I'm going to go back and continue reading this discussion, but I just have to get this off my chest: people can disagree and discuss StarCraft 2, while other people continue to go over build orders, this is a forum, you can read more than the very last thing that was written, and so can everyone else
While it's true that we should not resort to hurtful libel, condescension, and insults, we can just talk amongst ourselves about StarCraft related things that we don't all agree on. I actually think that saying things like "whoa guys, chill out and enjoy the game" is often subtle instigation
Edit: that video, it is lagging really hard right now, but what I've discerned so far is hillarious
Edit 2: damn... I want to be a programer for Blizzard, I think it may become a dream of mine; their software skills are really impressive and it's probably a great place to work, I wonder if it will be that way for a long time to come
I'm going to go back and continue reading this discussion, but I just have to get this off my chest: people can disagree and discuss StarCraft 2, while other people continue to go over build orders, this is a forum, you can read more than the very last thing that was written, and so can everyone else
While it's true that we should not resort to hurtful libel, condescension, and insults, we can just talk amongst ourselves about StarCraft related things that we don't all agree on. I actually think that saying things like "whoa guys, chill out and enjoy the game" is often subtle instigation
YOU ARE FAT AND DUMB AND I HATE YOU
Lemming on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
That's good to know. Too bad it's not at release, but at least they're looking into it. Whatever happened to Blizzard's "when it's done?" motto, though?
There will definitely be "chat channels" coming in one of the patches after the release. The system will be based around groups, where you will be able to join public channels that are based around your interests, which can be virtually anything. Also the system will include private chat channels (in plans for release in the first few months after the release), where you will be able to meet with your friends.
As for identifiers they are returning for the second phase of the beta. The previous system did not work as intended to some degree and based on feedback received the developers decided to implement a variation of this, which is going to attach character codes. These will be three digit numbers added to your nickname and they will be seen in the UI screens. Thanks to this you will be able to add friends manually, just like previously with identifiers. On top of that you can still add friends using all other methods (using the score screen or RealID).
ZarathustraEckUbermenschnow with stripes!Registered Userregular
edited June 2010
We're getting a bit of doubletalk from Blizzard re: "When it's done."
On one hand, they recently made a statement (link unavailable right now since I'm at work) saying something to the effect of "that's what's great about Blizzard; we don't have to release a product until it's ready). On the other we have the recent trend towards set-in-stone release dates and unfinished products being patched after release.
Don't get me wrong. I'm an avid Blizzard fan and have been since the release of the first Diablo. I have, however, noticed a change in recent years as far as release dates and general philsophy go. I also have no illusions that a grand-scale RTS can be perfectly balanced at release. My wariness is due to the "unfinished" product which is missing core features beyond balance issues.
When it's Done™ may be a thing of the past, and it's anyone's guess as to whether the Activision merger played any part in that. Doomspeakers will cite Kotick or Activision as a whole. The other side of the spectrum will tapdance around the change. But it's hard to deny that the company who once refused to give release dates is now beholden to some driving force towards a business model where deadlines are more prevalent.
We're getting a bit of doubletalk from Blizzard re: "When it's done."
On one hand, they recently made a statement (link unavailable right now since I'm at work) saying something to the effect of "that's what's great about Blizzard; we don't have to release a product until it's ready). On the other we have the recent trend towards set-in-stone release dates and unfinished products being patched after release.
Don't get me wrong. I'm an avid Blizzard fan and have been since the release of the first Diablo. I have, however, noticed a change in recent years as far as release dates and general philsophy go. I also have no illusions that a grand-scale RTS can be perfectly balanced at release. My wariness is due to the "unfinished" product which is missing core features beyond balance issues.
When it's Done™ may be a thing of the past, and it's anyone's guess as to whether the Activision merger played any part in that. Doomspeakers will cite Kotick or Activision as a whole. The other side of the spectrum will tapdance around the change. But it's hard to deny that the company who once refused to give release dates is now beholden to some driving force towards a business model where deadlines are more prevalent.
My 2 cents is that the single player did them in. From what we've seen its got old units in it plus new stuff that won't be in multiplayer. I think they were trying to create this grand-narrative for the SC universe that might pave the way to a SC MMORPG. Finally someone "cough" Activision "cough" looked at them like they were crazy creative types and not in a business that needs to sell a product to people that have been waiting a decade for a sequel. I think we would be still waiting another year for a release date if we had to wait for "When it's Done" to apply to the single player. When over the lifecycle of the game the multiplayer is where the $$$ is at.
