|
United States12240 Posts
On July 01 2017 07:10 Cele wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 05:10 danielias wrote:On June 30 2017 21:59 raff100 wrote:On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote:
$15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free? You dont understand how bussiness works. Sometimes you have to make changes/adjust along the way. Can you be more grateful? They need support too. it's a multi-billion dollar company. They don't give a c*** about your support, they just want you to buy the product.
Earnings are broken down by product, and the success of a product determines the direction and approach that future products will take. Saying "it's a multibillion dollar company" is a cop-out because resources and funding aren't fungible in that way. They don't just throw a million dollars to this team or that team on a whim. Game development is a very strict process of return on investment. The vision-holder needs his pitch backed up by reliable metrics and evidence or it won't get funded.
I've been in various roles of game development ranging from QA to Production for 15 years, and I've learned there are three universal quality metrics: revenue (how well your game is doing financially), retention (how regular is your playerbase over time), and perception (how well received your game is). You can have high revenue, but with poor retention and perception (it's not fun so the playerbase dwindles, or it feels like a cash grab) that revenue stream won't last. You can have good retention, but with poor revenue and perception (your game is engaging, but buggy or with a poorly-tuned economy) players will eventually get fed up and negative word-of-mouth will stop new players from coming in. You can have good perception, but with poor revenue and retention (your game is maybe visually appealing but lacks depth, or is well-balanced but lacks content) it won't be able to stay afloat.
In order for SC:R to get greenlit, the PM had to make a case that yes, it will be a profitable venture because we have this huge playerbase in Korea, there's a groundswell of support for BW rising again, we can modernize it with all these features. We expect to move X units over Y time at Z price with a development cycle of 18 months, therefore it will be profitable.
Maybe since the release of 1.18 they ran some more simulations over the demand of SC:R and determined that the X units they initially projected was now only going to be 0.8X, so they had to increase the value of the Remaster product by moving matchmaking exclusively to that in order to hit their numbers. I don't know. But it's absolutely imperative that the playerbase supports the development team (not just the developer) if the product is going to succeed. If SC:R hits 2X or 3X its initial projection, that's going to ripple out to other teams that SC:R's approach was a little different, and this is what worked for them and what the players like the most, therefore this is something we could apply to other projects.
|
On July 01 2017 08:15 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 07:10 Cele wrote:On July 01 2017 05:10 danielias wrote:On June 30 2017 21:59 raff100 wrote:On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote:
$15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free? You dont understand how bussiness works. Sometimes you have to make changes/adjust along the way. Can you be more grateful? They need support too. it's a multi-billion dollar company. They don't give a c*** about your support, they just want you to buy the product. Earnings are broken down by product, and the success of a product determines the direction and approach that future products will take. Saying "it's a multibillion dollar company" is a cop-out because resources and funding aren't fungible in that way. They don't just throw a million dollars to this team or that team on a whim. Game development is a very strict process of return on investment. The vision-holder needs his pitch backed up by reliable metrics and evidence or it won't get funded. I've been in various roles of game development ranging from QA to Production for 15 years, and I've learned there are three universal quality metrics: revenue (how well your game is doing financially), retention (how regular is your playerbase over time), and perception (how well received your game is). You can have high revenue, but with poor retention and perception (it's not fun so the playerbase dwindles, or it feels like a cash grab) that revenue stream won't last. You can have good retention, but with poor revenue and perception (your game is engaging, but buggy or with a poorly-tuned economy) players will eventually get fed up and negative word-of-mouth will stop new players from coming in. You can have good perception, but with poor revenue and retention (your game is maybe visually appealing but lacks depth, or is well-balanced but lacks content) it won't be able to stay afloat. In order for SC:R to get greenlit, the PM had to make a case that yes, it will be a profitable venture because we have this huge playerbase in Korea, there's a groundswell of support for BW rising again, we can modernize it with all these features. We expect to move X units over Y time at Z price with a development cycle of 18 months, therefore it will be profitable. Maybe since the release of 1.18 they ran some more simulations over the demand of SC:R and determined that the X units they initially projected was now only going to be 0.8X, so they had to increase the value of the Remaster product by moving matchmaking exclusively to that in order to hit their numbers. I don't know. But it's absolutely imperative that the playerbase supports the development team (not just the developer) if the product is going to succeed. If SC:R hits 2X or 3X its initial projection, that's going to ripple out to other teams that SC:R's approach was a little different, and this is what worked for them and what the players like the most, therefore this is something we could apply to other projects.
