# Battle.net 2.0 GOOOOOOOO!



## lilEmber (Oct 12, 2009)

So yeah, anybody that plays WoW will notice that today they're requesting people transfer their WoW account to a battle.net account and in 30 days they will -have- to do it.

So basically what this means is that you'll no longer be purchasing a WoW Time Card, but instead a battle.net time card.

What this means for anybody that hasn't made the connection is that diablo III and starcraft II are in-fact pay-to-play using battle.net, but both games (and any other battle.net games) and WoW will share the monthly time/payment.

Fuck you Blizzard for fucking over the little people that don't play WoW, but thank you for not punishing -everybody- by simply charging for WoW -and- battle.net...I guess.

Doesn't affect me, but I bet it affects most of you.

tl;dr: Blizzard is charging for battle.net (diablo, starcraft, and WoW will share this payment).


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 12, 2009)

Well I was genuinely entertaining the idea of getting Starcraft 2 and going online with it. But not now. If I wanted to pay for access to a game's multilayer I would buy a console game. 

I mean, it works out well for people who have all of the games tied to the account, but I have no intention of doing that so w/e. :\


----------



## CryoScales (Oct 12, 2009)

Blizzard wants to make the mountain of gold their headquarters rests on higher. As well as gold plate all their developer's car rims. Along with make more golden statues of their lead developers.

Blizzard's monopoly is so huge right now its eventually one day going to rival Microsoft's


----------



## Kaamos (Oct 12, 2009)

That's kind of lame, I was planning on getting Diablo 3, if my computer could handle it.

I heard they were going to make Diablo 3 more multiplayer-focused, too.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 12, 2009)

Kaamos said:


> I heard they were going to make Diablo 3 more multiplayer-focused, too.



Now you know why.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Oct 12, 2009)

As a single player....


----------



## Azbulldog (Oct 12, 2009)

http://www.blizzard.com/blizzcon/recaps/battlenet-panel.xml   said:
			
		

> *How much will Battle.net cost?*
> 
> The new Battle.net will be offered free of charge for players who purchase and register the full version of StarCraft II.


wat


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 12, 2009)

Azbulldog said:


> wat



Maybe I'm wrong, I hope I am. But currently every WoW account is being turned into a Battle.net account and any WoW time becomes battle.net time.


----------



## Sinjo (Oct 12, 2009)

I'm pretty sure SC2 and D3 won't be pay to play.


----------



## CryoScales (Oct 12, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> I'm pretty sure SC2 and D3 won't be pay to play.



Its Blizzard. They make millions of dollars on WoW. They would be idiots not to capitalize on their massive (I do mean massive with emphasis) fanbase.


----------



## Shireton (Oct 12, 2009)

Wow, I'm extremely disappointed by this. I can't believe they're gonna charge for Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 Battle.net.


----------



## Takun (Oct 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, I hope I am. But currently every WoW account is being turned into a Battle.net account and any WoW time becomes battle.net time.




They had this going back when I was playing still last winter.  They are making it easier by merging accounts (and they have a lot of them) under one.  Steam does this already, right?

I don't think they are going to be charging to use the account.  Just the WoW account will be activated with a subscription and so on.



> Q: Is there a subscription fee or a creation fee?
> A: No, there is no subscription or creation fee for creating a Battle.net Account.


http://us.battle.net/faq/index.html

Seriously Newf, it took me all of 1 minute on the main site to find and skim the FAQ.


----------



## CryoScales (Oct 12, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Steam does this already, right?



Steam is just a program you purchase games on, and don't need the CD for.


----------



## Takun (Oct 13, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> Steam is just a program you purchase games on, and don't need the CD for.



And yet you have one steam account under which all your games are for and you can get one person's id and have them for every game.


This is all Blizzard is doing.  Making a move towards bringing all the communities into one.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 13, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> They had this going back when I was playing still last winter.  They are making it easier by merging accounts (and they have a lot of them) under one.  Steam does this already, right?
> 
> I don't think they are going to be charging to use the account.  Just the WoW account will be activated with a subscription and so on.
> 
> ...



Yes because something they've started recently is going to instantly be updated on every FAQ, even though currently they're -not- charging for battle.net and are simply setting up so they can charge for it in the future. Naive.

Steam does nothing of the sort. They don't charge an access fee to any of their games.


----------



## Azure (Oct 13, 2009)

Correlation does not imply causation.  Unreasonable paranoia ITT.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 13, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Correlation does not imply causation.  Unreasonable paranoia ITT.



