|
Mike Morhaine said that at some point he would like to see WC 4. Blizzard will never make the mistake and make a mobile version on a Smartphone or on a Tablet of Starcraft or Warcraft. This argument alone shows how stupid some people here really are.
The interview from Morhaine indicates that Blizzard does have interest in WC 4. It was at the end of 2016. Its normal that there is just the focus on heroes of the storm and SC 2. I also told evereyone here that it will take time untill we get a new rts. But it will never be 10 years untill we get the next RTS game from Blizzard. The interview from Chris Sigaety was totally put out of context and was more about the starcraft lotv.
Dustin Browder said that they are talking about Warcraft 4. This was after the interview with Morhaine.
For the last time. RTS still sells many copies and games like Dota and Lol are games which were created from rts. There is a future for rts games. The Problem here is the negativity here on this forum. Starcraft was very succesfull for many many years. It still has a healthy scene and playerbase and we get bw remastered. This shows that Blizzard is still interested in RTS games.
Blizzard always continues their franchises and they will try to get No. 1 in E-Sport with WC 4 or an another rts title. There are many signs for it.
Again an another RTS will be created from Blizzard the only question is when.
|
On May 25 2017 00:23 AlphaAeffchen wrote: Blizzard will never make the mistake and make a mobile version on a Smartphone or on a Tablet of Starcraft or Warcraft. This argument alone shows how stupid some people here really are.
who said a Warcraft RTS game is coming out on a smartphone?
Blizzard will make games for the mobile platform in the near future. Count on it.
|
On May 25 2017 00:23 AlphaAeffchen wrote:
Mike Morhaine said that at some point he would like to see WC 4. Blizzard will never make the mistake and make a mobile version on a Smartphone or on a Tablet of Starcraft or Warcraft. This argument alone shows how stupid some people here really are.
The interview from Morhaine indicates that Blizzard does have interest in WC 4. Also they mentioned it at gamescom.
Dustin Browder said that they are talking about Warcraft 4. This was after the interview with Morhaine.
For the last time. RTS still sells many copies and games like Dota and lol are games which were created from rts. There is a future for rts games. The Problem here is the negativity here on this forum. Starcraft was very succesfull for many many years. It still has a healthy scene and we get bw remastered. This Shows that Blizzard is still interested in RTS games.
Blizzard always continues their franchises and they will try to get No. 1 in E-Sport with WC 4 or an another rts title. There are many signs for it.
Again an another RTS will be created from Blizzard the only question is when.
What interview are you talking about? There's one interview from Tim Morten that said they'd consider it. Keep in mind Tim Morten just joined the company at this company at this point. He's not an executive thats been with the company close to 20 years like Sigaty, so I'd trust Sigaty over Morten in this topic, especially since Sigaty's interview was more recent.
http://in.ign.com/heroes-of-the-storm/78648/news/gamescom-2015-blizzard-considering-warcraft-3-inspired-mode
The only thing Dustin Browder said is that they'd be looking into a Warcraft 3 game mode for HOTS.
Yeah, Dota and LoL are created from RTS, but thats the problem, they are way, way way more successful than RTS.
RTS games don't sell many copies, especially compared to RPGs and FPS games. What makes you think they do?
|
Its a fact that Blizzard will make mobile games but they will still make games which are focused on E-Sport like an RTS.
Dustin Browder and David Kim are developing a new game this wont be a mobile game. It will be an E-Sport title. Warcraft 4 or an another RTs game is very possible.
Someday we will get WC 4 as an RTS game like WC 3 was!
|
On May 25 2017 00:23 AlphaAeffchen wrote:
Mike Morhaine said that at some point he would like to see WC 4. Blizzard will never make the mistake and make a mobile version on a Smartphone or on a Tablet of Starcraft or Warcraft. This argument alone shows how stupid some people here really are.
The interview from Morhaine indicates that Blizzard does have interest in WC 4. Also they mentioned it at gamescom.
