|
Canada8989 Posts
On February 15 2019 03:52 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 20:01 LuckyGnomTV wrote:
I am a guy who saw SC2 scene transformations from it's close beta to current moment and I am surprised about people here saying: "wow, so sad blizz fired so many people". Why is it sad? SC2 is in terrible shape, it is alive only because it is the only one RTS on a market. Imagine if SC2 had an opponent like LoL has in DotA2.
During all those years LoL became only bigger, DotA became only bigger, CSGO became bigger, FIFA still at the same place where it was and what happened with SC2 - it only degraded. Not sad at all, people didn't do their job well, it led to company losing money - people got fired. This is one of the most intelligent statements to ever be posted on this website, cheers. Actiblizz could have done infinitely better with sc2. The problem is though that many people will look at this close mindedly and assume you are attacking sc2. It's a shame. Actiblizz starved their customer base and milked their IPs for so long that their customerbase gets so fed up when actiblizz does dumb stuff, justifiably so. Actiblizz needs to be pumping out new sequels to their franchises every 2 years. Hell, they do a new call of duty game every year and it makes well over a billion dollars every time. Imagine if they properly nourished IPs like diablo/sc/wc. I'd buy it up. In general, The majority of gamers get bored of a game between 1-2 years, actiblizz needs to have news ones ready to roll out for their IPs when this happens. They are essentially leaving ATON of money on the table in short term($$) AND long term(customer loyalty) since trying to milk IPs for as long as possible puts your franchise at risk of becoming stale resulting customers looking at alternatives from other companies. I wouldn't be looking at playing the new warhammer if sc3 was in front of me or if sc2 had a new expansion every year with new additional units to use on ladder.
You guys make it sound like SC2 was a commercial bomb or something, all 3 expansion were big commercial success, it's one of the best selling pc game of all time, they didn't "lose money" on SC2 they just didn't make enough money. Blizzard wasn't going bankrupt because of sc2, no one starve to death or got their home taken by the IRS because Starcraft didn't make a much money as Fortnite.
Of course it's not pure greed they need to satisfied investor and keep the growth going, but don't tell me that they cut Starcraft position because "they didn't do there job right", they made one of the best RTS game and one of the biggest esport success of all time, they were just given clearly unattainable goal.
|
On February 14 2019 21:45 fronkschnonk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 19:06 TT1 wrote:Activision's stock dropped from 83.19$ on Sept. 24 2018 to 44.57$ (today), yikes. We're entering a new era in the gaming industry.. and sadly RTS games are most likely a dying breed. I still remember the days of when guys like IdrA were pulling 15k-20k viewers on Twitch.. but the financial benefits weren't a fraction of what they are now, the streaming industry was still in its infancy. It's no secret that gamers and viewers are into team games and FPS' these days (it's more so just to be a part of w/e is currently hot, ppl enjoy being a part of a large community). Activision's stock decline in the past few months can largely be attributed to the Fortnite craze. We're starting to see how much power big name streamers have in the gaming industry (it even extends to athletes/celebs), Fortnite really only blew up due to their partnerships with streamers. They're the main sellers/marketers. Back when i played SC2 we didn't have a tourney circuit sponsored by Blizzard. SC2 was the biggest esport, we didn't really have any competition so there was no need for Blizzard to step in and take control of the tournament scene. As time went on and SC2 started getting dropped from events in favor of other titles (this is when MOBAs began to rise), Blizzard was left no choice but to step in and take control of the scene. They no longer had the luxury of having esports companies create SC2 content for them, they had to take it upon themselves to create that content. A lot of companies today are bypassing this entire process, streaming is changing the gaming landscape and the big name streamers are providing gaming companies w/ their player base (the maturing of the Gen Z pop also plays a big role). The gaming model today is basically: fun play-ability/view-ability (team game/fps etc.), F2P and generate revenue from mainly micro-transactions. Companies want big streamers to market their game and they make it F2P to create a gaming frenzy. Players get attached to the game, they stream it because that's what all the cool streamers and their friends are doing.. and voila, you have yourself a thriving gaming community. It really is a cost efficient business model.. but obviously the product has to be somewhat good too  . Blizzard/Activision is a business and trends in the gaming industry are shifting elsewhere, sadly at the end of the day it's just not logical for them to keep dumping money into something that isn't profitable. That's the reality of today's gaming landscape and it really does suck. I don't think we're gonna see a shift from twitchtv meme frenzy games to quality games any time soon. Streamers and viewers are constantly going to go from 1 flavor of the month game to another.. APEX legends seems to be the next big game :[. Sad times for the people who've gotten laid off, i wish them all the best of luck. I'm still not sure about this. SC2 is as stable as an esport title can get, and slowly growing again for over a year now. Yes, LoL, Dota and CS are bigger. But what else is as big and stable at the same time? What happened with PubG? What's about that weird tank game? Call of Duty? Rocket league? SC2 still is one of the biggest esports with a massive stable playerbase and also stable viewership. SC2 did not dry out, it just got outpaced, but is still able to run. And is RTS a drying genre? I don't know. I'm highly confident that a Warcraft 4 would easily sell millions. A new Age of Empires would probably veeery successful as well.