Then why merge the accounts at all? There's absolutely no real, logical reason other than joined pay-to-play time.

IT IS AMURRRICAN COMPANIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. They don't think about -anything- but money.


----------



## El-Matto (Oct 13, 2009)

As much as this sucks, it doesn't bother me since I rarely play online anyways.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 13, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> They would be idiots not to capitalize on their massive (I do mean massive with emphasis) fanbase.


 Don't forget zealous.


----------



## CryoScales (Oct 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> IT IS AMURRRICAN COMPANIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. They don't think about -anything- but money.



Actually companies that become monopolies think only about money. As Microsoft has already told us. As soon as a company goes into massive amounts of money they become a monopoly. You can also look at Nintendo and EA for more proof.


----------



## Azure (Oct 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Then why merge the accounts at all? There's absolutely no real, logical reason other than joined pay-to-play time.
> 
> IT IS AMURRRICAN COMPANIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. They don't think about -anything- but money.


I dunno, maybe they're tired of running WOW accounts seperate of Battle.net?  Streamlining the servers and the system would probably net them some savings and help to keep software up to date across the board.  Diablo 3 and StarCraft 2 are not MMO's, therefore, I don't see any reasonable way to charge folks to play online at all. The FAQ says it all really.  You're just being paranoid, and borderline cultural elitist as well.


----------



## Takun (Oct 13, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I dunno, maybe they're tired of running WOW accounts seperate of Battle.net?  Streamlining the servers and the system would probably net them some savings and help to keep software up to date across the board.  Diablo 3 and StarCraft 2 are not MMO's, therefore, I don't see any reasonable way to charge folks to play online at all. The FAQ says it all really.  You're just being paranoid, and borderline cultural elitist as well.



Not to mention that this allows for easy cross chat via accounts.  You playing WoW while your buddy is on Diablo 3?  Chat!



NewfDraggie said:


> Yes because something they've started recently is going to instantly be updated on every FAQ, even though currently they're -not- charging for battle.net and are simply setting up so they can charge for it in the future. Naive.
> 
> Steam does nothing of the sort. They don't charge an access fee to any of their games.



As it says, there is no subscription fee for Battle.net.  The only subscription fee is the one already applied to WoW.  You are completely overreacting and spreading false information.

Steam does nothing of the sort?, The only difference is that Blizzard is continuing to charge for their MMO that costs a ton to maintain and develop.



> A few months ago, we unveiled the Battle.net account, our new way for players to log in to World of Warcraft and future Blizzard games, sign up for upcoming beta tests, shop the online Blizzard Store, and more with just one username and password. This was just the first step in the rollout of the brand-new Battle.net; in the future, players will be able to use Battle.net to participate in cross-realm chat in World of Warcraft, create real-life friends lists, communicate across different games, and a whole lot more. - Blizzard forum rep


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 13, 2009)

Well Fuck that I ain't gettin Diablo 3 then


----------



## CryoScales (Oct 13, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Well Fuck that I ain't gettin Diablo 3 then



Yeah I am surprised they told us NOW when a few games are coming out that "oh we are going to charge you to play online". Why couldn't they say this AFTER launch so they could get the naive fan's cash.

Bad move Blizzard. Horribly bad move.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 13, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Not to mention that this allows for easy cross chat via accounts.  You playing WoW while your buddy is on Diablo 3?  Chat!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Link the FAQ and last date of update if you're so confident.
You're going by what a single webpage says, without knowing if it's even up-to-date in the slightest? That might be ten years old.

I've heard talk about them charging for Battle.net 2.0 for a year now and until this point I thought it wasn't true, that there's no way they would do that. However, splitting WoW, Diablo 3, and Starcraft 2 over the same monthly fee regardless if you own only one of the games it'll still cost the same makes a -lot- of sense. People that play WoW might as well buy the other two, and visa-versa. 

And if you are actually right there's still no reason to merge WoW into battle.net at all. The account completely takes over your WoW account, the username and password both change and it's a battle.net account now and not a WoW account. Not to mention that the servers won't be shared like you say, that would be stupid.

I don't really doubt this at all because it's Blizzard, they're splitting Starcraft II into three full-price games.

And the chatting isn't difficult, even if the servers were in no way near each other in the slightest chatting would be possible without much modification to code. Not only that but chatting is pointless between games like that, MSN and other IM's exist for that. There's a reason they don't even allow servers to chat with each other on WoW, do you think they'll allow two entirely different games to chat with everybody on WoW at the same time?


