|
In recent days a series of events have revealed Blizzard's decision making have brought dissatisfaction of their fans.
All of this is done for money. ie. removal of LAN not only just to prevent piracy, but forcing users to use Bnet2.0 also generate revenue from advertising, map selling, ability to host chat channel, ability to host games with features (ie LAN-like latency) etc.
However, Blizzard is forgetting one thing. WE, the fans, are the masters to whom Blizzard serves. NOT the shareholders Activision-Blizzard. Blizzard is a mere servant and is expendable.
Look at Starcraft for example. Why was it godly popular in Korea but not in USA? Because the gamers and fans of SK supported SC. It is not because SK broadcaster had more money than US ones. It is not because the SK version of SC is more fun than the US copy.
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.
As the Joker once said, "There is only one opening, so we are going to have.... tryout. Make it fast."
|
Blizzard is a business. Money comes first, we come second, we are not their "masters".
|
On May 31 2010 14:52 Megalisk wrote: Blizzard is a business. Money comes first, we come second, we are not their "masters". who do you think they get their money from?
|
On May 31 2010 14:54 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 14:52 Megalisk wrote: Blizzard is a business. Money comes first, we come second, we are not their "masters". who do you think they get their money from?
the masses of casuals.
|
On May 31 2010 14:54 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 14:52 Megalisk wrote: Blizzard is a business. Money comes first, we come second, we are not their "masters". who do you think they get their money from?
wow subs
|
Reminds me of something said on that After Talk concerning the scandal that stuck out to me.
Are the fans the root or the fruit?
|
On May 31 2010 14:58 404.Delirium wrote: Reminds me of something said on that After Talk concerning the scandal that stuck out to me.
Are the fans the root or the fruit?
They start as the fruit, then the seed falls and they become the plant, thats how I see it.
|
United States24343 Posts
Lumping all 'fans' together in any discussion is probably a big mistake. It's a more complicated issue than you make it out to be.
|
If they find that what they are doing now won't make them much money, they are bound to change it. Albeit it might be a long and slow process. They will be happy long as they make the cash along the way. They are probably thinking of maximizing profits over a long period of time on sc2, so they don't want to exactly "perfect" it off the bat.
|
Blizzard's only obligation is to turn a profit, but the best way to turn a profit is to make a quality game that people want. Hopefully Blizzard will be able to overcome the Activision-taint and release a good game.
|
|
You are totally misunderstanding the situation. We really don't have much power at all in the end.
|
On May 31 2010 14:48 dybydx wrote: Look at Starcraft for example. Why was it godly popular in Korea but not in USA? Because the gamers and fans of SK supported SC. It is not because SK broadcaster had more money than US ones.
Actually, it's both.
|
you have a terrible understanding of the business world in general, such that I couldnt even begin to discuss with you the logic behind blizzards decisions or anything applying the the situation as a whole.
also you quoted an imaginary character.
just know you're wrong.
we are not blizzards masters. profit comes first, fans are a bi product of profit.
|
On May 31 2010 14:54 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 14:52 Megalisk wrote: Blizzard is a business. Money comes first, we come second, we are not their "masters". who do you think they get their money from?
They get their money from the 3459384590438393083094 people who will buy the game and don't give a shit about LAN latency and stuff like that. I'm sure the TL community is only a small proportion of the actual SC2 players that will flood stores to buy the game. Blizzard doesn't give a shit about you, or us... get used to it.
|
On May 31 2010 14:57 kNyTTyM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 14:54 dybydx wrote:On May 31 2010 14:52 Megalisk wrote: Blizzard is a business. Money comes first, we come second, we are not their "masters". who do you think they get their money from? the masses of casuals.
Exactly. SC2 is not WOW. There is no monthly fee. Whether you play the game 6 months or 11 years, they don't make extra money. (there is some advertising on b.net, but I don't think it is substantial).
Why would they make effort to satisfy 10 thousand TLers if they can satisfy 10 millions casual gamers.
Edit : Xeris is faster
|
On May 31 2010 14:58 404.Delirium wrote: Reminds me of something said on that After Talk concerning the scandal that stuck out to me.
Are the fans the root or the fruit? The fans are both. They start and end the corporation. Strangely its also the group whose interests have not been looked after.
|
United States47024 Posts
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.