Dustin Browder said that they are talking about Warcraft 4. This was after the interview with Morhaine.
For the last time. RTS still sells many copies and games like Dota and lol are games which were created from rts. There is a future for rts games. The Problem here is the negativity here on this forum. Starcraft was very succesfull for many many years. It still has a healthy scene and we get bw remastered. This Shows that Blizzard is still interested in RTS games.
Blizzard always continues their franchises and they will try to get No. 1 in E-Sport with WC 4 or an another rts title. There are many signs for it.
Again an another RTS will be created from Blizzard the only question is when.
BW Remastered is a kind of low-risk low-reward project for Blizzard (to compare with Hearthstone which was low-risk high-reward). They said it took one year of work by a pretty small team. They obviously found a way to painlessly harness the existing BW code and then it was just a matter of visuals and playing nice with BNet 2.0.
I wouldn't call that a big new venture into the RTS realm :D. More a low-risk gamble to try to rekindle the mass-consumer RTS flame if it's not dead yet. Do you really think people who weren't interested in Starcraft before will suddenly jump on BW Remastered?
I also believe in WC4, and I'm sure it will be called RTS when it comes out. But I also think our definition of "RTS" will have changed a LOT by then. Hell, DOTA and LOL have regularly been labeled as RTS games in tournaments.
|
I already told you that revenue is not the only goal for Blizzard. Its their main goal. But there are many ways to get to the main goal.
One of this ways is an E-Sport title which kicks Lol from the throne. This wont be a shooter it will be an action strategy game. WC 4 is perfect for this. There are many signs that WC 4 will happen or an another rts which is not as hardcore as sc bw or sc 2 is.
We will have to wait maybe 4-5 years. But something will happen SC 2 Lotv was definetly not the last rts game from Blizzard count on it.
|
On May 25 2017 00:39 AlphaAeffchen wrote:
I already told you that revenue is not the only goal for Blizzard. Its their main goal. But there are many ways to get to the main goal.
One of this ways is an E-Sport title which kicks Lol from the throne. This wont be a shooter it will be an action strategy game. WC 4 is perfect for this. There are many signs that WC 4 will happen or an another rts which is not as hardcore as sc bw or sc 2 is.
We will have to wait maybe 4-5 years. But something will happen SC 2 Lotv was definetly not the last rts game from Blizzard count on it.
.... RTS is not going to kick any a F2P Moba from the throne. That is so completely ignorant. It wont be an RTS to kick LoL from the throne because RTS is not popular and is not team based.
|
if the RTS is great, it has great potential, the 1v1 would be great but also 3v3 2v2 team games custom games etc, SC2 has always lacked this! if they make a great RTS I do think it would be successful, though they may be way too focused on marketing nowadays to do it. In the case of a war4 though there is potential for fat marketing as well as great game so who knows.
who could say that some MOBAs would become more popular than RTS only a few years ago? of course there is a possibility that if an amazing new RTS comes out, it becomes either more popular or similarly popular ;; not that it would even need that level of popularity.
|
On May 24 2017 22:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 15:49 Creager wrote:
Blizzard isn't the old Blizzard you maybe once knew, anymore, if you didn't realize that up until now, you probably never will. lso it's not exactly splitting the player base when they make you buy all of their games lol. They don't care about that, just wanna fetch some cash. As long as you're on Battle.net and spend your money there, they're fine. Latest addition of Destiny 2 is just another proof of how Blizzard has changed over the last couple of years and adapted to industry standards nowadays.
Problem is they're still profiting from their former image as company so people tend to further throw money at them. this "old Blizzard" , "new Blizzard" narrative is nice and vague so people can slap it into any discussion and make it seem like its meaningful. Then the person employing this vague , slippery, ill defined narrative can insult any one with out ever actually engaging in meaningful dialogue while ignoring Blizzard's actions within the marketplace. Blizzard's management of Overwawtch, Diablo, SC2 etc display their reluctance to split a player base in exchange for cash. The expansion packs for SC2 and Diablo were 2.5 years apart. Blizzard prefers to generate continuous revenue in a manner that does not split users via skins, voice packs etc etc.
