Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

June 15, 2010 -

Blizzard has announced Real ID, which it calls a "completely voluntary and optional level of identity that will keep players connected across all of Battle.net." The first game to get support for Real ID will be World of Warcraft.

The idea is to give Battle.net users a way to connect with real friends using real names and give them a means to communicate and share independent of the Blizzard game they might be playing at the time. Your Real ID friends will appear under their "real-life names" on your friends list, when chatting, communicating in-game, or viewing a character's profile. Real ID friends can also see who's on each other's Real ID friends list, making it easy for players to connect with other people they might know.

For World of Warcraft players this allows for cross-realm and cross-game chat - for example, when you friend is play StarCraft 2 you can harass him or her while in World of Warcraft.. And when you "friend" someone once you will see all the characters they have created in Blizzard games to date. Apparently this will even include "future games" someone might be playing like betas and beta content.

Finally, Real ID will feature a parental control layer for those parents interested in using. Those that already use parental controls should be getting some details in their inboxes soon, but the short answer is that parents can decide if their children can participate in Real ID .. for obvious reasons.

Real ID is scheduled to launch with World of Warcraft patch 3.3.5; keep an eye on www.worldofwarcraft.com for details or check out the Real ID FAQ.


Comments

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

I'm on their PTR, which is their Public Test Realm. It's a sort of beta test for patches and such.

They keep having to disable the Real ID, because its buggy and causes crashes and disconnects.

Good system there, Blizzard.

Yes, I am a liberal. I also believe in a strong military, less government, and the right to bear arms. 

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

I, personally, think Blizzard should make a instant messenger type thing that allows me to message my friends whilst they in-game, even when I'm not.

"But Randi!", I hear you say, "Things like Steam, Xfire or Raptr can do that already!" Ah, and you're right, but how many want to use those third-party programs? In comparison to the people who actively play Blizzard's games online, not many.

If people already trust Blizzard enough to buy and install their games on their PC, I think they'd trust them enough to install a Battle.net Messenger, and that's my point. Steam, for example, whilst from a trusted vendor, is still third-party, and the Steam Overlay isn't integrated natively with games like Xfire or Raptr is (which detects you're in a game automatically).

The latter two, however, are "worse" only because their vendors may not be as trustworthy (Xfire is run by the MTV Networks, I can't say how trustworthy they are in the grand scheme of things though).

-- Randi Tastix

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

"I, personally, think Blizzard should make a instant messenger type thing that allows me to message my friends whilst they in-game, even when I'm not."

They've said they want to make something like this to interface with battle.net 2.0 and talk to Real ID friends, but they don't have any specific plans yet.
---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.


---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

I'd be more for this if it didn't force you to use a real name. I mean, it'd be nice if when playign Starcraft 2 friends could get ahold of you if needed, but requiring a real name is kinda dangerous, especially since some think nothing of it.

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

The system is designed for people you can punch if they screw you over.

By that, I mean you should only give out your Real ID to those who you know in real-life. Offline friends, workmates and colleagues, family members, etc. Some people (like myself) may give these to people they "trust" online, some might want to have their guild leaders Real ID for contact purposes if something comes up and they can't be online, etc.

To put it simply though: The people I'll be giving my Real ID are already on my Facebook. I won't give it to everyone in my guild, but those who get the ID will already know my name and e-mail address so it won't actually matter much, in the long run.

-- Randi Tastix

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

This is just like the Sony Station Launcher except that you have to add another piece to get the "all games and characters in said games" function. With the launcher, all you have to do is add someone as a friend and it will show when any of their characters in any SOE game is online. It supports chat (both text and voice) no matter what the game. I could be playing SWG (ha ha) and be talking to my guild members in EQ2.

That said, I do like the extra step before you can see all of a person's characters. A part of me just wishes that it didn't go by real names... there is this nagging part of my brain that reminds me that sharing personal information willy nilly on the 'net is not such a great idea. You can argue night and day that it is geared for "real life" friends, but you know that people (kids?!) will use it with people they have never met.

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

I fail to see why anyone would make a big deal about this.

I've got alot of IRL friends that I'd love to be able to talk to while online.  This system is NOT designed for people who you've never seen face to face, for these people use the ingame friends features that already exist.

