Blizzard Rolls Out Real ID Privacy Options

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blizzard Rolls Out Real ID Privacy Options

Posted by Soulskill on Thursday September 30, 2010 @05:13PM from the step-in-the-right-direction dept.

tacarat writes "The last time Blizzard mentioned their new Real ID system, there was a strong backlash from users over privacy issues. Blizzard reconsidered their plans to require real names for forums, and little has been heard about it since. Now, they've announced new privacy settings, allowing users to limit how their name gets shared or to disable the system entirely. Quoting: 'These options provide Real ID users with additional tools for customizing the service based on their preferences, enabling the ability to opt in or out of the Real ID "Friends of Friends" and "Add Facebook Friends" features or to turn off Real ID altogether.'"

145 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

ID fraud Definition.... by DirtyCanuck · 2010-09-30 17:15 · Score: 2, Funny

Real ID making Identity Fraud Criminals out of us all since, 2011 ;)
Dear Blizzard... by syousef · 2010-09-30 17:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Dear Blizzard,
Gaming is my escape. I don't want harsh realities, real names, and idiotic DRM ruining my suspension of disbelief. If you create a system that brings me back to reality to resolve issues and work around bugs, I'm going to find other ways to spend my leisure time. I already have a Facebook account and rarely use it because I have better things to do.
Sincerely,
A. Gamer

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
1. Re:Dear Blizzard... by bgweber · 2010-09-30 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  This comes from a company with a fantasy IP?
2. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Lulfas · 2010-09-30 17:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You can turn it off 100% now with this change. Go to the same page the article mentions to change the settings and you can just turn it off.
3. Re:Dear Blizzard... by jhoegl · 2010-09-30 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  Blizzard is the diet coke of evil.
  
  Once they have you, it's "Gottcha' bitch!"
  May the fan base repudiate these statements in only ways Fox News could love.
4. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 18:23 · Score: 0
  
  Opt-in vs opt-out anyone?
5. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 18:59 · Score: 0
  
  Sincerely,
  A. Gamer
  What an awesome name...
6. Re:Dear Blizzard... by djdevon3 · 2010-09-30 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  You expressed my sentiments exactly. Furthermore, there's got to be a special interest involved because the entire fiasco makes absolutely no sense. Why are brain-dead companies trying to push this Real ID crap like they're drug dealers. Just say no to Real ID. Nothing good can come of it.
7. Re:Dear Blizzard... by node+3 · 2010-09-30 19:48 · Score: 1
  
  Moving the goalposts anyone?
8. Re:Dear Blizzard... by flimflammer · 2010-09-30 19:50 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You could already disable RealID support anyway, so I don't know what the OP is having a cow about, unless he wants no one to be able to use it. All this update does is give you a finer grain of options about how you want to use the service.
  Before this change, if you decided to use RealID, you had no control over your friends' friends seeing your name and trying to add you to their friends list. This allows you to disable that, and a few similar options.
  I've been waiting for this. There were a few friends I can finally add now because they didn't want to deal with the Friends of Friends feature, especially after one got essentially facebook stalked because of it.
9. Re:Dear Blizzard... by silentcoder · 2010-09-30 20:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I *like* realID - and I like these features so I can control it more.
  I got several alt characters, I do not want to lose my conversations - the SOCIAL aspect of a highly social game just because I switched alt. I don't want to lose the ability to talk to my guildies on the alliance side about tomorrow night's Lich King tactics just because I'm busy levelling my troll hunter.
  The only feature I would dearly love to see added is an invisible mode, so I can appear offline for those rare occasions when I actually don't want to talk to anybody (e.g. like when I'm doing AH-PVP which means I'm AFK for most of the time watching a movie on my other screen).
  I think a very large part of the player base agrees with me. We freaked out about requiring it on forums, I personally would like to see it changed to be able to use a nickname rather than real name but other than that RealID is really not such a huge thing as people make it out to be. Quite the contrary - it's a logical extension of the same chat features that all online games have had back to the earliest MUD's.
  I am all for constructive criticism to ask for features that allow users the control they should have over *any* form of communication their involved with but the vast majority of the reaction to realID is kneejerk shouting with absolutely no basis in any rational thinking.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
10. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 20:56 · Score: 0
  
  Gaming may be an escape for you. For others, it is a regular activity. In that sense, interrelation between real life and online games is beneficial. I don't want to tell my friends, "Look me up online by <stupid pseudonym>." I would rather tell them to identify me by my birth name, or by an existing identity provider: OpenID, Google, or Facebook. Stop pretending that everyone shares your beliefs, and that the world should be shaped according to them, because they don't, and it shouldn't.
  AC because 1) I rarely log into Slashdot, and 2) anonymity is occasionally useful, for when discretion fails.
11. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 21:00 · Score: 0
  
  Good news anyone?
12. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Rysc · 2010-09-30 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  This is not moving goalposts. When RealID first was announced the general outcry was "NO! We don't want this." and "Or at least let us disable it."
  It's nice that they did the "at least" part, but it's still fair to say that most people don't want this and defaulting to opt-out would reflect that.
  
  --
  I want my Cowboyneal
13. Re:Dear Blizzard... by ShakaUVM · 2010-09-30 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  >>I got several alt characters, I do not want to lose my conversations - the SOCIAL aspect of a highly social game just because I switched alt. I don't want to lose the ability to talk to my guildies on the alliance side about tomorrow night's Lich King tactics just because I'm busy levelling my troll hunter.
  Ditto.
  >>We freaked out about requiring it on forums, I personally would like to see it changed to be able to use a nickname rather than real name
  The Blizzard forums are an absolute cesspool. Perhaps full name is too much, but perhaps first name and last initial, or vice versa, would be enough to put a person's personal stamp on it that they will stop responding to every thoughtful thread with "LOL NOOB LOL" like the pure pwnage wannabees that they are.
14. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Rysc · 2010-09-30 23:40 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's a logical extension of chat features... which displays your real, meatspace identity to random people on the internet.
  I'm with you on the *features*, that's cool, I am not okay with someone else deciding what my name is and who gets to know it. I am not the same person to everyone and I don't want all my identities connected, not even all my identities for the same game (much less different games, much less the rest of my life).
  
  --
  I want my Cowboyneal
15. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Kreigaffe · 2010-09-30 23:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The thing is that none of the important things the RealID friend system does couldn't be done better by simply NOT USING PEOPLE'S REAL FUCKING NAMES.
  That's the issue. It's really not a bad system, if it just DIDN'T USE PEOPLE'S REAL FUCKING NAMES.
  There's also the unsavory fact that releasing RealID to their forums with intentions of it reducing trolling reveals that Blizz believes people should be afraid of RL consequences for forum posts while at the same time telling people they're completely safe and nobody would hunt them down (either in person or simply via the electronic trail) and cause RL consequences for the things they post. The entire premise they based releasing RealID on the forums was that tying your name to your posts would cause you to behave due to the fear of people identifying that post as coming from you, specifically, the real person -- while at the same time telling everyone that it's still pretty anonymous and safe, stop worrying so much. Idiots twice over.
  
