|
On November 28 2016 06:57 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:49 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 28 2016 06:23 Poopi wrote:On November 28 2016 05:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 28 2016 05:44 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 28 2016 05:05 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote:
This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous... It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game" I don't think the dead game comments are appropriate (nor is this thread in my opinion), and I don't make those comments. But I don't think they had any influence. Sponsors are smart enough to look at the viewership, which has been in steady decline, long before we got dead game comments. Starcraft is declining because of game design decisions. I didn't watch the video though, not interested to watch a french video when the person is european and could have done an english video instead. Only europeans can make english videos? :o. No but if you limit yourself as a central european by making it french when you really should be able to do it in english then i am not wasting my time by watching a 40 minute video with subtitles. If the same video would be made by a korean i would be able to understand why it's not in english and give the person the benefit of the doubt. In this case it's simply annoying. That doesn't mean that only the western world can make english videos, but i expect it here, yes. Just like TL expects us to write in english. I don't understand this, if it is easier to make his point in his own language he should do it in that language. Doing a 40 minutes speech in another language is super hard, there is no need to do a mediocre video in English if you can make a good one in french. It's way easier for us to read subtitle for us then for him to do a video in English.
I am not necessarily saying that he should do an english video in the first place. But when he wants to get his ideas out there then it would be better to either have an english video, or the english text as a whole. I am not going to watch a 40 minute video when in the end the text probably could be read in 5 minutes. It's a waste of time. That's the problem here. And yes i expect europeans to be able to do that, i wouldn't expect the same if i wanted to know the ideas of a korean progamer though for obvious reasons. I understand why he did the video in french, i do not understand why there wasn't more work involved when presenting the ideas to a wider audience. But this thread shouldn't be about this discussion anyway, so whatever.
|
On November 28 2016 04:04 Hexe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 03:48 chocomaro wrote:
Every month or two there's a balance change.
And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it".
That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used. That's a crucial point. If the balance had been tighter when GSL's first kicked into gear, that would have set a better foundation. Along similar lines, battle.net 2.0 was godawful for years. There were no chat channels. Setting up tournament games was a god damn nightmare, and professional players couldn't block spammers for a time. Lan wasn't the biggest thing, but it would have made the process smoother. However, I will never forget when SC2 pushed effing Halo out of the mainstage at MLG. That was incredible. SC2 could have been THE juggernaut of e-sports. It still is the highest competitive one by leagues.
I always found this attitude to be one of the many problems in the SC2 community. People were never happy with their own game's relative popularity and success, it always had to be the greatest game ever, that everyone looked to as the best game of all time, period. As evidenced by this post, it is not enough that it achieved success, it had to be better than Halo. The gameplay? That's not the primary concern. The primary concern is how many viewers its getting and whether its beating Halo or league of legends.
Would you see the same attitude from Halo gamers, league of legends gamers? I don't think so. They couldn't care less. They just enjoy whatever game they enjoy and leave other people to enjoy their games. With many SC2 fans, they are constantly looking at the viewer counts, trying to convince everyone and themselves that their game is the best game ever. In a way I'm kind of glad that that kind of attitude never amounted to anything. It just smacks of such elitism, that I am kind of happy SC2 is declining just so we won't have to hear about it anymore.
Anyway the difference between declining and dead is largely immaterial. Technically half life 1 is not a dead game either, because you have some tiny community playing in online servers this very moment. It is basically a 'ded gaem', but again it shouldn't matter. All that matters is whether you have fun playing it, or at least had fun. Time to move on! 
|
On November 28 2016 07:01 bo1b wrote:
People blaming the cost is fucking stupid tbh.
It's a huge barrier of entry though. Tons of people bought LotV this weekend thanks to the blick friday sale. If the price goes down to 10 or 15 bucks permanently that would be fine, but it will take forever. Making the multiplayer free and selling the campaigns ingame would just make so much more sense I think, especially now that they started to sell stuff like voice packs and skins.
