|
On January 31 2016 06:54 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2016 06:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On January 31 2016 06:15 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
I'm pretty sure Blizzcon is setup the way it is for advertisement (both on-site, but probably mainly online) purposes rather than community contact on site, and that's why there is such a huge spending on it with deficit. You don't really need huge amounts money to set up a community gathering, but you need it if you want big production value for advertising purposes. It really tends to be a platform for announcements, speeches celebrating the awesome financially successful company, and generally generating hype for the upcoming releases of that year. They take the opportunity of having a large crowd they can get to cheer yelling things like "ALLIANCE! HORDE!" to send videos online suggesting general community super-satisfaction and interest in all their products. It is a bit fake of course, since the crowd at Blizzcon doesn't represent the community as a whole, aren't necessarily interested or satisfied with all blizzard games, and cheer the way they do for different reasons such as simply being at a live event and wanting a good atmosphere... Blizzcon generally feels like it is set up primarily for the profit of the company by broadcasting images of its success and products, rather than a true gathering for the community. I think it is naïve to imagine that the company spends all this money for reasons that aren't very selfish. Not that all companies are so selfish and industrially profit-centered like that, but Blizzard certainly has become that way. You can see it by looking at the pictures, the kind of speeches that are given, the general atmosphere and such details, small and large scale, it just screams advertising campaign all over, it is the primary aim that everything converges to. i don't think Pardo was bullshitting. i think he means exactly what he said. if Pardo had a history of political double-take then i'd carefully parse anything he says. however, due to his past history of public comments i take him at face value. I don't rly know him, in any case what he said is probably true : the most exciting thing, what excites people who go to Blizzcon, is that they get to meet up and developpers get to meet players. But it may still not be the reason why Blizzcon is set up or the main goal it serves.
the word play you did is precisely what Pardo does not do.
the original reason Blizz left E3 and did their own "Con" was to do less promoting bullshit and to connect with their fans more.
face-to-face in person feedback beats internet forum feedback by a mile.
i've been to 2 Blizzcons and the vibe i got from every employee i came across is that they were listening carefully to me and every attendee. if anyone would like to chime in with their story about how a Blizzard employee ignored their comments during the event they should feel free to jump in and provide feedback.
furthermore, i think Blizzard employees spend more than 2 days per year listening directly to their customers
|
I was just playing against 1 plat player then 1 gold as a top master on the ranked ladder, and now I read this... really David, can you at least do something for the bugs or will the fixes be in some new DLC that we ll have to pay.
|
for sure JimmyJRaynor, company head setting up events for business reasons and the employees, developpers, eager to listen and talk with players are two different things that can go together
|
What a disappointing response from Blizzard, they seem to be in desperation mode to save the hype for LotV.
Let's be honest about LotV, it is a standalone expansion of a 6 year old game. Few new units, couple different unit mechanics, Archon mode, and a new campaign is barely enough to increase the player base from HotS but not NEARLY ENOUGH to bring about a big swing in popularity that Blizzard was clearly expecting.
It is clear that Blizzard really tried to make LotV something special that would reverse the fading RTS trend. A standalone expansion was clearly the middle ground between micro-transaction and their traditional expansion approach. While these attempts are commendable, the result has so far been clearly disappointing for Blizzard.
So lets face the reality. Out of the Blizzard projects, Warcraft genre has been the most loyal to Blizzard while being incredibly more financially successful compared to Starcraft genre projects. There is a Warcraft Movie coming out with a $100 million budget in 2016. Blizzard's attention is on new potential Warcraft projects, they left behind their dead weight to attempt to salvage as much as possible from LotV.
|
On January 31 2016 08:37 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2016 10:41 Penev wrote:
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people I agree with you but I don't see why that makes you torn. Just criticize the community for being what it is, and when Blizzard makes bad decisions, argue against them in a constructive manner.
