|
On July 08 2010 20:33 Entropia wrote:Show nested quote +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
One thousand times yes!
Also, your english is fine. As a matter of fact, you're using it better than most native speakers I've seen.
|
Activision Blizzard's CEO is Bobby Kotick, he is the guy that makes the decisions, the Blizzard heads are below him in the corporate structure.
Vivendi own 52% of Activision Blizzard, but they pretty much just choose the board of directors. If they made every decision, then they wouldn't need a board of directors, would they?
|
Listen, I'm all for Starcraft becoming a bigger esport. That would be great.
However, not at the expense of the game itself.
I am not a tournament player. I'm a regular videogamer. Odds are, I'll end up somewhere in diamond league and play SC2 against friends and play ladder matches.
While I tremendously enjoy watching Starcraft and respect the pro players for their abilities, I currently place higher value on my own enjoyment of the game than on the amount of money sponsors can make off of it. One hundred thousand ex-farmville players in the ladders doesn't make the game one bit more interesting for me. Having to pay for user-created maps, not being able to stay anonymous, not having the most basic features do make the game less interesting.
If it takes destruction/deterioration of the game (for gamers) itself to expand the game (for investors/sponsors), then to hell with that.
|
On July 08 2010 20:45 DarQraven wrote:
Listen, I'm all for Starcraft becoming a bigger esport. That would be great.
However, not at the expense of the game itself.
I am not a tournament player. I'm a regular videogamer. Odds are, I'll end up somewhere in diamond league and play SC2 against friends and play ladder matches.
While I tremendously enjoy watching Starcraft and respect the pro players for their abilities, I currently place higher value on my own enjoyment of the game than on the amount of money sponsors can make off of it. One hundred thousand ex-farmville players in the ladders doesn't make the game one bit more interesting for me.
If it takes destruction/deterioration of the game (for gamers) itself to expand the game (for investors/sponsors), then to hell with that.
You will never play against those one hundred thousand Farmville players, unless they get good.
How does more potential good players hurt a game, again?
|
On July 08 2010 20:24 Piski wrote:It makes you think what is their next step 
The last BIG game published by activision was modern warfare 2... it was good, yeah, but i`ll list some community based concerns:
- Single player was like 6-hour gameplay that is IT. Some community sorces even talked about the game beeing forced out to early (but i think its kinda rubbish)
- Nearly NO community based gameexperience (no servers +co) / with a userunfriendly group play support.
- All community concerns where ignored (tubing imbaness/ onemanarmy +co).. there were NO balancing patches.
- The only huge change to the game is that they added maps (some of those were OLD!!!) being purchused for 13 euros or smth by the players. and of course they made MILLIONS of it. (with maps, imagine...) just because (of course) there is no mapeditor/dedicated servers.
- After the release they increased the price of the game (when they sold millions of copies and saw they could get away with it).
There is no way you can dispute that activision is all about the money. they dont care about the community and what we want... the main thing for them is that we shut up and buy the game.
|
On July 08 2010 20:49 Psychopomp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2010 20:45 DarQraven wrote:
Listen, I'm all for Starcraft becoming a bigger esport. That would be great.
However, not at the expense of the game itself.
I am not a tournament player. I'm a regular videogamer. Odds are, I'll end up somewhere in diamond league and play SC2 against friends and play ladder matches.
While I tremendously enjoy watching Starcraft and respect the pro players for their abilities, I currently place higher value on my own enjoyment of the game than on the amount of money sponsors can make off of it. One hundred thousand ex-farmville players in the ladders doesn't make the game one bit more interesting for me.
If it takes destruction/deterioration of the game (for gamers) itself to expand the game (for investors/sponsors), then to hell with that. You will never play against those one hundred thousand Farmville players, unless they get good. How does more potential good players hurt a game, again?
Like I said in the post you quoted, if it takes negative changes to the game to attract those extra players, I think the downside is obvious.
Analog: Take Beethoven's fifth. Add DnB beat in background to attract more listeners. After all, how could more listeners be bad for the music?
|
On July 08 2010 20:45 DarQraven wrote:
Listen, I'm all for Starcraft becoming a bigger esport. That would be great.
However, not at the expense of the game itself.
