June 12, 2010 An Open Letter Regarding Starcraft 2’s Launch Date Recommendation: Delay Starcraft 2 until Q4 2010 or Q1 2011 Author: Sturmlight, Videogame Industry Analyst and avid Starcraft player
Mr. Morhaime, Mr. Browder, and Mr. Kotick,
My name is Sturmlight on Battle.net and in the Starcraft 2 Beta. I am 27 years old with approximately 15 years of Blizzard gaming and 22 years of general gaming under my belt. I have also studied videogame business for at least 10 years. I have privately and publicly analyzed strategic decisions made by Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo via private discussion and gaming websites –all within the context of business strategy. Specifically, I examined the complex strategies involved in software and hardware development across the industry and have made many stock price calls on these strategies. On July 27th, you will attempt to launch the sequel to one of my favorite franchises of all time, a title for which I have waited for over 10 years: Starcraft 2. I am here to tell you to delay your game or it will adversely affect your game’s chances of success. Delay it 6 months or even for a year. “This kid’s crazy!” you’re probably saying. Yes, yes I am. But I also believe I’m quite right about this, and I’m here to tell you why.
Yes, there are a large variety of concerns that come with a decision regarding a game delay when it is made at a publicly traded company. These include:
1. Activision Blizzard stock price. 2. Realizing revenue from Starcraft 2 later than originally projected.
I am here as a businesss analyst and private stock trader of the videogame industry to address all these concerns and convince you they are irrelevant:
1. The majority of investors and shareholders have no idea what they’re talking about with regard to the videogame industry, they only want to profit from it. As such, the quality of an effort in the videogame space has nothing to do with their concerns over timing (I will prove this).
2. Would you rather realize less revenue than you originally expected sooner, or realize possibly up to 4.0x the revenue you originally expected later? Yeah, 4.0x right? You think?
Why do I still believe you must delay your game? Here are the 2 reasons:
1.There is a massive and legitimate backlash against Battle.net 2.0 from the users who will most use it and Battle.net 2.0 represents the most important aspect of Starcraft 2 in order to give it longevity. 2. Starcraft 2 still does not cater to what I previously defined as the Casual Hardcore – those players who bridge the most pro players with the least pro players. I believe the Casual hardcore to remain unsatisfied by Starcraft 2 and that they may be the 2nd most important aspect that, I believe, contributed to the longevity of Starcraft 1.
First, I must attempt to prove to you that a delay is possible for Starcraft 2. After that, I will attach and briefly discuss in my addendum to this letter the two reasons why a delay is necessary.
Let’s address why you CAN delay Starcraft 2 and still succeed as a business entity. As are all publicly traded companies – you’re concerned about shareholders. But while shareholders have incentive to be concerned with your forward business plan, when it comes to videogame companies – they rarely are concerned enough to properly guide you.
How do I know this for a fact?
In 2006, a momentous event occurred in the console hardware industry wherein one competitor, with one businesss plan, unexpectedly seized control of 50% of console market share in households across the world. That company was Nintendo. Prior to the age of Wii, Sony enjoyed 60-80% market share with its Playstation 2 console. At the helm of Nintendo is a brilliant man by the name of Satoru Iwata. He has as his right hand man the creative genius Shigeru Miyamoto. Iwata’s business plan and business savvy coupled with Miyamoto’s creative smarts are what turned Nintendo from a fledgling entertainment company to a consumer mega giant in what seemed like an overnight period. The way they did this is exceedingly complex and will be studied for years, but Nintendo’s stock price shows that when it comes to actual decisions, shareholders are irrelevant and only provide incentive to make the right ones:
November 2001: Nintendo launches the GameCube system Current Stock Price: ~$21 July 2003: It is evident that GameCube will generally fail in competition against the PS2 Current Stock Price: ~$10 September 2005: Nintendo shows the Wii Controller and Nunchuk at the Tokyo Game Show Current Stock Price: ~$14 for the ADR in the U.S. January 2006: Some savvy investors see the writing on the wall, stock price begins to rise. Current Stock Price: ~$18 May 2006: Nintendo fully reveals the Wii and all its associated software at the E3 Expo. Current Stock Price: ~$21 November 2006: Nintendo launches the Wii hardware. It is effectively sold out for 2 years afterwards because it has filled a need that investors did not know that consumers had. Nintendo’s stock price jumps to approximately $70 for most of 2007 and part of 2008, before returning to more reasonable levels. $70, from $14.
I ask you this Activision Blizzard: Did investors short term concerns and reactions drive this growth in stock price at Nintendo? Or did investors, instead, provide the incentive to very smart men, who, with their savvy, executed a strategy after much toil and tribulation which led to one of the biggest changes the console industry has seen since the arrival of the Playstation brand name? While one could argue the chicken or the egg, I believe that it was Iwata coupled with Miyamoto and the decisions that they made which caused Nintendo’s strategic position to change so quickly. That is, investors didn’t know shit about how to run Nintendo or what moves to make, they just knew that they wanted more profit than they were receiving. While they provided incentive, they did not properly control Nintendo in a way which led to the massive success it has realized since it launched the DS and the Wii. No, in fact, they gave no tangible direction whatsoever. Iwata and Miyamoto, and the other smart executives at Nintendo, channeled their passions for the business into decisions [at the incentive of shareholders] which were so far ahead of their time that they masterfully derailed two of the biggest companies on the planet (Microsoft and Sony) in their bid for domination of the consumer living room.
If investors had any idea what they were talking about with regards to the videogame industry, Nintendo’s current stock price would have been realized immediately in 2005 when the Wiimote was unveiled, or immediately in May 2006 when it garnered the most attention from the population in 2006. The reality is it took a year for investors to realize what Nintendo had done. And what Nintendo’s Iwata and Miyamoto had done DIRECTLY determined the value realized from its stock. No, investors did NOT determine a damn thing about the value that they realized out of the stock – they only ensured that the incentive was there for Nintendo to execute on its brilliant strategy. However, whether Nintendo executed was undetermined by investors: it was the people making the decisions (Iwata and Miyamoto and others) which caused Nintendo’s current legacy to come to fruition. Blizzard: Do not allow Starcraft 2 launch decisions to be made based upon shareholder concerns, but based upon your own concerns as sparked by shareholder incentives.
Let’s also talk about revenue realization within the context of the Nintendo example above because it fits perfectly, again, with the decision which you currently face. Nintendo has revealed via Miyamoto that they originally considered releasing the Wiimote controller as an add-on to the GameCube. However, the GameCube’s brand was already set in stone when they had decided to do this. Had they done so in order to bring the Wiimote to market earlier in an effort to rout competitors or realize revenue on schedule, they would have disastrously doomed their strategy to failure because they would have attached it to a brand which did not have the power to fly as high as the Wii brand did.
I guarantee you that the added billions and billions of revenue and the billions of dollars in profits Nintendo has realized from launching the Wii as its own device rather than launching it before its time as a Gamecube add-on were more than worth the delay.
While the decision to delay software is not directly analogous to Nintendo’s hardware decisions, I believe it holds some derivative weight. Who cares when revenue is realized if you realize $4 billion in additional revenue because you delayed a product (such as Starcraft 2) and addressed extremely important concerns to the base of consumers who were going to purchase that product?
Mr. Morhaime and Mr. Browder: YOU are the Iwatas and Miyamotos of Blizzard. It is YOU who will decide whether Starcraft 2 satiates the needs of its fan base in its current form as what some view as a Starcraft 1 “Add-on” (analogous to the GameCube Wiimote add on), or whether it should be delayed and polished and finished as its own Starcraft 2 entity (analogous to the Wii itself). You must not allow shareholders to affect the important decisions regarding the construction of such an important game as Starcraft 2. Therefore, you must not allow them to determine, in any way, when it is launched, how it is priced, or whether additional work is required to bring it up to snuff with the expectations of your fan base. I know that you inherently believe this to be true, but perhaps it is because of the complex corporate structure in which you find yourself (after the Activision Blizzard merger) that you doubt yourself in the important decisions you make?
What I am saying, Mr. Morhaime and Browder, and especially Mr. Kotick, is that if you make the right decisions regarding your games then the stock price will follow suit, and its interim price does not matter at all compared to those decisions. While Starcraft 2 will not determine as much as the Wii did in 2006, it will determine a large portion of Blizzard’s new revenue moving forward. As it is quality that fulfills a consumer’s needs (needs they may not know they have) and as it is quality that drives purchase intent and therefore shareholder value, quality is more important than timing in the absence of competition (and not many compete with Blizzard, even now). Therefore, any software release window is subject, on a smaller scale, to the Nintendo principle: Are you fulfilling the needs of the audience to which you are marketing and are you fulfilling those needs in a superior manner? If the answer is no, delay your game. We (your fans) and they (investors) will follow you if you make the right decisions.
