As they hinted in this news release they are probably saving any really cool new announcements for BlizzCon 2019. BlizzCon and GamesCom are less than 10 weeks apart.
I'd rather have Blizzard committing its limited resources to making new games and maintaining its pillar franchises than making announcements half way across the world. They can just make those announcement at BlizzCon 10 weeks later... and probably pull off a way more awe-inspiring presentation at their own show.
The biggest change for 2019 is 3 tiers of tickets. They cost $230 USD, $550 USD, and $750 USD.
Like their really cool announcements last year? xD
I think Gamescom is much more the right audience. Because people who go to Gamescom might actually get excited about shit like Diablo Immortal and playtest it there. I don't expect anything anymore from Blizzard TBH.
- new WOW expansion - new overpriced hearthstone cards - new OW class
ATVI Investor call yesterday. Blizzard has 32 Million Monthly Active Users and an Operating Margin of 16%. If classic WoW and the Hearthstone expansion don't go very well I think there will be more layoffs.
Blizzard had 46 Million Monthly Active Users in late 2017 and normally a subdivision of ATVI has an operating margin of 32% or more.
ATVI noted that several of their top franchises have new employees added to new game development."we are growing our aggregate developer head count on Call of Duty, Candy Crush, Warcraft, Hearthstone, Overwatch, and Diablo by 20% this year to accelerate the delivery of content in our pipeline and give our communities more opportunities to engage."
My guess is that when the Overwatch "world builder"//"map maker" is ready for general release Blizzard will make Overwatch Free 2 Play. I think that will happen in the summer.
ATVI stated Overwatch experienced a single digit percentage decline in MAUs. There are "big name" OW "personalities" claiming the sky is falling. That is not true. OW is slowly, incrementally declining.
Over 150 discontented Riot Games employees walked out of the League of Legends publisher’s offices in Los Angeles today to protest the company’s stance on forced arbitration. Standing in a parking lot on Riot’s campus, employees held picket signs and gave impassioned speeches.
“We’re asking that forced arbitration be ended for all past, current, and future Riot employees, including contractors and in current litigation,” said Jocelyn Monahan, a social listening strategist at Riot, in an interview with Kotaku. Standing in front of a sign reading “Rioters Unplugged,” a play on Riot’s internal “Riot Unplugged” meetings, Monahan would later tell her assembled colleagues through a megaphone, “asking to feel safe does not make you entitled.”
Monahan had one major point she hoped to get across to her colleagues—even those who chose to stay in their desks and continue working. “We are what makes Riot great. I want us to feel solidarity and connection with each other. I want us to feel connected. I want us to feel like our voices are heard and heard in a way that matters.” Colleagues took turns speaking through the megaphone, with several admitting that they were scared to participate and be labeled “anti-Riot.” Said one, “I was worried. I was like, ‘What if I go and nobody shows up?’ I’m a little less worried about that now.” Others are showing their support with the #riotwalkout hashtag, which hundreds have been tweeting.
Today’s protest appears to be the first labor-related walkout for a large game studio like Riot. The company’s management is allowing its employees to participate and has urged managers to be accommodating and understanding. In an email to Kotaku this morning, a Riot representative added, “We respect Rioters who choose to walkout today and will not tolerate retaliation of any kind as a result of participating (or not).”
In the months since Kotaku’s investigation uncovering endemic sexism at Riot Games, five current or former employees sued the company, in part, for violating California’s Equal Pay Act. Last week, Riot filed a motion to force two of those current employees into arbitration, an extralegal forum where a suit does not go in front of a jury. Recently, 20,000 Google employees walked out to end forced arbitration; months later, Google announced it would comply, but only for harassment cases. Last week, Riot announced it would now allow incoming employees to opt out of forced arbitration for harassment suits and would consider extending that to current employees “as soon as current litigation is resolved.”
Giving a speech, one current Riot employee announced she was quitting in two weeks. “I’m quitting because I don’t want to see people who were protected by people in high places in Riot,” the employee said. Two higher-up employees at Riot Games, including the COO, have been retained at the company (in the COO’s case, after a two-month unpaid leave) despite several complaints against them to HR and otherwise being accused of everything from gendered promotion strategies to ball-grabbing in Kotaku reports. Adding that she’s worried that she’ll “be labeled a red flag,” she continued, “I don’t even spend time with my husband who works here, because I worry that he’ll also be labeled.”
Nearly half a dozen in attendance said that while they rarely talk in Slack or meetings, they felt compelled to publicly express concerns about Riot’s culture today.
Signs at the protest read, “It shouldn’t take all this to do the right thing,” “Be the company you say you are,” and “Silence one of us, you silence us all.” In a Kotaku report earlier today, employees expressed several reasons they would participate. While several are attending specifically to show support for the two plaintiffs in suits against Riot, others were frustrated that eight months after Kotaku’s investigation, they have not seen concrete signs that Riot is dismantling its sexist culture. Said one, “So far I haven’t seen a single outcome of our diversity and inclusion efforts at Riot. I haven’t seen a single metric or number to indicate things have improved and I haven’t seen a single project get finished.”
