On November 01 2015 01:44 Valyrian wrote: "Getting players back" shouldn't even be the primary concern. Designing a good game comes first, and that's not the same thing.
It really is. A good game that nobody plays is not a good game, is it? It's just a game that you personally like.
Let me explain it this way: a game being good means that the majority of people like it. Which means they play it.
Would be great if it was that easy, right? Make a good game and people will play it for sure.
Sadly, thats not how it works in todays times. So many more factors play into this, many out of developers' control.
That's true for indies but for Blizzard? What are you talking about? They have everything they could ask for in advantages. Can you give an example?
No thats not just true for indies. It is true for every developer no matter the size. Blizzard just has more money to work against this via marketing campaigns and all that. But it is not enough for them to make a great game, as it is not enough for Valve or Riot. Or even non-eSports companies like CDPR or Bethesda. They all need to do much more to be succesfull.
Compared to other big devs, Blizzard doesn't have the huge fanbase a DotA-like has. Or the huge userbase a Steam offers.
They have a very loyal but small and overly critical fanbase for Starcraft II. They also have a huge "negative viral marketing campaign" against their game(ded gaem) which is coming from this very fanbase as well as the problem of an old business model that didn't really adjust to modern times. And contrary to what many people say, Starcraft II doesn't really benefit from other Blizzard titles.
I wouldn't say that Blizzard has every advantage they could ask for. If I was to choose my fanbase, I wouldn't pick the one that regularly calls their game dead for example.
On November 01 2015 01:44 Valyrian wrote: "Getting players back" shouldn't even be the primary concern. Designing a good game comes first, and that's not the same thing.
It really is. A good game that nobody plays is not a good game, is it? It's just a game that you personally like.
Let me explain it this way: a game being good means that the majority of people like it. Which means they play it.
Would be great if it was that easy, right? Make a good game and people will play it for sure.
Sadly, thats not how it works in todays times. So many more factors play into this, many out of developers' control.
That's true for indies but for Blizzard? What are you talking about? They have everything they could ask for in advantages. Can you give an example?
No thats not just true for indies. It is true for every developer no matter the size. Blizzard just has more money to work against this via marketing campaigns and all that. But it is not enough for them to make a great game, as it is not enough for Valve or Riot. They all need to do much more to be succesful.
But compared to other big titles, Blizzard doesn't have the huge fanbase a DotA-like has. They have a very loyal but small and overly critical fanbase. They also have a huge "negative viral marketing campaign" against their game(ded gaem) which is coming from this very fanbase as well as the problem of an old business model that didn't really adjust to modern times.
I wouldn't say that Blizzard has every advantage they could ask for. If I was to choose my fanbase, I wouldn't pick the one that regularly calls their game dead for example.
You're thinking about this exactly the other way that I do haha.
Ask yourself this: why did Blizzard get this, in your words, 'overly critical' fanbase? You seem to think it was this way always or something.
They way I think about it is that this happened for a good reason. DotA only exists because of Blizzards incompetence to buy into it when it was a WC3 mod. Blizzard had an incredibly large and positive playerbase around the launch of SC2: WOL.
Why did people turn sour? Why did the SC2 community size-down? You make it look like it just so happened. I think it's because of Blizzard's own failures. Failures to take the community serious, failure to accept feedback, failure to support a, once growing, eSports title properly in the same way competitors (ie. DotA, LOL, CSGO) were supported. In one word: arrogance.
On November 01 2015 01:44 Valyrian wrote: "Getting players back" shouldn't even be the primary concern. Designing a good game comes first, and that's not the same thing.
It really is. A good game that nobody plays is not a good game, is it? It's just a game that you personally like.
Let me explain it this way: a game being good means that the majority of people like it. Which means they play it.
Would be great if it was that easy, right? Make a good game and people will play it for sure.
Sadly, thats not how it works in todays times. So many more factors play into this, many out of developers' control.
