7 ms·

Three separate points: - The 25MB file size limit is absurd and could cause real harm. I can't imagine any rationale at all for this. Storage is so cheap. T

Three separate points: - The 25MB file size limit is absurd and could cause real harm. I can't imagine any rationale at all for this. Storage is so cheap. There's also an arbitrary limit of 5 maps at a time per author, which is hilariously strange; needless to say, the most fun custom maps in WC3 and SC:BW came from prolific authors. - Ars doesn't mention the fact that their current system for browsing and playing custom maps is broken beyond belief. It's more or less impossible to play maps that aren't among the most popular on Battle.net. (details: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=139745 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=139...) - The change everyone is complaining about stems from an actual good idea. In WC3 and SC:BW, people would constantly make tiny, ineffectual changes to custom maps, resulting in a profligation of one million versions of those maps, each of which you would have to download when you encountered them. You also had little assurance that someone had not modified a map to let them cheat it. The centralized distribution system is a real convenience, as it has the potential to avoid these problems (although they are still present right now, thanks to Blizzard's horrific design.) Unfortunately, it makes Blizzard somewhat responsible in the eyes of consumers for the content on the system.

jlgosse 16y ago
The game was just released. Blizzard does a great job of releasing incremental updates for their games and servers. I remember BATTLE.net changing significantly over time when I was playing the original SC, from pretty horrible to pretty fantastic. I'm pretty sure the same thing happened with WCIII as well. They will listen to their community and continuously make this thing better, I guarantee it!
- mquander 16y ago
  I would sympathize if this was Blizzard's first networked RTS with a modding community, but it's hard to understand why they would decide to throw away ten years of aforementioned incremental improvements to SC:BW and WC3's community features and implement a far worse system from scratch.
  - jlgosse 16y ago
    I'm sure lots of people would probably disagree with you about that. Just because a small handful of people think the system is HORRIBLE doesn't mean the average gamer will say the same thing. Maybe they just wanted to change things up a bit, or maybe they want to restrict things at first to see what people's reaction(s) are.
- kmfrk 16y ago
  Blizzard's problem is that their communication is awful. This leads people to imagine what they are - and aren't - doing, which you can't fault them on. Blizzard have already shaped Battle.net and StarCraft 2 in ways that people disagree vehemently with. Add to this the number of cock-ups in the recent weeks, which successfully removed any benefit of doubt that their decade of StarCraft goodwill had accrued. The best recent conciliation on their part was to promise that some things would be addressed "eventually" with such controversial things as region realm restrictions for players in multiplayer. That's not exactly magnanimous.
- mfukar 16y ago
  You are correct in your points. Blizzard is great at polishing as well as adding features to existing products. This is proven practically (see WoW). However, their communication channels with their communities are broken beyond belief. I remember when WoW and WC3 were first launched, tech support was stellar, forum support was awesome. WC3 came to an equilibrium eventually (as did SC) but WoW, since it's ever-growing like any self respecting MMORPG, was made to look like a broken piece of software: - nothing is for granted; "balance" and perceived character-item-zone values may change from one patch to another. Blizzard clearly has a train of thought behind those changes, but it is never revealed to the community from fear of exploitation (not from a security PoV). - their community managers grew into a bunch of condescending robots. - A lot of over-hyped features were totally abandoned. A lot of problematic features were adopted/implemented that made the game even more difficult to manage, content and player-wise (see Titan Grip - it was a good April Fools joke at first, a bad feature later). I don't like pointing fingers without proof, but ever since Activision bought Blizzard, things are getting weirder. Could it be that they are indeed revolutionizing gaming? I can't see it myself, but I sincerely hope I'm that short-sighted.
- Groxx 16y ago
  So bitching about it now is essential to getting it fixed in the future.
Gormo 16y ago
But public version control is a solved problem. If Blizzard didn't demand perpetual control of user-generated content distribution, the community would ultimately build a better and more open distribution model with off-the-shelf tools. Blizzard's intention isn't really to make things easier for the users; it's to create a walled-garden ecosystem for user-generated content, so they can monetize modders' work for themselves, which is pretty sleazy.
- Batsu 16y ago
  How is Blizzard monetizing on a modder's work? I can't find information on cost for the service.
  - mquander 16y ago
    Blizzard has announced that they are going to have a system where map creators can charge for particular maps, and Blizzard will take a big cut.
    - sliverstorm 16y ago
      In other words, they are going to make it so map creators can make a profit somewhere they never could before. God damn you, Blizzard.
      - mquander 16y ago
        I'm not saying it's a terrible idea, only that it's probably a big portion of their motivation to centralize and control map distribution.
timwiseman 16y ago
The centralized distribution system is a real convenience, Having a centralized distrubition system with some light editorial control is indeed a great convenience. Having that system to the exclusion of letting users decide to run maps from other sources is very limiting. I would compare this to the Android Market. It is centralized, easy to access, and has some limited editorial controls so I can feel relatively safe I am not downloading malware. But, the architecture is relatively open so if I choose for whatever reason to run an Android App from a different source I can do so without too much trouble.
sliverstorm 16y ago
The 25MB file size limit and 5 map limit are the biggest problematic facets of bnet I've heard of IMHO. They deserve to be addressed. Obviously Blizzard is trying to prevent an explosion of crappy maps on their servers. What's the compromise? Award more space and more map slots to authors who release popular maps. How the better maps are determined is up for discussion, but I think that would be an excellent move on Blizzard's part.

