SC:L Article - Battle.net 2.0 Concerns

[SlickR]

Good article and hopefully Blizzard sees it and reacts right now, this very instant.

I think you could have been more critical of Blizzard, but its okay, you need to keep some level of professionalism, even though this is purely a fan-site and not a money making industry organized and functioning game website.

I think the points were clearly send-out to Blizzard and even though I think you should have pressured Blizzard more by adding some carefully thought ultimatums, its still good.

I congratulate the writers for making all the fans comments, arguments and insults towards blizzard's Bnet 2.0 comprehensive, well written, mostly grammar correct and positively critical.

All that it remains is to write several more articles, though much smaller than this one, so that we keep up the pressure towards Blizzard.
Who knows, maybe they will cancel the release date, go back to the drawing board and add all fan requested features in bnet 2.0.

[Gifted]

Good article and hopefully Blizzard sees it and reacts right now, this very instant.

I think you could have been more critical of Blizzard, but its okay, you need to keep some level of professionalism, even though this is purely a fan-site and not a money making industry organized and functioning game website.

I think the points were clearly send-out to Blizzard and even though I think you should have pressured Blizzard more by adding some carefully thought ultimatums, its still good.

I congratulate the writers for making all the fans comments, arguments and insults towards blizzard's Bnet 2.0 comprehensive, well written, mostly grammar correct and positively critical.

All that it remains is to write several more articles, though much smaller than this one, so that we keep up the pressure towards Blizzard.
Who knows, maybe they will cancel the release date, go back to the drawing board and add all fan requested features in bnet 2.0.

Ultamatims show rage which is not what Blizzard is going to listen to. They may RESPOND to it, but there is a fundamental difference as rage focuses on the problem. We wanted to attempt to achieve something that is able to strive for a solution, which is providing vital feedback that Blizzard is not only seeking, but definately needs.

Xordiah: If there is a hot topic on something, we definitely want players to post and to discuss it. For sure, if there is a thread about a topic that reaches thousands of views and posts it catches our attention faster. This is in fact a signal, that a lot of players are concerned about this topic - it catches the attention and it is very likely to be passed on in our feedback reports.

What I wanted to bring up though was, that while having a lot of players have a very strong opinion about something is a good thing, it is a very bad thing if they are not able to communicate this in a constructive manner. Yes, post about things you don't like but help us change them and tell us why you don't like it or how you would like it. This does not mean that everything can be implemented exactly the way you wish for and it does not mean that we will definitely be able to implement it for launch or even shortly after launch - but a lot of players giving us their point of view on a subject gives us the possibility of bringing this up in an informed manner and also giving us the possibility of taking some good quotes out of these threads.

If we have 50 threads on the same topic, 80% of these are just one-liners saying that this is so terrible and we are a bad company (btw.. 77,2% of statistics are made up on the spot - thanks for the laugh Carighan), then it is hard to find the constructive ones that actually give us the information that we need and just makes us waste a lot of our time for moderation of forums that we could have used a lot better in compiling the feedback.

Just one thing I want to keep pointing out, it has been said before and I always keep saying it - we are on your side. We want to make a game we enjoy and you enjoy. There are timelines that need to be kept, there might be priorities that you don't understand, but in the end, if there is something that is important to you be sure that we will be passing it on. If you rage - you will lose your voice on these forums and you will be one less person fighting for what you want, if you post in a mannered way, we get a lot more out of you as a beta tester.

/end wall of text!

Source: http://forums.battle.net/thread.html...10&pageNo=2#34

Do you think after reading a quote like this that ultimatims in our editorial would have been what Blizzard was needing to progress? Despite the ultimatim disagreement though, thank you for the words on the editorial, we are sure to say that this editorial is not all-inclusive to our concerns and are already in talks on how to address other concerns in the future, which may include more editorial work.

[ArcherofAiur]

Despite what Gifted's good intentions the recent outrage has caused more of a Blizzard reponce on this issue than at any point in the past.

