|
It seems that those people criticizing (the Dominion movie, battle.net 2, Kespa incident, etc, etc, etc) didn't really get the point.
Blizzard is changing business.
I can't understand why this isn't clear as a punch in the face to everyone who is currently writing supposedly thoughtful words about Starcraft 2.
They are going worldwide. And I mean *actual* worldwide, like a few do (Ubisoft is one of them), with offices around the world, servers, and all the shit. Blizzard had nothing like this even with WoW.
They're going for "web 2.0" social gaming (bnet2), digital distribution, viral-like campaigns (Dominion), twitter, youtube, facebook, faster updates, community-leading guys (Karune), etc, etc, etc.
No big producer has done it yet. Ubisoft, EA games, Microsoft, none has done it. Small names did it, like Valve and id Software.
They are trying to establish a standard, breaking the current business model (selling colorful and useless boxes), switching to this new "internet era". Is this late? As I said, they are the first big name to do it.
They are trying to reach more audience. And yet at the same time, in a pretty risky move, they are trying to establish an e-sport scene and probably set their standard over the internet.
This is not a surprise, this is Activision (Modern Warfare bullshit) buying Blizzard (hardcore gaming community; high quality, balanced, competitive games).
As a result of all this, all the freaking stuff happens: Blizzard fights Kespa, write apparently cheap hyped movies and plots, create a fucking crippled gaming platform as battle.net 2, removes LAN support, have their higher caliber staff saying doubtful and dubious answers, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
To sum up my initial statement, and this isn't surprise either, but when you realize it, it can be quite shocking to actually grasp the idea: Blizzard is changing business... using the Starcraft franchise as guinea pig.
With all that said, having all this given a thought, I understand that:
1. The Dominion movie is fucking awesome. I don't fucking care about being cheap, it's a trailer. All trailers are.
2. With my previous Warcraft 2, Diablo, Starcraft, Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3 experience, I trust that freak Chris Metzen, and the dev team, and Blizzard, to continue to write high quality stuff.
3. I'll buy this game, as everyone in the world will do, and Activision will earn other billion with it, just like how it went with Modern Warfare.
4. Starcraft franchise will NOT die. Its community (just look at this very space I'm writing right now here at TL, all the other sites, Korea, etc) plus the route Blizzard is taking towards "social", it will make it live.
5. Unpleasant decisions, like no LAN or no cross region playing, will either be set in stone or changed, depending on Activision, not Blizzard.
The last thing I want to say, and all that I care most, actually, is:
I know when I'm for a no-brainer entertainment experience, as all fucking games are, and I know I'm a Starcraft fan because it brings more to it, so just give the damn time to FUCKING ENJOY IT.
 
|
People have fun with games? Interesting...
|
establish*
Other than that, good read.
|
My personal biggest fear is that 1 year after the final sc2 installment, activision decides its time to milk the cow again and make sc3... For obvious reasons that could be VERY bad for esports.
|
On July 22 2010 21:41 TadH wrote:
establish*
Other then that, good read.
Than. Other than that, bad post.
As for the OP, what makes you think valve and id are small companies? Come on... Oh, and do you really believe SC:BW is brainless entertainment or whatever you called it?
|
On July 22 2010 21:50 Adeny wrote:Than. Other than that, bad post. As for the OP, what makes you think valve and id are small companies? Come on... Oh, and do you really believe SC:BW is brainless entertainment or whatever you called it?
I have no idea what you're talking about!
Edit: Just to respond to your question, the vast majority of people probably have never heard of valve or id, so in retrospect, to most people they are unknown.
|
On July 22 2010 21:57 TadH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 21:50 Adeny wrote:On July 22 2010 21:41 TadH wrote:
establish*
Other then that, good read. Than. Other than that, bad post. As for the OP, what makes you think valve and id are small companies? Come on... Oh, and do you really believe SC:BW is brainless entertainment or whatever you called it? I have no idea what you're talking about! Edit: Just to respond to your question, the vast majority of people probably have never heard of valve or id, so in retrospect, to most people they are unknown.