jlgosse 16y ago

The game was just released. Blizzard does a great job of releasing incremental updates for their games and servers. I remember BATTLE.net changing significantly over time when I was playing the original SC, from pretty horrible to pretty fantastic. I'm pretty sure the same thing happened with WCIII as well. They will listen to their community and continuously make this thing better, I guarantee it!

mquander 16y ago
I would sympathize if this was Blizzard's first networked RTS with a modding community, but it's hard to understand why they would decide to throw away ten years of aforementioned incremental improvements to SC:BW and WC3's community features and implement a far worse system from scratch.
- jlgosse 16y ago
  I'm sure lots of people would probably disagree with you about that. Just because a small handful of people think the system is HORRIBLE doesn't mean the average gamer will say the same thing. Maybe they just wanted to change things up a bit, or maybe they want to restrict things at first to see what people's reaction(s) are.
kmfrk 16y ago
Blizzard's problem is that their communication is awful. This leads people to imagine what they are - and aren't - doing, which you can't fault them on. Blizzard have already shaped Battle.net and StarCraft 2 in ways that people disagree vehemently with. Add to this the number of cock-ups in the recent weeks, which successfully removed any benefit of doubt that their decade of StarCraft goodwill had accrued. The best recent conciliation on their part was to promise that some things would be addressed "eventually" with such controversial things as region realm restrictions for players in multiplayer. That's not exactly magnanimous.
mfukar 16y ago
You are correct in your points. Blizzard is great at polishing as well as adding features to existing products. This is proven practically (see WoW). However, their communication channels with their communities are broken beyond belief. I remember when WoW and WC3 were first launched, tech support was stellar, forum support was awesome. WC3 came to an equilibrium eventually (as did SC) but WoW, since it's ever-growing like any self respecting MMORPG, was made to look like a broken piece of software: - nothing is for granted; "balance" and perceived character-item-zone values may change from one patch to another. Blizzard clearly has a train of thought behind those changes, but it is never revealed to the community from fear of exploitation (not from a security PoV). - their community managers grew into a bunch of condescending robots. - A lot of over-hyped features were totally abandoned. A lot of problematic features were adopted/implemented that made the game even more difficult to manage, content and player-wise (see Titan Grip - it was a good April Fools joke at first, a bad feature later). I don't like pointing fingers without proof, but ever since Activision bought Blizzard, things are getting weirder. Could it be that they are indeed revolutionizing gaming? I can't see it myself, but I sincerely hope I'm that short-sighted.
Groxx 16y ago
So bitching about it now is essential to getting it fixed in the future.

Gormo 16y ago

But public version control is a solved problem. If Blizzard didn't demand perpetual control of user-generated content distribution, the community would ultimately build a better and more open distribution model with off-the-shelf tools. Blizzard's intention isn't really to make things easier for the users; it's to create a walled-garden ecosystem for user-generated content, so they can monetize modders' work for themselves, which is pretty sleazy.

Batsu 16y ago
How is Blizzard monetizing on a modder's work? I can't find information on cost for the service.
- mquander 16y ago
  Blizzard has announced that they are going to have a system where map creators can charge for particular maps, and Blizzard will take a big cut.
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    In other words, they are going to make it so map creators can make a profit somewhere they never could before. God damn you, Blizzard.
    - mquander 16y ago
      I'm not saying it's a terrible idea, only that it's probably a big portion of their motivation to centralize and control map distribution.

timwiseman 16y ago

The centralized distribution system is a real convenience, Having a centralized distrubition system with some light editorial control is indeed a great convenience. Having that system to the exclusion of letting users decide to run maps from other sources is very limiting. I would compare this to the Android Market. It is centralized, easy to access, and has some limited editorial controls so I can feel relatively safe I am not downloading malware. But, the architecture is relatively open so if I choose for whatever reason to run an Android App from a different source I can do so without too much trouble.

sliverstorm 16y ago

The 25MB file size limit and 5 map limit are the biggest problematic facets of bnet I've heard of IMHO. They deserve to be addressed. Obviously Blizzard is trying to prevent an explosion of crappy maps on their servers. What's the compromise? Award more space and more map slots to authors who release popular maps. How the better maps are determined is up for discussion, but I think that would be an excellent move on Blizzard's part.