A free multiplayer was the one announcement I really expected at BlizzCon tbh.
|
On November 28 2016 07:12 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 07:01 bo1b wrote:
People blaming the cost is fucking stupid tbh. It's a huge barrier of entry though. Tons of people bought LotV this weekend thanks to the blick friday sale. If the price goes down to 10 or 15 bucks permanently that would be fine, but it will take forever. Making the multiplayer free and selling the campaigns ingame would just make so much more sense I think, especially now that they started to sell stuff like voice packs and skins. A free multiplayer was the one announcement I really expected at BlizzCon tbh.
For a competitive game if you can't justify the cost of the game, you can't justify spending the time to get good at it either. It's not prohibitively expensive.
The biggest failure is blizzards complete anti grassroots style of business (no lan etc) which is required probably more then anything to create a self sustaining competitive game.
There are games that are significantly harder to play then sc2 (melee, gg xrd etc) which both have arguably a higher barrier of entry, and the first is unarguably a larger scene and growing.
It's a massive copout to blame everything but the game when a game is dying. It's an even bigger copout to blame cost when millions already own the game, they just don't like it.
|
On November 28 2016 07:17 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 07:12 Musicus wrote:On November 28 2016 07:01 bo1b wrote:
People blaming the cost is fucking stupid tbh. It's a huge barrier of entry though. Tons of people bought LotV this weekend thanks to the blick friday sale. If the price goes down to 10 or 15 bucks permanently that would be fine, but it will take forever. Making the multiplayer free and selling the campaigns ingame would just make so much more sense I think, especially now that they started to sell stuff like voice packs and skins. A free multiplayer was the one announcement I really expected at BlizzCon tbh. For a competitive game if you can't justify the cost of the game, you can't justify spending the time to get good at it either. It's not prohibitively expensive. The biggest failure is blizzards complete anti grassroots style of business (no lan etc) which is required probably more then anything to create a self sustaining competitive game. There are games that are significantly harder to play then sc2 (melee, gg xrd etc) which both have arguably a higher barrier of entry, and the first is unarguably a larger scene and growing. It's a massive copout to blame everything but the game when a game is dying. It's an even bigger copout to blame cost when millions already own the game, they just don't like it.
It is only a copout to blame one factor if it is the only factor you consider you and pretend it is the only important one.
That is true for any factor you can come up with though. There surely are factors which are more relevant than others, but the truth is that nobody here actually knows what % it actually is in any case.
So yes, free multiplayer would help a lot, more people would try it and thus more people would keep playing it.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36999 Posts
On November 28 2016 05:07 outscar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 03:49 Ppjack wrote:shouldn't all the dead game prophets be banned from TL ? thought it was against the rules Where's Seeker who's been stalking me and banning for 1 week freaking twice for nothing? I didn't even get answer from him. Entire thread is about "dead game" concept. Why no one gets banned this time, huh?!!! Are you man enough now to admit this? Or you gonna repeat again? If I get ban this is joke... I'm going to write directly to Nazgul.
If you have a problem with moderation, take it to Website Feedback.
|
On November 28 2016 03:41 Pseudorandom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 03:31 Nakajin wrote:On November 28 2016 03:25 XenOsky- wrote:
Is not a good game, it never was, no need to overcomplicate over this. Blizzard tryied to force the game into korea's mainstream and didn't work, it was kinda popular in the west for a little while but League Of Legends is far superior in terms of spectating, and the fact that the game is free to play just killed sc2. It's one of the biggest best selling pc game of the last decade, and got a huge following for many year with still tens of thousand of people playing it. I think it's fair to say it is a good game. Well, the campaign was super fun for WoL and HotS (never got LotV myself), but I don't think the multiplayer has ever been enough in Sc2 to carry the game.
Huh, there sure a lot of people playing the game, and on a community website about the game, for multiplayer thats not even fun.