  --
  ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
16. Re:Dear Blizzard... by silentcoder · 2010-10-01 00:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why are you still screaming about the forums ? We already WON that battle - the company listened to their users and changed their stance ! What the hell more do you want from a company ?
  This article is about them listening to users regarding the in-game version and adding features people wanted. The one you're getting vitriolic about and cussing over is one I already mentioned. These latest changes show them being responsive to people's concerns - even if clearly they are not getting the kind of high developer priority you demand - some of us think that what with having cataclysm in beta their developer resources may be a just a tad strained at the moment. It's a positive sign and promising with regard to getting the other features we would like in the near future.
  Can't you be happy about that ?
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
17. Re:Dear Blizzard... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2010-10-01 00:36 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Why are brain-dead companies trying to push this Real ID crap like they're drug dealers.
  Ironically, the reason is that their customers are actually paying 15 a month for WoW, etc, and would probably be treated a lot better if they weren't paying anything at all.
  The companies receiving this money view you as a regular source of income and treat you accordingly--monetizing their cash cows to the fullest, and generally treating them like bovine chattels instead of paying customers. Such is modern business.
  However, for some of us still play games at home, offline, by ourselves. Sure it doesn't really pop up on the radar of big corporations, but we're still here. And our gaming really is an escape, in the same sense as reading a book or a walk in the park; a private activity which we can enjoy without the maligning effects of commercialisation.
  The essential irony here is that by choosing to pay for a regular service, online gamers are actually setting themselves up for worse treatment that offline/freeplay gamers who simply make one of purchases at a shop and don't participate in (paid) multiplayer. By paying with credit cards, etc, they enter willingly--if unwittingly--into a commercialised sphere where they are viewed as company assets to be controlled, protected and exploited. It's the philosophy of modern business, and as the company running the largest paid MMO in the world Blizzard are following it to the letter.
  Contrast Blizzard's behaviour with Real ID and their paying customers, to Valve's attitude to their non-paying Steam customers. Steam is even larger than Battle.net, yet nothing like RealID exists or was even proposed by Valve at any stage. The relationship between Valve and Steam users is far more informal (and indeed healthier) and I would argue that this stems from the lack of paid subscription in Valve's flagship multiplayer titles. If you cheat in WoW, you get banned. Cheat in TF2, and they take away your hats. Another good pair to compare and contrast here is Xbox live and PSN.
  So, if you want Blizzard to treat you better, the long term solution is to stop paying them a regular subscription, and change your online relationship with them back to that of an informal "fan", rather than a formal "customer". Gaming should be a fun pastime, and not a commercial relationship.
  
  --
  May the Maths Be with you!
18. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  Then disable it? They're doing this for you.
19. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Moryath · 2010-10-01 00:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, let's clarify this.
  When Real ID was announced, my response (having previously been stalked and cyberstalked by a psychotic ex) was to write a nice letter to Blizzard telling them precisely where they could shove "Real ID."
  The default should be opt-out, no question!
20. Re:Dear Blizzard... by rainwalker · 2010-10-01 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  That's not at all true. If you are paying money to a company, then you are the customer. If you're using a "free" (ad-supported) service, then you are the *product*, and the advertisers are the customer. This is an important distinction that people should keep in mind when using services like Facebook: you are the product that the company is selling to advertisers. Your happiness and satisfaction are only relevant if they generate more saleable metrics. Don't pretend that those companies care about you; the loss of a single saleable unit is irrelevant.
21. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Mike+Mentalist · 2010-10-01 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  Why are you still screaming about the forums ? We already WON that battle - the company listened to their users and changed their stance ! What the hell more do you want from a company ?
  
  This article is about them listening to users regarding the in-game version and adding features people wanted. The one you're getting vitriolic about and cussing over is one I already mentioned. These latest changes show them being responsive to people's concerns - even if clearly they are not getting the kind of high developer priority you demand - some of us think that what with having cataclysm in beta their developer resources may be a just a tad strained at the moment. It's a positive sign and promising with regard to getting the other features we would like in the near future.
  
  Can't you be happy about that?
  
  Happy about them implementing a half-harsed feature? If their resources really were stretched that much they wouldn't have even made Real ID in the first place.
  
  Don't get me wrong I like some of the features of Real ID but the fact that it shows your real name to everyone along with them being able to see everyone else on your Real ID list is completely ridiculous. There is no excuse for that.
  
  --
  I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
22. Re:Dear Blizzard... by GrumblyStuff · 2010-10-01 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  The Blizzard forums are an absolute cesspool.
  Maybe they should like... moderate it?
  And make it so posters can't use any one of the 50 potential characters to post but rather have it all under one name?
  Oh, and treat forum bans with an ingame ban as well.
  An "Ignore Account" would be a nice feature too. I mean, sure someone could make a new account if they were really determined but at that point you're probably already looking at legal action whereas creating a new character to get passed the terribly short ignore list is done in 10 seconds.
  Oh, well. Let's just put everyone's full name up on the forums instead.
23. Re:Dear Blizzard... by creat3d · 2010-10-01 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Hello, everyone!
  
  --
  Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
24. Re:Dear Blizzard... by elrous0 · 2010-10-01 02:40 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If you don't like the way your dealer is treating you, feel free to quit the crack.
  No?
  Yeah, that's what I thought.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
25. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Kidbro · 2010-10-01 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Can't you be happy about that ?
  As long as the feature is still useless, I see little reason to be "happy" about it. It doesn't matter to me if it's a light year or an inch from being useful, it's still useless.
  
  --
  May we live long and die out
26. Re:Dear Blizzard... by RobDude · 2010-10-01 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Eh - the funny thing is that it's unbelievably easy to make a fake RealID - it just requires that you do it 'from the beginning'. Since most people created their WoW accounts in a time when companies respected your privacy, they gave real information.
  Blizz has made it an insane amount of work to change the information associated with your account, after the fact. But if you are willing to buy a new game; you can, once again, use fake names and be anonymous.
  I know this because my girlfriend's "RealID" has my name on it. So much for 'real', eh? When we tried to correct the issue, we found we'd have to call, sit on hold, talk to someone, fax legal documents *to a f***ing Video Game Company* and wait and see if it was 'approved'.
  Any new-comer to Blizzards new social network of gamers (IE - you buy a new game) you are free to fake whatever info you want. Now that people know RealID is a strong identifier to themselves, people who are so inclined are going to use fake info.
27. Re:Dear Blizzard... by ildon · 2010-10-01 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, ok, don't add people as Real ID friends. It's optional. PROBLEM SOLVED.
28. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Trolan · 2010-10-01 03:09 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It is opt-out by default. In order for anyone to see your real 'meatspace' identity, they have to request to be your RealID friend, and you then have to approve them. And in order for them to do that, they have to know one of the following:
  - Your battle.net account name
  - Be a friend of a friend of yours (who you would have approved by means of the above or below)
  - Be a friend of yours on facebook, and you would have had to login via SC2 to your facebook account.
  All of those require you to have done some deliberate action to get into the RealID pool. These new options let you disable #2 and 3, and let you completely disable RealID. You could already block requests.
29. Re:Dear Blizzard... by RobDude · 2010-10-01 03:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think people are suffering from a 'false dilemma' mentality.
  "I want some features this thing would give me, so I have to support the whole thing. Because that's the only way I could get those features."
  All of the social aspects you are describing could be achieved *without* it ever being tied to your actual identity.
  You need (or at least used to need) a Battlenet account. All of your characters are associated with that account. Adding the ability to be 'account friends' or 'account guilds' that would let all of your alts on all of your servers make your Bnet account appear online to your Bnet friends - can all be done, without tying anything to your real name.
30. Re:Dear Blizzard... by ildon · 2010-10-01 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Real ID in-game has always been 100% optional. You never had to give anyone your email or if someone randomly knew your email, all you had to do was deny their friend requests.
  The huge public outcry was entirely based on the second, and somewhat unrelated, proposal: using Real ID names on the forums. Not about the in game cross server chat function. There was some mild whining by some about having their real name displayed, and how those people didn't feel they could make full use of the promised cross server and cross game chat functionality because they didn't want to share their name, but this was small gripe by a small minority, relatively speaking.
31. Re:Dear Blizzard... by RobDude · 2010-10-01 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's still really, really, really easy to make an anonymous RealID. All you need to do is buy a new Blizzard game. There is nothing to keep it 'real'.
  The data they collected pre-dated people having a reason to lie. Nothing stops trolls and jerks from getting a new RealID. There is nothing 'real' about it.
32. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  If my every petty whine and complaint isn't fixed by a major game company within minutes of my making it, the terrorists have won.
33. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Krneki · 2010-10-01 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is, most of this stuff I presume it will be turned ON and you have to waste your time in order to turn most of this shit OFF.
  
