EPTOn November 10, 2015, Blizzard Entertainment expects to launch StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void™, the third installment of the company's real-time strategy sequel. Pre-purchases have outpaced Heart of the Swarm®, the previous installment.
Pre-orders "outpaced" HotS
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
necrosexy
451 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12336 Posts
| ||
|
NKexquisite
United States911 Posts
| ||
|
Dracover
Australia177 Posts
So for every $1 you pay to them 32 cents is profit 32 cents is to actually produce what they're selling you 14 cents is to pay for the development of their next game 22 cents is marketing sales and other "company stuff" or in other words 46 cents is for producing what your buying/what you might buy 54 cents is for stuff the customer doesn't value. EDIT: If only you can see this buy product. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
| ||
|
Andarus.Terran
3 Posts
On November 03 2015 14:39 ETisME wrote: I wonder how many bought the game for early release of artanis in heroes of the storm Wat? I bought a Key on --edited-- and did not even know they had PreOrder Stuff, but seriously are there people who really play that Casual-DotA Clone? I doubt anyone bought that Game for a Hero in there. I think I got some Heros from the Diablo 3 CE, but never even installed it lol User was banned for this post. | ||
|
skatbone
United States1005 Posts
On November 03 2015 15:03 Andarus.Terran wrote: Wat? I bought a Key on --edited-- and did not even know they had PreOrder Stuff, but seriously are there people who really play that Casual-DotA Clone? I doubt anyone bought that Game for a Hero in there. I think I got some Heros from the Diablo 3 CE, but never even installed it lol ... While Heroes isn't exactly pulling the viewers or players that its competitors pull, the Blizzard sponsored world championship games the other day had 30k viewers. I don't enjoy the game but I have friends that do and once you start playing, there is incentive to spend money to keep pace. As Activision/Blizzard profits, the discussion across a lot of the new Blizz games seems to be about sacrifices in quality to meet deadlines and make money. I am happy for Blizzard but I do feel some ambivalence about the pressure to churn out content at the expense of quality. | ||
|
varsovie
Canada326 Posts
On November 03 2015 15:07 skatbone wrote: [...] and make money. | ||
|
fenix404
United States305 Posts
more importantly, I NEEDED the diablo probe pet. they got me, sorry, not sorry. | ||
|
Brutaxilos
United States2622 Posts
| ||
|
Foltest
1 Post
| ||
|
ThunderBum
Australia192 Posts
On November 03 2015 14:49 Dracover wrote: I love this kind of stuff cause it tell you a lot of what they spend their money on. So for every $1 you pay to them 32 cents is profit 32 cents is to actually produce what they're selling you 14 cents is to pay for the development of their next game 22 cents is marketing sales and other "company stuff" or in other words 46 cents is for producing what your buying/what you might buy 54 cents is for stuff the customer doesn't value. EDIT: If only you can see this buy product. Are you suggesting Blizzard should price their products to break even every release? I actually really enjoy the teasers, Blizzcon, financial support for tournaments, and other things Blizzard do. The way they balance everything within their business is clearly very effective and far more detailed than what you've outlined, and I hope they don't change it because it works so damn well with what they produce. For the amount of time I put into their games they are amazing value. | ||
|
adwodon
United Kingdom592 Posts
On November 03 2015 14:49 Dracover wrote: or in other words 46 cents is for producing what your buying/what you might buy 54 cents is for stuff the customer doesn't value. EDIT: If only you can see this buy product. The customer might not value profits and marketing but they are a vital part of running any business. Without them developers and publishers wouldn't expand beyond a small group of people doing it for fun so that is a really short sighted way of putting it. If you value big AAA games, or frankly anything above basement indies then you should value these things as they make it possible for companies to produce them whilst being viable. Hell if Blizzard didn't make massive profits there's no way they would've given D3 time of day post release, or taken time to cultivate the pro scene of SC2, whilst constantly updating balance. They wouldn't have been able to scrap Titan and produce Overwatch without the massive success of WoW. They certainly wouldn't attract top tier talent in art and design either, producing all those wonderful marketing videos (yes those great CGI trailers are marketing) or put on fun events like Blizzcon. Without profits and marketing they would've folded before they even made Starcraft 1. Profits and marketing aren't evil. They help businesses grow and continue to produce content and for a pure entertainment industry like games profit is the only thing keeping it alive and thriving. | ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
On November 03 2015 14:49 Dracover wrote: I love this kind of stuff cause it tell you a lot of what they spend their money on. So for every $1 you pay to them 32 cents is profit 32 cents is to actually produce what they're selling you 14 cents is to pay for the development of their next game 22 cents is marketing sales and other "company stuff" or in other words 46 cents is for producing what your buying/what you might buy 54 cents is for stuff the customer doesn't value. EDIT: If only you can see this buy product. I didn't read the link of the OP, but aren't there supposed to be taxes also? Even if you remove your own local taxes, and take the price VAT excluded, usually companies still have to pay additional ones. Depending on how it works in this regard, it could change quite a bit. | ||
|
AdrianHealeyy
114 Posts
On November 03 2015 14:49 Dracover wrote: I love this kind of stuff cause it tell you a lot of what they spend their money on. So for every $1 you pay to them 32 cents is profit 32 cents is to actually produce what they're selling you 14 cents is to pay for the development of their next game 22 cents is marketing sales and other "company stuff" or in other words 46 cents is for producing what your buying/what you might buy 54 cents is for stuff the customer doesn't value. EDIT: If only you can see this buy product. For the record (and in case some people are new to this): this is not how entrepreneurship or accounting works. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44052 Posts
On November 03 2015 14:39 ETisME wrote: I wonder how many bought the game for early release of artanis in heroes of the storm Yeah it would be nice if we could compare "# of HotS pre-orders for the sake of SC2" to "# of LotV pre-orders for the sake of SC2" accurately by accounting for other non-SC2 reasons why one might pre-order either game (e.g., the Heroes's Artanis bonus). Were there other pre-order benefits for Heart of the Swarm too? I don't remember. Both pre-orders gained you beta access, at least. Ideally, it'd be a cool statistic to show something like "Despite the dissension over Heart of the Swarm and any new directions that SC2 have gone in, the number of players who bought SC2: LotV to play SC2 has stayed the same/ increased from SC2: HotS." | ||
|
ThunderBum
Australia192 Posts
On November 03 2015 20:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Yeah it would be nice if we could compare "# of HotS pre-orders for the sake of SC2" to "# of LotV pre-orders for the sake of SC2" accurately by accounting for other non-SC2 reasons why one might pre-order either game (e.g., the Heroes's Artanis bonus). Were there other pre-order benefits for Heart of the Swarm too? I don't remember. Both pre-orders gained you beta access, at least. Ideally, it'd be a cool statistic to show something like "Despite the dissension over Heart of the Swarm and any new directions that SC2 have gone in, the number of players who bought SC2: LotV to play SC2 has stayed the same/ increased from SC2: HotS." I think that is exactly what the statistic means if more people buy LotV over HotS. They may not be hardcore starcraft players but they'll try the game if they buy it. | ||
