Starcraft 2 Battle Report (Specs Not Released)

[Ramor]

Analyst Sees StarCraft II Inevitably Delayed To 2010 - starcraft ii - Kotaku
HNNNNNNNNNNNNNGH

While I'm glad Blizzard likes to release products when they're comfortable with the end result, I'm still greatly saddened and enraged by this (although we all knew it was probably going to end up this way)

[Zethren]

Screw windowed mode, go to the other side of things and play in high-res!

Resolution Expander 5.1.zip

This is bugging out for me(freezing up, not letting me move around the map, etc). I've tried different resolutions. My native monitor Resolution is 1900 1280. Is there any trick to getting it to work?

[geno]

I'm not really sure.. Best bet is probably to read the teamliquid thread I linked with the prog looking for similar situations.

[-Angelyka-]

god i want this game to come out soooo bad ><

[Meian]

This is bugging out for me(freezing up, not letting me move around the map, etc). I've tried different resolutions. My native monitor Resolution is 1900 1280. Is there any trick to getting it to work?

Works for me just won't let me use the mouse to move around; have to use the arrow keys (which is bothersome heh)

[Correction]

Analyst Sees StarCraft II Inevitably Delayed To 2010 - starcraft ii - Kotaku
HNNNNNNNNNNNNNGH

While I'm glad Blizzard likes to release products when they're comfortable with the end result, I'm still greatly saddened and enraged by this (although we all knew it was probably going to end up this way)

Aaaaaand confirmed: StarCraft II Development Update | Starcraft 2 | WoW Blue Tracker | World of Raids

At least we can trust blizzard to keep releasing battle reports/teasers/content up until launch date, especially with Blizzcon around the corner.

[Ramor]

it has become clear that it will take longer than expected to prepare the new Battle.net for the launch of the game

not the reason i had expected to hear for a delay, and actually sounds kind of weak.

battle.net was fine the way it was before (sc/diablo/wc2+3), i really didn't have any problems with it.

we will always take as much time as needed to ensure that our games and services meet the expectations of our players and the standard for quality that we set for ourselves as developers

always make me smile seeing that and then thinking of ffxi

[geno]

Well, a lot of people did have problems with it. Battle.net 1.0 for SC was great for its time, but it is ridiculously outdated now. There was no matchmaking system to speak of, much less a good one (something better than WC3). There were plenty of network issues that prevented people from playing together with someone on LAN and other people over battle.net properly. There was a mandatory lag time added to the game when played over b.net based around 56k modems (try checking unit response times on b.net compared to response times on popular FPS games today. There is almost a full second delay on b.net).

Battle.net 2.0 was actually one of the things I was most looking forward to about SC2. If that's the reason they are delaying the game, then I have no objections. Battle.net did a lot for Starcraft to make it as popular as it was in its time, 2.0 can have an equally or even greater impact today, especially with ideas like social networking integration, universal blizzard accounts, better and more complex friend and clan and channel systems, better AMM, better ladder system, better game finding methods (for getting specific game types or UMS maps like DotA for example), automated or partially automated custom tournament systems, etc.

If they are delaying to get more features like above in or bettering existing ones, I'm all for it. I think the majority of the delays for them have been in setting up the infrastructure required to support the numbers they are planning on seeing getting onto the service, which is understandable. I just hope they are using the time wisely.

[Ramor]

I understand and thought of everything you said, it just seems odd that BNet 2.0 would be setting them back to me. I guess I think of Battle.net as 'light' in terms of programming, and it seems to me like it'd be a lot easier to implement changes to BNet as opposed to SC seeing as there wouldn't need to be balance testing, many graphical glitches etc... etc...

But I agree with you, I'd rather wait until they're satisfied with it for them to release it.

[geno]

I dunno how light it will be, but you have to remember the real time killer part of bnet, the infrastucture. Getting it ready to handle the sheer number of people that are going to be playing is no small task I'm sure, especially if they want it to be as big and powerful as they've let on.

Anyways don't let that delay announcement get you too down. Consider how they handled the release of SC:

Starcraft Release Update

I'd say the short delay back then was certainly worth it and I hope that will be the case again this time.