I wish you all the best in the hard decisions that are laid before you. I hope you make the right ones, as they will determine the success of Starcraft 2 and whether I, my friends, and the rest of the world play your game for the next 10 years or shove it into the back corners of our gaming backlogs. If you read the writing on the wall for Starcraft 2 right now, the current answer may be the latter.
Very sincerely,
Sturmlight
ADDENDUM TO OPEN LETTER – 2 REASONS WHY BLIZZARD SHOULD DELAY STARCRAFT 2
Reason 1: Battle.net 2.0
I will not enunciate all the concerns elicited at Team Liquid or across the interwebs regarding Battle.net 2.0. Suffice it to say, the legitimate concerns of the web as they pertain to Battle.net 2.0 are the following:
- Lack of Chat Rooms in Battle.net 2.0 - Lack of LAN play - Battle.net 2.0 structure which is focused on monetary concerns rather than game concerns, including: a. Restrictions on the manner and quantity of map uploads b. Possible subscription based service c. Region locking servers so that players can’t play against each other across continents d. Ease of game creation and usefulness of game titling in Battle.net 2.0 e. Lack of ways to build community buddy lists within Battle.net (as in – I don’t have access to the population of gamers playing Starcraft 2 in the current form of Battle.net! How am I supposed to build community with them!?)
All of these concerns are legitimatized by an increasingly worldwide and open atmosphere on the internet. I tend to agree with all the critics that Battle.net 2.0 does appear to contain many steps backwards in the realm of online gaming than the steps forward that Blizzard would like. These concerns REALLY need to get addressed before launch because if they aren’t, the first consumers of Battle.net might walk away and never return, destroying and derailing the longevity of Starcraft 2 and forcing it into irrelevance.
I will not comment further on this because there are so many writers out there, including this one
that have written their concerns regarding Battle.net 2.0 in more detail and amazing clarity than I ever could.
Reason 2: The Casual Hardcore and Starcraft 2’s failures in addressing this key audience
Note: This is a revised version of a piece I previously constructed and posted at GAF, Blizzard, and elsewhere. I have revised it because, due to the feedback I received and after having rethought a few things, I believe that only certain portions of my initial critique of Starcraft 2 were properly interpreted (and this was my fault due to the way in which I wrote the piece). With all this aside, here are my thoughts on the Casual Hardcore:
I am Sturmlight.Yeast on battle.net. I am not a pro Starcraft player nor do I intend to be [I believe pro-play takes a certain fun away from the core experience]. However, I AM what I would call a Casual Hardcore Starcraft player who will use all the tools at his disposal to NATURALLY win WITHOUT rushing. A natural win to me includes the development of buildings, units, and additional bases necessary to out-resource my opponent (in the end game, past 30 minutes of play) and to use my position to destroy all their buildings. A rush to me is unnatural, and it disturbs my perception of Starcraft. I say my perception because I recognize that to some [pros and those interested in pure games of competitive play], a rush is perfectly valid. But I believe my perception of Starcraft to be representative of a large group of players out there, and especially to be representative of the vast majority of NEW players out there. Thus, I am writing this document because I feel Blizzard will need to perform two important actions prior to or just after the release of Starcraft 2 in order to enhance the game for those with my appraisal of Starcraft 2:
1. Reassess Starcraft 2’s positioning with the Casual Hardcore. 2. Cater more to the Casual Hardcore.
Starcraft 2 is an absolutely excellent game. The complete package, even in its current form, is likely worth far more than the $100 collector’s edition price and will provide a LOT of hours of fun gameplay to many different populations of people. These populations include the Pro-Hardcore[inclined to pro play and rushing], the pure Casual [these are the people that will obsessively play the single player campaign and “use map settings” games from here until eternity], and the pure Hardcore [ those who do not have the skill to be pro yet play the game very seriously in order to improve themselves].
However, in their current form, the current Starcraft 2 races do not cater enough to another oft-forgotten population: the elusive Casual Hardcore players. While Blizzard has attempted to satiate the Casual Hardcore with anti-rush maps, I feel as though there are a variety of other actions that would function well to buttress their cause with such players. I will try my best to give voice to the Casual Hardcore with the following definition:
*Casual Hardcore The Casual Hardcore players are defined, for the purposes of this appraisal, as those gamers who find games of Starcraft to be more entertaining than competitive. Specifically:
a.They are not casual in the sense that they will play a game for more than 20 minutes at a time. They are not hardcore in that they do not play a game purely for winning the game.
b.They represent a mix of the above two groups, and they are, I suspect, a large population of gamers. Casual Hardcore players play to win insofar as their skills carry them but will not focus intently on becoming perfect at the game. However, the Casual Hardcore also play the game to the limit of the game’s capacity [instead of just leaving it after getting simply a taste, as a casual player would do in most other games].
c.To this crowd, I believe, the best games of Starcraft are those that simmer for more than 30 minutes and then explode with conflict all over the place (and involve more players rather than less). These preferences exist because they generate an atmosphere in the game that feels more casual and less serious.
d.In an ideal Casual Hardcore Starcraft game, there are some skirmishes early in the game, but they are limited and do not determine the course of the game as much as they do in pro-hardcore games.
e.To the extent that a game contributes entertainment in lieu of purely competitive essence, the Casual Hardcore derive greater utility from the game.
f.If the Casual Hardcore achieve a certain level of utility from the game, they will keep returning over and over again to that game.
I believe every single person who plays games has a bit of Casual Hardcore within them. The Casual Hardcore are the people who sparked Starcraft 1’s success, and they are the ones who continue to play Warcraft III to this day, except they play it in the form of DOTA, Heroes of Newerth, and League of Legends. They also play games like Worms, Call of Duty 4, Smash Bros., and World of Warcraft. They choose to play a game because it offers utility in excess of its competitive nature, and because each instance of a game offers a different entertaining variation on the game before it. Variation in the outcome of a game across different play sessions generates cause to replay. Stagnation in outcome generates cause to stay away. In each of the above games, the different characters, abilities, and other aspects of the games maximizes the number of outcomes possible, and the Casual Hardcore love it. To the Casual Hardcore, while Starcraft 2 may be ready to be released, two of its races [Zerg and Terran] remain incomplete and unvaried enough that they may not spark continued Starcraft 2 play over time.
While it may be impossible for the official multiplayer experience of Starcraft 2 to become compelling enough to 100% satiate the Casual Hardcore in the same way World of Warcraft has (for example), it is still very much important to cater to this crowd as their support is absolutely necessary for the success of any game and for the continued growth of any game or community. If I am lucky enough to be able to capture my perception of Starcraft within this appraisal I will have achieved my goal in giving Blizzard feedback (unlikely at best). But, as unlikely as it is, I will try nonetheless.
In sum, I believe the Casual Hardcore were early adopters and trend setters for Starcraft and indeed for many of the above games, bridging the gap between the Hardcore "innovators"/"first adopters" and the Casual Majority groups. I feel that because the hardcore don't hold nearly as much of an influence over the casual majority, the Casual Hardcore's support is necessary to properly diffuse a new game (excluding Korea). As I believe the Casual Hardcore are the ones who first discovered Starcraft and its’ untold depth as well as its’ mass appeal, we should review some of the examples in Starcraft 1 that provided massive amounts of utility to the Casual Hardcore. Only then can we begin to build context for my appraisal of the game in its public beta form, and only then can we spark a meaningful discussion of some improvements that could be made in Starcraft 2 just prior to or just after release.
1.GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF CASUAL HARDCORE PERSPECTIVE IN STARCRAFT 1 VERSUS STARCRAFT 2
There are several aspects of Starcraft 1 that I believe provided significant utility to the Casual Hardcore which I feel deserve consideration in comparison to Starcraft 2:
a. The Siege Effect and Unit Sound Synergy
In Starcraft 1, arguably one of the coolest units was the Siege Tank. Not only did we as human players most identify with the Terran, but there existed a unit in their arsenal which satiated our inner desire to destroy things. It so filled our need that entire Use Map Settings maps were built around massing Siege Tanks, and massing Siege Tanks was a legitimate strategy in multiplayer. However, the importance of the Siege Tank had absolutely nothing to do with balance in my opinion. The Siege Tank, in fact, represented an addictive mechanism for first time players that filled an inner need of the Casual Hardcore.
Why, though, did the Siege Tank fill this role so well? It is my opinion that it had everything to do with the sound of the Siege mode, as demonstrated here:
The ridiculous and overbearing sound of the siege tank, coupled with the unit’s role, created synergy in the player’s control of his / her units. Not only could he/she move massive amounts of units around that could siege from far away, but they sounded cool as all hell and were the pre-cursor to that mass destruction. The Siege Tank as a unit, and with the sound of its siege mode, represented a perfect crescendo from the start of an offense or defense to its finish. The sound of the unit enhanced an experience from which the player derived immense destructive pleasure.
The more siege tanks the player had, and the more that were put into siege mode, the more echoes of the same amazing sound they heard through their speakers. There was great synergy between the function of the unit and its sound, and for the offensive Casual Hardcore player this synergy provided primal satisfaction, a feeling of power, and a fun and almost comical way to destroy. Simply put, I feel the Casual Hardcore were addicted to the siege mode and its ability, as brought about by the amplification of the sound of the siege tank, to strike fear and destruction into their opponents.
