Well it's finally happened -- as of next month, you'll be
required to have a Battle.net login to get into the game, so you might as well head over and
merge your account up right now. It's not like we have a choice in the matter any more, but that doesn't mean lots of players still have apprehensions about the process. Naissa
puts some of the concerns together clearly over on her blog -- putting all of her accounts under one username scares her, and that's a legit point. Not only can Blizzard presumably cut access to all of their games for just one (or even one false positive) ToS violation, but presumably, one hacker could now gain access to all of your Blizzard games with one hack. The online profile is another concern -- Bungie already has something like this running with
Halo, and
from my online profile, you can see clearly just how bad I am. With the Armory, there's a level of anonymity (you can't see your account name, just character names), but if Blizzard starts posting profiles under account names -- or even worse, "Real IDs," which are apparently real names -- that's one more layer of separation lost. Surely, they'll have to have a way to opt out of that.
Of course, the changeover isn't all bad.
Naissa says cross-game communication doesn't interest her, but in my experience (with Steam and Xbox Live), seeing what your friends are doing across games is a big help, and even people who say they won't use it might change their minds when they see what it can do for them. Cross-game chat also
includes cross-server chat, and that should be a nice bonus as well. She also says that logging in to multiple accounts will be a pain, but Blizzard's already thought of that -- even if you have multiple accounts under one email address, you'll
just get a selection screen. Hackers will presumably need passwords for each as well.
And as Blizzard has told us in the past, they'll have
some meta-game stuff built into the Battle.net system as well, including decals, cross-game achievements, and a profile system where you'll be able (optional, I'm sure) to find out more about the people you play with. There are certainly concerns about the change, and Blizzard will have to do their best to answer them, but I think we'll see the benefits of this mandatory changeover when Blizzard reveals the system at large.
Tags: anonymity, battle-net, battle-net-account, blizzard, bungie, changeover, cons, discussion, mandatory, naissa, naissas-rage, name, online-profile, pros, real-id, steam, xbox-live
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Fan stuff, Bugs, Virtual selves, Blizzard
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Xel Oct 15th 2009 2:21PM
I hope they give us an option for appear offline mode for all the games in Battle.net
t0xic Oct 15th 2009 2:32PM
I was thinking something along the same line. "Invisible" mode as in most IM clients for when you want to log to an alt for whatever reason (and don't want to be bothered).
Tiger Oct 15th 2009 3:47PM
Totally agree. With a system like this an invisible mode is mandatory for me. If I feel like some quiet time on an alt or just doing some AH trades, I don't see why everyone in my guild or on my friends list should suddenly see that I'm online and be free to bug me.
I keep the name of my AH character private for a reason, and I don't want that privacy taken away from me.
Croe Oct 15th 2009 4:19PM
I completely agree. I use my AH sometimes to chill and get some private time. It's my safe space and I can come on, check what's going on and log off without any dramas, or anyone's nose being put out of joint.
Hopefully there will be an opt out function that allows you to choose which of your toons people can see.
Jimmy Oct 15th 2009 6:06PM
*Sigh* At Blizzcon they did say to use the cross game chat you had to add them as a friend on the battle.net friends list!!! It's not as bad as everyone thinks! I mean you guys are fine but some people seriously QQ about this major improvement :D
t0xic Oct 15th 2009 6:19PM
@Jimmy
"*Sigh* At Blizzcon they did say to use the cross game chat you had to add them as a friend on the battle.net friends list!!! It's not as bad as everyone thinks!"
Sometimes I want my friends to know I'm on. Sometimes I don't.
I agree that the concept of seeing when your friends are on (regardless of what Blizzard game they are playing) is cool. I just want to have a final say on whether they know I'm playing or not.
No QQ. Just genuine concern.
SithLlenniuq Oct 15th 2009 2:24PM
Puny Human flesh bags... don't you know by putting all your information in one spot it will make it easier for us [Skynet] to take over?
Muahahahahahaha
(cutaia) Oct 15th 2009 2:39PM
Oh man...I sure hope the robots don't get their ideas from the internet.
Human: So, you're taking over the world you say?
Robot: Affirmative. In fact, we've already enslaved over 9000 of you.
Human: Well, so how does this work then?
Robot: Do a barrel roll.
Human: Alright, I'll just...wait. What did you just say?