That's true for indies but for Blizzard? What are you talking about? They have everything they could ask for in advantages. Can you give an example?
No thats not just true for indies. It is true for every developer no matter the size. Blizzard just has more money to work against this via marketing campaigns and all that. But it is not enough for them to make a great game, as it is not enough for Valve or Riot. They all need to do much more to be succesful.
But compared to other big titles, Blizzard doesn't have the huge fanbase a DotA-like has. They have a very loyal but small and overly critical fanbase. They also have a huge "negative viral marketing campaign" against their game(ded gaem) which is coming from this very fanbase as well as the problem of an old business model that didn't really adjust to modern times.
I wouldn't say that Blizzard has every advantage they could ask for. If I was to choose my fanbase, I wouldn't pick the one that regularly calls their game dead for example.
You're thinking about this exactly the other way that I do haha.
Ask yourself this: why did Blizzard get this, in your words, 'overly critical' fanbase? You seem to think it was this way always or something.
Of course it was. The minute SC2 was announced people started raging about how their design choices are shit and the game is shit. I mean, I wasn't terribly active in the community (didn't even have a TL account), but even I saw how people reacted to SC2. It was even worse than it is now.
They way I think about it is that this happened for a good reason. DotA only exists because of Blizzards incompetence to buy into it when it was a WC3 mod. Blizzard had an incredibly large and positive playerbase around the launch of SC2: WOL.
Blizzard wasn't incompentent, but money talks. From what I gathered on interviews/stories about this, what Icefrog wanted was too much for Blizzard moneywise.
Why did people turn sour? Why did the SC2 community size-down? You make it look like it just so happened. I think it's because of Blizzard's own failures. Failures to take the community serious, failure to accept feedback, failure to support a, once growing, eSports title properly in the same way competitors (ie. DotA, LOL, CSGO) were supported. In one word: arrogance
If I had the answer to that question, I'd apply to Blizzard with a happy face yelling "Guys, I know what we have to do! It's so easy!"- so if you know the answer go ahead. But do you really think Blizzard is sitting together like "Guys, maybe we should've listened to the feedback instead of playing table tennis all day. Who knew."
Nah, thats not what it is.
Blizzard not supporting the eSports? They're a game company, not a tournament organization. Yet they built WCS and invested a ton of money into the scene. They also made GSL possible together with GomTV.
Actually, I'm not going to go deeper into this, as I have this argument over and over again. I'm just going to refer to my point about the overly critical and negative fanbase. This is a prime example.
Blizzard is not the evil monster sitting in his big chair turning your face as you walk in, yelling "HAHAHAHAH!! IT WAS MY PLAN ALL ALONG THAT NO ONE WILL PLAY SC2!!!".
If we wanted to be perfectly honest, the most logical move would be to screw the multiplayer and just release the campaign. Would probably make them a lot more money than what they are doing now.
On November 01 2015 01:44 Valyrian wrote: "Getting players back" shouldn't even be the primary concern. Designing a good game comes first, and that's not the same thing.
It really is. A good game that nobody plays is not a good game, is it? It's just a game that you personally like.
Let me explain it this way: a game being good means that the majority of people like it. Which means they play it.
Would be great if it was that easy, right? Make a good game and people will play it for sure.
Sadly, thats not how it works in todays times. So many more factors play into this, many out of developers' control.
That's true for indies but for Blizzard? What are you talking about? They have everything they could ask for in advantages. Can you give an example?
No thats not just true for indies. It is true for every developer no matter the size. Blizzard just has more money to work against this via marketing campaigns and all that. But it is not enough for them to make a great game, as it is not enough for Valve or Riot. They all need to do much more to be succesful.
But compared to other big titles, Blizzard doesn't have the huge fanbase a DotA-like has. They have a very loyal but small and overly critical fanbase. They also have a huge "negative viral marketing campaign" against their game(ded gaem) which is coming from this very fanbase as well as the problem of an old business model that didn't really adjust to modern times.
