On May 30 2010 10:50 Captain Peabody wrote:
First, I'd like to commend you for taking the time to write your thoughts up in a clear and readable manner, do a reasonable amount of research, and not just flame Blizzard.
Thanks 
While you make no explicit argument in your post, it's pretty obvious what thesis you are trying to support. If I had to put it into words, it would be that "Blizzard has been negatively affected by the merger with Activision. They are now greedy like Activision."
However, this thesis is totally and completely unsupported by the evidence you provide.
The first part seems about right, especially based on the pictures used that should be clearly implied, and yes it is biased based on my personal experiences and values. What I was trying to "prove" wasn't that they're completely "greedy" like Activision, but that they have well been influenced by it, even if their actual games are still good for the foreseeable future, they have that tainted feeling about it.
First of all, if you want to show that Blizzard is greedier now than they were, you have to provide some point of contrast; in other words, to show that there is a significant difference between the way Blizzard acted before the merger, and the way they act now, you have to provide a picture of what they were like before the merger that contrasts with the way they are now. Now, certainly you can reasonably assume (at least in this case) that most people know Blizzard's reputation, and are able to provide these contrasts themselves...but this does weaken what you're trying to say. And I think you'd find, if you actually looked at what Blizzard was like before the merger, you'd find more commonalities than you think.
I assumed people already know having played some of their previous titles...
Personally (although starting with WarCraft I) I bought (some even multiple times), played and really enjoyed a lot of their older more obscure games like "The Lost Vikings I+II" and "Blackthorne"... If anyone hasn't played those and wants to see some of the old Blizzard quality in action... get them, they're awesome and was almost a total fanboy by the point Diablo II and WarCraft 3 came out, unfortunately the company policy took a slow turn for the worse with the release of World of Warcraft, its success and said merger...
There's also enough articles to provide that contrast on the Web, a really great one: SERIOUSLY, DO READ THIS, can be found here called "How Blizzard became Blizzard": http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/how-blizzard-became-blizzard/
Some excerpts:
The turning point came with Starcraft.
You can’t say Warcraft and Warcraft 2 since Blizzard was considered an equal among various companies around that time. There are many companies that have a ‘hit game’. The pattern is that the company then descends into mediocrity either due to Industry men overmilking it to developers thinking they are artistic geniuses and ruining it. Success can be more fatal than failure in bringing down a company.
...
Yes, folks, the above images are Starcraft. Someone who might not have seen these images, especially a young person, is probably already spewing, “Lies, Malstrom! That is not Starcraft! That is just Warcraft in space!” And you are exactly right. That is just Warcraft in space.
And this is where part of the Turning Point for Blizzard came. The reaction from the public was ‘meh’ to Starcraft. If Blizzard was run by Industry men, they would have said, “We must meet our quarter deadline! Ship it!” If Blizzard was run rampant by out of control artists, they would have said, “These people just do not understand our genius. Ship it!” But Blizzard did not ship it. They went back and began doing a complete overhaul.
Those Alpha images are pretty interesting outside of how bad they are. The art, even back then, was pretty interesting and very colorful. The units are interesting to look at even if the Zerg look like ladybugs on steroids.
...
Now Mr. Reader, do you recognize your Starcraft now? “Yeah. But… not everything looks right. There are different units and different art. The engine is the same but there are many differences still.” Oh reader, you don’t know how right you are! When presented to the public again, people got excited about Starcraft. At this point, Industry men would say, “Ship it!” At this point, some artists would be so satisfied that they got a good response so they would ‘ship it’. But clearly from seeing the above images, the game was not shipped in that state.
...
Far from just a marketing move, Blizzard is taking the Starcraft test very seriously and literally working day and night to apply finishing touches to the product. Blizzard staffers can be found on Battle.net during most hours of the day (you’ll even spot employees dialing in from home during the wee hours), fielding questions, accepting bug reports, and even challenging other players. You’d think the makers of the game would be plenty good at it, and you’d be absolutely right – GameSpot experienced Blizzard’s Starcraft prowess firsthand in a fierce Protoss versus Terran battle (let’s just say the Terrans have seen better days).
This was the time when Blizzard cared and more importantly listened to people, when they put their heart into it and it wasn't about "balance sheets", "business models" or "platforms". It was just a company of gamers, making games for other gamers and putting their all into it. I believe that most of them still do (maybe sans the enthusiasm from back in the day and more "professional"), but they're ultimately controlled by people that don't.
Besides that, though, the timeline you provide simply does not support your argument. 3/4ths of the things on the timeline are solely related to Activision and Bobby Kotick, which is great if you're trying to prove that Bobby Kotick is a jerk, but not so good if you're trying to prove that Blizzard are now greedy, uncaring bastards.
Him talking about wanting to mess with Blizzard is better, but still proves nothing, since most of the things he talks about simply haven't happened; which actually works directly against your thesis. There is no in-game advertising; there is pretty much no monetizing of Bnet whatsoever, and the services that Blizzard talks about in another quote are hardly unreasonable.