[Gifted]

That's correct, it's gotten responses. The community feels like they're being listened to, but that's under the assumption that they weren't being heard before this ragefest. It's also important to be able to recognize the difference between "response" and "progress". (However, that's not to say that they both can't be the same either)

(This opinion is in the scope of the last 3 months, not over the last 3 years. My opinion regarding the last 3 years is probably very much aligned with yours)

EDIT: I guess my perception on the matter of being listened to is different than the average one cause I have old peers who work at Blizzard, I know they bring up subjects that they've read on the forums, even if they aren't included in the meetings. I've even had a few times we're my friends there linked me the forum links and started a discussion regarding them. They still talk to and even email back and forth about things with people including the ones who make the decisions. The quote above from Xordiah states it best though, feedback gets more done than rage.

EDIT2: While I admit their reception and ability to pull data from us as a resource is lacking, and maybe even really lacking... but I wouldn't go so far as to not recognize how much response they've given over time. To say that this is the most response we've had on issues would simply be misleading. The only reason that we recognize the response is because we recognize the rage because suggestions we've provided were not taken.

I've seen MUCH MORE feedback from Blizzard regarding issues by QA sessions, blue posts, twitter, revealing screen shots, interviews, Blizzcon panels and whatnot that has been much more enlightening to us. I have seen too many posts on this forum that says "Oh, that's good to know". They've revealed a LOT of information to us regarding things that didn't involve rage, the only difference is that since it's been soo long I bet the only other time you think that the community was "listened to" was the rage with LAN that involved Karune writing out the verbose response.

So while you have a good point, don't exaggerate it to show that this is the best time we've been responded to, it's just a matter of them implenting the vital information we have to provide, or at least given the information they have available so we can provide more constructive information.

[ArcherofAiur]

Regarding Husky's video, I have a lot of respect for it but unfortunately if you listen to some of his arguments you will find them incomplete. For example, chat channels he approaches like they don't exist and won't ever exist. If I remember correctly, he talks as if the only way to use channels would be through clans which is incorrect. By him talking about the issue with limited information, he'll give an incomplete answer.

Gifted. I know you want to believe that Blizzard will put in just the exact type of chat functionality that is desired. However that is not in line with what has been said. Blizzard representatives have given vague, misleading, and at times blatantly contradictory accounts of whether or not chat will be in the game, what form it will take, and when it would be implemented. In fact the only thing known for certain is that the chat channels from BNET 1.0 will not be in the game.


So dont say Husky is incorrect. He is being way more precise than Blizzard has been on the issue.

What I see as a concern is a community that will blindly say "I WANT THIS NOW!" and not realize that it could be at a trade of another thing the community has been requesting. The only reason I asked "if you had a choice" is because I'm curious of community thoughts on that matter.

No Gifted this is actually a debate of ideology and not really one of adequate resources. When the head of Blizzard asks if players really want chat channels, when essential esports features from ten years ago are deemed a low priority, when one of the developers asks the question of who doesnt have access to high speed internet (when many colleges specifically block those types of traffic) and then laughs at the people who raise there hands,


than thats a problem of ideology

Now, regarding that quote you pulled from the risk portion of a document sent to Blizzard investors. It's ironic as it's a good thing and you are trying to twist public opinion to a bad thing. This is PURELY groupthink manipulation at it's finest and I'll call you out on it directly.

This is not a reason for the DELAY of chat channels, this is confirmation of a risk that will exist WHEN chat channels are implemented.

First I have not put forth that this is absolutly the reason that chat channels are not in the game. However you HAVE put forth that this absolutly is nto the reason taht chat channels are not in the game.

One of us is making statements with no supporting evidence. Can you tell me which one of us it is?

What this means is that chat channels WILL be implemented and the investors need to be aware of the risks that could exist from that.

Once again you do not know when, how or even if chat channels will be implemented. Blizzard has given vague, misleading and often contradictory statements on this.

Take time and investigate the risk portions of investor documents for any other game that involves chat between players, you will find the same basic paragraphs in every one of their risk sections. This is someone finding a nugget and not understanding it, you sending it on when you do not understanding what you are quoting and utilizing on the fact that much of the rest of the community would not understand it likewise. You are creating rage for no good reason here, and I hate to break it to you, ever time I see you post that quote I facepalm for you buddy, you are much more intellectual than this.