  Like Facebook was fine when you shared your stuff with close friends, now when everyone is using it, it has become a PITA, like RL is when you share your party picture.
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
34. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Lulfas · 2010-10-01 04:07 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You're entirely correct, but the Facebook reference isn't a good one for the simple reason that the Blizzard Real ID is pretty clearly marked and turning the whole thing off it is literally a single radio button. As compared to Facebook's labyrinth of menus to go through to figure it out.
35. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Swanktastic · 2010-10-01 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  A nicely written argument, but I would go the exact opposite direction. Blizzard has to earn my $15 every month. When I get bored (run out of content) I unsubscribe. When they come out with great new expansions (and I think they are), I buy them. Blizzard is completely obligated to keep me happy on a month to month basis or I quit.
  Contrast that with a boxed game. The standard process is to publish the game, max out sales, and then fire the dev staff. They never hear from me again, and my satisfaction is unimportant to them. THAT is the norm for video game publishing, and both Blizzard and Valve are wonderful exceptions.
36. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  "I already have a Facebook account and rarely use it because I have better things to do."
  Like complain to no one on slashdot?
37. Re:Dear Blizzard... by silentcoder · 2010-10-01 04:54 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  And now half your complaint is gone - the other half is sure to follow. Seriously dude. Chill the fuck out.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
38. Re:Dear Blizzard... by silentcoder · 2010-10-01 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Then don't use it ? Nobody forces you to. If you don't like it in it's current state switch it off. If you find in future that new additions made it usable for you switch it on again... I am quite picky about my RealID friends list - in fact I have only three friends on it at all, but I wouldn't trade the the ability to talk to them - and our shared friends from their equally short lists back now - it's just so damn useful.
  A very accurate analogy - you're like the guy who cries because the phone book exists and prints people's real names, addresses and numbers ! The fact that those who are concerned can get delisted seems to be enough for everybody else but not for you !
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
39. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Mike+Mentalist · 2010-10-01 05:00 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  And now half your complaint is gone - the other half is sure to follow. Seriously dude. Chill the fuck out.
  
  Why are you so defensive and excited about this? It is you who needs to chill out.
  
  Half my complaint is not gone at all because Blizzard were still stupid to even consider using Real ID for the forums in the first place.
  
  --
  I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
40. Re:Dear Blizzard... by silentcoder · 2010-10-01 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Your last sentence listed two problems: visible on other peoples friend list, and can't use a nickname.
  Guess what- this article is about how you can now NOT be visible on other people's friends list if you so choose.
  In other words- half your CURRENT complaint is gone. The thing you mentioned was gone long ago.
  Constructive critique is always useful - and blizzard has a decent track record of listening to it, moreso than most software companies in fact, being eternally pissed over a bad decision which they REVERSED in answer to the community's reaction kind of removes any motivation for them to give a damn what the community wants doesn't it ?
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
41. Re:Dear Blizzard... by seebs · 2010-10-01 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  I would like it if it allowed nicknames.
  I have a couple of transgendered friends who played WoW. They played WoW to get away from people staring at them and asking them about their gender and so on. So as long as Real ID uses legal names, they can't use it. And since, as you note, it's an awesome feature, that means they're being told that this awesome feature is not for them. You know what? Transgendered people are told plenty often already that they are not allowed to have the things they want.
  I switched to City of Heroes, where they have a working global chat handle system, and it doesn't require real names. Of course, I used a variant of "seebs" as my global handle, and anyone who talks to me in the game can figure out who I am ... but that's [b]me[/b]. It doesn't force everyone else to use a name that onlookers can search up in Google in five minutes.
  Beyond that, though, the contempt Blizzard has shown for their user base all through this Real ID stuff was too much for me to deal with. I'll spend my money on people who at least acknowledge the complaints they get. (Blizzard has acknowledged that there were a lot of complaints, but they've never once said that any of the complaints had merit; they're too arrogant to admit that maybe they screwed up.)
  
  --
  My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
42. Re:Dear Blizzard... by ukyoCE · 2010-10-01 05:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I'm pretty sure the Real Name Required / Made Public aspect was what people were up in arms about. Having the option to keep 1 friends list across all your alts is pretty universally desired.
43. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Mike+Mentalist · 2010-10-01 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Your last sentence listed two problems: visible on other peoples friend list, and can't use a nickname. Guess what- this article is about how you can now NOT be visible on other people's friends list if you so choose. In other words- half your CURRENT complaint is gone. The thing you mentioned was gone long ago.
  
  The fact it was even there is a big problem - so again, half my complaint is not gone.
  
  Constructive critique is always useful - and blizzard has a decent track record of listening to it, moreso than most software companies in fact, being eternally pissed over a bad decision which they REVERSED in answer to the community's reaction kind of removes any motivation for them to give a damn what the community wants doesn't it?
  
  Why are so desperate to praise Blizzard all the time? The decision shouldn't have been made in the first place.
  
  --
  I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
44. Re:Dear Blizzard... by GameboyRMH · 2010-10-01 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  The default should be opt-out, no question!
  I think you accidentally the whole thing.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
45. Re:Dear Blizzard... by silentcoder · 2010-10-01 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  >Why are so desperate to praise Blizzard all the time? The decision shouldn't have been made in the first place.
  I am not praising blizzard at all - you are so ANTI-blizzard now that BALANCED and CONSTRUCTIVE critique looks like praise to you.
  As for that statement. I agree, the decision was a bad one and should never have been made. Sony should never have put rootkits on CD's. Sony hasn't backed down on their reasoning for why it was okay one bit however. Blizzard changed the system. They are right- the forums DO need to force people into taking responsibility, they were wrong about HOW they were going to do it. What I read in their statement was: our users really don't like our idea, we accept that, we will therefore not go through with it.
  Were you expecting moral and socially conscious behaviour from a corporation ? Dream on. It's against the LAW for them to even THINK like that. They are required by case-law in the USA to consider only ONE priority - ALWAYS. That priority is "increasing shareholder value". You want a corporation to do what you want- you make it so doing what you want will increase shareholder value MORE than doing what they had planned, or you make it clear that doing what they thought would increase it will piss of their customers to the point where they will actually lose a lot more than they could gain.
  Don't blame the companies for that- blame your own bloody stupid legal framework that basically means that every company EVER works like this.
  The customers won that battle. There's no POINT in still fighting it now. We got much more important issues we should be demanding from them. In the end, we are customers - paying them for a service and we have a right to demand a certain quality of service and a certain measure of respect for our wishes. Making those wishes clear is good business. Continuing to mope about a past decision that they already changed because you don't think it should ever have been made (guess what - that same corporate priorities law also rather demands that companies be, by definition, idiots) distracts from that.
  Forget the forums. There are features we need them to pay attention to now - this is a good step - some of those features are now available. We SHOULD praise that, because that is how we let them know their customers approve - that's how we make sure they got a basis on which to tell the board "these features INCREASE your shareholder value more than the reasons you may have had to not want them". Then we can say "But we still demand you add the other features we want - a lot of us who don't use it now will use it then".
  You want to deal with companies? Learn how they think, and then influence them based on the only motivation they understand- the only one they are legally ALLOWED to understand.
  Or you could lobby to have the stupidest law in human history changed of course... good luck with THAT.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
46. Re:Dear Blizzard... by MelindaM2120 · 2010-10-01 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  You can't escape harsh realities, even when you are online. You characters are on the Armory, their (your) every achievement, every piece of equipment that you wear, even your specialization (talents) is exposed to anyone who happens to know the name of your 'toon', and you just cannot opt out. So... there goes your in-game privacy. Welcome to the dystopia many governments seem to be dreaming of these days.
47. Re:Dear Blizzard... by Rysc · 2010-10-03 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  All of these so-called "deliberate actions" are thereby implicitly authorizing Blizzard to disclose my real identity. Such disclosure should never be implicit and should only occur with my express approval. Don't say "Well because they're my friend this means I approve of them knowing my name" - this is totally untrue. Again, and let me repeat, RealID as a system offers unique features which people will want to use. Making use of this system should not require me to disclose my meatspace identity to anyone other than Blizzard.
  I'm glad that some of these horrors can now be disabled, but I will not be happy until they are disabled by default.
  
  --
  I want my Cowboyneal
Too little, too late. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 17:19 · Score: 0, Troll

I've been out of WOW for months, haven't bothered even looking back. The debacle with real names on forums combined with their dilatory and lackluster response convinced me they didn't care about customers. This change is far too late for me to think about trusting them again, and even it isn't enough for me.
I'll live without it and be just fine.
But no, quitting WOW didn't improve my life, it's just as sucky as it was before without even the phantom accomplishment of raiding.
1. Re:Too little, too late. by GrumblyStuff · 2010-10-01 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  So you switched to Minecraft?
IOW they learned nothing... by Joce640k · 2010-09-30 17:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

There has to be a PHB behind this.

