|
Instead of bashing op about inaccurate assumptions about game development, I'd like to agree with the fact that Blizzard is way too slow in realizing that they've missed crucial features necessary to SC2's success. I think that's the main point the op was trying to make. How can you release a game intended to be the flagship of e-sports without chat channels or clan support? Professional gaming teams are an integral part of making SC2 the flagship of e-sports, yet there is no way to tell whether or not any user online is part of a 'professional' team. What's even more laughable was the fact that you couldn't even reset your username so if your team changed, you were screwed.
And then in terms of making it a spectator sport Blizzard failed again. No replay sharing? No LAN or any safety features like saving a game's state in case of network problems in a HUGE tournament? The point is that with what blizzard has already accomplished these missing features could easily be accomplished and have been delivered to us, but they haven't because Blizzard doesn't really care.
There's also the fact that the UI sucks and is slow as hell, it takes forever to load someone's profile and Battle.net frequently goes down for maintenance / updates. The entire user experience is terrible, I have to navigate through 3 sets of menus to find what I'm looking for in my own profile.
|
so instead of address the vast majority of his post and the information it presents we should generally whine about how blizzard hasn't met various goals? seems less on topic
|
On April 26 2012 00:58 Xyik wrote:
Instead of bashing op about inaccurate assumptions about game development, I'd like to agree with the fact that Blizzard is way too slow in realizing that they've missed crucial features necessary to SC2's success. I think that's the main point the op was trying to make. How can you release a game intended to be the flagship of e-sports without chat channels or clan support? Professional gaming teams are an integral part of making SC2 the flagship of e-sports, yet there is no way to tell whether or not any user online is part of a 'professional' team. What's even more laughable was the fact that you couldn't even reset your username so if your team changed, you were screwed.
And then in terms of making it a spectator sport Blizzard failed again. No replay sharing? No LAN or any safety features like saving a game's state in case of network problems in a HUGE tournament? The point is that with what blizzard has already accomplished these missing features could easily be accomplished and have been delivered to us, but they haven't because Blizzard doesn't really care.
There's also the fact that the UI sucks and is slow as hell, it takes forever to load someone's profile and Battle.net frequently goes down for maintenance / updates. The entire user experience is terrible, I have to navigate through 3 sets of menus to find what I'm looking for in my own profile.
Those are points he briefly glances over, but do not make up the majority of his argument. His argument is that there should be a rival company capable of rising to compete with Blizzard - and that blizzard's business model in regards to KESPA is misguided. I can agree with the latter half of that point, but the financials of launching any AAA-class RTS in this market is very unlikely.
Because his argument is supported by his financial expectations, that is the evidence that can be attacked to weaken his argument (which it has been). Running a company is an absurdly expensive endeavor when it comes to AAA global reach. Simultaneous release worldwide in retail format? Even online distribution has high costs. SC2 was hyped for two years with a huge marketing force behind it (Remember when they revealed their "Ghosts of Gettysberg" cinematic during a NBA game?).
There have been tons of valid well-constructed posts about features which SC2 is missing and needs - which I'm sure most of us have been involved in. This is not about that, however.
As a closing note, the transition to a sustainable income model is not inherently flawed and does represent the future of video games in general, it seems. Microtranscations are the current norm; however, real money auction house (which has the potential to benefit both users as well as the company) and tournament licensing also are shaping up to have good potential. I would say the latter model needs more support and "umph" behind it in regards to Blizzard - but I suspect that's why we're having so many growing pains (tournaments getting IP-Blocked, etc.) in the process. It's new territory for both sides of the conundrum.
For all its failures in features and in potentially Korea (which I'd have to see the financials to comment on), SC2 has been very successful on a global scale.
|
Until that new RTS is realised, I think SC2 will continue to play the dominant role in esports as an RTS. However I do feel that blizzard and activision are SLOWLY killing themselves.
I feel everything we want will be released in HOTS, and that will be released as a 'new game' price which will be the final nail in the coffin for the player. I won't stop watching, but I sure as hell aren't paying a full price for the second third of a game I already payed for.
Please someone step up and create a new RTS that will be a rival...C&C could get there if they cut the shit, apart from that I can't imagine anything else coming close 
|
On April 25 2012 19:30 Grend wrote:
I just do not get how making the things that are missing in SC2 can be so hard to do.
