
Battle.net 2.0: The Antithesis of Consumer Confidence - binbasti
http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/battle-net-2-0-the-antithesis-of-consumer-confidence
======
mquander
The article is pretty accurate. What I don't understand is this: In SC:BW,
players responded to an inadequate Battle.net by moving competitive Internet
play to private and emulated servers. It wouldn't have taken much effort to
keep them on Battle.net -- just a few nice organizational and ranking
features.

Obviously, Blizzard isn't a fan of this, since it bypasses their copy
protection as well as being totally out of their control. That's why they
removed LAN, why they go after emulation projects legally, and I naively
thought it was part of the reason they were motivated to make Battle.net 2.0
better. I _liked_ their initial statements about why LAN was gone, where they
said things like "we want to make Battle.net so compelling that everyone will
want to be on it for all their games." Right on!

However, it appears that now they've done exactly the opposite. Battle.net 2.0
appears so unusable for any form of community or competition that I guarantee
an iCCup or bnetd equivalent will be up a year from now, and the whole
"hardcore" scene will be using it, and anyone will be able to pirate SC2 and
connect to it. Why would anyone want this? It's not a complicated chain of
inference; whoever is in charge, I'm sure they can see this coming equally
well. Who benefits?

~~~
crystalis
It might be a legal issue- elsewhere, it's been mentioned that it is much
easier to be in the clear operating private servers via existing LAN
capabilities. Lawsuits have been sent to bnetd people and Battle.net 2.0
reversers.

~~~
mquander
Yeah, absolutely. They seem quite serious about preventing Battle.net
emulation legally, and I'm sure that's a big reason why they eliminated LAN --
but if there's enough motivation, I doubt they can really succeed; nobody ever
does. My opinion is that the best prophylaxis against private servers would be
a really great built-in server.

------
DrSprout
>That’s why your game is region-locked. Got friends in Europe? Too bad. You
can’t play with them. Blizzard has international Starcraft tournaments to
sell.

You know, even with online-play only I might have been compelled to buy SC2,
eventually after the price comes down.

But without international play I will have no choice but to schedule when I
play around when other people are playing. I stopped gaming regularly when I
entered college, and now it's something I do every once in a while, when I
need to disappear from life for a while - it's not scheduled, and I don't want
to have to worry about scheduling unless I'm scheduling a LAN party. - also an
impossibility.

So no dice. I'd rather hack on 0 A.D. <http://www.wildfiregames.com/0ad/>

------
matthew-wegner
I started to skim after:

 _Starcraft II is a marketing nightmare. It is the sequel to a twelve-year-old
computer game, a beacon in the forgotten era of Deus Ex and Baldur’s Gate._

SC2 is _far_ from a marketing nightmare. Gamers are eager for a new Starcraft;
Blizzard would have to screw up much, much more than online-only play for it
to bomb.

~~~
devonrt
_Are_ gamers actually eager for a new Starcraft game? It's been my experience
that _Starcraft players_ are eager for a new Starcraft game.

~~~
andymoe
Starcraft sold 9.5 million copies worldwide over the last 10 years. 1.5
million in 98 alone. (According to wikipedia at least) that is a lot of
Starcraft players that could be eager for the new game. I know at least one
person that pre-orded it two years ago when it was going for 45 bucks or so.

~~~
swernli
No, that is not a lot of StarCraft players. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (a
game I have not interest in, personally) sold 4.7 million units in it's first
day. That's 3 times as many units in 24 hours as the entire year of StarCraft
sales you quoted. Over 5 million sales in it's first month in the US alone,
compared to 9.5 million over 10 years worldwide for StarCraft. Was StarCraft a
big deal in it's heyday? Sure, no one is trying to deny that. But compared to
the modern gaming industry, it's a drop in the bucket. Modern Warfare 2
apparently has approx. 25 million unique players as of March 2010. We live in
a world now where a video game release can outdo a major motion picture in
openning weekend profits. StarCraft may have a venerable history and loud
crowd of fervent fans, but they have a frighteningly small portion of today's
gaming crowd, especially in the US and UK.

Note: Sales data from Wikipedia, which has links to the original articles with
the results.

~~~
andymoe
You are comparing a game that came out in 2005 for seven platforms - counting
mobile - with one that came out in 98 for PCs/Macs.
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty_2>) I think the game market in
general was smaller then. A better comparison would have been Starcraft vs
Counterstrike.