I am not a tournament player. I'm a regular videogamer. Odds are, I'll end up somewhere in diamond league and play SC2 against friends and play ladder matches.
While I tremendously enjoy watching Starcraft and respect the pro players for their abilities, I currently place higher value on my own enjoyment of the game than on the amount of money sponsors can make off of it. One hundred thousand ex-farmville players in the ladders doesn't make the game one bit more interesting for me.
If it takes destruction/deterioration of the game (for gamers) itself to expand the game (for investors/sponsors), then to hell with that.
I completely agree.
They just seem to be looking at things through a business standpoint. They think (and are probably right) most of us who are into SC will play this no matter what they do, and are just going to appeal to other groups of people. As any business that needs profit, it makes sense, but as a hardcore fan, it's just disappointing.
But I agree that if the game won't be enjoyable for awhile as they're aiming for investors, then it's just not right.
|
On July 08 2010 20:50 DarQraven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2010 20:49 Psychopomp wrote:On July 08 2010 20:45 DarQraven wrote:
Listen, I'm all for Starcraft becoming a bigger esport. That would be great.
However, not at the expense of the game itself.
I am not a tournament player. I'm a regular videogamer. Odds are, I'll end up somewhere in diamond league and play SC2 against friends and play ladder matches.
While I tremendously enjoy watching Starcraft and respect the pro players for their abilities, I currently place higher value on my own enjoyment of the game than on the amount of money sponsors can make off of it. One hundred thousand ex-farmville players in the ladders doesn't make the game one bit more interesting for me.
If it takes destruction/deterioration of the game (for gamers) itself to expand the game (for investors/sponsors), then to hell with that. You will never play against those one hundred thousand Farmville players, unless they get good. How does more potential good players hurt a game, again? Like I said in the post you quoted, if it takes negative changes to the game to attract those extra players, I think the downside is obvious.
Facebook integration doesn't hurt the game at all. It's just part of the superfluous coating.
Not to mention that it's optional, and probably took someone all of an hour to code.
Analog: Take Beethoven's fifth. Add DnB beat in background to attract more listeners. After all, how could more listeners be bad for the music?
This is more like someone taking Beethoven's Fifth, and changing the cover to Beethoven wearing some "sweet ass kicks." It doesn't effect the music at all, it's just a little painful to see.
|
On July 08 2010 20:33 Entropia wrote:Show nested quote +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
Your making the same mistake whoever is making decisions about battle.net is. People playing farmville DON'T want a deep competitive game that requires significant investment to play. They want some buttons to press while bored at work. The two games are completely different, and so is their audience.
You can't play starcraft at work.
|
On July 08 2010 20:57 f0rk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2010 20:33 Entropia wrote: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 Your making the same mistake whoever is making decisions about battle.net is. People playing farmville DON'T want a deep competitive game that requires significant investment to play. They want some buttons to press while bored at work. The two games are completely different, and so is their audience. You can't play starcraft at work.
That is strangely in line with my Beethoven analogy...
|
On July 08 2010 20:45 DarQraven wrote:
While I tremendously enjoy watching Starcraft and respect the pro players for their abilities, I currently place higher value on my own enjoyment of the game than on the amount of money sponsors can make off of it. One hundred thousand ex-farmville players in the ladders doesn't make the game one bit more interesting for me.
If it takes destruction/deterioration of the game (for gamers) itself to expand the game (for investors/sponsors), then to hell with that.
One hundred thousand farmville players in the ladders dont't hurt you neither!
Ok let's make a comparison with football (somehow reversed):
You don't like watching football on TV, and you don't care if Spain beat Germany yesterday. But it is probably thanks to the millions watching football that you can play the local tournament in your school or find a playing field to play in with your friends. Notoriety is always a positive thing, no matter is for sports, games or people.
I just don't see any reason why it would be detrimental, as long as the game is not changed and features like chat channels will be added (organising tournaments is a must IMO, but this is a different story...)
|
Indeed, they are a different demographic.
We want a balanced game with a high skill ceiling, they want an easy and forgiving game.
We want anonymity on bnet/forums, they want their 'ownage' screenshots to be posted all over facebook.
We hold Blizzard to a high standard, they are fully willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money for a mappack (see MW2 stimulus pack).
