|
On July 08 2010 19:52 FuryX wrote:
Well Activision killed IW, and MW2 was a massive fail on the PC.
But Blizzard itself is pretty huge with Diablo/Warcraft/Starcraft.
Would have been a lot better if Blizzard didn't merge with Activision :/....y did they again?
It wasn't Blizzard's choice, it was Vivendi's.
+ Show Spoiler +Vivendi owns Activision-Blizzard.
|
On July 08 2010 19:37 7mk wrote:
Good OP, I hope you're right about blizzard not actually being happy about the shitty decisions that are being made.
about facebook I dont get why people dont just make a new email account (many people have multiple ones anyways) and get a new battle.net account with a fake name. Takes less than 5 minutes.
I was surprised that only 9% voted for this option in the realID poll
If something goes wrong with your account you need proof of identity. Using a fake name is risky.
|
I must say, despite the large number of things they've been doing that are completely stupid, the Facebook integration isn't a big deal. It's completely and totally optional so really people shouldn't complain about something you have to opt into as if you don't like it or care for it (like me) then don't opt into it and pretend that it doesn't exist. 
|
On July 08 2010 19:52 FuryX wrote:
Would have been a lot better if Blizzard didn't merge with Activision :/....y did they again?
Because of the recession. Easier to weather a storm as 1 big ship than having 2 small ships.
This isn't really the source of the bad decisions though and its naive to blame activision for what Blizzard are doing now.
This is a classic example of Blizzard executives not understanding the marketplace and basically wanting to get a piece of the Facebook pie. (Not gonna go into details here)
Long story short Blizzard simply do not understand how bad this is gonna go wrong and when the dust settles their might not be a Blizzard anymore, Like I said in previous posts, its how long it takes Blizzard to go back to the tried and tested business model which will ultimately decide their fate.
Sooner they go back to giving customers what they want, everyone is happy. If they keep pissing customers off they will pack up and take their friends with them to go onto other games or simply not play games.
|
On July 08 2010 20:00 Necrosjef wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2010 19:52 FuryX wrote:
Would have been a lot better if Blizzard didn't merge with Activision :/....y did they again? Because of the recession. Easier to weather a storm as 1 big ship than having 2 small ships. This isn't really the source of the bad decisions though and its naive to blame activision for what Blizzard are doing now. This is a classic example of Blizzard executives not understanding the marketplace and basically wanting to get a piece of the Facebook pie. (Not gonna go into details here) Long story short Blizzard simply do not understand how bad this is gonna go wrong and when the dust settles their might not be a Blizzard anymore, Like I said in previous posts, its how long it takes Blizzard to go back to the tried and tested business model which will ultimately decide their fate. Sooner they go back to giving customers what they want, everyone is happy. If they keep pissing customers off they will pack up and take their friends with them to go onto other games or simply not play games.
Does Blizzard have a history of being boneheaded like this? I don't recall a history, but I didn't really pay attention to them until '05, despite having grown up playing their games.
|
On July 08 2010 19:54 Psychopomp wrote:
Vivendi owns Activision-Blizzard.
This is a pretty ignorant view as well.
Vivendi allow Blizzard to operate with a lot of autonomy, yes they are a parent company but they don't micro manage everything Blizzard does. That's why they aren't the same company to begin with.
|
On July 08 2010 20:02 Necrosjef wrote:This is a pretty ignorant view as well. Vivendi allow Blizzard to operate with a lot of autonomy, yes they are a parent company but they don't micro manage everything Blizzard does. That's why they aren't the same company to begin with.