Starcraft II will have the same advantage that the Wii did by pulling in many
adult gamers that spent hundreds and hundreds of hours playing the original
game. I concede the point that the first person shooter Genre has always had a
larger user base than the real time strategy genre but I still think that
perhaps there could be a lot of demand for the RTS genre that has been
marginalized in recent years as things have moved towards MMOs and the more
modern FPS games. It will be interesting to see how it plays out and how
blizzard is able to leverage their huge (paying) user base to market the this
new release.

~~~
swernli
Fair point (though those numbers only include Xbox360, PS3, and computer, not
the myriad of mobile incarnations). There could be a lot of RTS players out
there who have been quiet over the years, just waiting for this opportunity.
But the same way the post brings up Street Fighter 4 (a non-FPS modern sequel
to original old school game with "big" following) and it's ability to parley
huge buzz and vocal fanbase into decent but not great sales, I have major
doubts about how StarCraft II can stack up against the current industry
standards of success. Even more so if they are alienating their core
demographic by removing cherished multiplayer features.

Maybe this will find success not through the older generation that remembers
the original, but instead by giving rise to a new generation of RTS players
who never even knew what they were missing in this FPS and MMO dominated
world.

------
zach
That article was horribly written. It went off in a thousand different
directions and had no storyline. Also, the valid criticisms are entwined with
misconceptions and inaccuracies that undermine them. I appreciate getting a
read of the current sentiment but it was really hard to read.

~~~
crystalis
This comment was horribly written. If there's a thousand different directions
and no storyline, why don't you point out how things aren't necessary to your
summary of the actual story? Point out misconceptions and inaccuracies?

Your comment is arguably less worthwhile than a factually incorrect comment-
at least there's a point there to allow for a discussion to ensue. You just
serve to quash discussion with a fiat "yeah, not up to my standards, pointy
knees, you know."

This is a request to raise the level of the discourse. If the original is
lengthy, directionless, and inaccurate, post something concise, direct, and
accurate.

(I'd also note that somehow, when you essayed some actual thought (that I also
replied to), you didn't get anywhere near the number of upvotes. Any thoughts?
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1417708>)

~~~
zach
Maybe it was horrible. At least it was short.

~~~
crystalis
If brevity dominates your desire for quality, you may be misplaced.

------
tedunangst
I started to lose track of the narrative somewhere between Modern Warfare and
Tiger Woods. I scrolled down and got the battle.net vs stone graphic, which
seems like a nice summary, but I don't see how it relates to "the antithesis
of consumer confidence".

~~~
light3
There should be a third column with Battle.net 1 and all ticks.

------
parfe
The article is off base. Starcraft 2 is fun. The hardcore community accounts
for a small portion of the sales, just like in anything. If you listen to the
rabid fans you hurt the regular players.

This is the battle.net expierence to a normal player now:

* Login

* Optionally start a group with some friends (who can be conveniently imported from Facebook)

* Choose 1v1 2v2 3v3 or 4v4

* Wait for the match to start

* Play a game

* Repeat or Logout

It's quick, it's fun, and starcraft 2 is going to sell because blizzard is a
golden goose until proven otherwise.

~~~
mquander
I think a lot of folks are quick to marginalize the hardcore community, which
indeed accounts for a fairly small portion of sales.

However, why do you think SC2 has the amount of hype that it does? Why do you
think that, ten years after release, the Starcraft Battle Chest is still #2 on
Amazon's PC strategy sales rank (holy shit!) [1]

My guess is that the great majority of the word-of-mouth that keeps games like
this afloat after the initial 6 months or so comes from hardcore players. This
seems even more pertinent for SC2 in particular, since Blizzard plans on
releasing it in three parts. If it can't hold people's attention for a couple
years, they're going to be missing out on potential sales soon. They shouldn't
throw away their loudest evangelists.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/StarCraft-Battle-Chest-
Pc/dp/B00001IVR...](http://www.amazon.com/StarCraft-Battle-Chest-
Pc/dp/B00001IVRD)

Addendum: Plus, remember that "hardcore" players of WC3 basically spawned off
an entire genre (DotA) in their spare time -- it's not likely that anything of
the sort would be produced on Battle.net 2.0 with the mapmaking restrictions
outlined in the article above.

~~~
parfe
I think the hype originates in the millions and millions of people who played
sc1 and enjoyed it immensely. You don't need to be watching televised SC1
matches from Korea to be a fan of the game and willing to pay $60 for the next
release.

Sometimes it's nice to auto join a match with someone at your skill level,
play for 20 minutes and log off.

It's the same type of change that went into WoW with the double XP gain bar.
For every hour you're logged off, you get an hour of playtime where you earn
double xp.

~~~
Natsu
I'm more worried that expectations are simply too high for them to meet this
time.

I have no doubt that they'll see an initial rush of sales. That's just to be
expected based on hype. The real question is whether it has any staying power
or not. I'm leaning towards the "it can't possibly meet expectations" side,
but I could be wrong.

------
Sindrome
This article was horrible. It was reminiscent of when Valve first unveiled
Steam. Back then everyone hated the idea of Steam constricting their games.
There was a huge mainstream petition going around to prevent Steam from being
released. Even I didn't want to accept Steam. But I think Steam is a huge
success, I buy all my games off steam. I have all my friends on Steam and I
know what they are playing and can jump into their games whenever I like.
While BNet2.0 won't have the large scale digital distribution system that
Steam does. I see a similarity.

Also, in this article the author focuses solely on Starcraft II. BNet2.0
encompasses ALL BLIZZARD GAMES. Even World Of Warcraft is getting updated in
the new Expansion to support some of the BNet2.0 features. The idea is to
build a platform that connects all Blizzard gamers to all Blizzard games. At
Blizzcon 2009 on of the VPs of Blizzard gave a demonstration of BNet2.0,
talked about the vision, and where they plan to go with it. They are trying
make a quality system that will be useful.