--
No sig today...
1. Re:IOW they learned nothing... by dasherjan · 2010-09-30 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think that they are trying set it up so that they can use it for demographics. Then they can add another revenue stream by selling targeted ads in their games. Hmm...then again maybe the tinfoil hat is causing some issues with my thinking and stuff. :)
2. Re:IOW they learned nothing... by PseudonymousBraveguy · 2010-09-30 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  There probably was a PHB behind RealID (which has been up&running for months now), but how did they learn nothing if they now offer privacy options for that? Actually I believe that is basically the first good idea they had for RealID.
3. Re:IOW they learned nothing... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 21:10 · Score: 0
  
  The RealID push is coming from Bobby Kotick at Activision. He's trying to cut data sharing/mining deals with Facebook.
How not to run a web board. by LostCluster · 2010-09-30 17:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Banning or shaming customers who disagree with you and publicly say so is no way to run a business. It doesn't leave you in the perfect world where everybody agrees with you, it leaves you in a world where nobody cares about you and you go away.
1. Re:How not to run a web board. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 17:39 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  They're trying to clean up the Blizzard forums and good on them - it's a circus.
2. Re:How not to run a web board. by LostCluster · 2010-09-30 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  If your own forums about yourself are a circus, you're clearly doing something wrong.
3. Re:How not to run a web board. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 18:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If your own forums about yourself are a circus, you're clearly doing something wrong.
  Except when it's a game company. Read some WoW forums and behold: hordes of clowns inhabiting Blizzard forums.
  If they are Blizzard's fault then the fault is that Blizzard makes its games for widest possible audience. That includes drooling idiots. But hey, as long as they are _paying_ drooling idiots..
4. Re:How not to run a web board. by _Sprocket_ · 2010-09-30 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  Banning or shaming customers who disagree with you and publicly say so is no way to run a business. It doesn't leave you in the perfect world where everybody agrees with you, it leaves you in a world where nobody cares about you and you go away.
  I don't believe this is about silencing dissenting opinion. RealID is about other things beyond forums. If you believe that using RealID in the forums was about altering posting behavior, then it was simply a conveniently available tool to attempt leveraging peer pressure to self-police the community. In which case, whoever came up with the idea is out of touch and / or delusional. More likely RealID is buying in to the whole "social media" thing and, even more so, the marketing / "monitization" strategies associated with it.
5. Re:How not to run a web board. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 18:24 · Score: 0
  
  You must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot.
6. Re:How not to run a web board. by Undead+Waffle · 2010-09-30 18:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Banning or shaming customers who disagree with you and publicly say so is no way to run a business. It doesn't leave you in the perfect world where everybody agrees with you, it leaves you in a world where nobody cares about you and you go away.
  I don't believe this is about silencing dissenting opinion. RealID is about other things beyond forums. If you believe that using RealID in the forums was about altering posting behavior, then it was simply a conveniently available tool to attempt leveraging peer pressure to self-police the community. In which case, whoever came up with the idea is out of touch and / or delusional. More likely RealID is buying in to the whole "social media" thing and, even more so, the marketing / "monitization" strategies associated with it.
  Basically this. I suspect this is part of Activision's plan to get the most out of Blizzard. Use their popularity to try to force some sort of social networking BS to masses of people in hopes of building it into something larger when it starts to catch on.
7. Re:How not to run a web board. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 18:32 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent (-1, shut up shut up shut up shut up)
8. Re:How not to run a web board. by furgle · 2010-09-30 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, it probably is to allow better marketing and monitization strategies through social media; But that by itself is not nessesarily a bad thing. We all get annoyed at junk mail, and random salesmen/preachers knocking at our door. Only because we already know what we want. A more personalised marketing strategy can be a lot less obtrusive as it fits into what we do. Some people worry that because of this we may not be aware of ads / marketing strategies being used on us and because of that we will be come mindless zombies. Personally i doubt that. My concern always will be with privacy to individuals, not corporations. An individual can harass and threaten and generally troll, corporations will only ever try to get you to buy their stuff..... Hopefully. One exception i can think of is the corporation individual called Steve Jobs.
9. Re:How not to run a web board. by phantomfive · 2010-09-30 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  Everything I've read coming out of Blizzard so far leads me to believe that Blizzard is as much behind it as Activision. The Blizzard guys want to milk that cow as much as they can, too.
  
  --
  Qxe4
10. Re:How not to run a web board. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 19:03 · Score: 0
  
  YouTube is a forum. YouTube's commentators are idiots. YouTube has done nothing wrong. Ditto for popular games.
11. Re:How not to run a web board. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 20:26 · Score: 0
  
  Blizzard no longer milks cows.
  Blizzard is a cow.
12. Re:How not to run a web board. by PseudonymousBraveguy · 2010-09-30 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they DID listen to their customers and backed from using RealID on the forums. Now it's just a way to connect with friends on the games (ATM just WoW and SCII). You can (at least in WoW, dont know about SCII) still add friends the old way (character name). If you want to be able to chat when your friend plays a different game, or on a different server, you can use RealID. As you are not forced to do so, I don't believe it's a inherently bad system. However, the privacy options were definately needed, so I applaud this change.
13. Re:How not to run a web board. by PseudonymousBraveguy · 2010-09-30 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  RealID is not, and never was, used on the Blizzard forums. It was shortly planned to do so, but because of the have backlash from the users they never implemented it (and I doubt they will try to do that again).
14. Re:How not to run a web board. by Pranadevil2k · 2010-09-30 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  some sort of social networking BS to masses of people in hopes of building it into something larger
  I think you mean this.
15. Re:How not to run a web board. by Kreigaffe · 2010-10-01 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  They only listened to their customers because their customers were doing their best to ruin the life of one of their employees, or possibly some other guy with the same name -- and showed every intention of doing the same over and over just to prove that RealID on forums was a terrible idea.
  
  --
  ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
16. Re:How not to run a web board. by _Sprocket_ · 2010-10-01 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, it probably is to allow better marketing and monitization strategies through social media; But that by itself is not nessesarily a bad thing. We all get annoyed at junk mail, and random salesmen/preachers knocking at our door. Only because we already know what we want.
  You make it sound as if marketing / sales and I are a team. We're not; we're adversaries. That plays out in almost every interaction between us.
  The sales and marketing folks are in the business of being seen and delivering their pitch. The vast majority of my day involves doing things other than receiving a sales pitch. I am not annoyed because the sales pitch isn't targeted, I'm annoyed at the sales pitch. I don't ever look at my day thinking "you know - what I need is another sales pitch." It doesn't matter if the pitch is for something in my interest. I don't want to give them another opportunity to get in my face.
  Even when I'm at the point that I need information / am prepared to buy, I have to control how much information the sales / marketing side gets about me. With too much information about me, my adversaries will be able to better determine how much money I'm willing to part with. Prices adjust according to the pressure that the market will bear. As a part of a mass market, that means the individual can find good deals that are priced below what they, personally, are willing to accept. Forget about those good deals. You're no longer a part of the mass market. You are a market of one. And once the seller knows what the market will bear, expect the price to adjust accordingly (or be completely ignored if you don't fit the right price profile).
  Privacy also becomes a personal issue. Sure - the average sales force is only interested in the sale (we'll set aside how profound an affect that is on one's life). But any information available about you to a sales team is information that's available to anyone else. Especially as that information is likely to be handled by other corporate entities who's sole business is the selling of information. Once information is a service (as it is now), there is little concern over the reason that service has been engaged.
17. Re:How not to run a web board. by _Sprocket_ · 2010-10-01 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Everything I've read coming out of Blizzard so far leads me to believe that Blizzard is as much behind it as Activision. The Blizzard guys want to milk that cow as much as they can, too.
  It's hard to tell where the distinction is between "Blizzard" and "Activision". If you look at the timeline, a lot of this additional nickle-and-dime behavior started up shortly after Activision came in to the picture. It is behavior in line with what Activision did before aquiring Blizzard. So while these things happen within the Blizzard realm, it really has the overtones of Activision. But all this is a moot point. It doesn't matter what internal group came up with these ideas. All that matters is that they are attempting to implement them.
18. Re:How not to run a web board. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  I was going to berate you for making a leap of logic, but it's really more of a pole vault.
19. Re:How not to run a web board. by ukyoCE · 2010-10-01 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Are you talking about the WOW forums? People there disagree with them all the time. It's nearly the only reason anyone ever posts at all. You only get banned (or "shamed") if you're trolling, cursing, screaming, and generally being an obnoxious jerk.
  They also give people many many chances before banning, usually locking threads and asking nicely to calm down and correct your tone/language. I've been disagreeing with Blizzard on their forums for years now and never had a problem.
20. Re:How not to run a web board. by furgle · 2010-10-03 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  I like the way you look at this. You are right, we should be/and probably are adversaries (with the exception of fan boys who have lost their heads for a brand completely.)
  
