Why did Blizzard fail (so far) with Bnet 2.0?

[n00bonicPlague]

You've got 'em by the money, you've got 'em by the balls. Sure, Bobby and friends couldn't waltz in and DIRECTLY tell them EXACTLY what to do, but if they want something done a certain way, all they have to do is say things along the lines of, "I don't think we'll have the funding for that. You'll have to think of something else," and, "It's a fresh idea, but I don't think our investors will be willing to take the risks involved." I can only speculate as to how often and to what degree this occurs in Activision Blizzard, but I can guarantee you that it has to happen SOME. It's just how business works.

EDIT: I gotta get some sleep for awhile. Be back later.
.

[Raif]

They influence they don't control, SC2 is not the only product they have going, It would be really bad management, if he tried to actively take control over the actual development.

Face it, if B.net 2.0 fails, then it is blizzards fault not the CEO!
To blame Bobby Kottick is a weak excuse for not realising that blizzards is no longer the fanboy heaven company it once was.

[newcomplex]

You've got 'em by the money, you've got 'em by the balls. Sure, Bobby and friends couldn't waltz in and DIRECTLY tell them EXACTLY what to do, but if they want something done a certain way, all they have to do is say things along the lines of, "I don't think we'll have the funding for that. You'll have to think of something else," and, "It's a fresh idea, but I don't think our investors will be willing to take the risks involved." It's just how business works.

No, Producers say "I don't think we'll have enough funding for that". Kotick gives them a funding for projects on a larger scale. And Blizzard probably works with an basically unlimited budget, which is according to a direct quote from a producer, which makes sense because the Producers know what they're doing and are among the most experienced in the Industy.

Face it, if B.net 2.0 fails, then it is blizzards fault not the CEO!

Word. The producers like Frank pearce, Sigaty, Frank Hsu and the lead designers have far more influence of the direction and design of b-net 2.0 then Kotick does. If B-net 2.0 fails, blame them.



Realize theirs a chain of bureurcracy in between Kotick and game designers, and even then, there are a multitude of different designers in different positions. It isn't like

Kotick->Dustin Browder.

ONE OF THEM HAS TO BE THE PERSON WE BLAME.

[n00bonicPlague]

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming Bobby for Bnet 2.0 failure. I'm definitely gonna blame Blizzard's producers. I was only making sure that people understood that money = power in business. Blizzard may not be totally enslaved, but they're not totally free either.

Speaking of blaming Blizzard's producers, when are we gonna hear what they have to say about all this bnet2 nonsense? I hope they get to us by the beginning of phase 2, if not before.

[GnaReffotsirk]

That would be "I don't think blizzard failed".

And what exactly did blizzard revolutionize lol.

I was not saying they revolutionized something, but rather are in the process of and trying to do so. They are trying to revolutionize their approach and method of appeasing the desires and expectations of customers.

And so, should there have been the option and if there was really a failure of Bnet2.0, I say, that would have been the cause of it.

Seriously though, battlenet2.0 beta had failed in my experience because:

1. custom games section was a mess.

2. upload limits, and space limits. Yahoo mail had so much better, even youtube. I don't mind seeing ads in some ads/global yahoo news-esque section, just don't let them pop if I don't want them to, if money was the issue. Blizzard don't want to fail like livestream had on certain occasions.

3. I haven't found my perfect match like they advertised on April 1st.

4. They nerfed roaches too hard.

5. You didn't add me in your friends list even if I laid my id naked.

6. Marauders wasn't nerfed. The 50/50 concussive upgrade is not a nerf.

[newcomplex]

I was not saying they revolutionized something, but rather are in the process of and trying to do so. They are trying to revolutionize their approach and method of appeasing the desires and expectations of customers.

And so, should there have been the option and if there was really a failure of Bnet2.0, I say, that would have been the cause of it.

Seriously though, battlenet2.0 beta had failed in my experience because:

1. custom games section was a mess.

