EPTLol, welcome to Teamliquid! Clearly already a valuable contributor to the site!
This thread attracts the most eclectic group, ever. Ever.
A short history of Activision Blizzard or how... - Page 33
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
Lol, welcome to Teamliquid! Clearly already a valuable contributor to the site! This thread attracts the most eclectic group, ever. Ever. | ||
|
Perfect Balance
Norway131 Posts
What's happening is absolutely obvious, and people are being exploited. You're not actually spreading anything but information, and trying to help people. We could close our eyes to this and just let the entertainment industry be taken over by people like Kotick, Goldstein and Kaufbergsteingeld. I love how this article is written, on Kotick. Especially the part about the jewfro. It's an inside joke, for those of us who know who's involved here. Nice detail. User was banned for this post. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On June 06 2010 09:01 Perfect Balance wrote: What's happening is absolutely obvious, and people are being exploited. You're not actually spreading anything but information, and trying to help people. We could close our eyes to this and just let the entertainment industry be taken over by people like Kotick, Goldstein and Kaufbergsteingeld. I love how this article is written, on Kotick. Especially the part about the jewfro. It's an inside joke, for those of us who know who's involved here. Nice detail. Didn't you get banned for being racist in this thread already? | ||
|
Diaspora
United States140 Posts
| ||
|
eeniebear
United States197 Posts
On May 30 2010 06:46 Level10Peon wrote: Guys, Blizzard still owned by Vivendi. Activision has almost zero control over Blizzard. This whole "Activision Blizzard" name was brought about because it sounded good. This whole write-up, while thorough, spins the events and takes things out of context. Think of how many things Blizzard did do because of fan feedback. The battlecruiser shot, graphics revamp, nerfing of the mothership, etc. You guys are blowing things way out of proportion. Yes, Battlenet 2.0 may be less than ideal, but the core game is still fantastic, and they still are very engaged with the community for a modern game developer. You all also do realize that everything Blizzard did was for a reason, not because their evil money gabbers. You may disagree with their reasons, but they are not just trying to be some evil corporate entity, and Activision is not trying to make them one. For example, the game was split into three parts because the campaign was so big and intricate. The expansions will be no more than $40, and we'll be gifted with double the new units we would normally get. TLDR: The write-up is fundamentally flawed. It takes things out of context and ignores many facts without directly linking all the events it described to BNet 2.0's currents state. Activision has zero control over Blizzard, and neither entity is trying to make SCII some cheap money grab. I haven't even cracked the replies on this thread yet, but it's OBVIOUS that Blizzard and Activision are making SC2 into a cheap money grab. First, Facebook integration. Blizzard gets paid tons for user information. Second, expansions. Remember when you could expect 100+ hours out of a new RPG released for $39.99? How about shooters with a 20-30 hour single player campaign. Remember those? Splitting SC2 into three parts is a huge money grab. $60 for the first, then $40x2, that's $140 for a single game. And we're just getting started. Third, no cross-realm. You're gonna have to pay hundreds more if you want to play against Koreans, Europeans, etc. Sick. Fourth, "monetization," "microtransactions," and "in-game advertisement." All these things are hideous abominations that have become the new wet dream of a games industry that has lost all sight of artistic, community, and simple moral integrity. This is "nickle-and-diming" the customers. Bank patrons don't stand for it. Neither should gamers. I'm very much a capitalist, but this is just sick. The first time I heard about "microtransactions" some years back in PC Gamer, I knew I wouldn't be buying any new game published by any major company ever again. Fifth, pay-for-maps. What happens when some $5 map becomes popular, everyone has to pay $5 for the map if they want to join a game that has it? I'm sure there will be something in the EULA that authorizes Blizzard to automatically charge your credit card if you even accidentally join a game with that map. | ||
|
Ghardo
Germany1685 Posts
It's like a dealer who deliberately makes his junkies addicted and can then - when they are really dependent on the drug - demand things from them they normally wouldn't do (think of Requiem for a Dream - scene with the women in the orgy). We are practically their sheep and we have a very small voice in comparison to the IMMENSE number of people who don't actively think about these things and who can be toyed with in such a way. One of my friends has checked how much money he spent on char moving and so on in WoW some time ago and it was like 200 Euros (like 240$). And I guess he isn't even the worst. That's how Blizzard make their money nowadays. And they don't even need to work for it. How long did it take them to program the interface so you can _yourself_ carry out char movings and so on? Guess it's not in a relation to people paying 200 Euros for some bytes to move from A to B by themselves. Wtf. I have tried once to argue with Blizzard on the subject that their WoW servers deteriorate with time because of "popularity" imbalances of server sides. The WoW server I played on (EU Destromath) has now like 80% horde and 20% alliance and is a PVP server. I discussed in a twenty pages thread on the official forums and made suggestions what could be changed (the worst