This topic was created in italian and then translated to my, totally not perfect, english. So if you speak italian you can find a more complete, correct and formal version of the article at http://eu.battle.net/sc2/it/forum/topic/17610501383
In the previous topic (http://eu.battle.net/sc2/it/forum/topic/17289321810?page=4) which had a good and unexpected partecipation we spoke about the present (and the past with all its melancholy); Here I’d like to discuss the Future, or probably I should say the “Futuribles” (in Italian there is a special word to indicate the “possible future”, it’s sounds like “futurible”) that could appear on next months and, especially, on the years…
With Legacy of the Void’s release somebody seriously started reflecting on a potential “After-Starcraft” or, as we will see going on with the post, a possible “New-Starcraft”. This thoughts are due to fact tha LotV is the last title of SC 2 Trilogy, to the change in WCS structure, to the community “Identity Crisis” (see http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/503364-the-sc2-communitys-identity-crisis) and, last but not least, to those who speak of “last Starcraft game in history”. Another essential precondition It is also important to underline that I don’t wanna be pessimist, I love this game and I hope it will survive for a long time: I’m just talking about future possible developments (used the word “futuribles” exactly for this reason). At the moment Starcraft is alive and well; we don’t care about things like “exaggerated future disasters”, because this thoughts couldn’t help us. How is the Topic Structured I have divided the Thread into six issues (and a conclusion), because the article will be quite long so if you are interested to only one part or a few parts you can watch the index I put below, and speak about the isuues you have choosen leaving a comment.
INDEX
1) The First Isuue: Legacy of the Void Duration 2) The Second Issue: Brood War’s come back 3) The Third Issue: Cousin Warcraft 4) The fourth Issue: Starcraft 3? 5) The Fifth Issue: Other RTS Games 6) The Sixth Issue: The Sunset of the Family 7) Conclusion
At the end of every section, using expressions that indicate it’s just my Personal opinion (expressions that I’ve even underlined) i just show my final point of view on the Issue. My idea was to make this so that everyone could leave Their Opinion about every part of the topic (Difficult matters like these can be correctly discussed only by the different point of view of each Player). I hope that this work will be interesting for You that join this pages. Thank You
1) The First Issue: Legacy of the Void Duration I Think that in a Topic like this the starting point must be an estimation about LotV’s life lenght. Considering that Wings of Liberty and Heart of the Swarm have been the “main game” respectively for about 31 months (from 27/07/2010 to 12/03/ 2013) and 32 months (from 12/03/2013 to 10/11/2015) we have to say that HotS defended the Title Honorably. But the question is “Can the Protoss expansion endure as much?”. Adding also that Today the evolution of the videogame market is far more hyperdynamic than it was in 2010 (now there are competitors that at WoL times were hard also to be figured), that the RTS genre is not so apreciated by young players and that SC2 is becoming a quite old game, a lot of time has passed since that 2010 July…
About this first point my idea is partly negative and partly positive. Negative because I fear that Legacy of the Void will inexorably have a great decline loosing important numers more fastly than its two predecessors (We can see it even these days). Positive ‘cause a strong community as the sc’s one could bring on the game for a long time. It is always very difficult (if not impossible) to make prognostications of this kind, but with an optimistic mind i feel Starcraft will stand respectably for more than 3 years. After Having said this my hope is not to be here after a couple of years with a dead game and people who just say me “epic fail!”.
2) The Second Issue: Brood War’s come back At point 1) I wrote about SC2, from point 2) we are gonna discuss the possible competitors. Let’s start we an apparently unbelievable option, which is actually really concrete: one of the strongest Starcraft 2 competitors could be its predecessor! In Korea we can already see a certain approach, Starleague is regularly active, a lot of players leave sc2 and come back to play with their “first love” and often the Team Liquid’s Streaming column show us that Brood War streamings really can defeat Legacy’s ones: a title from 1998 which can compete with a game realeased on last November, pretty impressive. But the fact is that, out of Asia the first sc seems be apreciated only by most nostalgic purist. That’s why it’s hard to imagine a global rebirth of BW. Then we could make another distinction about this option: BW’s reproduction could happen with a new HD graphic too, some time ago an Arcade mod that reproduced BW (called Starbow, if I’m not wrong) had a good success (also with some dedicated tournaments). This choice could cause other problems too, based on the fact that lots of people actually love BW for what it is and for everything it is. And another doubt could just be if it is worth a move to renew SC by recreating an almost 20 yars old game. It is fascinating to me, but could potential “new” players apreciate that?
In my opinion A new Brood War is not totally impossible, but probably doesn’t answer to the necessity of the community (and not even of Blizzard).
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…
If we are seeing the RTS’ crysis on the other hand we think that Blizzard community could be still interested to the “traditional” games of the brand. Hearstone had a big success, it’s true, but Heroes of the Storm did not, showing both that it is not sufficient to “hail as a MOBA” to create a popular videogame and that Blizzard could still need its “strongholds”. If we talk about rts the strongholds are warcraft and starcraft. If they opt for a new Warcraft (hypothesis which seems to be ahead) to SC2 will probably happen something similar to the alternation which gave him WC3’s place. That is a period in which both the two games are active (maybe with tournaments in the former and in the latter r too), but with a strong supremacy of the “successor”. In this case a lot of the sc2 players will move to WC4, others will leave the e-sports or even come back to BW which seems to have historical roots that none other game can count on. Warcraft is waited by old fans, people who still play it, by those who play World of Warcraft and who know its real progenitor; maybe such a title could bring to the rts videogame also guys who didn’t know the genre. The flaw is that, from a position like ours, for a long series of reasons, is not easy to prefer War to Star… In my honest opinion WC4 seriously could see the light (we are speaking about a certain number of years), making a bridge to an out of breath Legacy of the Void, maybe also recalling those who left sc2 a long time ago. Yes, we Blizzard could pass “from the Stars to the Wars”…
4) The Fourth Issue: “Starcraft 3?” Few lines above you read well: someone mentioned even a completely innovative starcraft, this option is apparently very underprivileged next to a Warcraft 4. It is sufficient to think that the more wise choice is alternating the two titles.
So I think it will be really difficult to see a starcraft 3 release in a not-geological period… I would really love to have the possibilty of discovering a complete restyling of a game that gave me, and gave us, so much, but I doubt this will happen in the next few years. Anyway, like Blizzard, I still believe that one day, in a remote future, another StarCraft could arrive: not impossible…
New note: Somebody made me notice that Blizzard could also create a completely new universe for the setting (because the stories have been “squeezed” just too much). I had not thought about this opportunity, but I have to say it could be very cool!
5) The Fifth Issue: Other RTS games Here I will do fastly. Other videogames of our genre do exhist, and some are also very young (probably because even to the game developers the magic and the cleverness which characterize this games is simply matchless). The problem is that they will never reach the level that sc2 showed us both in terms of e-sport and patchs/balancement.
Honestly, I think that folowing this way it is impossible to get more than a for-fun dimension. And the undersigned still plays Age of Empires 1 nowadays… 6) The Sixth Issue: The sunset of the Family As I said RTS is not exactly the ideal game to modern boys. But don’t worry, we will survive, at least as a niche: Who has played and loved these games can’t forget and can’t stop apreciating them.
From my point of view, this hypothesis is almost unimaginable, because it is too bad to be real and because it objectively is an almost imopossible futurible.
7) The Seventh Issue: Conclusion Let’s take the stock of this kind of travel in the future. I hope somebody will apreciate my little work, don’t say I’m crazy, it has passed some time since I wanted to write my conjectures and share them with other people, also to get their opinion. This is actually the first thread I open onTL, just because I’d like to get opinions from more people: the opinion I’m searching for is yours.
Just express your Idea about the various points or a single point which you specifically find interesting. Have nice games, gl
TBH I think LotV is quite good compared to HotS, at least now, and without the hope of Blizz patches, the Mods would be the "future", but it is kinda hard right now because LotV is in a good spot and Blizz is trying to make it work.
BUT, if it fails on a near future, it will be developed by mods to make a "New SC2", and only then those mods could go huge, because right now there are things like that, for instance StarBow is a good one, but it lacks of player base because LotV is popular and standard.
There are other RTS games but the closest to SC2 I think it is GreyGoo (which has added a new faction recently and I don't know how it is going to end), but again, the player base is not that big and seems to be dying.
Honestly SC2 is popular thanks to BW, and not meaning that SC2 is bad, but meaning that the genre itself is not one of the most liked by the majority of players, but even those who doesn't play it, are used to SC2 universe and that is why they play it increasing the player base, not mentioning they maybe play only team or something in arcade, CoOp, Archon, etc.
I know people get angry about calling "BW" the "Nostalgia factor", but honestly it is true, while not being a bad game, it is like those things we play over and over within the years because we are used to them, we like (because they are good) and ALSO we get that nice feeling for them.
TL:DR - RTS is an almost dead genre - SC2 has success thanks mainly to BW universe - LotV is quite good and will improve - There are and could be excellent mods for SC2 - Blizz will be always keeping LotV alive - If LotV starts to die and/or Blizz abandon it, the Mods will save it
But the fact is that, out of Asia the first sc seems be apreciated only by most nostalgic purist. That’s why it’s hard to imagine a global rebirth of BW.
ya, because only nostalgic purists and asians can enjoy scbw...
RTS games are for me the most exciting to play. Shit some of the most popular games have spawned from RTS games. The whole MOBA genre owes itself to the RTS genre.
On February 27 2016 23:04 Sogetsu wrote: TBH I think LotV is quite good compared to HotS, at least now, and without the hope of Blizz patches, the Mods would be the "future", but it is kinda hard right now because LotV is in a good spot and Blizz is trying to make it work.
BUT, if it fails on a near future, it will be developed by mods to make a "New SC2", and only then those mods could go huge, because right now there are things like that, for instance StarBow is a good one, but it lacks of player base because LotV is popular and standard.
There are other RTS games but the closest to SC2 I think it is GreyGoo (which has added a new faction recently and I don't know how it is going to end), but again, the player base is not that big and seems to be dying.
Honestly SC2 is popular thanks to BW, and not meaning that SC2 is bad, but meaning that the genre itself is not one of the most liked by the majority of players, but even those who doesn't play it, are used to SC2 universe and that is why they play it increasing the player base, not mentioning they maybe play only team or something in arcade, CoOp, Archon, etc.
I know people get angry about calling "BW" the "Nostalgia factor", but honestly it is true, while not being a bad game, it is like those things we play over and over within the years because we are used to them, we like (because they are good) and ALSO we get that nice feeling for them.
TL:DR - RTS is an almost dead genre - SC2 has success thanks mainly to BW universe - LotV is quite good and will improve - There are and could be excellent mods for SC2 - Blizz will be always keeping LotV alive - If LotV starts to die and/or Blizz abandon it, the Mods will save it
Ridiculous. RTS is not a dead genre nor will it ever be. It's called a niche genre and it is really no different than the FGC.
MOBAs just grew in popularity due to the fact it's a lot of fun to play with a group of friends.
On February 27 2016 23:04 Sogetsu wrote: TBH I think LotV is quite good compared to HotS, at least now, and without the hope of Blizz patches, the Mods would be the "future", but it is kinda hard right now because LotV is in a good spot and Blizz is trying to make it work.
BUT, if it fails on a near future, it will be developed by mods to make a "New SC2", and only then those mods could go huge, because right now there are things like that, for instance StarBow is a good one, but it lacks of player base because LotV is popular and standard.
There are other RTS games but the closest to SC2 I think it is GreyGoo (which has added a new faction recently and I don't know how it is going to end), but again, the player base is not that big and seems to be dying.
Honestly SC2 is popular thanks to BW, and not meaning that SC2 is bad, but meaning that the genre itself is not one of the most liked by the majority of players, but even those who doesn't play it, are used to SC2 universe and that is why they play it increasing the player base, not mentioning they maybe play only team or something in arcade, CoOp, Archon, etc.
I know people get angry about calling "BW" the "Nostalgia factor", but honestly it is true, while not being a bad game, it is like those things we play over and over within the years because we are used to them, we like (because they are good) and ALSO we get that nice feeling for them.
TL:DR - RTS is an almost dead genre - SC2 has success thanks mainly to BW universe - LotV is quite good and will improve - There are and could be excellent mods for SC2 - Blizz will be always keeping LotV alive - If LotV starts to die and/or Blizz abandon it, the Mods will save it
Ridiculous. RTS is not a dead genre nor will it ever be. It's called a niche genre and it is really no different than the FGC.
MOBAs just grew in popularity due to the fact it's a lot of fun to play with a group of friends.
And you don't need handspeed nor a brain to enjoy MOBAs.
On February 27 2016 23:04 Sogetsu wrote: TBH I think LotV is quite good compared to HotS, at least now, and without the hope of Blizz patches, the Mods would be the "future", but it is kinda hard right now because LotV is in a good spot and Blizz is trying to make it work.
BUT, if it fails on a near future, it will be developed by mods to make a "New SC2", and only then those mods could go huge, because right now there are things like that, for instance StarBow is a good one, but it lacks of player base because LotV is popular and standard.
There are other RTS games but the closest to SC2 I think it is GreyGoo (which has added a new faction recently and I don't know how it is going to end), but again, the player base is not that big and seems to be dying.
Honestly SC2 is popular thanks to BW, and not meaning that SC2 is bad, but meaning that the genre itself is not one of the most liked by the majority of players, but even those who doesn't play it, are used to SC2 universe and that is why they play it increasing the player base, not mentioning they maybe play only team or something in arcade, CoOp, Archon, etc.
I know people get angry about calling "BW" the "Nostalgia factor", but honestly it is true, while not being a bad game, it is like those things we play over and over within the years because we are used to them, we like (because they are good) and ALSO we get that nice feeling for them.
TL:DR - RTS is an almost dead genre - SC2 has success thanks mainly to BW universe - LotV is quite good and will improve - There are and could be excellent mods for SC2 - Blizz will be always keeping LotV alive - If LotV starts to die and/or Blizz abandon it, the Mods will save it
Ridiculous. RTS is not a dead genre nor will it ever be. It's called a niche genre and it is really no different than the FGC.
MOBAs just grew in popularity due to the fact it's a lot of fun to play with a group of friends.
And you don't need handspeed nor a brain to enjoy MOBAs.
neither you need for an RTS, BW through hamachi while all of us sucked a bag full of balls was a lot more fun for me than some of the laddering sessions I've had in SC2 I've also played in a BW tournament at school where everybody was awful as well and we all had a ton of fun
- SC2: LotV is a rather bad game and did not deal with issues that were raised by the community long time ago (eg. economy) - WCS is a joke and actively fucks the Korean scene
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.
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.
Sorry, I got influenced exactly by the Morton's interview. But what you say makes perfect sense, even if it's quite sad. =(
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.
Sorry, I got influenced exactly by the Morton's interview. But what you say makes perfect sense, even if it's quite sad. =(
"Kevin Cloud and Adrian Carmack, two of id Software's owners, were always strongly opposed to remaking Doom. They thought that id was going back to the same old formulas and properties too often. However, after the warm reception of Return to Castle Wolfenstein (which was originally a remake of Wolfenstein 3D) and the latest improvements in rendering technology, most of the employees agreed that a remake was the right idea and confronted Kevin and Adrian with an ultimatum: "Allow us to remake Doom or fire us" (including John Carmack). After the reasonably painless confrontation (although artist Paul Steed, one of the instigators, was fired in retaliation), the agreement to work on Doom 3 was made."
The Blizzard RTS team of 80 people could make this ultimatum and then just go work for EALA or Victory Games or Ensemble Studios. Plus , I'm sure Relic can hire 80 people with the snap of a finger and a nod from Quinn Duffy.
in less than a year an ultimatum will be made. ATVI will give 70 of the 80 employees the chance to work on a different ATVI project or leave the company.
On February 27 2016 23:15 Endymion wrote: But the fact is that, out of Asia the first sc seems be apreciated only by most nostalgic purist. That’s why it’s hard to imagine a global rebirth of BW.
ya, because only nostalgic purists and asians can enjoy scbw...
On February 28 2016 01:40 StarStruck wrote: Ridiculous. RTS is not a dead genre nor will it ever be. It's called a niche genre and it is really no different than the FGC.
words like "niche" and "dead" are just used to add emotion and subjectivity to a narrative when cold hard facts will make things much more clear.
Dot-eating-maze-games and vertical-gallery-shooters are still being played as well. they are no longer the centre of the gaming universe or a cultural tour-de-force as they once were. RTS is going the same way. RTS has risen and now it is declining. People can still enjoy the games but let's not pretend that there are a dozen studios killing each other to make the next great RTS as was the case around the turn of the century.
part of any genre's rise and fall is due to improving technology. RTS rose when tech made it possible. as tech. improved and gave consumers more choice then consumers moved away from the genre. same thing has happened to dozens of video game genres and RTS is just another example.
Will RTS games keep being played? sure they will. People still play MsPacman, Space Invaders, Super Tecmo Bowl ( and Vanilla Tecmo Bowl) and NHL '94 Hockey.
But let's not pretend its 1995 and every one is dying to get NHL '94 and play it on their SNES so they can kick their friends' asses.
The question of this topic is the question that worries me most about SC2's future.
It doesn't seem like there's any big plans for improving the issues with LotV, or to change the direction of the game going in to the future.
I wouldn't say LotV is in a very good state right now. I want to see a vision of where they want to bring it, because this is not ideal. They are not showing me that, and that worries me. Do they even have a vision, or is this all we're ever going to get? Will they ever do anything that will try to improve SC2 in to a game that is actually receiving a positive reception? Or are they just going to give us community updates talking about how things are all sunshine and butterflies and everyone agrees with what their doing, when unanimously polls state otherwise.
Regarding Blizzard and future RTS? Someone mentioned the 10 year RTS thing. SC2 came out in 2010. If they announce a game this year Blizzcon it will probably be at least 2019 by the time we see it live. Close enough.
On February 28 2016 01:40 StarStruck wrote: Ridiculous. RTS is not a dead genre nor will it ever be. It's called a niche genre and it is really no different than the FGC.
words like "niche" and "dead" are just used to add emotion and subjectivity to a narrative when cold hard facts will make things much more clear.
Dot-eating-maze-games and vertical-gallery-shooters are still being played as well. they are no longer the centre of the gaming universe or a cultural tour-de-force as they once were. RTS is going the same way. RTS has risen and now it is declining. People can still enjoy the games but let's not pretend that there are a dozen studios killing each other to make the next great RTS as was the case around the turn of the century.
part of any genre's rise and fall is due to improving technology. RTS rose when tech made it possible. as tech. improved and gave consumers more choice consumers moved away from the genre. same thing has happened to dozens of video game genres and RTS is just another example.
Will RTS games keep being played? sure they will. People still play MsPacman, Space Invaders, Super Tecmo Bowl ( and Vanilla Tecmo Bowl) and NHL '94 Hockey.
But let's not pretend its 1995 and every one is dying to get NHL '94 and play it on their SNES so they can kick their friends' asses.
RTS's still have a large fanbase and following, though. The problem is SC2 is the only one that's still popular, and it's been extremely polarizing ever since WoL, it hasn't shown over improvement on the others aside from expected graphic/control upgrades, and has become more polarizing each iteration. Their simply giving us an inferior product that's not what true RTS fans want. RTS's were built on strategy, and that aspect of the game has been dwindling. I think of SC2 more akin to those music games where it's focused on heavy mechanics races and trying to perfect your execution against yourself rather than rather than actual strategic gameplay and player vs player interaction against your opponent.
WC4 could be the game that proves RTS can still sell a lot of copies. There is hype for a new warcraft rts even without announcing it (just check any article related to blizzard and there are almost always wc4 comments). It can draw the whole blizzard rts crowd (wc+sc), old wc3 players who were not interested in playing mmo, blizzard fans as a whole (a lot of promotion between all their games these days) + rts players as a whole. Also, making something like the coop stuff that is currently in sc2 can be much more fitting for a game with more rpg elements like warcraft.
Also let's not forget about Jay Wilson, a guy that has a lot of rts experience, what has he been working on since leaving d3?
On February 28 2016 05:55 Jimmy Raynor wrote: WC4 could be the game that proves RTS can still sell a lot of copies. There is hype for a new warcraft rts even without announcing it (just check any article related to blizzard and there are almost always wc4 comments). It can draw the whole blizzard rts crowd (wc+sc), old wc3 players who were not interested in playing mmo, blizzard fans as a whole (a lot of promotion between all their games these days) + rts players as a whole. Also, making something like the coop stuff that is currently in sc2 can be much more fitting for a game with more rpg elements like warcraft.
Also let's not forget about Jay Wilson, a guy that has a lot of rts experience, what has he been working on since leaving d3?
I totally agree, WC4 could really move a big crowd of different players (and so move a big amount of money), how many of these players would become RTS fans is another question, but anyway this title could help the genre to regain a certain position (I can't stand seeing SC2 at the 20th position in twitch list!).
On February 28 2016 05:55 Jimmy Raynor wrote: WC4 could be the game that proves RTS can still sell a lot of copies. There is hype for a new warcraft rts even without announcing it (just check any article related to blizzard and there are almost always wc4 comments). It can draw the whole blizzard rts crowd (wc+sc), old wc3 players who were not interested in playing mmo, blizzard fans as a whole (a lot of promotion between all their games these days) + rts players as a whole. Also, making something like the coop stuff that is currently in sc2 can be much more fitting for a game with more rpg elements like warcraft.
Also let's not forget about Jay Wilson, a guy that has a lot of rts experience, what has he been working on since leaving d3?
SC2 wasn't selling that badly, it has good numbers. The only problem is, that most of the people buy it for single players, multi player is a poor experience for them. And honestly, multi player of LotV is poor experience for me too
On February 28 2016 05:32 Spyridon wrote: RTS's still have a large fanbase and following, though. The problem is SC2 is the only one that's still popular,.
you are contradicting yourself in 1 sentence. the genre is declining with the #1 franchise left standing and still in decline itself. Sigaty's comments reflect ATVI's stance on RTS games. They're done.
the player base does not spend money and has not spent money in a long time. no one will fund a AAA-level RTS project... and as far as post sales support goes... just check out AoA, GG, and Homeworld:DoK.
i bet everyone on TL.Net just can't wait for Halo Wars 2
On February 28 2016 05:32 Spyridon wrote: RTS's still have a large fanbase and following, though. The problem is SC2 is the only one that's still popular,.
you are contradicting yourself in 1 sentence. the genre is declining with the #1 franchise left standing and still in decline itself. Sigaty's comments reflect ATVI's stance on RTS games. They're done.
the player base does not spend money and has not spent money in a long time. no one will fund a AAA-level RTS project... and as far as post sales support goes... just check out AoA, GG, and Homeworld:DoK.
i bet everyone on TL.Net just can't wait for Halo Wars 2
How is that a contradiction? The only game that's still popular is the most polarizing RTS out there. All the RTS/SC fans want SC2 to succeed. The games sales are pretty high initially. But after the campaign, even many of the most avid RTS fans quit the game. Because the multiplayer simply isn't where most players want it to be. The games population has been dwindling each release. It's getting further from where players want it, rather than closer.
RTS has always been a Blizzard centric genre. C&C was popular but not nearly to the level Blizzards RTS were. Games like TA and Homeworld weren't even as popular as C&C was. Difference these days is Blizzard isn't delivering something players want. Even a few years back they made the big decision to completely change D3's direction. SC2 is suffering even more than D3 nowdays, and needs similar treatment. But they aren't doing it. Which means either they don't think they can turn things around, or it's not worth it because their funds are better spent working on a new RTS.
TL is filled with Blizzard fans too. I guarantee everyone on here would love for SC2 to be a successful, fun game. But what percentage of the community would you say is actually happy with the state of the game right now...? The problem isn't the genre, or the fans. It's the quality of the game directly. Look how many people are still on BW... That's a problem.
the genre is declining with the #1 franchise left standing and still in decline itself. Sigaty's comments reflect ATVI's stance on RTS games. They're done.
the player base does not spend money and has not spent money in a long time. no one will fund a AAA-level RTS project... and as far as post sales support goes... just check out AoA, GG, and Homeworld:DoK.
i bet everyone on TL.Net just can't wait for Halo Wars 2
That's why I think the next big RTS will be different from the classic RTS model with static races.
It could be extremely MOBA-inspired with a lot of variations in a single race (like coop-commanders) including bans and most likely games will be very short like ~ 15-20 minutes or even faster. It could feature micro-transactions and purchasable aspects (e.g. skins) to bind customers to the game because they invested something.
Actually, I imagine that this could work very well in a WarCraft setting where you draft a hero, special units replacing default ones and maybe some global trait. Heroes could be bought and you would have free heroes every week. Even the focus could change from 1vs1 to a team-based setting, so pick and bans and team coordination are more important.
the genre is declining with the #1 franchise left standing and still in decline itself. Sigaty's comments reflect ATVI's stance on RTS games. They're done.
the player base does not spend money and has not spent money in a long time. no one will fund a AAA-level RTS project... and as far as post sales support goes... just check out AoA, GG, and Homeworld:DoK.
i bet everyone on TL.Net just can't wait for Halo Wars 2
That's why I think the next big RTS will be different from the classic RTS model with static races.
It could be extremely MOBA-inspired with a lot of variations in a single race (like coop-commanders) including bans and most likely games will be very short like ~ 15-20 minutes or even faster. It could feature micro-transactions and purchasable aspects (e.g. skins) to bind customers to the game because they invested something.
Actually, I imagine that this could work very well in a WarCraft setting where you draft a hero, special units replacing default ones and maybe some global trait. Heroes could be bought and you would have free heroes every week. Even the focus could change from 1vs1 to a team-based setting, so pick and bans and team coordination are more important.
the genre is declining with the #1 franchise left standing and still in decline itself. Sigaty's comments reflect ATVI's stance on RTS games. They're done.
the player base does not spend money and has not spent money in a long time. no one will fund a AAA-level RTS project... and as far as post sales support goes... just check out AoA, GG, and Homeworld:DoK.
i bet everyone on TL.Net just can't wait for Halo Wars 2
That's why I think the next big RTS will be different from the classic RTS model with static races.
It could be extremely MOBA-inspired with a lot of variations in a single race (like coop-commanders) including bans and most likely games will be very short like ~ 15-20 minutes or even faster. It could feature micro-transactions and purchasable aspects (e.g. skins) to bind customers to the game because they invested something.
Actually, I imagine that this could work very well in a WarCraft setting where you draft a hero, special units replacing default ones and maybe some global trait. Heroes could be bought and you would have free heroes every week. Even the focus could change from 1vs1 to a team-based setting, so pick and bans and team coordination are more important.
i think RTS games have already been replaced by stuff like Mobile Strike, Clash of Clans and the game with commercials that has that giant hot blonde riding a horse... Kate whats-her-face.
when people want their "big army" fighting "big army" fix.. they reach for their tablets .. not their PCs.
the genre is declining with the #1 franchise left standing and still in decline itself. Sigaty's comments reflect ATVI's stance on RTS games. They're done.
the player base does not spend money and has not spent money in a long time. no one will fund a AAA-level RTS project... and as far as post sales support goes... just check out AoA, GG, and Homeworld:DoK.
i bet everyone on TL.Net just can't wait for Halo Wars 2
That's why I think the next big RTS will be different from the classic RTS model with static races.
It could be extremely MOBA-inspired with a lot of variations in a single race (like coop-commanders) including bans and most likely games will be very short like ~ 15-20 minutes or even faster. It could feature micro-transactions and purchasable aspects (e.g. skins) to bind customers to the game because they invested something.
Actually, I imagine that this could work very well in a WarCraft setting where you draft a hero, special units replacing default ones and maybe some global trait. Heroes could be bought and you would have free heroes every week. Even the focus could change from 1vs1 to a team-based setting, so pick and bans and team coordination are more important.
i think RTS games have already been replaced by stuff like Mobile Strike, Clash of Clans and the game with commercials that has that giant hot blonde riding a horse... Kate whats-her-face.
when people want their "big army" fighting "big army" fix.. they reach for their tablets .. not their PCs.
Please don't destroy my heart. Thinking that today's Age of Empires is Clash of Clans is just a metaphor of modern world's decline. Btw I have to say that this game genre had a clever and quite serious one: Ikariam.
the genre is declining with the #1 franchise left standing and still in decline itself. Sigaty's comments reflect ATVI's stance on RTS games. They're done.
the player base does not spend money and has not spent money in a long time. no one will fund a AAA-level RTS project... and as far as post sales support goes... just check out AoA, GG, and Homeworld:DoK.
i bet everyone on TL.Net just can't wait for Halo Wars 2
That's why I think the next big RTS will be different from the classic RTS model with static races.
It could be extremely MOBA-inspired with a lot of variations in a single race (like coop-commanders) including bans and most likely games will be very short like ~ 15-20 minutes or even faster. It could feature micro-transactions and purchasable aspects (e.g. skins) to bind customers to the game because they invested something.
Actually, I imagine that this could work very well in a WarCraft setting where you draft a hero, special units replacing default ones and maybe some global trait. Heroes could be bought and you would have free heroes every week. Even the focus could change from 1vs1 to a team-based setting, so pick and bans and team coordination are more important.
I googled rts with pick and bans and ended up on that page. I think Atlas will become a good game. Unfortunately, they are among the first exploring that kind of RTS, so they have the struggle with figuring out what will work and what won't... e.g. they removed build durations and bases?
the genre is declining with the #1 franchise left standing and still in decline itself. Sigaty's comments reflect ATVI's stance on RTS games. They're done.
the player base does not spend money and has not spent money in a long time. no one will fund a AAA-level RTS project... and as far as post sales support goes... just check out AoA, GG, and Homeworld:DoK.
i bet everyone on TL.Net just can't wait for Halo Wars 2
That's why I think the next big RTS will be different from the classic RTS model with static races.
It could be extremely MOBA-inspired with a lot of variations in a single race (like coop-commanders) including bans and most likely games will be very short like ~ 15-20 minutes or even faster. It could feature micro-transactions and purchasable aspects (e.g. skins) to bind customers to the game because they invested something.
Actually, I imagine that this could work very well in a WarCraft setting where you draft a hero, special units replacing default ones and maybe some global trait. Heroes could be bought and you would have free heroes every week. Even the focus could change from 1vs1 to a team-based setting, so pick and bans and team coordination are more important.
i think RTS games have already been replaced by stuff like Mobile Strike, Clash of Clans and the game with commercials that has that giant hot blonde riding a horse... Kate whats-her-face.
when people want their "big army" fighting "big army" fix.. they reach for their tablets .. not their PCs.
Please don't destroy my heart. Thinking that today's Age of Empires is Clash of Clans is just a metaphor of modern world's decline. Btw I have to say that this game genre had a clever and quite serious one: Ikariam.
well its not the same population though, games in general are more mainstream nowadays because a lot of people who only want to game in a very casual way play games too now. But there are still large populations of more dedicated gamers interested in RTS. I think it's like Spyridon says, we're not going to see a very popular game unless the quality is up to par and there has been no such new game since BW and AoE2 pretty much (not that AoE2 has as much polish as BW). And WC3 but it's a bit different of course (not macro-oriented). Seriously none of the C&C, Dawn of War or Company of Heroes truly compete in depth with those games. I think Age of Mythology or rather Empire Earth were interesting possible successors in the style of AoE2, but they disappeared fast? Probably too imba and AoE2 is better in the end, dunno. Definitely not AoE3.
I'll be honest. I'm pretty hyped for the inevitable return of BW to the fore, at least for amateur tournaments and events. I missed the bus in 2005-2010 because I didn't - and couldn't - believe a game I played as a kid was ridiculously popular and competitive. Now that I've gotten over myself, and thanks in large part to getting into Starcraft via SC2 (only to find BW to be ridiculously draconian in it's complexity than I ever thought possible - and that it gives me a most divine errection) there's an opportunity for me to get into the BW scene too.
Though I do have to say, I find that the missing downtime from WoL and HotS matches makes things really difficult for me to understand what the fuck is going on at the moment in LotV. Before as a spectator/VOD watcher and recorder, I could figure out what a player was doing for an opener and what their options were after the fact. Maybe I'll get used to it, but it's affecting my enjoyment of LotV at the present time.
RTS isn't a dead genre. Sc2 just isn't fun enough, both as a game and as a platform. I remember the GLORIOUS times of sitting in the frozen throne's chat channels or playing footmen frenzies, dota or other fantastic custom maps. Sc2 did not deliver that same experience.
I don't want a new Warcraft game just because Blizzard has proven pretty definitively in Starcraft 2 (and expansions) and World of Warcraft that they don't have anyone left who can write anything worthwhile or interesting.
the genre is declining with the #1 franchise left standing and still in decline itself. Sigaty's comments reflect ATVI's stance on RTS games. They're done.
the player base does not spend money and has not spent money in a long time. no one will fund a AAA-level RTS project... and as far as post sales support goes... just check out AoA, GG, and Homeworld:DoK.
i bet everyone on TL.Net just can't wait for Halo Wars 2
That's why I think the next big RTS will be different from the classic RTS model with static races.
It could be extremely MOBA-inspired with a lot of variations in a single race (like coop-commanders) including bans and most likely games will be very short like ~ 15-20 minutes or even faster. It could feature micro-transactions and purchasable aspects (e.g. skins) to bind customers to the game because they invested something.
Actually, I imagine that this could work very well in a WarCraft setting where you draft a hero, special units replacing default ones and maybe some global trait. Heroes could be bought and you would have free heroes every week. Even the focus could change from 1vs1 to a team-based setting, so pick and bans and team coordination are more important.
On February 28 2016 18:07 Kyir wrote: I don't want a new Warcraft game just because Blizzard has proven pretty definitively in Starcraft 2 (and expansions) and World of Warcraft that they don't have anyone left who can write anything worthwhile or interesting.
Creat a completely new universe for WoW is best way IMO. Right now WoW has alot of big event but i want they follow up after wc 3 event in the sequel.
some day there is going to be quite a few descriptions of the early gamer's sense of discovery, and online gaming. online gaming was new at some point, and it was cool, extremely cool. then there was chat added on top, the simplest thing that could happen eventually did happen.
i sat in warcraft, starcraft lobbies because i had a bunch of friends to play random shit with. as long as it met a certain level of quality or it seemed like a funny game with some competitiveness to it, it was game time. in starcraft particularly, there were lots of people in the same situation in life. they were looking for the same sort of custom games, (being a variety) or had a niche set of games they liked playing (like micro maps) and so there was a small community unbeknownst to your younger self.
now what are my friends doing? work and shit. random FPS titles, playing w/e everyone else is playing, just like before. there is no time to sit down and simply enjoy something for the sake of it, honestly, most of the same people who gamed back then lack that passion and patience now, or a lot of it is put into other stuff like devoted singleplayer experiences (skyrim, dragon age, witcher, etc.). I'll honestly say, if you wanted the same thing in sc2, dota 2, or even an upcoming RTS, you'd need a quality of custom map that's on par with an entirely standalone kind of game.. only difference being, it's using the same RTS models, textures, etc that are all recognizable and things you can connect with. i would pick drow a lot in wc3 customs, and likewise, map creators would design characters using the drow model to have a very similar play and feel across most maps even if they had nothing to do with one another.
it's all this association, being part of a different time period in gaming, and growing up to learn and love a game that everyone else was playing, that made early RTS games lovable and popular. i use the dota 2 example for customs because frankly, there are quite a lot of people playing them, but they're not very complex or anything like that. people play them because lots of people already play dota 2 and need something to wind down with (with friends).
have you even tried StarParty on sc2? that shit is insane. it has its own little community, but it's not going to grow, and neither are dota 2 customs as they have been declining little by little for a while now.
people initially pick up games because they have a lot of hype LoL, fallout 4, etc etc. but bringing it to competitive levels or, you know, putting a lot of time and effort into things is always going to be much more of a wish than it is something that people actually devote themselves to. people are FICKLE and jump ship often. these are the same online personae that ask for relationship advice, post about anime, tv shows, sports, and ask general questions on reddit and whatnot. i hope you have a good mental image of your average internet joe. that is you and whoever is playing online multiplayer for whatever game is out there, and people just change.
unfortunately for some, people jump ship MUCH later because their friends or their time spent in the game act[s] like an anchor.
On February 28 2016 14:28 B-royal wrote: RTS isn't a dead genre. Sc2 just isn't fun enough, both as a game and as a platform. I remember the GLORIOUS times of sitting in the frozen throne's chat channels or playing footmen frenzies, dota or other fantastic custom maps. Sc2 did not deliver that same experience.
They screwed up majorly with bnet and arcade.
Are you kidding me? RTS is super dead. There's no market for it, and people stop buying RTS. The last non Blizzard RTS that sold 3 million or more copies was 20 years ago.
The best selling RTS of all time came out almost 20 years ago. Every other genre, ARPG, RPG, FPS, Action Game, Fighting game, adventure game, have all came out in the last 5 years. Not RTS.
On February 28 2016 05:55 Jimmy Raynor wrote: WC4 could be the game that proves RTS can still sell a lot of copies. There is hype for a new warcraft rts even without announcing it (just check any article related to blizzard and there are almost always wc4 comments). It can draw the whole blizzard rts crowd (wc+sc), old wc3 players who were not interested in playing mmo, blizzard fans as a whole (a lot of promotion between all their games these days) + rts players as a whole. Also, making something like the coop stuff that is currently in sc2 can be much more fitting for a game with more rpg elements like warcraft.
Also let's not forget about Jay Wilson, a guy that has a lot of rts experience, what has he been working on since leaving d3?
He's back on WoW.
I don't know why people think WC4 is the answer to everyone's problems. Casuals HATE HATE HATE micro, they only liked WC3 for the fantasy setting + custom maps. WC3 failed to surpass Starcraft 1's success, I don't see why it'd be any different w/ WC4.
That's why casuals LOVE Clash of Clans and all that other mobile stuff, they're not intersted in balancing micro and macro, strategy, builds, min maxing, they just want to make a big army and watch it fight in glorious combat.
I think the future holds is Blizzard polishing up Starcraft 2 and making it a big platform. I think like half of SC2's problems is that it's made in this 90s-00s attitude of selling expansions to update the game and retain people. That doesn't fly in the post 2010 world. For a long while, they would hold back features to put on the back of the box of the new expansion. Now that's out of the way, I think they're going to update their game and hopefully it'll grow over time. I remember reading in an interview with Jeff Kaplan, that the CEO of Blizzard wants to support their current games with content and the like for much longer going forward. 10 years ago it was more like, everyone work on this game, everyone work on this expansion, ok let's move onto the next game. I think they want all their franchises/fanbases to sustain themselves/make profit over longer periods of time instead of just going underground for 6 years for the next game.
On February 29 2016 01:19 saddaromma wrote: Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a game which appeals to the masses. Thats about it.
On February 29 2016 01:19 saddaromma wrote: Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a good game. Thats about it.
Genre is a huge part of it. There's a reason why Dota outgrew Warcraft 3 in popularity. Social accessible team based games were more fun than stressful micro games. It's not that Warcraft 3 was not a good game.
All what Hearthstone tells us is that social, accessible games are the way to go and RTS is on the way out.
Starcraft 1 and 2 are stressful games, a lot of people want games to play in their spare time that is more relaxed, less apm + physical effort. It's a huge issue. For the ammount of streamlining SC2 has comapred to SC1, it's still a TREMENDOUSLY stressful game to the casual.
On February 29 2016 01:19 saddaromma wrote: Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a good game. Thats about it.
Genre has everything to do with it. improving tech made RTS possible and years later improving tech gave consumers more choices so they could move onto to something they liked more than RTS. Lots of badly flawed RTS games flourished in the late 90s because the buzz of watching 100 units kill 100 units with 1000s of bullets flying every where was just awesome to see.
this decline due to tech improvements has happened to dozens of different genres ,... RTS is nothing special..
i can list 10+ genres this has already happened to .. but i'm too lazy.
hell, improving Tech took out the entire North American Arcade Industry which consisted of many genres.. all at once.. just gone ... a nuclear holocaust of an industry.
did arcade games suddenly get bad in 2005? like every arcade game? No, improving technology gave consumers more choices.
stop believing the myth that game quality is the #1 prime factor in determining a purchasing decision.
What makes you think the RTS genre should live forever when every other genre dies ?
On February 29 2016 01:19 saddaromma wrote: Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a good game. Thats about it.
Genre is a huge part of it. There's a reason why Dota outgrew Warcraft 3 in popularity. Social accessible team based games were more fun than stressful micro games. It's not that Warcraft 3 was not a good game.
to add to your point. improving technology made this possible. 5v5 games were just not possible in 1996 any place in Canada except MAYBE within the epicenter of Toronto and Montreal. Very few teenagers and young adults have residence in these areas. Its all commercial space.
Now you can play a 5v5 game in 1000X as many places in Canada as compared to 1996.
its all about improving tech giving rise to one genre while "choicing out of the market" another genre.
Technology will keep improving ... consumers will continue to get more choices and the MOBA will be choiced out of the market by the same process that has killed every other genre in the history of the video game industry.
business model is the most important reason imo the gaming industry has changed since the 90s/early 2000s and not quite for the better the press is bought, and many game companies are now too big with a focus on financial performance, they advertise games with cinematics and graphics and churn product after product relying on very well-known variations of recipes to people who get bored of each game after a few hours so the quality of games is pretty low in general and nothing sticks around for very long, people won't play that stuff for years because it's not fun or interesting enough
when you make a RTS, if you make it really great, people will play it for decades, but big game companies of today ran by their shareholders don't like that because how do they increase profit? the shareholders profit matters to nobody else, but in this model their wallet is what drives the whole activity so we now get a lot shitty games instead of a bunch of gems
On February 29 2016 02:02 ProMeTheus112 wrote: when you make a RTS, if you make it really great, people will play it for decades,
NHL '94 and Tecmo Bowl are being played for decades .. M.U.L.E. finally died after a 30 year run. dont think RTS is somehow, something special. it ain't.
i will give you this though. Games with a big strategy component do get played longer and develop cult-like followings much more than pure action games.