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 13, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> Yeah I am surprised they told us NOW when a few games are coming out that "oh we are going to charge you to play online". Why couldn't they say this AFTER launch so they could get the naive fan's cash.
> 
> Bad move Blizzard. Horribly bad move.


 Indeed. I loved diablo 2 to death GREAT FUN. But if they are making it a MMO; I am out. I love RPGs that have multi player *OPTIONS*, and _do not_ force you to pay as i only dabble in them and I like buying a game *ONCE. *I refuse to play pay per month for a product that should be a single purchase. Its like throwing money away.


----------



## Takun (Oct 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Link the FAQ and last date of update if you're so confident.
> You're going by what a single webpage says, without knowing if it's even up-to-date in the slightest? That might be ten years old.




Oh here's a forum post saying that Starcraft 2 is pay once and play for free with the new Battle.net

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=17616371851&postId=175647497258&sid=3000#25


However, I concede that Blizzard has not come out and said one way or another that Diablo III will or will not have a subscription fee.  This is in no way connected to the fact that all Blizzard games are moving to battle.net and everything to do with how Diablo III plays out.


Oh and the FAQ is http://us.battle.net/faq/index.html

Seeing as it talks about the free pet that is only available for 30 days and it's linked from the newest news post on the main WoW site, I'd say it's up to date.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 13, 2009)

Oh look a forum post. Oooohhh...

Look, now I'm saying it's pay-to-play so I guess my forum post = theirs, right?
Once they say it will not be then I'll believe them, but right now battle.net is free to play but that doesn't mean it can't change. It's been around for over a decade and rules change, especially when it's not actually battle.net but battle.net 2.0 we're talking about.

I still hope you're right, not like it would effect me in the slightest, I just don't want people to not get the games because of this reason. <3


----------



## CryoScales (Oct 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I still hope you're right, not like it would effect me in the slightest, I just don't want people to not get the games because of this reason. <3



This is why I am waiting for Blizzard to complete and release all of Starcraft 2's packs in one "Gold" edition like game companies do with expansion packs. That way I can tell wether or not investing in Battle.net is a good idea.


----------



## Takun (Oct 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Oh look a forum post. Oooohhh...
> 
> Look, now I'm saying it's pay-to-play so I guess my forum post = theirs, right?
> Once they say it will not be then I'll believe them, but right now battle.net is free to play but that doesn't mean it can't change. It's been around for over a decade and rules change, especially when it's not actually battle.net but battle.net 2.0 we're talking about.
> ...




Only, you know.  You don't work for the company and they do.  As well as the post, if you read it, saying that Mike Morhaime himself said it on a Activision Blizzard conference call.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 13, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Only, you know.  You don't work for the company and they do.  As well as the post, if you read it, saying that Mike Morhaime himself said it on a Activision Blizzard conference call.


Totally valid evidence, yes, because a mod said something on a forum.


----------



## Takun (Oct 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Totally valid evidence, yes, because a mod said something on a forum.




Not a mod.  A community manager.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Karune

http://www.wowwiki.com/Community_Manager


They are told from the higher ups what information they are allowed to official reveal to the community.  For them to lie would be to lose their job.  So no, they aren't just a mod.


----------



## Azbulldog (Oct 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> do you think they'll allow two entirely different games to chat with everybody on WoW at the same time?


Yes.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 13, 2009)

So your evidence is a forum and a photoshopped screenshot of -nothing- but text and blank wow. lol losers.


----------



## Azbulldog (Oct 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> So your evidence is a forum and a photoshopped screenshot of -nothing- but text and blank wow. lol Losers.


Both of which are provided by Blizzard, yes.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 13, 2009)

Azbulldog said:


> Both of which are provided by Blizzard, yes.



Edit: Actually nevermind, that's a stupid idea anyway. Why does -anybody- need such a thing? That's just confusing, however I highly doubt that's the reason for battlenet.


----------



## Xerox2 (Oct 13, 2009)

I think that your reaction to the "news" of the new games being pay to play is exactly why they AREN'T going to be pay to play.


----------



## Azbulldog (Oct 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Edit: Actually nevermind, that's a stupid idea anyway. Why does -anybody- need such a thing? That's just confusing, however I highly doubt that's the reason for battlenet.