Yeah they're not mutual exclusive, I guess it's
#justnotnativelanguagethings
|
On January 30 2016 13:17 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2016 12:34 OtherWorld wrote:On January 30 2016 12:07 brickrd wrote:On January 30 2016 11:52 OtherWorld wrote:Apparently, 6 years into the SC2 experiment, DK's team still don't know how to differentiate "cool factor" and "gimmick". On January 30 2016 10:41 Penev wrote:There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II! I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions.. Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people (1)constructive criticism has been given to them since 2010. (2)when you do shit, you'll take shit. Every criticism doesn't have to be constructive, as the goal of criticism is primarily to express a feeling ; only secondarily criticism might be constructive when it is useful/the guy in command doesn't know what the guy criticizing wants. But destructive criticism, as long as it's not trolling, is a valid way to express your feelings, thus is valid criticism. Constructive criticism is often confused with nice criticism, but it's not the same. Thus yeah, if Dayvie's team thinks that getting told that they're bad and delivered a terrible product is demotivating shit and not legit, useful criticism, I think they're lucky to work at Blizzard and not somewhere else wtf are you talking about? "destructive criticism is valid"? what does that even mean? it's valid to try to make people feel like shit because you don't like that they aren't using your ideas? you realize that they can actually design the game any way they want, just like a band selling albums can make whatever music they want? where do you get this insane entitlement from? am i the only one who can see as clear as day that there is no community consensus, everyone wants different shit, and it's impossible to design the game "everyone wants"? how can so many individuals be so ceaselessly convinced that they are being personally wronged because not every single one of their suggestions is implemented? i dont even play other blizz games or care about them as a company, this is just overall common sense and common decency. like... some of you people need to admit you're just too invested in how you think starcraft should be and how much you think your opinion should matter Destructive, in the sense of "not constructive" criticism, is valid. When a nurse's doing you a injection, and she fucks up in her technique and you feel pain, you'll probably say "ouch" or express your pain. That's non-constructive, thus destructive, criticism, because you didn't tell her "oh look, I think you should do X and Y so that I feel less pain". Does that make your "ouch" useless? Nope, she got the indication that she fucked up. Now ofc if you go on her being like "hey you're so bad at your job, I don't even know why you're doing that you shit" etc, it's not destructive criticism, it's insults. They can design the game they want. They should, if they knew what they're doing. Yet they're here, asking for feedback, asking us what we want. Do you know many bands who're like "hey fans, what do you want our next single to be? Should it be a power ballad? Or maybe a energetic rock?"? Nope. A creator creates, and people like it or not, I agree with you entirely on that. And they should create a game and not listen to the community. But they do, they ask the community for help, because they have no idea what they"re doing. Of course people will then be angry when they basically go "oh hey, we thought about your ideas, but mine are better, 'cuz they're mine". And yes, I do entirely agree with the fact that there's no community consensus and that it's impossible to satisfy everyone. But then why do they search community feedback as if there was one big community feedback? Who's not seeing clear as day that there is no community consensus? You & me? Or them? You're mistaking destructive criticism with negative criticism (there's no non-constructive criticism). Destructive criticism is the polar opposite of constructive criticism. The words destructive and constructive kind of are a giveaway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_criticism#Negative_criticism
On January 30 2016 12:46 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2016 12:34 OtherWorld wrote:On January 30 2016 12:07 brickrd wrote:On January 30 2016 11:52 OtherWorld wrote:Apparently, 6 years into the SC2 experiment, DK's team still don't know how to differentiate "cool factor" and "gimmick". On January 30 2016 10:41 Penev wrote:There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II! I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions.. Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people (1)constructive criticism has been given to them since 2010. (2)when you do shit, you'll take shit. Every criticism doesn't have to be constructive, as the goal of criticism is primarily to express a feeling ; only secondarily criticism might be constructive when it is useful/the guy in command doesn't know what the guy criticizing wants. But destructive criticism, as long as it's not trolling, is a valid way to express your feelings, thus is valid criticism. Constructive criticism is often confused with nice criticism, but it's not the same. Thus yeah, if Dayvie's team thinks that getting told that they're bad and delivered a terrible product is demotivating shit and not legit, useful criticism, I think they're lucky to work at Blizzard and not somewhere else wtf are you talking about? "destructive criticism is valid"? what does that even mean? it's valid to try to make people feel like shit because you don't like that they aren't using your ideas? you realize that they can actually design the game any way they want, just like a band selling albums can make whatever music they want? where do you get this insane entitlement from? am i the only one who can see as clear as day that there is no community consensus, everyone wants different shit, and it's impossible to design the game "everyone wants"? how can so many individuals be so ceaselessly convinced that they are being personally wronged because not every single one of their suggestions is implemented? i dont even play other blizz games or care about them as a company, this is just overall common sense and common decency. like... some of you people need to admit you're just too invested in how you think starcraft should be and how much you think your opinion should matter Destructive, in the sense of "not constructive" criticism, is valid. When a nurse's doing you a injection, and she fucks up in her technique and you feel pain, you'll probably say "ouch" or express your pain. That's non-constructive, thus destructive, criticism, because you didn't tell her "oh look, I think you should do X and Y so that I feel less pain". Does that make your "ouch" useless? Nope, she got the indication that she fucked up. Now ofc if you go on her being like "hey you're so bad at your job, I don't even know why you're doing that you shit" etc, it's not destructive criticism, it's insults. They can design the game they want. They should, if they knew what they're doing. Yet they're here, asking for feedback, asking us what we want. Do you know many bands who're like "hey fans, what do you want our next single to be? Should it be a power ballad? Or maybe a energetic rock?"? Nope. A creator creates, and people like it or not, I agree with you entirely on that. And they should create a game and not listen to the community. But they do, they ask the community for help, because they have no idea what they"re doing. Of course people will then be angry when they basically go "oh hey, we thought about your ideas, but mine are better, 'cuz they're mine". And yes, I do entirely agree with the fact that there's no community consensus and that it's impossible to satisfy everyone. But then why do they search community feedback as if there was one big community feedback? Who's not seeing clear as day that there is no community consensus? You & me? Or them? I'm not sure why you're equating non-constructive criticism with destructive criticism. Because that's utterly false. That's not what destructive criticism is. Destructive criticism is criticism performed with harmful intentions. And I'm not sure what you're getting at with the rest of your post. Blizzard should definitely listen to what the community has to say, as it's data that can serve guide their actions, but just because they listened doesn't mean they should blindly follow what the community thinks is the best path.
Yes, it was indeed a mistake to use "destructive" as an equivalent of "negative". Anyway, my point was that the paradigm of always giving constructive criticism is terrible when in a creation context. I mean, would it feel normal to you, if you see a painter's exhibition and don't like his paintings, to say to him what he should do differently to please you? Nope, that's flat out absurd. Constructive criticism is useful when someone is learning, when the person giving criticism knows better than the person receiving criticism. Here, DK is basically asking the community to only give constructive criticism, thus DK is basically sending the message that every single player knows better than his team what should be good for the game. Do you realize how absurd is that?
As for the rest of my post, I'll leave it to the wise words of BronzeKnee :
The SC2 design team should have goals in mind and a direction that can't be changed by negative, or positive feedback. Because they should own this, and know what is best for SC2 and make a game worth playing.
|
Well, not many people think I am wise, but thanks for the kind words.
I came to add that when SC2 was doing great (~2011), the forums were filled with posts about new builds, different strategies, ect... everyone was playing and talking about playing because the game was amazing. It really was.
Today, people come to the forum to talk about the broken game design, and people say the community went to hell. The community follows the game. SC2 really went to hell, and now we don't see strategy guides nearly as often, don't see the help threads, don't see massive viewership of tournaments. We see people talking about how we can return SC2 to it's glory.
Those are signs of failure.