(generalized, of course)
It's a conflict of interests, and if Blizzard is serious about attracting that demographic, they will have to make changes to what we know and love as Starcraft.
If that trend continues, how long do you think it takes before stuff like new paid DLC units for multiplayer start releasing?
Like I said earlier, it's not that I don't want any new players. Far from it. I'd love it if Starcraft exploded into something bigger.
But it should happen because those masses are drawn into Starcraft, not because Starcraft changes to suit the masses.
Also, to say that it's just a coating and the game remains unchanged is wrong, in my opinion.
If ID has taught me anything, it's that products are integral packages - the advertising, form, function, packaging, user experience, outlet, everything; It's all the same product and adds or detracts from the user's enjoyment of that product.
For an example, look at perfume packaging. More money is spent on that than the actual perfume itself, because something like that can significantly change a consumer's opinion and enjoyment of that product.
|
I cant wait to see in what way theyre gonna fuck up D3
Oh man, you just made me cry.
|
On July 08 2010 21:04 DarQraven wrote:
Indeed, they are a different demographic.
We want a balanced game with a high skill ceiling, they want an easy and forgiving game.
We want anonymity on bnet/forums, they want their 'ownage' screenshots to be posted all over facebook.
We hold Blizzard to a high standard, they are fully willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money for a mappack (see MW2 stimulus pack).
(generalized, of course)
It's a conflict of interests, and if Blizzard is serious about attracting that demographic, they will have to make changes to what we know and love as Starcraft.
If that trend continues, how long do you think it takes before stuff like new paid DLC units for multiplayer start releasing?
Like I said earlier, it's not that I don't want any new players. Far from it. I'd love it if Starcraft exploded into something bigger.
But it should happen because those masses are drawn into Starcraft, not because Starcraft changes to suit the masses.
Challenge for blizzard is to satisfy both populations. The lack of a progaming community would be tremendous, so I don't think they will tweak the game to be easy and forgiving.
This doesn't mean that it's not fun at lower levels! Broodwar was very enjoying even at the lowest degrees of noobness (I remember playing through a TELEPHONE direct connection versus my neighbour, total noobs yes but we had a lot of fun!).
The ownage screenshots should be optional, and yes, anonymity is a controversial issue but, again, is that really important for you to post on bnet forums?
Regarding the pay2play (map packs etc), this is more complex and maybe that's the real challenge for blizzard.
|
On July 08 2010 18:31 Psychopomp wrote:
Wait, so they won't interfere with Blizzard's game design, just superfluous stuff outside of the game itself?
I'll probably catch some flak, but in that case I don't fucking care.
Makes sense, the agreement in the merger was that blizz would keep creative control of the games. Strictly speaking, bnet2.0 isnt a game or whatever so activision probably saw it as something they could muscle in on.
|
I wish Robert Kotick would go away forever... =(
|
On July 08 2010 18:46 Drakan wrote:
All i want to see is their stocks go down to hell... so sad that blizzard sold themselves to this fuckers.
I thought they were bought out. After all it is a publicly traded company.
|
On July 08 2010 21:26 Champi wrote:
I wish Robert Kotick would go away forever... =(
The fact that he basically founded 4kids is just proof that he's the devil.
|
On July 08 2010 21:27 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2010 18:46 Drakan wrote:
All i want to see is their stocks go down to hell... so sad that blizzard sold themselves to this fuckers. I thought they were bought out. After all it is a publicly traded company.
Blizzard belonged to Vivendi games, and when they merged with Activision, all of Vivendi Game's assets went to Activision Blizzard(Including Blizzard itself). Blizzard had no control over where they went or who they belonged to. No selling was involved.
|
On July 08 2010 18:59 Drakan wrote:awesome thread... The thing is that in facebook only my friends know that I play farmville... nobody else can see that. But if ACTIVISION do this to battle.net forums they are assuming that I'm friend of every single user in the forum which is absolutely FALSE and beside that, anybody can get in the forums... without ever having a blizzard game. Kotick will go to hell with a looot of money on his pockets. ![[image loading]](http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/168/kotick.jpg) sorry for the lack of skills... paint ftw.
I feel as though this sums up this entire situation very nicely. Activision has been driving Blizzard into the ground for years now, since the inception of the new B.Net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
