Blizzard forces 200MB of bloatware to start-up games.

[HippY]

 

I think you miss one point

 

The program must be professional, with no faults and must be easy to use by everyone and completely safe and secure.

That means Joe, the 14 year old boy, who just got WoW, must be able to start the game, without hassle and easy

It means the Jack, the 35 year old dad, who plays wow since it came out, must find his way around all his blizzard games and give him such features as mentioned before

 

They are not creating a minimalistic program with the least amount code possible

They want to create  a professional program, that might take 200 MB, but does everything good

 

Probably the 200 MB is the optimalised version anyway.

[OozyGorilla]

200mb is pretty good considering most companies make programs that don't even have half the functionality of the launcher for 2-5GB. Could the launcher be smaller than 200MB? Who knows. No one outside of Blizzard can know. Compared to most programs, I'd say 200mb is doing pretty good.

[Carpenoctem]

I think you miss one point

 

The program must be professional, with no faults and must be easy to use by everyone and completely safe and secure.

That means Joe, the 14 year old boy, who just got WoW, must be able to start the game, without hassle and easy

It means the Jack, the 35 year old dad, who plays wow since it came out, must find his way around all his blizzard games and give him such features as mentioned before

 

They are not creating a minimalistic program with the least amount code possible

They want to create  a professional program, that might take 200 MB, but does everything good

 

Probably the 200 MB is the optimalised version anyway.

 

Yeah that's the main problem of the thread .

 

Some people might  have some knowledge in terms of programming, which is being used as a gauge (without bringing any practical proof I might add) to reinforce their theory, but they seem to have no clue about business and customers management.

There are many many different aspect to consider and balance at the end.

 

What you said should be very simple to understand, yet it is not.

[LAwLz]

I think you miss one point

 

The program must be professional, with no faults and must be easy to use by everyone and completely safe and secure.

That means Joe, the 14 year old boy, who just got WoW, must be able to start the game, without hassle and easy

It means the Jack, the 35 year old dad, who plays wow since it came out, must find his way around all his blizzard games and give him such features as mentioned before

 

They are not creating a minimalistic program with the least amount code possible

They want to create  a professional program, that might take 200 MB, but does everything good

 

Probably the 200 MB is the optimalised version anyway.

I didn't miss that point. You could make the GUI pretty damn similar to the Blizzard launcher if you wanted. None of the programs I listed are hard to use. They are very straight forward, and there is no reason why you couldn't make an easy to use GUI to tie them all together. The Blizzard launcher is very simple. The games in the list on the left, a big play button and then some smaller buttons for the less important stuff. I don't really get why you think small size must equal hard to use or "unprofessional looking".

[HippY]

I didn't miss that point. 1.You could make the GUI pretty damn similar to the Blizzard launcher if you wanted.

2. None of the programs I listed are hard to use. They are very straight forward, and there is no reason why you couldn't make an easy to use GUI to tie them all together.

3.The Blizzard launcher is very simple. The games in the list on the left, a big play button and then some smaller buttons for the less important stuff.

4.I don't really get why you think small size must equal hard to use or "unprofessional looking".

1. similar or same?

2. For you and me. But when we are talking about user experience, it is much better to have an overly simplified GUI with a dead simple usage, as there are fewer things that the user can mess up. Remember, we are talking about end users. There is a reason why so many glitches are found, that seemed to be impossible, as that handful of people thought loads of way, how they can screw up the software, and they fixed it, but there are sooo many people out there, who wants to find glitches or simply does not not how to use a program

3. Yess, you kinda get it. It is not simple. the Blizzard launcher is NOT simple. Securty, so there is no hacking or unauthorised access, getting the whole ecosystem to work, multi languages (+images!).... take a look inside the files and see what you can find. And yes, the GUI is so simple, as you want people to get access what they want quickly and trouble free

4. You are talking about the GUI. the GUI is the last point. don`t care about the gui, it is literally for the user to press 5 buttons.( although with images it can take some space but not too  big part). The code behind it that makes the gui work. That is large. 

 

A program is much much more than to just do a task. That makes it large, not the gui with 5 buttons, or the FTP codes.

