|
United States22883 Posts
On May 30 2010 06:46 Level10Peon wrote:
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.
The article doesn't link to SC2, it links to Bnet 2.0. Things like premium maps and paid features are bullshit.
The paid account protection for WoW is especially hilarious. It almost seems like lawsuit bait.
|
Here is why stuff that people and companies like Activison does works:
- the companies are run by non gamers. The shareholders couldn't care less if these were games or sacks of potatoes. Just a fact. They pay money to invest in the company and only look at money as a measure of success. Understandable.
- the majority of the customers these companies have, including Starcraft customers, do not know or care about the stuff we here are all mad about. That is why games they make sell at higher prices and they can even get away with high priced DLC.
- YOU want their product and they know that. Most of us here will huff and puff but still buy Starcraft 2. Remember MW2? yeah... We lost any kind of credibility after that fiasco.
Sonpeople like this dude are actually very good! He is doing an excellent job. Just the job we don't want him to do, but the one he was HIRED to do: make money for the shareholders.
It's called reality. At the end of the day, it's YOUR money that is driving ALL of this 
|
finally finished reading the post. that part about the interview with a facebook employee was interesting. i've seen that one before. he meant it very seriously but also as a joke at the same time. what he was saying by saying those things is that it's exactly as secure as you want it to be. if you want to freely share information, that's your choice. you can also have no information displayed at all, except to only specific people. the privacy settings are pretty good. he's trying to warn you that if you're going to use the service, you should use it with caution. because there are bad people out there, heh heh. it just so happens that 4000 people don't feel that way about that zuckerberg guy.
edit: that or they're just plain not threatened by him. which makes sense. they say your chances of being shot by a gun are increased if you possess a gun.
On May 30 2010 06:14 notrangerjoe wrote:Show nested quote +The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games. Mod edit: please don't make death threats.
so that's why the later tony hawk games sucked...
|
It all makes sense now. Fucking BNet 2.0
|
The gaming industry isn't like it was 10-15 years ago folks,things have changed rapidly.And this goes on many levels,they dont make as good movies as they did in the old days,the same goes for music and pretty much in all forms of art.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 30 2010 06:46 Level10Peon wrote:
Activision has zero control over Blizzard, and neither entity is trying to make SCII some cheap money grab.
Pretty sure this guy is a troll
|
Wow this is a great post D3xter. I feel violated 
|
wow. i used to like blizzard. they are just another evil corporation
|
So this is the guy who stole Christmas. Makes me glad I haven't put money on games in years.
|
On May 30 2010 06:52 Nik0 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 30 2010 06:46 Level10Peon wrote:
Activision has zero control over Blizzard, and neither entity is trying to make SCII some cheap money grab. Pretty sure this guy is a troll
You all are looking for a target for your frustration, so you picked Activision. I agree, BNet 2.0 needs work, but at least have some rationality. Threads like this are not productive.
|
|
|
|
|
On May 30 2010 06:36 SichuanPanda wrote:
Hey well look at MW2 now, about 15% of the people who bought the game bought the DLC, let Activision keep doing this, and they will see how their balance sheets and profit margins look when no one buys their games anymore because they are tired of the over-priced, under-developed mediocre shit they usually churn out.
It occurred to me that people on a Starcraft forum won't necessarily realize how utterly ruined the Call of Duty franchise was. Back in the day, I was a huge FPS gamer. It started with Quake, but I also grew to love RTCW and eventually CoD.
For anyone that wants an interesting PC game or two, check out the first two Call of Duty games. They are a fantastic single player experience and a really solid multiplayer experience (borrowing heavily from the trends/community set up in Quake/RTCW).
Then look at Call of Duty 4 (CoD 3 was some console exclusive that I never played and no one ever took seriously afaik). Compare the experience of playing CoD vs. CoD4 (aka Modern Warfare). The single player is just garbage in comparison. The multiplayer is totally bogged down by the RPG-style level grinding system that ruins the game as a legitimate competitive platform. The advertising campaign and the swift move to full-on consolization guaranteed that the community was super-low quality and filled to the brim with transient gamers (those who buy a game, play for a month or two, and then never touch it).
They made 10 million USD off DLC on the consoles (which was released for free on the PC). A normal person of normal intelligence would think to themselves immediately "Man, the console gamers got ripped off!" But Activision instead thought to themselves "Man, we really ripped ourselves off by giving stuff away on the PC!" (though it was sponsored by nVidia).
I won't even talk about the complete disaster that is Modern Warfare 2. Disaster in terms of being a game I would ever consider playing. Not only did Activision make a shitload of money off the game + DLC, they also butchered the developer afterwards as was made clear in the OP.
----------------
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if Activision gets their hands too far into Blizzard, they will ruin everything by instantly targeting games towadrs the least common denominator. I think Starcraft 2 is pretty fucking amazing right now, but I'm very concerned about Battlenet and the influence it seems like Activision has on it. Battlenet is becoming less and less a platform to play the game and more a launchpad for marketing and nickel-and-diming people to death.
|
Kotick won't interfere with the development of games, he'll just squeeze every cent of a game, what am I saying? Everything we hate about SC2 is because of this guy, BNet 2.0 is his monster, right now we don't grasp the fully horrible beast that this will become, just think about it, they'll have total control of tournaments, if you want to create one you have to pay, what if they decide that you also have to pay to use custom maps on tournaments, what if pro-leagues use paid expansion maps? I'm hoping nothing that I said becomes true, but I can see it happening, just watch the whole Kespa vs Blizzard, it's got Kotick all over it.
|
United States12265 Posts
On May 30 2010 06:42 Mothxal wrote:
Threads like this are so dangerous. You list a number of ominous sounding facts playing up to the playerbase's need for a target for their anger. Of course, now I imagine it'll be a trend on this forum to name-drop Activision and consider that an argument in itself.
You're far too late for that, my friend =)
|
I have boycotted all activision games since I learned of some of there corporate practices. Kotics ravings didn't help either. I hope that I don't have to lump Blizzard in with Activision but I will if things keep going in the direction that they are.
|
Very nice writeup, well done!
Unfortunately the characteristics shown by R. Kotick are the same as most CEO's of multinationals. It's not their job to please the fans/customers, that is the job of the sales teams (and other front end teams who have contact points with customers). The job of Kotick is to keep the shareholders happy and maximizing profit of the company he is running. Although portraited evil here, this is the job of any CEO so that the company keeps on surviving.
Not trying to defend Kotick here, I think he should be more careful with his statements. But I'm just saying that he is there for the shareholders, not the consumers. As long as consumers buy the products, his stance will not change.
|
United States47024 Posts
Now we know why Frank Pearce looked so sad in that interview.
Kotick is slowly sucking the life out of the Blizzard that he and Morhaime built from the ground up.
|
Brilliant post, sir.
Blizzard has cancer.
|
- YOU want their product and they know that. Most of us here will huff and puff but still buy Starcraft 2. Remember MW2? yeah... We lost any kind of credibility after that fiasco.
I, for one, won't be buying SC2, and I hope the people who're with me on this will be stronger willed than the MW2ers.
@OP, thanks for reigniting my Kotick hatred, awesome writeup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