So what would be meaningful dialogue from your perspective? Agreeing with you? My point is derived from Blizzard's actions within the marketplace. That skin, voice pack argument of yours doesn't have to do much with reality. Not incorporating Hearthstone into the equasion is also a very nice move 
So what do you think is vague and slippery when stating that Blizzard has undergone quite some changes during the past couple of years in terms of marketing and monetizing methods for their games to follow industry standards? I fear you're just a fanboy in complete denial, friend.
|
On May 25 2017 01:55 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
who could say that some MOBAs would become more popular than RTS only a few years ago? of course there is a possibility that if an amazing new RTS comes out, it becomes either more popular or similarly popular ;; not that it would even need that level of popularity.
I think a lot of people considering how fast Dota Allstars came to overshadow Warcraft 3 proper.
It's not very likely considering how RTS as its mechanics is very stressful. Micro and unit control is very daunting for new players, as opposed to controlling 1 character in 1 part of the screen.
|
On February 28 2016 02:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2016 22:40 mammuluk wrote:
3) The Third Issue: Cousin Warcraft
After speaking about SC2’s older brother, let’s talk about its cousin: Warcrfat.
During BlizzCon the software house expressed its point of view on this issues for the first time telling that the door for a possible Warcraft 4 is not closed yet (and the same could be for StarCraft 3)… The team will have a briefing when LotV (and its add-ons) will be completed and there they will decide what to do…
"The team" does not make money decisions. "the team" is paid with.. ummm .. you know.. money. Chris Sigaty, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER , stated repeatedly that nothing coming from Blizzard will interfere in the SC2-space for 10 years. do you have any Blizzard employee above Sigaty contradicting this ? Tim Morton is not above Sigaty and does not make money decisions. ATVI is not funding another RTS game.
SC Remastered completely shoots this down...
Why would you need a Blizzard employee explicitly stating this? Blizzard staff obviously approved the release of remastered!!
|
On May 25 2017 02:22 Creager wrote:
So what do you think is vague and slippery when stating that Blizzard has undergone quite some changes during the past couple of years in terms of marketing and monetizing methods for their games to follow industry standards? I fear you're just a fanboy in complete denial, friend.
you have to better define your terms to facilitate productive discussion. on what date did Blizzard go from "old" to "current". without clearer definitions its all just hand-waving and finger-pointing.
Blizzard has been changing continuously during its 25+ year history.
On May 25 2017 02:53 Spyridon wrote:
SC Remastered completely shoots this down...
Why would you need a Blizzard employee explicitly stating this? Blizzard staff obviously approved the release of remastered!!
SC Remastered is an existing game.
In fact, they made a F2P version of SC1 which continues the pattern of charging less and less money for an existing old game as it ages.
|
SC Remastered completely shoots this down...
I dont think having 20 people remastering a game over a year is the same thing as having 200-300 people work 4-7 years for a new RTS that will demand a giant marketing budget.
|
On May 25 2017 02:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 02:22 Creager wrote:
So what do you think is vague and slippery when stating that Blizzard has undergone quite some changes during the past couple of years in terms of marketing and monetizing methods for their games to follow industry standards? I fear you're just a fanboy in complete denial, friend.
you have to better define your terms to facilitate productive discussion. on what date did Blizzard go from "old" to "current". without clearer definitions its all just hand-waving and finger-pointing. Blizzard has been changing continuously during its 25+ year history. Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 02:53 Spyridon wrote:
SC Remastered completely shoots this down...
Why would you need a Blizzard employee explicitly stating this? Blizzard staff obviously approved the release of remastered!! SC Remastered is an existing game. In fact, they made a F2P version of SC1 which continues the pattern of charging less and less money for an existing old game as it ages.
