Quantcast


Revamped Battle.net taking a cue from Xbox LIVE photo

With the "it's done when it's done" design philosophy for Starcraft II meaning a tragic yet understandable 2010 release, it seems like many of us are wondering why Battle.net was cited as a reason for the delay. Courtesy of Gamasutra, we have got some answers.

Activision's leading man Bobby Kotick says that the intention is to make Battle.net "the foundation for connecting tens of millions in the Blizzard community in a social gaming network across all Blizzard's future games." He also compared the service to Xbox LIVE saying Starcraft II and World of Warcraft would be the first to utilize it.

Blizzard president Mike Morhaime was also able to chime in on the matter, saying "we recognize that we only get one chance to make a first impression." The ambitious new Battle.net will "add social networking features, cross-game communications, unified log-in and account management and more" on top of the current feature set.

This all sounds really exciting to me. Although it's sad we won't get Starcraft II this year, the delay can only be a good thing for the state of both Battle.net and the game itself. Now please, guys, don't delay any more games -- especially not Borderlands.








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

Jordan Devore is Destructoid's PC gaming manager and founding ginger editor. He is said to be easy to love but difficult to know. When Samit inquired about his curious bio photo Jordan simply replied: "bitches love sandcastles" ... yet, there is no sandcastle in that photo. We may never truly understand his ways. Likes Platformers, Pixel-based graphics, Stickerbrush Symphony, Pokemon, Leaderboards Meet the rest of the team



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

21 comments | showing # 1 to 21
prev next

benjaxez's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 13:30
benjaxez
i cant wait
Gyrael's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 13:31
Gyrael
That sounds pretty good. It's annoying to have Steam, GFWL and now this though.
kinneas123's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 13:32
kinneas123
The only question I care about is, will they charge us to use it? If so, Blizzard can forget about me buying Starcraft II or Diablo 3...
wrathofpink's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 13:36
wrathofpink
Oh great, another steam-like application I get to run in the background.
HB Draug's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 13:38
HB Draug
Basically– what I'm hoping for with Battle.net II is a vastly improved version of Steam. That would be a godsend. That and maybe some sort of auction house trading system for DIII and WoW that doesn't require me to be in game.
ChronosWing's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 13:40
ChronosWing
@Kinneas

I doubt they would be that fucking stupid, nobody is gonna pay for BNET and a WoW subscription, at least not the people who aren't hopelessly addicted to WoW to the point where they would forgo food and bills just to afford WoW.
Maurice Tan's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 13:41
Maurice Tan
But... I just want to play SC2 with friends... :(
Paviel's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 13:46
Paviel
@Professor Pew: I'm pretty sure that battle.net will let you do that, too. I mean, they have an /add friend function in World of Warcraft... how hard could it be to have one in the new battle.net?
Sanaj's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 13:52
Sanaj
Thankfully, I don't have any multi-player games that use Games for Windows Live.
So having an Steam account and also using a Battle.net account is no big deal.

I knew that Starcraft II was going to be delayed, but that still doesn't stop the disappointment really.

I'm hoping that what they're adding to Battle.net doesn't cause conflicts with the core multi-player game-play mechanics.
CallMeRotten's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 14:11
CallMeRotten
At this rate we probably won't see Diablo 3 until 2012.
Dan CiTi's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 16:15
Dan CiTi
Are people seriously going to pay for this? I just want to play it with my friends, and if I have to pay to do that I'll rage pretty hard and probably not buy this game. Let's hope there is some kind of free version with features taken away like with Xbox Live.
Jetsetlemming's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 16:28
Jetsetlemming
How is this remotely "taking a cue from Xbox Live"? He made a comparison, apparently aimed at simpletons.
ouched's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 16:33
ouched
@ Jetsetlemming

I completely agree. The title led me to believe that Blizzard was going to begin hurling racial slurs and insulting the gay community.
JLanphear's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 16:55
JLanphear
Well, considering how exclusive Blizzard really is, this probably won't have too much running in the background. We'll see what it's like.
Draconianviper's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 17:37
Draconianviper
Well, if they make it stable and very user friendly then I have no qualms with them polishing it up. Here's hoping it works out.
mrsatan's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 18:16
mrsatan
Sounds less like Live and more like Steam. I'm all for this as long as they don't charge for online, that would be bullshit.
Velt's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 19:54
Velt
So what they are saying is, we are so damn Blizzard we wont accept any other system that is not ours.
At least STEAM supports other games.
Chronic Logic's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 20:08
Chronic Logic
Well, Blizzard did say something about future online charging of battle.net, so...
Rathe989's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/06/2009 20:38
Rathe989
@chronoswing Various Blizzard employees have said that they are looking into ways to monitize Battlenet 2.0. It doesnt look like it will entail a subscription fee like LIVE does, but you will likely wind up paying for every little feature other than playing the game. Look at what they have done to WoW they charge you for all sorts of features if you use them.

A few links for reference

http://news.filefront.com/blizzards-rob-pardo-explains-how-battlenet-could-be-monetized/

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55271

Remember this is no longer Blizzard... this is ActiBlizzard and it is a great hungry greedy beast.
huluvu's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/07/2009 02:59
huluvu
i still hate the fact that sc2 won't support lan.
it's the most stupid move they've ever made (since they ruined wow with bc xD)
and if they are going to charge for bnet now.. gfy
i just really hope that all that won't affect wc2,wc3 and d2's version of the bnet.
Archwright's Avatar - Comment posted on 08/07/2009 14:11
Archwright
It will be a free service or it can GTFO.
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!