|
On August 03 2017 23:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote:how much is SCR selling for again? is it $150? oh, its $15. it'll be interesting to see if this is enough to give the RTS genre another billion dollar franchise. Clash of Clans developer Supercell pulled in over 1 billion in 2016. Clash of Clans eroded a lot of demand from RTS games. remember the 1990s when RTS was growing by leaps and bounds? Welp, this looks a lot like ur typical 90s RTS game except you can play it any time.. any where. and you don't have to practice your micro 7 days a week to "keep ur skills up"... ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iwHWawI.jpg) it has all the fun parts the general consumer loved about 90s RTS games without the frustration of hitting the "s" key instead of the "a" key. The changing state of technology not only wrecked SC2, but the entire RTS genre. i suspect the next major entry in the SC franchise will not require a PC/Mac. Hell, David Kim and Dustin Browder could be working on it as i type this. Does anyone think the SC franchise's next major offering will be PC/Mac only?
Clash of Clans was not even released until the damage had been done to SC2, and it was not live PvP at all.
You can't really compare a skill based PC RTS, to a mobile city builder that is not skilled based with tiered progression that rewards playing consistently over months that happens to have an RTS-style battle mode, that is not PvP nor do you even control the units.
You act like people weren't upset with the design of SC2 since the very beginning of SC2 WoL beta....
We can name dozens of mobile games that generated more money than most PC games. That does not mean they were well designed. Rather the selection was quite low at a time. Even now, mobile games are still working to get up to PC quality.
Even Supercell's other more recent game release (Clash Royale) is far better designed than Clash of Clans was, and they are still working on trying to get it up to PC quality. But considering that it has live PvP when almost no other mobile game offers live PvP (your playing vs a replay in most of them) it's better than the rest.
Completely ridiculous that you bring that up as an example to compare to SC2. Completely different style of game, and the battle mode in CoC is not the primary aspect of the game, as it is in SC.
|
it's irrelevant except for who doesn't have access to pc gaming, the technology is inferior to PC obviously except for "on the go" so I guess you could say CoC takes some away from the portable console market but from PC, nah I mean there has always been portable gaming a lot, lol these phone games they make money they can be interesting but its more like an extra thing, most people who would play games on fixed supports too well they do anyway cause its not like mobile gaming with limited controls can give you all you may want. I think people who play only on mobile games are mostly the same people that you would hardly see play any video games at all before. So its a significant new demographic, but not one that takes away from the potential PC RTS demographic, I don't think so. I mean, everything affects everything else so maybe a very small portion, still don't see it as relevant. But whatever, it's unlikely to be #1 factor anyway lol
|
On August 04 2017 02:37 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it's irrelevant except for who doesn't have access to pc gaming, the technology is inferior to PC obviously except for "on the go" so I guess you could say CoC takes some away from the portable console market but from PC, nah I mean there has always been portable gaming a lot, lol these smartphone games they make money they can be interesting but its more like an extra thing, most people who would play games on fixed supports too well they do anyway cause its not like mobile gaming with limited controls can give you all you may want. I think people who play only on mobile games are mostly the same people that you would hardly see play any video games at all before. So its a significant new demographic, but not one that takes away from the potential PC RTS demographic, I don't think so. I mean, everything affects everything else so maybe a very small portion, still don't see it as relevant. But whatever, it's unlikely to be #1 factor anyway lol
Even that is giving it too much credit imo lol.
I've played CoC and it's a completely different game. It's a typical grindy phone game. Most of the "progression" is out of game. It's built to be semi social. The "battles" are not the main attraction, nor the reason people play.
Plain and simple, any RTS gamer is NOT going to be entertained by CoC. I've never met a single person who was a PC RTS fan that enjoyed CoC. Furthermore, every CoC player I knew played it simply because of co workers or something along those lines. It is in no way comparable, or a replacement, for PC RTS games.
All you actually do is choose where on the outskirts to spawn ur units, and they auto path from there. You do not control them at all. Absolutely no RTS fan is going to find entertainment in that. It's not actually real time controls, and has minimal strategy.
Why do people play? Same reason they play any phone game, semi-social progression. Others in your clan donate units to you, you donate to others. After starting tiers it takes days-weeks to make your units stronger. It's a time-grind. Play longer, donate and upgrade when coolsodwns are over, and be stronger than others.
You can pay to speed this up. Top players had to pay to get ahead of everyone else. New players can pay to get ahead faster. This is why the games make so much money.