You can watch their presentation and justifications for the new Battle.net here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_ItZfu9zAc

Not saying their plans don't appear odd, but I don't believe they're going to charge to play SCII or Diablo


----------



## Kuraggo (Oct 13, 2009)

Whoa talk about milking the cow. It's a good thing i hate RPG's. 8D


----------



## CryoScales (Oct 13, 2009)

Kuraggo said:


> It's a good thing i hate RPG's. 8D



No body here gives a flying fuck about WoW right now. Since thats always been charged. The people here are discussing the possibility that Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3 will possibly charge you for online play


----------



## Azure (Oct 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Edit: Actually nevermind, that's a stupid idea anyway. Why does -anybody- need such a thing? That's just confusing, however I highly doubt that's the reason for battlenet.


Steam does it.  Maybe it's to keep competitive.  You're really taking this to an extreme, it's making you look silly. You almost sound like a Christian talking to an Atheist, deep in the process of proving their religion wrong.


----------



## CryoScales (Oct 13, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> You almost sound like a Christian talking to an Atheist, deep in the process of proving their religion wrong.



Atheism is a religion now? I thought it was the absence of religion.


----------



## Kuraggo (Oct 13, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> No body here gives a flying fuck about WoW right now. Since thats always been charged. The people here are discussing the possibility that Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3 will possibly charge you for online play



That's why i said that, i don't really care for those games so it doesn't really bother me (i was kinda looking forward to Starcraft 2 though) but it still sucks for the people that really dig them, having to pay a fee is crap. Hopefully it won't be that way.


----------



## Azure (Oct 13, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> Atheism is a religion now? I thought it was the absence of religion.


The Atheist is debunking the Christians religion.  Atheism is not, and never will be a religion, simply a lack of such, and an active denial of a supernatural being.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 13, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Steam does it.  Maybe it's to keep competitive.  You're really taking this to an extreme, it's making you look silly. You almost sound like a Christian talking to an Atheist, deep in the process of proving their religion wrong.


Steam does no such thing, I have no idea where you got your information from but it's incorrect.

Also this:


CryoScales said:


> Atheism is a religion now? I thought it was the absence of religion.





AzurePhoenix said:


> The Atheist is debunking the Christians religion.


And this doesn't even make sense.


----------



## CryoScales (Oct 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> And this doesn't even make sense.






AzurePhoenix said:


> You almost sound like a Christian talking to an Atheist,* deep in the process of proving their religion wrong.*



I got confused around here.


----------



## Azure (Oct 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Steam does no such thing, I have no idea where you got your information from but it's incorrect.
> 
> Also this:
> 
> ...


Uhhhh, Steam Chat? Even so.  You're pretty much wrong in your highly convoluted assumption.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 13, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Uhhhh, Steam Chat? Even so.  You're pretty much wrong in your highly convoluted assumption.



How the hell is that anything like this?
Steam had chat -far- before it had the overlay, and that's another thing it's an overlay. It's like xfire in a sense, kinda like a chatprogram built into STEAM.

But this isn't the case here, this is an in-game chat linking to other games and servers. That's equivalent of when you type in TF2 using the in-game chat you can talk to people playing HL2: DM. Which is silly seeing as the overlay is there for a reason, or MSN or any other chat program.

Basically what you just said doesn't make any sense, and you clearly aren't somebody that uses steam if you believe the steam friends list and chat feature is anything like that.

The overlay is also not limited to any game, but works on all games. The steam chat works with the overlay in any program/game or outside any program/game. Completely different than using in-game chat altogether.


----------



## Asswings (Oct 13, 2009)

Newf, you're retarded.

/thread


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 13, 2009)

Ticon said:


> Newf, you're retarded.
> 
> /thread



What a valuable post.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 13, 2009)

Meh, fuck 'em anyway. True or not, Blizzard have set forth so much conflicting information, backpedaled on it, and spewed more shit over the past few years that it's just mind-boggling.

BNet2 is Pay to Play! Oh, wait, no it isn't. Well, maybe it is. Maybe it isn't, though. Starcraft 2 will be in separate campaign purchases to "enhance the game experience"! Oh, wait, no it isn't. Oh, wait, yes it is. Starcraft 2 won't have LAN play! Oh, wait, yes it will. Oh, wait, no it won't. Oh, wait, yes it will, but it needs to connect to BNet first. Oh, wait, that's a maybe.

Seriously, who even cares anymore?


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 13, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Meh, fuck 'em anyway. True or not, Blizzard have set forth so much conflicting information, backpedaled on it, and spewed more shit over the past few years that it's just mind-boggling.
> 
> BNet2 is Pay to Play! Oh, wait, no it isn't. Well, maybe it is. Maybe it isn't, though. Starcraft 2 will be in separate campaign purchases to "enhance the game experience"! Oh, wait, no it isn't. Oh, wait, yes it is. Starcraft 2 won't have LAN play! Oh, wait, yes it will. Oh, wait, no it won't. Oh, wait, yes it will, but it needs to connect to BNet first. Oh, wait, that's a maybe.
> 
> Seriously, who even cares anymore?



