|
United States47024 Posts
On May 31 2010 15:19 mOnion wrote:
im not understanding this activision >>> blizzard garbage people keep spraying.
blizzard still remains as a separate entity and held all their corporate leadership after the merger.
They answer to the same Board of Directors, which happens to have Bobby Kotick on it, who is also president of the whole company. He doesn't have direct control, but I still suspect Morhaime is directly accountable to him.
|
Blizzard will not be replaced until WoW goes down.. And i do believe only die hard fans of SC:BW will boycott SC2, otherwise, the casual gamers will just add SC2 to another collection of their games..
|
On May 31 2010 15:25 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 15:19 mOnion wrote:
im not understanding this activision >>> blizzard garbage people keep spraying.
blizzard still remains as a separate entity and held all their corporate leadership after the merger. They answer to the same Board of Directors, which happens to have Bobby Kotick on it, who is also president of the Activision side of things. Effectively, the guy who runs Activision has a hand in decisions that directly affect Blizzard.
right but its not "what he says goes"
it'd be the decision of the BoD as a whole for any significant changes to take place. people just assume that activision is the mommy, and if mommy aint happy, no one happy. which isnt true.
its an indirect effect at best. and no morhaime does not answer directly to him. activision is a garb 3rd party developer, whereas Blizzard owns the RTS and MMO market and brings in far more revenue (i'd imagine)
|
United States47024 Posts
On May 31 2010 15:29 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 15:25 TheYango wrote:On May 31 2010 15:19 mOnion wrote:
im not understanding this activision >>> blizzard garbage people keep spraying.
blizzard still remains as a separate entity and held all their corporate leadership after the merger. They answer to the same Board of Directors, which happens to have Bobby Kotick on it, who is also president of the Activision side of things. Effectively, the guy who runs Activision has a hand in decisions that directly affect Blizzard. right but its not "what he says goes" it'd be the decision of the BoD as a whole for any significant changes to take place. people just assume that activision is the mommy, and if mommy aint happy, no one happy. which isnt true. its an indirect effect at best.
I made an edit. Bobby Kotick is the president of "Activision Blizzard". Mike Morhaime is the president of "Blizzard Entertainment". The corporate structure of Blizzard is maintained, but as I put in my previous post, it makes sense for Morhaime to be directly beneath Kotick alone in the structure of things.
On May 31 2010 15:29 mOnion wrote:
its an indirect effect at best. and no morhaime does not answer directly to him. activision is a garb 3rd party developer, whereas Blizzard owns the RTS and MMO market and brings in far more revenue (i'd imagine)
I don't see how this is relevant, given that Kotick isn't just the President/CEO of Activision, but of Activision Blizzard as a whole.
|
On May 31 2010 15:32 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 15:29 mOnion wrote:On May 31 2010 15:25 TheYango wrote:On May 31 2010 15:19 mOnion wrote:
im not understanding this activision >>> blizzard garbage people keep spraying.
blizzard still remains as a separate entity and held all their corporate leadership after the merger. They answer to the same Board of Directors, which happens to have Bobby Kotick on it, who is also president of the Activision side of things. Effectively, the guy who runs Activision has a hand in decisions that directly affect Blizzard. right but its not "what he says goes" it'd be the decision of the BoD as a whole for any significant changes to take place. people just assume that activision is the mommy, and if mommy aint happy, no one happy. which isnt true. its an indirect effect at best. I made an edit. Bobby Kotick is the president of "Activision Blizzard". Mike Morhaime is the president of "Blizzard Entertainment". The corporate structure of Blizzard is maintained, but as I put in my previous post, it makes sense for Morhaime to be directly beneath Kotick alone in the structure of things.
oh i didnt see that.
in reality its most likely just a title thing. I dont know the structure of the company or how it works and even if i could find it they dont give details as to "who answers to who"
morhaime and kotick answer to the board, i believe their relationship is as equals. kotick is just a chairman, which means his performance is evaluated annually ( i think ) so he really has no say in the board's decisions, since theyre determining his paycheck
EDIT: and the relevancy of my second point was just that blizzard has future projects and a seemingly undying fan base, whereas acti has been dealing with severe lawsuits all year and allocations of poor working conditions
so to shareholders, theyre weighing their decision on acti's poor PR, which will piss of the board.
|
the masses of casuals.
you can not generate "superior profit" from casuals. casuals are ppl who are as likely to pickup a copy of SC2 as they would pick up Tetris. This is because they are unable to distinguish the quality difference between the products. When quality doesnt matter, it became a competition of who can pump out the most number of titles to flood the market, since each product has an equal likelihood of being purchased. Look at EA's games. EA publish the most titles and all of them are garbage quality. Like auto-makers, consumers will eventually know a BMW is not the same as Honda.