This is absolutely not comparable to anything about SC2. Completely different player base.
|
|
|
FYI, this Jimmy guy always argues in favor of the most ridiculous stuff anyone could come up with, like this browser game being the best RTS ever made. Most of his posts are like that. Why are people still arguing with this guy?
|
as much as i have argued with jimmy before i don't think he's being a contrarian.. he's right in that as the gaming market develops, customers don't have to make as many concessions to get the gaming experience that they want. so while clash of clan players might have played evolvers or lurker TD in 1998 to get their casual strategic fix, now there are alternatives that better suit their needs, relegating the current bw UMS scene to a weaker state compared to 1998. likewise, LoL ate away a lot of amateur and non-competitive melee players in broodwar when it released because it gave that social competitive fix without the mechanical requirements. however, i think that both SC2 and broodwar nowadays cater to a much more "mature" audience in that the audience has been along for a long ass time and knows what they're getting when they're playing a competitive traditional rts, so they're less likely to be swayed by games offering other things like CoC or mobas.
|
On August 04 2017 00:48 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 23:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote:how much is SCR selling for again? is it $150? oh, its $15. it'll be interesting to see if this is enough to give the RTS genre another billion dollar franchise. Clash of Clans developer Supercell pulled in over 1 billion in 2016. Clash of Clans eroded a lot of demand from RTS games. remember the 1990s when RTS was growing by leaps and bounds? Welp, this looks a lot like ur typical 90s RTS game except you can play it any time.. any where. and you don't have to practice your micro 7 days a week to "keep ur skills up"... it has all the fun parts the general consumer loved about 90s RTS games without the frustration of hitting the "s" key instead of the "a" key. The changing state of technology not only wrecked SC2, but the entire RTS genre. i suspect the next major entry in the SC franchise will not require a PC/Mac. Hell, David Kim and Dustin Browder could be working on it as i type this. Does anyone think the SC franchise's next major offering will be PC/Mac only? Clash of Clans was not even released until the damage had been done to SC2, and it was not live PvP at all. You can't really compare a skill based PC RTS, to a mobile city builder that is not skilled based with tiered progression that rewards playing consistently over months that happens to have an RTS-style battle mode, that is not PvP nor do you even control the units. You act like people weren't upset with the design of SC2 since the very beginning of SC2 WoL beta.... We can name dozens of mobile games that generated more money than most PC games. That does not mean they were well designed. Rather the selection was quite low at a time. Even now, mobile games are still working to get up to PC quality. Even Supercell's other more recent game release (Clash Royale) is far better designed than Clash of Clans was, and they are still working on trying to get it up to PC quality. But considering that it has live PvP when almost no other mobile game offers live PvP (your playing vs a replay in most of them) it's better than the rest. Completely ridiculous that you bring that up as an example to compare to SC2. Completely different style of game, and the battle mode in CoC is not the primary aspect of the game, as it is in SC.
How I did not thought about this myself.
You are so smart.
Ofcourse mobile pseudo RTS is ruining good old fashioned RTS.
What do they come up next - mass building selection mobile?
|
On August 03 2017 19:05 nighcol wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 19:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 03 2017 18:24 nighcol wrote:On August 03 2017 16:27 duke91 wrote:100% of BW funding comes from sponsors or fans. Don't really want to get into this pissing match but I highly doubt this is true. I'd be very surprised if Blizzard isn't supporting ASL. Blizzard has never supported ASL. It might change since they are releasing remastered, but Blizzard has never supported any broodwar tournaments before. Mostly they ignored Korea, then tried convert BW tournaments to SC2 once SC2 was released. How do you know this?
Better you say how you claim the contrary, it is such a bs answer from you, instead provide some proofs of Blizz sponsoring any ASL until date, you got nothing, so dont ask for something that you need to provide.
About JJ I already gave you all the advise of ignore him, this guy just writes extended paragraphs based in what he reads in any internet page, and that he can accomodate to his "opinion", and post in TL like those are the facts.
|
On August 07 2017 03:47 palexhur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 19:05 nighcol wrote:On August 03 2017 19:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 03 2017 18:24 nighcol wrote:On August 03 2017 16:27 duke91 wrote:100% of BW funding comes from sponsors or fans. Don't really want to get into this pissing match but I highly doubt this is true. I'd be very surprised if Blizzard isn't supporting ASL. Blizzard has never supported ASL. It might change since they are releasing remastered, but Blizzard has never supported any broodwar tournaments before. Mostly they ignored Korea, then tried convert BW tournaments to SC2 once SC2 was released. How do you know this? Better you say how you claim the contrary, it is such a bs answer from you, instead provide some proofs of Blizz sponsoring any ASL until date, you got nothing, so dont ask for something that you need to provide.
I don't know what more is there to say. I already told every bit of infomation that makes me think it's likely and never said I have any actual proof. I'll add that one more thing I've observed is that ASL ad breaks have featured Blizzard ads as well.
I was just curious to know what made him so certain they're not. He used language that did make it seem like he'd have some kind of proof for it...