On November 28 2016 07:12 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 07:01 bo1b wrote:
People blaming the cost is fucking stupid tbh. It's a huge barrier of entry though. Tons of people bought LotV this weekend thanks to the blick friday sale. If the price goes down to 10 or 15 bucks permanently that would be fine, but it will take forever. Making the multiplayer free and selling the campaigns ingame would just make so much more sense I think, especially now that they started to sell stuff like voice packs and skins. A free multiplayer was the one announcement I really expected at BlizzCon tbh.
I don't think that will ever happen. i don't think that will ever happen. Give Starcraft is vulnerable to hacking like most FPS, it makes sense to put a cost on it to mitigate cheating.
I really hate titles like this. Can someone actually look at what an ACTUAL dead game looks like before saying Starcraft is dead? Like really. It's far from dead. You're putting Starcraft in the same boat as Command & Conquer 3, Giant Bomb, Quake, Sure, it looks pitiful to multi-mutli- million player MOBAs, but Starcraft was never going to be THAT popular again. Especially in the West where RTS esports wasn't exactly the most popular thing historically.
There's a lot more competition for esports nowadays, a lot more social, easy to get into, social games that way more people would be way more invested in. Starcraft 2 had a huge 2 year burst of popularity since there was that void of competition, and then as more games came out, it went back to the status quo of earlier years. Compare the foreign Brood War tournament scene in 2005 to Counterstrike 1.6 and you'll see what I mean.
|
On November 28 2016 07:17 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 07:12 Musicus wrote:On November 28 2016 07:01 bo1b wrote:
People blaming the cost is fucking stupid tbh. It's a huge barrier of entry though. Tons of people bought LotV this weekend thanks to the blick friday sale. If the price goes down to 10 or 15 bucks permanently that would be fine, but it will take forever. Making the multiplayer free and selling the campaigns ingame would just make so much more sense I think, especially now that they started to sell stuff like voice packs and skins. A free multiplayer was the one announcement I really expected at BlizzCon tbh. For a competitive game if you can't justify the cost of the game, you can't justify spending the time to get good at it either. It's not prohibitively expensive. The biggest failure is blizzards complete anti grassroots style of business (no lan etc) which is required probably more then anything to create a self sustaining competitive game. There are games that are significantly harder to play then sc2 (melee, gg xrd etc) which both have arguably a higher barrier of entry, and the first is unarguably a larger scene and growing. It's a massive copout to blame everything but the game when a game is dying. It's an even bigger copout to blame cost when millions already own the game, they just don't like it.
There are multiple reasons of course, but f2p is one for sure. And players will always stop playing a game, so it does not matter how many people bought it in the past. People stop playing LoL, Dota and Hearthstone all the time, but a lot of new players start too.
Btw with new players I especially mean young new players. We want 12 years old to start playing sc2 and for them f2p is literally the biggest factor that makes them try out a new game. They can for sure afford spending the time to get good at sc2, but might not be able to spend the money. In markets like Russia and China f2p is even more important.
Another factor is that nowadays players want an incentive to keep playing. As FireCake said, in sc2 that is just losing or winning, that's it. Players want to unlock stuff through playing and that's something f2p games offer. Play, get some coins or something, unlock new skins etc... repeat.
Just getting better is not enough reason for casual players to keep playing, for my friends that play LoL, CS:GO and Overwatch it's all about loot boxes, skins, new weapons etc... and stuff like that could be in a f2p sc2. I think Blizzard realised that and it will happen soon, but it's just really late.
|
On November 28 2016 07:28 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 03:41 Pseudorandom wrote:On November 28 2016 03:31 Nakajin wrote:On November 28 2016 03:25 XenOsky- wrote:
Is not a good game, it never was, no need to overcomplicate over this. Blizzard tryied to force the game into korea's mainstream and didn't work, it was kinda popular in the west for a little while but League Of Legends is far superior in terms of spectating, and the fact that the game is free to play just killed sc2. It's one of the biggest best selling pc game of the last decade, and got a huge following for many year with still tens of thousand of people playing it. I think it's fair to say it is a good game. Well, the campaign was super fun for WoL and HotS (never got LotV myself), but I don't think the multiplayer has ever been enough in Sc2 to carry the game. Huh, there sure a lot of people playing the game, and on a community website about the game, for multiplayer thats not even fun. Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 07:12 Musicus wrote:On November 28 2016 07:01 bo1b wrote:
People blaming the cost is fucking stupid tbh. It's a huge barrier of entry though. Tons of people bought LotV this weekend thanks to the blick friday sale. If the price goes down to 10 or 15 bucks permanently that would be fine, but it will take forever. Making the multiplayer free and selling the campaigns ingame would just make so much more sense I think, especially now that they started to sell stuff like voice packs and skins. A free multiplayer was the one announcement I really expected at BlizzCon tbh. I don't think that will ever happen. i don't think that will ever happen. Give Starcraft is vulnerable to hacking like most FPS, it makes sense to put a cost on it to mitigate cheating.
If that is really the only way to counteract hacking it's really sad tbh. But if it is indeed like that, then at least make it cheap like CS:GO and offer an ingame currency and rewards for playing the game. Even daily quests like in HS and Heroes would be cool.
|
On November 28 2016 05:21 outscar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 04:49 Neric wrote:
It is very simple: The game got destroyed by expansions. You can see a similar problem with other titles like WoW. I highly agree with this, WoW is quiet good example. Those fellas who launched petition for returning vanilla WoW are like BW players which want their game back.
Except vanilla folks like would like to just have an option to play on those old servers. We dont wanna destroy retail players or we arent jumping on their throat everytime some dead gaem memes comes up... We just want to coexist in piece together as a community meanwhile this is literally war between BW and SC2... it can't just be StarCraft... regardless if guy or lady likes BW or LoTV....
|
On November 28 2016 07:35 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 07:28 lestye wrote:On November 28 2016 03:41 Pseudorandom wrote:On November 28 2016 03:31 Nakajin wrote:On November 28 2016 03:25 XenOsky- wrote:
Is not a good game, it never was, no need to overcomplicate over this. Blizzard tryied to force the game into korea's mainstream and didn't work, it was kinda popular in the west for a little while but League Of Legends is far superior in terms of spectating, and the fact that the game is free to play just killed sc2. It's one of the biggest best selling pc game of the last decade, and got a huge following for many year with still tens of thousand of people playing it. I think it's fair to say it is a good game. Well, the campaign was super fun for WoL and HotS (never got LotV myself), but I don't think the multiplayer has ever been enough in Sc2 to carry the game. Huh, there sure a lot of people playing the game, and on a community website about the game, for multiplayer thats not even fun. On November 28 2016 07:12 Musicus wrote:On November 28 2016 07:01 bo1b wrote:
People blaming the cost is fucking stupid tbh. It's a huge barrier of entry though. Tons of people bought LotV this weekend thanks to the blick friday sale. If the price goes down to 10 or 15 bucks permanently that would be fine, but it will take forever. Making the multiplayer free and selling the campaigns ingame would just make so much more sense I think, especially now that they started to sell stuff like voice packs and skins. A free multiplayer was the one announcement I really expected at BlizzCon tbh. I don't think that will ever happen. i don't think that will ever happen. Give Starcraft is vulnerable to hacking like most FPS, it makes sense to put a cost on it to mitigate cheating. If that is really the only way to counteract hacking it's really sad tbh. But if it is indeed like that, then at least make it cheap like CS:GO and offer an ingame currency and rewards for playing the game. Even daily quests like in HS and Heroes would be cool.
That's not the only way, but that's a limiting way. And that's why CS:GO and Starcraft are kinda forced to it, because unlike MOBAs, a lot of the stuff is done client side.
|
On November 28 2016 07:10 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 04:04 Hexe wrote:On November 28 2016 03:48 chocomaro wrote:
Every month or two there's a balance change.
And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it".
That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used. That's a crucial point. If the balance had been tighter when GSL's first kicked into gear, that would have set a better foundation. Along similar lines, battle.net 2.0 was godawful for years. There were no chat channels. Setting up tournament games was a god damn nightmare, and professional players couldn't block spammers for a time. Lan wasn't the biggest thing, but it would have made the process smoother. However, I will never forget when SC2 pushed effing Halo out of the mainstage at MLG. That was incredible. SC2 could have been THE juggernaut of e-sports. It still is the highest competitive one by leagues. I always found this attitude to be one of the many problems in the SC2 community. People were never happy with their own game's relative popularity and success, it always had to be the greatest game ever, that everyone looked to as the best game of all time, period. As evidenced by this post, it is not enough that it achieved success, it had to be better than Halo. The gameplay? That's not the primary concern. The primary concern is how many viewers its getting and whether its beating Halo or league of legends. Would you see the same attitude from Halo gamers, league of legends gamers? I don't think so. They couldn't care less. They just enjoy whatever game they enjoy and leave other people to enjoy their games. With many SC2 fans, they are constantly looking at the viewer counts, trying to convince everyone and themselves that their game is the best game ever. In a way I'm kind of glad that that kind of attitude never amounted to anything. It just smacks of such elitism, that I am kind of happy SC2 is declining just so we won't have to hear about it anymore. Anyway the difference between declining and dead is largely immaterial. Technically half life 1 is not a dead game either, because you have some tiny community playing in online servers this very moment. It is basically a 'ded gaem', but again it shouldn't matter. All that matters is whether you have fun playing it, or at least had fun. Time to move on!
You have to keep in mind when the SC2 was developed. Even WoW had tons of issues with engine from 2002? SC2 was developed after the technology explosion with quad cores and powerful cpus and gpus + 64bit system. If ppl are asking for implementetions of things like LAN etc. I guess they just dont publicly say that engine is limiting them in certain ways alot. + look at the mainterance downtimes. They need few hours to reset things and turn them back on.
|
On November 28 2016 07:10 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 04:04 Hexe wrote:On November 28 2016 03:48 chocomaro wrote:
Every month or two there's a balance change.
And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it".
That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used. That's a crucial point. If the balance had been tighter when GSL's first kicked into gear, that would have set a better foundation. Along similar lines, battle.net 2.0 was godawful for years. There were no chat channels. Setting up tournament games was a god damn nightmare, and professional players couldn't block spammers for a time. Lan wasn't the biggest thing, but it would have made the process smoother. However, I will never forget when SC2 pushed effing Halo out of the mainstage at MLG. That was incredible. SC2 could have been THE juggernaut of e-sports. It still is the highest competitive one by leagues. I always found this attitude to be one of the many problems in the SC2 community. People were never happy with their own game's relative popularity and success, it always had to be the greatest game ever, that everyone looked to as the best game of all time, period. As evidenced by this post, it is not enough that it achieved success, it had to be better than Halo. The gameplay? That's not the primary concern. The primary concern is how many viewers its getting and whether its beating Halo or league of legends. Would you see the same attitude from Halo gamers, league of legends gamers? I don't think so. They couldn't care less. They just enjoy whatever game they enjoy and leave other people to enjoy their games. With many SC2 fans, they are constantly looking at the viewer counts, trying to convince everyone and themselves that their game is the best game ever. In a way I'm kind of glad that that kind of attitude never amounted to anything. It just smacks of such elitism, that I am kind of happy SC2 is declining just so we won't have to hear about it anymore. Anyway the difference between declining and dead is largely immaterial. Technically half life 1 is not a dead game either, because you have some tiny community playing in online servers this very moment. It is basically a 'ded gaem', but again it shouldn't matter. All that matters is whether you have fun playing it, or at least had fun. Time to move on!
It's not elitism. From an observer standpoint I enjoy pro matches played at the highest level and for good money. I dont watch tournaments if I think I can play at their level.
Most people watch professional entertainment, whether its sports or in the art world. Very few people set out to watch low budget independent movies that don't have proper writing or lighting.
Seeing console gamers actually take the time and check out a RTS. That was pretty cool. I think most of us saw the potential, and we eventually got it with LoL being on ESPN. EDIT:+ Show Spoiler + I wasnt dissing Halo. MLG was Halo, I thought replacing it was amazing.