Look at Command and Conquer, they released 8 games (+10 expansion) in the same time span as SC+BW. In the end, despite selling 30 million copies, the entire C&C dev team got fired.
|
On May 31 2010 15:40 dybydx wrote:you can not generate "superior profit" from casuals.
uh
Nintendo would disagree with you.
|
blizzard should worry. videogamers, clan x17ers specifically, are a predisposition group for doing crazy violent shit. you can't enjoy being rich if you're dead.
|
On May 31 2010 15:14 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 14:48 dybydx wrote:
If our servant fails to please us, he will be replaced. Blizzard has no monopoly over us. The video game industry is cut throat, many (Command and Conquer, Halo Wars, Guitar Hero) programmers and game developers have been fired in the last 2 yrs. They are eager to seek a new master. Blizzard in effect has a monopoly over us by virtue of the fact that no other major RTS developer can really deliver the same gameplay experience. SC1 blows SC2 out of the water, but SC2 also trumps every other major RTS by just as much.
Nah. The size and competitiveness of the playerbase is what makes SC2 especially interesting, there's good rts's but they won't be proper e-sports cause there isn't enough hype and interest around them to start with.
|
Nintendo would disagree with you.
Nintendo's line of casual games do not generate superior profit from casual gamers. this does not mean they dont generate profit, it only means they make about as much money as any other mass dump titles.
while you can name examples like Wii Sports as exception, this is largely due to unique development of the Wii console rather than the game itself. It is very easy to copy the code of Wii sports into say... XBox360, but it will not have the same success. On average, casual games can not generate superior profit largely because of how easy it is for competitors to copy the game.
Although my definition of casual may be different than yours. For example, you may claim Mario Bros series is casual, but given the addiction and speed-runs ppl devote to it, its hardly casual anymore...
[edit: typo]
|
On May 31 2010 16:11 dybydx wrote:Nintendo's line of casual games do not generate superior profit from casual gamers. this does not mean they dont generate profit, it only means they make about as much money as any other mass dump titles. while you can name examples like Wii Sports as exception, this is largely due to unique development of the Wii console rather than the game itself. It is very easy to copy the code of Wii sports into say... XBox360, but it will not have the same success. On average, casual games can not generate superior profit largely because of how easy it is for competitors to copy the game. Although my definition of casual may be different than yours. For example, you may claim Mario Bros series is casual, but given the addition and speedruns ppl devote to it, its hardly casual anymore...
...wat are you saying.
you cant make wii sports on the 360 because the 360 doesnt market to the casual audience. if you made a port to it, no one would buy that garbage cuz your mom doesnt own a 360.
you're really not making any sense
the Wii continues to be the superior (using your word) console on the market because they advertise properly to the casual crowd and push out shovelware that appeals to that crowd. people only have to buy the game once
blizzard is following the current trend of marketing to casuals because it WORKS. there are more of them and they're easier to please.
|
On May 31 2010 16:18 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 16:11 dybydx wrote:Nintendo would disagree with you. Nintendo's line of casual games do not generate superior profit from casual gamers. this does not mean they dont generate profit, it only means they make about as much money as any other mass dump titles. while you can name examples like Wii Sports as exception, this is largely due to unique development of the Wii console rather than the game itself. It is very easy to copy the code of Wii sports into say... XBox360, but it will not have the same success. On average, casual games can not generate superior profit largely because of how easy it is for competitors to copy the game. Although my definition of casual may be different than yours. For example, you may claim Mario Bros series is casual, but given the addition and speedruns ppl devote to it, its hardly casual anymore... ...wat are you saying. you cant make wii sports on the 360 because the 360 doesnt market to the casual audience. if you made a port to it, no one would buy that garbage cuz your mom doesnt own a 360. you're really not making any sense the Wii continues to be the superior (using your word) console on the market because they advertise properly to the casual crowd and push out shovelware that appeals to that crowd. people only have to buy the game once blizzard is following the current trend of marketing to casuals because it WORKS. there are more of them and they're easier to please.