One other employee, who is male, explained, “While I fully believe Riot is doing everything they can in the moment to end future arbitration, I see value in presenting a nonviolent, unified voice. As someone with a voice, I am lending it to others who feel like they might not have one or be unheard.”
Updated: 5/6/2019, 8:58 p.m. ET: Toward the end of the walkout, Monahan made an announcement saying that if Riot management doesn’t make any sort of commitment on forced arbitration by May 16—the date of the next Riot Unplugged meeting—she and others involved with the walkout will take further action. Another walkout organizer, Riot writer Indu Reddy, was not able to delve into specifics of what that will mean, but she told Kotaku that “we do have plans, and we do have days that we’re planning, and we do have commitments that we have responses for.”
Reddy also said that despite Riot’s statement, retaliation is an ongoing concern. “We might face unforeseen consequences despite leadership’s own commitments, because leadership is one entity, and there are a lot of Rioters throughout the org,” she said. “We will prepare for retaliation. I think it wouldn’t be smart to not plan for it. But we’re not assuming it either because leadership said they wouldn’t retaliate—for this one, anyway. We will continue to ask for confirmation for future demonstrations.”
The mood at the walkout, however, was generally positive. Robin, a Los Angeles chapter organizer for advocacy group Game Workers Unite, expressed hope that today’s walkout will inspire game developers at other companies, too.
“The fact that this action went so well—there were people on the mic, everyone was so excited, there were so many people sharing their stories—I think that’s gonna inspire a lot of other people at companies to realize they have a lot of power over the conditions at their workplaces,” Robin told Kotaku. “This is going to be a tremendous example for people to know that they can make their conditions better.”
"Here are just a few examples of the company’s insistence on staying away from politics — and just how ridiculous that can be when you look at the actual games."
No idea why The Verge is being so negative about it. My favourite games of all time don't have political messages.
"Here are just a few examples of the company’s insistence on staying away from politics — and just how ridiculous that can be when you look at the actual games."
No idea why The Verge is being so negative about it. My favourite games of all time don't have political messages.
The Verge seems to be angry that Ubisoft claims their games don't have a political message, not that they don't have a political message (The Division being the case-in-point). I find this kind of criticism wrongheaded: it doesn't matter what Ubisoft claims about their games, the games can speak for themselves.
I see Ubisoft assuming a posture that there is no political message so that players who don't want to critically examine a game can enjoy it without doing so. And honestly, what's wrong with that? In some ways it's a bit sad that these gamers are missing out on what can be the true meaning of the experience (yes, video games as art lul), but each person is free to decide how much they want to invest into their enjoyment of the media.
In a way, every game has a political message. Mario Bros is obviously about breaking the shackles of a monarchical society and bringing about the proletarian revolution.
I'd say many games give you the freedom to choose a message.
Ubis games often have political undertones or develop a dystopia though. That being said I'm not sure I'd consider that a message, similarly to how 1984 doesn't have a political message barring "supervision sucks" and "don't trust your government". They are more thought experiments than calls for action.
That being said a lot of journalists nowadays seem to expect everything to always make a political statement, ideally following their own propaganda. It's getting silly.
@Mario Bros: Considering that Mario's in a romantic relationship with a monarch I don't think he's trying to break the shackles of monarchy Since it's Japanese and about the fight between the mushroom kingdom and the koopas, the message is clearly that mushrooms are tastier than turtles if the former get prepared in an Italian way.
Donkey Kong Junior's quest was about humane treatment of animals. EA NHL '94 had no fighting in it. So the left wing pinko commies that want fighting banned from hockey influenced the game design. i wonder what the political message was in Pong?
On May 12 2019 22:23 Archeon wrote: Pong is clearly dadaist, it's about the fact that you don't need much to enjoy life.
Well, that is not really political but more philosophical I'd say. Same as the Diablo franchise: "No matter how often you defeat evil, it will always find a way back"
The Epic Store is having a massive, great, amazing , and BIZARRE sale. Its a great deal for customers. Epic is lowering the price of all games on its store and giving the difference in the discount price to the developer.
Borderlands 3 is now $50 USD. Gearbox is still getting their cut from what would be a $60 USD unit price. Epic is just paying the difference themselves. So Gearbox can buy copies of their own game and generate a ~$3 profit?
Publisher's Clearing House move over. We now have Epic Games!
Had I purchased Borderlands3 a week of two ago I'd be pretty angry.
On May 17 2019 06:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The Epic Store is having a massive, great, amazing , and BIZARRE sale. Its a great deal for customers. Epic is lowering the price of all games on its store and giving the difference in the discount price to the developer.