I barely play myself these days however I still watch all major tournaments, never missing stuff like GSL SPL. If you consider success to be a high population on ladder or do you consider to success to be high quality pro gamers and organisations partaking in tournaments that have a hell of a lot of money up for grabs. RTS will always be the purest of esports imo. Even though a lot of players may move over to MOBA's the old guard will still remember and realise that a MOBA is just a modded RTS.
Personally I believe that SC2 pro gaming will continue for a good few years, and that is how I will measure it's success.
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
It's weird that people used to defend SC2 and RTS by their merits and now we're just moving the goalpost. Success is subjective, sure. RTS is not dead because an entirely different genre dug its way out of its grave (TCG/CCG), sure. Whatever.
At the end of the day the genre is still going to be afflicted by the ills of an economically less-viable platform, whatever those may be. SC2 certainly does have a future, and it's valuable to those who'll be there to care.
I can't believe people isn't giving the proper credit to the genre problem. Right now the "new players" are awful, true story, most people don't want to lose time or die in a game, they want constant fast action, even in story mode they want to rush it ASAP and complete the game to said "I played it" But the worst part is when it comes to multiplayer, they don't want to play something hard, they want something easy, no brainer, fast and specially if they can put their frustration on others (team members) it is even better.
That is the reason so many games changed and others became so popular, for instance, MOBA, even if it has some depth, it is way easier to focus on ONE CHARACTER and play it always in team, and blame them if you lose, or let's see how RPGs has been evolved, now there isn't anymore turn based RPG where you actually needed to think your strategy, it is pure ARPG where you tun YOLO smashing buttons and setting few preset actions for your NPCs in the party.
RTS is a niche, right, ok, but with really low player base compared to other games, and the genre itself is dying, because there is not a lot of new people joining it, and it is not attractive to the regular player. That is why even if the most elitist fans of the genre defend it, you can see how Blizz tried really hard to increase the range of gameplays in SC2 itself, like Archon Mode, CoOp Missions, the Arcade itself, everything possible to keep customers playing it and not only the hard try ones used to 1v1 Multiplayer or the ones playing the campaign and leaving.
This is a whole culture change, and can see reflected on the videogames.
On February 29 2016 00:15 lestye wrote: I don't know why people think WC4 is the answer to everyone's problems. Casuals HATE HATE HATE micro, they only liked WC3 for the fantasy setting + custom maps. WC3 failed to surpass Starcraft 1's success, I don't see why it'd be any different w/ WC4.
That's why casuals LOVE Clash of Clans and all that other mobile stuff, they're not intersted in balancing micro and macro, strategy, builds, min maxing, they just want to make a big army and watch it fight in glorious combat.
Insert obligatory "are you kidding me"?
Casuals LOVE micro. They HATE macro. Do you think placing buildings, making workers is the most appealing aspect of starcraft for casuals? Why do you think MOBAs are so popular? Because of their enthralling macro? It's because controlling single units, microing them to their full effectiveness combined with cool spells is tons of fun.
I don't know about europe but SC2 is doomed in korea. I've been living in seoul for 2 months now, i've been to GSL / SSL / Proleague and i've been to PC bangs everywhere from sinchon to Gangnam.
Almost nobody plays the game, you will find more people playing SC1 than SC2. The people watching are always the same, i met the same korean people in yongsan and in gangnam, i spoke with a few of them and most told me that the studio have began to see less and less attendance. You may not notice it on stream but they take rows of seats off.
Can't empathize this enough but PC bangs are the life of PC gaming in korea and sc2 isn't watched nor is it played. People just don't have fun with it anymore ( which is pretty bad when its supposed to be a video GAME ).
I really doubt blizz can do anything to spice things up. Also no major overhauls are gonna happen, don't even trip we're on the highway to hell so better buckle up your seatbelts because we're all gonna crash together. Expected date of deader than dead : christmas 2018.
On February 29 2016 02:02 ProMeTheus112 wrote: when you make a RTS, if you make it really great, people will play it for decades,
NHL '94 and Tecmo Bowl are being played for decades .. M.U.L.E. finally died after a 30 year run. dont think RTS is somehow, something special. it ain't.
i will give you this though. Games with a big strategy component do get played longer and develop cult-like followings much more than pure action games.
oh I agree with you that's not specific to RTS just like you said every genres still having their specificities too (yeah RTS is something special^^)
On February 29 2016 02:41 Djzapz wrote: RTS is not dead because an entirely different genre dug its way out of its grave (TCG/CCG), sure. Whatever. At the end of the day the genre is still going to be afflicted by the ills of an economically less-viable platform, whatever those may be. SC2 certainly does have a future, and it's valuable to those who'll be there to care.
a TCG is a virtual representation of a physical game. Another example is Texas Hold'em poker in virtual form on PokerStars.Net or FultTilt.Net. In fact, the TCG has benefited from improving technology because I can now easily play it on my cell phone and tablet without running up a big phone bill for excess data usage. Its more convenient than ever to play a TCG. Is it more convenient to play an RTS game? No, its more convenient to play Mobile-Strike on my smart phone and watch shit blow up.
Pong , Vertical Gallery Shooters, Flight Simulators, Text Adventures, Multi-directional Shooters, Dot Eating Maze Games, Scrolling Shooters, etc. And this is just from 1980-1985. Want me to move on to 1986?
for every 1 borderline example you can name.. i can name 100 counter examples of declining and marginalized genres due to improving technology giving consumers more choices.
do people still play Space Invaders, Flight Simulators, Zork 3, Asteroids, MsPacman and Defender? Their world record high scores are constantly being challenged and broken. So, Yes, people play them. Do these genres create enough revenue to justify dozens of full time employees working on a commercial project ? no they do not. This is where RTS is headed.. and in many ways we're already there.
every video game genre ( that is not a virtual representation of a physical card game) has declined as technology has improved. RTS is no different.
On February 29 2016 02:02 ProMeTheus112 wrote: when you make a RTS, if you make it really great, people will play it for decades,
NHL '94 and Tecmo Bowl are being played for decades .. M.U.L.E. finally died after a 30 year run. dont think RTS is somehow, something special. it ain't.
i will give you this though. Games with a big strategy component do get played longer and develop cult-like followings much more than pure action games.
oh I agree with you that's not specific to RTS just like you said every genres still having their specificities too (yeah RTS is something special^^)
in my heart its special too. my heart isn't going to give ATVI the $100,000,000 USD they want to justify the investment in another RTS project though.
On February 29 2016 03:03 shid0x wrote: I don't know about europe but SC2 is doomed in korea. I've been living in seoul for 2 months now, i've been to GSL / SSL / Proleague and i've been to PC bangs everywhere from sinchon to Gangnam.
Almost nobody plays the game, you will find more people playing SC1 than SC2. The people watching are always the same, i met the same korean people in yongsan and in gangnam, i spoke with a few of them and most told me that the studio have began to see less and less attendance. You may not notice it on stream but they take rows of seats off.
Can't empathize this enough but PC bangs are the life of PC gaming in korea and sc2 isn't watched nor is it played. People just don't have fun with it anymore ( which is pretty bad when its supposed to be a video GAME ).
I really doubt blizz can do anything to spice things up. Also no major overhauls are gonna happen, don't even trip we're on the highway to hell so better buckle up your seatbelts because we're all gonna crash together. Expected date of deader than dead : christmas 2018.
I think this has been the case ever since HotS. Wings of Liberty was fun, because it was still fresh. A lot of people, including me expected big changes come HotS that never came, and the game just became boring and tedious over time. And LotV was just too little, too late. I think the big problem was aiming to become "esports" from the very start. You can't make esports happen. Esports happens when the game is fun to play for a big community. Its the community that designates what is esports worthy, not the developer. Between SC-like hardcore RTSes, Company of Heroes-like RTSes and the awkward Grey Goo / Act of Agression games, the genre is in a very weird place. Homeworld: Armies of Karak is like Dune I guess...
I personally had the most fun playing: Warcraft 3 (high HP units, very micro friendly), Armies of Exigo (excellent balance between micro/macro) Company of Heroes 1 (Like warhammer 40K, node control, squads of unique units, a bit of RNG in damage) and a fair bit of Red Alert 3 (pretty decent micro/macro balance) + Command and Conquer 3 (Tier 1 tank spam wars)
I'm trying to put together an image here what made these games FUN for me to play and for now I can say: easy and enjoyable on the surface BUT have enough depth to distinguish better players. Be it through more tactical/strategy options, better micro (saving units) or just out-muscling your opponent with more units.
I don't want to bash SC2 any further for its game design, but I do hope someone, somewhere makes a really good RTS in the foreseeable future.
On February 29 2016 02:41 Djzapz wrote: RTS is not dead because an entirely different genre dug its way out of its grave (TCG/CCG), sure. Whatever. At the end of the day the genre is still going to be afflicted by the ills of an economically less-viable platform, whatever those may be. SC2 certainly does have a future, and it's valuable to those who'll be there to care.
a TCG is a virtual representation of a physical game. Another example is Texas Hold'em poker in virtual form on PokerStars.Net or FultTilt.Net. In fact, the TCG has benefited from improving technology because I can now easily play it on my cell phone and tablet without running up a big phone bill for excess data usage. Its more convenient than ever to play a TCG. Is it more convenient to play an RTS game? No, its more convenient to play Mobile-Strike on my smart phone and watch shit blow up.
Pong , Vertical Gallery Shooters, Flight Simulators, Text Adventures, Multi-directional Shooters, Dot Eating Maze Games, Scrolling Shooters, etc. And this is just from 1980-1985. Want me to move on to 1986?
for every 1 borderline example you can name.. i can name 100 counter examples of declining and marginalized genres due to improving technology giving consumers more choices.
do people still play Space Invaders, Flight Simulators, Zork 3, Asteroids, MsPacman and Defender? Their world record high scores are constantly being challenged and broken. So, Yes, people play them. Do these genres create enough revenue to justify dozens of full time employees working on a commercial project ? no they do not. This is where RTS is headed.. and in many ways we're already there.
every video game genre ( that is not a virtual representation of a physical card game) has declined as technology has improved. RTS is no different.
On February 29 2016 03:27 Latham wrote: I personally had the most fun playing: Warcraft 3 (high HP units, very micro friendly), Armies of Exigo (excellent balance between micro/macro) Company of Heroes 1 (Like warhammer 40K, node control, squads of unique units, a bit of RNG in damage) and a fair bit of Red Alert 3 (pretty decent micro/macro balance) + Command and Conquer 3 (Tier 1 tank spam wars)
my favs are: RA3, SC2/WoL/Hots/LotV, CoH1, and SC1/Brood War.
i could never get into Warcraft for the very scientific reason that Jeremy/Jared Cale brings up in his Pure Pwnage web series. "dragons, magic, and bows and arrows? LOL are you serious? i can take all that out with 1 Mirage Tank". i'm sure WC2 and WC3 are very well made though.
On February 29 2016 01:19 saddaromma wrote: Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a good game. Thats about it.
Genre has everything to do with it. improving tech made RTS possible and years later improving tech gave consumers more choices so they could move onto to something they liked more than RTS. Lots of badly flawed RTS games flourished in the late 90s because the buzz of watching 100 units kill 100 units with 1000s of bullets flying every where was just awesome to see.
this decline due to tech improvements has happened to dozens of different genres ,... RTS is nothing special..
i can list 10+ genres this has already happened to .. but i'm too lazy.
hell, improving Tech took out the entire North American Arcade Industry which consisted of many genres.. all at once.. just gone ... a nuclear holocaust of an industry.
did arcade games suddenly get bad in 2005? like every arcade game? No, improving technology gave consumers more choices.
stop believing the myth that game quality is the #1 prime factor in determining a purchasing decision.
What makes you think the RTS genre should live forever when every other genre dies ?
On February 29 2016 01:19 saddaromma wrote: Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a good game. Thats about it.
Genre is a huge part of it. There's a reason why Dota outgrew Warcraft 3 in popularity. Social accessible team based games were more fun than stressful micro games. It's not that Warcraft 3 was not a good game.
to add to your point. improving technology made this possible. 5v5 games were just not possible in 1996 any place in Canada except MAYBE within the epicenter of Toronto and Montreal. Very few teenagers and young adults have residence in these areas. Its all commercial space.
Now you can play a 5v5 game in 1000X as many places in Canada as compared to 1996.
its all about improving tech giving rise to one genre while "choicing out of the market" another genre.
Technology will keep improving ... consumers will continue to get more choices and the MOBA will be choiced out of the market by the same process that has killed every other genre in the history of the video game industry.
1996 is a loooong time ago and after 2003 ish almost everybody could do it....
On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote: And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
On February 29 2016 01:19 saddaromma wrote: Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a good game. Thats about it.
Genre has everything to do with it. improving tech made RTS possible and years later improving tech gave consumers more choices so they could move onto to something they liked more than RTS. Lots of badly flawed RTS games flourished in the late 90s because the buzz of watching 100 units kill 100 units with 1000s of bullets flying every where was just awesome to see.
this decline due to tech improvements has happened to dozens of different genres ,... RTS is nothing special..
i can list 10+ genres this has already happened to .. but i'm too lazy.
hell, improving Tech took out the entire North American Arcade Industry which consisted of many genres.. all at once.. just gone ... a nuclear holocaust of an industry.
did arcade games suddenly get bad in 2005? like every arcade game? No, improving technology gave consumers more choices.
stop believing the myth that game quality is the #1 prime factor in determining a purchasing decision.
What makes you think the RTS genre should live forever when every other genre dies ?
On February 29 2016 01:27 lestye wrote:
On February 29 2016 01:19 saddaromma wrote: Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a good game. Thats about it.
Genre is a huge part of it. There's a reason why Dota outgrew Warcraft 3 in popularity. Social accessible team based games were more fun than stressful micro games. It's not that Warcraft 3 was not a good game.
to add to your point. improving technology made this possible. 5v5 games were just not possible in 1996 any place in Canada except MAYBE within the epicenter of Toronto and Montreal. Very few teenagers and young adults have residence in these areas. Its all commercial space.
Now you can play a 5v5 game in 1000X as many places in Canada as compared to 1996.
its all about improving tech giving rise to one genre while "choicing out of the market" another genre.
Technology will keep improving ... consumers will continue to get more choices and the MOBA will be choiced out of the market by the same process that has killed every other genre in the history of the video game industry.
1996 is a loooong time ago and after 2003 ish almost everybody could do it....
"almost everybody could do it" : you can't make a world wide generalization like this.... i'd say for non-urbanized Ontario and non-urbanized Quebec it was 2005. I can't speak for the rest of the world though.
This tech advancement made it possible for a MOBA to exist. A MOBA could not exist in 1996. First it must be technically possible. Then, someone must make a game to exploit the new technology. When did DOTA1 come out?
The fact that the RTS genre has hung on so long is a tribute to Blizzard and Relic. Isn't it interesting that David Kim worked for both guys.
My fav RTS : 1. obviously Starcraft/Brood War 2. omg that's tough, Warcraft 3 3. Age of Empires 2. Ok not so tough.
others : had lots of fun with Red Alert (1), Tiberian Sun, Dark Reign, War Wind, Age of Empires, Homeworld&Cataclysm, Warcraft 2, Total Annihilation, Empire Earth. It's really really fun to play one of these against somebody else too not just single player, they kind of teach their own things but I think the previous 3 have a lot more depth in the long run for multiplayer
(War Wind seems pretty unknown, this game has really really good music, graphics, universe and story, solo campaign bit hard puzzle-like but fun to play + some cinematics, very cool editor, and so you can make and play all sorts of custom games. clunky controls and weird (long) development of games so that it's definitely not the best in multiplayer... definitely not competitive.. but man I loved this game in single player or fun games. 4 races very unique and surprising O_O there are all sorts of hostile or neutral animals on the maps, stronger weaker etc)
On February 29 2016 00:15 lestye wrote: I don't know why people think WC4 is the answer to everyone's problems. Casuals HATE HATE HATE micro, they only liked WC3 for the fantasy setting + custom maps. WC3 failed to surpass Starcraft 1's success, I don't see why it'd be any different w/ WC4.
That's why casuals LOVE Clash of Clans and all that other mobile stuff, they're not intersted in balancing micro and macro, strategy, builds, min maxing, they just want to make a big army and watch it fight in glorious combat.
Insert obligatory "are you kidding me"?
Casuals LOVE micro. They HATE macro. Do you think placing buildings, making workers is the most appealing aspect of starcraft for casuals? Why do you think MOBAs are so popular? Because of their enthralling macro? It's because controlling single units, microing them to their full effectiveness combined with cool spells is tons of fun.
Microing 1 unit is way different more than 1.
Absolutely not. Look in any casual thread. What do they call Starcraft/Warcraft? Clickfests. Thats what they see the game as. Click click click and not real strategy.
Also look how many people who REFUSE/incapable of playing Meepo/Chen/Enchantress in Dota. Thats because micro is too much for a lot of people.
If you look at RTS threads made by casuals, they'll say something along the lines of "I want a strategy game thats more about strategy and less about clicking/being fast, like Starcraft which is all apm" or something dumb like that.
On February 29 2016 05:13 lestye wrote: If you look at RTS threads made by casuals, they'll say something along the lines of "I want a strategy game thats more about strategy and less about clicking/being fast, like Starcraft which is all apm" or something dumb like that.
One time a friend @university said this to me about Starcraft arguing his turn-based phone-strategy game had more strategy to it. I proceeded to challenge and beat him at that game with 10x less experience. It's true that Starcraft (1 & 2) takes a lot of clicks, and I understand that some people don't want to have to deal with that. However, games that take a lot less clicks aren't necessarily quite as deep in decision making either, and may involve a lot less skill overall. The thing is, in a RTS with many elements, if you want the game to be neither too simple nor too slow, you can expect people will have to click a lot and really fast, but that's not all they do haha.
I really think Blizzard is the best studio making RTS after the golden age, the sequels of AoE2, C&C, etc, didnt live the expectations, and in terms of making a video game Blizzard made a good job with SC2, but they failed miserably captivating the essence that made those original RTS games so good, Blizz had half of its market in Korea and they blew it up with this game, SC2 never was relevant in Korea and never will, the "come back" of BW is just natural, because people who like RTS in Korea just stay playing it and the pro scene in Korea for SC2 is not strong at all if you take away Blizz support. The future of SC2 will be in a few years like AoE2 right now, an old game, played by a good but not big community, and with tournaments sponsored by people who grew old and have some money to spare in their lovely game. I really think that one of the factors of RTS declined popularity is that the new RTS never achieved the "magic" which the old ones had, the studios just focused too much in grapichs and easier gameplay, when indeed you can play any RTS in a relax and easy way if you want.
I think you guys drank too much of the dead gaem kool-aid really dismissing SC2's success and what SC2 does right.
No, its not as popular as League but nothing is. SC2 is still one of only 2 esports that people are still get sponsored in Korea with, so calling it "never relevant" is way overblowing it.. It's still the most popular RTS in the world and the one being most played right now.
On February 29 2016 06:10 lestye wrote: I think you guys drank too much of the dead gaem kool-aid really dismissing SC2's success and what SC2 does right.
No, its not as popular as League but nothing is. SC2 is still one of only 2 esports that people are still get sponsored in Korea with, so calling it "never relevant" is way overblowing it.. It's still the most popular RTS in the world and the one being most played right now.
In Korea never was relevant, and how could it be if BW was, is and will be much bigger, in the rest of the world is the only new RTS played, and of course is the most popular. It is not a dead game,you have sponsored tournaments, Blizz commitment and everything else, but the decline is a fact.
I think the main issue is that RTS used to be games that could easily be played together with friends and LAN parties / internet cafes were a big part of that. Mostly everyone was pretty bad at RTS games and the ones that could actually play had a fun time winning 1v3 or games.
The time BW was most popular in EU/US wasn't the time that Korean broadcasts had a big impact. I remember the first time I played SC (not BW) multiplayer back in the 90s. It was fun because you could figure out new tricks and the games weren't as serious.
Today RTS games are very difficult to play on a decent level, it's difficult to play with other people that like the game. The skill difference is just too big. That has happened in most games, but it's way easier to have fun as a scrub in CS in LoL than in SC:2.
I love the game, I enjoy watching it but I would never play multiplayer because the time I needed to invest to even remotely compete is way too high. This is positive in the sense that the game has an unreachable skill ceiling but on the other hand also means that for most people the learning curve is too steep. If you come to TL and look at the threads to learn what it takes to play the game you find things that will tell 95% of the interested players to give up right away and never come back.
Archon mode didn't solve that either and instead of 4v4 people are just going to play a moba.
I think SC2 needs to embrace that and instead of trying to make the game more accessible to new players the game should focus on being the hardest but the best game there is. Let plebs like me watch the game and the pros play it.
We know from experience that blizzard leaves a skeleton crew behind after starcraft game or expansion releases. However, they mostly abandon the games/expansions after release until the next release.
Therefore, we should expect what we've had: nothing substantial besides balance tweaks and some esports money.
On February 29 2016 06:10 lestye wrote: I think you guys drank too much of the dead gaem kool-aid really dismissing SC2's success and what SC2 does right.
No, its not as popular as League but nothing is. SC2 is still one of only 2 esports that people are still get sponsored in Korea with, so calling it "never relevant" is way overblowing it.. It's still the most popular RTS in the world and the one being most played right now.
In Korea never was relevant, and how could it be if BW was, is and will be much bigger, in the rest of the world is the only new RTS played, and of course is the most popular. It is not a dead game,you have sponsored tournaments, Blizz commitment and everything else, but the decline is a fact.
"never relevant" when its one of 2 esports that people get sponsored to play professionally. That's hardly non-relevant. Dota 2 in Korea was never relevant. Those words dont describe SC2.
On February 29 2016 06:37 HewTheTitan wrote: We know from experience that blizzard leaves a skeleton crew behind after starcraft game or expansion releases. However, they mostly abandon the games/expansions after release until the next release.
Therefore, we should expect what we've had: nothing substantial besides balance tweaks and some esports money.
Luckily, Day9's game will be in beta next week...
Except, the Executive Producer says there is no new game or expansion to go onto. That's why the whole Blizzcon panel on what's next for Starcraft. That's why they're selling co-op commanders and map packs and promised us new feature
If you come to TL and look at the threads to learn what it takes to play the game you find things that will tell 95% of the interested players to give up right away and never come back.
That's not true. We tell them to stop thinking so much and just practice mechanics for 2-5 years while copying some pro build until they're diamond. We try to encourage them not to quit before the grind pays off.
Then they can tweak things a bit, though they still can't do the strats they have in their heads because of mechanics still...
Somewhere in low masters you can start to play the 'actual' game, a bit.
edit: for example, to teach my friend to play I make 100% non-blink stalkers and just attack a lot with low bases. He still only wins half or less, then quit the game when his neat nuke rushes didn't work. He bought into a strategy game and got a mechanics game
On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote: And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
Diablo 2 servers and SC BW servers still supported....
On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote: And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
Diablo 2 servers and SC BW servers still supported....
SC2's arrival killed bw in korea. It is coming back, hopefully will return with a vengeance, but it did die for a while.
On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote: And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
Diablo 2 servers and SC BW servers still supported....
SC2's arrival killed bw in korea. It is coming back, hopefully will return with a vengeance, but it did die for a while.
A fella who goes by the name of God seemed to smash out some pretty sick viewer numbers for Brood War this afternoon.
70k 2 weekends in a row might be the start of a revival.
So tempted to insert a viewbot joke but.... resist....
If you come to TL and look at the threads to learn what it takes to play the game you find things that will tell 95% of the interested players to give up right away and never come back.
That's not true. We tell them to stop thinking so much and just practice mechanics for 2-5 years while copying some pro build until they're diamond. We try to encourage them not to quit before the grind pays off.
Then they can tweak things a bit, though they still can't do the strats they have in their heads because of mechanics still...
Somewhere in low masters you can start to play the 'actual' game, a bit.
edit: for example, to teach my friend to play I make 100% non-blink stalkers and just attack a lot with low bases. He still only wins half or less, then quit the game when his neat nuke rushes didn't work. He bought into a strategy game and got a mechanics game
It's RTS, not TBS, for a reason. If he wants to experiment with wacky ideas without having to git gud, he can play Heroes of Might and Magic, XCOM, or maybe a CCG like Hearthstone.
On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote: And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care.
Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years
On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote: And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care.
Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years
Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though.
Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T
On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote: And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care.
Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years
Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though.
Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T
It's hard to say, because like, they took a huge risk with WC3 having so many RPG elements, items, heroes. What would that look like in today's world? Would you go back to the roots of WC2? Would you make it WC3 with very tame items/heroes compared today's MOBAs, or would you embrace how hero design has changed over the years.
There's a lot of room where they could alienate people. Way moreso than SC2 and BW.
Blizzard are still clearly interested in developing the Warcraft theme/lore, they are making a movie about it. I'm pretty sure they would make another Warcraft game somewhere down the road. Not to mention they are going to do Legion, I personally couldn't care for World of Warcraft anymore but will definitely watch the film.
On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote: And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care.
Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years
Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though.
Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T
It's hard to say, because like, they took a huge risk with WC3 having so many RPG elements, items, heroes. What would that look like in today's world? Would you go back to the roots of WC2? Would you make it WC3 with very tame items/heroes compared today's MOBAs, or would you embrace how hero design has changed over the years.
There's a lot of room where they could alienate people. Way moreso than SC2 and BW.
Yes T_T I would love a great WC4, but I fear this stuff you said T_T It's important to remember, Blizzard was a very different company when they made WC3, WoW didn't exist, no Activision command, smaller teams.. more passion less business, more creativity less marketing. What it takes to craft a gem.
On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote: And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care.
Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years
Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though.
Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T
It's hard to say, because like, they took a huge risk with WC3 having so many RPG elements, items, heroes. What would that look like in today's world? Would you go back to the roots of WC2? Would you make it WC3 with very tame items/heroes compared today's MOBAs, or would you embrace how hero design has changed over the years.
There's a lot of room where they could alienate people. Way moreso than SC2 and BW.
Yes T_T I would love a great WC4, but I fear this stuff you said T_T It's important to remember, Blizzard was a very different company when they made WC3, WoW didn't exist, no Activision command, smaller teams.. more passion less business, more creativity less marketing. What it takes to craft a gem.
I wasn't saying how they're too different now because they suck. I think they're still amazing. The problem is that there's so many choices they can go down. Like if you were a huge Starcraft fan, or a huge Warcraft II fan and you saw WC3 you could easily go "WTF is this RPG shit in an RTS? PVE mobs in a PVP game? RNG items? UPKEEEEP??? I remember when Blizzard used to make good RTS, now Vinvedi is making them ruin their games, I miss the Old Blizzard."
Basically if they do something risky, they risk alienating the old fans by taking out/changing things that they loved from the first game. But... if they don't do anything new... they're rehashing, not doing anything exciting/ambitious.
Thats what I mean, damned if they do, damned if they don't.
On February 29 2016 07:45 lestye wrote: I remember when Blizzard used to make good RTS, now Vinvedi is making them ruin their games, I miss the Old Blizzard."
i think you mean Vivendi. Vivendi owned 6% of ATVI and cashed out about a month ago. Vivendi has been a non-factor for at least 2.5 years.
On February 29 2016 07:45 lestye wrote: I remember when Blizzard used to make good RTS, now Vinvedi is making them ruin their games, I miss the Old Blizzard."
i think you mean Vivendi. Vivendi owned 6% of ATVI and cashed out about a month ago. Vivendi has been a non-factor for at least 2.5 years.
No, I'm saying look back from 2003's perspective you could have people bitching about Vivendi. Everytime Blizzard makes a decision that people dont like, its apparently Activision's fault.
On February 29 2016 08:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Brood War was made under Vivendi's ownership... as was WoW and WC3.
You're not listening. I'm saying any criticism of WC3 because it was so different you could bitch about Vinvedi because WC3 was so different than anything else. Any big jump or small jump people are going to bitch about the owners. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't when it comes to doing something new.
and the quote "I remember when Blizzard used to make good RTS, now Vinvedi is making them ruin their games, I miss the Old Blizzard." would not apply unless you're saying people also thought SC1 and Brood War sucked as well.
where is this "old Blizzard" ... the Blizzard of pre-1998 before SC1 came out?
forgetting about this nit-picky detail.
yes, people will complain about whatever apparent corporate moves they see and assume Bob Kotick is telling David Kim's testing staff how to test the Nova Covert OPs 3rd mission., and Kotick wants a Siege Tank that does more damage.. etc.
I'm sure there are large differences in the way Vivendi treated with Blizzard and the way Activision is treating with Blizzard. It probably wasn't perfect before though (never took interest in Vivendi ownership of Blizzard before though I just knew about it). Many reasons why things can go right or wrong and people want different things But the business model destroying games is a very real thing, as well as the shift in the way Blizzard makes games since WoW & Activision merge.
On February 29 2016 08:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote: and the quote "I remember when Blizzard used to make good RTS, now Vinvedi is making them ruin their games, I miss the Old Blizzard." would not apply unless you're saying people also thought SC1 and Brood War sucked as well.
where is this "old Blizzard" ... the Blizzard of pre-1998 before SC1 came out?
You're messing my point completely. I'm not saying that's something I believe. I'm saying bitching at who owns a company is worthless criticism most of the time.
I'm trying to make a point by mocking people who bitch at Activision when Blizzard makes any decisions.
It's kinda like the Old Guard falacy. Let's say Chris Metzen left the company way in 2007 and we magically got the same EXACT stories we do now. We'd be bitching that Activision ruined the story themselves and we'd say "wow, I miss when Chris Metzen was working there, all the stories were amazing, they should have never let him get away. Activision ruined the story."
When the reality is the same people who did awesome decisions in the past, when they do something new can make something you dont like.
It's just better to be aware of this stuff so as not to fall to false expectations that they communicate in their marketing campaigns, we can get owned by this crap as gamers and communities if we're not careful (and developpers I'm sure). There are guys making plans to draw a maximized amount of people to buy their product (maybe multiple times) with shallow game making plans to simply appeal to them, marketing. When you make this type of choice as root in your game design it destroys the other root choices you could have made for making a great new unique game which would appeal to.. whoever likes it!
Blizzard is the only company from whom i pre-order games.
Usually i buy games that are 1+ years old at a steep discount based on the super-obvious fact that the games lasting power over those 1+ years show that it must be good.
On February 29 2016 08:58 TheBloodyDwarf wrote: If Microsoft decides to do Age of Empires 4 it would be the only game I can imagine myself pre-ordering. That will most likely never happen tho To be fair, I could care less about WarCraft.
Ensemble Studios is gone. Their last game was Halo Wars. Its a cryin' shame because it was a really nice console RTS with an innovative control-scheme and a cult-like following. MS is renting out Creative Assembly to make Halo Wars 2.
AoE was never "my type of game"... but it was loved for many years. its a cryin' shame MS closed Ensemble.
On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote: And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care.
Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years
Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though.
Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T
Tbh, I don't think how their handling SC2 is fair to the community anyway. Would be the same feelings as now.
On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote: And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care.
Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years
Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though.
Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T
It's hard to say, because like, they took a huge risk with WC3 having so many RPG elements, items, heroes. What would that look like in today's world? Would you go back to the roots of WC2? Would you make it WC3 with very tame items/heroes compared today's MOBAs, or would you embrace how hero design has changed over the years.
There's a lot of room where they could alienate people. Way moreso than SC2 and BW.
Yes T_T I would love a great WC4, but I fear this stuff you said T_T It's important to remember, Blizzard was a very different company when they made WC3, WoW didn't exist, no Activision command, smaller teams.. more passion less business, more creativity less marketing. What it takes to craft a gem.
I wasn't saying how they're too different now because they suck. I think they're still amazing. The problem is that there's so many choices they can go down. Like if you were a huge Starcraft fan, or a huge Warcraft II fan and you saw WC3 you could easily go "WTF is this RPG shit in an RTS? PVE mobs in a PVP game? RNG items? UPKEEEEP??? I remember when Blizzard used to make good RTS, now Vinvedi is making them ruin their games, I miss the Old Blizzard."
Basically if they do something risky, they risk alienating the old fans by taking out/changing things that they loved from the first game. But... if they don't do anything new... they're rehashing, not doing anything exciting/ambitious.
Thats what I mean, damned if they do, damned if they don't.
The first paragraph was my response (and group of gamer friends responses) to WC3 at release anyway. Some of us didn't even play it serious all the way through vanilla. It had some good ideas, but was a little too far from the original. But Frozen Throne added more layers strategically to the game, it added the things that were missing in WC3 compared to other RTS, and added a counter system that was very well designed. They put the strategic decision and responses back in to the game. They took a risk, took a game that had a luke-warm reception with competitive players at release, and with an expansion, filled in the empty spots by bringing it back to it's roots a bit, and made it in to a great game. That was the norm for Blizzard.
I wouldn't say their damned if they do, damned if they dont, though. WC3 is a great example of that because they did a great recovery on the game. SC2 is an example of the opposite. They had 2 expansions, instead of just 1, and each successive release has alienated more players, and each release they have went FURTHER from what StarCraft is at it's roots, not closer.
Players don't want the "old StarCraft". People of course want a "new StarCraft". That implies StarCraft with new improvements on top. That's not what they are delivering. The "improvements" over the original game are very controversial as to if they are improvements at all, and much of the original feel is lost. Especially for a game like SC where your race determines what the game actually is to the player, and none of the 3 races function like the originals. It's expected that most people will want the feeling of the original races, just with some improvements. I mean just look at all the players who have been begging for things like siege tanks and hydras to be put in to a position that actually makes sense and feels like the racial identity that was presented to us in StarCraft.
But nope... and there isn't even a logical synergy between each tier of units in so many cases. They just removed what people felt was great from the original games, and replaced it with something that doesn't quite make sense.
The game needs to be placed on a free model and make it more playable for the general public - I dont know how to do that exactly but it has been a successful method
A storyline needs to be put in place and then added to the environment of the game
On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote: And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care.
Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years
Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though.
Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T
Tbh, I don't think how their handling SC2 is fair to the community anyway. Would be the same feelings as now.
On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote: And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care.
Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years
Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though.
Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T
It's hard to say, because like, they took a huge risk with WC3 having so many RPG elements, items, heroes. What would that look like in today's world? Would you go back to the roots of WC2? Would you make it WC3 with very tame items/heroes compared today's MOBAs, or would you embrace how hero design has changed over the years.
There's a lot of room where they could alienate people. Way moreso than SC2 and BW.
Yes T_T I would love a great WC4, but I fear this stuff you said T_T It's important to remember, Blizzard was a very different company when they made WC3, WoW didn't exist, no Activision command, smaller teams.. more passion less business, more creativity less marketing. What it takes to craft a gem.
I wasn't saying how they're too different now because they suck. I think they're still amazing. The problem is that there's so many choices they can go down. Like if you were a huge Starcraft fan, or a huge Warcraft II fan and you saw WC3 you could easily go "WTF is this RPG shit in an RTS? PVE mobs in a PVP game? RNG items? UPKEEEEP??? I remember when Blizzard used to make good RTS, now Vinvedi is making them ruin their games, I miss the Old Blizzard."
Basically if they do something risky, they risk alienating the old fans by taking out/changing things that they loved from the first game. But... if they don't do anything new... they're rehashing, not doing anything exciting/ambitious.
Thats what I mean, damned if they do, damned if they don't.
The first paragraph was my response (and group of gamer friends responses) to WC3 at release anyway. Some of us didn't even play it serious all the way through vanilla. It had some good ideas, but was a little too far from the original. But Frozen Throne added more layers strategically to the game, it added the things that were missing in WC3 compared to other RTS, and added a counter system that was very well designed. They put the strategic decision and responses back in to the game. They took a risk, took a game that had a luke-warm reception with competitive players at release, and with an expansion, filled in the empty spots by bringing it back to it's roots a bit, and made it in to a great game. That was the norm for Blizzard.
I wouldn't say their damned if they do, damned if they dont, though. WC3 is a great example of that because they did a great recovery on the game. SC2 is an example of the opposite. They had 2 expansions, instead of just 1, and each successive release has alienated more players, and each release they have went FURTHER from what StarCraft is at it's roots, not closer.
Players don't want the "old StarCraft". People of course want a "new StarCraft". That implies StarCraft with new improvements on top. That's not what they are delivering. The "improvements" over the original game are very controversial as to if they are improvements at all, and much of the original feel is lost. Especially for a game like SC where your race determines what the game actually is to the player, and none of the 3 races function like the originals. It's expected that most people will want the feeling of the original races, just with some improvements. I mean just look at all the players who have been begging for things like siege tanks and hydras to be put in to a position that actually makes sense and feels like the racial identity that was presented to us in StarCraft.
But nope... and there isn't even a logical synergy between each tier of units in so many cases. They just removed what people felt was great from the original games, and replaced it with something that doesn't quite make sense.
What? The expansions did bring new stuff to the table and make the game waaay better than before. I don't see where you get this idea of "alienation" from. There's no Wings of Liberty elitists that insist HOTS ruined the game. It's gone in a better direction.
I totally get that part about unit identiy, but there's always interesting strategic gameplay options if you deviate from that kind of stuff. That what Artosis and other members of the community have argued for things like tank medivac gameplay.
On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote: And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care.
Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years
Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though.
Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T
Tbh, I don't think how their handling SC2 is fair to the community anyway. Would be the same feelings as now.
On February 29 2016 07:45 lestye wrote:
On February 29 2016 07:36 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
On February 29 2016 07:28 lestye wrote:
On February 29 2016 07:19 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
On February 29 2016 07:06 Spyridon wrote:
On February 29 2016 04:05 Jealous wrote:
On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote: And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care.
Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years
Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though.
Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T
It's hard to say, because like, they took a huge risk with WC3 having so many RPG elements, items, heroes. What would that look like in today's world? Would you go back to the roots of WC2? Would you make it WC3 with very tame items/heroes compared today's MOBAs, or would you embrace how hero design has changed over the years.
There's a lot of room where they could alienate people. Way moreso than SC2 and BW.
Yes T_T I would love a great WC4, but I fear this stuff you said T_T It's important to remember, Blizzard was a very different company when they made WC3, WoW didn't exist, no Activision command, smaller teams.. more passion less business, more creativity less marketing. What it takes to craft a gem.
I wasn't saying how they're too different now because they suck. I think they're still amazing. The problem is that there's so many choices they can go down. Like if you were a huge Starcraft fan, or a huge Warcraft II fan and you saw WC3 you could easily go "WTF is this RPG shit in an RTS? PVE mobs in a PVP game? RNG items? UPKEEEEP??? I remember when Blizzard used to make good RTS, now Vinvedi is making them ruin their games, I miss the Old Blizzard."
Basically if they do something risky, they risk alienating the old fans by taking out/changing things that they loved from the first game. But... if they don't do anything new... they're rehashing, not doing anything exciting/ambitious.
Thats what I mean, damned if they do, damned if they don't.
The first paragraph was my response (and group of gamer friends responses) to WC3 at release anyway. Some of us didn't even play it serious all the way through vanilla. It had some good ideas, but was a little too far from the original. But Frozen Throne added more layers strategically to the game, it added the things that were missing in WC3 compared to other RTS, and added a counter system that was very well designed. They put the strategic decision and responses back in to the game. They took a risk, took a game that had a luke-warm reception with competitive players at release, and with an expansion, filled in the empty spots by bringing it back to it's roots a bit, and made it in to a great game. That was the norm for Blizzard.
I wouldn't say their damned if they do, damned if they dont, though. WC3 is a great example of that because they did a great recovery on the game. SC2 is an example of the opposite. They had 2 expansions, instead of just 1, and each successive release has alienated more players, and each release they have went FURTHER from what StarCraft is at it's roots, not closer.
Players don't want the "old StarCraft". People of course want a "new StarCraft". That implies StarCraft with new improvements on top. That's not what they are delivering. The "improvements" over the original game are very controversial as to if they are improvements at all, and much of the original feel is lost. Especially for a game like SC where your race determines what the game actually is to the player, and none of the 3 races function like the originals. It's expected that most people will want the feeling of the original races, just with some improvements. I mean just look at all the players who have been begging for things like siege tanks and hydras to be put in to a position that actually makes sense and feels like the racial identity that was presented to us in StarCraft.
But nope... and there isn't even a logical synergy between each tier of units in so many cases. They just removed what people felt was great from the original games, and replaced it with something that doesn't quite make sense.
What? The expansions did bring new stuff to the table and make the game waaay better than before. I don't see where you get this idea of "alienation" from. There's no Wings of Liberty elitists that insist HOTS ruined the game. It's gone in a better direction.
I totally get that part about unit identiy, but there's always interesting strategic gameplay options if you deviate from that kind of stuff. That what Artosis and other members of the community have argued for things like tank medivac gameplay.
So you would honestly say SC2 is an overall improvement over SC1/BW? Not just graphically or meeting current UI standards, but the actual gameplay itself you feel is an improvement?
I would not say that. I felt WoL was a lil bland and needed work, but it was just a start, it was a decent start, and that is what I expected from a first release. Just a few problems to be addressed and they would be good. Thats how every Blizz game is at release. Blizzard usually makes massive improvements in expansions and makes the game much more playable. HotS basically took a few of the problems the game had and made them worse, without even touching most of them. They focused only on the problems of the final meta of WoL, rather than the design issues the game itself had. LotV imo continued this trend, but also removed much of the strategic gameplay & decisions with the new tech speed/timings/economic growth.
I would take the play style of any of the 3 BW races, over their SC2 versions. Any day. I don't feel any of them is a real improvement over the originals. The racial identity was lost and replaced with messiness.
And by "alienate", I mean each successive expansion more players are lost. More than a dozen friends played WoL together in my gaming group. HotS only 2 of my training partners played the game, and 3 ppl I know total. LotV I was the only one. None of the reasons people quit have been addressed. Nothing makes them want to give it another chance. That was a trend of the game as a whole. Unlike all other Blizzard expansions, the SC2 expansions didn't really turn things around, nor did they bring more people in.
TL:DR - RTS is an almost dead genre - SC2 has success thanks mainly to BW universe - LotV is quite good and will improve - There are and could be excellent mods for SC2 - Blizz will be always keeping LotV alive - If LotV starts to die and/or Blizz abandon it, the Mods will save it
RTS is far from dead, there is just a lack of good RTS games at the moment beyond SC2.