On May 31 2010 14:57 kNyTTyM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 14:54 dybydx wrote:On May 31 2010 14:52 Megalisk wrote: Blizzard is a business. Money comes first, we come second, we are not their "masters". who do you think they get their money from? the masses of casuals. Given the issues mentioned with regard to employee benefits brought up in the Activision-Blizzard history thread:
On May 30 2010 07:18 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2010 07:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:On May 30 2010 06:46 The6357 wrote: sounds like Blizzard is a bad place to work...and no wonder Blizzard puts "Blizzard is Hiring" ad on b.net...they can't keep their employees!!!! Dunno if this post is serious, but I think Blizzard is probably still one of the very best places in the gaming industry to work... I very much doubt they have any issues pertaining to employee retention. Knowing somebody that works there, it's a great environment. They are trying to cut benefits but Morhaine is holding strong. Also, the employees are stuck in an interesting position. From what I've heard they get pretty ridiculously good percs from activision, but everyone's alliance still lies with Morhaine. (at least the old timers)
I would say that Morhaime and Kotick are the masters of virtually all of Blizzard, seeing as they control who gets paid how much (which, at the employee level, is the only thing that actually affects anyone). And Kotick probably has enough control over Morhaime on a lot of issues to have control over everything that Morhaime isn't extremely adamant about.
As romantic as it sounds for the fans to be the ultimate decider, it's really not the case for the most part. Yeah, if Blizzard's sales are poor, heads will roll and people will get fired, but if they start going out of line with regard to what Activision wants them to do, that's also going to make heads roll and get people fired (look what happened to Infinity Ward).
In the long term, we make an impact on what's going to happen, but in the short term, that's not realistic. I'm sure most of the Blizzard employees would rather get fired in 18 months rather than get fired now.
|
On May 31 2010 15:14 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 14:57 kNyTTyM wrote:On May 31 2010 14:54 dybydx wrote:On May 31 2010 14:52 Megalisk wrote: Blizzard is a business. Money comes first, we come second, we are not their "masters". who do you think they get their money from? the masses of casuals. Given the issues mentioned with regard to employee benefits brought up in the Activision-Blizzard history thread: Show nested quote +On May 30 2010 07:18 Froadac wrote:On May 30 2010 07:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:On May 30 2010 06:46 The6357 wrote: sounds like Blizzard is a bad place to work...and no wonder Blizzard puts "Blizzard is Hiring" ad on b.net...they can't keep their employees!!!! Dunno if this post is serious, but I think Blizzard is probably still one of the very best places in the gaming industry to work... I very much doubt they have any issues pertaining to employee retention. Knowing somebody that works there, it's a great environment. They are trying to cut benefits but Morhaine is holding strong. Also, the employees are stuck in an interesting position. From what I've heard they get pretty ridiculously good percs from activision, but everyone's alliance still lies with Morhaine. (at least the old timers) I would say that Morhaime and Kotick are the masters of virtually all of Blizzard, seeing as they control who gets paid how much (which, at the employee level, is the only thing that actually affects anyone). And Kotick probably has enough control over Morhaime on a lot of issues to have control over everything that Morhaime isn't extremely adamant about. As romantic as it sounds for the fans to be the ultimate decider, it's really not the case for the most part. Yeah, if Blizzard's sales are poor, heads will roll and people will get fired, but if they start going out of line with regard to what Activision wants them to do, that's also going to make heads roll and get people fired (look what happened to Infinity Ward). In the long term, we make an impact on what's going to happen, but in the short term, that's not realistic. I'm sure most of the Blizzard employees would rather get fired in 18 months rather than get fired now.
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.
|
In the end they will do what it takes to satisfy its customers if they want to keep their profits high. If they don't do certain things, its because the majority of the customers either do not care or are against such changes. Unfortunately a majority of the people probably do not see esports as anything very serious or significant to care about all the "bad" blizzard might be doing to it.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
What I find confusing is that Blizzard says it wants to promote e-sport, yet would rather please the casuals than the competitive scene.
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.
|
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. 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
|
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.
|
I like the part where you say something about a monopoly then list alternative games we could play. Very convincing
|
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.
|
On May 31 2010 20:43 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
IdrA,
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.
|
When I said casual gamers I didn't only meant people who always buy random shit. I meant people who don't play the game competitively. Just today I was chatting about SC2 with my colleagues. Both of them love BW and blizzard, even if they are 50 apm noobs. I often rape them 1v2 on the hunters after work. Anyway, when I was complaining about the fact we could select as many units as we want, MBS etc, they were like "wow thats sound awesome, I have no idea why you are complaining about it" . I dont need to mention that they dont know what hotkeys are. Nevertheless we can still considering them as hardcore Blizz fans since they bought every single game.
|
|
|
|