I wouldn't say that Blizzard has every advantage they could ask for. If I was to choose my fanbase, I wouldn't pick the one that regularly calls their game dead for example.
You're thinking about this exactly the other way that I do haha.
Ask yourself this: why did Blizzard get this, in your words, 'overly critical' fanbase? You seem to think it was this way always or something.
Of course it was. The minute SC2 was announced people started raging about how their design choices are shit and the game is shit. I mean, I wasn't terribly active in the community (didn't even have a TL account), but even I saw how people reacted to SC2. It was even worse than it is now.
Hmm, honestly, I didn't notice that at all. I noticed a ton of hype. There's always critics (same with any other competitor game) but that's normal.
They way I think about it is that this happened for a good reason. DotA only exists because of Blizzards incompetence to buy into it when it was a WC3 mod. Blizzard had an incredibly large and positive playerbase around the launch of SC2: WOL.
Blizzard wasn't incompentent, but money talks. From what I gathered on interviews/stories about this, what Icefrog wanted was too much for Blizzard moneywise.
You think Blizzard couldn't pay? Blizzard? That made WOW just a few years prior? I find that very hard to believe, especially since Valve wasn't doing too hot around that time comparetively. I think they didn't WANT to pay. But I don't 'buy' (pun intended) that they COULDN'T. That's why I called this a giant economical error by Blizzard, and I only blame that on them and nobody else.
Why did people turn sour? Why did the SC2 community size-down? You make it look like it just so happened. I think it's because of Blizzard's own failures. Failures to take the community serious, failure to accept feedback, failure to support a, once growing, eSports title properly in the same way competitors (ie. DotA, LOL, CSGO) were supported. In one word: arrogance
If I had the answer to that question, I'd apply to Blizzard with a happy face yelling "Guys, I know what we have to do! It's so easy!"- so if you know the answer go ahead. But do you really think Blizzard is sitting together like "Guys, maybe we should've listened to the feedback instead of playing table tennis all day. Who knew."
Nah, thats not what it is.
Well it sucks BUT other companies apparently solved the issues. Or at least did a better job than Blizzard. Because Blizz didn't just get the short end of the stick the day some God distributed playerbases and they just so happened to draw the whiny/small one. Sometimes it can hinge on very small things. For example with CSGO and Valve, there's also a LOT of criticism about issues with the game BUT Valve has a way to sometimes, just often enough, show that they do listen and care. A youtuber finds a bug, even something small, and a day later there's a little patch just like that. Somebody does a great play in a big tourney match and a day later they add a little icon on that part of the map, a decal or graffiti in memory of that. This tiny stuff keeps people feeling good for a while. Blizzard never did any of this. Just one example.
On November 01 2015 04:39 KeksX wrote: Blizzard not supporting the eSports? They're a game company, not a tournament organization. Yet they built WCS and invested a ton of money into the scene. They also made GSL possible together with GomTV.
That's not enough. Not when Valve and Riot are pushing out patches, sometimes big, deep updates to the game and the core of the game (everything, engine, optimization, anti-cheat, gameplay updates etc), by the week and/or month.
On November 01 2015 04:39 KeksX wrote: Actually, I'm not going to go deeper into this, as I have this argument countless times over again. I'm just going to refer to my point about the overly critical and negative fanbase. This is a prime example.
That's just your opinion, man. :p You can't call people, especially when they're trying to be constructive like I think I am, 'overly critical' because they don't think the way you do. Hey, in the end it's all capitalism. Nothing wrong with you getting the game if you like it and me not.
1. Not overreacting too quickly to potential issues
a. It’s easy to laser in on 4-5 games that happened in 1 weekend and base all your decisions on those salient games. However, if a particular mechanic is cool and has potential, we shouldn’t be too quick to nerf it.
Wat?
Anyone remember Blizzard's instant Thor nerf when Thorzain ran over Tyler in TSL3 with Thors? That was based on... not even 4 games.