We're getting a bit of doubletalk from Blizzard re: "When it's done."
On one hand, they recently made a statement (link unavailable right now since I'm at work) saying something to the effect of "that's what's great about Blizzard; we don't have to release a product until it's ready). On the other we have the recent trend towards set-in-stone release dates and unfinished products being patched after release.
Don't get me wrong. I'm an avid Blizzard fan and have been since the release of the first Diablo. I have, however, noticed a change in recent years as far as release dates and general philsophy go. I also have no illusions that a grand-scale RTS can be perfectly balanced at release. My wariness is due to the "unfinished" product which is missing core features beyond balance issues.
When it's Done™ may be a thing of the past, and it's anyone's guess as to whether the Activision merger played any part in that. Doomspeakers will cite Kotick or Activision as a whole. The other side of the spectrum will tapdance around the change. But it's hard to deny that the company who once refused to give release dates is now beholden to some driving force towards a business model where deadlines are more prevalent.
You believe the game will be released on July 27th and not be 'done' and thus Blizzard is straying for their original philosophy? I'd have to argue that they still follow this mantra given the major delay we saw last year and that rinky dink features like chat channels do not warrant keeping the game out of our hands.
Also, exactly how long will we have had notice that the release date is the 27th? Compared to previous title releases, how much time would elapse between the game having gone gold announcement and the actual release?
We've known since about early May I believe. A whopping three month or so lead time on the announcement. Pretty much long enough that it won't ambush anyone that has to save a little, but close enough that they feel entirely comfortable nothing is going to push it back. There are games that have a release date over a year in advance, 3 months is not unreasonable.
You believe the game will be released on July 27th and not be 'done' and thus Blizzard is straying for their original philosophy? I'd have to argue that they still follow this mantra given the major delay we saw last year and that rinky dink features like chat channels do not warrant keeping the game out of our hands.
Also, exactly how long will we have had notice that the release date is the 27th? Compared to previous title releases, how much time would elapse between the game having gone gold announcement and the actual release?
WoW
Announced Sep 2, 2001
Released Nov 23, 2004
Wiki says development was roughly 4-5 years.
Expansion #1 Released January 16, 2007
Expansion #2 Released November 13, 2008
Expansion #3 Currently in F&F Alpha
Starcraft 2
Announced May 19, 2007
Release July 27, 2010
Development started in 2003.
Diablo III
Announced June 28, 2008
Release date: "It's too early to estimate Diablo III's release date. As with all Blizzard Entertainment games, our goal is to create a game that is as fun, balanced, and polished as possible. We intend to take as much time developing Diablo III as is necessary to ensure the game meets our own high expectations and those of our players. We're aiming to release Diablo III on both Mac and Windows simultaneously in as many regions as possible, and to localize the game in several languages. We'll have more details to share about countries, languages, and specific dates as we get closer to release."
OH...release date announcement. Why does that matter?
Ezekiel on
I will throw you on the land and hurl you on the open field. I will let all the birds of the air settle on you and all the beasts of the earth gorge themselves on you. I will spread your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your remains. I will drench the land with your flowing blood all the way to the mountains, and the ravines will be filled with your flesh. - Ezekiel 32: 4-6
0
ZarathustraEckUbermenschnow with stripes!Registered Userregular
We're getting a bit of doubletalk from Blizzard re: "When it's done."
On one hand, they recently made a statement (link unavailable right now since I'm at work) saying something to the effect of "that's what's great about Blizzard; we don't have to release a product until it's ready). On the other we have the recent trend towards set-in-stone release dates and unfinished products being patched after release.
Don't get me wrong. I'm an avid Blizzard fan and have been since the release of the first Diablo. I have, however, noticed a change in recent years as far as release dates and general philsophy go. I also have no illusions that a grand-scale RTS can be perfectly balanced at release. My wariness is due to the "unfinished" product which is missing core features beyond balance issues.
When it's Done™ may be a thing of the past, and it's anyone's guess as to whether the Activision merger played any part in that. Doomspeakers will cite Kotick or Activision as a whole. The other side of the spectrum will tapdance around the change. But it's hard to deny that the company who once refused to give release dates is now beholden to some driving force towards a business model where deadlines are more prevalent.