Tell me something, if communication in Battle.net was restricted to clans or even eliminated all together (from release untill undefined time X in the future) would that lower investment risk pertaining to the quoted material?

[ArcherofAiur]

To say that this is the most response we've had on issues would simply be misleading.

Here you go

Hidden Content:

Bashiok on the D3 Forums May 28th




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Clan-Iraq... you say things that are so Clan-Iraq.

This should probably be in the SC2 forums, but... eh... here ya go! Me shouting down your hyperbole once again.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q u o t e:
1) No LAN Support
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Correct.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q u o t e:
2) No chat rooms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There will be chat rooms, they're just not making launch. Probably.

[ed] So Frank was out for interviews in EU it seems (?) and said something to the effect of "no chat rooms" but there would be chat for guilds and groups. Which is more or less what was said before. That it would be more about getting people into focused discussions instead of just having free for all chat systems. In any case, I don't know a lot about it. Personally, chat rooms are soooooo 2002.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q u o t e:
3) Paid DLC
It seems that maps and "expansion packs that are really part of the base game" are bumping the total price of SC2 to over $100 quite easily. I have no plans to buy the game, but I find that a little alarming. I hate to imagine how much D3 will cost in total- combined with the next factor:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Alarming! How much was Lord of Destruction? Expansion packs are sold for skrilla.

If, however, you want to argue that StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty is not a full sized and full-featured stand-alone release then... well you're not going to buy it anyway so ...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q u o t e:
4) Pay-to-play
It has turned out that SC2 is indeed Pay-to-Play, despite all the promises we've had otherwise, in regions outside of the US. For example, Russian and South American players must subscribe to battle.net and get a set amount of "game hours" that expire and need to be renewed. Will such a system exist for D3?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We tailor our business models for each country/region based on many factors. Here in the US I can walk into a game store, buy a boxed product for about $60, take it home, and I generally expect that to include free multiplayer (unless I know it's a subscription MMO or whatever). That's not something you can do in all other countries, most don't have game stores, and so it's not something they generally work with. The exact same tailoring has been used for World of Warcraft.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q u o t e:
5) Region Locking
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here's the last thing that was said on region locking (this was Sigaty btw):

Q: How far in the 'long term' are those plans which allow for swapping to U.S. servers on an E.U. account - or a global account?
A: Jumping to the region you want is definitely in the long term plan for Battle.net, although we do have some concerns about communicating properly to the player what's happening if they choose this because it WILL affect the latency of the game. As far as a date on when, I don't have one yet. There are a number of features that we want to make sure get out their first and jumping to different servers is lower on the priority list at the moment.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q u o t e:
6) Statistical Balance Design
The developers for SC2 have been strictly using a statistical approach to balancing their game, ignoring player feedback and instead using only data harvested from the beta gameplay to balance their units.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hahaha. You're hilarious. We all play. All the designers and developers play. Some on semi-pro levels. We're in contact with many pro players, our friends and family that are playing, we read the forums, we read fansites, etc. etc. What I see as the main issue here is that a lot of the time people want balance changes based on flavor of the minute strategies without understanding that it's constantly evolving. So much so that from day to day the matchups could change dramatically.

Not seeing the balance changes you think should be made implemented is not the same as us ignoring the community and making arbitrary changes based on nothing but statistics. They're definitely a tool, but by no means are the sole or even biggest factor for balance changes.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q u o t e:
7) Privacy Issues
Like Facebook and Google, Blizzard has been suffering its own acute privacy debacle- email addresses have been leaked
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well now you're just making stuff up.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q u o t e:
and SC2 requires questionable privacy details with an unsafe EULA- being able to share details like your Facebook account, and not allowing you to 'friend' users unless you're willing to show them your "Real Name" and Facebook, etc. I hate to imagine this spilling over to D3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Everything stated here is vaguely incorrect to flat out wrong. You can add people to your friends list without being a RealID friend with them. The choice to ask for friend invites with Facebook friends is your choice. I don't even know what 'questionable privacy details with an unsafe EULA' is supposed to mean, but it SOUNDS like I should be pretty scared now.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q u o t e:
8) Complete Lack of Innovation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Seriously though, game play first. We're not going to try all sorts of crazy things just to try to be different. Our interest is in putting out a fun game, not one that exists to try out unproven mechanics, or push graphics/computing boundaries. This has been a fairly regular trait amongst Blizzard games.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q u o t e:
9) The switch to voice chat is horrendous. It leaves nothing to the imagination and makes you hate the people your playing with because of their ridiculous voices/accents (they all sound the same) and the breathing noises. Voice chat is horrible. I haven't played bnet voichat but every other voicechat i've ever played, counterstrike, xbx, ps3 is horrendous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