Oh but I think it does, because it makes the breach clear compared to how Blizzard operated before (and never overcharged or thought about monetizing every damn feature) and exposes that their business practices as seen today (building up from World of Warcraft and the point of the merger) have a lot more in common with the business practices of said Kotick (no matter how it came to be, if Kotick is directly involved and dictates everything, if he taught the Blizzard marketing thing how to "do business the right way" with those balance sheets or if he plays golf and eats lunch with Morhaime and has talks about the future of his company, directly influencing it) , who ultimately is one of the few in charge of big marketing decisions than their own back when they became "famous" and "world renowned".
If I could *prove* that he or Activision is behind it, I would instead just do that instead, and not bother researching the web insinuating things. Unfortunately there's no open documentation detailing all this or what goes on inside said companies open to the public to do it.
Let's talk, then, about the three or four actual relevant pieces of information you bring up about Blizzard's actions after the merger, information you arrange in such a fashion as to suggest that Blizzard is acting in a greedy or uncaring fashion, with the implication that this is due to Bobby Kotick and Activision: (1)WoW paid stuff. (2): Starcraft 2 being a Trilogy. (3): No LAN (4): Map Marketplace (5): Blizzcon ticket prices being raised (?) (6): Facebook integration.
Let's go through these one by one, shall we?
(1): WoW.
Okay...I'm going to be very clear with this. Adding paid stuff to WoW makes Blizzard money. Blizzard is a corporation, whose main purpose is to make money. These paid things are features, meaning they add some value if used. Features are good, even if they make money for the company who does them; they are especially good if the community wants them. They are only bad when they make money in such a fashion as to directly hurt the gameplay or the community. This is simply not the case here.
Most of these features (such as paid character customization) came about largely at the behest of the community, are used widely by the community, and are generally enjoyed by them. In addition, none of them significantly affect gameplay. Remember: adding features is only a bad thing when it hurts the game or community in some way. Otherwise, it is a good thing. And if it's a feature that the community has asked for, it's a better thing.
Also, linking the use of paid features on WoW to Activision is highly questionable, considering the first of them actually was released a full year before the merger, in 2006.
However, one could, if one wished, link the recent "pet store" and "mount store" stuff to Activision, since it is more gameplay-related than the other features. However, they still do not affect gameplay, are totally cosmetic, and thus are VERY far away from the Kotick-style merchandising of games like Guitar Hero.
I guess this is one place where we fundamentally disagree...
While I do agree (and know) that companies are there to make money, they have a lot of different ways to do it, Blizzard made money before this didn't they? A lot of other companies are making money without slave labor or burning children for coal.
It is this difference that distinguishes a good company from a profitable company at the expense of the consumer (which is also more narrow-minded, because it provides short-term profit, but leaves a company vulnerable in the long term)...
And there are a lot of examples where inherently "good" companies can be profitable as hell too, like Google, with all their free services... from Google Books, Earth/Maps, the Android platform being Open Source, they have news.google.com, finance.google.com, they bought YouTube at a loss and still operate it free (albeit with commercials here and there), they released the VP8 Codec as an Open Standard to be used by everyone for HTML5, the Google Language Tools can translate whole texts understandably from the most obscure languages into your own, they offer great working environments while even paying attention to operating "green": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7292600.stm and more... They have and are basically changing the world, and all that mostly for free, while making most of their money with just Ads.
Sure there are some privacy concerns here too, but they aren't f...ing/exploiting their faithful/devoted customers by milking 30$ for a simple feature or 25$ for maybe 2 hours in a modeling program, saying they "requested" it... It is their right to do so, but(imo) morally it is a disgrace that Blizzard even considered doing that to people that already paid for their game, all add-ons and keep shelling out 13-15$ a month making them gazillions, and don't see why this is or should be defended.
Even going with your definition, their new plan for the "Remote Auction House" would actually hurt people IG, cause people could buy items others wanted using their iPhone or a Web Browser from wherever they are.
(2): Starcraft 2 as a Trilogy.
I'm going to be honest here. I am utterly sick and tired of people bringing this up as an example of Blizzard being greedy. It is so utterly wrong-headed and has been proven so so many times in so many ways I hardly know where to start. First of all, the other games are expansions, like BW, and will be priced like it. Secondly, the decision was made based on Blizzard's quality standards and in order not to delay the game too much. Thirdly, Blizzard had always, from the beginning of development, planned to have two expansions (probably originally to make up for what they knew would be an extra-long development cycle). Fourthly, Blizzard is jamming more content into each of these games then in the whole of SC1. I don't know how hard it is to get through people's skulls that Blizzard made the decision for the good of the game and the community.
If someone seriously wants to argue that this is an example of Blizzard being greedy, I would be happy to drench him in sources that prove otherwise. Until then, this should suffice.
1) The pricing hasn't yet been determined, that's what they keep repeating btw.: http://eu.starcraft2.com/faq.xml
Are these three separate games? How much will all of these games cost?
The StarCraft II Trilogy will consist of the base StarCraft II game and two expansion sets. Pricing on these games hasn't been determined at this early stage; however, we've always charged an appropriate price for the content the player receives, and we will continue to release high-quality games that offer great value.