That last sentence there is the bottom line. Sad, but very, very true.
|
casual this casual that...
|
On May 31 2010 16:25 JohannesH wrote:
casual this casual that...
its faster than saying "the group of people who play video games for significantly less time than the rest of the market"
but i agree, it's in the same category as "metagame" for me x__X
|
On May 31 2010 15:40 dybydx wrote:you can not generate "superior profit" from casuals. casuals are ppl who are as likely to pickup a copy of SC2 as they would pick up Tetris. This is because they are unable to distinguish the quality difference between the products. When quality doesnt matter, it became a competition of who can pump out the most number of titles to flood the market, since each product has an equal likelihood of being purchased. Look at EA's games. EA publish the most titles and all of them are garbage quality. Like auto-makers, consumers will eventually know a BMW is not the same as Honda. Look at Command and Conquer, they released 8 games (+10 expansion) in the same time span as SC+BW. In the end, despite selling 30 million copies, the entire C&C dev team got fired.
Uh. Evidence please?
Do you realize that SC2 has already had $13,000++ in prizes for events. Do you know that even when everyone and their grandma can get an SC2 beta key, people are still buying them? I don't know what you see, but every sign points to SC2 being HUGE. At this point, Blizzard could care less if they alienate the 10,000 hardcore foreign fans. If the current "top" players are disgusted with the game and won't play it, a buncha newbs will pick it up, get good, and win the tournaments. It's our loss if we don't buy into their game. We can try to change it, maybe we'll win out and get the final product we want, but we probably won't. We're going to have to live with it.
With society the way it is, this is how these things work. Blizzard's name is already so well established, SC2 has been hyped for about 3 years now, there's absolutely nothing anyone here can do to change that. This game will be huge whether you like it or not. Blizzard is going to make an insane amount of profit, whether you like it or not. The game will probably not end up the way many hardcore people at TL want it to be like, and whether you like it or not, that's how it will be.
And I can guarantee you this: I'm more involved in the community than you are, I've been around it longer, I've been more into the competitive scene as a player and in every other aspect than you. And personally, I love SC2. It's really fun, and competitive enough to make for entertaining games. I play it at a reasonably skilled level, I really enjoy sitting down and playing the game. I love watching streams and tournaments, and following events, teams, and players. This is all I need to make me happy. Sure, Bnet 2.0 or whatever is cumbersome and lame, but does it detract from my SC2 experience as a whole, not really.
And I can say with confidence that I'm a much more hardcore fan than the "casuals" that will flock to the game. If I love it, that's really all that matters. GG.
|
On May 31 2010 16:28 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 15:40 dybydx wrote:the masses of casuals. you can not generate "superior profit" from casuals. casuals are ppl who are as likely to pickup a copy of SC2 as they would pick up Tetris. This is because they are unable to distinguish the quality difference between the products. When quality doesnt matter, it became a competition of who can pump out the most number of titles to flood the market, since each product has an equal likelihood of being purchased. Look at EA's games. EA publish the most titles and all of them are garbage quality. Like auto-makers, consumers will eventually know a BMW is not the same as Honda. Look at Command and Conquer, they released 8 games (+10 expansion) in the same time span as SC+BW. In the end, despite selling 30 million copies, the entire C&C dev team got fired. Uh. Evidence please? Do you realize that SC2 has already had $13,000++ in prizes for events. Do you know that even when everyone and their grandma can get an SC2 beta key, people are still buying them? I don't know what you see, but every sign points to SC2 being HUGE. At this point, Blizzard could care less if they alienate the 10,000 hardcore foreign fans. If the current "top" players are disgusted with the game and won't play it, a buncha newbs will pick it up, get good, and win the tournaments. It's our loss if we don't buy into their game. We can try to change it, maybe we'll win out and get the final product we want, but we probably won't. We're going to have to live with it. With society the way it is, this is how these things work. Blizzard's name is already so well established, SC2 has been hyped for about 3 years now, there's absolutely nothing anyone here can do to change that. This game will be huge whether you like it or not. Blizzard is going to make an insane amount of profit, whether you like it or not. The game will probably not end up the way many hardcore people at TL want it to be like, and whether you like it or not, that's how it will be. And I can guarantee you this: I'm more involved in the community than you are, I've been around it longer, I've been more into the competitive scene as a player and in every other aspect than you. And personally, I love SC2. It's really fun, and competitive enough to make for entertaining games. I play it at a reasonably skilled level, I really enjoy sitting down and playing the game. I love watching streams and tournaments, and following events, teams, and players. This is all I need to make me happy. Sure, Bnet 2.0 or whatever is cumbersome and lame, but does it detract from my SC2 experience as a whole, not really. And I can say with confidence that I'm a much more hardcore fan than the "casuals" that will flock to the game. If I love it, that's really all that matters. GG.