I still play almost on a daily basis, so on that front the only thing that matters is fast matchmaking
|
I m sad to agree with most points of Firecake but i rly dont think sc2 pro scene will die... i mean we can always make a full circle right? even if we take the darkest scenery and imagine that sc2 pro scene will die soon all teams will be gone after 3 years imagine sc2 would be free to play, and atrract more and more people i think. Also i think that this viedo is very good i hope it was watched by some1 from Blizzard cuz we need to show them that they need to work on thier game more and better quick.... I hope to see U firecake in more tournaments DO NOT retire pls
|
On November 28 2016 03:25 XenOsky- wrote:
Is not a good game, it never was, no need to overcomplicate over this. Blizzard tried to force the game into korea's mainstream and didn't work, it was kinda popular in the west for a little while but League Of Legends is far superior in terms of spectating, and the fact that the game is free to play just killed sc2.
By what metric is StarCraft II a bad game? There are simply no other RTS games left but StarCraft, am I supposed to believe that the only remaining RTS that has sold well in almost the past decade is bad? StarCraft II is held to an unreasonable, and frankly unachievable, standard by anyone who thinks it is a bad game.
I'm fairly certain that I watch League of Legends more than most people here, and it is not a far superior spectator experience. It certainly has moments, but the experience is at worst equal though this somewhat depends on what Riot wanted to force the meta into for the current month. Why do you think League is a better spectator experience? I would say on average a 40 minute LoL game has about 10 minutes worth watching and 30 minutes you can just zone out of and not miss anything. I'm sure people will mention viewership but StarCraft does better for the size of it's playerbase, so I'm not sure that's a compelling reason.
CSGO is popular and isn't free to play, looking at steamcharts it seems to average around 10x the concurrent player numbers of SC2, I also don't think anyone is calling it dead.
On November 28 2016 03:48 chocomaro wrote:
Every month or two there's a balance change.
And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it".
That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used.
Changes to StarCraft are honestly pretty insignificant. The most recent patch is certainly more than usual, but overall the game is very stable and doesn't change much from patch to patch. I would also be willing to guess that more people regain interest due to patches than are scared away, there's a reason LoL has kept up it's 2 week patching cycle.
On November 28 2016 04:51 KT_Elwood wrote:
None of you got the message, Firecare with the end of Proleague, HSC and probably GSL and DH SC2 may be dead as esport. No Tournaments = no teams = no players = no competition.
WCS will still exist next year, there aren't suddenly going to be no tournaments and going around saying such a thing is stupid especially when some of the ones you list have already talked about continuing in the future. This is not to say SC2 doesn't have issues here, but be reasonable. Since we still don't have information on WCS, and this is an actual problem, there's not much to talk about anyway.
On November 28 2016 05:40 BalanceEnforcer wrote:Macro is "killing" this game, LoL is all Micro. I have played on and off since release and together with many others we still hate having to inject larva, forgetting to build workers and units, build additional production buildings, look the minimap and drop mules all while microing our little hearths out to the point our dear souls eventually died f10+Ning thinking this game is fucking stupid because all my opponent really did was pressing some button cuz micro doesnt award enough contra camping and amassing units etc. This is atleast why i gave up on this game. So with that said, may Wc4 live a very very long life. 
It is hardly the fault of StarCraft that you want to play a different game, it's not supposed to be a MOBA and changing it like this is something that will will actually kill the game. MOBAs are more popular, but RTS has it's place and while StarCraft remains the only modern RTS that isn't terrible it's not dying out anytime soon.