I remember sitting around for minutes at a time and just moving my Siege Tanks from siege mode to “unsieged”, and back and forth. I remember laughing hysterically when I would watch a siege performed by one of my friends on an opposing player. The synergy between the Siege Tank’s ridiculous sound and its function caused me and my friends to experience a large amount of Casual Hardcore pleasure, which inevitably brought us back to the game. If one were to examine Starcraft 1, they would see that there were actually a large amount of instances wherein sound synergy existed in a large variety of units. These instances include Scouts [the sound of the missiles firing off together gave the player comfort of destruction, as well as the echo of the Scout’s unique voice], Wraiths [same as the Scouts but in a different way with a different sound], Battle Cruisers[the laser sounds stacked in such a way that it empowered the player the more battlecruisers they had], and Zerglings [both the sounds of their attacks against structures and the sounds of their deaths empowered the player – one gave the player the feeling that they were knocking down walls and causing their enemies anguish, the other gave them the feeling that their units were infinitely expendable, a feeling which thematically connected the Zerg’s sound with their utility as a race]. For example, see this comparison of Starcraft 1 to Starcraft 2 zergling sounds on youtube:
While the sounds of zerg attacks and zerg deaths are clearly exaggerative in Starcraft 1, I feel as though that exaggeration creates extreme utility in the hearts and minds of the Casual Hardcore.
And yet, for some odd reason, this synergy has been removed from Starcaft 2. Not only does the Siege Tank, for example, not make a sound which adds synergy to its function, but it is difficult to find an example in Starcraft 2 where what I call “Sound Amplification” is effectively used.
The closest success in terms of Sound Amplification in Starcraft 2 is likely Thor and his Schwarzenegger voice. However, even Thor lacks synergy because the movement sound of the Thor is not distinctly addictive like the Siege Tank siege mode sound was in Starcraft 1. Simply put, Thor’s movement sound does not add to his function.
Another example in Starcraft 2 that comes close, in my opinion, is the sound of massive amounts of supply depots being withdrawn into the ground and brought back up. But because supply depots have a limited synergistic function, their sound does not add an amazing amount to their use [they have no offensive function].
Other sounds which might come close include burrowing zerg or the conversion of zerglings into banelings, though their sounds do not provide as much synergy because, again, the sounds they employ do not provide an offensive synergy in addition to a creation synergy, that is, the player receives no offensive benefit in their mind with the addition of the sound to the unit.
It is with this lack of Sound Synergy in mind that I strongly urge Blizzard to restore a generally similar sound to the Siege Tank as it had in Starcraft 1, and to consider what other sound synergies they might add to various units which subtly empower the player. A little effort could go a long way (Please keep in mind that I do not have a background in sound creation and therefore am unable to make more specific suggestions in addition to pointing out what I feel is missing).
When I refer to the Macro Unit above, I refer specifically to the way in which units in Starcraft function together on a mass scale. LaLush, in his much lauded post regarding the Moving Shot hit upon this issue, although in a very round-about way. One of the basic arguments of his post was that because unit movements lack quick strike and maneuverability (due to blizzard’s desire to balance one unit against each other), the number of outcomes of x, y, or z types of battles has been reduced significantly in Starcraft 2 versus Starcraft 1. This position is valid insomuch as the “feel” of unit control has changed significantly and the maneuverability of air units via the mouse has in fact been reduced (it would seem). However, I believe this argument may be missing the point of what’s missing in Starcraft 2, and that is the use of the Macro Unit. I define the Macro Unit as the different function that a unit serves en masse as opposed to the function that that unit plays on its own. Some examples from Starcraft 1 include the Mutalisk, Scout, Corsair and Battlecruiser Unit Stacking [See Note 2], mass ghost lockdown, mass mind control [protoss], mass destruction of unit / building energy via multiple defilers, mass psi storm via high templar, and of course mass sieging with tanks. The ghost lockdown, for example, gave a Macro Unit low cost solution to high tech mass air attacks, as did the defiler and mass mind control. Each of these added a degree of variability which could be quickly adopted in the face of a certain attack.
Note 2. Unit Stacking is here defined as the ability of these air units to stack upon each other. I believe that LaLush may have been speaking as much to this in his post about what is missing from Starcraft 2 as the Moving Shot. The Moving Shot seemed to be intertwined with this ability. I would urge Blizzard to question whether the realism achieved by removing the air stacking of units reduces the “fun” of those air units. In order to combat the impossibility of unit by unit Micro in a stacking situation, Blizzard may wish to give opponents the ability to “swing-zoom” into the unit mass and target the units individually. With this in mind, even though they stack on each other (for purposes of more refined control), the opposing player can target individually. It is more fun to send a “ball missile” of units towards a target location, from the perspective of the Casual Hardcore, than an evenly spaced set of units that are more difficult to control.
Much of the Macro Unit function of individually valuable units seems to have been removed from Starcraft 2. The ghost lockdown was removed, the Unit Stacking was removed, mind control is nerfed comparatively (though it can be useful sometimes for zerg, it does not reach the level of macro usage), and defilers were removed. While siege still represents a compelling Macro Unit, some of its utility to the end player has been removed due to the sound discussion (from above), and as a result of the fact that it is too easily dealt with as a unit (it is weak against multiple units at multiple levels of the tech tree for most races). Consequently, the majority of the Macro Unit structure from Starcraft 1 has been removed in Starcraft 2, and it is my belief that it has been done to Starcraft 2’s detriment. The lack of Macro Unit functionality weakens the utility of the game because it gives the player of any particular race less options with which to work, especially in the end game. And this, in particular, is a problem for the Casual Hardcore as it gives them less interesting options in the game (since the focus of casual hardcore play is mid-late game with large varied armies).
The one unit in Starcraft 2 that feels just right on a macro unit level is the Baneling. Devastating on a micro level, it is also amazing on a fun factor level as a rolling mass of awesomeness. Its functionality is well balanced and makes sense even as a very late game surprise strategy (even if the player won’t be able to win the game with it, it is still fun!). More units should feel like this Blizzard!
c. Musical Pacing
I believe music to be an integral part of why Starcraft 1 was so addictive. The mood set in the songs of Terran specifically drew new players in because it set an atmosphere with which those new players could identify. The Casual Hardcore felt intangible benefits from the pacing of all the music in the first Starcraft.
Thankfully, the music included for the Terran in Starcraft 2 is equally fantastic. It drives the player to move forward with their plans for destruction. Listen to this for example:
High energy. High drive to perform. These are the emotions that this song elicits. It says “work, construct, mine, perform, build an army, and take that army to your foes”. It is, quite simply, a flawless score for the Terran.
Unfortunately, the music for the other races falls slightly short (as elicited in commentary from Apolloster.Yeast). The reason for this is not that the music is not good per se, it’s that it misses the mark with its purpose. It does not contain a fast enough beat to drive the player toward success. I believe that the Protoss music and ESPECIALLY the Zerg music were created too much with the race background in mind and not enough with common humanity in mind. We are humans, we are not Protoss and we are not Zerg. We will never understand things from the Protoss and Zerg perspective of music, and thus synergy is lost if the musical score focuses too much on achieving the feel of those races and not enough on more distinctly human emotions. What do I suggest Blizzard do about this? Mess with the tempos of the music for Protoss and Zerg and see if a solution can be found which aligns the player’s energy with the Protoss and Zerg. Here is an example, although a bit crude and off the cuff, which Sinheart.Icyinferno put together which captures my point:
Again, the tempo of the Terran music is the benchmark against which the music for Protoss and Zerg should be measured in a multiplayer setting in Starcraft 2. As humans, music which sets our mood toward our task is of greater utility than that which doesn’t. I love the Protoss music, but I think the Zerg music, at the very least, definitely needs a little bit of rethinking.
d. Balance
The issue of balance is much discussed in Starcraft circles, and I feel it requires special commentary in this case. As a Casual Hardcore player I do not feel as though there is a difference, at least not a significant one, in the level of the balance between the races in Starcraft 2 versus Starcraft 1. I believe Blizzard has met the majority of its balance goals with Starcraft 2. But I feel I must comment that I do feel that Blizzard may have focused a little too much on balance for Starcraft 2. From a Casual Hardcore perspective, if there is an answer in every race’s toolkit for a particular unit or for a particular method of using a unit, then the game is balanced. I feel as though Pro-Exploits are easily noticeable by Blizzard and by players to the point that Blizzard could always revise the game post-release to fix exploits or rebalance the game. I recognize this is much easier said than done, but I just want to be explicit that I do not fully believe that Balance is the most important thing for Starcraft 2. It is AS important as a lot of other aspects of the game, but I think that to assign it infinite importance beyond all other issues has taken away from the game’s character a bit (take the Siege Tank example from above, for example – it seems obvious to me that perhaps the original game’s creators were just having fun with the addition of such a ridiculous voice / siege mode sound to the Siege Tank, and maybe even the Siege Tank itself. But it was exactly this experimentation that electrified the fan base in their love for the game! I think there is cause for more experiment in Starcraft 2 in the form of higher tech tree unit variability. Fix the experiments that go wrong immediately, but also take a chance that an experiment might add immense utility to the Casual Hardcore and other types of players).