??? You can chat in-game through text, same as always. If you want though:

Menu -> Options -> Voice -> Uncheck "Enable Voice Chat"

Then there's no chance you'll ever hear anyone. But it's a great tool for quick communication between teammates if you have a regular two's partner. Or whatever.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://forums.battle.net/thread.html...=1&sid=3000#15




Worcaw responds on German forum (google translate) May 31st


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To my knowledge, our thoughts are behind all that we do not want any unguided chat rooms, the sink quickly into chaos.
There should be chat features for focused discussions, but advanced functionality to it will most likely not until the start creating the game.
...

We currently can not go into more detail and give definitive answers to specific questions such as these.
Everything else would degenerate into more speculation on my side, what really helps you not continue.

I can assure you, however, that it is not our intention to take you to the fun on Battle.net by limiting social interaction. We want you can always be with the community and your friends in contact. This should, however, be regulated through lanes and putting all the players together in a chat room is not my opinion, this vision needs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://forums.battle.net/thread.html...o=1&sid=5011#8

Xordiah responds to "angry" posts May 5th


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I have been watching these threads quite a bit over the week-end and I have to agree more with some of the replies than with the OP of this thread. Rage is not good. Rage makes the forums look like a spam-fest and rage makes us want to ignore players or even ban them, because their tone just gets out of hand. Rage makes players create 50 different threads on the same subject, whereas we prefer to have feedback bundled in one place.

What we do want to see and keep seeing from you is your feedback. We want to know if you do not agree with something, this never changes. What we do not want is players raging and just making unfounded accusations and crying doomsday because at the moment there is something missing that they feel is vital. Please do take a step back before raging - is this something that can be fixed? Do you still enjoy the game itself? Please give your feedback and give us the benefit of the doubt that we do want your game experience to be fun. Please always continue to give us your feedback, when you feel that there is something that you just can not live without. Please always continue to do so without rage and in a civil manner.

...


Not on topic though.

If there is a hot topic on something, we definitely want players to post and to discuss it. For sure, if there is a thread about a topic that reaches thousands of views and posts it catches our attention faster. This is in fact a signal, that a lot of players are concerned about this topic - it catches the attention and it is very likely to be passed on in our feedback reports.

What I wanted to bring up though was, that while having a lot of players have a very strong opinion about something is a good thing, it is a very bad thing if they are not able to communicate this in a constructive manner. Yes, post about things you don't like but help us change them and tell us why you don't like it or how you would like it. This does not mean that everything can be implemented exactly the way you wish for and it does not mean that we will definitely be able to implement it for launch or even shortly after launch - but a lot of players giving us their point of view on a subject gives us the possibility of bringing this up in an informed manner and also giving us the possibility of taking some good quotes out of these threads.

If we have 50 threads on the same topic, 80% of these are just one-liners saying that this is so terrible and we are a bad company (btw.. 77,2% of statistics are made up on the spot - thanks for the laugh Carighan), then it is hard to find the constructive ones that actually give us the information that we need and just makes us waste a lot of our time for moderation of forums that we could have used a lot better in compiling the feedback.

Just one thing I want to keep pointing out, it has been said before and I always keep saying it - we are on your side. We want to make a game we enjoy and you enjoy. There are timelines that need to be kept, there might be priorities that you don't understand, but in the end, if there is something that is important to you be sure that we will be passing it on. If you rage - you will lose your voice on these forums and you will be one less person fighting for what you want, if you post in a mannered way, we get a lot more out of you as a beta tester.

/end wall of text!

....