SC2 for me is being carried by TL, without it there would be no way to actually see all the stuff that happens.
This. Without TL sc2 would be dead already. All the casuals have left the game a long time ago. Blizzard is doing worse than nothing to help the esports scene because they're charging tournaments for hosting their game, and they can do that by having no LAN which further screws us over.
|
On April 25 2012 08:12 Endymion wrote:
We all know that Blizzard fucked up with Starcraft 2 and that they continue to screw us with their customer support
Do we know this? Last time I checked SC2 is my favorite game to play, favorite game to watch, and competing in the AHGL was a ton of fun just because SC2 is such a great game.
On April 25 2012 08:12 Endymion wrote:
TLDR: blizz should hire me, i could make them millions more than they are because i'm not an arrogant activision executive
Right, b/c an arrogant TL blogger who knows nothing about game development would be way better than an "arrogant activision executive".
It really, really bothers me when people talk about SC2 sucking, or Blizzard not caring at all about their customers, or just greedy greedy Activision blah blah blah. Let me explain:
Blizzard only will continue to be successful as long as their customers like their games, enjoy their games, and continue buying their games. They have no choice but to care about their customers. Let's see what they've done so far:
1) Kept the map pool fresh, and have continuously improved the map pool since release. Long gone are the days of Slag Pits and Steppes of War.
2) Continous balance patches to maintain balance in the game. Sure, I know many of you will be like "BUT ZERG IS FAILING HARD IN GSL RIGHT NOW!" or "BUT PROTOSS GOT STOMPED AT MLG AND DREAMHACK!", but the fact is that the game is insanely well balanced given the differences between the races. No one below pro level should ever complain anyway, as it should be simple to look at your games and see how terrible you are playing, and see ways in which you could have improved your game and won. I'm mid-masters and I am terrible at Starcraft 2. My skill is so far below the skill ceiling it is painful, and yet I'm in the top 2% of players. Blizzard has done an AMAZING job with their game design and balance patches.
3) Experimented with match-making settings and used user feedback to determine which settings to use.
4) Added chat channels and occasional name changes.
5) Promoted awesome leagues like the AHGL (for which they donated the $5,000 prize to charity). Playing in the AHGL was one of the most fun and rewarding experiences in my entire life.
None of these things directly make Blizzard money. There is no subscription fee in SC2, and adding features to WoL is not nearly as important for their business as is making sure HotS is a success. That said, they clearly care about ensuring that the ladder keeps running smoothly so that players will continue to enjoy their game and purchase HotS when it comes out. Features like clan support and shared replay watching simply are not important enough, and too much work, to put into WoL at this point.
As Day[9] said at the AHGL Finals -- Thank you, Blizzard, for making Starcraft 2!!
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
The whole number projection is a little beyond me, but I do agree with your points about Blizzard's attitude towards SC2. Simply put: they just don't give a fuck. It's so sad.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On April 25 2012 12:10 Sinensis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 12:03 Serpico wrote:On April 25 2012 12:00 Sinensis wrote:
I don't agree with your numbers or that independant startups have as good a chance as they would imply. I do agree that Sc2 is an incompetent product and I do agree that Blizzard doesn't care.
I also agree that Blizzard trying to get involved in esports while their product is in the state it's in, is disrespectful to the community. So yeah we've been led around and manipulated for a couple years now. They're getting involved obviously for the money, while only wanting to put in the minimal amount of effort to keep it relevant as a competitive game. The sad part is how obvious their intentions are. I don't know how anyone is actually excited about the upcoming "bnet world championships." We have been having world championships for years. Better ones than Blizzard is capable of putting on. Does anyone remember the last tournament Blizzard attempted? It was Blizzcon. Not last year because they cancelled it. The year before that where instead of streaming important matches, we got to watch jazzbass vs toodming and tired trivia. I have never seen so much internet rage as the esports community after that tournament. It was the tournament that made nestea never want to come back to NA, because he was forced to play on Shattered Temple CLOSE SPAWN POSITIONS.
