jdreyer wrote on Sep 24, 2016, 12:39:
It's just bizarre that they keep pulling in $2M/month.

Sneakycamper wrote on Sep 23, 2016, 12:53:
I saw this Coming after My Friend bought $3000 Game Ship and His old Lady divorced his Lazy butt !!!

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Sep 22, 2016, 15:41:
That ship elevator is impressive as hell, but WTF? Technology for moving ships vertically exists in a much safer, far less catastrophic failure-prone form, with the classic lock setup that has been around for about... 120 years?

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Sep 22, 2016, 11:49:
And to which CEO do you refer? I think it's fascinating that no one seems to say "Mike Morhaime", and instead references a more generic figure. Better, I suppose, to have someone faceless and only loosely identified when making absurd claims about bonus padding, or corruption by Activision, or [insert idiotic gamer complaint here]. Anyone that thinks a CEO of a company Blizzard's size did anything but sign off on it after scanning through an email on retiring Battle.net branding doesn't have a clue how enterprise-scale businesses operate.

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Sep 21, 2016, 23:17:
I know most folks on Bluesnews can't be bothered to click a link before commenting, but can they at least be bothered to read the article blurb before commenting?

Battle.net technology will continue to serve as the central nervous system for Blizzard games—nothing is changing in that regard. We’ll just be referring to it as Blizzard tech instead.

...

Given that built-in multiplayer support is a well-understood concept and more of a normal expectation these days, there isn’t as much of a need to maintain a separate identity for what is essentially our networking technology.

Note that they refer to "Battle.net technology" and how it will now be referred to as "Blizzard tech", i.e. their backend tech stack will no longer have its own branding. They're dropping the discrete branding for their backend tech stack, not rebranding as something else. If the backend tech stack needs to be referred to, it'll be referred to as "Blizzard tech", but not as part of an orchestrated branding effort for what in 2016 is just a standard part of an online game.

Reading is hard, I guess.

As for me, I'm sad to see the Battle.net branding go -- I still remember getting my Diablo 1 box with the "Play Online with Battle.net!" sticker in the corner -- but Blizzard is right: Battle.net isn't a product differentiator like it was in 1996, it's just an expected part of a modern video game and doesn't need its own marketing push.

Kxmode wrote on Sep 20, 2016, 19:03:
It is important that there be probable cause for an arrest. Otherwise, doing what you propose would eventually turn into a witch-hunt. Does this help clarify my point?

jdreyer wrote on Sep 16, 2016, 15:28:
And the same for solar in the SW US. 330+ days of sun per annum. A small part of AZ paved with solar panels could provide the US with all of it's electrical needs. And distribution could be done via HVDC lines, which lose only 5% over 1000 miles.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Sep 11, 2016, 22:49:
People can sit in their own shit and cry all day long, that's their choice. However, I saw more bare pairs of tits today than I think I've ever seen on any other single day in my life, including fetish balls. Today was a great day. I retire a happy man.