I wouldn't mind if they officially stopped doing esports and just went back to putting all that money into development. If they aren't willing to dig deeper into their already deep pockets to have both, then i'd rather have better games more often since i find playing the game more entertaining than watching someone else play. So if it means esports goes away, no biggie. Players will always host their own shindigs with their friends and due to the nature of the internet economy there will always be TOs out there making money off their own events.
That's only if I had to pick and choose. Of course I want both though.
|
On February 15 2019 04:22 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 03:52 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 14 2019 20:01 LuckyGnomTV wrote:
I am a guy who saw SC2 scene transformations from it's close beta to current moment and I am surprised about people here saying: "wow, so sad blizz fired so many people". Why is it sad? SC2 is in terrible shape, it is alive only because it is the only one RTS on a market. Imagine if SC2 had an opponent like LoL has in DotA2.
During all those years LoL became only bigger, DotA became only bigger, CSGO became bigger, FIFA still at the same place where it was and what happened with SC2 - it only degraded. Not sad at all, people didn't do their job well, it led to company losing money - people got fired. This is one of the most intelligent statements to ever be posted on this website, cheers. Actiblizz could have done infinitely better with sc2. The problem is though that many people will look at this close mindedly and assume you are attacking sc2. It's a shame. Actiblizz starved their customer base and milked their IPs for so long that their customerbase gets so fed up when actiblizz does dumb stuff, justifiably so. Actiblizz needs to be pumping out new sequels to their franchises every 2 years. Hell, they do a new call of duty game every year and it makes well over a billion dollars every time. Imagine if they properly nourished IPs like diablo/sc/wc. I'd buy it up. In general, The majority of gamers get bored of a game between 1-2 years, actiblizz needs to have news ones ready to roll out for their IPs when this happens. They are essentially leaving ATON of money on the table in short term($$) AND long term(customer loyalty) since trying to milk IPs for as long as possible puts your franchise at risk of becoming stale resulting customers looking at alternatives from other companies. I wouldn't be looking at playing the new warhammer if sc3 was in front of me or if sc2 had a new expansion every year with new additional units to use on ladder. You guys make it sound like SC2 was a commercial bomb or something, all 3 expansion were big commercial success, it's one of the best selling pc game of all time, they didn't "lose money" on SC2 they just didn't make enough money. Blizzard wasn't going bankrupt because of sc2, no one starve to death or got their home taken by the IRS because Starcraft didn't make a much money as Fortnite. Of course it's not pure greed they need to satisfied investor and keep the growth going, but don't tell me that they cut Starcraft position because "they didn't do there job right", they made one of the best RTS game and one of the biggest esport success of all time, they were just given clearly unattainable goal.
No one said anything about them being bombs or hinted at it. I was pretty specific too. Starcraft 2 was okay. It's good, but it's not great. I then proceeded to explain what I think the issue was and how they can improve. How you perceive this as doom and gloom talk is really confusing, I just don't see it.