yeah ofc retention and perception of your product is very important, i didn't mean to argue that. What i meant to argue is
On July 01 2017 05:10 danielias wrote:
Can you be more grateful? They need support too. I mean stop being suck a jerk. If you are disapoitment or sad, keep that to your self and dont buy it. period.
[highlight: my emphasis]
If you understand support as perception and retention, you could argue that Blizzard needs support; in that sense. But, we have to keep in mind that we contextualize this as feedback that is being interpreted professionally in a qualitative and quantitative fashion in order to increase future product and brand success. Thus, making sure, we have a meaningful discussion about the pro's and con's of this release is a good thing. It's also a good thing to voice your opinion even if your not buying the game, simply because it's valuable, as you pointed out for feedback.
Essentially, i do not mind at all if, Blizzard creates additional incentives to buy the game. As you explained, there might be a number of different reasons in simulated sales of product that warrant such a decision. For what it's worth, it's a bad idea to make matchmaking that incentive, because you run the risk of alienating some of your long term customers, who have played the game for a long time. I've bought BW in 1998 and i have bought additional copies of the game over the years. A central experience of Broodwar has been the multiplayer and by extension, a competitive ladder. Taking away this central piece of the gaming experience, when it was first announced to be maintained, is a slap to the face of long term competitive Broodwar players. This can mean two things in my opinion. Either, it's a bad decision by the marketing team or the expected portion of "long term veterans" to buy a unit of the game is very low relative to the expected amount of total units. Because in that case, the amount of negative perception is negligible. I suspect the latter.
|
I never seriously expected MM to be included in free version.
low percentage of people would buy the game without any 'real' arguments for it.
Graphics are eye candy, sound is irrelevant.
MM is the ONLY freaking real selling point.
|
My easiest 15$ I spend without even looking.
I don't understand complain about matchmaking. They already made game free and if they will allow almost all features then what's the point of purchasing remastered then, just for graphics? Remember back then when SC2 didn't even have starter version and you needed to pay it monthly to play it? Today Blizzard let's you test their games till you decide to buy or not.
|
I think it's also important when talking about the matchmaking: Nobody paid for anything until now.
Everyone who is complaining about the matchmaking change is behaving as if they put down money on SC:R and there's no way they can get it back after being "lied to", but they didn't pay for anything. If you don't like it and don't want to support their decision, you haven't given them anything and you can choose to purchase it or not now that it's actually for sale.
On July 01 2017 08:54 niteReloaded wrote:
MM is the ONLY freaking real selling point.
I still disagree with this, if matchmaking were the only thing that mattered then people would still be playing on iccup and shieldbattery, etc. and Blizz would have hardly a reason to remaster the entire game.
|
I'd wait for an official statement about the matchmaking. They've got conflicting information on the same page, not to mention a forum post.
|
On July 01 2017 09:32 eviltomahawk wrote:
I'd wait for an official statement about the matchmaking. They've got conflicting information on the same page, not to mention a forum post.
this looks pretty self explanatory
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eEjJUuT.png)
|
Yeah of course we got that since that's how the whole debate got sparked, but then right above we got "play for free with improved matchmaking" and the official forum post from earlier. It's a shitshow with such limited contradicting three pieces of information.
|
On July 01 2017 09:45 eviltomahawk wrote:
Yeah of course we got that since that's how the whole debate got sparked, but then right above we got "play for free with improved matchmaking" and the official forum post from earlier. It's a shitshow with such limited contradicting three pieces of information.