I know, I just always find it silly when people say Activision can basically do whatever they want with Blizzard.
|
On July 08 2010 20:00 Necrosjef wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2010 19:52 FuryX wrote:
Would have been a lot better if Blizzard didn't merge with Activision :/....y did they again? Because of the recession. Easier to weather a storm as 1 big ship than having 2 small ships. This isn't really the source of the bad decisions though and its naive to blame activision for what Blizzard are doing now. This is a classic example of Blizzard executives not understanding the marketplace and basically wanting to get a piece of the Facebook pie. (Not gonna go into details here) Long story short Blizzard simply do not understand how bad this is gonna go wrong and when the dust settles their might not be a Blizzard anymore, Like I said in previous posts, its how long it takes Blizzard to go back to the tried and tested business model which will ultimately decide their fate. Sooner they go back to giving customers what they want, everyone is happy. If they keep pissing customers off they will pack up and take their friends with them to go onto other games or simply not play games.
The point of this thread is that it's not really the Blizzard execs who are making these choices though, it's the Activision ones'.
|
The Master of Puppet is pulling the strings.
(ahhh...I'm gonna get temp banned for this, but it was sooo worth it)
|
On July 08 2010 20:02 Psychopomp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2010 20:00 Necrosjef wrote:On July 08 2010 19:52 FuryX wrote:
Would have been a lot better if Blizzard didn't merge with Activision :/....y did they again? Because of the recession. Easier to weather a storm as 1 big ship than having 2 small ships. This isn't really the source of the bad decisions though and its naive to blame activision for what Blizzard are doing now. This is a classic example of Blizzard executives not understanding the marketplace and basically wanting to get a piece of the Facebook pie. (Not gonna go into details here) Long story short Blizzard simply do not understand how bad this is gonna go wrong and when the dust settles their might not be a Blizzard anymore, Like I said in previous posts, its how long it takes Blizzard to go back to the tried and tested business model which will ultimately decide their fate. Sooner they go back to giving customers what they want, everyone is happy. If they keep pissing customers off they will pack up and take their friends with them to go onto other games or simply not play games. Does Blizzard have a history of being boneheaded like this? I don't recall a history, but I didn't really pay attention to them until '05, despite having grown up playing their games.
Like you I didn't really pay much attention to Blizzard as a company until 2004-2005. From what I understand of it though, the decisions they have made in the past (Pre-WoW) seem to have been pretty good.
The turning point really came with the release of WotLK expansion for WoW where Blizzard started actively stating they were making the game easier to allow noobs to experience the whole game.
Since then it seems like Blizzard have basically been listening to the imaginary voice that is the casual gamer and trying to guess what that group want without actually having any consultation with them, mainly because casual gamers don't give a shit enough to post on forums etc, all they do is bitch occasionally to their friends about how they can't do raids in WoW because they only play 1 day a week and no guild wants them.
|
On July 08 2010 20:03 RisingTide wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2010 20:00 Necrosjef wrote:On July 08 2010 19:52 FuryX wrote:
Would have been a lot better if Blizzard didn't merge with Activision :/....y did they again? Because of the recession. Easier to weather a storm as 1 big ship than having 2 small ships. This isn't really the source of the bad decisions though and its naive to blame activision for what Blizzard are doing now. This is a classic example of Blizzard executives not understanding the marketplace and basically wanting to get a piece of the Facebook pie. (Not gonna go into details here) Long story short Blizzard simply do not understand how bad this is gonna go wrong and when the dust settles their might not be a Blizzard anymore, Like I said in previous posts, its how long it takes Blizzard to go back to the tried and tested business model which will ultimately decide their fate. Sooner they go back to giving customers what they want, everyone is happy. If they keep pissing customers off they will pack up and take their friends with them to go onto other games or simply not play games. The point of this thread is that it's not really the Blizzard execs who are making these choices though, it's the Activision ones'.
It isn't anything to do with Activision of Vivendi or anyone else.
This is Blizzard making bad decisions and they need to be called out on it.
|
On July 08 2010 20:03 RisingTide wrote:
The point of this thread is that it's not really the Blizzard execs who are making these choices though, it's the Activision ones'.
But if Vivendi owns blizzard. And Vivendi owns Activision. And if the company is technically called Acitivision-Blizzard which to me infers a partnership, hence being equal (it only makes sense because Vivendi owns them both and Vivendis name is not present) how would Activision have a role in Blizzard other than hey heres an idea that you dont have to listen to, without running it by Vivendi and have Vivendi push it or Blizzard accepting the idea.
To be quite frank, no one knows what the hell is going on. Someone is just making bad decisions, or just getting really far behind on their work, but we just cant point out if its Activision, Blizzard or Vivendi. I think presently, who it is really doesnt matter, if our perfect blizzard is at fault, evil satan Activision is, or currently undecided good or evil Vivendi. I think its a blizzard game. Its a blizzard platform. And we should complain to blizzard regardless if we think someone else is pulling the strings.
The complaints should never be enraged whether or not if its blizzards fault. I mean best we can do is just try to be constructive and in great numbers. I mean if we seriously blamed activision anyway we would be complaining on their forums not on blizzards.
|
On July 08 2010 19:56 overt wrote:I must say, despite the large number of things they've been doing that are completely stupid, the Facebook integration isn't a big deal. It's completely and totally optional so really people shouldn't complain about something you have to opt into as if you don't like it or care for it (like me) then don't opt into it and pretend that it doesn't exist. The problem is that even if you never use the facebook integration from within SC2, you will still be found by your facebook friends if you are using the same email address for facebook and SC2.
This means that in order to "opt out" you need to either use different mail addresses for the two accounts, or you need to hide your mail address in facebook using the privacy settings.
|
On July 08 2010 20:11 RodrigoX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2010 20:03 RisingTide wrote:
The point of this thread is that it's not really the Blizzard execs who are making these choices though, it's the Activision ones'. But if Vivendi owns blizzard. And Vivendi owns Activision. And if the company is technically called Acitivision-Blizzard which to me infers a partnership, hence being equal (it only makes sense because Vivendi owns them both and Vivendis name is not present) how would Activision have a role in Blizzard other than hey heres an idea that you dont have to listen to, without running it by Vivendi and have Vivendi push it or Blizzard accepting the idea.
It's not a partnership. Activision and Blizzard still exist as separate game manufacturers under Activision Blizzard. However, Activision Blizzard can still dictate whatever they want to Blizzard since they're only a subsidiary.
Vivendi has 52% of the Activision Blizzard stock. The stockholders don't get involved in specific business decisions like this. All the stockholders really care about, is the value of the stock, and they hire the board of directors of Activision Blizzard to see to it that they're making a profit. The CEO(Bobby Kotick) reports to them, so really, is it Activison Blizzard who has the final say on these things.
|
On July 08 2010 20:06 Tamerlane wrote:
The Master of Puppet is pulling the strings.
(ahhh...I'm gonna get temp banned for this, but it was sooo worth it)
dont ban him it was too awesome it also fits the thread ^___^ also kotik is the master of puppets
|
At first I was a little happy because it's a good explanation why starcraft 2 by itself is very good and bnet 2.0 is lacking so much. But after a while I got little bit scared of what they may do with it in the future.
Their newest facebook integration isn't really a huge deal as you don't have to use it in the first place and you can even logout from it.
They added ability to block players which is very very good.
Also they have said that they are working on the chat rooms and cross region play. Assuming that chat rooms and cross-region play is actually coming I would say it is going to the right direction.
One thing that bothers me is that there is so much assumptions and if's. When I though blizzard was involved in creating bnet 2.0 I was thinking to myself that blizzard is just looking out for us.
But if Activision mostly controls bnet 2.0 and decides in what direction it goes in the future, that makes me a little skeptic because they haven't ever done anything just to please the fans.