On May 25 2017 03:47 lestye wrote:I dont think having 20 people remastering a game over a year is the same thing as having 200-300 people work 4-7 years for a new RTS that will demand a giant marketing budget.
But the comment Jimmy has been saying (for YEARS now) is that Blizzard would "not release any games that compete with SC2 for 10 years".
I've even said many times since LotV release that they were obviously holding off resources in to competitive SC2, and with Blizzards history, they ONLY do that when another game is being released. This was further backed up as they put more development in to turning SC2 in to a coop game, rather than putting the primary resources in to developing the competitive aspect of the game. (look at patch notes for the last year and its obvious)
Blizzard does NOT let a game lose profitability - look at what they did with D3 when it was losing profitability. It is very obvious they were working on another game to pick up the competitive SC2 players.
More than once I said I suspect it will either be the BW remaster or WC4.
He argued the same remark about Sigaty every time. (Which, by the way, I said I look forward to him having to eat his own words when they announce what they are working on. And... here we are...)
Yet now they are releasing another RTS - you can say it's just a remaster. But it does not change the fact that it's not a free game and you are going to pay for it. Contrary to what Sigaty said, it DOES compete with SC2. It does "steal" players from SC2. It IS a competitive RTS game. They WERE working on another competitive RTS as myself and others have mentioned was obvious for years.
|
On May 25 2017 06:09 Spyridon wrote:
Yet now they are releasing another RTS - you can say it's just a remaster. But it does not change the fact that it's not a free game and you are going to pay for it. Contrary to what Sigaty said, it DOES compete with SC2. It does "steal" players from SC2. It IS a competitive RTS game. They WERE working on another competitive RTS as myself and others have mentioned was obvious for years.
SC1 existed when SC2 was released in July 2010. SC1 was a lot easier to install and set up in July 2010 than it is today making SC1 a weakening competitor due to OS and memory speed issues. Blizz is restoring the same level of competition that existed in the past between these games by making a game reasonably easy to install on Win 8.1 and Win 10.
Sigaty was answering a question about a full sequel game like WC4 or SC3... not about making an existing game that is almost uninstallable/unusable on some Win 8.1//10 machines ( like ones with really fast memory) usable again. i don't think Sigaty was BS-ing.
this game will prolly be $20 USD. I'll be shocked if its $60 with a Collector's Edition for $80+ like Blizzard full release games are priced.
|
I will gladly pay 60+ bucks for a "BW-Remastered" CE to complete my collection.
Don't know why people fear the competition though... I love BW and SC2, play and watch both on a semi-regular basis.
In my opinion: More Starcraft is always better, so keep those games coming Blizzard, don't let the SC universe die!
|
On May 25 2017 06:09 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 02:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On May 25 2017 02:22 Creager wrote:
So what do you think is vague and slippery when stating that Blizzard has undergone quite some changes during the past couple of years in terms of marketing and monetizing methods for their games to follow industry standards? I fear you're just a fanboy in complete denial, friend.
you have to better define your terms to facilitate productive discussion. on what date did Blizzard go from "old" to "current". without clearer definitions its all just hand-waving and finger-pointing. Blizzard has been changing continuously during its 25+ year history. On May 25 2017 02:53 Spyridon wrote:
SC Remastered completely shoots this down...