You believe the game will be released on July 27th and not be 'done' and thus Blizzard is straying for their original philosophy? I'd have to argue that they still follow this mantra given the major delay we saw last year and that rinky dink features like chat channels do not warrant keeping the game out of our hands.
Also, exactly how long will we have had notice that the release date is the 27th? Compared to previous title releases, how much time would elapse between the game having gone gold announcement and the actual release?
For past titles, there was no release date until the gold announcement. That is the model that has changed. Sure, retailers would post their various dates (none of which were correct), but you wouldn't have a true date until the game had gone gold.
To directly respond to your post...
1. Yes, I believe it will be released on July 27th.
2. No, I do not believe it will be "done" in the sense of their old When it's Done™ saying. I say this because features of Bnet 2.0 which are proclaimd as imminent will be absent at shipping and not immediately available as a patch upon installing (as has been the case with some games that go gold and then need a quick tweak).
3. I do not have the timespans between the gold announcement and release available, but that is not the issue at hand. It is more that the When it's Done™ mantra has been eschewed for a hard date that is announced well before the game has gone gold.
There are virtues to getting a game out the door. I'm not denying that. I'm saying the When it's Done™ model is going the way of the dodo.
For past titles, there was no release date until the gold announcement. That is the model that has changed. Sure, retailers would post their various dates (none of which were correct), but you wouldn't have a true date until the game had gone gold.
To directly respond to your post...
1. Yes, I believe it will be released on July 27th.
2. No, I do not believe it will be "done" in the sense of their old When it's Done™ saying. I say this because features of Bnet 2.0 which are proclaimd as imminent will be absent at shipping and not immediately available as a patch upon installing (as has been the case with some games that go gold and then need a quick tweak).
3. I do not have the timespans between the gold announcement and release available, but that is not the issue at hand. It is more that the When it's Done™ mantra has been eschewed for a hard date that is announced well before the game has gone gold.
There are virtues to getting a game out the door. I'm not denying that. I'm saying the When it's Done™ model is going the way of the dodo.
To clarify my point regarding the gold announcements and the actual release was to hopefully prove that there's not a lot of difference between that 'model' and actually issuing a release date three months in advance thus countering your point of how the 'release date' model is a fundamental shift in their business approach.
Then there's also the point of Starcraft 2 versus Battle.net 2.0. Again, so long as the actual game is complete and reasonably polished then release it. I see little point in delaying the game another month or two to bring Battle.net from 85% functionality to 95% while the game itself is already at 95+%.
Argrax on
SC2: Argrax.751
0
kaleeditySometimes science is more art than scienceRegistered Userregular
My 2 cents is that the single player did them in. From what we've seen its got old units in it plus new stuff that won't be in multiplayer. I think they were trying to create this grand-narrative for the SC universe that might pave the way to a SC MMORPG. Finally someone "cough" Activision "cough" looked at them like they were crazy creative types and not in a business that needs to sell a product to people that have been waiting a decade for a sequel. I think we would be still waiting another year for a release date if we had to wait for "When it's Done" to apply to the single player. When over the lifecycle of the game the multiplayer is where the $$$ is at.
It's definitely not single player holding them back dude :P
Pretty much. And it's look like this will be the most polished release yet. Though I dunno about how all their titles went at release like WC3 and SC1 but I do know that D2 and WoW were buggy messes(game crashes and in game exploits). So this is looking like the most done "When it's Done™" yet.
Then there's also the point of Starcraft 2 versus Battle.net 2.0. Again, so long as the actual game is complete and reasonably polished then release it. I see little point in delaying the game another month or two to bring Battle.net from 85% functionality to 95% while the game itself is already at 95+%.
Fair enough, and the only reason I attached the two sides of this release so tightly is that Blizzard is promoting them together. Sure, WoW is going to see Bnet 2.0 integration as well, but some of the selling points of Bnet 2.0 are being used to further the sales of Starcraft 2. I don't play WoW (anymore), so the Bnet 2.0 product is a feature of the new game, for me. I'd suspect there are plenty of other gamers in the same boat.
I will give you that they are two separate products, though one may be bundled and promoted with the other. And yes, it's likely more the Bnet 2.0 lack of polish that bothers me than SC2. Still... Blizzard formed a reputation with that When it's Done™, and now we're seeing a drift away from that.
I worry that as we see this shift, an amazing company will begin to adopt the philsophy of getting a product out the door, making a buck, and fixing it later. That's not something I'd like to see from Blizzard, and I hope it never shifts that far.