2. upload limits, and space limits. Yahoo mail had so much better, even youtube. I don't mind seeing ads in some ads/global yahoo news-esque section, just don't let them pop if I don't want them to, if money was the issue. Blizzard don't want to fail like livestream had on certain occasions.

3. I haven't found my perfect match like they advertised on April 1st.

4. They nerfed roaches to hard.

5. You didn't add me in your friends list even if I laid my id naked.

That would be #5, and thats actually something I totally agree with.

I totally support Blizzard not being complacent and just recycling twelve year old design.

The problem is it sucks.

[n00bonicPlague]

Friend features definitely need improvement. A simple friends/not-friends method isn't gonna cut it. We need things like contacts, acquaintances, buddies, real life friends. There needs to be multiple tiers/levels. There also needs to be advanced controls over what these different groups of friends can see on your profile.

[killermofo]

And Blizzard probably works with an basically unlimited budget, which is according to a direct quote from a producer, which makes sense because the Producers know what they're doing and are among the most experienced in the Industy.

Who said this?! I highly doubt it.
The campaign is complete and there is
not enough minerals for cross regional support.
They're most likely already overbudget, this game has been in development
a very long time, especially by activision's standards.

You think you know everything and strive so hard to prove us wrong, you side w/ these whigs and bare no shame, no responsibility.. pfft.. I poo on you sir! :0

They're buying time.. silly fanboy

[spychi]

So now are you positing that Chat channels were omitted because blizzard ran out of money?

lol.


Wait. But I thought the previous argument you guys had was "BUT CHAT CHANNELS R RLY EASY TO IMPLEMENT AND LIEK A SINGLE PROGRAMMER CAN DO IT IN A COUPLE DAYS".

i don't find any other reason that I would consider wise enough (edit) not that I am saying that it is the exact reason
despite the retarded spam war that no one gives a damn about, what is the point of removing chat channels?

I'm not claiming that Blizzard holds more authority then Activision. I'm saying that CEOs do not do what you think they do. They are not PRODUCERS. A CEO does not direct specific decisions like the inclusion of Chat Channels or cross region play. They only direct direction.

Stop scapegoating Kotick. There are real issues inside Irvine HQ that allowed for this to occur, and your misaddressing them in favor of a convenient and completely laughable redirection of blame to Kotick.

It is still up to the producers and executives of Blizzard to coordinate individual features, including the design of b-net 2,0, and its failings. There is zero chance Kotick said "Don't give fans chat channels". I don't even think he knows what they are in relation to Starcraft.

well bobby admited it over here
http://sclegacy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5066
I think you are missing alot of informations required to bring anything more interesting than "u wrong I rite mkaaaaaay?"

he knows exactly what they are in relation to StarCraft, that is why he pointed that out, not by saying anything bout universe, but about monetizing battle.net and StarCraft 2 is the best opportunity to do so

@Killermofo last quote
yes, that is exactly what they are doing right now, it's not the whole Blizzard's direction, but those who have something to say about the game, without any influence or possible knowledge of the lead Designer Dustin Browder
there are things that are not known about the development, things I will probably never have a chance to uncover

[GnaReffotsirk]

That would be #5, and thats actually something I totally agree with.

I totally support Blizzard not being complacent and just recycling twelve year old design.

The problem is it sucks.

Agreed. The OP should add, "the suck-tion was too hard".

Seriously though, it fails because it didn't make a good impression. Expectations were not met. It almost feels like that time during the alpha stages of the game, but this time, we know for sure what is there in the making.

I have to say though, that latency had improved for me over the course of the beta. There was once when it lagged so bad. Was that patch 13?

And that I don't agree with their statement that Battlenet 2.0 will replace LAN. Lan is Lan. And I would love to search for an SC:Legacy channel someday and ask the channel moderator to give me access, and have me on their list as a member.

I will remain civil. Promise.