LotV is pushing the genre away from strategy and toward micro, and that is why it seems like RTS is almost dead genre. LotV is going in the wrong direction.
Your second to last point contradicts your last point. And as for excellent mods and mods saving LotV, I don't think so. Modders are moving away from SC2, back to WC3 or to DOTA 2. The SC2 editor is garbage.
TL:DR - RTS is an almost dead genre - SC2 has success thanks mainly to BW universe - LotV is quite good and will improve - There are and could be excellent mods for SC2 - Blizz will be always keeping LotV alive - If LotV starts to die and/or Blizz abandon it, the Mods will save it
RTS is far from dead, there is just a lack of good RTS games at the moment beyond SC2.
LotV is pushing the genre away from strategy and toward micro, and that is why it seems like RTS is almost dead genre. LotV is going in the wrong direction.
Your second to last point contradicts your last point. And as for excellent mods and mods saving LotV, I don't think so. Modders are moving away from SC2, back to WC3 or to DOTA 2. The SC2 editor is garbage.
And I say that as a modder.
Agreed on the mods. It should have been one of the main selling points of the game, same as with SC and WC3. They didn''t give it enough attention from the beginning.
And spot on the strategic gameplay argument. They are going the completely wrong direction.
Sadly, MOBA games tend to actually have more strategic gameplay than SC2. That's why most strategy players moved there. It's not simply because "MOBA are popular". It's becuase MOBA offers a similar style of gameplay and combat mechanics. Strategic choices, builds, counterplay, scouting, zone control, ambushes, pincers, resource management... all those are still found in a MOBA. In some cases, you get a lot more of it in a MOBA.
But instead of adding more strategic game play to the STRATEGY game, they try to make it more like a MOBA mechanically. But it's the strategy that brings players there, not the mechanics. The mechanics of a MOBA are based on an RTS anyway.
tbh Warcraft III also had the best arcade ever. Which is still better than SC2 today, i still play a few custom map with my friends from time to time. Maps such as Legion TD have more success than any SC2 arcade map will ever had, SC2 is heavy, slow battlenet linked, with an arstyle that does not fit arcade at all. Shit WC3 arcade is so fun, you can do everything from alien to DBZ characters and somewhow it will work out, whereas sc2.....Looks like shit in arcade to be frank.
On February 29 2016 14:29 MasterCynical wrote: I believe blizz is gonna keep supporting sc2 with stuff like dlc and balance patches, but will eventually faze out updates as sales plateau to a low.
After that they'll transfer any remaining people who are working full time on sc2 over to heroes of the storm where the real money will be.
Blizz already is doing that.
SC2 is getting supported with more mission packs, but very few actual multiplayer changes. Already being phased out.
SC2 devs already went over to Heroes. That's what happened to Browder. Plus he stated in the past that much of the SC2 team were the people who were working on Heroes.
Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams. Much of the teams are shared. Even David Kim was announced to have been working on Heroes. SC2 and Heroes are both worked on by "Team 1". Team 1 is the team that works on all of the Blizzard RTS-style games (WC/SC/Heroes).
That's exactly the reason why so many people are upset. It's not like Blizz doesn't have the manpower, or the quality of designers available, or the funds to do it. They simply have not chosen to and put other games as a higher priority. Which is alarming since this is pretty much the first time Blizzard has treated a game this way. It's in the state it's in by choice.
Which, btw, is also part of the reason people suspect they might just be working on another RTS.
On February 29 2016 14:52 Spyridon wrote: Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams. Much of the teams are shared. Even David Kim was announced to have been working on Heroes. SC2 and Heroes are both worked on by "Team 1". Team 1 is the team that works on all of the Blizzard RTS-style games (WC/SC/Heroes).
That's exactly the reason why so many people are upset. It's not like Blizz doesn't have the manpower, or the quality of designers available, or the funds to do it. They simply have not chosen to and put other games as a higher priority. Which is alarming since this is pretty much the first time Blizzard has treated a game this way. It's in the state it's in by choice.
Which, btw, is also part of the reason people suspect they might just be working on another RTS.
i don't think both Sigaty and Browder are lying or intentionally misleading Blizzard followers. ATVI is not funding another RTS because it generates too little revenue. LotV won't even make $0.1 Billion and the entire SC franchise since JUly 2010 has contributed less than 1.5% to ATVI's revenue stream.
Sigaty said nothing will step on SC2's toes or enter its market-space for 10 years. i don't think he is hiding anything. he was careful about how he expressed himself to make sure he as not misleading the questioner.
"Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams"
its not a "popular belief" unless you're prepared to say Browder is outright lying. Browder stated teh Team-1 consists of 80 people and the Heroes team consists of 140 people. His tweets came within a week of each other. If you think he is bullshitting or intentionally misleading people with "slippery language" then call him out on it... and see what happens.
here is the info i have based on sources i trust.
The SC2 quote of 80
The Heroes quote of 140+
if you have sources to back your points you should include them.
TL:DR - RTS is an almost dead genre - SC2 has success thanks mainly to BW universe - LotV is quite good and will improve - There are and could be excellent mods for SC2 - Blizz will be always keeping LotV alive - If LotV starts to die and/or Blizz abandon it, the Mods will save it
RTS is far from dead, there is just a lack of good RTS games at the moment beyond SC2.
LotV is pushing the genre away from strategy and toward micro, and that is why it seems like RTS is almost dead genre. LotV is going in the wrong direction.
Your second to last point contradicts your last point. And as for excellent mods and mods saving LotV, I don't think so. Modders are moving away from SC2, back to WC3 or to DOTA 2. The SC2 editor is garbage.
And I say that as a modder.
wat people still play bw you know, much more than sc2 id wager
TL:DR - RTS is an almost dead genre - SC2 has success thanks mainly to BW universe - LotV is quite good and will improve - There are and could be excellent mods for SC2 - Blizz will be always keeping LotV alive - If LotV starts to die and/or Blizz abandon it, the Mods will save it
RTS is far from dead, there is just a lack of good RTS games at the moment beyond SC2.
LotV is pushing the genre away from strategy and toward micro, and that is why it seems like RTS is almost dead genre. LotV is going in the wrong direction.
Your second to last point contradicts your last point. And as for excellent mods and mods saving LotV, I don't think so. Modders are moving away from SC2, back to WC3 or to DOTA 2. The SC2 editor is garbage.
And I say that as a modder.
wat people still play bw you know, much more than sc2 id wager
In korea maybe. In europe and the US people play and watch SC2 more than SC1 ( to be fair SC1 is a niche of a niche of a niche market in the west, nobody gives a flying fuck about it )
Also keep in mind that in a global scale both of those games are nothing today.
On February 29 2016 14:52 Spyridon wrote: Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams. Much of the teams are shared. Even David Kim was announced to have been working on Heroes. SC2 and Heroes are both worked on by "Team 1". Team 1 is the team that works on all of the Blizzard RTS-style games (WC/SC/Heroes).
That's exactly the reason why so many people are upset. It's not like Blizz doesn't have the manpower, or the quality of designers available, or the funds to do it. They simply have not chosen to and put other games as a higher priority. Which is alarming since this is pretty much the first time Blizzard has treated a game this way. It's in the state it's in by choice.
Which, btw, is also part of the reason people suspect they might just be working on another RTS.
i don't think both Sigaty and Browder are lying or intentionally misleading Blizzard followers. ATVI is not funding another RTS because it generates too little revenue. LotV won't even make $0.1 Billion and the entire SC franchise since JUly 2010 has contributed less than 1.5% to ATVI's revenue stream.
Sigaty said nothing will step on SC2's toes or enter its market-space for 10 years. i don't think he is hiding anything. he was careful about how he expressed himself to make sure he as not misleading the questioner.
"Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams"
its not a "popular belief" unless you're prepared to say Browder is outright lying. Browder stated teh Team-1 consists of 80 people and the Heroes team consists of 140 people. His tweets came within a week of each other. If you think he is bullshitting or intentionally misleading people with "slippery language" then call him out on it... and see what happens.
if you have sources to back your points you should include them.
It's not "intentionally lying or misleading followers". It's called PR. It's why only certain members of the Blizz teams have authority to mention things like that. BTW, look at how many years it's been. If they announce a game at Blizzcon this year it would be released at the 10 year mark.
Just because they have 80 people working on SC2, and 140 working on Heroes, doesn't mean those 80 people are not working on Heroes as well. Team 1 is the team that worked on BOTH SC2 and Heroes. Blizzard teams are NOT exclusive outside of lead positions.
Notice how he NEVER stated that those people work "exclusively" on said game?
Kaeo– I am fortunate enough to have been here for 12 years. A little bit over 12 years at Blizzard now. Started out like a lot of people in our development teams have — in Quality Assurance (QA) sharing testing Warcraft III originally. Tech Support, just testing all the Warcraft in their early days. Also was the recruiter for Blizzard for a long time, the World of Warcraft team, the Cinematics Team, eventually I transitioned into production and I have been doing that for a little over 9 years on Blizzard almost, exclusively on Team 1 — which is the Heroes of the Storm Team and previously the StarCraft.
You can also find other posts on Google about how Team 1 has separate sub teams, including an eSports team, that is also mentioned to been utilized by both SC2 and Heroes. Nowhere do they ever mention anything other than Team 1 is the team to work on both games.
Blizzard - Team 1 = RTS-style games. Team 2 = WoW. Team 3 = Diablo. Team 4 = Titan/Overwatch. Team 5 = Hearthstone.
Some other quotes regarding other RTS:
Blizzard has revealed its RTS team may indeed revisit the Warcraft franchise once the last chapter in the StarCraft II story is complete. Speaking to IGN at Gamescom, StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void producer Tim Morten admitted that while the potential is certainly there for StarCraft III focusing on all-new characters, it's not the only option available to them.
"It’s very rewarding for us to hear that there’s demand out there for more RTS content in the Warcraft universe so once we’re done with Void I think we’ll get together as a team and talk about what would inspire us to work on next. There’s no question, though, that we’ll consider Warcraft, StarCraft, or even new ideas. Anything is possible."
On February 29 2016 14:32 shid0x wrote: tbh Warcraft III also had the best arcade ever. Which is still better than SC2 today, i still play a few custom map with my friends from time to time. Maps such as Legion TD have more success than any SC2 arcade map will ever had, SC2 is heavy, slow battlenet linked, with an arstyle that does not fit arcade at all. Shit WC3 arcade is so fun, you can do everything from alien to DBZ characters and somewhow it will work out, whereas sc2.....Looks like shit in arcade to be frank.
Squadron TD is way more fun than Legion TD.
And I disagree. While a lot of the arcade changes would've worked out a lot better if they were there in 2010, I love the state of the SC2 arcade right now. Actually still amazed to see one of my old maps played on there once in a blue moon.
I don't know about SC2 custom games cause I almost never played any, but there is no doubt that WC3 custom games are amazing (had amazing activity, wonder nowadays I guess a lot have left for LoL and Dota2 which originated from that warcraft 3 dota map^^ but there were lots of other kinds of fun maps, tower defences but also role playing games, mario party style etc), even better than BW which always had strong UMS activity.
On February 29 2016 14:52 Spyridon wrote: Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams. Much of the teams are shared. Even David Kim was announced to have been working on Heroes. SC2 and Heroes are both worked on by "Team 1". Team 1 is the team that works on all of the Blizzard RTS-style games (WC/SC/Heroes).
That's exactly the reason why so many people are upset. It's not like Blizz doesn't have the manpower, or the quality of designers available, or the funds to do it. They simply have not chosen to and put other games as a higher priority. Which is alarming since this is pretty much the first time Blizzard has treated a game this way. It's in the state it's in by choice.
Which, btw, is also part of the reason people suspect they might just be working on another RTS.
i don't think both Sigaty and Browder are lying or intentionally misleading Blizzard followers. ATVI is not funding another RTS because it generates too little revenue. LotV won't even make $0.1 Billion and the entire SC franchise since JUly 2010 has contributed less than 1.5% to ATVI's revenue stream.
Sigaty said nothing will step on SC2's toes or enter its market-space for 10 years. i don't think he is hiding anything. he was careful about how he expressed himself to make sure he as not misleading the questioner.
"Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams"
its not a "popular belief" unless you're prepared to say Browder is outright lying. Browder stated teh Team-1 consists of 80 people and the Heroes team consists of 140 people. His tweets came within a week of each other. If you think he is bullshitting or intentionally misleading people with "slippery language" then call him out on it... and see what happens.
if you have sources to back your points you should include them.
It's not "intentionally lying or misleading followers". It's called PR. It's why only certain members of the Blizz teams have authority to mention things like that. BTW, look at how many years it's been. If they announce a game at Blizzcon this year it would be released at the 10 year mark.
Just because they have 80 people working on SC2, and 140 working on Heroes, doesn't mean those 80 people are not working on Heroes as well. Team 1 is the team that worked on BOTH SC2 and Heroes. Blizzard teams are NOT exclusive outside of lead positions.
Notice how he NEVER stated that those people work "exclusively" on said game?
Kaeo– I am fortunate enough to have been here for 12 years. A little bit over 12 years at Blizzard now. Started out like a lot of people in our development teams have — in Quality Assurance (QA) sharing testing Warcraft III originally. Tech Support, just testing all the Warcraft in their early days. Also was the recruiter for Blizzard for a long time, the World of Warcraft team, the Cinematics Team, eventually I transitioned into production and I have been doing that for a little over 9 years on Blizzard almost, exclusively on Team 1 — which is the Heroes of the Storm Team and previously the StarCraft.
You can also find other posts on Google about how Team 1 has separate sub teams, including an eSports team, that is also mentioned to been utilized by both SC2 and Heroes. Nowhere do they ever mention anything other than Team 1 is the team to work on both games.
Blizzard - Team 1 = RTS-style games. Team 2 = WoW. Team 3 = Diablo. Team 4 = Titan/Overwatch. Team 5 = Hearthstone.
Blizzard has revealed its RTS team may indeed revisit the Warcraft franchise once the last chapter in the StarCraft II story is complete. Speaking to IGN at Gamescom, StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void producer Tim Morten admitted that while the potential is certainly there for StarCraft III focusing on all-new characters, it's not the only option available to them.
"It’s very rewarding for us to hear that there’s demand out there for more RTS content in the Warcraft universe so once we’re done with Void I think we’ll get together as a team and talk about what would inspire us to work on next. There’s no question, though, that we’ll consider Warcraft, StarCraft, or even new ideas. Anything is possible."
I think the individual esports team is very small insignficant compared to the actual esports team headed up by Kim Phan.
"I can’t answer that because honestly we don’t know. Is it possible we work on something that steps on the toes of StarCraft? Yes, but there’s no intention to do that today, which is why I think it’s so critical and important how we treat it and how we continue to improve it and make things better - that matters. I think [StarCraft] absolutely stands as an amazing experience to both celebrate the people that get to that level of skill and quality and also to be able to watch and see that. While it’s possible we would [replace that], I don’t see it happening."
Tim Morten is just a producer who just joined the company, the quoted interview is from a Blizzard lifer whose the EXECUTIVE producer
On February 29 2016 14:52 Spyridon wrote: Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams. Much of the teams are shared. Even David Kim was announced to have been working on Heroes. SC2 and Heroes are both worked on by "Team 1". Team 1 is the team that works on all of the Blizzard RTS-style games (WC/SC/Heroes).
That's exactly the reason why so many people are upset. It's not like Blizz doesn't have the manpower, or the quality of designers available, or the funds to do it. They simply have not chosen to and put other games as a higher priority. Which is alarming since this is pretty much the first time Blizzard has treated a game this way. It's in the state it's in by choice.
Which, btw, is also part of the reason people suspect they might just be working on another RTS.
i don't think both Sigaty and Browder are lying or intentionally misleading Blizzard followers. ATVI is not funding another RTS because it generates too little revenue. LotV won't even make $0.1 Billion and the entire SC franchise since JUly 2010 has contributed less than 1.5% to ATVI's revenue stream.
Sigaty said nothing will step on SC2's toes or enter its market-space for 10 years. i don't think he is hiding anything. he was careful about how he expressed himself to make sure he as not misleading the questioner.
"Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams"
its not a "popular belief" unless you're prepared to say Browder is outright lying. Browder stated teh Team-1 consists of 80 people and the Heroes team consists of 140 people. His tweets came within a week of each other. If you think he is bullshitting or intentionally misleading people with "slippery language" then call him out on it... and see what happens.
if you have sources to back your points you should include them.
It's not "intentionally lying or misleading followers". It's called PR. It's why only certain members of the Blizz teams have authority to mention things like that. BTW, look at how many years it's been. If they announce a game at Blizzcon this year it would be released at the 10 year mark.
Just because they have 80 people working on SC2, and 140 working on Heroes, doesn't mean those 80 people are not working on Heroes as well. Team 1 is the team that worked on BOTH SC2 and Heroes. Blizzard teams are NOT exclusive outside of lead positions.
Notice how he NEVER stated that those people work "exclusively" on said game?
Kaeo– I am fortunate enough to have been here for 12 years. A little bit over 12 years at Blizzard now. Started out like a lot of people in our development teams have — in Quality Assurance (QA) sharing testing Warcraft III originally. Tech Support, just testing all the Warcraft in their early days. Also was the recruiter for Blizzard for a long time, the World of Warcraft team, the Cinematics Team, eventually I transitioned into production and I have been doing that for a little over 9 years on Blizzard almost, exclusively on Team 1 — which is the Heroes of the Storm Team and previously the StarCraft.
You can also find other posts on Google about how Team 1 has separate sub teams, including an eSports team, that is also mentioned to been utilized by both SC2 and Heroes. Nowhere do they ever mention anything other than Team 1 is the team to work on both games.
Blizzard - Team 1 = RTS-style games. Team 2 = WoW. Team 3 = Diablo. Team 4 = Titan/Overwatch. Team 5 = Hearthstone.
Some other quotes regarding other RTS:
Blizzard has revealed its RTS team may indeed revisit the Warcraft franchise once the last chapter in the StarCraft II story is complete. Speaking to IGN at Gamescom, StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void producer Tim Morten admitted that while the potential is certainly there for StarCraft III focusing on all-new characters, it's not the only option available to them.
"It’s very rewarding for us to hear that there’s demand out there for more RTS content in the Warcraft universe so once we’re done with Void I think we’ll get together as a team and talk about what would inspire us to work on next. There’s no question, though, that we’ll consider Warcraft, StarCraft, or even new ideas. Anything is possible."
I think the individual esports team is very small insignficant compared to the actual esports team headed up by Kim Phan.
"I can’t answer that because honestly we don’t know. Is it possible we work on something that steps on the toes of StarCraft? Yes, but there’s no intention to do that today, which is why I think it’s so critical and important how we treat it and how we continue to improve it and make things better - that matters. I think [StarCraft] absolutely stands as an amazing experience to both celebrate the people that get to that level of skill and quality and also to be able to watch and see that. While it’s possible we would [replace that], I don’t see it happening."
Tim Morten is just a producer who just joined the company, the quoted interview is from a Blizzard lifer whose the EXECUTIVE producer
The primary point of my post was that Team 1 is in charge of both games, and developers are split between the two games. The fact that they may be working on something on the side is a related point, but not the main point. Considering games are typically developed 1-2 years before they are even announced, it completely fits within the timeline.
Either way, as it stands right now, Team 1 is split between SC2 and Heroes, with all the majority of SC development being put in to the mission pack coming out in a few months, and Heroes is getting a hell of a lot more development in the eSports, balancing, and multiplayer departments. The prospect of another RTS in development is just another potential thing that may slow down SC2 development even more. Een Kim Phan has mentioned working on Heroes multiple times.
All this talk about "no other games stepping on SC2"... What do you think is happening as we speak when they are putting Heroes development ahead of SC2 and sharing a development team with them? Even by Browders own words Heroes has nearly double the size on their dev team.
I completely understand they want to keep up the momentum of Heroes, but the way their treating SC2 is a first for the company. The game is suffering and needs that attention for multiplayer development. But their developing it for mission packs, and focusing their heaviest multiplayer efforts elsewhere.
On February 29 2016 14:52 Spyridon wrote: Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams. Much of the teams are shared. Even David Kim was announced to have been working on Heroes. SC2 and Heroes are both worked on by "Team 1". Team 1 is the team that works on all of the Blizzard RTS-style games (WC/SC/Heroes).
That's exactly the reason why so many people are upset. It's not like Blizz doesn't have the manpower, or the quality of designers available, or the funds to do it. They simply have not chosen to and put other games as a higher priority. Which is alarming since this is pretty much the first time Blizzard has treated a game this way. It's in the state it's in by choice.
Which, btw, is also part of the reason people suspect they might just be working on another RTS.
i don't think both Sigaty and Browder are lying or intentionally misleading Blizzard followers. ATVI is not funding another RTS because it generates too little revenue. LotV won't even make $0.1 Billion and the entire SC franchise since JUly 2010 has contributed less than 1.5% to ATVI's revenue stream.
Sigaty said nothing will step on SC2's toes or enter its market-space for 10 years. i don't think he is hiding anything. he was careful about how he expressed himself to make sure he as not misleading the questioner.
"Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams"
its not a "popular belief" unless you're prepared to say Browder is outright lying. Browder stated teh Team-1 consists of 80 people and the Heroes team consists of 140 people. His tweets came within a week of each other. If you think he is bullshitting or intentionally misleading people with "slippery language" then call him out on it... and see what happens.
if you have sources to back your points you should include them.
It's not "intentionally lying or misleading followers". It's called PR. It's why only certain members of the Blizz teams have authority to mention things like that. BTW, look at how many years it's been. If they announce a game at Blizzcon this year it would be released at the 10 year mark.
Just because they have 80 people working on SC2, and 140 working on Heroes, doesn't mean those 80 people are not working on Heroes as well. Team 1 is the team that worked on BOTH SC2 and Heroes. Blizzard teams are NOT exclusive outside of lead positions.
Notice how he NEVER stated that those people work "exclusively" on said game?
Kaeo– I am fortunate enough to have been here for 12 years. A little bit over 12 years at Blizzard now. Started out like a lot of people in our development teams have — in Quality Assurance (QA) sharing testing Warcraft III originally. Tech Support, just testing all the Warcraft in their early days. Also was the recruiter for Blizzard for a long time, the World of Warcraft team, the Cinematics Team, eventually I transitioned into production and I have been doing that for a little over 9 years on Blizzard almost, exclusively on Team 1 — which is the Heroes of the Storm Team and previously the StarCraft.
You can also find other posts on Google about how Team 1 has separate sub teams, including an eSports team, that is also mentioned to been utilized by both SC2 and Heroes. Nowhere do they ever mention anything other than Team 1 is the team to work on both games.
Blizzard - Team 1 = RTS-style games. Team 2 = WoW. Team 3 = Diablo. Team 4 = Titan/Overwatch. Team 5 = Hearthstone.
Some other quotes regarding other RTS:
Blizzard has revealed its RTS team may indeed revisit the Warcraft franchise once the last chapter in the StarCraft II story is complete. Speaking to IGN at Gamescom, StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void producer Tim Morten admitted that while the potential is certainly there for StarCraft III focusing on all-new characters, it's not the only option available to them.
"It’s very rewarding for us to hear that there’s demand out there for more RTS content in the Warcraft universe so once we’re done with Void I think we’ll get together as a team and talk about what would inspire us to work on next. There’s no question, though, that we’ll consider Warcraft, StarCraft, or even new ideas. Anything is possible."
I think the individual esports team is very small insignficant compared to the actual esports team headed up by Kim Phan.
"I can’t answer that because honestly we don’t know. Is it possible we work on something that steps on the toes of StarCraft? Yes, but there’s no intention to do that today, which is why I think it’s so critical and important how we treat it and how we continue to improve it and make things better - that matters. I think [StarCraft] absolutely stands as an amazing experience to both celebrate the people that get to that level of skill and quality and also to be able to watch and see that. While it’s possible we would [replace that], I don’t see it happening."
Tim Morten is just a producer who just joined the company, the quoted interview is from a Blizzard lifer whose the EXECUTIVE producer
The primary point of my post was that Team 1 is in charge of both games, and developers are split between the two games. The fact that they may be working on something on the side is a related point, but not the main point. Considering games are typically developed 1-2 years before they are even announced, it completely fits within the timeline.
Either way, as it stands right now, Team 1 is split between SC2 and Heroes, with all the majority of SC development being put in to the mission pack coming out in a few months, and Heroes is getting a hell of a lot more development in the eSports, balancing, and multiplayer departments. The prospect of another RTS in development is just another potential thing that may slow down SC2 development even more. Een Kim Phan has mentioned working on Heroes multiple times.
All this talk about "no other games stepping on SC2"... What do you think is happening as we speak when they are putting Heroes development ahead of SC2 and sharing a development team with them? Even by Browders own words Heroes has nearly double the size on their dev team.
I completely understand they want to keep up the momentum of Heroes, but the way their treating SC2 is a first for the company. The game is suffering and needs that attention for multiplayer development. But their developing it for mission packs, and focusing their heaviest multiplayer efforts elsewhere.
They mean an RTS stepping on SC2. Heroes is a completely different game. It's like what SC2 did when it came out, all the WC3 and foreign BW pros jumped ship for the new game.
Also... Heroes needs all the development it can get. The game is incredibly unbalanced, doesn't have a proper drafting screen, lack of bans, there's no actual ranked play, you cant even target anything to see how much health it has. It's a huge mess
I disagree, the multiplayer is always welcome for improvements, but you also what content to get people to check back in to SC2, specifically casuals. In a game like Dota or League, you can add a champion or a hero and it gets casuals flocking back to try it out. You can't really do that with units in SC. But if you had new content like Co-Op missions, and mission packs, you have more people checking back and paying attention to the game. It also gives them sustainable income to keep the team back on. I'm sure there's stuff they want to do down the pipeline but it can't be something that only appeals to one part of the fanbase.
GRANTED, it's an important one. I guess it's a weird balance, you need to keep the dedicated people who are going to be playing your games for many years happy, as well as attracting old fans to check back in once in a while for a cool patch (which is what SC2 has been lacking because of my previous point of them holding back to put stuff on the back of the box)
On February 29 2016 14:52 Spyridon wrote: Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams. Much of the teams are shared. Even David Kim was announced to have been working on Heroes. SC2 and Heroes are both worked on by "Team 1". Team 1 is the team that works on all of the Blizzard RTS-style games (WC/SC/Heroes).
That's exactly the reason why so many people are upset. It's not like Blizz doesn't have the manpower, or the quality of designers available, or the funds to do it. They simply have not chosen to and put other games as a higher priority. Which is alarming since this is pretty much the first time Blizzard has treated a game this way. It's in the state it's in by choice.
Which, btw, is also part of the reason people suspect they might just be working on another RTS.
i don't think both Sigaty and Browder are lying or intentionally misleading Blizzard followers. ATVI is not funding another RTS because it generates too little revenue. LotV won't even make $0.1 Billion and the entire SC franchise since JUly 2010 has contributed less than 1.5% to ATVI's revenue stream.
Sigaty said nothing will step on SC2's toes or enter its market-space for 10 years. i don't think he is hiding anything. he was careful about how he expressed himself to make sure he as not misleading the questioner.
"Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams"
its not a "popular belief" unless you're prepared to say Browder is outright lying. Browder stated teh Team-1 consists of 80 people and the Heroes team consists of 140 people. His tweets came within a week of each other. If you think he is bullshitting or intentionally misleading people with "slippery language" then call him out on it... and see what happens.
if you have sources to back your points you should include them.
It's not "intentionally lying or misleading followers". It's called PR. It's why only certain members of the Blizz teams have authority to mention things like that. BTW, look at how many years it's been. If they announce a game at Blizzcon this year it would be released at the 10 year mark.
Just because they have 80 people working on SC2, and 140 working on Heroes, doesn't mean those 80 people are not working on Heroes as well. Team 1 is the team that worked on BOTH SC2 and Heroes. Blizzard teams are NOT exclusive outside of lead positions.
Notice how he NEVER stated that those people work "exclusively" on said game?
Kaeo– I am fortunate enough to have been here for 12 years. A little bit over 12 years at Blizzard now. Started out like a lot of people in our development teams have — in Quality Assurance (QA) sharing testing Warcraft III originally. Tech Support, just testing all the Warcraft in their early days. Also was the recruiter for Blizzard for a long time, the World of Warcraft team, the Cinematics Team, eventually I transitioned into production and I have been doing that for a little over 9 years on Blizzard almost, exclusively on Team 1 — which is the Heroes of the Storm Team and previously the StarCraft.
You can also find other posts on Google about how Team 1 has separate sub teams, including an eSports team, that is also mentioned to been utilized by both SC2 and Heroes. Nowhere do they ever mention anything other than Team 1 is the team to work on both games.
Blizzard - Team 1 = RTS-style games. Team 2 = WoW. Team 3 = Diablo. Team 4 = Titan/Overwatch. Team 5 = Hearthstone.
Some other quotes regarding other RTS:
Blizzard has revealed its RTS team may indeed revisit the Warcraft franchise once the last chapter in the StarCraft II story is complete. Speaking to IGN at Gamescom, StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void producer Tim Morten admitted that while the potential is certainly there for StarCraft III focusing on all-new characters, it's not the only option available to them.
"It’s very rewarding for us to hear that there’s demand out there for more RTS content in the Warcraft universe so once we’re done with Void I think we’ll get together as a team and talk about what would inspire us to work on next. There’s no question, though, that we’ll consider Warcraft, StarCraft, or even new ideas. Anything is possible."
I think the individual esports team is very small insignficant compared to the actual esports team headed up by Kim Phan.
"I can’t answer that because honestly we don’t know. Is it possible we work on something that steps on the toes of StarCraft? Yes, but there’s no intention to do that today, which is why I think it’s so critical and important how we treat it and how we continue to improve it and make things better - that matters. I think [StarCraft] absolutely stands as an amazing experience to both celebrate the people that get to that level of skill and quality and also to be able to watch and see that. While it’s possible we would [replace that], I don’t see it happening."
Tim Morten is just a producer who just joined the company, the quoted interview is from a Blizzard lifer whose the EXECUTIVE producer
The primary point of my post was that Team 1 is in charge of both games, and developers are split between the two games. The fact that they may be working on something on the side is a related point, but not the main point. Considering games are typically developed 1-2 years before they are even announced, it completely fits within the timeline.
Either way, as it stands right now, Team 1 is split between SC2 and Heroes, with all the majority of SC development being put in to the mission pack coming out in a few months, and Heroes is getting a hell of a lot more development in the eSports, balancing, and multiplayer departments. The prospect of another RTS in development is just another potential thing that may slow down SC2 development even more. Een Kim Phan has mentioned working on Heroes multiple times.
All this talk about "no other games stepping on SC2"... What do you think is happening as we speak when they are putting Heroes development ahead of SC2 and sharing a development team with them? Even by Browders own words Heroes has nearly double the size on their dev team.
I completely understand they want to keep up the momentum of Heroes, but the way their treating SC2 is a first for the company. The game is suffering and needs that attention for multiplayer development. But their developing it for mission packs, and focusing their heaviest multiplayer efforts elsewhere.
They mean an RTS stepping on SC2. Heroes is a completely different game. It's like what SC2 did when it came out, all the WC3 and foreign BW pros jumped ship for the new game.
Also... Heroes needs all the development it can get. The game is incredibly unbalanced, doesn't have a proper drafting screen, lack of bans, there's no actual ranked play, you cant even target anything to see how much health it has. It's a huge mess
I disagree, the multiplayer is always welcome for improvements, but you also what content to get people to check back in to SC2, specifically casuals. In a game like Dota or League, you can add a champion or a hero and it gets casuals flocking back to try it out. You can't really do that with units in SC. But if you had new content like Co-Op missions, and mission packs, you have more people checking back and paying attention to the game. It also gives them sustainable income to keep the team back on. I'm sure there's stuff they want to do down the pipeline but it can't be something that only appeals to one part of the fanbase.
GRANTED, it's an important one. I guess it's a weird balance, you need to keep the dedicated people who are going to be playing your games for many years happy, as well as attracting old fans to check back in once in a while for a cool patch (which is what SC2 has been lacking because of my previous point of them holding back to put stuff on the back of the box)
Things like coop missions didn't really bring people back to the game, because the core issues that people had with the game are still there. None of my friends bothered with LotV multiplayer, only 1 of them actually purchased it solely for the campaign, he tried coop two matches and then was done because it was more of the same.
Of course more missions will bring in some cash flow. But the major problem with SC2 isn't the missions, it's the multiplayer. That's akin to a fighting game that stopped adding to the multiplayer aspect in favor of Vs CPU content. It doesn't make sense. The multiplayer is the true attraction of fighting games the same as RTS. To halt development on the primary attraction, especially when it has issues, in favor of vs CPU development, is not a typical thing for Blizzard to do. They never give up on their games in the past until their in a successful place. But in this case, multiplayer is in a dire need, but they choose to ignore it.
Even with things like coop and archon, they aren't really doing anything substantial to bring new players in to the game at all. It's one of the biggest issues I've mentioned. That means rather than finding ways to improve the games, their simply minimizing losses. Why would casual players stay if they come back and see it's more of the same, and has all the same issues that made them quit? Sure, new modes are nice, but they aren't useful unless the core mechanics and gameplay are brought to a place where they can enjoy it to.
Once they enjoy the actual gameplay again? Then new modes would help a lot! But if players already don't enjoy the core of the game itself, modes aren't going to help that...
Development-wise, their making a very strong point that they feel their development time is better spent elsewhere. I, for one, wish it was spent on SC2's multiplayer. I feel of all Blizzards library, it's the game that needs assistance most right now. But instead of assistance, it's got some of the weakest development from Blizzards part...
On February 29 2016 14:52 Spyridon wrote: Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams. Much of the teams are shared. Even David Kim was announced to have been working on Heroes. SC2 and Heroes are both worked on by "Team 1". Team 1 is the team that works on all of the Blizzard RTS-style games (WC/SC/Heroes).
That's exactly the reason why so many people are upset. It's not like Blizz doesn't have the manpower, or the quality of designers available, or the funds to do it. They simply have not chosen to and put other games as a higher priority. Which is alarming since this is pretty much the first time Blizzard has treated a game this way. It's in the state it's in by choice.
Which, btw, is also part of the reason people suspect they might just be working on another RTS.
i don't think both Sigaty and Browder are lying or intentionally misleading Blizzard followers. ATVI is not funding another RTS because it generates too little revenue. LotV won't even make $0.1 Billion and the entire SC franchise since JUly 2010 has contributed less than 1.5% to ATVI's revenue stream.
Sigaty said nothing will step on SC2's toes or enter its market-space for 10 years. i don't think he is hiding anything. he was careful about how he expressed himself to make sure he as not misleading the questioner.
"Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams"
its not a "popular belief" unless you're prepared to say Browder is outright lying. Browder stated teh Team-1 consists of 80 people and the Heroes team consists of 140 people. His tweets came within a week of each other. If you think he is bullshitting or intentionally misleading people with "slippery language" then call him out on it... and see what happens.
if you have sources to back your points you should include them.
It's not "intentionally lying or misleading followers". It's called PR. It's why only certain members of the Blizz teams have authority to mention things like that. BTW, look at how many years it's been. If they announce a game at Blizzcon this year it would be released at the 10 year mark.
Just because they have 80 people working on SC2, and 140 working on Heroes, doesn't mean those 80 people are not working on Heroes as well. Team 1 is the team that worked on BOTH SC2 and Heroes. Blizzard teams are NOT exclusive outside of lead positions.
Notice how he NEVER stated that those people work "exclusively" on said game?
Kaeo– I am fortunate enough to have been here for 12 years. A little bit over 12 years at Blizzard now. Started out like a lot of people in our development teams have — in Quality Assurance (QA) sharing testing Warcraft III originally. Tech Support, just testing all the Warcraft in their early days. Also was the recruiter for Blizzard for a long time, the World of Warcraft team, the Cinematics Team, eventually I transitioned into production and I have been doing that for a little over 9 years on Blizzard almost, exclusively on Team 1 — which is the Heroes of the Storm Team and previously the StarCraft.
You can also find other posts on Google about how Team 1 has separate sub teams, including an eSports team, that is also mentioned to been utilized by both SC2 and Heroes. Nowhere do they ever mention anything other than Team 1 is the team to work on both games.
Blizzard - Team 1 = RTS-style games. Team 2 = WoW. Team 3 = Diablo. Team 4 = Titan/Overwatch. Team 5 = Hearthstone.
Some other quotes regarding other RTS:
Blizzard has revealed its RTS team may indeed revisit the Warcraft franchise once the last chapter in the StarCraft II story is complete. Speaking to IGN at Gamescom, StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void producer Tim Morten admitted that while the potential is certainly there for StarCraft III focusing on all-new characters, it's not the only option available to them.
"It’s very rewarding for us to hear that there’s demand out there for more RTS content in the Warcraft universe so once we’re done with Void I think we’ll get together as a team and talk about what would inspire us to work on next. There’s no question, though, that we’ll consider Warcraft, StarCraft, or even new ideas. Anything is possible."
I think the individual esports team is very small insignficant compared to the actual esports team headed up by Kim Phan.
"I can’t answer that because honestly we don’t know. Is it possible we work on something that steps on the toes of StarCraft? Yes, but there’s no intention to do that today, which is why I think it’s so critical and important how we treat it and how we continue to improve it and make things better - that matters. I think [StarCraft] absolutely stands as an amazing experience to both celebrate the people that get to that level of skill and quality and also to be able to watch and see that. While it’s possible we would [replace that], I don’t see it happening."
Tim Morten is just a producer who just joined the company, the quoted interview is from a Blizzard lifer whose the EXECUTIVE producer
The primary point of my post was that Team 1 is in charge of both games, and developers are split between the two games. The fact that they may be working on something on the side is a related point, but not the main point. Considering games are typically developed 1-2 years before they are even announced, it completely fits within the timeline.
Either way, as it stands right now, Team 1 is split between SC2 and Heroes, with all the majority of SC development being put in to the mission pack coming out in a few months, and Heroes is getting a hell of a lot more development in the eSports, balancing, and multiplayer departments. The prospect of another RTS in development is just another potential thing that may slow down SC2 development even more. Een Kim Phan has mentioned working on Heroes multiple times.
All this talk about "no other games stepping on SC2"... What do you think is happening as we speak when they are putting Heroes development ahead of SC2 and sharing a development team with them? Even by Browders own words Heroes has nearly double the size on their dev team.
I completely understand they want to keep up the momentum of Heroes, but the way their treating SC2 is a first for the company. The game is suffering and needs that attention for multiplayer development. But their developing it for mission packs, and focusing their heaviest multiplayer efforts elsewhere.
They mean an RTS stepping on SC2. Heroes is a completely different game. It's like what SC2 did when it came out, all the WC3 and foreign BW pros jumped ship for the new game.
Also... Heroes needs all the development it can get. The game is incredibly unbalanced, doesn't have a proper drafting screen, lack of bans, there's no actual ranked play, you cant even target anything to see how much health it has. It's a huge mess
I disagree, the multiplayer is always welcome for improvements, but you also what content to get people to check back in to SC2, specifically casuals. In a game like Dota or League, you can add a champion or a hero and it gets casuals flocking back to try it out. You can't really do that with units in SC. But if you had new content like Co-Op missions, and mission packs, you have more people checking back and paying attention to the game. It also gives them sustainable income to keep the team back on. I'm sure there's stuff they want to do down the pipeline but it can't be something that only appeals to one part of the fanbase.
GRANTED, it's an important one. I guess it's a weird balance, you need to keep the dedicated people who are going to be playing your games for many years happy, as well as attracting old fans to check back in once in a while for a cool patch (which is what SC2 has been lacking because of my previous point of them holding back to put stuff on the back of the box)
Things like coop missions didn't really bring people back to the game, because the core issues that people had with the game are still there. None of my friends bothered with LotV multiplayer, only 1 of them actually purchased it solely for the campaign, he tried coop two matches and then was done because it was more of the same.
Of course more missions will bring in some cash flow. But the major problem with SC2 isn't the missions, it's the multiplayer. That's akin to a fighting game that stopped adding to the multiplayer aspect in favor of Vs CPU content. It doesn't make sense. The multiplayer is the true attraction of fighting games the same as RTS. To halt development on the primary attraction, especially when it has issues, in favor of vs CPU development, is not a typical thing for Blizzard to do. They never give up on their games in the past until their in a successful place. But in this case, multiplayer is in a dire need, but they choose to ignore it.
Even with things like coop and archon, they aren't really doing anything substantial to bring new players in to the game at all. It's one of the biggest issues I've mentioned. That means rather than finding ways to improve the games, their simply minimizing losses. Why would casual players stay if they come back and see it's more of the same, and has all the same issues that made them quit? Sure, new modes are nice, but they aren't useful unless the core mechanics and gameplay are brought to a place where they can enjoy it to.
Once they enjoy the actual gameplay again? Then new modes would help a lot! But if players already don't enjoy the core of the game itself, modes aren't going to help that...
Development-wise, their making a very strong point that they feel their development time is better spent elsewhere. I, for one, wish it was spent on SC2's multiplayer. I feel of all Blizzards library, it's the game that needs assistance most right now. But instead of assistance, it's got some of the weakest development from Blizzards part...
you don't know that. Blizzard said said it's very popular and that people have been playing it a "TON". If their investing resources in releasing new content for it and balancing it, surely they're getting some return out of it.
It's something to do with their friends that isnt as stressful as 1v1 ladder. There are a bunch of people who wont touch 1v1 ladder because of the stress, which goes into your point where most casuals play the campaign and quit. That's why they're doing more campaign shit.
It goes back to how barely anyone actually did WC3 ladder compared to Arcade and Campaign.
And I have no idea how you think SC2 needs the most development when looking at HOTS/Hearthstone's ladder problems and lacking features. Like I said, the missing stuff from HOTS is just embarassing at this point.
They're working on multiplayer improvements, (like the ladder changes), they're just super slow. Even looking at how many people are on the other teams, everything they do is just slow even if the team in question has double or triple the resources of a team you THINK they're pouring everything into.
