New Battle.net "similar to Xbox Live" News
PC MMO News by Oli Welsh
Perhaps feeling the need to explain to shareholders why it was delaying StarCraft II, Activision Blizzard has given a broad explanation of the features we can expect from its new Battle.net online gaming service.
Underlining just how important Battle.net is to the company, Blizzard's paymaster, Activision chief executive Bobby Kotick, weighed in on the subject with investors yesterday. He said it would be "similar to Xbox Live", "a social gaming network across all Blizzard's future games" and no less than "an investment in the future of gaming".
Blizzard boss Mike Morhaime stepped in to back up his boss' hyperbole. He said Battle.net would "add social networking features, cross-game communications, unified log-in and account management and more," according to Gamasutra's account of yesterday's earnings call.
"Eventually, it will allow [players] to connect, communicate and share experiences with each other through the service regardless of which Blizzard games they are playing," Morhaime said.
The unified login is already available, including the possibility of merging an existing World of Warcraft account with a Battle.net account.
Supporting Kotick's Xbox Live namecheck, we already know that WOW's Achievements - one of the closest and cleverest imitations of Microsoft's revolutionary system to date - will eventually become an integrated system across all Blizzard games.
Morhaime and Kotick's comments and repeated use of words like "social" and "communication" suggest that such other Live features like integrated voice chat, messaging, friends lists and alerts will make it into Battle.net.
We may learn more at BlizzCon in two weeks' time. Eurogamer will be there, so stay tuned.
Are you excited about StarCraft II: Protoss - Legacy of the Void on PC?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Related Games
World of Warcraft
World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade
World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King
Diablo III
StarCraft II: Terrans - Wings of Liberty
Zerg: Heart of the Swarm
StarCraft II: Protoss - Legacy of the Void
Latest Features
-
World of Warcraft Interview [47]
-
World of Warcraft Review [120]
-
World of Warcraft Hands On [22]
-
World of Warcraft Interview [4]
-
World of Warcraft Interview [13]
Latest Videos
World of Warcraft: Call of the Crusade [1] 5 August, 2009
World of Warcraft - Ulduar [4] 14 April, 2009
Latest News
-
BlizzCon moving to Vegas in July? [2]
-
Battle.net now required to play WOW [8]
-
Blizzard keen on WOW micro-transactions [37]
-
WOW patch 3.3 in "coming weeks" [27]
-
Blizzard opens WOW pet store [19]
Latest Screenshots
28 June, 2008 [19]
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Comments: 1-30 of 30 in total
|
LiveForever
06/08/09 @ 09:03
0
>On PC Live is free.
It wasn't at first but noone paid for it so it was made free and the pc version is useless. Lets hope blizzard dont make the same mistake. |
|
cianchristopher
06/08/09 @ 09:04
0
No, this will definitely be a paid for subscrpition - like World of Warcraft is. Didn't Bobby Kotick say he wanted a similar thing for Call of Duty? It seems that this is the way things are moving.
|
|
0
You won't need to pay for Battle.net, are you crazy?
And Live is terrible, why would anyone that isn't Microsoft actually want a game to use it? edit: Wow, -4 for slating GfW Live? I always thought that was a pretty widely-held opinion. However I couldn't even save my Dawn of War2 game last night because Live couldn't sign in, so my view hasn't changed.
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 06/08/09 @ 10:50
|
|
peak_performance
06/08/09 @ 09:17
-1
I don't think it'll be a pay-to-use network personally, that would be very disappointing. Of course I would [i]perhaps[/i] be willing to pay a small, optional sum (not as much as a WoW or Live subscription) every month if they integrated some features that let you stream live feeds from tournaments and other similar things, but nothing that I need to play the game any way I want to.
|
|
-1
I like the idea of being able to play Diablo 3 and talk to friends on WoW and vice versa - especially if it's handled in game. I like it a lot.
