EPTA short history of Activision Blizzard or how... - Page 38
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
psion
106 Posts
| ||
|
divinesage
Singapore649 Posts
On July 03 2010 02:24 psion wrote: If you were a business exec you'd realize that content control and planned obsolescence is more profitable in the lifespan of an IP. Making the perfect game won't make nearly as much money as milking a decent game. I think it's time capitalism starts to think about how to give back to the community, and the world at large. Otherwise I don't see a future for the global economy anyway. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On July 03 2010 03:13 divinesage wrote: I think it's time capitalism starts to think about how to give back to the community, and the world at large. Otherwise I don't see a future for the global economy anyway. Well that is in the hands of the consumers. Do YOU intend to NOT buy Starcraft II if you are dissatisfied with their policy? Personally I have a "black list" of several major companies (several oil companies, one electronics innovation giant, one soft drink company, ...) whose products I dont buy. Are you willing to make the same sacrifice? | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On July 03 2010 03:18 Rabiator wrote: Well that is in the hands of the consumers. Do YOU intend to NOT buy Starcraft II if you are dissatisfied with their policy? Personally I have a "black list" of several major companies (several oil companies, one electronics innovation giant, one soft drink company, ...) whose products I dont buy. Are you willing to make the same sacrifice? Not much of a sacrifice when there are close substitutes for all of those. | ||
|
pRo9aMeR
595 Posts
Phenomenal OP | ||
|
Chewie
Denmark708 Posts
On May 31 2010 06:58 Murdoink wrote: Blizzard is the girl you liked in school Activision is the typical asshole with money And now they're married Videogames well said... Damn this thread was a brick of reality right in my face :/ | ||
|
shawster
Canada2485 Posts
online subscription for call of duty. REALLY? not making all your games bot/hacker free, not making something a better experience but subscription? i think he's trolling us, im 50% convinced he's trolling. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
| ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
| ||
|
Piski
Finland3461 Posts
On July 03 2010 06:02 shawster wrote: what bugged me the most was the 1 wish thing. online subscription for call of duty. REALLY? not making all your games bot/hacker free, not making something a better experience but subscription? i think he's trolling us, im 50% convinced he's trolling. I would say he is honest. He is there to make money, that's it. I'm not defending him, Kotick is an ass but at least he isn't hiding it. | ||
|
uremog
United States6 Posts
I feel so sorry for Blizzard. Honestly, they're not enough to keep me from buying the game. But I'm sure many people would rather not buy (oh you know what i mean) because of Activision's decisions. | ||
|
Gdarkness
United States40 Posts
But I'm not worried, if another company realizes and "capitalizes" on what made Blizzard such a good developer, it won't be long before good games make a comeback. I wouldn't blame "greed" towards Activision/Blizzards direction because all video games have a price tag (or an item shop, mechanism for revenue, etc.). All companies will be greedy, but when they lose track of the customer/community, then their downfall will follow. | ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
On July 03 2010 07:04 Undisputed- wrote: after MW2 I'm probably never going to buy another activision game You mean InfinityWard because Activision only published it. | ||
|
Chriamon
United States886 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On July 03 2010 03:20 TOloseGT wrote: Not much of a sacrifice when there are close substitutes for all of those. Sure it is, when the closest gas station isnt one of that you "allow yourself to use" and when you have been an addict for "their Cola" for years and cant stand "the other brand". With the number of screw-ups of oil companies there is almost none left to use, but I am using my bike for as many trips as I can. I doubt there is a "close substitute" for Starcraft, so that would be a big sacrifice. Personally I have waited for SC 2 for years as the one game I want to play. I will now "play it later", when there is a compilation of all three campaigns for 10€ or so. That minimizes the profit which they will make from me. On July 03 2010 07:31 Piski wrote: I would say he is honest. He is there to make money, that's it. I'm not defending him, Kotick is an ass but at least he isn't hiding it. That is the "beaty" of it from their perspective ... they can be as greedy and as bad as they want and still it will make millions due to Blizzards reputation and the addiction level and spinelessness of their customers. | ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
And the WoW services like name changes. Before ANY of that was available there were many, many, many, many threads concerning things like race change, name change, and that people were willing to pay for it. I can see why some hate these features, because they feel these things should be free. Can't seem to find a word for that. What's a good word for someone expecting things to be free? Anyway, those features cost money to develop and part of the reason for the fee is that they don't want you using them (as one of the concerns for opening these features up, like realm transfers is people can abuse them if they were free, people jumping ship when their reputation sucks because they couldn't behave themselves). And before you say, why wouldn't Blizzard want money for using these features? Well some of these features have lengthy cooldowns so yeah. And as far as the three expansions go... what's not to like about more expansions? The campaign still has the same number of missions as with SC1, so it's not like they split 1 product into 3 like MANY people continue to make it out to be. If you look at their single player, they didn't just throw together 30 missions and called it a day. They have all this RPG bullshit in there too. So from a design standpoint you can see why they did it. Then the LAN issue... OK, LAN is cool, but your reason for it basically is so you can pirate it or "try it out" is the exact reason why there is no LAN. You just prove Blizzard right for taking it out. Tournament concerns for LAN is more legit. As for EVERYTHING else, it disturbs me greatly and I fear for the future of Blizzard. Whoever said that Activizard is like a junky who wants to make a quick buck got it right. Wow... Kotick makes EA look like a good company. I haven't bought a game with "EA" slapped on the packaging in years. If they can treat Infinity Ward that way what can we say about Blizzard?  | ||
|
Chewie
Denmark708 Posts
On July 03 2010 07:31 Piski wrote: I would say he is honest. He is there to make money, that's it. I'm not defending him, Kotick is an ass but at least he isn't hiding it. I'd like to cut your balls off. But I'm totally open about that. | ||
|
zergporn
Estonia156 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5154/img222.png) | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
On July 03 2010 14:48 Ownos wrote: And the WoW services like name changes. Before ANY of that was available there were many, many, many, many threads concerning things like race change, name change, and that people were willing to pay for it. I can see why some hate these features, because they feel these things should be free. Can't seem to find a word for that. What's a good word for someone expecting things to be free? Entitled. And you're exactly right. There's far too much of that mentality permeating the community. | ||
|
driftme
United States360 Posts
GOOD LORD MAN! You obviously know absolutely jack-shit-nothing about the history of your industry. There are SO many incredible stories from games dating all the way back to the 80s, and some tiny production values too! I'd start naming games but there are so many examples I just don't know where to start... This man is a complete idiot. | ||
| ||