On February 29 2016 14:52 Spyridon wrote: Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams. Much of the teams are shared. Even David Kim was announced to have been working on Heroes. SC2 and Heroes are both worked on by "Team 1". Team 1 is the team that works on all of the Blizzard RTS-style games (WC/SC/Heroes).
That's exactly the reason why so many people are upset. It's not like Blizz doesn't have the manpower, or the quality of designers available, or the funds to do it. They simply have not chosen to and put other games as a higher priority. Which is alarming since this is pretty much the first time Blizzard has treated a game this way. It's in the state it's in by choice.
Which, btw, is also part of the reason people suspect they might just be working on another RTS.
i don't think both Sigaty and Browder are lying or intentionally misleading Blizzard followers. ATVI is not funding another RTS because it generates too little revenue. LotV won't even make $0.1 Billion and the entire SC franchise since JUly 2010 has contributed less than 1.5% to ATVI's revenue stream.
Sigaty said nothing will step on SC2's toes or enter its market-space for 10 years. i don't think he is hiding anything. he was careful about how he expressed himself to make sure he as not misleading the questioner.
"Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams"
its not a "popular belief" unless you're prepared to say Browder is outright lying. Browder stated teh Team-1 consists of 80 people and the Heroes team consists of 140 people. His tweets came within a week of each other. If you think he is bullshitting or intentionally misleading people with "slippery language" then call him out on it... and see what happens.
if you have sources to back your points you should include them.
It's not "intentionally lying or misleading followers". It's called PR. It's why only certain members of the Blizz teams have authority to mention things like that. BTW, look at how many years it's been. If they announce a game at Blizzcon this year it would be released at the 10 year mark.
Just because they have 80 people working on SC2, and 140 working on Heroes, doesn't mean those 80 people are not working on Heroes as well. Team 1 is the team that worked on BOTH SC2 and Heroes. Blizzard teams are NOT exclusive outside of lead positions.
Notice how he NEVER stated that those people work "exclusively" on said game?
Kaeo– I am fortunate enough to have been here for 12 years. A little bit over 12 years at Blizzard now. Started out like a lot of people in our development teams have — in Quality Assurance (QA) sharing testing Warcraft III originally. Tech Support, just testing all the Warcraft in their early days. Also was the recruiter for Blizzard for a long time, the World of Warcraft team, the Cinematics Team, eventually I transitioned into production and I have been doing that for a little over 9 years on Blizzard almost, exclusively on Team 1 — which is the Heroes of the Storm Team and previously the StarCraft.
You can also find other posts on Google about how Team 1 has separate sub teams, including an eSports team, that is also mentioned to been utilized by both SC2 and Heroes. Nowhere do they ever mention anything other than Team 1 is the team to work on both games.
Blizzard - Team 1 = RTS-style games. Team 2 = WoW. Team 3 = Diablo. Team 4 = Titan/Overwatch. Team 5 = Hearthstone.
Some other quotes regarding other RTS:
Blizzard has revealed its RTS team may indeed revisit the Warcraft franchise once the last chapter in the StarCraft II story is complete. Speaking to IGN at Gamescom, StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void producer Tim Morten admitted that while the potential is certainly there for StarCraft III focusing on all-new characters, it's not the only option available to them.
"It’s very rewarding for us to hear that there’s demand out there for more RTS content in the Warcraft universe so once we’re done with Void I think we’ll get together as a team and talk about what would inspire us to work on next. There’s no question, though, that we’ll consider Warcraft, StarCraft, or even new ideas. Anything is possible."
I think the individual esports team is very small insignficant compared to the actual esports team headed up by Kim Phan.
"I can’t answer that because honestly we don’t know. Is it possible we work on something that steps on the toes of StarCraft? Yes, but there’s no intention to do that today, which is why I think it’s so critical and important how we treat it and how we continue to improve it and make things better - that matters. I think [StarCraft] absolutely stands as an amazing experience to both celebrate the people that get to that level of skill and quality and also to be able to watch and see that. While it’s possible we would [replace that], I don’t see it happening."
Tim Morten is just a producer who just joined the company, the quoted interview is from a Blizzard lifer whose the EXECUTIVE producer
The primary point of my post was that Team 1 is in charge of both games, and developers are split between the two games. The fact that they may be working on something on the side is a related point, but not the main point. Considering games are typically developed 1-2 years before they are even announced, it completely fits within the timeline.
Either way, as it stands right now, Team 1 is split between SC2 and Heroes, with all the majority of SC development being put in to the mission pack coming out in a few months, and Heroes is getting a hell of a lot more development in the eSports, balancing, and multiplayer departments. The prospect of another RTS in development is just another potential thing that may slow down SC2 development even more. Een Kim Phan has mentioned working on Heroes multiple times.
All this talk about "no other games stepping on SC2"... What do you think is happening as we speak when they are putting Heroes development ahead of SC2 and sharing a development team with them? Even by Browders own words Heroes has nearly double the size on their dev team.
I completely understand they want to keep up the momentum of Heroes, but the way their treating SC2 is a first for the company. The game is suffering and needs that attention for multiplayer development. But their developing it for mission packs, and focusing their heaviest multiplayer efforts elsewhere.
They mean an RTS stepping on SC2. Heroes is a completely different game. It's like what SC2 did when it came out, all the WC3 and foreign BW pros jumped ship for the new game.
Also... Heroes needs all the development it can get. The game is incredibly unbalanced, doesn't have a proper drafting screen, lack of bans, there's no actual ranked play, you cant even target anything to see how much health it has. It's a huge mess
I disagree, the multiplayer is always welcome for improvements, but you also what content to get people to check back in to SC2, specifically casuals. In a game like Dota or League, you can add a champion or a hero and it gets casuals flocking back to try it out. You can't really do that with units in SC. But if you had new content like Co-Op missions, and mission packs, you have more people checking back and paying attention to the game. It also gives them sustainable income to keep the team back on. I'm sure there's stuff they want to do down the pipeline but it can't be something that only appeals to one part of the fanbase.
GRANTED, it's an important one. I guess it's a weird balance, you need to keep the dedicated people who are going to be playing your games for many years happy, as well as attracting old fans to check back in once in a while for a cool patch (which is what SC2 has been lacking because of my previous point of them holding back to put stuff on the back of the box)
Things like coop missions didn't really bring people back to the game, because the core issues that people had with the game are still there. None of my friends bothered with LotV multiplayer, only 1 of them actually purchased it solely for the campaign, he tried coop two matches and then was done because it was more of the same.
Of course more missions will bring in some cash flow. But the major problem with SC2 isn't the missions, it's the multiplayer. That's akin to a fighting game that stopped adding to the multiplayer aspect in favor of Vs CPU content. It doesn't make sense. The multiplayer is the true attraction of fighting games the same as RTS. To halt development on the primary attraction, especially when it has issues, in favor of vs CPU development, is not a typical thing for Blizzard to do. They never give up on their games in the past until their in a successful place. But in this case, multiplayer is in a dire need, but they choose to ignore it.
Even with things like coop and archon, they aren't really doing anything substantial to bring new players in to the game at all. It's one of the biggest issues I've mentioned. That means rather than finding ways to improve the games, their simply minimizing losses. Why would casual players stay if they come back and see it's more of the same, and has all the same issues that made them quit? Sure, new modes are nice, but they aren't useful unless the core mechanics and gameplay are brought to a place where they can enjoy it to.
Once they enjoy the actual gameplay again? Then new modes would help a lot! But if players already don't enjoy the core of the game itself, modes aren't going to help that...
Development-wise, their making a very strong point that they feel their development time is better spent elsewhere. I, for one, wish it was spent on SC2's multiplayer. I feel of all Blizzards library, it's the game that needs assistance most right now. But instead of assistance, it's got some of the weakest development from Blizzards part...
you don't know that. Blizzard said said it's very popular and that people have been playing it a "TON". If their investing resources in releasing new content for it and balancing it, surely they're getting some return out of it.
It's something to do with their friends that isnt as stressful as 1v1 ladder. There are a bunch of people who wont touch 1v1 ladder because of the stress, which goes into your point where most casuals play the campaign and quit. That's why they're doing more campaign shit.
It goes back to how barely anyone actually did WC3 ladder compared to Arcade and Campaign.
And I have no idea how you think SC2 needs the most development when looking at HOTS/Hearthstone's ladder problems and lacking features. Like I said, the missing stuff from HOTS is just embarassing at this point.
They're working on multiplayer improvements, (like the ladder changes), they're just super slow. Even looking at how many people are on the other teams, everything they do is just slow even if the team in question has double or triple the resources of a team you THINK they're pouring everything into.
We can see how popular it is with our own eyes.
Their balancing work has been extremely minor since LotV release, to say the least. A single designer (not even one familiar with coding) could have done all the changes presented to us with the SC editor.
Some of the things you list for HotS are actually intentional design decisions, and some aren't even true. Your opinion on the games balance isn't shared by the pro community for the game, and is definitely not any more questionable than any other moba. Not sure what your problem with the draft interface is, and the game does have ranked play, and you can see how much HP a target has without having to select them first. Either you haven't played the game since alpha, or your just lying.
On the eSports scene, Blizz is still developing HotS, they have had loads of new tournaments, over 2m payout last year, and the game is still growing, and although they haven't gave us numbers, it's obviously still highly profitable if their pumping out content at the rate they are. They are also scaling up the amount of tournaments and payouts this year, and putting a lot of effort in to the next HotD. They have even more tournaments planned for this year than last year, and even more investment in tournament rewards. You see a hell of a lot more growth in the HotS scene than you do in the SC2 scene right now. Just because this site is more focused on SC2 doesn't mean Heroes isn't doing well elsewhere.
You may not like Hearthstone either, but it has the most momentum out of all Blizzards games right now. It's profitable, its competitive in tournaments, and it's bringing in loads of new players. They announced at the end of the year the Hearthstones profitability hit an all time high in Q4 of last year. Look up their financial results, and the insane amount of popularity and activity the game has.
Then look at SC2. Right now it's not even as popular as D3 and D3 was known for its horrendous release. Do you see them scaling up the scene with more eSports support than earlier years? Look at their financial report at the end of the year, do you see any plans laid out for the series like they did with every other of their series'?
The reason their super slow is because the team dedicated to it is extremely small (by Browders own words about half the side) as well as both games are Team 1 games, so the resources are being shared by SC2 and Heroes. Heroes is releasing damn sure more than double the content & balance updates than SC2 is getting right now. It's damn sure more popular overall than SC2 right now, and it's numbers are actually going up rather than down (in both tournament scene and populairty, just look at Twitch performance). And it's obviously more profitable, Blizzard put the development where the money is. And where is the SC2 development? In mission packs, not the multiplayer. The multiplayer and eSports development is being focused on other games. rather than investing more in sc2 tournament payouts, their investing their funds in to Heroes tournament payouts. Does that really not send u any sort of message?
I get the feeling that people for whom SC2 doesn't have enough strategy aren't ever going to be satisfied with the amount of strategy in an RTS. You'll have to play turn-based games for that. SC2 has an immense amount of strategy but the execution of strategy is a significant factor in determining the winner. Almost every single loss, even at the pro level, has two answers for "how can I turn this into a win?" with one of them coming from "what choice was incorrect?" and the other coming from "how could I have executed better?" If you choose to focus on execution rather than choices, that is your own preference, not because there are no depths of strategy and choices to explore.
I think it'd be possible to make a more strategy-based RTS, but why? I don't think there's any magic to discover in a game that doesn't have the demanding mechanics of SC but isn't turn-based. Maybe I'm the unimaginative naysayer that'll be proven wrong but I just don't get it.
On March 01 2016 10:12 NonY wrote:I think it'd be possible to make a more strategy-based RTS, but why? I don't think there's any magic to discover in a game that doesn't have the demanding mechanics of SC but isn't turn-based. Maybe I'm the unimaginative naysayer that'll be proven wrong but I just don't get it.
BW, and because it's more fun interesting exciting and you learn more things playing it. Just my opinion.
On February 29 2016 14:52 Spyridon wrote: Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams. Much of the teams are shared. Even David Kim was announced to have been working on Heroes. SC2 and Heroes are both worked on by "Team 1". Team 1 is the team that works on all of the Blizzard RTS-style games (WC/SC/Heroes).
That's exactly the reason why so many people are upset. It's not like Blizz doesn't have the manpower, or the quality of designers available, or the funds to do it. They simply have not chosen to and put other games as a higher priority. Which is alarming since this is pretty much the first time Blizzard has treated a game this way. It's in the state it's in by choice.
Which, btw, is also part of the reason people suspect they might just be working on another RTS.
i don't think both Sigaty and Browder are lying or intentionally misleading Blizzard followers. ATVI is not funding another RTS because it generates too little revenue. LotV won't even make $0.1 Billion and the entire SC franchise since JUly 2010 has contributed less than 1.5% to ATVI's revenue stream.
Sigaty said nothing will step on SC2's toes or enter its market-space for 10 years. i don't think he is hiding anything. he was careful about how he expressed himself to make sure he as not misleading the questioner.
"Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams"
its not a "popular belief" unless you're prepared to say Browder is outright lying. Browder stated teh Team-1 consists of 80 people and the Heroes team consists of 140 people. His tweets came within a week of each other. If you think he is bullshitting or intentionally misleading people with "slippery language" then call him out on it... and see what happens.
if you have sources to back your points you should include them.
It's not "intentionally lying or misleading followers". It's called PR. It's why only certain members of the Blizz teams have authority to mention things like that. BTW, look at how many years it's been. If they announce a game at Blizzcon this year it would be released at the 10 year mark.
Just because they have 80 people working on SC2, and 140 working on Heroes, doesn't mean those 80 people are not working on Heroes as well. Team 1 is the team that worked on BOTH SC2 and Heroes. Blizzard teams are NOT exclusive outside of lead positions.
Notice how he NEVER stated that those people work "exclusively" on said game?
Kaeo– I am fortunate enough to have been here for 12 years. A little bit over 12 years at Blizzard now. Started out like a lot of people in our development teams have — in Quality Assurance (QA) sharing testing Warcraft III originally. Tech Support, just testing all the Warcraft in their early days. Also was the recruiter for Blizzard for a long time, the World of Warcraft team, the Cinematics Team, eventually I transitioned into production and I have been doing that for a little over 9 years on Blizzard almost, exclusively on Team 1 — which is the Heroes of the Storm Team and previously the StarCraft.
You can also find other posts on Google about how Team 1 has separate sub teams, including an eSports team, that is also mentioned to been utilized by both SC2 and Heroes. Nowhere do they ever mention anything other than Team 1 is the team to work on both games.
Blizzard - Team 1 = RTS-style games. Team 2 = WoW. Team 3 = Diablo. Team 4 = Titan/Overwatch. Team 5 = Hearthstone.
Some other quotes regarding other RTS:
Blizzard has revealed its RTS team may indeed revisit the Warcraft franchise once the last chapter in the StarCraft II story is complete. Speaking to IGN at Gamescom, StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void producer Tim Morten admitted that while the potential is certainly there for StarCraft III focusing on all-new characters, it's not the only option available to them.
"It’s very rewarding for us to hear that there’s demand out there for more RTS content in the Warcraft universe so once we’re done with Void I think we’ll get together as a team and talk about what would inspire us to work on next. There’s no question, though, that we’ll consider Warcraft, StarCraft, or even new ideas. Anything is possible."
I think the individual esports team is very small insignficant compared to the actual esports team headed up by Kim Phan.
"I can’t answer that because honestly we don’t know. Is it possible we work on something that steps on the toes of StarCraft? Yes, but there’s no intention to do that today, which is why I think it’s so critical and important how we treat it and how we continue to improve it and make things better - that matters. I think [StarCraft] absolutely stands as an amazing experience to both celebrate the people that get to that level of skill and quality and also to be able to watch and see that. While it’s possible we would [replace that], I don’t see it happening."
Tim Morten is just a producer who just joined the company, the quoted interview is from a Blizzard lifer whose the EXECUTIVE producer
The primary point of my post was that Team 1 is in charge of both games, and developers are split between the two games. The fact that they may be working on something on the side is a related point, but not the main point. Considering games are typically developed 1-2 years before they are even announced, it completely fits within the timeline.
Either way, as it stands right now, Team 1 is split between SC2 and Heroes, with all the majority of SC development being put in to the mission pack coming out in a few months, and Heroes is getting a hell of a lot more development in the eSports, balancing, and multiplayer departments. The prospect of another RTS in development is just another potential thing that may slow down SC2 development even more. Een Kim Phan has mentioned working on Heroes multiple times.
All this talk about "no other games stepping on SC2"... What do you think is happening as we speak when they are putting Heroes development ahead of SC2 and sharing a development team with them? Even by Browders own words Heroes has nearly double the size on their dev team.
I completely understand they want to keep up the momentum of Heroes, but the way their treating SC2 is a first for the company. The game is suffering and needs that attention for multiplayer development. But their developing it for mission packs, and focusing their heaviest multiplayer efforts elsewhere.
They mean an RTS stepping on SC2. Heroes is a completely different game. It's like what SC2 did when it came out, all the WC3 and foreign BW pros jumped ship for the new game.
Also... Heroes needs all the development it can get. The game is incredibly unbalanced, doesn't have a proper drafting screen, lack of bans, there's no actual ranked play, you cant even target anything to see how much health it has. It's a huge mess
I disagree, the multiplayer is always welcome for improvements, but you also what content to get people to check back in to SC2, specifically casuals. In a game like Dota or League, you can add a champion or a hero and it gets casuals flocking back to try it out. You can't really do that with units in SC. But if you had new content like Co-Op missions, and mission packs, you have more people checking back and paying attention to the game. It also gives them sustainable income to keep the team back on. I'm sure there's stuff they want to do down the pipeline but it can't be something that only appeals to one part of the fanbase.
GRANTED, it's an important one. I guess it's a weird balance, you need to keep the dedicated people who are going to be playing your games for many years happy, as well as attracting old fans to check back in once in a while for a cool patch (which is what SC2 has been lacking because of my previous point of them holding back to put stuff on the back of the box)
Things like coop missions didn't really bring people back to the game, because the core issues that people had with the game are still there. None of my friends bothered with LotV multiplayer, only 1 of them actually purchased it solely for the campaign, he tried coop two matches and then was done because it was more of the same.
Of course more missions will bring in some cash flow. But the major problem with SC2 isn't the missions, it's the multiplayer. That's akin to a fighting game that stopped adding to the multiplayer aspect in favor of Vs CPU content. It doesn't make sense. The multiplayer is the true attraction of fighting games the same as RTS. To halt development on the primary attraction, especially when it has issues, in favor of vs CPU development, is not a typical thing for Blizzard to do. They never give up on their games in the past until their in a successful place. But in this case, multiplayer is in a dire need, but they choose to ignore it.
Even with things like coop and archon, they aren't really doing anything substantial to bring new players in to the game at all. It's one of the biggest issues I've mentioned. That means rather than finding ways to improve the games, their simply minimizing losses. Why would casual players stay if they come back and see it's more of the same, and has all the same issues that made them quit? Sure, new modes are nice, but they aren't useful unless the core mechanics and gameplay are brought to a place where they can enjoy it to.
Once they enjoy the actual gameplay again? Then new modes would help a lot! But if players already don't enjoy the core of the game itself, modes aren't going to help that...
Development-wise, their making a very strong point that they feel their development time is better spent elsewhere. I, for one, wish it was spent on SC2's multiplayer. I feel of all Blizzards library, it's the game that needs assistance most right now. But instead of assistance, it's got some of the weakest development from Blizzards part...
We have people in our school's Starcraft club whose main attraction to SC2 is coop.
On February 29 2016 14:52 Spyridon wrote: Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams. Much of the teams are shared. Even David Kim was announced to have been working on Heroes. SC2 and Heroes are both worked on by "Team 1". Team 1 is the team that works on all of the Blizzard RTS-style games (WC/SC/Heroes).
That's exactly the reason why so many people are upset. It's not like Blizz doesn't have the manpower, or the quality of designers available, or the funds to do it. They simply have not chosen to and put other games as a higher priority. Which is alarming since this is pretty much the first time Blizzard has treated a game this way. It's in the state it's in by choice.
Which, btw, is also part of the reason people suspect they might just be working on another RTS.
i don't think both Sigaty and Browder are lying or intentionally misleading Blizzard followers. ATVI is not funding another RTS because it generates too little revenue. LotV won't even make $0.1 Billion and the entire SC franchise since JUly 2010 has contributed less than 1.5% to ATVI's revenue stream.
Sigaty said nothing will step on SC2's toes or enter its market-space for 10 years. i don't think he is hiding anything. he was careful about how he expressed himself to make sure he as not misleading the questioner.
"Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams"
its not a "popular belief" unless you're prepared to say Browder is outright lying. Browder stated teh Team-1 consists of 80 people and the Heroes team consists of 140 people. His tweets came within a week of each other. If you think he is bullshitting or intentionally misleading people with "slippery language" then call him out on it... and see what happens.
if you have sources to back your points you should include them.
It's not "intentionally lying or misleading followers". It's called PR. It's why only certain members of the Blizz teams have authority to mention things like that. BTW, look at how many years it's been. If they announce a game at Blizzcon this year it would be released at the 10 year mark.
Just because they have 80 people working on SC2, and 140 working on Heroes, doesn't mean those 80 people are not working on Heroes as well. Team 1 is the team that worked on BOTH SC2 and Heroes. Blizzard teams are NOT exclusive outside of lead positions.
Notice how he NEVER stated that those people work "exclusively" on said game?
Kaeo– I am fortunate enough to have been here for 12 years. A little bit over 12 years at Blizzard now. Started out like a lot of people in our development teams have — in Quality Assurance (QA) sharing testing Warcraft III originally. Tech Support, just testing all the Warcraft in their early days. Also was the recruiter for Blizzard for a long time, the World of Warcraft team, the Cinematics Team, eventually I transitioned into production and I have been doing that for a little over 9 years on Blizzard almost, exclusively on Team 1 — which is the Heroes of the Storm Team and previously the StarCraft.
You can also find other posts on Google about how Team 1 has separate sub teams, including an eSports team, that is also mentioned to been utilized by both SC2 and Heroes. Nowhere do they ever mention anything other than Team 1 is the team to work on both games.
Blizzard - Team 1 = RTS-style games. Team 2 = WoW. Team 3 = Diablo. Team 4 = Titan/Overwatch. Team 5 = Hearthstone.
Some other quotes regarding other RTS:
Blizzard has revealed its RTS team may indeed revisit the Warcraft franchise once the last chapter in the StarCraft II story is complete. Speaking to IGN at Gamescom, StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void producer Tim Morten admitted that while the potential is certainly there for StarCraft III focusing on all-new characters, it's not the only option available to them.
"It’s very rewarding for us to hear that there’s demand out there for more RTS content in the Warcraft universe so once we’re done with Void I think we’ll get together as a team and talk about what would inspire us to work on next. There’s no question, though, that we’ll consider Warcraft, StarCraft, or even new ideas. Anything is possible."
I think the individual esports team is very small insignficant compared to the actual esports team headed up by Kim Phan.
"I can’t answer that because honestly we don’t know. Is it possible we work on something that steps on the toes of StarCraft? Yes, but there’s no intention to do that today, which is why I think it’s so critical and important how we treat it and how we continue to improve it and make things better - that matters. I think [StarCraft] absolutely stands as an amazing experience to both celebrate the people that get to that level of skill and quality and also to be able to watch and see that. While it’s possible we would [replace that], I don’t see it happening."
Tim Morten is just a producer who just joined the company, the quoted interview is from a Blizzard lifer whose the EXECUTIVE producer
The primary point of my post was that Team 1 is in charge of both games, and developers are split between the two games. The fact that they may be working on something on the side is a related point, but not the main point. Considering games are typically developed 1-2 years before they are even announced, it completely fits within the timeline.
Either way, as it stands right now, Team 1 is split between SC2 and Heroes, with all the majority of SC development being put in to the mission pack coming out in a few months, and Heroes is getting a hell of a lot more development in the eSports, balancing, and multiplayer departments. The prospect of another RTS in development is just another potential thing that may slow down SC2 development even more. Een Kim Phan has mentioned working on Heroes multiple times.
All this talk about "no other games stepping on SC2"... What do you think is happening as we speak when they are putting Heroes development ahead of SC2 and sharing a development team with them? Even by Browders own words Heroes has nearly double the size on their dev team.
I completely understand they want to keep up the momentum of Heroes, but the way their treating SC2 is a first for the company. The game is suffering and needs that attention for multiplayer development. But their developing it for mission packs, and focusing their heaviest multiplayer efforts elsewhere.
They mean an RTS stepping on SC2. Heroes is a completely different game. It's like what SC2 did when it came out, all the WC3 and foreign BW pros jumped ship for the new game.
Also... Heroes needs all the development it can get. The game is incredibly unbalanced, doesn't have a proper drafting screen, lack of bans, there's no actual ranked play, you cant even target anything to see how much health it has. It's a huge mess
I disagree, the multiplayer is always welcome for improvements, but you also what content to get people to check back in to SC2, specifically casuals. In a game like Dota or League, you can add a champion or a hero and it gets casuals flocking back to try it out. You can't really do that with units in SC. But if you had new content like Co-Op missions, and mission packs, you have more people checking back and paying attention to the game. It also gives them sustainable income to keep the team back on. I'm sure there's stuff they want to do down the pipeline but it can't be something that only appeals to one part of the fanbase.
GRANTED, it's an important one. I guess it's a weird balance, you need to keep the dedicated people who are going to be playing your games for many years happy, as well as attracting old fans to check back in once in a while for a cool patch (which is what SC2 has been lacking because of my previous point of them holding back to put stuff on the back of the box)
Things like coop missions didn't really bring people back to the game, because the core issues that people had with the game are still there. None of my friends bothered with LotV multiplayer, only 1 of them actually purchased it solely for the campaign, he tried coop two matches and then was done because it was more of the same.
Of course more missions will bring in some cash flow. But the major problem with SC2 isn't the missions, it's the multiplayer. That's akin to a fighting game that stopped adding to the multiplayer aspect in favor of Vs CPU content. It doesn't make sense. The multiplayer is the true attraction of fighting games the same as RTS. To halt development on the primary attraction, especially when it has issues, in favor of vs CPU development, is not a typical thing for Blizzard to do. They never give up on their games in the past until their in a successful place. But in this case, multiplayer is in a dire need, but they choose to ignore it.
Even with things like coop and archon, they aren't really doing anything substantial to bring new players in to the game at all. It's one of the biggest issues I've mentioned. That means rather than finding ways to improve the games, their simply minimizing losses. Why would casual players stay if they come back and see it's more of the same, and has all the same issues that made them quit? Sure, new modes are nice, but they aren't useful unless the core mechanics and gameplay are brought to a place where they can enjoy it to.
Once they enjoy the actual gameplay again? Then new modes would help a lot! But if players already don't enjoy the core of the game itself, modes aren't going to help that...
Development-wise, their making a very strong point that they feel their development time is better spent elsewhere. I, for one, wish it was spent on SC2's multiplayer. I feel of all Blizzards library, it's the game that needs assistance most right now. But instead of assistance, it's got some of the weakest development from Blizzards part...
you don't know that. Blizzard said said it's very popular and that people have been playing it a "TON". If their investing resources in releasing new content for it and balancing it, surely they're getting some return out of it.
It's something to do with their friends that isnt as stressful as 1v1 ladder. There are a bunch of people who wont touch 1v1 ladder because of the stress, which goes into your point where most casuals play the campaign and quit. That's why they're doing more campaign shit.
It goes back to how barely anyone actually did WC3 ladder compared to Arcade and Campaign.
And I have no idea how you think SC2 needs the most development when looking at HOTS/Hearthstone's ladder problems and lacking features. Like I said, the missing stuff from HOTS is just embarassing at this point.
They're working on multiplayer improvements, (like the ladder changes), they're just super slow. Even looking at how many people are on the other teams, everything they do is just slow even if the team in question has double or triple the resources of a team you THINK they're pouring everything into.
We can see how popular it is with our own eyes.
Their balancing work has been extremely minor since LotV release, to say the least. A single designer (not even one familiar with coding) could have done all the changes presented to us with the SC editor.
Some of the things you list for HotS are actually intentional design decisions, and some aren't even true. Your opinion on the games balance isn't shared by the pro community for the game, and is definitely not any more questionable than any other moba. Not sure what your problem with the draft interface is, and the game does have ranked play, and you can see how much HP a target has without having to select them first. Either you haven't played the game since alpha, or your just lying.
On the eSports scene, Blizz is still developing HotS, they have had loads of new tournaments, over 2m payout last year, and the game is still growing, and although they haven't gave us numbers, it's obviously still highly profitable if their pumping out content at the rate they are. They are also scaling up the amount of tournaments and payouts this year, and putting a lot of effort in to the next HotD. They have even more tournaments planned for this year than last year, and even more investment in tournament rewards. You see a hell of a lot more growth in the HotS scene than you do in the SC2 scene right now. Just because this site is more focused on SC2 doesn't mean Heroes isn't doing well elsewhere.
You may not like Hearthstone either, but it has the most momentum out of all Blizzards games right now. It's profitable, its competitive in tournaments, and it's bringing in loads of new players. They announced at the end of the year the Hearthstones profitability hit an all time high in Q4 of last year. Look up their financial results, and the insane amount of popularity and activity the game has.
Then look at SC2. Right now it's not even as popular as D3 and D3 was known for its horrendous release. Do you see them scaling up the scene with more eSports support than earlier years? Look at their financial report at the end of the year, do you see any plans laid out for the series like they did with every other of their series'?
The reason their super slow is because the team dedicated to it is extremely small (by Browders own words about half the side) as well as both games are Team 1 games, so the resources are being shared by SC2 and Heroes. Heroes is releasing damn sure more than double the content & balance updates than SC2 is getting right now. It's damn sure more popular overall than SC2 right now, and it's numbers are actually going up rather than down (in both tournament scene and populairty, just look at Twitch performance). And it's obviously more profitable, Blizzard put the development where the money is. And where is the SC2 development? In mission packs, not the multiplayer. The multiplayer and eSports development is being focused on other games. rather than investing more in sc2 tournament payouts, their investing their funds in to Heroes tournament payouts. Does that really not send u any sort of message?
i thought the message from the all important Tim Morten who was yapping away during a slow news day at IGN ...was that they're making another RTS game? LOL.
Kim and Browder have already directly refuted that only a "small team" is working on SC2. Browder through 2 tweets directly answering how many work on SC2 and Kim during a weekly update stating the "small team small resources" people are spewing it incorrect.
have you ever made software for a large scale user base? the # of people who actually code is small. the testing, server admin, business analysts, customer feedback specialists etc.. can be 50 to 100 while 2 employees are code-monkeys. i can name dozens of software projects that work like exactly this way.
and of course you're forgetting the legend of bob fitch. does that mean there were only 5 guys working on SC1 and Brood War because 1 guy made the engine?
because 1 guy can "code a solution" does not mean there were 4 people working on SC1 and Brood War. same applies with ur 1 guy screwing with the MOD Kit to make the changes to LotV. Fire off a tweet to Day9. How many guys at Artillery are actually laying down code?
Ask Greg Black how many people at EALA actually laid down code? it was never more than 4 guys. does this mean EALA had 10 employees? umm no.
ATVI is going to pull the plug on RTS in the next year though. There will still be the WCS and Blizzcon and so forth, but they're not going to be devoting huge resources to further enhance SC2 beyond 2017. As I've said it made less than 1.5% of ATVI's revenue in the past 6 years and the probability of LotV making even $0.1 Billion is zero.
On February 29 2016 14:52 Spyridon wrote: Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams. Much of the teams are shared. Even David Kim was announced to have been working on Heroes. SC2 and Heroes are both worked on by "Team 1". Team 1 is the team that works on all of the Blizzard RTS-style games (WC/SC/Heroes).
That's exactly the reason why so many people are upset. It's not like Blizz doesn't have the manpower, or the quality of designers available, or the funds to do it. They simply have not chosen to and put other games as a higher priority. Which is alarming since this is pretty much the first time Blizzard has treated a game this way. It's in the state it's in by choice.
Which, btw, is also part of the reason people suspect they might just be working on another RTS.
i don't think both Sigaty and Browder are lying or intentionally misleading Blizzard followers. ATVI is not funding another RTS because it generates too little revenue. LotV won't even make $0.1 Billion and the entire SC franchise since JUly 2010 has contributed less than 1.5% to ATVI's revenue stream.
Sigaty said nothing will step on SC2's toes or enter its market-space for 10 years. i don't think he is hiding anything. he was careful about how he expressed himself to make sure he as not misleading the questioner.
"Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams"
its not a "popular belief" unless you're prepared to say Browder is outright lying. Browder stated teh Team-1 consists of 80 people and the Heroes team consists of 140 people. His tweets came within a week of each other. If you think he is bullshitting or intentionally misleading people with "slippery language" then call him out on it... and see what happens.
if you have sources to back your points you should include them.
It's not "intentionally lying or misleading followers". It's called PR. It's why only certain members of the Blizz teams have authority to mention things like that. BTW, look at how many years it's been. If they announce a game at Blizzcon this year it would be released at the 10 year mark.
Just because they have 80 people working on SC2, and 140 working on Heroes, doesn't mean those 80 people are not working on Heroes as well. Team 1 is the team that worked on BOTH SC2 and Heroes. Blizzard teams are NOT exclusive outside of lead positions.
Notice how he NEVER stated that those people work "exclusively" on said game?
Kaeo– I am fortunate enough to have been here for 12 years. A little bit over 12 years at Blizzard now. Started out like a lot of people in our development teams have — in Quality Assurance (QA) sharing testing Warcraft III originally. Tech Support, just testing all the Warcraft in their early days. Also was the recruiter for Blizzard for a long time, the World of Warcraft team, the Cinematics Team, eventually I transitioned into production and I have been doing that for a little over 9 years on Blizzard almost, exclusively on Team 1 — which is the Heroes of the Storm Team and previously the StarCraft.
You can also find other posts on Google about how Team 1 has separate sub teams, including an eSports team, that is also mentioned to been utilized by both SC2 and Heroes. Nowhere do they ever mention anything other than Team 1 is the team to work on both games.
Blizzard - Team 1 = RTS-style games. Team 2 = WoW. Team 3 = Diablo. Team 4 = Titan/Overwatch. Team 5 = Hearthstone.
Some other quotes regarding other RTS:
Blizzard has revealed its RTS team may indeed revisit the Warcraft franchise once the last chapter in the StarCraft II story is complete. Speaking to IGN at Gamescom, StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void producer Tim Morten admitted that while the potential is certainly there for StarCraft III focusing on all-new characters, it's not the only option available to them.
"It’s very rewarding for us to hear that there’s demand out there for more RTS content in the Warcraft universe so once we’re done with Void I think we’ll get together as a team and talk about what would inspire us to work on next. There’s no question, though, that we’ll consider Warcraft, StarCraft, or even new ideas. Anything is possible."
I think the individual esports team is very small insignficant compared to the actual esports team headed up by Kim Phan.
"I can’t answer that because honestly we don’t know. Is it possible we work on something that steps on the toes of StarCraft? Yes, but there’s no intention to do that today, which is why I think it’s so critical and important how we treat it and how we continue to improve it and make things better - that matters. I think [StarCraft] absolutely stands as an amazing experience to both celebrate the people that get to that level of skill and quality and also to be able to watch and see that. While it’s possible we would [replace that], I don’t see it happening."
Tim Morten is just a producer who just joined the company, the quoted interview is from a Blizzard lifer whose the EXECUTIVE producer
The primary point of my post was that Team 1 is in charge of both games, and developers are split between the two games. The fact that they may be working on something on the side is a related point, but not the main point. Considering games are typically developed 1-2 years before they are even announced, it completely fits within the timeline.
Either way, as it stands right now, Team 1 is split between SC2 and Heroes, with all the majority of SC development being put in to the mission pack coming out in a few months, and Heroes is getting a hell of a lot more development in the eSports, balancing, and multiplayer departments. The prospect of another RTS in development is just another potential thing that may slow down SC2 development even more. Een Kim Phan has mentioned working on Heroes multiple times.
All this talk about "no other games stepping on SC2"... What do you think is happening as we speak when they are putting Heroes development ahead of SC2 and sharing a development team with them? Even by Browders own words Heroes has nearly double the size on their dev team.
I completely understand they want to keep up the momentum of Heroes, but the way their treating SC2 is a first for the company. The game is suffering and needs that attention for multiplayer development. But their developing it for mission packs, and focusing their heaviest multiplayer efforts elsewhere.
They mean an RTS stepping on SC2. Heroes is a completely different game. It's like what SC2 did when it came out, all the WC3 and foreign BW pros jumped ship for the new game.
Also... Heroes needs all the development it can get. The game is incredibly unbalanced, doesn't have a proper drafting screen, lack of bans, there's no actual ranked play, you cant even target anything to see how much health it has. It's a huge mess
I disagree, the multiplayer is always welcome for improvements, but you also what content to get people to check back in to SC2, specifically casuals. In a game like Dota or League, you can add a champion or a hero and it gets casuals flocking back to try it out. You can't really do that with units in SC. But if you had new content like Co-Op missions, and mission packs, you have more people checking back and paying attention to the game. It also gives them sustainable income to keep the team back on. I'm sure there's stuff they want to do down the pipeline but it can't be something that only appeals to one part of the fanbase.
GRANTED, it's an important one. I guess it's a weird balance, you need to keep the dedicated people who are going to be playing your games for many years happy, as well as attracting old fans to check back in once in a while for a cool patch (which is what SC2 has been lacking because of my previous point of them holding back to put stuff on the back of the box)
Things like coop missions didn't really bring people back to the game, because the core issues that people had with the game are still there. None of my friends bothered with LotV multiplayer, only 1 of them actually purchased it solely for the campaign, he tried coop two matches and then was done because it was more of the same.
Of course more missions will bring in some cash flow. But the major problem with SC2 isn't the missions, it's the multiplayer. That's akin to a fighting game that stopped adding to the multiplayer aspect in favor of Vs CPU content. It doesn't make sense. The multiplayer is the true attraction of fighting games the same as RTS. To halt development on the primary attraction, especially when it has issues, in favor of vs CPU development, is not a typical thing for Blizzard to do. They never give up on their games in the past until their in a successful place. But in this case, multiplayer is in a dire need, but they choose to ignore it.
Even with things like coop and archon, they aren't really doing anything substantial to bring new players in to the game at all. It's one of the biggest issues I've mentioned. That means rather than finding ways to improve the games, their simply minimizing losses. Why would casual players stay if they come back and see it's more of the same, and has all the same issues that made them quit? Sure, new modes are nice, but they aren't useful unless the core mechanics and gameplay are brought to a place where they can enjoy it to.
Once they enjoy the actual gameplay again? Then new modes would help a lot! But if players already don't enjoy the core of the game itself, modes aren't going to help that...
Development-wise, their making a very strong point that they feel their development time is better spent elsewhere. I, for one, wish it was spent on SC2's multiplayer. I feel of all Blizzards library, it's the game that needs assistance most right now. But instead of assistance, it's got some of the weakest development from Blizzards part...
you don't know that. Blizzard said said it's very popular and that people have been playing it a "TON". If their investing resources in releasing new content for it and balancing it, surely they're getting some return out of it.
It's something to do with their friends that isnt as stressful as 1v1 ladder. There are a bunch of people who wont touch 1v1 ladder because of the stress, which goes into your point where most casuals play the campaign and quit. That's why they're doing more campaign shit.
It goes back to how barely anyone actually did WC3 ladder compared to Arcade and Campaign.
And I have no idea how you think SC2 needs the most development when looking at HOTS/Hearthstone's ladder problems and lacking features. Like I said, the missing stuff from HOTS is just embarassing at this point.
They're working on multiplayer improvements, (like the ladder changes), they're just super slow. Even looking at how many people are on the other teams, everything they do is just slow even if the team in question has double or triple the resources of a team you THINK they're pouring everything into.
We can see how popular it is with our own eyes.
Their balancing work has been extremely minor since LotV release, to say the least. A single designer (not even one familiar with coding) could have done all the changes presented to us with the SC editor.
Some of the things you list for HotS are actually intentional design decisions, and some aren't even true. Your opinion on the games balance isn't shared by the pro community for the game, and is definitely not any more questionable than any other moba. Not sure what your problem with the draft interface is, and the game does have ranked play, and you can see how much HP a target has without having to select them first. Either you haven't played the game since alpha, or your just lying.
On the eSports scene, Blizz is still developing HotS, they have had loads of new tournaments, over 2m payout last year, and the game is still growing, and although they haven't gave us numbers, it's obviously still highly profitable if their pumping out content at the rate they are. They are also scaling up the amount of tournaments and payouts this year, and putting a lot of effort in to the next HotD. They have even more tournaments planned for this year than last year, and even more investment in tournament rewards. You see a hell of a lot more growth in the HotS scene than you do in the SC2 scene right now. Just because this site is more focused on SC2 doesn't mean Heroes isn't doing well elsewhere.
You may not like Hearthstone either, but it has the most momentum out of all Blizzards games right now. It's profitable, its competitive in tournaments, and it's bringing in loads of new players. They announced at the end of the year the Hearthstones profitability hit an all time high in Q4 of last year. Look up their financial results, and the insane amount of popularity and activity the game has.
Then look at SC2. Right now it's not even as popular as D3 and D3 was known for its horrendous release. Do you see them scaling up the scene with more eSports support than earlier years? Look at their financial report at the end of the year, do you see any plans laid out for the series like they did with every other of their series'?
The reason their super slow is because the team dedicated to it is extremely small (by Browders own words about half the side) as well as both games are Team 1 games, so the resources are being shared by SC2 and Heroes. Heroes is releasing damn sure more than double the content & balance updates than SC2 is getting right now. It's damn sure more popular overall than SC2 right now, and it's numbers are actually going up rather than down (in both tournament scene and populairty, just look at Twitch performance). And it's obviously more profitable, Blizzard put the development where the money is. And where is the SC2 development? In mission packs, not the multiplayer. The multiplayer and eSports development is being focused on other games. rather than investing more in sc2 tournament payouts, their investing their funds in to Heroes tournament payouts. Does that really not send u any sort of message?
i thought the message from the all important Tim Morten who was yapping away during a slow news day at IGN ...was that they're making another RTS game? LOL.