  But one of the aims in marketing is to make it the marketing completely invisible such that the potential customer does not see it. i was trying to explain it as a benefit; but not very well.
  
  But on the bright side to all this, most of us while fighting off marketing, are involved at work in some way with another marketing firm: Attacking back with the same weapons. So to me the playing field is level, one group tries to get my money, while my group(my job) tries to get theirs. Maybe not directly but surely the 6 degrees of separation also works for the flow of money.
  
  In regard to privacy, it is important but I found the user data I have worked with ends up holding the anonymity as the name attached to the data stops mattering, but rather the data as a whole.
  
  As an example: Who cares if Mrs Jefferson likes Classical Music I can't afford to make a product just for Mrs Jefferson, when it is far more important that People of Mrs Jefferson's age tend to like Classical Music. So Mrs Jefferson no longer matters. I can make a product, and market it to people of Mrs Jefferson's age. So in that way there is type of privacy.
  
  I'm sure there are counter examples, and I've been too simple, too focused, too naive. In short my world experience is not enough, and have only my short years as authority. So understand that I take on your comment with interest and thought.
21. Re:How not to run a web board. by _Sprocket_ · 2010-10-03 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  But one of the aims in marketing is to make it the marketing completely invisible such that the potential customer does not see it. i was trying to explain it as a benefit; but not very well.
  True. But not all marketing strategies are subtle.
  
  As an example:
  Who cares if Mrs Jefferson likes Classical Music I can't afford to make a product just for Mrs Jefferson, when it is far more important that People of Mrs Jefferson's age tend to like Classical Music. So Mrs Jefferson no longer matters. I can make a product, and market it to people of Mrs Jefferson's age. So in that way there is type of privacy.
  Again - that's one strategy. But there's a lot of data shuffling going on to support "leads". Let's say you have your classical music selection product you want to sell. You're not content with just waiting for customers to find you or blanketing mass media. Any targeted marketing is going to require a listing of potential customers; leads. First - you need a list of people who like classical music. Even better is if that list has been limited to people with expendable income that can afford your collection. Or even better, a list of people who've been known to purchase classical music in the past. That's when you find a Mrs. Jefferson on your list.
  This is where RealID gets very interesting if / when they link it to Myspace. Forget about Activision / Blizzard marketing its games or the video game angle in general. Myspace's datamining machine now gets a listing of people who are comfortable with making regular online credit card transactions (monthly game fees). Not only that, but with pay content like vanity pets, mounts, etc. Myspace also has a listing of people who are comfortable with paying for entirely digital product. A listing of those kinds of leads is pretty close to a holy grail in online targeted marketing right now.
  Let's mix filters. Mrs. Jefferson likes classical music but also spends her weekends riding her sparkle pony as a Blood Elf paladin on her way to taking down the Lich King with her guild. You can bet that Mrs. Jefferson is going to be getting messages letting her know that there's a web site offering a new music collection she just doesn't want to miss.
22. Re:How not to run a web board. by _Sprocket_ · 2010-10-04 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  s/myspace/facebook/g
Then why require it? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 17:44 · Score: 0

"to turn off Real ID altogether"
So remind me why I sign up and use it in the first place?
Good! Disabled it. by AbRASiON · 2010-09-30 17:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

Now will SC2 stop showing my real name in the UI? It's bad for streaming and screenshots.
Also when can everyone play with each other on the GLOBAL INTERNET in all regions?
Meh.
1. Re:Good! Disabled it. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 18:07 · Score: 0
  
  WTF did you give SC2 your real name in the first place?
  My name is "Nunya Business".
2. Re:Good! Disabled it. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 19:01 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  If you have a WoW account and paid with a credit card ever, you had to give them your real name.
3. Re:Good! Disabled it. by SupremoMan · 2010-09-30 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  Why the hell would you use the same Bnet account for two games? What if you no longer want one and wish to give it to a friend, or god forbid sell it? I guess people lack more than one email account :(
4. Re:Good! Disabled it. by flimflammer · 2010-09-30 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  Some people don't intend on selling their games or giving them away, and giving Blizzard false customer information guarantees you'll never see your account again should anything happen to it, be it forget the password and secret question, have your account broken into (more of a Wow thing than Starcraft), or anything of the sort.
  I've never understood the refusal to fill out customer information properly when it comes to legitimate business for paid services. Sure, there's no reason to hand over your information to joe random site, but companies you're actually paying? I dunno, sounds silly to me to be that paranoid about privacy.
5. Re:Good! Disabled it. by Alumoi · 2010-09-30 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  Because 'legitimate business' are in the habit of selling my info to the highest bidder.
6. Re:Good! Disabled it. by BobMcD · 2010-10-01 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Why the hell would you use the same Bnet account for two games? What if you no longer want one and wish to give it to a friend, or god forbid sell it? I guess people lack more than one email account :(
  THIS!
7. Re:Good! Disabled it. by ildon · 2010-10-01 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Also when can everyone play with each other on the GLOBAL INTERNET in all regions?
  When I can have a sub 50ms ping to a player in Taiwan from here in Florida.
8. Re:Good! Disabled it. by RobDude · 2010-10-01 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  In theory - sure.
  The problem is that a lot of business aren't ethical, or will become unethical or will go bankrupt or will be bought out.
  When you are all 'I'm not giving you my real name!' people look at you like you are crazy; they say you are being extreme. But then, when a company goes bankrupt and their old laptops get auctioned off on e-bay and all your personal information gets stolen *then* people are like, 'Gee, why'd ya give them that info!?!'
"Add Facebook" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 18:08 · Score: 0

Pretty much, if a site has this, I don't want to be there.
Re:Just who is hosting AOTS these days? by darthdavid · 2010-09-30 18:26 · Score: 1

G4 has a future?
this is the problem by phantomfive · 2010-09-30 18:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

The reason Starcraft, and Starcraft 2, have sold so well is because of the pro-gaming league. If it weren't for that, Starcraft wouldn't have much of an audience. It is so easy to get sucked into. Me too, in my more irrational moments have dreamed what it would be like to be a pro Starcraft player. It won't happen of course, but having that idea in the back of my mind makes the game that much more fun.

Blizzard is destroying pro Starcraft. They want to control it completely. Which would be fine, except they have no clue how to run a competitive gaming league. They don't know how to get thousands of spectators to an event, they don't know how to organize an event. They see the dollar signs, but don't understand the effort that goes into making it happen.

It would be best if they just made a way for people to play over the LAN, then got out of the way, so there could be real competitions.

My point is, instead they are focusing on weird real-id things, instead of trying to figure out a way to make gaming as nice as possible for competitions (while at the same time accessible for the rest of us). They have lost focus of what will bring people in to the game.