Final Thoughts
I feel that Blizzard has correctly constructed a skeleton for the community in Battle.net 2.0, but Battle.net 2.0 lacks a lot of meat. Additionally, in the same way, Blizzard has successfully constructed a skeleton in Starcraft 2 for the Casual Hardcore, but this skeleton too lacks the meat that will keep the Casual Hardcore around. The meat of Blizzard’s games are what propel them into the stratosphere of gaming history, and as such, there’s some work left to be done. The game is awesome, but it isn’t Blizzard quality, and it isn’t ready for launch. Delay the game. Experiment with some meat to Starcraft 2’s skeleton. Keep the good experiments, kill the bad.
Isn’t this how Blizzard always used to create perfect games?
..Why should they delay Starcraft 2? just because the battle.net team fucked up doesn't mean they can't patch the game. There is no real reason to delay the game, they can patch it to make it good, name one popular PC game that was perfect on release?
Why, though, did the Siege Tank fill this role so well? It is my opinion that it had everything to do with the sound of the Siege mode, as demonstrated here:
Yeah the siege sound totally sums up my BW experience and popularized it in Korea.
the game had some glaring flaws at first then the expansion packs solved everything
if you go back to the patch notes, and look at the differences from vanilla to expansion beta in warcraft 3, blizzard really did treat warcraft 3 vanilla like an extended beta test
looks like history is repeating here and i called it months ago
This is a very long and drawn out way of saying things that have already been states thousands of times. Some are good points yes, but saying that their is a problem with the game because siege tanks don't sound as cool?
erm...
Blizzard is aware of these issues. Blizzard is not stupid. They WILL respond and they WILL fix things. What do you think they are doing right now that made them take the beta down?
The problem is that they can't really afford to delay the game again. Blizzard has already caught a lot of flak for delaying the game as much as they have from many news sites and casuals (and even people here). When people are comparing your product to Duke Nukem Forever of all things, you know you need to get your game out ASAP.
They also need to get it out in time so that it doesn't conflict with Diablo III, though this is probably less important.
Looks like you really put a lot of time and effort into it, so I appreciate it. Even though I admit they won't fix all the errors by the release date, the date has already been set to an official date, making it really upsetting and difficult to delay.
Even though if there are issues with battle.net/other stuff, there can still be patches after the release date, like in SC1, where 1.16.1 was the latest patch.
blizzard should hire this guy ^.^ although most likely they wont listen to him because they will fire the rest of the people who think like him AFTER the game is release... i will be sad if its a piece of crap. ive been playing sc1 since i was 8 ((
This thread is the same as many others, and it's not helping anything atm. Just wait for phase 2 and provide feedback when that doesn't live up to our expectations. It's a bit of a waste to post now, while the whole blizzard team is having to do alot of work on the game, instead of reading forums.
I didn't bother reading the whole thing, but wouldn't you have to also write the stock of the other consoles too? Also, blizzard has other projects that they need to work on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think some of their guys work on multiple games and don't just have a team for each game.
I am Sturmlight.Yeast on battle.net. I am not a pro Starcraft player nor do I intend to be [I believe pro-play takes a certain fun away from the core experience]. However, I AM what I would call a Casual Hardcore Starcraft player who will use all the tools at his disposal to NATURALLY win WITHOUT rushing. A natural win to me includes the development of buildings, units, and additional bases necessary to out-resource my opponent (in the end game, past 30 minutes of play) and to use my position to destroy all their buildings. A rush to me is unnatural, and it disturbs my perception of Starcraft.
..natural win? No, thank you. Any win is a win, pure and simple. Assuming you're basing any changes you want to do on this core argument I wholeheartedly have to disagree with them.
EDIT: People do realise he wants rushfree games right? You know, kind of like the guy you played in that placement match that called you a noob for doing anything aggressive to his base within the first 15 minutes?
Any sort of changes that condones this attitude would purely hurt the game, in my honest opinion.
The colon ( : ) in the title confused me. At first I thought it was Blizzard who said "Its time...". Also i wouldn't mind if sc2 was released a couple of months later to polish it more, but i don't think Blizz can afford it.
I don't disagree with a lot of the ideas here, but I'm not sure you gave consideration to how busy every single person on anything SC2 related is right now.
My advice to you is to try to express your points in a way that won't take up an entire lunch hour to read.
1. even though some people are outraged about Bnet 2.0, it will not impact sales. Look at MW2, incredibly successful even though there was rage about no dedicated servers.
2. Bnet 2.0 is a cross game service, Blizzard has addressed that they will be looking to deal with complaints about Bnet 2.0, but they already put to much effort into it that a delay would fix any sooner then patching. Delay would just mean that people can't play the game while Blizzard works on a solution. If they release the game people can enjoy it and they can work on balance and have a lot of there staff transition to working on stuff like the expansions. Bnet 2.0 will still be worked on and patches will come and address issues that we have with Bnet 2.0
To blizzadr the conflict with Diablo III is way more important that short-term issues. They have never been concerned when news or gamer sites complain they delay/cancel projects.
However it is impossible to judge at this point how much the ActivsionBlizzard ceo former club owner, hussler and give2shits about videogames and his employees Bobby K will force the issue.
Also I'm not sure that blizzard thinks there game is a fail. They may simply not agree with us.
I'm not sure why people find that shocking, but you know they might acutally just not agree. And they might even be right, we'll have to see.
Well I can't really say anything other than, you should have made your post 60% shorter and saved yourself a whole lot of time. Blizzard will be releasing the game on July 27th, 2010, regardless of what anyone says - this is because Blizzard NEVER has announced an actual release date in the past and then delayed the game. They have announced 'QX Year X' many times, and delayed, or even cancelled projects, but once Blizzard announces an exact date, that's it, the game is coming out then and nothing is going to change that. I can't say I disagree with your complaints about the game, but I'd much rather buy the game and wait for some patches to fix the issues (as I'm sure everyone else would) than force the game to be delayed even further than it already has been.
I am Sturmlight.Yeast on battle.net. I am not a pro Starcraft player nor do I intend to be [I believe pro-play takes a certain fun away from the core experience]. However, I AM what I would call a Casual Hardcore Starcraft player who will use all the tools at his disposal to NATURALLY win WITHOUT rushing. A natural win to me includes the development of buildings, units, and additional bases necessary to out-resource my opponent (in the end game, past 30 minutes of play) and to use my position to destroy all their buildings. A rush to me is unnatural, and it disturbs my perception of Starcraft.
..natural win? No, thank you. Any win is a win, pure and simple. Assuming you're basing any changes you want to do on this core argument I wholeheartedly have to disagree with them.
EDIT: People do realise he wants rushfree games right? You know, kind of like the guy you played in that placement match that called you a noob for doing anything aggressive to his base within the first 15 minutes?
Any sort of changes that condones this attitude would purely hurt the game, in my honest opinion.
I agree. He's done a clever job of hiding this anti-competitive mentality within paragraphs and paragraphs of stuff that everyone knows and will agree with.
Im pretty sure Blizzard reads all these letters, I hope this one gets special attention, hopefully you posted it on blizzards forum aswell. I totally aggree with some stuff and I belive Blizzard could put some more ''umph'' to their product and cater the very large and the most important audience being the audience between casual and the pro's. However, I dont belive it will serve anything to delay the game. I hope however to see more clearly what they are working on and see improvements and direction in the next beta phase. If they can atleast show that they are fixing issues that need to be fixed and communicate it clearly, they wont lose a customer and the game will be great with a equally great community.
On June 13 2010 04:50 Galleon.frigate wrote: To blizzadr the conflict with Diablo III is way more important that short-term issues. They have never been concerned when news or gamer sites complain they delay/cancel projects.
However it is impossible to judge at this point how much the ActivsionBlizzard ceo former club owner, hussler and give2shits about videogames and his employees Bobby K will force the issue.
Also I'm not sure that blizzard thinks there game is a fail. They may simply not agree with us.
I'm not sure why people find that shocking, but you know they might acutally just not agree. And they might even be right, we'll have to see.
The thing is that Blizzard is a company that has to make money. How do they do this? They sell tons of copies.
This does not HAVE TO equate to what I believe most TL users want to see in the game. If they feel like me, they want SC2 to be a good arena for competetive play and THE new RTS to play if you want to really match your skill versus others.