What kind of fairytale are you spinning over there? You ok?
|
Canada8989 Posts
On February 15 2019 04:40 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 04:22 Nakajin wrote:On February 15 2019 03:52 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 14 2019 20:01 LuckyGnomTV wrote:
I am a guy who saw SC2 scene transformations from it's close beta to current moment and I am surprised about people here saying: "wow, so sad blizz fired so many people". Why is it sad? SC2 is in terrible shape, it is alive only because it is the only one RTS on a market. Imagine if SC2 had an opponent like LoL has in DotA2.
During all those years LoL became only bigger, DotA became only bigger, CSGO became bigger, FIFA still at the same place where it was and what happened with SC2 - it only degraded. Not sad at all, people didn't do their job well, it led to company losing money - people got fired. This is one of the most intelligent statements to ever be posted on this website, cheers. Actiblizz could have done infinitely better with sc2. The problem is though that many people will look at this close mindedly and assume you are attacking sc2. It's a shame. Actiblizz starved their customer base and milked their IPs for so long that their customerbase gets so fed up when actiblizz does dumb stuff, justifiably so. Actiblizz needs to be pumping out new sequels to their franchises every 2 years. Hell, they do a new call of duty game every year and it makes well over a billion dollars every time. Imagine if they properly nourished IPs like diablo/sc/wc. I'd buy it up. In general, The majority of gamers get bored of a game between 1-2 years, actiblizz needs to have news ones ready to roll out for their IPs when this happens. They are essentially leaving ATON of money on the table in short term($$) AND long term(customer loyalty) since trying to milk IPs for as long as possible puts your franchise at risk of becoming stale resulting customers looking at alternatives from other companies. I wouldn't be looking at playing the new warhammer if sc3 was in front of me or if sc2 had a new expansion every year with new additional units to use on ladder. You guys make it sound like SC2 was a commercial bomb or something, all 3 expansion were big commercial success, it's one of the best selling pc game of all time, they didn't "lose money" on SC2 they just didn't make enough money. Blizzard wasn't going bankrupt because of sc2, no one starve to death or got their home taken by the IRS because Starcraft didn't make a much money as Fortnite. Of course it's not pure greed they need to satisfied investor and keep the growth going, but don't tell me that they cut Starcraft position because "they didn't do there job right", they made one of the best RTS game and one of the biggest esport success of all time, they were just given clearly unattainable goal. No one said anything about them being bombs or hinted at it. I was pretty specific too. Starcraft 2 was okay. It's good, but it's not great. I then proceeded to explain what I think the issue was and how they can improve. How you perceive this as doom and gloom talk is really confusing, I just don't see it. What kind of fairytale are you spinning over there? You ok?
The first poster said that people did their job badly so they deserved to lose their job, then you said it was one of the most intelligent post and proceded to say that Activision-Blizzard was leaving "A TON" of money on the table because SC2 and other IP were not on a annual or bi-annual release schedule, which is something that would 100% hurt the quality of the games, it took more then a year for WOL-HOTS-LOTV to get a stable and solid meta game, and they took year too develop + multiple patches how is that not doom and gloom? Your basically saying they can't/ shouldn't make game on the quality of Starcraft because it's not financially viable.
You basically are saying that a game that was a commercial success and also a heck of a great game is a "bad job" and of course there other way they would have make money, but it's crazy to say that you can make a game of the quality and size of SC2 on an annual or bi-annual schedule, it would be smaller less polish game that would maybe make more money but would clearly be worst. It doesn't improve Starcraft it improve making more money, which they are already making with Starcraft.
Like I said I'm not saying that there's not capitalist pressure to do so, but it has nothing to do with people doing there job badly, they did a great job, made a ton of money for the company and the shareholder and made an amazing game.
|
On February 15 2019 03:52 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 20:01 LuckyGnomTV wrote:
I am a guy who saw SC2 scene transformations from it's close beta to current moment and I am surprised about people here saying: "wow, so sad blizz fired so many people". Why is it sad? SC2 is in terrible shape, it is alive only because it is the only one RTS on a market. Imagine if SC2 had an opponent like LoL has in DotA2.