You know what, this guy is right. Nobody knows anything about them other than they look similar to games over a decade old and have a similar name. Blizzard is all about cash so you can't say it isn't possible, but I guess you can't say it is true either. However it's all bland crap that barely passes the time.


----------



## Azure (Oct 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> How the hell is that anything like this?
> Steam had chat -far- before it had the overlay, and that's another thing it's an overlay. It's like xfire in a sense, kinda like a chatprogram built into STEAM.
> 
> But this isn't the case here, this is an in-game chat linking to other games and servers. That's equivalent of when you type in TF2 using the in-game chat you can talk to people playing HL2: DM. Which is silly seeing as the overlay is there for a reason, or MSN or any other chat program.
> ...


Ugh, you're so dumb. Notice how you stopped even talking about the main point to rant on some tangent that has nothing to do with it. Blizzard makes tons of cash because they make content that people give a shit about. Battle.net supports lots of games, but only one of them is an MMO. Nobody is going to pay to play Diablo II on Battle.net.  Or Starcraft, for that matter.


----------



## Rifter (Oct 13, 2009)

They aren't charging for SC2 and D3 and at present there's no such thing as 'battle.net' time. This is merely Blizzard's attempt to start up a steamesque community for their new titles. They've made this abundantly clear.


----------



## Dyluck (Oct 13, 2009)

Ok

Fuck Blizzard.  They're evil and their games are evil.


----------



## Rifter (Oct 13, 2009)

David M. Awesome said:


> Ok
> 
> Fuck Blizzard.  They're evil and their games are evil.



:|


----------



## Dyluck (Oct 13, 2009)

Rifter said:


> :|



THEY STEAL YOUR TIME AND THEY STEAL YOUR MONEY

EVIL


----------



## Digitalpotato (Oct 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, I hope I am. But currently every WoW account is being turned into a Battle.net account and any WoW time becomes battle.net time.



Yeah and you still have to pay for those games...it's just so you can also log into battle.net and play WoW on it on top of diablo 3 and StarCraft 2. (Which everyone and their mothers are gonna rave about then say it's overrated.)


----------



## Tycho (Oct 13, 2009)

Probably not gonna bother with Diablo 3 anyway, in small part because they supposedly nixed the Necromancer.  :evil: Don't you be fuckin' with my necros, Blizz.  Witch Doctor, pfah.


----------



## Azbulldog (Oct 13, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Probably not gonna bother with Diablo 3 anyway, in small part because they supposedly nixed the Necromancer.  :evil: Don't you be fuckin' with my necros, Blizz.  Witch Doctor, pfah.


I played it, it's _really_ awesome. Don't kid yourself, you know you'll end up picking it up anyways.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 13, 2009)

Azbulldog said:


> I played it, it's _really_ awesome. Don't kid yourself, you know you'll end up picking it up anyways.



Maybe.

They kept the Druid, right? Druid was asswhup x 9001.


----------



## Dyluck (Oct 13, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Maybe.
> 
> They kept the Druid, right? Druid was asswhup x 9001.



Wind elemental Druids get me wet


----------



## Tycho (Oct 13, 2009)

David M. Awesome said:


> Wind elemental Druids get me wet



EYE OF THE STORM WHOOOOSH *runs around*

edit: Cyclone armor sucked ass though and don't you try to tell me different.

edit 2: if they allow either gender in D3 someone needs to make a wind druid named Katrina.


----------



## Azbulldog (Oct 13, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Maybe.
> 
> They kept the Druid, right? Druid was asswhup x 9001.


They said there will be five classes, and so far they have announced four: barbarian, witchdoctor, wizard, and the monk. Your guess on what the last class will be.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 13, 2009)

Azbulldog said:


> They said there will be five classes, and so far they have announced four: barbarian, witchdoctor, wizard, and the monk. Your guess on what the last class will be.



Probably "ranger" or something, as a reincarnation of the Amazon.  Assuming the monk will be the Paladin's successor, the Wizard will succeed the Sorc, and of course the Necro will be supplanted by the Witch Doctor.

-_-

Which means the only way we're gonna see druid and 'sin reincarnations will be through (surprise) an expansion.

Goody.


----------



## Dyluck (Oct 13, 2009)

Like I said, Blizzard is evil.