I am Sturmlight.Yeast on battle.net. I am not a pro Starcraft player nor do I intend to be [I believe pro-play takes a certain fun away from the core experience]. However, I AM what I would call a Casual Hardcore Starcraft player who will use all the tools at his disposal to NATURALLY win WITHOUT rushing. A natural win to me includes the development of buildings, units, and additional bases necessary to out-resource my opponent (in the end game, past 30 minutes of play) and to use my position to destroy all their buildings. A rush to me is unnatural, and it disturbs my perception of Starcraft.
..natural win? No, thank you. Any win is a win, pure and simple. Assuming you're basing any changes you want to do on this core argument I wholeheartedly have to disagree with them.
EDIT: People do realise he wants rushfree games right? You know, kind of like the guy you played in that placement match that called you a noob for doing anything aggressive to his base within the first 15 minutes?
Any sort of changes that condones this attitude would purely hurt the game, in my honest opinion.
I agree. He's done a clever job of hiding this anti-competitive mentality within paragraphs and paragraphs of stuff that everyone knows and will agree with.
Its a diatribe post plain and simple, at paragraph 15 is where it should have ended, his point had been made and was well and clear.
Seriously? That takes away any and all desire a person could have for reading this huge wall of text. Blizzard knows about the things the gaming community is crying about, and they sure as hell will not delay this multi million dollar project because of your uninformed opinions.
I think everyone is wasting their time sitting in their chair writing angry posts on the internet.
Blizzard doesnt care, why would they? Unless you get some kind of large following or have a good explanation for why it will hurt their main goal (maximum profit) better than "we the hardcore gamers dont like it!", all of your complaints will go unheard and unnoticed.
On June 13 2010 04:47 heyoka wrote: I don't disagree with a lot of the ideas here, but I'm not sure you gave consideration to how busy every single person on anything SC2 related is right now.
My advice to you is to try to express your points in a way that won't take up an entire lunch hour to read.
I did my friend, believe me. But I am a busy professional myself and so, in order to make it shorter, I really would have had to spend a lot of time given my skill set as a writer. I know it isn't perfect for that crowd, but I tried my best, I swear. I simply do not have the time before they launch this game to wait any longer, not that I legitimately know that my thoughts will make a difference.
I just love games, Blizzard, and Starcraft that much that I felt urgency to post it here, the mecca of all internet places for Starcraft.
Also, I would like to make it abundantly clear: I am NOT anti-competitive. Everyone has a right to be as competitive as they wish, there are just a lot of things about non-competitive issues with the game that I feel deserve attention as well! Especially for those of us not in the Platinum or even Silver areas.
First of all - They would never delay it because a pseudo-intellectual nobody like yourself makes a post like this on teamliquid. So if you even had half of a brain you would know that a post like this is for nothing.
Second - Starcraft 2 will be complete for release. Hordes of people have already pre-ordered it. We've already been having a great time with the beta. The single player mode is complete.
The game is good enough to release. We all want it to be released, we all want to play it. None of us care that it doesn't meet your fantasies standards. They have been working on SC2 long enough. They have to release it. It's time to put it out there and start making money.
You wrote so much damn nonsense I can't even rebut half of it, it's just not worth my time.
On June 13 2010 04:56 ChickenLips wrote: Stopped reading here:
"My name is Sturmlight on Battle.net"
Seriously? That takes away any and all desire a person could have for reading this huge wall of text. Blizzard knows about the things the gaming community is crying about, and they sure as hell will not delay this multi million dollar project because of your uninformed opinions.
I think everyone is wasting their time sitting in their chair writing angry posts on the internet.
Blizzard doesnt care, why would they? Unless you get some kind of large following or have a good explanation for why it will hurt their main goal (maximum profit) better than "we the hardcore gamers dont like it!", all of your complaints will go unheard and unnoticed.
Yes they do care.
I know they care. Believe me. I wouldn't have gotten one of the earliest beta keys available if they didn't care.
On June 13 2010 04:59 chuninexam wrote: Wow. You're dumb.
First of all - They would never delay it because a pseudo-intellectual nobody like yourself makes a post like this on teamliquid. So if you even had half of a brain you would know that a post like this is for nothing.
Second - Starcraft 2 will be complete for release. Hordes of people have already pre-ordered it. We've already been having a great time with the beta. The single player mode is complete.
The game is good enough to release. We all want it to be released, we all want to play it. None of us care that it doesn't meet your fantasies standards. They have been working on SC2 long enough. They have to release it. It's time to put it out there and start making money.
You wrote so much damn nonsense I can't even rebut half of it, it's just not worth my time.
Anyone who begins a post with "you're dumb" as a counter to an argument doesn't deserve my time either! If you can't deconstruct my argument and pose a better one, why even post?
On June 13 2010 04:52 SichuanPanda wrote: Well I can't really say anything other than, you should have made your post 60% shorter and saved yourself a whole lot of time. Blizzard will be releasing the game on July 27th, 2010, regardless of what anyone says - this is because Blizzard NEVER has announced an actual release date in the past and then delayed the game. They have announced 'QX Year X' many times, and delayed, or even cancelled projects, but once Blizzard announces an exact date, that's it, the game is coming out then and nothing is going to change that. I can't say I disagree with your complaints about the game, but I'd much rather buy the game and wait for some patches to fix the issues (as I'm sure everyone else would) than force the game to be delayed even further than it already has been.
That's not true. It was announced that TBC was to be released in November but they pushed it back to January.
They don't have that luxury this time around though because delaying SC2 again would mean a potential loss of sales to Cataclysm.
On June 13 2010 04:59 chuninexam wrote: Wow. You're dumb.
First of all - They would never delay it because a pseudo-intellectual nobody like yourself makes a post like this on teamliquid. So if you even had half of a brain you would know that a post like this is for nothing.
Second - Starcraft 2 will be complete for release. Hordes of people have already pre-ordered it. We've already been having a great time with the beta. The single player mode is complete.
The game is good enough to release. We all want it to be released, we all want to play it. None of us care that it doesn't meet your fantasies standards. They have been working on SC2 long enough. They have to release it. It's time to put it out there and start making money.
You wrote so much damn nonsense I can't even rebut half of it, it's just not worth my time.
Anyone who begins a post with "you're dumb" as a counter to an argument doesn't deserve my time either! If you can't deconstruct my argument and pose a better one, why even post?
Buddy, do you know how to read?
Quote "You wrote so much damn nonsense I can't even rebut half of it, it's just not worth my time."
What part of that statment was hard for you to understand?
On June 13 2010 04:52 SichuanPanda wrote: Well I can't really say anything other than, you should have made your post 60% shorter and saved yourself a whole lot of time. Blizzard will be releasing the game on July 27th, 2010, regardless of what anyone says - this is because Blizzard NEVER has announced an actual release date in the past and then delayed the game. They have announced 'QX Year X' many times, and delayed, or even cancelled projects, but once Blizzard announces an exact date, that's it, the game is coming out then and nothing is going to change that. I can't say I disagree with your complaints about the game, but I'd much rather buy the game and wait for some patches to fix the issues (as I'm sure everyone else would) than force the game to be delayed even further than it already has been.
That's not true. It was announced that TBC was to be released in November but they pushed it back to January.
They don't have that luxury this time around though because delaying SC2 again would mean a potential loss of sales to Cataclysm.
I think this is a valid concern on Blizzard's part but the two audiences may be distinctly different from each other. It deserves further study and attention, and probably an examination of numbers that they have never made public.
I wouldnt be opposed to it at this point, the game is in a serious need of major overhaul for bnet 2.0, and the balance could be much better too.. I doubt everything will be resolved in this small 2-3 week beta close..
I honestly would love to see this game delayed at this point, if it meant re-adding all the features of ye good 'ole b.net along with all the new improvements along with cross-server play. Hopefully Blizzard can convince their evil overlords that this is a good idea after showing them all of the community feedback, but I doubt it. Shareholders are probably too thick to realize the value of long-term customer relations in this business.
Even though no one boycotts SC2 specifically, it will definitely leave bitterness among the fanbase toward future Blizzard products. And yes, this is the case even if they add all of the features with the next expansion. Many people will probably have given up by that point and the damage will already have been done, to some extent. First impressions are not to be taken lightly in such a fast-paced industry.
A good read. The gamer in me wants to respond in the same way as previous posters, that we have already waited for ever for this, don't delay it further. But to be frank, while SC2 might be the game we've been waiting for, BNet2.0 is not.
In any case, there is so much money on the line, that waiting for Activision Blizzard is no longer an option. Which is why the game went to beta with BNet2.0 in a horrible state, and why I think that the game will be delayed a couple of months max. I realize your point that waiting will bring up the stock in the long run, but I don't think that they have the resources to put into SC2 to wait out the down from delaying the game.
well. i cant believe i read all of that but, they would lose wayyyy more money if they released it a year from now... thats just common sense. they have a good hype train going now. why stop it? plus they can always fix stuff later and on top of this they still have a good month left to polish it.
On June 13 2010 04:59 chuninexam wrote: Wow. You're dumb.