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

The problem is that limiting cross-realm and cross-game chat to "real life friends only" is arbitrary and pointless. I've yet to find anyone that can give me a good reason for the system to require you to display your real name that didn't boil down to "because Blizzard said so." That includes your post, by the way. The system isn't designed for people you've never seen face to face. Why? "Because Blizzard said so." They could have easily designed it to use handles or even pick a "main" character/SC2 account to show as your name, with an optional function to go by your real name for people you know IRL. Real names are in no way vital to the way the system operates.

On top of that, the "friends of friends" feature goes completely against that stated intention, and can't be opted out of short of not using Real ID at all. To borrow a phrase someone else used to describe the problem, friendship is not transitive. I KNOW who I want to add to my Real ID contacts. If I don't add some one, I'm not adding them for a reason, most likely because they aren't my friends. So "friends of friends" is literally useless to me except that it takes control of who sees my information out of my hands and puts it in the hands of my friends, who may not be as careful about who they add as I am.
---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.


---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

Why market this as based around your IRL identity?  Why not just make this an optional feature of your Battle.net friends list or something?  Oh well, that's kinda cool.  It's basically like the Steam friends list.

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

Redundant much?


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
InfophileSomething weird was going on with that comment. As soon as I posted it, it looked like it had replies from the past. And now I can't even find it. Ah well, it was getting off-topic for that thread anyway.10/01/2014 - 4:29am
Sleaker@CraigR been using Win8.1 for a while, I don't really see any usability difference between it and 7 (Work uses 7)10/01/2014 - 2:16am
Craig R.Ok, my internal debate was short-lived. If Win10 is still a year out, I'm not waiting that long for an SSD, so on Win7 I will remain.09/30/2014 - 7:52pm
Matthew Wilsonits called windows 10, and I am happy to get the start menu back.09/30/2014 - 7:18pm
Jessy HartIs this stuff about Windows 10 legit? Is it actually called Windows 10 or is it just some stupid joke?09/30/2014 - 6:57pm
ZippyDSMleeSo I been trying to play Bioshock Infinite I got all the DLC,ect but do not want the extras to make your charatcer over powered from the start.....they force you to take them which is quite annoying......09/30/2014 - 6:45pm
Craig R.I need to upgrade to an SSD, still seriously debating moving to Win8.1 from 7 at the same time09/30/2014 - 6:07pm
Craig R.Win10 is probably Win8.1 with more cleanup and the Start button back.09/30/2014 - 6:06pm
Sora-ChanAhh, it's just weird seeing someone's post all of a sudden have replies from days prior before it was posted due to that.09/30/2014 - 5:49pm
MechaTama31sora: I broke the ordering intentionally, as AE's and my conversation had squeezed the text boxes down to be quite slim. I replied to an earlier post of his instead of the one I was actually replying to.09/30/2014 - 5:46pm
MechaTama31So, 9 would have been the good one, but they are skipping it to do two crap ones in a row?09/30/2014 - 5:41pm
Sora-ChanSo, judging from the poll post for #gamergate, it looks like too many thread replies breaks the ordering of posts, as seen with the recent post from Infophile.09/30/2014 - 5:31pm
Andrew EisenOr no! It wasn't Y3K compliant. Microsoft thought it best to super future proof its OS and skipped straight to 10 which is Y3K compliant!09/30/2014 - 5:01pm
Andrew EisenJust tell them it wasn't Y2K compliant.09/30/2014 - 5:00pm
Craig R.Looking forward to having to explain to coworkers down the road what ever happened to 9 *sigh*09/30/2014 - 4:57pm
Craig R.2k was crap. XP was solid, 7 is good, 8.1 is actually really good once you make it look like 7 :)09/30/2014 - 4:52pm
Sora-Chan@MP As someone who has used each version of windows since 3.1... I prefer Vista over 7 for various reasons. The only thing I give 7 over Vista is preformance. They really screwed up a bunch of things when making 7. Also, XP was a pain. 2k was better.09/30/2014 - 4:13pm
Jessy Hart@E. Zachary Knight Is that show called Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures?09/30/2014 - 3:34pm
IanCWin 8 isn't bad, it just can't decide whether to be a desktop OS or a tablet OS.09/30/2014 - 2:40pm
IanCI think its a way of getting round giving it free to Win 8 users...09/30/2014 - 2:39pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician