|
Please be advised:
We will be closing this General thread in 24 hours. It will remain searchable.
After that we will require new threads to discuss topics.
Questions should go in the stickied Q&A thread, screenshots and PotG will go in the PotG sticky, QQ/Rage/Complaints should go in the QQ/Rage thread. If you want to talk about maps or strategies open a new thread.
Any comments or concerns will be logged please forward them to ZeromuS. This new forum is still fluid so we will try this out. General TL rules will still apply to new threads. |
On April 20 2016 01:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 01:51 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 01:47 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:45 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 01:42 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:I think the most important part is that it is something different and not trying to work it's way into an already saturated market. And it leverages Blizzards greatest abilities, which are to make accessible games with amazing, larger than life characters, that also have depth for those who are looking for it that. On April 20 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:36 Meta wrote:
The difference between Overwatch and HotS or SC2 is that Overwatch is more fun than rival similar titles (TF2, Battleborn), whereas HotS and SC2 are not more fun than Dota, League or SC:BW. I think that this game could end up being Blizzard's most successful title in years with more longevity than either HotS or SC2. I don't see it eclipsing Hearthstone in the long run tho so it won't be the most successful title in years. Its also a think that can just exist beside hearthstone, since the markets are totally different. No where did I say they can't exist together or that Overwatch can't be successful. I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone. Overwatch can't beat a massively successful and accessible f2p game, especially not in term of viewership. Have you watched Overwatch? It fucking sucks as a spectator game. Please take a deep breath and read the conversation again. Then realize your barking up the wrong tree. Thank you. "I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone." -You My point is it could be considered their most successful title in years without beating Hearthstone in terms of viewership if it was successful financially and somehow led to a healthy competitive scene, which I doubt will happen. But IDK what metric you're thinking about for "beating hearthstone". So no I didn't misunderstand you, I was indirectly asking for clarification. How does Overwatch need to "beat" Hearthstone? Will it get more twitch views then Hearthstone (after the initial first week hype)? Doubtful Will it have more players then Hearthstone? probably not. Will it make more money then Hearthstone? Unlikely (even tho Hearthstone is f2p casual players spend a lot of money on games like that) Hence, while it will probably be 'successful' it won't be more successful then Hearthstone. I don't follow the competitive Hearthstone scene so sure maybe Overwatch will beat that (I doubt it since I agree with you that its a bad spectator game) but that alone is imo not enough.
Alright then. I think it would have stood a chance to be more a financial success, perhaps even more than Hearthstone, if Blizzard had been more receptive of some of the fan criticism. But in the current circumstances I agree that it's unlikely to compete with Hearthstone in any metric.
On April 20 2016 01:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 01:55 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 01:54 Plansix wrote:On April 20 2016 01:51 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 01:47 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:45 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 01:42 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:I think the most important part is that it is something different and not trying to work it's way into an already saturated market. And it leverages Blizzards greatest abilities, which are to make accessible games with amazing, larger than life characters, that also have depth for those who are looking for it that. On April 20 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:36 Meta wrote:
The difference between Overwatch and HotS or SC2 is that Overwatch is more fun than rival similar titles (TF2, Battleborn), whereas HotS and SC2 are not more fun than Dota, League or SC:BW. I think that this game could end up being Blizzard's most successful title in years with more longevity than either HotS or SC2. I don't see it eclipsing Hearthstone in the long run tho so it won't be the most successful title in years. Its also a think that can just exist beside hearthstone, since the markets are totally different. No where did I say they can't exist together or that Overwatch can't be successful. I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone. Overwatch can't beat a massively successful and accessible f2p game, especially not in term of viewership. Have you watched Overwatch? It fucking sucks as a spectator game. Please take a deep breath and read the conversation again. Then realize your barking up the wrong tree. Thank you. "I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone." -You My point is it could be considered their most successful title in years without beating Hearthstone in terms of viewership if it was successful financially and somehow led to a healthy competitive scene, which I doubt will happen. But IDK what metric you're thinking about for "beating hearthstone". So no I didn't misunderstand you, I was indirectly asking for clarification. How does Overwatch need to "beat" Hearthstone? No one is talking about viewership except for you. You are arguing against points not on is making. I'm asking by what metric ffs, my point is "if not viewership then what" and your answer is "not viewership". This is ridiculous. How much money the game makes for Blizzard, which isn't publicly available, so we don't talk about it. Or that people are playing and enjoying the game, because you can always find a match of Hots. You don't just got to pick the number that you like and then try to drag it into every discussion. You are just talking past people, rather than to them.
Blizzard doesn't release the numbers directly but some financial metrics are made available for many games. They released recently that hearthstone was making 20 millions in monthly income, so we DO talk about it. In 2014 there was the 481 million revenue figure that was released somehow. And I didn't pick anything, I was talking. Viewership is not an irrelevant metric. You're the one who's not listening. You're the one who outright rejected my question as if I was asserting something. Very irritating -_-... I don't remember you being like that, the name Plansix rings a bell...
|
I guess the real question is, "Why is League of Legends a failure when compared to the viewership of pictures of cats online? What makes pictures of cats such a successful MOBA?" > : )
Unrelated Question: I noticed over the weekend that there are 4 main classes in the game, but there also seem to be some sub-classes: builder and sniper. Is there only 1 of each of those, or is the archer dude considered a sniper too?
|
MotherFox hits the nail on the head. Viewership is a measurement of people watching the game. It had little to do with the success of the game. In fact, many game developers have reported that high viewership on twitch and youtube play throughs do not translate to sales.
|
On April 20 2016 02:03 MotherFox wrote:
I guess the real question is, "Why is League of Legends a failure when compared to the viewership of pictures of cats online? What makes pictures of cats such a successful MOBA?" > : )
I noticed over the weekend that there are 4 main classes in the game, but there also seem to be some sub-classes: builder and sniper. Is there only 1 of each of those, or is the archer dude considered a sniper too?
Hanzo and Widowmaker are considered snipers. I believe only Torbjorn is considered a builder. Maybe Symmetra is a builder too.
On April 20 2016 02:09 Plansix wrote:
MotherFox hits the nail on the head. Viewership is a measurement of people watching the game. It had little to do with the success of the game. In fact, many game developers have reported that high viewership on twitch and youtube play throughs do not translate to sales.
I don't consider viewership on its own to be a measure of success but I did bring up financial success and sustainability. Viewership can bring sustainability, especially in a game with microtransactions. I was not asserting that viewership is the only metric, rather I was asking if the poster thought it was viewership - not an irrelevant question on SC2 forums, where people have been saying SC2 is dying specifically because viewership is low, regardless of previous financial success. Also part of Hearthstone's financial success is assuredly linked to its strength as a spectator game. Viewership is not completely irrelevant, especially not in a game which wants to have a real competitive component with tournaments and stuff (which Overwatch may not be). But I digress, too many ifs. I was raising the question because I didn't know what the guy meant by success.
Photos of cats don't have a publisher spending money and possibly looking for many years of steady income like the income provided by WoW* for more than a decade and more recently hearthstone. For Valve, CSGO went from being a pretty underwhelming $15 title to a massive cash cow, due to high viewership and some ingame features that people liked.
*: I realize that sustainability can be assured by things other than viewership.
|
On April 20 2016 02:03 MotherFox wrote:
I guess the real question is, "Why is League of Legends a failure when compared to the viewership of pictures of cats online? What makes pictures of cats such a successful MOBA?" > : )
Unrelated Question: I noticed over the weekend that there are 4 main classes in the game, but there also seem to be some sub-classes: builder and sniper. Is there only 1 of each of those, or is the archer dude considered a sniper too?
completely irrelevant comparison, i think more in terms if this game will be as big as cs :go in popularity or viewership which is see as its main competitor (theres very little moba and every hero feels more like switching weapons in normal fps game), right now i feel like overwatch lacks depth and gives me heroes of storm vibe, its polished, super fun at first but becomes boring fast, it can be fixed but given their design choices and track record of activisionblizzard i dont have much faith
|
On April 20 2016 02:46 kongoline wrote:
it can be fixed but given their design choices and track record of activisionblizzard i dont have much faith
Or maybe it reaches different demographics? Exactly 0% of my friends play CS:Go or watch it.
|
On April 20 2016 02:56 MotherFox wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 02:46 kongoline wrote:
it can be fixed but given their design choices and track record of activisionblizzard i dont have much faith Or maybe it reaches different demographics? Exactly 0% of my friends play CS:Go or watch it.
Are you sure they are True-GamersTM? What if they are not True-GamersTM? Have you considered that they might be wrong to not love a hardcore game for True-GamersTM?
|
On April 20 2016 03:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 02:56 MotherFox wrote:On April 20 2016 02:46 kongoline wrote:
it can be fixed but given their design choices and track record of activisionblizzard i dont have much faith Or maybe it reaches different demographics? Exactly 0% of my friends play CS:Go or watch it. Are you sure they are True-GamersTM? What if they are not True-GamersTM? Have you considered that they might be wrong to not love a hardcore game for True-GamersTM?
Yeah. I mean, we spend 4 hours a night or so gaming, but we do have day jobs and are in our 30s. Probably not true gamers.
|
they did the same with d3 and hots which are basically dumbed versions of previous games to please broader spectrum of people (casual players) and look how that turned out
|
On April 20 2016 03:07 kongoline wrote:
they did the same with d3 and hots which are basically dumbed versions of previous games to please broader spectrum of people (casual players) and look how that turned out
Hey yeah, we liked all those games too. We are definitely casuals.
|
I liked D3 as well, doesn't mean it couldn't be better or that the game went into a completely different direction from what you'd expect.
|
Great? You mean great, because D3 sold like 30 million copies as of last year. You do know that self described and appointed “hard core, gate keeping” audience is basically irrelevant to Blizzard, right?
On April 20 2016 03:09 MotherFox wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 03:07 kongoline wrote:
they did the same with d3 and hots which are basically dumbed versions of previous games to please broader spectrum of people (casual players) and look how that turned out Hey yeah, we liked all those games too. We are definitely casuals.
The most filthy of casuals.
|
On April 20 2016 03:11 Plansix wrote:Great? You mean great, because D3 sold like 30 million copies as of last year. You do know that self described and appointed “hard core, gate keeping” audience is basically irrelevant to Blizzard, right? Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 03:09 MotherFox wrote:On April 20 2016 03:07 kongoline wrote:
they did the same with d3 and hots which are basically dumbed versions of previous games to please broader spectrum of people (casual players) and look how that turned out Hey yeah, we liked all those games too. We are definitely casuals. The most filthy of casuals.
I basically don't believe someone is harcore unless they can show me video of them doing level 11s or better in In the Groove, the more challenging Dance Dance Revolution spinoff. I can do 10s, so if they can't even do that they are no better than a casual.
|
On April 20 2016 03:11 Plansix wrote:Great? You mean great, because D3 sold like 30 million copies as of last year. You do know that self described and appointed “hard core, gate keeping” audience is basically irrelevant to Blizzard, right? Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 03:09 MotherFox wrote:On April 20 2016 03:07 kongoline wrote:
they did the same with d3 and hots which are basically dumbed versions of previous games to please broader spectrum of people (casual players) and look how that turned out Hey yeah, we liked all those games too. We are definitely casuals. The most filthy of casuals.
It has been for some time, which is quite sad because it's the audience that made blizzard grow. SC1 | Diablo 1 & 2 | WC1/2/3. WoW for about 1.5 years. Then things changed quite drastically. Probably has a lot to do with blizzard north's departure, but mostly because of how big blizzard grew.
Also financial success isn't be all and end all.
|
On April 20 2016 03:20 Andre wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 03:11 Plansix wrote:Great? You mean great, because D3 sold like 30 million copies as of last year. You do know that self described and appointed “hard core, gate keeping” audience is basically irrelevant to Blizzard, right? On April 20 2016 03:09 MotherFox wrote:On April 20 2016 03:07 kongoline wrote:
they did the same with d3 and hots which are basically dumbed versions of previous games to please broader spectrum of people (casual players) and look how that turned out Hey yeah, we liked all those games too. We are definitely casuals. The most filthy of casuals. It has been for some time, which is quite sad because it's the audience that made blizzard grow. SC1 | Diablo 1 & 2 | WC1/2/3. WoW for about 1.5 years. Then things changed quite drastically. Probably has a lot to do with blizzard north's departure, but mostly because of how big blizzard grew. Also financial success isn't be all and end all.
I would point out that Blizzard made that audience by making the most enjoyable, accessible games in that specific era. But sadly, like all nerd hobbies, once it gets super popular they turn inward and start the gate keeping process. Patting themselves on the back for being True Fans/Gamers/Readers and shunning those who enjoy the game for different reasons or in different ways. It wouldn’t be so troubling if I didn’t also see it in comics, board games, RPGs, CCGs and like every other nerdy hobby.
|
On April 20 2016 03:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 03:20 Andre wrote:On April 20 2016 03:11 Plansix wrote:Great? You mean great, because D3 sold like 30 million copies as of last year. You do know that self described and appointed “hard core, gate keeping” audience is basically irrelevant to Blizzard, right? On April 20 2016 03:09 MotherFox wrote:On April 20 2016 03:07 kongoline wrote:
they did the same with d3 and hots which are basically dumbed versions of previous games to please broader spectrum of people (casual players) and look how that turned out Hey yeah, we liked all those games too. We are definitely casuals. The most filthy of casuals. It has been for some time, which is quite sad because it's the audience that made blizzard grow. SC1 | Diablo 1 & 2 | WC1/2/3. WoW for about 1.5 years. Then things changed quite drastically. Probably has a lot to do with blizzard north's departure, but mostly because of how big blizzard grew. Also financial success isn't be all and end all. I would point out that Blizzard made that audience by making the most enjoyable, accessible games in that specific era. But sadly, like all nerd hobbies, once it gets super popular they turn inward and start the gate keeping process. Patting themselves on the back for being True Fans/Gamers/Readers and shunning those who enjoy the game for different reasons or in different ways. It wouldn’t be so troubling if I didn’t also see it in comics, board games, RPGs, CCGs and like every other nerdy hobby.
I'm an avid board game collector and I think that hobby is a bit different. If I show up to a game shop and people are playing nothing but the latest fantasy flight releases, then I get a little salty that i can't bust out Agricola or Through the Ages. That's because the mass populous moving on has attracted my former playmates in those games on to other games I'm not interested in, and since most boardgaming is local I don't simply have the option to insulate myself on servers of like-minded people.
Of course, I don't go around game shops griping to newcomers in the hobby of how much I hate the entry of pandemic legacy into my genre, either. I mean, it's not like boardgames started super hardcore--- so the more complex games don't really have any more legitimacy than older SdJ winners like Tortoise and the Hare, even though that game is pretty light be comparison. Video games on the other hand have always been really complex and hardcore, with roots in things like Pong. -_-
|
On April 19 2016 23:32 Plansix wrote:
Yawn, Twitch viewers and anecdotal evidence used as a metric for success and self affirmation that game person does not like is a failure. Its like everyone is pulling their talking points from the same place, as is always on the internet.
ATVI is all about stock price. They shout from the mountain-tops any and every measure that shows the billions and billions they are making. Since 2008 we've heard a non-stop stream of news about the billions of cash Diablo , WoW, CoD, Skylanders bring in
NOTHING about Heroes of the Storm. The silence is deafening.
Diablo, Starcraft, and WoW thoroughly dominated their respective genres by any metric. it is odd to see Blizzard accept a tiny fraction of a market.
and this is waht Heroes of the Storm is doing against Dota2. I won't include LoL because if i did then the Heroes blue line resembles the EKG of a patient who stopped breathing 6 minutes ago.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=/m/0kz2x1z, /m/0dlkwn1&date=1/2015 12m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT+4
ATVI's complete silence about Heroes of the Storm is evidence of it is not meeting their internal expectations.
Internet guys like to use emo-laden language like "fail". I won't go that far. Heroes of the Storm is being outperformed by the industry leader by 2 orders of magnitude.
|
WoW was incredible easy mode MMO compared to other MMOs when it came out, if only had WoW been a more HC game it could've reached more success. Can we stop posting useless offtopic now?
Moving into actual topic on hand. Blizzard has already said current spectating system is just bare bones and they agree it's shit, so we'll see a much better one if not by launch at least at some point after. They've been good at fixing things and developing the game at Beta(I mean seriously go look at the first beta videos and see) and saying Blizzard wouldn't know how to make good spectating system is ridiculous.
|
some of Blizzard's fundamentals.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FrMzKzV.jpg)
On April 20 2016 03:20 Andre wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 03:11 Plansix wrote:Great? You mean great, because D3 sold like 30 million copies as of last year. You do know that self described and appointed “hard core, gate keeping” audience is basically irrelevant to Blizzard, right? On April 20 2016 03:09 MotherFox wrote:On April 20 2016 03:07 kongoline wrote:
they did the same with d3 and hots which are basically dumbed versions of previous games to please broader spectrum of people (casual players) and look how that turned out Hey yeah, we liked all those games too. We are definitely casuals. The most filthy of casuals. It has been for some time, which is quite sad because it's the audience that made blizzard grow. SC1 | Diablo 1 & 2 | WC1/2/3. WoW for about 1.5 years. Then things changed quite drastically. Probably has a lot to do with blizzard north's departure, but mostly because of how big blizzard grew. Also financial success isn't be all and end all.
basically, Blizzard stopped making one game at a time.
|
On April 20 2016 03:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 23:32 Plansix wrote:
Yawn, Twitch viewers and anecdotal evidence used as a metric for success and self affirmation that game person does not like is a failure. Its like everyone is pulling their talking points from the same place, as is always on the internet. ATVI is all about stock price. They shout from the mountain-tops any and every measure that shows the billions and billions they are making. Since 2008 we've heard a non-stop stream of news about the billions of cash Diablo , WoW, CoD, Skylanders bring in
NOTHING about Heroes of the Storm. The silence is deafening.
Diablo, Starcraft, and WoW thoroughly dominated their respective genres by any metric. it is odd to see Blizzard accept a tiny fraction of a market. and this is waht Heroes of the Storm is doing against Dota2. I won't include LoL because if i did then the Heroes blue line resembles the EKG of a patient who stopped breathing 6 minutes ago. http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=/m/0kz2x1z, /m/0dlkwn1&date=1/2015 12m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT+4ATVI's complete silence about Heroes of the Storm is evidence of it is not meeting their internal expectations. Internet guys like to use emo-laden language like "fail". I won't go that far. Heroes of the Storm is being outperformed by the industry leader by 2 orders of magnitude.
I said it when Heroes was announced and i'll say it again, i have no idea what blizzard was thinking releasing a MOBA at that time.
As far as when Overwatch was announced it was the perfect time, the only competition they had was a 10 year old TF2. Only after the announcement of Overwatch came similar games like Battleborn and no offence to the Battleborn dev's but after playing it i don't think OW has anything to worry about for now. It was honestly the perfect time to announce a game like Overwatch, the market was just waiting for a game like that.
The future of Overwatch seems good, i don't understand why people are so sure it will fail, it is simply to fun to play, the kind of game you can pick up for 30 minutes - 1 hour then go do something and come back to it later. I do understand people's complaints about the competitive side though, as i said earlier in the thread the "hardcore" players or whatever you want to call them will get frustrated with a lot of the classes, but this is a Blizzard game a company that is well known for catering to the more casual players, surely everyone knows this by now. As i game addict myself this can be frustrating but there is plenty of other games out there.
No doubt Overwatch will be successful, its huge amounts of fun but just don't expect it to be the greatest competitive game ever which seems some of you are expecting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