First of all - They would never delay it because a pseudo-intellectual nobody like yourself makes a post like this on teamliquid. So if you even had half of a brain you would know that a post like this is for nothing.
Second - Starcraft 2 will be complete for release. Hordes of people have already pre-ordered it. We've already been having a great time with the beta. The single player mode is complete.
The game is good enough to release. We all want it to be released, we all want to play it. None of us care that it doesn't meet your fantasies standards. They have been working on SC2 long enough. They have to release it. It's time to put it out there and start making money.
You wrote so much damn nonsense I can't even rebut half of it, it's just not worth my time.
This is so unbelievably rude and I apologize for him good sir >.> Most people in the TL community are not like that.
If you actually took the time to read his post, he makes a lot of really good points. Truthfully, however, I do not see even the slightest possibility of Blizzard delaying the game. I for one will probably be spending the first month going through campaign mode in an as detailed manner as humanly possible, and from that respect I think SC2 is ready to be released.
That doesn't mean what you said doesn't hold any value. It's really just that 1) it's a bit too long and 2) you should really consider Blizzard's position right now. It's being pressured by both Activision and fans alike for release. Your ideas would be much better implemented in post release patches.
As a PS, loved the zerg music, and if you do the math, this guy's been gaming since he was five :O
...I was learning to ride a bicycle without training wheels when I was 5 =/
On June 13 2010 05:05 TelecOm1 wrote: rofl sturmlight "you got one of the first beta keys available" , yea im sure blizzard cares about you enough to delay sc2 LOL
I don't think they care about me, per se, just about their game and consumer reaction to it. That's all I'm saying my friend.
This may be the first time in my life that I have not read the entire OP. I'm serious, it's that bad.
But from what I have read... why would you mention the incredible success of the Wii, and then tell them to delay the game because of its online multiplayer? One of the things hardcore gamers ragged on Nintendo the most was about friend codes, and we all know how much that mattered (I'm still playing Brawl).
Stick to making points about eSports. That's our niche. That's TeamLiquid. Don't pretend you know what makes a game sell; you don't know what makes a game sell. Frankly, if I was Mike Morhaime, I'd stop reading past the first few paragraphs.
Are you telling a multi billion dollar gaming company and perhaps the best and most prestigious one of all what to do? lol. I'm not saying they are perfect in any way but come on. Blizzard could make a game where a piece of shit is the main character and be better than 90% of games out there
1. The majority of investors and shareholders have no idea what they’re talking about with regard to the videogame industry, they only want to profit from it. As such, the quality of an effort in the videogame space has nothing to do with their concerns over timing (I will prove this).
But while shareholders have incentive to be concerned with your forward business plan, when it comes to videogame companies – they rarely are concerned enough to properly guide you.
How do I know this for a fact?
I didn't see where you proved this, so much as gave one example/anecdotal evidence of Nintendo and asserted it as a fact to other companies and shareholders. I find it hard to believe that major investors don't know anything about the company they're invested in.
On June 13 2010 05:16 Redmark wrote: This may be the first time in my life that I have not read the entire OP. I'm serious, it's that bad.
But from what I have read... why would you mention the incredible success of the Wii, and then tell them to delay the game because of its online multiplayer? One of the things hardcore gamers ragged on Nintendo the most was about friend codes, and we all know how much that mattered (I'm still playing Brawl).
I'm not still playing Brawl. Its online system is awful, and if you look closely Nintendo has actually lost a lot of hardcore players in regular play of the Wii. That said, the purpose of my Wii interjection is a parallel to a situation where an incredibly important property COULD launch, but should NOT if it is solely as a result of shareholder concerns regarding the financial health of a company. Nintendo provides an example where internal thinking delayed the launch of that product, and in so doing caused the company to retake the industry by storm.
Stick to making points about eSports. That's our niche. That's TeamLiquid. Don't pretend you know what makes a game sell; you don't know what makes a game sell. Frankly, if I was Mike Morhaime, I'd stop reading past the first few paragraphs.
Now now, just because I don't address eSports doesn't mean this isn't a valid question to bring up in front of the most prolific players of Starcraft out there. Also, how do you know that I don't know what makes a game sell?
On June 13 2010 05:27 Kennigit wrote: I wish people could be more concise in their writing.....Like do you expect forum members, let along Blizzard employees to read all of that?
1. The majority of investors and shareholders have no idea what they’re talking about with regard to the videogame industry, they only want to profit from it. As such, the quality of an effort in the videogame space has nothing to do with their concerns over timing (I will prove this).
But while shareholders have incentive to be concerned with your forward business plan, when it comes to videogame companies – they rarely are concerned enough to properly guide you.
How do I know this for a fact?
I didn't see where you proved this, so much as gave one example/anecdotal evidence of Nintendo and asserted it as a fact to other companies and shareholders. I find it hard to believe that major investors don't know anything about the company they're invested in.
Major investors care about only certain levels of returns my friend, they understand how to trade certain industries on macro levels, but do not fully understand the effects of what are, in the grand scheme of things, small decisions like delays and either underreact or overreact. Its impossible to know every industry well enough to trade on it, and if you do, you're probably a prodigy. Much investing is done by computers and when it is done by humans it is many times to hedge other investments.
If they delay it, extend beta. Else I won't be able to live anymore XD.
As you know blizzard, they rarely release launch dates. When they do they stick to that date, so a delay won't ever happen ever. They already have things in place.
but why should they do that? its no SCBW with better graphics and a "few" other units. ITS SC !2!... the whole argument wiht the sound is so silly dude...just because you listened to the same soundeffects for hundreds of years. get used to something new >.<
On June 13 2010 04:27 Sturmlight.Yeast wrote: June 12, 2010
2. Would you rather realize less revenue than you originally expected sooner, or realize possibly up to 4.0x the revenue you originally expected later? Yeah, 4.0x right? You think?
Ooh 4 times the revenue? where did you pull that out of, your ass?
On June 13 2010 04:27 Sturmlight.Yeast wrote: June 12, 2010
2. Would you rather realize less revenue than you originally expected sooner, or realize possibly up to 4.0x the revenue you originally expected later? Yeah, 4.0x right? You think?
Ooh 4 times the revenue? where did you pull that out of, your ass?
Analagous to the Nintendo example. Take a look at their revenue and profitability since 2006. Wasn't more than that that I was drawing a comparison to in my mind.
Was that a joke? I skimmed it, and every single section I read had errors or ridiculous assumptions in it. I hope you did not seriously send that to Blizzard.
So you say by delaying the game to implement LAN, crossrealm play, chat channels, better custom games and gameplay changes to make the average game take over 30 minutes (???) they'll sell 4 times more copies than by releasing now and patching some of those in? If SC2 in its current state sells 5 million, that means there would be 15 million people out there that actually care enough about these features that they refuse to buy the game at all (and also not to buy it even after those features come in patches/expansions, except LAN.)
On June 13 2010 04:27 Sturmlight.Yeast wrote: June 12, 2010
2. Would you rather realize less revenue than you originally expected sooner, or realize possibly up to 4.0x the revenue you originally expected later? Yeah, 4.0x right? You think?
Ooh 4 times the revenue? where did you pull that out of, your ass?
Analagous to the Nintendo example. Take a look at their revenue and profitability since 2006. Wasn't more than that that I was drawing a comparison to in my mind.
It is clearly obvious to assume that although there are complaints on chatrooms and such, probably atleast 90% of the people will still buy it, not this 25%
Edit: Oh, and this will make Blizzard employees fall out of their seats laughing.
"I have also studied videogame business for at least 10 years. I have privately and publicly analyzed strategic decisions made by Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo via private discussion and gaming websites."
Are they really going to take you seriously based on those merits?... Do you even have a degree?
Although I agree that the sounds in SC2 are lacking especially for the Zerg, its not a reason that should be considered. Battlenet 2.0 is the biggest problem which Blizzard should address before release, the game is stable and playable with very few bugs. A nice change considering how many games released this age are littered with bugs and stuck with an attitude of, "Release now and patch later."
Game play wise, sc2 is solid. Delaying an investment this huge because of several sound files is ridiculous.
w0w, a lot of T_T about the length of the OP. The problem isn't the word count but rather short attention spans and poor reading ability of the complainers.
Wow, almost as self-righteous as IskatuMesk's rant. (and similar in length, gee...) Provides some valid points - though almost nothing that hasnt been said before. I'd be really surprised to see if such a letter would ever get a public response, let alone bring any change whatsoever to the development or release process.
Also: is CASUAL HARDCORE gonna be the new ESPORTS?
If they delay this game again, I won't buy it. People are already pissed off enough with sc2. Im sure there are hundreds if not thousands who are waiting for blizzard to make their next mistake before they as well cancel their pre-orders.