Kim and Browder have already directly refuted that only a "small team" is working on SC2. Browder through 2 tweets directly answering how many work on SC2 and Kim during a weekly update stating the "small team small resources" people are spewing it incorrect.
have you ever made software for a large scale user base? the # of people who actually code is small. the testing, server admin, business analysts, customer feedback specialists etc.. can be 50 to 100 while 2 employees are code-monkeys. i can name dozens of software projects that work like exactly this way.
and of course you're forgetting the legend of bob fitch. does that mean there were only 5 guys working on SC1 and Brood War because 1 guy made the engine?
because 1 guy can "code a solution" does not mean there were 4 people working on SC1 and Brood War. same applies with ur 1 guy screwing with the MOD Kit to make the changes to LotV. Fire off a tweet to Day9. How many guys at Artillery are actually laying down code?
Ask Greg Black how many people at EALA actually laid down code? it was never more than 4 guys. does this mean EALA had 10 employees? umm no.
ATVI is going to pull the plug on RTS in the next year though. There will still be the WCS and Blizzcon and so forth, but they're not going to be devoting huge resources to further enhance SC2 beyond 2017. As I've said it made less than 1.5% of ATVI's revenue in the past 6 years and the probability of LotV making even $0.1 Billion is zero.
Funny how you latch on to the quote from Morten, as if there's anything wrong with the guy, I dont particularly care either way for the guy but apparently you have a prob with him.
Ironic that the things your claiming "Tim Morten said" were actually posted were from a 12 year Blizzard employee & producer. It even said that in the part I quoted. Way to show you didn't even read the link nor what was presented to you in the quote, and are just disagreeing for the sake of it.
Browder simply stated how many people are on the team of both games. He left out how many of those people were working on which game and/or both games. Both games are Team 1 games, which means the number of those developers actively working on the game right now is lower than the numbers provided - Team 1 is working on both games, as well as they can say the eSports team is working on both games. But look how much eSports investment is being dedicated to each game...
Yes I know how software development works, it's been my career for over 20 years, and I've studied game design during my whole software design career as well. Which is why I get so upset with the develoment and design of the game.
The problem isn't even the coding time, it's the amount of time spent actually developing the game. Do you really think it took a lot of time for them to come up with what they been giving us in weekly updates? Balance changes and such take very little coding, it's the decision making that takes work, and there's been very little effort on that front in general since LotV.
If LotV isn't very profitable as you say, isn't that itself an indication that the series needs some help? It used to be debatably Blizzards #1 series. Right now it could be argued (for reasons I presented earlier) that it's Blizzards weakest series atm.
Oh and BTW, after all the ridicule of Morten, the person who actually said the quote I posted (not Morten) had Browder sitting right next to him. So it's not like he doesn't have any credibility.
Morten does not make money decisions. that does not make him good or bad it just means what he says about the future of the company does not mean much.
Sigaty already said his piece. you can ignore it if you want. Kim is also on the record as well. again you can pretend he never said it and at the end of the day you can dream up whatever background narrative you like.
Here is the bottom line: the SC franchise has represented less than 1.5% of ATVI's revenue and therefore LotV is ATVIs last investment in the RTS genre,, enjoy it while it lasts.
On February 29 2016 14:52 Spyridon wrote: ATVI is going to pull the plug on RTS in the next year though. There will still be the WCS and Blizzcon and so forth, but they're not going to be devoting huge resources to further enhance SC2 beyond 2017. As I've said it made less than 1.5% of ATVI's revenue in the past 6 years and the probability of LotV making even $0.1 Billion is zero.
Can you post the definitive link where it states that? Six years is a long breadth, I wouldn't be too surprised, I would just like you to show your facts where your mouth is. Call of Duty releases games every year that sell millions of copies, WoW has a constant subscriber base, its easy to see why they would share so much of the space, but the thing is... As they figured out with ghost, you can't just make new games that compete with each other. They dominate the RTS genre, its obvious, and they're working on how to monetize the shit out of it.
Legacy of the Void sold over a million games within 24 hours, and have hundreds of thousands of players still playing monthly, I mean its not a whole lot compared to other stuff but this is a constant. This will not fade away, these players just like RTS and I mean, that's a pretty good share to make money off of. How many Call of Duty players really pay attention to the pro-scene(not saying it doesn't have one, it does and its huge, but the majority of their players don't really give a F who the best is.) If SC2 was a net-negative... Why would they have not killed the esports scene? They increased the prize pool this year, all-around, and constantly include MLG in their statements for the future.
I dunno man, your mind is too much of a tunnel. Strategy games(talking all of them, city-builders, turn-based, etc) have always been a mainstay in PC and won't go, especially with Activision-Blizzard at the helm, one of the biggest gaming companies in the world(behind the likes of only like nintendo and microsoft.) So Starcraft doesn't bring in millions of players every month, that isn't a problem, most games don't, and they go on living for years.
If nothing else convinces you to the livelihood of this game, just tune into GSL, and listen to Tasteless' passion. I swear him and Artosis(who is a softer judge and has gotten flak in the past for defending Blizz too much in the past) have never spoken better about the state of the game. They love it. They want it known and they say it makes them feel just like it was Brood War again. I'm sure if they were young enough, they both would no doubt be in the scene playing again in an instant. They say its improving in Korea(finally admitting it was in a state of diminishing presence) and constantly report on the size of the crowd. This is proof Starcraft will live on without Blizzard, Korea will always support the scene, and if you truly love Starcraft than that should be enough for you, because it was for them a decade ago.
[QUOTE]On March 01 2016 09:56 Spyridon wrote: [QUOTE]On March 01 2016 08:26 lestye wrote: [QUOTE]On March 01 2016 08:15 Spyridon wrote: [QUOTE]On March 01 2016 07:42 lestye wrote: [QUOTE]On March 01 2016 06:24 Spyridon wrote: [QUOTE]On March 01 2016 05:49 lestye wrote: [QUOTE]On March 01 2016 01:52 Spyridon wrote: [QUOTE]On February 29 2016 16:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: [QUOTE]On February 29 2016 14:52 Spyridon wrote: Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams. Much of the teams are shared. Even David Kim was announced to have been working on Heroes. SC2 and Heroes are both worked on by "Team 1". Team 1 is the team that works on all of the Blizzard RTS-style games (WC/SC/Heroes).
That's exactly the reason why so many people are upset. It's not like Blizz doesn't have the manpower, or the quality of designers available, or the funds to do it. They simply have not chosen to and put other games as a higher priority. Which is alarming since this is pretty much the first time Blizzard has treated a game this way. It's in the state it's in by choice.
Which, btw, is also part of the reason people suspect they might just be working on another RTS.[/QUOTE]
i don't think both Sigaty and Browder are lying or intentionally misleading Blizzard followers. ATVI is not funding another RTS because it generates too little revenue. LotV won't even make $0.1 Billion and the entire SC franchise since JUly 2010 has contributed less than 1.5% to ATVI's revenue stream.
Sigaty said nothing will step on SC2's toes or enter its market-space for 10 years. i don't think he is hiding anything. he was careful about how he expressed himself to make sure he as not misleading the questioner.
"Contrary to popular belief, SC2 and Heroes don't have completely separate teams"
its not a "popular belief" unless you're prepared to say Browder is outright lying. Browder stated teh Team-1 consists of 80 people and the Heroes team consists of 140 people. His tweets came within a week of each other. If you think he is bullshitting or intentionally misleading people with "slippery language" then call him out on it... and see what happens.
here is the info i have based on sources i trust.
The SC2 quote of 80 [url=https://twitter.com/DustinBrowder/status/697180199473934338]https://twitter.com/DustinBrowder/status/697180199473934338[/url]
The Heroes quote of 140+ [url=https://twitter.com/DustinBrowder/status/694939451701612544]https://twitter.com/DustinBrowder/status/694939451701612544[/url]
if you have sources to back your points you should include them.
[/QUOTE]
It's not "intentionally lying or misleading followers". It's called PR. It's why only certain members of the Blizz teams have authority to mention things like that. BTW, look at how many years it's been. If they announce a game at Blizzcon this year it would be released at the 10 year mark.
Just because they have 80 people working on SC2, and 140 working on Heroes, doesn't mean those 80 people are not working on Heroes as well. Team 1 is the team that worked on BOTH SC2 and Heroes. Blizzard teams are NOT exclusive outside of lead positions.
Notice how he NEVER stated that those people work "exclusively" on said game?
I'm at work right now, but the development being with team 1 is public knowledge. Just doing a quick google of a source: [url=http://heroes.blizzplanet.com/blog/comments/heroes-of-the-storm-developer-qa-part-2-jan-22-2014-transcript]http://heroes.blizzplanet.com/blog/comments/heroes-of-the-storm-developer-qa-part-2-jan-22-2014-transcript[/url]
An example quote:
[QUOTE]Kaeo– I am fortunate enough to have been here for 12 years. A little bit over 12 years at Blizzard now. Started out like a lot of people in our development teams have — in Quality Assurance (QA) sharing testing Warcraft III originally. Tech Support, just testing all the Warcraft in their early days. Also was the recruiter for Blizzard for a long time, the World of Warcraft team, the Cinematics Team, eventually I transitioned into production and I have been doing that for a little over 9 years on Blizzard almost, exclusively on Team 1 — which is the Heroes of the Storm Team and previously the StarCraft.[/QUOTE]
You can also find other posts on Google about how Team 1 has separate sub teams, including an eSports team, that is also mentioned to been utilized by both SC2 and Heroes. Nowhere do they ever mention anything other than Team 1 is the team to work on both games.
Blizzard - Team 1 = RTS-style games. Team 2 = WoW. Team 3 = Diablo. Team 4 = Titan/Overwatch. Team 5 = Hearthstone.
Some other quotes regarding other RTS:
[QUOTE]Blizzard has revealed its RTS team may indeed revisit the Warcraft franchise once the last chapter in the StarCraft II story is complete. Speaking to IGN at Gamescom, StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void producer Tim Morten admitted that while the potential is certainly there for StarCraft III focusing on all-new characters, it's not the only option available to them.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"It’s very rewarding for us to hear that there’s demand out there for more RTS content in the Warcraft universe so once we’re done with Void I think we’ll get together as a team and talk about what would inspire us to work on next. There’s no question, though, that we’ll consider Warcraft, StarCraft, or even new ideas. Anything is possible."[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
I think the individual esports team is very small insignficant compared to the actual esports team headed up by Kim Phan.
Jimmy has already disputed that point with Tim Morten with this interview: [url=http://www.pcgamesn.com/starcraft-ii/starcraft-2-the-next-ten-years]http://www.pcgamesn.com/starcraft-ii/starcraft-2-the-next-ten-years[/url]
[quote]"I can’t answer that because honestly we don’t know. Is it possible we work on something that steps on the toes of StarCraft? Yes, but there’s no intention to do that today, which is why I think it’s so critical and important how we treat it and how we continue to improve it and make things better - that matters. I think [StarCraft] absolutely stands as an amazing experience to both celebrate the people that get to that level of skill and quality and also to be able to watch and see that. While it’s possible we would [replace that], I don’t see it happening."[/quote]
Tim Morten is just a producer who just joined the company, the quoted interview is from a Blizzard lifer whose the EXECUTIVE producer [/QUOTE]
The primary point of my post was that Team 1 is in charge of both games, and developers are split between the two games. The fact that they may be working on something on the side is a related point, but not the main point. Considering games are typically developed 1-2 years before they are even announced, it completely fits within the timeline.
Either way, as it stands right now, Team 1 is split between SC2 and Heroes, with all the majority of SC development being put in to the mission pack coming out in a few months, and Heroes is getting a hell of a lot more development in the eSports, balancing, and multiplayer departments. The prospect of another RTS in development is just another potential thing that may slow down SC2 development even more. Een Kim Phan has mentioned working on Heroes multiple times.
All this talk about "no other games stepping on SC2"... What do you think is happening as we speak when they are putting Heroes development ahead of SC2 and sharing a development team with them? Even by Browders own words Heroes has nearly double the size on their dev team.
I completely understand they want to keep up the momentum of Heroes, but the way their treating SC2 is a first for the company. The game is suffering and needs that attention for multiplayer development. But their developing it for mission packs, and focusing their heaviest multiplayer efforts elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
They mean an RTS stepping on SC2. Heroes is a completely different game. It's like what SC2 did when it came out, all the WC3 and foreign BW pros jumped ship for the new game.
Also... Heroes needs all the development it can get. The game is incredibly unbalanced, doesn't have a proper drafting screen, lack of bans, there's no actual ranked play, you cant even target anything to see how much health it has. It's a huge mess
I disagree, the multiplayer is always welcome for improvements, but you also what content to get people to check back in to SC2, specifically casuals. In a game like Dota or League, you can add a champion or a hero and it gets casuals flocking back to try it out. You can't really do that with units in SC. But if you had new content like Co-Op missions, and mission packs, you have more people checking back and paying attention to the game. It also gives them sustainable income to keep the team back on. I'm sure there's stuff they want to do down the pipeline but it can't be something that only appeals to one part of the fanbase.
GRANTED, it's an important one. I guess it's a weird balance, you need to keep the dedicated people who are going to be playing your games for many years happy, as well as attracting old fans to check back in once in a while for a cool patch (which is what SC2 has been lacking because of my previous point of them holding back to put stuff on the back of the box)[/QUOTE] \...\\
It's been minor for a reason. They dont want to knee jerk nerf/buff something, when the community/pros can take time to figure out if it is super OP or not. It's how a metagame develops. There were times when during Brood War, people thought the game was solved and a certain race is underpowered or overpowered...until someone figures out that's not the case. That has been the case in SC2 for quite some time. Some times they were way too conservative and took WAAAAY too long to balance shit. But thats their M.O.
They've only been balancing the game weeky/biweekly for a few weeks now.
And they've been promising "grandmaster" and a new MMR system for a long time now. The abomination they're using is some weird mix of Hearthstone and SC2. We're still in "Pre-Season" no actual Season, no rewards , no grandmaster, no actual ladder. and NO you can't look at how much health someone has, you can look at their health bar and TAKE A GUESS, but you cant say "oh this guy has 200 hp" you can't say that, you can only guess "oh he's pretty low". Thats what I mean, you have no idea how much health something is by using in game tools besides yourself. and the DRAFT SCREEN IS terrible. Theres 3 pages, and most importantly YOU CAN'T DRAFT/SWAP PICKS. In tournaments THEY HAVE TO USE A WEBSITE TO DRAFT because the in-game client is so inadequate and doesn't even have bans which the competitive scene has been using for a year now.
Blizzard has put a shit ton of money in Hots pro scene, but thats just because they have so much competition. Their tournament numbers arent that good. They subsidize the entire scene. Looking at their streamer numbers, its not THAT popular as an esport, but they might be making bank/maybe its just not a fun streaming/esport to watch/maybe their investing for long-term.
I LOVE Hearthstone. I was only using it as an example because your points dont hold up when we compare it to their other games. Hearthstone is probably one of the biggest money makers, yet they havent balanced it AT ALL. Content patches, help with that, not necessarily balancing the actual game, to your point. Just because your game is popular, doesnt mean it's going to get a ridiculous amount of changes.
and I'm not sure where you're going with the Diablo comparison. Diablo is always going to be more popular because its not a 1v1 competitive game, its fun to play to friends. It sold 30 million copies for Christ's sake, its one of the biggest games ever. 3m people a month played that game, even in Vanilla.
For your last point, like I said before still stands. HOTS has the luxury of needing to add new heroes, as thats where they make money, and thats the appeal of the genre, and most importantly, the game is incredibly bare bones. Not only features but hero count alone. Their twitch performance is not good at all. Besides Blizzcon, the only time they break the top of Twitch's front page is this weekend with the Vegas event.
I guess i don't see eye-to-eye because I honestly don't know what you're expecting. HOTS is going to get content with heroes, and creative objective based maps (which no other moba is going to have). its way more imbalanced, and its easier to try to balance than SC2, so more frequent balance patches are expected. The only "content" they can add really is season map changes (which I do agree its kinda fucked that they didnt change anything in the last season), and skins, which is something they're working on in the pipeline. Thats why theyre making map packs because thats way easier income because , like you said, a lot of people like the campaign but dont play ladder.
Basically I think you're misconstruing lack of balance changes = they dont give a shit, when their weekly feedback threads clearly expresses their intention. They're being conservative because of the competitive scene, because they want to nerf/buff things in a good way that positively affects all match ups. Because it doesnt help anyone if you nerf X unit to make PvZ more balanced, but then TvP becomes even MORE imbalanced because you didnt consider the ramifications.
On March 01 2016 15:09 lestye wrote: It's been minor for a reason. They dont want to knee jerk nerf/buff something, when the community/pros can take time to figure out if it is super OP or not. It's how a metagame develops. There were times when during Brood War, people thought the game was solved and a certain race is underpowered or overpowered...until someone figures out that's not the case. That has been the case in SC2 for quite some time. Some times they were way too conservative and took WAAAAY too long to balance shit. But thats their M.O.
.....
Basically I think you're misconstruing lack of balance changes = they dont give a shit, when their weekly feedback threads clearly expresses their intention. They're being conservative because of the competitive scene, because they want to nerf/buff things in a good way that positively affects all match ups. Because it doesnt help anyone if you nerf X unit to make PvZ more balanced, but then TvP becomes even MORE imbalanced because you didnt consider the ramifications.
It's more than balance changes, it's a load of issues.
Their weekly feedback changes turned from actual communication to PR last summer. Further than not many balance changes, they have put very little development effort at all. The features they mentioned in the "Future of StarCraft" at Blizzcon got pushed back until after the Nova mission packs, which is prioritizing missions over the multiplayer issues of the game, and them wanting to be paid again before delivering what they said they would.
It's also the fact that the LotV release date was pushed UP when the game needed more dev time. They rushed it out by Blizzcon when even the official Blizzard store page said it was to be released in March 2016.
Their solutions are tweaks to things people are complaining about at the time, rather than decisions made to repair the overall design and make sure the issues are fixed for good. For example, medivac tank drops have been debated lately even on their end. These mechanics shouldnt be implemented "because they sound cool" or "to give them mobility". It should have an overall design reason that meshes with the race! It should be part of the race for a specific reason, it should have its place in the synergy with other units, and other units should have synergy with it, it's timings should be specific for a reason, etc. But it's really not, and the fact that they are debating if they shohuld keep it or not, shows that they don't really have a solid design direction to back it up. Whether to keep it or not should be a simple decision based upon their design goals. Do they even have any design goals? Look thru the design posts on this site and you can find dozens examples of unclear design.
None of that is fixed. Very few if any new players are being encouraged to play the game. The developments not focused on growth and is rather focused on minimizing losses. Their content their giving us is for a quick cash grab from vs CPU players when multiplayers suffering.
Regarding your last paragraph, if they really were worried about any of that, half of the changes LotV made shouldn't have been made, and if they were going to do changes like that, then they shouldnt have pushed up the release date to where they didn't have time to sufficiently balance the game around those changes. They reverted changes they were working on for longer than 3 months, and made major balance changes under a month and a half before release, and the beta wasn't even up for 1/3 that time. The metagame didnt even settle after their changes and they deemed the game as "release ready".
Can you even look at the final beta patches and say there wasn't any "knee jerk nerfs or buffs"?? Can you really say the competitive scene is happy with the way they have been handling LotV? Can you say they are really keeping their old fans happy, or new players happy?
The only player base I see that is actually happy are the ones looking forward to the Nova mission pack, and that's only one person I know. In general, people don't even really care about SC2 anymore. Even though my friends didnt play they still followed the pro scene for many years, and now they even gave up on that.
For the last few years I've basically watched a game series I love get turned to shit. Seen some potential improvement last summer during beta for the first time in years, invested in the game again, and then they switched it up and turned the game in to something different. I've seen public reception as well as pro reception plummet. And I've gotten upset that it hasn't gotten the treatment that EVERY other Blizzard game has gotten when it was down. They have repaired and resolved issues with every other one of their series', and SC2 needs that treatment VERY badly right now, and they aren't giving it. Their development is in areas that aren't even the main focus of the game - SC2 at it's core is known for it's multilplayer, and multiplayer is taking a back seat to mission development. They push back multiplayer features until their priorities of single player content are completed. I've seen the design because more convoluted and lack direction more than ever. I've seen one of the lead designers specifically state that they intentionally chose inferior design for PR reasons. Their priorities are screwed. The designers offer us more PR than actual design work. They blame us in the community for all of their failings.
I could even go on further, but there's no need. The point is, there's dozens of reasons why I'm upset, and why the community in general is upset with the game, or has decided to completely disregard the game. Their development on the game is appalling. I would not feel right recommending this game to any of my friends in the current state. Even if I had a friend who ONLY enjoyed RTS games, I would not recommend this game right now. My only feelings I've had with SC2 since last summer have been frustration with the development team, frustration with the changes they say their going to do and decide not to, and upset at the changes they actually decide to put live that the majority of the player base don't even want. I don't really have anything good to say about the game or the design team in its current state. If their okay with the games reception suffering as well as the competitive scene in decline, who am I to argue? Just go according to plan and spend developers time on Mission packs, because that will make everything all better, right?
On March 01 2016 15:09 lestye wrote: It's been minor for a reason. They dont want to knee jerk nerf/buff something, when the community/pros can take time to figure out if it is super OP or not. It's how a metagame develops. There were times when during Brood War, people thought the game was solved and a certain race is underpowered or overpowered...until someone figures out that's not the case. That has been the case in SC2 for quite some time. Some times they were way too conservative and took WAAAAY too long to balance shit. But thats their M.O.
.....
Basically I think you're misconstruing lack of balance changes = they dont give a shit, when their weekly feedback threads clearly expresses their intention. They're being conservative because of the competitive scene, because they want to nerf/buff things in a good way that positively affects all match ups. Because it doesnt help anyone if you nerf X unit to make PvZ more balanced, but then TvP becomes even MORE imbalanced because you didnt consider the ramifications.
It's more than balance changes, it's a load of issues.
Their weekly feedback changes turned from actual communication to PR last summer. Further than not many balance changes, they have put very little development effort at all. The features they mentioned in the "Future of StarCraft" at Blizzcon got pushed back until after the Nova mission packs, which is prioritizing missions over the multiplayer issues of the game, and them wanting to be paid again before delivering what they said they would.
It's also the fact that the LotV release date was pushed UP when the game needed more dev time. They rushed it out by Blizzcon when even the official Blizzard store page said it was to be released in March 2016.
Their solutions are tweaks to things people are complaining about at the time, rather than decisions made to repair the overall design and make sure the issues are fixed for good. For example, medivac tank drops have been debated lately even on their end. These mechanics shouldnt be implemented "because they sound cool" or "to give them mobility". It should have an overall design reason that meshes with the race! It should be part of the race for a specific reason, it should have its place in the synergy with other units, and other units should have synergy with it, it's timings should be specific for a reason, etc. But it's really not, and the fact that they are debating if they shohuld keep it or not, shows that they don't really have a solid design direction to back it up. Whether to keep it or not should be a simple decision based upon their design goals. Do they even have any design goals? Look thru the design posts on this site and you can find dozens examples of unclear design.
None of that is fixed. Very few if any new players are being encouraged to play the game. The developments not focused on growth and is rather focused on minimizing losses. Their content their giving us is for a quick cash grab from vs CPU players when multiplayers suffering.
Regarding your last paragraph, if they really were worried about any of that, half of the changes LotV made shouldn't have been made, and if they were going to do changes like that, then they shouldnt have pushed up the release date to where they didn't have time to sufficiently balance the game around those changes. They reverted changes they were working on for longer than 3 months, and made major balance changes under a month and a half before release, and the beta wasn't even up for 1/3 that time. The metagame didnt even settle after their changes and they deemed the game as "release ready".
Can you even look at the final beta patches and say there wasn't any "knee jerk nerfs or buffs"?? Can you really say the competitive scene is happy with the way they have been handling LotV? Can you say they are really keeping their old fans happy, or new players happy?
The only player base I see that is actually happy are the ones looking forward to the Nova mission pack, and that's only one person I know. In general, people don't even really care about SC2 anymore. Even though my friends didnt play they still followed the pro scene for many years, and now they even gave up on that.
For the last few years I've basically watched a game series I love get turned to shit. Seen some potential improvement last summer during beta for the first time in years, invested in the game again, and then they switched it up and turned the game in to something different. I've seen public reception as well as pro reception plummet. And I've gotten upset that it hasn't gotten the treatment that EVERY other Blizzard game has gotten when it was down. They have repaired and resolved issues with every other one of their series', and SC2 needs that treatment VERY badly right now, and they aren't giving it. Their development is in areas that aren't even the main focus of the game - SC2 at it's core is known for it's multilplayer, and multiplayer is taking a back seat to mission development. They push back multiplayer features until their priorities of single player content are completed. I've seen the design because more convoluted and lack direction more than ever. I've seen one of the lead designers specifically state that they intentionally chose inferior design for PR reasons. Their priorities are screwed. The designers offer us more PR than actual design work. They blame us in the community for all of their failings.
I could even go on further, but there's no need. The point is, there's dozens of reasons why I'm upset, and why the community in general is upset with the game, or has decided to completely disregard the game. Their development on the game is appalling. I would not feel right recommending this game to any of my friends in the current state. Even if I had a friend who ONLY enjoyed RTS games, I would not recommend this game right now. My only feelings I've had with SC2 since last summer have been frustration with the development team, frustration with the changes they say their going to do and decide not to, and upset at the changes they actually decide to put live that the majority of the player base don't even want. I don't really have anything good to say about the game or the design team in its current state. If their okay with the games reception suffering as well as the competitive scene in decline, who am I to argue? Just go according to plan and spend developers time on Mission packs, because that will make everything all better, right?
.... That date is what they ALWAYS give as a CONSERVATIVE estimate since they're TAKING MONEY. I highly doubt they rushed it out just to compete with the biggest game of the year, Fallout 4.
How can you even say the features they promised in the "Future of Starcraft" was pushed back when they said at the event it was shit they had on the horizon/in the future?
There's a reason why shit like tank medivacs isn't fixed...it's because the community is split. You're pointing at it saying "WHY ISNT THIS FIXED? IT DOESNT MESH WITH THE RACE!!!" when half the community doesnt see anything to be fixed because it adds interesting gameplay and WANT to keep it in. By snipping that part of the game and taking it away, that's not necessarily a fix in a lot of people's eyes. That's why they're conservative with those changes.
You're being really outrageous by overexaggerating any perceived problems with multiplayer atm.
You're acting as if every pro on the planet is making the consensus that its the worst iteration of Starcraft, when that couldnt be further from the truth. The game isn't in a dystopia imbalance and design.
I'm very confused where you're coming from saying it needs it BADLY. We know they're playing with an idea on how to balance stuff, but they're being very conservative not wanting to rush out changes. It's not a thing where they don't want to balance RIGHT NOW because every one is working on the map packs. and they're saying "fuck multiplayer"..its that they're not sure what the best path is to balance. You even said yourself it wouldnt take that long in the editor to implement the changes.
I think overall the developpers have lost track of what they want SC2 to be (there was originally no clear direction other than making "cool" units, selling units & terrible damage, + making a game that is easier to play for RTS newcomers or casuals), don't understand the game on a deep level like most players who are say Master & over, and can't rely on pro feedback to fight making accurate/honest criticism/analysis because they are making a living playing the game as it is.
On March 01 2016 10:12 NonY wrote:I think it'd be possible to make a more strategy-based RTS, but why? I don't think there's any magic to discover in a game that doesn't have the demanding mechanics of SC but isn't turn-based. Maybe I'm the unimaginative naysayer that'll be proven wrong but I just don't get it.
BW, and because it's more fun interesting exciting and you learn more things playing it. Just my opinion.
BW has far more demanding mechanics than SC II. There are multiple control limitations. What was acceptable 20 years ago is a bad design now, a game with such controls would never be popular even with modern graphics. BW is not what people ask for when they mention "strategy-based RTS".
On March 01 2016 10:12 NonY wrote:I think it'd be possible to make a more strategy-based RTS, but why? I don't think there's any magic to discover in a game that doesn't have the demanding mechanics of SC but isn't turn-based. Maybe I'm the unimaginative naysayer that'll be proven wrong but I just don't get it.
BW, and because it's more fun interesting exciting and you learn more things playing it. Just my opinion.
BW has far more demanding mechanics than SC II. There are multiple control limitations. What was acceptable 20 years ago is a bad design now, a game with such controls would never be popular even with modern graphics. BW is not what people ask for when they mention "strategy-based RTS".
I replied BW as an example of a RTS that has more strategy than SC2, and why would people want more strategy in a RTS. I agree with you that the control limitations of BW would have no place in a new modern RTS (no automine, no MBS, and surely 12 unit selection limit too). However, despite being mechanically more demanding (not only for lack of these features but also for the mechanics of combat and overall more things going on on the map), BW also has deeper strategy.
2) The Second Issue: Brood War’s come back At point 1) I wrote about SC2, from point 2) we are gonna discuss the possible competitors. Let’s start we an apparently unbelievable option, which is actually really concrete: one of the strongest Starcraft 2 competitors could be its predecessor! In Korea we can already see a certain approach, Starleague is regularly active, a lot of players leave sc2 and come back to play with their “first love” and often the Team Liquid’s Streaming column show us that Brood War streamings really can defeat Legacy’s ones: a title from 1998 which can compete with a game realeased on last November, pretty impressive. But the fact is that, out of Asia the first sc seems be apreciated only by most nostalgic purist. That’s why it’s hard to imagine a global rebirth of BW. Then we could make another distinction about this option: BW’s reproduction could happen with a new HD graphic too, some time ago an Arcade mod that reproduced BW (called Starbow, if I’m not wrong) had a good success (also with some dedicated tournaments). This choice could cause other problems too, based on the fact that lots of people actually love BW for what it is and for everything it is. And another doubt could just be if it is worth a move to renew SC by recreating an almost 20 yars old game. It is fascinating to me, but could potential “new” players apreciate that?
In my opinion A new Brood War is not totally impossible, but probably doesn’t answer to the necessity of the community (and not even of Blizzard).
i play Broodwar a lot atm, i think i have a very good grasp on it's foreign scene and playerbase, so let me explain a couple of things to you regarding broodwar's playerbase. The average player is not some sort of elitist, nostalgic purist. This game takes a lot of dedication and motivation to get decent in it( even for players who have played bw on a high level before) just being nostalgic wouldn't help.
I'd say the average player appreciates it's strategical depths, taxing macro and micro mechanics and some of the play patterns that are unique to BW and not seen in similar games.
- Starbow didn't reproduce BW and it didnt aim to do so. it came closer to BW in certain gaming aspects, yet the appeal for us to play it isn't the greatest.
- ultimativly, im not sure what you mean by phrases like: "what this community needs" We all want a game we genuinly enjoy and we are happy to invite everybody who wants to give sc:bw a try. If you meant to say "what the community needs" is a game with some big commercial and sponsor interest, no it's not going to be BW or a HD Release of it,simple because esports works on the assumption that the "esport" aspect is going to sell more of your product (be it an old fashioned box, or a skin for your MOBA of choice) and some HD doesn't warrant the necessary sales.
Then again, i don't think this community "needs" a game that is going to be the next big esport thing.
Thank you Spyridon, your voicing my exact feelings about the game. I only watch LotV when Maru is playing, just because im a huge fanboy, and even then I am annoyed with the game. I'd better just not watch anymore either. Such a shame to lose interest in my favourite game.
I think Starcraft 3 with more races would be the best option. One of the problems with Starcraft is that there are only 6 matchups in 1v1. I personally prefer team games and always play random just to increase the variety.
Adding in 3 races would increase the number of 1v1 matchups from 6 to 21.
Also, I think more emphasis should be put on team games. The most popular games like CS-GO, League and Dota are all team games. People just like to play with their friends, so overly emphasizing 1v1 hurt Starcraft. I remember the day we started to play Dota on game nights was because we had 5 people. 6v6 vs bots or 3v3 with a bot thrown in made for a crappy game compared to all of us on the same team in Dota.
If you could play 6v6 with 6 different races then the number of matchups goes to 85,078.
EDIT: Having too many units per race can be bit confusing. For a new player to jump in and play fewer units is preferred for their race. in Dota you get 4 spells for you hero. You do not expect to understand the 400 abilities that the other heroes might have, but at least you know what you can do. For the same reason I think that more races with fewer units each would be desirable.
On February 29 2016 14:52 Spyridon wrote: ATVI is going to pull the plug on RTS in the next year though. There will still be the WCS and Blizzcon and so forth, but they're not going to be devoting huge resources to further enhance SC2 beyond 2017. As I've said it made less than 1.5% of ATVI's revenue in the past 6 years and the probability of LotV making even $0.1 Billion is zero.
Can you post the definitive link where it states that? Six years is a long breadth, I wouldn't be too surprised, I would just like you to show your facts where your mouth is. Call of Duty releases games every year that sell millions of copies, WoW has a constant subscriber base, its easy to see why they would share so much of the space, but the thing is... As they figured out with ghost, you can't just make new games that compete with each other. They dominate the RTS genre, its obvious, and they're working on how to monetize the shit out of it.
Legacy of the Void sold over a million games within 24 hours, and have hundreds of thousands of players still playing monthly, I mean its not a whole lot compared to other stuff but this is a constant. This will not fade away, these players just like RTS and I mean, that's a pretty good share to make money off of. How many Call of Duty players really pay attention to the pro-scene(not saying it doesn't have one, it does and its huge, but the majority of their players don't really give a F who the best is.) If SC2 was a net-negative... Why would they have not killed the esports scene? They increased the prize pool this year, all-around, and constantly include MLG in their statements for the future.
I dunno man, your mind is too much of a tunnel. Strategy games(talking all of them, city-builders, turn-based, etc) have always been a mainstay in PC and won't go, especially with Activision-Blizzard at the helm, one of the biggest gaming companies in the world(behind the likes of only like nintendo and microsoft.) So Starcraft doesn't bring in millions of players every month, that isn't a problem, most games don't, and they go on living for years.
If nothing else convinces you to the livelihood of this game, just tune into GSL, and listen to Tasteless' passion. I swear him and Artosis(who is a softer judge and has gotten flak in the past for defending Blizz too much in the past) have never spoken better about the state of the game. They love it. They want it known and they say it makes them feel just like it was Brood War again. I'm sure if they were young enough, they both would no doubt be in the scene playing again in an instant. They say its improving in Korea(finally admitting it was in a state of diminishing presence) and constantly report on the size of the crowd. This is proof Starcraft will live on without Blizzard, Korea will always support the scene, and if you truly love Starcraft than that should be enough for you, because it was for them a decade ago.
the game is a lot of fun. i think its great. that does not mean it does well financially. Relative to ATVI's other big properties the SC franchise makes a tiny fraction of cash. as i've stated before in the past 6 years including the WoL July 2010 release SC contributed less than 1.5% towards ATVI revenues.
me thinking the game is great.. GSL being really cool ... is not a replacement for the 100s of millions or even billions of dollars ATVI demands in order to continue their investment.
selling 1 million copies does not even translate into $0.05 Billion. That money unit is not a mistake. its how ATVI measures its revenue.. in billions.
and Starcraft2 is far and away the biggest money maker in the entire genre. No other RTS title has come close. Most of Brood War's 9 million sold occurred after the game had been heavily discounted and you could buy it at retail in the $20 Battle Chest with the base game and expansion combined. Keep in mind retail gobbles up a big piece of that $20.
This only ends one way.. and its with ATVI pulling the plug.
On March 01 2016 15:09 lestye wrote: It's been minor for a reason. They dont want to knee jerk nerf/buff something, when the community/pros can take time to figure out if it is super OP or not. It's how a metagame develops. There were times when during Brood War, people thought the game was solved and a certain race is underpowered or overpowered...until someone figures out that's not the case. That has been the case in SC2 for quite some time. Some times they were way too conservative and took WAAAAY too long to balance shit. But thats their M.O.
.....
Basically I think you're misconstruing lack of balance changes = they dont give a shit, when their weekly feedback threads clearly expresses their intention. They're being conservative because of the competitive scene, because they want to nerf/buff things in a good way that positively affects all match ups. Because it doesnt help anyone if you nerf X unit to make PvZ more balanced, but then TvP becomes even MORE imbalanced because you didnt consider the ramifications.
It's more than balance changes, it's a load of issues.
Their weekly feedback changes turned from actual communication to PR last summer. Further than not many balance changes, they have put very little development effort at all. The features they mentioned in the "Future of StarCraft" at Blizzcon got pushed back until after the Nova mission packs, which is prioritizing missions over the multiplayer issues of the game, and them wanting to be paid again before delivering what they said they would.
It's also the fact that the LotV release date was pushed UP when the game needed more dev time. They rushed it out by Blizzcon when even the official Blizzard store page said it was to be released in March 2016.
Their solutions are tweaks to things people are complaining about at the time, rather than decisions made to repair the overall design and make sure the issues are fixed for good. For example, medivac tank drops have been debated lately even on their end. These mechanics shouldnt be implemented "because they sound cool" or "to give them mobility". It should have an overall design reason that meshes with the race! It should be part of the race for a specific reason, it should have its place in the synergy with other units, and other units should have synergy with it, it's timings should be specific for a reason, etc. But it's really not, and the fact that they are debating if they shohuld keep it or not, shows that they don't really have a solid design direction to back it up. Whether to keep it or not should be a simple decision based upon their design goals. Do they even have any design goals? Look thru the design posts on this site and you can find dozens examples of unclear design.
None of that is fixed. Very few if any new players are being encouraged to play the game. The developments not focused on growth and is rather focused on minimizing losses. Their content their giving us is for a quick cash grab from vs CPU players when multiplayers suffering.
Regarding your last paragraph, if they really were worried about any of that, half of the changes LotV made shouldn't have been made, and if they were going to do changes like that, then they shouldnt have pushed up the release date to where they didn't have time to sufficiently balance the game around those changes. They reverted changes they were working on for longer than 3 months, and made major balance changes under a month and a half before release, and the beta wasn't even up for 1/3 that time. The metagame didnt even settle after their changes and they deemed the game as "release ready".
Can you even look at the final beta patches and say there wasn't any "knee jerk nerfs or buffs"?? Can you really say the competitive scene is happy with the way they have been handling LotV? Can you say they are really keeping their old fans happy, or new players happy?
The only player base I see that is actually happy are the ones looking forward to the Nova mission pack, and that's only one person I know. In general, people don't even really care about SC2 anymore. Even though my friends didnt play they still followed the pro scene for many years, and now they even gave up on that.
For the last few years I've basically watched a game series I love get turned to shit. Seen some potential improvement last summer during beta for the first time in years, invested in the game again, and then they switched it up and turned the game in to something different. I've seen public reception as well as pro reception plummet. And I've gotten upset that it hasn't gotten the treatment that EVERY other Blizzard game has gotten when it was down. They have repaired and resolved issues with every other one of their series', and SC2 needs that treatment VERY badly right now, and they aren't giving it. Their development is in areas that aren't even the main focus of the game - SC2 at it's core is known for it's multilplayer, and multiplayer is taking a back seat to mission development. They push back multiplayer features until their priorities of single player content are completed. I've seen the design because more convoluted and lack direction more than ever. I've seen one of the lead designers specifically state that they intentionally chose inferior design for PR reasons. Their priorities are screwed. The designers offer us more PR than actual design work. They blame us in the community for all of their failings.
I could even go on further, but there's no need. The point is, there's dozens of reasons why I'm upset, and why the community in general is upset with the game, or has decided to completely disregard the game. Their development on the game is appalling. I would not feel right recommending this game to any of my friends in the current state. Even if I had a friend who ONLY enjoyed RTS games, I would not recommend this game right now. My only feelings I've had with SC2 since last summer have been frustration with the development team, frustration with the changes they say their going to do and decide not to, and upset at the changes they actually decide to put live that the majority of the player base don't even want. I don't really have anything good to say about the game or the design team in its current state. If their okay with the games reception suffering as well as the competitive scene in decline, who am I to argue? Just go according to plan and spend developers time on Mission packs, because that will make everything all better, right?
.... That date is what they ALWAYS give as a CONSERVATIVE estimate since they're TAKING MONEY. I highly doubt they rushed it out just to compete with the biggest game of the year, Fallout 4.
How can you even say the features they promised in the "Future of Starcraft" was pushed back when they said at the event it was shit they had on the horizon/in the future?
There's a reason why shit like tank medivacs isn't fixed...it's because the community is split. You're pointing at it saying "WHY ISNT THIS FIXED? IT DOESNT MESH WITH THE RACE!!!" when half the community doesnt see anything to be fixed because it adds interesting gameplay and WANT to keep it in. By snipping that part of the game and taking it away, that's not necessarily a fix in a lot of people's eyes. That's why they're conservative with those changes.
You're being really outrageous by overexaggerating any perceived problems with multiplayer atm.
You're acting as if every pro on the planet is making the consensus that its the worst iteration of Starcraft, when that couldnt be further from the truth. The game isn't in a dystopia imbalance and design.
I'm very confused where you're coming from saying it needs it BADLY. We know they're playing with an idea on how to balance stuff, but they're being very conservative not wanting to rush out changes. It's not a thing where they don't want to balance RIGHT NOW because every one is working on the map packs. and they're saying "fuck multiplayer"..its that they're not sure what the best path is to balance. You even said yourself it wouldnt take that long in the editor to implement the changes.
Their dates have not been conservative for the wow expansion or over watch. Also they did many other actions around the time of release date that made it suspicious. For 3 weeks straight in community updates they said they were happy with the direction, they felt it was the best choice, went on about pros agreeing. Then when it becomes clear they will also need to rebalance unit cost, on the same week the "release date announcement date" announcement they say their going to revert (effectively giving up months of beta work, ignoring polls stating overwhelming support, and bait and switching players like myself who preordered for access when they stated they were moving forward with the direction they been going.
This is all besides the fact that they also stated lotv beta was going to be far longer than any of their other betas. Which would have been true with March release. Their beta realistically went the same amount of months as hots beta.