The point here is, some things are so broken they need to be fixed immediately, and sometimes you need to give them time. A good design team does just that.
Blizzard has proven to do just the opposite. Letting things go way too long (4 Gate, 1-1-1, Blink all-ins ect...) before "fixing" them, then making ridiculously fast decisions with things like the Thor.
I probably should leave this community, because it left me when Blizzard messed up SC2.
On October 30 2015 17:01 BEARDiaguz wrote:
I think the community vastly overestimates it's potential value to SC2's design and development. But that's mostly Blizzard's fault for not convincing them how much better and smarter they are, so idk.
The proof is always in the pudding, the pudding that Blizzard makes is frequently undercooked or burnt. It does not have to be like this so frequently, and isn't with other games.
You don't need to ever convince me you're doing a good job, because I can judge that for myself when I taste the pudding.
1. Not overreacting too quickly to potential issues
a. It’s easy to laser in on 4-5 games that happened in 1 weekend and base all your decisions on those salient games. However, if a particular mechanic is cool and has potential, we shouldn’t be too quick to nerf it.
Wat?
Anyone remember Blizzard's instant Thor nerf when Thorzain ran over Tyler in TSL3 with Thors? That was based on... not even 4 games.
The point here is, somethings things are so broken they need to be fixed immediately, and sometimes you need to give them time. A good design team does just that.
Blizzard has proven to do just the opposite. Letting things go way too long (4 Gate, 1-1-1, Blink all-ins ect...) before "fixing" them, then making ridiculously fast decisions with things like the Thor.
The proof is always in the pudding, the pudding that Blizzard makes is frequently undercooked or burnt. It does not have to be like this so frequently, and isn't with other games.
I probably should leave this community, because it left me when Blizzard messed up SC2.
You're pretty right, just look at the last year of hots zvp is 3 base blink all ins and zvt is turtle mech, and they still havnt done anything about either of them. It's the kind of stuff that drives people away from sc2.
The year before that was just 3hour swarmhost games. Players, especially high level ones have had to put up with alot of shit in sc2, it's a wonder theres any left. Its no surprise people are pessimistic.
On November 01 2015 04:39 KeksX wrote: Blizzard wasn't incompentent, but money talks. From what I gathered on interviews/stories about this, what Icefrog wanted was too much for Blizzard moneywise.
according to Pardo, Blizzard did not possess the development pipeline bandwidth to deal with another game of that scale while working on WoW at the same time.
The point here is, somethings things are so broken they need to be fixed immediately, and sometimes you need to give them time. A good design team does just that.
The hilarious thing was that it wasn't even broken. People just didn't know how to counter it as they attempted with a mix of Immortals and Warpgate untis which is the wrong approach. Instead, toss should (a) simply mass Immortals out of 2-3 Robo's with constant CBs or (b) mix in Void Rays and some Stalkers. The former unit soaks up thors shot very well while Stalkers kill the Thors.
Anyway, not that I mind the removal of the ability since it was pretty damn lame anyway. But the point is that its a wonder why Blizzard instapatched something that actually wasn't broken and waited like a year with Broodlord/infestor that no theoretical counter and created super lame gameplay.
When Valve made counter strike "2" they went through through two failed attempts, counter strike zero and counter strike source, they ignored the complaints of the hardcore players who basically said make 1.6 on a better engine and have pro's give feedback until it's almost exactly the same. Then they had the same massive commercial success as CS 1.6.
It's an easy formula to follow, blizzard just had to listen to articles like depth of micro, add a Goliath, etc, spend the energy on making a better version of the most popular RTS not add all these gimmicks and new ideas before they got the foundation correct. New ideas should have come after, what we have now is a game no hardcore fan wanted and no casual player can learn.
Hmm, honestly, I didn't notice that at all. I noticed a ton of hype. There's always critics (same with any other competitor game) but that's normal.