|
Ramiz1989
12124 Posts
On November 03 2015 14:39 ETisME wrote: I wonder how many bought the game for early release of artanis in heroes of the storm But at the same time a lot of them who wanted to pre-order, didn't do it because of the state of LOTV at that time. | ||
|
Ketch
Netherlands7285 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44052 Posts
On November 03 2015 20:48 ThunderBum wrote: I think that is exactly what the statistic means if more people buy LotV over HotS. They may not be hardcore starcraft players but they'll try the game if they buy it. I hope that's what the statistic means; I'm just hoping it's as accurate as possible by accounting for other confounding variables  | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23576 Posts
| ||
|
weikor
Austria580 Posts
Even though im not too happy with blizzards approach at balancing multiplayer, the game is still worth its money for the campaign / funmaps / allied commander and the casual 1on1. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16647 Posts
On November 03 2015 21:26 Musicus wrote: Well I have a few friends that had no interest in HotS, who preordered LotV. In general the hype level for this game seems way higher than for HotS, with archon mode, coop missions and the way bigger multiplayer changes compared to HotS. good points here. ATVI in pulling every strategic lever in the book in order to drive up pre-orders. it wasn't just ATVI's marketing muscle ... it was very careful thinking and solid execution of a marketing plan. 1 example, is the timing of the release of the 3 prologue missions. shout out to ATVI and their marketing genius. On November 03 2015 14:49 Dracover wrote: I love this kind of stuff cause it tell you a lot of what they spend their money on. So for every $1 you pay to them 32 cents is profit 32 cents is to actually produce what they're selling you 14 cents is to pay for the development of their next game 22 cents is marketing sales and other "company stuff" or in other words 46 cents is for producing what your buying/what you might buy 54 cents is for stuff the customer doesn't value. EDIT: If only you can see this buy product. Blizzard transformed from Morhaime having to build his own desk into a company with 1000s of employees by spending 54% of their revenue on stuff their customer does not value. reductio ad absurdum | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On November 03 2015 14:39 ETisME wrote: I wonder how many bought the game for early release of artanis in heroes of the storm Haha, that's me! I play sc2 pretty casually and bought hots soon after release I think. I planned to do the same with lotv, but as I play a bit of heroes as well I figured I could just as well pre-order and get the hero.  | ||
|
BlackCompany
Germany8388 Posts
| ||
|
purakushi
United States3300 Posts
| ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
 I haven't played the missions and I had the beta before. I will play missions the day before release and beta was lagging for me atrociously so I couldn't play it  | ||
|
Ctone23
United States1839 Posts
On November 03 2015 22:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote: good points here. ATVI in pulling every strategic lever in the book in order to drive up pre-orders. it wasn't just ATVI's marketing muscle ... it was very careful thinking and solid execution of a marketing plan. 1 example, is the timing of the release of the 3 prologue missions. shout out to ATVI and their marketing genius. +1, they have done really well in marketing. The SC2 trilogy reminds me more and more of a cliche movie trilogy. The first is always good, not necessarily great. The second is meh but passable, and the third brings out all the stops and cements it's "Legacy" | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16647 Posts
| ||
|
Pentarp
210 Posts
| ||
|
Ctone23
United States1839 Posts
On November 03 2015 23:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote: in the Superman, Spiderman and Batman Begins trilogies it was #2 that was the best. The Godfather Part II as well ^. | ||
|
monx
Canada1400 Posts
| ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
I would add Terminator II and Aliens. Also Empire Strikes Back. Not sure if these now applies as trilogies because someone ruined it by making more movies | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
Musicus
Germany23576 Posts
On November 04 2015 00:53 Djzapz wrote: I'm not buying it, shame to see it's not going to matter. At this point I can't help to feel like this is yet another instance that tells devs and publishers that once you have a good franchise, you can afford to get complacent with little negative impact on your sales figures. If you tell me they got complacent with HotS, I would agree, but LotV is on a completely different level. They put tons of new features, real multiplayer changes and a lot of work into the game. | ||
|
Brutaxilos
United States2622 Posts
On November 03 2015 23:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote: in the Superman, Spiderman and Batman Begins trilogies it was #2 that was the best. So by that logic... Starcraft II > Starcraft 1? | ||
|
Eviscerador
Spain286 Posts
For all the hours of fun and joy they brought into my spare time, the hookers are all on me. Keep it coming. I did preorder the game for two main reasons. One, to get access to the preorder missions. (I already got the beta when they released the preorder purchase) and to get access to Artanis in HotS. Considering the hours of play I enjoyed with artanis the release week, and the fun I had with the three pre campaing missions, I consider the preorder bonuses totally satisfying. Now I'm waiting for a new campaign, more features and more balance updates. I'm glad StarCraft 2 doesn't have hour counter like in Steam games... because it will surely show over 2 or 3 thousands. Money well spent. On November 04 2015 01:09 Brutaxilos wrote: So by that logic... Starcraft II > Starcraft 1? Well, if you are not a super korean mastermind, yes, Starcraft 2 is much better than Starcraft 1 at all levels. The only bad thing about Starcraft 2 is that the plot is much more brighter and it lost the dark of the original one. But other than that, the campaign missions, the UI, the newbie help, the arcade, the MM, the graphics, the mechanics, everything is better. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On November 04 2015 01:03 Musicus wrote: If you tell me they got complacent with HotS, I would agree, but LotV is on a completely different level. They put tons of new features, real multiplayer changes and a lot of work into the game. I think many of the new features were just conspicuously absent from the previous versions of the game. Adding them just made up for the previous shortcomings, including those of HotS. I'll say it's not hard to add features to a game which released years ago without chat, with an incredibly barebones custom games platform, without clans, without the ability to reconnect to games, without automated tournaments... without much, really. And the few innovative features that are coming up IMO don't make up for what I personally view as glaring design flaws that undermine the game. That being said, here is not the place to discuss those things in any more detail. It's just my personal opinion on this. With how heavily criticized the game is, and with how much videogaming journalists have been talking about preordering is bad, it makes me sad that there are a lot of LotV preorders. | ||
|
Fliparoni
205 Posts
| ||
|
B-royal
Belgium1330 Posts