About future of Starcraft, they stated they'd add it to lotv soon after release, and then a month or so back switched it up to being pushed after mission packs release. It's misleading us in order to support their marketing. No way I'm paying them more when they didn't even deliver what they promised on my last purchase.
About medi tanks, if they had a clear direction or design goal it would be a simple decision - does it support the intended design. But instead they just think of ppl "like it". This shows their concerned with trying to not piss ppl off more than making this a well designed game. People wouldn't be bitching if the design made sense. Their not making changes based on design their making changes based on or, and it fails in the end for the success of the game.
I don't think I'm being outrageous or exaggerating. I could specifically explain all of my issues, but it involves multitudes of problems that had led to frustration and getting completely fed up with the dev team. It would take pages and pages to fully explain the discontent as well as the questionable decisions the dev team made, and their obvious PR lies.
If I'm so wrong, can you name a single time in sc2s life that it was doing worse than this? Even in the infamous end of WoL days it was way better off. And we are under 6 months in an expansion, there should still be a surge. But there's not.
If they were conservative with their changes years ago they wouldn't be in this position now. Hell, if they were conservative with their choice of release date or decision to revert months of beta testing, they wouldn't be here either.
Or even if they had a vision or direction for the game we would be fine. You can't repair design without design goals and a vision. Changes shouldn't be done without them supporting that vision. But the changes they implement don't follow any direction or visuon, they follow PR.
2) The Second Issue: Brood War’s come back At point 1) I wrote about SC2, from point 2) we are gonna discuss the possible competitors. Let’s start we an apparently unbelievable option, which is actually really concrete: one of the strongest Starcraft 2 competitors could be its predecessor! In Korea we can already see a certain approach, Starleague is regularly active, a lot of players leave sc2 and come back to play with their “first love” and often the Team Liquid’s Streaming column show us that Brood War streamings really can defeat Legacy’s ones: a title from 1998 which can compete with a game realeased on last November, pretty impressive. But the fact is that, out of Asia the first sc seems be apreciated only by most nostalgic purist. That’s why it’s hard to imagine a global rebirth of BW. Then we could make another distinction about this option: BW’s reproduction could happen with a new HD graphic too, some time ago an Arcade mod that reproduced BW (called Starbow, if I’m not wrong) had a good success (also with some dedicated tournaments). This choice could cause other problems too, based on the fact that lots of people actually love BW for what it is and for everything it is. And another doubt could just be if it is worth a move to renew SC by recreating an almost 20 yars old game. It is fascinating to me, but could potential “new” players apreciate that?
In my opinion A new Brood War is not totally impossible, but probably doesn’t answer to the necessity of the community (and not even of Blizzard).
i play Broodwar a lot atm, i think i have a very good grasp on it's foreign scene and playerbase, so let me explain a couple of things to you regarding broodwar's playerbase. The average player is not some sort of elitist, nostalgic purist. This game takes a lot of dedication and motivation to get decent in it( even for players who have played bw on a high level before) just being nostalgic wouldn't help.
I'd say the average player appreciates it's strategical depths, taxing macro and micro mechanics and some of the play patterns that are unique to BW and not seen in similar games.
- Starbow didn't reproduce BW and it didnt aim to do so. it came closer to BW in certain gaming aspects, yet the appeal for us to play it isn't the greatest.
- ultimativly, im not sure what you mean by phrases like: "what this community needs" We all want a game we genuinly enjoy and we are happy to invite everybody who wants to give sc:bw a try. If you meant to say "what the community needs" is a game with some big commercial and sponsor interest, no it's not going to be BW or a HD Release of it,simple because esports works on the assumption that the "esport" aspect is going to sell more of your product (be it an old fashioned box, or a skin for your MOBA of choice) and some HD doesn't warrant the necessary sales.
Then again, i don't think this community "needs" a game that is going to be the next big esport thing.
- I'm not a starbow expert, but I meant that there was a period in which lots of people enjoyed it, especially because it recalled the first starcraft in a certain way.
- This is not very easy to explain: When I played SC2 (and the same with AoE and other leggendary games that will alwaysremain beautiful memories of my life) in the wol period/first hots period it was just an emotion, it just had something really special for me. And, I mean, now I have this feeling no more. The game seems to be less fascinating and more stressing..."I don't feel it". So I think that we could need a refreshing chapter in sc's history. Also the Totalbiscuit's twit expresses a similar disappoint. I don't wanna say that LotV is a bad game, I only think that now sc doesn't have the magic that made me become a big fan. Probably if you think I could wish a big "commercial" game is because I also love the e-sport dimension and, you know, without an audience it will just disappear (Blizzard is not a beneficence organization...). We often have to consider also money problems, that's why brood war often seem an elite of "nostalgic purists": nostalgic 'cause they play a kind of vintage game and purists because they just do this for their passion without considering money/audience/sponsors and this is really well played.
2) The Second Issue: Brood War’s come back At point 1) I wrote about SC2, from point 2) we are gonna discuss the possible competitors. Let’s start we an apparently unbelievable option, which is actually really concrete: one of the strongest Starcraft 2 competitors could be its predecessor! In Korea we can already see a certain approach, Starleague is regularly active, a lot of players leave sc2 and come back to play with their “first love” and often the Team Liquid’s Streaming column show us that Brood War streamings really can defeat Legacy’s ones: a title from 1998 which can compete with a game realeased on last November, pretty impressive. But the fact is that, out of Asia the first sc seems be apreciated only by most nostalgic purist. That’s why it’s hard to imagine a global rebirth of BW. Then we could make another distinction about this option: BW’s reproduction could happen with a new HD graphic too, some time ago an Arcade mod that reproduced BW (called Starbow, if I’m not wrong) had a good success (also with some dedicated tournaments). This choice could cause other problems too, based on the fact that lots of people actually love BW for what it is and for everything it is. And another doubt could just be if it is worth a move to renew SC by recreating an almost 20 yars old game. It is fascinating to me, but could potential “new” players apreciate that?
In my opinion A new Brood War is not totally impossible, but probably doesn’t answer to the necessity of the community (and not even of Blizzard).
i play Broodwar a lot atm, i think i have a very good grasp on it's foreign scene and playerbase, so let me explain a couple of things to you regarding broodwar's playerbase. The average player is not some sort of elitist, nostalgic purist. This game takes a lot of dedication and motivation to get decent in it( even for players who have played bw on a high level before) just being nostalgic wouldn't help.
I'd say the average player appreciates it's strategical depths, taxing macro and micro mechanics and some of the play patterns that are unique to BW and not seen in similar games.
- Starbow didn't reproduce BW and it didnt aim to do so. it came closer to BW in certain gaming aspects, yet the appeal for us to play it isn't the greatest.
- ultimativly, im not sure what you mean by phrases like: "what this community needs" We all want a game we genuinly enjoy and we are happy to invite everybody who wants to give sc:bw a try. If you meant to say "what the community needs" is a game with some big commercial and sponsor interest, no it's not going to be BW or a HD Release of it,simple because esports works on the assumption that the "esport" aspect is going to sell more of your product (be it an old fashioned box, or a skin for your MOBA of choice) and some HD doesn't warrant the necessary sales.
Then again, i don't think this community "needs" a game that is going to be the next big esport thing.
- I'm not a starbow expert, but I meant that there was a period in which lots of people enjoyed it, especially because it recalled the first starcraft in a certain way.
- This is not very easy to explain: When I played SC2 (and the same with AoE and other leggendary games that will alwaysremain beautiful memories of my life) in the wol period/first hots period it was just an emotion, it just had something really special for me. And, I mean, now I have this feeling no more. The game seems to be less fascinating and more stressing..."I don't feel it". So I think that we could need a refreshing chapter in sc's history. Also the Totalbiscuit's twit expresses a similar disappoint. I don't wanna say that LotV is a bad game, I only think that now sc doesn't have the magic that made me become a big fan. Probably if you think I could wish a big "commercial" game is because I also love the e-sport dimension and, you know, without an audience it will just disappear (Blizzard is not a beneficence organization...). We often have to consider also money problems, that's why brood war often seem an elite of "nostalgic purists": nostalgic 'cause they play a kind of vintage game and purists because they just do this for their passion without considering money/audience/sponsors and this is really well played.
Well, yes we learned to get along after the commercial interest wayned, that's a task that the Sc2 scene has to face soon as well btw. Of course it's about the game for most of us, there's not enough sponsor interest anymore, but the game is still fun as it always has been. Of course we would all it, if it had more attention, but what can you do. We still have Korea, Flash's Stream having more viewers and the tours we host ourselves and find small sponsorship for, like the TLS or the National League
On March 01 2016 15:09 lestye wrote: It's been minor for a reason. They dont want to knee jerk nerf/buff something, when the community/pros can take time to figure out if it is super OP or not. It's how a metagame develops. There were times when during Brood War, people thought the game was solved and a certain race is underpowered or overpowered...until someone figures out that's not the case. That has been the case in SC2 for quite some time. Some times they were way too conservative and took WAAAAY too long to balance shit. But thats their M.O.
.....
Basically I think you're misconstruing lack of balance changes = they dont give a shit, when their weekly feedback threads clearly expresses their intention. They're being conservative because of the competitive scene, because they want to nerf/buff things in a good way that positively affects all match ups. Because it doesnt help anyone if you nerf X unit to make PvZ more balanced, but then TvP becomes even MORE imbalanced because you didnt consider the ramifications.
It's more than balance changes, it's a load of issues.
Their weekly feedback changes turned from actual communication to PR last summer. Further than not many balance changes, they have put very little development effort at all. The features they mentioned in the "Future of StarCraft" at Blizzcon got pushed back until after the Nova mission packs, which is prioritizing missions over the multiplayer issues of the game, and them wanting to be paid again before delivering what they said they would.
It's also the fact that the LotV release date was pushed UP when the game needed more dev time. They rushed it out by Blizzcon when even the official Blizzard store page said it was to be released in March 2016.
Their solutions are tweaks to things people are complaining about at the time, rather than decisions made to repair the overall design and make sure the issues are fixed for good. For example, medivac tank drops have been debated lately even on their end. These mechanics shouldnt be implemented "because they sound cool" or "to give them mobility". It should have an overall design reason that meshes with the race! It should be part of the race for a specific reason, it should have its place in the synergy with other units, and other units should have synergy with it, it's timings should be specific for a reason, etc. But it's really not, and the fact that they are debating if they shohuld keep it or not, shows that they don't really have a solid design direction to back it up. Whether to keep it or not should be a simple decision based upon their design goals. Do they even have any design goals? Look thru the design posts on this site and you can find dozens examples of unclear design.
None of that is fixed. Very few if any new players are being encouraged to play the game. The developments not focused on growth and is rather focused on minimizing losses. Their content their giving us is for a quick cash grab from vs CPU players when multiplayers suffering.
Regarding your last paragraph, if they really were worried about any of that, half of the changes LotV made shouldn't have been made, and if they were going to do changes like that, then they shouldnt have pushed up the release date to where they didn't have time to sufficiently balance the game around those changes. They reverted changes they were working on for longer than 3 months, and made major balance changes under a month and a half before release, and the beta wasn't even up for 1/3 that time. The metagame didnt even settle after their changes and they deemed the game as "release ready".
Can you even look at the final beta patches and say there wasn't any "knee jerk nerfs or buffs"?? Can you really say the competitive scene is happy with the way they have been handling LotV? Can you say they are really keeping their old fans happy, or new players happy?
The only player base I see that is actually happy are the ones looking forward to the Nova mission pack, and that's only one person I know. In general, people don't even really care about SC2 anymore. Even though my friends didnt play they still followed the pro scene for many years, and now they even gave up on that.
For the last few years I've basically watched a game series I love get turned to shit. Seen some potential improvement last summer during beta for the first time in years, invested in the game again, and then they switched it up and turned the game in to something different. I've seen public reception as well as pro reception plummet. And I've gotten upset that it hasn't gotten the treatment that EVERY other Blizzard game has gotten when it was down. They have repaired and resolved issues with every other one of their series', and SC2 needs that treatment VERY badly right now, and they aren't giving it. Their development is in areas that aren't even the main focus of the game - SC2 at it's core is known for it's multilplayer, and multiplayer is taking a back seat to mission development. They push back multiplayer features until their priorities of single player content are completed. I've seen the design because more convoluted and lack direction more than ever. I've seen one of the lead designers specifically state that they intentionally chose inferior design for PR reasons. Their priorities are screwed. The designers offer us more PR than actual design work. They blame us in the community for all of their failings.
I could even go on further, but there's no need. The point is, there's dozens of reasons why I'm upset, and why the community in general is upset with the game, or has decided to completely disregard the game. Their development on the game is appalling. I would not feel right recommending this game to any of my friends in the current state. Even if I had a friend who ONLY enjoyed RTS games, I would not recommend this game right now. My only feelings I've had with SC2 since last summer have been frustration with the development team, frustration with the changes they say their going to do and decide not to, and upset at the changes they actually decide to put live that the majority of the player base don't even want. I don't really have anything good to say about the game or the design team in its current state. If their okay with the games reception suffering as well as the competitive scene in decline, who am I to argue? Just go according to plan and spend developers time on Mission packs, because that will make everything all better, right?
.... That date is what they ALWAYS give as a CONSERVATIVE estimate since they're TAKING MONEY. I highly doubt they rushed it out just to compete with the biggest game of the year, Fallout 4.
How can you even say the features they promised in the "Future of Starcraft" was pushed back when they said at the event it was shit they had on the horizon/in the future?
There's a reason why shit like tank medivacs isn't fixed...it's because the community is split. You're pointing at it saying "WHY ISNT THIS FIXED? IT DOESNT MESH WITH THE RACE!!!" when half the community doesnt see anything to be fixed because it adds interesting gameplay and WANT to keep it in. By snipping that part of the game and taking it away, that's not necessarily a fix in a lot of people's eyes. That's why they're conservative with those changes.
You're being really outrageous by overexaggerating any perceived problems with multiplayer atm.
You're acting as if every pro on the planet is making the consensus that its the worst iteration of Starcraft, when that couldnt be further from the truth. The game isn't in a dystopia imbalance and design.
I'm very confused where you're coming from saying it needs it BADLY. We know they're playing with an idea on how to balance stuff, but they're being very conservative not wanting to rush out changes. It's not a thing where they don't want to balance RIGHT NOW because every one is working on the map packs. and they're saying "fuck multiplayer"..its that they're not sure what the best path is to balance. You even said yourself it wouldnt take that long in the editor to implement the changes.
Their dates have not been conservative for the wow expansion or over watch. Also they did many other actions around the time of release date that made it suspicious. For 3 weeks straight in community updates they said they were happy with the direction, they felt it was the best choice, went on about pros agreeing. Then when it becomes clear they will also need to rebalance unit cost, on the same week the "release date announcement date" announcement they say their going to revert (effectively giving up months of beta work, ignoring polls stating overwhelming support, and bait and switching players like myself who preordered for access when they stated they were moving forward with the direction they been going.
If I'm so wrong, can you name a single time in sc2s life that it was doing worse than this? Even in the infamous end of WoL days it was way better off. And we are under 6 months in an expansion, there should still be a surge. But there's not.
First off, "soon" is a meme. If you bought into soon, that's on you. Secondly, after re-watching that panel, they dont seem to imply or infer it's coming "soon". They were saying their FUTURE plans http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/19954442/starcraft-ii-the-future-of-starcraft-panel-recap-11-6-2015 . I don't consider any of those "misleading marketing" until at least 2017 if nothing's delivered because they seem to imply that those plans are for the 2016 calendar year. They're not going to drop stuff during Christmas vacation.
ummm, they said that the legion expansion is coming out this summer after the wow movie, and the conservative release date is September 21, 2016...
Overwatch is 6/21/2016. My guess thats going to be a lot closer than Legion or SC2's was. ( The game needs work still and I dont think they want it close together with Legion so who knows?)
And once again, you're extremely exaggerating the state of the game right now. Who do you see complaining it's in such a terrible state? This is NOTHING compared to this embarrassment:
When games look like, then I say we're in crisis. Ty showed us how awesome meditanks are and how great they can be. And like Brood War has shown us, sometimes unintended consequences of the design can be great for gameplay. That's why there's the divide in the community.
They're making those decisions based on their design and what works for the balance of the game and how fun it is. What is so hard to get? You're acting as if theres a consensus when its just you complaining about vague shit. It's not inferior design if its practical for the game and it adds to the gameplay.
On March 02 2016 06:00 Spyridon wrote: About future of Starcraft, they stated they'd add it to lotv soon after release, and then a month or so back switched it up to being pushed after mission packs release. It's misleading us in order to support their marketing. No way I'm paying them more when they didn't even deliver what they promised on my last purchase.
#1 Remember Blizzard's name.. .its chaos.. its confusing ...its a Blizzard of activity... that's how they make their games. Its why they have this brand. and Blizz is open about it. SC1's crazy development history is well chronicled. If you've ever developed software youself... don't expect the creation and development of amazing software to be like running an accounting office.
some confusing and seemingly contradictory things happens and you cry "fraud". whatever man. you want to see what real fraud is? check out Aliens Colonial Marines. Now that was fraud.
you think they care about your lousy $15 for Nova:Covert Ops? there is not enough cash in the marketplace to motivate a giant like ATVI or Blizzard to lie for a few measly scraps of cash. its irrational.
Blizzard also did not keep every little promise every 2-bit, peanut-head employee made at every BlizzCOn in the 4 year build up to Diablo 3. Taken all things into account .. the good and bad.. the successes and failures... Diablo3 has kicked some major ass and Blizzard has done a great job. I put Sc2 in that same category with different sales #s due to being a different genre.
LotV is $40... go get urself a copy of GG, AoA, or HW:DoK and you'll see its no contest. LotV is fucking awesome for $40. fucking awesome.
to answer your points directly: they added a co-op commander, the protoss skin of the colossus and some other stuff.
On February 29 2016 02:19 HoZBlooddrop wrote: ho letto il thread anche sul forum di bnet, bellissima iniziativa!
anyway i think that lotv is much better than lotv but it might be a bit late and it didint fix some of the structural problems of sc2
Sono contento che tu abbia apprezzato. Grazie per aver preso parte.
On February 29 2016 14:48 Demosthenes13 wrote: As an Italian American I would like to say you did a great job translating, Thanks for the good read!
Thanks a lot ^^ And thank you everybody for this discussion, I see that people really care about these issues like me or even more.
On March 02 2016 02:44 Cele wrote:
On February 27 2016 22:40 mammuluk wrote:
2) The Second Issue: Brood War’s come back At point 1) I wrote about SC2, from point 2) we are gonna discuss the possible competitors. Let’s start we an apparently unbelievable option, which is actually really concrete: one of the strongest Starcraft 2 competitors could be its predecessor! In Korea we can already see a certain approach, Starleague is regularly active, a lot of players leave sc2 and come back to play with their “first love” and often the Team Liquid’s Streaming column show us that Brood War streamings really can defeat Legacy’s ones: a title from 1998 which can compete with a game realeased on last November, pretty impressive. But the fact is that, out of Asia the first sc seems be apreciated only by most nostalgic purist. That’s why it’s hard to imagine a global rebirth of BW. Then we could make another distinction about this option: BW’s reproduction could happen with a new HD graphic too, some time ago an Arcade mod that reproduced BW (called Starbow, if I’m not wrong) had a good success (also with some dedicated tournaments). This choice could cause other problems too, based on the fact that lots of people actually love BW for what it is and for everything it is. And another doubt could just be if it is worth a move to renew SC by recreating an almost 20 yars old game. It is fascinating to me, but could potential “new” players apreciate that?
In my opinion A new Brood War is not totally impossible, but probably doesn’t answer to the necessity of the community (and not even of Blizzard).
i play Broodwar a lot atm, i think i have a very good grasp on it's foreign scene and playerbase, so let me explain a couple of things to you regarding broodwar's playerbase. The average player is not some sort of elitist, nostalgic purist. This game takes a lot of dedication and motivation to get decent in it( even for players who have played bw on a high level before) just being nostalgic wouldn't help.
I'd say the average player appreciates it's strategical depths, taxing macro and micro mechanics and some of the play patterns that are unique to BW and not seen in similar games.
- Starbow didn't reproduce BW and it didnt aim to do so. it came closer to BW in certain gaming aspects, yet the appeal for us to play it isn't the greatest.
- ultimativly, im not sure what you mean by phrases like: "what this community needs" We all want a game we genuinly enjoy and we are happy to invite everybody who wants to give sc:bw a try. If you meant to say "what the community needs" is a game with some big commercial and sponsor interest, no it's not going to be BW or a HD Release of it,simple because esports works on the assumption that the "esport" aspect is going to sell more of your product (be it an old fashioned box, or a skin for your MOBA of choice) and some HD doesn't warrant the necessary sales.
Then again, i don't think this community "needs" a game that is going to be the next big esport thing.
- I'm not a starbow expert, but I meant that there was a period in which lots of people enjoyed it, especially because it recalled the first starcraft in a certain way.
- This is not very easy to explain: When I played SC2 (and the same with AoE and other leggendary games that will alwaysremain beautiful memories of my life) in the wol period/first hots period it was just an emotion, it just had something really special for me. And, I mean, now I have this feeling no more. The game seems to be less fascinating and more stressing..."I don't feel it". So I think that we could need a refreshing chapter in sc's history. Also the Totalbiscuit's twit expresses a similar disappoint. I don't wanna say that LotV is a bad game, I only think that now sc doesn't have the magic that made me become a big fan. Probably if you think I could wish a big "commercial" game is because I also love the e-sport dimension and, you know, without an audience it will just disappear (Blizzard is not a beneficence organization...). We often have to consider also money problems, that's why brood war often seem an elite of "nostalgic purists": nostalgic 'cause they play a kind of vintage game and purists because they just do this for their passion without considering money/audience/sponsors and this is really well played.
Well, yes we learned to get along after the commercial interest wayned, that's a task that the Sc2 scene has to face soon as well btw. Of course it's about the game for most of us, there's not enough sponsor interest anymore, but the game is still fun as it always has been. Of course we would all it, if it had more attention, but what can you do. We still have Korea, Flash's Stream having more viewers and the tours we host ourselves and find small sponsorship for, like the TLS or the National League
RESPECT I watch flash's streamings too, very nice stuff and I'm also waiting for the nations tournament. It's good to see people who play an old and imitable game. And, as I said there is a come back, which is actually a growth compared to the last years...
On February 28 2016 02:37 boxerfred wrote: Shortly said:
- SC2: LotV is a rather bad game and did not deal with issues that were raised by the community long time ago (eg. economy) - WCS is a joke and actively fucks the Korean scene
Sc2 will be a niche esports and that's it.
My thoughts exactly. Niche esports as long as Blizz support it monetarily.
On March 02 2016 06:55 lestye wrote: First off, "soon" is a meme. If you bought into soon, that's on you. Secondly, after re-watching that panel, they dont seem to imply or infer it's coming "soon". They were saying their FUTURE plans http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/19954442/starcraft-ii-the-future-of-starcraft-panel-recap-11-6-2015 . I don't consider any of those "misleading marketing" until at least 2017 if nothing's delivered because they seem to imply that those plans are for the 2016 calendar year. They're not going to drop stuff during Christmas vacation.
ummm, they said that the legion expansion is coming out this summer after the wow movie, and the conservative release date is September 21, 2016...
Overwatch is 6/21/2016. My guess thats going to be a lot closer than Legion or SC2's was. ( The game needs work still and I dont think they want it close together with Legion so who knows?)
And once again, you're extremely exaggerating the state of the game right now. Who do you see complaining it's in such a terrible state? This is NOTHING compared to this embarrassment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr0DlhTVkec
When games look like, then I say we're in crisis. Ty showed us how awesome meditanks are and how great they can be. And like Brood War has shown us, sometimes unintended consequences of the design can be great for gameplay. That's why there's the divide in the community.
They're making those decisions based on their design and what works for the balance of the game and how fun it is. What is so hard to get? You're acting as if theres a consensus when its just you complaining about vague shit. It's not inferior design if its practical for the game and it adds to the gameplay.
I was typing on my phone on lunch break, so apologies if I wasn't as descriptive as possible. I already had the game purchased before they said their statements at Blizzcon. The way it stands for me though, is simply that they are hoping to make more money from us before they deliver what they said was going to be a part of the LotV package. No way in hell am I even going to consider giving them another cent before they deliver.
If I'm exaggering the state of the game, name one other time that SC2 was worse off than it is right now?
Just becuase someone can do nice plays with meditanks doesn't mean much. It's about a elegant cohesive design. The game doesn't have that. I've said many times, the micro of the game can be fun at times, the combat mechanics are very nice. But the design issues and lack of strategy are the major problems. It's not about "unit design" for specific units, or even unit combos like medivacs and tanks. It's about how it fits in to the overall game and racial dynamics.
They made it clear in their most recent community update that they aren't even sure if they want to split tech paths again or not. Their simply trying to find a short-term solution for their problem. But any changes, when it comes to tech paths, unit abilities, etc, they need to be factored in with the design as a whole.
If Terran was balanced around meditanks, the other units either were supported by meditanks or were designed to support meditanks, the races mobility was based around that, the races zone control was based around that, the defensive and offensive aspects of Terran was based around that, then it would be an easy question for them to answer - We should keep meditanks in to support the design of Terran.
But they don't even have that! It's a hard decision for them to make, because there is no goal or vision that they are trying to attain! What are they trying to attain? Their trying to minimize complaints. That's the major issue here! Their doing changes without any vision! That's a huge no-no in both game development, and software development.
You said their making changes based on their design, they really aren't. Look at all the complaints about mechs viability - that's a lack of cohesiveness in design. Look at them debating in their own community updates if Mech should have its own path or support Bio - that's a lack of cohesiveness in design.
I've gave dozens of examples at this point of how many of their changes does not enhance gameplay and rather hurts it. I even gave many in the context of SC1 vs SC2 where they were downgrades and integral aspects of the game that were enjoyed and necessary for the fun factor were removed. Those are your examples of inferior design. You can act like all LotV's changes were well-received, but in reality, how many changes in LotV can you list that actually WERE well recieved?
I'm expressing my feelings, and my observations of the community. If theres a consensus that's up to others, not me. But from what I'm looking at, it seems like statistics speak for themselves. Outside of Korea the game is not doing well. In Korea more people than ever are returning to BW, and not even to make money. Community morale is at an all time low. There's less strategic posts than ever, which indicates both loss of interest as well as lack of strategy. Less streamers and youtube personalities cover the game than ever, with more of them expressing discontent than ever. Stream numbers are plummeting, while BW stream numbers are going up.
Once again, if this isn't true, feel free to show me any other point and time where SC2 was worse off than it is now.
On March 02 2016 06:00 Spyridon wrote: About future of Starcraft, they stated they'd add it to lotv soon after release, and then a month or so back switched it up to being pushed after mission packs release. It's misleading us in order to support their marketing. No way I'm paying them more when they didn't even deliver what they promised on my last purchase.
#1 Remember Blizzard's name.. .its chaos.. its confusing ...its a Blizzard of activity... that's how they make their games. Its why they have this brand. and Blizz is open about it. SC1's crazy development history is well chronicled. If you've ever developed software youself... don't expect the creation and development of amazing software to be like running an accounting office.
some confusing and seemingly contradictory things happens and you cry "fraud". whatever man. you want to see what real fraud is? check out Aliens Colonial Marines. Now that was fraud.
you think they care about your lousy $15 for Nova:Covert Ops? there is not enough cash in the marketplace to motivate a giant like ATVI or Blizzard to lie for a few measly scraps of cash. its irrational.
Blizzard also did not keep every little promise every 2-bit, peanut-head employee made at every BlizzCOn in the 4 year build up to Diablo 3. Taken all things into account .. the good and bad.. the successes and failures... Diablo3 has kicked some major ass and Blizzard has done a great job. I put Sc2 in that same category with different sales #s due to being a different genre.
LotV is $40... go get urself a copy of GG, AoA, or HW:DoK and you'll see its no contest. LotV is fucking awesome for $40. fucking awesome.
to answer your points directly: they added a co-op commander, the protoss skin of the colossus and some other stuff.
I'm not crying fraud, it's just something I do not expect from Blizzard as a company. This is not the same Blizzard I grew up with. Even for ActiBlizzard, how their handling LotV is out of the ordinary. The old Blizzard would have never released a game in the state LotV was released in, tehy would have delayed, that was their motto. Even ActiBlizzard would act different, if they release a game in a shitty state (like D3) they take extreme measures and do what ever it takes to pull the game out of decline.
The way I feel my money was a waste more-so was due to their switch of direction in beta. I followed the game intently during beta and really liked waht I seen. I waited until they announced that they felt their decision was the right decision so they were going to move forward, and that pros agreed. I pre-ordered based on that. I played the beta and completely loved it - SC2 never felt so good. Then after the non-refundable pre order, they decided to revert everything and release earlier than announced.
And yeah, people can argue their dates are arbitrary and not exact. That does not change the fact that they specifically said LotV was going to receive different treatment and was going to be "far longer" than any other of their betas, and it was the exact length of HotS beta in the end. You can argue the other facts, but this shows without a doubt that they released the game earlier than they planned to. And that is not something Blizzard has ever been known to do!
you think they care about your lousy $15 for Nova:Covert Ops? there is not enough cash in the marketplace to motivate a giant like ATVI or Blizzard to lie for a few measly scraps of cash. its irrational.
This actually did make me laugh. Really... a big company like Activision or blizzard would not lie for cash??? As if it has never happened?
And yes, I do think they care about $15. Why would they even be releasing it if they didnt???
Diablo3 has kicked some major ass and Blizzard has done a great job. I put Sc2 in that same category with different sales #s due to being a different genre.
I completely agree. They did a great turn around for D3.
Don't u see that's part of what's bothering me? SC2 could use the same treatment! That showed that they have teh capabilities of doing it, they just need to stop being stubborn and actually take a good look at their design just like they did with D3, and maybe make some hard decisions like how they had to with the removal of the AH, taking some major steps to turn things around.
I don't put SC2 in the same category for that reason. D3 has improved significantly, without any argument. They completely went to the drawing board and repaired all the major issues. SC2 they have NOT done that!
If you've ever developed software youself... don't expect the creation and development of amazing software to be like running an accounting office.
I know the environment of software development, as well as game development.
If you have any experience in software or game development, then you should know exactly how important design is.You don't make changes unless it backs up the overall design. No change should be decided on without forming its place in the rest of the design. There's so many examples of them not following these rules.
What happens when you don't follow a specific design in long term projects? Spahgetti code for one, but even more important, without a clear vision of exactly what you want the end-goal to be, it starts to limit ur options further down the road. How many projects have u seen that start veering off for things that were not their intended purpose, and then the only way to actually improve on the application is to start over from scratch? The design needs to be solid, cohesive, and intentional. You need to be building a strong foundation, building from the bottom up, or else without a solid foundation everything else will come crashing down.
They haven't been doing that. Even their own explanations of changes are short-term.
You should also know how dangerous it is to let feedback control the design of the software. Feedback is to be used to determine if the design goals were accomplished by changes, not to actually CONTROL the design. Sometimes its EXPECTED that at certain phases of development the feedback will be bad, but if it's a step towards a vision that will be well-received, that's a good thing.
I wrote an in depth post about exact examples of this at my work place awhile back - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/503104-david-kims-response-on-community-feedback?page=17#336 - I explain in great detail their mis-steps and failures in typical software design principles that also apply to game deevelopment, and why it's such a huge problem. As long as they don't have a clear vision of where they are going to bring the game in the future, it's going to keep causing more and more problems as well...
I like how you glossed over my example on when the game was much worse. The Terran ridiculousness, the gold base mules, swarm hosts, mothership/archon toilet, infestor eras were much much worse than the game is now, and weren't fixed for months and months.
The examples you're talking about are elegant in their own ways. You're not appreciating the actual gameplay that comes out of the game and the dynamics that go with it.
I'll concede that terran mech is the weakest part of the game overall, that's something that needs to be fleshed out, and its probably figuring out the tanks' role in relation to that, actually matters. I think if you actually read their balance reports, you'd understand their perspective and "vision" of what they're aiming for for the tank.
The changes of the gameplay was very well received. I'm really stunned where you're coming from these wild ideas. We've suffered through much darker times. The morale of the game was way worse during swarm host era, and probably a year before LOTV hit.
In summary, I do think Terran mech's "design" and role is weak overall, but I think the game overall is still fantastic and way better than Heart of the Swarm/WoL. There's no one flocking and praising the design of HOTS and WOL balance as if it was far superior and better "designed" than LOTV. It's an across-the-board improvment, albeit not perfect.
On March 02 2016 09:59 lestye wrote: I like how you glossed over my example on when the game was much worse. The Terran ridiculousness, the gold base mules, swarm hosts, mothership/archon toilet, infestor eras were much much worse than the game is now, and weren't fixed for months and months.
The examples you're talking about are elegant in their own ways. You're not appreciating the actual gameplay that comes out of the game and the dynamics that go with it.
I'll concede that terran mech is the weakest part of the game overall, that's something that needs to be fleshed out, and its probably figuring out the tanks' role in relation to that, actually matters. I think if you actually read their balance reports, you'd understand their perspective and "vision" of what they're aiming for for the tank.
The changes of the gameplay was very well received. I'm really stunned where you're coming from these wild ideas. We've suffered through much darker times. The morale of the game was way worse during swarm host era, and probably a year before LOTV hit.
In summary, I do think Terran mech's "design" and role is weak overall, but I think the game overall is still fantastic and way better than Heart of the Swarm/WoL. There's no one flocking and praising the design of HOTS and WOL balance as if it was far superior and better "designed" than LOTV. It's an across-the-board improvment, albeit not perfect.
At those times you mention, there was still much more hope behind the game, a stronger pro scene, stronger community, stronger following in korea, and in general much more positivity with something to look forward to.
LotV changes well received? Everything was a huge debacle. From every single one of the new units, to the rebalance of existing units (tankivacs, ultras, warp prism), to the half minerals per base and the economy, to the much stronger harass from the new economy. Basically ever major change was questionable.
You said you dont see people praising hots or wol? You see people say all the time on here that WoL was better designed, and how things like muta/ling/bling vs terran battles were the high point of SC2.
Elegant in their own ways? To be elegant they must serve a bigger purpose efficiently, simply, and in an easy to understand way. How elegant can you be without a goal your working towards? What purpose did drop ships in 3 minutes serve other than removing the early game ground battle phases? Look how these changes mesh together... faster starting economy, faster scaling economy, and macro mechanics... how is that supposed to mesh together with early drop ships? We lost many phases of the game and many strategic timings, what did we get in it's place?
They even stated that the economy was too fast and intended on slowing things down, spent months on it in beta, and then by their own words reverted because of "negative perception in some members of the community". Community was 80% for the removal. Would you say that is "well received"?
Tell me honestly, do you think that was an elegant change when they did that? Was it for the best of the game? Was it to give us the best design?
Let me show you something regarding that...
After many discussions, we realized that, at the root of it, it boils down to this: Are we chasing the best design for each of these mechanics or is taking away a skill that players have been practicing for years better for the game in the long-term?
This was prior to the revert of macro mechanics. They directly gave us an example telling us the situation where the best design was at question. They voluntarily decided against the design because of "negative perception".
This shows more than anything that they have failed us as designers. The lead designers voted AGAINST a choice they felt was the better design, due to negative perception.
The reason anyone would defend designers who intentionally do not give us the best damn design their capable of, is beyond me....
On March 02 2016 17:20 deacon.frost wrote: @Spyridon - where do you have numbers for Community was 80% for the removal.? Thanks!
That was from the public polls that were being taken at the time, on here as well as reddit. I'm at work atm, but if you search around the date of last september it should be easy to find. There was some debate in the post about sample size, and ppl basically agreed 1000 votes would be enough, and the poll reached 1000 votes fluxuating between 81-79% for full removal of MM.
Was quite a few posts on here referring to it, because Blizz used the old "Based on your feedback" reasoning for their argument... and the feedback was quite the opposite direction from what they claim (as usual).
ATVI isn't going to risk its reputation and engage in dishonest shenanigans for a $15 item being offered to an extremely small community. They've got bigger fish to fry.
it'd be like me getting into a brawl with an old lady over $1. Would i like a free dollar? sure i would. i'm not going to knock the false teeth out of an old lady's head to get it though. it is irrational. now if this theoretical old lady had $2,000,000 on her. now that is a different convo entirely.
is LotV worth the $40? the lengthy beta , Archon Mode, Automated TOurnaments ( 4 time champ here!) , all the changes to the game, the giant single player campaign including prologue and epilogue , the awesome cinematics... the ladder.. automatch... add it all up and no other RTS game has come close to providing this much AAA level cool stuff for $40
On March 02 2016 17:20 deacon.frost wrote: @Spyridon - where do you have numbers for Community was 80% for the removal.? Thanks!
That was from the public polls that were being taken at the time, on here as well as reddit. I'm at work atm, but if you search around the date of last september it should be easy to find. There was some debate in the post about sample size, and ppl basically agreed 1000 votes would be enough, and the poll reached 1000 votes fluxuating between 81-79% for full removal of MM.
Was quite a few posts on here referring to it, because Blizz used the old "Based on your feedback" reasoning for their argument... and the feedback was quite the opposite direction from what they claim (as usual).
Thanks. _______________
Honestly, I think this discussion is pointless.
If you want to see the future you need to look at the history. This game was developed like the next eSport thing. It wasn't supposed to be played by mortal beings like me, it was designed to be played by gods among us. And that's the root of the evil.
And the second big hit came with LotV when they started using phrases with the word spectator too often.
So now we have a game that is designed to be played by the best and to be watched by the rest. And be honest guys, the game accomplished all this. It's really nice to see what the best can do with those units, it's pleasure to watch such games. But it's pain in the ass to play against that. Is stalker-disruptor wars nice to watch? So far it's really good, it creates tense moments and stuff. Is it fun to play? Well, it's not. Even some pros said that it's frustrating to play it.
I may be the old grumpy man, but game should be developed to be played by the biggest crowd. And that's where SC2 completely failed. Look at the campaign, that's a game that screams play me. I may suck at the game, but if the game is enjoyable then who cares? And campaign was enjoyable, why is ladder so much different?
Do you guys remember WoL? Winrate was welcoming you(hey, I suck, I have 25 % win rate, it's nice to see the next time I get better 20 % now!). Big play button on ladder. Causals were not even considered! Custom games was a big fail, no arcade.
And you cannot change roots, this game needs redesign. One big redesign. And that's not gonna happen. So enjoy whatever you like about SC2 as long as you have it(be it WCS, GSL or whatever).
My crystal ball says the SC2 future is dark.
P.S. I wouldn't drag BW into the discussion. This is problem of SC2 and BW has nothing to do with it. SC2 isn't competing with BW. SC2 is competing with its own player base.
On March 03 2016 01:52 deacon.frost wrote: If you want to see the future you need to look at the history. This game was developed like the next eSport thing. It wasn't supposed to be played by mortal beings like me, it was designed to be played by gods among us. And that's the root of the evil.
Morhaime's press release on July 27th, 2010 was the game is made for "players of all skill levels". my bronze and silver friends like the game a helluva lot more than the very highly skilled chronic complainers on TL.Net. I play 2v1s against them and we have fun. I've played in every league from Silver to Diamond and had lots of fun.
During WoL development Browder talked about how hard the 6 pool was to stop by Terrans in Brood War relative to the skill level required to execute the 6 pool. in Brood War I recall putting 2 SCVs on a ramp in hold position, hanging a building over the 2 SCVs and using 1+ marines to pick off the zerlings. The 6 pool is a lot easier to defend in WoL, HotS ,and LotV... however, amongst low skill players the 6 pool was a thing... it was tough to defend in Brood War. This is just 1 of 1000 examples of how the game is made for every one.
The game is/was made for players of all levels as uncle Morhaime stated many years ago.
On March 03 2016 02:39 lestye wrote: Defending a 6 pool is MUCH easier in LOTV, at the same time, Jimmy, executing a 6pool is harder than it ever was in BW.
i think Browder's point was that execution of offense and then defending that offense should require equal skill levels. upon further reflection i'd say the 6 pool offense is no longer viable
On March 03 2016 02:39 lestye wrote: Defending a 6 pool is MUCH easier in LOTV, at the same time, Jimmy, executing a 6pool is harder than it ever was in BW.
i think Browder's point was that execution of offense and then defending that offense should require equal skill levels. upon further reflection i'd say the 6 pool offense is no longer viable
I was joking. 6 pool is really hard to do in LOTV when you start with 12 drones.
On March 03 2016 01:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote: is LotV worth the $40? the lengthy beta , Archon Mode, Automated TOurnaments ( 4 time champ here!) , all the changes to the game, the giant single player campaign including prologue and epilogue , the awesome cinematics... the ladder.. automatch... add it all up and no other RTS game has come close to providing this much AAA level cool stuff for $40
On March 03 2016 01:52 deacon.frost wrote: If you want to see the future you need to look at the history. This game was developed like the next eSport thing. It wasn't supposed to be played by mortal beings like me, it was designed to be played by gods among us. And that's the root of the evil.
Morhaime's press release on July 27th, 2010 was the game is made for "players of all skill levels". my bronze and silver friends like the game a helluva lot more than the very highly skilled chronic complainers on TL.Net. I play 2v1s against them and we have fun. I've played in every league from Silver to Diamond and had lots of fun.
During WoL development Browder talked about how hard the 6 pool was to stop by Terrans in Brood War relative to the skill level required to execute the 6 pool. in Brood War I recall putting 2 SCVs on a ramp in hold position, hanging a building over the 2 SCVs and using 1+ marines to pick off the zerlings. The 6 pool is a lot easier to defend in WoL, HotS ,and LotV... however, amongst low skill players the 6 pool was a thing... it was tough to defend in Brood War. This is just 1 of 1000 examples of how the game is made for every one.
The game is/was made for players of all levels as uncle Morhaime stated many years ago.
Was the game worth it for me? The most fun out of it was teh campaign. The rest was very disappointing and not very fun. The beta for the months it was fun was far more enjoyable than the actual release for me.