Um, cancelled? http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/BlizzCon_2011_StarCraft_II_Invitational
|
On April 26 2012 03:39 Telcontar wrote:
The whole number projection is a little beyond me, but I do agree with your points about Blizzard's attitude towards SC2. Simply put: they just don't give a fuck. It's so sad.
its beyond sad.i almost had tears of joy in my eyes when i started up beta first time(paid 40$ for a key) and when i had the retail box in my hands.
now basicly i dont give a damn anymore. i havent played in months, didnt ladder for over a year and just sometimes view the bigger free tournaments.
|
On April 26 2012 02:56 JDub wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 08:12 Endymion wrote:
We all know that Blizzard fucked up with Starcraft 2 and that they continue to screw us with their customer support
Do we know this? Last time I checked SC2 is my favorite game to play, favorite game to watch, and competing in the AHGL was a ton of fun just because SC2 is such a great game. Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 08:12 Endymion wrote:
TLDR: blizz should hire me, i could make them millions more than they are because i'm not an arrogant activision executive Right, b/c an arrogant TL blogger who knows nothing about game development would be way better than an "arrogant activision executive". It really, really bothers me when people talk about SC2 sucking, or Blizzard not caring at all about their customers, or just greedy greedy Activision blah blah blah. Let me explain: Blizzard only will continue to be successful as long as their customers like their games, enjoy their games, and continue buying their games. They have no choice but to care about their customers. Let's see what they've done so far: 1) Kept the map pool fresh, and have continuously improved the map pool since release. Long gone are the days of Slag Pits and Steppes of War. 2) Continous balance patches to maintain balance in the game. Sure, I know many of you will be like "BUT ZERG IS FAILING HARD IN GSL RIGHT NOW!" or "BUT PROTOSS GOT STOMPED AT MLG AND DREAMHACK!", but the fact is that the game is insanely well balanced given the differences between the races. No one below pro level should ever complain anyway, as it should be simple to look at your games and see how terrible you are playing, and see ways in which you could have improved your game and won. I'm mid-masters and I am terrible at Starcraft 2. My skill is so far below the skill ceiling it is painful, and yet I'm in the top 2% of players. Blizzard has done an AMAZING job with their game design and balance patches. 3) Experimented with match-making settings and used user feedback to determine which settings to use. 4) Added chat channels and occasional name changes. 5) Promoted awesome leagues like the AHGL (for which they donated the $5,000 prize to charity). Playing in the AHGL was one of the most fun and rewarding experiences in my entire life. None of these things directly make Blizzard money. There is no subscription fee in SC2, and adding features to WoL is not nearly as important for their business as is making sure HotS is a success. That said, they clearly care about ensuring that the ladder keeps running smoothly so that players will continue to enjoy their game and purchase HotS when it comes out. Features like clan support and shared replay watching simply are not important enough, and too much work, to put into WoL at this point. As Day[9] said at the AHGL Finals -- Thank you, Blizzard, for making Starcraft 2!!
Sorry but I disagree with their model of doing things if it means that they won't support us between expansions, I would much prefer a monthly sub if it meant that they would update bnet. 20 and communicate better with TL and fans as a whole
|
On April 25 2012 20:40 baHmi wrote:Now, onto computers. 1.5K per computer? Yeah good luck with that. A reasonable developer workstation (i5 or i7, lots of ram with decent graphics card, two high-resolution monitors, licenses for software and miscellaneous stuff like a desk, a proper chair. Lets just say that you're looking at around 5K per developer, and that's excluding maintenance, networking and all that jazz. Add that up, and you could be expecting to spend around 1-2K per developer per year on licenses alone.
This is a good point brought up which I had forgotten. Often times a game in alpha will be more demanding to run than the finished product, because the coding and graphical renders are all unoptimized. Assuming you're going to be making an RTS that is similar to the scale of StarCraft 2, you want to do a stress test to make sure the computer won't suddenly blow up with masses of units running about dying on the map. Obviously one can ignore anything beyond 1v1 if the focus is on competitive play (hence effectively capping the number of units to 400 on the map at any given time), but if you're neglecting the 2v2 and beyond groups then you're essentially doing the same thing as Blizzard is.
During development, high resolution 3D models often reach staggering numbers and it can reach to the millions if you're using high resolution sculpturing software like ZBrush. A million polygon is probably more than what an average game renders in a level. I don't have solid numbers on the average polygon count for characters, but they're usually optimized to be at 5,000 - 20,000, sometimes less. What I'm getting at is, often times you need high performing computer to render a model. Though I suppose not using ZBrush is an option.