On November 28 2016 06:30 FireCake wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 05:09 Poopi wrote:On November 28 2016 05:05 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote:
This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous... It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game" If I understand correctly he is talking about the esport death of sc2, not the death of sc2, which would translate into empty ladder and stuff like that (and that isn't the case in 1v1). Since there are real signs and consequences of decline/death (end of proleague, new WCS induced retirements, star players retirement, teams disbanding) there is actually something to talk about right now. I didn't watch the video but I'm pretty sure it isn't about daed game memes, it's probably thoughtful. This is exactly my video, especially the conclusion. Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 05:18 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On November 28 2016 05:09 Poopi wrote:On November 28 2016 05:05 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote:
This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous... It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game" If I understand correctly he is talking about the esport death of sc2, not the death of sc2, which would translate into empty ladder and stuff like that (and that isn't the case in 1v1). Since there are real signs and consequences of decline/death (end of proleague, new WCS induced retirements, star players retirement, teams disbanding) there is actually something to talk about right now. I didn't watch the video but I'm pretty sure it isn't about daed game memes, it's probably thoughtful. Regardless of what specific aspect of the game he's talking about and if there are signs of it or not, we need to stop using the words dead and death. When casuals start spamming that shit everywhere because some one told them SC2 died then it has a real effect on SC2 We shouldn't be afraid of words. Many people talk about Starcraft being a dead game. I think it is important to understand what it means exactly. Short version : Starcraft e-sport = dead Starcraft = alive I am happy to hear that from someone a lot more experienced than me in this area Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 05:48 BronzeKnee wrote:
Can we talk about the fact that the subtitles are transparent, which makes them ridiculously difficult to read. Can someone just sum up his points in the video? I know SC2 should have been released with ingame chat as he says, but SC2 was on top of the world when it didn't have ingame chat, that was not the reason for the decline. You are the first one to report this problem so I checked the subtitles again but I don't see your problem. I see subtitles in white surrounded with a black rectangle so I don't really know what you are talking about. I am sorry this is the first time I put subtitles on a video, I must have missed something
Calling StarCraft esports dead is frankly idiotic. I know it's not dead because I watched the qualifier of a WCS 2017 event today and dead esports don't have tournaments.
On November 28 2016 06:51 Solar424 wrote:
The main reason SC2 failed as an Esport is that Blizzard straight up refused to listen to the community for years, and by the time they did it was too late.
People were asking for LAN for years and they refused to implement it.
People asked to add the ability to watch games in progress or rejoin games as an observer, and they refused.
People asked for them to add microtransactions, and they took until this year to do so.
People asked for a revamp of the economy (Double Harvest) and David Kim shrugged it aside.
People asked for a fix to blatant imbalances and crap design and they ignored everything and watched viewer counts tumble.
Meanwhile other games that actually listened to their community thrived while SC2 fell by the wayside.
Blizzard deserves every ounce of hate they get from the community for how they handled the game. This game could have been amazing to this day had Blizzard not ignored the community. Now they pretend that they care but they clearly still don't, and even then it's too little too late.
SC2 didn't fail as an esport, it's been going for 6 years has a great legacy of tournaments and will continue to have great tournaments. Where is the failure? LAN isn't the reason SC2 isn't more popular, nor is the ability to spectate in game or microtransactions. The main advantage of microtransactions is it allows the current community to support the continued development of the game imo. The economy was changed for LotV, and they did address DH during the beta. You didn't get the result you wanted, sucks. http://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/17085919227 If Blizzard listened to every case of whining about imbalance and terrible design, they wouldn't have time to actually do anything. Sure you can argue some things go too far, but nobody is ever going to get this perfectly and overall SC2 is well balanced.
Other games get shit on by their communities just as much or more, SC2 is still an amazing game. If you think it isn't and that it should have a much larger playerbase, why hasn't some other RTS developer come along to take this supposedly lucrative market? There is a reason SC2 is the only recent RTS people play.
On November 28 2016 07:06 Solar424 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:59 KeksX wrote:On November 28 2016 06:51 Solar424 wrote:
The main reason SC2 failed as an Esport is that Blizzard straight up refused to listen to the community for years, and by the time they did it was too late.
People were asking for LAN for years and they refused to implement it.
People asked to add the ability to watch games in progress or rejoin games as an observer, and they refused.
People asked for them to add microtransactions, and they took until this year to do so.
People asked for a revamp of the economy (Double Harvest) and David Kim shrugged it aside.