Morhaime may have said that then, but press releases are publicity anyway so of course he would say that (even the most complex games do).
Keep in mind much of that changed. LotV one of their specific goals they gave us was to make the game harder for top players, and in exchange they were looking in to removing MM for newer players... That was scrapped. So in the end it's harder for new players than it was before.
Also look at the general consensus, even experienced SC2 players say the games too fast for them to keep up now! I don't have issues keeping up personally, but a lot of the phases I enjoyed most are gone now.
Do you think the general public feels the game is "made for players of all skill levels to enjoy"? Do you think most new players, or casual players, actually do enjoy it? I see far, FAR more complaints of people wishing they enjoyed it but can't, than I do of people actually enjoying it.
It's pretty awesome that you have friends in Bronze-Silver league to play with. Not being sarcastic either, I mean it. I've tried and can't get a SINGLE person to play with me. I have a very large group of gamer friends as well. I've lived in NY, Fla, and Cali, all 3 places I have groups of gamer friends. Absoultely none will play SC2. Only one of them even purchased LotV and that was solely for campaign. He tried coop a few times and felt it was more of the same.
All of those groups played WoL. HotS a small portion of them played. LotV... absolutely noone but me.
I also have many online communties I'm in. I'm in a few large Discord servers for various MMO's, Rocket League channels, fighting game channels, even the Atlas channel for their test weekend this weekend. Hundreds of people throughout the channels (some have hundreds PER channel)... only 1 person playing SC2 right now.
I even work at a korean owned business for the last 2 years. Only 3 of us are not korean, many even here on J1 visa's (so have not even been out of Korea for 1 year). One of them only been here 1 month. None of them will even play SC2. Straight refusal. Other games... Sure their down to play. Not SC2 specifically. Even BW is okay. Not SC2. The game is not doing well in Korea these days even.
If I had your personal experience with newer players I might feel like you, but my personal experience has been drastically different. The few people I could even get to play the game do not have fun at all, don't feel it's user friendly, don't feel its fun, and feel like LotV made the problems worse and even less user friendly.
Plus even Blizzard admit the issue of things moving too fast. They were going to make changes in beta around it. But then they reverted it, NOT BECAUSE their stance on it changed, they even said no MM was better design, their specific reason they gave was because of people complaining causing a negative perception, so it's not even as user friendly or as well designed as they intended it to be.
If your friends in silver/bronze striaght up told you the games not fun for them and not user firendly, and you couldn't find anyone who even has fun on the game to play with you, and all of my other personal experiences, would you feel the same way as you do now?
I mean we can take one of the developers quotes about whos intended to enjoy the game. But someone whos actually in that position can provide much better feedback than a man whos invested in to the game.
I played WoL-Hots and did not buy LotV because of the design decisions of the Sc2 dev team. Specifically the re-addition of Macro-mechanics/boosters. I enjoyed the game FAR more without them, and the problem I have is not with the being back in the game. The problem I have and the reason I did not, and likely will not, buy Sc2 is the dev team's PR shenanigans and what feels like intentional sabotage to the game.
From the community feedbacks during that period, the dev team seemed to love how the game was going with the removal, or at least reduction of MM. Then all of a sudden the "negative perception" cause them to add them back in, and pretend it was all ok.
I watch SSL and GSL, but that is about as far as my support for SC2 goes. I hope the design improves, but I doubt it will happen on a large enough scale for me to come back.
On March 03 2016 07:07 Pseudorandom wrote: I played WoL-Hots and did not buy LotV because of the design decisions of the Sc2 dev team. Specifically the re-addition of Macro-mechanics/boosters. I enjoyed the game FAR more without them, and the problem I have is not with the being back in the game. The problem I have and the reason I did not, and likely will not, buy Sc2 is the dev team's PR shenanigans and what feels like intentional sabotage to the game.
From the community feedbacks during that period, the dev team seemed to love how the game was going with the removal, or at least reduction of MM. Then all of a sudden the "negative perception" cause them to add them back in, and pretend it was all ok.
I watch SSL and GSL, but that is about as far as my support for SC2 goes. I hope the design improves, but I doubt it will happen on a large enough scale for me to come back.
Yes exactly. I'm glad someone else was there during that time and followed the updates and seen what I seen. Even though mineral costs needed to be tweaked a bit, the game was by far the most fun SC2 ever was, less minerals per base without the super fast economic growth actually spent some time on each base - you didnt HAVE to expand almost non stop how you have to in LotV release - and it encouraged interaction with much smaller armies and made so many new timings that encouraged combat, economy wasn't out of control, and without MM balance was much more manageable. They were on to something great.... Then all of a sudden they don't want to make any more waves and bend to "perception"??? Something that's not even real, but perceived???
Ever since then they are scared of making waves... So we're stuck with half measures. Their changes for the last ~3 months of beta were based around removal of MM, and then with MM back in, we're stuck in the middle of 2 different design visions. Both of them are half-assed.
I do not believe at all that it was a coincidence that what you said, on top of the fact that the change of direction happened exactly at the same time they announced the release date, and the release date being sooner than both the Blizz store page said, as well as the beta being the same length as HotS when just a couple months earlier they were saying it would be a longer beta than they ever had. During the MM removal phase they said beta was going to go on quite a bit longer, then as soon as they were reverted and rumors came out about it releasing the same year...
I'm sure some are going to argue that we don't know the "real reason" or we dont have "proof" of any of this, but they made themselves liars if you compare the comments from june-sep compared to mid sep onward. Especially with statements like how its going to be a much longer beta than any other.
I may not know the real reason that led to the date being pushed up, but I am very confident that they needed to rush the game out in time for Blizzcon for other reasons - most likely due to marketing issues or something else getting delayed so SC2 had to make up for the loss.
It's the only thing that makes sense. The only other possibility is that it was completely true that they bended to perception. I honestly don't even want to believe that and hope it was just PR. But if that were the truth, it's even worse than if they screwed SC2's release as the lesser evil of screwing another one of their games releases. But either possibility sucks regardless.
i have a question. Do you think Blizzard is working on an another RTS. Dustin Browder works on a new Project (he left heroes of the storm at the end of last year). He only developed RTS titles and heroes of the storm which has rts components. Also David Kim left SC 2 for a new project.
Also Mike Morhaine said that it is possible that Blizzard will make Warcraft 4 in the future.
I think the chaces are really good that we will get a new RTS from Blizzard in the next 3-4 years.
On May 22 2017 22:45 DieuCure wrote: 3-4 years at least, can be more, i think they have to wait the decline of moba's, but for the moment they invest a lot in HoTS
Blizzard currently have SC2 and soon SC1 remastered filling the RTS slot(s). I doubt they'd venture out to to create another game within the genre, on the grounds that it could potentially steal a certain portion of the playerbase from the SC franchise.
On February 28 2016 01:40 StarStruck wrote: Ridiculous. RTS is not a dead genre nor will it ever be. It's called a niche genre and it is really no different than the FGC.
development budgets for AAA titles have steadily climbed in the past 20 years. development budgets for RTS peaked around 2007 for RTS. Blizzard pumping out expansion packs, patches and skins requires no where near the resources the development of a complete engine and game required from 2007 to 2009 for SC2.
Blizzard's entire organization used to revolve around the RTS genre. Now it barely comprises 1% of revenue.
enjoy SC2 while you can. its teh last big budget RTS game ever.
You have no idea about what your talking. First of all Blizzard makes starcraft remastered with a full Team! Blizzard makes money with RTS. They sold over 1 Million copies of Lotv at the first release day.
You are spreading missinformation all the time. No one at Blizzard said that they wont make an another RTS.
Mike Morhaine said that there will be Warcraft 4 as an RTS game. The only question is when! I asked Dustin Browder if warcraft 4 is a possibility an he said that they are thinking about it!
In nearly everey thread you post your wrong assumptions about Balance and Blizzards Marketing strategy and that Blizzard is done with RTS games!
This is absolutly wrong.
Mike Morhaine said that there will be a future for RTS titles (the only question is the buisness model). You will see that we will get an another RTS from Blizzard! Its true wait and see...........
RTS needs another revolution to give hope for the future. My best guess is Warcraft 4 - which probably will become another hybrid of some kind. I do not think that a classical RTS would be the answer to regain continued interest within the current generation of gamers.
Let us imagine that Warcraft 4 would turn out to big a success, the outcome of it would be immense. The hype around Starcraft 2 being annouced was huge and the same case will be for a new Warcraft RTS. Blizzard could potential snatch a big chunck of the playerbase of both League of Legends and Dota 2. If people would start leaving those games, Steam and Riot Games would have to reinvent themselves. Can you imagine Steam or Riot Games create new games that would surpass their previous games? Would the gamers of this generation continue to play because of their commitment to skins? At some point - it will end. There is not a video game, that will be on top forever. World of Warcraft is a great example of this.
Mobas are not going away unless a bigger video game developer starts replacing their urge to play other games. This is why, I think, Warcraft 4 is in development. The real money for Blizzard is in the modding scene and the potential gold nuggets that is grown in their own backyard. They created a sandbox, that ended up creating a new competitor in Riot Games and of course strengthen Valve with Dota 2. Blizzard wouldn't make the same mistake twice.
Does Blizzard have the talent to create a good hybrid RTS? That is a good question....
On May 23 2017 00:05 AlphaAeffchen wrote: @ JimmyJRaynor
You have no idea about what your talking. First of all Blizzard makes starcraft remastered with a full Team! Blizzard makes money with RTS. They sold over 1 Million copies of Lotv at the first release day.
You are spreading missinformation all the time. No one at Blizzard said that they wont make an another RTS.
Mike Morhaine said that there will be Warcraft 4 as an RTS game. The only question is when! I asked Dustin Browder if warcraft 4 is a possibility an he said that they are thinking about it!
In nearly everey thread you post your wrong assumtions about Balance and Blizzards Marketing strategy and that Blizzard is done with RTS games!
This is absolutly wrong.
Mike Morhaine said that there will be a future for RTS titles (the only question is the buisness model). You will see that we will get an another RTS from Blizzard! Its true wait and see...........
read earlier in the thread. its already been covered. Sigaty said they won't make anything to compete with SC2 for 10 years. SC:Remastered caters to ex/old SC1 players and is not being marketed towards a new audience. By contrast, Overwatch is being marketed towards all players. The marketing budget for SC:Remastered versus the marketing budget for Overwatch will tell the tale.
Overwatch made a billion in 10 months. Has Starcraft hit a billion yet? its 18 years old. Sry dawg, but the resources required to remaster a game are nothing like the resources required to make Overwatch. it just ain't even close.
On May 23 2017 00:05 AlphaAeffchen wrote: Its true wait and see...........
yes, let's pay attention to outcomes. Let's see if Blizzard puts more resources into the "Overwatch League" or into an SC:Remastered League.
On May 23 2017 00:05 AlphaAeffchen wrote: @ JimmyJRaynor
You have no idea about what your talking. First of all Blizzard makes starcraft remastered with a full Team! Blizzard makes money with RTS. They sold over 1 Million copies of Lotv at the first release day.
You are spreading missinformation all the time. No one at Blizzard said that they wont make an another RTS.
Mike Morhaine said that there will be Warcraft 4 as an RTS game. The only question is when! I asked Dustin Browder if warcraft 4 is a possibility an he said that they are thinking about it!
In nearly everey thread you post your wrong assumptions about Balance and Blizzards Marketing strategy and that Blizzard is done with RTS games!
This is absolutly wrong.
Mike Morhaine said that there will be a future for RTS titles (the only question is the buisness model). You will see that we will get an another RTS from Blizzard! Its true wait and see...........
Honestly I would just ignore him. He's always been a huge downer and a very negative person. I would bet money there will be another big budget RTS, whether it's Warcraft 4 or SC3 or maybe something new.
I imagine SC2 will be fine for the next few years at least. Hard to believe it's going to hit 10 years in 2020.
lol, i'm not a downer. check out the patch threads. there are your chicken-littles claiming the sky is falling. you half-read, 5% of my posts and make an incorrect judgement based on that.
lemme know the next time you see me insulting BLizzard's employees on here. i leave that to the "experts" who "really know the game at the top level".
making AoE2:HD, Homeworld HD, and SC1 HD... is not big budget AAA. its milking a current hardcore audience for every possible nickel with a game made by a team much much smaller than a AAA team. This is the current state of the industry. Old remakes.
I say it again. I know about the interview with Chris Sigaety (i told you about all this in another post in another thread!). He didnt say that there wont be another RTS in the next ten years. You completly took this interview out of context.
And again. Mike Morhaine said in an interview that there will be Warcraft 4 as an RTS game the onyl question is when! This interview happened after the interview with Chris Sigaety which you completly put out of context.
I also had a chat with Dustin Browder. I asked if WC 4 is a possibility. He said that they are listening and thinking about it.
Also Blizzard is very traditional about their games. They dont care only about revenue. And Starcraft makes Revenue by the way.
Ah and by the way everey post you make about Balance and that SC 2 will not last long is wrong. Blizzard supports their games longtime! Im so sick of reading your wrong assumptions about Blizzard and their RTS games in nearly everey thread you post this wrong informations which are totally false!
The genre is dead or niche. You can choose between those 2 words. You are fooling yourself if you do not think so. Just look around yourself. SC2 being as good as BW or not does not matter in the slightest in the question about the health of the genre. The fundamental gameplay of traditional RTS simply does not match the preference of of the current trend of gaming.
they will never flat out tell you they are abandoning the genre.
On May 23 2017 00:42 Wildmoon wrote: The fundamental gameplay of traditional RTS simply does not match the preference of of the current trend of gaming.
bingo. i love big army fighting games with bullets flying everywhere. in 1996 i could only do that on a giant cumbersome PC. everyone was forced to be on PC. You couldn't play it on your Apple Newton or your Palm Pilot. Now i can get that big army fight from a Smartphone or Tablet playing Clash of Clans or that Kate Upton game... fuck she is hot.
Yes. But he responded to me (he wouldnt do that if there are no plans for an rts game) and Mike Morhaine said that Warcraft 4 is a possibility. I wont respond to your comments any longer because you are a troll and always post wrong informations regarding Balance of SC 2 and the future of RTS games!
I made a thread about worker harrasment in SC II and Broodwar. There you made a post about the end of RTS games which was totally not the theme of the thread.
I told you what Mike Morhaine said and posted the Link to the interview. You completly ignored it.
You spread here missinformation all the time with no evidence.
you are clinging to a MAYBE from 1 company when 15 years ago lots of companies were putting their best talent onto an RTS project.
if Morhaime put his best talent on an RTS game he'd get fired tomorrow. His best talent is devoted to projects that actually, you know, make money. Like Destiny2.
i'm 100% happy with SC2. Its a great game. But, i'm also realistic as to the profits it and other RTS games can generate.
Mike Morhaine can do with the Blizzard Projects what he wants because they make money. He wouldnt tell that WC 4 is a possiblity if they wouldnt talk about it at the Company!
You post missinformations all the time...........
This was my last comment to your false posts i will ignore you now!
Fundamentally I think 1v1 is the thing that is becoming niche. RTS was always revolving around head-to-head, so it's among the first genres to fall, but aside from fighting games, I cannot think of really any other competitive 1v1 game left. FPS too was heavily 1v1 in the early days of eSports, now 1v1 FPS competitions are as niche as it gets. It's all about team games now.
The solution to make RTS popular again is build your entire game loop around the idea that 2 teams of more than 1 person are playing, not just 2 people.
Edit: Oh, Hearthstone is 1v1. Not sure if people see that game as competitive though. It seems very P2W.
If WC4 ever comes out I assure you it won't be in the form of RTS we have come to know and love. Blizzard will have to adjust it to fit the trend of gaming whether for better or worse. They are extremely successful lately with Overwatch and Hearthstone so who knows.
its possible we'll get a mobile game similar to "Clash of Clans" using the Starcraft IP. ATVI really wants to dive head first into mobile.
On May 23 2017 00:53 ZenithM wrote: Fundamentally I think 1v1 is the thing that is becoming niche.
ya, that's a really good point. back in 1995 when RTS was growing a lot it was not easy to voice chat with your allies and it was hard to get low latency team games going. 1v1 was really your only viable option. With Voice and a 3+ player team gaming is a lot more fun for your average person who wants a social as well as action-oriented experience. 4 player co-op in games like Borderlands is also a big thing... and that was pretty impossible years ago.
On May 23 2017 01:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote: its possible we'll get a mobile game similar to "Clash of Clans" using the Starcraft IP. ATVI really wants to dive head first into mobile.
On May 23 2017 00:53 ZenithM wrote: Fundamentally I think 1v1 is the thing that is becoming niche.
ya, that's a really good point. back in 1995 it was not easy to voice chat with your allies and it was hard to get low latency team games going. With Voice and a 3+ player team gaming is a lot more fun for your average person who wants a social as well as action-oriented experience. 4 player co-op in games like Borderlands is also a big thing.
I was really hoping archon mode would become a bigger thing. I think it'd be amazing to see an RTS where 4-5 player teams can play against each other in 4v4/5v5 matches. An aspect where MOBAs intrigue me is the fact that you can cheer for multiple players at the same time and the team aspect really adds another fascinating element.
On May 23 2017 01:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote: its possible we'll get a mobile game similar to "Clash of Clans" using the Starcraft IP. ATVI really wants to dive head first into mobile.
On May 23 2017 00:53 ZenithM wrote: Fundamentally I think 1v1 is the thing that is becoming niche.
ya, that's a really good point. back in 1995 it was not easy to voice chat with your allies and it was hard to get low latency team games going. With Voice and a 3+ player team gaming is a lot more fun for your average person who wants a social as well as action-oriented experience. 4 player co-op in games like Borderlands is also a big thing.
I was really hoping archon mode would become a bigger thing. I think it'd be amazing to see an RTS where 4-5 player teams can play against each other in 4v4/5v5 matches. An aspect where MOBAs intrigue me is the fact that you can cheer for multiple players at the same time and the team aspect really adds another fascinating element.
i have several friends who've been playing Brood War and then SC2 2v2s off-and-on for 15+ years. they didn't play 5 minutes of Archon mode. it was a good try by Blizzard. they deserve a lot of credit for trying to make it work.
as soon as i realized every single one of these 2v2 veterans were not touching it ... i figured it was doomed.
Thread necro aside, Blizzard needs to stop fucking pandering to the elitist/purist crowd. That's how they threw their massive, massive lead to Riot and Valve, by tunnelvisioning on ESPORTS and forgetting the fact that esports cannot exist without a healthy casual playerbase to appreciate it.
Games like DotA 2 have a low skill floor and a very high skill ceiling. People in here who claim that MOBAs are easy either don't play these games or just want to feel smug about playing Starcraft. If MOBAs were that easy and Starcraft players like us are truly superior, then why don't Starcraft pros win the International? Or any of the Majors? Or lesser tournaments?
DotA 2 proves that you can have an easy and accessible game and still allow for skill differentiation to satisfy competitive players. Who cares if you have perfect micro and macro in Starcraft 1 and/or 2 if no one is around to appreciate it?
On May 23 2017 01:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote: its possible we'll get a mobile game similar to "Clash of Clans" using the Starcraft IP. ATVI really wants to dive head first into mobile.
On May 23 2017 00:53 ZenithM wrote: Fundamentally I think 1v1 is the thing that is becoming niche.
ya, that's a really good point. back in 1995 it was not easy to voice chat with your allies and it was hard to get low latency team games going. With Voice and a 3+ player team gaming is a lot more fun for your average person who wants a social as well as action-oriented experience. 4 player co-op in games like Borderlands is also a big thing.
I was really hoping archon mode would become a bigger thing. I think it'd be amazing to see an RTS where 4-5 player teams can play against each other in 4v4/5v5 matches. An aspect where MOBAs intrigue me is the fact that you can cheer for multiple players at the same time and the team aspect really adds another fascinating element.
i have several friends who've been playing Brood War and then SC2 2v2s off-and-on for 15+ years. they didn't play 5 minutes of Archon mode. it was a good try by Blizzard. they deserve a lot of credit for trying to make it work.
as soon as i realized every single one of these 2v2 veterans were not touching it ... i figured it was doomed.
Archon Mode was stupid. Almost no one I knew back in the day seriously played Team Melee. We only played it so we'd have access to all three races' tech trees (1v1) or two (2v2 or 4-player FFA).
Almost everyone I knew back in my Starcraft 1 days preferred team games. Large team games like 4v4, or 2v2 if they preferred a more competitive game. I can remember exactly one guy who liked playing against Koreans on Battle.net, and preferred 1v1 play.
It's really just another example of Blizzard being oblivious to their playerbase's wishes and pandering to the esports crowd.
On May 23 2017 00:55 Wildmoon wrote: If WC4 ever comes out I assure you it won't be in the form of RTS we have come to know and love. Blizzard will have to adjust it to fit the trend of gaming whether for better or worse. They are extremely successful lately with Overwatch and Hearthstone so who knows.
They will absolutely max out their next game on sex appeal, mark my words. It's a big reason why Overwatch is such a success. Honestly the more I think about it, a lot of the new popular games are all about sex appeal. .
Lets hope they fix one of their past mistakes though, actual good writing. Or in Blizzard's case it might be for the best to go with no writing at all. All their recent games didn't have an ounce of a story after all.
On May 23 2017 00:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote: you are clinging to a MAYBE from 1 company when 15 years ago lots of companies were putting their best talent onto an RTS project.
if Morhaime put his best talent on an RTS game he'd get fired tomorrow. His best talent is devoted to projects that actually, you know, make money. Like Destiny2.
i'm 100% happy with SC2. Its a great game. But, i'm also realistic as to the profits it and other RTS games can generate.
Morhaime is the president of blizzard, and has absolutely nothing to do with bungie games.
On May 23 2017 00:55 Wildmoon wrote: If WC4 ever comes out I assure you it won't be in the form of RTS we have come to know and love. Blizzard will have to adjust it to fit the trend of gaming whether for better or worse. They are extremely successful lately with Overwatch and Hearthstone so who knows.
They will absolutely max out their next game on sex appeal, mark my words. It's a big reason why Overwatch is such a success. Honestly the more I think about it, a lot of the new popular games are all about sex appeal. .
Lets hope they fix one of their past mistakes though, actual good writing. Or in Blizzard's case it might be for the best to go with no writing at all. All their recent games didn't have an ounce of a story after all.
Games can never be successes in the long run having sex appeal as a big reason for its success. Overwatch has already passed that point. The game does not have "sex appeal" anymore than something like Streetfighter or all Moba out there. Overwatch is a good game that ticks most if not all the boxes that people are looking for in this type of FPS. It's that simple. It's silly to even think that Overwatch is a success because it has high sex appeal. If making a popular game is that easy then many games will be competing with Overwatch right now.
On May 23 2017 00:55 Wildmoon wrote: If WC4 ever comes out I assure you it won't be in the form of RTS we have come to know and love. Blizzard will have to adjust it to fit the trend of gaming whether for better or worse. They are extremely successful lately with Overwatch and Hearthstone so who knows.
They will absolutely max out their next game on sex appeal, mark my words. It's a big reason why Overwatch is such a success. Honestly the more I think about it, a lot of the new popular games are all about sex appeal. .
Lets hope they fix one of their past mistakes though, actual good writing. Or in Blizzard's case it might be for the best to go with no writing at all. All their recent games didn't have an ounce of a story after all.
Games can never be successes in the long run having sex appeal as a big reason for its success. Overwatch has already passed that point. The game does not have "sex appeal" anymore than something like Streetfighter or all Moba out there. Overwatch is a good game that ticks most if not all the boxes that people are looking for in this type of FPS. It's that simple. It's silly to even think that Overwatch is a success because it has high sex appeal. If making a popular game is that easy then many games will be competing with Overwatch right now.
Really, if anyone thinks games are successful due to sex appeal, they all need to go look at games coming out of Asia, because almost none of them are a worldwide success, and all of them are sexualized to an extreme.
On May 23 2017 00:55 Wildmoon wrote: If WC4 ever comes out I assure you it won't be in the form of RTS we have come to know and love. Blizzard will have to adjust it to fit the trend of gaming whether for better or worse. They are extremely successful lately with Overwatch and Hearthstone so who knows.
They will absolutely max out their next game on sex appeal, mark my words. It's a big reason why Overwatch is such a success. Honestly the more I think about it, a lot of the new popular games are all about sex appeal. .
Lets hope they fix one of their past mistakes though, actual good writing. Or in Blizzard's case it might be for the best to go with no writing at all. All their recent games didn't have an ounce of a story after all.
Games can never be successes in the long run having sex appeal as a big reason for its success. Overwatch has already passed that point. The game does not have "sex appeal" anymore than something like Streetfighter or all Moba out there. Overwatch is a good game that ticks most if not all the boxes that people are looking for in this type of FPS. It's that simple. It's silly to even think that Overwatch is a success because it has high sex appeal. If making a popular game is that easy then many games will be competing with Overwatch right now.
I didn't say it was the only factor right? I said it was a big factor. People jumped on the Overwatch bandwagon because of the Blizzard hype and because of how it looked. It's hardly silly in my opinion to say that the initial popularity garnered by the people that bought the game on release, due to yes, even sex appeal, caused the current popularity. And for Blizzard it's pretty easy to make a popular game, due to their current reputation. Even bad games like diablo 3 at release sold like hotcakes.
On May 23 2017 00:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote: you are clinging to a MAYBE from 1 company when 15 years ago lots of companies were putting their best talent onto an RTS project. if Morhaime put his best talent on an RTS game he'd get fired tomorrow. His best talent is devoted to projects that actually, you know, make money. Like Destiny2. i'm 100% happy with SC2. Its a great game. But, i'm also realistic as to the profits it and other RTS games can generate.
Morhaime is the president of blizzard, and has absolutely nothing to do with bungie games. I can't believe I just read that, actually.
what you should do is thank me for teaching you something. rather than scoffing at my comment.
On May 23 2017 02:00 Eternal Dalek wrote: It's really just another example of Blizzard being oblivious to their playerbase's wishes and pandering to the esports crowd.
because the playerbase is so diverse 1 subsection of the playerbase may feel as though Blizzard is being oblivious when they're catering to a different subculture within the same player base. that is why you feel that why and why you use the language "just another example".
Blizzard knows how to appeal to its player base which is why its games outlast the vast majority of other games that are released in the same month. How is Battleborn doing compared to Overwatch? How about C&C4 compared to SC2?
On May 23 2017 00:55 Wildmoon wrote: If WC4 ever comes out I assure you it won't be in the form of RTS we have come to know and love. Blizzard will have to adjust it to fit the trend of gaming whether for better or worse. They are extremely successful lately with Overwatch and Hearthstone so who knows.
They will absolutely max out their next game on sex appeal, mark my words. It's a big reason why Overwatch is such a success. Honestly the more I think about it, a lot of the new popular games are all about sex appeal. .
Lets hope they fix one of their past mistakes though, actual good writing. Or in Blizzard's case it might be for the best to go with no writing at all. All their recent games didn't have an ounce of a story after all.
Games can never be successes in the long run having sex appeal as a big reason for its success. Overwatch has already passed that point. The game does not have "sex appeal" anymore than something like Streetfighter or all Moba out there. Overwatch is a good game that ticks most if not all the boxes that people are looking for in this type of FPS. It's that simple. It's silly to even think that Overwatch is a success because it has high sex appeal. If making a popular game is that easy then many games will be competing with Overwatch right now.
I didn't say it was the only factor right? I said it was a big factor. People jumped on the Overwatch bandwagon because of the Blizzard hype and because of how it looked. It's hardly silly in my opinion to say that the initial popularity garnered by the people that bought the game on release, due to yes, even sex appeal, caused the current popularity. And for Blizzard it's pretty easy to make a popular game, due to their current reputation. Even bad games like diablo 3 at release sold like hotcakes.
It's not even a big reason. Not bigger than Chun Li as a big reason for Streetfighter's success Comparing Overwatch to D3 in terms of popularity is also silly because the former is a sustaining success while the latter just sold well initially but quickly declined afterward with a lot of criticism. The look of the game obviously is top notch. It's one of Blizzard's strong points. It's just not specifically "sex appeal". No one wants to make a game that looks bad on purpose.
On May 23 2017 02:54 Wildmoon wrote: It's not even a big reason. Not bigger than Chun Li as a big reason for Streetfighter's success Comparing Overwatch to D3 in terms of popularity is also silly because the former is a sustaining success while the latter just sold well initially but quickly declined afterward with a lot of criticism.
incorrect, 75% of D3 sales occurred after the game was 6 months old. Overwatch has only been out 1 year. D3 is the sustained success. Overwatch probably will be as well but its not 100% certain yet. A big part of D3's sustained success was the Reaper of Souls Expansion pack. Yet another example of Blizzard making a game great with its expansion pack release.
what you should do is thank me for teaching you something. rather than scoffing at my comment.
Blizzard's development teams and developement teams under Activition work as separate entities. It's something no one can lie about. The information is out there. They are hosting Destiny 2 on battle.net. Their developers did not develop the game.
On May 23 2017 02:54 Wildmoon wrote: It's not even a big reason. Not bigger than Chun Li as a big reason for Streetfighter's success Comparing Overwatch to D3 in terms of popularity is also silly because the former is a sustaining success while the latter just sold well initially but quickly declined afterward with a lot of criticism.
incorrect, 75% of D3 sales occurred after the game was 6 months old. Overwatch has only been out 1 year. D3 is the sustained success. Overwatch probably will be as well but its not 100% certain yet.
D3 is not a sustained sucess. The game has already lost its steam. D3 also released on console much later than PC which contributed to higher sale after 6 months. Overwatch released on all platform simulteneously.
what you should do is thank me for teaching you something. rather than scoffing at my comment.
Blizzard's development teams and developement teams under Activition work as separate entities. It's something no one can lie about. The information is out there. They are hosting Destiny 2 on battle.net. Their developers did not develop the game.
do not drop the context. i am not discussing Blizzard's developers. you added that. i did not. nor did the other poster. this is the quote from the otehr poster: "Morhaime is the president of blizzard, and has absolutely nothing to do with bungie games."
his comment is incorrect. end of story.
just the fact that Morhaime had to prepare a speech, memorize lines, and make a public appearance is indicative of resource allocation to Destiny2. Blizzard has committed their limited resources to Destiny2. With Mike Morhaime being their #1 most limited resource because he only has so much time in the week.
The only way Morhaime will vouch for Destiny2 is if he has performed due diligence beforehand. Again, more limited resources allocated to Destiny2. Morhaime performs due diligence in order to protect his brand and the consumer perception of Battle.Net/Blizzard.net. If you do not think Morhaime goes to huge lengths to protect his brand then i guess you were not around when Blizzard canceled SC:Ghost and Titan after years in development. All in the name of protecting their brand and image.
Pretty hilarious how Mike called it Battle.Net like 5 times.
Personally, I'd love to see SC3. However, if we were to see it, It probably wouldn't happen for another 3-5 years. WC4 is overdue imo and would come out first.
what you should do is thank me for teaching you something. rather than scoffing at my comment.
Blizzard's development teams and developement teams under Activition work as separate entities. It's something no one can lie about. The information is out there. They are hosting Destiny 2 on battle.net. Their developers did not develop the game.
do not drop the context. i am not discussing Blizzard's developers. you added that. i did not. nor did the other poster. this is the quote from the otehr poster: "Morhaime is the president of blizzard, and has absolutely nothing to do with bungie games."
his comment is incorrect. end of story.
just the fact that Morhaime had to prepare a speech, memorize lines, and make a public appearance is indicative of resource allocation to Destiny2. Blizzard has committed their limited resources to Destiny2. With Mike Morhaime being their #1 most limited resource because he only has so much time in the week.
He had enough time to go watch SC2 matches in Korea and bought people pizzas.
what you should do is thank me for teaching you something. rather than scoffing at my comment.
Blizzard's development teams and developement teams under Activition work as separate entities. It's something no one can lie about. The information is out there. They are hosting Destiny 2 on battle.net. Their developers did not develop the game.
do not drop the context. i am not discussing Blizzard's developers. you added that. i did not. nor did the other poster. this is the quote from the otehr poster: "Morhaime is the president of blizzard, and has absolutely nothing to do with bungie games."
his comment is incorrect. end of story.
just the fact that Morhaime had to prepare a speech, memorize lines, and make a public appearance is indicative of resource allocation to Destiny2. Blizzard has committed their limited resources to Destiny2. With Mike Morhaime being their #1 most limited resource because he only has so much time in the week.
He had enough time to go watch SC2 matches in Korea and bought people pizzas.
limited resources allocated to SC2 for a public appearance. sry dawg, any execs most precious resource is time. every second of every day is valuable for a CEO. again, the poster's quote is flat out incorrect. nothing more to discuss.
if you think Morhaime just throws his time away.... we are at the reductio ad absurdum stage of this discussion.
RTS games just aren't what they used to be. The reason that Brood War stuck around for so long is because that was the Golden Game of that genre. Sort of like Super Mario Bros. was for side-scrolling platformers. People still love the hell out of both of this aforementioned games because there is achievement and reputation to be gained for being good at them.
One can stand on the pedestal of technological advancement claiming that games are better now because of quality of life improvements, better UI's, adjustable difficulties, etc. but at what cost? At what point do people start to realize that they are hardly playing the game anymore, and it is the game playing them? Personally, I thought difficult action RPG games died with Morrowind the 3rd Elder Scrolls game. However, I was pleasantly surprised when Dark Souls came out because it revitalized the genre.
I think what the RTS genre needs is a Dark Souls-esque revival. That is, a return to making games difficult, especially in terms of mechanical difficulty.
On May 23 2017 06:39 FarmI3oy wrote: RTS games just aren't what they used to be. The reason that Brood War stuck around for so long is because that was the Golden Game of that genre. Sort of like Super Mario Bros. was for side-scrolling platformers. People still love the hell out of both of this aforementioned games because there is achievement and reputation to be gained for being good at them.
One can stand on the pedestal of technological advancement claiming that games are better now because of quality of life improvements, better UI's, adjustable difficulties, etc. but at what cost? At what point do people start to realize that they are hardly playing the game anymore, and it is the game playing them? Personally, I thought difficult action RPG games died with Morrowind the 3rd Elder Scrolls game. However, I was pleasantly surprised when Dark Souls came out because it revitalized the genre.
I think what the RTS genre needs is a Dark Souls-esque revival. That is, a return to making games difficult, especially in terms of mechanical difficulty.
BW's mechanical difficulty had precisely nil to do with it's popularity, whether inside or outside Korea.
On May 23 2017 06:39 FarmI3oy wrote: I think what the RTS genre needs is a Dark Souls-esque revival. That is, a return to making games difficult, especially in terms of mechanical difficulty.
we were willing to tolerate "hard" in 1995 because the state of technology demanded it. You wanted to see 100+ units all shooting each other in an amazing full scale battle with bullets flying every where.. u needed to own a giant sized PC, be tech savy to configure the PC ... etc etc. hell even getting your mouse to not conflict with ur speakers was an art form.
those days are gone.. i can orchestrate and micro giant army fights on my smartphone
On May 23 2017 06:39 FarmI3oy wrote: I think what the RTS genre needs is a Dark Souls-esque revival. That is, a return to making games difficult, especially in terms of mechanical difficulty.
we were willing to tolerate "hard" in 1995 because the state of technology demanded it. You wanted to see 100+ units all shooting each other in an amazing full scale battle with bullets flying every where.. u needed to own a giant sized PC, be tech savy to configure the PC ... etc etc. hell even getting your mouse to not conflict with ur microphone was an art form.
those days are gone.. i can orchestrate and micro giant army fights on my smartphone
Yet you would deny that we lost something by being able to do that on a smartphone?
it is a completely different experience. "lost something"? i can see why some view it that way.
thing is in 1995 there was absolutely only 1 way to get that massive epic big army fight feeling: PC on a giant CRT with a giant desktop case and sometimes hours of careful set up. As a result, consumer demand for that feeling could only be satiated via PC. Now consumers have a myriad of choices to fulfill that via several platforms.
This has greatly diluted demand for big army fighting games on PC since the mid 1990s. Combine this with the point that guy from France made about 1v1 games dying and you do not exactly have a recipe for RTS genre growth.
On May 23 2017 08:16 FarmI3oy wrote: The idea that people play RTSs for the sole reason of seeing massive army battles is a little bit of a stretch.
its not the sole reason. it remains to this day a very big payoff for many consumers. the reason me and my nOOb pals put up with all the hassle of managing an economy, climbing the tech tree... was for the eventual combat where u could make ur big win happen. really cool combat graphics were essential.
look at all the time and effort RTS developers put into making the combat look as great as possible.
Furthermore, in 1995 no one had ever seen hundreds of units and thousands of bullets flying because it was not technically possible. Breaking new technical ground creates even more buzz and excitement.
For starters it'd be nice if RTS games have good teammodes (Or a good arcade lul). It's hardly a stretch to say that 1v1 games aren't capable of making people stay as committed to a game as games played together. Literally every other multiplayer game that's really popular (fighting games aren't that popular) is popular because it's not 1v1. And RTS developers to my knowledge have never, ever, ever, ever, in any strategy game, paid special attention to 2v2/3v3/4v4. All strategy games are balanced and designed around the top lvl 1v1. The only hope for teamgames is that maps could fix what obviously cannot be fixed.
If I see an RTS game with a different unit design, vision, and different mechanics for different modes still fail... Then and only then will I join the bandwagon of RTS games have no hope.
In answer to the first topic, let's not forget that one of the reasons for the fall ot RTS genre is that Starcraft 2 was divided into three games for 5 years. Sorry, but that's the ugly truth.
It was very good that Sc 2 was divided into 3 games. Man even Broodwar was an expansion. The other two parts of Sc 2 gave room for more units and more campaign stuff which is absolulutly great.
Guys i heavily disagree that people are not interested in 1v1. Starcraft 2 was verey succesfull in the first 3 years. The problem is that Blizzard did horrible mistakes in gamedesign with SC II Hots (the second expansion) and that they didnt patch the game more frequently regarding the balance (see swarmhost now and back at hots times).
Oh anf by the way ist absolutly ok to design a game to become an E-Sports. Most RTS games fail because they dont do it.
Also if you design an RTS around heroes and leveling them like warcraft 3 it would be a huge success because many people like to play heroes because they identify with them.
What you dont see here is that SC 2 was a huge success for a few years and at least we still have a healthy playerbase with tournaments.
The problem is that the new RTS games from other companies are garbage look at Dawn of war 3 (i bought it played it 1 day and got bored of it). Thats the real problem.
I played pretty much every RTS from the 90s and I don't know what some of you are talking about implying there was harder RTS back then, in 1995 especially (how many even were there). Maybe you mean RTS in general. Dark Reign is probably the closer game to BW/SC2 and the mechanics are pretty much the same, Total Annihilation a completely different style of RTS. If it got 'harder' (in what way?) then wouldn't it just be unfair? It's as hard as the opponent unless you want single player challenges, maybe you do single you mention Dark Souls - a game which has no relevance to RTS at all.
BW was not popular out of luck it's much better than those games and all the ones after it, if you want proof those other games all still exist and people do try and play them competitively in a Starcraft mindset and find out why none of them succeeded.
1/ gamers are not doing their part anymore (a good rts could be available for free and no one would play it, just because it isn't advertised "properly" or just because when you test it for the first time, there are no players hosting it, etc)
2/. rts is very hard and it should be (dumbing down rts is as stupid as you can get)
3/ business models, pr, gaming online platforms .. those are things to watch if you are curious but you won't quench your thirst.. blizzard does not communicate nor answer the community's issues/ideas etc.. effectively there is just a company dishing out stuff, #gaming companies still think we are in the 80/90ies and you can ignore your clients = lol
Lets take a very simple example about how blizzard "treats" bnet: i play photon cycles or playtest my own maps on bnet and every time i finish a game (lets say every half hour) i can't rejoin / or even join any other "new" game or create one (#the lobby bug that you all ignore like pussies that you are... you can't even be bothered to lobby to get it fixed)
Why / how would blizzard leave that bug alive (it has been a year or more already)? is that not proof that they don't care about the multiplayer platform?
For me it is clear that sc2 bnet is a failed test and blizzard will not invest in it, whatever they lie about or whatever you are hoping for it!
wc3's team games are and always have been head and shoulders above S1 and sc2 and so has it's custom games, there is no denying it if you played war3 and s1+2 heavily. the fact is, if wc4 is released and they don't fuck it up, new fun and interesting custom games as well as remakes will be played once again both by old veterans and new players, dota will have a remake in the wc3 engine(which will be hugely popular among the die hard wc3 dota fans) without any of the changes that dota 2 has brought, and it's well known that wc3's campaign is pretty much the best RTS campaign of all time.
wc3 doesn't shine a light to s1 or even 2 in some instances when it comes to competitive 1v1 play, although it's still very interesting, but when it comes to pure fun I haven't seen an rts that does anything better then war3 has.
war 4 would be a massive success.
so to answer the question, the future right now is war 4, any other rts will always be pushed aside by mobas and shooters, and sc2 is just staying alive like all RTS do, people still play aoe2 and red alert.
On May 23 2017 18:50 paxconsciente wrote: wc3's team games are and always have been head and shoulders above S1 and sc2 and so has it's custom games, there is no denying it if you played war3 and s1+2 heavily. the fact is, if wc4 is released and they don't fuck it up, new fun and interesting custom games as well as remakes will be played once again both by old veterans and new players, dota will have a remake in the wc3 engine(which will be hugely popular among the die hard wc3 dota fans) without any of the changes that dota 2 has brought, and it's well known that wc3's campaign is pretty much the best RTS campaign of all time.
wc3 doesn't shine a light to s1 or even 2 in some instances when it comes to competitive 1v1 play, although it's still very interesting, but when it comes to pure fun I haven't seen an rts that does anything better then war3 has.
war 4 would be a massive success.
so to answer the question, the future right now is war 4, any other rts will always be pushed aside by mobas and shooters, and sc2 is just staying alive like all RTS do, people still play aoe2 and red alert.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, I really resonated with it and share the same feelings, so I'm happy someone else feels and thought the same way. I am excited for a Warcraft 4, and now that LotV has been out for a bit, and OW is done, maybe it is very possible that a Warcraft 4 could be in the works and come out in the next 5 years or so.