It makes you think what is their next step 
|
On July 08 2010 20:11 RodrigoX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2010 20:03 RisingTide wrote:
The point of this thread is that it's not really the Blizzard execs who are making these choices though, it's the Activision ones'. But if Vivendi owns blizzard. And Vivendi owns Activision. And if the company is technically called Acitivision-Blizzard which to me infers a partnership, hence being equal (it only makes sense because Vivendi owns them both and Vivendis name is not present) how would Activision have a role in Blizzard other than hey heres an idea that you dont have to listen to, without running it by Vivendi and have Vivendi push it or Blizzard accepting the idea. To be quite frank, no one knows what the hell is going on. Someone is just making bad decisions, or just getting really far behind on their work, but we just cant point out if its Activision, Blizzard or Vivendi. I think presently, who it is really doesnt matter, if our perfect blizzard is at fault, evil satan Activision is, or currently undecided good or evil Vivendi. I think its a blizzard game. Its a blizzard platform. And we should complain to blizzard regardless if we think someone else is pulling the strings. The complaints should never be enraged whether or not if its blizzards fault. I mean best we can do is just try to be constructive and in great numbers. I mean if we seriously blamed activision anyway we would be complaining on their forums not on blizzards.
Yeah, and here's the thing. Vivendi owns a majority share in Actiblizz, and Blizzard makes the majority of the money from that little partnership, not to mention that Blizzard has seniority when it comes to dealing with Vivendi. When push comes to shove, who do you think has the leverage here? I'll give you a hint, they pull in over $180,000,000 a month, and spend a fraction of that on operating costs.
It doesn't make things any better, but Activision is not the one fucking things up. Blizzard is making some bone headed moves on their own.
Correlation does not imply causation, people.
The problem is that even if you never use the facebook integration from within SC2, you will still be found by your facebook friends if you are using the same email address for facebook and SC2.
This means that in order to "opt out" you need to either use different mail addresses for the two accounts, or you need to hide your mail address in facebook using the privacy settings.
Oh no, people you know well enough to have on your Facebook may want to play SC2 with you?
|
The problem is that even if you never use the facebook integration from within SC2, you will still be found by your facebook friends if you are using the same email address for facebook and SC2.
This means that in order to "opt out" you need to either use different mail addresses for the two accounts, or you need to hide your mail address in facebook using the privacy settings.
There is an option to logout from facebook in your sc2 option menu. Maybe try that before complaining.
|
On July 08 2010 18:56 HDstarcraft wrote: there is the possibility that StarCraft 2 will become the next farmville. And you have to wonder - How incredible that would be?
[...]
but from a SuperCasual third person standpoint - say somebody who plays farmville on facebook - I might one day see an SC2 notification and end up buying the game.
I definitely agree with HDstarcraft.
Doesn't Starcraft deserve a greater success than farmville? Maybe the facebook integration is not as stupid as we thought. ESports need one thing before everything, a wider public.
Husky and HD recently overcame a hundred subscribers, that is a very good achievement (greetings to both casters!) but, I mean, don't you think that a Starcraft match is much more interesting to watch rather than a poker game? Maybe the rules of the game are less intuitive? Yet, poker is far more famous.
Now, to widen the public, at this stage, you simply need more people playing, casual players on facebook are the ideal target: young enough to learn fast the rules of the game, a lot of social connections with other like them but, more and more often, with older people belonging to the working class (their impulse is needed as they got a lot more capabilities, what do you think is better, 10 teenagers or 1 manager interested in promoting esport?).
Ok maybe this was a little off topic, but I think it didn't deserve a thread so I put it here.
Sorry for my english!
Michele
|
Honestly, it pisses me off more that we are so left in the dark about this, and nobody from blizzard/activision is addressing our concerns or answering any of our questions. Some random mod saying "We're listening dun worry lawl" doesn't count.
Other companies do it fine. City of heroes had GREAT communication with their fanbase. Whenever they were gonna do something controversial, they TALKED about it. And even if we didn't agree with it, we could try and understand their point of view. But when a forum mod comes and says "We're tired of trollin, so real names it is people." its just not enough. That's where I get upset. Show me the real insight behind this change, because I don't believe forum trolls can win so easily.
If they would just straight up answer that they want to appeal to a different group of gamers, or whatever, I would appreciate both companies so much more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