[jmaster299]

I didn't miss that point. You could make the GUI pretty damn similar to the Blizzard launcher if you wanted. None of the programs I listed are hard to use. They are very straight forward, and there is no reason why you couldn't make an easy to use GUI to tie them all together. The Blizzard launcher is very simple. The games in the list on the left, a big play button and then some smaller buttons for the less important stuff. I don't really get why you think small size must equal hard to use or "unprofessional looking".

Just give it up already. None of what you said is based on actual facts. You are just dumping on the program because you don't like it. So, for the last time, unless you can code a program that does everything the Battl.net launcher does, make it look as good, but only us 50mb or less of HDD space, you have absolutely no business claiming that the 200mb is excessively larger than it needs to be. I'm not alone in seeing through your nonsense either. Just because a program can be stripped down of all quality in terms of looks, and stripped of everything that makes it easy for the widest range of consumers to use, does not make those other programs better. Nor does it make the Battle.net launcher bloatware.

Yes I did read your other post, and yes you still have not listed programs that can do everything the launcher does. Not even close. Since NONE of them allow for things like a multiple platform integrated chat feature, with no use of an overlay, and none of them come close to offering the type of security and account controls that the Battle.net laucnher does.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Just give it up already. None of what you said is based on actual facts. You are just dumping on the program because you don't like it. So, for the last time, unless you can code a program that does everything the Battl.net launcher does, make it look as good, but only us 50mb or less of HDD space, you have absolutely no business claiming that the 200mb is excessively larger than it needs to be. I'm not alone in seeing through your nonsense either. Just because a program can be stripped down of all quality in terms of looks, and stripped of everything that makes it easy for the widest range of consumers to use, does not make those other programs better. Nor does it make the Battle.net launcher bloatware.

Yes I did read your other post, and yes you still have not listed programs that can do everything the launcher does. Not even close. Since NONE of them allow for things like a multiple platform integrated chat feature, with no use of an overlay, and none of them come close to offering the type of security and account controls that the Battle.net laucnher does.

 

Even the 50MB analogy is deeply flawed. You cannot simply add together the size of different programs to make one program. It takes significant space and development time to properly aggregate the functions without running into bugs. In fact, this is the very definition of debugging; finding errors in code where the end program does not operate as expected. A lot of these functions can be very picky about where they decide to work, so extra segments of code are added in order to make sure that they can fulfill the specific needed tasks. 

 

Now this falls into optimization. It is something that many people take for granted. Watch_Dogs was a good example of poor optimization, but it was brought into topic for the wrong reasons. Optimization is not solely about resource efficiency, but also about the fluidity of the individual tasks and the end product. If all of the programs are barebones with no aggregation in place, and even one of the programs starts to malfunction, we would be unable to complain about developers being lazy, as the debugging process essentially does not exist. In a professional enterprise setting, this is not only problematic, but sometimes outright dangerous.

 

As for LAwLz's antics, this is not his first time; far from it. He has a pretty lengthy reputation of using arbitrary information, treating it as an absolute fact, and downplaying the criticism against it. While he is a generally well mannered person, he can often come across as an incredibly stubborn individual.

[jmaster299]

Even the 50MB analogy is deeply flawed. You cannot simply add together the size of different programs to make one program. It takes significant space and development time to properly aggregate the functions without running into bugs. In fact, this is the very definition of debugging; finding errors in code where the end program does not operate as expected. A lot of these functions can be very picky about where they decide to work, so extra segments of code are added in order to make sure that they can fulfill the specific needed tasks. 

 

Now this falls into optimization. It is something that many people take for granted. Watch_Dogs was a good example of poor optimization, but it was brought into topic for the wrong reasons. Optimization is not solely about resource efficiency, but also about the fluidity of the individual tasks and the end product. If all of the programs are barebones with no aggregation in place, and even one of the programs starts to malfunction, we would be unable to complain about developers being lazy, as the debugging process essentially does not exist. In a professional enterprise setting, this is not only problematic, but sometimes outright dangerous.

 

As for LAwLz's antics, this is not his first time; far from it. He has a pretty lengthy reputation of using arbitrary information, treating it as an absolute fact, and downplaying the criticism against it. While he is a generally well mannered person, he can often come across as an incredibly stubborn individual.

I'm just glad I'm not the only person that sees this for what it is, complete and utter nonsense with no basis in reality or fact. The OP posted a rant for no other purpose than to rant. He was just upset that a change was being made and nothing else. Like flies to honey, his nonsensical complaints attracted the attention of the "Professional products/programs are evil, Open Source forever!" crowd. They would have all of us using nothing but Linux and other open source programs that are dumbed down enough in features to be able to fit onto a floppy disc and be run by a 40 year old rotten potato. 