Remember, Battle.net 2.0 is work in progress. What a lot of players don't read in the rage is the part where Frank Pearce is talking about Clan chat and Groups chat. That is definitely being worked on. If you check back to our last Twitter dev chat, there was the same question (http://forums.battle.net/thread.html...319&sid=3000):

"We do have plans for chat channels. Specifically, we want to organize chat channels around users' interests so you know what types of conversations you are going to get into when you join a channel. This feature is not something that will be in for beta. Currently we plan to do this feature in a patch after the game launches. "

...

Hehe.. we do ask for your opinion. That is what this forum is for, that is what the beta test if for and we have pulled quite a few things out of these forums. Sometimes getting involved in discussions does change the course of the discussion though. Just now we just wanted to jump in, because it just turned too emotional and this usually leads to a lot of flaming and insulting which is something we don't want to see on the forums.

...


You mean the thread where you were just talking about how you won't use it but it doesn't hurt you either and you're just mad because of the priorities? That feedback was passed on, but just please note that the Facebook integration in its current form, is a lot simpler to implement than most of you would believe.


....

By the way, something that might have come off wrong when explaining this. We don't want/need a wall of text from every single player. If you just want to show your support, than posting just a small confirmation that this is what you feel as well is totally valid. But please make sure that this is not posted in an insulting manner.

...

To be honest, the kittens distracted me tons while watching that video. ^^



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://forums.battle.net/thread.html...o=1&sid=5010#4

Kapeselus responds to a Cross-realm thread June 1st


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You copied the first sentence, while the rest of the paragraph answers your question for the most part. StarCraft was made in the 28k-56k modem era and because the game is not that demanding, today (many years later) it is possible to play against American and (some) Korean players (still not Chinese for example, because of latency). Even in Warcraft III if you wanted to play against someone from the USA being in Europe it would mean ~250ms and possibly some spikes. In case of players from Asia or Australia for that matter it would be much higher and rarely stable. How many times have you played on the Lordaeron (US) or Kalimdor (Asia) gateway in e.g. WC3 or any newer games than BW for that matter? What was the percentage of players you could play against without lag issues? Would you like to jump from game to game constantly and leave, discouraged by huge latency? Also think about your opponents - wouldn't it affect them as well? I personally just cannot see players not getting frustrated by lags given how many discussions we have had that 125ms in-built latency is way too high. I don't even mention the matchmaking, because it would be unplayable and with proper filters it would match you against European players only anyway.

Please reconsider and don't rage without thinking it over. I am sure it will be possible in the future, but for now “the technology's just not there yet”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://forums.battle.net/thread.html...=1&sid=5010#18

Kapeselus on Crossrealms June 3rd


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you read the Frank Pearce interview you will notice that he didn't answer the cross-realm question the way you try to picture it. He was asked directly about a possibility of playing in different regions. We don't encourage it, it is not meant to be a "money grab" and it is only a possible workaround, as while we don't want you to do it, we also are not going to prevent it from happening. It's not like Frank Pearce said "yes, we give you this amazing opportunity and we have a special promotion for you: when you buy copies for all 3 regions, you will get a 2% discount". In our opinion it is not a good way of experiencing the game, but we are going to pass on your feedback.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://forums.battle.net/thread.html...=5010&pageNo=7


Baskiok says Blizzard is working on a "comprehensive address" June 4th


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the collection of feedback and the constructive tone. Always appreciated.

We're fully aware of the concerns that are being discussed in the various threads, on fansites, detailed through kitten videos, etc. and we're in the midst of working on a comprehensive address that should hit most of the major concerns. Just a heads up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://forums.battle.net/thread.html...00&pageNo=3#59

Zhydaris comments on Blizzards Commitment to Quality and BNET June 9th


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The game still needs to be balanced in some areas (and when these get balanced, new issues will arise of course, so it'll be a looooong way before it's perfect)

Absolutely. The game isn't perfect, Battle.Net isn't perfect. But you know what? We'll try to get there.
And yes, we definitely need you all to get there, with all the feedback you can provide. We'll do our best because we don't want to let you down.