--
Qxe4
1. Re:this is the problem by Aereus · 2010-09-30 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know what they want with Starcraft2, honestly. They claim to want an "e-Sport" (Whatever that is.) but no LAN kills off all but the largest tournaments due to most hotel/convention internet being terrible for ping. It also makes it difficult for grass-roots interest in the game to happen when their Matchmaking and Friends system is archaic to say the least. It's like taking the rudimentary matchmaking from Mario Kart DS, mixed with the obnoxious friend code requirement from Animal Crossing.
  As others have said -- I have a feeling it's all some ulterior motive from Kotick to try to cash in on Blizzard or Starcraft in some anti-gamer way.
2. Re:this is the problem by Impeesa · 2010-09-30 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  As others have said -- I have a feeling it's all some ulterior motive from Kotick to try to cash in on Blizzard or Starcraft in some anti-gamer way.
  Yeah, it's hard not to sound like the anti-corporate tinfoil hat guy saying it, but it's also hard not to feel like Blizzard is a bit hobbled by direction from above these days.
3. Re:this is the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 00:29 · Score: 0
  
  Blizzard is destroying pro Starcraft. They want to control it completely. Which would be fine, except they have no clue how to run a competitive gaming league. They don't know how to get thousands of spectators to an event, they don't know how to organize an event. They see the dollar signs, but don't understand the effort that goes into making it happen.
  http://us.blizzard.com/blizzcon/ Blizzard doesn't know how to organize and draw attendees to an event? Are you serious?
4. Re:this is the problem by MistrBlank · 2010-10-01 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  "They don't know how to get thousands of spectators to an event, they don't know how to organize an event."
  You don't quite understand Blizzcon do you....
5. Re:this is the problem by Chameleon+Man · 2010-10-01 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  I don't even understand why the OP is modded up when he's throwing out so many false assumptions. Starcraft was a success because it was a great game, not because of the pro league. The pro league was a result of it being a great game. And when he states that Blizzard is out of touch with their consumers, as you have mentioned here, they clearly aren't.
  
  Personally, I like the ladder system that's built into Starcraft 2. Makes someone like me, who could never find an even match let alone a ranking system, have more interest in actually playing other players rather than the computer. And believe it or not, average Joe's like myself make up the majority of the player-base, not pro-league gamers.
6. Re:this is the problem by cheekyjohnson · 2010-10-01 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Out of touch with their customers? No. Of course not. If they got out of touch with their customers, they'd also be out of touch with their customers' wallets. Can't have that!
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
7. Re:this is the problem by BobMcD · 2010-10-01 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  The reason Starcraft, and Starcraft 2, have sold so well is because of the pro-gaming league. ...
  My point is, instead they are focusing on weird real-id things, instead of trying to figure out a way to make gaming as nice as possible for competitions (while at the same time accessible for the rest of us). They have lost focus of what will bring people in to the game.
  This strikes me as very odd. Blizzard isn't in the 'gaming league' business. They're in the video game business. And the whole 'Starcraft selling well for years' thing is utter crap. Gamers raving over a decade-old game from the bargain bin? That's exactly the opposite of what you want when you're cranking out subscription style expansion packs for the foreseeable future.
  And note I'm still talking only Starcraft. The elephant in the room is Warcraft, and to a lesser extent Diablo. They want your Real ID tied into those as well, so your Starcraft friends can see you enjoying their other products and feel a little peer pressure to go join you.
  That 'pro-gaming league' thing was an anomaly. Please do stop expecting Blizzard to form business strategies around it. It makes me wince. In short, Starcraft is NOT Magic the Gathering, nor was it ever intended to be.
8. Re:this is the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  Like all other companies, Blizzard has a goal to profit. Unlike the rest though, they are actually community focused.
  
  What are you expecting? Blizzard develop games for free and never expect anyone to pay a dime using their services?
9. Re:this is the problem by cheekyjohnson · 2010-10-01 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Of course! Like most companies, they will do anything to get away ripping off their customers if the idiots continue to throw money at them. Naturally, their goal is of course to make money, but they (along with Activision) still seek to rip off their customers more than some other companies.
  http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128252
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
10. Re:this is the problem by ildon · 2010-10-01 03:28 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  You're an idiot. Pro gamers account for like 0.01% of people who bought SC1/SC2. SC was already a massive success as far as PC game sales were concerned before Koreans even knew what it was. And the majority of people who bought SC2 played through the single player campaign on medium or easier and then played maybe 10 ladder games before moving on to custom maps (which, by the way, accounted for like 90% of the people playing BW on battle.net last time I check like 6 years ago) or going back to playing WoW, MW2, etc.
  Certainly professional gaming helped keep Starcraft in people's minds the past 10 years, but Diablo 2 doesn't have anything even resembling a "professional" class, yet its sequel just as anticipated as SC2 was, if not more so.
  Professional SC/SC2 could end tomorrow and its impact on the popularity of the game (outside of Korea) would barely even be a noticeable.
11. Re:this is the problem by RobDude · 2010-10-01 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, a lot of people really do expect that.
12. Re:this is the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  Like most companies, they will do anything to get away ripping off their customers if the idiots continue to throw money at them.
  ...but this isn't the case. Their players keep them in check with feedback from the forum. Blizzard listens. Your point is rather moot.
13. Re:this is the problem by cheekyjohnson · 2010-10-01 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Did you check the link? Sure, they make some fun games and listen to some suggestions, but that doesn't mean that they're not corrupt money whores more so than other companies. Certainly not a company I will ever support.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
14. Re:this is the problem by phantomfive · 2010-10-01 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  That 'pro-gaming league' thing was an anomaly. Please do stop expecting Blizzard to form business strategies around it. It makes me wince. In short, Starcraft is NOT Magic the Gathering, nor was it ever intended to be.
  I don't. I expect them to get out of the way and let those who want to make a pro gaming league to do it. I expect them to stop acting like they want to control the pro-gaming scene if they have no clue how to manage it. That's what I expect.
  
  --
  Qxe4
15. Re:this is the problem by BobMcD · 2010-10-01 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  In what way are those not business decisions?
16. Re:this is the problem by ukyoCE · 2010-10-01 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. The OP was so far off I couldn't even think of a way to respond to it. Blizzard has been hosting WOW pvp tournaments for years. They've been doing battle net ladder tournaments for SC and WOW for years as well.
  The LAN thing is a little annoying, but the OP took it wayyyyyy out in left field.
  I've never gotten any closer to SC pro gaming than watching some random videos forwarded by friends, yet I bought SC and SC2, and primarily played single player in both. If I play multiplayer with friends, it's usually comp stomp. I don't think the OP understands how incredibly niche competitive SC multiplayer is, especially in the US.
"No matter how you polish it... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 18:50 · Score: 0

...it's still a turd."- my thanks to Jeff Dunham for this gem.
Blizzard, maybe it's time to flush, because it's getting pretty deep.
ugh by kuzb · 2010-09-30 19:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why the fuck does everything and it's turnip need facebook integration. Video games do not need to be integrated with Zuckerberg's privacy nightmare.

--
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
1. Re:ugh by SupremoMan · 2010-09-30 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  Video games do not need to be integrated with Zuckerberg's privacy dream.
  I think you were typing too fast. Had to fix it for you... unless you meant the nightmare is yours and you happen to share a last name with a douche-bag :)
2. Re:ugh by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 20:16 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Data on customers = targeted advertisements... A product that only 40 year old men will buy is best advertised to only 40 year old men. A service that only has 40 year old men on it gets a substantial premium from these advertisers since none of the "eye balls" they're paying for are wasted.
  Facebook integration is just a way to pull more data about your customers out of the system. Either directly or by some bargain with Facebook.
  Even though a targeted ad structure is the most likely growth from this type of policy I do not think it is all about increasing ad revenue; you also make the fact that people play their games more public. From their stand point nothing but good can, and has come, from this line of policy. (The 15 free headlines from the first Real ID announcement vastly exceeded any repercussions from WoW trolls.)
3. Re:ugh by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 20:45 · Score: 0
  
  It's zuckerberg's nightmare because he *created it*, not because it's his personal nightmare. Well he didn't create it, but he's the one who suckled the beast to maturity.
4. Re:ugh by tapo · 2010-10-01 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  RealID's Facebook integration simply allows you to see what Facebook friends are on Battle.net (and have used the FB tool), and add them as friends. That's it. It makes perfect sense, its damn useful to add all your friends with the click of a button (they need to confirm, of course) and it only exists as a *single button* in the whole interface.
  