And the way to return SC2 to glory is to get a new design team. The current SC2 design team absolutely has to go. Someone saying unkind words should only demotivate a child, mature adults are immune to such things, especially when it comes to their job. Do your job, David Kim. Design a great game. And since you haven't been able to do your job for the last few years, you should get fired, like everyone else who can't do their job.
|
On January 31 2016 13:14 OtherWorld wrote:
The SC2 design team should have goals in mind and a direction that can't be changed by negative, or positive feedback. Because they should own this, and know what is best for SC2 and make a game worth playing.
people are bored of RTS games and have been for years. There is nothing the Sc2 design team can do about the shift in consumer tastes. RTS is going the way of the dot-eating-maze-game, text adventure, and MUD.
There have been some good RTS games made in the past 10 years. They just do not make enough money from the bored consumer base to justify continued investment. It is interesting to note that once consumer tastes shift away from a genre it does not matter how good the games are as the genre slides downhill. the genre is toast.
do you think any of these dead genres will return to their former glory?
http://www.craveonline.ca/culture/794945-top-10-dead-video-game-genres-deserve-great-comeback-xbox-one-ps4
i think LotV is great fun and the team is doing a great job ; nothing will stop the decline of consumer spending on the RTS genre. Lots of publishers and studios have long since abandoned the genre and i've think they've made a wise decision. Its not their job to supply me with entertainment from which they have no prayer of profiting.
Blizzard is the last company to make a AAA level RTS game because they are the best at making RTS games. I hope they keep up the good work.
|
How can you say that knowing just a few years ago SC2 was the biggest E-Sport in the world? And DOTA and CS existed then too. Just look at these forums, and the change in what people are talking about as I mentioned in my last post above yours.
Blizzard blew it when the game got boring because of bad game design (Forcefield, Fungal Growth, Vortex, ect). DOTA and CS haven't changed, they are pretty much the same game as before, just with more content. SC2 never weeded out the bad designs and took the evolutionary approach those games did.
Honestly, spectating a MOBA or FPS just isn't as exciting as watching a good RTS. That is why Brood War became so popular in Korea, it is really is a good game to watch. SC2 can return to it's former glory, but it needs work.
|
know your history. Consumer tastes shifted. Once they shift nothing matters. Pacman is released in May of 1980. It grossed more than any other arcade game ever. Ms. Pacman is 100X better and is released a year and a half later. It makes 25% of what Pacman makes. People got bored of eating dots. It didn't matter that so recently Pacman ruled the world. It was over.
Because of Pacman lots of amazing dot-eating games like LadyBug and Lock'n'Chase came out. Great innovative titles that were miles better than the arcade record setter. It didn't matter. People were bored. Consumers were bored of eating dots.
The average consumer, who never visits TL.net, is bored of the foundations that make up the RTS genre. These people spend the money required for AAA level development to happen. People are bored of collecting resources and deciding which of a finite # of tech options to choose. People are bored of the process of trying to master the control of a small # of different units and unit types.
To watch someone's painstakingly built big army go up against some other guys carefully built big army consumers are choosing the Tablet to scratch that itch. Mobile Strike, Clash of Clans ..etc ...etc.
This exact pattern i've described has happened to many video game genres. It is ironic that Blizzard is the best and takes the most abuse. No one is complaining about EALA, Victory Games, Brett Sperry or Ensemble.
the natural counter argument to my point is... every RTS game made in the past 10 years sucks... and every RTS game developer is incompetent... well they're almost all gone now 
|
I don't agree. The users that made SC what it is had computers and continue to have computers. I don't think tablets games are eating in SC. And I don't think people will ever get "bored" of RTS, because people get old, and new people are born, the same way FPS will never get boring.
Pacman is a boring game because it is limited, the gameplay options it provided could be mimicked by more complex games that offered many different gameplay options (you micro units in SC2 up and down to similar to Pacman, but the game is much more). Once the technology was able to offer more gameplay options, better games were made. Technology isn't limiting us now. But technology isn't required; Chess is a great game and has survived because it isn't limited, there are countless moves and gameplay options.