My questions were directed at the thread starter, sorry for the confusion. And as far as game companies go, Valve at the very least is way up there. In the grand scheme of things, they're no microsoft for sure though, but I wouldn't call them a small/unknown company.
|
It's mildly annoying when people constantly say that it's all up to Activision. Blizzard themselves stated multiple times when the merger happened that Activision doesn't have a say in their actual game development process.
|
On July 22 2010 21:43 Ftrunkz wrote:
My personal biggest fear is that 1 year after the final sc2 installment, activision decides its time to milk the cow again and make sc3... For obvious reasons that could be VERY bad for esports.
I don't think that is a very realistic fear, looking at the development schedule of SC2. I'm sure Activision was pressuring the SC2 developers to finish it up as soon as possible, but the results so far are pretty good: a mostly bug-free game, with good balance and playability. And this was achieved despite taking constant flak for pushing back the release date of SC2. I think we have nothing to worry about with SC3.
|
On July 22 2010 22:21 Vinnesta wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 21:43 Ftrunkz wrote:
My personal biggest fear is that 1 year after the final sc2 installment, activision decides its time to milk the cow again and make sc3... For obvious reasons that could be VERY bad for esports. I don't think that is a very realistic fear, looking at the development schedule of SC2. I'm sure Activision was pressuring the SC2 developers to finish it up as soon as possible, but the results so far are pretty good: a mostly bug-free game, with good balance and playability. And this was achieved despite taking constant flak for pushing back the release date of SC2. I think we have nothing to worry about with SC3.
I think the fear is more the fact that if sc2 is a huge hit, activision might try to just push out a worse game and call it sc3, solely to make money. There were years and years behind sc2 and if they push out sc2 2-3 years after sc2 I will be skeptical.
|
I feel cheated.
This is neither thoughtful nor a rant.
|
On July 22 2010 21:50 Adeny wrote:Than. Other than that, bad post. As for the OP, what makes you think valve and id are small companies? Come on... Oh, and do you really believe SC:BW is brainless entertainment or whatever you called it?
As with all generalizations, I probably made a mistake generalizing all games down to brainless entertainment. But you probably will agree that 99% of the games don't actually aggregate intellectual content to the gamer's life.
On the other hand, though, many games can add to the gamer's emotional or creative experience.
Many plots make you laugh, make you tense, make you feel sorry for a character, so this is all valid, and this is what I support with my OP, although this is not explicitly stated.
|
On July 22 2010 22:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:
It's mildly annoying when people constantly say that it's all up to Activision. Blizzard themselves stated multiple times when the merger happened that Activision doesn't have a say in their actual game development process.
As a developer myself, I know that development process is completely separated of business management. But from time to time, and obviously on important decisions (like which regions Starcraft will be available to, which languages, where do we open physical offices?, etc), the order comes top-to-bottom from the guys above.
Activision can't tell Blizzard how they develop Starcraft, how the game script is written, etc. They won't interfere in such things, that's why I said I trust Blizzard on that. But Activision *can*, and *will*, deny cross region play or LAN mode, for example, if they think it will lead to security breaches (or whatever the fuck they think denying LAN support is gonna benefit them) or if they think they simply can't afford buying/maintain infrastructure for all this.
Second point is: when a merger occurs, it's more than obvious that the "smaller" company will say (very probably because it was requested by the larger company): "we will keep the same, no worries". Because they are saying that not for the people, but for the market. They need to keep confidence, they need that to keep share prices stable.
|
On July 22 2010 22:33 tissue wrote:
I feel cheated.
This is neither thoughtful nor a rant.
|
I'll buy this game, as everyone in the world will do, and Activision will earn other billion with it, just like how it went with Modern Warfare. Not me. Nor was this really thoughtful.
|
Listing down your thoughts =/= thoughtful.
|
On July 22 2010 22:33 tissue wrote:
I feel cheated.
This is neither thoughtful nor a rant.
Agreed. I thought that all it did was attempt to alienate those that might not agree with him... Also, I think his point number 4 is horrible...
|
On July 22 2010 22:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:
It's mildly annoying when people constantly say that it's all up to Activision. Blizzard themselves stated multiple times when the merger happened that Activision doesn't have a say in their actual game development process.
Actually, Activision would want Blizzard to say that because so much of the value of the Blizzard brand is based on its independence and commitment to quality games. They don't want to cook the golden goose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