I worry that as we see this shift, an amazing company will begin to adopt the philsophy of getting a product out the door, making a buck, and fixing it later. That's not something I'd like to see from Blizzard, and I hope it never shifts that far.
I undoubtedly have similar concerns in the back of my mind but I also think they deserve the benefit of the doubt given that I think we'd all agree that Starcraft 2 has met most, if not all our exceptionally high expectations, at least from what we've seen so far.
There will definitely be "chat channels" coming in one of the patches after the release. The system will be based around groups, where you will be able to join public channels that are based around your interests, which can be virtually anything. Also the system will include private chat channels (in plans for release in the first few months after the release), where you will be able to meet with your friends.
As for identifiers they are returning for the second phase of the beta. The previous system did not work as intended to some degree and based on feedback received the developers decided to implement a variation of this, which is going to attach character codes. These will be three digit numbers added to your nickname and they will be seen in the UI screens. Thanks to this you will be able to add friends manually, just like previously with identifiers. On top of that you can still add friends using all other methods (using the score screen or RealID).
Does anyone know why they moved away from the name.identifier system? It seemed perfect to me, the only thing this new system does is preassign your identifier as a number
ZarathustraEckUbermenschnow with stripes!Registered Userregular
edited June 2010
The great thing about the identifiers was the absence of numbers and special characters. I mean, there might be someone else out there who wanted to use the name Zarathustra (like here on the forums, where I was told it was in use), but the identifier could function as a surname.
Now... three random numbers? Even if NO ONE else is going to use that name? Meh.
I kind of assume that the numerical identifier will be tacked on after the period and hidden except on your UI. So I would technicaly be Mvrck.333 but all you guys will ever see is Mvrck (or in the case of RealId, my name).
Why they're going to the system they are, who knows. But I don't think it's an inherently awful one, and it will be once again super easy to add everyone to your friends list.
I will throw you on the land and hurl you on the open field. I will let all the birds of the air settle on you and all the beasts of the earth gorge themselves on you. I will spread your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your remains. I will drench the land with your flowing blood all the way to the mountains, and the ravines will be filled with your flesh. - Ezekiel 32: 4-6
Posts
While it's true that we should not resort to hurtful libel, condescension, and insults, we can just talk amongst ourselves about StarCraft related things that we don't all agree on. I actually think that saying things like "whoa guys, chill out and enjoy the game" is often subtle instigation
Edit: that video, it is lagging really hard right now, but what I've discerned so far is hillarious
Edit 2: damn... I want to be a programer for Blizzard, I think it may become a dream of mine; their software skills are really impressive and it's probably a great place to work, I wonder if it will be that way for a long time to come
YOU ARE FAT AND DUMB AND I HATE YOU
I've totally lost track of what is going on at this point.
I do know the game is coming out on July 27th. I'm not terribly worried because of that.
Is that the bratOK one? I found him really fun to watch.
friend codes???
On one hand, they recently made a statement (link unavailable right now since I'm at work) saying something to the effect of "that's what's great about Blizzard; we don't have to release a product until it's ready). On the other we have the recent trend towards set-in-stone release dates and unfinished products being patched after release.
Don't get me wrong. I'm an avid Blizzard fan and have been since the release of the first Diablo. I have, however, noticed a change in recent years as far as release dates and general philsophy go. I also have no illusions that a grand-scale RTS can be perfectly balanced at release. My wariness is due to the "unfinished" product which is missing core features beyond balance issues.
When it's Done™ may be a thing of the past, and it's anyone's guess as to whether the Activision merger played any part in that. Doomspeakers will cite Kotick or Activision as a whole. The other side of the spectrum will tapdance around the change. But it's hard to deny that the company who once refused to give release dates is now beholden to some driving force towards a business model where deadlines are more prevalent.
-Z
My 2 cents is that the single player did them in. From what we've seen its got old units in it plus new stuff that won't be in multiplayer. I think they were trying to create this grand-narrative for the SC universe that might pave the way to a SC MMORPG. Finally someone "cough" Activision "cough" looked at them like they were crazy creative types and not in a business that needs to sell a product to people that have been waiting a decade for a sequel. I think we would be still waiting another year for a release date if we had to wait for "When it's Done" to apply to the single player. When over the lifecycle of the game the multiplayer is where the $$$ is at.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
Also, exactly how long will we have had notice that the release date is the 27th? Compared to previous title releases, how much time would elapse between the game having gone gold announcement and the actual release?