Delaying it, with whatever experience you have - is a completely retarded idea.
what really made me chuckle was how many times you stated "and now i'm going to tell you the two things that ...." or "next i'm going to explain why ........."
avoiding repition is not one of your strong points, and although i do feel the rest was quite well written it took away from the professionalism of an article meant to persuade whomever it was written to
also i dont see why they should delay the game based on the merits of the online lobby as opposed to if there was a fundamental flaw in the play of the game
Everything this letter adds to the discussion is wrong, wrapped in platitudes everyone on TL already agrees with to make the errors less glaring. I'm glad people are finally starting to point out the unfounded 4x revenue claim, the anecdotal and frankly random Wii example, and so on.
What really amuses me about using the Wii as an example is that it specifically demonstrates that Blizzard should ignore the TL crowd. The Wii pissed off every real "gamer" and drove them to Microsoft, but in return Nintendo's stock price soared and there's a Wii in every house. If you want Blizzard to care about the hardcore gamer, don't point to the Wii.
Finally, the moniker "Casual Hardcore" is laughable given your conception of a "natural win". The word "hardcore" should not even be considered to describe someone with a NR20 mentality. When I read the words "Casual Hardcore" before you defined it I thought it made sense, as someone who wants to be good and compete at a hobbyist level. Were you just hoping nobody would read the actual definition?
Finally, listing your non-credentials will cause any serious person in the gaming world to completely ignore you. Either be specific about what your accomplishments in this field are or, in the case that you have none, just be another customer.
So the true underlying theme to this extensive writeup is "hot women who sleep with average looking men will always be popular." They already have a game like that it's called World of Warcraft.
um, i'm not finishing this, but i did pick out something about the music and i have to agree it's less memorable. SC1's music had distinct themes and melodies that stuck in your head and in SC2 besides terran it's pretty much just ambiance. not that it's a huge freaking deal or anything but it is a let down. anyway maybe there's more tuneful music and it just didn't make it into the beta.
I have to admit I only read part of the addendum (because I read plany of threads about this stuff).
I agree with most of the first part. But honestly, Kotic doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would listen to something like this. I doubt Browder has the kind of influence he would need to do something about this. I don't know much about Morhaime, so he might be the one to make the good decisions (in the long run, Kotic seems to be focused on the short run), but he sure is taking his time then...
My worry is that Blizzard won't acknowledge that there are serious issues with Bnet 2.0. I know it's their baby and they delayed SC2 over it, but they gotta make some major changes.
"I love the Protoss music, but I think the Zerg music, at the very least, definitely needs a little bit of rethinking. "
For me it's totally the opposite. I find zerg and terran music fit. Protoss music almost isn't music at all. It has a very faint melody, the harmony is totally forgetable and doesn't provide propper appropriate accompaniement to the melody. The cadences are very forgetable as well. Hopefully they will rework it.
What you described about the terran (which clearly seems to be your favorite and which you spent most time talking about) i'd say about the protoss. If you watch some videos of the alpha stages, and compare how the game is now, terran has definitely improved in terms of graphics, and fitting the terran race. On the other hand, protoss has lost many specific things, very protoish.
I'll give two examples: The immortal when shooting now, looks like a powder explosion similar to any gunpowder weapon, if you look at his arms when it fires, just instead of yellowish, blue. It used to be clearly a blue energetic ray, with 2 circles surrouding it, showing that the shot was pure laser / light.
The phoenix now has its gravitrom beam, which though useful for harassing, is not worthy of a supposed air supperiority fighter like the phoenix should be. It used to have a cool animation that made it go overdrive for brief moments, but shoot at many enemies at once, with a cool effect, very futuristic, protoish. It would then go offline for a moment, while recovering energy.
This is just part 1 of the game, but i wonder why go back, and worsen a race like that. Are they saving those improvements for the expansions? Hopefully.
On June 13 2010 04:35 Chill wrote: I'm really starting to appreciate the talent for concise writing.
QFT. Well written and made total sense.
Are you guys being sarcastic?
You do realize the difference between the Wii and starcraft 2 is that the Wii is a physical product that has to work properly on day 1 while SC is electronic and subject to change at any point. comparing the readiness of each product upon release to the success of each doesn't make any sense. If they didn't delay the wii until it was ready then it wouldn't work and since you can't just release a patch to fix a physical product they'd be screwed. it'd be nice if SC2 was perfect upon release but thats not realistic especially from a balance and design standpoint since your never going to be able to internally test a competitively natured game enough for it to be perfect, i guess unless its super simple like worms, which is a kickass game i agree.
I think they should release the game for the singleplayer right now and worry about bnet2.0/multiplayer as the game goes on and more expansions are released.
Also I bought my ATVI stock a long time ago so I'm ready!
Blizzard won't delay, they will release most of those features in a patch 3-4 months from now and they will rely on long term sales not day 1 sales (which will still be great). The game also needs time to get the word out. Coming out early will mean more sales in the near future and more money for blizzard to throw at games like diablo and wow and sc2 expansions. With 2 expansions, the game won't even be fully mature until the 2nd expansion. Expect tons of changes even on the most simple mechanical level. Things like unit stacking I think are gone especially given new aoe type attacks from thors and HT's and moving shot will probably be handled on unit by unit basis (they recently gave it to the phoenix). (Technically the void ray can move and shoot too but very limited). Also I think blizzard might raise the food cap to 250 to give the game more of that huge army fight feeling. In sc1, single units were extremely powerful on their own or stacked with a group of the same units (see mutas in scbw), This is no longer the case and this forces players to be more selective about what units they build, the strategies they use, and its harder to harass but the rewards are still huge for good harass.
On June 13 2010 05:46 foxmeep wrote: Did you buy shares in Nintendo in Sept 2005?
Edit: Oh, and this will make Blizzard employees fall out of their seats laughing.
"I have also studied videogame business for at least 10 years. I have privately and publicly analyzed strategic decisions made by Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo via private discussion and gaming websites."
Are they really going to take you seriously based on those merits?... Do you even have a degree?
Blizzard takes everyone and all comments seriously. Whether or not my merits mean that I am worthy of commentary really isn't the point here.
That said, I did direct $10,000 towards Nintendo stock in May of 2006.
Well from a business perspective, it would be a problem to delay it in my honest opinion. They have already extensively advertised the game for release on July 27th, and they are already putting tons of money into that specific date. Also, the earlier the release date, the more information becomes available to them, the more opportunities they have to fix the issues.
Finally, the moniker "Casual Hardcore" is laughable given your conception of a "natural win". The word "hardcore" should not even be considered to describe someone with a NR20 mentality. When I read the words "Casual Hardcore" before you defined it I thought it made sense, as someone who wants to be good and compete at a hobbyist level. Were you just hoping nobody would read the actual definition?
This is exactly what I meant. How is hardcore even a part of what he explains. His definition of "Casual Hardcore" fits my definition of "Casual" and his "Casual" definition fits my definition of "Soccer Moms".
On June 13 2010 04:35 Chill wrote: I'm really starting to appreciate the talent for concise writing.
QFT. Well written and made total sense.
Are you guys being sarcastic?
You do realize the difference between the Wii and starcraft 2 is that the Wii is a physical product that has to work properly on day 1 while SC is electronic and subject to change at any point. comparing the readiness of each product upon release to the success of each doesn't make any sense. If they didn't delay the wii until it was ready then it wouldn't work and since you can't just release a patch to fix a physical product they'd be screwed. it'd be nice if SC2 was perfect upon release but thats not realistic especially from a balance and design standpoint since your never going to be able to internally test a competitively natured game enough for it to be perfect, i guess unless its super simple like worms, which is a kickass game i agree.
Can you two not read? Chill is saying that the OPs post is needlessly convoluted, completely all all over the place, unorganized, and unprecedented.
That is the exact opposite of what Pokebunny is agreeing with, and he is already agreeing with you Tang.
sigh.
A for effort OP, but no offense, but this is completely pointless and stupid.
First of all, realize what Blizzard has to lose when delaying a product.
Sales analyst Evan Wilson says Blizzard stands to lose FOUR MILLION sales if SC2 is further delayed.
Pacific Crest Securities' Evan Wilson was somewhat more optimistic about Starcraft II, depending on when Activision manages to release it. Currently, Wilson has the real-time strategy sequel penciled in for sales of 6 million copies, though he cautioned that could slip to 2 million in 2010 if Activision pushes it back into the holiday quarter.
Does this mean Starcraft 2 cannot be delayed? I believe not. But there has to be a clear precedent for it, and the ramblings of a single player are not. You touch on some generally agreed issues -such as b-net, but the majority of your wall of text trys to outline a variety of things that were never agreed upon as issues, and their will never be a general consensus that they are issues even among the hardcore community.
Do you honestly think that Blizzard will sacrifice 4 million players based on the ramblings of a single player? This isn't blizzard releasing the game to make a quick buck. This is Blizzard releasing a game they believe feels is ready for release, and while the majority of customers do have issues with things like Battle.net 2.0, generally believe the game as a whole is ready for release.
Delaying a game is a monumental decision. The least you could do when making a post suggesting a delay of the game is to focus exclusively on issues that are generally agreed upon. .