If a program doesn't meet those absurd requirements, it makes that program "bloat ware" whatever other nonsense they want to label it. Blizzard is not taking anything away from their customers, or making things more difficult for their customers, or negatively impacting their customers in any way with the Battle.net desktop app. Which is the official name for it since its more than just a launcher now. For a whopping 222MB you have a system that is both easier and faster to use, as well as more secure and offers more features than the old individual launchers for each different game.

The fact that people like the OP are saying the old individual launchers were good proves they don't know what they are talking about since its a double standard. From day one, all Blizzard games have been capable of being run without the use of the launchers. It wasn't possible to install the games without the launchers also being installed, but they were never a requirement to play the game. You could always run the .exe file for the game directly, and you can STILL run the .exe game file directly with the new launcher/app.

All Blizzard did was take the launchers for multiple games, and combine them into a central program. While at the same time that integration allowed them to make their security features less obtrusive for their customers. I can log in once with both my password and authenticator to the desktop app, and if I launch any of my multiple Blizzard games, it will automatically log me in with in the game. While under the old system you would have to run the game and log in each time you wanted to play. The new desktop app can also recognize if I am logging in from a different computer, something the old system couldn't do. I could tell if your IP was different, but not if the actual computer was different. 

But this has gone on long enough. None of the claims or complaints about the launcher are actually ture.

[LAwLz]

Sigh... I don't even get why I bother trying to explain it to people who clearly don't know programming.

 

 

1. similar or same?

Similar. Obviously if I wanted it exactly the same in every single way I would end up with the exact same code. I don't see why that's relevant though. Blizzard's way might not be the absolute best way of doing it, right?

 

 

2. For you and me. But when we are talking about user experience, it is much better to have an overly simplified GUI with a dead simple usage, as there are fewer things that the user can mess up. Remember, we are talking about end users. There is a reason why so many glitches are found, that seemed to be impossible, as that handful of people thought loads of way, how they can screw up the software, and they fixed it, but there are sooo many people out there, who wants to find glitches or simply does not not how to use a program

Changing the GUI to have similar placement for all the options and buttons as the Blizzard launcher would require next to no additional resources. Putting a button in the left corner do not require more resources than putting it in the right corner.

Not sure why you're bringing up end users. Are you implying that the programs I listed are filled with bugs that haven't been found yet because barely anyone uses them? If you are then that's very very wrong.

 

 

3. Yess, you kinda get it. It is not simple. the Blizzard launcher is NOT simple. Securty, so there is no hacking or unauthorised access, getting the whole ecosystem to work, multi languages (+images!).... take a look inside the files and see what you can find. And yes, the GUI is so simple, as you want people to get access what they want quickly and trouble free

Ohh yeah translations takes up a huge amount of space, right? I mean, each translation probably takes up a whopping 50KB of space! Text takes up next to no storage. Each character is only 1 byte. You can fit about 400 A4 pages worth of text in 1MB (without compression, and it's very compressible). If they have the text in images then it will be far bigger and they are probably doing that a lot. That's a pretty bad idea by the way, because it looks far worse and takes up a lot more space.

I have already explained how the security can work without taking up that much space. In fact, the web browser I mentioned earlier has all the components needed to do authentication exactly the same way Blizzard does it. How do I know that? Because that web browser can use the authenticator on their website. Blizzard don't rely on the client to be safe to avoid hacking. I have no idea how you think AAA works but pretty much everything is done server side, not on the client.

 

 

4. You are talking about the GUI. the GUI is the last point. don`t care about the gui, it is literally for the user to press 5 buttons.( although with images it can take some space but not too  big part). The code behind it that makes the gui work. That is large.

Kind of strange how you say I shouldn't care about the GUI yet you've brought it up in every single point.

What exactly do you mean by "the code behind it that makes the gui work. That is large"? If you mean some bloated effect then sure I can agree with that. If you mean the code that says "when this button is pressed, do this" then no, that code is very light weight and simple.