Why would you need a Blizzard employee explicitly stating this? Blizzard staff obviously approved the release of remastered!! SC Remastered is an existing game. In fact, they made a F2P version of SC1 which continues the pattern of charging less and less money for an existing old game as it ages. Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 03:47 lestye wrote:SC Remastered completely shoots this down... I dont think having 20 people remastering a game over a year is the same thing as having 200-300 people work 4-7 years for a new RTS that will demand a giant marketing budget. But the comment Jimmy has been saying (for YEARS now) is that Blizzard would "not release any games that compete with SC2 for 10 years". I've even said many times since LotV release that they were obviously holding off resources in to competitive SC2, and with Blizzards history, they ONLY do that when another game is being released. This was further backed up as they put more development in to turning SC2 in to a coop game, rather than putting the primary resources in to developing the competitive aspect of the game. (look at patch notes for the last year and its obvious) Blizzard does NOT let a game lose profitability - look at what they did with D3 when it was losing profitability. It is very obvious they were working on another game to pick up the competitive SC2 players. More than once I said I suspect it will either be the BW remaster or WC4. He argued the same remark about Sigaty every time. (Which, by the way, I said I look forward to him having to eat his own words when they announce what they are working on. And... here we are...) Yet now they are releasing another RTS - you can say it's just a remaster. But it does not change the fact that it's not a free game and you are going to pay for it. Contrary to what Sigaty said, it DOES compete with SC2. It does "steal" players from SC2. It IS a competitive RTS game. They WERE working on another competitive RTS as myself and others have mentioned was obvious for years.
I think you are grossly overstating the value of BW remaster in both production as well as its role of "stealing" players outside of Korea. Like I said, the production cost of it was virtually nothing and they didn't even mention it in their earnings call for upcoming releases. The players it might "steal" is nothing compared to what a next generation rts would do.
The cost and impact of a wc4 would be like 20 times more than any remaster because they would actually have to put in serious resources. They're pulling the BW remaster out of their ass in little over a year with 20 people.
|
On May 25 2017 02:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 02:22 Creager wrote:
So what do you think is vague and slippery when stating that Blizzard has undergone quite some changes during the past couple of years in terms of marketing and monetizing methods for their games to follow industry standards? I fear you're just a fanboy in complete denial, friend.
you have to better define your terms to facilitate productive discussion. on what date did Blizzard go from "old" to "current". without clearer definitions its all just hand-waving and finger-pointing. Blizzard has been changing continuously during its 25+ year history.
Oh you remember that meme Blizzard has earned itself over time? "Soon (tm)" it was, implying they'd just take the time to get everything right, and that's what defined Blizzard for a lot of people, not following industry fads just for the quick buck, but trying to deliver a truly unique and high-quality product, that's why they had only 3 franchises for quite some time, I guess - didn't want more, didn't need more.
Ok, let's see, uhm, what about that PR disaster that was LotV beta? It started on 03/31/2015. They promised an extended period of testing to get everything right, yet they even brought forward the release date from December to November without ultimately changing/testing out much stuff (that macro mechanic testing was a complete joke, they didn't even fiddle with economy) over the course of several months.
Or let's see the money printing machine that Hearthstone is, first they had 4 expansions over the course of one year, with card expansions (relying on you buying booster packs) and adventures (doing a series of PvE encounters to unlock a set of cards which is available to all players buying the adventure with gold or real money) taking turns to (what you probably would say) closing gaps between players, not separating them and at least give them some 'guaranteed' cards to have fun with the game.
Now they changed that to 3 expansions per year, card expansions only and even rising the price of booster packs almost everywhere except the US - just to not segregate their player base? I know, it's a trading card game, so everyone should technically know it's pay2win, but damn, are they fucking greedy.
Or remember that Diablo 3 DLC bullshit they presented at last Blizzcon? "Rise of the Necromancer" DLC is really a joke compared to the first addon, let's see if it's going to be $20, as well.
Well, of course it's hand-waving and finger-pointing at some point, I'm not omniscient, just can tell you from my experiences with the company, which since roughly 2 years aren't really good ones, anymore.