But their isn't even anything close to a general consensus on the majority of the issues you claim are wrong with Starcraft, let alone consensus that the game should be delayed.
It just boils down to one question. Why the hell did you write ten pages detailing reasons why a game should be delayed at the expense of four million sales for reasons that you mostly made up?
Anyway, OP, the only suggestion I can give is to seriously reevulate your own life or perspective.
On June 13 2010 06:15 CtrLZerG wrote: Well from a business perspective, it would be a problem to delay it in my honest opinion. They have already extensively advertised the game for release on July 27th, and they are already putting tons of money into that specific date. Also, the earlier the release date, the more information becomes available to them, the more opportunities they have to fix the issues.
I really disagree that it would be a problem. While I did not account for cataclysm crossover, Blizzard's name carries so much weight it really is a no-brainer that consumers will find the money to buy their product no matter when they launch. The question is whether the game is ready for consumer wide launch. I happen to disagree with Blizzard that it is, and I just want to tell them.
I hope everyone understands that one does not write such an extensive discussion without love for a company or its products. I mean, come on!
I am 27 years old with approximately 15 years of Blizzard gaming and 22 years of general gaming under my belt. I have also studied videogame business for at least 10 years. I have privately and publicly analyzed strategic decisions made by Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo via private discussion and gaming websites –all within the context of business strategy.
I used to work for Id Software, and prior to that I was a gaming journalist for 6 years (this was the early 90's, and thus actual printed publications). But I'm not naive enough to think that his somehow makes my opinions more valid than anyone else on TL. You've either got a good point or you don't and frankly IMHO, you don't.
SC fans will buy this game. The percentage of those who will not because of perceived lack of b.net 2.0 features is small. The outcry of people frustrated with b.net 2.0 is not because they are considering not buying the game, but because they will buy the game and are upset that they will not get what they want when they do.
Two, the whole "casual hardcore" concept, while perhaps being an actual grouping of players, is immaterial to the sale of the game. If anything Blizzard is actually developing this game *for* the "casual hardcore". But what really confuses me is your examples of what these people want. Siege tanks that "sound cooler"? Really?
Three, what exactly do the game console wars have to do with a PC *game*? Hardware and software are completely different in marketing, future add ons, sales, etc.
Personally I see Blizzard playing this pretty smart. Release in summer, when all the SC fans will buy the game. Take the rest of the summer and fall to add in some of the features that are most requested and iron out the kinks. That's when the masses of really casual players will buy the game for Christmas. Casual fans are pickier, it will pay off for Blizzard to release sooner so they can polish the game after launch for the 2nd wave of new-to-the-series players to come aboard.
On June 13 2010 04:35 Chill wrote: I'm really starting to appreciate the talent for concise writing.
QFT. Well written and made total sense.
Are you guys being sarcastic?
You do realize the difference between the Wii and starcraft 2 is that the Wii is a physical product that has to work properly on day 1 while SC is electronic and subject to change at any point. comparing the readiness of each product upon release to the success of each doesn't make any sense. If they didn't delay the wii until it was ready then it wouldn't work and since you can't just release a patch to fix a physical product they'd be screwed. it'd be nice if SC2 was perfect upon release but thats not realistic especially from a balance and design standpoint since your never going to be able to internally test a competitively natured game enough for it to be perfect, i guess unless its super simple like worms, which is a kickass game i agree.
Can you two not read? Chill is saying that the OPs post is needlessly convoluted, completely all all over the place, unorganized, and unprecedented.
That is the exact opposite of what Pokebunny is agreeing with, and he is already agreeing with you Tang.
sigh.
A for effort OP, but no offense, but this is completely pointless and stupid.
First of all, realize what Blizzard has to lose when delaying a product.
Sales analyst Evan Wilson says Blizzard stands to lose FOUR MILLION sales if SC2 is further delayed.
Pacific Crest Securities' Evan Wilson was somewhat more optimistic about Starcraft II, depending on when Activision manages to release it. Currently, Wilson has the real-time strategy sequel penciled in for sales of 6 million copies, though he cautioned that could slip to 2 million in 2010 if Activision pushes it back into the holiday quarter.
Does this mean Starcraft 2 cannot be delayed? I believe not. But there has to be a clear precedent for it, and the ramblings of a single player are not. You touch on some generally agreed issues -such as b-net, but the majority of your wall of text trys to outline a variety of things that were never agreed upon as issues, and their will never be a general consensus that they are issues even among the hardcore community.
Do you honestly think that Blizzard will sacrifice 4 million players based on the ramblings of a single player? This isn't blizzard releasing the game to make a quick buck. This is Blizzard releasing a game they believe feels is ready for release, and while the majority of customers do have issues with things like Battle.net 2.0, generally believe the game as a whole is ready for release.
Delaying a game is a monumental decision. The least you could do when making a post suggesting a delay of the game is to focus exclusively on issues that are generally agreed upon. . But their isn't even general consensus on the majority of the issues you claim are wrong with Starcraft, let alone consensus that the game should be delayed.
Not every opinion adheres to general consensus my friend. I love games, and have loved them for a long time. I don't care about other people's opinions, I know what I consider fun and what I consider not. Starcraft 2 is great fun, but it isn't such amazing fun that it will have the longevity of its predecessor in my opinion -- and it is my opinion -- and also, in my humble opinion there are a few more things that need to be addressed to make it such. In the grand scheme of things they are only a few!
Nice post, but while I agree with you on the fact that battlenet 2.0 is retarded, I dont agree with delaying starcraft II. It is a tradition with blizzard that they will do many patchs to their game. These problems can be fixed while the game is up (if they are willing to fix them) and delaying starcraft II would be utterly stupid from them.
Finally, the moniker "Casual Hardcore" is laughable given your conception of a "natural win". The word "hardcore" should not even be considered to describe someone with a NR20 mentality. When I read the words "Casual Hardcore" before you defined it I thought it made sense, as someone who wants to be good and compete at a hobbyist level. Were you just hoping nobody would read the actual definition?
This is exactly what I meant. How is hardcore even a part of what he explains. His definition of "Casual Hardcore" fits my definition of "Casual" and his "Casual" definition fits my definition of "Soccer Moms".
I agreed with your point 100%, and it should be the center of the discussion here because it instantly discredits him. The fact that the author has no idea what he is talking about is lost in the unyielding torrent of literary vomit.
On June 13 2010 06:22 Sturmlight.Yeast wrote: I don't care about other people's opinions, I know what is fun and what is not. Starcraft 2 is great fun, but it isn't such amazing fun that it will have the longevity of its predecessor in my opinion -- and it is my opinion --
So your suggesting Blizzard delay the game to make it cater to you.
with the financial arm of Activision-Blizzard this deeply involved in SC2 release cycle there is ZERO CHANCE the game could be delayed even if Mike Morhaimed wanted the delay.
I am 27 years old with approximately 15 years of Blizzard gaming and 22 years of general gaming under my belt. I have also studied videogame business for at least 10 years. I have privately and publicly analyzed strategic decisions made by Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo via private discussion and gaming websites –all within the context of business strategy.
I used to work for Id Software, and prior to that I was a gaming journalist for 6 years (this was the early 90's, and thus actual printed publications). But I'm not naive enough to think that his somehow makes my opinions more valid than anyone else on TL. You've either got a good point or you don't and frankly IMHO, you don't.
SC fans will buy this game. The percentage of those who will not because of perceived lack of b.net 2.0 features is small. The outcry of people frustrated with b.net 2.0 is not because they are considering not buying the game, but because they will buy the game and are upset that they will not get what they want when they do.
Two, the whole "casual hardcore" concept, while perhaps being an actual grouping of players, is immaterial to the sale of the game. If anything Blizzard is actually developing this game *for* the "casual hardcore". But what really confuses me is your examples of what these people want. Siege tanks that "sound cooler"? Really?
Three, what exactly do the game console wars have to do with a PC *game*? Hardware and software are completely different in marketing, future add ons, sales, etc.
Personally I see Blizzard playing this pretty smart. Release in summer, when all the SC fans will buy the game. Take the rest of the summer and fall to add in some of the features that are most requested and iron out the kinks. That's when the masses of really casual players will buy the game for Christmas. Casual fans are pickier, it will pay off for Blizzard to release sooner so they can polish the game after launch for the 2nd wave of new-to-the-series players to come aboard.
Basically, I couldn't disagree with you more.
I don't think my opinions are more valid than other people's, I think there are problems with the game that need fixing. If you were unable to discern that from my writing then that is a fault of my writing.
That said, again, it is a question of the level of success they want to achieve - Yes you can have massive upfront sales of a game. But longevity is a true concern for me. I'm not sure that Starcraft 2 will be in my catalogue of regularly played games 10 years from now as the first one was, and thus I'm trying to put in words exactly why that is.
Blizzard is not developing this game for the Casual Hardcore, you're wrong. They have developed this game for pro players and pro players only.
EPT
((
![[image loading]](http://i39.tinypic.com/2hpm6hs.jpg)