----------



## Azbulldog (Oct 13, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Probably "ranger" or something, as a reincarnation of the Amazon.  Assuming the monk will be the Paladin's successor, the Wizard will succeed the Sorc, and of course the Necro will be supplanted by the Witch Doctor.
> 
> -_-
> 
> ...


Yep, but the witchdoctor is also similar to the druid in a few ways, as well as the monk to the assassin. Amazon does sound like a safe bet.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 13, 2009)

More random intentional vagueness:



			
				http://us.blizzard.com/blizzcon/recaps/battlenet-panel.xml?rhtml=y said:
			
		

> The new Battle.net will be offered free of charge *for players who purchase and register the full version of StarCraft II.*


Gee. That's... Helpful. Well, at least _StarCraft II players_ won't have to pay for online play.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 13, 2009)

One more reason to not get Diablo 3, I love it..


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Oct 14, 2009)

Since nobody seems to know what the fuck they're talking about...

WoW players are being forced to merge to Battle.net because Blizzard will be adding in several things not currently possibly in WoW:

Cross-faction communication. In game, this is not possible - with Battle.net, it is.

Cross-game communication. Again, not currently possible - but it is with Battle.net.

Cross-server communication. Not possible, is with B.net, etc.

Increased security. You can tie an authenticator to your B.net account - you can't with your regular WoW account.

Anyway, none of this should be a suprise. They said MONTHS ago, when the new b.net came out, that all WoW players would be forced to make a b.net account eventually anyway - they're just enforcing it now.

tl;dr: WoW is popular and Blizzard knows that, so they're making it eaiser to talk to your friends who play other Blizzard games. That's all. There's no Pay to Play conspiracy, and nobody is trying to keep you from buying D3.


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Oct 14, 2009)

From what I can tell it's just Steam for WoWfags.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 14, 2009)

See, the major reason why I don't understand why they're doing this is because there's only a very small number of games that actually USE BNet, and it's all tied to Blizzard. So you have WoW, SC2, and D3, perhaps WC3. AMAZING! You can use BNet to talk to players across these games! Holy shit! ... Except you could use the Steam Overlay or any generic IM client to do precisely the same thing. Sure, there's matchmaking and all that bullshit, but for all the flip-flopping they've been doing, pretty much none of that is confirmed.

Blizzard hasn't said it won't be pay-to-play; In fact, that last thing they said was that it would be, except for SC2 players.

I mean, look at it this way - It's not totally out of the question, and it's just like Blizzard to do something like that. I mean, people shell out for WoW every month, spend another $80 on the Collector's Edition of every expansion pack that gets released plus the cost of buying the game up front, and they're making a mint doing it. People snatch up everything they give them. Why wouldn't they make BNet pay to play if they can get away with it? Why wouldn't they make StarCraft II in separate full-game campaign purchases if they can get away with it? It's not a conspiracy, it's business, and Blizzard knows business.

Frankly, I'm done with Blizzard, and I have been long before this thread existed.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 14, 2009)

Baron Von Yiffington said:


> Since nobody seems to know what the fuck they're talking about...
> 
> WoW players are being forced to merge to Battle.net because Blizzard will be adding in several things not currently possibly in WoW:


Nothing is impossible.


> Cross-faction communication. In game, this is not possible - with Battle.net, it is.


Easily done without battle.net.


> Cross-game communication. Again, not currently possible - but it is with Battle.net.


Again, easy to do.


> Cross-server communication. Not possible, is with B.net, etc.


Again, easy to do.


> Increased security. You can tie an authenticator to your B.net account - you can't with your regular WoW account.


Yes, yes you can. There was one made specifically for wow before battle.net.
Also I feel it's less secure, seeing as your EMAIL is your username now, unlike before when they had to guess your username -and- password, now if they know your email they just have to guess the password.

You actually know little about scripting, or at least how a game works and how basic text-chatting works it seems...


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Oct 14, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Nothing is impossible.



You're right, none of it is impossible. That's why it's being done - you just have to stop bitching and moaning about it and get B.net.




> Easily done without battle.net.
> 
> Again, easy to do.
> 
> Again, easy to do.



Prove it. So far, you haven't proven anything other than "I'm bitching about B.net for no good reason".

Point is, whether it can or cannot be done with Battle.net is a moot point - it ISN'T being done with out it, so it doesn't matter if it CAN be done without it.



> Yes, yes you can. There was one made specifically for wow before battle.net.



Yeah, and now you need B.net to use it. Your point?