RTS games are suffering from poor design right now, and that isn't a new trend for any genre. Companies are obsessed with "streamlining" lately so anyone can play any game, and that is destroying PC Gaming. But every once in awhile a game like Warcraft, Civilization or Half-Life comes out and changes everything. And more good games will come, made by small groups of new developers who buck the trend of "streamlining."
We've already seen that with Counterstrike and DOTA. I played the earliest versions of both of those game and watched them grow. There was never a move toward streamlining in those titles, they are just good games that stayed true to what they are. If anything CS and DOTA today are more complex than they used to be, because people crave deep complex games. We don't want to play Pacman.
That is why Diablo 2 was so amazing and Diablo 3 so horrible. One was a complex masterpiece, the other a streamlined piece of garbage. The same can be said about Rome Total War, and Rome 2 Total War.
So we have to wait for another amazing game to come and change everything. Starcraft 2 was supposed to be it. But the developers don't know what they want or where to take SC2, and thus they "streamline" thinking it will attract people if it is easier to play.
It isn't.
|
Don't wait for Blizzard : Sigaty already said nothing coming from Blizzard will compete with SC2 for 10 years. Halo Wars 2 is coming out this year. How about you buy it and let me know how it goes
On January 31 2016 14:51 BronzeKnee wrote:
RTS games are suffering from poor design right now,
no, RTS games are suffering from a lack of funding. This is a response to poor consumer spending on good RTS games over the past 10 years. Lots of good games are financial failures including RTS games. This happened long before the RTS genre began and will continue long after SC2 stops being featured at Blizzcon.
the counter of course is that this group of "latent RTS game buyers" that spends no money and hasn't for years will all of a sudden start spending. i doubt it and i wouldn't put 10s of millions of dollars counting on it either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFM_(customer_value)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01840
|
This year is make or break for SC2.
Blizzard is banking on the idea that most people watch the game because of their nationalities rather than superior level of play.
If the viewership for IEM/DH continues to drop for SC2, they will drop the game and replace SC2's time slot with a more profitable product.
|
On January 31 2016 15:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Don't wait for Blizzard : Sigaty already said nothing coming from Blizzard will compete with SC2 for 10 years. Halo Wars 2 is coming out this year. How about you buy it and let me know how it goes Show nested quote +On January 31 2016 14:51 BronzeKnee wrote:
RTS games are suffering from poor design right now, no, RTS games are suffering from a lack of funding. This is a response to poor consumer spending on good RTS games over the past 10 years. Lots of good games are financial failures including RTS games. This happened long before the RTS genre began and will continue long after SC2 stops being featured at Blizzcon. the counter of course is that this group of "latent RTS game buyers" that spends no money and hasn't for years will all of a sudden start spending. i doubt it and i wouldn't put 10s of millions of dollars counting on it either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFM_(customer_value)http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01840
So... no hope for Warcraft 4? 
|
Imo, games tend to gain traction and popularity if the core gameplay is good. Fundamentally sound gameplay and design. Thats the root of all success not because its a MOBA or the hottest thing in the block. Take a look at Dota. A custom mod for warcraft 3 where the key gameplay and good design was there. However it wasn't as big because it wasn't a standalone game. There were no ladder for it, the interface was based on warcraft3 etc.
When Valve bought the idea and came out with Dota 2 with a much better interface, matchmaking etc turning it even bigger and more successful. However if the gameplay was flawed to begin with, no one would be playing this regardless of what kind of interface it had.
SC2 had BW to work with. Yet look at where we are today. The core is rotten with atrocious game design. No matter much sugar coating one does to this product, the fundamental basis of the game is flawed. Not because the RTS genre is dying. If this game had the depth that BW had, no one would be saying the RTS genre is dying. They missed a huge opportunity with their own blindness and failed to understand what made BW great at its core which is where it ALL begins. All the other stuff like tourneys, pro scenes, fans, etc are just the after effects of a really good game.