I think the fun nature of warcraft compared to starcraft would be a good balance; it would still have quite a lot of strategy, while being a lot less "hardcore" and more accessible and fun to casual players.
Although it does make me wonder; why is Wc3 pretty much dead? Is it just, as a "fun" RTS, it is hurt significantly by being old and outdated as a game, and thus more casual gamers won't want to play it? SC1 is still around and loved, but WC3 is much smaller. If a WC4 came out and stuck pretty closely to the WC3 formula, could it be a massive success appealing to both casuals and competitive gamers the way LoL and OW have, or would it need to improve on the formula significantly?
I really don't mind playing 1v1 SC2, but they need to make it fun first. Macro > Micro. Strategy > Micro. Tone down the build order wins, please! So many things kill you quickly in SC2 there's almost no way to play safe.
The game being so micro intensive is not fun for me, I'm not a pro, I'm also getting old and my APM is generally going down. Good micro should be something that enhances good macro and strategy, where you can watch someone play and say "oh his macro was on point and he had the right idea, but executed poorly and lost too much" etc. Instead what happens in LotV is that you're in micro mode from the get go against small and fast harassment units, that actually can snowball and just kill you, then if you get past the early stages of the game also having to constantly expand because the damn bases mine out so fast, you get into army fights where half the units have abilities you need to use. To me these things are frustrating to use and play against.
Honestly I'm having much more fun playing Age of Empires 2 HD. A game vastly superior to SC2 in my opinion. In that game it's actually impossible to die to an early game rush, because the workers are strong enough to defend it, but that also doesn't make the rush unviable. It is still a perfectly viable strategy, just not one that's going to kill your opponent. Just the game is paced in such a way, that it gives the defending player more than one chance to react. While in SC2 basically one blunder costs you the game.
I dont think bw is harder, yes macro looks harder but everything else not, that's why flash was good a doing a 20min build in sc2 but was out when he was multitasking
On May 23 2017 23:11 DieuCure wrote: I dont think bw is harder, yes macro looks harder but everything else not, that's why flash was good a doing a 20min build in sc2 but was out when he was multitasking
Everything else not ? Try army movement and spell casting. Everything is harder in BW. Constant rebinding of groups, microing your army while sending workers to mine etc... but that's because of the limitation of the engine. Not because it's harder to do.
In the end SC2 and BW are still very different games.
You would gain a lot more in SC2 by doing a crisp build order while in BW you can win with a lesser army but better army movement (we saw that in ASL1 for exemple). There is stuff that gain you edges in BW that doesn't in SC2 and vice versa. Similar games but yet very different.
I love both games and they are both hard games but BW is hard not just because the game itself is hard, it's hard because of a lot of limitations that SC2 does not have.
In SC2 you fight the other player. In BW you fight another player and you fight the game
yet you also fight the opponent at the same time and the fight against the opponent is tougher as well why did Flash not perform #1~ in SC2? I don't know, there could be many reasons. I didn't follow at all. But he and other bw pros shine not only because of their control, but decision making. Maybe they were trying to make some of their skills work in SC2, but were not rewarded by the game for it. That's pretty much how I felt when I played it. In short, BW takes more skill, not just mechanical.
SC2 players and BW players have got pretty same EPM according to wcg stats, but there is more unexpected things in sc2 than brood war because you fight more your opponent.
Maybe WoL and HoTS was easier than BW but i'm 100% sure LoTV isnt. But it's not the same difficulty , so hard to quantify
regarding punitive games : I don't think punitive is a feature that makes a game more skilled at all. On the contrary, if a game is not so punitive it can leave more space for styles and consistency, so in the course of the game the better player will win more often, and have more chance to show creativity which is a major component of most skills.
for example, Dark Souls is punitive using knowledge barriers. It takes more knowledge than skill to overcome these punitions. This was true in SC2 Wol as well in my experience.
I don't play LoTV, but if you understand logic you know that just because one thing is more punitive and also requires more skill it doesn't mean that everything punitive also requires more skill than anything less punitive. That's why I'm not saying less punitive automatically means more skill. It can leave more space for skill. Punitive can be a limiter for skill. This is a rebutal to "games more punitive take more skills", which is false in my opinion and experience.
For example, candy crush isn't too punitive (is it?) and it also doesn't take much skill (does it?). lolz Typically, a sandbox game is not punitive at all and also doesn't take much skill, or focus just on a few. Like minecraft of the sims or what you want.
I have another example. I play shmup games. These are arcade games, you play against the AI like Dark souls. Like Dark Souls, knowledge is a huge component of success, because of how punitive they are, but they also take skills, to different degrees. Well, some games are so punitive, that they are only about knowledge (if you don't know, you lose immediately, if you know, you get through quite easily). Others are very skill focused + take knowledge, but have a punitive system that deny you the right to continue the game unless you do a perfect attempt. That doesn't make it take more skill, it's only more punitive. It's like you were playing SC2, if you get supplied blocked once, the game is over. Does it take more skill? no, it's only more punitive, it aborts the game and doesn't let you play and get better until you don't get supply blocked, which you likely still will like everybody. Then you will have to focus on that so that other skills which may be more interesting matter less.
If you can hold an allin or cheese without scoot = less skill because if you can do it your scoot can be bad, your control map can be bad etc and these are things that make a TY better than you, have to be good at micro vs micro + things around it
rofl you are trying to prove that "more punitive = more skill" using examples, it doesn't work, you have to explain why more punitive always means more skill and you fail to answer my own examples as to why it is not true. To prove that something is false, you only need a counter example.
I gave you a SC2 example, done arguing with you you are too aggressive and ignorant, not interesting
Your example is silly, you dont lose because you get supplied blocked once, but you do one mistake, so it's normal to be a little bit behind then.
And yes, it's about skill, less mistakes than your opponent = you are better, there is a lot of settings to be good at macro management and it's normal to be punished when you fail.
But yea, everytime like that with bw apologists, they are right, and sc2 players are wrong
sry no more arguing with u, you give one liners and ignore my arguments, somebody gave us a AoE2 example which works the way I described for other games, I gave u a SC2 example, could give you more but not interested (RPG or FPS or arcade games arguments can be relevant) if your cheese is less punitive, it can take the same skill, while allowing more possibilities in the game hence enhancing the strategic decision making skills which is the case in bw compared to sc2 which is more gamble-like for that reason and others
It's pointless to talk about what blizzard plans, we don't know them, they totally can surprise us at blizzcon.
Also, it's not because cs:go and LoL have more viewers than sc that RTS genre is dead, cause a) esport is not the alpha and omega of all gaming, b) there are new RTS coming out, they might not be made for competition, they may not be as good as sc2, BUT they do exist and people play them.
We haven't seen everything yet and RTS will still live for long cause it's a fundamental of pc gaming.
I really feel that rts in 3d will be done right one day, as in there have been several good ones but none to "blow us away" from the competitive possible gameplay.
Rts is already too hard on photon cycles (people rage quit galore while the gameplay is crystal clear to any beginner) so i think most rts to come that will shine will be "unique multiplayer games, as is scbw and possibly sc2 although i don't think there is any point in trying to make those two be different (they are not, scbw and sc2 use the same gameplays and sc2 is user friendly) it is the same game (if you think about it).
On May 23 2017 18:50 paxconsciente wrote: war 4 would be a massive success.
so to answer the question, the future right now is war 4, any other rts will always be pushed aside by mobas and shooters, and sc2 is just staying alive like all RTS do, people still play aoe2 and red alert.
Red Alert came out 15+ years ago and several companies have tried to grow the player base with all kinds of new Red Alert games. Didn't work. AoE2 came out 10+ years ago. same thing
Intellivision Utopia , M.U.L.E., and Tecmo Super Bowl are action//strategy games still going strong. Does this mean someone is going to come along and make Utopia 2?. Tecmo Bowl 2? and these games will cause some amazing renaissance ... nah.
Maybe someone will make Space Invaders 3 and we'll all start hanging out at smoke filled Arcades trying to break the high score and figuring out the shooting pattern to get the 1000 point UFO that goes along the top of the screen. Get Out Your Quarters!
unless you can get someone to fund Red Alert 4, Space Invaders 3, or M.U.L.E. 2... its over. The original games will continue to have cult like followings but their biggest profits are in the past.
On May 23 2017 18:50 paxconsciente wrote: war 4 would be a massive success.
funny how legends like Pardo, and Sperry leave the RTS genre and never return. they want to make real money and move on to big money projects
wadaya wanna bet Pardo's new studio doesn't go any where near the RTS genre.
the best development talent are naturally drawn to high profit games.
Warcraft 4 will make Blizzard a ton of money and it will skyrocket like Overwatch. Blizzard will make Warcraft 4 the only question is when. Mike Morhaine said that they will make the game someday and it will be an RTS. Warcraft frnachise is really powerfull and the fans want Warcraft 4!
no it won't. as that guy from France noted 1v1 games are not "in". Its more fun to voice with some friends and play a team game and yell and scream at each other... and work together as a team. its more social .. its more silly, stupid, idiotic fun.
No RTS game has ever made the kind of money Overwatch has made over the last year. and no RTS ever will.
Warcraft 4 will be made its a fact and you will see it. Blizzard is very traditional about their games. The developpers and Mike Morhaine said that that there will be an another rts after Starcraft 2. Warcraft 4 is the most possible option because the Warcraft Franchise is strong and also Dustin Browder said its a possibilty.
We can really expect an another rts from Blizzard and thats fine :-)
"So you can probably wave goodbye to the idea of an RTS-centric Warcraft 4 or any plans you'd made to go pro with the release of StarCraft 3 in the near future. The team is very much focused on releasing Legacy of the Void and then continuing to improve it for a long time to come. "
i'm having a lot of fun playing SC2. i'm also realistic.
On May 24 2017 07:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote: no it won't. as that guy from France noted 1v1 games are not "in". Its more fun to voice with some friends and play a team game and yell and scream at each other... and work together as a team. its more social .. its more silly, stupid, idiotic fun.
No RTS game has ever made the kind of money Overwatch has made over the last year. and no RTS ever will.
Golly gee, your arguments are so irrefutably sound I can't understand why you would be on teamliquid arguing in the first place.
revenue for RTS games has been declining for a long, long time. even at its absolute peak no RTS game ever made what Overwatch did in 10 months. If you have something to contribute to carry the convo forward great. go for it.
Blizzard does not cannibalize its own games. So Blizz won't make something to compete directly with WoW, Overwatch, SC2, or Diablo3 unless they're being replaced completely. Blizzard already said SC2 is getting 10 years of support from September 2015 onward.
If you do not like the facts. There is nothing i can do about it.
The fact is that Mike Morhaine said after the interview with Chris Sigaety that there will be Warcraft 4 as an RTS in the future and that Blizzard will make it. Also Dustin Browder and other sources from Blizzard said that they are talking about a new RTS. WC 4 is guranteed. The only question is when. You have no clue about what your talking JimmyJRaynor.
Blizzard was very happy about the money made with starcraft and WC3. Even if ist not their top game they still support it and they made sc remastered.
I challenge you JimmyJRaynor to name an RTS game that came out for three platforms all at once in the past couple years. Moreover, what numbers are we using as facts here? Activision/Blizzard does not release their earnings anymore.
30 million players across three platforms after (1) Blizzard using one hell of a marketing strategy (mass inclusiveness), (2) Blizzard using a game that is technically the aborted fetus of another game that had been thrown in the trash and (3) more people than ever now have PC's, Playstations and Xboxs than ever before in human history.
The last point is something that drives me up a wall. When people say, especially game companies, "fastest selling game in history" or "biggest player base since [insert pointless date here]" it makes no sense. More and more people are gaining access to technology (or luxury) everyday. Yet people have the audacity to claim "OH GEE look at all the people we sold this too!" or "WOW this game sold X million copies, it must be the best!" You're falsely making claims based on an ever changing variable.
Obviously new games are going to sell to more people than the ones from years ago did. The gaming player base on the whole is growing so that would only make sense. Do not be a sheep though and fall for these numbers that game companies (especially Blizzard) throw around as if to show they have some how become enlightened and suddenly produced a superior game.
If they make a warcraft IV, I would want to play it too^^ would it be great? would it have lan, chat, etc and a game system that gives maximum depth? Question mark (and the art style?) but I think, chances are high that a ton of people would want to play it, bw sc2 w3 wow dota league of legends people and more... (maybe D2 D3..)
@FarmI3oy While I think that you are right about a growing playerbase, the growth isn't playing RTS. Most of the additions atm are Handy- and casual gamers. Teamshooter and Mobas generate amazing revenues because they attract hardcore and casual gamers.
RTS on the other hand (if you don't count Mobas) for many embody the nerd cliché and pretty much every RTS player I know is a history geek. A large part of the community consists of elitists who glorify a 20 year old game enough that they bash everything that isn't that game, a.k.a. people you can't sell games to. Be it BW, CnC:RA2, AoE2 or whatever other ages old game with terrible controls you can find. Just look at what happened to DoW3.
What you describe is btw a problem for developers: Joysticks suck for RTS-controls, which means sales are going to be lower since you can't publish cross platform. Which is an inherent disadvantage of RTS.
And if you want more current numbers: 2010-2016 Sc2 created a total revenue of 542 Million $ (less than sc1 btw). Overwatch created more than a billion within the first year. source:+ Show Spoiler +
Not saying wc4 wouldn't sell, but I doubt it would create a breathing, long living community, no matter how good the game was. Also it's revenue would still be minor compared to Blizz current cash cows.
On May 24 2017 10:09 Archeon wrote: And if you want more current numbers: 2010-2016 Sc2 created a total revenue of 542 Million $ (less than sc1 btw). Overwatch created more than a billion within the first year. source:+ Show Spoiler +
Not saying wc4 wouldn't sell, but I doubt it would create a breathing, long living community, no matter how good the game was. Also it's revenue would still be minor compared to Blizz current cash cows.
thx for taking the time to respond.
according to the source u provided SC1 generated $437 million while SC2 generated $542.
i do not think this source is accurate. I think the source provided is high.
Once SC2:WoL hit 4.5 million units sold ATVI stopped talking about it. That was the Q1 2011 Investor call. HotS and LotV sold a million units and were never discussed again.
SC1 had the vast majority of its sales when the SC:Battle Chest was $30 or less. For example, In 2007 the SC:BattleChest was one of the top selling PC games at $20 USD.
I put SC's total franchise revenue at less than $0.7 Billion. It is far and away the most financially successful RTS franchise ever and Blizzard has done a great job on it.
On May 24 2017 06:57 AlphaAeffchen wrote: Warcraft 4 will make Blizzard a ton of money and it will skyrocket like Overwatch. Blizzard will make Warcraft 4 the only question is when. Mike Morhaine said that they will make the game someday and it will be an RTS. Warcraft frnachise is really powerfull and the fans want Warcraft 4!
I think what you're not recognizing, is that the Warcraft franchise is popular, but not the RTS. TFT only sold 3.5 million copies. Yeah Warcraft might sell a decent amount, but the issue is that if you spent the resources to make a Warcraft RPG, a Warcraft shooter, a Warcraft racing game, you would sell 10x more because people don't buy RTS.
On May 23 2017 02:54 Wildmoon wrote: It's not even a big reason. Not bigger than Chun Li as a big reason for Streetfighter's success Comparing Overwatch to D3 in terms of popularity is also silly because the former is a sustaining success while the latter just sold well initially but quickly declined afterward with a lot of criticism.
incorrect, 75% of D3 sales occurred after the game was 6 months old. Overwatch has only been out 1 year. D3 is the sustained success. Overwatch probably will be as well but its not 100% certain yet.
D3 is not a sustained sucess. The game has already lost its steam. D3 also released on console much later than PC which contributed to higher sale after 6 months. Overwatch released on all platform simulteneously.
Diablo 3 sold 15 millon copies before it even touched console. Most of those copies were after its initial release.
On May 24 2017 08:12 AlphaAeffchen wrote: The fact is that Mike Morhaine said after the interview with Chris Sigaety that there will be Warcraft 4 as an RTS in the future and that Blizzard will make it. Also Dustin Browder and other sources from Blizzard said that they are talking about a new RTS. WC 4 is guranteed. The only question is when. You have no clue about what your talking JimmyJRaynor.
Blizzard was very happy about the money made with starcraft and WC3. Even if ist not their top game they still support it and they made sc remastered.
""I can’t answer that because honestly we don’t know. Is it possible we work on something that steps on the toes of StarCraft? Yes, but there’s no intention to do that today, which is why I think it’s so critical and important how we treat it and how we continue to improve it and make things better - that matters. I think [StarCraft] absolutely stands as an amazing experience to both celebrate the people that get to that level of skill and quality and also to be able to watch and see that. While it’s possible we would [replace that], I don’t see it happening.""
its very possible they dont make War4 because of that.
On May 23 2017 18:50 paxconsciente wrote: wc3's team games are and always have been head and shoulders above S1 and sc2 and so has it's custom games, there is no denying it if you played war3 and s1+2 heavily. the fact is, if wc4 is released and they don't fuck it up, new fun and interesting custom games as well as remakes will be played once again both by old veterans and new players, dota will have a remake in the wc3 engine(which will be hugely popular among the die hard wc3 dota fans) without any of the changes that dota 2 has brought, and it's well known that wc3's campaign is pretty much the best RTS campaign of all time.
wc3 doesn't shine a light to s1 or even 2 in some instances when it comes to competitive 1v1 play, although it's still very interesting, but when it comes to pure fun I haven't seen an rts that does anything better then war3 has.
war 4 would be a massive success.
so to answer the question, the future right now is war 4, any other rts will always be pushed aside by mobas and shooters, and sc2 is just staying alive like all RTS do, people still play aoe2 and red alert.
Although it does make me wonder; why is Wc3 pretty much dead? Is it just, as a "fun" RTS, it is hurt significantly by being old and outdated as a game, and thus more casual gamers won't want to play it? SC1 is still around and loved, but WC3 is much smaller. If a WC4 came out and stuck pretty closely to the WC3 formula, could it be a massive success appealing to both casuals and competitive gamers the way LoL and OW have, or would it need to improve on the formula significantly?
War3 isnt dead. It still has a big competitive scene, on par with the Brood War scene.
i luv how people throw around "dead". Hell , Super Tecmo Bowl from 1991 still has a living breathing competitive scene. ESPN Covers their big event in April. NHL '94 from September 1993 still has a competitive scene...
On May 24 2017 13:08 lestye wrote: its very possible they dont make War4 because of that.
true, Blizzard does not cannibalize its own games. and they don't like splitting playerbases. look at how they are handling Overwatch. No expansion packs. No paid map packs etc. I can't see Blizzard splitting the limited RTS player base between 3 games, namely, SC1:RM, SC2:LotV, and WC4.
On May 24 2017 13:08 lestye wrote: its very possible they dont make War4 because of that.
true, Blizzard does not cannibalize its own games. and they don't like splitting playerbases. look at how they are handling Overwatch. No expansion packs. No paid map packs etc. I can't see Blizzard splitting the limited RTS player base between 3 games, namely, SC1:RM, SC2:LotV, and WC4.
Well technically it'd be 5 because of War3 remaster which its inevitably remastered in like 3-4 years.
I don't agree with your overall conclusion, since the SC1:RM foreign population is going to be very small, I think. They didnt even bother to mention it as an upcoming release in their earnings call.
I kinda hope you're wrong because I think itd be really cool to have multiple big RTS games with their own competitions, similar to how pro War3 and pro BW co-existed and how many fighting games they feature at those big FGC tournaments, but yeah, Sigaty did mention they dont want anything to step on SC2's toes so maybe thats the case.
On May 24 2017 13:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i luv how people throw around "dead". Hell , Super Tecmo Bowl from 1991 still has a living breathing competitive scene. ESPN Covers their big event in April. NHL '94 from September 1993 still has a competitive scene...
I hate it more than anything. Esp when people don't realize how small yet big SC2 is.It took 3 years for SC2 to sell 6 million copies meanwhile other esports have tens of millions people playing. SC2 is very well supported and loved considering how niche it really is in the grand scope of things.
I think "dead" to me is like Quake. where its literally one competition a year, only a couple hundred concurrent people playing.
On May 23 2017 18:50 paxconsciente wrote: wc3's team games are and always have been head and shoulders above S1 and sc2 and so has it's custom games, there is no denying it if you played war3 and s1+2 heavily. the fact is, if wc4 is released and they don't fuck it up, new fun and interesting custom games as well as remakes will be played once again both by old veterans and new players, dota will have a remake in the wc3 engine(which will be hugely popular among the die hard wc3 dota fans) without any of the changes that dota 2 has brought, and it's well known that wc3's campaign is pretty much the best RTS campaign of all time.
wc3 doesn't shine a light to s1 or even 2 in some instances when it comes to competitive 1v1 play, although it's still very interesting, but when it comes to pure fun I haven't seen an rts that does anything better then war3 has.
war 4 would be a massive success.
so to answer the question, the future right now is war 4, any other rts will always be pushed aside by mobas and shooters, and sc2 is just staying alive like all RTS do, people still play aoe2 and red alert.
Although it does make me wonder; why is Wc3 pretty much dead? Is it just, as a "fun" RTS, it is hurt significantly by being old and outdated as a game, and thus more casual gamers won't want to play it? SC1 is still around and loved, but WC3 is much smaller. If a WC4 came out and stuck pretty closely to the WC3 formula, could it be a massive success appealing to both casuals and competitive gamers the way LoL and OW have, or would it need to improve on the formula significantly?
War3 isnt dead. It still has a big competitive scene, on par with the Brood War scene.
I sincerely hope you are joking with that comment.
i think what is coming next for SC is a tablet/smartphone game similar to Clash of Clans.
On May 24 2017 08:12 AlphaAeffchen wrote: The fact is that Mike Morhaine said after the interview with Chris Sigaety that there will be Warcraft 4 The next step will be WC 4.
source? i need some context to believe this. was this an in depth lengthy interview about RTS games or a throwaway comment filled with PR speak because Morhaime was really covering some other topic or event.
On May 23 2017 18:50 paxconsciente wrote: wc3's team games are and always have been head and shoulders above S1 and sc2 and so has it's custom games, there is no denying it if you played war3 and s1+2 heavily. the fact is, if wc4 is released and they don't fuck it up, new fun and interesting custom games as well as remakes will be played once again both by old veterans and new players, dota will have a remake in the wc3 engine(which will be hugely popular among the die hard wc3 dota fans) without any of the changes that dota 2 has brought, and it's well known that wc3's campaign is pretty much the best RTS campaign of all time.
wc3 doesn't shine a light to s1 or even 2 in some instances when it comes to competitive 1v1 play, although it's still very interesting, but when it comes to pure fun I haven't seen an rts that does anything better then war3 has.
war 4 would be a massive success.
so to answer the question, the future right now is war 4, any other rts will always be pushed aside by mobas and shooters, and sc2 is just staying alive like all RTS do, people still play aoe2 and red alert.
Although it does make me wonder; why is Wc3 pretty much dead? Is it just, as a "fun" RTS, it is hurt significantly by being old and outdated as a game, and thus more casual gamers won't want to play it? SC1 is still around and loved, but WC3 is much smaller. If a WC4 came out and stuck pretty closely to the WC3 formula, could it be a massive success appealing to both casuals and competitive gamers the way LoL and OW have, or would it need to improve on the formula significantly?
War3 isnt dead. It still has a big competitive scene, on par with the Brood War scene.
I sincerely hope you are joking with that comment.
No. War3 has hundreds of thousands of dollars in prize money and tournaments in China.
On May 23 2017 18:50 paxconsciente wrote: wc3's team games are and always have been head and shoulders above S1 and sc2 and so has it's custom games, there is no denying it if you played war3 and s1+2 heavily. the fact is, if wc4 is released and they don't fuck it up, new fun and interesting custom games as well as remakes will be played once again both by old veterans and new players, dota will have a remake in the wc3 engine(which will be hugely popular among the die hard wc3 dota fans) without any of the changes that dota 2 has brought, and it's well known that wc3's campaign is pretty much the best RTS campaign of all time.
wc3 doesn't shine a light to s1 or even 2 in some instances when it comes to competitive 1v1 play, although it's still very interesting, but when it comes to pure fun I haven't seen an rts that does anything better then war3 has.
war 4 would be a massive success.
so to answer the question, the future right now is war 4, any other rts will always be pushed aside by mobas and shooters, and sc2 is just staying alive like all RTS do, people still play aoe2 and red alert.
Although it does make me wonder; why is Wc3 pretty much dead? Is it just, as a "fun" RTS, it is hurt significantly by being old and outdated as a game, and thus more casual gamers won't want to play it? SC1 is still around and loved, but WC3 is much smaller. If a WC4 came out and stuck pretty closely to the WC3 formula, could it be a massive success appealing to both casuals and competitive gamers the way LoL and OW have, or would it need to improve on the formula significantly?
War3 isnt dead. It still has a big competitive scene, on par with the Brood War scene.
I sincerely hope you are joking with that comment.
No. War3 has hundreds of thousands of dollars in prize money and tournaments in China.
My comment wasn't about the comparison to Brood War, but rather the idea that they both have "big competitive scenes." They are quite small in comparison to other esports.
On May 23 2017 18:50 paxconsciente wrote: wc3's team games are and always have been head and shoulders above S1 and sc2 and so has it's custom games, there is no denying it if you played war3 and s1+2 heavily. the fact is, if wc4 is released and they don't fuck it up, new fun and interesting custom games as well as remakes will be played once again both by old veterans and new players, dota will have a remake in the wc3 engine(which will be hugely popular among the die hard wc3 dota fans) without any of the changes that dota 2 has brought, and it's well known that wc3's campaign is pretty much the best RTS campaign of all time.
wc3 doesn't shine a light to s1 or even 2 in some instances when it comes to competitive 1v1 play, although it's still very interesting, but when it comes to pure fun I haven't seen an rts that does anything better then war3 has.
war 4 would be a massive success.
so to answer the question, the future right now is war 4, any other rts will always be pushed aside by mobas and shooters, and sc2 is just staying alive like all RTS do, people still play aoe2 and red alert.
Although it does make me wonder; why is Wc3 pretty much dead? Is it just, as a "fun" RTS, it is hurt significantly by being old and outdated as a game, and thus more casual gamers won't want to play it? SC1 is still around and loved, but WC3 is much smaller. If a WC4 came out and stuck pretty closely to the WC3 formula, could it be a massive success appealing to both casuals and competitive gamers the way LoL and OW have, or would it need to improve on the formula significantly?
War3 isnt dead. It still has a big competitive scene, on par with the Brood War scene.
I sincerely hope you are joking with that comment.
No. War3 has hundreds of thousands of dollars in prize money and tournaments in China.
My comment wasn't about the comparison to Brood War, but rather the idea that they both have "big competitive scenes." They are quite small in comparison to other esports.
Ah, I suppose you're right, my bad, I shouldnt say "big", I guess I should say "considerable" size. Certainly not "dead" though
On May 24 2017 13:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i luv how people throw around "dead". Hell , Super Tecmo Bowl from 1991 still has a living breathing competitive scene. ESPN Covers their big event in April. NHL '94 from September 1993 still has a competitive scene...
On May 24 2017 13:08 lestye wrote: its very possible they dont make War4 because of that.
true, Blizzard does not cannibalize its own games. and they don't like splitting playerbases. look at how they are handling Overwatch. No expansion packs. No paid map packs etc. I can't see Blizzard splitting the limited RTS player base between 3 games, namely, SC1:RM, SC2:LotV, and WC4.
Blizzard isn't the old Blizzard you maybe once knew, anymore, if you didn't realize that up until now, you probably never will. Also 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.
On May 24 2017 13:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i luv how people throw around "dead". Hell , Super Tecmo Bowl from 1991 still has a living breathing competitive scene. ESPN Covers their big event in April. NHL '94 from September 1993 still has a competitive scene...
On May 24 2017 13:08 lestye wrote: its very possible they dont make War4 because of that.
true, Blizzard does not cannibalize its own games. and they don't like splitting playerbases. look at how they are handling Overwatch. No expansion packs. No paid map packs etc. I can't see Blizzard splitting the limited RTS player base between 3 games, namely, SC1:RM, SC2:LotV, and WC4.
Blizzard isn't the old Blizzard you maybe once knew, anymore, if you didn't realize that up until now, you probably never will. Also 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.
You're being way unfair. Blizzard is still a company that puts out games with exceptional high quality. Overwatch went from 0 to hero in competitive gaming (casual and eSports) in an incredible pace.
The thing is, even Blizzard can't change the market, only adjust to it. RTS started to go out of flavor even before SC2 was released. That SC2 still had such a massive popularity and still a huge fanbase to this day is just a testiment to Blizzard's ability to make quality games.
I like to blame Blizzard for a lot of bad decisions they made in my opinion, but they're still a great game developer.
I should imagine a steady decline until the pro scene is not Blizz funded anymore and basically ending Sc2 as a current popular game. Hopefully followed by an annoucement for Wc4! I must admit I do have reservations for a potential Wc4, mostly due to the likely outcome of Blizz developing for WoW kids. Wc2 was one of my first RTS games and I really liked the game, but I enjoyed the changes in Wc3 and liked that game even more. I am just nervous about modern Blizz making a Warcraft game post WoW. Wc4 would get so many players though and the hype would be massive. Possible the last hope for a AAA RTS to rejuvenate the genre.
On May 24 2017 20:09 KrOjah wrote: I should imagine a steady decline until the pro scene is not Blizz funded anymore and basically ending Sc2 as a current popular game. Hopefully followed by an annoucement for Wc4! I must admit I do have reservations for a potential Wc4, mostly due to the likely outcome of Blizz developing for WoW kids. Wc2 was one of my first RTS games and I really liked the game, but I enjoyed the changes in Wc3 and liked that game even more. I am just nervous about modern Blizz making a Warcraft game post WoW. Wc4 would get so many players though and the hype would be massive. Possible the last hope for a AAA RTS to rejuvenate the genre.
There is never going to be a magical game that rejuvenates the genre. Sc2 sold millions of copies and brought so many people into the fold and it didn't rejuvenate anything. A best selling game doesn't excuse the fact that other companies suck at making competitive rts that don't sell well.
First of all, I think Blizzard knows the appeal of its Warcraft franchise (accounting for WoW, Hearthstone, books, movies and everything) and the anticipation level for a Warcraft 4 game.
I can really imagine WC4 being a XvX "arena-type" objective-based game with emphasis on teamplay, map control, small armies micro, and a bit of simplified base building. And would distance itself from macro-mechanics even more (maybe "auto-queues", no pylon building, no workers, etc...). I don't think a typical RTS with emphasis on "stuff that the audience don't really care to see" will work as any more than a niche game, certainly not as an eSports mainstay. People want the flashy micro, the team fights, the tactical handling of the map and all that.
If I were you guys, I wouldn't wait for WC4 to be "the next RTS".
Edit: In addition, I think we've all come to realize that actual long-term strategy is difficult to get right in real-time video games. I never found SC2 particularly strategic, although it's certainly tactical at times. It's very fun for me to play all the same, but I don't really see the strategic depth of it. In fact, I don't really know of any current RTS games that emphasize actual strategy. The outcome of the games seems to be based on the outcome of small localized events, rather than overarching plans made by players. It's quite funny to me that "strategies" are what Koreans call cheese builds :D. Some gameplans are indeed "strategic", but there isn't really any interaction between players on that level. At best you have some kind of poker-like rock-paper-scissors within a BoX. I'm willing to be proven otherwise with actual examples in typical RTS like BW, SC2 or others though.
On May 24 2017 20:09 KrOjah wrote: I should imagine a steady decline until the pro scene is not Blizz funded anymore and basically ending Sc2 as a current popular game. Hopefully followed by an annoucement for Wc4! I must admit I do have reservations for a potential Wc4, mostly due to the likely outcome of Blizz developing for WoW kids. Wc2 was one of my first RTS games and I really liked the game, but I enjoyed the changes in Wc3 and liked that game even more. I am just nervous about modern Blizz making a Warcraft game post WoW. Wc4 would get so many players though and the hype would be massive. Possible the last hope for a AAA RTS to rejuvenate the genre.
There is never going to be a magical game that rejuvenates the genre. Sc2 sold millions of copies and brought so many people into the fold and it didn't rejuvenate anything. A best selling game doesn't excuse the fact that other companies suck at making competitive rts that don't sell well.
What make of crystal ball are you using? Something like Wc4 is much more likely to get interest in a modern market (if it follows in the style of Wc3.) I feel like heavily macro based RTS is played at this point (apart from SC Remaster which is targeted at a very specific region) but Wc4 could give that hero micromanagement that is so popular in modern gaming along with base building and more scope for epic play. If Blizz are not already secretly in early development stages with Wc4 then it is a big consideration for them. It will generate interest from multiple genres and multiple regions.
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.
On May 24 2017 21:52 KrOjah wrote: What make of crystal ball are you using? ... If Blizz are not already secretly in early development stages with Wc4 then it is a big consideration for them. It will generate interest from multiple genres and multiple regions.
i guess your crystal ball is more reliable. Based on how little money SC2 made from 2010 to 2017 compared to Overwatch, DIablo3, WoW, and Heathstone ... another RTS is not a reasonable expectation.
Furthermore, the # of Blizzard veterans who've left SC2 for greener pastures is a sign that EVEN THE BEST EMPLOYEES don't want to work on RTS games because they know they themselves can't make major cash by working on an RTS game. The Blizzard RTS team is filled with orphaned employees coming from dead companies that used to work on RTS games
SC2 is already on its 4th designer guy... Pardo, Browder, Kim, ????
When Rob Pardo's new company makes an RTS lemme know.
Does Blizzard hide the identity of its top employees in other games? Why are they doing that for the multiplayer design lead? Because Blizzard feels Kim received undue, unwarranted personal abuse that this community routinely dishes out and feels they are justified in calling for the injury of Blizzard employees.
It is only about how many hats you have sold in the past month, blizzard want to get on the same train like riot and valve. hello overwatch, hello hearthstone. It is only making more money, less work for the money, logical in a business mind.
On May 24 2017 21:52 KrOjah wrote: What make of crystal ball are you using? ... If Blizz are not already secretly in early development stages with Wc4 then it is a big consideration for them. It will generate interest from multiple genres and multiple regions.
i guess your crystal ball is more reliable. Based on how little money SC2 made from 2010 to 2017 compared to Overwatch, DIablo3, WoW, and Heathstone ... another RTS is not a reasonable expectation.
Furthermore, the # of Blizzard veterans who've left SC2 for greener pastures is a sign that EVEN THE BEST EMPLOYEES don't want to work on RTS games because they know they themselves can't make major cash by working on an RTS game. The Blizzard RTS team is filled with orphaned employees coming from dead companies that used to work on RTS games
SC2 is already on its 4th designer guy... Pardo, Browder, Kim, ????
When Rob Pardo's new company makes an RTS lemme know.
Does Blizzard hide the identity of its top employees in other games? Why are they doing that for the multiplayer design lead? Because Blizzard feels Kim received undue, unwarranted personal abuse that this community routinely dishes out and feels they are justified in calling for the injury of Blizzard employees.
Well I am more about logically sound predictions than reading into the future and declaring my thoughts as facts. The only crystal ball moment I had was that Wc4 is at least being considered. And considering it's the Warcraft brand that can transcend conceptions on what is popular and what is not in gaming, I think it's a fairly reasonable one. You just seem to go on rather boring rants name dropping Blizz devs in sometimes random fashions. The good points you may have are tangled amongst a load of bs.
On May 24 2017 22:47 CrymeaTerran wrote: It is only about how many hats you have sold in the past month, blizzard want to get on the same train like riot and valve. hello overwatch, hello hearthstone. It is only making more money, less work for the money, logical in a business mind.
I don't think Blizzard is afraid to develop costly games or to go against the flow. I daresay Overwatch was challenging to develop and not really following any trend at the time of conception (TF2 wasn't really selling like hot cakes...). They're not hopping on some train like a third-grade dev studio because they can't do anything else. It's just that people don't want to play RTS anymore, simple as that.
First of all i want to say that you are the most negative person on Team Liquid. You have no evidence that Blizzard is not thinking of making Warcraft 4. All of your assumptions are out of the blue and have no proofs in it (even the interview with Chris Sigaety).
Mike Morhaine said that Warcraft 4 will happen someday. The only question is when. Here is the Link (you wanted the source):
I asked Dustin Browder after this interview if WC 4 is a possibility and he said that they are thinking about it.
For the last time SC 2 did make Revenue and Blizzard is very satisfied with it. Its true that other franchises from Blizzard made more money but that is not the only goal for Blizzard. They are dominating the RTS Scene. Games like Dota and League of Legends came from RTS games and are now the most played games in E-Sport.
One of Blizzards goals is to dominate E-sports (Mike Morhaine said this sorry i dont have the source any more). They dont do it with Overwatch. They dont do it with Heroes of the Storm. But Starcraft did dominate the E-Sport Scene for a long time.
Warcraft 4 would be a possibility to dominate E-sports. Warcraft 3 was a huge success in Europe.
1 v 1 games are still played and not evereything is about teamgames.
Warcraft 4 could get Archon mode or more Team modes. This is not the problem!
Starcraft 2 was very popular.and sold many copies. The problem is that the game is good but that Blizzard made many mistakes and didnt patch the game often enough. This cost us many players!
In everey year companys are making RTS games or games with some RTS elements.
Halo Wars 2 >>>Did sell many copies
Dawn of war 3>>> Bad game but was in steam sell charts
Total War Warhammer>>> Has RTS elements and sold over 500.000 copies on day 1
There are still many games that will be developed for rts players but the truth is that Blizzard did the best RTS games.
These games are SC BW, SC II, WC 3
One indicator is that Blizzard will continue development of RTS games is the remastered version of BW. This is especially for the Korean Scene. Do you think they wouldnt make this game if there would be no money in RTS games? You were very unhappy about it and you said that you would like Blizzard to go in other directions and not rts!
I do know that there maybe 3-4 years untill we see WC 4 or an another RTS from Blizzard but it will happen.
At the Moment Blizzard has more than 1 secret project in development. One could be an another RTS because Browder moved away from Hereos of the Storm and David Kim from SC 2. They both only developed E-Sport titles for Blizzard which always had at least rts mechanics or like heroes of the storm WC 3 mechanics in it.
They will never ever make a mobile game or a singleplayergame which has nothing to do with E-sports. Blizzard has other developpers for it.
JimmyJRaynor you are the biggest troll here i have ever seen. Everey post about RTS games you make is wrong and negative. You have no clue about the bad state gameplaywhise SC 2 is at the moment. You defend Blizzard for no reason and you are happy to tell people that Blizzard wont make an another RTS. Which is false. Im done here an will never reply to a post from you again!
Warcraft 4 or an another RTS game from Blizzard will happen someday. The only question is when!
"“We love RTS games but right now our focus is still continuing to evolve StarCraft II – and to the extent that MOBA games are RTS – continue supporting and evolving Heroes of the Storm. I love that there is so much passion and interest around Warcraft IV. I would love to see Warcraft IV at some point in the future, but that is not our current focus.”"
Would love to see it be made is not the same thing as we're goign to make it in the future. That's not really conclusive. ESPECIALLY since he says before MOBAs are an RTS and half of Team 1 are working on HOTS.
On May 24 2017 22:47 CrymeaTerran wrote: It is only about how many hats you have sold in the past month, blizzard want to get on the same train like riot and valve. hello overwatch, hello hearthstone. It is only making more money, less work for the money, logical in a business mind.
You mean the entire industry?
JimmyJRaynor you are the biggest troll here i have ever seen. Everey post about RTS games you make is wrong and negative. You have no clue about the bad state gameplaywhise SC 2 is at the moment. You defend Blizzard for no reason and you are happy to tell people that Blizzard wont make an another RTS. Which is false. Im done here an will never reply to a post from you again!
Jimmy praises/defends Blizzards all the time. He just doesn't feel that they're not going to make it from a business standpoint. That doesn't seem overly negative given the state of the genre.
On May 24 2017 20:09 KrOjah wrote: I should imagine a steady decline until the pro scene is not Blizz funded anymore and basically ending Sc2 as a current popular game. Hopefully followed by an annoucement for Wc4! I must admit I do have reservations for a potential Wc4, mostly due to the likely outcome of Blizz developing for WoW kids. Wc2 was one of my first RTS games and I really liked the game, but I enjoyed the changes in Wc3 and liked that game even more. I am just nervous about modern Blizz making a Warcraft game post WoW. Wc4 would get so many players though and the hype would be massive. Possible the last hope for a AAA RTS to rejuvenate the genre.
There is never going to be a magical game that rejuvenates the genre. Sc2 sold millions of copies and brought so many people into the fold and it didn't rejuvenate anything. A best selling game doesn't excuse the fact that other companies suck at making competitive rts that don't sell well.
What make of crystal ball are you using? Something like Wc4 is much more likely to get interest in a modern market (if it follows in the style of Wc3.) I feel like heavily macro based RTS is played at this point (apart from SC Remaster which is targeted at a very specific region) but Wc4 could give that hero micromanagement that is so popular in modern gaming along with base building and more scope for epic play. If Blizz are not already secretly in early development stages with Wc4 then it is a big consideration for them. It will generate interest from multiple genres and multiple regions.
i was only disputing the idea that an RTS can come around that will "rejuvenate the genre". There's no precedence for that. If Warcraft 4 did come out, there would still be the same problem. You'd have Warcraft 4, SC2, Total War off to the side, and a bunch of Petroglyph games in the genre.
And my issue with your statement is that anything Blizzard will do will get interest from the modern market. It could be a Blizzard RPG or whatever. RTS has tons of problem as its not a very popular genre, its limited to PC platforms, and its overall very difficult and time consuming to make a good one.
look for a Starcraft game that has action elements and strategy elements that plays on a Smartphone and/or Tablet. maybe one that appeals to the "Clash of Clans" type of mobile player.
now that the full context of the Morhaime interview has been provided i think its unrealistic to wait for a WC4 RTS game.
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.
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 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 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.
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 02:22 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.
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 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.
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 02:22 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 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.
EPT