There's always critics, yeah. But Starcraft has had extremely negative ones from the get go. Whether it was about multiple building selection or unit pathing, people were always doomcalling whatever Blizzard did. And it might've been a vocal minority, but it was one that was very present on all Starcraft related communities.
You think Blizzard couldn't pay? Blizzard? That made WOW just a few years prior? I find that very hard to believe, especially since Valve wasn't doing too hot around that time comparetively. I think they didn't WANT to pay. But I don't 'buy' (pun intended) that they COULDN'T. That's why I called this a giant economical error by Blizzard, and I only blame that on them and nobody else.
You can see yourself what Rob Pardo had to say about Icefrog and DotA:
Rob Pardo: Honestly it was just development bandwidth. We were aware of it. We knew it was getting really popular. I actually did have kind of an official sit-down meeting with the other execs of the studio and said: "Hey, we should really talk about this". And we walked down the path and talked about what it would take. We also actually brought Icefrog out and talked to him a bit too. We made the decision we just couldn't take it on and make it successful at that time. Starcraft 2 was already a couple years down the path. Diablo 3 was another thing that was ready to happen. It didn't feel like at that time we could do a Blizzard-job on a DotA-game.
Well it sucks BUT other companies apparently solved the issues. Or at least did a better job than Blizzard. Because Blizz didn't just get the short end of the stick the day some God distributed playerbases and they just so happened to draw the whiny/small one. Sometimes it can hinge on very small things. For example with CSGO and Valve, (..)
I find it very weird that you are actually pulling Valve and CS:GO as a positive example. Exactly how long did it take for CS:GO to be considered "good" by a majority? And how long did it take to fix the hitboxes in the game? Mind you we're not talking about mere balance issues but things were just completely broken until that patch when it comes to hitboxes in jumping etc. And the game released three years ago.
Whereas how fast bugs are fixed from Blizzard, if any serious ones occur at all?
But still people tell Blizzard that they're not listening. Because Valve is putting graffitis on maps that people find funny. Okay, cool, I agree that it is fun. But in the end it's a little extra that makes no real difference.
That's not enough. Not when Valve and Riot are pushing out patches, sometimes big, deep updates to the game and the core of the game (everything, engine, optimization, anti-cheat, gameplay updates etc), by the week and/or month.
Thats what I was getting at with the business model.
What makes money for Starcraft II? A major release. Nothing else. They don't profit from patches if they're not pulling many new buyers because the established playerbase has no way to invest more money into the game. If they'd be releasing big updates for HotS, such as new units, that development time is probably wasted because they're not going to have 20k people suddenly buying the game because of this. Whereas many new features in CS:GO are directly related to players paying even more money.
That's just your opinion, man. :p You can't call people, especially when they're trying to be constructive like I think I am, 'overly critical' because they don't think the way you do. Hey, in the end it's all capitalism. Nothing wrong with you getting the game if you like it and me not.
I haven't even bought the game yet. And I won't until Blizzcon.
But I think you have to be blind if you don't think that the SC2 community is an overly critical one. I have yet to see a >fan<base that shits on their game/developer more than this one.
And I mean, thats okay. In the end it's a great challenge for Blizzard and if they overcome it and make people happy, it's all better.
But the matter of fact is that you're dealing with very different fanbases. Let's not get there but I just want to mention the fact that many "updates" in CS:GO in fact are just more things for players to spend money on(RNG skin boxes).
EDIT:
And let's not forget that CS:GO isn't actually Valve, but Hidden Path Entertainment.
@nottapro:
I think that all Valve did was to do another CS 1.6 with better graphics it wouldn't have nearly the success it has now. The skin ecosystem and everything around it plays a huge role. But those are the factors we cannot really calculate if we don't have the numbers.
Hmm, honestly, I didn't notice that at all. I noticed a ton of hype. There's always critics (same with any other competitor game) but that's normal.