Robot: Now human, I'm really happy for you, and I'm-a let you finish, but Skynet had one of the best robopocalypes of all time!
Human: Oh God. No...stop it!
Robot: *Rick Astley begins to play*
Human: *Shoots self in face*
(cutaia) Oct 15th 2009 2:27PM
*ahem*
Pro: Free pet!
:D
Thrush Oct 15th 2009 2:29PM
We need an "invisible" mode. Sometimes I just dont feel like chatting.
Tek Oct 15th 2009 2:31PM
Easy fix for the fear on ToS banning...
...Don't break the ToS.
johnthediver Oct 15th 2009 2:36PM
While few and far between, there have been a number of "false" positives on TOS violations. Most notably people playing WoW on Linux. The tools that run on Linux to make a Windows game work, sometimes generates false positives in Warden. As if you were running a packet sniffer, or trying to hack live game files.
mirilene Oct 15th 2009 2:32PM
The "real ID" system is an opt in system, not opt out. you have to explicitly enable someone to see your real name. I believe that this also controls cross game communication.
as for security, its a valid concern i suppose, but thats what authenticators are for. Security through obscurity is not security.
I'm actually kind of surprised that i have better security for my stupid battle.net account than my online banking system or debit card.
Hakushi Oct 15th 2009 3:03PM
I'm in the same boat as you are for my WoW acct being more secure then my online banking.
On the note of security through obscurity, even with authentication, your acct is still only as secure as you are intelligence. There was a recent study for bank security that recommended that you have a dedicated machine (or Live CD) for bank access to prevent keyloggers, real time tunnels with packet spoofing (which can hijack your log in, as the hijack would snag the Auth Code and use it in real time), and other security hazards from compromising your acct.
Basically, what I am trying to say here is that users still need to act intelligently with their computers - more technology is only added protection against simple attacks, not immunity. With all the information in one acct, the danger is not different then on separate accts. A compromised machine will give them all the access to your accts either way.
Jimmy Oct 15th 2009 6:11PM
Thank you for being the only other person seeing that!
Amaxe Oct 15th 2009 10:34PM
"I'm actually kind of surprised that i have better security for my stupid battle.net account than my online banking system or debit card."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Banks actually monitor for unusual changes and seek confirmation. Blizzard doesn't. A friend of mine got hacked and the person who did it changed everything so my friend couldn't even use his security question to regain control.
Now that my friend got hacked is not Blizzard's fault. The fact that they had no safeguards or verifications in place *is* their fault.
Personally I see the authenticator as a substitute for the reasonable precautions Blizz should be taking
Xoshe Oct 16th 2009 7:30AM
"Banks actually monitor for unusual changes and seek confirmation. Blizzard doesn't."
But you yourself just said the key word. "Unusual changes".
Unless your friend had only just recently changed these things, it's not actually unusual to go and change all your security stuff. You should be doing so every few months anyway, so the fact that it happened shouldn't have raised a red flag
Amaxe Oct 16th 2009 9:13AM
An unusual change would be sudden changing address, phone number, email and password all at once.
An unusual change would be a sudden large purchase on a credit card long unused.
An unusual change would be a credit card suddenly travelling across the country spending money in different places.
Note the key word here: Sudden.
A bank would ask for confirmation (and I've certainly seen banks do it with me personally) on all these things. They know things like pin numbers and passwords can be stolen, and seek to protect their customers from this happening. Blizzard did not ask for confirmation of a sudden change in this case.
Perhaps we should ask why Blizzard requires a stringent process to change our use of an authenticator yet ignores sudden and drastic changes to an account that any other business would ask us to confirm to be sure there was no fraud involved.
I use an authenticator of course, but my use of it is not because I trust Blizzard.
It's because I *don't* trust Blizzard
Smileypants Oct 16th 2009 1:07PM
I actually work at a bank and I do know first hand that we do check for ALL of those sources of unusual activity as the other poster mentioned. And on top of that my account along with a friend's of mine got hacked a few weeks back and her CS professor told her that her online banking is safe because their encryption (or whatever it is... I was a philosophy student not a CS major) is much stronger or whatever.
Xevius Oct 15th 2009 2:34PM
I guess to make it possible for such a thing they have to make it mandatory, beside I imagine they know what they are doing.