Licensing software can become expensive pretty quickly. The software itself is already a pain in the ass. Most professional developers use Maya or 3ds Max. Luckily open source software such as Blender is available surprisingly enough, though I haven't heard of any developers using Blender (at least the big developers). Not that Blender isn't good, in fact it is an exceptional piece of software.
|
On April 26 2012 04:12 Endymion wrote:
Sorry but I disagree with their model of doing things if it means that they won't support us between expansions, I would much prefer a monthly sub if it meant that they would update bnet. 20 and communicate better with TL and fans as a whole
But they are supporting us. I gave in my previous post a whole list of things they have done (map pool, matchmaking changes, AHGL sponsorship, chat channels + name changes). Something to add would be developer updates on Heart of the Swarm, which they have done to keep us in the loop about the development changes. You might want to pay a monthly subscription, but I sure as hell don't. And I think I got a huge value out of my $60 purchase, whether or not BNET 2 feels lonely. I love playing SC2, I love the super competitive nature of the ladder, and I love the fact that Day9 and Blizzard support things like the AHGL.
Just because they aren't adding major features to Battle.Net doesn't mean they don't care. Honestly, hiring more people to communicate on TL or the BNET forums would be a terrible waste of time and money, as the vast majority of people just want to complain about whatever they can think of to complain about. The battle.net forums are a wasteland filled with trolls and people suggesting the stupidest stuff ever about what they'd like to see in the game.
Basically, they did a poor job designing much of the BNET 2 UI. That said, they did a phenomenal job with designing the gameplay, balance, and matchmaking system, and produced a really well-polished game. Given their model (which you do not approve of, but which is the traditional model, and does not require monthly fees), it does not make sense to do a major overhaul of BNET 2 for WoL. Wait for the big time changes in HotS.
But whatever you do, don't try to pretend like Blizzard does not care. "But JDub -- they DONT HAVE CLAN SUPPORT!" you say. Guess what? If you want to join a clan you can. If you want to go play in a tournament, you can. Everything that people are complaining about is, in all honesty, really minor features. Shared replay watching? Oh no, you have to e-mail the replay to a friend and sync it up over Skype. LAN? Oh wait, for 99% of players this does not matter, everyone has an internet connection nowadays, and SC2 uses very minimal bandwidth. Reconnection after a disconnect? This would not apply to ladder, as people don't want to wait around for their opponent to come back anyway (60 seconds is more than enough). It would be a really great feature for tournaments, and I would expect such a feature in HotS. As it is, it doesn't affect 99.9% of players, only pros playing in pro tournaments who are unfortunate enough to experience a disconnect.
The fact is, Blizzard is working on Heart of the Swarm, and simultaneously ensuring that the WoL competitive matchmaking system continues to function and gives players great games (map pool, matchmaking settings, balance patches). Meanwhile, a few Blizzard employees also showed up to spectate and deliver the $5,000 check at the AHGL Grand Finals.
It strikes me as absurd that people take all this and arrive at the conclusion that "Blizzard does not give a fuck about SC2", that SC2 is "a failure". I love this game. Sure, I'd love it even more if the BNET 2 UI was better, but really I couldn't care less about that. I log on every time so I can hit "Find Match", get an adrenaline rush and compete against someone of my skill level in an intense 10-15 minute battle. Playing SC2 is the most fun I've ever had playing videogames.
|
You should have kept the descriptive row in all the columns I think, takes so much effort to understand it except for the bottom line without it.
Kind regards,
the lazy dude
|
Made me laugh. You do know that these 2D "fully functional games" are written with a couple fo thousand lines of code. While a triple A game goes into the millions? They are lazy with patching though. Probably because of all the time and resources going into HotS. If they wont update many of the missing feature then. Then you might have a valid point.