Its been disappointing because quite frankly they were arrogant in thinking that they knew what was best for us (even if its their IP, you design products to satisfy your customers). On top of not really understanding what made the game great to begin with.. its been quite sad.
|
Denmark145 Posts
Well it's almost 3 months after release and all they did was change some numbers and add a new co-op commander. Ladder has also been broken for over a month. Hopefully they release some of these things they've been working on soon so we can be a bit more positive about the development team.
|
On January 31 2016 16:10 YyapSsap wrote:
SC2 had BW to work with. Yet look at where we are today. The core is rotten with atrocious game design. No matter much sugar coating one does to this product, the fundamental basis of the game is flawed. Not because the RTS genre is dying. If this game had the depth that BW had, no one would be saying the RTS genre is dying. They missed a huge opportunity with their own blindness and failed to understand what made BW great at its core which is where it ALL begins. All the other stuff like tourneys, pro scenes, fans, etc are just the after effects of a really good game.
Why exactly is the core rotten? What makes the design bad? Sorry atrocious. That's just a personal opinion.
I bet the only way for the haters to like SC2 is if it was BW with enhanced graphics. Well, no. I take it back. Then the "feel" of the game would be wrong.
I think LotV has more depth than BW. The other week when Bisu and Effort played the final the chat was like: "This is what starcraft should be like, action going on everywhere at the same time. Multitasking for real". At the same time they complaint when LotV is exactly that. "From WoL it's just gotten worse". Look at the games of WoL. Basically, build the ultimate army, A-move and hope it's bigger than the opponents. Fun.
LotV is in an amazing place! Fun and exciting booth to play and watch and it's everything a RTS game should be.
|
People must think there is a bottomless pit of money to throw at this game.Its currently the most popular RTS game in the world, be happy and play the game.
I am sure half of the people who post on here don't even log into it to even play it, they are just never happy no matter what Blizzard does and just want to bitch to satisfy their own egos
|
On January 31 2016 17:31 Topdoller wrote:
People must think there is a bottomless pit of money to throw at this game.Its currently the most popular RTS game in the world, be happy and play the game.
I am sure half of the people who post on here don't even log into it to even play it, they are just never happy no matter what Blizzard does and just want to bitch to satisfy their own egos
Yup, I think you're right. See you on ladder mate! GL HF!
|
On January 31 2016 16:08 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2016 15:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Don't wait for Blizzard : Sigaty already said nothing coming from Blizzard will compete with SC2 for 10 years. Halo Wars 2 is coming out this year. How about you buy it and let me know how it goes On January 31 2016 14:51 BronzeKnee wrote:
RTS games are suffering from poor design right now, no, RTS games are suffering from a lack of funding. This is a response to poor consumer spending on good RTS games over the past 10 years. Lots of good games are financial failures including RTS games. This happened long before the RTS genre began and will continue long after SC2 stops being featured at Blizzcon. the counter of course is that this group of "latent RTS game buyers" that spends no money and hasn't for years will all of a sudden start spending. i doubt it and i wouldn't put 10s of millions of dollars counting on it either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFM_(customer_value)http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01840 So... no hope for Warcraft 4?
Don't listen to what JimmyJRaynor says, all he does is run around and declare RTS games dead forever... All genre's have run through dry phases and all it takes is some innovation usually. People love our genre, SC2 is not a financial failure for them at all and blizzard would be very stupid if they wouldn't meet consumer demands for more Warcraft or maybe even Starcraft games.
Blizzard already announced during the LotV development that their RTS team is big and it's going to stay with LotV and then go on to another project, which may be WC4 but also maybe something new.
Bottomline is that blizzard will make a new RTS game someday, though I guess, we won't hear from it in the next few years because they have a market position with SC2 at the moment that they can only weaken by giving it a competitor too soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