You can't know for a fact how they will be "priced".
2) All people that want to play the game at a competitive level, getting all the units and buildings, enjoy the newest maps etc. will have to pay for all 3 parts, especially in conjunction with "no LAN", requirements of all the keys for each account, regional restriction and several other restrictions this doesn't exactly seem like a good thing from the consumer side of things:
How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?
The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.
If I buy StarCraft II but don't buy any of the expansion sets, will I still be able to play online?
Yes. This will work similarly to Warcraft III and the original StarCraft, which maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with the base Warcraft III or StarCraft.
3) Each of the new "Expansions having as much content as StarCraft 1" arguments are a non-issue, considering both Brood War and The Frozen Throne, while being considered Add-Ons and being sold at a price point of 30$ and below also had 26/27 missions respectively WHILE having 3 different campaigns and different units/levels etc. for each.
I don’t see where they come off praising themselves on this or using it as an excuse to charge more, seeing as it remained the same.
On a personal note I see it like this:
WarCraft (1994): 2 Playable Races/Campaigns (Orcs & Humans)
WarCraft 2 (1995): 2 Playable Races/Campaigns (Orcs & Humans)
StarCraft (1998): 3 Playable Races/Campaigns (Humans, Zerg & Protoss)
WarCraft 3 (2002): 4 Playable Races/Campaigns (Orcs, Humans, Nightelves & Undead)
StarCraft 2 – Wings of Liberty (2010): 1 Playable Race (Humans) with a small Protoss "Mini"-Campaign
Having 3+ different campaigns to play through, that all started anew at some point and offered a completely new perspective and way of playing on things while not overstaying their welcome in the Single Player part of those games was one of the charms and quality features of previous Blizzard games for me. It still remains to be proven that 28+ missions with the same race and largely same units/base-building doesn't get boring in SP after a while.
(4): Map Marketplace.
The Map Marketplace is a great idea, frankly, and really, really good for the community. It provides one place where you can go to get custom maps, a big showroom for all the talented map-makers out there, and the fact that some (read: very, very few. Blizzard has said that only people who basically create their own game using the engine would get money) of the most talented map-makers out there will get money for doing the equivalent of making their own game using Blizzard's tools is great, and will provide the impetus for many great projects.
The fact that Blizzard is taking a percentage of the money involved is far from excessive, Kotick-style greed; all store sites take some amount of money from sellers in exchange for the notoriety and out-there-ness they're getting. And the fact that the map-makers will be using Blizzard's tools and Blizzard's engines only increases the fairness of the arrangement. And since we don't know how much Blizzard is going to take anyway (and I doubt it's even been decided yet) it's pretty much a moot point.
And the idea that Blizzard thought up this idea as a huge money-maker is somewhat absurd. Setting up and maintaining the system will cost a lot of time and money, and with the rules for "premium maps" that they've given us, I doubt they'll be making a lot of profit off of it. It's not anything near to selling cheap plastic guitars and drum sets.
So, again: adding a feature is not bad. Adding a feature with the intent of making money from that feature is also not bad, so long as it does not deleteriously affect the game or the community. In fact, it is good. The Map Marketplace is a great community tool, thought of with the good of the community in mind, that will also make Blizzard some amount of money. It does not support your thesis.
Just see this thread for this one: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=127066
In short: It is not only a thing of money but also a thing of gaining control and future control over certain things, I think the community would have been a lot better off if they didn't intervene at all into this one and just left it like it was in WarCraft 3 for the most part.
Also I've already said stuff to the following points somewhere in this thread already and most of your disagreements still originate from your belief that every "feature", no matter how minor, bad, greedy, annoying etc. it is or the circumstances it came to be (like leaving something out of a game on purpose in the first place, to sell it later on or leaving something else out that was there before, people got used to and everyone wants back), no matter if a previous product had them already included or not and they should be considered standard is a "good" thing.
If they feel the need to include something like FaceBook, they can at least put a feature in to ignore/make said feature disappear, because for some people having "FaceBook" written all over their game is like waving a red blanket in front of a bull.
In conclusion, then, your evidence simply does not support your thesis. It does not support the "greedy bastard" conclusion, and does not show a significant link of this to Activision. You have selectively stuck various bits of "evidence" (most of which does not support your thesis) together in such a way as to form a narrative that supports what you had already concluded before you began looking for evidence. It is not convincing. You also leave out a great deal of evidence that does not support your thesis: namely, the vast majority of Blizzard's actions over the past few years, the entire development cycle of SC2, etc. For all these reasons, I am not convinced by your thesis in the least. You have, however, convinced me that Bobby Kotick is evil. Congrats.
For some people it does, even if they take some of this stuff much too seriously xD
I didn't include the whole history of Blizzard or the "entire development cycle of SC2" because I: a) didn't try to make a point about that, b) didn't want to write and research for weeks and make this article even bigger with stuff that do nothing to further my argumentation and c) simply didn't know about, feel free to elaborate yourself
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/2889/36856831.png)
![[image loading]](http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3950/91324843.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.dreadcentral.com/img/news/jan09/sotanyarlathotep.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4679/83660589.png)