 

 

 

Just give it up already. None of what you said is based on actual facts. You are just dumping on the program because you don't like it. So, for the last time, unless you can code a program that does everything the Battl.net launcher does, make it look as good, but only us 50mb or less of HDD space, you have absolutely no business claiming that the 200mb is excessively larger than it needs to be. I'm not alone in seeing through your nonsense either. Just because a program can be stripped down of all quality in terms of looks, and stripped of everything that makes it easy for the widest range of consumers to use, does not make those other programs better. Nor does it make the Battle.net launcher bloatware.

Yes I did read your other post, and yes you still have not listed programs that can do everything the launcher does. Not even close. Since NONE of them allow for things like a multiple platform integrated chat feature, with no use of an overlay, and none of them come close to offering the type of security and account controls that the Battle.net laucnher does.

Alright, you are never allowed to question the performance of any computer component ever again unless you can make a better one. If AMD and Intel released processors that were as powerful as the TI 84 you would have no right to complain since you can't make a better one. That is exactly how you have been treating me through the entire thread.

Pidgin in a cross-platform chat by the way (not just cross-platform but also multiprotocol). The web browser I mentioned support the same kind of security (just visit Blizzard's website if you don't believe me). 

By the way, using the launcher is less secure than not using it. If your launcher is compromised they will get access to everything. If you are compromised when not using the launcher they can get access to 1 game. It also scans your system for some reason (possibly to detect cheats, and collect info about their users).

 

 

I was going to address more things in this thread but there is no point... I am talking to people who has this mentality: "You can bring as much of this supposed "evidence" as you wish; you are not going to change my mind". So this will be my last post.

I'll just say what I've said over and over again one last time. Blizzard's launcher is bloated. They could most likely make a program with similar looks (although maybe not as flashy graphics) and all the features of the Blizzard launcher, but using 1/4 of the resources the current one uses.

I don't have to write a better launcher myself to have the right to criticize it either. Just like I don't have to write a better game than Battlefield 4 or Watch_Dogs to point out big issues with those games.

If you like the launcher then good for you, but I am sure you would like it even more if it performed better and used less resources. It's not about "baww it uses so much of my computer's resources!", it's about "why is this using so much when it could use far less?". If all my programs and files were twice as big as they needed to be, I would need 4TB of extra storage. Many small resources thieves add up to a lot if you got enough of them.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

-snip-

 

That is a bold claim about us not knowing about programming, and yet, you yourself are oversimplifying the matter to draw a crude conclusion... once again.

 

You keep talking about the features in a piecemeal, but you have not once mentioned aggregation. It is not a jigsaw puzzle where you can simply put them together and call it finished. There is mathematics involved in putting everything together. There is a sweet spot between functionality and resource efficiency, and it relies on the target demographic and devices. Also, @jmaster299 has mentioned about features being more extensive than what you have listed, and you have yet to put out an adequate answer to his question.

 

Be careful with the tone of your message, because if you keep doing that, people will simply ignore you. Nobody cares about whether you are correct or not, because they will only see your stubborn behaviour and allow what you say to fly over them.

[jmaster299]

That is a bold claim about us not knowing about programming, and yet, you yourself are oversimplifying the matter to draw a crude conclusion... once again.

 

You keep talking about the features in a piecemeal, but you have not once mentioned aggregation. It is not a jigsaw puzzle where you can simply put them together and call it finished. There is mathematics involved in putting everything together. There is a sweet spot between functionality and resource efficiency, and it relies on the target demographic and devices. Also, @jmaster299 has mentioned about features being more extensive than what you have listed, and you have yet to put out an adequate answer to his question.

 

Be careful with the tone of your message, because if you keep doing that, people will simply ignore you. Nobody cares about whether you are correct or not, because they will only see your stubborn behaviour and allow what you say to fly over them.

No, we don't know about programming, but @LAwLz doesn't either, and that's the point I am trying to make. When something is as small as a whopping 222MB, and does the two dozen different things that the Battle.net launcher does, and does it looking as good as the launcher does, and does it without bugs or other errors, NO ONE, not one single person the face of the Earth, can call that program bloatware unless they have the technical knowledge to prove other wise.

We are beating a dead horse at this point, but my only hope is people are smart enough to ignore the nonsense that is being spewed by the haters in this thread that are complaining with no actually knowledge to justify those complaints and no proof to back up those claims. People have a right to say they don't like something, but they don't have a right to incorrectly label the launcher as something that its not. It not bloatware, and does not even come close to meeting the proper definition of bloatware.