Look, it's just my opinion and I asked because I was willing to change it if there was something I had overlooked. You're acting like I'm forcing you to think the same or something.
|
When some of the best and most well-paid players quit your game, leaving behind their teams, salaries, sponsorships, international exposure, etc. to make much less money streaming another game in their bedroom and occasionally participating in comparatively small tournaments...it doesn't make you think there's something wrong with your game? It's as simple as this: SC2 is fine on it's own as a casual game, but as a top-down forced esport it's pathetic and unnecessary.
|
I feel a lot of the downturn is that SC2 has a relatively repetitive monotonous beginning to every match. It took like ten minutes for any semblence of a match to be care worthy. That is why there was so much excitement in rushes and cheese strats early on, because it was different from the normal boring start.
There also was not a ton of parity early on, nor now. We know for the most part a Korean is going to win 9/10 times versus a foreigner.
These in combination relatively lead to a bored fanbase which eroded its support.
Compare it to LoL where from the very onset a game defining kill or engagement could possibly happen every single game. Starcraft is just too slow and predictable early on to a large extent.
|
On August 08 2017 13:52 Corrik wrote:
I feel a lot of the downturn is that SC2 has a relatively repetitive monotonous beginning to every match. It took like ten minutes for any semblence of a match to be care worthy. That is why there was so much excitement in rushes and cheese strats early on, because it was different from the normal boring start.
There also was not a ton of parity early on, nor now. We know for the most part a Korean is going to win 9/10 times versus a foreigner.
These in combination relatively lead to a bored fanbase which eroded its support.
Compare it to LoL where from the very onset a game defining kill or engagement could possibly happen every single game. Starcraft is just too slow and predictable early on to a large extent.
I don't think cheese stopped being exciting, the prospect of not knowing whether the game would be over in 10 minutes or go on for an hour would always keep you on the edge of your seat. At certain points it seemed like the dev team was trying to remove it, sadly.
I do agree the slow start wasn't ideal and they did address it in LotV but that was too late if it was a factor.
To me Blizzard's handling of the WCS turned out to be complete failure and I'm sure it actively worked against people staying interested in the pro scene. First they undermined the most prestigious tournament by splitting the players between three regions when Koreans were free to play in Europe or Korea. Then they implemented the region lock far too late, way after the foreign stars people had been interested in had faded. Had they done the region lock right away there might have still been a chance that the audience interested in following the foreign scene would have stayed interested and the audience could have even grown. They way they did it first catered to nobody, it only served to make the fans of the Korean scene less interested, first with scattering the talent across regions and then causing mass retirement. From that point it was all downhill...
|
Why do people care so much about seeing non-Koreans succeed? Why does it matter what nationality a player is?
|
Everyone and their grandmothers have opinions as to why SC2 did what it did. I read the first few pages and rolled my eyes. We can make long lists of what we like and dislike all day and it won't change anything.
We see the same silly mistakes all the time. Anyway, next time Blizzard should just stay out of it and let the community decide the direction rather than trying to keep trying to patch the game every other day or trying to dictate which players play where. The Riot model just isn't going to fly in a game of 1v1.
I tend to like watching players who can do shit I could never pull off in a million years. It's no different than professional sports and what do you know. The 2024 Olympic Games are pushing to have esports there. Good times.
|
Claiming that outside factors do not contribute to the success of a game is beyond ridiculous. If it had not been for south koreas economic situation there is a good chance
that Starcraft vanilla and BW would have been just another RTS in a long line of RTS releases, without any special notion to it. This would have been a shame obviously.
There were alot of outside factors going for sc2 though but also alot going against it. I cannot really estimate how each of these factors contributed to the success/decline. All I can say with certainty that it is not ONE single reason why the game did not do as well as some people hope it would. It is a combination of alot of factors, be it outside or within the game itself.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
I would say that the biggest issue was that Blizzard kept patching the game after the initial x months. It's much like how they balanced the game around maps like Steppes of War lol. If they just left the mapmakers and only changed things that must be absolutely changed, the game would've been in a much better position. Ideas that were somewhat cool got nerfed. VRs had potential, got nerfed into a one press charge button as far as I remember. A hero unit like the mothership also doesn't really belong in the starcraft universe (maybe its in the lore, dunno but shouldn't be in the game).
I think the game should've also changed some of the design choices. Make it so that you can only use mbs and put the same structures in the same control group. Make it so that only 24-36 units can be added to a control group. Add defenders' advantage to make it so that high ground actually has a meaning besides just being there for aesthetics etc... There was just so much hype when the game first released but Blizzard failed to meet the expectations and in turn, the game popularity plummeted towards the end of WoL. It rebounded a bit in HoTS but kept decreasing after the early period because the units just didn't cut it. Then in LOTV, they removed the early game and forced you to have to expand due to decreasing mineral count in your main so that made things worse imo. Oh well.
|
On August 09 2017 12:06 reincremate wrote:
Why do people care so much about seeing non-Koreans succeed? Why does it matter what nationality a player is?
