Quantcast



If you're planning on playing Starcraft 2 or Diablo III (hint: you are), here's what you'd better get used to looking at -- Battle.net 2.0.

Blizzard has unveiled the next version of Battle.net which the developer says "will evolve into an even more powerful and advanced online game service that will power all Blizzard Entertainment titles moving forward." So like I said, get used to it.

The details are in the five minute video above, so sit back with a cup of coffee and get a glimpse of Blizzard's future.








More gaming stories around the web. Got news? Submit yours to tips@destructoid.com



Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:

Comment with Facebook





Click connect and comment instantly!

Comment with Dtoid





New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds

23 comments | showing # 1 to 23
prev next

WhiteZombie's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 09:42
WhiteZombie
how bout they fucking finish starcraft 2 already - we'll all be playing virtual reality sex games by the time it comes out
Rammstein's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 09:46
Rammstein
How bout a YouTube/play-by-play for us not at home right now? :P

I assume ActiBlizz are going the way of VALVe, due to their success with Steam.
Ryan Slattery's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 09:48
Ryan Slattery
I'd rather that they take their time to deliver a quality product instead of a shitty one. I'm just a tad disappointed that they split the whole thing into three products; I really wanted to play the whole thing in one go but I guess I'll shell out money for each and every installation...
Threaded's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 09:49
Threaded
In before Activision makes people pay for access to Battle.net 2.0.

On top of that prediction, in before Activision announces it costs money for access 2 weeks before SC2 launches after everyone on the planet has already pre-ordered.
Captain Quincy's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 10:09
Captain Quincy
@Threaded
I'm pretty sure the fans would revolt if that ever happened. Unless it's an MMO PC gamers dont like to pay for things.
Crawdads Revenge's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 10:11
Crawdads Revenge
@Threaded: That's why I like Amazon. They don't charge for pre-orders until it ships. This makes it very easy to cancel if a dealbreaker comes along (overbearing DRM) or if you play a demo and learn the game is crap (AvP).
bakasama's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 10:12
bakasama
I'm still pretty firm in my belief that Activision saw how Dawn of War got expansions pretty regularly and have them all sell pretty well so they decided to force the split.

Currently you can register all your blizzard games with battle.net and then start the laborious process of downloading and installing (had my d2 case but couldn't find the cd), I like how steam handles that a lot better so let's hope they borrow that for the new interface.
Frickincarl's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 10:14
Frickincarl
I, for one, am really excited for new battle.net.
It's looking really good. It just looks really user-friendly and the integration of the mod community directly into battle.net itself is amazing.

Definitely looking forward to it.

Also @Rammstein
I think it's more along the lines of XBL. Not to say Steam's success isn't an inspiration to Blizzard, I just think Battle.net 2.0 is way more reminiscent of Xbox Live's user connectivity and such. Steam is great and I use it for countless games but, it just does not compare to XBL. If I were to create an online gaming platform to handle my catalog of games, I would be looking more at XBL than I would at Steam.
trickfred's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 10:20
trickfred
Wow, I can unlock pictures for my forum avatar? Truly, we are living in the future.
Rammstein's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 10:27
Rammstein
@Dustin: good points, I agree.

Also, what brlito said. Signing up for too much bullshit sucks. This is why I loved steam. I guess PC gamers will get a solution with OnLive? Lololol sorry, had to.
Frickincarl's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 10:27
Frickincarl
@Brlito
Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can just choose not to play the game and experience what Blizzard is working on. They are a pretty big developer now, I'm sure they won't miss you.
lokhe's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 10:35
lokhe
Tbh registering your games to Battle.net is really simple, there is no bullshit like GFWL involved lol. Blizzard has been giving us a quality gaming experience for over a decade now, and the amount of gaming followers they have testifies to this. I think their new system will be awesome, Blizzard clearly know what they're doing, no trolling can change this.
Buga's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 10:41
Buga
Blizzard streamlining all their games into a single account is really nice, I dont ever have to look for my CD keys AND I can download digital versions of the game.

Blizzard with battle.net 2.0 will definately revolutionize how PC game developers integrate community into the game better, instead of shipping off a game that will almost always be played at retail patch 1.0.
BHicks's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 10:43
BHicks
BLIZZARD IS ADDING ARENA MODE TO STARCRAFT!?!?!? BOYCOTT!
Frickincarl's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 10:44
Frickincarl
@lokhe: I agree 100%.

