Starcraft 2 wins Wired.com's vaporware award

[spychi]

i think the problem lies here,

2-3 months before beta would normally hit in 2009 , blizzard said hey i got a cool idea about battlenet2 --- and they spent 9 months doing it. when it should have been timed to be finished as soon as sc2 was beta rdy. now we might all guess battlenet 2 will blow our minds with coolnes, but it makes u wonder, at what stage was battlenet when they first announced it? concept art?

they probably didn't even have a team, remember the job offer "Battle.net lead designer" few months ago, well that says all heh

[mgcemir]

they probably didn't even have a team, remember the job offer "Battle.net lead designer" few months ago, well that says all heh

exactly! they knew bn2 would be integral part of sc2, and yet they guy from xbox live got hired there not long ago.where is the though process in that considering they had a plan to release the beta right around that time. as i said, they either had major cool new ideas and they had to put those in, or they showed the guy black and white concept art of what they wanted.

[Hav0x]

they probably didn't even have a team, remember the job offer "Battle.net lead designer" few months ago, well that says all heh

They have have had a "Battle.net Team" working on it since before blizzcon.

[Norfindel]

I blame the f*cking WoW for the delay, and the horrible Battle.net 2.0 <--> SC2 team """"""sincronization"""""".

[spychi]

They have have had a "Battle.net Team" working on it since before blizzcon.

few esports members and a lead designers are not Battle.net 2.0 producers, but I agree they've been working on it from the start probably about a year ago or less

[Gifted]

As much as I want to agree with you I can't. Blazur is right in a broad sense.

[...]

How is this company going to look far far down the line with these practices? Hopefully it will stay the same company but we'll just have to see.

That said Blizzard is tied up there with my favorite game companies/developers.

Sorry about skipping the majority of your post, it was supporting your first sentence.. the main point. It's all good that you disagree with me and agree with Blazur. It doesn't, IMHO, mean that he's right. Likewise, if a person agrees with me, it doesn't make me "right" either. Just opinions ^_^ Also if you reread my quote, I did state that it was someone who disagreed with my opinion as well so I think it's all cosher.

However, going on with the final lines in your statement... I know the core reason for this delay is precisely that. The scope of Battle.net was in it's infancy when developing StarCraft 2. Throughout the first chunk of Alpha's work phase when they were discussing this, they achieved a point that the scope of Battle.net 2.0 grew significantly larger than originally planned. This was identified after the game was made public.

It's not going to be some simple software that matches and hosts your games. It's going to be the backbone of their companies future. With another project, WoW, they didn't know how much support it would require. They estimated hundreds of thousands needed support, it turned to millions by day 5. They're being very smart IMHO on the delay. I think the issue with the wait doesn't lie in Blizzard's hands right now... it lies in the eyes of the masses who don't see the daily changes. It's hard to hear "It's delayed" without being able to see the guts of why it's being delayed. Ultimately, we as a playerbase should be more patient.. the only people we're frustrating is ourselves. I can say quite directly that they're working hard on it. Jack Doe will finally get home today for the first time before 9:30pm in a month.. That's not including how often he's going in early as well and the multiple Saturday's he's chatted with me from the office. I know he's not alone either.

Well, part of the problem is people have the assumption that there's only two parts to the game, a basic melee multiplayer and your run-of-the-mill RTS campaign. Under those pretenses it looks as though virtually nothing has been done to the game since it was first revealed in 2007 aside from a few texture swaps and some polygon changes.

I'm inclined to believe that there's more to the game then just that, and that it'll certainly be worth the remaining wait.

Quoting this for truth, with all the explanation above it doesn't even include the entire rewrite of the game and the Galaxy editor that has been developed. Also the massive amount of cinematic qualities and storyline development. You also have to remember that much of it's unannounced time and at least a half year of the time we knew it existed... they were proceeding as if it were a single game with multiple campaigns. The scope shift will delay this game, but provide a solid backbone of information to start from, speeding up the process of future games.

i think the problem lies here,

2-3 months before beta would normally hit in 2009 , blizzard said hey i got a cool idea about battlenet2 --- and they spent 9 months doing it. when it should have been timed to be finished as soon as sc2 was beta rdy. now we might all guess battlenet 2 will blow our minds with coolnes, but it makes u wonder, at what stage was battlenet when they first announced it? concept art?

When it was announced, it was admitted in every panel that they were "mock art examples" None of it was working other than the login screen.

I blame the f*cking WoW for the delay, and the horrible Battle.net 2.0 <--> SC2 team """"""sincronization"""""".

When examining Battle.net, it's going to need to support the 10 million existing on battle.net today... the additional charge added by StarCraft 2... eventually Diablo 3. It will also need to support the workload provided by World of Warcraft in peak situations (Such as when Cataclysm comes out) which amounts to over 10 million as well.