thats a post that they made months ago, sadly it looks like they decided to go in a diff direction 
|
United States12240 Posts
On July 01 2017 08:44 Cele wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 08:15 Excalibur_Z wrote:On July 01 2017 07:10 Cele wrote:On July 01 2017 05:10 danielias wrote:On June 30 2017 21:59 raff100 wrote:On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote:
$15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free? You dont understand how bussiness works. Sometimes you have to make changes/adjust along the way. Can you be more grateful? They need support too. it's a multi-billion dollar company. They don't give a c*** about your support, they just want you to buy the product. Earnings are broken down by product, and the success of a product determines the direction and approach that future products will take. Saying "it's a multibillion dollar company" is a cop-out because resources and funding aren't fungible in that way. They don't just throw a million dollars to this team or that team on a whim. Game development is a very strict process of return on investment. The vision-holder needs his pitch backed up by reliable metrics and evidence or it won't get funded. I've been in various roles of game development ranging from QA to Production for 15 years, and I've learned there are three universal quality metrics: revenue (how well your game is doing financially), retention (how regular is your playerbase over time), and perception (how well received your game is). You can have high revenue, but with poor retention and perception (it's not fun so the playerbase dwindles, or it feels like a cash grab) that revenue stream won't last. You can have good retention, but with poor revenue and perception (your game is engaging, but buggy or with a poorly-tuned economy) players will eventually get fed up and negative word-of-mouth will stop new players from coming in. You can have good perception, but with poor revenue and retention (your game is maybe visually appealing but lacks depth, or is well-balanced but lacks content) it won't be able to stay afloat. In order for SC:R to get greenlit, the PM had to make a case that yes, it will be a profitable venture because we have this huge playerbase in Korea, there's a groundswell of support for BW rising again, we can modernize it with all these features. We expect to move X units over Y time at Z price with a development cycle of 18 months, therefore it will be profitable. Maybe since the release of 1.18 they ran some more simulations over the demand of SC:R and determined that the X units they initially projected was now only going to be 0.8X, so they had to increase the value of the Remaster product by moving matchmaking exclusively to that in order to hit their numbers. I don't know. But it's absolutely imperative that the playerbase supports the development team (not just the developer) if the product is going to succeed. If SC:R hits 2X or 3X its initial projection, that's going to ripple out to other teams that SC:R's approach was a little different, and this is what worked for them and what the players like the most, therefore this is something we could apply to other projects. yeah ofc retention and perception of your product is very important, i didn't mean to argue that. What i meant to argue is Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 05:10 danielias wrote:
Can you be more grateful? They need support too. I mean stop being suck a jerk. If you are disapoitment or sad, keep that to your self and dont buy it. period.
[highlight: my emphasis] If you understand support as perception and retention, you could argue that Blizzard needs support; in that sense. But, we have to keep in mind that we contextualize this as feedback that is being interpreted professionally in a qualitative and quantitative fashion in order to increase future product and brand success. Thus, making sure, we have a meaningful discussion about the pro's and con's of this release is a good thing. It's also a good thing to voice your opinion even if your not buying the game, simply because it's valuable, as you pointed out for feedback. Essentially, i do not mind at all if, Blizzard creates additional incentives to buy the game. As you explained, there might be a number of different reasons in simulated sales of product that warrant such a decision. For what it's worth, it's a bad idea to make matchmaking that incentive, because you run the risk of alienating some of your long term customers, who have played the game for a long time. I've bought BW in 1998 and i have bought additional copies of the game over the years. A central experience of Broodwar has been the multiplayer and by extension, a competitive ladder. Taking away this central piece of the gaming experience, when it was first announced to be maintained, is a slap to the face of long term competitive Broodwar players. This can mean two things in my opinion. Either, it's a bad decision by the marketing team or the expected portion of "long term veterans" to buy a unit of the game is very low relative to the expected amount of total units. Because in that case, the amount of negative perception is negligible. I suspect the latter.