|
On April 26 2012 04:35 JDub wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 04:12 Endymion wrote:
Sorry but I disagree with their model of doing things if it means that they won't support us between expansions, I would much prefer a monthly sub if it meant that they would update bnet. 20 and communicate better with TL and fans as a whole
But they are supporting us. I gave in my previous post a whole list of things they have done (map pool, matchmaking changes, AHGL sponsorship, chat channels + name changes). Something to add would be developer updates on Heart of the Swarm, which they have done to keep us in the loop about the development changes. You might want to pay a monthly subscription, but I sure as hell don't. And I think I got a huge value out of my $60 purchase, whether or not BNET 2 feels lonely. I love playing SC2, I love the super competitive nature of the ladder, and I love the fact that Day9 and Blizzard support things like the AHGL. Just because they aren't adding major features to Battle.Net doesn't mean they don't care. Honestly, hiring more people to communicate on TL or the BNET forums would be a terrible waste of time and money, as the vast majority of people just want to complain about whatever they can think of to complain about. The battle.net forums are a wasteland filled with trolls and people suggesting the stupidest stuff ever about what they'd like to see in the game. Basically, they did a poor job designing much of the BNET 2 UI. That said, they did a phenomenal job with designing the gameplay, balance, and matchmaking system, and produced a really well-polished game. Given their model (which you do not approve of, but which is the traditional model, and does not require monthly fees), it does not make sense to do a major overhaul of BNET 2 for WoL. Wait for the big time changes in HotS. But whatever you do, don't try to pretend like Blizzard does not care. "But JDub -- they DONT HAVE CLAN SUPPORT!" you say. Guess what? If you want to join a clan you can. If you want to go play in a tournament, you can. Everything that people are complaining about is, in all honesty, really minor features. Shared replay watching? Oh no, you have to e-mail the replay to a friend and sync it up over Skype. LAN? Oh wait, for 99% of players this does not matter, everyone has an internet connection nowadays, and SC2 uses very minimal bandwidth. Reconnection after a disconnect? This would not apply to ladder, as people don't want to wait around for their opponent to come back anyway (60 seconds is more than enough). It would be a really great feature for tournaments, and I would expect such a feature in HotS. As it is, it doesn't affect 99.9% of players, only pros playing in pro tournaments who are unfortunate enough to experience a disconnect. The fact is, Blizzard is working on Heart of the Swarm, and simultaneously ensuring that the WoL competitive matchmaking system continues to function and gives players great games (map pool, matchmaking settings, balance patches). Meanwhile, a few Blizzard employees also showed up to spectate and deliver the $5,000 check at the AHGL Grand Finals. It strikes me as absurd that people take all this and arrive at the conclusion that "Blizzard does not give a fuck about SC2", that SC2 is "a failure". I love this game. Sure, I'd love it even more if the BNET 2 UI was better, but really I couldn't care less about that. I log on every time so I can hit "Find Match", get an adrenaline rush and compete against someone of my skill level in an intense 10-15 minute battle. Playing SC2 is the most fun I've ever had playing videogames.
I agree with this...they've made it known that they hear the concerns that the community has. They definitely have listened in regards to gameplay and that's the most important feature of a game. HotS must take priority right now...unless people want a terrible expansion, it seems crazy to worry more about the improvement of social features RIGHT NOW as opposed to a game that has longevity through its content. It wasn't until a couple of months ago that everyone got so worked up about the social features lacking. That was because we had bigger concerns regarding game balance and the horrendous map pool. With patch 1.5 they're at least making an attempt to remedy yet another community gripe. Regardless, people won't be satisfied...it's how it always works.
They are trying to support the community...Blizzard certainly isn't hands off. If you want to see that, go look at any game published by EA. If you get changes from them, you pay for them. Blizzard isn't doing that with SC2 and this game, despite all of the negativity from some vocal community members has a solid base of players and a fairly well established pro scene. Find that with any other game on the market and then find me a company who continues to put in effort to ensure it stays that way. MOBAs are the only other exception at this moment and the money being pumped into their scene comes directly from the parent companies. With the market supersaturated with these games right now, that scene lacks any real cohesion. DOTA2 will fight against LoL just like FPS games fight each other. SC2 will change drastically with HotS which will bring in new blood and renew interest in the game. That is the most important thing.