  --
  "Joy is contagious," he said, peering into the microscope.
Why are ppl still whining? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 19:21 · Score: 0

Why do ppl still keep whining now that they've actually given the user the option to disable this?
1. Re:Why are ppl still whining? by Pizaz · 2010-09-30 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  Because this is a typical corporate maneuver to get their foot in the door. Eventually opting out will not be a realistic option as various features will only be accessible if you're enrolled.
  Blizzard failed with the frontal assault so now they're going sideways with their strategy.
Friends by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 19:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Remember: Friends don't let friends' friends friend friends' friends' friends.
1. Re:Friends by EnsilZah · 2010-09-30 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  I for one am glad Friends is off the air, because that would convolute things even further.
  And as a general sentiment.
2. Re:Friends by Whyte+Panther · 2010-10-01 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  What if your friends are buffalo?
Why all the crying? by Kwami · 2010-09-30 20:57 · Score: 1

This is a positive change, folks. We can finally opt out of ReadID! If you want to keep it enabled for whatever reason, then at least you can opt out of the Facebook integration and the "friends of friends" feature. Why is everyone complaining about more privacy?
1. Re:Why all the crying? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 00:53 · Score: 0
  
  We've been able to opt out for ages. You simply enable the parental controls on your own account, and disable RealID there.
There's still a false assumption in there by Moraelin · 2010-09-30 21:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

Gaming may be an escape for you. For others, it is a regular activity. In that sense, interrelation between real life and online games is beneficial. I don't want to tell my friends, "Look me up online by ." I would rather tell them to identify me by my birth name, or by an existing identity provider: OpenID, Google, or Facebook. Stop pretending that everyone shares your beliefs, and that the world should be shaped according to them, because they don't, and it shouldn't.
AC because 1) I rarely log into Slashdot, and 2) anonymity is occasionally useful, for when discretion fails.
1. That still is based on the false assumption that there are any players who actually asked for it. Blizzard's _stated_ goal all along for tying it into Facebook and whatnot was basically to try to get more players that way. They even called it "cross-polination". Whether or not it actually is beneficial for anyone, I believe that only started to be even considered when players got up in arms about it.
I.e., it has nothing to do with what _you_ want. It's the management at Activision being greedy fucktards. That's all.
2. Here's another clue, though, which I feel that too many people lack: 99% the friends which are interested in your (or my) WoW achievements, are on WoW too anyway. The rest fall somewhere between "don't give a fuck about your hobby" to "annoyed already to hear about it again."
Frankly, I don't know what kind of mental failure makes some people assume that every co-worker, acquaintance, and guy on the bus, is _dying_ to hear about their Counter-Strike score or WoW raiding gear or whatever. Heck, I even was a WoW player myself, and let me assure you, I don't give a flying fuck about half the things people seem to assume that I absolutely must hear in detail, and half the rest I find stupid.
Like that some guy is now training his dagger skill by hacking treants. Let me go on record saying that I don't give a flying fuck. And I'm not even talking about some idle conversation in a cigarette break, when you'd yap inane topics anyway, but the guy actually called me to tell me that. What. The. Fuck.
Do you think I'd genuinely be more interested to find it out via an online link?
Or some other guy coming over from the next building to tell me that he now has 99 mounts, 'cause he's bought the transparent mount for real money. I think he thought I'd be all thrilled, but all I could think was, "wtf, you're telling me you paid real cash for the sake of getting one notch closer to a stupid achievement title in a game? How retarded is that?"
You may be confused because we don't actually say stuff like that. Rest assured though that that tends to be the thought process behind that smile and "oh, wow, cheers. Hope you get the last one soon too." (Much as I know I'll hear about that one in detail too.)
Would I absolutely be thrilled to check that out online via his realID? Nope. Good grief, nope.
3. And it's not just a personal belief. If you've paid any attention to what has been said and drawn in comics about the CS-heads, you'll find a metric buttload (or about 0.63 British arseloads;)) of complaints about people who won't shut up about it. I've yet to see even one single complaint to the effect of "goddammit, my friend doesn't tell me enough about his CS score. I so wish I could check his score online."
4. But, yes, basically that is one factor that Blizzard is betting on. They just know that if you give fucktards a link to spam their friends and barely acquaintances on Facebook with it, a lot will do. They also hope that some of those will decide to check out the game... even at the exapense of annoying the heck out of the other 99% who get spammed that way.
Frankly, it smacks me of an antisocial business decision. It's not that far off from the spammer model. In this case it relies on people with poor judgment clicking to send the spam, instead of having an automated run, but in the end it still boils down to the same shotgun approach.

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
1. Re:There's still a false assumption in there by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 23:47 · Score: 0
  
  I am the GP. I don't use Facebook. I don't care about Facebook. And I don't care what it is that you want. I desire optional real-name association in games, to remove the necessity of foolish online aliases.
  Halt your bitching about my preferences, and start lobbying for yours -- because this change doesn't detract from your experience at all. If it bothers you, you will opt out, leaving you nothing to rightfully complain about. Take Responsibility (tm).
  I stopped reading your rant at the second... er, paragraph. The post you submitted resembles the writings of a manic. Perhaps you should put down the video games.
2. Re:There's still a false assumption in there by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  you mad?
Brilliant! by argStyopa · 2010-09-30 23:19 · Score: 1

...because when I'm pretending to be an elf, or an orc, slaying dragons and collecting loot, I want NOTHING more than my neighbors (or better - my boss!) to see that I'm doing it. Even possibly during work!
Sweet!
(Do any of this company's brilliant marketeers ask themselves why people haven't used their real names for login id's?)
I think I'll go change my /. login info to use my real name, too!

--
-Styopa
Always makes me wonder... by Moraelin · 2010-10-01 00:08 · Score: 1

I stopped reading your rant at the second... er, paragraph. The post you submitted resembles the writings of a manic. Perhaps you should put down the video games.
So let's recap: you haven't, by your own confession, read more than about two sentences. Yet you feel qualified to comment about the post. And at that nothing bearing any relationship to what was in it.
So in effect you posted an "I'm too stupid to read more than two sentences, and too stupid to realize the inherent problem with commenting about what I haven't read" confession. Am I supposed to take it as some kind of winning move or something?
Lemme try: OMG, whatEVER will I do now? My life is meaningless if one cretin troll has stopped reading my message ;)
Sorry, I can't do that. Your being too stupid to read is your problem not mine.

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The minute I heard of this... by CFBMoo1 · 2010-10-01 00:15 · Score: 1

I flipped the master kill switch for Real ID. Damn that felt good knocking that out completely. If I want to talk to people I know I'll use a common channel or log in to the other faction toon to talk to em.

--
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Real ID forum? by Rayonic · 2010-10-01 00:27 · Score: 1

On the other hand, the official WoW message boards have become a cesspool. If they have one OPTIONAL Real ID-only forum, then I guarantee that it'll quickly become the best one they host.
The same will probably happen in-game. Real ID enabled players will probably be better behaved on average, since they've (theoretically) got their actual identity on the line.
It'll be interesting to see it play out.