 

"Software bloat is a process whereby successive versions of a computer program become perceptibly slower, use more memory/diskspace or processing power, or have higher hardware requirements than the previous version whilst making only dubious user-perceptible improvements. The term is not applied consistently; it is often used as a pejorative by end users to describe undesired user interface changes even if those changes had little or no effect on the hardware requirements. In long-lived software, perceived bloat can occur from the software servicing a large, diverse marketplace with many differing requirements. Most end users will feel they only need some limited subset of the available functions and will regard the others as unnecessary bloat, even if people with different requirements do use them.

 

Actual (measurable) bloat can occur due to de-emphasising software efficiency in favour of other concerns like developer productivity, or possibly through the introduction of new layers of abstraction like a virtual machine or other scripting engine for the purposes of convenience when developer constraints are reduced. The perception of improved developer productivity, in the case of practising development within virtual machine environments, comes from the developers no longer taking resource constraints and usage into consideration during design and development; this allows the product to be completed faster but it results in increases to the end user's hardware requirements to compensate."

The Battle.net launcher took multiple programs and combined them into a single program, with a single and much more graphically pleasing UI, while at the same time adding tons of extra useful features along with much better and much easier to use security. And they did it all while using a whopping 0.00% of my CPU, 70MB of system RAM and 222MB of HDD space. Which is less than what any similar desktop program uses and less than most of the apps on my phone use, all of which are forced by necessity to be extremely efficient for use on my underpowered iPhone 4S. The Battle.net desktop launcher/app can NOT be compaired to crap like Pidgin, or any other non-game related programs. UPlay, Origin, STEAM, those are the only programs the it can be compared to, as they are the only programs that provide the same functions and features, and it uses a lot fewer resources than any one of those programs.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

-snip-

 

Actually, I have quite a bit of programming and computing knowledge, which is why I called him out (there is also another reason, but it is not worth mentioning here). People can ask for further reduction of resource consumption, but there is eventually one point where it has limited yield without breaking the program. "The Law of Diminishing Returns" does not only apply to hardware expenses, but also software optimization. Take an example of cryptography; you can only reduce the amount of calculations and modulations before the algorithms become ineffective. At the same time however, cascading the algorithms beyond a level of three will earn a small benefit in security, while the performance degradation would spike.

You and I very rarely come to good terms, but in this case, you have made valid points. So hats off to you.

[jmaster299]

Actually, I have quite a bit of programming and computing knowledge, which is why I called him out (there is also another reason, but it is not worth mentioning here). People can ask for further reduction of resource consumption, but there is eventually one point where it has limited yield without breaking the program. "The Law of Diminishing Returns" does not only apply to hardware expenses, but also software optimization. Take an example of cryptography; you can only reduce the amount of calculations and modulations before the algorithms become ineffective. At the same time however, cascading the algorithms beyond a level of three will earn a small benefit in security, while the performance degradation would spike.

You and I very rarely come to good terms, but in this case, you have made valid points. So hats off to you.

The comment about programming knowledge was a rhetorical statement, in that, it doesn't matter what we know or don't know. What matters is its obvious that he doesn't know what he's talking about because of the complete lack of proof to back up his claims and the fact that he completely dismisses any point that proves him wrong. He tries to compare the program to stupid things like Pidgin, when in fact the only programs it can be compared to are things like STEAM. Which I mentioned.

 

The fact that his claims are baseless is reinforced when he tries to use his personal opinion and bias as justification for his claims. He doesn't like/prefer a graphically pleasing UI, so he labels any and all resources necessary for as bloatware. He also doesn't like the idea of launchers or centralized programs at all, so he again labels it as bloatware because its something he doesn't like. That's why I quoted that long description of what bloatware really is, because it specifically points out the fact that people like LAwLs are constantly labeling things as bloatware when they are simply ignorant of the facts, and/or are making the statement based on personal preference.

[jmaster299]

 

-removed-

 

Fairly sure reposting something that was deleted by a mod won't go over too well. Also, the fact that its Blizzard has nothing to do with the issue. Your claim that the program is bloatware is simply not true, but making nonsense claims like that spread like cancer. Hence the detailed definition I posted earlier. The term bloatware gets tossed around by people who don't actually know what bloatware is and base their claim on nothing but personal bias.