As for the actual numbers that Blizzard is working with, I don't think they will make a bad business decision. It's funny how someone can say that they've turned into a greed-based company with no interest in their customers and then turn around to say that they're making a business decision that will be unsustainable. How can a company that is concerned with money to the point of near-intentional community neglect (supposedly) do something that will kill the eSports scene and stunt their income? I don't think they can/will. Of course Blizzard wants money...that is what they've always done. The $15 a year per viewer deal with Kespa has other factors that you simply don't know about. It would make no business sense to overcharge and I guarantee you that they aren't financially retarded. They crunch the real numbers...not just some hypothetical licensing fees and estimations on capital investments/salaries. The funny thing is, the OP would be infuriating if it were true. Sadly, one piece of information thrown in with hypothetical scenarios often comes out with unintentionally bias results. Talk about how terrible Blizzard is at supporting the community and how greedy they are...I personally wouldn't question their ability to make money. They know the price point for products and they understand how to bargain. Let the details work themselves out and it will probably be much different than any scenario people on a forum could come up with.
|
KESPA should hire a company to make a new rts game
the pro players could test and balance it
|
On April 26 2012 05:42 Grohg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 04:35 JDub wrote:On April 26 2012 04:12 Endymion wrote:
Sorry but I disagree with their model of doing things if it means that they won't support us between expansions, I would much prefer a monthly sub if it meant that they would update bnet. 20 and communicate better with TL and fans as a whole
But they are supporting us. I gave in my previous post a whole list of things they have done (map pool, matchmaking changes, AHGL sponsorship, chat channels + name changes). Something to add would be developer updates on Heart of the Swarm, which they have done to keep us in the loop about the development changes. You might want to pay a monthly subscription, but I sure as hell don't. And I think I got a huge value out of my $60 purchase, whether or not BNET 2 feels lonely. I love playing SC2, I love the super competitive nature of the ladder, and I love the fact that Day9 and Blizzard support things like the AHGL. Just because they aren't adding major features to Battle.Net doesn't mean they don't care. Honestly, hiring more people to communicate on TL or the BNET forums would be a terrible waste of time and money, as the vast majority of people just want to complain about whatever they can think of to complain about. The battle.net forums are a wasteland filled with trolls and people suggesting the stupidest stuff ever about what they'd like to see in the game. Basically, they did a poor job designing much of the BNET 2 UI. That said, they did a phenomenal job with designing the gameplay, balance, and matchmaking system, and produced a really well-polished game. Given their model (which you do not approve of, but which is the traditional model, and does not require monthly fees), it does not make sense to do a major overhaul of BNET 2 for WoL. Wait for the big time changes in HotS. But whatever you do, don't try to pretend like Blizzard does not care. "But JDub -- they DONT HAVE CLAN SUPPORT!" you say. Guess what? If you want to join a clan you can. If you want to go play in a tournament, you can. Everything that people are complaining about is, in all honesty, really minor features. Shared replay watching? Oh no, you have to e-mail the replay to a friend and sync it up over Skype. LAN? Oh wait, for 99% of players this does not matter, everyone has an internet connection nowadays, and SC2 uses very minimal bandwidth. Reconnection after a disconnect? This would not apply to ladder, as people don't want to wait around for their opponent to come back anyway (60 seconds is more than enough). It would be a really great feature for tournaments, and I would expect such a feature in HotS. As it is, it doesn't affect 99.9% of players, only pros playing in pro tournaments who are unfortunate enough to experience a disconnect. The fact is, Blizzard is working on Heart of the Swarm, and simultaneously ensuring that the WoL competitive matchmaking system continues to function and gives players great games (map pool, matchmaking settings, balance patches). Meanwhile, a few Blizzard employees also showed up to spectate and deliver the $5,000 check at the AHGL Grand Finals. It strikes me as absurd that people take all this and arrive at the conclusion that "Blizzard does not give a fuck about SC2", that SC2 is "a failure". I love this game. Sure, I'd love it even more if the BNET 2 UI was better, but really I couldn't care less about that. I log on every time so I can hit "Find Match", get an adrenaline rush and compete against someone of my skill level in an intense 10-15 minute battle. Playing SC2 is the most fun I've ever had playing videogames. I agree with this...they've made it known that they hear the concerns that the community has. They definitely have listened in regards to gameplay and that's the most important feature of a game. HotS must take priority right now...unless people want a terrible expansion, it seems crazy to worry more about the improvement of social features RIGHT NOW as opposed to a game that has longevity through its content. It wasn't until a couple of months ago that everyone got so worked up about the social features lacking. That was because we had bigger concerns regarding game balance and the horrendous map pool. With patch 1.5 they're at least making an attempt to remedy yet another community gripe. Regardless, people won't be satisfied...it's how it always works. They are trying to support the community...Blizzard