You want the same old Blizzard yet you expect something truly refreshing from their new games. I don't really see how you can judge how a corporation is doing since all you ever mentioned was that they're greedy, money-sucking corporation these days, especially after Kotick stepped in. Same old excuse you mentioned during the StarCraft 2 days but the last thing I remembered, Blizzard is not a corporation that's famous for their charity.

That StarCraft 2 is not innovated up to your standard is your expectation. You're just expecting a complete overhaul or some major changes but you failed to take into consideration that while it's something that you want, it's not something that _EVERYONE_ wants. What you're hoping for is akin to Portal 2 with no portals. Changes are good but there must be a limit or else you're gonna draw flaks from left & right. You want example? Welcome to Command & Conquer 4.
Refer to bolded sentences. Nothing new _EXCEPT_ minor tweaks. You're contradicting yourself. Perhaps you should let us know what you're actually hoping to see in StarCraft 2. IIRC, you complained that the lore in StarCraft 2 sucked as well, so I don't see how Blizzard is gonna connect the dots if there are too many changes in the game. Another contradiction.
Yes, let's blame everyone who don't share your view as Blizzard fanboys.

And yeah, like I mentioned earlier, Portal 2 shouldn't have portals, Half-Life 2 should be a RTS & Command & Conquer 4 is the best game EVAR!
1. The game has yet to be released & already you're making conclusion that the game time is too short & doesn't worth the moolah you're gonna pay. Hmm... sounds pretty similar to what I mentioned in my previous post, something about people passing judgements too fast, too early?
2. Refer to my previous post again, the one at the end with a link to Kotaku. At the same time, unlike WoW, gold farmers will have no impact to your gameplay... unless you're jelly that some rich kids get to buy pimped avatars without breaking a sweat. If that's the case, get your ego checked.
3. The release of StarCraft 2 also marked the new Battle.net. I'm not sure if you're actually aware of this but these days, social websites & apps are mushrooming everywhere. Facebook, Google+, Steam & many more. It's a sign that people are now much more connected in cyberspace & this is what Battle.net is trying to capitalize on. Heck, even EA is coming up with Origin & GamersGate just did a complete overhaul of their system as well.

If people can get on Facebook all the time & chat non-stop in MSN, then it's a good sign that broadband penetration has gone up to the level where disconnection / service outage is something abnormal these days.

Again, referring to my previous post, these days most games are being developed with the big focus on the multiplayer capability since it's this aspect that contributed most to replayability points. Singleplayer mode can only bring you up to a certain point, perhaps with multiple endings but at the end of the day, it's having friends fighting along / against you that bring out the fun & LOL'ness. Borderlands, anyone?
While it's pretty debatable on the possibility of preventing piracy, I don't think it's a wise move to ignore it. There are ways you can control it & we've seen how the whole DRM thingy has evolved over the years. Even Ubisoft has soften down on their "MUST ONLINE ALL THE TIME" DRM but again, _MOST_ of Ubisoft games are more on singleplayers. Before you counter me with "See, even Ubisoft DRM no longer require you to be connected all the time", Ubisoft doesn't have a dedicated portal to bring their gamers together like Battle.net.

Like I said in my previous post again (phew~), broadband penetration is considered high these days. If you bring the argument of Blizzard punishing genuine copy owners like 10 years ago, I would totally agree with you but c'mon, these days we have UNIFI & high-speed broadband. Yeah, they're expensive in Malaysia but if you look at the other part of the world, 1Mbps is pretty much history now.

I'm a 512Kbps user though but have no problem whatsoever in StarCraft 2, albeit some hiccups at the early stage due to the buggy new Battle.net server in Singapore.
Err... who doesn't want to after all the ruckus & lawsuits with Korea's television network operators? About the Auction House, you're just being adamant that it's something to bring more profits to Blizzard even though you've been presented with points on why it's a logical move by Blizzard. Again, I don't see how that will affect your gameplay and oh wait! You're also against trading in Team Fortress 2 & also its shop selling overpriced in-game items which consists of nothing but pixels & polygon counts. Again, it's not like you're being forced to buy them so it's just you being a hater of this new feature.

PR talk? Yeah, I guess you're the caped crusader or some consumer association rights rep who's supposed to guide us to the right path.
This post is not a reply to mine, so I'll leave it alone.