Bloatware would be if they took the exact same original individual game launcher, made no improvements or additions to it, and released it with a significantly larger file size. But that's not the case with the Battle.net launcher. It took multiple programs, combined them into one, then added numerous additional features and graphical UI improvements. All while maintaining a very small and reasonable file size.

[Spoilt]

I'm sorry but I have defend @LAwLz here.

If you claim you have no programing background, how could you dismiss the fact that you could be wrong? Why are you being so stubborn and refuse to believe what he said could be true?

A wise person is not the one that knows everything but the one that knows he doesn't know everything. If you check LAwLz's profile, you can see he is doing degree in computer science. You should have at least acknowledge he MIGHT know things about programming that you don't.

Before you flame me as well. I have been coding for nearly 8 years now and have worked on many projects that is on the national security level. The functions that you deemed so complex is actually very simple to implement.

The whole point of cryptography is that to make sure authorised access is easy while non authorised access near impossible.

If you ask me to prove it, I'm not going to. Why should I? Just to win an argument over the Internet? I don't even get paid to do it.

But what I said before still stands, the functional part of the program is probably very small but the UI elements is not. It's the same with some games with 30gb audio/texture files. The game engine and all its mechanic is probably really small. Look at older game like half life 1. Functionally it is probably the same as modern titles but the install size is extremely small in comparison.

While I don't mind games to be huge and pretty (in fact it's one the reason we play games right?). A launcher is where you will spend the least amount of time with. I would rather have the resources(Dev/artist time) allocated to the game itself.

Very polished and bug free game > slightly flat looking GUI launcher IMHO.

I also know Blizzard won't compromise the quality of their game because of this. It is probably their pet project. I'm just saying what if other, less competent company follow this trend?

Like how DLC has become nowadays. Back in the day, it could just be to add more features or character that were developed post production to increase the game's lifespan. Now it just a scummy money making scheme with developers intentionally taking parts out of the game to release as day 1 DLC. We let it happen by giving in during their early stages.

Soon, it probably can happen to these type of launcher where every game Dev will have 1gb launcher and if I have games from 20 Dev I'll have 20gb of launcher.

Do you see my point? Do you really want that?

Just my 2 cents.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

-snip-

 

While you are making a good argument, I would like to point some things out:

 

 

1) Calling us stubborn is a bit of a double standard in this situation, considering LAwLz's posting habits as of late. I will admit that JMaster299 is being particularly aggressive in his stance, but LAwLz has not really done a better job here.

 

2) Simplicity and complexity is always relative to the program itself. If you are talking about a difference of 8GB vs 25GB, you are correct. But when you are comparing 50MB vs 200MB, not so much.

 

3) We have never condoned bloatware. In fact, JMaster himself has recently called out Watch_Dogs for being an unoptimized mess.

 

4) Bloatware is not strictly defined. There exists cases where legitimate bloatware is considered acceptable, but that does not automatically reject the cases where people call bloatware when very little can be done about it, making it essentially a false alarm.

[TMar]

I still don't know why they have the games listed in the damn taskbar icon if you can't launch them from there, it drive me crazy.  I don't need you to pop up the launcher if I select a game, I just want the damn game to open.

[Razzaa]

I'm sorry but I have defend @LAwLz here.

If you claim you have no programing background, how could you dismiss the fact that you could be wrong? Why are you being so stubborn and refuse to believe what he said could be true?

A wise person is not the one that knows everything but the one that knows he doesn't know everything. If you check LAwLz's profile, you can see he is doing degree in computer science. You should have at least acknowledge he MIGHT know things about programming that you don't.

Before you flame me as well. I have been coding for nearly 8 years now and have worked on many projects that is on the national security level. The functions that you deemed so complex is actually very simple to implement.

The whole point of cryptography is that to make sure authorised access is easy while non authorised access near impossible.

If you ask me to prove it, I'm not going to. Why should I? Just to win an argument over the Internet? I don't even get paid to do it.

But what I said before still stands, the functional part of the program is probably very small but the UI elements is not. It's the same with some games with 30gb audio/texture files. The game engine and all its mechanic is probably really small. Look at older game like half life 1. Functionally it is probably the same as modern titles but the install size is extremely small in comparison.

While I don't mind games to be huge and pretty (in fact it's one the reason we play games right?). A launcher is where you will spend the least amount of time with. I would rather have the resources(Dev/artist time) allocated to the game itself.

Very polished and bug free game > slightly flat looking GUI launcher IMHO.

I also know Blizzard won't compromise the quality of their game because of this. It is probably their pet project. I'm just saying what if other, less competent company follow this trend?

Like how DLC has become nowadays. Back in the day, it could just be to add more features or character that were developed post production to increase the game's lifespan. Now it just a scummy money making scheme with developers intentionally taking parts out of the game to release as day 1 DLC. We let it happen by giving in during their early stages.

Soon, it probably can happen to these type of launcher where every game Dev will have 1gb launcher and if I have games from 20 Dev I'll have 20gb of launcher.

Do you see my point? Do you really want that?

Just my 2 cents.

Out of curiosity, what programs are you fluent in?

[Spoilt]

While you are making a good argument, I would like to point some things out:

 

1) From my POV, LAwLz believed he is not wrong here; he has some credibility; he tried giving examples. Someone else has even writing down the pseudo code to change region to prove this point. Both side are equally aggressive here but I think it is frustrating when your point kept being ignored.

2)So a size increase of 3.125 times is a NONO but a size increase of 4 times is OK? Couldn't you picked a better example lol. I do agree that 17gb is a lot more than 150mb. But how long you think it will stay that way? Resolution is increasing exponential but hard drive space is not. Soon when 4k is a norm, texture and UI elements of these launchers gonna be 4 times as large to keep it looking nice.

3)Can he create a better game? Does he know how the game works? What gives him the rights to critic the Game? You noticed how flawed and contradicting his argument is?

4)Bloatware to me is also something that you don't want and can't get rid off. Like in this case, LAwLz probably want a launcher that have all the same functionality but in a grey box rather than the fancy blue box with pixie dust and DX11 effects and shit. Also, Facebook messenger. Lol

Out of curiosity, what programs are you fluent in?

C#, VB, Java to name a few. Honestly, once you know 1 high level language you can basically code in any high level language unless it is logic based programming like LISP or PROLOG

[Razzaa]

1) From my POV, LAwLz believed he is not wrong here; he has some credibility; he tried giving examples. Someone else has even writing down the pseudo code to change region to prove this point. Both side are equally aggressive here but I think it is frustrating when your point kept being ignored.

2)So a size increase of 3.125 times is a NONO but a size increase of 4 times is OK? Couldn't you picked a better example lol. I do agree that 17gb is a lot more than 150mb. But how long you think it will stay that way? Resolution is increasing exponential but hard drive space is not. Soon when 4k is a norm, texture and UI elements of these launchers gonna be 4 times as large to keep it looking nice.

3)Can he create a better game? Does he know how the game works? What gives him the rights to critic the Game? You noticed how flawed and contradicting his argument is?

4)Bloatware to me is also something that you don't want and can't get rid off. Like in this case, LAwLz probably want a launcher that have all the same functionality but in a grey box rather than the fancy blue box with pixie dust and DX11 effects and shit. Also, Facebook messenger. Lol

C#, VB, Java to name a few. Honestly, once you know 1 high level language you can basically code in any high level language unless it is logic based programming like LISP or PROLOG

You consider Java to be a high level language? Interesting. Also, what parameters are required to be considered high level?

Since you are a "High Level" programmer I would like to hear how you would have programmed the application. I am genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts about this.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

-snip-

 

 

1) That argument can be turned the other way around, so this is subjective. It isn't "one way or the highway", as the both of them see it.

 

2) The point I was trying to make is that going from 8GB (Xbox 360) to 25GB (PS3) is going from big to massive. Going from 50MB (theoretical size) to 200MB (current size) is going from tiny to tiny. I also do not like resource consumption to escalate, but this is a premature call to make (see below).

 

3) That is more a fault of his attitude more than anything else. But he brought a explanation of compare/contrast. Watch_Dogs can be compared to many other games (I.E. Metro Last Light) which not only offer better fidelity, but also makes better use of hardware. On the other hand, the Blizzard launcher can only be compared to the likes of Steam, and in this case, it is arguably the most resource efficient.

 

4) While that is fine for some of us, we have to consider that the target demographic is rather large and diverse. There are a good chunk of Blizzard gamers who cringe at the sight of an overly simplified interface. The time spent is irrelevant to them, as customers are generally picky about the looks of any given product. So this job is a lot tougher than many people give credit for.