My biggest bugbear with WoW right now is that I get better FPS when I run it fullscreen, but if I run it full screen I can't see any MSN messages, so I run it windowed but maximised just so I can talk to people on MSN at the same time. Make the cross chat spread to IMs, Blizzard! |
|
insane_cobra
06/08/09 @ 09:33
0
@LiveForever
It wasn't at first but noone paid for it so it was made free and the pc version is useless. Online multiplayer was always free on GFW Live, you only had to pay for matchmaking, cross-play with Xbox 360 users and some other features. But yes, they made it completely free eventually.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 06/08/09 @ 10:40
|
|
hiddenranbir
06/08/09 @ 09:58
0
PC version isn't entirely useless. I like the way it handles voice chat. Voice playback goes into my headsets and leaves my speakers to deal with game sound.
Usually everything gets pumped through the headphones! Either way, more community services must be a good thing. Competition and all that. Steam, Impulse, LIVE and now Battle.net. I guess xfire counts as well? |
|
WinterSnowblind
06/08/09 @ 10:11
0
@skillian
Live is easily the best online service there is out there, without it things like Steam and PSN certainly wouldn't exist. We could argue all the about the subscription, but it's not surprising to see other developers wanting to base their systems around it. If you're talking about Games for Windows Live, then that's another matter, but that's not what they were talking about here. |
|
0
Yeah i still remember everyone talking crap about the achievements back in the days and now Blizzard copied, Sony did with different poor name for them.. lol chain of gaming industry is awesome.
The whole battle.Net transforming I was more than expecting it but didnt expect them to saw it out loud so raw about how it will be. Good thing though i dont like immitions. |
|
Mooglepies
06/08/09 @ 11:28
-1
In before B.net becomes a subscription service. I do hope not, I could care less about WoW and Starcraft 2 but I will want to play Diablo 3 in multiplayer. A lot.
|
|
+1
Wasn't Steam out before the 360 was even released? Anyway, all this talk of "you can talk to friends across different games!" talk is quite perplexing. Surely we can already do that, and have been doing so for years? Steam enables you to chat to your friends no matter what game you're in, and the same goes for X-Fire which has been around even longer.
edit: uh, as BuckoA51 has already said!:)
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 06/08/09 @ 12:44
|
|
-2
@skillian: I wouldn't call it fault of GFW that you couldn't save your game. I'd rather say it is a fault of the developers.
And b.net, there was talk a while back to possibly make it subscription based, possibly for some premium services. They might change it into microexchangethingy.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 06/08/09 @ 13:01
|
|
0
I wouldn't call it fault of GFW that you couldn't save your game. I'd rather say it is a fault of the developers.
Yet somehow it's the same problem that occurs in games like Gears of War and GTA4? Maybe there's a way around it for developers but it's clear that if GfWL wasn't included I wouldn't have had the problem. Anyway, it's not a big deal, but I just wanted to point out it still has its issues. edit: Does anyone know if it's possible to take the savegames of an online profile and move them to offline profile so I can still play when GfWL can't connect or my internet is down? Can I just copy the savegame files from My Documents?
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 06/08/09 @ 13:34
|
|
0
They both started around a similar time (Live was on original Xbox remember), but from slightly different angles. Live was really about multiplayer gaming, whereas Steam was about content delivery and DRM.
It was inevitable that they would both add things like voice chat and friends lists after that - I don't think you can really accuse one of copying from the other. |
|
PearOfAnguish
06/08/09 @ 15:58
0
It would be great if every game had its own separate system with their own achievements, chat system etc. After all, who wants to have everything integrated into one program?
|
|
GamesConnoisseur
06/08/09 @ 17:35
+1
A copy B and C Copy B and so on....
Everyone imitate and improves on what is a successful feature in competitor's product and even so that competitor is standing on the shoulder of another and so on. Accusations of rip-off is so boring really.. WE would want successful ideas to be adopted more widely and I applauds Blizzard for adopting the system. I just wished Apple had adopted a more cohesive achievement system in iPhone/iTouch games application instead of seemly leaving to each devs to implement their own interpretations. Well done to MS for doing so on a wide scale with X360 on the get go ...and to Sony for eventually implementing Trophy which is Achievement in all but name and nowt wrong with that to boot. |
Comments: 1-30 of 30 in total
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
