EPTDie-Hard BW fans: 8%
Hordes of 12-year old 30apm gamers: 92%
An exaggeration? Surely, but you get my point.
Blizzard's Grave Mistake - Page 3
| Blogs > dybydx |
|
SoManyDeadLings
Canada255 Posts
Die-Hard BW fans: 8% Hordes of 12-year old 30apm gamers: 92% An exaggeration? Surely, but you get my point. | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
On May 31 2010 17:21 SoManyDeadLings wrote: I laugh so hard whenever a random BW player thinks so highly of himself and the community in general. Die-Hard BW fans: 8% Hordes of 12-year old 30apm gamers: 92% An exaggeration? Surely, but you get my point. apparently, it is those 8% that the shareholders pay attention to. when Command & Conquer series sold 30 million copies, their game devs got fired. when starcraft + bw sold a "lousy" 9.5 million copies it became a valuable name brand as we now know. i guess the shareholders doesnt care about the other 20 million copies. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On May 31 2010 17:00 dybydx wrote: 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? you're wrong and your arguments are terrible blizzard is a company, their goal is to make as much money as possible. they dont have any debts of honor or whatever bullshit you're talking about and they only care if people value them in so far as it makes people more likely to buy their products. if sacrificing the competitive community would make them more money theyd do it in a heartbeat and it would suck ass, but it would be perfectly understandable. | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
On May 31 2010 18:32 IdrA wrote: you're wrong and your arguments are terrible blizzard is a company, their goal is to make as much money as possible. they dont have any debts of honor or whatever bullshit you're talking about and they only care if people value them in so far as it makes people more likely to buy their products. if sacrificing the competitive community would make them more money theyd do it in a heartbeat and it would suck ass, but it would be perfectly understandable. wow, getting trashed by IdrA, i feel honored. although if u read my earlier comments, i clearly stated that blizz should care about the fan base not for moral or ethical reasons, but for the purpose of pursuing superior profits. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
casual gamers may not be able to tell the difference between a "good" and a "bad" game, but thats only because you're looking at competitive standards of good and bad. something can certainly be more or less enjoyable for a casual gamer, and thats obviously what blizzard is going for with the retarded ladder system and a bunch of other features. | ||
|
Zhek
Canada342 Posts
Also, most "casuals" nowadays are made into believing they are "hardcore" because of the simple fact that "Hey look I shoot shit faster, I'm hardcore" and only play 4 hours a day. Let's call them the "casualcore" instead. | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On May 31 2010 15:29 mOnion wrote: 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) He does answer to him and Activision definitely makes more than Blizzard, they merged with Vivendi Games(i.e. all their developers and not just Blizzard) and Vivendi still had to pay $1.7 billion on top of that in order to have 52% of the combined company. Mike Morhaime: I will remain president and CEO of Blizzard Entertainment reporting to Bobby Kotick who is CEO of Activision Blizzard. http://games.ign.com/articles/839/839007p1.html | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
On May 31 2010 19:24 IdrA wrote: ya but like i said, you're wrong. theyve already established themselves as good. this means a shitload of people are gonna buy their game, more than would buy a mediocre game put out by a different company. so now their goal is to make something thats gonna make all those casual players want to buy more of their games, because thats where the money is. they outnumber us, and honestly we're all going to buy the game anyway, theres going to be a competitive sc2 scene no matter what. so why should they give a shit what we say? casual gamers may not be able to tell the difference between a "good" and a "bad" game, but thats only because you're looking at competitive standards of good and bad. something can certainly be more or less enjoyable for a casual gamer, and thats obviously what blizzard is going for with the retarded ladder system and a bunch of other features. A: i dont argue that blizz was already established as good based on prior work. i only argue their priority of immediate cash milking over customer satisfaction is running their company to the ground, financially. while they may still generate a profit, it will be low and bitter. B: i am not measuring Blizz's decisions on SC2 solely by how competitive the game will be, but by our satisfaction of it (which is related its competitiveness). C: i already pointed out, sales number doesn't always mean profit. shareholders don't care about sales, they care about return on investment. A+B+C: You can generate superior return even when you have lower sale volume, as long as you maintain strong customer satisfaction (ie fan base). If you want some examples... Blizzard vs EA: EA actually lost money when Blizz was rolling in cash, despite EA has 2x the sales. Coke vs Pepsi: Pepsi slightly ahead in sales, but Coke far ahead in profit and market cap. Pepsi also make snacks so the comparison isnt perfect, but Coke's profitability is still higher. BMW vs Volkswagen: Technically VW earned more total profits than BMW because of sheer volume but VW's margins are thinner and BMW is better return for your dollar. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
On May 31 2010 20:47 CharlieMurphy wrote: I like the part where you say something about a monopoly then list alternative games we could play. Very convincing not sure what you were referring to. i said blizzard do NOT have monopoly over us and there are many game devs out there willing to replace Blizz/SC2. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On May 31 2010 20:43 dybydx wrote: A: i dont argue that blizz was already established as good based on prior work. i only argue their priority of immediate cash milking over customer satisfaction is running their company to the ground, financially. while they may still generate a profit, it will be low and bitter. B: i am not measuring Blizz's decisions on SC2 solely by how competitive the game will be, but by our satisfaction of it (which is related its competitiveness). C: i already pointed out, sales number doesn't always mean profit. shareholders don't care about sales, they care about return on investment. A+B+C: You can generate superior return even when you have lower sale volume, as long as you maintain strong customer satisfaction (ie fan base). If you want some examples... Blizzard vs EA: EA actually lost money when Blizz was rolling in cash, despite EA has 2x the sales. Coke vs Pepsi: Pepsi slightly ahead in sales, but Coke far ahead in profit and market cap. Pepsi also make snacks so the comparison isnt perfect, but Coke's profitability is still higher. BMW vs Volkswagen: Technically VW earned more total profits than BMW because of sheer volume but VW's margins are thinner and BMW is better return for your dollar. ya, the thing is we're not the customers they need to satisfy. you make a sc2 that the casual players like and the next time they see a blizzard game and an ea game on the shelf theyll buy the blizzard game. thats a lot more important than appeasing the much, much group smaller people who just played broodwar for 11 years. | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
i didnt say making the game to attract more players is bad (i clarified my definition of "casual gamer" in earlier post) there is a difference between making a game for ppl who doesnt care about the qualify of the game they play and making a game for players who may/will not have competitive skills or devote 10hrs per day. EA games are perfect example of the "i-dont-care gamer" game. EA focus on filling the shelf with new games each month and they still sell 10s of millions of copies. But... their gamers dont care about the game, so the profit on those games were low. Diablo II on the other hand is a game with no skills!! Hell, people use bots to play the game for them, how much 1337 skill is that? But those people are not "casual" gamers, they are (somewhat) loyal fans. My bitching on Blizz is how they just dump things in the game that destroy the current and potential fan base. And I claim that this will eventually hit Blizz's financial standing in a bad way. | ||
|
endy
Switzerland8970 Posts
| ||
| ||