Borderlands 3 is now $50 USD. Gearbox is still getting their cut from what would be a $60 USD unit price. Epic is just paying the difference themselves. So Gearbox can buy copies of their own game and generate a ~$3 profit?
Publisher's Clearing House move over. We now have Epic Games!
Had I purchased Borderlands3 a week of two ago I'd be pretty angry.
Personally to me it suggests that there's a problem with Epic and that's lack of customers. This deal is specifically targeted at undecided people. I already own pretty much every game I ever wanted to play, have some cash invested in pre-orders and have a few low priority items on my wishlist (which I will probably buy but never play). All of that through platforms I already am a part of (Steam and GOG). Why would I ever even look at Epic's offer?
I don't really know a fan of a franchise that wouldn't already have his or her fix as soon as it was released (pre-Epic store, Borderlands is another story now because even fans held off on pre-purchase on this one, myself included). This sale can potentially target people who are rather casual gamers and benefit developers who make games targeting such audience.
I would have bought a shit ton at the Epic store right now (mainly Metro and pre-order BL3) but for the fact I just ordered a Rift S and Epic doesn't have VR games. Tough luck for them I guess The sale in itself is greath though. Gamers are clearly to winner of the Steam / Epic rivalry right now. So kudos to us
On May 17 2019 16:47 Harris1st wrote: I would have bought a shit ton at the Epic store right now (mainly Metro and pre-order BL3) but for the fact I just ordered a Rift S and Epic doesn't have VR games. Tough luck for them I guess The sale in itself is greath though. Gamers are clearly to winner of the Steam / Epic rivalry right now. So kudos to us
And how exactly are gamers the winners here? It did nothing for me, nothing for you, most likely nothing for many more people. It sure didn't affect Steam either...
Borderlands 3 was $60 USD. This means Gearbox gets $52.80. According to reports.. with this sale Gearbox continues to get $52.80 while the customer only pays $50. So Gearbox can mass-buy their own game and make $2.80 with every sale. SOURCE So something here doesn't add up.
Furthermore, the Borderlands 3 Super Deluxe Edition was $100 with the comments from Pitchford during the reveal that this $100 was a limited time only low price that disappears on the release day. No longer with the DLC and main game be bundled together. This leaves the impression that the $100 price will not get lower between May 1 and September 13. So its really BS that the price is now $90. If I paid $100 between May 1 and May 15th... I'd be pretty angry.
Everyone gets an automatic $10 in store credit. So you pay $100 for Bordelands3. And now you get a $10 credit to buy more Epic games stuff. Sleazy. Slimey. The is Carney Barker level Promoting.
I was skeptical ... I smelled bullshit right from the start...welp here we go...
publishers are pulling out of the Epic Games sale. So the comment that Epic Games is paying the difference so the developer is not impacted.. is bullshit.
On May 17 2019 16:47 Harris1st wrote: I would have bought a shit ton at the Epic store right now (mainly Metro and pre-order BL3) but for the fact I just ordered a Rift S and Epic doesn't have VR games. Tough luck for them I guess The sale in itself is greath though. Gamers are clearly to winner of the Steam / Epic rivalry right now. So kudos to us
And how exactly are gamers the winners here? It did nothing for me, nothing for you, most likely nothing for many more people. It sure didn't affect Steam either...
Lower prices for your games? I am not a pile of shame kinda gamer and you don't seem to bei either, but in general it is good. When I first checked there (before all publishers took their games out) I could have preordered BL3 for 10$ off. I didn't cause I am not a preorder kinda person and currently I buy only VR games. Would this have happened 2 months earlier though, I definitely would have bought stuff.
Steam isn't really unfazed. They already offered better deals for AAA games (or games that sell at least a fixed amount. I think somewhere around 3 million copies? Dunno exactly)
On May 21 2019 18:20 Harris1st wrote: Steam isn't really unfazed. They already offered better deals for AAA games (or games that sell at least a fixed amount. I think somewhere around 3 million copies? Dunno exactly)
sorry to nit-pick here. I think you mean "Sony isn't really fazed". Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment.
On May 21 2019 18:20 Harris1st wrote: Steam isn't really unfazed. They already offered better deals for AAA games (or games that sell at least a fixed amount. I think somewhere around 3 million copies? Dunno exactly)
sorry to nit-pick here. I think you mean "Sony isn't really fazed". Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment.
Nah I meant Steam. For the double negative I used, I meant that Steam is rethinking their policy of the split they did with developers which was AFAIK 30%-70% before Epics offensive and is now 20%-80% if a game sells good.
There have been times when a Canadian going to the USA and sneaking a US purchased game console across the Canada/USA border made sense. If a tariff like this is introduced... we might see Americans sneaking Canadian bought game consoles across the border.
EPT