 

 

You consider Java to be a high level language? Interesting. Also, what parameters are required to be considered high level?

 

Java is indeed a high-level language. Java is a sandbox, and requires a virtual machine (a translator, basically) to convert into a meta-language, which in turn gets converted into machine code by the kernel. What separates a high-level language from a low-level is the ability to talk to the computer with a respective level of abstraction.

[Razzaa]

1) That argument can be turned the other way around, so this is subjective. It isn't "one way or the highway", as the both of them see it.

2) The point I was trying to make is that going from 8GB (Xbox 360) to 25GB (PS3) is going from big to massive. Going from 50MB (theoretical size) to 200MB (current size) is going from tiny to tiny. I also do not like resource consumption to escalate, but this is a premature call to make (see below).

3) That is more a fault of his attitude more than anything else. But he brought a explanation of compare/contrast. Watch_Dogs can be compared to many other games (I.E. Metro Last Light) which not only offer better fidelity, but also makes better use of hardware. On the other hand, the Blizzard launcher can only be compared to the likes of Steam, and in this case, it is arguably the most resource efficient.

4) While that is fine for some of us, we have to consider that the target demographic is rather large and diverse. There are a good chunk of Blizzard gamers who cringe at the sight of an overly simplified interface. The time spent is irrelevant to them, as customers are generally picky about the looks of any given product. So this job is a lot tougher than many people give credit for.

Java is indeed a high-level language. Java is a sandbox, and requires a virtual machine (a translator, basically) to convert into a meta-language, which in turn gets converted into machine code by the kernel. What separates a high-level language from a low-level is the ability to talk to the computer with a respective level of abstraction.

Shhh im trying to stir the pot. I have a big bag of popcorn and now I wont be able to enjoy it........

[Spoilt]

You consider Java to be a high level language? Interesting. Also, what parameters are required to be considered high level?

Since you are a "High Level" programmer I would like to hear how you would have programmed the application. I am genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts about this.

  

Java is indeed a high-level language. Java is a sandbox, and requires a virtual machine (a translator, basically) to convert into a meta-language, which in turn gets converted into machine code by the kernel. What separates a high-level language from a low-level is the ability to talk to the computer with a respective level of abstraction.

Yep, what he said. Simplified: high level=closer to human language, low level=machine bit code.

1) Agree. But one has background knowledge while the other do not (I could be wrong here, I'm not that bothered to go back and check)

2) I prefer the word prevention. Just making noise and made the developer aware that people are not ok of this may be enough to stir them in the right direction.

3) Apples to oranges IMHO. While both are fruits they aren't really the same. Quite hard to compare games in terms of fidelity. Too subjective. In case of steam vs blizzard's launcher, yeah it's arguable which is more efficient.

4) Yes, I know we are the minority. What I meant is that I hope moving forward we will have an option on what sort of launcher we can install. Put it under advance settings during installation and let the advance user decide what they want Ala winamp style.

[Spoilt]

Shhh im trying to stir the pot. I have a big bag of popcorn and now I wont be able to enjoy it........

Lol

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

   Yep, what he said. Simplified: high level=closer to human language, low level=machine bit code.

1) Agree. But one has background knowledge while the other do not (I could be wrong here, I'm not that bothered to go back and check)

2) I prefer the word prevention. Just making noise and made the developer aware that people are not ok of this may be enough to stir them in the right direction.

3) Apples to oranges IMHO. While both are fruits they aren't really the same. Quite hard to compare games in terms of fidelity. Too subjective. In case of steam vs blizzard's launcher, yeah it's arguable which is more efficient.

4) Yes, I know we are the minority. What I meant is that I hope moving forward we will have an option on what sort of launcher we can install. Put it under advance settings during installation and let the advance user decide what they want Ala winamp style.

 

1) Again, that is subjective. From what I have seen, I would disagree.

 

2) There is a difference between getting a message across, and bickering over nothing. If there are enough false alarms sent to the involved parties (like a certain recent controversy), then they will be ignored and pushed to the lowest-priority goal. That makes it counter-intuitive.

 

3) Everything is relative in computing and physics. My point was, people take optimization for granted.

 

4) But that feature presents a new function, which consumes even more space. Even if you have the most bare-bones interface, the program still has to store the "flashy" elements. Also, there is a practical limit to the amount of features you can put into a program before you alienate the users.