But yeah, I'm already seeing that I'm kinda derailing the ongoing discussion, so let's leave it at that.
|
On May 25 2017 16:11 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 02:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On May 25 2017 02:22 Creager wrote:
So what do you think is vague and slippery when stating that Blizzard has undergone quite some changes during the past couple of years in terms of marketing and monetizing methods for their games to follow industry standards? I fear you're just a fanboy in complete denial, friend.
you have to better define your terms to facilitate productive discussion. on what date did Blizzard go from "old" to "current". without clearer definitions its all just hand-waving and finger-pointing. Blizzard has been changing continuously during its 25+ year history. Oh you remember that meme Blizzard has earned itself over time? "Soon (tm)" it was, implying they'd just take the time to get everything right, and that's what defined Blizzard for a lot of people, not following industry fads just for the quick buck, but trying to deliver a truly unique and high-quality product, that's why they had only 3 franchises for quite some time, I guess - didn't want more, didn't need more. Ok, let's see, uhm, what about that PR disaster that was LotV beta? It started on 03/31/2015. They promised an extended period of testing to get everything right, yet they even brought forward the release date from December to November without ultimately changing/testing out much stuff (that macro mechanic testing was a complete joke, they didn't even fiddle with economy) over the course of several months. Or let's see the money printing machine that Hearthstone is, first they had 4 expansions over the course of one year, with card expansions (relying on you buying booster packs) and adventures (doing a series of PvE encounters to unlock a set of cards which is available to all players buying the adventure with gold or real money) taking turns to (what you probably would say) closing gaps between players, not separating them and at least give them some 'guaranteed' cards to have fun with the game. Now they changed that to 3 expansions per year, card expansions only and even rising the price of booster packs almost everywhere except the US - just to not segregate their player base? I know, it's a trading card game, so everyone should technically know it's pay2win, but damn, are they fucking greedy. Or remember that Diablo 3 DLC bullshit they presented at last Blizzcon? "Rise of the Necromancer" DLC is really a joke compared to the first addon, let's see if it's going to be $20, as well. Well, of course it's hand-waving and finger-pointing at some point, I'm not omniscient, just can tell you from my experiences with the company, which since roughly 2 years aren't really good ones, anymore. But yeah, I'm already seeing that I'm kinda derailing the ongoing discussion, so let's leave it at that.
I don't see how those examples show they don't make high quality games anymore. No one said they always provided the cheapest experience.
Adventures had their own problems, if an adventure was good and you had to pool together thousands of gold to get a card you wanted towards the end of the adventure, that itself could be seen as greedy anyway.
The fact you're comparing the selling of a single class, which was HEAVILY in demand to a full expansion is laughable.
|
On May 25 2017 16:11 Creager wrote:
....
But yeah, I'm already seeing that I'm kinda derailing the ongoing discussion, so let's leave it at that.
you didn't define your terms "old blizzard" and "current blizzard" during this rant so a productive convo is impossible. if you provided a date we'd have something to carry forward the convo.
Regarding Blizzard's games: long term product engagement is objective proof of quality. I'll take that to the extreme here: Super Tecmo Bowl released for the NES in 1991 still has a vibrant active competitive community. I do not need to go into any details beyond this. This is objective proof of the game's quality.
Blizzard's games all attract long term engagement.
On May 25 2017 12:01 thePunGun wrote:
I will gladly pay 60+ bucks for a "BW-Remastered" CE to complete my collection.
Don't know why people fear the competition though... I love BW and SC2, play and watch both on a semi-regular basis.
In my opinion: More Starcraft is always better, so keep those games coming Blizzard, don't let the SC universe die!
the competition from SC1 was always there. I'd love to see Blizzard market there RTS games as hard as they market Overwatch, but its unrealistic to expect due to how little revenue they make from RTS games. There will be very little marketing for SC:RM relative to Overwatch and SC:RM will be a low price ~ $20.
The SC Universe will never die. Blizz currently uses its Warcraft IP for a mobile battle card game. They'll have some kind of mobile action/strategy game in the SC universe to compete with games like Clash of Clans.
Creating new IP is brutally expensive and ATVI hates investing in new IP creation. They prefer to extend existing IP. Look at how Kotick started this giant ATVI game company. Did he create a totally new brand and image? No, he bought the Activision name and with it all the old memories of great Activision games. Old memories people in their 30s with money have of the great games Activision made.
If you want to know how Activision was originally created just look at my footer quote.
back on topic: Starcraft will live forever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