> Also I feel it's less secure, seeing as your EMAIL is your username now, unlike before when they had to guess your username -and- password, now if they know your email they just have to guess the password.



Uh-oh, you feel it's unsafe. Boo hoo - that doesn't mean much. Also, I like how you just completely disregarded what I said about the authenticator just to prove your point. They only need to guess your password, sure, but they also need to physically steal your authenticator so long as you aren't cheap enough to cough up 6.50$ for one.



> You actually know little about scripting, or at least how a game works and how basic text-chatting works it seems...



Right, excuse me for not being a programmer. Obviously this is my fault.

Do you think before you type, or do you just sort of let it all flow?


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 15, 2009)

Uh, it's code. Just because games aren't on the same server doesn't mean they can't talk to each other. It can -easily- be done without it, this isn't the reason for doing this.

Prove it? Might want to prove your points as well, seeing as any counter argument will request such a thing. But simple proof of multiple servers, clients and etc talking to each other through chat would be IRC.

There's no "Authenticator" by default. That's a device you have to pay to get, extra $60 to get a USB drive that scrambles some key. And even that isn't much "safer" than having a unique, unknown username and a unique unknown password, rather than just a password without paying for the authenticator.

So basically what you're saying is one unique password + one unique name (plus authenticator if you pay for it) is equal to one unique key (plus authenticator if you pay for it). And no, no it's not. And no, I currently don't have an authenticator and I only know of a single person who does have one. You call it cheap, I say it's charging extra for something you wouldn't need if they allowed more than eight characters for a password. Hell, if they allowed 20-30 characters I'd feel safer but they don't.

Clearly you don't think at all, before or after your posts.
You don't need to be a programmer to understand basic stuff like this.

And I'm not bitching and moaning about anything, I got it already when I first heard about it. It's the people that don't want to pay-to-play I'm concerned about, I'm already paying to play WoW so it doesn't bother me personally.


----------



## CryoScales (Oct 15, 2009)

> Clearly you don't think at all, before or after your posts.
> You don't need to be a programmer to understand basic stuff like this.




Somehow I expected a nerdish debate about nothing.

People stop arguing about trivialities, get your ego out of the equation if you want to debate with each other. The only thing you guys can do to prove this is wait until WoW becomes apart of Battle.net. Then you can see wether or not they'll charge you. Till then quit your bitching.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 15, 2009)

Well WoW kinda is battle.net now, in 20 more days if you havne't transfered your account you won't be able to log on. But I'm actually going to wait until diablo III is out to see the answer to my first post.


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Oct 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> There's no "Authenticator" by default. That's a device you have to pay to get, extra $60 to get a USB drive that scrambles some key. And even that isn't much "safer" than having a unique, unknown username and a unique unknown password, rather than just a password without paying for the authenticator.



You clearly don't know shit about this subject. The authenticator is not anywhere close to 60$, it's 6.50$ and has free shipping. It isn't even a USB drive, it doesn't plug into your PC. If you can afford 15$ a month but not 6.50$ to keep your account safe, you need to get your priorities straightened.

And LOL not safer? How is it not safer? Nobody can log into your account without PHYSICALLY STEALING YOUR AUTHENTICATOR. Unique account name or not, all you need is a keylogger and WHOOPS ACCOUNT GONE... unless you have an authenticator. :3





> So basically what you're saying is one unique password + one unique name (plus authenticator if you pay for it) is equal to one unique key (plus authenticator if you pay for it). And no, no it's not. And no, I currently don't have an authenticator and I only know of a single person who does have one. You call it cheap, I say it's charging extra for something you wouldn't need if they allowed more than eight characters for a password. Hell, if they allowed 20-30 characters I'd feel safer but they don't.



Again, you are talking out your ass. They DO allow more than eight characters in a password - my current password has 10.



> And I'm not bitching and moaning about anything, I got it already when I first heard about it. It's the people that don't want to pay-to-play I'm concerned about, I'm already paying to play WoW so it doesn't bother me personally.



And you only need to pay to play for WoW.


----------



## CryoScales (Oct 15, 2009)

Baron Von Yiffington said:


> You clearly don't know shit about this subject. The authenticator is not anywhere close to 60$, it's 6.50$ and has free shipping. It isn't even a USB drive, it doesn't plug into your PC. If you can afford 15$ a month but not 6.50$ to keep your account safe, you need to get your priorities straightened.
> 
> And LOL not safer? How is it not safer? Nobody can log into your account without PHYSICALLY STEALING YOUR AUTHENTICATOR. Unique account name or not, all you need is a keylogger and WHOOPS ACCOUNT GONE... unless you have an authenticator. :3



Baron chill the fuck out. Get your ego out of the equation as this arguement's never going to stop until one of you gets mature and ends it already.


