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

[DemolitionSquid]

You tell someone they're a God long enough and they'll start to believe it. We put them on a pedestal, offered them our monthly subscriptions, and they believed they could do no wrong because we'd eat whatever filth they fed us. That is why Blizzard failed us.

[spychi]

You tell someone they're a God long enough and they'll start to believe it. That is why Blizzard failed us.

it's funny, cause as much as it sounds against Blizzard it's a very very neutral claim
I don't know if you did that on purpose or it was by mistake

Edit: aah i see, by mistake

[Pandonetho]

You tell someone they're a God long enough and they'll start to believe it. That is why Blizzard failed us.

Until you make them BLEED! Just like what Whiplash did to Tony Stark, and what Leonidas did to Xerxes!

[Drake Clawfang]

Ah, good to see the forum move from BF to SCL did nothing to dillute SlickR's fail rating...

I voted "wait and see". The game is not yet released, still a month to make changes to the system, not to mention not all of the B.net 2.0 features were enabled in the beta. Blizzard has not "failed" anything yet.

[newcomplex]

Who said this?! I highly doubt it.

It was a INCgamer interview with a producer, I can't find it off the top of my head, but read below. Logical implies that Blizzard isn't running on a relevant budget.

not enough minerals for cross regional support.

You've been arguing that Cross Region support has been ommited out of choice. Now you're argueing it would require significant resources to implement. Choose.

They're most likely already overbudget, this game has been in development
a very long time, especially by activision's standards.

Once again you present a contradictory viewpoint that is literally impossible and paradoxical.

The state of b-net 2.0 is a result of Activision: You say yes.

B-net 2.0 delayed the game an entire year: Yes.

Starcraft 2 is over Activisions proposed budget, so they're rushing the product out to the market: Yes

This set of statement is physically not possible.

If B-net 2.0 was caused by Activision, then Blizzard couldn't be overbudget because it would have been delayed due to a decision BY ACTIVISION. Otherwise, Activision could not have been behind the central design of B-net 2.0, and thus, is not the source of our woes.

How about you think critically for once in you're life before being an idiotic knee jerk reactionary?

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

Look kid. There are two scenarios right now.

a)Blizzard still cares about customer feedback. They still care about there customer base. However, internal issues and production oversights have led to the place where we are today.

b)Blizzard no longer cares at all.

You see, the clear reaction to a) should be to provide constructive criticism. The clear reaction to b) is to not buy this game because nothing you do will change anything unless you can significantly detriment the sales.

Realize that if you responded b, and the truth is actually a, you've contributed nothing, and detrimented the overall quality of feedback. All evidence points towards a. Please find me evidence of "b".

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

What exactly did Kotick admit to? He only mentions Blizzard once in the ENTIRE ARTICLE

And this is what it was about.

He found himself talking to some of the developers about the processing speed of the Amiga and the person he was talking to was blown away that he was "technical."

The processing speed of an Amiga.

Did you even read that you idiot?

I think you are missing alot of informations required to bring anything more interesting than "u wrong I rite mkaaaaaay?"

Are you kidding me? I think you need to learn how to read and think for yourself instead of just Knee jerking around whenever you see Kotick say something. You're childish, naive, insular, ignorant and closed minded. You don't possess any knowledge of how game development studios are run, and even less on corporate structure. Instead of critically analyzing a situation and responding accordingly, you'd much rather scapegoat some CEO and joke about violently assaulting him or his daughters.

Get a clue.

[spychi]

What exactly did Kotick admit to? He only mentions Blizzard once in the ENTIRE ARTICLE

nope he said that he works on games

[newcomplex]

nope he said that he works on games

Only quote that resembles what you said.

Kotick and Activision got into the habit of working with studios he thought were potentially worth purchasing, and if they did well, buying them out.

"I used to call it, we like to date before we get married," he said.

That doesnt say "he works on games", it means he establishes a working relationship between the studio hes considering buying.

In fact, a later statement rules out any specific participation he has in design and production.

If I go play Modern Warfare, I'll find a hundred different things I'd like done differently. And I don't have the discipline to not express my opinion."[so he doesn't do it]

[Norfindel]

I think they probably understimated the BN2 project somehow. They began to work on it too late.

Seriously, i don't know how such an important project got managed so badly.

I won't vote, because there's no option like this.

[TheEconomist]

nope he said that he works on games

You really think the CEO of a company as large as Activision is going to have an active hand in development? If that were true then Kotick would be a God among men and deserve every penny he gets.

Obviously, he only directs the direction as someone said. This is Business 101 and I point to anyone whose taken the class as proof

[Blackdogkt]

Guys, the issue is not so much who's fault it is but what are YOU going to do about it as a consumer.

Like i said in the past, i'm not going to rush out and buy this on day one. If you are concerned about the direction they are taking (whoever "they" are), i suggest you do the same.

Then, one of these things happens:
a) Sales are much lower than expected so they have to cave in to customer demands or
b) They make a total killing in sales while i wait a couple of months (it's summer anyway, i got other stuff to do like go to the beach or something), the price drops and i pick up a copy from my logal game vendor for nearly half the price.

If a) happens then good for everyone. If b) happens then too bad, but at least i get the game at what i deem a considerably more fair price for the features it brings, at least in comparison to the price of the game on day one.

Now if people can't put their money where their mouth is and actually do this, they have no ground to stand on and talk about corporate greed. You don't like corporate greed, then make their wallets hurt a bit, simple as that.
It's actually much more likely to infulence their decision making process than a bunch of us calling each other fanboys/haters.