[Arnwulf]

Considering they aren't including LAN support in Starcraft 2, I think it's a wise move to make sure that the new Battle.net runs perfectly from day 1 or there will be a lot of pissed of people.

[Meian]

Bah I am not surprised by this update but in the end I am still concerned when Beta begins :\

Edit: At least I'll be playing around with NS2 then which is basically a SC FPS. Provided they don't get delayed too ...

[geno]

I know what you mean. I'm not even waiting for actual releases, but I am dieing for sc2 beta or ns2 alpha/beta to come out.

[Correction]

I dunno how light it will be, but you have to remember the real time killer part of bnet, the infrastucture. Getting it ready to handle the sheer number of people that are going to be playing is no small task I'm sure, especially if they want it to be as big and powerful as they've let on.

Looks like more than infrastructure/performance is on their mind with the 'new' battle.net Battle.net Revamp "Similar To Xbox Live" - Battle.net - Kotaku

Blaming Activision for this. Fucking Activision. 'Oh hey we see you're not grinding your balls in everyone's face until they pay you to stop, here's an opportunity to do so. What you only had one banner ad in the old bnet client? That won't fucking do!'

[geno]

Looks like more than infrastructure/performance is on their mind with the 'new' battle.net Battle.net Revamp "Similar To Xbox Live" - Battle.net - Kotaku

Blaming Activision for this. Fucking Activision. 'Oh hey we see you're not grinding your balls in everyone's face until they pay you to stop, here's an opportunity to do so. What you only had one banner ad in the old bnet client? That won't fucking do!'

Yeah I read that article earlier today. I'm not sure, they've been talking about how big and badass they want to make Battle.net 2.0 almost as long as they've been talking about SC2 (before Activision took over for sure).

Honestly, I really don't know what to think about it. I really want to see what they've come up after all the teasing they've done, but I'm also a bit scared of what they might do at the same time. There is a lot of talk about monetization these days and even though it's promised that SC2 will be free to play online, they've been careful with their wording; it's almost certain that there will be some monetary aspects in battle.net 2.0, and while that is not inherently a bad thing, its clearly walking a pretty fine line. They could pull it off and I'm hoping for it, but I really hope Activision's hand has been cut out of this cookie jar for the sake of this game's longevity.

[Correction]

My main concern is that they will nickel & dime players for content updates that used to be free in their last RTS offering (TFT) like seasonal maps, bonus maps and the battle.net updates put in at the end of WC3's major popularity cycles, like clan ladder support. I don't doubt Activision has been dipping its balls into the cookie jar for more monetization, I just hope Blizzard puts up enough resistance that they aren't perceived to be betraying their fans lined up and willing to pay in three installments for a complete game.

We'll definitely know more by blizzcon.

[Ramor]

Hopefully you're right Correction (about Blizzard not betraying its fans anyway)

Let's hope activision doesn't fuck this up too much

[Sonomaa]

blizzard has always been free content related with their downloads, free maps, scenarios, etc. they have introduced nothing at all like that with wow (which I guarantee would be cash in the bank) so having something like that in bnet2 wouldnt make sense to me at all.

activision put their name with blizzards to make it popular but they have no creative control over what blizzard does, nobody says shit to blizz except blizz, wow alone was about half of activisions listed profit last year, you dont piss off daddy by making him be greedy

[Correction]

The concern arises from the perceived break from their release trends by splitting SC2 into three separate SKUs + the 'carefully worded statement' given to investors that hints they will find some way to monetize battle.net. It may not be 'lol u have to pay for Big Game Hunters v.3.x.bill'scousin.alpha-6' but you have to understand some paranoia about how much we're actually going to pay for Blizzard's next two games.

[Sonomaa]

The concern arises from the perceived break from their release trends by splitting SC2 into three separate SKUs + the 'carefully worded statement' given to investors that hints they will find some way to monetize battle.net. It may not be 'lol u have to pay for Big Game Hunters v.3.x.bill'scousin.alpha-6' but you have to understand some paranoia about how much we're actually going to pay for Blizzard's next two games.

3 seperate starcraft 2 campaigns comprising of approx 50 missions for each race. Im down with that, entirely 100% down with that.

as far as monetizing bnet goes, I think they intend to make it their own version of steam tbh.