certainly isn't hands off. If you want to see that, go look at any game published by EA. If you get changes from them, you pay for them. Blizzard isn't doing that with SC2 and this game, despite all of the negativity from some vocal community members has a solid base of players and a fairly well established pro scene. Find that with any other game on the market and then find me a company who continues to put in effort to ensure it stays that way. MOBAs are the only other exception at this moment and the money being pumped into their scene comes directly from the parent companies. With the market supersaturated with these games right now, that scene lacks any real cohesion. DOTA2 will fight against LoL just like FPS games fight each other. SC2 will change drastically with HotS which will bring in new blood and renew interest in the game. That is the most important thing. As for the actual numbers that Blizzard is working with, I don't think they will make a bad business decision. It's funny how someone can say that they've turned into a greed-based company with no interest in their customers and then turn around to say that they're making a business decision that will be unsustainable. How can a company that is concerned with money to the point of near-intentional community neglect (supposedly) do something that will kill the eSports scene and stunt their income? I don't think they can/will. Of course Blizzard wants money...that is what they've always done. The $15 a year per viewer deal with Kespa has other factors that you simply don't know about. It would make no business sense to overcharge and I guarantee you that they aren't financially retarded. They crunch the real numbers...not just some hypothetical licensing fees and estimations on capital investments/salaries. The funny thing is, the OP would be infuriating if it were true. Sadly, one piece of information thrown in with hypothetical scenarios often comes out with unintentionally bias results. Talk about how terrible Blizzard is at supporting the community and how greedy they are...I personally wouldn't question their ability to make money. They know the price point for products and they understand how to bargain. Let the details work themselves out and it will probably be much different than any scenario people on a forum could come up with.
this is exactly the the apathy that I think is ruining both the community and the game itself.. blizzard doesn't give us something that we had 8 years ago like clan support or name change? oh don't worry they're a big company, they'll do it eventually.. region locking because it's "too laggy" where as iccup and valve and fish all seem to have it pretty well down? oh they're certainly doing the right thing for us. face it, blizzard doesn't communicate with us unless they're cutting features. "do you REALLY want chat channels?" tell me, how involved is the community with HOTS's development? we have nearly 7 month old information on units that've probably already been cut, why isn't development completely open so that they can atleast humor professional gamers' opinions?
their business practices are shaky at best imo, and how well sc2 will do in korea post SC2PL is still yet to be seen..
|
On April 26 2012 06:21 Endymion wrote:
this is exactly the the apathy that I think is ruining both the community and the game itself.. blizzard doesn't give us something that we had 8 years ago like clan support or name change? oh don't worry they're a big company, they'll do it eventually.. region locking because it's "too laggy" where as iccup and valve and fish all seem to have it pretty well down? oh they're certainly doing the right thing for us. face it, blizzard doesn't communicate with us unless they're cutting features. "do you REALLY want chat channels?" tell me, how involved is the community with HOTS's development? we have nearly 7 month old information on units that've probably already been cut, why isn't development completely open so that they can atleast humor professional gamers' opinions?
their business practices are shaky at best imo, and how well sc2 will do in korea post SC2PL is still yet to be seen..
Nobody cares about clan support. Games are not developed by the community. Look at the Blizzard forums for a second for community suggestions on balance and game design. It's a shit show. The community does not know how to design games, but Blizzard does. David Kim plays the game at basically a pro level. Pro players will get to weigh in on HotS balance.
Blizzard doesn't communicate with us unless they're cutting features??? What about the last matchmaking changes? They communicated the experiment, the end of the experiment, and then the final policy on the matchmaking changes. What about balance changes that always come out with detailed explanations. What about the last announcement about the upcoming changes to the custom game lobby?
The community has been complaining non-stop since release and Blizzard has listened. First it was maps and balance issues, not it's the BNET2 UI (which no one seemed to care about for the first year after release). They hear us, they are working on it, I'm not telling people to shut up and stop complaining, but I am telling people to stop saying the Blizzard doesn't give a fuck. They care about their game's success.
|
A few of the other posters have mentioned this already, but I think it bears pointing out again, partially because I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your financial analysis. You have very, very severely underestimated the cost.
For development, programming is simply one staff cost, and not the only one. You not only have programmers but game designers, artists, composers, writers, sound engineers, testers etc. A full development team (with the bells and whistles expected in a 3D game) can get expensive pretty quickly.
You are severely underestimating some of the computer, facilities and equipment costs, partially I think because you are severely understaffing the project.