----------



## Dyluck (Oct 15, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> Baron chill the fuck out. Get your ego out of the equation as this arguement's never going to stop until one of you gets mature and ends it already.



What's wrong with you?  Don't you know that you're never supposed to break up a cat fight? >:C


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Oct 15, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> Baron chill the fuck out. Get your ego out of the equation as this arguement's never going to stop until one of you gets mature and ends it already.



lol what

This has nothing to do about my "ego". Newf is wrong, I'm pointing that out.


----------



## Kipple (Oct 15, 2009)

Baron Von Yiffington said:


> lol what
> 
> This has nothing to do about my "ego". Newf is wrong, I'm pointing that out.



I'm 100% sure that Newf does a pretty good job of doing it himself.

just let him be man, it's not worth it D:


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 16, 2009)

Baron Von Yiffington said:


> Again, you are talking out your ass. They DO allow more than eight characters in a password - my current password has 10.


Big-fucking-whoop, two more characters.
I want 20. FA supports over 20.


> And you only need to pay to play for WoW.


So far information is suggesting diablo III as well.


----------



## Kaamos (Oct 16, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> > And you only need to pay to play for WoW.
> 
> 
> So far information is suggesting diablo III as well.



FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUU

Edit: Wait, what am I worrying about? There will always be single player.


----------



## Azbulldog (Oct 16, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Big-fucking-whoop, two more characters.
> I want 20. FA supports over 20.


FA is srs bizniz


NewfDraggie said:


> So far information is suggesting diablo III as well.


What information? Links?


----------



## Dyluck (Oct 16, 2009)

Kaamos said:


> FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUU
> 
> Edit: Wait, what am I worrying about? There will always be single player.



Ha.  Have fun with getting past the second difficulty on single player. :V


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 16, 2009)

Azbulldog said:


> FA is srs bizniz
> 
> What information? Links?



Actually to correct myself on battlenet it says starcraft II won't be pay to play, but it doesn't mention diablo III. Maybe they left it out, but it's not there. Runefox pointed this out.


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Oct 16, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Big-fucking-whoop, two more characters.
> I want 20. FA supports over 20.



BAWWWWWWWWW

It doesn't matter how good your password is if you're getting keylogged. It could be 100 characters long but if someone has it in plaintext, it won't matter.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 16, 2009)

Baron Von Yiffington said:


> BAWWWWWWWWW
> 
> It doesn't matter how good your password is if you're getting keylogged. It could be 100 characters long but if someone has it in plaintext, it won't matter.



Lol, you're a moron. It does matter, a lot.


----------



## Dyluck (Oct 16, 2009)

You guys seem to be forgetting that no game Blizzard has made is worth playing, thus rendering this entire argument completely irrelevant.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 16, 2009)

David M. Awesome said:


> You guys seem to be forgetting that no game Blizzard has made is worth playing, thus rendering this entire argument completely irrelevant.



FFFFFFFFUUUU--


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Oct 16, 2009)

Fuck, David's right.  I'm going back to jerking off over Borderlands.


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Oct 16, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Lol, you're a moron. It does matter, a lot.



It doesn't if you're being keylogged. The keylogger is going to see the password, no matter how long or complicated it is.

But, of course, if you just pay the 6.50$ (or if you're Newf, 60$, I guess), keylogging doesn't matter.


----------



## Kipple (Oct 16, 2009)

Don't use a password!

They'll be expecting that.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 16, 2009)

Baron Von Yiffington said:


> It doesn't if you're being keylogged. The keylogger is going to see the password, no matter how long or complicated it is.
> 
> But, of course, if you just pay the 6.50$ (or if you're Newf, 60$, I guess), keylogging doesn't matter.



lol you're more likely to be brute forced than keylogged, unless you're a moron and download anything your email asks you too.
I like how it's like "oh just buy this" to solve a problem that can be fixed for free and with zero issue. Disgusting capitalistic thinking.


----------



## Dyluck (Oct 16, 2009)

ETC said:


> Don't use a password!
> 
> They'll be expecting that.



You're my favourite.


----------



## Shireton (Oct 16, 2009)

ETC said:


> Don't use a password!
> 
> They'll be expecting that.



That's so incredibly awesome...


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 24, 2009)

Kipple said:


> Don't use a password!
> 
> They'll be expecting that.



I call 3rd fav. xD


----------

