credit. They've dealt with these things before and know what works but everyone wants them to change what they're doing because it isn't what they want. I'm sure that if Blizzard thought making a deal with Valve was tehe best thing to do, then they would have done it. The same goes for setting up the Battle.net 2.0 like XBox live, Blizzard's not going to just do anything, they're going to make sure it's worthwhile to change, both for themselves and the players.
 

SenseOfTumour

New member
Jul 11, 2008
4,514
0
0
Blizzard have the most successful MMO in operation, and told Uwe Boll to go screw himself, that they'd rather not make a Warcraft movie than let him destroy it, that's enough for me to trust that they'll do the right thing, personally I can wait till 2011 for Starcraft 2, knowing it'll be that much better with every passing week.
 

crooked_ferret

New member
Jul 30, 2009
268
0
0
so basically, they are turning battlenet into steam, and comparing it with xbox live?

It seems to me that nothing exciting or new is really happening here. I would actually much prefer if these people would all cooperate and make a truly all encompassing system. Something like what gamespy should have been...
 

SirSchmoopy

New member
Apr 15, 2008
797
0
0
OT but hey MYTHIC

"We recognize that we only get one chance to make a first impression."

When you buy a game and it still feels like a Beta, your doing it wrong.
 

Halfbreed13

New member
Apr 21, 2009
1,066
0
0
Say it with me kids
The worst part about DoW2's otherwise great online was LIVE. I hate LIVE. It is sooooooooooo bad >.<