During all those years LoL became only bigger, DotA became only bigger, CSGO became bigger, FIFA still at the same place where it was and what happened with SC2 - it only degraded. Not sad at all, people didn't do their job well, it led to company losing money - people got fired. This is one of the most intelligent statements to ever be posted on this website, cheers. Actiblizz could have done infinitely better with sc2. The problem is though that many people will look at this close mindedly and assume you are attacking sc2. It's a shame. Actiblizz starved their customer base and milked their IPs for so long that their customerbase gets so fed up when actiblizz does dumb stuff, justifiably so. Actiblizz needs to be pumping out new sequels to their franchises every 2 years. Hell, they do a new call of duty game every year and it makes well over a billion dollars every time. Imagine if they properly nourished IPs like diablo/sc/wc. I'd buy it up. In general, The majority of gamers get bored of a game between 1-2 years, actiblizz needs to have news ones ready to roll out for their IPs when this happens. They are essentially leaving ATON of money on the table in short term($$) AND long term(customer loyalty) since trying to milk IPs for as long as possible puts your franchise at risk of becoming stale resulting customers looking at alternatives from other companies. I wouldn't be looking at playing the new warhammer if sc3 was in front of me or if sc2 had a new expansion every year with new additional units to use on ladder.
While one could argue if more sequels would be a good thing or not I really don't think that the CoD-model would be any good. It would probably turn out into a total desaster. Blizz always was known for taking their time to make a really high quality product. That's the whole point of their longterm success. But a new campain every or at least every two years would be entirely possible and great at the same time.
The comparison to Dota, LoL and such is just shortsighted. There is a reason why there were no RTS games of great success in the last 15 years apart from SC2. Not because the games were bad but because other genres became more popular. That's the whole story. Other factors may have influenced the situation in the detail and I'm sure the current upswing could've been attained sooner with better decisions by Blizzard but the situation wouldn't have been very different in any scenario.
Dota, LoL and CS only became bigger and bigger because they're are the leaders of the esport pack due to their status being the most popular games of the most popular genres. Thus they attract disproportionately high attention of sponsors because big companies always think it's the best idea to only invest into the biggest numbers. That's understandable but probably not the best decision because big viewer numbers aren't the same as marketing revenue numbers.
|
On February 15 2019 05:08 fronkschnonk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 03:52 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 14 2019 20:01 LuckyGnomTV wrote:
I am a guy who saw SC2 scene transformations from it's close beta to current moment and I am surprised about people here saying: "wow, so sad blizz fired so many people". Why is it sad? SC2 is in terrible shape, it is alive only because it is the only one RTS on a market. Imagine if SC2 had an opponent like LoL has in DotA2.
During all those years LoL became only bigger, DotA became only bigger, CSGO became bigger, FIFA still at the same place where it was and what happened with SC2 - it only degraded. Not sad at all, people didn't do their job well, it led to company losing money - people got fired. This is one of the most intelligent statements to ever be posted on this website, cheers. Actiblizz could have done infinitely better with sc2. The problem is though that many people will look at this close mindedly and assume you are attacking sc2. It's a shame. Actiblizz starved their customer base and milked their IPs for so long that their customerbase gets so fed up when actiblizz does dumb stuff, justifiably so. Actiblizz needs to be pumping out new sequels to their franchises every 2 years. Hell, they do a new call of duty game every year and it makes well over a billion dollars every time. Imagine if they properly nourished IPs like diablo/sc/wc. I'd buy it up. In general, The majority of gamers get bored of a game between 1-2 years, actiblizz needs to have news ones ready to roll out for their IPs when this happens. They are essentially leaving ATON of money on the table in short term($$) AND long term(customer loyalty) since trying to milk IPs for as long as possible puts your franchise at risk of becoming stale resulting customers looking at alternatives from other companies. I wouldn't be looking at playing the new warhammer if sc3 was in front of me or if sc2 had a new expansion every year with new additional units to use on ladder. While one could argue if more sequels would be a good thing or not I really don't think that the CoD-model would be any good. It would probably turn out into a total desaster. Blizz always was known for taking their time to make a really high quality product. That's the whole point of their longterm success. But a new campain every or at least every two years would be entirely possible and great at the same time. The comparison to Dota, LoL and such is just shortsighted. There is a reason why there were no RTS games of great success in the last 15 years apart from SC2. Not because the games were bad but because other genres became more popular. That's the whole story. Other factors may have influenced the situation in the detail and I'm sure the current upswing could've been attained sooner with better decisions by Blizzard but the situation wouldn't have been very different in any scenario. Dota, LoL and CS only became bigger and bigger because they're are the leaders of the esport pack due to their status being the most popular games of the most popular genres. Thus they attract disproportionately high attention of sponsors because big companies always think it's the best idea to only invest into the biggest numbers. That's understandable but probably not the best decision because big viewer numbers aren't the same as marketing revenue numbers.