This is an amazing company and it keeps surprising me. Several months ago I tried an unfinished version of one of the localized clients. It was good, indeed. But that was it. Just good.
I recently tried a more polished version of the same client and all I could think was "... Wow, this is amazing". Just when I thought that the localized version was good, I was blown away by the attention to details that was put in that version. And I'm confident that the same thing will happen again and again, at release, at every content patch, and so on.
Just bear with us, because we definitely didn't forget our "Commit to quality" core value.
-Zhydaris

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://forums.battle.net/thread.html...o=1&sid=5010#2



Bashiok on ETA for "comprehensive address" June 10th


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC2GDF I think, just so we don't fragment discussion across multiple forums in case the reset happens soon after. Also while we obviously wanted to let everyone know before hand we were aware and working on something to address the major concerns, plans have kind of changed. We came to the conclusion that just throwing out a huge post that goes over everything would really dilute the conversation and make it difficult to hold a dialogue on any one concern. Everyone would just be replying to whatever issue they felt was most important, or detailing out a response to every thing in one reply. (And then good luck to me to try to reply to any of it.) So we'll be taking a more natural forum response approach to keep all the various concerns focused so we can discuss each more easily. Anyway. Soon. ish. Hopefully.
-Bashiok
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://forums.battle.net/thread.html...=5000&pageNo=2

[rise]

I think you could have been more critical of Blizzard, but its okay, you need to keep some level of professionalism, even though this is purely a fan-site and not a money making industry organized and functioning game website

From the perspective of marketing, StarCraft: Legacy relies on professionalism in articles to brand itself. Excluding the Legacy Weekly, which is an intensionally relaxed production, you should find some of the most formal tones in our articles and news coverage. Also, our organization has a closer connection traditionally to Blizzard Entertainment. This is why we are unable and unwilling to go for the proverbial jugular when discussing the company. However, we feel our concerns and criticisms have been voiced loudly and received.

[Gifted]

Gifted. I know you want to believe that Blizzard will put in just the exact type of chat functionality that is desired. However that is not in line with what has been said. Blizzard representatives have given vague, misleading, and at times blatantly contradictory accounts of whether or not chat will be in the game, what form it will take, and when it would be implemented. In fact the only thing known for certain is that the chat channels from BNET 1.0 will not be in the game.

Actually, I don't believe that. That's part of the reason that the editorial was written in the first place. That's why it's not contradictory because the first part of your phrase is an incorrect assumption. I view you and I aligned in our concern about what chat channels COULD be, I just view our methods of going about that concern are different.

So dont say Husky is incorrect. He is being way more precise than Blizzard has been on the issue.

I never said that he was incorrect, I merely said that as he didn't include all the information (or was simply not aware of it) he was providing an incomplete answer. Since a lot of people look up to Husky and his opinion, they may become confused when he also says things like "Blizzard won't implement chat channels and this is a mistake". Blizzard has told us it is being implemented, we just don't know the details of it yet.

While you can say that he's being more precise than Blizzard, why don't we do a legit comparison... two community responses, our editorial and his commentary, who do you believe is more precise there? Due to the fact that his information was not complete I hold the opinion that ours does. You are able to disagree if you want but at least that comparison makes more sense.

No Gifted this is actually a debate of ideology and not really one of adequate resources. When the head of Blizzard asks if players really want chat channels, when essential esports features from ten years ago are deemed a low priority, when one of the developers asks the question of who doesnt have access to high speed internet (when many colleges specifically block those types of traffic) and then laughs at the people who raise there hands,

Alright, as you present it that way, I can see your point a lot clearly, thanks for sharing. While I don't know if I fully agree with you (only based on the fact we don't actually exist in those meetings, for all we know they were trying to practice good PR) I can agree that if you are correct then yes, ideology plays a factor. This could still wrap into a mutal concern that the communication with the community leaves more to be desired. Even if their ideology is still spot on, we as a community don't neccessarily know that with how they've worked to communicate to us.

First I have not put forth that this is absolutly the reason that chat channels are not in the game. However you HAVE put forth that this absolutly is nto the reason taht chat channels are not in the game.

One of us is making statements with no supporting evidence. Can you tell me which one of us it is?