hey >_< this is my argument, your punctuation and grammar aren't wanted here!
|
you cant make wii sports on the 360 because the 360 doesnt market to the casual audience. if you made a port to it, no one would buy that garbage cuz your mom doesnt own a 360.
you're really not making any sense
the Wii continues to be the superior (using your word) console on the market because they advertise properly to the casual crowd and push out shovelware that appeals to that crowd. people only have to buy the game once
blizzard is following the current trend of marketing to casuals because it WORKS. there are more of them and they're easier to please.
err thats not what i mean by the XBox360 comment.
but i think what i mean by casual is different than what you are thinking. there is a genre of games that you may consider casual (ie Mario) and those who play it as casual gamers.
what i was referring to as casual gamers (or casual ppl) are those who does not or can not distinguish game quality and given 10 games to choose from, they are as likely to buy any title over the other. a casual game would be a game considered by the average consumer as a dumping product (like any Mario-like platform game). the non-casual gamer are ones who pick and choose their games. like a die-hard Mario fan who must have every Mario title. The Mario platform game titles would be an example of a non-casual game. (and i am sure Nintendo takes the development of Mario very seriously) of course, most of us are not at the extreme sides of casual/non-casual and fall in between to varying degree.
yes a casual gamer is easy to cater, because they have little or no preference. but you can not generate superior profit for obvious reasons.
|
On May 31 2010 14:52 Megalisk wrote:
Blizzard is a business. Money comes first, we come second, we are not their "masters".
I guess blizzards money just comes out of thin air right?...
|
On May 31 2010 16:28 Xeris wrote:
Uh. Evidence please?
you just answered your own question. Blizz owed its fame and success to its loyal fans like you, not to the group who will randomly pick up a copy of any game.
there are thousands of video games published every year. Very few of them are published by Blizz. In fact, there have been some years that Blizz did not publish a single game. However, Blizz has been one of the most valuable game developers.
Why arn't every developer catering to casual gamers as valuable as Blizzard?
|
On May 31 2010 16:29 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 16:28 Xeris wrote:On May 31 2010 15:40 dybydx wrote:the masses of casuals. you can not generate "superior profit" from casuals. casuals are ppl who are as likely to pickup a copy of SC2 as they would pick up Tetris. This is because they are unable to distinguish the quality difference between the products. When quality doesnt matter, it became a competition of who can pump out the most number of titles to flood the market, since each product has an equal likelihood of being purchased. Look at EA's games. EA publish the most titles and all of them are garbage quality. Like auto-makers, consumers will eventually know a BMW is not the same as Honda. Look at Command and Conquer, they released 8 games (+10 expansion) in the same time span as SC+BW. In the end, despite selling 30 million copies, the entire C&C dev team got fired. Uh. Evidence please? Do you realize that SC2 has already had $13,000++ in prizes for events. Do you know that even when everyone and their grandma can get an SC2 beta key, people are still buying them? I don't know what you see, but every sign points to SC2 being HUGE. At this point, Blizzard could care less if they alienate the 10,000 hardcore foreign fans. If the current "top" players are disgusted with the game and won't play it, a buncha newbs will pick it up, get good, and win the tournaments. It's our loss if we don't buy into their game. We can try to change it, maybe we'll win out and get the final product we want, but we probably won't. We're going to have to live with it. With society the way it is, this is how these things work. Blizzard's name is already so well established, SC2 has been hyped for about 3 years now, there's absolutely nothing anyone here can do to change that. This game will be huge whether you like it or not. Blizzard is going to make an insane amount of profit, whether you like it or not. The game will probably not end up the way many hardcore people at TL want it to be like, and whether you like it or not, that's how it will be. And I can guarantee you this: I'm more involved in the community than you are, I've been around it longer, I've been more into the competitive scene as a player and in every other aspect than you. And personally, I love SC2. It's really fun, and competitive enough to make for entertaining games. I play it at a reasonably skilled level, I really enjoy sitting down and playing the game. I love watching streams and tournaments, and following events, teams, and players. This is all I need to make me happy. Sure, Bnet 2.0 or whatever is cumbersome and lame, but does it detract from my SC2 experience as a whole, not really. And I can say with confidence that I'm a much more hardcore fan than the "casuals" that will flock to the game. If I love it, that's really all that matters. GG. hey >_< this is my argument, your punctuation and grammar aren't wanted here!
Ohoh, I see a court date coming claiming IP on this argument. Better settle quickly! :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