People asked for a fix to blatant imbalances and crap design and they ignored everything and watched viewer counts tumble.
Meanwhile other games that actually listened to their community thrived while SC2 fell by the wayside.
Blizzard deserves every ounce of hate they get from the community for how they handled the game. This game could have been amazing to this day had Blizzard not ignored the community. Now they pretend that they care but they clearly still don't, and even then it's too little too late. Not only that you have zero proof that these are actually the reasons, we have enough indicators that show that they aren't. Other games are missing key features to date and are not affected by it. I mean hell, Riot announced a replay system how long ago? And then again this october? Not sure if they even have it now. StarCraft II did a lot of things right. It helped kickstart the streamer scene and it was a role model for many new eSports titles. When CS:GO was still a bullshit game, StarCraft II already had a huge following that was spoiled by nice features. At some point we need to finally realize that the core game is the issue here. "Frustrating, mechanically and mentally challenging game that will make you literally feel exhausted after playing" is just not a good sell compared to "Press Q for awesome wins!! Yaay!" (No offense to Overwatch players) The game itself is flawed in a bunch of ways, but the lack of communication from Blizzard was the last straw that probably made many people leave to games where they feel that developers see them as more than a wallet.
They have been giving regular updates for the last year and half?
Honestly a lot of the posts here just read like people are trying to grasp at whatever reason they can find for the reasons SC2 isn't as popular as it 'should be' or as it once was, as if there is some desperation to be right about SC2 dying. I mean sure everything that sucked about SC2 contributed in some way or another, but probably less than anything singled out would have you believe.
In 2013, League of Legends had 70 million registered players and 32.5 million daily players. By 2013, WoL sold 6 million copies. In 2011 League had 15 million registered players. SC2 could be literally perfect and it wouldn't beat out LoL for viewership.
So I guess what's left is why is SC2 less popular than it used to be? Every game bleeds players, but games like LoL probably get as many new players as they lose and the game is larger than StarCraft ever was, that helps attract people. StarCraft is an old game in a genre people don't really talk about anymore and one that is honestly a lot harder to get into, it's not going to attract the same number of players. I'm sure a lot of the things Blizzard did along the way drove people away, but not doing those things or doing other things would have driven different people away. You can't make everyone happy. Overall I'm pretty content with the state of the game, and I don't really see much need to go around and tell everyone the game is dying when it clearly isn't.
Also as an aside about viewership, StarCraft VoDs perform well. If you look at ESLs channel for example, the most recent IEM Katowice final of Polt vs Snute beat out the LoL Katowice final of Fnatic vs SKT.
+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/user/esltv/videos?flow=grid&sort=p&view=0 ![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/swBph/8a923ca481.jpg)
Maru vs Life from IEM Taipei 2015 has 2.2 million views.
|
|
|
|
|
SC2 esports has never been viable. it existed only because Blizzard donated money into a money losing scene.
SC2 esports has never fallen because it never rose.
i remember at the height of SC2 esports alleged "popularity" Tasteless and Artosis joking about the homeless guys wanting to get into the TV studio for the free pizza.
in Canada SC2 esports was "viable" as a once a year event in toronto until about 2013. after that.. forget it. so in Canada the scene "fell" from a barely viable once a year event to no viable events.
|
|
|
On November 28 2016 08:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
SC2 esports has never been viable. it existed only because Blizzard donated money into a money losing scene.
SC2 esports has never fallen because it never rose.
i remember at the height of SC2 esports alleged "popularity" Tasteless and Artosis joking about the homeless guys wanting to get into the TV studio for the free pizza.
in Canada SC2 esports was "viable" as a once a year event in toronto until about 2013. after that.. forget it.
Are you implying that other game developers don't pour a shitton of money into their games' eSports scenes? Because you'd be dead wrong.
The only succesfull eSports games that exist without the dev constantlythrowing money at it are Brood War, CS 1.6, Quake and the other "early games".
Are you also implying that 2010-2012 never happened? Because it did happen and SC2 rose a ton during that time.
This whole debate would be easier if we just kept to the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