--
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
1. Re:Real ID forum? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  Absolutely. Filtering out non-RealID players will do wonders for preliminary guild recruitment. Or it will for a while -- the VoIP requirement served the same purpose at one time, until everyone started to have it (circa 2004-2005). Now you see hyperactive 12-year-old kids chatting without reservation. They too will enable RealID, eventually, and after much bitching.
2. Re:Real ID forum? by GrumblyStuff · 2010-10-01 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  There's still no reason for a RealID forum unless you want people to be nice under the potential threat of someone on the internet tracking them down in real life to enforce niceness.
  All they have to do is tie one account to one name (fabricated or, if anyone feels like it, their own) and tie forum bans to bans ingame.
3. Re:Real ID forum? by tlhIngan · 2010-10-01 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, the official WoW message boards have become a cesspool. If they have one OPTIONAL Real ID-only forum, then I guarantee that it'll quickly become the best one they host.
  The same will probably happen in-game. Real ID enabled players will probably be better behaved on average, since they've (theoretically) got their actual identity on the line.
  It'll be interesting to see it play out.
  Happened on the SC2 forums as well.
  When you first link your SC2 game to your account, SC2 presented a nice "Name this character" prompt. Turns out, unless you read a little dense block of text on the left side of the screen, what it really meant is "Choose your handle". So predictably, many people use their first names. If you had read the block of text on the left (which was marked as "news" and was basically one huge paragraph, right int he middle of which said something like "choose your name carefully as you cannot change it". No confirmation or anything either, you entered you name, clicked "OK", and nothing saying that you cannot change it - you just get in.
  No confirmations, no indications otherwise that you were doing anything more than creating a local profile. Until you actually wait while logging in to read that paragraph out of boredom.
  It caused a fairly big thread in the Sc2 forums and basically ruined SC2 for me for a couple of weeks. In the end I got it resolved (Blizzard gave people who used their first names a chance to change it). The thread promptly stopped the moment Blizzard also announced paid name changes.
  It might have worked to keep the trolls and other stuff out of the forums, but the whole thing ended up sounding like a great way to monetize even the trivialest of things (courtesy Activision). Put something in the fine print, mislead people into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do if they knew the full consequences, and monetize the result.
  Considering Bungie is now with Activision, it's also going to be a downhill ride for them. Probably get great games still, but it's all the crap around it that's gonna suck.
Blizzard not alone on this... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 00:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

Seems quite similar to what Apple has been doing with their attempt at social networking, Ping.
To use Ping, your public ID has to match the real name on your billing info exactly. The thing is - this isn't entirely clear and you may only find this out after you change your Ping name and wonder why your iTunes purchases are now being billed to "Anon E Mouse". Even worse, every review you have ever written pseudonymously on iTunes get retrospectively changed to your full name as given in your billing information. Although it's probably buried a few pages into the T&C, I doubt most Ping users are aware of this.
Facebook's privacy debacles have been well publicised, Blizzard has been pushing for using your full name as an online identity (given the behaviour of some Blizzard users, one should be very, very worried about this), Apple is getting in on the "Privacy, what privacy?" action, and even Eric Schmidt from "do no evil" Google has said ""If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place".
I don't see this trend ending any time soon, unfortunately.
I just hope by hesaigo999ca · 2010-10-01 00:41 · Score: 1

I just hope that they are secure by default, being that before they added this, everyone was not seen (by name), and that now after adding this, that we should all still remain unseen until we chose not to be. Some companies M$, facebook, and others have had the stupid notion that when they ad a functionality like this, they start off by saying the default will be OPPOSITE of what you have been used to...so now we all have to log on and change stuff and waste time learning something that most do not need to learn for they will never change their privacy settings to OFF, or SHOW NAME.... just my 2 cents
Even with Real ID off the FBI will still get your by Joe+The+Dragon · 2010-10-01 01:12 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Even with Real ID off the FBI will still get your real ID info.
and yes the FBI does have back door hooks in WOW.
Solution! by DarthVain · 2010-10-01 01:44 · Score: 1

Then don't use it. Its opt in. You do not have to use it if you do not want to. That is why Blizzard is giving users choice, because some people don't want REAL ID.
Unless you are insinuating that this is only the first step of their insidious plan to subvert all into the REAL ID world... in which case, here you might want to borrow my tinfoil hat.
Personally I think it has good and bad possibilities. The good is perhaps I might find more friends that are WOW players through services such as Facebook, and thus have more friends to play with online, because after all it is a social game. I see that as a big plus.
On the negative, just like facebook, some nefarious (or just creepy) people may use this service to stalk people in WOW, and there has already been issue of kids being at risk, and this may enable someone to target them should they use the service. Likely their parents would never know, or even if they saw the reference on their kids FB page, not understand the implications.
Offtopic; undoing mis-mod by GrumblyStuff · 2010-10-01 02:05 · Score: 1

n/t
The main issue is the permissive default behavior by KeithH · 2010-10-01 02:15 · Score: 3, Interesting
I manage the parental control's for my daughter's account (because I screwed up and was honest about her age - what a nuisance!). I have several complaints about this new system:
- I wasn't notified; I had to learn about it from a friend.
- The default behaviour is permissive.
- Even though my daughter's account is subject to parental controls, its default behaviour is also permissive. (same as #2 but worse)
- When I check my daughter's account, the settings are greyed out with a message that they are subject to her parent's control. But, the greyed out image shows the settings still enabled even though I disabled them. Is that accurate and hence a bug or inaccurate and hence misleading?
Generally, I've been pretty pleased with Blizzard. In my opinion, they're a notch above most game manufacturers and *several* notches above EA, the provider of my 3 daughters' favourite game: Sims3 - now that is an appalling piece of crapware with wholly inadequate support.

But Blizzard dropped the ball on this one and I've let them know. If you feel the same way, let them know via their web support interface. It's quite easy.
Re:The main issue is the permissive default behavi by IndustrialComplex · 2010-10-01 02:25 · Score: 1

The lack of notification was a big problem for me as well. I was real surprised when I found out that my real name was being used in my conversations. I never signed up for it, I never 'enabled' it. It just started happening.
The real problem is that I would like a feature similar to this, but not even close to the way they implemented it.
Oh and Opt-In should be required by freaking law.

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Re:Even with Real ID off the FBI will still get yo by BobMcD · 2010-10-01 02:31 · Score: 1

Excuse the phrase, but 'no shit Sherlock'. They've got the exact same hooks into every single online network: XBox Live, Steam, etc. And anything they didn't have would only be one NSL away.
Like it, hate it. by AnotherBlackHat · 2010-10-01 03:00 · Score: 0

How many people actually want this new feature?
How many people do not want this new feature?
If more people hate it than like it, then adding the feature will reduce the customer base.
I haven't heard anyone say how much more enjoyable things will be once RealID is in place.
I have heard a lot of bitching.
Why then, does blizzard want to implement it?
1. Re:Like it, hate it. by seebs · 2010-10-01 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Some of the underlying functionality, people want very much -- they just don't want it to be tied to real names.
  Cross-server chat, and the ability to friend a person and not have to track all their individual characters, are big features that are very desireable.
  
  --
  My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Too little, too late. by seebs · 2010-10-01 03:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

This still lacks a way to use cross-game or cross-server chat and friends lists without using real names. Without that feature, there's a lot of folks for whom Real ID is unusable... And it turns out that the functionality it offers is a really, really, big deal to many players. Because most people have multiple alts, trying to keep all the toons of a few friends listed overflows my friends list quite easily. So I can't have that functionality.
So, I cancelled my subs and went looking, and started playing City of Heroes. Where they have a global handle system which does not require you to use your real name, and lets you chat with friends across all characters, and so on. And it works.
So at this point, the three accounts I had, and my spouse's account, and our housemate's account, and a few other accounts, are just plain never coming back. Blizzard had lots of opportunities to address the foundational flaw of tying everything to a "real name". They had lots of clear-cut specific examples (people with stalkers, transgendered people, etc.) pointed out. And their solution is, months later, to say "well, you can turn it off."
Yeah, that's not gonna do any good. What we wanted was the ability to use the cross-server friend feature without tying it to real names. Without that, it's simply not a service that offers me any value.

--
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Too little, still feels very pro-stalker by WillAffleckUW · 2010-10-01 04:29 · Score: 1

I would hate to be a woman or girl playing WoW with this.
Very very stalkerish.
Not good.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
1. Re:Too little, still feels very pro-stalker by seebs · 2010-10-01 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. And the thing is, I could maybe comprehend if they announced it without thinking of that, but once they were told about it, they really needed to come out and say "whoops, you're right, we didn't think of that" and fix the underlying problem.
  
  --
  My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Re:The main issue is the permissive default behavi by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 06:49 · Score: 0

Weird, the default behavior was to disable all the stuff on my account.
I made the mistake of setting up parental controls for myself in warcraft to set a play schedule so i'd make it to class in the morning. Didn't play warcraft for years. Bought starcraft 2, and found out (after much googling, emailing blizzard, and a phone call) that I couldn't invite friends because i'd set up a warcraft schedule years ago. I no longer had access to the parental controls email address (old ISP).
I had to send in pages of forms and photocopied ID's, and after 10 days, about 8 emails, and 2 phone calls, I can now invite friends in starcraft... Holy crap, what a PITA, thanks blizzard...