Blizzard has always delivered a top-notch product. When is the last time Blizzard put out a half-ass product that the gamers have ruled "crap"? I say Blizzard should take their time and deliver us a total refined new experience. I have lived without Starcraft 2 for a long time now. If Blizzard says it needs to shop with the new Battle.net experience, I believe them and I will wait as long as it takes to experience it.
Ghost125's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 12:48
Ghost125
AND IT WILL BE RELEASED ON 20141029401248912849102301924219302910300399916666666666666666666666, seriusly.... now did he just say support for ALL blizz game? this mean that WC3 might be comming there too? even if it is old? i mean even till today, it still one of the most succefull RTS ever, the new BN will add a lot of features to it, specially the map-size restriction that it had with the currently bn, a lot of map designers will be beneficted it that limit is removed or at least extended in a big way with the new BN
Rucksack's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 13:08
Rucksack
Oh, the ominous use of the words "service" and "experience". Those usually appear before the new "pricing structure" is revealed.
Frickincarl's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 14:13
Frickincarl
@Rucksack: Steam is a service. It's also a total gaming experience of its own. It does not have a pricing structure.

GFWL is another online gaming service. It is its own gaming experience as well.
PSN, Nintendo Wi-Fi, ect. There are plenty of online gaming services that operate free of charge. Just because it is associated with Activision, many assume they are just money gobblers who are just looking for every penny their consumers have.

If Blizzard made Battle.net 2.0 a pay service, I promise you there will be uproar and they will be forced to remove it or let the product die a horrible, lonely death should they decide to go with a pay service. It makes absolutely no sense for them to do it. Battle.net was a freeware, so should be Battle.net 2.0. Besides, people already pay for WoW. They are not going to shell out even more of their hard earned dollars for a service that integrates this feature to a game they've played years without.
amrs's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 16:35
amrs
BattleNet and Portraits are like Pokemon, you have to "collect them all"..

Where is LAN support? - Sad face :(
Elzam's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/10/2010 16:43
Elzam
Blizzard typically doesn't force anyone to pay for anything unless it's an additional perk which someone can live without easily (authenticator, race/sex changes, transfers, etc.).

In addition, I think it's borderline insane to think that this would be a pay service as Blizzard has already released that SC2 doesn't support TCP/IP play as SC1 did, and so Battle.net would be the only way to play it online.

The rule Blizzard's always seemed to follow is that if it's supported in the box, it won't cost you. If there's enough clamoring for a service in the future, they might see if they can accommodate, but it could cost you (see: race changes/name changes/faction changes/etc.).

Be positive for once. I know you're on Destructoid which seems to get its "edge" from cynicism and low-faith in the high profile gaming industry, but when has Blizzard ever let its players down?
Lotus_311's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/11/2010 14:15
Lotus_311
@ Dustin Withrow

Dude lay off Brlito, cause his point I GUARANTEE you is the SAME view point a majority of PC gamers are going to have on this. His point is 100% valid- the way of future gaming is being set that every last gaming developer titan out there will have their own overlay and its going to get really stupid, really fast. I'm already wondering (see also PRAYING) if someone out there is working on software that integrates Steam and Battle.net and LORD knows what else into the same overlay. My RAM, not to mention my patience, is going to be weeping having to deal with half my friends on one set up and half on the other.

But the REALITY is, as snide as you were about it, this IS what legitimate PC gamers are going to be forced in to doing. While blizzard is probably my second favorite developer, I'm frankly a little disgusted with how much blizzard gets acclaimed at being so inventive- when all they do is jack other peoples ingenuity and pay guys to put a new dress on it.
RandallFlagg's Avatar - Comment posted on 06/14/2010 16:59
RandallFlagg
Blizzard has unveiled the next version of Battle.net which the developer says "will evolve into an even more powerful and advanced online game service that will power all Blizzard Entertainment titles moving
car auto shipping forward." So like I said, get used to it.
Anna Hannah's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/11/2011 07:59
Anna Hannah
In addition, I think it's borderline insane to think that this would be a pay service as Blizzard has already released that SC2 doesn't support TCP/IP play as SC1 did, and so Battle.net would be the only way to play it online.
Best regards, Anna, CEO of ip san iscsi and i tunes
prev next

Comment with Facebook





Click connect and comment instantly!

Comment with Dtoid





New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds

Comments policy

Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?

Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!