Blizzard always took a long time to deliver a high quality product because they never had a full dedicated team for every IP at any given time. They've always chopped their teams up and shuffled devs around. This causes development to take longer aka what you are describing as "Blizz always was known for taking their time to make a really high quality product.". If you have one huge dedicated team for each IP, they'd be able to focus on releasing the new content without their other ips suffering. Hopefully they restructure in a way that will allow them to be more dedicated to their franchises than in the past.
Also, a new campaign only appeases a very small portion of the playerbase. The vast majority of sc2 players want to either 1v1 or 2s/3s/4s with their friends. Sure, they might try the campaign but the replay value is low. The effort spent to make those *extra* campaigns could be put into actually updating the multiplayer player game since that provides the most entertainment value(work to your strengths actiblizz!). They want to be able to use new units that would be found in campaign while playing on ladder/with their friends. If players had a choice between you can have a new single player campaign for 10 dollars every year or you can have new/extra units added to multiplayer every year for 10 dollars, I'd choose new units because it provides much more for the game and has more replay value.
|
Dead af game. XD
User was banned for this post.
|
Nothing says morally bankrupt like earning an all new time high and firing 8% of your staff for it. Man I miss Blizzard, but I guess it's time to realise they're completely Activision now.
|
On February 14 2019 21:32 ihatevideogames wrote:
I assume Activision did the math and realised that the money saved by laying off all these people at once was worth the PR disaster, right?
Right now, they don't care about how the 'public' feels. All the cuts they are making may look bad to fans and employees, but they are the kind of decisive moves that business analysts and shareholders want to see after poor stock performance.
The question is whether the negative PR may end up undermining their recovery at all.
|
I'm man of few words so I must say it now. Sadly this is over guys. RIP Blizzard. Rot in hell Activision...
|
That's corporate America for you - every company has the proverbial porcelain piggy bank, filled with millions if not billions of profits
But to get to it, you'll have to smash that bank - which in most cases is irreversible. Still, that temptation is always there, and it's only augmented by your shareholders. They don't care what you do, and sometimes they don't even know what they do (especially since they are often diversified across countless industry sectors) - but they do want to see their returns go up that extra 10%, 5%, or even 1%
Smashing the piggy bank in Blizzard's case means layoffs and cost cuts like we see here. It also means taking a risk-averse approach to game and IP development. Why make the next innovative new game type, when you can just pump out another CoD (or Halo)? Change a few things up, but keep that steady revenue coming in.
|
On February 15 2019 05:27 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 05:08 fronkschnonk wrote:On February 15 2019 03:52 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 14 2019 20:01 LuckyGnomTV wrote:
I am a guy who saw SC2 scene transformations from it's close beta to current moment and I am surprised about people here saying: "wow, so sad blizz fired so many people". Why is it sad? SC2 is in terrible shape, it is alive only because it is the only one RTS on a market. Imagine if SC2 had an opponent like LoL has in DotA2.