An improper alternative is to create a structure that "MIGHT" support it on day one. Wouldn't it be a shame if StarCraft 2 were "unavailable" as much as "WoW" was in the first days? I think we all agree we'd like to avoid that.

So when you say "I blame wow" then yes, maybe a part of that is true... but it is also true for Diablo 3, StarCraft 2, the unnammed MMO, the recreated StarCraft: Ghost, their future console division, WarCraft 4 and any other games they could pull off in the next 20 years.

[Eligor]

Sorry about skipping the majority of your post, it was supporting your first sentence.. the main point. It's all good that you disagree with me and agree with Blazur. It doesn't, IMHO, mean that he's right. Likewise, if a person agrees with me, it doesn't make me "right" either. Just opinions ^_^ Also if you reread my quote, I did state that it was someone who disagreed with my opinion as well so I think it's all cosher.

However, going on with the final lines in your statement... I know the core reason for this delay is precisely that. The scope of Battle.net was in it's infancy when developing StarCraft 2. Throughout the first chunk of Alpha's work phase when they were discussing this, they achieved a point that the scope of Battle.net 2.0 grew significantly larger than originally planned. This was identified after the game was made public.

It's not going to be some simple software that matches and hosts your games. It's going to be the backbone of their companies future. With another project, WoW, they didn't know how much support it would require. They estimated hundreds of thousands needed support, it turned to millions by day 5. They're being very smart IMHO on the delay. I think the issue with the wait doesn't lie in Blizzard's hands right now... it lies in the eyes of the masses who don't see the daily changes. It's hard to hear "It's delayed" without being able to see the guts of why it's being delayed. Ultimately, we as a playerbase should be more patient.. the only people we're frustrating is ourselves. I can say quite directly that they're working hard on it. Jack Doe will finally get home today for the first time before 9:30pm in a month.. That's not including how often he's going in early as well and the multiple Saturday's he's chatted with me from the office. I know he's not alone either.

Quoting this for truth, with all the explanation above it doesn't even include the entire rewrite of the game and the Galaxy editor that has been developed. Also the massive amount of cinematic qualities and storyline development. You also have to remember that much of it's unannounced time and at least a half year of the time we knew it existed... they were proceeding as if it were a single game with multiple campaigns. The scope shift will delay this game, but provide a solid backbone of information to start from, speeding up the process of future games.

When it was announced, it was admitted in every panel that they were "mock art examples" None of it was working other than the login screen.

When examining Battle.net, it's going to need to support the 10 million existing on battle.net today... the additional charge added by StarCraft 2... eventually Diablo 3. It will also need to support the workload provided by World of Warcraft in peak situations (Such as when Cataclysm comes out) which amounts to over 10 million as well.

An improper alternative is to create a structure that "MIGHT" support it on day one. Wouldn't it be a shame if StarCraft 2 were "unavailable" as much as "WoW" was in the first days? I think we all agree we'd like to avoid that.

So when you say "I blame wow" then yes, maybe a part of that is true... but it is also true for Diablo 3, StarCraft 2, the unnammed MMO, the recreated StarCraft: Ghost, their future console division, WarCraft 4 and any other games they could pull off in the next 20 years.

+1

(had there been a rep system...)

[Blazur]

Sorry about skipping the majority of your post, it was supporting your first sentence.. the main point. It's all good that you disagree with me and agree with Blazur. It doesn't, IMHO, mean that he's right. Likewise, if a person agrees with me, it doesn't make me "right" either. Just opinions ^_^ Also if you reread my quote, I did state that it was someone who disagreed with my opinion as well so I think it's all cosher.

Ok, I may have been a little drunk when responding initially, hence the harsh words. But the truth still remains.

I used to idolize Blizzard and look up to them so much. There was a time when I played their games regularly and gave them endless praise. That time was over 7 years ago. There hasn't been a game they developed in nearly a decade which has held my interest. And lately some of the decisions they've been making are just odd and marked with greed. They've fallen from grace as far as I'm concerned.

Sure, SC2 is still my most anticipated game and it'll no doubt rock my face off. But for various reasons I have a hard time giving Blizzard my praise lately. They've disappointed me too much in years gone by.

[DemolitionSquid]

Don't worry guys. At least Mass Effect 2 is comming out next month. Bioware still hasn't let us down.

[Blazur]

Oh and another thing. With the amount of income Blizzard takes in on a monthly basis, they have to be one of the richest game developers out there. Yet with all the resources in the world they still cannot complete a sequel in 7 years. And it's not like SC2 will be revolutionary or anything, it's basically a rehashed version of the original game running on a new engine with a few new units. They aren't even adding a new race.

If BLizzard is uncapable of finishing this game in 7+ years then that shows one of two things: Either their team is incredibly incompetent, or SC2 clearly isn't a priority for them. I think the entire company is drunk on the success of WoW and only concerned about keeping the keg full.

They seem to have no problem churning out WoW expansions.