There's always critics, yeah. But Starcraft has had extremely negative ones from the get go. Whether it was about multiple building selection or unit pathing, people were always doomcalling whatever Blizzard did. And it might've been a vocal minority, but it was one that was very present on all Starcraft related communities.
I can only repeat that I don't think that this is the case. The launch of SC2 seemed totally normal to me, with the expected amount of skepticism and a huge scoop of hype. I don't think there is something inherently whiny about Starcraft players. I guess we're turning in circles here tho. Your opinion/impression vs mine.
You think Blizzard couldn't pay? Blizzard? That made WOW just a few years prior? I find that very hard to believe, especially since Valve wasn't doing too hot around that time comparetively. I think they didn't WANT to pay. But I don't 'buy' (pun intended) that they COULDN'T. That's why I called this a giant economical error by Blizzard, and I only blame that on them and nobody else.
You can see yourself what Rob Pardo had to say about Icefrog and DotA:
Rob Pardo: Honestly it was just development bandwidth. We were aware of it. We knew it was getting really popular. I actually did have kind of an official sit-down meeting with the other execs of the studio and said: "Hey, we should really talk about this". And we walked down the path and talked about what it would take. We also actually brought Icefrog out and talked to him a bit too. We made the decision we just couldn't take it on and make it successful at that time. Starcraft 2 was already a couple years down the path. Diablo 3 was another thing that was ready to happen. It didn't feel like at that time we could do a Blizzard-job on a DotA-game.
They could've just reserved the rights. Or expand. In hindsight, both choices would've been good, they let it go and wasted an opportunity. I still call this business incompetence, like when the music industry disregarded mp3 tech in the 90s as laughable and then got their ass handed to them. It happens. Additionally, Pardo is possibly damage-controlling here. Let's not get too deep into this discussion though, it doesn't really have that much todo with LOTV, I just brought it up because you made it sound like Blizzard, the poor baby, couldn't help their situation and was so poor lol
Well it sucks BUT other companies apparently solved the issues. Or at least did a better job than Blizzard. Because Blizz didn't just get the short end of the stick the day some God distributed playerbases and they just so happened to draw the whiny/small one. Sometimes it can hinge on very small things. For example with CSGO and Valve, (..)
I find it very weird that you are actually pulling Valve and CS:GO as a positive example. Exactly how long did it take for CS:GO to be considered "good" by a majority? And how long did it take to fix the hitboxes in the game? Mind you we're not talking about mere balance issues but things were just completely broken until that patch when it comes to hitboxes in jumping etc. And the game released three years ago.
Whereas how fast bugs are fixed from Blizzard, if any serious ones occur at all?
The hitbox update was a very very deep change to the engine. It took longer than it should have, I'd never claim Valve is perfect at patching, especially not with CSGO and their small team that's working on it. But the game was far from unplayable or completely broken before.
But the fact is that Valve is willing to invest the resources to rework these systems. Take the two big movement updates to CSGO or the wall penetration system, the player visibility update and spread calculation change in the netcode. All deep systems that were completely reworked. Blizzard has never done this except for minor attempts with the HOTS/LOTV release, and I repeat, minor attempts. Not willing to spend money and time on the game, convinced that changes aren't necessary (to the performance of the engine for example) or who knows.
On November 01 2015 07:10 KeksX wrote: But still people tell Blizzard that they're not listening. Because Valve is putting graffitis on maps that people find funny. Okay, cool, I agree that it is fun. But in the end it's a little extra that makes no real difference.
That's the point. It DOES make a difference. It's a laughable amount of work for Valve but it sends a message. Compare a little nod of the head like this every couple of weeks (plus more patches, content updates etc.) to the six-month-periods of the Blizz SC2 team of absolute silence (while there are major balance issues) followed by a balance patch finally with a David Kim statement full of politician-like 'say-nothing-with-a-bunch-of-words' bullshit that at times even managed to simulatenously be disrespectful and devaluing to the entire community. This is the psychological effect I'm talking about. Apparently you and the yay-sayers didn't catch that vibe, me and the other nay-says did.