During all those years LoL became only bigger, DotA became only bigger, CSGO became bigger, FIFA still at the same place where it was and what happened with SC2 - it only degraded. Not sad at all, people didn't do their job well, it led to company losing money - people got fired. This is one of the most intelligent statements to ever be posted on this website, cheers. Actiblizz could have done infinitely better with sc2. The problem is though that many people will look at this close mindedly and assume you are attacking sc2. It's a shame. Actiblizz starved their customer base and milked their IPs for so long that their customerbase gets so fed up when actiblizz does dumb stuff, justifiably so. Actiblizz needs to be pumping out new sequels to their franchises every 2 years. Hell, they do a new call of duty game every year and it makes well over a billion dollars every time. Imagine if they properly nourished IPs like diablo/sc/wc. I'd buy it up. In general, The majority of gamers get bored of a game between 1-2 years, actiblizz needs to have news ones ready to roll out for their IPs when this happens. They are essentially leaving ATON of money on the table in short term($$) AND long term(customer loyalty) since trying to milk IPs for as long as possible puts your franchise at risk of becoming stale resulting customers looking at alternatives from other companies. I wouldn't be looking at playing the new warhammer if sc3 was in front of me or if sc2 had a new expansion every year with new additional units to use on ladder. While one could argue if more sequels would be a good thing or not I really don't think that the CoD-model would be any good. It would probably turn out into a total desaster. Blizz always was known for taking their time to make a really high quality product. That's the whole point of their longterm success. But a new campain every or at least every two years would be entirely possible and great at the same time. The comparison to Dota, LoL and such is just shortsighted. There is a reason why there were no RTS games of great success in the last 15 years apart from SC2. Not because the games were bad but because other genres became more popular. That's the whole story. Other factors may have influenced the situation in the detail and I'm sure the current upswing could've been attained sooner with better decisions by Blizzard but the situation wouldn't have been very different in any scenario. Dota, LoL and CS only became bigger and bigger because they're are the leaders of the esport pack due to their status being the most popular games of the most popular genres. Thus they attract disproportionately high attention of sponsors because big companies always think it's the best idea to only invest into the biggest numbers. That's understandable but probably not the best decision because big viewer numbers aren't the same as marketing revenue numbers. Blizzard always took a long time to deliver a high quality product because they never had a full dedicated team for every IP at any given time. They've always chopped their teams up and shuffled devs around.
How do you know that?
On February 15 2019 05:27 narbsncharbs wrote:
Also, a new campaign only appeases a very small portion of the playerbase. The vast majority of sc2 players want to either 1v1 or 2s/3s/4s with their friends.
(...)
They want to be able to use new units that would be found in campaign while playing on ladder/with their friends
And how do you know that?
I know quite some people who never tried SC2 multiplayer seriously but bought every expansion and played the whole campaign. They even bought the Nova misisons.
On February 15 2019 05:27 narbsncharbs wrote:
If players had a choice between you can have a new single player campaign for 10 dollars every year or you can have new/extra units added to multiplayer every year for 10 dollars, I'd choose new units because it provides much more for the game and has more replay value.
So, you're basically saying, you would like multiplayer updates for 10$ a year more and thus a game development philosophy build around your preferences would result in the best possible product and the most possible profit.
The most successful esports titles are free2play. Since SC2 also is, it had an upswing in playerbase and viewership. Do you really think that a yearly game pass would be that beneficial? Also I can already see all the hatethreads flaming Blizzard for creating a totally unstable multiplayer experience by destroying the balance every year with new units.
|
they still have some ip that hasn't been liquidated for profit. the diablo ip will become what it worth in dollars and cents and we will still have diablo 2, at least. i feel most for the wow community because that is ip that is being destroyed before our very eyes and it's not like there is any way they can get play/content without fully relying on the platform/dev.
this clip comes to mind
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On February 15 2019 03:42 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 03:00 andrewlt wrote:
The reality of a marketing/sales job is if you are selling less product than your salary, you're going to get laid off eventually. Esports has traditionally been a money sink. I think the industry is realizing that it doesn't increase sales compared to the investments made to it for all but the handful of games at the top. Viewership doesn't really do anything unless it translates to profits. Esports(funded by the developer of the video game that is) does have its advantages in that if you can lure gamers in with the idea that they can become a progamer and keep them playing your game long enough, the company will have an easier time getting them to purchase the next title in the franchise or whatever new IP/games the company decides. The comapny will also have to worry less about their customers jumping ship to another developer's game. Esports is used as a vehicle to develop brand loyalty imo.
Like any investment, the returns have to be bigger than the costs. They clearly crunched the numbers and saw the increase in sales they get doesn't justify how large the esports budget is.