WoW
Announced Sep 2, 2001
Released Nov 23, 2004
Wiki says development was roughly 4-5 years.
Expansion #1 Released January 16, 2007
Expansion #2 Released November 13, 2008
Expansion #3 Currently in F&F Alpha
Starcraft 2
Announced May 19, 2007
Release July 27, 2010
Development started in 2003.
Diablo III
Announced June 28, 2008
Release date: "It's too early to estimate Diablo III's release date. As with all Blizzard Entertainment games, our goal is to create a game that is as fun, balanced, and polished as possible. We intend to take as much time developing Diablo III as is necessary to ensure the game meets our own high expectations and those of our players. We're aiming to release Diablo III on both Mac and Windows simultaneously in as many regions as possible, and to localize the game in several languages. We'll have more details to share about countries, languages, and specific dates as we get closer to release."
Development started 2001
Linking is easier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_Entertainment
Certainly a trend in one direction there.
OH...release date announcement. Why does that matter?
For past titles, there was no release date until the gold announcement. That is the model that has changed. Sure, retailers would post their various dates (none of which were correct), but you wouldn't have a true date until the game had gone gold.
To directly respond to your post...
1. Yes, I believe it will be released on July 27th.
2. No, I do not believe it will be "done" in the sense of their old When it's Done™ saying. I say this because features of Bnet 2.0 which are proclaimd as imminent will be absent at shipping and not immediately available as a patch upon installing (as has been the case with some games that go gold and then need a quick tweak).
3. I do not have the timespans between the gold announcement and release available, but that is not the issue at hand. It is more that the When it's Done™ mantra has been eschewed for a hard date that is announced well before the game has gone gold.
There are virtues to getting a game out the door. I'm not denying that. I'm saying the When it's Done™ model is going the way of the dodo.
-Z
Then there's also the point of Starcraft 2 versus Battle.net 2.0. Again, so long as the actual game is complete and reasonably polished then release it. I see little point in delaying the game another month or two to bring Battle.net from 85% functionality to 95% while the game itself is already at 95+%.
well, the original diablo might be
It's definitely not single player holding them back dude :P
e: They said awhile back (must be like a year now) that it was due to multiplayer / Bnet.
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/59856
FFBE: 898,311,440
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/dElementalor
Fair enough, and the only reason I attached the two sides of this release so tightly is that Blizzard is promoting them together. Sure, WoW is going to see Bnet 2.0 integration as well, but some of the selling points of Bnet 2.0 are being used to further the sales of Starcraft 2. I don't play WoW (anymore), so the Bnet 2.0 product is a feature of the new game, for me. I'd suspect there are plenty of other gamers in the same boat.
I will give you that they are two separate products, though one may be bundled and promoted with the other. And yes, it's likely more the Bnet 2.0 lack of polish that bothers me than SC2. Still... Blizzard formed a reputation with that When it's Done™, and now we're seeing a drift away from that.
I worry that as we see this shift, an amazing company will begin to adopt the philsophy of getting a product out the door, making a buck, and fixing it later. That's not something I'd like to see from Blizzard, and I hope it never shifts that far.
-Z
Does anyone know why they moved away from the name.identifier system? It seemed perfect to me, the only thing this new system does is preassign your identifier as a number
fucking fart
Now... three random numbers? Even if NO ONE else is going to use that name? Meh.
-Z
why is blizzard so bad at this? i just don't get it
more and more every day i think those jace hall videos are accurate
Why they're going to the system they are, who knows. But I don't think it's an inherently awful one, and it will be once again super easy to add everyone to your friends list.
I hate wii length friend numbers so much.
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
Well this was already the case with identifiers.
Anyway, i don't mind duplicate names, i mean, we see them all the time in real life.
Unoriginal names are a human tradition.
i mean i would appreciate it if they changed the game's title to Starcraft Deuce
yes but with identifiers as something the person picks they couldn't run out
but with identifiers that are limited to 3 numbers... blizzard might run out of numbers to put on the end of day9 poser names!!!
Day9.00A Day9.00B Day9.00C Day9.00D Day9.00E Day9.00F Day9.00G Day9.00H Day9.00I Day9.00J Day9.00K Day9.00L Day9.00M Day9.00N Day9.00O Day9.00P Day9.00Q Day9.00R Day9.00S Day9.00T Day9.00V Day9.00W Day9.00X Day9.00Y Day9.00Z Day9.0AA