You are missing a ton of other costs:
Licensing fees: for tech such as game engines, or Dolby digital, or MP3/AAC, or copyrighted music or images
Customer service: call/email service center and community management staff
Systems maintenance staff and costs: datacenter costs, website design and maintenance, production server setup and maintenance, dbas etc. Of course if you are simply releasing a game playable over lan with no tracking (e.g. no need to track match history, ladder ranks, clan tracking etc.) you can also set this to near 0.
Attorneys: either in house or on retainer
Accountants
Information Technology
DRM: if you choose to have DRM on the product, I suggest not having any
Distribution: e.g. steam, or other digital platform. Retail distribution is even more expensive
Executive Management: I suggest not having any executive management either, if you can help it.
Benefits: Employee benefits (e.g. healthcare). Should probably also include payroll tax, and other personel expenses. (this can be rolled into salary if you wish)
...And I'm sure I'm missing a whole bunch of stuff.
When you are a startup, especially when you are working from home/dorm, your home is your office, your personal internet connection is also your business internet. Your programming environment is provided by your school or workplace. You have no physical distribution costs. You pray you don't get sued over licensing issues, or you are likely to simply go out of business or stop your project entirely. You handle your own contract negotiation and accounting (and sometimes mess it up because you aren't a professional in that field). You provide your own marketing and customer support for the lifetime of your product, at the expense of your own time, which may seriously increase the development timeline. You will still likely need professional services on some of these items.
Bottom line is: Trying to get a real ROI on a fully-fleshed out business is much more difficult. I don't disagree that blizzards pricing and/or support is bad, I just think you need to put some more thought in and adjust the model if you really want to compare the costs of creating and sustaining a game for a start-up to what it would likely cost blizzard (now blizzard-activation) the corporation. There is a reason why startups (and more agile companies in general) can have some distinct advantages over large corporations, but for AAA fully featured titles they aren't as large as your analysis represents I dont' think.
I think you should take another stab at getting more realistic numbers, though I'm not sure what exactly would be reasonable myself. Probably closer to 60 development staff total, and 50-75 customer support staff across all regions and languages (and for support that's still probably way too low). Someone within the industry could probably give you a better idea. You should probably also add cost to launch (marketing, distribution, etc.), add technology and copyright licensing costs, add costs for the ongoing support (datacenter, production server, database administrators and other internal maintenance staff), and add costs for corporate allocation (attorneys, accountants, information technology support) that a 120 or so man organization will need. I think you'll find it is much more expensive to maintain than your initial assumptions show. Also, if you expect to continue game development and support (e.g. adding new features), then you should include a part of the development staff costs as ongoing for the life of the game. While it may be cheaper for a startup, you still need all these components.
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make originally? That the fee Blizzard is asking of KESPA is outrageous? That a startup could compete effectively in the same space? Yeah, that's probably the case, but the financial model you use as supporting evidence for your argument grossly misrepresents the business case, and I can't take the argument seriously when the numbers are so grossly misrepresented.
Edit: I suck at proof-reading my own posts. Fixed many issues. Note, I'm not an expert on the industry, so maybe i'm wrong about the number of development staff you'd need. writing a fully 3d game with millions of lines of code, 3d textures and meshs, a single-player story, multiplayer balance, voice acting, etc. seems like a much bigger undertaking to me than what 20 'programmers' would be able to accomplish in 3 years time. Indy game development typically has a large number of limitations. Indy games tend to be very simplistic in many ways, and harken back to older days (e.g. units can only fire if on a distinct 'square' where the engine can easily determine where exactly the unit is and how to calculate range, rather than what appears to be closer to combat anywhere model).
|
@OP : Since I'm playing Blizzard games for about 8 years now and also see them getting destroyed by their own creators I often think about how it could be changed.
I think that your calculations are a good idea BUT I think your largely underestimate the costs of production.
There should be a lot more employees in game design (at least x5 times your estimations) but also the "administrative" part of the project like PR, customer service ...etc and software licenses (3D software "3DsMax" costs around 6k-8k per license I think so multiply this for every designer in your start-up).
After the release the best idea would be to make the game open-source so that individual programmers could create "forks" of the game (like Linux distributions) with one "official" distribution that can only be modified by employees or by community made modifications that are verified / validated by employees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