On November 04 2015 01:12 Eviscerador wrote: Well, if you are not a super korean mastermind, yes, Starcraft 2 is much better than Starcraft 1 at all levels. The only bad thing about Starcraft 2 is that the plot is much more brighter and it lost the dark of the original one. But other than that, the campaign missions, the UI, the newbie help, the arcade, the MM, the graphics, the mechanics, everything is better. lmao. Everything relating to gameplay is MILES better in brood war ( I even started with Sc2 and switched to brood war after finding the former a massive disappointment). The arcade is horrible, can't even give a custom name to your game to give it some identity. MM = macro mechanics? Right.. everybody loves those. Brood war's graphics are even better than Sc2's. I'll elaborate: - Sc2's graphics are shit on any setting other than ultra. - Sc2's graphics are a cartoony mess, same with Sc2's models (infestors, vipers, protoss ball units or terran's flying shoes (liberator)). - Brood war's graphics are always great (there's no settings) - Brood war's models are vicious, creative, distinctive. Sc2's sounds and voices are also a HUGE letdown. | ||
|
wjat
385 Posts
| ||
|
nighcol
298 Posts
On November 03 2015 15:07 skatbone wrote: As Activision/Blizzard profits, the discussion across a lot of the new Blizz games seems to be about sacrifices in quality to meet deadlines and make money. I am happy for Blizzard but I do feel some ambivalence about the pressure to churn out content at the expense of quality. If that's what they're doing now it sounds like a short-sighted strategy that may give result in profit initially but will tarnish the reputation that Blizzard has worked long and hard to build. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On November 04 2015 03:24 nighcol wrote: If that's what they're doing now it sounds like a short-sighted strategy that may give result in profit initially but will tarnish the reputation that Blizzard has worked long and hard to build. How about we just wait for that mulitplayer panel at Blizzcon and see what they have in store for us. | ||
|
skatbone
United States1005 Posts
On November 04 2015 03:24 nighcol wrote: If that's what they're doing now it sounds like a short-sighted strategy that may give result in profit initially but will tarnish the reputation that Blizzard has worked long and hard to build. Well I thoroughly enjoyed the LotV beta but I agree with a lot of people who felt that the decision-making over the past two months has been rushed and/or inelegant due to the deadline of the game's release. Aside from SC2, I am thinking of the WOW commitment to churning out faster expansions. This decision has seemingly come at the expense of a raid tier (it remains to be seen whether they will add any more relevant/meaty content to WoD) and a lot of WOW players are already disenchanted by the quality of WoDs non-raid tier content. D3 has gone the other direction. I played at release and I found the patch prior to Reaper of Souls and much of Reaper to be a lot of fun, though I burnt out on the game. I have friends who are still playing due to Blizzard's commitment to improving D3 in spite of the fact that it is neither subscription based or micro-transaction oriented. So my earlier comment about the quality of Blizzard games vis-a-vis the seeming pressure to crank out expansions at unreasonable deadlines was a bit of an overstatement. Ultimately, if they can commit to improvements in the manner in which they have updated D3 since release, I am hopefully that what I currently find redeemable about LotV will continue to improve over time. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 04 2015 03:24 nighcol wrote: If that's what they're doing now it sounds like a short-sighted strategy that may give result in profit initially but will tarnish the reputation that Blizzard has worked long and hard to build. That's definitely on the way, known publicly since Diablo 3 release. When Diablo 3 was released Blizzard took a really Huge HIT to their reputation, for that reason. And they gave no sign that they were going to change, they clearly lied about why they were doing things regarding the real money auction house and how all the itemization and even stats in the games were designed to maximize transaction profit through it, likely purposely not even fighting bots cause that brings transactions on the auction house! The decision makers at the top of the company go after the money not the quality, and leave little space (possibly no space) to the dev team to do what they want/imagine. If you go after the money you can rake a maximum amount of cash in a shorter time by doing bad quality that is attractive in a superficial way to everyone, as much people as possible, MOBA players, noobs, people who just like special effects, people who don't like micro, etc. I think with SC2, the goal is to get these people to WATCH pro matches which is where blizzard's money is through broadcasting rights and advertisement. The new units in LoTV may just be for easier defense for little experienced players so they start playing some 1v1 don't die early thanks to easy defense and start getting involved in watching pro matches. Generally, making it easier for them not to get obliterated and play longer games. That's what I suspect. For shareholders that's financially quite fine because after pillaging the company for a while they can just move their money somewhere else if needed. We experienced fans pay the price, and in the long runs, the games are the shadow of what they could be. | ||
|
HerrHorst
Germany140 Posts
On November 04 2015 04:06 ProMeTheus112 wrote: That's definitely on the way, known publicly since Diablo 3 release. When Diablo 3 was released Blizzard took a really Huge HIT to their reputation, for that reason. And they gave no sign that they were going to change, they clearly lied about why they were doing things regarding the real money auction house and how all the itemization and even stats in the games were designed to maximize transaction profit through it, likely purposely not even fighting bots cause that brings transactions on the auction house! The decision makers at the top of the company go after the money not the quality, and leave little space (possibly no space) to the dev team to do what they want/imagine. If you go after the money you can rake a maximum amount of cash in a shorter time by doing bad quality that is attractive in a superficial way to everyone, as much people as possible, MOBA players, noobs, people who just like special effects, people who don't like micro, etc. I think with SC2, the goal is to get these people to WATCH pro matches which is where blizzard's money is through broadcasting rights and advertisement. For shareholders that's financially quite fine because after pillaging the company for a while they can just move their money somewhere else if needed. We experienced fans pay the price, and in the long runs, the games are the shadow of what they could be. But Blizzard did change Diablo 3 massively and did improve the game a lot after they were cruzified by the community for their earlier decisions. If Legacy gets as much attention after Release as did Diablo 3, which was improved massivly and even got some cool new stuff like Kanai’s Cube recently, we could be happy. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