This is something I don't get either. I mean it's fun to root for foreigners, but ultimately I want to see the best of the best regardless of their nationality. All the concern about how we must get non-Koreans to compete with the Koreans seems to me like a lack of interest in the actual game.
|
Can we stop pretending that BW's long time "success" and SC2's dwindling have anything to do with each other? BW kept a dwindling core group in exactly one country, Sc2 had overall good sales, but eventually declined like pretty much every non-teambased game nowadays.
Also Sc2 was a hybrid of more casual elements while trying to keep the mechanical requirements to cater the old core group. In the end it wasn't casual enough to keep the more casual players and not hardcore enough to satisfy the BW community.
In that way the lack of custom mode/arcade did play a role, but there are a shitload of fairly high quality low cost minigames out there, why would you play a shitty fanmade TD for extended periods of time in Sc2 when you can play a good one for 5 bucks by a good indie studio? Many of the successful old maps became full games, fun maps aren't the life extender they were back in 98 or in 2002.
Add to that that if BW was to come out today under a different name, it would sell as well as rotten tomatoes. Sc2 was destined to die eventually even if it was less restricting.
I also don't agree at all that Blizz trying to rebalance the game harmed it. Popularity in the end of WoL didnt plummet because the game was hard to grasp, but because it was stale, if anything the expansions and balance patches kept it alive. The engine isn't really made to "come up with creative solutions".
On August 09 2017 12:06 reincremate wrote:
Why do people care so much about seeing non-Koreans succeed? Why does it matter what nationality a player is?
For identification purposes. It's easier to root for somebody who has some similarities with you. Add to that that Koreans come from a completely different ethnic group and that people who don't deal with a lot of Asians have difficulties to keep them apart, as well as that their culture and age gives them a tendency to be overly timid in interviews and it's hard to associate with a person who doesn't present any character traits nor major visual identification marks and is unwilling to share personal stories.
It's one of the reasons MC was a fan favorite, because he actually stood out all the time.
|
On August 09 2017 12:06 reincremate wrote:
Why do people care so much about seeing non-Koreans succeed? Why does it matter what nationality a player is?
For identification purposes. It's easier to root for somebody who has some similarities with you. Add to that that Koreans come from a completely different ethnic group and that people who don't deal with a lot of Asians have difficulties to keep them apart, as well as that their culture and age gives them a tendency to be overly timid in interviews and it's hard to associate with a person who doesn't present any character traits nor major visual identification marks and is unwilling to share personal stories.
It's one of the reasons MC was a fan favorite, because he actually stood out all the time.
That's pretty much what I had guessed, although I don't like to assume too much. It seems really dumb to me though, especially considering how much some/most of us on TL enjoyed watching/reading about the BW pros during the KeSPA era (almost all of whom were Korean), sometimes unabashedly entering creepy territory (see Nada's body thread).
It was cool to see players like Idra and Nony try to make it as BW progamers in Korea, seeing as how they had the narrative of getting to that level without the gaming culture, infrastructure, environment, etc. of Korea, but the fact that the scene was 99.9% Korean didn't detract from the quality of the game as an esport. SC2 as an esport just looks shallow and superficial in comparison.
|
On August 09 2017 04:13 nighcol wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 13:52 Corrik wrote:
I feel a lot of the downturn is that SC2 has a relatively repetitive monotonous beginning to every match. It took like ten minutes for any semblence of a match to be care worthy. That is why there was so much excitement in rushes and cheese strats early on, because it was different from the normal boring start.
There also was not a ton of parity early on, nor now. We know for the most part a Korean is going to win 9/10 times versus a foreigner.
These in combination relatively lead to a bored fanbase which eroded its support.
Compare it to LoL where from the very onset a game defining kill or engagement could possibly happen every single game. Starcraft is just too slow and predictable early on to a large extent. I don't think cheese stopped being exciting, the prospect of not knowing whether the game would be over in 10 minutes or go on for an hour would always keep you on the edge of your seat. At certain points it seemed like the dev team was trying to remove it, sadly. I do agree the slow start wasn't ideal and they did address it in LotV but that was too late if it was a factor. To me Blizzard's handling of the WCS turned out to be complete failure and I'm sure it actively worked against people staying interested in the pro scene. First they undermined the most prestigious tournament by splitting the players between three regions when Koreans were free to play in Europe or Korea. Then they implemented the region lock far too late, way after the foreign stars people had been interested in had faded. Had they done the region lock right away there might have still been a chance that the audience interested in following the foreign scene would have stayed interested and the audience could have even grown. They way they did it first catered to nobody, it only served to make the fans of the Korean scene less interested, first with scattering the talent across regions and then causing mass retirement. From that point it was all downhill...
For me outside of early cheese in SC2 its 90% afk till max then fighting and someone losing in a lopsided fashion and the game ending.
Not fun to watch
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