Lastly, BNet 2.0 will introduce a kind of Map Store. SC II's game editor is
very robust and allows you to create some very nice custom maps, campaigns,
etc. Map editors will be able to sell their maps on this store. I think this
may appeal to some people on HN more than the article itself.

~~~
sbierwagen
Steam didn't disable LAN play.

Also: He focused on the Starcraft 2 features of Battlenet 2.0 because that
was, you know, relevant to an article _on Starcraft 2_.

Additionally, how is Battlenet 2.0 going to "connect" Starcraft 2 to World Of
Warcraft? How does your Starcraft 2 rank matter, at all, in World Of Warcraft?
This is a genuine question, since I haven't played either game.

~~~
teej
> Additionally, how is Battlenet 2.0 going to "connect" Starcraft 2 to World
> Of Warcraft? How does your Starcraft 2 rank matter, at all, in World Of
> Warcraft? This is a genuine question, since I haven't played either game.

The only tie-in I've heard of deals with SC2 Collectors Edition. Purchasing it
gives you a rare "Mini-Thor" pet in World of Warcraft.

------
someone_here
I think this is an accurate commentary about what's happening:
<http://xkcd.com/743/>

------
mawhidby
Well, the SC2 beta phase one ended two days ago. With all this feedback, I
wonder if Blizzard would make any changes to Battle.net 2.0 before the
official release date (7/27). Usually Blizzard is very receptive to the
feedback of the fans, but I think it's too late and too much work to get
Battle.net 2.0 to a state where the author would be satisfied before the
release date.

In any case, I expect Blizzard to refine their products after release until
they are perfect, just like they always have. Hopefully, they will continue to
refine Battle.net 2.0 as well.

~~~
crystalis
That's the thing- B.net was at a "perfect" point, relative to the current
implementation, about 8 years ago.

------
digibri
I've played Blizzard games for years and years. All the Warcrafts, Starcraft,
both Diablos. When I was younger I played them more obsessively, these days my
gaming has been rather casual.

I've been in the beta for a couple months. SC2 is great. The matchmaking is
fantastic. The loss of LAN play doesn't seem that big a deal (to me) when
compared to all the gains.

However, I feel that not being able to create a custom chat room for you and
your friends to chat is a big miss. The chat feature of Battle.net 1.0 is
probably the biggest reason why the Starcraft / Warcraft X / Diablo X
community is so strong and so persistent. It is the various custom chat
lobbies (friends, public, clan, special interest, etc.) that created the
community in the first place. Facebook integration simply cannot compensate
(and, in fact, seems rather silly).

My concern is that Activision-Blizzard is doing THEMSELVES a great disservice
by eliminating chat rooms (well, that and the fact that I enjoy the community
aspect). The reason I'm concerned is that I want the company to continue to
thrive and make more good games. (That and also because I own a bit of their
stock in my ROTH.)

Additionally, I think the lack of LAN play and aggressive legal pursuit of
alternate servers is currently aimed more at getting Activision-Blizzard a
slice of the eSports pie than preventing piracy. Anti-piracy is probably as
solved as it's going to get.

------
zach
So this article was a wild ramble, but I like that there's interest. Let me
sum some things up about SC2 and battle.net, completely unofficially and
without inside information.

StarCraft II is trying some new things. They are taking control over more of
the experience than they did before. That cheeses off a lot of people, but
they have the opportunity and technology to do it and want to improve the
experience in lots of ways instead of just the core game, which of course will
be great.

The front end has been a mess by Blizzard's standards, I think. But it will
evolve and get much, much better than its beta incarnation. StarCraft is a
game that has held up for ten years plus and that is totally the intention on
SC2. Blizzard released a patch for Diablo II earlier this year, so it helps to
think about the long term.

And finally, Battle.net is an emerging network that's also in beta in its
current incarnation. You can't serious if you think that it's not going to
grow hugely in usability and capability in the next few years. And it's not
like they're going to be supporting dozens of titles. Battle.net has got to be
their avenue to making money off of non-MMO games, so they are very motivated
to make it great.

~~~
crystalis
“I know that SC2 beta is having problems and u guys r talking about should we
buy the game or not but this is just a beta and u are playing it for free!
july is yet to come and they are still working on the beta to make it more
stable so do not complain about this problem. When this happens after the beta
that is the time u can complain about the lag and balance problems” – Typical
idiotic Battle.net forums post.

------
latch
Had a hard time reading this. Seems like you need to understand the problem
ahead of time to really get what he's driving at - too many tongue-in-cheek
references to really follow. Also, .main p{line-height: 18px;} should be
removed.

------
utricularian
I was in the Beta since the very early versions, probably patch 4 or 5, not
sure. To be honest, I'm not a super hardcore player. I play every day, and I
play a lot, but I'm not all gungho on clans and stuff. To me, Battle.net was
just a clever way to keep piracy under control.

The game is still super fun, and I still will buy it when it comes out.

If I wanted a more social game, I'd play an MMO.