On November 04 2015 01:09 Brutaxilos wrote: So by that logic... Starcraft II > Starcraft 1? No, StarCraft I -> Brood War -> Wings of Liberty -> Heart of the Swarm -> Legacy of the Void. =) Anyway, the marketing approach to LotV has been great. It got me to preorder for the missions (played them in a night) and Artanis (whom I still have never played), which I normally never do. It's no surprise that preorders are up from HotS and their cross-promotion network is stronger than it's ever been. I'm actually quite excited for LotV if only to play some more 2v2s with friends in a new game, wrap up the story, and play some Archon Mode and Co-op missions should 2v2s get stale. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On November 04 2015 04:06 ProMeTheus112 wrote: I think with SC2, the goal is to get these people to WATCH pro matches which is where blizzard's money is through broadcasting rights and advertisement. The new units in LoTV may just be for easier defense for little experienced players so they start playing some 1v1 don't die early thanks to easy defense and start getting involved in watching pro matches. Generally, making it easier for them not to get obliterated and play longer games. That's what I suspect. For shareholders that's financially quite fine because after pillaging the company for a while they can just move their money somewhere else if needed. We experienced fans pay the price, and in the long runs, the games are the shadow of what they could be. You think Blizzard makes money with broadcasting rights? From whom!? Who pays money to Blizzard to broadcast SC2? The big tournaments are pretty much the only ones paying Blizzard and there aren't many of them. Also not even HotS which I quit halfway in was a waste. I paid 40 bucks for tons and tons of gameplay hours so there's nothing to blame Blizzard for in that regard. If we're going down the route of "shadow of what it could've been" again this discussion becomes endless. Yes, games can always be better, thats why games have started to go down the "games as service route", which SC2 sadly hasn't done yet. But, as I keep saying, let's wait for that panel. There's so many assumptions in these discussions, its insane. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
Apparently also Kespa did a shady move by selling broadcasting rights of bw which doesn't make sense lol. It is a bit more complicated, I may speak too fast or this may no more be of actuality. I am very suspicious of blizzard now because of all these greedy bad moves and big loss of quality which I still believe were intended for commercial reasons. The stuff with the dumbed down chats in the games also, this is the kind of move I really resent, I think it was intended and I think it really really hurt the communities. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
On November 03 2015 14:49 Dracover wrote: I love this kind of stuff cause it tell you a lot of what they spend their money on. So for every $1 you pay to them 32 cents is profit 32 cents is to actually produce what they're selling you 14 cents is to pay for the development of their next game 22 cents is marketing sales and other "company stuff" or in other words 46 cents is for producing what your buying/what you might buy 54 cents is for stuff the customer doesn't value. EDIT: If only you can see this buy product. As a customer I value profit and marketing, too. The latter will make sure they sell more which means they have more money to develop even better games and the former is invested back into the firm that sells products I enjoy. | ||
|
corydoras
161 Posts
On November 04 2015 05:42 ProMeTheus112 wrote: There is this old little article : http://www.blizzplanet.com/blog/comments/blizzard-vows-to-protect-their-ip-and-esport-broadcast-rights ; but it doesn't say much, also this TL post : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/127674-gom-tv-blizzard-sign-exclusive-broadcast-agreement. I don't know how it goes nowadays, does Dreamhack for example have to pay broadcasting rights? I am curious. But you are right, it seems there are not so many tournaments that it generates any very high amount of money. This, by the way, is a bigger issue which I noticed only when I was intalling LotV beta. Long story short: the license agreement is worded in a way that, with little to no effort, gives Blizzard control over whether not only a given tournament can be broadcast, but even whether the game can be streamed. And this "control", as of now", appears to be exercised in this policy and this policy. Tournaments with prize pool under $10k are somewhat limited but don't require entering into a specific license agreement. So Dreamhack needs a separate license which likely is not free, because nothing is | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16647 Posts
On November 04 2015 01:09 Brutaxilos wrote: So by that logic... Starcraft II > Starcraft 1? we have to wait for SC3 for it to be a trilogy and Sigaty stated nothing more from Blizz is competing with SC2 for 10 years. as of now the Starcraft franchise is not a trilogy. On November 04 2015 04:06 ProMeTheus112 wrote: If you go after the money you can rake a maximum amount of cash in a shorter time by doing bad quality that is attractive in a superficial way to everyone, as much people as possible, MOBA players, noobs, people who just like special effects, people who don't like micro, etc. I think with SC2, the goal is to get these people to WATCH pro matches which is where blizzard's money is through broadcasting rights and advertisement. when your goal is to make billions every reporting quarter these silly schemes don't work. max cash comes from creating new genres and redefining old ones. pacman, super mario, pokeman, wow , skylanders. regarding your other stuff about making the dev team do stuff... ATVI doesn't care enough to superimpose any kind of conspiracy against the development team to coerce them into moving the game in some predetermined management direction. LotV is life-and-death to make $0.1 Billion and ATVI just bought some mobile games company for $5.9 Billion. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 04 2015 07:29 corydoras wrote: This, by the way, is a bigger issue which I noticed only when I was intalling LotV beta. Long story short: the license agreement is worded in a way that, with little to no effort, gives Blizzard control over whether not only a given tournament can be broadcast, but even whether the game can be streamed. with this ? "For business reasons, there may be times when Blizzard will need to terminate your right to distribute or host a specific Production, and in such a case, Blizzard shall have the right to do so without notice or liability to you. A content use license is not unlimited: it permits the use of the Blizzard materials in your Production only for the 'event' that the license has been issued for, and in the specific methods outlined in the license. " they can "terminate your right to distribute or host a specific Production" even if you distribute / host it freely, E.G. if you use establish a free weekly stream on twitch where you criticize their game or something can they do that ? can they shut down specific youtube videos ? back in the D3 release days, there was a blog called Digital Castration with an anonymous author using the nickname Daeity. He wrote articles revealing information he had of events unfolding inside the company thanks to an insider + using sources online. He revealed for example that Blizzard delayed the release of D3 worldwide because they ran into a gambling non permitted lawsuit in Korea for their real money auction house and Morhaime making a trip to Korea for this, while lying to the community that it was for another reason, that time was needed to finish things even though there was no serious progress updates. And he revealed other sorts of events and plans the communication of the company was hiding to the community/public. It allowed him to predict some things, I think if I remember right he predicted that there would be no PvP at launch even though they made us believe because they changed the stats and item system in a way that was incompatible with PvP at launch so as to instead focus the system on optimizing the number of transactions happening on the real money auction house where company gets a cut per transaction. They really killed a lot of the game with that, they had a nice new stat system they presented to community before they changed it for that, and it had a horrible effect on the balance of everything, the spells, variety of possible builds and the item game, the uniques, etc. He also wrote articles that described a "black list" system for Blizzard against writers or influencial people that they no longer invited, communicated to, or allowed to get press access to their events. He showed that the type of websites or writers that they promoted and largely supported were those that simply blindly relayed their own press writeups with few advertisement-like information about their games, deliberately discouraging any criticism or in fact discussion by completely ignoring those that did. After a few months, during the release period itself, he wrote a last article saying that he had been threatened and intimidated IRL or by email or maybe phone (it was a bit unclear) and he felt he had to stop writing and that his blog may be shut down, which after a little while later was put offline permanently. It was me. Lol just kidding it wasn't me. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 04 2015 07:31 JimmyJRaynor wrote:ATVI doesn't care enough to superimpose any kind of conspiracy against the development team to coerce them into moving the game in some predetermined management direction. LotV is life-and-death to make $0.1 Billion and ATVI just bought some mobile games company for $5.9 Billion. You may be right, I'm not sure.. But there must be directions coming from the top. I don't believe they don't have a plan and I don't believe they let a huge team work by themselves. [which btw I still think the best size for making a great game is not a huge team, the size has to be reasonable so that everyone is fully aware of the whole project and also has a lot of room for influencing the direction. How many people were they to make Starcraft, the coders and main artists? (not counting end of development joining people like voice actors) 10 times smaller team? but how big is the SC2 team now?]. Maybe they have stopped caring about it, but even then they must at least be trying something, good or bad. Kotick words, remember, "take all the fun away from making games". For me these words mean make sure there is no room for creativity and they do what we want them to. He says it is "for putting the value where the players see it" but to me that's just a liar's way of pretending he's doing something nice by making things more serious. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16647 Posts
| ||
|
JackONeill
861 Posts
More seriously, about Blizzard's reputation : WoW was awesome. Burning crusade was awesome. SCII WOL was AWESOME. Wrath of the Lich king was meh. Diablo III without extension was absolutly TERRIBLE (never felt that ripped off). HOTS was total crap. So yeah they took a big hit to their quality reputation. But HeartStone and Heroes of the Storm made a massive smokescreen so people gained interest again. So did Blizzard loose they quality seal? Yes, for sure. Do they cut corners to meet deadlines? Yes, for sure. Is LOTV initial release gonna be total crap? Yes, for sure since their beta was after all, so short. Does that mean Blizzard products are as a whole bad? Nope. You just have to use critical thinking and watch footage of the game before you buy it. And that's were Blizzard shines : they're VERY good to make trailers and present you their product like awesome. Overwatch looks absolutly great. However, when you look closely, gameplay footage looks very messy, some capacity look cool but will be impossible to balance. So yeah don't let yourself be fooled by the trailers and the hype, and try to think about what you're paying for. I bought Diablo 60€, and everyone told me the extension made the game much better. However I refuse to pay 60+40€ to play a good game. And extension is additionnal content, not the think that make a 60€ game good. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On November 03 2015 20:48 ThunderBum wrote: I think that is exactly what the statistic means if more people buy LotV over HotS. They may not be hardcore starcraft players but they'll try the game if they buy it. They will disappear as fast as they come like usual. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On November 04 2015 04:17 HerrHorst wrote: But Blizzard did change Diablo 3 massively and did improve the game a lot after they were cruzified by the community for their earlier decisions. If Legacy gets as much attention after Release as did Diablo 3, which was improved massivly and even got some cool new stuff like Kanai’s Cube recently, we could be happy. When you release shit that isn't ready well shit. Good luck getting them to come back and buy into once again. In this day and age people are always looking for the flashy new toy. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
Fliparoni
205 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On November 04 2015 12:10 Fliparoni wrote: I don't get why people are surprised that LOTV is doing so well in its preorder sales. People here seem to forget that the vast majority of people that buy and play Starcraft probably don't even know about the teamliqud forums or even go onto the bnet forums. They heard that Starcraft's final xpac is being released and thus they are getting it. They don't care about stuff like macro mechanics and mining changes etc etc that really only a handful of people here in the grand scheme of things give a shit about. Yeah, this. The coolness of the cinematics with the proxy pylon possibly affects sales more than all the multiplayers tweaks together. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
| ||
|
Fliparoni
205 Posts
All that plus a lot of my friends are really excited about archon mode. These are guys that skipped HOTS and are cmoing back for LOTV | ||
|
ThunderBum
Australia192 Posts
On November 04 2015 10:44 StarStruck wrote: They will disappear as fast as they come like usual. Agreed, but that's not so bad. As long as Blizzard keep selling games they'll keep making them. If the franchise is successful we'll keep getting support. | ||
|
goswser
United States3519 Posts
On November 04 2015 14:52 ThunderBum wrote: Agreed, but that's not so bad. As long as Blizzard keep selling games they'll keep making them. If the franchise is successful we'll keep getting support. Not necessarily true. If blizzard sees more profit in different games then they will invest there instead. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
Good advertising move I guess, as they now can advertise lotv as selling well, which can lead to more sales to "real" new customers, as opposed to just moving up the pre-decided customers to pre-order. | ||
|
adwodon
United Kingdom592 Posts
On November 04 2015 16:06 goswser wrote: Not necessarily true. If blizzard sees more profit in different games then they will invest there instead. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that because ultimately what is 'Blizzard'. If you've ever been involved with higher ups in a business you know that they usually don't agree on where the best direction to go is. Often its best to have a mix, its good to continue what you're doing, stick with some tried and true cash generators and expend some effort on new and exciting ideas as while they could hit it big (like Hearthstone) there really is no way to know in advance and they could fail completely (like Titan). I think Blizzard doesn't really have franchise teams so much as they have genre teams, we know that the SC2 team won't start work on SC3 but most likely some other strategy game franchise, maybe Warcraft maybe not, who knows but seeing as you have a good team for RTS it makes sense to keep making them if they still generate good enough returns and I'm pretty sure stuff like SC2 has done that, it's not D3 or WoW level by any means but its no doubt good enough and they have enough in the bank to keep all the operations going and need more resources on other projects, Blizzard has stated many times that they prefer smaller teams working on smaller projects like SC2, Hearthstone and D3 as opposed to going all out AAA and getting 300+ people working on one mega game, and I agree, its nicer for all of those involved and its not like those games don't rival standard AAA's for revenue! | ||
|
ThunderBum
Australia192 Posts
On November 04 2015 16:06 goswser wrote: Not necessarily true. If blizzard sees more profit in different games then they will invest there instead. I think that Blizzard will try to appeal to as wide of an audience as they can. Spread brand awareness, and allows them to release content more frequently while not hurting existing player bases. That's why they have games in different genres. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16647 Posts
On November 04 2015 16:33 adwodon wrote: but seeing as you have a good team for RTS it makes sense to keep making them if they still generate good enough returns and I'm pretty sure stuff like SC2 has done that, it's not D3 or WoW level by any means but its no doubt good enough and they have enough in the bank to keep all the operations going and need more resources on other projects, Blizzard has stated many times that they prefer smaller teams working on smaller projects like SC2, Hearthstone and D3 as opposed to going all out AAA and getting 300+ people working on one mega game, and I agree, its nicer for all of those involved and its not like those games don't rival standard AAA's for revenue! Sigaty stated Blizz won't make anything to compete with SC2 for at least 10 years. Sigaty is now the executive producer for SC2. The RTS Team size will decrease in size down to maintenance levels after LotV is released. There won't be any big announcement though because they won't want to upset the fans. | ||
|
Eviscerador
Spain286 Posts
On November 04 2015 02:08 B-royal wrote: lmao. Everything relating to gameplay is MILES better in brood war ( I even started with Sc2 and switched to brood war after finding the former a massive disappointment). The arcade is horrible, can't even give a custom name to your game to give it some identity. MM = macro mechanics? Right.. everybody loves those. Brood war's graphics are even better than Sc2's. I'll elaborate: - Sc2's graphics are shit on any setting other than ultra. - Sc2's graphics are a cartoony mess, same with Sc2's models (infestors, vipers, protoss ball units or terran's flying shoes (liberator)). - Brood war's graphics are always great (there's no settings) - Brood war's models are vicious, creative, distinctive. Sc2's sounds and voices are also a HUGE letdown. SC graphics in the lowest setings are miles better than the old BW graphics. Come on. I loved SC:BW. I played hundreds if not thousand of hours. But the graphics were outdated 10 years ago. Today they are just history. Saying that they are always great, its like saying that a Vespa is better than a Ferrari because it only has one continous gear, while you can't afford to pay for the gas on the Ferrari and use all the gears. SC2 models are the same units as in BW, but you know, in HD detail. PS: I hope you are trolling, seriously. Because not even the most hardcore nostalgia fanboy can think what you said. | ||
|
adwodon
United Kingdom592 Posts
On November 04 2015 17:10 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Sigaty stated Blizz won't make anything to compete with SC2 for at least 10 years. Sigaty is now the executive producer for SC2. The RTS Team size will decrease in size down to maintenance levels after LotV is released. There won't be any big announcement though because they won't want to upset the fans. Sounded more to me like he wanted SC2 to still be around in 10 years and current had no plans to do anything new. He didn't seem to rule out the idea that a new strategy title could happen eventually. Even then it sounded more like he wanted SC2 to rein supreme among eSports, I think that still leaves room for a good rts with a more single player or even cooperative / casual focus. I doubt we'll hear anything for a long time though, this is Blizzard after all, but 10 years is too long to really rule anything out. Hopefully they keep LotV in good shape but considering the state of the pro scene right now I'm concerned it won't even last 2-3 years let alone 10, but I'm hopeful, it would be a shame not to have any new single player rts content for 10 years though! | ||
|
adwodon
United Kingdom592 Posts
On November 04 2015 18:37 Eviscerador wrote: SC graphics in the lowest setings are miles better than the old BW graphics. Come on. I loved SC:BW. I played hundreds if not thousand of hours. But the graphics were outdated 10 years ago. Today they are just history. Saying that they are always great, its like saying that a Vespa is better than a Ferrari because it only has one continous gear, while you can't afford to pay for the gas on the Ferrari and use all the gears. SC2 models are the same units as in BW, but you know, in HD detail. PS: I hope you are trolling, seriously. Because not even the most hardcore nostalgia fanboy can think what you said. You'll always get "things were better back then" people, a few of my dads friends genuinely believe that music died in the 70's, wouldn't surprise me if you could find some people who think it died with Mozart. It's quite difficult to compare SC2 to BW though, you can't be objective here but clearly more time, effort and thought was put into SC2 because its a newer game with a bigger budget. I think its a better game hands down and I enjoyed BW, but game design has come a long way since. Everyone's an armchair designer, somehow gleaning more experience playing a few hundred hours of one game, as opposed to working in the industry for 20 years, the game doesn't have this and that, this game did it better than that game etc all statements made in isolation with no regard for the big picture and even when people could be right, its much easier to be correct in hindsight. I'm pretty sure if Blizzard could remake SC2 from scratch now it would be a very different game but you can't please everyone! Some people just can't move with the times. | ||
|
B-royal
Belgium1330 Posts
On November 04 2015 18:37 Eviscerador wrote: SC graphics in the lowest setings are miles better than the old BW graphics. Come on. I loved SC:BW. I played hundreds if not thousand of hours. But the graphics were outdated 10 years ago. Today they are just history. Saying that they are always great, its like saying that a Vespa is better than a Ferrari because it only has one continous gear, while you can't afford to pay for the gas on the Ferrari and use all the gears. SC2 models are the same units as in BW, but you know, in HD detail. PS: I hope you are trolling, seriously. Because not even the most hardcore nostalgia fanboy can think what you said. Sorry to disappoint but I'm not trolling. I'm not blind, I can see the graphics are "outdated". Doesn't mean I can't think the graphics at their core (the style) and the unit models/designs are better than Sc2's. And to reiterate, I discovered brood war less than half a year ago. I played Sc2 during the Wol period (for about 2-3 months, I left before master league was even added). I just went back to warcraft tft and heroes of newerth. My point is, there's no nostalgia clouding my mind. Sc2's models are not brood war's in HD. Sc2's inspiration for zerg has borrowed way too much from insects and changed the mood from scary and vicious to slimy and shocking. Some examples: - zerglings metabolic speed upgrade - infestors - vipers - swarm hosts Starcraft 2 extractor ![[image loading]](http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/1/14440/1455259-extractor_sc2_rend1.jpg) Spikes don't look menacing at all. These cyst-like sacs pervasive on a lot of zerg things also don't look good at all in my opinion. Brood war extractor ![[image loading]](http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071102022006/starcraft/images/1/1e/SC1_Extractor.gif) Quite the opposite: Spikes are very menacing, surface looks rough, not glistening. No cysts/sacs, but bone like structures present instead. This trend is the same with other buildings. | ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