Yeah I definitely agree that not directly and publicly addressing the matter and making a stealth change is harmful to perception. But I can also see it from another perspective: the no-win scenario. If you've already said publicly that you will support matchmaking for Classic and then you have to pivot away from that and limit it to Remastered users (for whatever good reason), that's a sucky feeling. So they can easily become stuck between the rock of "we should keep our players in the loop about this change because transparency is important" and the hard place of "kotaku will run 'Blizz took this away' articles and ignite a firestorm". We're already seeing a microcosm of that on this hardcore competitive gaming forum, but it's rather tepid compared to the potential negative press. I certainly don't envy them. So maybe they're banking on saying nothing and flying under the radar a little bit so that the mainstream gaming press doesn't jump down their throats. It's probably the more savvy move, as much as the players would appreciate an official explanation for the pivot.
|
It's a good thing remastered is required for ladder, if I was blizzard and wanted to make moneys I'd do the same thing obviously, it's a business decision, it's also totally going to be worth the 15$
hell I'd pay 15$ only for automatch making without anything else new
|
On July 01 2017 10:47 ROOTFayth wrote:
It's a good thing remastered is required for ladder, if I was blizzard and wanted to make moneys I'd do the same thing obviously, it's a business decision, it's also totally going to be worth the 15$
hell I'd pay 15$ only for automatch making without anything else new Well thats a frankly ridiculous tact to take, and if more people looked at games like that, we would be force fed shit on a regular basis and never get a good game.
No company is owed my support or my gratitude, unless they make something I'm actually grateful for. Which, at this point, is up in air. Blizzard is not my friend, they are not my buddy, I owe them nothing. If their product is shite, or they lied about what they were intending, or whatever, I'm not going to give them any leeway, because why would I?
This mcdonalds burger tastes like ass! But mcdonalds needs my support...what?
You either give me a product I want, or you dont and your irrelevant to me. Thats how the market works. Worse than that however, they could be giving us a product that destroys a pre-existing product! Thats not just a bad tasting burger, thats something far worse.
|
On July 01 2017 08:15 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Earnings are broken down by product, and the success of a product determines the direction and approach that future products will take. Saying "it's a multibillion dollar company" is a cop-out because resources and funding aren't fungible in that way. They don't just throw a million dollars to this team or that team on a whim. Game development is a very strict process of return on investment. The vision-holder needs his pitch backed up by reliable metrics and evidence or it won't get funded.
my #2 customer is a software company that views 1 of their products as a "prestige brand". they continue to fund it as long as it breaks even because of the positive vibes it generates for their over all brand. They do break things down by product, however, otther factors go into the decision making. Brand strength is extremely important to them. Likewise, Blizzard views brand strength as critical.
ATVI is going to make $4+ billion this year and i'd say SCR will be their least profitable release this year. It will, however, generate "prestige" that other products can not.
|
MM being only on remastered is for the best.
Otherwise there'd be a ton of 1.18 whiners saying their opponent who was playing RM only won because they had widescreen support and had a wider field of view.
|
mostly looking forward to single player. BW is too damn clunky and slow for my taste.
|
Pre-purchased! Can't wait to play (and get pwned) with some of you
|
This is awesome. Price tag is well worth matchmaking plus making probes with E.
|
i payed 15 dollars for 15 years of fun, i dont have problem to pay another 15 $ even if i never play it again...
im pissed as everyone that blizzard killed BW in korea but those 15 years totally worth of the fun and if remaster helps just a little bit with revival in korea fair enough
I wonder how much costs running the servers...
i understand that we all migrated to PGT, abyss etc.. but still without original battle.net its hard to imagine scene would survive
|
You know what I can buy with $15? Three Big Macs and a large coke.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 01 2017 14:31 riotjune wrote:
You know what I can buy with $15? Three Big Macs and a large coke.
or bw:remastered. Just saying ~
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