I'm just saying that it has no relevance whatsoever to the inclusion of chat channels at release or not. To even imply as such shows that you and the person who found it have no actual understanding of what the document is and it's purpose. The supporting evidence is there, I'm just not going to source it here cause it can be a pain to find and I have better uses of my time. If you want to prove me wrong, feel free to look up any MMO or online game utilizing chat and find that this is found in EVERY risk analysis. If you go to games without chat you may find this as a clause regarding their community sites/forums. This is standard practice to announce to investors who need to know ALL FACTORS that could sway their investment in terms of risk. Basically, "if people are disatisfied, they may talk to other people and influence them". I know it's as obvious as "If you go to the restroom, you may need to use toilet paper" but that's how those documents are.

Once again you do not know when, how or even if chat channels will be implemented. Blizzard has given vague, misleading and often contradictory statements on this.

Blizzard has been vague about features until it's ready and that's been their ideology since the beginning, so at least something stays stable. However, I don't know if right now is a good time to be that way. They've done their best to communicate to us regarding plans on Group Channel functionality, but I agree that it would be nice to know more details so we can provide feedback that could influence the planning phase of the item. If you want to source the relevant links regarding chatrooms you will find them in the beginning of the chatroom section, I don't feel a need to relink them.

*hrms* Maybe that's part of the problem as well, that when Blizzard is seeking feedback it is after the planning phase and partially into the implementation phase. Other companies, such as Valve, use polls and whatnot to integrate information to their discussions in the planning phase of a project. (Not always, this is a recent development)

If you look at it that way, it could actually be a better angle to maybe explore/explain why the community feels like they've been not listened to.. cause in the times when it WAS in the planning phase, we were in the dark. It's explainable why they do this, but would also explain partially the circumstance we as a company-community relationship could feel how we do in this specific instance.

Tell me something, if communication in Battle.net was restricted to clans or even eliminated all together (from release untill undefined time X in the future) would that lower investment risk pertaining to the quoted material?

Depends on what you determine as investment risk. I plan to answer this but could you elaborate on if it would change the risk analysis on that document or merely my personal opinion? Thanks!

Here you go [... insert wall of quotes here...]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there haven't been a lot of responses to this issue. I'm just thinking that you may be exaggerating a bit that this is the most responses we've had from Blizzard on a subject. I think that may be related to a miscommunication I contributed to.

What I mean to say that if you look at something such as the Mothership, Blizzard may have been responding to that MUCH more over time than this cluster of responses now. I bet we've had at least 40-50 interview questions, QA questions, blue posts and whatnot on the mothership alone. That would be much more than this issue but it is under the percetion of a different scope.

I will say this much, in terms of issues that Blizzard has responded to, this is probably the largest "Signal" (using their terms) that the community has ever sent to them regarding a single feature, and I dare say this might even go farther than LAN as an issue on it's own. (In fact, I may even argue that it's an extension of LAN as it's part of the functionality or lack thereof with Battle.net)

Another part of me looks at responses as heartwarming but results are better. It's appreciative to see communication regarding the mothership, but if it doesn't get fixed and we get communication that they're happy with it how it is and our concerns are different than their vision, I don't know if that's something we can be appreciative of. Granted, some may call that response alone as a result... but I still feel it's unaddressed concerns in some way.

[n00bonicPlague]

Didn't Bashiok say that the comprehensive address was not gonna happen and that they were gonna split it up among multiple posts for the sake of more organized discussion? If so, I'm not sure that's a good idea. I mean, obviously it would be for the sake of organized discussion, but I don't think it's good to scatter the issues all over the place like that. I'd much rather see everything addressed in one single post, so that all of the information is right there and so the stance that Blizzard takes is very clear. Part of the problem over these past few months weeks is that you've got several different Blizzard employees saying several different things in several different ways. They need a single, unified address that says, "Ignore everything you've heard before. This is the way it is." They can split up the discussion afterwards, but first they need a spearhead so that they are very clear on where they stand.

[ArcherofAiur]

Blizzard has told us it is being implemented, we just don't know the details of it yet.

What has blizzard told us is being implemented? I dont want to hear Bashiok's quote I want to hear what you think is being implemented. I think you will be surprised just how little you know about what you think Blizzard has promised you.