If you still play with CRT monitor, Diablo2 looks good on it. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On November 04 2015 20:17 B-royal wrote: Sorry to disappoint but I'm not trolling. I'm not blind, I can see the graphics are "outdated". Doesn't mean I can't think the graphics at their core (the style) and the unit models/designs are better than Sc2's. And to reiterate, I discovered brood war less than half a year ago. I played Sc2 during the Wol period (for about 2-3 months, I left before master league was even added). I just went back to warcraft tft and heroes of newerth. My point is, there's no nostalgia clouding my mind. Sc2's models are not brood war's in HD. Sc2's inspiration for zerg has borrowed way too much from insects and changed the mood from scary and viscuous to slimy and shocking. Some examples: - zerglings metabolic speed upgrade - infestors - vipers - swarm hosts You can disagree/agree on art direction for Zerg, for sure. I personally would argue that the more insect-like look of the Zerg was chosen because it is more believable. We see it on our earth a ton of times that insects transform into other forms, whereas growing an entirely different bone structure is pretty rare. But as I said, you can argue about it and the change in overall Zerg design is definitely something people can disagree with. But just in terms of graphical fidelity StarCraft II is just better in every way. Just take a look at some of the spritesheets (I'm not sure if I am allowed to link them here, a quick google search should you net the correct results though). Zealot is a quick example. Where is the head and face? Does he even have one? And what about that attack animation? He's literally just putting his arms in front of him as if he was about to get cuffed and then twirls them around a bit. + Show Spoiler + Then take a look at StarCraft II's zealot + Show Spoiler + It's much more easily distuingishable, the animations carry a lot more weight and are believable. The model itself is also much more detailed, a lot more unique and in general more what Protoss actually looks like. Look at some SC1 Concept Arts of Zealots + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/starcraft/images/5/52/Zealot_SC1_Art1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080619175900) The BW sprites do a terrible job representing those. Whereas the SC2 one is pretty damn close to what the concepts generally show. I'm not one to diss older graphics, I personally love the look and feel of Brood War just as much as you do. But to argue that they're better designed or do a better job of representing the races is just plain wrong. SC2's models offer more detail, uniqueness and give a better feel of the race's identity than the Brood War ones. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany831 Posts
| ||
|
Yrr
Germany799 Posts
| ||
|
yoshi245
United States2969 Posts
On November 04 2015 04:17 HerrHorst wrote: But Blizzard did change Diablo 3 massively and did improve the game a lot after they were cruzified by the community for their earlier decisions. If Legacy gets as much attention after Release as did Diablo 3, which was improved massivly and even got some cool new stuff like Kanai’s Cube recently, we could be happy. This is what I am hoping for in regards to LotV in both features as well as multiplayer/competitive balance. But when D3 had to do that, they had to change the lead guy of that title and replace him and potentially shuffle or hire different talent to make Reaper of Souls what it is now. Blizz would have to probably fire or replace David Kim at the very least and hire someone else with the vision to make LotV a better product long after release. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 04 2015 20:51 KeksX wrote: But just in terms of graphical fidelity StarCraft II is just better in every way. Just take a look at some of the spritesheets (I'm not sure if I am allowed to link them here, a quick google search should you net the correct results though). Zealot is a quick example. Where is the head and face? Does he even have one? And what about that attack animation? He's literally just putting his arms in front of him as if he was about to get cuffed and then twirls them around a bit. + Show Spoiler + https://youtu.be/w_SKXc22Pmg?t=183 Then take a look at StarCraft II's zealot + Show Spoiler + https://youtu.be/o1q_5TkC7dQ?t=136 It's much more easily distuingishable, the animations carry a lot more weight and are believable. The model itself is also much more detailed, a lot more unique and in general more what Protoss actually looks like. Look at some SC1 Concept Arts of Zealots + Show Spoiler + The BW sprites do a terrible job representing those. Whereas the SC2 one is pretty damn close to what the concepts generally show. I'm not one to diss older graphics, I personally love the look and feel of Brood War just as much as you do. But to argue that they're better designed or do a better job of representing the races is just plain wrong. SC2's models offer more detail, uniqueness and give a better feel of the race's identity than the Brood War ones. I feel the same way as B-royal. Some graphics in SC2 are nice, but overall you can feel that there have been a lot lost in terms of style, mood and identity of races artistically. You take the zealot in particular, of course the definition in SC1 is pretty low so the zealot is represented in pixel art on a very small sprite but I like it a lot better than SC2 zealot because of the style. In SC1 the zealot looks like an unstoppable marcher standing straight, solid, tall and threatening. He strikes fast and straight without losing his solid stance. In SC2 the zealot looks like a human ninja making kind of like dancing moves and runs like a bit like a character in Naruto (really don't like the running stance of zealot in SC2 it's like he is posing for a photo lol). A lot of other things in SC2 are a bit like that, and the voices are really a lot less gripping. (and the music...............). There are things I like in the SC2 graphics, like the Protoss buildings are generally very nice I think. Some things in BW could maybe have been drawn a bit better but overall I think artistically it brings more emotion and style, less eyecandy. Even though it is executed more simply, it has deeper meaning, which is what really matters with art. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24192 Posts
| ||
|
Ansibled
United Kingdom9872 Posts
On November 04 2015 18:37 Eviscerador wrote: SC graphics in the lowest setings are miles better than the old BW graphics. Come on. I loved SC:BW. I played hundreds if not thousand of hours. But the graphics were outdated 10 years ago. Today they are just history. Saying that they are always great, its like saying that a Vespa is better than a Ferrari because it only has one continous gear, while you can't afford to pay for the gas on the Ferrari and use all the gears. SC2 models are the same units as in BW, but you know, in HD detail. PS: I hope you are trolling, seriously. Because not even the most hardcore nostalgia fanboy can think what you said. I think the BW aesthetic/graphics hold up very well even to this day. | ||
|
Eviscerador
Spain286 Posts
On November 04 2015 23:54 Ansibled wrote: I think the BW aesthetic/graphics hold up very well even to this day. Don't get me wrong, for a 1998 game, the graphics are great. I remember playing it in a 486 at 50 Mhz and 4 MB of ram. It is not that games could run faster on those toasters... But saying that graphics are great for today's standards... well, that is a no. | ||
|
Chernobyl
Brazil143 Posts
I remember regret having stopped playing sc1, I will not make the same mistake again. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16647 Posts
On November 04 2015 21:54 yoshi245 wrote: This is what I am hoping for in regards to LotV in both features as well as multiplayer/competitive balance. But when D3 had to do that, they had to change the lead guy of that title and replace him and potentially shuffle or hire different talent to make Reaper of Souls what it is now. Blizz would have to probably fire or replace David Kim at the very least and hire someone else with the vision to make LotV a better product long after release. DK is doing a great job. DB did a great job as well.. such a great job he got promoted to Vice-Prez while Rob Pardo was still at Blizzard. Keep in mind all of Blizzard's tip-top, very best guys are not working on the RTS genre because it does not have the revenue potential of an MMO or the strategic value of Hearthstone. When Morhaime, Sigaty and Pierce find some new, young, tip-top design talent the last thing they'll ever do is assign him or her to the RTS team. Browder bolted at this first chance...and who can blame the guy .. he has got a family to raise and he wants at least the possiblity of giant bonus money. | ||