Similar to what another poster alluded to earlier, times have changed. The way people consume media has changed compared to when SC2 was first released almost a decade ago. When you have to change your strategy, unfortunately, you're going to have a mismatch between the skills your employees currently possess versus the skills required for your new strategy. There's a reason that plenty of companies are doing layoffs at the same time that they are hiring. Skills aren't as portable as many posters think they are.
When a bunch of popular Twitch streamers are more influential than your in-house marketing department, you might as well pay them rather than your in-house staff. When your top developers are engaging fans directly on Reddit or Twitter, you might as well hire more developers instead of having all sorts of additional PR and CM staff.
|
To be honest, I don't think they can "liquidate" the Starcraft IP. We simply won't take the bait, and 18 year olds aren't going to play an RTS unless everyone in their local PC-cafe type place is playing one. Every time you release a new SC game you split the community. When you release a new Call of Duty game, the whole community migrates to the new game.
|
On February 15 2019 08:19 Rodya wrote:
To be honest, I don't think they can "liquidate" the Starcraft IP. We simply won't take the bait, and 18 year olds aren't going to play an RTS unless everyone in their local PC-cafe type place is playing one. Every time you release a new SC game you split the community. When you release a new Call of Duty game, the whole community migrates to the new game.
i agree. the starcraft ip cant be liquidated unless they can some how put it on a per-season bullocks like some games have and i never see that happening. that's why i focused on wow where the content is focused on pay to play; if you buy bw or d2 or war3 they can't stop you from playing it. and EVEN THEY know that if you touch the bw engine the whole scene is dead
|
On February 15 2019 08:04 andrewlt wrote:
When a bunch of popular Twitch streamers are more influential than your in-house marketing department, you might as well pay them rather than your in-house staff. When your top developers are engaging fans directly on Reddit or Twitter, you might as well hire more developers instead of having all sorts of additional PR and CM staff.
Software developers who can communicate effectively with all stakeholders are now able to charge a premium for their services.
|
On February 15 2019 08:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 08:04 andrewlt wrote:
When a bunch of popular Twitch streamers are more influential than your in-house marketing department, you might as well pay them rather than your in-house staff. When your top developers are engaging fans directly on Reddit or Twitter, you might as well hire more developers instead of having all sorts of additional PR and CM staff.
Software developers who can communicate effectively with all stakeholders are now able to charge a premium for their services.
i bet they can. i am sure there are a short list of competent software developers that can also speak to stakeholders let alone shareholders. that's not really the point though. who said there can't be an intermediary between developer and shareholder? there are industries built solely upon that
|
i think i just realized you pretty much said the same thing. so what do we do? we want good game development but businesses want to make money and these 2 quests don't always attract the same people to the same ends. the pursuit is no longer to make the greatest game ever because devs think the lifespan of a game is so short now.
|
On February 15 2019 08:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 08:04 andrewlt wrote:
When a bunch of popular Twitch streamers are more influential than your in-house marketing department, you might as well pay them rather than your in-house staff. When your top developers are engaging fans directly on Reddit or Twitter, you might as well hire more developers instead of having all sorts of additional PR and CM staff.
Software developers who can communicate effectively with all stakeholders are now able to charge a premium for their services.
Yeah, and those software developers join the 1% while the support staff who used to assist them get laid off. Some of those superstar software developers end up starting their own company too. That pretty much explains the new economy.
On February 15 2019 08:21 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 08:19 Rodya wrote:
To be honest, I don't think they can "liquidate" the Starcraft IP. We simply won't take the bait, and 18 year olds aren't going to play an RTS unless everyone in their local PC-cafe type place is playing one. Every time you release a new SC game you split the community. When you release a new Call of Duty game, the whole community migrates to the new game. i agree. the starcraft ip cant be liquidated unless they can some how put it on a per-season bullocks like some games have and i never see that happening. that's why i focused on wow where the content is focused on pay to play; if you buy bw or d2 or war3 they can't stop you from playing it. and EVEN THEY know that if you touch the bw engine the whole scene is dead
WoW is a good example of why this shit happens. An MMO needs a lot of GM and CM staff. When your MMO slows down, those people can't be easily assigned to other projects in other genres. Layoffs are inevitable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