That's not enough. Not when Valve and Riot are pushing out patches, sometimes big, deep updates to the game and the core of the game (everything, engine, optimization, anti-cheat, gameplay updates etc), by the week and/or month.
Thats what I was getting at with the business model.
What makes money for Starcraft II? A major release. Nothing else. They don't profit from patches if they're not pulling many new buyers because the established playerbase has no way to invest more money into the game. If they'd be releasing big updates for HotS, such as new units, that development time is probably wasted because they're not going to have 20k people suddenly buying the game because of this. Whereas many new features in CS:GO are directly related to players paying even more money.
Yes and this is not Blizzards fault exactly how? They didn't go with the times. The skin system in SC2 for example is a laughably pathetic attempt that they seem to have completely forgotten about themselves at this point. The marketplace was promised and then cancelled. To me, what you just said is further evidence of Blizzards incompetence, sorry.
That's just your opinion, man. :p You can't call people, especially when they're trying to be constructive like I think I am, 'overly critical' because they don't think the way you do. Hey, in the end it's all capitalism. Nothing wrong with you getting the game if you like it and me not.
I haven't even bought the game yet. And I won't until Blizzcon.
But I think you have to be blind if you don't think that the SC2 community is not an overly critical one. I have yet to see a >fan<base that shits on their game/developer more than this one.
And I mean, thats okay. In the end it's a great challenge for Blizzard and if they overcome it and make people happy, it's all better.
But the matter of fact is that you're dealing with very different fanbases. Let's not get there but I just want to mention the fact that many "updates" in CS:GO in fact are just more things for players to spend money on(RNG skin boxes).
About your last sentence: what is wrong with that? If people like more skins, they get more skins. Makes the game more popular, more successful, better.
And I still don't understand how anybody in their right mind can believe that there is some inherent thing with Blizzards fans that makes them super whiny and bitchy and other game developers don't have that magically. If it's, according to you, not Blizzard's own actions that turned the community, then what is? Random coincidence? Really?
No, but the thing I'm trying to tell you is that some things are just not influenced by whether or not a company is developing a great game.
Often times it's about marketing a game the right way, or serving a trend, or making people happy via microtransactions etc etc. All those different things have nothing to do with developing a "great game". Yet they have a large effect on how successfull a game is. And sometimes you end up with things you cannot really react to properly because the community is completely split on things.
It's really hard to compare the situations for these companies because each game/company has a unique story, established fanbases and company philosophy.
And let's not act like changing your business model is something you do in a few weeks.. Especially if you're not in 100% control of what you are doing(keywords here are Activision and Vevendi).
I was quite actively following things during the Alpha/Beta, and, yes, the community was super negative/critical even back then. Though the things people complained about were pretty different; the main things were everything being too much like Warcraft 3, too many colors, MBS, automine, etc, etc. Heck, I can still remember the epic fights over team color on Terran units. But yes, there were enormous loads of people who were completely down on SC2 while it was in Alpha and thought of it as a failure and a disappointment before they'd even played it. I still remember there was a big article by a guy on a Starcraft fan site whose name I can't remember in which he described how he'd come to think of it as a complete failure before playing it once at Blizzcon and really liking it. But he got a lot of flack even for saying that. I was Mr. Positivity generally, but the amount of negativity from the community during Alpha was really wearing.
Things actually got a lot more positive during Beta, once people had actually played it. The most positive period was actually probably right around release when the foreign SC scene was revving up to make its big move. But it was preceded and followed by a lot of negativity.
Also, this gives me an excuse to share this video, which is awesome.
I wish the developers would look at Starbow for some ideas. I feel like that's what SC2 should have been. I wish LotV the best and I hope the campaign is at least decent. I don't expect anything better or worse than WoL or HotS, which I guess is fine for most people. I hope I'm wrong, and I'll be tuning in to the initial pro scene for LotV to see for myself. Maybe one day Starbow will get some more community support to satisfy my hunger for Starcraft.