|
Kingsky
Singapore298 Posts
On November 03 2015 15:00 FabledIntegral wrote: Nice, I just put $500 in Activision. Not a ton, but if their stock jumps 10% tomorrow, that's $50 :D lmao really? i find their acquisition of king games really stupid | ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
On November 05 2015 01:50 Eviscerador wrote: Don't get me wrong, for a 1998 game, the graphics are great. I remember playing it in a 486 at 50 Mhz and 4 MB of ram. It is not that games could run faster on those toasters... But saying that graphics are great for today's standards... well, that is a no. The aesthetic of BW was probably stronger in giving the races definition than SC2 in some aspects, particularly the sound design and death animations. It is pretty ridiculous to say that the bw graphics are better though. A lot of what made bw magical would turn potential new players off today, that's just something we old bw fans have to accept. Try getting your friends to play bw vs sc2, you would be lucky if they stayed past the low resolution and unit selection limitations, let alone play an actual match. | ||
|
ThunderBum
Australia192 Posts
| ||
|
Dracover
Australia177 Posts
On November 03 2015 17:38 ThunderBum wrote: Are you suggesting Blizzard should price their products to break even every release? I actually really enjoy the teasers, Blizzcon, financial support for tournaments, and other things Blizzard do. The way they balance everything within their business is clearly very effective and far more detailed than what you've outlined, and I hope they don't change it because it works so damn well with what they produce. For the amount of time I put into their games they are amazing value. Nothing wrong with them making money. It's more about the margin they make. If you look at Apple and google (who some consider the devil's company) their equivalent margins are 28 cents in the dollar and 25 cents in the dollar. | ||
|
ThunderBum
Australia192 Posts
On November 05 2015 08:34 Dracover wrote: Nothing wrong with them making money. It's more about the margin they make. If you look at Apple and google (who some consider the devil's company) their equivalent margins are 28 cents in the dollar and 25 cents in the dollar. It's nothing to do with the margin they make, it's all to do with what people are prepared to pay. Value is in the eye of the consumer. If you think Blizzard are making too much money, feel free to not buy their products. Don't complain about it if you think it's worth it. | ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
On November 05 2015 08:34 Dracover wrote: Nothing wrong with them making money. It's more about the margin they make. If you look at Apple and google (who some consider the devil's company) their equivalent margins are 28 cents in the dollar and 25 cents in the dollar. Seems to me there are much more egregious examples of companies making a bigger profit margin. A simple online survey service can have a much higher margin than that yet I don't see people complaining. | ||
|
alexanderzero
United States659 Posts
On November 03 2015 14:49 Dracover wrote: I love this kind of stuff cause it tell you a lot of what they spend their money on. So for every $1 you pay to them 32 cents is profit 32 cents is to actually produce what they're selling you 14 cents is to pay for the development of their next game 22 cents is marketing sales and other "company stuff" or in other words 46 cents is for producing what your buying/what you might buy 54 cents is for stuff the customer doesn't value. EDIT: If only you can see this buy product. This line of reasoning is ridiculous. If the customer wasn't getting value out of the money spent, they wouldn't spend it. Basic economics. | ||
|
sacrilegious
Canada863 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12336 Posts
On November 05 2015 05:14 Kingsky wrote: lmao really? i find their acquisition of king games really stupid I do think it is not as stupid as it seems. Candy crush is massive, and they have huge market in China as well despite a strong carbon copy chinese one exists | ||
|
PuddleZerg
United States82 Posts
| ||
|
feanaro
United States123 Posts
On November 03 2015 14:49 Dracover wrote: I love this kind of stuff cause it tell you a lot of what they spend their money on. So for every $1 you pay to them 32 cents is profit 32 cents is to actually produce what they're selling you 14 cents is to pay for the development of their next game 22 cents is marketing sales and other "company stuff" or in other words 46 cents is for producing what your buying/what you might buy 54 cents is for stuff the customer doesn't value. EDIT: If only you can see this buy product. What makes you think that customers don't value the profits that allow Blizzard to stay in business? | ||
|
Khalimaroth
France70 Posts
Damn. Transform the queen of blade back to human was bold and surprising, but yeah why not? I like to be surprised. But how DARE they make her kiss anyone, say "I love you Jim", "Thank you Jim"?, and crying the (fake) Jim death...:'( SHE WAS THE F*****G QUEEN OF BLADES 2 WEEKS AGO, and now, she's Bella Swan il the galaxy... I pre-order LotV, I reaaally hope in LotV they will NOT win by "the power of love"... glhf♪ Love. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On November 08 2015 03:58 Khalimaroth wrote: The only thing i can NOT bear in starcraft 2 is the love story between Jim and Kerrigan... Damn. Transform the queen of blade back to human was bold and surprising, but yeah why not? I like to be surprised. But how DARE they make her kiss anyone, say "I love you Jim", "Thank you Jim"?, and crying the (fake) Jim death...:'( SHE WAS THE F*****G QUEEN OF BLADES 2 WEEKS AGO, and now, she's Bella Swan il the galaxy... I pre-order LotV, I reaaally hope in LotV they will NOT win by "the power of love"... glhf♪ Love. I haven't played campaign for a long time but is that really what Kerrigan did...? | ||
|
wjat
385 Posts
| ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
| ||
|
osten
Sweden316 Posts
| ||
|
Topdoller
United Kingdom3860 Posts
I would be very surprised if it broke HoTS sales as i haven't seen any hype anywhere else but on this forum. No one is interested in this expansion at all outside of TeamLiquid and after getting burned by HoTS there will be a lot of people like myself who will not be purchasing it at all. HoTS was a step backwards from WoL and after seeing some of the streams LoTV looks to be more of the same. Gimmick units designed to frustrate the player base with all ins and cheese, more air units that bypass terrain and units that still have massive ranges. Once the initial hype dies down, the decline in viewer base will continue even lower than it is now. SC2 rarely makes the top 8 games stream these days and in fact Broodwar surpasses it on most days | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16647 Posts
When HotS came out you had to own WoL. LotV is stand-alone. A LotV pre-order offered 3 prologue missions you could play right away. and then a few months later they made the 3 prologue missions available to all. A LotV pre-order got you into the beta instantly. HotS never had any kind of marketing hooks such as these. So I don't think the claim that LotV is outselling HotS in pre-orders is some kind of BS or that they are not counting cancellations.... i think LotV is doing better.. but its a very un-fair comparison. This sales "fact" was presented at an ATVI shareholder meeting where absolutely every nuance of every sentence is spun in the favour how awesome sales of everything are and how ATVI is rolling in cash. HotS ended up selling 1.1 Million copies in 2 days .... we'll know soon enough from teh ATVI PR-machine if LotV tops that total. | ||
|
Eviscerador
Spain286 Posts
On November 08 2015 05:06 darkness wrote: I haven't played campaign for a long time but is that really what Kerrigan did...? Yes, and afterwards he went to Zerus, kicked the arse of an ancient Leviathan size monster, mutated into the queen of blades Super Saiyan 2 and proceded to invade, kill and annihilate a bunch of Dominion planets. | ||
| ||