thing was when they opened transfer away from the server and of course the losing side left almost completely while the winning side [EU Destro horde is a very popular place to be] didn't lose too many players]). Clear caps for the factions when one side becomes too imbalanced, friends invite system for servers, only transfers to servers when one side is in the minority there and only to that side (for free) and so on and so on. To make it short, Blizzard did not reply once in that thread (which is not untypical) and I got the feeling they EMBRACE that chaotic state to a certain degree (where no one can prove anything on their side it being intended) because as long as people are unsatisfied to that degree (but still heavily addicted to the game) they will always look for better opportunities on other servers and will be willing to pay the fucking 25 euros (dunno how many dollars) as many times as it takes in their search for the relatively best playing environment. I bet Kotick would stand behind the one who looks at the player movement charts (dunno if that even exists) and would very much welcome this state of things. I don't know how realistic it is in fact that it's always Kotick who promotes these things, I bet there are other people who will think in the same way and come to the same conclusions. But I really think that most things they do that give them these huge money flows (which are unjustified as to the work invested AND harmful for the playing experience as has been discussed) are fully deliberate and embraced on the company side. It really hurts Blizzard - you have to imagine the Mona Lisa with coin slots on it - that's how much it hurts them in an artistic way. I'll end that here, you get my point. | ||
|
Endorsed
Netherlands1221 Posts
You really expect something good to come out of a developer/publisher that made such a shit game? | ||
|
Whalecore
Norway1111 Posts
| ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On June 06 2010 21:20 Endorsed wrote: Activision made/published Modern Warfare. You really expect something good to come out of a developer/publisher that made such a shit game? Modern Warfare was a good game. MW2 is a suckfest. | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On June 06 2010 21:20 Endorsed wrote: Activision made/published Modern Warfare. You really expect something good to come out of a developer/publisher that made such a shit game? MW and MW2 are good gameplay wise. MW2 suffered from terrible multiplayer integration. Kinda like SC2.... | ||
|
ed21x
United States103 Posts
| ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On June 07 2010 02:53 Jayme wrote: MW2 suffered from terrible multiplayer integration. Kinda like SC2.... MW2 got extremely ridiculous with the level of Rambo/James Bond type situations. The first one was at least remotely plausible, while the second one might as well have had dragons and leprechauns. | ||
|
newHABIT
Sweden112 Posts
| ||
|
Arovien
United States123 Posts
Sad to say but o so true. I will be support Activition/Blizzard by buying sc2. I r evil  | ||
|
BrTarolg
United Kingdom3574 Posts
Youre buying 1/4 of the game, cause youre going to be shelling out another 50 for expansion 1, 50 for expansion 2, and another 50 for random stuff youre going to need to buy from bnet just to keep the game playable Don't fool yourself into thinking youve bought the game already | ||
|
PineappleSage
Canada109 Posts
| ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
one more small step towards Team Liquid becoming a den of Kotaku-quality posters. On June 07 2010 17:32 BrTarolg wrote: Youre not buying SC2 when you shell out your 50 dollars, no no no Youre buying 1/4 of the game, cause youre going to be shelling out another 50 for expansion 1, 50 for expansion 2, and another 50 for random stuff youre going to need to buy from bnet just to keep the game playable Don't fool yourself into thinking youve bought the game already So when I bought Dawn of War, I was buying 1/4 of a game, and when I bought Civ 4, I bought 1/3 of a game? This is such idiotic completely mindblowingly dumb logic. If a game is packed full of features, it doesn't matter that there are 2 more expansions. And SC2 will have more features than basically any other RTS you care to name. Have fun playing Supreme Commander 2 lolol | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
On June 07 2010 17:47 FieryBalrog wrote: I love impotent gamer nerdrage. one more small step towards Team Liquid becoming a den of Kotaku-quality posters. So when I bought Dawn of War, I was buying 1/4 of a game, and when I bought Civ 4, I bought 1/3 of a game? This is such idiotic completely mindblowingly dumb logic. If a game is packed full of features, it doesn't matter that there are 2 more expansions. And SC2 will have more features than basically any other RTS you care to name. Have fun playing Supreme Commander 2 lolol Way to take a relatively insignificant post and blow its significance to a grossly large degree. Ignoring the ridiculousness of BrTarolg's claim, you are saying that Starcraft 2 is full of features from release and that you will be buying it. Did you even read the original post? Kotick more or less said that he plans to make Battle.net 2.0 a goldmine for himself. Have fun with your "features", I think I'll go play a good game that was NOT made with the backing intent of generating as much revenue as possible. Like Brood War. | ||
|
Dooba
Croatia588 Posts
 | ||
|
s031720
Sweden383 Posts
Will this be the fall of Blizzard as the well renowned company we all loved and respected; because in all honesty, the thing that brought Blizzard most success and income has never been parasitic busynuiss-models but a strong trademark and strong goodwill, creating devoted fans and thriving communities. I fear those days might be over. | ||
| ||