On November 01 2015 07:35 NihiLStarcraft wrote: They could've just reserved the rights. Or expand. In hindsight, both choices would've been good, they let it go and wasted an opportunity. I still call this business incompetence, like when the music industry disregarded mp3 tech in the 90s as laughable and then got their ass handed to them. It happens. Additionally, Pardo is possibly damage-controlling here. Let's not get too deep into this discussion though, it doesn't really have that much todo with LOTV, I just brought it up because you made it sound like Blizzard, the poor baby, couldn't help their situation and was so poor lol
Blizzard is slow to hire because they only hire top notch people. and if they can't find top notch people they either don't do it or cancel the game and stick to their bread and butter. that has always been the way at blizzard. there is zero damage control by Pardo. Blizzard was too busy counting and folding the BILLIONS WoW was pulling in. They did not have time for some "pie-in-the-sky" maybe might-be hopefully could-be game.
Pardo has said in completely separate interviews that they did not possess the developer bandwidth due to the explosion of WoW.
Sry man... i'll take WoW money over LoL money every day and twice on sunday... and that is all this is about. Pardo made a great move by not taking on too much work and continuing to deliver quality WoW content.
Pardo does not have to do damage control because he made the correct decision with Ice Frog.
I agree with the statement that blizzard is arrogant towards players.
They have been so popular and succsessful with their games, peaking at wow - and developed this "fck you, were blizzard - we know best" attitude.
Only with the THIRD expansion of SC2 they even considered listenting to the community on some ideas - and gave a progress update. But even then some responses were questionable "We tested double harvest, it sucks - we also tested units automatically building"
Im not saying test every silly solution out there - but i doubt many people would have complained if blizzard threw some huge changes into the beta. Remove the collosus, hell - even remove the hatchery or make the marine fly - if theres a good idea or reason behind it, why not test it.
Its the same with other blizzard games, like hearthstone (where Ben brode, lead developer, translated to SC basically said - "the community has no idea how good range 2 collosus really is".
Its all turning into some quick moneygrab where they try to lure in young and casual players - trying to take the pricing models to the limit (€10 skin for a hearthstone hero, €10 monthly for ONE hots hero every month, €30 for a character transfer in WoW), and in the end that leads to a really crap competetive scene.
On November 01 2015 11:06 weikor wrote: Its all turning into some quick moneygrab where they try to lure in young and casual players - trying to take the pricing models to the limit (€10 skin for a hearthstone hero, €10 monthly for ONE hots hero every month, €30 for a character transfer in WoW), and in the end that leads to a really crap competetive scene.
if SC2 were a quick money-grab it probably would not have seen the light of day. Maybe WoL would make it.. but that would be it. $0.3 Billion in one month and then almost no revenue after that is fuck all for ATVI. They count revenue in the billions every quarter of every year.
Their next move would be to dissolve the RTS team just like EA and MS closed their studios because the ROI is crap.
in 2010 Pearce stated the SC2 franchise was a 10 year eSports experiment. they're looking good on that promise as EALA, Victory Games, and Ensemble disappears.
we're lucky Blizzard is still willing to support the genre... no one else is.
i'll be shocked if LotV makes even $0.1 Billion.
every Blizzard and ATVI product is about 2 things: cash and brand-building.
On November 01 2015 08:18 pzea469 wrote: Maybe one day Starbow will get some more community support to satisfy my hunger for Starcraft.
So Valve WIll crate Starbow 2 and make a f-ton of money and then Blizzard will sue them for the game name and when it lose Blizzard will make their shitty casual rip off
Take away all the amenable rhetoric, add a dash of cynicism, and the 1-4 David offers boils down to... "We don't like that you're disagreeing with us. Please stop disagreeing with us. We would like feedback that agrees with us."
EPT
